Volume 1, Pages 14-17

1. Volume 1.  Page 14. Lines 12-20.

THE COURT: “Anything in the way of opening statement from the District at this time?”

MR. SMITH: (An attorney hired by the South West Florida Water Management District,) “Judge, just briefly. The District plans to put on an abbreviated case as well. And essentially we believe the evidence will show that the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the conditions for permanent issuance have been met. And based upon that, the permit should be issued as proposed.”

*****IMPORTANT: The opening statement from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, of proclaiming that they are providing “reasonable assurance that the conditions for permanent issuance have been met,” and that the permit “should be issued,” will be proven to be a lie!

This court transcript will prove that NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, the land developers, did not even have a valid and complete permit application due to work involving both the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Federal Clean Water Act being unfulfilled according to an under-oath confession from the environmental engineer, Mr. Steve Godley, admitting to: “There were broad ranges of services because of the  nature of the petition; it was a broad petition.  We’re environmental consultants, and this was an E.R.P. permit, so the range of issues we had to deal with were everything related to either wetlands or wildlife, hydrology of wetlands, etc. So the range of services included a field review. BECAUSE I HAD NOT BEEN TO ALL OF THE SITES THAT HAD BEEN NAMED IN THE PETITION, I HAD TO GO TO THE FIELD.” (Fee Hearing, Page 35, Lines 17-25.)

This is one of the single most important quotes from our court case. It has already been established and proven that  no valid permit ever existed to be granted because the environmental engineer, Mr. Steve Godley, hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes Communities, confessed under oath that he never performed the required and necessary work–required by the Federal government for the state of Florida to uphold and follow–before the permit was ready to be granted by the Florida state governmental agency, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, or challenged by a concerned citizen, Dr. Octavio Blanco.

Dr. Octavio Blanco has proven in Court that this permit is incomplete and invalid, due to Mr. Steve Godley’s confession of having never performed the necessary and required work that the United States Federal Government mandates that all fifty states must perform.

Mr. Steve Godley admits that after the Southwest Florida Water Management District was ready to grant the Environmental Resource Permit to NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, and after Dr. Octavio Blanco challenged this permit, that Mr. Godley had to go back out to the field to perform research within locations listed within the petitioned areas that Mr. Godley had never even been to before, and the extensiveness of this new work was a total of 210 hours of additional time.  This would be the equivalent of working five and a half weeks straight!  The problem with this is that it is illegal!  All work had to be performed before the permit was challenged!  (Fee Hearing, Page 37, Line 9.)

This is 100% illegal for a land developer, an environmental scientist, a state government agency, all attorneys on all sides listening to this confession (and standing by while doing nothing), and a state Judge demanding financial sanctions against Dr. Octavio Blanco, to what would eventually balloon up into  $500,000 of debt, for Dr. Blanco to endure, to ever occur in a Court of law!  This is clearly illegal!

No further environmental research or work can be performed once a “valid” Environmental Resource Permit is scheduled to be issued. All scientific work, by this time, has already been “signed off to being fully completed, according to both state and Federal laws,” and cannot be continued simply because they are about to be exposed for being frauds. By law, concerned citizens can challenge a permit, but they have a very tiny window of opportunity of time to do so, and Dr. Blanco legally and legitimately filed his challenge to the permit, as required by law, within his window of opportunity. The ones NOT following the law were the corrupt environmental scientist(s), NNP-Bexley, Newland Homes, the state of Florida’s Southwest Florida Water Management District, ALL attorneys present that day–no matter which side they were on–and the Judge, himself.

Mr. Steve Godley also admitted under oath in the Fee Hearing that there were many land development sites that he had never been to that required him to protect the wetlands involved in the permitted areas of his Environmental Resource Permit. When Mr. Steve Godley did not do his required work, and when Mr. Brian Surak did not even know the true and accurate scientific values of the water table level of NNP-Bexley’s and Newland Homes wetland, the Federal Clean Water Act is allegedly violated because the wetland is not being adequately protected, as required by Federal law.

2.  Volume 1.  Page 14. Lines 3-11. Pages 15-17. In their entirety.

DR. BLANCO: “Essentially it’s been brought out over the years I’ve been involved with it, several cases that had to do with protecting this wetland which has been termed wetland A3 on our property, this wetland right here. Each time I’ve depended on my affiliation, my association with University of South Florida professors, most often Dr. Mark Stewart, Dr. Mark Rains, and also Dr. Mark Ross in a few of the cases.

“And what I’ll do whenever each project comes up is essentially go to them, give them materials, give them the files and seek their input because I’m not an expert in the field.”

“So consistent with this procedure from the time the Suncoast was originally planned right through A3, to the time the ERP came up for the Suncoast, to the other projects that have been mentioned, the original Westfield residential site, Ashley Glen, WIN-Suncoast, each time I’ll go and bring up these issues to the scientists and depend on them and their expertise to give me guidance; should I challenge something or should I not and what are the important salient features.

“Some of the projects I’ve left completely alone. To the south here, immediately south of our property is a pretty substantial amount of development. North Pointe over here, Suncoast Crossing over here. And those developments, according to my scientists, were not going to be a threat to A3. I left them alone.

“There’s never been an issue whether it’s been a problem on my part to stop growth. It has only been to try to have growth in a way that does not impact A3. We’ve been here for 50 years.

“You know, years ago it probably wouldn’t have been a problem what was done here. But through ditching, draining, wellfield activities, what used to be an abundance of water has become more of a scarcity of water. It’s one of the reasons the Water Management District is what they are today. They used to be flood control and they became water management because there’s not much flooding anymore.

“So the issue now is actually not so much what happens when there’s a big storm event and flooding occurs, it’s more–if you’re worried about wetlands, it’s more how do you keep the wetlands viable. The wetlands have been lost at a dramatic rate. I’ve seen figures up to 50 percent of the region that was being lost, so–I’m not trying to save the whole world, I’m trying to protect a place here that we’ve cared for for many years. And each of these were based on the scientist’s recommendations in going through.

“This case was the same way. Essentially I went to–the scientist in this case was Dr. Mark Stewart who’s very familiar with the region, with SWFWMD rules. He evaluated it and said, my problem has to do with the excavations around these wetlands here. There’s another one over here that might show it a little more clearer, but I can stay with the one you prefer.

“The issues are that the excavations are in an area that has historically been well known to be the genesis of fires of the region. In 50 years there’s never been a fire that came from the south to the north. They always come from the north to the south. The worst of them all was June 26 of 1998. And I stood here with my mom and a lot of forestry people and this inferno came through, ground fire, that came right through this barrier.

“And the concern that Dr. Stewart had was two-fold. One, the excavations are likely–it’s not so much–it’s not just dewatering the wetland making them even drier and making muck fires even more likely, but also trapping water from getting to those wetlands. Because even though these maps over here show blue indicating water, the fact is the majority of the time there is not water here.

“And so when these areas are excavated adjacent to the wetlands they’ll have the effect of having an area of two and a half, three feet lower than they have historically been, and not filled with water, but filled with vegetation, or fuel, and exposed muck, which is one of the toughest fires to deal with. So that was the motivation for this.

“I depended totally on his expertise and his opinion. I filed. Then he had issues come up where he could not appear. I went back to him and said, do you still have the same belief. And his answer up until Sunday when I talked to him last, was absolutely. I absolutely have the same belief.”

*****IMPORTANT: Dr. Blanco is not trying to stop land development projects. His goal is to protect the people of Florida, the natural resources of Florida, and the wildlife of Florida from being destroyed due to the actions of greedy land developers who are wanting to take too much from the land in order to make easy money, so that their development projects are unsustainable in the long term future. He has owned this very same land for 50 years and knows the history of the local area, unlike the land developers who just came in, bought up property, and now seek to reap huge profits without regard to the damage that this project will cause.

3.   Volume 1.  Page 28. Lines 4-10.

Mr. Brian Surak, a project manager for the developer NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, is sworn in to testify under oath as a witness.

4.  Volume 1.  Page 29. Lines 6-16.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Mr. Surak, what’s your occupation and place of employment?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “I’m a civil engineer with Heidt & Associates.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And what’s your position with Heidt?”

MR. SURAK: “Project manager.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What are your duties and responsibilities as a project manager?”

MR. SURAK: “I manage the goals and objectives of several land development clients; and then manage a design team to perform those goals, such as preparing construction plans and design for projects and permitting for the same.”

**********IMPORTANT: Mr. Surak states that he is a project manager for Heidt & Associates and that his duties and responsibilities are to “manage the goals and objectives of several land development clients.” However, nowhere in his job description does he claim that his duties and responsibilities are to maintain the safety and welfare of Federally protected wetlands, such as is required to be done according to the Federal Clean Water Act and is overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

5.  Volume 1.  Page 29. Lines 17-25. Page 30. Lines 1-4.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Do you have any professional licenses?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes. I’m a professional engineer in the state of Florida.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “When did you receive your license?”

MR. SURAK: “Well, my original license was in the state of North Carolina in 1999 and I got my Florida license in 2002.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “How many projects have you designed?”

MR. SURAK: “I would say plus or minus 75 projects.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And have you supervised or prepared ERP applications for these projects?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “About how many of them?”

MR. SURAK: “All of them.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. Surak states that he designed, supervised, and prepared the Environmental Resource Permit applications for at least 75 different projects. However, as will be shown in his later testimony, he is confused about several issues such as the definition of terms that a scientist must know and fully understand, as well as particular information for the wetland that he is certifying, such as its actual scientific water table throughout the year so that accurate and current hydrologic data can be used within the ICPR computer model. Based on Mr. Surak’s testimony within this particular court case, the veracity of all of his previous 75 different projects, as well as this current project, are called into question. Perhaps, all of his 75 different projects should be reopened and investigated for their thoroughness and accuracy within the computer models, as well as having professionals visit the 75 different project land sites in order to examine the current health and well-being of his designed projects to reassure that his designed projects had a high survival rate, as his computer models had predicted. Hillsborough County officials investigated Mr. Steve Godley, another environmental scientist in this court case, and found that he had performed incomplete and invalid research on another project in this same area. Unfortunately, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, apparently accepts and encourages such incomplete and invalid studies by land developers seeking the Environmental Resource Permits, which they are authorized by law to grant.

6.   Volume 1.  Page 30. Lines 5-11.

MS.MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Would you say you’re familiar with the Southwest Florida Water Management District permitting criteria?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Are you familiar with the statutes and rules that establish the conditions for issuance of individual environmental resource permits?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes, I am.”

*******IMPORTANT: Mr. Brian Surak will later testify under oath that as a civil engineer and project manager that he does not understand basic concepts that a civil engineer and supervisor should know. He also will later testify that he put inaccurate data into the computer models because he did not take into consideration extremely crucial information regarding wetlands, such as drought conditions and the true and accurate water table levels of wetlands. However, he recognizes that in order for a permit application to be approved, he understands SWFWMD’s own rules and procedures that state that all permit application data must be complete, valid, truthful, accurate, and based on the current conditions of the environment within the land development’s area.  Now the question becomes why are the Florida Water Management Districts granting permits based upon inaccurate, incomplete, scientifically illogical data, and questionable practices when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Section 404 demands true data to be used in order to protect the wetlands under the Federal Clean Water Act!

7.  Volume 1.  Page 30. Lines 19-23:

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “At this time I’d like to offer Mr. Surak as an expert in drainage engineering, surface water hydrology, design of surface water management systems, computer modeling and environmental resource permitting.”

********IMPORTANT: As will soon be shown in Mr. Brian Surak’s own sworn testimony, he lacks knowledge, education, and understanding of prime and critical definitions regarding hydrology. Mr. Brian Surak will also soon to be shown to be clueless as to the real, accurate, and true hydrologic conditions of the affected wetland being discussed, and merely fudges numbers in order to obtain an illegal permit for his employers by using scientific misconduct of falsification of data. He, at least understands computer modeling enough to realize that the ICPR computer model that the Southwest Florida Water Management District uses is flawed because it does not take drought conditions and other salient features into consideration. Mr. Brian Surak also testified that there is NOTHING that would prevent the Water Management District from allowing computers to utilize further vital scientific data. Perhaps, the Water Management Districts do not want the computer model to have all of the relevant data because that would very likely help to protect the environment, but hinder the relatively easy acquisition of permits required to begin construction.

8.  Volume 1.   Page 42. Lines 8-10. Page 43. Lines 11-12.

DR. BLANCO: “Mr. Surak, as I understand, you testified that the surface water management and master drainage documents were prepared using a model, I believe you referred to–is it ICPR?

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. Surak states that the computer model he used is called ICPR. Later in Mr. Surak’s testimony, it will be shown that ICPR is a poor computer model to use because it does not take critical information into account, such as drought conditions, even though it CAN be instructed to do so; however, what good does taking this action of using the ICPR computer model do for the civil engineers hired by wealthy land developers in order to achieve their Environmental Resource Permits when they refuse to utilize its full potential? That’s right. This computer model gives wealthy land developers a free pass on actually protecting the environment because it’s all based on make-believe and fairy tales.

Mr. Surak has stated that according to his duties and responsibilities, he was hired to obtain the Environmental Resource Permit for his land development clients. Nowhere does he admit that his duties and responsibilities are to protect the wetlands, as by law he is required to do this, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. ICPR also uses incorrect data such as being told to consider all wetlands as being fully inundated with standing water at all times, even though the actual water table level is several feet below ground level for much of the year. Therefore, how accurate can this computer model be?!

9.  Volume 1.   Page 43. Lines 21-25; Lines 1-7.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “I’d like to discuss the model with you, please.”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Sure.”

DR. BLANCO: “Would this model be better described as a–as an event model or a continuous model?”

MR. SURAK: “Define event and continuous, if you would, please.”

DR. BLANCO: “Well, you’re the expert. Could you define for me what an event model is?”

MR. SURAK: “I’m not familiar with that term.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. Are you not familiar with a continuous model either?”

MR. SURAK: “Not that terminology, sorry.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. Surak, the supervising engineer in this case, and at least in 75 different projects, does not understand basic terminology for engineers. He appears to not be an expert, when he does not understand basic science.

10.   Volume 1.  Page 44. Lines 19-25; Line 1.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Okay. So does this model provide information, for example, if I’m concerned about a wetland’s health, does it provide information about the times in between those big rain events, weekly, monthly, yearly? Does this provide data about that or is the model programmed to do that?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes, the program will do that. We didn’t–we didn’t model a one-day storm or a one-hour storm or a one-month storm. Certainly can do that.”

*********IMPORTANT: If their computer model can go to extra lengths in order to protect the Federally protected wetlands, which are regulated under the Federal Clean Water Act, then why didn’t the land developer Newland Homes’ environmental engineers perform the extra analyses within the computer model? The proper thing to do would be to further protect these Federally protected wetlands, but the question does arise that if the further computer model studies had been performed, then would the computer model results still have allowed the permit to be granted–or would the computer model have recommended denying the requested permit? Either further studies were a detriment to the land developer Newland Homes receiving their permit, or pure laziness was the cause for not further researching in order to protect Federally protected wetlands.

11.   Volume 1.  Page 44. Lines 2-16. Page 45. Lines 17-18.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “All right. With your background and your expertise are you familiar with the hydrologic cycle?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Hydrologic cycle meaning rainfall?”

DR. BLANCO: (Nodding.)

MR. SURAK: “Rainfall.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. And what would be the second largest component of that hydrologic cycle?”

MR. SURAK: “In relation to what?”

DR. BLANCO: “The entire hydrologic cycle. The amount–looking at how much water falls versus how much water is retained versus how much water goes away again. Rainfall you say is the most important or the largest component. What would be the second largest?”

MR. SURAK: “Rain. Rain hits the ground and it flows and it has overland flow.”

********IMPORTANT: First, why does the supervising engineer, who has overseen at least 75 land development projects, have to question Dr. Blanco about what the hydrologic cycle is, instead of outright responding with his own answer? An “expert” engineer should already know what the hydrologic cycle is. Then when he answers, “rainfall” as being the largest component of the hydrologic cycle, why is it when Mr. Surak is asked what is the second largest component of the hydrologic cycle, he yet again answers, “rain.” How can rain be both the first and second largest components of the hydrologic cycle? It is ridiculous that a supervising engineer can’t think of more than one component of the hydrologic cycle: RAIN when asked under oath. Then, Mr. Surak mumbles a repeat of what Dr. Blanco questioned him about, as if to stall for time because his mind does not think of the correct component to the hydrologic cycle. What kind of “expert witness” concerning surface water can’t even come up with another, second, answer except for: “rain?” Has he never heard of evaporation of water due to the Sun’s heat? Has he never heard of transpiration from plants? These two components are sometimes combined by scientists and referred to as evapotranspiration, as will be shown in the next section below.

12.   Volume 1.  Page 45. Lines 19-25. Lines 1-19. Page 46. All of it. Page 47. Lines 23-25. Lines 1-10.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Let’s talk about evapotranspiration. Are you familiar with the term evapotranspiration?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “I’m familiar with it, yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “How is evapotranspiration considered in this ICPR model?”

MR. SURAK: “It’s–it’s not–I don’t deal with–directly with evapotranspiration. That’s not my expertise.

********IMPORTANT: Here is Mr. Brian Surak stating that he does not deal with evapotranspiration. The ICPR model does not take into account any scientific feedback of evapotranspiration. This is IMPORTANT because of upcoming testimony from Mr. Brian Surak.

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. Do you know if there are models that would be able to deal with evapotranspiration?”

MR. SURAK: “I’m sure there are, but I’m not–again, I’m not an expert in evapotranspiration so I–I really can’t–”

*****IMPORTANT: If there are computer models which will further protect the public safety, public health, public well-being, people’s financial possessions, and the environment, then why is the Southwest Florida Water Management District using a computer model, called ICPR, that does not promote further protection for the public?!

DR. BLANCO: “All right. Accepting the fact that the model–that this particular model does not account for evapotranspiration, then my question to you would be, how then can the model accurately predict a major component of hydrologic cycle like evapotranspiration which could impact wetlands?”

MR. SURAK: “Are you saying evapotranspiration is a major component?”

*****IMPORTANT: Again, Mr. Brian Surak states that he does not understand that evaporation of water and transpiration of water from plants, due to the Sun’s heat, is a major component of the hydrologic (WATER) cycle—– This is where rainfall comes from.  All rainfall comes from evaporation of water, yet he does not understand evaporation and transpiration of water?! And  this witness is considered to be an “expert” witness in this Court of law for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, for them to receive their coveted Environmental Resource Permit from the government of the state of Florida?!

DR. BLANCO: “Assuming that it is second to rainfall as the largest component and you have a model here that doesn’t account for it, evapotranspiration or ET, then how can we predict the effects of this project which is done totally through this model, how can we effect those–how can we predict those events the model seeks to do throughout–”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “I don’t think that the predicate has been laid for this question.”

THE COURT: “What do you mean?”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “We’re assuming evapotranspiration is the second greatest factor in the hydrologic cycle. I don’t know that that’s been established.”

THE COURT: “I don’t think it was established. Are you asking him to assume that?”

*******IMPORTANT: There are many very troubling issues, which came to light, based upon this one, single question asked by Dr. Blanco. The Judge is either just not paying attention to the proceedings, or does not care what is being said by the parties involved, for his own reasons, which we can only speculate to at this point.

The Judge asked: “Are you asking him to assume that?”

Dr. Blanco had just begun his question of the witness by saying, “Assuming that it is second to rainfall…,” in reference to evapotranspiration. How can the Judge then ask this question because Dr. Blanco is clearly asking the incompetent witness to assume this fact that any Middle School student should know? This will not be the last time that the presiding Judge, in this case, acted in such a manner.

Everyone that was involved in responding to Dr. Blanco in this section of the transcript appears to be ignorant and clueless in regards to the hydrologic cycle. The entire premise of governmental permitting for land development projects is based on ensuring public safety, while also protecting the environment. The hydrologic cycle must be fully understood and taken into account when making these crucial decisions that affect so many innocent lives.

What type of environmental engineer (Mr. Brian Surak,) does not understand the hydrologic cycle? What type of courtroom Judge ( the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston,) sits in the courtroom and monitors this testimony, and asks an asinine question, which only serves to demonstrate his disinterest in this case. And what kind of attorney, (Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig,) who is now employed by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, but who was once legal counsel for the Florida state government agency, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, also does not understand the hydrologic cycle? Why does everyone in this court room, except for Dr. Octavio Blanco, seem to be completely ignorant and clueless, regarding the knowledge of such a vital concept to this entire process? It is very likely that the decision makers involved in granting Environmental Resource Permits do understand the hydrologic cycle, but systematically and illegally, they choose to ignore it.

It should be very simple to understand fifth grade science. The hydrologic (water) cycle, which includes precipitation, evaporation, and transpiration is routinely taught to elementary school children. This illegal proceeding should not resemble an episode of the television program, Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader, hosted by Jeff Foxworthy. We are supposed to be conducting a serious court case with grown adults that have been accepted as experts by the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, who apparently plays the role of Jeff Foxworthy!!

The project manager, Mr. Brian Surak, was thrown a life preserver by his attorney, Mrs. Margaret Lytle-Craig, in a futile effort to save him from the ocean of ignorance, in which he was drowning. She attempted to halt the barrage of questions that her expert witness was unable to handle on his own.

On page 46, Lines 20-21 of this court transcript, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, stops the cross-examination of Mr. Brian Surak by stating to the Judge that: “I don’t think that the predicate has been laid for this question.” The Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, responded on line 22, with the curious and very revealing, “What do you mean?”

Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig went on to claim in lines 23-25 that: “We’re assuming evapotranspiration is the second greatest factor in the hydrologic cycle. I don’t know that that’s been established.”

Once again, the question asked by Dr. Blanco began with: “Assuming that it is second to rainfall…,” in reference to the hydrologic cycle. This question removes all need for a, “predicate,” to be laid out, since the witness is told to make this assumption if he was too ignorant to actually know this fact. One would hope that Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig would know something about evapotransporation, in light of all of her years of experience working as legal counsel for the same Water Management District that is involved in this case. Apparently, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, somehow never learned this information, or she didn’t hear Dr. Blanco instruct the witness to: “Assume” that evaportranspiration was second to rainfall, in importance regarding the hydrologic cycle. It is difficult to believe that an experienced and astute attorney, such as Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, didn’t listen to Dr. Blanco’s question, and / or somehow had no idea what evapotranspiration was after all of her years representing the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The only other explanation left is that she was attempting to assist her project engineer to evade questioning that would potentially compromise the permit that she was trying to secure.

DR. BLANCO: “I thought I had–I don’t recall, maybe I can have it read back. I thought when I asked about evapotranspiration he agreed that it was a major component or second to rainfall. I don’t recall what the answer was.”

MR. SURAK: “I don’t believe I said that.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MR. SURAK: “I believe it’s a component. I don’t know where it ranks among all the components of a hydrologic cycle.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So you would say it is a component?”

MR. SURAK: “It is a component.”

DR. BLANCO: “But you wouldn’t be able to give any sort of a say, percentage-wise how large a component it is?”

MR. SURAK: “No, I would not.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. But it is a component.”

MR. SURAK: “Sure.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay, well, based on the fact that it is a component, then my question would be, how does a model that doesn’t take that component into account accurately predict the long-term effect on the wetlands nearby this–……Nearby this stormwater management system, how does it accurately predict if it’s not considered at all?”

*******IMPORTANT: The project supervising engineer, Mr. Brian Surak, admits under oath that evaporation and transpiration of water are both components of the hydrologic cycle, although he somehow has no idea that evapotranspiration is the second most important component after rainfall. Perhaps, this can be explained because it has been many years since he was in fifth grade. He does know enough to state that the ICPR computer model, which the Southwest Florida Water Management District conveniently uses, absolutely does not take any of this scientific data into consideration within their own computer models!  The do not even attempt to calculate either evaporation or transpiration in their computer models before they grant their Environmental Resource Permits!

How accurate can computer models be when they are not allowed to consider the Hydrologic Cycle, in any way? The Water Management Districts of Florida consciously, and with intent, prevent important and fundamental data, such as evapotranspiration, from being considered when deciding if an Environmental Resource Permit should be granted.

MR. SURAK: “Again, you know, I really can’t answer that without knowing how much of a percentage evapotranspiration is. If it’s 1 percent then I would say it’s negligible. The model isn’t–isn’t designed to take–let me back up. Yeah, I just–I don’t know how to answer that, Dr. Blanco, because I don’t know how big of a component evapotranspiration is.”

*****IMPORTANT: Dr. Blanco has asked a very serious question. Mr. Surak, hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to be the project manager, finally admits that evapotranspiration is a component of the hydrologic cycle, after extensive cross-examination. He was clearly uncomfortable in attempting to answer a very basic question that a fully licensed, supervising, professional engineer should have easily handled. How in the world could the Judge in this case, as well as the Water Management attorneys, present in the court room, possibly accept this testimony as being plausible?

13.  Volume 1.  Page 48. Lines 20-25.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “If there were drought conditions to occur that lasted months at a time, does this model have a component to address what the effects of this project would be on those wetlands versus how the natural state is before the project is built?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “No. We don’t consider a drought condition.”

**********IMPORTANT:  Mr. Surak states under oath that the computer model does not take drought conditions into consideration!  The Tampa Bay area has been hit hard by droughts for many years, which lead to deadly and horribly damaging sinkholes and wildfires, and the leading supervising engineer for NNP-Bexley, and Newland Homes, is admitting under oath that drought conditions are never taken into consideration in their ICPR computer model. How can a state government agency, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District, that is supposed to protect the residents and visitors to Florida, as well as the environment, allow wealthy, elite developers to put their profits ahead of our welfare? They know that their actions are illegal and have devastating consequences, but they continue to place the bottom line of corporate greed ahead of all else, in order to gain that last little nickle of money.  They are doing this to all of us in Florida!  (After all, their stockholders expect an increase in their own portfolios, so why not do what it takes to make money? A little death here, a little death there, does not mean much to the government or to the corporations involved who are trying to make money, even if it’s only a nickle!)

And now another sinkhole opens up in Florida: this is the second time in the exact same place:

http://www.webpronews.com/florida-sinkhole-reopens-and-threatens-neighborhood-2014-04

When is this going to end? It is not Mother Nature or the Wrath of God. It is the human beings working for the Water Management Districts committing mismanagement of water, along with greedy land development corporations. The Water Management Districts are not preserving Life or Liberty in order to pursue Happiness. They are selling Environmental Resource Permits to any land developer that comes along and has the money and political connections to buy one. In this court case, an expert environmental scientist admits under oath that he never even went out to many of the land sites listed in the petitioned areas!

The scientific information proving this fact is right here on this very website, within sworn Court testimony! Therefore, any and all computer model results from the Water Management Districts are fundamentally flawed since the information put into it is not reflective of actual and current or reasonably expected future environmental conditions on site at the land development location. Federal and state laws require the use of actual and true scientific data. The Water Management Districts of Florida are fully aware of their own data concerning prolonged drought conditions throughout the state, but make no effort to force developers to consider this vital information, in order to receive a valid permit. An incorrect, invalid, incomplete, and false computer model makes the environmental permit null and void from the very beginning. Dr. Blanco did NOT hold up a permit from being received by NNP-Bexley. The computer model could not possibly make any proper conclusions since crucial data was completely omitted and ignored. The NNP-Bexley permit should have been denied because of this failure. Dr. Blanco, and numerous other concerned citizens, should certainly not have been sanctioned for bringing to light this important information, unless the goal of the state government of Florida was to hide the fact that all Water Management permitting was flawed, and to punish anyone who would dare to bring this information to light!

14.   Volume 1.  Page 49. All of it. Page 50. Lines 1-23:

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Could we talk a little bit about curve number: Are you familiar with that?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Sure.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. Define curve number.”

MR. SURAK: “Curve number is a–SCS curve number is a relationship, if you will, in layman’s terms, a relationship on how much water gets absorbed in the earth versus how much runs off.”

DR. BLANCO: “All right. What would be, for example, a curve number for something like concrete or asphalt?”

MR. SURAK: “Ninety-eight.”

DR. BLANCO: “What would be a curve number for a wetland that’s fully hydrated?”

MR. SURAK: “A hundred.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. And what about a curve number for a wetland that is dehydrated?”

MR. SURAK: “Hundred.”

DR. BLANCO: “So a dehydrated wetland has the same curve number as a fully hydrated wetland?”

MR. SURAK: “Well, it’s–the theory behind a dehydrated wetland is the water’s still below the surface, it’s just not on the surface. So water can’t pass through water, which is why the curve score is 100.”

DR. BLANCO: “Just so I fully understand this, does curve number have a relationship to permeability or movement of water?

MR. SURAK: “It has–no, it’s a relationship between how much water runs off and how much water seeps into the ground.”

DR. BLANCO: “Seeps in the ground. Fine. So if you have a wetland that’s fully inundated, are you testifying that the amount of water that would seep into that wetland is the same as if it’s totally dehydrated?”

MR. SURAK: “Well, again, we–when we develop our pre-development conditions including wetlands, once the wetland line is defined by the District and the Corps and whatever agency, that wetland receives a–a curve number of 100 in the model. Now, do we–do we calibrate our model every time we have a drought or during the dry season of the year? No, we don’t run the model every week to–based on our site inspection of the wetlands.”

DR. BLANCO: “So would it be accurate to say that the curve model or the curve number that the model depends on or is programmed into is 100 whether the wetlands are fully inundated or whether they’re completely dehydrated?”

MR. SURAK: “If it’s classified as a wetland, it gets a curve number of 100.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. Surak testified that he had been instructed by the permitting agency in this case, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, to consider that a completely dehydrated wetland is less permeable to water than asphalt and cement! This conclusion should be an absolute outrage to all residents and visitors to Florida. A state governmental agency charged to protect the environment, as well as people, has been shown to systematically, and with full intent, to insist that knowingly inaccurate data be programmed into computers to determine the long-term safety of permits that they have the power to grant. How can a dehydrated wetland, compared to a fully hydrated wetland, still be given a curve score of 100 in these computer models?!

According to Mr. Brian Surak’s own statement: “Well, it’s–the theory behind a dehydrated wetland is the water’s still below the surface, it’s just not on the surface. So water can’t pass through water, which is why the curve score is 100.” Mr. Brian Surak is terribly, terribly wrong in making this statement because there is a dire and grave consequence of believing this lie! It takes heavy downpours of precipitation to fill up these wetlands back up to a measurement of having the water table level to be above ground again with standing surface water! If the water table level is three to five feet below the surface of the ground, then it is NOT the same as having a huge pond of water, several feet deep, above the surface of the land area!! Mr. Surak will later make it clear in his testimony that he is completely clueless and unaware of the true depth below ground level that a dehydrated wetland may reach. His reply to a question concerning the possibility of that depth reaching at least three feet was the following: “Well, first of all, I wouldn’t model that as a wetland because I would challenge the District and the Corps that it isn’t a wetland if there’s water three feet below the surface. And if it was three feet below the surface for a long period of time, chances are it’s not a wetland.” (Volume 1.  Page 51. Lines 10-14.)

