March 18, 2015


After police officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown last summer in Ferguson, Missouri, the media erupted in terror at the prospect of young black men being gunned down by over-excitable white cops.
The New York Times’ Charles Blow wrote that the “central issue” of Ferguson was that an “officer shot an unarmed teenager who witnesses claim had raised his hands in surrender when at least some of the shots were fired, which the family and its attorneys called ‘a brutal assassination of his person in broad daylight.'”
Over at Salon, Brittney Cooper said the Brown shooting proved that black people “are prey” — a charge so moronic even a Starbucks barista wouldn’t discuss it with you.
In a TV segment The Huffington Post called “searing,” a few weeks after the shooting, MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry exposed the racism of contemporary America by quoting from Dred Scott — an 1857 Supreme Court opinion written by Roger Taney, appointee of the father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson.
With pictures of Ferguson cops flashing on a screen behind her, Harris-Perry repeatedly quoted Taney’s statement — in 1857 — that black men have “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Oh, to be there when Harris-Perry finds out about the 13th Amendment!
After two separate, wide-ranging, phenomenally expensive, months-long investigations, including one by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, it turned out: Brown had attacked Officer Wilson, he did not have his hands up, he was charging the officer when he was shot, and Wilson acted in justifiable self-defense.
Instead of the “brutal assassination” of a black man, Holder’s big indictment of white America is that cops in Ferguson give blacks too many traffic tickets.
Even that feeble proof of racism is clearly false. The only two serious studies of driving habits by race ever conducted — one in New Jersey and one in North Carolina — found that blacks are far more likely to speed than whites, and at much higher speeds.

Indeed, the entire country is snickering at any report that treats as news the fact that blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites, whether in Ferguson, the Upper West Side of Manhattan or anyplace else. Blacks have a higher crime rate than whites, ergo, they have higher arrest rates. Ice skaters have more skating injuries than tennis players.
Even New York City’s liberal former mayor, Michael Bloomberg, responded to complaints about the city’s “stop and frisk” policy by saying that, based on witness and victim descriptions of the suspects, the police were stopping “whites too much and minorities too little.” In liberal Santa Monica, blogger Steve Sailer reports, blacks are arrested at a rate many multiple times higher than the rate in Ferguson.
Frustrated at their inability to locate evidence of the endemic racism in America we keep hearing so much about, liberals have turned with a vengeance on the kids. Instead of armed policemen gunning down blacks, we got a secretly recorded video of few drunk 19- and 20-year-olds at the University of Oklahoma singing the n-word. (Everyone assumes the students were racists, but my theory is they were trying to record their own rap video.)
Apparently, the new national sport is destroying the lives of young people.
Today’s adults are held responsible for nothing. The president and attorney general aren’t held accountable for ginning up frenzied mobs based on a lie, leading to two cops being assassinated in New York City and two cops being shot in Ferguson, in addition to the $250 million in property damage.
Hillary Clinton isn’t responsible for Americans being murdered at our embassy in Benghazi as a result of her incompetence.
Democratic senators aren’t accountable for passing Obamacare without reading it, and Republican senators aren’t accountable for promising voters they’d stop Obama’s amnesty and then voting to fully fund it.
Even people who commit violent crimes are given a second chance — especially if they’re athletes at the University of Oklahoma, as the Daily Caller has reported.
But 19- and 20-year olds must be punished without mercy for their drunken song using an ugly word. To quote Hillary Clinton, WHAT DIFFERENCE, AT THIS POINT, DOES IT MAKE?
Mr. Third Chance, David Boren, president of the university, proudly rushed to violate the First Amendment rights of these students. Even observers who condemned Boren’s laughably unconstitutional move felt compelled to vilify the louts.
Protesters have shown up at the kids’ homes in Texas to rail against their parents. (As always, I marvel at the protesters’ ability to get so much time off of work.)
I don’t remember adults caring this much about what college kids said when we were trying to get their attention with pompous editorials, manifestos and lists of demands. This wasn’t a college thesis — and even a college thesis wouldn’t be worth so much national angst. This was drunk college kids singing on a bus.
Is this the kind of society we want to live in, where a student can record his intoxicated friends singing a nasty song, and the whole country applauds the Nazi block-watcher and joins in the denunciation of his marks?
Liberals were hopping mad about Linda Tripp secretly recording Monica Lewinsky, but at least she was exposing the wildly felonious obstruction of justice by the president of the United States in a sex discrimination case. She wasn’t recording Monica to prove the president had used a bad word.
But no one objects to the aspiring Stasi member recording his friends’ drunken song, then broadcasting it to the world, allowing us a joyous round of universal condemnation.
Instead of judging society by the inebriated songs of 19- and 20-year olds, perhaps we should judge it by how cultural and political elites treat their young people.


Lawsuits for Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process

If someone has wrongfully sued you or prosecuted you for a crime, you may be able to bring a claim of malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

Find a Personal Injury Lawyer

Need legal help? Enter your zip code:

Find a Personal Injury Lawyer

Malicious prosecution and abuse of process are related types of lawsuits where one person (the plaintiff) sues another person (the defendant) for — in a previous case — trying to use the legal system against the plaintiff in a manner for which the system was not intended (the basis can be either a prior criminal or civil case). This article discusses in detail the elements of a malicious prosecution or abuse of process claim.

