Residents may voice their concerns for the extreme levels of racial division being used as a political tool to achieve unjust racial political ends by emailing Mayor Skip Henderson directly at SkipHenderson@columbusga.org, while cc’ing their respective city council members on the email.

COLUMBUS, Ga. — Police chief Freddie Blackmon has delivered a ‘counter offer’ to the City of Columbus regarding his severance package, threatening to sue the city for discrimination if they do not pay what he demands.

The ‘counter offer’ was prepared and delivered by the law firm Buckey, Bala, Wilson, & Mew, LLP, from Atlanta, at Blackmon’s behest.

On the very first page, the document’s specific wording makes an extortionary threat to pursue a frivolous discrimination lawsuit if Blackmon’s demands for a higher severance package are not met. The manner through which the firm chose to word that threat likely presents a crime in the state of Georgia.

Before we go into the detailed break-down of the document below, here’s a copy of Blackmon’s ‘counter offer’ for you to download, print, open in another tab, or otherwise use to follow along as we dissect the laughable nature of this thing:

‍

‍

LETTERS OF DEMAND

Technically, the ‘counter offer’ is not a proposal, but is instead what is legally referred to as a letter of demand.

A letter of demand is typically used to communicate that: (1 ) something is contractually owed by the recipient to the sender; (2) the recipient must make good on what is owed within a reasonable timeframe, and; (3) the sender will pursue legal remedies to obtain what is owed should the recipient fail to make good within the timeframe.

In short: letters of demand can be sent to imply proper legal action to obtain the contractually-owed thing in question: For example: If someone owes you $100 and they haven’t paid, you can send them a letter of demand stating that you intend to file a lawsuit in small claims court against them if they do not pay you within 30 days.

What a letter of demand cannot do, however, is establish a quid pro quo that threatens unrelated legal action if the contractually-owed item is not fulfilled. For example: you cannot raise the amount to $500 dollars and say you’ll accuse them of an unrelated crime if they do not pay you the new higher amount.

That’s also extortion, and it is a crime.

EXTORTIONARY THREATS MADE

As we’ve already covered in the Letters of Demand section above, you can’t make a quid pro quo threat to take unrelated legal action if your non-contractual terms are not met. 

Since Blackmon isn’t entitled to nor contractually owed anything at all, his threat of unrelated legal action being contingent upon a payment of his own invention is particularly laughable.

Nonetheless, Blackmon’s ‘counter offer’ plainly did just that, as shown in two places within the document:

Page 1, Paragraph 2, Line 7

Here’s the entire final sentence of the document’s second paragraph found on page 1:

“The purpose of this correspondence is to briefly set forth the facts and circumstances underlying Chief Blackmon’s claims and the terms under which he will agree to release them short of legal action.”

The section of this sentence that constitutes extortion is the clause that states: “and the terms under which he will agree to release them short of legal action.”

What that sentence does is establish a quid pro quo, as follows:

• Here are Blackmon’s claims of discrimination;
• Here are the self-invented monetary terms Blackmon demands;
• If you do not meet those monetary demands, then Blackmon will sue you for this unrelated thing.
• If you do meet those monetary demands, then Blackmon will no longer claim discrimination.

Page 3, Paragraph 4, Line 5

Those monetary demands are then again extorted under the threat of a self-evidently frivolous discrimination lawsuit, beginning in the final paragraph of page 3, which states:

“To that end, we are authorized to convey that Chief Blackmon will agree to release all of his claims against the city in exchange for the following.”

A bulleted list follows itemizing Blackmon’s erroneous demands for a severance he is not entitled to at all, all on the extortionary threat of a self-evidently frivolous lawsuit that he himself just said is contingent upon payment.

What. An. Idiot.

EXTORTION: GEORGIA LAW

Under Georgia state law, the act of extortion falls under the crime of theft by extortion: give me x, or else. 

According to Georgia Code § 16-8-16, there are six different ways that a person can extort. Blackmon’s letter likely meets not just one of those methods, but three of them. 

Method 1

First, a person commits the offense of theft by extortion when he unlawfully obtains property of or from another person by threatening to accuse anyone of a criminal offense. While Blackmon’s extortionary claim of discrimination would otherwise be considered a tort, the nature of Blackmon’s claims — as stated within his own letter — would almost certainly meet the federal definition of a crime under Title 18 U.S.C. §242. 

Since Blackmon’s claims do in fact allege the crime described in §242, Blackmon has in fact threatened to accuse our city and its elected officials of a crime if they do not meet his monetary demands. In doing so, Blackmon’s letter appears to fulfill the elements for an attempt of extortion under Georgia Code § 16-8-16 (a)(2).

Method 2

Second, a person commits the offense of theft by extortion when he unlawfully obtains property of or from another person by threatening to disseminate any information tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to impair his credit or business repute. Given that Blackmon’s letter was submitted by a practicing law firm to the Columbus Consolidated Government — which is bound by law to release such documents under the Georgia Open Records Act — it is therefore certain that Blackmon’s attorneys had full knowledge that their allegations would be made public and widespread. In fact, for the firm to make any claim to the contrary would be to deem themselves incompetent.

