A teenager from Georgia is "speaking out about what he calls a horrifying experience at a military school in South Carolina" -- in the words of a news article today on the website for WSB-TV, the ABC affiliate in Atlanta.
This is a case I know well, because our law firm has been involved in the matter for some time and is co-counsel in a federal lawsuit recently filed in the matter.
WSB says Mark Winne, a longtime investigative reporter at the station, "spent weeks investigating" allegations in the complaint, which include "rape, beatings, starvation" at Camden Military Academy.
Winne's story, which aired last night, can be seen online here, and you can use this link to read the specific allegations contained in our lawsuit.
In a statement provided to WSB, the headmaster of the school, Eric Boland, said he prefers to "have this case tried in a court of law, not in the media" and that he is "barred from commenting."
However, he Boland commented anyway.
Camden Military Academy, he said, "does not tolerate hazing" and "will not allow one student to hit, shove, punch or in any way physically, mentally, or emotionally mistreat another cadet."
Obviously, that very public statement by the headmaster is at odds with the allegations in our lawsuit, which names Camden Military Academy itself, as well as Boland himself and other school personnel.
I agree this case needs to be tried in court, but I understand why Boland felt it necessary to comment even after stating he was barred from commenting. The media, and the public, have a legitimate interest in the proceedings and are likely to be watching this story for some time to come.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Arizona case likely to affect Georgia - and America
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case I believe may define whether America in the 21st Century continues to stand for all the things we were raised to believe as schoolchildren and many of us continue to believe as patriotic adults.
Under appeal is an anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, but its outcome certainly is likely to affect Georgia and other states which already have passed similar measures -- as well as the rest of the country.
I've been involved, with the American Civil Liberties Union and a number of other organizations and individuals, in fighting Georgia's anti-immigration law. Like the others, it was designed to impose severe penalties on those who are branded "illegal aliens" -- even though these people comprise a large portion of our workforce and often perform jobs few others want. Moreover, Georgia's law is so harsh, any U.S. citizen who so much as gives an undocumented worker a ride to work is guilty of a criminal offense.
I believe it not only to be unconstitutional, but also un-American.
According to the statement of legislative intent, the Arizona law -- SB 1070 -- was designed to make “attrition through enforcement” the official policy of all state and local agencies in that state. Georgia -- along with Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- all passed legislation similar to the one enacted by Arizona. All are in various stages of appeal, and their fate may well hang on the Supreme Court.
Many of us view this as a modern-day "Brown v. Board of Education" -- essentially, a case addressing the Civil Rights issue of our time.
A complete analysis of the Supreme Court case has been prepared by the Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003 as the policy arm of the non-partisan American Immigration Council, and is being reprinted below.
IPC's mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration.
Through research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society, and its reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media.
Q: What is the timeline for the Supreme Court?
A: Oral arguments before the Supreme Court will take place on Wednesday, April 25, 2012. The Court is unlikely to issue a decision before late June—unless the Justices divide 4-4, in which case the outcome will be announced within days of the vote. No state laws will be affected by the Supreme Court decision before a final ruling is announced.
Q: What provisions of SB 1070 will the Supreme Court consider?
A: The Supreme Court will not rule on the entirety of SB 1070; it will only consider the following four provisions that were blocked from taking effect by lower court judges:
Section 2(B) requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person stopped under state or local law if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. This section also requires state and local authorities to determine the immigration status of any person placed under arrest, regardless of whether the person is suspected of being in the country unlawfully.
Section 3 makes it a crime under Arizona law for unauthorized immigrants to violate the provisions of federal law requiring them to apply for “registration” with the federal government and to carry a registration card if one has been issued to them.
Section 5(C) makes it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work within the state’s borders.
Section 6 authorizes state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant where “probable cause” exists that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States.
Q: How does SB 1070 compare to other state immigration laws?
A: Many provisions of Arizona’s law are identical to those enacted in other states. For example, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah also enacted provisions requiring police officers to investigate the immigration status of all persons they stop if “reasonable suspicion” exists that they are in the country illegally. At the same time, copycat laws in other states also contain unique provisions. For example, unlike SB 1070, Alabama’s HB 56 requires school administrators to ascertain the immigration status of newly enrolling students.
Q: What will happen to copycat laws if the Supreme Court rules against Arizona?
