Attorney Ramunni, representing White Sands Properties of Fort Myers, LLC, officially presented a “Smoking Gun” Zoning Verification Letter dated November 18, 2020, to the Town Council. The Letter clearly states, “There are no active Code Enforcement cases on this property.”
“If you recall, at the last meeting, we had a little bit of a discussion about the starting point for the fines on the property and that number was given to be in excess of $1.2 million dollars. So if you look at the zoning verification letter in 2020, it can’t be both ways,” said Attorney Ramunni, who argued the amount of the fine produced by staff was incorrect.
This is For Real? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Attorney Ramunni said he ran the numbers off the Code Enforcement Orders through October 31, 2020.
“So when you actually look at the numbers, the amount comes to approximately $420,000, give or take,” Attorney Ramunni said.
True to his word, Schmid told his lawyer to give FMB one shot to get things straight.
“So we are asking for reconsideration or clarification as it pertains to my client’s motion to forgive the liens,” Attorney Ramunni said.
The White Sands lawyer requested that Town Manager Andy Hyatt review the matter pursuant to the applicable ordinances. This procedural requirement allows the Town Council to reconsider based on the new evidence.
At the May 6 Town Council meeting, Attorney Ramunni previously asked for finality on the matter. He first argued for a dismissal of all fines based on non-offender status, highlighting White Sands’ full compliance with a settlement agreement from 2019. The evidence of a cashed $50,000 check and subsequent communications from the Town confirmed the resolution of the liens.
Filed with the Town Council before the meeting, these documents are publicly available.
At that meeting earlier this month, the Town Council declined to recognize Schmid’s payment as full satisfaction of the issues. After deliberation and a unanimous 4-0 vote, the FMB Council said they would $250,000. Council Member Scott Safford recused himself after disclosure of prior financial dealings to Becky Vose, the Town Attorney.
At the latest meeting, Safford remained recused on the Schmid / White Sands issue. Council Member Karen Woodson was not present based on a previously noticed excused absence.
Schmid did not appear at the Town Council meeting. We were able to reach him while traveling in Illinois.
“This lien should never have been in the records based on the Town’s own data. I am told that this is a clear slander of title and interference with credit. If I go to Court, I will win. I can show that this false pending foreclosure has harmed me economically,” Schmid said, pointing to less preferential commercial interest rates available to him and his companies.
We contacted several Town Government members to find out if they had officially reassigned the matter to Town Manager Andy Hyatt for investigation. Vice Mayor Jim Atterholt responded.
"Procedurally, it is difficult to say as the attorney was speaking during the public comment period. Attorney Ramunni will need to follow up with our Town Attorney, Becky Vose, to determine next steps," Vice Mayor Atterholt said.
On May 1, the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) threw candidate Cara Castronuova off the Republican Primary Ballot for the U.S. Senate in New York based on a series of technicalities. On May 10, Albany Judge agreed with the BOE.
Castronuova is not finished. She has taken her fight to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department. After submitting 15,727 signatures from registered Republican voters to secure her ballot spot, Castronuova challenges New York’s Election Law and the political establishment controlling the BOE and the courts. You can read her Appellate Brief.
Her appeal raises significant constitutional and procedural issues. She asserts that the New York State Election Law is unconstitutional as it denies her and her supporters equal protection, notice, and an opportunity to be heard.
"There is no form of proceeding for relief under the Election Law to validate constitutional rights," she states.
Castronuova also alleges that political conflicts of interest and malfeasance influenced the BOE's actions. She highlights the involvement of BOE employees in filing objections and reviewing the petition, arguing that this constitutes a conflict of interest and undermines the integrity of the process.
Castronuova’s appeal seeks to restore her name to the ballot under the doctrine of functus officio, which states that once an official body has performed its duty, it has no further authority over the matter. She argues that the BOE had no constitutional basis to remove her from the ballot after initially validating her petition.
Some are saying she can win.
The Fight for Ballot Access
Castronuova, a registered voter and enrolled member of the Republican Party, began her campaign for the U.S. Senate earlier this year. Castronuova claims this race differs from other statewide races because of voters’ constitutional guarantees for the federal office election.
“The Seventeenth Amendment is implicated because the election at issue is for a U.S. Senate seat. The textual language guarantees senators of a particular state ‘are elected by the people thereof. Gray v. Sanders,” her papers say, citing a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case.
For several major statewide offices, the winner of a party's nomination process is automatically included on the ballot. “One of the principal privileges of membership in a recognized political party under the Election Law is a designated ballot line or "berth." Election Law § 7-104(4). For several major statewide offices, the winner of a party's nomination process is automatically included on the ballot,” Castronuova’s papers say.
At the New York State Republican Committee Convention earlier this year, one candidate secured ballot access through this process - by ensuring a single signature from the Party Chairman.
This is For Real? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“The Republican nominee, the Respondent, Mr. Sapricone, is the hand-picked choice of NYS Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox, the son-in-law of a former United States President. Mr. Sapricone also enjoys the endorsement of a living former Republican President—a man not named George W. Bush,” Castronuova’s papers say.
The Election Law requires prospective candidates to gather signatures for ballot access if they have not been selected through the party's nominating process. Castronuova needed to collect 15,000 signatures from enrolled Republican voters, with specific numbers from at least 13 congressional districts, during 37 days in March and April. She submitted 15,727 signatures on April 4, 2024, as validated by the BOE.
However, objections soon followed. Anthony Nunziato, Chairman of the Queens County Republican Party, and Carl C. Aliviado, a BOE employee, filed general objections received by the BOE on April 9, 2024. Specific objections were filed on April 15, 2024, claiming 2,650 signatures were invalid for various reasons, including incorrect registration and enrollment statuses, missing or incorrect addresses, and improper dates.
Castronuova claims the entire New York Election Law system of objections and invalidation petitions is unconstitutional in her U.S. Senate election because it effectively ignores her petition signers’ voting rights, including the heightened guarantees for the direct popular election of Senators applicable to party primaries.
“The textual and historical circumstances surrounding the Seventeenth Amendment were fueled by various societal and political factors that underscored the inefficiencies and ethical concerns associated with legislative selection. Concerns over the influence of party bosses, political machines, and corruption…highlighted the need for a more transparent and democratic selection process. Efforts at the state level to circumvent legislative selection through primaries and other methods indicated a growing demand for change, reflecting broader societal shifts towards more excellent democratic governance. See Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn.,” Castronuova’s papers say.
Castronuova calls this case a “litmus test.”
“Ballot access for the Respondent, Mr. Sapriacone, and the simultaneous denial of ballot access for Castronuova is the product of party bosses and “King-Makers.” If former Presidents and their relatives are allowed to act as “King-Makers” and violate the constitutional rights of rank-and-file party members with impunity, we have proof positive of a broken Election Law system and a corrupt judiciary that sanctions the selective application of the Rule of Law,” her papers say.
Legal Battles Begin
Last month, Anthony P. Nunziato and Carl C. Aliviado instituted an objector lawsuit in the Albany County Supreme Court, seeking to have Castronuova tossed from the ballot. Mr. Sapricone joined them. All three are represented by Attorney James Curran, a lawyer and registered lobbyist for the Albany-based Brown & Weinraub, where he has worked for over five years. Before that, he was counsel to the NYS Senate Democratic majority in various roles.
The first hearing court hearing was held on April 22, 2024, where Castronuova, representing herself, argued that her petition had enough valid signatures and that the objections were untimely and forged. She requested a cross-claim against BOE, which Supreme Court Justice Justin Corcoran denied as “late.” The Court found Nunziato and Aliviado’s objections to be filed in a timely manner, denying Castronuova's defense based on timeliness on April 29, 2024.
