Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Speech to Warren County Board of Supervisors 12-20-2011

Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, good evening,

The most effective way to defeat the good old boy regime is for citizens to reject its lies and “live in truth.” This means, first of all, telling the truth in answer to official propaganda, but also behaving as if ethical conduct — which most good old boys claim to respect — can not be taken for granted.

The State BAR Association observes, "A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation."

Doug Napier became full time County Attorney in July, 1998. The Board of Supervisors voted and signed a written employment agreement. Section 2-C of this agreement states: "[...] THE EMPLOYEE AGREES TO REMAIN IN THE EXCLUSIVE EMPLOY OF THE EMPLOYER [...] AND NEITHER TO ACCEPT OTHER EMPLOYMENT OR TO BECOME EMPLOYED BY ANY OTHER EMPLOYER [...]."

For the next 8 years County Attorney Doug Napier violated Section 2-C at least 269 times by accepting employment from private clients. I have provided you with a chronological list of courthouse records proving these 269 violations. My spreadsheet has red flags identifying Napier's private clients who had official business before the governing authorities of Warren County. My spreadsheet does not show the numerous times Napier's client Ron Llewellyn presented his business interests before Warren County agencies and boards.

Some authorities suggest Napier had permission to violate his employment agreement. This can not be true. The 1998 agreement was renewed in 2003 and contained the same Section 2-C prohibition. Where is this record of permission kept? Who authorized it? Why is it not in the public record?

Who nominated Mr. Napier to become Town Attorney? Was it Mr. Holloway? Was the Town Council aware of Napier's decades long history of attorney client privilege with Warren County, with developer Ron Llewellyn, and with Napier's most recent employer with offices at 35 N. Royal Ave?

It was Mr. Holloway who nominated Ron Llewellyn to a seat on the real estate-buying and selling EDA Board of Directors. Llewellyn is a risk to the public's best interests because he is himself a real estate buyer and seller. Joining Llewellyn on the EDA Board are a banker with millions of dollars to lend and a second land speculator also busily engaged in the buying and selling of real estate. Connecting these 3 EDA board member dots is a lawyer, Mr. Napier, who has a decades long history of providing these parties with private legal services. And, perhaps, private legal advice?

Why do governmental authorities create such high risk situations by appointing people as custodians of taxpayers money who are:
(A) people owed tremendous amounts of money
(B) who are people who owe tremendous amounts of money
(C) who are people with financial interests in those very activities they are supposed to be monitoring
(D) who ALL have shared a lawyer who now works at the very heart of government who has privately represented each of them.

What should we make of these 269 violations by Mr. Napier? The State BAR Association observes, "[...] It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal or deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law. [...] It is professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law."

I will reccommend to the Town Council they rescind its appointment of Mr. Napier, taking the first of many steps needed to restore good governance tied not to private interests, but to public interests. In such a heated convergence of private interests, all the recusals in the world are not adequate to protect the taxpayer from the good old boys.

Bill Pierceall

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

It is true - 99% of all lawyers give the other 1% a bad reputation.

This link connects to a better explanation of the problems being created by former Front Royal Town Attorney Tom Robinette, now Town Manager and Town Attorney for Onancock, VA.

http://www.opengovva.org/in-the-news-mainmenu-72/current-headlines-mainmenu-71/1562-redaction-for-obvious-reasons

This ongoing unethical conduct supports a local history of implanting an unethical culture of business and politics in Front Royal and Warren County. It will be no easy chore to uproot this deeply entrenched cronyism and corruption.

Yet another example is now being showcased for you. Consider the circumstances sufficient to force the resignation of Doug Napier from county public office. These same circumstances are now being overlooked by the Town Councilmen and their leader, Mayor Darr, when hiring this same offender for a town public office. Do the members of the Town Council consider these circumstances of past moral and ethical lapses have no bearing on his employment as Town Attorney? Were they seeking a Robinette clone?

Many of my contacts agree Robinette was the source of many problems for Front Royal. Perhaps the most egregious was his attempt to have fabrications of bribery brought against the town manager. As you may remember, this attempt involved the Richmond law firm of Troutman Saunders who was provided information verbally by Robinette seeking their written endorsement of wrongdoing. The information recollected later by Troutman Saunders seemed to be a description of a cherry-picked construct of misinformation intended to force a specific conclusion sought by Robinette.