The subject being discussed here in Court is how the ICPR computer model does not take real, true, accurate environmental conditions into consideration. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is trying to brainwash people into thinking and believing that there is always standing water on the surface of Florida’s Federally protected wetlands. Doctor Blanco’s own wetland, which should be protected by the Water Management District, has been monitored by another Florida government agency, called Tampa Bay Water. There were at least 86 times, over a 17 year period, when the water table level was BELOW the wetland surface. The water table was at least three feet below ground level on 22 different occasions! This information, which is readily available to the Water Management District, was never considered during this entire permit process.

The state of Florida recognizes Dr. Octavio Blanco’s wetland to be a Federally protected wetland, and it is directly adjacent to the wetland that Mr. Brian Surak examined. These two wetlands are within eyesight of each other, so it stands to reason that when Dr. Blanco’s wetland was found to be without standing water 86 times, and with 22 of those times being three or more feet below ground, then very similar conditions would also have been found on the wetland that Mr. Brian Surak examined for the land developer NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes. The only reason that the scientific data doesn’t exist for the Newland site is that they never chose to place a piezometer to collect the same data that Dr. Blanco collected on his adjacent wetland. They could have done this if their goal was to protect and preserve the wetlands on their property, but their actions prove that this was not their goal. Therefore, it is absolutely preposterous for the ICPR computer model to always be automatically programmed to assign a scientific curve score of 100 to all wetlands! This incorrect and illegal programming forces the computer to assume that standing water is always present at the surface of all wetlands. This ICPR computer model does not take accurate scientific numbers into consideration, and this harms wetlands. No effort was made to incorporate true, accurate, real-world data regarding the hydration status of wetlands in any computer model to predict the impact of this project, or any other project, approved by the Water Management Districts of Florida, which causes harm to wetlands, on a state-wide level. This harm to wetlands should be considered to be a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act!

15.   Volume 1.  Page 50. Lines 24-25; 1-5. Page 51. Lines 6-25; 1-2.

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. But getting away from the model for a moment–and if it’s outside your area, tell me, but I have you being for surface water so I’m assuming you might know this, but getting away from just the model, in the real world if you have a rain event on a fully inundated wetland, does the amount of water that is actually–enters or seeps into the soil into the wetland the same when it’s completely dry, or is it different?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “It depends on how dry the wetland is.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. Let’s assume that the water table is three feet below the surface.”

MR. SURAK: “Well, first of all, I wouldn’t model that as a wetland because I would challenge the District and the Corps that it isn’t a wetland if there’s water three feet below the surface. And if it was three feet below the surface for a long period of time, chances are it’s not a wetland.”

DR. BLANCO: “What’s the definition, according to SWFWMD, to be a wetland?”

MR. SURAK: “I’m not an expert in wetlands.”

DR. BLANCO: “But you just said you wouldn’t say it was a wetland anymore?”

MR. SURAK: “Well, I would–I would imagine that if it was–the water level is three feet below the surface, I–just my opinion that it wouldn’t be a wetland. And I would ask the environmental consultants to take another look.”

DR. BLANCO: “So it’s outside your area?”

MR. SURAK: “Wetland hydrology and–yes.”

******IMPORTANT: When Mr. Brian Surak is questioned by Dr. Blanco regarding how wet or how dry a wetland is, during a rain event, and how much water actually seeps into the soil into both of the hydration extremes of lack of and excess of water, Mr. Surak responds back with: “It depends on how dry the wetland is.”

How is Mr. Brian Surak’s response even possible, while he is the supervising engineer for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, when he has previously stated before, under oath, that all wetlands are unconditionally given a curve score of 100, which means that no substance on Earth can stop the movement of water more completely than a wetland surface! All developers in Florida are instructed by the Water Management Districts to use this untrue assumption, when programming their computer models. There is clearly no regard for the true status of a wetland having standing water within it or if the water table level is located below ground because the wetland is dehydrated. Clearly, this is contradictory, and by the laws of physics, it is absolutely impossible! He previously stated that all wetlands, irregardless of their water table level, receive the same curve score of 100. Now, only a few minutes after stating that opinion, he is now open to admitting something totally different, by saying these words: “It depends on how dry the wetland is.”

Now the question is: “If it depends on how dry the wetland is, when does the ICPR Computer Model take into consideration of how dry the wetland is?!” The answer is NEVER!! He has already stated this fact under oath when he declared that both a wetland with standing water on it, as well as a dehydrated wetland, both receive a curve score of 100. Therefore, when does a wetland’s curve score within an ICPR computer model–used by and encouraged to be used by the Southwest Florida Water Management District–receive less than 100? By his own testimony, it is NEVER!! This is clearly harmful for Federally protected wetlands, which the Federal Clean Water Act strictly gives all 50 states guidelines for each one to follow!

When Dr. Blanco asks Mr. Brian Surak what would happen if a wetland’s water table level is located three feet below ground level, (in which Dr. Blanco’s own neighboring wetland was measured and had measurements at or even further below three feet below ground level, as measured by Florida’s own state governmental agency, Tampa Bay Water, at least 22 times throughout 17 years of monitoring,) Mr. Brian Surak’s own words were: “Well, I would–I would imagine that if it was–the water level is three feet below the surface, I–just my opinion that it wouldn’t be a wetland. And I would ask the environmental consultants to take another look.” Remember: this is a supervising engineer stating this. He also states that he has supervised at least 75 different land development projects. Each of these projects may have had multiple wetlands that were impacted on each site. Mr. Surak also states that the ICPR Computer Model, which the Southwest Florida Water Management District uses, does NOT take any of this scientific information into account when they plot in their data. This is clearly violating the law of Scientific Misconduct of Falsification of Computer Data. The Federal Clean Water Act is meant to protect wetlands–not to harm them so that wealthy land developers can make even more money at the expense of the environment!

Here at Danger To Everyone In Florida . org, we seriously have to question if anyone from the scientific community of professional engineers, working for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, ever researched the actual scientific numbers and figures of the specific wetland in question to calculate its actual, true health and well-being by even taking into consideration its fluctuations in its water table levels. The answer, because of this testimony being exposed to the light of day, is a resounding: “No!”

Mr. Surak seems stupefied and astounded that a wetland could ever possibly have its water table level below three feet beneath the ground. He states that it certainly could not be a wetland, and yet by Federal law, Dr. Octavio Blanco’s wetland IS a wetland, and it is recorded as a wetland by the very same Southwest Florida Water Management District that classifies the NNP-Bexley’s and Newland Homes’s wetland to be a wetland. Mr. Brian Surak then goes on to admit that he is “Not an expert in wetlands.”

Mr. Surak then goes on to admit that he is NOT an expert in hydrology, either. This admission is extremely important because later on in the Court testimony, another expert witness for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, Mr. Steve Godley, of Biological Research Associates, will admit under oath that: “There were broad ranges of services, because of the nature of the petition; it was a broad petition. We’re environmental consultants, and this was an E.R.P. permit, so the range of issues that we had to deal with were everything related to either wetlands or wildlife, hydrology of wetlands, et cetera. So the range of services included a field review. BECAUSE I HAD NOT BEEN TO ALL OF THE SITES THAT HAD BEEN NAMED IN THE PETITION, I HAD TO GO TO THE FIELD.” (Page 35 of Fee Hearing, Lines 17-25.)

The actions that Mr. Steve Godley took of going back out to the field for 210 hours of additional professional work, were completely illegal!  Dr. Octavio Blanco filed the challenge to the permit, in response to the: “intent to permit,” ruling from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which meant that the District had concluded that all necessary and required scientific studies had been fully completed! No further scientific work could be done after Dr. Octavio Blanco’s challenge to the permit had been filed. Any such further scientific work performed after the challenge had been filed, by definition, would make this permit incomplete and invalid. ALL scientific research studies must be performed by the environmental scientists of the land developer, NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, BEFORE the permit could ever be up to be challenged. Clearly, with Mr. Steve Godley confessing that he had never performed this work beforehand, there was never a valid permit that could have ever been granted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District to NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes. This outcome is clearly illegal on multiple counts, violating both Federal laws of the United States of America and Florida state laws!

16.  Volume 1.  Page 51. Lines 3-8. Page 52. Lines 9-13.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “The area of concern in this case for myself has been clearly brought up as being this far southwestern corner of the Bexley project, which is adjacent to wetland A3.

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Uh-uh.”

DR. BLANCO: “Are you familiar with the amount of excavation that will be occurring here as far as depths?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Could you describe that to me?”

MR. SURAK: “It’s approximately two to two-and-a-half feet deep.”

********IMPORTANT: The water surface engineer, Mr. Brian Surak, states that the 30-acre hole in the ground will be two to two-and-a-half feet deep. This is a sizable excavation directly next to a vulnerable wetland.

17.  Volume 1.  Page 52. Lines 18-23. Lines 9-11. Page 53. Lines 12-25. Lines 1-5.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Okay. You testified, I believe, that water entering and leaving is depicted by your model to be the same after your project?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Uh-huh. Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “What about water on-site, in particular in this wetland–”

(…….)

MR. SURAK: “Yeah, the model shows that those–those areas have basically the same, no adverse impacts.”

DR. BLANCO: “But just to be sure I understand, it’s the event based model that doesn’t consider evapotranspiration that’s predicting this, correct?”

MR. SURAK: “Correct.”

DR. BLANCO: “Now, with your expertise in the surface water arena, if you have an area such as this one I’m referring to here, okay, and you remove the soil from around the wetland, will water in this wetland during dry times tend to move to the lower elevations?”

MR. SURAK: “Again, water transmissivity below grade, I wouldn’t be able to–”

DR. BLANCO: “From the surface?”

MR. SURAK: “From the surface, no.”

DR. BLANCO: “So it’s going to stay–whatever rain falls on this is going to stay here and not come off because of this excavated area?”

MR. SURAK: “Well, when it–water will outflow from that wetland once it reaches its natural breach point–

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MR. SURAK: “–yes.”

**********IMPORTANT: Mr. Brian Surak states that there will be no change in the rate of the flow of water leaving the already existing wetland after a 30-acre, two and-a-half feet deep hole in the ground is excavated, but how can this be possible when he also states: “Well, when it–water will outflow from that wetland once it reaches its natural breach point–”

Doesn’t this mean either once surface water collects upon the surface of the already existing wetland, then due to gravity, the water will then begin to flow into the excavated area until it is filled with water also? If this occurs, the extra water that COULD HAVE remained in the pre-existing wetland could have hydrated the wetland for a longer period of time during the dry season because during the rainy season, it was not having it parasitically taken by an artificial, man-made excavation that is bleeding it dry. Also, since evapotranspiration is not taken into consideration, then the ICPR computer model is further flawed because it does not take into consideration the evaporation of the water of this 30-acre hole in the ground once the Sun begins to evaporate the water with its heat. The draw-down of water table levels is going to drastically increase due to these issues.

18.  Volume 1.  Page 53. Lines 6-14. Page 54. Lines 15-25. Lines 1-9.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Once again, consider in the possibility of drought times. As water is arriving at the wetland, besides the actual rainfall falling right on it, water arrives by other methods, correct?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Sure.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. In the before condition water is moving essentially based mostly on the facts of gravity, correct?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “That being established, during times of drought in the water condition is it reasonable to assume that as water is approaching through surface flow of this wetland, it’s going to enter this depressional area?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. When that happens there and there’s low rainfall events, is there going to be less water arriving in that wetland than before?”

MR. SURAK: “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?”

DR. BLANCO: “Based on what you just said about the way water moves along the surface, okay, in the after when you have a depressed excavated area around that wetland, will that have an effect especially during times of low rainfalls, on the amount of water that reaches the wetland?”

MR. SURAK: “Negligible.”

DR. BLANCO: “How do you know it’s negligible?”

MR. SURAK: “Through the modeling that we’ve had done in this area.”

DR. BLANCO: “You just told me the modeling is event based, doesn’t take into account at all evapotranspiration?”

MR. SURAK: “Well, you actually–well, correct.”

*******IMPORTANT: During times of low rainfall, the man-made depressional excavation will parasitically drain the wetland of its water supply, that as of the pre-construction conditions, the wetland is allowed to keep its rainfall, even during periods of low rainfall measurements. Mr. Brian Surak states that he knows there will be no harmful impacts to the wetland by excavating this 30-acre hole in the ground due to the results from his computer models, but then he admits that his computer models are flawed because the modeling is only event based, meaning that it only considers heavy down-pour rain events in order to prevent flooding, and it does not take into consideration drought conditions, and it does not take into consideration evapotranspiration of water, when the surface water is evaporated by the heat of the Sun. Mr. Surak finally admits that Dr. Blanco is correct about the flawed computer model.

19.   Volume 1.  Page 54. Lines 10-17. Page 55. Lines 18-19.

DR. BLANCO: “So how–”

MR. SURAK: “I’m not sure what you’re asking.”

DR. BLANCO: “I’m asking–there’s several ways that wetlands become dehydrated.”

MR. SURAK: “Right.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MR. SURAK: “Okay. I mean I-I’ll take your word for it.”

DR. BLANCO: “Do you disagree with that?”

MR. SURAK: “I would assume so. It would be my opinion that it would, yes.”

********IMPORTANT: Why is an expert witness, a supervising engineer, Mr. Brian Surak, confused about the fact that there are several ways that wetlands become dehydrated? He is supposed to be an expert on surface waters on wetlands. Surely, an expert on surface waters upon wetlands, who has been a supervising engineer in at least 75 different land development projects and studied the effects of land development projects on sensitive and Federally protected wetlands, will understand how there are several ways that wetlands become dehydrated. Otherwise, it is clear that the wetlands in these 75 different land development projects, based upon the computer models used (ICPR, namely), were not being fully protected as the Federal Clean Water Act demands from all 50 states, including Florida. When Mr. Brian Surak states: “Okay. I mean I-I’ll take your word for it,” why is he so confused about his own expertise knowledge? Perhaps, his work that he performed for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes was not actually up to par in order to be granted the Environmental Resource Permit?

20.   Volume 1.  Page 56. Lines 21-23. Page 57. Lines 24-25. Lines 1-6.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Let’s assume a low rainfall time, even if it’s not a full blown drought, where there’s not standing water in all the areas. Let’s say that this excavated area–is it correct of me to assume that this excavated area during the rainy seasons would have water?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Let’s assume it’s a time that it doesn’t have standing water.”

MR. SURAK: “Let’s assume that that–that that excavated area does not have water in it?”

DR. BLANCO: “Correct.”

********IMPORTANT: Why is the supervising engineer who just recently stated that he had been in charge of 75 different land development projects now stuttering and babbling the word “that” four times straight in a row? Is he confused? Is he confused that there would be no water within his man-made wetland construction next to a natural wetland? What is he babbling about?—-“That…that…that…that…excavated area does not have water in it?” (Mr. Brian Surak: Page 57. Lines 4-5.) Why is Mr. Brian Surak so scared to say something under oath, except for: “that…that…that…that…, regarding his response concerning if there wouldn’t be any standing water in the wetland?”

21.   Volume 1.  Page 57. Lines 7-22.

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Well, first of all I mean we’d have to be in a severe drought condition for that to happen. The bottom of that excavation is, I believe, two feet. I’d have to look at my plans, but it’s about two feet below the normal water level. So–so in that condition if it’s a severe drought I would assume that no water is going to get to that wetland because it’s not raining.

“Now, if you’re assuming that it’s raining, will there be a decrease in overland flow to that isolated wetland right there? There would be a minor decrease, yes.”

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Minor. And how do you determine it would be minor?”

MR. SURAK: “It’s the amount of land area actually contributing to that wetland is–is very small.”

DR. BLANCO: “And you base that on what facts?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “The site topography.”

*********IMPORTANT: Mr. Brian Surak thinks that Florida would have to be in a severe drought condition for the water table level underneath a natural wetland to be beneath the surface of that wetland. His own statement was: “Well, first of all I mean we’d have to be in a severe drought condition for that to happen.”

The important facts to consider here are as follows:

***Dr. Octavio Blanco has a 17-year history of having his own wetland measured by a piezometer by a Florida state governmental agency, Tampa Bay Water. This scientific data is available to be viewed on this website at the top, located in the tabs section. Dr. Blanco’s own wetland is within seeing-eye distance of Newland Home’s own wetland. Therefore, the water level conditions will be very similar. At least 86 times over this 17 year history of collecting scientific data, the water table level was below the surface level. Mr. Brian Surak, the supervising engineer, hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, seems perplexed, surprised, and caught off guard by the information that wetlands could ever be this dehydrated, and these facts are definitely proven by scientifically proven piezometer measurements!

Site topography means nothing more than G.P.S. satellite information of where wetlands are located. This never takes the place of humans going onto the land site and evaluating the actual real, true land site conditions of these wetlands, including the water table levels. Satellites and maps can all day, every day, say that a wetland is a wetland. However, when a truly qualified scientist actually goes out to see a wetland in the real world, then we will have real, true scientific numbers. Unfortunately, this did not happen in this court case. In this court case, the scientist just relied upon maps and gave a curve score of 100 for a wetland, without actually measuring the water table level in the real world. How does this take into account the real, true world of the actual, scientific state of the wetland?  It doesn’t!  Once again, this violates the Federal Clean Water Act.

Mr. Surak testified that the excavated area, adjacent to the wetland, would have only a: “minor” impact on the flow of water that would reach the wetland during a rain event. He admits that there were no computer models used to reach this “scientific” conclusion. It is important to realize that the wetland formed at its current location because it was a low-point in the ground surface of the area; and therefore, it had consistently more water for longer periods of time than the surrounding land. This construction project would create an excavated area that would intercept water that otherwise might reach a weakened, dehydrated wetland. What seemed “minor” to Mr. Surak may well be a major amount of water that could help save the life of this wetland. An analogy would be that a cup of water, found by a person who was dying of thirst in the desert, would be a major amount of water that could save their life, until further help arrived. This same cup of water would be a “minor” amount to someone who had abundant fluids available to them. The first rainfall after one of our many drought events would be like that cup of water for the person in the desert to the dehydrated wetland that desperately needs every drop of water that it can get until the rainy season comes. The Water Management Districts, as well as “scientists,” such as Mr. Surak, do not feel that it is important to even attempt to scientifically address these situations, which could very well mean life or death for a wetland. The fact that the wetlands are Federally protected seems of little importance to the authorities of Florida.

22.  Volume 1.  Page 57. Lines 23-25. Page 58. Lines 1-8.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “I asked you before about evapotranspiration rates or–I don’t know if I got to the rates or not. Did I–are you familiar with evapotranspiration rates of various surfaces?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “I’m familiar with evaportranspiration, I know that’s evaporation of water. As far as evapotranspiration rates and how they’re calculated and what form and what surfaces, no, I’m not familiar. I’m not an expert in that.

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So that’s not in the purview of the–of your surface water expertise?”

MR. SURAK: “Correct.”

********IMPORTANT: Here is an extremely important admission from the leading scientific engineer of surface water. He has ABSOLUTELY no idea how evaporation of the surface water will affect the wetland in question. Right here, Mr. Brian Surak admits this fact. Therefore, how can Mr. Surak state under oath that the excavation will not have an adverse impact on the wetland in question, when he does not take evapotranspiration into his scientific equation? The Sun is not going to stop shining and evaporating surface water. When a scientific computer model does not take such relevant and important information into account, then how true can the scientific results be concerning the health and well-being of a Federally protected wetland? Also, how could the attorneys from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, who were present at this trial, as well as attorney Margaret Lytle-Craig, who previously represented this same Agency, after hearing this testimony, not realize that the permit application was totally inaccurate, incomplete, and false?! Further, how could the Judge in this case, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, not come to the same conclusion after hearing the testimony? The Judge not only granted the Environmental Resource Permit, to allow the construction to occur, but he went on to rule that Dr. Octavio Blanco should be financially sanctioned for supposedly presenting a frivolous challenge to the permit. The testimony given by qualified expert scientists, in this case, who were under oath, provides vital insights far beyond this one court case. It implicates the entire system of environmental protection in the state of Florida as being little more than window-dressing to protect our wetlands and explains why so many of these wetlands have already been destroyed. What message does this send to both the residents and visitors of Florida when a Judge hears all of this testimony, and yet rules in the manner that he did?

23.  Volume 1.   Page 58. Lines 9-21.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “You mentioned that there’s a flow from my property into the Bexley property through these pipes?

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Once again, assuming periods of lower rainfall, is there the potential in your professional opinion for flow out of A3 to the north to be increased because of–because of the filling effect of the excavated area?

MR. SURAK: “No.”

DR. BLANCO: “No effect?”

MR. SURAK: “No.”

*******IMPORTANT: How can Mr. Brian Surak state as an absolute fact that water from Dr. Blanco’s wetland, which naturally flows into the wetland on the Newland Homes’ property, which is immediately adjacent to the newly-created 30-acre excavated area, will not be further drained, even though Dr. Blanco’s wetland is very close by? Mr. Brian Surak appears to be completely clueless as to the real, true water-table level of this wetland? It is extremely unlikely for Mr. Surak’s scientific conclusion to be accurate when he does not know of the real, true water-table level of this wetland. Therefore, the results are erroneous, inaccurate, incomplete, and totally invalid. The Environmental Resource Permit should have been denied by the Southwest Florida Water Management Resource Permit.

24.  Volume 1.   Page 61. Line 25. Lines 1-10. Page 62. Lines 11-14.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “In both the pre and the post? You said there was no change from the pre and the post?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Our site. Our site, the post development is changed, but the–the flow from your site is a pre-development condition.”

DR. BLANCO: “But my question is, in the post development does that flow change in any way?”

MR. SURAK: “No, it doesn’t.”

DR. BLANCO: “It’s exactly the same as if there was no development?”

MR. SURAK: “I wouldn’t say it’s to the hundredth.”

DR. BLANCO: “Close?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes–”

DR. BLANCO: “It’s negligible?”

MR. SURAK: “–It’s the same. Yes.”

***********IMPORTANT: For Mr. Brian Surak to state that there will be no change in the water flows in the post development state from Blanco’s wetland is ludicrous since Mr. Surak does not even know what the water levels have been in the two wetlands. When Dr. Blanco asked Mr. Surak about a wetland whose water table is three feet below the surface of the swamp, Mr. Surak has stated that he would not even consider that to be a wetland. Therefore, just how credible can Mr. Surak’s testimony be when he is obviously completely unaware of just how low the water table has been within these wetlands? To state that there would be no change in the post development condition is ludicrous.

25.  Volume 1.  Page 63. Lines 11-16. Page 64. Lines 17-20.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Okay. Back to the model a little bit more. Does this model include any attempts to calculate interception storage?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Could you define that for me, please?”

DR. BLANCO: “You’re the expert. Do you know the definition?”

MR. SURAK: “I need to hear your–”

DR. BLANCO: “And if not–I’m not an expert.”

MR. SURAK: “Again, I’m not familiar with that–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay, you’re not–”

MR. SURAK: “–term.”

*******IMPORTANT: The supervising engineer does not know what interception storage means. How can he NOT know the definition for something that an engineer should know if he is creating a computer model to predict post-development conditions in a land development project?

26.  Volume 1.  Page 64. Lines 12-19. Page 65. Line 20.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Are you familiar with the term infiltration?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Define.”

MR. SURAK: “It’s the water infiltrating, seeping through the soil.”

DR. BLANCO: “Does this model account for that?”

MR. SURAK: “Our treatment calculations that does the model–do we model every wetland and the infiltration? No.”

********IMPORTANT:  If the computer model does not take into account the infiltration, or the seeping of water through the soil, then how can Surak know for certain that a 30-acre, two-and-a-half foot deep excavated area next to a wetland, would not cause harm to the wetland and to Blanco’s wetland? It would appear that infiltration of water through the soil from a wetland and into a 30-acre hole in the ground would lower the water table level of a wetland that is next to it since water is now being shared with a newly created hole in the ground. During times of drought, the dryness of the wetland would be more pronounced because of having lost much of its water due to having to share its water with the excavated area, instead of being able to keep all of its water during times of rainfall. The pre-existing wetland is now going to have competition for where its rainfall is re-directed. Also, Mr. Surak was unaware of Dr. Blanco’s wetland routinely having its water table level to be located below the surface of the ground, which further highlights the necessity for understanding the importance of taking infiltration rates into account in the pre-construction and the post-construction conditions of the wetlands.

27.   Volume 1.  Page 68. Lines 4-25. Lines 1-2.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Okay, volume. The cubic feet of excavated space that was in the after that was not there in the before?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “The amount of area that–the amount of volume that we’re excavating from that is–again, it’s in my files–it’s somewhere around the neighborhood of 120,000 cubic yards.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So 120,000 cubic yards that used to be soil, some type of soil–”

MR. SURAK: “Uh-huh.”

DR. BLANCO: “–is no longer there now.”

MR. SURAK: “Correct.”

DR. BLANCO: “Once again, your background in surface water flows, in the after condition if there is that number of cubic feet gone, that’s essentially replaced at this point by, what, air?”

MR. SURAK: “Water.”

DR. BLANCO: “Well, assuming there’s no water onsite, what’s it replaced by?”

MR. SURAK: “So we’re assuming a drought condition again?”

DR. BLANCO: “Once again, if you want to go by drought, you can go by the definition of SWFWMD. All I’m saying is the condition of where there’s no standing water in those–”

MR. SURAK: “Again, yeah, I mean if the–if the water elevation in that region drops below two feet below the normal water of the adjacent wetlands, then yes, it would be air.”

*********IMPORTANT: The man-made constructed 30-acre hole in the ground is going to lose 120,000 cubic yards of soil. This hole in the ground is going to act as a parasitic, water-depleting construction to the pre-existing wetland. Mr. Surak states that if the water table level drops more than two feet below the surface of the ground, then both the wetland and the excavated hole in the ground will be dry. Dr. Blanco’s own records of his wetland’s water table level have routinely shown over the past 17 years that the water table level has been more than two feet below ground surface level. Mr. Surak has not taken any of this into consideration within his scientific computer model in testing to see if the excavated area would damage the nearby wetlands.

28.   Volume 1.  Page 69. Lines 11-25. Lines 1-5. Page 70. Lines 6-19.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “It’s a basic question. If you have an area before that–I believe you said 120,000 cubic feet, whatever it was, okay, if you had that area where that much volume was solid–you know, I’m a scientist, you’re a scientist, solid versus gas–”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Right.”

DR. BLANCO: “–if it was solid before and it’s gaseous in the after, would water tend to flow into gaseous more rapidly than into solid?”

MR. SURAK: “Depending on how it gets there. I mean if you have a–a device–say if that wetland was a reservoir and it depended on a pop-off elevation, if you want, outlet control to get rid of its water and it’s–and it’s controlled around–water couldn’t–just because the area around it is lower than–than the wetland itself, doesn’t necessarily mean that that water from that water body is going to fill into the–the excavated area.

“Now, if you’re asking me to assume that there’s water in a wetland and there’s not water in an excavated area, I think that would be a wrong assumption. Because if there’s not–if the water level is below the grade of the excavated area, that means the water level is below the grade of the wetland areas. So there wouldn’t be any water flow period.

DR. BLANCO: “Well, you’re familiar with the site since you’ve been working on it so long, so what are the controls of that–that water flowing in and out of that wetland?”

MR. SURAK: “That wetland’s normal water is roughly around elevation 47. That’s the normal water elevation. The bottom of the flood–the floodplain–that’s actually a wetland, a created wetland, that elevation is plus or minus 45.5. So the–the bottom of the floodplain wetland mitigation area is about a foot and a half below the normal water level of the wetland.”

*********IMPORTANT: Dr. Octavio Blanco has scientific data of piezometer readings for his wetland for over 17 years worth of time. Over these 17 years, his wetland has had the water table level below the surface of the wetland at least 86 times. Mr. Surak states that the only controls for their wetland is its elevation. Their wetland will lose water to the newly-excavated area since water follows gravity, and the water will seep into the 30-acre pit, further dehydrating struggling wetlands in the area.

29.  Volume 1.  Page 70. Lines 2-8. Page 71. Lines 9-25. Line 1.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “What about from the perspective of having these cubic feet of air versus soil? If it’s air and there’s a rain event and things are very dry, would you testify–would your opinion be that water would tend to move into air out of that wetland during that time, during that event, more rapidly than if it was solid soil?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “I would agree there would be a negligible increase in water flow between the wetland and the floodplain–”

DR. BLANCO: “How do you know it’s neglibible? Was there a study done?”

MR. SURAK: “I would have to depend on the geotechnical engineer–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So you’re–”

MR. SURAK: “–and environmental scientists of the project.”

DR. BLANCO: “So you’re assuming it’s negligible?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes. It would be my opinion.”

DR. BLANCO: “Your opinion. You mentioned that you believe it would take, I think it was–I think you said severe drought to have those excavated areas there go dry? Is that what you believe?

MR. SURAK: “Sure. It would take a drought. I don’t know what–you know, I say severe, but I don’t know what severe means. A long period of time without rain subject that most wetlands in the vicinity would be dry.”

********IMPORTANT: By Mr. Brian Surak’s own words, he does not know–himself–what the scientific outcome will be regarding this newly man-made excavation of a 30-acre hole in the ground immediately next to a pre-existing, natural wetland. Mr. Surak admits that he would have to ask other scientists their own expert opinions regarding what would happen in nature, although the Southwest Florida Water Management District and NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes regard Mr. Surak as an expert scientific witness, who has overseen at least 75 different land development projects in the state of Florida. How reliable are the results of the computer models when the supervising engineer admits to being clueless and having to depend upon other scientists because he does not know the outcome of the consequences of excavating this 30-acre hole in the ground immediately next to a pre-existing wetland? Also, at least 86 times over a 17 year history, Dr. Blanco’s own wetland, which is within seeing-eye distance of Newland Homes’ wetland, has had the water table level below the surface level. It is clear that the 30-acre, man-made excavated area could very likely have a detrimental impact on the wetlands in the area, and this excavated area should not be created, in order to protect peoples’ lives, health, safety, and finances from the harm of the resulting sinkholes, wildfires, and further drought conditions because wetlands would be destroyed by this hole in the ground, as well as numerous other such excavations in the area, which have also been permitted by the Water Management District.

30.  Volume 1.  Page 71. Lines 2-11. Page 72. Lines 12-25. Lines 1-11.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “In your studies of this area over all these years, have you had occasion to look at other excavated areas nearby?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Sure.”

DR. BLANCO: “Are you familiar with the excavations immediately south of here adjacent to the Suncoast Expressway?”

MR. SURAK: “No.”

DR. BLANCO: “Are you familiar with any other excavated floodplain sites nearby?”

MR. SURAK: “I’m familiar with a lot of the ponds that I’ve designed and been around design in the area, sure.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. And from that experience, would you be able to say if they tend to stay wet over half the year?”

