Commentary About The McAlister Lawsuit

In this week's edition of the Pulaski Citizen, I was afforded the opportunity to respond to a previous commentary by Mr. Clay McAlister which was filled with inaccuracies and vicious accusations.
I greatly appreciate the editor of the paper allowing me the opportunity to respond and appreciate the limitations she was bound to observe such as length and subject matter. The commentary I submitted to the paper was edited with my approval. While that commentary was correct in every detail there was some information that had to be deleted because of length. I am now posting my comments in their entirety.

 16 August 2012

To the Editor. This is a rebuttal to the claims, distortions and comments made against me by Mr. Clay McAlister in the 7 August edition of the newspaper. I appreciate this opportunity to present my version of the events discussed by Mr. McAlister in that commentary. Thank you, Allen Barrett, 1318 Jackson Drive Pulaski; phone 363-1983.

In the 7 August edition of this newspaper a commentary by Mr. Clay McAlister made a number of accusations and erroneous claims about me. My purpose in this statement is to set the record straight and refute those gross inaccuracies.

In the very first sentence it’s claimed I refer to myself as a “troublemaker.” The fact is I actually stated to the reporter that “some have referred to me as a “trouble maker”.  Personally, I prefer the nickname given me by Mr. Larry Britten, “government watchdog”.

Mr. McAlister claims I had placed two of my campaign signs within four inches in the front of Mrs. Vanzant’s and two approximately five feet behind her sign. Anyone who saw my signs knows they were approximately five feet in front and behind her signs and in his sworn testimony Mr. McAlister acknowledged that they were four to five feet away from Mrs. Vanzant’s sign.

My signs had been placed in those positions because earlier they had been removed and replaced by the Vanzant  sign.

I videotaped Mr. McAlister as he removed two of my signs and cast them down the hillside. He then moved to the other side of the road making an illegal U-turn on Mill Street. Mr. McAlister claims he moved to the other side of the road to fix Terry Harwell’s sign, but didn’t realize that his sign was a very large piece of plywood attached to two metal fence posts that could have easily been seen from across the street.

As Mr. McAlister started to re-enter his truck, I approached and told him how shocked I was to find out he was nothing but a common thief. I was immediately bombarded with a stream of vile cuss words. I then told Mr. McAlister that I was calling the police and he quickly left the scene.

A couple of weeks prior to this event I had gone to Chief Dickey and another officer and reported a large number of my signs missing.  I was informed that nothing could be done unless I brought in proof of who was taking them, that’s when I decided to try and catch the thieves.

After I received a copy of the 911 call made by Mr. McAlister, I found that I wasn’t the only person to receive a severe cussing from him that evening. Later I found out that Mr. McAlister had gone to officer Glossup’s home around 10:00 pm and presented him with the same kind of vile cussing the 911 operator and I had received earlier.

Mr. McAlister stated he saw Lt. Glossup pull onto Hwy. 11 and heard on his scanner that Lt. Glossup was told he wanted to speak to him. Mr. McAlister is a former Highway Patrol Officer, a former Judicial Magistrate, is currently appointed to the Minor Hill Water Board, and occasionally conducts driver school for the court. He obviously considers himself a very important person deserving of special treatment that he stated under oath “he would not give to someone else”.

How often does the person being investigated get to dictate where, when, and how that investigation is conducted? Clearly, from his behavior that day Mr. McAlister was in the middle of a tantrum befitting a toddler more than a public figure with a good name to protect.

Several times in his statement Mr. McAlister cast aspersions on Lt. Glossup.  Lt. Glossup looked at the video tape that night and based his actions on what the tape revealed. The tape was taken in evidence and placed in a locked box. The next day or day after, I was called to the police station and told by officer Robinson, during approximately two hours of intense interrogation,  that he saw “nothing on the tape where  McAlister moved any signs”.

Officer Robinson informed me that the tape had been sent to Martin Methodist College and transferred to a video disc. I have yet to have the original tape returned to me, only a copy of the new disc.  When this new disc was played it showed Mr. McAlister getting out of his truck walking to the signs, then approximately for three minutes there was nothing but blue sky.

I expressed concerns that the disc was different from the video tape, but basically that was that. Without the tape there was only this new disc.

Immediately after leaving the police department, I called The District Attorney, Mr. Bottoms, and the TBI was called in to investigate. The TBI determined that they “could not make a conclusive determination about the disc being altered”.

Mr. McAlister claims that officer Glossup admitted that I had pressured him into making a decision without doing an investigation. Nowhere have I seen anything where Lt. Glossup made such an admission, in fact under oath he explicitly stated that I did not intimidate or pressure him. In fact Lt. Glossup acted very professionally and has no reason to be criticized other than for not showing preferential treatment to an obnoxious, arrogantly demanding baby.  Lt. Glossup, at his own insistence, did write a reprimand of himself. Mr. McAlister criticized this action as being insufficient, which, when compared to Mr. McAlister’s own reprimands as a Highway Patrol Officer it was rather mild.  

Mr. McAlister filed civil suits totaling thirty-three million dollars, eleven million each against the city, Lt. Glossup, and me. His stated justification was to preserve his “good name” and because he had suffered “severe mental injury”. Under oath Mr. McAlister was forced to admit that all his psychological problems were long standing and preexisting to the events of 20 July 2010, except for a wreck he had, under oath he admitted that wreck occurred while driving under the influence of three powerful prescription medications. That wreck also revealed the special treatment Mr. McAlister was accustomed to as he left the scene of the accident, had no charges against him, no drug test, or any adverse record.

Mr. McAlister claims that he has been “quiet for two years but now is the time to tell the truth”. I am perplexed how someone could have been quiet for two years when they have spread untruths about this situation around town and on the Blog.

Mr. McAlister accused me of never saying anything good about this county or its citizens. The truth is I have repeatedly told people I have lived all over the world and Giles County is the only place I’ve ever actually chosen as my home.  There are some great, wonderful people who live here, people who seek to create an environment of friendship and welcome to everyone. There are also some like Mr. McAlister who resent “so called outsiders”, and feel because they have been here longer they are owed special treatment at the expense of others and generally present a closed, suspicious mind to those they did not grow up with. I have not moved from here in spite of those like Mr. McAlister because there are hundreds of good, wonderful people who overshadow the fallacious snobbery of stunted minds.

Another truth Mr. McAlister might consider becoming involved with is that of removing the beam from his own eye before complaining about a cinder in the eye of another.  A person who publically curses with the vile, vicious, mean-spiritedness he has displayed is hardly in a position to criticize others.

A liar is as far from a good name as light is from darkness and an honest man does not destroy that which is not theirs.   

After the testimony under oath from Mr. McAlister about his abuse of prescription medications, expectation of preferential treatment, the personal vendetta toward Lt. Glossup and me his attorney advised him to settle the thirty-three million dollar suit for $3750.00 or $1250.00 from each defendant, hardly enough to pay his own attorney. I did not want to settle but it was a choice between $1250.00 or an additional $20,000.00 in attorney and court fees. If faced with the same choice which would you take?  

Again I thank you for this opportunity for rebuttal, Allen Barrett.