There are some things that seem to defy the laws of nature.  Walking fish, underwater fire, and quantum tunneling are just some examples of deviations from natural norms.

The inherent stupidity of certain individuals who have no clue how little they know about the workings of the world is another case in point.

Carolina Matamoros, the ex-“Constituent Services Aide” to North Miami Beach mayor Michael Joseph, is one of those people who should never be allowed outside unsupervised.

Oddly, despite the fact that she decided to run for public office in North Miami, she apparently had no idea that her entire life would become a literal public record.

Whether she likes it or not.

Maybe she should have thought about that before putting her hat in the ring.

Well, we are here to give her a little education on the “joys” of being a public official.

As we told you in Carolina Matamoros: Conspiracy theorist or just plain stupid? You be the judge! (Part 1) and (Part 2), this aspiring North Miami Councilwoman likes to file frivolous complaints.  Two complaints that she filed with the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust against North Miami Beach Commissioner Fortuna Smukler and City Manager Darvin Williams were both dismissed for “lack of legal sufficiency.”

Undeterred, she took her imaginary battle to the Miami-Dade County Commission on Human Rights, and filed a brand new Complaint against City Manager Williams, who is indisputably Black, and claimed that he discriminated against her for being Black.

While the jury is still out on that one, Carolina Matamoros made the grave mistake of filing a complaint to the hosting company of VotersOpinion.com, Bluehost, as follows:

“I was made aware that the website votersopinion.com has published my private residential address without my consent under several blogs on this site. My home address is protected from public disclosure under Florida Statute � 119.071 because I qualify for the statutory exemption afforded due to my history in law enforcement. Despite this protection, the website has published my protected residential address in connection with commentary about me.

This disclosure creates a significant safety and privacy risk and appears to violate your customer’s obligation to refrain from using your hosting services to facilitate harassment or the publication of protected personal information.

I request that BlueHost/HostMonster investigate this matter and require your customer to immediately remove or redact my residential address.”

She then alleged that we published the following items that contained her “private residential address:”

• https://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Stamped-Complaint-C-26-23-06-Matamoros-v.-Smukler.pdf
• https://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Stamped-Complaint-C-26-24-06-Matamoros-v.-Williams.pdf
• https://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/C-26-23-06-and-C-26-24-06-Notice-of-Hearing-7-8-26-Matamoros.pdf
• https://votersopinion.com/2026/07/31/carolina-matamoros-conspiracy-theorist-or-just-plan-stupid-you-be-the-judge-part-1/
• https://votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/12804-NOC-to-R_07-29-2026.pdf
• https://votersopinion.com/2026/08/02/carolina-matamoros-conspiracy-theorist-or-just-plain-stupid-you-be-the-judge-part-2/

Since we take any and all complaints very seriously, especially when it comes to personal privacy, this blogger immediately and thoroughly examined every word of each of those documents to see if we did, in fact, publish her “private residential address.”

For one thing, we here at VotersOpinion knew absolutely nothing about her alleged “history in law enforcement.”

For another, we are quite familiar with the redaction law and we are well aware that police officers and other high-risk and public-service professionals are entitled to request government agencies and county Clerks of Court to redact their personal identifying information.

If Carolina did have, in fact, a “history in law enforcement,” surely she would have already requested the Miami-Dade County Clerk of Court to redact her “private residential address,” right?

Nevertheless, we made a thorough search through our entire website, and we discovered that only one of those documents contained her “private residential address.”  That document happened to be the actual Complaint that she filed with the Miami-Dade County Commission on Human Rights against North Miami Beach City Manager Darvin Williams, which we obtained from the public records.

We also determined that the reason this document contained her “private residential address” is because Carolina Matamoros herself completed and filed that document with a public agency, which made it a public record.

Nevertheless, because we here at VotersOpinion have to answer to a “Higher Authority” of sorts, i.e., Bluehost’s Terms of Service, we immediately redacted our copy of Carolina’s public Complaint and deleted the original, unredacted copy from our website.

As soon as we took care of that matter, we forthwith sent the following email to Bluehost, copying Carolina Matamoros:

Not only did we attach a copy of the redacted document, but we also attached a copy of the Florida Department of State’s Public Records Exemption Request Form as a public service to Carolina so that she can clean up her own mess in the future.

We did confirm with Bluehost that they received and are reviewing this blogger’s email to make sure that we are in full compliance with their Terms of Service.

As we mentioned above, Carolina stated in her Complaint against us, “I qualify for the statutory exemption afforded due to my history in law enforcement.”

As you can imagine, we were really, really curious as to her “history in law enforcement,” so we started digging.

Which is never a good thing for anyone who has absolutely no idea how public records work.

In response to a Google search for “Carolina Matamoros of North Miami history in law enforcement,” we obtained the following information:

• • Role: She was employed by the Broward Sheriff’s Office as a Communications Operator III.
  • Start Date: Her employment began in January 2010.
  • End Date: She was terminated by the agency in September 2018 following an internal affairs investigation regarding attendance and conflicting secondary employment. [Emphasis ours.]

We’re pretty sure that’s one can of worms this political candidate wouldn’t want us to open.

Which means we took that can opener right out of the drawer and went to work.

The first thing we did, of course, was make a Public Records Request with Broward County for “a copy of the personnel file for Carolina Matamoros, who was employed by the Broward Sheriff’s Office from 2010 to 2018.”

We have no idea how long it will take to receive a response, but we can’t wait to peruse that file.  We will most definitely keep you posted.

In the meantime, we searched the records of the Broward County Clerk of the Courts, and found four cases involving Carolina.  She was the Defendant in three of those cases, and the Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Carolina Matamoros v. Broward Sheriff’s Office.

On October 4, 2018, Carolina filed her Complaint, alleging that she was unlawfully fired due to … discrimination (of course) and retribution.

