complaint against governmental entity for refusal to permit public comment

8/2/2019 Complaint Against Governmental Entity for Refusal to Permit Public Comment

1/33

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA

)CHARLES GRAPSKI, )

) CASE NO.:Plaintiff, )

) DIVISION:vs. )

)CITY OF ALACHUA, )a Florida municipal corporation and )CLOVIS WATSON, JR., in his )official capacity as City Manager, City Clerk )and Police Commissioner )of the City of Alachua, )

)Defendant. )/

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Plaintiff, CHARLES GRAPSKI, brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,

seeking a judgment declaring certain practices and policies of the CITY OF ALACHUA,

and its agents, to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States

Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution. Plaintiff also

asks the Court to permanently enjoin the enforcement of the challenged practices and

policies.

JURISDICTION

1 This suit is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States orother person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of anyrights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,

Page 1 of 33


2/33

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, orother proper proceeding for redress...

2 This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter which is a civil rights

action involving a constitutional question. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction to

enter declaratory judgments pursuant to Chapter 86 of the Florida Statutes.

3 This Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent

violations of the Plaintiffs rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution of

the United States and of the State of Florida, and under Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, and

1988, specifically seeking redress for the deprivation under color of state statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by

the Constitution and laws of the United States. The rights sought to be protected in this

cause of action arise and are secured under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution and Article I, 4 and 5 of the Florida Constitution.

PARTIES

4 Plaintiff CHARLES GRAPSKI (GRAPSKI) is a natural person, sui

juris, and a resident of the City of Alachua, Alachua County, Florida.

5 Defendant CITY OF ALACHUA is a Florida municipal corporation

situated in Alachua County, Florida.

6 Defendant CLOVIS WATSON, JR., is the City Manager, City Clerk and

Police Commissioner for the City of Alachua, and is sued only in his official capacity.

Page 2 of 33


3/33

VENUE

7 The CITY OF ALACHUA is located in Alachua County, Florida. All of

the acts complained of herein have occurred in the City of Alachua and venue is proper

in Alachua County, Florida.

FACTS

8 CHARLES GRAPSKI is a political and social activist with a keen interest

in the governance and operations of the CITY OF ALACHUA.

9 GRAPSKI has led a campaign to foster strict compliance with the public

records laws of the State of Florida (Chapter 119) and is particularly interested in what

he believes is the blatant disregard of those laws by the CITY OF ALACHUA.

GRAPSKI has submitted frequent public records requests to the CITY on his on behalf

and as a principal in a non-profit corporation known as The Open Records Project, Inc.

10 GRAPSKI has also been active in litigation against the CITY OF

ALACHUA and various officials of the CITY with respect to a recent City election

which was marred by voter fraud and widespread procedural irregularities.

11 GRAPSKI has also been a vocal policy of many of the Citys policies,

including its routine use of the Consent Agenda process to enact laws and policies

without citizen participation or input.

12 GRAPSKI has also been a vocal critic of the current City administration

and of certain City personnel, including Defendant WATSON. Part of that criticism has

centered on the fact that WATSON holds a variety of positions in City government in

apparent violation of Florida law.

13 GRAPSKI is a frequent speaker at public hearings including City

Commission meetings.

Page 3 of 33


4/33

14 GRAPSKI intends to run for City Commission during the next election.

GRAPSKI has arranged to pick up the qualifying packet and expects to file the necessary

papers with the CITY Clerk on Friday, February 23, 2007.

15 The CITY OF ALACHUA and its various officials has taken an extremely

hostile and confrontational approach to Mr. GRAPSKIs inquiries and political activism.

In particular Plaintiff alleges the following:

A. WATSON previously arrested GRAPSKI at City Hall for allegedly taping

recording a conversation during one of GRAPKIs previous visits at City Hall. The arrest

occurred while GRAPSKI was viewing public records relating to the recent election

dispute. All charges against GRAPSKI stemming from this incident were later dismissed

in pretrial proceedings by the Court.

