Bad Exposure from Bad Leadership

The recent days’ events have brought a most unfavorable light upon our island. From the images and statements memorialized on two networks (videos on this blog - marcoislandblog.blogspot.com), we have been portrayed as a community plagued with asbestos, as a community devoid of leadership, as a community with questionable management, as a community at war with itself.

The images are damming, incredible and farcical. We are treated to a city manager claiming conspiracy theories as to why toxic material continues to be found on a site purportedly cleaned up months ago. The same city manager declares that more asbestos is found on another site. We are subjected to images in what appears to be migrant workers hunched over with rakes shuffling through a contaminated field, only to find out that they too missed the asbestos because …they were told not to dig. The only statement assuaging any health risk comes not from city officials, but from a reporter stating that asbestos is “safe” when not crushed – as you see a bulldozer running over the lot. And all the time, the City Council is nowhere to be found.

The rudderless government on this island needs to get a manager that can actually manage and hence affect the immediate and near-term solution that many of these problems warrant. Asbestos being missed once is a mistake. Asbestos being missed three times despite repeated warnings is a crime – literally.

The elected City Council needs to start taking control of this government and hence effectuate their sworn duty of governing “for the people, and by the people” beyond contemplating the best location of a dog park, how to fix the racquet ball courts or what citizens group to sue next.

The Chamber of Commerce, the City Council, MICA, Celebrate Marco and all organizations immensely concerned with declining property values and declining real estate sales must understand that these trends are not caused by citizens petitioning their government for a redress. These trends do not arise from storms, interest rates or as they say, from a bunch of malcontents. These commercially beholden groups must understand that these deleterious trends comes from the very actions and words of a city management conveying malice towards its own citizens, ignoring the pleas that a toxic substance needs to be dealt with completely, promoting assessment inequities, and spewing absurd and irrational conspiracy theories – all implicitly sanctioned by an deficient and mute City Council.

When we are served by a non-derisory city management and a non-contemptuous Council, we can once again become a community prospering with a fair living standard, appreciable commercial interests and media coverage decrying only that Marco Island is a great place to live.

Marco Island Asbestos Coverage: CBS & NBC News

Expanded news coverage on the 6PM News on October 27, 2006 - Both Networks - Aired Concurrently.

More on conspiracy theories ("... who is playing tricks"). City Manager now admits that the pile in the other lot "... tested that pile and found asbestos fiber".



Notice in all of these declarations of tricks and wild conspiracy theories and who planted what and if the site was ever cleaned properly and now the declaration that yet another pile has asbestos - NOT ONCE does the City offer a concern for the health of the citizens (even with a school one mile away) nor does it proclaimed an extensive effort to assuage any health concerns.

Here is a question for the real estate cabal and their comrades on the City Council: what do you think hurts Marco Island more? The citizens you besmirch for raising the inequities of the sewer project, or your city manager proclaiming on multiple national media venues conspiracy theories and having a bunch of migrant workers with plastic bags and rakes shuffling through asbestos and not once trying to assuage any health risks?

CBS News Video Coverage of Asbestos on Marco Island

This video clip aired on the local CBS affiliate on October 27, 2006.



Note Police Chief Reinke stating "It appears that the clean-up is not complete. There appears to be asbestos pipe in the site.".

If there is anyone other than the city manager that believes the city manager's claim that someone is planting the asbestos, why didn't the police monitor the site from yesterday when the site was deemed "cleaned" until this morning when more asbestos was found?

Regardless of who planted the asbestos (space aliens, malcontents, Quality Enterprise, whomever), the city's number one responsibility is to the HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC. Having people there with rakes and shovles and a tractor kicking up asbestos poses a serious health hazard and must be curtailed immediately. To do otherwise is in itself criminal.

NBC News Video Coverage of Asbestos on Marco Island

This video clip aired on the local NBC News affiliate on October 26, 2006.





The asbestos is shown and the conspiracy theory is raised by the City.


