Quantcast
Channel: Clean Up City of St. Augustine, Florida
Viewing all 6562 articles
Browse latest View live

PIP Putsch? Why four years of Record columnist STEVEN COTTRELL propaganda for erasing your right to vote for Mayor of St. Augustine?

$
0
0



St. Augustine residents started electing their Mayor in Spanish Colonial times, in 1812.  Read historian Susan Parker's October 27, 2019 column here.

STEVEN COTRELL  moved here in 2010. He is former Mayor of Nevada City, California (pop. 3000).  He sometimes writes perceptive columns in the St. Augustine Record, but often, based on his experience, spouting errant nonsense, e.g., arguing and arguing and arguing for an unelected Mayor, chosen by City Commissioners, his pet project here among lesser mortals whom he looks down from his lofty perch. See my 2015 blog post here.


STEVEN COTTRELL is one of a few  "Previously Important Persons" (PIPs) populating our community, offering uninformed opinions, without attending meetings or participating in local government.


Why does STEVEN COTREL have a regular St. Augustine Record column?


Why is he an advocate for taking away vested rights to vote for Mayor, often pooping out cant opinions in favor of the local Establishment?


Ask him. Try it.



STEVEN COTTRELL eschews the spoken word. 

He won't talk to anyone.  


He would not even talk to Mayor Nancy Shaver on the telephone, preferring to lob pejorative potshots in columns.  


This patrician ex-politician reminds me of the old saw about Boston, where "the Lowells spoke only to the Cabots and the Cabots spoke only to God."


STEVEN COTTRELL seems to think the plural of "anecdote: is "data." 


He's wrong.


If you loved St. Augustine, STEVEN, you wouldn't move here, cock a snoot, and emit arguments to take our voting rights away.

For a good time, read the latest examples of STEVEN COTRELL's effrontery, pompously perseverating, from the Wednesday, October 23, St. Augustine Record, inter alia imploring people to attend the 5 pm October 28, 2019 City Commission meeting to join his call for less democracy and more authoritarianism, ending the right of citizens to elect their own Mayor:




Opinion
Steve cottrell- Proposed city charter would affect mayorship

HIDE CAPTION
Steve Cottrell
By Steve Cottrell / The Record
Posted Oct 22, 2019 at 6:56 PM
Although no decision was made at last Monday night’s St. Augustine City Commission meeting, there appeared to be majority support for offering voters an opportunity to decide if the mayor should be elected directly by citizens (the current method) or if that decision should annually fall to commissioners. Either way, the position would remain ceremonial.

I believe the mayorship should be rotated annually, so seeing commission appointment vs. direct election advance to a possible ballot measure is encouraging. As drafted, however, the City Charter amendment would give three like-minded commissioners control over the yearly mayoral selection. And if those three folks were mean-spirited, they could rotate the gavel amongst themselves and block other commissioners from occupying the center chair. That’s a devilish detail that needs fixing in advance of a public vote, not after the vote.

My suggestion? Include a succession protocol ensuring the senior member who has not previously served as mayor (or is most removed from having previously served) be given the gavel for one year. And, if two or more new commissioners are chosen at the same election, succession would be determined by the votes each prevailing candidate received on election day.

The only exceptions would be that none could serve as mayor during their first year in office, and a commissioners could opt out of the succession protocol if they chose to do so. Under that system, every person elected to a four-year term could occupy the center chair for one year — and possibly additional years if reelected.

No matter their political philosophy or affiliation, every person elected to the City Commission deserves an opportunity to serve as mayor. For sure, being mayor of St. Augustine doesn’t take special legislative expertise because the office has no legislative power. Zip. Zero. The mayor has one vote and no veto authority, does not prepare the yearly budget, does not hire or fire employees and does not appoint citizens to city advisory boards or commissions. The mayor is merely expected to run orderly meetings, sign proclamations, kiss an occasional baby and represent the city at certain functions.

At the Oct. 14 City Commission meeting, an outspoken advocate for direct election of the mayor went to the microphone and blasted commissioners, claiming the proposed City Charter change is a reaction by commissioners who had difficulty dealing with former Mayor Nancy Shaver. “Now you’re going to take away our right to vote for mayor because you didn’t like Mayor Shaver? Are you serious?” he asked in a challenging tone, adding that if the City Commission doesn’t deep-six the proposed Charter amendment, “there will be consequences.”

But the person who referred to “our mayor” doesn’t even live in St. Augustine. He lives in an unincorporated area of the county, so his voting rights would neither be affected — nor would his free speech rights be impaired.

Finally, as part of amending and updating the City Charter, I believe it’s time to dump irrelevant City Commission seat numbers. Seat numbers make sense when commissioners represent geographical zones, but not when they’re elected at-large by all voters, as is done here. My suggestion? If there are three Commission slots to fill and seven candidates running, the top three vote-getters would be declared winners. Simple. Fair. No primary. No runoffs.

Mayor Tracy Upchurch said that having the City Charter measure placed on the March 17, 2020 Presidential Preference ballot is a bad idea because turnout might be light if there’s no Republican primary. I disagree. Other than some squiffy Irish celebrants dallying too long on St, Paddy’s Day and missing the 7 p.m. poll closure, I think the town’s 10,331 electors will want to have their say regarding the mayorship and will vote in usual numbers.

Commissioners are expected to again discuss City Charter amendments at their Oct. 28 meeting, so show up and let them know how you feel — especially if you’re a St. Augustine resident.

Steve can be contacted at cottrell.sf@gmail.com

----


STEVE COTTRELL: Why elect a ceremonial mayor?
Posted Apr 11, 2019 at 2:01 AM
St. Augustine Record

During a recent St. Augustine City Commission brainstorming session to review and possibly update the city charter, some commissioners seemed ready and willing to offer citizens an opportunity to vote on the process by which commissioners are elected and the mayor is chosen. Good for them.

Four years ago, I suggested St. Augustine’s ceremonial mayorship be rotated yearly and all commissioners be elected at-large with four-year terms. Some supporters of then-Mayor Nancy Shaver said if I didn’t like the way things are done here I should move back to California, but factional feedback comes with the territory.

What follows is the essence of my 2015 editorial:

“I believe citizens of St. Augustine would be better served by depoliticizing the position of mayor and recognizing it for what it really is: A ceremonial position with no legislative power or authority.

“The mayor chairs commission meetings, signs proclamations and represents the city when called upon to do so. No commissioner is empowered or endowed with more legislative authority than any other commissioner — and that includes the mayor.

“So why do we directly elect a powerless mayor?

“The middle chair at the commission table should not be used as a political bully pulpit. Unfortunately, the ceremonial office has, in recent years, reflected a level of politicization that is doing us no good whatsoever. In my opinion, the best way to depoliticize the office is to return to a system (in effect until 2006) where all five commissioners have four-year terms and the mayor is appointed by the commission.

“The simplest and fairest solution is to amend the city charter, spelling out a protocol that results in the senior member who has not already served as mayor being given the gavel for one year. And if two or more new members are chosen at the same election, succession to the mayorship would be determined by the number of votes each received on election day.

“The only exception to this impartial seniority system would be that no person would serve as mayor during their first year on the commission. With such a system in place, it would ensure every person elected to a four-year commission term could occupy the center chair for one year. What could be fairer than that?


“It doesn’t take special legislative expertise to be mayor of St. Augustine, because the office has no legislative power — zero. The mayor has one vote at the table and no veto power, does not prepare the yearly budget, does not hire or fire employees and does not appoint citizens to city advisory boards or commissions.

“Instead, the mayor chairs commission meetings, issues proclamations, and smiles for the camera at ribbon cuttings, parades, gala balls and other fun, ceremonial stuff.

“If a majority of the current commission is so inclined, there is ample time to prepare a ballot question with an objective succession protocol spelled out, asking us if we would like the office of mayor to (again) be appointive rather than elective.”

––-

That was my opinion four years ago and it remains so. And if the city charter is updated, I would also urge elimination of seat designations for commissioners — Seat 1, Seat 2, etc. There are no geographical wards in St. Augustine, so the numbering system makes no sense.

Let’s keep it simple: Five seats, all at-large, with four-year terms and a defined protocol leading to the mayorship (with an opt-out provision for commissioners not wanting to serve as mayor).

If such a charter change was approved by voters later this year in a stand-alone special election consistent with Florida Statutes Title XII, Ch. 166.031: (1), there would be three four-year seats open in 2020 with the top three finishers declared winners. No primary election, no runoff. Just one election — preferably as part of November’s general election.

As I rhetorically asked in 2015, “What could be fairer than that?”

Steve can be contacted at cottrell.sf@gmailcom.



REJECT misguided move to abolish elected St. Augustine Mayor position

$
0
0

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." 

Anyone who demands to remove a check and balance in our democracy better have a darn good reason. 

There are NO principled reasons for revoking your right to vote for the St. Augustine Mayor. 

"Here sir, the people govern," as Alexander Hamilton said.

"We get to overthrow our government every two years," as the character "Josh Liman" said on The West Wing.

St. Augustine residents first elected their Mayor in 1812 under the landmark Spanish Constitution.  See historian Susan Parker's column here.

Should we retain the elected mayor's position in St. Augustine as a check on the powers of the City Manager?  Yes.    

I strongly agree with St. Augustine Mayor Tracy Wilson Upchurch, who wisely frankly said so on October 14, 2019.   Watch here (click on Item 7B). 

Who would erase vested voting rights, in violation of legal and constitutional rights?  One person:
JOHN OTHA VALDES:

  • third generation Florida building contractor and developer, elected to Commission in 2018;
  • voluntarily testified in support of dubious projects, including DOW PUD and San Marco Hotel;
  • fined for illegally demolishing a building on Washington Street, of which he said, "I can make it fall down."
  • homestead property tax fraudster caught claiming 100% homestead exemption for his St. George Street property, while renting out a garage apartment on AirBnB, with a phony address on the mailbox.
  • former owner of a Saudia Arabian construction company who sold it to British and Saudi partners.

VALDES claims to love St. Augustine, but mostly profits from it, and was willing to tear down a building without a permit, stating to the City Inspector, "I can make it fall down. 

VALDES has a hate-on for Mayor Nancy Shaver and any reforms.

VALDES wanted to give voting rights to nonresident business owners, which would be illegal.  

Undeterred, VALDES also said he wanted to eliminate the City Mayor's position because:

  •  someone moving here. from Chicago might be "confused" that we have a strong Mayor and not a City Manager form of government.
  • electing our Mayor causes "turbulence."

Developers and their cat's paws want to pick their own Mayor.  

The title would "rotate" among Commissioners, as in that perfectly malfeasant, mediocre City government in St. Augustine Beach. 


Mayor/Professor Upchurch answered that it takes him "two minutes" to explain to his students that St. Augustine has an elected Mayor and a strong City Manager.  If Flagler College students can understand this, surely even people moving from Chicago will understand.  It's not rocket science.

Freshman Commissioner JOHN OTHA VALDES is perfectly mediocre as an elected official.  He should not get to be Mayor for a Year by rotation. , 

JOHN OTHA VALDES rather reminds me of Senator Carl Curtis (R-Neb.), who never read Ralph Nader's book on auto safety and did not want to hear his testimony, but tried to interrupt.  Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) then told Senator Curtis to let the witness finish.  Senator Curtis replied, “I have no objection to hearing his testimony, but when he loses me with—,” Senator Kennedy finished the sentence: “With big words?”

Like Senator Curtis, Commissioner VALDES can't handle the truth.  The City staff induces the result he wants by depriving Commissioners of objective research, simply preparing an ordinance.  

Enough of one-sided staff advocating for erasing voting rights and destroying our history. 

We in the reality-based community appreciate the refreshing candor of Tracy Upchurch, the history and law professor with personal hands-on experience as our legislator, our past Mayor and as a scholar.   

The imperious behavior of St. Augustine City Managers needs checks and balances -- more not less.  

We need countywide, applying to our City, an:

  • lobbying disclosure, 
  • ethics ordinance, 
  • Inspector General and
  • Ombuds. 


Since I moved here on November 5, 1999, two successive St. Augustine City Managers, WILLIAM BARRY HARRISS and JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E have: 


  • subjected our City to fines and civil, criminal and environmental investigations for overt acts of pollution and environmental racism.
  • got our City fined for putting a landfill in a lake, the Old City Reservoir on Holmes Blvd.
  • unsuccessfully spent $200,000 on legal fees, unsuccessfully demanding approval to move the landfill from the lake to Lincolnville (seven us filed an administrative complaint and the 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated material is now in a Class I landfill in Nassau County).
  • got our City fined for dumping semi-treated sewage effluents in our saltwater marsh at the south end of Lincolnville, never discussing it in a public meeting, violating Sunshine by "polling" Commissioners to save 
  • got our City repeatedly found liable by federal courts to have violated First Amendment rights, resulting g in damages and spending on legal fees for both sides by:
    • confiscating copies of St. Aug Dog newspaper and banning its distribution on St. George Street.
    • criminalizing art and music in our historic area.
  • served as doormats for dodgy businesses, easily duped by devious developers, some proposing hare-brained schemes:
    • some of which Commission approved (The Collector Hotel privatizing Dow Museum of Historic Homes, privatizing Lighthouse Park Community Center as private Yacht Club, privatizing one block of Cuna Street for benefit of one LOUIS JOHN ARBIZZANI of New Orleans, Louisiana), and 
    • some of which we stopped (coral growing tanks, aquarium and children's museum on top of garbage dump in violation of state law, now Dr. Robert S. Hayling, D.D.S. Freedom Park), halted thanks to Nancy Shaver, Blake Souder, Judith Seraphin, Cash McVay an d other activists.
  • spent tens of thousands of dollars on engineering studies to put structures on top of the old garbage dumps at the south end of Lincolnville (the area is now Dr. Robert S. Hayling, D.D.S. Freedom Park).
  • engaged in secretive meetings with business and property owners, including years of meetings without a written record with LOUIS JOHN ARBIZZANI and then BROUDY FAMILY.
  • maintained close and self-serving relationships with seedy characters.

When it comes to government structure, Mayor Tracy Upchurch knows whereof he speaks.  
His father and grandfather preceded him in the legislature.  His father preceded him as Mayor.

Our City has named Hamilton Davis Upchurch Park for his late father, who in 2007 spoke out against yet another power grab -- an irregularly-drafted, defective "starter charter" -- speaking publicly against it at St. Johns County Commission.  

Hamilton Upchurch's wise words against MICHAEL DAVID WANCHICK's and THOMAS G. MANUE's charter inspired me.  Citizens  ultimately helping activists block (twiceon the ballot in 2008).  We, the People of St. Johns County twice defeated an unwise County Charter, which. would have undue concentrated power without checks and balances.  He and I both testified against it.

Professor Tracy Upchurch teaches history and law at Flagler College, and is a lawyer, former mayor and former state legislator, the third generation Upchurch in the state legislature.  

Mayor Upchuch was selected by Commissioners March 4, 2019 to fill the vacancy created by Mayor Nancy Shaver's February 28, 2019 resignation, three days after her  stroke after a Commission meeting adjourned.   


Some anti-democratic developer tools want to claw back and wrench away the people's vested right to select their Mayor.  

People of the Liethose who "want to clip the wings of the American Eagle to feather their own nests," demand to:

  • take selection of Mayor back from the people in St, Augustine and give it to Commissioners.  
  • eliminate the two year Mayor position.  
  • make seat 3 a four year seat, and have the Mayor picked by Commissioners.  

It is unlikely voters would approve.  If they did, unleashing Commissioners to rotate among themselves, perhaps they could give each annual pretend-Mayor a lighted sign for the roof of their house and car, asking plaintively, "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM??"

(That was the question that Commissioner ERROL DONLEVY JONES had for arresting offices in 2013, when he was interfering with a police investigation. of his kinfolk.  JONES has since been arrested twelve times).

When I was thirteen, the U.S. Senate rejected a mediocre nominee for the Supreme Court, G. Harrold Carswell, overriding the plea of Senator Roman L. Hruska (R-Neb.) that the mediocre deserve representation.

In a revealing tv news interview on March 16, 1970, Hruska said,  "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."

All of our Mayors can't be Nancy Shavers, but the people of St. Augustine deserve the right to choose them. 

Footnote: The United States Senate rejected Carswell's nomination on April 8, 1970 by a vote of 51-45, giving President Nixon a second Senate rejection of a Supreme Court judicial nominee; in 1969, it rejected Nixon's choice of Clement Haynsworth.





Footnote: another plea for mediocrity (and for not electing our Mayor) appeared in a dodgy former California small town Mayor's dupery Wednesday column in the mullet wrapper.


From NPR:
March 16, 1970
(This day in history) 

As the Senate is in the process of debating the nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -- to fill the seat vacated by Abe Fortas -- Nebraska Republican Roman Hruska says in a TV interview, "Even if he [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Frankfurters and Cardozos."