A: The Supreme Court decision will not resolve all of the questions surrounding other state copycat laws. The Supreme Court is only looking at a few provisions of the Arizona law, not all of the provisions of all the laws. If the Court rules against all or parts of SB 1070, those provisions will remain legally enjoined, and identical provisions in other states will also be prevented from taking effect. Where copycat laws are not identical to SB 1070, however, lower courts will have to decide if and how the Supreme Court’s decision applies. State legislatures may also try to amend their laws to conform to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Q: If the Supreme Court rules for Arizona, what will be the effect on copycat laws?
A: Again, the effect of the Court’s ruling on other states with copycat laws will depend on the details of the Supreme Court’s decision. If the challenged provisions of SB 1070 are allowed to be implemented, identical provisions of other state laws will also be allowed to go into effect. But separate lawsuits challenging provisions of copycat state laws that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court will move forward and other courts will determine whether those provisions can be implemented.
Q: If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SB 1070, will other states be free to enact similar laws?
A: The question of whether states may enact laws like SB 1070 is distinct from whether states should enact such laws. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, supporters of state immigration control laws will likely continue to experiment and promote variations of SB 1070.
States that continue to pursue anti-immigrant legislation may face both fiscal and social costs.
"State immigration enforcement laws cruelly separate families, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants," according to the IPC. The “attrition through enforcement” strategy—or making everyday activities so difficult and the fear of apprehension so great that immigrants “self-deport”—does nothing to address our national immigration problems and places unprecedented legal, fiscal, and economic burdens on states and local communities.
For more information, contact Wendy Sefsaf by e-mail at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or phone 202-507-7524.
Under appeal is an anti-immigration law passed in Arizona, but its outcome certainly is likely to affect Georgia and other states which already have passed similar measures -- as well as the rest of the country.
I've been involved, with the American Civil Liberties Union and a number of other organizations and individuals, in fighting Georgia's anti-immigration law. Like the others, it was designed to impose severe penalties on those who are branded "illegal aliens" -- even though these people comprise a large portion of our workforce and often perform jobs few others want. Moreover, Georgia's law is so harsh, any U.S. citizen who so much as gives an undocumented worker a ride to work is guilty of a criminal offense.
I believe it not only to be unconstitutional, but also un-American.
According to the statement of legislative intent, the Arizona law -- SB 1070 -- was designed to make “attrition through enforcement” the official policy of all state and local agencies in that state. Georgia -- along with Alabama, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- all passed legislation similar to the one enacted by Arizona. All are in various stages of appeal, and their fate may well hang on the Supreme Court.
Many of us view this as a modern-day "Brown v. Board of Education" -- essentially, a case addressing the Civil Rights issue of our time.
A complete analysis of the Supreme Court case has been prepared by the Immigration Policy Center, established in 2003 as the policy arm of the non-partisan American Immigration Council, and is being reprinted below.
IPC's mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration.
Through research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society, and its reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media.
Arizona v. United States:
What You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Case Involving SB 1070
What You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Case Involving SB 1070
Q: What is the timeline for the Supreme Court?
A: Oral arguments before the Supreme Court will take place on Wednesday, April 25, 2012. The Court is unlikely to issue a decision before late June—unless the Justices divide 4-4, in which case the outcome will be announced within days of the vote. No state laws will be affected by the Supreme Court decision before a final ruling is announced.
Q: What provisions of SB 1070 will the Supreme Court consider?
A: The Supreme Court will not rule on the entirety of SB 1070; it will only consider the following four provisions that were blocked from taking effect by lower court judges:
Section 2(B) requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person stopped under state or local law if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. This section also requires state and local authorities to determine the immigration status of any person placed under arrest, regardless of whether the person is suspected of being in the country unlawfully.
Section 3 makes it a crime under Arizona law for unauthorized immigrants to violate the provisions of federal law requiring them to apply for “registration” with the federal government and to carry a registration card if one has been issued to them.
Section 5(C) makes it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work within the state’s borders.
Section 6 authorizes state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant where “probable cause” exists that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States.
Q: How does SB 1070 compare to other state immigration laws?
