Friday, July 9, 2010

"Alberto" Arnt: Hmmm, Just Who is a Narcissist?

[Update, July 9, 2010, 9:35 AM]: A number of you have asked me about the recent order by Federal District Judge Harold Murphy to Tonya Craft's legal team to refile Tonya's $25 million lawsuit against a number of defendants and to be "more specific" about the charges. As I see it, this is NOT a setback by any means.

Tonya's attorneys filed the original suit shortly after her acquittal, and at the same time, they also were dealing with her filing in Hamilton County Circuit Court to re-establish custody of her two children. In other words, the attorneys were dealing with three legal fronts at the same time.

Thus, they quickly filed the federal suit, and I strongly suspect that Judge Murphy's order was what they expected to have happen. Indeed, a reading of the suit identifies the people involved in the "conspiracy," but it does not go into the necessary specifics of what they did to promote their nefarious actions. Look for the re-filed suit to be MUCH more specific.

Also, this gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to view the strategies by the defendants on how they will defend themselves (other than commit more perjury). For example, Joal and Sarah Henke claim that it is "unfair" to be sued because this will cost them $20,000 or more. Well, our hearts weep for dearest Joal and Sarah, who helped force Tonya and her family to spend upwards of a million dollars to defend Tonya against the charges that turned out to be untrue and ridiculously so. Thus, one can tell Joal and Sarah, as well as the others, that what goes around comes around.
[End Update]

During the trial of Tonya Craft, prosecutors Chris "Facebook" Arnt and Len "The Man" Gregor constantly portrayed Ms. Craft as a "narcissist." Interestingly, we found a number of things that would have characterized Gregor as such, including his boasting of being "the man" and his Facebook photo.

However, shortly after the trial ended, someone wrote me with a description of Arnt that simply cannot be kept under wraps any longer. Dear readers, if you wish to see the picture of the Ultimate Narcissist, here it is:
My children have played soccer for years at Redoubt on Bonny Oaks Dr. Last Fall, in November, at the tournament time, I saw this new referee, a guy a little older than me, a referee I had never seen before. 90% of all the refs in this recreation soccer league are teenagers. This guy just oozed with arrogance. (Keep in mind I had No Idea who it was.). So this Spring season that just concluded, he refereed a number of my son's games and I gave him the name "Alberto". The very first game last Fall that I saw him ref, he tossed a coach out of the game....a guy coaching 8-9 year old boys soccer.

So this Spring, when kids would score goals, he would take a notepad out of his back pocket and write down the score. For what, I don't know. Bear in mind, it's recreation soccer, no scoreboards are even at the Redoubt fields. I used to laugh at him all the time, because of the way he strutted around, I mean he walked around like a banty rooster in that soccer ref uniform. Before one game he refereed, he went and changed SHIRTS before the game. Let me explain.

He had on a gold & black striped soccer ref jersey. My son's team wore dark blue and the other team of 8-9 year olds was wearing yellow. So this ref leaves the field right before the game and comes back out wearing a RED and black striped shirt. He changed his ref jersey, I guess he thought he would be mistaken for a 9 year old kid due to his jersey color. Then after "Alberto" reappeared with new wardrobe, he stands at the side of the field, doing this "high stepping" knee exercise....like a damn Tennessee Walking Horse running in place. It was HiLaRiOuS!!!!! I wish I had a tape of him doing that to show you.

He just carried himself every single time as this authoritative type figure and I always give people nicknames, especially if they rub me the wrong way. So I always got a kick out of watching for "Alberto" at the soccer field. Well lo and behold, if I didn't find out who "Alberto" was late last week watching Fox News. It was Chris Arnt. For some reason, I had just read his name and I guess caught footage of The Man and House Of Horrors and not "Alberto". Talk about a NARCISSIST. Now I know why I couldn't stand "Alberto" at the soccer field. Don't you think that's a good name for him, "Alberto"??

Indeed, we can name him Christopher Alberto Facebook Arnt. Narcissism, Arnt is thy name.

62 comments:

KC Sprayberry said...

It just gets better and better, Bill. Arnt obviously thinks he's above everyone, even at a kids soccer game. He's the reason parents like me don't want their kids involved in youth sports. It's a game, for crying out loud. The kids are there to learn how to work as a team, but from Arnt's actions, it sounded more like he was a recruiter or a judge from on high. Obviously, he has the idea everyone adores him and must do these things to keep the adulation. I'd like to say send him somewhere far off but I don't think there's anyplace on the planet bad enough to dump him on.

Trish said...

That is hilarious!!!! Already knew he was a jerk, but this just confirms it!!!

Anonymous said...

Priceless!!!! This is hysterical!! I needed a good laugh to end the week. Boy, I sure wish there was a video of this. Maybe someone has some video footage of him at the soccer games they could put on youtube.

Chris said...

