HomeMy Public PortalAboutO'Boyle Exhibits - 5/16/16IN 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. S WEETAPPLE
and TOWN OF GULF STREAM,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
GULF STREAM'S JANUARY 19, 2016 INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle
("PlaintifPI respectfully submits these responses and objections (the "Responses') to Defendant
Town of Gulf Stream's ("Gulf Stream") January 19, 2016 Interrogatories to Plaintiff (the
`Interrogatories") as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
State your full legal name, date of birth, Social Security number, Florida Driver's
License number, your present residential address, and your residential addresses for the past 10
years.
Response: Martin E. O'Boyle. Plaintiff's residential address period of time relevant to the
allegations of the Second Amended Complaint is 23 North Hidden Harbour Drive, Gulf Stream,
FL 33483. Plaintiff objects to the remaining information requested in this interrogatory as
having no relevance to the claims or defenses asserted in this action.
DEFT EXHIBIT 1
Witness: Martln OBoyle
R•0• 5/16/2016
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE t954) 603.1340
2. State your total gross income for each year for the period from January I, 2010,
through the current date:
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as requesting information that is not relevant to
any party's claim or defense. Plaintiff's gross income during any period of time has no relevance
to his slander per se and/or retaliation claims asserted in this action. This interrogatory appears
to serve no purpose other than to harass Plaintiff by intruding into his personal finances.
3. With respect to each item of damages that you claim in this matter (including,
without limitation, out-ol'pocket expenses, compensatory damages, lost profits, loss of future
income, etc.), state the date that each item or damages was incurred, the amount of each such
item of damages, and the method used in deriving and calculating each such item ofdamages.
Response: Plaintiff has not yet calculated the full amount of damages he has sustained as a
result of Defendants' actions, and will require further discovery from both Defendants and third
parties to accurately calculate such damages. Plaintiffs' damages in this action include, but are
not limited to, damage to his reputation in the community, attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
this action (which continue to accumulate), damage to Plaintiffs property value within the Town
Of Gulf Stream, fines assed by Gulf Stream against Plaintiff for his First Amendment protected
speech, and other consequential/incidental damages to be established at trial of this matter.
4. If you seek damages in this matter for alleged intangible injuries, including
emotional distress, pain, and suffering, state the date you first began to suffer each such injury,
the specific conduct, communication, or circumstances which gave rise to each such injury, the
name and address of each witness with personal knowledge of each such injury, and the name
and address of each witness with personal knowledge of any consultation, therapy, or treatment
for such injury, including any health care provider or member ofthe clergy
2
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
Response: Plaintiff has not asserted a claim in this matter for intangible injuries.
5. With respect to each document that you rely upon to support any item of damages
being claimed in this matter (including, without limitation, out-of-pocket expenses,
compensatory damages, lost profits, loss of future income, intangible injuries, etc.), state the date
the document was prepared or transmitted, the name of the document's author, the type of
document (e.g., tae return, bank statement, correspondence, memorandum, invoice, bill, receipt,
email, text message, etc.), the name of each recipient of the document, and the subject matter of
the document.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad and unduly
burdensome in that it purports to require Plaintiff to catalogue "each document" that may support
a claim for damages in this action. As stated above, discovery in this matter is ongoing and
Plaintiff has not yet calculated the full extent of his damages as a result of Defendants' conduct
(indeed, certain of Plaintiffs damages — such as attorneys' fees and costs — continue to accrue).
Plaintiff directs Gulf Stream to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, his responses to co-
defendant Robert Sweetapple's interrogatories, and any documents previously produced by
Plaintiff in connection with this litigation. Further, Plaintiff will testify in his deposition as to
damages sustained and calculations thereof, which is a less burdensome method of obtaining the
same information.
6. With respect to each communication by, on behalf of, or attributable to the Town
concerning an admission of liability in connection with any issue in this lawsuit, state the name
and address of each person who participated in making the communication, the name and
address of each person who received the communication, and the date, time, place, and substance
of the communication.
3
DESOUZA LAW. P A.
101 NE THIRD AV ENUF. SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE E (954) 603-1340
Response: Plaintiff is not aware of any communication from a representative of the Town in
which such representative openly admits to having committed First Amendment retaliation
against Plaintiff. The Town, however, has to date outright refused to produce a single
communication in response to Plaintifrs document requests, and therefore Plaintiffis unaware of
what communications the Town has actually sent.
7. For each occasion on which you engaged in any activity protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution in this matter, state the date, time, and location of
the protected activity and describe the protected activity in detail, including a detailed account of
the content of each communication, the manner in which the communication was made (e.g., e-
mail, memo, letter, verbal statement, posting of a sign, etc.), and the name and address of each
individual with personal knowledge of the communication
Response:. Plaintiff directs Gulf Stream to Paragraphs 7 — 20 of the Second Amended
Complaint and incorporates those allegations herein. Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory on the
basis that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome in that it purports to require Plaintiff to
catalogue every example of Plaintiff's First Amendment activity over a period of several years.
The Town is certainly aware of the occasions that Plaintiff has flown banner planes critical of the
Town and its officials (as the Town has itself catalogued these occasions and sought to sanction
Plaintiff in state court for such), is aware of the occasions that Plaintiff has appeared at Town
meetings to exercise his First Amendment rights, is aware of the date(s) that Plaintiffs vehicles
which displayed political signs were towed/blocked from view orTown Flail, and the dates on
which Plaintiffs campaign signs were removed.
8. For each occasion on which you claim your constitutional rights were violated in
this matter, provide the name of each individual that participated in the alleged conduct, the date,
4
DESOUZA LAW, PA.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE. 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, PL 33301
TELEPHON E (95.1) 603-1340
time, and location of the alleged conduct, the name, address, and telephone of each individual
who witnessed the alleged conduct, a detailed description ofthe conduct, and the specific manner
in which you were adversely effected by the conduct.
Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 7. Again, the Town has to date refused to produce
a single document in response to Plaintiffs document requests, and therefore Plaintiff is unaware
of the identities of specific individuals within the Town that orchestrated the retaliatory acts
specified in the Second Amended Complaint.
9. With respect to each document that you rely upon in establishing that your
constitutional rights were violated in this matter, state the date the document was prepared or
transmitted, the name of the document's author, the type of document (e.g., code enforcement
notice, notice to appear, invoice, receipt, bill, email, text message, etc.), the name of each
recipient of the document, and the subject matter ofthe document.
Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 5.
10. With respect to each communication which you attribute to any employee, agent,
official, or representative of the Town as evidence of an effort on the part of that individual to
violate your constitutional rights in this matter, state the name of the individual to whom you
attribute the communication, the date, time, location, and method of the communication and, to
the extent known, the exact words and statements communicated at that time or, alternatively,
the general substance of each such communication
Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 7.
11. With respect to each act or omission which you attribute to any employee, agent,
official, or representative of the Town as evidence of an effort to violate your constitutional
5
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 HE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
rights in this matter, state the name of the individual to whom you attribute the act or omission,
the date, time, and location of the act or omission, and describe the conduct in detail.
Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 7.
12. State each fact that you rely upon in claiming that any communication, act, or
omission on the part of any individual identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11,
above, was motivated by an intent to violate the your constitutional rights.
Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 7.
Dated: February 22, 2016. DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE Third Avenue
Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 603-1340
D Deso uza(n-`deso uza law.eo m
By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza. Esq.
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 hereby certify that on February 22, 2016, I served the foregoing document via e-mail on
Defendant Robert Sweetapple at: ioshua.eoldstein(aeskleeai.com and postman(acskleaal.com,
and on Defendant Town of Gulf Stream at: 1-lochman(n�jamb1 con) and haill@iamb
/s/ Daniel DeSouza
Daniel DeSouza
6
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
VERIFICATION
I, Martin E. O'Boyle, hereby attest that the answers to the foregoing interrogatories are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
The
February,
Affiant
foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, under oath,
2016 by trWac%-' C. o I A�L �E who is personally known to me
as identification.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Printed Name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
4818-5543.8638, v. 1
.a`;".:�!Wr Nq}SfFN BOXOLON510{ACA
�p{
MYCOMMISSIONBFF231935 EXPIRES: July 15, 2819
�'Zo;M1µ�' BrONThry BW7NNohry Sertkn
7
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
this da day of
or has produced
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.
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
GULF STREAM'S JANUARY 19, 2016 INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's April 5, 2016
Order Granting Defendant Town of Gulf Stream's Motion to Compel [D.E. 90], Plaintiff Martin
E. O'Boyle ("Plaintiff') respectfully submits these amended responses and objections (the
"Responses") to Defendant Town of Gulf Stream's ("Gulf Stream") January 19, 2016
Interrogatories to Plaintiff (the "Interrogatories") as follows:
INTERROGATORIES
3. With respect to each item of damages that you claim in this matter (including,
without limitation, out-of-pocket expenses, compensatory damages, lost profits, loss of future
income, etc.), state the.date that each item of damages was incurred, the amount of each such
item of damages, and the method used in deriving and calculating each such item of damages.
Response: With respect to Plaintiffs wife's truck that was towed on or about June 24, 2014,
Plaintiff incurred approximately $500.00 of out of pocket expenses (consisting of the towing fee
and employee time associated with recovery of the truck) as a result of such improper towing.
L[WItness:
EFT EXHIBIT 2 DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
Matln O'Boyle 101 NF. THIRD AVENUE, SURE 1500 •FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
5/1612016 TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
ate, Plaintiff has incurred approximately $74,000.00 in fees and costs in connection with this
n. Plaintiff has incurred (through December 2015) approximately $608,000.00 in defense of
the Town's federal RICO action and state court counterclaims. This amount is reflected by
numerous monthly invoices generated by the law firm of Berger Singerman. Plaintiff also
incurred approximately $35,000.00 in fees and costs for Culver Smith's representation of
Plaintiff in connection with Gulf Stream's motion for sanctions in Case No. 2014 -CA -4474.
Plaintiff incurred approximately $48,000.00 (through 'September 2015) in fees and costs
associated with responding to Gulf Stream's Bar complaint against Plaintiff's son. This amount
is reflected by numerous monthly invoices generated by the law firm of Smith Tozian. Plaintiff
believes that additional legal fees were incurred in connection with defense of the RICO action
and state court counterclaims, but does not presently have those fees/costs available. Plaintiff
will amend this response when he obtains such information. Plaintiff also believes that Gulf
Stream's retaliatory conduct and smearing of Plaintiffs name in the community has caused
Plaintiff substantial reputational and business damage in an amount no less than $250,000.00.
As a result of Gulf Stream's public campaign against Plaintiff, Plaintiffs name will forever be
associated with the racketeering action filed by the Town and any person performing a simple
Internet search on Plaintiff will be confronted with such spurious allegations almost
immediately. Plaintiff has likely lost commercial real estate deals/contracts as a result of Gulf
Stream's conduct, and Plaintiff's friends/neighbors now avoid Plaintiff and/or treat Plaintiff in an
unfavorable manner. Gulf Stream has transformed Plaintiff into a pariah in his own community.
5. With respect to each document that you rely upon to support any item of damages
being claimed in this matter (including, without limitation, out-of-pocket expenses,
compensatory damages, lost profits, loss of future income, intangible injuries, etc.), state the date
2
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
the document was prepared or transmitted, the name of the document's author, the type of
document (e.g., tax return, bank statement, correspondence, memorandum, invoice, bill, receipt,
email, text message, etc.), the name of each recipient of the document, and the subject matter of
the document.
Response: Plaintiff believes there is an invoice from City Towing for recovery of Plaintiffs
wife's truck from the impound lot. To the extent Plaintiff has a copy of such invoice, Plaintiff
will produce the invoice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Plaintiffs legal fees/costs in this
matter are reflected by monthly invoices generated by DeSouza Law, PA. Plaintiffs legal
fees/costs in the federal RICO action and in defense of Gulf Stream's state court counterclaims
are reflected by monthly invoices generated by Berger Singerman. Plaintiffs legal fees/costs in
defense of Gulf Stream's motion for sanctions are reflected by the monthly invoices of Culver
Smith. Plaintiff's legal fees/costs in responding to the Bar complaint filed against Plaintiffs son
are reflected by the monthly invoices of Smith Tozian. Plaintiff is not presently aware of
additional documents which reflect the amount of damages incurred by Plaintiff as a result of
Gulf Stream's retaliatory conduct.
7. For each occasion on which you engaged in any activity protected under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution in this matter, state the date, time, and location of
the protected activity and describe the protected activity in detail, including a detailed account of
the content of each communication, the manner in which the communication was made (e.g., e-
mail, memo, letter, verbal statement, posting of a sign, etc.), and the name and address of each
individual with personal knowledge of the communication.
Response: Plaintiff cannot identify each and every occasion on which he has engaged inactivity
protected under the First Amendment of the United States as he engages in such protected
3
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
activity every time he communicates, petitions, practices religion, assembles or associates with
groups or his family. For purposes of this interrogatory, however, Plaintiff identifies the
following protected activity:
(1) From June 2014 through August 2014, Plaintiff engaged in banner speech from
airplanes and trucks. Banner planes which contained messages critical of Gulf Stream officials
were flown on 6/5/14, 6/6/14, 6/10/14, 6/13/14, 6/20/14, 6/24/14, 6/28/14, 7/5/14, 7/12/14,
7/19/14, 7/26/14, 8/2/14, 8/9/14, and 8/11/14. Plaintiff also displayed signs during this period of
time in the Town Hall parking lot which were critical of Mayor Scott Morgan and Bill Thrasher.
Although Plaintiff does not specifically recall the times such banner planes were flown, the times
and message content can be gleaned from review of Gulf Stream's Motion for Sanctions Against
Plaintiff, Martin E. O'Boyle, Counsel of Record, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc., Jonathan
O'Boyle and William Ring, Esquire, filed in Case No. 2014 -CA -004474 (Circuit Court, Palm
Beach County). Persons with knowledge of such First Amendment activity include: (a) Plaintiff
(c/o DeSouza Law, PA, 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301); (b)
Doug Stacey (c/o DeSouza Law, PA, 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL
33301); (c) Christopher O'Hare, 2520 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, FL 33483); (d) Lou
Roeder (7414 Sparkling Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32819); (e) Robert Sweetapple; (f) Mayor Scott
Morgan.