Unfortunately, this real life scenario supports the often told joke - 99% of all lawyers give the other 1% a bad reputation.
**********************************************************************************
Here are the comments I made last night to the Front Royal Town Council:
Speech - Front Royal Town Council 12-12-2011

Mr. Mayor, Town councilmen, good evening.

Mr. Town Attorney Napier, I continue to wait for your answers to the 6 questions I placed before you at Councils public meeting November 28th. Silence is not a viable strategy to solve any problem.

Mr. Napier, don't you find it troubling not a single Councilman rose during that November 28 meeting to speak in your defense?

More troubling is this continued silence. Most troubling is your conflict of interest statement in the matter of Ron Llewellyn and his company, Heptad. Your statement was not dated. What kind of attorney prepares a document declaring a conflict of interest and fails to date it?

Worst of all, Mr. Napier, you were expected to provide proof the Warren County Board of Supervisors gave you their written permission to violate your written employment agreement to become employed by private sector clients during your tenure as full-time Warren County Attorney. May I expect this written permission will be dated and part of the Warren County Board of Supervisor's meeting minutes?

Tied for the honor of 'most troubling' is lack of leadership in this matter by Mayor Darr, whose campaign rhetoric promised if elected Mayor he would get the Town Council under control, support the Town Manager, and not be influenced by outside special interests
.
Which of you Councilmen will admit to being under the control of Mayor Darr? Which of you can rise to defend the leadership of Mr. Darr and the allegations against Mr. Napier?

With regard to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Napier's abrupt resignation in 2006 as Warren County Attorney, if those circumstances were sufficient to motivate demands for Napier's resignation from public office, certainly they weigh against hiring him for another? Do the members of the Town Council consider these circumstances of past ethical lapses have no bearing on his employment as Town Attorney?

Mayor Darr, which Good Old Boy's special interests have you ignored?

Mr. Burke, as Town Manager you have my deepest sympathy for being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Mr. Holloway, on the recent occasion of your conversion to the Democratic Party, would you take the opportunity of giving us your views concerning the principles of ethics and how they apply to the issues I raise concerning Mr. Napier's qualifications to the position he now holds?

Mr. Lauder, will you make a campaign promise to create and follow a Code of Ethical Conduct to guide town employees, other Councilmen, and yourself?

Mr. Tharpe, will you be the first to tell us your views concerning employment agreement violations by Mr. Napier?

Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, as bad as things stand today, the silence of crickets guarantee it can only get worse.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Front Royal Town Council Speech 11-28-2011

Mr. Mayor, Council Members, good evening.

In my email to Town Attorney Napier dated 15 November 2011, and copied to the Mayor, Councilmen, Supervisors, and undisclosed citizens, I asked Mr. Napier to provide a copy of his employment agreement with his most recent private employer, the law firm of Pond Athey Athey & Pond. Mr. Napier is not obligated to provide this agreement, but providing a copy would confirm or deny Mr. Napier's private and public sector employment agreements both prohibit employment by anyone other than the employer.

The same email also asked Town Attorney Napier 6 important questions. As it appears Mr. Napier temporarily chooses to remain silent, I will now repeat those 6 questions for the public record.

Mr. Napier:

1- While you are presently employed as Front Royal Town Attorney, will you practice law on behalf of Pond Athey Athey & Pond and/or any of its past, present, or future clients? Do you anticipate receiving compensation for your legal services?

2 - While you were employed as Warren County Attorney from 1998 until your abrupt resignation without notice in 2006, were you ever employed by anyone other than Warren County? If so, did you receive compensation for your legal services?

3- During the time period 1998-2006, were you ever Co-Council with any member of any law firm on behalf of any client other than Warren County? If so, did you receive compensation for your legal services?

4- During the time period 1998-2006, did you ever appear before any tribunal, court of law, or government agency as Co-Council with any member of any law firm, including Pond Athey Athey & Pond? If so, did you receive compensation for your legal services?

5- During the time period 1998-2006, did you maintain a private business office separate and distinct from your government office at 220 Commerce Avenue? Did you ever counsel private clients inside your government offices?

