Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Environmental Watchdog Tom Reynolds Vindicated: Judge McGillin DISMISSES SAB Mayor Rich O'Brien's "Stalking" Injunction: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

Another First Amendment victory. The Honorable Seventh Circuit Court Judge, Howard O. McGillin, Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) roundly rejected St. Augustine Beach Mayor RICH O'BRIEN'S bogus "stalking" injunction against environmental whistleblower Tom Reynolds. The First Amendment lives. Kudos to Mr. Reynolds' attorney, Thomas E. Cushman.


(We shall overcome!)

Florida's 7th Circuit Court Judge Howard O. McGillin, Col., U.S. Army (Ret.) vindicated the First Amendment today, in a stunning rebuke to fourteen-year veteran St. Augustine Beach Commissioner RICHARD BURTT O'BRIEN, currently St. Augustine Beach Mayor, who sought to treat a citizen activist as a "stalker," complete with injunction and potential jail time if the injunction were violated.

At Noon on December 7, 2016, St. Johns County Circuit Court JUdge Howard O. McGillin dismissed and dissolved St. Augustine Beach Mayor RICHARD BURTT O'BRIEN's bogus "stalking" injunction against outspoken government watchdog Tom Reynolds.

Three cheers for Judge McGillin, for Mr. Reynolds and for his counsel, Thomas Elijah Cushman.

Judge McGillin heard sworn testimony of five witnesses -- Reynolds, O'BRIEN and three men whose paychecks O'BRIEN signs -- two of whom worked for the polluting employer and one of whom is the Commander of the St. Augustine Beach Police, whose paycheck is co-signed by Mayor RICH O'BRIEN, the petitioner in the bogus "stalking" injunction case.

The disgraced key witness -- the caterwauling faux, furious, fulminating "victim" -- was emotional St. Augustine Beach Mayor RICHARD BURTT O'BRIEN who failed to prove any of the elements on any of the counts of alleged "stalking," all of which Judge McGillin found without reasonable basis and found protected under the First Amendment. O'BRIEN did prove that he is a bully and a miscreant.

Judge McGillin firmly but graciously rejected O'BRIEN's rodomontade and his developer lawyer's jejune and spurious arguments, advanced by an associate with the law firm that formerly represented the City of St. Augustine Beach.

o Exclaimed "there is a line in the sand you do not cross" as an emotional argument against Mr. Reynolds' First Amendment protected activity in reporting environmental concerns.
o Exhorted, "There are two sides of me," saying that where the "family me" is concerned, he deserved protection, banging the witness box three times for emphasis.
o Claimed he did not have his hearing aid turned on while facing Judge McGillin October 26, 2016.
o Admitted calling the St. Augustine Beach Police minutes after Judge McGillin gave an order October 26, 2016clarifying Mr. Reynold's First Amendment right to go to City Hall.
o Quibbled with whether Judge McGillin intended to cover politicking, complaining that Mr. Reynolds and his son bicycled near him in approaching City Hall (That was in the October 26, 2016 bench order for which O'Brien claims to have turned off his hearing aid).
o Claimed not to know what the First Amendment "petition for redress of grievances" clause meant, though he incorrectly.
o Said he was scandalized by Mr. Reynolds' allegations of swinging alcohol fueled parties at St. Augustine City Hall, held by the St. Augustine Beach Civic Association; Mayor O'BRIEN allowed as how he did not attend those parties, held nine times a year until recently in the chambers of the City of St. Augustine Beach City Commission (now reserved for only government meetings).
o Complained Mr. Reynolds wrote him and others and had compared his wife, Loren Ringhaver, to Leona Helmsley, complete with an unflatering photo of Ms. Helmsley. (Reynolds referred to alleged possible unfair labor practices and disrespectful behavior by Ms. Ringhaver toward hotel maids).
o Gave inaccurate, exaggerated or downright emotional streams of consciousness, reminiscent of Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny:
o Alleged no emotional distress, severe or otherwise, but claimed he was worried about his wife." (Sound familiar?).
o Yet appeared angry and threatening, saying Mr. Reynolds "was not man enough" to say the things he wrote "in person."
o Vented at Mr. Reynolds, saying he had "spoken 39 times" at public meetings in 2016. (Is that all?)
o Caterwauled that Mr. Reynolds has filed ethics complaints, with his voice rising in volume as he raged at Mr. Reynolds.
o Was not present during an alleged encounter between Mr. Reynolds and an O'BRIEN motel employee over illegal, unpermitted stormwater draining into street and dune by Mayor O'BRIEN's hotel and family's adjoining property.
o Showed memory lapses, giving the wrong year of his initial election.
o  Falsely claimed that Mr. Reynolds was "on my property" when he narrated a video showing the Mayor's hotel lawbreaking.
o Bragged about how he "gives back" as a "volunteer" to the community by working as a "Mayor" for $6000 per year for a part-time gig, for which he is often ill-prepared or seemingly absent-minded and self-seeking.
o Stated that he had never served in the military, but conflated "service," such as it has been, as mayor of a city of 7000 as similar to military service (not unlike Donald Trump comparing military service to military school).
o Admitted in response to questions from Judge McGillin that Mr. Reynolds is not "the deity" and he did not fear eternal damnation at Mr. Reynolds' behest as a result of an "offensive" e-mail.