The Senate will reject Carswell's nomination on April 8 by a vote of 51-45, giving President Nixon a second consecutive setback; in 1969, it rejected Nixon's choice of Clement Haynsworth.

Mayor question advances in St. Augustine. (SAR)

$
0
0



Is The Gang of Four now only three? Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline voted with Mayor Tracy Upchurch against this outrage, perpetrated by Commissioners JOHN OTHA VALDES, LENNNA SOPHIA AMARU FREEMAN and a reluctant ROZNNE HORVATH. 

I responded to the 3-2 Commission vote by enlisting the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Voting Section, to investigate and asked it to investigate and be prepared to file federal court litigation under the Fifteenth Amendment and Voting Rights Act.









Mayor question advances in St. Augustine
By Sheldon Gardner
Posted Oct 29, 2019 at 4:59 PM
St. Augustine Record

St. Augustine commissioners voted to create an ordinance that would put a question about the mayor’s selection on a ballot.

The ballot would ask city residents whether they want the mayor’s seat to be a regular Commission seat. In that case, commissioners would choose the mayor among their own ranks every two years.

As it stands, residents elect a mayor every two years.

The mayor controls Commission meetings and is the ceremonial face of the city but doesn’t have any more voting power than other commissioners. The city manager handles the city’s daily operations and is responsible for implementing policies set by the Commission.

On Monday, commissioners voted 3-2 to have the city attorney bring back the ordinance on first reading in November, with Mayor Tracy Upchurch and Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline dissenting.

The ordinance needs two readings and positive votes to be successful.

If the ordinance is adopted, the plan is to have the question go on the presidential preference election ballot in March, but the August primary is a backup if there’not a Republican presidential primary.

Commissioners supported having the question on a ballot in an election that will get the most turnout aside from the general election. Concerns have been raised about the general election ballot being crowded with other items.

The mayor issue came up as part of the city’s charter review. In addition to clarifying and updating other parts of the charter, the Commission is looking at more substantial issues.


That includes the mayor’s election and residency requirements for commissioners.

The Commission voted 5-0 on Monday to move to second reading an ordinance that would put another question on the ballot: whether commissioners should have to be city residents for at least a year before qualifying for election.

Commissioner John Valdes in April raised the issue of whether to change how the city handles the mayor position.

He said at the time that the city’s current method is confusing for newcomers who are familiar with cities where mayors have more power, and that “sometimes having a mayor that puts on the cloak of a big-city mayor causes turbulence that wouldn’t necessarily be there.”

Valdes made similar comments on Monday.

He supported having the mayor’s role rotate among commissioners based on seniority. But he also raised concerns about the road ahead.

“Also, it also troubles me putting it on the ballot because it will turn into a huge item with a lot of misinformation flying around and end up being divisive, probably,” he said.


Vice Mayor Leanna Freeman said the role of the mayor is a figurehead position, so the outcome of the referendum wouldn’t mean a substantive change for the city.

She said she’s heard from people who support keeping things the way they are and people who support changing things, and she said she supports letting voters make the decision.

Commissioner Roxanne Horvath said there is confusion among residents about the mayor’s role.

Sikes-Kline supported putting away the issue, and she said she’s heard from people who like things the way they are.

“Most of the time, it’s worked pretty well for us,” she said.

Upchurch said people already decided the issue in the 1980s after the Commission “unilaterally changed the mayor.”

“That’s how we got here, when Ramelle Petroglou, our first woman mayor, was removed late at night in a Commission meeting. That was the event that caused us to go to an elected mayor,” he said.

He said he thought the city should remove the item from consideration and move on.

“I don’t know what problem we’re trying to fix,” he said. “I’m unaware of ... sure, have there been tumultuous times under an elected mayor? Absolutely. Have there been tumultuous times under appointed mayors? Absolutely. Will there be in the future? Of course there will be.”

READ IT HERE: I filed USDOJ Voting Rights Act Complaint Against City of St. Augustine, Florida, whose Commissioners voted 3-2 to move toward erasing citizen voting rights to vote for Mayor

$
0
0
I've filed a complaint with USDOJ on Fifteemth Amendment and Voting Rights issues, none researched by the itty-bitty city's maladroit City Attorney, ISABELLE CHRISTINE LOPEZ, or her assistant, JOHN CARY, thus empowering lawbreaking (again by Commissioners). 

Kudos to Mayor Tracy Upchurch and Commissioner Nancy Sikes-Kline for their votes. Come speak out on November 12, 2019 and talk to Commissioners JOHN OTHA VALDES, LEANNA SOPHIA AMARU FREEMAN and the reluctant Commissioner ROXANNE HORVATH.

When faced with government wrongdoing, as we did October 28, 2019 at St. Augustine City Commission, I do not flinch. That's how God made me, my parents raised me and my mentors taught me. Read my October 29, 2019 complaint below:











-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Slavin
To: voting.section
Cc: serdelyi ; wfusco ; voakes ; rhorvath ; tupchurch ; nsikeskline ; jvaldes ; ilopez ; jcary ; jim.sutton ; stuart.korfhage ; sheldon.gardner ; sheltonhull ; georgio ; sheltond ; sam ;...
Sent: Tue, Oct 29, 2019 1:06 pm
Subject: URGENT: City of St. Augustine, Florida Commissioners vote 3-2 to move toward erasing citizen voting rights to vote for Mayor -- REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT and FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

To: Honorable U.S. Attorney General William Barr and 
Honorable Assistant Attorney General Eric S. Dreiband for Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice 
Robert F. Kennedy Justice Department Building
Washington, D.C. 

Dear General Barr and General Dreiband:
1. Please investigate current voting rights concerns about the City of St. Augustine, Florida, which the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once called "the most lawless City in America."
2. At its October 28, 2019 meeting, our St. Augustine City Commission voted 3-2 to schedule for first and second reading an ordinance that would put on a 2020 primary ballot a measure taking away citizens right to vote for Mayor.  Interim Mayor Tracy Upchurch and Commissioner Nancy SIkes-Kline dissented.  Voting for the proposal were Vice Mayor LEANNA SOPHIA AMARU FREEMAN, a lawyer, JOHN OTHA VALDES, a contractor and ROXANNE HORVATH, an architect. People in St. Augustine were first able to vote for Mayor in 1812, in Spanish colonial times.  Evisceration of that right is being proposed pursuant to a custom, usage, practice and procedure of violations of civil rights by the City of St. Augustine, Florida, a frequent defendant in federal court actions since the 1960s.  This affront to our Constitution and our democracy is proposed by JOHN OTHA VALDES, a controversial freshman City Commissioner -- earlier this year, VALDES actually suggested giving voting rights to nonresident business owners!  Watch October 28, 2019 video here, at item 7B: https://staugustinefl.swagit.com/play/10282019-861
3. Controversial St. Augustine City Commissioner JOHN OTHA VALDES' proposal to delete vested voting rights to vote for St. Augustine's Mayor was unadorned by any mature policy research by City staff.  Our unassertive City Attorney, ISABELLE CHRISTINE LOPEZ, lacks the ability to say "no" to bad ideas, including ideas that may violate the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.  Please interview Ms. LOPEZ and kindly take her deposition.   In 2015, she entertained the notion of the City filing a lawsuit for libel on behalf of one of the Commissioners, wasting staff time and resources on an illegal proposition that would have subjected the City to constitutional rights litigation under New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).  (I have shared this complaint with the City's learned defense counsel, Ms. Susan Erdelyi, from the law firm of Marks, Gray, in hopes of her educating City officials, once again).
4. Commissioner JOHN OTHA VALDES' indecent proposal is an affront to our civil and constitutional rights as Americans.  It is a stench in the nostrils of our Nation and everything that we stand for as a people.
5. St. Augustine City Attorney ISABELLE CHRISTINE LOPEZ now admits she did NO research on either the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.  Please see See response to my Open Records Request No. 2019-484, below.
6. St. Augustine City Attorney ISABELLE CHRISTINE LOPEZ did NO 15th Amendment or VRA research on VALDES' unelected Mayor proposal,.
7. No objective analysis or memo was ever provided to Commissioners, e.g., a list of all the jurisdictions in Florida with strong city managers and elected Mayors. 
8. The City of St. Augustine needs an elected Mayor as a check and balance on the power of its strong City Manager.
9.  Brian and I moved here on November 5, 1999. For 20 years, I have observed a long train of abuses by two successive City Managers, WILLIAM BARRY HARRISS and his hand-picked successor, JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E.  
10. The St. Augustine City Manager's largely unchecked power has often been responsible for lawbreaking, including repeated acts of intentional pollution, including depositing a landfill in a lake and polluting our saltwater marsh with semi-treated sewage effluent, resulting in fines and consent decrees. 
11. The City of St, Augustine abused a long series of annexations to dilute minority voting strength from 25% to less than 12%, 1964-date.
12. Elimination of an elected Mayor position for a temporary, rotating Mayor would virtually eliminate the possibility of African-Americans ever electing a Mayor here.
13. Thus, USDOJ must initiate a civil, criminal and administrative investigation of the City of St. Augustine for violations of the Voting Rights Act and 15th Amendment, just as it did in United States v. City of Memphis, Tennessee. (This litigation was after my suggestion to the USDOJ Civil Rights Division career deputy at an ABA meeting in Denver, Colorado in February 1989).
14.  Please direct the FBI and U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida to monitor the November 12, 2019 St. Augustine City Commission meeting for the first reading of this illegal, unconstitutional proposal.  If the St. Augustine, Florida City Commission does not come to its senses at its November 12, 2019 meeting (the day after Veterans' Day), please bring an action in federal court seeking injunctive relief on behalf  of the people of the United States of America, to right the wrongs wreaked by three (3) misguided City Commissioners.
Let justice be done. 
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Ed Slavin
904-377-4998
www.cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com
www.edslavin.com



-----Original Message-----
From: St. Augustine Public Records
To: Ed Slavin
Sent: Tue, Oct 29, 2019 9:31 am
Subject: RE: Request No. 2019-484: 15th Amendment and VRA research on unelected Mayor propsoal

The City of St. Augustine does not posses any documents related to your public record request.
From: Ed Slavin  
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 1:20 AM
To: Darlene Galambos ; John Valdes ; Isabelle Lopez ; John M. Cary ; Leanna Freeman ; Nancy Sikes-Kline ; Roxanne Horvath ; John Regan ; Lucy Fountain ; Meredith Breidenstein
Cc: gardner@aug.com; nancyshaver77@gmail.com; news@historiccity.com; news@actionnewsjax.com; jessica.clark@firstcoastnews.com; aschindler@firstcoastnews.com; jim.sutton@staugustine.com; cottrell.sf@gmail.com; sheldon.gardner@staugustine.com; stuart.korfhage@staugustine.com
Subject: Request No. 2019-484: 15th Amendment and VRA research on unelected Mayor propsoal
Dear Ms. Galambos, et al.:
Please send me: 
  1. any legal research on the 15th Amendment and Voting Rights Act and the notion of erasing the right of people to elect the St. Augustine Mayor, along with 
  2. any objective memos on the subject, or 
  3. any actual complaints leading to the notion.
Thank you.
With kindest regards, I am,

City of St. Augustine Establishment Hates Reform, Demands to Make Mayor a "Team Player," and No Longer Elected by People. This is Freighted With Anti-Reform Agenda, Animus.

$
0
0




1. It is equivalent to a confession when misguided people who would erase your rights to vote for Mayor of St. Augustine prattle on about the need to end "turbulence" and pick a "team player" for Mayor.
2. "Team player" is not a bona fide occupational qualification for elected officials.  The term "team player" is deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate, implying as it does keeping secrets.  When President RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON ordered the firing of Pentagon cost analyst A. Ernest Fitzgerald in retaliation for his truthful Congressional testimony and candid answers about C-5A cargo aircraft cost overruns, President NIXON gave tape-recorded orders to fire Mr. Fitzgerald because he was not a "team player."  Case law is replete with examples of "team players" participating in and covering up crimes.  We don't want any of our elected officials to be "team players."  We want honest representation, not an oath of omertà.
3. Corrupt officials have often stigmatized people disclosing wrongdoing as "not team players," or worse. 
4. On March 13, 2006, after I reported to EPA and DEP our City government for dumping a landfill in a lake, Vice Mayor SUSAN BURK, Commissioners DONALD CRICHLOW, JOSEPH BOLES and ERROL JONES publicly proclaimed their undying admiration of  HARRISS, with the four defending him against what they claimed were my unwarranted criticisms. (Our City eventually paid a fine of more than $31,000 for the illegal dumping of 40,000 cubic yards of contaminated solid waste in our Old City Reservoir, a coquina pit  lake that former EPA Region 4 Regional Administrator John Henry Hankinson told me was "an open sore going straight down to our aquifer and groundwater"). Then and there, on March 13, 2006, Commissioner BOLES (later that year elected to the first of four terms as our Mayor) said regarding my illegal dumping questions, without irony, that he was "tired" of me "trashing" City Manager WILLIAM BARRY HARRISS.  I was lambasted by BURK as a "disgruntled citizen," (e.g. for asking questions about pollution of the Old City Reservoir).  I wear their scorn as a badge of honor: the consent decree speaks for itself -- the City was wrong and never apologized for its chilling our free speech rights and winking at criminal wrongdoing.  (Does being the City of St. Augustine mean "never having to say you're sorry?"
5. History repeats itself, as Commissioner LEANNA FREEMAN (ex-partner of BURK's in a law firm that was known as "FREEMAN & BURK") moves to take away your right to vote for Mayor.  FREEMAN looks at the ceiling when I speak to Commissioners, yawns without covering her mouth when other Commissioners speak, showed her rudeness toward Mayor Nancy Shaver, and helped create a hostile working environment, ending in Mayor Shaver's stroke and resignation.
6. Of course, this country was founded by "disgruntled citizens."  Few of us are "full gruntled," in the words of the late Andy Rooney. BURK's abusive use of the adjective "disgruntled" is a common semantic tactic of people retaliating against protected activity.  
7. St. Augustine City Commissioners have in the past publicly used words like "team player" as a complement, while insisting that their City Managers are doing a perfect job. In Abrams v. Baylor College of Medicine, 581 F.Supp. 1570, 1574 (S.D. Texas 1984), affirmed in relevant part, 805 F.2d 528 (5th Cir. 1986), the Court rejected pretexts for discrimination in refusing to send Jewish physicians to a program in Saudi Arabia, including a "team player" requirement. A "team player" does not blow the whistle or criticize management. "Team player" is freighted with the speech-chilling implication that one is willing to "go along to get along," say what management wants to hear, and do what one is told by managers, no matter what the ethics or legality of the situation. In the political corruption case of United States v. Salvatti, 451 F.Supp. 195, 197-98 (E.D. Pa. 1978), one witness testified that "when she complained to the Mayor about Mr. Carroll's pressure, and advised him that the proposed payment to the Sylks would be totally improper and probably illegal, the Mayor chided her for not being a team player." See also Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 384 F.Supp. 688,697n7 (D.D.C. 1974), affirmed, 553 F.2d 220, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1977), reversedHarlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (remarks of President Nixon et al. on need to fire Department of Defense whistleblower A. Ernest Fitzgerald after he testified before Congress on C-5A transport cost overruns); Broderick v. Ruder, 685 F.Supp. 1269 (D.D.C. 1988)(sexual harassment at Securities and Exchange Commission); Tomsic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 85 F.3d 1472, 1474 (10th Cir. 1996); Geddes v. Benefits Review Board, 735 F.2d 1412, 1416, 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority considered workers' compensation claimant not a "team player"); Davis v. California, 1996 WL 271001 (E.D.Cal.1996); Schloesser v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 766 F.Supp. 984 (D. Kansas 1991); Stradford v. Rockwell International, 48 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 697, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,828,1988 WL 159939 (S.D.Ohio); Seymour M. Hersh, "Annals of National Security: The Intelligence Gap -- How the digital age left our spies out in the cold," The New Yorker, December 6, 1999 at 58, 62.
8.  Thus, in 2015, I objected to $1950 spent on "training" of Commissioners in how to be "team players" to be insulting, unnecessary, contrary to the genius of a free people and yet another example of waste, fraud and abuse in City Hall.  
9. Thus, in 2019, I oppose demands to erase your right to vote for Mayor. 
10. Tell City Hall to increase accountability, not eliminate it.  Come speak on November 12, 2019. City Commission meets at 5 PM at City Hall, 75 King Street, Commission meeting room, 1st Floor.  Decisions are made by people who show up. Show up in favor of your voting rights.










SCARE TACTICS: City Manager John Regan's Halloween Attacks on Ethics Complainants --- Unethical?

$
0
0

The City of St. Augustine was conned on its purchase of swampland at 91-93 Coquina. The Florida Ethics Commission may have been conned, too. The reflexive rodomontade emitted by St. Augustine City Manager JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E. and Public Works Director MICHAEL G. CULLUM, P.E. -- freighted with animus, unethical and retaliatory? You tell me. 

