Cutting Through The Crap

Remember the two folks who were arrested while they were handing out Gideon Bibles near a school in Monroe County? The Gideon folks believed they had a right under the First Amendment to pass out bibles on the bike path where they apparently were. Well, they had a court hearing recently, and the judge threw out the case.

The State Attorney said the defendants were trespassing. "This was never a free speech case," . . . he said. "It was a trespass case."

Yeah, right! No one believed that for a Key West minute; including the judge. Of course this was a First Amendment case. Who was the prosecutor trying to kid?

This was also a case of an over zealous prosecutor who apparently didn't have a case or forgot to bring it to the Courthouse. The case never should have been brought in the first place. Once it was, however, the prosecutor should have accepted the plea deal offered by the defense attorney. It's likely that emotion and ego got in the way. And then there was face-saving to be done.

So Judge Payne cleverly cut through the crap and did the right thing.

And Guess What?

The City has published a notice that on August 7, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in Old City Hall, the City commission will finally take up the tattoo parlor matter by having a "first reading" of a proposed ordinance "creating Division 13 Tattoo establishments."

Of course, there is a hearing on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 in Circuit Court on the lawsuit one tattoo parlor, Key West Ink, has brought against the City. Don't you suppose that 's what the City Attorney's Office is going to tell the Circuit Judge in an effort to buy more time for the City. Will it also buy settlement leverage for the City? It's anybody's guess on this one.

Who's Minding The Tattoo Suit?

Let us get this straight. The Key West Ink tattoo parlor lawsuit against the City is going to a hearing before the Circuit Judge on Tuesday, July 31, 2007. The lawyer for Key West Ink has offered to settle and resubmitted a proposed settlement agreement to the City Attorney on Tuesday, July 24. In the settlement, the City gets the lawsuit dismissed, pays no damages, and pays no attorney's fees. The tattoo parlor gets to open and is subject to all laws the City Commission might pass, however restrictive.

However, with a deadline looming that the City has known about for months, the City, apparently, has not responded to the offer. Reportedly, the City Attorney is out of the office until Monday, July 30,2007, leaving it to the City Manager to respond to the press with some lame excuse why the City can't seem to decide if it likes the proposed settlement.

What are we going to have here, another Duck Tours case where the City now has to pay mega bucks but could have avoided doing so if it had taken the matter more seriously and made the required critical decisions in a timely manner? City officials are hired to make tough decisions, but they don't seem to be doing much of that here.

Mind you, we don't care whether there is a tattoo shop on Duval Street or not. But we do care about how the City makes decisions and how principled it is in doing so.

A decision on the tattoo parlor settlement is not rocket science, but in typical Key West fashion, the City appears to be deciding not to decide. This is just plain irresponsible.

In case the City thinks the public isn't on to this tactic of not deciding, the City is wrong. Not deciding is a decision. At least with us, the City is not going to get away with its usual mantra of, " Well, we just ran out of time. Guess we'll have to see what the judge says." The public deserves straight forward principled decision-making in its city government, and so far, in the tattoo matter at least, doesn't seem to be getting it.

Quit Whining

The Commissioners and the Mayor should quit whining about the fact that they can't collect more property taxes and may have to spend less money. This Commission hardly has been frugal. They could have paid a ton more to the police in salaries and other benefits had the City not engaged in dumb behavior that has gotten the City embroiled in lawsuits that have needlessly sapped taxpayers' money.

Will the public and City staff understand when the City Commission and current Mayor plead poverty while spending on lawsuits (and losing). We don't think so.

Walgreens Settles Suit

Remember a while back when we blogged about an employees' discrimination lawsuit against Walgreens? Well, the suit has been settled, with an agreement filed in the U.S. District Court in East St. Louis, MO.

Walgreens settled the suit, a class action brought by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, by agreeing to pay $20 million to as many as 10,000 African-American store managers and others. The settlement, if approved by the court brings to a close a federal civil-rights lawsuit charging they were denied promotions based on race.

Of, course, Walgreens denied any wrongdoing.