A: Many provisions of Arizona’s law are identical to those enacted in other states. For example, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Utah also enacted provisions requiring police officers to investigate the immigration status of all persons they stop if “reasonable suspicion” exists that they are in the country illegally. At the same time, copycat laws in other states also contain unique provisions. For example, unlike SB 1070, Alabama’s HB 56 requires school administrators to ascertain the immigration status of newly enrolling students.
Q: What will happen to copycat laws if the Supreme Court rules against Arizona?
A: The Supreme Court decision will not resolve all of the questions surrounding other state copycat laws. The Supreme Court is only looking at a few provisions of the Arizona law, not all of the provisions of all the laws. If the Court rules against all or parts of SB 1070, those provisions will remain legally enjoined, and identical provisions in other states will also be prevented from taking effect. Where copycat laws are not identical to SB 1070, however, lower courts will have to decide if and how the Supreme Court’s decision applies. State legislatures may also try to amend their laws to conform to the Supreme Court’s decision.
Q: If the Supreme Court rules for Arizona, what will be the effect on copycat laws?
A: Again, the effect of the Court’s ruling on other states with copycat laws will depend on the details of the Supreme Court’s decision. If the challenged provisions of SB 1070 are allowed to be implemented, identical provisions of other state laws will also be allowed to go into effect. But separate lawsuits challenging provisions of copycat state laws that were not reviewed by the Supreme Court will move forward and other courts will determine whether those provisions can be implemented.
Q: If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SB 1070, will other states be free to enact similar laws?
A: The question of whether states may enact laws like SB 1070 is distinct from whether states should enact such laws. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, supporters of state immigration control laws will likely continue to experiment and promote variations of SB 1070.
States that continue to pursue anti-immigrant legislation may face both fiscal and social costs.
"State immigration enforcement laws cruelly separate families, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants," according to the IPC. The “attrition through enforcement” strategy—or making everyday activities so difficult and the fear of apprehension so great that immigrants “self-deport”—does nothing to address our national immigration problems and places unprecedented legal, fiscal, and economic burdens on states and local communities.
For more information, contact Wendy Sefsaf by e-mail at wsefsaf@immcouncil.org or phone 202-507-7524.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
"Coach is going to take care of you."
One of the ugliest and most despicable cases I've seen in years is about to move from the sports page to the front page.
Last week, I was -- unfortunately -- back in court in Athens, sitting through another hearing in the bankruptcy case of Jim Donnan, former head football coach at the University of Georgia, and his wife Mary.
It didn't amount to much. Most of the matters that brought me there were postponed until March.
This convoluted legal proceeding -- which involves an alleged Ponzi scheme in which millions and millions of dollars were "lost," to put it kindly -- isn't going to be over anytime soon.
I was there to represent Valerie Fennell, who is the recent widow of one of my closest friends, the late Dr. Steve Fennell, a brilliant facial reconstruction surgeon who died of cancer last year after desperately entrusting his life savings -- $450,000 -- to the man he admired, trusted and referred to with pride as "Coach."
Steve was desperate for a bone marrow transplant but worried about how to pay for it, and Donnan took his money as an "investment" in a company called GLC at a time when, according to his own testimony, he knew it was in serious financial trouble. Steve's money was used to make payments to other investors and thus, at least temporarily, maintain the appearance GLC was solvent, even profitable.
I was at Steve's bedside just before he died on May 30, a little over eight months ago, and promised to do what I could to help Valerie. By then, he knew the money that would have provided for her future was gone and was heartbroken that he'd been foolish to believe in "Coach."
Someone else who feels the same way is Kendrell Bell.
Bell was a student at UGA who played for Donnan and then made it to the NFL -- first for the Pittsburgh Steelers, then the Kansas Citiy Chiefs -- and he was in court last week, too.
To put it in sports terms, the former athlete was throwing a "Hail Mary" pass.
Bell missed the deadline to file a claim, but his lawyers argue he should be allowed to join Valerie Fennell in seeking to recover assets from the Donnans on grounds of fraud.
According to court records, Bell invested $2 million with Donnan.
Maybe that doesn't seem like much, given that Bell was an NFL star -- but consider the fact that he isn't one anymore. Named defensive rookie of the year in 2001, the linebacker's career was cut short by injury. So, it's not as if he's likely to make another $2 million.
In their pleadings, Bell's attorneys underscored that the relationship between a college football coach and his players is an intimate one built on trust.
