The City deferred to Attorney Culverhouse to present his case as the hearing was on his Petition for Re-hearing.

Attorney Culverhouse called Richard B. Reed II to testify.  Special Magistrate Ross stated that she knew Mr. Reed personally and considered him an associate.

Richard B Reed II, 3301 Bent Pine Drive, Ft. Pierce, FL 34951 was sworn in for testimony.  He was asked if he recalled any meetings in the spring of 2017 with Paul Thomas of the City of Fort Pierce Building Department and himself, Mr. Culverhouse.  He said yes and Attorney Culverhouse asked if he recalled the purpose of the meeting.  Mr. Reed said he spoke to Mr. Thomas in regards to Mr. Culverhouse's property to try and get it cleaned up.  One of his business partners, Mr. Foglio, was going to replace Mr. Culverhouse's contractor.  He spoke to Mr. Thomas to try and understand and assist with the issues at hand and suggested that they have a meeting with Mr. Culverhouse to discuss the matter, which took place in the second floor conference room.  They discussed moving forward, replacing the former general contractor on site with Mr. Foglio and cleaning up the site.  The issue at hand was the building permit had or was getting ready to expire.  There were steps and inspections that needed to be taken to move forward with the permit.  The permit was renewed, the inspections took place and the consensus of the meeting was starting the clock over again, starting anew and moving forward with the house.

Attorney Culverhouse asked about the agreement that he had signed with Marc Meyers and the letter that was sent to him.  Mr. Reed said it was his understanding when they left the meeting that there was two significant issues in regards to that.  One was that the agreement with Mr. Meyers was not valid because it needed to be signed by the Mayor.  Mr. Reed said he asked why that was and he was told by Mr. Thomas that the Legal Department said it.  The other issue was the fact they were starting over.  He was surprised by all of this because that principle is why he got involved.  He even considered lending money to Mr. Culverhouse to move forward with the starting over of the project.  Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Reed what he meant by legal.  Mr. Reed said he would have to ask Mr. Thomas, he was just repeating what was said.   

Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Reed if he recalled a meeting within the last month that they attended with Mr. Thomas and other officials of the City.  Mr. Reed said yes regarding the kayak park that he and his partners are building and donating to the City.  Special Magistrate Ross asked when this meeting took place.  Mr. Reed said it was last Monday in the second floor conference room with Mr. Thomas, Miss Grohall the Planning Director, Mr. Andrews the City Engineer, Shaun Coss and Kristie Kirstein both from the Building Department.  She asked what that has to do with this hearing about the house?  Attorney Culverhouse said it was in the allegations of the motion for re-hearing.  She asked how is that relevant to this re-hearing?  Mr. Culverhouse answered that it was what occurred after the meeting that he wished to present. Special Magistrate Ross allowed the testimony to continue.  

Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Reed if he recalled after the meeting the discussion between Mr. Thomas and himself, Mr. Culverhouse?  Mr. Reed said yes.  He was asked what Mr. Thomas had said.  He said Mr. Culverhouse and Mr. Thomas engaged in a conversation regarding the Marc Meyers agreement and that Mr. Thomas said that agreement was null and void.  Special Magistrate Ross asked if this meeting occurred after her ruling?  Mr. Reed said yes. Attorney Culverhouse said he wanted to profer the testimony for the record.  She said he could profer it but that occurred after the original hearing and was after the fact.  

Due to a prior commitment, Attorney Culverhouse asked if he could call Mr. Paul Thomas at this time. Attorney Mosley said she had no issue with calling Mr. Thomas as witness at this time, but reserved her right to call Mr. Reed back.

Paul Thomas, Building Official for the City of Fort Pierce, was sworn in for testimony.  Attorney Culverhouse asked him if he heard Mr. Reed's testimony about the meeting between Mr. Reed, him, and Mr. Culverhouse sometime during the spring of 2017?  Mr. Thomas said yes.  He was asked if he recalled at that meeting saying that the agreement between Mr. Meyers and himself, Mr. Culverhouse, was not valid because the Mayor had not signed it?  Mr. Thomas said he didn't recall saying that; however, he did recall that it is a true statement so if Mr. Reed is aware of it, then he, Mr. Thomas,  must have said it. This was an informal interpretation and that's where he got the information from.  This was why they never enforced that agreement because they were directed that it was not enforceable.  He said they did not get a formal interpretation from the legal staff but the understanding was that Mr. Meyer's signing it wasn't enough to have the property demolished.  Attorney Culverhouse asked how he obtained this understanding?  Mr. Thomas said it was during a meeting and a request was made about the document.  Special Magistrate asked if Attorney Culverhouse was referring to the timeline letter.  He said yes.  She asked if it was his testimony that he was under the impression the timeline was valid until he, Mr. Culverhouse, spoke to Mr. Thomas.  She asked Mr. Thomas when the meeting took place.  He said he did not recall the date but the recollection of it being held somewhere in the spring of 2017 is correct.  She said she was trying to clarify if this was the letter that Mr. Culverhouse agreed to with the City or the permit.  He said it was the letter.  Attorney Culverhouse asked if it was still his understanding that the agreement is unenforceable? Mr. Thomas stated that it was decided not to enforce the timeline agreement letter and granted the extension of the permits.  Mr. Thomas reiterated that it was an informal opinion only regarding the agreement. Attorney Culverhouse asked if Mr. Thomas remembered anything else about the meeting and he said he remembered Mr. Reed saying that if he was a neighbor he would be upset with the way the property looked and he would do everything he could to make sure that the things that were out of order were put in order.  He would make sure there was a contractor in place that would be responsible and the eyesore issues would be cleaned and maintained.  

Attorney Mosley asked if she was present at any of these meetings and Mr. Thomas said no, she was not.  She asked him if he received a legal memorandum or formal opinion about whether or not the department could make a recommendation.  He said absolutely not.  Attorney Culverhouse objected to the line of questioning as repetitive but he was reminded that cross-examination was broad and the objection was overruled.  Attorney Mosley ask if he had any case law or ordinance authority and Mr. Culverhouse objected that it called for a legal conclusion and he did not testify to that.  The objection was overruled.  Attorney Mosely asked about the informal opinion and Mr. Thomas said he presented the letter and the response was what he testified to; that it was not signed by the Mayor so it wasn't actionable.  

