Joseph S. Geller, Esq. has FINALLY  filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint to Contest the Certified Results of the May 19, 2015 North Miami Beach Run-Off Election filed against his client, North Miami Beach alleged  Councilwoman Phyllis Smith.

On July 14, 2015, Joe filed Defendant, Phyllis Smith’s, Motion to Dismiss, and Answer and Affirmative Defenses to First Amended Complaint.

Yes, lawyers use a lot of words.

Most of the time, they say absolutely nothing.

Such is the case with Geller’s answer.  The eight page document is chock full of words, loaded with finger pointing, buck passing and the lobbing of red herrings.

But it says absolutely nothing.

If even I could see right through this ploy, there’s no doubt a judge will, too.

What is glaringly obvious, however, is that Phyllis did not respond to any of the allegations made in the lawsuit.

Nor did she respond to the First Set of Interrogatories, which compelled Phyllis to answer such questions as who ran her campaign, who she hired to campaign on her behalf, the names of all her paid campaign workers and volunteers, and which of those workers handled absentee ballots.

Phyllis was also asked exactly how she and/or her workers targeted absentee ballot fraud victims voters and whether or not she used an automated “robo” call to those individuals.  She was then asked how she obtained the names and phone numbers of those voters.

Question number 18 specifically asked Phyllis about the nature of her involvement with Hubert “Bob” Campbell, Guilna Prosper and Pierre Paul Myrthil.

Then the interrogatories got personal.

Phyllis was asked to state the nature of her daughter, Susie’s involvement in her campaign.

She was also asked to explain if she received campaign assistance from her colleague, Frantz Pierre, the nature of his involvement in her campaign, and if she received assistance from any other councilmember.

Another question in the interrogatories was whether or not Phyllis received assistance from any Political Committee or Electioneering Communication Organization.  Furthermore, she was also asked if she or any member of her immediate family served as a registered agent or treasurer of any of these types of committees.

Phyllis was also asked if she signed the Ethics Commission’s fair campaign pledge and if she received a copy of the Election Department’s campaign finance and practices manual.

And, lastly, Phyllis was asked to respond to this question:

27.  Identify each person you intend to call as a witness at the hearing in this matter; state if you intend to call any expert witness and the subject matter on which each expert witness is expected to testify; state the substance of all facts upon which each expert witness is expected to testify; state the substance of all opinions to which each expert witness is expected to testify; provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion and whether this opinion is rendered in a written report, identifying the report, if any, and its custodian; provide a summary of the expert’s qualifications; and identify those administrative and court proceedings in which the expert has previously provided deposition or trial testimony, including an explanation of on which party’s behalf the testimony was provided and a short description of the opinion testimony provided.

Now, here’s the thing.

Interrogatories are not rocket science tests.  The questions contained in this set are so simple, even Phyllis could answer them.

But she refuses to do so.

Why?

Almost all the answers to the questions can be found in the thirty three pages of Campaign Treasurer’s Reports that Phyllis filed with the City of North Miami Beach.  These reports already contain the names and addresses of all her campaign workers.

Allegedly.

Since neither Phyllis nor Frantz have filed their final Campaign Treasurer’s Reports for the period of May 1, 2015 to August 5, 2015 (which is not due until August 5), we have no way of knowing who they paid to work for them during the May 5, 2015 election or the May 19, 2015 run-off election.

Conveniently.

What I can tell you, however, is that Phyllis and Frantz paid at least two of the three specific people whose names are listed in Question 18 of the interrogatories.

As everyone knows, Hubert “Bob” Campbell is Daphne Campbell’s husband and is well known for his campaign “expertise.”

On April 10, 2015, Phyllis paid the sum of $1,400.00 to “King & Queen,” located at 640 NE 149 Street, Miami, FL 33161 for “radio time.”

Hubert Campbell is the Registered Agent and Director of Kings and Queens International, Inc., located at 640 NE 149 Street, North Miami, FL 33161.

There!  I answered that question for her.

On February 26, 2015, Frantz Pierre listed on his Campaign Treasurer’s Report a payment of $500.00 to “Myrthil Junior” of 2020 NE 169 Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33162.

This “Myrthil Junior” is actually one Pierre Paul Myrthil of 2020 NE 169 Street, Apt. 411, North Miami Beach, FL 33162.

As an aside, despite Frantzie’s protestation to the contrary (“We had our heads high and we did not hire one single criminal in MY campaign. These are clean, clean, clean people.”),  Mr. Pierre Paul Myrthil has not one, but two criminal records.

Just saying.

In any event, the fact that Phyllis has refused to respond to the set of interrogatories would lead us to believe she has something to hide.  Something that perhaps she did not list on her Campaign Treasurer’s Reports, which she is required to attest are “true, correct and complete.”  This attestation is governed by Florida Statute 839.13, Falsifying Records, the violation of which is a first degree misdemeanor.