1) I am a 28-year-old football referee. Maybe that makes me a narcissist. I'd like to move up beyond rec league, but since I switch to handegg in the fall season, my chances of doing so are slim.

There is a shortage of referees in the Chattanooga area. I am often doing U12 games by myself, having to guess if a player was offside or not. Abuse from parents and coaches is a large part of why there are so few referees.

The fact that an adult has chosen to officiate should be cause for celebration.

2) Typically, it is the coaches and parents taking things way too seriously. A U10 coach getting thrown out does not surprise me in the least. I've never thrown one out before; a warning has been sufficient so far. I imagine I have a longer leash than Arnt does.

Also, the referee is the one who SHOULD be taking things the most seriously. The referee is the only one getting paid. If they aren't being professional, even in rec league, they aren't earning that pay. 

3) Officials should wear different color shirts than the teams. It's in the Laws of the Game. Is it essential in a U10 game? No, but it's a nice excuse to wear a color that usually sits folded in our gear bag.

4) I'll grant you the high stepping. That should have been done while changing shirts or prior to arriving. I can't think of any reason for that other than showing off.

Can't comment on his arrogant demeanor, since I've never seen him.
------
Boy, who'd have thought I'd ever be defending Arnt? But let's stick to legitimate criticisms in the future, shall we? The ramblings of a soccer parent carry about as much weight with me as a Laurie Evans counseling session.

Anonymous said...

I'm a long time, 57 year old referee. As the 9:45 comment accurately observes, some of the behavior is arguably justifiable. But the point that jumps out at me is that a man in his 30s (?) is consistently refereeing at this basic entry level of competition. The most likely explanation is that he is a new and inexperienced referee. This makes his strutting and preening all the more comical.

David said...

I too find myself in the uncomfortable position of defending Mr. Arnt. As the parent of a couple of soccer players including one that had offers to play collegiate soccer, I've seen hundreds of games from poorly organized rec soccer to USYA select soccer. Many of those games were officiated by people that obviously had no knowledge of the game and were there apparently just to pick up a paycheck. I was always grateful to see officials that respected the game and its laws and that showed hustle and a desire to get the call right.
Thanks to Chris, you did a great job making your point. Sometimes perspective and prejudice cause different opinions. With all due respect Mr. Anderson, this blog is a bit of a stretch and beneath your usual high standards. For the record, I agree that the Henkes deserve no free pass in this battle where they fired the first salvo.

Angie Granger said...

I think ALL of the people named in Tonya's lawsuit should have to spend the money to defend themselves!! They weren't thinking of Tonya and her family and how much it would cost them to bring these bogus charges. That is the problem. People have no idea what it takes to defend yourself when someone does to you what they have done to Tonya and my brother. We will be filing a lawsuit ourselves when my brother gets his new trial and is aquitted. So I hope some of our players are paying attention to this and 'Start saving your money'!!!!!!! What goes around, comes around for sure!!! Let them get the idea of how it feels to defend yourself.

Angie Granger said...

And......A soccer referee?????? Are you kidding me???? People should be scared. He may be looking for people to bring charges against. In my opinion, he should not be allowed around children. It is suspicious to me!

William L. Anderson said...

In answering David, keep in mind that Arnt already has demonstrated elsewhere that he is one who does not have to follow the rules. I find it ironic that he is a "referee" when in Tonya's trial, he was directing the "referee" ("judge" Brian Outhouse) to act in a one-sided manner.

Unfortunately, a criminal trial is not a soccer game; it is a deadly serious thing, and by openly declaring that he and his partner did not have to "play by the rules," Arnt demonstrated his own belief that "fair play" is foreign to him.

My sense is that the person who wrote me did so because Arnt stood out as a referee. I'm not doubting that maybe he made better calls than some of the teenagers who were refereeing the other games, but the thing that stood out to the writer was the fact that Arnt also was doing everything he could to bring attention to himself.

That is narcissistic behavior, and I find it doubly ironic that a guy who is narcissistic made the alleged narcissistic behavior of Tonya Craft the centerpiece of the trial against her. Furthermore, this narcissist tried to convince a jury that since he believed Tonya Craft was a "narcissist," that meant she was a child molester.

kbp said...

We must appreciate those that do officiating in any sporting events for children, as there is not much of a financial reward for it.

That said, most that do it are younger people just earning a little extra money, but there always seems to be a few doing the officiating that appear to be there only looking for some way to be in charge of others - control freaks.

Arnt has shown us he falls within the latter of those two groups. Unfortunately, many calls in soccer are subject to only the judgment of the one making those calls. Even in professional soccer the calls are not subject to evidence from video. The arguments are that the cameras do not have the exact same line-of-sight or witness the demeanor that brought about remarks made on the field, so the officials are NEVER overruled.

The soccer referee is pretty much a God on the field during play, what they say is the gospel.

Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve said...

