Good Morning Florida Keys

Jim Hendrick in shackles, just after his convicition in Federal Court in Key West

Jim Hendrick’s reply to yesterday’s Taking Applications for Homeland Security Positions  post, which you can reach by clicking on that link. Jim’s part is in italics.
  
Sloan,This is written notice that your blog post today contained a false and defamatory statement about me, i.e.,that I was convicted for “conspiracy to solicit bribes for a county commissioner”.

Jim Hendrick 
Sue me.
 
If you insist. 
 
I don’t insist on anything, Jim. If you sue me, it’s at your insistence. And it will be picking hairs.
 
From the Internet, here’s the Key West Citizen article reporting your conviction:
 
HENDRICK FOUND GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES – 02/24/2007
Citizen Staff KEY WEST — A jury found former County Attorney Jim Hendrick guilty of conspiracy, witness tampering and obstruction of justice Friday, after deliberating for about two hours.
Hendrick, 59, immediately was taken to the Federal Detention Center in Miami, where he will remain in custody until his May 4 sentencing. He faces up to 20 years in prison and $1 million in fines, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
His wife, Vera Vasek, maintained his innocence to reporters outside the federal courthouse in Key West and said he would appeal his conviction.
“We will continue to fight, every step of the way, to prove his innocence,” Vasek said.
A judge denied Hendrick’s request for bond while he files his appeal on the four charges, which include two counts of witness tampering.
Jurors declined to answer media questions as they left the courthouse. An alternate, who did not take part in the deliberations, said she had not formed an opinion about Hendrick’s guilt or innocence.
“They came back so quickly, I thought it would have went the other way,” said Joan Teach, who stayed to listen to the verdict. “I really did not have a chance to process it all. I was tired by the end of each day. … We also could not take our notes home. I really didn’t have a chance to form an opinion. I really didn’t.”
Hendrick’s attorney, Ed Shohat, declined to comment on the verdict.
Prosecuting attorney Brenda Morris, who questioned Hendrick on cross-examination and gave closing arguments, also declined to comment about the case.
Morris and fellow federal prosecutor Christopher Clark built a case that Hendrick was involved in a bribery scheme and subsequent cover-up as federal investigators began questioning people about it. Former County Mayor Jack London and political consultant Randy Hilliard admitted that developer Marvin Rappaport paid them $82,500 to secure building permits to redevelop his Hall’s Resort in Marathon in 1996.
The Planning Department previously had said the redevelopment plans did not conform to development regulations. London, who was to testify in the trial, died in November.
Hendrick did not receive money, but allegedly arranged the bribe and orchestrated the cover-up, prosecutors said. He advised London to leave the country to avoid having to testify before a grand jury. He also tried to get Hilliard to tailor his grand jury testimony to mirror what London had told FBI agents, prosecutors said.
Key to the prosecution was the testimony of London’s widow, Elaine, who gave a detailed account of a lunch she had with her husband and Hendrick at the Pier House on March 17, 2004. In talking about the case possibly going before the federal grand jury in Key West, Hendrick told London to go to Ireland, Elaine London testified.
Morris finished her closing argument citing part of Elaine’s testimony, when she said the two had referred to themselves as “the two most powerful men in Monroe County.”
“He’s just a man. He’s an arrogant man,” Morris told the jury. “He has duped Monroe County for years and he thinks maybe he can get away with it … I submit to you that the defendant never thought Elaine London would have the strength to come in here and testify.”
London was arrested at the Key West International Airport before his flight to Ireland in 2004 and charged with lying to federal agents and tax evasion for not reporting the bribe money. The statute of limitations on the bribe had run out. The feds dropped the lying charge after London began cooperating with the FBI.
Hilliard, who was granted immunity for his testimony, was another key witness, having secretly taped conversations between himself and Hendrick for the FBI. On one tape, Hendrick said London “rose in our eyes when he didn’t stand up and tell them what we had done,” referring to himself and developer Pritam Singh. In another, Hendrick told Hilliard “in the eyes of the government I am your co-conspirator.”
The courtroom was filled with Hendrick supporters, many of whom looked stunned and gasped when the verdict was read. Minutes before, Hendrick, a self-proclaimed Buddhist, closed his eyes and appeared to be meditating as the crowd sat quietly awaiting the verdict.
The scene was a stark contrast from most days of the three-week trial. Jokes had been exchanged between prosecutors and defense attorneys, and Hendrick supporters mingled among each other during breaks.
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
 
On cross appeal by the US Attorney and you to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, your probation sentence was reversed as being outside the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and your conviction was affirmed.
 