6- Do you claim your employment agreements with Warren County allowed you to accept employment by someone besides Warren County? If so, please explain how Section 2C of these agreements allowed you to practice law on behalf of other employers.

Mr. Napier, my questions are not rhetorical. They all point to legal, ethical, and moral components of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to all members of the Virginia BAR Association.

As a public servant, should you choose to remain silent and not answer these 6 questions, please invoke your 5th Amendment rights on the grounds your answers may tend to incriminate you. Otherwise, stop stonewalling.

Again, I ask, while you were employed as Warren County Attorney from 1998 until your abrupt resignation in 2006, were you ever employed by anyone other than Warren County? If so, did you receive compensation for your legal services?

Thank you.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Front Royal Town Council Speech 10-24-2011

Friends,
Below is the speech I gave to the Front Royal Town Council tonight. Please feel free to forward this message to your friends. Elimination of the Good Old Boy monopoly is slow to come, but it is coming.
Best regards,
Bill
******************************************************************************
Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, good evening.

A letter to you dated 3 October from Doug Napier claimed my email letter to you contained factual errors. Mr. Napier did not identify any factual errors, not one, and specifically did not address my allegations concerning his employment agreement violations and his conflicts of interests.

I allege Mr. Napier is inextricably intertwined with the real estate development operations of former County Supervisor Ron Llewellyn.

I allege County Attorney Napier, on as many as 374 occasions, violated the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct concerning conflict of interest.

I allege County Attorney Napier, on as many as 374 occasions, violated his county employment agreement prohibiting practice of law with employers other than Warren County.

I allege the reason for County Attorney Napier's resignation is inseparable from the nearly simultaneous resignation of a female county staff member.

On the 20th of May, 2003, County Attorney Napier was appointed, notarized, and empowered as Special Power of Attorney, authorized to handle all aspects of negotiating the interests of former County Supervisor Ron Llewellyn's purchase of Swan Farm, a key property in the creation of the Leach Run Parkway right-of-way. Ron Llewellyn and his wife authorized County Attorney Napier to serve as "[...] our true and lawful attorney-in-fact (hereinafter referred to as "my attorney"), who is hereby authorized for use and in our names individually and for and on behalf of Swan Farm [...]". The document continues with a long list of Napier's duties when acting on behalf of Ron Llewellyn who, nominated by Councilman Holloway, now sits on the EDA Board of Directors. (I have provided each Council Member a copy of this Special Power of Attorney.)

In his letter, Mr. Napier implies all of his private practice legal services were limited to 'pro bono' services to a deserving cause, Habitat for Humanity. Regarding Swan Farm, did Mr. Napier perform these myriad legal services for Mr. Llewellyn for no fees as his October letter suggests? Perhaps Mr. Napier's Federal and State income tax returns will provide the answer?

Let us examine another example of Mr. Napier's lucrative real estate private practice.

In May of 2006, Janie Johnson wrote her Last Will and Testament, witnessed by Kimberly Athey, law partner with Pond, Athey, Athey, and Pond. In the will, Mr. Napier was named as a 10% beneficiary of the Johnson estate at 18 Charles Street. Mr. Napier was also named as Executor.

It is unclear if Mr. Napier is related to Janie Johnson, who died in February, 2008. Mr. Napier collected $10,000 from the sale of 18 Charles Street, plus, as Executor, he paid himself legal fees and expenses of $15,276.85, including an $8,800 repayment to himself for paying the funeral bill. The Commissioner of Accounts audit forced Mr. Napier to return this $8,800 to the estate because, as it turns out, apparently, someone other than Mr. Napier actually paid for the funeral.

Mr. Napier was full-time County Attorney for a period of 8 years and 1 month. Representing as many as 374 private practice clients means, on average, once a week, every week, for 8 years, Mr. Napier was privately employed to practice law. The fees Mr. Napier collected for these services remain largely unknown.

Perhaps the Internal Revenue Service and the Virginia Bar Association will now become interested in Mr. Napier's situation?

I suggest the Town Council delay installing Mr. Napier as Town Attorney until these allegations are resolved.

