Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by Kaydence, Apr 9, 2017.
Where is the article in the papers about this?
Papers haven't been allowed to report this.
P.S. And it's not because they don't have the info.
Let it slip? Oh no hon, that's not what happened. Charlene Anderson knew he could not pass a background check and I'm sure so did Coy Yates. It was obviously ignored by the Radar Group and they kept putting him in positions he should not have been in.
This is what political power will do.
Don't forget the Radar Group receives taxpayer funds as well. Just another reason voucher schools historically fail....money and greed.
Even after his certification were reinstated he still had limitations in regard to handling money and because he couldn't pass a background check was not supposed to be around children. None of those things happened.
Yup, its WHO you know...
In this case, Dad.
With his felony charges was he even eligible to accept the office after he won the election?
I have not seen the felony documents yet but am told that most of it has been redacted and you can't make heads or tails of what he was convicted of.
Again, all can refer to my prior post...
That's not the case. There are parts that are sealed, but what isn't sealed is now and was before he was elected, crystal clear!!!
So @Bob Wells , you didn't like that comment huh? Well there's more...lots more.
1.) Feb 9, 1990 arrested and charged DUI. (reduced to reckless driving) one count open container, one count Improper Tag. Plead NO CONTEST. Adjudicated GUILTY April 11, 1990 and paid fines of $338.50 (Walton County)
2.) June 9, 1990 Applicant counseled or procured another person to commit Aggravated Assault on another person. Arrested and charged with Aggravated Battery (Principal 1st degree) July 19, 1990 the State Attorney's Office announced NO ACTION on the case. The INCIDENT REPORT DOES NOT EXIST. (Walton County)
3.) May 16, 1990 uttered a worthless check in the amount of $19.50 Arrested and charged. PLEAD NO CONTEST. July 13, 1990 the courts withheld adjudication, sentenced him to $61.30 restitution fees. (Walton County)
4.) May 19, 1990 uttered a worthless check in the amount of $21.63. Arrested and Charged. PLEAD NO CONTEST. Dec. 11, 1990 Courts withheld adjudication. Sentenced to $63.63 in restitution fees. (Walton County)
5.) Nov. 3, 1991 uttered a worthless check $15.00. Arrested and charged. PLEAD NO CONTEST. Court withheld adjudication March 2, 1992, sentenced him to $62.00 in restitution fees. (Walton County)
6.) Feb. 24, 1992 was accused of signing a business check for a company from another company in the amount of $3,180.08. Only a worthless check affidavit and an arrest warrant exist.
7.) Dec. 23, 1992 uttered a worthless check in the amount of $77.75. Arrested and charged. PLEAD NO CONTEST. Dec. 15, 1993 sentenced to restitution and fees $94.00
8.) Dec 24, 1992 Uttered a check in the amount $53.51. Arrested and charged with uttering a forged. PLEAD NO CONTEST. Dec. 15, 1993 court sentenced him to $94.00 in restitution fees (Concurrent with Dec. 23, 1992 worthless check disposition)
9.) Jan. 29, 1995 arrested and charged DUI. PLEAD NO CONTEST. April 15, 1995 adjudicated guilty and sentenced to to $525. in fines and fees, one year probation, license suspended for 6 months, 50 hours community service and DUI school.
10.) Oct 12, 1998 arrested and charged DUI. PLEAD NO CONTEST. Jan. 19, 1999 adjudicated guilty and sentenced to $793.00 in fines/fees. 1 year probation, license suspended for 5 years, 10 days in jail. 50 hours Community service and Level 11 DUI School.
11.) On his application for a Florida Educators Certificate dated July 9, 2002 he was asked; "Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, had adjudication withheld, entered a plea of NO CONTEST to a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation (DUI is NOT a minor traffic violation)?" Applicant failed to acknowledge his July 1990, Dec. 1990, 1991 and 1993 worthless check charges. He also listed his disposition of his 1991 Reckless Driving charge as "adjudication withheld" when in fact he was adjudicated guilty of that charge.
This is PUBLIC INFORMATION and can be obtained from the Florida Department of Education website.
Florida Statutes Violated: Section 1012.56(2)(e) requires that the holder of a Florida Educators Certificate be of good moral character.
Violated Section 1012.56(10)(a)
Violated Section 1012.795(1)(c)
Violated Section 1012.795(1)(e)
Violated Section 1012.795(1)(i)
Violated Section 1012.795(2)
Count 7 - Failed to maintain honesty in all professional dealings
Count 8 - Misrepresented one's own professional qualifications.
Count 9 - Submitted fraudulent information on a document in conjunction with professional activities.
Document executed July 15, 2003 signed by Jim Horne Commissioner of EDU State of Florida
Lynda, that was inadvertent. I don't reapond to you because when folks disagree with you you get mad. There is know common communicating with you. Thanks for pointing it out though.