Attorney Mosley asked Mr. Thomas if he was aware of the enforcement of building code violations.  He said yes.  She asked him if the Building Department dealt with building code violations by advising people to clean up their property and informing the violator of the sanctions they face if they fail to act. He said that was correct.  She also asked if these were done without the signature of the Mayor.  He said that was correct.  She asked if they were enforceable.  Attorney Culverhouse objected as it calls for a legal conclusion; it calls for the form of the question, and it has nothing to do with this case.  Special Magistrate Ross overruled and informed Attorney Culverhouse that he can testify to what he knows within his employment.  Mr. Thomas said that was correct.  Attorney Mosley asked about Mr. Reed's statement that he would even be upset about the condition of the property.  Attorney Culverhouse objected because it was repetitive and summing up.  The objection was overruled. Mr. Thomas stated yes. She asked about the permit that superceded the letter.  Mr. Thomas said there was a permit in place that was enforced when the letter was issued.  It is still in force and still valid.  Special Magistrate asked about the statement that the extension was granted and if it was the existing permit.  Mr. Thomas said yes.  She said despite the fact that the agreement was invalid, the permit extension was granted.  Mr. Thomas confirmed it. 

Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Thomas when the extension was granted.  Mr. Thomas said it was granted December 12, 2017.  Was the extension granted due to damages from Hurricane Irma and we were in the process of going through an insurance adjuster and they couldn't rebuild until the insurance adjuster finished.  Mr. Thomas said he recalled a letter from Mr. Culverhouse which was the basis for the extension.  Attorney Culverhouse asked if they met the extension.  Mr. Thomas said there was another extension in January 11, 2018 and an approved inspection extended the permit for 180 additional days.  Every improved inspection extends a permit for another 180 days.  The expiration date now is July 24, 2018.

Attorney Culverhouse confirmed that Attorney Mosley wasn't at the informal meeting and asked Mr. Thomas who was there?  Mr. Thomas said this was a department head meeting so all department heads were in attendance, including Mr. Messer from the Legal Department.  Mr. Messer, the City Attorney made the informal interpretation that the timeline letter was not enforceable because the Mayor hadn't signed it.  Attorney Mosley objected to this line of questioning about the permit because it's in evidence, it was stipulated to that the permit is valid and it has nothing to do with what happened with the neighbors.  That was the basis with the violation.  It's no bearing on the neighbors seeing an eyesore and even his witness testified that it was an eyesore.  

Special Magistrate said each attorney will have time for a closing argument and asked if there were anymore questions of this witness.  Attorney Culverhouse said he was trying to get the clerk to mark the tape because he wanted to get what Attorney Mosley said with the basis of the complaint transcribed and he needed it for Monday for the City Commission meeting because he intends to introduce it as an admission against interest.  Attorney Mosley said she is not a witness. The rulings have been made.  The evidence is already in.  Code Compliance Manager Margaret Arraiz said we don't have the ability to mark the recording and Special Magistrate Ross said the entire proceeding is being recorded and he can get a copy of the recording.  

Attorney Culverhouse said he had no further questions of this witness.  Attorney Mosley asked if she could have a follow-up.  Attorney Culverhouse objected.  Special Magistrate Ross said this is a matter of great concern between you and the City of Fort Pierce.  You have already indicated you are going to appeal it.  It's going to go before the City Commission again.  She asked that the record be clear so that if any City Council members want it heard, both sides will be heard.  This is an effort to be fair.  This is a re-hearing and she is going to be very liberal with the testimony given this morning for all parties.  

Attorney Mosley asked Mr. Thomas about the informal opinion that was given to you in discussions off the record with Mr. Messer.  She asked him if Mrs. Arraiz was at this meeting.  Mr. Thomas said he didn't recall.  She asked him if he knew if Mrs. Arraiz knew anything about these conversations.  Mr. Thomas said no.  Attorney Culverhouse objected as to what Mrs. Arraiz knew.  It was speculation and conjecture.  This was overruled.  Attorney Mosley said that Mr. Thomas had previously testified that there was no formal memorandum, so there was no documentation sent to Mrs. Arraiz or Code Enforcement concerning any of this opinioned information.  Mr. Thomas said not that he was aware of.  She also asked if, to his knowledge, there was any information sent to her, Attorney Mosely, concerning Mr. Messer's informal opinion.  He said not to his knowledge.  

Special Magistrate Ross reminded Mr. Culverhouse of the Code of Ethics. His outbursts and interruptions have no place in this tribunal. She said she is trying to let each party present their case and they will proceed in an orderly manner.  She said he could redirect.

Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Thomas about the meeting being with the department heads.  He asked if in these meetings someone from each department is usually present.  Mr. Thomas said yes.  He asked Mr. Thomas if he remembered whether Mrs. Arraiz was present and he said no he did not.  Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Thomas if Mr. Messer made mention about the letter not being signed by the Mayor in this meeting with all of the department heads and he said yes.  He asked if there were any minutes taken or follow-up memorandums and Mr. Thomas said not to his knowledge.  Attorney Culverhouse asked if there was anything further discussed about 1635 Thumb Point Drive at that meeting and Mr. Thomas said no.  Mr. Thomas was excused.

Attorney Culverhouse called himself as witness.  Special Magistrate Ross said she has the motion and there are seven points of contention listed. She believed that #1 has been addressed.  She suggested that he address #2 but that #3 and #4 have already been addressed with Mr. Thomas' testimony but you may wish to present additional testimony.  You may wish to address #5 but #6 is a conclusion and does not need to be addressed and you may wish to address #7.  During your testimony, please indicated which number item you are addressing.

