Home » Users » Ginny Ross » Blog » This is an outrage. How can...
Democracy for America personal blog for Ginny Ross
This is an outrage. How can DFA help?
Grapski Charged With Felony Wiretapping; Arraignment Tomorrow; Election Reform Activist Forced To Drop Out Of House RaceBy Miriam Raftery
The State of Florida has filed felony wiretapping charges against election reform activist Charles Grapski for audiotaping his efforts to obtain public records related to his investigation of alleged election fraud. RAWSTORY has previously reported on officials attempts to suppress Grapski's investigation (www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Flori...). He faces arraignment Tuesday, October 17th.
"The State has held charges over my head since May 1st, six months," Grapski told RAWSTORY. "I have not been allowed until now the right of subpoena power to do discovery in my own defense. Now the State is saying I must choose between two rights: the right to a speedy trial, and my right to a fair trial."
Grapski was later banned by a judge from the City of Alachua, as RAWSTORY has previously reported. www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Flori...
Grapski, a Democrat, said he dropped out of his bid to win election to the House of Representatives due to the unresolved threat of legal challenges and the judicial ban, which made it impossible for him to campaign in his district. He endorsed Democrat Chuck Chestnut IV, who won the primary race.
"This is such a severe case of silencing and a violation of the First Amendment," said Carol Thomas, co-coordinator of Grapski's defense committee, along with Scott Doran. "He has been as effectively banned as any black person in South Africa during Apartheid. He is not able to contact any officials by snail mail, fax, telephone, e-mail, or even a third party person."
Grapski is charged with felony wiretapping for making an audiotape of his efforts to obtain documents at City Hall. Those documents related to a lawsuit alleging fraud in the canvassing of absentee ballots in the election of Commissioner James A. Lewis, who won by 18 absentee votes.
"This is not the first time that sitting Commissioners who are candidates for an election have won by absentee votes. This seems to be a chronic problem here and nobody takes it seriously," Thomas said. "Suddenly absentee ballots disappear. It's outrageous."
Grapski audiotaped City Manager Clovis Watson, who commented on the fact that he was being taped, consented and kept talking, Thomas noted. Subsequently Watson, who also serves as Police Commissioner (an apparent violation of Florida law that prohibits officials from holding more than one public office at a time), ordered Grapski arrested.
"He didn't do anything a newspaper reporter doesn't do every day. It's absurd," Thomas said. "While he was being arrested, the editor of a newspaper was in there audiotaping this." A third person, Green Party representative Michael Canney, was also present making audiotapes. Canney and Grapski have been threatened with additional charges, but the newspaper editor has not, Thomas said.
Representatives from the State Attorney General's office were not available for comment.
"This is why I did record the meeting," Grapski said. "When public officials lie, the only thing that proves wrongdoing is the very tape the state has had in its possession since this issue began."
He added, "If I don't exercise my right to a speedy trial, they can hold this over me for several years. But if we demand speedy trial, we have a window of a week to act." The trial would then take place around Thanksgiving, he said, adding, "We are determined to get this over as quickly as possible."
The key obstacle is money. "We have to raise $40,000 this week in order for a speedy trial to occur," Thomas revealed. "We are trying to get together a nationwide defense fund.
Donations to the Legal Defense of Charles Grapski may be sent c/o Carol Thomas at P.O. Box 190, Alachua, FL 32616-0190.
Choosing between rights
Yes, that's what people face in our courts all the time, a choice between a speedy trial or a fair one. And, actually, because of the way charges are piled on, the latter is generally unlikely.
Our judicial system proceeds from the presumption (regarldless of what the Constitution demands) that everybody's guilty of something. So, if you throw enough charges at them, they'll admit one and then they get rid of the case (and the work it might entail) with a plea.
I personally think that the plea bargain is corrosive of respect for the rule of law.
Be that as it may, there are a whole lot of public officials, at all levels, who have a whole lot invested in keeping as much of their immunity from being accountable to the public, except on election day, as they can. It used to be that people acting in their official capacity didn't have to be accountable, unless they clearly violated the criminal law. More recently, however, what used to be referred to as "sovereign immunity" (a relic from the word of the king was the law) has been challenged in the courts and a number of decision have determined that the FAILURE to perform one official duties makes one liable to compensate an individual who's suffered injury as a result.
This, btw, is the situation that Bush/Cheney are attempting to address via various pieces of legislation granting them and their subordinates exemptions from various laws. Though ex post facto laws are contrary to the basic principles of our legal system, should they be called to account, the passage of these mitigating laws could be used in their defense to argue that there was no intention to violate the law and the passage of the legislation is evidence that the lawmakers agree. (How many congresscritters are aware that they are participating in a pre-emptive defense move by Bush/Cheney is an unanswered question).
