Good morning and welcome to the CED Special Magistrate Hearings. We are beginning with joint stipulations and will be in recess until further notice. Communications, please stop recording. Okay. Welcome to Pinellas County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearings. The special magistrate is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the county code has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties or their representatives will be allowed an opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violation or violations. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they provide is the truth. The order of presentation will begin with the county presenting their evidence of the alleged violation or violations, and then the respondent shall present his or her case. Both parties shall have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses. The special magistrate may question any witness. The clerk will announce the names of the case from the agenda. When you hear your case called, please respond by coming to the podium with your representative and or any witnesses to be sworn in. When addressing the special magistrate, please speak clearly into the microphone. Any person who decides to appeal the decision of the code enforcement special magistrate with respect to any matter considered at this hearing will need a record of the proceedings and for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Such record is not provided by Pinellas County. Call the first case, please. Good morning. My name is Nicole Riley, and I am the deputy clerk for Pinellas County Code Enforcement. Item number six, department code enforcement matter, zoning code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00100, officer D. DeVall, owner, Bellows Group LLC. Notice address, Bellows Group LLC, 12616 Tannin Crest Drive, Riverview, Florida, 33579-9412. And Hopson-Brent, registered agent for Bellows Group LLC, 12616 Tannin Crest Drive, Riverview, Florida, 33579-9412. And Reynolds James Jr., manager for Bellows Group LLC, 12616 Tannin Crest Drive, Riverview, Florida, 33579-9412. And Reynolds James Jr., manager for Bellows Group LLC, 24027-127B Avenue, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, V4R-0G-7 Canada. And Reynolds James Sr., manager for Bellows Group LLC, 68 Gillard Avenue Southeast, Buffalo, excuse me, Buffalo, Minnesota, 55313. And D. DeVall, special magistrate officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. D. DeVall at Pinellas.gov. Violation address, 845 Hall Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Morning. And your name, sir? James Reynolds, manager, senior. Senior, you came in from Buffalo, Minnesota? I just recently moved to Ocala. Okay. Do they have your new address here? I believe not. Could we take that down? Yes. Sir, if you could just make your address. 555-Midway-Track-Ocala-34472. You're the manager for Bellows Group, right? Yes, and those changes will be made to our Secretary of State, Sunbiz, Articles of Organization this month. You've reached a stipulation, officer. Yes, magistrate, we have. Okay, it's Officer DeVall, right? Correct. You could both raise your right hand. Do you swear for him that any testimony we give today be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Do you have a stipulation? I can see it. It's my understanding, Mr. Reynolds, you've reached an agreement here with the county? Yes. Let me just take a look at it, okay? And it's just the one violation, the $138.90, the zoning violation about the mobile home, correct? Correct. Okay, you've agreed to come into compliance by March 2nd of 26, otherwise to be a $100 a day fine. Is that correct? Correct. Okay, and they told you about the court costs of $527. Correct, yes. Okay, is that all correct, officer? Yes, it sure is, magistrate. All right, then I'll accept the agreement, and we'll do the order, and they can wait for it, or you'll mail it to them? I can mail it to you, or you can wait instead of waiting. It'll be a little bit, but you can get it as well. Can you mail it, please? Yes, sure. Just fine. I can do that, yeah. Okay. All right, great. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to give you a card, right? Do I give you a card? Okay. Sir. Sir. Give me a step, one second here. Stipulation. Okay, we've got by March 2nd, 26th today. This is just when I review the order. I don't need to. And then this is the next one. Okay. You can call the next case whenever you're ready. Item number seven, department code enforcement matter, zoning code violation. Case number CCM-25-00103, Officer D. DeVall, Owner, Serger Tatiana. Notice address, Serger Tatiana, 12689 Wilcox Road, Largo, Florida, 33774-1938, and D. DeVall, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756, D. DeVall at Pinellas.gov. Violation address, 12689 Wilcox Road, Largo, Florida, 33774. Ma'am, if you could state your name into the microphone, please. My name is Marina Serger. I'm sorry, your name, what? Marina, that's the camera. Could you say that? Can you speak into the microphone, please? No, you, you, you. Marina Serger. And you're translating? Okay, what's your connection to the property on Wilcox? I live at that property. You live there? Yes, this is my sister-in-law, and I'm helping her to do all the paperwork. She knows more about it than I do. Okay, if you could state your name. Tatiana Serger. Okay, and your relationship? The owner. You're the owner. Okay. All right. I'm sorry, you're Tatiana Serger? Am I saying that right? Tatiana. Okay. Officer, if you could state your name for the record, please. Officer DeVall, Pinellas County Code. Okay, if the three of you could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that any testimony you'll give today would be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Officer, could you tell me, I think you have an agreement here? Yes, we've entered into another joint stipulation agreement. We've given them a little bit of an extended time frame due to the circumstances at the property. This complaint was received from Public Works. We have a property that has now been newly developed. There's a park behind their property, and Public Works has done some mapping and determined that their fence line is over into the Pinellas County property. So they are now working with the county on having the actual boundaries of the property changed, where they will allow them to have that back extended area. It's about 10 foot that they're onto property, onto Pinellas County property, and then they are going to modify inward from the street. So they're going to lessen the property boundary in the front and allow them to keep what is in the back. So since they are working with the other divisions of Pinellas County, we've decided that 90 days is probably going to be what is reasonable to have it work through all the particulars paperwork-wise and the other departments, so we have agreed upon that. They realize they are in violation and will need to take care of everything. If anything ends up not working out, they will have to remove the fencing. She's the honor. Right. Who was the person that Officer Duval you sat with? I spoke with her right here. And what is your name again? Marina. Marina? Mm-hmm. Who signed this document? I signed it because I have like a power of attorney. I can sign her paperwork because I'm in, I don't know, I'm doing, um... Yeah, she has all the info. I don't deal with any of that stuff. Okay, because you signed as Tatiana. Okay. You're not Tatiana. Okay. So should I sign it? Or just have Tatiana sign again? Yeah, I feel a little more... Thank you. You're welcome. She could just sign your name right next to the other one. That'll be just fine. Yes, yeah. She has a power of attorney. And then if we can have a copy of that power of attorney, because we don't have that on file, and then in order for you, if anything happens with the property, if for some reason you can't get into compliance in 90 days or anything like that, we're going to have to, we're going to need it so that we can speak with you. Sure. So let me give this back to you, and you can just sign your name next to it as well. Thanks. Do you need to sign it? Because we're going forward, we could deal with either one of them, right? Yes, yeah. That's just the week. We have the party's back. Thank you for it. So we'll put your name here. Okay. So sign and print. Is there any way she can, if something comes up, that she can come here without me? When we have, like, let's say, for example, the document that you have, just send it over, and then she can handle everything. Okay. Yeah, we just have to have some type of, because it's all public records, so someone requests the records. We need to make sure that the correct person, we're dealing with a person who has authority over it. Okay. Yeah, just to protect your rights, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I'm going to leave it with both signatures there. I'm going to put POA next to the first one on top. Yes, thank you. Okay, so I'm going to put POA on top, so we know here. So we can contact either one of you. What's the POA? Power of attorney. Oh, okay. I'm going to need that document, if she's going to speak on your behalf. Okay. Okay, just so we know, in other words, with regard to the fencing issue, okay, that needs to be resolved by April 16th of 25, okay, usually about 5 o'clock is what that day, and with regard to the chickens, help me with that. The coops that they have in the back need to be placed on different parts of the property. They're way too close to the fence line. They need to meet a setback, and they're well aware of that. So, and they've also lessened the amount of fowl they have out there. They've gotten rid of the rooster, and they're well aware they're only allowed four hens. So, they're in the process of already getting that into compliance. And so, you understand that needs to be done by April 16th at 5 o'clock also, okay? And there's a fine of $410.90. The court costs? Yes, the court costs. Yes. My apologies, court costs. For today? No, we'll have to repay by $610.00 for what? For this hearing. Their court costs. Okay. Okay. And how long we have to pay for that or whatever? You could talk to the clerk here. She could tell you. Yes. Is there any way to waive it? No. I see. No. That's what got us here today. That's the amount that it took to be able to get us here. So, all right. But you can speak with Mrs. Gonzalez about when it's, there she is, about when it's due and payment and so on and so forth. Okay? And when you get done, when it's all done, you should contact, they have your contact information. You know, don't wait until the last day. It'll make it a lot simpler. Okay? Thank you so much. Okay. And they're going to do an order. They'll mail it to you? Yes. We can mail it to her. Okay. Yeah. Everything we've just agreed upon will be in a formal order. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, officer. And then I'll give you my business card. Email the power of attorney to this unit. Okay? And then this is my number. So, if you're leaving, just be able to call. Okay. Right in here? Sounds good. Have a great weekend. Bye-bye. Thank you. Okay. That's two. Whenever you're ready. Item number one, continued from November 17, 2025, Department Code Enforcement. Matter, noise ordinance code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00087, Officer D. DeVall, Owner, Anclote Casita, LLC. Notice address, Anclote Casita, LLC. 1-2-5-7, Anclote Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida, 34689. And Anderson Jason K., Manager for Anclote Casita, LLC. 1-2-5-7, Anclote Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida, 34689. And Law Office of Jossick and Kulianos, PA. Attention, Dan Jossick, Esquire, 2-9-9-9, Alt-19, Suite A, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683. Dan at jossicklaw.com. And D. DeVall, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 1312 Lane Avenue, Tarpon Springs, Florida, 34689. Is anyone here for Anclote Casita, LLC? Is anyone here with any connection to or ownership of 1312 Lane Avenue, Tarpon Springs, Florida, 34689? Let the record reflect that no one responded to the call of the list. Madam Clerk, have there been any other efforts in terms of notice to? Yes. We sent certified mail to all parties listed. Certified mail, we sent a regular first class mail. We also sent an email through our county system. And we also sent a regular email with the attorney that was representing Anclote Casita, LLC, back in December as well. So December 10th is when we communicated via email. So December 10th. Correct. So this was continued from November 17th? Correct. And the attorney was here? They were not. They were hired. They were hired. Okay. Yes. Just for the record. Okay. They were hired and then it was continued because they needed time. Officer, if you could identify yourself for the record. Officer DeVall, Pinellas County Code. Okay. I presume you'll have a couple of witnesses here today? Yes, sir, I do. Do you need them brought up now to be sworn in? Yes, just so I don't forget. Okay. You want them to introduce themselves? Let me see. Anthony Leisner? Yes, sir. Okay. And then I presume you're Patricia Leisner? That's correct. And Officer, if you could put your name on the record. Jude Reason, Pinellas County Housing Official. I'm sorry. Spell the last name? Reason. R-E-A-Z-I-N. Reason. I knew it was spelled differently. Thank you, Officer. Go ahead. Officer Reese, Pinellas County Code Enforcement. Spell that name? R-E-E-S-E. Reese. I guess if the four of you could, and Officer DeVall, if the five of you could raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony you'll give today will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Thank you. I guess the two of you could sit down, and Officer DeVall will call you when he's ready. Thank you. Okay. So, good morning, Magistrate. The property where the alleged violations exist is located at 1312 Lane Avenue in Tarpon Springs, which is located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner of the property is Ann Clote Casita, LLC, who is not represented for today's hearing. The violation has been in occurrence since on or before October 1st of 2025. I'd like to enter into evidence the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A, if I may. You may. We are going to be enforcing on a new ordinance or a modification to an existing ordinance, which is our noise ordinance, code sections, 58-441 is where it starts with our definitions. I have the entire ordinance. You've got it. Okay. Very good. So, I'm just going to start off with, we did have the Notice of Hearing. This is for today's hearing for January 16th. This was sent out to all of the relative parties here for Casita, Ann Clote Casita, LLC, and Mr. Anderson as the registered agent, along with the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. That was a, this was the newest one because, yes, they were originally sent a Notice of Hearing for November 17th. On the affidavit of violation and request for hearing, we'll be addressing code section 58-444 for the noise ordinance for loud and raucous noise that is itinerant and transient in nature as detected from the nearest adjacent property line within a residential zone, which has been acknowledged by two written affidavits, which will be Mr. and Mrs. Leisner. So, again, these are the, this was the original, as I continue on with Exhibit A, this was the original Notice of Hearing sent for the 17th, and again, the affidavit of violation and request for hearing showing the noise ordinance that we're going to be addressing. Just to show ownership of the property, we have from Pinales County Property Appraiser an overview of the property, the aerial shot. The actual structure is located here underneath the trees. You can't really see it, but it is a corner property. This is Lane Avenue here. It is a private drive. Hang on one sec. Is that where the witnesses are on Lane Avenue? That's what I'm trying to say. Oh, they're on Riverside Avenue. Okay, go ahead. You can, E, E, go for it. Okay. You're present. And then we have from Pinales County Tax Collector, again, just showing ownership of an, quote, Casita LLC for this property. The warranty deed showing when the property was purchased back in March of 2024. Some biz acknowledging an, quote, LLC and acknowledging Mr. Jason Anderson as registered agent. These are the two affidavits of unreasonably loud and raucous noise that were filled out by Anthony Leisner and Patricia Leisner. Each of them, I will have them come up and speak to specifically what has been happening at the property, what was happening back in October. They have noted here different dates and incidences for different durations of time for when this noise was occurring. This is actually a report from the, an incident detail report from the Pinales County Sheriff's Department for the 1st of October. This was when the loud and raucous noise started. This was, it was started by a Halloween decoration that was placed across the street from the Leisner's property. It was, it was, it's a very large six foot high device that is a amplification type of device where it has a volume on it. It has an on off, it has a moving arm and so on. And they first called the PCSO out to that location on the 1st of October because, PTSO? Yes, I'm sorry. Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, PCSO. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. Can I just interrupt you one second here just for the record? The address of the 1350 Riverside Avenue, that's across the street from? No, you're talking about the defendant's, the defendant's address? Yeah, the, where the noise, the, where the noise emanated from? I'm trying to figure out. Okay, I will show you an over, I've got an aerial shot to give you, yes, to give you a good idea. Just make sure you do that as you're going through it. Absolutely. Take your time. So, again, this was just, Sheriff's Department did respond out to the complaint that this was a very disturbing, continuous, loud and raucous noise that was going on at the property across the street. It was located, this device, which I do have a picture of, was located right in the driveway at the front of the property on Lane Avenue, which is, again, directly across the street from our complainant's property. The Sheriff's Deputy did make contact with Mr. Anderson, who owns the property on Lane Avenue, and told him to turn it down. The device was very disturbing, and it was concerning to the people across the street, with not only that it was loud, but also what it was saying, and it needed to be brought under control. So, that is all reported here in this incident report. With the notes on the right side from the Sheriff's Office? I'm sorry? The notes are on the right side. Correct. Okay. Yes. So, just to give you a quick overview, just a quick look, this is the device here. This is called, yes, Gary the Gravedigger. It is about, I don't know, almost six feet in height. It's quite large. Okay. And it has a little lantern that hangs on it. The arm moves up and down, and it chants some sort of, you know, in a gremlin-type voice about meeting your, you know, meeting your maker, and, you know, you'll die soon, and things like that. It's, it's, and it, it's repetitive. So, it's definitely a little bit more of a, of a closer, closer shot of it. So, that's how this started. Okay. Yeah, help me here. Go ahead. Okay. So, over here is Lane Avenue. Right. This is the property where the device is put. Again, under the trees here is where the actual house is. Right. The Leissners live directly across the street. They live right here. Oh, okay. All right. And, and, and where's the driveway? I see it's at the end of a driveway. No. Okay. So, so in the purple, whatever it is, that, that's the property we're talking about. This is, this is Lane Avenue, correct. Okay. So, I will, I can, I have some other photos here that may be more. Okay. Well, why don't you just do it all, and if I have any questions. Okay. I don't want to interrupt you. Go ahead. This is where the property owner lives, is over here on Ancote Road, Mr. Anderson. So, it's up here and all the way over here. This property is, works as a short-term rental. So, during the month of October, when all of this was going on, there was nobody even staying in this