Regarding Dr. Anderson’s update, his words were almost exactly what Mrs. Craft’s attorney said on WGOW Radio yesterday. The suit was filed in order to meet a filing deadline and her attorneys expected to be required to focus their accusations (fill in the details so to speak?) after the initial filing. If the deadline had been missed, then no suit could have been filed.

The interview was interesting but no bombshells were dropped and I think I understand why. I was hoping that either Mrs. Craft or her attorney would state when this witch hunt started, who was behind it and why. However, to do so could have revealed part of the legal theory of her suit so that will have to be saved for a later day. I have my own theory but so does everyone else who has followed this travesty of injustice.

I think several of “Chris Ain’t AKA Alberto the soccer ref” defenders are missing the point of Dr. Anderson’s post. Ain’t leaned heavily on accusations of Mrs. Craft’s narcissism during the Inquisition. His so-called evidence was discredited or non-existent so her “narcissism” and his infamous “thong” story became the best he could do to inflame the jury. After all of that balderdash, his actions on the soccer field show him to be a flaming narcissist whose actions shout “It’s all about me.” I have no idea as to his competence as a soccer referee. However, I can identify a hypocrite by his actions and that is what Aint’s actions expose about him. Dr. Anderson’s post addressed his hypocrisy, not his skill as a referee or his willingness to serve in one of the thankless jobs on the planet.

Lastly, I am curious as to why he showed his arrogant self at Redoubt? Why not one of the leagues in Catoosa or some rec center closer to home? I do know that I would never want him judging or refereeing any activity involving my children or grandchildren as he is incapable of any degree of fairness in so many other areas of his life. His actions in these other areas are the keys to his hypocritical narcissistic inner self.

One more last note, when/if this Mrs. Craft’s suit goes to trial, those who follow it are going to be surprised at the way Judge Harold Murphy runs his court. There will be no hand gestures, eye rolling, cheering or stacking of books to block someone’s view of the witness stand. I have been in Judge Murphy’s court several times over the years on different matters and he runs no nonsense, firm but fair, operation. It will be a pleasant surprise for one side and a rude awakening for the other one. I suggest that the judicial pimp House be required to attend as a how-to seminar in how a truly just and fair court operates.

Cinderella said...

I don't think that today was at all out of line. It points to a consistant behavior. I saw the actions were of someone that wanted all eyes on him. That's the funny thing about character, you just can't hide who you are. I don't know if the person that wrote the letter was male or female, but I'd bet female. Not all but alot of us girls can read through the smoke and see bull__it. I saw him in court, on tv, saw the facebook page, etc. Yep, he's a narissist and therefore a child molester.

Mary Jane said...

If the Henkes are going to cry for $20,000, why don't they sue Sandra Lamb for sucking them into all this. Sandra Lamb and Kelli McDonald can sue the Wilsons for instigating all this, and Suzie Thorne and Laurie Evans for messing up with their children. Thorne and Evans should sue their bosses and employers for encouraging them to behave the way they did and not providing them with adequate trainings, and so and so forth.....

KDaw said...

Mary Jane,
As ridiculous as it sounds to us logical folks, that is probably what will happen. The whole bunch of them will likely have all of this mess tied up in litigation for the next 10 years.
Unless they are counting on the world ending in 2012. Nothing like global catastrophe to get them off hook.

kbp said...

The same reasons for damages that may be attributed to the CAC, Greenhouse, interviewers and any others directly involved with the children, may also be grounds for lawsuits by the parents of ALL the children involved.

The children DID suffer injury as a result of their conduct and actions.

Anonymous said...

But the parents allowed it,they knew good & well what was going on.When Sandra gave her interview on WRCB she said she still took her daughter there.Yes the CAC & Greenhouse are a disgrace to the human race,but the parents abused their children & allowed the idiots to work with them knowing what they were doing.

Anonymous said...

As always, Bill has written another great blog!! LMBO!!! Just more proof Arnt IS a narcissist. Keep it coming!

William L. Anderson said...

I don't think that Sandra Lamb and her child for one second are "victims" of the CAC. If there are victims, they would be Tonya and her daughter. (See the "Who's on First?" interrogation by Suzi Thorne post to get a sense of what the CAC/GreenHouse people did to that child.)

Lamb did not believe that Tonya had molested anyone, and I doubt that Sherri "Hand Rape" Wilson or anyone else from the prosecution believed it, either. No, they happily went along with the CAC crowd, because they were going to give them what they wanted.

Mary Jane said...

I agree with Dr. Anderson and some other posters on that Sandra Lamb and her child are not the real "victims" of the CAC. But, in the event that SL is sued by many of the other participants of the travesty against Ms. Craft and possibly go bankrupt, she may have to sue someone in turn, and the easiest target will be the interviewers at the CAC. She is not going to say that she knew what was going on, but she could just say that they messed up her daughter and implanted false memory.

I'm just toying around with the idea of the defendants of Tonya's lawsuit turning against each other in their own financial desperation.