He addressed numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5.  He said on the hearing date he had no sleep and had taken 4 or 5 prescription pills for his pain.  He presented an empty prescription bottle of Tramodol 50 mg as evidence and marked as Exhibit 1.  Because he was in pain, he took two additional pills during the hearing. This medication made him nauseous and hard for him to focus.  He misunderstood the testimony from the Code Enforcement Division relating to the former timeline and the Marc Meyers letter and did not realize that the Code Enforcement Division had not presented the whole truth that both had been superceded as shown by Mr. Thomas's testimony.  He received a copy of the Special Master's order which he believed was on the 18th but it was signed the 16th and read the findings and when he obtained a copy of the audio of the hearing he realized that he had misunderstood the questions regarding them.  He said he thought she had asked him if after entering into this agreement he had ever gone back to Mr. Meyers and he had not done that because Mr. Meyers had left the City and his meetings were with Mr. Thomas and with Mr. Reed.  He said Code Enforcement presented the evidence as if he had breached the agreement. He said the understanding he had with Mr. Thomas was that they would clean the property up, change the contractor because the residents were complaining about the contractor storing items on the site from other jobs and it had nothing to do with his job.  It was in May or June of 2017 he fired the contractor and required him to remove all of the items from the site.  Mr. Culverhouse didn't realize that he had misunderstood the question until he got a copy of the audio and listened to it.  On that day he could not hear very well.  

Special Magistrate Ross asked him if he thought he heard questions being presented either by Attorney Mosley, from the City, of the witnesses who testified, comments and objections that she ruled on.  Mr. Culverhouse said that without seeing the specific question that was asked and there is no transcript, only a summary which appears there are many things left out.  He is going to have to move to get the transcript transcribed.  He could not answer her questions truthfully today without knowing exactly which question was asked and what his answer was.  She asked if he has heard every question and answer that was presented today.  He said he heard some of them but hadn't understood some of them.  He has had to ask her to repeat them.  He is still having trouble hearing and understanding her.  

Special Magistrate Ross called for a short recess.

After a brief recess Special Magistrate Ross asked Mr. Culverhouse if he would proceed with answering the remainder of questions on his motion.   

Attorney Culverhouse introduced the empty bottle of pills as exhibit 1.  Attorney Mosely objected due to relevance - noted by the Special Magistrate. Special Magistrate Ross said the date on the bottle was dated 11/17/17 and there's 30 pills which should be taken 1 every 4 hours.  These pills would have been exhausted before the hearing that was on April 18.  She said she would admit it but she wanted him to understand that she was the trier of fact here and she wanted to point out what she was looking at.  Attorney Culverhouse said he wanted to put on the record that if she is going to act as an advocate she should recuse herself.  She denied his comment and asked him to continue.  He said he wanted her to know that when he gets a prescription refilled he puts them all together in the old bottle, which was noted for the record. 

Mr. Culverhouse asked if Mrs. Arraiz would look at a document and confirm if it was from the code enforcement file. Attorney Mosely objected as Mrs. Arraiz had not been called as a witness and objected as to the ground of relevence. Mr. Culverhouse stated that he received a copy of the document yesterday when he asked to look at the code enforcement file. Mr. Culverhouse asked the Special Magistrate if she had a copy of the document to which she replied that he had just handed her one.

Special Magistrate Ross asked Mr. Culverhouse if he was on any medication today that would inhibit him from being able to understand or being able to proceed in the hearing today.  He said he took some medication about 3:00 A.M.  She asked if that could affect his abililty to proceed and understand what is going on this morning. He said he didn't know.  She said she couldn't continue with the proceeding. What she observed this morning, what she has seen and what she has heard, she is not comfortable continuing with this hearing. One of Mr. Culverhouse's main objections is that he continuously says he cannot hear nor does he understand what is being said.  She will not continue with this proceeding.  She has a hearing scheduled tomorrow morning but will put everyone on a standby notice to be here tomorrow or the next day to continue this hearing.  Mr. Culverhouse stated that he would not take any medication while on stand by.

Mrs. Arraiz stated that staff would be available both the next day and the day after. She said we could possibly get the second floor conference room for the continued hearing and there is a different audio system available that may be easier to understand.

This meeting was adjourned 10:30 A.M.  

The hearing was reconvened on June 14, 2018 at 2:05 P.M. Special Magistrate Ross stated this is a continuation of Mr. John B Culverhouse's petition for a re-hearing. This hearing began on June 13 and was continued today due to Mr. Culverhouse not hearing well and his inability to hear the proceedings.   At the last hearing, we were going through your request and had gotten to item #6.

Attorney Culverhouse stated that he filed with the Code Enforcement Clerk, and gave her a copy as well, a sworn motion for disqualification of Special Magistrate and this is a renewal of his oral motion made yesterday. Under Florida law he had the obligation to reduce it to writing and get it filed as quickly as possible.  He did this yesterday. Under Florida law, the Special Magistrate has an obligation to review the motion and determine whether or not it is legally sufficient and if it is, she should recuse herself.  She is not supposed to proceed any further in this matter until the motion is reviewed and state on the record whether or not it is legally insufficient or legally sufficient and if legally sufficient, you must recuse yourself and go no further.  If it is legally insufficient you must state the grounds therefore for the record.  He is requesting she do that as a threshold matter because she is required to do that.  You can't have a motion for disqualification and then go ahead and hear the case.  He is requesting she review and rule on the motion so he can preserve his record.

She said she did receive the motion about 10 or 15 minutes ago, she did review it, and she is going to deny it.  He asked her to state the grounds on which it is legally insufficient.  She said she did not have to do that and she is denying the motion.  She said the hearing was going to continue and he can take this matter up on appeal.  He said he was going to proceed under objection because he does not believe, as the respondent, that based upon what happened yesterday and her treatment of him and the things stated and the actions done, he does not believe he will get a fair hearing and a fair trial and he believes she has participated in this action from the bench acting as if she was a second assistant city attorney and not the Special Magistrate.  So he will continue and be respectful but does so under objection and in regards to the motion.  Special Magistrate Ross directed him back to item #6 of his motion.

Attorney Culverhouse said he wanted to place on the record that after yesterday's hearing recessed, he observed Ms. Sylvia Krushnek poke her finger onto the face of Mr. Richard B. Reed and said something to him.  He asked that the court admonish everyone there today to leave everyone alone.  Special Magistrate Ross said everyone doesn't always get along and we are going to proceed.  He said her touching of Mr. Reed was a battery and he wanted it on the record that he doesn't want anyone intimidating his witnesses.  