MR. SURAK: “Designed ponds?”

DR. BLANCO: “The floodplain compensation areas, like for the–in these areas, created wetlands, like if you wanted to create a wetland?”

MR. SURAK: “A created wetland?”

DR. BLANCO: “Yes. What percentage of the time, if you can, would you estimate that they’d have water?”

MR. SURAK: “I couldn’t estimate that. I mean I–I will say that there are periods where created wetlands do go through–I mean dry–”

DR. BLANCO: “But you have no idea what part of the year that would be, what–”

MR. SURAK: “Well, I know the dry season of the year is–is late spring.”

DR. BLANCO: “I meant percentage. Let’s say 365 days, would it be 180 days?”

MR. SURAK: “I couldn’t give you a–”

DR. BLANCO: “No idea? Okay.”

MR. SURAK: “No, I couldn’t give you a percentage. I do know that there’s oftentimes periods of time where wetland creation areas do lack hydration.”

***********IMPORTANT: By Florida law, according to the five Florida Water Management Districts, ALL man-made created wetlands must be evaluated for a successful outcome, once they are created. Mr. Surak testified that: “I’m familiar with a lot of the ponds that I’ve designed and been around design in the area, sure.” Mr. Surak goes on to say that: “I couldn’t estimate that,” in response to Dr. Blanco asking: ” What percentage of the time, if you can, would you estimate that they’d have water?”

Florida rules, procedures, and protocols for land developers require the following: On page 107 of the Applicant’s Handbook, under 10.3.4, it states: “If applicable, applicants shall monitor the progress of mitigation areas until success can be demonstrated…”

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/files/database/site_file_sets/2479/Applicant_Handbook_I_-_Combined.pdf

This legal requirement is routinely ignored, as evidenced by Mr. Surak’s testimony, that he is unable to even estimate the percentage of the year that the numerous ponds that he designed in the area had any water in them. How can the success of these areas be demonstrated if the scientist, Mr. Brian Surak, has no idea as to how much of the year that the structures that he designed actually contain any water? He testified that: ” I do know that there’s oftentimes periods of time where wetland creation areas do lack hydration.”

Mr. Surak testified, as an expert witness in this case, that: “Oftentimes,” the wetland creation areas in this vicinity that he designed lacked hydration. “Oftentimes” would seem to indicate a common situation and not a rarity. No effort was apparently made to quantify just how much of the year that the created wetlands were completely dry. The success of mitigation areas cannot possibly be demonstrated if no scientific data has been collected to assess wetland hydration. It is reasonable to assume that Mr. Surak and Newland Homes are not the only ones allowed to ignore 10.3.4, under the Applicant’s Handbook, which the Water Management Districts of Florida are supposed to apply and enforce. This information is another part of the puzzle, which helps to explain the drastic loss of wetlands in Florida, even though a state governmental agency funded by mandatory property-tax dollars, continues to fail to supervise and enforce Federal and state laws.

31.  Volume 1.   Page 72. Lines 12-14. Page 73. Lines 15-25. Lines 1-10.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: ” Lack hydration. Have you ever designed projects like this one in areas that have had significant fire activity?”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Your Honor, I would object. I think that’s beyond the scope.”

MR. SMITH: “And it’s irrelevant, Judge.”

THE COURT: “Significant fire what?”

DR. BLANCO: “Activity. History of fires. I’m not asking if this is one, I’m asking has he ever designed one in an area like that.”

THE COURT: “Well, what is the relevance of the fire hazard? Let’s get into that.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. The relevance would be that this is an area that’s been known for–”

THE COURT: “Well, let me ask Mr. Smith to say why he think (thinks, sic.) it’s not relevant.

MR. SMITH: “Judge, it’s not relevant because it’s not contemplated in SWFWMD rules for ERP review and approval essentially. It has to do with the development and–of surface water management systems and how the water flows. It has nothing to do with fire risk. We have no indicators in our review process of whether or not an increased fire risk is going to be caused. It’s not our authority.

***********IMPORTANT: For an attorney hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes (Mr. David Smolker,) and an attorney hired by the government of the state of Florida (Mr. Smith,) as well as a Judge for the state of Florida ( the Honorable Mr. J. Lawrence Johnston,) to all agree that fire hazard is NOT relevant is to completely go against Florida State Statute 403. According to Florida State Statute 403, smoke from wildfires is considered to be one of the six Federally regulated air pollutants, called fine particulate matter. These individuals are denying that the Federal Clean Air Act even exists within Florida law!

 

See page 7 of this document:

http://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/academics/centers-clinics/clinics/conservation/resources/airquality.PDF

 

Also, here is Florida State Statute 403 in its entirety:

 

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter403/PART_I/

 

Here is the Federal Law stipulating that Air pollution be controlled, governing fine particulate matter from smoke from wildfires, according to the Federal Clean Air Act:

 

http://epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/index.html

 

Also, notice how the Judge cuts off Dr. Blanco in mid-sentence and does not allow him to speak in the Court of law, even though the Judge has asked this specific question and is expecting an answer.

32. Page 73. Lines 11-17. Page 74. All of it. Page 75. Lines 21-25. Lines 1-2.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Your Honor, within SWFWMD’s purview is public safety, public interest, how it affects the region. I would say it is within their purview to consider.

MR. SMITH: “Judge, and I would respond to that, that the public interest and–the safety and health issue has to do with surface water management of the storage and conveyance and not what would increase fire risk.”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Your Honor, I would echo that. The public interest test is not a complete open door to all possible conditions that conceivably can be raised as a result of a residential subdivision.”

THE COURT: “What is the public interest test? Is it in the statute and the rules for the basis of review? What do they say?”

MR. SMOLKER: “They deal with water resources in the state. That is the over arching subject matter of chapters 373 and four–403. They do not–so we’re dealing with the water resources of the state. And that’s been broadly defined to include wetlands and in some instances to include the vegetation that are associated with wetlands. However, it does not reach or regulate fire, a fire risk.”

MR. SMITH: “That is correct Judge. It has to do with whether or not there’s outstanding water, and if there isn’t that’s what the public interest test has to do with, not anything related to fire regulation.”

MR. SMOLKER: “There is a fire code that’s been adopted I think at the state level and all local governments that deal with fire safety. It’s not a matter that’s in the purview of 373.

MR. SMITH: “There’s nothing in 373 that contemplates fire.”

DR. BLANCO: “My response to that would be that if the agency that essentially has permitting authority over wetlands, over developments that impact wetlands has the potential to, by those permits, cause increased risk to the public, that it’s valid to be considered.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. David Smolker was the attorney for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes. He, himself, brought up Florida State Statute 403. How can Mr. Smolker state before the Judge that 403 does not “reach or regulate fire?” Florida State Statute 403 directly involves the Federal Clean Air Act, which includes six Federally regulated pollutants, and one of those pollutants is fine particulate matter from smoke due to wildfires.  For the attorney, Mr. Smith who is employed by the state government agency of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and therefore being paid his salary that day by tax-payer funds, to say that fire hazards are “irrelevant,” is to say that the Federal Clean Air act is also “irrelevant.”

Below is information from a website written by experts at the University of Florida, the College of Levin Law School, which proves that Florida State Statute 403 IS the Florida’s adoption of the Federal Clean Air Act:

Within a document titled: The Legal and Administrative Basis For Local Air Quality Management, submitted by the University of Florida Levin College of Law Conservation Clinic, which discusses the Federal Clean Air Act, it directly states on page 7:

“A. Florida’s State Implementation Plan

“Florida has an approved state implementation plan, pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. The state implementation plan is a conglomeration of regulations that the state submitted for approval under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Florida continuously revises the State Implementation Plan in order to meet the revised standards that the Environmental Protection Agency issues. The Department of Environmental Protection (‘DEP’) must give notice to any affected air quality control region of any proposed State Implementation Plan revision.

“THE HEART OF FLORIDA’S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN STATUTORY AUTHORITY IS FOUND IN CHAPTER 403, FLORIDA STATUTES, ‘ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL.”

The information can be found on page 7 of this document:

http://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/academics/centers-clinics/clinics/conservation/resources/airquality.PDF

 

According to the Federal Clean Air Act and The Department of Environmental Protection, smoke from wildfires is one of the six air pollutants regulated by the Federal government, and all 50 states must uphold this Federal law.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/

 

http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/air

 

According to the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I.,

On page 80, under Rule 10.2.1.1:

“A proposed modification that is not technically capable of being completed, is not economically viable, or that adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered ‘practicable.'”

Also, on page 107, under Rule 10.3.3.2, section (k):

10.3.3.2: “Applicants shall submit detailed plans describing proposed construction, establishment, and management of mitigation areas. These plans shall include the following information, as appropriate for the type of mitigation proposed:”

(k.) “A management plan comprising all aspects of operation and maintenance including water management practices, vegetation establishment, exotic and nuisance species control, fire management(!!), and control of access.”

 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/files/database/site_file_sets/2479/Applicant_Handbook_I_-_Combined.pdf

 

Fire IS included in what land developers must consider before they begin to excavate and build their structures, according to the handbook distributed to them from the Department of Environmental Protection Agency and the five Water Management Districts of Florida!

Therefore, two attorneys–Mr. David Smolker, working for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, and Mr. Smith, working for a Florida State Government Agency: the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and being paid by tax-payers’ dollars–apparently lied to the Judge by denying that Florida State Statute 403 even exists in order to fulfill the necessary qualifications for the state of Florida to uphold the Federal Clean Air Act!! Also, the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, also apparently concluded that the Federal Clean Air Act does not exist within the state of Florida!!

33.  Volume 1.  Page 75. Lines 3-13.

THE COURT: “What’s your–can you site me to where any authority that you have for that in the basis of review or in the rules?”

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “I don’t know the citing of it. It just potentially has to do with if the goal of the agency is to protect the resources and keep the resources as close to natural healthy conditions as possible, then I would just–”

THE COURT: “I think that might–that would be an issue, but not a fire hazard per say, I don’t think, so I’ll sustain the objection.”

***********IMPORTANT: The proper site, which the Judge asked Dr. Blanco to identify, was 3.2.3, in the Basis of Review, which must be considered by the Water Management Districts, when deciding if an Environmental Resource Permit should be granted, and can be read verbatim below.

Dr. Blanco is not an attorney like Mr. David Smolker, and certainly hasn’t memorized the precise numbers used to identify each relevant section of the Basis of Review. Mr. Smith and Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig should both be intimately familiar with Section 3.2.3 because of their experience working as legal counsel for The Southwest Florida Water Management District. All of these attorneys chose to conceal this information from the Judge in order to get the legal ruling that they wanted. This is particularly troubling when considering that Mr. Smith was in the courtroom on this day representing the citizens of the state of Florida, and not the developer in this case, NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes!!

The Judge in this case, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, had the opportunity to examine the Basis of Review, which includes 3.2.3, the Public Interest Test, which had been placed officially into evidence in this case. Instead, he chose to completely ignore the concerns which Dr. Blanco brought up, and the Judge decided to act in haste and with malice to not only illegally grant this permit, but also to impose staggeringly excessive financial sanctions against Dr. Blanco. One can only assume the motivation for this action to punish an American citizen, who was just attempting to exercise his Constitutional First Amendment Right to petition the government, in an effort to enforce Federal and state laws.

The information, which was available to the Judge as well as all attorneys present that day, can be found below:

“3.2.3 Public Interest Test.

“In determining whether a regulated activity located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, is not contrary to the public interest or, if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water, that the regulated activity is clearly in the public interest, the District shall consider and balance, and an applicant must address the following criteria:

“a. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others;

“b. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered, or threatened species, including their habitats;”

“3.2.3.1 Public Health, Safety, or Welfare or the Property of Others.

“In reviewing and balancing the criterion regarding public health, safety, welfare and the property of others in paragraph 3.2.3(a), the District will evaluate whether the regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters will cause

“a. An environmental hazard to public health or safety or improvement to public health or safety with respect to environmental issues;

“d. Environmental impacts to the property of others. For example, construction of a ditch that results in drawdown impacts to a wetland on an adjacent property would be an environmental impact to the property of others.”

3.2.3.2 Fish and Wildlife and Their Habitats.

“The District’s public interest review of that portion of a proposed system in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters for impacts to “the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats” is encompassed within the required review of the entire system under subsection under 3.2.2. An applicant must always provide the reasonable assurances required under subsection 3.2.2.”

“3.2.3.7 Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions.

“When evaluating other criteria in subsection 3.2.3, the District will consider the current condition and relative value of the functions performed by wetlands and other surface waters affected by the proposed regulated activity. Wetlands and other surface waters which have had their hydrology, water quality or vegetative composition permanently impacted due to past legal alterations or occurrences, such as infestation with exotic species usually provide lower habitat value to fish and wildlife. However, if the wetland or other surface water is currently degraded, but is still providing some beneficial functions, consideration will be given to whether the regulated activity will further reduce or eliminate those functions. The District will also evaluate the predicted ability of the wetlands or other surface waters to maintain their current functions as part of the proposed system once it is developed.”

“3.3 Mitigation.

“Protection of wetlands and other surface waters is preferred to destruction and mitigation due to the temporal loss of ecological value and uncertainty regarding the ability to recreate certain functions associated with these features. Mitigation will be approved only after the applicant has complied with the requirements of subsection of 3.2.1 regarding practicable modifications to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts.”

“3.3.3.2 Mitigation Proposals.

“Applicants shall submit detailed plans describing proposed construction, establishment, and management of mitigation areas. These plans shall include the following information, as appropriate for the type of mitigation proposed.

“k. A management plan comprising all aspects of operation and maintenance, including water management practices, vegetation establishment, exotic and nuisance species control, fire management, and control of access.”

“3.3.6 Mitigation Success.

“Mitigation success will be measured in terms of whether the objectives of the mitigation can be realized. The success criteria to be included in permit conditions will specify the minimum requirements necessary to attain a determination of success. The mitigation shall be deemed successful by the District when all applicable water quality standards are met, the mitigation area has achieved viable and sustainable ecological and hydrological functions and the specific success criteria contained in the permit are met. If success is not achieved within the time frame specified within the permit, remedial measures shall be required. Monitoring and maintenance requirements shall remain in effect until success is achieved.”

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/files/database/site_file_sets/17/erp_basis_of_review.pdf

*****How is it possible that this Judge has previously dismissed the Federal Clean Air Act out of the state of Florida, and now he is continuing to dismiss fire hazards from the Basis of Review as being any kind of harmful activity against human health and safety, as well as harm to peoples’ property? Fire kills people and burns down their properties! This Judge appears to not care about the residents living in Florida and the visitors who come to Florida from outside locations! How else can the Judge’s own words be understood? “A fire hazard” is somehow not against human health and safety? What?! At least Dr. Blanco is trying to protect lives here in the state of Florida!!

34.  Volume 1.  Page 77. Lines 13-25. Line 1. Page 78. All of it. Page 79: Lines 5-10.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Are you familiar with the requirements for floodplain compensation from SWFWMD as to what you have to do for an area to be considered floodplain compensation?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. In this area of excavations that I’ve been referring to here in the southwest corner, are you receiving floodplain compensation there?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Do you receive floodplain compensation credit for excavations below the seasonal high water level?”

MR. SURAK: “No.”

DR. BLANCO: “We discussed roughly the depth of these excavations earlier. Could you give me an idea of how much of that depth is below seasonal high water?”

MR. SURAK: “Plus or minus two, two-and-a-half feet.”

DR. BLANCO: “Wasn’t that the entire excavation?”

MR. SURAK: “I’m sorry?”

DR. BLANCO: “Didn’t you tell me from the beginning that that was how much was being excavated from the very beginning was two, two-and-a-half feet?”

MR. SURAK: “From initial land planning?”

DR. BLANCO: “Yes.”

MR. SURAK: “No. Those ponds were slated to go anywhere two and a half feet to 15 feet.”

DR. BLANCO: “What I’m saying is with the most recent plans I thought you said before that the excavations were somewhere between two to two-and-a-half feet in that area, correct?”

MR. SURAK: “Right.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. And you told me you don’t get any floodplain compensation below seasonal high water?”

MR. SURAK: “Correct.”

DR. BLANCO: “So then when I asked how much of this excavation is below seasonal high water and thus not getting floodplain compensation, you told me the same number.”

MR. SURAK: “Well, the seasonal high water is–it’s about a half a foot below grade, plus or minus.”

DR. BLANCO: “So would the rest of that excavation be for purposes of fill, get fill material?”

MR. SURAK: “Absolutely not.”

DR. BLANCO: “What’s the rest of it for?”

MR. SURAK: “For wetland creation. That is a–that pond is–the sole reason for that pond being there is the wetland creation to mitigate for on-site wetland impacts. The secondary benefit of it is floodplain compensation, but the primary reason for that pond is wetland mitigation. We have to dig–and I will defer to the environmental scientist on this, but a wetland-created area has to be excavated below seasonal high to survive.”

********IMPORTANT: The extremely interesting information concerning Mr. Surak’s statement is that either HE is lying to the Judge or either MS. RHONDA BREWER AND MR. RICK MORTENSON ARE LYING TO THE JUDGE!!

Further on in this court document, Ms. Rhonda Brewer, an employee for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, as well as the geotechnical scientist, Mr. Rick Mortenson, hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, will contradict Mr. Brian Surak’s own testimony concerning why the 30-acre hole in the ground even exists!

In this court case, Mr. Brian Surak went first with his own testimony. His words, under oath, are held forever, documented in this court testimony. Afterwards, Ms. Rhonda Brewer and Mr. Rick Mortenson are under oath, and their story is completely different from Mr. Brian Surak’s testimony, even though they were all hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to be on the same page together, yet they were not on the same page together!  They all had conflicting testimony!

When Mr. Brian Surak is asked why the excavation is being dug, he states that: regarding extra fill dirt:

DR. BLANCO: “So would the rest of that excavation be for purposes of fill, get fill material?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Absolutely not.”

***However, as will be shown later in the court testimony, this excavation being dug into the ground is all about receiving free fill dirt to up-build roads and homes to be above grade level during construction, and NOT for wetland creation!

Fill dirt is what land developers use in subdivisions and in commercial land development to get the ground underneath the construction to be higher than where it would flood without being “up-built.” Of course, in order to ensure profits, land developers enjoy using free dirt from their own properties, in order to up-build their land. Ms. Rhonda Brewer and Mr. Rick Mortenson admit that one cubic yard of land-fill dirt is worth $12.00 on the retail market. If the land developer had to go off of his own land site in order to buy this fill-dirt, it would cost millions of dollars to the land developer.! This cost will obviously reduce corporate share-holders’ profits in the end!

The problem with getting free fill-dirt next to an already stressed wetland is that the excavation immediately adjacent to this wetland will very likely draw much needed water away during dry periods. This will increase the stress that the wetland is under during such a critical time. This fact violates the Federal Clean Water Act, and actually could lead to flooding of the homes and businesses that they are building on-site. Wetlands function in many important ways. A very important function is to collect water during times of high rainfall, which prevents flooding of neighboring lands. When this wetland and others in the vicinity are dead and gone, they are no longer capable of holding flood waters within them, during extreme rain events in Florida. Nearby homes and businesses no longer are protected from flooding during events such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and persistent heavy rains, which occur during the rainy season in Florida.

Unfortunately, land developers tend to be long gone away from the area, by this time. The local residents, businesses, and visitors to the area will be the ones left holding the bag and dealing with both increased flooding during parts of the year, as well as increased fire risk other times of the year. Two of the worst natural hazards that people fear and suffer through have been gifted to them by the agencies of the state of Florida that are supposed to protect them. The land developer–i.e. NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes–will likely be long gone by the time that people start losing their lives and property, due to the illegal destruction of wetlands, which led to both increased flooding and fire risk. All of the people who sold out their integrity (land developers, scientific engineers, the Water Management District, the Judge, and all attorneys) will be the ones responsible for this nightmare!!

The illegal activities, which are described on this website, extend far beyond this one court case. Most Environmental Resource Permits granted by the Water Management Districts throughout Florida are never challenged in a court of law. These “in-house” procedures are little more than a rubber-stamp, slight bump in the road, for developers. The same lack of regard for Federal and state laws that are meant to protect the public and the environment exists “under the radar” in these proceedings, which are not challenged by citizens in a court of law, and never see the light of day.

35.   Volume 1.  Page 79. Lines 13-25. Lines 1-5.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Mr. Surak, how did you select the model that was used for this project?”

MR. BRIAN SURAK: “Well, there’s various models out there. ICPR SEEMS TO BE THE MOST COMMONLY USED AND COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY SWFWMD.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “So this model is approved by SWFWMD?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Does this model consider all of the components required by SWFWMD to be considered in designing a surface water management system?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Would it be a fair statement to say that after this project is constructed there will be more water in the southwestern corner for a longer period of time than there is in pre-development conditions?”

MR. SURAK: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “We have nothing further.”

*******IMPORTANT: The ICPR Computer Model may be the one that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enjoys using, but this computer model is a pathetic attempt to trick the public into thinking that a state governmental agency is overseeing wetland protection, when it isn’t. All wetlands receive a curve score of 100, regardless of if there is standing water in them or if the water table is 3-5 feet below ground because it is seriously dehydrated. Mr. Brian Surak has already stated that this curve score of 100 represents the idea that a wetland always has this standing water and is impermeable to any more rainfall. This curve score plotted into the ICPR Computer Model should be considered scientific misconduct of falsification of data, since the information is false.

The computer model does not take drought conditions into consideration. Again, this is scientific misconduct of falsification of data because Florida has been prone to many months at a time of drought conditions, and these wetlands will be harmed if too much water is lost from the ecosphere where plants, trees, animals, and hydric soils will die. The ICPR computer model also does not take evapotranspiration rates into consideration. This means that sunlight evaporating water is never calculated into the overall loss of water in our wetlands. Also, since evapotranspiration rates are never calculated in the computer model, how can any environmental engineer say with a straight face that there would be more water in that location throughout the year when a 30-acre hole in the ground will parasitically be sucking the water out of the already compromised wetland? Water in a 30-acre hole in the ground, located at a lower level than the wetland, and not having the canopy of trees with leaves to grant it shade, will have its water evaporated by the Sun!

For Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig to boast about the ICPR Computer Model being accepted and approved in the state of Florida by a state governmental agency only proves that they are not here to protect the state of Florida, its people, and its environment. Instead, this ICPR Computer Model is only intended to put on a show of protection for the public, but its real purpose is to make it as easy as possible for wealthy, elite land developers to make more money with as little fuss and hassle as possible.

36.   Volume 1.  Page 80. Lines 9-25. Lines 1-3.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Brief break?”

THE COURT: “Yes. Let’s take a five-minute recess.”

(Break from 3:41 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.)

THE COURT: “Back on the record.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Sir, just an organizational matter. We have Mr. Fogler here from the Division of Forestry. He was here as a rebuttal witness for us and at Dr. Blanco’s request. Based upon your earlier ruling is Mr. Fogler free to go or should he remain?”

THE COURT: “Well, it seems to me based on my ruling that I’m not aware of anything–based on what I know of his knowledge and expertise, there’s nothing he’d be testifying to other than things having to do with fire hazards. And based on my ruling, I don’t see any point in him remaining any further.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Unless he’s enjoying the show.”

THE COURT: “Yes.”

MR. DAVID FOGLER: “Thank you, Your Honor.”

*********IMPORTANT: It seems suspicious that Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig requested a short recess, then immediately after the nine minute long recess, the first words are from her asking for: “just an organizational matter.” Her request is to dismiss Dr. Blanco’s expert witness, who is a high-ranking employee in the Florida Division of Forestry. It’s also suspicious how Ms. Lytle-Craig, after the recess, now uses the term was  regarding Mr. Fogler’s presence as an expert witness. Ms. Lytle-Craig states: “He was here as a rebuttal witness.” Why is Ms. Lytle-Craig saying this unless she has prior knowledge about Mr. Fogler’s dismissal–and especially after a nine minute long court recess?

The Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, seems to try to wash his hands of the witness, who if he testifies, could unleash very unpleasant testimony that would cause friction between the two state governmental agencies: the Florida Division of Forestry and the Southwest Florida Water Management District, as well as any other of the five Florida Water Management Districts. Instead of allowing Mr. David Fogler, an accepted witness–accepted by this same Judge to be summoned to appear in court–the Judge washes his hands of the situation and states that he has no clue what would be testified to, so he just might as well dismiss the witness before any damaging testimony is presented.

The Judge chose to dismiss the expert witness because he concluded that Mr. Fogler could not possibly give any relevant testimony. The Judge had admitted that he had no idea what Mr. Fogler was going to testify about, but he dismissed him anyway, even though he was Dr. Blanco’s only remaining witness. The other expert witnesses that Dr. Blanco depended upon were prevented from testifying by this very same Judge. The Federal Clean Air Act requires that fine particulate matter in the form of smoke from wildfires must be strictly regulated by all 50 states, including Florida. The Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, and all attorneys present that day, appear to agree that Florida is exempt from this Federal law. Also, Mr. David Fogler could have spoken on drought conditions, since his state governmental agency is the one that sets the drought index, which allows the Water Management Districts to take emergency actions.

It is very disturbing that Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig refers to a Court of Law as being “a show.” The Judge agrees with her that his Courtroom is only “a show” when he responds, “Yes.” These statements undermine the sanctity of a trial, as well as Dr. Blanco’s First Amendment Right under the Federal Constitution of the United States of America, which ensures a person’s right to freely petition the government in a Court of Law. A Court of Law is not a Carnival side show or a Circus act, and therefore, it is not meant to put on shows, but to bring about Justice.

Dr. Blanco’s First Amendment Right to petition the government was clearly violated in this case. His fully-qualified expert witness was arbitrarily dismissed by the Judge, who had no knowledge of the questioning that Dr. Blanco had intended to complete. The Judge went on to financially sanction Dr. Blanco an amount, which eventually caused over $500,000 in liability. This particular case is only one of many that have been manipulated by multiple governmental agencies throughout the state of Florida. This case is only one example of the conspiracy to prevent law-abiding citizens from blowing the whistle on illegal activities. Many citizens and environmental groups have been punished in this manner for trying to bring to light the violations which have become common practice in Florida.  The Judge dismissing Dr. Blanco’s expert witness without knowing a single thing that Mr. Fogler would say because the Water Management District never deposed him, clearly is an open and shut case of a Judge denying Due Process for Dr. Blanco’s day in Court that his United States Constitutional First Amendment Right absolutely protects!  Then, for the Judge to financially sanction Dr. Blanco after denying him his Due Process, is clearly unfair and unjust–especially after Dr. Blanco exposed at least 40 different laws being violated in this court case!  This was clearly not a frivolous lawsuit!

37.  Volume 1. Page 80. Lines 4-10. Page 81. Lines 11-16.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Our next witness is Steve Godley.”

THE COURT: “Would you raise your right hand and be sworn.”

J. STEVE GODLEY, a witness, having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Would you please state your name and business address for the record.”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Steve Godley, 3905 Crescent Park Drive, Riverview, Florida.”

*********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley is an expert witness for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, and he will later testify that he never performed crucial and necessary and required work to satisfy the Federal Clean Water Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act. Therefore, there was no valid Environmental Resource Permit able to granted to NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes that day, since the application for the permit was incomplete, due to missing work that is Federally required by law.

38.  Volume 1.   Page 81. Lines 4-13. Page 82. Lines 14-25. Lines 1-2.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “What is your occupation and place of employment?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “My place of employment is Biological Research Associates. It’s an environmental consulting firm headquartered in Tampa with offices throughout the state. And at Biological Research Associates I’m a technical director and the senior vice president. We were acquired within the last year. Before that I was the president for a decade or more.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Could you describe your duties and responsibilities at BRA?”

MR. GODLEY: “BRA has a staff of approximately 160 individuals in the office, as I mentioned; again, headquarters in Tampa, multiple offices across the state. We’re an environmental consulting company that specializes in wetlands, wetlands permitting, endangered and threatened species, wetlands mitigation, and also expert testimony and support litigation in a lot of cases.

“As a technical director in my–in my older years now, I mentor the younger ecologists and environmental sciences.

“I also market to some degree and I testify as an expert in a number of cases.”

**********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley states that his company, Biological Research Associates, is responsible for searching for the presence of endangered and threatened species to satisfy the Federal Endangered Species Act, and to examine wetlands to satisfy the Federal Clean Water Act. In the fee hearing section of these court documents, Mr. Steve Godley will admit that he never went out to several land sites listed in the petition by the land developer in order to qualify to receive the Environmental Resource Permit. Therefore, there cannot be a valid permit given to NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes.

39.   Volume 1.  Page 82. Lines3-16. Page 83. Line 17.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Could you describe some of the past cases in which you’ve been recognized as an expert witness?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes. I’ve testified in both federal and DOAH hearings. In front of you in fact, sir. I testified and was qualified as an expert on the Ona-Ft. Green Mine case, on the Altman case, on the Suncoast Parkway at a federal level. I was an expert in the Riperian Habitat Protection Zones on Spruce Creek and Tomoka. I–I was an expert in the rule challenge of the ERP regulations themselves, and later was involved in the settlement negotiations and the final language of the ERP hearings. I’ve done about a dozen DOAH cases dating back to the early ’90’s.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “So it sounds like you’re pretty familiar with the ERP permitting criteria?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes, ma’am, I am.”

*********IMPORTANT: Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig is hyping this expert witness up to be something that he is not. Mr. Steve Godley will later admit under oath in the fee hearing of this trial as saying that he never even went out to many of the land sites listed in the petition by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to perform the necessary and required work.

The largest newspaper in the state of Florida, The Tampa Bay Times, ran an article about the exact same man, Mr. Steve Godley,  getting into trouble with the exact same behavior: not performing the work, yet he lies and says that he has.  The newspaper article was published just two months before his confession in our Court case.  Here is the newspaper article, written by Mr. Craig Pittman:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/inaccuracies-taint-florida-environmental-consultants-record/919436?comments=legacy

40.  Volume 1.   Page 83. Lines 17-19. Page 84. Lines 20-22.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “I’d like to offer Mr. Godley as an expert in the area of wetlands, wetland ecology, wetland identification and delineation, wetland mitigation, wildlife ecology and biology, threatened and endangered species management and environmental resource permitting.”

*********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley might be an expert in his field, but he admits under oath that he does not perform or fulfill his job duties and responsibilities. The above newspaper article also proves that this is a pattern of behavior for Mr. Steve Godley.

41.   Volume 1.  Page 85. Lines 3-16.

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Newland Communities is also one of our clients as is–are all the large residential landowners or most of them, or the developers I should say in the Tampa Bay area.

“Subsequently we became involved and performed all the environmental analysis as part of the DRI proceedings and–and the development orders that Ms. Brewer mentioned. We also worked with Heidt & Associates on developing and submitting the site conditions assessment permit, the Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit and the ERP for this particular case.

