Billy’s Blog

It’s Time to Demilitarize the Police

Billy's Blog / August 18, 2014

The same cops who’ve now spent more than a week parading through the streets of Ferguson, Missouri like a conquering army—pointing high-powered rifles directly at unarmed protesters, assaulting them with tear gas and rubber bullets, enforcing unconstitutional curfews and speech restrictions, blocking media access, arresting journalists—can be found on SWAT teams and riot squads in local police departments all over Florida. They are armed with the same military equipment carried by the cops who threw a flash grenade into a crib during a raid in Habersham County, Georgia, severely burning and hospitalizing a 19-month-old toddler. They operate under the same standards for use of deadly force as the cop who brutally choked Eric Garner to death in Staten Island, or the cops who fatally shot a homeless man in the back in Albuquerque, or the cop who sparked the ongoing protests in Ferguson by killing 18-year-old Michael Brown.[1]This is a nationwide problem. Florida is no exception.On December 10, 2013, two dozen Miami police officers fired 377 shots at a stationary car, killing both of the men inside—only one of whom was suspected of a crime—even though the men were unarmed and appeared to be attempting to surrender. Two officers were also shot during the barrage, and several bullets struck nearby cars, businesses, and private residences, including one in which an infant was sleeping.

On May 27 of this year, a Tampa Police Department SWAT team shot and killed29-year-old Jason Westcott during a raid over alleged sales of less than $200 of marijuana. Officers claim Westcott was armed, and that they shot him in self-defense. Months earlier, Westcott had gone to the authorities because he had been receiving death threats, and was advised by the same police department that would later invade his home to be prepared to use deadly force against home invaders.

On June 10, a Department of Homeland Security SWAT team stormed into a Homestead couple’s residence at 6:15 a.m., deploying flash grenades and tear gas. Officers forcibly removed the towel the woman was using to cover herself and handcuffed her, leaving her to lie naked on the floor while they ransacked the house. The couple still has not been given any information about why they were raided.

On July 30, Madison County Sheriff’s Office deputies raided a Madison family’s home at 5 a.m., terrorizing them with drawn weapons and flash grenades. A 16-year-old boy was dragged out of bed at gunpoint and handcuffed. Deputies did not find the alleged drug dealer they were searching for, because they had raided the wrong house.

On July 31, a Miami Police Department SWAT team raided a house in Coconut Grove where three children were home alone. Two of them were injured—a 13-year-old claims an officer struck him in the head with a rifle (a police spokesman said the child “ran into an officer’s weapon”), and a 12-year-old claims an officer punched him in the eye.

And on and on. The stories are as horrendous as they are plentiful (although exact statistics are hard to come by, which is in itself a problem). Police officers have difficult and often dangerous jobs, and they need to be able to protect themselves, but we cannot allow that to become an excuse to trample on the rights—and all too often, lives—of the most vulnerable.

Yet that is exactly what these shocking displays of force tend to accomplish. They disproportionately target the poor and powerless, often for crimes as minor as simple drug possession, and with little regard for whether the suspect actually poses a threat to officer safety. The frequency with which SWAT teams storm into the wrong house, needlessly kill family pets, and provoke confused and terrified homeowners into defending themselves (with predictably tragic results) strongly suggests that many raids are not conducted with even a basic acceptable level of professionalism. Even when raids are “successful”, they can take an incredible emotional toll on the innocent family members, friends, and neighbors caught in the crosshairs.

Unraveling the myriad flawed policies and perverse incentives that brought us to this point will not be easy, but the status quo is unacceptable. Lives are being destroyed on a daily basis. While many aspects of the problem need to be addressed at the federal level, with the right reforms Florida can increase the safety of both private citizens and police officers, demonstrate a newfound respect for civil rights, restore public trust and confidence in law enforcement, and become a model for other states to follow. I believe the following changes would be major steps in the right direction:

Require police officers to use body cameras and dashboard cameras at all times while on duty, and establishing a presumption in favor of the defendant’s version of events in cases where an encounter should have been recorded but was not (or the recording has been lost or destroyed). Used properly, cameras can be vital tools in both protecting private citizens from abuse and in protecting police officers from false accusations.