Editor's note: Notice that the City does not claim that the site will be cleaned up immediately regardless of how the asbestos got there. An opportunity to quelch any concern was squandered - instead a conspiracy theory was offered.

Recall For Dummies: Intelligent Fecal Matter

Recall For Dummies is a series of short informative articles on the matters related to the Recall. The articles are provided in this open forum so that all opinions, corrections and contrasting points of view can be freely posted.

This Issue: Lesson 1 - Intelligent Fecal Matter

Introduction
On Marco Island there are 15,000 existing users of the sewer system and 6,000 residents that are on septic. The 6,000 septic users are being forced to go on the sewer system. The existing users are the folks that have been on sewer since day one, and the new users are the folks that have septic and are subject to the STRP. The existing users are the folks that have used the sewage treatment plant, and the new users are the folks that have never used the sewage treatment plant.

Facts
According to the City’s OWN LEGAL BRIEF – not the brief submitted by CARES – but the one submitted by the City:

• The sewage treatment plant has to be upgraded (“fixed”) even if not one new user is added to the sewer system
• The sewage treatment plant has to be expanded (“given more capacity”) to accommodate even one new user of the sewer system
• The Existing users complained about paying for expanding the plant
• The Existing users are exempt from paying for the plant expansion
• The Existing users will not use one iota of the expanded plant
• Only New users will pay for expanding the plant
• Both New users and Existing users will pay for upgrading the plant

Now, with the numbers provided BY THE CITY in their budget documents, upgrading the plant (to be paid by both existing and new users) will cost $29,077,783. Note that this is to upgrade the plant that only the existing users use – not to expand it to handle the 6,000 new customers.

Of the 21,000 total users, 6,000 (29%) are new users. 29% of $29,077,783 is $8,307,938.

That means that the new users to the treatment plant are being forced to pay over $8 million for something they have never used. It also means that the existing users have opted not to pay for the extra capacity that they claim they will not use.

Questions
How can existing users guarantee that they will not use any portion of the expanded facility? How can the City guarantee that the existing users will not use any portion of the expanded facility?

Why should new users of a sewage treatment plant pay to rebuild the old facility – a facility they have never used?

Another way to look at this issue: If the community as a whole does not benefit from the expanded capacity (as the City’s legal brief states), and that is the reason why only new users have to pay for the expanded capacity, then the community as a whole did not benefit from the old treatment plant that only some residents used.

And yet another way in case you missed it: If the community as a whole does not benefit from the expanded capacity (as the City’s legal brief states), and that is the reason why only new users have to pay for the expanded capacity, then why should the new users pay for the original capacity that hey did not use or benefit from?

Has the City of Marco Island violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – the Equal Protection clause – on this issue?

Summary
The City Council has refused to address this inequity.

A known inequity, specified in the City’s very own legal briefs, left without being addressed, is a serious and ethical indictment on this Council.

And as such, this known inequity is in part the basis for the recall.

Helpful Tables: (Click to Enlarge)

The Two Types of Crimes on Marco Island

Here on Marco Island we are entreated to two different types of crime: those that are reported and pursued (Type 1), and those that are evident and summarily ignored (Type 2). Let’s deal with the Type 1 crime and the fine job our police department is doing.

For the majority of us, we become aware of these “serious” incidents when we chance them in the local print mediums. As but two examples, this week’s journals inform us that a fishing pole was stolen and a car window was broken. The crimes were reported, and there is not doubt that all that can possibly be done by law enforcement authorities on these cases is being done.

Now let’s look at the second type of crime. These are the crimes that occur but for some unfathomable reason, they don’t warrant the attention and the resultant action of the city or of law enforcement authorities.