(2) Plaintiff has spoken at Gulf Stream public meetings and quasi-judicial hearings on
and off since 2013. Plaintiff does not recall each date on which he has exercised his First
Amendment rights at such meetings, however, he believes that Gulf Stream publishes all town
meetings on its public Youtube channel. Plaintiff does recall speaking at the June 13, 2014 town
meeting and stating that Jones Foster's bills make him puke. Plaintiff also recalls speaking at the
4
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE' SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
July 11, 2014 town meeting and questioning the town commission's decision to incur legal fees
to fight with Christopher O'Hare and others over public records and other cases. Persons with
knowledge of such First.Amendment activity include: (a) Plaintiff (c/o DeSouza Law, PA, 101
NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301); (b) Doug Stacey (c/o DeSouza Law,
PA, 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301); (c) Christopher O'Hare,
2520 Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, FL 33483); (d) Mayor Scott Morgan; (e) Gulf Stream's
town commissioners present at the July 11, 2014 meeting; (f) unidentified residents of Gulf
Stream present at town commission meetings when Plaintiff spoke publicly.
(3) In January 2015; Plaintiff started a paper called the 'the Patriot" for circulation to
the residents of Gulf Stream The paper was critical of Gulf Stream, its mayor/commissioners,
and the manner in which Gulf Stream was opposing public records request/litigation. Persons
with knowledge of such First Amendment activity include: (a) Plaintiff (c/o DeSouza Law, PA,
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301); (b) Christopher O'Hare, 2520
Avenue Au Soleil, Gulf Stream, FL 33483); (c) Ed Slominski (present address unknown); and
(d) every resident of Gulf Stream who accepted the flier at the time.
(4) Plaintiff has served numerous public records requests on Gulf Stream. Plaintiff is
not aware of the exact number of requests served or the dates on which such requests were
served. Gulf Stream has apparently catalogued such requests and has used them in connection
with its federal RICO lawsuit and various state court counterclaims that it has filed, and is thus in
a better position than Plaintiff to know precisely what requests have been made by Plaintiff.
Further, Gulf Stream keeps a public records log on its website. Persons with knowledge of such
First Amendment activity include: Plaintiff (c/o DeSouza Law, PA, 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite
1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301).
5
DESOUZA LAW. P.A.
101 WE TIIIRD AVENUE, SURE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE. FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
(5) Running for Town Commissioner and posting campaign signs during the election
cycle in 2014. Doug Stacey has knowledge of these signs as well as the Town personnel who
removed them (unknown to Plaintiff) and the private citizens who likely aided the Town. The
signs were placed between February and March of 2014.
(6) Filing lawsuits against the Town and or appealing or petitioning Courts for
redress of grievances or administrative agencies. A log of such lawsuits was generated by Gulf
Stream's attorney Joanne O'Connor and will be produced separately by Plaintiff. Persons with
knowledge of such lawsuits include Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys in each of those matters.
(7) Plaintiff occasionally wears an anti -Mayor Morgan political button which reads
"Save Gulf Stream Dump Morgan." Persons with knowledge of such speech include Plaintiff,
Mayor Scott Morgan, and any employees/residents of Gulf Stream that have noticed Plaintiff
wearing such button.
S. For each occasion on which you claim your constitutional rights were violated in
this matter, provide the name of each individual that participated in the alleged conduct, the date,
time, and location of the alleged conduct, the name, address, and telephone of each individual
who witnessed the alleged conduct, a detailed description of the conduct, and the specific manner
in which you were adversely effected by the conduct.
Response: The First Amendment retaliation Plaintiff has suffered is cumulative over a period of
years and is very difficult to narrow to isolated incidents. With that in mind, Plaintiff will do his
best job attempting to address individual instances of retaliation.
a. The Town has falsely claimed that Plaintiff is not trustworthy because he
breached a settlement agreement reached with the Town in 2013. The Town has noted this or
called Plaintiff untrustworthy based on this notion at the October 10, 2014 and July 2015
6
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE. SURE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
:ting and has even filed a lawsuit in 2014 CA 002728 in the 15'h Judicial Circuit. The
lement agreement contained an apology for the Town' violation of Plaintiffs First
Amendment rights and land development security. The Town filed this frivolous lawsuit in
hopes that Plaintiff would stop engaging in speech/petitioning as well as a punishment for
Plaintiff running for election. Plaintiff has incurred and is incurring attorneys' fees in defending
that lawsuit by the Town.
b. With respect to truck banners, the Town passed Ordinance 14/2 and built hedges
to stop Plaintiff from engaging in protected First Amendment speech. The Town had Plaintiffs
truck towed on or June 21, 2014. Plaintiff, Doug Stacey, and William Ring have knowledge of
the towing and efforts made to recover the truck. Plaintiff was adversely affected by having to
.pay to get the truck back, had to pay two persons to retrieve the truck and inspect it for damage
(approximately $1,000.00), was deprived of that channel of speech, and was subject to garden
variety humiliation for the truck being towed under the circumstances, especially since this
dispute was widely publicized in the May 1, 2014 monthly edition of the Coastal Star —a popular
local paper in which Town representatives heavily influence/contribute.
C. For the airplane banners, the Town filed a motion to sanction Plaintiff and his
attorneys in 2014 CA 004474 as well as to enter in a prior restraint against further speech.
Plaintiff had to expend and may still have expend legal fees in defending against such a blatant
attempt to silence Plaintiff. See response to Interrogatory No. 7 for persons with knowledge of
the banner planes.
d. Plaintiffs First Amendment right to petition and associate were violated when the
Town decided to attack Plaintiffs attorneys with Bar complaints, a UPI, complaint, and letter(s)
to the Board of Bar Examiners for Plaintiffs son, Jonathan. The Bar complaints occurred on
7
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
August 25, 2014 and the letter to the Board of Bar examiners, penned by Mr. Sweetapple, was
sent on November 10, 2014. The goal of the Town was to get Plaintiff to stop suing and stop
talking by going after his son Jonathan O'Boyle (an applicant for the Florida Bar at the time) and
all the lawyers in the O'Boyle Law Firm. The result desired was that Jonathan would pressure
his father to cease First Amendment activities in order to save Jonathan's career and reputation.
Plaintiff had to expend substantial funds defending against these actions.
e. Plaintiffs First Amendment right to speech and run for political office are
currently being addressed in depth in 15-13964 D - 11"' Circuit. The Town has intimate
knowledge of that case.
f. When Plaintiff films at Town Hall, he is engaging in First Amendment activity.
Plaintiff was asked in September 2014 by Town Manager Thrasher with a police officer standing
by whether he was causing a public conversation to be recorded, the obvious intonation was that
Plaintiff would be arrested if he admitted so under the wiretapping statute regardless of the First
Amendment.
g. Plaintiff was retaliated against when the Town threatened and eventually fled (5
months later) its federal RICO complaint against Plaintiff, his son, Plaintiffs attorneys, business
associates, and others. The Town likewise filed similar counterclaims/third party complaints
against Plaintiff and these same individuals in various state court cases (including Case No.:
2014 -CA -004474, 2014••CA-006067, 2015CA006710, 2013 -CA -017717). In the same vein,
Mayor Morgan sent out letters on Town letterhead on June 2, 2014 and March 26, 2015 accusing
Plaintiff of acting in a criminal manner. The Town also actively publicized the RICO action in
various mediums including the Palm Beach Post, Channel 12 News, and other outlets.
h. In connection with all of the above, Plaintiff has suffered substantial reputational
8
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE TI IIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
and monetary damage in the form of fines associated with the towing of his wife's truck, costs
associated with recovery of the truck, fees and costs incurred in defending Plaintiffs right to fly
banner planes/display political signs, costs incurred in replacing campaign signs removed by
Town officials, fees and costs incurred in defending the Town's RICO action, fees and costs
incurred in connection with the Bar complaints filed against Plaintiffs son, and fees and costs
incurred in this action. Cumulatively, Plaintiff has spent more than $1 million as a result of the
Town's retaliatory conduct and continues to incur further damages on a daily basis.
10. With respect to each communication which you attribute to any employee, agent,
official, or representative of the Town as evidence of an effort on the part of that individual to
violate your constitutional rights.in this matter, state the name of the individual to whom you
attribute the communication, the date, time, location, and method of the communication and, to
the extent known, the exact words and statements communicated at that time or, alternatively,
the general substance of each such communication
Response: On or about April 24, 2014; Robert Sweetapple publicly stated in the hallway outside
a courtroom at the Palm Beach Circuit Court that he was going to go after Plaintiffs son as a
means to stop Plaintiff from further exercising his First Amendment rights. Within days
thereafter, the Town's attorneys performed an illegal background search on Plaintiffs son (and
upon information and belief, on Plaintiff himself) and then used illicitly gained material to .file a
Bar complaint against Plaintiff's son and others. On June 2; 2014, Mayor Scott Morgan wrote a
letter to Town residents in which he blamed Plaintiff and fellow resident Christopher O'Hare for
forthcoming increases in taxes purportedly due to public records lawsuits filed by Plaintiff and
Mr. O'Hare. In the letter, Morgan stated that, in his opinion, these public records requests "have
little purpose other than to harass and financially damage our town:" In September 2014,
9
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Sweetapple met with Mr. O'Hare and his counsel and attempted to extort Mr. O'Hare by
threatening to include him in a forthcoming RICO action if Mr. O'Hare did not become a
'cooperating witness' against Plaintiff by providing Sweetapple with sufficient evidence to stop
Plaintiff's First Amendment activities for good. The exact language -used by Sweetapple will be
explored at the forthcoming deposition of Mark Hanna, scheduled for April 15, 2016. On
August 25, 2014, Mayor Morgan signed a Bar complaint (which, upon information and belief,
was authored by Sweetapple) against Plaintiffs son and others, accusing them of unethical
conduct and the unauthorized practice of law. On March 26, 2015, Mayor Morgan sent another
letter to Town residents in which Mayor Morgan admits that the Town's sign ordinances were
changed in response to Plaintiffs display of political signs critical of the Town and its officials.
Plaintiff has not been privy to any private discussions between Town commissioners in which
they specifically state that they are retaliating against Plaintiff for.his exercise of First
Amendment rights. The Town's actions in this regard are the clearest example of its retaliation.
It. With respect to each act or omission which you attribute to any employee, agent,
official, or representative of the Town as evidence of an effort to violate your constitutional
rights in this matter, state the name of the individual to whom you attribute the act or omission,
the date, time, and location of the act or omission, and describe the conduct in detail.
Response: Plaintiff is not aware of the identities of the individual police officers and/or Town
representatives that removed Plaintiffs campaign signs or caused Plaintiffs wife's truck to be
towed from Town Hall and impounded. The aforementioned Bar complaint was signed by
Mayor Morgan and, upon information and belief, authored by Sweetapple. The filing of the
RICO complaint was, upon information and belief, authorized by .a vote of the Town's
commissioners. The idea to file the RICO complaint was developed as a joint effort between
10
DESOUZA LAW. P.A.
101 NETUIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPI ZONE (954) 603-1340
Gerald Richman, Mayor Morgan, and Sweetapple as a means to silence to Plaintiffs First
Amendment activity. Plaintiff is unsure when the RICO idea was developed, but believes it
occurred between April — October 2014. As stated above, on April 24, 2014, Sweetapple
publicly proclaimed that he was going to go after Plaintiff s son in an effort to silence Plaintiff (a
promise he made good on with the illegal background search and subsequent Bar complaint).
Plaintiff believes the aforementioned motion for sanctions and state court counterclaims were
authorized by Mayor Morgan following discussions between himself and Sweetapple.
12. State each fact that you rely upon in claiming that any communication, act, or
omission on the part of any individual identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 11,
above, was motivated by an intent to violate the your constitutional rights.
Response: Sweetapple publicly proclaimed that he was going to go after Plaintiffs son.
Mayor Morgan wrote a letter stating that Plaintiffs public records requests served no legitimate
purpose and were designed solely to harass the Town. Mayor Morgan wrote another letter
admitting that the Town altered its parking ordinances in response to Plaintiffs exercise of First
Amendment speech. The Town filed a motion to sanction Plaintiff for exercising his First
Amendment right to criticize Town officials through banner planes and/or signs displayed on
vehicles. In that motion, the Town sought not only to sanction Plaintiff but also to restrain him
from exercising such First Amendment rights in the future. All of the Town's actions described
above appear to be motivated by a desire to silence Plaintiff by virtue of exerting tremendous
personal and financial pressure on Plaintiff.
Dated: April 13, 2016. DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE Third Avenue
Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 603-1340
ll
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
J
VERIFICATION
I, MAeM1/ G 6Z&)Y/Gi , hereby attest that the answers to the foregoing amended
responses to Gulf Stream's First Set of Interrogatories are believed to be true and correct by the
Affiant.
A. t
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, under oath, this t3 day of
April, 2016 by 1 ,)4 f U (yt4C who is personally known to me or has produced
as identification.