I may have not stated the conspiracy count accurately. If you will send me the correct description, I will publish that to correct the record and my trivial mistake.
 
What I recall from your resentencing hearing in Ft. Lauderdale last fall was a great deal of your fate that day hinged on whether the new federal judge assigned to your case accepted the higher dollar number paid to Randy Hilliard, as a consulting/lobbyist fee, or whether the judge accepted only the lower amount, the bribe, County Commissioner Jack London actually received, as the basis for calculating the gravity of your crime and the length/severity of your sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Your attorney argued for and did not contest the lower amount, the bribe, while the US Attorney argued for the higher amount. The judge went with the lower amount, because it was the illegal amount (the bribe amount), was how I understood the judge’s statements and reasoning. 
 
From where I sat in the audience, and I don’t think I was alone, the judge going with only what Jack London actually received allowed the judge to resentence you to new terms and conditions of probation, instead of giving you a prison sentence. We all were happy for you at the time, but I have to say today that I now regret my having written an email to the judge in your behalf prior to the resentencing hearing. It was what the angels told me to do, so I did it, even though it was against my better judgement. You were the County Attorney of Monroe County, as well as a practicing lawyer, when these shenanigans occurred. You betrayed the public trust. You appealed your conviction, instead of accepting it as proof that you had done what you were convicted of doing. You maintained your innoncence and showed no remorse or contrition. You should have gone to prison.
 
If you sue me for defamation for what basically is a scrivener’s error on my part, I imagine the trial will be rather interesting. You will call witnesses to prove your good reputation in the community where you live and work. I will cross examine your witnesses and call witnesses of my own, who testify that your reputation in the community where you live and work is horrible and that you are the personification of Evil and have no good reputation to be besmirched. I will call the second federal judge, who left you out on probation, and your federal probation officer. I will call your friends and relatives as adverse witnesses, under subpoena. Some of their names: Pritam Singh, Roger Bernstein, the Spottswoods, Todd German, Vera Vasec, your old law partners. They, and witnesses you call in your behalf, will be put through the wringer, but that will not matter to you. I have never met a more selfish, conceited, megalomaniac person than you, Jim. You truly believe you are above the law, even though the facts have clearly proven you are not.
 
Relevant at your retrial might be the Citizen Editorial cartoons of you and me. I was portrayed at Don Quixote doing battle with the Gang of Three on the County Commisson. You were protrayed, according to Todd German the other day, as Darth Vader  saying to government officials something like, “Do what I tell you to do.” A member of the Citizen Editoral Board, Todd thought both editorial cartoons were funny. I did not think yours was funny; I thought it was a true statement of who Jim Hendrick really is by the only daily newspaper in the Keys. As was the editoral cartoon about me a true statement of who I really am.
 
You call your consulting firm, Critical Concern, Inc., a hijack of Monroe County being designated by the State of Florida as an area of critical concern as the result of runaway development, disregard of the environment, and public corruption, in all of which you were a, if not the, major player, as the County Attorney and the premiere local land use attorney in private practice. Area of Critical concern you indeed are, Jim, in need of permanent oversight and regulation. I leave you with your self-delusions. 
 
Sloan
 
Political advertisement, paid for and approved by me, District 2 county commission candidate from the school of the Federal Judiciary, where I was trained by a member thereof, as his law clerk. Judge Clarennce W. Allgood tried all of the federal criminal cases in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, and was revered as a man and a judge. The most righteous man I have known in my life.
 
I can be reached at keysmyhome@hotmail.com.

My dreams last night turned me upside down, inside out, and every which a way but loose. Perhaps later today the fog will lift and I will post something, perhaps not. A day without a post happens every now and then. Sloan

keysmyhome@hotmail.com

Michael Reckwerdt, Mayor of Islamorada

If the Pussy of Islamorada lies to his wife and children, you can bet the entire conch farm that he lies everywhere else in his low down worthless no good shiftless skunking life. What you bet the pussy won’t offer to submit to a lie detector test? What you bet his alleged paramour won’t submit to one, either? What you want to bet they are lesbians? Hell, if I was the alleged paramour, I’d sue God for making the son of a bitch. And I’d get the hell away from him, even if it means moving away from the Keys.