Difference between Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process

While the two claims are similar, malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims have some essential differences.

A plaintiff can sue for abuse of process when a defendant starts a legal process with the intention to obtain results for which the process was not designed. A plaintiff can sue for malicious prosecution when a defendant “maliciously” prosecutes a criminal case or uses a civil proceeding against the plaintiff when the defendant knows he or she doesn’t have a case. In addition, the plaintiff must have already obtained a “favorable termination” of the defendant’s malicious case before he or she can sue for malicious prosecution.

Essential Elements of Abuse of Process

As already mentioned, a plaintiff can sue for abuse of process when a defendant starts a legal process with the intention to obtain results for which the process was not designed.

A “legal process” can be any part of a lawsuit, not simply the entire lawsuit. For example, a defendant’s original lawsuit might have been legitimate, but the use of a particular deposition or other smaller, discrete aspect of the lawsuit may not have been. Even though the defendant’s lawsuit was legitimate, the plaintiff can still sue for abuse of process because of the illegitimate deposition.

The best way to think of the “improper purpose” requirement in an abuse of process claim is that, although the defendant had a technical right to use the legal process, he or she did so to extort something else from the plaintiff. For example, trying to tie up property in a divorce proceeding in order to get the other spouse to agree to different child visitation rights. It is worth noting that abuse of process claims are difficult to prove and are typically unsuccessful.

Essential Elements of Malicious Prosecution

A successful malicious prosecution claim requires all of the following:

  • beginning or continuing a criminal or civil legal proceeding
  • without reasonable grounds to believe the allegations of the proceeding
  • with a purpose other than simply getting a judgment in the proceeding, and that
  • the proceeding has terminated in the favor of the person being prosecuted or sued (i.e. the future plaintiff in the malicious prosecution suit must first win the suit against him or her).

Let’s look at these elements a little more closely.

A Proceeding

A criminal proceeding is any process where the government can punish a person — this ranges from murder to parking tickets.

A civil proceeding is typically where the plaintiff is not a governmental entity — although the defendant might be — and the plaintiff is suing for money or an injunction.

Even if the people bringing the criminal or civil proceeding think they have a winning case and are suing for a legitimate reason when they begin the case, they can be guilty of malicious prosecution if they discover a reason they cannot win during the case, but continue the case for improper motives anyway.

Reasonable Grounds

The person bringing the original prosecution or lawsuit must have reasonable grounds (also called probable cause), i.e. a reasonable person in their place would think that the legal action was legitimate and had a chance of winning.

However, if the person bringing the prosecution or lawsuit knows that the action is illegitimate, there is no need to prove that a hypothetical reasonable person would also think it was illegitimate.

Improper Purpose

Typically, if a lack of reasonable grounds is proved, an improper purpose will be assumed. This means that the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action does not necessarily need to prove that the defendant had an improper purpose. However, if the defendant can prove that he or she had a proper purpose, the plaintiff will not win.

For example, if a defendant was only doing what his or her attorney recommended, even though the lawsuit had no probable cause, then the defendant may not be guilty of malicious prosecution if she unreasonably, but mistakenly thought her lawsuit was legitimate.

Favorable Termination

Finally, the plaintiff in a malicious prosecution suit must have successfully defended against and won the previous illegitimate lawsuit. In other words, if a person was convicted of criminal charges or had to pay damages in a civil lawsuit, he or she cannot sue for malicious prosecution based on that criminal or civil legal action.

8.2 Suits Against Public Officials in Their Individual Capacity

8.2.A. Absolute Immunity

By its terms, Section 1983 imposes liability without defense on state and local officials who, acting under color of law in their individual capacity, deprive plaintiffs of rights created by the Constitution and federal law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, drawing on common law, created absolute immunity from liability for some government officials and qualified immunity for others. Absolute and qualified immunity were developed to protect officials from lawsuits for actions relating to their official duties. The Court explained the underlying rationale for immunity:

[T]he public interest requires decisions and actions to enforce laws for the protection of the public . . . . Public officials, whether governors, mayors or police, legislators or judges, who fail to make decisions when they are needed or who do not act to implement decisions when they are made do not fully and faithfully perform the duties of their offices. Implicit in the idea that officials have some immunity— absolute or qualified —for their acts, is a recognition that they may err. The concept of immunity assumes this and goes on to assume that it is better to risk some error and possible injury from such error than not to decide or act at all./2/

Absolute immunity bars any action against officials in the conduct of their office even for actions taken maliciously or in bad faith. Absolute immunity focuses on the governmental function being performed and the nature of the responsibilities of the official, not on the specific action taken./3/ In deciding whether officials performing a particular function are entitled to absolute immunity, courts generally look for a historical or common-law basis for the immunity in question./4/ With one exception, absolute immunity is restricted to those persons performing judicial or legislative functions.

