HomeMy Public PortalAboutNew Case# 9:14-cv-81250-KAM (7/30/15). Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 46 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2015 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action 2 -
UNITED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE
Plaintiif(s)
V.
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
and TOWN OF GULF STREAM
Defendants)
Southern District of Florida
Civil Action No. 9:14-CV-81250-KAM
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
& T•
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
DeSouza Law, PA
101 NE Third Avenue
Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Ifyou fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
Date:
Jul 30, 2015
Clerk of Court
SUMMONS
s/Alex Rodriguez
Deputy Clerk
U.S. District Courts
. Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
CASE NO.: 9:14-CV-81250-KAM
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
and TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle ("Plaintiff') sues Defendants Robert A. Sweetapple
("Sweetapple") and the Town of Gulf Stream ("Town'), and alleges as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
Plaintiff brings this action under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Florida common law of
Defamation which will necessarily raise questions of the First Amendment as incorporated by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331, which gives district courts
original jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitutional laws or treaties of the
United States. This Court has supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over the Florida common law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.
3. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.0 §1443(2), which gives district court's
jurisdiction over actions to secure civil rights extended by the United States government.
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 2 of 17
4. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the
events that gave rise to this complaint occurred in this district.
5. The Plaintiff, MARTIN O'BOYLE is now and at all times pertinent was a resident
of the Town of Gulf Stream, Palm Beach County, Florida which is located in the United States,
Southern District of Florida.
6. The Defendant, ROBERT SWEETAPPLE, is now and at all times pertinent was
residing in the Southern District of Florida.
7. The Defendant, TOWN OF GULF STREAM ("Town") is a municipal corporation
of the State of Florida seated in the Southern District of Florida.
Plaintiff's History of First Amendment Activities with the Town
7. The Town is a relatively small municipality with approximately 1,000 residents
located within its approximately 500 acres of land.
8. Plaintiff is a resident of the Town, owning and occupying the home located at 23
N. Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida 33483.
9. Plaintiff is an avid supporter of Florida's Public Records Law and, in an exercise
of his Constitutional and statutory rights, has over the years submitted numerous public records
requests to the Town and various other municipalities/agencies.
10. Occasionally, Plaintiff's public records requests are not complied with and
Plaintiff has exercised his right under Fla. Stat. § 119 to bring a lawsuit to enforce his rights
under the Public Records Law.
11. Plaintiff has filed approximately 29 lawsuits against the Town for alleged
violations of the Public Records Law. As of the date of this lawsuit, Plaintiff is currently
2
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 3 of 17
engaged in 12 lawsuits against the Town relating to alleged violations of the Public Records
Law. Plaintiff has also filed one lawsuit for violations of 268.0114, Fla. Stat. because he was not
afforded any opportunity to speak before the Town passed a parking ordinance in response to the
Plaintiff parking his truck at Town Hall, a truck which contained politically charged banners
critical of the Mayor.
12. Plaintiff likewise engages in various forms of Constitutionally -protected
acts/speech with respect to the Town. For example, in 2013 Plaintiff painted the fagade of his
Gulf Stream house with various political messages criticizing the Town, its then -mayor, and its
commissioners as the result of the Town denying Plaintiffs request for a building permit. The
Town ultimately settled the dispute, which made its way to federal court, issuing an apology to
Plaintiff and agreeing to pay him $180,000.00.
13. In February 2014, Plaintiff announced that he would run for a council seat in Gulf
Stream and subsequently began campaigning throughout the Town and neighboring
municipalities. Plaintiff placed numerous campaign signs throughout the Town, many of which
were conclusively removed by Gulf Stream agents/officials. The signs were targeted for removal
at the request of Town Manager Thrasher because the signs displayed political content.
14. During this same time period, Plaintiff engaged in Constitutionally -protected
speech by flying banners and displaying signs that were critical of his opponents or otherwise
carried political messages. In response, the Town threatened Plaintiff with adverse action,
including code enforcement hearings carrying daily fines not to exceed $500 per sign per day, if
he did not remove his signs and otherwise cease such political speech.
15. As a result of the removal of his campaign signs, the threats of official adverse
action if his political signs were not removed, and other conduct by the Town, Plaintiff filed
3
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 4 of 17
another federal action against the Town in March 2014.
