The Biscayne Parker: January 2020

(((BREAKING NEWS))) On January 9, 2020 Village attorney Rebecca Rodriguez filed a case for the Village against Commissioner Dan Samaria for declaratory relief. I suspect the case asks the Court to determine that Dan's seat is vacant due to non-residency.

What on Earth is going on here? We all know that Dan lives here in the Village.

Who authorized Rebecca to improperly pursue Dan's expulsion from office? Is he being targeted by Rebecca because he questions Gray Robinson's bills- or is it about him kicking the Tracy Truppman ant hill? And who is footing the bill for the misguided prosecution of a sitting elected official?

Some months ago a disturbing rumor found its way to me, as they often tend to do. And as with all rumors, I generally tend to review and then discard them. That is, until more substantiated information surfaces. The story I am about to relay to you may turn your stomach, but it confirms my belief of how low we have sunk and illustrates just how far one resident will go down the dark hole in an attempt to remove obstacles that stand in her way of getting what she wants.

Due to the nature of this topic, this post will be rather long and detailed. But I encourage you all to read through this in its entirety so you can fully grasp the situation for what it is. And then to Connect the Dots. That said, go grab your beverage of choice, find a comfortable seat and let’s get started.

This topic mostly revolves around Commissioner Dan Samaria and Village attorney, Rebecca Rodriguez (though one can deduct that others are involved).

Starting with the September 10, 2019 regular Commission meeting agenda (Item 12a), Dan Samaria raised concerns about the Village Attorney Invoices and Future Role, as being excessive with more than one attorney attending and billing for the same event, and numerous exclusive consultations with the mayor- the substance of which was undisclosed. When the item came up for discussion at the October 1 meeting, with only 4 Commissioners present, the vote to pursue further examination met a stalemate – Dan and Will Tudor voting to task the manager to identify cost and a plan to audit the billing; Tracy Truppman and Betsy Wise voting to drop the whole thing.

Fast forward to 2020, and a letter (sent via email) to Dan from Rebecca date January 3, 2020. The thrust of this letter was to question Dan Samaria “resident status” dating back to 2018 and to potentially use this as a method of “disqualifying (him) from further holding the office.”

Without going into too much personal detail, the background is that Dan has been defending a mortgage foreclosure, which is based on an attempted mortgage modification that went sideways. Banks involved have been found fraudulent, offered a settlement, principles jailed and his mortgage has bounced around between different entities. In short, it has been a mess. In order to qualify for mortgage relief, one of the tactics suggested is to stop paying your mortgage in order to prove hardship, etc. So, this was the advice Dan took and entered into default, culminating on January 7, 2020, when Dan received a notice to vacate. Importantly, as of this writing, Dan remains in his home. In addition, Dan has also secured a rental property located within Biscayne Park as a backup, eliminating any question of his residency status.

However, Rebecca’s opinion on what constituents “permanent residency” (and her possible motive) is one of the main points of contention here and will be further explained with relevant case studies provided. Read on-

Preliminarily, one of my many questions is “why” Rebecca has been looking into this matter and “who” authorized her to do so in the first place? This has never been discussed in public or during a Commission meeting. So, “who” raised these “allegations” and who stands to benefit from them?

From: Rebecca A. Rodriguez <Rebecca.Rodriguez@gray-robinson.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:40:19 PM
To: Dan Samaria <dsamaria@biscayneparkfl.gov>
Cc: Krishan Manners <villagemanager@biscayneparkfl.gov>; Roseann Prado <villageclerk@biscayneparkfl.gov>
Subject: RE: BISCAYNE PARK | Correspondence Regarding Permanent Residence

Good afternoon Commissioner,

I am following up on the correspondence below from last Friday regarding your permanent residence.

It was sent with high importance, but we have not received a response to date. Please provide us with the requested materials today as time is of the essence on this particular issue. Thank you.

Have a great day,

Rebecca A. Rodriguez | Of Counsel

I wonder “why” this is now being treated so urgently and “why” is it so “time sensitive… now?”

Well, we learned late Saturday that shortly after her January 9 email, Rebecca filed an action for declaratory relief styled Village of Biscayne Park v. Daniel Samaria, Case No. 2020-CA000543, instituting litigation against a sitting Commissioner, without Commission discussion or authorization.