Controversial St. Augustine Beach (SABPD CHIEF ROBERT HARDWICK (right) and 
St. Johns County Sheriff DAVID B. SHOAR f/k/a "HOAR"

o Author of November 28, 2016 e-mail insulting Mr. Reynolds, ruled inadmissible hearsay when offered by the counsel for Mayor RICHARD BURTT O'BRIEN.
o Never called as a witness by either party
o Very often absent due to National Guard service.
o Worked for State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA on Michelle O'Connell and other homicide case investigations.
o  Sheriff SHOAR's likely replacement as Sheriff, cynics believe.

COMMANDER JAMES PARKER a/k/a "PORKER" (Mr. Reynolds' Floridian/Freudian slip du jour)
o Claimed Mr. Reynolds has "changed" (Sound familiar?)
o Asserted Mr. Reynolds was "passionate." (Sound familiar?)
o Claimed he once escorted Mr. Reynolds out of a meeting where Mr. Reynolds was speaking and interrupted by Mayor O'BRIEN.
o Worked for State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA on Michelle O'Connell and other homicide case investigations.

o Employees of Mayor O'BRIEN hotel direct storm water into the City's storm sewer.
o Mr. Reynolds cursed about Mayor O'BRIEN blocking the sidewalk in front of the hotel with a thick PVC pipe emitting purported rainwater.
o He found Mr. Reynolds annoying in raising concerns about Mayor O"BRIEN's illegal water pollution, saying "it was not his place to do that… and here we are."
o Dislikes Mr. Reynolds' First Amendment protected activity as an environmental watchdog -- "Some people have nothing better to do."

o Believes Mayor O'BRIEN had actual notice of the DEP order he violated (prohibiting dune destruction by storm water drainage -- O"BRIEN was in the Emergency Opeations as orders were given.
o "Wanted to save somebody's life" when he reported to SABPD the water blocking the road and sidewalk.
o Pedestrians and bicyclists were being forced into the street by O'BRIEN's hotel employees' actions.
o It would have been illegal for him to bicycle on the other side of the street," contrary to what was suggested in questioning by O'BRIEN's lawyer (a maladroit associate in the developer's law firm,  St. JOHNS LAW GROUP, ethically challenged former law firm for City of St. Augustine Beach and O'BRIEN's current counsel).

During the hearing, Judge McGillin repeatedly sustained objections by Thomas Elijah Cushman, lawyer for Tom Reynolds.  Learned counsel for other-directed St. Augustine Beach Mayor RICHARD BURTT O'BRIEN attempted to admit inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant information, including a November 28, 2016 e-mail from Chief ROBERT HARDWICK to Mr. Reynolds expressing the opinions of multiple government agencies. (Sound familiar?).