And Now Deleting Records

Not only does the whole Jim Young code enforcement situation makes the City look bad, but it appears that the City may have gone ahead and deleted electronic records it should have known were going to be the subject of controversy or litigation.

In other jurisdictions and in the private sector, the courts have dealt rather severely with such conduct. In one instance we know of the court made the defendant pay for the reconstruction of the records from backed up computer records and also gave the jury an instruction that it could assume that the destroyed records would have been unfavorable to the defendant. The jury ultimately found against the defendant. It will be interesting to see how the judge in the Young matter deals with this situation.

Wouldn't it be nice if the City just played it straight for a change, so that cases like Jim Young's become a thing of the past. Does anyone really think that will be the case? Or will KW always be politically like the wild wild west?

Stalling On Tattoos

The City Commission can move swiftly when it comes to the Hemingway cats and make an exception to the city's ordinance prohibiting the keeping of more than four domestic animals. But when it comes to saving the City money and avoiding a costly lawsuit over the tattoo parlors on Duval street, the commissioners seem to be playing chicken.

The do-nothing commissioners, it seems, would rather wait for a judge to confirm that they can't bar the tattoo parlor from Duval Street and award injunctive relief, possibly damages, and certainly a slew of attorneys' fees against the City, which is already straining under the weight of the Duck Tours judgment and the cost of the mitigation, the attorneys' fees, and the payment to the environmental consultant as a result of the City's illegal cutting of the mangroves across from Bayview Park.

The City Commission's lack of action is just plain irresponsible. However, like the failure to sit down with the TAMPOA Board and resolve the Southard Street dispute, the Commission's failure to deal with the tattoo parlor issues seems to be typical of the way this Commission has treated tough issues and ignored the public interest in the process. It seems to us that no matter how one feels about tattoos, the Commission should have had the guts to deal squarely with the matter instead of effectively making it too late to avoid the consequences of inaction.

We doubt that the voters will forget how this Commission has behaved when November rolls around.

That Sickening Scent

"You smell and I'm so sensitive I have to go home sick" is the message being given, according to the Associated Press, in a lawsuit filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) by an employee in the City of Detroit's Planning Department. The employee also claims that a plug-in room deodorizer only made matters worse. She wants a ban on strong scents at work.

We've all been there. You know, in line where the person next to you or a few people behind or in front smells like someone who was playing in a perfume garden and couldn't figure out which one to wear, so she/ he decided to wear them all. Unfortunately, the one with the real disability and the one who's sick isn't you the in line. You only have to hold your breath or inhale and then run for the coffee beans to preserve what's left of your olfactory nerve endings. The one with the real disability, the real sicko, is the one who doused on all that eau de crap in the first place.

But then, of course, the City fathers will get the blame for failing to control the eau de crap in the Planning Department. It seems like all Planning Departments have their share of eau de crap, and maybe KW is no different.

Get Some Shorts!

It's been hot in Washington lately, but when you lose your favorite pair of expensive pants it must just send you to the edge of Wacky City. If you're a judge that is. Now going on is the trial in the case of the Judge's Pants. Washington Administrative Law Judge Roy L. Pearson, Jr. is suing his neighborhood dry cleaners for $54 million for allegedly misplacing his pants. What can one say? And folks wonder why the justice system seems broken? Will someone tell this fellow he can wear shorts in Key West where it feels down right sane.

Bibles On The Bike Path

Distributing Bibles on school property could be dangerous, according to the State Attorney's Office spokesperson, Matt Helmerich, in commenting upon a lawsuit filed in Key West Federal Court against the Monroe County Sheriff's office and the State Attorney's office. The suit was filed after two persons (Gideons members) were arrested while distributing Bibles on a bike path near a school. The Gideons are challenging a Florida law that purportedly prohibits persons who do not have "legitimate business" (whatever that means) from loitering within 500 feet of a school.

"If we let anyone with a stack of Bibles on school property, that would be tantamount to giving a license to sexual predators," Helmerich reportedly told The Citizen, while, according to The Citizen, "emphasizing that he was not suggesting Gideons members are sexual predators."