Further proceedings were scheduled, anticipating Castronuova's filing of a validation proceeding after the BOE meeting on May 1, 2024, which she had already termed “politically influenced” and a product of a “conflict of interest.”
She explicitly names Anthony P. Nunziato and Carl C. Aliviado as having conflicts of interest. Aliviado is an employee of the BOE and an appointee of the Queens Republican Party, and Nunziato is the Chairman of the Queens Republican Party. Alivado reports to Bart Haggerty, a member of the Queens GOP Executive Committee. These connections undermine the integrity of the process.
In April, Castronuova called the BOE, and the call confirmed that Aliviado, the objector to her designating petitions, was “doing petitions.” Aliviado’s voicemail confirms he is a BOE employee.
1×
0:00
-1:25
Castronuova alleges outrageous conflicts of interest and political influence in the BOE’s actions. She points out that BOE employees involved in filing objections and reviewing her petition were connected to the political establishment, raising questions about the fairness and impartiality of the process.
She argues that these connections and the undisclosed political motivations create an appearance of impropriety and undermine the integrity of the process in its entirety, both at the BOE and subsequently at the Supreme Court, where Justice Cocoran relied upon the presumption of regularity of the Board’s records.
“It’s clearly ‘Rules for thee, but not for me,"‘ said a veteran political consultant who was present at the BOE on April 29 for the Executive Director’s findings.
“How can they disqualify something as the ‘Wrong Town’ or ‘Wrong Address’ when the BOE uses that address to deliver their mail, and the US Postal Service gets it right daily?… The Party Bosses write these BOE Rules to keep grassroots candidates from running against their select and chosen politicians, people whom the establishment can count on to look the other way when needed,” the consultant said.
The consultant pointed to a “Smoking Gun” letter from the BOE announcing the meeting with the Executive Directors. Castronuova’s papers also did, blaming BOE malfeasance leading to constitutional violations.
“BOE employees were also objectors and judges of the Castronuova line by line. The BOE has fundamentally violated candidate Cara Castronuova and her supporters' First Amendment, voting, and equal protection rights. The letter purportedly transmitted on ‘April 23, 2023’ is legally invalid for notice purposes for the hearing. The transmission is prima facie invalid, inconsistent with BOE rules, and legally defective (see Matter of Feliciano v Guastella)...Even if the error was ministerial, equal protection demands equal treatment, which has not been provided regarding the Designating Petition,” Castronuova’s papers say.
Castronuova says the BOE did only one thing right—they accepted her designating petition and the signatures of 15,727 registered Republican voters. After that, the party apparatchiks took over, and the “establishment” tore up the constitution.
“Castronuova and her supporters were denied proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the entire hearing and any actions taken by the NYSBOE afterward are legal nullities concerning the Designating Petition (see 22 NYCRR 6204.1). The discrepancies in the notice do not override the electorate's right to exercise their franchise fully (see Matter of Staber v Fidler, Matter of Flacks v Bd. of Elections in the City of NY),” the papers say.
BOE staff, including Alivado, have reviewed Designating Petitions in Queens, which is creating a significant conflict of interest. This non-disclosure impairs the perceived integrity of the objections to Castronuova's candidacy, failing to uphold the BOE's stated standard for impartial and fair conduct in election oversight. Undisclosed conflicts of interest and manipulation compromise public trust in democratic systems, as highlighted by the New York State Court of Appeals (Grillo v Harrington; McGuire v Gamache).
Unsurprisingly, the bent BOE booted Castronuova from the ballot on May 1.
Validation Proceedings
On May 3, 2024, Castronuova filed a special proceeding to validate her petition as an aggrieved candidate. A hearing on May 7 and 8, 2024, consolidated the invalidation and validation proceedings.
At the hearing, it was agreed that 15,000 valid signatures were required. Castronuova submitted 15,727 signatures, and the BOE invalidated 2,029, leaving 13,698 valid signatures. Castronuova says she has a legal roadmap to the 15,000 necessary signatures.
“A cumulative total of 1,582 challenges were disallowed purely based on legal error. The petition faced 305 challenges for wrong addresses, 12 for signing witness addresses, 450 for wrong towns, 63 for alterations, 49 for signing witness alterations, 230 for incomplete dates, 364 for not being enrolled or registered, and 109 for signing witness issues. The Supreme Court conceded that Castronuova has 14,008 valid signatures, even with the legally defective disallowed classes stated above,” Castronuova’s papers say.
The Supreme Court reviewed Castronuova's applications to dismiss the original invalidation petition and declare the BOE's actions unauthorized. The Supreme Court ultimately denied Castronuova all relief requested and ordered her removed from the June 25, 2024, Republican Party primary ballot. As it stands, there will be no Republican primary, as Mr. Sapriacone is unopposed. In a recent controversial ruling, EDNY Federal Court Judge Ramon E. Reyes misunderstood this nuance of the Election Law.
Castronuova claims the Supreme Court made serious legal errors and relied upon false, dishonest, and unreliable statements presented by the BOE. Citing and distinguishing legal precedent, Castronuova believes that if the law is correctly applied and her petition-signers’ rights are respected, she will be restored to the ballot. She argues that only a de novo review can remedy the constitutional harm to her 15,727 supporters.
One of the significant legal issues concerns wrong addresses and the “Town/City Trap.” Castronuova says that if the law is applied correctly, that single determination restores over 750 voter signatures.
“The Board of Elections wrongly invalidated signatures where the signer either failed to include or included an incorrect county, town, or city. This contradicts the ruling in Molinari v. Powers, where the Federal District Court held that Election Law § 6–132 was unconstitutional for requiring a signer of a primary petition to list towns. Additionally, signers, in this case, listed their post office addresses, the same addresses used by the BOE for mailing purposes, and should not have been invalidated, as established by Giordano v. Westchester Cnty. Bd. of Elections,” Castronuova’s papers said.
The Candidate also says that the cases often used to ignore Molinari are not applicable here.
“Stoppenbach v. Sweeney involved a congressional race, not a statewide one. Prestia v. O’Connor is also not applicable as it dealt with an internal Conservative Party dispute, which the Second Circuit ruled should be resolved in state courts,” the filed papers say.
Ultimately, Justice Cochran disagreed, and Castronuova filed her Appellate Brief on Friday morning. But even that seemingly mundane task wasn’t without controversy.
Potential Filing Fiasco Averted
John Tabacco is a Castronuova supporter and co-plaintiff in the companion EDNY matter, Castronuova v. Cox. He physically handed the Castronuova Appeal into the Appellate Division counter on State Street in Albany last Friday.
“I know they were giving Cara all sorts of technical problems in the courts. She’s a Pro Se party and a grassroots candidate. This Election Appeal raises serious voter disenfranchisement, BOE misconduct, and structural problems within the Election Law. It doesn’t take a lawyer to see that they are trying to use every sleazy trick in the book to deny Cara her opportunity to be heard. That’s their game. The BOE and the Albany Judge already disregarded the rights of 15,727 Republican Party voters for a U.S. Senate race in favor of the “Kingmaker” Party Boss selection. Unlike her Letita James-supporting Republican opponent, Cara Castronuova does not seek to be coronated. She wants to earn it just like her numerous personal and professional accolades,” Tabacco said.
Tabacco wasn't prepared for what he would encounter at the Albany Appellate Division Office.
“The Assistant Clerk basically told Cara over the phone that if all of the briefs and materials were not there by noon on Friday, she wouldn’t accept them. So we busted our ass, and I hand-delivered everything. The Clerk physically accepted everything well before noon,” Tabacco said.