Limit the use of SWAT raids to situations where such overwhelming force is truly called for. Too many of these raids and other aggressive police actions target people suspected low-level, non-violent crimes. If paramilitary equipment and tactics are to be used at all, it should be in response to extreme violence, not as a means of introducing violence into a situation that could have been handled peacefully.

Prohibit “no-knock” forced entry raids. It should be self-evident that when police invade a home without clearly announcing who they are, they are increasing the likelihood that the residents will attempt to defend themselves (as was allegedly the case for Jason Westcott).

Strengthen protections against civil asset forfeiture abuses, removing the terrible incentives that allow law enforcement agencies to directly profit from criminal investigations by seizing cash and other assets—sometimes without even convicting the owner of the seized property of a crime.

Require law enforcement agencies to develop protocols and training methods aimed at resolving situations without violence. Police officers are often trained as if they are soldiers preparing for battle, and too many seem to have taken this to heart.

Require law enforcement agencies to keep and report statistics regarding how many raids they conduct, how the raids are conducted, what evidence was sought, what evidence was recovered, and whether there were any injuries (to officers, suspects, or innocent bystanders) or property damage. Police militarization has become such an insidious problem in large part because the public has been kept in the dark about many of the more unsettling details.

End the “war or drugs”. A full accounting of the devastation wrought by drug prohibition is a subject for another day, but any serious approach to police reform has to acknowledge its central role in dismantling privacy and civil liberties, suppressing poor communities, destroying families, and giving the police free reign to harass, intimidate, and abuse.

I call on the other District 8 candidates to join me in supporting these reforms.

This article was originally posted by James Sinclair at this website: http://jamessinclair2014.blogspot.com/2014/08/its-time-to-de-militarize-police.html

AG Candidate Sheldon fends Off Residency, Bar Membership Challenges

Billy's Blog, Radio Archive / September 24, 2015

AG Democratic Candidate Sheldon Fends Off Residency, Bar Membership Challenges

By 

 

Sheldon
Credit Matthew Stolpe / WFSU News

 

 

Democratic Attorney General Candidate George Sheldon is trying to fend off challenges to his eligibility. Complaints say Sheldon, who most recently served in the Obama Administration, can’t claim Florida residency.

 

 

In addition to residing in Florida for the past seven years leading up to election,   Read More

#Blog: “My 1st day on the job for #TeamWohlsifer…” By David R. Davidson

Billy's Blog / August 12, 2014

10565150_10151935622537465_7106251684849053816_nTONIGHT is the 1st night of many on the job for #TeamWohlsifer and I am looking forward to it!

Bill Wohlsifer from what I have been able to learn from both word of mouth and cyber space is a decent, honorable, hard working Citizen of Florida. Giving of his time and consideration to those who need it most. A true representative of the law. He will go to Tallahassee with that in mind. Because if its not in line with the law, then its not in line with Bill.

I am excited for our future and excited that Bill Wohlsifer is willing to step up and turn the FLAG Office around for the better in the Sunshine State.

More later.

–David Davidson

Wohlsifer Answers the Call for Help

Billy's Blog, General Commentary / August 5, 2014

With Amendment 2 on the ballot in the upcoming election many people, including Jermaine Ingram, are wondering how the dispensaries will be regulated. Jermaine had spent lots of time doing research and attempting to find out exactly what it is that will be required of him to open, supervise, or just work at one of the dispensing organizations that will be opening in Florida in the next few years. 

Unfortunately, Jermaine became concerned about a number of the rules he found, including a rule stating that no felons could work in the industry. This precludes a lot of individuals, including those who have been convicted of non-violent crimes. As many people know, a disproportional percentage of these people are black. Once again the rules were limiting a community that often finds itself being limited.

Jermaine posted on a Facebook group’s wall that focuses on reforming marijuana laws asking for someone to represent these individuals at the upcoming Rules Development Workshop. Bill Wohlsifer saw the post and decided he would go to the workshop on Jermaine’s behalf and speak out against felony disenfranchisement, and a rule that will keep 25% of black Floridians from working in the medical marijuana industry.

