Southard Street Gambit
Now TAMPOA has requested a judge to issue an injunction to keep city officials off the TAMPOA property. This request is the result of the September 21, 2006 confrontation that occurred at the Southard Street "guardhouse" entrance to Truman Annex when City Commissioners Clayton Lopez, Mark Rossi, and Bill Verge along with City Manager Julio Avael refused to identify themselves to TAMPOA security guard, Michael Geary. The police were called, and Police Chief Bill Mauldin told Geary to remove a sign proclaiming "limited access" to Truman Annex that was causing traffic to back up and block Thomas Street. The security guard has claimed that Commissioner Lopez assaulted him. TAMPOA's attorney, Bill Anderson, told the Key West Citizen that the TAMPOA Operations Manager and Geary had reported the incident to the State Attorney's Office. According to the Key West Citizen, the State Attorneys Office is investigating the incident.
In its request for an injunction TAMPOA is accusing the three City Commissioners of violating the Florida Sunshine Laws that bar elected officials from privately discussing matters they might vote on, and is accusing Commissioner Lopez of assaulting the security guard.
TAMPOA Attorney Bill Anderson says, "I find all of this very distasteful, very counterproductive and very unfortunate." You've got that right, Bill, especially if you include the request for injunction. In fact, it seems down right silly.
Consider the logic: Three City commissioners violate the Sunshine Laws No one knows whether they did this on TAMPOA property (since it's not clear who owns Southard Street), but let's suppose they did. Therefore, a judge should enjoin them from coming on TAMPOA property. Really? How will preventing the Commissioners from coming on TAMPOA property prevent future violations of the Sunshine Laws?
Oh, we're sorry, it's not really about the Florida Sunshine Laws? It's about the alleged assault by City Commissioner Lopez. Well, what evidence is there that he assaulted anyone? As we all know, among other things, injunctions are designed to prevent a future violation of the law proven to have been violated. So, one thing, Bill, you may have to show is that a future violation, that is, an assault on a TAMPOA security guard will be likely if City Officials come on TAMPOA property. Assuming, hypothetically, that Lopez assaulted the guard, is there any evidence that he will do it again and therefore entitle TAMPOA to an injunction? In fact, since you don't want this injunction just against Lopez but against City Officials what evidence is there that when City Officials come on TAMPOA property there will be an assault on a security guard? And while you're thinking about that one, isn't there a little matter of the clean hands doctrine? Our legal eagles tell us that one of the things a judge can consider is whether the party seeking the injunction is blameless. Is TAMPOA blameless here?
Oh, we're sorry, the request for an injunction is really not about any of those things either? So, is it about keeping the parties talking or providing yet another forum in which to have a discussion about settlement of the Southard Street dispute and another shot at mediation? Not really?
So, is it about leverage, politics, and bargaining chits? Partly? Well that's an interesting negotiating strategy: Thoroughly piss off three of the five City Commissioners and then expect them to vote for any agreement involving your client TAMPOA that may come before the City Commission EVER. You sure didn't learn that at the Harvard Negotiation Project.
Oh, that's not really it either? Then, could it be about plain old nastiness, nose tweaking, revenge, or even (heaven forbid) TAMPOA's thoughtlessness? Not a chance? Really? Then what?
Oh, that? We're sorry, we should have guessed sooner. We should have known it's about the money. We forgot one of the legal commandments: "If there is any money to be obtained, make sure the lawyer gets the bulk of it."
So the strategy is to make the ongoing litigation so protracted and so expensive that neither the City nor TAMPOA will have any money left to do anything. Southard Street will remain quiet within Truman Annex. There will be no road through Bahama Village. The City will not be able to afford to pursue eminent domain. The City will not be able to afford to develop the waterfront property it got from the Navy and will be forced to sell it to developers who can construct a private marina and million dollar waterfront homes that look like those in Truman Annex. The new community may even join TAMPOA. The only downside: TAMPOA and the Truman Annex residents will be broke and hated by the rest of the Key West citizens who will eventually forget about the whole event -- a small price to pay. And the lawyers will have earned some handsome fees as well as the possibility for additional legal business as the development occurs.