Attorney Culverhouse said he marked an email from Charlene Adair that was marked as Exhibit 2. He asked that Colleen Greer look at the document and if she recognized it. Attorney Mosley said she would stipulate to the authenticity of the document, but she would not stipulate it into evidence because she thinks it is hearsay and not relevant to the issues that are to be decided in these proceedings.  It was received by the Code Enforcement Department and was clearly indicated on the copy line of the email.  Mr. Culverhouse again asked Mrs. Greer to look at the document but she stated she never saw it before. Mrs. Arraiz said Mrs. Greer was not the keeper of the file, she is.  This was her file.  He said he wanted to call Mrs. Arraiz to testify for this limited purpose.
 
Margaret Arraiz was sworn in.  Attorney Culverhouse asked her to review and examine Exhibit #2 and if it is a copy of a document that is in the Code Enforcement file relating to this proceeding. She stated yes. He asked how it got into the file and she said she was Cc'd on the email.  She said Charlene Adair sent the email to Shaun Coss and when he replied, he added her as a Cc so she was aware of the communication.  He asked about the times of the emails and how they came to get in the file.  He asked about the email she wasn't Cc'd to.  She didn't know why unless it was a bcc.  She then said the document looks like it was a hard copy hand delivered by Charlene because the heading on the top of the page is a gmail account and the City doesn't have a gmail account.  He asked what the purpose was for it being in the file.  She said it was presented to her with this address and it was put in as part of the file. But she didn't think it was relevant to the case we were presenting so it stayed in the file and wasn't presented as part of her case.  She said she presented a nuisance matter and the email was a building matter, so it wasn't relevant and she didn't present it as evidence. 

Attorney Culverhouse presented the City Commission Agenda dated November 20, 2017 and marked it as Exhibit # 3.  Attorney Mosley said she had no objections as to authenticity of the document but questions the relevance of the document and objects to it being submitted as documentary evidence.  He asked Mrs. Arraiz if she recognized Exhibit #3.  She said yes.  The first item is the agenda for the November 20, 2017 City Commission meeting.  The second item is agenda item 13b which is Resolution 17-R38.  He asked her to identify what that resolution is and she said it was the Rules of Procedure for Condemnation & Demolition.  He asked her to read the agenda item.  She read the summary of the resolution. 

Special Magistrate said we were here for his motion of re-hearing and none of the stuff he is presenting belongs here.  She said to discuss what is relevant in his motion and anything else can be taken up with the City Commission on Monday. Attorney Culverhouse stated that these exhibits are related to item #7 of his motion. Attorney Mosley stated that the City submitted these documents as exhibits in the nuisance case.  Attorney Culverhouse said he wanted to admit the agenda packet and asked Mrs. Arraiz if she prepared this packet.  She said yes.  He asked if it was a true and correct copy of the agenda packet and she said yes.  He asked if it was a document in the Code Enforcment File.  She said this resolution was submitted as an exhibit at the April 18 hearing.  Special Magistrate Ross asked what the relevance was now?  Attorney Culverhouse said that Ms. Adair's email (Exhibit #2) dated 11/16/2017 to Shaun Coss said "Thanks Shaun. I'll try to get more pics from the back tomorrow while kayaking.  I know you need to wait till this revision passes on Monday."  He said they were talking about this agenda item, getting evidence to more forward with demolition on his property before the resolution ever passed.  He thinks it is evidence of conspiracy and collusion between Charlene Adair, the Fort Pierce South Beach Association, Shaun Coss, and officials of the City of Fort Pierce.  That is relevance and that goes to paragraph #7 of his motion that this is a retaliation from his press conference in September that he was going to represent Richard B. Reed in filing an action in Federal Court for the violation of his civil rights.  It goes to his allegation of fraud in the motion and the allegation as to paragraph #7. 

Special Magistrate Ross said she finds this is not relevant.  His issue is going before the City Commission; this is just on his re-hearing.   He said he wanted to make it clear for the ruling that an email that he was only able to obtain a copy of out of the Code Enforcement file on June 12, 2018.  She said we didn't admit the email as evidence and asked if he wanted to.  She asked Attorney Mosley if there was any objection to admitting the email as evidence. Attorney Mosley said she had no objection but wanted to inquire of Mrs. Arraiz how long before a Commission meeting is the agenda posted.  Mrs. Arraiz said the agenda is posted the Thursday before the City Commission meeting. They are posted on Thursday, we have to have them into the City Manager at least 10 days prior.  Attorney Mosley doesn't have any objection but doesn't find it relevant to this re-hearing motion.

Special Magistrate Ross read the email from Charlene Adair dated 11/16/2017 stating "Here's a picture of the unsafe concrete blocks and beam hanging by a thread that I mentioned yesterday.  We've been having an issue with kids and other people fishing on the property - one of these falling is a safety issue in my mind."  Attorney Culverhouse asked if Exhibit #3 was going to be submitted.  Attorney Mosley said she had no objection to admitting the entire agenda packet, but found no relevance to the matter being presented.  

Attorney Culverhouse called himself as a witness.  John B. Culverhouse Sr. was sworn in for testimony.  He said in September 2017 he attended a press conference representing Richard B. Reed II and said at that press conference that they intended to file in the Federal District Court an action under 42 USC Section 1983 Civil Rights Action against  Mayor Linda Hudson, City Manager Nicholas Mimms, Chief of Police Hobley-Burney and others.  As of today the suit has not been filed. Subsequent to that he was diagnosed with cancer and has had operations.  After the press conference it seemed like the enforcement activity against his property on Thumb Point Drive was increased. The City had already tried to foreclose on previous code enforcement liens that had been released by the City.  If the City doesn't have grounds to condemn under the Interntional Property Maintenance Code they came up with the condemnation proceeding to be able to condemn his property in order to appease the Fort Pierce South Beach Association that has been emailing and putting pressure on the City of Fort Pierce officials and staff.  He said almost all of the violations has been corrected and this is an attempt by the Fort Pierce South Beach Association, the Code Enforcement staff, and the Building staff to have the property declared a nuisance so they can demolish $200,000 worth of improvements on the property that they couldn't get to any other way because he has a valid building permit and has met each of his inspecton dates.  He believes this is a conspiracy and a violation of his procedural and due process rights under the US Constitution and the Florida Constitution. The municiple ordinances that this is conducted under are vague and ambiguous and do not give the proper guidelines for Code Enforcement or Building Officials to follow. They are arbitrary and capricious and a denial of equal protection under both the US and Florida Constitutions. He wants to renew all of his constitutional grounds that he asserted at the beginning and at the end at the hearing on April 18, 2018. 
  