Waiting on documents, but what I've read suggests that some more thin baloney was sliced in Tallahassee, by Republicans, to benefit Republicans, in that mythical beast they call the Florida Ethics Commission. What do you reckon?

Shockingly one-sided, shallow coverage in the St. Augustine Record today (below) on dismissal of ethics complaints against City officials.  


It's hard to discuss it intelligently when the Record breaches its duty to investigate rather than serve as amanuensis. I've requested all the state files. 


But I will say: attacking two ethics complainants in the news media is unethical.  That's what City Manager JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E. and Public Works Director MICHAEL G. CULLUM, P.E. have just done, in the Halloween 2019 edition of the St. Augustine Record, in lurid hostile page one quotes.  That's wrong.

In contrast, there's no such quote from Vice Mayor LEANNA FREEMAN, who touted her bona fides as an ethical lawyer, but cast no aspersions (or asparagus) in the direction of former Commission election opponent Ms. Susan W. Rathbone.

From the State AG's office memo at the link in the Record article, it appears some thin baloney was sliced to fix the case involving 91-93 Coquina land purchase. 

It looks like the case turned on whether there was a benefit to FREEMAN and REGAN property values from the purchase.  

An incurious State AG advocate relied on an academic journal article, not actual appraisals of the prospective alleged increase in value of City Commissioner LEANNA FREEMAN and City Manager JOHN REGAN from creating the passive park at 91-93 Coquina.

The Record quotes from two louche liars, REGAN and CULLUM, insulting Ms. Susan W. Rathbone, et al. for filing complaints, calling them "frivolous" and "politically motivated."

REGAN until recently brandished his lifelong Republican Party affiliations on the City's website.  He's supposed to be nonpartisan. 

JOHN PATRICK REGAN's rude reflexive rodomontade, his TRUMPlike, complaint -- the complaints were "politically motivated" -- shows his narcissism, his delusions of adequacy and his lack of respect for the process.  

Likewise, MICHAEL G. CULLUM's frivolous accusation of frivolity shows he lacks character.

Like two drunken fratboys high-fiving one another after a football game, the nasty mean-spirited, unethical CULLUM/REGAN quotes dispel any notion that the City Manager does not need oversight or checks and balances.'


These two Republican political party animals have shot their mouths off enough.  We deserve facts,  to fury, open debate, not orotund prevarications about a half-million dollar wasted on swampland.

Watching MIKE CULLUM try to be diplomatic is like watching a duck try to fornicate with a football, and just as entertaining.  This low-ethics individual threatened me publicly over questions on the 91-93 Coquina swampland purchase, asking me to "step outside" after I asked a few tough questions he and his satellite, Assistant Public Works Director TODD GRANT, P.G. refused to answer on-camera January 31, 2019 at a pre-meeting before the secretive "Keeping History Above Water" conference. 

Left to their own devices, do you reckon these two boorish Gator-goobers would get the City of St. Augustine into other peccadilloes, waste, fraud, abuse, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, flummery, dupery and nincompoopery?

Perhaps. 

RFK said, "it is not enough to allow dissent, we must demand it, for there is much to dissent from." We demand:

  • data, not derision; 
  • ethics, not excuses and evasions;
  • good science, not "dry-labbing" 
  • sound engineering, not lies and "warm fizzes."


I've filed Open Records requests for data the Record's shallow reporting denies us.

More later.












From The St. Augustine Record:



Ethics complaints dismissed against St. Augustine officials
By Sheldon Gardner
Posted Oct 30, 2019 at 6:45 PM
Updated Oct 30, 2019 at 7:02 PM

The Florida Commission on Ethics recently found no probable cause that ethics laws were violated after investigating complaints against three city officials, according to a news release from the ethics commission.

The complaints were filed against City Manager John Regan, Public Works Director Mike Cullum and Commissioner Leanna Freeman.

The complaint filed against Regan focuses on a city bayfront project and a tour involving a firm employing Michelle Regan, John Regan’s daughter.

Matthews Design Group supervised the project and used REG Architects as a subcontractor. REG hired as a subcontractor Cotleur & Hearing landscaping company, where Michelle Regan worked as a landscape architect and provided some work on the bayfront project.

During an investigation by the Florida Ethics Commission, Regan said he didn’t direct the city subcontractor to hire the firm.

Related content











xxxx
Related content
18007 Advocate’s Recommendation.pdf
18007 Public Report.pdf
19021 Advocate’s Recommendation.pdf


REG President Rick Gonzalez said that neither Regan nor Matthews Design Group suggested Cotleur and Hearing for the project, and that it was his decision.

After Regan learned of the firm’s involvement, he eventually asked for REG to remove Cotleur and Hearing from the project because ”‘the optics weren’t good,’” according to the investigation. He was advised by the city attorney, who followed up with an Ethics Commission attorney to confirm, that the arrangement appeared to not violate ethics laws.

He also disclosed the relationship at a March 2015 Commission meeting.

Another focus of the complaint was that Regan led a tour of the city with officials from Cotleur & Hearing, including his daughter, and others. Regan said he gave the tour because the firm had a client who was interested in landscape designs used by the city, and he said the the tour wasn’t related to any city project, according to investigation documents.

According to the documents, Regan “said he believed leading the tour was a recruiting tool that could generate future development in the City of St. Augustine and allow him to make business connections.”

Regan said it is a routine thing to provide tours to developers and others.

Another complaint focuses on the city’s purchase of 91 and 93 Coquina Ave. in Davis Shores.

Complaints say that Regan and Cullum provided misinformation to the Commission about purchasing the land and that the purchase would have benefited Regan and Freeman because they live in the area. Everyone denied there was any intent to provide misinformation or benefit any public official.

The information presented to the Commission was that purchasing the property would provide access to make flooding improvements and that a property owner had told the city to leave when crews tried to make improvements.

But after speaking with the Commission, Regan learned that the person was not a property owner. Also, he learned the city had an easement over a creek to do work at one point, though it had disappeared because of erosion.


The investigation found that Freeman and Regan wouldn’t receive a property value increase and that there was no probable cause behind the complaints against them and Cullum.

St. Augustine resident Susan Rathbone made the complaints about the Coquina Avenue purchase, and attorney Zachery Kellery, of Palatka, filed the complaint about the contract issue and city tour involving Regan and Regan’s daughter.

In an email to The Record on Wednesday, Rathbone stood by her complaints and wrote that she believes the officials’ actions diminished public confidence.

“I put my trust in the justice system, and this time, was let down, as they claimed their actions did not violate any law over which the Ethics Commission has jurisdiction,” Rathbone wrote. “This will not keep me from trying to hold our public servants accountable in the future.”

Kellery couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on Wednesday afternoon.

On Wednesday, Regan described the complaints against him, Freeman and Cullum as “politically motivated.”

“I’m just glad that the state of Florida did a thorough investigation,” Regan said.


Freeman said Wednesday that she’s been practicing law in Florida since 1996 and has never had a bar complaint.

“Personally, I very much value our ethics rules and responsibilities, and they are a very important part of my professional life,” she said.

Cullum said residents are welcome to ask city officials questions if they have concerns.

“I want to encourage residents to touch base ... with city staff to talk about the facts of projects before they decide to file a baseless and frivolous ethics charges in the future,” he said.

Trump, Lifelong New Yorker, Declares Himself a Resident of Florida. (NY TIMES)

$
0
0
There goes the neighborhood.

Fraudfeasors and other criminals since ALPHONSE GABRIEL "AL" CAPONE have relocated to South Florida because of its favorable legal environment.

This "declaration of domicile" is possibly related to DONALD JOHN TRUMP's criminal fraud problems in NYC, perhaps, a desire to avail himself of Florida's homestead laws?






Trump, Lifelong New Yorker, Declares Himself a Resident of Florida

The president filed a “declaration of domicile” last month saying that his property in Palm Beach will be his permanent residence.

Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times




Maggie Haberman
By Maggie Haberman
Oct. 31, 2019
Updated 8:59 p.m. ET

He came of age in Queens, built Trump Tower, starred in “The Apprentice,” bankrupted his businesses six times, and drew cheering crowds and angry protesters to Fifth Avenue after his election. Through it all, President Trump — rich, bombastic and to many Americans the epitome of a New Yorker — was intertwined with the city he called his lifelong home.

No longer.

In late September, Mr. Trump changed his primary residence from Manhattan to Palm Beach, Fla., according to documents filed with the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Melania Trump, the first lady, also changed her residence to Palm Beach in an identical document.

Each of the Trumps filed a “declaration of domicile” saying that the Mar-a-Lago Club, Mr. Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, will be their permanent residence.

“If I maintain another place or places of abode in some other state or states, I hereby declare that my above-described residence and abode in the State of Florida constitutes my predominant and principal home, and I intend to continue it permanently as such,” reads the document that Mr. Trump filed.


“I formerly resided at 721 Fifth Avenue,” the document says, referring to Trump Tower, which has been his primary residence since he moved into the skyscraper off 57th Street in Midtown Manhattan in 1983.

An attachment lists his “other places of abode” as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the address for the White House, and his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where he spends warm-weather weekends and a few weeks every summer.

Since becoming president, Mr. Trump has spent 99 days at Mar-a-Lago compared with 20 days at Trump Tower, according to NBC News. Although Mr. Trump ran his presidential transition from Trump Tower and some aides had expected him to spend many weekends there in his Louis XIV-style triplex on the 58th floor, his presence created traffic headaches for New Yorkers and logistical and security challenges for the Secret Service.

White House officials declined to say why Mr. Trump changed his primary residence, but a person close to the president said the reasons were primarily for tax purposes.

The person also said that Mr. Trump, who is deeply unpopular in New York, was infuriated by a subpoena filed by Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, seeking the president’s tax returns, which Mr. Trump has not released. Changing his residence to Florida is not expected to have any effect on Mr. Vance’s case, which Mr. Trump has sought to thwart with a federal lawsuit.

It was unclear how much time he would spend in New York in the future or if he would keep his triplex at the top of Trump Tower. Under New York law, if he spends more than 184 days a year there, he will have to pay state income taxes.

In a statement after The New York Times reported on Mr. Trump’s move, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said: “Good riddance. It’s not like Mr. Trump paid taxes here anyway. He’s all yours, Florida.”

Florida, which does not have a state income tax or inheritance tax, has long been a place for the wealthy to escape the higher taxes of the Northeast.

Changing his primary residence could carry significant tax implications for Mr. Trump, although how much is unclear without seeing his returns. But in changing his residence to Florida, he would most likely be avoiding New York State’s top tax rate of nearly 9 percent and New York City’s top rate of nearly 4 percent.

Leaving New York could also save money for Mr. Trump’s heirs at the time of his death. New York imposes a top estate tax rate of 16 percent for estates larger than $10.1 million.

In an article in the Florida Bar Journal in January 2019, three lawyers with Proskauer Rose wrote about the recent wave of people moving from New York to Florida in “large part” because of the repeal of the state and local tax deduction that was a byproduct of the tax bill that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017.

“While it may be easy enough for an individual to buy a home in Florida and move, the act of physically moving to Florida is only part of the battle,” the three wrote.

“The real challenge is proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is no longer a New York domiciliary and does not qualify as a New York statutory resident for New York State income tax purposes,” they said.

Beyond taxes, Mr. Trump has repeatedly signaled the importance of Florida to his 2020 re-election effort and kicked off his campaign with a rally in Orlando. And he has often mentioned Mar-a-Lago when promoting his ties to the state.

In the longer term, the change could speak to Mr. Trump’s plans after his presidency ends. It has been an open question whether he would ever return full time to New York City.

In addition, Secret Service protection for Mr. Trump after his presidency ends would continue to snarl traffic in Midtown Manhattan — as would tourists and potential protests in front of Trump Tower — particularly if Mr. Trump chose to live there full time.

David Pratt, a partner at Proskauer Rose and one of the authors of the Florida Bar Journal piece, said Mr. Trump had probably changed his primary residence for the same reason other people have left New York.

“What he’s doing is not any different than what a lot of individuals from New York are doing, and they’re becoming Florida residents,” Mr. Pratt said.

Mr. Trump is due to travel to New York City this weekend for an event at Madison Square Garden, the rare instance of him visiting when he has no fund-raiser or official event scheduled. He is due to spend Saturday night at Trump Tower.

Since he became president, Mar-a-Lago remains Mr. Trump’s favored retreat. He has a residence on the grounds, enjoys easy access to one of his nearby golf clubs, entertains foreign visitors like Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan and also plays host to a regular cast of visitors and members.

Still, Manhattan has been like Oz to him.

“I believed, perhaps to an irrational degree, that Manhattan was always going to be the best place to live — the center of the world,” Mr. Trump wrote in his book The Art of the Deal.”

Jim Tankersley contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.


"MOVING FROM NEW YORK TO FLORIDA: PERFECTING DOMICILE" (Florida Bar Journal)

$
0
0
This article by three Proskauer Rose lawyers is from the January 2019 Florida Bar Journal, and cited in the October 31, 2019 New York Times article concerning the abrupt change of domicile filed by President* DONALD JOHN TRUMP.

Quo vobis videtor?


(Latin for, "What do y'all reckon?")