Brilliant! You could become the next Denny Crane.
Where did you say you went to law school?
In its request for an injunction TAMPOA is accusing the three City Commissioners of violating the Florida Sunshine Laws that bar elected officials from privately discussing matters they might vote on, and is accusing Commissioner Lopez of assaulting the security guard.
TAMPOA Attorney Bill Anderson says, "I find all of this very distasteful, very counterproductive and very unfortunate." You've got that right, Bill, especially if you include the request for injunction. In fact, it seems down right silly.
Consider the logic: Three City commissioners violate the Sunshine Laws No one knows whether they did this on TAMPOA property (since it's not clear who owns Southard Street), but let's suppose they did. Therefore, a judge should enjoin them from coming on TAMPOA property. Really? How will preventing the Commissioners from coming on TAMPOA property prevent future violations of the Sunshine Laws?
Oh, we're sorry, it's not really about the Florida Sunshine Laws? It's about the alleged assault by City Commissioner Lopez. Well, what evidence is there that he assaulted anyone? As we all know, among other things, injunctions are designed to prevent a future violation of the law proven to have been violated. So, one thing, Bill, you may have to show is that a future violation, that is, an assault on a TAMPOA security guard will be likely if City Officials come on TAMPOA property. Assuming, hypothetically, that Lopez assaulted the guard, is there any evidence that he will do it again and therefore entitle TAMPOA to an injunction? In fact, since you don't want this injunction just against Lopez but against City Officials what evidence is there that when City Officials come on TAMPOA property there will be an assault on a security guard? And while you're thinking about that one, isn't there a little matter of the clean hands doctrine? Our legal eagles tell us that one of the things a judge can consider is whether the party seeking the injunction is blameless. Is TAMPOA blameless here?
Oh, we're sorry, the request for an injunction is really not about any of those things either? So, is it about keeping the parties talking or providing yet another forum in which to have a discussion about settlement of the Southard Street dispute and another shot at mediation? Not really?
So, is it about leverage, politics, and bargaining chits? Partly? Well that's an interesting negotiating strategy: Thoroughly piss off three of the five City Commissioners and then expect them to vote for any agreement involving your client TAMPOA that may come before the City Commission EVER. You sure didn't learn that at the Harvard Negotiation Project.
Oh, that's not really it either? Then, could it be about plain old nastiness, nose tweaking, revenge, or even (heaven forbid) TAMPOA's thoughtlessness? Not a chance? Really? Then what?
Oh, that? We're sorry, we should have guessed sooner. We should have known it's about the money. We forgot one of the legal commandments: "If there is any money to be obtained, make sure the lawyer gets the bulk of it."
So the strategy is to make the ongoing litigation so protracted and so expensive that neither the City nor TAMPOA will have any money left to do anything. Southard Street will remain quiet within Truman Annex. There will be no road through Bahama Village. The City will not be able to afford to pursue eminent domain. The City will not be able to afford to develop the waterfront property it got from the Navy and will be forced to sell it to developers who can construct a private marina and million dollar waterfront homes that look like those in Truman Annex. The new community may even join TAMPOA. The only downside: TAMPOA and the Truman Annex residents will be broke and hated by the rest of the Key West citizens who will eventually forget about the whole event -- a small price to pay. And the lawyers will have earned some handsome fees as well as the possibility for additional legal business as the development occurs.
Brilliant! You could become the next Denny Crane.
Where did you say you went to law school?
posted by Conchette at 5:36 AM
10 Comments:
do you actually read what you write? didn't you see the photograghs? you're anger is such that you fail to see the shear illogic of your reasoning. for example if lopez assulted the guard what says that he will do it again! gee i did not realize that i get a free assault before the justice system will act!
