Gnarly List of Questions for DAVID SHOAR, Attorney GEORGE McCLURE -- Questions That Are Still Unanswered, Nearly Five Months Later

Questions for Sheriff Shoar, and Attorney George McClure
Posted: June 19, 2010 - 11:03pm
Advertisement
By PETE ELLIS

We have invited St. Johns County Sheriff David Shoar to meet with us to answer questions that remain in the wake of the Tom Manuel case.

Manuel, a former St. Johns County commissioner, was sentenced in January for accepting two bribes totaling $60,000, and is now in prison serving a 21-month sentence followed by three years probation, including 16 months of house arrest.

We started asking for an interview with the sheriff in January before Manuel's sentencing when one of our reporters called him. Since then, our associate editor, our editorial page editor and I have spoken with the sheriff and asked him to meet with us.

Our publisher has communicated with him several times, and I met with him informally for two hours in April to discuss having a formal meeting with our Editorial Board and a reporter, after which he said he would meet with us.

Shortly after that, the sheriff reiterated to our publisher that he would meet with us and added that he would bring George McClure, an attorney, with him. McClure first went to the sheriff with concerns about the legality of Manuel's actions.

Since May, the sheriff has not responded to our publisher's requests for a meeting.

Each of our conversations has been cordial, with the sheriff being polite, yet not agreeing to answer our questions.

Yet the questions remain, so today I am sharing with you the questions we have for the sheriff:

Question No. 1:

What did McClure and Bruce Robbins, a developer's representative from Atlantic Beach who was the confidential informant who gave Manuel the money, tell you that made you decide to go to the FBI?

In our conversation in April, you said that Manuel was involved with a Jacksonville businessman who was part of the scheme that led you to the FBI. What was that man's role, and are other arrests possible in this case?

Question No. 2:

One of the issues that came up in the Manuel case was whether you had authorization to confirm that Manuel was the target of an FBI investigation. Manuel's attorney had argued that by making the case public you damaged his chances to cooperate with the FBI and earn a lower sentence.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Hackenberry Savell told the judge at Manuel's sentencing that: "People were coming to Sheriff Shoar and told him what was going on and he made the decision (to make it public); That was not approved by the FBI or our office. He had no authorization of disclosure."

You have said that the FBI did give you permission and you have said that you are an experienced law enforcement officer who knows that to reveal an investigation without permission would have been an obstruction of justice. Also, you pointed out that if you had obstructed justice, you would have been arrested by now.

Yet Savell has not retracted her statement, which is a very serious charge.

Have you filed a complaint with the U.S. Attorney, the Florida Bar or any other legal ethics group about Savell for making the statement in court that you say is not true?

Question No. 3:

Former State Attorney John Tanner has said you never asked him to investigate Manuel, contradicting your statement, "Tanner told me, 'I'm going into an election and quite honestly, we're not really equipped to deal with these cases, and he suggested calling the FBI." You said that on March 8.

Tanner told one of our reporters that he first learned of Manuel's problems when he read about them in The Record. That was more than a year after the investigation began. Tanner also said law enforcement people often seek out federal investigations because they have tougher penalties and are more difficult to win.

In January, the Ponte Vedra Recorder quoted you as saying, "I could have gone to Florida Department of Law Enforcement but they have a lot of local ties."

So which is it: Did you go to the state first, either Tanner or the FDLE, or did you go directly to the FBI?

And if you first went to Tanner before going to the FBI, have you filed a complaint with the Florida Bar Grievance Committee or any other lawyer ethics group against Tanner for making a statement that you say is not true and could harm your reputation?

Question No. 4:

McClure, the attorney and FBI confidential informant, said the FBI asked him to tape his telephone conversation with you on June 11, 2008. You have said you were not a target of an FBI surveillance because you said the FBI was already taping McClure's phone. "You can't just turn a wiretap off," you said.

The tape shows that McClure tagged the surveillance tape before you picked up the phone with these words: "Call to David Shoar, 9:35 p.m., June 11, 2008." That makes it appear that McClure did tape Shoar deliberately, as he said he did.

Are you trying to divert attention from why the FBI wanted this conversation tape recorded? Has the FBI told you why they were taping your conversation?

Also, you have told people that you knew you were being tape recorded. If that was the case, why did you say things, such as criticizing some public figures?

Question No. 5:

You have acknowledged that you have bridges to build with the FBI because of your statement to FolioWeekly: "(An FBI spokesperson) is going to give you (the) 'Traditionally we don't do that (response).' Well, traditionally you dumb bastards don't get observed in a restaurant taking a guy into custody, either."

When we met, you told me that you went to the FBI and sat around a table with 12 people and apologized for your statement.

Having a good working relationship with the FBI is important to your ability to do your job as sheriff. What success have you had so far in improving your relationship with the FBI?

Question No. 6:

Tom Manuel was sworn into office on Nov. 21, 2006. The next day your schedule listed you as having a two-hour luncheon with Bruce Robbins, the developer's representative for Twin Creeks and the FBI confidential informant who gave bribes to Manuel in April and June 2008. Your calendar said the purpose of the luncheon was to discuss a "land donation" at the intersection of County Road 210 and U.S. 1. Why would you, the sheriff, meet with a developer's representative to discuss a developer's possible land donation?

Question No. 7:

In the course of our reporting for the series of stories we ran earlier this year, we interviewed Ron Chapman, a well-known criminal attorney from West Palm Beach. Here's what he told us:

"What is the informant getting in exchange for his noble deed? Some informants, they get a set amount of money per case. They rarely do it as a community service. It's more likely they're working off charges (against themselves) or getting paid. It may have been that he is just doing his civic duty, and he should be commended for that. Or maybe, he had an axe to grind. Maybe he hated this guy (Manuel). I would definitely want to know if he's getting any type of preferential treatment at all."

Was Robbins compensated in any way? Did Robbins have an axe to grind with Manuel? Did Robbins receive any leniency for any potential charges that could have been brought against him?

The following questions are for George McClure:

You have said that you taped the June 11, 2008 conversation with the sheriff because the FBI wanted to know what Shoar and Manuel had said earlier that day in a telephone conversation. On that day, Manuel was an informant for the FBI himself and said he taped that conversation and had already turned it over to the FBI by the time you spoke with Shoar. We know for a fact that Manuel taped that conversation because we have a copy of that tape.

Why did the FBI ask you to tape the conversation with Shoar? Did they ask you to tape any other conversations with Shoar and, if so, why?

* n n

I've been a journalist for 38 years, and I have never before done what I'm doing today: Sharing with readers questions that an elected official won't let us ask him.

Before I wrote this, I called Kelly McBride, an ethicist at Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, and asked her if sharing these questions with readers was ethical.

Absolutely, she told me. Public officials have an obligation to answer legitimate questions from the public and the press. I think these are legitimate questions.

I am also concerned that it will appear that we're picking on the sheriff and McClure by asking these questions. As background, these inconsistencies came from the sheriff's statements, not from us. We feel an obligation to follow up on the questions that the sheriff and McClure have raised.

*

Pete Ellis is editor of The Record and welcomes your comments. He may be reached at (904)819-3517, peter.ellis@staugustine.com or by commenting at the end of this column on our website, www.staugustine.com.

* Comment
* Email
* Print
* Blog This
* Bookmark and Share
* Follow Opinions

4.8
Rating: 4.8 (5 votes)
Comments (20)
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The St. Augustine Record or StAugustine.com. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Dr.MacMantazas
The Shoar and McClure Non-interviews
By Dr.MacMantazas | 06/19/10 - 11:26 pm

The questions and accompanying commentary with respect to The Manuel case appear to be relevent, fair, and insightful. I think it is the type of journalism that critical readers expect from their local newspaper. If responses are not forthcoming from Sheriff Shoar and Mr. McClure, than the Record's readers should share the benefits that those seeking more indepth understanding, receive by reviewing information disseminated on the Record's website.

Dr.MacMantazas

* Login or register to post comments

paradisefl1
More To The Story
By paradisefl1 | 06/19/10 - 11:52 pm

This is going to be interesting. Any wagers on "No" answers for the questions by Either party?