Bill went to Tallahassee to sit in on the Rules Development Workshop. He didn’t go there strictly for Jermaine Ingram. Nor did he attend the event for the 25% of black Floridians who, under the current guidelines, will not be allowed to work in the medical marijuana industry. He went there to fight for justice for all Floridians. He wanted to speak for all informed citizens who were unable to attend the event. Mr. Wohlsifer was fighting to make sure justice and freedom prevail in the Sunshine State. 

This is the type of leadership Florida needs in their Attorney General. We need someone who will look over the laws we have in place, and work to protect a demographic that has been systematically discriminated against and held back due to such praxis. We need a candidate who will go above and beyond to help the needs of the voters. We deserve someone who will stand up for their constituents and stand up to make a difference.

This November we need Bill Wohlsifer to be elected our Attorney General.

Matt Wright is a writer and political activist living in south Florida. He has a BS in communications and is currently working for the Bill Wohlsifer for Attorney General campaign. To hear more from Matt you can follow him on Twitter at @mrwright79 or Like him on Facebook.

Election Fraud Complaint

Billy's Blog, BW's Journal Publications / August 4, 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS
(attachment to Election Fraud Complaint filed by Bill Wohlsifer against George Sheldon on August 4, 2014)

The qualifications for Florida attorney general are set forth in Article IV, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution, as follows: “When elected, the governor, lieutenant governor and each cabinet member must be an elector not less than thirty years of age who has resided in the state for the preceding seven years. The attorney general must have been a member of the bar of Florida for the preceding five years.” Art. IV, § 5(b), Fla. Const.

The Secretary of State must give great weight to the second quoted sentence above, and must not rely on the plain meaning of words such as “member” and “resided” but must look to the meaning applied to these words and terms as used within the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar,

created by the Florida Supreme Court.

When I, the undersigned complainant, filed my qualification papers for Florida attorney general on June 17, 2014, I attached to the Candidate Oath, a written certification from the Florida Bar, signed by the Bar’s Members Services and Records Manager on June 12, 2014, certifying that I was “an active member of The Florida Bar in good standing.” Although the Division of Elections candidate manual does not require the inclusion of a Certificate of Good Standing from the Florida Bar, I obtained and included one on my own volition, as I am accustomed to do so when applying for various law practice admissions and certifications. The Secretary of State must ask himself when reviewing this complaint the following question: “When George Sheldon filed his Candidate Oath on June 18, 2014, could he have presented a Certificate of Good Standing from the Florida Bar at that time?” The answer is no, Mr. Sheldon could not have produced a Certificate of Good Standing on June 18, 2014.

Mr. Sheldon does not meet two out of three of the constitutional qualification mandates. He has not maintained his bar of Florida membership (nor practiced law in Florida) for at least three out of the five years preceding the candidate qualifying period that ran from noon, June 16, 2014 to noon, June 20, 2014. Mr. Sheldon abandoned his Florida Bar membership by failing to maintain his continuing legal education requirements (CLER) for the three-year reporting period that ended on May 31, 2014. Subsequent to the candidate qualifying dates he made an expo facto claim of exemption from the reporting requirements, by completing a bar form stating the he was a member of a class of “Non-resident Members.” See Rule 6.02(f) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (2014) (attached hereto; also attached hereto please find an unsigned CLER Exemption Request Form). Mr. Sheldon fails to meet one or more of the three minimum requirements for attorney general candidacy.

