McDonoughDawg made a good point that if the Peachtree National Bank had a legitimate claim on the tennis center they most certainly would have used that option.

Here is something else to think about, the bank was willing to sacrifice 580,000 investor deposited dollars just to get a Logsdon "deal" worked out. Why would they do that? The answer is they would not have stood a chance in court and they knew it. Their claims were not based upon the law.

This has been pointed out here before that the bank had no legal claim on the tennis center, nor the amphitheater. You need to credit free speech for that one Mr. Brown.
If one puts up collateral for a loan then the loaner doesn't need to sue to get his money. Banks take homes, cars, etc., every day without a law suit!!!! Since the land belonged to us, the city, and council didn't sign a lean on such land---impossible.
The Peachtree National Bank knew all that, and let's not blame just the Peachtree officer who made the loan, the whole board knew it--it was over a million dollars for goodness sake.
These type of deals between business men, and women these days, is a matter of course.
The hotel tax money was pledged by the authority, not the council, and it appeared to the officers and board of the bank that it was a good way to get some of that hotel tax. Who were the board members of the Peachtree National Bank then? Who owned much stock in the bank? How many?
Surely it must have appeared to the approving bank officers and board that such a venture as a tennis center with the pros making all the money, could't support itself, much less such a loan.
I, myself, once many, many years ago asked a bank for $20,000 to start a small business, with the inventory as collateral, along with my personal signature. I had a good credit rating, but was a corporation, as was the tennis center. I didn't get the loan--I knew no one however and didn't have very deep pockets, in their bank.
It is all so plainly a coverup it is really pitiful. I think the mayor said that if he could see it and feel it then he would pay for it. That immediately brings up a ton of questions but this gets too long. To recall, about 10-20% signatures are needed.

This might answer some of your questions.

Resignation rocks PTC Auth.

Vice-chairman 'stunned' over bad cash flow info, undisclosed Adidas obligation

Would you rather plumbers wrote laws? I understand they charge a lot too. (My plumber used to be a lawyer.)

Why is it that almost all lawyers and "lawmakers" are perceived as money grubbing, power hungry, self centered slime that would sell their mothers and only worships the all mighty dollar?

Could it be they are?

I can't think of another profession, other than maybe "developer", that has that same preconceived stench attached to it.

Lawyers will never get an even break with the public. The reason is that they are often called upon when someone has made a mess of a situation. The client wants the lawyer to make the problem (which they could have avoided if they sought the advice of a lawyer beforehand) go away and they will, as a matter of course, whine about the cost of cleaning up their mess. As much as people hated Johnny Cochrane and despise Bruce Harvey, if they found themselves accused of a crime and they had the money, they'd pony up without blinking an eye. And if they were acquitted of the crime they wouldn't apologize for having hired the best lawyer they could afford (but they'd probably try to welch on their attorney's fees).

The other reason people resent lawyers is because lawyers know the rules of the game. I mean, let's be honest; if you know the rules of the game (especially the loopholes in the rules), then you know how to win -- or at least, how to keep someone else from scoring higher than you. Lawyers identify legal loopholes for their clients to slip through. That never makes the person who has been outwitted feel good.

People resent lawyers for the kind of money they make and, while some lawyers make an obscene amount of money, given the number of lawyers there are, today, the pie is being divided in smaller and smaller pieces. So, the practice isn't the gold mine it used to be. Many lawyers (especially the ones who graduated with heavy student loan debt) are struggling to own a home and raise a few kids. Also, because lawyers don't produce a tangible thing, people have a hard time seeing the value of what they do. A plumber fixes pipes that you can touch and see. A lawyer's stock in trade is his time and his knowledge. The public never sees that as valuable (especially when they are fending off a self-inflicted lawsuit). Try to keep that in mind before approaching a lawyer at a cocktail party with the handy phrase, "I have this case I'd like to ask you about . . . ."

Oh and a dirty little secret about legislation today is that the lawyers who write the laws are often not the actual lawmakers. These days, lobbyists have their lawyers draft the laws (which, coincidentally, favors the industry for whom the lobbyist works) that lawmakers don't bother to read and, in exchange for a campaign contribution or a contribution to The Party, the lawmaker quarterbacks the legislation into law. That's right; the taxpayer has no legitimate representation in that process. If the taxpayers want better lawyers than the lobbyists have, the taxpayers will have to pay a competitive salary AND pack the polls at election time. Otherwise, you got what you paid for so, kwitcher beefin'.

Finally, I'm glad you said it's a profession that has a "preconceived stench" attached to it. It's easy to see lawyers as "money grubbing, power hungry, self centered slime that would sell their mothers and only worship the all mighty dollar." Which ones get all the media attention? The ones who are money-grubbing, power-hungry, self-centered slime that would sell their mothers and only worship the almighty dollar. I submit to you that the percentage of lawyers that gets any attention is maybe 10% of the total lawyer population. The rest are regular people trying to advocate for their clients and trying to encourage their clients to do the right thing. Try not to paint them all with the same broad brush.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

GO GIRL !!!!!

