Very Important Decision on Initiating Certiorari Review

A must read for all land use litigators:

In Concerned Citizens of Bayshore et al v. Lee County & US Homes, et al, here's the opinion, the 2d DCA did us all a favor by clarifying a few key issues in initiating certiorari review.

Concerned Citizens filed a cert petition challenging a rezoning granted to US Homes, but did not name US Homes as a party (in the caption) or serve them within 30 days. US Homes moved to dismiss for failure to name an indispensable party and the trial court granted the motion, even though petitioners were willing to amend to name US Homes, and had served them by mail.

WRONG. Under a number of cases (cited in the opinion), the landowner is not an indispensable party, as the opinion correctly points out.

But the opinion went beyond that and held that R Civ P 1.630 governs the caption, parties and service of a common law cert petition, not R. App P. 9.100 (b) -- which as near as I can tell was a case and opinion of first impression, even though the rules have been around for a long time. Under that rule, you file your writ (and record), and if the petition sets forth a prima facie case, the court enters a "summons," which then must be served as provided by R. Civ. P. 1.080 (b) (the general service by mail, hand, fax rule - rather than the service of process rule). The comment to R. 1.630 indicates that if the record isn't available, the petitioner may request additional time to file it - a position held in case law under the appellate rules, but not explicit.

One reason this is important is that R. App. P. 9.100 (b) provided that all parties to an action below are to be named as respondents; this created the petard on which the court hoisted Citizens in the action below.

But the court went even further and noted that R. App. P. 9.100 (f) does apply and that US Homes was a party respondent under R App. P. 1.020 (g)(4), and therefore entitled to participate with or without service by Citizens. NOTE: this implies that anyone who participates in a quasi-judicial hearing and establishes a record basis for standing (common law/special injury or by local ordinance) can pile into a cert case as a respondent - even if they're actually supporting the petitioner, and be a party regardless of the caption and initial service.

The opinion does leave a couple of critical holes: first, whether cert petitions, responses and replies are governed for length, format, etc. by F R App P 9.100 f-l; for example, is the "record" that must be transmitted according to R Civ P 1.630 an "appendix" as required by R. App. P. 9.100(g)? So we still have a ways to go before all of the kinks are worked out.

I've been very frustrated by a number of PCA/PCD opinions from the 2d that dodged important issues and was afraid that the court was going to do that in this case as well (I know all of the private party litigators in this one, so knew about the case). So, thanks to the panel and the court for issuing an opinion that clarifies and simplifies what had emerged as a bit of a trap for petitioners in this area. It's a MUST READ.

=========
Just for fun, here's the text of the appliable rules:

RULE 1.630. EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
(a) Applicability. This rule applies to actions for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, and habeas corpus.

(b) Initial Pleading. The initial pleading shall be a complaint. It shall contain:
(1) the facts on which the plaintiff relies for relief;
(2) a request for the relief sought; and
(3) if desired, argument in support of the petition with citations of authority.

The caption shall show the action filed in the name of the plaintiff in all cases and not on the relation of the state. When the complaint seeks a writ directed to a lower court or to a governmental or administrative agency, a copy of as much of the record as is necessary to support the plaintiff’s complaint shall be attached.

(c) Time. A complaint shall be filed within the time provided by law, except that a complaint for common law certiorari shall be filed within 30 days of rendition of the matter sought to be reviewed.

(d) Process. If the complaint shows a prima facie case for relief, the court shall issue:
(1) a summons in certiorari;
(2) an order nisi in prohibition;
(3) an alternative writ in mandamus that may incorporate the complaint by reference only;
(4) a writ of quo warranto; or
(5) a writ of habeas corpus.

The writ shall be served in the manner prescribed by law, except the summons in certiorari shall be served as provided in rule 1.080(b).

(e) Response. Defendant shall respond to the writ as provided in rule 1.140, but the answer in quo warranto shall show better title to the office when the writ seeks an adjudication of the right to an office held by the defendant.

Court Commentary
1984 Amendment. Rule 1.630 replaces rules and statutes used before 1980 when the present Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure were adopted. Experience has shown that rule 9.100 is not designed for use in trial court. The times for proceeding, the methods of proceeding, and the general nature of the procedure is appellate and presumes that the proceeding is basically an appellate proceeding. When the extraordinary remedies are sought in the trial court, these items do not usually exist and thus the rule is difficult to apply. The uniform procedure concept of rule 9.100 has been retained with changes making the procedure fit trial court procedure. The requirement of attaching a copy of the record in subdivision (b) may not be possible within the time allowed for the initial pleading because of the unavailability of the record. In that event the plaintiff should file a motion to extend the time to allow the preparation of the record and supply it when prepared. The filing of a motion to extend the time should be sufficient to extend it until the motion can be decided by the court.

RULE 1.080. SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND PAPERS
(a) Service; When Required. Unless the court otherwise orders, every pleading subsequent to the initial pleading and every other paper filed in the action, except applications for witness subpoena, shall be served on each party. No service need be made on parties against whom a default has been entered, except that pleadings asserting new or additional claims against them shall be served in the manner provided for service of summons.
(b) Service; How Made. When service is required or permitted to be made upon a party represented by an attorney, service shall be made upon the attorney unless service upon the party is ordered by the court. Service on the attorney or party shall be made by delivering a copy or mailing it to the attorney or the party at the last known address or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the court. Service by mail shall be complete upon mailing. Delivery of a copy within this rule shall be complete upon: (1) handing it to the attorney or to the party, (2) leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge thereof, (3) if there is no one in charge, leaving it in a conspicuous place therein, (4) if the office is closed or the person to be served has no office, leaving it at the person’s usual place of abode with some person of his or her family above 15 years of age and informing such person of the contents, or (5) transmitting it by facsimile to the attorney’s or party’s office with a cover sheet containing the sender’s name, firm, address, telephone number, and facsimile number, and the number of pages transmitted. When service is made by facsimile, a copy shall also be served by any other method permitted by this rule. Facsimile service occurs when transmission is complete. Service by delivery after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed to have been made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.

A Search and Seizure Opinion (Relevant to Land Use) So Bad It's Terrifying - and Ethical Limits Prevent Me From Saying What I Really Think

As an attorney, I have an ethical obligation not to disparage courts or judges in a manner that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. That obligation doesn't prevent me from criticizing bad opinions, but does require me to avoid overheated rhetoric.

This opinion from the 4th DCA, in Vaughn v. Dep't of Agriculture et al, tests my self-control. The 4th upheld a trial court's dismissal of s.1983 damage claims against individual inspectors of the Dep't of Agriculture and a Broward County Deputy Sheriff. The inspectors invaded Vaughn's property without a warrant and had him arrested for demanding one. They tore down sections of Vaughn's fence and gate, cut down and ground his citrus trees, and had him arrested for objecting to this. The Deputy handcuffed and arrested Vaughn for insisting that the inspectors needed a warrant to enter his property.

The 4th, INCREDIBLY, (see Judge Farmer's dissent, which got the law right) found the inspectors and deputy entitled to immunity on the basis that the law requiring a warrant to engage in these activities wasn't sufficiently clear to justify maintaining suits against the individuals. The majority basically takes the position that until a specific law, regulation or practice has been specifically found to violate the Fourth Amendment (or presumably any other constitutional right), you can't hold an executive actor personally responsible for violating that right. This is a gross distortion of the underlying doctrine from Harlow v. Fitzgerald, and an even worse interpretation of the relevant 4th Amendment rulings.

Basically, this decision completely destroys any integrity to the Fourth Amendment. Sure, any evidence that the officers got through this invasion would be excluded from a criminal proceeding - creating an institutional incentive not to invade and abuse Fourth Amendment rights. Sure the Department and Sheriff's office are still on the line. But without individual liability and responsibilty, there's no reason for the actual perpetrators of what the court agreed was a constitutional violation to avoid those violations. In other words, watch out - cops, code enforcment officers, anyone with the "color" of authority has free reign to break down your fence, arrest you, and generally abuse you, and you have no action against them personally. Where's the disincentive for these folks to abuse you?

It's also telling that in some 4th amendment cases, the courts have limited the scope of the exclusionary rule, in part based on arguments that personal liability for abuses would provide a deterrant to the bad conduct without the social penalty of allowing a criminal to go free. So the constitution now gets squeeezed from both sides.

The "the law said I could" argument didn't fly at Nuremburg for German sargents who abused the human rights of Jews and others, but apparently it's good enough for American agriculture inspectors and deputies. While invading someone's property and cutting their trees down doesn't in any way rise to the same level of human rights abuse that the Holocaust represents, if these administrative and law enforcement officers don't respect the 4th Amendment, if there isn't a personal sense of limitation and respect for individidual rights on the parts of these individuals, then the constitution is dead.

Read the dissent to get the full flavor of the attitude, behavior and tactics of the "public servants" involved and choose your own adjectives to describe them. Taste and ethics constrain me, because if I described the behavior as I'd like, I'd also end up noting the way that the court has permitted and perhaps even facilitated such behavior, and that might cross the line.

