Quantcast
Channel: Clean Up City of St. Augustine, Florida
Viewing all 6570 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Shaver led the way in addressing sea level rise – Upchurch follows (HCN)

October 22, 2019, 10:27 am
$
0
0
Other than Mayor Nancy Shaver and Mayor Tracy Upchurch, we're chock-a-block with climate change deniers here in these parts.

Last night, in Canada's national elections, the climate change-denying party was defeated.

Read more here.

Last year, I attended a meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the St. Johns River Water Management District and local officials at the Guana-Tolomato-Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM-NERR).  The ONLY local official there was Commissioner Sandy Flowers of the St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District Commission.

Some local officials understand science,  including St. Augustine City Commission John Otha Valdes, long a proponent on regulating permeable surfaces, and St. Johns County Commissioner Henry Dean, who likes the proposed St. Augustine National Historical Park and National Seashore, which would protect forever inviolate some of the land that he and the late John Henry Hankinson, Jr. acquired for the State of Florida and our St. Johns River Water Management District.

Bit too many of our local elected officials are in denial.  Most

are dull Republicans, members of a plutocratic political party that denies ocean level rise and global warming exist.

The reptilian retromingent rep"Gang of Four" on the St. Augustine City Commission, misled by current Vice Mayor LEANNAN SOPHIA AMARUN FREEMAN and former Vice Mayor TODD DAVID NEVILLE, a/k/a "ODD TODD," was painfully pig-ignorant -- heckling, obstructing and blocking Mayor Nancy Shaver's reforms, even objecting to her taking a bathroom break earlier this year, and blocking efforts to adjourn a meeting at midnight when DAVID BARTON CORNEAL's privatization of the Dow Museum of Historic Homes was approved, Mayor Shaver dissenting.

The Gang of Four almost killed her with a stroke.  She's now blind in one eye.

But it's great to see Mayor Tracy Upchurch in Washington, D.C., showing good leadership as a just steward of Our Nation's Oldest City's future, observing the seven generation test.

From Historic City News:


Shaver led the way in addressing sea level rise – Upchurch follows

October 22, 2019 Government 0


Nineteen mayors from across Florida are in the nation’s capital for a summit that focuses on sea-level rise.  Coastal St Johns County is now on the front lines of the rising sea level problem.  Even on a rainy day like Monday, it’s not hard to find flooding in St. Augustine.
Mayor Tracy Upchurch and former Mayor Nancy Shaver are in the nation’s capital this week attending the American Flood Coalition’s first Florida Mayors Summit.  
Shaver was the first mayor in Northeast Florida to take a lead role in addressing sea level rise, for her it’s not about politics it’s about making sure the nation’s oldest city is around for future generations.

Upchurch an


↧
Search

Impeachment Diary: The words that could end a presidency (WaPo)

October 22, 2019, 10:52 pm
$
0
0
Spot-on column on the October 22, 2019 testimony of our current chargé d'affaires ad interim to Ukraine and former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, William Brockenbrough "Bill" Taylor Jr., a 1969 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., whom Wikipedia describes:

Taylor is the son of Nancy Dare (Aitcheson) and William Brockenbrough Newton Taylor,[3] who had been a director of research and development for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).[4]
Like his father, he attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, graduating in 1969. The Howitzer yearbook describes his modesty about his many academic and athletic accomplishments, describing him as "a man who is held in the highest esteem and admiration by all of us." [5] In 1977 he completed graduate studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, receiving a Master of Public Policy degree.

After Taylor graduated from West Point, he served in the Infantry for six years, including tours of duty in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam and as aero-rifle commander in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) in Germany.[6]
As a civilian he served as Director of Emergency Preparedness Policy in the Department of Energy before serving for five years as Legislative Assistant on the staff of U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). He then directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair. Following that assignment, he transferred to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, William Howard Taft IV. From 1992 until 2002 Taylor served with the rank of ambassador coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, followed by an assignment in Kabul coordinating U.S. and international assistance to Afghanistan. In 2004 he was transferred to Baghdad as Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office. [7]
Until 2006 he then was the U.S. Government's representative to the Quartet's effort to facilitate the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, led by Special Envoy James Wolfensohn in Jerusalem. The Quartet Special Envoy was responsible for the economic aspects of this disengagement.
Taylor was confirmed as United States ambassador to Ukraine by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006 and was sworn in on June 5, 2006; he held the post till May 2009.[2]
On September 30, 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama nominated John Tefft as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.[8] Taylor was appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions in September 2011.[9]
In 2015 Taylor was appointed executive vice president of the United States Institute of Peace after serving a year in the same role in an acting capacity.[10][11]
Taylor became chargé d'affaires ad interim for Ukraine in June 2019, taking over the role from the deputy chief of mission, Kristina Kvien, after Marie Yovanovitch departed Ukraine.[12]

Further information: Trump–Ukraine scandal
Taylor arrived in Ukraine a month after the abrupt ousting of Ambassador Yovanovitch and the inauguration of the country's new president Volodymyr Zelensky. But following President Donald Trump's phone call with the new Ukranian president, Taylor questioned Trump's motivation in a text to Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union: "Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?" Sondland told him to phone.[13]
On October 3, 2019, it was revealed that Taylor had expressed, in text messages, concern that President Trump may have withheld aid to Ukraine unless they investigated corruption in Ukraine and interference in the 2016 US election. According to transcripts released by the house impeachment probe, Taylor on September 9, 2019 at 12:47:11 AM texted, "I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign." He also texted that withholding military aid would be a nightmare because it sends the wrong message to both Kyiv and Moscow. "The Russians love it. (And I quit)."[14]
Over four hours later, at 5:19:35 AM,[15] in his response to Taylor, Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union, responded that the charge is "incorrect.""Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensk'y promised during his campaign."[15] He then suggested Taylor call the Executive Secretary of the United States Department of State about any concerns[16]: "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks."[17] In his testimony during the impeachment inquiry Sondland noted that it was only out of his deep respect for Taylor that he tried to address Taylor's concerns.[18] Taylor gave a deposition before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee on October 22, 2019.[19]


Opening statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor
On October 22, 2019, Taylor testified before the US Congressional House regarding the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and the Trump-Ukraine scandal. In his opening statement, Taylor says "in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of US policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will help the committees understand why I believed that to be the case."[20]
In his opening statement, Taylor commented directly on the text exchange with Ambassador Sondland, stating, "As the committees are now aware, I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be 'crazy'. I believed that then, and I still believe that."[21]
Taylor explained further that while he wanted to say "yes" to accepting Secretary of State Michael Pompeo's initial offer to serve as Ambassador to Ukraine, it was not an easy decision because former Ambassador Masha Yovanovitch had been "treated poorly" and "caught in a web of political machinations both in Kyiv and Washington." Taylor said in his statement that former Ambassador Yovanovitch encouraged him to accept the position "both for policy reasons and for the morale of the embassy". Taylor then explains that he had decided he could only be effective "if the US policy of strong support for Ukraine - strong diplomatic support, along with robust security, economic, and technical assistance - were to continue" and "If I had the backing of the Secretary of State to implement that policy" as Taylor was "worried about what I had heard concerning the role of Rudolph Guliani, who had made several high-profile statements about Ukraine and US policy toward the country." As a result Taylor states that "So during my meeting with Secretary Pompeo on May 28, I made clear to him and the others present that if US policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there, and I could not stay. Taylor states that Secretary Pompeo "assured me that the policy of strong support for Ukraine would continue and that he would support me in defending that policy".
Taylor explained that once he arrived in Kyiv, Ukraine, there was much hope and encouragement because the new President of Ukraine Zelenskyy had won an overwhelming mandate controlling 60 percent of Rada seats, and was taking quick executive action to implement an anti corruption agenda which created "excitement in Kyiv that this time things could be different - a new Ukraine might finally be breaking from its corrupt, post-Soviet past" where previously "raw corruption" had existed for two decades. However, Taylor also "found a confusing and unusual arrangement for US policy towards Ukraine, as "there appeared to be two channels of US policy making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular." 
Taylor added that, alongside the regular diplomatic channel, which "has had consistently strong, bipartisan support both in Congress, and in all administrations since Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991", there existed an "irregular, informal channel of US policy-making" led by Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and Ambassador Kurt Volker, dubbed the "three amigos" and Senator Ron Johnson.[22] Taylor shared his concerns with John Bolton, the National Security Advisor of the United States under the Trump administration from April 2018 to September 2019, who recommended that Taylor send a first-person cable to Secretary Mike Pompeo directly, which he did. "I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29, describing the ‘folly’ I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government," Taylor said. "I told the secretary that I could not and would not defend such a policy.” [23]
Taylor stated that, while both the regular and irregular channels initially served the same - a strong US-Ukraine partnership, it became clear by August that the channels had diverged in their objectives leading to Taylor becoming "increasingly concerned". To elaborate, Taylor explains that on a June 18 conference call among senior US officials Volker, Philip T. Reeker, Secretary Perry, Sondland, and Ulrich Brechbuhl, there was unanimous consensus "that a meeting between the two presidents was an agreed-upon goal". However, during Taylor's subsequent communications with Volker and Sondland, they relayed that the President "wanted to hear from Zelenskyy before scheduling a meeting in the Oval Office" which Taylor states "It was not clear to me what this meant". Taylor goes on to say that on June 27th, Sondland told Taylor during a phone conversation that Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that was not standing in the way of "investigations". Taylor states that "I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with Zelenskyy later that day" and "he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as President Zelenskyy joined the call. Taylor states that, "also, before President Zelenskyy joined the call, Ambassador Volker told the US participants that he "planned to be explicit with President Zelenskyy in a one on one meeting in Toronto on July 2 about what Zelenskyy should do to get the white House meeting." While Taylor did not initially understand what this meant, Taylor states that Volker noted that President Trump wanted to see "rule of law, transparency, but also specifically, cooperation on investigations to 'get to the bottom of things'."[24][25]

Taylor is married to Deborah Ann Furlan [26] and they have two children. His nephew (sister's son) is actor and comedian Zach Cregger.

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

From  Dana Milbank in The Washington Post



Impeachment Diary
Opinion

Impeachment Diary: The words that could end a presidency

Add to list



William B. Taylor Jr., center, is escorted by U.S. Capitol Police as he arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. (Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg) (Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg News)
William B. Taylor Jr., center, is escorted by U.S. Capitol Police as he arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. (Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg) (Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg News)




Image without a caption
By
Columnist
Oct. 22, 2019 at 7:50 p.m. EDT



He was straight out of Foggy Bottom central casting.
Lean and bespectacled, with neatly combed gray hair and a pressed charcoal suit, William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, gave not so much as a glance toward the massed cameras as he arrived Tuesday, escorted by uniformed police, at the offices of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. With steady gait and grim countenance, he disappeared behind a basement door marked “Restricted Area.”



But once inside, he delivered words that could end a presidency.
“In August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons,” Taylor testified, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by The Post. Taylor said President Trump himself made the release of military aid to Ukraine contingent on a public declaration by Ukraine’s president that the country would investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and the 2016 election.



Swalwell describes acting Ukraine ambassador's opening statement

Following the deposition of William B. Taylor Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) commented on the opening statement. (The Washington Post)
In an instant, the impeachment inquiry no longer rested on the credibility or motives of a whistleblower, nor arguments about the meaning of quid pro quo. Here, spelling out Trump’s wrongdoing in extensive detail, was the diplomat Trump’s team brought out of retirement to be the ambassador to Ukraine — replacing the woman Trump ousted from that position at the request of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Taylor, an Army veteran and a respected diplomat who obviously kept detailed notes, will not be easy to discredit.
Trump, more than anybody, must have known how damaging Taylor’s testimony would be. Ninety minutes before Taylor was slated to arrive, Trump created a diversion. He tweeted to his 66 million followers: “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here — a lynching.”
It was a grotesque provocation, clearly aimed at fomenting racial division — and it worked, for a bit. Reporters momentarily stopped asking about Taylor and started asking about lynching. Democrats reacted with outrage. And Trump’s boosters in the House defended him. “This,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) concurred, “is a lynching in every sense.”

But ultimately no amount of distraction could counter what was happening in HVC-304, three floors beneath ground level in a secure room in the Capitol Visitor Center. As the day wore on, and reports of the deposition leaked out, there was a palpable change above ground.
When Senate Republican leaders gave their weekly news conference after lunch, Fox News’s Chad Pergram observed that Republicans “criticize the process and don’t defend the president outright.” Pergram asked Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) directly: “Are you willing to defend the president in this matter?”
“I’m willing to talk about the process,” McConnell replied.
McConnell also said Trump’s “lynching” claim “was an unfortunate choice of words.” Asked about Trump’s claim that McConnell told Trump the call with the Ukrainian president was “innocent,” McConnell contradicted Trump: “We’ve not had any conversations on that subject.”

McConnell isn’t yet where Republican Sen. Howard Baker was during Watergate when he asked: “What did the president know and when did he know it?” Republican support for Trump has not yet crumbled.
But now Trump’s handpicked ambassador, with specific and detailed allegations but no obvious anti-Trump motive, has blown up the many denials offered by the president. With growing evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing, and Trump’s aberrant behavior (“lynching”!) in response, Republicans continued to cling to the last plausible defense: Complaining about the “process.”
“It’s an unfair process,” Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), a Trump loyalist, said as Taylor testified.
Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), another Trump defender, stood nearby and said how “unfair the process is.”
Two of the nine Republicans on the intelligence committee skipped Taylor’s early testimony, instead joining a news conference with GOP leaders to complain some more about the process.“Unfair and unprecedented process,” protested Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.). 
“An unbelievable abuse of process,” Rep. Mike Turner (Ohio) added. 
“A mockery of the process,” contributed Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.).
“It’s not fair in the process,” chimed in Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.).
“They have concocted a process in secret,” GOP caucus leader Liz Cheney (Wyo.) lamented.
Combined, the leaders complained about the “process” 31 times — but uttered the names “Taylor” and “Ukraine” not once.
Now, Republicans object to the impeachment depositions being taken behind closed doors, even though Republicans did much the same in the past. But will they really be happier when proceedings become public? How can they defend a man publicly implicated by his own subordinates?
You might call it a work in “process.”

More commentary on the Trump impeachment inquiry
Updated October 22, 2019
Want more coverage of the Trump impeachment inquiry?
Impeachment Diary: Get the latest entry in opinion columnist Dana Milbank’s regular feature.
More Opinions coverage of the impeachment inquiry: See complete coverage from our columnists, editorial cartoonists and Editorial Board.
Stay informed: Read the latest reporting and analysis on the impeachment inquiry from the Post newsroom.
↧
↧

Official's homophobic slur ignites explosive reaction against Tennessee tourism hot spot. (Knoxville News-Sentinel)

October 22, 2019, 11:55 pm
$
0
0
I attended the Tuesday Market tonight at the St. Augustine Amp, where there was GLBTQ+-inclusive calling for country square dancing by Tommy Bledsoe and the band, announcing how to dance, for male-female couples, and same-sex couples.  How cool is that?

In the South, St. Augustine is inclusive.  Elsewhere, there are still ninnies, boobies, bullies and bigots in charge, as in the State of Tennessee, a/k/a the State of Despair, a/k/a The State of Siege.

Reading about this redneck peckerwood 33-year veteran Sevier County Commissioner reminds me of my closeted youth in Clinton and Memphis, Tennessee, as Appalachian Observer Editor and Memphis State U. law student, and why I was so delighted to leave there after law school, returning only to investigate evil employers and try whistleblower cases against the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oak Ridge Oligarchy of Atomic Blunderers (the Department of Energy and its contractors, including Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and their pet shrink, Dr. Kenneth Carpenter, M.D., against whom we won a record jury verdict).

