CHRISTY FITZGERALD INNOCENT

I HAVE SPENT THE PAST THREE DAYS WONDERING WHY COUNTY OFFICIALS ARE ALLOWING SUCH A WASTE TO TAXPAYERS MONEY IN CONDUCTING THIS TRIAL

(Because she is guilty as hell)

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Congratulations Christy!  Now what is going to happen to Arther Ivey?

He is going to court to answer for 10 years worth of dumping of county stuff in the landfill that happened before he was even in his public works position.The reason the county can't file a civil suit to recoup our losses is because it was the county's stuff. The county had to pay to clean up their mess, well we the taxpayers paid for these Commissioners to sit there an allow this to happen. They should all be charged with gross negligence. When a grand jury states they should consider if they were worthy to continue to serve the citizens=gross negligence.

An interesting turn of events, to say the least.

I can only imagine what must be going through Mrs. Fitzgerald's mind now.  Relief I'm certain, but what a hill to climb to regain her position on the Board of County Commissioners.  Getting the chair back is easy; getting people's respect back - a lot tougher.  As I've said before, District 1 must be counting the days until Nov. 2008.

This whole event has played like some bad Southern novel.  Backwoods agriculture county comes of age through the trials and tribulation of losing its innocence.  A scandal of some kind was inevitable with the decades of nepotism that ruled Clay County. 

But, there is a silver lining to this whole mess. We have a new county manager who seems to be the right guy at the right time (7% - ya' gotta like that.) We have a strong non-interference clause that allows the manager to run the county without micro-management by the BCC. We have a citizenry that is not going to put up with any BS by our elected officials.  The elected officials seem to know that there is a new attention and scrutiny that they are under.  In Nov. 2008, 2 at-large commissioners will be added to the 5 single-district commissioners.  Comm. Bush will be term limited out in '08, so there will be a completely new legislative body making policy for this county, post-scandal.  Whew!!!

Good luck to Mrs. Fitzgerald.  It has been a tough road - for all of us.  Personally, I'm looking forward and hoping the folks who govern this county, currently and in the future, have learned some lessons.

Lily - I guess this counts as one of those kicks in the head you were taliking about.

Baxley- Not so fast. I am not sure if you have heard about a letter that documents one of the current Commissioner's and the Sheriff having a meeting that appears to be a misuse of a public office. This would be a 2nd degree felony by both the Sheriff and the Commissioner.

Let's not forget the FBI still has ongoing investigations in our county and as one of the current Commissioner's said recently we don't know who will be charged.

So, before we go running out there with it's a new atmosphere and all is over.  I think I still remember that cartoon with all of them sitting in the BCC meeting with a big cloud of trash raining over their head that was in the Times Union.

The 18 million reduction in our taxes and lower millage inpart comes from not having to pay for additional illegal cleanups. I could hardly call that a tax reduction that should make me smile since we should have never had to pay the 9 million to begin with. I think if we really got a true tax reduction they should come up an additional 18 million with the 18 million he has said would happen and that would be a concept I could get my arms around.

I guess sometimes it is nice to be naive that is until life kicks you in the head and wakes you up.

Angela,

The disposition of the legal cases in this matter are a footnote to this whole nasty episode.  There was one Clay County prior to this embarrassing mess, and now there is another Clay County.  The government, the citizens, the employees are all wiser and better prepared to move Clay County into our bright future.  With or without Christy Fitzgerald sitting on the BCC dais.  One thing is certain - the old guard that used to run Clay County from back rooms is gone.  There's a new sheriff in town - literally - and a new optimistic, upbeat mood to directing this great county forward.

Obviously, this is not meant to say that an illegal scandal can not happen again in Clay County.  In fact it probably will.  But, it will not be because the whole system is infected with "inbred" leadership.

Have a great day - I'm going to.

Baxley, this is our new Sheriff and one of our current Commissioner doing the backroom deal. You keep talking about a new Clay County and they are continuing to commit crimes then all we have are new faces not different ways. The "inbreds" are still there just behind the scene now and not so visible.

You know Baxley I've read all of your comments and it really distrubs me to read that one of our Commissioner and a Sheriff are doing backroom deals and in the process committing a 2nd degree felony and you just blow it off. I guess that was why things got the way they were people just see what they want to see.

What moral authority would our Sheriff have to arrest anyone if he commits a 2nd dregee felony? People in positions of trust who violate the trust of the people slowly destroy the system.

I can tell you as current as the last BCC meeting unethical decisions were being made and it happened to involve as you call it an "inbred" with the current staff. So I am looking for the new Clay County you have found it just must be in a different State than Florida.

Angela you say, Quote “One of our Commissioner and ( a ) Sheriff are doing backroom deals and in the process committing a 2nd degree felony”   What commissioner, what back room deal are you talking about, what Sheriff, and why do you say it is a 2nd degree felony?     

So, as The Who so elegantly put it over 30 years ago (yes at my age dates are fuzzy) "Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss...."

By the way, Christy was not found to be innocent. No one ever is. She was found to be 'not guilty".  On top of that, Paris Hilton was released this morning after serving a staggering 3 days for violating her probation. She may have set a new record for jailed celebrities. Is there a justice system in California? Has anyone seen it in the last thirty years? I haven't.  For the naive among us, open your eyes. Corruption is not only in Clay County. It is a nationwide epidemic. Anyone still doubt we should burn everything to the ground and start over? And just where is John Galt when we need him?

 Baxley, I appreciate the kind words. I am happy to see you have penetrated the veil and recognize the extremely dry, if not bizarre, sense of humor I favor in my little epistles. I don't think many here do get it. Not that that would ever stop me.  I am impressed that so many have recognized all the obscure references I have thrown in without a single question as to who or what they were. I am guesing people go out and actually look these up, thereby getting a chuckle. I hope so anyway. (And some think me cynical.)   Power To The Little People. (Elect a Hobbit.)

Lily's Lore

"I don't ever want to be rescued

And I don't ever want to be saved

I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever

Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily-

Talk about a book that will change your life-  

904.359.4538 e-mail Jonathan

This is about a letter that was submitted to the BCC Chairman written by Sheriff Beseler it was dated October 25, 2005. The letter states:

On August 17, 2005, Commissioner Rutledge met with me, at his request in my office, at which time he proposed increasing our CIP allotment by the amount necessary to purchase Crown Victoria Police Package vehicles instead of Chevrolet Impalas. While I told Commissioner Rutledge I would support such a move because Crown Victoria's are a superior vehicle.

