In secret, behind locked gates, our Nation's Oldest City dumped a landfill in a lake (Old City Reservoir), while emitting sewage in our rivers and salt marsh. Organized citizens exposed and defeated pollution, racism and cronyism. We elected a new Mayor. We're transforming our City -- advanced citizenship. Ask questions. Make disclosures. Demand answers. Be involved. Expect democracy. Report and expose corruption. Smile! Help enact a St. Augustine National Park and Seashore. We shall overcome!
God forgive them in the long run. In the short run, as Churchill said, "We shall fight them on the beaches…." And we shall have fun in paradise, exposing flummery, dupery and nincompoopery.
Organized, corrupt forces want to inflict an 8% sales tax increase on you and don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and concurrency and impact fees.
Those forces once owned this county, acting through corrupt County Commissioners and Sheriffs. They're hoping you won't vote in an off-year election, with low turnout their stated goal to take $150,000,000 of our money over ten years. They want to hoodwink you.
They want to con you.
They want to manufacture your consent -- at $25-45 per vote -- to spare foreign-funded developers the indignity of paying their fair share.
Vote NO.
Tell those builders of shoddy gerry-built houses -- Fortune 500 developers and their entourage of lawyers, engineers, lobbyists, and politicians:
NO.
Tell them what you think of their clear-cutting our trees, destroying our wildlife, filling in our wetlands, and creating massive uncompensated impacts in requiring new schools, roads, fire stations and other "infrastructure."
Tell them NO.
In the words of the School Board's mantra, "Character counts": Fairness: the one percenters demand an 8% sales tax increase -- the one percenters' organized money mob would rob working people to subsidize wealthy developers. Vote NO. Trustworthiness: the one percenters make bogus apple pie arguments, not supported by facts. Vote NO. Respect: developer propagandists talk down to us, as if we were five-year olds. Spending $25-45 per vote, expecting high ROI in taxes, impact fees and concurrency costs avoided, laughing all the way to their banks. Vote NO. Caring: we care about seniors and those who can least afford to pay sales taxes, exploited by Confederates throughout the Old South -- Tallahassee Republicans want working people to subsidize the wealthy, and are even talking about abolishing property taxes. Under Governor Jeb Bush, intangible property taxes on stocks and bonds were abolished, with Bush calling it an "evil tax." No, exploitation of working people through sales taxation is an "evil tax." Reject their works and pomps. Vote NO. Responsibility: Foreign-funded secretive developers and their Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), shadowy dodgy organized money from corrupt countries with high growth rates -- emboldened by County and City Commissioners in St. Johns County, St. Augustine and St. Augustine Beach -- don't want to take responsibility for the cost of their massive overbuilding: they want y'all to pay for it. Vote NO. Citizenship: St. Johns County's office holders act like we "can't tell us what to do." Yes we can! You work for us -- just say no to swinish foreign investors, developers, lawyers, contractors and PACS. Or you're out the door -- every single one of you. Vote NO.
Enough.
Time to "educate" the School Board and Commissions, a/k/a, "Fool Board, County Omission, and City Omissions "of St. Augustine and St. Augustine Beach: time to teach those dumb 'ole Fortune 500 developers some manners, respect, fairness, trustworthiness and responsibility, St. Johns County style. There are more of us folks, "We the People," than there are developer-driven hick hacks.
And developer mouthpiece GEORGE MORRIS McCLURE is no longer with us, no longer bribing officials.
And the FBI is investigating corruption.
Vote NO.
Vote NO like your lifestyle depends upon it, because it does.
Vote NO on November 3, 2015 on sales tax increase.
Do it for your grandchildren, so they might live without corruption and sprawl.
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States a/k/a "Chamberpot" has lobbied against all decent legislation since the New Deal.
It's a cartel: a "peak association," in political science terms, representing cartelists.
It is an affront to small business interests, taking millions of small businesses' hard-earned money to lobby against small business interests, in favor of monopolies, Big Business subsidies, and even supports Big Tobacco and Big Oil interests that are contrary to public health and our planet's future.