Since Blackmon’s attorneys did in fact have full knowledge that they were submitting a document to the public record in accordance with the Georgia Open Records Act, the firm — and Blackmon — knowingly disseminated information tending to subject our city’s elected officials to hatred, contempt, and ridicule, and also to impair their credit and business repute. By threatening to again perform the same actions in open court, contingent solely upon the city’s payment of Blackmon’s monetary demands, Blackmon’s letter again appears to fulfill the elements for an attempt of extortion under Georgia Code § 16-8-16 (a)(3).

Method 3

Third, a person commits the offense of theft by extortion when he unlawfully obtains property of or from another person by threatening to take or withhold action as a public official or cause an official to take or withhold action. Given that Blackmon’s threats are centered around quite literally forcing the city to pay him money under the contingent threat of a frivolous discrimination claim, Blackmon is quite plainly attempting to cause an official to take or withhold action. In fact, he is attempting to cause eleven officials to take or withhold action — unless they move to meet his monetary demands. By threatening these eleven officials to pay his monetary demands or face his self-evidently frivolous claims of discrimination, Blackmon’s letter again appears to fulfill the elements for eleven attempts of extortion — one for each elected official with the power to separately or jointly appoint or remove a city officer; the mayor and council — under Georgia Code § 16-8-16 (a)(4).

FRIVOLOUS EXPOSURE

The extortionary nature of Blackmon’s 'counter offer' also made it plain that Blackmon will only consider the city’s actions to be 'discrimination' if the city doesn’t pay up. If they do, he won’t consider them to be discriminatory. 

That’s not how it works, and stating that in writing undermines any shred of legitimacy Blackmon’s claim might have legally had. That’s gone now, since Blackmon just admitted — in writing — to it being contingent upon payment.

Blackmon cannot just selectively choose whether or not his own claim is valid based on the receipt of a monetary payment; you either believe it was discriminatory, or you don’t. 

The fulcrum of money being demonstrated in writing as Blackmon’s determining factor is laughable. It blatantly demonstrates frivolousness at the very heart of his claim. 

THEY ALSO HIRED YOU, TOO

On page one, paragraph three, Blackmon’s ‘counter-offer’ claims the following:

“At the time that Chief Blackmon was recommended to become the Chief of Police by you, Mayor Skip Henderson, he enjoyed the unanimous support of the City Council, including Judy Thomas, Bruce Huff, Walker Garrett, Glenn Davis, Gary Allen, Evelyn "Mimi" Woodson, Toyia Tucker, Charmaine Crabb, Jerry "Pops" Barnes, and John House.”

Though the document goes on through several illogical lines of leaping assumptions to erroneously arrive at the false conclusion that Blackmon is somehow being fired because of his race, Blackmon’s attorneys seem to have forgotten that the very same officials they are frivolously threatening to accuse of discrimination — through extortion —are ironically the same people they just recognized as having given Blackmon the job in the first place. 

The document also conveniently fails to mention that Blackmon is an appointed city officer who serves at the leisure of city council; he is not a regular employee within the city’s employee merit system.

The document also fails to mention that city council has the absolute right to vote to terminate any city officer they so choose through a supermajority of seven votes.

The document also fails to mention that three city councilors are also black — no less than one of which is likely also in favor of Blackmon’s termination.

The city manager is also black.

The clerk of council is black.

The district attorney is black.

Are they all being fired or recalled because of their race, too? 

Seems a bit inconsistent, doesn’t it?

That’s because it is. 

Pair that inconsistency with Blackmon’s extortionary threat of only considering it ‘discrimination’ if the city doesn’t pay what he demands, and see what you come up with.

Maybe that’s because it has nothing to do with Blackmon’s race and everything to do with his personal incompetence?

Idiots.

FALSE STATEMENTS

Lieutenants Dowe & Litle

The document goes on to falsely describe the scenario surrounding the legitimate discrimination lawsuits filed by two police officers against Chief Blackmon. The document uses the false claim as a premise upon which to base an illogically-drawn conclusion. The false claim reads as follows:

“In the summer of 2021, two white Lieutenants of the Columbus Police Department, Ralph Downe (sic) and Tony Allen Litle, filed Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of their race. Interestingly, both had been repeatedly rejected for promotion by the former Police Chief, Ricky Boren, but neither made discrimination claims then. ln March 2022, Lieutenants Dowe and Litle filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City, which is currently being litigated in federal court.”

Here’s the actual truth of the scenario which greatly differs from the false claims made above:

Lt. Ralph Dowe is an honorable police officer who serves with distinction. Though he was highly promotable and on the Captain list, he yielded that promotion twice to officers who had more time-in-service. When Dowe’s time finally came, police chief Freddie Blackmon promoted two other officers who weren’t promotable nor on the Captain list. In turn, Dowe filed a legitimate lawsuit of discrimination against the city. Lt. Litle’s circumstances were extremely similar to that of Lt. Dowe. The two then filed EEOC complaints and subsequently filed their lawsuit. For that to have even been filed, Dowe and Litle needed to receive a ‘right to sue’ notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — which they clearly did.