Oh and a dirty little secret about legislation today is that the lawyers who write the laws are often not the actual lawmakers. These days, lobbyists have their lawyers draft the laws (which, coincidentally, favors the industry for whom the lobbyist works) that lawmakers don't bother to read and, in exchange for a campaign contribution or a contribution to The Party, the lawmaker quarterbacks the legislation into law. That's right; the taxpayer has no legitimate representation in that process. If the taxpayers want better lawyers than the lobbyists have, the taxpayers will have to pay a competitive salary AND pack the polls at election time. Otherwise, you got what you paid for so, kwitcher beefin'.

You are soooo "right on the money" my dear litigator blogger. There is nothing more to add there other than to reinforce that lawmakers don't bother to read the very laws they pass. It would be nearly impossible to understand the text and intent of the massive amounts of laws being run through on a daily basis. The solution for them? Vote the party line.

I would say that 70% of the lawyers out there give your profession the much deserved reputation it has and it has nothing to do with incomes. I wouldn't trade my income for that of probably 95% of your peers. As for me.... I love my two lawyers and they are indeed an evil necessity in my biz. I am truly grateful for the jobs they do for me. So nope....I won't paint with a broad brush as 70% of one will Hi-Lite the bad ones.

You are, if nothing else, persistent (in a good-natured way). I'm not a litigator. I DO, however, have a government lawyer in the family. So, I hear all about the ugly under-belly of life as a civil servant (the crappy pay, the long hours, the ingrate politicians, the even-less appreciative constituents). They can't possibly rip off the public but they get the ugly criticism, all the same.

As for lawmakers making laws, you're right about the party line (or, more accurately, the donor party line) being the primary impetus for recently-enacted laws. And the thing that should really keep you up at night is the way referenda are presented. Think about it . . . there's a "summary" of the proposed law on the ballot. You, the voting public, never get a chance to read the actual bill before it becomes law (don't worry, your elected representatives won't read it, either). So, you have no way to know what kind of loopholes the lobbyists' attorneys build into it until they use those loopholes to stick it to the taxpaying public. Doesn't that give you the warm, kitty fuzzies?

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

SWMBO Said:

(don't worry, your elected representatives won't read it, either)

Right on. Take our congressman for an example. With his 3rd grade edumacation do you really think he has the congnitive skills to decipher and comprehend the complex details of the mountains of text that supposedly runs across his desk on a daily basis? Heck he has little 20 something wet-behind-the-ears weasels summarize his agenda for him. Remember the one that threatened to sue Cal because of a blog made by a poster? Priceless. Not to get off subject but he even had some Atlanta lawyer threaten Cal in writing and and Cal slapped it online. How funny was that. Oops...I digress. But the point is that Lynn wasn't even bright enough to ignore it. Kind of like he's not bright enough to remember where he placed his checkbook when his invoices are way past due in his business. Yuck, yuck, yuck. But again dittos to you on slamming that nail right on the head.

Oh....back to the other point. Come on...we know you're really a lawyer. I understand your aprehension is admitting such. Pedophiles never admit to being pedophiles and it is known that most lawyers are hesitant to admit that they are lawyers.

It's kind of like you're at a Christmas Party you see. Some one comes up to you and says: "Hey Frank! What do you do for a living?" How do you think he feels when he grumbles out that he's a sanitation engineer. Same thing with a lawyer. Example: "Hey Susan! What is your profession?" The timid reply is: cough, cough... "I'm an attorney".

Plus only an attorney would fight and bleed for a liberal Georgia Supreme Court Judge like you did.

Keep up the good postings! Love you man!

Talk like that could get you drummed out of the He-Man Lawyer Haters' Club. LOL!

It's okay, though. My denials are a viable defense -- even if you get a liberal judge.

Much love back at 'ya!

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

The world in which I make a living is very much concerned in what the public "perceives".

Our standard of conduct requires us to operate within the boundaries of what the "public perceives" us doing.

Not necessarily what we really do.

I have found that there is a widening gap in what the law is allowing and what the public "perceives" as in their best interest.

Please be assured that I don't dislike all lawyers. We employ several in my company and I even have 2.5 in my immediate family. (One is still in school)

The basic problem I have with the current state of the law is that the axiom of "he who has the most money wins" or "he who blinks first loses", seems to be the rule.

The hard working stiff that is wrongfully accused has little chance of justice as the law is stacked against him/her by only economics.

What people seem to lose sight of is the fact that, "law isn't fair", just absolute.

The average "David" cannot afford to take on the Goliaths of the world in court. If he's lucky, Dave may be able to afford the best in town for a short while but Goliath will simply drag things out long enough to economically strangle Dave into going away. It isn't fair but it also means that the Davids of the world aren't likely to bring the cases that end up being the poster-children for tort reform.

And if you think justice is hard-won for the average working stiff now, just wait. Fulton County has started a "business court" pilot project reserved only for business cases. No one has yet disclosed what the measuring stick will be for determining what cases go to "business court". And, if litigants are entitled to a jury of their peers, how do you define "peers" in business court? What if the case involves a small business? Do they get a different court or do they get shoved in with the regular people? What if the case involves a consumer and a business? Does it go to business court where the business gets a jury of its peers or to "regular" court where the business will complain that it cannot get a jury "sophisticated" enough in business? Where will the Davids of the world stand in that environment and how will they afford legal representation?

2.5 lawyers in the family, huh? That's too bad. I have one, too. Thank God for golf.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.