Investing your small business profits in Chamber of Commerce membership is like putting Dracula in charge of the Bloodbank.
The Chamber of Commerce's tawdry tatterdemalion local affiliate, which Chamberpot lobbied to criminalize art and music in St. Augustine, is moving in to the ghostly, nearly-empty The St. Augustine Record building on December 1, 2015 as a tenant. (The $5 million Goss press was moved out and the paper is now printed in Jacksonville). How desperate a newspaper to make "strange bedfellows" with business lobbyists? Can't imagine The New York Times selling its office space to polluters, price fixersand corrupter lobbyists. Will this make the impecunious Record crew even more amenable to printing impudent monopolistic propaganda favoring developers and Florida Power & Light? Will this odd tenancy stave off a second Morris Communications bankruptcy? You know what William Shakespeare said?
St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce to share Record building
Posted: October 18, 2015 - 11:32pm | Updated: October 19, 2015 - 10:08am
St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce to share Record building Posted: October 18, 2015 - 11:32pm | Updated: October 19, 2015 - 10:08am
By STUART KORFHAGE
stuart.korfhage@staugustine.com
For years, the St. Augustine Record building at State Road 312 and S.R. 207 has been more than just a newspaper office.
That diversity is about to increase further.
The Record has reached an agreement to add the St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce and St. Johns Volunteers! as tenants of the building, effective Dec. 1.
Customers of The Record will still be able to access the building during normal business hours just as before. [Ed's note: whew! We're so relieved.] Operations for the newspaper at the building will remain unchanged.
Record publisher Delinda Fogel said she’s comfortable with The Record’s alignment with its new tenants. “It was just a nice fit,” she said. “The three entities, we all want to make St. Johns County a better place.”
Due to the size of The Record’s office, the company has a history of leasing space to others. Currently, the radio station 105.5 FM The Beach, owned by Flagler Broadcasting, broadcasts from the building. Episcopal Children’s Services is a former tenant.
“We just need to make the best use of the asset we have,” Fogel said.
The Chamber recently sold its building at 1 Riberia St. and will be moving into The Record building while it transitions into a new way of operating.
“We are eager to move into a more suitable office space in the St. Augustine Record building,” said Isabelle Rodriguez, president of the Chamber, in an email. “We are working diligently and making great progress on our three-year plan to modernize the Chamber’s programs and services.
“The sale of our St. Augustine office and our move into what will likely be a temporary space is one more step toward our goal of creating a co-work concept space for our members, staff and the business community at large.”
Just got dropped by a St. Augustine Conservatives Facebook page after posting links critical of the 8% sales tax increase and cramdown arbitration clauses and criticizing Ann Coulter, whom the sponsor said "rocks." How despicable. How many uninformed St. Augustine "conservatives" are really corporation-lovers who worship the Almighty Dollar?
St. Johns County Democrats are now a third party, and the trend continues unabated:
Republicans: 84,625 51.98%
Others: 39,810 24.45%
Democrats: 38,358 23.56%
Total: 162,793
Source: St. Johns County Supervisor of Elections, as of October 31, 2015.
We first reported this datum on this blog on March 22, 2015, and since that time -- the decline since then has been a full quarter of a percentage point.
That's okay, we still have a headquarters run by Undercover Republicans.
And we're one of fourteen (14) Florida counties where No Party Affiliation voters outnumber Democrats.
Pitiful.
Execrable.
Inexcusably inept.
By the way, mirabile dictu, wonder of wonders, miracle of miracles, The St. Augustine Record finally noticed!
But it got the numbers wrong, stating in a November 1, 2015 editorial:
"The county has 84,625 registered Republicans. For the first time during an election, the number of independent voters in the county has eclipsed the Democrats — 39,810 to 39,358 (sic). That’s significant." Actually more significant than the Record stated: The Record is off by 1000.
Acalculia?