“In addition to those activities we have also worked with Pasco County, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain approvals in regards to listed species.”

**********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley admits that his company was the one responsible “and performed all the environmental analyses as part of the DRI proceedings.” The problem with this statement from Mr. Godley is that he did not perform this work and admitted this fact under oath. Therefore, the work was never performed at the time of Dr. Blanco filing the permit challenge. Legally, the permit should have been denied, and Dr. Blanco should have been congratulated as a concerned Florida citizen who acted as a whistle blower and exposed these crimes in court!

This same incomplete work should invalidate the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit that Mr. Godley testified to as being part of his duties, while working for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.

42.   Volume 1.  Page 91. Lines 13-14. Page 92. Lines 15-25. Lines 1-2.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Mr. Godley, in performing your analysis of the wetlands on this property and the wildlife on this property and developing this management plan did you reach an opinion as to whether or not this project will adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife enlisted species?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “I did.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And what is your opinion?”

MR. GODLEY: “It will not.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And what’s the basis for your opinion?”

MR. GODLEY: “Well, the basis of the opinion is sort of a multi-tiered approach. One is I am very comfortable with the quality of the survey work and the effort that my staff conducted initially to determine the species of wildlife that occur on the site.”

*********IMPORTANT: It is very interesting that Mr. Steve Godley is so sure of himself, his expertise, and his staff when he admitted under oath that his opinion is based on: “Well, the basis of the opinion is sort of a multi-tiered approach. One is I am very comfortable with the quality of the survey work and the effort that my staff conducted initially to determine the species of wildlife that occur on the site.”

 

43.  Volume 1.  Page 92. Line 17. Page 93. Lines 18-21.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Would you say that this effort went above and beyond the normal effort made by a residential developer?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Absolutely. And I’m not going to be disparaging to all the rest of my homebuilder clients, but Newland is by far the best in this business.”

*************IMPORTANT: “How can Newland Homes be: “by far the best in this business,”  When Newland Homes Communities’ own attorneys were sitting right there in the Courtroom that day and heard Mr. Steve Godley confess under oath that he never performed the necessary and required work to satisfy Federal laws, and yet the Newland Homes Communities’ attorneys never opened their mouths to utter a word at this confession?!  Instead, the Newland Homes Communities’ attorneys remained silent with glee at illegally winning this lawsuit, due to their silence and the prejudiced Judge’s complicity!  The attorneys for Newland Homes Communities are as much to blame for this atrocity as anyone!

44.  Volume 1.  Page 93. Lines 22-25. Lines 1-5.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Will this project result in direct impacts to wetlands?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And how were the wetland impacts calculated?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “As–as I testified to earlier, as did Mr. Surak, we obtained a site conditions assessment permit. What this means is that all the wetlands were delineated and the delineations of those were approved in the field by district staff over many hours.”

***********IMPORTANT: “Will this project result in direct impacts to wetlands?”

The answer was:  “Yes.”

This statement by Mr. Steve Godley is absolutely egregious! Basically Mr. Steve Godley and Mr. Brian Surak only used maps to delineate wetlands. No one went out to these wetlands to test them for their health, well-being, or their water table levels. They only used maps. Once a wetland was defined to be a wetland, it got an automatic curve score of 100 plotted into the ICPR Computer Model, meaning that the wetland was expected to always have standing water within it. No one ever used a piezometer over a period of time to find out the true water table level of this wetland. In Dr. Octavio Blanco’s opening statement, he even warns that the Water Management District only uses maps. These maps have the wetlands depicted in blue, which is generally accepted on maps as allocating water being present on the site. However, these wetlands are seriously dehydrated. This is what is leading to all of the exacerbated sinkhole formation and wildfires here in Florida. Perhaps if the scientists, like Mr. Steve Godley actually performed his job responsibilities, and if Mr. Surak would have plotted in real, true, and accurate numbers into his flawed ICPR Computer Model, then Mr. Jeff Bush would still be alive today, instead of having his dead body entombed in gravel 100-feet below his bedroom from that horrific sinkhole!! It’s time for people to stand up for what is the right thing to do in Florida and reign in state governmental agencies who do not care about us!

45.  Volume 1.   Page 95. Lines 24-25. Page 96. Lines 1-4.

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “I’ve been at this for 34 years. My company, unlike a lot of other environmental consulting firms, not only does the design, we do the planting, we do the monitoring, we do the maintenance and have a long–long history of completing all these activities and ensuring that they’re successful.”

**********IMPORTANT: Wow! this paragraph of testimony is interesting from Mr. Steve Godley, considering he confesses under oath that he never went out to many of the land sites and never did the work that is required by two Federal laws to perform!

46.  Volume 1.   Page 96. Lines 12-15.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “So it’s your opinion that this mitigation will be successful?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes. I looked at the designs myself and I visited all of the areas and I support them.”

**********IMPORTANT: How can Mr. Steve Godley say that he “visited all of the areas and I support them,” when he confessed under oath in the fee hearing section of the trial that he had never even stepped foot out in many of the land sites listed in the petition for the land developer, Newland Homes to receive the permit?

47. Page 99. Lines 12-25.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “You heard testimony earlier that in order to be used for floodplain compensation, the excavation has to be below the seasonal high groundwater table. At the same time there was no effort in almost all of these to excavate them to the depth that could be allowed and instead what we did is–is excavated relatively shallow areas that could be then planted also as wetlands mitigation, to provide mitigation for impacts both to wetlands and to fish and wildlife resources.”

********IMPORTANT: It is very ironic that Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig is boasting about a shallow excavation of two-and-a-half feet when the actual excavation was set to be 12 feet–and all so that the land developer could receive free fill-dirt to build up their roads and home foundations for free! It took Dr. Blanco considerable effort to get this 12 foot excavation to be reduced to 2-and-a-half feet. The scientists for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes did not want to preserve this wetland by making a shallow excavation. They wanted to make extra money for the land developer NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes at the price of the wetland’s life! In no way shape or form was it NNP-Bexley’s and Newland Homes’ idea to create a shallow excavation. In reality, no excavation should be dug there in the first place.

48.  Volume 1.   Page 111. Lines 2-16.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “I believe you had mentioned that there would be no water quality impacts for the project; is that correct?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “That’s correct.”

DR. BLANCO: “Currently what are the facts out there in the before condition that affect the water quality in that particular location?”

MR. GODLEY: “Well, I can’t speak to offsite, but–do you have cattle on your piece? Let me ask you a question.”

DR. BLANCO: “Yes.”

MR. GODLEY: “Okay. Well, if you have cattle on your piece you are affecting the water quality in your wetland. The–let me try to think of the number–the average dairy cow generates on the order of 300 pounds of manure a day. And there isn’t anything to prevent a cow from defecating in A3 or any wetlands.”

***************IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley’s own mathematical figures of a dairy cow to produce 300 pounds of manure is way off—his number is over twice as much as the figure that the United States of America’s Environmental Protection Agency’s numbers. The EPA says that a single dairy cow will only produce 120 pounds of manure per day, and not 300!   Mr. Steve Godley has clearly had little regard for the truth getting in the way of his inaccurate testimony.  There have been no dairy cows on Dr. Blanco’s property since 1992.  Beef cattle are much different from dairy cows because they are not fed the massive amounts of grain and fiber necessary to produce milk at a commercial level.  Therefore, beef cattle would produce much less manure than the 120 pounds that the EPA predicts.  Where is Mr. Steve Godley getting his numbers from–and especially when he admits he is not performing his own scientific work? It appears that Mr. Steve Godley is trying to demonize Dr. Octavio Blanco for his cattle ranch by creating false numbers of cow manure, in order to protect NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes regarding their own flawed scientific numbers within their own studies. Mr. Steve Godley’s numbers reflect scientific misconduct of falsification of data in order to protect his employer, NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, who hired him as a client. Below is the Federal government’s own Environmental Protection Agency’s numbers:

The United States of America’s Environmental Protection Agency says: “By definition, AFOs produce large amounts of waste in small areas. For example, a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day.”

 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html#river

 

The actual, true mathematical figure of 120 pounds is less than half of the 300 that Mr. Steve Godley stated. What exactly was Mr. Steve Godley’s agenda in testifying in Court, under oath, to demonize Dr. Blanco as a cattle rancher? The Federal government’s own agency, the EPA, disproves Mr. Steve Godley’s testimony. Dr. Octavio Blanco provides food for the Tampa Bay Area of the state of Florida, while Mr. Steve Godley only provides lies–lies saying that he went out to the field and performed the work, when he didn’t, and lies about the biological situation of beef cattle food for thousands of people who eat beef or utilize cattle products, in which these lies are definitely exposed on a Federal level, through the Environmental Protection Agency. There is an agenda here. There is an agenda here, which is to protect the land developers, NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes from their own scientific misconduct of falsification of computer data.

Mr. Steve Godley just pulled a random number out of thin air regarding cattle manure rates. This cannot be tolerated, since it is ignorance in full force. The agenda was to demonize Dr. Blanco as being some kind of environmental poisoner, yet how can that be possible when Dr. Blanco puts his neck out in order to save Florida’s environment? Mr. Steve Godley has repeatedly lied in this proceeding, as well as in the case documented by The Tampa Bay Times!!

49.  Volume 1.  Page 112. Lines 1-20. Page 113. Lines 21-25. Lines 1-11.

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “In the post-development condition, and I have a number of my staff are Ph.D. limnologists and there have been a number of studies that compared nutrient inputs as well as general water quality in–in agricultural wetlands versus mixed use development such as what’s proposed here.

“What we have found, and it’s not us actually it’s other professors and a lot of different institutions, is phosphorus and nitrogen in particular show a decrease by over 100 percent when you go from ag(ricultural) to residential. And so my expectation is that water quality in Sandy Branch, at least on our portion of Sandy Branch, will be substantially improved as a result of the development.”

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “How do you compare in your answer the degree of water quality impacts from the cattle droppings versus the materials that come off of the vehicles that come off of the paved surfaces? How can you correlate the two to say it will be improved? Explain that to me.”

MR. GODLEY: “Well, I just tried to explain that, sir. I did not bring the studies because I didn’t know that I was going to be asked that and I didn’t proffer any of that–any of the details in my direct testimony. I can tell you though that all the studies that have been conducted show that in general almost all the water quality parameters improve relative to agricultural and particularly cattle ranching. We have a permitting system in place.

“Dr. Betty Rush works in this building. She has spent a lifetime looking at the design of surface water management systems under the current permitting program in terms of detention ponds, literal shelves, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And the end result is that we know we’re doing a pretty good job at controlling things like oils and greases and the other things you mentioned.

“The much bigger problem for most wetlands and surface waters in the state is phosphorous and nitrogen. And that will clearly be improved in the post-development condition.”

********IMPORTANT: It appears that Mr. Steve Godley knows that cattle droppings produce nitrogen and phosphorous, which go into the water supply. However, he makes no mention about the nitrogen and phosphorous that homeowners’ lawns and golf courses in residential communities generate because of the persistent use of fertilizers.  Before land development, there were only cattle producing nitrogen and phosphorous. After the land development, there will still be the problem of nitrogen and phosphorous due to the home-owners’ associations demanding that the lawns be kept lush and green at all times. However there will now also be the runoff of gasoline, motor oil, exhaust fumes, and antifreeze with which to contend. With the presence of only cattle, there are no roads and automobiles out in that current location. This is not to say that land development should not occur. This is just to say that Mr. Steve Godley is not presenting the big picture and full truth about the harm that residential neighborhoods still have on the environment. Mr. Godley’s testimony can be summed up in his own words as: “Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

50.  Volume 1.  Page 113. Lines 12-23.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “This question deals with the hydric soils in the wetlands. And I recognize what you said about the waterway at Sandy Branch and flooding, but during times of prolonged dry periods, would it be fair to say that if the hydric soils are exposed to oxygen for longer periods of time, that there is an increase in oxidation or loss of those soils?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “If the–the short answer to your question is if the wetlands don’t have water, the organic soils will oxidize. That’s the short answer.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MR. GODLEY: That’s not my answer in this particular case, as I’ve already said.

*********IMPORTANT: If Mr. Steve Godley states that dry wetlands will have their organic soils oxidize by being exposed to the air instead of being covered with water, how is this other wetland’s hydric soils going to have a completely opposite experience when it has its hydric soils exposed to air? Mr. Steve Godley is completely contradicting himself and his understanding of science.

51.  Volume 1.  Page 114. Lines 24-25. Lines 1-22.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Did you utilize the hydrologic conditions reports that the District generates at all in your studies?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “No. There’s no need to.”

DR. BLANCO: “Are you familiar with those reports?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Do those reports, particularly lake levels, give any indication of general water levels in the surrounding areas?”

MR. GODLEY: “They give an indication of the surficial water levels, yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “So you say there was no need to. If there was hydrologic condition data reports showing that lakes in the vicinity were below extreme low management levels would that have any bearing on your views and your study?”

MR. GODLEY: “No.”

DR. BLANCO: “And why not?”

MR. GODLEY: “The answer is–is several fold. One, what you have to appreciate is the wetlands and lakes and the critters that live in them, whether they be fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, evolved in a state where there is annual variation and rainfall, flooding and droughts. That’s how they evolved. And in the case of wetlands or in lakes, they’re adapted to periodic decreases in water levels.”

**********IMPORTANT: How can Mr. Steve Godley say with a straight face that even fish, would have no problem with the complete loss of water in their habitat, because their ancestors, “evolved in a state where there is annual variation and rainfall, flooding and droughts?” These ancestors evolved at a time where there were no municipal wellfields draining the region, as well as intense construction activities. The law, which the Southwest Florida Water Management District must observe, prohibits any damage to aquatic species. Even amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals would be harmed when there is no surface water available to them, and that the water table level is routinely found between three to five feet below the surface of the ground. Fish have gills and must have water to live in because they cannot live on dry land. Amphibians would dry out without being able to have a source of water. Reptiles, such as alligators need a source of water to swim in. These animals do NOT adapt to life without water. THEY DIE!!

Mr. Steve Godley completely evaded the question concerning the use of monthly hydrologic data reports, generated by Water Management staff, which identify lakes that are below EXTREME LOW MANAGEMENT LEVELS. By definition, these areas will suffer permanent damage if the levels remain this low for prolonged periods. Mr. Godley clearly wants no part of this data because of the threat that would be imposed on further development, which would lower the water levels even further. The long list of developers that Mr. Godley mentioned earlier in his testimony, that he was proud to work for, would not look kindly upon his use of this valuable scientific data, which is meant to preserve the environment, and not to line the pockets of the wealthy.

The Water Management Districts throughout Florida are careful to avoid the requirement to consider monthly hydrologic data reports in the area of pending development. It is clear that their goal is to allow development as smoothly as possible, while providing only the facade of being champions and protectors of the environment!!

52.  Volume 1.  Page 116. Lines 19-25. Lines 1-4. Page 117. Lines 5-25. Lines 1-7.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Moving on to the wildlife. You discussed all of the time spent with the studies on this project. Do you anticipate this project to cause wildlife that would have been on Bexley and had been on Bexley for many years to leave the site to go to neighboring properties?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Well, there’s nothing to prevent them from going to neighboring properties right now. I mean I–I’ve been on Tower Road and I watched deer cross back and forth and turkey. Really the question is, is the project going to adversely affect the function and values of wetlands to fish and wildlife. I’ve already testified that in my opinion under the basis of review and that particular requirement of basis of review the answer is no.”

DR. BLANCO: “I understand your answer that animals can move back and forth freely, but as this project develops there will be a lot of heavy equipment and different conditions. So are you saying the animals are going to tend to stay there just the same as they always have?”

MR. GODLEY: “No, it won’t be just the same. I mean all the cows I’ve already indicated on at least the Bexley part are going to be gone.”

DR. BLANCO: “Let’s talk about the wildlife.”

MR. GODLEY: “Well that’s a component of the system. I would–I would certainly predict as a wildlife ecologist that populations of wildlife in the post-development state are going to change. They will change for a variety of reasons. In some cases it will be positive, in some cases it will be negative.

“In the case of listed species, I’m actually predicting an improvement in the value and functions of wetlands as a result of the development.”

DR. BLANCO: “And that would be based on the assumption there will be more water, more–”

MR. GODLEY: “No, it’s not based on that.”

DR. BLANCO: “Oh, what is it based on?”

MR. GODLEY: “It’s based on my experience with doing these kind of DRI development projects and monitoring–monitoring them after development.”

**********IMPORTANT: How can Mr. Steve Godley give a true, accurate, and reliable description of the wildlife, including endangered and listed species, when he later admits in Court that there were many land sites listed in the petition that he never even went out to in order to inspect them?  This appears to be Mr. Steve Godley’s normal method of exercising his:  “experience with doing these kind of DRI development projects and monitoring.”  The Tampa Bay Times article, written by Mr. Craig Pittman, clearly illustrated that Mr. Godley is adept at providing his version of “scientific” studies that satisfy the developers that pay him, without bothering to actually conduct any type of biological studies, at all.  What type of “monitoring” could Mr. Godley be expected to conduct when he never even did the initial studies required for permitting?  Once again, the Judge heard this testimony and had access to the transcript, but somehow ruled in favor of granting the permit and sanctioning Dr. Blanco for daring to bring this information to light.

53.  Volume 1.  Page 119. Lines 4-12.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Were these wildlife studies that you described conducted in each of the seasons of the year?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Each of the listed species?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “And different times of day, like morning–”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes–”

DR. BLANCO: “–and evening?”

MR. GODLEY: “–absolutely.”

*********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley is apparently committing perjury with this testimony. In the fee hearing testimony, located on page 35, Lines 11-25, the testimony is as follows:

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Was Biological Research Associates asked to provide services to NNP-Bexley in support of litigation and the challenge to NNP-Bexley’s environmental resources permit filed by Dr. Blanco?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What service did you provide?”

MR. GODLEY: “There were broad ranges of services, because of the nature of the petition; it was a broad petition. We’re environmental consultants, and this was an E.R.P. permit, so the range of issues that we had to deal with were everything related to either wetlands or wildlife, hydrology of wetlands, et cetera. So the range of services included a field review. BECAUSE I HAD NOT BEEN TO ALL OF THE SITES THAT HAD BEEN NAMED IN THE PETITION, I HAD TO GO TO THE FIELD.”

HOW exactly was Mr. Steve Godley, who was hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes as a scientific engineer, able to search for endangered and listed species on the land sites when Mr. Godley, himself, confesses that he, “had not been to all of the sites that been named in the petition,” and that he “had to go to the field?”

When Dr. Blanco filed the legal challenge to NNP-Bexley’s and Newland Homes’ Environmental Resource Permit, there were only a few months between the challenge and the actual trial. During these few months was when Mr. Steve Godley went back out to the field in order to perform an additional 210 hours of scientific work. How exactly would Mr. Steve Godley be able to perform searches for endangered and listed species on the several land sites that he admits to never previously visiting during all four seasons–winter, spring, summer, and fall–in just a few months? He did not have the time to do these searches during all four seasons! This clearly violates the Federal Endangered Species Act, while at the same time lends credibility to the conclusion that he committed perjury under oath when he stated that he had done these studies on endangered and listed animals! Also, all of the wetlands that were supposed to have been monitored, yet were neglected and ignored, clearly violates the Federal Clean Water Act.

NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes should have NEVER received their permit because their permit was incomplete and invalid! The attorneys for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes heard this testimony, but in their company’s greed for profits at all costs, the attorneys remained silent, and the permit was granted. Then, the Judge filed financial sanctions of $240,000 for Dr. Octavio Blanco to pay to NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes under the guise of having committed a “frivolous lawsuit,” which held up NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes from receiving their illegal permit! That sum of “$240,000 eventually ballooned up into half a million dollars!

Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig was hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes as one of their attorneys. She had previously been employed as an attorney for the Southwest Florida Water Management District–the very same governmental agency granting this permit–and therefore, she knew and understood that Mr. Steve Godley’s testimony of not having performed the crucial environmental work demanded by Federal law, was an immediate cause for denying the granting of the Environmental Resource Permit.  However, by ignoring Mr. Godley’s confession, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig was able to convince the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, to force Dr. Blanco to pay for her attorney’s fees, which amounted to $111,530.25, which is an illegal action of the taking of money from Dr. Blanco because she just listened to a key witness confess under oath that he had never performed the required and necessary work in order for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes Communities to ever be qualified to receive their Environmental Resource Permit!  If Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig had any ethics within her, she would have immediately told the Judge that the case against Dr. Blanco should be dismissed!  Instead, she illegally profited from Dr. Blanco the sum of $111,530.25!   Apparently, that is the price for her soul because she sold herself out that day for that sum of money.  She can’t say that she didn’t listen to Mr. Steve Godley’s confession because she, herself, was the attorney asking him the questions!   She heard Mr. Steve Godley’s confession very clearly as it echoed throughout that court room!  But, she also heard dollar signs ringing up on her own personal cash register! (Fee Hearing, Page 7, Lines 18-21.)

54.   Volume 1.  Page 120. Lines 3-8.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Would you consider fire activity to be a negative impact on wildlife species or–”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Objection. I think we’ve established the fire issue is not part of this proceeding.”

MR. SMITH: “Join in that objection, Judge.”

*******IMPORTANT: As was previously discussed above, Florida’s Basis of Review law, 3.3.2 says that no harm shall come to either wetlands or wildlife, including endangered species. Fire hazards were never disqualified in the Basis of Review law. Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, hired as an attorney by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, understands Florida’s Basis of Review law because she was previously an attorney working for the Southwest Florida Water Management District. However, even more disconcerting and troubling is Mr. Smith chiming in with his agreement to the objection. Mr. Smith works for the Southwest Florida Water Management District in this court case. His salary is paid for by public tax dollars. He should be representing the people of the state of Florida and what is in the best interests of the public and the environment, yet he appears to be siding with the land developers in a biased way.

55.  Volume 1.  Page 120. Lines 9-16. Page 121 Lines 17-25. Lines 1-6.

THE COURT: “I don’t know if you heard the whole question. Did you get the whole question out? Finish your question.”

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Would you expect that fire activity in this location would have any negative impacts on either wildlife or wetlands on the site?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “I’d like to answer that if I could.”

THE COURT: “No objections? You may answer.”

MR. GODLEY: “The answer is no. No. Again, what you have to appreciate is the plants and animals that live in Florida evolved in a fire-dependent community. I would be more concerned about the absence of fire rather than the occurrence of fire.

“And it doesn’t matter whether it’s a wetland or it’s an upland. Fires are regular and often a necessary component certainly for the uplands. They’re absolutely required.

“In order to provide all the functions and values of this, they have got to burn that every two to three years in order to maintain the flatwoods that maintains the amphibians that breed in the wetlands and the other part of the lifecycle.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley is glossing over the concerns that the state of Florida has dealt with and will have to continue to deal with in the future: out of control wildfires! The subject that Mr. Steve Godley is referring to are controlled burns, or prescribed fires.

There are many types of fires. A few are as follows: many people like to light candles, either in church, during a romantic dinner, or a ceremony, such as a wedding. Fires from candles are controllable and desirable. A second type of fire would be in a fireplace. Many people like to light a fire in a fireplace on Christmas Eve and enjoy family time together, roasting marshmallows and drinking hot cocoa, with the Christmas stockings hanging from the mantle. Once again, this is a controllable and desirable fire. A third type of fire would be a controlled burn or sometimes called a prescribed fire. A state governmental agency can perform these types of fires by receiving a permit from the Florida Division of Forestry, but the qualifications of receiving these permits are very strict. For instance, weather conditions, the time of day, and the direction that the wind is blowing must be taken into consideration. These controlled burns or prescribed fires will burn the undergrowth so as to eventually produce clean and clear undergrowth of new plant growth.

The fires that Dr. Octavio Blanco was referring to are the out of control wildfires, which kill people, burn down peoples’ homes, causes thick, billowing smoke that impedes drivers’ visibility on the road and leads to traffic accidents, causes respiratory distress, and puts the state of Florida into a state of Emergency situation–causing tax-payers to foot the bill, while living in terror of being burned alive or having their homes and possessions destroyed. In June of 1998, Dr. Blanco was faced with the Hellacious inferno of an out of control wildfire, which was located directly on the Bexley property, in the exact same location that is in question here in this Court case!  The wildfire even included crown fires, in which all of the tops of the trees were ablaze! There is also the fear of having muck fires. Muck fires are among the most dangerous and impossible of fires to extinguish. Once the fire starts burning the muck (the hydric soils in a wetland, which by definition must be present to be considered a functional wetland), these fires can burn for weeks! The fire also goes underground and burns without being seen, and then they surprisingly, and out of the blue, pop up at locations distances away from the original fire.

Regarding out of control wildfires, instead of small brush fires, perhaps Mr. Steve Godley should watch the following video and still try to say that “fires are good.”  The following wildfire was located in San Diego, California–a state that just like Florida, is prone to wildfire activity–and this video is so terrifying because it appears that the videographer is driving through the landscape of Hell, itself!  Does anyone really at this point believe that Mr. Steve Godley even knows what he is talking about?  Does anyone really want a fire like this one in their own neighborhood?

Video is only 1 minute and 15 seconds, so please watch.

 

Everyone in that courtroom that day, except for Dr. Octavio Blanco, just ignored the health, safety, welfare, and finances of everyone in Florida that wildfires will cause. This is how Florida is spending its tax-payer dollars: to help to promote wealthy land developers at the cost of everyone else. At least Dr. Octavio Blanco is trying to help the state of Florida!

56.  Volume 1.  Page122. Lines 18-22.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “The question was if fire effectively removed the hydric soils by burning them away is it still a wetland?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Absolutely.”

DR. BLANCO: “It remains a wetland?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes.”

******IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley, supposedly an expert in wetlands, is completely incorrect about hydric soils. Once hydric soils are destroyed, a wetland is no longer considered a wetland.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), three components must be present for land to be qualified to be a wetland:

“Hydric soils determinations or delineations are typically completed as part of a wetland determination or delineation. They are also used to identify areas that were once wetlands but that, as a result of alterations in hydrology or soils, no longer meet the three defining parameters of a wetland (hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils). Determinations are made to establish the presence or absence of hydric soils on a site, and delineations are made to establish the spatial distribution of hydric soils on a site.”

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_053386

 

According to the USDA, hydric soils must be present with the other two qualifiers, hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology, in order to be considered a wetland. However, according to the environmental scientist, Mr. Steve Godley, who confessed under oath that he never even went out to all of the land development sites to do his research studies, all hydric soils can be completely destroyed in a muck fire, but the wetland would still be considered to be a wetland. The Federal Agency, the USDA, would win in this argument against an incompetent, so-called expert, environmental scientist, named Mr. Steve Godley, that has been previously caught lying about his professional work.

57. Volume 2. Page 7. Lines 1-19. Page 8 Line 20.

THE COURT: “Are we ready to proceed?”

MS. MARA SHAUGHNESSY: “Yes.”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: ” We are.”

THE COURT: “Back on the record.”

MR. SMOLKER: “Your Honor, we would call Richard A. Mortensen.”

THE COURT: “Good morning.”

Richard A. Mortensen, a witness, having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. SMOLKER: “Good morning, Mr. Mortensen.”

Mr. Rick Mortensen: “Good morning.”

MR. SMOLKER: “Please state your name.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Richard A. Mortensen.”

MR. SMOLKER: “And what is your business address, sir?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “6408 West Linebaugh Avenue in Tampa, Florida.”

************IMPORTANT: This introduces Mr. Rick Mortensen as an expert witness for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes.

58. Volume 2. Page 8. Lines 18-22. Page 9. Lines

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “What is your occupation?”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “I’m a registered professional engineer practicing in geotechnical engineering.”

MR. SMOLKER: “And what is the name of your company?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Mortensen Engineering.”

MR. SMOLKER: “And what is your position in that company?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “I’m the president and owner of the company.”

MR. SMOLKER: “What are your duties and responsibilities”

MR. MORTENSEN: “I am the senior project manager. I review all–essentially all work that goes out of the office. I’m involved in nearly every project and responsible for all aspects of the company.”

MR. SMOLKER: “All right. And what does your company do?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “We’re a geotechnical engineering consultant which is essentially soils and groundwater, everything below the ground. We are hydrogeologic consultants. I have geologists, geotechnical engineers, environmental scientists or environmental specialists. And we also do construction materials testing, which is something we do after the project begins construction, we evaluate the uses of the different soil materials that are excavated.”

**********IMPORTANT: Don’t be fooled by this testimony by Mr. Rick Mortensen. The truth is that he was hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to do one thing only: MAKE THE COMPANY FREE MONEY!! Mr. Rick Mortensen is NOT there to protect the environment or the people of Florida. His one job that he was hired to do was to search for free fill-dirt for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to use in order to upbuild their land developments–homes, businesses, roads. Fill dirt costs $12 per cubic yard of soil if a land developer purchases the fill-dirt from an outside source. Fill dirt is used to prevent flooding during rain events because the houses are built above grade level. Yes, this is a good thing, in order to prevent flooding. However, to destroy vulnerable wetlands in order to receive free fill-dirt will only in the future cause further flooding because wetlands are necessary in order to prevent flooding; therefore, this is a catch-22 scenario. Mr. Rick Mortensen’s only job was to dig down into the ground to find out how deep an excavation could be dug in order to find free sand to use as fill-dirt. He is not hired to protect the environment or the people within the state of Florida! It’s all to make extra money for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes!

59. Volume 2. Page 41. Lines 24-25. Line 1

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “This site is–I mean I’ve been involved out here for five years. This is always wet. Ask my drillers. They had to go through that all the time.”

*********IMPORTANT: Mr. Rick Mortensen will later testify in Volume 2, page 58, lines 21-22, that: “I’d say more than half a year that the wetland does not have water standing.” Which version is the truth? Are the wetlands in this area always wet, or are they free of any standing water for the majority of the year? Scientific studies and conclusions mean nothing and are invalid if the data that led to them are so completely inconsistent!

60. Volume 2. Page 45. Lines 20-21. Page 46. Lines 21-25. Lines 1-3.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Do you recall what the information in those borings yielded?”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “Essentially what it shows is from zero to 12 feet deep we have sandy soils. From 12 to 18 feet deep we have confining unit clay, stratum seven. And at 18 feet deep we hit the weathered limestone formation. So at that particular boring location we technically could have gone to 12 feet deep. We are only going to two or three feet deep at that boring. We’re not–we’re going to be well above the confining unit.”

*************IMPORTANT: The most troubling part of this testimony is that the Water Management District apparently has no problem with allowing a 30-acre excavation, with a depth of 12-feet, immediately adjacent to a wetland, that they are supposed to be protecting. As stated above, the witness testified that this wetland is known to be free of standing water for the majority of the year, meaning that during these times, it will be further dehydrated by this excavation. This is extremely damaging to a wetland that needs every drop of water to survive prolonged drought periods.