He told The Citizen, "The arrest was not based upon a freedom of speech issue, it was based on protecting our children. The idea that we are arresting them or charging them because they are handing out Bibles is a spurious claim."

Really? Let us understand this, Mr. Helmerich. You are not claiming the two who were arrested are sexual predators, so they were not arrested for that. You apparently admit they all they were doing is handing out Bibles. What exactly were they doing that was not "legitimate" if they were only handing out Bibles?

Oh, we get it, you really just want to "protect" bike path users. some of whom may happen to be kids, but some of whom may also be adults, from that dangerous stuff in the Bible, is that it?

No?

So then, is it that (when you seem to have no good arguments left) you think it's O.K. to inferentially trash these defendants by evoking the dangerous, fearful, what-if-they-were-but-we're-not-saying-they-are "sexual predator" words? That way no one might really think carefully about what you have said, and might accept your argument that passing out Bibles on the bike path within 500 feet of a school constitutes "loitering" and is not "legitimate."

Well, guess what? We have thought about what you apparently have said, and we think it's in the running for our "Dumbest Statement of the Year Award."

Mayor Served With TAMPOA's Federal Suit

TAMPOA's attorneys have made an effort to insure early and timely service of its lawsuit papers on the City and avoid any potential difficulty in complying with a Federal Judge's Pretrial Order issued in the newly re-filed case by TAMPOA against the City. (TAMPOA's prior federal suit was dismissed because of a failure to file a required scheduling report in a timely manner). TAMPOA's attorneys have hired a process server who promptly served the new Summons and Complaint on the City on May 9, 2007. The new Summons and complaint were served on Mayor Morgan McPherson at 525 Angela Street. The declaration by the process server that the Mayor had been served was filed with the Federal Court on February 14, 2007.

According to the Federal Court Clerk's Office, the City's Answer is due on June 8, 2007. Our guess is that the City will ask for an extension of time.

As he did in the prior (dismissed) case, the Federal Judge, on May 10, 2007, issued a Pretrial Order. That Order requires, among other things, that the attorneys for TAMPOA, forward a copy of the Order to all the defendants upon receipt of a responsive pleading. The Court's Pretrial Order was issued on May 10, 2007 and sets out the various procedural matters the judge expects the parties to deal with prior to the trial as well as deadlines for completing that work. Of course there is no reason for the City's attorneys to wait to be served with the Pretrial Order, since it is available from the Federal Court Clerk's Office or by a phone call to the Andersen Firm (TAMPOA's attorneys). The City's attorneys can get it, if they have not seen it already, and get a head start on complying with it.

A joint pretrial scheduling conference required by the court's Order of May 10, 2007 must be held no later than 20 days after the answer or other responsive pleading filed by the last responding defendant, or within 60 days after the filing of the complaint, whichever is sooner. This likely would make the scheduling conference occur sometime around July 9, 2007, unless the United States had not been served by that time. If so, according to the federal court's order, TAMPOA would be obligated to request the federal court to extend the time to hold the scheduling conference. However, at the rate TAMPOA is moving, if the United States has not been served, it likely will have been by July 9.

Within 10 days of the joint scheduling conference counsel for the parties must file a joint report with the judge. (It was the parties' failure to file this report that lead the judge to dismiss the case the last time around). According to sources at the Federal Court, a plaintiff's counsel (in this case TAMPOA's counsel) generally has the primary job of preparing and submitting the report.

The Opportunity In TAMPOA's Malaise

When one goes to meetings in this town, it is painfully obvious that TAMPOA has a serious image problem. Unfortunately, for the residents of the Annex who care about how we are perceived, TAMPOA continues to take the low road and echo a "Frankly-my-dear-I-don't-give-a-damn" approach to its dealings with the rest of the community when it comes to Southard street and possibly other portions of the Truman Waterfront. This is very sad, as well as down right stupid.