property. So, it was completely vacant. Okay. They had no reservation, shall we say, of people to come and stay. Right, right, right. So, I guess the, the question that, that, if the defendant had been here to, that I would have asked is, why would you place a Halloween decoration over here at a vacant property when you live over here, and you have family, and you have children, and you live so far away? But, it's his property, his right. So, but that's the, how the, the lay of the land works with regard to where things are. So, from the front, so I will show you, this is the front of the property, right here. The front of the rental property. Of the rental property. This is 1312 Lane Avenue. Okay. And this is directly across the street. This is where the Leisners live. So, the. And there's a fence in between the two? Yes. Okay, go ahead. So, again, we're, we're, we're addressing the loud and ruckus because this thing was so loud and so repetitive, and placed there for so long that, and after he was told to remove it, that's why we're here to address today that, that he never did that. The only thing he did do was move it, the, the, the device was originally down here, because here's the front of the property, and this is the driveway area, and he moved it up to the other side of the house here, just moved it down the street a little bit. But, but it was still turned on, and it was still making noise. And that's a little further away from the. No, it's true. The, their property is still directly across the street. Yeah, right. I was going to say, right. Okay. Yes. So, so as we talk about the loud and ruckus as it's, it's, it's new here with us enforcing to this level, and we're calling it itinerant and transient in nature, because it, it was there, it moved around. I mean, as we, as we look at the itinerant and transient, a noise whose sound pressure level exceeds the ambient noise level for a short or non-permanent duration, and it was, it was short bursts of this thing repetitively going off. And, and you're referencing section 446 noise complaints, right? I'm, I'm actually referencing 441 under the definition of itinerant and transient. I, I, I just, yes, I know, I know where the definition is. But here it's, this is where it calls, that could be done by affidavit in 446, and then it says a violation is caused by noise that is itinerant, but it's presumed to be irreparable and irreversible. Exactly. Okay. That's where. I've read all that. Okay, so you're well, well acquainted with that. I'm more aware with that. Okay, so what I'd like to do is then bring up Mr. and Mrs. Leisner to just explain their affidavits in a little more detail. We are going to be seeking an immediate fine. So I, that's why we want to make it perfectly clear what's been going on, how long it's been going on, or was going on, and how disturbing it really was to them during that time frame. So, um, before you do that, officer, um, you, you testified that they, they, being the owners of the property, uh, moved the figure, or whatever you want to call it, uh, how, how, how do you know that? Because my original photos from Exhibit A have it located directly down in front. This is the driveway area. Well, I'm looking at the reports from the sheriff's office here. So you went out, so the, October 1st, the sheriff's out there, and you went out, and you've seen the changes. I've seen the change, yes, because this was from the 2nd. This is when Officer Reese went out. Officer Reese went out. She received the complaint. Oh, so she's going to test it? Yes, and she's going to come up, and, and she will explain what she saw. So I've just asked her a couple of questions just to reconfirm. Okay, right. So, um. Are you going to place these into evidence now, or are you going to mark them? These are all in, this is my Exhibit A, I believe. Sorry. I haven't accepted Exhibit A yet. So, yes, I will. Do you want to consider all of this Exhibit A and mark it that way? That would be just fine, yes. Okay, then mark all of those, including the photographs. I have a package here, Exhibit A, and I'm accepting Exhibit A into evidence. Okay. So am I okay to bring up Officer Reese? Yes, you may proceed. Okay. So, I, just if you could explain briefly, um, on the 2nd of October, uh, you were out at this property? And you can explain what you saw? Yes. On October 2nd, I received a complaint of the noise from 1312 Lane Avenue. I went out and witnessed this Halloween decoration at the corner of the driveway, directly facing across the street from the defendant's, or the complainant's address. Well, you could refer to him as the complainant. Yes, I took photos of that. It was very loud. It was very ruckus. Um, I did meet with a complainant who invited me into their home, into their living room. This is the lies news? Yes. Okay. Yes. I spoke with them inside their home. I could clearly hear the loud and ruckus noises that were repeating coming from this thing inside their home. With the door shut in the house? With the door shut. Yes, sir. What distance? I hope you don't mind me asking the questions here. It's probably about 15 to 20 feet. 15 to 20 feet from where? Is it more than that? Because you're across the street. Probably about 20. You can't help with the answers. Honestly, I... Officer DeValle, you can't help with the answers. Okay. So you're about 15 to 20 feet. I would say probably 20, 25 feet approximately. Whatever. I'm just trying to get the big... But I did have to go up steps to get into their house as well, two steps. So it was clearly coming over the fence and clearly coming right into their living room. Yeah, that's kind of why, is it? Okay. Yes. I know that's not a concrete fence, right? Yeah. Yeah, so I spoke with them and I went and spoke with the owner of the property at his residence and advised him that it was extremely ruckus, extremely alarmingly noisy for them. So you walked down the block of the big building? Yes, I spoke with him and I asked, I told him that he needed to turn it down and he asked me if he could turn it down the halfway and I advised him that if he would like me to, I could return after he turned it down and verify that he was in compliance and I never heard from him again. And this was October 2nd? Yes. Okay. And so is that the only time you were out there? That was the only time I was out there, yes. And the noise wasn't made any lower during the time you were there? No. Do you know if he ever went out there and changed the volume? I spoke with the Liesners the next day via email and they advised me that he had turned it down, but it was still continuing. Okay. Okay, so, all right. Anything else? That's... Officer, is there anything else you want to ask her? Uh, no, not at this point. I think she pretty much covered everything. Thank you. Thank you. So, continuing on, I'd like to, um, continue on with the witnesses and, and start, we can either do, uh, Anthony or Patricia, one of the other first. It doesn't really matter. It doesn't really matter, sir. Yes. Okay. Locations. Oh, for yourself. Okay. Yeah. I don't know how to use the... Okay. Good morning. Good morning, sir. So, Mr. Leisner's just giving me, this is just a, it's from the plat map. It's upside down to me. Thanks. Showing... A little dyslexia here, no problem. Showing the property here, uh, 1312, and then his, his property across the street. So, in this area here marked as the driveway area, and this, this is where the house is. This is the... The little X is where Gary, the grave digger, was located. We own both of the properties that are cross-hatched there, and to, uh, help Officer Reese, Lane Avenue is 30 feet wide, and our house is 40 feet farther back from that, so it's 70 feet away. Okay. And we invited her into the house because we couldn't hold a conversation outside of the house with Gary. Okay. Now, this property that's next to the 1312, with the, you own that property too? Yes. Is there a building on that? Yes. From 1884. And do you rent it out or something? No. It's just an old building? Yeah. Everybody ought to have an old building around. I don't know who's talking back there, but please don't. It's this property right here. No. We, we, we acquired, my, my uncle and my grandfather built the house that we're in, and so we knew this other house, it became available, we bought it. I, I, I, I, I'm not asking you those questions. Okay. I, I, I guess what I'm saying, the reason I'm asking the question is, you could sit in that property if you wanted to, it'd be even louder, right? Oh, yeah. Yes, it was right on the fence line, sure. It'd be right there, it'd be even louder. Okay. Sure. It would be eight feet from the door. Okay, got it. Go ahead. Your witness. Okay, from the affidavit that you filled out and signed on the 6th of October, you have here several specific dates and times of what was going on. Can you just go through these here and, and reinforce what the date was and speak to this duration of time and what was going on during that time frame, because it's sort of 17 hours. Yeah, it actually went on the 30th of September and continued on during that night, which is why the police were there another day later. This was, by coincidence, also put in 10 days after Mr. Anderson was served with notice of seven building code violations that we had reported him for. And we feel this was in there for pure retaliation, intimidation, and harassment because we reported him for having unlicensed and unpermitted construction on his short-term levels. And this began, and... Mr. Leisner, you can just kind of respond to what the officer's asking you. I'll give you all the time in the world. Okay. She's trying to get details on what's on this after. Sure. Well, without my glasses, I'm afraid I can't read that word for word. Okay. But I wrote it. Why don't you just read it off to him? Your first entry here says that this sound application device, which is direct verbiage from our, from the noise ordinance itself, was referred to as Gary... The Gravedigger. Gary the Gravedigger. Okay, so you said, yes, the date's starting September 30th and continuing through the night into October 1st. Yes. It was a 17-hour time frame. So you have there, I believe it says, 7 