61. Volume 2. Page 47. Lines 23-25. Lines 1-3.

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “Essentially it shows sandy soils from zero to 27 feet deep. At 27 feet deep we encountered clayey sand which is the top of the semi-confining unit material. We could have technically excavated 27 feet there, but we’re only digging two or three because we’re making it a mitigation pond, wetland mitigation.

“I mean to the–obviously we knew that–that you were involved in this process, that’s why that excavation is shallow for that reason as well.”

********IMPORTANT: Now, Mr. Rick Mortensen is testifying that the developer could have excavated up to 27 feet in depth, which is over twice the level that he had testified to earlier. Which is it? Once again, testimony by the same expert witness is contradictory. Could it be that the Water Management District would allow a 27-foot deep excavation immediately adjacent to a wetland that they are legally required to protect? This appears to be the case. When a geotechnical engineer drills borings into the ground to search for the amount of sand beneath the ground that exists there, he is searching for free fill-dirt! These holes being dug, if excavated next to a wetland, will reduce the water table level within the wetland and potentially kill the wetland. These holes are money-saving endeavors for the land developers, and nothing more. The following link provides a more complete explanation of fill-dirt and its potential uses:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_dirt

There is NO environmental protection or protection of humans, animals, wildlife, or plants and trees concerning Mr. Rick Mortensen’s statement that they had the ability to dig down to 27 feet below the surface and dig out all of the sand. This digging out of the sand is not for the benefit of Florida, but for the benefit of the wealthy, elite land developer, NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes! All of this apparently is completely approved and has the blessings of the Water Management District, which by law, is required to protect the public and the environment.

Mr. Mortensen further testifies that NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes was only digging two or three feet down instead of 27-feet down because Dr. Blanco was involved in the process. This means that the developer, who clearly is concerned with net profit, is willing to give up at least 24 feet of free fill-dirt in a 30-acre excavation site, which is worth many millions of dollars. For some reason, they refuse to give up the final two-and-a-half feet of excavation, which the developers knew was the major motivating factor for Dr. Blanco to file this challenge of the Environmental Resource Permit. The only logical conclusion is that the developer wanted Dr. Blanco to commence this legal challenge for, as of yet, unknown reasons.

62. Volume 2. Page 49. Lines 10-25.

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “Yes. What we do at each test boring location, Heidt & Associates, the civil engineer is looking to us to provide them our best estimate of where we think the shallow groundwater level could be in the upland area so that when we look at all the test borings in a particular pond area, they can have a feel for where the wet season groundwater table could be and we–and this is very important–it’s average pre-development, normal wet season, okay?

“This isn’t extreme during hurricane season and this isn’t something that’s just going to happen once in, you know, 20 years. This is something that typically happens–SWFWMD’s criteria wants us to use the average pre-development normal wet season. And they want to set their control structure in their pond to that level so that that pond does not adversely impact the shallow groundwater levels around the pond.

*********IMPORTANT: How can Mr. Rick Mortensen be so assured of his holes in the ground with Heidt & Associates when Mr. Brian Surak from Heidt & Associates is clueless of the actual, real, true water table level within the wetlands that he is responsible for overseeing? If the wetlands are being mismanaged by Mr. Brian Surak’s scientific misconduct of falsification of data, then how can Mr. Rick Mortensen’s own data be accurate, either?

63. Volume 2. Page 50. Lines 13-20.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “But the concerns the District would have, do those apply to both the wet and dry season as well?”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “No, just the wet season. In my–I’ve never had anybody argue with me over a dry season. I’ve never given dry season data except for to the developer and the civil engineers so we can make sure our mitered end sections coming in the lakes are below the dry season levels so they’re not ugly.”

*********IMPORTANT: This is completely staggering testimony that on its own, should have been enough to cause the Judge in this case, Mr. J. Lawrence Johnston, to deny the permit, and certainly not even in his wildest dreams, consider sanctions against Dr. Blanco for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit!! Mr. Rick Mortensen, who has been accepted as an experienced expert witness for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, has just testified that the authorities working for the Water Management Districts have never argued over dry season conditions. According to his testimony, the Agency charged with the protection of the public and the environment is concerned with “just wet season!” This is further evidence that the so-called Water Management Districts are in reality, still the same old flood control districts that they were first created to be, years ago by the government of the state of Florida. An agency that was truly concerned with the preservation of wetlands and the protection of the public would demand information concerning periods of drought, and not just wet season data.

64. Volume 2. Page 50. Lines 21-25. Lines 1-5. Page 51. Lines 6-11.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “You mentioned that the materials excavated out may be used for filling, I think you called them building pads?”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “Building pads and roadway grades, yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “So these materials in the area we’re discussing would be suitable for that purpose?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Yeah. I went over all that. If you’re talking specifically about floodplain pond M10 the upper two feet–”

DR. BLANCO: “Yes.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “–after we take off the top soils, the next two feet is suitable for reuse somewhere.”

DR. BLANCO: “So you would anticipate that’s where that soil would end up?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Yeah. I anticipate that it’s going to be used somewhere. I think there’s 100,000 yards of it and it will be–it will be used.”

********IMPORTANT: Mr. Rick Mortensen’s testimony completely contradicts that of Mr. Brian Surak. Mr. Brian Surak stated that absolutely not a single grain of sand would be used as fill-dirt, while Mr. Rick Mortensen states that it certainly would be used as free fill-dirt.

65. Volume 2. Page 57. Lines 18-25. Page 58. Lines 1-23.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “You testified quite a bit about the piezometers that were out here. Once again, looking mostly at that southwest corner there that you’ve been referring to from the data that you’ve collected, did you–do you know what percent of the year that the hydric soils in the wetlands there are uncovered by water?”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “That are not covered by water?”

DR. BLANCO: “What percent of the year do they not have water covering their soils?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “I could look at them. I don’t know what percentage of the year. But I know that from the time–we’ve been monitoring it 2003 to 2008–from time to time, we do approach the seasonal high water level elevation that was determined, marked in the field by the geologist surveyed by Heidt.

“How much surface water that translates into depends on the ground elevation in the wetland which is variable. It’s not like it’s flat and we have a seasonal high. It’s variable, you know, there’s trees in there and there’s organics and all sorts of other stuff in there so that elevation in that wetland varies. I don’t have a clue as to how much time that wetland remains hydrated, no.”

DR. BLANCO: “All right.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “I do have a good feel for how much time that the water level is below the surface of the wetland. And that is a fair amount of time.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So the majority of the year would you estimate would be accurate, more than half the year?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Well, yeah, I’d say more than half a year that the wetland does not have water standing, at least in the area of the piezometer, okay?”

**********IMPORTANT: Either Mr. Rick Mortensen does know or doesn’t know how long that particular wetland remains hydrated with water standing above ground. In Volume 2, on page 58, line 4, Mr. Mortensen states that he has been monitoring that wetland from 2003 to 2008, and on page 58, lines 21-23, he states that the water table level is below ground for more than half a year. However, in the very beginning of his testimony, in Volume 2, page 41, lines 24-25, he states: “This site is–I mean I’ve been involved out here for five years. This is ALWAYS WET. Ask my drillers.” How can the water table level be ALWAYS WET, when for over half of the year, it is bone dry and has its water table level below the ground? This just does not add up as being reliable testimony from Mr. Rick Mortensen!

66. Volume 2.   Page 59. Lines 5-13.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “I just wanted to try to get an idea of what your data was showing you. I wasn’t totally sure I caught this. Was there a piezometer in this wetland here that’s in the center of A10?”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “No. No, we did not put one in here. We put one in here, which is just north of here.”

DR. BLANCO: “So you really don’t have data for that wetland then?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “No, we don’t.”

********IMPORTANT: Both the surface water environmental engineer, Mr. Brian Surak, and the geotechnical environmental engineer, Mr. Rick Mortensen, (both hired by the land developer NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes) now have confessed under oath that they have absolutely NO idea about the real, true water table levels, health and welfare status, and therefore, the honest assessment of the likelihood of the wetland to be able to survive with a 30-acre excavated hole in the ground right next to it. How can this travesty against the environment and against the public’s safety be tolerated after reading all of this court testimony?  Clearly, this violates the Federal Clean Water Act!!

67. Volume 2. Page 59. Lines 14-25. Lines 1-4. Page 60. Lines 5-25. Lines 1-4.

DR. BLANCO: “Were there any piezometers along where the Sandy Branch is and those wetlands over there?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Let me make another comment. These piezometers were put in way before I ever knew who you were, okay?” These were put in in 2003, okay? Sandy Branch Creek there are–there’s a piezometer here in the wetlands. And I guess this is just Sandy Branch Creek. The rest of the wetland piezometers are in other significant wetlands, okay?”

“We have upland piezometers. I didn’t highlight them any particular color, but if you want me to take the time, I’ll show you where the next one is.”

DR. BLANCO: “Well, where is–okay. Where is the nearest piezometer actually in a wetland to this corner?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Right here. Wetland piezometer 21.”

DR. BLANCO: “And–”

MR. MORTENSEN: “So I’m looking for a 20 because that’s probably the next nearest one.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Well, let me come over here.”

DR. BLANCO: “Sure.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Twenty. Here’s 23 right here. Here’s 22. These are two wetland piezometers right here. Here’s one over here. I’m sure 20 is somewhere around here.”

DR. BLANCO: “Fine.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “Okay.”

DR. BLANCO: “Once again, to be clear though, the point is I am very familiar with the piezometer in A3 and what I wanted to see is what you were finding over on your site. And you’re saying essentially just from memory, you’re thinking at least half the year there’s probably not–”

MR. MORTENSEN: “I mean all–”

DR. BLANCO: “–standing water?”

MR. MORTENSEN: “–this information is in the documents, which I suspect you’ve had access to.”

DR. BLANCO: “That’s fine.”

MR. MORTENSEN: “But we’ve been reading it typically monthly and sometimes twice a month during the earlier times. And the whole purpose of reading them was to collect adequate information for design. And of which none of it was required, you know that. I mean SWFWMD doesn’t require piezometers.

************IMPORTANT: Mr. Rick Mortensen makes another crucial revelation in this testimony. He stated that: “SWFWMD doesn’t require piezometers.” How could it be that the Agency charged with the protection of the public and all wetlands would not have any interest in knowing what the true groundwater level is when it has gone below the surface? This information is vital to incorporate into the permitting process because much of the region suffers from chronic drought conditions, and testimony by experts in this case, who are being paid by the developer, confirmed that these wetlands are routinely dry over half of the year. This means that the Water Management District does not want to know anything about this hydrologic data, which occurs for the majority of the year. It is no wonder that we have already lost over half of the wetlands in the region, and those that remain are no longer completely healthy. Your tax-dollars are clearly going into the pockets of developers and are not being used to ensure your future. Once again, the Judge in this case, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, apparently let this startling information go in one ear and out the other. He also must not have taken the time to read this transcript, which was readily available to him.

68. Volume 2. Page 61. Lines 14-16.

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “I mean we’re only digging two feet. We’re not really–we’re not really doing anything that ditches out there haven’t done.”

**********IMPORTANT: Mr. Rick Mortensen is testifying that a 30-acre, two to three feet deep, excavation area, immediately adjacent to a wetland, which he has already stated is dry over half of the year, would have the same effect as “ditches” that are currently in the area. There are absolutely no “ditches” in this area or anywhere else that cover this large of an area and can have such a great impact. “Ditches” are fairly narrow depressions that are designed to move water from one area to a distant area. This excavation is more like a pond or lake, as far as its dimensions, than a “ditch.” A qualified, expert geological engineer, with years of professional experience, could only make a claim like this because he is trying to take care of the land developer that is paying him. This excavation would, in reality, have a much more profound negative effect on a chronically stressed wetland than a “ditch!!”

69. Volume 2. Page 63. Lines 2-9. Page 64. Lines 1-8.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “I never intended to ask you a question requiring knowledge of the health of wetlands. My question was if someone had had that knowledge, recognized what they believed to be impacts to the wetland not during storm events, but during dry times, from your expertise is there–would there be some corrective measure possible to address those issues? Not knowing about what those impacts are or how they happen, just from your experience.”

MR. RICK MORTENSEN: “And you’re asking me in a post construction state is there any way to restore that. And I’m thinking, okay, if it’s dry we’re not going to have rain, we’re not going to have flooding. So the answer to is it going to rain out there, no. Okay. The only other way to get water to something like that is to pump it, okay? And–and I’m saying, no, there’s no way to pump it.”

***********IMPORTANT: Mr. Rick Mortensen spent eight lines of testimony to answer a fundamental, direct question within his area of expertise, that could have been answered with one word, which was: “NO.” Dr. Blanco asked a very important question that should have been of interest to anyone that was concerned with the protection of wetlands. The gist of the question had to do with the potential to repair the damage done by this excavation after its construction had been completed. Although Mr. Rick Mortensen beat around the bush for some time, he finally admitted that nothing could be done to reverse the negative impacts of this excavation in the future. Mr. Smith, the attorney representing the Water Management District, and therefore the citizens of Florida, said absolutely nothing when he heard Mr. Mortensen’s response to this crucial question. The Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, heard that nothing could be done to restore this wetland after the excavation is completed, and yet he ruled in favor of the permit. Mr. Smith will later in this case emphatically call for Dr. Blanco’s head and demand extreme financial sanctions against him for this so-called “frivolous” lawsuit, and the Judge will oblige Mr. Smith. So much for a fair and impartial system to settle the concerns of an American citizen that Federal and state laws are being routinely violated by the state of Florida!!

70. Volume 2. Page 69. Lines 15-

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Your Honor, we would call Marty Sullivan.”

THE COURT: “Morning.”

Marty Sullivan, a witness, having been duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as follows:

MR. SMOLKER: “State your name, sir.”

MR. MARTY SULLIVAN: “Marty Sullivan.”

MR. SMOLKER: “What is your business address?”

MR. SULLIVAN: “901 Georgia Avenue, Winter Park, Florida 32789.”

***********IMPORTANT: Mr. Marty Sullivan is now under oath and testifying as an expert in computer modeling of ground water and surface water.

71. Volume 2. Page 86. Lines 21-22.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Mr. Sullivan, why were you brought into the Ashley Glen case?”

************IMPORTANT: Mr. Marty Sullivan had worked for the attorney, Mr. David Smolker, in the past on a proposed project called Ashley Glen, that bordered on another boundary of Dr. Blanco’s wetland. Mr. Smolker had referred to Mr. Sullivan as his “star witness” in that case. A Judge had denied an Environmental Resource Permit for Ashley Glen, in part because of a large excavation area, which had been proposed immediately adjacent to Dr. Blanco’s wetland. Mr. Sullivan had been hired to show that this enormous excavation would be of no harm to this already stressed, legally protected wetland. His testimony was taken in a court proceeding that was held in front of a different Judge to determine if the permit that had originally been rejected could now be legally approved.

72. Volume 2. Page 87. Lines 11-25. Lines 1-2. Page 88. Lines 3-10.

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Your Honor, I think I’m going to object, and maybe I need to have a standing objection. The competency of the model was previously litigated by Dr. Blanco in what we refer to as the Ashley Glen II. proceeding. And the–Judge Weatherall specifically found the District accepted this recommendation that the model was competent. So I don’t think that Dr. Blanco gets to re-litigate that issue as part of this proceeding.

“Moreover, we previously filed and you entered an order granting a motion to establish as facts in this case a series of findings from Judge Weatherall’s order relating to Mr. Sullivan’s ICPR modeling and its competency. The bottom line is that issue has been litigated and I don’t think it can be re-litigated here. And moreover, it’s been established as a fact in–as facts in this case pursuant to your order.

“So I don’t think that Dr. Blanco can now–and by the way, Dr. Blanco did not object, if I remember correctly, filed no response to our motion to establish these as facts. So I don’t think he can come in now and attempt to impeach the model.”

THE COURT: “I think there may have been an objection, I did make a ruling.”

***********IMPORTANT: Mr. David Smolker spent 21 lines of testimony to EMPHATICALLY OBJECT to any potential questioning by Dr. Blanco, concerning the validity and accuracy of Mr. Sullivan, a.k.a., the “star witness,” and his ICPR computer modeling. There is a very good reason for Mr. Smolker’s fear, which will be fully explained after pointing out that Mr. Smolker has already contradicted his “star witness,” with this objection. Mr. Sullivan testified on Volume 2, page 86, line 20, that: “The ICPR modeling output is not included,” meaning that the model in question has absolutely no ICPR component in it, even though Mr. Smolker believes that it does.

Mr. Sullivan had developed what he referred to as an “integrative model,” as a tool to show that the proposed Ashley Glen excavation was environmentally acceptable. The model predicted that a 90-acre hole in the ground, which reached depths of nearly 30-feet, when placed only three feet from Dr. Blanco’s wetland margin, would never harm the wetland. This model somehow predicted that this excavation would have the effect of raising the water level in Dr. Blanco’s wetland several inches during the dry season, when there was absolutely no rainfall!!

If this was true, then the epidemic of dehydrated, dying wetlands in our area during severe droughts, could be cured by digging enormous holes next to each of these stressed wetlands. This is completely ludicrous, especially coming from an accepted scientific expert! Judge Weatherall, who was referred to in Mr. David Smolker’s verbose objection, heard this outrageous testimony in the Ashley Glen case and somehow fully accepted this prediction. This is what Mr. Smolker refers to as: “a series of findings from Judge Weatherall’s order relating to Mr. Sullivan’s ICPR modeling and its competency.” Judge Weatherall chose to ignore the testimony of two Ph.D. professors, who testified that Mr. Sullivan’s model had no validity in the real world, even though Mr. Sullivan was a much less qualified scientist, with only a Master’s degree. The competency of Mr. Sullivan’s model will be more fully addressed in the next section, number 73.

Judge Weatherall’s decision also ignored the previous Judge’s ruling that wildlife studies to search for endangered species must be done in all four seasons. He allowed for all of the studies required by the previous Judge to all be done just in the month of February. The previous Judge had accurately ruled that some endangered species may only be present in certain seasons of the year; therefore, valid wildlife studies should be done in each season. Judge Weatherall completely ignored the previous Judge’s ruling and decided that the Environmental Resource Permit should be granted. The case was appealed to the District Court of Appeals, which involved a panel of Judges, who chose to ignore these obvious facts, and ruled to affirm the unjust ruling, which is called per curiam affirmed.  The complete verbatim transcripts of both the Ashley Glen I. and Ashley Glen II. cases can be reviewed by making a public records request to the Southwest Florida Water Management District in Brooksville, Florida. The style of the case will be Dr. Octavio Blanco vs. Ashley Glen-Westfield Homes and the Southwest Florida Water Management District. There are many additional violations of state and Federal law, which can be found in these cases, as well.

It is clear that high-level political and environmental forces are controlling both the Department of Administrative Hearings, as well as the District Court of Appeals, by influencing Judges to ignore the facts, which have been presented in sworn expert testimony, and only to pretend to consider the evidence before ruling “per curiam affirmed.” This ruling effectively blocked any further litigation on the matter. The “take home message” is that wealthy developers in the state of Florida are allowed by the Judicial System to illegally damage the environment at will, with only the facade of a fair and impartial process to protect all of the residents and visitors to Florida.

This current case concerning NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes also eventually reached the District Court of Appeals and received the same death sentence called “per curiam affirmed.” The convenient strategy of allowing the District Court of Appeals to effectively bury unjust rulings made by lower court Judges must be abolished, if we are ever to have the fair and impartial system of Courts that our forefathers intended!! Flagrant violations of Federal and state laws are routinely swept under the rug by allowing these Judges to conclude that: “a series of findings,” that are illogical and illegal, somehow become true, case law, that can be used forever in other legal proceedings. Who can say if the panel of Judges at the District Court of Appeals ever even read “page one” of the transcripts concerning cases that should be overturned, before closing the door on any further consideration of the issues that are brought before them by the simple ruling of “per curiam affirmed.”

73. Volume 2. Page 88. Lines 21-25. Lines 1-5. Page 89. Lines 6-13.

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “You had been asked in the previous case some questions regarding the model itself, not about the veracity of the model, just basic questions and I wanted to ask some of those questions now.

“And one of those questions was at the time of that Ashley Glen case had this integrated model or any of these integrated models you’ve done actually been verified on the after condition. And at the time I believe you had said they had not.

“So my question now is, have any of those been verified at this point on another project?”

MR. MARTY SULLIVAN: “Well, that has not generally been the procedure, to go back and prove the results of the model. They are the best predictive tools we have available. And those predictions are accepted.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So the short answer is no?”

MR. SULLIVAN: “Correct.”

***********IMPORTANT: This testimony explains clearly the reasons that we have lost so many of our wetlands and continue to do so under the watch of the Water Management Districts!! Mr. Marty Sullivan testified that these state agencies, that are responsible to protect the safety and welfare of the public and the environment, do not require any effort: “to go back and prove the results of the model.” This is reprehensible and outrageous!!! Any so-called scientist that is willing to sell his professional and moral soul to the highest bidder can make up any ridiculous computer model that has no basis in fact or reality. The Water Management Districts are only too happy to come to the absurd conclusion that, in Mr. Sullivan’s words, “those predictions are accepted.” Why are those predictions accepted on a routine basis throughout the state of Florida, without ever requiring the first shred of evidence, that they are valid in any way? The answer is quite simple. The Water Management Districts don’t want to know the truth about the computer models that they blindly accept because that would be bad for business in the corrupt state of Florida!

Mr. David Smolker stated that Dr. Blanco could not discuss, “Judge Weatherall’s order relating to Mr. Sullivan’s ICPR modeling and its competency.” It is clear that this model never has had any competency, whatsoever. All that it had ever had was the right Judge at the right time to completely ignore the previous Judge’s findings and decide that he had the power to strike his gavel and magically make this computer model valid. What he really did was to establish this mockery of case law, which Mr. David Smolker was desperately hanging onto, in an effort to hide the fact that he, as well as NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, had found a scientist, who was willing to present a ridiculous and unscientific computer model in front of a Judge who pronounced it proper and just. Judge Weatherall’s rulings in the Ashley Glen case had a profound effect on the NNP-Bexley and Newland Home case. These rulings should be examined in the light of day to determine the motivation for Judge Weatherall’s actions. Similarly, other proceedings throughout Florida should be reviewed whenever decisions are made by Judges, concerning environmental challenges, which could seriously harm the public, both now and in the future. It is high-time that a Federal agency, such as the F.B.I., examines government corruption in Florida, concerning a state-wide conspiracy to violate the Constitutional First Amendment Rights of American citizens to freely petition the government in an effort to enforce Federal and state laws and protect the safety of all of the residents and visitors in Florida!

74. Volume 3. Page 7. Lines 3-19. Page 8. Lines 20-25. Lines 1-5.

MS. MARA SHAUGHNESSY: “Your Honor, we have an issue that I’d like to–if you recall in the pre-hearing we requested if Patrick Tara could testify and that motion was denied. Mr. Blanco made it.”

THE COURT: “Mr. who?”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY: “What?”

THE COURT: “Who are you talking about?”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY: “Patrick Tara, he’s an engineer.”

THE COURT: “Oh, yes.”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY: We would like to know if we could have permission to go ahead and proffer his testimony.”

THE COURT: “Well, you could proffer it for the record if that’s what you want to do.”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY: “Thank you.”

THE COURT: “But just–go ahead.”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY: “We don’t want to do that now. We want to do that later. We want to call Mr. Blanco first.”

THE COURT: “Well, I’m thinking in terms of the proffer. You can simply state what it is that you intended for him to testify to.”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY: “We were actually hoping to call him and go ahead and proffer it that way with him in person just to preserve the record, Your Honor.”

THE COURT: “All right. Call your first witness.”

***********IMPORTANT: During this portion of the hearing, Mr. Patrick Tara, an environmental engineer, had been summoned by the Judge to immediately get into his automobile, drive to the Court room, and provide testimony as an expert witness for Dr. Blanco. Mr. Tara had absolutely no advanced warning to appear in Court that day before being summoned, and perhaps this is the reason why the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston agreed to allow Mr. Patrick Tara to appear, if he could immediately arrive within the Court room. Mr. Tara could have provided expert testimony, which was critical to this case, to endure both the proper protection of the public, as well as the environment.  Since the Judge saw fit to banish Dr. Blanco’s lone remaining witness, Mr. David Fogler, the more appropriate action for the Judge to take would have been to allow Mr. Patrick Tara to testify in the interest of Due Process.

Perhaps, since Mr. Tara actually agreed to immediately appear in Court on Dr. Blanco’s behalf, this was the reason for the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, to inexplicably and suspiciously change his mind and ordered that Mr. Patrick Tara would have to turn his automobile around and just go home. According to the Judge, Mr. Tara was no longer invited into the Court room, even though he was only previously that day invited by this same Judge to appear!!

It was the incompetent and perhaps malicious attorney, Ms. Mara Shaughnessy, Dr. Blanco’s own attorney, who suggested that she just proffer Mr. Patrick Tara. However, she refuses to state to the Court what she would proffer about, and then she absolutely never in the future even contacts Mr. Patrick Tara.  She was aware that Dr. Blanco was financially sanctioned the sum of $240,000 for not having a witness present in the Courtroom or having Mr. Tara to be proffered.   Ms. Mara Shaughnessy stated that she wanted to proffer Mr. Tara: “just to preserve the record.” In reality, there is no record because she never bothered to follow through with her responsibilities as an attorney. The question still remains: WHY? Why did Ms. Mara Shaughnessy purposefully sabotage Dr. Blanco’s Court case?  More importantly, how could Judge J. Lawrence Johnston, possibly conclude that this was a “frivolous” proceeding when vital information was provided by expert witnesses working for the Water Management District and the developers proved that Federal and state laws, meant to protect the public, were being repeatedly violated.  It is important to realize that these witnesses were not working for Dr. Blanco, yet they gave sworn testimony, which should have invalidated the permit and removed any possibility of sanctions against Dr. Blanco.

75.  Volume 3.  Page 48. Lines 22-25. Page 49. All of it. Page 50. Line 3.

MR. SMITH: “Judge, there’s one matter the District would like to bring up. We’d like to move for attorney’s fees based on 125.95, improper purpose found there.”

THE COURT: “All right. Well, the applicant already has done that.”

MR. SMITH: “We would like to join in that.”

THE COURT: “Let’s go off the record.” (Discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: “Go back on the record. For the record, that concludes all of the evidence being presented on the merits of the–whether or not the ERP should be initiated. And what we’re going to proceed on now is some testimony that goes to the motions for fees and costs that have been filed.”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Your Honor, if it please Your Honor, we would at this time go ahead and move for entry of a summary recommended order recommending issuance of the permit as issued by the Water Management District with the conditions of issuance of permit that were attached, I believe it’s to Exhibit 3.

“We would contend that the applicant, together with the District have established a prima facie case going well beyond the minimum terms of the JWC case.

“We would also contend that Dr. Blanco has not been able to put on any competent substantial evidence of equivalent quality for credibility or that’s even worthy of being credited as to the issues that are necessary to rebut the prima facie case. And on those grounds we would ask that you enter a summary recommended order as requested.”

************IMPORTANT:  The above testimony should absolutely leave a person speechless.  How in the world could Dr. Blanco have presented a “frivolous” lawsuit when he exposed so many flaws and errors and omissions within NNP-Bexley and Newland Home’s and the Water Management District’s own testimony?  Dr. Blanco proved that no one even knows the true state of the water table level within the wetland.  Dr. Blanco proved that NNP-Bexley only looked at maps that showed the wetlands, instead of going out to the property or using piezometers to measure the real, true water table level.  Dr. Blanco also proved that Mr. Brian Surak, Mr. Rick Mortensen, and Ms. Rhonda Brewer couldn’t even keep their own stories straight in a court of law about WHY  the excavation was even being built in the first place, right next to a stressed wetland!!  The excavation was either to be built in order to provide free fill dirt for the land developer, or it was for floodplain compensation.  They cannot have it both ways!!  What is even more egregious is during the Fee Hearing, Mr. Steve Godley will confess under oath that he never even performed the required and necessary work as outlined in the Federal Clean Water Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act!!!

What does it take for one human being to expose governmental corruption and for the whole world to notice it?!

These attorneys and the Judge are  frantic to complete the permitting process immediately and rush into the consideration of sanctions against Dr. Blanco.    When everyone in the Courtroom that day, and on the day of the fee hearing have listened to this testimony, how do they keep calling this a “frivolous” lawsuit?!  Dr. Blanco has proven his case against the state of Florida!

We are exposing government corruption in Florida to help protect the people who live and visit here, as well as the wetlands and natural ecosystems that are vital to the survival of this great state.  This website is a warning and a wake-up call to everyone living in Florida or planning to visit.  Government corruption has damaged the entire state to the point that widespread environmental collapse has become a very real threat!

Dr. Blanco performed an exceptional job of revealing the illegal activities occurring both in the state governmental agency of Florida’s Water Management Districts, as well as within Florida’s state court rooms.

76. Volume 3. Page 50. Line 25. Line 1.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “And our first witness is Rhonda Brewer who was previously sworn.

THE COURT: “Yes. And you’re under the same oath.”

*********IMPORTANT: Ms. Rhonda Brewer of NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes is testifying.

77. Volume 3. Page 51. Lines 23-25. Lines 1-8. Page 52. Line 9.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you have any communications with Dr. Blanco as a result of his comments?”

MS. RHONDA BREWER: “Yes, I did. We do a lot of community outreach when we go through the DRI process and when we, you know, develop our communities. And as part of that I introduced myself to Dr. Blanco after the hearing. I expressed to him our passion about developing land in harmony with the environment.

“I shared with him the numerous environmental awards that I had received in working on FishHawk Ranch which is in Tampa, Florida, and that I looked forward to speaking with him further about the project.”

*************IMPORTANT: How can Ms. Rhonda Brewer say with a straight face that her company, Newland Homes, cares about the environment when everyone involved who were present in the courtroom at the Fee Hearing–including the Senior Vice President of Newland Homes operations and general manager for the Tampa Division of Newland Communities, Mr. Rick Harcrow–heard sworn testimony from their own expert witnesses, concerning vital environmental work, which was never done, concerning the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Federal Clean Water Act? (Fee Hearing. Page 35. Lines 17-25)

The following video clearly shows that Newland Homes has no: “passion about developing land in harmony with the environment.”  They only have a “passion” for making as much money as possible, while putting on a show concerning their wonderful environmental record.  This video was taken on the week of June 9, 2014, when Newland Homes began the senseless destruction of cypress wetlands, immediately adjacent to Dr. Blanco’s property.  We can all rest assured that Ms. Rhonda Brewer, Mr. Rick Harcrow, and the entire cast of award-winning, environmentally concerned developers at Newland have spent many hours lamenting the deaths of all of these vital, legally protected trees and natural resources that they have stolen from all of us.  Dr. Blanco can be seen standing to the left of a professional hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to destroy and remove another cypress wetland, which can no longer help to filter our drinking water, collect flood waters, or to provide oxygen for people, as well as all of the animals that inhabit the area.  Every cypress wetland that is destroyed, such as this one, leads to further sinkhole and wildfire proliferation.  Newland Homes should be held accountable for their crimes, instead of being given awards for them!!