Unfortunately the reality right now is that there is so much anger and resentment lingering in the Annex over TAMPOA's litigation strategy that the TAMPOA Board is virtually paralyzed by a circle-the-wagons mentality. About the only actions it feels empowered to take now have to be guaranteed to be undeniably safe, insular, and low profile. The Board has effectively painted itself into an insular box thanks to its reliance on some incredibly bad advice that ignored the context of the problems it has faced. In many respects, right now the Board feels and acts like its hands are tied, and it is adrift in the litigation winds. It is hoping in vain for a miracle that may lead it out of the black hole it is now in and does not seem to realize, despite some advice to which it has been privy, that the problems it faces will still exist regardless of whether TAMPOA wins or loses its litigation with the City.

Right now, TAMPOA is living its life through its litigation, a typical, but dangerous, syndrome from which many who put all their eggs in the litigation basket suffer. This has caused the TAMPOA Board to become incredibly defensive, hostile, and edgy at the slightest criticism.

The Annex right now is very polarized, but the issues over which that is occurring are at best diffuse. The polarization lines are clearly drawn. You are either with the Board, or you are viewed as a virtual traitor. Yet there is no clear line or issue on which everyone agrees; only bits and pieces. Everyone wants change, but few here seem to agree on (or perhaps even know) what that should look like. Folks in the Annex right now are stuck, and all their leaders can muster at the moment is to vent and blame, neither of which moves us closer to a resolution of the existing ill will between TAMPOA and the City that has now infected many other City residents.

For those of us who feel like it is time to stop all the nonsense the Board has continued to allow itself to become enmeshed in and to seek creative solutions based on objective criteria, the Truman Waterfront Project offers TAMPOA a renewed and unique opportunity to foster creativity and cooperation with the City and other City residents. That opportunity will require new thinking, new attitudes, the ability of TAMPOA to put itself in the City's shoes, a clear nonjudgmental understanding of the City's perspective, and decision-making based on objective criteria, not blame, finger pointing or accusations of gamesmanship. Frankly, we are not sure the TAMPOA Board, as a whole, is up to the task or has the leadership it needs to get where it needs to go. Nonetheless, the opportunity for change or doom is there in the Truman Waterfront Project.

This opportunity is not simply to successfully construct the Waterfront Project. If that is all that both sides (TAMPOA and the City) think the Project is about, the Project has already failed as far as the relationship between the parties is concerned. No, the opportunity is a renewed chance to focus on the most critical question facing TAMPOA and the City. However, the question is more critical for TAMPOA since it may involve TAMPOA's survival as an institution that purports to govern the Annex.

That question is a simple but essential one. How can we all create the respect for each other that will make it possible to constructively discuss (and even disagree over) options while uniting behind common goals? That is the hard but essential question the TAMPOA Board and those of good will in the City must wrestle with if the Waterfront Project is to succeed.

The Disingenuous Disinformation Spin

We are now getting the spin of disinformation being put on the dismissal of TAMPOA's lawsuit. One commenter who is spouting the spin says we are jumping to "negative conclusions" by our reporting and with more spin opines,

"The City Attorney and the Mayor have been avoiding accepting service. The suit was dismissed merely as an administrative item. When they are successfully served, the scheduling meeting will be held."

Sorry Anonymous, that dog won't hunt. Here is WHAT IS REAL:

Under Rule 4(j)(2) the City Attorney does not have to be served; only the Mayor. Almost everyone, including even the TAMPOA attorneys, know where the Mayor is. He has not avoided delivery of the Summons and Complaint to him. Rule 4 states:

"Service upon a state, municipal corporation, or other governmental organization subject to suit, shall be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer or by serving the summons and complaint in the manner prescribed by the law of that state for the service of summons or other like process upon any such defendant."

Service on the United States (the only other defendant in the suit) is also a simple matter. Rule 4(i)(1) says:

"Service upon the United States shall be effected

(A) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district in which the action is brought or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee designated by the United States attorney in a writing filed with the clerk of the court or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States attorney and

(B) by also sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia . . ."

In fact, Rule 4 makes service of process in Federal Court cases increadibly easy. It can even be done by mail in some instances. Obviously, our commenter is not familiar with the rule.

The Federal judge' s February 8, 2007 scheduling order DID NOT SAY that the scheduling conference OR the scheduling report COULD WAIT for the complaint to be served.