Here are some examples

• Asbestos was found on a lot on Marco Island. Regardless of how it got there, isn’t the fact that it is there a crime? The EPA and the DEP are aware of this fact.
• There is a video (on this blog) where at a Celebrate Marco meeting a person calls out for someone to be “shot”. Isn’t that a felony?
• At a city council meeting, the city attorney and the city manager intimidate voters. Isn’t voter intimidation a felony? By the way, this whole exchange is caught on video.
• The city councilperson Tucker accuses someone of planting asbestos. Isn’t the planting of a toxic substance a felony? This deed has also been recorded.
• If it turns out that the “planting of asbestos” accusation is false, isn’t the false accusation of a felony in itself a crime?
• Several people witness boats dumping raw sewage into the bay (source: MIE Oct. 19. Pg 5). Let’s see if we got this straight – homeowners are being forced to replace perfectly working septic tanks to the tune of nearly $30,000 that don’t pollute one iota into the waterways, but boaters are seen willfully and maliciously dumping raw sewage into the same waterways. Isn’t dumping of raw sewage into the waterways a crime?
• Celebrate Marco receives money and gives political speeches and campaigns for issues. Why don’t they have to register as a Political Committee?

So, who if anyone in law enforcement is pursuing these crimes? No one it seems.

Why the double standard?

Perhaps a stolen fishing pole and a broken window demand far greater interest in the crime solving world than inducement to violence and depositing/planting toxic material in a lot.

Or is the reason because the Type 2 crime has irrefutable evidence (like videos), whereas the Type 1 has no such evidence. If so, then Franz Kafka is making the decisions as to which crimes to pursue.

Or is the dichotomies between pursuing the two types of crimes due to the fact that the perpetrators of Type 2 crimes can be easily identified and just happen to be “important” people?

Or is it perhaps that the real estate cabal has a hand in all of this and doesn’t want the bad news of the Type 2 crime to become widely known for fear that it would further adversely affect real estate prices?

Who knows why these truly serious Type 2 crimes are ignored. But the fact that they are simply disregarded demonstrates that at least this city has more than two types of crimes – the city has two standards of enforcement.

So much for equal protection under the law.

Would it be too much to ask to have someone look into these matters?

Marco Island City Council Sue Citizens - AGAIN

In an effort to prevent citizens from exercising their right to vote,
the City Council of Marco Island fulfilled its threat to sue the
citizens of Marco Island.

(click to enlarge)







(click to enlarge)

Celebrate Marco Advisory

This blog is committed to providing the venue by which all points of view can be put forth.

To that end, the latest advisory from the Political Committee “Celebrate Marco” has been made available on this blog (click the “comments” link under this article). Please note that the PC "Celebrate Marco" is not associated with Celebrating Marco.

Warning and Notice:
This blog, its administrator, hosting service, and contributors DO NOT condone;

• violence (“shoot them”)
• racist remarks (“you people”)
• “ministers” making political speeches
• character assassinations
• suppression of different points of views.

Hence the PC "Celebrate Marco" is not endorsed in any manner. This advisory is merely provided as a public service - an "FYI" only - For Your Information.

Voter Intimidation Epidemic

Note: Major Differences between Marco Island and Los Angeles:
1. On Marco, we have the city officials intimidate ALL voters, not just Hispanics
2. On Marco, we don't fire the people who committed the voter intimidation
3. Florida does NOT have an attorney general that actually enforces laws

Calif. Campaign in Turmoil Over Letters Aide to GOP Candidate Sent Mailing Saying Immigrants Are Barred From Voting
By Sonya Geis-Washington Post Staff Writer. Friday, October 20, 2006

LOS ANGELES, Oct. 19 -- A California Republican's congressional campaign went into meltdown Thursday after he said a staff member was responsible for sending thousands of letters to new voters with Hispanic surnames telling them -- wrongly -- that it is illegal for them to vote if they are immigrants.

Tan Nguyen, the GOP candidate for California's 47th District, said in a statement that a staff member had sent the letters without his knowledge and has since been fired. Nguyen, himself an immigrant from Vietnam, has focused his campaign on keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, a deeply felt issue in suburban Orange County. Tan Nguyen, who is challenging Rep. Loretta Sanchez in Orange County, said a staff member sent the letters without his knowledge and has been fired.

