Mayor DeGeorge meets Rick Barnett - the video

[News]

[Bill (admin)]

The teaser ....

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk8f8HxqN1U

.... and now the show:

PART 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLjVSdmrkM

PART 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgXbA4wgbK8

PART 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuoVWPlvuBA

Enjoy!

[CHAZ]

  I watched the 6:00P.M. news on channel 7 and was quite intrigued by the Barnett versus De George video.  Now granted, I am not a huge fan of De George, but it sure looked to me like Barnett was lost as hell.  He cannot produce a document showing where she ever applied for the exemption on the mentioned property or any other documentation. 
  I am not an attorney but any first year clown with a bar card could take down the appraisers office on this one.  In the video Mr Barnett told the Mayor to prove that she never did.  It seems to me that someone should step in and tell Mr Barnett that it is his job to do that.
  I don't know about you but with all of the shady looking deals and devaluations for certain individuals, I think that a very in-depth review is certainly in order for the appraisers office.  If only people would remember this at election time.
  I realize that Mayor De George shocked the world by getting elected in the good old boy area but this whole thing stinks and I think that the appraisers office just got the code enforcement guys off of the front page. Peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KandP]

I'm torn on this one.  On one hand, I got the impression that Barnett was almost giddy with having the media in his office for the meeting.  Maybe I am wrong, but always thought a resident had to apply for the exemption ...  so have to agree with CHAZ in "where is the documentation?".

On the other hand, how can you go all those years being notified that you are receiving the exemption without noticing you are not paying the tax (or ignoring the notices).

After seeing this, I've concluded that they both (DeGeorge and Barnett) have no business holding public office.  Based on recent events, Barnett's office needs a full review ... things don't smell right. Thanks admin/Bill for posting the links!!  (ohh ... and where the heck was News 13???!!!!)

note to the show:  A polygraph is not properly termed a "lie detector" ... any polygrapher will tell you this.  The operator reviews the machine's data and simply provides 3 conclusions ... No Deception Indicated - Deception Indicated - Inconclusive.  While is it a great investigative tool ... that is all it is. 

[cenotesnana]

KandP..
Interesting how you saw the video. I do not have sound on my work computer and all I did was watch the body language. It appeared to me that the mayor strolled into the office with the intention of showing the PA who was the boss...(let us not forget her famous quote to DG 'who do you think you are talking to the mayor of the city like that) then again, that was strictly body language that I was assessing.
To be honest, I think this whole matter seems a waste of time. I am sure the mayor is not the only tax payer to have found themselves in this position. Whether she knew or didn't, she owes the taxes. The statute is specific about the fines for this offense (classiffied as a non criminal felony) if proven she knowingly kept the homestead exemption. I think she is guilty of not paying attention to her affairs, with a liberal attititude that it is was someone elses fault and they're all out to get me..I think the average person would have seen it as a 'stupid' mistake on her part, afterall, we are ALL guilty of stupid mistakes, aren't we?? She should have said, I will pay what I owe and be done with it. If she wanted to protest the fines, as is her right, she should have just said, I am protesting and left it at that. That is far more mature than putting yourself into a name calling - finger pointing foray...I am not saying that the PA's office may not be negligent.. however, ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. What she should be saying is shame on me for not paying more attention to my own affairs. If she is that busy, she probably shouldn't have put herself in the running for mayor. It would also seem to me that a software program should have been able to pick this up. So..my questions is, who provides the software? Is it a program designed by the state, the county...?? Where did that come from so it can be fixed for the future.

As for the polygraph..if each one believes they are telling the truth, won't the test reflect that. We all know that liberals (and some others)  have a strong propensity to make themselves believe what they want, no matter the facts.

I personally have no dog in the hunt..I don't live in PC, don't vote for the mayor.. I have no qualms wth the PA in the few times I have had to talk with that office. I don't believe the PA has to produce a signature for the homestead to prove his case. Notices are sent out to property owners with the intent to correct mistakes. If she paid no attention repeatedly, she delayed the inevitable. I would question her ability to scrutinize the expenses of her city if she wasn't scutinizing her own.

However, the exchange did make my long, tedious drive down HWY231 very interesting this morning...

[cyberscan]

Let me say that I cannot believe that I would be actually sticking up for Mayor DeGeorge.  From what I saw in the News Hearld, the property appraiser stated that he did not have to produce signed documents showing DeGeorge applied for both exemptions because that law states that such records only have to be kept for three years.  However, the government can make claims going back as far as 10 years.  As much as I dislike DeGeorge and her arrogance, I believe that she is in the right in this case.  Here is why:

The property appraiser has made claims that she has files homestead exemption on more than one piece of property but, he cannot show a statement signed by DeGeorge stating this.  What proof does he have that she actually applied for this exemption and that it was not a mis-entry in the computer system (or even worse, doctored records).  I am not accusing the property appraiser's of this mind you.  I am only pointing out the possibility. 

With all of this said, if the property appraiser cannot produce documents with DeGeorge's signature to show that she applied for dual exemptions, the property appraiser should have no case.  As far as DeGeorge not reading notices, that can be due to several causes.  Junk mailers like to disguise advertisements so that they look like official government notices (I have received many of these), there fore she may have thrown them out.  The post office could have delivered the notice to the wrong address.  Some kids playing around could have removed the notices from her box.

What should be done in this case is for the property appraiser to cancel the bad exemption.  This same action should be applied for EVERY case in which there are no records to indicate that the property owner is in the wrong.  Yes, the law may state that the property appraise can go after back taxes as far as 10 years, but the law does not state what proof is required, and in the U.S. the burden of proof should be on the accuser.

[RedSpeck]

Thanks for the links to the full fiasco via YouTube, Bill. It's still difficult for me to determine who looked the worst. One thing is certain though, if arrogance were gold, both Barnett and DeGeorge could have retired years ago!

I think that a very in-depth review is certainly in order for the appraisers office.  If only people would remember this at election time.

How very true! But I think it is worth noting that although Rick Barnett claims to have conducted an internal investigation of his own, he is still currently under a preliminary felony investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

It is my understanding that the FDLE doesn't enter into this type of inquiry without having some decent indication of wrongdoing in the first place. Add to that the fact that their investigation has been going on for over a month now and I, for one, can't help but wonder just how in-depth they may be digging and what they may be uncovering?

Time will tell, I suppose.