On July 7, 2014, The Bar’s Executive Director, John Harkness, Jr., wrote to Mr. Sheldon and informed him that his bar membership had lapsed. More specifically, it was reported that Mr. Harkness informed Mr. Sheldon that, “A delinquent member shall not engage in the practice of law in this state and shall not be entitled to any privileges and benefits accorded to members of The Florida Bar in good standing.” One such privilege is meeting the constitutional qualification mandates for a candidate to run for the Office of Attorney General. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court requires that The Florida Bar treat all members delinquent in their CLER

requirements in the same manner as members delinquent in the payment of bar dues. Amendment to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar (continuing Legal Education), 510 So. 2d 585, 588 (Fla. 1987)

In mid-to-late July 2014, Mr. Sheldon took action that resulted in his Florida Bar membership being reinstated. Whether such reinstatement has a retroactive effect solely for the purpose of prior bar membership during the term of delinquency may be a question of law. However, our state’s case law contains many incidences where legal action taken by an attorney during a period of the attorney’s ineligibility due to non-payment of dues or failure to comply with CLER requirements was reversed by the court for being non-sequitur or (by analogy, only) for the unlicensed practice of law (citations omitted).

George Sheldon was a not member in good standing, not qualified to practice law in the State

Fla. Bar Re

of Florida, nor “entitled to any privileges and benefits accorded to members of The Florida Bar in good standing” throughout the 2014 qualifying period that ended at noon, June 20, 2014. Even if his claim of non-resident status subsequently cured his non-compliance with the Bar’s CLER requirement, it would not cure his ineligibility at the time of qualifying.

The duty to seek a claim of exemption is on the bar member. “A member who seeks an exemption form the CLER under sections 6.02(f)(1), (2) or (3) must file a CLER exemption request form. [Bar] Staff will review and confirm eligibility within 10 days of receipt of the request. If granted, the exemption will remain in effect until the member is no longer eligible.” Rule 6.02(f) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

Mr. Sheldon did not claim such exemption until after he was no longer eligible to practice law and until about 9 months following his relocation back to Florida. The bar member’s exemption does not become effective until after the claim for exemption is made and approved. Id. Thus, even if the exemption cured Mr. Sheldon’s ineligibility to practice law, strict compliance with Florida’s constitutional qualifications requirements would not relate back to the qualifying period. Simply put, his failure to timely claim the exemption that he was granted in July 2014, for a non-resident status that ripened in October 2011, does not change the past. Again, our case law contains many examples of harsh results where latter cured membership defects do not cure the attorney’s conduct that occurred during the period of ineligibility, and often at a huge expense to the attorney’s innocent clients. For example, see Third Degree Films, Inc. vs. Does 1-259, et al, Consolidated Case 4:11-cv-00570 (N.D. Fla., Feb. 16, 2012) (Tallahassee Division) (where 3,547 defendants were dismissed from a mass lawsuit because plaintiff’s counsel was not properly admitted to practice law in that court at that time). (N.B. The undersigned complainant/attorney filed a motion that lead to said dismissal. As such, the complainant has case law on hand relevant to a bar

member’s ineligibility to participate in benefits and privileges of bar membership available for

submission to the division, upon request.)

Even if the Florida Bar’s July 2014 acceptance of Mr. Sheldon’s claim of exemption from the Bar’s CLER reporting requirement had some manner of retroactive application, which is denied, he based it on the “Non-resident Members” exemption provided under Rule 6.02(f)(3). By his own admission the candidate fails to meet Article IV, Section 5(b)’s seven-year’s preceding residency requirement. It is clear that the framers of the Florida Constitution wanted our attorney general to

have an immediate connection with the state and with the Florida Bar in the year’s immediately preceding service as the state’s chief legal officer. The infinite wisdom of the framers cannot be questioned. Mr. Sheldon was not in residence and his bar membership had lapsed at the time he purportedly qualified for the office sought. The two cannot be reconciled.

The complainant below takes no pleasure in filing this complaint, but does so for the benefit of the Secretary of State’s review and preservation of the integrity of our electoral and qualifying processes. Mr. Sheldon’s out-of-state residency was for an honorable purpose, as he accepted a non-elective agency employment position as Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Catherine Sibelius, prior to Catherine Sibelius and George Sheldon’s October 2013 resignations following the failed rollout of www.healthcare.gov. However, Mr. Sheldon’s personal choice to surrender his Florida residency and relocate to or near Washington D.C. from 2011 to October

2013, respectfully compromised his qualifications to serve as Florida’s attorney general in the years immediately following. Indeed, his relocation was deemed “permanent,” as that term is used in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. He may qualify in 2018, but not in 2014.