Anonymous said...

Heaven help us in a few weeks when school starts.We are so lucky to have crazy ass Sandra,Sherri & Dwayne in our school.They have given the school such a black eye there is no telling how long it will take to recover,if ever.They deserve what ever hell they get.So do the Mcdonalds & Henkes.And I am sure Miriam will also get the cold shoulder.

Anonymous said...

The suit may serve many purposes. Not all purposes may be realized but the suit was the right way to go (in my humble opinion).

Kudos to Tonya. I read that she is studying for her LSATS. While teaching elementary school and working in law are two different animals altogether, I have no doubt that Tonya, owing to her recent life events and her tenacity and high moral fiber, will prevail.

Tonya, when you get that J.D.and set up shop either as a solo practioner, with a firm or with a non profit--I do plan on sending my resume to you.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

Defendants turning on each other--yes and no. They will each do, through their counsel, what they need to do to attempt to extract themselves from this mess.

There should be two different venues in operation here, suit against individuals and against government entities.

There is more I would like to say but I think I should not.

Suffice it to say that there is a method to the madness of filing such suits.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

What I want to know is if they turn on each other how could anyone take them serious?They all have blood on their hands.They all lied under oath on the stand.Why would people listen to any of them?They are nothing but liars who threw their own kids under the bus to make themselves happy.

kbp said...

What could be "attributed to the CAC, Greenhouse, interviewers and any others directly involved with the children" still applies to ALL the accusers.

I've not seen many arguing that Tonya or D-Lo are incorrect in stating the accusers are actual victims now.

Maybe the parents of these accusers hold greater responsibility for damage than the county employees and contractors ...or maybe not.

I'm not certain how blame could be assigned for injuries the 3 accusers suffered, but with the parents not being the "professionals" in this situation I'm certain who I'd assign the majority to.

I am certain that the 5-6 YO accusers can't be held responsible for what went on in Tonya's case and any problems they've encountered as a result of it.

William L. Anderson said...

By the way, when RL told investigators that "she did not give me food" and that Tonya "hid candy around the house," guess what? Those were lines that she gave in the two movies in which she acted, "One Last Call," and "Mrs. Hobbe's House."

Somehow, I think that child and mother were in on the scam. Maybe that is why RL was telling people last year, "I can get whatever I want as long as I don't get mommy into trouble." Hmmm.

Anonymous said...

The only child who is a victim of the CAC & Greenhouse is Tonyas daughter.The other two are victims of their parents,no one else.Those bit#$%s knew what they were doing to their kids & they just didn't care.I still think RL is just as messed up as her mother.No parent should want their kids anywhere near her.

Anonymous said...

What kind of parent would put their precious child in a demonic film like this?? http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3802005785/

kbp said...

Anon 7:36,

Your debate would then be with Tonya's attorneys, as the claims they make in the complaint points blame at the CAC & Greenhouse, through facts which would also apply to the other accusers.

The percentage of the blame for CAC & Greenhouse should be determined in the lawsuit, though the parents of the other accusers may hold part of it in any cases for their children.

Anonymous said...

I am unclear as to what you mean by "turning on each other". This is a civil suit.

Each defendant is represented by its own counsel.

It is not really a collective.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

kbp the sad thing is the parents don't care,they did much worse to their children.If they choose that route it would be only to cover their own ass,not to help children.If they loved & cared about the children they never would have done any of this.They pretty much suck as parents.

Anonymous said...

Sandra please get your child the help she needs,she is not ready to be around other children.You too need help,just stay away until then.Parents are not ready to deal with your craziness.Chickamauga does not want you.

kbp said...

Imagine a possibility...

Lamb and McDonald file suits on behalf of their daughters

...the cases drag on for 6-7 years

...new counselors help the children to see what happened

...judgment comes when they are old enough to want THEIR money

...the court locks up the funds for the children

...the parents can only get a small amount to help the accusers

...they turn 18, leave home and take their money with them.

kbp said...

As for "turning on each other", the attorneys representing them are NOT representing all the other defendants, though some do have the same attorneys. Anyway, if an attorney can work to shift blame AWAY from their client and onto another defendant, it is their job to do that - serve the one(s) they represent.

Here is a listing of the attorneys, due for an update I've yet to attend to. You can see WHO is sharing the same attorneys.

