Stacy’s contract is contrary to public policy and should be eliminated. Public Policy is that contracts are to be enforced on all signatures of the contract. In Stacy’s case that is the town and Ms. Tebo. Since Tebo and apparently Rhett have an apparent self-serving interest in NOT enforcing the contract, their actions are contrary to the public interest and the contract, and thus Ms. Tebo and Rhett must be voided, read fired for malfeasance.

There is no way around this simple fact. Rhett signed for the Citizens a contract with Ms. Tebo for services as a town manager knowing full well that the provisions of the contract were not met and not liable to be met by Ms. Tebo. And Rhett, and apparently the Council, didn’t care. But citizens are allowed to challenge a contract if the conditions of the contract for services to benefit the citizens don’t fully benefit the citizens. In this case the only two people who seemingly benefit from this breach of contract are Rhett and Stacy to the detriment of Town Citizens.

Off the internet we read about a similar case:

The bill of complaint alleges in no uncertain terms the relationship and interest of the parties in this case and that the contracts in question are contrary to public policy. A statute is merely declaratory of the public policy. The author of the article on Public Policy, 63 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 1258, page 988, states that at the common law contracts in which officers or employees of a city have a personal interest are void and statutes are merely declaratory of the common law. Section 839.07 F.S., F.S.A., declares it to be unlawful for any officer of the state or county or incorporated town or city to be in any wise interested in a contract “for the performance of any other public work in which the said officer was a party”. This Court has frequently held that the word “officer” in this connection includes employees, advisors, and agents of the officers. Bond trustees were not officers but they are included within the prohibition of the statute. City of Leesburg v. Ware, supra; Charlotte County v. Chadwick, 102 Fla. 163, 135 So. 502.

I repeat my oft used phrase. Stacy and Rhett must go. Citizen’s complaint to follow.

So Stacy Tebo wishes to sue the Griffins for Libel!

Let’s Start with the e-mails where Stacy Tebo threatened us with Chapters 836 and 770  relating to Libelous actions of Tort and criminal actions.  Since Ms. Tebo, nor the Town of White Springs, at one time,  apparently did not understand the definition  of “Harassment”, It is uncertain if Ms. Tebo may understand the defenses of Libel.  It is evident when she sued Debary with an accusation that a manager said one thing at one time and made a major issue of it being harassment.


I am uncertain whether  Ms. Tebo understands that as a Town Manager she is not only accountable to the Town Council but also to the Citizens of White Springs, or that we have first amendment rights, or that she is a public official, or that we have a right to redress our government per the U.S. Constitution. In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress (Or Government)  from abridging “the right of the petition the Government for a redress of grievances“.  The right to petition is regarded as fundamental in some republics, such as the United States, as a means of protecting public participation in government.

 Yet although we have tried to reason with The Town of White Springs that the laws and the constitution of the State of FL are not being abided by, nor the Town Charter which in itself is an ordinance nor ordinances pertaining to land development regulations and especially Sunshine Laws, the Town refuses to address these issues by denying any and all citizen’s complaints.  Each of over 150 complaints stipulating where  the laws are not being followed by White Springs; complaints about money being misappropriated; complaints about unnecessary legal fees; as well as specific redress of grievances relating to non transparency and the practice of officials giving special treatment only to special  folks have all been denied.  Furthermore, there is no opportunity to appeal unless one goes to County Court or in some cases Circuit Court.


———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Stacy Tebo <>
Date: Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: Florida Statute 34.01
To: Joe Griffin <>
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Chapters 836 and 770 of the FL Statutes.

Stacy Tebo Town Manager

Please note:

Florida has a very broad public records law. Most written communication, including e-mail addresses, to or from the Town regarding town business are public records available to the public and media upon request. Your e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.


From: Joe Griffin [
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:43 PM
To: Stacy Tebo <>
Subject: Re: Florida Statute 34.01

I look at what I can see and make assumptions and print them. You may not like the First Amendment but I don’t like the fact that you are not enforcing all of the laws, as is required by the charter. Don’t ever tell me to do anything ever again, I am not your employee, thank you Jesus.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Stacy Tebo <> wrote:

Joe, You are incorrect in your assumptions regarding employees’ time off.  Please stop perpetuating misinformation.

Stacy TeboTown Manager


First of all, Stacy Tebo breached her employment contract with the Town of White Springs; The Town of White Springs which ultimately must answer to the Citizens of White Springs.

If Ms. Tebo assumes that this is “Libel”, she herself must read the Florida Statutes she referred Joe to.

First of all Helen Miller and the Town knowingly violated our rights with the knowledge that their charges were false and trumped.  Yet, Ms. Tebo is allowed to not follow the law by the Council Members implied permission and obviously with the blessing of the Town’s Attorney.