That would be my guess -- an inability to perform mathematical functions, something which most politicians and journalists suffer.
What do you reckon?
The New York Times has a series on arbitration abuses by corporate America.
More than 27 years ago, I was proud to co-write a peer-reviewed article exposing this dreadful anti-consumer cram-down arbitration scheme for ABA's peer-reviewed Judge's Journal, with Judge James L. Guill, in 1989: see James L. Guill and Edward A. Slavin, Jr., "A Rush to Unfairness: The Downside to Alternative Dispute Resolution," American Bar Association Judge's Journal (1989). https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=119960
Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
With great hoopla and press fanfare, Sheriff DAVID SHOAR had Sgt. Monroe West arrested last year for three fraud counts (double-dipping and moonlighting -- allegedly collecting money for an outside job at the same time as he was paid to work as a deputy. West was charged with two counts of falsifying an official document and one count of an organized scheme to defraud.
Represented by Jacksonville attorney Bryan DeMaggio of the Sheppard law firm, Monroe West agreed to a twelve month diversion program, but after only nine months, all three felony charges were dismissed in February 2015 by nolle prosequi, according to the Clerk of Court's website docket sheet.
I've requested the documents -- more next week.
Meanwhile: Not a word in The St. Augustine Record, too often the propaganda organ of Sheriff DAVID BERNERD SHOAR (R-Developer Shillville) and his rebarbative Republican St. Johns County political machine. Wonder why?
Does the Record ever cover anything in the St. Johns County Courthouse without being instructed to do so?
You tell me.
The Record is mum on the truth of the criminal prosecution/persecution of Sgt. Monroe West (a respected African-American in a traditionally racist, KKK-run Department).
WONDER WHY?
The Record was long owned and controlled by racist elements, including the racist recently deceased publisher and former owner, ALFRED H. TEBAULT, JR, who was also for years a Vice President at Flagler College. Under TEBAULT's suzerainty, the Record printed biased articles attacking civil rights protesters, providing advance notice of KKK meetings, and publicizing the names and addresses of children desegregating local schools, resulting in their parents being fired, blacklisted, evicted and firebombed. The Record's coverage on TEBAULT's death was disgusting hagiography; TEBAULT never apologized for his crimes, torts and sins, and neither has the Record's current owners, MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS, which bought the newspaper from Seaboard Coastline Railway in 1982, along with the Florida Times-Union.
Was this prosecution retaliation for West telling about his arrest years earlier of one RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA, now our State's Attorney, after which he was allegedly told to let LARIZZA go? ("Do you know who he is" is the mantra of corrupt cops everywhere).
Was this prosecution yet one more overt act of criminal and civil rights violations in retaliation for deputies exercising their God-given right to First Amendment protected activity? See 18 U.S.C. 241, 243, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985.
You tell me.
Inquiring FBI agents want to know, and so do "We, the People."
The truth will set us free.
On November 8, 2016, we elect a new Sheriff and a new State's Attorney.
If developers have their way, their $189,000 (and change) spent on inducing you to support an 8% sales tax increase will have a huge return on investment.
One of the last minute contributors is "David B. Shofar" (sic), otherwise known as DAVID BERNERD SHOAR f/k/a "HOAR," the St. Johns County Sheriff (R-Developer Hell).
It's an off-year election, with low voter turnout expected -- we're spending $200,000 in tax money so you can vote on only one proposition. If turnout is 15%, developers and other corporate special interests will have spent as much as $25 for every vote they get.
Add in the $200,000 we've already spent on this dumb 'ole special election, and it could be $45/vote.
That would rival the 2006 election, when County Commissioner KAREN STERN spent more than $25/vote to lose. That developer money is tainted, and it taints any politician or proposition it supports.
Corrupt foreign investors send their dollars to Flori-DUH to buy corrupt developers, lawyers and politicians, resulting in massive overbuilding of shoddy houses, promiscuous tree clear-cutting and wetland-killing.
We see right through them.