From the Knoxville News-Sentinel:


Official's homophobic slur ignites explosive reaction against Tennessee tourism hot spot

, Knoxville News SentinelPublished 11:07 a.m. ET Oct. 22, 2019 | Updated 6:00 p.m. ET Oct. 22, 2019

Watch an extended interview with Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and Democratic presidential candidate, prior to the LGBTQ forum in Iowa. Joseph Cress, Iowa City Press-Citizen
LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE
Sevier County officials moved swiftly Tuesday to distance themselves from a county commissioner who used a homophobic slur to describe presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg.
Commissioner Warren Hurst, who's held his seat for 33 years, made the remark during an unprompted rant ahead of a vote on a gun measure at Monday night's commission meeting. He railed against the national Democratic Party and said better presidential candidates could be found in the local jail.
Hurst, a toothpick in his mouth, went on to say, "I'm not prejudiced, but by golly a white male in this country has very few rights, and they're getting took more every day."
At least one woman stormed out of the meeting, but many in the crowd applauded Hurst, and some said, "Amen."



Sevier County
✔@SevierCounty

The statements made by Commissioner Hurst at the Sevier County Commission meeting of October 21, 2019, do not reflect the opinion or position of Sevier County administration. Sevier County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate (1/2)

1,308
10:55 AM - Oct 22, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,324 people are talking about this

Sevier County, Sevierville and Pigeon Forge disavow comments

The county, one of the nation's most popular travel destinations, received a flood of criticism after Knoxville TV station WVLT posted a video clip from the speech.
The community is the gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the nation's most visited national park. It's also home to Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge, which host dozens of tourist attractions, including Dollywood and restaurants owned by Paula Deen and Blake Shelton. Many social media posts criticizing Hurst’s statements have tagged the tourist attractions and organizations.
Sevier County's official Twitter account on Tuesday morning disavowed Hurst's comments, saying they "do not reflect the opinion or position of Sevier County administration."
Clingmans Dome is shown in the background of this undated archive photo.
106 Photos
Great Smoky Mountains National Park through the years
The city of Sevierville followed up with a statement condemning the "offensive" remarks.
"The City of Sevierville Board of Mayor and Aldermen and City administration reject bigotry and prejudice towards any and all persons," the statement reads, in part. "Mr. Hurst’s remarks do not reflect the feelings of our residents, who are friendly, caring people and neighbors. The City of Sevierville and the entire Smoky Mountain community is a welcoming place for the millions that visit our region and the thousands who live here."
Pigeon Forge's city manager, Earlene Teaster, said Hurst's "disturbing" comments don't represent the city. "Pigeon Forge welcomes everyone with open arms. We do not discriminate." 
No one answered the door when Knox News stopped at Hurst's home Tuesday. He did not return phone and text messages.
Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville, said the comments made by Hurst in Sevierville, which is about 30 miles southeast of her district, were "embarrassing."
"It was just horrific, and the way people just laughed and mocked was really embarrassing," she said. "We would hope that Tennesseans would be better than that. And folks in Sevier County who rely on tourist dollars — it's that sort of thing that's going to chase people away from their county."
Dollywood, Johnson said, is "the most open and welcoming place."

"And then to hear something like that, I could see it just killing anybody's desire to try to come up there," she said. "You've got a fabulous place that's opening and welcoming and friendly, and then you've got officials like that. It just sends a terrible message."
Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said Hurst's comments "do not reflect the Dollywood experience in any way. Dollywood is open and welcoming to everyone, every day."


'This is unprofessional'

The woman caught on camera storming out of the county commission meeting is Sara Thompson, chair of the Sevier County Democrats.
She was there to speak out against the gun measure, which states that the county supports the Second Amendment and opposes red flag laws intended to keep guns from people who pose a danger to themselves or others. The resolution was ultimately approved 24-0, the Mountain Press reported.
Thompson told Knox News the meeting was "respectful" until Sevier County Mayor Larry Waters asked if any of the county commissioners wanted to comment ahead of the vote.
At that point, she said, Hurst launched into a "personal attack on those who had been there and opposed the resolution" before expanding his comments to Democrats in general and the difficulty of being a white man in America.
At one point, Hurst used a slur to refer to Buttigieg, a Democratic presidential candidate and the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Hurst didn't say Buttigieg's name, but the candidate is openly gay.
Buttigieg's campaign did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
During Hurst's speech, Thompson stood up, said, "Excuse me, this is unprofessional, this is (expletive)," and walked out.
"I felt it was better for me to leave the room than to continue a scene or to listen to what apparently followed," she said.


'That's all I want to say'

Two other Sevier County commissioners tried to distance themselves from Hurst's comments but stopped short of condemning them outright.
Commissioner Mike Chambers said he supported the Second Amendment resolution after hearing from his constituents. Supporters of the measure argue red flag laws infringe on their constitutional rights.
"We stand by our gun owners, and we do support that," Chambers said. "The other things that went on I had nothing to do with."
Commissioner Greg Haggard said it was his understanding that the Sevier County Gun Club researched the proposal and asked commissioners to support it. A spokeswoman for the gun club said it doesn't endorse Hurst's comments.
Beyond that, Haggard said Hurst’s comments don’t speak for everyone on the commission.
“That’s pretty much all I want to say,” he said.


↧

Corrupt City of St. Augustine expects to finish most of Coquina Avenue site improvements by year's end (SAR)

October 23, 2019, 3:03 am
$
0
0


Three feet elevation, with three foot sea level rise projection = FREEMAN's folly.

Commissioner LEANNA SOPHIA AMARU FREEMAN, Vice Mayor, divorce lawyer, is subject of a pending Florida Ethics Commission complaint on this ill-advised deal.

TROY BLEVINS, who works for new PZB member MICHAEL DAVIS (A.D. DAVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY owner), was the broker.

Instead of donating the land, the wealthy family that owned the property sold it.  That family's money is the result of exploiting labor of African-Americans in turpentine camps that the late Stetson Kennedy, my mentor,  and Zora Neal Hurston documented as virtual slavery.

City Manager JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E., City Public Works Director MICHAEL G. CULLUM, P.E., City Assistant Public Works Director TODD SMITH, P.G., and City Commission breached their fiduciary duty.

When I asked questions about it on January 31, 2019 at an all-white Galimore Center meeting in anticipation of bogus "Keeping History Above Water Conference" at Flagler College, CULLUM invited me to "step outside." He's never apologized.

I was excluded from the KHAW Conference.  EPA's desultory Office for External Civil Rights investigation is now itself under investigation by the EPA Inspector General, two agents having come from Atlanta to interview me.

The City's shameless PR on this high-priced land acquisition and dubious park with alleged flood control benefits continues.

Here's the St. Augustine Record's latest smarmy pro-corruption, pro-City, pro-mendacity spin:




City of St. Augustine expects to finish most of Coquina Avenue site improvements by year's end



By Sheldon Gardner
Posted Oct 22, 2019 at 5:15 PM
St. Augustine officials hope to give city residents a Christmas present this year: a new park equipped with flood protection in Davis Shores, city Public Works Director Mike Cullum said.

The city bought the land at 91 and 93 Coquina Ave. this year to create a passive waterfront park for city residents and to help reduce flooding in that area.

Officials are gearing up for work at the site.

One of the first steps is for the Meldrim Cottage to be moved from the land — the small wood-frame cottage was connected to St. Johns County’s turpentine industry in the 1900s, and the Florida Agricultural Museum plans to move the cottage to its property in Palm Coast in early November.

After that, construction can move ahead fully, Cullum said.

As for plans to reduce flooding in the immediate area, the city has already placed a small berm at the site to help deal with flooding during extra-high tides, Cullum said. That has already been tested.

“It held the water back every nicely,” Cullum said.

The city also plans to raise the upland portion of the site to 7 feet above sea level, he said. The city would also like to add a smart valve that will prevent stormwater from backing up into the area, but that piece of the project is expected to be added after Christmas as long as the city can get a grant for it, Cullum sad. The smart valve is expected to cost about $150,000.

Work on the land includes cutting down invasive species, such as Australian pines. Some of the Australian pines will be left because of their history in Davis Shores.

St. Augustine commissioners voted in January to buy the property. There was some debate at a later Commission meeting after former Mayor Nancy Shaver said she wanted the city to reconsider the decision to purchase the property.

Ultimately the city paid about $460,784 for the property, Assistant City Manager Meredith Breidenstein said.

The site work will mostly be done by the city, but there will be an added cost for cutting trees.

The park will be passive, which means having few additions to the site. The city plans to add coquina benches, a coquina table and an interpretive kiosk that will describe the history of the area.

Vice Mayor Leanna Freeman said the project should reduce flooding that Davis Shores residents regularly encounter in that spot.

“A lot of (residents) have to go through (that area) to get to and from their homes and to get out (of the neighborhood) — I don’t think they should have to drive through saltwater just because it’s high tide,” she said.
↧

Read Opening Statement of Ambassador William Brockenbrough "Bill" Taylor Jr. at Trump Impeachment Hearing (October 22, 2019)

October 23, 2019, 6:37 am
$
0
0
Every American needs to read the October 22, 2019 testimony of our current chargé d'affaires ad interim to Ukraine and former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, William Brockenbrough "Bill" Taylor Jr., a 1969 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.,