* Login or register to post comments

anastasia
Excellent Questions Mr. Ellis
By anastasia | 06/20/10 - 10:31 am

As Dr. Mac stated this IS the type of reporting a community expects from its local newspaper. I wouldn't hold my breath for answers from these two but keep stoking the coals; truth has a way of eventually finding its voice!

* Login or register to post comments

Hepzibah
No "championing" going on
By Hepzibah | 06/20/10 - 01:02 pm

I don't think the paper is "championing" Manuel.

The issue is who ELSE involved in the situation has broken the law.

* Login or register to post comments

stjctaxpayer
Why you ask?
By stjctaxpayer | 06/20/10 - 01:20 pm

Because, if we have an elected official in office that may have participated in questionable acts, they need to answer for them.

Furthermore, if by dodging these questions in hope these issues go away, Mr. Shoar need to understand his future as an elected official rests on answering these questions.

The public needs to trust its elected officials, especially our Sheriff.

* Login or register to post comments

citizen
Manuel's problem...
By citizen | 06/20/10 - 02:31 pm

...human nature.

Nice guys finish last, but they do finish.

Hyper-arrogant guys like Manuel are just so easy to dislike that they virtually paint targets on their own backs. If you were not a staunch Manuel supporter, you were viewed as the enemy - there was no middle ground. When the enemy is pushed to the wall, they will strike.

And so it was with Manuel. Its akin to the old investing adage, "Bears make money, bulls make money, pigs get slaughtered." Mixing metaphors, Tom wasn't the nice guy who finished last, he was the pig that got slaughtered and didn't finish at all.

Did the others involved break the law? Maybe so, and its worth looking into. But somehow I feel that justice was served by giving Tom just enough rope to hang himself.

* Login or register to post comments

lonnya
Questions seem reasonable.
By lonnya | 06/20/10 - 03:02 pm

Why would the Sheriff of St Johns County need a lawyer with him to answer questions from the media? Was McClure coming at the request of the Record to also answer your questions -- or as an attorney representing Shoar? Your article is unclear, and the difference is very significant.

Quoting the Record --
"Shortly after that, the sheriff reiterated to our publisher that he would meet with us and added that he would bring George McClure, an attorney, with him."

In the phone transcript between McClure and Shoar, published earlier by the Record, the two seem to be friends but there was no doubt McClure was playing Shoar like a violin. I've often wondered what was going on, why the call was made and seemed so scripted.

"Every One Is Entitled To Their Own Opinion But Not Their Own Facts. Facts Withstand Scrutiny, Opinions Often Do Not"

* Login or register to post comments

newspicstaug
Thanks for the summary
Unpublished
By newspicstaug | 06/20/10 - 03:59 pm

I'll forward this to Attorney General Bill McCollum . Maybe HE can get some answers.

* Login or register to post comments

BCC Watcher
Finally! The RECORD is capable of intelligent journalism !!!
By BCC Watcher | 06/20/10 - 08:23 pm

I've no idea why the Record suddenly deviated from years of milquetoast reporting (e.g. the entire Local News section today seems to have been devoted to archaeology items) ........... but no matter, more power to your elbow.

But why bury this important Shoar/McClure issue on the unread "Opinion" page alongside readers' thoughts on euthanizing shi-tzus and syndicated Flag Day generic feel-good pap from Garrison Keillor? Get it out there where people (and politicians) can see it. Tell us on the FRONT page what responses are received, if any. Maybe the Record's circulation will go up if people see that their local paper, despite years of evidence to the contrary, can actually produce news. If Peter Ellis gets comprehensive answers to the Record's excellent questions it will go a long way to dispel any notion that the Record has so far been frightened to hold the feet of elected officials (and their FBI-informant cronies) to the fire of public accountability.

Backsliding and procrastination should not be allowed. Don't let Shoar et alia slither away from answering your questions. The fact that the Sheriff has another two years before he faces the electorate should not be a reason for him to slough off giving truthful public responses to the queries you posed.

* Login or register to post comments

skurvey
HAPPY THE COLONIES WON...
By skurvey | 06/21/10 - 10:31 am

BBCWatcher,
If you think the Opinion and Op-Ed pages go largely unread, you need a big reality check. Perhaps that's the way they do things across the pond, but you're in the Colonies now.

The Record is as its name implies: the record of what happens in St. Augustine. Diverse local news is why I subscribe to the paper.

The editorial page is the first section I turn to daily, without fail. Even before the obituaries. The editorial page is where a column based upon politics belongs. Ellis did not write a news story, but an opinion piece from his perspective as the paper's editor and as a reporter.

His column most certainly does belong on the Op-Ed page. Ask around. You will learn something: those pages are the best read in the paper.

Perhaps print journalism isn't for YOU.

* Login or register to post comments

BCC Watcher
I'm also happy the Colonies won. but .....................
By BCC Watcher | 06/21/10 - 12:39 pm

Skurvey -

It's
BCC

Watcher, not BBC (though I will confess to having watched Masterpiece Theater from time to time) !!!

"Perhaps print journalism isn't for YOU."

Perhaps not ....... so I guess I won't have to turn you down when you apply for a job as my proof-reader!


:)

* Login or register to post comments

Qwerty
Not the First Time
By Qwerty | 06/21/10 - 12:44 pm

This wouldn't be the first time Shoar has said he would do something and then hasn't done it. He's like any other politician.

Qwerty

* Login or register to post comments

DavidWiles
The Record Reflects an Changing Culture
By DavidWiles | 06/21/10 - 12:47 pm

You get the sense that there is a transformation underway in the politics of St. Johns County. A political culture at least a decade strong seems in the process of dissolving. The culture is one of closed politics, closed to those not GOP in partisanship and, even more so, closed to those who are not the selected representatives of mega developers. If you look at the County Commission races from 2000 through 2008 you will see the pattern of GOP and large scale developer domination. The Commission elections resulted in approvals of more than thirteen Developments of Regional Impact and Town Centers, which in turn created a supersaturated backlog of approved developer rights and a public service municipality without any bonding capability.

During this past decade there have been only sporadic hints of power dynamics behind the scene. In 2004, there were charges of a Jacksonville oriented ‘Issues Group’ that selected and supported developer candidates. In 2008, Commissioner Tom Manuel was indicted and found guilty of a felony in public corruption (accepting a bribe) by a federal sting operation.

Now Peter Ellis publishes questions he wishes to ask Sheriff David Shoar and lawyer George McClure concerning the Manuel matter. Question 6 for Mr. Shoar goes to the heart of what role law enforcement personnel play in St. Johns politics; “ Why would you, the sheriff, meet with a developer's representative to discuss a developer's possible land donation?” Although the Sheriff is elected by popular vote, the office is a Constitutional (state) one, separate from the general municipal government of the County. Like the tax collector, Clerk of the Court and Supervisor of Elections, the sheriff is normally thought to be ‘above politics,’ especially any influences to land use or water resource decisions. The suggestion that David Shoar might be involved with either Tom Manuel’s election or the Twin Creek DRI that Bruce Robbins represented seems to violate his apolitical role. Further, it psychologically connects David Shoar with previous St. Johns Sheriff Neil Perry who was part of the earlier Issues Group controversy and claims of developer influence peddling.

George McClure raises questions about his role as FBI informant that, in turn, raises the larger concern of whether this lawyer for major developers used (or uses as he still processes applications before the county PZA and Commission) law enforcement role in his persuasion tactics. Again, McClure was the lawyer for the Twin Creek DRI and it was a disputed land parcel in that development that led to the Manuel bribe and indictment.