Clearly, in search and siezure as in other violations of our constitutional rights by public officials, we cannot rely on the federal civil rights laws (and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights) to provide adequate protection.

What to do? We need a Florida version of section 1983 that holds state and local agencies and actors liable for violations of the Florida constitution, with sections that make it clear that it is to be interpreted liberally to protect the rights of citizens - not like the cramped readings of s.1983 and the core rights that the federal courts have put on section 1983, basically to avoid hearing the cases.

Hacker cracks police force network

"Thieves raid database favoured by law enforcement agencies



Major police forces across Canada, including the RCMP, OPP and the Toronto force, are among thousands of law enforcement agencies and forensic investigators whose private and financial information may have been stolen this month in a hacker attack, a published report says. Guidance Software, Inc., a private Pasadena, Calif., firm, said in a letter sent out to law enforcement agencies last week that thieves had raided its database sometime in November, stealing credit card numbers and in certain cases information such as addresses and telephone numbers for 3,800 customers.

Guidance makes EnCase, a suite of forensic investigation software that has become the standard tool used by computer crime units of police, insurance companies, banks and private computer forensics specialists."



TheStar.com

Computer Forensic Services - Federal Bureau of Investigation - Cyber Investigations

"The proper collection, preservation, and forensic analysis of evidence is a tremendous tool that must be fully exploited. Since its inception, the FBI has been the world leader in using science to solve crimes. During its first year of operation in 1932, the FBI's forensics unit conducted 963 examinations.

Currently, the FBI conducts more than one million forensic examinations annually. The types of forensic investigations conducted by the FBI include terrorism, espionage, public corruption, civil rights, criminal organizations and enterprises, white collar and violent crime. Not only has the volume of evidence received increased dramatically, but the complexity of the examination methods, as well as the complex nature of the investigations themselves have increased. Often, forensic analysis is the only means to provide conclusive information to a jury to assist them in their determination of guilt or innocence."

Computer Forensic Services

Computer Forensic Software Company Hacked

Computer Forensics Services Tools Maker Hacked

Guidance Software had to do a forensic investigation on its own systems after a hacker broke in and accessed records, including credit card data, of thousands of customers. . . .

Guidance, one of the leading sellers of software used to investigate computer crimes, sent out letters last week to inform its customers about the breach. Some customers have already reported fraudulent credit card charges. "There have been a handful of cases, but we're only two weeks into this, so I don't know the total size," Colbert said. . . .

Guidance's EnCase software is used by security researchers and law enforcement agencies worldwide. The Pasadena, Calif.-based company notified all its approximately 9,500 customers about the attack and has called in the U.S. Secret Service, which has started an investigation, Colbert said.

Computer Internet Lawyer Tampa

Computer Forensic Experts from FBI Investigate Failure of Dam

FBI investigates Taum Sauk failure

"The Missouri State Highway Patrol on Friday asked for the FBI to help with its investigation of Wednesday's breach in the Taum Sauk dam. Members of the Highway Patrol's Division of Drug and Crime Control, which is the department's investigative unit, were at the Taum Sauk plant on Friday. They are investigating to determine whether the failure of the dam and the computer-operated equipment was an accident or intentional, said Lt. Tim Hull, spokesman for the Highway Patrol.

[T]he FBI plans to send computer forensic investigators to examine the computerized equipment."

Computer Forensic Services

Improving Growth Managment through Better Procedures, Standards and Judicial Review

Last year, I posted and circulated a suggestion for a set of minimal standards for the conduct and review of quasi-judicial decisions at the local level.

Here's this year's draft.

I've tweaked a few things, including making this part of Chapter 163 instead of Chapter 120 - maybe it'll get better play as a growth management bill.

I've also added a few suggested changes to complement the 2002 legislation which gave landowners/developers standing, over-ruling the Parker case. Biggest tweaks to the substance of Chapter 163: clarify the understanding that the denial of a development order that is consistent with the comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan - which was the intention but not the reality. I also suggest clarifying that development orders must be consistent only with those elements of the plan that provide clear standards or objective criteria - the general rule in proper delegations, but again difficult to enforce. Finally, I suggest getting rid of the useless administrative challenge to land development regulations and replacing it with a proper de novo action in circuit court.

Please provide comments -- I'll be sending it along to the house GM committee and also to Sen. Mike Bennett.

Computer Forensic Services - Hi-tech brings no easy solutions

"Some of the biggest headaches for fraud investigators and prosecutors stem from modern technology. June Philips of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Brisbane, Australia, said computer technology and software allowed the cheap, large scale production of forged documents.

'The quality of forged items from passports, driver's licenses to electricity bills is astounding. Identity fraud is one of the biggest growth areas,' she said at 12th annual Prosecution Conference yesterday. Ms Philips said large sums of money scammed from gullible investors could be transferred with breathtaking speed to offshore accounts from where they were difficult to recover. "In many cases they do involve the necessity for computer forensic skills and the obtaining of overseas evidence."

Computer Forensic Services

Fiji Times Online

Computer Forensic - Arrest in Minsk Belarus ICE investigation

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement "arrest was part of a global ICE investigation that focused on an Internet billing company based in Minsk, Belarus, the news release said. In January 2004, the Belarus company was charged with money laundering, providing credit card billing services for 50 child pornography Web sites worldwide and operating its own child pornography Web sites, the release said. After the enterprise was dismantled, ICE agents focused their investigation on the customers who purchased the child pornography subscriptions, the release said."



Computer Forensic - Arrest in Minsk Belarus ICE investigation

Computer Forensics - Computer holds a clue, this lab will find it

If a computer holds a clue, this lab will find it $4 million investment cracks big cases

By TONY RIZZO
The Kansas City Star

What's the best way to get into a criminal's head? One group of area sleuths knows: Get into their computers.

That's what the men and women assigned to the Heart of America Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory do every day in their high-tech search for evidence of crimes. The partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies was one of the first of its kind in the country. After two years of operation, it can boast of helping crack some of the region's most infamous recent crimes."

Kansas City Star

Computer Forensics - Best Buy 'hacker' loses in court

"Excerpt from appeals court's opinion:



'An FBI computer forensic expert found three of the e-mails and other incriminating documents on the hard drive of Ray's computer. The expert testified the e-mails and documents were created by someone typing on that computer and that someone had logged onto the Internet from that computer using the screen name and password used to send the e-mails. The expert also stated there was no evidence of any type of remote access or hacking found on Ray's computer. In addition, the evidence showed Ray had the knowledge and ability to process the monetary transactions he demanded in the extortion e-mails. . . .



The appeals court rejected his arguments and upheld an 18-month prison sentence and restitution to Best Buy of $87,398. Ray also is sentenced to a three-year supervised release, which includes no possession of any "electronic device with access to any online computer service" without explicit permission."



From ZDNet

FBI Mission - Federal Bureau of Investigation - Cyber Investigations

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Computer Forensic Services:



"The mission of the FBI Cyber Division is to:



- coordinate, supervise and facilitate the FBI's investigation of those federal violations in which the Internet, computer systems, or networks are exploited as the principal instruments or targets of terrorist organizations, foreign government sponsored intelligence operations, or criminal activity and for which the use of such systems is essential to that activity;



- form and maintain public/private alliances in conjunction with enhanced education and training to maximize counterterrorism, counter-intelligence, and law enforcement cyber response capabilities; and



- until such time as a final decision is made regarding the future role and location of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the FBI will direct and coordinate the Center's mission to protect the Nation's critical information infrastructure and other key assets."



Computer Forensic Services

Computer Forensic - Federal Bureau of Investigation - Cyber Investigations

"The FBI plays two very important roles in cyberspace. First, it is the lead law enforcement agency for investigating cyber attacks by foreign adversaries and terrorists. The potential damage to the United States' national security from a cyber-based attack includes devastating interruptions of critical communications, transportation, and other services. Additionally, such attacks could be used to access and steal protected information and plans. The FBI also works to prevent criminals, sexual predators, and others intent on malicious destruction from using the Internet and on-line services to steal from, defraud, and otherwise victimize citizens, businesses, and communities.

Open Space Requirements in a PUD are not a Taking, Even When the Plan is Amended to Designate the Property "Preservation"

In Palm Beach Polo v. Village of Wellington, here's the link, the Village had filed a dec action seeking to enforce the terms of a PUD ordinance (originally adopted by the County, pre-incorporation) and the developer counterclaimed under a takings and Bert Harris theory for placing a portion of the property designated for conservation in the PUD as "Preservation" in the FLUM.

Upshot: Village 2, Polo 0. The trial court found, and the 4th DCA affirmed, that the density (and therefore value) of the 120 acre "Big Blue" portion of the property had been transferred to the rest of the development in the PUD ordinance, and that the terms of the PUD were still valid and enforceable. It held that there was ample evidence that development of this area was not an "existing right" for Bert Harris purposes, that the PUD provisions were not unconstitutionally vague, and that because the property overall had been given use - including development rights from the preservation parcel, the fact that the preservation parcel was now "undevelopable" did not create a taking.