Sales taxes are regressive.
Developers need to pay the cost of infrastructure.
Rich people need to pay their fair of taxes.
Not you and me.
Vote NO.
Developers and large property owners (and their other-directed school system leaders and contractors) all expect an ROI (rate of return): they demand your vote to raise your regressive sales taxes 8%, so they don't have to pay for the cost of suburban sprawl "development."
TIMOTHY FORSON, given unlimited time to speak to St. Augustine City Commission on 8% sales tax hike, without public comment or rebuttal
(5.5% of the words in this overwrought 326 word letter are self-referential vertical pronouns from a smarmy schoolmarm in charge of giving contracts to engineering and construction firms).
Letter: An investment in St. Johns County learning always pays off
Posted: October 30, 2015 - 11:44pm | Updated: October 30, 2015 - 11:49pm
By Tim Forson
St. Augustine Record
Editor: I am a lifelong resident of St. Johns County and proud to have grown up in this community. During the time I was growing up, St. Johns County was a quiet area of several communities with a great deal of history and a slow pace of change. As I raised my family here I have watched the county grow and develop into a wonderful community for families. I feel what sets us apart is the fact that the school system and the community continue to recognize the importance of quality education and character development. Those two priorities are vital to St. Johns County as it continues to grow. We all recognize the history of St. Johns County and we are all responsible for the future of the county. We all must invest in the future our county to ensure well-educated, responsible, and respectful children. Although schools cannot replace the importance of the family, they can be the foundation for the future of St. Johns County. With this in mind, the ½-cent sales tax makes sense. Although my children are now grown, it would be selfish for me to say “no” to the sales tax referendum.
The growth in our county and the increasing demands on classroom teachers creates stress on the school system. The numbers have been shared with the community. The need is obvious. The sales tax referendum is not just about new schools, it is a lifeline to the school system to maintain and enhance the current learning environment for all students. If approved, these funds will also provide for appropriate commitments to technology and school safety. Providing new schools ensures existing schools do not become overcrowded. Investing in our existing schools maintains consistency and excellence throughout the county. I will soon retire, but I do not plan to leave the community I love. Therefore I plan to vote “yes” so that I continue to support St. Johns County for the next 10 years.
NOT IN PRINT VERSION: Forsen is deputy superintendent of operations for the St. Johns County School District
Editorial: St. Augustine city transparency: Let your fingers do the sleuthing
Posted: October 28, 2015 - 8:19pm | Updated: October 29, 2015 - 12:00am
Whether you’re a political gadfly, number junkie, conspiracy theorist or just Joe Citizen with a question about St. Augustine’s municipal finances, you’ll find no stone unturned next week.
Monday the city debuts its new Citizen Transparency site.
Mark Litzinger, who heads the city’s finance department, is the point person on the project which basically opens up the city books in their entirety to anyone with the time to hop online and peel back the onion of city spending. It does not take long. The actual program is deceptively simple and seriously intricate in its ability to peek under the sheets of the city’s books (there is minor redaction of some private employee information, but not financials).
The program will reside on the city’s website, ci.st-augustine.fl.us. Litzinger gave us a preview of the program early this week. One click takes you to a menu bar. Click “St. Augustine,” you’ll get a dropdown of citywide budgets compared to actual expenditures. Click “Categories” you’ll see personal and operational expenses, grants and more. “Departments” allows you to view, say city manager John Regan’s travel expense, as well as those of fire, The VIC, city commission, police and more. Each one opens up to expose more detailed data. Under “Funds” the 450th financials reside. Under “Government” you can breakout public safety, transportation, general government services, culture and recreation and more. Click “Vendor” you can view every city vendor in alphabetical order, with actual expenses to date. Break those down further, you’ll see every check written. “Other reports” are basically budget summaries.
The last category is “Site Links” under which you’ll find an easy to digest user guide and frequently asked questions.
The site is searchable as well, so you won’t need a degree in computer programming to mine the data you need.