8.2.A.2. Prosecutorial Immunity

Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from damage liability for the initiation and prosecution of a criminal case./40/ The Supreme Court, relying heavily on considerations of policy, reasoned that initiating a prosecution and presenting a case are activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of criminal process, and thus were functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force.”/41/

Like judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity is functional; it attaches only to acts intimately related to the initiation and prosecution of a criminal case. Struggling to define the boundaries of prosecutorial immunity, the Court held that a prosecutor who advised police officers on Fourth Amendment considerations in an ongoing criminal investigation performed an investigatory rather than a prosecutorial function and was, therefore, not entitled to absolute immunity. That same prosecutor, however, was entitled to absolute immunity for eliciting misleading testimony from those officers at a hearing on an application for a search warrant./42/ Although a prosecutor who suborns perjury at a criminal trial is absolutely immune, a prosecutor who manufactures false evidence does not enjoy absolute immunity. The former performs a prosecutorial function by presenting evidence, while the latter performs a police investigatory function by gathering evidence./43/ In a significant Ninth Circuit decision, the court distinguished between purposes for obtaining a material witness warrant: “when a prosecutor seeks a material witness warrant in order to investigate or peremptorily detain a suspect, rather than to secure his testimony at another’s trial, the prosecutor is entitled at most to qualified, rather than absolute immunity.”/44/ Because conducting a press conference is not intimately associated with the judicial process, a prosecutor is not absolutely immune for statements made during a press conference./45/ The prosecutor who prepares and files an information and application for an arrest warrant enjoys absolute immunity for those actions ./46/ But if the prosecutor swears under oath to false statements of fact in the information, he becomes a complaining witness rather than a prosecutor and, like a complaining witness at common law, is not entitled to absolute immunity./47/

The Court’s decisions do not draw the line between performance of the investigatory function and the prosecutorial function with absolute clarity. Imbler v. Pachtman suggested that the inquiry begins with determining whether the prosecutor is performing a quasi-judicial function. A prosecutor obviously performs that function by trying a criminal case; hence, absolute immunity extended to the presentation of perjured testimony and the withholding of exculpatory evidence./48/ Imbler and Kalina v. Fletcher extended absolute immunity to the initiation of a prosecution, and Imbler noted that “[p]reparation, both for the initiation of the criminal process and for a trial, may require the obtaining … of evidence.”/49/ Relying on that language, several courts of appeals have further extended absolute immunity to the prosecutor’s investigation and collection of evidence once probable cause is established./50/ Other courts have held that, before probable cause is established, an investigating prosecutor performs the role of police officer and is, therefore, not entitled to absolute immunity./51/ Post conviction work performed by prosecutors is generally subject to absolute immunity, particularly when the prosecutor continues her work as an advocate./52/

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein explained the boundary between prosecutorial and administrative functions and, in a sense, blurred them. In Goldstein, the plaintiff alleged that the district attorney and his chief assistant failed to adequately train line prosecutors on their duties to provide impeachment related information about prosecution witnesses to defense attorneys./53/ Although the claim was framed as a challenge to administrative procedure, the Court viewed it as dealing with the disclosure of information prior to trial which is “directly connected with the prosecutor’s basic trial advocacy duties.” /54/ The Court was unwilling to distinguish between cases of prosecutorial error at trial (to which absolute immunity attaches) and claims that such error was caused by inadequate training or insufficient information management systems, worried that claims of the former type could be easily recast as claims of the latter and usher in waves of litigation./55/

Because public defenders do not act under color of law in representing individual clients, they may not be sued under Section 1983; hence, the issue of absolute immunity never arises./56/ When a public defender acts in an administrative capacity rather than as representative of a client, she acts under color of law but is not performing a quasi-judicial function and is, therefore, entitled only to qualified immunity./57/

8.2.A.3. Witness Immunity

With the exception of complaining witnesses who sign affidavits seeking the issuance of search or arrest warrants, witnesses in judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from suit arising from their testimony./58/ This absolute immunity extends to suits arising from the witness’s grand jury testimony./59/ Though often phrased as witness immunity, the immunity can best be understood as an incident of judicial immunity. Just as judicial immunity extends to prosecutors presenting a criminal case, so does it extend to witnesses testifying in judicial proceedings. Complaining witnesses who swear affidavits in support of arrest and search warrants are said not to be participants in judicial proceedings and, therefore, enjoy only qualified immunity./60/ Similarly, witnesses in quasi judicial proceedings enjoy absolute immunity if the official conducting the proceeding enjoys absolute quasi judicial immunity./61/





I guess, I too will ramble, which is usual for a blog, regarding White Springs. So here is my potpourri:



My daughter Tamara has been with the Ocala – Marion County Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development partnership (CEP).  Like her mother, she has always had a flair for business whether a BP or Manager and can handle anything from events, sales, and communications to business retention and she has been with the Chamber for almost some eight years; Prior she worked for the Cherry Blossom Festival in Macon and from age 10 assisted me with events in the Minneapolis Aquatennial and went onward to be a Commodore, a distinguished achievement in the Aquatennial while working for EcoLab.