If goes on in the letter to further state:

The minutes of the October 13, 2005 BFP meeting reflects that I contacted Commissioner Rutledge by letter with the request to purchase Crown Victoria's instead of Impalas and that is not an accurate statement of the events in question.

The Sheriff is a independent constitutional Officer with certain rights that maintain that independence 1)the hiring and firing of his employees, setting the salaries of his employees, and the purchasing of machine and equipment, he submits a budget with a certified statement this is what he needs to operate his law enforcement agency during the fiscal year. If he needs additional funds by statute he is required to submit a request to the Commissioners.

Not only did the Commissioner go over to the Sheriff offering to give him taxpayers money above what the Sheriff requested legally he misrepresented that information to the citizens in the meeting of October 25, 2005.

The Commissioner who approached the Sheriff to offer to give him our money is illegal. The Sheriff who agrees to accept this money is illegal.

Florida Statutes 838.016 (2) Unlawful compensation or reward for officials behavior.

 (2) It is unlawful for any person corruptly to give, offer, or promise to any public servant, or if a public servant, corruptly to request, solict , accept, or agree to accept, an pecuniary or other benefit not authorized by law for the past, present. or future exertion of any influence upon or with any other public servant regarding any act or omission which the person believes to have been, or which is represented to him or her as having been, either within the official discretion of the other public servant , in violation of a public duty, or in performance of a public duty.

Whoever violates the provision of this section commits a felony of the second degree.

This is a misuse of a public office. It is a violation of the public's trust in these public officials. Then I later find out he did something similiar in another situation.

My question is if these 2 situations exist how many people is the Commissioner offering to give our money too.

A person who attended a BCC meeting spoke during public comments requesting to know if a meeting the Commissioner had with the Sheriff is legal.

The letter is a matter of public record.

In a previous post, my subject line was questioned: "By the way, Christy was not found to be innocent. No one ever is. She was found to be 'not guilty".

Miriam Webster defines innocent as "free from legal guilt or fault"

Dictionary.com defines innocent as "Free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless"

Cambridge defines innocent as "a person not guilty of a particular crime"

So I proudly stand behind my initial post CHRISTY FITZGERALD INNOCENT

The facts you just described involve a negotiation between two policy makers over a budget issue.  Neither the commissioner nor the sheriff realized any personal gain from these negotiations (which, obviously, is what would be required for there to be a crime in such a situation).  It is irresponsible to describe this situation as a crime.  No wonder people are hesitant to run for public office with reckless accusations such as this one here.

By the way, if you follow the budget process now, you will see that conversations such as the one above now happen between the County Manager and the Sheriff, rather than between commissioners and the sheriff, which is a more effective and professional way to handle these negotiations.   

I understand your parsing of the phrase. I am not trying to negate your happy feelings. But according to LAW, not Webster, a person is either found Guilty or Not Guilty. A million people claiming a dog is a horse does not make a dog a horse. This is not rocket science or even existential pandering. It is a fact. Trust me, NOBODY is Innocent. :>)

All that aside, it would be nice if there was LAW in this country not a bunch of pretenders like in California with (as Dennis Miller so sagely labelled it) the Shaw Skank Redemption.

 Lily's Lore

"I don't ever want to be rescued

And I don't ever want to be saved

I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever

Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Could you please direct me to the FSS that allows the commissioner to go over behind close doors and negotiate or broker a deal behind the scenes with the Sheriff. Independent Constitutional Officer (key words here). I think the Sheriff knows or should know what it takes to fund his office and if he didn't ask for the money to buy only Crown Victoria's then evidently he didn't need. Of couse when the Commissioner came offering the money he gladly accepted. I guess the Commissioner knows more about the Sheriff's office than the Sheriff. Would that make the current Sheriff incompetent and unable to perform his constitutional duties? We may have bigger issues than I thought.

When I first heard of this I contacted the Ethics Commission and after reading the letter in its entire context was instructed to contact the State Attorney's Office because they investigate ethics complaints and the letter I was reading involved crimes.

I then contacted the Attorney General's Office and after reading the letter in its entire context was told the crimes described in the letter needs to be turned over to the State Attorney's Office for investigation.

Of course this had already been sent to the State Attorney's Office and not followed up on which is not unusually for our State Attorney's office. However, if they have knowledge that a crime has been committed it is their responsible to investigate those crimes.

So I contacted the State Attorney's office in Tallahasse and guess what was told those crimes need to be investigated by the local State Attorney.

Now I have 3 independent confirmations by 3 separate legal entities in our State that our Constitutional Officers have committed crimes.

This was not during the normal budget process because if it had been it would have been included in the Sheriff's budget for the 05/06 fiscal year approved by the full Board which started on Oct. 1, 2005. See the reason you have investigation is because this is the only meeting that has been identified. However, I did see an email that was sent to the Commissioner who denied the meeting happened. The Sheriff documented it so someone here is not be being truthful. Either it happened as the Sheriff says or it did not as the Commissioner said. I would say if someone offers you money and you receive that money which he did then someone benefited. When asked the reason for the request the Commissioner stated because these Deputies have to ride around in these cars for 12 hours a day. Maybe the Deputies benefited and I think that would be the Commissioner"s prior employer and his co-workers.

However, you could provide you legal credentials that gives you the right to render a legal opinion in opposition to the above well qualified opinions that I researched before making any comment. I would be interested in hearing them and would greatly benefit from that FSS that allows this Commissioner to negotiate these type backroom deals.

I hate to break it to you Angela, but I'm quite certain that the folks at the Ethics Commission, the Attorney General's Office, the poor State Attorney's Office in Leon County that you apparently called, and the State Attorney's Office here locally probably got a pretty good laugh after you finished what I can only imagine was a 45 minute rant regarding this apparent exchange over a budget line item between two public officials. 

But seriously, do you really think that it is somehow illegal for a constitutional officer and a commissioner to discuss a budget item?  I guess the speaker of the house just committed a crime when he discussed the Florida Supreme Court's budget with the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court.  Or the Agriculture Commissioner committed a crime when he discussed the budget for his office with the President of the Florida Senate.  After all, pursuant to your logic, someone is "offering money" and someone is "receiving money" in those budget discussions! 

Just curious, when, as happens all of the time, the County Manager meets with the Sheriff or Tax Collector or any other constitutional officer and they discuss budget issues, do you think they are committing a crime?  Is it a "backroom deal" when they have those meetings?

