miami beach code compliance press trial

MIAMI MIRROR – TRUE REFLECTIONS

of 2

30 December 2014

Raul Aguila, Esq. CITY ATTORNEY City of Miami Beach

Subject: Code Compliance Mystery Customer Report 003

Dear Sir:

I hope you are away on holiday and about to enjoy a very happy new year. When you return, I pray that you or one of your colleagues will examine the attached report.

Notwithstanding any incorrect inferences I have made therein, I believe its merits are worth to the city more than the $1,000 fine mistaken affirmed by the special master when she did not judge on the violation cited and appealed to her, failure to have a Special Event Permit, but rather took up the issue that the property owner and his entertainment company had failed to renew his Business Tax Receipt License until four days after the event in question, therefore he should go Scott Free, and the event promoter instead should be held responsible for the Special Event Permit on which no hard evidence that it was needed was offered at the hearing.

Your esteemed predecessor Jose Smith educated me on the fact that he drafted and the city commission adopted a resolution whereby the city manager’s office via someone in Finance may reduce or dismiss special master fines, and that is in practice done at the behest of or on the advice of the city attorney. I believe that a dismissal is in order in this case at your behest before the errors that have been made thus far result in any greater waste of time and expense. Justice would be fairly served, and the lessons already learned are valuable to everyone concerned including city officials.

Mind you that I am speaking here only as a friend of the city and not as an advocate of the defendant. As you know, I am a very critical friend of the city, and my interest is in good government.

1


of 2

Finally, please rest assured that I have the highest regard for Director HernanCardeno, Esq. That does not keep me from believing that he is more mistaken in his opinion in this matter than I am, and naturally so.

Sincerely,

David Arthur Walters

2


May 2014 GOOGLE picture of Scott Robins 743 Washington Avenue Club

27 December 2014

Note: Telephone Conversation with Floyd Bostic of NO CROWD CONTROL LLC

Floyd Bostic answered from his car. He said he was returning from an event he promoted in Mississippi. I said he would find a rough draft of a petition to rehear his case if he were interested in doing that, and that he should get an attorney to handle it if at all possible. The problem with that being, as everyone knows, an attorney’s fees would run as much as the fine to handle the petition to rehear, and, if the Special Master would not rehear or did and ruled against him, the fees to go to a real court could run $10,000 or the more, so the system has people like him by the balls.

Bostic reiterated the objection he had made at the Special Master hearing, that any fine for not having a use permit or tax receipt should have been on the landlord who rented him the premises.

I pointed out that the charge against him had nothing to do with that regular kind of permit, anyway, but whether or not he should have had a special event permit, and there was no evidence that he should have had one. It was as if he had gotten a ticket for running a stop sign, but when he went to court was found guilty of making a left turn. The Special Master was inexperienced, looking things up in books and asking the code officer prosecuting the matter. Without another attorney there to educate her, the code officer stood by as she was misled into thinking the case was about whether the landlord had a licensed to use the property, and whether, if he paid for the renewal four days after Bostic was there, who should be liable for the fine.

3

MIAMI MIRROR – TRUE REFLECTIONS I said I was impressed by the fact that he had appealed the $1,000 fine to the Special Master and had bothered to drive all the way back to South Beach. An LLC limits liability to the LLC, so many “shady” entrepreneurs, if there were no assets in the LLC, would simply form another LLC, name it, say, Crowd Uncontrolled LLC, and leave the city holding the old bag. Even so, if he came back to town and was required to apply for a permit, his name would be Mr. Mud.

Bostic said his interest was in building a good reputation for his promotional company since he was promoting events all over the country.

We discussed Hernan Cardeno’s notion that Bostic had come down here to break the law, thinking he could get away with it because the police would have their hands full with Black Week.

I said Cardeno was a nice guy but prejudices run deep in the subconscious, and I remember the time I was a kid and hitchhiked, from Chicago with another boy and our girlfriend from New Orleans, down South to carouse in saloons in the French Quarter, how the cops picked me up because I had military boots on, and when they found I was not AWOL, they held me as another body for a lineup. The cop in the squad room had said, “Ya’ll from Chicago think you can kin down heah and run wild.” Another cop laid into me with a rubber hose, and then bread and dirty water called soup for three days with truck drivers busted for having bags of white pills with crosses on them they used to stay awake. Hopefully things have changed.

Bostic said his experience had taught him not to hold events on big weeks like Urban Beach Week. He said he would be calling an attorney on Monday.

There is still no word from the Sharpton, Jackson, or the ACLU. This thing may not be black and white enough. Nothing ever is, and that seems to be the big problem with this world, what with all the grays. Gee, the blacks on Manhattan’s Columbus Avenue used to call me “gray boy.”

4


Page 1 of 2

December 27, 2014 Floyd Bostic www.nocrowdcontrol.com Via email RE: Draft Petition for Rehearing CBM v. No Crowd Control LLC Floyd Bostic: Attached and here below is a suggested draft for a Petition for Rehearing of your case by the Special Master, based on my study of the case as a journalist, given all the information provided to me by you so far and the public record. Beware: I am not an attorney, and my opinions may be legally unsound. I do not pretend to give you advice except to speak freely as to what I myself would do if I were confronted with the record as it exists. You may or may not decide to ask for a rehearing. If you do, and, if at all possible, you should have an attorney review and revise the draft, and file it on his letterhead for impact. Even if the special master denies your petition, at least you will have preserved the objections on the record for appeal to a real court. The special master facility is administrative, meaning that it is quasi‐judicial. This local type of facility was allowed by the state legislature due to popular demand for a more casual process to save people from the need to hire attorneys to represent them in circuit court in order to defend them against expert authority. However, it is wise to have a licensed attorney represent you in these administrative hearings if you can afford it, because the facility is by no means the popular independent device it was intended to be, and has become nothing more than an arm of the prosecuting authority. The City of Miami Beach is all of a piece and does not have independent "branches" balancing out the powers that be. Since No Crowd Control is an artificial person, I believe only an attorney can file a notice of appeal with a real court, i.e. the circuit court, which would be the next step if your request for

5


Page 2 of 2

rehearing is denied. That does not necessarily mean that your case would have to be heard by the circuit court; once the notice of appeal is filed, you could petition a person designated in the city manager's office to reduce or eliminate the fine by dismissal‐‐in practice that process is done via the city attorney's office. Best Regards, David Arthur Walters

6


Page 1 of 2

DRAFT PETITION FOR REHEARING

(ROUGH DRAFT FOR LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEW)

December 29, 2014

Annette Cannon, Esq. SPECIAL MASTER City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 [email protected]

Via E‐mail and U.S. Mail

RE: JA14000277 City of Miami Beach v. No Crowd Control, LLC Code Compliance File:“CE14009437 CCVIO SPECIAL: Special Event”

Dear Special Master:

It is with all due respect that I petition you to have this case reheard inasmuch as new evidence has come to light, and the record reveals that you failed to consider or overlooked details that render your findings erroneous.

To wit: The findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered at the hearing demonstrate that the decision was definitely rendered in error inasmuch as:

1) The 25 May 2014 violation charged was for not having a special event permit, and not for 743 Washington Entertainment LLC’s(a Scott Robins Company) technically expired usage as per your finding, the past due fee for the business tax receipt being paid a mere four days after the several citations of which the absence of a special event permit is the only one surviving,payment for the business tax receipt renewal perhaps being made out of the $20,000 the event promoter paid to Scott Robins’ company for the use of the hall.

2) There was absolutely no hard evidence or witness testimony presented at the hearing that there was a requirement for an extraordinary or special event permit.

3) Any fine for the special master’s finding, that there was no usage permitted and business license for 743 Washington Entertainment LLC because it did not pay the renewal fee until 29 May 2014, should have been charged to Scott Robins’ company, the hall operator, and not to No Crowd Control, the incidental promoter.

7

Administrator

Draft


Page 2 of 2

4) The promoter from out of town, No Crowd Control, is not located in the city and is therefore not required to have a local business tax receipt license for the promotion of a single event in the city (see Sec. 102.357 of the Miami Beach Code of Ordinances).

5) The city manager will confirm that city policy at the time of the citation allowed businesses to operate long after renewals were due, pending referral to the special master; Scott Robins’ entertainment hall company, 743 Washington Entertainment LLC, was not referred to the special master.

6) Finally, the fact that the related citation against the property owner, Scott Robins’ company 8th Street Washington Partners Inc., for allowing an unlicensed business to operate on its property was dropped (see CE14009450 dated 25 May 2014), and the fact that charges against 743 Washington Entertainment LLC, Scott Robin’s company licensed for that use, were not preferred against the proper entity or were dropped, and that No Crowd Control LLC was fined, and pursued on appeal to the special master, gives good reason to suspect that the prosecution of the matter may be intentionally prejudiced in favor of a prominent privileged person, and may reflect an ill‐willed violation of the civil rights of the defendant and its managing member to due process and equal protection of the laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America.

It is with the above in mind that I pray that you will grant this petition for rehearing forthwith.

Sincerely,

Floyd Bostic Managing Member NO CROWD CONTROL LLC

Cc:

Rafael Granado, Clerk CITY OF MIAMI BEACH [email protected]

Cynthia Neves, Clerk SPECIAL MASTER [email protected]

8

Administrator

Draft

MYSTERY CUSTOMER REPORT 003 On Code Compliance Narratives

Complaint Doctor

12/26/2014

City of Miami Beach officials are proud of their “mystery customer” reporting system whereby it is mandatory for each department to provide volunteers to go around and observe and report on the behavior of employees of other departments. Significant improvements in conduct have been reported since the self‐reporting, conflict‐of‐interest program was instituted. That is not surprising given a long history of retaliation against employees for honest criticism and whistle‐blowing. Anything less than 100% appreciation from real (private sector) customers is frowned on or ignored by the businessman mayor and his purchased majority on the commission. Their city manager refers serious private criticism no matter how constructive to his henchman for summary dismissal. It is a mystery why any real customer would report on misbehavior if s/he had anything to lose. Beware. One such customer was arrested and had his hotel shut down for reporting on corruption. His suit against the city is about to go to trial in federal court.

