Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

There are currently three ongoing legal battles surrounding the proposed Safer Human Medicine primate facility. One of these is the State of Georgia v. Decatur County-Bainbridge Industrial Development Authority et al., brought by District Attorney Joe Mulholland, which contests the project’s bond validation.

Representatives from the district attorney’s office, Safer Human Medicine, and the Industrial Development Authority each gave their opening oral arguments before the Georgia Court of Appeals in Atlanta this morning.

District Attorney Mulholland took to the stand first, contending that when he had initially approved the bond, he had not been given all necessary documents relating to the project, including the pilot agreement that was voted on. There was some discussion between Mulholland and the appeals court over the timeliness of him bringing forward the bond validation case. Mulholland pointed out what he argues was secrecy surrounding the project, and briefly mentioned the prior record of Safer Human Medicine’s executives with allegations of animal neglect and illegal conduct. When asked by the court what he feels should be done about the bond, he argued it should either be remanded to the superior court, dismissed, or found moot.

The discussion over the timing of this case being brought forward continued into the opening arguments from Safer Human Medicine, who contended that this case is an attack on the project. The company’s lawyer claimed that Mulholland had been given all necessary documents, and cited cases around bonds that, he argued, regardless of any fraudulence, if the bond had been validated and stood for a 30 day period, there was nothing that could be done about it.

Michael Kozlarek, of King Kozlarek Root Law, spoke on behalf of the Industrial Development Authority. Kozlarek reiterated the Development Authority’s decision to revoke their support of the project, but declined to comment on their rationale for doing so when asked. Kozlarek did also concede that a citizen had attempted to intervene against the bond at the bond’s validation hearing on January 2 of this year, though that citizen was dismissed as not having properly entered as a party to the matter.

During the opening arguments, other factors, including the ongoing suit from citizens regarding alleged Open Records violations, were brought up, as well as the issue of prior notice of the January bond hearing being published in the local paper.

No further action or decision was made today. The Post-Searchlight will continue to provide updates on this case as they become available. Archived footage of the proceedings will be made available on the Court of Appeals’ website in the coming days.