B. The Citys attorneys have also advised WATSON not to speak with

GRAPSKI concerning his public records requests under Chapter 119 of the Florida

Statutes. Other citizens of ALACHUA are not restricted from speaking with WATSON

about public records.

C. The Mayor of ALACHUA has been harsh and confrontational with

GRAPSKI when he has attempted to speak at public meetings.

16 The CITY OF ALACHUA primarily does business from its City Hall

located at 15001 N.W. 140th Street, Alachua, Florida (hereinafter City Hall).

17 The ALACHUA City Hall is where most City officials have their offices,

including Defendant WATSON and Alan Henderson, the Deputy City Clerk responsible

for maintaining public records.

18 Until very recently, City Hall was also the location where ALACHUA

held its public meetings, including meetings of the City Commission. Those meetings

Page 4 of 33


5/33

have been relocated temporarily pending completion of an investigation into a fire at City

Hall.

19 The ALACHUA City Hall is where the City canvasses votes following

elections.

20 The ALACHUA City Hall has also been the site over the years of a

variety of protests, public demonstrations, civic events, gatherings, shows and meetings,

some of which have to do with City businesses and others with private and social events.

As is the case with city halls in many small cities, the ALACHUA City Hall is a focal

point for the community and a natural gathering point for its citizens.

21 The Alachua City Hall is open during weekdays between normal business

hours. During those hours any citizen having business with the CITY or its agents and

representatives are invited and authorized to enter City Hall .

22 The parking lot and CITY property immediately surrounding City Hall is

itself accessed regularly by the citizenry and constitutes a traditional public forum.

23 GRAPSKI has as much right to access City Hall and the CITY officials

located therein as any other citizen in the community.

24 GRAPSKI regularly goes to the ALACHUA City Hall for the purpose of

meeting City officials, including Defendant WATSON, and for a variety of other reasons

which he shares in common with the general public. Many of GRAPSKIs visits to City

Hall are in furtherance of his efforts to obtain public records.

25 On February 12, 2007, GRAPSKI went to City Hall for the purpose of

speaking with several City officials concerning various public records requests which had

not been fulfilled by the CITY. GRAPSKI also wished to report what he believed were

criminal actions by various City officials in avoiding, covering up and failing to respond

Page 5 of 33


6/33

to various of his public records requests.

26 In particular, GRAPSKI intended to meet with and speak to Defendant

WATSON, Police Chief Robert Jernigan, Deputy Clerk Henderson, Deputy Clerk

Assistant Diane Morgan, Mike New, the Citys director of public services, and J.R.,

the Citys information technician.

27 During the course of the day, GRAPSKI met and spoke with each of those

individuals in furtherance of what he believed were his and the publics vital interests.

28 At approximately 1:00 P.M. GRAPSKI entered the trailer at City Hall

now serving as offices for Deputy Clerk Henderson for the purpose of inquiring about his

public records requests.

29 At that time and place, GRAPSKI was accompanied by Tamara Robbins,

a former ALACHUA Commissioner. Ms. Robbins also wished to meet with Mr.

Henderson to address both GRAPSKIs public records requests and certain requests

which she had filed on her own account.

30 GRAPSKI was also accompanied by Mike Canney, another local activist

who frequently videotapes GRAPSKIs interactions with CITY officials.

31 After announcing her presence, Ms. Robbins was invited or allowed to the

rear of the trailer where Mr. Hendersons desk was located. GRAPSKI accompanied Ms.

Robbins. Mr. Canney remained near the front of the trailer videotaping GRAPSKI and

Robbins.

32 Immediately upon seeing GRAPSKI, Mr. Henderson ordered GRAPSKI

to leave saying Out. Get Out. Henderson did not direct Ms. Robbins to leave.

33 GRAPSKI said nothing in response; he did not leave.

34 Henderson then engaged in a lengthy conversation with Ms. Robbins

Page 6 of 33


7/33

concerning the public records inquiries. At one point GRAPSKI asked Mr. Henderson

some questions to which Mr. Henderson replied without incident or quarrel.

