complaint against governmental entity for refusal to permit public comment
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
1/33
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA
)CHARLES GRAPSKI, )
) CASE NO.:Plaintiff, )
) DIVISION:vs. )
)CITY OF ALACHUA, )a Florida municipal corporation and )CLOVIS WATSON, JR., in his )official capacity as City Manager, City Clerk )and Police Commissioner )of the City of Alachua, )
)Defendant. )/
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
Plaintiff, CHARLES GRAPSKI, brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,
seeking a judgment declaring certain practices and policies of the CITY OF ALACHUA,
and its agents, to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution. Plaintiff also
asks the Court to permanently enjoin the enforcement of the challenged practices and
policies.
JURISDICTION
1 This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States orother person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of anyrights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
Page 1 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
2/33
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, orother proper proceeding for redress...
2 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter which is a civil rights
action involving a constitutional question. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction to
enter declaratory judgments pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes.
3 This Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent
violations of the Plaintiffs rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of
the United States and of the State of Florida, and under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, and
1988, specifically seeking redress for the deprivation under color of state statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States. The rights sought to be protected in this
cause of action arise and are secured under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution.
PARTIES
4 Plaintiff CHARLES GRAPSKI (GRAPSKI) is a natural person, sui
juris, and a resident of the City of Alachua, Alachua County, Florida.
5 Defendant CITY OF ALACHUA is a Florida municipal corporation
situated in Alachua County, Florida.
6 Defendant CLOVIS WATSON, JR., is the City Manager, City Clerk and
Police Commissioner for the City of Alachua, and is sued only in his official capacity.
Page 2 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
3/33
VENUE
7 The CITY OF ALACHUA is located in Alachua County, Florida. All of
the acts complained of herein have occurred in the City of Alachua and venue is proper
in Alachua County, Florida.
FACTS
8 CHARLES GRAPSKI is a political and social activist with a keen interest
in the governance and operations of the CITY OF ALACHUA.
9 GRAPSKI has led a campaign to foster strict compliance with the public
records laws of the State of Florida (Chapter 119) and is particularly interested in what
he believes is the blatant disregard of those laws by the CITY OF ALACHUA.
GRAPSKI has submitted frequent public records requests to the CITY on his on behalf
and as a principal in a non-profit corporation known as The Open Records Project, Inc.
10 GRAPSKI has also been active in litigation against the CITY OF
ALACHUA and various officials of the CITY with respect to a recent City election
which was marred by voter fraud and widespread procedural irregularities.
11 GRAPSKI has also been a vocal policy of many of the Citys policies,
including its routine use of the Consent Agenda process to enact laws and policies
without citizen participation or input.
12 GRAPSKI has also been a vocal critic of the current City administration
and of certain City personnel, including Defendant WATSON. Part of that criticism has
centered on the fact that WATSON holds a variety of positions in City government in
apparent violation of Florida law.
13 GRAPSKI is a frequent speaker at public hearings including City
Commission meetings.
Page 3 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
4/33
14 GRAPSKI intends to run for City Commission during the next election.
GRAPSKI has arranged to pick up the qualifying packet and expects to file the necessary
papers with the CITY Clerk on Friday, February 23, 2007.
15 The CITY OF ALACHUA and its various officials has taken an extremely
hostile and confrontational approach to Mr. GRAPSKIs inquiries and political activism.
In particular Plaintiff alleges the following:
A. WATSON previously arrested GRAPSKI at City Hall for allegedly taping
recording a conversation during one of GRAPKIs previous visits at City Hall. The arrest
occurred while GRAPSKI was viewing public records relating to the recent election
dispute. All charges against GRAPSKI stemming from this incident were later dismissed
in pretrial proceedings by the Court.
B. The Citys attorneys have also advised WATSON not to speak with
GRAPSKI concerning his public records requests under Chapter 119 of the Florida
Statutes. Other citizens of ALACHUA are not restricted from speaking with WATSON
about public records.
C. The Mayor of ALACHUA has been harsh and confrontational with
GRAPSKI when he has attempted to speak at public meetings.
16 The CITY OF ALACHUA primarily does business from its City Hall
located at 15001 N.W. 140th Street, Alachua, Florida (hereinafter City Hall).
