So proud of our reform St. Johns County Commissioner Krista Keating Joseph for standing up for our rights. The case has been assigned to Senior United States District Court Judge Harvey Ervin Schlesinger. The matter was on the St. Johns County Commission agenda on January 16, 2024, the day after MLK's birthday observation -- 1 PM time certain. Abruptly pulled. I was treated rudely by uneducated County Commission Chair SARAH ARNOLD when I tried to speak on that agenda item.
Update February 13, 2024:bCommissioner Joseph has dropped her complaint after BOCC's response.
Here's Commissioner Joseph's January 10, 2024 federal court complaint, with summons issued for St. Johns County and State's Attorney RALPH JOSEPH LARIZZA:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
KRISTA JOSEPH, St. Johns County Commissioner,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT DECLARATORY RELIEF REQUESTED
COMES NOW, Krista Joseph, and complains and alleges against the defendants as follows.
1. This is an action for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 to clarify that Commissioner Krista Joseph, an elected commissioner of the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners, has the First Amendment right to speak on matters of political concern in St. Johns County. This action is necessary because Commissioner Joseph faces a credible threat of criminal prosecution for speaking on political matters. She made a speech arguably touching on political matters at a meeting of the Board of County
1
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
Commissioners on November 21, 2023. The Board of County Commissioners engaged outside counsel to determine whether Commissioner Joseph committed criminal election interference by making that speech, and outside counsel determined that her speech indeed constituted criminal election interference. Outside counsel prepared a written opinion noting that the matter may be referred to the State Attorney for consideration of criminal charges. Commissioner Joseph wishes to speak on matters of political concern to residents of St. Johns County in the months leading up to the August 2024 primary election. However, the threat of criminal prosecution is sufficient to chill her political speech.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. The plaintiff is Commissioner Krista Joseph. Commissioner
Joseph is an elected commissioner of the County Commission of St. Johns County, Florida.
3. The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners is a subdivision of the State of Florida. The St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners is the entity with the greatest interest in supporting the opinion of outside counsel in this matter and the entity most likely to refer this matter to the State Attorney for consideration of criminal charges against Commissioner Joseph.
2
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
4. R.J. Larizza is the State Attorney of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. He is the officer with authority to initiate a criminal prosecution of Commissioner Joseph for her political speech.
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this is a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court additionally has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because this is an action to redress the deprivation, under color of State law, of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States.
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because both defendants reside in this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this judicial district pursuant to § 1391 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7. On November 21, 2023, Commissioner Joseph made a speech at
the County Commission meeting in which she noted various matters on which St. Johns County residents may be dissatisfied. She then stated that an election was scheduled for August 2024, and that three seats on the County Commission were up for a vote.
3
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
8. On December 5, 2023, the County Commission voted to censure Commissioner Joseph for her speech. The County Commission also voted to hire outside counsel to prepare a legal opinion on the question of whether Commissioner Joseph’s speech had violated state law.
9. On January 8, 2024, outside counsel sent a letter to the county attorney of St. Johns County concluding that Commissioner Joseph had likely committed criminal election interference in violation of section 104.31(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Outside counsel’s opinion concluded with a section headed “options” that noted the matter could be referred to the State Attorney for consideration of a criminal charge.
10. Section 104.31(1)(a) prohibits a county officer, such as Commissioner Joseph, from using her official authority or influence “for the purpose of interfering with an election . . . or coercing or influencing another person’s vote or affecting the result thereof.”
11. The flush language of section 104.31(1) further provides that “[t]he provisions of paragraph (a) shall not be construed so as to limit the political activity in [an election], of elected officials . . . of any county . . . .”
12. In 1978, the Florida Attorney General issued Opinion 1978-133 and construed section 104.31(1)(a) “to require a corrupt intent as an element of the criminal offenses embraced by its terms.” This is because the purpose
4
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
of the statute is “to prevent corruption of the election process, not to limit protected political speech by public officers.” The Attorney General therefore concluded “that the affixing of a public officer’s official title to an open letter or newsletter criticizing or endorsing another person’s candidacy does not, [per se] or standing alone, violate § 104.31(1)(a) since such conduct does not itself evince a corrupt use of official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election, or coercing or influencing votes, or affecting the result of an election.” The Attorney General also explained that § 104.31(1) (a), “as construed in this opinion, does not appear to infringe upon any constitutionally protected political speech which may be engaged in by such officers.”
13. Counsel for Commissioner Joseph provided a copy of Attorney General Opinion 1978-133 to outside counsel for the Board of County Commissioners on December 18, 2023.