NOTARY PUBLIC
KoA-ki,c, -LVCE�
Printed Name of Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
XAi}tffNSCXp1q{�,.�
t MYCOhMISSIQVtFF231975
EXPIRES: July 15, 2919
&,dW T1n 64d Nobly Sffft
z
0
F � e
O c
m c H
='s�x
wf�
od
3a
ORDINANCE NO. 1411
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TOWN CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 31
TITLED "PARKING AND OFFENSES ON TOWN HALL AND
POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY"; PROHIBITING THE
PARKING, STANDING OR STOPPING OF ANY VEHICLE
IN THE TOWN HALL PARKING LOT LOCATED AT 1D0
SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA, OR IN THE
PARKING LOT OF THE TOWN'S POLICE DEPARTMENT
LOCATED AT 246 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA,
BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:00 P.M. AND 7:00 A.M. OF
ANY DAY; PROVIDING AN EXCEPTION FOR TOWN
EMPLOYEES OR INVITED GUESTS CONDUCTING
OFFICIAL BUSINESS WITHIN TOWN Fe(a L OR THE
TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING SAID HOURS;
PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS ON PARKING WITHIN
THE TOWN HALL PARKING LOT BETWEEN THE HOURS
OF 7:00 A.M. AND 7:00 P.M. PROVIDING THAT NO
VEHICLES OF ANY KIND SHALL BE PARKED OR LEFT
UNATTENDED IN THE PARKING AREA OR DRIVEWAY
TO THE SOUTH OF TOWN HALL EXCEPT VEHICLES OF
TOWN EMPLOYEES OR THOSE CONDUCTING
BUSINESS WITHIN TOWN HALL DURING THE TIME SAID
VEHICLE IS PARKED; PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT
AND/OR LEAVING UNATTENDED ANY OBJECT ON THE
EXTERIOR GROUNDS OF THE TOWN HALL PROPERTY
OR THE PROPERTY OF THE TOWN'S POLICE
DEPARTMENT UNLESS SAID OBJECT IS OWNED,
POSSESSED OR ERECTED BY THE TOWN; PROVIDING
A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; PROVIDING FOR THE
TOWING OF ANY VEHICLE PARKED IN VIOLATION OF
THIS CODE OR THE REMOVAL OF OBJECTS PLACED
OR WHICH ARE UNATTENDED IN VIOLATION OF THIS
CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING
FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF GULF
STREAM, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS.
Section 1. The Code of Ordinances of the Town of Gulf Stream is hereby
amended to include a new Chapter 31 to read as follows:
'CHAPTER 31
PARKING AND OFFENSES ON TOWN HALL AND
POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY
Sec. 31.1. Prohibition of Parking Between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
It shall be unlawful and a violation of Town Code to leave any
vehicle of any kind unattended, parked, standing or stopped In the Town
Hall parking lot or on Town Hall property located at 100 Sea Road, Gulf
M
COMMISSIONERS
SCOTT MORGAN, Mayor
ROBERT W. GANGER, Vice -Mayor
JOAN R. ORTHWEIN
THOMAS M. STANLEY
DONNA S. WHITE
June 2, 2014
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
PAF -6 TRO
N(IZ 9Lw
)Va
Dcb
Pr) 1)
K9
Dear Gulf Stream Town Residents, I n0/.
Telephone
(561)2765116
Fax
(561)777-0188
Town Manager
WILLIAM H. THRASHER
Town Clark
RITA L TAYLOR
I want to thank all of you for your support during the election and for your continued
support of the new Commission as it moves forward to address Town matters. There are a
number of Important developments in the Town that affect all residents, and for that reason, I
am writing this letter to keep you abreast of these current events.
The underground electrical wiring project is proceeding well with conduit being laid in
the Town district and along the Southern portion of AIA. This is called the First Stage of the
project. The First Stage is expected to be completed by the end of August. The second and final
stage is on target for completion by December 2015. Funding for the underground wiring is
complete and, if the rest of the job goes as expected, we believe that there will be some
amount of funding overage for remittance back to the residents.
The Ad Hoc Committee appointed to review our Code and Design Manual recently
submitted its report. The Committee made a number of recommendations but essentially
concluded that most Town residents like our current Code as written and do not want to see
any significant changes to it. The full report is being placed on-line so you will be able to review
it on our Town website.
Town Hall is being made more accessible for persons with disabilities. There is now a
unisex bathroom that can accommodate a wheel chair. In addition, the Commission has
allocated funds to build a ramp at the rear of the building for wheelchair use.
One of the more pressing issues involves the Town's finances. Historically, Gulf Stream
functioned well utilizing only the revenue from its property taxes. Over time, the Town built up
a reserve of funds that could be used for capital improvements or for emergency spending, like
storm damage or water line repairs. Current thinking is that a reasonable General Fund Reserve
for a town of our size should be around $1 million to $1.5 million, and that is a level that Gulf
Stream has typically maintained.
Recently, Gulf Stream's General Fund Reserves have dropped to around $675,000.00.
Legal fees and costs have risen dramatically due to our defending over 20 lawsuits filed by two
residents, Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare. These lawsuits are primarily Public Records actions and
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483
M
OROYLE000211
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
COMMIS51ONERS
SCOTT W. MORGAN, Mayor
ROBERT W. GANGER, Vice -Mayor
JOAN R. ORTHWEIN
THOMAS M, STANLEY
DONNAS. WHITE
March 26, 2015
Dear Gulf Stream Residents,
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Telephone
(561)276.5116
I=
(561)737.0186
Town Manager
WILLIAM H. THRASHER
Tow, clerk
RITA L. TAYLOR
In October, I reported that the South phase of our electric underground wiring project was
completed. Underground wiring for the two other utilities, telephone and cable, have not yet
been completed, and we recently learned that it may take one to two more years for AT&T and
Comcast to measure the lines, order the parts and schedule transfer of their lines. While this long
timeline is disappointing, it appears to be consistent with the experience of other municipalities,
and there is little the Town can do to expedite it.
Regarding the North half of the project, FPL has completed its Building Cost Estimate,
which is now being reviewed by the Town's Engineer. Once FPL's Cost Estimate is negotiated
and finalized, it will serve as the basis of design for contractors to quote the work. Given our
previous experience with the South project, we expect the North electric underground wiring to
be awarded and completed in 2016. The remaining utility lines with AT&T and Comcast will
then take another one to two years to place underground. This means the project will probably
not be fully completed until 2018. While again disappointing, the time frame is at least now more
realistic.
On a related note, the newest streetlight sample was installed last week on Gulfstream
Rd. near the police station. The previous two samples were rejected as being the wrong color and
then the wrong design. Hopefully, the third time is a charm!
Last year, the Town's taxable property value rose by over 14% to $878,000,000.00,
which is the largest increase in all of Palm Beach County. This is a wonderful achievement that
highlights our Town's uniqueness, and is in my opinion directly related to Gulf Stream's efforts
to preserve its understated beauty with tight zoning rules and reasonably controlled development.
On another matter of concern to many residents, the Gulf Stream Town Commission
recently approved a policy requiring general contractors to be liable for all sub -contractor
construction code violations. Now, when sub -contractors violate our noise restrictions,
construction parking requirements or start -times, the general contractor who hired them receives
the initial warning and then becomes responsible for fines, which escalate on repeated offenses.
100 SEA ROAD, GULF STREAM, FLORIDA 33483
DEFT EXHIBIT 6
Witness: Martin DaoYle OBOYLE000567
PLO. 5/1612016
5'152016
Detail by Entity Name
Florida Limited Liability Company
SWEET APPLE SOBER HOUSES, LLC
Filing Information
Document Number
FEI/EIN Number
Date Filed
Effective Date
State
Status
Last Event
Event Date Filed
Event Effective Date
Principal Address
Detail ay Entily Name
L14000091296
NONE
06/06/2014
06/06/2014
FL
INACTIVE
VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION
11/17/2014
11/17/2014
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Mailing Address
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Registered Agent Name & Address
RING, WILLIAM F, JR.
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Authorized Person(s) Detail
Name & Address
Title MGR
O'BOYLE, MARTIN E
1280 WEST NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
DEERFIELD BEACH, FL 33442
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
M
http.ilsearchsmbiz.orgArqurylCorparaUo SearctVSe chRe tAtDetail7ingiirytype=ErAityN=e&dirKUmType=lnibal&searcMN eOrcier=SWETAPPLFSO 112
9152018
Detail by Entity Nerve
06/06/2014 -- Florida Limited Liability View Image in PDF format
htlpJlsearch.smbiz.orglrgArylCmpaadmSewcht&wchRmLdtOetaiMrxidrytype=EntityNa eBdirectimType=lnibal&se chN=eOrtler=SWEETAPPLESO... 212
MARTIN E. O'BOYLE,
Plaintiff,
V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 14-81250-CIV-MARRA
ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE and
MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SWEETAPPLE'S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Martin E. O'Boyle
("Plaintiff') respectfully submits these responses and objections (the "Responses') to Defendant
Robert Sweetapple's ("Sweetaoole') First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (the
"Interrogatories") as follows:
GENERAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
I. Plaintiff reserves all objections with respect to the relevance, materiality, or
admissibility of all information provided in response to the Interrogatories.
2. Plaintiff objects to the definitions of "You," "Your," and "Plaintifr' to the extent
they purport to include any individual and/or entity within the definition other than Plaintiff
Martin E. O'Boyle.
3. Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad and unduly burdensome for
failing to include any timeframe and/or date limitation. To the extent not otherwise specified,
Plaintiff shall limit his responses to the time period on or after January 1, 2013.
M
4. The foregoing General Responses and Objections shall be considered as made, to
the extent applicable, in response to each of the Interrogatories as if the General Responses and
Objections were fully set forth in each specific response, even if such response also sets forth
specific objections.
INTERROGATORIES
Please state the name, address and telephone number of any person preparing or
aiding in the preparation of the answers to these interrogatories.
Response: Martin E. O'Boyle, c/o DeSouza Law, P.A., 1515 N. University Drive, Suite 209,
Coral Springs, FL 33071.
2. Have you ever been a party to a suit for defamation, libel or slander, and, if so,
please state (a) whether you were plaintiff or defendant in that suit; (b) where the suit was filed;
(c) general facts of the case; (d) style of the case; and (e) outcome of the case if not presently
pending.
Response: Other than this case, Plaintiff has been a party in two prior actions for defamation,
libel, or slander: (1) Martin E. O'Boyle v. Peter Isen — (a) plaintiff; (b) the suit was filed in
Superior Court of New Jersey; (c) Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Isen had stated that Plaintiff was the
enemy of Longport and/or the enemy of the people of Longport; (d) Martin e. O'Boyle v. Peter
Isen, No. A-1185-1ITI., Superior Court of New Jersey; (e) summary judgment was granted
against Plaintiff; (2) Martin E. O'Boyle vs. South Jersey Publishing Company f/k/a ABARTA
CORP d/b/a The Press of Atlantic City and Pressofatlanticcity.com — (a) plaintiff; (b) the suit
was filed in the 15`h Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida; (c) Plaintiff alleged
that the defendant portrayed him in a negative and defamatory light in certain articles published
by defendant; (d) O'Boyle v. South Jersey Publishing Company, Case No. 50 2010-CA-
012701XXXXMB (15`h Jud. Cir. Fla. flied May 11, 2010); (e) the parties resolved the dispute
pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, the details of which Plaintiff is precluded from
disclosing absent court order.
3. Identify each and every statement alleged in the Amended Complaint to have
been made by Robert Sweetapple, including, but not limited to: (a) who the statement was made
to; (b) the address and telephone number of that individual or persons; (c) when the statement
was made; (d) where the statement was made; (e) the substance of any such statement.
Response: Plaintiff has been informed as follows: In July 2014, Sweetapple stated to Mark
Hanna (an attorney representing Chris O'Hare) that Mr. O'Hare must dismiss his lawsuits
against the Town of Gulf Stream or else he would be named as a defendant in a RICO lawsuit
against Plaintiff. Mark Hanna's address and telephone number are as follows: 401 South County
Road #3272, Palm Beach, FL 33480-9991, 561-223-9990. Plaintiff has been informed as
follows: On April 25, 2014, Sweetapple said in an out-of-court statement that he was going to
'go after' and investigate Plaintiff's son in response to the multiple lawsuits that Plaintiff had
filed against Gulf Stream. It is unknown to Plaintiff precisely who Sweetapple made the
statement to. With respect to the alleged statements described in ¶% 30-31 in the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff is informed that Sweetapple made all of these statements on September 3,
2014 to Mark Hanna, Lou Roeder (an attorney representing Chris O'Hare), and Chris O'Hare.
Plaintiff is informed that Sweetapple made the same statements in out-of-court statements to
other residents of Gulf Stream, the details of such statements will be identified through discovery
in this matter.
4. List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you,
your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the alleged statements
made by Robert Sweetapple, and specify the subject matter by which the witness has knowledge.
Response: See Plaintiffs Initial Disclosures Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(I), dated December 15, 2014.
5. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 10 through 16 of the Amended Complaint, wherein it is alleged that
none of your actions were "undertaken/filed to harass the Town [its Mayor, commissioners,
employees, and other agents] or for any improper purpose", including, but not limited to (1)
banner flown by plane on 06/05/14 stating "JONES FOSTER CLIENTS, CHECK YOUR
BILLS"; (2) banner flown by plane on 06/06/14 stating "JF DON'T DRINK & DRIVE — WE'LL
BE WATCHING"; (3) banner flown by plane on 06/10/14 stating "HAS JONES FOSTER
EMBRACED A BAD APPLET'; (4) banner flown by plane on 06/13/14 and again on 08/11/14
stating "JONES FOSTER — YOUR BILLS MAKE ME PUKE"; (5) banner flown by plane on
06/20/14 stating "SWEET APPLES ARE ROTTEN APPLES RIGHT JFT'; (6) banner flown by
plane on 06/24/14 stating "SWEET APPLES ARE BEST BOILED IN OIL"; (7) banner flown
by plane on 06/28/14 stating "CHIEF WARD IS A HORSE'S ASS"; (8) banner flown by plane
on 07/05/14 stating "MAYOR MORGAN 1S A PUTZ AND AN ASS.'; (9) banner flown by
plane on 07/12/14 stating "AMERICA'S BIGGEST LOSER — MAYOR SCOTT MORGAN";
(10) banner flown by plane on 07/19/14 stating "GS VICE MAYOR BOB GANGER — A
LEGACY OF FAILURE."; (I1) banner flown by plane on 08/02/14 stating "GS MAYOR
MORGAN IS A WIMPY LITTLE TURD'; banner flown by plane on 08/09/14 stating "BOB
SWEETAPPLE LAY SMELLY FARTS"; (12) sign placed in the Town Hall parking lot stating
"Mayor Scott Morgan is Destroying Gulf Stream BANKRUPTCY IS COMING!"; (13) sign
placed in the Town Hall parking lot stating "Mayor Scott Morgan is a Douche Bag... Bill
Thrasher tell the people about the WRONGFUL DEATH suit you were involved in."