On November 19, 2026, Defendant Broward Sheriff’s Office filed a Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

We followed that trail of breadcrumbs, which led us to Case No. 0:18-cv-62813-RS Matamoros v. Broward Sheriff’s Office, which was filed on November 19, 2018.  We downloaded the significant documents to our Google Drive, which you can read for yourself by clicking >>> here.

Here are some of the highlights of her lawsuit against the Broward Sheriff’s Office.

In her Amended Complaint, Carolina Matamoros alleged that she was discriminated against due to her requests for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and her frequent absences due to her disabled son.  She also claims that she received disciplinary actions, negative evaluations, suspensions and her eventual termination for the same reason.

The case went on for approximately seven months while it was referred to a Magistrate and then to mediation, after which apparently no settlement was reached.

Ultimately, on June 10, 2019 the Defendant (BSO) filed its Answer, Defenses & Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint, denying liability due to the fact that many of her allegations had already been dismissed.  The Defendant did admit that it denied her claims under FMLA because she was only a part-time employee and she did not work enough hours to qualify.

Furthermore, in its Answer, Defendant stated that Plaintiff (Matamoros) “had 7 Internal Affairs Cases and investigations for her violations of BSO’s attendance policy, among others, that were all sustained.”

Also on June 10, 2019 BSO filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which it states that Carolina Matamoros “lied under oath” during its Internal Affairs Investigation, Case #2018-0117.  When she was asked, “Do you have any other outside employment,” she responded, “No.”

However, Defendant BSO had discovered that “Plaintiff had earned more than $30,000.00 from the City of North Miami in the prior two years, yet still denied having outside employment.  The Assistant Personnel Director, City of North Miami attested that plaintiff worked there from 2015 to the present and provided wage and earning reports evidencing that over the last 12 months (July 1, 2017-June 30, 2018) plaintiff worked 1,083 hours for the City of North Miami (more than she worked at BSO during that same period) and earned at least $30,000.00 in 2017 & 2018(¶4 above).”

Even worse, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment states that her “pattern of absences persisted throughout her employment,” and provides an exhaustive list of her attendance history and excuses from January 19, 2010 through her termination on November 26, 2018 (pages 12-18 of the Motion).

In summary, the Defendant claims that Carolina’s disciplinary actions and termination were based on documented violations, and had nothing to do with discrimination or retaliation as she alleged.

On August 8, 2019, the judge issued a Final Judgment in favor of the Defendant, Broward Sheriff’s Office, unequivocally dismissing Carolina’s claims “on the merits,” as well as an Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

What’s really interesting in the judge’s Order is that Plaintiff Matamoros had claimed she didn’t work the required “1250 hours in the prior twelve months needed to qualify for FMLA leave” because “her supervisor denied her the opportunity to work additional hours.”

However, the Order continued, “Plaintiff chose to work a part-time shift.  There is no record evidence that Plaintiff was not allowed to work her expected, scheduled hours.”

Obviously perturbed that the U.S. District Court Judge didn’t see things her way, on September 4, 2019 Plaintiff Carolina Matamoros filed a Notice of Appeal, and peddled her complaint all the way up to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

On June 25, 2021, the Appellate Court “affirmed” the District Court’s Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Broward Sheriff’s Office.

In it’s written decision, on page 2 the Appellate Court opined:

“On appeal, Matamoros challenges both the dismissal of her associational-discrimination claim and the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the others. As to the former, Matamoros candidly asks us to work “a change in the law” and hold that the FCRA prohibits associational discrimination. We must decline; accepting her invitation would take us well beyond a federal court’s limited role in interpreting and applying state law. We also hold that the district court properly rejected Matamoros’s other claims. Accordingly, we affirm.”

After reiterating all of the Plaintiff’s allegations and the U.S. District Court’s rejection of them, the Appellate Court ended it’s written decision with:

“In sum, we hold (1) that Matamoros’s associational-discrimination claim fails because the FCRA doesn’t provide for such claims, (2) that her FCRA retaliation claim fails because she can’t show that any relevant decisionmaker was aware of her EEOC filing or that another employee used a decisionmaker as a “cat’s paw,” (3) that her FMLA retaliation claim fails because she didn’t prove that the Sheriff’s Office’s reasons for taking adverse actions against her were pretextual, and (4) that her FMLA interference claim fails because she didn’t demonstrate that she was entitled to FMLA leave. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
AFFIRMED.”

And with a stroke of the proverbial pen, justice was served!

The BSO wasn’t going to take this BS lightly.

On November 14, 2022, the U.S. District Court issued an Order Granting Motion for Entry of Judgment on the Broward Sheriff’s Office’s previously filed Notice and/or Motion for Entry of Judgment on Costs and Attorney’s Fees Awarded in Favor of Defendant, and awarded the Defendant $17,635.80 in appellate attorney’s fees, costs of $2,925.87, and taxing costs on appeal in the amount of $241.90, and stated that “[t]he Court will enter a separate judgment.”

The next day as promised, The Honorable Rodney Smith, United States District Judge, issued his Judgment on Costs & Attorney’s Fees in Favor of Defendant, and ordered Carolina Matamoros to reimburse the BSO a grand total of  $20,803.57 for its troubles.

As a Broward County property owner and taxpayer, this blogger certainly hopes that Carolina Matamoros repays our taxpayer-funded Sheriff’s Office for the completely unnecessary attorney’s fees and costs it was forced to spend on an Appellate Court defense.

Just saying.

We also want to add that going down this rabbit hole was not on this blogger’s bingo card today, and yet here we are.

When it comes to filing complaints and lawsuits, Carolina is not exactly batting a thousand.

When it comes to staying off this blogger’s radar, she poked the wrong bear.

Just saying.

Stephanie