He thought he was in the clear until he looked down at the stamped copy from the Clerk’s Office.
“It said RECEIVED: APP DIV 3RD DEPT. The time stamp was 2024, MAY 17 PM 12:56,” Tabacco said. “The machines there were an hour off.”
Recognizing that they were looking for any reason to knock Cara out, Tabacco got some help.
“We worked too hard to give it to Ed Cox and his well-paid Democrat lawyers and lobbyists. I’m the son of an NYPD Detective, so I turned to the blue for help.”
Tabacco found an Albany Police Officer, John Collins, to verify that the time stamp on the document received from the Appellate Division Clerk was incorrect.
“We’re covered on this issue. But you know they are probably sitting around looking for technicalities right now. However, I am informed by my legal scholars that it would be challenging for a case involving constitutional rights, in this case voting rights, to be dismissed without the Court hearing the merits,” Tabacco said.
“I have been considering due process, given my own injuries as a disenfranchised Castronuova voter. Everything I have read and discussed with experts shows that administrative and technical deficiencies or processes cannot swallow up constitutional rights.
A source with knowledge of the litigation said that the Respondents will seek to have Castronuova’s appeal dismissed on the basis of a defective record. On Friday, Castronuova, Attorney Curran, and Attorney Quail for the BOE exchanged emails about that issue. When asked, Castronuova’s camp was quick to respond.
“Aside from Transcripts, delayed by an Albany murder trial that the Court Reporter said he could not produce for three weeks, Cara put together a comprehensive record. A campaign source said that all of the issues are legal, and the Appellate Divison can rule on the Supreme Court’s Order, which speaks for itself,” a campaign source said.
We spoke to another source knowledgeable about Election Law matters and the parties who confirmed the strategy.
“There are certain trivial issues and others that are not,” the source said. “Voting is central to democracy and our system of government. It is a fundamental right repeatedly textually committed to our foundational documents. I don’t think this is the hill [Attorney Curran] wants to die on, but he would be remiss if he didn’t raise defects that could help his client’s case.”
We attempted to reach Attorney James Curran of Brown & Weintraub for comment. As of press time, he had not responded to this inquiry:
From: Dick LaFontaine, Investigative Journalist <RALafontaine@protonmail.com> Date: On Friday, May 17th, 2024 at 4:34 PM Subject: Castronuova Appeal To: James Curran <jcurran@BrownWeinraub.com>
Attorney Curran,
We are running an article about the Castronuova appeal.
A source close to the Castronuova campaign claims that your clients seek to reject claims that Republican Party voters were disenfranchised because the Albany Supreme Court reporters haven't completed the transcripts from the proceeding before Judge Corcoran, in part due to a murder trial.
Is it your client's position that voter disenfranchisement is trivial?
The source said your clients would require a transcript before they could make a legal determination about whether slavery was wrong.
Do you have any response?
Regards, Dick LaFontaine Investigative Journalist
“It’s going to be bad optics if [Cox and Sapricone] don’t try to take this case head-on,” said a well-known Manhattan Democratic consultant.
“The chatter is that this could be transformative. Most BOE jobs are for party loyalists and family members who form the backbone of petition-gathering and GOTV (get out the vote) operations. They are also party officials engaged in activity on behalf of the party. An adverse ruling could destroy much of the party patronage,” the consultant said.
A well-known Election Law attorney, speaking anonymously, was much more blunt.
“These aren’t civil service jobs. There are no qualifications or tests. Imagine if BOE employees were required to be fair and ethical. The current system would face seismic ripples. I can’t even begin to think about what that system would look like,” the source said with a laugh.
Implications for Election Law
This case has broader implications for New York's Election Law and the rights of candidates and voters. Castronuova argues that the current system allows party leaders to act as “King-Makers,” selectively applying the rule of law to favor their chosen candidates. "Ballot access for the Respondent, Mr. Sapricone, and the simultaneous denial of ballot access for Castronuova is the product of party bosses and 'King-Makers.'"
Castronuova invokes both the U.S. and New York State Constitutions in her argument. She cites the Seventeenth Amendment, which ensures that U.S. Senators are elected by the people, not selected by party bosses.
“The textual language guarantees senators of a particular state ‘are elected by the people thereof,’” she argues.
This is For Real? is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
She also references the First Amendment, which protects citizens' rights to associate and form political parties.
"The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to associate and to form political parties for the advancement of common political goals and ideas," she quotes from Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party.
Castronova highlights a defect in the Election Law § 16-102, where it only allows two types of proceedings: invalidating a candidacy and validating a candidacy. An aggrieved candidate, a party committee chairman, or someone who filed objections can file a petition to invalidate a candidacy. But only the candidate can bring a proceeding to validate a candidacy.
Castronuova’s 15,727 supporters cannot validate her candidacy for the U.S. Senate under this law. They lack the legal standing to bring a suit under Article 16 of the Election Law. They also cannot write in her name at the Republican Party Primary because New York Election Law prohibits primaries in uncontested elections. As she states in her papers, Castronuova believes that the Legislature always intended that when a candidate must bring an Election Law petition in a defensive posture, the constitutional rights of the candidate are defended and represented by the candidate.
A ballot access candidate defending an Article 16 Election Law challenge to invalidate their designating petition represents not just their candidacy but also their supporters' voting and associational rights. In this context, Castronuova stands in defense of the constitutional rights of over 15,727 New York voters in addition to her own ballot access. These voters expressed their rights through their signatures on the Designating Petition, and only the candidate has the standing to defend these rights under Article 16 of the Election Law as it was interpreted by the Supreme Court.
That can’t be right. How can a voter LOSE RIGHTS by signing a designating petition? The unique procedural posture under Election Law raises the issue of whether the Court's reasoning if it deems the Counterclaim and Crossclaim jurisdictionally invalid due to a strict statute of limitations, leaving no remedy for aggrieved New York voters. This should render this portion of the Election Law unconstitutional as applied to defensive candidate claims. The question arises as to which constitutional provision protects voters' rights under an invalidator petition under Article 16 of the Election Law and where John Tabacco, a designating petition signer and Castronuova’s co-Plaintiff in a related Federal Court lawsuit, can seek remedy for a violation of his constitutional rights under New York Election Law. The short answer is – he can’t. He has no standing to seek remedy for the violation of his rights in the New York Courts.
This Court should unequivocally state that Designating Petition signers' constitutional voting and association rights are implicated in the Article 16 Election Law proceeding where a candidate defends against an invalidation petition. Even if the Court does not believe these concerns rise to the level of the US and New York Constitutions, the principle remains that where there is a right, there is a remedy. The CPLR and the Election Law should be read together to maintain fairness and integrity in the electoral process, as established in Jones v. Gallo, 37 AD2d 793 (4th Dept. 1971).
When a candidate defends against an invalidation challenge, it becomes a third class of validator claims, responding directly to an invalidator by an opposing candidate or their supporters.
Request for Relief
Castronuova concludes her appeal by requesting the Appellate Division to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision and restore her name to the ballot. She argues that only this relief can remedy the constitutional harm done to her and her 15,727 supporters.
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the Order entered by the Court below must be reversed and a new de novo Order should be issued pursuant to Sections 16-100, 16-102, and 16-116 of the Election Law, declaring valid the Designating Petition which named the Petitioner as a Candidate of the Republican Party for the Public Office of Member, United States Senate, Statewide State of New York at the Republican Primary Election to be held on June 25, 2024, and to Order said Respondent Board of Elections to place the name of said Candidate upon the official ballots of such Primary Election.
Castronuova awaits Opposition from the Respondents due Monday. The Appellate Division has set Oral Arguments for 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday.