"He completely trusted everything his coach said to him," Bell's attorneys wrote. "He remained in awe of Jim Donnan and was honored that his coach thought enough of him to invite him to become one of the few investors in GLC. He never thought that his coach might be perpetrating a scam."
One line hit me in the gut as I read it.
Apparently, even as GLC and the Donnans filed for bankruptcy, Bell's former mentor continued to assure him everything was ok.
"Coach is going to take care of you," Donnan allegedly told Bell.
The same way "Coach" took care of my friend Steve.
After the hearing, UGA's student newspaper, the Red and Black, reported, "The allegations against Donnan are shocking, to say the least."
And the author of a sports blog called A Bulldawg in Exile commented, "Damn Jim, leukemia patients and former players who saw you as a father? Sounds pretty heartless."
Despite the scope of this tragedy, the amount of money involved, and the big names, this story so far has received coverage primarily on sports outlets, most notably ESPN -- one exception being the internet website Southern Free Press.
However, last week, Richard Belcher of WSB-TV Action News was there, too.
Good.
There's a lot more to this story that hasn't come out yet, and the mainstream media needs to be looking into it. Two federal agencies -- the FBI and SEC -- have launched investigations and the reason I can say that is I've been contacted by both.
I won't say where I think Jim Donnan belongs, but I don't want him to end up going to prison.
I want him to get a job. I want him to pay back every penny of Valerie Fennell's $450,000. He can sell hotdogs at football games, if that's what it takes.
The truth is, last week's proceedings were routine -- aside from the Kendrell Bell matter -- and could easily have been handled alone by Bill Rothschild, an extremely good bankruptcy attorney who is working with me on the case.
As far as the case is concerned, it wasn't necessary for me to make the trip to Athens.
But I had to go.
I needed to make sure "Coach" saw me there.
Last week, I was -- unfortunately -- back in court in Athens, sitting through another hearing in the bankruptcy case of Jim Donnan, former head football coach at the University of Georgia, and his wife Mary.
It didn't amount to much. Most of the matters that brought me there were postponed until March.
This convoluted legal proceeding -- which involves an alleged Ponzi scheme in which millions and millions of dollars were "lost," to put it kindly -- isn't going to be over anytime soon.
I was there to represent Valerie Fennell, who is the recent widow of one of my closest friends, the late Dr. Steve Fennell, a brilliant facial reconstruction surgeon who died of cancer last year after desperately entrusting his life savings -- $450,000 -- to the man he admired, trusted and referred to with pride as "Coach."
Steve was desperate for a bone marrow transplant but worried about how to pay for it, and Donnan took his money as an "investment" in a company called GLC at a time when, according to his own testimony, he knew it was in serious financial trouble. Steve's money was used to make payments to other investors and thus, at least temporarily, maintain the appearance GLC was solvent, even profitable.
I was at Steve's bedside just before he died on May 30, a little over eight months ago, and promised to do what I could to help Valerie. By then, he knew the money that would have provided for her future was gone and was heartbroken that he'd been foolish to believe in "Coach."
Someone else who feels the same way is Kendrell Bell.
Bell was a student at UGA who played for Donnan and then made it to the NFL -- first for the Pittsburgh Steelers, then the Kansas Citiy Chiefs -- and he was in court last week, too.
To put it in sports terms, the former athlete was throwing a "Hail Mary" pass.
Bell missed the deadline to file a claim, but his lawyers argue he should be allowed to join Valerie Fennell in seeking to recover assets from the Donnans on grounds of fraud.
According to court records, Bell invested $2 million with Donnan.
Maybe that doesn't seem like much, given that Bell was an NFL star -- but consider the fact that he isn't one anymore. Named defensive rookie of the year in 2001, the linebacker's career was cut short by injury. So, it's not as if he's likely to make another $2 million.
In their pleadings, Bell's attorneys underscored that the relationship between a college football coach and his players is an intimate one built on trust.
"He completely trusted everything his coach said to him," Bell's attorneys wrote. "He remained in awe of Jim Donnan and was honored that his coach thought enough of him to invite him to become one of the few investors in GLC. He never thought that his coach might be perpetrating a scam."
One line hit me in the gut as I read it.
Apparently, even as GLC and the Donnans filed for bankruptcy, Bell's former mentor continued to assure him everything was ok.
"Coach is going to take care of you," Donnan allegedly told Bell.