Michael Reckwerdt, attempted murder victim

State Attorney Dennis Ward called me yesterday afternoon with news of this story below, and told me to check it out on nbcmiami.com. 
 

 

 

deadly weapon

An Islamorada resident who says she was informed by friends that her husband was having an affair confronted him with the other woman and attacked her husband with a golf cart.

You know what they say: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and rolling quietly at 12-14 miles per hour.

Islamorada resident Anna Marie Reckwerdt, 41, has been charged with battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon after the incident about 10 p.m. Saturday night.

Reckwerdt arrived at her husband’s Overseas Highway business, Robbie’s Marine, to find him sitting with a woman who manages the Hungry Tarpon Restaurant on the marina property — the same woman with whom Reckwerdt says multiple employees told her he was having an affair.

Anna Marie Reckwerdt

The Monroe County Sheriff’s Officesays Reckwerdt struck her husband on the head, cutting him with a ring on her finger. She then told the restaurant manager she was fired.

Mother Nature’s Attorney Lesley Blackner, Florida Hometown Democracy, Sponsor of Amendment 4                               

Some local replies to the recent Amendment 4, the Ugly, Beautiful Truth post (click the hyperlink to see the entire post), followed by something from Florida Hometown Democracy whom we have to thank for Amendment 4 being on the November 2 ballot. With our financial help and our wagging tongues and emailings, Amendment 4 will get the needed 60 percent of the votes cast on November 2 for it to become The Law of the Land in Florida.

 Sloan, thank you for letting me know that David Rice and Don Vasal are against Prop. 4. I will vote for anyone who runs against either one of them, regardless of wether or not I agree with them on other Issues.

John Oeler
 
(A retired businessman, from Texas as I recall, John lives full time on Big Pine Key.)
 
Then, John, your vote should be for Mike Forster in the District 4 county commission race, as Mike is the only candidate in that race who supports Amendment 4?s passage. In the District 2 county commission race, I support Amendment 4 and incumbent George Neugent, your friend whom you have long supported, said at the Lodging Association candidate forum Friday that he is okay with Amendment 4 being passed or not being passed, but he will not vote for it. Sloan

(Also known as Key West Cat Lady, because of her love of cats, of which she cares for many in her Key West neighborhood, Jan also is a truly gifted artist, as all who have seen the her charcoal I have in my home demonstrate when they see it and swoon.)
 
Hi, Jan. Thanks. The angels most people say I invented put me onto Amendment 4 in 2006. A vote against Amendment 4 is not only a vote against Mother Nature, it is a vote against the angels, who go by familiar names: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Melchizedek. Sloan
 
Sloan-

My concerns with the passage of Amendment 4 is, what happens to the state’s DCA? What happens to county growth management departments? If we’re passing this amendment, then there’s no reason to have these two departments, is there? 

Politics being local, I kinda like the way things are now. Not sure other Florida counties have a checks and balance system on land management like we have with Florida’s DCA. This is a statewide amendment and Monroe County works a bit different than the rest of the state. 

Jim

(Retired Navy, Public Affairs Officer Naval Air Station Key West, Jim’s thoughts have made their way into my rantings quite a few times.) 
 
Hi Jim,
 
From what I understand, Amendment 4, if it passes, will be the only local checks and balances the rest of the cities and counties in Florida will have.
 
Amendment 4 was spawned by runaway development in Florida, with the aid of local elected officials.
 
Besides Monroe County, DCA has supervisory oversight over a few scattered sensitive areas in Florida, but not another entire city or county, I don’t think.
 
I seriously doubt the Wisteria developers would have filed their application if Amendment 4 was already in place. Ditto for the Safe Harbor developers two years ago.
 
If you really do like local politics the way they are down here, you are a majority of one, based on the earfuls I get ongoing. Or maybe you speak from a Navy perspective. I suppose naval personnel do have somewhat different views about this area? 
 
Sloan
 
Two recent messages from the Sponsor of Amendment 4:
 

 

The ad illustrates how Florida voters can stand against the bulldozers by voting Yes on 4. We know who our opponents are and how they will go to any lengths to keep the status quo cycles of boom-and-bust real estate. We will do what we have to do to protect our homes and our quality of life. It is a strong message for the Nov. 2 ballot, and we hope you share the link with all your friends, family and colleagues.