"This case is a litmus test for the integrity of our electoral process and the protection of voters' constitutional rights," Castronuova emphasizes.
The outcome of this case could have widespread ramifications, particularly for the BOE, in addition to ballot access for Cara Castronuova.
We strive to illuminate the truth behind environmental, political, and social issues affecting our beaches, coastal communities, state, and nation. By holding power to account, safeguarding the public interest, and fostering an informed citizenry, we commit to maintaining integrity, transparency, and relentless pursuit of the truth. Our work is dedicated to protecting our way of life and empowering our readers with the knowledge they need to effect positive change. - FLORIDA GULF NEWS
Richard Luthmann has been tapped as the outlet’s chief. He is a writer, editor, commentator, and investigative reporter with degrees from Columbia University and the University of Miami. Originally from the Northeast, Luthmann now lives in Southwest Florida. He is a member of the National Writers Union.
Previously, as the Editor-in-Chief of the Sun Bay Paper (http://www.sunbaypaper.com/), Richard Luthmann oversaw the local news outlet's coverage, content development, production, and distribution of the print format periodical. He is committed to contributing to the recovery and growth of Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, and neighboring SWFL communities by providing helpful, informative, and engaging content and commentary.
“Florida Gulf News is a digital experiment. If it is successful, I want to see it incorporated into Sun Bay Paper’s legacy media offering,” Luthmann said.
Luthmann says he will begin by focusing on four “silos” of coverage for digital readers in Southwest Florida.
“The goal is to provide a good mix of local, regional, state, and national news and commentary. Ground Zero for us is Fort Myers, Fort Myers Beach, and Estero Bay. We will also include interesting news, discussions, and investigative reports about issues from Port Charlotte to Marco Island and everywhere in between in Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties,” Luthmann said.
Luthmann says he is building a contributor network that will address various topics.
“There are no sacred cows. Journalists will investigate, gather news, and report fairly and accurately. Columnists and opinion writers will not be censored - this isn’t MSM or NPR. We’ll get into issues others won’t, like religion and politics. We’ll talk about public and governmental figures from flanks others would not dare open,” Luthmann said.
He believes the first solution to solving political and social problems is not less speech but more speech. And that only matters if people you don’t like say things you don’t want to hear.
“Central to being a virtuous citizen is being an informed community participant. You ought to consider all perspectives when formulating reasoned choices that affect you and your family,” Luthmann said. “We will not feed anyone’s ‘party line’ without a clear counterbalanced perspective. Sean Hannity was most effective when he had Alan Colmes.”
Luthmann says that the publication will have a conservative bent. “We will have all voices represented. But everyone knows coming in that the values of God, Family, and Country come before everything else. While we welcome debate, as long as I am involved, this outlet will embrace the Judeo-Christian Tradition, the Western Canon, and our nation’s Enlightenment roots.”
Florida Gulf News will cover beachside news and politics. The digital outlet will also detail other pursuits, including food, lifestyle, sports, theater, concerts, and community interest.
“Everything is fair game, particularly fishing and boating. So many readers tell me how much they love hearing about those things in beautiful Southwest Florida,” said the new outlet’s chief. “And baseball. Two things Americans will never get tired of are sex and baseball.”
The new chief wants to build an outlet allowing SWFL writers to showcase their core competencies and best work.
“I am a journalist who does deep-dive investigative reporting and covers legal issues. Exposing the bottom feeders and crooks is sometimes the only way to make them pay the price for their injustice and misdeeds. That’s what I do well. Others come from different backgrounds, and I want to give contributors a place to publish for a Southwest Florida-focused audience,” Luthmann said.
“This one has all the workings of high drama: Characters. Greed. Destruction. Community. Rebuild. Backstabbing. Strong-Arming. It’s like Fargo meets Goodfellas meets Wild Things set on a Florida beach. You couldn’t write this one better because it’s all true,” Luthmann said. “If things go way south, and there’s a chance they will, this one will end up as a courtroom drama - and I could have a Pultizer. I won’t give too much away, but this one could turn into The Insider quickly.”
Luthmann says everyone can submit tips, story ideas, comments, or pieces for publication. Florida Gulf News can be reached at (239) 766-5800 or rluthmann@flgulfnews.com.
Luthmann also says advertisers should give him a call.
“We’re putting together full banner packages for $100 a month and side ad spots for $25 a month. This is introductory, and advertisers that lock in for the full year will get those prices honored through the end of next season - May 2025. Not only is it a bargain, but it’s affordable for everyone.”
In December, New York State Divorce Court Judge Ronald Castorina tried to throw retired and disabled NYPD Detective Guy Simonetti into jail just in time for Christmas. His offense? For Castorina, Simonetti was too old, sick, and broke to be treated like a human being.
The retired detective, now a Florida resident, didn’t have the money or health to appear in a Staten Island courtroom because Castorina’s actions rendered Simonetti “judicially indigent.” An IRA account the Judge had ordered belonged to Simonetti was drained—in absentia—by crooked Staten Island Divorce Lawyer John Marangos. Simonetti was never allowed to be heard.
Renowned investigative journalist Frank Parlato of Frank Report has made a career of covering roobs in black robes. For Parlato, Castorina is something special - earning the moniker “Tubby Terror of the Law.”
At the heart of this legal maelstrom are Simonetti's forceful allegations against Castorina. In court documents filed in December, he asserted, "It is public knowledge that Justice Castorina gave perjured and dishonest testimony before a Richmond County grand jury in 2018."
The subject of the 2018 grand jury was former Staten Island Attorney Richard Luthmann, who writes for this publication. Luthmann was charged with Falsification of Business Records, the exact charges former President Donald Trump now faces and served three years in prison for making Fake Facebook pages about local politicians. Luthmann claims he did nothing wrong, and his case remains on appeal.
Simonetti charges that “everyone knows about” Castorina's perjurious grand jury testimony in 2018. He cites Luthmann’s December filing in the New York State Supreme Court, in which Luthmann claims Castorina was a witness in People of the State of New York v Richard Luthmann, committed perjury, and was dishonest. The testimony starkly contrasts the Facebook Messenger exchanges between Castorina and Luthmann.
Simonetti, a 9-11 responder, says Castorina committed felonies and cannot legally be a NYS Supreme Court Justice:
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the defendant, GUY SIMONETTI, asks the Court to recuse itself for the reasons previously stated and submitted to the Court in the affidavit attached to the order to showcase sworn to on November 27, 2023, that the Court declined to sign. It is public knowledge that Justice Castorina gave perjured and dishonest testimony before a Richmond County grand jury in 2018. See Luthmann v. Hanks et al., 100012-24 (New York County Supreme Court). The comparisons of Justice Castorina's sworn testimony to his Facebook messenger conversations show that he lied under oath. That is a felony crime; a Supreme Court Justice cannot be a felon. The Court should recuse itself because of the cloud of impropriety hanging over its head and its interest in the litigation, apparent from its failure to sign the previous order to show cause to avoid addressing these issues on the record. Accordingly, I would ask Justice Castorina to recuse himself because his continued presence makes this matter fundamentally unfair, and the Court is interested in the issues to be litigated.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the defendant, GUY SIMONETTI, reserves his right to invalidate the entirety of these proceedings as lacking in subject matter jurisdiction. If Justice Castorina committed a felony crime in August 2018, he was never qualified to judge my case as a matter of law.
In his December pleadings, Simonetti stated, "[Castorina’s] felonious conduct legally disqualifies him from serving as a Supreme Court Justice, and all of his decisions and orders are legal nullity." He believes that Castorina's alleged felony should lead to his removal from his case and the bench, questioning how decisions in the freeze of his IRA could have occurred without corrupt influence.
