Dog Citation and MANBOD

Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.
Administrator

Life's Been Good To Me So Far Joe Walsh

Posts: 310

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 19, 2014 6:50:50 GMT -5 Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. likes this

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 19, 2014 6:50:50 GMT -5

Oct 18, 2014 22:10:51 GMT -5 GTO said:

Please tell why we need Police Patrol within the Resort? What pray tell, what is the Police Patrol going to due, that SLR's Security, can not do. The Police can not give out Tickets for traffic violations. Well maybe it is a Day Patrol, so our Leaders will not have to Bug, the Polk County Police Dept.'s switch board operator. This poor horse has been beat on before.

How about retro fitting Peet's Custom Dock, with the correct size pier post guides, now that may "Save A Life".

Lets be specific, the only Police are Lake Wales Police Department. SLR is out of LWPD jurisdiction, The only "Law Enforcement" in our area is the Polk County Sheriffs Department (PCSD) who is also Animal Control.

PCSD has consistently sided with management and the reason being is that our reserves make donations to the PCSD such as the time the poker room in the old annex was discovered to be a violation of Florida's Gaming Laws.

Did you know that if cited and you appear in Bartow County Court that unless you have the charges dismissed through a NOT GUILTY PLEA" and you either accept a "No Contest" or are found to be GUILTY, it says right on the Court Documents to

"MAKE YOUR CHECK PAYABLE TO THE POLK COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT" . This is not only a corrupted and misguided system but it is also a Constitutional Violation in most cases and a MISCARRIGE OF JUSTICE .

I have had one case dismissed so far as a result of false information being given to law enforcement and proven to 2 State Prosecutors that the actual citation itself was a violation of my 5th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America .

Yes, believe it or not, the Constitution still applies in S-bag LAKE RESORT !

I strongly suggest that if you are cited by PCSD that you carefully read the citation before signing it, IF there is any wrongful information then you should refuse to sign. If you do sign the citation with wrongful information you have just perjured yourself as you are attesting that the information is correct and accurate. The errors will then become fact and then you are facing a criminal record for a Negligent Sheriffs Report.

BUT, by NOT signing you will automatically be committing a Class 2 Misdemeanor. Either way you must appear in court several times before being dismissed of charges. This is how Citizens are expected to feed the system of PCSD/Animal Control.

PCSD hopes that you just accept the citation, either pay it or plead no contest "even if you are not guilty of anything" to avoid the hassle. The Sheriffs Dept. profits from criminalizing people and I can prove that with Official Polk County Records/Documents.

Here is the good side of all that, during your Arraignment the Judge will ask "Are you Employed?" you say "NO Your Honor". Then you qualify for a Public Defender and that is absolutely FREE and far better than feeding some scum sucking lawyer with your money you wont get back when your case is dismissed.

Need proof of all this? come to me, James H. Grnt and I will show you my Court Documents. This is all a result of Bth P. & M. e. l. K providing false info to PCSD. this will be proven to be what is known as *OBSTRUCTION: Providing False (lying) to Law Enforcement and carries a Jail term of up to one year in County Jail. Unless the charges are decided to be a FELONY, one can get up to 5 (FIVE) years in PRISON (not jail) .

I will make the future cases being brought on B.P. & M.K. available on this forum as they are a matter of Public Record and may be viewed with the link I will provide.

Public Order & Obstruction

*Under Section 837.05(1), Florida Statutes, it is a criminal offense for a person to knowingly give to a law enforcement or police officer false information regarding the commission of a crime. This offense is commonly confused with “False Report of a Crime,” which applies where the alleged crime reported did not actually occur. In a prosecution for Giving False Information Concerning the Commission of a Crime, a crime actually occurs, but the accused knowingly gives false information concerning it.

To prove the offense of Giving False Information, the prosecution must establish the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1The accused knowingly gave information about the alleged commission of a crime;
2The accused knew the information was false;
3The accused gave the false information to a person;
4The person to whom the information was given was a law enforcement officer;
5The accused knew that the person was a law enforcement officer.
Penalties for Giving False Information

Under Florida law, Giving False Information is a first degree misdemeanor, with penalties of up to 1 year in jail. If the false information concerns the commission of a capital felony, the offense may be classified as a third degree felony, with penalties that may include up to 5 years in prison.