MOVING FROM NEW YORK TO FLORIDA: PERFECTING DOMICILE

  Tax
Recently, due in large part to the effective repeal of the state and local tax deduction (a/k/a the SALT deduction),1 New York domiciliaries have become increasingly interested in changing their domicile from New York to Florida. While it may be easy enough for an individual to buy a home in Florida and move, the act of physically moving to Florida is only part of the battle. The real challenge is proving by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is no longer a New York domiciliary and does not qualify as a New York statutory resident for New York State income tax purposes. This article explains the concept of domicile and the New York statutory resident test, and highlights the actions needed to effectively change domicile from New York to Florida.
Concept of Domicile
An individual may decide to change domicile from New York to Florida for various reasons, including: personal reasons, such as proximity to family, retirement, health issues, new job or a change in climate; tax reasons, such as moving from a state with income and estate taxes, (e.g., New York) to a state without income and estate taxes (e.g., Florida); and asset protection reasons, such as homestead and tenancy by the entirety protections in Florida. The common law defines one’s domicile as “living in [a particular] locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home… ‘[D]omicile’ requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one’s domicile.”2 The common law interpretation of domicile is subjective and, therefore, somewhat unpredictable. New York regulations provide little additional guidance, defining domicile as “the place which an individual intends to be such individual’s permanent home — the place to which such individual intends to return whenever such individual may be absent.”3
Once established, an individual’s domicile continues until moved to a new location “with a bona fide intention of making such individual’s fixed and permanent home there.”4 This echoes the common law, which was stated in Matter of Newcomb, 192 N.Y. 238, 250 (N.Y. 1908): “The existing domicile, whether of origin or selection, continues until a new one is acquired.” In Keveloh v. Carter, 699 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Florida’s domicile law was similarly summarized as:
“[a] legal residence or ‘domicile’ is the place where a person has fixed an abode with the present intention of making it his or her permanent home. Once established, a domicile continues until it is superseded by a new one. A domicile is presumed to continue, and the burden of proof ordinarily rests on the party asserting the abandonment of one domicile to demonstrate the acquisition of another.”5
The subjective nature of determining one’s domicile makes any determination of domicile a fact-intensive inquiry.6
Because the determination of an individual’s domicile is a question of fact, two or more states may conclude an individual is domiciled within their state.7 The Supreme Court has found that the Constitution does not prohibit two or more states from each concluding that an individual is a domiciliary for state tax purposes.8 Therefore, when changing domicile, it is critical to not only successfully establish the new domicile, but also to terminate or negate any factors that could lead another state from asserting domicile. Taking these steps will help insure only one state can successfully assert the individual is domiciled in that state. Failure to do so may subject the individual to taxation in multiple states.9
At common law, when it comes to changing domicile, “[m]otives are immaterial, except as they indicate intention” and actions must be “genuine.”10 New York courts have held that “a change of domicile may be made through caprice, whim, or fancy, for business, health, or pleasure, to secure a change of climate, or a change of laws, or for any reason whatever, provided there is an absolute and fixed intention to abandon one and acquire another, and the acts of the person affected confirm the intention.”11
Accordingly, there are two elements that must be established to prove a change of domicile: 1) abandonment of the old domicile and acquisition of a new domicile; and2) actual change of residence.12 It is not enough to intend to change domicile, but rather the individual must also actually reside in the new location. Similarly, residing in a new location without the intent to make it the individual’s domicile is not sufficient.13 There is no definitive period of time that an individual must be in a location to establish a domicile.14
For example, in Matter of Richard and Hazel Rubin, New York Department of Taxation, DTA No. 817675 (Oct. 30, 2003), the taxpayers sold their New York home in July 1994 and intended to move to Connecticut, but were unable to find a suitable home in Connecticut until June 1995. New York’s Tax Appeals Tribunal ruled that the taxpayers remained domiciled in New York until June 1995 when they closed on their Connecticut home even though they did not maintain a residence in New York in the interim.15 Conversely, in Matter of Patrick, New York Department of Taxation Appeals, DTA No. 826838 (June 15, 2017), the taxpayer reconnected with a high-school sweetheart and abruptly retired from his job to move to Paris to be with her, all while maintaining an apartment in New York City. Despite spending many nights in New York during the relevant period (some of which were related to medical treatment), the tax appeals tribunal determined that the taxpayer changed his domicile upon moving to Paris based on his application to become a French resident and the absence of family or “near and dear” items in New York.16
To prove a change of domicile, the asserting party must prove the change of domicile by clear and convincing evidence.17 As previously mentioned, proving domicile is a fact-intensive inquiry. New York’s Appellate Division has stated that “no single factor is controlling and the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be closely considered.”18 In Matter of Rudolph (Deceased) & Loretta Zapka, New York Department of Taxation Appeals, DTA No. 804111 (June 22, 1989), the taxpayers argued they changed their domicile from New York to Florida, but they had strong ties to both New York and Florida. New York’s Tax Appeals Tribunal stated that “[t]he mere fact that persuasive arguments can be made from the facts in support of both Florida and New York as petitioners’ domicile indicates that they have not clearly and convincingly evidenced an intent to change their New York domicile.”19 Accordingly, establishing strong ties in a new location may not be sufficient evidence of intent if strong ties are continued with the old domicile.
Therefore, an individual wishing to change domicile should take a number of steps to help prove the change by clear and convincing evidence. To evidence the intent necessary to change domicile from New York to Florida, an individual should take the following steps:
• File a “Declaration of Domicile” in the office of the circuit court in the county of residence and file a copy or a “Declaration of Non-Domicile” with New York.
• Sign a new will and other estate planning documents to ensure such documents comport with and are governed by Florida law. In addition, the will should recite that the individual is a resident of Florida.
• Register to vote in Florida and vote as soon as eligible in all elections. The voter’s registration in New York should also be cancelled.
• Own or lease and occupy a dwelling in Florida. While not necessary, it is helpful if the individual can sell, gift, or rent the home located in New York. Any residential lease in Florida should be for at least 12 months to avoid any inference that he or she is merely a seasonal resident and not a permanent resident of Florida.
• With respect to the Florida property, apply for a homestead exemption afforded only to residents of Florida.20
• Open bank accounts and safe deposit boxes in a bank in Florida. This change should be reflected on account statements, as well as on checks and credit cards.
• Register automobiles, airplanes, and boats in Florida and obtain an “unrestricted” Florida driver’s license as well as a Florida boater’s license (if applicable).
• File federal income tax returns with the IRS in the Atlanta Service Center using the individual’s Florida address, and file a final individual income tax return in New York using the new Florida address on the return.
• Change address on insurance policies to the individual’s Florida address.
• Change social, religious, and other national organization memberships to affiliations or branches in Florida and register as a nonresident member with such organizations in New York if possible.
• Never request any discount available only to residents of New York, such as school tuition or state senior citizen discounts.
• Ideally, all business should be transacted in Florida. Use the individual’s Florida address in email signatures, on letterhead, and in transaction documents.
• Spend as much time as possible in Florida, ideally, at least six months and a day. Individuals should keep a diary or log of the days spent in Florida. Additionally, individuals should refrain from using credit cards, bank accounts, and telephones in New York. If the individual is a member of a country club in New York, he or she should use the club in such a way that there are no questions regarding the duration of time spent in New York versus Florida.
It should be noted, however, that decisions from the Department of Taxation have stated that “certain declarations may evidence a change of domicile,” but that those declarations “are less persuasive than informal acts which demonstrate an individual’s general habit of life.”21 Accordingly, every small decision can affect an individual’s domicile.22 Therefore, individuals should even take care to relocate personal effects, like family pictures and heirlooms, to Florida, hire a Florida attorney and accountant, and use Florida health-care providers.
New York Statutory Resident Test
The concept of domicile contrasts with that of residency, as an individual may reside in multiple residences. Inherently, one cannot intend to return to each of these residences as his or her permanent home. In order to combat the subjectivity inherent to the definition of domicile, New York relies on the concept of a statutory resident to impose its income tax on such individuals. Accordingly, once an individual has changed his or her domicile from New York to Florida, it is important, for income tax reasons, to ensure that such individual does not qualify as a New York statutory resident. Similar to New York domiciliaries, New York statutory residents must report income from all sources and pay New York State income tax thereon, regardless of where the income is generated or the nature of the income.23 An individual is a New York statutory resident if he or she maintains a permanent place of abode andspends more than 183 days of the taxable year in New York, unless such individual is in active service in the armed forces of the United States.24 New York’s highest marginal tax rate is 8.82 percent, which does not include the additional income tax charged on residents of New York City, which is 3.876 percent. contrast, Florida does not have a state income tax.
An individual may be considered to be “maintaining” a residence if such individual contributes toward expenses of a residence he or she does not own but in which he or she resides. Additionally, for a residence to be a permanent place of abode it must be suitable for human habitation year round, e.g., a vacation residence that is not suitable to live in during the winter months is not a permanent place of abode.25Further, New York regulations provide that the residence must be maintained for substantially all of the taxable year, i.e., a period exceeding 11 months.26
In Gaied v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 22 N.Y.3d 592 (2014),the court analyzed the concepts of maintaining a place of abode. In this case, the individual owned and paid all expenses for a multi-family apartment on Staten Island that was within two miles of his business. He testified that he acquired the building as an investment property and to provide a residence for his elderly parents. The taxpayer insisted that he never lived at the apartment and did not keep any clothing or other personal effects there, nor did he have sleeping accommodations at the apartment. He stayed at the apartment only on occasion (at his parents’ request to attend to their medical needs) and, when doing so, he would sleep on the couch. The other two apartments in the building were leased to tenants. The court of appeals ruled in favor of the taxpayer and concluded that “for an individual to qualify as a statutory resident, there must be some basis to conclude that the dwelling was utilized as the taxpayer’s residence.”27
In addition to maintaining a permanent place of abode in New York for substantially all of the year, the individual must spend more than 183 days of the year in New York. For this purpose, spending one minute in New York constitutes a full day, unless such presence is solely for the purpose of 1) boarding a plane, ship, train, or bus for travel to a destination outside of New York state;28 2) continuing travel that started outside New York state and ends at a point outside New York state, e.g., travel from Ohio to Vermont that passes through New York;29 or 3) obtaining medical treatment other than for outpatient care.30 For purposes of calculating the 183 days, on April 12, 2018, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the New York state budget bill31 that provides that, as of 2019, all days in the year, including those while an individual is a New York domiciliary, are counted to determine if the statutory resident test is met, i.e., they count toward the 183-day requirement. New 605 of the New York tax law will read as follows:
“A resident individual means an individual…(B) who maintains a permanent place of abode in this state and spends in the aggregate more than one hundred eighty-three days of the taxable year in this state, whether or not domiciled in this state for any portion of the taxable year, unless such individual is in active service in the armed forces of the United States.”32
Domicile Audits
After changing domicile, New York may challenge the individual’s nonresident filing status for income tax purposes via an income tax audit. During an audit, three issues are examined, starting with the domicile of the individual. If it is determined that the individual is not domiciled in New York, the next issue is whether the individual is a New York statutory resident. If the individual is determined to be a New York statutory resident, the third issue is the allocation of income. The scope of the audit will be based on the facts involved.
The State of New York Department of Taxation and Finance publishes guidelines detailing New York law and regulations concerning residency and discussing audit policies and procedures. The guidelines aim to ensure uniformity and consistency in the examination of nonresident returns and are issued primarily to provide guidance to audit staff.33
In determining domicile, the guidelines require the auditor to examine two general categories: primary factors and other factors.34 There are five primary factors: the home; active business involvement; time; items “near and dear”; and family connections. If the auditor has not reached a supportable conclusion based upon the five primary factors, the auditor will examine “other” factors, including, but not limited to:35
• Citation in legal documents, such as wills, that a jurisdiction is the place of domicile.
• Address at which bills, financial statements and correspondence concerning other family business is primarily received.
• Physical location of safe deposit boxes used for family records and valuables.
• Location of auto, boat, and airplane registrations and driver’s or operator’s licenses.
• Where the individual is registered to vote and whether he or she has exercised that right.
• Possession of a New York City Parking Tax exemption.
• Telephone services at each residence, including the nature of the listing, the type of service features and activity at the location.
With respect to the first primary factor, the home, the auditor will evaluate the individual’s use and maintenance of a New York residence compared to his or her use and maintenance of the non-New York residence. The auditor will look at whether the residences are occupied or rented and the approximate values and sizes of the residences. The mere retention of a residence in New York is not, by itself, sufficient evidence to negate a change of domicile.36
With respect to active business involvement, the auditor will analyze the individual’s pattern of employment and the source of his or her compensation. In today’s electronic world, involvement in New York businesses can take place in New York or from afar. An otherwise absent person whose primary factors other than active business involvement point toward non-New York domiciliary status should not be treated as a New York domiciliary simply by reason of long-distance contacts with business activities in New York.37
In analyzing the time factor, the auditor will review the individual’s calendar and travel to determine if he or she was in New York more than 183 days. The individual’s overall living pattern will be examined including daily calendar entries, E-Z Pass and cell phone records, credit card bills, and any other documents that provide evidence of where the individual was located at any given day.38 Regarding items that are “near and dear,” the auditor will examine where an individual keeps items having significant sentimental value (e.g., family heirlooms, works of art, collections of books, stamps and coins, jewelry, and pets).39 Finally, the auditor will consider the residence of the individual’s family (spouse and children).40 The location where minor children attend school can be a critical factor.41 Because an analysis of an individual’s familial connections could be intrusive, the auditors are instructed not to request this information until the other primary factors have been evaluated.42
If, based on the factors described above, the auditor determines that the individual is not a domiciliary of the state of New York, the auditor will analyze whether the individual is a statutory resident based on the test previously discussed. Accordingly, after changing domicile from New York to Florida, it is important for an individual to document his or her location each day to have proof that they are under the 183-day limit imposed by the statutory resident test.
Conclusion
As evidenced by the discussion herein, it is a misconception that it is easy to change domicile from New York to Florida. Upon deciding to change domicile, there are many steps that should be taken to ensure that the change is respected by both New York and Florida. Taking affirmative steps to move one’s property and contacts out of New York is critical to avoiding undesired consequences, such as dual domicile treatment or taxation by New York. Additionally, after changing domicile, individuals should consult with their advisors to ensure they do not run afoul of New York’s statutory resident rule. taking these steps, individuals can help prevent a potentially painful and expensive audit process and, if an audit does occur, can be well-positioned to show that they have changed domicile away from New York.
1Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), P.L. 115-97, 11042 (the amount of the deduction for state and local taxes is limited to $10,000 (or $5,000 if married filing separately)).
Matter of Newcomb, 192 N.Y. 238, 250 (N.Y. 1908).
3 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 20, 105.20(d)(1).
4 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 20, 105.20(d)(2).
Keveloh, 699 So. 2d at 288.
Newcomb, 192 N.Y. at 250.
See Dorrance’s Estate, 163 A. 303 (Pa. 1932), cert. den., 287 U.S. 660 (1932), 288 U.S. 617 (1933).
See Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85 (1982) (same holding in the state estate tax context).
See id.see also Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1938) (wherein four states claimed that the decedent was a domiciliary of their state for state estate tax purposes).
10 Newcomb, 192 N.Y. at 251.
11 Id.
12 Aetna National Bank v. Kramer, 126 N.Y.S.2d 970 (3d Dept. 1911).
13 Bodfish v. Gallman, 378 N.Y.S.2d 138, 140 (3d Dept. 1976).
14 See State of New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Nonresident Audit Guidelines at 10 (June 2014).
15 Matter of Richard and Hazel Rubin, New York Department of Taxation, DTA No. 817675.
16 Matter of Patrick, New York Department of Taxation Appeals, DTA No. 826838.
17 Bodfish, 378 N.Y.S.2d at 140; see also St ate of New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Nonresident Audit Guidelines at 12 (June 2014).
18 Ingle v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of Dep’t of Taxation & Fin. of State, 973 N.Y.S.2d 877, 879 (3d Dept. 2013) citing Newcomb, 192 N.Y. at 250-251.
19 Matter of Rudolph (Deceased) & Loretta Zapka, New York Department of Taxation Appeals, DTA No. 804111.
20 If the individual is domiciled in Florida before January 1 of a given year and owns Florida residential property, he or she is entitled to a $50,000 reduction in the assessed value of such property for property tax purposes. Fla. Const. art. VII, 6(a). In addition, the assessed value for property tax purposes of homestead property cannot be increased by more than 3 percent annually. Fla. Const art. VII, 4(d)(1).
21 Matter of Campaniello, New York Department of Taxation Appeals, DTA No. 825354 (July 21, 2016).
22 See Ingle v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of Dep’t of Taxation & Fin. of State, 973 N.Y.S.2d 877, 879 (3d Dept. 2013) (“[N]o single factor is controlling and the unique facts and circumstances of each case must be closely considered.”).
23 See N.Y. Tax Law 612 (referring to the resident’s federal gross income); see also I.R.C. 61 (“gross income means all income from whatever source derived”).
24 N.Y. Tax Law 605(b)(1)(B).
25 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 20, 105.20(e)(1).
26 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 20, 105.20(a)(2); Nonresident Audit Guidelines, State of New York — Department of Taxation and Finance at 67-68 (June 2014).
27 Gaied, 22 N.Y.3d at 592The court remitted the matter to the Appellate Division, Third Department, with directions to remand the proceeding to the New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
28 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 20, 105.20(c); see also State of New York — Department of Taxation and Finance, Nonresident Audit Guidelines at 63 (June 2014). The guidelines provide the following examples: 1) an individual who acquires a permanent place of abode on March 15 of the taxable year and spends 184 days in New York State would not be a statutory resident since the permanent place of abode was not maintained for substantially the entire year and 2) an individual who maintains a permanent place of abode at the beginning of the year but disposes of it on October 30 of the tax year would not be a statutory resident despite spending over 183 days in New York. See id.
29 See State of New York Department of Taxation and Finance, Nonresident Audit Guidelines at 68 (June 2014).
30 Id. at 68-69. “This would include situations where an incompetent person is placed in a facility in New York, situations where the individual suffers a medical emergency while present in the state for other purposes and the patient cannot realistically be removed from the state, or a situation where an individual is confined to an institution as a result of seeking treatment in New York.”
31 Part O of Ch. 59, Laws of 2018, NY S07509-C, 2018-2019, Gen. Assem. (NY 2018).
32 Id. (emphasis added)
33 See State of New York Department of Taxation and Finance. Nonresident Audit Guidelines at 4 (June 2014), available athttps://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/2014/misc/nonresident_audit_guidelines_2014.pdf.
34 See id. at 14-41.
35 See id. at 38.
36 See id. at 15-21.
37 See id. at 23; see also id. at 22-25.
38 See id. at 25-29.
39 See id. at 29; see also id. at 29-31.
40 See id. at 32.
41 Id.
42 See id.
Photo of David PrattDAVID PRATT is chair of the Private Client Services Department of Proskauer Rose LLP and the managing partner of the firm’s Boca Raton office. 
Photo of Lindsay RehnsLINDSAY A. REHNS is senior counsel in Proskauer Rose’s Boca Raton office. 
Photo of Daniel HattenDANIEL HATTEN is an associate in Proskauer Rose’s New York office.
Tax

Long history of New Yorkers moving to St. Augustine

$
0
0
St. Augustine is blessed that when DONALD JOHN TRUMP changed his domicile, it was to South Florida.

St. Augustine has a long tradition of New Yorkers moving here and improving the gene pool, if not the level of courtliness and manners.

Ever since oil oligopolist HENRY MORRISON FLAGLER moved here to start conquering Florida as a railroader and developer, the pace of life has quickened.

Skilled workers in construction and hospitality moved here, building and staffing his hotels.

Locals would not have had the skills at the time.

As the 2020 election approaches, we welcome more New Yorkers, impatient with local political corruption here in God's country.

But just mind your manners.

You're in the South now, sweethearts, and we don't cotton to rudeness.

What do y'all reckon?




St. Johns County has several ideas for how to spend its $15 million surplus. (SAR)

$
0
0


None of these ideas increases government accountability. Wonder why?

No police body cameras, no Ombuds, no Inspector General, no lobbying registration, no ethics ordinance. Wonder why?

Nothing addressing inequality of opportunity, or inequality of access to information. Wonder why?



By Sheldon Gardner
Posted at 5:07 PM
St. Augustine Record
November 1-2, 2019

St. Johns County has several ideas for how to spend its $15 million surplus.

County staff recently completed a list of recommendations, which include building a new park and library at 4625 State Road 16 to help fill a need for services in central parts of the county, such as the World Golf Village.