17 The ALACHUA City Hall is where most City officials have their offices,
including Defendant WATSON and Alan Henderson, the Deputy City Clerk responsible
for maintaining public records.
18 Until very recently, City Hall was also the location where ALACHUA
held its public meetings, including meetings of the City Commission. Those meetings
Page 4 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
5/33
have been relocated temporarily pending completion of an investigation into a fire at City
Hall.
19 The ALACHUA City Hall is where the City canvasses votes following
elections.
20 The ALACHUA City Hall has also been the site over the years of a
variety of protests, public demonstrations, civic events, gatherings, shows and meetings,
some of which have to do with City businesses and others with private and social events.
As is the case with city halls in many small cities, the ALACHUA City Hall is a focal
point for the community and a natural gathering point for its citizens.
21 The Alachua City Hall is open during weekdays between normal business
hours. During those hours any citizen having business with the CITY or its agents and
representatives are invited and authorized to enter City Hall .
22 The parking lot and CITY property immediately surrounding City Hall is
itself accessed regularly by the citizenry and constitutes a traditional public forum.
23 GRAPSKI has as much right to access City Hall and the CITY officials
located therein as any other citizen in the community.
24 GRAPSKI regularly goes to the ALACHUA City Hall for the purpose of
meeting City officials, including Defendant WATSON, and for a variety of other reasons
which he shares in common with the general public. Many of GRAPSKIs visits to City
Hall are in furtherance of his efforts to obtain public records.
25 On February 12, 2007, GRAPSKI went to City Hall for the purpose of
speaking with several City officials concerning various public records requests which had
not been fulfilled by the CITY. GRAPSKI also wished to report what he believed were
criminal actions by various City officials in avoiding, covering up and failing to respond
Page 5 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
6/33
to various of his public records requests.
26 In particular, GRAPSKI intended to meet with and speak to Defendant
WATSON, Police Chief Robert Jernigan, Deputy Clerk Henderson, Deputy Clerk
Assistant Diane Morgan, Mike New, the Citys director of public services, and J.R.,
the Citys information technician.
27 During the course of the day, GRAPSKI met and spoke with each of those
individuals in furtherance of what he believed were his and the publics vital interests.
28 At approximately 1:00 P.M. GRAPSKI entered the trailer at City Hall
now serving as offices for Deputy Clerk Henderson for the purpose of inquiring about his
public records requests.
29 At that time and place, GRAPSKI was accompanied by Tamara Robbins,
a former ALACHUA Commissioner. Ms. Robbins also wished to meet with Mr.
Henderson to address both GRAPSKIs public records requests and certain requests
which she had filed on her own account.
30 GRAPSKI was also accompanied by Mike Canney, another local activist
who frequently videotapes GRAPSKIs interactions with CITY officials.
31 After announcing her presence, Ms. Robbins was invited or allowed to the
rear of the trailer where Mr. Hendersons desk was located. GRAPSKI accompanied Ms.
Robbins. Mr. Canney remained near the front of the trailer videotaping GRAPSKI and
Robbins.
32 Immediately upon seeing GRAPSKI, Mr. Henderson ordered GRAPSKI
to leave saying Out. Get Out. Henderson did not direct Ms. Robbins to leave.
33 GRAPSKI said nothing in response; he did not leave.
34 Henderson then engaged in a lengthy conversation with Ms. Robbins
Page 6 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
7/33
concerning the public records inquiries. At one point GRAPSKI asked Mr. Henderson
some questions to which Mr. Henderson replied without incident or quarrel.
35 After approximately five minutes WATSON entered and told GRAPSKI
that he was causing a disturbance.
36 WATSON did not accuse Ms. Robbins of causing a disturbance despite
the fact that she was acting and behaving in exactly the same manner. Indeed, at the time
WATSON arrived, Robbins was engaged in conversation with Mr. Henderson while
GRAPSKI was passively observing.
37 WATSON did not accuse Mr. Canney of creating a disturbance despite
the fact that he was videotaping the encounter. Videotaping is surely is not commonplace
at City Hall other than at public meetings.