9

MYSTERY CUSTOMER REPORT 003

Page 2 of 8

The City of Miami Beach provides a so‐called transparent online complaint reporting system called Permit Manager. The public may view reports on complaints and their disposition. The disposition on many reports is not explained by a “narrative” in the “Description” field of the public report. That is, hundreds of reports every year are simply marked “Closed” or “Invalid” with no reason given for how they were resolved or why they were invalid. The public interface does not indicate that a narrative exists which is not being shown. The single Date field on the public form does not allow the viewer to understanding the timing of events; requests for additional date fields have not been responded to. That is not to mention the fact that the public interface to Permit Manager gives no explanation for the various codes that are used to number the complaints, nor does it otherwise provide any customer‐friendly user guidance.

It definitely appears thatunaccountable administrators do not expect many members of the public to examine the online forms, and expect those who do examine them not to wonder when events occurred, and why a complaint was invalid or closed without explanation. Constructive criticisms of this virtually opaque system have been ignored for a long time, as if officials have a vested interest in keeping it that way.

Code Compliance Administrator George Castell stated that administrators are responsible for making sure that officer narratives appear on the public reports, but explanatory narratives from code officers are only visible to the public for noise complaints because that sort of complaint is considered more serious than other sorts. His statement is contradicted by the fact that narratives are sometimes put on other types of complaints, and sometimes not, and sometimes narratives are missing from noise complaint forms. The procedure is definitely inconsistent. Neither he nor Code Compliance Director Hernan Cardeno, Esq., nor City Manager Jimmy Morales, Esq. have responded to requests that narratives be put on all complaints so that the public may know why a file is closed or a complaint is deemed invalid.

The computer or software is usually blamed for reporting faults, instead of the IT numbskull sitting between the keyboard and the monitor.Code Compliance administrators blame the inability to query the database in order to compile ad hoc reports on the computer system.

Certainly complaints about a nightclub operating without the necessarystate liquor licenses is at least if not more serious than a noise complaint.

An almost adequate narrative was indeed provided on complaint CE10009687 in regards to alcohol being served at Club Bed at 959 Washington Avenue on 27 August 2010. If that date were not shown in the narrative, the public might think it occurred on the file date of 1 October 2010. S/he is still left wondering why the file was marked “Closed” a month after the violations. The charge was for violating Sec 6‐2 of the city ordinance prohibiting sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages without a state license. The unlicensed sale of alcoholic beverages is a state

10


Page 3 of 8

misdemeanor on the first offense, and a felony thereafter. Were violators arrested by the police? Were violators referred to the state attorney?Was a local fine due to be imposed? If not, why not? To be liberal, or was there a quid pro quo?

“REF: REF: 08/27/10 Admin 723 and I progress checked 929 Washington Av (Club Bed) we witness the doorman collecting $20.00 per person entrance fee. The manager (Jacque Justice) informed us that they were not charging for the drinks they were only charging for the mixers. We were told by approximately fourteen patrons that they were charged full price for their alcoholic drinks. The patrons refused to leave their info. Admin 723 requested PD assistance, when PD arrived we inspected the location and witness people being served alcohol. There were approximately fifty patrons inside the Establishment. We were provided with ID and contact information by four patrons who informed us that they paid for their alcoholic beverages. MsTeena Camacho Mr. ZanglerScaduto 21Crestwood AV 7 Bancroft St Selden NY 11784 Setau Key NY 11733 Tel 516 527 1075 (couple same con info) Mr. Ryan Andrew Strand Mr. Toscano Lawrence 420 Strafford AV 4 Dover Cir Apt 3, Strafford PA Ridge NY 11961 Tel: 845 2341558 Tel 631 294 1691 Police Officers Martinez ID# 351 was the main officer on scene along with Sergeant Estraviz ID # 457. The manager (Justice) told us that they were charging $3.00 for the beers that was only to cover the cost of the glass. A city code violation was issued. A city code violation was issued SEC 6‐2 (A) They voluntarily closed the club. VM”

Now let us take a look at the exceedingly brief from the online narrative on complaint CE14009440 dated 17 July 2014 against No Crowd Control LLC. Here again the file date is misleading to the naïve public, since the alleged alcohol violation occurred on 25 May 2014 during Black Week aka Urban Beach Week, an event that the police and code compliance departments were doing their best to discourage due to unruly elements in the nearly 100% negro participants in previous years, culminating in a police riot in 2011 when police surrounded a car driven by one Raymond Herisse (22) and fired 116 bullets into the vehicle, killing him. The majority of residents did not care if the shooting was justified or not because it constituted the tipping point that led to a crackdown on the event.

“6‐2 a Selling or Distributing alcohol beverages without a license from the division of ABT J. Caicedo/713.”

An official source, speaking on condition that his name be withheld because he was not authorized to speak, said that Hernan Cardeno, who has commanded Code Compliance since 2012 and was appointed its director in 2014 on the basis of his stellar resume and personal integrity in the absence of an empirical record of improved performance of the code compliance department, was present at the raid, as was Mayor Philip Levine and his friend and partner Scott Robins, owner of the building and the club operator.

11


Page 4 of 8

The liquor complaint was dropped and No Crowd Control, the event promoter, was charged with not have a special event permit, which is required for extraordinary events on private property. He was fined $1,000 by the special magistrate, not for a failure to have the special permit, but rather on her finding that Robins’ club has not paid the renewal fee for its use as an entertainment hall with alcohol, hence technically did not have a business license for the use. The city’s policy is to allow business to be in default of payment and continue to operate for six months or more.

Cardeno averred that his code officer did not mislead the magistrate inasmuch as the use permit was technically expired until four days after the violation when it was renewed because payment was received. Still, his code officer at the hearing did mislead the special master in not fully divulging related facts including the lenient policy of the city regarding delinquent business license fees, and not identifying who is ultimately responsible for them, and not divulging that such violations should go to the licensee, and that, after all, the charge brought before her was for not having a special or extraordinary permit.

In fact, complaint number CE14009450 against Robins’ business dated that evening, 25 May, for allowing No Crowd Control to operate an unpermitted business on Robin’s premises was “Closed” without explanation. Violation: “allowing a business to operate on your property without a BTR. REF: No Crowd Control LLC….P.D. on site. J. Hernandez/739 Bike.”

Clearly, Scott Robins Companies, not No Crowd Control LLC, would be responsible for having the business tax receipt license to operate its nightclub on the property. No Crowd Control is a promoter located out of town, does not have to have a permanent business location or branch office within the city; therefore, as per Sec. 102.357 of the Miami Beach Code of Ordinances, No Crowd Control is not required to have a business tax receipt license to occasionally promote an event in the city.

The magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law as per the recording of the hearing demonstrate that she was definitely in error inasmuch as 1) the 25 May 2014 violation charged was for not having a special event permit, and not for the Scott Robins Company (743 Washington Entertainment LLC) technically expired usage, the past due fee for the business tax receipt being paid a mere four days after the violation citations, perhaps out of the $20,000 the event promoter paid Scott Robins’ company for the use of the hall, 2) there was absolutely no hard evidence or witness testimony presented at the hearing that there was a requirement for an extraordinary or special event permit, 3) that any fine for the special master’s finding that there was no usage and business license for Scott Robins’ club because he did pay the renewal fee until 29 May 2014 should have been charged to Scott Robins’ company, the hall operator, and not to No Crowd Control, the promoter, who had obtained a caterer with a liquor license for the event, 4) the promoter from out of town, No Crowd Control, is not required to have a

12


Page 5 of 8

business tax receipt license for the occasional promotion of an event in the city, 5) the city manager will confirm that city policy at that time allowed businesses to operate long after renewals were due, pending referral to the special master; Scott Robins’ entertainment hall company, 743 Washington Entertainment, was not referred to the special master, and 6) finally, the fact that charges against the property owner, Scott Robins’ company 8th Street Washington Partners Inc., for allowing an unlicensed business to operate on its property was dropped (see CE14009450 dated 25 May 2014), and the fact that 743 Washington Entertainment LLC, Scott Robin’s company licensed for that use, were dropped, and No Crowd Control was fined and pursued on appeal to the special master, gives good reason to suspect that the prosecution of the matter may be intentionally prejudiced in favor of a prominent privileged person, and may be an ill‐willed violation of the civil rights of the defendant and its managing member to due process and equal protection of the laws of the State of Florida and the United States of America.

The official source praised the mayor for not intervening for Robins at the scene that night, yet, as we have seen, Robins was not fined for operating a club with a technically expired license, nor was he fined for renting out and thus permitting an allegedly unpermitted event on his premises. The wrong man, incidentally a black man, Floyd Bostic, was pronounced “guilty” by the special master, who seemed surprised that he had even had $20,000 in cash to give Robins for rental of the hall.

Cardeno noted that I had not asked him for the files behind the reports in the No Crowd Control case. The problem with such narratives is that they can be changed or contrived after someone complains about them or their absence.

I had expected the public face or online complaint forms to truly represent the occurrences. Cardeno’s revelations from behind the superficial reports did not reveal any damning evidence. He responded to the effect that Floyd Bostic, knowing that law enforcement would have its hands full, had intentionally come down here to Miami Beach to flout the law, thinking he could get away with it. Law enforcement was not deceived: officers could see by the “large crowd” outside the club that there was an intention to violate the occupancy load, which would have required an extraordinary or special event permit. Furthermore, the online advertisements at nocrowdcontrol.com indicate that its events are for the 18‐plus crowd, implying an intention to serve liquor to minors. Yet he divulged from his files no record of allowing kids into the club and serving liquor to them, nor a record of people counted within the club, the number being, according to the promoter, far less than the maximum occupancy load.He said the liquor violation report was “Closed” because the event was shut down, but did not respond to requests as to why there were no arrests. As for the liquor license of the caterer, he said the license was not “countywide,” but he did not explain what kind of license it was or why it was

13


Page 6 of 8

inapplicable, and, if so, why no one was prosecuted. The event included a pool party at a hotel down the street, which he said the city prevented from happening. Obviously, the party inside of the hotel is the hotel’s responsibility. So No Crowd Control is out $20,000 plus other expenses including the fine, and fees will be another $20,000 if it is appealed. Too bad. According to Cardeno, the promoter took the risk, so that is his fault.

