Good morning, all.

Looks like I’m not alone. Believe me, nothing short of changing our comics page generates this many notes from readers. So if you want to say Jim Ivey has finally eclipsed the standing of Snuffy Smith in this community, well, then I might have trouble arguing with you.

On Sunday, I discussed the joke of a sentence handed down to Jim Ivey, convicted felon, former GOP wunderkind and all-around sleazebag. To be honest, I thought I might stand alone on this one. Ivey, still popular in many circles despite his stealing ways, has friends in relatively high places in this community. In fact, it is directly to those friends I tied his questionably lenient sentence. In a world a frustrations, I wondered if this community could summon up enough outrage for one more injustice.

Well, if you think folks aren’t mad about this Ivey sentence, then you’re fooling yourself.

Nearly 100 notes poured in over the holiday weekend to discuss Ivey more than a week after the sentence was handed down. I guess it has been eating at many of you as it has me. It’s funny, if not totally unexpected, that not a single note I received from outside the legal profession disagreed with my sentiments: Ivey’s connections to the good-old-boy system got him a good deal. While there’s a certain amount of amen chorus that goes into this type of thing, I always hear from the other side of an issue as well. It’s the passionate on both side who take the time to write.

Strangely, the handful of notes I received from inside the legal profession, were split. Half nodded in agreement. Half did everything they could to tear down my thoughts. Ridicule. Misdirection. Emotional appeals. Everything, that is, except make a good counter-argument as to why Ivey deserved the deal he got.

I don’t blame these Members of the Bar, many of whom I call friends, some of whom I call family. No, I understand you don’t want to publicly question a sitting judge who you need to face with your clients on a regular basis. Best stick up for the system, the same one you’re making your money off of, and move on like nothing happened. But to me, and seemingly to you as well, that’s the problem. I think certain folks get defensive when people start understanding the randomness of the system and start asking some serious questions about it. Take this response I got from a colleague:

I read your column today with great interest, particularly once I saw that Lawton Stephens was the judge, and that he was "moved by the testimony of Ivey's friends," in imposing a reduced sentence. It is unfortunate that he wasn't as concerned about too tough a sentence when I wrote him some years ago about someone who had the misfortune to have Judge Stephens try his case.

I'm not sure if you remember the case, but it prompted me to write the judge a letter taking him to task for over-reacting to someone who obviously had mental and psychological problems. What I remember most is the nasty response I got from the judge, someone who apparently takes a more liberal view in punishing “white collar crime,” as opposed to “blue collar crime.”

Might be hard to believe, but I hesitate to blame only the judge in this case. As one note accused me, I am not “picking on Judge Stephens” because he didn’t side with the newspaper in our lawsuit against Athens-Clarke County concerning open records in the Jennifer Stone 1992 cold murder case. That’s far from the truth. In fact, I don’t need to pick on Stephens for his ruling there; every court it has been appealed to since has done that for me. Amazing what happens when you get fresh eyes on a case. It now sits with the state Supreme Court. Ah, the lengths this county will go to protect its own, but I digress.

No, like many of you, I enjoy Judge Stephens. He’s a “nice guy” as so many of you said. But you can professionally disagree with nice guys just as easily as you can jerks.

In fact, Stephens’ role was only the final step in an otherwise questionable procession of events that lead up to Ivey’s wrist-slap. The above note, and so many others like it, displays a larger point: The system is taking good care of its own. And people are noticing.

On a case-by-case basis, so many of these things can be laughed off by folks as paranoia or conspiracy theory. But when you shake stories out (and piece them all together), you start getting a portrait of a larger problem with our justice system that is increasingly treating the haves and haves nots far differently. Like I asked in the column, does Ivey get the same deal if he steals $36,000 wearing a hooded sweatshirt instead of a suit and tie? I think we all know the answer.