First of all in order to have an action of libel, the statements which were published on the blog by us would have to be false, and we would have had to have known they were false, and that we caused damages to Ms. Tebo as a result. Yet, it reading most of Ms. Tebo’s statements, it would appear that she alone has caused much of the damages to her own reputation; especially if she loses her recent lawsuit, similar to the refusal to act on her statements by the EEOC,  after all of the allegations and publicity about her case has been published and televised.  Most Importantly is that laws in White Springs are not followed and there is no attempt to provide transparency to its citizens.  Ms. Tebo’s actions are not that of a Town Manager in my opinion or in the opinions of many in White Springs.

Libel means a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation. Yet  in Ms. Tebo’s case, all of her records from DeBary were her own allegations, statements and complaints.  The opinions I, myself, addressed were very similar to the manner in which the Attorney for the City of DeBary answered all her allegations because this is not the first time, I , myself have had to defend such allegations against one of my employers by a litigious employee.  And alas  it is starting again apparently, Ms. Tebo has the need to sue someone else.

As to her and her office staff’s performances in White Springs, the Citizens have a vested interest in the manner in which jobs are performed and how these performances affect Citizens at large. There is no transparency and Ms Tebo even tried to utilize a 30 day response time for 119’s.

Insofar as what has been done in White Springs, as Joe has mentioned, it is evident.  Stacy is being paid almost $10,000 more than our prior manager, but it is obvious she is not handling the duties as are required of the Town Manager by the Charter alone and affirmed in her employment contract which she, herself, breached.

And the Mayor and Town Council knew, or should have known that she breached her contract and either are afraid that she will sue White Springs like she did Debary, or they are unwilling or unable to do anything about her breach because of the difficulty in securing Town Managers.  Nevertheless, we have a right as citizens of White Springs to call a spade a spade if the Council nor the Mayor are not requiring Stacy Tebo to fulfill her employment contract.

Stacy’s Employment Contract for the second consecutive year stipulates under “HOURS OF WORK”  “The Manager acknowledges the proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties require the Manager to generally observe normal business hours and will also often require the performance of necessary services outside of th normal business hours.  The Manager agrees to devote additional time as is necessary for the full and proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties and that the compensation herein provided includes compensation for the performance of all such services……..  Yet Ms. Tebo seems to have a four day week if that, with every Monday spent at her primary residence in Orange City.

Now the argument given me by someone close to the Town was that of course the Council knew that Stacy would have time to spend in Volusia County.  And the reasons cited were the 119 case against DeBary and the subsequent EEOC claim because of how terrible DeBary treated her.  But what she has done in the interim is try to secure town Clerk Jobs in Orange City and another City in Volusia County by reason that she did not wish to be in White Springs and was homesick.   Then when the EEOC does not rule in her favor, she, Ms. Tebo has taken out a discrimination case against DeBary…..and because she has to be right, and she knows defense costs are far more expensive than the actual awards if any, she will probably try to manipulate the Town of White Springs in suing us for libel.  Unfortunately, that is when all the nasty things the Town has done and especially its inability to follow laws will come out in the open.  Alas, the State may finally take over White Springs again.

Under “RESIDENCE: The Manager agrees to maintain her primary residence within a thirty (30) minute response time to the Town throughout the life of this agreement”   Not only was the initial contract breached but the subsequent contract recently signed was also breached.   Stacy Tebo retains her Orange City FL address as her primary residence; Not only that, she recently upgraded her voting privileges in September in Volusia County which logically would mean she has never changed her driver’s license nor her insurance to reflect her work in White Springs.


Ms. Tebo continually blames everyone else for her predicaments and her failings in her inability to have sufficient time to complete her work.  Yet she is her own worst enemy by her litigious action without knowing whether the law will actually prevail in her favor.  The EEOC denied any action against DeBary but Ms. Tebo is relentless that she is right. I wish her luck but some of the things which were done have not been professional in the least.  And it would be in Ms. Tebo’s court to prove that such alleged libel is not true and accurate based upon the information provided to us by public records and the internet.  It may be difficult because all the information relating to Ms. Tebo is public record.

Furthermore, in order to recover in a libel or slander suit, Ms. Tebo must show evidence of four elements:  (1) That the Griffins conveyed a defamatory message;  (2)  That the material was published (and seen by more than one person) (3) That Ms. Tebo could be identified to as the person(s) referred to in the defamatory material; and that Ms. Tebo suffered some Injury to her reputation as a result of the communication.