Cardeno noted that he did not want to try this case in the press. His reason for that is obvious. Bostic is not the one on trial here: the director of the code compliance department, its administrators, the city manager, and the city commissioners are on trial. Code compliance department administrators havenothing to worry about; they have proven to be untouchable despite the occasional the arrest ofa compliance officer; quid quo pros are difficult to detect.

Floyd Bostic is the managing member of No Crowd Control LLC. He objected to the city magistrates “guilty” ruling, saying that the hall operator should be responsible for a lapse in licensing. He pointed out that the hall was rented out for events before and after his event.

The subsequent complaint records are interesting in the context of their narratives:

Complaint XC15005514 of 30 November 2014 was made by the police department that an event was occurring at the 743 Washington Avenue Club:

“Complaint from PD. CCA726, CCO56, and I inspected 743 Washington Ave. I spoke to the individual who was in charge at the location. The individual stated that "Black Swan" was hosting the event. We then inspected the location. During our inspection everything was QRU. Not Valid A.Yanes‐751, B.Nunez‐756, K. Varela‐726.”

The Black Swan event was a fashion show fundraiser professedly for Fortress Women, a local charity for abused women and children. The entrance fee was $30, and $150 for VIPs.

Cardeno distinguished this event from the No Crowd Control event. Now Robins was current with the business license fee. Cardeno did not provide a head count to see if attendees exceeded the occupancy load. He did not provide liquor license information. A liquor license can be acquired for charity events for a small fee. That kind of information should appear on the narratives.

The public was lucky to have even deficient narratives for the No Crowd Control and Black Swan events. Here is the narrative for complaint XC15005847 made on 3 December 2014 about an event being held at 743 Washington Avenue, where the mystery customer observed tequila being served. The complaint was marked “Invalid.”

“investigate event on site.”

14


Page 7 of 8

This event was a Herradura Tequila promotion during Art Basel Week, presenting the responses of ten artists to the company’s challenge to artistically depict ten tequila barrels. A substantial award and donation was made. Thrillist Media of New York promoted the event.

The mystery customer who made the inquiry noticed that it has been dismissed in less than an hour after it was called in. I asked about the reason for the dismissal several days later, and was supplied with a narrative that I had reason to believe was made days after the event because it appeared to be in response to my question. Furthermore, the reporting officer said he arrived at 743 Washington Avenue at 7:30 P.M., when I had proof that the dispatcher was not called until 9:00 P.M. After Code Compliance Administrator George Castell supplied me with a narrative, which he did not post on the public online record, I asked him for the exact date and time the narrative was entered into the system, because the system is supposed to be programmed to record the exact date and time entries are made regardless of the file dates. He said he did not have the time.

“12/3/14 I inspected 743 Wash Ave per XC15005847 assigned to me, I arrived at the location at approximately 1930hrs. I spoke to the manager on duty Adrienne Wright from Thrillist Media Group, she advised that it was a private event for VIP guest only. Event will last from 7pm until 10pm tonight, sponsored by Tequila Herradura. All documentation provided appeared to be in place, I was invited inside space as well. Music was being played in an ambient level during my time at the location, also everything was kept inside the space and not outside on public property. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to let me know, thank you.” (Emphasis added)

The narrative does not indicate what documentation was checked. For example, the liquor license number for Herradura and/or Thrillist Media Group if any should have been provided. The local ordinance provides that the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages must be licensed by the state, although the state statute seems to cover only sales and not free distribution. The so‐called VIP guests were people who signed up online; a list was available at the door, and the mystery customer was allowed inside by the two bouncers at the door.

I asked Cardeno for a copy of code compliance procedures manual, but I subsequently desisted because he wanted to treat it as a public record request; I had no budget for purchasing a copy, and am reluctant to make many requests because the previous city attorney had asked the clerk to compile all public record requests I had made, for the purpose of slapping me with a lawsuit.

When I asked for pages from the manual to ascertain exactly what documents a compliance officer is required to ask for and to report on when investigating an event complaint, I was informed I would have to pay for research, so I again desisted as I have no budget for same. On

15


Page 8 of 8

one occasion I was asked to pay several hundred dollars for three emails that the official had already provided me with.


16

SAMPLE PERMIT MANAGER RECORDS 959 WASHINGTON AVENUE

EDITOR: The File Date differs from the occurrence date. Evidence was collected and displayed in the Description. There is no explanation or explanatory disposition coding for CLOSED, apparently over a month later. Were there any arrests? Were liquor violations referred for prosecution? Why were violations not referred to the Special Master? Etc.

Case / Application / Permit Number CE10009687 Type / Classification CCVIO

ALCOHOL: Alcohol Sales CODE: Code Compliance

Address 929 WASHINGTON AV Miami Beach, FL 33139

Parcel Number

32340081400

File Date 2010-10-01 Status CLOSED

Status Date N/A Valuation $0.00

Fees $0.00 Payments:g $0.00

Balance $0.00 Description

REF: 08/27/10 Admin 723 and I progress checked 929 Washington Av (Club Bed) we witness the doorman collecting $20.00 per person entrance fee. The manager (Jacque Justice) informed us that they were not charging for the drinks they were only charging for the mixers. We were told by approximately fourteen patrons that they were charged full price for their alcoholic drinks. The patrons refused to leave their info. Admin 723 requested PD assistance, when PD arrived we inspected the location and witness people being served alcohol. There were approximately fifty patrons inside the Establishment. We were provided with ID and contact information by four patrons who informed us that they paid for their alcoholic beverages. MsTeena Camacho Mr. ZanglerScaduto 21 Crestwood AV 7 Bancroft St Selden NY 11784 Setau Key NY 11733 Tel 516 527 1075 (couple same con info) Mr. Ryan Andrew Strand Mr. Toscano Lawrence 420 Strafford AV 4 Dover Cir Apt 3, Strafford PA Ridge NY 11961 Tel: 845 234 1558 Tel 631 294 1691 Police Officers Martinez ID# 351 was the main officer on scene along with Sergeant Estraviz ID # 457. The manager (Justice) told us that they were charging $3.00 for the beers that was only to cover the cost of the glass. A city code violation was issued SEC 6-2 (A) They voluntarily closed the club. VM

View Map(Click the "Back" button on the browser to return to Permit Manager.)

17

Contacts

Name CLUB BED Business N/A

Relationship APPLICANT Phone N/A

Name GRAND TRINE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Business N/A

Relationship OWNER

Case / Application / Permit Number CE14002346

Type / Classification CCVIO MISC: Miscellaneous CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

32340081400



Fees $0.00 Payments $0.00


Violation of Section 102-311 - 102-322 Ref: failing to remit resort taxes for October 7 days to comply JParodi 755

View Map(Click the "Back" button on the browser to return to Permit Manager.) Contacts

Name ROOM SERVICE LOUNGE II LLC Business N/A



Relationship OWNER

EDITOR: Why was the below filed CLOSED? If paid, why is there no amount and date paidgiven? For what period were the taxes due? Sept 30, 2013? Or Sept 30, 2014? Failure o paytaxes and obtain renewals by dates due have seldom result in reference to the Special Masterin the past. For instance, over half of sidewalk cafés in one period were allowed to operate sixmonths after delinquency.

18


BTR: Occupational License/Cu CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

32340081400




Balance $0.00 Description Sec. 102-360 Failing to renew a BTR 24 hours to

comply B.Nunez - 756 View Map(Click the "Back" button on the browser to return to Permit Manager.) Contacts

Name ROOM SERVICE LOUNGE II, LLC Business N/A



Relationship OWNER

SAMPLE PERMIT MANAGER RECORDS 743 WASHINGTON AVENUE

EDITOR: The record below misleads a naïve reader into believing that the certificate of use was approved on May 18, 2012. According to the code compliance director, the File Date is the application date in this instance, and the BCU was not approved until several months later, with a short time left to expiration.

Case / Application / Permit Number BCU1200731

Type / Classification BCU PRIMARY: Primary Certificate of Use BLDG: Building


Parcel Number

42030040690

File Date 2012-05-18 Status APPROVED

Status Date N/A

19

Valuation $0.00 Fees $0.00

Payments $0.00 Balance $0.00

Description

743 WASHINGTON AVE DANCE/ENT W/ ALCOHOL @ 743 WASHINGTON AVE APPROX 6000 SQ FT.


Name 743 WASHINGTON ENTERTAINMENT Business N/A

Relationship OWNER Phone N/A

Name ROBINS, SCOTT Business N/A


EDITOR: It is anyone’s guess given the inconsistent procedures as to why the below file was CLOSED, for what tax period, and if the File Date is the citation date or the payment date, et cetera, and to know why there is another file directly below on the same issue merely four months later, et cetera. GIGO


MISC: Miscellaneous CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

42030040690




Balance $0.00 Description Section:102-311, and 102-322 failure to remit

resort tax. J. Lamons/742 View Map(Click the "Back" button on the browser to return to Permit Manager.) Contacts

Name 743WASHINGTON ENTERTAINMENT LLC Business N/A


20

Name 8TH ST WASHINGTON PARTNERS INC Business N/A



MISC: Miscellaneous CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

42030040690





Violation of Section 102-311 - 102-322 Ref: Failing to remit resort taxes for October 2013 7 days to comply JParodi 755






Status Payment History

Case / Application / Permit Number CE14009435 Type / Classification CNOISE

LDMUSIC: Loud Music,speakers CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

42030040690

File Date 2014-05-25 Status INVALID



21


Loud music. ============================ Arrival Time: 1:45 am Departure Time: 2:48 am We arrived on scene.(CMunera 757 &JParodi 755) We made contact with the complainant, city employees. The music was not deemed to be excessively or unnecessarily loud. We did issue other violations at the site but the noise was not deemed valid or plainly audible at 100 feet. Complainant was contacted Not Valid JParodi 755


Name NO CROWD CONTROL LLC C/O BOSTIC FLOYD

Business N/A Relationship APPLICANT

Phone N/A



EDITOR: Here below again the file was CLOSED without explanation. The File Date hereapparently indicates the action (closing) date, which is over a month after the citation date.No Crowd Control did not need BTR because it is a promotional company from out of town here on casual business, and it did not need a CU because the club itself, owned by ScottRobins, operating on the premises owned by Scott Robins, had obtained a BTR and CU for theproperty, the renewal fee being past due until paid 4 days after the No Crowd Control event there. Too bad, said the Special Master in error, the promoter is liable for the lapse andshould have done due diligence, etc etc.