Written in Spanish, the letters advise recently registered voters that it is a crime for those in the country illegally to vote in a federal election, which is true. They also say, falsely, that immigrants may not vote and could be jailed or deported for doing so, that the federal government has a new computer system to verify voter names, and that anti-immigration organizations can access the records.

As many as 14,000 letters were sent in the district, now represented by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D). The letterhead identified them as coming from the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

The group denied responsibility, and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer launched an investigation into possible violations of two state laws that prohibit intimidation to suppress voting. On a radio program, Lockyer confirmed that his office was focused on a Republican congressional candidate.

Sanchez said she has called for a federal probe into possible violations of the Voting Rights Act.

Orange County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh said: "When I interviewed him to determine why he was becoming a Republican, I was less than convinced that he switched parties because he doesn't believe in the values of Democrats. Then, after getting the nomination, he wanted the Republican Party to carry him across the finish line. And I told him that's not how it works."
Nguyen had spent $427,000 of his own money on the race as of September, according to campaign filings.

His campaign materials describe immigration as the focus of his campaign. He praises the Minuteman Project and opposes Bush's proposed guest-worker program.Nguyen himself immigrated to the United States at age 8, one of thousands of Vietnamese to flee in boats. He worked as a stockbroker before entering politics.

Orange County is known for heated immigration politics. One-third of its residents are Hispanic, according to 2004 census data, and the area is home to large populations of Vietnamese and Middle Eastern immigrants. It is also the birthplace of several anti-illegal-immigration movements. Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen, is a resident, as is Barbara Coe, founder of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

"Certainly this is a very polarized area," Sanchez said. "When you have people like the creator of the Minutemen living there, and Gloria Tuchman, who worked on the anti-bilingual law, and Barbara Coe, one would say that it's a pretty volatile area."

A Lay Interpretation: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – Equal Protection

The "Equal Protection" clause ends thus:

“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The first question to consider as related to Marco Island is thus: is there any component of the STRP that will benefit directly or indirectly anyone not subject to the special tax levied on SOME homeowners?

If the answer is yes, then the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution has apparently been violated.

If a component of the STRP goes to improving the sewage treatment plant for the benefit of all citizens and businesses – and not to just deal with the extra load (no pun intended), then the equal protection clause has been violated. If a component of the STRP goes to improving the roads beyond replacing them to their original status prior demolition, then the equal protection clause has been violated. If the STRP creates one new or improved anything – like a sidewalk – then the equal protection clause has been violated.

This clause of the U.S. constitution was enacted to address the disparity in treatment by the government that existed (and some argue still exist) between the races and sexes. Later, the courts started applying the tenet to any citizens that were disfavored in any way when contrasted with an equal class of citizens. And as such the courts started to consider taxation and special assessments.

In one tax case, the Supreme Court found that a community violated the equal protection clause when some homeowners’ taxes were computed differently than how other identical homeowners’ taxes were computed. In another case, the Supreme Court found that a community violated the equal protection clause when businesses had to pay for a road improvement through a special assessment but yet homeowners on the same street did not get assessed. There are quite many more such cases.

In the comments section to this post, there are two opinions that support the contention that the STRP does in fact violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the deciding insight and expression should be left to legal scholars and specialists such as the ACLU or a law research center.

The second question to consider is thus: given the state of the so called legal system, is there any merit to even consider pursuing the above noted position?

So How Long Have You Lived on Marco Island?

What is this incessantly puerile and sanguine penchant some people have for asking how long someone has lived on Marco Island as a means by which to classify the individual? Does it really matter how long someone has lived here before that person can offer some insight or some advice or some recommendation? Does one have to have lived here for some specified time before they can become responsible citizens?

Once again in this week’s obituary we were entreated to yet again another character assassination where the premise was in near totality based on the claim that the accused has been living on Marco “for only three years”. The week’s emails showed us where one activist and one internet industrialist confused as an activist were besmirched in part because of “how long they lived on the island”. Given every other attack and public proclamation from the longevity police, it is clear we are engulfed in the mindless flu pandemic.