Helping St. Johns readers in June 2010 NOT forget Tom Manuel and the curious remaining questions surrounding Sheriff Shoar and Lawyer McClure is only one interesting change going on. In the past week Merrill Roland withdrew as a candidate and created an ‘open primary.’ In effect he changed the normal strategy of blocking all voters but registered GOP by withdrawing as an independent (No Party Affiliation) candidate. This chnage allows Democrats and Independent voters to vote in the District #2 and District #4 GOP Primary races.
The ‘extra’ 40-50,000 voters may well alter the outcome for previous Commissioners Karen Stern and Jim Bryant. You cannot talk of mega development approvals or St. Johns GOP dominated politics during the past decade without mentioning Karen Stern and Jim Bryant.
Karen served as Commissioner from 2002-2006 while Mr. Bryant served from 1996-2008. Both are running in the 2010 GOP primary and could win and become Commissioners for 2010-2014 in Districts #2 and #4. As both are largely responsible for leading the majority approvals of DRIs and Town Centers between 2002-2006, their candidacies stand as proxies for the Amendment 4 state-level votes in November.
Their primary themes in 2010 are ‘leadership’ and rewinding the ‘quality of life’ character that seems to have departed St. Johns in the past three years of retrenchment and belt tightening.
Loyal hard core GOP and the remaining investors in large developments may like the Stern and Bryant spiel but the larger number of open primary voters may be a different story in Fall 2010.
Like questions of Shoar and McClure, it is the opening up of the closed political situation in St. Johns County. Further erosion might occur if we could figure out the LLC campaign bundling mechanism and why the Democratic Party chooses to be permanant 'back benchers' in County-level politics.

* Login or register to post comments

huckleberry
King Maker #6
By huckleberry | 06/21/10 - 02:56 pm

Question No. 6:

Tom Manuel was sworn into office on Nov. 21, 2006. The next day your schedule listed you as having a two-hour luncheon with Bruce Robbins, the developer's representative for Twin Creeks and the FBI confidential informant who gave bribes to Manuel in April and June 2008. Your calendar said the purpose of the luncheon was to discuss a "land donation" at the intersection of County Road 210 and U.S. 1. Why would you, the sheriff, meet with a developer's representative to discuss a developer's possible land donation?

Add
When did Robbins donate $2000 to Shoar's campaign?

Why meet on November 22?

* Login or register to post comments

skurvey
What the heck is "BCC"?
By skurvey | 06/21/10 - 03:29 pm

I stand corrected, BCCWatcher. Is it "blind carbon copies" that you watch, then? Do tell.

Won't be applying for the position of "proof-reader," but might be interested in being your proofreader. I'm available Monday only, my day off.

:)

* Login or register to post comments

paradisefl1
Not Asked Of Me
By paradisefl1 | 06/21/10 - 03:30 pm

but a long time ago I had to ask the same question.

BCC= Board Of County Commissioners

* Login or register to post comments

BCC Watcher
Thank you Paradisefl1
By BCC Watcher | 06/21/10 - 05:38 pm

I didn't bother to change my nom de plume from BCC to BOCC when the county changed acronyms.

skurvey - for your Monday edification and enlightenment try

http://careers.stateuniversity.com/pages/111/Proofreader.html

:)

* Login or register to post comments

paradisefl1
YVW
By paradisefl1 | 06/21/10 - 06:25 pm

BCCWatcher :-)

* Login or register to post comments

skurvey
BCCWatcher (Do you really and how often?)
By skurvey | 06/21/10 - 08:39 pm

There are enough acronyms around to make alphabet soup, but I am glad to be in the know now. (Thanks to paradisefl1, also).

About your suggestion for my new Monday-only career from the link you posted...

"Proofreaders must have good eyesight, even if they must wear glasses."

I think I failed that requirement, reading "BBC" as I did, but you are kind to think of me.

:)

Excellent Column By Peter Ellis on SHERIFF DAVID SHOAR's Blowing FBI Undercover Operation re: Local Corruption

Opinion: Bryant, Shoar, McClure and FBI tapes
Posted: September 18, 2010 - 11:34pm
Advertisement
By PETE ELLIS

Last Sunday we ran a two-story package outlining both the FBI's exploration of possible legal and ethical violations by former St. Johns County Commissioner Jim Bryant and the extent of the FBI's probe into corruption in the county, which was greater than the public previously knew.

The reaction surprised me.

First, I was criticized for not running the story before the Aug. 24 election, in which Bryant lost to Jay Morris for a seat on the St. Johns County Commission.

And, second, people asked me why Sheriff David Shoar and development attorney George McClure haven't yet answered the questions I put in the newspaper on June 20. After all, they said, it has been almost three months.

We received the FBI surveillance tapes on Bryant in early August. In those tapes, the FBI informant, Jacksonville public relations company owner Paul McCormick, was trying to get information on whether Bryant had violated the law when he rented an airplane numerous times from the president of the company developing Nocatee.

Here's why we didn't run these articles before the election. First, we don't run potentially explosive articles within 10 days of an election because that doesn't give the accused candidate enough time to respond. This is a rule common to most newspapers, not just us.

That meant that we had a little more that a week to report the story, deal with our attorneys, write the articles and edit them. With all the election articles we had to do then, compounded by staff members taking vacations, we just didn't have the time to get the articles done in time. In fairness to Bryant, I see our job as getting the story done correctly, and if that means we didn't get it published before the election, then so be it. I'd rather be fair than fast.

And, yes, we have run articles critical of candidates during an election cycle, but not within that 10-day window before an election.

On the second point -- why haven't the sheriff and attorney McClure responded to questions from The Record -- we're still waiting to hear from the sheriff, although McClure did respond to Ron Davidson, my publisher and boss.

The sheriff has told the publisher and me that he will meet with us, then he has said he won't, and, most recently, he has said he will. We've been asking for an interview with him since mid-January. I hope to be able to tell you soon that the sheriff has agreed to answer our questions. If you'd like to see those questions, please go to www.staugustine.com and read my blog.

McClure's response

Shortly after my June 20 column ran, McClure called the publisher and gave this response:

* He is not a public figure and does not have to answer our questions.

* He did offer an answer to a question we posed to Shoar about FBI confidential informant Bruce Robbins of Atlantic Beach, the man who offered two bribes totalling $60,000 to former Commissioner Tom Manuel. We asked if the FBI granted Robbins any leniency for any potential charges that could have been brought against him.

* And he told the publisher that he thought The Record had a special relationship with Manuel and was working to help him.

Here are my responses: -- McClure is a public official, even though he is not an elected official. Here's what the law says, based on the Times v. Sullivan case (1964) that defined the difference between public and private citizens. A public figure is either a public official (i.e., an elected official) or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs. As one of the leading land development attorneys in St. Johns County and a frequent representative before local planning boards and St. Augustine and St. Johns County commissions, he is a public official. Cementing the deal is what's called a "limited purpose public figure." These are people who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." McClure did that in the Manuel case.

* McClure said that any deal with Robbins would have to be part of the court record. That's true -- if Robbins had been arrested. Remember, Manuel agreed to wear a wire for the FBI after he was detained -- but not arrested -- in June 2008. He was not arrested until October.

n We did have a relationship with Manuel because he gave us almost all of the FBI surveillance tapes that we ran in our coverage in February and March. But that's it. We made no promises to him other than we would not run any articles using the tapes until he was sentenced in January. The coverage we ran was highly critical of him and included an in-depth look at his achievements as a New York banker as well as his personally destructive behavior, his larger-than-life ego and his precipitous fall from grace. No one could say these articles were positive to him. And, no, we're not working to help him. He's in prison doing a 21-month sentence. Even if we wanted to, what help could we give him?

Let me add this. I liked Manuel. When I was a young reporter, I covered Yale University and got used to dealing with people like Manuel, who had robust self-images. I also like Sheriff Shoar, a friendly man with a good sense of humor; George McClure, a gracious and charming man; Bruce Maguire, the man whom Manuel defeated in 2006; former Commissioner Karen Stern, who lost an election bid in August; Commissioner Ken Bryan and former Commissioner Jim Bryant, both earnest men with very different personalities; and almost everyone else in public life in St. Johns County. I am friendly with all these people and many more, but not one of them is my friend and none of them has been in my house. In a job like mine, I have to keep my distance, and I do.

Why we keep asking

Let me end with a question for me: Why do we keep trying to get the sheriff and McClure to answer our questions?