I don't care that you disagree @Bob Wells. Inadvertent is something that happens by chance or accidentally without intent. Historically you always seem to side with the BS and honestly, I think its comical. You do however seem to make up the majority in this county.
Yet this is what schools are concerned about and what kids have...
Fidget spinners becoming a distraction in local classrooms
I would think a teacher on probation for Cocaine or a Principal flipping off the 331 Bridge and being Drunk or an elected official with a large criminal history with questionable history before that would be relevant.
What a distraction...it is.
The drunk principal is no longer a principal at Walton Academy.
He is now an art teacher in Paxton.
Posts like this one are why I take online fodder on any subject with a hefty dose of salt. I stood in the back of the media room almost turning blue, holding my breath, waiting to hear the shoe drop on which member you were alluding to during your speech. I have been the only press reporting regularly on the Walton district for probably at least a year or more. The daily used to attend and share a press table with me, but they fell away. Overall, I've been reporting on the district at least over five years. And this post is absolutely and unequivocally untrue for the only press that regularly covers this district, the Herald/Breeze. Not an email or a phone call or a letter has passed my desk from anyone on this subject. I would have loved a heads up on this. Nothing. Nor has the Illuminati contacted me, making tiny triangle signs which might mean if we are making up things"You are not allowed to report this."
This is just an absolute example of how one can not use social media or message boards to produce actual real news. Yet, this thread mentions anywhere up to 7 or 8 Fb pages on the female that is supposedly involved. Well, that many pages she must exist and everything all the pages say are true.The press has to meet certain standards that internet posters do not. The first one would be to cite and provide evidence to support these two opening statements. The second would be to locate and interview a real person. The third would be to separate the past issues that Eddins has had or what evidence exists to support new charges.And if I don't, my editor laughs at me and says try again. A letter to the editor is an opinion piece. An article had better damn well be written to be able to stand up to scrunity and stand alone in the factual evidence it puts forth.
I want to believe that you and most others are coming from the right place on threads and issues like these, but this post is absolutely untrue and makes me call everything involved questionable except the actual documents from 15 years ago. Why? Just why? Embellishment hurts your facts, It does not support them. I appreciated speaking with you tonight and I try to listen to our community as much as one woman reporting on education in our county can. But to sum it all up. This was bullshit.
DeFunaik Herald /Beach Breeze
(A copy of this post with my response has been sent to my Editor and Publisher)
Please read my response above.
So are you now claiming that all of this stuff about multiple arrests, adultry, special favors, etc is now all B.S.?
Alicia, I did in fact discuss this with Bruce Collier at least 2 weeks ago. I did in fact send you what was said online and screenshots last night after the meeting.
I was told before the meeting that Deb Wheeler would in fact be at that meeting. She was a no show. WJHG was also given a portion of the documents you now possess and were told about the board meeting on the 16th. They were also a no show.
A reporter from the Daily News did in fact tell me that he could not get this past his editors.
By design I did not ask to be on the agenda because I believed that if I did, I would be prevented from speaking. I did try to reach out to Russell Hughes prior to my going before the board and we played telephone tag and I never did get up with him.
The actual documents from 15 years ago speak VOLUMES as to why this man should never have been elected to the school board. The stuff recently just goes to show that a leopard doesn't change his spots. His wife didn't lie, nor did his daughter in the screen shots I sent you.
Since it has become apparent to me we are going to attack the messenger and not the message that was delivered to the school board meeting, please allow me...
I'm not responsible for his wife's comments on his actions on Facebook or her calling him out and the page later being deleted. By his wife's own admission she knew what he was up to.
I'll grant you Alicia, the woman in question has 5 maybe 6 Facebook pages and I'll also grant you the woman is not playing with a full deck (drugs tend to make you crazy) but even the next door neighbors of this woman reported him being at her residence on Paul Rd. all the time. Still others the night all this transpired, also commented to his wife that they saw the 2 of them together in public loving all over each other.
Online fodder Alicia? Well his actions certainly gave absolute credibility to the rumors!
I was not the only person who spoke at that meeting last night. Dr. Don Riley was also there and reiterated most of what I said in the statement I read to the board.
Suzanne Harris also spoke and gave Bill Eddins Jr. the benefit of the doubt saying she had supported him in the elections, that she liked him and if all this was untrue she gave him ample opportunity to stand up and say so. He sat with his face buried and would not even make eye contact. After the meeting he FLED the building.
You were there when Mr. Hughes came to me, shook my hand and thanked me also assuring me that this would be taken care of. You were also there when Ms. Winegarner came to me and thanked me, telling me what I said took allot of courage and thanked me for coming forward. While you may not have heard what was said to me you assuredly know I was approached by both of them.
This morning when I spoke to you on the phone, you had the audacity to ask me how I decided who or why I singled out certain individuals. Most who know me will tell you that I HATE politics in Walton County and corrupt officials are assuredly a pet peeve of mine. I'm pretty indiscriminate when it comes to the latter.