So which god proclaimed the acceptable time one has to have lived on Marco before that objection to their civic involvement is not questioned? Or is it a city ordinance? Or better yet, is it some diktat from the real estate special interest cabal?

A lesson to be learned comes from businesses and universities. How often do we hear that consultants and CEOs and leaders are more often than not brought in from outside the organization to effect change? Additionally, it is the standard for universities not to hire their own doctoral graduates to teach – they always seek professors that have studied at other universities. The reason for this outsider practice is to provide the organization with a much needed fresh perspective, a new eye if you will, that is free from the baggage and the bias and the history that tends to influence us all.

In case the aggressors don’t change their mind as to this inane longevity question, here are some equally absurd assertions/questions to pose in support of their character assassinations:

• “And Ed doesn’t even speak Spanish!” (Important since construction workers are illegal, are from Mexico, and the rest of the state speaks Spanish – including the governor and the two politicos seeking his job)
• How long has Roger had arthritis?” (Important for obvious reasons – can’t relate to 99% of the Marco population if you don’t have this curable affliction)
• “Raymond has received only 209 code violation warnings from the city’s code enforcement bureau!” (Important since one has not suffered enough indignities by having been anonymously accused by the neo-Nazis that patrol the neighborhoods under the guise of walking their dogs of such immensely serious illegalities as their garbage cans not having been removed by some arbitrary time)
• “Did Bill declare bankruptcy and have IRS liens before coming to Marco Island?” (Important since, if true, would make Bill a successful businessman per amerikapitalism standards, and then Bill can take a leadership role on Marco Island as we continue our unabashed commercialization efforts)
• “Are you a CPA?” (Important only to attempt to humiliate the chairperson of the city council. This author was so taken aback when this question was posed that he felt compelled to violate the “comments on attorney’s fees only” rule (just like every other speaker did) and proclaim “I don’t have a CPA either – but how many of you geniuses have a Ph.D.?”)
  

This author finds it interesting that many on paradise make it an issue of where they came from and how long they have been here. You are here now, it’s good that you have a history, but it’s important to only yourself that you came here decades ago from Rustbelt, Ohio.

By the way, this author was deposited in South Florida in 1962, so all of the above will not be deemed credible.

All Views Welcomed ...

If you are brave enough to wear this on a T-Shirt, go to TSHIRT!

After the Dust (Asbestos) Settles

As the congratulatory and appreciative statements and proclamations pass through the vacuum which are the media and the island’s political forces, the most salient, damming indictment must remain forever present in the minds of the citizens: it took the arduous efforts of a citizen and a citizen’s group to do the job that the government we pay dearly for did not do, and refused to do.

So as we laud the efforts of the city government in a near sycophantic fervor for effectively and efficiently (albeit questionably) handing out code violation warnings for such immensely serious problems as a barking dog, consider what the government and the majority of our elected officials missed – and fought hard to negate.

These groups that place a check on the powers and actions (and in this case non-action) of government are owed a world of gratitude. Whether one agrees with these organizations or not, they are doing all citizens an immeasurable service.

It may be just a matter of egos or politics to see this fact of democracy clearly. Our founding fathers saw the importance quite clearly - that is why they included the right to petition in the constitution.

The Zecchino Journal

Please click the "comments" link below for a facinating story.

An Observation …

Why do we call Resident’s Beach “Resident’s Beach” if it’s not available to all people by virtue of the fact that they are merely residents? To call something “Resident’s” anything explicitly regulates what follows with only one condition – that one need only be a resident.

Even totalitarian regimes like China don’t require their PEOPLE to pay $130 so they can enter into the Great Hall of the PEOPLE. So why should Marco Island?

It is understood that the City of Marco Island is broke and can’t afford to pay whatever it costs to maintain the restrooms, snack bar, showers, picnic tables, chickees, barbecue grills, playground, umbrella chickees and the decorative water fountain on “Resident’s” Beach. So, to pay for these wonderful and utterly essential services, a fee has to be extracted from those that want to go there. Fair enough – but at this point the beach is no longer merely for residents – it’s for residents who want to pay or can afford to pay or claim to be residents and pay.

