.
I have reported these apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of Pensacola City Officials against us to the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) over the last 6 years. FDLE officials have refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us and have refused to charge those breaking the law. Instead, they have made false statements to us and about us to excuse their inaction and apparently to cover-up apparent corruption on the part of local officials.
We are barely surviving since Pensacola City Officials and Florida State Officials have taken 6 years of authorized business operation away from us in the sunset of our lives. I have also written Governor Bush, Governor Crist and Governor Scott but they refer us back to FDLE.
I wrote, again, to Mr. Gerald Bailey, Director of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), on August 30, 2010, regarding the illegal closure of our small business. Mr. Bailey referred this matter to the FDLE General Counsel, Mr. Ramage, of his Department. Mr. Wells, the Pensacola City Attorney, representing the City, emailed the FDLE General Counsel, Mr. Ramage, on September 9, 2010, concerning my complaint to Mr. Bailey. It appears that the Pensacola City Attorney conferred with the State Attorney, Mr. Eddins, on September 9, 2010, in preparing the answer to the FDLE General Counsel.
The Florida State Attorney is not authorized to condone and allow apparent illegal/criminal activity, especially against an elderly couple, to continue and ignore it but it appears that he is doing just that. This appears to border on or may even fall over the definition of aiding and abetting criminals which is illegal. The Florida State Attorney’s office should be investigated as it appears that they helped the Pensacola City Attorney prepare the statement to the FDLE General Counsel which defamed me and made false accusations against me and the FDLE General Counsel, in turn, defamed me and made false accusations against me. What we are enduring may be considered as abuse of the elderly. This is serious to me.
The Pensacola City Attorney’s email is filled with false charges and false statements and the FDLE General Counsel quoted these false charges and false statements to me and ignored the documentation I sent that showed we had operated legally and were illegally closed without due process. Both of these communications are included in this statement. It appears that the FDLE General Counsel did not verify anything that the Pensacola City Attorney, aided by the State Attorney, stated before the FDLE General Counsel repeated these false statements to me and, based on these false statements, refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us, refused to investigate and refused to take appropriate actions against those breaking the law.
The following excerpts from the Pensacola City Attorney’s email and the FDLE General Counsel’s letter follow so anyone should be able to clearly see the level of lies told to and about us.
The Pensacola City Attorney stated to the FDLE General Counsel, “Numerous complaints were received from her neighbors and the city did direct her to cease holding outdoor events such as weddings.”
The FDLE General Counsel stated to me, “after neighbors’ complaints, the City notified you that your zoning did not allow such outside activities.”
Both the Pensacola City Attorney and the FDLE General Counsel made false statements. Through a Public Information request, I was able to obtain the following email from the Pensacola Chief of Police, Mr. Chip Simmons, to the Pensacola Mayor’s assistant, Mr. Al Coby. I have repeatedly stated that during the 25 years of operation of the business, from 1980 until 2005, in the same location, there were no complaints before our illegal closing on March 19, 2005.
From: Chip Simmons
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:17 AM
To: Al Coby
Cc: Thaddeus Cohen; Rita R. Lee
Subject: RE:
Thanks Al. I checked and we have no paperwork on the location or information regarding the complaint. We do have a total of nine alarm responses dating back to 2004.
The Pensacola City Attorney stated to the FDLE General Counsel, above, “the city did direct her to cease holding outdoor events such as weddings." This is not true. The city did not follow due process laws. We were illegally closed down by a Pensacola Police Officer, during a wedding, for all functions, not just outdoor functions even though almost all functions were held inside. All functions were banned from the date of the illegal closing, March 19, 2005, by the Pensacola City Officials, to include gallery nights, meet the artist nights, children's tea parties, poetry readings, weddings, reunions, etc. My favorite weddings were the small, intimate candlelight ceremonies I held for servicemen and women from the local Navy base. I furnished candles and flowers, free of charge, and performed the ceremony myself as I am a notary public.
No artist will sign with our art gallery if we can’t have gallery nights, etc. and small functions added significantly to our income. Many people wanted a place to have a small function, our contracts specify less than 100 attendees, in a beautiful setting where hard liquor was forbidden and noise was to be abated at 11:00 PM, all at a reasonable price.