Dear Angela,

Your concern for Clay County is admirable.  You obviously have done exhaustive research on the latest scandal from Green Cove.  My question is: if there is so much evidence of a felony being committed - your accusation - why do I have to read about it on a blog and not in the printed press?  Are the newspapers in on the scam too? 

I'm going to be honest - I'm sick of hearing about nothing but backroom meetings, ethics violations, state's attorney investigations, ad nauseum. If the facts are as presented by you, if, then what I see is a County Commissioner, with a law enforcement background, discussing vehicle selection with the sheriff.  Inappropriate - maybe, illegal - how?  Apparently the sheriff was quick to set the record straight from his point of view. 

My desire to see us move beyond the BS of the past couple years may have me looking too far ahead and not seeing a rat still in the pantry (rose colored glasses), but you know what, that's the way I'm going to stay.  Just like you are going to continue to see a spy behind every tree, and an improper motive in every conversation that's not on the record.  I'm proud of the people who bust their butt trying to keep this county a better place to live.  I'm VERY pleased with the job the sheriff is doing, and Comm. Rutledge, though a bit authoritarian at times, is doing a good job too.  You are quick to throw them under the bus, but I wonder do you think they ever do anything right?

We both know we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

At the recent BCC meeting Commissioners approved the minutes. Included in that approval was the minutes from Finance Committee to award a bid #06/07 33. This was to award a bid to Jeff's Excavating to do some work for the county.

I would like to direct you to a portion of the Auditor's Report that was submitted to the BCC page 54 and 55:

County vehicles, equipment and personnel have assisted Jeff’s
excavating in completion of jobs that the company was under contract to perform for the county. At Mr. Ivey’s direction, that assistance included transport of Jeff’s equipment to and between job sites, delivery of county inventory (dirt, clay, gravel, etc.), and personnel. Contracts with this company are “full-service,” i.e.: The contractor must provide the labor, materials and overhead (equipment) for the job. In effect, the county has been “paying twice” for some portion of Jeff’s contracts: Once in settlement of the contracts with the company at completion of the work and again through expenditures for county labor, materials and overhead used to assist the company to complete the contract. Moreover, Jeff’s has been a long-time contractor with the county and this pattern of cooperation has emerged over many years. If Jeff’s knowingly counted on this pattern, it would allow that company an unfair advantage when bidding on county contracts.

In the not so far distant past like last Tuesday. Did you read about this in the paper me either. I think Ms. Fitzgerald is accussed of using county equipment and employees but she is charged. I know since this happened 2 days ago I should put that behind because we are going forward. Do you think Ms. Fitzgerald will be getting any contracts with the county soon.

Get your head of the sand. Discussing a budget answering question about a budget is not a crime offering to give money after the Sheriff sent his budget request on June 1 of 2005. Then was awarded a budgeted amount beginning on Oct 1, 2005 and the Commissioner comes in to give him his little benefits after the fact that might be the crime.

You know my questions and concerns were handle professionally and with much concern about the public trust in public officials at the various levels of government. Some people in our government still think public trust is number one and the only way to run a govenrment. If not they would just be the mob.

Angela,

It seems that if this was such a miscarriage of justice, that the grand jury would have indicted Mr. Ivey for stealing Public Work's materials.  Why has that not happened?  Is it possible that the facts portrayed by Price may not be the whole truth?

 Additionally, if all the items you mentioned in your post are true, why would the County's self proclaimed Savior, George Bush, still vote to give the contract to Jeff's Excavating??????

Good Questions- Lets ask other question because everything in the post is a matter of public records and can be verified.

1) Why is Ms. Fitzgerald the only one being charged? Seems if we are not going to charge all that were involved why do we go after Ms. Fitzgerald like she is some sort of trophy. Either charge all that are guilty or drop the charges and let her go about her life. She has been found Not Guilty in a court of law on the other charges.

2) Just like the 2003 Public Works audit that went flying under the radar not a peep from anybody no newspaper articles but everybody smiling up there "ayes". What makes this any different?

3) If Jeff's Excavating was taking money from the county that isn't rightfully his isn't that called stealing? I guess it just depends on who steals and not what they steal. If they like you and you steal you can keep on doing business with the county. Why can't we get our money back if we paid twice. 

I have more questions than we have time in our blog but I am not so certain everything has changed the faces may have changed but that look like all.

As Lily said meet my new boss he just like my old boss.

It Arthur Ivey turn, Get him for Wasting Our TaxDollars..

Aurther goes to court in August and will will have to wait and see what happens to him. Good Luck to Aurthur Ivey. Till then....

Angela you certainly know how to look up a Fl. Statue, to bad you haven’t learned how to look up the definition of words. In order for it to be a 2nd degree felony the commissioner or the sheriff had to have had a pecuniary gain. In other words one of them would have had to personally gain from the transaction ether by gift or money. I know this to be a fact because I had my own county budget for a division in a Fl. State Fire Department. It was a common practice to get together with the Fire Chief and the commissioners to discus the budget after it was ratified.  Written accusation with out fact is a very slippery slope. With all that you have written it sounds to me like you are on a hunt for justice that need not be tracked, you know, stirring the pot to see what kind of crap that you can come up with. Before accusing someone, one should at the very least have there facts right, if not the ignorant will take what you have written as fact.(i.e.) Rosie O’Donnell’s statements on 911. If you have proof that they have personally gained from there conversation prove it, If not retract it! Hey!! I have an Idea why don’t you put the conformation from the three attorneys of the crime committed on this blog so all can see. Oh!! That’s right you can’t do that, because you don’t have any documented proof.       

Adj.

1.pecuniary - relating to or involving money; "monetary rewards"; "he received thanks but no pecuniary compensation for his services"  cor·rupt (k -r pt )   adj.   1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.  2. Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.

Please note the statute states pecuniary OR other benefit not authorized by law. It also states, influence upon or with any other public servant regarding any act or omission which the person believes to have been, or which is represented to him or her as having been, either within the official discretion of the other public servant

Could I as a citizen go over and offer to give the Sheriff the money to buy only Crown Victoria's. Of course not, I have no control over the taxpayers funds to give the Sheriff but is in within the official discretion of Commissioner Rutledge as a public servant.