Ocala CEP also has a real “business incubator” whereby entrepreneurs rent space for a nominal amount and are given business advice by the Retired Business owners and Managers, a group I once belonged to.  The purpose of this incubator is to assist new businesses to a running start.  And since White Springs had no knowledge of what a true business incubator is, other than a concrete park, amphitheater and a sidewalk to nowhere, I once placed the CEP site information on the blog relating to real Business Incubator/Economic Development.

Currently the CEP is assisting in the economic development of Dunnellon which has a population of 1700. Tamara and her Boss attended a speech at Dunnellon given by a staffer of the Department of Economic Development recently. The Staffer mentioned how the Department of Economic Development has assisted small Towns in developing businesses by providing small town, like White Springs, with grants.   Tamara’s first thought was “Really?”  Then out of the audience an older man spoke.  He called out the staffer and told the audience that obviously White Springs was not helped a lot because the last time he came here, it is a dried up old town with nothing that would bring businesses or people in.  It was unknown if he was speaking of the water drying up or the town itself and no one dared to make a comment.



Speaking about business, it was noted in the mayor’s notes for last year’s Wild Azalea Festival that the vendors gave 20% of their sales to the Town and retained 80% for themselves.  However, when Don held the swap meet that day, the Town charged each vendor $30.00.  Some vendors said they would never be back because there was no forewarning and they don’t even make anything monetary during the meet but possibly $10.00.  Now, obviously, the Town was trying to make a point I believe, but seriously, how can the Town charge only 20% to vendors with new products and such a high fee to the Swap Meet Vendors.  If the Town said they required 20%, I do not think that would be a problem because if the vendor made $10.00, the Town would get $2.00; if the vendor made nothing then there would be no payment to the Town.  I hope the Town does not single out the Swap Meet Vendors again this year.



I also wish to add to Joe’s comment’s about 119’s, which his story follows.  With all the court cases and trying to determine why there was a motion to dismiss, then attorney’s fees and charges, I asked Joe to secure all of his complaints.   Joe had to make at least 18 -119 requests for which the Town ultimately gave excuses that there were no documents, that the complaints were too old and were destroyed.  Joe told the Town that these complaints were included within the minutes of the meetings which are retained so after two and one- half months, we received the minutes from 2000 onward with the respective complaints.  The Town continues to complain that Joe will not accept their answers, but it is difficult to do when one knows the paperwork is there and tells the Town but they refuse to do it.  That is why there are so many 119’s.

If there was Transparency and honesty in the Town, there would be no need for chapter 119’s.  There is no voice in our government.  The officials do as they wish and tell the people only what they wish to tell them.  This is not democracy; this is tyranny!



And when the officials complain about our blog, please understand it is not right to question the council and they certainly will not advise you or even listen to you.  Our blog is ours and others who supply information, REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, not allowed by our Town.  We have researched most of the items which we have on the blog and the town paperwork or others have provided the balance of the information. So before you all have the “Poor me’s” understand, you have done this to yourselves and a hell of a lot more to others, who do not deserve what you have done to them including me and my husband.



The Town is required to serve its citizens but none seem to realize that is the case. They feel the citizens are to serve them and allow them the freedom to do as they wish.  If you look at the meeting minutes, there is not much there.  Sometimes they discuss items which they do not wish on tape or in the minutes; other times things are discussed in the darkness by electronic or telephonic communications; other times they say nothing and fortunately the reporter for the Jasper News attends the meetings and places a write-up in the newspaper.  So where is the transparency?

I welcome the Mayor and Attorney Koberlein sending Joe’s 119’s to the Florida League of Cities to get counsel’s advice before they bring it before the legislators.  It will show how non-transparent our White Springs Government is. The complaint has been the former that Joe re-requests items but more importantly it is stated no one can understand his requests or complaints.  Now I am not certain why they cannot read and understand the content but my guess is that Joe many times makes a request for which a law applies and if there is such case law, he lists it.  No he does not wish the attorney’s view or to look up the law case.  Most of these cases are referred to in the Sunshine Manual.

A lot of so called requests from the prior year have used the excuse that documents are exempt because of ongoing cases, even when the cases against Joe and I were dropped. Wouldn’t you try to find out information if you have been charged with wrongdoing? It does irritate a person more than one knows and most of the comments made by the Town are fabrications because of the Mayor, her husband and Walter McKenzie’s pure unadulterated hate for both Joe and I.  They will cut off their nose to spite their face.  And in Joe’s case, the Mayor worked with the Assistant State’s Attorney to play games with Joe’s and subsequently my lives.



The charges against Joe initially related to an employment application which did not pertain to instruments intended by the legislature as uttering a forged instrument; then the elements of fraud definitely did not come into play because, even barring the fact that I put together the application, there was no reliance on his military record by the town.  The questions which carried up to 10 points each gave no credit for being in the military so this was the first vicious attack.  Why? It is because the Mayor and Vice Mayor were afraid of losing the election and they just could not have someone like Joe Griffin questioning their decisions.  But they were still concerned that they did not do enough damage so the Mayor came by and took photos of our signage.  At the lunch on the lawn, they sent a couple over who wanted to donate for the food; all while the Mayor was distributing the Jasper News article on Joe.   There is even a case relating to Alvarez where such things would be considered free speech but we didn’t decide to go to court because of the expense involved in trials.