A similar residency issue was addressed by the neighboring Miami Shores Village a couple of years ago. Below are summary excerpts of the law on residency as penned by an experienced municipal attorney, Richard Sarafan for Miami Shores. The specific fact pattern is a little different, but I think you'll find of use Richard's conclusion that generally, "temporary absence” and even the establishment of a temporary residence elsewhere do not necessarily serve, as a matter of law, to terminate legal residence..." (It may give perspective to know that council/commission squabbles occur in other cities.)

“There is a fair amount of case law authority addressing the concept of ’legal residency.’ Generally legal residence is the place where a person has a fixed abode with the present intention of making it their permanent home. ⁽¹⁾ The person’s “intent” is a very important factor in determining residency. ⁽²⁾ Moreover, temporary absence and even the establishment of a temporary residence elsewhere does not necessarily serve, as a matter of law, to terminate legal residence at another address.⁽³⁾

Each case is decided on its own facts, although there are some recognized legal guidelines. Many cases highlighting the importance of ’intent’ in determining ’Legal residency’ recognize that, once established, legal residency is not lost unless and until there is sufficient intent- coupled with sufficient acts- to change residency. . .

The final portion of your email asks about potential liability for the City or its representatives if they “knowingly allow a councilperson to remain in their seat even if they no longer live in the Village.” I have been unable to find any case authorities imposing such liability upon a municipality and I would be very surprised if anyone could make a successful case for imposing such a liability.”

(1) Perez v. Marti, 770 So. 2d 284,289 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) citing Walker v. Harris, 398 So.2d 955 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2981).

(2) Intention was recognized as a “highly significant factor” by the Florida Supreme Court in Bloomfield V. City of St. Petersberg Beach, 82 So. 2d 364,368 (Fla. 1955) see also, supra at 289 and Walker supra at 958. (3)

(3) There was a circumstance of a former Councilperson who accepted a temporary job in Afghanistan with the firm intention to thereafter return to Miami Shores, and who was not deemed to have thereby forfeited his seat on the Council.

Attorney Sarafan’s entire letter is available upon request.

Dan has informed me that his driver’s license, voters and business registration, and all manner of other documents and records are still maintained by him showing his Biscayne Park address. He has also confirmed to me, in the strongest possible terms, that it is absolutely his “intention” to remain in Biscayne Park.

This is not the first questionable legal opinion given from Rebecca Rodriguez. You’ll remember her ignoring standing City and County laws regarding prohibited animals, opting instead to cite an amended ADA provision.

Now Rebecca’s Case Study:

The case Rebecca cited 293 So. 2d 40 (Fla 1974) against Dan, was not only premature, but was not in my opinion on point. Further, the cases that “are on point” referenced by the Miami Shores Village Attorney are omitted. Why?

The case Rebecca cited addressed a School board member that had moved out of the district where elected, but not the County. The argument that the School board member serves the County not the district did not convince the court.

Dan has not moved and we have no districts! He has resided in BP at the same address much longer than a year before he was elected and therefore was qualified to run for office. He continues to reside here as of today Jan 12^th, and if for some reason he loses his battle he has made it clear that he has every intention to remain a resident in BP. Therefore based on the legal memo by the Miami Shores Village attorney it is my opinion that Dan is a legal resident at this time and has been since before he was elected.

But back to Dan’s agenda item this month and those pesky attorney Invoices, an email to Dan from Krishan Manners (Village manager) forward Rebecca’s email, all dated January 10, 2020, reads:

[Excerpts] “Please see email below from Gray Robinson. Because we have an agreement which legally binds us to a process for making inquiries into their billing, it is inappropriate to have this on the Commission agenda. Because my duty is to protect the Village, I recommend we remove this item from the Commission agenda. If we take this to the Commission again, it will open us up to a lawsuit with Gray Robinson.”

Of course, this is coming from a manager that is already on record stating that he does not review the bills and finds no problem with the attorney. Natch. Of course not, as he’s not the one paying these bills. We all are.
So, we have a manager suggesting for a commissioner to pull his agenda item (BTW, it’s not his place to do so per our Charter) and an employee (Rebecca) threating a law suit if he doesn’t.

OMG- How did we ever find ourselves here?

[Rebecca]: “These issues are ripe for litigation if this item proceeds (AGAIN) without giving my firm an opportunity to respond. I have one name, one reputation, and Commissioner Samaria’s reckless public statements are placing me and my firm in a precarious situation with the Village as a client.