The specific Florida Bar CLER exemption that Mr. Sheldon claimed exemption under is Rule 6.01(f)(3). Rule 6.01(f)(3) applies to Florida Bar members who “permanently resided outside Florida” during the reporting period. Rule 6.01(f)(3) provides as follows: “Non-resident Members. A member who has permanently resided outside Florida, who has not practiced law in Florida, or provided advice or services on Florida law during the preceding year, may be exempt from complying with the CLER.”

It is reported that Mr. Sheldon claims that there is no problem with his qualifications to run for attorney general in 2014. See http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2014/08/discord- with-democrats-sheldon-says-hes-staying-in-ag-race.html#storylink=cpy downloaded on August 3, 2014.

It is further reported that Mr. Sheldon obtained a legal opinion on the present issue. Id. The alleged legal opinion has been quoted as follows: “Accepting an appointment to serve our nation in Washington D.C. did not require George to give up his Florida residency. George Sheldon is qualified under Florida law to serve as Attorney General.” Id.

This legal opinion is also misplaced, as Mr. Sheldon accepted a position as a bureaucrat, not as an elected officer. Moreover, the qualifications for attorney general, unlike most candidacies, are uniquely dependent and inseparable from The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which provide only limited exemptions to its continuing legal education requirement. The full list of Rule 6.02(f) exemptions are as follows, of which only exemption (3) applies to Mr. Sheldon:

He claims that he maintained a home in Tallahassee, paid property taxes, was registered to vote in Florida, and had a Florida’s driver’s license. Id. Mr. Sheldon’s reliance on these indicia of residency is misplaced. Residency is defined by the Florida Bar for the purposes of this review, not by splitting hairs between the terms domicile and residency; an argument generally reserved for federal tax reporting purposes. (Arguably, he should have changed his voter registration when he left the state to accept the non-elective out-of-state agency employment that he did.)

(1) Active Military Service
(2) Undue Hardship
(3) Non-resident Members
(4) Full-time Federal Judiciary (5) Florida Judiciary

(6) Inactive Members
(7) Pro rata Credit Hours

The same news report referenced above quotes Mr. Sheldon as allegedly contending that, “My situation is the same as with members of Congress, members of the military, ambassadors, and others who perform service to their country in Washington or overseas, while Florida remains their home.” Id. Again, Mr. Sheldon’s relies on pure conjecture rather than a plain reading of the Rules Regulating. Rule 6.02(f) shows that Mr. Sheldon is correct as to “military” (1) but incorrect as to “ambassadors.” He is partially correct as to “others who perform service to their country in Washington or overseas,” but only if they serve as a federal judge (4) or men and women engaged in active military service (1). Neither of these exemptions apply to Mr. Sheldon. Again, only the permanent non-resident exemption applies; an exemption that he delinquently applied for 9 months after completing his out-of-state residency.

The same news report referenced above further quotes Mr. Sheldon as allegedly contending that, “Lawton Chiles, for example, served the people of Florida with great distinction in the U.S. Senate from 1971 to 1989, and then returned home and was elected Governor in 1990. My circumstances are no different.” Id. This statement is also incorrect, as it fails to give proper weight to the second sentence in Article IV, Section 5(b), i.e., “[t]he attorney general must have been a member of the bar of Florida for the preceding five years.” Art. IV, § 5, Fla. Const. Lawton Chiles ran for governor, not attorney general. Also, Mr. Sheldon’s comparison to Governor Chiles disregards the fact that he allowed his bar membership to lapse. Nor did Governor Chiles opt to take advantage of an option to reinstate his ineligibility to practice law in the State of Florida by voluntarily signing a bar form wherein he claimed permanent out-of-state residency for more than the past three years.

George Sheldon did not have to make the expo facto claim of permanent non-resident member status that he made subsequent to the qualifying period. At the time of his absence from our state he could have continued to meet the continuing legal education requirements from out of state, as many attorneys do when their occupation takes them outside of Florida. However, Mr. Sheldon intentionally chose not to continue with his CLER requirements and intentionally chose not to timely report his out of state residency to The Florida Bar. These defects are not curable.