Defendant: Sandra Lamb
represented by
Jesse Anderson Davis
Phone: 706-291-8853
Email: adavis@brinson-askew.com

Defendant: Sandra Lamb
represented by
Samuel Leslie Lucas
Phone: 706-291-8853
Email: slucas@brinson-askew.com

Defendant: Sherri Wilson
represented by
Michael Alan Anderson
Phone: 423-265-2560
Email: manderson@chattanooga-law.com

Defendant: Dewayne Wilson
represented by
Michael Alan Anderson
Phone: 423-265-2560
Email: manderson@chattanooga-law.com

Defendant: Joal Henke
represented by
Joe Edward Manuel
Email: jem@joemanuel.com

Defendant: Sarah Henke
represented by
Joe Edward Manuel
Email: jem@joemanuel.com

Defendant: Tim Deal
represented by
Brian R. Dempsey Phone: 770-818-0000
Fax: 770-937-9960 .
Email: bdempsey@fmglaw.com

Defendant: Tim Deal
represented by
Theodore Freeman
Phone: 770-818-0000
Email: tfreeman@fmglaw.com

Defendant: Tim Deal
represented by
Clifton M. Patty, Jr.
Phone: 706-935-9100
Email: pattylaw@catt.com

Defendant: Tim Deal
represented by
C. Chad Young
Phone: 404-935-9100
Email: chadyoung@pattylaw.com

Defendant: Catoosa County, Georgia
represented by
Brian R. Dempsey
Phone: 770-818-0000
Fax: 770-937-9960 .
Email: bdempsey@fmglaw.com

Defendant: Catoosa County, Georgia
represented by
Theodore Freeman
Phone: 770-818-0000
Email: tfreeman@fmglaw.com

Defendant: Catoosa County, Georgia
represented by
Clifton M. Patty, Jr.
Phone: 706-935-9100
Email: pattylaw@catt.com

Defendant: Catoosa County, Georgia
represented by
C. Chad Young
Phone: 404-935-9100
Email: chadyoung@pattylaw.com

Defendant: The Catoosa Cty Sheriff's Department
represented by
Brian R. Dempsey
Phone: 770-818-0000
Fax: 770-937-9960 .
Email: bdempsey@fmglaw.com

Defendant: The Catoosa Cty Sheriff's Department
represented by
Theodore Freeman
Phone: 770-818-0000
Email: tfreeman@fmglaw.com

Defendant: The Catoosa Cty Sheriff's Department
represented by
Clifton M. Patty, Jr.
Phone: 706-935-9100
Email: pattylaw@catt.com

Defendant: The Catoosa Cty Sheriff's Department
represented by
C. Chad Young
Phone: 404-935-9100
Email: chadyoung@pattylaw.com

kbp said...

Defendant: Phil Summers
represented by
Brian R. Dempsey
Phone: 770-818-0000
Fax: 770-937-9960 .
Email: bdempsey@fmglaw.com

Defendant: Phil Summers
represented by
Theodore Freeman
Phone: 770-818-0000
Email: tfreeman@fmglaw.com

Defendant: Phil Summers
represented by
Clifton M. Patty, Jr.
Phone: 706-935-9100
Email: pattylaw@catt.com

Defendant: Phil Summers
represented by
C. Chad Young
Phone: 404-935-9100
Email: chadyoung@pattylaw.com

Defendant: Suzie Thorne
represented by
THURBERT E. BAKER, Attorney General
KATHLEEN M. PACIOUS, Deputy Att. General
DEVON ORLAND, Senior Asst Att. General
CRISTINA CORREIA, Asst Att. General
404-463-8850
Fax: 404-651-5304
ccorreia@law.ga.gov

Defendant: Laurie Evans
represented by
Edward H. Lindsey, Jr.
Phone: 404-264-1500
Email: elindsey@gmlj.com

Defendant: Laurie Evans
represented by
Lynn M. Roberson
Phone: 404-888-6146
Email: lynn.roberson@swiftcurrie.com

Defendant: Laurie Evans
represented by
Kevin Alan Spainhour
Phone: 404-264-1500
Email: kspainhour@gmlj.com

Defendant: Children's Advocacy Center of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit, Inc.
represented by
Kevin Alan Spainhour
Phone: 404-264-1500
Email: kspainhour@gmlj.com

Defendant: The Greenhouse Children's Advocacy Center
represented by
Cristina Correia
Phone: 404-656-6676
Email: ccorreia@law.ga.gov

All of the above is public information.

I have yet to see anything filed that shows Kelli McDonald or Stacy Long to be represented.

KC Sprayberry said...

Okay, now wait just a cotton pickin' minute. Suzie Thorne represented by the AG and his staff? Is this why the attorney general happily campaigned for governor and ignored this trial? His reason suddenly become clear. Definitely not getting my vote, either in the primary or the election. Here is another person we need out of office.

kbp said...

Probably gives the AG's office a better excuse for NOT investigating what all has gone on in Eric Echols case.

That excuse about the school board matter with Tonya being a conflict for them was rather weak!

Anonymous said...

It is protocol for the AG (at least in my state, NY--and I belive all states) to be representative of a case involving a state worker and state entity.

If this Suzie Thorne was employed by the a state agency, then yes, the AG must be cited in the proceedings.


Reader from NY

Anonymous said...

This is a civil suit. It is not so much of shifting blame to another defendant, rather, it is working to extract one's client from the suit altogether.

Any attorneys here? Please chime in.