p.m. to, I can't read that, but, and then again, you have the same thing on the 2nd, and it played for 15 hours. Yes. And then you have it again from going through the night then, from the 3rd of October to the 4th, for 14 hours nonstop. Yes. This was during the evening hours or during the day, because 14 hours is not, it constitutes the entire day. So is that, like, during the evening hours it went, I'm assuming, then, if it was from the 3rd to the 4th? We, I don't know if there was a thumb drive that we put our security recordings. We have that. And that has all the time stamps and the hours. Okay. And it was nighttime, it was 4 in the morning, it was any time. Okay. And then you have here something a little bit different, saying a slow-moving car, loud music. Obscene something. Obscene gestures at driveway. Yes. And that... Mrs. Anderson in her car drove back and forth by our driveway with loud music. The kids were sticking through the sunroof and waving their middle of fingers at us and yelling. I think that's particularly important because when the community sheriff's officer interviewed Andersons, they denied doing that. But on the videos, on the thumb drive, you can see it's day after day after day. Okay. Okay. Um, magistrate, we do have the thumb drive that, uh, Mr. Leisner, uh, gave to the county as evidence. Um, we have put it in, we have put different snippets. They're from a ring camera. So they're small, uh, audio video, uh, from the, from the ring camera. And we do have some that we can, we can have shown, uh, starting on the 1st of October, a couple incidents on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th. Um, are we, uh, allowed to present those? Yeah, I'm going to allow you to do that in a second. I just have a couple of questions, uh, for Mr. Leisner here. Okay. Mr. Leisner, tell me about this, uh, on October 3rd. Um, they came over and, you know, gave obscene gestures to you, the owner. No, on the 1st, the 2nd, and the 3rd, the drive-bys were going on with Mrs. Anderson, the loud music, and the kids in there with their fingers. The other, there's another incident my wife will talk about with some obscenities separate. I'm just going over your affidavits. Sure. It says 930 to 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4. It's all sound amplified and talks about the digger. Doesn't say anything about those kind of things. Right. Our only, the only time it talks about those kind of things is on October 3rd. Is that your affidavit? Yes. Okay. But I have videos for the 1st, 2nd. I'm not saying it didn't happen. Okay. The affidavit is part of this, the code. Yes. I was rushed when we did this and have reconstructed. So you just put the one day on about those things. Yes. Which is fine. You understand what I mean? Okay. I mean, we didn't expect to be on trial. Yes. That's right. And so did they go on all the time? In other words, you have these hours in there, 17 hours. Did they shut it off automatically and start it up again? Is that what's going on? No. The device has an on-off and then the option to do it motion sensor or constant. Okay. That's kind of, okay. And we would have no problem with motion sensor because there are only four people that live there. We're all in our 70s and 80s. Right. And so we walked by and Gary would say, I'm going to bury you and kill you. That's fine. But this was constant hour after hour after hour. But it seems to be, it was constant, but it wasn't 24 hours. So was it set at constant or not triggered? Do you see what I'm asking? Yeah, sure. And if I may explain, my UFI system is also motion activated for recordings. So if there's no motion, but he's talking all night long, the system doesn't record it. It's not a live recording. But sometimes I'd get up at two in the morning and I could hear it and I would record it. Got it. Okay. So yes. So that's, okay. Well, that answers why it's not. At 84, I've got enough insomnia problems. Got it. Before you show that, officer, while I have Mr. Leisner here, you think this is retaliation for something? Absolutely. Please tell me now. I interrupted you before. He said it was. What's that? On one of the recordings that we have that you'll see, he says, you reported me, I'm paying you back. Okay. So he had a violation and you called code enforcement? He had seven building code violations. We put up with the construction and finally he threatened me and I said, that's it. I am calling now. Okay. And for five months, we watched him building with no permits, no licenses. Okay. And we got enough. I got it. Okay. All right. Officer, you can put those on. I'd like to see some snippets of it. You can stay there if you want. You can sit down if you'd like. Yeah. Wherever you can see it best. You can find the CFS from these two screens. And I know a jurist doctor. I'm also doctor. I heard you loud and clear. You're good. Okay. Communications. If we could have the first audio video file that was dated October 1st, if you could play that, please. So that was October 1st. That was one o'clock in the afternoon. So it's very repetitive. Again, communications. We had a second file. Should be number five. So it's 716 in the morning. So those are both on the first. Can we please have a third file, which is dated October 2nd? This is where he was referring to Mr. Anderson out walking, taking pictures, acting somewhat threatening to him. That was Mr. Anderson? That was Mr. Anderson. And, okay. And who took this of Mr. Anderson? These are all from the ring camera across the street. Got it. So we're going to look at the fourth file, please. Starts with 0804. That is the car driving by that he's referring to with the gestures and the sound. So, again, please. And do you know who those people are? That's Mr. Anderson's wife's vehicle. Got it. So. You know that because Mr. Leisner's told you that? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Yes. The, just to reinforce again, Lane Avenue is a dead-end street. Oh, okay. There, it's not a through, it's not a through street. It's not any, the only people that need to be on it or are on it are the people that are, that live there. I got it. No, I'm getting the bigger picture. So, communications next file, please, is going to be number 10, dated October 4th. You can't quite see it up here, so. And then the next file on the 4th, date from 501, it's going to be number 12. Again, an early morning, 6.55 in the morning. Got it. And then I just have two more. Next one, please. Take your time, Elvis. So, this is the, we believe this is Mrs. Anderson. She stopped at the property. Can you play it again, please? How about we ask Mr. Leisner? Mr. Leisner, is that Mrs. Anderson? Yes, sir. Okay. Let the record reflect that Mr. Anderson has identified her. Go ahead. And then communications, the next one, please, which will be the last one. Number nine. Next one. So, again, this one, this is at 10 o'clock in the morning. It's 9 o'clock. Excuse me, 9 o'clock in the morning. So, I think that gives you a good sampling of what's been going on during that time frame. Got it. And what, to hold true, what is it here in the affidavit? The noise is itinerant and transient. It's loud and raucous. It is very disturbing to a person of reasonable sensibility. So, again, the county is looking for an immediate fine for this. Okay. We do still have, Mrs. Leisner can come up and speak to pretty much the same things that she has also noted. Rob, do you want to move for the videos into evidence? Yes, please. Do you want to call them? We can call them. County B, collectively? Sure. That would be great. Do you have that, Carolyn? We're going to call the videos. She has them on a thumb drive, I think. They are on a thumb drive, yes. We'll call that B, collectively. E. Okay, and I'll accept that into evidence. Okay. Thank you. So, from this point, we just have the one other witness, Mrs. Leisner, to... Yeah, I'd like to hear from her. When we get, we travel a lot internationally. When it's time to get shots, I always make him go first. And the only reason, I just like to keep the record clean when someone's talking in the back. I am Patricia Leisner. What's that? I am Patricia Leisner. Patricia Leisner. Okay, and your relationship then, Mr. Leisner? Married. Married. Okay. You're sworn, so go ahead. Okay. So, Ms. Leisner, just to reinforce, this is your signed affidavit from October 6th, correct? Correct. Okay. We have here, under the description of the noise, specific dates and times. Looks very similar to what your husband also submitted with the sound application device, being identified as Gary the Gravedigger, with dates and times being, and you said straight hours, non-stop, and so on. Can you just elaborate a little bit more what you saw and how it made you feel? Crummy. I tend to be up a lot earlier, like 1, 3, 5 in the morning. It's always on. It was always on. This is irrelevant, but relevant. I'm a five-time cancer survivor, and sorry to pull the cancer card, but hearing this for days at a time was upsetting, to say the least, day and night. And then the mother decided it would be cute. I assume it was after child school pickup to put the children in the car standing up with the sunroof and go down the dead-end street. She did it maybe, I don't know how often, I was not home all the time, but I saw it myself at least a dozen times, was able to get it on video at least three or four times with the kids. If you stop, freeze the video, you'll see the children. Sadly, they're six-ish, nine-ish, four-ish, shooting birds out the sunroof, pointing at her house, laughing with loud Latino music. She told the officer, Corporal Loring, who was great as far as being a community service de-escalation officer, she told him, apparently, he told us this, that she said that never happened. The video proves otherwise. Do you have any other, just for the bigger picture, this is a noise complaint here today, have you brought any other charges for harassment or, you know, things like that? I have not filed for harassment, Corporal Loring calmed me down and said, let's wait and see what the county does. Right, so, okay, I just want to, I just took the bigger picture. I am very familiar with being 71 years old and being married