The same way "Coach" took care of my friend Steve.
After the hearing, UGA's student newspaper, the Red and Black, reported, "The allegations against Donnan are shocking, to say the least."
And the author of a sports blog called A Bulldawg in Exile commented, "Damn Jim, leukemia patients and former players who saw you as a father? Sounds pretty heartless."
Despite the scope of this tragedy, the amount of money involved, and the big names, this story so far has received coverage primarily on sports outlets, most notably ESPN -- one exception being the internet website Southern Free Press.
However, last week, Richard Belcher of WSB-TV Action News was there, too.
Good.
 |
| WSB-TV's Richard Belcher pursues former UGA coach. Click on photo to see his report. |
I won't say where I think Jim Donnan belongs, but I don't want him to end up going to prison.
I want him to get a job. I want him to pay back every penny of Valerie Fennell's $450,000. He can sell hotdogs at football games, if that's what it takes.
The truth is, last week's proceedings were routine -- aside from the Kendrell Bell matter -- and could easily have been handled alone by Bill Rothschild, an extremely good bankruptcy attorney who is working with me on the case.
As far as the case is concerned, it wasn't necessary for me to make the trip to Athens.
But I had to go.
I needed to make sure "Coach" saw me there.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Civil Rights and Alabama - Again!
Key provisions of Alabama's anti-immigration law were put on hold Friday by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
A very similar Georgia law is also before the 11th Circuit.
As many of you know, this is an issue about which I have strong feelings, and as a result have been very closely involved with the legal challenge here.
The injunction in Alabama is significant because, earlier, a federal judge in Birmingham had allowed most of that state's repressive new law to remain intact. In Georgia, a different federal judge had very different every key provision.
Alabama's law, considered the strictest in the nation, is abhorrent.
This is more than a matter of disagreement between two judges in two states. Major constitutional issues have been raised which must be reconciled and which, in my opinion, strike at the very heart of America.
Similar challenges are taking place in Arizona, Indiana and South Carolina, and are being taken up by other Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Without a doubt -- and as I have written previously -- this is a matter, ultimately, that only will be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.
A very similar Georgia law is also before the 11th Circuit.
As many of you know, this is an issue about which I have strong feelings, and as a result have been very closely involved with the legal challenge here.
The injunction in Alabama is significant because, earlier, a federal judge in Birmingham had allowed most of that state's repressive new law to remain intact. In Georgia, a different federal judge had very different every key provision.
Alabama's law, considered the strictest in the nation, is abhorrent.
This is more than a matter of disagreement between two judges in two states. Major constitutional issues have been raised which must be reconciled and which, in my opinion, strike at the very heart of America.
Similar challenges are taking place in Arizona, Indiana and South Carolina, and are being taken up by other Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Without a doubt -- and as I have written previously -- this is a matter, ultimately, that only will be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The execution of Troy Davis
"I am deeply saddened and deeply disappointed by this decision, but in light of all I have seen through the years, it does not surprise me."
-- U.S. Congressman John Lewis
According to a report from CNN today, the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia last night has sparked worldwide protest and made him the focal point for "a global movement to end the death penalty."
I predict, a hundred years from now, our great grandchildren will ridicule capital punishment much as we now ridicule the drowning of witches in Old Salem.
Ask yourself:
Are folks in Georgia one whit safer today than yesterday?
Troy Davis wasn't getting out of prison. Ever.
He wouldn't have been pardoned and he couldn't have escaped. Nobody even argued that could happen.
What, then, was the purpose of taking his life?
It's not to save money. The cost of warehousing a prisoner for life is significantly less than the cost of appeals that are mandatory in death penalty cases.
So, if safety and economics aren't reasons, what is?
Revenge.
The execution was simple blood lust -- with a significant component of arrogance and exhibition of power.
We can do it, and, by God, we're going to do it.
In 1984, after resigning as a Superior Court judge but before leaving the bench, I officially commuted all three death sentences imposed during my term. It was a very personal decision -- as controversial now as it was then -- and not something for which credit is sought or due. Since then, however, my name often has been associated with the issue of capital punishment.
In point of fact, this subject weighed on my mind long before I became a judge -- as I suspect it does on the minds of many people who never wear a black robe and are never called upon to hand down such a sentence personally.
But make no mistake.