Reader from NYC

KC Sprayberry said...

Not a lawyer but can do some great internet research. Here's my take on what I found.
Seeing Thurbert Baker's name listed as the attorney of record for one of the defendants in Tonya Craft's civil suit bothered me so much, I did a bit of research. There are a lot of maybe's and might's involved on the Attorney General's website but I still wanted to know if Mr. Baker and three of his state employees can represent Suzie Thorne in a civil action arising from her actions in a criminal case? This link might provide the best answer: http://www.ganet.org/ago/ Right under the title: Georgia Attorney General's Office – Duties: Law prohibits the attorney general from providing legal advice or assistance to the private citizens of Georgia.
Therefore, how can Mr. Baker represent Suzie Thorne in this case and why are the people of the State of Georgia paying for our elected attorney general and three of his employees to violate one of their rules? I forgot. This is Georgia. It seems the HAG team + Buzz learned from the top how to bend and twist the rules for their favor. Now, I had once considered Mr. Baker as the candidate to get my vote for governor. No more.

KC Sprayberry said...

I'm sure it will come up that the CAC, as an entity for the district attorney's office, qualifies its employees for legal representation by the attorney general. But if that is true, why didn't Phil Summers, Tim Deal, Catoosa County, and the Catoosa County Sheriff's Department take advantage of this? Does Mr. Baker really think he can use this lawsuit to his advantage in his faltering campaign for governor? Uh, someone give him a timeline. This case won't see the inside of a courtroom until long after that election finishes. I really would like to see if this flies past the judge on this case.

Mary Jane said...

Reader from NYC,

I was not talking about shifting blame to another defendant during this particular lawsuit filed by Mr. Craft. I was talking about after this civil lawsuit. Let's say that the Henkes (among other defendants) loses the case and lose lots of money, then they'd want to blame someone for their loss and possibly recoup their loss. That is when they may want to file their own civil lawsuit against, say, Sandra Lamb for "getting them involved" into this whose mess. (I am not saying that the Henkes were not willing participants. I am only saying that they could make a claim like that.)

But, of course, I was just thinking aloud about the possibility. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if such a lawsuit would be possible.

kbp said...

Just as an example (and easy math!), take a judgment against 10 of 15 named defendants where the verdict was for $10 million, it would be nice to be 1 of the 5.

A good way to be one of those 5 is if you can have the blame assigned to 1 or more of the remaining 10.

But, just in case you're 1 of the 10, that doesn't necessary mean the liability you are hit for must be divided equally at 10% each.

Also, IIRC, the judgment in this type of case may all come out of the deepest pocket, the ONE with the money, and that defendant has to chase the portions due from the other 9.

I'm open to correction here, but that's how I have understood it watching just a few other federal civil cases.

Trish said...

KC you bring up some good points. The county attorneys are representing county employees, but since the CAC, Greenhouse are, I am guessing state agencies, why then are there not state attorneys, not the Attorney General??? Personally, since she is going after individuals not the agencies themselves, I think they should all have to hire their own attorneys instead of us (the taxpayers) footing the bill. However, if the suit is successful and changes are made to the system, then it will be worth it!!! It is most definitely time for change in Catoosa County and all of these people need to learn you can't run over innocent people forever and get away with it. What goes around, indeed does come around. Money and power need to be replaced with honesty and fairness for all.

Kaye said...

In the civil lawsuit, I noticed that some of the defendants are being sued in both individual AND professional capacities--Sheriff Summers is one of them. Also, both the CAC and the Greenhouse are named as defendants, too, as well as the employees involved, so the agencies are specifically named as defendants. I learned a lot about our local judicial system, (and its enormous shortcomings), throughout the Craft trial, and I hope to learn about how the federal courts work, too, but right now, I'm confused much of the time. Thanks to all for the explanations.

I, too, was one that was very disappointed when I heard that the Judge Murphy wanted more details, but now that I've heard King on WGOW discussing this, and also read Bill's comments, I'm feeling much better about it moving forward. Since I've been reading Bill's blog about this case, I doubt the amended lawsuit will hold much in the way of a surprise, but I still feel that it will make for some very interesting reading. It's probably going to make life extremely uncomfortable for some of these defendants, and rightfully so.

kbp said...

For the record, the Greenhouse is represented by the same attorneys that represent Suzie Thorne. I had just not yet updated my files to show that.

In their "MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT" the AG's office noted the following;

"Defendant “The Greenhouse Children’s Advocacy Center” is not a legal entity but rather a department of the Conasauga Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office. Defendant has yet to be properly served and hereby files this Motion for More Definite Statement without waiving service of process."

Note that it is a department of the Conasauga Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office.

That may well explain WHY we saw Det. Deal make the decision to PROMPTLY use Suzie Thorne at the Greenhouse, it is merely an AGENCY of the DA's office in that Consuaga County.