to an 84-year-old man and the strong, ever since I've been here in Florida, over 30 years, Florida has always had a very strong elder law protection program, it gets even stronger as the years go on. Okay. So, I have not pursued it yet. Captain Loring. I'm not telling you to. Or Corporal Loring. This is somewhat of a new ordinance here. At my leisure, when I felt it was necessary, we have felt stopped. I have felt threatened. He has a tractor that he plays with. One time, I was weeding at about 7.30 in the morning, and right by our gate, he brought his tractor within, closer to me and you, kept it right there, and revved it up. I looked at him, I used to be a school teacher. I looked at him over my shoulder, turned around, eyes on my hands and knees, and kept weeding and ignored him. He is a child in a man's body, and I feel intimidated, and it's getting a little bit better, but in October, it was bad. And I remember exactly, because my birthday is October 4th, October 4th was a particularly bad day, and 5th, and 6th, and 7th, and I don't recall the exact date. Corporal Loring came in, but I believe it was mid-month, and after Corporal Loring talked to both families separately, and came back and shared, I believe, with both families what the other families said, things calmed down on their side. We hadn't done, in my opinion, anything wrong, except do what the county told us to do, which was reported. And is it your understanding that this noise was intentionally put there as retaliation? I have absolutely no doubt it was for retaliation. All right. Done. I have no further questions. Okay. I just have one more question. Sure. Just to confirm that all of the video clips that we saw, you're in agreement that those were all taken from your ring cam and from your property. I am the most un-techy person in the world. Tony's a little more techy. I'm lucky to have been able to witness it, push a button on my iPad, and get them to go later. Tony had to move them over to a different platform. Which you do, just making sure that they agree that those are from your property. Yes. Yes. And our property. Very good. And my finger. And I did have one little statement I'd like to make. It's nice. Is it relevant? Is it relevant? A statement about what? It's relevant. I just wanted to say, numerous county personnel put many hours of work and research into this investigation, and we appreciate their time and efforts in this story. Okay. All right. I have no more questions either. I don't have any. I have no further questions. Just my summary. And we're not going to hear from Officer Reason? Not that I need to. No. I believe her testimony was enough, just to show she was there. Okay. It's your case. Sorry. Yes. I think what she said was. No further witnesses? Do you want to make a summation, or? Just a summation. And tell me what you're looking for here. So, magistrate, the county, after all of the testimony that's been given and seen. We're fine. Let's see. Is something different to that? Okay. Additional? No? Okay. So, the county is requesting that you find the property in violation of Code Section 58-444, the county noise ordinance. We're looking to go for an immediate fine, showing that this is loud and raucous, and the fine would be $500, and to be, well, to be paid within 30 days, but an immediate fine, and also our court costs for this violation. If there is no immediate fine, then the county, at the very least, is looking for a finding of fact to get this on record, plus our court costs. I will prepare in the order, I'm going to find for the county here. I'm going to prepare in the order, since findings of fact and conclusions of law, be short, it's not being defended, that they're in violation of the noise ordinance here. Okay. I'm going to grant the $500 fine, and plus costs. That are $485.45. So, that's going to be my ruling, and I'll prepare brief findings of fact and conclusions of law. Okay. Thank you very much. So, Magistrate, just to be clear, you'll be making this order? Yes. Okay. I will prepare the order. Thank you. And, not today, yes, I'll prepare it probably on Monday or Tuesday, get it right out to you, officer. Thank you, Magistrate. Thank you. Okay, Magistrate, can we have a break? Yes, a break, like five or ten minutes, whatever you need. Sure, of course. Yeah, I'll take, let's make it ten minutes, and then we'll come and do the defaults, all right? Perfect. Communications, please stop recording. Yeah, I was going to do the order, yeah. Well, this way going forward, yeah. Item 11, Department Code Enforcement. Matter, Minimum Housing Code Violation. Inoperable Vehicle Code Violation. Trash and Debris Code Violation. Zoning Code Violation. Case number, CCM-25-00036. Officer, B. Hughes. Owner, Johnson Chester Lorenzo. Notice address, Johnson Chester Lorenzo. 1-2-9-5 Church Street, Seminole, Florida. 3-3-7-7-8-1-1-4-7. And B. Hughes, Special Magistrate Officer. Pinellas County Code Enforcement. 6-3-1 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida. 3-3-7-5-6. Violation address, 1-2-9-5 Church Street, Seminole, Florida. 3-3-7-7-8. Chester Johnson. Yes, sir. Please, Ms. Johnson, come up. Could you state your name just into the microphone, Mr. Johnson? Chester Johnson. Okay. And the officer, state your name. Officer Hughes for Pinellas County. Both please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that any testament gift today be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Mr. Johnson, I understand you're appealing the affidavit of noncompliance, which was an order. There was an order entered. I think I entered that order in June, and then an affidavit of noncompliance was sent out June 16th that it wasn't complied with. Are you here appealing that decision? Do you feel you're in compliance? I'm trying to figure out. You set the hearing. You set this hearing, so you wanted this hearing. Okay. Not so much a noncompliance, just a little leniency, I guess. Maybe a little more time to get it resolved. So, for what reason, why aren't you in compliance? Well, I'm not a real estate investor or a builder or anything like that. This property was willed to me by my brother, who's now, not willed to me, but was quick-claimed over to me while he's still alive. And now he's deceased. And he asked me to carry out his will, you know, to make sure his beneficiaries get their portion, you know, when the property is sold or whatever. So that's been my whole interest in this, is to get that property sold and make sure his beneficiaries were taken care of, and, of course, with his will. So all of the violations that were mentioned previously, except for one, has been taken care of. And that is the RV that's on the property. And I suppose that the gentleman is living out of the RV on the property. I have talked to him several times. You know, he's got to get it moved. And otherwise, it's going to be told, you know, with the stuff in it or whatever. But most recently, I did have a buyer for the property. And this buyer said that, you know, don't worry about the RV or anything else on the property. We'll take care of it, you know. And by now, we already should have closed. But at the last hour, he decided to back out of the contract. Now, a contract already signed by both of us, you know, for a set fee and what have you. But he said, for whatever, you know, his reasons were, that he couldn't pay the amount that he had agreed to. He couldn't pay that amount anymore. So he drastically dropped the amount that he was willing to pay. So there I was, you know, again, stuck, you know, with the property. The RV's still there because I had backed off because he said he would take care of it. So I'm just asking for a little more time to get the RV and the gentleman off of the property. Hopefully, you know, get it sold and be done with it. Officer Hughes? So basically, what Mr. Johnson's saying is correct. And he has, I don't want to mislead. When I did the affidavit of noncompliance, there were several violations that were still not in compliance. However, just to let you know, the minimum housing violation, I did put in compliance as of November 10th. I helped Mr. Johnson. Hold on, let me just make a note of this. Okay. So the minimum housing is in compliance as of when? As of November 10th, 2025. And the reason for that is this property actually had had a fire when his brother owned it. And so it was in a partial state of construct or, you know, just a partial cinder block buildings. And I'll give you some pictures. Okay. So he complied after your affidavit of noncompliance. Yes. That's in compliance by the fact that his brother had actually started a demo permit. And I had contacted building development review processes, services, excuse me, to see if his brother, Mr. Johnson, now that he's the owner of the property, could, since it had already been paid for and everything, so I tried to help him to get the demo permit, which they did allow him to do that. So that permit was issued on November 10th, so that's in compliance until the permit expires or the building is demolished. The trash and debris violation I also put in compliance as of October 10th. October 10th? Mm-hmm. The inoperable vehicle and the outdoor storage were already in compliance by the time I did the affidavit of compliance. Now, this, okay, so this would have been the, uh, which. In fact, would you like me to give you. . . Well, now, I have it here. I have the parking, the inoperable vehicle was in compliance, 270 or 304? Uh, 270. Was in compliance, right? We're in compliance and 138-3220. Okay. And, um, that's, that's in compliance now? Uh, those were in compliance at the time I did the affidavit of noncompliance for. . . Hold on a second. You just said they were in compliance at the time I did the affidavit of noncompliance. So, it's not listed on the affidavit of noncompliance. And I got only ones missing on here. There was four, and so one wasn't here. Is there what I mean? So, in June, in June 16th, you said three of them weren't in compliance. Which one was? And I presume from what's on here, it was the 58-270 because it's not on your affidavit of noncompliance. Yes, sir. That was. . . Okay. So, now, as of June 15th, 16th, 2025, he was in