| VOLUSIA EXPOSED.COM |
|
|
The Silencing Of Social Activist Cristina March Why Are City, County, And State Officials Attempting To Silence Ms. March? |
December 2, 2019 |
|
The following is an article, which details the facts, as we understand them to be. The following is being offered for journalistic purposes ONLY - no other references were intended, and none should be inferred by the reader. UPDATED - December 2, 2019 VolusiaExposed.Com attended Ms. March's December 2, 2019 pre-trial hearing, in front of Judge Belle Schumann (see attached video - right of page --->) The defense requested, and was granted a continuance, so that the defense can file a "Motion to Dismiss". The prosecution sat silent, as Judge Schumann granted the continuance. END OF UPDATE There is no doubt, being a public servant in America is a tough job. So tough, that it's not for everyone. As an American public servant, you better be fully prepared to be criticized - including, receiving criticism from other public servants, and especially, from the citizenry that you serve. Additionally, there is no doubt, that electronic social media formats can be toxic environments, that are not for the faint of heart. So, if your public service employment centers around operating a city's social media account - you better have very thick skin, being a person, that is not easily offended. Records indicate that in January 2019, Cayla Bartolucci was serving the City of New Smyrna Beach as a code enforcement administrative specialist II. Ms. Bartolucci's duties included running the city's (police) social media account. These same records indicate that New Smyrna Beach (NSB) city officials were (and are) very much aware of Cristina March, and her social / political activism. March has a rather long history of being a political gadfly and critic of NSB city government. Sadly, this publication now must question, if Ms. March's activism was the driving force behind the Volusia County Sheriff's Office's (VCSO) filing of a cyber-stalking charge against her. (d) “Cyberstalk” means: 1. To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or 2. To access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internet-connected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose". Political Activist's Access To City's Social Media Account In January 2019, Ms. Bartolucci became offended over some of Ms. March's postings on social media (DOCUMENT IS OVER 200 PAGES - ALLOW TIME TO OPEN). On the city's social media account, March was colorfully (harsh language) voicing her concerns regarding city government. Records indicate, that because of March's usage of colorful language, and the alleged false allegations against the city, Ms. Bartolucci thought herself justified in blocking March's access to the city's social media account. The action of blocking March's access to the social media account, then became one of March's biggest complaints with the city, eventually leading to the city contacting the VCSO for the filing of the criminal charge against Ms. March. In Order To Silence A Government Critic Two months prior to the VCSO filing their criminal charge against Ms. March, city records clearly indicate, that Ms. Bartolucci had become overly offended (our OPINION) over Ms. March's social media postings, as they related personally to Ms. Bartloucci. From our perspective, Ms. Bartolucci's above rant against Ms. March reminds us of Sheriff Buford T. Justice's rant in the movie "Smokey and the Bandit" (1977) - see below video snippet. PLAY YOUTUBE SNIPPET In similar fashion, as Sheriff Buford T. Justice slowly destroyed his patrol car in the pursuit of the "Bandit", local Volusia County officials (NSB city, VCSO, State Attorney, and maybe even the Court) are apparently willing to violate the founding constitutional principles of this country, in their pursuit of a social / political activist, Ms. March. Apparently, Forrest Gump got it right - "Stupid is, as stupid does". According to Bartolucci's own complaint to NSB officials, she immediately reported to her supervisor, Sgt. Robert Claudio, that she had blocked Ms. March from the city's social media account. After receiving complaints from Ms. March, Bartolucci returned Ms. March's access to the city's social media account. Sgt. Claudio, advised Bartolucci that March was "always like that", and that she was to be ignored. It is obvious to this publication, that if March had engaged in criminal activity during the January 2019 incident, her NSB social media restriction would have been supported by Sgt. Claudio, and her (March's) behavior would not have been ignored, rather she would have been criminally charged in January 2019. This publication has confirmed, that currently (November 2019), Ms. March's access to the city's social media account is un-restricted. Rule number one, as a public servant, and when dealing with a social / political activist - never, ever, steal the activist's "soap box" from which they are speaking from. And if your staff were stupid enough to violate "rule number one", also commonly referred to as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then we would suggest, that you immediately correct the situation, AND issue an apology. The record does suggest that Ms. Bartolucci and Sgt. Claudio did take the first step, by returning Ms. March's electronic soapbox (access to the city's social media account) - however, they apparently failed to issue her an immediate apology. We assume, that Sgt. Claudio took his own advice, and decide to simply "ignore" Ms. March. This publication found it a little difficult to believe that city officials would not have immediately issued an apology to Ms. March, therefore we sent city officials an email inquirying whether anyone had issued an apology to Ms. March. Further, we had the thought, that maybe the rationale for not issuing an apology, was the fact that city officials had an honest belief that Ms. March was engaging in the criminal activity of "cyber-stalking" Ms. Bartolucci - therefore, an apology would not have been appropriate. Within a November 18, 2019 email response to this publication, NSB Police Chief Mike Coffin advised VolusiaExposed.Com, that he issued two (2) April 2019 apologies to Ms. March. |
Ms. Cristina March's December 2, 2019 Court Hearing ---------- Cristina March's Charging Report Click Below Text To Open As A PDF Document 
---------- Cristina March's Citizen's Complaint Investigative Findings Click Below Text To Open As A PDF Document 
---------- Cayla Bartolucci's 200+ Page Complaint Click Below Text To Open As A PDF Document 