The handling of Simonetti’s Mass Mutual IRA adds another layer of controversy. Despite a court order declaring the IRA as Simonetti's, his ex-wife's lawyer, John Marangos, took steps to freeze and then seize the funds. Simonetti suggests foul play, questioning Marangos' ethical conduct in light of his actions that seemingly ignore Castorina’s orders - with no repercussions.
Simonetti's legal documents painted a grim picture of a justice system skewed against him, suggesting a complex web of legal and ethical issues. His stance was clear: "Justice Castorina has it out for me because I believe the people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who isn’t a felon – charged or not."
Castorina Recusal, Judge Paul Marrone Appointment
In January, Simonetti heard back from Justice Castorina, who recused himself rather than address the devastating allegations head-on.
Castorina’s reputation has undoubtedly taken a hit. A source close to the PBA said that Castorina would be “hard-pressed” to receive another endorsement because of a pattern of decisions described as “anti-cop.”
A Staten Island Republican Party insider also says the local political establishment has also soured on the former GOP Chairman.
“He snaked his way in on a judge deal. He would be hard-pressed to get a party nomination today,” the GOP operative said anonymously.
Some local attorneys also say he is “drunk with power” and rules his courtroom “with an iron fist.”
“I won’t conference cases with him in his chambers. I need everything on the record. You can’t trust him. Either he threatens you to do what he wants, or he pretends to make nice to get the client to agree and then stabs you in the back on the record,” a local Staten Island Attorney said, who wished to remain unnamed for fear of Castorina’s retribution.
Some believe Castorina may be moved off of Staten Island, or worse, because of his behavior.
“They sent Matt Sciarrino to a basement in Queens because he was being a total [expletive]. I think that might be the best that [Castorina] can hope for,” the Staten Island lawyer said.
Simonetti’s case landed with Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Paul Marrone, Jr., a Republican who was formerly the Chief of Staff for Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis when she served in the NYS Assembly. Marrone was previously a court attorney for Civil Court in Staten Island and a Legal Intern for the NYPD’s legal bureau and the advocate’s offices.
Scheduled for a Thursday hearing, Simonetti filed an extensive motion detailing Castorina’s misconduct and wants Marrone to rule.
Simonetti’s Pending Motion
Simonetti’s recently filed affidavit details additional allegations against Judge Ronald Castorina and Attorney John Marangos. His claims center on what he describes as a pattern of judicial and attorney malfeasance impacting his ability to receive a fair shake in his divorce case.
The retired NYPD Detective alleges that Judge Castorina played funny business with a crucial Order to Show Cause in November 2023.
"Justice Castorina exercised a 'POCKET VETO' and neither signed nor officially declined to sign the Order to Show Cause," Simonetti stated, emphasizing his prolonged efforts to get the document signed. This lack of action, he claims, left him without the opportunity to be heard in court. Castorina also refused to “So-Order” a transcript necessary for an appeal, and the Appellate Division could not review his case.
"Justice Castorina was inconsiderate, uncompassionate, and obtuse – to put it mildly," Simonetti noted. He recounts an incident where the judge suggested he could “take a private ambulance to the courthouse” despite knowing he couldn’t afford it.
Simonetti believes Judge Castorina is biased against him, possibly due to anti-NYPD sentiments. “[I]t’s sad because so many politicians have taken that turn recently,” Simonetti’s papers said.
He further described the judge's decision to dismiss his medical ailments and financial difficulties, which prevented him from appearing in court.
Simonetti’s affidavit includes quotes from a transcript where Castorina declared Simonetti's claims "wholly without merit" and his non-appearance "not understandable or excusable." Simonetti argues that these dismissals were not just oversights but knowing and malicious decisions. For example, Castorina, knowing that Simonetti was a Pro Se party with no e-filing access, used the “evidence” that nothing was electronically filed with the clerk to rule against the retired NYPD Detective.
MR. MARANGOS: Judge, I did receive, at 4:00 yesterday by Express Mail, a copy of a purported Order to Show Cause.
THE COURT: Okay. And Jerry, I'm just going to ask you, can you check NYSCEF. I have no indication that there was a filed motion; nonetheless, I understand that there is a purported motion, and I have reviewed it. And I decline to sign it.
COURT CLERK: Judge, there is nothing on NYSCEF. And I did check our mailbox this morning at 9:00 a.m., there was nothing in there.
THE COURT: All right. This Court declines to sign the Order to Show Cause on the grounds and basis of Mr. Simonetti's, A, failure to be here, number one. Number two, it is wholly without merit. And the Court will not delay its actions, which are just and appropriate at this time.
Simonetti, defending himself in his papers, said, “Justice Castorina knows that I am a senior citizen with medical conditions. He knew that I didn’t have NYSCEF access. I provided proof of my medical ailments and Court-created indigency, which I again offer to this Court. Yet Justice Castorina said my non-appearance was not understandable or excusable AND that my claims were ‘wholly without merit.’ After his diatribe, he would not allow the Appellate Division to review his findings because he wouldn’t So-Order the transcript. For weeks.”
The retired disabled NYPD 9-11 responder made his circumstances very clear, “I am indigent because I have no meaningful access to money. And my indigency is judicially created.” He explains that the court’s orders have left him unable to travel from Florida to New York for his hearings.
The affidavit also targets Attorney John Marangos, accusing him of improperly seizing Simonetti's Mass Mutual IRA funds despite the earlier Court order. Simonetti asserts, "The Plaintiff brazenly ignored Justice Castorina’s orders," and suggests Marangos’ actions were not mistakes but deliberate attempts to drain his resources.
"It looks like Attorney Marangos is trying to be 'slick' and is playing fast and loose, ignoring the Orders of the Court," Simonetti claims.
Simonetti’s Affidavit states, “The Plaintiff knows I am elderly and in ill health. The Plaintiff’s instant request for relief seeks almost everything except that the Court's order I am gelded. In a nutshell, the Plaintiff wants:
Additional attorney’s fees.
More money from protected sources that Attorney Marangos has already improperly and dishonestly drained in violation of the Court’s previous orders and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The sequestering of my home at 3680 N.W. Mediterranean Lane, Jensen Beach, Florida, and the appointment of a receiver to render me homeless.
Additional time to torture me and maybe ultimately ask for ‘Lorena Bobbit’ relief.”
Simonetti describes his dire financial situation, stating that he lives on charity and cannot travel to New York due to Castorina’s freezing his assets. He calls for Judge Marrone to reopen the default judgment against him, citing CPLR § 5015(a) and emphasizing his impossibility of compliance with court appearances due to his financial and health issues.
He criticizes Marangos for seeking additional attorney’s fees, arguing that the plaintiff has already wrongfully taken his assets.
"Attorney Marangos wants more money when he outright stole the Mass Mutual monies without legal authority," Simonetti stated, describing the situation as larceny.
Simonetti's affidavit requests that Judge Marrone vacate the default judgment, give him a fair opportunity to present his case, and compel the attendance of his former attorney, Gary Angiuli, to explain his actions in failing to adequately support Simonetti’s defense last year while counsel still represented him.
“My impossibility of performance was not self-created on July 31, 2023. I had counsel representing me in July. Attorney Angiuli terminated my engagement with his office,” Simonetti said. "Mr. Angiuli’s office stopped zealously representing me when they saw my money was cut off."
Simonetti’s Questionable Prospects
Staten Island court insiders say the deck is stacked against Simonetti in Judge Marrone’s courtroom.
“I feel for the guy. Robbing from a retired NYPD Detective is the height of ballsy. But it’s a fool’s errand. [Paul Marrone] has been the cleanup crew for Republican judges’ messes for a while now,” said a Staten Island court insider.