16. After the March 2014 election, the Plaintiff continued to criticize Town officials
with banners on the side of his truck, which he would park from time to time at Town Hall to
ensure maximum visibility and political effectiveness because Town Hall is the seat of the
Town's legislative, judicial, and executive branches.
17. These are just a few of many examples of Plaintiff's exercise of Constitutionally -
protected speech as it relates to the Town. For at least the past two years, Plaintiff has displayed
numerous signs and flown numerous banners critical of the Town, its mayor, its commissioners,
and other agents of the Town. Plaintiff has likewise attended numerous Town meetings and
events during which he has personally voiced his criticism of this same group.
18. Plaintiff's above-described Constitutional speech and lawsuits were not
undertaken/filed to harass the Town or for any improper purpose — rather, each of the lawsuits
filed by Plaintiff against the Town was filed to enforce a specific Constitutional or statutory right
which Plaintiff contends was violated by the Town and/or its officials, and the above-described
speech was undertaken to voice legitimate concerns with the Town's administration.
19. Plaintiff views the above-described lawsuits as meritorious and necessary to
enforce State and federal laws, and, with respect to at least some of the public records lawsuits
filed by Plaintiff, the Town's current mayor, Scott Morgan ("Morgan'), has stated on the record
that he agrees the cases have merit.
20. In response to Plaintiffs lawsuits, the Town (through the actions of its mayor, its
town manager, the town police force, and Sweetapple) has endeavored to forego defending
Plaintiffs various cases on the merits and has opted instead to engage in threats, intimidation,
and harassment designed to cause Plaintiff to dismiss his lawsuits against the Town, cease his
4
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 5 of 17
Constitutionally -protected speech critical of the Town and its agents, and ultimately move from
the Town due to the pressure against Plaintiff and his family.
Morgan's June 2, 2014 Letter
21. In a June 2, 2014 letter from Morgan to all Town residents, Morgan noted that the
Town's general fund reserves had fallen below an acceptable number and blamed this occurrence
on the lawsuits filed by Plaintiff and another Town resident.
22. With respect to the public records requests filed by Plaintiff and the other Town
resident, Morgan stated that, in his opinion, they "have little purpose other than to harass and
financially damage our town."
23. Morgan's letter then goes on to state that the money to defend these lawsuits
would likely have to come from increased taxes to the residents of the Town — a premonition that
the Town made good on in July 2014 when Town commissioners voted unanimously to approve
a tax hike for Town residents.
24. The letter then states that, in an effort to `step up its defense' of the lawsuits
referenced therein, the Town had hired special counsel to take a "firm stance" in opposing the
lawsuits.
25. The special counsel referenced in the letter is Sweetapple, an attorney with
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L.
26. Although "stepping up its defense" can mean several things, it quickly became
apparent to Plaintiff that the Town's newfound strategy in dealing with him did not involve
litigating the merits of his lawsuits in a court of law.
27. Rather, Morgan and Sweetapple (and likely other Town officials unknown to
Plaintiff at this time) devised a plan to smear Plaintiffs name among his friends and colleagues
5
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
. . Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 6 of 17
and to assert undue pressure on Plaintiff by lashing out against his family.
28. By acting together, the mayor (Morgan) and the attorney (Sweetapple) decided
that they could accomplish what neither one of them could accomplish on their own — systematic
and pervasive pressure on Plaintiff designed to silence and/or extinguish Plaintiff's exercise of
statutory/Constitutional rights.
29. Morgan and Sweetapple devised their plan to defame, harass, intimidate, and
antagonize Plaintiff during a private meeting on April 3, 2014 and continued their scheming
during further meetings on at least the following dates: 4/17/14, 5/4/14, 6/5/14 and 6/10/14.
30. During this meeting and in subsequent conversations between the two, Morgan
and Sweetapple decided on a course of action of (1) falsely and maliciously publishing to others
that Plaintiff is violating the civil and criminal provisions of the federal and Florida RICO
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Acts by his filing and pursuit of public records
cases; (2) falsely and maliciously publishing to others that Plaintiffs pursuit of public records
cases against the Town is a `scheme' devised by Plaintiff to `line his pockets' with profit; and (3)
putting pressure on Plaintiff's son and business associates in an effort to gain an undue
advantage over Plaintiff in Plaintiffs lawsuits against the Town.
