Controversial longtime St. Augustine Commissioner SUSAN BURK voted on January 9, 2006 in favor of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) by 3000-4000 year old indigenous village (see below).
Only then-Mayor GEORGE R. GARDNER voted agaist the project on January 9, 2006.
COmmissioner SUSAN BURK did not disclose the relationship with ROBERT MICHAEL GRAUBARD, who stands accused of a "fraudulent scheme" by the Ponce family over the CONCH HOUSE MARINA and CONCH HOUSE BUILDERS project.
As recently as June 11, 2007, during a recess of the City Commission meeting, ROBERT MICHAEL GRAUBARD kissed Commissioner SUSAN BURK.
Pursuant to National Response Center Report No. 844088, federal, atate nad local investigators and regulators have been alerted to ROBERT MICHAEL GRAUBARD's RED HOUSE BLUFF building (see below).
Will Commissioner SUSAN BURK kindly answer the questions about her agreements, understandings and relationships with ROBERT MICHAEL GRAUGARD.
As indisputably and irrefragably stated last year in paragraph 41 of the April 20, 2006 environmental whistleblower complaint against the CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE and Commissioners in their individual capacities (not asking for taxpayers to pay for City burgher's torts):
Respondent Commissioner SUSAN BURK is a local domestic relations lawyer who has zealously defended the rights of women. Her alleged ex-boyfriend, ROBERT MICHAEL GRAUBARD, is a developer who received City permission to build projects in wetlands, including condominiums and a strip mall on a sacred Indian site that may contain 2000-4000 year old religious sites and burial sites. GRAUBARD should be interviewed to confirm statements he has allegedly made, bragging about monies he contributed to elect Respondent BURK. Commissioner BURK has previously shown her willingness to engage in flummery regarding possible illegal conduct by Respondent CITY MANAGER WILLIAM B. HARRISS. On or about April 11, 2005, Respondent HARRISS came up to me without introducing himself and threatened me with arrest for disorderly conduct after a City Commission meeting in which I had raised concerns about the City’s annexation policies, the Voting Rights Act being violated by those annexation policies, and environmental concerns about one annexation (suggesting a motion to table, which the Commissioners passed). In response to concerns about Respondent HARRIS’ threats Respondent BURK sent an E-mail denying this conversation had taken place, claiming that she had exited the room with him. Commissioner BURK sent her denials of HARRISS’ threats by E-mail to her fellow Commissioners. Commissioner BURK’s denials were then rebutted immediately by an affidavit I had already secured from a witness, Ms. Sue Neely, who heard HARRISS’ threats. Commissioner BURK did not further respond regarding HARRISS’ threats. Her angry denial that they took place -- and Respondent HARRISS’ joking publicly about her frequently changing her mind -- makes her an unreliable witness, whom the investigator should approach with caution. Other persons speaking from the audience without officially recognized are not arrested or threatened with arrests, including developers, City Chief Administrative Officer Timothy Burchfield and Respondents HARRISS and WILSON, who make remarks and talk while other persons are speaking without censure or sanction. This situation of the laughing, talking and immaturity of Burchfield, HARRISS and WILSON is known to Commissioners, who have done nothing to inculcate respect by City employees for persons engaged in protected activity..
Will Commissioner BURK come clean about her voting on her ex-boyfriend's projects?
Will Commissioner BURK vote to reconsider the January 9, 2006 PUD approval rubberstamped in derogation of her duties to uphold the laws pursuant to Article VI of the United States Constitution and the Flofida Constitution?
Will Commissionser BURK recuse herself?
Will Commissioner BURK be investigated by federal and state law enforcement?
Will Commissioner BURK resign?
No comments:
Post a Comment