Yet low and behold, the Mayor and her husband felt we needed to be in prison.  They allegedly have been visiting the Assistant States Attorney and having Tracy, our chief, contact her as well.  They wished us both on a short leash, asking for criminal charges to prevail against both of us for our blog and public records requests.  If it would not have been for the money required in a trial and a trial attorney, the Town would have found that they would have lost big time.  They should have been happy with the arrangements but no, it still cost us additional thousands to get back on the program.  And now we find that the Mayor and the Assistant States Attorney wished to play with our lives by taking our constitutional rights away, our blog away, etc.   This is not what an Assistant State’s attorney should do.

She should not have told our Police Department how and what to charge Joe and I for (as well as other cases I understand); she should not have assisted our Town without an investigation.  For telling the Police Department and Sheriff how to handle their jobs there is no immunity and if the Mayor allegedly has talked to the ASA, no wonder she does not wish to depose.  It could be her law license. And especially since all records with the military are private and an investigation may prove someone altered or gave paperwork which was to have been kept private.  Wow, this is how these people work.   They slander us and defame us through their Camels and the Jasper News; they try to take our constitutional rights away and they are too damned lazy to assist in serving the people with public records requests. What is their salaries for….solely to work for the Mayor?



I also was told by a very good source that votes allegedly were changed when Mayor McKire was running against Helen Miller.  The person said he saw ballots being slipped in.



Now I also understand that the Carver School Building site was secured by Bernard Williams for $1.00 a year in lease payments.  At the time, Mr. Williams had secured or had a grant in place for $250,000 to renovate the Carver School building but seed money was required.  Townsend at the time, I have been told, wished to demolish this historical building, because the Town wished to building houses in the area.  Now the area is marshland which is protected, so I hope the building is not destroyed. It would be a great school for K to 4, at least.   It means a lot to the black community, but notice, any improvements are not done in that area but in the White areas of town.  In fact the amphitheater money was to go to the community as a community block and so much could have been done for our children but of course the amphitheater was placed in the odd place so that the folk festival people under Walter McKenzie would have a place of their own.  Now we will have a building on skids…too small to be a pavilion.  I wouldn’t have complained if the amphitheater or a huge gazebo would have been placed in the Carver School area.  It has the land whereby one could have weddings, street dances, and town parties.  Instead we have what we have.




This is a potpourri article. Just some rambling thoughts on a Monday morning.

One of the criticisms aimed at me and Karin is that we are costing the town mega bucks with our 119 requests. I want to talk a few moments about what it costs the town. It costs the town approximately $2.50 cents when I ask for a document, a single document, that takes the town less than 15 minutes to find and copy. I pay $0.15 for the copied sheet of paper. If there are more documents that take the town more than 15 minutes to find and copy then I pay for Anita’s time to find and copy the documents. Anita’s salary is $10.00 an hour. Plus I pay $0.15 for each paper/document copied. I recently asked for all documents on the Mayor’s Home Computer that had to do with Town business. I got approximately 1200 documents most of which involved the Mayor’s activities that had not been approved by the Council as a whole. I paid $248.00 for these documents. I don’t know the breakout for time vs. copies for this “dump” of documents.

The problem for the town comes in when, in the town’s opinion, the request has to be forwarded to the Town Attorney, Mr. Fred Koberlein. Not only does this “slowdown” the production time of the documents but it costs the town $125.00 or more an hour to “research” the 119 request. This is a fool’s errand. Nowhere in the Statute does it allow a government agency, such as the town of White Springs, to ‘check with its attorney’ prior to handing over requested public documents. Recently I asked for a document that was apparently attached to an email sent from the Mayor to the Attorney. I’m guesstamating here but I’ll bet it cost in excess of $125.00 (Koberlein’s time) to locate the document and purse it for exempt material, there never is any exempt material, and to provide the document. While I got the document “free of charges” the town paid the $125.00. I tell you it is a waste of money for no legitimate purpose. And it is TAXPAYER money as the town has no money of its own. I’m again guesstamating but I’ll bet the town is spending on average $600.00 per month for Koberlein to “look over” or “find and look over” public documents requested. The town should have a copy of all of Koberlein’s files in Town Hall but the town has DECIDED to allow Koberlein to store public documents at his off site location and thus create more revenue for him and a cost to taxpayers. And I don’t have to pay, according to Case Law, for the Attorney’s time, despite what Koberlein believes.

AND HOW MANY 119 REQUESTS AM I ASKING FOR, you might ask. In 2014 I asked and paid for 44 Florida Statute 119 requests. Those are the Town’s figures. In twelve months I asked and received less than one 119 request per week, according to the town’s own figures. Now the town claims in court papers that I ask for approximately 6 to 10 requests per day. If I am only getting and paying for one a week, what has happened to the 25 or so document that I request every week? The simplest explanation is usually the correct one and in this case the simplest explanation is that the town is lying on official court documents. A not unheard of event.

The Town wouldn’t lie just to protect itself, would it?