Attorney Culverhouse asked who selected the photo presented on the agenda item for the City Commission.  Mrs. Arraiz said she downloaded it from Google Earth.  She said she does not submit any evidence at this meeting so they only needed to be able to recognize the property.  He asked if there was any reason she didn't use one of the photos that depicted the accurate and current condition of the property?  She explained again that they do not present evidence at the announcement of the hearing, they only announce the hearng date. The resolution explicitly states that there shall be no evidence or testimony provided. Therefore to comply with what the Commissioners want and with the resolution, we use a google earth photo. Mr. Culverhouse asked if Mrs. Arraiz knew the photo was from 2015. She didn't look at the date on Google Earth. Attorney Culverhouse continued his questioning as to why a photo that was used at the hearing was not presented. Mrs. Arraiz reiterated that the photo is for identification purposes only.  There is no evidence submitted at the hearing announcement. If she had used a photo from the file, she would have been submitting evidence and she could not do that.

Before he concludes, he has arranged for a court reporter to transcribe minutes by Monday for the City Commission meeting. He requested the Special Magistrate order the City to provide him with a USB stick with the audio recording. The Special Magistrate stated that she could not order that action. Mrs. Arraiz stated that they had no problem providing a USB with the recording at no charge from the first hearing and will be happy to do so again at the conclusion of this hearing.

Attorney Mosley asked Mr. Culverhouse if it was his position the only reason the condemnation procedures were enacted was to have a reason for demolishing his property.  He said he thinks that is the major reason they did this. They didn't do it until after they attempted to foreclose then they found out they released the lien.   The foreclosure papers were not filed, but they went before the City Commission and they were authorized.  In the file there is a single piece of paper that says "foreclosure, authorization, form originated by Peggy Arraiz."  She asked him if he knew the Clean Community Initiative was the reason the procedures were developed and it was passed on July 6, 2017 which was prior to his press conference?  He said that was invalid and all of the proper procedures were not followed.  He will be filing to declare that unconstitutional.  She asked him if he was aware that these proceedings cannot declare constitutionality.  He said he has the obligation to raise these issues so he can preserve his record and there's no issue of waiver.  

Attorney Mosley said the purpose of the prior proceedings is to determine whether the City's decision to issue a demolition order was appropriate.  You appealed that to the Special Magistrate.  He said he was not sure what he was appealing because the procedure is vague and ambitious and arbitrary and capricious that he's not quite sure what the procedure was. 
 
Attorney Mosley asked about the press conference that took place in September 2017, which was two to three months after the Clean Community Initiative was passed.  Mr. Culverhouse said yes, if what you are saying is correct. Attorney Mosely offered to have the agenda item submitted for the record. Mrs. Arraiz presented the digital version of the agenda item on her cell phone for review. Attorney Culverhouse said he didn't need the document entered in as evidence but he would have no objection to the Special Magistrate taking judicial notice of it.

Attorney Mosley asked him if his position was that the reason the City established demolition procedures was to get his property or get you.  He said he thinks that is one of the major reasons.  She said based on that theory, no other condemnations or demolitions has taken place but his.  He said he didn't say that. Attorney Mosely then asked if it was his position that the City did this not only to get you but every other property owner in the city who had issues that required nuisance determinations? He said he thinks the City has engaged in selective enforcement and in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  He doesn't know what other properties the City has done what with. Attorney Mosely asked if he inquired before he made that accusations? He said in regards to his property he believes the City has been overactive and engaged in collusion  with the South Beach Association. He feels they have been very vigilent on his property. The City continues to assert there are conditions but those conditions have been cured.  She asked him when the liens that were filed against his property and were released by Attorney Rob Schwerer, was the City going after you at that point also.  He said he didn't know and it called for him to speculate and conjecture and objected to the question.  This was overruled.  Attorney Mosley asked him if he admits the City released the lien and was the City still out to get him?  
 
Attorney Mosley asked if Mr. Reed has any interest or ownership in the property.  Attorney Culverhouse replied No. When asked if Mr. Reed rented any portion of the property, he said no, Mr. Reed had agreed to loan him $300,000 to finish the house.  They were in the process of doing the paperwork in January and the Code Enforcement posted the condemnation notice.  At that point Mr. Reed was not willing to move forward with the loan.  She asked if there were any documents concerning your agreement with Mr. Reed given to the City.  There were no mortgage documents provided to the City.  He stated there was mortgage documents prepared, a note prepared, a schedule of distribution prepared. Attorney Mosely asked if these documents were provided to the City and Attorney Culverhouse replied no.  He said before they were going to be recorded, the red tag was posted, and that was what stopped the loan. Attorney Mosely asked if anyone had notified the City of this and if he is saying the City then hurried up to condemn the property to stop it? He said after the posting but prior to the hearing, he told Mr. Mimms the City Manager that he had a private lender but once the condemnation notice was issued, the lender pulled back with the money.  