For takings types - the "parcel as a whole" looks backward to prior regulatory actions, like the PUD ordinance here. An unsurprising result, but I'm not sure of another Florida precedent on this point.

OK, Local Gov't Attorneys, Repeat After Me: You Can't Lien Homestead Property - Really!

In Pelacanos v. City of Hallendale Beach, here's the opinion, the 4th DCA reminds us that homestead property really is free of liens - even if the homeowner makes a court mad. In that case, homeowners who were subject to code enforcement actions entered a settlement, but kept failing to completely live up to it. The result was various contempt citations and later an order from the court allowing the City to demolish the building and lien it.

The homeowners got the property under contract and asked for a declaration that the property would be sold free of the liens.

The trial court denied them their relief, but the 4th granted it. The City argued that because the homeowners had engaged in "eggregious" conduct in failing to comply with the court orders, the lien was valid (yeah, right). The court found that the property was homestead and therefore protected from the lien for demolition costs, regardless of how frustrated the lower court had been: "While we certainly empathize with the trial court's frustration with the appellants’ noncompliance, it is not our province to judicially create another exception to the plain and unambiguous language of article X, section 4. "

When Does a Small-Scale Plan Amendment Become Effective?

In an opinion in Payne v Miami (Payne I) that may not matter much outside Miami, Jacksonville, and the handfull of other "strong mayor" cities in Florida, the 3d DCA determined that the 30-day challenge period after the adoption of a small scale plan amendment did not begin after adoption by the City Commission, but after the 10 day period for the mayor to sign or veto an ordinance under the Miami Charter. Here's the opinion.



The decision hinged on the charter language, which provides that the ordinance does not go into effect until signed by the Mayor or 10 days has passed without signature or veto.



Interesting question: would the same logic apply to the City Commission's consideration of a rezoning in a challenge under 163.3215? Rezonings are administrative under Snyder (they're quasi-judicial and therefore administrative per se), but must be adopted by ordinance pursuant to special requirements of section 166 (cities) and 125 (counties). Most cases have held that the challenge must be filed within 30 days of the local commission's action, even if the "development order" of the rezoning isn't "rendered" for the purpose of a certiorari challenge (by filing the signed action with the clerk to the board) until some time later.

Standing to Challenge Under s 163.3215 -

In this interesting standing case, also called Payne v. Miami (here's the opinion), the court determined that neighbors and others who used the port of miami (a privately held group of properties, but subject to special policies in the comprehensive plan), had standing to challenge a development order that would have added residential uses to the marine-oriented area.

The trial court held that the neighbors had standing but that other port users did not. The majority held that these users were "aggreived" under the statute because they had business interests that were protected by the plan policies in question.

Moral: as with Renard/Rinker type common law standing, look to the plan policies that are involved to determine whether an interest is created and affected for "aggreived" status.

Computer Forensics Services - Top Cyber Cop

"By CAROLYN SALAZAR



Paramus detectives investigating a money-laundering scheme had confiscated a computer they suspected held crucial evidence. But its hard drive apparently had been wiped clean. At the time, many North Jersey police departments lacked the technical savvy and financial resources to investigate crimes involving computers. So the Paramus detectives did what many investigators facing similar stumbling blocks did: They headed to Upper Saddle River. . . . Before long, Donofrio proved the laptop was used to spit out fraudulent store receipts, leading to theft convictions against several people. The U.S. Secret Service took up the case when the evidence showed it was also being used to counterfeit money. . . . Since then, the office's Computer Crime Unit has grown from one full-time detective to four. It oversees a 14-member task force made up of police officers from local departments. The unit, which investigates such crimes as child pornography, credit card fraud and hacking, has arrested about 100 people . . . ."



NorthJersey.com



Computer Forensics Services - Top Cyber Cop

Computer Forensics Gaffe | Channel Register

"Hey Greg, don't turn on the PC!



A team of computer forensic investigators has pointed out that a character in a recent episode of hit TV show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation failed to follow a basic rule of looking for evidence: don't switch on the computer. Experts at CY4OR, based in Bury, England, praised CSI for bringing computer forensics to the forefront of public awareness; but they say it does little to reflect the correct and essential procedures that must be put in place when there is suspicion of criminal activity. Experts at CY4OR, based in Bury, England, praised CSI for bringing computer forensics to the forefront of public awareness; but they say it does little to reflect the correct and essential procedures that must be put in place when there is suspicion of criminal activity."



Computer Forensic Services

Computer Forensic Service - Data disaster

Recovery in the Lab



"One of the premier government shops for this kind of data recovery is the Defense Computer Forensics Lab.



"We now have a hard-drive repair capability," said Robert Renko, special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.



OSI is the executive agency for the Computer Forensics Lab supporting the criminal investigative agencies of each military service, which have their own computer crime investigators. "

Computer Forensics Services - IT forensic investigators peer into the minds of criminals | TG Daily

"Westlake Village (CA) - The sheer number and volume of current storage devices can be tough for the average computer user to handle, but what about computer investigators that must look for criminal information? Criminals try to hide information on their 200 GByte harddrives and portable devices like an iPod or cellular phone, but computer forensic investigators can usually recover the data."



TG Daily

Computer Forensic Services - Multinational Corporate Hacking

Corporate Hacking - "The software installs itself as a Windows rootkit. That means it conceals its presence on the PC and could let an outsider commandeer the machine through IRC chat channels. The rootkit is a favorite tool of virus writers, spammers, identity thieves and now, apparently, large multinational record companies. It cannot be removed using the Windows Add/Remove Programs function. If you try to delete it manually, your PC may no longer recognize the disc drive, and you may have to reinstall Windows, just in case you didn't have enough other weekend projects. Macs and standalone disc players are not affected."

Computer Forensic Services Internet Attorney

Who's Got Discretion? We Got Discretion! How Much Discretion? Too Much Discretion!

The Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding when a "delegation" of powers goes too far that all land use practioners should be aware of.

In Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Elections v. Martin, here's the link, the court upheld a First District ruling that "section 101.253(2) is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers under article II, section 3 because the Legislature has impermissibly delegated to the executive branch absolute, unfettered discretion to determine whether to grant or deny a candidate’s request to withdraw after the forty-second day before an election."

The statute stated that "The Department of State may in its discretion allow such a candidate to withdraw after the 42nd day before an election upon receipt of a written notice, sworn to under oath, that the candidate will not accept the nomination or office for which he or she qualified." The court held that this did not provided adequate guidelines.

This opinion, along with the Florida Supreme Court's decision in the Schiavo case (yes, it turned on improper delegation as much as or more than privacy), reiterates Florida's strong policy agains the delegation of essentially legislative authority to the executive.

The policy behind this is longstanding:

This Court has traditionally applied a “strict separation of powers
doctrine,” State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345, 353 (Fla. 2000), which “encompasses
two fundamental prohibitions.” Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, & F, 589
So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1991). “The first is that no branch may encroach upon the
powers of another. The second is that no branch may delegate to another branch
its constitutionally assigned power.” Id. (citation omitted). In Bush v.
Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1086 (2005), we
recently addressed this second prohibition and explained:

The Legislature is permitted to transfer subordinate functions “to permit administration of legislative policy by an agency with the expertise and
flexibility to deal with complex and fluid conditions.” Microtel, Inc. v.
Fla. Public Serv. Comm’n, 464 So. 2d 1189, 1191 (Fla. 1985). However,
under article II, section 3 of the constitution the Legislature “may not delegate the power to enact a law or the right to exercise unrestricted discretion in applying the law.” Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657, 668 (Fla. 2000). This prohibition, known as the nondelegation doctrine, requires that “fundamental and primary policy decisions . . . be made by members of the legislature who are elected to perform those tasks, and [that the] administration of legislative programs must be pursuant to some minimal standards and guidelines ascertainable by reference to the enactment establishing the program.” Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So. 2d 913, 925 (Fla. 1978); see also Avatar Dev. Corp. v. State; 723 So. 2d 199, 202 (Fla. 1998) (citing Askew with approval).

In other words, statutes granting power to the executive branch “must clearly announce adequate standards to guide . . . in the execution of the powers delegated. The statute must so clearly define the power delegated that the [executive] is precluded from acting through whim, showing favoritism, or exercising unbridled discretion.” Lewis v. Bank of Pasco County, 346 So. 2d 53, 55-56 (Fla. 1976). Id. at 332 (alterations in original).

The requirement that the Legislature delineate adequate standards enables courts to perform their constitutional duties. The failure to set forth adequate standards precludes a court from determining whether the executive branch is acting in accord with the Legislature’s intent. See Askew, 372 So. 2d at 918-19 (“When legislation is so lacking in guidelines that neither the agency nor the courts can determine whether the agency is carrying out the intent of the legislature in its conduct, then, in fact, the agency becomes the lawgiver rather than the administrator of the law.”).

In Martin, the issue was that the statute clearly stated that the decision was completely discretionary with the Secretary. In Schiavo, the issue was that the statute did not provide standards to guide the governor in when not to grant a stay, or when to lift one.

