Gerald Weber (Photo: John Disney/ALM)

Twin lawsuits filed in federal court in Atlanta say the city of Statham in Barrow County illegally targeted city critics by jailing two of them for criminally trespassing on public property and banning another from council meetings for life.

The plaintiffs “have done what citizens do: They've attended meetings, they've wanted to speak at those meetings, they've made public record requests,” said constitutional law specialist Gerald Weber, who filed the complaints with Zack Greenamyre of Mitchell & Shapiro.    

“Now the city has taken this action and entered what is essentially a ban against them on all city property. They can't attend city meetings; they can't go to meetings in parks; they can't engage in any activity on public property,” Weber said.

“There was no due process associated with these bans, which raise a lot of First Amendment issues,” he said.

Statham Mayor Robert Bridges and Thomas Mitchell, the city attorney, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Weber said it is his understanding that Gray Rust St. Amand Moffett & Brieske partner Harvey Gray would be handling the litigation; Gray did not immediately respond to a query.

According to one of the complaints filed Monday, plaintiffs Sondra Moore and Tony McDaniel had accompanied Bridges and other officials and citizens on a walk along a stretch of the city sewer system earlier this year in preparation for an upcoming meeting of the public works committee.

The mayor told the pair that “they could return any time,” and afterward they did so, returning to a local park later that day.

While they were there, a Statham police officer approached and told them they had to leave the area, which they “promptly” did, the complaint said.

Afterward, Statham Police Chief Allan Johnston swore out warrants for criminal trespass, and the pair were arrested and jailed.  Bridges and Mitchell issued each a “Notice of Prohibited Entry” barring them from all city property “indefinitely.”

Moore bonded out of jail later on the day of her arrest, but McDaniel was arrested in Clayton County and spent four days in jail before he could be transferred to Barrow County and make bond, a brief attached to the complaint said.

Moore, who had begun video recording council meetings in January, subsequently attempted to attend a council meeting and was again arrested, the filings said.  

The complaint names the city, Johnston and Mitchell, a partner at Buford's Carothers & Mitchell, as defendants, and includes constitutional claims for unlawful seizure and free speech violations, negligence and violation of Georgia's Open Meetings Act.

The other complaint was filed against Statham by Catherine Corkren, also described as an “active participant” in municipal affairs who has “criticized the city of Statham and its officials frequently, primarily but not exclusively through social media.”

Corkren has also sued the city for violating the Open Records Act in litigation that remains pending, her complaint said.

The complaint noted that Corkren's since-deceased partner, Kelly Pickens, had sued the city, Johnston and a former city police officer last year claiming false arrest, retaliation and malicious prosecution after she was among several dozen people arrested for driving under the influence of prescription medication.

That litigation is pending.

Corkren's suit said she had previously been subjected to criticism by city officials, including one instance when a councilman “claimed that she was mentally ill because she initiated open records litigation involving Statham.”

At a Sept. 13 council meeting, during which city officials acknowledged that Corkren's conduct “had not risen 'to the level of criminal activity,'” the council nonetheless voted to ban her “from all city property for life.”

Corkren has not attended any more Statham meetings “because she reasonably believes and fears she will be arrested and prosecuted should she do so,” the complaint said.

It too levels claims for violations of federal and state constitutional guarantees of free speech and of the Open Meetings Act.

The complaints seek declaratory relief and an injunction against the bans, along with attorney fees and civil penalties authorized under the Open Meetings Act.  

Weber said the law is clearly on his clients' side.  

“I've resolved similar issues without litigation before,” he said. “The attorney general's office has said these kind of bans are not permitted; the Eleventh Circuit has said they're not permitted.”