Response: As stated in ¶ 16 of the First Amended Complaint, 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 Gulf Stream and/or its officials, and the above-described
speech was undertaken to voice legitimate concerns with Gulf Stream's administration.
6. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 8, 10 and 16 of the Amended Complaint, wherein it is alleged that none
of your public records requests and subsequent law suits arising from those requests were
"undertaken/filed to harass the Town [its Mayor, commissioners, employees, and other agents]
or for any improper purpose" including but not limited stating legitimate interest or concerns
with respect to the information requested.
Response: Plaintiffs public records requests were submitted for purposes of gaining the
information requested therein. Any lawsuits related to such requests were filed to enforce
Plaintiffs constitutionaVstatutory rights and/or to obtain documents that Plaintiff contends were
wrongfully withheld.
7. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the Amended Complaint, wherein it is alleged that Morgan
and Sweetapple devised a plan to smear you during private meetings that occurred on 04/03/14,
04/17/14, 05/04/14, 06/05/14, 06/10/14, including, but not limited to how you became aware that
those meetings took place, what was discussed at those meetings, the name, address and
telephone number of anyone who advised/informed you of what was discussed at the alleged
meeting, and any individual known to you to have been present at these alleged meetings other
than Sweetapple and Morgan.
Response: While at the Palm Beach courthouse, Sweetapple made an out-of-court (not during a
hearing or other court proceeding) that Sweetapple was going to go after Plaintiffs son in an
effort to combat Plaintiffs various lawsuits against Gulf Stream. Plaintiff became aware of the
private meetings between Sweetapple and Morgan by obtaining, through public records requests,
copies of Sweetapple's bills which reflect the private meetings. Plaintiff believes Joanne
O'Connor attended the April 3, 2014 meeting and that the other meetings were attended solely
by Sweetapple and Morgan. Sweetapple and Morgan's conduct following these private
meetings, as described in the Complaint, confirms that their plan to slander and retaliate against
Plaintiff were developed during such meetings.
8. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 28 through 30 of the Amended Complaint, that Sweetapple -falsely and
maliciously published to others that you were violating the civil and criminal provisions of the
federal and Florida RICO Acts, that your public records cases were a scheme to line your
pockets with profit, and to disparage your character, including, but not limited to: (a) the friends,
colleagues, business associates, attorneys, advisors and members of the Town's population that
these alleged statements were made to; (b) the address and telephone number of those individuals
or persons; (c) when the statement was made; (d) where the statement was made; (e) the specific
substance of any such statement.
Resnonse: See response to interrogatory No. 3.
9. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 36 and 78 of the Amended Complaint, that the alleged actions of
Sweetapple has forced Plaintiff into dismissing and/or no longer prosecuting his lawsuits against
the town, that you have ceased exercising your rights to make public records requests, and
ceased engaging in allegedly protected speech.
Response: Paragraphs 36 and 78 do not assert that Plaintiff dismissed any of his lawsuits
against Gulf Stream in response to Sweetapple's actions. These paragraphs assert that the
statements were made for the purpose of forcing Plaintiff to dismiss his lawsuits.
10. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 34 through 35 of the Amended Complaint, that Sweetapple's
investigation into your son and business associates was a result of the multiple lawsuits filed
against the town.
Response: See response to Interrogatory No. 3.
It. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, that Sweetapple had not assembled any
evidence let alone "piles of evidence" with respect to federal and Florida RICO violations.
Response: Sweetapple has not assembled any evidence with respect to federal and Florida
RICO violations because Plaintiff has not violated either statute.
12. Please state the facts supporting the grounds and basis for your allegations
contained in paragraphs 48, 58, 62, 74, and 83 of the Amended Complaint, that as a result of
Sweetapple's alleged false and malicious statement, retaliatory conduct, conspiracy, you have
sustained substantial damages, including, but not limited to, investigation into your son and
business associates was a result of the multiple lawsuits filed against the Town.
Response: Plaintiff has incurred substantial legal fees and expenses in responding to
Sweetapple and Morgan's actions. Further, as a result of Sweetapple and Morgan's actions,
Plaintiff's reputation in the community has been damaged, the full value of which will be
determined at trial in this matter.
13. Please state the facts supporting the grounds, basis and purpose for any and all
public records requests made upon the Town by you, a member of your family, the O'Boyle Law
Firm, Citizen's Awareness Foundation, Inc., and Joel Chandler.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as the "grounds, basis and purpose" behind a
public records request is irrelevant/immaterial under Florida law. See Curry v. State, 811 So. 2d
736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("The motivation of the person seeking the records does not
impact the person's right to see them under the Public Records Act."); Ingram v. State, No.
51313-1519, 2014 WL 656734, at *5 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 21, 2014) ("The purpose for the demand
is not material.").
14. identify any and all public records request you individually or through an entity
have ever made, including but not limited to, the recipient of the request, date of the request,
person or entity making the request, the information sought in the request.
Response: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information concerning
public records requests sent to any entity other than Gulf Stream. Subject to that objection,
Plaintiff states that Gulf Stream is already in possession of a list of all records requests made by
Plaintiff to Gulf Stream as evidenced by the exhibits to Gulf Stream's federal RICO complaint
(which is accessible to the public through PACER).
15. Describe your financial relationship, if any, with the entities known as Citizens
Awareness Foundation, Inc., and The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.A., Inc.
Response: Plaintiff has donated funds for the operation of Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc.
and has further loaned money to his son for the operation of The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.A.
Dated: March 27, 2015. DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
1515 N. University Drive
Suite 209
Coral Springs, FL 33071
Telephone: (954) 551-5320
D Desouza (a.deso uzalaw. co m
By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 30, 2015, I served the foregoing document via e-mail on
Defendant Robert Sweetapple at: ioshua.goldsteinQcskle ag I.com andsno tman(ncskle ag l.com,
and on Defendant Scott Morgan at: Hochman(a iambg com and hail leiambe.com.
_/s/ Daniel DeSouza
Daniel DeSouza
VERIFICATION
I, /�i92T/n/ f .QAp4f hereby attest that the answers to the foregoing
interrogatories are true and correct to my knowledge and be 'ef.
A ant
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me, under oath, this �21-14 day of
r• 0�c`Wl , who is personally known to me or has produced
March, 2015 by U11610
as identification.
:y'•?'JILL R IAOHLER
MY COMMISSOMMISSION a FF204474
,• ft EXPIRES April 12, 2019
My Commission Expires: W /a /Zolre
4832-9525-2514, V. 1
N TARY PUBLIC
S" A . NIONL e2
Printed Name of Notary Public
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
("SweetaDDle') and the Town of Gulf Stream ("Town"), and alleges as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION. AND VENUE
1. 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.
M
DESOLMA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SURE 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.
BACKGROUND
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 Plaintiff's 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
DESDUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NETHIRD 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. Plaintiffs 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, FI, 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
DFSOUZA 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 Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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 NETHIRD AVENUE. SUITE 15DO • 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 friends/attorneys
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 Plaintiff's 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, SURE 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 Plaintiff's 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 Plaintifrs son (who is an attorney licensed to
practice in other states and awaiting admission to the Florida Bar), Plaintiff's 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
Plaintiff's son, Plaintiff's 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
DESOU'LA 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
(Sweetarmle)
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. Ile 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 Plaintiff's 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 Plaintiff's 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 H — RETALIATION (42 U.S.C. 6 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
l0
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NETHIRD 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 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
I1
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SURE 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
Plaintiffs 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, Plaintiffs
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, SURE 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
Plaintiffs truck because Town officials disagreed with the messages on Plaintiffs truck. To the
best of Plaintiffs 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.
Plaintiffs 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, `9 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 Plaintiffs
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, PL 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 HE 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
DDesouza(a)desouzalaw.com
By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza. Esq.
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 19, 2015, 1 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
DMLZA LAW, P.A.
101 NETHIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603.1340
Page 1
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
HELD ON:
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2014
9:00 - 10:15 a.m.
HELD AT:
COMMISSION CHAMBERS OF THE TOWN HALL
100 SEA ROAD
GULF STREAM, FLORIDA
APPEARANCES:
MAYOR: SCOTT W. MORGAN
VICE MAYOR: ROBERT W. GANGER(Telephonically)
COMMISSIONER: JOAN K. ORTHWEIN
THOMAS M. STANLEY
DONNA S. WHITE
TOWN MANAGER: WILLIAM THRASHER(Telephonically)
TOWN ATTORNEY: JOHN RANDOLPH
TOWN CLERK: RITA TAYLOR
DEPUTY CLERK: KELLY AVERY
CHIEF OF POLICE: GARRETT WARD
SECRETARY: NATALIE MARSHALL
Im
Page 2 1
1 Thereupon, the following proceedings were had:
2
3
MAYOR MORGAN:
Let's call this meeting to
4
order. Let us stand and pledge the flag.
5
(The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor
6
Morgan.)
7
MAYOR MORGAN:
Rita, would you call the role,
8
please?
9
TOWN CLERK:
I will.
10
Commissioner
Stanley.
11
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Here.
12
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
13
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Here.
14
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
15
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Here.
16
TOWN CLERK:
Mayor Morgan.
17
MAYOR MORGAN:
Here.
18
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
19
COMMISSIONER
GANGER: Here.
20
TOWN CLERK:
Let the record show that
21
Commissioner Ganger
and Mr. Thrasher are with us
22
today by phone, and
we have Mr. Randolph on the
23
dais.
24
MAYOR MORGAN:
We've been provided with the
25
minutes from the public
hearing of September 12th,
Page
1 2014, as well as the tentative budget hearing that
2 same day, and the final budget hearing of
3 September 23rd; are there any corrections or
4 additions?
5
If not, is there a motion for approval?
6
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Move for approval of
7
the minutes.
8
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Second.
9
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
10
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
11
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
12
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Yes.
13
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
14
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
15
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
16
COMMISSIONER
GANGER: Yes.
17
TOWN CLERK:
Mayor Morgan.
18
MAYOR MORGAN:
Yes.
19
Any changes to
the agenda items?
20
TOWN CLERK:
I'd like to make one change. I
21
would like to have
item 10(a)(2) heard at a time
22
certain of 9:45.
23
MAYOR MORGAN:
Item 10(a)(2) will be moved
24
after the public hearing,
and considered at
25
approximately 9:45.
Page 4
1 Our next meeting is November 14th; anyone who
2 can't make that meeting?
3 Please mark it on your calendar.
4 Public communication, would anyone care to
5 speak? Five-minute limits.
6 Mr. O'Hare.
7 RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER O'HARE: Thank you,
8 Mr. Mayor. Members of the commission.
9 You adopted the minutes from the public
10 hearing, but I noticed there were discrepancies in
11 the minutes between what was written down and what
12 actually happened. Specifically, I had questioned
13 a 3 percent raise for Mr. Thrasher in the final
14 budget, which was previously an 8 percent raise for
15 both salary and benefits. The minutes reflect that
16 Mr. -- Commissioner Stanley said that that was the
17 same in both budgets, and it was actually 8 percent
18 to begin with, and it was reduced by 5 percent.
19 Also, I had made a comment regarding the town
20 paying more money in legal fees to fight some of
21 these small claims against the town than it would
22 cost to resolve those claims, and the minutes say
23 that just the opposite, that I said it was less for
24 the town to spend money on legal fees, so I'd like
25 to submit that the minutes are a little bit
Page 5
1 inaccurate.
2 I did want to ask or speak to one other issue
3 on the budget. I went back over, and after hearing
4 the commission's comments with the few items I had
5 raised, and it seems a lot of money is parked into
6 places where there is no intention of ever spending
7 it there. Two thousand dollars for the town
8 library, $75,000 for water management fees. And it
9 occurs to me that this is just a way to park money
10 that will then be shifted to legal fees next year,
11 because it seems to me on the budget, the amount of
12 money allocated for legal fees is less than the
13 town spent in the month of July, so obviously,
14 you're way short on legal fees for next year, and
15 I'm thinking the intention is really just to shift
16 the money from these faux places to legal fees in
17 the future.
18 One last item. The town had an emergency
19 meeting to discuss handicapped ordinance, this
20 thing called a reasonable accommodation. I spoke
21 against that because it provided for seven months
22 of approval process for a handicapped person to get
23 accommodation to their home, and I felt -- at the
24
next
meeting,
I said I
felt
foolish because
25
Mr.
Morgan had
stated,
well,
that was really about
Page 6
1 the sober houses, and I spent all that time talking
2 about it, and it was silly.
3 So now we hire counsel in regard to the sober
4 house ordinance, and I'm just wondering -- I hope
5 you discuss it later, explain why, even though the
6 ordinance is now adopted, that counsel has to be
7 hired. Is there someone suing the town over a
8 sober house ordinance? I just hope the commission
9 will address that later in the meeting. Thank you.
10 MAYOR MORGAN: Thank you, Mr. O'Hare.
11 Let's move to the public hearing.
12 RESIDENT PATSY RANDOLPH: Excuse me.
13 MAYOR MORGAN: Oh, I'm sorry, Patsy. I didn't
14
mean to cut you off.
15
RESIDENT PATSY RANDOLPH:
Well,
you did.
16
My name is Patsy Randolph.
As
I've done in
17
the past, I'm once again voicing the
concern of
18
Gulf Stream residents over the
town's
financial
19
health and its morale. To put
this
concern in
20 perspective, I will refer to Mayor Morgan's
21 June 14th letter, which was extremely informative
22 and well received by the community. Mr. Mayor, we
23 hope you will continue to send out similar reports.
24 I quote, "Current thinking is that a
25 reasonable general fund reserve for a town of our
Page 7
1 size should be around 1 million to 1.5 million, and
2 that is a level that Gulf Stream has typically
3 maintained. Recently, Gulf Stream's general fund
4 reserves have dropped to around 675,000. Legal
5 fees and costs have risen dramatically due to our
6 defending over twenty lawsuits filed by two
7 residents: Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare. These
8 lawsuits are primarily public record actions, and
9 relate to over 800 public records requests filed by
10 these two residents, or by other individuals and
11 organizations with whom they appear to be
12 connected.