38 GRAPSKI then addressed his public records complaints to WATSON,
and voiced his belief that the CITY was willfully failing to comply with Chapter 119.
39 During his brief conversation with Mr. Henderson and his more lengthy
discussion with WATSON, GRAPSKI was firm and insistent, but did not raise his voice
or use profanity, did make any threats, did not engage in wild gesticulations and did not
interfere with CITY business.
40 WATSON requested that GRAPSKI follow him outside to continue the
conversation; GRAPSKI immediately complied.
41 Upon exiting the trailer, WATSON informed GRAPSKI that he had to
vacate the premises.
42 WATSON did not require that Robbins leave the premises. Robbins was
permitted to continue her discussions with Mr. Henderson. Likewise Mr. Canney was not
asked to leave. He continued videotaping Mr. Robbins conversation with Mr. Henderson
Page 7 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
8/33
as well as GRAPSKIs conversation with WATSON.
43 Immediately thereafter, Chief Jernigan arrived and instructed GRAPSKI
to leave City Hall.
44 GRAPSKI demurred. Instead, he demanded that Jernigan take a statement
from him and investigate possible criminal violations of Chapter 119.
45 Chief Jernigan refused to take a statement from GRAPSKI .
46 A second ALACHUA police officer arrived at the scene and told
GRAPSKI that he would be issued a trespass warning if he refused to leave City Hall.
47 Again GRAPSKI demurred.
48 The ALACHUA officer then issued GRAPSKI a written trespass warning.
A copy of the warning is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
49 GRAPSKI inquired of the officer the geographic extent of the warning
and the duration of the trespass warning.
50 The ALACHUA officer replied that GRAPSKI was barred from
approaching or entering the ALACHUA City Hall and was further barred from any of the
property owned by the CITY at 15001 N.W. 140th Street, including the parking lot. The
ALACHUA officer further informed GRAPSKI that he was barred from those properties
for a period of one (1) year and that he was subject to immediate arrest if entered those
CITY properties for any reason during that time period.
51 GRAPSKI then removed himself from the CITY parking lot and stood on
the road right of way.
52 At that time an Alachua County Sheriffs Deputy arrived having been
called by Ms. Robbins and GRAPSKI. The Deputy took a statement from GRAPSKI
concerning Plaintiffs belief that CITY officials were engaged in criminal violations of
Page 8 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
9/33
Chapter 119.
53 GRAPSKI then left the area.
54 While the trespass warning states that it was issued to GRAPSKI because
he was disturbing the peace GRAPSKI was not charged with that crime or any other
crime as a result of his presence at City Hall on February 12, 2007.
55 Because of the Trespass Warning lodged against him by CITY officials,
GRAPSKI can no longer enter City Hall for any purpose. Furthermore, the Trespass
Warning necessarily prevents GRAPSKI from meeting CITY officials at City Hall as he
previously did on a regular basis.
56 GRAPSKI is fearful that he will be arrested immediately if he enters
CITY HALL or any of the surrounding CITY property. That fear is quire reasonable
considering the CITYs prior arrest of GRAPSKI on false charges and his later arrest
for unrelated activities at a CITY COMMISSION meeting.1
57 In order for GRAPSKI to qualify for the City Commission race this term,
he must file qualifying papers at City Hall. GRAPSKI is fearful that, if he attempts to file
the election papers, which are a prerequisite to qualifying for public office, he will be
arrested pursuant to the Trespass Warning.
58 The Trespass Warning prohibits GRAPSKI from inspecting public records
kept at City Hall.
59 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to petition to the government for redress
of grievance.
60 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to engage in political speech and to
1 The CITY subsequently arrested GRAPKSI for unrelated criminal charges associatedwith GRAPKSIs presence at a Commission meeting later on February 12, 2007.However, those charges have nothing to do with the Trespass Warning and are not thesubject of this litigation.
Page 9 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
10/33
speak with representatives of CITY government on matters of concern to the Plaintiff.
61 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to access public property and public
officials on the same terms and conditions as other citizens of ALACHUA.
62 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to run for public office free of
infringement and interference by government and its agents.
63 Plaintiff has the right under the Florida Constitution and Florida law to
request and access public records.