The attorneys for TAMPOA knew or should have known how to obtain service on the defendants.

The Summons in the case was signed on March 20, 2007. The Summons should have been (and ordinarily would have been) prepared back on February 6, 2007 when the Federal suit Complaint was filed; especially if there was any inkling that there would be any difficulty with service of process. According to the Federal Court record in the Clerk's Office, the Summons in the Federal case was not even received by the Federal Court Clerk to sign (using a signature stamp) until March 20, 2007. The Summons must be prepared by the plaintiff's (TAMPOA's) counsel. See Rule 4(b). The one submitted to the Federal court Clerk's Office was hand printed, not typed, suggesting it was done somewhat hastily or in person at the Clerk's office. To be sure, there is nothing technically wrong with hand printing the Summons, but as a routine matter, we would expect such documents to be typed, especially coming from a firm with the alleged reputation of the one TAMPOA has hired.

If Counsel for the defendants will not waive service of process, as was alleged to be the case here, service can be made in the manner described above. As a matter of courtesy to each other, lawyers waive service all the time, unless their clients instruct them not to do so. It is simply not credible to assert that the City or the United States or their counsel were "avoiding service." Why would they, when they know what the Federal Rules provide?

The reality here appears to be that service was NOT made until March 28, 2007 on the United States and perhaps not at all on the City. The United States has said it did not receive the Summons and Amended Complaint until March 28 in its motion for an extension of time that the federal judge denied as moot.

The judge's February 8 order was crystal clear and contained a clear warning about non-compliance:"[f]ailure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth [in the February 8, 2007 order] may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs." The scheduling order required that a joint scheduling conference be held by April 7, 2007 and that a report be filed by April 20, 2007. Service had been made before April 7. The judge was not provided any valid excuse for missing the April deadlines. They were either forgotten or ignored.

The failure of TAMPOA's attorneys to abide by the deadlines in the Federal judge's Scheduling Order of February 8, 2007 that resulted in dismissal of the Federal suit can't be excused by the alleged, but unsubstantiated claim that the defendants avoided accepting service. Regardless of whether the defendants were avoiding service, it was still the respondibility of the plaintiff's attorneys to abide by the scheduling order. If that meant having to get the defendants served back in February, (instead of sometime after March 20) then that's what the lawyers should have done. The plain truth is they did not. In fact none of the lawyers in the case even asked the judge to change the deadlines or to give the parties additional of time to comply with the Scheduling Order. One can't blame the judge for letting the parties know he wasn't kidding about the deadlines he set.

The Anonymous commenter, without any evidence or knowledge of Federal Court procedure (or Federal law), states, "The suit was dismissed merely as an administrative item. When they are successfully served, the scheduling meeting will be held." This statement alone shows the disinformation spin being put on the facts by those who will buy any silly excuse to believe that TAMPOA and its attorneys can make no mistakes. What the Anonymous commenter does not get is that the Federal suit HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND THE CASE FILE CLOSED by the Federal Court. It now does not matter now that the defendants "are [or were] successfully served." The federal lawsuit filed in February is over and will have to be refiled. In essence, TAMPOA must start over.

It is also bogus to say, as our ignorant Anonymous commter does, that "The suit was dismissed merely as an administrative item." The commenter wants you to believe that the dismissal was a trivial thing, but it is not. The truth is the suit is done for unless and until it is refiled. All the time between February and now to get the litigation well underway has now been lost and effectively wasted.

And, what about the money spent? Who exactly in TAMPOA will mind the billings from the lawyers to see (if one can) whether TAMPOA gets charged for whatever work that now needs to be re-done? Will that be the TAMPOA Board? Likely not. More important, even if the TAMPOA attorneys absorb the cost of re-filing, it is impossible to absorb or recoup the opportunity costs that have been lost as a result of the case being dismissed. That time is lost, and is time which has value to TAMPOA members -- almost three months more that, despite any speed in resolution, members must wait for answers sought by the lawsuit. Moreover, all the time and energy the TAMPOA Board members and others have invested in supporting the lawsuit has been largely wasted by this result. Sadly, all that time and energy must now be reinvested again.