As stated in the opening paragraphs of this complaint, the Secretary of State must give heavy

weight to the second sentence contained in Article IV, Section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution. The Division of Elections must rely on the definitions and usage of words such as “member” and “resided” by applying the meanings used in the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, created by the Florida Supreme Court, as these words and terms apply to its bar members, and not rely on the plain or ordinary use of these words and terms.

In conclusion, Mr. Sheldon cannot have it all three-ways: Either he failed to meet the 7-year residency requirement, or he failed to meet the 5-year Florida Bar membership requirement, or he

 

was not qualified to run at the time he filed his Candidate Oath on June 18, 2014. The complainant signing below suggests that all three prohibitions apply, and that Mr. Sheldon must be disqualified as a candidate for Florida attorney general, 2014, as a matter of law.

___________________

August 3, 2014

Bill Wohlsifer

Libertarian Candidate for Florida Attorney General

William R. Wohlsifer, PA

1100 East Park Ave Ste B Tallahassee FL 32301

Page 5 of 5

Bill Wohlsifer Will Declare War on Corruption and Cronyism

Billy's Blog, General Commentary / July 31, 2014

Rick Scott may be the Governor of Florida, but it can be questioned whether he acts in the best interest of the voters, or those who have given money to him and his cronies. In a completely in-your-face

governorship, where cronyism runs rampant, it is apparent that being friends, financiers, and former co-workers of Rick Scott is the best position to be in if you are a Floridian.

This is apparent by his recent approval of two nuclear power plants being erected in South Florida, even though the residents of Miami-Dade vehemently opposed the proposal. Even though the voters were against the construction of the two plants, the Governor sided with his friends at Florida Power and Light and green lit the project. It would be good to think that Gov. Scott did this with the best interest of Floridians in mind, but the fact that over the last 18 months FPL has donated a half a million dollars and Duke Energy donated $150,000 to his campaign definitely raises some eyebrows about the decision.

Of course, that could have been a coincidence. Unless of course one were to look at the FPL pipeline deal that was approved by the Republican Governor’s appointees. The Florida Public Service Commission, in which all of the members were appointed by Gov. Scott, approved the construction of the Sabal Trail as the state’s third major natural gas pipeline. Florida Power and Light had a natural gas pipeline they were in control of, which makes sense, being that they are a power company. What does make the rest of the eyebrows raise is that FPL chose Spectra Energy to build and operate the $3 billion project. Unbeknownst to the voters, Governor Scott possessed a stake in Spectra Energy at the time of the deal.

Although, he does claim that it was owned as part of a blind trust and he had no knowledge of the contents of the investment. Maybe we can give him the benefit of the doubt. Although, when one is reminded of the now-defunct Crystal River nuclear plant, and the canceled Levy County nuclear project and how Duke Energy customers are still taking on the $3.2 billion burden of these projects, one should probably question why the burden of failed proposals is still being passed on to the citizens of Florida, at the average cost of $9.00 a month.

One should also remember how he gallantly rejected $2.4 billion in federal dollars to build a railway that would eventually connect Miami, Orlando and Tampa, due to the eventual tax burden it would impose on Floridians. This appeared to be a case that Gov. Scott was looking out for his constituents, until he came out in support of the Orlando to Miami rail system known as All Aboard Florida. Not surprisingly, Scott’s Chief of Staff, Adam Hollingsworth, has ties to one of the companies involved in the project, and when asked if Mr. Hollingsworth had input concerning the project, Scott declined to answer.

It is also impossible to forget how in his first year in office Scott passed a bill requiring all state employees, and cash welfare recipients to pass a drug test. The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected Scott’s petition to review a ruling that his bill is unconstitutional, but has to wonder whether or not Gov. Scott would have even passed such a bill if he hadn’t recently given his controlling portion of stock in one of the state’s largest drug testing companies over to his wife.

This sort of cronyism and corruption occurs all across Florida every day, Rick Scott just being the easiest of targets. The person elected to keep this kind of corruption in check is the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, who has done nothing to rein in Gov. Scott and his cronies. The state of Florida needs someone in office who will stop this sort of collusion between state officials and the guys with whom they swap locker room tales. 