Page 10 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
11/33
64 The Trespass Warning operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint in the
following respects:
A. Plaintiff is unable to fully exercise his constitutional rights while the
Trespass Warning is in effect.
B. There are no standards set forth in Florida law or local ordinance which
restrict the discretion of the police official in issuing a Trespass Warning; rather police
officers are directed to issue a Trespass Warning simply upon complaint of the property
owner. As a result government officials have unbridled discretion to determine whether a
Trespass Warning will issue.
C. There are no standards set forth in Florida law or local ordinances limiting
the prior restraint to a specified brief period of time.
D. The time period under which this particular prior restraint was issued (one
year) is not brief and was subject to the whim of the individual police officer.
E. There are no provisions for judicial review of the Trespass Warning.
F. The government is not required to seek judicial approval of the Trespass
Warning and the restraint is imposed without maintaining the status quo in favor of
speech and free access.
G. The government bears no burden of proof in issuing or maintaining the
Trespass Warning. Rather, the warning issued simply upon the unsworn complaint of a
CITY official (WATSON).
65 The Trespass Warning is not narrowly tailored but operates as a total ban
on Plaintiffs ability to petition the government for redress of grievances.
66 The Trespass Warning is not supported by a compelling government
interest.
Page 11 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
12/33
67 The trespass warning was entered at WATSONs direction and was issued
by CITY officials acting under color of state law and authority.
68 The trespass warning issued by CITY officials, acting under color of state
law and authority, violated Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
as well as the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution.
69 Plaintiff has retained Gary S. Edinger & Associates, P.A. and Joseph W.
Little, Esquire, as his attorneys to represent him in this action and has agreed to pay them
a reasonable fee, which fee Defendants must pay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1989.
COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Right to Petition Federal First Amendment)
70 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
71 This is an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the Trespass
Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments.
72 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the
Plaintiff the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
73. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to access public property and public officials to redress his legitimate grievances over the
conduct, policies and personnel of the CITY OF ALACHUA.
74 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right to
petition the government for redress of grievances.
75 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
Page 12 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
13/33
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of
grievances, now and in the future.
76 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the First,
and Fourteenth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants
actions, policies and procedures.
77 Plaintiff asserts that its position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally
sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants policies and practices,
have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to
his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment
declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.
78 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the Trespass Warning
and the Defendants actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Plaintiffs right to petition government for redress of grievances.
C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued
and is an illegal order.
D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff
from future access to City Hall because it operates as a prior restraint, is not narrowly
tailored and is not supported by a compelling government interest.
Page 13 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
14/33
E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants
for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an
award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.
G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT II INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Right to Petition Federal First Amendment)
79 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporate those allegations in this Count by reference.
80 This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACHUA
from enforcing the Trespass Warning against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
81 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the
Plaintiff the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
82. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to access public property and public officials to redress his legitimate grievances over the
conduct, policies and personnel of the CITY OF ALACHUA.
83 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right to
petition the government for redress of grievances.
84 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of
Page 14 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
15/33
grievances, now and in the future.
85 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the Trespass Warning
and the Defendants actions.
86 Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court
issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating
Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the future.
87 The public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. In
fact, the public interest is disserved by actions, such as those of Defendants, which
interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following injunctive relief:
A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from enforcing the
Trespass Warning against this Plaintiff;
C. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from issuing further
trespass warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs;
D. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a
reasonable attorneys fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
E. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
Page 15 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
16/33
which he may be entitled.
COUNT III DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Right to Free Speech Federal First Amendment)
88 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
89 This is an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the Trespass
Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under the First
and Fourteenth Amendments.
90 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
91. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.
92 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right of
free speech
93 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his First Amendment right of free speech, now and in the future.
94 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the First,
and Fourteenth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants
actions, policies and procedures.
95 Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally
sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants policies and practices,
have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to
Page 16 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
17/33
his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment
declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.
96 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the Trespass Warning
and the Defendants actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Plaintiffs right of free speech.
C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued
and is an illegal order.
D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff
from future access to City Hall because it operates as a prior restraint, is not narrowly
tailored and is not supported by a compelling government interest.
E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants
for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. A
F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an
award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.