Parcel Number

42030040690




22


741 SEC 102-376 Failing to obtain Business Tax Receipt RE: Operating a night Club operating without a BTR or CU NOV was issued and signed by registered Agent. A.Tejeda


Name NOCROWDCONTROL LLC Business N/A




EDITOR: Below is the only surviving violation, a fine against the promoter for not obtaining aspecial or extraordinary permit to conduct an event inside the property that was licensed for the use intended. No evidence appears in the Description to indicate an extraordinary event permit was required, e.g. due to exceeding the occupancy load. The case was appealed to theSpecial Master, who affirmed the fine not on the basis that a special event permit wasneeded, but on the basis that the club owner controlled by Scott Robins had not paid forrenewing its license until four days after the event. Scott Robins, prominent developer, friend and partner of the mayor, got off Scott free.


SPECIAL: Special Event CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

42030040690

File Date 2014-05-25 Status BILLPEND


Fees $1,000.00 Payments $0.00

Balance $1,000.00 Description Violation of Section 12-5 HJimenez 752


23





EDITOR: Here below yet again there is no explanation for the closure. Did that actually occuron the File Date? No evidence appears here or in the subsequent statements of Director Hernan Cardeno that IDs were checked, that liquor was served to certain individuals, that theliquor license document shown to officers was inadequate. Cardeno first stated that therewas no license, then said there was a license but not for that location, without giving the name of the licensee, license number, etc. No Crowd Control said it has retained a licensedcaterer to handle the liquor and security.

Case / Application / Permit Number CE14009440

Type / Classification CCVIO ALCOHOL: Alcohol Sales CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

42030040690





6-2 a Selling or Distributing alcohol beverages without a license from the division of ABT J. Caicedo/713




EDITOR: The below as a File Date on the day of the event, and who knows from the inconsistent posting procedures when it was actually closed? Notably it was closed without citation of theproperty owner, controlled by Scott Robins, for not having a tenant, himself as the club owner,a certificate of use, so Scott Robins gets off Scott Free.

24




Parcel Number

42030040690





allowing a business to operate on your property without a BTR REF: No Crowd Control LLC-Additional violations were issued-See CE14009436-9437-9440- P.D on site- J. Hernandez. 739 - Bike


Name 8TH ST WASHINGTON PARTNERS INC % SRC PROPERTIES LLC

Business N/A Relationship APPLICANT

Phone N/A



EDITOR: The Black Swan event was a fashion show fundraiser for a nonprofit organization. Admission was $30 regular $150 VIP. Here the officers do not say what documents were checked, using a police call QRU that everything is OK to support their conclusion. Liquor licenses can be easily obtained by charities. Did this event have one? How many people were inside? Was the occupancy load exceeded? Of course there are files behind the Descriptions. Publicly displayed narratives are partial or nonexistent, and can be altered as needed. No accountability except QRU and ex post facto excuses when someone asks about a file is conducive to negligence and moral and criminal corruption.

Case / Application / Permit Number XC15005514

Type / Classification XC-COMP2 COMPLNT: Complaint

25

CODE: Code Compliance Address 743 WASHINGTON AV

Miami Beach, FL 33139 Parcel Number

42030040690





Complaint from PD ___________________________________________________CCA726, CCO56, and I inspected 743 Washington Ave. I spoke to the individual who was in charge at the location. The individual stated that "Black Swan" was hosting the event. We then inspected the location. During our inspection everything was QRU. Not Valid A.Yanes-751,B.Nunez-756,K.Varela-726



Relationship CONTACT Phone N/A



EDITOR: The Description below is wholly inadequate and misleading. This was an event hosted to promote a tequila brand, and liquor was served. Code Compliance provided further information that was false in some detail. Was there a liquor license? The city requires alicense for both sale and distribution of alcohol.

Case / Application / Permit Number XC15005847 Type / Classification XC-COMP2

COMPLNT: Complaint CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number

42030040690



Fees $0.00

26


Description investigate event on site. View Map(Click the "Back" button on the browser to return to Permit Manager.) Contacts

Name ANON Business N/A

Relationship CONTACT Phone N/A



27

of 9

CORRESPONDENCE FILE

743 WASHINGTON AVENUE

BLACK WEEK 2014

NO CROWD CONTROL LLC

Certified True and Correct Facsimiles of Emails

Dec. 14, 2014

To: Hernan Cardeno, Esq., Director, Raul Aguila, Esq. City Attorney, Aleksandr Boksner, Esq., Assistant City Attorney

Mr. Cardeno,

I have gone over your comments again, and they make it clear that the information displayed on the public website actually obscures the reality of the situations and events.

No, I did not ask for the case files because I believed the truth was reflected on Permit Manager Velocity Hall. Time and time again people have complained about missing narratives. I have complained about that, and have made constructive suggestions such as better codification, disposition narratives, more date fields, et cetera, to no avail.

Helping the city is thankless because officials do not want help, for good reasons, I suppose, not all of them ethical.

The lack of transparency has no doubt given Code a wrongful black eye in many instances because false inferences are naturally made from the obscure face it provides to the public. The maintenance of that superfice for the last few years however gives many of us reason to suspect that either Code is badly managed or corruption is at play.

As for this instant case, you seem to be stating that Scott Robins is to blame for allowing the CU on the hall to lapse, and of course the misuse of the hall during the lapse was not reported or complainants failed to get hard evidence, so it did not exist for all intents and purposes.

28

of 9

And you seem to believe that the property owner is not to be charged for misuse, as owners elsewhere are held responsible for violations.

No, you characterize the person who rented the property for the use advertised as an immoral person intending to break the law as if he knew what is was.

I cannot read your mind, but I believe that disposition is due to White Fright hysteria. Interestingly, you say the police department instigated the investigation because a large crowd was outside the club.

Everyone arrested is as guilty as everyone in prison is innocent?

Well, I was a block away, and there was a large crowd of black people everywhere. That was scary! Perhaps you will run background checks on this alleged outlaw? And maybe the rental agreement should be examined as that might clear some things up.

At this point it appears that in this city the property owner is responsible for allowing the misuse of his property unless his name is Scott Robins or there is a black man to blame.

Barratry is not my game, but I would like to see this one in court. Hopefully someone will get the case files and make hay.

Hope you had a relaxing weekend,

The David

13 December 2014

Re: Did Code Compliance Mislead the Special Master?

Dear Director HernanCardeno:

Thank you very much for your commentary on my article, which was in part based on the hearing before the Special Master. I do not know what you look like, so I did not recognize you there. I believe you misunderstood what was said at that hearing. I suggest that you have the city attorney transcribe the audio recording for your convenience.

Mind you that I intend to speak here with all respect due under the county’s Bill of Rights, which implies that citizens must have respect for officials in order to have any rights.

I certainly am hoping that someone with a clear conscience will examine the record itself, which speaks for itself, because anyone who knows what evidence is will know that the answer to the above-captioned question is “Yes,” whether or not the misleading was inadvertent, and that nothing you have said on the record thus far actually supports the specific charge brought against this small businessman, that he did something requiring a special event permit. That it was

29

of 9

merely suspected that an ordinance would be violated is not a violation, although preventative measures ensure compliance.

Indeed, your defense of official behavior could be rephrased, if you were the defense attorney on the case, to show that the small business charged did nothing wrong, that the wrong was done to him, and the city should be held responsible. It you had sat down with him as I did after the hearing, you would know that he is not some sort of monster descended on the City of Miami Beach intending to violate its labyrinthine ordinances.

It is telling that Floyd Bostic’s company and not the property owner was cited in the first place, even though the property owner was certified to use the property as it was being used, a fact that was neglected in this instance due to prejudicial blindness induced by White Fright.

Again, anyone who knows what evidence is, and I assume that would especially include anyone competent to practice law, and who had a conscience notwithstanding, would not only have the charges dismissed and apologize to Mr. Bostic, but would also do what they could to help him get a refund or at least compensatory use of the space, which sits dormant 95% of the time because it is not being put to its highest and best use.

That response to the facts would be far more ethical than the defensive posture that seems to be the norm since so many high administrative positions in the city were filled with consiglieri. It reminds me of what Sam told me on Rush Street when I was a runaway kid in desperate need of gainful employment: that the government is as bad as the Outfit, so it is best to not apply with either.

It is on a hopeful note and in good faith that I look forward to a charitable resolution of this matter, wishing you and your staff the happiest of holidays.

Sincerely,


LINK: BLACK WEEK SCARE HAUNTS MIAMI BEACH OFFICIALS

Dec. 12, 2014

From: Hernan Cardeno, Esq., Director Code Compliance, Police Officer, FBI Liaison To: David Arthur Walters Cc: Raul Aguila, City Attorney, Alexander Boksner, Esq. Police Liaison

David,

Code did not mislead the Special Master. There was no “misstatement” by the Code officer. From your article, Black Week Scare Lingers in Miami Beach, December 12, 2014, you reported (as quoted):

30

of 9

� “The property owner has had permit BCU1200731 for a dance, entertainment hall with liquor sales until 5 am since May 18, 2012,” this statement is not accurate. 5/18/12 is an application date, not the date issued (see email below). The date the BTR was first issued was on 5/13/13 and expired 9/30/13.

� “Ticket CE14009440 against No Crowd Control for selling liquor without a license was closed out on July 17. Bostic said that was because the catering company had a countywide liquor license for events,” this statement is not accurate. The case was closed because of immediate compliance/alcohol sales ceased. The liquor license produced was for a different location and certainly not “countywide.”

� “A check of the online records indicates that [the] Code Compliance Officer misled the Special Master with a misstatement,” the Code officer did not mislead the Special Master nor make a misstatement—when No Crowd Control LLC was cited on 5/25/14, there was no valid BTR on the premises because it was expired. 743 Washington Entertainment paid to renew their BTR for 2013-2014 on 5/29/14 (4 days later). On 10/7/2014, 743 Washington Entertainment renewed their BTR for 2014-2015.