And speaking of the Court Case I believe there are two points worth making. In Discovery we, our Attorney and us, have asked for the documents that the town thinks are “harassing” or frivolous. So far no documents have been turned over. We believe this is because either the Town is lying to its own attorney or because there are no 119’s that are “Harassing” or frivolous. As priory stated the law doesn’t allow that any 119 request be frivolous or harassing.  The second point is that the town is being defended by its insurance carrier “FOR FREE”. And that is right and just. However the town continues to spend over $500.00 per month on Koberlein to assist the attorney from Marks and Grey in Jacksonville to do her job. I fail to see how Koberlein’s help in needed. Another $500 or so monies that the town does spend that it doesn’t need to.

One other thing that costs the town money, costs the taxpayers money, is the wholesale use of Attorney Koberlein’s time BY THE MAYOR, without council approval. With the court case against her going so poorly, for her, she has decided to try and change the law. Now the Council doesn’t know anything about it but who is paying for Koberlein’s time to gather the information for the Florida League of Cities? You got it, the Taxpayers are paying. The MAYOR uses the town attorney at will and never seeks Council approval to spend the Town’s money on HER pet project. Its like Koberlein is her attorney and not the town’s. And if she wants to CHANGE THE LAW then she obviously knows what the law is today but continues to claim a lie that the law doesn’t say. The Town wants to call my 44 119 requests “frivolous” when the Statute clearly and unambiguously says that there are no such things a a frivolous Florida Statute 119 Request. Yet this is more money that SHE is spending of the Taxpayer monies, the limited taxpayer monies, that she is spending with Koberlein without Council approval. Changing the law is fine but does the town want to absorb that expense? I think not. Yet there she goes again wasting Taxpayer funds and trying to void the Florida Constitution which has a provision in it requiring Florida Statute 119 to be in existence. And again she and Koberlein are doing so without Council approval. Rhett, who should know better because he is an attorney, at Tanja who apparently knows nothing based upon her lack of support for her key constituency are to blame.  They are up for re-election this April. Maybe we need a voice FOR THE PEOPLE.

More on how Koberlein is getting rich on the Town of White Springs in future posts.

The Mayor’s personal computer e-mails




Since the Town has been waiting on my or Joe’s take of the 1200 copies of Helen Miller’s e-mails, (which I believe were cleansed or that Ed Miller’s computer was used), here it is.


I would like to start with the Carver School.  The Carver School is as extremely important to some as SHE is to others.  It was interesting to note that in an April 26, 2013 e-mail, Robert Farley met with Charles Boone who agreed to demolish the building AFTER MAY DAY at no cost to the Town.  He stated they agreed to wait until after May due to safety reasons.  The Mayor replied “Good to hear that Mr.
Boone will demolish Carver at no cost to the Town.  Don’t understand the rational/need to wait until after May Day/due to Safety reasons.  Could you provide the reason?”


As you know the Carver Building stands strong.  It is a concrete block building which unfortunately has asbestos inside.  Asbestos is hazardous when airborne; if inhaled, tiny particles can cause lung or stomach cancer.  Tearing asbestos releases tiny airborne particles, so it’s best to cover or otherwise control asbestos rather than removing.  If it’s completely intact and in good condition, asbestos is not dangerous, although some people complain of headaches.


Removal costs vary widely depending upon the circumstances.  Removing a 10 foot section of asbestos pipe insulation could be $400-$650.  Some contractors have a minimum fee of $1,500-3000 no matter how small the Job is.  For a complete removal of asbestos from walls, floors, ceilings, attic, roof and pipes it could be as high as $20,000-30,000.  Any portion of removal from a building is clearly marked as a hazard area and the Environmental Protection Agency provides details.


Do-it-yourself asbestos removal is discouraged because improper handling creates a real hazard.  Only a trained asbestos professional (who wears hazmat suits) should remove asbestos.  The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization outlines guidelines for choosing a qualified asbestos contractor.  We were supposed to secure an asbestos abatement contractor to inspect the Carver School. The only bid received after checking the Boiler room was $3,500.  And many of the people of the Town would like the Carver School to have the asbestos removed from room to room, being able to utilize the room where the asbestos was removed and replaced by new materials.


Knowing that the Carver School contained asbestos for which if demolished improperly would cause a real health hazard for those in White Springs really does not set right.  Yet the Mayor did a study with the UF Students at the Carver School which cost some $25,000 without council approval.  That $25,000 could have gone a long way by having a professional remove asbestos from one or two classrooms. The Carver School architecture is the most beautiful of the town.


If the Town decides to do anything about the Carver School, please understand: There must be confirmation (in writing) that the inspection will include a complete visual examination and lab analysis of carefully collected samples, plus frequent site visits to ensure the work is being done properly. A list of accredited laboratories is provided by Environment, Health and Safety Online.


The written contract should list details of the work and cleanup, and any federal, state and local regulations that must be followed, including notification and disposal procedures. To find out what these are, contact your state and local health departments and the EPA regional office.   When done, the contractor should provide a written statement saying all required procedures were followed.

