As predicted, North Miami Beach is one step closer to becoming as morally, ethically, and financially bankrupt as the City of North Miami.

Now that Commissioners, Michael Joseph, McKenzie Fleurimond, and Paule Villard were able to install their Puppet Commissioner Daniela Jean, they can do whatever they want regardless of what’s in the best interests of North Miami Beach residents.

And, just in case you dare try to hold your elected officials accountable, they’re about to make sure that your voice will be silenced.

Michael Joseph placed Item 11.2 on the Agenda for Tuesday’s upcoming Commission Meeting, which is a proposed Ordinance designed to keep your mouths shut permanently.

By passing this legislation, Michael Joseph wants the City of North Miami Beach to pay the legal bills for public officials against “malicious, frivolous or groundless” complaints filed against them, specifically “where the Officials is [sic] adjudicated not to have violated ethics standards, where there is a finding of no probable cause to substantiate an alleged complaint, violation, or charge, and/or where an alleged complaint, violation, or charge is dismissed or the investigation thereof is closed with no adjudication.”

More importantly, however, it appears that Michael Joseph ordered City Attorney Dan Espino to draft this Ordinance to use as a weapon against yours truly.

Or, as a friend fittingly coined it, “The F*ck Stephanie Kienzle Relief Bill.”

Since Michael Joseph was first elected in November 2018, this blogger has filed a grand total of three (3) complaints against him with the Miami Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust.

The first Complaint was filed after Michael lied at a May 22, 2019 Strategic Planning Session that someone left him a voicemail threatening his life and the lives of his family.

After months of multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain a public record of the alleged voicemail recording, we were advised by the Clerk that “there are no records responsive to this request.”  I had no choice but to conclude that he either flat out lied about receiving a threat, or he withheld and/or destroyed a public record.

At the Ethics Commission hearing, the panel had no choice but to determine “no probable cause” because Michael had allowed his alleged voicemail threat to be deleted by Verizon, which automatically deletes saved voicemails after a specified number of days depending on the plan.

As I told the Ethics Commission, if the alleged voicemail was such a dire threat to his life and the lives of his family, Michael should have filed a police report (which he did not do) and he should have figured out a way to record it to another device for posterity (which he also did not do).

Since Michael refused to respond to my public records request, I had no way of knowing that Verizon deleted the alleged threatening voicemail unless I requested an investigation by filing a complaint with the Ethics Commission.

In that same complaint I alleged that he had also withheld and/or destroyed a public record of the responses he received from a “residents’ survey” that he distributed on January 1, 2020, which, not surprisingly, was not sanctioned or authorized by the City of North Miami Beach.

Once again Michael claimed that “there are no records available at this time.”

Unfortunately for Michael, I had completed his survey, taking screen shots of my answers to each and every one of the questions, which I included as an exhibit to my complaint, which proved that he had received at least one response.  Michael initially lied to the Ethics investigator by claiming that this was a “Facebook survey,” for which responses are never saved.  When I proved to the Ethics Commission that this was, in fact, a Google survey, which does indeed record and maintain the responses, Michael then claimed that “a friend” who conducted the survey for him never advised him there were any responses.  When interviewed, Michael’s friend, of course, “corroborated” his story.

Since there was no way of proving that Michael’s friend lied to cover for Michael’s lie, the Ethics Commission, of course, had no choice but to find no probable cause.

For this hearing, Michael had hired his close acquaintance to represent him, Stephen Hunter Johnson, Esq. whose firm Michael Joseph had tried to hire as the City Attorney last year.

In any event, however, my allegations that Michael Joseph either withheld and/or destroyed a public record were obviously not “malicious, frivolous or groundless” by any stretch of the imagination.

In my second complaint against Michael I alleged that he once again publicly lied at a Commission meeting when he claimed to have received “a couple of calls from some people from FEMA, as well as calls from the County level and I think Councilmember [sic] Wilson’s office as well.  They’re looking to partner up and see how they can assist us at the local level.”