Opening Statement of Ambassador William B . Taylor - October 22 , 2019
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to provide my perspective on the events that are the subject of the Committees’ inquiry. My sole purpose is to provide the Committees with my views about the strategic importance of Ukraine to the United States as well as additional information about the incidents in question.
I have dedicated my life to serving U.S. interests at home and abroad in both military and civilian roles. My background and experience are nonpartisan and I have been honored to serve under every administration, Republican and Democratic, since 1985.
For 50 years, I have served the country, starting as a cadet at West Point, then as an infantry officer for six years, including with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam; then at the Department of Energy; then as a member of a Senate staff; then at NATO; then with the State Department here and abroad — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jerusalem, and Ukraine; and more recently, as Executive Vice President of the nonpartisan United States Institute of Peace.
While I have served in many places and in different capacities, I have a particular interest in and respect for the importance of our country’s relationship with Ukraine. Our national security demands that this relationship remain strong, However, in August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons. I hope my remarks today will help the Committees understand why I believed that to be the case.
At the outset, I would like to convey several key points. First, Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States, important for the security of our country as well as Europe. Second, Ukraine is, right at this moment — while we sit in this room — and for the last five years, under armed attack from Russia. Third, the security assistance we provide is crucial to Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression, and, more importantly, sends a signal to Ukrainians — and Russians — that we are Ukraine’s reliable strategic partner. And finally, as the Committees are now aware, I said on September 9 in a message to Ambassador Gordon Sondland that withholding security assistance in exchange for help with a domestic political campaign in the United States would be “crazy.” I believed that then, and I still believe that.
1
See Original Document
Let me now provide the Committees a chronology of the events that led to my concern.
On May 28 of this year, I met with Secretary Mike Pompeo who asked me to return to Kyiv to lead our embassy in Ukraine. It was — and is — a critical time in U.S.-Ukraine relations: Volodymyr Zelenskyy had just been elected president and Ukraine remained at war with Russia. As the summer approached, a new Ukrainian government would be seated, parliamentary elections were imminent, and the Ukrainian political trajectory would be set for the next several years.
I had served as Ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, having been nominated by George W. Bush, and, in the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member of a small Ukrainian non-governmental organization supporting good governance and reform. Across the responsibilities I have had in public service, Ukraine is special for me, and Secretary Pompeo’s offer to return as Chief of Mission was compelling. I am convinced of the profound importance of Ukraine to the security of the United States and Europe for two related reasons:
First, if Ukraine succeeds in breaking free of Russian influence, it is possible for Europe to be whole, free, democratic, and at peace. In contrast, if Russia dominates Ukraine, Russia will again become an empire, oppressing its people, and threatening its neighbors and the rest of the world.
Second, with the annexation of the Crimea in 2014 and the continued aggression in Donbas, Russia violated countless treaties, ignored all commitments, and dismissed all the principles that have kept the peace and contributed to prosperity in Europe since World War II. To restore Ukraine’s independence, Russia must leave Ukraine. This has been and should continue to be a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy goal.
When I was serving outside of government during the Obama adıninistration and after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, I joined two other former ambassadors to Ukraine in urging Obama administration officials at the State Department, Defense Department, and other agencies to provide lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine in order to deter further Russian aggression. I also supported much stronger sanctions against Russia.
2
See Original Document
All to say, I cared about Ukraine’s future and the important U.S. interests there. So, when Secretary Pompeo asked me to go back to Kyiv, I wanted to say “yes.”
But it was not an easy decision. The former Ambassador, Masha Yovanovitch, had been treated poorly, caught in a web of political machinations both in Kyiv and in Washington. I feared that those problems were still present. When I talked to her about accepting the offer, however, she urged me to go, both for policy reasons and for the morale of the embassy.
Before answering the Secretary, I consulted both my wife and a respected former senior Republican official who has been a mentor to me. I will tell you that my wife, in no uncertain terms, strongly opposed the idea. The mentor counseled: if your country asks you to do something, you do it — if you can be effective.
I could be effective only if the U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine — strong diplomatic support along with robust security, economic, and technical assistance — were to continue and if I had the backing of the Secretary of State to implement that policy. I worried about what I had heard concerning the role of Rudolph Giuliani, who had made several high-profile statements about Ukraine and U.S. policy toward the country. So during my meeting with Secretary Pompeo on May 28, I made clear to him and the others present that if U.S. policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted there and I could not stay. He assured me that the policy of strong support for Ukraine would continue and that he would support me in defending that policy.
With that understanding, I agreed to go back to Kyiv. Because I was appointed by the Secretary but not reconfirmed by the Senate, my official position was Chargé d’Affaires ad interim.
* * * * *
I returned to Kyiv on June 17, carrying the original copy of a letter President Trump signed the day after I met with the Secretary. In that letter, President Trump congratulated President Zelenskyy on his election victory and invited him to a meeting in the Oval Office. I also brought with me a framed copy of the Secretary’s declaration that the United States would never recognize the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea.
But once I arrived in Kyiv, I discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances.
3
See Original Document
First, the encouraging: President Zelenskyy was taking over Ukraine in a hurry. He had appointed reformist ministers and supported long-stalled anti-corruption legislation. He took quick executive action, including opening Ukraine’s High Anti-Corruption Court, which was established under the previous presidential administration but never allowed to operate. He called snap parliamentary elections — his party was so new it had no representation in the Rada — and later won an overwhelming mandate, controlling 60 percent of the seats. With his new parliamentary majority, President Zelenskyy changed the Ukrainian constitution to remove absolute immunity from Rada deputies, which had been the source of raw corruption for two decades. There was much excitement in Kyiv that this time things could be different — a new Ukraine might finally be breaking from its corrupt, post-Soviet past.
And yet, I found a confusing and unusual arrangement for making U.S. policy towards Ukraine. There appeared to be two channels of U.S. policy-making and implementation, one regular and one highly irregular. As the Chief of Mission, I had authority over the regular, formal diplomatic processes, including the bulk of the U.S. effort to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion and to help it defeat corruption. This regular channel of U.S. policy-making has consistently had strong, bipartisan support both in Congress and in all administrations since Ukraine’s independence from Russia in 1991.
At the same time, however, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making with respect to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned, Mr. Giuliani. I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was also in the irregular one to the extent that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland included me in certain conversations. Although this irregular channel was well-connected in Washington, it operated mostly outside of official State Department channels. This irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sondland, Secretary Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson briefed President Trump on May 23 upon their return from President Zelenskyy’s inauguration. The delegation returned to Washington enthusiastic about the new Ukrainian president and urged President Trump to meet with him early on to cement the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. But from what I understood, President Trump did not share their enthusiasın for a meeting with Mr. Zelenskyy.
When I first arrived in Kyiv, in June and July, the actions of both the regular and the irregular channels of foreign policy served the same goal — a strong U.S.-
4
See Original Document
Ukraine partnership — but it became clear to me by August that the channels had diverged in their objectives. As this occurred, I became increasingly concerned.
In late June, one the goals of both channels was to facilitate a visit by President Zelenskyy to the White House for a meeting with President Trump, which President Trump had promised in his congratulatory letter of May 29. The Ukrainians were clearly eager for the meeting to happen. During a conference call with Ambassador Volker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Phil Reeker, Secretary Perry, Ambassador Sondland, and Counselor of the U.S. Department of State Ulrich Brechbuhl on June 18, it was clear that a meeting between the two presidents was an agreed-upon goal.
But during my subsequent communications with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, they relayed to me that the President “wanted to hear from Zelenskyy” before scheduling the meeting in the Oval Office. It was not clear to me what this meant.
On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told me during a phone conversation that President Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelenskyy, was not standing in the way of “investigations.”
I sensed something odd when Ambassador Sondland told me on June 28 that he did not wish to include most of the regular interagency participants in a call planned with President Zelenskyy later that day. Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Volker, Secretary Perry, and I were on this call, dialing in from different locations. However, Ambassador Sondland said that he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelenskyy to the call. Also, before President Zelenskyy joined the call, Ambassador Volker separately told the U.S. participants that he, Ambassador Volker, planned to be explicit with President Zelenskyy in a one-on-one meeting in Toronto on July 2 about what President Zelenskyy should do to get the White House meeting. Again, it was not clear to me on that call what this meant, but Ambassador Volker noted that he would relay that President Trump wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also, specifically, cooperation on investigations to “get to the bottom of things.” Once President Zelenskyy joined the call, the conversation was focused on energy policy and the Stanytsia-Luhanska bridge. President Zelenskyy also said he looked forward to the White House visit President Trump had offered in his May 29 letter.
5
See Original Document
I reported on this call to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who had responsibility for Ukraine, and I wrote a memo for the record dated June 30 that summarized our conversation with President Zelenskyy.
By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Mr. Giuliani.
On July 10, Ukrainian officials Alexander Danyliuk, the Ukrainian national security advisor, and Andriy Yermak, an assistant to President Zelenskyy, and Secretary Perry, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, Ambassador Volker, and Ambassador Sondland met at the White House. I did not participate in the meeting and did not receive a readout of it until speaking with the National Security Council’s (NSC’s) then-Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs, Fiona Hill, and the NSC’s Director of European Affairs, Alex Vindman, on July 19.
On July 10 in Kyiv, I met with President Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andrei Bohdan, and then-foreign policy advisor to the president and now Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko, who told me that they had heard from Mr. Giuliani that the phone call between the two presidents was unlikely to happen and that they were alarmed and disappointed. I relayed their concerns to Counselor Brechbuhl.
In a regular NSC secure video-conference call on July 18, I heard a staff person from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) say that there was a hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise normal meeting, a voice on the call — the person was off-screen — said that she was from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of security assistance for Ukraine until further notice. I and others sat in astonishment — the Ukrainians were fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of U.S. support. All that the OMB staff person said was that the directive had come from the President to the Chief of Staff to OMB. In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened. The irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of longstanding U.S. policy.
There followed a series of NSC-led interagency meetings, starting at the staff level and quickly reaching the level of Cabinet secretaries. At every meeting, the
6
See Original Document
unanimous conclusion was that the security assistance should be resumed, the hold lifted. At one point, the Defense Department was asked to perform an analysis of the effectiveness of the assistance. Within a day, the Defense Department came back with the determination that the assistance was effective and should be resumed. My understanding was that the Secretaries of Defense and State, the CIA Director, and the National Security Advisor sought a joint meeting with the President to convince him to release the hold, but such a meeting was hard to schedule and the hold lasted well into September.
The next day on the phone, Dr. Hill and Mr. Vindman tried to reassure me that they were not aware of any official change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, OMB’s announcement notwithstanding. They did confirm that the hold on security assistance for Ukraine came from Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and that the Chief of Staff maintained a skeptical view of Ukraine.
In the same July 19 phone call, they gave me an account of the July 10 meeting with the Ukrainian officials at the White House. Specifically, they told me that Ambassador Sondland had connected “investigations” with an Oval Office meeting for President Zelenskyy, which so irritated Ambassador Bolton that he abruptly ended the meeting, telling Dr. Hill and Mr. Vindman that they should have nothing to do with domestic politics. He also directed Dr. Hill to “brief the lawyers.” Dr. Hill said that Ambassador Bolton referred to this as a “drug deal” after the July 10 meeting. Ambassador Bolton opposed a call between President Zelenskyy and President Trump out of concern that it “would be a disaster.”
Needless to say, the Ukrainians in the meetings were confused. Ambassador Bolton, in the regular Ukraine policy decision-making channel, wanted to talk about security, energy, and reform; Ambassador Sondland, a participant in the irregular channel, wanted to talk about the connection between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations.
Also during our July 19 call, Dr. Hill informed me that Ambassador Volker had met with Mr. Giuliani to discuss Ukraine. This caught me by surprise. The next day I asked Ambassador Volker about that meeting, but received no response. I began to sense that the two decision making channels — the regular and irregular — were separate and at odds.
Later on July 19 and in the early morning of July 20 (Kyiv time), I received text messages on a three-way WhatsApp text conversation with Ambassadors Volker and Sondland, a record of which I understand has already been provided to the
7
See Original Document
Committees by Ambassador Volker. Ambassador Sondland said that a call between President Trump and President Zelenskyy would take place soon. Ambassador Volker said that what was “[m]ost impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation — and address any specific personnel issues — if there are any.”
Later on July 20, I had a phone conversation with Ambassador Sondland while he was on a train from Paris to London, Ambassador Sondland told me that he had recommended to President Zelenskyy that he use the phrase, “I will leave no stone unturned” with regard to “investigations” when President Zelenskyy spoke with President Trump.
Also on July 20, I had a phone conversation with Mr. Danyliuk, during which he conveyed to me that President Zelenskyy did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. re-election campaign. The next day I texted both Ambassadors Volker and Sondland about President Zelenskyy’s concern.
On July 25, President Trump and President Zelenskyy had the long-awaited phone conversation. Strangely, even though I was Chief of Mission and was scheduled to meet with President Zelenskyy along with Ambassador Volker the following day, I received no readout of the call from the White House. The Ukrainian government issued a short, cryptic summary.
During a previously planned July 26 meeting, President Zelenskyy told Ambassador Volker and me that he was happy with the call but did not elaborate. President Zelenskyy then asked about the face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office as promised in the May 29 letter from President Trump.
After our meeting with President Zelenskyy, Ambassador Volker and I traveled to the front line in northern Donbas to receive a briefing from the commander of the forces on the line of contact. Arriving for the briefing in the military headquarters, the commander thanked us for security assistance, but I was aware that this assistance was on hold, which made me uncomfortable.
Ambassador Volker and I could see the armed and hostile Russian-led forces on the other side of the damaged bridge across the line of contact. Over 13,000 Ukrainians had been killed in the war, one or two a week. More Ukrainians would undoubtedly die without the U.S. assistance.
8
See Original Document
Although I spent the morning of July 26 with President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials, the first summary of the Trump-Zelenskyy call that I heard from anybody inside the U.S. government was during a phone call I had with Tim Morrison, Dr. Hill’s recent replacement at the NSC, on July 28. Mr. Morrison told me that the call “could have been better” and that President Trump had suggested that President Zelenskyy or his staff meet with Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr. I did not see any official readout of the call until it was publicly released on September 25.
On August 16, I exchanged text messages with Ambassador Volker in which I learned that Mr. Yeriak had asked that the United States submit an official request for an investigation into Burisma’s alleged violations of Ukrainian law, if that is what the United States desired. A formal U.S. request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper, and I recommended to Ambassador Volker that we “stay clear.” To find out the legal aspects of the question, however, I gave him the name of a Deputy Assistant Attorney General whom I thought would be the proper point of contact for seeking a U.S. referral for a foreign investigation.
By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason that I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the longstanding U.S. policy of strong support for Ukraine was shifting. I called Counselor Brechbuhl to discuss this on August 21. He said that he was not aware of a change of U.S. policy but would check on the status of the security assistance. My concerns deepened the next day, on August 22, during a phone conversation with Mr. Morrison. I asked him if there had been a change in policy of strong support for Ukraine, to which he responded, “it remains to be seen.” He also told me during this call that the “President doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.” That was extremely troubling to me. As I had told Secretary Pompeo in May, if the policy of strong support for Ukraine were to change, I would have to resign. Based on my call with Mr. Morrison, I was preparing to do so.
Just days later, on August 27, Ambassador Bolton arrived in Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy. During their meeting, security assistance was not discussed — amazingly, news of the hold did not leak out until August 29. I, on the other hand, was all too aware of and still troubled by the hold. Near the end of Ambassador Bolton’s visit, I asked to meet him privately, during which I expressed to him my serious concern about the withholding of military assistance to Ukraine while the Ukrainians were defending their country from Russian aggression. Ambassador Bolton recommended that I send a first-person cable to
9
See Original Document
Secretary Pompeo directly, relaying my concerns. I wrote and transmitted such a cable on August 29, describing the “folly” I saw in withholding military aid to Ukraine at a time when hostilities were still active in the east and when Russia was watching closely to gauge the level of American support for the Ukrainian government. I told the Secretary that I could not and would not defend such a policy. Although I received no specific response, I heard that soon thereafter, the Secretary carried the cable with him to a meeting at the White House focused on security assistance for Ukraine.
The same day that I sent my cable to the Secretary, August 29, Mr. Yermak contacted me and was very concerned, asking about the withheld security assistance. The hold that the White House had placed on the assistance had just been made public that day in a Politico story. At that point, I was embarrassed that I could give him no explanation for why it was withheld.
It had still not occurred to me that the hold on security assistance could be related to the “investigations.” That, however, would soon change.
On September 1, just three days after my cable to Secretary Pompeo, President Zelenskyy met Vice President Pence at a bilateral meeting in Warsaw. President Trump had planned to travel to Warsaw but at the last minute had cancelled because of Hurricane Dorian. Just hours before the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting, I contacted Mr. Danyliuk to let him know that the delay of U.S. security assistance was an “all or nothing” proposition, in the sense that if the White House did not lift the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year (September 30), the funds would expire and Ukraine would receive nothing. I was hopeful that at the bilateral meeting or shortly thereafter, the White House would lift the hold, but this was not to be. Indeed, I received a readout of the Pence-Zelenskyy meeting over the phone from Mr. Morrison, during which he told me President Zelenskyy had opened the meeting by asking the Vice President about security cooperation. The Vice President did not respond substantively, but said that he would talk to President Trump that night. The Vice President did say that President Trump wanted the Europeans to do more to support Ukraine and that he wanted the Ukrainians to do more to fight corruption.
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at Warsaw. Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation. I was alarmed by what Mr. Morrison told me about the Sondland-Yermak
10
See Original Document
conversation. This was the first time I had heard that the security assistance — not just the White House meeting — was conditioned on the investigations.
Very concerned, on that same day I sent Ambassador Sondland a text message asking if “we [are] now saying that security assistance and [a] WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Ambassador Sondland responded asking me to call him, which I did. During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelenskyy was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Ambassador Sondland said, “everything” was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance. He said that President Trump wanted President Zelenskyy “in a public box” by making a public statement about ordering such investigations.
In the same September 1 call, I told Ambassador Sondland that President Trump should have more respect for another head of state and that what he described was not in the interest of either President Trump or President Zelenskyy. At that point I asked Ambassador Sondland to push back on President Trump’s demand. Ambassador Sondland pledged to try. We also discussed the possibility that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than President Zelenskyy, would make a statement about investigations, potentially in coordination with Attorney General Barr’s probe into the investigation of interference in the 2016 elections.
The next day, September 2, Mr. Morrison called to inform me that Mr. Danyliuk had asked him to come to his hotel room in Warsaw, where Mr. Danyliuk expressed concern about the possible loss of U.S. support for Ukraine. In particular, Mr. Morrison relayed to me that the inability of any U.S. officials to respond to the Ukrainians’ explicit questions about security assistance was troubling them. I was experiencing the same tension in my dealings with the Ukrainians, including during a meeting I had had with Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Zagordnyuk that day.
During my call with Mr. Morrison on September 2, I also briefed Mr. Morrison on what Ambassador Sondland had told me during our call the day prior.
11
See Original Document
On September 5, I hosted Senators Johnson and Murphy for a visit to Kyiv. During their visit, we met with President Zelenskyy. His first question to the senators was about the withheld security assistance. My recollection of the meeting is that both senators stressed that bipartisan support for Ukraine in Washington was Ukraine’s most important strategic asset and that President Zelenskyy should not jeopardize that bipartisan support by getting drawn into U.S. domestic politics.
I had been making (and continue to make) this point to all of my Ukrainian official contacts. But the push to make President Zelenskyy publicly commit to investigations of Burisma and alleged interference in the 2016 election showed how the official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.
Two days later, on September 7, I had a conversation with Mr. Morrison in which he described a phone conversation earlier that day between Ambassador Sondland and President Trump. Mr. Morrison said that he had a “sinking feeling” after learning about this conversation from Ambassador Sondland. According to Mr. Morrison, President Trump told Ambassador Sondland that he was not asking for a “quid pro quo.” But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelenskyy should want to do this himself. Mr. Morrison said that he told Ambassador Bolton and the NSC lawyers of this phone call between President Trump and Ambassador Sondland.
The following day, on September 8, Ambassador Sondland and I spoke on the phone. He said he had talked to President Trump as I had suggested a week earlier, but that President Trump was adamant that President Zelenskyy, himself, had to “clear things up and do it in public.” President Trump said it was not a “quid pro quo.” Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not “clear things up” in public, we would be at a “stalemate.” I understood a “stalemate” to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance. Ambassador Sondland said that this conversation concluded with President Zelenskyy agreeing to make a public statement in an interview with CNN.
After the call with Ambassador Sondland on September 8, I expressed my strong reservations in a text message to Ambassador Sondland, stating that my
12
See Original Document
“nightmare is they [the Ukrainians] give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.).” I was serious.
The next day, I said to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker that “[t]he message to the Ukrainians (and Russians) we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us.” I also said, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Ambassador Sondland responded about five hours later that I was “incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”
Before these text messages, during our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman. When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check. Ambassador Volker used the same terms several days later while we were together at the Yalta European Strategy Conference. I argued to both that the explanation made no sense: the Ukrainians did not “owe” President Trump anything, and holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was “crazy,” as I had said in my text message to Ambassadors Sondland and Volker on September 9.
Finally, I learned on September 11 that the hold had been lifted and that the security assistance would be provided.
After I learned that the security assistance was released on September 11, I personally conveyed the news to President Zelenskyy and Foreign Minister Prystaiko. And I again reminded Mr. Yermak of the high strategic value of bipartisan support for Ukraine and the importance of not getting involved in other countries’ elections. My fear at the time was that since Ambassador Sondland had told me President Zelenskyy already agreed to do a CNN interview, President Zelenskyy would make a statement regarding “investigations” that would have played into domestic U.S. politics. I sought to confirm through Mr. Danyliuk that President Zelenskyy was not planning to give such an interview to the media. While Mr. Danyliuk initially confirmed that on September 12, I noticed during a meeting on the morning of September 13 at President Zelenskyy’s office that Mr. Yermak looked uncomfortable in response to the question. Again, I asked Mr. Danyliuk to confirm that there would be no CNN interview, which he did.
13
See Original Document
On September 25 at the UN General Assembly session in New York City, President Trump met President Zelenskyy face-to-face. He also released the transcript of the July 25 call. The United States gave the Ukrainians virtually no notice of the release, and they were livid. Although this was the first time I had seen the details of President Trump’s July 25 call with President Zelenskyy, in which he mentioned Vice President Biden, I had come to understand well before then that “investigations” was a term that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland used to mean matters related to the 2016 elections, and to investigations of Burisma and the Bidens.
* * * * *
I recognize that this is a rather lengthy recitation of the events of the past few months told from my vantage point in Kyiv. But I also recognize the importance of the matters your Committees are investigating, and I hope that this chronology will provide some framework for your questions.
I wish to conclude by returning to the points I made at the outset. Ukraine is important to the security of the United States. It has been attacked by Russia, which continues its aggression against Ukraine. If we believe in the principle of sovereignty of nations on which our security and the security of our friends and allies depends, we must support Ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor. Russian aggression cannot stand.
There are two Ukraine stories today. The first is the one we are discussing this morning and that you have been hearing for the past two weeks. It is a rancorous story about whistleblowers, Mr. Giuliani, side channels, quid pro quos, corruption, and interference in elections. In this story Ukraine is an object.
But there is another Ukraine story — a positive, bipartisan one. In this second story, Ukraine is the subject. This one is about young people in a young nation, struggling to break free of its past, hopeful that their new government will finally usher in a new Ukraine, proud of its independence from Russia, eager to join Western institutions and enjoy a more secure and prosperous life. This story describes a nation developing an inclusive, democratic nationalism, not unlike what we in America, in our best moments, feel about our diverse country — less concerned about what language we speak, what religion if any we practice, where our parents and grandparents came from; more concerned about building a new country.
14
See Original Document
Because of the strategic importance of Ukraine in our effort to create a whole, free Europe, we, through Republican and Democratic administrations over three decades, have supported Ukraine. Congress has been generous over the years with assistance funding, both civilian and military, and political support. With overwhelming bipartisan majorities, Congress has supported Ukraine with harsh sanctions on Russia for invading and occupying Ukraine. We can be proud of that support and that we have stood up to a dictator’s aggression against a democratic neighbor.
It is this second story that I would like to leave you with today.
And I am glad to answer your questions.