� No Crowd Control LLC, a Gainesville promoter, advertised and sold tickets on the internet to a 3 day multi-venue event offering a full liquor bar for ages 18 and over (not age 21 as prescribed by law). The venues where the events were to be held trigger a requirement for a Special Event Permit for the package ticket advertised—the hotel that would be catering to non-hotel guests for a No Crowd Control pool party; and the dance hall with an expired BTR.

� The Special Master heard testimony and considered all evidence in making her ruling that is was incumbent upon the promoter to do his due diligence and, therefore, fining No Crowd Control for failing to obtain a Special Event permit.

� “CCA726, CCO56, and I inspected 743 Washington Ave. … The individual stated that "Black Swan" was hosting the event… During our inspection everything was QRU. Not Valid A.Yanes-751,B.Nunez-756,K.Varela-726. QRU?Queens Rugby Union?” QRU is a police radio code whose origin is from the Q-Codes in maritime communications and translates to “all is fine.” Code Compliance Officers have been counseled not to use police radio Q-codes in their report narratives.

� “Director Cardeno has been asked for an explanation to justify not apologizing to Bostic for the ordeal his department has put him through. Perhaps he has more rabbits to pull out of the hat.” Frankly, I am not inclined to justify not apologizing to a promoter for the “ordeal” he brings to our city. Promoting an all-out underage drinking party and taxing Police, Fire, and Code resources all impact the quality of life for our neighborhoods, not to mention hurting the legitimate business community.

I do not understand how you characterize this promoter as a “victim businessman” in your article, David. This promoter took a $20k risk (or whatever amount he expended) to pull off an unpermitted, for-profit, all out party hoping not to get caught during a weekend when our

31

of 9

resources are stretched thin. You and I really do not know how this promoter categorized his event to 743 Washington Entertainment. I do know that No Crowd Control’s event was not comparable to the two events you referenced in your earlier e-mail—to which I have given the distinctions below. All of the detail provided here could have been gleaned from the case file—which you did not request, but rather you made your own supposition from the limited web portal file and what the promoter lead you to believe. You know me to be straightforward with facts, however, I chose not to play out the merits of a case in the media—the proper forum is before the Special Master.

Have a good weekend,

Hernan

Attached:

From: Castell, George Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 2:38 PM To: Cardeno, Hernan Subject: RE: Did Code mislead the SM? HEADS UP SM CASE TODAY RE JA14000277 RE: Where is the $1,000 fine 743 Washington?

Sir,

The process when a BCU number is issued is when a new entity has applied at the Finance Department for a CU and then the person will go to the Building Department to obtain a BCU number. Building will check for the Certificate of Occupancy (BCO) and the Certificate of Use (CU) for the property or space. Once it is reviewed by Building Department then the inspection for Building, Fire and Planning is scheduled. Once all three inspections are approved the representative for the entity returns to the Finance Department to pay for the Business Tax Receipt (BTR) and then the Finance Department prints the BTR and the entity can start to operate. From this point forward the entity is sent a renewal notice from the Finance Department prior to the expiration date every September 30th of every year.

In the case of 743 Washington Entertainment applied for BCU1200731 on 5/18/12 and the final approval was on 5/8/13 (almost one year later). This took time because they had to comply with their CUP PB2053 and occupancy issues that had to be addressed (from the information in the BCU Planning notes. The first BTR was issued by the Finance Department on 5/13/13 and would expired on 9/30/13.

On 5/25/14, when No Crowd Control LLC was at the property operating, they were issued violation CE14009436 for operating without a BTR.

Case CE14009450 was created on 5/25/14 for the property owner allowing a business to operate (NO CROWD CONTRO LLC). CCO Hernandez hand delivered this violation on 5/28/14 to Property Manager Marcella Collazo at 230-5th Street. The representative for 743 Washington

32

of 9

Entertainment came to the Finance Department on 5/29/14 and paid to renew their BTR. Finance printed their BTR for 2013-2014.

CCO Hernandez inspection notes on case CE14009450 from 6/8/14 states,”Several inspections revealed no business was being conducted at the property-Close case”.

CCO Tejeda’s inspection notes on case CE14009436 from 6/19/14 states,”Venue was not operating at the time of the inspection. Close case”. A.Tejeda:.

Dec. 11, 2014

From: David Arthur Walters <[email protected]> Date: December 11, 2014 at 7:45:05 PM EST To:HernanCardeno<[email protected]> Cc: "Aguila, Raul" <[email protected]>, "Boksner, Aleksandr" <[email protected]>, "Morales, Jimmy" <[email protected]> Subject:Did Code mislead the SM? HEADS UP SM CASE TODAY RE JA14000277 RE: Where is the $1,000 fine 743 Washington?

Mr. Cardeno, The reason the SM decided against the defendant was the code officer's sworn testimony that the property obtained an entertainment hall permit 5 days after No Crowd Control was cited. However, a check of permit manager as a BCU1200731 for dance/sent/w alcohol dated May 18, 2012. Wherefore there was no violation. BTW there were only 200 in the hall at the time, and fire had it good for 500. Anyway, this is very disturbing that a case was decided on a misstatement. Perhaps you have an explanation? David Arthur Walters

On Dec 11, 2014 4:28 PM, "David Arthur Walters" <[email protected]> wrote:

Oh, well, the SM would have dismissed it if it were not for information the officer raised that Scott Robins obtained the correct use permit shortly after his customer, from whom he collected $20k advance rent, was cited. If that is so, there is no unequal treatment. That SRC rented out the club frequently before this citation and was not caught because no one complained is beside the point. Still, the question remains as to why, if the landlord pulled a permit after the event, was he not liable at the time for not having one? That objection as to person liable should have been put on the record. The defendant tried to make it but was not clear in his logic. Anyway no doubt he will try to get a refund, and maybe appeal to circuit. I guess Al however will be not coming down. I followed the Tawana Brawley story when it was breaking, and coined the term alsharptonian dialectics i.e. whether she was raped or not was not the point. David Arthur Walters

33

of 9

Dec. 11, 2014

From: Cardeno, Esq., Director Code Compliance, Police Officer, FBI Liaison To: David Arthur Walters

Good afternoon Mr. Walters,

There are distinctions in the cases you referenced below as compared to the case being heard later today by the Special Master. In summary, these distinctions are as follows:

� JA14000277 / CE14009437 On Special Master’s Docket today—Memorial Day Weekend Event May 25, 2014

o No Crow Control, LLC advertised and sold tickets on the internet for a multi-day Memorial Day weekend event which included a pool party at the Clinton Hotel and a full liquor dance party at 743 Washington Avenue for ages 18 and over;

o There was no Special Event permits issued for the pool party nor dance party that were advertised and open to the general public for a fee. There was a large crowd queuing outside 743 Washington Avenue and Police requested Code respond;

o The full liquor dance party was shut down by Code Compliance with Police and Fire Departments present;

o The pool party at the Clinton Hotel the following day (May 26, 2014) was not allowed to take place as Code Compliance warned management that it was an unpermitted Special Event and would be shut down along with Police if they held the party.

� XC15005514 Closed Case—Investigated November 30, 2014

o The Black Swan Fashion Show was a charitable function held by the Fortress Woman Foundation/Woman to Woman Jumpstart Program;

o The location has a valid BTR as a hall for hire and requires a special event permit for any increase over 260 attendees;

o It was estimated there were less than 260 persons in attendance;

o All events were taking place inside the building.

� XC15005847 Closed Case—Investigated December 3, 2014

o Thrillist Media Group hosted an event sponsored by Tequila Herradura;

34

of 9

o This was a private event and all activities were kept inside the building;

o The location has a valid BTR as a hall for hire and requires a special event permit for any increase over 260 attendees;

o It was estimated there were less than 260 persons in attendance.

I have attached a copy of the Business Tax Receipt for 743 Washington Avenue. Happy holidays!

Hernan D. Cardeno, Esq.

From: David Arthur Walters Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:04 PM To: Cardeno, Hernan Cc: City Attorney Aguila, Esq., City Attorney Boksner, Esq., City Manager Morales, Esq. Subject: HEADS UP SM CASE TODAY RE JA14000277 RE: Where is the $1,000 fine 743 Washington?

Mr. Cardeno:

As a friend of the city, it is my lay opinion as a journalist that the case below should be dismissed in the light of the invalidities declared by Code Compliance in two nearly identical incidents at the same location Nov. 29-30 and Dec. 3. See:

XC15005514 XC-COMP2 INVALID 2014-11-30 XC15005847 XC-COMP2 INVALID 2014-12-03

I am sure that if you or any of the other attorneys who work for the city were private defense lawyers you could get the case dismissed before the arrival of the likes of Al Sharpton.

I believe the case is coming before the SM later today.

Normally I like to wait for the train to arrive in the station instead of getting ahead of it, so I can write about the wreck, so I am just offering this in the spirit of the holidays

From: "David Arthur Walters Date: Oct 8, 2014 8:52 AM Subject: RE: Where is the $1,000 fine 743 Washington? To: "George Castell" Code Administrator Cc: "Hernan Cardeno" Code Director, "Raul Aguila" City Attorney

35

of 9

Mr. Castell,

Thank you. It appears that the owner rented out the space to No Crowd Control LLC. Unpermitted signs continue to advertise club space. I noticed info that liquor sales were being made without a permit. Is that true? Perhaps the owner warranted that liquor distribution was permissible. If that is the case, is that not a criminal offense? In any event, it would seem that the owner and its realtor is responsible, so please advise if they are named in the complaint going to the Master. Additionally, the Secretary of State site indicates that No Crowd Control has no tax identification number. Of course you are aware of the recent shootings at an unlicensed club by a nice teenage boy gone wild. Perhaps Mr. Cardeno may feel a county and state investigation into the specifics and persons be conducted in this matter as a preventative learning experience. I am standing by for your response. Thanks, D. Walters

Photo from a previous Urban Beach Weekend

36


Page 1 of 6

THE PERMIT DECAL ON THIS SIGN HAS BEEN REMOVED SO THE SIGN IS NOT PERMITTED

BLACK & WHITE DISTINCTIONS IN SOUTH BEACH

Unintended Consequences of Black Week and White Fright

15 December 2015

By David Arthur Walters MIAMI MIRROR

Hernan Cardeno, Esq., highly esteemed FBI liaison and Director of the Code Compliance Department of the City of Miami Beach, did not appreciate our article last week, ‘Black Week Scare Lingers on in Miami Beach ‐ No Crowd Control Frightens City Officials into Civil Rights Violations,’ about how his officers shut down the party organized by No Crowd Control LLC promoter Floyd Bostic during Black Week 2014 aka Urban Week in South Beach.