compliance with 58-270, since it's not on here. But you say he came into compliance in October. I'm trying to figure that out. No, sir. I'm sorry. Let me start over. I think I'm just, we got confused there. Yeah, start from the top again. Okay. So, to start from the top, what's on the affidavit of noncompliance was 22-299, and that is now in compliance as of November 10th. Okay. That's, okay. So, that's in compliance. That's in compliance. Go ahead. Then 58-304, which was in noncompliance, is now in compliance as of October 10th. October 10th. Okay. In compliance. And the, and I should have just spoken to the ones that were on here. That's okay. That's where I created the confusion. I just want to get it right for the record and for Mr. Johnson. Go ahead. So, the zoning with the person living in the RV, the 138-3210, using the RV as an accessory dwelling, that is the only one that is still not in compliance. Okay. Okay. So, not in compliance here. Now, let's talk about 58-270. Is it on the list for the affidavit of silk? I could presume they're in compliance? Yes, sir. Okay. And I presume that compliance date was before June 5th, 16th, or it's not on October 10th, right? Not that I need the date. You didn't cite him as not in compliance, right? The 58-270 wasn't. I thought that was on the order, but let me double check. You listed three. Oh, yeah. That was in compliance by the time I did the re-inspection. Okay. So, it wasn't in compliance on October 10th. That's a later time. It was in compliance before June 16th that you would have said he was in noncompliance, correct? Correct. I'm sorry. I don't know how we got mixed up on those. I apologize. No, you have to apologize to me. I'm just trying to keep the record clean here. Yes, 58-270 was in compliance prior to the deadline. All right. I'm not sure how. That's all right. Don't worry about it. I must have said the wrong code. So, now we have not in compliance just the vehicle, which Mr. Johnson mentioned. He's got someone in there, and he's doing something to get rid of it, right? Right. So, that's what I've been – that's the only reason that I believe we're here is that, as he testified, he presumed that the purchaser would take care of that. Unfortunately, that sale didn't go through, so the person's still there. So, that, truthfully, at this point, is the only violation. Okay. All right. Well, a couple of things. Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. These matters were to be done by June of last year. When they weren't done, you could have come in here and requested more time, but you didn't. Okay? I'm sorry. I'm just – I'm just telling you, you didn't. So, I can't extend that time now to do it because you didn't do it. Okay? And then what happened is an affidavit of noncompliance went out. Okay? And now, since then, you've complied in two of the three. Okay? But there's money owed now on three of them running until certain dates. Okay? And that's not going to go away. All right? And whether you sell it or not. So, now, the fact that it didn't sell, you know, may go towards your efforts to do this. Okay? But, you know, I can't just – you've known this for a long time. You understand what I mean? And, you know, unless you have proof here of, you know, all the things you've tried to do to, you know, try and get him out of there. And you've run into problems. But we're beyond that in terms of what you can appeal here today. What's your position on this? Unfortunately, yes, sir. That's – I've been trying to say all along. I've done everything I could do to help him and get him to get that demo permit changed under his name. But I've expressed from the very beginning that the gentleman living there in the RV is a big violation, that it needed to come into compliance, and that he needed to let that – do whatever he needed to do to get the gentleman off the property and remove the RV. Mr. Johnson, right now, the amount of money you owe on three of the four items is set. Do you understand, I mean, because you've come into compliance, albeit late, so there's numbers there, and they're probably pretty healthy numbers by now. Caroline, I don't know. Did you want to know what the dollar amounts were? No, I don't want to sit here and calculate them all on three different ones. It's going to be thousands of dollars. Yes, sir. Now, you can – if you fix the fourth one, you can go and negotiate those down. Yes, sir. And there are counties – you could chat with her about that. Do you understand what I mean? Notwithstanding, you know, these code violations are out here. When you go to sell this property, they're going to come up. Do you understand what I mean? So you might want to try to negotiate them down. They might want you to fix that last thing before they negotiate them all down, right? Yes, they have to all be in compliance. Do you see what I'm saying here? In other words, it's a big, healthy number, okay? And so you kind of have to take care of this thing, and then you can reduce the numbers, then sell it, and it'll save you a lot of money, lots of money. You understand what I mean? You could tell you generally what they settle it for. I can't – you know. Yeah, we had that discussion before. You had it before. I know that. And, you know, at this point in time, and I'm sorry that you tried to sell it, but that's not a defense or a reason why I can grant more time here. Do you understand what I'm saying? And eventually they'll move to foreclose on the property, I would presume, is where this is going to end up. It could, yes, sir. It could. Yeah, I'm not saying it could go there. You know, I'm not inclined to grant you any additional time here because you're not in compliance, and the only defense to it is, well, I was going to sell the property. It didn't work. That's not a defense to not – you're still not in compliance, you know what I'm saying. I mean, what's your intention with the property now? Are you going to try and get this guy out of there, or – Yeah, I want to – of course I want to get the guy out of there, and he would have been gone by now again had it not been for the, you know, the offer to buy the property, and then the guy backed out on me in the last hour. This is the guy that's in there wanting to buy it? No. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Okay. Just to give you a little background. I got it. I got it. The guy that's just in there is actually the son, the supposedly son of my deceased brother, right? And the RV was gifted to him. It was a will to him by my brother. The actual RV itself, not the real estate, right? Right. Just the RV. Right, right, right. So, you know, I mean, I'm just not a ruthless person. You know, I talk to him. You got to go. You know, but he's like, I don't have anywhere to go. I don't have any money. So, you know, I don't know what to do, you know? So, I thought I would leave it up to the buyer, you know, and then I wouldn't have to worry about it. Well, it sounds like you're still not in compliance, so I'm going to deny any claim objecting to the affidavit of noncompliance, okay? And we've now set the record clear you're only in violation of one of them. I strongly think you should, you know, I can't give you advice what to do, but you need to get him out of there. You understand what I mean? And then call the officer and see if you can work the fine down, and I think you'll find that to be rather, the county's pretty, you know, liberal about reducing fines like this, and the officer here is shaking her head, which means that she's not going to oppose it, so you won't have a problem there, you know? So, at this point in time, you've given me no legal reason that I can do this. Do you understand? I appreciate why you've done it. I don't think it's intentional. But the good news is you only have one thing now left, okay? That's clicking at $100 a day. Is that what it is? Yes. Yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, whatever it takes to get that done, you know what I mean? I would recommend whatever it takes. Have you, you know, how to get him evicted, and, you know, she can't give you advice on that either. I mean, she might be able to point you in the right direction where to go to have that done, but you're going to need to do that. Thank you for hearing me, sir. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, let's say you know the property, because that's the next step, and if for some reason you need a lien reduction, once you bring into compliance, then you can contact me and apply for one, okay? Right. I would give you an application. There's a $300 application fee, as long as if you're continuing to apply, but you're able to do that. It's not something that you can afford. I know you would. Well, you would just say, let me have the application for a lien reduction, and I'll just send that to you, yeah, once you're ready. Yeah. Okay? You would just send that to my home address? This order? Yes. Not the 1295, but the church street. The address that we have, wherever we've been sending it to, I have 1295 right now. We have another one, so then we'll send it as well. We have your email address as well, so you'll get a copy through email. Okay, great. Okay, because it's protected and stuff, but we put things online, I mean, in orders, then we kind of put the record, so that's why, maybe that's why we don't have it. So I send it to you, okay? Thank you. You're welcome. If you don't get it in the next week, email. Sure. Okay. Thanks. Bye. The next one, the one that's available. Communications, please stop recording. Whatever you want, ladies. Go ahead. Let the record reflect that there's no participants in the gallery, just the officers for Pinellas County. So go ahead. You could just call a case. Item number two, department code enforcement matter, minimum housing code violation, trash and debris code violation. Case number CCM-25-00098. Officer B. Hughes, owner Grubbs Henry T. Notice address, Grubbs Henry T. 5889 32nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714-1312, and B. Hughes, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Colorado, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 5889 32nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714. Let