31. Both Sweetapple and Morgan have overtly acted in support of the above-
described agreement to falsely accuse Plaintiff of various state and federal crimes, disparage
Plaintiff s character, and weaken Plaintiff by exerting pressure over his son.
32. For example, on several occasions over the last four months, Sweetapple has
spoken to friends, colleagues, business associates, and attorneys for Plaintiff and conveyed the
same message to each — Plaintiff is a criminal, he has violated the federal and Florida RICO
Acts, and that he is engaging in a for-profit scheme by having the audacity to file public records
6
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
. Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 7 of 17
requests and the willpower to enforce them through lawsuits.
33. Sweetapple has for months boasted to each of these individuals that Plaintiff was
`finished' and that Sweetapple would soon file suit against Plaintiff for the various alleged RICO
violations. Sweetapple further suggested in these conversations that Plaintiffs f-iends/attomeys
should sever their ties with Plaintiff so as not to be caught in the impending litigation (implicitly
threatening them in the process).
34. With respect to one such individual, Sweetapple's threats were more explicit and
bordering on extortion (if not in fact extortion) — Sweetapple demanded that this individual drop
his lawsuits against the Town or else he would also be named as a defendant in the supposedly
forthcoming RICO lawsuit against Plaintiff. Sweetapple further called a `confidential' meeting
with this individual where, upon information and belief, Sweetapple further defamed Plaintiff by
making additional RICO allegations and additional threats.
35. These comments (which were completely false), together with Morgan's June 2,
2014 letter, were not made during the course of any judicial proceeding or in connection
therewith. Rather, the above-described comments were each made out of court and solely in
connection with Morgan and Sweetapple's plan to harass, defame, and ultimately dissuade
Plaintiff from continuation of his various lawsuits against the Town and his political speech
critical of the Town and its agents.
36. As stated above, Morgan and Sweetapple's plan did not stop with the spreading
false and malicious lies about Plaintiffs purported involvement in criminal activities and
violation of the RICO Acts, but also included plans to exert pressure on Plaintiffs son and
business associates wholly unrelated to the merits of any of Plaintiffs lawsuits against the Town.
37. On or about April 24, 2014, Sweetapple himself publicly proclaimed that, as a
7
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
. . Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 8 of 17
result of Plaintiffs multiple lawsuits against the Town, Sweetapple was going to investigate and
go after Plaintiffs son.
38. Sweetapple has made these statements directly to various members of the Town's
population as well as friends, advisors, and business associates of Plaintiff. The statements were
not made to voice some legitimate concern but rather to force Plaintiff into dropping his lawsuits
against the Town and refrain from exercising rights guaranteed by the Florida and the U.S.
Constitution. Again, these statements were not made in connection with any judicial proceeding,
but rather in furtherance of Morgan and Sweetapple's plan to silence Plaintiff.
39. As just one example of Morgan and Sweetapple's efforts in this regard, on August
25, 2014, Morgan filed a Florida Bar complaint (which, upon information and belief, was
substantially prepared by Sweetapple) against Plaintiffs son (who is an attorney licensed to
practice in other states and awaiting admission to the Florida Bar), Plaintiffs longtime business
associate William Ring (a Florida attorney), and substantially all of the attorneys working (or
that had worked at any time) at the law firm which represents Plaintiff in many of his lawsuits
against the Town.
40. The Bar complaint was submitted by Morgan purportedly in his capacity as mayor
of the Town, yet the Town does not appear to have taken any action (as required) to authorize
such action.
41. The Bar complaint uses a broad brush to make numerous false allegations against
Plaintiffs son, Plaintiffs longtime business associate, and the various attorneys which are or
were representing Plaintiff in his litigation against the Town, and is just the latest tool employed
by Morgan and Sweetapple to dissuade Plaintiff from his litigation against the Town and his
Constitutionally -protected speech critical of the Town and its agents (including, but not limited
8
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
. Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 9 of 17
to, Morgan and Sweetapple). The Bar complaint against Plaintiffs son before the UPL division
of the Florida Bar was dismissed on May 20, 2015, no adverse action was taken by the Bar.
42. By attacking Plaintiffs reputation in the community and threatening Plaintiffs
son and business associates, Morgan and Sweetapple `stepped up their defense' of Plaintiffs
lawsuits by doing everything in their power — under color of law — to avoid actually litigating the
merits of the lawsuits. Rather, they set off on a course of intimidation, harassment, and
retaliation with a singular purpose of silencing Plaintiff at any cost.