In the local government context, the seperation of powers does not constrain a Board in its legislative capacity from delegating itself or its agencies administrative powers. (there's a big section on this in my 1996 article in Stetson Law Review). However, nothing in a local government's home rule powers gives local government bodies sitting in their legislative role the delegated authority to "redelegate" their legislative authority to administrative actors. So, ultimately, the same seperation of powers analysis that applies at the state level should apply at the local level; the difference is that at the state level the prohibition against delegation stems from article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, and at the local level, it violates the basic premise that local government have no powers that are not granted to them by the Constitution or laws of the state.

This is interesting, because the standards for "improper delegation of legislative authority to the executive" seem to me to be somewhat more stringent than the traditional tests for an improperly vague ordinance or statute that violates substantive due process. More on that another time.

Computer Forensic Services - Hacking

Computer Forensic Services - Hacking: "Computer Hacking: Peer-to-Peer networks also have been abused by hackers. Because these systems potentially expose your computer and files to millions of other users on the network, they also expose your computer to worms and viruses. In fact, some worms have been specifically written to spread by popular Peer-to-Peer networks. Also, if Peer-to-Peer software is not properly configured, you may be unknowingly opening up the contents of your entire hard drive for others to see and download your private information."

Computer Forensic Services - Child Exploitation and Obscenity

Computer Forensic Services - Child Exploitation and Obscenity: "Child Exploitation and Obscenity: The receipt or distribution of child pornography and unlawful obscenity over the Internet also is a serious Federal crime. The FBI cautions parents and guardians that, because there is no age restriction for the use of Peer-to-Peer services, pornography of all types is easily accessible by the many young children whose parents mistakenly believe they are only accessing music or movies. In fact, children may be exposed to pornography -- and subsequently lured by sexual predators -- even though they were not searching for pornography, as some network users deliberately mislabel the names of files for this purpose."

Computer Forensic Services Copyright Infringement

Infringement: "Copyright Infringement: It is a violation of Federal law to distribute copyrighted music, movies, software, games, and other works without authorization. There are important national economic consequences associated with such theft. The FBI has asked industry associations and companies that are particularly concerned with intellectual property theft to report to the FBI -- for possible criminal investigation and prosecution -- anyone that they have reason to believe is violating Federal copyright law. "



Computer Forensic Services Copyright Infringement

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Computer Forensic Services

Computer Forensic Services : "To Users of Peer-to-Peer Systems:

The FBI has undertaken a new initiative to educate and warn citizens about certain risks and dangers associated with the use of Peer-to-Peer systems on the Internet. While the FBI supports and encourages the development of new technologies, we also recognize that technology can be misused for illicit and, in some cases, criminal purposes. In an effort to help citizens learn how to protect themselves, this letter is being distributed and is posted on the FBI's web site."

Criminal Schemes - Computer Forensic Services

Computer Forensic Services - Cyber Investigations: "Criminal schemes included in this initiative include: criminal spam, phishing, spoofed or hijacked accounts, international re-shipping schemes, Cyber-extortion, auction fraud, credit card fraud, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Computer Intrusions (hacking), economic espionage (Theft of Trade Secrets), International Money Laundering, Identity Theft, and a growing list of ''traditional crimes'' that continue to migrate on-line."

Computer Forensic Services - Operation Web Snare

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Cyber Investigations: "Operation Web Snare represents a coordinated initiative targeting an expansive array of Cyber Crime schemes victimizing individuals and industry worldwide. This initiative highlights numerous investigations that have been successfully advanced through cooperation and coordination of law enforcement, and a growing list of industry partners.



Cases included in Operation Web Snare exemplify the growing volume and character of Cyber crimes confronting law enforcement, and also underscores the continuing commitment of law enforcement to aggressively pursue Cyber criminals, both domestically and abroad. Focused efforts to pursue Cyber criminals internationally, has led to the development of enhanced proactive capabilities in several countries, and numerous investigative successes highlighted within this initiative. The development of international resources is closely coordinated with the DOJ, the U.S. State Department and a growing list of E-Commerce industry partners."

Computer Forensic Services - Cyber Investigations

Computer Forensic Services - Federal Bureau of Investigation - Cyber Investigations: "The mission of the Cyber Division is to: coordinate, supervise and facilitate the FBI's investigation of those federal violations in which the Internet, computer systems, or networks are exploited as the principal instruments or targets of terrorist organizations, foreign government sponsored intelligence operations, or criminal activity and for which the use of such systems is essential to that activity; form and maintain public/private alliances in conjunction with enhanced education and training to maximize counterterrorism, counter-intelligence, and law enforcement cyber response capabilities; and until such time as a final decision is made regarding the future role and location of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), the FBI will direct and coordinate the Center's mission to protect the Nation's critical information infrastructure and other key assets. "

Computer Forensic Services - Federal Bureau of Investigation - Cyber Investigations

Computer Forensic Services - "The FBI plays two very important roles in cyberspace. First, it is the lead law enforcement agency for investigating cyber attacks by foreign adversaries and terrorists. The potential damage to the United States' national security from a cyber-based attack includes devastating interruptions of critical communications, transportation, and other services. Additionally, such attacks could be used to access and steal protected information and plans. The FBI also works to prevent criminals, sexual predators, and others intent on malicious destruction from using the Internet and on-line services to steal from, defraud, and otherwise victimize citizens, businesses, and communities. "

Warning About Computer Forensics

Computer Forensics: "Computer Forensics is a complex science, by necessity requiring careful preparation, and procedural discipline. Taking the correct actions, in the right order, and recording evidence properly, are often as important as having underlying knowledge of the issue. It is an area in which it is all too easy to slip up: to make a costly error, or miss a vital step. The rate of technological change is not likely to reduce this risk."

Is there anything that should NOT be done during an investigation?

Computer Forensics World: "Definitely. However, these tend to be related to the nature of the computer system being investigated. Typically though, it is important to avoid changing date/time stamps (of files for example) or changing data itself. The same applies to the overwriting of unallocated space (which can happen on re-boot for example)."

How is a computer forensic investigation approached?

Computer Forensics World: "It's a detailed science. However, very broadly, the main phases are sometimes considered to be: secure the subject system (from tampering during the operation); take a copy of hard drive (if applicable); identify and recovery all files (including those deleted); access/copy hidden, protected and temporary files; study 'special' areas on the drive (eg: residue from previously deleted files); investigate data/settings from installed applications/programs; assess the system as a whole, including its structure; consider general factors relating to the users activity; create detailed report. Throughout the investigation, it is important to stress that a full audit log of your activities should be maintained."

What are the Common Computer Forensic Scenarios?

Computer Forensics World: "Examples include:



- Employee internet abuse (common, but decreasing)

- Unauthorized disclosure of corporate information and data (accidental and intentional)

- Industrial espionage

- Damage assessment (following an incident)

- Criminal fraud and deception cases

- More general criminal cases (many simply store information on computers, intentionally or unwittingly)"

What is Computer Forensics?

"There are a number of slightly varying definitions around. However, generally, computer forensics is considered to be the use of analytical and investigative techniques to identify, collect, examine and preserve evidence/information which is magnetically stored or encoded. "

Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations

Kessler - Forensic Science Communications - January 2004: "Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations



Computer and network forensics is such a multidisciplinary topic that the first hurdle is determining what the primary focus should be. I prefer a book that focuses on technology, providing procedures and guidelines that explain both how and why. Providing the appropriate elementary computer science and data communications background is essential if a book is to provide a good educational foundation for the subject.



Legal aspects are also essential because cyberforensics examiners must be well versed in the laws that guide their work. However, not all computer forensics is the purview of law enforcement, so I come back to preferring the technical focus. Given this bias, the Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations is the best book that I have found. Although a relatively new field, the number of books on cyberforensics has grown dramatically in the last few years."

DNA from a Computer Keyboard

Forensic Science Communications - July 2004: "DNA from a Computer Keyboard



"[S]amples taken from trace evidence (i.e., hair and skin) found in a computer keyboard. The purpose was to determine whether more than one person had used the computer. A commercial kit was used for the extraction and purification of DNA and was found to be effective. Three STR loci were amplified (D18S535, D1S1656, and D10S2325) using polymerase chain reaction. The results indicated the existence of DNA in the samples from more than one person."

Validity of Computer Forensic Sciences

Scientific Validity of Computer Forensic Evidence: "Validity of Computer Forensic Evidence



Valid and reliable methods to recover data from computers seized as evidence in criminal investigations are becoming fundamental for law enforcement agencies worldwide. These methods must be technologically robust to ensure that all probative information is recovered. They must also be legally defensible to ensure that nothing in the original evidence was altered and that no data was added to or deleted from the original. The forensic discipline of acquiring, preserving, retrieving, and presenting data that has been processed electronically and stored on computer media is computer forensic science."

Examining Computer Evidence

Examining Computer Forensic Evidence: "Examining Computer Evidence



Computer evidence represented by physical items such as chips, boards, central processing units, storage media, monitors, and printers can be described easily and correctly as a unique form of physical evidence. The logging, description, storage, and disposition of physical evidence are well understood. Forensic laboratories have detailed plans describing acceptable methods for handling physical evidence. To the extent that computer evidence has a physical component, it does not represent any particular challenge. However, the evidence, while stored in these physical items, is latent and exists only in a metaphysical electronic form."