The Griffins then may have three out of four applicable defenses to libel or slander.  Mainly the first one is applicable.  (1) Truth – The allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense.  The Griffins would not need to verify every detail of the communication, as long as its substance can be established.  (2) Consent –  If Stacy Tebo consented to such publication of the defamatory material by reason that it was a matter of public record or that she e-mailed such information, did not follow laws in writing or threats to us, the defamatory material recovery is banned.  (3) Accident – Accidental publication of a defamatory statement does not constitute publication. (4) Immunity –  Immunity for a small number of persons who are directly involved in the furtherance of the public’s business such as judges, jurors, attorneys, etc who are protected on public policy grounds.  The Town officials were given immunity in our civil rights case and as the judge indicated we each have rights and we can do whatever we wish to each other.   But if the officials would not have received immunity, we would have had a great case of defamation.  I do not believe Ms. Tebo has such a great case because what was said of her do not appear to be false whatsoever.



And Stacy Tebo is considered a “Public Official” . 4) Persons holding any of these positions in local government: mayor; county or city manager; chief administrative employee or finance director of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision; county or municipal attorney; chief county or municipal building inspector; county or municipal water resources coordinator; county or municipal pollution control director; county or municipal environmental control director; county or municipal administrator with power to grant or deny a land development permit; chief of police; fire chief; municipal clerk; appointed district school superintendent; community college president; district medical examiner; purchasing agent (regardless of title) having the authority


We the Citizens have a right to Redress our Grievances and since such Redress is not allowed in White Springs, the Griffins as Political Activists have taken on the task of bringing forth Transparency to all.


Karin for the blog



No where in the following excerpt from her employment contract does it say she can take Monday’s off. Yet she does. Efforts to get the authority she uses to “Take Mondays Off” via Public Records Request have proven unfruitful. She apparently lies about everything and is enabled by the Town Mayor Rhett Bullard if not the whole Council. Here is the verbatim quote. If you can find any words that say she can have Mondays off, please tell me.

    1. HOURS OF WORK. The Manager acknowledges the proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties require the Manager to generally observe normal business hours and will also often require the performance of necessary services outside of normal business hours. The Manager agrees to devote additional time as is necessary for the full and proper performance of the Town Manager’s Duties and that the compensation herein provided includes compensation for the performance of all such services. The Manager will devote full time and effort to the performance of the Town Manager’s Duties, and shall remain in the exclusive employ of the Town during the term of this Agreement. The Manager, with the prior consent of the Council, may accept outside professional employment which does not interfere with the Manager performing the Town Manager’s Duties. The term “outside professional employment” means professional services provided to third parties for which the Manager is compensated and which are performed on the Manager’s time off.

Normal Business hours means 8-5 Monday through Friday.

Full time and effort means what it says. It doesn’t say full time four days a week.


In a stunning move, even for White Springs, the town has now threatened us, the Griffin’s, with libel. Several thoughts come to mind. The town quoted Florida Statutes 836 and 770. The 836 action is a criminal action that would have to be brought by the State’s attorney. I believe that is a non-starter. I don’t believe Jeff Sigmeister will jump into that tar baby. It’s a Blog for goodness sake. The e-mails are non published. No I don’t believe Sigmeister will want to take that on. The 770 Statute is quoted below:

770.01 Notice condition precedent to action or prosecution for libel or slander.—Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.

History.—s. 1, ch. 16070, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 7064(1); s. 1, ch. 76-123; s. 1178, ch. 97-102.

770.02 Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station.—

(1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article or broadcast were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was, in the case of a newspaper or periodical, published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said article appeared and in as conspicuous place and type as said original article or, in the case of a broadcast, the correction, apology, or retraction was broadcast at a comparable time, then the plaintiff in such case shall recover only actual damages.

(2) Full and fair correction, apology, or retraction shall be made:

(a) In the case of a broadcast or a daily or weekly newspaper or periodical, within 10 days after service of notice;

(b) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published semimonthly, within 20 days after service of notice;

(c) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published monthly, within 45 days after service of notice; and

(d) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided notice is served no later than 45 days prior to such publication.

History.—s. 2, ch. 16070, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 7064(2); s. 1, ch. 76-123; s. 233, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 80-34.

770.03 Civil liability of broadcasting stations.—The owner, lessee, licensee, or operator of a broadcasting station shall have the right, except when prohibited by federal law or regulation, but shall not be compelled, to require the submission of a written copy of any statement intended to be broadcast over such station 24 hours before the time of the intended broadcast thereof. When such owner, lessee, licensee, or operator has so required the submission of such copy, such owner, lessee, licensee, or operator shall not be liable in damages for any libelous or slanderous utterance made by or for the person or party submitting a copy of such proposed broadcast which is not contained in such copy. This section shall not be construed to relieve the person or party or the agents or servants of such person or party making any such libelous or slanderous utterance from liability therefor.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, ch. 19616, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 7064 Supp. 7064(4); s. 1, ch. 20869; s. 1, ch. 76-123.