Other ideas including improving access to waterways, adding sidewalks and helping beach restoration in north Ponte Vedra Beach get off the ground.

But the County Commission gets to decide what to do with the money and whether to go with all or any of the recommendations from county staff.

That discussion is scheduled for the County Commission meeting on Tuesday at the St. Johns County auditorium. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m., but the surplus discussion is scheduled for 1 p.m.

Commission Chair Paul Waldron said he hopes people will attend and give their input on what the county should do with the money.

“It’s the taxpayers’ money,” he said.

The surplus is in the General Fund Reserves, which is budgeted to have $64.2 million this fiscal year, according to a county presentation created for Tuesday’s meeting. That’s $15 million more than what the county tries to have in those reserves.

People have already been weighing in on how to spend it.


North Ponte Vedra Beach residents asked commissioners to pitch in for beach restoration there.

An official from the Fort Mose Historical Society sought money for building a representation of the original fort, “the first legally sanctioned free African-American settlement in the United States.” The fort is no longer standing, but a historical center and state park are at the site near downtown St. Augustine.

City of St. Augustine Beach officials have asked for help making improvements to Ron Parker Memorial Recreational Park and crosswalks on A1A Beach Boulevard, among other things.

When county staff sat down to put together a proposal, they had been asked by commissioners to put together a list of recommended projects that would check a number of boxes for the county and take into account recent budget decisions, according to the presentation.

The county wanted to recommend projects that would reflect goals of county master plans or the Capital Improvement Plan, could use other funding sources, such as grants, impact fees or bed tax dollars; would “have broad community support and benefits”; and would take into account project operating costs.

County staff focused on underfunded categories. Things such as fire stations, affordable housing, road and drainage, reducing the county’s debt and deferred maintenance are being worked on, according to the county.

The following are the county’s recommendations with project costs.


– Villages Regional Park, $7.7 million. $5.7 million would come from the surplus, and $2 million would come from other funding.

– Villages Regional Library, $8.3 million. $4.8 would come from the surplus, and $3.5 million would come from other funding.

– Improving waterway access, $4.6 million. Up to $1 million would come from the budget surplus, and $3.6 million would come from the other funding.

– North Ponte Vedra Beach restoration. Up to $3 million would come from the surplus. The total cost of the project isn’t known.

– New sidewalks around the county, $500,000, which would all come from the surplus.

The library and park have “broad community support” and are listed as top priorities in the county’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Library Services Master Plan, according to the presentation. The library and park should ease pressure on other county facilities.

“There’s a gap in services,” county spokesman Michael Ryan said. “If you look at the map of the county and where we currently have libraries providing services, there is a need in the World Golf Village to fill in that gap.”


Grants and impact fee funds are available for both projects.

The waterway access improvements would focus on building new boat ramps at existing facilities, improving vehicle access and adding dock space for boats.

This effort could also be helped by grants.

The county is working on plans to charge fees for parking in certain county spaces and using county boat ramps. Revenue from those programs could help fund the waterway access plans, Ryan said.

For north Ponte Vedra Beach restoration, the county’s plan is to use surplus money to bring in grant money from the state and federal government to get the project done.

Other beach projects are already moving forward for Vilano and South Ponte Vedra beaches.

The sidewalk program would build new sidewalks across the county to make conditions safer for pedestrians. The plans include filling in gaps between residential areas and providing sidewalks near schools, parks and commercial areas.

Any project that gets board support would come back to the Commission individually for approval, according to the presentation. Preliminary engineering and updated cost estimates would also be necessary.

Apple CEO Tim Cook: Being gay is ‘not a limitation, it’s God’s greatest gift’ "You can have a great life filled with joy. Gay is not a limitation," (Metro Weekly)

$
0
0







Apple CEO Tim Cook: Being gay is ‘not a limitation, it’s God’s greatest gift’

"You can have a great life filled with joy. Gay is not a limitation,"

speaker icon

tim cook, apple, gay news, metro weekly
Tim Cook at WWDC, Photo: Mike Deerkoski / Flickr
Apple CEO Tim Cook says he doesn’t regret coming out publicly in 2014, calling being gay “God’s greatest gift.”
Cook became the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company five years ago when he penned an essay discussing his sexuality.
“While I have never denied my sexuality, I haven’t publicly acknowledged it either, until now,” he wrote. “So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me.”
He reiterated that same sentiment in a recent interview with People en Español, saying that being gay is “not a limitation” and is “God’s greatest gift.”
Asked about his coming out, Cook said he has “not regretted it for one minute. Not at all.”
He noted that he had been “getting notes from kids who were struggling with their sexual orientation.”
“They were depressed. Some said [they] had suicidal thoughts. Some had been banished by their own parents and family. It weighed on me in terms of what I could do,” he continued, adding, “From there I really decided. There’s been a lot of people that came before me that made it possible for me to sit here today, and I needed to do something to help those people that were in a younger generation.”
Cook also reiterated that he ‘strongly believes’ that being gay is a gift from God.
“I think there’s many meanings behind this. One is, it was his decision, not mine,” he said. “Two, at least for me, I can only speak for myself, it gives me a level of empathy that I think is probably much higher than average because being gay or trans, you’re a minority.”
He added that he was “not saying that I understand the trials and tribulations of every minority group, because I don’t,” but said he does understand “for one of the groups. And to the degree that it helps give you a lens on how other people may feel, I think that’s a gift in and of itself.”
Cook ultimately wants LGBTQ youth to know that “life gets better.”
“[You] can have a great life filled with joy. Gay is not a limitation,” he said. “It’s a characteristic that I hope they view, like I do, that it’s God’s greatest gift.”
Th 59-year-old, who is also the leader of the first company to be worth $1 trillion, last week accepted the GLSEN Champion Award along with Oscar-winning actress Octavia Spencer.
Cook read one of the letters from LGBTQ people he mentioned during his Peopleinterview, from a 67-year-old closeted man in 2014, while accepting his award.
He dedicated the award, presented by the anti-LGBTQ bullying organization, to the letter’s author and congratulated GLSEN for its work over the past three decades, Variety reports.
“GLSEN knows well and has held as its mission for nearly 30 years, that what we learn and what we’re told to value as children can define the course of our lives,” Cook said. “If a teacher, a parent, an authority figure takes time to show kindness, to represent the great diversity of our humanity and to create space for authentic conversations when we’re young, it stays in our hearts forever and it builds better people as a result.”
In 2017, Cook affirmed that Apple — which has long publicly supported the LGBTQ community —  was “open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Read More:

Rhuaridh Marr is Metro Weekly's managing editor. He can be reached at rmarr@metroweekly.com.

Former governor Rick Scott allowed people to die by rejecting $70 million in HIV funding. He didn't want the state to accept federal money. Not even if it was being used to fight HIV. (LGBTQ Nation)

$
0
0
Vulture capitalist RICHARD LYNN SCOTT, who invoked the Fifth Amendment some 75 times and whose former company, Columbia/HCA paid some $1.6 billion for Medicare/Medicaid fraud. This evil ex-Governor is now our junior Senator from the State of Flori-DUH.  Deplorable.

From LGBTQ Nation, and The Guardian:


HEALTH AND WELLNESS

Former governor Rick Scott allowed people to die by rejecting $70 million in HIV funding

Rick Scott
Photo: Shjtu
Former Florida Governor and current U.S. Senator Rick Scott (R) refused $70 million in federal money to fight HIV/AIDS, according to an investigation.
The Guardian reports that the Scott administration forced the state health department to reject around $54 million in HIV medication rebates from 2015 to 2017. The former governor also forced two counties with high HIV transmission rates to refuse CDC grant money intended to help prevent HIV transmission with strategies like PrEP.
During his administration, Florida’s HIV epidemic spun out of control. In 2017 – after Florida was rejecting federal HIV money for years – Florida had the most new cases of HIV in the U.S., and the second most for its population out of the top 10 states, after Georgia.
“I think Rick Scott fueled the epidemic in Florida,” said Marlene LaLota, the administrator of the HIV/AIDS section of the Florida Department of Health from 2014 to 2016, who had worked for the department for decades.
“How many infections could have been prevented with that money? How many lives could have been saved? Shame on them.”
Part of Scott’s motivation was ideological. He ran for governor in 2010, promising to reject the federal Medicaid expansion passed in the Affordable Care Act. The Medicaid expansion provided states with funding for health care for people with low incomes, but many conservative states rejected it for ideological reasons. 
According to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the problem had two sources. First, the HIV/AIDS section could not accept more federal money because receiving new money is considered the equivalent of a budget increase, which requires legislative approval.
While the Department of Health could have requested that the Joint Legislative Budget Commission approve the new spending, LaLota said that the Scott administration blocked them from speaking to the legislature.
“Rick Scott had us all on lockdown,” she said. “It didn’t used to be like that with previous governors.”
Several lawmakers who sat on the legislative budget commission during that period told The Guardian that they never heard any requests to increase the HIV/AIDS section’s budget.
Pharmaceutical companies offered the state rebates on HIV medication for low-income recipients as part of the state’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). In 2012, the HIV bureau started reporting those rebates.
In the 2012-2013 year, Florida received around $6 million from those rebates, but that grew to over $86 million by 2017.
Under federal law, the rebate money has to be spent before the state can accept federal money under the Ryan White CARE Act. 
But because the rebates were growing while the HIV/AIDS section was banned from requesting a budget increase, they were forced to return some of that federal money: around $24 million in 2015, $29 million in 2016, and under $1 million in 2017, because in 2017 Scott ran for the Senate as a centrist and refusing federal money became less of a priority for his administration.
“I wrote a plan to end the epidemic,” said LaLota. “But we were stopped at every turn. I could not give that money away to save my life. It was so criminal and so egregious.”
In 2015, Miami and Broward Counties also applied for CDC grants for HIV prevention, which would have awarded them $7.6 million over four years and $8.7 million over three years, respectively. The money would have gone through the state Department of Health.
But before the applications went through, LaLota said that she was told that the governor’s office denied the counties permission to apply for the grants, citing the Department of Health’s lack of authority to increase its budget by receiving federal money. 
The CDC confirmed that the grant applications were rescinded.
“I was perhaps naive,” said Stephen Fallon, the executive director of an AIDS organization. “I knew that policies can be more ideological than considerate of the constituents in the state of Florida. But I didn’t assume the Scott administration would be anti–HIV funding in any way.”
“My sense is frankly that [the HIV crisis] just wasn’t a priority for Scott,” said William McColl of AIDS United. “He clearly thinks of healthcare as a profit source.”
That would be a reflection of Scott’s background. Before he was governor, he was the CEO of Columbia/HCA, “the single largest for-profit health care company in the country.”
A spokesperson for Senator Scott said that the Guardian investigation was inaccurate because “the state could only spend the money that it had the budget authority to spend.”


Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook Can Help the News Business (NY Times)

$
0
0







Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook Can Help the News Business
Advertising revenue that used to support journalism now goes to companies like mine. We have a plan to help fix that.

By Mark Zuckerberg
Mr. Zuckerberg is a co-founder and the chief executive of Facebook.
Oct. 25, 2019


Credit...Pete Marovich for The New York Times

When reporters at The Minnesota Star Tribune discovered that infant deaths had significantly increased in the state’s child care facilities, they published a series of articles that ended up driving changes in the law. They won a Pulitzer Prize in 2013 — and within months the infant mortality rate had dropped. As someone married to a pediatrician and committed to investing in solving health challenges, I found this to be a powerful example of how journalism can help us make progress on our biggest issues.

I know what it’s like to be the subject of reporting. I did my first interview at 19, and while I’ve gotten a little better at talking to journalists, people tell me I’m still not exactly a natural. Over the past 15 years, I’ve seen how the news has held Facebook accountable when we’ve made mistakes. This can be uncomfortable, but as I often tell Facebook’s employees, this kind of scrutiny is important: Facebook is part of so many people’s lives, and we have a responsibility to engage with good-faith criticism and use it to get better. Newspapers have broken important stories that have changed the way we operate, and ultimately that’s better not only for our company, but also for society.

Great journalism surfaces stories that wouldn’t have otherwise been uncovered, and it establishes the ground truth that helps us make progress on important issues. It also holds the powerful accountable. A free press is critical to a healthy democracy, and we need to support the journalists and publishers who do this critical work.

But the internet disrupted the business model for much of the news industry. When ads started moving from print newspapers to websites, the economics of news changed. Some effects have been positive. Internet services gave news outlets ways to reach new audiences, and research suggests people who get their news on social networks are exposed to a wider range of viewpoints. But breaking the link between publishers and their readers has also made it harder for the news industry to adapt financially to these changes.

For the past several years I’ve met with journalists, editors and publishers to better understand the challenges and opportunities faced by the news business. I know there’s more we can and must do to help.

We started earlier this year, with a $300 million commitment to help publishers — especially in local news — invest in building their readership and subscription models. Local newspapers have been hardest hit by the technological changes, but they can have as much impact on people’s daily lives as the major outlets do. We’re supporting local reporting through the Pulitzer Center and funding journalists who are covering underreported topics in local newsrooms.
PRIVACY PROJECT Sign up for our limited-run newsletter.
I’ve wanted to support journalism directly in our apps for a long time. But we’ve faced a dilemma trying to do more in the main News Feed because most of our community consistently tells us that they want to see more updates from their friends, family and communities, and less other content. For most people, social networks are still primarily about being social.

But over the past couple of years, we’ve started successfully building tabs outside of the main News Feed, like Marketplace for buying and selling items and Watch for videos. Even if only 10 to 20 percent of our community in the United States uses one of these tabs, that’s around 15 million to 30 million people. We’ve been working with publishers on building an experience like this for news, and on Friday we launched the result of that work: Facebook News.

For the first time, there will be a place in the Facebook app dedicated solely to high-quality news. Because people are still better at picking out the most important and highest-quality stories, the top stories in Facebook News will be curated by a team of diverse and seasoned journalists. Below that, there will be a wider selection of stories that are personalized algorithmically. Each story will have clear branding and provenance from the news outlets that published them. Publishers have told us over the years that this is particularly important.

We’ve also built tools to help publishers increase their subscribers by driving people from Facebook links to publisher websites. Publishers are able to decide when a reader sees a paywall. They control the relationship with their readers with subscription payments taking place directly on publishers’ websites. We don’t take any cut of the subscription revenue because we want as much of the revenue as possible to go toward funding quality journalism.

This model establishes a long-term financial partnership between publishers and Facebook for the first time. We know that we need to help build a stable model. Unlike other things we’ve tried in the past, this is a multiyear commitment that should give publishers the confidence to plan ahead. We now have multiyear partnerships with ABC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, The Dallas Morning News and many more publishers.

This also establishes a new product on Facebook for people who want a dedicated high-quality news experience. This will start small, but I’m optimistic that if we listen carefully to the ideas and concerns of news organizations all over the world, we can grow this over time.

Supporting quality news can also help us fight misinformation. That’s why we’re setting strict standards for publishers to be eligible to appear in Facebook News. If a publisher posts misinformation, it will no longer appear in the product.

I believe deeply in the social good that journalism provides. Today, it’s more important than ever: We need the news to scrutinize the powerful, reliably document major events and uncover new truths. This makes our society better, and I know from firsthand experience it has made our company better, too — even when it’s uncomfortable. I hope our efforts will honor the important work that journalists do and support the news industry that keeps us all informed.
Related
Opinion | Charlie Warzel
Why Will Breitbart Be Included in ‘Facebook News’?Oct. 25, 2019

Mark Zuckerberg is a co-founder and the chief executive of Facebook.

Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg -- Facebook isn’t defending free speech, it’s assaulting truth. (NY Times)

$
0
0


Credit...Merrick Morton/Columbia Pictures, via Everett Collection

Aaron Sorkin: An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook isn’t defending free speech, it’s assaulting truth.


By Aaron Sorkin
Mr. Sorkin is a playwright and screenwriter.
Oct. 31, 2019 


Mark,





Credit...Merrick Morton/Columbia Pictures, via Everett CollectionMark,

In 2010, I wrote “The Social Network” and I know you wish I hadn’t. You protested that the film was inaccurate and that Hollywood didn’t understand that some people build things just for the sake of building them. (We do understand that — we do it every day.)

I didn’t push back on your public accusation that the movie was a lie because I’d had my say in the theaters, but you and I both know that the screenplay was vetted to within an inch of its life by a team of studio lawyers with one client and one goal: Don’t get sued by Mark Zuckerberg.

It was hard not to feel the irony while I was reading excerpts from your recent speech at Georgetown University, in which you defended — on free speech grounds — Facebook’s practice of posting demonstrably false ads from political candidates. I admire your deep belief in free speech. I get a lot of use out of the First Amendment. Most important, it’s a bedrock of our democracy and it needs to be kept strong.

But this can’t possibly be the outcome you and I want, to have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together. Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our elections and our lives and our children’s lives.