Goals in Recovering and Examining Computer Forensic Evidence

Goals in Recovering and Examining Computer Forensic Evidence: "Common Goals



These dissimilarities aside, both the scientific conclusions of traditional forensic analyses and the information of computer forensic science are distinctive forensic examinations. They share all the legal and good laboratory practice requirements of traditional forensic sciences in general. They both will be presented in court in adversarial and sometimes very probing proceedings. Both must produce valid and reliable results from state-of-the-art procedures that are detailed, documented, and peer-reviewed and from protocols acceptable to the relevant scientific community (ASCLD/LAB 1994)."

Computer Forensic Results

Recovering and Examining Computer Forensic Evidence: "Forensic Results



Forensic science has historically produced results that have been judged to be both valid and reliable. For example, DNA analysis attempts to develop specific identifying information relative to an individual. To support their conclusions, forensic DNA scientists have gathered extensive statistical data on the DNA profiles from which they base their conclusions. Computer forensic science, by comparison, extracts or produces information. The purpose of the computer examination is to find information related to the case. To support the results of a computer forensic examination, procedures are needed to ensure that only the information exists on the computer storage media, unaltered by the examination process. Unlike forensic DNA analysis or other forensic disciplines, computer forensic science makes no interpretive statement as to the accuracy, reliability, or discriminating power of the actual data or information."

Recovering and Examining Computer Forensic Evidence by Noblett et al. (Forensic Science Communications, October 2000)

Recovering and Examining Computer Forensic Evidence: "Computer Forensic Science

Computer forensic science was created to address the specific and articulated needs of law enforcement to make the most of this new form of electronic evidence. Computer forensic science is the science of acquiring, preserving, retrieving, and presenting data that has been processed electronically and stored on computer media. As a forensic discipline, nothing since DNA technology has had such a large potential effect on specific types of investigations and prosecutions as computer forensic science."

Image Scan Training (IMSCA)

Image Scan Computer Analysis: "Image Scan Training (IMSCA)



The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) developed the Image Scan system to help investigators locate the presence of picture files that may contain contraband on a computer. This system allows the investigator to view a variety of graphic formats during a consensual search, and protects valuable digital evidence by booting up a computer using the Linux operating system.



After mounting the hard drive in a "read only" manner, Image Scan prompts the investigator to search for picture files only. During this process, the tool logs every step taken by the investigator, further documenting what occurred during the search process."

Regional Computer Forensics Laboratory

"What is an RCFL?



An RCFL is a one-stop, full service forensics laboratory and training center devoted entirely to the examination of digital evidence in support of criminal investigations, such as, but not limited to:



Terrorism

Child pornography

Crimes of violence

The theft or destruction to intellectual property

Internet crimes

Fraud. "

Free Photo Recovery to Katrina Victims

"As Gulf Coast residents begin the cleanup process after the recent hurricanes, there are many possessions that people will go to great lengths to salvage. Among those possessions with the most sentimental value are family photos, stored either in traditional albums, or for digital photos, on computer hard drives, CDs and DVDs. While CDs and DVDs could be easily transported before the storms arrived, many people did not have the option of saving photos that were stored only on hard drives. In order to help them with the rebuilding process, Ontrack Data Recovery, the industry�s leading data recovery company, is teaming up with the Optical Storage Technology Association (OSTA) to provide home users affected by the hurricanes with free recovery of digital photos in the .JPG format through the end of November. "



Free Photo Recovery Information Courtesy of CentralLaw.com

Computer Forensic Tool Testing

National Institute of Justice - Computer Forensic Tool Testing: "The objective of the Computer Forensics Tool Testing project is to provide a measure of assurance that the tools used in computer forensics investigations produce accurate results. This is accomplished by developing specifications and test methods for computer forensics tools and then testing specific tools to those specifications. The test results provide the information necessary for toolmakers to improve tools, for users to make informed choices about acquiring and using computer forensics tools, and for the legal community and others to understand the tools' capabilities. Our approach for testing computer forensic tools is based on well recognized methodologies for conformance testing and quality testing. "

Computer Forensics Tool Verification Project Overivew

Project Overivew: "The Computer Forensics Tools Verification project provides a measure of assurance that the tools used in the investigations of computer-related crimes produce valid results. It also supports other projects in the National Institute of Justice�s overall computer forensics research program, such as the National Software Reference Library (NSRL)."

Computer Forensic File Recovery Tools

"There is a critical need in the law enforcement community to ensure the reliability of computer forensic tools. A capability is required to ensure that forensic software tools consistently produce accurate and objective results. The goal of the Computer Forensic Tool Testing (CFTT) project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is to establish a methodology for testing computer forensic software tools by development of general tool specifications, test procedures, test criteria, test sets, and test hardware. The results provide the information necessary for toolmakers to improve tools, for users to make informed choices about acquiring and using computer forensics tools, and for interested parties to understand the tools capabilities." See File Recovery Project

FBI conducts clandestine surveillance of citizens

FBI conducts clandestine surveillance of citizens -DAWN - Top Stories; October 25, 2005

"WASHINGTON, Oct 24: Previously classified documents released on Monday show that the FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on US citizens and legal residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight.

Some of the violations found in the documents included � Improper searches and seizures of bank records. � Violation of bank privacy statutes. � Improper collection of e-mails after warrants had expired.

FBI officials, however, say that most of the violations were simply administrative errors."

Computer Forensics, Cybercrime and Steganography

"Computer forensics, still a rather new discipline in computer security, focuses on finding digital evidence after a computer security incident has occured.

The goal of computer forensics is to do a structured investigation and find out exactly what happened on a digital system, and who was responsible for it.

There are essentially three phases for recovering evidence from a computer system or storage medium. Those phases are: (1) acquire, (2) analyze, and (3) report. Often, the results of a forensic investigation are used in criminal proceedings." See http://www.forensics.nl/

Lawyers in Blogland (Computer Attorney Tampa Florida)

From the Florida Bar News: "Law blogs are exploding and Florida lawyers are in on the action

By Jan Pudlow
Senior Editor

Armed with a Dummies book on html, a software program called “Blogger,” and plenty of curiosity, St. Petersburg lawyer Matt Conigliaro set out to write the code for a legal blog he could call his own.

For two months in the spring of 2003, on weekends and in the middle of the night, he hunched over his computer fine-tuning Abstract Appeal, billing it as “the first Web log devoted to Florida law and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.” Then he set it free into the blogosphere.

Little did he realize that because of his blog, he would be quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and CourtTV.com during the raging controversy of the Terri Schiavo end-of-life case. "

Your Laser Printer is a Spy

Techtree News Staff

Oct 19, 2005



"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a consumer privacy and digital rights organization, has analyzed codes embedded in printouts in color laser printers. The code cracked by the EFF was an invisible bar code that contained the serial number of the printer for tracking users as well as the date and time a page was printed.



In Xerox printers the code appears in a pattern of yellow dots visible only with a magnifying glass and a blue light. The codes are supposed to be for government agencies looking out for counterfeit currency printers. "

Computer Crime Policies of the DOJ Cybercrime Attorneys

Computer Crime: "Here is all you ever wanted to know about the DOJ Department of Justice, Computer Crime, and Intellectual Property"

United States Attorneys' Manual

United States Attorneys' Manual: "Learn about how the DOJ prosecutes cases by reviewing the Prosecutor's Handbook - The United States Attorneys' Manual"

News from DEA - Internet Pharmacies

News from DEA: "DEA Disables Major Pharmaceutical Internet Scheme New “Virtual Enforcement Initiative” Announced



SEP 21--(Washington, D.C.)- In Dallas, Texas, today Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Karen P. Tandy announced the culmination of Operation CYBERx, a multi-faceted Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) investigation targeting major alleged pharmaceutical drug traffickers operating solely in the United States.



Recognizing that criminals are facilitating more drug-related crimes through the use of 21st century technology, the DEA, along with their law enforcement counterparts today arrested 18 people for allegedly selling pharmaceutical drugs illegally over the Internet. Those arrested include the ringleaders of more than 4,600 rogue Internet pharmacy websites."

Katrina Fraud

DOJ Katrina Priorities



"WASHINGTON, D.C. - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales travels to Mississippi and Louisiana today with Vice President Dick Cheney to tour areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina and outline priorities for the newly established Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force, designed to deter, investigate and prosecute disaster-related federal crimes such as charity fraud and insurance fraud.



In a planned visit to Gulfport, Miss., the Attorney General will meet with Department of Justice personnel who are working out of the Jackson office. In Louisiana, the Attorney General plans to visit a law enforcement detention center in New Orleans and meet with Justice Department staff, including personnel from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans), who are presently working out of offices in Baton Rouge."