↧
↧

A Florida angle to the Ukraine scandal? That’s how we roll. (Florida Phoenix/SAR)

October 23, 2019, 10:34 am
$
0
0




Diane Roberts skewers the corruption of Flori-DUH's Boy Governor, RONALD DION DeSANTIS, who took money from Giuliani's clients who paid him $500,000, and who are being arraigned in the Southern District of New York today.

Florida State University Professor Diane Roberts is one of my favorite satirists. When he was our 6th District Congressman, 2013-2018, then-Rep. RONALD DION DeSANTIS (R-FL6/KOCH INDUSTRIES) was like an alien implant, the dupery former Captain of the Yale Baseball Team whose putative town hall I observed in Palm Coast coincided with a Tea Party meeting full of haters at the well-named Matanzas High School.

He's a slippery fellow, who did next to NOTHING for his District, never got back to me on the proposed St. Augustine National Historical Park and National Seashore, and had time to make 40 appearances on faux Fox News, while hanging out with crooked friends who wanted to be on his transit team, today under federal indictment in Manhattan.

From Florida Phoenix and the St. Augustine Record:



Diane Roberts | A Florida angle to the Ukraine scandal? That’s how we roll


By Diane Roberts / Florida Phoenix
Posted Oct 19, 2019 at 11:30 AM
St. Augustine Record

Last week, the feds arrested two “business associates” of Rudy Giuliani’s at Dulles International Airport. They had one-way tickets to Austria. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman are now accused of violating federal campaign finance law by shoveling foreign money into America First, the big pro-Trump super-PAC.

These two run businesses called Mafia Rave and Fraud Guarantee.

Not making this up, y’all.

When Parnas and Fruman weren’t meddling in elections, they were helping Giuliani in his swivel-eyed determination to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian business dealings.

Florida is, of course, up to its fanny in this swamp.

Parnas and Fruman, born in Ukraine and Belarus respectively, are naturalized U.S. citizens who now live in South Florida (where else?) and contributed a lot of dodgy money to Florida Republicans in 2018: 50 grand to Ron DeSantis and at least 20 grand to Rick Scott.

Parnas even hosted two fundraisers for DeSantis, one of which has been rather ickily described as an “intimate” big-check fundraiser at a mansion in Hillsboro Beach. DeSantis was there, too, as was his running mate, Jeanette Nuñez.

DeSantis, along with Trump and a slew of other Republicans, now insists that he never met these questionable foreign fellows or, if he met them, it was brief and there wasn’t what you might call a conversation, or maybe there was a little chat, but it was short, and he probably didn’t really listen to anything they had to say.

As Joe Gruters, state senator and chair of the state Republican Party, insisted: “I’d be surprised if the governor said anything other than ‘Hello.’ I doubt he even took a picture with these guys.”

Yet there’s Lev Parnas, hanging strangely close to Ron DeSantis at his election night victory party.

Donald Trump, who also disavows any knowledge of “these guys,” invited them to dinner with him at the White House in May. They attended various chi-chi parties at Mar-a-Lago, and had breakfast at the Beverly Hills Hotel with Don Jr. — last seen with his paramour, late of Fox News, at an ill-disguised campaign event at the University of Florida, for which they received $50,000 from student activity fees.

Some people wonder: Why Ukraine? What’s up with that ex-Soviet republic that attracts ethically challenged Americans the way manure draws flies?

You may also ask: Why Florida? Why do Republican grifters, slimeballs, liars, fraudsters and other shady people gravitate to our sunny state?

Ukraine is a poor country, but awash in energy cash and oligarchs who have, let’s say, opaque motives and a certain moral flexibility.

Remember back in 2016 when Republicans were all hot to send “lethal aid” to Ukraine, what with Putin invading Crimea two years before? It was in the GOP party platform — until it wasn’t. Trump campaign operatives had it removed.

You might also want to remember that Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, got rich lobbying for pro-Russian elements in Ukraine.

As for Florida, well, maybe our long history of genocide (from the conquistadors to Andrew Jackson), slavery and racism (Florida is a Deep South state, no matter how much we pretend it isn’t), low taxes, and the best politicians money can buy make us fatally attractive to millionaires and criminals like Henry Flagler and Al Capone, as well as millionaire criminals like Paul Manafort, who used to have a Palm Beach Gardens mansion but had to give it up, what with him being in prison, and Rudy Giuliani, forced to sell his Palm Beach condo on account of his third divorce.

Giuliani, by the way, is reportedly under federal investigation for what’s being called — delicately — his “Ukraine work.”

There’s something in our increasingly algae-choked water or maybe our super-humid air that lends itself to very, very bad behavior.

People write whole books about Florida’s congenitally poor character.

So you’d think Republicans — especially Florida Republicans —would want to lie low a spell, spend more time with their families and less time with folks from the old Soviet Union.

True, DeSantis disgorged the 50K his campaign got from Parnas and Fruman October 10. Rick Scott did, too, perhaps a bit more grudgingly, four days after DeSantis.

But then right-wing wags at the “American Priority Festival” this past weekend at Trump’s Doral resort showed a video in which “Trump” (head superimposed over a much fitter body) enters “The Church of Fake News” and starts shooting, beating, and stabbing figures representing Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow, the BBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS, among others, as blood spatters.

Perhaps they forgot that churches in Texas, South Carolina, and New Hampshire and synagogues in Pittsburgh and San Diego have recently been mass shooting scenes.

Perhaps they really don’t give a damn.

As you might predict, DeSantis (who was at the conference), Sarah Huckabee Sanders (also at the conference), and Don Trump Jr. all denied seeing the video. Not their fault.

Besides, it’s Florida. Crazy stuff like suggesting that the violent murder of presidents and journalists is just a little joke, right? Have another mojito. It’s not like we’re Ukraine or anything.
↧

Bipartisan Group of 20 Past Presidents of the DC Bar Write to the House of Representatives Endorsing Impeachment Inquiry. (LAW WORKS Press Release)

October 23, 2019, 3:30 pm
$
0
0


I agree with Phillip Allen Lacovara and the nineteen other Past Presidents of the District of Columbia Bar.  The House of Representatives impeachment inquiry is right and just.

I served on the American Bar Associate Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities governing Council with Mr. Lacovara, 1989-1991, serving as the Liaison from the ABA Young Lawyers Division.  Phil was Chair the second year.  Phil was one of the heroic Watergate special prosecutors. Phil argued the landmark case of United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), in the Supreme Court, a unanimous decision by Chief Justice Warren Burger, affirming that the law has the right to every person's evidence, including the President.  That case resulted in the release of the Watergate tapes, followed by (thank God) the resignation of criminal President Richard Milhous Nixon.

Phil Lacovara was during 1989-91 a corporate lawyer.  He was a tad more conservative than his predecessor, as IRR Section Chair (former Congressman and Georgetown U. law professor, Fr. Robert S. Drinan, S.J., another American legal icon, who introduced the first impeachment resolution in 1970).  But at our four two day meetings each year, Phil Lacovara and I generally genially agreed on human rights issues (except when he thought environmental protection was not a human rights matter; Phil was counsel for General Electric at the time. I reckon that I had the better view. In any event, I raised his consciousness, having seen first-hand the Government's environmental and human rights depredations in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, both as an investigative reporter and editor of the Appalachian Observer and as the thebLegal Counsel for Constitutional Rights of the Government Accountability Project).

The Rule of Law is our most fundamental American value, since 1776.

The Rule of Law requires an impeachment investigation of President DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

Thanks to Phillip Allen Lacovara and the twenty (20) former D.C. Bar Presidents.

Here is the LAW WORKS press release.



BREAKING NEWS: Bipartisan Group of 20 Past Presidents of the DC Bar Write to the House of Representatives Endorsing Impeachment Inquiry

Twenty past presidents of the District of Columbia Bar, which numbers more than 100,000 attorneys in all 50 states, today released a statement endorsing House impeachment proceedings. The signers, both Republican and Democrat, write:
“Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the Rule of Law.. We have watched with dismay the persistent disregard for the Rule of Law during the current Administration, a pattern and practice that is so pervasive and pernicious that only the impeachment process can attempt to rectify the President’s abuse of office…”
“We are united in the view that our constitutional system depends on adhering to the Rule of Law, not only by private citizens but more crucially by public officials charged with the power and responsibility of important government offices…”
“The Framers of our Constitution were careful to build in a safety valve to protect the Nation when the person who was elected to the high office of President engages in high crimes and misdemeanors after he takes office, that is, when he violates the most fundamental precepts of constitutional order.  Reluctantly, but firmly, we believe that this President has engaged in such offenses and, therefore, is subject to being impeached by the House of Representatives.”
10.23.2019
For immediate release
Open Letter from Past Presidents of The District of Columbia Bar
to the Members of the House of Representatives
“IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NECESSARY TO RESTORE AND PROTECT THE RULE OF LAW”
                 Nothing is more fundamental to American democracy than the Rule of Law.  As Past Presidents of The District of Columbia Bar, we have watched with dismay the persistent disregard for the Rule of Law during the current Administration, a pattern and practice that is so pervasive and pernicious that only the impeachment process can attempt to rectify the President’s abuse of office.  Therefore, we endorse and encourage the continuing pursuit of impeachment proceedings by the House of Representatives to prepare for a vote on appropriate articles of impeachment of the President.
The District of Columbia Bar is the largest unified bar in the United States, with membership of more than 100,000 lawyers in all 50 states and more than 80 countries.  The Presidents of the Bar are elected directly by the members.  Past Presidents are Republicans and Democrats.  We are lawyers whose primary careers have been in government service, in private practice in large and small firms, in the academic community, in public interest organizations, in corporate law departments, or in a combination of those experiences.  Our respective terms span a period of more than forty years.  We have conflicting perspectives on many issues of law and policy.  But we are united in the view that our constitutional system depends on adhering to the Rule of Law, not only by private citizens but more crucially by public officials charged with the power and responsibility of important government offices.
Respect for the Rule of Law by the President of the United States is the fulcrum on which our legal system rests.  The President’s essential constitutional duty is to “take care” that the laws are “faithfully executed.”  Therefore, when a President violates this public trust, the entire constitutional system is thrown out of balance, all to the damage of the country at large.  The incumbent President has deliberately and persistently reneged on this public trust and, as a consequence, has made himself liable to being removed from his office through the constitutionally established process of impeachment and trial.
There are two clusters of abuse that fall within our areas of special concern as Bar leaders.  One is the President’s pattern of obstruction of justice.  Among the instances of obstruction are those described in detail in the Report submitted by our fellow member of The District of Columbia Bar, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.  His careful investigation, ably aided by a number of our other colleagues, documented repeated instances in which the President sought to interfere with investigations, by his office, by other Justice Department prosecutors, and by counter-intelligence agencies.  Other similar instances of the President’s disregard for the ordinary course of federal criminal justice have come to light outside the Mueller Report.   Nothing is more in conflict with a President’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed than the President’s obstructing the enforcement of those laws.
The public record shows a second cluster of abuses that strike at the heart of the Rule of Law: the President’s pattern of flouting the legitimate role of Congress in seeking information for performing its functions.  Our constitutional system of Separation of Powers wisely allocates important powers to the Legislative Branch, including the power both to enact laws and also to oversee their sufficiency and their honest, honorable, and effective implementation.  Not only has the President displayed disdain for the role of Congress in our constitutional system, he has gone to the unprecedented extreme of directing the entire Executive Branch to ignore congressional requests for material information, and even has directed government officials to flout congressional subpoenas.  This imperious attitude betrays a disregard for the authority of the Legislative Branch, a vital element in the Separation of Powers that is crucial to the maintenance of the Rule of Law.
The Framers of our Constitution were careful to build in a safety valve to protect the Nation when the person who was elected to the high office of President engages in high crimes and misdemeanors after he takes office, that is, when he violates the most fundamental precepts of constitutional order.  Reluctantly, but firmly, we believe that this President has engaged in such offenses and, therefore, is subject to being impeached by the House of Representatives.  No lesser response would be adequate in order begin to restore and protect the Rule of Law.
Signed [in reverse chronological order]*
Esther Lim (2018-2019) (former Board of Governors, National Asian Pacific
American Bar Association).
Patrick McGlone (2017-2018) (corporate general counsel)
Annamaria Steward (2016—2017) (executive director, national legal
organization; former law school Dean of Students)
Andrea C. Ferster (2013-2014) (lawyer in private practice)
Kim Keenan (2009-2010) (former General Counsel, National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People)
Melvin White (2008-2008) (U.S. Air Force Veteran; lawyer in private practice)
John C Cruden (2005-2006) (former Assistant Attorney General, Environment
and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice)
Jack Keeney, Jr. (2004-2005) (Delegate, American Bar Association House of
Delegates)
George W. Jones, Jr. (2002-2003) (former Assistant to the Solicitor General,
Department of Justice)
John W. Nields, Jr.  (2000-2001) (former Chief Counsel, House of
Representatives Ethics Committee; Chief Counsel, House Select
Iran/Contra Committee; Special Counsel for public integrity
prosecutions, Department of Justice)
Joan H. Strand (1999-2000) (Professor Emerita of Clinical Law, George
Washington University Law School)
Andrew H. Marks (1998-1999) (former Executive Assistant to President’s
Personal Representative to the Middle East Peace Negotiations)
Pauline A. Schneider (1994-1995) (Delegate, American Bar Association House
of Delegates)
Sara-Ann Determan (1990-1991) (former chair, Lawyers Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs)
Philip Allen Lacovara (1988-1989) (former Deputy Solicitor General and
Counsel to Watergate Special Prosecutor, Department of Justice;
Special Counsel to House of Representatives Ethics Committee)
Marna S. Tucker (1984-1985) (Past President, National Conference of Bar
Presidents)
Stephen J. Pollak (1980-1981) (former Advisor to the President of the United
States for National Capital Affairs; Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, Department of Justice)
Robert L. Weinberg (1978-1979) (former President, Bar Association of District
of Columbia and university lecturer in law)
Charles R. Work (1976-1977) (former Deputy Administrator, Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration, Department of Justice)
Katherine Mazzaferri (1982-2017) (former Executive Director and Chief
Executive Officer, The District of Columbia Bar)
_____
  • Illustrative affiliations are for identification purposes only; these views are not intended to be attributed to The District of Columbia Bar organization or to the other entities identified; the remaining surviving Past Presidents who have not joined in this statement cited various conflicting professional engagements, such as government-related employment or representation of clients in the matter; no Past President expressed disagreement with these conclusions.
↧