Now the Mayor, even though all the money for the project doesn’t appear to be earmarked or possibly yet all collected, wishes to build a 12 x 12 Pavilion.  I have an art tent which is 10’ x 10’ and I can tell you, an extra two feet either way does not cut it.  Our mayor has been working a long time with the UF Students to have this design/build building in place at the Carver School Site. In fact from the newspaper they hope, since it is on skids, that they can move it around for functions. The Town had to rent trucks so Kenny could pick up Cedar and other lumber from the mills in GA and take it to Gainesville.  I would assume we must also pay the charges for the complete building’s return by truck once completed by the UF Students.  Anyway, this makes the Mayor look great with UF. How do you all feel about it?


In my opinion, this is just another lack of Transparency to the Citizens of White Springs.  Although the Charter does not have a strong mayor form of government, meaning the Mayor cannot run the town.  She is doing a great job of running the town and doing as she and her husband please.  Who cares about the Citizens of White Springs?  After all, you have no right to question the council.


I find it interesting in the manner in which she orders the Town Employees including Managers and volunteers around.  For instance I noticed many a note to Anita stating “Would You Please”, instead of “When you have a moment, please place the attached in the file…Thank you”  The earlier comment I used when I was angry at someone outside the office because it is a final order; Yet, when in business, the rules of engagement are quite different and extremely considerate.


Personally, her e-mails regarding the quilt trail or other events like the IDIDAHIKE events and others should be something that she provides her involvement in.  She represents the Town, and should as a figurehead, to help facilitate business and visitors to our fine Town, with her charm.  I was surprised to learn that the town did use the Heritage Center for artists work, but unlike MCA in Ocala, they charged only a 20% consignment fee instead of 40% and there was not a supervisor (paid) who supervised the volunteers.  In fact MCA, although run by volunteer artists, always has a supervisor in place to assure money changes the right hands and to give instructions to the volunteers.  Also, the Annex idea definitely was Joe’s but if it is not their idea, it will not be used nor will they provide accreditation.


She apparently uses funds meant for Paul to pay Peter and the difference today from over a year ago, is that she gives instructions that Paul must be paid back.  Per the e-mails she also uses her $175 a month salary for some of her legislative and other business travels but appears to be reimbursed for others.  But let’s face it, Town Managers have allowed for her to run her business through personal computers.


In the newspaper the town received an estimate for construction of a multi-use storm shelter of $3. Million.  The town would have had to come up with 40% of that figure in matching funds to the tune of $1.2 million.  Now at one time the Town said they had the money for the $3,000,000 revolving loan which I believe we were told 92% would be paid back by the state.  Yet there are so many stories, even if you attend a council meeting and hear something, such information is deleted by tape or is not in the minutes of the meeting.  In my opinion, one cannot bank on any transparency from the Town.


What I do not understand is that the Majority of her e-mails were to State Officials, the UF and other legislative people. It may be felt that she is doing this to secure grants or be favored over other Towns. But, if the Mayor, in my opinion, did as much for the Town as she does for the waterways and trails, then we would have a successful town.  It is my opinion that the self-proclaimed diplomat and the Mayor are looking to be recognized or to run for the legislature or other post.  And White Springs is only their stepping stone.


She is even involved in the Bienville property where they wish to place additional cabins.  What I don’t understand is how the Town can invest in that property unless the Town plans to annex the property into White Springs.  If they do annex the property, it will no longer be hunting property because by ordinance, one may not shoot a fire arm within city limits. And why would one have additional cabins if the cabins already built have not been reserved by the week so that the year is full of interested rentals  A friend of mine, who owned Alpers’ Trout in Mammoth, had only seven cabins and there were no vacancies.  The only activities included the Mammoth Lakes system with a catch-and release pond for Alpers’ Trout throughout the summer months.  The winter months produced snow falls similar to Tahoe and yet the summer cabins still gave them a substantial living.



In summation, and in my opinion, the Mayor and her self-professed diplomat want bigger and better things for themselves, personally, and they really don’t care about the Citizen’s needs of this town. In fact, although everyone credits the Mayor for the HOPE program, I have recently found that Bernard Williams and his daughter Nicole, actually started the initial HOPE program which provided far more programs than currently offered.


So I have not learned anything new and what I have learned for the few items that have not been cleansed from her computer about us (Yes Hilary) have been forwarded to our attorney as additional discovery by the defendants.   You must understand, the Town has refused providing paperwork, even at their Federal attorney’s request because it was felt the paperwork was “too burdensome”.  They take no blame for their actions and blame the Assistant States Attorney for advising them how to “Get Joe and Karin Griffin”.  They feel she has strict immunity for everything, but there are some things in which she may not have such immunity and I look forward to seeing the results. In any event, with all of the legislative forums the Mayor has attended, she should have known that her actions to assure she remained Mayor were a violation of our civil rights.












If you were in our Shoes, wouldn’t you get tired of someone continually taking your rights away?