Mail a check to:

Florida Hometown Democracy
P.O. Box 636
New Smyrna Beach, Fl  32170-0636

 
Or you can go to our online donation page and give with a credit card; the link is http://floridahometowndemocracy.com/donate
 

 
Hi, Wayne. I posted all of the above to goodmorningfloridakeys.com and goodmorningkeywest.com today, and will make Note for it at my Facebook page. You also might wish to check out the link: Amendment 4, the Ugly, Beautiful Truth. Will contact you tomorrow about a making donation.
 
Sloan Bashinsky
Little Torch Key, Florida
(305) 407-4285
keysmyhome@hotmail.com

policical advertisement, approved and paid for by me, the District 2 county commission candidate the no developer will ever vote for

I went first for the county commission candidates at yesterday’s Lodging Association forum in Key West, because my last name is at the top of the alphabet. Some forums allow candidates to make an opening statement, some do not. When an opening statement is allowed, I usually talk about and issue or two, instead of about myself.
 
After being introduced by the moderator, local attorney Ed Scales, I stood, took the mic, said something like, “According to what Todd German told me a few minutes ago (Todd was sitting at the front, just to my left), I’m ‘Sloan of Arc.’” The expected chuckles didn’t happen. So I said something like, “Nobody seems to understand, but people who know me well would understand.”
 
I then said I wanted to speak to them about two issues that are important to their business. First, they should resist all efforts by developers to raid the bed tax dollars fund (which their businesses generate for tourism). Second, they should support Amendment 4, which will give voters final say so in developments which add new and uneeded lodging and transient rentals to the Keys, and require comprehensive plan changes.
 
My one-minute introduction concluded, I passed the mic to Mike Forster, the next county commission candidate in alphabet line to speak. The other three candidates were my District 2 opponent, George Neugent, and Mike’s District 4 opponents, David Rice and Don Vasil. George and David are Republicans, the rest of us are non-affiliated.
 
It turned out my opening remarks were dear to the Lodging Association members’ hearts, when two questions were put to us around development, the designated area of critical concern and Amendment 4, and a question was put to us about allowing wider use of the bed tax dollars fund. Those and all the questions had been submitted by Lodging Association members. All questions were excellent.
 
Of the five candidates, Mike Forster and I said we wanted to see Amendment 4 passed. David Rice and Don Vasil said they opposed it. George Neugent said he would be okay either way, but he would not vote for it himself.
 
During my one minute answer, I said developers, Chambers of Commerce, Realtor Associations and elected offcials in their pockets are terrified of Amendment 4 and are using all sorts of dirty tricks to try to defeat it, which is proof people who want final say so in development that requires comprehensive plans should vote for Amendment 4.
 
I said, while the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which oversees the Keys as an area of critical concern, has done a lot of good, DCA did not stop runaway development in the Keys, which led to development being made into God and the bubble bursting and the horrible economy we now have in the Keys. Furthermore, it looks like DCA won’t be around much longer, due to the huge deficit in the State of Florida budget. Yet another reason to vote for Amendment 4.
 
I said I had written about Amendment 4 that day and the day before at goodmorningkeywest.com, and they could check that link out of they wanted to learn more about it.
 
David Rice and Don Vasil put themselves on my permanent developers’ whore list yesterday, with their opposition to Amendment 4. If you vote for either of them, it’s the same as voting for developers.
 
During my two minute closing, I said George has been and still is a good county commissioner, and if he is reelected, I will have no problem with that therefore. I said I campaigned for George in the Republican primary against Danny Coll. Why shouldn’t I? George was clearly the superior candidate. I said that showed I am non-partisan.
 
I said George and I don’t always agree. For example, he was glad Publix had showed interest in putting a store on US 1 on Big Pine Key. Whereas, if I had been a county commissioner, I would have sent Publix packing because of the gig granny knot a Publix would tie on US 1, on top of the granny knot already there, and all of that road rage coming down to Key West.
 
I  said I am outside the box, always — my answers to all questions yesterday had been markedly different from the other four candidates’ answers.
 
There had been some earlier discussion of the dearly-departed Gang of Three on of the County Commission, and of George and David having been a Gang of Two during that not fondly remembered era. I said if I was elected, I might well be a Gang of One.
 