I have already had to address these baseless allegations with a potential client in a public hearing for another municipality. We ultimately were not hired and I’m quite certain the Village’s prior hearing on Commissioner Samaria’s memo about or billing- which that councilmember noted in his comments- were the reason why. I’m contemplating what those potential damages are.

Please make a note of this objection to the item making the agenda. My firm and I will not be waiving it under any circumstances.”

Apparently, Rebecca and her firm lost a potential job. And “she’s quite certain” it was due to no other reason save Dan’s attempt to address her billing.

FACT: Dan Samaria has been the only commissioner (along with many residents) that has questioned Rebecca’s excessive billing (and overall involvement/influence) compared to other Village attorneys and sought further explanation.

If you watch the YouTube video at approx. (1 hour & 40 min.) link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwXJyrSmUs8 you will note that many of the comments are not recorded because the mic's were not functioning properly. Further, the comments that could be heard were strictly questioning certain bills, not the law work. Frankly, most of the discussion was led by Will Tudor, where he agreed the bills needed to be reviewed. I find it highly suspect that someone located this portion of the meeting and listened to this exchange at the meeting. Also, Tracy Truppman and (former commissioner) Betsy Wise defended Rebecca against Dan and Will and I guess against the Village as well.

If she is concerned about being publicly challenged on her billing then she needs to find another line of work other than local government. I wonder how she expects to maintain a relationship with Biscayne Park after she has threatened a law suit because her time entries and billing were questioned. It appears to me that she now has a conflict with the Village.

This also sounds personal to me against Dan Samaria. Could this be the purpose of her going after his “residency status” in an act of revenge (talk about baseless) and/or her actions of trying to force him off the commission? Think about it…”Who” on the commission has Dan most affected?

The Rebecca Rodriguez and Tracy Truppman Connection:

Excerpts from an email Rox Ross sent to the commission (and others) on 8/24/19 regarding the increased legal billing fees and, what looks to be personal services provided to one commissioner.

“Since Rebecca Rodriguez became lead Village Attorney, services provided in communication and/or meeting with the Mayor alone come to 25.1 + hours / $4,352.50 (fee adjusted down for no-charge entries). The amount does not include bundled entries where other tasks did not allow me to quantify the time spent with the Mayor alone. The entries generally say re: legal matters without further detail. I encourage you to compare GR’s to Herin’s and Hearn’s time entries, and I am certain that you will find few (if any) communications between the Herin/Hearn and the Mayor alone.

These are fees incurred by the Village that do not benefit the Manager in day-to-day operations, and do not benefit the rest of the Commission in its collective decision-making. The Village Attorney is not the Mayor’s personal consultant, and the Village should not pay for such services. By contrast, GR Village Attorneys’ communications with the Manager and Mayor come to 21 hours / $4,725; and, with Manager or staff (without the Mayor) only 4.7 hours / $990.”

· An ordinance (that originated from Tracy regarding Board member rules) that was written before any discussion or approval from the Commission as a body.

· Rebecca’s stall tactics (for months) addressing Dan’s agenda item on a discussion of Change of Leadership and/or Vote of No Confidence in Tracy’s performance. Her alleged reason was to delay/wait for an opinion from the Attorney General. An opinion that, by the way, never really materialized. In other words, they had “no opinion.”

· The FEMA appeal was assigned to Gray Robinson and Rebecca Rodriguez without the approval of the Commission. They claimed it was an emergency; it seems like we have a lot of emergencies under this group doesn’t it? The assignment by Tracy/Krishan to Gray Robinson to handle the appeal was not authorized.

· Rebecca acted as the attorney for Tracy to add her to an Amicus Brief listing her as Tracy Truppman, mayor of Biscayne Park on a matter of great importance to Tracy personally before the US Supreme court. This also never came before the Commission. I question were the legal services considered a Gift. If so was the gift reported?

· Rebecca acted as the attorney representing Krishan and Jenny Johnson-Sardella when they were questioned by Miami-Dade Ethics Department. Was this billed to the taxpayers?

So...what do you all think?

For me...I'll leave it at this for all involved in plotting this action.

Standing Watch,

Milton Hunter

The Biscayne Parker

The Biscayne Parker

Saturday, January 18, 2020

The Greybeards Report- Episode #2

Sunday, January 12, 2020

The Witch Hunt- Connect the Dots

Blog Archive