Mr. Reed handed Mr. Culverhouse a note saying he told James Messer and Paul Thomas at the time. Attorney Mosely indicated that Mr. Reed testified yesterday about his meeting but did not mention this. Attorney Culverhouse stated that it was because the question was not asked. The two attorneys engaged in discussion, simultaneously speaking over each other, regarding yesterday's testimony. At this time, Special Magistrate Ross interruped the discussion to review what the rules said regarding a request for rehearing. She then began to summarize what has been presented to date. Attorney Culverhouse objected stated that she did not have the right to do so and was acting as a party. Special Magistrate replied that she was giving the history as to what her knowledge was as the Special Magistrate and the hearing she held and now a rehearing on it. She stated that the house was damaged by the hurricane, right? She asked Mrs. Arraiz about the posting, which Mrs. Arraiz replied was a condemnation posting. It was Special Magistrate's understanding that there was a valid building permit even after the condemnation posting and asked Mr. Culverhouse if he still had that. He replied yes. Let's move forward. We already know the history of this site. Please present your new evidence. 

Attorney Culverhouse called Margaret Arraiz as an adverse party witness for testimony.  He asked her about the previous testimony from Mr. Thomas. He asked if she recalled Mr. Thomas stating that he was advised by the City Attorney James Messer at a meeting of department heads that the agreement letter signed by Mr. Meyers and Mr. Culverhouse in February 2016 was not valid and unenforceable.  She said she heard him say that.  He asked her why she based most of her code enforcement case on an invalid agreement.  She said she disagreed that a great portion of her case was that.  It was one piece of evidence no stronger or no less than any other piece of evidence such as the petition, which is why they went under the nuisance section.  She said the department head meetings are held on the Mondays of the City Commission meeting and are typically held in the second floor conference room (same room as they were in now) to discuss the agenda items and afterward there is discussion about the department heads.  She said she was not at that meeting.  She said she never heard this information until about two weeks ago. There are multiple reason why she may not have been there - whether she got called out of the room when that discussion happened or she was not there for that particular meeting, she did not know.  But she knows she was not there for that discussion. At the time there was no senior code officer to represent her at the meeting. Mr. Culverhouse asked why, if she became aware of the opinion two weeks ago, she has continued to move forward with her case. Mrs. Arraiz said that it was already part of the evidence and that there was no evidence to countradict what has been presented at the previous hearing. She said there was no written opinion to place in the file or to substantiate this comment.  She had not been present at any of the meetings that have been testified to and said she learned about the agreement after Mr. Culverhouse was having the letter certified by the City Clerk and he gave her a copy.  She went in to see Paul Thomas and asked what it was about.  He told her at that time the agreement was not valid.  He asked if there was minutes kept of these meetings; she said no they are informal meetings.  He asked if she keeps a calendar of what meetings she attends; she said no.  The calendar says when meetings are but not who attends them.  She said the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the agenda items.  After this discussion, then they ask if there is anything else that needs to be discussed.  He asked her what she did when she found out about the letter.  She said she made a note about the letter being invalid because the mayor didn't sign it.  He asked her if she would include the April letter from Mr. Meyers to Mr. Culverhouse and that it is also invalid based upon the invalidity of the agreement.  She said she would.  

Mr. Culverhouse asked for a brief recess, which was granted.

Back on record regarding John B. Culverhouse Sr. verified motion for rehearing and reconsideration of a new trial and for relief from the Special Magistrate's May 16, 2018 Order of Special Magistrate wherein the property was declared a nuisance and forwarded to the City Commission for final determination.  She reminded counsel that this was a rehearing and it was only for considering new evidence or circumstances not presented at the original hearing.  

Mr. Culverhouse asked Mrs. Arraiz about the note she was making about the invalid agreement and where she was putting it.  She said she was preparing a power point presentation for the City Commission meeting.  One of the bullit items is that the agreement is no longer valid. He asked if the agenda item had been presented and was on the web site.  Special Magistrate Ross said that has nothing to do with new evidence and told him he could meet with her afterwards to discuss it.  He says it goes to her credibility as a witness.  She overruled his objection and he proferred.  He asked what date she submitted the agenda item for the City Commission meeting for June 18, 2018.  She said her submission date would have been last Wednesday and all exhibits that were submitted to the Special Magistrate were included as attachments.  He asked if the invalid agreement was included and she said the minutes from the hearing were attached. Mr. Culverhouse asked where in the mintues that was referenced as he did not see it. Mrs. Arraiz read the Special Magistratre's ruling from the minutes where it was stated that the agreement was void. Mr. Culverhouse clarified that he wants to know if what was learned two weeks prior from Mr. Thomas was included. Mrs. Arraiz explained that all of the attachments for the agenda item were the exhibits from the hearing.  He said he wanted to proffer again and asked if agenda item 13B is a summary that she prepared.  Mrs. Arraiz said yes.  He asked her to go to the second page .  He asked about the Staff recommendation and why she didn't put down that she had learned about the February 19, 2018 agreement was invalid and couldn't be enforced.  She said it is in her power point presentation; it is not completed at this time.  The summary sheet was submitted several weeks ago and has to go through several steps before it reaches here.  Attorney Culverhouse asked if she recalled Mr. Rick Reed telling her that he was going to loan Mr. Culverhouse money to move forward with rebuilding the house. She replied no.

Attorney Mosley asked Mrs. Arraiz about the Clean Community Initiative and how long ago it was that initiative brought?  Mrs. Arraiz said the original presentation to the City Commission was at a conference agenda in April 2016.  It was given to her as a task by Commissioner Becht.  It was then presented to the City Commission in June 2016.  It was denied and then approved July 2017.  The reason for the denial in 2016 was because the CCI at the time included multiple items and the Commissioners only wanted the newly named CSI program to be about demolition.  Staff removed all of the beautification items etc. and came back only as a demolition item. It was adopted and they started the administrative proceedings immediately following.  Attorney Mosley asked her about her knowledge of the conversations with Paul Thomas and if she got any official memo signed by the City Attorney concerning any conversation with Paul Thomas or any other person about the validity of the agreement.  Mrs. Arraiz said no.  Attorney Culverhouse objected because she had already testified that she didn't receive any memo.  The objection was overruled.  