A host of possible ethics violations appeared at the hearing, including the former law firm for the City of St. Augustine Beach -- DOUGLAS NELSON BURNETT's St. JOHNS LAW GROUP, which also represents developers -- saying there was "no First Amendment issue" with Mayor O'BRIEN's attack on government watchdog Tom Reynolds.  Talk about a "basket of deplorables."  See, e.g., Ralph Nader, NO CONTEST: Corporate lawyers and the perversion of justice in America (1998).

Posted December 8, 2016 03:13 am - Updated December 8, 2016 03:57 am
Judge dismisses Beach mayor’s stalking injunction against city resident

Many of the allegations in a petition for injunction against stalking, filed by St. Augustine Beach Mayor Rich O’Brien against a city resident, were activities protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a judge said Wednesday.

After a morning hearing in a St. Johns County courtroom, Circuit Court Judge Howard O. McGillin dismissed O’Brien’s petition and vacated a temporary injunction that had been in place against Tom Reynolds.

McGillin granted the temporary injunction in late October — just days after O’Brien filed the petition — until a full hearing could be had on the matter.

After a 30-minute recess that followed nearly two hours of testimony and argument, McGillin told O’Brien and his attorney, Contessa O’Connell, as well as Reynolds and his attorney, Tom Cushman, that the allegations didn’t establish a “pattern of conduct that would give rise to a stalking injunction.”

Testimony in court centered, mainly, around three allegations. Those included a confrontation that an employee of O’Brien’s said he had with Reynolds in front of the La Fiesta Inn, a hotel on A1A Beach Boulevard owned by O’Brien and his wife, Lauren Ringhaver. Another involved a St. Augustine Beach City Commission meeting in which O’Brien, while presiding over the meeting and feeling that Reynolds was causing a disturbance during public comments, had Reynolds escorted from the room. The third allegation had to do with a series of emails in which Reynolds made comments that O’Brien said he found threatening.

Though Reynolds has disputed the characterization of the confrontation in front of the hotel, two employees testified in court that Reynolds approached one of them in the days after Hurricane Matthew yelling about a hose that was stretched across a sidewalk and pumping water into a storm drain.

Reynolds has said that water was pumped without proper permission and that other water, pumped toward the beach, damaged the dunes. O’Brien has disputed those allegations.

Both employees described an angry Reynolds who was shouting various obscenities and requesting one of them to deliver various messages to O’Brien.

In delivering his decision, McGillin acknowledged that, while it had been alleged that Reynolds had asked the employee to “convey a rather vulgar expression” to O’Brien, the expression was more hyperbolic than a “credible threat.”

And “credible threat” is one of three terms mentioned in the stalking statute, McGillin explained after returning from the recess.

The other two are “harassment” and “course of conduct.”

“Harassment,” he said, means to engage in conduct directed at a specific person that causes “substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.”

“Course of conduct,” McGillin said, “means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose.”

“The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests,” he said.

It was that protection that Cushman focused on during his questioning of those who testified, including O’Brien himself.

McGillin also cited it when discussing much of the rest of the allegations, particularly the incident at the City Commission meeting, and another one outside of City Hall in which Reynolds was asked to leave by city police while visiting with others who were campaigning in the parking lot prior to the recent election.

“I think those come specifically under the protected First Amendment activity,” McGillin said. “If our First Amendment means anything, it specifically means that even obnoxious and vulgar and crude comments, however distasteful, are protected speech — particularly in the political activity of addressing one’s government.”

McGillin called the bulk of email traffic “challenging,” saying that while much of it referenced O’Brien’s public life as a member of city government, it also mentioned his wife.

One email, addressed to O’Brien, said that he and Ringhaver would “rot in hell.” Another, addressed to city commissioners and copied to O’Brien, asked the question, “What kind of person would destroy our St. Augustine Beach dunes?”