G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT IV INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Right to Free Speech Federal First Amendment)
Page 17 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
18/33
97 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporate those allegations in this Count by reference.
98 This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACHUA
from enforcing the Trespass Warning against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs rights
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
99 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees
Plaintiffs right of free speech.
100. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.
101 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right of
free speech.
102 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of
grievances, now and in the future.
103 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the Trespass Warning
and the Defendants actions.
104 Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court
issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating
Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the future.
105 The public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. In
Page 18 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
19/33
fact, the public interest is disserved by actions, such as those of Defendants, which
interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following injunctive relief:
A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from enforcing the
Trespass Warning against these Plaintiff;
C. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from issuing further
trespass warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs;
D. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a
reasonable attorneys fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
E. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT V - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Right to Petition Florida Constitution)
106 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
107 This is an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the Trespass
Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under Article I,
Section 5 of the Florida Constitution.
108 Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution provides that [t]he people
Page 19 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
20/33
shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to
petition for redress of grievances.
109. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to access public property and public officials to redress his legitimate grievances over the
conduct, policies and personnel of the CITY OF ALACHUA.
110 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his state constitutional right
to instruct his representative and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
111 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his state constitutional right to instruct his representative and to petition the
government for redress of grievances, now and in the future.
112 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the Florida
Constitution as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants actions, policies and
procedures.
113 Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally
sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants policies and practices,
have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to
his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment
declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.
114 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the
enforcement of the Trespass Warning and the Defendants actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
Page 20 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
21/33
A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Plaintiffs right to instruct his representatives and to petition
government for redress of grievances.
C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued
and is an illegal order.
D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff
from future access to City Hall because it operates as a prior restraint, is not narrowly
tailored and is not supported by a compelling government interest.
E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants
for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an
award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.
G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT VI INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Right to Petition Florida Constitution)
115 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporate those allegations in this Count by reference.
116 This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACHUA
from enforcing the Trespass Warning against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs rights
under the Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution.
117 Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution provides that [t]he people
shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to
Page 21 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
22/33
petition for redress of grievances.
118 A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to access public property and public officials to redress his legitimate grievances over the
conduct, policies and personnel of the CITY OF ALACHUA.
119 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his state constitutional right
to instruct his representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
120 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his state constitutional right to instruct his representatives and to petition the
government for redress of grievances, now and in the future.
121 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the
enforcement of the Trespass Warning and the Defendants actions.
122 Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court
issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating
Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the future.
123 The public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. In
fact, the public interest is disserved by actions, such as those of Defendants, which
interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following injunctive relief:
A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
Page 22 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
23/33
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from enforcing the
Trespass Warning against these Plaintiff;
C. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from issuing further
trespass warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs;
D. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a
reasonable attorneys fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
E. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT VII DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Right to Free Speech Florida Constitution)
124 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
125 This is an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the Trespass
Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under Article I,
Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.
126 Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides that [e]very
person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible
for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of
speech
127. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.
128 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his right of free speech under
Page 23 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
24/33
the Florida Constitution.
129 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
violation of his right of free speech under the Florida Constitution, now and in the future.
130 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the Florida
Constitution as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants actions, policies and
procedures.
131 Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally
sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants policies and practices,
have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to
his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment
declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.
132 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the
enforcement of the Trespass Warning and the Defendants actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Plaintiffs right of free speech.
C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued
and is an illegal order.
D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff
from future access to City Hall because it operates as a prior restraint, is not narrowly
tailored and is not supported by a compelling government interest.
Page 24 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
25/33
E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants
for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. A
F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an
award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.
G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT VIII INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Right to Free Speech Florida Constitution)
133 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporate those allegations in this Count by reference.
134 This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACHUA
from enforcing the Trespass Warning against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs rights
under Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.
135 Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides that [e]very
person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible
for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of
speech
136. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights
to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.
137 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was
void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his right of free speech under
the Florida Constitution.
138 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on
February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing
Page 25 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
26/33
violation of his right of free speech under the Florida Constitution, now and in the future.
139 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the
enforcement of the Trespass Warning and the Defendants actions.
140 Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court
issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating
Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the future.