Don’t say Larry Flynt. Not even Larry Flynt would say Larry Flynt. This isn’t the same as pornography, which people don’t rely upon for information. Last year, over 40 percent of Americans said they got news from Facebook. Of course the problem could be solved by those people going to a different news source, or you could decide to make Facebook a reliable source of public information.

The tagline on the artwork for “The Social Network” read, in 2010, “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.” That number sounds quaint just nine years later because one-third of the planet uses your website now.

And right now, on your website, is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son. Every square inch of that is a lie and it’s under your logo. That’s not defending free speech, Mark, that’s assaulting truth.

You and I want speech protections to make sure no one gets imprisoned or killed for saying or writing something unpopular, not to ensure that lies have unfettered access to the American electorate.

Even after the screenplay for “The Social Network” satisfied the standards of Sony’s legal department, we sent the script — as promised over a handshake — to a group of senior lieutenants at your company and invited them to give notes. (I was asked if I would change the name of Harvard University to something else and if Facebook had to be called Facebook.)
After we’d shot the movie, we arranged a private screening of an early cut for your chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg. Ms. Sandberg stood up in the middle of the screening, turned to the producers who were standing in the back of the room, and said, “How can you do this to a kid?” (You were 26 years old at the time, but all right, I get it.)

I hope your C.O.O. walks into your office, leans in (as she suggested we do in her best selling book), and says, “How can we do this to tens of millions of kids? Are we really going to run an ad that claims Kamala Harris ran dog fights out of the basement of a pizza place while Elizabeth Warren destroyed evidence that climate change is a hoax and the deep state sold meth to Rashida Tlaib and Colin Kaepernick?”

The law hasn’t been written yet — yet — that holds carriers of user-generated internet content responsible for the user-generated content they carry, just like movie studios, television networks and book, magazine and newspaper publishers. Ask Peter Thiel, who funded a series of lawsuits against Gawker, including an invasion of privacy suit that bankrupted the site and forced it to close down. (You should have Mr. Thiel’s number in your phone because he was an early investor in Facebook.)

Democrats sue three battleground states over law that GOP candidates’ names be listed first on ballot. (WaPo)

$
0
0
Sloppy reporting by The Washington Post. &nbThe Florida lawsuit was filed on May 24, 2018, not July 2019.

A hearing was held in July 2019 before the Honorable Mark E. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, in Tallahassee, in July 2019.   A decision could come soon, based upon the procedural posture and the filings on pacer.gov in  Jacobson v Ertel, 4:18cv-262. 

From The Washington Post:






Democrats sue three battleground states over law that GOP candidates’ names be listed first on ballot
By Colby Itkowitz
November 1, 2019 at 2:32 p.m. EDT
The Washington Post

Democratic organizations filed lawsuits in Georgia, Arizona and Texas on Friday saying Republicans are given an unfair advantage by being listed first on those states’ general election ballots.
The traditionally red states Democrats hope to make competitive in 2020 have slightly different rules about ballot placement, but in each case, because Republicans control the governorships, every other race from president on down is listed with the Republican candidate first.
“We know from the social science that there is something called the ‘primacy effect,’ studied across all kinds of things that have nothing to do with politics,” said Marc Elias, a Washington-based Democratic attorney. “This is putting an invisible thumb on the scale for the Republican candidate.”
Ahead of 2020, Democrats are looking at a slew of election laws they believe could tip the scale in Republicans’ favor, filing lawsuits all over the country over matters like voting access for college students and ballot order. The Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Priorities USA and states’ Democratic parties are involved in the lawsuits filed Friday.
The DNC and other party-affliated groups filed a similar lawsuit in Florida in July decrying ballot order bias they contend would give President Trump the edge in a crucial battleground state he won in 2016 by only 1.2 percentage points.
The 2018 Democratic candidates in Florida for governor and U.S. Senate lost by razor-thin margins to GOP opponents whose names were listed first, a factor Elias said may have made a difference to the outcome.
Democrats suggest it would be fairer in these states where races tend to come down to a percent or two difference that the ballot order rotate by precinct or county to avoid giving one party preferential treatment.
In Georgia, Democrat Stacey Abrams lost her race for governor in 2018 by 1.6 percentage points. In Texas, former Democratic congressman Beto O’Rourke lost his Senate race to incumbent GOP Sen. Ted Cruz by 2.6 percentage points.
The ballot placement rules, the lawsuits argue, are unconstitutional because they violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by treating “similarly-situated major-party candidates differently.”
The Democrats’ case against the law in Florida was met with resistance from state and national Republicans who argued Democrats did not have merits in the case, but merely were upset they have lost the state in recent elections.
A spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the GOP group that joined the defense of the Florida ballot order law, did not immediately respond to request for comment about the latest Democratic lawsuits.


Ethics case-fixing in Tallahassee re: Vice Mayor LEANNA FREEMAN, City Manager JOHN REGAN, and Public Works Director MICHAEL CULLUM? (HCN)

$
0
0
The oxymoronic "Florida Commission on Ethics" could not find the truth with both hands.

City Manager JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E. and wife Felicia attended the two minute and thirty one second hearing, where the case against him was dismissed.

City Public Works Director MICHAEL G. CULLUM, P.E. et ux attended the two minute and three second hearing, where the case against him was dismissed.

Commissioner LEANNA SOPHIA AMARU FREEMAN, Esq. did not attend the one minute and sixteen. second hearing where the case against her was dismissed.


They're laughing at you, good people of St, Augustine,  At the conclusion of the two minute and thirty one seconds devoted to the case of JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E.,
one of the august FEC members said when he was a young lawyer he learned, "When your ahead, shut up." (Laughter).

It isn no laughing matter.

Florida Ethics law is a joke.

The Florida Ethics Commission is a joke.

Oddly, Florida courts say F.S. 112 is penal and to be strictly construed (not remedial and to be liberally construed),

Small fines are a joke.

Pitiful excuses for investigations are a joke.

Political lobbying of FEC members is a joke.


From Historic City News:




Commission on Ethics could not find probable cause against city officials



General Counsel C. Christopher Anderson, III, Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Ethics, provided Historic City News reporters with a press release yesterday that included the official version of outcomes from a secret October 25th meeting that was not open to the public or press.
Following the “closed session” in Tallahassee, Chairman Kimberly Bonder Rezanka announced that the Ethics Commission, whose slogan is “A Public Office is a Public Trust”, acted on 23-ethics violation matters; three of which involved allegations against local, city officials in St Augustine.  
Without the benefit of a full evidentiary hearing on the multiple allegations, at least in the cases of the St Augustine city officials, the members of the commission determined that they could not find probable cause that a violation of Florida’s ethics laws had occurred.  Of all the matters heard by the Commission behind closed doors that day, only two found the existence of “probable cause”.

A North Davis Shores resident complained, through her attorney, about the actions of St. Augustine City Manager JOHN P. REGAN.  Although the allegations were reportedly considered by the Commission, no probable cause was found to believe REGAN misused his position to benefit his daughter or her employer or that he misused his position to benefit himself and a city commissioner. No probable cause was found to believe REGAN used or disclosed “inside information” for personal gain. The Commission also dismissed an allegation regarding a prohibited business relationship with a finding of no probable cause.
A self-serving quote published in The St Augustine Record and attributed to city manager Regan, crowed, “I’m just glad that the State of Florida did a thorough investigation”.  Regan’s statement may not be the truth, since the official announcement says, “As no factual investigation precedes the reviews, the Commission’s conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations made in these complaints”.

LEANNA FREEMAN
LEANNA FREEMAN, the Vice Mayor and a City Commissioner for the City of St. Augustine also came before the Commission for a probable cause hearing. Reportedly, no probable cause was found to believe she misused her position to benefit herself and the City Manager. An allegation she had a voting conflict on a measure that would inure to her special private gain or loss or to that of the City Manager also was dismissed with a finding of no probable cause.

Finally, a complaint filed against MICHAEL CULLUM, the Executive Director of Public Works for the City of St. Augustine, was dismissed; reportedly with a finding of no probable cause.  The allegation was he misused his position to misrepresent information related to a property, to benefit a City Commissioner or the City Manager.

Additionally, the Commission determined that the following complaints lacked “legal sufficiency”. Each was dismissed:
  • MARY FRANCES ERNST, Assistant State Attorney, 11th Judicial Circuit
  • JUSTIN REEP, Assistant State Attorney, 6th Judicial Circuit
  • WILLIAM W. WILHELM, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar
  • STEPHEN B. RUSSELL, Former State Attorney, 20th Judicial Circuit
  • MELODIE ANGERER, Investigator Specialist II, Department of Health
  • BIJU VARGHESE, Nurse, Seminole County Jail
  • ELIZABETH VAUGHN, School Board Member, Lee County
  • FLORENCE DEBY WEINSTEIN, City Commissioner, Madeira Beach
  • RON DESANTIS, Governor, State of Florida

In addition to Chairman Rezanka, the other members of this august commission include Daniel Brady, Ph.D. and vice-chairman, Jason David Berger, Antonio Carvajal, Glenton “Glen” Gilzean, Jr., John Grant, JoAnne Leznoff, F. Shields McManus, and William “Willie” N. Meggs.




White House official who heard Trump’s call with Ukraine leader testified that he was told to keep quiet. (WaPo)

$
0
0
This was a badge of fraud, an illegal, unconstitutional gag order in violation of 5 U.S.C. 7211, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act, which has since 1912 protected federal employee rights to communicate with Congress.   See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974).

Retaliation.  Smears.  Gag orders.  Mafia-like oaths of omertà.

That's all that DONALD JOHN TRUMP does  -- inflict illegal gag orders.

Disgusting.

Impeach.

Now.

From The Washington Post:



Vindman testifies he was 'concerned' by Trump's Ukraine call
National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman testified Oct. 29 during a closed door congressional hearing of the impeachment inquiry. (Reuters)
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that he received this instruction from John Eisenberg, the top legal adviser for the National Security Council, after White House lawyers learned July 29 that a CIA employee had anonymously raised concerns about the Trump phone call, the sources said.







The directive from Eisenberg adds to an expanding list of moves by senior White House officials to contain, if not conceal, possible evidence of Trump’s attempt to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to provide information that could be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.
The instruction to stay quiet came after White House officials had already discussed moving a rough transcript of the call into a highly classified computer server, and the instruction was delivered by Eisenberg, who would later be involved in the administration’s battle to keep an explosive whistleblower complaint about the call from being shared with Congress.
The interaction between Eisenberg and Vindman suggests there was a sense among some in the White House that Trump’s call with Zelensky was not, as the president has repeatedly claimed, “perfect.” And it threatens to undercut Trump’s argument that the expanding impeachment inquiry is politically driven.
“If this is such a perfect call, why is everybody going to these extraordinary lengths?” said a U.S. official familiar with Vindman’s testimony this week. “Why are people running immediately to the White House counsel? Why is the White House counsel telling people not to talk about it?”
The revelation, first reported Friday afternoon by Politico, comes as the impeachment inquiry is entering a new, public phase after the House voted along party lines this week to proceed with open hearings for the first time while investigating committees begin to map out articles expected to accuse Trump of abusing his power and potentially obstructing justice.
Vindman’s testimony Tuesday pointed to several actions by White House officials that could be interpreted as attempts to cover up Trump’s conduct. The top Ukraine expert at the White House, Vindman was one of several officials who listened to the Trump-Zelensky call from the White House situation room.
He told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. Vindman said he relayed these concerns to Eisenberg within hours of the phone call, according to the people familiar with Vindman’s testimony who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closed-door testimony.
While meeting with Eisenberg, Vindman said he heard the legal adviser turn to another attorney in the room and propose steps to restrict access to the rough transcript — a move described in the whistleblower report as an attempt to “lock down” what lawmakers now consider the most damaging piece of evidence about Trump’s intent and conduct.
Vindman also testified that the transcript failed to capture several potentially important words or phrases, including a reference by Zelensky to a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, that had employed Biden’s son and that Trump wanted investigated. Vindman said he sought to correct the transcript but that his suggestions were not incorporated.
New details from Vindman’s testimony also shed light on other aspects of the tense aftermath of the call inside the White House. The NSC aide said that Eisenberg approached him several days after the call and said that a CIA employee had raised internal concerns about the call, and that the agency’s top lawyer had relayed those concerns to the White House, people familiar with the testimony said.
Eisenberg asked Vindman whether Vindman had spoken to other officials about his concerns, and then instructed him not to have any further conversations about the matter, the people said.
But by that point, Vindman had already done so, according to his testimony, in which he disclosed that he had spoken to at least two “interagency peers,” meaning officials in other positions beyond the White House who also closely followed Ukraine issues.
Vindman did not reveal in his testimony who those other officials were.
The CIA employee who went on to file a whistleblower complaint also supplied a memo he had made for his own records commemorating a July 26 conversation with a White House official about the Trump-Zelensky call.
The White House official had “listened to the entirety of the phone call” and was “visibly shaken by what had transpired,” the CIA employee wrote. The official described the call as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security.”
In his statement to lawmakers this week, Vindman said, “I do not know who the whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate.”
Vindman also testified this week that the official record and rough transcript of the call included an inexplicable change. A vague eight-word phrase was added and attributed to Zelensky that the foreign leader never said. The specific word that Zelensky did say was omitted from the official record: “Burisma,” the Ukrainian company that employed Biden’s son Hunter. In its place, the official transcript used this instead: “the company that you mentioned in this issue.”
The reason for the insertion of a potentially fabricated phrase, which has not been previously reported, is unknown. Some argue that the transcribers simply misunderstood or missed the word but used a generic description. But it could be helpful to the president’s claim that he did not engage in a quid pro quo.
Zelensky mentioning Burisma by name holds significance, Vindman told lawmakers. It suggested the Ukrainian leader knew in advance of the call that the American president was seeking an investigation of his Democratic rival before Trump would agree to meet with Zelensky.
Vindman testified that he tried to get the rough transcript corrected to add the word “Burisma” and to match his notes of the call, but learned later that he was unsuccessful. He told lawmakers he doesn’t know the reason, nor does he assume there were nefarious motives. Moving the record of the call to a separate secure server interrupted the normal process for handling a review of the transcript for a president’s calls with a head of state.
A senior White House official sought to persuade impeachment investigators this week that there was a more benign explanation for the transfer of the call transcript to the highly classified server.
Timothy Morrison, a senior NSC official responsible for policy on Russia and Ukraine, testified that the call record had been moved to a classified system, known as NICE, by mistake after subordinates were instructed to restrict access to the file, according to two people familiar with Morrison’s account, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closed-door testimony.
Morrison’s account was that “nobody actually intended” for those aides to put the file in NICE and that “the decision to do so was widely seen as a mistake” inside the White House, said an official familiar with Morrison’s testimony. Presidential call records are customarily handled in a separate computer system that also has mechanisms for restricting access.
The official said that investigators have not ruled out Morrison’s version of events, but that it wouldn’t alter the overriding impression from witnesses that White House officials “recognized that [the call] was problematic for a variety of reasons and that it would therefore not be good for the details to leak.”Vindman’s interactions with Eisenberg about the presidential call continued to be of keen interest to House investigators. On Wednesday, the day after Vindman’s testimony, the House impeachment committees announced they had asked Eisenberg, the legal adviser to the National Security Council, and his fellow White House lawyer, Mike Ellis, to testify.
Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

How Matt Gaetz Used Daddy’s Money to Become Trump’s Favorite Congressman. (Mother Jones Magazine)

$
0
0
Third generation politician who chose demagoguery, not principle, embarrassing even his own father. Smacked ass "BABY GAETZ," MATTHEW LOUIS GAETZ, II, born May 7, 1982, is the kind of sycophant only a Trumper would like. Dangerous man. According to Wikipedia, "Gaetz grew up in a house that was used in The Truman Show, a film about a man who is always on television. As of 2018, his parents still live in that house, in Seaside, Florida. A sign on their white picket fence says 'THE TRUMAN HOUSE'," citing Dan Zak, "Rep. Matt Gaetz wants you to know who he is, and his plan is working"Washington Post  (February 20, 2018) Retrieved October 24, 2019.






How Matt Gaetz Used Daddy’s Money to Become Trump’s Favorite Congressman

Like the president, the Florida Republican rode family connections, unorthodox real estate deals, and trolling to political fame.

Stephanie Mencimer
Mother Jones
September/October 2019 Issue


What’s the benefit of being the president’s most sycophantic fanboy in Congress? If you ask the office of Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from the Florida Panhandle, what the congressman’s unquestioning defense of Donald Trump has brought his district, you will receive a list titled “President Trump Wins for FL-01.” Among the 17 items:
“President Trump says Rep. Gaetz is ‘handsome, going places…fantastic’ in Fort Myers, Florida rally.”

President Trump holds rally in Pensacola, FL with Matt Gaetz.”
“President Trump calls Rep. Gaetz ‘an absolute warrior’ in live Fox News interview.”
“President Trump endorses Gaetz in the Republican primary calling him ‘one of the finest and most talented people in Congress.’”