In my case it was the Manager & Secretary B.P. that gave false information and I can also prove this as well w/Official PCSD Documents beyond a reasonable doubt.

J.H. Grnt

Last Edit: Oct 19, 2014 8:21:49 GMT -5 by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.

Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.
Administrator

Life's Been Good To Me So Far Joe Walsh

Posts: 310

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 19, 2014 9:41:03 GMT -5 Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. likes this

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 19, 2014 9:41:03 GMT -5

Just to correct some Disinformation being spread by the SLR secretary Bth P.

Bth P. has stated publicly that I, James Grnt, am taking her to court.

NOT ACCURATE-NOT TRUE

The State of Florida has sent a SUMMONS to Bth P.

NOT ME, James Grnt.

The SUMMONS is clearly and understandably stated as such that the State of Florida is demanding Bth P. to appear in Court.

I always am honest and I always prove myself, that NEVER changes.

**Anyone can search online by going to Polk County Clerk of Courts Bartow and look up anyone's criminal history. It's part of what YOUR TAX DOLLARS go for and it is part of "The Freedom of Information Act".

Admin
Administrator

"You don't achieve harmony by everyone singing the same note" - Doug Loyd

Posts: 2,585

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 4:41:55 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 4:41:55 GMT -5

Cross-posted from Saddleviewer under CHEMICAL CONCERNS:

Oct 26, 2014 20:23:32 GMT -4 saddleviewer said:
Anyone know how the case with B th came out?

Yes; however, like the Loch ren Mediation, it is not "our story to tell" on this Forum. It must remain a private matter to be shared only with the consent of the owner.

By the way, Admin is cross-posting it to the appropriate place on this Forum; possibly Saddleviewer was all stirred up reading the Chemical Concerns thread and posted about an unrelated issue.

By way of reminder, the Saddleviewer "Member" has been set up solely for viewing and downloading documents--a Forum feature unavailable to casual (non-registered) guests. Admin will forgive an occasional slipup when a Guest "accidentally" posts under that Member name, but wishes to take this opportunity to remind our Guests that they can always "read and post" under their own GUEST option and keep Saddleviewer freed up to other guests for the purpose which was intended.

Admin hopes that it will not become necessary to withdraw the Posting permission of Saddleviewer but, like the installation of a Post Quarantine, will do so if needed.

Thanks in advance to the Board & *Clappers for observing this. You can register anytime you like but are reminded that you will be required to read and agree to the Terms of Service and maintain a reasonable social standard of civility and public decorum.

*A descriptive and sardonic term applied to a sm all collection of BOD meeting groupies who are prone to automatic clapping after each agenda segment indicating mindless approval of any and all Board actions or comments.

Last Edit: Oct 27, 2014 7:53:41 GMT -5 by Admin

"Life begins at the end of your comfort zone". --Walsch

Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.
Administrator

Life's Been Good To Me So Far Joe Walsh

Posts: 310

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 6:38:40 GMT -5 Im Trying likes this

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 27, 2014 6:38:40 GMT -5

Oct 26, 2014 19:23:32 GMT -5 @saddleviewer said:

Anyone know how the case with B th came out?

Here are just a few of the key events that happened in court.

The judge was not fair and unbiased

The judge was given wrongful information by PCSD/Animal Control before docket call.

Bth P. was possibly coached by the SLR lawyer that every member (ED: may have) paid for.

as a result of the "coaching" Bth P. did not _________________ questions with what is provable on her official statement to Animal control (which I have all copies of).

Animal Control Records Person CHANGED the wrongful & negligent Sheriffs citation from "3rd dog running at large" to 1st dog running at large" after the fact in order to save face by manipulation.

Animal Control Ashley M. however did admit she recalls the previous court date (one of 4 I might add) that her citation was not only a negligent citation but also that it was a violation of my 5th amendment Constitutional right to not perjure myself by signing a negligent report or citation and was DISMISSED by Judge Fergus.