The party was held at politically influential Scott Robin’s rental nightclub at 743 Washington Avenue, and the event included a pool party inside the Clinton Hotel nearby. According to Bostic, he lost the $20,000 cash paid to Robins for the hall, plus whatever his cut would have

37


Page 2 of 6

been on sales at the Clinton Hotel when Code officers shut him down to obtain what they considered to be compliance with the city’s labyrinthine ordinances.

Code Compliance administrators, when criticized for their negligence, selective enforcement, and lack of pro‐activity, tend to excuse themselves as being short of staff and too busy to punish many violators, saying that compliance and not punishment is their objective.

In this case, they fined and prosecuted Bostic for $1,000 in the Special Master “court” instead of the prominent property owner, a personal friend and partner of wealthy businessman Mayor Philip Levine, for not having a special event permit for the 743 Washington Avenue party, which is required for activities that are extraordinary. Nothing happened at the Clinton Hotel, thanks to Code Compliance.

However, the event in Scott Robins’ hall was not extraordinary for the usage certified by the city for that venue: i.e. entertainment and dance with alcohol until 5AM. Bostic said he retained a caterer to handle the liquor and security. The problem was that, according to Cardeno, a “large crowd” had gathered in front of the club, so the police called his officers in to do the dirty work. If the whole crowd had gone inside the club, the occupancy limit might have been exceeded. Furthermore, No Crowd Control’s web page generally advertises its events as 18+ college kid parties, implying that liquor would be served to minors at the South Beach event.

Of course there were large crowds as usual on the streets that night despite the fact that the city and police forces from multiple jurisdictions had done everything they could previous Memorial Day weekends to discourage unruly black folks from swarming to the beach. The disrespect and violence incited by a few blacks, mostly locals from Miami‐Dade, would up in a nationally televised police slaying of a black man in 2012.

Many residents cared less about whether or not the shooting was justified. It was the tipping point that led to the beach being occupied by an army of cops in subsequent years. Movements of the black swarm were restricted to a small circle. Clubs and restaurants were shut down. Whites fled the area.

Black Week 2014 was a non‐event, yet Washington Avenue, the most “urban” of South Beach’s streets, was crowded. The police powers were waiting for the likes of Floyd Bostic.

Director Cardeno, revealing information that seemed to contradict our ‘Black Week Scare’ piece, noted that we had not acquired the case files.

“All the detail provided here could have been gleaned from the case file, which you did not request. You made your own supposition from the limited web portal site.”

38


Page 3 of 6

I had indeed relied on the public face to those files, the city’s online Permit Manager records. Unfortunately, the files are two‐faced. The public, superficial face is rather opaque despite repeated calls over the years to render it more transparent. The tendency is to blame the computer for the opacity. The two‐facedness has concealed a great deal of hypocrisy.

Now the information Cardeno revealed from behind the online face did not disclose if officers had counted the people inside the club to see if the occupancy limit was violated, if bouncers were allowing minors to enter the club, if servers were serving minors, and so on. The general rule for nightclubs is that minors are not allowed into them unless food is served therein. Whether that rule was abided by was questioned without response when Justin Beaver admitted he was at Club SET in South Beach prior to his famous pot‐headed racing arrest.

Cardeno had previously denied that the caterer had a liquor license, but now admitted it although stating it was not applicable to the club, not identifying the caterer so the information could be checked. His chief administrator had not answered a previous question put, as to why, if there were liquor law violations, no one was arrested. That compliance was obtained was reason enough for his department to close the file on that issue without referring liquor violations to regulators or prosecutors.

The point of our article is that Code Compliance dropped all charges against Bostic’s No Crowd Control but one, the failure to obtain a special event permit. Our article had noted that two subsequent events were held at the club, and Code Compliance had dismissed complaints about the events as invalid: a fundraising party for abused women with $30 admission tickets, and a promotional art party for 100% agave liquor. Needless to say, they were predominantly white events.

Cardeno drew “distinctions” between those two events and Bostic’s, characterizing Bostic as a man with at least bad if not criminal intentions, and revealing that it was “estimated” that the subsequent events had less than 260 attendees.

We hope that Cardeno, a sworn police officer, would not arrest a man for his unseen intentions before he commits a crime.

“I do not know how you characterize this promoter as a ‘victimized businessman’ in your article. This promoter took a $20k risk (or whatever amount he expended) to pull off an unpermitted, for‐profit, all‐out party hoping not to get caught during a weekend when our resources are stretched thin.”

Ladies and gentlemen from out of town, do your due diligence, beware of doing business in South Beach, where a sucker goes broke almost every week.

39


Page 4 of 6

He correctly pointed out that the agreement between Bostic property owner had not been examined, which would have been wise to do prior to prosecuting Bostic. Maybe Bostic is just another slick promoter. If so, he sure fooled me when I met him.

This may be one instance that Code Compliance should have walked away with perceived compliance instead of punishment, because I feel the police power is prejudiced, and I believe the fine may have some embarrassing consequences for the city if he appeals it to a real court with competent lawyers from out of town, and perhaps files a federal suit against the city and the officers involved for civil rights violations if the facts and circumstances so warrant.

The Special Master’s decision was based not on a failure to obtain a special event permit. Bostic asserted there was nothing special about his use of the premises, that other promoters had used the club for parties, and it was certified and advertised to be used for entertainment and dance with alcohol. Cardeno’s “straightforward” revelation of the facts thus far does not prove any use of the premises beyond its approved uses.

The code officer at the Special Master hearing stated that the property owner had not obtained the certificate for those uses until several days after Bostic was cited. Bostic objected that any fine should go against the property owner for misuse, especially since he approved it. No, said the Special Master, you must take the matter up with the landlord, and you are guilty in the eyes of the city, so when do you want to pay the fine?

That led me to suppose that, in this great city by the beach, fines go against the property unless it is owned by a politically influential public figure like Scott Robins, or unless a black man can be blamed.

Please excuse me for the black and white supposition: I cannot help it after what I have experienced in the deepest of the Deep South. I myself started catching the prejudicial disease after arriving in Miami Beach.

Of course there is discrimination against white folk who are crazy enough to buck the system, criticize city hall, and expose corruption and so on. The former city attorney characterized that sort of folk as “delusional.”

I suggested to Cardeno and other highly placed lawyers in the city, including the city manager, his assistant, and the city attorneys, that they dismiss this case against Bostic in the spirit of the holidays. They are persons of the highest integrity with incredible resumes, not to mention intelligence, and I believe that would be the right thing for them to do.

I also predicted that Cardeno would pull rabbits out of the hat, which he did. The biggest funny bunny, the one most pertinent to the narrow issue here, is a copy of a receipt, along with an

40


Page 5 of 6

argument that the club owner had not paid the renewal fee for the use permit in time so it was not in effect until it was paid four days after the event in question. Therefore, during that tardy period, any event would be a violation. Naturally any complaints about events during that time would be invalid except the one brought by the police against No Crowd Control. Somehow, the event promoter would be liable during the lapse and not the property owner, in this case involving Scott Robins Companies.

Cardeno did not mention in his email that, according to internal sources, nearly half of the city’s sidewalk café permits, due September 30, have not been renewed yet, yet the cafes continue to operate with impunity. Scores of sidewalk café permits were at six months overdue last year.

One restaurant owner who is punctilious about paying his bills on time complained about the tardiness of his competitors on the block, and how they were setting out unpermitted chairs on the sidewalks to absorb tourist traffic before it got to his place.

He met with Jimmy Morales, Esq. and Morales’ troubleshooting assistant manager, Joe Jimenez, Esq., and Director Cardeno on March 18.

“What do you want me to do,” asked Morales, “close everybody down or solve the problem?”

The city was nice: business went on as usual, with warnings, a fine or two, a flagrant violator paid a fine but did not renew until a shut down notice was given, which should have been given to all, strictly speaking, and so on.

One might think that a professional city manager would make sure notices are automatically sent out a month prior to renewals being due, and that violation notices are sent out if payment is ten days overdue, and that violators be subjected to fines and closures after, say, thirty days of grace. And perhaps the cycle could be changed to renew permits at the height of the season when registers are flush with cash, instead of at the depth of the off season. Also, the outrageous rates should be reduced.

Guess what happened to the whistleblower who complained about the delinquencies? He was threatened by the landlord for putting pressure on the other tenants, and sued for eviction shortly after his meeting with the high powered lawyers with the city. Guess who his landlord is?

Guess who has not had special use permit and business tax license for an apartment hotel he has operated for several years? Guess how long it has taken city officials to do anything about it?

What we have with this two‐faced system in the case of No Crowd Control is hypocrisy. It may very well lead to the revelation of even more black and white distinctions. That is not to say

41


Page 6 of 6

that improvements have not been made. More will probably be made after this. And more retaliations will lead to more calls for improvement. And so on unto Doomsday.

# #

42

Miami Mirror – True Reflections

Page 1 of 6

BLACK WEEK SCARE LINGERS ON IN MIAMI BEACH No Crowd Control Frightens City Officials into Civil Rights Violations

18 December 2014 (Update)

By David Arthur Walters MIAMI MIRROR

MIAMI BEACH—Event promoter Floyd Bostic liked South Beach when he visited Miami Beach during Spring Break. “What a cool, relaxed place, not too crowded,” he said, “a great place for an event.” So he looked around for a venue, and saw the big Scott Robins sign at 743 Washington Avenue.

RETAIL, CLUB, EVENTS 6,000 SQ. FT.