Federal Court Dismisses TAMPOA Suit!

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami has dismissed TAMPOA's federal suit against the City and the Navy for "[f]ailure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth" by the Court's February 8, 2007 scheduling order. That order required that counsel hold a joint scheduling conference by April 7, 2007 and file a joint scheduling report by April 20, 2007. TAMPOA and its counsel, according to the Court's dismissal order, did not comply with the April 20 deadline and had not done so by the time the court, on its own, entered its dismissal order on April 25, 2007.

In its order the court cautioned (in bold type) that its February 8, 2007 order had cautioned counsel that the "[f]ailure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth [in the February 8, 2007 order] may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs."

The Federal District Judge was serious in his warning. He issued his dismissal "sua sponte" (meaning on his own and without urging from any party to the suit).

The judge dismissed TAMPOA's suit "without prejudice" and indicated "[t]his case is CLOSED." (Caps in the original). The court also denied as moot the Navy's motion requesting more time to respond to the suit. The judge further indicated that should TAMPOA re-file the lawsuit "without a substantial change in issues or parties," TAMPOA is to "notify the Clerk of Court of the existence of the newly filed action" and the new case will be assigned to the same judge.

Now, if the suit is refiled, TAMPOA will start out with a judge whose order it has already violated and a judge TAMPOA has already made unhappy. Nice going TAMPOA. How conducive is that to winning?

What a travesty TAMPOA now has to explain to its members at tomorrow's Board meeting. This lawsuit was supposed to be the case against the Navy and the City that would definitively answer the Southard Street questions and give TAMPOA needed leverage to force the City to settle. Instead, TAMPOA and its attorneys look like rank amateurs not ready for prime time. Once again, TAMPOA's reputation suffers and gives all those who already hate us more reason to gloat.

And just when was the TAMPOA Board going to tell anyone of this debacle? The Board, and certainly its President, have to have known about this since April 25, 2007, yet not a peep to the membership. Did they think no one would find out? And just when was the Board going to say something? At the insulated little Board meeting tomorrow?

This Board has bad-mouthed The Citizen for being biased toward TAMPOA, yet the Board would rather the membership read this bad news in The Citizen. That in itself is another travesty; just another instance of the lack of effective communication with TAMPOA members.

Big question: Who now pays for the cost of this lawsuit that is now down the tubes? And if TAMPOA chooses to re-file, who pays for that cost? Of course you already know the answer to that one. More importantly, who will take responsibility for the failure to do what was required by the Federal Court Order and for the failure to do what could have been done to avoid the dismissal? Is it time yet for a change in direction?

Is Verge Still In The Negotiation Loop With TAMPOA?

His comments in The Citizen would seem to indicate that he's part of the secret negotiations going on with TAMPOA. In an effort to prevent "leaks" TAMPOA has cut off virtually all communication with its members. Something is in the works according to Verge who says, "I think we are close." We don't think he was just talking about the Waterfront Project when he made that comment.

Of course, the City and TAMPOA have been "close" before, so no one should bet the farm on what Verge or TAMPOA is saying. The City Commission has the final say and it's any one's guess where their heads are. Some may be getting worried, though, that because of their pussy-footing around, they are heading for a loss of the Waterfront Property, just like they lost the Truman Annex.

Was Renting Smarter Than Buying?

"[I]t’s now clear that people who chose renting over buying in the last two years made the right move." See for yourself. It turns out that recent home buyers have faced higher monthly costs than renters and have lost money on their investment. Home prices are still too high to make buying a more attractive option than renting, unless you plan to keep a home for many many years. No matter which way you cut it, the costs of buying a home are much more now than the costs of renting. No wonder then that no houses are selling in Truman Annex.