141 The public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. In
fact, the public interest is disserved by actions, such as those of Defendants, which
interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following injunctive relief:
A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from enforcing the
Trespass Warning against these Plaintiff;
C. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever
enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from issuing further
trespass warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs;
D. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a
reasonable attorneys fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and
E. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT IX DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Page 26 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
27/33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
28/33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
29/33
161 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the
enforcement of the Trespass Warning and the Defendants actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Plaintiffs right to inspect and access public records under Article I,
section 24 of the Florida Constitution.
C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued
and is an illegal order.
D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff
from future access to City Hall because it operates as a prior restraint, is not narrowly
tailored and is not supported by a compelling government interest.
E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants
for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an
award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.
G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
COUNT XII DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Equal Protection Fourteen Amendment and Florida Constitution)
162 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and
incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.
Page 29 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
30/33
163 This is an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the Trespass
Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs right of Equal
Protection under Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,
Section 2 of the Florida Constitution.
164 Plaintiff has the constitutional right to Equal Protection under the laws,
which includes the right to be treated the same as other citizens in similar circumstances.
165 On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff entered City Hall along with two other
citizens for the purpose of inquiring about the status of public records requests sent by
Plaintiff and others.
166 At that time and place, Plaintiff acted no differently than the other citizens
present for the same purpose.
167 At that time and place, Plaintiff had the same right to access City Hall as
the other two citizens, or indeed, any of the citizens of ALACHUA.
168 Plaintiff was treated differently than the two citizens who accompanied
him and differently than any other citizen of the CITY.
169 The Trespass Warning was issued only to Plaintiff and not to his
compatriots or other citizens.
170 The CITY has not previously issued Trespass Warnings to other citizens
directing them not to approach City Hall or its environs.
171 Plaintiff was singled out for selective and unequal enforcement and
suffered a unique disability imposed upon him and no other citizens of ALACHUA.
172 The CITY issued the Trespass Warning because it disagrees with the
content of GRAPSKIs speech, it seeks to punish Plaintiff for the exercise of his
constitutional rights, it objects to his particular social agenda, it wishes to hide public
Page 30 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
31/33
records and to frustrate his efforts toward political accountability and as specific
retaliation for his very public criticism of WATSON and the various policies and
procedures of the CITY.
173 The Trespass Warning was not issued for a legitimate law enforcement
purpose, but was issued in order to silence Plaintiff and frustrate his attempts to exercise
his most fundamental constitutional rights.
174 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the First,
and Fourteenth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants
actions, policies and procedures.
175 Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally
sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants policies and practices,
have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to
his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment
declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.
176 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving
Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the Trespass Warning
and the Defendants actions.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;
B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional
infringement upon Plaintiffs right of Equal Protection because Plaintiff was singled out
for selective enforcement of the laws based upon:
(1) the CITYs objections to the content of GRAPSKIs speech;
Page 31 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
32/33
(2) the CITYs desire to punish Plaintiff for the exercise of his
constitutional rights,
(3) the CITYs objection to Plaintiffs particular social agenda;
(4) the CITYS desire to hide public records and to frustrate
Plaintiffs efforts toward political accountability; and
(5) the CITYS desire to retaliate against GRAPSKI for his very
public criticism of WATSON and the various policies and procedures of the CITY.
C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued
and is an illegal order.
D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff
from future access to City Hall.
E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants
for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an
award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.
G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to
which he may be entitled.
CHARLES GRAPSKI
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ALACHUA
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared CHARLES
GRAPSKI, to me well known to be the person described as Plaintiff, who stated under
oath that he has read the foregoing Complaint and that all of the facts alleged in the
Page 32 of 33
-
8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment
33/33
Complaint are true and correct, on this day of February, 2007.
NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Florida
My Commission Expires:
GARY S. EDINGER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
JOSEPH W. LITTLE, Esquire GARY S. EDINGER, EsquireFlorida Bar No.: 196749 Florida Bar No.: 06068123731 N.W. 13th Place 305 N.E. 1st StreetGainesville, Florida 32605 Gainesville, Florida 32601(352) 392-2211 (352) 338-4440 (352) 337-0696 (fax)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]