13 "The records requests involve many thousands
14 of documents, and in my opinion, have little
15 purpose other than to harass and financially damage
16 our town. To put the legal fees in perspective,
17 Gulf Stream typically budgets around 15,000
18 annually for legal services. In the first six
19 months of this year, we have already spent over
20 160,000. Those hours have come from somewhere by
21 reducing budget" -- "budgeted allocations for their
22 services or tax increases or from the town's
23 reserves," end of quote.
24
Let me repeat.
The
town typically
budgets
25
15,000 annually for
legal
services, but
yet for the
1 first six months of this year, the town's
2 litigation fees have been over 160,000 to handle
3 Mr. O'Boyle/Mr. O'Hare's lawsuits that are
4 apparently meant to harass and financially damage
5 our town. This is outrageous. But that's
6 yesterday's facts. I can only imagine that this
7 continued onslaught has raised these numbers
8 substantially. It is important and critical for us
9 to be kept up to date as to what these two
10 individuals are costing our town, and we suggest
11 and want a year-to-date numbers to be put on the
12 town's web site, and that these numbers be revised
13 monthly. After all, it's our money, we -- we're
14 the taxpayers.
15 I also want to reemphasize the community's
16 repulsion over the continued harassment of our
17 town. We are appalled by signs with crude,
18 immature bathroom language that pollute our skies
19 and local streets. We are -- and we are sickened
20 by the inappropriate behavior of a resident towards
21 the town's female employees.
22 Let me quote from a letter obtained through
23 the public records request process from
24 Mr. Thrasher to Mr. O'Boyle. "I have received
25 complaints on several occasions, whether
Page 9
1 intentionally or otherwise. You have caused
2 disruption of employees' work activities, and have
3 engaged in contact with female employees which they
4 deem to be inappropriate, causing them to be
5 uncomfortable. Therefore, please be advised as
6 follows: Please do not touch any of the female
7 employees in any manner. This includes hand
8 shakes, hugs, arms around the shoulders, kissing,
9 or any other similar uninvited activity," end of
10 quote.
11 In closing, let me make something very, very
12 clear. Gulf Stream residents are fed up. They are
13 angry. There is no longer -- there is no longer
14 apathy in Gulf Stream. Remember our recent town
15 election, the largest turnout ever in Gulf Stream.
16 We strongly support your efforts to fight these
17 attacks on our town, and recognize that this will
18 be costly, but it is necessary, and important for
19 the town to continue to stand strong. Thank you.
20 MAYOR MORGAN: Thank you.
21 Anyone else care to speak?
22 If not, then let's move on to the public
23 hearing. This is an application by Mr. Jones,
24 agent for 3140 Polo.
25 Before we do that, any ex parte
Page 10
1 communications, Commissioners?
2 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: I run by the site
3 periodically on Pat and Charlie. Other than that,
4 none.
5 MAYOR MORGAN: I have none.
6 Rita, would you swear in the witness, please?
7 TOWN CLERK: Anyone that intends to speak at
8 this public hearing, please stand and raise their
9 right hand.
10 Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
11 nothing but the truth, so help you God?
12 MR. JONES: I do.
13 TOWN CLERK: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
14 MR. JONES: Thank you. Good morning.
15 MAYOR MORGAN: Good morning.
16 MR. JONES: Mr. Mayor. City Commissioners.
17 General public. It's a great Friday. My name is
18 Richard Jones, and I'm an architect in Delray
19 Beach, and I'm very excited to present this project
20 before you this morning.
21 3140 Polo Drive. I have to apologize, the
22 developer and landscape architect are not able to
23 make it this morning. Be happy to answer any
24 questions on their behalf. The developer, I'm sure
25 you are familiar with, Mr. Laudani with Seaside
Page 11
1 Builders, who is a developer of the Harbour View
2 project, which I might add has been very
3 successful, five of the six homes are already sold
4 and nearing completion, so thank you very much for
5 your support on that project.
6 3140 Polo Drive. You see a rendering before
7 you on the screen. A classic Gulf Stream,
8 Bermuda -style home of modest size. If we take a
9 look at the location, Polo Drive at 3140, direct
10 access to the canal that leads to the Intracoastal,
11 subject property there highlighted.
12 We go to the site plan, and I apologize that
13 some of these images are a little light, I know
14 that you have the package in front of you. One
15 thing you'll notice about this particular lot is
16 its size. It's actually smaller than the minimum
11 standard lot size in the ocean -- or in the Gulf
18 Stream core district. But as such, a smaller lot
19 would dictate a smaller home, and that's exactly
20 what this one is. Modest house of approximately
21 3600 square feet, two stories, great room plan,
22 two -car garage, lot of stepping on the facade. The
23 second story, quite a bit reduced in size, just a
24 few bedrooms, and a little loft area, an open
25 balcony. And the elevations before you, again,
2
3
4
5
6
),ery pleasing, very compatible and complimentary to
the existing homes on the street. A white -on -white
color palette with navy blue shutters, wood garage
doors and front door, and a signature parapet
detail that flanks the entry.
The house was actually designed to accommodate
7 saving a very large tree.
8 Rita, if you could help me out with the
9 species of that tree. I think Mr. Thrasher -- oh,
10 Mr. Thrasher is here. I didn't see him up there,
11 but I know he's on the phone.
12 Bill, what was that tree that we designed this
13 house around?
14 TOWN CLERK: Think it's an avocado.
15 TOWN MANAGER: Mr. Jones, I believe it was an
16 avocado tree.
17 MR. JONES: Avocado tree. So there is a large
18 avocado tree on the site, and we accommodated for
19 that in the design of the house.
20 So again, it's a very modest size, very
21 pleasing elevation, and would be a good fit for
22 Polo Drive.
23
I'd
be happy to answer any
questions that you
24
may have.
If need be,
we could
possibly -- if
25
there is
any landscape
questions
that I cannot
Page 12 1
Page 13 1
1 answer, now that I know we can use the phone, I
2 might call a friend, actually, the landscape
3 architect.
4 MAYOR MORGAN: Any comments from neighbors?
5 Complaints? That you're aware of, Mr. Jones?
6 RESIDENT TONY GRAZIANO: Mr. Mayor, I would
7 like to make a statement, if I may.
8 MAYOR MORGAN: Absolutely. I just wanted to
9 find out from Mr. Jones whether there have been any
10 complaints.
11 MR. JONES: I believe there was one letter
12 that was written.
13 Rita, is that correct?
14 TOWN CLERK: Not about this particular
15 project.
16 MR. JONES: Okay.
17 MAYOR MORGAN: Okay.
18 MR. JONES: Then we're not aware of any
19 issues.
20 MAYOR MORGAN: All right.
21 Sir.
22 TOWN ATTORNEY: Has he been sworn in?
23 MAYOR MORGAN: Yeah, he's -- we'll swear him
24 in.
25 Rita, would you swear in the witness?
Page 14
1 TOWN CLERK: Yes, I would.
2 Could you raise your right hand, please?
3 Do you swear to tell the truth, whole truth,
4 and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
5 RESIDENT TONY GRAZIANO: I do.
6 TOWN CLERK: Thank you.
7 RESIDENT TONY GRAZIANO: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
8 Tony Graziano, 3259 Polo. I don't have any issue
9 with respect to the house and building. I do want
10 to make a comment about what happens around this
11 town when construction goes on.
12 We have an ordinance that purports to regulate
13 the days and hours that contractors can work. Two
14 comments about that. First, 30, 40 years ago this
15 was predominantly a snow bird community, but now we
16 have many more people who are here all year round,
17 yet we allow, during the off-peak season, work to
18 go on on Saturdays, and I know for some of our
19 younger residents who work all week long, it can't
20 be a joy to wake up at eight o'clock on a Saturday
21 morning to have heavy construction going on next
22 door. And I don't know who the neighbors are at
23 the 3140, but I'm sure they will not be happy when
24 construction starts Saturday morning.
25 The second point, and this I've had issue with
■N
Page 15
1 the town manager, he does what he can, there is no
2 effective enforcement mechanism for requiring
3 contract to start at eight o'clock or later, or to
4 cease at five o'clock or earlier. You can -- a
5 contractor can violate it every single day of the
6 week, he can start at 7, 7:15, 7:30. The only
7 thing a neighbor can do is to call up the police,
8 and if they're not busy doing more important police
9 work, they can come down to the construction site
10 after the neighbor has been awakened at seven
11 o'clock, and they can shut down construction until
12 eight.
13 Now, I wrote the prior mayor about this a year
14 ago, and I know nothing has been done in terms of
15 changing the ordinance so that we have an effective
16 enforcement mechanism so that you can't be
17 constantly awakened earlier in the morning.
18 Thank you.
19 MAYOR MORGAN: Thank you, Mr. Graziano. I'll
20 let you know. I think it's a very legitimate
21 point, the Saturday work hour limitation, because
22 as our town becomes populated more and more with
23 full-time residents, I question whether Saturday
24 work hours really are something that needs to be
25 better restricted. And I will look into that and
Page 16 1
1 get back to you on it.
2 As far as enforcement, our town lacks a
3 penalty provision for many of the ordinances in
4 this town. I've been working with Chief and with
5 Counsel to put together a provision that will be
6 feasible, one that will apply to cases like this so
7 that the ordinance has teeth in it, and the police
8 can actually get some response from the
9 contractors. It's not quite as easy as I thought
10 it might be, I thought we could just slap a penalty
11 provision in the ordinance. That's not the way it
12 works. But I want to assure you that it's a top
13 priority of mine. Hope to have it done very
14 shortly.
15 Any other questions of Mr. Jones?
16 MR. JONES: One thing that I may add. Rita,
17 has there been any complaints about the hours that
18 the Harbour View project has been under
19 construction, have they been following the rules
20 pretty much with regards to time and Saturdays?
21 TOWN CLERK: Pretty much.
22 MR. JONES: Okay.
23 TOWN CLERK: Been going on over a couple of
24 years, so it's been very sparse.
25 MR. JONES: For a few years I think they've
Page 17
1 been following the time very diligently, and I see
2 no reason why they wouldn't do so as well on this
3 particular project. Thank you.
4 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: All right. I have a
5 comment, because the core area where this is being
6 built is a much smaller area with a lot of lawns
7 being damaged because of the construction, and
8 also, the number of vehicles. Not yours, but the
9 number of vehicles at the end of Polo Drive for a
10 construction site has been ongoing for over a year
11 or so, and it's construction management that the
12 traffic -- do you -- you're going to have a plan
13 and...
14 MR. JONES: Yes, the developer would be happy
15 to submit a plan.
16 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Okay.
17 MR. JONES: I know they care very much about
18 the cleanliness and --
19 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Yeah.
20 MR. JONES: -- what their project sites look
21 like, and they're very much about safety and
22 keeping the neighbors content, trying to keep the
23 dust down and so forth, so they'd be happy to
24 submit the plan for that.
25 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Okay. It's just the
Page 18 1
1 construction traffic has been huge at the end of
2 Polo Drive, and the trucks in the road -- it's not
3 yours, but I think there should be some kind of
4 restriction on that. You know, either get the
5 trucks on the property or something, because it
6 causes quite a...
7 MR. JONES: I believe there was something
8 discussed at the architectural review board about
9 the -- you know, the traffic and where vehicles
10 would park; is that correct, Rita?
11 MAYOR MORGAN: There was, and Mr. Laudani
12 indicated -- I believe it was Mr. Laudani -- that
13 all construction vehicles would be on site, that
14 is, on the property --
15 MR. JONES: Yes.
16 MAYOR MORGAN: -- not on the road --
17 MR. JONES: Correct.
16 MAYOR MORGAN: -- which is what's blocking
19 traffic.
20 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Yeah.
21 MAYOR MORGAN: In addition to that, we have
22 property here behind the Town Hall that can be
23 offered for parking as well. I think that would be
24 very important it be maintained --
25 MR. JONES: Absolutely.
Page 19
1 MAYOR MORGAN: -- keep the trucks off the
2 road.
3 MR. JONES: Not a problem.
9 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Yeah.
5 MAYOR MORGAN: I also saw in the ARPB minutes
6 that there was discussion about the -- and some
7 objection to the deed restriction that the ARPB
8 imposed on the 99 square feet of unenclosed space.
9 Is that still an issue or is that --
10 MR. JONES: I do not believe so.
11 MAYOR MORGAN: Okay.
12 MR. JONES: Yeah, it was 99 -- there was two
13 special exemptions along with this application --
19 we did not touch on those -- but one was for the
15 rear setback, and one was for the additional
16 covered area, and I believe the deed restriction
17 was recommended that 99 square feet, plus or minus,
1B would not be able to be enclosed --
19 MAYOR MORGAN: Right.
20 MR. JONES: -- in the future, and there was no
21 issue with that.
22 MAYOR MORGAN: So if we move to recommend
23 approval of that special exception, we'll include
29 the deed restriction as well.
25 MR. JONES: Yes.
Page 201
1 MAYOR MORGAN: Okay. Any other questions of
2 Mr. Jones?
3 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Richard, can you just
4 talk about the driveway slopes and the drape in the
5 front. On that area of the street in some other
6 projects, I know you've got a little more yard
7 space in the front, but, you know, always are
8 battling with sheet flow coming down the driveway,
9 and I didn't see where the closest catch basin was.
10 There might be a way -- I see you've got a -- where
11 is that draining down on the driveway?
12 MR. JONES: Would I be able to borrow one of
13 your --
14 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Yeah, you can take
15 mine, or --
16 MR. JONES: Thank you very much.
17 That would be under the civil --
18 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Right.
19 MR. JONES: -- engineer's plan.
20 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: I mean, there is no
21 deck-o-drain(phonetic) there or anything which can
22 be quite expensive, you're not required to have
23 one, I just wanted to touch on -- I think you've
24 got plenty of room here, but --
25 MR. JONES: It appears that the driveway is
Page 21
1 draining to a swale in the front of the property.
2 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Yeah, see you've got a
3 --
4 MR. JONES: There is about a 8 -inch rise -- 7-
5 to 8 -inch rise from the property line to the
6 driveway, it appears it is pitching towards the
7 Swale.
8 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Pitching south?