Bill Wohlsifer (LPF) is the candidate for Attorney General who vows to declare war on these highly unethical and potentially illegal actions. He promises to investigate any allegation into corruption in the state government in order to ensure that the “little guys,” or “underdogs” get equal protection under the law. Protect the future of Floridians by making sure that the state government doesn’t become just another hot bed of patronization for the friends of whatever “family” happens to be in charge of the state, vote for Bill Wohlsifer.  

 040314 RALLY MEME

Matt Wright is a writer and political activist living in south Florida. He has a BS in communications and is currently working for the Bill Wohlsifer for Attorney General campaign. To hear more from Matt you can follow him on Twitter at @mrwright79 or Like him on Facebook.

NPR Begins series on Attorney General Race

Billy's Blog, Press Coverage, Radio Archive / July 29, 2014

Three Candidates Vie To Challenge Attorney General Bondi But Only One, A Libertarian, Is Guaranteed

By

 Tallahassee attorney Bill Wohlsifer, the Libertarian candidate for state attorney general, wants to make sure voters understand his positions don’t amount to eliminating government control, just limiting it. That goes for everything from his support for gay marriage, to his lack of enthusiasm for Amendment Two: a proposed constitutional amendment to bring medical marijuana to Florida….Rest of Story
Tallahassee attorney Bill Wohlsifer is running as the Libertarian Party of Florida candidate for Attorney General. Wohlsifer is challenging incumbent AG Pam Bondi (R).
NPR series part 1.

Against All Odds

Billy's Blog, General Commentary / July 29, 2014

Bill Wohlsifer (LPF), candidate for Attorney General in the state of Florida, knows he is looked at as the quintessential underdog by most Floridians. He is a third party candidate in a political system that has been largely run by the two behemoth parties for basically all of American history. 

This does not frighten the man who wants to be the next Attorney General of Florida, though. He understands that even though he is looking at an uphill battle where he is left off of straw polls, and is being all but completely ignored by the media, his message is one that speaks to the people of Florida.

Even with the media brownout, Bill Wohlsifer continues on the campaign trail, spreading a message that deals with the issues Floridians truly care about. This is apparent with recent polls showing Bill receiving between 5 and 7 percent of the vote, even with being left of mock ballots being produced by Supervisors of Elections in counties across the state. 

Especially glaring is the fact that these polls also show that roughly 16 percent of the voters are unsure on which of the candidates would best represent them as their Attorney General. Mr. Wohlsifer believes if he can prove to those constituents he is the candidate who cares about their vision for the future of Florida he will be polling at 23 percent, and will only be 10 percent away from a victory in the three way race. 

There are many allegories that can be drawn about Bill Wohlsifer and his quest for being elected the next Attorney General of Florida. Some may cite Frank Sinatra, and that ant trying to move a rubber tree plant. Others may cite the biblical tale of David, fighting the massive Goliath. Yet it seems as though the most fitting is the children’s tale of the Little Engine That Could. Even with all of the odds stacked against him, he continues to trudge on, working all day every day to earn every vote, having complete faith that the people of Florida will hear his message.

Whether Mr. Wohlsifer is seen as a brave David, or a confident Little Engine That Could, it is obvious to all who meet him that, even as a first time and third party candidate, he is campaigning for the people of Florida, more so than the candidates from the other two parties. 

Matt Wright is a writer and political activist living in south Florida. He has a BS in communications and is currently working for the Bill Wohlsifer for Attorney General campaign. To hear more from Matt you can follow him on Twitter at @mrwright79 or Like him on Facebook.

Contact us at (727) 378-3657 for a Free Consultation.

Schedule An Appointment

Navigation

Debt Collection

Contact Info

William R. Wohlsifer, PLLC
12612 4th Isle
Hudson, FL 34667-1928

Call:(727) 378-3657
Email:Send an Email

© 1998-2023 William R. Wohlsifer, PLLC | Privacy Policy Contact Us Site Map

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin

Send Message to Billy...