I said something like, “I have made many very hard decisions in my life. In my personal relationships, with my family, in business, in other ways. I go into my prayer closet and what I get in there,” I pointed upward, which brought a few chuckles, “is what I do. People who know me well, know this is how I live. I will listen to what you tell me, and I might go along with it and I might not go along with it. I will do what I think is best.”
 
This was reference back to one of my earlier answers, which was prompted by Don Vasil stating where he stood on something, then he said something like, except he would always do what the voters wanted him to do. I got the mic next and said something like, ”I never will always to what you want me to do. You would not elected me to do that. You would elect me to do what I think is best. Not to be a puppet on your strings.”
 
I truly hate it when candidates stake out their position on an issue, then say something squishy like what Don said yesteday, just to get votes. Just one remark like that is all I need to hear from a candidate to write that candidate off.
 
Don already wrote himself off for me when he switched from supporting Amendment 4 to opposing it, as he came before forums hosted by groups who might not like hearing him say he liked Amendment 4. Groups like the Key West Chamber of Commerce candidate forum this past Wednesday, where I unequivocally supported Amendment 4, knowing they probably unequivocally opposed it, while Don said he opposed Amendment 4, because we need good elected officials instead. What deep dark hole has Don had his head stuck in since he has lived in the Keys?
 
I concluded my two minutes yesterday by motioning to George and saying, “This is a good candidate,” my time was up, “I am a good candidate.” I passed the mic to Ed Scales, as I was the last candidate to speak, having gone first to kick it off.
 
Later, Todd German said I had come very close to endorsing George over myself, and some people at the forum might take it that way. I said he probably was right, even though I had said plenty to distinguish myself from George. Todd said I never asked them to vote for me. I said he would never hear me ask people at a candidate forum to vote for me. I have never asked people at candidate forums to vote for me. I don’t campaign that way. I speak to the issues, and I do it from outside the box. I distinguish myself from the other candidates. The rest is up to the voters.
 
People who don’t want that kind of county commissioner, who might well be a Gang of One on the commission, should vote for George Neugent.
 
Perhaps along those lines is a letter to the editor in today’s Key West Citizen (keysnews.com), reproduced below my sign-off today.
 
Sloan Bashinsky
 
political advertisement, paid for and approved by me, the Gang of One county commission candidate, who can be reached at keysmyhome@hotmail.com.
 
 
Developers indirectly influencing government

Someone needs to ask our Monroe County Commission candidates the following question: “If you are elected, who would actually run this county — you or the appointed unelected county staff?”

Before moving to the Keys, I lived in several different states. All communities had some pros and some cons in local government, but nowhere was the level of power brokerage and abuse that appears to be so rampant in Monroe County so extreme.

The unelected officials, including but not limited to, the county administrator, the village manager (for incorporated communities), the director of Growth Management and the County Attorney’s Office, all have incredible power. Although these unelected staff members are officially approved by elected officials — either county commissioners or city council members in incorporated communities — this approval occurs after a funnel process that is effectively controlled by the pro-development, special interest groups.

Elected officials are encouraged to approve the unelected officials who are directly and/or indirectly advanced by pro-development interests. This process effectively transfers power from elected officials to special interest groups, which are indirectly responsible for appointing the powerful unelected officials.

A perfect example of this trend is when a completely unqualified applicant was almost appointed as director of Growth Management as a result of the county administrator trying to appoint a personal contact. Thankfully, the County Commission and watchdog organizations set off an alarm and this disastrous hiring was avoided.

The unelected officials manage, enforce, interpret existing regulations, modify and generate ordinances and report directly to the unelected county administrator, who then reports to the elected officials. The unelected official power process is fortified by the unelected county attorney, who also owes his/her appointment to pro-development interests. The elected officials adopt the county attorney’s recommendations on virtually all ordinances and legal matters, including appeals and settlement of judgments.

So, coming back to my original question, who’s going to run the show in Monroe County? Our commissioners must demonstrate the tenacity essential to take control of staff and be the true policymakers and leaders of the Keys.

Joe Chernay

Summerland Key
 
Sloan of Arc remark: There is nothing whatsoever indirect about developers’ influence on our local governments. The influence is direct. It is pervasive. As I keep saying and writing, our Growth Management Department staff work for developers, but are paid by We the People. If you elect me, Growth Management will rue the day I was born. As will Code Enforcement.