Dr. Blanco asked the man in the video if he had been hired to destroy the cypress wetlands on this property by Newland Homes.  He indicated that he had been sent by Newland Homes to accomplish the destruction of these natural resources.  Ms. Rhonda Brewer had told a large group of people in attendance at a Pasco County Commission meeting that Newland Homes attempted to minimize the destruction of trees, whenever possible, and even showed pictures of large machinery capable of moving trees to a new location.  The man hired by Newland Homes in the video said that, while such relocation of trees was possible, that he was simply ordered to clear the site without any regard for the destruction of the cypress wetland.   Development could have easily proceeded by constructing around these valuable wetland resources, which are so important to all of us, but Newland Homes did not care enough to preserve them.  This is another example of Newland Homes proving that their carefully-crafted public image of being environmentally sensitive developers is nothing but a public relations production, which obviously does not exist when it comes time to cashing their paychecks!

 

“Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g. certain farming and forestry activities.)

“The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material may be permitted if: (1) a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or (2) the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. In other words, when you apply for a permit, you must show that you have, to the extent practicable:

A) Taken steps to avoid wetland impacts,

B) Minimized wetland impacts on wetlands; and

C) Provided compensation for any remaining unavoidable impacts.”

Newland Homes Communities and NNP-Bexley recently purchased what had been previously called the WinSuncoast property.  Dr. Blanco vigorously fought against the issuance of environmental permits required from both Federal and state agencies for this project to be constructed.  The challenge was filed through the Department of Administrative Hearings, Case Number 07-3945, entitled Dr. Octavio Blanco v Win-Suncoast, Ltd. and Southwest Florida Water Management District.

Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that Federal and state agencies must ensure that developers first attempt to avoid wetlands, then minimize impacts if avoidance is impossible, and then finally mitigate to replace wetlands that were unavoidably lost, so that there is a “no net loss” of Federally protected wetlands.  The Judge in this case totally ignored the fact that the entry road for the project actually was designed to deviate towards the wetland to ensure its destruction.  This is a blatant violation of the avoidance requirement of Section 404.  The developers wanted to put the roadway in the wetland because this land had no monetary value to them.  They wanted to preserve non-protected uplands for their construction activities, which would otherwise be covered by a roadway.   The Judge heard this testimony, but chose to grant the permit, even though it was in direct violation of the Federal Clean Water Act.

There was no effort to minimize wetland impacts, as required in Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act.  The effort was instead to maximize the destruction of wetlands that had no monetary value to the developer.  They could then fill this land, which was previously useless to them, with many truckloads of dirt, and create property which could now support construction activities.  Newland Homes Communities and NNP-Bexley has chosen to carry out the devastation on this property by virtue of now owning these fraudulent and illegal permits.

The requirement for mitigation due to the illegal wetland destruction on this property was accepted by government agencies to be fully satisfied by the purchase of the so-called Marr property in north Florida.  A document in the Environmental Resource Permit file in this case was located by Dr. Blanco, and it stated that the developer was grateful to the Water Management District for making them aware of the opportunity for the developer to purchase the Marr property, which the Water Management District wanted to own, and transfer this property to them, in exchange for the required Environmental Resource Permit.  Water Management Districts throughout Florida have used this technique to become one of the largest land owners in the state.  They ignore the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act as long as developers BUY PERMITS USING LAND AS THEIR CURRENCY.  The Marr property does not in any way replace the functional and Federally protected wetlands that Newland Homes Communities and NNP-Bexley have vigorously destroyed.  The Marr property only adds to the hoarding of land by the Water Management Districts.

The Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal agency charged with the enforcement of the Federal Clean Water Act.  They chose to allow the violations described above to be ignored and were complicit by granting their permits allowing the destruction of these wetlands, as well as dredge and fill approval, which allows the developers to fill in these wetlands, so that they may build on previously unavailable property.  A letter signed by Charles A. Schnepel of the Army Corps of Engineers, dated July 29, 2008, is included in the top tab named Additional Documents.  Mr. Schnepel concludes that somehow, there were no violations to the Federal Clean Water Act, even though the violations were flagrant, obvious, and could be clearly identified by anyone that was truly interested in enforcing Federal law.

Dr. Mark Raines, who is a Ph.D professor in environmental studies at the University of South Florida, testified in the Win-Suncoast case Number 07-3945.  He was outraged that the developer proposed to move the Sandy Branch of the Anclote River so that construction could occur on the property where the river used to flow.  Dr. Raines stated that such an activity was in violation of Federal law.  The Sandy Branch of the Anclote River flows northward from Hillsborough County through Pasco County and eventually empties into the Anclote River.  A multi-million dollar bridge was constructed as part of the Suncoast Parkway to cross over the Sandy Branch at that point.  The developer argued that the part of the river which they wanted to move was actually “a portion of a ditch which extends south of the Sandy Branch through the parcel.”  This quote is cited by Mr. Charles A. Schnepel of the Army Corps of Engineers in his letter explaining the Corps’ approval of this project.  The problem is that the Sandy Branch is a continuous waterway, which cannot be moved to suit the greed of developers, according to Federal law.  There was no “ditch,” which extends south of the Sandy Branch.  THIS WAS THE SANDY BRANCH OF THE ANCLOTE RIVER.

Mr. Schnepel’s  “review” of this matter, which he addresses in his letter, somehow didn’t involve simply looking at a map or visiting the site, which would clearly indicate that Federal law was being violated by the movement of the actual Sandy Branch, and not a fantasy “ditch,” which was invented by the developer.  This is another clear example of the importance of the United States Constitutional First Amendment Right that citizens have to enforce laws that are being violated by the very agencies that are supposed to be policing these matters.  It is clear that both Federal and state agencies are more concerned with the financial health of wealthy developers than they are with the protection of all of the citizens that live in these areas.

The Florida Forestry Service  on July 2, 2014 sent an incident commander to the development site, which is currently being destroyed by Newland Homes Communities and NNP-Bexley, because they had violated their Forestry Burn Permit by leaving active fires at their construction site, completely unattended.  The Forestry official documented the violation by filing Incident Report # 2014-11-0275.  This document can be found in the tab above named “Additional documents.”  The Forestry Incident Commander recommended that the burn permit be revoked, and the site shut down.  This Florida Forestry Agency is the same government entity that  Mr. David Fogler was denied the opportunity to testify in the Newland Homes Communities, NNP-Bexley permit challenge, filed by Dr. Octavio Blanco.  It is clear that Newland Homes Communities and NNP-Bexley continues to have no regard for public health and safety concerning their  development projects, to this very day!!!  The photograph found below was taken by the Florida Forestry Incident Commander on the evening when he found an unattended fire on the property being developed by Newland Homes Communities and NNP-Bexley:

 

These videos are just further examples of Newland Homes Communities’ disregard for Federal and state laws, including the Federal Clean Water Act, Federal Clean Air Act, and the Federal Endangered Species Act, which are meant to protect people, as well as the environment.   Mr. Steve Godley’s own testimony: “There were broad ranges of services, because of the nature of the petition; it was a broad petition. We’re environmental consultants, and this was an E.R.P. permit, SO THE RANGE OF ISSUES THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH WERE EVERYTHING RELATED TO EITHER WETLANDS OR WILDLIFE, HYDROLOGY OF WETLANDS, ET CETERA. SO THE RANGE OF SERVICES INCLUDED A FIELD REVIEW. BECAUSE I HAD NOT BEEN TO ALL OF THE SITES THAT HAD BEEN NAMED IN THE PETITION, I HAD TO GO TO THE FIELD.”

MR. STEVE GODLEY CONFESSED HIS NEGLIGENCE REGARDING HIS INCOMPLETE WORK, AND HE ALSO ADMITTED TO HAVING TO PERFORM AN ADDITIONAL 210 HOURS OF WORK TO BE UP TO PAR WITH THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT!!! HOW CAN MR. STEVE GODLEY’S OWN CONFESSION OF NEVER PERFORMING THE FEDERALLY REQUIRED WORK UNDER TWO FEDERAL LAWS EVER BE ACCEPTABLE? HOW COULD NNP-BEXLEY AND NEWLAND HOMES, THE LAND DEVELOPERS, EVER RECEIVE THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS TO BUILD THEIR COMMUNITY? BOTH THE JUDGE AND ALL ATTORNEYS, AS WELL AS THE SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT OF NEWLAND HOMES AND THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF NNP-BEXLEY WERE IN COURT THAT DAY AND  LISTENED TO THIS TESTIMONY. THEY HEARD THAT THE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS INVALID DUE TO INCOMPLETE WORK MANDATED UNDER FEDERAL LAWS, AND YET THE LAND DEVELOPER WAS GIVEN THE PERMIT ANYWAY. ALSO, DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO WAS FINANCIALLY SANCTIONED FOR WHAT WOULD AMOUNT TO A HALF OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR EXPOSING THIS CRIME WITHIN A COURT OF LAW!!

Mr. David Smolker, an attorney representing NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, denied that the Federal Clean Air Act even exists in Florida or that Newland Homes has to legally acknowledge this Federal Law and take it into consideration in order to build their lucrative subdivisions and businesses, at the expense of public health and welfare. According to Newland Homes Communities’ own attorney, the risk of fire hazards is not important to the Public Safety or Public Health, or the wildlife and plants to consider before building their houses. Shouldn’t Newland Homes, as a home builder, have at least some concern for the people and pets who will be living in their neighborhoods, which could very well be engulfed by burning infernos, putting all of their residents’ lives and property at risk? Preventing fires, or even considering the increased fire risk, due to illegal development activities, was clearly not a concern that Newland Homes wanted any part of, while pursuing an Environmental Resource Permit from the Florida state governmental agencies in order to construct their neighborhoods, even though the state of Florida REQUIRES that fires be prevented.

Mr. David Smolker also denied that Florida State Statute 403 was intended to enforce the Federal Clean Air Act, when he said that fire hazard was NOT about preserving AIR quality standards, even though the Levin Law School, at the University of Florida, declared that Florida State Statute 403 IS Florida’s adoption of the Federal Clean Air Act. The Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston; all attorneys, for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley, and the Southwest Florida Water Management District; and the expert witnesses, were fully aware and informed of these unacceptable legal violations. This doesn’t sound like a company with a: “passion about developing land in harmony with the environment.” Instead, this sounds like corporate greed with governmental corruption, allowing the greed to manifest as financial sanctions against Dr. Blanco! This is clearly illegal activity on the part of NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, as well as the attorneys and of the Judge present in Court that day!

78.  Volume 3.  Page 52. Lines 10-25. Lines 1-7.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you set up a meeting with Dr. Blanco?”

MS. RHONDA BREWER: “Yes. At his request following that meeting he had asked us to come out onto his property and to look at the various features of his property.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And did you go out?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes, I did. I also had asked my engineers to join me and also our project manager which include Dean Hill from Newland Communities, Brian Surak with Heidt & Associates and Tim Plate with Heidt & Associates. And we came on to his property on April 20th, 2006.”

MS LYTLE-CRAIG: “And what did you discuss or do at that meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, primarily we, you know, walked around the property and listened to Dr. Blanco’s history about the land. There was also a great amount of time in which Dr. Blanco spoke about the amount of fees and costs that Westfield Homes had incurred as a result of his challenges and how the Suncoast Expressway was realigned as a result of his challenges.

“And he appeared quite boastful in the fact that Westfield Homes had incurred so much financial damage as a result of his challenges. And during that time he had said that we better deal with him now as opposed to later or that it would cost us significant financial harm.”

************IMPORTANT: First of all, it has already been established as FACT that NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes actually does not care about the environment in the locations where they build their communities! Secondly, when a neighbor, who has lived there for over 50 years, tries to come forward in an effort to explain the history of the property, which has led to passionate efforts to protect the property, somehow the NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes’ representatives characterize this effort as being boastful and threatening. In reality, Dr. Blanco was merely trying to avoid further litigation with this new neighbor. Dr. Blanco’s family had been neighbors with the Bexleys for over 50 years, without incident. He went to school with one of the Bexley sons for many years. The problems began when Newland Homes purchased the Bexley ranch and initiated their famous “passion about developing land in harmony with the environment,” mantra, which they routinely try to sell to the public.

Newland Homes’ true colors showed themselves at the mediation hearing, which was held in an effort to avoid further court proceedings. The mediation was held at the Southwest Florida Water Management District office on Highway 301, south of Fowler Avenue, and east of Tampa. Dr. Blanco had made it very clear in his deposition that he did not want to litigate, and only requested that there be no excavation in the area immediately north of his wetland. Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s sworn testimony found below indicated that SWFWMD decided to approve an excavation of 12 feet in depth, but due to the kindness of Newland’s corporate heart, they had decided to only excavate 2-3 feet. This begs the question of why Newland Homes refused to not excavate at all, since this would have ended litigation and would have cost much less than incurring far greater legal fees.

The Vice-President of Newland Homes was present at the mediation, and he clearly had a plan, which explains the refusal to not excavate those meager 2-3 feet. The mediator asked if anything could be done to resolve the situation and avoid further litigation. Mr. Vice-President said that Newland Homes would agree to not excavate at all if Dr. Blanco would sign a document stating that he would not block any efforts to utilize Mr. Bud Bexley’s water withdrawal permits, which Newland Homes had designs upon. Bud Bexley had been granted a water withdrawal permit from the Water Management District many years ago, which authorized pumping in the millions of gallons per day range, but he had never used much of the water. The other shoe dropped when the Vice-President of Newland Homes played his ACE IN THE HOLE, offering Dr. Blanco what he had asked for, namely no excavation near his wetland. The cost, however, was the potential for millions of gallons of water per day to be withdrawn, whether the area was in drought conditions or not. It is clear that Dr. Blanco was drawn into this litigation by using the 2-3 feet deep excavation site as bait, hoping that he would give Newland Homes the water that they coveted. So much for “passion about developing land in harmony with the environment.” The many awards that Newland Homes received for being environmental role models that Ms. Rhonda Brewer was so proud of are nothing more than camouflage for the actions of another developer who will stop at nothing to improve their bottom line, regardless of the damage caused to people in the vicinity or the environment.

Newland Homes clearly had no concern for ANY AND ALL FIRE HAZARDS THAT THEIR PROJECT WOULD CREATE! AFTER ALL, NNP-BEXLEY AND NEWLAND HOMES DOES NOT THINK THAT FIRE HAZARDS ARE A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY!!!” This was confessed by Mr. David Smolker, one of the attorneys for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, in Volume 1, on Page 74, and Lines 3-10. Here is Mr. David Smolker’s testimony:

MR. SMOLKER: “They deal with water resources in the state. That is the over arching subject matter of chapters 373 and four–403. They do not–so we’re dealing with the water resources of the state. And that’s been broadly defined to include wetlands and in some instances to include the vegetation that are associated with wetlands. However, it does not reach or regulate fire, a fire risk.”

Anyone living in a Newland Home or even considering purchasing a Newland Home should be well-advised that fire risk in your neighborhood and surrounding properties is irrelevant to this huge corporation, that is only truly concerned with making money. How else could the Vice-President of the company suggest that it would be a good idea to pump millions of gallons of water out of the ground in an area that has already been severely impacted by neighboring municipal wellfields, which pump millions of gallons of water per day, regardless of drought conditions? The attorneys representing Newland Homes: Mr. David Smolker and Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig–as well as the Senior Vice President, Mr. Rick Harcrow–made it very clear that they have no concern for fire risk! This is based upon their own sworn court testimony!!! Even more troubling is the fact that Mr. Smith, who was present as the attorney for the Water Management District, and thereby also as an advocate for the citizens of the region, was also adamant that his agency had no regard for the Federal Clean Air Act, as well as even considering health concerns due to increased wildfire smoke. All property owners, as well as visitors to Florida, are forced to pay property tax, a portion of which goes directly into the pockets of the Water Management Districts, who clearly are more concerned with helping developers than protecting your lives!

Are you angry yet?  If you care about the state of Florida and your tax-dollars funding governmental corruption, you have every right to be very angry

Regarding Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s accusation of listening to “boastful” talk from Dr. Blanco…Dr. Blanco was simply being truthful. Dr. Blanco went up against the Department of Transportation of Florida and Florida Turnpike, concerning the illegal alignment of the Suncoast Expressway through protected wetlands, and he succeeded in moving the Expressway away from these important and sensitive, natural resources. Dr. Blanco challenged the Cone Brothers Construction Company’s plan to excavate a 75-acre sand mine immediately adjacent to the west side of his family’s wetland. This legal challenge led to the 75-acre site that was going to be excavated, instead being designated for conservation. Dr. Blanco went up against Buccaneer Gas and Duke Energy, concerning a multi-billion dollar interstate gas pipeline, that was planned to destroy much of the same wetland discussed in the NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes’ case. These giants of industry believed that they were powerful enough to violate Federal and state laws regarding the destruction of protected wetlands, much like NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes. Dr. Blanco succeeded in relocating the entire gas pipeline to another area of the state, which reduced both environmental and economic impacts. Dr. Blanco challenged the Environmental Resource Permit that had been applied for by Westfield Homes because of their plan to excavate a 90-acre sand mine immediately to the east of his family’s wetland. The Environmental Resource Permit was denied, and Westfield Homes eventually abandoned the project and sold the property. Dr. Blanco also challenged Progress Energy in their efforts to construct enormous multi-million dollar electrical power lines, which had been proposed to destroy much of this same wetland system. Progress Energy eventually withdrew this route from consideration.

The above statements concerning some of the most powerful governmental agencies and business giants all had one thing in common. They all believed that they were above the law because of their economic and political power. None of them accomplished what they were certain that they would be able to complete. The reason is that a concerned American citizen, in this case Dr. Blanco, spent considerable time and money to enforce the laws of our land. If Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s conclusion, when referring to Dr. Blanco as, “he appeared quite boastful,” perhaps it is because she has never encountered anyone who accomplished so much without the driving force of greed to amass wealth being the over-riding factor for their actions. She apparently equates a history of the facts concerning her new neighbor’s property as being “boastful,” because these amazing accomplishments were not in response to financial gain, but only in an effort to do the right thing. It is a shame that such a concept, which does not have financial gain at its core is so foreign to Ms. Rhonda Brewer.

The difference between the large corporations, such as the one that Ms. Rhonda Brewer works for, as well as the governmental agencies mentioned above, and Dr. Blanco is very simple. Corporations and governmental entities say that they are very concerned about preserving the environment, and that their efforts are never about the money. In reality, their efforts are always about the money. Dr. Blanco has spent so much of his own time and money defending the wetlands that should have been protected by the agencies charged with the enforcement of state and Federal laws, that many of the attorneys working against him, have asked him why does he do this? They cannot fathom the concept that anyone could care about protecting the environment, which is vital to all of us, more than the relentless pursuit of money and power, which is what they covet!

Unfortunately, the “fair and impartial” judicial system that was in place during all of the legal proceedings referred to above, no longer exists in Florida. Those at the very top of the decision makers for our state have decided that citizens will no longer be allowed to exercise their Constitutional First Amendment Right to petition the government in an effort to enforce Federal and state laws. Crimes such as murder, kidnapping, rape, etc., are investigated by well-trained police officers and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, in order to allow a normally functioning society to exist. Violations of the Federal Clean Air Act, Federal Clean Water Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as state statutes regarding environmental and public safety, have no such police force working to ensure that they are not violated. American citizens were given the First Amendment Right to demand that these laws are not ignored, but that is no longer the case here in Florida. Those individuals who attempt to protect other citizens, as well as the environment, can expect nothing but abuse, harassment, and unjust rulings by courts that have been manipulated to favor the wealthy and have little concern with our laws or Constitution.

79. Volume 3. Page 53. Lines 10-14. Page 54. Lines 15-25. Lines 1-3.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you make any concessions to basically appease Dr. Blanco?”

MS. RHONDA BREWER: “Well, yes. I–I understood that he was, you know, very passionate about the property. And even though I had full opportunity to dig down to 12 feet based on Rick Mortensen’s geotechnical reports that were submitted in June to Heidt & Associates, I had full knowledge that we could go to 12 feet, in an effort to be a good neighbor, I–I offered to shallow up that area, that excavation to two and a half feet as opposed to going down to 12 feet.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did that result in any incurred costs for Newland?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes. It resulted in substantial costs because we essentially left about 200,000 cubic yards of suitable fill on the ground. And if I had to import that material, it essentially at 12 bucks a cubic yard, was a financial impact of 2.4 million. So I thought that we had gone above and beyond in trying to cooperate and show good faith efforts in working with Dr. Blanco.”

***********IMPORTANT: Once again, Newland Homes is being shown to only care about financial gain and not about preserving the environment. As discussed previously, Newland Homes was using this excavation site, which they knew was a great concern to Dr. Blanco, as bait to draw him into this case. They knew that they were either going to get free water from Bud Bexley’s water withdrawal permits or outrageous sanctions against Dr. Blanco from this corrupt judicial proceeding. According to Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s own testimony, nowhere does she say that the excavation is meant to protect the environment. Instead, she is consumed with the idea that the excavation is meant to provide free fill dirt for Newland Homes’ construction project. Ms. Brewer is focused on the concept that she would have been allowed to dig down to 12 feet deep in a 30-acre pit, right next to a wetland, which would have likely decimated that wetland by completely draining it dry and destroying it, as well as damaging Dr. Blanco’s own wetland!

In her own words, the 30-acre excavation is a cash-cow for Newland Homes to obtain free fill-dirt for construction and NOT for floodplain compensation because she says: “It resulted in substantial costs because we essentially left about 200,000 cubic yards of suitable fill on the ground. And if I had to import that material, it essentially at 12 BUCKS a cubic yard, was a financial impact of 2.4 million (dollars, sic.).” Clearly, this testimony absolutely contradicts Mr. Brian Surak’s own testimony where he states that not one single grain of sand will be used for fill-dirt because it is strictly for floodplain compensation in order to prevent flooding! (Volume 1. Page 78. Lines 24-25. Lines 1-4. Page 79. Lines 5-10.) The Newland Homes’ experts can’t even keep their own stories straight in a court of law!!!  Is this excavation for free fill-dirt or for floodplain compensation in order to prevent flooding, and not a single grain of sand will be mined for the free fill-dirt?!   Why can’t Newland Homes keep their own story straight between their own expert witnesses?! Obviously, lies are difficult to hide and keep hidden.

If this excavation were truly for floodplain compensation in order to prevent flooding conditions for their new land development project, then the concept of free fill-dirt would not be an issue–the concept of flood control for the nearby houses and businesses would be the focus of the excavation. Here, Ms. Rhonda Brewer shows that Newland Homes was only concerned with free fill-dirt for the land developer. Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s own choice of using the word “bucks” shows her mindset, as well as the mindset of Newland Homes. They are only interested in making money, and they are not interested in protecting the environment around the homes where peoples’ families will eventually be living! Newland Homes has already stated, through their own attorney, Mr. David Smolker, that wildfires are not a concern for them to pre-plan and protect their future home-buyers from these disasters! Based upon Newland Homes’ own attorney, Mr. David Smolker, wildfires and the conditions around Newland Homes Communites are never even contemplated in their minds when they design, build, or maintain their very own neighborhood communities! Mr. Smolker says that fire is NEVER even considered in the best interests of public safety or public health! Who could possibly  want to live in a community where this type of mindset exists within those land developers and home builders, that hold the future safety and welfare of your families in their hands?  The fact that Newland Homes does not consider fire hazards within their land developments is clearly recorded in this Court of law when Mr. David Smolker denies fire as being a hazard for the future home-buyers in the interests of public health and public safety! ( Volume 1. Page 73. All of it. Page 74. Lines 18-25. Lines 1-14.).

80.  Volume 3. Page 54. Lines 13-17. Page 55-62. All of it. Page 63. Lines 14-25. Lines 1-11.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “When did you next communicate with Dr. Blanco about the Bexley Ranch project?”

MS. RHONDA BREWER: “It was literally days within our hearing date to get approved on the ERP which was in March of 2008.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What happened at that time?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, at the request of Dr. Blanco he said that we needed to meet immediately to discuss the project prior to it going before the board for approval, and asked if we would meet him at SWFWMD. I did so. And I had the project engineer, Brian Surak with Heidt & Associates, attend that meeting with me.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What did Dr. Blanco express at that meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, he basically started off by saying he was surprised that we hadn’t contacted him again. And he had said that he did not want me to dig the M10 mitigation area, that he wanted me to leave it alone.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did he ask you to remove the permit from the governing board agenda?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes, he did.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What did you tell him about that?”

MS. BREWER: “I–I said to him, Dr. Blanco, don’t you recall that we had a USF meeting with your scientists and it was determined at that time that there would be no adverse impacts to your wetlands due to the fact that we were downstream. And I had offered to, you know, shallow up the mitigation areas and we didn’t have any issues to deal with. And he couldn’t recall that we had a meeting.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you tell him that you could not remove the item from the agenda or you were not willing to remove the item from the agenda?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes, I did because I felt that I had gone above and beyond in working with Dr. Blanco through offering to shallow up the mitigation areas and be available throughout the nearly two years of the design and permitting process to him.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What were the concerns that Dr. Blanco expressed to you at this third meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, he said that if I didn’t shallow it up I–I asked him what could I do to prevent you from filing the appeal. And he essentially asked for a series of things.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What did he ask for?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, he asked that if we were going to maintain the excavation depth of two-and-a-half feet, that we periodically remove vegetation within the mitigation area so that it wouldn’t burn because he had a concern if we dug the area out, that it would result in a higher increased risk of fire. That by taking out existing pine and palmetto, that it would have a higher likelihood of–of water catching on fire.

“So he had asked that we remove the existing vegetation, that we maintain a fire break along Tower Road with periodic mowing, and that we write up an agreement that we would never dig or excavate below the permitted two-and-a-half feet depth. And his final demand was $50,000.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did Dr. Blanco raise any of the issues described in his petition in his meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “In which meeting?”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “In the third meeting did he raise any of the issues that he described in his petition?”

MS. BREWER: “He raised the issue about fire.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And that was it?”

MS. BREWER: “Pretty much.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did he make any statements, you know, about the–about not having an issue with the Bexley project?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, he had made a couple statements. He had said that, you know, I’m not really concerned about you guys. You guys, you know, are downstream, but that if you don’t comply with the $50,000, that I’m going to essentially open up the project and look at everything on the site, I’m not going to just focus on the southwest corner.

“And he also went on to say that, you know, he–he operates as a vet only part-time and that his full-time job is to go after developers. And he also stated that he didn’t think that he would be successful in any of the appeal processes, but that he wanted to know he did everything that he could to cause harm and delay.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did Dr. Blanco say why he was asking for $50,000?”

MS. BREWER: “I asked him why he needed the $50,000. And he said it was to install a well. And I’d also like to add that in the spirit of cooperation again, I had agreed to the periodic mowing, to create the fire breaks on Tower Road, to signing an agreement that I would not dig below the two-and-a-half feet. And I also offered to install a five-inch well for him. I asked him for the purposes of why he needed a well and he said it was to fight the fires.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “But when you offered to comply with all of his requests except the money and put in the well for him, which is what the stated purpose of the money was, what did Dr. Blanco say?”

MS. BREWER: “He said no, he wanted the $50,000.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What was your initial reaction to the demand for money?”

MS. BREWER: “I was disgusted. I was floored. I had worked with him, I had essentially left two and a half million dollars in the ground. I’ve worked 13 months very hard with SWFWMD and all the agencies and have gotten all the approvals. And I was disappointed that he did not only recall our USF meeting, but did not recognize the efforts that we had put into this project.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did NNP-Bexley agree to Dr. Blanco’s extortion in order to prevent him from going forward?”

MS. BREWER: “Absolutely we do not–we do not believe in extortion, so we–when I brought this back to our partners, they agreed with my position.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you have any communications with Dr. Blanco after the meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “I left the meeting saying that I needed to go back and check with our partnership, that I didn’t think we could agree to the $50,000. I consulted and then I called him and told him that we could not comply with that request. I offered again to put in the well, to do, you know, the periodic mowing and the other things that we had discussed, but I was not going to pay him $50,000.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What was the next communication from Dr. Blanco?”

MS. BREWER: “The appeal got filed on our permit.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “I have no further questions for Ms. Brewer.”

THE COURT: “Anything from the District?”

MR. SMITH: “No, Judge.”

THE COURT: “Cross from the petitioner?”

DR. OCTAVIO BLANCO: “Do you recall after I received the intent to permit I think from SWFWMD my asking you to send some material over to the doctors about the project?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes, I did. I’ve complied and sent the construction documents for the project.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. And then do you recall that when I called you back that I actually said that Dr. Stewart believed that there would be impacts from those excavations, that he had a concern, do you recall that?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes. And I was surprised and reminded you that he didn’t have a concern when we met at USF.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. And then is it your recollection that–that I suggested that we postpone or continue the matter being heard by the board just so that we could resolve it because memories are different, Stewart essentially telling me that he didn’t recall ever agreeing to this–”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Objection, hearsay.”

DR. BLANCO: “Do you recall that I asked for a month or two because I didn’t want to file on the case, I would prefer to just get this ironed out in the next month or so versus a long-term delay? I didn’t want to hurt the Bexley’s, that I’ve known them for years, do you recall any of that?”

MS. BREWER: “I recall you asking us to pull it from the agenda so that we could have further discussions. But I reminded you that we had a year and a half of time after the USF meeting where we had resolved all our issues and I wasn’t willing to pull it from the agenda.”

DR. BLANCO: “Do you recall the comment I made that I did not want to file, that I was trying to find a way to resolve this without filing? Do you remember that ever?”

MS. BREWER: “I remember you asking us to pull it from the agenda.”

DR. BLANCO: “But not the reason for it? Not the reason for it as–as towards avoiding filing for the challenge? You don’t remember that?”

MS. BREWER: “I asked you–I remember you asking us to pull it from the agenda so that we could talk about it further.”

DR. BLANCO: “But you don’t remember the part about to avoid bringing up this–this permit challenge and harming Bexley, you don’t remember that part of the conversation, that was the reason to postpone it for the board? You don’t remember?”

MS. BREWER: “No, I recall you saying that if I didn’t pay the $50,000 you would appeal.”

DR. BLANCO: “No, no. This was–I mean before–this was the time before that. This was when I was saying, okay, the reason I want to try to work this out was so that we can avoid this, I don’t want any problems with them. You don’t recall that? You don’t recall that I was trying to avoid filing on the case, that’s why I asked to postpone the governing board hearing, you don’t remember that part?”

MS. BREWER: “I–I don’t–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “–agree.”