“A very bad person, a selfish person, an ignorant person, a complete piece of [expletive deleted],” it answered.

The third email, mentioned the pumping of water and likened Ringhaver to Leona Helmsley, a New York hotel owner known for an abrasive personality who died in 2007.

The first email, McGillin said, did not meet the credible threat threshold and could also probably be construed as hyperbole.

The second email, about the dunes, contained “vulgar and offensive speech” but went “right to the core of politically protected activity,” he said.

The third email also mentioned O’Brien’s “conduct as a public official,” McGillin said. Referencing Ringhaver in that email “while offensive” did not constitute a threat, he said.

McGillin did caution that there is limit to what O’Brien can be expected to endure as a public figure. He referenced a piece of case law cited by O’Connell.

“First Amendment activity essentially stops at the door to one’s house,” McGillin said, paraphrasing the decision in the case.

While he said there was no evidence presented on Wednesday that suggested Reynolds had crossed that line, McGillin did recommend that Cushman provide a copy of the decision to Reynolds.

“Much of what Mr. O’Brien does in the public eye is subject to First Amendment protection for other people to comment on,” McGillin said. “But what he does in his private capacity, at his private home, on his private business, can be very well protected by stalking activities, but I don’t believe these current allegations violate it.”

Tom Reynolds
Now Commissioner Rich O'Brien is going to have pay all of the Attorney Fees. As of right now that is about $11,500.00, plus will probably get higher. Even when someone is a Big Ego Politician, they DO NOT get to file false SLAPP suits. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation won't be tolerated in America. A lot of information came out about the St Augustine Beach Police Department being involved in this matter. The Grand Jury needs to review those actions and other very questionable conduct in the SABPD that meets the definition of Official Misconduct/3rd Degree Felonies. Commissioner Rich O'Brien and Building Official Gary Larson, a City of St Augustine Beach employee, are under Felony Investigation now. Many of the actions taken are against the law and others are very unethical. Justice is on the slow side, but has left the Station with a destination, Next stop City Hall/Police Department St Augustine Beach Floor a DUH !
Commissioner Rich O'Brien said under oath that he didn't know what the First Amendment of the Constitution fully means. Even though he took an Oath of Office to protect and uphold the Constitution three times. What an EYE and EAR opener that under oath statement from O'Brien was. It is a good thing Judge Howard O. McGillin is an expert and teaches a First Amendment class. The Judge sure Schooled Commissioner Rich O'Brien and his Attorney (a Good Looking Babe, I think she likes me) on the First Amendment. Lastly, Commissioner Rich O'Brien needs to go to Anger Management or Acting classes. He made a fool out of himself on the stand. Commissioner O'Brien was even pretending he was gaveling (he was pounding his hand on the stand) in anger while up testifying. O'Brien even tried to start a fight when he was testifying. The part about him saying he didn't hear the Judges Orders on Oct 26th because he didn't have his hearing aid in his ear was also very interesting. Even the Bailiff couldn't hold a straight face on that one.
All this wrong doing will have more days in court. Commissioner Rich O'Brien, Chief Hardwick, Commander Parker, and a few high raking City Employees will have to explain their wrong doings and or criminal acts.

Nobody is above the LAW !

Tom Reynolds
Oh one last thing. When Commissioner O'Brien admitted on stand that he carries around a Thumb Drive with 39 Public Comments by Tom Reynolds, that was very WEIRD !

Florida law forbids Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Did Mayor RICHARD O'BRIEN of St. Augustine Beach violate that law, exposing himself to court-ordered attorney fees and damages in his retaliatory injunction filed against government watchdog Thomas F. Reynolds, Jr. for "stalking?":