Attorney Culverhouse called Richard Reed as rebuttal witness.  He asked Mr. Reed about the negotiations about lending him, Mr. Culverhouse, the $300,000 and who he informed of the loan.  He said he met with Paul Thomas and Mr. Culverhouse and discussed cleaning the property up and building on it and that he would loan Mr. Culverhouse the money as long as everything was in proper order.  He also discussed it with Mr. Messer, the City Attorney.  He said he also discussed it with Mrs. Arraiz on more than one occassion.  All of it was to remedy the situation, get Mr. Culverhouse's property clean and the house going.  He did work himself and arranged to have a contractor clean it up.  He went on record and referred to the Clean Community Initiative.  He asked when it was adopted. Mrs. Arraiz stated it was adopted in July 2017 but it was first presented in June 2016. Mr. Reed said that is relevent because he received an email from Mr. Messer regarding Mr. Culverhouse's property and a lien dated April 25, 2017 that he worked directly with Mr. Messer and moving forward to get it cleaned up so they could move forward with the construction of the house.  He presented the email.  He said he was going to invest the money to get the property cleaned up and the house built then they put the red tag out. He said the email was before the clean community initiative.  He could not invest the money after that.  His contractor, Joe Foglio, also pulled out because none of them could go on the property.  He said he understood how the neighbors felt, but the city did this out of spite.  Attorney Culverhouse asked what he meant by out of spite. Mr. Reed replied that everytime they took two steps forward the City did something else to set it back. 

Attorney Culverhouse asked Mr. Reed prior to the red tag put on property in January 2018 had all other issues relating to the loan of money been resolved?  Attorney Mosley objected to this stating that it occurred in January and should have been brought forward at the hearing in April. The objection was sustained. Attorney Culverhouse proffered and asked Mr. Reed to answer the question.  Mr. Reed said yes. Attorney Culverhouse asked if there was any other matter that is new that you have not been asked? Mr. Reed repeated each thing on the check list being done; but the demolition notice was posted and he and his partner was not able to continue.

Attorney Culverhouse renewed his objections, his constitutional objections to the position he previously stated at the beginning of this hearing and at the beginning of the original hearing and at the close of the other hearing.  He renewed the motion for disqualification of the Special Magistrate which she noted.  

Attorney Mosley presented the City's closing argument.   The issue concerning a rehearing involves whether or not there are new circumstances or new evidence that was not considered at the original hearing.  The request has to state why the evidence or information wasn't presented.  There's been a lot of information that was testified to in the first hearing.  Mr. Thomas talked about something that affected the agreement but had no evidence of any research or memorandum that transmitted any information to Mrs. Arraiz who apparently only learned of this information after the hearing, after the proceedings, and after the ruling had been made.  If this information existed, we have not heard the reason why it wasn't presented at the first hearing. Mr. Culverhouse did not provide a reason as to why this information, which was clearly discoverable, was not presented at the first hearing.

Item # 3 of the motion says the code enforcement presented testimony in a letter sent by Marc Meyers but failed to inform the Special Magistrate that the agreement had been modified by the Building Department.  Mrs. Arraiz is not in the Building Department so she was under no obligation and they did not prove that she knew prior to any of this being submitted of any conversation that took place with another department. There's been much ado about a department head meeting.  There's been no evidence to prove that Mrs. Arraiz was aware of that meeting or aware of any subsequent conversation.  The record is devoid of anything that suggests that she knew what had transpired with people other than people within her department.  There's no memo from Mr. Messer that says anything, and if an informal opinion was given we don't know and it has not been presented.  The question has never been answered. In fact, we do not know what question was asked like "If we go to court is this a legally enforceable contract"?  We don't know what context any comments that were made to Mr. Thomas that he characterizes as informal conversation.  So you cannot put any weight on that. 

Under #2 it says the City of Fort Pierce presented incomplete and false evidence.  There's no evidence that's been presented in these hearings that shows anything was false or perjured or that she (Attorney Mosely) in some way presented perjured or false testimony which in Section #6 area that says the order is based on perjured and false evidence and testimony.  That would assume that she (Attorney Mosely) was supporting perjury, which is blatantly false and would be without evidence, a violation of Florida Bar rules. There's been no evidence that anyone knowingly presented any false, perjured, misleading evidence.  Everything that was said were conversations that occurred with third parties. 

Mrs. Arraiz will include in the upcoming agenda some of these opinions between Mr. Culverhouse and Mr. Meyers about the agreement for the City Commission's consideration. This opinion taken out of the picture, doesn't invalidate any testimony by any single citizen witness that came in to testify.  There has been no showing that any one of the citizen witnesses that came forward were affiliated with the City of Fort Pierce, had discussed with the City of Fort Pierce any plan or "any showing of collusion" between the City and the witnesses.  None of this had any bearing on the findings from the previous hearing.
 
Taking the conclusions that were made by the Special Magistrate they were basically based on what the witnesses testified to.  With regard to the testimony and evidence presented the Special Magistrate's findings were that the residents that live on Thumb Point Drive had to tolerate Mr. Culverhouse's house since its destruction after the 2004 hurricanes.  The house has been in a state of disrepair for more than 13 years.  It doesn't mention a timeline, any agreement, whether or not he strayed from any provisions; it talks about what the residents said.  There is sufficient evidence to support the findings that were made.  The information of this purportedly new information doesn't change that.  Neither does it change anything that was presented by Mrs. Arraiz based on her understanding as of April 18 as to what the facts were. 

She urged the Special Magistrate to find there is no new evidence presented and that the matter should proceed to the Commission.  Mr. Culverhouse has the opportunity to present whatever he has to the Commission.  He has had his day and he has had the opportunity to questions each witness that came forward.  That is what is called due process.  He had the opportunity to know and to question what the witnesses said and to examine them.  She submitted that the motion and reconsideration be denied and the order stand as written.