30.53  Independence of constitutional officials.--The independence of the sheriffs shall be preserved concerning the purchase of supplies and equipment, selection of personnel, and the hiring, firing, and setting of salaries of such personnel; provided that nothing herein contained shall restrict the establishment or operation of any civil service system or civil service board created pursuant to s. 14, Art. III, of the Constitution of Florida, provided, further that nothing contained in ss. 30.48-30.53 shall be construed to alter, modify or change in any manner any civil service system or board, state or local, now in existence or hereafter established. 

The Sheriff Independence shall be preserved that includes what type vehicles the Sheriff deem necessary to effectively operate his law enforcement agency.

Commissioner Rutledge should have ran for Sheriff if he is concerned that his co-workers the deputies are forced to ride around in 2007 Chevrolet Impalas and he is forcing the Sheriff to buy his co-workers those Crown Victorias.

Could you please show me where it is authorized by law for the Commissioner to make that offer to the Sheriff?

Lets say the Sheriff submitted his new budget as he just recently did on June 1 2007 and the BCC says you need to reduce that budget because of the tax rollbacks.

With that in mind can the Commissioners micro manage his budget and say we want you to buy on Crown Vicitoria's, and you can only buy these type guns because we think the are a better deal, or you need to only buy a certain type of pepper spray because we hear it is cheaper.

Call your Commissioner and asked him if they can.

We should note that Charles Dukes will begin his trial on June 11, 2007 for his illegal dumping of material which is this coming Monday.

Please note,

Auditor's Inquiry:

Other companies depositing construction waste or

debris in the pits included Jeff’s Excavating and Charlie Duke’s Tree

Service.);

Charlie Dukes goes to trial and Jeff's get a contract with the county. I would call that justice of the unjust kind.

Are you serious? Commissioner Rutledge forced the sheriff to buy only Crown Vic’s, what did he do hold him at gun point, or maybe the commissioner took hostages to convince the sheriff to only buy the crown’s. As I said In order for it to be a crime one of them would have had to get a personnel gain from it. If the sheriff made a promise to the commissioner that if he got him the extra money for the crown vic’s he (the sheriff) would give him a vacation or something of value to the commissioner, you would have a crime. Let’s see the response from the attorney’s that you have on board, as you claim. All budgets are negotiable. In order to negotiate one must discuss the budget with a person, or persons that approve the budget. If the negotiations change the budget an amendment to the budget must come to a vote. One commissioner can not give extra money to a division of a government entity with out following proper protocol.  Back up your facts with proof , Show me the letters from the attorney that you have on board. Put up or shut up!  If you have the proof that you say you do, take it to the main stream media,and they will be all over it like white on rice. I will be looking for it in the F.T.U. NOT!!!

Commissioner Rutledge should have ran for Sheriff if he is concerned that his co-workers the deputies are forced to ride around in 2007 Chevrolet Impalas and he is forcing the Sheriff to buy his co-workers those Crown Victoria’s.  

I guess you can't read the statutes it CLEARLY states or OTHER benefit not authorized by law.

Oct. 13, 2005 BFP Minutes:

 Committee Vice Chairman Harold Rutledge advised that the Sheriff contacted him by letter advising that he would like to purchase Crown Victoria’s instead of Impala’s as is currently budgeted for in the CIP tables  This will  cost an additional $105,000.00.  The Crown Victoria is a bigger car and is better for deputies who have to ride in them 12 hours a day

The Sheriff:

The minutes of the October 13, 2005 BFP meeting reflects that I contacted Commissioner Rutledge by letter with the request to purchase Crown Victoria's instead of Impalas and that is not an accurate statement of the events in question.

verbatim of meeting 10/13:

Harold: ok. while we’re on that topic, I have had conversations with the sheriff he sent a letter dated august 19th about the purchase of vehicles and his vehicle cip. he has $750,000 and wishes to buy crown vics and smaller cars impalas and he and i had the discussion about the crown Victoria is a much bigger car. it’s a bigger car these deputies ride in this car for 12 hours a day and he told me that for an additional $105,000 to his cip he could purchase all crown vics not have to buy the smaller cars and I bring that to the committee for it since we’re doing the cip amendment we have to advertise for it anyway if we’re going to amend it we have time to put that in is that correct?

don: I think the committee can make that recommendation

Verbatim of meeting 11/10

Harold: Well, I tried to give them some money last meeting and it was a 4-1 vote I think that was the widest so I'm not sure where this is going to go when it goes to the board.

Beth: And the key thing is the Sheriff has to initiate this through a request to amend his budget and he may have already done that.

Winn 1955 where did you read that I had an attorney on board. I clearly stated I spoke with 

1) The Ethics Commission

2) The Attorney General Office 

3) The State Attorney in Tallahasse

The person who had the information sent it to the State Attorney Dan Skinner in Green Cove Springs.

Why do I need an attorney I haven't committed any crimes. It is the responsiblity of the State of Florida to investigate crimes. Just like the information that was presented to the State Attorney and the Governor to request an investigation concerning the recent Grand Jury that convicted Ms. Fitzgerald and Mr. Ivey. I don't remember them having an attorney to request an investigation.

I am still wondering what part of Other BENEFIT NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW that you can't understand. The statute did not say pecuniary and other benefit it say pecuniary OR other benefit not authorized by law.

FSS 30.49 (8)

8)  The items placed in the budget of the board of county commissioners pursuant to this law shall be subject to the same provisions of law as the county annual budget; except that no amendments may be made to the appropriations for the sheriff's office except as requested by the sheriff

I thought this was the Florida Times Union the MyClaySun section for things that happen in our local area. As a matter of fact Florida has broad public records laws and all the information posted on here is a matter of public record. I stand behind all statements that I have made concerning this matter.

If you will note the Sheriff documents this meeting in August 05 and in the letter he states the Commissioner has misrepresented the facts to the Board. In November 3 months later the budget director is still telling Commissioner Rutledge the key thing here is if the Sheriff wants this he has to initiate this through a request to amend his budget. 

I am still wondering if the meeting and the offer was legal and authorized by law as you state then why would the Commissioner deny the meeting happened in an email when he was asked. What benefit would he have in documenting in an email a statement that was not true or maybe the Sheriff lied in his letter. I know one of them did. I just wonder why they would lie if it was authorized by law.

Maybe the Times Union could find out why our law enforcement in Clay County would lie.