It is likely to be quite some time before this situation turns around. Meanwhile those in the Annex who want to get out are stuck. Not only is there the problem of the real estate market generally, another factor that inhibits buying in the Annex, by any sane person, is the uncertainty over the path of the litigation TAMPOA is pursuing and its impact on new residents of Truman Annex. Will they really live in a gated community as prospective buyers are being promised? Will the assessments of TAMPOA members continue to spiral out of control? Realtors will have difficulty convincing any wise buyer that there is any certainty regarding the future assessments or the outcome of the TAMPOA litigation. Wise buyers are simply not going to take on those risks when they can easily buy elsewhere.

Who is to blame for this state of affairs? Well, there is enough to go around, and it is useless to finger-point -- enough of that has been done. What we need to realize in the Annex is that while we can't control the general real estate market, we can control one aspect of the effect on it with regard to the Annex. Instead of tolerating a terrible state of affairs, we ought to get busy and fix our problems within the Annex so that our community will not continue to stagnate as it has done for the last four years. At least when the real estate market (if the market) begins to turn around, we'll be able to take advantage of the turnaround instead of watching it go by.

Would A Lawsuit Against TAMPOA Over Its Rules Succeed?

In a post, one of our commenters seems to wave off the idea of TAMPOA liability while conceding "minor lapses" in TAMPOA's enforcement policies.

We think such a suit might well succeed. All it takes is one screw-up by TAMPOA, and there already have been plenty of those, as we all know. The lawsuit we talked about in our prior post about the TAMPOA rules was not a "pattern and practice" case, but was a single instance of an alleged violation by that association member.

We think TAMPOA may be additionally vulnerable because of the sorry state of its website where its "rules" supposedly are published. The fact that residents are supposed to guess what rules posted on the website are still in force and which ones have allegedly been abandoned doesn't help TAMPOA's situation. You can bet that if there were such a lawsuit triggered by the rules or lack of them on the website, that site would rise to the top of TAMPOA's fix-it list.

All that aside, the point in our post about the TAMPOA rules is that such a lawsuit, win or lose, would be expensive to TAMPOA. And guess who pays for that. We do! And if the plaintiff in such a suit does win, the cost to TAMPOA will be even greater for TAMPOA will wind up paying the plaintiff's attorneys' fees also. Either way, TAMPOA loses in the money department.

The Rules Rule

"The condo association argued . . . that it has no problem with mezuzot generally, but that condo owners must seek permission before putting them up." A rule, like TAMPOA's, forbidding residents from making additions or changes to the exterior of their property without prior written consent is what got a swanky "Premier Community" in Fort Lauderdale in big trouble with the Federal Government, the U.S. Attorney, and the Florida Attorney General.

This association thought it could play fast and loose with enforcing its rules. Now the association is going to pay the piper, probably big time. In addition the association has been made to look stupid. (Does this remind you of any association you know?) What is worse, its residents likely will no doubt be "assessed" to pay what are sure to be the enormous lawyers' fees resulting from this lapse of good judgment.

It will be interesting to see how TAMPOA handles its rules in the future. Here's another bundle of TAMPOA cash likely coming to a Key West law firm near you.

Building a "Premier Community" has its rewards, doesn't it?

Speculators Getting Burned

"Obviously, they were speculating and this is what happens when you speculate. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't."

When you play with fire, what happens? Some would-be speculators have found out the hard way and are seeking the salve of the Federal Court to cut the pain. Prediction: They are going to be disappointed.

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Florida Porn Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of a child pornography law called the PROTECT Act of 2003. The issue the court will consider arose in the case of a man whose conviction in Florida for promoting child porn was reversed by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. That court found that the pandering provision of the Act was unconstitutional because it was overbroad and impermissibly vague. The court held that the law makes criminal the speech of someone who touts material as child pornography when in fact it is clean or nonexistent.

The appeals court found that the pandering provision of the Act could apply to an e-mail entitled "Good pics of kids in bed" sent by a grandparent, with innocent pictures attached of grandchildren in pajamas. One sender might be a proud grandparent while another might be a convicted child molester who hopes to trade for more graphic photos with like-minded recipients, the appeals court said.

In its petition asking the court to take the case, the Bush administration's Solicitor General said the appeals court had read the law's language more broadly than was warranted.

One thing we know. There are at least four votes in favor of one side on the Supreme Court. Anyone care to guess?