Since the same 35 individuals look at our blog multiple times, I must believe the Town Officials and their Camel Club Friends are checking in for the Mayor and Walter to see what Joe or I may write about Helen Miller’s personal e-mails.  Since I have gone through each and every item, I, Karin, have decided to start with another Camel Club Member, I believe “Angry Camel” who has assisted the Mayor from working on the HOPE bus to providing a mechanical horse that just kept going at the Heritage Nature Center who assisted Tom Moore, another camel member, at the last minute before the 2013 election to make certain Joe did not win.


What is interesting is that Tom Moore,forwarded to the Mayor on April 22, 2013 an e-mail that stated “Don’t know if it is too late but here are some excerpts from an e-mail Joe sent out June 26, 2011.  I am working at the Boy’s Ranch today.  Tom”


Worrying about it being too late was when the Camel Club, the Police Officers and the Mayor’s
Friends were digging up dirt to stop Joe Griffin from winning the 2013 election.


The Mayor’s response, from her personal e-mail, to the manager stated “Please note that he states that he will break the law as his normal activity and rumor mongering”


It is highly evident now that Ed Miller (Robert A) did begin the camel club with his famous letters.  Secondly, what is interesting is that the Camel Club has picked on Joe for his 119’s, 286.011’s etc and his law suits.   And of course, you will note that Tom Moore, stated “excerpts” rather than sending the entire e-mail.   I would agree that Joe would state that if his requests for information and lawsuits were considered breaking the law, then Joe would state that.  Why, because Joe was within the law and especially followed the Sunshine Laws?

Let me take you back to the Injunction wherein the Newspaper stated the Tom and Mattie Moore won the injunction against Joe Griffin.  That was the first attempt to have the blog removed for which Mattie Moore received a standing ovation for her and Tom’s attempt to silence Griffin for once and for all at the Town Meeting.


Judge Sonny Scaff, acting Circuit Judge, however, did not violate our First Amendment Rights.  He ordered that we remove anything relating to two names on the blog.  What was unbelievable was the fact that we did not use those names on the blog relating to Tom or Mattie Moore but instead, their attorney brought out an e-mail, whereby Joe called them one of the names.  Since Joe never recalled that e-mail and was concerned about a former manager who Tom and Mattie Moore spent time with, did Tom fix that e-mail always.  And why did we start the campaign?  It was because Woody Woodard asked Joe for help.   I now may be more nearly certain that the e-mail from 2011, I believe, was fixed by Tom or Mattie Moore.  After all, they include excerpts and not the entire e-mail.  That is why most courts will not accept e-mails and only facsimile copies.


This entire thing started to begin with because Woody Woodard was upset that Tom Moore was trying to shut down the veggie stand and had met or talked to the former town manager about the matter.  But no good deed goes unpunished.  And I commend Judge Sonny Scaff because fair justice and honesty within the law prevailed.


What followed, which most do not know, is that another Petition by affidavit for order to show cause for a violation of the final judgment of injunction for protection was filed by Tom and Mattie Moore.  This was a result of an article I wrote about my findings in the courtroom the day of the injunction.  “Joe Griffin continued to haress (harass) + cyberstalk my husband & myself more than once.  His wife, on his blog, also accused us three times of perjury.  All took place hours after injunction was in place”      

“Joe Griffin, after the injunction associated my husband and myself on the same blog with the words…… and ….(untrue) Also he referenced us to a known “accused” pediphile (pedophile) Robert Townsend.  He also stated he can continue to harass us as long as he does not call us …… or …..  He then said we were “crooks, liars, & thieves”.  I believe the spirit of the injunction because of the course of conduct for the past two years has been violated.  Also the way the injunction reads may need clarification.  I believe Joe Griffin willfully & maliciously acted contray (contrary) to the injunction put in place.”

We then received an Order Denying Petitioner’s Request for “order to show cause” for violation of final judgment of injunction for protection against cyberstalking.  “After reviewing the court file and Plaintiff’s above referenced petition requesting an Order to Show Cause to be issued against the Respondent, said petion is hereby DENIED.  This Court does not find that the Respondent referenced or called the Petitioner a ….. or …. On June 3, 2013 after 5:00 p.m. in the Respondent’s blog.”


IT IS AS OUR CRIMINAL ATTORNEY STATED.  They have been unable to silence you through civil court so sooner or later they would file criminal charges against us.  Yet here we are with the same charges harassment and cyber stalking which the State Third Judicial District did not find us in violation of in September of 2014; thus our Civil Suit to weed out the malicious harassment by Town Officials against both Joe and I.

Hatton attempts to avoid Subpoena.

Assistant State Attorney Karin Hatton is attempting to evade the subpoena issued to her to testify at a deposition on the Griffin Civil Rights case. I assume she is going to claim immunity because she is a prosecutor. Bill said the other day that Hatton was immune from prosecution. As the except shows there is no absolute immunity when a prosecutor ceases being a prosecutor and becomes an ally of the Police.

FYI. Here is an excerpt from a order written by my favorite Federal Judge, John Antoon. It describes the immunities available to a prosecutor. You will note that there is no absolute immunity for a prosecutor giving advice to the police:




The next four letters are written by her royal highness’ own husband’s hand. It is systematic of the type of person the husband and thus the wife is because she helped distribute the letters.

The next letter will be explained in the Post.