14. Outside counsel’s legal opinion of January 8, 2024, concludes that it is “undeniable that Commissioner Joseph was using ‘her official authority or influence’ to make the election-related comments on November 21, 2023.” This was because “the only reason she could speak during the ‘Commissioners’ Reports’ was due to her position as County Commissioner.”
5
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
15. The logical import of this analysis is that Commissioner Joseph used her official authority or influence because those who heard her comments were aware of her position as a county commissioner.
16. Under this analysis, Commissioner Joseph would equally use her official authority or influence by writing an open letter or newsletter that identified her as holding the position of county commissioner or by making a public speech in which she was identified as holding the position of county commissioner.
17. Section 104.31 contains no statutory language distinguishing between uses of official authority or influence during a meeting of a board of county commissioners, on the one hand, and uses of official authority or influence in other contexts, on the other hand.
18. Outside counsel’s legal opinion of January 8, 2024, found that Commissioner Joseph’s speech on November 21, 2023, impermissibly sought to influence an election in violation of § 104.31(1)(a) because the “unmistakable purpose of her comments was to encourage voting out the Incumbent Commissioners.”
19. While outside counsel’s legal opinion does not discuss Attorney General Opinion 1978-133, outside counsel’s legal opinion obviously rejects
6
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
the construction of § 104.31(1)(a) set out in Attorney General Opinion 1978-133.
20. Accordingly, under the legal opinion of outside counsel for the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioner Joseph would commit criminal election interference in violation of § 104.31(1)(a) by doing any of the following: (a) stating during a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners that she advocates that voters vote out an incumbent commissioner; (b) stating in a speech at a political rally in which she is identified as a county commissioner that she advocates that voters vote out an incumbent commissioner; and (c) writing in an opinion piece published in a newspaper that she is a county commissioner and she advocates that voters vote out an incumbent commissioner.
21. On information and belief, the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners agrees with the legal opinion of its outside counsel as described above.
22. On information and belief, State Attorney Larizza agrees with the legal opinion of the outside counsel for the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners as described above.
23. Commissioner Joseph wishes to make her political views known to the citizens of St. Johns County in connection with the primary election
7
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
scheduled for August 2024, including her preference that voters vote out incumbent commissioners, in contexts in which she is identified as holding the position of county commissioner.
24. Commissioner Joseph faces a credible threat of criminal prosecution if she speaks on political topics in connection with the August 2024 election, including her preference that voters vote out incumbent commissioners, in contexts in which she is identified as holding the position of county commissioner.
25. This threat of criminal prosecution is sufficient to chill Commissioner Joseph’s political speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
26. Commissioner Joseph does not challenge the constitutionality of § 104.31(1)(a) because she believes it is properly construed as set out in Attorney General Opinion 1978-133, and as so construed is consistent with the First Amendment.
27. While Commissioner Joseph believes that § 104.31(1)(a) as properly construed does not conflict with the First Amendment, it is necessary in light of the political calendar to seek a declaration of her First Amendment rights in this Court before § 104.31(1)(a) has been definitively construed by the state courts. If Commissioner Joseph were to seek a
8
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
declaratory judgment as to the proper construction of § 104.31(1)(a) in the state courts, litigation over that matter is likely to take significant time. And there is some risk the state courts would agree with the legal opinion of outside counsel for the Board of County Commissioners. In that situation, Commissioner Joseph would be forced to return to this Court to seek a declaration of her First Amendment rights after having lost the opportunity to participate in the political discussion for several months when the political discussion was most relevant.
28. Commissioner Joseph has a First Amendment right to speak freely on political matters, even though she is a county commissioner. Indeed, the First Amendment right of an elected representative to speak freely on questions of government policy was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as recently as two years ago, in Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 142 S. Ct. 1253 (2022).
29. Commissioner Joseph contends that she has a federal First Amendment right to make her political views known to the citizens of St. Johns County in connection with the primary election scheduled for August 2024, including her preference that voters vote out incumbent commissioners, in contexts in which she is identified as holding the position of county commissioner.
9
Case 3:24-cv-00035 Document 1 Filed 01/10/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Commissioner Joseph, respectfully prays for a declaratory judgment that she has a right protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to make her political views known to the citizens of St. Johns County in connection with the primary election scheduled for August 2024, including her preference that voters vote out incumbent commissioners, in contexts in which she is identified as holding the position of county commissioner.
DATED: January 10, 2024.