Jensen Hughes

The document also falsely claims that Jensen Hughes — the nation’s premiere law enforcement consulting agency — somehow wasted their time conducting a professional in-depth analysis of the department through their months of on-site visits and objectively-measurable data, but instead somehow based all of their findings on the results of the FOP study conducted the year prior.

You’d have to be an idiot to believe that.

Nonetheless, there appears to be no shortage of idiots at the service and legal council provided to police chief Freddie Blackmon. Their false claim reads as follows:

“In July 2022, a third party consultant, Jensen Hughes, began conducting an Operational Assessment of the Police Department. The final report was presented to the City Council on February 14, 2023. The Report's critical assessment relied heavily upon the findings of a 2022 survey conducted by the FOP. As should have been immediately apparent to Jensen Hughes and the City Council, the survey was inherently biased due to the influence of Lieutenant Dowe, the FOP President who is currently suing the City and Chief Blackmon. In addition, white constituents (and supporters of Lieutenant Dowe) bombarded the City Council with calls demanding Chief Blackmon's termination.”

In reality: Jensen Hughes conducted their own independent and measurable assessment of the department over the course of months through the detailed and well-documented procedures carried out by a team of certified professionals, which is all very well outlined within the 135-page report. This is objective. You can go read it. 

Additionally, it is illogical and objectively untrue to suggest that the results of a survey of 73% of the entire police department were somehow “biased” in the first place — especially given that the overwhelming majority of every black officer in the department also stated they had no confidence in Blackmon.

Therefore, the false claim that the Jensen Hughes study was somehow “biased” is therefore an illogical assumption that is not supported by the evidence described above. 

Prima Facie

The document goes on to falsely claim that there is a 'prima facie' case of discrimination against Blackmon. The phrase prima facie — latin for ‘at first face’ — is a legal term used to describe a scenario in which the presented evidence is alleged to be strong enough to support a verdict on its own. 

In the case of Blackmon’s self-evidently frivolous ‘discrimination’ claims that he weighs contingent upon a monetary payment from the city: that is objectively false. 

To support Blackmon’s claim of discrimination, he must provide evidence that his termination was treated “less favorably than similarly-situated individuals outside of his protected class (black).” 

What Blackmon’s attorneys fail to realize is that, under similar circumstances of incompetence, other employees are also regularly terminated for incompetence. 

The fact that his predecessor wasn’t incompetent is not proof of his claim.

The fact that other people within his protected class are still employed as city officers — which is a pretty good example of being “similarly situated” — proves Blackmon’s claim false entirely.

There is absolutely no ‘prima facie’ case of discrimination against Blackmon as falsely claimed within his ‘counter offer.’

The only ‘prima facie’ thing in Blackmon’s ‘counter offer’ is ironically evidence of his own act of extortion. 

CONCLUSION

There are a plethora of additional logical fallacies and falsely-formed syllogisms throughout the entirety of Blackmon’s ‘counter offer.’ If we were to outline them all individually, this article would need to be published as a book instead. 

The false claims throughout Blackmon’s ‘counter offer’ are successively used as false premises from which only one of many other possible assumptions is then cherry-picked, which in-turn is then used as a follow-on premise from which to derive another assumed and illogical conclusion — and the process repeats, from cover to cover.

Given that Blackmon isn’t entitled to severance at all and serves purely at the leisure of city council, we are fairly certain the city doesn’t give two hoots what Blackmon nor his attorneys send to them. Blackmon’s attorneys should probably advise him of that, as well as the fact that he is going to lose his severance package entirely if he does not take what the city offered.

Additionally, given that Blackmon’s attorneys had requested the city redact the document for future litigation, but the city in turn released it in full under the Georgia Open Records Act literally the very next business day anyway, it’s pretty clear how utterly laughable the claims made by Blackmon’s attorneys actually are.

Lawyers everywhere are laughing at you guys. A tenth-grade debate team could deconstruct your entire legal argument between their lunch period and gym class. It’s embarrassing.

It’s not about race. It never was. It’s about incompetence.

We hope the Chief takes the hint and realizes that before he loses his severance and pursues a losing lawsuit.

Residents may voice their concerns for the extreme levels of racial division being used as a political tool to achieve unjust racial political ends by emailing Mayor Skip Henderson directly at SkipHenderson@columbusga.org, while cc’ing their respective city council members on the email.

Facts are stubborn things — and we’ll keep publishing them, whether city officials like them or not.

-30-

© 2023 Muscogee Muckraker. All rights reserved.

Be sure to follow Muscogee Muckraker on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to see all the muck that’s fit to print as it breaks throughout the coming week.