But, we all know Phyllis would never file a fraudulent Campaign Treasurer’s Report because Phyllis never lies.

And neither does Frantz.

[Giggle-snort]

The rest of Joe Geller’s answer to the lawsuit completely circumnavigates the allegations made by the Plaintiffs, and instead tries to present bogus reasons why the lawsuit “fails to state a cause of action.”

Joe claims that because the lawsuit doesn’t name “Penelope Townsley, the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections” as a Defendant, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

(Note that the North Miami Beach Canvassing Board Members already enjoined her in their Answer and Affirmative Defenses filed June 12, 2015.  Also note that it appears Joe cut and paste entire paragraphs of the Canvassing Board’s Answer and inserted them into his own!  Sloppy, Joe.  Sloppy and lazy!)

Joe claims that the Plaintiff, Jewish Leadership Coalition, has no right to sue Phyllis, so the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Joe claims that even though the lawsuit named the individual members of the City of North Miami Beach Canvassing Board, because the lawsuit doesn’t name “The City of North Miami Beach Canvassing Board” as a Defendant, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Joe claims that because the lawsuit doesn’t name “the City of North Miami Beach City Council” as a Defendant, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Finally, Joe also claims that Miami-Dade County section 12-14.1 (which requires campaign treasurers to file report MD-ED26 if they pay anyone to “canvass and campaign the absentee ballot voters”) “does not on its face expressly declare that compliance therewith is essential to the validity of the City’s absentee ballots,” but that it only “provides for monetary penalties,” the lawsuit should be dismissed.

What that translates to is “Even if we illegally didn’t report that we paid absentee ballot brokers, that doesn’t mean the absentee vote count is wrong.”

Amazingly, Joe admitted that Phyllis “did not file timely Form MD-ED26” but “denies that Frantz Pierre did not file Form MD-ED26 with the City Clerk.”

I didn’t realize he was hired to speak for Frantz, but whatever.

(As a side note, Phyllis is incurring hefty fines each day that form goes unfiled!)

Joe says a lot more crap, but even after throwing out all those words, at no time does he actually deny that Phyllis had anything to do with absentee ballot voter fraud.

He’s just diverting your attention by distracting you with bullshit.

Regardless of the facts, Joe just wants the case dismissed at any cost.

After all, he’s got to head up to Tallahassee for another Very Special Session any day now.

Here’s the other thing.

By refusing to answer the interrogatories and moving forward with discovery, Phyllis has now forfeited a defense.  Obviously, she doesn’t have one.

Despite the scoffing of some of her, um, ardent lobbyist friends supporters, who are pooh-poohing the allegations in the Complaint, Phyllis also has no idea what evidence the Plaintiffs have uncovered.  Joe’s assertion that the Plaintiffs failed “to state a cause of action” is merely an obvious (and lame) attempt to force the Plaintiffs to show their cards before Phyllis makes the next move.

Although I’m not at liberty to divulge any details about the evidence the Plaintiffs have gathered, I can tell you that Phyllis should be afraid.  Very afraid.

As of now, the Plaintiffs’ attorney is in a position to do one of two things.

The Plaintiffs could file a motion to compel Phyllis to answer the interrogatories.  If she continues to refuse, she could be found in contempt of court.  Phyllis is probably hedging her bets that a contempt charge is worth whatever amount of money she might be fined as long as she can continue to delay discovery, the ramifications of which could be far worse than merely losing her seat on the dais.

Let’s just say that chairs in the hoosegow are not padded.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs can file a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the Court to rule on the Plaintiffs’ request to “delete all the absentee ballots from precincts 123 and 127” where the bulk of fraudulent absentee ballots were discovered.

The Court could, in fact, grant the Defendant’s motion and dismiss the case.  However, if the judge deems the Plaintiffs’ allegations to be legally sufficient, the Court could could rule in the Plaintiffs’ favor, overturn the election results, and kick Phyllis out of “her chair.”

Or the judge could order a new election.

Either way, Phyllis is screwed.

For one thing, since there is already a criminal investigation pending, once the gory details of the massive amount of fraud that was committed comes to light, Phyllis will most likely be calling a bail bondsman.

Then she’ll call Ben Kuehne.

Trust me.  There’s a reason she’s avoiding discovery.

Which also explains why, for the first time in her life, Phyllis has nothing to say.

Even if the Court orders a new election, Phyllis will be hard pressed to find any ballot brokers to help her this time around.  The usual boleteras  won’t be working North Miami Beach elections any time soon.

They can’t afford Ben Kuehne.

In any event, it will be quite interesting to see what happens next.

Start popping the corn.

Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”