Covid-19
Resurgence occuring in Florida. Take reasonable precautions
.
Florida
New Campaign: Bud or Bud Treat Them The Same – August 11, 2015
This article was originally written by Nick Evans for WFSU here.
Floridians may have two marijuana initiatives on the 2016 ballot. The organization Regulate Florida is pushing to legalize adult recreational use of the drug.
Outspoken personal injury lawyer John Morgan is bankrolling another attempt to bring medical marijuana to Florida through the ballot box. Now Tallahassee attorney Bill Wohlsifer says the state should go even further. He’s part of an organization called Regulate Florida, and it’s pushing to treat cannabis like alcohol.
“This will be a regulated product,” Wohlsifer says. “So it will be safe it will be controlled in quantity, and it’s a national movement in this direction and we think the time’s right for Florida.”
The measure would allow adults over the age of 21 to purchase marijuana for recreational use.
‘Regulate Florida’ marijuana initiative would legalize the plant for adults – August 7, 2015
This article was written by Michael Pollick on August 7th, 2015 for http://marijuana.heraldtribune.com/
Florida marijuana activists have launched a voter initiative called “Regulate Florida,” which would amend the Florida constitution to legalize and regulate adult use of marijuana in the Sunshine State.
If the Regulate Florida measure makes it on to the November 2016 ballot, Florida voters could face two decisions about the future use of marijuana: one to legalize medical use and another to legalize adult use. The Florida Legislature would be in charge of taxation in either case.
Regulate Florida’s multi-page document “is completely drafted,” said Bill Wohlsifer, a Tallahassee attorney who is the director of legal affairs for the political committee in charge, Sensible Florida. The proposed amendment, said Wohlsifer, “is very comprehensive. It doesn’t leave that much for the Legislature to do.”
Regulate Florida, with details to come as early as next week, would license growing, processing, distribution and retail sales of cannabis and would make possession legal, he confirmed.
“Part of our plan is to protect children by limiting the availability of illegal marijuana,” said fellow director Karen Goldstein, who heads the Florida chapter of NORML, a national marijuana reform group formed in 1970.
Chairing the group is Michael Minardi, a Stuart-based defense attorney specializing in cannabis cases. He successfully defended Parrish residents Bob and Cathy Jordan in 2013 after Bob Jordan was charged with growing marijuana on behalf of his wife, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
To be sure, to become a constitutional ballot initiative, Regulate Florida has major obstacles in front of it, just like those faced by the United for Care, which has resurrected its medical marijuana initiative and is aiming for November 2016 ballot boxes.
The Regulate Florida initiative is now facing scrutiny by the Florida Division of Elections. Later, the initiative will need to pass Florida Supreme Court inspection. Then it will need a total of 683,000 verified voter signatures.
That would put the recreational measure on the same November 2016 ballot with a much more limited medical marijuana proposal being put forward for the second time by United for Care, a group backed by Orlando attorney John Morgan, well known for his “For the People” motto.
“If anything it may drive some voters who are excited about legalizing marijuana who aren’t that excited about medical marijuana,” said Ben Pollara, executive director of United For Care.
While there are no relevant polls on recreational marijuana in Florida, Pollara says he believes public support for medical use remains just as high as it did before last year’s election cycle, in the upper 60 percent to lower 70 percent range.
Pollara said he expects to have all his required signatures on the United For Care petition by Christmas.
The genesis
The Legislature failed to consider a comprehensive medical marijuana proposal during the session held this spring. Any hope of that for supporters disappeared when the spring session melted down over divisions on the Medicaid issue.
To many supporters, that leaves a constitutional amendment as the only alternative, whether for adult use or medical use. Instead of the 50 percent required for an initiative to pass in most states, Florida sets the bar higher at 60 percent.
Pollara figures his group will need $5 million to defeat the Vote-No activists. Getting an adult-use initiative approved by voters could cost that much or more.
Regulate Florida has a web page where interested parties can register for upcoming information, at regulateflorida.com. The group also has a logo and a Facebook page. At least two other groups are said to be seeking ballot status on their own Florida adult-use programs.
If Florida voters were to approve the Regulate Florida amendment, the Sunshine State would join four others — Colorado, Washington state, Alaska, and Oregon — where voters have succeeded in making marijuana use legal for adults.
Ohio voters are expected to consider legalization initiatives in November.