A joke yesterday from a No Name Key couple with a deer sense of humor:
 

 
I don’t promise you a golf course, friends, roses, whiskey, country music, grants, deals, kickbacks, or anything but hard work, most of which probably will piss you off, but I will do it anyway.
 
Here’s an email yesterday from Dick Beall to County Commissioner George Neugent about Publix tucking tail and running away from Big Pine Key,  followed by George’s cheeky reply:

From:	Neugent-George(Neugent-George@monroecounty-fl.gov)
Sent:	Thu 9/23/10 10:50 AM
To:	Richard Beal / SkeeterS marine (keyskeet@msn.com)
Cc:	Neugent-George (Neugent-George@monroecounty-fl.gov); sloan bashinsky (sloanbashinsky@hotmail.com); Colonna-Terri (Marble-Terri@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov); Hurley-Christine (Hurley-Christine@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov)

 

Ha ha… What BS!

 

Publix spends a gazillion dollars on newspaper, TV and Radio publicity and then tells Dick Beall they don’t like publicity? Like Paris Hilton doesn’t like Publicity. In the County process it would have had  to go through no less than a Public Vetting Process to achieve the right to build, have to publicly acquire the property(s) it will build on after publicly notifying it’s soon to be neighbors its intent, while publicly proposing land-use changes through a publicly aired TV show of the Planning Commission meeting.

Now if you really want to be Publicly Outed – try to do something in a clandestine way in Monroe County.  The Coconut Telegraph & Big Pine Blog – faster than the speed-of-light, would have 7 different versions of the story; all involving conspioritorial involvement of the county, secret meetings at Commissioner Neugent’s office, the systematic undermining of animal control to benefit Key West and of course Sal, Dick, Barbara & John saying it’s a underhanded land grab.

Which will probably happen anyway.

 

As Mike Puto always said,( former commissioner) “Unbelivable!!!” 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

If Publix didn’t want publicity, they wouldn’t be named Publix, and they wouldn’t try to locate a Publix store on US 1, Big Pine Key.

 

Personally, I think Publix fed Dick Beall a line; pubilcity had nothing to do with it’s high-tailing.

Personally, I have always liked Dick’s dream of a marine technology school and dormitories on his US 1 property, where Skeeters Marine now is.

Personally, I don’t think Publix has gone away. Did I imagine hearing from the angels that Publix is talking to Wal-Mart about them going in halves on the Big Pine shopping center and taking it all over for themselves? 

 

Sloan Bashinsky, George’s Hee Haw Party opponent in the District 2 race

 

political advertisement approved and paid for by me

There is an Amendment 4 post today at this link: goodmorningkeywest.com.

 

Recieved yesterday from an unknown (to me) commentator:

From: <knothappy@ymail.com>
Subject: Shared by knothappy: California City Officials Arrested in Salary Scandal
To: knothappy@ymail.com
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 2:06 AM

Hello,

I thought you would find this interesting

Shared by Joe while visiting FoxNews.com:

California City Officials Arrested in Salary Scandal

Eight current and former Bell city officials have been arrested amid investigations involving the scandal-plagued Los Angeles suburb.

Respectfully,

Knot Crazy and Knot Happy

I saw this California story reported in today’s Key West Citizen and wondered the same thing myself. Right now, though, I am not aware of anything like this going on with any of our county commissioners or the city commissioners and mayor of Key West. [And don't see how it's possible, given near- busted county and city tills.] I am less familiar with the city governments of Marathon and Islamorada, and know very little of Layton’s city government. But I agree, if this sort of thing happens in the Keys, a la the Acevedos, it’s the State Attorney’s job to rectify it. Government officials who are on the take or steal from We the People should be dealt with swiftly and firmly, so as to take them out of circulation and send a loud and clear message that our community does not tolerate such misbehavior by people to whom we have entrusted our community’s welfare.