Another slick feature of the system is its ability to not only show you the data, but also give you multiple options to capture it. Under the “Actions” you can download any of the information you deem important to TIFF, Word, Excel, XML PDF files and more. Color charts abound on the site — which, for instance, may be very useful and accessible for a newspaper to reprint while explaining a budget issue. It’s an extension of public access through us and to you. It should prove useful all-around.
City manager John Regan calls the new system “the next generation of citizen access.” It certainly looks that way from our brief foray into the program. Regan said much of the credit for the new site goes straight to Litzinger. “I’m really proud of Mark on this.”
Litzinger says “It mirrors our financial system exactly.” And it appears to do that — and perhaps a little more, when combined with and filtered through, all the information in new ways. Litzinger admitted “It lets me run numbers I can’t get myself right now.”
And, he said, because it’s a portal in the city’s site, “you can’t break it ... you can’t mess it up.”
Take it for a spin. Kick the tires. FYI, the initial software cost the city $10,000. Check the vendor list. [It actually costs more, with a monthly bill, you reckon?]
CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY FRANCE, Chief Deputy State's Attorney for St. Johns County, wrote after-the-fact memo October 15-20, 2015 justifying not prosecuting FRANK CHARLES in 2014;
Mr. FRANCE is running for Circuit Judge in the 7th Judicial Circuit (election in 2016).
Sheriff DAVID BERNERD SHOAR f/k/a "HOAR" -- Another political coverup?
St. Johns County Sheriff's Detective EUGENE TOLBERT (left), one of two maladroit detectives on Michelle O'Connell case, ordered ex-Mayor FRANK CHARLES released from handcuffs at scene of double-shooting in August 2014
Ex-Mayor FRANK CHARLES of St. Augustine Beach shot his housemate and former employee
Blake Miles, shot by ex-Mayor FRANK CHARLES of St. Augustine Beach in August 2014.
At 2:58:27 pm on Thursday, October 15, 2015, CHRISTOPHER A. FRANCE, our Chief Assistant State's Attorney in St. Johns County prepared a three page memorandum, supposedly explaining why former St. Augustine Beach Mayor FRANK CHARLES was never prosecuted for shooting Blake Miles in the testicles and abdomen.
The shooting was in August 2014. The memo was completed on Tuesday, October 20, 2015. Why?
The memo does not bear a date, and does not show that it was sent to anyone in particular. This curious memo was prepared in response to my Open Records request on Thursday, October 15, 2015, at 6:53 AM, stating in haec verba:
-----Original Message----- From: easlavin To: HathawayS ; larizzar
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 6:53 am Subject: Re: Request No. 2015-393: 8/14/14 Ex-Mayor FRANK CHARLES/Blake Miles shooting -- investigator's reports and SAO memos recommending against prosecution or for nolle prosequi
Dear Messrs. Hathaway and Larizza:
1. Please send documents concerning the SAO7 decision not to prosecute FRANK CHARLES, ex-Mayor of St. Augustine Beach, Florida, for the August 2014 alleged assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder with a handgun of Blake Miles, including the investigators' reports and SAO memos recommending for or against prosecution or for nolle prosequi.
2. Please include any and all police reports concerning Deputy JEREMY BANKS: was he the first responder on the scene? Please share 911 calls, dispatch records and any evidence that the CHARLES' residence was on JEREMY BANKS' regular duty station that night and how JEREMY BANKS came to be assigned or volunteered for domestic violence calls. Please include all BANKS police repots on the shooting of Blake Miles and sequelae.
Like Sheriff DAVID BERNERD SHOAR, 7th Circuit State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA is willing to create post hoc documents justifying decisions not to prosecute persons with influence, in response to journalists' Open Records request.
Sheriff SHOAR's magnum opus was a tortious, criminal, materially false and misleading 153 page pile of drivel, driving under the inference, rambling, repetition, supposition, libel, slander, defamation and Lashon hara, in response to New York Times reporter Walt Bogdanich's inquiries about the Michelle O'Connell case. Like the FRANK CHARLES case, the Michelle O'Connell case was already closed, but Sheriff SHOAR determined to say to the Times' reporter, "We'll show him." FBI is investigating.