35 After approximately five minutes WATSON entered and told GRAPSKI

that he was causing a disturbance.

36 WATSON did not accuse Ms. Robbins of causing a disturbance despite

the fact that she was acting and behaving in exactly the same manner. Indeed, at the time

WATSON arrived, Robbins was engaged in conversation with Mr. Henderson while

GRAPSKI was passively observing.

37 WATSON did not accuse Mr. Canney of creating a disturbance despite

the fact that he was videotaping the encounter. Videotaping is surely is not commonplace

at City Hall other than at public meetings.

38 GRAPSKI then addressed his public records complaints to WATSON,

and voiced his belief that the CITY was willfully failing to comply with Chapter 119.

39 During his brief conversation with Mr. Henderson and his more lengthy

discussion with WATSON, GRAPSKI was firm and insistent, but did not raise his voice

or use profanity, did make any threats, did not engage in wild gesticulations and did not

interfere with CITY business.

40 WATSON requested that GRAPSKI follow him outside to continue the

conversation; GRAPSKI immediately complied.

41 Upon exiting the trailer, WATSON informed GRAPSKI that he had to

vacate the premises.

42 WATSON did not require that Robbins leave the premises. Robbins was

permitted to continue her discussions with Mr. Henderson. Likewise Mr. Canney was not

asked to leave. He continued videotaping Mr. Robbins conversation with Mr. Henderson

Page 7 of 33


8/33

as well as GRAPSKIs conversation with WATSON.

43 Immediately thereafter, Chief Jernigan arrived and instructed GRAPSKI

to leave City Hall.

44 GRAPSKI demurred. Instead, he demanded that Jernigan take a statement

from him and investigate possible criminal violations of Chapter 119.

45 Chief Jernigan refused to take a statement from GRAPSKI .

46 A second ALACHUA police officer arrived at the scene and told

GRAPSKI that he would be issued a trespass warning if he refused to leave City Hall.

47 Again GRAPSKI demurred.

48 The ALACHUA officer then issued GRAPSKI a written trespass warning.

A copy of the warning is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

49 GRAPSKI inquired of the officer the geographic extent of the warning

and the duration of the trespass warning.

50 The ALACHUA officer replied that GRAPSKI was barred from

approaching or entering the ALACHUA City Hall and was further barred from any of the

property owned by the CITY at 15001 N.W. 140th Street, including the parking lot. The

ALACHUA officer further informed GRAPSKI that he was barred from those properties

for a period of one (1) year and that he was subject to immediate arrest if entered those

CITY properties for any reason during that time period.

51 GRAPSKI then removed himself from the CITY parking lot and stood on

the road right of way.

52 At that time an Alachua County Sheriffs Deputy arrived having been

called by Ms. Robbins and GRAPSKI. The Deputy took a statement from GRAPSKI

concerning Plaintiffs belief that CITY officials were engaged in criminal violations of

Page 8 of 33


9/33

Chapter 119.

53 GRAPSKI then left the area.

54 While the trespass warning states that it was issued to GRAPSKI because

he was disturbing the peace GRAPSKI was not charged with that crime or any other

crime as a result of his presence at City Hall on February 12, 2007.

55 Because of the Trespass Warning lodged against him by CITY officials,

GRAPSKI can no longer enter City Hall for any purpose. Furthermore, the Trespass

Warning necessarily prevents GRAPSKI from meeting CITY officials at City Hall as he

previously did on a regular basis.

56 GRAPSKI is fearful that he will be arrested immediately if he enters

CITY HALL or any of the surrounding CITY property. That fear is quire reasonable

considering the CITYs prior arrest of GRAPSKI on false charges and his later arrest

for unrelated activities at a CITY COMMISSION meeting.1

57 In order for GRAPSKI to qualify for the City Commission race this term,

he must file qualifying papers at City Hall. GRAPSKI is fearful that, if he attempts to file

the election papers, which are a prerequisite to qualifying for public office, he will be

arrested pursuant to the Trespass Warning.