For what was allowed to be done last night in the name of the People of Georgia, all of us share responsibility.
Like John Lewis, I am not surprised -- but I am profoundly disgusted.
-- U.S. Congressman John Lewis
According to a report from CNN today, the execution of Troy Davis in Georgia last night has sparked worldwide protest and made him the focal point for "a global movement to end the death penalty."
I predict, a hundred years from now, our great grandchildren will ridicule capital punishment much as we now ridicule the drowning of witches in Old Salem.
Ask yourself:
Are folks in Georgia one whit safer today than yesterday?
Troy Davis wasn't getting out of prison. Ever.
He wouldn't have been pardoned and he couldn't have escaped. Nobody even argued that could happen.
What, then, was the purpose of taking his life?
It's not to save money. The cost of warehousing a prisoner for life is significantly less than the cost of appeals that are mandatory in death penalty cases.
So, if safety and economics aren't reasons, what is?
Revenge.
The execution was simple blood lust -- with a significant component of arrogance and exhibition of power.
We can do it, and, by God, we're going to do it.
In 1984, after resigning as a Superior Court judge but before leaving the bench, I officially commuted all three death sentences imposed during my term. It was a very personal decision -- as controversial now as it was then -- and not something for which credit is sought or due. Since then, however, my name often has been associated with the issue of capital punishment.
In point of fact, this subject weighed on my mind long before I became a judge -- as I suspect it does on the minds of many people who never wear a black robe and are never called upon to hand down such a sentence personally.
But make no mistake.
For what was allowed to be done last night in the name of the People of Georgia, all of us share responsibility.
Like John Lewis, I am not surprised -- but I am profoundly disgusted.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Hanna settlement hits Daily Report
We made the front page of The Daily Report this week in a very interesting article about our lawsuit against the Fred Hanna law firm.
Hanna, who runs one of the largest collection firms in the country, tried to collect a debt from our brain-injured client who had been adjudicated incompetent. I read with interest that he continues to claim it was a "valid debt" and that he paid us $120,000 because he "just wanted the matter to be over and done with."
Debt collecting must be very, very lucrative.
As I said in the article, "To pursue the collection of money from an incompetent person to me is unconscionable. We filed suit against the law firm frankly to try to get them to realize they need to clean up their own act and stop doing this to incompetent person and to get the word out to the brain injured community that they don't have to put up with this."
The article mentions that I posted a picture of a Bank of America cashier's check for $120,000 signed by Hanna on this blog, with the caption, "For once, it was the debt collector who had to pay up!"
To that, Hanna (quite dashing in his Daily Report photo) was quoted as replying, "I don't know whether Keegan Federal is trying to advertise and toot his own horn."
Well, let me just clear that up:
First, my partner Keith S. Hasson deserves the credit for negotiating this justifiably large settlement. But, sure. It was a six-figure check signed by Fred Hanna himself. If that doesn't justify at least a few toots on the horn, I don't know what does.
And, second -- to the extent that I'm extremely interested in knowing if other people in our client's situation are being treated the same way by the Hanna firm -- yes, I'm advertising. Anyone with information on the subject is welcome to call or e-mail me at any time!
"Case against debt collector nets $120K"
Hanna, who runs one of the largest collection firms in the country, tried to collect a debt from our brain-injured client who had been adjudicated incompetent. I read with interest that he continues to claim it was a "valid debt" and that he paid us $120,000 because he "just wanted the matter to be over and done with."
Debt collecting must be very, very lucrative.
 | |
| If the print is too small to read, click on the page above and view a larger image. |
To that, Hanna (quite dashing in his Daily Report photo) was quoted as replying, "I don't know whether Keegan Federal is trying to advertise and toot his own horn."
Well, let me just clear that up:
First, my partner Keith S. Hasson deserves the credit for negotiating this justifiably large settlement. But, sure. It was a six-figure check signed by Fred Hanna himself. If that doesn't justify at least a few toots on the horn, I don't know what does.
And, second -- to the extent that I'm extremely interested in knowing if other people in our client's situation are being treated the same way by the Hanna firm -- yes, I'm advertising. Anyone with information on the subject is welcome to call or e-mail me at any time!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
No settlement, no surprise...
In the motion picture Casablanca, police captain Renault expresses dismay when gambling is discovered at Rick's Cafe.