State's Attorney LARIZZA's effort in response to my request was shorter, but emits the same stench.
This breathtaking lack of standard-following permits all kind of corruption, coverups, case-fixing, ineptitude and decrepitude.
It appears that LARIZZA is a political prosecutor, in the same sense as Lincoln's political generals. Political prosecutors decide not based on the fact and law of record, but allow politics to dictate taking the easiest road: avoiding a potential loss that would hurt LARIZZA's statistics. Real prosecutors -- like Lawrence Walsh, Thomas E. Dewey or Roger Adelman -- don't care about "conviction rates." They take tough cases. They prosecute powerful people and organized criminals.
Blowhard prosecutorial phonies like LARIZZA campaign based on fantasyland -- all Dick Tracy and no spine. They want a high "conviction rate," based on taking only easy cases, or plea bargaining meritless cases into probation.
The decision LARIZZA made not to prosecute ex-Mayor FRANK CHARLES is a fairly debatable question.
In cases of domestic violence, prosecutors will often refuse to prosecute, based upon both victim and victimizer having hit each other.
Other prosecutors, like former Anderson County, Tennessee District Attorney General James Nelson Ramsey, prosecute both belligerents, allowing the court system to figure it out, without fear or favor, and discouraging domestic violence. Never having been a prosecutor, I have no opinion on which approach is best.
But upon reading the applicable National Prosecution Standards published by the National District Attorneys' Association, I reckon that you might agree with me that the Seventh Circuit State's Attorney's office is a deeply dysfunctional office, one incapable of spotting other issues in the police reports that would be worthy of a Grand Jury, or further investigation.
Why was St. Augustine Beach ex-Mayor FRANK CHARLES handcuffed and then released, on orders of Detective EUGENE TOLBERT, one of two detectives on the Michelle O'Connell case?
Why was evidence of FRANK CHARLES' auto trips driving the shooting victim to "drug town" not resolved? Why was evidence of glass pipes in CHARLES' home not investigated?
Why weren't both alleged aggressors charged with assault? Read the police blotter: assault is the subject of daily charges against lesser-known people, often over the most trivial of touching.
Why is it that FRANK CHARLES shot his domestic partner twice and was never even booked -- initially he was handcuffed, but ordered released by St. Johns County Sheriff's Detective EUGENE TOLBERT, one of two detectives on the Michelle O'Connell case oblivious to domestic violence? Why?
Why was there no press release on the decision not to prosecute a notorious shooting case?
Was this case "fixed?"
Sheriff DAVID SHOAR and State's Attorney RALPH LARIZZA are both Republicans, and pals. Ex-Mayor of St. Augustine Beach FRANK CHARLES is also a Republican.
Is there a custom, usage, practice, procedure and policy of a dual justice system here?
"Catch and release" for big-shots?
Harsh treatment for the rest of us?
Does this violate the criminal and civil provisions of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (Ku Klux Klan Act)?
It appears that there are "two Americas," and two standards of justice in St. Johns County: one for the rich and well-connected, and one for the rest of us.
The rich get their tickets fixed and their problems solved based upon the pull of special influence. The rest of us get picked on, too often, under the corrupt Republican regime in St. Johns County (one that was a Democratic regime until Sheriff Neil Perry ordered all of his elected officials to change parties on the same day a quarter century ago, all standing in line at the same time).
The fact that Deputy JEREMY BANKS and ex-Mayor of St. Augustine Beach FRANK CHARLES were never arrested and never treated as suspects in two cases of apparent domestic violence speaks volumes.