You can also listen to Stephanie Mencimer’s story read aloud:
For more articles read aloud: download the Audm iPhone app.


Flattery in Trumpworld is a two-way street, and Gaetz, 37, has earned a reputation for becoming one of the party’s highest-profile members by cheerleading for the president and emulating his public bullying and trolling. Gaetz seems to spend more time on Fox News than in congressional committee rooms, and when he does legislate, it’s sometimes for show. After Trump mocked the House Intelligence Committee chair, one of his chief antagonists, as “little pencil-­neck Adam Schiff,” Gaetz went on Tucker Carlson’s show to announce a resolution to boot the California Democrat off the committee. Gaetz called it the Preventing Extreme Negli­gence with Classified Information Licenses Act, or PENCIL Act.
The suck-up beat comes with risks for Gaetz: covering for Trump’s lies, contradictinghimself, looking bad in history books, getting ratioed on Twitter. In June, a constituent pelted him with an unidentified red beverage. But there are upsides: free rides on Air Force One. Compliments from Melania. Invaluable campaign endorsements in Florida’s most Republican district. And, most important, TV appearances.
“Matt Gaetz is living proof that Veep was less parody and more prophecy,” says Steve Schmidt, a veteran Republican political strategist and a Trump critic. “To some degree, he’s a character in the grandest reality show of all. He exists at the hinge of reality and alternate reality.”


Gaetz is often described as Trump’s protégé, someone who’s become a Fox News staple not just by sucking up to the president but by trying to out-Trump Trump with insults hurled at Democrats and anyone else with the temerity to challenge the president. But Gaetz hasn’t simply been copying the president; he was cultivating a Trumplike persona long before anyone considered the possibility of a President Trump. And the two men share more than just a love of playground taunts. Gaetz’s political ascent was also fueled by a rich father who paved his way, and a series of unorthodox financial maneuvers.
The meanest member of Congress hails from a town called Niceville, a sleepy enclave of about 15,000 nestled on Choctaw­hatchee Bay, just off the Gulf of Mexico. When Gaetz was growing up, it was 90 percent white, solidly middle class, and best known for hosting the Boggy Bayou Mullet Festival—in honor of the plentiful local fish, not the hairdo. The Gaetzes owned a second home, in the nearby town of Seaside, where The Truman Showwas filmed. Gaetz, who has devoted his career to getting on television, spent much of his childhood in a house made famous by a character trying to get off TV.
The Gaetzes were conservative and religious, as was the surrounding community. (Two abortion doctors were murdered in the area during Gaetz’s childhood.) Matt’s mom suffered life-threatening complications while pregnant with his younger sister but opted not to have an abortion and was partially paralyzed as a result. Matt Gaetz has said her decision influenced his anti-abortion positions.
But if anyone is responsible for Gaetz’s rise to political fame, it’s his dad, whose deep pockets and even deeper connections in Florida politics are one reason Matt is known in his district as Baby Gaetz. “Matt would be an assistant manager at Walmart if it weren’t for his father,” says Steven Specht, a Democrat who ran against Gaetz for Congress in 2016.

Gaetz is a third-generation politician. His grandfather, Jerry Gaetz, was the mayor of a small town in North Dakota and a state legislator who died in 1964 at the state GOP convention after giving a speech endorsing Barry Goldwater for president. Matt’s father, Don Gaetz, has been a prominent figure in Panhandle politics since first winning election to the Okaloosa County school board in 1994.


Don Gaetz, left, is sworn in as Senate president by his son, state Rep. Matt Gaetz, on November 20, 2012, in Tallahassee.
 
Bill Cotterell/AP

Matt honed his trolling skills early, in service of his dad’s political career. In 2000, when Matt was a high school senior, Don ran for Okaloosa County school superintendent. Don’s opponent in the Republican primary was the principal of Matt’s Nice­ville high school. Matt wore a “Gaetz for Superintendent” T-shirt to school almost every day until his father prevailed in the election. In 2006, Don won a seat in the Florida state Senate, where he served a stint as Senate president before leaving in 2016 because of term limits.
Don was a popular politician, even among Democratic colleagues, who saw him as decent, if conservative. “Don Gaetz was very much more of an old-school Republican,” says Ben Wilcox, research director of the nonprofit watchdog group Integrity Florida and a former Tallahassee lobbyist. “He would tell you that Matt is much more tea party Republican than he is.”
Matt Gaetz has been a vocal supporter of the tea party’s agenda, crusading against the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion in a state with 2.6 million uninsured residents. But Gaetz wouldn’t be where he is today without government health care programs. In the late 1970s, his father co-founded a nonprofit hospice company that successfully lobbied Congress to allow Medicare and Medicaid to cover its services. Once the public money started flowing, the nonprofit became a for-profit corporation, Vitas, that grew into the country’s largest hospice care provider.

In 2004, Don Gaetz and his partners cashed in, selling the hospice company to the parent company of the plumbing behemoth Roto-Rooter for $400 million. When he ran for state Senate two years later, Don had a net worth of $25 million. In 2013, the Justice Department sued Vitas, alleging that between 2002 and 2013, the company had defrauded Medicare by filing false claims for services never provided or for patients who weren’t terminally ill. The company settled the case in 2017 for more than $75 million, at the time the largest settlement ever recovered from a hospice company. (Don wasn’t named in the case and has denied any wrongdoing.)
Meanwhile, after graduating from William & Mary Law School in 2007, Matt Gaetz went to work for a politically connected firm in Fort Walton Beach, near Niceville. He toiled away on pedestrian legal matters befitting a junior associate in a region whose biggest city, Pensacola, is home to barely 50,000 people. He filed a debt collection suit against an elderly woman who couldn’t pay the home care firm owned by Gaetz’s dad. Matt also represented a homeowners’ association fighting the county over the placement of a beach volleyball net. And he sued the “red fish chix,” two professional fisherwomen accused of absconding with a $50,000 boat belonging to a local restaurant that had hired them to promote it.
Less than a year into his job, he also became one of the firm’s clients. One night in October 2008, Gaetz was driving his dad’s BMW home from a nightclub on Okaloosa Island when a sheriff’s deputy pulled him over for speeding. (Gaetz’s driving record is the subject of many jokes in his district. In 2014, he rear-ended one of his constituents while talking on his cellphone.)



The sheriff’s deputy smelled alcohol and asked Gaetz to take a field sobriety and breath test. Gaetz refused, so the deputy arrested him. But a lawyer from Gaetz’s firm succeeded in getting the charges dropped a few months later. In the interim, the deputy was forced to resign after the sheriff’s department said he’d used excessive force in a different arrest. The firing had nothing to do with Gaetz, but combined with Gaetz’s narrow escape from criminal charges, the incident reinforced his local reputation as an “entitled ne’er-do-well,” as one local paper described him.

That reputation didn’t stop Gaetz from seeking bigger things. Less than a year after his drunk-driving arrest, he declared his candidacy for the state House seat in Florida’s 4th District, which was about to be vacated by House Speaker Ray Sansom, a friend of Don Gaetz for whom Matt had worked as a legislative aide during law school.
In April 2009, Sansom was indicted on corruption charges, accused of tweaking the state budget to funnel more than $25 million to Northwest Florida State College in Niceville. Of those funds, $6 million was earmarked to build a hangar at the Destin airport for a jet company owned by one of Sansom’s friends and donors, real estate developer Jay Odom. Odom was also a client of Matt Gaetz, who handled Odom’s hangar lease. (In 2013, Odom would be sentenced to six months in prison for illegally funneling $23,000 into former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s failed 2008 presidential campaign. In the past decade, Odom has contributed thousands of dollars to Gaetz’s political campaigns. Odom did not respond to an interview request.)
The corruption charges against Sansom and Odom were dropped two years after their indictments, but the prosecution forced Sansom to resign in February 2010, 10 months before he would be term-limited out. The governor scheduled the Republican primary barely a month later. The timing gave Gaetz a huge head start against opponents who lacked his father’s name recognition and fundraising network.
“Matt simply outworked his opponents,” Don Gaetz told the Tampa Bay Times in 2013. “Perhaps people gave [to his campaign] thinking he was a chip off the old block. Perhaps that helped. But I can assure you that he didn’t get many contributions he could have because of the many lobbyists who didn’t like me. It probably hurt him more than it helped.”

The numbers disagree. Gaetz raised nearly $480,000—almost five times more than any of his rivals in the GOP primary and almost 50 times more than his Democratic challenger. Many people who had backed Don Gaetz donated to his son that year, including the biggest monied interests in the district: local real estate developers, health care companies, and a Pensacola beer baron. (Joe Scarborough, who once represented Gaetz’s district in Congress, donated to Don in 2005 and Matt in 2010 and was suspended from MSNBC in 2010 for giving to several Republican candidates, including the Gaetzes.) Former Gov. Jeb Bush, a friend of Don, endorsed the younger Gaetz and contributed $100 to his winning campaign.



But what really set Baby Gaetz apart from the rest of the primary field, according to his 2010 financial disclosure, was a net worth of more than $1 million, money that did not all come from volleyball net lawsuits. Gaetz’s legal work in 2010 earned him a mere $29,000, yet he dumped $100,000 of his own money into the campaign in the two weeks before the GOP primary, more than any other candidate’s total fundraising haul.
Once in Tallahassee, he introduced aggressive bills to speed up executions, impose mandatory 50-year sentences for some rape convictions, ban abortion coverage in private insurance plans offered through Obamacare, and allow guns to be carried openly. He also made a name for himself as a troll. He mocked food stamp recipients (“Yesterday I saw a lady at Publix use her ‘Access’ welfare card. Her back was covered in tattoos. RT if u support entitlement reform.”) and questioned the literacy skills of two black Democratic colleagues. He relentlessly insulted three-time-party-flipping former Gov. Charlie Crist during his 2014 campaign against Gov. Rick Scott. When Crist tweeted, “We need a governor with a heart again,” Gaetz hit back: “It’s nice to have one with a brain…who didn’t need 3 tries to pass the Bar Exam.”
No target was too small, not even constituents who commented on stories at the tiny Northwest Florida Daily News. When a local man who’d twice run unsuccessfully for sheriff inquired in the comments why a policy idea from an online poll wasn’t included on Gaetz’s survey about county priorities, Gaetz responded, “It got even fewer votes than you did in your last two runs for public office.”

Scandalized by that exchange, an Okaloosa County commissioner wrote in his newsletter that he couldn’t support Gaetz. “I am a young guy and I have a lot to learn yet about the way the world works, but even I know this: Leaders, the good ones at least, don’t bully, they don’t belittle and they don’t demean those around them,” the commissioner wrote, telling Gaetz, “BE NICE!”

Once Don Gaetz retired from the state legislature, he briefly wrote a regular column for the Pensacola News Journal, until he quit in protest on the grounds that the paper was too mean to his son. In 2017, Don wrote about his family tradition of donating to favored charities in lieu of Christmas gifts for each other. “Matt goes to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C. every week to visit warfighters from our area who are fighting the battle after the battle,” he wrote. “Matt says we can never do enough for them and their families. He chokes up, a rare thing for him, when we donate in his name.”
In reality, Matt Gaetz has made only two visits to wounded vets at Walter Reed since taking office, the last one in September 2017. (Gaetz’s office now says his father “misspoke.”) But demonstrating fealty to military veterans is critical in Florida’s 1st Congressional District, where one in every six residents has served in the military. The district hosts five military installations, including Eglin Air Force Base, one of the largest air bases in the world.
Gaetz learned early on how to use the military to advance his political career without actually having to enlist. In 2005, the military decided to locate the training program for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program at Eglin. The new jets were loud: A report commissioned by the Pentagon showed that the fighter program would render 93 percent of the town of Valparaiso unsuitable for development, with some areas uninhabitable because of the noise. Valparaiso sued the Air Force in 2009, seeking to force it to reduce noise levels.

A poll found that nearly 85 percent of Okaloosa County residents, hoping for economic benefits from the program, wanted the county to force the city to drop the suit. Gaetz sniffed an opportunity. Three months before declaring his candidacy for the state House, he sued Valparaiso on behalf of Okaloosa County and argued publicly that the city’s opposition could sink the F-35 program. In reality, the program couldn’t be reversed without an act of Congress. Gaetz’s lawsuit went nowhere. “It was a big waste of time and money, but it got him in the paper,” says Douglas Wyckoff, the lawyer who represented Valparaiso.
The Air Force eventually settled the suit from Valparaiso, agreeing to some noise mitigation. Gaetz declared victory, even though his side had effectively lost. Bruce Arnold, a former naval officer who’d served as the city’s mayor since 1964, was dumbfounded. “Mr. Gaetz had absolutely nothing to do with [the settlement],” he told the local paper. “He is crazy. He is completely insane. He is a political upstart trying to attract publicity.”
It worked. The lawsuit gave Gaetz something besides money to campaign on. When he arrived on Capitol Hill, he hung a poster of the F-35 behind his desk. “He’s got the veterans here pretty well duped,” says Cris Dosev, a retired Marine pilot who ran against Gaetz in the 2016 and 2018 Republican congressional primaries.
In March 2016, Rep. Jeff Miller, a former TV weather forecaster who represented Florida’s 1st District, announced he wasn’t going to run again. Political observers saw Don Gaetz as Miller’s logical successor. But Don’s path led elsewhere. In the state legislature, he had championed a bill to create a nonprofit to manage settlement funds from lawsuits over the 2010 BP oil spill. After Don left office, he became president of the fund’s board, where he now oversees $380 million in local development money, ensuring his continued influence in the district.

Meanwhile, Miller’s unexpected retirement created a compressed campaign calendar that once again gave the well-funded junior Gaetz an advantage. But this time, Gaetz wasn’t heading into the election with the same deep pockets he’d had in 2010. In just six years, his net worth had dwindled from nearly $1 million to $388,000, according to his financial disclosures. Most of that was tied up in property he owned. He had less than $90,000 in liquid assets.



Yet less than three weeks after Miller announced his retirement, Gaetz dumped $100,000 into his own campaign. Four months later, he gave another $100,000. His total contribution was more than half his net worth and exceeded any of his opponents’ total fundraising. Where did he come up with all that money? The obvious suspect was his dad. It would have been illegal for Don Gaetz to lend six figures to the campaign, but he appears to have found another way to funnel money to his son’s race.
Public records and financial disclosure forms show that in the days following Miller’s retirement announcement, Matt Gaetz sold a house he owned for just under $100,000. Three months later, he sold several vacant lots he’d bought years earlier. All of Gaetz’s real estate was purchased by the same buyer: a company called Treveron, which, it turns out, is owned by his dad.
Don Gaetz never completely left the health care business after selling his hospice company in 2004. He still owns a company called TLC Caregivers, which helps elderly and disabled people with household tasks. Matt, like his mother and sister, was a longtime TLC Caregivers board member, earning $10,000 a year. In his own financial disclosure forms, Don described Treveron as a property management company that rents space and provides management services to TLC Caregivers. Matt was listed as an executive of both companies at the time he sold his real estate to Treveron, and he remained listed as a Treveron officer in public records until April 2019. All other officers of Treveron are also members of the Gaetz family.

The transactions fall into a gray area of campaign finance law. “This is a great example of shady stuff that campaign finance law probably doesn’t prohibit,” says Daniel Weiner, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. As long as Treveron paid fair market value for the real estate—which it appears to have done—he says, the campaign contribution from Gaetz was likely legal. But that could depend on what happened to the real estate, says Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the watchdog group Common Cause. “If on paper he seemed to have sold the property but maintained control, that could be a campaign finance violation,” he says. Gaetz’s office confirmed that he donated the proceeds from the real estate sales to his campaign. But Gaetz said in an email that he did not have control of the real estate because “the other officers/shareholders hold a majority interest to control all decisions by the company.” The real estate sales weren’t the only unusual features of his congressional fundraising. While in the Florida House, he had started and chaired two leadership PACs, which raisedhundreds of thousands of dollars that he used to influence races for county commissioner and other local offices. When he ran for Congress, he resigned from the PACs, which then shut down and donated all their remaining money, about $380,000, to a federal super-PAC called North Florida Neighbors, dedicated to supporting Matt Gaetz for Congress. The super-PAC and the state PACs listed the same treasurer, and the state PACs were chaired by the wife of a former chief of staff to Don Gaetz.
Florida law prohibits contributions to state races from being transferred to federal campaigns. A resident of Gaetz’s district filed a complaint with the state elections division, observing that “the transfer of almost $400K from State PACs to a Federal PAC afforded Mr. Gaetz an edge that shortchanged voters, vis a vis their ability to objectively evaluate candidates.” The elections division dismissed the complaint, saying that the PACs had done nothing wrong because they dissolved before donating the funds to the federal entity.
The super-PAC, which spent more than $500,000 on Gaetz’s behalf, received $10,000 from TLC Caregivers. But two donors dwarfed all others, contributing $100,000 each. One was the Harness Oil and Gas company in Houston, whose president is the daughter of a longtime Gaetz family friend. The other was Freeport Commun­ications, owned by Odom, the former Gaetz client who had served six months in prison for campaign finance violations.
Odom shares one of Gaetz’s biggest policy goals: legalizing medical marijuana. In 2015, Odom was the primary financial backer of a company that won one of Florida’s first seven medical marijuana growing licenses, authorized by a bill that Gaetz championed. Two years later, Odom and his partners sold the company and the license for around $40 million to a Canadian corporation. Gaetz’s office said in a statement that Gaetz “had nothing to do with Jay Odom getting a medical marijuana license” from the state health department.