43. All conditions precedent to this action have been performed or have been waived
COUNT I — SLANDER PER SE
(Sweetaoale)
44. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as set forth above.
45. As described herein, Sweetapple has, on numerous occasions over the past four
months, falsely stated to Plaintiffs friends, colleagues, business associates, and attorneys
(among other individuals and agency representatives) that Plaintiff is a `criminal' and is violating
the civil and criminal provisions of the federal and Florida RICO Acts through his filing of
public records requests and pursuit of lawsuits to enforce alleged violations of the Public
Records Law.
46. Further, Sweetapple has further stated to numerous individuals that Plaintiffs
pursuit of public records lawsuits is a `money -making scheme' designed by Plaintiff to line his
pockets with profit.
47. Sweetapple did not present these statements as if they were merely his opinion —
rather, Sweetapple, as an attorney experienced in both state and federal matters, conveyed these
statements as fact. He did not state it was his or the Town's opinion that Plaintiff had committed
several felonies or that he would ultimately prove such in a court of law — rather, he left no room
9
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 10 of 17
for doubt in emphatically stating that Plaintiff had committed these crimes, that he had
assembled `piles' of evidence of such crimes, and that anyone standing with Plaintiff would
likewise be named as defendants when these actions were filed.
48. In truth, at the time these statements were made, Sweetapple had not assembled
any evidence which would support his accusations that Plaintiff violated the civil or criminal
provisions of the federal or Florida RICO statutes, let alone `piles' of evidence. Sweetapple, an
attorney with substantial experience in federal and state matters, knew at the time that he made
these statements that they were wholly unsupported by the evidence, and therefore were made
with reckless disregard for the truth.
49. The above-described false and malicious statements were made with the purpose
of causing harm to Plaintiffs reputation, both in the Town and among his friends, colleagues,
business associates, and attorneys, and in furtherance of Sweetapple and Morgan's scheme to
silence Plaintiffs Constitutionally -protected speech and dissuade Plaintiff from continuing with
his litigation against the Town.
50. As a result of Sweetapple's false and malicious statements, Plaintiff has sustained
substantial damages resulting from the loss of reputation, the full amount of which will be
established at trial.
COUNT II — RETALIATION (42 U.S.C. 4 1983)
(Municipal Liability)
51. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 43 as set forth above.
52. The Town, either through the decisions of its top policymakers, Mayor Morgan,
the Town Commission, Town Manager Thrasher or Police Chief Ward have chosen to use the
Town's municipal powers to engage in a pattern of First Amendment retaliation against the
Plaintiff. Additionally, the Town has possessed a pervasive and widespread custom, usage, or
10
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
, Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 11 of 17
policy of retaliating against residents for First Amendment activities, including the Plaintiff.
53. In early 2014, the Town cited a fellow resident Christopher O'Hare for displaying
objects d'art at his home under Sec. 70-268. The "objects of art" were several political signs that
were critical of Town Officials. The Town notified O'Hare that he would be brought to a code
enforcement hearing if he did not remove his signs. When resident O'Hare replaced his political
signage with holiday signage, the Town did not cite him. In fact, Town Manager Thrasher
admitted that for as long as he could remember (his employment with the Town dates back to the
mid -late 90's), the Town did not cite people for displaying holiday accoutrements that typically
are displayed at holidays such as Halloween or Easter decorations. The Town's enforcement
was brought because Mr. O'Hare was critical of the Government; the Town did not cite Mr.
O'Hare under the Town's sign ordinance, which treated real estate signs more favorably than
political. The Town admitted such in a March 26, 2015 letter sent out to all residents of the
Town.
54. As part of the Town's pervasive culture of retaliation, the Town again cited Mr.
O'Hare in the spring of 2014 for displaying similar political signs on a small boat that was
moored in the center of a large turning basin called "Polo Cove" behind then Mayor, and current
commissioner, Joan Orthwein. O'Hare was cited under the portion of the Town's old sign
ordinance which regulated only political signs, for displaying signs in the Town's right of way,
not for displaying Object d'art.