On November 8, 2016, we elect a new State's Attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit and a new St. Johns County Sheriff. Choose wisely, my friends. We need ethical, honorable lawmen who will respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Here are the NDAA National Prosecution Standards that LARIZZA disdained to follow in the shootings of Michelle O'Connell and Blake Miles: 1. Screening
4-1.1 Prosecutorial Responsibility The decision to initiate a criminal prosecution should be made by the prosecutor’s office. Where state law allows criminal charges to be initiated by law enforcement or by other persons or means, prosecutors should, at the earliest practical time, decide whether the charges should be pursued. 4-1.2 Prosecutorial Discretion The chief prosecutor should recognize and emphasize the importance of the initial charging decision and should provide appropriate training and guidance to prosecutors regarding the exercise of their discretion. 4-1.3 Factors to Consider Prosecutors should screen potential charges to eliminate from the criminal justice system those cases where prosecution is not justified or not in the public interest. Factors that may be considered in this decision include: a. Doubt about the accused’s guilt;
b. Insufficiency of admissible evidence to support a conviction;
c. The negative impact of a prosecution on a victim;
d. The availability of adequate civil remedies;
e. The availability of suitable diversion and rehabilitative programs;
f. Provisions for restitution;
g. Likelihood of prosecution by another criminal justice authority;
h. Whether non-prosecution would assist in achieving other legitimate goals, such as the investigation or prosecution of more serious offenses;
i. The charging decisions made for similarly-situated defendants;
j. The attitude and mental status of the accused;
k. Undue hardship that would be caused to the accused by the prosecution;
l. A history of non-enforcement of the applicable law;
m. Failure of law enforcement to perform necessary duties or investigations;
50
n. The expressed desire of an accused to release potential civil claims against victims, witnesses, law enforcement agencies and their personnel, or the prosecutor and his personnel, where such desire is expressed after having the opportunity to obtain advice of counsel and is knowing and voluntary; o. Whether the alleged crime represents a substantial departure from the accused’s history of living a law-abiding life;
p. Whether the accused has already suffered substantial loss in connection with the alleged crime; q. Whether the size of the loss or the extent of the harm caused by the alleged crime is too small to warrant a criminal sanction; 4-1.4 Factors Not to Consider Factors that should not be considered in the screening decision include the following: a. The prosecutor’s individual or the prosecutor’s office rate of conviction;
b. Personal advantages or disadvantages that a prosecution might bring to the prosecutor or others in the prosecutor’s office; c. Political advantages or disadvantages that a prosecution might bring to the prosecutor;
d. Characteristics of the accused that have been recognized as the basis for invidious discrimination, insofar as those factors are not pertinent to the elements or motive of the crime; e. The impact of any potential asset forfeiture to the extent described in Standard 4-7.4. 4-1.5 Information Sharing The prosecutor should attempt to gather all relevant information that would aid in rendering a sound screening decision. The prosecutor’s office should take steps to ensure that other government and law enforcement agencies cooperate in providing the prosecutor with such information. 4-1.6 Continuing Duty to Evaluate In the event that the prosecutor learns of previously unknown information that could affect a screening decision previously made, the prosecutor should reevaluate that earlier decision in light of the new information. 4-1.7. Record of Declinations Where permitted by law, a prosecutor’s office should retain a record of the reasons for declining a prosecution. 4-1.8 Explanation of Declinations The prosecutor should promptly respond to inquiries from those who are directly affected by a declination of charges.