Now comes Animal control changing the charges and without notification to me I might add, and once again resulting in charging me with a county infraction even though I was not in the area (I was at the dentist and have a letter claiming such alibi),

Animal Control also changed the reported time of the alleged infraction by Bth P. from 9:22 am to 9:00am & from 3rd running at large to 1st offense.

To summarize: I was charged guilty for a crime I was not present for; I was charged with a crime that was not on the official Polk County Court Document that compelled me to appear for the crime of "3rd dog running at large"; events and statements where either disallowed or not allowed to be called into question even though those events were official statements made by Bth P. to Animal Control (a division of the PCSD)

I expected as much, and I will say that I actually still came away with a victory. Even at the expense of over 4 months of knowing I did nothing wrong, that my dog was never in violation of Ordinance 05-47 Dog Running at large.

I now have the opportunity to tell the community and other dog owners and be able to prove just how nasty and vindictive the manager is towards me once again.

I now have the opportunity to show and prove with official original negligent statements and reports from both Bth P. and from Animal Control.

I will close with saying that I forgive Bth P. for what she has done to my wife Carol and I, I will say that I know Bth P. was manipulated as a pawn to exact the managers consistent aggression on me personally.

When we have employees that are willing to lie, take advantage of residents that provide a job to them just to keep their job to enable the managers vindictiveness and hatred for "certain owners" it is truly a sad day for SLR. Not to mention ALL Members of the Association _____ (ED: may be) paying the lawyer fee for Bth P. but also the wages for JC-TH-MacInnes none of whom had been summoned to appear along with MK manager.(ED: We will be watching the check register to see if this was paid for by SLohA. Owners definately paid for the "downtime/non-productive time" of JC and Mamager, who were not summoned.)

Justice was not served on this day of the so called "hearing". and once again it involves an inept Sheriffs dog catcher, a vindictive manager and a liar Bth P. (provable with official documents)

Oh and lets not forget the madam judge that had already made eye contact with me before docket call and showed the body language that gave away her disposition towards me as "unfavorable".

No hard feelings, I know what the Sheriffs dept. is all about, I see how one judge abused the gavel, I see how corrupted Bth P. is and its OK.

I don't have to answer for any of that, however all of them will and it wont be through me .

Thank you all for reading.

James Grnt

Last Edit: Oct 27, 2014 7:53:19 GMT -5 by Admin

Admin
Administrator

"You don't achieve harmony by everyone singing the same note" - Doug Loyd

Posts: 2,585

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 7:29:04 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 7:29:04 GMT -5

OK Good, now that you have posted on this, I believe I can comment as I was present in the courtroom during this fiasco. My purpose was to support Carol while Jm was in the Courtroom from any comments or advances by the cadre of persons accompanying Bth. As it happened, everyone was permitted in the courtroom. The persons in attendance from SLR were:

1. Mamager,
2. Mamagers/Bth's attorney, Terror BearIt,
3. BOD Stv Suthrd, (not totally sure it was him, but he was identified to me and matched the description. If you are SS and it was not you, I will gladly retract with apology.)
4. Jhn Crmee, Maintenance foreman and
5. Teary Hayvn (Who knows why?)

Bth was the only one summoned and the only person permitted to testify.

First of all, I will say "A win is a win and a loss is a loss". Not everyone can be happy with the outcome.

However, there were numerous technical problems with this complex case; the first of which that you (Jm)--innocently--accepted the citation for your wife, Carol, to save her the anxiety of a situation that was obviously developing at the urging of MAMAGER to Bth. (Not the first time--remember the Lorenzo attack!) Mamager's insertion into the affair was abundantly apparent later, when Mamager--who was not a party to the incident--placed a call to Animal Control to "further explain" the situation to the PCSD.