Angela, where did I get the idea that you had an attorney on board, well let’s see. Maybe it is because that was the title of your blog! Quote, We have an attorney on board   Submitted by Angela on Thu, 06/07/2007 - 6:56pm. That statement was my first clue! The second clue was this statement from you.  “Now I have 3 independent confirmations by 3 separate legal entities in our State that our Constitutional Officers have committed crimes.”  And my response to that was let’s see your proof, or as you say conformation. Then I went on to say either put up or shut up. In other words let’s see what you have. And to date you have not shown the conformation that you claim you have.             Then you state, “I am still wondering what part of Other BENEFIT NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW that you can't understand” Exactly what benefit did the commissioner, or the Sheriff receive that was not authorized by law? Remember in order for them to have broken any law’s they personally have to receive some kind of gain. What they were doing was negotiating a deal to amend the budget. Your own statement shows that, “Harold: Well, I tried to give them some money last meeting and it was a 4-1 vote I think that was the widest so I'm not sure where this is going to go when it goes to the board.   Beth: And the key thing is the Sheriff has to initiate this through a request to amend his budget and he may have already done that.   The commissioner followed protocol and took it before the rest of the board for a vote. Beth statement was correct. The sheriff needs to fill out the proper paper work to amend the budget. And she goes on to state that he might have already done that. As a division Chief for a fire department, with my own budget I would not have wasted my time to fill out all the paper work to amend my budget without first feeling out the opinion’s of the Fire Chief, and the commissioners. That procedure goes on from the highest form of government to the lowest, in other words from the White House on down. Then you go on to say: "The person who ( had) the information sent it to the State Attorney Dan Skinner in Green Cove Springs." Angela forgive me if I’m wrong, but didn't you state that you had the three independent conformations?? So it appears to me all that you are doing is repeating hear say!  Let me guess, you didn’t think to make copies of your conformation.  So! Angela, I hold to my statement. Put Up, Or Shut Up! Go ahead place your proof in this blog. If there is any merit to it, I’m sure the paper would be glad to investigate it. We all know that you don’t have the proof, or you would have plastered your three independent conformations all over this blog. Oh! That’s right I forgot you sent your only copies to the state attorneys office.  

I will address these as you have presented them:

1)  We have an attorney on board- We do to the best of my knowledge have an Attorney on board Commissioner Bradley who is an attorney and he is on the board. I think Commissioner Bradley who is dedicated to public service and the greater good and service to our community and has a very good understanding of the inter workings of the government and govenrment law (as put on his application to the Governor) could have one of his partners render their opinion on our blog which would be legal and could clear this matter up in the time it would take for us to read his opinion. I know he reads the blogs.

2)  put up or shut up - The State of Florida cannot render legal opinions to citizens and you being a State employee or prior employee (division Chief for a fire department) would know that information and that would be why you continue to demand that information knowing it could not be placed on the blog. However, nothing in the laws would prevent them from directing me to the government entity that could best handle my concerns. All 3 directed me to the State Attorney for investigations and 3 out of 3 with the same conclusion confirmed that for me.

To be exact:

The Ethics Commission- I read the letter and posed the following question would this be something you would investigate. Answer we investigate ethics complaints crimes need to be investigated by your State Attorney. I did not pose the question is this a crime? They volunteered the information.

The Attorney General Office- We can not investigate these crimes for you and you need to contact you local State Attorney for an investiagtion of the crimes. Again, I did not pose the question is this a crime? They volunteered the information.

Tallahassee State Attorney- I told him I had a letter and asked if I could read this letter and would he direct me to the apporpriate person or agency to give this information too. After reading the letter he instructed me to give this to my local State Attorney for an investigation and he gave me the appropriate phone number to call. Again, I did not pose the question is this a crime? They volunteered the information. 

3) BENEFIT NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW - First we must establish what the law is to determine what a benefit not authorized by law would be:

The law: FSS 30.53  Independence of constitutional officials.--The independence of the sheriffs shall be preserved concerning the purchase of supplies and equipment,

The law concerning the Sheriff's Budget which can be found FSS 30.49:

1) Pursuant to s. 129.03(2), each sheriff shall certify to the board of county commissioners a proposed budget of expenditures for the carrying out of the powers, duties, and operations of office for the ensuing fiscal year of the county.

129.03(2) On or before June 1 of each year, the sheriff,

2) The sheriff shall submit with the proposed budget his or her sworn certificate, stating that the proposed expenditures are reasonable and necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the office for the ensuing year.

3) The board of county commissioners or the budget commission, as the case may be, may require the sheriff to correct mathematical, mechanical, factual, and clerical errors and errors as to form in the proposed budget. At the hearings held pursuant to s. 200.065, the board or commission, as the case may be, may amend, modify, increase, or reduce any or all items of expenditure in the proposed budget and shall approve such budget, as amended, modified, increased, or reduced. It must give written notice of its action to the sheriff and specify in such notice the specific items amended, modified, increased, or reduced. The budget shall include the salaries and expenses of the sheriff's office, cost of operation of the county jail, purchase, maintenance and operation of equipment, including patrol

With the laws established we can now review the facts:

1) Fact as reported by the Sheriff in his letter:

On August 17, 2005, Commissioner Rutledge met with me, at his request in my office, at which time he proposed increasing our CIP allotment by the amount necessary to purchase Crown Victoria Police Package vehicles instead of Chevrolet Impalas. While I told Commissioner Rutledge I would support such a move because Crown Victoria's are a superior vehicle.

Winn 1955 could you please show me which one of the laws this meeting would fall under because I don't remember a hearing advertised to be held in the Sheriff's Office to amend, modify, increase or reduce, any of the proposed expenditures in the Sheriff's budget. I thought the Sheriff was a Constitutional Officer whose right shall be preserved as to what he wanted to purchase for his equipment.  

Two separate budget hearings were held as required by law in the FSS and at no time was any change requested by the Sheriff or the BCC nor any as you say negotiations discussed but the budget as it stood was adopted for the Fiscal Year of 05/06 on Sept. 27, 2005. The fiscal year begin on Oct 1 2005 and Commissioner Rutledge showed up exactly 13 days later requesting to amend the Sheriff's Budget.

Oct. 13, 2005 BFP Minutes:

Committee Vice Chairman Harold Rutledge advised that the Sheriff contacted him by letter advising that he would like to purchase Crown Victoria’s instead of Impala’s as is currently budgeted for in the CIP tables  This will  cost an additional $105,000.00.  The Crown Victoria is a bigger car and is better for deputies who have to ride in them 12 hours a day

Oct. 25, 2005 BCC meeting

The Board denied Commissioner Rutledge's request to amend the budget in 4-1 votes he describes because the Sheriff documents in the same letter this was not his request:

"My letter was providing the figures he requested as evidenced by the attached copies. In fact I have already ordered half of my vehicles for this year and the order is a mix of the two type vehicles".