After repeatedly making a public records request for copies of his telephone logs, I finally received a screenshot of two telephone numbers.  The first, (202) 850-0992, is a number to join a “super conference” line in Washington, DC, and the second, (712) 775-7270, is a number for “FreeConferenceCall.com.”

Neither of these two telephone numbers were from FEMA or Congresswoman Wilson’s office, and there were no call logs at all “from the County level.”  Michael obviously lied on the dais about receiving those calls.  Therefore, in my complaint I alleged that he violated the Citizens’ Bill of Rights which states, “No County or municipal official or employee shall knowingly furnish false information on any public matter, nor knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to members of the public.”

However, after a lengthy discussion with the Ethics Commission investigator, she advised me there was no evidence.  Because Michael was never even was interviewed, he had no reason to respond to the allegations or even hire legal counsel.

Because the third and final complaint that I filed against Michael Joseph is currently under investigation, I will not discuss the details at the present time.  Suffice it to say, at the October 14, 2020 meeting, the Ethics Commission agreed that an investigation was warranted.

And despite Michael’s protestations that my complaint was “frivolous” and “nothing more than harassment,” the Commission didn’t see it his way.

At the December 9, 2020 meeting the Commission advocate requested an extension in order to conduct more interviews.

Needless to say, if my complaint was even remotely “malicious, frivolous or groundless,” the Ethics Commission would never have opened an investigation.

And needless to say, Michael was not happy about that.

He advised the Ethics Commission that he was once again being represented by Stephen Hunter Johnson.

Because one complaint was dismissed because he lied under oath, one complaint was rescinded, and one is still under investigation, Michael Joseph is now sponsoring a ludicrous Ordinance in the hopes that the City of North Miami Beach will pay his legal bills.

Michael is also hoping that the City will, in turn, sue me for reimbursement.

Which brings us to the many reasons why Michael’s proposal is problematic, not to mention possibly illegal.

Section 20-80.2, subsection (b) of the proposed Ordinance states:

“Such reimbursement shall be limited to the payment of Legal Expenses incurred with defending actions or proceedings in accordance with the provisions of this section, where the Officials is adjudicated not to have violated ethics standards, where there is a finding of no probable cause to substantiate an alleged complaint, violation, or charge, and/or where an alleged complaint, violation, or charge is dismissed or the investigation thereof is closed with no adjudication.”

There are many reasons the Ethics Commission may choose to dismiss a charge, including complaints alleging violations that are outside the jurisdictional scope of the County’s Code of Ethics.  Furthermore, a “no probable cause” finding does not necessarily mean that there is no merit to the complaint, but only that it’s not within the County’s power to investigate.  For example, a civilian complainant may unwittingly file a complaint with the County’s Commission for a violation of state law, when in fact the complaint should have been filed with the Florida Ethics Commission.

Even more audacious, however, is the inclusion of a clause stating, “A letter of instruction, without further discipline, shall not disqualify an Official from seeking reimbursement.”

When the Ethics Commission issues a Letter of Instruction it is, in fact, acknowledging that a violation has occurred, but chose to educate the respondent on the proper procedure, especially if this was the first complaint filed against the official.

If anyone should understand that concept, it’s Michael Joseph, who was once on the receiving end of a similar “letter of instruction” from The Florida Bar when North Miami City Attorney Jeff Cazeau filed a Bar Complaint against him for bad lawyering.

While The Florida Bar dismissed the Complaint, a Letter of Advice was issued admonishing Michael that the Committee Chair and the Bar “want to make it clear that their finding does not indicate that they condone your conduct in this matter.”  The letter went on to state that although they “have found No Probable Cause, they felt your actions regarding this case were problematic …”

The Florida Bar gave Michael a pass for the time being, and advised him, “we considered the fact that you are a relatively young lawyer and while your actions were improper, even if not the result of malintent, but rather a lack of knowledge, you are advised to thoroughly familiarize yourself with Rule 4-4.2 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Ethics Opinion 09.01.”