DR. BLANCO: “So you don’t remember that part. Do you recall me saying that the–that my preferred outcome based on what Dr. Stewart said is just to stay at seasonal water? Do you recall me saying that I preferred that to anything else? Do you recall that?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “And it essentially resulted, because I consulted with my engineer, of not digging it. And I didn’t feel that that was appropriate.”

DR. BLANCO: “Fine. And then when I–do you recall that when you indicated that you could not proceed or did not wish to proceed without that excavation, that if there was anything else that could be done–you just testified about that–did you ask if there was anything else could be done, do you recall me saying that normally I just stick to the letter of what my scientists tell me, in this case they said, you know, just stick with the seasonal high water only, but that in this situation it was getting close and I was just going to on my own say could you possibly reduce the two-and-a-half feet maybe somewhat? Do you recall that?”

MS. BREWER: “I recall you asking that, but I also recall that in our USF meeting we had agreed to the two-and-a-half feet. And I simply was not going to give up any more than I had already given up as a result of this 200,000 cubic yards I already left in the ground.”

DR. BLANCO: “And do you recall when the first discussion of the money came up it had to do with response to your asking me is there anything else, any way we could resolve this beyond just reducing the excavation depth? Was that the initial question or I just showed up in the meeting and said I want $50,000?”

MS. BREWER: “No. Your first–your request was to not dig it–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “And to pull myself from the agenda–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “–to discuss it further.”

DR. BLANCO: “Right. So the first mention of–of money in some form was after I had attempted to resolve the issue that Dr. Stewart had had a problem with, which was the excavations? And do you recall what I suggested $50,000 was for?”

MS. BREWER: “Yeah. I stated it already.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. Was there anything beyond just digging the well?”

MS. BREWER: “No.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So you don’t remember anything about having to continually do heightened fire breaks, long-term procedures to keep the fires out based on not just the potential impacts for the drying of the area, the drying of those wetlands north of A3, but also because the increase in the people that would be coming into the area and starting human-caused fires? Do you remember any of that discussion?”

MS. BREWER: “I just simply recall that you wanted $50,000 to stop the appeal process.”

DR. BLANCO: “So essentially all you remember is $50,000, not all the other things I asked you about?”

MS. BREWER: “For the well.”

DR. BLANCO: “That’s all.”

BY MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Ms. Brewer, do you have any experience in regard to what a five-inch well costs?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes. I’ve installed numerous five-inch wells on the FishHawk Ranch Community Development land. And they’re 10 to $12,000 typically.”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Nothing further.”

THE COURT: “Thank you. That’s all.”

**************IMPORTANT: This will be one of the most important passages from the court transcript to show Newland Homes’ total disregard for the safety and welfare of the future homeowners of their subdivisions.

(1) “Well, at the request of Dr. Blanco he said that we needed to meet immediately to discuss the project prior to it going before the board for approval, and asked if we would meet him at SWFWMD. I did so.”

***Ms. Rhonda Brewer admits to the meeting between Newland Homes and Dr. Blanco that occurred at the SWFWMD office, which was referred to in the above paragraphs.

(2) MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What did Dr. Blanco express at that meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, he basically started off by saying he was surprised that we hadn’t contacted him again. And he had said that he did not want me to dig the M10 mitigation area, that he wanted me to leave it alone.”

***Why hadn’t Newland Homes kept in contact with Dr. Blanco? Also, Dr. Blanco expressed his desire for the excavation to not occur.

(3)  MS. BREWER: “I–I said to him, Dr. Blanco, don’t you recall that we had a USF meeting with your scientists and it was determined at that time that there would be no adverse impacts to your wetlands due to the fact that we were downstream. And I had offered to, you know, shallow up the mitigation areas and we didn’t have any issues to deal with. And he couldn’t recall that we had a meeting.”

***This entire paragraph of sworn court testimony by Ms. Rhonda Brewer is a composite of twisted lies and deception.  Dr. Blanco clearly recalled that there had been a meeting with his scientists at the University of South Florida.  He was the person who arranged for the event to occur, in an effort to reach a positive outcome concerning this case.  It is beyond comprehension that Ms. Rhonda Brewer would testify under oath that Dr. Blanco:  “couldn’t recall that we had a meeting.”  Dr. Blanco recalled the meeting very well.  What he did not recall was Ms. Brewer’s assertion that:  “it was determined at that time that there would be no adverse impacts to your wetlands due to the fact that we were downstream.”  Ms. Rhonda Brewer fails to mention who made that determination, but it was certainly not Dr. Blanco’s scientists.  Her portrayal that all relevant matters had been resolved after the U.S.F. meeting were nothing more than fantasy on her part, as is the majority of her testimony.

(4) MS. BREWER: “Well, he asked that if we were going to maintain the excavation depth of two-and-a-half feet, that we periodically remove vegetation within the mitigation area so that it wouldn’t burn because he had a concern if we dug the area out, that it would result in a higher increased risk of fire. That by taking out existing pine and palmetto, that it would have a higher likelihood of–of water catching on fire.

***Dr. Blanco asked for Newland Homes to prevent fire hazards on their property that is immediately next door to his own property.

(5) “So he had asked that we remove the existing vegetation, that we maintain a fire break along Tower Road with periodic mowing, and that we write up an agreement that we would never dig or excavate below the permitted two-and-a-half feet depth. And his final demand was $50,000.”

***In actuality, the $50,000 was to replace the land developer’s responsibility of performing these tasks and transferring these responsibilities over to Dr. Blanco for him to be able to oversee.   Dr. Blanco has learned the hard way from other court cases that documents drafted in a court of law are often next to impossible to enforce, so he did not want to depend upon another entity to fulfill the requirements in the settlement.  $50,000 was to pay for protection from wildfires by installing a well, purchasing hoses and underground irrigation pop-up sprinklers to distribute the fire-fighting water throughout his 100-acres (after all, a well without a means of delivering the water throughout the property will NOT protect the property from wildfires), money to annually hire workers to come out with tractors and dig fire breaks during the dry season, etc.  It is also important to remember that the $50,000 figure was given in response to Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s request for a settlement offer.

At the mediation meeting, Dr. Blanco suggested three alternatives in order for them to come to an agreement.

First, Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley would cancel their plans to excavate the land, and Dr. Blanco would receive no money from them, and the litigation would end.  This was Dr. Blanco’s preferred alternative to protect his wetland.

Second,  Dr. Blanco offered to split the difference of no excavation versus two-and-a-half feet of excavation, resulting in an excavation of one-and-a-half feet.  This was offered as an effort to avoid litigation, even though it would still carry some new risk to the wetlands according to Dr. Blanco’s experts.  The $50,000 figure was in response to Ms. Brewer’s request for a settlement proposal, and it included long-term costs involved in protecting Dr. Blanco’s property from the effects of the Newland Homes development.   Dr. Blanco told Ms. Rhonda Brewer that the fire-fighting equipment, the new well, hoses, underground pipes with pop-up sprinklers, annual mowing and fire-break construction, purchased with this money, were necessary so that Dr. Blanco could feel that he had done everything within reason to help protect his wetland, neighboring housing communities, businesses, and schools from this new forest fire threat.

Third, proceed with the Environmental Resource Permit challenge in court.

(6) MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “In the third meeting did he raise any of the issues that he described in his petition?”

MS. BREWER: “He raised the issue about fire.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “And that was it?”

MS. BREWER: “Pretty much.”

***Fire has been a consistent problem for many years in the vicinity of Dr. Blanco’s property ever since large municipal water wellfields began pumping millions of gallons of water per day from the region.  The fires have always originated from the north, which is the location of the NNP-Bexley property, that is in question in this court case.  The worst of all of the forest fires occurred in June of 1998, and completely destroyed the southwest corner of the NNP-Bexley property, where Ms. Rhonda Brewer insists on excavating in this case.  It was an absolute miracle that Dr. Blanco’s wetland was not destroyed in 1998, but the event left a vivid memory in Dr. Blanco’s mind of the horrific damage that only a person that has lived through such an event can truly understand.  The relentless power and destructive potential of a full-blown crown forest fire will leave permanent scars on anyone who has had this experience.   Ms. Rhonda Brewer and her associates at Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley could care less about the innocent future homeowners of their communities, as well as all other communities, that will be destroyed due to their violations and total disregard of Federal and state laws.

(7) MS. BREWER: “Well, he had made a couple statements. He had said that, you know, I’m not really concerned about you guys. You guys, you know, are downstream, but that if you don’t comply with the $50,000, that I’m going to essentially open up the project and look at everything on the site, I’m not going to just focus on the southwest corner.

“And he also went on to say that, you know, he–he operates as a vet only part-time and that his full-time job is to go after developers. And he also stated that he didn’t think that he would be successful in any of the appeal processes, but that he wanted to know he did everything that he could to cause harm and delay.”

***Ms. Rhonda Brewer has entered full-blown fantasy-land in this part of her testimony.  Dr. Blanco never uttered the words:  ” I’m not really concerned about you guys.”  One could only assume that this statement originated somewhere in the dark recesses of Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s mind.  Dr. Blanco clearly stated in his deposition in this case that he was very concerned about the excavation near his wetland, and that the entire matter could be resolved by removing the excavation site.  The concept of a $50,000 settlement would have never occurred if Newland Homes had not persisted in their demands for excavation.

It is correct that an Environmental Resource Permit challenge, by definition, opens up the entire project for discussion.  This hadn’t been Dr. Blanco’s original objective, but turned out to be crucially important as evidenced by the shocking sworn court testimony by the experts in this case, who admitted to doing incomplete and illegal studies throughout the permitting process.  We should all be grateful to Ms. Rhonda Brewer and Newland Homes for refusing to accept Dr. Blanco’s simple request to not proceed with  a relatively small excavation because it led to exposing them, the Florida Water Management Districts, as well as the Judicial System state-wide, in an enormous and currently ongoing conspiracy to violate Federal and state laws.

Dr. Blanco has been licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Veterinary Medicine of the state of Florida since 1984.  This is public record, which identifies Dr. Blanco as a full-time veterinarian.  Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s rantings and ravings concerning Dr. Blanco being only a “part-time” vet should be taken for what they are worth, which is NOTHING!  It is true that Dr. Blanco has been forced into litigation by some unscrupulous developers, which has taken time away from his veterinary work, but he has always been a full-time veterinarian.  Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s assertion that:  “his full-time job is to go after developers,” is sheer nonsense.  North Pointe is a large multi-use development project immediately south of Dr. Blanco’s property.  The developers avoided damage to the environment, as well as to the public, when constructing this project, and they were fully supported by Dr. Blanco.  North Pointe was careful to build their entry road from Highway 54 with a curve in it to avoid damaging sensitive wetlands along the Sandy Branch of the Anclote River.  Newland Homes has recently begun destroying cypress wetlands as documented in the preceeding video, which lie along the banks of the same Sandy Branch of the Anclote River, just north of Highway 54 and the North Pointe project.  It would have been accurate for Ms. Rhonda Brewer to say that Dr. Blanco sometimes goes after “BAD”  developers like Newland Homes, but fortunately, there are legitimate developers like those at North Pointe.

It is ludicrous to believe that Dr. Blanco would make the statement to Ms. Rhonda Brewer:  “that he wanted to know he did everything that he could to cause harm and delay.”  Dr. Blanco had repeatedly made it clear that he would have ended the proceedings if Newland Homes would have withdrawn the excavation site.  He also made it very clear that he had no intention of harming the Bexley’s plans, since they had been good neighbors and friends for so many years.  All of these ridiculous claims by Ms. Rhonda Brewer were fabricated by her, and somehow allowed to go on the record by this so-called fair and impartial Judge in charge of the proceedings, namely the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston.

The truth is that Dr. Blanco was attempting to prevent the tragedy of wildfires from ever happening again at that exact location.   The nearby area is heavily built up with homes and businesses, and many peoples’ lives and property are at risk.  He has had to invest large amounts of time and money in an effort to enforce state and Federal laws, which are routinely being ignored throughout Florida.

(8) MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did Dr. Blanco say why he was asking for $50,000?”

MS. BREWER: “I asked him why he needed the $50,000. And he said it was to install a well. And I’d also like to add that in the spirit of cooperation again, I had agreed to the periodic mowing, to create the fire breaks on Tower Road, to signing an agreement that I would not dig below the two-and-a-half feet. And I also offered to install a five-inch well for him. I asked him for the purposes of why he needed a well and he said it was to fight the fires.”

***Once again, if a settlement is reached and a document drawn up, sometimes it can be close to impossible to enforce the agreement.  Dr. Blanco wanted to take over the responsibility of the mowing and digging the fire breaks so as to ensure that the work would be performed in a timely manner.  The well is just one component to fight the fires.  There must be a way of distributing the water from the well to the 100-acres of land, so there would also need to be hoses and underground pipes with pop-up sprinklers.  Since none of this comes for free, Dr. Blanco felt that $50,000 was a reasonable sum to pay for these fire protection measures, that would be necessary for many, many years to come in the future.

(9) MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “But when you offered to comply with all of his requests except the money and put in the well for him, which is what the stated purpose of the money was, what did Dr. Blanco say?”

MS. BREWER: “He said no, he wanted the $50,000.”

***Enforcing a settlement agreement can be time consuming and expensive if Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley renege on their end of the deal.  Dr. Blanco desired to be the one responsible for caring for the land.

(10) MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What was your initial reaction to the demand for money?”

MS. BREWER: “I was disgusted. I was floored. I had worked with him, I had essentially left two and a half million dollars in the ground. I’ve worked 13 months very hard with SWFWMD and all the agencies and have gotten all the approvals. And I was disappointed that he did not only recall our USF meeting, but did not recognize the efforts that we had put into this project.”

***Again, Ms. Brewer states that it is all about the money and not protecting the environment when she laments about the loss of two and a half million dollars of free fill-dirt for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  Ms. Rhonda Brewer stated that:  “I was disgusted.”  This was in reference to Dr. Blanco’s response to Ms. Brewer’s request for a settlement figure, which in this case, was $50,000 to pay for all facets of fire suppression in the many years to come.  This was a very conservative estimate, which Dr. Blanco preferred to never collect, as his goal was only to remove the excavation site, which was located immediately next to his wetland.  Somehow, Ms. Rhonda Brewer was not “disgusted” when she heard testimony from many of the expert witnesses who were bought and paid for by Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley, in which they admitted to doing incomplete and illegal work on this project.  She also was not “disgusted” when she heard her attorney, Mr. David Smolker, lie to the Judge concerning Florida State Statute 403, which he claimed had nothing to do with fire.  In reality, this statute is Florida’s adoption of the Federal Clean Air Act, which is very concerned with fine particulate matter, human health risk, secondary to forest fires.

The fact of the matter is that Ms. Rhonda Brewer was actually “disgusted” that Dr. Blanco understood that Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley would never complete the terms of any agreement, once they held their coveted Environmental Resource Permit in their hands!  Dr. Blanco had already been through this process with Florida Turnpike Enterprises and the Florida Department of Transportation.  They had promised to maintain routine mowing and fence construction on a conservation site, located between Suncoast Expressway and Dr. Blanco’s wetland.  This was important in an effort to reduce fire risk and was fully agreed to in the settlement.  Once the highway agencies received their required Environmental Resource Permit from the Water Management District, they completely ignored their responsibilities spelled out in the agreement for the many years that have passed since they received their essential permit.  Ms. Rhonda Brewer was “disgusted” that Dr. Blanco had learned that settlement agreements are only as good as the control that can be guaranteed ahead of time.

(11) MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did NNP-Bexley agree to Dr. Blanco’s extortion in order to prevent him from going forward?”

MS. BREWER: “Absolutely we do not–we do not believe in extortion, so we–when I brought this back to our partners, they agreed with my position.”

***Dr. Blanco was not committing extortion.  He was asking for a very reasonable sum of money that would be used for many, many years into the future in order to protect his property from the fire hazards that Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley would be causing. Ms. Rhonda Brewer seems to have no concern over the true extortion that NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes committed when they demanded financial sanctions against Dr. Blanco and his family’s Land Trust, when they were fully aware that Mr. Steve Godley confessed that he had never performed the required and necessary work for obtaining the permit concerning the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Federal Clean Water Act!  This meant that no valid permit existed when Dr. Blanco filed his Environmental Resource Permit challenge.  There can be no “frivolous” challenge of ANY permit that is untrue or incomplete.  It has been shown on this website by the use of sworn, verbatim testimony that this entire proposed permit was riddled with such illegal and impermissible errors.   Yet, NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes somehow was awarded exorbitant monetary sanctions against Dr. Blanco and his family’s Land Trust after all of this information was heard and supposedly fully considered by the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston.

(12)  MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you have any communications with Dr. Blanco after the meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “I left the meeting saying that I needed to go back and check with our partnership, that I didn’t think we could agree to the $50,000. I consulted and then I called him and told him that we could not comply with that request. I offered again to put in the well, to do, you know, the periodic mowing and the other things that we had discussed, but I was not going to pay him $50,000.”

***Ms. Rhonda Brewer officially states that she would not give Dr. Blanco the money to purchase fire-fighting equipment or money to pay for many years into the future to hire people with tractors to mow the grass and dig fire-breaks.

(13)  DR. BLANCO: “Do you recall that I asked for a month or two because I didn’t want to file on the case, I would prefer to just get this ironed out in the next month or so versus a long-term delay? I didn’t want to hurt the Bexley’s, that I’ve known them for years, do you recall any of that?”

MS. BREWER: “I recall you asking us to pull it from the agenda so that we could have further discussions. But I reminded you that we had a year and a half of time after the USF meeting where we had resolved all our issues and I wasn’t willing to pull it from the agenda.”

***It is interesting that NOW Ms. Rhonda Brewer is stating that it had been a year and a half of time since the meeting at USF and that she was not willing to give both parties just a month or two of extra time to iron out their grievances so as to avoid a trial, but in her earlier testimony, she admits:

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What did Dr. Blanco express at that meeting?”

MS. BREWER: “Well, he basically started off by saying he was surprised that we hadn’t contacted him again. And he had said that he did not want me to dig the M10 mitigation area, that he wanted me to leave it alone.”  (Volume 3.  Page 55.  Lines 24-25.  Lines 1-3.)

Why didn’t Ms. Rhonda Brewer keep in touch with Dr. Blanco during the year and a half time period so that there would not be this hurry to build the development and that according to Ms. Rhonda Brewer, one or two months longer to have mediation was clearly out of the question?

(14.)  DR. BLANCO: “Do you recall the comment I made that I did not want to file, that I was trying to find a way to resolve this without filing? Do you remember that ever?”

MS. BREWER: “I remember you asking us to pull it from the agenda.”

DR. BLANCO: “But not the reason for it? Not the reason for it as–as towards avoiding filing for the challenge? You don’t remember that?”

MS. BREWER: “I asked you–I remember you asking us to pull it from the agenda so that we could talk about it further.”

***Clearly, Dr. Octavio Blanco tried everything in his power to avoid filing the permit challenge against Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  All he requested was for an extra one to two months for mediation, but Ms. Rhonda Brewer refused–even though she made no effort to keep Dr. Blanco informed of the project’s plans and developments for a year and a half.  However, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise because evidence of at least 40 laws being “allegedly” violated by these land developers, Water Management District, Judge, and all attorneys involved has come to light!  Now all of this information is captured on public record in the form of this Court transcript, and people from all over the world will now be able to learn about the governmental corruption here in the state of Florida, which puts all of our lives and properties in danger–and all at the tax-payers’ expense!

(15.) DR. BLANCO: “But you don’t remember the part about to avoid bringing up this–this permit challenge and harming Bexley, you don’t remember that part of the conversation, that was the reason to postpone it for the board? You don’t remember?”

MS. BREWER: “No, I recall you saying that if I didn’t pay the $50,000 you would appeal.”

DR. BLANCO: “No, no. This was–I mean before–this was the time before that. This was when I was saying, okay, the reason I want to try to work this out was so that we can avoid this, I don’t want any problems with them. You don’t recall that? You don’t recall that I was trying to avoid filing on the case, that’s why I asked to postpone the governing board hearing, you don’t remember that part?”

MS. BREWER: “I–I don’t–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “–agree.”

DR. BLANCO: “So you don’t remember that part. Do you recall me saying that the–that my preferred outcome based on what Dr. Stewart said is just to stay at seasonal water? Do you recall me saying that I preferred that to anything else? Do you recall that?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “And it essentially resulted, because I consulted with my engineer, of not digging it. And I didn’t feel that that was appropriate.”

***Ms. Rhonda Brewer cannot extricate her mind from the $50,000 figure enough to remember that Dr. Blanco did not want the money.  He wanted NO EXCAVATION next to the wetland, so as to keep the area safe from wildfires for all of the people located close-by to this area!  Remember, Ms. Brewer is consumed with the idea of free fill-dirt for the land developers, Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley!  Over and over and over again, she proves that she covets the money that would be created by the free fill-dirt, but at the price of the wetlands’ life!  Ms. Rhonda Brewer is there in court that day on behalf of Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  This is proof of those corporations’ lust for money AT ANY AND ALL COSTS!

“Seasonal water” means NO excavation, and this is what Dr. Blanco requested.  He did not want any money.  He only wanted the sand-mine excavation to be moved to another part of Newland Homes’ and NNP-Bexley’s property so as to not harm the wetlands!  Ms. Rhonda Brewer agrees that this is what Dr. Blanco requested.

Ms. Rhonda Brewer also states that it just was not appropriate to lose any more free-fill dirt money by preserving the environment instead.  Remember, Ms. Rhonda Brewer is a mouthpiece for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  She is hired to achieve their agenda–and this court case clearly shows that their only agenda is to make as much money as possible, without protecting the environment around the houses of where their homeowners will soon be living.

It is interesting to note that Mr. David Smolker’s law firm fell apart because of a similar lust for money generated by digging soil out of the earth to create large profits.  Subsequent to this case, his partners in his law firm became involved in a large sand-mine project that had the final effect of destroying the law firm after litigation and intense disagreements between the members.  Attorneys seem to be prone to adopting the ways of their greedy clients, and it seems fitting in this case that the love of money obtained by illegally destroying our environment eventually consumes even the attorneys that were influenced by their despicable clients!

 

(16.)  DR. BLANCO: “Fine. And then when I–do you recall that when you indicated that you could not proceed or did not wish to proceed without that excavation, that if there was anything else that could be done–you just testified about that–did you ask if there was anything else could be done, do you recall me saying that normally I just stick to the letter of what my scientists tell me, in this case they said, you know, just stick with the seasonal high water only, but that in this situation it was getting close and I was just going to on my own say could you possibly reduce the two-and-a-half feet maybe somewhat? Do you recall that?”

MS. BREWER: “I recall you asking that, but I also recall that in our USF meeting we had agreed to the two-and-a-half feet. And I simply was not going to give up any more than I had already given up as a result of this 200,000 cubic yards I already left in the ground.”

***Dr. Octavio Blanco would have never agreed to dig an excavation below the seasonal high water level!  This would dehydrate the nearby wetlands, and all for nothing except for providing free fill-dirt for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley so that they could further their own profits at the cost of slaughtering nearby wetlands and putting peoples’ lives and property in harm’s way!  Once again, Ms. Rhonda Brewer cannot stop obsessing over her free fill-dirt sand mine pit when she pouts and states that she has already left 200,000 cubic yards of free dirt in the ground!  Over and over and over again, this free fill-dirt is all that she can think about, instead of the lives, health, and safety of the future homeowners and their pets, as well as their possessions, within this Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley subdivision!  Also, Dr. Blanco NEVER signed off on the two-and-a-half feet excavation!  Perhaps, Ms. Rhonda Brewer avoided keeping in touch with Dr. Blanco at all costs for the year-and-a-half because she had wishful thinking that Dr. Blanco would forget about Newland Homes and wouldn’t be paying attention.  Why else would she avoid Dr. Blanco like the plague?  She probably just hoped he would go away and disappear so that she could further obsess over her sand-mine pit.

(17.)  DR. BLANCO: “And do you recall when the first discussion of the money came up it had to do with response to your asking me is there anything else, any way we could resolve this beyond just reducing the excavation depth? Was that the initial question or I just showed up in the meeting and said I want $50,000?”

MS. BREWER: “No. Your first–your request was to not dig it–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “And to pull myself from the agenda–”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay.”

MS. BREWER: “–to discuss it further.”

DR. BLANCO: “Right. So the first mention of–of money in some form was after I had attempted to resolve the issue that Dr. Stewart had had a problem with, which was the excavations? And do you recall what I suggested $50,000 was for?”

MS. BREWER: “Yeah. I stated it already.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. Was there anything beyond just digging the well?”

MS. BREWER: “No.”

DR. BLANCO: “Okay. So you don’t remember anything about having to continually do heightened fire breaks, long-term procedures to keep the fires out based on not just the potential impacts for the drying of the area, the drying of those wetlands north of A3, but also because the increase in the people that would be coming into the area and starting human-caused fires? Do you remember any of that discussion?”

MS. BREWER: “I just simply recall that you wanted $50,000 to stop the appeal process.”

DR. BLANCO: “So essentially all you remember is $50,000, not all the other things I asked you about?”

MS. BREWER: “For the well.”

DR. BLANCO: “That’s all.”

***Ms. Rhonda Brewer finally confesses that Dr. Blanco did not just show up one day and tried to get $50,000 out of Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  Dr. Blanco clearly did not commit extortion in asking for the $50,000 in order to purchase his fire-fighting equipment.  Ms. Brewer finally confesses that all Dr. Blanco wanted was for the sand-mine pit excavation to be moved away from vulnerable wetlands and onto another part of the land developers’ property, where the environmental conditions would be safer for all people and animals and homes in the vicinity to not experience the trauma of wildfires!.  Dr. Blanco did NOT want money–he simply wanted to have NO excavation next to the wetlands!

Once again, when Dr. Blanco asks her to remember back to their discussions, all that Ms. Rhonda Brewer can think about is her fetish with the $50,000 and not the true content of their conversations.  However, she dimly does remember that Dr. Blanco’s first request was just NOT to excavate in that sensitive area next to a vulnerable wetland.  If the excavation had just been moved to a safer location, Dr. Blanco would have left the land developers alone and not requested any money for fire-fighting equipment, or have taken them to court for a permit challenge.  However, Ms. Rhonda Brewer could not get the dollar signs out of her eyes–that free fill-dirt was just too much for her to resist!  So, how many times exactly has Ms. Rhonda Brewer of Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley proven herself to be more concerned with making free money for her corporations instead of protecting the future homeowners and their property once they get suckered into purchasing a home in one of these neighborhoods?  It is easy to lose count because it is sickening that this is THE ONLY THING that Ms. Rhonda Brewer can talk about–FREE FILL-DIRT for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley!  Where are Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s words–on behalf of Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley–that they even care at all about the safety, health, and well-being of the future homeowners whom they are trying to lure into purchasing a death trap of a home if a wildfire combusts into flames and destroys the neighborhood?  Not one word has come out of Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s mouth to confess ANY concern for future homeowners to be kept safe and sound!  However, a litany of chanted mantras concerning free fill-dirt and $50,000 for fire-fighting equipment for a next-door landowner has taken over her mouth like a parasite called GREED, and it’s taking control over a helpless host.  Clearly, something has happened that has taken over her vocal chords and not allowed her to even acknowledge the lives, safety, health and security of property of future Newland Homes’ and NNP-Bexley’s homebuyers.  What other excuse can there be–unless those corporations truly do not care a single whim for their future clients!  Simply read through all of Ms. Rhonda Brewer’s testimony and try to find just ONE place where she mentions that PEOPLE are important to Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  No…it can’t be found.  The only thing to be found to be important is the subject of MONEY!!!

Remember:  Ms. Rhonda Brewer is listed as a senior vice-president with Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley.  Clearly, she is in the loop and knows what is going on within these two corporations and what their priorities are!  Their priorities certainly do not include people!

(18.)  BY MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Ms. Brewer, do you have any experience in regard to what a five-inch well costs?”

MS. BREWER: “Yes. I’ve installed numerous five-inch wells on the FishHawk Ranch Community Development land. And they’re 10 to $12,000 typically.”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Nothing further.”

THE COURT: “Thank you. That’s all.”

***FINALLY!  It is now revealed in court what   just the well, alone by itself, costs to install.  This is not including the fire hoses or the pop-up sprinklers to distribute the water throughout the 100-acres of property.  This is not including hiring people to mow the grass and dig fire breaks every year into the future because of the increased fire hazard that Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley will be causing this area to suffer.  If anything, Dr. Blanco would be LOSING money by agreeing to this deal, since the $50,000 would eventually run out in hiring people every single year to keep the land fire-free in the future.  Dr. Blanco only wanted to prevent the excavation from being dug directly next to a vulnerable and fragile wetland.  He did not want the money, as finally, Ms. Rhonda Brewer had to confess that in fact, Dr. Blanco did not want the money.  He simply wanted the excavation to be moved.

For Ms. Rhonda Brewer to say that a well costs $12,000 is exactly like saying that a fire hydrant in a neighborhood costs $12,000.  However, there still is the need to purchase fire trucks, hoses, ladders, and to pay the salaries of the firemen who show up to battle house fires!  Ms. Rhonda Brewer is clueless, as her testimony proves this fact.  Also, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig shouldn’t be so smug about her line of questioning, since she revealed the brainless lack of thinking with her line of questioning–only revealing both Ms. Brewer and Ms. Lytle-Craig’s incompetence with understanding logic and reason.  A simple fire hydrant without a fire truck, hoses, ladders, and salaried firemen will not put out a house fire–no matter how vain and smug Ms. Brewer and Ms. Lytle-Craig try to pretend to be!

THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY IS FROM THE FEE HEARING, WHICH OCCURRED ON A DIFFERENT DATE:

81. Fee Hearing. Page 3. Lines 3-18.

THE COURT: “Nobody’s here on behalf of Mr. Blanco at this point?”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Apparently not.”

THE COURT: “Do you have any reason to expect or not expect someone to be here?”

MR. SMOLKER: “Your Honor, we attempt–we provided copies of all our fees and costs to Mr. Blanco’s counsel back in December, asked them to review it and see if we could resolve the matter. We have received no communications directly from their attorneys. So, we don’t know.”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “We made an additional attempt to contact her office yesterday, provided her with copies of materials we intended to produce today and, again, heard absolutely nothing back from her office.”

*************IMPORTANT: This Court testimony proves that Ms. Mara Shaughnessy, who was Dr. Blanco’s attorney, has committed attorney misconduct in not representing Dr. Blanco to the best of her professional abilities. As will be shown in the Fee Hearing, Dr. Blanco is not present for the proceedings because he was never even informed of this event by his attorney, Ms. Mara Shaughnessy. Not only was he not informed of the fee hearing, but he also was not even informed that the verdict had been reached against him or of his window of opportunity to file an appeal.