Anyway, Clovis Watson is in a pickle. If he doesn't assert his authority and take the matter to court, he's, in effect, admitting that he was wrong and opens himself up to a suit for damages. He's probably been advised that the city liability insurance will not cover misdemeanor behavior. So, he's got to try a bluff.
I would advise Charlie to hang in there, except for the fact that $40,000 to come to a resolution within a week strikes me as a bit much.
It's my guess that the felony charge is necessary to get the matter before a jury. Misdemeanors do not rate a jury of one's peers. It's the same principle that necessitates charging juveniles who've been accused of serious crimes as adults. If they're dealt with as juveniles in juvenile court, they don't get a jury and may not even be provided with a defense attorney.
Since juvenile punishment consists of sending them to rehabilitative institutions that are presumed to be good for them, the "protections" accorded to adults from being deprived of their freedoms unjustly don't apply. Juveniles have no freedoms; they are, by definition, dependants, under the supervision of their families or the state.
Yes, that's what people face in our courts all the time, a choice between a speedy trial or a fair one. And, actually, because of the way charges are piled on, the latter is generally unlikely.
Our judicial system proceeds from the presumption (regarldless of what the Constitution demands) that everybody's guilty of something. So, if you throw enough charges at them, they'll admit one and then they get rid of the case (and the work it might entail) with a plea.
I personally think that the plea bargain is corrosive of respect for the rule of law.
Be that as it may, there are a whole lot of public officials, at all levels, who have a whole lot invested in keeping as much of their immunity from being accountable to the public, except on election day, as they can. It used to be that people acting in their official capacity didn't have to be accountable, unless they clearly violated the criminal law. More recently, however, what used to be referred to as "sovereign immunity" (a relic from the word of the king was the law) has been challenged in the courts and a number of decision have determined that the FAILURE to perform one official duties makes one liable to compensate an individual who's suffered injury as a result.
This, btw, is the situation that Bush/Cheney are attempting to address via various pieces of legislation granting them and their subordinates exemptions from various laws. Though ex post facto laws are contrary to the basic principles of our legal system, should they be called to account, the passage of these mitigating laws could be used in their defense to argue that there was no intention to violate the law and the passage of the legislation is evidence that the lawmakers agree. (How many congresscritters are aware that they are participating in a pre-emptive defense move by Bush/Cheney is an unanswered question).
Anyway, Clovis Watson is in a pickle. If he doesn't assert his authority and take the matter to court, he's, in effect, admitting that he was wrong and opens himself up to a suit for damages. He's probably been advised that the city liability insurance will not cover misdemeanor behavior. So, he's got to try a bluff.
I would advise Charlie to hang in there, except for the fact that $40,000 to come to a resolution within a week strikes me as a bit much.
It's my guess that the felony charge is necessary to get the matter before a jury. Misdemeanors do not rate a jury of one's peers. It's the same principle that necessitates charging juveniles who've been accused of serious crimes as adults. If they're dealt with as juveniles in juvenile court, they don't get a jury and may not even be provided with a defense attorney.
Since juvenile punishment consists of sending them to rehabilitative institutions that are presumed to be good for them, the "protections" accorded to adults from being deprived of their freedoms unjustly don't apply. Juveniles have no freedoms; they are, by definition, dependants, under the supervision of their families or the state.
Thank you Ginny for posting this very important piece.
And Thank You Monica for your always inciteful analysis
And Thank You Monica for your always inciteful analysis
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
Videos of some of the 64 House Healthcare Heroes standing strong for a public health insurance option
Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
Congressman Lloyd Dogget
Congressman Keith Ellison
Congressman Bob Filner
Congressman Phil Hare
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Blog for America
-
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST -
Send a message they can't miss
By Mary R on Nov 17, 2009 12:00 PM EST -
Will the real Democrat please stand up?
By Mary R on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST -
3 Million and Counting
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:47 PM EST -
Is Sen. Nelson listening to Nebraska?
By Mary R on Nov 6, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Recent Blog Posts
-
admin christian louboutin shoes cant
By Christian L on Nov 22, 2009 10:16 PM EST -
Judd Gregg's Vote Against Democracy
By Douglas M on Nov 22, 2009 8:34 PM EST -
Sunday items
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 22, 2009 8:25 AM EST -
Friday finds
By Gerry Lykins on Nov 20, 2009 7:48 AM EST -
1 Turncoat Senator vs. 410,649 Americans
By Mary R on Nov 19, 2009 3:06 PM EST

-
By Rocky Jones on Oct 24, 2006 1:49 PM EDTFirst is The Constitution of The Republic of The United States of America.
Bye Charlie
Robert