58 The Trespass Warning prohibits GRAPSKI from inspecting public records

kept at City Hall.

59 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to petition to the government for redress

of grievance.

60 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to engage in political speech and to

1 The CITY subsequently arrested GRAPKSI for unrelated criminal charges associatedwith GRAPKSIs presence at a Commission meeting later on February 12, 2007.However, those charges have nothing to do with the Trespass Warning and are not thesubject of this litigation.

Page 9 of 33


10/33

speak with representatives of CITY government on matters of concern to the Plaintiff.

61 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to access public property and public

officials on the same terms and conditions as other citizens of ALACHUA.

62 Plaintiff has a constitutional right to run for public office free of

infringement and interference by government and its agents.

63 Plaintiff has the right under the Florida Constitution and Florida law to

request and access public records.

Page 10 of 33


11/33

64 The Trespass Warning operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint in the

following respects:

A. Plaintiff is unable to fully exercise his constitutional rights while the

Trespass Warning is in effect.

B. There are no standards set forth in Florida law or local ordinance which

restrict the discretion of the police official in issuing a Trespass Warning; rather police

officers are directed to issue a Trespass Warning simply upon complaint of the property

owner. As a result government officials have unbridled discretion to determine whether a

Trespass Warning will issue.

C. There are no standards set forth in Florida law or local ordinances limiting

the prior restraint to a specified brief period of time.

D. The time period under which this particular prior restraint was issued (one

year) is not brief and was subject to the whim of the individual police officer.

E. There are no provisions for judicial review of the Trespass Warning.

F. The government is not required to seek judicial approval of the Trespass

Warning and the restraint is imposed without maintaining the status quo in favor of

speech and free access.

G. The government bears no burden of proof in issuing or maintaining the

Trespass Warning. Rather, the warning issued simply upon the unsworn complaint of a

CITY official (WATSON).

65 The Trespass Warning is not narrowly tailored but operates as a total ban

on Plaintiffs ability to petition the government for redress of grievances.

66 The Trespass Warning is not supported by a compelling government

interest.

Page 11 of 33


12/33

67 The trespass warning was entered at WATSONs direction and was issued

by CITY officials acting under color of state law and authority.

68 The trespass warning issued by CITY officials, acting under color of state

law and authority, violated Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments

as well as the corresponding provisions of the Florida Constitution.

69 Plaintiff has retained Gary S. Edinger & Associates, P.A. and Joseph W.

Little, Esquire, as his attorneys to represent him in this action and has agreed to pay them

a reasonable fee, which fee Defendants must pay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1989.

COUNT I DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Petition Federal First Amendment)

70 Plaintiff realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-69, and

incorporates those allegations in this Count by reference.

71 This is an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the Trespass

Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under the First

and Fourteenth Amendments.

72 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the

Plaintiff the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

73. A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights

to access public property and public officials to redress his legitimate grievances over the

conduct, policies and personnel of the CITY OF ALACHUA.

74 Plaintiff maintains that the Trespass Warning is an illegal Order and was

void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right to

petition the government for redress of grievances.

75 Plaintiff maintains that, even if his ejection from City Hall was lawful on

Page 12 of 33


13/33

February 12, 2007, the Trespass Warning operates as a prior restraint and a continuing

violation of his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of

grievances, now and in the future.

76 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the First,

and Fourteenth Amendments as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants

actions, policies and procedures.

77 Plaintiff asserts that its position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally

sound and supported by fact and law. However, the Defendants policies and practices,

have created a bona fide controversy between the parties, and Plaintiff is in doubt as to

his rights, privileges and immunities. Plaintiff requires, therefore, a declaratory judgment

declaring his rights, privileges and immunities.

78 There is a substantial, actual, and justiciable controversy involving

Plaintiffs rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the enforcement of the Trespass Warning

and the Defendants actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

A. That this Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;

B. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning is an unconstitutional

infringement upon Plaintiffs right to petition government for redress of grievances.

C. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning was invalid when issued

and is an illegal order.

D. That the Court declare that the Trespass Warning may not bar Plaintiff

from future access to City Hall because it operates as a prior restraint, is not narrowly

tailored and is not supported by a compelling government interest.

Page 13 of 33


14/33

E. That the Court enter a judgment for nominal damages against Defendants

for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights.

F. That the Court grant supplemental relief including, but not limited to an

award of Plaintiffs costs and attorney's fees.

G. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to

which he may be entitled.

COUNT II INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Right to Petition Federal First Amendment)


incorporate those allegations in this Count by reference.

80 This is an action for injunctive relief to enjoin the CITY OF ALACHUA

from enforcing the Trespass Warning against Plaintiff in violation of Plaintiffs rights

under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

81 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the

Plaintiff the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.





void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right to

petition the government for redress of grievances.




Page 14 of 33


15/33






86 Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable injury unless the Court

issues a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from violating

Plaintiffs constitutional rights in the future.

87 The public interest would be served by the granting of injunctive relief. In

fact, the public interest is disserved by actions, such as those of Defendants, which

interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following injunctive relief:

A. That the Court take jurisdiction over the parties and this cause;

B. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever

enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from enforcing the

Trespass Warning against this Plaintiff;

C. That the Court enter a temporary and permanent injunction forever

enjoining Defendants and their various agents and employees from issuing further

trespass warnings against these Plaintiff with respect to City Hall and its environs;

D. That this Court award Plaintiff his recoverable costs, including a

reasonable attorneys fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and

E. That this Court award Plaintiff all other relief in law and in equity to

Page 15 of 33


16/33


COUNT III DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Free Speech Federal First Amendment)




Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under the First

and Fourteenth Amendments.

90 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech


to free speech on matters of public, political and individual concern.


void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right of

free speech



violation of his First Amendment right of free speech, now and in the future.




95 Plaintiff asserts that his position, set forth in this Complaint, is legally



Page 16 of 33


17/33










infringement upon Plaintiffs right of free speech.







for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. A





COUNT IV INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Right to Free Speech Federal First Amendment)

Page 17 of 33


18/33





under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

99 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees

Plaintiffs right of free speech.




void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his First Amendment right of

free speech.













Page 18 of 33


19/33


interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments.





Trespass Warning against these Plaintiff;








COUNT V - DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Petition Florida Constitution)




Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under Article I,

Section 5 of the Florida Constitution.

108 Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution provides that [t]he people

Page 19 of 33


20/33

shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to

petition for redress of grievances.





void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his state constitutional right

to instruct his representative and to petition the government for redress of grievances.



violation of his state constitutional right to instruct his representative and to petition the

government for redress of grievances, now and in the future.

112 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the Florida

Constitution as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants actions, policies and

procedures.







Plaintiffs rights under the Florida Constitution, as those rights will be affected by the

enforcement of the Trespass Warning and the Defendants actions.


Page 20 of 33


21/33



infringement upon Plaintiffs right to instruct his representatives and to petition

government for redress of grievances.












COUNT VI INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Right to Petition Florida Constitution)





under the Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution.

117 Article I, Section 5 of the Florida Constitution provides that [t]he people

shall have the right peaceably to assemble, to instruct their representatives, and to

Page 21 of 33


22/33

petition for redress of grievances.

118 A controversy has arisen between the parties concerning Plaintiffs rights




void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his state constitutional right

to instruct his representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances.



violation of his state constitutional right to instruct his representatives and to petition the

government for redress of grievances, now and in the future.









interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.




Page 22 of 33


23/33










COUNT VII DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Right to Free Speech Florida Constitution)




Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs rights under Article I,


126 Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides that [e]very

person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible

for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of

speech




void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his right of free speech under

Page 23 of 33


24/33

the Florida Constitution.



violation of his right of free speech under the Florida Constitution, now and in the future.