Thank you.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Speech to Front Royal Town Council -10/11/2011

Friends,
Tonight I spoke to the Front Royal Town Council concerning conflict of interest. Please feel free to forward this email to your contacts. These are my remarks:


Mr. Mayor, Councilmen,
Real estate development, speculation, and exploitation is by far the largest industry in Front Royal and Warren County. Our elected leaders offer a rich vein of material to support the belief that our area is controlled by people, whether in or out of office, with an ethical blind spot. The reappearance in office of the same old leaders as well as the ever-present prominence of a single law firm, resurrects for the public the picture of back-slapping Good Old Boys in control. On the recent appointment of yet another old leader to high office, one of your colleagues was quite right to ask whether the council couldn't have found someone else, someone new.

As a member of the Virginia Bar Association and an Officer of The Court, Town Attorney nominee Douglas Napier is subject to the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 1.10 -- the general rule of Imputed Disqualification; Rule 1.11 -- which covers Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees; Rule 1.7 -- the general rule on Conflict of Interest, and Rule 1.9 -- Conflict of Interest with Former Clients. I have provided each councilman a copy of these Rules. (reproduced below following these comments)

As County Attorney, it appears that Mr. Napier violated the terms of his written employment agreement -- as indicated by courthouse records -- on as many as 64 separate occasions, that Mr. Napier intermingled his part-time private legal practice with his full-time public office position of County Attorney. Many of Mr. Napier's private clients had official business before Warren County, including the Board of Supervisors where one of his private practice clients, Supervisor Ron Llewellyn, was seated. It appears Mr. Napier did not, as required by the Rules, fully disclose and notify the affected parties of the full role he was playing. Nor, as required by the Rules, did he obtain from all concerned parties their written permission for him to become privately employed and/or continue his joint representation. Where is this record?

Moreover, with Ron Llewellyn's private lawyer, Doug Napier, as Town Attorney, Front Royal will become one side of an apparent special interests triangle.

The second side of this triangle includes 3 elements:

(1) the law firm of Pond Athey Athey & Pond, Mr. Napiers' most recent private employer which includes State Delegates Clay Athey and Todd Gilbert;
(2) Ron Llewellyn, the client himself, whose Senary/Heptad LLC interests can be dramatically affected by town and county decisions;
(3) Warren County, Mr. Napier's public office client of more than 20 years.

The third side of the triangle includes 2 elements:

(1) The Economic Development Authority which is assisting the Town in getting the right of way for Leach Run Parkway, a development of importance to Mr. Llewllyn's interests;
(2) and the Senary/Heptad client, Ron Llewellyn, again, who sits on the EDA Board of Directors.

Is it needless to point out Ron Llewellyn occupies a place on all 3 sides of this conflict of interest triangle?

With regard to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Napier's abrupt resignation in 2006 as Warren County Attorney; if those circumstances were sufficient to motivate demands for Napier's resignation from public office, do the members of the Town Council consider these circumstances have no bearing on his employment as Town Attorney?

I submit for your consideration Mr. Napier is not the best choice to become Front Royal Town Attorney. For the sake of maintaining public confidence in a local government of sound appearance, find someone else, someone new, someone without such history and associations.

In conclusion, let me add this: by campaigning for the seat of Supervisor formerly held by Ron Llewellyn, Vice Mayor Chris Holloway now finds himself in the curious position of simultaneously advocating the interests of Warren County and Front Royal, two governments not known for their cordial acceptance of each others views. Is it fair to ask Mr. Holloway to resign from one or the other activity? When straddling the fence it's difficult to determine which side you are on.
Thank you.

*************************************************************

Source:
Conflict Of Interest - Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/va/code/VA_CODE.HTM

Rule 1.11 Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees

(a) A lawyer who holds public office shall not:
(1) use the public position to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a special advantage in legislative matters for the lawyer or for a client under circumstances where the lawyer knows or it is obvious that such action is not in the public interest;
(2) use the public position to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of the lawyer or of a client; or
(3) accept anything of value from any person when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the offer is for the purpose of influencing the lawyer’s action as a public official.
(b) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the private client and the appropriate government agency consent after consultation. No lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:
(1) the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
(2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee, may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.
(d) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer serving as a public officer or employee shall not:
(1) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless under applicable law no one is, or by lawful delegation may be, authorized to act in the lawyer’s stead in the matter; or
(2) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as attorney for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer, mediator or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b).
(e) As used in this Rule, the term “matter” includes:
(1) any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties; and
(2) any other matter covered by the conflict of interest rules of the appropriate government agency.
(f) As used in this Rule, the term “confidential government information” means information which has been obtained under governmental authority and which, at the time this Rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose, and which is not otherwise available to the public.