Here's why: The public has a right to know the extent of the possible corruption in the county, the veracity of its public officials, the relationships local law enforcement agencies have with other agencies, and any behind-the-scenes deals. Was this just about Manuel, or is there more to this?

It's the job of The Record and all serious media outlets to ask questions like these. We look forward to talking with the sheriff about the questions that remain, and hope to get McClure to answer our questions as well.

*

Pete Ellis is editor of The Record. He may be reached at (904)819-3517 or peter.ellis@staugustine.com. As always, he welcomes your comments and suggestions.

DOJ Wins Conviction of Police Officer for Obstructing Justice By Tipping Off Investigative Targets

Department of Justice Press Release
white spacer
For Immediate Release
November 2, 2010 United States Attorney's Office
Northern District of Georgia
Contact: (478) 752-3511

Former Polk County Police Officer Sentenced to Federal Prison for Obstructing an Undercover Investigation
Officer “Tipped Off” Friends Who Were Targets of an Investigation

ROME, GA—MARK HOWELL SPARKS, 40, of Felton, Georgia, was sentenced today by United States District Judge Harold L. Murphy to serve over two years in federal prison on charges of obstruction of justice, tampering with a witness and possessing a vehicle with an altered vehicle identification number (VIN).

“Because this defendant was a police officer, he was privy to confidential law enforcement information about an ongoing investigation into ‘chop shop’ activity in Polk County,” said United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates. “During the investigation, he encouraged an informant to conceal his friends’ involvement in that chop shop activity. Sparks then obstructed the investigation and placed the informant in danger by alerting the targets of the investigation that the informant was recording conversations on behalf of law enforcement officials. Instead of enforcing the law, Sparks broke it, and now he is going to prison.”

SPARKS was sentenced to two years and six months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. SPARKS was convicted of these charges on July 22, 2010, after a four-day trial.

According to United States Attorney Yates, the charges and other information presented in court: In June 2008, while SPARKS was employed as a detective with the Polk County Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Polk County Police Department began a joint investigation into motor vehicle theft and chop shop activity in Polk County. In an effort to protect SPARKS' friends who SPARKS knew were involved in chop shop activity, SPARKS encouraged an informant not to provide information about SPARKS' friends to the agents conducting the investigation. In addition, SPARKS told his friends that the informant was cooperating with law enforcement and was wearing a recording device. SPARKS told his friends that they should not talk to the informant because he was recording conversations. The informant provided much of the detailed information about SPARKS’ criminal activity which expanded the investigation, and the informant testified at length at SPARKS’ trial.

After he was arrested, SPARKS admitted that he knowingly drove a pick up truck with an altered vehicle identification number, as the informant had told investigators.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Polk County Police Department, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, and the Bartow County Drug Task Force.

Assistant United States Attorney William L. McKinnon, Jr. prosecuted the case.

For further information please contact Sally Q. Yates, United States Attorney, or Charysse L. Alexander, Executive Assistant United States Attorney, through Patrick Crosby, Public Affairs Officer, U.S. Attorney's Office, at (404) 581-6016. The Internet address for the HomePage for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia is www.justice.gov/usao/gan.

Press Releases | Atlanta Home

Creative Loafing: Are Newspaper Editorial Endorsements No Longer Helpful to Candidates?

Like Rick Scott, Texas GOP governor’s aversion to editorial boards only seemed to help him with voters
November 9, 2010 at 7:20 am by Mitch Perry

RICK-PERRY-large300The Judith Miller and Jayson Blair scandals at the New York Times are just a couple of reasons that the mainstream news media have lost credibility with the American public. A year ago, the Pew Research Center for the People & The Press reported that just 29% of the public believed that news organizations always get it right, whereas 63% said that news stories are often inaccurate.

And that’s all the public. The year-old survey shows that most Republicans have always had more skepticism, but more Democrats over the years have joined them in bashing the news media (the ascension of Fox News is probably the reason for that number rising among the Dems).

That’s why newspaper endorsements count less than they ever have. In the just-concluded race for governor, Alex Sink somehow thought we still lived in a world where they did matter, as she constantly trumped up the fact that every single major newspaper of significance in the race had endorsed her over Rick Scott. She said it in debates, she repeated it to reporters, and even mentioned it while on the campaign trail.

During one of only two prime-time debates the gubernatorial candidates engaged in (avoiding debates was another tactic employed by most Republicans running for statewide office in Florida this year), Sink boasted that not only had she received every endorsement from a major paper in the state, but that Scott hadn’t even deigned to appear at any editorial board meetings as a candidate.

Scott replied that he was too busy meeting with the people of Florida. It was a great answer, since the fact is that most of the public just wasn’t that impressed that Sink did meet with editorial writers. Forget the fact that they all endorsed her.

Scott employed the same strategy against Bill McCollum, and was successful both times.

Now we learn that Texas’ newly re-elected Republican governor, Rick Perry (who’s been all over the “liberal” media over the past week, hawking his new book, Fed Up!), employed exactly the same media strategy while beating his Democratic opponent last week by 13%.

And he did the same thing against U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison during the GOP primary, blowing off ed boards and receiving none of their endorsements either. And oh yes, he ended up beating her soundly, with Hutchison getting only 30% of the vote).

What does this mean? Well, as the Pew poll reports, most Americans get their information from television, not from the newspapers. Which means a one-minute ad calling your opponent, say, “an Obama liberal” might be matched by a candidate mocking two candidates arguing with each other with an admonition that they ought to “get real.”

In either case, those ads are going to be seen and absorbed by more people who are watching the tube than those reading the dailies, much less the editorial page.

Former Bush & McCain media strategist Mark McKinnon, writing in the Daily Beast, drops this interesting nugget:

Mike Baselice, Perry’s highly skilled pollster, acknowledged Wednesday at a public forum sponsored by The Texas Tribune that the campaign asked primary voters in Texas whether a newspaper endorsement would make them more or less likely to vote for Perry. Only 6 percent said an endorsement would make them more likely to support Perry, while an eye-popping 37 percent said it would make them less likely (56 percent said it made no difference).

That poll just confirms what has been a growing trend for years. No doubt that in local races (particularly for judges), endorsements/recommendations still have an impact. But it’s nothing like it used to be years earlier. All things considered, it’s a good thing that candidates sit down with newspaper editors to discuss the issues, but obviously there’s no requirement to do so. And with the success of Scott, Perry and others (like Pam Bondi, who lost the newspaper endorsement war to Democrat Dan Gelber in her race for Attorney General but beat him convincingly on election night), expect more candidates, at least on the right, to keep blowing them off in the future.

USDOJ Press Release: Government Sues and Settles with Hilton Hotels Over 17 Years of Americans with Disability Act Violations

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Hilton Worldwide Inc. Over ADA Violations at Hilton Hotels and Major Hotel Chains Owned by Hilton

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department and Hilton Worldwide Inc. today announced a comprehensive, precedent-setting agreement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that will make state-of-the-art accessibility changes to approximately 900 hotels nationwide. The agreement is in the form of a proposed consent decree filed today in federal court to resolve a simultaneously filed lawsuit under the ADA.

The department’s complaint alleges that Hilton’s hotels designed and constructed after Jan. 26, 1993, fail to comply with the ADA and Department of Justice regulations. Hilton operates a system of hotels throughout the United States under the trade and service names of "Hilton," "Conrad Hotels & Resorts," "Doubletree," "Embassy Suites," "Hampton Inn," "Hilton Garden Inn," "Hilton Grand Vacations," "Homewood Suites," "the Waldorf Astoria" and "Home2Suites." Hilton Worldwide Inc. (HWI), owns, operates, or has entered into and maintains franchise license agreements for each hotel in the HWI system.

"The ADA protects the right of people with disabilities to stay in accessible hotel rooms, and to reserve those hotel rooms through the same convenient systems as everyone else," said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. "Persons with disabilities who travel for pleasure or business must be able to count on getting the accessible room they reserved, and the hotel must provide the choice of amenities that everyone comes to expect from a major national hotel chain like Hilton."