768.295 Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) prohibited.—(1) It is the intent of the Legislature to protect the right in Florida to exercise the rights of free speech in connection with public issues, and the rights to peacefully assemble, instruct representatives, and petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution. It is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues. Therefore, the Legislature finds and declares that prohibiting such lawsuits as herein described will preserve this fundamental state policy, preserve the constitutional rights of persons in Florida, and assure the continuation of representative government in this state. It is the intent of the Legislature that such lawsuits be expeditiously disposed of by the courts.
(2) As used in this section, the phrase or term:
(a) “Free speech in connection with public issues” means any written or oral statement that is protected under applicable law and is made before a governmental entity in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a governmental entity, or is made in or in connection with a play, movie, television program, radio broadcast, audiovisual work, book, magazine article, musical work, news report, or other similar work.
(b) “Governmental entity” or “government entity” means the state, including the executive, legislative, and the judicial branches of government and the independent establishments of the state, counties, municipalities, corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities of the state, counties, or municipalities, districts, authorities, boards, commissions, or any agencies thereof.
(3) A person or governmental entity in this state may not file or cause to be filed, through its employees or agents, any lawsuit, cause of action, claim, cross-claim, or counterclaim against another person or entity without merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue, or right to peacefully assemble, to instruct representatives of government, or to petition for redress of grievances before the various governmental entities of this state, as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 5, Art. I of the State Constitution.
(4) A person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of this section. A person or entity may move the court for an order dismissing the action or granting final judgment in favor of that person or entity. The person or entity may file a motion for summary judgment, together with supplemental affidavits, seeking a determination that the claimant’s or governmental entity’s lawsuit has been brought in violation of this section. The claimant or governmental entity shall thereafter file a response and any supplemental affidavits. As soon as practicable, the court shall set a hearing on the motion, which shall be held at the earliest possible time after the filing of the claimant’s or governmental entity’s response. The court may award, subject to the limitations in s. 768.28, the party sued by a governmental entity actual damages arising from a governmental entity’s violation of this section. The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.
(5) In any case filed by a governmental entity which is found by a court to be in violation of this section, the governmental entity shall report such finding and provide a copy of the court’s order to the Attorney General no later than 30 days after such order is final. The Attorney General shall report any violation of this section by a governmental entity to the Cabinet, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A copy of such report shall be provided to the affected governmental entity.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2000-174; s. 1, ch. 2015-70.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin 
To: comrobrien ; mroyle ; hardwickra ; parkerja ; braddatz ; serdelyi ; jimwil03 ; comasamuels ; comugeorge ; comsgsnodgrass ; commengland ; BillCurtis 
Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2016 12:30 pm
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-420: St. Augustine Beach Mayor Richard O'Brien's Illegal SLAPP Lawsuit -- Injunction Against Thomas F. Reynolds, Jr. Barring Him From City Hall

Dear Mayor O'Brien:
1. Please respond to my questions about your alleged pollution without permits or notification of federal authorities. 

2. Does the City of St. Augustine Beach, its Commissioners and Managers endorse your illegal SLAPP lawsuit?

Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin <>
To: comrobrien <>; mroyle <>; hardwickra <>; parkerja <>; braddatz <>; serdelyi <>; jimwil03 <>; comasamuels <>; comugeorge <>; comsgsnodgrass <>; commengland <>
Sent: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: Request No. 2016-420: National Response Center Report No. 1161722, any NPDES & Section 404 permits for ocean pollution by GRACIE HOLDING LLC, BEACH DEVELOPMENT LLC, LaFiesta, 810 AIA Beach Blvd

Dear Mayor O'Brien, et al.
1. Did you, your wife Lauren and your LaFiesta Inn and Suites have a permit when your employees began this dumping?
2. Have you ever applied for a permit for such dumping, which allegedly destroyed a dune?