“There was a case a couple of years ago that [Marrone] caught to clean up for [Judge Ralph] Porzio. A woman, Carrie Costa, had the ever-living [expletive] beat out of her after a two-day showdown in Tottenville. Her husband, Richard Costa, was arrested and charged with something like nine crimes. The Advance covered it - then covered it up,” the source said.
“[T]he suspect allegedly hit the woman numerous time on the face, head and body and pushed her to the ground. He used a ceramic vase to strike the victim in the head and also placed a cord around her neck and applied pressure, the complaint alleges.
Costa allegedly snatched the victim’s phone so that she could not call 911 and prevented her from leaving a bedroom with an attached bathroom. The suspect used furniture and clothing to block the door and windows, according to the complaint.
He allegedly threatened the victim with “further physical harm” and followed her around to prevent her from leaving the bedroom area.
“Do not call the police,” the complaint alleges that Costa said to the victim. “You may not leave.”
His statements caused the victim to “fear further physical injury,” the complaint states.”
During her ordeal, the victim allegedly had trouble breathing, lapsed in and out of consciousness, felt pain and suffered injuries including bleeding and a laceration to the left side of her head, bruising and redness around her neck, and bruising on her face, neck, chest, back, arms and legs, according to the complaint.
She needed hospital treatment.
In addition to kidnapping, Costa has been charged with strangulation, assault, criminal possession of a weapon, unlawful imprisonment, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, criminal mischief and harassment.
Costa was indicted on Fifteen Counts by a Staten Island Grand Jury.
Then, almost miraculously, the case went away. DA Michael McMahon had instituted serious domestic violence proceedings against a wife-beater but didn’t follow through. Why?
A source with knowledge of the Costa case said that Richard Costa has connections to organized crime, and McMahon made the case “disappear.”
“There were claims he was running girls for the Russians. He also imports denim from China and moves money and merchandise cross-border. The Feds were looking at him, but nothing came of it. It sounds a lot like this guy provides information,” the source said.
Irrespective of what Richard Costa was and is into, the Staten Island courts, including Marrone, have yet to find that Carrie Costa was a victim of domestic violence in their divorce case and award her damages for the severe injuries she sustained during the June 2020 police standoff.
“The case first went to [Justice Ralph] Porzio, who inexplicably made a finding that no domestic violence had occurred. There are pictures, newspaper articles, and an indictment,” the source said. “But McMahon had already killed the case, and [Brian] Laline [at the Staten Island Advance] stopped reporting.”
“Then the case went to [Justice Paul] Marrone. The most he could do for the poor woman was enter another Order of Protection: no money, no [domestic violence] finding, no nothing. Everyone knows what’s happening, but they all play dumb,” the source said.
The insider believes that the same things that happened to Carrie Costa will probably occur to Guy Simonetti.
“These judges will protect each other to a fault. It’s the worst-kept secret on Staten Island that Castorina perjured himself. But that was done to protect Judy McMahon, so he gets a pass. They will let domestic violence go if they believe the circumstances justify it. What makes anyone think that they won’t squeeze a disabled NYPD veteran and make him continue to suffer? These are not nice people,” the source said.
Guy Simonetti’s case raises fundamental issues of judicial integrity and perceptions of justice in the Divorce and Family Courts. We will know shortly what Simonetti will find with Justice Paul Marrone, Jr. Will it be a sympathetic ear?
Or will Marrone be another cog in New York’s divorce industrial complex who awards and upholds judicially sanctioned lies, larceny, and languish?
“When did the till stop ringing?” Fort Myers Beach Mayor Dan Allers asked at a recent Town Council meeting while considering the case of Jesse Schmid and violations on the property at 80 Avenue E.
Schmid, a real estate developer who owns White Sand Properties of Fort Myers Beach, LLC, is embroiled in a heated dispute that came to a head at last week’s Council Meeting. Schmid faces over $1.25 million in fines and violations. The developer accuses the Town of malfeasance under both the former and current administrations and of targeting and misconduct by former Town Manager Roger Hernstadt and others.
Schmid says he owes nothing, and the Town Council is mishandling facts to create a baseless "EXIT TAX" because they are cash-strapped.
“I've dealt with this for years. I am tired of dealing with it. All right, I'm tired. I've now got two young boys in wheelchairs at home. I don't have time for this anymore. I'm done, but I'm serious. Well, I mean, I've had it with the last administration. I'm done with this administration,” Jesse Schmid told the FMB Town Council.
Jesse Schmid is ready to sue for millions. He claims to have evidence that will destroy FMB and the current Town Council.
“If they want to try me, they will run smack into a wrecking ball,” Schmid says. When the dust settles, he says, “Lee County will be running [FMB] because too many people will have left in bracelets.”
Some FMB denizens say that we’ve heard the Schmid story before. Certain real estate developers and the Town Council were locking horns over millions of dollars in fines and allegations of “targeting.” Violation tickets were foisted upon properties, some blowing away in the wind, to the tune of $150, $250, or $1,000 a day.
A case in point is Terry Persaud. Since purchasing a Times Square property for $3.5 million in 2014, regulatory issues quickly hampered his plans for additional improvements. The matter devolved into litigation when Persaud contested the Town's decision to revoke his liquor license when they labeled his Times Square property "abandoned."
"My property was not abandoned but 'Under Construction,'" the developer said. He went to court in Lee County and won.
Persaud had accused the Town of favoritism, asserting, "Our location on the beach is the best. The Town can't play favorites. There is a divided loyalty to Tom Torgeson and TPI." A full-scale war was brewing.
That all ended on September 28, 2022. Hurricane Ian made landfall. The material edifices that marked the locality were destroyed. Buildings were wiped away - and with them, the continued predicate for Town violations enforcement.
However, the bonds that make a community were strengthened. FMB saw an unprecedented outpouring of fellowship and camaraderie. Neighbors helped neighbors, and mutual support formed deeper, lasting relationships.
“Turn the Page” was the new mantra. Developer Terry Persaud met with the Town Council and struck a deal to end the pre-Ian acrimony.
By January, it was all water under the bridge. The Town Council reduced Persaud's fines from $2.7 million to $250,000 and a $500,000 "good faith" bond. No one was “happy.” Persaud expressed dissatisfaction, saying, "This has been going on too long. I have gone above and beyond to create an agreement I don't agree with."
But they managed to Turn the Page. And in many ways, it was the perfect bargain. Neither side was right. Neither side was wrong. And neither side left happy.
Persaud's struggle raised questions about potential disparities in regulatory enforcement, particularly when comparing smaller entities like his to larger ones such as TPI/Margaritaville. For many with vision and savvy, the Persaud case also signaled an opportunity for FMB to engage in a broader dialogue about development, the role of small businesses, and equitable treatment, which is particularly important in the Hurricane rebuild and economic growth.
According to a Beach Talk Radio report, Persaud now seeks to include 24 hotel rooms for a full-scale Times Square redevelopment project.
Persaud’s Case Mentioned Related to the Schmid Matter
At last week’s Town Council hearing, Vice Mayor Jim Atterholt was quick to ask the right questions about the Schmid matter - whether it was a Persaud “re-run”:
Madam Attorney in an unrelated case, I don't want to put words in your mouth, you've had some concerns about how fines have been, for lack of a better term adjudicated. Have you had a chance to analyze the $1 million of accrued fines in this particular instance?
Yes. These weren't they were two separate violations. And they were and I don't remember if it was $250 a day or $150…It was $250, which is perfectly legal under Florida law, and you can have two separate violations. And it's just it's a matter of time. $250 a day adds up over a substantial period of time.