Other states where legalization initiatives are in the works for the 2016 election are Maine, Michigan and California.
As the nation’s third-largest state by population, Florida is an immediate candidate for becoming a billion-dollar market for the marijuana industry, said Matt Karnes, founder and managing partner of cannabis market research firm GreenWave Advisors LLC.
“The first year, we would expect Florida to have $1.05 billion in sales,” Karnes said. “This number totally would apply to 2018.”
By comparison, California cannabis licensees could expect first-year gross revenue of $3.54 billion, GreenWave projects.
California was the first state to legalize medical use of marijuana, in 1996, and it has the largest population of any state.
Ancillary businesses such as marijuana testing, business attorneys and point-of-sale and growing hardware and software would multiply the level of financial activity in any state where the plant is legalized.
“It is a real industry that is going to explode in the next couple of years,” Karnes said.
Bill Wohlsifer Will Remove Cannabis from Schedule I
by Matt Wright
We have been living in an outdated society. The norms of yesterday should no longer be held as the standard today. Unfortunately, the leaders of this country are more concerned with special interest groups, and lobbyists who want to keep Cannabis out of the hands of patients across the country. Historically there has not been a leader who would stand up to these entities and tell them their time is over. There needs to be a person who is willing to go to bat for their constituents and allow them the control to make decisions regarding their medical and personal freedoms. Until now.
Bill Wohlsifer is the Libertarian candidate for Attorney General in Florida. He is making waves in the political world by breaking the mold of the leaders in this country by wanting to put the power of the control back in the hands of the people instead of federally funded bureaucrats who claim to know more about what is best for each individual, rather than the individual themselves. Mr. Wohlsifer believes we, as people, should be able to make decisions on our health freedoms ourselves, without the fear of government or police intervention in our most personal and private decisions.
As evidence of the fact that Mr. Wohlsifer wants to give the freedom to choose back to the people of Florida he has outlined a plan that should be making news across the country, but due to a media blackout on third party candidates he hasn’t been able to get his message out to the people he believes matters most…the voters. His plan would remove the plant of the genus Cannabis completely from Schedule I of the Florida’s Controlled Substance List. This would be an unprecedented action, that would change the way Florida looks at almost every factor of their state.
Mr. Wohlsifer has stated that Cannabis with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of greater than 0.8 percent would be removed from Schedule I and moved to Schedule II. Any Cannabis with a THC level of .8 percent to 0.3 percent would be moved to Schedule III and Cannabis with a level lower than 0.3 percent would be removed from Florida’s Controlled Substance List. This would redefine all levels of Cannabis and change the way the world views the medicinal value of this plant.
Once Cannabis has been removed from Schedule I a doctor would legally be able to recommend the plant for medical purposes, without the need of a Florida Constitutional Amendment. Also, by removing Cannabis with THC levels of .3 percent and lower would effectively remove hemp from the controlled substance list, allowing for industrial hemp to be grown and produced in Florida. Mr. Wohlsifer has already outlined his plan for industrial hemp on the website Hemp4Water.com.
This is the type of leadership we need in Florida, as well as the rest of the country. We need leadership not being handcuffed by special interest groups, and back room policy deals. It is time we elect officials who are willing to stand up for what they believe, especially if they believe in giving rights and freedoms back to the voters, as opposed to big government groups whose main goal is to approve the medicines produced by the highest donors.
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.
End the War on Drugs
by Matt Wright
The War on Drugs has failed. There is simply no other way to put it. America has been dealing with over 70 years of prohibition and all that has truly been achieved is the increased influx of children illegally crossing America’s southernmost borders, and increased funding for excessively militarized police forces through federal grants. It is time that America calls an end to the drug war, and instead changes their approach for the betterment of society.
As the fascination for drugs has grown in America the business side of the industry has grown. People see the movies and TV shows focusing on narcotics and they see a life filled with opportunity. They see possibility. They see an industry with unwavering growth potential. They see a true free market in it’s purest form. This is a market that has only one regulation: drugs are illegal. The reward has grown greater than the risk, as people continue to search for control over their socio-economic future.
This $100 billion annual industry continues to grow, and cartels in other countries grow in numbers, power and strength, forcing the youth of these countries to search for safer pastures in other countries. America’s leaders continue to throw more money at the problem without attempting to solve the issue, which is to end prohibition on drugs. This would essentially end the illegal drug trade, and we could begin using the excess funds to increase public education and drug treatment.
