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.