Indicted Giuliani associate joined DeSantis on last-minute campaign swing (POLITICO)

October 23, 2019, 5:29 pm
$
0
0
Flori-DIU Boy Governor RONALD DION DeSANTIS's entourage reminds me of the scene in Mel Brooks'Blazing Saddles, where the Harvey Norman character, Wyoming Attorney General "Hedley Lamar," offers his requirements for "the worst dregs" destroy the town of Rock Ridge and leave it in ashes.  From Blazing Saddles:






Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, right, answers questions from reporters, with his wife Casey. Standing behind Casey DeSantis is Lev Parnas | AP Photo
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, right, answers questions from reporters, with his wife Casey. Standing behind Casey DeSantis is Lev Parnas | AP Photo | AP Photo

Indicted Giuliani associate joined DeSantis on last-minute campaign swing

By 
 
10/21/2019 04:30 PM EDT
 
Updated 



TALLAHASSEE — Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian American businessman accused of funneling foreign money into U.S. elections, attended a string of events with Ron DeSantis in the closing moments of the Republican candidate’s 2018 campaign for governor in Florida.
In a photograph taken Nov. 4, two days before the election that propelled DeSantis to victory, Parnas is next to the smiling candidate at a campaign rally in South Daytona. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is standing nearby in the shot, which was published by Getty Images. 
Other photographs show Parnas at a Boca Raton event held 200 miles away an hour and a half later that day.
DeSantis last week acknowledgedknowing Parnas, who was arrested this month along with Igor Fruman, another South Florida businessman. Both men are associates of Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have accused Parnas and Fruman of attempting to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections and influence U.S. politics on behalf of at least one Ukrainian government official.
Other pictures of Parnas with DeSantis at campaign events have surfaced, but the Getty photographs appear to show the two men traveling together during the heat of the gubernatorial campaign. DeSantis eventually edged out Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum after a recount.
Edward MacMahon, a Virginia attorney representing Parnas, said “if he was in the pictures,” then Parnas was likely on the DeSantis campaign plane.
Helen Aguirre Ferré, a spokesperson for DeSantis, said that while pictures show Parnas at two campaign events that day, Giuliani and the DeSantis campaign each had their own planes and Parnas used the Giuliani plane.
“The governor was not on the plane” that Parnas was on, Ferré said.
Bondi, in a text message, said she could not recall if Parnas was on the plane used by the campaign that day, or whether she talked to Parnas.
The Wall Street Journal on Monday published a report on Parnas’ private Instagram account, which featured a picture of Parnas and Giuliani on a jet that was posted a day before the DeSantis campaign events. 
The Journal report included a photo from Parnas’ account that showed Giuliani at the Nov. 4 Boca Raton event for DeSantis. A photo posted on Twitter shows Parnas standing behind Giuliani at the same campaign rally.
Parnas and Fruman are based in South Florida and were helping Giuliani investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and frequent target of Trump attacks.
DeSantis last week said his campaign had disgorged $50,000 in donations from a company created by Parnas and Fruman and described him as a typical donor who had attended Republican National Committee functions and Trump Victory functions. 
“He was at a lot of these things, was I think viewed as one of the top supporters of the president in Florida,” DeSantis told reporters on Oct 16. “It was like any other donor, nothing more than that.”
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have charged Parnas and Fruman and two other men with conspiracy, making false statements and falsifying business records. Before their arrests, the two men had been drawn into a U.S. House-led impeachment inquiry into Giuliani’s work as Trump's personal lawyer.
Prosecutors claim the two funneled $325,000 to a Trump-aligned super PAC through Global Energy Partners, a company created shortly before the contribution was made.
Global Energy Partners also gave $50,000 to a DeSantis-controlled political committee in June 2018. After the two men were indicted, DeSantis gave the money to the U.S. Treasury. 
The federal indictment said the two men “concealed the scheme from the candidates, campaigns, federal regulators and the public.”
Matt Dixon contributed to this report.
↧
Search

Does Scott Israel’s removal rewrite the rules for Florida’s sheriffs? (Miami Herald)

October 23, 2019, 5:36 pm
$
0
0
On May 7, 2019 I asked Governor RONALD DION DeSANTIS to remove Sheriff DAVID SHOAR pursuant to Article IV, Section 7 of our Florida State Constitution.   Since Governor DeSANTIS' removal of Broward County Sheriff SCOTT ISRAEL was upheld, there is a precedent for removing Sheriff DAVID SHOAR.

From The Miami Herald:




Does Scott Israel’s removal rewrite the rules for Florida’s sheriffs?

 
TALLAHASSEE
The Florida Senate is poised to formally remove Scott Israel as sheriff of Broward County Wednesday and, in a largely party-line vote, uphold his suspension from office by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
While the vote is expected to be seen as a political victory for the governor and long-sought validation for the families of the victims of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting who blame Israel’s failed leadership for the deaths of 17 students and faculty in 2018, it won’t end the debate. 
The handling of Israel’s suspension by the governor and Senate has created what the governor’s attorney called a “new standard” by which to hold sheriffs accountable. It also unleashed a flurry of new questions: What is acceptable use of executive authority for political gain? What does this do to the standards Florida sets for its elected sheriffs? And is the removal of Israel a one-off situation, colored by the pain of a terrible tragedy and rarely expected to happen again? 
y
“



You started out with a trial of an individual, and what you’ve done is turn it into a trial of the system,’’ said Sen. Tom Lee, the Thonotosassa Republican who has been the lone GOP voice in opposition to the Senate strategy. “You have demoted every sheriff in the state.’’

Lee walked out of the Senate Rules Committee on Monday night in protest, choosing not to vote rather than to side with Democrats in opposition to the Republicans’ decision to adopt a new interpretation of a long-standing legal theory. The committee voted 9-7 to reject the special master’s recommendation that the Senate reinstate Israel and instead voted to remove him from office.
To make their case, Senate Republicans advanced a principle known as the “alter ego” of the sheriff, based on a 160-year-old state law that says “sheriffs may appoint deputies to act under them who shall have the same power as the sheriff appointing them.” 
The idea was to empower deputies in times of need, as well as give them the same legal immunities as sheriffs. The Senate, however, has applied the statute in reverse, saying that the dereliction of duty by former school resource officer Scot Peterson and other Broward deputies who responded to the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting was caused by Israel’s “systemic leadership failures,” and are therefore grounds for his removal from office.

LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH?

To Lee, a developer and former Senate president, the Senate’s interpretation goes too far and creates an unworkable precedent. 
“You could have gotten to Sheriff Israel without having to go so far as to completely establish a brand new precedent,’’ he said. “This is stepping over the line. It’s anti law enforcement.’’
He arrived at his conclusion with an unlikely ally. The lawyer hired by the Senate to review DeSantis’ claims against Israel and conduct a trial, Dudley Goodlette, recommended that the Senate reinstate Israel because the governor’s legal team “didn’t prove his case.” He also warned that removing Israel without a stronger case would set an “unworkable” precedent. 
“Almost any elected official overseeing a large organization would be subject to removal at any time because even well-trained and supervised employees make grievous mistakes,’’ Goodlette wrote.
Read Next 
Lee said he has spoken to several Republican sheriffs who have expressed concern about the implications this will have for them going forward. Few sheriffs were willing to go on the record, however, with their concerns. 
Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco was deferential to the Senate. 
“A decision such as this is the prerogative of the Florida Senate,’’ he said in a statement to the Herald/Times. “Certainly, there are unique circumstances in this case and that go into any decision that the Senate may make, which must be considered in any future case.”
Martin County Sheriff William Snyder, a former member of the Florida House of Representatives, said the burden should be high before a governor reverses the voters. 
“I look at the office of sheriff as being almost a sacred relationship between myself and the people who voted me into office,’’ Snyder said. “Because of that sacred relationship and that role we play in our community as the executive of the county, no sheriff should ever be removed from office except under the most clear and extreme example of criminality and gross incompetence.”
He would not comment on whether the governor met his burden in the case of Israel but underscored the precarious nature of the job. 
“Any one of our deputies is capable of misbehavior,’’ he said. “No sheriff can have a department working 24 hours a day, seven days a week and be perfect in thought, word, and deed all the time. The question is: How high of a standard do you want to hold a sheriff to? I don’t know what the answer is.”
Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who heads the Florida Sheriff’s Association, chaired the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Commission, which reviewed the warning signs to the shooting and assessed the role of law enforcement and the school system. The commission criticized the Broward County Sheriff’s office, but it stopped short of recommending that Israel be suspended. Last year, Gualtieri was quoted as saying he did not believe Israel should be removed from office.
The governor’s attorney, George Levesque, speculated Monday that he knew one reason why. 
“There are a lot of explanations why he said what he may have said,” Levesque told the Senate Rules Committee. He said perhaps it was said “in the context of his own self interest — if that’s a new standard that sheriffs are going to be held to that level of responsibility.”
But Levesque added, “we’re not going after sheriffs just because their deputies are messing up.” 

CAMPAIGN PROMISE KEPT

DeSantis first promised to suspend Israel when he was a candidate for governor, and just days after Israel conducted a controversial interview on CNN in which he defended his department and showed little sympathy to the victims. 
Because Israel is a constitutional officer elected by voters, state law requires that the Senate approve or reject the governor’s decision to remove him from office. That gave Israel the opportunity to contest the decision and put the burden on DeSantis to prove that Israel was incompetent and neglected his duty. 
Goodlette, the Senate’s special master, held a two-day trial to hear DeSantis’ claims and Israel’s defense. It was there that the governor got a taste of what it was like to be let down by his subordinates. 
Rather than present a case against the sheriff, the governor’s attorneys limited their presentation to questioning and challenging Israel’s witnesses. They didn’t present any witnesses or testimony of their own and the trial ended a day earlier than expected. 
“Had there been more evidence, my recommendation may have been to remove the suspended sheriff,’’ Goodlette told the Rules Committee. “There was a case to be made. It wasn’t made.”
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, DeSantis acknowledged problems with the presentation by his lawyers and noted that he hired Levesque, a former Senate general counsel, to serve as his private attorney to improve the case when it went before the Rules Committee. 
“There could have been a more robust presentation on the front end, but I think the facts were pretty clear and shouldn’t have required that,’’ DeSantis said. He said Levesque made sure “all the I’s were dotted and all the T’s were crossed, and I think that that’s what happened yesterday and I think that that’s why we’re going to have a successful vote going forward.”

A DIFFERING LEGAL VIEW

Robert M, Jarvis, constitutional law professor at Nova Southeastern University, who has written “Out of the Muck: A History of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, 1915-2000,” disagrees that the Senate’s interpretation of the law will serve to establish new precedent. 
“They are all one-offs,’’ he said. “They all go forward on their own steam. They are all products of their time and products of their politics.”
However, Jarvis, a Democrat, emphasized that contrary to the arguments made by Israel’s lawyer as well as some Democrats, the Senate’s role is not one intended to match the protections of a court of law. 
“It’s a political process, and if you have a governor and a Senate that say they are simply going after all the Democrats in this state and they have the votes to remove them all from office, that could happen,’’ he said. “The ultimate check is the voters.”
If the Senate votes to remove Israel, as expected, Lee said he would like to see the statute on which the “alter ego” provision is drawn be clarified to say that a sheriff cannot be held accountable for ”conduct of a subordinate that was neither authorized, sanctioned or ratified.” 
Jarvis says he doesn’t think that’s necessary. 
“Could you put that caveat in? Sure,’’ he said. “But there are many statutes in Florida that could be written with more precision. If that’s that standard, we have to go back and redo all of our laws.”
Tampa Bay Times reporters Lawrence Mower and Emily Mahoney contributed to this report. 
Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@miamiherald.com and on Twitter @MaryEllenKlas.
Profile Image of Mary Ellen Klas
MARY ELLEN KLAS 
Mary Ellen Klas is the capital bureau chief for the Miami Herald, where she covers government and politics and focuses on investigative and accountability reporting. In 2018-19, Mary Ellen was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University and was named the 2019 Murrey Marder Nieman Fellow in Watchdog Journalism. In 2018, she won the Sunshine Award from the Society of Professional Journalists. The Herald’s statehouse bureau is a joint operation with the Tampa Bay Times’ statehouse staff. Please support her work with a digital subscription. You can reach her at meklas@miamiherald.com and on Twitter @MaryEllenKlas.
↧
↧

WALTZ JOINS REPUBLICANS DEMANDING ACCESS TO HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS (Press release from U.S. Rep. Michael Waltz, R-FL6)

October 23, 2019, 6:16 pm
$
0
0
Desperate for a headline, whorish TRUMP loyalist Rep. MATTHEW GAETZ (R-FL1) and his motley crew of rebarbative retromingent Republicans risked national security today and violated Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) and U.S. House of Representatives rules by bringing in tape recorders and camera phones into the U.S. Capitol SCIF.  This is witness intimidate and obstruction of justice.

Rep. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FL6) is a former military officer, who worked at the Pentagon.  He knows better.  We expected better from him. Demagogue.  He is not a committee member of the three committees in quo.  There are some 100 committee members eligible to be in the room -- Democrats and Republicans alike.

WALTZ's press statement about the small room within a room was drafted by a ninny pig-ignorant of SCIFs. He's headline-grabbing, ignoring the gravity of Congressional duties under our Constitution.

Here is his pitiful pathetic press release:




WALTZ JOINS REPUBLICANS DEMANDING ACCESS TO HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS 

October 23, 2019  
Press Release 
WASHINGTON, D.C. –  On Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) joined over 30 of his Republican colleagues to demand transparency from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and House Democrats over increased secrecy in impeachment hearings.
“I’m a Green Beret. I’m a proud veteran. This process does not make me proud,” Waltz said. “I have fought from Afghanistan to West Africa. I have operated in third-world countries who have fairer process to deal with their elected leadership than what we’re seeing today.” 
On Wednesday morning, Waltz and fellow Republicans requested access to the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment proceedings. The members were led inside the committee room but were denied access to proceedings and transcripts.  In a letter sent to Schiff on Oct. 18, Waltz requested all witness documents from the House Intelligence Committee. He still has not been granted access to the documents.  Waltz also noted the lack of legislative progress during the 116th Congress as a result of impeachment proceedings. 
“We’re on a continuing resolution, which means all the new programs [our military needs] to face China, to face Russia, to face Iran, to face North Korea, to continue to combat terrorism, can’t start yet because we can’t seem to get it done in this Congress because we have six committees dealing with this investigation,” said Waltz. “It’s a shame. It’s not worthy. We can do better as Americans – and Americans expect us to do better.”
A video of Waltz’s full remarks is available here.
↧

To protect Trump, Republicans are staging a display of lawlessness. It’s failing. (WaPo)

October 23, 2019, 6:31 pm
$
0
0
Sadly, MICHAEL WALTZ, the Congressman who represents the south half of St. Johns County, has acted like the North end of a South-bound mule today. Pray for Michael George Glen Waltz (born January 31, 1974) to act like a grownup. I was encouraged when he was one of the Republicans to support the House resolution on Syria. Obviously, he's been pressured, or else why would a former military officer who once worked in the Pentagon show pig-ignorance in his press release about protecting national security by bringing a tape recorder and a camera into a SCIF, violating House rules and the terms of his security clearance?





To protect Trump, Republicans are staging a display of lawlessness. It’s failing.