DAILY, WEEKLY, YEARLY 5 AM LICENSE

SCOTT ROBINS COMPANIES

“The real estate agent checked my documents. I handed over a cashier’s check for $20,000 to rent the hall for two nights. I got a catering company with a liquor license to handle the event. I was all set.”

Or so he thought. The Miami Beach Police Department, Fire Department, and Code Compliance Department showed up at the event on May 25. Fire and Police hesitated, so Code led the raid on his event on May 25.

43


Page 2 of 6

Mayor Philip Levine, friend and partner to Scott Robins, owner of the building and manager of the club, was reportedly on the scene as well. A city source, speaking on condition of anonymity, lauded the honorable mayor for not intervening on behalf of Robins.

So what? His company had already pocketed the rent. His company would not be cited for the violation actually prosecuted, for failure to have an event permit, although, as we shall see, it should have been, if there had been a violation, and there was not. Instead, Floyd Bostic would be persecuted.

Mr. Bostic’s company’s name, No Crowd Control LLC, was an unfortunate name given the past history of Black Week aka Urban Week in South Beach. “No Crowd Control was just a name for college events back when I started out,” he explained. I had to explain to him what was up with Black Week, why the police power was paranoid.

City officials, succumbing to pressure from civil rights groups, had failed to adequately control the huge crowds of black folks descending over the Memorial Day weekends. There were shootings and massive quality of life violations. Residents were being disrespected by the small unruly faction within the crowd. The majority just wanted to relax and have some fun, not to make trouble, most of which came locally, from over the bridge.

Frankly speaking, there was a Black Scare on one side, and resentment on the other, culminating in a sort of police riot during Urban Week 2011.

The police surrounded a car driven by one Raymond Herisse (22) and fired 116 bullets into the vehicle. He did not survive. Seven bystanders were also injured. The reasons for the shooting were variously given, and evidence was withheld from the court by the city attorney’s office. On the third anniversary of the shooting, or four days before No Crowd Control’s event would be shut down, NBC reported that the investigation of the shooting was still pending.

The No Crowd Control event has four complaint tickets showing in the online violations system.

Ticket CE14009435 against No Crowd Control for noise was deemed invalid because the officer responding to the noise complaint that initiated the investigation said the noise was not excessive.

Ticket CE14009440 against No Crowd Control for selling liquor without a license was closed out on July 17. Bostic said that was because the catering company had a countywide liquor license for events. The company’s representative at the club insisted it had a license, said she would call her liquor lawyer, and chided the officers for raiding the event, saying they were discriminating against blacks. Hernan Cardeno, Esq., a sworn police officer and FBI liaison who is the director of the city’s Code Compliance Department, initially scoffed at the idea that a liquor license existed, but he later said there was a license although it was not countywide nor applicable, explaining that the charge was dropped because Code Compliance had obtained compliance with the cessation of sales. Neither he nor Code Compliance administrator George Castell responded to the questions why no one was arrested or referred to state regulators for alleged violation of liquor laws, especially since Director Cardeno suspected minors would be served because the event was advertised as an “18 plus jam.” After accusing the Miami Mirror of not

44


Page 3 of 6

examining the file behind the public face of the violations records, he did not disclose the name of the entity that did not have the appropriate license, or whether or not any evidence had been recorded of minors drinking or bouncers and servers not checking identifications.

Ticket CE14009450 against the property owner, Scott Robins’ company, 8th Street Washington Partners Inc, for allowing Scott Robins’ nightclub entertainment company to operate a business without a business tax license and certificate of use was “closed” without prosecution that day, May 25, because, as a matter of fact, Scott Robins’ company actually had a certificate of use and business license for an entertainment and dance hall with alcohol until 5AM since 2012. One Internet ad reads, “Studio 743 offers a built in a/v infrastructure ready to be enhanced with moving lights, video displays, and wireless sound, beneficial for any occasion. Our venue is licensed and insured, and comes with a rare 5 A.M. Entertainment License.”

A certificate or permission to use a property for a certain purpose is required before getting a business tax license, which is called a business tax receipt. The local magistrate presiding over the quasi‐judicial administrative, so‐called Special Master “court,” would ultimately pronounce the wrong person, Mr. Bostic’s No Crowd Control, “guilty” of not having the license had by Scott Robins’ company, sticking him with a fine of $1,000, which he may appeal to the circuit court if he has $10,000 to retain an attorney. Director Cardeno later explained this away by pointing out that Scott Robins had failed to pay the annual renewal fee for the permitted use in time, leaving Mr. Bostic in the lurch because the permit was technically “expired,” the fee being paid a mere four days after Director Cardeno’s code officers shut down the No Crowd Control event. As a matter of fact, City Manager Jimmy Morales, Esq., and Director Cardeno have permitted scores of sidewalk cafes to operate months beyond the past due date for payment of the annual fees.

Even worse, Scott Robins’ companies have owned and controlled a transient apartment hotel, the Espanola Way Suites at 443 Espanola Way, which had its certificate of use application denied three years ago yet has operated without a business license or payment of resort taxes. According to information posted on the city web site, that may be a criminal offense, with the offender subject to arrest. Director Cardeno, who is before all a sworn police officer and FBI liaison, has not responded to questions why he has not arrested the person or persons responsible for that violation, nor has he responded to a request for the name of an FBI agent that can be contacted to look into the possibility of the cooperation of city officials in not appropriately prosecuting the violation.

By way of comparison, Rod Eisenberg, the owner of the Sadigo Court Apartment Hotel, was arrested and his guests evicted by the police, not for the absence of a license at all, but over a difference of opinion as to the right kind of license. A previous difference of opinion was over the corruption of city officials, about which he had successfully complained, leading, according to media reports, to the resignation of the city manager and forced removal of the city attorney from office. Attorneys are not talking about Mr. Eisenberg’s federal case number 13‐23620 against the city, Rod Eisenberg v. City of Miami Beach, scheduled to come to trial in January 2014, in which he asserts his prosecution violated his civil rights and constituted retaliation for his whistle‐blowing.

45


Page 4 of 6

Ticket CE14009437 against No Crowd Control for failure to have a special event permit was left open with a mandatory fine of $1,000. The definition of “special” under the ordinance is rather vague, leaving too much room for discretion by city officials: “It shall be unlawful to engage in special events without a special events permit. A special event is defined as a temporary use on public or private property that would not be permitted generally or without restriction throughout a particular zoning district, but would be permitted if controlled with special review in accordance with this section.”

Mr. Bostic appealed to the city’s Special Master “court,” an administrative organ of the city with questionable independence since special masters have been challenged and terminated for not bending to the will of the administration. City Manager Jimmy Morales Esq., formerly a special master himself, recently replaced the special masters because, he said, he wanted to take the facility in a “new direction.”

Special Master Annette Cannon Esq., who heard the case on 13 December, seemed fair enough. She looked surprised when Bostic stepped up, representing himself, to say he had forked over $20,000 to use the club for two nights.

Bostic is a quiet, intelligent, unassuming man, slight of build, certainly not the aggressive sort of promoter one would expect to have twenty grand on him at any time. He told me he does not like much publicity on the Internet, a lot of pictures of events, and so on. He said he has a following all over Florida. He struck me as businessman, plain and simple. He said, matter‐of‐factly, that the $20,000 he had lost put “a dent in my second quarter.”

He told the special master that he had done what he always does in cities throughout Florida. Landlords normally have permits for halls, he said, so he goes in and rents them, and gets a licensed caterer to handle the event including the liquor and security. He figured this landlord had the necessary permits, so he was surprised to be cited for not having one, as that had never happened in any other city he had promoted events.

He said the landlord had previous events where the promoter was not cited. Too bad: the special master said that was not relevant to his particular case.

He said there was an event on November 30 at the property, that Code Compliance Officers had investigated it and found the complaint invalid. He looked on his cell phone, and provided complaint number XC15005514.

The public record on that ticket has this narrative: “CCA726, CCO56, and I inspected 743 Washington Ave. I spoke to the individual who was in charge at the location. The individual stated that "Black Swan" was hosting the event. We then inspected the location. During our inspection everything was QRU. Not Valid A.Yanes‐751, B.Nunez‐756, K.Varela‐726.” QRU? Queens Rugby Union?

Internet pages show that that event, the “Black Swan Fashion Show,” was held by Fortress Women Foundation, with an entrance fee of $30, which apparently included drinks. According to the city’s online records of special event permits, the Black Swan event did not have a special event permit.

46


Page 5 of 6

Online records also show another event, at the same location, held on December 3, namely the Herradura Barrel Art Collection Event, held to promote 100% agave tequila on an artistic pretext during Art Basel Week. Code Compliance dismissed the complaint without an explanatory narrative on the ticket, and some of the subsequent information divulged by the Code Compliance administrator is contrary to electronic records maintained by the “mystery customer.”

Code Compliance administrator George Castell said that no narratives are publicly given on XC complaints, although, as we have seen above, they may be given. When narratives are given, they are not given in full. And the stories can be changed at any time—the dates and times of the changes are supposed to be recorded automatically by the system, but no official seems to know that when the info is asked for.

In fact, what appeared to be selective enforcement against No Crowd Control was pointed out to Hernan Cardeno Esq., Director of Code Compliance, and other lawyers with the city including the city manager and two city attorneys, prior to the Special Master hearing, by a friend of the city who felt that any attorney would be able to successfully defend against the charge, and suggested that it be dropped lest the likes of Al Sharpton be sent down to defend against civil rights violations.

Director Cardeno responded with information irrelevant to the particular charge of operating without a special use permit at that location, except implying one would be required if “the large crowd” outside the club had went inside, for that would exceed the occupancy limit. He objected to characterizing Mr. Bostic as a victim of discrimination, insisting that he had come down to South Beach to violate the law, believing he could get away with it because Code Compliance officers would have their hands full with Black Week. When I mentioned the occupancy limit to Mr. Bostic after the hearing, he said there were only 200 people inside the club when the officers arrived, well within the occupancy limitation posted on the wall of the club. In that event no special event permit would be necessary. Director Cardeno would also say the event would have included a pool party inside the Clinton Hotel on the next block if he had not put a stop to the event, as if hotels could not do that. Mr. Bostic explained that he simply had a deal to share in sales at the hotel.