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: General Rule

(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another existing client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

Conflict Rule 1.9 of Interest: Former Client

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless both the present and former client consent after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client
(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and
(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless both the present and former client consent after consultation.
(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:
(1) use information relating to or gained in the course of the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client

Rule 1.10 Imputed Disqualification: General Rule

(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, or 2.10(e).
(b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm, unless:
(1) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and
(2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by Rules 1. 6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.
(c) A disqualification prescribed by this Rule may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.
(d) The imputed prohibition of improper transactions is governed by Rule 1.8(k).
(e) The disqualification of lawyers associated in a firm with former or current government lawyers is governed by Rule 1.11.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

The Good Old Boys Are Back In Action

I blogged about this conflict of interest matter back in 2007.

Like the mythological Greek monster, the many-headed Lernaean Hydra (cut off one head and two more grew back) the Good Old Boys are at it again.

Today's NV Daily article, "Veteran attorney takes town spot" demonstrates our politicians penchant for cronyism.
http://www.nvdaily.com/news/2011/09/veteran-attorney-takes-town-spot.php

I beg the question, “How does the Attorney-Client Privilege conflict Napier’s public service position as Town Attorney representing Front Royal interests and his private legal service as Registered Agent for multiple companies with official business before the Planning Commission, the Town Council, and the Economic Development Authority?" Mr. Napier’s client, former County Supervisor Ron Llewellyn, currently holds a seat on the Economic Development Authority.

On-line documents on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission indicate Douglas Napier, while employed as Warren County Attorney, and in violation of his employment agreement with the County, was providing private legal services involving former Supervisor Ron Llewellyn’s private sector actions as a Developer of real estate projects located within Warren County and Front Royal, specifically the former Swan Farm LLC development (now replaced by Heptad LLC) that borders the proposed Leach Run Parkway, an area now having business before Town Council and the Economic Development Authority. I remind you Mr. Napier’s client, Ron Llewellyn, currently holds a seat on the Economic Development Authority.

The Leach Run development area is a plan to bring the community its first large-scale planned neighborhood. Napier was SCC Registered Agent for Llewellyn's now defunct Swan Farm LLC venture and is currently SCC Registered Agent for Llewellyn's new Heptad LLC.

Also during his tenure as County Attorney, and in violation of his employment agreement with the County, Napier was, and is, the Registered Agent on file with the State Corporation Commission for Ron Llewellyn's Catlett Road LLC (now Senary LLC) development which is seeking Town water and sewer service declined by the previous Town administration.

Napier’s job as Town Attorney is to provide legal advice to the Planning Commission, the Town Council, the Economic Development Authority, and other Town officials. How many hats will Napier wear? As Town Attorney will Napier stop legally representing his lucrative real estate private practice that includes acting as agent of record for many of developer Ron Llewellyn's Limited Liability Corporations?

Compounding the conflicts of interests issues, consider Napier's legal role for the past few years as an attorney working for Pond, Athey, Athey, & Pond, one of the largest local law firms that is well known for representing developer real estate interests before local government agencies throughout the greater Shenandoah Valley area. How will Napier separate his personal knowledge of insider information from both sides of these Town/Developer legal fences?

Will Mr. Napier need to recuse himself for any and all business brought before the Town of Front Royal by his former law firm, which would include State Delegate Clay Athey's new law firm partner Todd Gilbert? What safeguards protect the Town of Front Royal and its citizens from potential conflicts of interest between Napier and his former employers?

When Mr. Napier abruptly resigned as Warren County Attorney, his vacated position was filled by Mr. Blair Mitchell, former Town Attorney for Front Royal. And now that the Town Attorney position is vacated, Mr. Napier, the former County Attorney, has become the new Town Attorney.

Did Napier and Mitchell just swap jobs? The local political scene becomes curious-er and curious-er... the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The present Town Council once again demonstrates their commitment to cronyism. Napier's return as Town Attorney signals a Good Old Boy continuation of conflict of interests centered with Good Old Boy developers. The Good Old Boys must be very happy with this chain of events. The whole team is back in action.