In times past, that was how business was done. The Town needed revenues, so specific properties received fines. The till kept ringing. When the developers finally needed something or foreclosure proceedings were instituted, they would sit down with the former Town Manager, and everyone would strike a deal - or litigation would ensue. Properties would be brought into compliance, and the FMB Town treasury would be satisfied immediately or after years in the courts and payments to lawyers and other contractors.
Particularly after Ian and in direct response to the popular mandate, the Town Council moved to a new, more “user-friendly” approach to promoting economic development and balancing quality-of-life regulations.
Ghosts of the Hernstadt Era
The current drama centered on the property at 80 Avenue E began in December 2019. Under Schmid’s leadership, White Sand Properties negotiated with Hernstadt to resolve outstanding property liens as part of a broader agreement to purchase several properties from FMB real estate maven Joe Orlandini.
Schmid says he settled all fines linked to previous violations, but Hernstadt never removed the liens.
“For years, Roger [Hernstadt] operated like a thug. I bought the 80 Avenue E property from [Joe] Orlandini and paid the town the agreed-upon amounts. They denied I paid until I showed them the cashed check - and then went about locating the money,” Schmid said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Roger intended to charge me twice for the same payment.”
At the Council meeting, White Sand Properties argued for a dismissal of all fines based on its non-offender status in the violations at 80 Avenue E. Standing next to his attorney Steven Ramunni of LaBelle, Schmid highlighted White Sand’s full compliance and the settlement agreement from 2019, evidenced by a cashed $50,000 check and subsequent communications from the town confirming the resolution of the liens.
These documents were filed with the Town Council before the meeting and are publicly available.
Vice Mayor Jim Atterholt acknowledged his prior work with Schmid to resolve the matter but indicated that other Town staff later handled it.
“To the Mayor's point, I don't know why we're now just handling this. But to Mr. Schmidt's point, he did try to resolve this two and a half years ago because I was trying to act as a liaison to that, and that was challenging. So, why we're still here today, I don't know. But I did try to resolve it two and a half years ago. I can attest to that. I don't know who was right or who was wrong. But I do know he certainly presented his case and why he didn't come before the full Council, I don't know,” Vice Mayor Atterholt said.
Bad Records, Willful Ignorance, or Sheer Incompetence?
The Council's lack of clear communication and ignorance of the documented resolution of the property’s issues in 2019 and 2020 have fueled Schmid’s frustration and his claims of wrongdoing.
“[The Town] has no grasp on its own facts. Either they don’t have their own records, are being told to ignore them, or they don’t know what they are looking at,” Schmid said. “Either way, it’s not right, and they’ve got this one all wrong,” he said.
Schmid had his lawyer press for an immediate resolution by the Town Council. The developer had offered $15,000 to end the situation. Mayor Dan Allers expressed skepticism.
Attorney Steve Ramunni: We want to put a finality to it today, if we could.
Mayor Dan Allers: I certainly understand and I've talked with Jesse before, about, you know, after the storm, the issues that he was facing. So I completely understand. But you have to also understand, although we understand there, at least I understand that it never did get brought into compliance until the storm took it away. It's been well over two years that this could have been resolved understand the previous, but it still could have been resolved. And it didn't. So I mean, as much as there's it's not your fault. Some of it is your fault. And I think you've admitted that. So. Personally, I don't think 15,000 is the right number. And I don't necessarily agree with the top number either. But it there's a lot of things in there that could have been handled differently to get us to a different point. But what that magic number is, Becky, if you can make recommendations or not. You've seen these cases, what is something like this? That's because the $50,000 was paid, but it was paid for? What we claim has been my if I'm understanding this correctly, is gone for the magistrate and she feels that this was for a different violation for different property.
Jesse Schmidt: No, no, no, no, no, no. That's not at all. Correct.
Attorney Steve Ramunni: We're not getting credit for the $50,000 to begin with?
Town Attorney Becky Vose: You you will be getting credit for it. That's part of the amended complaint that we've already we've already drafted the amended complaint.
Mayor Dan Allers: So the $50,000 has been credited again. Okay.
Attorney Steve Ramunni: Credit on the compliance affidavit but, but the whole intent was paid on that lien, so let's be done.
Crediting the $50,000 payment, led by Mayor Dan Allers and advised by Town Attorney Becky Vose, the Town Council levied an additional $250,000 “Exit Tax” against Schmid. The Council, excluding Scott Safford, who recused himself, unanimously supported the fine 4-0.
A ‘Smoking Gun’ Letter?
While the natural inclination was to treat the Schmid case like the Persaud case, the two had entirely different fact patterns. This difference is evidenced by a “Smoking Gun” letter from FMB Town Development dated November 18, 2020 - almost a full year after FMB Town cashed Schmid’s check. The evidence supports Schmid’s claim, with the letter explicitly stating, "There are no active Code Enforcement cases on this property (80 Avenue E)."
In early November 2020, White Sand submitted a zoning verification letter. The response was clear. At least as of that date, the 80 Avenue E property was free and clear of all violations.
This evidence—on the Town’s letterhead—makes the levied fines and violations impossible. It also marshals to Schmid an unlikely supporter.
“We always try to stay above the fray. We watched the May 6 Council Meeting, and I was upset about what Jesse Schmid said, which was defamatory and libelous. Our lawyers are already exploring options,” Joe Orlandini said.
We showed the FMB real estate virtuoso the November 18, 2020, letter. He was not surprised.
“That letter shows what we have said all along. When we make a deal and have obligations, we meet those obligations,” Orlandini said. “We paid what Roger said we were obligated to on the 80 Avenue E deal, and the Town’s records memorialize it.”
Orlandini believes Schmid is a “character,” but his claims against the Town, particularly under the Hernstadt administration, have merit.
“To call [Roger’s] entire modus operandi a shakedown would be to put it mildly. He consistently changed the terms of deals we negotiated in good faith to his benefit,” Orlandini said.
Another source close to the FMB government with knowledge of the facts said Hernstadt proceeded as Town Manager without a personnel manager or a finance manager. “There were no real checks and balances. And there were always problems with money, crediting, and follow-up. Liens that should have been removed stayed in place, so [Schmid’s] claims don’t surprise me,” the anonymous source said.
Another community leader who did not wish to be named pointed to the mathematical impossibility of the violations claimed against Schmid and White Sand.
“The lawyers agreed the number is $250 per day. If you count the days—every day—from November 18, 2020, until the day of Ian, you have 1,044 days. I’m no mathematician, but $250 times 1,044 isn’t $1.25 million. It’s $261,000 - a little over the $250,000 the Town Council told Jesse to pay. And they agreed he had already paid the original $50,000. If he goes to Court, he will win and probably get attorneys’ fees, sanctions, and punitive damages. He’ll also get all the discovery he wants about the Town’s financial dealings during Roger Hernstadt’s tenure as town manager,” the unnamed community leader source said.
Even Terry Persaud said that dealing with Hernstadt, compared to current Town Manager Andy Hyatt and Operations Manager Frankie Kropacek, is night and day.
“I had a problem with a violation. The picture was not right. It had to be at least three months old. I told Andy this, and he took it back to his people. When he returned, he said I was right; the digital stamp on the picture was old, and the situation had been corrected. Nothing like that would have happened in the past,” he said.
Hasty Town Council Decisions?
By the end of the Town Council’s consideration of the 80 Avenue E property, Mayor Allers did his best “Monty Hall” and solicited a number. “Let’s get to a number and whatever that number is, and if somebody’s got a number put it out there.”
Council Member King obliged him by throwing out the $250,000 figure, which Town Attorney Vose quickly endorsed. “That’s roughly one-quarter of what we will get in the litigation,” she said.