9 MR. JONES: It's pitching south, yes,
10 southeast.
11 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Okay.
12 MR. JONES: Those little lines that you see on
13 the driveway, so that's likely the reason that
14 there is no drain, deck -o -drain installed at the
15 property line, it's because of the pitch to the
16 swale.
17 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Got you.
18 And then my only other question about the
19 project itself was what's behind the parapet on the
20 front elevation? Is it just blank on the other
21 side with the roof there, is there a gutter system
22 or something, or just --
23 MR. JONES: Yes, there's a -- oh, here comes
24 Mr. Laudani now -- there is a pitched roof behind
25 the parapet.
Page 22
1 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Yeah.
2 MR. JONES: And that's a office den in the
3 front.
4 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Mm-hmm.
5 MR. JONES: And the parapet itself -- can we
6 just enlarge that, if you will? Maybe just go to
7 the slide show from beginning.
8 There you go. Thank you.
9 Okay. The parapet itself is a -- I'll take
10 that, if you don't mind, thank you.
11 Bear with us for one second as we get back
12 to -- try to get back to the front here.
13 Okay. The parapet to the left of the entry,
14 it's defining element of the house, it's also
15 picked up in smaller scale with the wing walls that
16 you see to the right of the garage, to the left of
17 the master bath, and there is also two projected
18 wing walls on the rear elevation. What's behind
19 there is part of the roof that covers that office
20 area, it would look similar to what's over the
21 garage doors right now if we did not have that
22 parapet. But the parapet actually does make a
23 statement, and it's part of the overall theme of
24 the design.
25 Parapets are very common in Bermuda -style
Page 23
1 architecture, and there are several examples of
2 them throughout Gulf Stream. So to answer your
3 question, it's just standard roof area behind it.
4 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Behind it.
5 MR. JONES: Mm-hmm.
6 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: That's all I have.
7 MAYOR MORGAN: Anything else for Mr. Jones?
8 Questions from the public?
9 We'll entertain a motion.
10 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Think we have three or
11 four separate ones here.
12 MAYOR MORGAN: Okay. Just take it from the
13 top.
14 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: All right. Any
15 additional comment from the applicant?
16 MR. JONES: No, we're fine, thank you.
17 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Okay. Or discussion,
18 anymore?
19 Okay. I'll make a motion. This is an
20 application for development approval, 3140 Polo,
21 LLC, 3140 Polo Drive, Gulf Stream, Florida, 33483.
22 The first motion is a demolition permit for the
23 site to remove existing structures.
24 MAYOR MORGAN: There is a motion to recommend
25 approval of the demolition permit.
Page 24
1
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: I'll second it.
2
MAYOR MORGAN:
Rita.
3
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
4
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
5
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
6
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Yes.
7
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
B
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
9
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
10
COMMISSIONER
GANGER: Yes.
11
TOWN CLERK:
Mayor Morgan.
12
MAYOR MORGAN:
Yes.
13
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Make a motion for the
14
land clearing permit to clear the property for new
15
construction at the
above -referenced site.
16
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: I'll second that.
17
MAYOR MORGAN:
Ms. Taylor.
16
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
19
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
20
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
21
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
22
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
23
COMMISSIONER
GANGER: Yes.
24
TOWN CLERK:
Mayor Morgan.
25
MAYOR MORGAN:
Yes.
Page 25
1 I think he said yes.
2 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Make a motion for
3 the -- to grant the Special Exception No. 1 to
4 permit the reduction of the rear waterfront setback
5 to 37 feet 2 inches.
6 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: I'll second.
7 MAYOR MORGAN: Rita.
8 TOWN CLERK: Commissioner Stanley.
9 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Yes.
10 TOWN CLERK: Commissioner White.
11 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes.
12 TOWN CLERK: Commissioner Orthwein.
13 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Yes.
14 TOWN CLERK: Commissioner Ganger.
15 COMMISSIONER GANGER: Yes.
16 TOWN CLERK: Mayor Morgan.
17 MAYOR MORGAN: Yes.
18 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Make a motion to grant
19 Special Exception No. 2 to permit 99 square foot of
20 covered, unenclosed area that exceeds the maximum
21 floor area ratio, subject to a deed restriction
22 limiting the enclosure of the 99 square foot of
23 covered, unenclosed area.
24 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Second.
25 MAYOR MORGAN: Rita.
Page 26
1
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
2
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
3
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
4
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Yes.
5
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
6
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
7
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
S
COMMISSIONER
GANGER: Yes.
9
TOWN CLERK:
Mayor Morgan.
10
MAYOR MORGAN:
Yes.
11
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Make a motion to grant
12
a Level 3 architectural/site
plan review to permit
13
construction of a
2 -story, single-family, Gulf
14
Stream Bermuda -style dwelling with attached two -car
15
garage consisting
of 4,540 square feet and a
16
swimming pool.
17
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Second that.
18
MAYOR MORGAN:
Rita.
19
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
20
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
21
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
22
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Yes.
23
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
24
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
25
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
Page 27 1
1 COMMISSIONER GANGER: Yes.
2 TOWN CLERK: Mayor Morgan.
3 MAYOR MORGAN: Yes.
4 Thank you, Mr. Jones.
5 MR. JONES: Thank you very much.
6 MAYOR MORGAN: Mr. Laudani.
7 MR. LAUDANI: Thank you very much. Appreciate
8 it.
9 MAYOR MORGAN: We're now going to move to Item
10 10(2), which is an item for commission action by
11 recommendation of the town attorney.
12 Mr. Randolph.
13 TOWN ATTORNEY: Are you on 10(a)(1)?
14 MAYOR MORGAN: No, looks like it's 10(a) -- I
15 think Ms. Taylor says it's item 10(a)(2), but we
16 could just --
17 TOWN ATTORNEY: That's for the 9:45, but I can
18 do the first item.
19 MAYOR MORGAN: Why don't we do (a)(1) as well.
20 TOWN ATTORNEY: Good, good.
21 MAYOR MORGAN: Let's start with that.
22 TOWN ATTORNEY: Yes, thank you.
23 You have in your packets a curriculum vitae,
24 or several curriculum vitae relating to attorneys
25 with the firm of Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza
Page 28
1 Cole & Boniske. I have had conversations with Matt
2 Mandel and Jamie Cole in that firm, and I have
3 advised them in regard to the ordinance that the
4 fact that the town has passed an ordinance relating
5 to fair housing, which incorporates within that
6 general subject matter sober houses.
7 Because that area is an area within their
8 specific expertise, their having represented cities
9 such as Boca Raton, Delray Beach, and many other
10 cities as you've noted in the -- in their
11 curriculum vitae, I am requesting, because I do not
12 have that expertise, that we retain that firm to
13 assist the town in regard to any matters which may
14 come up in regard to that. There is no existing
15 suit, there is nothing currently on the table in
16 regard to it, but this is a very specialized area,
17 and because it is so specialized, and because they
18 have a specific expertise in this area, I would
19 recommend that the town retain that firm, and
20 specifically, but not necessarily exclusive of Matt
21 Mandel, to assist the town from time to time as
22 needed in regard to fair housing matters.
23 Their governmental rate that they have agreed
24 to charge the town, if we were to -- the town were
25 to hire them would be $250 per hour, which is very
Page 29
1 fair governmental rate.
2 I'm happy to answer any questions you may
3 have, but that's basically it. There would be
4 nothing that they would do immediately,'I see
5 nothing on the horizon that they need to do, but I
6 would not want to see you put in the position of
7 having something come up and having to respond
8 without having their expertise on board, so I'm
9 recommending that if you -- if you'd see fit, that
10 you retain them. If this is approved, they will
11 send a retainer letter, and it will incorporate the
12 fact that they will work for the town for $250 per
13 hour.
14 MAYOR MORGAN: Would you recommend, Skip, that
15 they review our ordinance preliminarily, or is our
16 ordinance a standard form such as they're already
17 familiar with its terms?
18 TOWN ATTORNEY: They're familiar with it. We
19 can certainly have them take a look at it, but it
20 was really drafted almost verbatim from an
21 ordinance that I believe they prepared for another
22 municipality.
23 MAYOR MORGAN: And just so everyone
24 understands, having counsel for this matter is not
25 necessarily just for defending lawsuits, it really
Page 30
1 goes much beyond that. If you looked at our
2 ordinance, it has fairly specific standards on how
3 applications are filed and hearings are held, and
4 all of this is new territory for us, and I think we
5 would need guidance from counsel who have
6 experience with it on advising us how to proceed --
7 TOWN ATTORNEY: Yes.
8 MAYOR MORGAN: -- so that's really the reason
9 I would think this --
10 TOWN ATTORNEY: That is, and I'm glad you
11 added that. No, it's not for lawsuits. I was
12 responding to the question that was raised as to
13 whether we have anything pending. No, it is very
14 specific. The ordinance is very specific, and one
15 of the things included within it is the -- are the
16 duties of the town manager when an application is
17 filed, and I would foresee this law firm assisting
18 the town and assisting the town manager in regard
19 to what his duties and obligations might be in
20 responding to an application, so that's the primary
21 initial reason to hire them.
22
But in the event there
were any
litigation
23
that arose as a result, I would think
that these
24
would also be the people to
do that,
and I would
25
ask that you encompass your
approval
of this firm
Page 31 1
1 in regard to that type of activity as well. But
2 we'd certainly come to you in the event something
3 like that were to happen to get your final approval
4 in regard to litigation.
5 MAYOR MORGAN: Would we contact them directly
6 on any particular matter, or go through Jones
7 Foster first and have you speak with them?
8 TOWN ATTORNEY: I think initially go through
9 me, and after initial contact, probably just hand
10 the whole matter over to them.
11 MAYOR MORGAN: Okay. Other questions?
12 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Is there any sum that the
13 town would have to put up beforehand to retain
14 them?
15 TOWN ATTORNEY: No. No, I haven't seen a
16 retainer letter, but I don't believe so. If there
17 is, if there is something in the retainer letter
18 that requests that, I would bring that back to you.
'19 But at this point in time, my feeling is to just
20 authorize hiring them at $250 an hour for any work
21 needed that falls within their expertise.
22 MAYOR MORGAN: Well, if there is no other
23 questions -- is there a -- I guess we should do
24 this by way of motions.
25 TOWN ATTORNEY: Yes, please.
Page 32 1
1
MAYOR MORGAN:
To authorize the town to
2
retain.
3
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Sure. Make a motion
4
for the town to authorize to retain Weiss Serota
5
Helfman Pastoriza
Cole & Soniske as special counsel
6
with regard to the items stated by the town
7
attorney, subject
to approval of the fee letter.
8
Do you want us to go ahead and approve that
9
now, Skip?
10
TOWN ATTORNEY: Well, we don't have a fee
11
letter. I think as long as it's just $250 an
12
hour --
13
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Okay.
14
TOWN ATTORNEY: -- then I think we should
15
approve that now.
16
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yeah, we approve it at
17
a rate of $250 an
hour, no advance fees are due.
18
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: I'll second that.
19
MAYOR MORGAN:
Rita.
20
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
21
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
22
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
23
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Yes.
24
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
25
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
Page 33
1 TOWN CLERK: Commissioner Ganger.
2 COMMISSIONER GANGER: Yes.
3 TOWN CLERK: Mayor Morgan.
4 MAYOR MORGAN: Yes.
5 Good. Okay. The next item is another
6 recommendation by town attorney for our
7 consideration. We have other counsel who are to be
8 brought in online.
9 Should we try that now, Kelly? See if we can
10 get Mr. Richman?
11 (Mr. Gerald Richman was connected on phone
12 line.)
13 DEPUTY CLERK: Is everybody there?
14 COMMISSIONER GANGER: Yes.
15 DEPUTY CLERK: Okay.
16 TOWN ATTORNEY: You have Mr. Richman --
17 MR. RICHMAN: Hello. Mr. Richman on the line.
18 DEPUTY CLERK: Yep.
19 TOWN ATTORNEY: Thank you. Hello, Gerry.
20 Mr. Mayor. Commissioners. You see the item
21 on your agenda, "Consideration of filing RICO
22 action and retaining special counsel to represent
23 the town." I would like to initiate this
24 discussion by introducing Joanne O'Connor from my
25 office who has been the one that has been primarily
Page 34
1 involved in regard to defending the town in regard
2 to the several public records suits that have been
3 filed against the town. And by way of background,
4 before hearing from Mr. Richman in regard to this,
5 I would like to ask Joanne O'Connor, and with your
6 permission, Commission -- permission commission,
7 that's --
8 MAYOR MORGAN: You have permission from me.
9 TOWN ATTORNEY: -- to give us some background
10 in regard to this matter, and then we'll hear from
11 Mr. Richman.
12 MAYOR MORGAN: Please. Thank you,
13 Ms. O'Connor.
14 MS. O'CONNOR: Thanks everyone. I wanted to
15 go ahead and introduce myself, Joanne O'Connor with
16 Jones Foster, I'm a partner, a litigation partner
17 with the firm, and to bring you up to date on the
18 status of the public records suits and the public
19 records requests that have been made to the town,
20 and I'm going to focus in terms of the public
21 records request on the thirteen months that have
22 passed since the end of August, 27, 2013, because
23 we have a good log of how many requests have been
24 made.
25 So more than 1500 public records requests have
1 been made to the town since August 27, 2013. We
2 have good reason to believe that the substantial
3 overwhelming majority of those requests have been
4 made by two residents of the town: Christopher
5 O'Hare and Martin O'Boyle, and/or entities with
6 which they're affiliated. Specifically, more than
7 400 public records requests have been made by
8 Mr. O'Hare in his name, individually. We believe
9 another 300 have been made by Mr. O'Hare using
10 fictitious names and e-mail addresses, including
11 some in which he's sued the town related to those
12 requests. Another several hundred more have been
13 made by Mr. O'Boyle and entities with which he's
14 affiliated, at least as indicated by records
15 available through the Florida Department of State.