Special Master Cannon looked like she was ready to dismiss the charges, but then Code Compliance Officer H. Jimenez stated that the property owner pulled an entertainment hall permit shortly after No Crowd Control was cited, so the subsequent usage Bostic had cited was permissible.

Mr. Bostic objected that, if that were the case, then the landlord should be responsible for not having a permit for the usage he had paid for.

The Special Master said that Bostic was responsible for doing due diligence instead of relying on the landlord to have the necessary use permit, hence his claim would be against the landlord; therefore, he was “guilty” and would have to pay the fine. Case closed.

A check of the online records indicated that Code Compliance Officer may have misled the Special Master with a misstatement, in which case the matter should be reheard if not dismissed by the city attorney upon notice of appeal. Director Cardeno would later deny that the Special Master was misled,

47


Page 6 of 6

citing the technicality that the use permit obtained by Scott Robins’ company had not been paid in time therefore was expired until the fee was paid four days after the event.

The property owner has had permit BCU1200731 for a dance, entertainment hall with liquor sales until 5 am since May 18, 2012. The code officer would have known that at the time if he had checked the online record. That must have been why that charge was already closed out.

Incidentally, the public face of the complaint records does not state why a record is “closed.” In effect, the city’s so‐called transparent system is two‐faced. When the superficial face displayed online looks bad, rabbits can be pulled out of the hat from the files, including narratives invented after the fact.

So the advertising on the Scott Robins sign was not false since the policy of the city is to permit lapses in payment. The falsity is apparently in the city’s citation of Bostic’s No Crowd Control, and in shutting down the event at a cost of $20,000 and more to the operator, which the city should reimburse him for if a refund cannot be obtained from the landlord.

Why would city officials do such a thing? Since the 2011 police shooting, the city cracked down on Black Week to the point that it is almost a nonevent. But history is hard to forget. The Black Scare lingers, perhaps for too long. It may behoove Bostic to file a civil rights complaint and sue the city for damages for deprivation of equal protection of the laws and so on.

He is an unassuming fellow, making it difficult for him to assume that this is a black and white thing. One thing is for certain, he said, before he left to examine another venue on Washington Avenue: “It is not wise to have an event here during a big event week.”

Director Cardeno has been asked for an explanation to justify not apologizing to Mr. Bostic for the ordeal his department has put him through. The City of Miami Beach customer who objects to the city’s wrongs is always wrong until proven otherwise at great expense to everyone concerned. However, since he happens to have a reputation for great integrity, he may apologize and see what he can do to get the victimized businessman’s money refunded, or, at least, get him a hall free of rent for two days. That hall is vacant 95% of the time, showing that the property is not put to its highest and best use. It would be better converted to a hotel and restaurant school with a restaurant where diners could test the skills of its students.

Director Cardeno demurred, pulling rabbits from under the online hat. The city is filled with attorneys at law who behave as defense attorneys even when criticism is constructive. The awful truth in this case is that he would be a hero and his department would have a feather in its hat if the city had issued a press release about the discriminatory raid. Frankly speaking, nightclubs are despised by the residents of the area, no matter what color the revelers happened to be. Most residents have been horrified by Black Week.

So fair is not so fair in the City of Miami Beach. The matter has been referred to Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the ACLU just in case they are interested in evening the score.

# #

48

PRIVATE MYSTERY CUSTOMER REPORT Code Compliance Procedure

Event Complaints


12/13/2014

The City of Miami Beach official Mystery Customer program is a good idea. It is reporting amazing improvements in performance. However, the program is flawed by an inherent conflict of interest: it requires city employees to report on city employees. The results are public record, and the city administration does not appreciate the publication of self-criticism. Employees have been retaliated against and even fired for negative criticism. This Report is limited to the interrogation of the Code Compliance administrator regarding a typical example of Code Compliance Department investigations and reports of a customer inquiry/complaint about an event. It is typical because almost every record upturned reveals procedural defects unfriendly to customers. The administration is to blame for the procedural defects, which is not to say that the administrators lack personal integrity. No doubt they have made improvements, are planning to make more improvements. Permit Manager reports may become more explanatory. Code officers probably need an excellent procedures manual. Police officers may ride around with code officers from time to time. A code officer told me that Code Compliance is currently exempt from Mystery Customer ride-arounds.

49

2

11 December 2014

HernanCardeno, Esq. Director CODE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT City of Miami Beach

PRR Re Code Compliance Procedures Manual

Mr. Cardeno:

Would you be so kind as to send along a copy of the page or page(s) from your department’s procedures manual touching on the procedure for officers to follow when investigating “events.” Specifically, what documents are required by the officer after he arrives at an event he is investigating?

I understand from an exchange with Mr. Castell that special event permits are not asked for or checked against the city’s online file except in selective instances. There may be some confusion over what is “special” that the magicians (lawyers) and the commission need to clarify. That confusion in one instance I am aware of may result in a suit for damages and a civil rights action against the city.

Additionally, in the event you have not done this already, I am hoping that you will make sure the procedures manual for code officers is put online for public reference so that the general public may better help you achieve your objectives.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!


Cc. Raul Aguila, Esq. City Attorney

Cc. Jimmy Morales, Esq. City Manager

Cc. Rafael Granado, Esq. City Clerk

Cc. George Castell, Code Administrator

50

3

2014-12-09 Walters to Castell

Thank you, Mr. Castell. I really appreciate your excellent service with this matter.

I shall query the Clerk on the exact times, only because I have heard from several sources, including a code officer who said the tequila event held on Scott Robin's property in the hall operated by the business managed by Scott Robins was definitely a violation, that the system does record the exact times of narrative entries and updates.

In other words, a story can be changed or updated later, as you know, and the report form will retain the original date, but the system records the change. Further, I am informed that only administrators such as yourself can make the changes.

My interest is piqued by the officer's concluding comment in the narrative posted, that someone (you) may call him if someone (you) need further information, as if the narrative had been written later, after my request to you, days after the event.

As you can see, this issue bears on my observation on previous occasions that full narratives should be provided as a matter of course on all complaint reports viewable by the public, instead of only noise complaints, which are wrongly assumed to be the only important ones. Incidentally, the previous complaint on this property, at the end of November, also alleged to be invalid despite the absence of a special event permit, DID have a narrative.

By the way, the reported times of the initial posting and officer follow-up in this Dec. 3 instance allegedly vary widely from the private mystery customer's electronic record.

I am waiting to hear your response to my question as to why the officer did not check for a special event permit document, as I now assume from your comment that that is not part of the process due or standard operating procedure.

[EDITOR: Castell did not respond. A special event permit would be required if the occupancy limit were exceeded or some other abnormal situation. The occupancy limit was not exceeded for an event cited for not having a special event permit during Black Week, and that matter was prosecuted before the Special Master, who was misinformed by the Code Officer as to the certificate of use held by the property owner. Also, was a liquor license required for the distribution of the 100% agave tequila? Et cetera.]

2014-12-09 Castell to Walters

51

4 The system does not show what time it went in, just by date. But the times I provide was from the time (not exact) from when the supervisor gave it to the officer and the time the office was at this location.


Are you absolutely certain about those times? And are you absolutely certain that the narrative you quoted was posted immediately after the investigation? i understand that the exact times info including updates are posted can be easily ascertained. I need to be sure.


Thank you. Then standard operating procedures do not require checking for a special event permit?

[EDITOR: No response.]

2014-12-09 Castell to Walters

Same day immediately after CCO Munera’s inspection. The on duty supervisor checked if the location had a BTR (Business Tax Receipt), which the owner has a current BTR.

[EDITOR: Why would a narrative close with, “If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to let me know,” if the question was not even put until several days after he visited the property? Would not the officer ask to see a liquor license permit? How about a special event permit? Et cetera? A public record request for the pertinent pages from the procedure manual has not been responded to as of 13 December]


Thank you. What documents were checked pursuant to standard operating procedures? Also what time and day was this narrative entered into the computer system and who wrote it? What documents were checked pursuant to standard operating procedures?

52

5 2014-12-09 Castell to Walters

The complaint was entered around 7:10pm on 12/3/14 and assigned to the code officer around 7:13pm. The code officer arrived at the location at 7:30PM.

Officer’s narrative:

12/3/14 I inspected 743 Wash Ave per XC15005847 assigned to me, I arrived at the location at approximately 1930hrs. I spoke to the manager on duty Adrienne Wright from Thrillist Media Group, she advised that it was a private event for VIP guest only. Event will last from 7pm until 10pm tonight, sponsored by Tequila Herradura. All documentation provided appeared to be in place, I was invited inside space as well. Music was being played in an ambient level during my time at the location, also everything was kept inside the space and not outside on public property. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to let me know, thank you.

[EDITOR: It appears from the last sentence that the narrative was entered several days after the event, and not on the same day as asserted by Castell. The time of arrival stated, 7:30 P.M., is wrong, for the electronic record shows the first call to dispatch was made at 9:00 P.M. after I photographed the bouncers, entered the space and photographed the Herradura sign inside the space.]

Left 8:53:06 PM - Right 8:56:05 PM

Dec 3, 2014 VIRGIN MOBILE OUTGOING MYSTERY CUSTOMER CALL

12/03/2014 - 09:00 PM (305) 673-7555 00:02 2 Cellular $0.00


Please, may I have the narrative behind this item, along with the detail on exactly when (TIME) it was posted on the computer?

Case / Application / Permit Number XC15005847

53

6 Type / Classification XC-COMP2

COMPLNT: Complaint CODE: Code Compliance


Parcel Number 42030040690

File Date 2014-12-03

Status INVALID Status Date N/A

Valuation $0.00 Fees $0.00


Description Investigate event on site. [EDITOR: This is typically opaque: the reason for the invalidation of the complaint is notposted to the Description field. Records are also marked “CLOSED” with no publicexplanation. When reasons are posted, they are edited summaries of the officers’narratives. Stories are sometimes concocted ex post facto to insert after the conduct of the officer is questioned.]

2014-12-03 at 5:41 PM - Walters to Hernan Cardeno

743 Washington: Liquor servers trained this pm. Bouncers showing up. Club’s for rent sign down. Club room set up for big event.

[EDITOR: No response from Cardeno]

54

miami beach code compliance press trial

Documents