Correction

[Thomas Paine]

We freely admit our mistake concerning the title and or position of sgt at arms at city council meeting.
We stand by our interpretation of 03-33. We also standby our opinion of sgt at arms garland being fuster clucked. We also add to the question of fuster clucked sgt at arms garland's geographical knowledge of the
City of homestead in particular the parking area around city hall.

Your's most humbley, TOMPOCO

[Unregistered]

We freely admit our mistake concerning the title and or position of sgt at arms at city council meeting.
We stand by our interpretation of 03-33. We also standby our opinion of sgt at arms garland being fuster clucked. We also add to the question of fuster clucked sgt at arms garland's geographical knowledge of the
City of homestead in particular the parking area around city hall.

Your's most humbley, TOMPOCO

Nothing to be ashamed of. The city clerk violated FS. 119, by not providing the new policy in 119 request several people filed. They apparently didn't tell anyone they changed the policy, and they keep publishing the wrong policy as recently as at the December meeting.

Not that either policy gives permission/justification for Wright's illegal actions, and clearly Wright was under the impression he was following the old policy. What's really interesting is the "decum" card handed out at the meetings seems to be an amalgamation of both polices, picking and choosing the parts they like best from each.

Apparently this new policy was recently discovered when the city attorney speaking with the ACLU attorney trying to cover themselves for the other unlawful trespass, against Mr. Hill, presented it. But again it was never provided in multiple records request.

Interestingly enough the trespass papers for Mr. Hill claim he was trespassed for being impertinent and boisterous, but that is no longer part of the decorum policy and has not been since April 2016.

The whole deposition was a fuster cluck for Wright, as you say. Getting hostile with council, begging the ASA to defend him, inconsistent testimony, attempting to assert his "facts", and not just opinion, over video evidence. However, Monaco didn't do much better.

Wright's inability to describe the geography of a parking lot was an attempt to not get caught lying about the "witnesses" to Doc's breach of the peace. Yet the entire video, the parts not conatining Doc, not yet publicly released shows that there was no one in any part of the parking lot except the two ladies leaving. These ladies didn't turn to look until Wright was already going to arrest Doc. Wright was basically trying to hide the fact that he fabricated evidence to give him PC to arrest Doc, even though his fabrications did not meet the crime of disorderly conduct.

This is also not to mention that the City gave written confirmation the morning of the August meeting that Doc had not been trespassed, and that there was no paper work from the July meeting where he kicked Doc out.

What is even scarier is that 21 cops including Rolle ran out, and the video shows this. Clearly this was premeditated and retaliatory against Doc's First Amendment rights.

Also as you mentioned earlier it appears that Wright has latent racial biases and a tendency to act on them. Our group has gone over nearly every meeting where Wright is sergeant at arms, and he never goes after as single black person even though they have been louder, more disrespectful, slanderous, and making disruptions as they are exiting chambers, and use profanity.

Wonder how the next deposition goes over in the civil trial!

Well time to say good by to future raises.