/s/ W. Bradley Russell
W. Bradley Russell
Florida Bar No. 29492
Russell & Russell, Attorneys at Law, P.A. 6550 St. Augustine Road, Suite 305 Jacksonville, Florida 32217
Tel. 904-527-8813
Email: brad@russellandrussell.law
Lead counsel for Commissioner Joseph
10
She could have mentioned that she was anti-development without reminding people of the upcoming campaign when referring to herself or others on the matter unless I missed something. Speech about policy WITH campaign speech at the meeting are a bit different. If the rules state that you can't campaign from the chair then she's got no case. Such a petty issue so I don't see why the any further action is needed. Already the place has been wrecked by development in the far reaches of the county so now focus should be not only stopping the development but using that tax money to build an actual city of St. Augustine and work their way outwards decades after. Will anyone do this? No, nobody here has vision and only waits for the capitalist to do it all which they never do. They'll always come here for the quickie.
ReplyDeleteLet justice be done. Commissioners acted out of anger and attacked a Gold Star Mother without legal foundation. Read the federal court complaint and the flawed LAWSON law firm memo?
ReplyDeleteI saw the footage. Obviously there was no anger and no attack. If you let 20 random people watch that footage, nobody would say it was an angry attack. They can decide now that the rules should be changed but they can't suggest that the rules weren't broken as it sits. This woman is making problems for people because she doesn't have the votes to do what she wants done. That's exactly what Trump did and that's not how democracy works. By the way, I'm actually sympathetic to the cause of stopping development so I've got no bias.
DeleteShe can make her political views known - just not from the chair in such an obvious attack on her fellow commissioners. She started her statements with, "if your tired of..." and rattled off all the ad hominem attacks against her fellow commissioners. Her intent was clearly not to make a PSA but to influence the public to vote against her fellow commissioenrs. She could do that anywhere else. No need to launch an attack during a commissioner meeting. Her puppetmaster has gotten her into some very hot water.
ReplyDeleteAs a US Navy veteran I have great respect and appreciation for all Gold Star families. That does not give them a pass on adhering to the rule of law. The Lawson Firm memo lays out the facts; this Gold Star Mother crossed a legal line. And now SHE is going to cost the county money to defend her retaliatory lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans fighting Republicans. That's what you get when you have to run as a Republican or you can't win .. because the conservative base here makes that a reality. Also, what kind of behavior can we expect from people elected by an assortment of people beholden to so many different irrational ideologies on top of all the greed? So much ignorance and lack of intelligence which of course the hogs exploit. God and baby Jesus help us. It's like Ancient Rome without a government.
ReplyDeleteNot "ad hominem." Use one of those dictionaries that DeSANTISTAN is placing off-limits in schools.
ReplyDeleteNow trite. What "line" has been crossed?
ReplyDeleteShe won't win the case, she will not get her way on the issue, and everyone will have to work together peacefully moving forward. The end. Bottom line is that they are all in the same political party so there lies the comedy.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong. Your authoritarian constructs ae unadorned by any references to our Bill of Rights and First Amendment case law. Identify yourself, please.
ReplyDeleteCampaigning from the seat is a rule which they all agreed to follow until she didn't. She can sue to change the rule so that people CAN campaign from the chair, but her action can't be remedied in any way. We shall see if what I'm saying is an authoritarian construct. Other than that, my name is not important because you complain when I post a name that's not to your liking and also complain when I post anonymous. So we are done with that too.
ReplyDeleteYour assertions are untrue. You don't cite to the rules. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the the supreme law of the land under the supremacy clause. St. Johns County's petty tyrants are about to have a rude awakening. Honor your oath,
ReplyDeleteYour assertions are untrue. You don't cite to the rules. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the the supreme law of the land under the supremacy clause. St. Johns County's petty tyrants are about to have a rude awakening. Honor your oath,
ReplyDeleteI assert that there were rules in place that everyone followed until someone didn't. Breaking a rule in order to change a rule is one thing, and breaking a rule to push an agenda is another. Regardless, no remedy that doesn't involve rule changes which of course the board would have to decide unanimously. I don't see the issue here. Next thing you know people will be suing to gain the ability to use fowl and abusive language from the chair under the guise of free speech.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the number of the "rule?" County rules have numbers and are published on County website. Your arguments are unadorned by any citation to actual rule. The First Amendment, in its majesty, trumps your tedious tirade. Justice Antonin Scalia would call your argument mere "argle-bargle."
ReplyDeleteIt's a rule. If you don't want to believe it that's your problem... and if you were representing a client then that would be their problem if you asked for information and citations when you were told that the sky was blue and that water was wet.
Delete