Middle District of Florida Case Involving Theft of $660,000

Middle District of Florida: "Pinellas Executive Sentenced in Case Involving Theft of $660,000 from Employee Pension Plan"



"A resident of St. Petersburg, Florida, was sentenced today in the United States District Court, to a 24 month term of imprisonment as a result of his conviction that he knowingly and willfully conspired to launder money stolen from an employee pension plan. He was also ordered to pay $660,000 dollars in restitution. [T]he former Director of Human Resources for the Comdial Corporation, located in Sarasota, Florida, was sentenced to 27 months in prison in October 2004 for stealing $660,000 from Comdial's employee pension plan between February 20, 2002 and January 29, 2003."

Middle District of Florida

Hacker Sentenced to Prison - Computer Forensics E Discovery

Prison for Breaking into Lowe's Companies' Computers with Intent to Steal Credit Card Information

"Hacker Sentenced to Prison for Breaking into Lowe's Companies' Computers with Intent to Steal Credit Card Information

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- United States Attorney Gretchen C.F. Shappert and Kevin Kendrick, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in North Carolina, announced that [a] defendant was sentenced on Wednesday, December 15, 2004, by United States District Judge Lacy Thornburgh for his role in a conspiracy to hack the nationwide computer system of the Lowe's Corporation. Defendant had previously pled guilty to participating in the conspiracy pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government."

Computer Hacker Guilty of Intrusions - Computer Forensics E Discovery

Defacing Websites

"The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California announced that [a man from] Pleasant Hill, California, pleaded guilty today in federal court in Oakland to hacking into government computers and then defacing government websites with material illegally obtained from those intrusions.

He pleaded guilty to each count of a five-count indictment charging computer crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030. In pleading guilty, [the man] who is known as one of the members of the self-titled hacking group called 'The Deceptive Duo,' admitted that he unlawfully accessed computer systems of various federal agencies in April 2002, including the Department of Defense's Defense Logistic Information Service (DLIS), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and NASA's Ames Research Center (ARC). In particular, [the man] admitted that he: Gained unauthorized accessed to DLIS computers in Battle Creek, Michigan, for the purpose of obtaining files that he later used to deface an OHA website hosted on computers in San Antonio, Texas. "

Computer Science Graduate Student Sentenced - Computer Forensics E Discovery

Hacking Major Corporationsa>

"Defaced Web Pages and Installed 'Sniffer' Programs to Steal Passwords

The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California announced that [someone from] Santa Monica, California was sentenced today in federal court in San Jose. United States District Court Judge James Ware sentenced [him] to 8 months in prison and 8 months of electronic monitoring and home confinement, for gaining unauthorized access into and damaging computer systems of several high-technology companies, including eBay in San Jose and Qualcomm in San Diego, as a graduate student in computer science at the University of Wisconsin in 1999. "

Fan/Spammer Sent to Prison for Four Years - Computer Forensics E Discovery Tampa

Prison for Spammer

"United States Attorney Patrick L. Meehan today announced that the Hon. Berle A. Schiller imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment. The defendant had been convicted of 79 counts of computer fraud and identity fraud. He was a dissatisfied Philadelphia Phillies fan and to convey his dissatisfaction to the world, hacked into computers belonging to many individuals and from them launched hundreds of thousands of spam e-mails complaining about the Phillies. When he launched these e-mails, he faked, or spoofed, the From line of the e-mail, using the e-mail addresses of writers at the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer. He also used e-mail addresses belonging to the Philadelphia Phillies and writers at The Sporting News, Fox Sports, ESPN, and officials at Knight Ridder, the parent company of the Inquirer and Daily News. This made it appear as if the e-mails had come from these writers. "

Cybercrime Conviction - Posted by Cybercrime Attorney Tampa

Defendant Found Guilty of Placing Computer Time Bomb



SAN JOSE The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California announced that a man from San Jose, California, the former Program Manager of a Silicon Valley-based debt collection company, was convicted late yesterday afternoon by a federal jury in San Jose of intentionally causing damage to a computer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5)(A)(I) & 1030(a)(5)(B)(I) and 1030(c)(4)(A). The jury deliberated for approximately two hours.



According to the indictment and evidence introduced at trial, He placed malicious computer code on the network of a company in San Jose that caused the deletion and modification of financial records and disruption of the proper functioning of the computer network. More than 50,000 debtor accounts were ultimately affected by the operation of the code before it was stopped. Testimony at trial indicated that the loss to the company as a result of the defendant's time bomb exceeded $100,000, though the exact amount has not yet been determined.

Teen Convicted

Teen Convicted for Hacking



Massachusetts Teen Convicted for Hacking into Internet and Telephone Service Providers and Making Bomb Threats to High Schools in Massachusetts and Florida



Boston, MA... A Massachusetts juvenile pled guilty in federal court and was sentenced today in connection with a series of hacking incidents into Internet and telephone service providers; the theft of an individual's personal information and the posting of it on the Internet; and making bomb threats to high schools in Florida and Massachusetts; all of which took place over a fifteen month period. Victims of the Juvenile's conduct have suffered a total of approximately $1 million in damages.

Justice Department Announces Conviction of Florida Man Accused of Massive Data Theft from Acxiom, Inc. Computer Attorney Tampa

Justice Department Announces Conviction of Florida Man Accused of Massive Data Theft from Acxiom, Inc. (August 12, 2005)



WASHINGTON, D.C. A jury in Little Rock, Arkansas, found a man guilty of 120 counts of unauthorized access of a protected computer, two counts of access device fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice, after a trial that began on July 11, 2005. The jury commenced deliberations on August 10, 2005, and took approximately three days to reach its verdict. The announcement was made today by John C. Richter, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Criminal Division; Bud Cummins, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Brian Marr, Special Agent in Charge of the Little Rock office of the United States Secret Service (USSS); and William C. Temple, Special Agent in Charge of the Little Rock office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Posted by Computer Cybercrime Attorney Tampa.

Queens Man Sentenced to 27 Months' Imprisonment on Federal Charges of Computer Damage, Access Device Fraud and Software Piracy

Queens Man Sentenced to 27 Months' Imprisonment on Federal Charges of Computer Damage, Access Device Fraud and Software Piracy



DAVID N. KELLEY, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that the defendant, of Flushing, New York, was sentenced today to 27 months� imprisonment, followed by three years supervised release, and $201,620 in restitution by United States District Judge RICHARD C. CASEY in Manhattan federal Court following his July 11, 2003 plea to a fivecount Information relating to computer fraud and software piracy.



In his guilty plea to the computer damage charges, he admitted that, between February 14, 2001, and December 20, 2002, without the permission of Kinko's Inc. ('Kinko's'), he installed special keylogging software on computer terminals located at Kinko's stores throughout Manhattan to surreptitiously record keystroking activity on those computers, and to collect computer usernames and passwords of Kinko's customers. During his plea allocution, he admitted that his installation of the keylogging software could damage the Kinko's computers on which they were installed. He admitted that he then used the confidential information he obtained to access, or attempt to access, bank accounts belonging to other persons, and fraudulently to open online bank accounts. He also pled guilty to similar fraudulent conduct that he continued to commit while on bail after his arrest on December 20, 2002.

Computer Hacker Who Victimized T-Mobile Pleads Guilty in Los Angeles Federal Court (February 15, 2005)

Computer Hacker Who Victimized T-Mobile Pleads Guilty in Los Angeles Federal Court (February 15, 2005)



A Computer Hacker pleaded guilty this morning in United States District Court in Los Angeles to gaining unauthorized access to a protected computer and recklessly causing at least $5,000 in loss to one or more victims, including T-Mobile, Inc., a telecommunications company. A sophisticated computer 'hacker,' was originally charged in a federal criminal complaint filed on October 26, 2004 for gaining unauthorized access to a TMobile computer. He was arrested by Special Agents of the United States Secret Service on October 26, 2004 and was released on bond by a United States Magistrate Judge. On November 23, 2004, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Him with two counts of computer hacking.

Juvenile Sentenced for Releasing Worm That Attacked Microsoft Web Site

Juvenile Sentenced for Releasing Worm That Attacked Microsoft Web Site



A second person, a juvenile, has been sentenced in connection with the release of a computer worm in August 2003 that attacked the same vulnerability in computer software as the Blaster worm did. The worm -- often referred to as the RPCSDBOT worm -- directed infected computers to log in on a computer (i.e., an Internet Relay Chat channel) that the juvenile controlled. On August 14, 2003, the juvenile directed the infected computers to launch a distributed denial of service attack against Microsoft's main web site causing the site to shutdown and thus became inaccessible to the public for approximately four hours. The juvenile was 14 years old when the activity occurred."

18 Months in Prison for Creating and Unleashing a Variant of the MS Blaster Computer Worm

Minnesota Man Sentenced to 18 Months in Prison for Creating and Unleashing a Variant of the MS Blaster Computer Worm (January 28, 2005):



A 19 year old was sentenced today to 18 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release and 100 hours of community service for intentionally causing and attempting to cause damage to a protected computer. U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman will determine the amount of restitution he owes at a court hearing February 10, 2005. He was indicted in September 2003 for sending out a variant of the MS Blaster computer worm on August 12, 2003. His worm is referred to by a number of different names including the 'B' or 'teekids' variant of the MS Blaster worm. In sentencing him Judge Pechman stated 'What you've done is a terrible thing. Aside from injuring people and their computers you shook the foundation of technology.'

law.com - Wiretap the Internet? Not So Fast, Say Some

law.com - Wiretap the Internet? Not So Fast, Say Some



"Wiretap the Internet? Not So Fast, Say Some



Marcia Coyle

The National Law Journal

08-18-2005





The federal courts may soon face the first round in a battle over the U.S. Department of Justice's demand that federal wiretapping requirements be extended to certain Internet services for the first time.