Add to list
'Desperate': Lawmakers react to Republicans disrupting impeachment inquiry testimony
Democratic and Republican lawmakers addressed how a group of GOP members barged into a secure hearing room on Oct. 23. (The Washington Post)
By 
Oct. 23, 2019 at 4:21 p.m. EDT
The events we just witnessed in the House of Representatives will surely earn an honored place in the annals of congressional clownishness.
Just as the House Intelligence Committee was preparing to hear testimony from another important witness in the impeachment inquiry, a couple dozen Republican members of Congress stormed into the room, phones in hand, and started live-tweeting their protest.
Because the hearing was to be held in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF — after all, it involved potentially sensitive and classified information — that put Republicans in violation of the room’s ban on cellphones.
Why did Republicans want to disrupt the proceedings? Because the testimony on tap is likely to add to the case against President Trump, perhaps substantially.
The person set to testify is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, the Pentagon official in charge of policy toward Ukraine. The committee wants to nail down more information about the hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid appropriated for Ukraine that Trump withheld to leverage the Ukrainian government into launching sham investigations to help his reelection campaign.
“It’s no coincidence that Republicans did this literally right after Ambassador Taylor’s devastating testimony,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) told us, referring to acting ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr.’s forceful declaration of that clear quid quo pro.
“They know that Laura Cooper today would corroborate parts of that very damning testimony against the president,” Lieu continued. “And they’re trying to stop that from going forward.”
This display of lawlessness is not a small matter. As former congressional aide Mieke Eoyang helpfully explains, the whole point of having a secure facility is that it’s, well, secure.
So there are good reasons electronic devices are not allowed in a SCIF. There might be documents or other materials present whose exposure would be harmful to national security. Members of Congress are frequent targets for foreign intelligence services who might want to, say, hack their phones to turn them into listening devices. To have a bunch of them just storm into a SCIF compromises that security.
What’s more, the main argument Republicans are making to justify this display is just nonsense. They’re pretending to be outraged that the impeachment inquiry is being carried out behind closed doors.
“If behind those doors they intend to overturn the result of an American presidential election, we want to know what’s going on,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of Trump’s most rabid defenders.
“This shouldn’t be happening in the United States of America, where they’re trying to impeach a President in secret, behind closed doors,” added Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).
But here’s the thing: These hearings are being conducted with the full involvement of the Republican members of the three committees doing the inquiring. Not only are Republicans given equivalent time for questioning, but any member of any of the committees — Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight — is welcome to attend any of these sessions.
So the idea that Republicans are being shut out is just false.
“What makes this ridiculous is that they were storming a castle that they already occupy,” Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) told us.
Trump’s own apparent involvement in this is equally absurd. Bloomberg reports that Trump supported this whole plot in advance, because he wanted Republicans to storm in and liberate transcripts of interviews, in the belief that they’ll exonerate him.
But this is just the first phase of the inquiry, which will soon pass into its public phase.
“The transcripts are all going to be released publicly, and there will be public hearings,” Lieu told us. “So all of these stupid process arguments that Republicans are making are going to go away.”
At which point Republicans will protest that it’s all a show for the cameras. And when the transcripts don’t exonerate Trump at all, he’ll rage-tweet lies about them.
Still, it’s important to note that it looks like there’s an actual strategy of sorts here — a strategy of what you might call deliberate lawlessness.
The idea seems to be not only to hamper the inquiry but also to create a sense of chaos around the entire enterprise. They want it to appear illegitimate, so they’ll do what they can to turn it into a circus. As long as people are talking about this ludicrous display (and whatever comes next), they won’t be talking as much about the misdeeds of the president, which we learn more about every day.
But ultimately, the facts just are coming out. We’ve seen an extraordinary parade of revelations in recent days. There will be many more.
“The process we’ll move forward, and we’ll move into the public phase,” Malinowski told us. If there’s a vote on articles of impeachment, as looks all but certain, “there will be a trial on the Senate floor with millions and millions of Americans watching,” Malinowski continued. “No one is going to remember some pathetic stunt Republicans pulled during the very early fact-finding phase of the House investigation.”
In other words, Trump’s real last line of defense is the Senate GOP. As has long been inevitable.
↧

‘Yawhoo!’: The 83-year-old grandmother hit with a lease violation for taking too many cookies won’t have to move. (WaPo)

October 24, 2019, 9:05 am
$
0
0
Evocative Washington Post article about dictatorial corporate abuse of power.  Florida and St. Johns County need stronger institutions to remedy such abuses.  Maladministered management at government and private owned housing -- including HOA dictators -- need to be kicked in their keisters when they throw their weight around like this.

St. Johns County has NO Human Rights Commission. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Wonder why?

Are dull Republicans too busy selling their wares to developers to care about us?

Does MICHAEL DAVID WANCHICK, County Administrator, give a fig about human rights?

The Roper Report teaches otherwise.

From The Washington Post:


Local
Perspective

‘Yawhoo!’: The 83-year-old grandmother hit with a lease violation for taking too many cookies won’t have to move

Add to list
Elsie Cruey, 83, lives at the Overture Fair Ridge complex. (Theresa Vargas/TWP)
Elsie Cruey, 83, lives at the Overture Fair Ridge complex. (Theresa Vargas/TWP)
Image without a caption
By 
Columnist
Oct. 23, 2019 at 5:08 p.m. EDT
For now, you can stop baking cookies.
Elsie Cruey — the 83-year-old grandmother who was hit with a lease violation for taking too many cookies before another alleged violation resulted in an order for her to vacate her apartment — has received a reprieve.
Her daughter Sandra Cruey says Jackie Rhone, an executive from Greystar — the company that owns Overture Fair Ridge, an apartment complex in Fairfax County for people 62 and older — met with her mother and her on Tuesday.
“She was lovely,” Sandra Cruey says. “She listened. She was taking notes. She asked us what we wanted.”
Later that night, she says, Rhone called her to extend an offer that would allow her mother to renew her lease for a year.
Elsie Cruey with her husband, Harry. He died in 2015. (Theresa Vargas/TWP)
Elsie Cruey with her husband, Harry. He died in 2015. (Theresa Vargas/TWP)
“I’m happy that she is going to get to stay where she is for another year,” Cruey says. “I’m relieved. I just wish it hadn’t gotten to this point.”
AD
ADVERTISING
Elsie Cruey, a former civil service worker and widow of an Army veteran, decided to share her story with me last week for a column that ran just a few days before she was expected to pack up and get out of her one-bedroom apartment. At that point, her family had tried to reach executives with Greystar but had not heard back from anyone.
On Sept. 16, Cruey received a “Notice of Lease Termination” that told her she needed to “vacate” the premises by Oct. 17. That notice cited an incident in which Cruey allegedly “refused direct instruction to leave a private meeting.”
“After being instructed to leave, you behaved in a loud and obnoxious manner, and you physically assaulted the community manager by grabbing her wrist,” it read.
Cruey denied grabbing the manager and said she didn’t know the meeting was private. It was run by a representative for Fairfax County and was about the Affordable Dwelling Unit rental program, which offers low- and moderate-income households a way to pay a reduced rent. A Fairfax County official confirmed in recent days that the meeting aimed to offer a general overview of the application and recertification process and that county staffers did not intend for it to be private.
AD
Fairfax County is looking into five complaints that have been filed against the Overture, according to that official. The county’s office of Human Rights and Equity Programs has received four complaints of discrimination, and Consumer Affairs has received one complaint.
“I hope the Crueys’ ordeal will result in overall policy improvements that will ensure older adults are treated with the respect and sensitivity they deserve,” Sharon Bulova (D-At Large), chair of Fairfax County’s Board of Supervisors, said in statement Wednesday. “I’m glad they spoke out and am sorry they had to go through this.”
A Greystar official on Wednesday said that, because of privacy concerns, the company couldn’t speak about a specific case but confirmed that a leadership team had met individually with most of the residents at the Overture in recent days.
AD
“Overture Fair Ridge takes matters like these very seriously and are pleased with the positive outcome with this particular issue,” the company said in a statement. “We are revisiting our processes to ensure all such matters are handled as sensitively as possible.”
Sandra Cruey says when she called her mom to tell her that she wouldn’t have to move, her response was, “Yawhoo!” She then started saying “God bless,” followed by the names of different people who had helped her.
“I could hear and feel the happiness and smile in her voice,” she says.
The family doesn’t know what will happen after a year. They also hope the company will put in place changes that will ensure other residents don’t have to fear getting hit with lease violations for seemingly small rule-breaking. One former resident described people receiving violations for cursing and taking an extra sausage at breakfast.
AD
Elsie Cruey’s cookie violation was documented in an email that was sent to her daughter. It described how she was “stopped from taking a partial gallon of milk” at breakfast and was later that day observed “taking a plate full of cookies” at a mix-and-mingle.
The next day, according to the lease violation, “the resident and Community Manager had a conversation and the resident admitted to taking the cookies and having them with milk before bedtime.”
Cruey denied that version of events. She said her friends baked those cookies and wanted her to try them. She insisted that she shared them with two friends the next day.
When I first met Cruey, I asked her why she wanted to publicly share her story. She said she had formed friendships since moving into the complex in May 2018 and didn’t want management “doing this to my friends one at a time when they come up for a new lease.”
AD
She recognized that the issue was bigger than her — even if she couldn't have realized just how much bigger.
After that initial column ran, several people who claimed to have parents at the Overture wrote to me about their worries and shared stories that, if true, are concerning. People also wrote from across the country about their own senior housing woes.
“My mother who is 88 was also asked to leave her ‘forever home’ in an assisted living facility for completely absurd reasons,” wrote a person who noted that “it’s a big problem in Montgomery county too!”
“What you have found here in this facility is NOT an isolated case,” wrote a home health aide from New York. That person described a manager at a senior building putting baby monitors in residents’ apartments to listen in on their conversations.
AD
“There are horror stories in all senior HUD housing,” wrote a person who described getting an eviction notice after a fire alarm in a hallway went off three times because a gap in her door allowed smoke from cooking to escape. “They bully tenants and instill fear in the elderly.”
Other people who had never met Cruey wanted to know whether they could contribute money toward her legal fees — which the family politely declined — and inquired about whether she needed temporary housing. She was offered a free hotel room in Fairfax and a place in an apartment housing complex in Kansas.
And then there were the cookies. So many cookies. People wrote to find out Cruey’s favorite type and to get the Overture’s mailing address so they could satisfy every sweet tooth there.
“Would you kindly tell this apartment complex I will supply cookies for every open resident community event please?” one person wrote.
AD
“I would like to send the facility a few dozen cookies so they don’t have to waste their time looking out for cookie monsters,” someone in Southern California wrote.
“If it will help your company stop picking on little old ladies for taking a few extra cookies home with them for a late night snack, contact me,” a person in Philadelphia wrote. “I would be happy to donate a monthly gathering of cookie platters to help offset any cookie losses Ms. Elsie may have caused. For the record, I would not have any issue at all if the facility manager helped themselves to any leftover cookies, to have as a late night snack.”
After one package of homemade cookies arrived for her mother, Sandra Cruey called the woman to thank her. She left a message with her mom’s phone number. The two women later talked and discussed the husbands they had lost. They also spoke about the possibility of meeting each other one day.
AD
“It is just truly heartwarming,” Sandra Cruey says. “I think about this lady baking cookies and I think about her packing them up and I think about her going to the post office to send them, and how much effort all that took. But she did it.”
She and her sisters saw the negative side of her mother stepping forward. Strangers dug into her past and posted online about convictions that dated long before she moved into the Overture. A public records search shows that most were misdemeanors and related to using profane, threatening or indecent language over a public airway.
But the siblings also saw what Sandra Cruey describes as a “domino effect of goodness.” They saw people speaking up about how the elderly should be treated in this country and people offering understanding because they, too, have parents who are in senior housing or might one day need to be. They saw strangers who, even if it was through a bit of flour and butter, felt compelled to right a wrong.
Cruey says that her mother doesn’t need any more sweets. Her hope is that now, people will take the kindness behind that gesture and extend it to others.
Even so, Elsie Cruey should probably keep her fridge stocked with milk for a little while longer.
On Tuesday night, shortly after the family heard from Greystar, my office phone rang. On the other end was a woman who said she didn’t have an email account and needed Cruey’s address.
She explained — although she didn’t have to — that she wanted to bake her some cookies.
↧

Former Jacksonville U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Employee Pleads Guilty To Lying To Investigators About Placing A Confederate Flag On African-American Co-worker's Desk. (USDOJ press release)

October 24, 2019, 10:43 am
$
0
0

Even in Federal offices in Atlanta and Jacksonville, in this decade, African-Americans are treated with disdain and respect and a hostile working environment.

In one such case, when I was riding circuit representing ethical employees against disgruntled employers, I obtained a promotion for an African-American C.P.A. with the EPA Office of Inspector General by a supervisor who told him he would be promoted "on a cold day in hell." The witness to the remark was then-Special Agent in Charge Mike Hill of then EPA Office of Inspector General.  

The retaliatory official told him she would promote neither the black C.P.A. nor a white C.P.A. who testified in a black employee's case.  

After Special Agent Hill testified and before the judge ruled, EPA fired the supervisor, by then the Ombuds for EPA for the entire country.  

In United States of America v. SUSAN THOMPSON, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida in Jacksonville obtained a federal criminal conviction for lying to federal agents about one such instance. 

The Federal Courts website, pacer.org, reveals that SUSAN THOMPSON completed her sentence, which was "Probation: 12 months; Special Assessment: $100.00; Fine: $500.00; Community Service: 10 hours per month."

Here is the USDOJ press release.




Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Florida
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Former U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Employee Pleads Guilty To Lying To Investigators About Placing A Confederate Flag On African-American Co-worker's Desk 

Jacksonville, Florida – United States Attorney A. Lee Bentley, III announces that Susan R. Thompson (58, Jacksonville) yesterday pleaded guilty to making false statements to a federal officer. She faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison. No sentencing date has been set.
According to the plea agreement, on June 24, 2015, Thompson used her home computer to print an image of the Confederate battle flag. The next morning, she brought the flag to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers facility in Jacksonville, Florida, where she worked as a civilian employee. Thompson surreptitiously placed the image of the flag on the desk of an African-American woman, with whom Thompson had a contentious working relationship and a history of loud workplace confrontations.    
These events occurred one week after nine people were shot and killed at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina.
After Thompson’s co-worker found the image of the flag on her desk, inspectors from the Federal Protective Service were notified and opened an investigation to determine if there had been a breach of security at the facility, whether the image was intended as a threat of violence, and whether any federal crimes had been committed.  During that investigation, Thompson agreed to be interviewed and lied to the inspectors on two separate occasions, denying that she had placed the image of the flag on her co-worker’s desk. Thompson eventually admitted that she had been angry with her co-worker and that she had placed the image of the Confederate flag on the desk, but denied that her actions were racially-motivated. Following an internal investigation by the Army Corps of Engineers, Thompson was permitted to resign from federal employment in lieu of termination.
This case was investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service. It is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Michael J. Coolican.
↧
↧

Former Jacksonville Army Corps Employee Pleads Guilty to Lying to Law Enforcement. (USDOJ press release)

October 24, 2019, 10:43 am
$
0
0





The close and self-serving relationships between dredging companies and government agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comes into sharp repose when you read about the criminal case of United States of America v. TRACEY JORDAN SELLERS, Case No. 1:19-cr-20327 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida).

Ms. SELLERS, a biologist, was secretly paid 2014-2029 as a part-time consultant by the same consultants for dredging companies working in Miami.

Yes. You understood correctly. Ms. Sellers was paid as a consultant part-time -- the same consultant whose work she reviewed as a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers biologist working for the Jacksonville, Florida USACE office.

As the USDOJ press release states:

"A biologist, Sellers coordinated and advised on environmental issues related to Army Corps projects. Part of her responsibilities included planning and coordinating environmental requirements related to Army Corps projects and reviewing products from environmental consulting companies.
Federal ethics laws and regulations prohibit federal employees from engaging in outside employment that conflicts with employees’ official duties. From 2014 through February 8, 2019, while employed with the Army Corps, Sellers violated these laws and regulations by engaging in outside employment with a consulting company despite being part of a team that oversaw that company’s work for the Army Corps in relation to large dredging projects in South Florida.