If news sources in this county and even Okaloosa County were half as indiscriminate, we might actually get real news reported to us so that people could make informed decisions when they go to the polls and stop voting for the riffraff we continually re-cycle in this County!
As to your comment about being the only press to report School Board meetings let me give you a refresher course on SoWal school board meetings since I've been here long enough to know how that all went down. The South end raised holy hell back in the day because school board meetings were historically held in the North end of the County with allot of residents saying they were unable or unwilling to drive to NoWal for school board meetings. The School Board listened and agreed every other meeting would be held in Sowal. Historically school board meetings have always been POORLY attended last night being NO EXCEPTION. With the exception of the people I knew who attended that meeting and yourself, everyone else in the building was somehow employed by the school system. For years prior to your service Kevin Chilcutt (at the time with WZEP) covered your beat all by his lonesome and even he will tell you that back then the meetings were just as poorly attended both in North and South Walton.
As to investigative reporters, I didn't even know the Herald had an investigative reporter let alone someone who would go out and actually speak to the neighbors who knew Eddins Jr. was on Paul Rd. or any of the other sources I have cited. Now, since I have all this information where is the investigative reporter at and I'll be sure to give them ALL the information I have since you have already told me in no uncertain terms you're not interested!!
Have a good day Alicia!
Herald is good for wrapping fish.
Saying the papers are not allowed is a little different as in they are being censored, then not having a story. Papers? Can we see your papers? And why use their ink or paper when you have posted it here for free? And have the info. Anyone that reads this thread has the info and can pull the pics. Yes, I received your email late last night, and we talked this morning but I still cannot quite grasp what you want us to do with the same information and the screenshots. That's not an issue with being allowed to run a story. It's that there's no other story....yet.
As I said this morning there is no cohesiveness and focusing on his wife who is not a public figure is way out of line for a legitimate news organization as well as the general public. There are different laws governing publicity and right to privacy, I'd maybe do a little research on them before continuing to put hers and the supposed other lady's photo out there. Just because a photo.is on Fb does not make it public property I don't think. Some are watermarked so they can maintain ownership. Has either of you ever met the young woman in real life? Face to face? I've gone to very long lengths to certify a photo was the right person
You can get news past an editor when there's new movement. You cannot get something that is no more than republishing the same thing that was already published and public records. Believe me. If the daily believed there was something to report, his editor would have told him to run with it. Sometimes new is so slow for our area a daily could run a picture of a ham sandwich,
In fact, any of the outlets would run with it if they wanted from here. They were watching this thread the minute it went up. I actually see a lot of the opposite, Children of politicians are big business. No one is sitting on your story because they are protecting him. They're not running with it because it is part old news, it's part pieces of people's business and you can't sign releases for them and with the material I've seen it's potentially libelous for a real news organization. You can post them I guess until someone possibly gets upset and gets a lawyer. I don't know about private citizens.
I uploaded photos last night that I took but they will stay on disc until ready to build the story. Those pics belong to the paper, not me.
That's a huge shark jump nice lady I met last night if you are her, if not, hello. Questionable, so far it's gossip unless you have documents or a witness except for the documents. You are solid there. Do we have documents on special favors, Besides two screenshots of a text or Fb post from a phone that is not in your possession nor property? What if it was a mock up and we ran it like it was real.
What really throws this story is in some ways is the way it is being sold. By people not directly involved. If the wife or the other lady rang up asking for an interview, they'd probably get it. It was the way it was worded. "Papers haven't been allowed to report on this" .It hasn't run because either they consider it libelous at least the personal relationship stuff. But it's not being held back because of privilege. The arrests were reported when they occurred, and didn't we have a thread here at some point on some of it a while back before elections. .I don't think him being a public figure omits her privacy. Just a guess. Meanwhile, back at the cabin, you will actually get press on your claims when I write up the school board meeting. But even I won't name the two private citizens. They've not broken a law nor attended a public meeting. People also get catfished using Fb profiles, screenshots, and such. I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea if I could, but if someone had my pic up without my permission or were trying to give it to media companies without a release, I'd get me some lawyers a lawyering. and the other party or I might be in the right, or not. But I think maybe the photos are the biggest deal. If they uploaded them and took them down and you made a copy that's sticky.
Soooo final thoughts. All the news stations and channels you mentioned that passed on this are probably following this thread.
You were a part of a public meeting by choice last night and the pictures of you that I took while giving your speech look nice. You have a limited expectation of privacy in some spaces
But the photos you sent me from the Fb pages and such not yours,
People posting your photos without permission? It's illegal
Not so, according to attorney Smith. He said anytime you take someone else's photo from a social media page and repost without permission - even if you are in the picture - you are breaking the law.
"They are using the image when they do not have the permission to do so,” Smith said. “That is copyright infringement. "
Separate names with a comma.