16 The requests have been prolific, and they have
17 barraged your town staff. For example, Mr. O'Hare
18 on October 8, 2013 made 89 public records requests
19 in one day alone. There was another day in
20 September of 2013 on a Sunday when Mr. O'Hare made
21 40 public records requests to the town over a
22 four-hour time period. Out of these public records
23 requests, they've resulted in 36 public records
24 suits that have been filed by Mr. O'Hare or
25 Mr. O'Boyle, or entities affiliated with
Page 35
Page 36
1 Mr. O'Boyle. Three of those suits have been
2 dismissed, and 33 lawsuits are pending.
3 And in your packet, you have a listing of all
4 of the public records suits that have been filed.
5 So you'll see there is 36 public records suits that
6 have been filed, two of those were voluntarily
7 dismissed by Mr. O'Hare, one was voluntarily
8 dismissed by an entity called the Citizens
9 Awareness Foundation, which Mr. O'Boyle has
10 testified is an entity that is funded by him, and
11 33 of those lawsuits are pending, and we've
12 indicated which ones are pending and which ones
13 have been dismissed.
14 So of those lawsuits, 20 are brought by
15 Mr. O'Hare. And again, I mentioned the series of
16 public records requests Mr. O'Hare made on a single
17 Sunday back in September, seven of those lawsuits
18 relate to requests that were made on that one
19 Sunday back on September 29th.
20 So we have 20 suits filed by Mr. O'Hare, there
21 is one suit filed by Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare
22 that relates to public records requests and
23 purported Sunshine Law violations. There is also
24
about a
dozen
lawsuits
filed by Mr.
O'Boyle
or
25
entities
with
which he's
affiliated.
And in
fact,
Page 37
1 in a recent lawsuit filed by Mr. O'Boyle against
2 Mayor Morgan and special counsel, Mr. Sweetapple,
3 and the town, Mr. O'Boyle avers that he's currently
4 engaged in 12 lawsuits against the town regarding
5 violations of public records requests.
6 The -- just to address the costs that have
7 been incurred by the town in responding to these
8 public records lawsuits, since January 2014, the
9 town has spent -- well, let me explain how my firm
10 tracks.
11 So we have a general matter that we track
12 through all general advice and counsel that's being
13 provided to the town, and then we also have
14 specific matters for each individual lawsuit. So
15 for these specific lawsuits since January 2014, the
16 town has spent approximately $220,000, or an
17 average of $24,000 per month. There is related
18 costs such that the total expenses the town has
19 spent on counsel at my firm since January 2014 is
20 $370,000, so that would include expenses associated
21 with these lawsuits, and also, our office working
22 with Kelly Avery and others in your staff in
23 helping to navigate the Public Records Act in
24 determining -- and I can provide examples'if you'd
25 like of the types of public records requests that
Page 38
1 have come in, they're extremely broad.
2 There has been requests, for example, from an
3 entity affiliated with Mr. O'Boyle related to your
4 employees' employment applications, their home
5 addresses, their prior employment, personal phone
6 numbers, that sort of thing. And then some very,
7 very broad requests that often require assistance
6 in terms of navigating. In addition to litigation
9 costs, just the costs incurred associated with your
10 staff time in responding to all these public
11 records requests.
12 Mr. O'Boyle has been deposed in one of these
13 lawsuits, he was deposed about two weeks ago on
14 September 15th for approximately eight hours. His
15 deposition did not conclude and will be continued.
16 That's all I have.
17
Oh, and just one other
thing.
In addition to
18
the public
records lawsuits
listed,
that I've
19
listed for
you, you'll see
there is
eight other
20
cases that
have been filed
against
the town by
21
Mr. O'Hare,
or -- and Mr. O'Boyle
in
the past nine
22
months or so. One of those
suits has
been
23
dismissed.
Insurance counsel's handling
all but
24
one of those
cases. And again, there is
two recent
25
cases, one is
a slander case that's been
filed
Page 39
1 against the town, Mayor Morgan, Special Counsel
2 Sweetapple by Mr. O'Boyle, and another is a case
3 that Mr. O'Boyle has filed against Chief Ward,
4 Mr. Thrasher, and the town relating to an incident
5 that occurred a week or two ago when he came in to
6 physically make a public records request, so those
7 are additional cases that, for the most part,
8 insurance counsel is handling.
9 MAYOR MORGAN: It's important to note in that
10 regard that the public records lawsuits are not
11 covered by our liability insurance company, and
12 therefore, we must pay counsel from the town's
13 reserves.
14 Any other questions of Ms. O'Connor?
15 TOWN ATTORNEY: Going forward, you have I
16 think before you a copy of the curriculum vitae of
17 Gerry Richman, and he is, as you have heard, on the
18 phone, so if you would like to hear from him
19 briefly in regard to the action that is proposed,
20 we can do so now and ask him any questions that you
21 might have.
22 MAYOR MORGAN: Yes. Mr. Richman, Mayor Morgan
23 here. We're considering filing a RICO action and
24 retaining your firm as special counsel. We have a
25 copy of your curriculum vitae, and I would like you
Page 90
1 to just introduce yourself, and describe for --
2 your review and opinions regarding the town
3 advancing this action.
9 MR. RICHMAN: Sure. By way of brief
5 background, you've got the CV, everybody's had a
6 chance to review that, I won't go into detail in
7 that other than the highlight that I was past
8 president of the Florida Bar, and I am a very
9 active trial lawyer, and I've been involved in RICO
10 cases.
11 It is my opinion that the best way to
12 counteract what the town is going through is to
13 file a RICO action in federal court, not in state
19 court, but in federal court, whether or not
15 restrictions in terms of the litigation privilege
16 by people bringing actions under the Public Records
17 Act.
18 And in terms of what the proposed action would
19 involve, I can't be more specific at this time
20 other than to say it would include the Citizens
21 Awareness Foundation, Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Hare, and
22 others associated with them. The purpose of the
23 action would be ultimately to seek injunctive
29 relief and damages against the enterprise they have
25 which would include the law firm, would include
Page 41
1 individuals, and include the Citizens Awareness
2 Foundation where they are conjunctively involved in
3 bringing this whole series of actions which we
4 believe have no merit.
5 The proposal, or the scope of the litigation
6 would be to include all of the actions that have
7 taken place over the past in excess of a year to a
8 year and a half. I've spoken at length with
9 Mr. Sweetapple, with Joanne O'Connor. And I
10 actually got involved in this because I was -- I
11 had a client who is a contractor who contracted
12 with the South Florida Water Management District,
13 and they've gone after him on a public records
14 request where they simply made a request for an
15 insurance certificate, and did it in a way that the
16 company would not have been aware of, or had
17 personnel available to go ahead and even answer
18 this various request. We are defending that action
19 at this time. And, like, they're typical
20 scorched -earth type of litigation, going in and
21 asking for my personal notes and everything else,
22 but I'm well familiar with their tactics, and we're
23
prepared to go ahead and
aggressively
pursue them.
24
MAYOR MORGAN: Mr.
Richman, what
sort of
25 damages can be obtained through the filing of a
Page 421
1 RICO action?
2 MR. RICHMAN: RICO action provides for -- if
3 you're successful, it provides for attorney's fees
4 and triple damages that you would be able to
5 recover. In this case, the damages you would be
6 seeking would be damages relating to the cost and
7 expense of defending all of these spurious actions
8 as far as a racketeering enterprise.
9 Also, there is a possibility that the action
10 could include other municipalities joining in as
11 well and possibly supporting the extent of the
12 litigation, but we can't count on that until and if
13 they are -- there are others willing to go ahead
14 and join us, so initially, the town would have to
15 bear the expense of going forward. We are hopeful
16 to get other organizations such as the League of
17 Cities and others involved, but I don't want to
16 tell the commission that we're necessarily going to
19 be able to get any significant support from the
20 outside until and if the case moves forward and
21 appears to be successful.
22
MAYOR MORGAN:
So Gulf
Stream would
be
23
representing a class
action;
is that what
you're
24 describing?
25 MR. RICHMAN: That's the plan is that we would
Page 43
1 go ahead and have Gulf Stream be the primary
2 plaintiff. You only really need one plaintiff for
3 a class action. You can have others, but you just
4 have to have one plaintiff that qualifies as a
5 class representative. Gulf Stream would clearly
6 qualify as long as it's willing to go forward with
7 the action.
8 MAYOR MORGAN: And what would your fee
9 schedule be to handle this litigation?
10 MR. RICHMAN: What we have proposed is a
11 partial contingency agreement, and my law firm is
12 willing to go either way. The customary rates in
13 my law firm range from $250 an hour and $750 an
14 hour, and we would be willing to go forward on
15 either two-thirds of our hourly rate with a
16 25 percent contingency, or 50 percent of our rate
17 with a 35 percent contingency. And the point I
18 would emphasize is that we don't take cases on a
19 contingent or partially contingent basis unless we
20 believe that the case has merit and a reasonable
21 chance of being successful, or what could be a
22 substantial amount of damages to be recovered.
23 MAYOR MORGAN: Any questions for Mr. Richman
24 regarding his description of the case, the
25 attorney's fees, or his recommendation of this
Page 441
1 action?
2 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Just have a general
3 question, and Mr. Mayor, you can chime in as well.
4 The gentleman on the phone is -- now, there are
5 costs involved with the litigation in addition to
6 what we would call an attorney's fee. Can anybody
7 kind of generally expound on that, when we move
8 forward with something of this type of scope and
9 size?
10 MAYOR MORGAN: Mr. Richman, you described the
11 hourly rate reduction with contingent fee at the
12 conclusion of the case, but in addition to that,
13 there are costs associated with advancing a case
14 from filing fees to deposition transcript, expert
15 witness fees, et cetera; how would those be
16 handled?
17 MR. RICHMAN: Well, obviously, the client
18 bears the costs, but in terms of what it would
19 cost, I think the main thing you're talking about
20 in federal court, at least initially, aside from
21 filing fees, eventually, you're going to get into
22 depositions if the case goes forward, so there
23 would be customary costs of litigation relating to
24 depositions, the work of propounding
25 interrogatories, things like that, would all be
Page 45
1 part of what's involved in the attorney's fees, but
2 the actual cost of litigation, hiring experts and
3 so on would have to be born by the client. Those
4 costs, in terms of hiring experts, would be
5 something a lot further down the line, though. In
6 other words, you wouldn't be incurring those kinds
7 of costs initially. The main cost initially would
8 be with regard to strategizing and reacting to
9 pleadings, getting it served, and ultimately having
10 a hearing on class certification, which you need to
11 do rather quickly in the federal court.
12 So basically, you'd be filing the complaint,
13 and then you would be filing a motion for class
14 certification, and there would be some discovery
15 related to the class certification aspect. I don't
16 anticipate that you would have expert witness fees
17 or things like that during the first few months of
18 litigation.
19 And by the way, everybody, as much as you can,
20 try to keep your voice up when you ask questions,
21 because it is difficult to hear.
22
MAYOR MORGAN: Just to summarize, then, your
23
hourly rate
and the contingent
fee would be in
24
addition to
the costs that the
town would advance I
25 expect on a monthly billing period?
Page 46 II
I MR. RICHMAN: Correct.
2
COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN:
Is there
any
3
estimated -- I know you can't
because
it's
4
hourly -- is there any estimated
cost
of how much
5
these -- you know, how much
something
like this
6
would cost overall?
7
MR. RICHMAN: There is
no way at
this point to
8
predict how much it's going
to cost overall, or how
9
vigorously the defense is going
to be
involved.
10
And by the way, as an
i
aside, I won't mention
11 names, but I got a phone call last week from a
12 prominent lawyer wanting to refer a case to me
r
13 where he said that the person on the other side, or
14 the person I would be representing was very
i
15 difficult to deal with, and very wealthy, and was I
16 interested. And when I asked the name, it was j
17 Martin O'Boyle. So Mr. O'Boyle apparently is
j
18 reaching around trying to find prominent lawyers to
19 go ahead and represent the -- of course, I quickly
20 explained that I was not in a position to represent
21 Mr. O'Boyle.
22
But to answer
your question
more directly,
23
it's very difficult
to estimate.
I would think you
24
would be expending,
even on the
reduced hourly
25
rate, somewheres in
the range of
twenty to twenty
Page 47 j
1 five thousand dollars in fees the first few months
2 of the litigation, but beyond that, I can't really
3 be more specific because it's hard to say what the
4 other side may or may not be doing.
5 But in terms of what we'd be doing, we'd be
6 spending our efforts in the first couple of months,
7 number one, going ahead and gathering the facts and
8 drafting the complaint, appropriate discovery, and
9 preparing for a class certification motion and
10 hearing. It's also possible there could be
11 depositions early, but that's something over which
12 we wouldn't have a great deal of control, but it
13 wouldn't be our intention at this time to initially
14 go ahead with any major deposition costs. You want
15 to focus on getting the complaint properly drafted
16 and file at the earliest possible time.
17 MAYOR MORGAN: And just to clarify, the public
18 records lawsuits that we are defending do not
19 provide for recovery of attorney's fees should we,
20 as the town defendant, prevail, but the RICO action
21 does; is that correct?
22
MR. RICHMAN: That's
correct.
Prevailing
23
party would get attorney's
fees in
addition to
24 provable triple damages.
25 MAYOR MORGAN: Tom.
Page 48
1 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: I'm in.
2 MAYOR MORGAN: We received, when we sat down
3 for the commission meeting this morning, a note, I
4 guess you would call it, or a letter, which I've
5 given to Ms. Taylor. Would you please read that
6 into the record?
7 TOWN CLERK: I will. Says, "Good morning. I
8 hand this writing to you at the behest of Martin
9 O'Boyle, who is out of town. Mr. O'Boyle wishes to
10 address the agenda item titled 'Consideration of
11 filing RICO action and retaining special counsel to
12 represent the town.' For those of you who are not
13 familiar with RICO actions, the cost for such
14 actions have been known to run into the millions of
15 dollars. Mr. O'Boyle assumes that he, along with
16 his associates, is the recipients of this proposed
17 RICO action.
18 "In connection with the proposed RICO action,
19 Mr. O'Boyle wishes to provide the commission with a
20 warning that any such launch will be met with an
21 unfriendly response. Mr. O'Boyle reminds the
22 commission that the mayor has been inviting a fight
23 for some time now.