130 Plaintiff has a right to have this Court declare his rights under the Florida

Constitution as those rights are infringed upon by the Defendants actions, policies and

procedures.












infringement upon Plaintiffs right of free speech.






Page 24 of 33


25/33


for the violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. A





COUNT VIII INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Right to Free Speech Florida Constitution)





under Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution.

135 Article I, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution provides that [e]very

person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible

for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of

speech




void and invalid when issued by the CITY as a violation of his right of free speech under

the Florida Constitution.



Page 25 of 33


26/33

violation of his right of free speech under the Florida Constitution, now and in the future.









interfere with the publics rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.













COUNT IX DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Page 26 of 33


27/33


28/33


29/33







infringement upon Plaintiffs right to inspect and access public records under Article I,

section 24 of the Florida Constitution.












COUNT XII DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Equal Protection Fourteen Amendment and Florida Constitution)



Page 29 of 33


30/33


Warning issued by the CITY OF ALACHUA violates Plaintiffs right of Equal

Protection under Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,


164 Plaintiff has the constitutional right to Equal Protection under the laws,

which includes the right to be treated the same as other citizens in similar circumstances.

165 On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff entered City Hall along with two other

citizens for the purpose of inquiring about the status of public records requests sent by

Plaintiff and others.

166 At that time and place, Plaintiff acted no differently than the other citizens

present for the same purpose.

167 At that time and place, Plaintiff had the same right to access City Hall as

the other two citizens, or indeed, any of the citizens of ALACHUA.

168 Plaintiff was treated differently than the two citizens who accompanied

him and differently than any other citizen of the CITY.

169 The Trespass Warning was issued only to Plaintiff and not to his

compatriots or other citizens.

170 The CITY has not previously issued Trespass Warnings to other citizens

directing them not to approach City Hall or its environs.

171 Plaintiff was singled out for selective and unequal enforcement and

suffered a unique disability imposed upon him and no other citizens of ALACHUA.

172 The CITY issued the Trespass Warning because it disagrees with the

content of GRAPSKIs speech, it seeks to punish Plaintiff for the exercise of his

constitutional rights, it objects to his particular social agenda, it wishes to hide public

Page 30 of 33


31/33

records and to frustrate his efforts toward political accountability and as specific

retaliation for his very public criticism of WATSON and the various policies and

procedures of the CITY.

173 The Trespass Warning was not issued for a legitimate law enforcement

purpose, but was issued in order to silence Plaintiff and frustrate his attempts to exercise

his most fundamental constitutional rights.
















infringement upon Plaintiffs right of Equal Protection because Plaintiff was singled out

for selective enforcement of the laws based upon:

(1) the CITYs objections to the content of GRAPSKIs speech;

Page 31 of 33


32/33

(2) the CITYs desire to punish Plaintiff for the exercise of his

constitutional rights,

(3) the CITYs objection to Plaintiffs particular social agenda;

(4) the CITYS desire to hide public records and to frustrate

Plaintiffs efforts toward political accountability; and

(5) the CITYS desire to retaliate against GRAPSKI for his very

public criticism of WATSON and the various policies and procedures of the CITY.




from future access to City Hall.







CHARLES GRAPSKI

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF ALACHUA

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared CHARLES

GRAPSKI, to me well known to be the person described as Plaintiff, who stated under

oath that he has read the foregoing Complaint and that all of the facts alleged in the

Page 32 of 33


33/33

Complaint are true and correct, on this day of February, 2007.

NOTARY PUBLIC, State of Florida

My Commission Expires:

GARY S. EDINGER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

JOSEPH W. LITTLE, Esquire GARY S. EDINGER, EsquireFlorida Bar No.: 196749 Florida Bar No.: 06068123731 N.W. 13th Place 305 N.E. 1st StreetGainesville, Florida 32605 Gainesville, Florida 32601(352) 392-2211 (352) 338-4440 (352) 337-0696 (fax)

[email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiffs
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

complaint against governmental entity for refusal to permit public comment

Documents