From the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida:

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Southern District of Florida
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2019


Former Army Corps Employee Pleads Guilty to Lying to Law Enforcement

A former employee of the United States Army Corps of Engineers pled guilty to making false statements to law enforcement agents.
Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Colonel Andrew D. Kelly, Jr., Jacksonville District Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cyndy A. Bruce, Special Agent in Charge, Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS), Southeast Field Office, Manny Antonaras, Deputy Special Agent in Charge, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Southeast Office of Enforcement, Andres Castro, Special Agent in Charge, Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigations Division (EPA- CID), Atlanta Area Office, and Frank Robey, Director, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command Major Procurement Fraud Unit (MPFU), made the announcement. 
            Tracey Jordan Sellers, 49, of Duval County, pled guilty to an Information containing one count of making a false official statement to federal law enforcement agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).  Sellers faces a maximum statutory penalty of five years and is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga on September 19, 2019, in Miami.
“Tracey Jordan Sellers’s conduct undermined the integrity of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,” said U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan.  “Together with our partner law enforcement agencies, we remain committed to defending the institutions of federal government.”
“We take this matter very seriously,” said Col. Andrew D. Kelly.  “We have assisted the U.S. Attorney’s Office and federal investigators throughout their investigation.  The defendant is no longer employed with the Corps.  Her actions are not representative of the Corps and its values.  Such conduct is never tolerated.”
            According to the criminal Information and Joint Factual Statement filed with the Court, Sellers was a civilian employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Jacksonville District.  A biologist, Sellers coordinated and advised on environmental issues related to Army Corps projects.  Part of her responsibilities included planning and coordinating environmental requirements related to Army Corps projects and reviewing products from environmental consulting companies.   
Federal ethics laws and regulations prohibit federal employees from engaging in outside employment that conflicts with employees’ official duties.  From 2014 through February 8, 2019, while employed with the Army Corps, Sellers violated these laws and regulations by engaging in outside employment with a consulting company despite being part of a team that oversaw that company’s work for the Army Corps in relation to large dredging projects in South Florida.   
In secret from her colleagues and management at the Army Corps, Sellers accepted offers of part-time employment from the consulting company.  In November 2014, in October 2018, and in January 2019, the consulting company offered Sellers part-time work on three different projects with the company.  Sellers accepted the offers from the consulting company, provided them her resume, entered into an independent consulting contract with them, and performed work on the projects for them.  In an interview occurring in February 2019, Sellers falsely and willfully misled federal agents about her outside involvement with the consulting company.  One of those false statements comprises the offense in the criminal Information. 
Sellers no longer works for the Army Corps.
“Sellers ignored her oath and instead pursued personal profit from the same contractor whose work she reviewed,” said Cyndy Bruce Special Agent in Charge of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, Southeast Field Office.  “DCIS and its law enforcement partners are committed to strike against those who undermine and jeopardize the integrity of the DoD’s procurement process.”
“Ms. Sellers not only violated federal ethics laws but also the trust and confidence the U.S. Army places in our soldiers, civilian employees and contractors,” said Frank Robey, the director of the Major Procurement Fraud Unit for the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command.  “The work that our Army does on a daily basis is vital to the success and security of our nation.  Anyone who violates that trust by committing criminal acts will be fully investigated by our agents and our fellow law enforcement professionals.”
“Federal employees who oversee the environmental compliance of government contractors must be free of any conflicts of interest,” said Andres Castro, Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in Florida. “This case shows that EPA and our federal partners are committed to protecting the integrity of federal contracts and safeguarding our nation’s natural resources.”
            U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the DCIS, NOAA, EPA-CID, and the MPFU.  U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan also thanked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for its assistance.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime Raich.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.
↧

NEGLECT OF DUTY: Colonel Andrew A. Kelly, Commander and District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, (2018-date)(USACE website)

October 24, 2019, 11:04 pm
$
0
0
Here's PR handout from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about our Commander and District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, (2018-date)(USACE website), who arrogantly refuses to respond to First Amendment protected activity:

  • FOIA requests, 
  • press inquiries and 
  • IG reports 

about the Summer Haven River project, and

  • illegal "oral" permission" purportedly given 
  • by our lawbreaking St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District 
  • to our St. Johns County Board of County Board of County Commissioners 
  • to work "under" a USACE permit, with nothing in writing. 


NO response to e-mails and calls to USACE, U.S. Army and USACE and U.S. Army IG.

Earlier today. I reported every single one of them (at 5:05 PM) to the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense, Hon. Glenn A. Fine, Esq., for neglect of duty. 

Let justice be done. Enough.

More later, after I speak to USDOD OIG.

Colonel Andrew Kelly

District Commander

Published Aug. 24, 2018
Colonel Andrew Kelly is the Commander and District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Colonel Kelly assumed command on August 24, 2018.
PHOTO DETAILS  /   DOWNLOAD HI-RES
PRINT | E-MAIL
Colonel Andrew Kelly is the Commander and District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Colonel Kelly assumed command on August 24, 2018.
Colonel Kelly joins the Jacksonville District team after serving as the Chief of Staff, Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan in Kabul. Prior to this deployment, he attended the Eisenhower School of National Security and Resource Strategy earning a Master of Science degree in National Resource Strategy. While in the national capital region, he completed assignments in the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) office and on the Army Staff in the Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Previous assignments include commanding the Walla Walla District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joint Engineer Trainer in the U.S. Joint Forces Command, Operations and Executive Officer for the 92nd Engineer Battalion, and Brigade Combat Team Engineer in 3rd Infantry Division. As a captain he commanded the 74th Multi-Role Bridge Company, served as a Project Engineer in the New York District, and was the Executive Officer to the North Atlantic Division commander.
Colonel Kelly graduated from the United States Military Academy and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Corps of Engineers in 1994. 
His military awards include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, and Defense Meritorious Service medals. He is also the recipient of the Army Engineer Association’s Bronze Order of the de Fleury Medal.
↧
Search

NEGLECT OF DUTY: I've reported Jacksonville Army Corps Colonel ANDREW A. KELLY to USDOD INSPECTOR GENERAL re: possible coverups on SUMMER HAVEN RIVER PROJECT

October 24, 2019, 11:41 pm
$
0
0
Colonel Andrew Kelly is the Commander and District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Colonel Kelly assumed command on August 24, 2018.Colonel Andrew Kelly is the Commander and District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Colonel Kelly assumed command on August 24, 2018.


Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Some USACE military officers have refused to provide documents or answer questions.

I ask questions, demand answers, and expect answers and expect democracy. That's how God made me, my parents made me and my mentors taught me.

This is our country.

My first ancestor emigrated in 1849, on my mother's side, at age 6, her entire family having perished in the Irish potato family.  That was 170 years ago.  Another emigrated, in 1888, on my father's side, escaping from Russian pogroms in Poland.

My grandfather father served, my father served and bled, and generations of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coasties fought and bled (and more than a million died) for our Rights to Know.

You work for us.

We don't cower to power.

To the Department of Defense:

We won't "take no for an answer."

Those are my "family values."

We don't cotton to bigots or bullies of any kind,

We won't accept mediocrity, or excuses, or mendacity, waste, fraud, abuse, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, flummery, dupery, or nincompoopery as the order of the day.

I look forward to hearing back for DoD Inspector Glenn A. Fine.

Now.

Here's my 5:05 pm October 24, 2019 e-mail (timed in honor of my father's heroic WWII 82nd ABN DIVN., F Co. 505th P.I.R. unit, where he earned three combat Bronze Stars in three combat jumps in North Africa, Sicily and Normandy.

It's called the "Edward A. Slavin Chapter" of the 82nd ABN. DIVN. ASSN., Inc. after my father.

To those USACE and OIG and U.S. Army REMFs who ignored my calls: God forgive you.

I am true to my origins, true to our Nation's values, and I will not rest or yield to



-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2019 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: URGENT: USACE JACKSONVILLE NEGLECT OF DUTY re: Questions About SUMMER HAVEN RIVER BREACH: St. Johns County Working Without Proper USACE Permit or Scientific Peer Review Under SAPWB Permit?

To: 
Hon. Glenn A. Fine, Esq.
Department of Defense Inspector General, :
Dear Mr. Fine:
1. My repeated efforts to report possible mismanagement or wrongdoing -- about the Summer Haven River Project -- to our U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District Office and to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Inspector General HQ have been unavailing.
2. Efforts to share with or obtain information from those organizations have likewise been unavailing.  Please see e-mails below.
3. Telephone messages left with the USACE in Jacksonville and Washington, D.C. have been ignored, repeatedly.
4. Thus, I called the U.S. Army Inspector General hotline earlier this afternoon. I was subjected to four (4) minutes of recorded messages discouraging protected activity, thereby violating  the First Amendment and the Inspector General Act.  A recording finally stated that I would be connected with an "Action Officer." That effort proved fruitless, then ending with a robotic recording stating that any message left would be ignored.  This is neglect of duty.
5. Please read my reports to USACE and the USACE Inspector General, below, incorporated by reference.
6. USACE Jacksonville office and the USACE Inspector General both exhibit of neglect of duty.  The US Army IG is likewise insouciant.  The USACE and Army OIG hotlines deviate from the standard of care set by Congress, which intended IG hotlines to be answered by living, breathing Special Agents, not by robotic recordings discouraging reports and prattling on about "your chain of command."
7. Enough delay.
8. Will you, as DoD Inspector General, kindly initiate a civil, criminal and administrative investigation of:
A. Permitting and oversight issues concerning the Summer Haven River Project in St. Johns County, Florida, including USACE refusing to address concerns about the purported ORAL permission from the St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach District Commission for the St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners to operate under the Port District's USACE permit?  Oral permission is unsupported by any signed document produced by then Port District or County. Is this legal?  
B. Col. Andrew D. Kelly and his neglect of duty?
C. The insolent USACE Jacksonville FOIA Office;
D. The insouciant USACE Inspector General office?
E. Lack of proper OIG hotlines exhibiting neglect of duty,  There are NO Special Agents answering their telephones or responding to telephone messages in either USACE OIG or the Department of the Army OIG.
9.  Will you or your staff please call me tomorrow?
Thank you for all that you do.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
904-377-4998
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
www.edslavin.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
To: Andrew.D.Kelly.mil ; Andrew.d.kelly ; ceig ; Frank.d.ellis ; Frank.d.ellis.mill
Cc: harper.cecelia ; Russell.Morgan ; Leonard.rawlings ; Edward.C.Smith ; Sunny.snider ; Joseph.Sullivan ; michael.shirley ; nancyshaver77 ; bcc5hdean ; sandy ; bcc1jjohns ; bcc2jsmith ; bcc3pwaldron ; bcc4jblocker ; matt ; chris ; maitane.olabarrieta ; waltbog
Sent: Thu, Oct 24, 2019 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: URGENT: USACE JACKSONVILLE NEGLECT OF DUTY re: Questions About SUMMER HAVEN RIVER BREACH: St. Johns County Working Without Proper USACE Permit or Scientific Peer Review Under SAPWB Permit?

Dear Colonel Kelly and USACE Inspector General Ellis:

1. I wrote you both on October 13, 2019 and October 18, 2019.  No response.

2. Your failure to do your jobs is in pari delicto with past instances of neglect of duty and mismanagement by the Jacksonville U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District Office, including:
  • multiple instances of lying to law enforcement, resulting in federal criminal convictions of USACE employees in Jacksonville  https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/former-us-army-corps-engineers-employee-pleads-guilty-lying-investigators-about-placing https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/former-army-corps-employee-pleads-guilty-lying-law-enforcement
  • "losing" at least thirteen (13) USACE files on alleged wetland mitigation.  As I wrote in 2006: 
While the Jacksonville District office of the Corps was rated better than most, tripling inspections from 2003-2004, GAO also found that it "lost" 13 files on wetland "mitigation."
Agencies'"Neglect"
GAO found "The Corps has consistently neglected to ensure that the mitigation it has required as a condition of obtaining a permit has been completed.""The Corps priority has been and continues to be processing [development] permit applications," the GAO reports.
Ed Slavin, "The Matrix: Wetlands of Mass Destruction (WMD) -- Why Florida's wetlands are being destroyed and who benefits" (Indymedia, 2006), quoting "Wetlands Protection:  Corps of Engineers Does Not Have an Effective Oversight Approach to Ensure That Compensatory Mitigation Is Occurring," GAO-05-898 (September 2005)  https://www.gao.gov/htext/d05898.html
http://cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-matrix-wetlands-of-mass-destruction.html

3. Please call me by 5:05 PM today, October 24, 2019.

Herein faileth not.

Thank you.

With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
904-377-4998
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
www.edslavin.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
To: Andrew.D.Kelly.mil ; Andrew.d.kelly ; ceig ; Frank.d.ellis ; Frank.d.ellis.mill
Cc: harper.cecelia ; Russell.Morgan ; Leonard.rawlings ; Edward.C.Smith ; Sunny.snider ; Joseph.Sullivan ; michael.shirley ; nancyshaver77 ; bcc5hdean ; sandy ; bcc1jjohns ; bcc2jsmith ; bcc3pwaldron ; bcc4jblocker ; matt ; chris ; maitane.olabarrieta ; waltbog
Sent: Fri, Oct 18, 2019 12:17 am
Subject: Re: URGENT: USACE JACKSONVILLE NEGLECT OF DUTY re: Questions About SUMMER HAVEN RIVER BREACH: St. Johns County Working Without Proper USACE Permit or Scientific Peer Review Under SAPWB Permit?

Dear Colonel Kelly and Inspector General Ellis:
Where are your manners?
Please call me by 0855 AM on October 18, 2019 concerning your neglect of duty.
Herein faith not.
Thank you,
With kindest regards, I am,




-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
To: Andrew.D.Kelly.mil ; Andrew.d.kelly ; ceig ; Frank.d.ellis ; Frank.d.ellis.mill
Cc: harper.cecelia ; Russell.Morgan ; Leonard.rawlings ; Edward.C.Smith ; Sunny.snider ; Joseph.Sullivan ; michael.shirley ; nancyshaver77 ; bcc5hdean ; sandy ; bcc1jjohns ; bcc2jsmith ; bcc3pwaldron ; bcc4jblocker ; matt ; chris ; michael.shirley ; maitane.olabarrieta ; waltbog
Sent: Sun, Oct 13, 2019 8:41 pm
Subject: URGENT: USACE JACKSONVILLE NEGLECT OF DUTY re: Questions About SUMMER HAVEN RIVER BREACH: St. Johns County Working Without Proper USACE Permit or Scientific Peer Review Under SAPWB Permit?

Dear Colonel Kelly and Inspector General Ellis
1. Please call me by 1100 tomorrow, October 14, 2019.  Is ongoing work by our St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners repairing the Summer Haven River breach at the Atlantic Ocean legally covered by a current, valid, United States Army Corps of Engineers permit?   Is the current SJCBoCC work legal?  We Americans have a Right to Know pursuant to our Freedom of Information Act, Electronic Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment.  
2. My efforts to speak with our Jacksonville USACE office, Jacksonville USACE permitting office, Jacksonville USACE FOIA office, HQ Inspector General office and HQ PIO office have ALL been unavailing.  As General George Washington wrote the Continental Congress, as portrayed in the musical 1776, "Is anybody there?  Does anybody care?"