The Pensacola City Attorney stated to the FDLE General Counsel, “In 2005, she allowed weddings and receptions to take place on her property,”
The FDLE General Counsel stated to me, “It is also my understanding that after you began using your property for outside weddings in 2005,”
Both of these statements are false as our property has been used for functions since 1980 and this fact is recorded in Pensacola City records. The Pensacola City Attorney and the FDLE General Counsel indicate that we had been using our property for functions for just a few weeks when, in fact, our property had been used for functions, of the same type and at the same location, for over 25 years with no complaints from neighbors, clients or City Officials.
Our functions (which were authorized by Pensacola City Ordinance 9-01(passed in January, 2001)) only became a problem when the Community Maritime Park was to be built at the end of our street, announced on March 20, 2005, the day after we were illegally closed. All of a sudden, our important property became a problem and, it appears, had to be taken away from us.
The Pensacola City Attorney stated to the FDLE General Counsel, “Ms Mead’s building was conditionally permitted as an art gallery and an antique shop with no outside displays permitted when she purchased it and it still is today.”
The FDLE General Counsel stated to me, “I have also learned that you were initially permitted as an art gallery and antique shop that includes a restriction of no outside displays.”
That is not true. The facts are that the building was used as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions since 1980, before the current zoning and conditional uses came into effect and was grandfathered as such. We bought the business in 1998 and beautifully restored this historic building and won the award for best-restored historic house in 2000.
In 2000, Pensacola City Officials recognized, based on Pensacola City Ordinances and Pensacola City Records of our property, that we were grandfathered as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions, granted us an occupational license and authorized us to resume operation.
Further proof that we do not have nor have ever had a Conditional Use, is that on Aug 15, 2005, Mr. Cowper, Director of the Pensacola Community Development Department, sent an email “we have no record that a conditional use permit was ever approved by the planning board and city council for an art gallery.” And, “While I do not wish to see you sell your property I’m sure that you can understand that I must enforce the applicable zoning regulations. I encourage you to review the applicable zoning regulations and to restrict the use of your property to those allowed. “
On September 01, 2005, Mr. Cowper sent an email, “Ms. Mead, Based upon information and evidence presented by you along with city records that I have reviewed I am convinced that the use of the property for an antique store / art gallery is indeed grandfathered. …” but still refused to let us use our property for functions as properly authorized.
The Pensacola City Attorney and the FDLE General Counsel, in 2010, said that our initial closing (in 2005) was due to us violating a Conditional Use. This was the first time (in 2010) that we have heard this excuse for our illegal closing. We don’t have a Conditional Use so we can’t possibly violate it. If the FDLE General Counsel had read the facts, surely he would have realized something as simple as we can’t violate the terms of a Conditional Use if we don’t have one. In addition, the Pensacola City Attorney and the FDLE General Counsel indicated that outside displays meant outside functions. That is not true. Outside displays means outside displays of art and antiques for sale which, even though we don’t have a Conditional Use, we have never done as that would be tacky. We are in compliance with no outside displays.
In addition, based on the Standard Building Code of 1997, the authority at that time, assembly certificates of occupancy in PR2 were allowed to have social functions and that assemblies of less than 100 were to be a business certificate of occupancy, which we are, so we are doubly allowed to have functions.
The Pensacola City Attorney stated to the FDLE General Counsel, "she is free to engage in those or any other uses authorized by the zoning code." This is not true as the Pensacola Zoning Code authorizes us to have functions.
The Pensacola City Attorney stated to the FDLE General Counsel, "a large wedding produced a great deal of on-street parking and other outside activity associated with weddings and receptions."
This is a false statement. In spite of the fact that we were authorized to have up to 99 persons, according to our records, we never exceeded 85 persons. We don't want too many people in our beautifully restored house.
Since we restrict functions, by contract, to less than 100 people, we have had no problems with parking. No neighbor has ever complained about the parking and the City has never issued a citation or notified us of a legitimate parking problem.
The facts about parking are that a City Ordinance grandfathered parking to the parking available in 1994. Sec. 12-3-1. Off-street parking spaces requirements.
(7) The number of off-street parking spaces provided for buildings constructed prior to October 13, 1994, shall be deemed in compliance with the requirements of this code, for as long as the same land use is maintained within the same building footprint.
Our building was constructed in 1883 and was used from @1980 on as an art gallery/antique shop holding functions (documented in City records) where the previous owner had many social functions, as part of her business, as I have previously indicated. There are no changes in the building footprint (since initial construction in 1883) and the same land use has been maintained at least since
198. We fall under this exclusion.
In addition to being grandfathered, our parking lot (off-street parking) exceeds 20 spaces and we are required, by current ordinance, to have only 14 spaces so we are doubly covered for parking authorization. In addition, there is designated, demarked on-street parking on both sides of Spring Street to accommodate over 100 parking spaces, within 500 feet of our building, of on-street parking.