I am more currently concerned with bringing into county law (1) a lobbyist registration ordinance that required disclosure not only of whom lobbyists and representatives represent, but also what they are paid and by whom; (2) a prohibition against county employees, including county commissioners, receiving gifts worth more than, say, $5, from people doing business with or currying business or favors from the County; (3) a prohibition against county employees, including county commissioners, David Rice comes to mind, during his previous term as a county commissioner, doing business with the county while also working for the county; (4) a prohibition against county employees, including county commissioners, participating in any way, including discussion and voting, in a matter before the County in which they have even the mere appearance of a conflict of interest. David Rice again comes to mind, when, as a county commissioner, he voted to approve the Sheriff’s budget and County funding of the Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys, when he was CEO of the Guidance Clinic and it was supplying substantial services to the Sheriff Office and the County, and when he had a private contract directly with the Sheriff Office, and while the person he was dealing with at the Sheriff Office was his son, Major Mike Rice, #3 in command, and while these were no-bid contracts, which I am pretty sure were illegal. After Bob Peryam was elected Sheriff in 2006, he put all Sheriff contracts out for bid for the first time in almost 20 years, and none of the people/firms who had been doing bubba business with the Sheriff Office under the no-bid bubba method, including David Rice and the Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys, were the low bidders, and none of them got their bubba contracts renewed. Savings to the Sheriff Office were several hundred thousand dollars, and prior service level was maintained by the new providers.

I also am more currently concerned with the way our Code Enforcement all too often behaves like the Gestapo and/or a bubba mechanism for taking out personal grievances on other people, and with our Growth Management being far too friendly with developers, to the point Growth Management staff defect to developers and become adversarial to the County Government and We the People whom Growth Management is supposed to serve.

I also am more currently concerned, perhaps the biggest concern, given the impact it will have on the Keys and our way of life and culture, with FEMA and the County’s alliance regarding downstairs enclosures constructed after 1975. This is where your argument that the 10th Amendment might apply in We the People’s favor. I need to give that more thought. However, it isn’t helping a 10th Amendment argument that our County Commission volunteered the County into FEMA’s pilot. Nor is it helping that our County Commission did not enforce the County Building Code after 1975, until FEMA stepped in and “forced” the County Commission to put the County under FEMA’s pilot; and then when the pilot was about the expire, the County Commission agreed to its renewal for another five years. The second pilot’s renewal is up for review this November, is my understanding.

Down below is what I quickly pulled off the Internet about Amendment X. It appears the US Supreme Court mostly has been reluctant to use Amendment X to bar Federal interference in State issues, and that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution often is used to trump Amendment X arguments against federal interference in state matters.

Plenty Crazy and Plenty Unhappy,

Sloan

[edit] History and case law

The Tenth Amendment is similar to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”^[2] After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add a similar amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers.^[3] However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment “added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified.”
States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers…..

[edit] Forced participation or commandeering

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

[edit] Commerce clause

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). In modern times, the Commerce Clause has become one of the most frequently-used sources of Congress’ power, and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the allowable scope of federal government.
In the 20th century, complex economic challenges arising from the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court of the use of Commerce Clause powers to maintain a strong national economy.
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of World War II, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for “home consumption” on a farm — that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer’s growing “his own wheat” can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.
In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the Garcia decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was “traditional” for or “integral” to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was “unsound in principle and unworkable in practice,” and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court’s holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held “…we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA … that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision.” It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be “destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision.”
In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a “gun-free zone” on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government’s power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court’s 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.
Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one’s own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn’t grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.

[edit] Federal funding

The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, according to Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). However, where Congress has the power to implement programs, or to regulate, there are sound reasons for the national government to encourage States to become the instruments of national policy, rather than to implement the program directly. One advantage is that state implementation of national programs places implementation in the hands of local officials who are closer to local circumstances. Another advantage is that implementation of federal programs at the state level tends to limit the growth of the national bureaucracy.
For this reason, Congress often seeks to exercise its powers by offering or encouraging the States to implement national programs consistent with national minimum standards; a system known as cooperative federalism. One example of the exercise of this device was to condition allocation of federal funding where certain state laws do not conform to federal guidelines. For example, federal educational funds may not be accepted without implementation of special education programs in compliance with IDEA. Similarly, the nationwide state 55 mph (90 km/h) speed limit, .08 legal blood alcohol limit, and the nationwide state 21-year drinking age were imposed through this method; the states would lose highway funding if they refused to pass such laws. See e.g. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

political advertisement, approved and paid for by Sloan Bashinsky, the krazy and unhappy District 2 county commmission candidate

If you are krazy, you can reach me at keysmyhome@hotmail.com.