The agreement is the result of a lengthy investigation and negotiation. Hilton officials cooperated with the department throughout the process. Allegations in the department’s complaint include failure to provide the required number of accessible rooms, failure to disperse accessible rooms among the various categories of available accommodations, failure to provide individuals with disabilities the ability to reserve accessible rooms through Hilton’s central reservations system on-line or by telephone, and failure to provide individuals with disabilities with the accessible sleeping accommodations that they reserved.

Today’s settlement represents the first time the Department of Justice has required a franchisor to require all franchised or managed hotels that enter into a new franchise or management agreement, experience a change in ownership, or renew or extend a franchise agreement, to conduct a survey of its facilities and to certify that the hotel complies with the ADA. It is also the first time that an agreement under the ADA has specifically detailed how a hotel reservations system should be made accessible. The agreement also represents the first time that a hotel chain has been required to make its online reservations system accessible and to provide on its website current data about accessible features in guest rooms throughout the chain.

Under the agreement:

* All owned and joint venture hotels built after Jan. 26, 1993 will be surveyed and brought into compliance with Department of Justice ADA title III regulations, including dispersing accessible rooms among the various classes of available accommodations, providing accessible rooms with roll-in showers and tub seats, and providing accessible rooms for guests with hearing impairments;
* For franchised and managed hotels built after Jan. 26, 1993, where Hilton enters into a new franchise or management agreement, renews or extends an agreement for more than six months, or agrees to a change of ownership, Hilton will require the owners to survey their hotels for compliance with specified provisions of the ADA, and where necessary, bring their hotels into compliance;
* Hotels constructed in the future will be required to comply with the ADA;
* Specific ADA training will be provided for staff;
* Hilton’s reservations system will be improved so individuals with disabilities can reserve accessible rooms with specific available options and amenities, and have the same opportunity to guarantee a reservation for an accessible room as that offered for any other reservation;
* Hilton will improve the accessibility of its websites;
* Hilton will appoint a national ADA compliance officer responsible for Hilton’s compliance with the ADA and the consent decree;
* Hilton will appoint ADA on-site contact persons at each hotel responsible for resolving ADA-related complaints at the local level; and
* Hilton will pay a civil penalty of $50,000 to the United States.

People interested in finding out more about the ADA or this consent decree can call the toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 or 800-514-0383 (TDD), or access the ADA website at www.ada.gov.

ASK ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CARLOS MENDOZA FOR A COPY OF HIS UNWRITTEN "TREATISE" ON CITY CRIMINALIZING ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CARLOS MENDOZA WANTS GOVERNOR CHARLES CRIST TO APPOINT HIM TO A COUNTY COURT JUDGESHIP --
MENDOZA IS AUTHOR OF AN UNWRITTEN "TREATISE" CLAIMING TO DEFEND POSSIBLY ILLEGAL ARRESTS -- HUNDREDS OF THEM -- SINCE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE ORDINANCE 1-8 WAS ENACTED IN 1984


See below. Assistant City Attorney Carlos Mendoza's putative "treatise" is not written. All treatises are in writing.

This reminds me of the City's January 2008 claim to have done a "root cause analysis" of why 40,000 cubic yards of solid waste were illegally dumped in our Old City Reservoir, which former EPA Regional Administrator John Henry Hankinson, Jr. (now head of the Gulf spill cleanup) said was an "open sore going straight down into the aquifer and groundwater" in West Augustine.

The "root cause analysis" was not written down, either.

All over the world, people researching "root cause analysis" come to this blog and read about the fatuous assertion that a "root cause analysis" could be unwritten.

Now legal scholars will be amazed at an unwritten "treatise."

An unwritten legal "treatise" is not worth the paper it's not written on.

It is, at best, facetious for our City government to rely upon such canards as an unwritten :root cause analysis" and an unwritten "treatise" in defending the indefensible -- illegal dumping and illegal arrests of artists, entertainers and musicians (based on City Ordinance 1-8 purporting to make misdemeanors of City ordinance violations).

To whom do these City apparatchiks think they're talking?

Our City of St. Augustine has since 1984 arrested hundreds of people for ordinance violations, giving them criminal arrest records, based on an erroneous assumption about the City's ability to create crimes. See Attorney General William McCollum's opinion, below.

When you see Carlos Mendoza, ask him for a copy of his "treatise" about why hundreds of arrests are somehow legal where they are based on a city ordinance, not state criminal law.

What do you reckon?

IN HAEC VERBA: Definition of the word "treatise"

"A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/treatise

IN HAEC VERBA: Open Records Request to City of St. Augustine re: Ordinance 1-8 Creating Misdemanor "Crimes" of Ordiinance Violations

Dear John and Ron:

Please E-mail and place upon the City's website any "research" upon which our City Attorney claims our City can create a crime, ex nihilo, as an ordinance and use it to put hundreds of people in jail for violations of city ordinances (e.g., artists, entertainers and musicians on St. George Street and in the Slave Market Square).

Last night, we were told there was a "treatise" by Mr. Mendoza on the subject -- then we were told the "treatise" was verbal.

Surely you have some notes, outlines or legal research. Please share it.
Our State Attorney General, William McCollum has opined that only our governor and legislature can create crimes -- not local governments. AGO 2009-29 (June 15, 2009) states:
"Section 18, Article I of the Florida Constitution which provides that "[n]o administrative agency, . . . shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law." Section 775.08(2), Florida Statutes, defines the term "misdemeanor," as "any criminal offense that is punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable if committed in this state, by a term of imprisonment in a county correctional facility, except an extended term, not in excess of 1 year." Clearly, a misdemeanor involves a potential sentence of imprisonment and would constitute a penalty. Section 775.08(2) also cautions that "[t]he term 'misdemeanor' shall not mean a conviction for any noncriminal traffic violation of any provision of chapter 316 or any municipal or county ordinance[,]"[1] thus, precluding the application of a misdemeanor charge to a violation of any municipal or county ordinance."

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ed Slavin
Clean Up City of St. Augustine, Florida
904-829-3877 (direct)
215-554-1187 (cellular)

Attorney General William McCollum: Local Governments Cannot Create Misdemeanor Crimes By Enacting Ordinances

Number: AGO 2009-29
Date: June 15, 2009
Subject: County ordinance imposing criminal penalty


Mr. John K. McPherson
Gilchrist County Attorney
Post Office Box 921
Cedar Key, Florida 32625

RE: COUNTIES – CITATIONS – MISDEMEANORS – ORDINANCES – authority of county to adopt ordinance making it a misdemeanor to fail to timely pay a civil penalty. Art. I, s. 18, Fla. Const.; s. 828.27, Fla. Stat.; Part II, Ch. 162, Fla. Stat.

Dear Mr. McPherson:

On behalf of the Gilchrist County Commission, you have asked substantially the following question:

Is Gilchrist County authorized to adopt an ordinance providing that a person who fails to timely comply with the conditions of a civil citation imposed pursuant to statute, that is, fails to timely pay a civil penalty, is guilty of a misdemeanor?

In sum:

Gilchrist County has no authority to adopt an ordinance designating the failure to timely pay the civil penalty imposed pursuant to Part II, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, as a criminal misdemeanor and is prohibited from doing so by Article I, section 18 of the Florida Constitution. Further, the clear terms of section 828.27, Florida Statutes, and the constitutional provisions discussed herein constitute a prohibition against Gilchrist County adopting an ordinance imposing a criminal penalty for failure to timely pay the civil penalty imposed pursuant to the county's animal control or cruelty ordinance adopted pursuant to section 828.27(2), Florida Statutes.

You note that Gilchrist County is authorized by various statutes to issue civil citations imposing civil penalties for violations of county regulations. You cite as examples the civil citations authorized for violations of animal control regulations under section 828.27, Florida Statutes, and the code enforcement provisions for civil citations authorized by Part II, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Apparently, Gilchrist County has adopted ordinances implementing both of these citation procedures, but many of those who receive citations do not pay the fine imposed. You ask whether the county is authorized to charge, as a separate misdemeanor offense, the failure to timely pay the penalty assessed pursuant to such statutes.