The Center for Democracy & Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others said last week that they are considering legal challenges to an Aug. 5 decision by the Federal Communications Commission to require providers of certain broadband and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol services to accommodate law enforcement wiretaps in their designs and applications. "

Development Orders Must Be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in Effect on the Date of Rendition of the Order

In Lake Rosa Coalition v. Bd of County Comm'rs of Putnam County, here's the opinion, the 5th DCA held that in a challenge under 163.3215, the relevent comprehensive plan provisions are those in effect on the date that a development order is issued, rather those in effect when the application was made. The court also did a nice job of identifying which orders can be challenged under 163.3215 (or rather, what conditions will warrent relief).

A building permit for additional dormatories for a campground was applied for in November; in early December the building plans were approved, but the building permit was not to be issued pending the resolution of a septic system issue; the permit was not actually granted until April. The land use designation was changed in December, after the plan approval.

The 5th held that it wasn't even close: the use, density and intensity of the buildings allowed by the building permit all were facially inconsistent with the new plan category. There was no "vested right" to proceed under the application (under the facts), and the plan in effect at the time of the issuance, not the application, governed.

Note there apparently is no "savings policy" in the plan to permit development consistent with pre-existing zoning, even if otherwise inconsistent with the land use designation; in fact there is a policy aimed at correcting inconsistent land uses through the control of building permits (that is, if your existing building is consistent with zoning, but not the plan, you can't get a building permit).

The opinion contains a nice section on how the meaning of use, density and intensity for the application of 163.3215 to development orders:

Adverting to the provisions of section 163.3215(1), a challenge to a development may arise under any one of the following three instances: 1) where it materially alters the use of a property; 2) where it materially alters the density of property; or 3) where the intensity of the use of the property is materially altered.
. . .
We believe that the County acted inconsistently with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by granting the building permit to the Alliance because the permit allows improvements and additions to the nonconforming use of camp property in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan’s designation of the property as Rural Residential. For this reason alone, issuance of the building permit was improper. Nevertheless, we will briefly explain why issuance of the permit was improper for the second and third reasons under section 163.3215(1).

The evidence reveals that the additional housing provided by the new dormitory would increase the population density of the camp by 28% and increase the intensity of the use of the structures at the camp. We note that section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2001), requires every comprehensive plan to contain “standards to be followed in the control and distribution of population densities, and building and structure intensities,” with each land use category being defined “in terms of the types of uses included, and specific standards for the density or intensity of use.” Density is distinguished from intensity because the former relates to population while the latter relates to structures. See Florida Wildlife Fed’n v. Collier County, 819 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also § 163.3221(4)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2001) (referencing “[a] change in the intensity of use of land, such as an increase in the number of dwelling units in a structure or on land . . . .”). Thus, a development order that permits an increase in the number or size of structures on land is an alteration of the intensity of the use of the land, and a development order that permits an increase in population is an alteration of density. Here, both density and intensity were materially affected by issuance of the building permit to the Alliance.

So, a development order that changes the permitted uses, densities or intensities from a) what is already permitted, or b) what exists on the ground today, can be challenged under 163.3215 to determine its consistency with the plan. Note that while the opinion doesn't say so, the statute talks to changes, not increases, so a decrease in uses, intensities or densities also might be a material change subject to challenge (especially now that Parker has been legislatively overturned).

And the Moral of the Story Is: File a Facially Valid Permit Application

In St Johns WMD v. Womack, here's the opinion, the 5th DCA overturned a lower court determination that the WMD violated due process in a permit denial and granting damages under section 1983.

The court hated to do it, and appended the lower court opinion (and findings) to demonstrate that it believed that the District had behaved abysmally and probably unconstitutionally in its dealings with Mr. Womack. The problem? After successive (and clearly, from the record, bad faith) notices of intent to deny based on previous filings of plans drawn by his engineer, Womack filed his own plan, let it actually get denied and took that denial to court. While if he had simply taken one of the engineer's plans forward, the denial would have been arbitrary (or presumably so, given the tenor of the opinion), but Womack's own plan didn't have even an arguble claim to meeting the rule/statutory standards.

The record demonstrates that the Chair of the WMD interfered with the staff and the application and that the Friends of the Wekiva were allowed to "unduly influence" the proceedings. In short, the District completely shafted Womack, but gets away with it because he lost his cool and simply didn't file the last, best plan.

As a practic point, what this demonstrates is that the "futility" exception doesn't apply in due process and equal protection cases. You have to make a true good faith filing of an application that meets the objective standards. Then, arguably, you can make a claim that the agency failed to apply whatever discretionary standards are there in good faith.

Check out the dates here - the action started in 1992! Today, the same behaviour would get the District wacked about the head and shoulders with Bert Harris claims - and this is exactly the kind of fact pattern that was used to justify the act.

Formalizing QJ Processes: You Must Object to Preserve Right to Review

The 3d DCA issued this opinion in Clear Channel v. City of North Bay Village, involving a cell tower. Clear Channel lost before the City Commission, and petitioned for cert, which was denied by the trial court based on waiver (really short, useless lower court opinion, which I'll append below). Clear Channel took it up to the 3d DCA which upheld the lower court, finding that Clear Channel's questioning of a witness did not establish and preserve their objection.

Now, it has long been the law that ANY party must raise issues in the hearing in order to preserve them for review. What this case seems to add is that you must use the magic words during the hearing. Here's the relevant paragraph from the opinion:

Appellate review is confined to issues decided adversely to appellantÂ?s position, or issues that were preserved with a sufficiently specific objection below. Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639, 642 (Fla. 1982)(holding that objections must be made with sufficient specificity to apprise the trial court of the potential error and to preserve the point for appellate review; general objections are insufficient); State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974)(holding that Â?[a]n appellate court must confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was madeÂ?); Leonard v. State, 423 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Moore v. State, 418 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Snead v. State, 415 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The purpose for requiring a contemporaneous objection is to put the trial judge on notice of a possible error, to afford an opportunity to correct the error early in the proceedings, and to prevent a litigant from not challenging an error so that he or she may later use it for tactical advantage. Fittipaldi USA, Inc. v. Castroneves, 905 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Fincke v. Peeples, 476 So. 2d 1319, 1322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). (emphasis added)

Leaving for a moment the problems raised by tabsencense of formal findings to determine whether a decision was or was not effected by an error, this opinion's inclusion of the "contemporaneous objection" language is clearly indicating that a party (or attorney representing a party) in a quasi-judicial proceeding must have and use the opportunity to object to evidentiary or other errors as the proceeding progresses.

Does this extend to objecting that evidence from neighbors is not relevant, is hearsay, or is otherwise incompetent? Probably.

Does this extend to objecting or raising the claim that a denial (which you don't know that you're going to get) would be contrary to prior decisions of the board and therefore a violation of due process or equal protection? Again, I'd say so.

Ok, so how does this work when the hearing is conducted by people coming up to the podium one at a time to speak, with no "table" for the applicant and staff to sit at and comment "contemporaneously?" Basically, you have to continually jump and down from the seats and not only interrupt the witness but also get the attention of the chairperson at the same time.

Where the local rules or ordinances don't provide the means and manner for cross examination, objection and the resolution of issues, you'd also better object to that at the outset as well. The bottom line is that most local quasi-judicial processesess are constitutionally deficient because the processes are not well defined or described in this areas, but the ordinances are a) valid until challenged, and b) as we see here, deficiencies aren't reviewable if you don't object on the record.

BTW - Here's the order below. In neither this nor the DCA decision do we ever get to find out what the error complained of was.

CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and FANE LOZMAN, Petitioners, v. CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, a municipal corporation, and CASA MARINA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Respondents. Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Miami-Dade County. Case No. 04-456AP. L.C. Case No. S630-556-55-243-0. June 15, 2005.

(Before SIEGEL, SCHWARTZ, COHEN, JJ.)

(Per Curiam.) The Petition for Writ of Certiorari is denied. Petitioners failed to preserve the error about which they now complain during the commission hearing. There was no departure from the essential requirements of the law since the record is replete with competent substantial evidence to support the commission's decision.
(SIEGEL, SCHWARTZ and COHEN, JJ. concur.)

Sometimes Ownership Defines Use ???

In this opinion in the case of Saddeh v. Stanton Rowing Foundation, the 1st DCA determined that ownership or control does control use, at least when the use is a park.

City leased property, operated by the Rowing Foundation, for that purpose, with the lease noting the use as a park. Parks are permitted in the zoning district. Neighbors objected, won before the Zoning Board and lost before the circuit court. The circuit court found that the property met the definition of a park.