Attorney Culverhouse presented his closing argument.  What the Assistant City Attorney said about nobody related to this proceeding knew about this; she is the Assistant City Attorney of the City of Fort Pierce and the statement testified to by Mr. Thomas yesterday was made by the City Attorney in a meeting of the department heads of the City of Fort Pierce and was made by the City Attorney.  She is the Assistant City Attorney and any knowledge the City Attorney has or positions taken are imputed to her as well.  For her to argue that she didn't know... Attorney Mosley objected saying it was mis-characterization.  Special Magistrate Ross said it's closing; he gets latitude.  He continued by saying Attorney Mosley said they didn't know the agreement wasn't valid and was unenforceable when the knowledge was imputed.  He said Mrs. Arraiz testified and Assistant City Attorney argued that the City gave us a chance but we didn't live up to it and the Special Magistrate's specific findings in 5 C and D specifically references the February 19, 2016 agreement with the city giving a timeline when repairs would be completed by April 21, 2016 a friendly letter was sent to Mr. Culverhouse and Marc Meyers, the City of Fort Pierce Building Official, asking the project be brought back up to the agreed upon schedule.  The resondent did not comply with the agreement.  If they had imparted to the tribunal on April 18 that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable - #1 they should not have presented any evidence relating to that and #2 they should not have argued it to the tribunal.  Whether or not she knew or didn't know is a matter that will probably be decided down the road somewhere.  He has to take it at face value that she is the Assistant City Attorney of the City of Fort Pierce and the City Attorney said in this official meeting of the department heads is imputed to her as the Assistant City Attorney.  The conclusions of law is based in part on the invalid unenforceable agreement and if that is not fraud then I don't know what is.  To have knowledge and not impart it to the tribunal is lack of candor to the tribunal and it's also called fraud in the court and fraud on him (Mr. Culverhouse).  He thinks the fraud has been proven and it is grounds for the rehearing and the matter be looked at anew.  He asked the Special Magistrate to reserve jurisdiction for the awarding of sanctions and attorney fees.  It was the City's duty not to present false evidence, not to say he violated the agreement when there was no valid agreement.  Not to show there was a timeline based on that agreement that they allege that he did not comply with when they knew or should have known based upon the imputed knowledge and what they were presenting to the tribunal was false and so he thinks the grounds of his motion have been proven and should be sustained, and a rehearing should be granted.  

Attorney Mosley said if the closing has been concluded she would like to ask the Special Magistrate to refer this matter of the accusations of knowingly presenting perjured testimony against her (Attorney Mosely) be referred to the Florida Bar for investigation because Mr. Culverhouse has accused her of committing a fraud on the court which has bearing on her character, bearing on her professionalism, and her ability to practice law in this state.  She is lodging this complaint against him for making false and fraudulent allegations concerning her candor to the court based on evidence that he is speculating that she should have known about a matter that has never been presented to any person in this room.  She would like the Special Magistrate to refer this to the Florida Bar for investigation.  She has practiced in the State of Florida for 30 years and has never had her integrity impuned the way this man has just laid this out.  She wants it reported and investigated and based on the findings of the investigation she will see whether or not there is a defamation suit lying in state against the personal attack this individual has lodged against her and her integrity.

Mr. Culverhouse responded that he would also request that it be referred to the Florida Bar because he thinks there are grounds. Attorney Mosely did not present any sworn testimony that she didn't know. Attorney Mosely stated that she was not a witness in this matter and she did not testfy but offered to do a deposition. The two attorneys engaged in a heated discussion on this topic which after several attempts and several minutes was stopped by the Special Magistrate who temporarily adjourned the meeting to speak with both councelors.

Once the hearing reconvened, the Special Magistrate moved forward with her ruling. The Special Magistrate did not find anything new that would have impacted her previous ruling. Much deference has been given to the testimony of Paul Thomas. It appears from what she heard that no one knew the agreement was invalid until two weeks ago. This did not affect the status of your property and you still have a valid permit. If you have taken any steps toward renovating or improving your property that passed inspection you would have been granted an inspection. She did not find any new evidence or newly discovered evidence that affects her ruling. The Special Magistrate addressed the behavior of the two attorneys and reprimanded them both. She did not find that the City presented false testimony or withheld any evidence. Ms. Arraiz agreed to include the information requested by Mr. Culverhouse in her presentation and agreed to provide a recording of today's hearings. I do not find that anything is being withheld. The timeline - whether it was valid or not - you signed the agreement and you did not live up to it. Now two years later we are still talking about the time line and the fact that your property is still in the same state it was in almost 14 years ago. You stated in your complaint that you could not hear and the city made accommodations. In my opinion my order was not based upon flawed or perjured testimony. I have a copy of my ruling here, a portion of which was read into the record by counsel. The same findings that I made then, I would make again. Nothing has changed. No new evidence has been presented.

You (Mr. Culverhouse) cited a lot of constitutional violations - arbitrary and comprecious, your due process - none of that occurred here. And then you came up with paragraph #7 that you represented Mr. Reed in an action against the Mayor, the City Manager and the Chief of Police and that after which the enforcement activity at your property increased but you testified that the lawsuit was never filed. My recommendation has not changed. I deny your motion and stand by my previous recommendation that your property is a nuisance and this matter will go to the City Commission on Monday. They can do whatever. They are the governing body.

Attorney Mosely apologized to the Special Magistrate and all present for her behavior stating that she was deeply embarrassed that she lost her temper. Attorney Culverhouse apologized to Attorney Mosely stating that he did not intend to accuse her of intentional fraud and he withdrew any inference of that for the record.

The Special Magistrate, Fran Ross, Esq., found the following:

1. There is no newly discovered evidence that would impact the previous ruling.
   1. Much deference has been given to the testimony of Paul Thomas concerning the validity of the agreement from February 2016.
   2. The City provided testimony that no one knew the agreement was invalid until two (2) weeks ago.
2. There is still a valid permit at this property. Any steps taken to improve or renovate the property would grant another extension if necessary.
3. That the City of Fort Pierce did not present incomplete and false evidence and they did not withhold evidence.
4. That the City has made efforts to assist with your hearing difficulties.
5. That the constitutional violations raised are without merit.
6. That your complaint that enforcement efforts on your property increased following your press conference of September 2017 is without merit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The motion for re-hearing and re-determination is denied and my previous recommendation to declare that the Property Owner John B Culverhouse, Sr. has maintained a Nuisance as a Condition on the property located at 1635 Thumb Point Drive in violation of the provisions of §16-46 and §16-48 of the City Codes for the City of Fort Pierce Florida stands as previously stated. It will go before the City Commission on Monday, June 18, 2018 for a final decision.