I've seen this in other cases, where the DA's office had put a fancy name on THEIR experts, the entity that is part of THEIR tools leaves jurors and the public a little confused ...believing it is some PROFESSIONAL group not associated with those looking to convict everyone. Almost as convenient as having a prosecutor in THEIR office handle the matter for them, as they develop the records necessary to get that conviction!

I did not see any notes on the CAC, but in all records it is identified as; "The Children’s Advocacy Center of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit, Inc." A corporation SEPERATE of the LMJC. While not a direct part of the DA's office, those running it make money from it, scratch the DA's back and the DA's office is on the Board of Directors.

> When time permits, I'll see if I can get these court filings uploaded where all can have access to them <

kbp said...

On another matter; it may become interesting, as discovery trickles in later, to see WHICH of the attorneys involved are working for the INSURANCE underwriters, those who will have to pick up the tab if a judgment is made against those they provide coverage for.

While the initial defense strategy is always for summary judgment to remove specific defendants, I'd imagine an 'all for one, one for all' approach will immediately be considered next. If they decide it is not a strong approach to show nobody is guilty, that Tonya does not have a case, they have to then attend to only the defendant they represent.

This is where the INSURANCE company or companies may make decisions that will throw other defendants to the wolves. Those companies are ONLY concerned with what they must pay out, not any of the other 'good old boys' involved.

If we start seeing any attorneys dropping out, later on, it may be because an insurance company decided they anticipated the judgment would likely be for more than their company would be responsible for. Since the limit of coverage often includes any funds spent on legal fees defending the insured, it's economically wiser then to just write it off and let the defendant worry about those legal fees if they are more than the policy will pay for.

I had mentioned earlier that nothing showed Kelli McDonald or Stacy Long to be represented. Since Long worked at the CAC, I am curious why they have not provided her with an attorney. As for McDonald, I wonder if they had homeowners insurance, for that would have coverage for her. Maybe the bankruptcy mentioned included them losing their house, if they had one.

(It is possible I missed something, but I have checked and rechecked a few times)

Anonymous said...

kbp I am confused,how could homeowners insurance help them? Thanks

kbp said...

It often has liability coverage for family members living within your home.

For instance, if your kid takes his BB gun to the neighbor's house and accidently shoots the neighbor's eye out, the insurance will pay for the medical expenses and any amount you'd lose in a lawsuit (up to the limit of coverage).

Each state has different regulations on policies, with many requiring a minimum coverage for liability, but I must admit I do not know what Georgia has.

Kaye said...

How interesting that Stacy Long doesn't have any legal representation. Hhhmmm... My goodness, kbp, it sounds as though the Greenhouse doesn't even try to maintain any pretense of impartiality, if they are considered a part of the DA's office. Looks like the LMJC isn't the only one that's screwed up... as if that's any consolation. LOL

Not surprised that Kelli McDonald doesn't have an attorney yet, especially taking into consideration her husband's conversation with Eric Echols that they could not afford legal advice way before this civil lawsuit came into being. I am still slightly perplexed as to why Jerry McDonald wasn't named in the suit even though his wife was. Maybe that will become more apparent as time goes on.

Speaking of Eric Echols, September and his supposed trial date is quickly approaching, yet we have not heard who will be sitting on the bench outside of the LMJC since all of those yahoos have seen the light and decided to recuse themselves en masse in what I can only assume to be a pitiful attempt to try and save their judicial careers. I won't forget, though, I promise you. I'll vote "No" to retain these clowns until every last one of them is off the bench.

Mary Jane said...

My guess as to why Jerry McDonald wasn't named in the suit is that he did not, as far as we know, "repeatedly question his daughter" to indoctrinate the idea that Tonya did anything harmful to her, unlike Kelli McDonald who asked the daughter, among other things,"Did Tonya tell you that she'd kill you if you told on her?"

According to the conversation between JM and Mr. Echols, JM hadn't spoken to his daughter about the allegations at all (at least up to that point). I am not arguing about whether or not JM was telling the truth to Mr. Echols, because there is no way of knowing. But, I suppose there is no evidence that JM influenced his daughter's memory in such a way to bring about all those charges against Tonya.

It may be true that JM perjured in court, but if I remember correctly from reading the original suit by Tonya, this suit is about who made it possible to manufacture those false charges against her in the first place and not about who perjured in court.

Anonymous said...

kbp i'm sorry if i sound stupid,maybe i misread a post.I understsnd your last post,but i still do not understand how homeoweners insurance could cover them in the civil case.I am sorry for being slow & not getting it.Thanks

Anonymous said...

Lame,we have not heard from you in 2-3 day's I hope all is well.

kbp said...

Anon 9:10,

Policies vary state to state, company to company, and you can select many variations in coverage.

You may have contents insured, coverage for flood damage, loss of income on rental property insurance, many variations of coverage.

Standard policies in most states cover you, the owner and family living in the home, for liability.

That is what would, or might in this case, cover individuals for liability that was not created in business or a profession.