By not signing the citation for Carol, (which is legal under the law), you became the person required to answer to the two charges. The first one, refusal to sign the petition, you won big time by pointing out the Catch 22 violation of your civil rights i.e. "if you sign a false document, you perjure yourself. If you refuse to sign a false document, you are statutorily guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor." This entire form is now being retooled to comply with constitutional law. And Polk County Sheriff is upset about this, to say the least. Perhaps the judge is, as well. Her behavior toward you was impatient and near-hostile. She did not treat the previous two cases that way and her behavior was very different in your case.

On the second citation, "dog running at large-3rd offense" you did succeed in getting Polk County Sheriff to admit there had been NO PRIOR citations and their citation was in error. What should have happened at that point, IMO, is that the citation should have been reissued properly TO CAROL. I believe that if you had engaged an attorney to represent you, that this is what would have happened.

Why cite to Carol?

Because SHE was the party present with your dog when Bth and the dog encountered (which, by the way, was some barking only). Only Carol could enter witness testimony as to exactly where the barking encounter took place. You could not. You were in the dentist's chair.

Bth could also have attested to the location, but this would have blown her "case" because employee parking is physically contiguous with the Dog Run and the dog was legally "off leash"! In fact, Bth was the intruder into the dog's territory. Not because she intended to provoke an encounter, but because MANBOD has not seen fit to protect SLohA employees from dogs running off leash in the Dog Run by providing a safe place to park their vehicles! Dogs and employees are expected to share the same space. Good call MANBOD!

Your loss was verbalized by the judge to be due to the fact that the location of the dog could not be established. Because of that, it was admitted by both parties, that the dog was not on private property. The dog was then adjudged to be "running at large" on common property. Despite the fact that the common property was a designated DOG RUN where it was permissible to allow dogs to run off leash--this fact could NOT be established. You lose.

So, MANBOD, go ahead and crow. You won. You spent a Lot of Money for this persecution of an Owner who pays your fee. Did you spend Owner Assessment monies to achieve your goal--estimated to be at least 4-5 billable attorney hours?

This should be a cautionary tale to ALL DOG OWNERS. The fact you are in the Dog Run needs to be established by the owner in attendance if you expect to defend you and your dog from attack by a "management" hostile to dogs.

Last Edit: Oct 31, 2014 9:19:42 GMT -5 by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.

"Life begins at the end of your comfort zone". --Walsch

Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.
Administrator

Life's Been Good To Me So Far Joe Walsh

Posts: 310

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 8:27:01 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 27, 2014 8:27:01 GMT -5

Ms. Admin, I would like to deliver to you all the official court docs, and the official statements made by Bth P. for you to look at and post. This will show the facts, the manipulation, and the lies.

You may post these Documents to this forum with my permission for all to read and decide what is provable and what will become gossip and rumor.

As always, I, James Grnt have nothing to hide, I am always open and honest and come correct at all times.

AKJG

Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.
Administrator

Life's Been Good To Me So Far Joe Walsh

Posts: 310

Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 9:40:21 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 27, 2014 9:40:21 GMT -5

Just to correct, there was no "growling" at Bth P. by my female spayed black Lab K9. My K9 playfully barked as the dog is smart enough to realize that when in the Designated Dog Run Area it is play time.

My K9 barks each and every time when some of my closest friends come to visit and on a daily basis, not barking to warn of any imminent attack but barking as a greeting and recognizing my friends that my dog enjoys seeing come to visit.

Admin Administrator "You don't achieve harmony by everyone singing the same note" - Doug Loyd Posts: 2,585	Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 9:51:37 GMT -5 Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 9:51:37 GMT -5 Sorry, I didn't make a distinction between the two kinds of doggie vocalization. There certainly is a difference if you are confronted by a "growl" or a "bark". I would not be totally freaked out by a "bark"!
	"Life begins at the end of your comfort zone". --Walsch

Admin Administrator "You don't achieve harmony by everyone singing the same note" - Doug Loyd Posts: 2,585	Dog Citation and MANBOD Oct 27, 2014 12:34:25 GMT -5 Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 12:34:25 GMT -5 Send 'em over and I'll warm the scanner up!
	"Life begins at the end of your comfort zone". --Walsch

Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin.
Administrator

Life's Been Good To Me So Far Joe Walsh

Posts: 310

Dog Citation and MANBOD Nov 25, 2014 7:13:19 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Nov 25, 2014 7:13:19 GMT -5

