Shelby County – Under The Big Top – Judicial System Has Major Problems –

Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

One does not need to go anywhere else to see the level of hypocrisy, malfeasance, and outright ignoring of laws than those exposing themselves in the Shelby County Courthouse.

A current court filing by county resident Chris Boehm regarding the potential sale of the farm has now exposed shocking positions in the court.  Regardless of what a person believes relating to the sale of the farm, they should be concerned by what is happening in our judicial system.

Counsel for Boehm argued that outside of being appointed by the court, only the State’s Attorney can represent the county chairman.  We note that the attorney’s law partner, Ed Flynn, was sitting next to him.  When the issue of Ed Flynn not being appointed by the courts to represent the county in a prior case in Shelby County was raised, Boehm’s counsel claimed Ed Flynn was hired with board and court approval in that prior matter.  If the board hired him, they are admitting in their very own argument that they have no authority to do that with public funds, which is what we said years ago.

We contend false information was provided to the court.  Ed Flynn’s prior representation, according to the affidavit he drafted for former State’s Attorney Gina Vonderheide and filed in the courts, indicates it was the SA who hired him, not the board.  That affidavit directly conflicts with County Board minutes where former board member Barbara Bennett motioned to hire Ed Flynn, which was approved according to the minutes.

As far as the claim the court approved of Flynn’s prior representation of the county board, it never happened. Flynn’s own prior court filings and county board records make zero reference to any court approving his hiring. We challenge them to produce any evidence that the court approved his hiring and not after-the-fact approval through the use of conflicting records.

There was never any court approval or appointment by the court for Ed Flyn to be hired in the prior matter. That was the point being made in that prior case and not once did he claim his hiring was approved by the court.  Thus, both claims presented to the court last week in the Boehm case as arguments to block the County Chairman’s private attorney from representing him can’t be true based on actual court records. Ed Flynn sat silent when those false representations were made.  When Flynn did speak to the matter, he failed to tell the court about his hiring to handle other legal matters besides labor negotiations as is proven in his own billing which can be found at this link.

It should concern everyone the very law firm that sued the county and treasurer to be paid by the taxpayers for his private legal services when he was never appointed by the court is now arguing a private attorney, just as he was, can’t be hired privately with private funds and must be appointed by the courts.

Every piece of case law we have read has confirmed a county official who hires counsel on their own is on the hook for that expense, and public funds cannot be used for it.  Not once have the courts indicated those officials are not allowed to hire their own private counsel and pay for it themselves.

The double standard being used in the Fourth Circuit Court should concern every one of you, regardless of what side of the political aisle you are on.

Making matters worse, if that is even possible, are the actions of the current State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery.  While she confessed to everything filed against the county, which includes private counsel can’t be hired by the chairman, she failed to disclose the fact she told Chairman Orman he was free to hire private counsel.   Please, don’t take our word for it. Read it for yourself at this link.

“You are free to do that, however, I have already filed a motion requesting the Court to appoint you and the board separate counsel. Up to you how you’d like to proceed.” (emphasis added)

So, if the court ruling forbidding the hiring of private counsel is the rule for Bobby Orman as Chairman in the Boehm case, why did that standard not apply to Ed Flynn who was hired by the county board according to the county board minutes, which can be downloaded at this link? Why did this standard not apply to now Judge Miller, formerly Jasper County State’s attorney who also hired private counsel as exposed in this article?

Orman hired his own private counsel with his own funds when he was subpoenaed for draft audits and neither Woolery nor the Court had any issue with that private legal representation even after Orman requested counsel and Woolery ignored her obligation for such an appointment.  Her failure may well be a valid ARDC complaint.

Mark Bennett and the Treasurer each hired private counsel with their own funds when Ed Flynn sued the county, and not once did Flynn or the courts say those officials can’t have the counsel they hired. Bennett in his personal capacity and the Treasurer in her official capacity.

If this ruling, that an official can’t hire their own counsel and pay for it themselves is actually accurate, where is the accountability to the current Shelby County State’s Attorney Ruth Woolery who advised her client that he was free to do this very thing, hire his own counsel?

Had the Appellate court properly addressed the hiring of private counsel in the prior Ed Flynn case and the attorney that was appointed initially for the treasurer done his job properly, none of this would have been taking place before our eyes. We believe the court knew what took place was wrong because some of those judges were former State’s Attorneys and allowed private counsel to be hired in their counties.  They issued a Rule 23 ruling to prevent the failures from becoming case law that would have been overturned at the Supreme Court and exposed how broken the system is.

Stay tuned for exposure of other clear violations of law that took place in the courtroom last week which need to be exposed.  The only reason we are holding off on those matters is to see if the State’s Attorney does the right thing or not during the next hearing. Either way, someone will have a lot of explaining to do.