While the FDLE General Counsel made false statements and false charges against me, based on false statements and false charges made by the Pensacola City Attorney, who is the City Representative in this matter, and, apparently, the Florida State Attorney, Mr. Eddins, the FDLE General Counsel ignored the valid charges I made against Pensacola City Officials since our illegal closing; our fully authorized business was closed down without due process. No notice, warning, citation, hearing or anything was given, in violation of Pensacola City Ordinance Sec. 13-2-2. Authority to issue citations and citations procedure and in violation of Pensacola City Ordinance 9-01 which specifically authorizes us to have functions.
(a) Prior to issuing a citation, a designated code enforcement officer shall provide notice to the person that the person has committed a violation of a code provision and shall establish a reasonable time period within which the person must correct the violation. …
Pensacola City Officials illegally ignored proper procedures, due process. They claim that we broke the ordinances of the City by having functions which is a false statement as we were and are completely authorized to have functions. If we had broken Pensacola City Ordinances, the procedures stated above, by Pensacola City Ordinance, must apply. Instead, a Pensacola Police Officer informed us, at 7:00 PM on a Saturday night, during the celebration of a wedding, that we were breaking the law as we were not authorized to have functions on our property and that we were closed down entirely – for every use. No prior notice was given and no citation was issued and no valid reason has ever been given for our closing.
Since there is no basis in the law for closing us down, it seems that the main purpose of Pensacola City Officials is to illegally close us down, without due process, keep us closed down, without due process, and force us to sell. Even though the current Pensacola Mayor, Mayor Hayward, appears to be aware that all charges against us are false, as I stated above, he has ignored me and my correspondence and refuses to lift the illegal ban against us operating as we are legally authorized. All of these actions appear to indicate wide-spread government corruption. The corruption appears to be so bad that it appears that we are not allowed to live in a representative/democratic environment but our government appears to resemble another form of government. It appears that the dictates of an illegal power cartel is followed here instead of the laws put in place by our elected officials and the U. S. Constitution.
Several years ago, my husband and I realized that Pensacola City Officials and Florida State Officials were stalling until my husband and I passed away, since we are elderly. My husband of 39 years, Gene, did pass away last year, May 5, 2010, after a long battle with cancer, without us being able to use our property as legally authorized.
The stalling routine is: Pensacola City Officials give a reason for our closing, no Conditional Use, and I counter with the reason we are legal, we are grandfathered. Then Pensacola City Officials think of a new reason for our closing, no parking, and I counter with the reason we are legal, our parking is grandfathered to 1994 and, in addition, we exceed current requirements. Current requirements call for 14 parking spaces and we have 20 parking spaces. The current reason for our closing is that we are violating our Conditional Use and I have countered with the reason we are legal - we don’t have a Conditional Use.
I wrote the FDLE General Counsel, again, and told him the facts, with accompanying documentation. The FDLE General Counsel still refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us.
I wrote Mr. Bailey on February 17, 2011, regarding the FDLE General Counsel’s letter which was filled with false charges and false accusations against me and based solely on the Pensacola City Attorney’s email (aided by the Florida State Attorney) to the FDLE General Counsel ignoring the heavy factual documentation contained in my correspondence. I rebutted the Pensacola City Attorney’s email and stated that all of the statements Pensacola City Officials had given as the reason for our illegal closing were false. I asked that the apparent illegal/criminal actions against us be stopped. Mr. Bailey, Director of the FDLE, ignored the apparent illegal/criminal actions against me and never responded to this letter.
I wrote Mr. Bailey, again, on April 2, 2011, restating my previous letter and again asked that the illegal/criminal actions against us be stopped. Mr. Bailey ignored this letter also and has not responded.
The action on the part of FDLE General Counsel in repeating undocumented false charges and undocumented false statements instead of the heavily documented report I submitted concerns me as I am now questioning the findings of the FDLE, as I stated above. It appears that FDLE may not really investigate or even read the facts but stands behind fellow government officials no matter if the officials are right or wrong. This concerns me very much as I now doubt the credibility of the FDLE on any issue they investigate. FDLE has failed to do its job regarding our situation.
Pensacola City Officials, Florida State Officials and Federal Officials, appear to be violating local ordinances, state laws and the United States Constitution, which is especially egregious, as I stated above, since both my late husband and I are veterans and served to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