Again, I am not sure what the insurance regulations are in Georgia or what is offered there in the way of standard or optional coverage.

kbp said...

This evening I watched an old movie on TCM, called
Sergeant Rutledge.
(The IMDB link)

It had a song about soldiers that mentioned Lookout Mountain, which I had never heard of before following Tonya's case.

I could not find any links for the soundtrack on it, but did find the words of a part of it;
"You heard about the soldier in the U.S. cavalry
Who is built like ---Lookout Mountain___, taller than a redwood tree
With his iron fist hell drop an ox with just one mighty blow
John Henry was a weakling next to Captain Buffalo...
He'll march all night and he'll march all day
And he'll wear out a 20 mule team along the way..."

Lame said...

All is well. I've just been occupied by various things lately, mainly I'm trying to push through some very difficult chapters of Clausewitz.

William L. Anderson said...

There is also a Lookout Mountain near Denver, which really is one of the foothills of the Front Range. One hopes that any judicial system there is not as craven as what we see at Lookout Mountain, Georgia.

KC Sprayberry said...

kbp, as my family and I discovered last fall, house insurance doesn't cover flood damage. In fact, on most policies, it's specifically excluded. And most people don't discover that fact until after a flood. However, our ever loving Uncle Sam offers a policy. It's rather cheap if there hasn't been a flood in your area for a long time. However, depending on the amount of damages FEMA and SBA have to cover after a flood, the rates go up. Oh yeah, I learned a lot about those organizations last fall. None of it warmed my heart any more toward federal help.

kbp said...

KC, I must admit "flood" was not a good coverage to include in my comment, but I qualified the types of coverage there by starting that sentence with "may have".

Most mortgage companies identify whether or not your property lies within a 100 year flood plain and require that coverage be obtained from Uncle Sam if it does.

In an effort to better explain "... how homeowner's insurance could cover [someone] in the civil case", I got up out of my seat and dug out my own Homeowner's policy.

It includes coverage for
Personal Liability
We pay those damages which an insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of >>>BODILY INJURY<<< or property damage resulting from an occurrence to which this coverage applies..."
(going on to exclude ALL that is in any way relating to "BUSINESS of an insured".)

Moving then to show the general legal definition of
BODILY INJURY
U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 109A > § 2246

" (4) the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty"

(This code does not apply, but the definition is generally the same in all cases)

So the basics are that if Tonya claims something like "mental anguish ...emotional distress" or some form of "injury" to her "mental faculty", the coverage for the defendants MAY be subject to a Personal Liability claim.

My personal policy might not cover this, as I am not sure how broad the definition of "occurrence" extends. Even a child intentionally shooting the neighbor's eye out with a BB gun is certainly an accident that should fall in under an "occurrence", and I believe what a few homeowners did to Tonya would be covered also.

I'd definitely seek information on all homeowner's policies in discovery, in addition to any business liability coverage the defendants may carry.

KC Sprayberry said...

Oh, I agree. I was just making a point, and I hope everyone checks out flood insurance for that off chance. See, we don't live in a flood plain; we're actually located on the side of a ridge. But when that storm started last September, the water came down in such a rush it knocked out one of the supports on our kitchen porch and part of the foundation. FEMA said we only had 5900 in damages, since they wanted us to forgo the permit process. Personally, I won't do that kind of work myself and then have the city tell me to tear it out.

Lame said...

I've got to say that if R Lamb did say in her testimony the same, or virtually the same, thing that she said in the film (I haven't seen either the movie--heard it really bit the big one--nor have I seen transcripts of her actual court testimony), then I'm going to have to go back on what I said about her being completely victimized by the CAC interviewers. I still believe her to be somewhat of a victim, but if she's pulling in things like lines from movie parts she's played, that's not the actions of a victim, that's the actions of a NARCICIST. Also, someone said that Ms Craft's daughter is the ONLY victim of the three girls. I would say that unless someone can show me that she was coached by her mom and she went along with it and didn't come up with things on the fly to appease a devious CAC interviewer, then I would say the McDonald girl is 100% also a victim, even if her mom and dad aren't. I really hope that nobody's giving her a hard time. She didn't ask to be manipulated. She didn't ask to have spineless parents. She didn't ask to have an inept/under qualified examiner peek at her hoo-hoo. R Lamb got a reward for being examined, but I haven't heard that McDonald got anything other than ten cold fingers touching her privates.

Anonymous said...

Are there any techies out there who can cobble together the sound clips of RL's court testimony and movies lines? It would be very interesting to see if the voice inflections (possibly facial expressions?) and such were similar in both. This is disturbing beyond words that the child recited her lines from a movie script and the parents (who obviously knew) tried to pass the child's words off to a jury as authentic.

Lame said...

Anon 12:28, to my knowledge, nobody's allowed to show the child testifying, either video or audio, only transcripts allowed to be published