Vice Mayor Atterholt immediately asked about the litigation risks.
“I don’t think there really is any risk involved in the litigation. It is a lot of work for my firm, but hey, we take it on. So, you know, I’m not worried about the work we would do on it. But I don’t see - there’s no counterclaim, there’s no basis for a counterclaim, I don’t see a risk,” Town Attorney Vose said.
This decision came despite Council Members King and Woodson previously admitting their lack of awareness regarding the property’s history on the record.
We subsequently spoke to Karen Woodson last week at her 49th birthday party. We showed her the November 18, 2020 letter. She was unaware of the letter’s existence until that time.
“As this matter is in litigation, I must consult with the Town Attorney and have nothing to say on the merits. However, I can tell you that had I seen that letter, I would not have voted as I did. I don’t think [John King] would have either. We were presented limited facts,” Council Member Woodson said.
We spoke to Mayor Allers, who immediately defended his position on the Schmid matter.
“Much of this occurred before my watch, under Roger,” Mayor Allers said.
Dan Allers took office as a Town Council Member in April 2020.
Once he reviewed the November 18, 2020, letter we forwarded him, we asked about a forensic accounting for Roger’s time as Town Manager. He said he was inclined to follow the Town audit committee’s recent recommendation that such a review was unnecessary.
The Mayor was also dismissive of Schmid’s allegations that the Mayor was “conflicted” and “in Tom Torgeson’s pocket.”
“[Jesse Schmid] can say what he wants to say. The fact is that there were violations, and he wanted a number to resolve them that day, so we gave him one. He didn’t even pay the $200 filing fee he was supposed to pay to bring the issue up on the Town Council Agenda,” Mayor Allers said.
Vice Mayor Atterholt echoed the tough job everyone on the Town Council has. “We are an island, and it’s almost impossible for someone to be in business and not have dealings. I know [Mayor] Dan to be one of the hardest-working people I know. He makes little more than $19,000 as Mayor, yet he’s working from morning to night for our Town.”
Mayor Allers, Vice Mayor Atterholt, and Council Member Scott Safford are all running for re-election this November.
As stated above, Council Member Safford recused himself from the 80 Avenue E matter after making disclosures and following the Town Attorney's recommendation.
The Wrecking Ball?
Schmidt says he was ready to walk away for $50,000 at the meeting. Now, he views the $250,000 sum as a slap in the face and an “Illegal Exit Tax.”
“Their number is so far off-base, I’m ready for the wrecking ball. No one can be this stupid - this was all planned. I’m going to expose them all,” Schmid said.
The White Sand owner says he can prove corrupt practices within Fort Myers Beach's governance—before and after the storm. Schmid believes Hernstadt engaged in contractor fraud and possible hidden assets, and he’s not alone.
“I think the only records anyone really wants to see are Roger Hernstadt’s Belize bank accounts,” a long-time FMB resident said anonymously.
While Mayor Allers avoided discussing Hernstadt’s tenure, he could not confirm whether all pertinent documents related to the former Town Manager’s dealings with Schmidt and White Sand were reviewed by current Town Attorney Stuparich. He also could not confirm whether Attorney John R. Herin, Jr., of Fox Rothschild LLP, the law firm representing the Town during the Hernstadt administration, had reviewed all pertinent documents.
With potential court proceedings on the horizon, the dispute between Jesse Schmid and the FMB Township could unveil deeper issues within the former administration and its handling of real estate developers. Schmid, determined to clear his name and finances, is ready to take his case to court. According to legal experts, he may become entitled to a slew of documents in discovery.
Martina Hedvicek is an attorney and former State Prosecutor in Charlotte County who practices law throughout Southwest Florida. We asked generally what happens to client files in a lawyer’s possession after a representation has ended. We also asked about post-natural disaster circumstances we have seen recently in Southwest Florida after Ian. Attorney Hedvicek said ethical rules allowed her to speak generally on the issue for educational and informational purposes only and that anyone with a specific legal problem should seek qualified counsel from an attorney through the Florida Bar.
“Attorneys representing governmental entities, including cities or towns, owe complex and special duties in various instances. In most cases, the ultimate client is the state or municipality, which has a right to all the files and records generated during the representation. In many instances, there may be an additional public recordkeeping obligation,” Attorney Hedvicek said.
The seasoned litigation attorney said that lawyers must retain files for a reasonable time, even after the attorney-client relationship has terminated.
“Florida Ethics Opinions are clear that if an attorney wishes to dispose of files generated during a representation, the client should be notified and asked to pick up the material or give authority to dispose of it if there is any question,” Attorney Hedvicek said.
The noted barrister also says that claims of wrongdoing can be very serious and legally complex in a litigation setting.
“Ethical considerations often include defining the limits of attorney-client privilege in dealings with town officials and others,” says Attorney Hedvicek. “For example, the attorney-client privilege is waived when third parties are present in a communication. Also, the privilege will not cover the perpetration of a crime or fraud. These are grave considerations.”
As if mountains of forced legal disclosures and sizeable legal bills are not its pitfall, local developer Terry Persaud pointed out the potential budget shortfalls facing the town post-2025. He emphasized the need for a more substantial tax base and increased commercial activity instead of punitive financial measures against developers like Schmid and others.
“Sometimes, the town officials create unnecessary conflict among community members. We cannot afford that distraction at this time. FMB neither have the money nor the time to waste,” Persaud said.
Jesse Schmid believes he can litigate from a position of strength.
“Anyone looking at FMB’s public numbers shows big question marks in the upcoming budgets. How do they generate that revenue when they litigate, pay lawyers, and lose? How do they attract businesses and investment capital when they have so clearly announced that they will stick you with an ‘Exit Tax’ if they can get away with it,“ Schmid said.
Schmid feels that if the Town Council chooses litigation, it will be in peril and endanger the Town’s future.
“I’m being told the Town will fold, and Lee County will take over if they can’t fix their budget problems - and quickly. I can tell you, it won’t happen by shakedowns,” Schmid said.
A Records Request
Almost to a person, FMB residents and business owners described Roger Hernstadt’s tenure as FMB Town Manager as aggressive and unethical. Some suggested that a thorough audit could lead to criminal charges. However, all persons must benefit from the doubt and the presumptions of regularity, good faith, and innocence.
The lack of a planned forensic accounting for the "Hernstadt Years" has raised additional suspicions about the Town’s financial management.
To that end, this outlet has submitted a Records Request to the Town of Fort Myers Beach:
May 13, 2024
Dear Sir or Madam:
We respectfully request the following pursuant to a Freedom of Information Records Request under Chater 119, F.S., and all other applicable laws:
Any and all records related to the premises at 80 Avenue E, Fort Myers Beach, FL 33931 (the "Premises"), AND/OR Jesse Schmid ("Mr. Schmid"), White Sand Properties of Fort Myers Beach, LLC ("White Sand"), Joseph Orlandini ("Mr. Orlandini"), and any persons in any way related to the Town of Fort Myers Beach ("FMB") from 2017 until the present (the "Request").
These records should include but are not limited to, any and all non-privileged communications between Town Manager Roger Hernstadt and/or other FMB persons and the Town Attorneys for FMB, Fox Rothschild LLP, related to the above-referenced Request and during the tenure of their respective service.
To the extent there are privileged communications, we would request a privilege log acknowledging (a) basic information to describe the documents or electronically stored information withheld, and (b) a clear statement of which privileges the responding party believes cover those documents.
We thank you in advance for your time. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Investigative Reporter
239-631-5957
We will keep the readership further apprised of our findings as we receive additional information.