To share your story, email us.

OR FEEL FREE TO COMMENT BY SENDING US AN EMAIL, we will review your comment and post on this site.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, in fact have no legal training whatsoever! I have been through the process of dealing with code enforcement.

Any information in conversations or posted on my websites is not legal advice. You should do your own research and consult with proper legal counsel before embarking on any court proceedings including code enforcement. The corruption and the way these people treat the law with such disdain is appalling and traitorous. Always research the laws and hold them accountable to the law. Use the legal system they have bastardized against them and then out litigate lawyers as laymen. This is a great victory, to out litigate trained lawyers. Dedication, study, research and more research. Read the law over and over again and then apply the law to your situation.

Review of documents:

MEG WITTMER, VIOLATING CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: You can't make this stuff up!
Meg Wittmer First Amendment Violation
MEG A. WITTMER, VIOLATING CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: You can't make this stuff up!
Meg Wittmer First Amendement Violation2
UPDATE: SHE NEVER SHOWED UP IN CHARLOTTE COUNTY.

MOTION TO EXERCISE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO VIDEO RECORD PUBLIC HEARING

Petitioner, _______________, pursuant to Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes, Florida Attorney General Opinions 91-28, 77-122, 99-53 and the Government In The Sunshine Manual, 2018 edition, respectfully moves this administrative court for the ability to exercise his first amendment constitutional rights to video record the public hearings held on December 6, 2018, in Charlotte County at 18500 Murdock Circle, County Administration Center, Port Charlotte, Florida. In support thereof Petitioner states the following:

1. This matter is before the code enforcement special magistrate.

2. Administrative hearings are currently scheduled for ________________, 2018.

3. Special magistrate Meg Wittmer has directed in her notice of hearing that:

“THERE SHALL BE NO VIDEOTAPING OR AUDIO RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDING”
(Exhibit A).
4. Magistrate Wittmer lacks the authority and discretion to prohibit citizens from video taping public hearings she presides over.
5. Charlotte County has advertised on their website:

“The hearings are quasi-judicial, subject to the Florida Sunshine Law. The CESM must not discuss any matter unless such discussion occurs at a hearing advertised and open to the public.”
(Exhibit B).
6. Florida Statute § 286.011 states it pertinent part:

“(2) The minutes of a meeting of any such board or commission of any such state agency or authority shall be promptly recorded, and such records shall be open to public inspection. The circuit courts of this state shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctions to enforce the purposes of this section upon application by any citizen of this state.

(3)(a) Any public officer who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a noncriminal infraction, punishable by fine not exceeding $500.

(b) Any person who is a member of a board or commission or of any state agency or authority of any county, municipal corporation, or political subdivision who knowingly violates the provisions of this section by attending a meeting not held in accordance with the provisions hereof is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 
775.082 or s. 775.083.”

7. The 2018 Government In The Sunshine Manual, page 44, states in pertinent part:

“6. Restrictions on public attendance
a. Cameras and tape recorders

A board or commission may adopt reasonable rules and policies which ensure the orderly conduct of a public meeting and require orderly behavior on the part of those persons attending a public meeting. A board, however, may not ban the use of nondisruptive recording devices. Pinellas County School Board v. Suncam, Inc., 829 so. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (school board’s ban on unobtrusive videotaping invalid). Accord AGO 91-28. And see AGO 77-122 (silent nondisruptive tape recording of district meeting permissible).
The legislature in Ch. 934, F.S., appears to implicitly recognize
the public’s right to silently record public meetings. AGO 91-28. Chapter 934, F.A., the security of Communications act, regulates the interception of oral communications. section 934.02(2), F.S., however, defines ‘[o]ral communication’ to specifically exclude ‘any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting . . . .’ See also inf. op. to Gerstein, July 16, 1976, stating that public officials may not complain that they are secretly being recorded during public meetings in violation of s. 934.03, F.S.