---------- Defense's Motion For Particulars Click Below Text To Open As A PDF Document 
---------- Prosecutor's Response The Particulars Click Below Text To Open As A PDF Document 
---------- John Mellencamp's Paper In Fire |
|
Criminal Process Started Apparently, Ms. March was not open to Chief Coffin's April apologies, for a transgression (blocking March's access to the city's social media account) that occurred in January. Being that it took Chief Coffin over three months to issue his "apologies", it should come as no big surpise that it took Chief Coffin, OR his friends within the VCSO *, another two (2) months (June 14, 2019) to criminally charge Ms. March with cyber-stalking. The SAO also took their sweet time in filing their "official charging informational" against Ms. March. During the court process of Ms. March's case, her attorney (public defender's office), filed a motion to obtain the "particular" violations of law regarding March's prosecution. Shortly later, the SAO filed a response, containing thirty five (35) particular instances of alleged cyber-stalking, in which twenty-six (26) of the alleged particulars, transpired prior to Police Chief Coffin's April 2019 apologies to Ms. March. Our question is, if during these particular twenty-six instances, Chief Coffin suspected that Ms. March was cyber-stalking Ms. Bartolucci, why would Coffin be apologizing to Ms. March, rather than seeking to legally restrict her from the city's social media account? The situation with the "particulars" is of further significance, given that the SAO informational alleges that Ms. March's prosecution is solely predicated on her alleged actions of June 14, 2019. The actual legal rationale for the "when, where, what, why, and how", of Ms. March's alleged criminal violation, seems to us, to be an ever moving and changing target. Now, why is that? (asked in our best "60 Minutes - Andy Rooney" voice) This publication would suggest, that Ms. March's criminal charges have little to nothing, to do with forwarding an "honest" belief by law enforcement, that March actually violated the cyber-stalking statutes, but rather, her (March) criminal prosecution was forwarded, in order to silence a political activist, and to soothe Ms. Bartolucci's hurt feelings. Criminal prosecutors, that are honest, law abiding, and honor their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, will not file (prosecute) on a case that lacks the evidence to bring in front of a jury. However, since Ms. March's prosecution, is only for a misdemeanor, some shady prosecutors have been known to manipulate the court process, thus denying the criminal defendant, his / her U.S. Constitutional right (Amendment 6) to a jury trial. This type of trial is known as "bench trial". Bench trials do have legitimate purposes, however, these non-jury trials are sometimes used for nefarious purposes, usually by prosecutors (Our OPINION) Shady prosecutors have been known to successfully prosecute weak evidenced cases, like this one (Our OPINION), through the "bench trial" process, because all they (prosecutors) really need is a "cooperating" judge, and sometimes a "cooperating" defense counsel, who did not "preserve" the defendant's right to a jury trial. Please Surrender Your Constitutional Rights This publication has been advised that the State Attorney's Office (SAO) has offered Ms. March a pre-trial plea bargain, which includes the following: 1. Adjudication of guilt will be waived 2. Twelve (12) months of probation - with no early termination 3. Moral Reconation Therapy (WTF is that !!??) 4. Thirty hours (30) of community service 5. No contact with victim or PD Facebook page 6. No drugs or alcohol 7. Random drug testing 8. Pay court costs Again, WTF is "moral reconation therapy"? Sounds like something straight out of Stalin's gulags Which Has More Importance? A Public Servant's Hurt Feelings OR A Citizen's Constitutional Rights? The Ms. March incident is fairly simple for us (VolusiaExposed), it comes down to which is of more importance? Ms. March's U.S. Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, and her ability to seek redress from her government, OR public servant, Ms. Bartolucci's hurt feelings. IN OUR OPINION, the answer is very obvious to anyone with two (2) brain cells to knock together, Ms. March's rights, supersedes Ms. Bartolucci's hurt feelings. Everytime we run it through our heads, Ms. March wins hands down. Why? Well, because nearly two hundred and fifty years ago, this country was founded on three basic principles - guns, alcohol, and the right to tell your government officials to "go to hell". Our founding fathers would routinely "tar and feather" a public servant who got out of line. So, Ms. Bartolucci's electronic "tar and feathering" on a social media page, seems to us to be as American, as apple pie. We would not recommend that Ms. March travel to other areas of the world, like North Korea, while voicing her displeasure with government officials. She may find herself criminally charged, and facing punitive sanctions. This would never happen in America (well, maybe in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and shortly within a Volusia County courtroom) Our founding fathers endowed us with a Constitution, that allows us to criticize our government. Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood exercises that right on a routine basis - whether he is calling members of the Volusia County Council "scumbags", OR..... colorfully accusing the courts, and the justice system of failing to properly protect the safety of our children. Surely, Sheriff Chitwood has no more of a license, or right, to vocalize his displeasure with government officials, than does social / political activist Cristina March ! Ms. March is scheduled to go to trial in mid-December. So by Christmas, the people of Volusia County (WE THE PEOPLE) shall know whether we still live in the home of the brave, and the land of the free - OR we shall have come to the realization, that our public servants value their hurt feelings, over our hard won freedoms. Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. ~ Rev. Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) First, they came for activist Cristina March, and regardless of whatever the topics of her activism, we need to speak out ! This publication intends on covering Ms. March's pending trial. Stand by to stand by .... there is surely more to come of this... hopefully, in the form of Ms. March receiving additional apologies from public servants...... Drop us a line to let us know what you think.  EMAIL US |