Resolution of your question is controlled by Section 18, Article I of the Florida Constitution which provides that "[n]o administrative agency, . . . shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law." Section 775.08(2), Florida Statutes, defines the term "misdemeanor," as "any criminal offense that is punishable under the laws of this state, or that would be punishable if committed in this state, by a term of imprisonment in a county correctional facility, except an extended term, not in excess of 1 year." Clearly, a misdemeanor involves a potential sentence of imprisonment and would constitute a penalty. Section 775.08(2) also cautions that "[t]he term 'misdemeanor' shall not mean a conviction for any noncriminal traffic violation of any provision of chapter 316 or any municipal or county ordinance[,]"[1] thus, precluding the application of a misdemeanor charge to a violation of any municipal or county ordinance. (e.s.)

Moreover, this office has concluded previously that a county is an "administrative agency" for purposes of section 18, Article I, Florida Constitution.[2] In Attorney General Opinion 79-109, this office concluded that a charter county does not have the authority to enact an ordinance which provides for the imposition of civil penalties by county agencies or which purports to authorize a county consumer protection board to impose a civil penalty for violation of that board's cease and desist orders.[3] Finally, section 18, Article I of the State Constitution prohibits the administrative imposition of any penalty "except as provided by law." The phrase "by law" contemplates an enactment of the Legislature.[4] It does not include or contemplate an ordinance of a noncharter county.[5] Accordingly, unless provided by law, I am of the view that a noncharter county cannot by ordinance provide that a person who fails to timely comply with the conditions of a civil citation, that is, who fails to timely pay a civil penalty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Your question is answered by application of Section 18, Article I of the Florida Constitution and no statutory provisions can operate to abrogate that constitutional prohibition. However, you have cited several statutory provisions and the following discussion treats the application and interpretation of those provisions. Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, establishes administrative enforcement procedures and a means of imposing administrative fines by local governing bodies for violations of local codes and ordinances for which no criminal penalty has been specified. Such a mechanism is necessitated by the provisions of Article V, section 1 and Article I, section 18, Florida Constitution, which state that commissions established by law or administrative officers or bodies may be granted quasi-judicial power in matters connected with the functions of their offices, and that no administrative agency shall impose a sentence of imprisonment, nor shall it impose any other penalty except as provided by law.[6]

In a number of previous opinions, this office has stated that a local government or its governing body derives no delegated authority from Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Further, municipalities derive no home rule power from Article VIII, section 2(b), Florida Constitution, or section 166.021, Florida Statutes, to regulate the code enforcement boards or to impose any duties or requirements on such boards or to otherwise regulate the statutorily prescribed enforcement procedure.[7] Thus, once a county has adopted the procedures of Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, to enforce its municipal codes and ordinances, it may not alter or amend those statutorily prescribed procedures but must utilize them as they are set forth in the statutes.

Your letter indicates that Gilchrist County has adopted the supplemental county code enforcement procedures of Part II, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Section 162.21, Florida Statutes, provides the enforcement procedures for violations of county codes or ordinances. As specifically stated in subsection (5) of the statute:

"A county or a municipality is authorized to enforce codes and ordinances under the provisions of this section and may enact an ordinance establishing procedures for the implementation of such provisions, including a schedule of violations and penalties to be assessed by code enforcement officers. If a county or municipality chooses to enforce codes or ordinances under the provisions of this section, each code or ordinance or the ordinance enacted by the county or municipality establishing procedures for implementation of this section shall provide:
(a) That a violation of a code or an ordinance is a civil infraction.
(b) A maximum civil penalty not to exceed $500.
(c) A civil penalty of less than the maximum civil penalty if the person who has committed the civil infraction does not contest the citation.
(d) For the issuance of a citation by a code enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an act in violation of a code or an ordinance.
(e) For the contesting of a citation in county court."

Subsection (6) of the statute clearly provides that "[a]ny person who willfully refuses to sign and accept a citation issued by a code enforcement officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree. . . ." Thus, it appears that the Legislature authorized the imposition of a criminal penalty in a situation it deemed appropriate. It is a general rule of statutory construction that a legislative direction as to how a thing shall be done is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done in any other way.[8]

Gilchrist County has adopted the provisions of Part II, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, to enforce its county code provisions and must utilize the enforcement methods and penalties for violations of those ordinances. The county has no authority to adopt an ordinance designating the failure to timely pay the civil penalty imposed pursuant to Part II, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, as a criminal misdemeanor and is prohibited from doing so by Article I, section 18 of the Florida Constitution.

You have also cited section 828.27, Florida Statutes, relating to local animal control or cruelty ordinances and the penalties that may be imposed for violations of these ordinances. This statute authorizes the governing body of a county to enact ordinances relating to animal control or cruelty and requires that any such local legislation provide:

"(a) That a violation of such an ordinance is a civil infraction.
(b) A maximum civil penalty not to exceed $500.
(c) A civil penalty of less than the maximum civil penalty if the person who has committed the civil infraction does not contest the citation.
(d) For the issuance of a citation by an officer who has probable cause to believe that a person has committed an act in violation of an ordinance.
(e) For the contesting of a citation in the county court.
(f) That, if a person fails to pay the civil penalty, fails to appear in court to contest the citation, or fails to appear in court as required by subsection (6), the court may issue an order to show cause upon the request of the governing body of the county or municipality. This order shall require such persons to appear before the court to explain why action on the citation has not been taken. If any person who is issued such order fails to appear in response to the court's directive, that person may be held in contempt of court.
(g) Such procedures and provisions as are necessary to implement any ordinances enacted under the authority of this section." (e.s.)

The Legislature has expressed it’s intent that local animal control or cruelty ordinances shall be civil infractions subject to civil penalties and provides an enforcement mechanism for failure to pay the civil penalty imposed for violations of any such ordinance.

Subsection (7) of this statute specifically authorizes local governments to enact animal control or cruelty ordinances that are identical to the provisions of Chapter 828, Florida Statutes, or any other state law, "except as to penalty." However, no local ordinance may conflict with the provisions of Chapter 828, Florida Statutes.[9] The statute also authorizes, "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of this subsection," the governing body of a county to enact an ordinance "prohibiting or regulating noise from any domesticated animal, violation of which shall be punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed $500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 60 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for each violation of such ordinance." Thus, the Legislature has provided counties with an option to impose criminal penalties for violations of section 828.27, Florida Statutes, but limited application of those penalties to situations involving violations of ordinances prohibiting or regulating noise. Where a statute sets forth exceptions, no others may be implied to be intended.[10]

Therefore, it is my opinion that the clear terms of section 828.27, Florida Statutes, and the constitutional provisions discussed above constitute a prohibition against Gilchrist County adopting an ordinance imposing a criminal penalty for failure to timely pay the civil penalty imposed pursuant to the county's animal control or cruelty ordinance adopted pursuant to section 828.27(2), Florida Statutes.

Sincerely,

Bill McCollum
Attorney General

BM/tgh

------------------------------------------------------------

[1] And see Broward County v. La Rosa, 484 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (discussing the term "penalty" as used in the Florida Constitution and relying on the definition used by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Chouteau, 102 U.S. 603, 26 L. Ed. 246 (1880), wherein it was stated that the term "penalty" involves the idea of punishment and its character is not changed by the mode in which it is inflicted, whether by civil action or criminal prosecution). Cf. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 78-111 (1978), discussing a municipal ordinance adopting or incorporating by reference the criminal or penal statutes of the state and the double jeopardy implications of any such action.

[2] See Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 79-109 (1979). See also Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 46-180 (1946), reaching the same conclusion as to prior constitutional provisions.

[3] See Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc., 419 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), expressly approving the conclusion reached in Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 79-109 (1979). Cf. Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 81-76 (1981) (discussing imposition of penalties for violations of municipal ordinances and noting that limitations provided by Legislature in statutory law setting forth penalties should serve as guidelines for municipality exercising home rule powers).

[4] Grapeland Heights Civic Association v. City of Miami, 267 So. 2d 321, 324 (Fla. 1972); Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc., supra, at 1148.

[5] See Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 84-51 (1984).