Both Mr. David Smolker and Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig tell the Judge that Dr. Blanco’s pathetic attorney, Ms. Mara Shaughnessy, never responds to anything sent to her by them.  Ms. Mara Shaughnessy was sent information in December, as well as the day before the fee hearing, but Ms. Mara Shaughnessy acts like she never even attended law school by ignoring her responsibilities.

82. Fee Hearing. Page 5. Lines 25. Page 6. Lines 1-3.

THE COURT: “We just started the hearing. Are you expecting Mr. Blanco, as well?”

MS. MARA SHAUGHNESSY: “I have not been in touch with him, no.”

***********IMPORTANT: Ms. Mara Shaughnessy admits to the Court that Dr. Blanco has NOT been informed that this Court proceeding is even occurring on this date. Therefore, Dr. Blanco has no idea that the fee hearing is taking place and that his financial future is about to be ruined.

83. Fee Hearing. Page 7. Lines 18-25. Page 8. Lines 1-2.

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “The total number of hours that were extended in this case, in the case of Ms. Craig, who is a senior associate was 343 hours. Her hourly rate is $325 per hour. Total was $111, 530. 25. I was lead counsel, trial counsel, but not the primary working attorney on the file. I had 82.65 hours at $400 an hour for a total of $33, 060. We had an associate who spent 1.4 hours at $125 an hour for a total of $175. So those are the total attorneys’ fees that were incurred by our firm in this case.”

**************IMPORTANT: These are staggering monetary figures to sanction Dr. Blanco with, and perhaps this is why when these attorneys are soon to listen to sworn testimony by the engineer, Mr. Steve Godley, that he had never even performed the required and necessary work in order to allow the Environmental Resource Permit to be granted to NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes, these attorneys remained silent. Perhaps these attorneys were so caught up with huge dollar signs in their eyes, as well as having malicious and vindictive natures against Dr. Blanco, and this is the reason that these attorneys remained silent as they witnessed multiple Federal laws being violated by Mr. Steve Godley.

Within this fee hearing, on page 35, lines 23-25, Mr. Steve Godley will admit: “Because I had not been to all of the sites that had been named in the petition, I had to go to the field.”  This is absolutely illegal and violates multiple Federal laws!  It was Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, herself, who questioned Mr. Steve Godley, heard this testimony, and never responded to his confession. It appears that $111, 530.25 was just too much of a paycheck for Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig to refuse to accept, even if it meant committing extortion.  Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig was fully aware that there had been no valid permit at the time of Dr. Blanco’s permit challenge.  Her demands to be paid by Dr. Blanco and his family’s Land Trust prove that she was aware that innocent parties were being persecuted in an effort to collect an unjust monetary reward.  Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, as a licensed member of the Florida Bar, should have  immediately stopped the proceedings to prevent this injustice from occurring.  Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig is also a former senior attorney for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and she should have been completely aware that this was illegal, but once again, that figure of $111,530.25 appears to be just too tempting and tantalizing to give up, even after she heard Mr. Steve Godley’s confession!  She instead decided to remain silent concerning this illegal activity and sealed her guilt!

Mr. David Smolker, also hired by NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes,  is just as guilty as Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, because he is also licensed by the Florida Bar, as an attorney in this state.  He was also the servant of the court  who chose to lie to the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, concerning state statute 403.  Mr. Smolker represented that this statute had nothing to do with fire, when in reality, it is the Florida adoption of the Federal Clean Air Act.

Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig and Mr. David Smolker attempted to add the Blanco Family Trust into this case, in an effort to steal the property that the Blanco family had worked so hard to protect for over 50 years.  The Trust had never been a party in this litigation, but that didn’t stop these attorneys from attempting to make this happen, apparently by doing little more than snapping their fingers and somehow convincing the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, that this was the proper course of action.  All of these individuals are equally guilty of this colossal miscarriage of justice!

Under Florida law, both Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig and Mr. David Smolker are allegedly further committing extortion on the dates of:  May 19, 2011 and June 21, 2011, when they  administer a subpoena duces tecum with deposition and demand that Dr. Octavio Blanco appear with:

(1.)  The document(s) creating the Blanco Trust, referring to the unrecorded Land Trust Agreement, believed to be dated Dec. 19, 1996, and known as Trust Number 99, which holds title to land in Pasco County, Florida, and any modifications or amendments thereto.

(2.)  Any documents purporting to interpret the terms and conditions of the Blanco Trust.

(3.)  Any documents appointing Trustees of the Blanco Trust, or purporting to describe the authority and duties of trustees of the Blanco Trust.

(4.)  Deeds, titles, receipts, insurance policies or other documents reflecting ownership or control of any asset, real property or personal property (including but not limited to vehicles, equipment, livestock, cash or investments) by the Blanco Trust.

(5.)  Deeds, titles, receipts, insurance policies, or other documents reflecting ownership or control of any asset, real property or personal property (including but not limited to vehicles, equipment, livestock, cash or investments) by Dr. Octavio Blanco, from January 1, 2006, to present.

(6.)  Financial records of the Blanco Trust, including but not limited to tax returns, bank records, investment records, inventories, accounts, sales records, expense records, reports to trustees or beneficiaries, sale or purchase contracts, or similar documents.

(7.)  Financial records of Dr. Octavio Blanco, including but not limited to tax returns, bank records, inventories, accounts, sales records, expense records, sale or purchase contracts, or similar documents, from January 1, 2006 to present.

(8.)  Correspondence relating to creation and operation of the Blanco Trust.

84. Fee Hearing. Page 8. Line 25. Page 9. Lines 1-4.

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Your Honor, the next matter that we would propose is we would like to call Mr. Richard Harrison. He is our fee expert, and he will provide us an opinion with regard to the reasonableness of the services.”

**********IMPORTANT: Mr. Richard Harrison is the next witness to testify.

85. Fee Hearing. Page 16. Lines 14-25. Page 17. Lines 1-4.

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Okay. First of all, with respect to the novelty, complexity, and importance of the questions involved, did you arrive at an opinion with respect to that fact?”

MR. RICHARD HARRISON: “I did. This particular case, I don’t know whether it was something I would call novel. I think it was, in many respects, a typical permit case. In terms of complexity, again, I think it was typical of what you would see in this type of permit matter. It was, perhaps, made a little more complex through the lack of cooperation on the other side.

“In terms of the importance of the questions involved, obviously, it was a very important question, very important issue to the client, in terms of, not just getting the permit, but securing it as quickly as possible for economic reasons.”

*************IMPORTANT: This particular permit challenge hearing was anything but “a typical permit case.” Dr. Blanco revealed in this hearing, as well as in this fee hearing, that at least 40 different laws have been allegedly violated! Also, it is ridiculous that NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes needed to secure their permit as quickly as possible because as of now, 2014, we are five years after this hearing, and absolutely NOTHING has been done on the property. No roads, no homes, NOTHING has been done to this property. As for Dr. Blanco not being cooperative, why should he be cooperative in allowing all of these land developers, expert witnesses, attorneys, and the Judge to allegedly violate at least 40 different laws? Dr. Blanco performed his job at the permit challenge hearing, which was to prove that the permit should not be granted. We believe that he succeeded in proving that the permit was illegal and invalid!

86. Fee Hearing. Page 21. Lines 21-25. Page 22. Lines 1-8.

MR. DAVID SMOLKER: “Were there any other facets of the results achieved in this case other than the issuance of the permit that you considered?”

MR. RICHARD HARRISON: “I did consider the fact that you were able to secure an order awarding sanctions, which, in my experience, is somewhat unusual, not only in administrative litigation, but even in state or Federal court. As much as we’d like to see it perhaps happen more, it doesn’t.

“And certainly, that is a tremendous benefit to the client to the extent that your client can be reimbursed the fees that it incurred in this case, which, in my opinion, should not have been incurred.”

************IMPORTANT:  Mr. Richard Harrison is admitting that awarding financial sanctions is unusual, even in state or Federal Court; however, the most unusual part of financial sanctions against Dr. Blanco is that fact that 40 different laws have proof within this court document of allegedly being violated, but no one is interested in pointing out this evidence.

87. Fee Hearing. Page 34. Lines 14-15.

THE COURT: “You may call your next witness.”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “We’d call Steve Godley.”

************IMPORTANT: Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig will now be examining Mr. Steve Godley. Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig is a former attorney for the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is intimately knowledgeable with Florida law concerning the required work that MUST be performed in order to satisfy all Federal and state laws. In this court case, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig is employed as an attorney for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes.

88. Fee Hearing. Page 34. Line 25. Page 35. All of it. Page 36. Lines 1-7.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Could you please state your name and place of employment for the record?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes, Steve Godley, Biological Research Associates, 3905 Crescent Park Drive, in Riverview, Florida.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Did you provide prior testimony in this case?”

MR. GODLEY: “I did.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Were you recognized as an expert witness?”

MR. GODLEY: “I was.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Was your resume previously admitted?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes, it was.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “Was Biological Research Associates asked to provide services to NNP-Bexley in support of litigation and the challenge to NNP-Bexley’s environmental resources permit filed by Dr. Blanco?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG: “What service did you provide?”

MR. GODLEY: “There were broad ranges of services, because of the nature of the petition; it was a broad petition. We’re environmental consultants, and this was an E.R.P. permit, so the range of issues that we had to deal with were everything related to either wetlands or wildlife, hydrology of wetlands, et cetera. So the range of services included a field review. BECAUSE I HAD NOT BEEN TO ALL OF THE SITES THAT HAD BEEN NAMED IN THE PETITION, I HAD TO GO TO THE FIELD.   We verified the hydro periods of the wetlands in the vicinity of the project, which is why the survey charges were necessary. Reviewed the file of record, ensure that the design was appropriate, both from a biological and an engineering perspective, attended meetings, prepare testimony, prepare exhibits and then attend the hearing and testify.”

***************IMPORTANT:  The above quote from the Fee Hearing is Mr. Steve Godley’s confession of having never performed the crucial and required work to fulfill the Federal Clean Water Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act, in order for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley to qualify to receive their Environmental Resource Permit.  Once the Judge and all attorneys present, as well as the senior vice-president for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley, hears this confession, the court proceedings should have been halted and the permit labeled as invalid due to an incomplete permit application.  However, the exact opposite occurred.  Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley were granted their illegal permit, and Dr. Octavio Blanco was severely financially sanctioned for exposing this corruption in court.  The Environmental Resource Permit was granted through an act of fraud because Mr. Steve Godley had signed his name on the official permit application, stating that he had indeed completed ALL of the necessary and required work, yet in his own confession, he proves that he had NEVER performed all of the work.  The permit was fraudulently gained, and the land developers then proceeded to extort money from Dr. Blanco.

89. Fee Hearing. Page 36. Lines 8-10.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “I’d like to show you what has been marked as NNP-Bexley Exhibit 7 for identification. Can you tell us what this document is?”

*************IMPORTANT: These are the first and exact words spoken in the courtroom that day, immediately after Mr. Steve Godley’s confession that he had not been out to all of the land sites named in the petition for NNP-Bexley and Newland Homes to receive their Environmental Resource Permit, and that he had to go back out to the field. In going back out to the field, Mr. Steve Godley will soon state that he had to perform an additional 210 hours of extra work in order to have completed his responsibilities, which are required by the Federal government under both the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Federal Clean Water Act.

Ms. Margaret Lytle Craig has already been shown to be receiving $111, 530. 25 for her work in this court case, so it would appear that this sum of money was enough to prevent her from immediately turning to the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, and demanding that the Court deny the Environmental Resource Permit, based on the indisputable fact of Mr. Steve Godley’s confession, that crucial and required work had not been performed!!! Instead, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig speaks of a mundane exhibit that had been allowed in Court.

Also, it will be shown that the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, who has just listened to this confession by Mr. Steve Godley, is nowhere to be heard, gasping in shock and amazement at this most damning confession!

90. Fee Hearing. Page 37. Lines 1-6.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “Were the services described in those invoices actually performed?”

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE CRAIG: “And were the services necessary to address issues raised in the litigation?”

MR. GODLEY: “Yes.”

*********IMPORTANT: Mr. Steve Godley states that he performed the services and that the services were necessary to “address issues raised in the litigation,” but the question that is NOT asked is why Mr. Steve Godley waited until AFTER Dr. Blanco filed the challenge to the permit for Mr. Godley to actually go back out to the field and to perform the crucial and required work! If Dr. Blanco had not challenged this permit, Mr. Steve Godley would have never performed the work required by the Federal government.

91. Fee Hearing. Page 37. Line 9.

MR. STEVE GODLEY: “There was a total of about 210 hours of time.”

**********IMPORTANT: It is ridiculous that only after a permit is challenged, Mr. Steve Godley goes back out to the field to do the required work, which was a total of about 210 hours of time. This would be the equivalent of 5-and-a-half extra weeks of work, if he performed it straight in a row, without working on anything else!

92. Fee Hearing. Page 39. Lines 16-18.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG: “If I could offer Exhibit 7 and 8 into evidence, please?”

THE COURT: “Any objection?”

**********IMPORTANT: These are the first words uttered by the Judge, the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, since listening to Mr. Steve Godley’s confession that he had not been to all of the land sites named in the petition, and he had to go back out to the field for an additional 210 hours of work that was supposed to have been performed before the permit could even be up to be challenged. This is page 39, Line 18. The Judge’s only concern is if there is any objection to an exhibit. Mr. Steve Godley’s confession was on page 35, Lines 23-25. According to Court documents, there are 93 lines of testimony between Mr. Steve Godley’s confession and the first words out of the Judge’s mouth, in which the Judge’s words have absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Steve Godley’s confession!

93.  Fee Hearing.  Page 53.  Lines 14-23.  Page 54.  All of it.  Page 55.  Lines 1-18.

THE COURT:  “Ready to proceed?”

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Yes, sir.  At this time, we would call Mr. Rick Harcrow.”

THE COURT:  “Good morning.”

THE WITNESS:  “Good morning.”

THE COURT:  “Raise your right hand to be sworn.

RICK HARCROW, the witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE WITNESS:  “I do.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Would you please state your name and place of employment for the record?”

MR. RICK HARCROW:  “It’s Rick Harcrow.  I’m senior vice president of operations and general manager for the Tampa Division of Newland Communities.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “What are your duties and responsibilities in that position?”

MR. HARCROW:  “My duties as senior vice president, is to be–managing all of the aspects of the business of the division, including all of our active communities and all of our startup communities and all of joint ventures interests.  That includes land acquisition, management, entitlements, permitting, environmental, architectural, and all aspects of the business.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “At this time, I’d like to show you what has been marked as NNP-Bexley 13 for identification.  Can you tell us what that document is?”

MR. HARCROW:  “It’s a copy of my resume.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Does that accurately reflect your education and professional experience?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Yes, it does.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Are you familiar with the entity known as NNP-Bexley, Limited?”

MR. HARCROW:  “I am.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “What is your position, if any, with NNP-Bexley?”

MR. HARCROW:  “NNP-Bexley is a limited partnership that is made up of Newlands Entity, which is NNP of Tampa, of which I’m an officer of.  I’m the vice president of that entity and then the Bexley family.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “What are your duties and responsibilities in regard to NNP-Bexley?”

MR. HARCROW:  “NNP-Bexley?  My responsibilities are to manage the land, the acquisition, the business plan that Newland has, as part of the partnership, and to oversee all of the acquisition, entitlements, and permitting processing and development activities for the project, as well as sales and marketing, eventually.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Are you familiar with the administrative litigation brought against NNP-Bexley by Dr. Blanco?”

MR. HARCROW:  “I am.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “How are you familiar with that process?”

MR. HARCROW:  “I’m familiar with it by way of having been involved in a number of meetings.  And our vice president of operations, who is Rhonda Brewer (phonetic), also kept me involved in the ongoings of the challenge.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Did you review pleadings and correspondence?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Did you review and approve billing related to the case?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Can you please describe the damages or other harm NNP-Bexley could have suffered if Dr. Blanco had prevailed in this litigation?”

MR. HARCROW:  “The harm would have been substantial loss in time with our entitlements and our approvals, our platting of Phase 1 and ongoing uncertainties and delays in terms of land development and all the additional land carry that would go along with that.  Entitlements require time-sensitive items to be done as part of the approval.

“So, there was a great risk of losing those items or defaulting on those items and triggering a noncompliance with our development order and development agreement and would require a substantial cost and time going back, and to bring those into compliance, which my experience is that you would get another round of regulatory obligations with that.  So, those are a few.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Did NNP-Bexley have a significant financial stake in this–”

MR. HARCROW:  “We did.  Our initial investment and land cost, and all of the professional fees and studies and costs are in the range of tens of millions of dollars at this point.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Are you familiar with the expert witness and attorney’s fees, litigation costs and other costs incurred by NNP-Bexley in the cost of this litigation?”

MR. HARCROW:  “I am.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Were you present for the testimony of the previous witnesses in this sanctions hearing?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Are you familiar with the documents that have been entered in this case, including the invoices?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Yes, I am.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Do you agree that the testimony and documents fairly and accurately reflect the services provided to NNP-Bexley in the course of this litigation?”

MR. HARCROW:  “I do.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “And do you agree that those fees and costs are obligations of NNP-Bexley that have to be paid?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Yes, they are.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “Have those fees and costs been paid by NNP-Bexley?”

MR. HARCROW:  “Those costs and fees have either been paid or they are in the pipeline to be paid, yes.”

MS. LYTLE-CRAIG:  “I have no further questions for Mr. Harcrow.”

********IMPORTANT:  Mr. Rick Harcrow’s presence in court proves that a senior vice president for both Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley listened to Mr. Steve Godley’s confession that no valid permit could have been granted since the permit application was incomplete, due to Mr. Godley’s negligence in fulfilling his duties, as required by both state and Federal laws.  However, even though Mr. Harcrow listened to Mr. Godley’s confession, this did not stop him from accepting the Environmental Resource Permit that he illegally obtained, as well as extorting Dr. Blanco out of multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, when he knew that the permit was invalid.

94.  Fee Hearing.  Page 58.  Lines 10-20.

MS. MARGARET LYTLE-CRAIG:  “At this time, we have one additional exhibit to offer.  It is an excerpt of the hearing transcript that we would mark as NNP-Bexley Exhibit 14.  And we are offering that for the purpose of showing Dr. Blanco’s testimony on Pages 294 and–294, 295, and 296 regarding his filing of the petition as both a trustee and as a beneficiary of the trust for the Blanco property.”

THE COURT:  “All right.  It’s received.

(Respondent’s Exhibit 14 received in evidence.)

***********IMPORTANT:  The attorney for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley, Ms. Margaret Lytle-Craig, is desperately trying to include the Blanco family Trust into this court proceeding because they believe that they can convince this “Honorable” Judge that they should be allowed to steal the Blanco property!  The Honorable Judge, J. Lawrence Johnson, apparently was all for this illegal land grab.   Luckily, for the Blanco family, a Pasco County Judge ruled that the Blanco family Trust was not a party in this proceeding.  Another Pasco County Judge refused to even allow the attorneys working for Newland Homes and NNP-Bexley to even view the Land Trust documents.   Thank goodness that there are still some honest Judges in the state of Florida!  Otherwise, the land that the Blanco family worked, bled, and sweated over for most of their lives, would have likely been handed over to an unscrupulous group of money hungry felons, who have absolutely no regard for what is right or legal!!

95.  Fee Hearing.  Page 58.  Lines 22-25.

THE COURT:  “All right.  Is there evidence to be presented by the district?”

MR. MATTHEW MITCHELL:  “Yes, your Honor.  The district, as a public agency, we have decided ultimately not to pursue an award of attorney’s fees, simply because no expert witnesses–no outside legal counsel had to be employed by the district; it was just district staff that defended the case.  Therefore, as I said, we will not seek attorneys’ fees.

“However, simply because the costs incurred in this case are taxpayer funds that could have been put to a more beneficial use, we would like to recover our costs involved.  I have spoken with counsel for petitioner, and we have–I believe you have a copy of our one exhibit, it’s marked Exhit Composite A.”

THE COURT:  “Okay.  Yes, I have it.”

MR. MATTHEW MITCHELL:  “I can just briefly summarize this, as petitioner’s counsel said she didn’t object to that coming into evidence

THE COURT:  “All right.  Without objection it’s received

MS. SHAUGHNESSY:  “Yes, go ahead.”

(Respondent’s Exhibit A received in evidence.)

MR. MITCHELL:  “Basically, what this whole exhibit contains is–as you can see, the front page is basically a summary of our costs.  These costs are limited to court services and court reporting agency fees.  As you can see, there are invoices from the Division of Administrative Hearings.  Hopefully, they total $7,714.94 and then and then three court reporting agency invoices totaling $3,199.30.  And as I stated, that–the district would like to recover these litigation costs incurred and would request permission, your Honor, just to inform the Court–

“And just for your knowledge–and, again, counsel for petitioner said she didn’t object to just stating for the record the amount of time spent by district legal staff.  In this case, the district legal staff was Jason Smith and myself.  We spent a total of 152.4 hours working on the case.  That’s excluding any time spent in preparation for and attendance at today’s hearing.  Assuming, arguendo, that a reasonable fee of #$150 per hour would have been found to be a reasonable fee, had we sought attorney’s fees, that would have been an attorney fee amount of $22,860

“At this time, the district has no more evidence.  We would just ask for an award of this litigation cost totaling $10,914.33”

**********IMPORTANT:  Mr. Jason Smith and Mr. Matthew Mitchell were present throughout this entire court proceeding in their capacity as attorneys representing the Southwest Florida Water Management District.  As such, they are representing the welfare of the citizens of this District, in an official capacity.   They both heard sworn court testimony indicating that numerous Federal and state laws had been violated, which could very likely endanger the lives of the very citizens that they are charged with protecting.  Neither Mr. Matthew Mitchell nor Ms. Jason Smith  did anything in this case to protect their citizens.  In fact, Mr. Jason Smith fought as hard as any of the attorneys being paid by Newland Homes to do everything within his power to be sure that this illegal Environmental Resource Permit was granted.  He did everything including lying to the Judge to allow this blatantly incomplete and illegal permit to be granted.  Apparently, Mr. Matthew Mitchell was only concerned with the $10,914.33 that he felt that the District should be reimbursed by Dr. Octavio Blanco to cover DOAH fees and court reporters’ fees.  Mr. Mitchell never expressed any concern for the many violations of Federal and state laws that he had been witness to throughout these proceedings.  The safety and welfare of the citizens that he was supposed to be representing was irrelevant to him.  Only the collection of $10,914.33 mattered to him and to the Southwest Florida Water Management District that  he was employed by.

One must assume that Mr. Jason Smith and Mr. Matthew Mitchell were only carrying out the orders of their superiors at the Southwest Florida Water Management District.  This is very troubling since it means that the Agency charged with protecting our environment and welfare is actually working for the land developers.  To top it all off, they are operating using property tax money that we are all forced to pay.  Things continue to get worse at the Water Management Districts, right up to the present.  Governor Rick Scott has just appointed Elijah “Ed” Armstrong of Dunedin to the Water Management Governing Board.  According to an article in the Tampa Bay Times, Mr. Armstrong is “one of the region’s most prominent attorneys for developers.”  Isn’t it good to know that someone like Mr. Armstrong will be in charge of supposedly protecting your welfare and environment until at least March 2018?  Who do you think Mr. Armstrong will be working for?  Will it be the wealthy developers that line his pocket on a regular basis, or will he work tirelessly to protect the environment and the citizens who don’t pay him one red cent?!

Mr. Craig Pittman and Ms. Patricia Mazzie recently reported in The Tampa Bay Times that Deputy Secretary Jeff Littlejohn turned in his resignation at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection after three years of running the regulatory division.   It is important to note that the DEP has oversight of the Water Management Districts throughout Florida.   It is also very telling that Mr. Littlejohn is the son of veteran Florida Chamber of Commerce lobbyist, Chuck Littlejohn.  Are you beginning to realize how easy it has become in the state of Florida to violate any semblance of the observance of Federal and state laws when all of the decision makers are just one big happy family taking care of each other?  Unfortunately, they are not taking care of us!

Deputy Secretary Jeff Llittlejohn had become famous or infamous about a year after his hiring when “he ordered the agency’s top wetlands  expert to approve a permit that she said would violate state law.”  When Connie Bersok refused, she wound up being suspended and investigated by the Agency.  “Later, during a legal challenge to the permit, a Judge declared Bersok to be the only one giving credible testimony, and blasted Littlejohn and the DEP for creating a new approach developed by the department and Highlands Ranch, without opportunity for public participation or input.”  It is important to realize that it took a legal challenge to be initiated by a citizen, much like Dr. Blanco in this case, for the DEP corruption to come to light.  Now that the state of Florida has succeeded in setting the legal precedent for the financial sanctioning of citizens who are trying to exercise their First Amendment Rights to petition the government, who is left to expose these criminals who are in charge of our state?!

Mr. Littlejohn said in his resignation letter that he was glad he had been able to reduce “unnecessary regulatory burdens on Floridians by eliminating or streamlining hundreds of rules without lowering environmental standards.”  He went on to say that his staff of 1250 individuals also paid by the citizens of Florida had “significantly reduced the time it takes to make a permit decision from 79 days in 2010 to 28 days this year.”  Isn’t it amazing that the removal of hundreds of rules and the shortening of all factors concerning the granting of a potential permit by 51 days on average has somehow not lowered any environmental standards?  The leaders of the state of Florida have become some type of wizards or magicians that can guarantee our safety and protection while greatly reducing the consideration of any factors or laws that are meant to protect us.

Dr. Blanco was present at a Southwest Florida Water Management District governing board meeting when a letter from the Governor was read into the official transcript of the proceeding.   The Governor ordered the Water Management District officials to streamline permitting for developers, even if it meant stopping merit pay raises for government employees.  Obviously, this same line of thought has been accepted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.  Clearly, a more appropriate name for this agency would be the Florida Department of Developmental Protection.  The take-home message is that the government of the state of Florida has become so corrupt that no one in power has any concern whatsoever for the welfare of the citizens, unless you happen to be in the highest percentile of the wealthy!

THE COURT:  “All right.  Anything–”

MS. MARA SHAUGHNESSY:  “No.”

THE COURT:  “–from the petitioner regarding the district’s presentation?”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY:  “No.”

THE COURT:  “Anything from the petitioner?”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY:  “No.”

THE COURT:  “All right.  If there is nothing further, that concludes the evidence in the case.  If the parties wish–first of all, does either–is any party ordering the transcript of this hearing?”

MR. DAVID SMOLKER:  “We weren’t planning on it, your Honor.  We would propose to just submit a proposed order.”

THE COURT:  “Within ten days from today?”

MR. SMOLKER:  “Yes, sir.”

THE COURT:  “All right.”

MS. SHAUGHNESSY:  (Nodding head.)

THE COURT:  “All right.  That concludes today’s proceedings then.  Thank you.”

MR. SMOLKER:  “Thank you, your Honor.”

THEREUPON, THE HEARING WAS CONCLUDED AT 10:38.

********IMPORTANT:  Ms. Mara Shaughnessy was very consistent in her portrayal as Dr. Blanco’s attorney.  She essentially only had one thing to say repeatedly, which was the word:  “No.”  Ms. Mara Shaughnessy was wise to keep Dr. Blanco away from the fee sanction hearing.  Dr. Blanco would have said a lot more than “No,” when given the opportunity to speak about these proceedings.  Ms. Mara Shaughnessy exhibited every possible trait of being a corrupt attorney by not speaking for Dr. Blanco and doing her part in the conspiracy by keeping him completely in the dark concerning hearing dates, as well as the final judgment of hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs that he had been judged to owe.  Ms. Mara Shaughnessy chose to allow a process server to inform Dr. Blanco of his debt.  Apparently, the Florida Bar approves of such behavior regarding one of their licensed attorneys, since they have taken no action against Ms. Mara Shaughnessy.  Anyone that is anxious to have their lives ruined by the ultimate corrupt attorney should look up Ms. Mara Shaughnessy to represent them in a court of law.

Contact Ms. Mara Shaughnessy here if you want a really bad attorney:

http://www.marashaughnessy.com/

Telephone:  1-(813) 657-6700

Perhaps Ms. Mara Shaughnessy was really a very good attorney for the other side.  It is hard to believe that anyone could be that incompetent unless that was their intent.

CLOSING SUMMARY:  

The intent of this website has been to warn the residents and visitors to Florida that corrupt governmental actions have caused very real and serious dangers to the safety and welfare of all of us.  Sworn court testimony from recognized experts have clearly shown that Federal and state laws, which are meant to protect us all, have in fact been ignored and violated, as a matter of “business as usual” in the corrupt state of Florida!  The dramatic increase in sinkhole and wildfire activity can be directly traced to years of state-sponsored and condoned violations of the laws that were meant to protect us.

The threat of wildfires has become so great that the Florida Forestry Service has erected large billboards along Interstate 75, warning people that “WILDFIRES ARE COMING!  DO YOU HAVE A PLAN?”  The increased risk of wildfires will continue to get worse due to mismanagement of our resources by  the state agencies that are charged with their protection.  This website has clearly shown that these agencies are more concerned with assisting wealthy developers in their relentless pursuit of profits than in conducting their stated objectives, which involve protecting us and our environment.  The Water Management District, as well as the Honorable J. Lawrence Johnston, were complicit in this case in their efforts to remove an accepted official from the Florida Forestry Service, who was present in Court that day and ready to testify.  The state officials in charge of this case wanted no part of this testimony going into the public record, and illegally dismissed this important witness.  This action bodes very poorly for anyone to expect improvement in the wildfire situation in our state, when officials from the Forestry Service are not allowed to speak.

The Water Management Districts of Florida employ many well-trained and qualified scientists.  Unfortunately, those in power choose to ignore the recommendations made by these scientists, if the facts turn out to be negative towards the goals of the developers.  It is our hope that scientists who have worked for these agencies in the past will now come forward and share the information that they have concerning their experiences with having their work and scientific conclusions invalidated by their corrupt superiors.

One such scientist who worked for the Water Management District confided to Dr. Blanco years ago that there was a period of time coming when sinkholes were going to become a big problem in Florida, due to the mismanagement of our resources.  This prediction has come to pass as all of us are aware of the homeowners’ insurance dilemma, that has caused large increases in premiums, due to the incidences of sinkholes.  This scientist further predicted that subsidence events would begin to occur here, which will be much more damaging than sinkholes.  Subsidence events involve square miles of land, which sink into the ground, but unlike sinkholes, these events are irreversible and impossible to correct.  Subsidence events are also NOT COVERED  by standard sinkhole insurance coverage, which means that homeowners would not be reimbursed for the value of their homes that were destroyed.

This website is a clear warning to all readers that even consider visiting Florida.  Do your research and realize that any one of us could end up like Mr. Jeffrey Bush, peacefully sleeping in his bed one moment, and then suddenly falling to his death in a huge sinkhole that engulfed him, never to be seen again.  The dangers caused by many years of government corruption must be recognized and corrected before it is too late for all of us.