770.04 Civil liability of radio or television broadcasting stations; care to prevent publication or utterance required.—The owner, licensee, or operator of a radio or television broadcasting station, and the agents or employees of any such owner, licensee or operator, shall not be liable for any damages for any defamatory statement published or uttered in or as a part of a radio or television broadcast, by one other than such owner, licensee or operator, or general agent or employees thereof, unless it shall be alleged and proved by the complaining party, that such owner, licensee, operator, general agent or employee, has failed to exercise due care to prevent the publication or utterance of such statement in such broadcasts, provided, however, the exercise of due care shall be construed to include the bona fide compliance with any federal law or the regulation of any federal regulatory agency.

History.—s. 1, ch. 23802, 1947; s. 1, ch. 25278, 1949.

770.05 Limitation of choice of venue.—No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel or slander, invasion of privacy, or any other tort founded upon any single publication, exhibition, or utterance, such as any one edition of a newspaper, book, or magazine, any one presentation to an audience, any one broadcast over radio or television, or any one exhibition of a motion picture. Recovery in any action shall include all damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all jurisdictions.

History.—s. 1, ch. 67-52.

770.06 Adverse judgment in any jurisdiction a bar to additional action.—A judgment in any jurisdiction for or against the plaintiff upon the substantive merits of any action for damages founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance as described in s. 770.05 shall bar any other action for damages by the same plaintiff against the same defendant founded upon the same publication or exhibition or utterance.

History.—s. 2, ch. 67-52.

770.07 Cause of action, time of accrual.—The cause of action for damages founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance, as described in s. 770.05, shall be deemed to have accrued at the time of the first publication or exhibition or utterance thereof in this state.

History.—s. 3, ch. 67-52.

770.08 Limitation on recovery of damages.—No person shall have more than one choice of venue for damages for libel founded upon a single publication or exhibition or utterance, as described in s. 770.05, and upon his or her election in any one of his or her choices of venue, then the person shall be bound to recover there all damages allowed him or her.

History.—s. 4, ch. 67-52; s. 1179, ch. 97-102.


I, for the life of me, don’t know what the Council was thinking. I’ve asked for the paperwork that shows I committed Libel and the town has yet to respond. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Do you really think that the town wants to devote the money it would cost the taxpayers just because their feelings got hurt. The only thing I’ve ever threatened them with is Legal Action.

But it was nice hearing from Fred Koberlein today, even if it was a different subject.





Well this explains it!

Have you ever wondered why folks in California appear so confused?

Consider this:


Chief Heather Fong (left), is the first SFPD female, lesbian chief of police.


Theresa Sparks (center),  a former male, is president of the San Francisco Police Commission,  CEO of a multi-million dollar sex toy retailer, and a transgender woman.


Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right), a former female, is the first transgender male SFPD police officer.


Their Representative in Congress is Nancy Pelosi.




  1. See that all the laws, provisions of this Charter and acts of the Town Council, subject to enforcement by the Town Manager or by officers subject to the Manager’s direction and supervision, are faithfully executed;


BREAKING – GOP Makes MASSIVE Legal Move Against Hillary, It FINALLY Happened!

Thanks to the actions of the few remaining statesman in Congress, Hillary Clinton might eventually see the inside of a jail cell. If Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI want to preserve a shred of decency, they will act quickly on the legal filing just issued by the governing body.

Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz just filed contempt charges against Bryan Pagliano.

Pagliano was Hillary Clinton’s chief tech staffer whom last year was urged, at least publicly, by Hillary to cooperate with the email investigation.

He has failed to comply with two subpoenas ordering him to appear before Congress and answer questions.

Pagliano is apparently going to have to learn the hard way that he, unlike Hillary Clinton apparently, is not above the law—and that subpoenas are not optional.

The FBI gave Bryan Pagliano immunity during Hillary’s email scandal investigation considering the information he had to share could have directly implemented the former secretary of state in criminal activity.

Jason Chaffetz, the House Oversight Committee chair, wants to know what Pagliano told the FBI agents, and he feels the American people have the right to find out exactly what Pagliano did for Hillary as well.

“I explained Mr. Pagliano was uniquely qualified to provide testimony to help the committee better understand Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server. This is indisputable,” Chaffetz said. “I also made clear the committee would consider all options regarding Mr. Pagliano’s failure to appear including consideration of recommending he be held in contempt.”

As Chaffetz and South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy have both stated that if Pagliano was granted immunity by the FBI, then he should have been able to talk to Congress without any fear of prosecution.

When the Utah Representative questioned FBI Director James Comey about why immunity was granted to not just Pagliano but to other major players in the Clinton email scandal—Cheryl Mills and Hillary’s attorney, David Kendall—he dodged the question.

If forced to comply with the law, Hillary’s IT guy just might reveal information that could not only end her candidacy but place her in an orange jumpsuit for a decade!