The Commissioner in his attempt to give the Sheriff some money goes to the BFP again:

Verbatim of meeting 11/10

Harold: Well, I tried to give them some money last meeting and it was a 4-1 vote I think that was the widest so I'm not sure where this is going to go when it goes to the board.

Beth: And the key thing is the Sheriff has to initiate this through a request to amend his budget and he may have already done that.

The Sheriff had not requested to amend his budget but it seems Beth is a nice way is attempting to tell the Commissioner you cannot do this. The Sheriff has to do this through a request to amend his budget.

Now I think the above is clear and convincing evidence to me something here doesn't look good.

I can tell you the Sheriff ended up getting close to a million and a half for vehicles and it is very interesting how it came about.

And the plot thickens but I am not certain where you get this premise of negotiations but I would say this is a misuse of a public office and a violation of the public's trust in these public officials.

Commissioner Bradley do you have any legal opinions you would like to render for the blog. 

Just to clarify for the record in the benefit not authorized by law section I went to answer the phone and did not complete #3 of that statement and would like to  amend it to read as follows:

 The board of county commissioners or the budget commission, as the case may be, may require the sheriff to correct mathematical, mechanical, factual, and clerical errors and errors as to form in the proposed budget. At the hearings held pursuant to s. 200.065, the board or commission, as the case may be, may amend, modify, increase, or reduce any or all items of expenditure in the proposed budget and shall approve such budget, as amended, modified, increased, or reduced. It must give written notice of its action to the sheriff and specify in such notice the specific items amended, modified, increased, or reduced. The budget shall include the salaries and expenses of the sheriff's office, cost of operation of the county jail, purchase, maintenance and operation of equipment, including patrol cars, radio systems, transporting prisoners, court duties, and all other salaries, expenses, equipment, and investigation expenditures of the entire sheriff's office for the previous year.

It continues longer but talks about an appeal process. You can read it if you like it can be found on www.leg.state.fl.us

I hope you did not have a lot of money on your bet :>)

This heated exchange as you call it between Angela And winn1955 has my attention. I wonder who will prevail. My money is on winn1955

Angela, You flip flop more than John Kerry. You emphatically State “We have an Attorney on board” and then you contradicted your own statement by making this one “- We do to the best of my knowledge have an Attorney on board Commissioner Bradley who is an attorney and he is on the board “ What kind of spin are you  trying to pull? It sounds to me that you are back peddling!  You made this statement not I “Now I have 3 independent confirmations by 3 separate legal entities in our State that our Constitutional Officers have committed crimes.”  And then you go on to contradict your self again by this statement - The State of Florida cannot render legal opinions to citizens. So which is it, do you or do you not have the conformation that you say you have?  And that’s why I said put up or shut up.  And again to date you haven’t shown squat.Then you continue with this statement,               “The Ethics Commission- I read the letter and posed the following question would this be something you would investigate. Answer we investigate ethics complaints crimes need to be investigated by your State Attorney. I did not pose the question is this a crime? They volunteered the information.” Well of course they said crimes what do you think they thought you were talking about. Wallpaper Then you make this statement “Of course this had already been sent to the State Attorney's Office and not followed up on which is not unusual for our State Attorney's office. However, if they have knowledge that a crime has been committed it is their responsible to investigate those crimes.”  Your right if the state attorney is aware that a crime has been committed it is there responsibility to investigate the crime.  You go on to accuse the State Attorney of not doing his job. Have you given any thought to the fact that you didn’t get a response back from the state because they did not find a crime that was committed? If you go to the Doctors for blood work and everything checks out Ok does your Doctor call you to tell you that everything looked normal? NO! They don’t call when blood work is normal, only when you have problem.  The same would apply to the State Attorney. It would be a waist of there time to call back each individual that has a complaint to be investigated.And then you go on to call for your, “to the best of my knowledge have an Attorney on board Commissioner Bradley who is an attorney and he is on the board “, out to express his opinion in the matter, so where is Commissioner Bradley opinion on the matter. You said yourself that he reads these blog’s. Sometimes the silence is deafening, now isn’t it!!  2006nationalchampsx2 Stated it best.The facts you just describedSubmitted by 2006nationalchampsx2 on Thu, 06/07/2007 - 6:06pm.The facts you just described involve a negotiation between two policy makers over a budget issue.  Neither the commissioner nor the sheriff realized any personal gain from these negotiations (which, obviously, is what would be required for there to be a crime in such a situation). ( It is irresponsible to describe this situation as a crime.  No wonder people are hesitant to run for public office with reckless accusations such as this one here.)By the way, if you follow the budget process now, you will see that conversations such as the one above now happen between the County Manager and the Sheriff, rather than between commissioners and the sheriff, which is a more effective and professional way to handle these negotiations.    So after reviewing the contradiction of the non facts you have presented, I would like to amend my phrase of, put up or shut up to just plain shut uppp!!! Because it is obvious that you hold no proof what so ever to back up your claim of, in your own words. “Now I have 3 independent confirmations by 3 separate legal entities in our State that our Constitutional Officers have committed crimes.”  The only thing that you have is accusation to spew around to try and stir the pot, as I said earlier. 2006nationalchampsx2 Statement holds true it is very irresponsible of you to spread such accusations with no proof to back then up. Any further comment on my part of the matter would just be a waist of my time. But, you can be sure I will be watching for the next big crime spree that you uncover in Clay County government.

I do believe this is the longest ongoing blog in the albeit short history of MCS.  Y'all got more staying power then a bulldog with lockjaw. 

Again we will have to stick to the facts:

1) “We have an Attorney on board”

I stated: We have an attorney on board   Submitted by Angela on Thu, 06/07/2007 - 6:56pm.

You stated: where did I get the idea that you had an attorney on board Submitted by winn1955on Sat, 06/09/2007 - 2:56pm.

You changed the statement from We to me (we being plural to me being singular) I think that should clear up who changed the statement or as you say flip flopped.

2) I “Now I have 3 independent confirmations by 3 separate legal entities in our State that our Constitutional Officers have committed crimes.”  And then you go on to contradict your self again by this statement - The State of Florida cannot render legal opinions to citizens.