Oct 27, 2014 7:29:04 GMT -5 Admin said:

OK Good, now that you have posted on this, I believe I can comment as I was present in the courtroom during this fiasco. My purpose was to support Carol while Jm was in the Courtroom from any comments or advances by the cadre of persons accompanying Bth. As it happened, everyone was permitted in the courtroom. The persons in attendance from SLR were:

1. Mamager,
2. Mamagers/Bth's attorney, Terror BearIt,
3. BOD Stv Suthrd, (not totally sure it was him, but he was identified to me and matched the description. If you are SS and it was not you, I will gladly retract with apology.)
4. Jhn Crmee, Maintenance foreman and
5. Teary Hayvn (Who knows why?)

Bth was the only one summoned and the only person permitted to testify.

First of all, I will say "A win is a win and a loss is a loss". Not everyone can be happy with the outcome.

However, there were numerous technical problems with this complex case; the first of which that you (Jm)--innocently--accepted the citation for your wife, Carol, to save her the anxiety of a situation that was obviously developing at the urging of MAMAGER to Bth. (Not the first time--remember the Lorenzo attack!) Mamager's insertion into the affair was abundantly apparent later, when Mamager--who was not a party to the incident--placed a call to Animal Control to "further explain" the situation to the PCSD.

By not signing the citation for Carol, (which is legal under the law), you became the person required to answer to the two charges. The first one, refusal to sign the petition, you won big time by pointing out the Catch 22 violation of your civil rights i.e. "if you sign a false document, you perjure yourself. If you refuse to sign a false document, you are statutorily guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor." This entire form is now being retooled to comply with constitutional law. And Polk County Sheriff is upset about this, to say the least. Perhaps the judge is, as well. Her behavior toward you was impatient and near-hostile. She did not treat the previous two cases that way and her behavior was very different in your case.

On the second citation, "dog running at large-3rd offense" you did succeed in getting Polk County Sheriff to admit there had been NO PRIOR citations and their citation was in error. What should have happened at that point, IMO, is that the citation should have been reissued properly TO CAROL. I believe that if you had engaged an attorney to represent you, that this is what would have happened.

Why cite to Carol?

Because SHE was the party present with your dog when Bth and the dog encountered (which, by the way, was some barking only). Only Carol could enter witness testimony as to exactly where the barking encounter took place. You could not. You were in the dentist's chair.

Bth could also have attested to the location, but this would have blown her "case" because employee parking is physically contiguous with the Dog Run and the dog was legally "off leash"! In fact, Bth was the intruder into the dog's territory. Not because she intended to provoke an encounter, but because MANBOD has not seen fit to protect SLohA employees from dogs running off leash in the Dog Run by providing a safe place to park their vehicles! Dogs and employees are expected to share the same space. Good call MANBOD!

Your loss was verbalized by the judge to be due to the fact that the location of the dog could not be established. Because of that, it was admitted by both parties, that the dog was not on private property. The dog was then adjudged to be "running at large" on common property. Despite the fact that the common property was a designated DOG RUN where it was permissible to allow dogs to run off leash--this fact could NOT be established. You lose.

So, MANBOD, go ahead and crow. You won. You spent a Lot of Money for this persecution of an Owner who pays your fee. Did you spend Owner Assessment monies to achieve your goal--estimated to be at least 4-5 billable attorney hours?

This should be a cautionary tale to ALL DOG OWNERS. The fact you are in the Dog Run needs to be established by the owner in attendance if you expect to defend you and your dog from attack by a "management" hostile to dogs.

Just to let the "Players" on the other side of this know,

This is FAR from over.

JG

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 19, 2014 6:50:50 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 19, 2014 9:41:03 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 4:41:55 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 27, 2014 6:38:40 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 7:29:04 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 27, 2014 8:27:01 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Oct 27, 2014 9:40:21 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 9:51:37 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Oct 27, 2014 12:34:25 GMT -5

Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Nov 25, 2014 7:13:19 GMT -5