There appears to be an intentional oversight (by those who came up with charging for “Resident’s” Beach) of the fact that beaches are a natural resource that should be available to all. Coastal communities throughout the U.S. have either voluntarily or through court order made beaches freely accessible to all people – not just residents, and not just residents that pay extra. A per-use fee is at times in place, which is understandable (one of the most spectacular beaches in the world is in the U.S. and charges $1 to enter and park – money that is earmarked to recover and preserve an adjacent estuary). Also understandable is that there are a plethora of spectacular beaches where absolutely no fee is required – and they too have restrooms and life guards etc.

So, until the nation-wide trend (or the courts) catch up to Marco Island, let there be a little less hypocrisy and call the beach what it really is – “For Those Residents that Pay $130 per Year Beach”. Such a nomenclature will look just fine in the tourist brochures right next to the “Marriott Beach Resort for the Hotel Guests Only that Pay $130 per Night (Off-Season) Beach”.

The Best & Future of Marco Island

No - it's not the real estate or the commercialization ... It's the families ...

Let's see if the present course will keep these scenes on Marco Island.

Open Letter From Recall Chairman Hall

Congratulations to the voters of Marco Island and thanks to all of you who have helped in the process.

Yesterday, the City Clerk of Marco Island Laura Litzan, acknowledged receipt of petitions for the recall of three councilmen: E. Glenn Tucker 1,606, William D. Trotter 1,597 and Michael F. Minozzi Jr. 1,572. All of these were well above the minimum of 1,342. This represents a major milestone in our quest to End Arrogant Rule Now on Marco Island.

The next step is for Ms. Litzan to turn the petitions over to the Supervisor of Elections for Collier County to determine whether the petitions contain the required number of valid signatures. We have vetted the signatures with the voter rolls and don’t expect that the final numbers will be significantly different than the count listed above. Once the signatures are certified they will be returned to the City Clerk and she will notify the affected councilors and they will have five days to file a 200 word defense. The Clerk will then provide us with enough copies of the petitions and the defense for 30% of the voters. We then have 60 days to obtain approximately 2,100 signatures per councilman. If we are successful in getting those signatures and the process is allowed to function as designed by the legislature, the Superior Court Judge would call for a special election not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days from the date the second round of petitions are certified.

I would hope that we can keep the recall on our island and solve our own problems. The primary supporters of these councilmen, the business community, object to this process on the basis that it is putting the island in a bad light. Unfortunately, the councilmen have indicated that they are going to use our tax dollars in an attempt to hide behind the legal system in Naples rather than face the voters on Marco. I point out that if they do that they will be shinning a far bigger negative spot light on Marco Island. Mr. Tucker says they need to go to the courts to protect their reputations. Regardless of what happens in the future, today’s events have placed their names in the history books of Marco Island. The honorable thing for these councilmen to do is to face the voters. I can assure the councilmen that using the City’s treasure in an attempt to use the court system to prevent us from voting will do nothing but insure their reputations will live in infamy.

I have spoken with dozens of our residents in the past month. Most of them are disgusted with the direction our island has taken and most would leave if they could. This is a turning point for our island. We need to take control, manage the growth, clean up the mess that has been made and restore the peace and tranquility that we all came here for. Now that the names of our petitioners are in the public record, we can expect an attack on our petitioners from Celebrate Marco, the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests. I ask that you stand firm in your convictions because the Marco Island they envision isn’t any place we want to live.

Thank you for your continued support.Roger Hall, Chairman Recall Committee

Recall Petitions Delivered!

Today at approximately 1PM EST, recall petitions were delivered to the City of Marco Island! After some hesitancy by the staff of the city, the following counts were certified:

• 1,606 Recall Petitions on Councilperson Tucker
• 1,572 Recall Petitions on Councilperson Minozzi
• 1,597 Recall Petitions on Councilperson Trotter
  

Congratulations to Roger Hall and the citizens brave enough to weather the intimidation!

Democracy in action.