55. When Plaintiff ran for Town Commissioner in 2014, the Town cited the Plaintiff
for placing signs in the Town's right of way when he displayed banners from him truck that were
critical of Town Officials. Plaintiff was also cited for placing campaign signs in the Town's
right-of-way when they were displayed on property owners' homes in the neighborhood of Place
11
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
, Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 12 of 17
Au Soleil. None of the property owners displaying the signs were cited, the obvious explanation
is that Plaintiff's opponents who were running as a slate, all high level Town officials, would
rather label the Plaintiff as a lawbreaker than instigate adverse actions against the property
owners themselves, who were the electorate and potential voters.
56. After the March 2014, municipal election, the Plaintiff continued to fly banner
planes and display banners on his truck. All forms of speech on the ground and in the air were
politically charged and critical of Town officials and those who had the ability to speak on behalf
of the Town.
57. Shortly thereafter on March 14, 2014, the Town instituted a decorum policy for
speaking at public meetings in response to the critiques of O'Boyle and O'Hare at Town
Meetings. The policy prohibited "personal verbal attacks toward any individual members of the
Town Commission" and afforded the Mayor/Chair the ability to physically remove anyone who
violated the policy. On April 11, 2014 at the next Town Commission meeting, the Town held a
regular meeting where 4 armed police officers were present.
58. On April 14, 2014, Mayor Morgan called a special meeting of the Town to pass
an emergency ordinance to regulate the parking at Town Hall. On April 29, 2014 at another
special meeting Ordinance 14/1 was passed unanimously. The ordinance was to take effect
immediately. Although the Town always has allotted time for public input prior to passing
ordinances, the Town did not allot any time for residents, including O'Boyle, to comment on the
"emergency" ordinance before it was passed unanimously, an ordinance that was directed at
removing O'Boyle's truck from displaying banners.
59. The Coastal Star in May, a popular local paper read by many Town residents,
observed, "Morgan didn't waste time beginning his aggressive defense against the town's critics.
12
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
.. Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 13 of 17
He called a special meeting of the commission for April 14 to consider an ordinance against
overnight parking at Town Hall — regulation aimed at vehicles displaying political signs that
criticize town officials." The article also noted that Morgan ran "on a platform that called for an
aggressive legal defense against the towns detractors."
60. In the summer of 2014, the Town attempted to use the state court system to
sanction and/or restrain the Plaintiff for flying politically charged banner planes in the federal
airspace — a privilege or immunity possessed by Plaintiff under the Fourteenth Amendment's
guarantee that State's refrain from attempting to prohibit access to federal privileges.
61. In June, as discussed above, the Town via Mayor Morgan sent out a "poison pen"
letter accusing the Plaintiff of the Town's woes. The letter was clearly created to incite social
ostrcization, directing resident's to treat the Plaintiff as a pariah. The letter had another purpose,
to quell any dissent and to prevent other Town residents from challenging the Town's actions,
just as the Coastal Star predicted.
62. To further the Town's North Korean approach to speech, the Town cited the
Plaintiff's wife, as Plaintiffs Truck was in her name, for parking the banner clad truck in one of
the highly visible parking spots at Town Hall on June 20, 2014. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's
truck was towed at the direction of the Town.
63. The Town's public parking ordinance 14/1 placed special restrictions on the
parking spaces in the front of Town Hall and the Police Station which were visible from the main
road. Those spaces were reserved for Town employees, who had reserved spaces in the back of
Town Hall, and for those conducting business at Town Hall. It is worth noting that the disability
entrance and handicapped parking spaces were in the back of Town Hall. Shortly after the
parking ordinance was passed, the Town built large hedges that hid the back parking spaces from
13
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
. Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 14 of 17
view at Town Hall, ostensibly to prevent the public from seeing Plaintiff's banners if the Plaintiff
parked his vehicle at the rear of Town Hall for the day.
64. The Town passed the parking ordinance, installed the hedges, and towed
Plaintiff's truck because Town officials disagreed with the messages on Plaintiff's truck. To the
best of Plaintiff's knowledge other vehicles necessarily have violated the Town's parking
ordinance, because Town Hall is reserved for beach parking under the Town's comprehensive
land use plan and the front Town Hall parking spaces are closest to the beach access point.
Plaintiff's vehicle was not obstructing or inhibiting anyone from parking at Town Hall,
especially those with disabilities.