3. Have you consulted any environmental lawyer or criminal defense attorney?  Who? 

4. Are you relying upon your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering my Request No. 2016-420?  
5. Governments do not have Fifth Amendment rights -- only people.
6. You as a person may have the right to remain silent, but we sincerely wish you wouldn't.
7. The public interest in your actions affecting our beach and ocean requires full disclosure.  Now.  The election is on November 8th.
8. Will you please respond to my Request No. 2016-420 before 4 PM?
9. Mr. Tom Reynolds has filed National Response Center Report No. 1161722.
10. Please preserve all city, corporate and personal records for review by the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin <>
To: <>; foia-saj
>; comrobrien <>; mroyle <>; hardwickra <>; dshoar <>; mwanchick <>; pmccormack <>; jimwil03 <>; cmulligan <>; mcline <>; NRC <>
Sent: Sun, Oct 16, 2016 11:13 pm
Subject: Request No. 2016-420: NPDES & Section 404 permits for ocean pollution by GRACIE HOLDING LLC, BEACH DEVELOPMENT LLC, LaFiesta, 810 AIA Beach Blvd
Good evening:

1. Please send copies of any NPDES, Section 404 or other environmental permits applied for or obtained by, or notifications made by or on behalf of:
d/b/a "LaFiesta Ocean Inn and Suites," owned and controlled by St. Augustine Beach Mayor Richard O'Brien and his wife Lauren Ringhaver, to discharge thousands of gallons of alleged pollutants, from their resort location at 810 A1A Beach Blvd, St. Augustine Beach, Florida 32080, October 8, 2016 to the date of your response:
A.  onto our St. Augustine Beach; or
B.  into our Atlantic Ocean; or 
C.  into local sewers or storm sewers.
2. Please send me any legal research, federal police or sheriff or local prosecutor investigations, reports, correspondence, photo or video surveillance or documentation concerning:
A.  the nature, extent, effects, chemical and biological composition, and resolution of the alleged pollution; and 
B.  citizen protected activity in reporting the alleged pollution to SABPD, et al.
C. SABPD referrals to FDEP, EPA, the State's Attorney, Sheriff, or any environmental crimes unit.
3. Please be sure to include any communications with, investigations of, or interactions with local government watchdog Thomas F. "Tom" Reynolds, Jr. in response to Mr. Reynolds' protected activity under the First and Ninth Amendments and environmental law, to make reports of alleged pollution, whether by SAPD, county, city, security, legal or other personnel.
4. Please respond to me by Noon on October 17, 2016.
5. Mayor O'Brien and St. Augustine Beach Commissioners:
A. Please place Mr. Reynolds' specific beach and ocean pollution concerns on the St. Augustine Beach City Commission meeting agenda on October 17, 2016 at 6 PM.  
B. Please place the public's reasonable expectations of probity, and maladroit SAB and SABPD responses to citizen and employee protected activity on pollution concerns on a future Commission agenda. SAB is a customer service organization and must act like one. 
C. You will kindly recall that circa 2011, St. Augustine Beach Commission voted to reject my modest proposal for a whistleblower policy, patterned after the one unanimously adopted by Anastasia Mosquito Control Commission of St. Johns County.
D. Never again should our citizens perceive they are being discouraged, intimidated or given inaccurate, misleading, discouraging, false or intimidating misinformation in response to pollution concerns, which must be acted upon without fear or favor of influential persons.
E. Please make the overhead projector available during the October 17, 2016 6 PM meeting so that Mr. Tom Reynolds, et al may share color photographs of the alleged pollution in quo, and to question Chief Robert Hardwick, Commander James Parker and Mayor Richard O'Brien about the events of October 8-16, 2016 at the 810 A1A Beach Blvd property.
F. Please direct the City's Information Technology staff to make certain that all available photos and videotapes will be viewable in the meeting room and to viewers of the meeting on cable television and internet streaming video during the meeting.
G. Please cease and desist from any perceived efforts by SAB, SABPD, et al. to chill, coerce, intimidate or retaliate against Mr. Reynolds' protected activity in reporting alleged ocean pollution by the Mayor of St. Augustine Beach, Florida, Mr. Richard O''Brien, his wife and their corporations.
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Mayor O'brien took an OATH to
Uphold and Defend our Constitution .
Since Mayor Rich O'brien has chosen to ignore his OATH ... On December 07th, Pearl Harbor Day, It is time for O'brien to RESIGN @ the next Beach meeting 12/12/16