One trusts that the democratic process will proceed unobstructed.

Voter Intimidation - Prosecution

At a recent council meeting, the city manager inquired of the city attorney whether citizens that signed the recall petition could be forced to pay for the legal fees incurred by the city to fight the petition. In the constitutionally protected opinion of this blog and of several citizens, raising the specter of penalizing citizens for exercising their right to vote is voter intimidation. Hence, the city manager is considered as having committed voter intimidation. By not refuting the inquiry, and further propagating the threat by stating that the matter would be researched, the city attorney is also considered as having committed voter intimidation.

The city council of Marco Island for all practical purposes acknowledged the voter intimidation by calling an emergency meeting on September 28, 2006. In that meeting, the city council recognized that voter intimidation had occurred by virtue of the claim made by the council that a number of citizens contacted the council with concerns to this effect. The city council then voted unanimously to not seek retribution from its citizens.

By then the damage had been done and further buttressed by the retreat.

It is again in the constitutionally protected opinion of this blog, the city’s action of voting to not seek retribution/fees from the citizens that signed the petition confirms that a crime has been committed, and that such backpedaling does not negate prosecution.

Voter intimidation is a crime. State and federal laws specifically prohibit voter intimidation of any type. In a previous article, this blog denotes the state statute. The federal law is part of the Voting Rights Act and subsequent legislation.

In a legal opinion:

Edward B. Foley, Director, Election Law @ Moritz &Amber Lea Gosnell, Class of 2006, Moritz College of Law

• 
  While there is no set formula for classifying acts of vote suppression, the following three categories help to distinguish the different techniques. Voters can be prevented from potentially voting for the other candidate (1) by direct threats of intimidation, (2) by suppressing turnout through disinformation and scare tactics, and finally, (3) by efforts to keep the other candidate's message from being communicated.
• 
  The first type of vote suppression, direct threats of intimidation, is subject to criminal punishment under both federal and state law. Among the federal laws that can be used to challenge direct intimidation, the most important is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act states that "no person […] shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote." Although other provisions of the Voting Rights Act concern racially discriminatory practices, this provision outlaws intimidation regardless of motivation.

==============
Those voters believing to have been intimidated are free to request state and federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute.

Citizens wishing to file a state complaint may be in for a surprise. Calls to the attorney general’s office of Florida were treated with disdain and ignorance. Calls to Florida state attorney’s office were similar, finally terminating at the Ft. Meyers office. There, a paralegal (that incredibly wished to remain anonymous) stated clearly a crime had been committed and suggested that the only way by which the state attorney’s office would pursue the matter was if the citizens did all of the investigation, then called the local police department and filed a complaint. Welcome to the “good-ol boy network”, and good luck.

Citizens wishing to file a federal complaint can complete the United States Department of Justice form Citizens Complaint PDF or Citizens Complaint DOC.

It continues to be the misfortune of this community in its entirety when citizens that disagree with certain policies and pursue a legal and peaceful recourse are entreated to intimidation, threats and slurs. Some will merely accept the zeitgeist, while others will welcome the attacks on those that they disagree with, while still some will pursue a legal and peaceful redress. Some will allow their civil liberties to continue to erode, while others don’t realize that one day it will be them that are threatened, and while others will attempt to stop that erosion.

It’s a choice citizens of a democracy will always face.

International Incident - TURKs Hijack Plane

BRINDISI, Italy (CNN) -- Passengers from a hijacked Turkish plane carrying 113 people are leaving the aircraft after the two unarmed Turks who hijacked the plane, protesting the pope's upcoming visit to Turkey, agreed to release them.

Italy's transport minister announced the release on NTV, and the network reported that the passengers were disembarking from the plane.

Authorities have also said the two Turk hijackers have indicated they were ready to surrender to authorities, but one of their demands was that a message be delivered to Pope Benedict XVI.
The plane departed Tirana, Albania and was headed to Istanbul, Turkey, when the Turks entered the plane's cockpit over Greek airspace, officials said.