24
"Mr. O'Boyle
further
reminds
the
commissioners
25
that should
they
decide to
embark
upon
and support
Page 49
1 the mayor's grand battle, the likely result will be
2 the demise of Gulf Stream. Mr. O'Boyle urges Gulf
3 Stream to file their planned RICO action as soon as
i
4 possible provided that they believe it is the
5 proper thing to do, and remembering their fiduciary
6 responsibility.
7 "In closing, Mr. O'Boyle wants all to know
8 that he is waiting for the commissioners to take
9 action, and he wants all to be prepared for the
i
10 strike, which he will inflict, which may include
i
11 inter alia a RICO action against the town, and/or
12 all of its commissioners and manager."
13
MAYOR MORGAN:
Thank you.
Any other questions
14
of Mr. Richman or
Mr. Randolph
or Ms. O'Connor?
15
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: A question for
16
Mr.
Richman. From
his experience, I know this is a
17
hard
question, but
I understand that these cases
18
take
a long time.
Could he give, maybe, a best and
19
a worst
case scenario
of -- idea of how long this
20
case
could stretch
out?
21 MR. RICHMAN: That's extremely difficult. The
22 fact of the matter is that very few lawsuits that
23 are filed in civil court actually ultimately end up
24 going to trial, most cases end up getting settled
25 somewheres along the line. But in terms of how
Page 50
1 long it would take, the federal courts generally
2 move pretty quickly in terms of -- in terms of RICO
3 actions and details relating to whether you've
4 properly pled a cause of action. So I would
5 anticipate that in federal court this case could
6 move pretty quickly, a lot faster than some state
7 court actions would move. The unknown is which of
8 the several federal judges are ultimately going to
9 get the case, and how fast they move their docket.
10 The federal courts are fairly quick on -- most of
11 them are fairly quick on moving their dockets.
12 So that's the best I can tell you. I can't
13 anticipate whether this thing is going to take
14 months or take a year or more until we see how it
15 goes.
16 In terms of Mr. O'Boyle's statement that he's
17 going to file a RICO action, that's something we
18 have to deal with when we get there. I don't see
19 any basis for it, but that's the only comment I can
20 make on that since I haven't seen what it is he's
21 threatening to go ahead and file.
22 COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.
23 MR. RICHMAN: I hope that answers your
24 question, but it's very difficult to be
25 more specific --
Page 51
1 COMMISSIONER WHITE: I know, it's a difficult
2 question, I understand.
3 MR. RICHMAN: -- who the judge is and see how
4 the case is going. That's one of the big problems
5 in litigation is being able to accurately budget,
6 particularly at the inception of the case.
7 MAYOR MORGAN: Well, in my opinion, the Town
8 of Gulf Stream has suffered enough. This is a town
9 that has been expending funds and time and
10 resources and morale, and the difficulties of
11 retaining and hiring employees as a result of the
12 scandalously malicious and frivolous lawsuits and
13 public records requests filed by Mr. O'Hare and
14 O'Boyle under related entities, and I think it's
15 time for the madness to stop.
16 Is there a motion on the recommendation by
17 counsel?
18 TOWN ATTORNEY: I have a comment before you
19 move forward.
20 MAYOR MORGAN: Yes, sir.
21 TOWN ATTORNEY: In the event you were to move
22 forward, do you want to specify which financial
23 arrangement you would make? There were two options
24 that were presented.
25 MAYOR MORGAN: If that needs to be decided
Page 52
1 here, and I guess it could. My recommendation
2 would be that we reduce the hourly rate as much as
3 possible because of the unseen nature of those
4 costs, so I would recommend the 50 percent hourly
5 rate with a higher 35 percent contingent fee award.
6 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: I agree with that,
7 just because the amount of hours it takes. I think
8 that's a more prudent way to go forward.
9 MAYOR MORGAN: Donna? Tom?
10 COMMISSIONER WHITE: You have more experience
11 in this than I do, so it -- I mean, I'd have -- I
12 could --
13 MAYOR MORGAN: Seems to me we'd want to keep
14 the costs down as much as possible as we're
15 advancing the case, knowing these costs will come
16 back when we prevail on the case. But it seems to
17 me it would be prudent to go with the lower rate,
18 and plus give incentive to counsel to advance this
19 case to a conclusion knowing that that 35 percent
20 contingent fee is a significant amount of money. I
21 would like that as an incentive for our counsel.
22 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: I agree with that.
23 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: The secondary policy
24 decision would be, obviously, after lowering the
25 up -front cost by the hourly rate would be, not only
Page 53
1 is the objective to get damages and recovery, but
2 also to cease expenditures on current actions.
3 MAYOR MORGAN: That's correct: I think as it
4 has been discussed today, we can either take the
5 approach of defending these individual cases as
6 they come in, and bleed to death by a thousand
7 cuts, or we can take steps necessary to stop those
6 cases by advancing this case, which shows, from the
9 evidence that I've seen to date, a conspiracy of
10 sorts to advance actions that essentially do
11 nothing other than shake down municipal agencies
12 and related contractors for funds, and that all the
13 talk of open public access, white knights on
14 chargers helping the common man is nonsense. This
15 has all been about money. And by putting a stop to
16 it with this RICO action, we then put a stop to the
17 individual lawsuits on the public records requests.
18 I'm confident that would be the result of this
19 case.
20
COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: I
agree, because I
21
don't see an end just
defending
one by one. I
22
think we have to take
it all as
a
group and go
23
forward because just
defending
is
not doing
24
anything. I think we've
tried
to
settle with the
25
individual once, and
I think it's
very important
Page 54
1 that we just don't bleed to death, we protect
2 ourselves.
3 MAYOR MORGAN: And that experience with the
4 settlement is largely driving this action, which is
5 we saw what happened --
6 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Yeah.
7 MAYOR MORGAN: -- when this town tried to work
8 reasonably with the parties, and what happened,
9 because we're right back in the middle of it, and
10 it's time for it to stop, so -- anything else we
11 need to cover, Mr. Randolph?
12 TOWN ATTORNEY: No, as long as you've finished
13 your discussion, you're ready to go forward.
14 MAYOR MORGAN: Any other questions or
15 comments?
16 RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER O'HARE: Mr. Chairman,
17 may I comment for a moment?
18 MAYOR MORGAN: You may, Mr. O'Hare.
19 RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER O'HARE: I understand
20 that the purpose of the RICO is to get rid of the
21 public record requests, and I have a question
22 regarding the RICO. Mr. Richman I'm sure is a
23 great attorney, he's certainly well respected,
24 indicates that I'm going to be indicate -- indicted
25 in this RICO action, but three months ago,
Page 55
1 Mr. Sweetapple said to my
lawyer,
"If you
dismiss
2 all your charges, we won't
include
you in
this RICO
3 action." So I understand
what the
purpose
of this
4 is, and it's really to get
rid of
all the
other
5 complaints.
6 I've been in litigation, I hate it. It's
7 expensive, you get bills every month for fifty, a
B hundred thousand dollars. This, because I am
9 innocent, will actually go to a jury trial, and
10 Mr. Richman has been very careful not to tell you
11 what that will cost, even though I think
12 Commissioner White asked him what's it going to
13 cost on the downside, we didn't get an answer. But
14 I can tell you what it's going to cost. Bills
15 every -- I mean, when these lawyers all get
16 together and spend 22 hours preparing for trial
17 each day, you're going to get bills of 100,000,
18 200,000 a month. The time the travel -- the trial
19 actually takes place, and then of course, there
20 will probably be a settlement just before the
21 jury -- I mean, you're going to spend $50,000 just
22 on voir dire just selecting jurors that you hope
23 are going to be favorable to your case. You're
24 talking about millions of dollars. And it's not
25 your money, it's their money.
1 So many of these cases could be resolved by
2 just admitting guilt, pay the attorney's fees. I
3 mean, a typical public records case settles for
4 what was Joel Chandler's, it was $1500 to make him
5 go away? And yet you spend $20,000 saying no,
6 we're not guilty, and we're not going to cooperate.
7 That's just not a good use of public money. If you
8 make a mistake, eventually a judge is going to see
9 you made a mistake, give them the record, pay their
10 attorney's fees, and let's go on to the next thing.
11 But instead, you spend piles and piles of public
12 money, and this is another example. I bet you $5
13 million from now this is still going on, and it's
14 just a shame.
15 I like this town. Maybe this is my attempt to
16 try to steer you in the right direction, maybe it's
17 gotten a little out of hand, but my God, this
18 town's going to be destroyed.
19 UNIDENTIFIED RESIDENT: Why don't you move?
20 RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER O'HARE: I'm sorry,
21 ma'am. What's your name?
22 MAYOR MORGAN: We don't get into colloquy back
23 and forth between residents, but we certainly
24 appreciate your comments and your advice,
25 Mr. O'Hare.
Page 56
UaurLtuaUzy
Page 57 1
1 RESIDENT CHRISTOPHER O'HARE: I really think
2 you need to reconsider. Thank you.
3 RESIDENT TONY GRAZIANO: Mr. Mayor, may we
4 also speak?
5 MAYOR MORGAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Graziano.
6 RESIDENT TONY GRAZIANO: I don't usually agree
7 with what Mr. O'Hare said, but he did say something
8 with which I fully agree: It is our money, and we
9 would like you to spend it fighting these
10 gentlemen. Thank you.
11 MAYOR MORGAN: Anyone else?
12 If not, we'll consider a motion.
13 Tom, why don't you --
14 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: So our fee arrangement
15 was -- proposal was 50 percent reduction, an hourly
16 rate of 35 percent.
17 COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: Thirty-five, yeah,
18 contingency.
19 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: Contingency.
20 MAYOR MORGAN: Correct.
21 COMMISSIONER STANLEY: This will all be
22 formalized at a later date per our motion, so make
23 a motion to retain special counsel, Richman and
24 Greer, P.A., specifically Gerald F. Richman, based
25 on a fee structure of a 50 percent reduction of the
Page 581
1 standard hourly rates with a 35 percent contingency
2 fee on,any recovery.
3
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: I second that.
4
MAYOR MORGAN:
Rita.
5
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Stanley.
6
COMMISSIONER
STANLEY: Yes.
7
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner White.
8
COMMISSIONER
WHITE: Yes.
9
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Orthwein.
10
COMMISSIONER
ORTHWEIN: Yes.
11
TOWN CLERK:
Commissioner Ganger.
12
COMMISSIONER
GANGER: Yes.
13
TOWN CLERK:
Mayor Morgan.
14
MAYOR MORGAN:
Yes. Thank you.
15
And thank you, Mr. Richman.
16
MR. RICHMAN:
Thank you all.
17
MAYOR MORGAN:
Anything else from the town
18
attorney?
19
TOWN ATTORNEY: No, nothing further. Thank
20
you.
21
MAYOR MORGAN:
Let's move on to Item 9, which
22
is reports. Mr. Brannon.
23
MR. BRANNON:
Danny Brannon, Brannon &
24
Gillespie, reporting on the progress on the
25
undergrounding project. As of end of today, we
Page 59
1 should have all the resident services, the tennis
2 club services, the golf services, all new
3 underground system. We will retain the street
4 lighting in an operational mode until such time
5 that FPL comes and removes the poles. We have not
6 had any major expenses since the last report. We
7 have placed a new progress map on the board outside
8 which hopefully, by the end of today will be
9 totally green and totally in service on the
10 underground system.
11 Beyond this point, we will be engaged in doing
12 any repairs we need to for landscaping that the
13 contractor has need to go back in and fix that
14 they've damaged. Any concrete or asphalt work that
15 needs to be done, we have a couple places that we
16 have to pour a little concrete. We have some
17 asphalt street work that we go in and do the
18 repairs, and those will be done. We're doing the
19 asbuilt construction drawing, finalizing those
20 along with the asbuilt surveys that we have to turn
21 into the power company. Over the next 30 days,
22 those will be completed, and the contract will be
23 finished.
24
The
power company
continues to tell
me that we
25
should be
getting their
new information
on the
Page 60
1 north half by the end of this month.
2 MAYOR MORGAN: Any other questions, Mr.
3 Brannon?
4 If not, thank you for the update.
5 MR. BRANNON: Thank you.
6 MAYOR MORGAN: Town manager report included in
7 our packet.
8 Did you have anything to add to it,
9 Mr. Thrasher?
10 TOWN MANAGER: I have nothing to add to it,
11 no.
12 MAYOR MORGAN: Any questions of Mr. Thrasher?
13 I'll accept that as submitted.
14 Next ARPB meeting is October 23rd. Look
15 forward to reading the minutes from that meeting.
16 Financial report and water usage report;
17 anything to add to that, which is included in our
18 packet, Mr. Thrasher?
19 TOWN MANAGER: Nothing to add.
20 MAYOR MORGAN: If no questions, we'll accept
21 that as submitted as well.
22 Chief Ward.
23 CHIEF WARD: I request that the activity
24 report for September be accepted as submitted.
25 MAYOR MORGAN: Accept that as submitted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Any items by the commissioners? Comments?
Questions? Points of order?
COMMISSIONER STANLEY: I don't have anything,
Mayor.
COMMISSIONER ORTHWEIN: I don't either.
MAYOR MORGAN: If not, meeting's closed.
(Meeting was concluded.)
Page 61
Page 62
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA
4 COUNTY OF PALM BEACH
5
6
7 I, D. Renee Watson, Stenographic Reporter,
8 State of Florida at large, certify that I was authorized
9 to and did stenographically report the foregoing
10 proceedings, and that the transcript is a true and
11 complete record of my stenographic notes.
12 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2014.
13
14
15
D. Renee Watson,
16 Stenographic Reporter
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DEFT EXHIBIT 11
WI[ness: MWZO'Boyle
R.G. 5/1612016
J_
OBOYLE000650
aHn��e.S
v
SOY. /rex✓mw7
eGu or 'ft -6-
-
' O�rnN Leos ec.sa✓c.T S �a'; .R.t_t
DEFT EXHIBIT 11
WI[ness: MWZO'Boyle
R.G. 5/1612016
J_
OBOYLE000650