Mr. Willie Green adds Comments to Rev. Murphy’s Message: 7:34AM 5/2/2020
Councilman Webber and Councilman Hopper,
To follow-up on Rev. Murphy’s email. Please take the time to read the attached Appellate Brief of Rick Howell’s defense. As to why he made the stereotypical defamatory and damaging comments about an African-American businessman that resulted in the City Council voting to deny me the opportunity to make a public proposal for a partnership with the City.
In his Appeals Court filing, Mr. Howell is clearly misrepresenting the truth about the City not interested in a public-private-partnership with my company to build a sports facility in Shelby, and even more damaging he is now claiming that he was only joking – by using “rhetorical hyperbole” – when Mr. Howell told the Council Members that Willie Green “does not have the money or financial backing to build the sports complex…” and he also accused me of attempting to engage in a criminal act.
Rick Howell has proven himself not to be the type of City Manager we need to grow this community moving forward by welcoming minority businesses. But don’t just rely on my word, read the 2017 City of Shelby Economic Development Strategic Plan where the report identifies two of the biggest “threats” to the City is “Not having effective leadership in place to encourage and “capture” growth opportunities and the “lack of diversity.” We have all heard the phrase in the black and white community “if it’s not Rick’s idea, it’s not a good idea.” Is this the type of community we want to continue to live in where one mans’ decision is the bible?
It is time for our black elected officials to step up and show the type of leadership the minority community is looking for so that we will have the same opportunity to do business in the City of Shelby as others. You can start by removing Rick Howell as City Manager.
I look forward to the opportunity to speak with you and others on ways we can resolve all matters and offer my suggestions on how to improve the relationship between our local government and the minority community.
Willie A. Green, Sr.
Robert A. Williams adds the following comments:
TO: Rev. Charles Webber, Andrew Hopper, Violet Dukes, David Causby, David White, Eric Hendrick, Mayor Stan Anthony, City Manager Rick Howell and others
Rev. Dante Murphy and Mr. Willie Green speak from the perspective of being a black person to other members of the black community who are elected leaders of the City of Shelby. I am speaking out as a person who is concerned that the leadership of the City of Shelby, all of you, are not acting in good faith and in a responsible manner. I do not live and vote in the City of Shelby, but I live in Cleveland County and vote and pay taxes in Cleveland County and the City of Shelby has partnered with Cleveland County in many ways, including the Shelby natural gas and sewer lines that run in front of my house that I pay for but have chosen not to hook up to because of costs that are not competitive as well as me not having any say in the manner in which they are operated and maintained.
That being said, I agree on all the principal arguments that Rev. Murphy and Mr. Willie Green have pointed out to Rev. Webber and Mr. Hopper as well as to the rest of you. I believe each of you, in one way or another will be sued in your individual capacity before all of this is over with. Also, I cannot understand for a minute how Rev. Webber and Mr. Hopper, who were not on the City Council at the beginning of these issues have allowed themselves to be trapped into the possibility of losing their house, property and personal savings by not speaking out in these matters. I can only believe that Rev. Murphy, in his direct manner and pointed words, has accurately described Webber and Hopper’s actions. Or inactions as it may be.
To the point of City Manager Rick Howell’s Appellate Brief. As I previously noted that I attended the Motion Hearing that is the basis for Howell’s appeal as well as have read Howell’s Brief very closely, I have made and include my appraisal notes of the brief as related to the actual truth of the matter. Note that the Brief, in total, contains about 35 pages.
Note that the text of the brief itself is numbered at the bottom. Those page numbers are the ones I used in my comments below. The entire brief is also attached, so don’t believe a word I say until you read it for yourself.
Robert A. Williams
RAW Comments on Rick Howell’s Appellant’s Brief: (Remember that Rick Howell filed this appeal brief because Judge W. Todd Pomeroy was convinced that Rick Howell acted with malicious and corrupt intent as alleged in Mr. Willie Green’s lawsuit.)
Rick Howell Appeal–RAW Comments:
Page 1 Issues Presented
Paragraph 1. Understated. Rick Howell is a public official but his malicious intent and illegal actions were the reasons Judge Pomeroy ruled that his immunity did not apply-thus allowing him to be sued individually. No Error.
Paragraph 2. No error. Judge correctly ruled that Howell’s malicious intent and illegal actions were the reason motion to dismiss was denied and trial based on facts of the case could continue. Howell’s conclusion was not based on an investigation of the facts and Howell’s lack of even a cursory investigation of the facts shows his conclusion was knowingly false and contrived to defame Willie Green such that the city council would vote against doing business with Willie Green
Page 2. Statement of the case:
Second unnumbered paragraph. Judge correctly considered Rick Howell’s defamatory email correspondence to city council, which on its face, without investigation of its truth or falsity and actually false, which shows malicious intent and illegal acts.
Third unnumbered paragraph. Depends on what the law says are the allowed time frame of the appeals process.
Page 2, Statement of the Grounds for Appellate Review: Starts on page 2 and continues
Paragraph 1. Defendant Howell is attempting to try the facts of the case in the appeals court instead of before a jury. Perhaps Howell has right to appeal but no right to try the case in appeals court by muddying the legal waters such that his malicious intent and illegal actions are forgotten about amongst all the verbiage regarding immunity. Note defendants claim that judge’s ruling was immediately appealable, but defendant in actuality did NOT immediately appeal but defendant has taken every opportunity to delay, obfuscate and even violate court orders.
Later in this section Howell says “absolute immunity is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” In this matter the judge’s ruling to permit the case to continue was not erroneous. Malicious intent and illegal acts are apparent and so demands the case to go to trial to determine the facts of the case. A ruling by the Appellate Court to deny defendants appeal does not deny defendant of any of this rights and privileges if the trial court does not find defamed Willie Green. Also, having precedents that found other cases were erroneous, does not mean that this judge has made any erroneous ruling against defendant. Defendant’s appeal seems to have forgot that point in his appeal.
Page 5. Statement of Alleged Facts:
On page 6 it says Willie Green “is a self-described public figure.” Mr. Green has always described himself as the only “black businessman” in Shelby. There is a significant difference. Later in that paragraph Howell falsely states that Mr. Green approached the City of Shelby with a business proposal without the City ever having sought such a proposal. This is blatantly false and destroys the credibility of City Manager Rick Howell since the City of Shelby’s 10-year Masterplan approved (I believe) in 2008 called for exactly what Mr. Green was proposing. Willie Green has plenty of info on the details of the Master-Plan and how the timeline of events occurred-with documented proof. Most of this, perhaps all of this is false or misrepresented such that the meaning is false.
The email on page 8 appears to be an accurate depiction of what Rick Howell actually provided to the City of Shelby council, but the facts as stated by Howell in this email are false and the conclusion and recommendations are made with an obvious malicious intent and illegal acts. Previous statements by defendant in this Appeal Brief well describe the duties of the Shelby City Manager and lying to the council is NOT one of those duties or responsibilities. Neither is communicating false and unconfirmed information and opinions to the council.
Page 9 had some correct statements that Mr. Green had never had an audience with the City Council, but the fact is the City Council, apparently under Howells recommendations, never allowed Mr. Green to present them with anything. This was also the fact in a public meeting when Mr. Green had submitted a Re-Zoning Request to the city on an entirely different matter and the City Council refused to allow Mr. Green to answer questions from the public or even to speak one word.