b. Exclusion of certain members of the public

The term ‘open to the public’ as used in the sunshine law means open to all persons who choose to attend. AGO 99-53. Cf. Ribaya v. Board of Trustees of City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in City of Tampa, 162 So. 3d 348, 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (although there appears to be no case law ‘squarely resolving’ whether a wrongful exclusion of one person would void all actions taken at the meeting, ‘there is legal support for that proposition’).” (Emphasis added)(Exhibit C).
8. The Florida Attorney General has found:
Q: As a private citizen, can I videotape a public meeting?
A: “
A public board may not prohibit a citizen from videotaping a public meeting through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices.”

http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#11

9. Moreover, the Florida Attorney General has stated in AGO 91-28:

“A municipality may not prohibit a citizen from video taping the meetings of the city council through the use of nondisruptive video recording devices.
Section 286.011, F.S., Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, requires that meetings of a public board or commission be ‘open to the public.’ Underlying the Sunshine Law's guarantees of public access is a recognition of the public's right to be informed of the actions of its public officials.

In previously considering a similar issue, this office stated that a rule which prohibits the use of all tape recorders, including silent taping devices that are neither distracting nor disruptive, was in conflict with the public policy of the state as interpreted under s. 286.011, F.S.[1] While a public board may adopt reasonable rules and policies to ensure the orderly conduct of its public meeting and to require orderly behavior on the part of those attending, rules prohibiting the use of silent or nondisruptive tape recording devices would appear to be unreasonable and arbitrary and, therefore, invalid.
Moreover, the Legislature in s. 934.02(1), F.S., appears to implicitly recognize the public's right to silently record public meetings. Chapter 934, F.S., the Security of Communications Law, regulates the interception of oral communications. Section 934.02(2), F.S., however, defines "[o]ral communication" as specifically excluding "public oral communication uttered at a public meeting."
Therefore, I am of the opinion that a municipality may not prohibit a citizen from video recording the meetings of the city council through the use of nondisruptive video taping devices.”

Robert A. Butterworth - Attorney General

(Emphasis added)
(Exhibit D).
10. Petitioner maintains a First Amendment U. S. Constitutional, State Statutory, and County Ordinance right to video record the scheduled public hearing.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner has a Constitutional and substantive right to video record the public hearing scheduled in this case and special magistrate Meg Wittmer would be abusing her discretion by refusing to allow the video documentation of the hearing. A denial to exercise constitutional rights shall be a miscarriage of justice and denies the Petitioner his rights as a citizen.

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE


Petitioner, _________________, files this motion to disqualify Special Magistrate Meg Wittmer and has a clear and undeniable objection to her presiding over hearings on ________________, 2018, and any future cases or dates.
In support, Petitioner shows the following:

1. Special Magistrates in Charlotte County are required by County Ordinance and State Statute to be residents of Charlotte County.

2. Charlotte County Ordinance 1-2-101 states in pertinent part:

“(b) Code enforcement board and special magistrate.


(1) Jurisdiction...

(c) Wherever the term ‘code enforcement board’ is used in county codes, land development regulations or other ordinances of the county, the term special magistrate shall be deemed to be included.

(Emphasis added).

(2) Creation and membership of code enforcement board.

a. There is hereby created within the county a code enforcement board which shall be composed of seven (7) members,
all of whom shall be residents of the county.”


(
emphasis added)


    4. Pursuant to this ordinance special magistrate Meg Wittmer shall be treated as if her duties were the same as a code enforcement board and she shall be required to meet the same criteria as board members, which specifically requires she be a resident of Charlotte County.


    Wherefore, since special magistrate Meg Wittmer is a non-resident of the county, she is unqualified to serve as a special magistrate and must disqualify herself from this and any future proceedings in Charlotte County.

    Meg Wittmer unfair justice
    MEG WITTMER

    Meg A. Wittmer VILE MEN INCOMPETENT

    MEG WITTMER
    Meg Wittmer MEG A. WITTMER

    MEG WITTMER

    Injustice Meg Wittmer Stripped copy
    MEG WITTMER

    Meg Wittmer

    MEG WITTMER SARASOTA COUNTY
    MEG WITTMER CHARLOTTE COUNTY
    ATTORNEY MEG WITTMER
    MEG ANN WITTMER
    MEG A. WITTMER
    MEG WITTMER SARASOTA
    MEG WITTMER FLORIDA
    MEG WITTMER SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
    SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MEG WITTMER
    MEG WITTMER ATTORNEY