City of Atlanta Delayed Reply, Misleadingly Withheld Comcast Agreement

facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail

Photographs of Alisha Irene Wyatt-Bullman, Michael Smith, and Peter Kadushin published pursuant to fair use doctrine for educational and informational purposes.
alisha irene

 

(APN) ATLANTA — The City of Atlanta waited three and a half months to respond to a records request for a signed copy of the 2009 Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement.  Then, when the City finally responded, the City made false statements claiming the City did not possess the records.

 

The City of Atlanta continues its willful disregard for the Georgia Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. 50-18-70, et seq.

 

Atlanta Progressive News’s News Editor, the present writer, made the following request on February 08, 2020:

 

Dear Open Records Custodian Peter Cadushin and Open Records Coordinator Michael Smith,

 

Pursuant to the Georgia Open Records Act, please provide me with a signed copy of the Franchise Agreement between the City of Atlanta and Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc., entered into on or around 2009, and authorized by City of Atlanta Ordinance 09-O-1223.

 

Please provide me with an electronic copy by email at your earliest convenience, but no later than three business days, as required by law.

 

Thank you,

Matthew Charles Cardinale, News Editor

Atlanta Progressive News

 

michael smithNeither Mr. Kadushin (whose name is actually spelled with a “K”) nor Mr. Smith responded to the request.

 

On February 14, 2020, APN’s News Editor amended the complaint in Cardinale v. City of Atlanta, 2020-CV-336027, to seek civil penalties against the City of Atlanta for negligently failing to timely reply to the Feb. 07, 2020 records request.

 

The City removed the case to federal court on March 09, 2020, and all the claims in that case are currently pending in federal court.  The current case number is 1:20-cv-01077-AT and the case is pending before the Honorable U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg.

 

The filing of the lawsuit did not prompt the City of Atlanta, even through their Law Department, to try to correct the lack of response to the records request.

 

kadushinOnly on Friday, May 29, 2020, when the City’s answers to discovery were due, did the City of Atlanta finally admit that Mr. Michael Smith received the request.

 

Alisha Irene Wyatt-Bullman, Supervisory Senior Attorney for the City’s Law Department, wrote:

 

“I write, on behalf of the City of Atlanta,  in response to your February 8, 2020 Open Records Request regarding the ‘Comcast Franchise Agreement 2009.’  A copy of your February 8, 2020 request is attached to this email.  In your request you ask for:

 

  • a signed copy of the Franchise Agreement between the City of Atlanta and Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc., entered into on or around 2009, and authorized by City of Atlanta Ordinance 09-O-1223.

 

After a diligent search, documents responsive to your request cannot be located. (emphasis added)

 

Atlanta Progressive News was shocked at Ms. Wyatt-Bullman’s statement: that is, the possibility that the City of Atlanta has no copy of the agreement it signed and executed with Comcast, ultimately worth approximately one billion dollars in subscription revenues to Comcast over ten years; and worth tens, if not hundreds, of millions in fees to the City of Atlanta.

 

Then, APN recalled that the Auditor’s Office of the City of Atlanta is currently conducting an audit of the 2009 Comcast Franchise Agreement and its various contractual extensions.  APN was interviewed by the Auditor’s Office as a stakeholder earlier this year as part of that audit.

 

On Saturday, May 30, 2020, APN’s News Editor made a records request to City Auditor Amanda Noble for a copy of the signed agreement; and, lo and behold, she provided it, with signatures and all.

 

Therefore, not only did the City of Atlanta knowingly fail to respond to a records request of which it was aware for several months, but the City then falsely asserted that it did not have custody of the records when, in fact, the Auditor’s Office of the City of Atlanta, which is part of the City of Atlanta, was in custody of the records.

 

APN’s News Editor is currently drafting a new claim for negligent false assertions regarding the existence of records by Supervisory Senior City Attorney Alisha Irene Wyatt-Bullman.

 

Under separate cover, on March 20, 2020, when APN was attempting to confirm receipt of the Feb. 08, 2020 records request by Michael Smith and Peter Kadushin, APN’s News Editor made a records request for the Feb. 08 records request.

 

To date, neither Smith nor Kadushin nor the Law Department, who was copied on the request, have replied to the March 20, 2020 records request.

 

(END / Copyright Atlanta Progressive News / 2020)

One comment

  • I’ve read your compelling article, we should be discussing some very interesting concealments the law department of the City of Atlanta uses to thwart any real litigation discovery! A comment made by Mrs Wyatt-Bullman during a deposition she was conducting was ” If you ever think that anyone in my office will ever be held accountable, lose their job or go to jail over anything, it will never happen” They are above the law and they know it!

    City of Atlanta’s concealment of the Baby Gun Club Landfill should teach us what lengths the City’s law department will go to keep the truth from coming out. They know, they have the records yet they hide behind their law department which manipulates the law ( Attorney Client, work product, confidential), the courts, the public so they can continue to be above the law! See Southern Cross Financial LLC -vs- City of Atlanta and Filez LLC -vs- City of Atlanta to verify it does not matter what motions to compel are presented to the Court, the City of Atlanta is above the law!

    The City’s law department goes out of their way to not provide any discriminating documents, especially during litigation, the lawyers working for the City of Atlanta took a pledge to practice law in Georgia to honor the law, yet constant intentional non disclosures, even after motions to compel are filed, the City’s law department continue to keep the public in the dark as to the unlawful actions of the City of Atlanta. Liability for the City, and job security for these attorneys far exceeds the importance the concept of PUBLIC TRUST or any law that exposes liability for the City of Atlanta! What precedent does their decades of concealment render?

    Today, as you read this post, the City of Atlanta’s illegal hazardous waste dump site called baby Gun Club Landfill created and secretively hid from the public continues to contaminates State Water way Procter Creek, why test results are not relied upon, because they City of Atlanta controls the contractor’s who work for them that perform the biased tests, so that harmful test results never reach the public!

    Currently, the United States Department of Justice, Public Integrity and Special Matters Section is investigating the case of Atlanta’s concealment of the Baby Gun Club landfill forwarded to their office by the head of the Atlanta Ethics (Integrity matters) officer which validates the law department’s concealment of yet another bureaucratic secrete that the City’s law department does not want revealed.

    The Public Integrity and Special Matters (“PIN”) Section is dedicated to investigating and prosecuting public integrity violations: (a) to obtain retribution for the public and victims of public integrity offenses; (b) to expose official misconduct; and (c) to effect advances in public policy, government oversight, and ethics rules. Based on the nature of its cases, the PIN Section handles some of the most sensitive and high-profile matters in the district – several of which have gained national attention and recognition. In close partnership with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, the PIN Section focuses on the following areas:

    Public Corruption – as a general matter, corruption cases arise when a local, state, or federal public official receives things of value in exchange for performing or failing to perform official acts. The public grants authority to its officials and, in return, citizens are entitled to receive honest services from all who serve in the government. The PIN Section prosecutes officials – such as politicians, law enforcement officers, government executives, and correctional officers – who violate the public’s trust in exchange self-enrichment and personal financial gain. Typical prosecutions involved charges of bribery, extortion under the color of official right, embezzlement, and fraud against the government.
    Currently, the United States

    Theft by deception is a crime among intentional deception to the public, and other governmental agencies, yet the City of Atlanta’s Law department always has a get out of jail card in their pocket, that is where the investigation heeds exploring!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 5 = fourteen