[6] See Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 85-84 (1985) (municipal code enforcement board must find that same violation has been repeated by same violator before a fine for each day the repeated violation occurred past the date set for compliance may be imposed by the board); and 79-109 (1979) (governing body of charter county prohibited in absence of statutory authorization from providing by ordinance for imposition of civil penalties by agencies); Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc., 419 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (holding that the provisions of a county ordinance authorizing assessment of penalties by county agency was unconstitutional and agreeing with conclusion in Op. Att'y Gen. Fla. 79-109). See also Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 84-51 (1984) (ordinance of noncharter county not a "law" within the purview of s. 5(c), Art. II, State Const.); and 84-39 (1984) (municipal ordinance not a "law" within the meaning of s. 8, Art. I, State Const.)

[7] See Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 97-26 (1997), 86-10 (1986), 85-84 (1985), 85-27 (1985), 85-17 (1985), and 84-55 (1984).

[8] Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805-806 (Fla. 1944); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. 1952); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976).

[9] And see s. 775.04, Fla. Stat., which provides that "[a]cts or omissions to which a pecuniary penalty is attached, recoverable by action . . . for the use, in whole or in part, of the state or of a county or a public body, . . . are not public offenses within the meaning of these statutes."

[10] See Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. 1952); Biddle v. State Beverage Department, 187 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); Williams v. American Surety Company of New York, 99 So. 2d 877, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).

USDOJ Press Release: Racist Sentenced to Federal Penitentiary for Burning African-American Church in Retaliation for President Obama's Election

Department of Justice Press Release

For Immediate Release November 1, 2010	U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/TDD (202) 514-1888
Massachusetts Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Burning African-American Church WASHINGTON—Benjamin Haskell was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor in Springfield, Massachusetts to nine years in prison and three years of supervised release for his role in the 2008 burning of the Macedonia Church of God in Christ, a predominately African-American Church, on the morning after President Barack Obama was elected as the first African-American president of the United States. In addition, Haskell will pay more than $1.7 million in restitution, including $123,570.25 to the Macedonia Church. On June 16, 2010, Haskell, 24, of Springfield, pled guilty to conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate the mostly African-American parishioners of the Macedonia Church in the free exercise of the right to hold and use their new church building, which was under construction, and to damaging the parishioners’ new church building through arson and obstructing their free exercise of religion because of their race, color, and ethnic characteristics. At the earlier plea hearing, a prosecutor told the court that had the case proceeded to trial, the government’s evidence would have proven that in the early morning hours of Nov. 5, 2008, within hours of President Barack Obama being elected, Haskell and his co-conspirators agreed to burn down, and did burn down, the Macedonia Church’s newly constructed building where religious services were to be held. The building was 75 percent completed at the time of the fire, which destroyed nearly the entire structure, leaving only the metal superstructure and a small portion of the front corner intact. Investigators determined that the fire was caused by arsonists who poured and ignited gasoline on the interior and exterior of the building. Haskell confessed to the crime and admitted that prior to the presidential election, he and his co-conspirators used racial slurs against African-Americans and expressed anger at the possible election of Barack Obama as the first African-American president. Haskell admitted that after Obama was declared the winner of the election, he and his co-conspirators walked through the woods behind the Macedonia Church to scout out burning it down. Then, in the early morning hours of Nov. 5, 2008, Haskell and his co-conspirators went back to the church, poured gasoline inside and outside of the church, and ignited the gasoline. “The freedom to practice the religion that we choose without discrimination or hateful acts is among our nation’s most cherished rights,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “As seen here today, the Department will prosecute anyone who violates that right to the fullest extent of the law.” “The burning of the Macedonia Church because of racial hatred and intolerance was a vicious attack on one of our most cherished freedoms—to worship in the religion of our choice safely and without fear of discrimination,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz. “The successful investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those who committed this hateful act is a clear statement that law enforcement will do all in its power to protect our citizens’ civil rights.” “While the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is charged with investigating some of the most violent crimes, I consider the arson to be one of the most serious and dangerous offenses. Not only was this case about the burning of a house of worship, it cut to the very heart of our most valued rights, that of religious freedom. I want to acknowledge all of our partners who assisted in bringing the individuals responsible for this fire to justice,” said ATF Special Agent in Charge Guy Thomas. “Today’s sentencing represents just one more step toward closure and healing, not only for the victims of this hate crime, but for the Springfield community as a whole. The FBI, along with its federal, state, and local law enforcement partners, remains committed to protecting each and every citizen’s civil rights, and will aggressively investigate any violation of those rights, bringing the perpetrators to justice,” said Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI. The case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Paul H. Smyth and Kevin O’Regan of the U.S. Attorney's Springfield Office, and Nicole Lee Ndumele, Trial Attorney in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.

EPA Investigating Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Over St. Augustine Environmental Justice Issues

Our U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is investigating the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) over its alleged mishandling of Environmental Justice issues involving St. Augustine and St. Johns County. The focus includes FDEP's alleged failure to investigate the effects of pollution on the public health of African-Americans in the Lincolnville neighborhood and failure to take adequate enforcement action against the City of St. Augustine over pollution actions.

My late friend David Thundershield Queen said FDEP stands for “Don’t Expect Protection.”

FDEP never prosecuted City Manager WILLIAM B. HARRISS and his henchmen for intentional acts, including dumping 40,000 cubic yards of solid waste in the Old City Reservoir. Before the Lincolnville community was heeded, FDEP joined with the CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, AKERMAN SENTERFITT and lawyer WILLIAM PENCE in a misbegotten effort to bring 40,000 cubic yards of solid waste back to Lincolnville, where they proposed it be used for a "park." Under Republican governors, FDEP has been guilty of desuetude -- nonenforcement, part of the "hollow government" that won't enforce the laws as written by Congress.

FDEP could lose all federal funds as a result of EPA's pending investigation of FDEP's alleged violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Several local activists filed the EJ complaint with President Barack Obama in January 2009.

We shall overcome.

St. Augustine Record re: Lincolnville crime scene (M&M Market)

Police shut down M & M Market on Bridge Street

Posted: November 4, 2010 - 9:03am

After an eight-month investigation, the St Augustine Police Department has executed a search warrant at The M&M Market, 102 Bridge St., seizing all assets and closing the business.

Arrest warrants have been signed for all three owners: Bhanubhai Patel, 61; Daxaben Bhanubhai Patel, 55; and Raj Patel, 20.

These actions are the result of a combined effort among four law enforcement agencies: the St Augustine Police Department, the St Johns County Sheriff’s Office, the State Attorney's Office and the Florida Department of Revenue. The agencies used undercover officers, confidential informants, surveillance and a subpoena of financial records to shut down the business.

During the past 24 months, the SAPD has answered 608 calls at the M & M Market for various citizens complaints. Those complaints led to the investigation which revealed the Patels' criminal activies, a news release from the SAPD says. Activities named in the release include possession and sale of illegal narcotics, racketeering, money laundering and public assistance fraud.

The Patels have owned M & M Market since April of 1997 and reported total sales of $178,213.12 to the DOR for the first 6 months of this year. However, the investigation turned up documents suggesting they took in far more than what they reported, the SAPD said in the release.

The agencies worked together under Florida’s RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization). That act prohibits the acquisition or maintenance of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity or the collection on an unlawful debt. RICO allowed the agencies to seize the Patels' assets, valued at more than $200,000, the release said.

Congratulations, John Henry Hankinson, Jr.

Local resident John Henry Hankinson, Jr., former EPA Regional Administrator, has been named by President Barack Obama to run the cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico from BP's and Halliburton's oil "spill."

Kudos.

Five years ago, Mr. Hankinson was very helpful to local activists who reported the City of St. Augustine's illegal dumping in the Old City Reservoir, a coquina pit lake, which Mr. Hankinson referred to as "an open sore going straight down into the aquifer and the groundater."

Godspeed, Mr. Hankinson.

St. Augustine Record: John Henry Hankinson, Jr. Named to Head Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup

Local to lead Gulf spill cleanup

Environmentalist accepts request from the White House

Posted: October 31, 2010 - 12:00am

y PETER GUINTA

President Barack Obama last week appointed a Crescent Beach man as executive director of a newly formed unit tasked with coordinating restoration teams from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas with teams from federal and other agencies.