3, My late father fought with the 82nd ABN DIVN F Co. 505th P.I.R, as a machine-gunner, awarded three Bronze Stars, after three combat jumps in North Africa, Sicily and Normandy.  Today would have been his 106th birthday.  The South Jersey Chapter of the 82nd ABN. DIVN. ASSN. is named for him, the "Edward A. Slavin Chapter." My dad would have been very disappointed in the Jacksonville USACE office's insouciance in response to my questions and concerns. My father taught me, as JFK's father taught him, that you must stand up to people in power or they walk all over you.  My father, and generations of Americans, fought, bled, and more than a million died, for our rights to have answers to our questions today by our government, include USACE.  Their ghosts are watching us.
4.  USACE staff has been utterly unresponsive to my queries since last month.   Colonel Kelly, will you please help resolve the problem(s) in your command in Jacksonville USACE?  General Ellis, will you please have your staff investigate?
5. I've been filing FOIA requests since 1978. I have never encountered a FOIA officer quite like the unfriendly unknown, unnamed, uncommunicative, unkind USACE Jacksonville FOIA officer.  I called her immediately after filing my request last month.  She's never returned a single one of my multiple telephone messages.  Apparently she can only write hostile e-mails. She claims to have "administratively closed" my request, without ever talking to me. She refused to answer telephone messages and she won't even give me her name.  She lacks a welcoming spirit.  Her willful refusal to do her job is a disgrace to the United States Army,  Please investigate,
6. FOIA is the controlling legal authority.   FOIA is being violated by USACE, in my opinion, as well as the standards of official conduct.  Please honor your oaths of office.
7. On November 22, 1974, when the United States Senate overrode President Ford's veto of FOIA, I was the 17-year old undergraduate intern who took Senator Ted Kennedy's press release to three press galleries in the U.S. Capitol Building.  
8. I've used the FOIA many times since 1978.  I  was recommended for a Pulitzer Prize by James Nelson Ramsey, the District Attorney General in Anderson County, Tennessee for winning declassification of the largest mercury pollution event in. world history, at the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, leading to then-Rep. Al Gore's mercury pollution investigation hearing on July 11, 1983 and to the Department of Energy initiating environmental safety and health remedies that will eventually account for $300 billion in cleanup in eleven states.  
9. As our former St. Augustine Mayor Nancy Shaver says, "Government is a customer service enterprise." 
10. Our unfriendly, unknown, unnamed, unkind USACE FOIA officer in Jacksonville evidently lacks communication skills. She may lack self-respect and respect for others.
11. She needs training, coaching and counseling. Now, please.
12. Is it legal for St. Johns County to seek and to get oral permission from the St. Augustine Port, Waterway and Beach Commission to work under its USACE permit, without any written presentation, and for USACE to ignore concerns about this possible misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance for a month? 
13. Outside actual combat in wartime, have you ever heard of one (1) government agency giving another government agency oral permission to do anything?
14. What environmental QA/QC is taking place on Summer Haven River?
15. Is the USACE permit in quo expired?  
16. Are USACE staff familiar with the history of repeated breaches and repeated spending by St. Johns County?  
17. Is this a wise use of tax monies?  (St. Johns County Commission voted to spend another $500,000 to repair the latest of three breaches, by narrow 3-2 vote).
18. What is the USACE cost-benefit analysis on this use of our tax funds?
19. Have USACE staff examined the breach of the Atlantic Ocean at the Summer Haven. River.
20. Please send me responsive documents.
21. Will you kindly direct USACE Jacksonville staff, from this day forward, to treat citizens with kindness, dignity, respect and consideration, as you would expect your own family to be treated?
Please call me.
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
904-377-4998
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
www.edslavin.com

↧

FDR: "We must especially beware of that small group of [people] who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests."

October 26, 2019, 10:29 am
$
0
0
As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his State of the Union address, January 6, 1941:

"We must especially beware of that small group of selfish [people] who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests." 


↧
↧

St. Augustine residents started electing their Mayor in 1812, some 207 years ago (St. Augustine Record, Dr. Susan Parker, Ph.D.)

October 26, 2019, 10:42 am
$
0
0






OLDEST CITY | Role of mayor started off contentious



Oct 19, 2019 at 11:51 AM


The issue of how to select a mayor for the City of St. Augustine has been raised again. This topic comes around every so often, sorta like Halley's Comet or a 17-year locust, but with less predictable timing.

The issue of how to select a mayor for the City of St. Augustine has been raised again. This topic comes around every so often, sorta like Halley's Comet or a 17-year locust, but with less predictable timing.

St. Augustinians elected their very first mayor, Geronimo Alvarez, in the fall of 1812. St. Augustine is known for its many firsts in the history of the United States, but not for being anywhere near first with an elected municipal government. St. Augustine had been a Spanish city for 226 years as well as for 21 years as a British city before the creation of a city council and the office of mayor.

In March of 1812, delegates in Spain passed a constitution for the Spanish empire, which the document states included "the two Floridas." In August, printed copies of the constitution, sent from Havana, arrived in St. Augustine. The Constitution of Cadiz, so called for the location of the constitutional meeting, was formally declared in our city on Oct. 17 with a religious service, a parade that included gun salutes, and a party hosted at the governor's house.

The Spanish Constitution of 1812 was a lengthy document with 384 articles.

Articles 309 through 323 of the Constitution set forth how city government was to be organized, including the members of the city council. Within three weeks after the festivities, the election for the first St, Augustine City Council took place. There was no prolonged campaign period. The new councilmen, mayor and city attorney took office on Nov. 7, immediately after the election.

Like the current method in St. Augustine, the voters chose the mayor. In addition to the mayor, voters elected four councilmen and the city attorney.

A majority was not required to win; a plurality (most votes) was sufficient.

Like the United States at that time, only men could vote in Spanish Florida.

All the elected municipal officials served one-year terms. The Constitution stated "mayors shall change every year, the councilmen by one-half every year six months." The city attorney also served a one-year term. Ideally these short terms of office should mean that dissatisfied voters could quickly replace council members.

And, there was one more member of the St. Augustine City Council, and he did not have to stand for election. The military governor of the Spanish colony of East Florida was automatically a member of the Council. Gov. Sebastian Kindelan and St. Augustine's first mayor Geronimo Alvarez clashed frequently.

Kindelan was a colonel in the Spanish Army and was accustomed to giving orders that were to be obeyed. When Kindelan arrived in St. Augustine, there had been no city council.

Alvarez was a civilian and a merchant, not a soldier, and loved being mayor.

Alvarez's fervor for the role of mayor equaled the governor's obstinacy about authority. Alvarez pushed for the mayorship to acquire as much influence and authority as possible, usually subtracting from the governor's role.

Early on there was contention with Kindelan over the use of a meeting room in Government House for the Council's weekly 8 a.m. meetings. The same building held the offices of government as well as being the official home of the governor.


It is interesting that nine years later the wrangle was repeated. In 1821, soon after Florida became part of the United States, the U.S. commander of troops in St. Augustine refused to permit the City Council to meet in Government House. The commander wanted the council room space for soldiers' living quarters.

Alvarez demonstrated that civil authorities did not answer to the military executive on May 4, 1813. Gov. Kindelan was absent from St. Augustine that day, when the City Council was scheduled to meet. The Council was locked out of its meeting room in the governor's absence.

Alvarez would not cancel or reschedule the meeting. Alvarez relocated the meeting to his own residence, citing "chapter and verse" of the Laws of the Indies, that permitted a meeting without the governor in attendance. The Council met that day in the house now known as the Gonzalez-Alvarez House National Historic Landmark (the Oldest House) at 14 St. Francis St.



Susan R. Parker holds a doctorate in colonial history.








↧

City burghers want to erase your vested right to vote for Mayor of St. Augustine, Florida. (St. Augustine Report, by former Mayor George Gardner)

October 26, 2019, 11:13 am
$
0
0
As my friend J.D. Pleasant first told me years ago, St. Augustine City burghers will say an do anything." 

Thanks to Mayor Tracy Upchurch for exposing this canard, surely and suavely, October 14th.

Thanks to former Mayor George Gardner for succinctly reporting it.  

He's a much better writer than me, having worked for GANNETT and learning how to write short stories.  For my part, I sometimes resemble  the story that Abraham Lincoln told about the Illinois country preacher who wrote longwinded sermons, explaining, "once I get started I'm too lazy to stop."

From former Mayor George Gardner's St. Augustine Report:





Mayor election process 
back on agenda Monday    
   The question of whether the mayor should be elected by commissioners or public vote returns to the City Commission agenda Monday with a public comment period.
   The regular commission meeting begins at 5 pm in the Alcazar Room at City Hall and is live streamed on CoSA.TV.
   Two weeks ago three speakers rejected the idea of mayor election by fellow commissioners.
   Judith Fox Fliesser said, "Having the mayor elected by the commissioners rather than directly by the people would be a way of limiting public participation. I understand there has been friction in recent years between the mayor and commissioners but I think friction is part of what democracy is."
   Ed Slavin noted, "The charter was amended to provide for direct election of the mayor. Those are vested rights. Are you going to take away our right to vote for mayor because you didn't like (a) Mayor?" 
   And B.J. Kalaidi suggested, "It is not in the best interests of the public health, welfare and safety to have four politicians decide who will be mayor."
  The idea was originally aired by first term Commissioner John Valdes, who said separate election of mayor, "makes it appear we have a strong mayor (form of government)."
   A second election process amendment, requiring a year's residency to qualify to run for City Commission, was advanced to ordinance form for commission action Monday.
   Any amendments to the election process would go to public referendum.
↧

Battle Creek residents mull citizen-led ballot initiative for direct election of the mayor. (Battle Creek, Michigan Enqurier)

October 26, 2019, 4:00 pm
$
0
0
The trend in America is to electing mayors and not appointing them. Even where there is a strong city manager form of government, throughout Florida and the United States, we elect our Mayors. Why? As Alexander Hamilton said, "Here, sir, the people govern."

From the Battle Creek, Michigan Enquirer:


Battle Creek residents mull citizen-led ballot initiative for direct election of the mayor

, Battle Creek EnquirerPublished 8:00 a.m. ET Oct. 24, 2019
LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE
Jerry Steiner isn't satisfied with Battle Creek's city government. 
He said he was hoping, that this time around, City Commissioners would do what the people wanted and allow a direct election of the mayor.
That didn't happen. 
"I've just been sitting back a lot because I know that a lot of African Americans, and a lot of citizens, period, are dissatisfied with the way government is run here in Battle Creek," he said. "My whole concern is that the community has a voice, and I don't feel they had a voice this time...I sit by and let that go, and my grandmama — I sure wish she would come back from the grave and whoop my butt."
When City Commissioners were discussing whether to put direct election of the mayor on the ballot last week, giving people a voice was at the heart of their discussion.
Several commissioners who voted against the resolution said that they didn't think it did enough to improve representation in the city. It needed six votes to pass. It got five.
Some residents feel Commissioners missed the mark and support a plan to start a petition to get direct election of the mayor and a new ward system on the ballot. 
"It's time for a change," Battle Creek resident Janice Banks said. "They choose among themselves. They've been doing it a long time." 

Choosing who represents the city

Battle Creek has a council-manager system of city government, which means that the mayor is not the chief executive of the city and doesn't make decisions for the city apart from the City Commission. Electing the mayor wouldn't give Battle Creek residents any more influence on city policy than they already have, but for voters like Steiner, it's not about electoral power. It's about choosing who represents the city. 
"When you think of city government, you think of the mayor," he said. "What has happened here in Battle Creek is that the City Commission has gotten so powerful with this political cronyism, you know, 'We're going to pick the mayor among ourselves because you the population aren't qualified to do it'...To place such an important decision in the hands of such a small group of people is a slap in the face to the hard working people here in Battle Creek."
Prior to the Board of Commission's vote on direct election of the mayor, Ward 3 Commissioner Kate Flores did an informal study on how well Battle Creek's current electoral system has promoted broad representation. 
Get the Daily Briefing newsletter in your inbox.
Start your day with the morning's top news
Delivery: Daily
The data showed that, in the last two decades, all of Battle Creek's mayors have been white, most have been men and most have lived south of Columbia Avenue. Only two people of color have ever served as mayor in a city where approximately a third of the residents are non-white, according to the 2017 American Community Survey. 
Steiner said letting people chose who will represent them as mayor would help people feel more included in their government. 
"It would come from among the people," he said. "African Americans, in my opinion, have gotten so disenfranchised with city government they just say, 'Oh, just another thing. They're just going through their changes.' And like I say, one year somebody's vice mayor, another year somebody's chosen as mayor, and it goes back and forth."
Banks said that a direct election of the mayor could bring the community together and cited the support Kalamazoo Mayor Bobby Hopewell has received from his city.
"They right behind him. Picked him up: 'This is my mayor.' That's what I like. That's called unity. Togetherness," she said.
Banks said that right now, she doesn't feel like her voice can be heard in city government. 
"They have these conversations, and certain people can talk. They don't let everybody talk now. I've been to those meetings, too. They jump right over me... That's OK. I understand. But I say, hey, we pay taxes, if you don't do none of that, at least give us our opinion. We pay for that." 
Battle Creek resident Jeremias Andrews expressed similar concerns. 
"Whenever citizen movements or bodies of citizens get together to want to do something, they hack it up and destroy it," he said. "When you have a city who says constantly 'We want citizen engagement. We seek citizen engagement. We crave it'... When they get it, they don't take it." 

Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee

Battle Creek has debated direct election of the mayor for a long time. The primary focus of the 2018 Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee was to make recommendations for selection of the mayor and vice-mayor. 
One of the recommendations put forward by the committee was the direct election of both mayor and vice mayor. In another proposal, the Blue Ribbon Committee recommended increasing the number of wards from five to seven while reducing the number of at-large positions from four to two.
Most committee members felt that completely restructuring the system would create a commission that better represented Battle Creek neighborhoods, but the Board of Commissioners only took up the recommendation for direct election of the mayor and planned to leave the current ward system in place. 
Some members of the committee were against the city commissioners passing a resolution for the direct election of the mayor without restructuring the ward system because they thought it would dilute under-represented voices in the community.
"It's worse from a democratic standpoint," Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee member Andy Helmboldt said. "It makes it easier for a demographic minority to win an oversized majority of seats." 
"Anyone who understands the geographical makeup of our neighborhoods in Battle Creek and has looked at our ward map in the last 20 years or more can see that our current ward breakup does not mirror neighborhoods in the best way that it could," Andrews said. "So I was disappointed in that. Disappointed because that would give us much broader representation around town, and it would give people the opportunity to vote for mayor and vice mayor." 
Andrews said that although Battle Creek has a weak mayor system, the position is still important because the mayor helps chose board positions and sets the tone for commission meetings.
"I'm also disappointed that our Commission voted against that incremental step," he said. "That was an opportunity to make a move forward, right? Is it the exact perfect move? Maybe not... however, incremental steps get you there...I feel like we have paralysis by over analysis." 

Ballot initiative

Now that the resolution for direct election of the mayor has failed, community members are considering a citizen-led petition to put the Blue Ribbon plan on the ballot. 
Under state law, in order to get a proposal on the ballot, 5% of qualified and registered voters in a city need to sign a petition. In Battle Creek, that would be nearly 2,000 signatures, according to the Calhoun County Clerk's Office. 
Helmboldt said that a petition is going to happen, and he plans to be highly involved.
A citizen-led initiative would be "the next best thing" to the Commission putting the Committee's full recommendation on the ballot, Helmboldt said.  
"Definitely preferable to the proposal the commission voted on," he said in an email.  
Helmboldt said that the petition would have to list the seven ward system and the direct election of the mayor as two separate items, based on his understanding of what the city attorney has said at commission meetings.
Steiner said he would support a petition to get direct election of the mayor on the ballot, and he wants to do what he could to let people know about the issue. 
"It's time for a change," he said. "Look at what they're doing down here in local government...Five people out of nine decided what what going to happen for 51,000 people...I believe in fair play. I believe in it, and I don't think that was fair." 
Contact Elena Durnbaugh at (269) 243-5938 or edurnbaugh@battlecreekenequirer.com. Follow her on Twitter at @ElenaDurnbaugh. 
↧
Viewing all 6570 articles
Browse latest View live
Search