New Correspondence: Libel or Litigation, Take Your Pick

Two interesting pieces of correspondence arrived at City Hall today.

First, Recaller-In-Chief Robert Carter has sent THIS LETTER (he only provided the City with the first page) to State Division of Elections Director Donald L. Palmer seeking clarification after a recent (June 15th) directive from Palmer regarding the State’s new “position” (note it says “position” not “requirement “ or “mandate”) on redaction of certain information in recall petitions after May 27, 2010. A few points:

For a week now, Carter’s committee has posted this libelous little ditty on Facebook:

“STOLTZFUS attorney HARRISON violates State law which says petition signatures cannot be copied for public records request by posting copy on law firm web site…”

Well, none of us who actually took the time to look up the “law” to which Mr. Carter and his committee refer in its Facebook libel could find anything substantiating any violation of any such law, and for good reason. Mr. Carter’s Petition for Recall which you can view again HERE was received by the Supervisor of Elections on May 14, 2010, two weeks before the State took what it calls a “position" whatever a “position” may end up meaning. So, with regard to the initial petition there is no such law on which the State can take a "position." Mr. Carter therefore knew, should have known or recklessly ignored that his committee’s Facebook post was and continues to be false and libelous, AGAIN. But more importantly, putting his committee’s anonymous and, frankly, childish libel aside, the subtle undercurrent of Carter’s missive is clearly one of desperation and denial. His inference that somehow somewhere poor souls are cowering in fear at the prospect of having their name attached to this vehicle of democratic retribution and that that prospect, not of course the movement’s simple illegitimacy, is the reason no one is signing the thing the second time around. Perhaps it’s time for he and his pop-up tent lieutenants to accept that after the initial hype, hyperbole and hectoring snared enough signatures to slip into the second round, folks are finally becoming informed. And an informed electorate is less inclined to be bullied and persuaded by Facebook doggerel and more inclined to simply say “No, thank you.”

Next up, PAR surprises, after the "Read More" jump below:

Not really, no surprise here but PAR, through its front man Micheal Coleman, has made it official today that it is "compelled" to sue the City of Anna Maria over the city’s refusal to take an active and enthusiastic role in what PAR apparently considers its Manifest Destiny. In his letter HERE Coleman, after invoking City Attorney Jim Dye as the source of PAR’s determination to become litigious, softens the blow a bit by lauding the city for its recent progress toward absolution and forgiveness concerning parking on Pine Avenue. One thing’s for sure: Ricinda Perry, PAR’s lawyer who moonlights as Bradenton Beach’s City Attorney (yes, really) in her spare moments away from PAR, must just love this little city. Between juggling PAR’s many and varied legal misadventures, she also co-counsels with Valerie Fernandez representing Inmate #15549-075 Michael Barfield in his infamous public records boondoggle and she represents the Banyan Tree Estates folks in their cumbersome legal quagmire over the City’s initial approval of and subsequent moratorium blocking development in or near a designated conservation area at the end of Park Street. Can't you just picture her sitting in her car looking in the mirror before yet another commission meeting or court hearing and thinking, “White hat or black hat, white hat or black hat?”

Bill Yanger