51
Commentary It could be argued that screening decisions are the most important made by prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion in the search for justice. The screening decision determines whether or not a matter will be absorbed into the criminal justice system. While the decision may be very easy at times, at others it will require an examination of the prosecutor’s beliefs regarding the criminal justice system, the goals of prosecution, and a broad assortment of other factors. These standards set forth some of the considerations that may be relevant to an informed screening decision as well as some that should not be used in making the determination. The prosecutor should take care to recognize any of the listed factors that are not appropriate for use in his or her jurisdiction. 2. Charging 4-2.1 Prosecutorial Responsibility It is the ultimate responsibility of the prosecutor’s office to determine which criminal charges should be prosecuted and against whom. 4-2.2 Propriety of Charges A prosecutor should file charges that he or she believes adequately encompass the accused’s criminal activity and which he or she reasonably believes can be substantiated by admissible evidence at trial. 4-2.3 Improper Leveraging The prosecutor should not file charges where the sole purpose is to obtain from the accused a release of potential civil claims. 4-2.4 Factors to Consider The prosecutor should only file those charges that are consistent with the interests of justice. Factors that may be relevant to this decision include: a. The nature of the offense, including whether the crime involves violence or bodily injury;
b. The probability of conviction;
c. The characteristics of the accused that are relevant to his or her blameworthiness or responsibility, including the accused’s criminal history;
d. Potential deterrent value of a prosecution to the offender and to society at large; e. The value to society of incapacitating the accused in the event of a conviction; f. The willingness of the offender to cooperate with law enforcement; g. The defendant’s relative level of culpability in the criminal activity;
h. The status of the victim, including the victim’s age or special vulnerability; i. Whether the accused held a position of trust at the time of the offense;
j. Excessive costs of prosecution in relation to the seriousness of the offense; k. Recommendation of the involved law enforcement personnel;
l. The impact of the crime on the community;
m. Any other aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
52
Commentary Following an initial screening decision that prosecution should be initiated, the charging decision is the prerogative and responsibility of the prosecutor. The charging decision entails determination of the following issues:
What possible charges are appropriate to the offense or offenses; and
What charge or charges would best serve the interests of justice? In making a charging decision, the prosecutor should keep in mind the power he or she is exercising at that point in time. The prosecutor is making a decision that will have a profound effect on the lives of the person being charged, the person’s family, the victim, the victim’s family, and the community as a whole. The magnitude of the charging decision does not dictate that it be made timidly, but it does dictate that it should be made wisely with the exercise of sound professional judgment. There will be times when information not known at the time of charging will influence future actions in a case. While it is advisable to gather all information possible prior to charging, that is simply an unrealistic expectation. The prosecutor must balance the importance of gathering information and the importance of public safety interests when determining when he or she has sufficient information to make a charging decision. While commencing a prosecution is permitted by most ethical standards upon a determination that probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, the standard prescribes a higher standard for filing a criminal charge. To suggest that the charging standard should be the prosecutor’s reasonable belief that the charges can be substantiated by admissible evidence at trial is recognition of the powerful effects of the initiation of criminal charges. Pursuant to the prosecution’s duty to seek justice, the protection of the rights of all (even the prospective defendant) is required. The means by which a prosecutor elects to implement charging decisions is closely related to the mechanism utilized in reaching screening decisions; indeed, the two functions may be appropriately combined in a single individual or office division. Diversion participation should only be done at the prosecutor’s discretion, and the prosecutor should not yield to external pressures in either selecting a charge or deciding if diversion alternatives are a proper course of action. Diversion may be done at any stage of the proceeding, but with the option of continued prosecution. That does not preclude diversion alternatives after a formal charge. At that stage, the threat of criminal prosecution is even greater to the accused, and thus positive participation in diversion alternatives and favorable results may be more likely. Initial standards or guidelines for charging will be established by the chief prosecutor only. In the one-person office, the chief prosecutor will also act as the agent for implementing these guidelines. Larger offices may find it convenient, particularly in
53
respect to minor offenses, to delegate much of the responsibility for charging to selected individuals or to establish a separate office division for intake procedures. The designated individuals or office division should be responsible for reaching initial charging decisions, subject to review and approval by the chief prosecutor. The chief prosecutor should establish guidelines by which charging decisions may be implemented. For the one-person office this formulation process will provide consistency of operation and an incentive to develop and articulate specific policies. The same holds true for other size offices. Some prosecution offices employ vertical prosecution with great success, making the use of guidelines important for consistent application.
Organized, corrupt forces want to inflict an 8% sales tax increase on you and don't want to pay their fair share of taxes and concurrency and impact fees. 