The super-PAC spending supplemented the $900,000 that Gaetz raised for his campaign. Even if Trump hadn’t campaigned with him in Pensacola—twice—during the election, Gaetz would have routed his opponents simply by swamping the local media market with the more than $320,000 he spent on campaign ads. He won the primary and then crushed his Democratic opponent, Air Force veteran and attorney Steven Specht. “He’s a fundamentally bad person, but nothing ever seems to stick to him,” Specht says. “He can say and do the most despicable things, and people just pull the lever.”
When Trump called Haiti a “shithole” country in January 2018, Gaetz took to the airwaves to concur that Haiti was “deplorable,” full of “sheet metal and garbage.” As the president’s guest at the 2018 State of the Union address, Gaetz brought a conspiracy theorist who had questioned whether the Nazis actually used gas chambers. Gaetz hired a speechwriter who had been forced out of the White House because of his association with white nationalists. During a gun control hearing, Gaetz tried to get the parents of two Parkland school shooting victims ejected.
His trolling knows few bounds—except perhaps those created by witness intimidation laws. In February, on Twitter, he threatened the release of damaging information about former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen as payback for Cohen’s congressional testimony against the president. The threat landed Gaetz in hot water with the Florida Bar, which launched an investigation, eliciting a rare apology from Gaetz.
Virtually everything Gaetz has done in Congress has been designed for maximum publicity. The first bill he ever introduced was a one-sentence measure disbanding the Environmental Protection Agency. In July 2017, he hijacked a Democratic resolution seeking more information about Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey by attaching an amendment calling for an investigation into Comey’s “refusal to investigate” Hillary Clinton for everything from her private email server to her role in the Uranium One pseudo-scandal. Wired later discovered that a Gaetz staffer had crowdsourced ideas for the amendment on the Reddit forum /r/the_Donald, a cesspool of alt-right activity.


President Donald Trump takes a selfie with Matt Gaetz in the House chamber after Trump’s State of the Union address on January 30, 2018.
 
Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Like so many of Gaetz’s stunts, the amendment succeeded in getting him on TV, which earned him praise from the president and more regular appearances on Fox News. In the past year, he has appeared more than 70 times on the network, and Sean Hannity has campaigned for him in Florida. “If the political system incentivizes crazy behavior with rewards, you get more crazy behavior,” says Schmidt, the GOP strategist. “Being a sober, serious statesman is not the path to cable news stardom for members of Congress.”
There is one thing Gaetz would prefer to keep out of the media: his love life. Two years ago, a former staffer sent him a blunt text message about a 21-year-old woman Gaetz was dating, who would later become a Democratic congressional intern, urging him to ask the woman to delete photos of him from her Instagram account. The staffer wrote, “Don’t be surprised if many of the conservatives and competitors, like Cris Dosev in Florida CD1, may frown upon her sexually explicit images, her videos showcasing her multiple capabilities to smoke weed, and her flagrant application of language as antithetical to the values of Northwest Florida.”
Gaetz declined multiple requests from Mother Jones for an interview, but one day, out of the blue, he called to beg me not to identify the women he’s dated. “I am pleading with you not to identify them,” he said. “Identifying puts them at risk.” Gaetz said he gets death threats “from the same demographic of people who shot up the Republican baseball game.” He added, “I’m not a monk. I’m just a congressman.”
It’s hard to say what kind of congressman Gaetz really is. In his first term, he missedmore votes than all but seven freshman House members. And his Trump boosterism seems to accomplish a lot less for his constituents than for himself. On his office’s 17-point list of “Trump Wins” for his district, there are few items of substance amid the various instances of flattery by the president. Gaetz takes credit for Trump’s decision to ban oil drilling off the coast of Florida, an issue every other member of the state’s congressional delegation also championed. He says he persuaded the president to include $124 million for northwest Florida military projects in his 2020 budget, even though most of those projects had been in military budget planning documents before Gaetz was elected. The two solid achievements on his list are extending red snapper fishing season over Labor Day in 2017 and working with the president’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump to create dog-training programs in federal prisons.
Like a lot of people in his district, I wondered whether Gaetz’s bombast even played well with his own family, which until recently occupied a genteel corner of the Panhandle’s Republican establishment. I asked Gaetz what his family dinner conversations were like and whether his dad approved of the way he was doing his job. “I believe my father is very proud of me,” he said. He told me about the time he invited his father to Trump’s 2019 State of the Union address. While his dad was in town, Gaetz took him to the Trump International Hotel for dinner. As luck would have it, Trump was also dining there and came over to say hello. “He told my dad what a great member of Congress I was,” he said. “I can only imagine what a proud moment that must be for a father.”
Photo: Tom Williams/Congressional Quarterly/Zuma

‘Bribery’ is right there in the Constitution. Trump could be impeached for that. (WaPo)

$
0
0

PostEverything
Perspective

‘Bribery’ is right there in the Constitution. Trump could be impeached for that.

Why wrestle with the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”? The president can be accused of an offense that’s already well-defined.

Add to list

President Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday.  (Evan Vucci/AP)
President Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Oct. 20, 2019 at 2:41 a.m. EDT

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) has described President Trump’s public call for a foreign government to investigate former vice president Joe Biden’s family as an “abuse of power.” Ditto former congressman and 2020 presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas). Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has characterized Trump’s recent conduct — including his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president — as “brazen efforts to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 elections,” adding that “continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.”

For congressional Democrats considering impeachment, there is a case to be made that the Constitution’s reference to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” applies to Trump’s alleged Ukraine plot, charges of a coverup or possible obstruction of justice. And there would be nothing unusual about Congress considering several articles of impeachment: The House voted on four articles against President Bill Clinton — obstruction passed, abuse of power failed — and 11 against President Andrew Johnson. The Senate ultimately voted on two articles against Clinton and three against Johnson.
Amid a series of House investigations, however, and several public, potentially incriminating admissions by Trump, Democrats haven’t settled on a core legal rationale for impeachment, which is striking, considering the Constitution’s answer is staring them in the face. Trump’s statements and actions with regard to Ukraine appear to fit one of the few offenses the Constitution specifically lists as impeachable: Bribery.
Along with treason, it’s the only impeachable offense expressly listed in Article II, Section 4 before the catchall category, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as a reason to impeach federal officials, who “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The legal case would be that Trump sought a bribe. He encouraged Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “to do us a favor” and look into, among other things, the Biden family. Trump would later acknowledge that goal, telling reporters on Oct. 3 that he wanted Zelensky to “start a major investigation into the Bidens.” Evidence and testimony from inside the Trump administration, meanwhile, suggests that the sought after benefit — an investigation of Trump’s rival — was conditioned on U.S. government action: Administration officials have referenced apparent conditions on both a coveted White House meeting between the two leaders, and on disbursement of millions in military aid, pending Ukraine’s government announcing an investigation of the Bidens.
Even though the process would likely call for additional evidence and detail, that’s the logical thrust of the argument that Trump used his office to seek a bribe: corruptly soliciting something of value “in exchange for official action.” As it stands, the case appears straightforward, and, unlike most legal or political issues, several key underlying facts aren’t even in dispute.

Impeachment isn't optional. If facts point in that direction, Congress must act.

A focus on bribery would distinguish this case from the two presidential impeachments in history, neither of which resulted in conviction in the Senate and removal from office. The Johnson and Clinton cases were bogged down by a difficult question: What defines a high crime or misdemeanor in the Constitution?

At Johnson’s trial, the Senate was not convinced by articles of impeachment that fixated on whether he made an illegal recess appointment for the war secretary position, or whether he brought a generalized sense of “ridicule and disgrace” to the presidency, a matter of opinion. For Clinton, even some of his Republican opponents were not convinced a president should be convicted of a “high crime” for alleged perjury and obstruction that did not involve official duties.
By contrast, no one can deny that bribery is impeachable, because the Constitution says it is.
Invoking the Founders’ text also preempts efforts to turn impeachment into a technical debate over federal law. A Senate trial on bribery would evaluate impeachment the way the Constitution does: As a violation so grave it merits removal, without parsing the statutes that Congress passed decades after the Constitution was ratified. As former Justice Department lawyer Ben Berwick argues, “the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by statutes” since, until the mid-20th century, criminal law “followed the common law model” and the “same goes for bribery,” since “there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.” There’s not much logic, then, to invoking contemporary laws to resolve whether the president’s conduct is impeachable, when the conduct fits within an impeachable offense already spelled out in the Constitution’s text.
If the president or other officials separately committed a felony, that is a matter for prosecutors. The outlook there is mixed. On the one hand, the Supreme Court recently raised the bar for what it takes to convict a public official for bribery, in a unanimous ruling knocking down the conviction of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell. Remember the “official act” required in return for a bribe? The Court ruled it must involve deploying “governmental power,” not just setting up a meeting. That could be good news for any official who may have arranged Ukraine meetings, but it probably doesn’t help an official who may have corruptly altered foreign aid. On the other hand, when a plot involves a United States official demanding a benefit, strict bribery and extortion rules can kick in. Public officials can be found guilty of federal bribery or extortion even without fulfilling a promised quid pro quo. As the Court stressed in that same case, an official can commit bribery even if he does not actually take an action, “it is enough that the official agree to do so.” In other words, demanding something of value while merely suggesting you will take future government action, such as delaying military aid, might constitute a crime, even if you don’t follow through.
There is a range of evidence against President Trump, including what is known in legal circles as his “voluntary confession,” but he has more than one defense: On his conduct toward Ukraine, Trump argues that regardless of what he requested or hoped for, he didn’t offer any explicit action in exchange for an investigation. “When this came out, it was ‘quid pro quo’ — well, there is none,” Trump told reporters on earlier this month. Thursday, in the White House press briefing room, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney conceded that military aid for Ukraine was conditioned on a political probe, saying “that’s why we held up the money” — an admission so blunt that Trump’s personal lawyer rushed to distance himself from the statement. Ultimately, though, the Constitution’s bribery prohibition doesn’t turn exclusively on whether officials say the conduct occurred, but rather on Congress’s view of what the evidence proves.

Trump's impeachment defense boils down to this: Treat me like a king

While that argument is about what Trump offered, there is another defense based on what he sought: Trump may argue that whatever personal benefit might accrue from a Biden investigation, he genuinely thought an investigation was in the interest of the country. Trump took this tack on Oct. 4, arguing that he had “a duty” to push a foreign investigation of Biden because “we are looking for corruption.” Legitimately demanding something for the United States does not amount to a benefit for a bribe, which makes his intent the issue.
And there are also institutional defenses: Whatever one thinks of this alleged plot, there’s a question of whether the Senate should set a precedent for indicting, and potentially ousting a president over what some consider only diplomatic “hardball.” Throughout history, the argument goes, presidents have wielded foreign policy powers with an eye on reelection — perhaps that’s what Mulvaney was trying to get at with his now infamous comments in the briefing room, declaring “we do that all the time” and telling everyone to “get over it".
Most of these defenses turn on credibility. Are they corroborated, or undercut, by firsthand witnesses, the administration’s actions, and the evidence of Trump’s intent? In the end, there may be many things about the president that merit criticism, but few that merit impeachment. That is what the Founders intended when they listed only bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors as grounds for taking that step.

If Congress, pursuing impeachment, begins with the Constitution’s text, it may find bribery is the right place to focus. That’s true especially because of evidence drawn from Trump’s own words: Remarkably, the president who spent years successfully resisting an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller finds an impeachment probe rapidly escalating, in part, because of interviews he’s given, freely, sometimes standing on the White House lawn.

Correction: A previous version of this article was incorrectly worded to refer to the argument that Trump “offered” a bribe. It has been corrected to refer to the argument that he “sought” a bribe.

CARL HIAASEN | Nestlé wants Florida’s drinking water for free — again. (SAR)

$
0
0

St. Johns County Commissioners came close to approving a water bottling plant until public outrage stopped it.  But developers, polluters and fraudfeasors like Nestlé  have often get their way in St. Johns County under the maladministration of Sheriffs NEIL PERRY, et ux, SYD PERRY, and Sheriff DAVID SHOAR, who legally changed his name from "HOAR" in 1994.





CARL HIAASEN | Nestlé wants Florida’s drinking water for free — again

Posted Nov 1, 2019 at 4:01 PM
Florida, perpetually in a water crisis, once again is poised to give away hundreds of millions of gallons that will end up in plastic bottles on the shelves of supermarkets.

Florida, perpetually in a water crisis, once again is poised to give away hundreds of millions of gallons that will end up in plastic bottles on the shelves of supermarkets.

A company called Seven Springs Water wants to renew a lucrative permit that allows the siphoning of Ginnie Springs, a scenic recreational site along the Santa Fe River near Gainesville.

For a farcical one-time fee of $115, Seven Springs would be allowed to withdraw almost 1.2 million gallons a day from a river system where the flows already have dropped 30 percent to 40 percent, according to the Florida Springs Institute.

The agreement would be bad for the Santa Fe and also the fragile Floridan aquifer, which supplies drinking water to millions of people. But for Seven Springs the deal is sweet: free water, which it then sells to Nestlé, the world’s largest bottler.

Many of the Nestlé labels are familiar: Perrier, S. Pellegrino, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Poland Springs and Zephyrhills, to name a few. The company is expanding its facility near Ginnie Springs and needs more liquid product.

For decades, Florida has handed out metaphorical free straws to companies that profitably suck the water from natural springs. Approval of “consumptive use” permits rests with regional water management districts, the boards of which are appointed by the governor.

Sometimes the appointees are qualified and knowledgeable; sometimes they act like tools of special interests. Despite Gov. Ron DeSantis’ very public pledge to rescue the state’s natural waters, most of the district boards are crippled by so many vacancies that they can barely assemble a quorum. Like the Everglades and algae-plagued coastal waters, Florida’s famous springs are now in trouble. Too much groundwater extraction combined with diminished annual rainfall have sharply lowered the levels, and introduced harmful nutrients.

Once-pristine Ginnie Springs now carries nitrates from wastewater and farm runoff — ingredients you won’t see listed on Nestlé’s bottles.

The company won’t reveal how much — or little — it pays Seven Springs for the water but says it’s a caring corporate neighbor that supports conservation causes.

“It would make no sense to invest millions of dollars into our local operations just to deplete the natural resources on which our business relies,” wrote a Nestlé Waters spokesman.

Florida isn’t the only state foolish to give away its most critical resource. Citizen groups in Michigan also have been battling Nestlé over its pumping of public springs and aquifers.

The Florida Springs Council, a consortium of 48 organizations focused on water issues in northern and central Florida is among the opponents of the Ginnie Springs expansion. It notes that the Santa Fe isn’t the same river it was 20 years ago, when the original usage permit was issued.

Trouble was evident as recently as 2013, when the Suwannee River Water Management District reported that the Lower Santa Fe had a “deficit of 11 million gallons per day.” Today, the river is considered to be at minimum flow.

The sane response would be to reduce — not increase — the volumes being pumped out. A jump to 1.2 million gallons per day would more than quadruple the current impact on Ginnie Springs.

Rejecting or at least modifying the application seems like a wise and obvious choice for the Suwannee district board. Unfortunately, that vacancy-plagued panel is one of several that the governor seems to have forgotten.

Nestlé has big money and political clout, so the state is unlikely to completely shut off the Ginnie Springs spigot. Still, it wouldn’t be revolutionary to require water-bottling operations to start paying for what they take, as California does.


The Florida Springs Council estimates that even a puny, one-cent-per-gallon fee on the Seven Springs/Nestlé permit would generate at least $400,000 a year that could fund restoration projects in the Santa Fe River Basin, which is fed by dozens of natural springs.

Statewide, the group says, a fee of only 50-cents-per-thousand gallons on companies such as Nestlé would raise “hundreds of millions of dollars to protect and sustain Florida’s waters.”

One thing is certain: If Nestlé doesn’t have to pay to preserve the springs it bleeds, taxpayers will be billed for the damage — as they are now for Everglades restoration and man-made algae outbreaks.

By speaking out against the Ginnie Springs permit, DeSantis would prove he’s aware that the state’s water crisis isn’t confined to South Florida.

Meanwhile, the next time you think of buying a bottle of Zephyrhills or Poland Springs, check out the label. Here are a few words you won’t see:

“Thank you, Florida, for all this tasty, refreshing, dirt-cheap water.”

Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
Viewing all 6562 articles
Browse latest View live