John H. Hankinson Jr., 62, confirmed reports Friday that a representative of the White House called and asked if he would lead the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force.

"I spent my childhood on the Gulf and have been working for the environment all my life," Hankinson said. "I'd have to know what (all the teams are) doing, link up state and federal efforts and identify things that can be done quickly."

He accepted the offer after talking to his wife Gail, an employee of St. Johns River Water Management District.

According to an Oct. 25 statement from the EPA, Lisa P. Jackson, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a New Orleans native, was named chair of the task force "due to her considerable involvement in the Obama Administration's immediate response efforts following the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and her knowledge and extensive experience in environmental issues."

Jackson said she was pleased that Hankinson had accepted the responsibility.

"And (pleased that he) is willing once again to step up and serve the people of the Gulf coast. He will play an instrumental role in fulfilling our commitment to a full and lasting restoration of this area."

The job

Hankinson said he'll spend a few weeks learning the myriad problems caused by the spill -- including some environmental problems existing in the Gulf before the spill.

"I'll have to know what everyone is doing, link up with state and federal efforts and identify the things that can be done," he said.

Some of those problems include wetland restoration and protection for barrier island areas, among others.

The release said he will be in charge of "regional ecosystem restoration strategy and ensure that science underpins the task force's efforts."

"There is a lot going on. I'm going to have to develop projects and push and drive those projects so they get implemented," he said.

The scientists and other specialists the task force will work with are "top notch," he said.

The task force itself won't be large, roughly a dozen people, but it will borrow staff from other agencies and be based in the New Orleans area.

"The task force will integrate local stakeholders, representatives from affected tribes, and the scientific and academic communities," the EPA said.

Hankinson said, "We want to make sure we're efficient and effective as we can be to get it done. Some work will be done in Washington, but I want to make sure we don't get detached from the coast. It's going to be a big challenge."

His background

A Florida native, Hankinson played on St. Petersburg Beach when he was a child because some of his family lived there, and afterward spent a lot of time fishing and enjoying Gulf waters.

Later, as a psychology student at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, he became involved with environmental issues. That may explain why his law degree from the University of Florida specialized on environmental law.

He took a job as a policy attorney with the Florida Legislature in 1979, becoming director of a regulatory reform committee.

In 1982, he founded and was director of the nonprofit Environmental Services Center, which provided a link between scientists and government to facilitate legislative decision-making.

According to the EPA, "He has worked on the National Estuary Program in the Gulf of Mexico and directed the development and implementation of a water quality protection plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. He (also) has over 10 years' experience overseeing the restoration and protection of the St. Johns River system in Florida."

Under Gov. Bob Graham, he worked on Florida's comprehensive plan, then worked on ecosystems as part of a state project buying up large tracts of farmland to restore the headwaters of the Everglades.

"I loved that job. At the end of the day, you felt you had accomplished something," he says now.

He worked on restoring the Oklawaha River basin, Lake Apopka and Lake Griffin during the early 1990s.

Hankinson said that he was appointed regional administrator for the EPA's Region 4 -- Florida, Alabama and Mississippi -- again working on the Everglades projects by adding 50,000 acres to grow the size of the headwater region.

"I enjoy getting all the parts of an ecosystem connected. You have to approach restoration as a system because one part affects another," he said.

He was employed by the EPA from 1994 to 2001. Since he left, he's worked as an independent environment and conservation lands consultant, "advising on land conservation, strategic land use decision-making, and constructive environmental management and policy projects across the Southeastern United States."

The future

"I really don't want to leave. There's no better quality of life than in St. Johns County," he said. But, he added, while on the job "I look forward to hearing from everyone on the Gulf coast -- from community groups to businesses to scientists -- as we go about restoring a national treasure that also happens to be an economic engine for the entire region."

On his own time, Hankinson plays a mean harmonica. His album "Chrome Blind" was recorded at St. Augustine's Eclipse Studios, where he is one of the partners.

He's even working on another album. But he may have to put his harp down for a while.

Jackson said, "John's longtime experience with these issues and this region, along with his proven ability to get things done, will be invaluable assets in what is sure to be a long-term, hard-fought battle to restore the waters of the gulf. I have every confidence in him."

*

EPA Administrator Jackson will hold the first meeting of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force on Nov. 8 in Pensacola. Details of that meeting have not yet been released, the EPA said.

Vote today to improve our community, state and Nation for future generations

Vote to improve our city, county and State (for you, your children and future generations). Here are my suggestions:
Congress: Navy veteran Heather Beaven will be the only woman veteran in the House of Representatives. CEO of a Florida non-profit, she’s helped educate at-risk students in workplace skills, improving peoples’ lives. She’s running against 17-year incumbent JOHN LUIGI MICA, who embarrasses us with is dysfunctional behavior, including head-butting an ABC News cameraman asking about his paryting with disgraced Tom Delay. Mica’s earmarks are quid pro quo: he must be replaced. Ms. Beaven cares about people like us. Mica’s a phony, cynical prawn of lobbyist-sharks for Big Oil. He supports offshore drilling (and once supported drilling in the Everglades National Park). Cowardly John Mica refuses to debate Heather Beaven. Wonder why?
Governor: Alex Sink -- an experienced businessperson who protects us as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer. She’s pposed by HMO multimillionaire Rick Scott, whose firm paid a multi-millionaire who paid $1.7 billion to settle Medicaid fraud charges. Alex Sink will be Florida’s first woman governor.
Attorney General: Dan Gelber, a second generation prosecutor, fought for people like us in the Florida Senate. Gelber promises to prosecute government corruption, working with federal prosecutors. The FBI says Florida is our most corrupt state. Dan Gelber says, “Enough!”
State Senate: Debra Gianoulis, veteran journalist, is running to restore balance and fairness and protect education from Tallahassee’s hare-brained schemes. She’s running against arrogant incumbent lobbyist-partisan-directed John Thrasher, former Speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives.
State Representative: Doug Courtney, an MBA computer software developer, is running to restore sanity and common sense to a State House of Representatives full of gridlock and dishonesty. He’s running against William L. Proctor, 78, the incumbent, who supports offshore oil drilling one mile from our coast.
Anastasia Mosquito Control Commission of St. Johns County (AMCD): Cathy Brandhorst, an enlightened, energetic, retired pesticide company owner. She has already helped reform AMCD, reporting mishandling of toxic materials as a citizen-activist. She’s running against former AMCD education specialist Gina LaBlanc, who wants to waste money, reverse course and buy an expensive helicopter and Taj Mahal building. It’s our money. Let’s continue efforts to use natural pesticides instead of carcinogens as much as possible and not waste money on flubdubs.
St. Augustine Beach City Commission:
Undine Pawlowski, a lawyer who represents people like us. She’s running against Hester Longstreet, who won’t explain what she meant about those divisive “family values” ads.
Ed George, former mayor, supports environment protection and believes government is a service, not a business. He’s opposed by multi-millionaire Gary Snodgrass, retired nuclear powerplant human resources manager and Board director, who brags of “cutting healthcare,” allegedly misled older workers about pension benefits and whose company put sleeping Wackenhut security guards in the ready room at nuclear powerplants, resulting in $65,000 in NRC fines.
St. Augustine City Commission: William Leary, retired environmental policy advisor to Presidents Clinton and Bush at CEQ. He helped protect the Everglades, served admirably as a wise member of PZB. Expect him to help save St. Augustine, grow our tourist economy and protect human rights and our environmental and historic heritage. Leary’s opposed by hate website proprietor Michael Gold (f/k/a “Michael Tobin”), who raised $250,000 for Sheriff David Shoar in 2004 and received nearly $700,000 in no-bid uniforms from the City of St. Augustine and St. Johns County Sheriff .
Amendments 4,5&6: Please vote to restore integrity in land use planning and redistricting. Let voters approve comprehensive land use plan amendments. Let’s end wasteful, dishonest “gerrymandering” practices. Voters should pick our legislators (and not the other way around)!