I stated: confirmation- the act of process or confirming or to gvie assurance of the validity of: remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact. 

You stated: opinion-a view, judgement, or appraisal formed in the mind about a paticular matter.

I would find it very irresponsible for all of these government officials to refer to these as crimes if they were merely negotiations as you state and further instruct me to contact my State Attorney for an investigation of these crimes. I am certain our State Attorney has more important things to do than waste taxpayers money investigating negotiations if these individuals did not deem them to be crimes.

You again referenced a statement by nationalchampsx2  It is irresponsible to describe this situation as a crime. I can fully support that statement from me or any one of the individuals that were contacted and referred to these as crimes.

3) “Of course this had already been sent to the State Attorney's Office and not followed up on which is not unusual for our State Attorney's office. However, if they have knowledge that a crime has been committed it is their responsible to investigate those crimes.”  

You go on to reference a doctor doing test and not informing you of the results regardless of those results. I believe it would be negligent, derelict and a lacking in his duty for any doctor to not report to you those results in the event something did show up later. If my doctor sent me for any tests and he must of have a good reason for ordering those test, and he did not inform me of those results I would change doctors I think the same would apply for State Attorneys.

4) And then you go on to call for your, “to the best of my knowledge have an Attorney on board Commissioner Bradley who is an attorney and he is on the board “, out to express his opinion in the matter, so where is Commissioner Bradley opinion on the matter. You said yourself that he reads these blog’s. Sometimes the silence is deafening, now isn’t it!! 

I would disagree totally because the silence speaks volumes that if my statements were not correct then someone would say so if to do nothing else but to as you say "shut me up". I would say the reason NO ONE and this is a challenge with any legal credentials would get on this blog and go on the record and make that statement in writing. 

Even you by your own statement and nationalchampsx2 both have confirmed the fact that I am correct and they can be found in.

Angela you certainly know how to look up......

Submitted by winn1955 on Fri, 06/08/2007 - 12:37pm.

It was a common practice to get together with the Fire Chief and the commissioners to discus the budget after it was ratified.

The facts you just describedSubmitted by 2006nationalchampsx2 on Thu, 06/07/2007 - 6:06pm.

rather than between commissioners and the sheriff,

winn 1955Submitted by Angela on Sat, 06/09/2007 - 10:18pm.

FSS  (3) The board of county commissioners

Keyword Commissioners (plural)  

The Statute define benefit as:

838.014  Definitions.--As used in this chapter, the term:

(1)  "Benefit" means gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the person to be benefited as a gain or advantage, including the doing of an act beneficial to any person in whose welfare he or she is interested, including any commission, gift, gratuity, property, commercial interest, or any other thing of economic value not authorized by law.

You could make yourself a hero right on this blog and you would be King Winn1955 by just showing where that proposal or offer by Commissioner Rutledge to give the Sheriff our money was authorized by law. What law gives him that authority? Otherwise you could just be known as winn1955 who did the belly flop and said it was a waste of your time.

As a matter of fact any attorney that reads these blogs could show their credentials and render a legal opinion written for the record so everyone can read that opinion. After all they could get some free legal advertisement on the MyClaySun because I am certain many would be watching and reading the longest blog of MCS you never know we could be making history here. However that silence from any attorney may be not only speak volumes but scream. Because I never met an Attorney that didn't have an opinion.

Just think this blog started out with Christy Fitzgerald Innocent and we the taxpayers spent thousand of dollars to investigate and send to trial Ms. Fitzgerald for the State of Florida to attempt to prove beyond a resonable doubt she overheard a statement. They had no case before they showed up in court.

Ms. Fitzgerald, congratulations are in order, and no apology needed for the misguided State Attorney's Office who seemed to think it was wise to spend thousands of our taxpayers dollars on such a petty matter. You should be getting your letter ready to send the Governor to regain your seat. I as a citizen want to let you know that I am sorry for what you and your family have had to endure. After all the State Attorney's Office could be investigating real crimes like in this blog instead of attempting to prove someone heard something.

to render an opinion. Why! Because there was no crime!!!!  If by some chance you get the State Attorney, or a grand jury to just investigate (not even a charge just investigated) I will come back to this site and admit my ignorance in the matter. But until that time, I will be waiting and watching to see the out come of the great line item budget conspiracy of Clay County. AS I said, Prove me wrong! Show me an investigation. Winn1955     

Winn1955 Kicked your but! He or she has got you to the point of nit picking plural and singular. Winn1955 Flat called you out. Keep working on it, you just might get the State Attorney to investigate the crime that isn’t. According to Winn1955 if you show an investigation He/She will admit ignorance on this site. You gotta admit! That’s priceless stuff right there. I guess at this point I should say CHECK, your move.   Cha Ching my money is in the bank!! 

I could not imagine why our State Attorney would not investigate the crimes, that isn't. They seem to have extensive experience in the Fitzgerald case, that wasn't. They certainly didn't mind spending thousands of our taxpayers dollars and countless hours on that fiasco, that wasn't. 

In the process made our Sheriff's Office look like some 2nd class law enforcement agency that is incapable of doing a proper investigation and unable to even find vital documents in the case. That should give us in the community assurance that we are in safe hands both by the State Attorney and the Sheriff's Office. As a matter of fact this seems to be by your standard just exactly the type case the State Attorney would indeed investigate.

After reading this long but good blog wanted to put in my 2 cents worth and that would be all it is worth. You know like things that make you go hum.

Mr. Rutledge has at least 20 years of law enforcement, is the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and has an attorney on staff Mr. Scruby and an attorney on the Board of Commissioners and had to have worked with and know hundreds of attorneys while in law enforcement and not one attorney would provide his credentials and get on this blog and say this was not a crime in his defense.

Now that is something that makes you go hum hum hum! Just my 2 cents worth

I don't know any Attorneys that would use their credentials, put anything in writing regarding anything that could possibly create any sort of liability that they're not getting paid for. 

Marsha, I thought Mr. Scruby is the paid legal consultant for all the Commissioners. It just looks bad to leave Mr. Rutledge hanging out there on a limb if this was done according to the law and he was authorized to do that like some of the people on this blog say he was. I would like to know myself if this was legal or not. Mr Rutledge just answered a letter on the board floor about some trash being dumped that was sent to him with no name. Maybe we should send a letter and ask him to tell us at the next BCC meeting if this legal. Just a thought its better than just hanging out there with no resolution.