"I'm shocked!" he cries.
A croupier then hands Renault his own winnings.
It is with equal conviction that I quote Renault in response to this headline in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and tell you, "I'm shocked!"
Actually, there's not even much doubt. I can safely predict that a proposed settlement between former UGA coach Jim Donnan and GLC Limited -- both implicated in an apparent Ponzi scheme -- is dead and will not be approved.
A couple of weeks ago in this column, I took issue with a misleading article -- published as fact in literally thousands of newspapers, television reports and blogs -- that Donnan and GLC had "settled" the matter.
Nothing whatsoever in the case had been settled, since Donnan's assets are frozen and this proposed agreement had not even come before a bankruptcy judge for approval. That didn't happen until yesterday, and here's what the Associated Press wrote:
Here's the brief we filed with bankruptcy attorney William L. Rothschild on behalf of Mrs. Fennell. In his remarks from the bench yesterday in Macon, Judge Smith agreed on every point.
Fennell 2nd Response
Macon may not be Casablanca, and I may not actually be shocked by the developments yesterday.
What is shocking, however, is how much misinformation is making its way into the legitimate media these days without question or scrutiny.
"I'm shocked!" he cries.
A croupier then hands Renault his own winnings.
It is with equal conviction that I quote Renault in response to this headline in today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and tell you, "I'm shocked!"
Ex-UGA coach's settlement with firm in doubt
Actually, there's not even much doubt. I can safely predict that a proposed settlement between former UGA coach Jim Donnan and GLC Limited -- both implicated in an apparent Ponzi scheme -- is dead and will not be approved.
A couple of weeks ago in this column, I took issue with a misleading article -- published as fact in literally thousands of newspapers, television reports and blogs -- that Donnan and GLC had "settled" the matter.
Nothing whatsoever in the case had been settled, since Donnan's assets are frozen and this proposed agreement had not even come before a bankruptcy judge for approval. That didn't happen until yesterday, and here's what the Associated Press wrote:
"A judge raised concerns Monday about a proposed deal by former University of Georgia football coach Jim Donnan to settle claims by the new operators of a bankrupt company that he improperly profited from a Ponzi scheme involving the firm.The settlement proposed by Donnan and GLC, if approved, would leave most of the victims of the alleged Ponzi scheme out in the cold. Those victims include my client, Valerie Fennell, widow of the late Dr. Stephen Fennell, who invested $450,000 and lost all but $25,000.
"U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Smith said he was unlikely to approve the $5.5 million settlement Donnan brokered with West Virginia-based liquidation company GLC Ltd. because he said it gave short-shrift to other parties who filed claims against the ex-coach."
Here's the brief we filed with bankruptcy attorney William L. Rothschild on behalf of Mrs. Fennell. In his remarks from the bench yesterday in Macon, Judge Smith agreed on every point.
Macon may not be Casablanca, and I may not actually be shocked by the developments yesterday.
What is shocking, however, is how much misinformation is making its way into the legitimate media these days without question or scrutiny.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
NOTHING is "settled" yet
in the case of Jim Donnan...
This was the first paragraph of an Associated Press article published in newspapers across the country last week:
Unfortunately -- and not just for him -- they're only getting started.
Valerie Fennell, who I represent, is not ok with that.
Even if the bankruptcy judge in Macon does approve the proposed agreement between the Donnans and GCL's Unsecured Creditors Committee on Aug. 29, that does not bar creditors in Georgia from pursuing their own claims.
Mrs. Fennell and other investors who, like her late husband, trusted "The Coach" and handed over large amounts of money to him, can go after any and all assets that are exempt from the "settlement" agreement.
"A former University of Georgia head football coach has settled a legal dispute with a bankrupt liquidation company that accused him of recruiting other high-profile coaches to invest in a Ponzi scheme, according to federal court documents filed this week.It sure sounds like Donnan has done the right thing and his troubles are now all behind him, doesn't it?
Unfortunately -- and not just for him -- they're only getting started.
Nothing has been "settled."
I repeat:
Nothing.
Contrary to reports in virtually every media outlet, there has been absolutely no “settlement” and no “compromise” for what has been described as $5.5 million.
What there has been is a proposed settlement which, if approved, would leave most of the victims in this apparent Ponzi scheme -- like my client, the widow of a doctor who invested $450,000 with Donnan -- out in the cold.