Former Vice Presidential Candidate Judge Jim Gray stated that “Drug Prohibition has resulted in a greater loss of civil liberties than anything else in the history of our country.” He is correct. America leads in incarceration rates, most of which are due to non-violent drug offenses. He also points out that even though studies have proven that people of all races use drugs at basically the same rate, people of color are incarcerated at an exceptionally higher rate than those of Anglo decent.
By ending the so-called “War on Drugs” and releasing all criminals who have been incarcerated for committing non-violent crime we could free up jail space, and save tax payer money who are paying for the room and board of essentially an alcohol purveyor in the 1920s. The need for SWAT teams, which are essentially federally funded, would be reduced drastically saving federal dollars.
Once the War on Drugs in America ends the cartels no longer have the golden goose of American dollars funding their operations. This would then, in-turn, cut many terrorist organizations off at the knees.
Drug cartels are one of the greatest supporters of terrorist organizations. If America ends the drug war, cutting off the financial backing from American citizens to these cartels they will not be able to fund terrorist organizations. Essentially, by America ending the drug war, they will end the unintended American funding of terrorism across the globe.
This is obviously not something that will happen overnight. It will take time and in order for it to eventually happen, the right leaders have to be in place. It is important to elect the leaders who have the right vision in mind.
Bill Wohlsifer is a leader who has the right vision. He will begin by working to give clemency to all non-violent criminals currently imprisoned in Florida jails. Which will save the tax-payers of Florida money, and give new hope to people who previously had no vision for a future that was filled with anything other than a life of crime. With leaders like Mr. Wohlsifer America can finally end the War on Drugs, allowing families to be together, permitting free markets to grow, slowing down illegal immigration, and ultimately crippling terrorist organizations.
–
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.
Equality and the League of Women Voters
Voters used to care if candidates received equal billing at election time, but those days seem long passed. We the people have fallen into a disastrous pattern of a two party system, where even the people who clamor on about wanting equality fail to demand equality. In fact, they even defend inequality and have loaded voters with an arsenal of excuses on why they must vote for one of the two establishment parties.
“The other candidates aren’t polling well.” “I don’t really like either one, but unfortunately they are the only options I have been given to choose from.” “She believes this, and he believes that.” “I don’t really like either one, but unfortunately they are the only options I have been given to choose from. I must pick one.”
In most elections it ends up the equivalent of picking a vacation in the Bog of Eternal Stench or the Fire Swamp.
The problem we have in this country is that many of the groups out there working to inform the citizens of their options in the political process have become so inundated with the duopoly of the system they have forgotten the true nature of their purpose; to inform voters of their options. There are options out there other than the Republicans and the Democrats. The average voter, though, doesn’t know about these options because they are not being informed by the people they have been instructed to trust with this information.
When a group, such as the League of Women Voters, puts out a voters guide and it fails to provide information on all qualified candidates in the race it just proves they have fallen victim to the duopoly in this country they say they are striving to rise above. When the country is faced with a future oligarchy, taking the choice out of the voters’ hands and placing it in the hands of a select few who make deals in back rooms while holding back the citizens who lay wanting for freedoms, one would think equality between the candidates would be at the forefront of the activists groups who strive for equality.
Groups such as these use phrases such as nonpartisan, which is a blatant lie, because they show themselves to be partisan in many different fashions. Yes, they have worked hard to find equality for their core demographic, but shouldn’t the end goal be equality for all those in America? Doesn’t their blatant disregard for any political party that doesn’t begin with an “R” or a “D” show their intrinsic bias toward any candidate who may stand for a more universal equality than the options they allow their followers to learn about?
If these groups actually stood for, and believed in, equality, they wouldn’t disregard candidates who were qualified and give childish excuses for their actions. Instead, they would place these names on the voter guides next to the candidates names of who they have been programmed to educate the voters.
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.
Wohlsifer Answers the Call for Help
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
|
STATEMENT OF FACTS 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
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.
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.
Florida Cannabis Coalition
Steve Edmonds, Bill’s Campaign Manager appeared at a Florida Cannabis Coalition seminar to talk about Bill’s campaign and Hemp4Water.
Steve Edmonds from Florida Cannabis Coaltion on Vimeo.