By the same token, if a city official receives a Letter of Instruction from the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission, he should not be entitled to reimbursement of his legal fees for defending himself in that action.

Furthermore, Section 2-80.2, subsection (g) of the proposed Ordinance states:

“In accordance with F.S. §112.317(8) [sic], or Section 2-1074(t), Miami-Dade County Code, where it is determined that the complaining party filed a frivolous or groundless complaint, or filed a complaint with malicious intent to injure the reputation of the Official by filing the complaint with knowledge that the complaint contains one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the complaint contains false allegations of fact material to a violation, the City may seek recovery of Legal Expenses incurred by the City from the complaining party in the name of the Official, or as a subrogee of the Official.”

First of all, exactly who will be granted the authority to determine whether or not a complaint is “frivolous or groundless?”  If it’s the North Miami Beach City Commission, then this obviously is a self-serving, overreach and abuse of power.  The Miami-Dade County Code states that “the Ethics Commission determines that the complaining party filed a frivolous or groundless complaint.”  Furthermore, “the Ethics Commission shall order the complaining party to pay any costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the Ethics Commission and/or the alleged violator.”

What if a conflict arises where the Ethics Commission determines that a complaint is not frivolous, but the self-serving Commissioners determine it is, will they still direct the city to sue to recoup legal fees?

Again, this is a gross overreach and abuse of power.

We consulted with municipal law expert, Jose Smith, Esq., who said, “There is no law allowing the city to sue for the fees.  To the contrary, the County Code Section 2-1074(t), cited by City Attorney Espino, allows ONLY the County Ethics Commission to award fees where a complaint is frivolous.  They are in the best position to determine “frivolity,” not the city.  The city will use this as a tool to intimidate residents who suspect wrongdoing.”

“No other city has done this,” Mr. Smith continued.  “The Ordinance will generate huge fees for Espino’s firm since they will become the ‘collection’ attorneys for the city, and will be getting paid to go after people like yourself and many others.  The County already provides a remedy and they are in the best position to rule on this issue without political interference or agendas.”

And finally, Michael’s desire to have the city sue a complainant on his behalf, and then act as a collection agency to recoup his legal fees under the guise of “subrogation” is not only repugnant, but is also illegal in most states, which have abolished a practice known as champerty.  If Michael believes he was the subject of a “malicious, frivolous or groundless” complaint, he would be the one with standing to sue, not the city.

In fact, Miami-Dade County’s Section 2-1074(t) specifically states, “The determination by the Ethics Commission regarding whether a complaint is frivolous or groundless shall be deemed conclusive. The County Commission or any city commission may pay any attorney’s fees and costs incurred by a respondent when the Ethics Commission finds either no probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed or that no violation has been committed.”

It does not grant authority to the County Commission or any city commission “to seek recovery of Legal Expenses incurred by the City from the complaining party in the name of the Official, or as a subrogee of the Official.”

Attorney Jose Smith emphatically stated, “It is bad public policy to pass legislation targeting essentially one individual.  The bottom line is that this Ordinance has a chilling effect on people who complain about wrongdoing.  Public officials don’t need lawyers to respond to typical Ethics complaints.  If they do, it’s because the complaint is valid.”

In the final analysis, Michael Joseph’s proposed Ordinance is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem that does not exist.

It is merely his vindictive way of exacting revenge against me for holding him accountable.  This is targeted harassment and nothing more.

Unfortunately, this Ordinance will most likely pass since, with the election of Puppet Commissioner Daniela Jean, Michael has ensured four votes on the Commission who are equally as ignorant as he is, and will vote as a bloc regardless of whether or not they legislate bad policy.

But trust me, the city’s blatant attempt to force the silence of public dissent will not end well.

Stephanie