Stops Drug-Related Eviction from Charlotte Public Housing
In August 1996, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont stopped the eviction
of a Charlotte public housing resident despite strong evidence she was
aiding drug criminals. The case began in 1994 when the Charlotte Housing
Authority initiated eviction proceedings against Martha Fleming following
her son’s arrest for cocaine dealing. Evidence clearly showed that Fleming
had a history of allowing drug criminals to use her residence. In addition,
housing officials argued that Fleming had interfered with police efforts
to combat drug crime in the project. However, after nearly two years
of litigation legal services stopped the eviction claiming that housing
officials failed to prove Fleming knew of her son’s actions the night he
was arrested.
See Charlotte Housing Auth. v. Fleming, 123 N.C. App. 511, 1996
Stops Murder-Related Eviction from Public Housing
In 1995, Legal Services of Southern Piedmont stopped a murder-related
eviction from Charlotte public housing . In April 1992, Jonathan
Givens, the son of a public housing resident, was charged with the murder
of George Forte. Givens was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon
on Forte’s wife, discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling and possession
of a deadly weapon on the premises of the Charlotte Housing Authority.
The CHA initiated eviction proceedings against Givens' mother, Roxianne
Patterson, pursuant to federal laws holding tenants responsible for the
criminal activity of family members. However, Legal Services of Southern
Piedmont took up Patterson’s case despite the fact that Jonathan and her
second son, Anthony, had a long record of violent criminal activity. These
crimes included stealing cars, breaking and entering, communicating threats,
and lying to police officers. Because her son was on living with Patterson
at the time he was charged with murder, the CHA sought to evict her. However,
Legal Services stopped the eviction on the grounds Patterson had no knowledge
of her son’s actions.
See Charlotte Housing Auth. v. Patterson, 120 N.C. App., 552,
1995
Legal Services Accused of Acting like the ACLU
In 1994, angry members of the Charlotte City Council cut the city’s
contract with Legal Services of Southern Piedmont in retaliation for derailing
anti-crime initiatives backed by the city. The council had submitted several
anti-crime proposals to the state legislature for approval which included
tougher sanctions against crime in public housing. However, council members
accused Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, with whom the city had a contract
to provide legal assistance to the poor, of “sabotaging” the bills by going
behind their backs and lobbying against them. Mayor Pro tem Pat McCrory
and the council then cut their contract with Southern Legal. Says McCrory,
“There was a feeling that Legal Services overstepped its bounds and was
becoming more like the (American Civil Liberties Union).”
See Katie Reynolds, “Legal Services Contract Cut by Angry Council
Members,” Business Journal-Charlotte, June 27, 1994, pg. 4
Legal Services Advocates Race-Based Districting
In 1996, Legal Services of the Lower Cape Fear tried to force a county
to establish a race-based electoral district for local elections. The case
began in 1993 when Legal Services filed a lawsuit against Brunswick County
alleging that the county’s method of electing commissioners and school
board members illegally diluted black voting strength. Despite the fact
that blacks had been elected to various local offices in the preceding
20 years, Legal Services argued that a special electoral district was needed
to guarantee black representation. However, both a federal district
court and a U.S. Appeals Court rejected the claim. The Appellate Court
held that legal services proposed district, a 75-mile boomerang-shaped
district meandering all over the county, clearly violated the U.S. Supreme
Court’s recent decision rejecting racial gerrymandering.
See Gause v. Brunswick County, No. 95-3028, 1996
“It’s the Old Morality Issue”
In 1989, Central Carolina Legal Services sued the state for requiring
parents to be married in order to receive AFDC benefits. Under the Aid
to Families with Dependent Children-Unemployed Parent Program, cash grants
were given to any family with children where the principal wage earner
was unemployed. To be eligible, North Carolina required that parents be
married and denied assistance to unmarried couples living together. Legal
services filed suit challenging the legality of the measure, arguing that
the state shouldn’t pressure parents to get married. Said the attorney
in the case, “It’s the old morality issue.”
See “Unwed Couple Sue State for Children’s Benefits,” U.P.I.,
February 7, 1989