The plane sent out an SOS signal and Greek defense ministry planes escorted the aircraft out of Greek airspace. Greek officials alerted their Italian counterparts, the airline spokesman said.
An Italian air force F-16 fighter jet then intercepted the Turkish Boeing 737, carrying 107 passengers and six crew, and forced it to land at a military airport in Brindisi, in the south of Italy, an air force official told Reuters.

An Albanian passenger interviewed by NTV said passengers had no idea there was anything wrong on the plane, that it was just like a normal flight.

The chairman of Turkish Airlines confirmed the hijacking and said none of the passengers had been hurt.

"The passengers and crew are under no threat," Candan Karlitekin told NTV television.
The airline spokesman said the Turks commandeered the plane to protest Pope Benedict XVI's upcoming visit to Turkey, and because they were angered over the pope's recent comments quoting a 14th century scholar about Islam.

The Vatican said it was monitoring the situation.

Many Muslims were angered by the pope's speech at a German university last month, saying it was an attempt to portray their religion as innately violent.

He later expressed his "total and profound respect for all Muslims" in an effort to repair relations following his controversial comments.

A Call to Civic Literacy

Literacy is the foundation of a free and democratic society. People who cannot read, or know how to read but fail to do so, are not informed and hence cannot make the decisions that will be beneficial to the community.

“Literacy”, as implied above, is not just knowing how to read, but actually reading. It behooves us, and it is also a civic obligation, to become informed. Hence, we need to read.

Judging from the “opinion” articles printed in the local paper, it’s apparent to this educator that there are many on Marco Island that do not read or are otherwise not informed about material that would provide a basic civic understanding. No offense, because in today’s day and age, illiteracy is quite normal.

To those that decry and besmirch the efforts of the organizations and individuals that vociferously challenge the city council/city government, you may want to read a few works before you crank up that word processor again. These “kook” organizations that you are assaulting are actually doing YOU a favor. Yes, whether they are right or wrong, whether they eventually prevail or not, whether they are tactful or not, whether they are polite or not, whether they have a hidden agenda or not, whether you like them or not, they are actually doing YOU a favor.

Here is a homework assignment for the critics of the individuals and groups seeking change or a redress. Before you type out yet another misinformed collection of words, read any of the following:

• On the Duty of Civil Disobedience – By Henry David Thoreau
• The Federalist Papers – By Publius (“Publius” was a pen name - the real authors are Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay)
• Martin Luther King’s 1963 Letter from the Birmingham Jail
• Two Treatises of Government – By John Locke
  

So, when you fine folks finish reading these fine works, here is a test:

• Does the government always work towards the best interest of moral people?
• Is it not OUR duty – each one of us – to seek improvements – as we see it?
  

This test is on the honor system! Then, when you are done, consider if these “wacky” organizations and individuals that you disparage are evil, or if they are doing us a service.

On equal footing with civic illiteracy is this penchant by the vocal (purported) majority to prefix or couch their criticism of the “goof-ball trouble-making” people and organizations as being in the “minority”. Let’s assume for a moment that the people and groups that are active in advocating change at city hall do in fact represent the “minority” of the citizens.

First, it doesn’t make them wrong. Secondly, they are in good company for it has always been the minority that has fought for justice and equal representation under the law.

Disagree? Consider that the MAJORITY in this country were FOR slavery, were FOR segregation, were FOR Jim Crow laws, were FOR denying women the right to vote, were FOR the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII, were FOR the decimation and exiling of the Native Americans, and are presently FOR infanticide.

Now consider that it was the minority that were opposed to all of these evils and fought long and hard for their correction. In fact, it was the MINORITY that opposed the British Crown during colonial times, and it was that MINORITY that became the founding fathers of this great experiment in federalism and constitutional democracy. Hence it would seem advantageous for the self-proclaimed MAJORITY to stop publicizing this myth of mainstream-hood for they are in poor company.

If anyone needs any help interpreting these tenets of our form of government, perhaps the city can spring for a tutoring service on Marco Island for the civically challenged ... to be held right before the council meetings.