Marsha and Janie, If no crimes have been committed here I think it would be very easy for an Attorney to get on here and state that as a fact. After a review of the Statutes and the meeting as described should be quite capable of determining if this was or was not a misuse of a public office. 

However, it does concern me that the Sheriff went into great detail to describe the meeting. Commissioner Rutledge stated in an email that I saw when questioned about the meeting that it never happened. Someone here is not being truthful about something and if everything was legal then why would it be necessary to make false statements.

I will agree in part with Baxley's statement "I'm going to be honest - I'm sick of hearing about nothing but backroom meetings, ethics violations, state's attorney investigations, ad nauseam".

My statement would be "I' going to be honest - I'm sick and tired of our public officials doing backroom deals, ethics violations, needing state attorney investigations, ad nauseam. After a 9 million dollar fiasco if this is a misuse of a public office then someone here needs to be held accountable.

My off the cuff comments regarding Attorneys were not meant to be on the specific subject, but were directed at the Profession as a whole.  While there are no doubt good ones out there, as a whole in my opinion they're a largely self serving group and when you're talking about the ones on Goverment Payroll it can be even worse.  To expect one to come into a public forum like this and say anything official, is like clicking your heels together three times and expecting it to take you somewhere.

Marsha, I will agree, Lily tells us about the self serving government officials in lots of her post. I love her wisdom which can not be purchased but only comes from life's experiences.

You would think if the attorney for the Commissioners could speak in a public forum at the public meetings this public forum would be no different. After all he works for the Commissioner. Or maybe your statement "put anything in writing regarding anything that could possibly create any sort of liability" would be the best answer. The Sheriff has a paid legal advisor as well. You would think one of them could come to their defense.

Im gone for a  week and look.....let face the facts.

Chisty = Guilty

Arthur = Guilty

Sheriff = Innocent

Steven P Munsey A+, MCP, IASO Orange Park | Green Cove Springs munsey13@comcast.net

Next time I see more than 3-4 comments, gonna take an Advil or two before reading.

Munsey-- please give us your inside information on the statements

Christy= guilty

I must of missed something here and I haven't even been gone. Because I thought the jury said NOT Guilty. As a matter of fact when they were in court the Judge said they had enough to try her so he would not dismiss the case, but it sure wasn't much of a case to begin with. We had months of an investigation, months of a grand jury, and 9 million dollar illegal dumping ordeal that disrupted the entire county and this is the best the Sheriff and the State could do. I would like to know what information you have so we can all understand what happened here because I sure don't. I still trying to figure out how the documents got missing.

Ivey= guilty

Most of his charges have been dismissed and if he was dumping in the landfill he better get to the back of the line because there should be a big waiting line in front of him to be charged because they say somebody has been dumping in there for a long time. Ivey hasn't even been to court yet I guess we don't have that concept anymore where they say we are innocent until proven guilty.

Sheriff and the Commissioner = innocent

I am glad the rules apply to them innocent until proven guilty. I think that was why were having the discussions to see if a crime had been committed or not.  

The Governor's office citizens services was contacted and said send it to them they would be more than glad to review the information and if it warranted an investigation they would send it to the appropriate agency for an investigation.

You know I really like Governor Crist we may get some answers to all these question after all.

If anyone ever wondered why Fitzgerald was granted a change of venue to get her trial out of Clay County...all they have to do is look at blogs posted by SMunsey.  Is there any intelligent life out there?

I rest my case. 

Well I have to say you have a better case than the State Attorney did in the Fitzgerald case and at least we can find SMunseys blogs so his documents aren't missing. I still would like to know what inside information he has so he can share it with all of us that makes her guilty because the Sheriff and the State Attorney couldn't find it.

The State Attorney and the Sheriff's Office has been an embrassment because if this was the best case they could come up with that even the Judge was not impressed. Then evidently this has been a waste of taxpayers money and time and almost looks like malicious prosecution. However the missing documents seemed to be the case the Judge took a huge interest in, me too.

During the many proceedings, hearings, etc, in the Fitzgerald trial, proceedings that I personally attended.....the judge expressed concern for the integrity of the agencies (CCSO and SAO) that lost two statements from two different files.  Had the judge dismissed the charges due to lack of a case...they would have accused her of good ol' boy politics and back room deals...and the narrow minded community in Clay County, even when she is exonerated by a jury...they continue to persecute her.  If she was part of the back room politics in Clay County.....she would have never made it to trial

Mr. Munsey would probably skoff when told the records department clerk described the CCSO records dept as Ft. Knox and then a defense witness testified that there were over 20 keys circulating within the CCSO and that the keys HAD NOT been stamped "Do not duplicate"

That the lead investigator in the case, a LT, admitted to taking verbal statements over the telephone without meeting the individuals in person...that he gave Ivey two statement forms and asked Ivey to complete one and the other co-conspirator to complete one...and then just stopped by Public Works to pick up the statement...without ever verifying the validity of the statements or the identity of the authors.

That the two statements that exonerate Fitzgerald..the originals kept in the CCSO records dept. file and copies of the two statements kept in the investigators file....ALL end up missing.  Nothing else out of either of these two separate files was missing.  NOTHING.

People want to infer that their was an inappropriate relationship between Ivey and Fitzgerald based on the number of daily cell phone calls into all hours of the night....if the telephone calls are so extensive and cover all hours of the day and night...when would they have had time to have such a relationship...they could not because according to the portrayal by the SAO they were on the telephone ALL of the time.  

When individuals work out of their cars....as Commissioners and county employees do.....(I do and I am neither a commissioner or county employee) we spend an indefinite amount of time on the telephone.  I hope Mr. Price NEVER gets a hold of my cell phone records and my boss' cell phone records because with 13 calls today alone....and some days it is double that number....I might be in trouble. 

Something I personally observed during the trial....While the defense counsel was giving his closing statement.....Susie Armstrong, infamous tabloid reported, was observed passing notes with the SAO Seigal.

WHAT POSSIBLE REASON IS THERE FOR A SAO TO PASS NOTE WITH A TABLOID REPORTER DURING A TRIAL...A TRIAL THAT SHE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO OBSERVE UNTIL BOTH SIDES RESTED THEIR CASE.

I think the SAO needs to conduct an internal investigation into Mr. Seigal's actions and relationship with a reporter.

No one has ever said what happened to the LT's internal investigation with the CCSO for loosing the statements.