Dear Anonymous: Looks like I struck a nerve and got your juices going! I wish you would have had the guts to sign a name to your post! That's okay, a good dialogue is always fun.
But to your questions: Yes, I do read what I write. Yes I did see the photos, but they don't tell the whole story. A professional law enforcement officer has not yet determined whether Commissioner Lopez, in fact, committed an assault, as that term is defined under Florida law. We'll have to wait for that determination, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
And while we're on the subject, you asked, "if [Commissioner Lopez (capital letters are useful in writing, you know)] did assault the guard what says that he will do it again?" The answer to your exact words is NOTHING! Nothing says "that he will do it again." And you apparently agree by what you wrote. Did you actually read what you wrote? There is not a shred of evidence that if he did assault the guard he will do it again. Certainly there was no "emergency" of that as our friend Bill Andersen learned from the Judge.
So, "anonymous," let's cut to reality. We both know that TAMPOA didn't file another piece of litigation - its request for an injunction to keep out city officials - solely over Commissioner Lopez. TAMPOA did it for leverage - at least that's being charitable - in what has become a nasty poitical game of one-upmanship.
As for whether you get a free kick before the justice system will act, you know you would -- just look at all the battered women out there. And if you want a prediction, here's one: Commissioner Lopez will get a break too.
Sorry, "anonymous," you've just been insulated from reality too long. That's the problem the TAMPOA Board faces too, so you're in good company. Thanks for the dialogue.
"conchette" says:
> I wish you would have had the
> guts to sign a name to your post!
Uh-huh, just like you sign YOUR name to everything else in this blog...
it would be nice if you put your name on your postings as well rather than this nom de plume. you know "people who live in glass houses..."
'
the reason tampoa filed suit is to protect its employees. your attitude re the justice system is one good reason why it doesn't work well. don't be so sure that lopez will get off scott free. as a public official he is sworn to uphold the law and if guilty a price will be paid.
I do sign my name -- its my real name given by my KW godfather! So there! So pony up, anonymous! We're waiting. People wo live in glass houses, you know...!
I have no problem with protecting employees. Seems to me TAMPOA's security guard, judging by the pictures, is well able to protect himself. Of course, through TAMPOA's Supreme Legal Eagle, he did file a complaint with the State Attorney. We'll just have to wait and see. Anonymous, you seem to agree with me that this whole sorry episode -- on both sides -- is more political than legal. The legal part is just to keep both sides talking, not for anything else that's serious. And that's a good thing; as long as the parties are talking, there may not be agreement, but there's a chance for progress.
I still thing not much will happen with the asault allegations. The sunshine law may be a different story, but since when has the State Attorney really dinged seriously for a Sunshine violation? Look how many times the City Manager has gotten a pass. It's hard to imagine anything more happening other than the officials being told, "Just watch it the next time;" which, of course, they never do.
well condette my name is gigi
well condette, my name is gigi. as far as the assault charge, considering lopez's account of the events there very well may be charges as he seemed to grossly misrecall the details in his blog. the events which were apparently imagined as documented by the photos (ie. remember rodney king) runs counter to the commissioner's story. the Citizen's expert did define assault and the events seem to support it. the passenger in lopez's car had been arrested about two years ago for threatening someone with a gun!
as to the sunshine law we will see. if we talk politics this case may well go forward as the state's attorney has taken significant grief from his prior passes on the sunshine law. also tim o'hara has already admitted in print that he acted as an intermediary in this drama which is specifically prohibited by the law. the photos, the reporter's statements, and the event of three commissioners arriving at the same time and place is fairly strong evidence of collusion outside of a commission meeting and is strongly documented. if i were you i would not bet the ranch that something will come of it.
by the way your pet name isn't quite the same as one's real name, but why don't you identify yourself with your last name so we know who you are? at that point all should sign their posts with their full name.
let me paraphrase from "conchette", i wish you had the guts to sign your full name to your post.
Post a Comment
<< Home