And it’s not just the usual suspects complaining to me this time. I got notes and calls from elected officials, community leaders and regular business folks – many asking not to be named – offering their brief amens. It’s amazing how many, even some who you might define as being members of that good-old boy club, found this sentence to be an outrage. In order for you to take a bit of the public temperature, here are a couple of notes I pass along (without names) from your friends and neighbors:

Just read your column on James Ivey. Kudos to you. You were dead on 100%. It's a shame we "regular folk" cannot expect the same treatment from jurisprudence. If I stole a Flair pen and got caught, they would re-open Alcatraz for me. I guess that's why I don't steal.

* * *

Excellent column on Jim Ivey. From personal knowledge, he has fleeced many more people than the veteran's fund. Probably everyone he deals with. He regularly bounced checks to employees, delayed funding 401k's, after he took the money, didn't pay employees owed money after they left, and has a massive list of creditors screwed. All the while, he continued to live the good life. While Judge Stephens is a good man and judge, it's obvious that all the Oconee Republicans placed pressure on him. He does need support in Oconne County!

* * *

I have been wondering if anyone else was as shocked and outraged as me over the sentence. You made some important observation but there are many more aspects of this case that are very unusual and need to be examined. Just a few: 1) Why did it take so long to be indicted and then tried? 2) While the commissioners don't elect the judge, they sure have a lot of control over his office. They control his physical office space, staff, schedule to some degree, supplemental salaries, etc. Trying to influence the judge is a huge conflict of interest. But no problem for these guys where there Republican buddy is concerned. 3) During the years between his being caught with his hand in the cookie jar and his trial, and even during and after the trial, to my knowledge, Ivey was never contrite, never apologized, and denied guilt even when the facts clearly showed his culpability. What kind of guy like this gets off with a slap on the wrist? There is nothing about this case that passes the smell test? Makes you think maybe a lot went on behind the scenes of which the public is not aware. Maybe you guys can find out what it is.

* * *

Thanks for writing what a lot of people are already thinking out here concerning the sentencing (or lack thereof) with our homegrown embezzler. For me, this whole escapade was more than a private matter as the county is donating the land for memorial and the county attorney was put in charge of balancing the books before Ivey was charged by the DA--makes you wonder what was going on that we didn't see and creates a situation almost no different than a politician with their hand in the public till.

* * *

Yes, sometimes it’s nice to know you’re not alone on an issue. But more importantly, as is the case with this Ivey sentencing nonsense, it’s comforting to know people are paying attention when the system strays from what is right. Writing me is only the first step. You must let those who allow the system to sway (either in writing or at the ballot box) know your feelings as well. That’s where your feelings have real impact.

FIVE-MINUTE READ

In reaction (and not in surprising overreaction which has been a hallmark of this debate) to Corrie Brown’s NBAF piece from last weekend, anti-NBAF advocates and founding FAQ members Grady Thrasher and Kathy Prescott posed an interesting question I feel is deserving of an answer. In a heavily circulated e-mail, the Just Say No Twins asked: Given the wide range of representations regarding the projected economic impact of NBAF, could you help clear up the confusion by including on Dr. Lee's and the UGA/NBAF Web site a report by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government from which these figures are claimed to have been derived? It would be helpful to see upon which assumptions these numbers were generated, so that the public could have sufficient information to make an informed opinion. You will note that Dr. Lee's website is still featuring the Governor's pronouncement which touts a $6 billion economic impact. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Fair request. … Joan Fox's family never talked about it, never wanted to be reminded about the B-17 bomber crash that killed her uncle in 1944. It was too painful for Fox's grandmother, not that the family knew many details, anyway. But that didn’t stop the 59-year-old Fox from looking for answers. Take a moment and read this touching story with an odd Athens connection. … Muy funny stuff here from Colbert, er, Esteban Colberto and guest Lou Dobbs. … I ask: Did we not learn anything from the Beta vs. VHS wars? … To be honest, I sort of feel the same way about Macs.

* * *

Take five minutes out of your day to join Executive Editor Jason Winders here each morning. Stand up and be counted.

(Originally posted Jan. 22, 2008)