At the same time, Donnan and his wife, Mary, would retain their house in Athens and many other valuable assets. They've declared bankruptcy in Georgia and their assets are currently frozen.
All that's happened -- so far -- is that high-priced lawyers for the Donnans (whose large retainers are being challenged by creditors and may well have been paid with ill-gotten gains) reached an agreement in GLC Limited's bankruptcy case in Ohio.
In court documents and testimony, Donnan and GCL have accused one another of masterminding the Ponzi scheme which defrauded supposed investors of an estimated $27,752,159 -- and perhaps more. Further discovery is required , but it could turn out they were partners who acted in concert. Now, all is forgiven, and they want to hold hands and be friends again.
If the settlement proposed by Donnan is approved, individual Georgia investors are likely to receive no more than 10 to 20 percent of the proceeds.
Fortunately, Mrs. Fennell and other creditors will have an opportunity to comment on that.
For there to be any "settlement" with GCL and its Unsecured Creditors Committe, a bankruptcy judge in Georgia will have to approve the terms of the agreement. A hearing on that matter will take place in Macon on Monday, Aug. 29.
Needless to say, I have very grave doubts about the wisdom of this or any settlement at this very early stage in the bankruptcy case -- before we even know the full scope of the assets and liabilities of Jim and Mary Donnan.
For all we know, the former coach has a Swiss Bank Account. (I'm certainly not saying he does, mind you. I'm saying we don't know. We need time to investigate before anybody settles anything.)
Those hundreds of published reports that the Donnnan case has been "settled" overlook one other very important fact.
Those hundreds of published reports that the Donnnan case has been "settled" overlook one other very important fact.
Even if the bankruptcy judge in Macon does approve the proposed agreement between the Donnans and GCL's Unsecured Creditors Committee on Aug. 29, that does not bar creditors in Georgia from pursuing their own claims.
Mrs. Fennell and other investors who, like her late husband, trusted "The Coach" and handed over large amounts of money to him, can go after any and all assets that are exempt from the "settlement" agreement.
Interestingly, court papers filed in support of the settlement by the Donnans themselves list substantial assets would remain in their possession -- and be available to satisfy the claims of individual investors.
We will see Mr. and Mrs. Donnan in Macon on Aug. 29.
We will see Mr. and Mrs. Donnan in Macon on Aug. 29.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Coach Jim Donnan: A very sad case
I was involved in an interesting court hearing in Athens this week -- unfortunately, involving one of my oldest and closest friends, Dr. Steve Fennell, who died in May from leukemia.
Steve was a fraternity brother of mine at Loyola University, where I came to know both him and his future wife Valerie, who settled in Athens.
Hoping to save his life with a costly bone marrow transplant, Steve entrusted $450,000 to a man he thought was his friend, Jim Donnan, the former head football coach at UGA. Frankly, I am reluctant to use the word "investment," although clearly that's what Steve thought it was.
We are still in the very early stages of the case, and nothing is certain yet. However, on Monday, I cross examined Coach Donnan about his connections to the GLC Company, which may prove to have been a Ponzi scheme. That's what many others are already calling it.
We've ordered a transcript of his testimony and will post it when we get it.
Except for ESPN, very little media was at Donnan's bankruptcy hearing on Monday, but Joyce Oscar did this report profiling Steve and Valerie for Southern Free Press, an online newspaper.
Steve was a fraternity brother of mine at Loyola University, where I came to know both him and his future wife Valerie, who settled in Athens.
Hoping to save his life with a costly bone marrow transplant, Steve entrusted $450,000 to a man he thought was his friend, Jim Donnan, the former head football coach at UGA. Frankly, I am reluctant to use the word "investment," although clearly that's what Steve thought it was.
We are still in the very early stages of the case, and nothing is certain yet. However, on Monday, I cross examined Coach Donnan about his connections to the GLC Company, which may prove to have been a Ponzi scheme. That's what many others are already calling it.
We've ordered a transcript of his testimony and will post it when we get it.
Except for ESPN, very little media was at Donnan's bankruptcy hearing on Monday, but Joyce Oscar did this report profiling Steve and Valerie for Southern Free Press, an online newspaper.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Worth noting...
A new law goes into effect today, requiring anyone under age 8 to use a booster seat in the car.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)