So the City gets pressured and terminates its lease. Neighbors then sue to establish that the use is illegal and for nuisance damages.

Stanton claims res judicata and circuit court upholds on that basis.

1st DCA: NAH! Overturning the circuit court's determination that the facts of the previous case establish that the use is a park use, the 1st DCA (looking at cases regarding park dedications) determines that as a matter of law, the "park" ceased being a "park" when the City terminated the lease, even though the use didn't change. Why? Apparently it felt that the right of public access to the property was lost, so the park characteristic was lost. It then became more like a private club (not a permitted use in the district), so the determination that it was permitted was lost.

SO - what happens if the landowner simply records a 30 year easement dedicating the property to limited public use and access and puts in picnic tables and a swingset? Clearly, the rowing club had been determined at the very least to be an accessory use to the park in the first litigation . . .

MSNBC - A recovery mission of a different kind

Experts go to work on Katrina-damaged computers, looking to save data

By Bob Sullivan
Technology correspondent MSNBC
Updated: 8:48 p.m. ET Sept. 19, 2005

Sawyer Real Estate in Gulfport, Miss. was founded by Lenny Sawyer’s great grandfather in 1901. But when Katrina hit, it seemed most of that legacy would be wiped out. The firm’s office, which had been 200 feet from the beach, was devastated. Wind ripped the structure to pieces, and a storm surge left 6 feet of standing water on everything inside. The firm’s 14 critical computers lay somewhere under a pile of rubble.

Complete Article is Here:

An Interesting Issue about Post-Annexation Regulation - Unresolved

In this opinion styled St. Johns County v. City of St. Augustine, the 5th "PCD'd" a petition for cert. The lower court had denied cert in a challenge to an action by the City that amended a PUD on property that had been annexed into the City.

Here's the legal controversy: under the annexation statute, when a city annexes property it must continue to apply the County's comprehensive plan and land development regulations until the city amends its comprehensive plan to include the annexed lands. So, could the City amend the PUD?

Here's the factual controversy: the annexed lands include a large golf course, and the amendment to the PUD would allow it to be developed.

Disclosure -I know these and other facts not in the opinion because I'm friends with counsel for the landowners.

The majority denied the writ per curium, but Judge Sharp dissented with an opinion. She laid out lots of history to the statute to support the position that you can't amend the PUD or make any changes to the land use until the city plan is amended.

The other side, which we don't get, since the PCD had no opinion, is that the PUD development order, though adopted by ordinance, is an administrative development order issued under the regulatory authority of the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Amending the PUD did not change, amend, or apply new regulations to the land.

Because the writ was denied without an opinion, the 5th didn't really resolve the legal question. There's another legal twist to it: because this was a case of first impression, and because this came before the court in certiorari, there's a school that says that the lower court could not have departed from the essential requirements of law and applied the wrong law because there was not binding law to apply.

Yet another good reason why we must get rid of certiorari as the means by which we review these things and get a statutory provision for appeal of local quasi-judicial decisions.

If they weren't on the hook statutorily, DOT should be subject to atty fees under 57.105 for this one

Despite having lost exactly the same battle last year in the 1st District, FDOT appealed a trial judge's award of attorney's fees for time spent establishing the value of expert witness fees in an eminent domain proceeding. Case is FDOT v. Lockhart, here's the opinion.

After a lowball offer of $70,000, which turned (miracle of miracles) to over $400,000 at trial, FDOT then forced the landowners to a hearing to establish the value of the expert fees (rather than negotiating and/or stipulating to them). It then claimed that because the witness fees would be set by the court - and the witnesses had apparently testified that they would accept the fees deemed reasonable by the court - that the attorneys were working for the experts, not the landowner in the expert fee hearing.

I'm sure that the FDOT lawyers see themselves as simply battling the greedy eminent domain bar, who suck the public funds trough low by litigating these fee cases. But from where I sit, all they're doing is delaying the process and running up the cost to the public through unnecessary litigation over claims so weak or unfounded (and already rejected) that a private attorney would be risking sanctions to file them.

2d DCA on Cell Towers - And the Limits to the Scope of Essential Requirements of Law in Cert Proceedings

In Verizon v. The Sanctuary, here's the opinion, the court reiterated the view taken by the 3d DCA in its remand decision in Omnipoint, that the scope of the "essential requirements of law" inquiry, as well as the scope of the lower tribunal's authority in a quasi-judicial hearing, is limited to the ordinance or statute being applied in the hearing.

The City of Sanibel granted a license to Verizon to put a cell tower on a piece of property is owned that already had a water treatment plant (no mention of water tower, but I suspect one). It approved this under a "tower ordinance" that it had previously adopted, that indicated the site as one of several potential sites in the city, and that also provided that it superseded any contrary rules, etc.

The neighboring association raised violation of essential requirements of law (not competent substantial evidence), and the lower court granted cert, on several different grounds:
1) The approval was inconsistent with a site-specific PUD ordinance that governed the property;
2) The approval was inconsistent with a settlement agreement between the City and either the Homeowner's Association or the Developer
3) The location was inconsistent with a plat dedication that designated the site as a water treatment plan, even though full title to the property had later been granted to the City
4) That the City was "estopped" from changing the land use and allowing the tower.

In granting cert and quashing the circuit court's writ, the 2d held that the City's permit action was a quasi-judicial action that applied the tower ordinance, and did not involve either the validity of that or ordinance or the application or validity of the PUD ordinance or the settlement agreement. Based on that analysis, the court went on to hold:

The purpose of the certiorari proceeding below was to review the City
Council's application of the telecommunications ordinance to Verizon's request.
as such, the circuit court was not reviewing the Council's previous decision to enact that ordinance. See G.B.V. Int'l, 787 So. 2d at 848 (Wells, C.J., concurring) (explaining circuit court's error in treating county commission's action as legislative when it was quasi-judicial).

In sum, when considering Verizon's application, the City Council
properly applied the telecommunications ordinance, which expressly superseded
any contrary provisions in the land development codeÂ?including those
contained in the PUD ordinance. It follows that the circuit court applied the
incorrect law when, in reliance on the PUD ordinance and the amended settlement
agreement, it declared that the City Council's decision departed from the
essential requirements of law.

The court also held that the plat's designation did not control when the City had been deeded the property, and that the court improperly reweighed the evidence when it found estoppel (which had been raised before the city).

Whew.

The most important aspect of this case is the court's analysis of the scope of the delegating authority (the tower ordinance) as establishing the scope of the "essential requirements of law" and "applied the correct law" analysis. It accepts the Omnipoint court's position that a lower tribunal may only apply the ordinances and rules under which it conducts a hearing; unless those rules pull in other regulations or standards by reference, they are not before the tribunal. It might be required to act in a manner that is contrary to another law, if that other law is not before it.

This creates some interesting problem in our interlocked regulatory world. Was the comprehensive plan and its policies properly before the City in this case if plan consistency is not a standard in that ordinance? One school of thought - 163.3194 requires ALL decisions involving development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, so thatrequirementt is "legislatively inserted" into all other localordinancess, etc. Another school of thought is that unless the localordinancee expressly requires consistency with the comprehensive plan, it is an impermissible consideration in the qj hearing and review.

The other thing that this decision brings out is the structural difference between what you can challenge in the cert process and what you can't. While the court failed to catch it, the estoppel argument actually should have been thrown out entirely: it is by definition an equitable argument and power, and administrative tribunals have no equitable powers. That is, the City could not have used an estoppel argument to "add" to the standards in the ordinance or limit their scope, and both courts erred in not dismissing this argument later. The same issue holds true with enforcing the plat restriction (though this was rejected on other grounds): barring the use of property that is inconsistent with an easement is either equitable (injunction) and not available as a general power to administrative agencies, or a declaration of rights between the parties, which nothing authorizes the City to determine. Moreover, nothing would grant the City the right to enforce such a determination of rights against itself or between other parties - again, that would be a judicial function.

So, given that there was potential conflict between the PUD ordinance, the settlement agreement, and that there were equitable issues on estoppel and the plat, and that these issues are clearly problematic in the cert appeal, what was the neighbor to do? Well, if there are legal and equitable issues that arise from a government action or rule, and they're not cognizable in cert, then they're going to be cognizable in a dec action.

Back to splits between what you try where, again because of the scope of review issues involved. Again - we need a statute that 1) provides specific authority and procedures for local quasi-judicial actions, and 2) provides for APPEAL, not cert review, in the circuit court, with review by right of the appeal in the DCA. That would broaden the scope of potential arguments and relief and avoid some of the "cramped"treatmentt of these issues that the narrow cert review provides.

Hurricane Katrina, One Lawyer, and FEMA

My friend, Sean Scott organized and implemented the delivery of 340,000 bottles of water to the disaster zone.

He arrived on site so quickly that the water was off-loaded from the trucks and put directly on Black Hawks for transport.

How could one guy see a need, develop a timely plan, and implement it so quickly when the agencies charged with this task cannot?

Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 for details.

Sean is available for comment.

His website for this project is: virtuallawoffice.com/getgoin.html



The St. Petersburg (Florida) Times covers it here: St Pete Times