65. On October 10, 2014, the Town unanimously voted to initiate a RICO complaint
against the Plaintiff at a regular commission meeting. The theories of RICO were not discussed
nor were the parties. The likelihood of success was not discussed either. The only thing that was
discussed was the motivations and consequences of filing such an action. To wit, Mayor Morgan
stated, "I think as it has been discussed today, we can either take the approach of defending these
individual cases as they come in, and bleed to death by a thousand cuts, or we can takes steps
necessary to stop those cases by advancing this case ... And by putting a stop to it with this
RICO action, we then put a stop to the individual lawsuits on the public records requests. I'm
confident that would be the result of this case." Commissioner Orthwein followed up, "I agree,
because I don't see an end just defending one by one. I think we have to take it all as a group
and go forward because just defending is not doing anything."
66. The Town's sole reason for advancing the RICO case was to chill the Plaintiff's
right to petition in the courts for redress as protected by the First Amendment and also 768.295,
Fla. Stat. After the RICO case was filed in February, the Town's attorney Richman engaged in a
14
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
.. Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 15 of 17
media campaign that included newspaper and television interviews to publicize the filing of the
RICO and to besmirch the Plaintiff and chill him from bringing public records litigation when he
felt the Town was violating the law and Florida Constitution.
67. Lastly as part of the Town's pervasive campaign of retaliation against petitioners
and political advocates, Mayor Morgan send out a letter to residents on March 26, 2015. The
letter was another poison pen sent out on Gulf Stream official letterhead contained within official
Gulf Stream envelopes. In this new letter Mayor Morgan admitted that the reason the old sign
ordinance was changed (in early 2015) was because of Plaintiffs legal actions. Morgan stated
"This change will primarily affect real estate signs, which had previously been treated differently
from other signs because of the importance of sign visibility to our residents when selling their
homes." Morgan went on tell Town residents that the RICO complaint and video depositions of
Plaintiff and O'Hare could be found at the Town's website. Those videos are also posted by the
Town on its official page on youtube.com.
68. Further in that letter, the Town accused Plaintiff of misconduct. In addition, the
Town notified all residents that O'Hare had made complaints against certain enumerated
residents/properties under the new sign ordinance. Morgan later admitted under oath that he
included that portion into his letter in an attempt to stop O'Hare from petitioning, i.e. sending the
Town complaints regarding selective code enforcement.
69. As demonstrated above, the Town possesses a policy of speech (both by content
and viewpoint) favoritism and has engaged in a campaign of retaliation against the Plaintiff. In
the Town, if a resident speaks out, that resident can expect an aggressive responsive that is
designed to chill if not freeze First Amendment activities. This method of operation is designed
to punish and deter dissent against Town Officials. Plaintiff has suffered because of this custom,
15
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 16 of 17
policy or usage of retaliation.
70. Particularly, Plaintiff incurred damages because his truck was towed and has not
been able to display banners on his truck at the public forum of the Town Hall parking spaces.
His truck was signed out because of the viewpoint espoused on it. Plaintiff had to pay money to
retrieve his truck and suffered the loss of the opportunity to publically criticize government
officials by using his truck at Town Hall. Plaintiff has been chilled from engaging in banner
plane speech as a result of the Town's actions. He has incurred great damages in the form of
garden variety emotional distress, reputation, and economic hardship as a result of the RICO
action being filed solely to chill Plaintiff from petitioning from redress in the courts when he
feels aggrieved.
Demand For Jury Trial
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issued so triable.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Town of Gulf Stream:
(i) Direct, incidental, and consequential damages, interest, and costs, in an
amount to be determined at trial;
(ii) Attorneys' fees and costs incurred in pursuit of this action;
(iii) A finding that the Town has taken any one of the aforementioned actions
in whole or in part in derogation of Plaintiffs First Amendment rights.
(iv) An injunction against the Town for attempting to use any instrumentality
of the State of Florida for regulating Plaintiff's access to the federal
sovereign airspace (49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1)) for speech purposes under
either the First or Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process or Privileges or
Immunities Clauses.
(v) Issuance of such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: June 19, 2015. DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
16
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:14-cv-81250-KAM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/19/2015 Page 17 of 17
1515 N. University Drive
Suite 209
Coral Springs, FL 33071
Telephone: (954) 551-5320
DDeso uzagdeso uzalaw.com
By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 19, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will electronically serve all counsel of record.
/s/ Daniel DeSouza
Daniel DeSouza
17
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340