the record reflect that there's no one in the gallery, Henry Grubbs, or anyone from 5889 32nd Street North, St. Petersburg? No one has answered the call for the respondent. It's Officer Hughes, correct? Yes, sir. Officer Hughes, please. Raise your right hand, Officer Hughes. Do you swear for any testimony you give today be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. You may proceed. Okay. Thank you, sir. So the property where the alleged violation exists is 5889 32nd Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33714, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, Henry Grubbs, is not present for today's hearing. The violations have been an occurrence since on or before, August 15th of 2025, and I would like to enter the notice of hearing, affidavit of violation, and composite Exhibit A into evidence. You may proceed with Exhibit A. Thank you. So basically, the first few pictures here are the minimum housing. There's a lot of chipped and peeling paint. There's screening over the carport that is torn and damaged. There's rotted wood on the ceiling. Are you going to put it in the package at some point, right? You're just doing the photos first? Composite Exhibit A. I was under my understanding. I have it. Okay. You're not going to just go through it? Do you want to move it into evidence? I certainly can. I thought we were doing the shortened version. Well, that's what I'm trying to get to determine how we're going to do the shortened version here. Yes, sir. Okay. But I'd be happy to go back and start from the beginning if you could. No, let me just put on the record, okay? Okay, so we have the notice of hearing. We have the affidavit of violation and request for a hearing, correct? Yes, sir. And then we have the notice of violation, October 24th and October 15th, the two violations. We've got ownership documents. We've got the deed, okay? And this will be in all the packages. And so... Yes, sir, and I can... I don't want you to go through them like that. I have it in front of me. Just state that it's there and do I have any questions or something just so I can get it on the record. Okay, so these are the photos. We're going to call this Exhibit A, which includes the initial set of photographs. So please tell me what the minimum housing and trash and debris violations are. Okay. So the minimum housing, again, just... It's got chipped and peeling paint on the fascia. It's got the torn and broken screening. It's got rotted wood on the ceiling and holes in the ceiling. These are just additional photos showing chipped and peeling paint on the side and, again, on the fascia, holes in the soffit area. The next page of photos just shows the trash and debris violation. You have a broken limb that's been there for months. You've got wood and other items, extension cords and things on the front, ladders that are just out on the front of the property, and a lot of items in the back. The next page shows basically some wood that's just laying there, a lot of tools and other kinds of items, gas cans, and just torn tarps, a lot of items on the back of the property as well. So, Magistrate, the property was re-inspected on January 5th, and the violations continued. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite exhibit B. Okay. Composite exhibit A with the initial photographs or acceptance evidence, and please proceed with B. Okay. So the violations continued on the 5th. It still shows that we've got the rotted wood for the minimum housing violations, this torn screen screening on the carport, the chipped and peeling paint, and then the debris, again, the branch is still present, has been for quite a while. There's still quite a bit of debris of wood, extension cords, things of that nature. The ladder is still there and has been for months. There's basically a tire that's just laying out, so all of those violations continue. Yeah, it doesn't look like any work's been done, right? Unfortunately, no, sir. Okay. So, Magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation and issue an order to have the property brought into compliance. Should you find the property in violation, we're asking the allowance of 30 days to comply or assign a daily fine amount of $100 per day per violation of Code Section 22-299 and 58-304. I'm going to accept the composite B into evidence. I'm going to consider the public mention of the hearing closed. I'm going to find the respondent in violation of 22-299 minimum housing, opposed to a fine of $100 a day, that fine can be abated if there's compliance within 30 days, which is... Sunday, February 15th, 2026. February 15th, 26 by 5 p.m. Similarly, with regard to the trash and debris, 58-304, I'm going to pose a fine of $100 a day. That fine can be abated if there's compliance within 30 days, which is February 15th, 2026 by 5 p.m., the county's awarded costs. Thank you, Magistrate. Thank you, Officer. Item number three, Department Code Enforcement. Matter, minimum housing code violation, trash and debris code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00095, Officer D. Duvall, Owner, Falzon David Paul. Notice address, Falzon David Paul, 3544 38th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33713. And D. Duvall, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 11695, 126 Terrace, Largo, Florida, 33778. Let the record reflect, there is no one except for the county officers here in the gallery. And no one answered the call of the list. Officer D. Duvall, you may proceed. I have the package. Okay. Magistrate, the property where the alleged violation exists is located at 11695 126 Terrace North in Largo, Florida, which is located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, David Valzone, is not present for today's hearing. This violation has been in occurrence since Honor Before, October 7th of 2025. I would like to enter into evidence the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A. Would you like me to identify what is present in Exhibit A? I've read it. It's been identified. The ownership has been identified, the warranty deed. You don't need to go through it. I see there was a condemnation notice there. So I would go directly then to photographs out of Exhibit A. This is for the minimum housing. This was a structure that did have a fire in the property. It was pretty severe. So the first picture here is for minimum housing. As you can see, we've got, this is actually located in the back of the property. This was a trailer that was right next to the back side of the property. So that burnt, and then there was areas of the actual house that burnt. We've got missing windows. We've got lots of tarps on the roof, and it did sustain damage up into the trusses of the property, up into the crawl space area. And then this is a picture of the notice for condemnation so that we can keep people out of there. Just as a note, the property was secured by code enforcement. We did go in. The county went in and boarded up all the windows and doors because there was transients that keep squatters, transients, people trying to continue to go in and out of this. And it was very dangerous. So this is for the trash and debris, as you can see. Lots of things that were thrown out of the property. We've got the box spring and mattresses, miscellaneous junk items scattered throughout the front of the property. And this is continued trashing debris just to give you a little bit of an idea of what was going on in the back of the property. So, Magistrate, the property was reinspected on January 14th. I was back out there, and the violations continue. Photos were taken on that date. I'd like to submit them in as composite exhibit B. Composite exhibit A is accepted into evidence. You may proceed, officer, with B. Thank you. So as we review the minimum housing, as you can see, the condition pretty much still exists across the board. I'm trying to take similar pictures again from my first from Exhibit A. Again, showing that nothing has been done at this point. We still have a structure that's in a state of being burnt. This is a little bit better. We had the tarp moved a little bit. And I was able to see all of the actual burnt areas, holes in the upper fascia soffit area. All of the boarded windows and doors are still intact, which is good. It did the job to keep people out of there. But the condition is still pretty bad throughout the entire parcel, both the front and the back. We still have a lot of trash and debris out there. So, magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation of Code Sections 22-299 for minimum housing and Code Section 58-304 for trash and debris, and issue an order to have the property brought into compliance within 30 days, or assign a fine in the amount of $100 per day per violation. Anything else, officer? I'm good with that. No, magistrate. That concludes my presentation. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to find the respondent in violation with regard to the minimum housing 22-299 and impose a fine of $100 a day. That fine can be abated if there's compliance within 30 days, which is February 15th, 2026, by 5 p.m. Similarly, with regard to the trash and debris, Section 58-304, I'm going to impose a fine of $100 a day. That fine can be abated if there's compliance within 30 days. That would be February 15th, 2026, by 5 p.m., with county's awarded costs. Thank you, magistrate. Thank you, officer. Up to you. Item number four, department code enforcement matter. Minimum housing code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00097. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Holcomb Lonnie. Notice address, Holcomb Lonnie, 6405 Wayne Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702-6149. And Pinellas County Jail, Holcomb Lonnie, docket 2008-839-14400, 49th Street North, Florida, 33762. And B. Hughes, special magistrate officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756. Violation address, 6405 Wayne Street, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702. Let the record reflect that there's no one in the gallery, and the only one here is officers for Pinellas County. I've responded to the call of the list. Officer, oh, okay. It's Officer Hughes. Yes, sir. I'm going to swear you in again just for the record. Sure, absolutely. Do you swear or affirm Officer Hughes the testimony to give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Officer Hughes, I do have a copy of the county's documents, which I refer to as composite A. I've got the notice of hearing, I've got the affidavit of violation, of course, for hearing. I've reviewed the notice of violation, August 2nd, 25. I've got the ownership of the property from Pinellas County, the related documents, got the deed. Then I have the Pinellas County Sheriff's Report showing something. Mr. Holcomb, I don't know if that's, if he's incarcerated or not, you might want to address that. Is he incarcerated right now? And I'll testify to that and explain it in a minute. Okay, then you can explain. Why don't you give me a little testimony of that in a second, but the rest of it I have appears to be in order. So just a notice to him, and then you can proceed with the photographs. Go ahead. Thank you so much. Okay, so the property where the alleged violation exists is 6405 Wayne Street, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, Lonnie Holcomb, is not present for today's hearing. The violations have been in occurrence since on or before, August 29th of 2025, and I would like to enter the Notice of Hearing Affidavit of Violation and Composite Exhibit A into evidence, which includes everything magistrate that you just described. You may proceed, officer. Okay, so when I initially was given this case, I tried to do some research to find out why nothing appeared to have been completed. The property was on fire, is completely destroyed. Only the exterior walls are still present. So while doing research, trying to find out if he was deceased in the fire or what could have happened, I did discover that he was incarcerated for arson, and apparently for he's not been convicted. For this arson? For this arson. He's been accused of? He's been accused and is in custody of it. That's a first. Go ahead. So because of that, I felt comfortable moving forward. We did go ahead, and that's when you see the certified notice in there. We sent the Notice of Violation to Pinellas County Jail. I did confirm with the jail that it was addressed correctly and that he would get that. Not because it's a first for me also. You're referring to this document here that says bail online? No, sir. The document that was mailed to him from myself was the Notice of Violation, and I just included the, let me find it. What do you say? Oh, here it is. This one right here. Here's a certified mail. The certified mail and showing that it went to the jail with the appropriate docket number. Okay. Now, I see. Okay, so I've got the certified mail here, you know, and the code, the barcode and everything for that. Okay. Do you have anything else but that, or is that just? No, I'm just just. Just proof that you sent it. The Notice of Violation was sent to that, yes. So I just included. Here, here. You didn't get a signature or anything like that, or a tracking order or anything. So I do have a tracking that I believe I have as received. I'd be more than happy to pull that up to make sure that it was received. I should have done that prior. Yeah, it's kind of like this is, I'm not saying you need it. So what you have is, you sent it certified mail. Is there a time that you could tell me you sent it certified mail? Yes. I need to look at my new case. Take your time, officer. I did get confirmation. Well, hold on. You'd have to put it in the microphone. Let me come back. I actually have added into documents, I got USPS, United States Postal Service, delivery confirmation of receipt, and I'll put that up on the screen for you. If you just put it there somehow that it could work into the record. Just in light of he's been charged, you know, and you think it was for burning this building. Can you see that? And again, I'm not saying that he was convicted. No, no, no. Neither am I. That's your understanding. Okay. So anyways, it shows that the... Can we get this into the record somehow? Yes. Okay. All right. Get it in to attach the document. Okay. 12-9-25. They produce. Okay. Great. Okay. Okay. So anyway. Again, the property basically... It looks like there's some minimum housing violations. Yes, sir. So it's pretty much the house was destroyed. Just some of the exterior walls are still there. So magistrate, the property was re-inspected on January 5th, and the violations continue. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite exhibit B. Okay, proceed. So basically, there's no change in the property. There's no permits in the system. I have not received any contact. The notice of hearing for this was mailed to the jail as well by Ms. Gonzalez. So magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation and issue in order to have the property brought into compliance. Okay. So you also mailed the notice of the hearing you're saying as well as the... Yes. Both to the jail. Yes, sir. Okay. I'm accepting composite A, what's been referred to as composite A, as well as composite B into evidence, as well as the additional documents showing the certified mail. What are you looking for, officer, here? So, excuse me. Basically, the county is asking for the allowance of 30 days to comply, and I'm still in violation to assign a daily fine amount of $200 per day. $200? Yes, sir, for Code Section 22-299. Okay. Anything else? No, sir. Thank you very much. Okay. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to find that the respondent, Lonnie Holcomb, is in violation. I'm going to pose a fine of $200 per day on the minimum housing, 22-299. That fine can be abated if there's compliance within 30 days, which would be February 15th, 2026, by 5 p.m., in the county's awarded course. That's it. Item number five, department, code enforcement, matter, minimum housing code violation, trash and debris code violation, zoning code violation. Case number, CCM-25-00096, Officer B. Hughes, Owner, Kickzula John P., Notice Address, Kickzula John P., 968 Ponderosa Pine Court, Orlando, Florida, 32825-3283, and B. Hughes, Special Magistrate Officer, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Florida, 33756, B. Hughes at Pinellas.gov, violation address, 11248, 120th Terrace, Seminole, Florida, 33778. Let the rec reflect that the gallery's empty. The only ones in the courtroom here today are the officers from Pinellas County. Officer, if you could just raise your right hand. I'm sorry. Do you swear or affirm that you'll tell the truth nothing but the truth today? I do. Okay. Michael, easy on you, Officer Hughes. I have the note package, filed package with the notice of hearing. I've got the affidavit of violation or request for hearing, which was done December 15, 2025, setting forth the three violations, which you could go over later. Then we have notice of violation. December 3rd is the notice of violation for all three violations. Then we've got the records of ownership from the tax collector's office, the property appraiser's office, and your photographs. Okay. You can proceed with the composite A in any fashion you choose. Okay. Thank you, sir. So the property where the alleged violation exists is 11248, 120th Terrace, Seminole, Florida, 33778, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner, John Kixula, is not present for today's hearing. I've had no contact from Mr. Kixula. However, they do have a different tenant that was in the property when the code case started, and I've had contact with him, and I'll explain that in just a moment. It's a rental property, then? Yes, sir. It's a rental property. So the violations have been in occurrence since on or before December 3rd of 2025, and I would like to enter the notice of hearing affidavit of violation and composite exhibit A, into which you just explained everything into that, in those packets, into evidence. Okay. Which I believe you already accepted into evidence. No, I haven't done it yet. Okay. Yeah, the photographs, mommy, if I miss. Okay, so, yeah, go ahead. Explain these photographs to me. Okay. So basically, the house is a rental. The property has had bubbling of paint, chipped and peeling paint. This is in the front walkway. There's a lot of dirt, algae-like substance along the exterior. Again, there's parts of the ceiling that have peeled off on the soffit. There's sections that have peeled off. The columns have stuck it as it is repaired. This is the minimum housing, right? Yes, sir. This is all the minimum housing. There's also pieces of board that have been put, I don't know if it's to secure the soffit, that don't appear to be treated or have any kind of paid or protective coating. Got it. So, for the trash and debris, it's minimal. There's some sandbags that have been left. There's some broken pavers that have been left. There's some tree debris that's left. So, it is still present. It's the current tenants appear to have done a better job when they moved into the property. So, there's no overgrowth at this point. It's simply just some debris of broken pavers, sandbags, and some tree debris. So, these are all the December photographs, right? Yes. This is my initial inspection. I got it. This last photograph shows the zoning violation. Per the tenant that's living there now, one of the previous tenants had basically added an awning or shelter in the back without any kind of zoning clearance or permit. So, we basically cited them for zoning clearance required. It also has untreated wood, and I've got better pictures of that for you for when I went back to get my exhibit fees. Got it. So, Magistrate, the property was re-inspected on January 7th of 2025, and the violations continue. Photos were taken on that date, and I would like to submit them as composite exhibit B. January 7th, 2026? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, sir. 2026. I'm just kidding you. Thank you. I'm surprised I haven't made more of those. No, no. You're the first one today. I always... People know I'm still paying attention, you know. These are the same photos for A. Oh, you're taking pictures of that this time? Yes, these are new pictures. Yeah, these are a lot better photos. Okay. So, basically, the tenant was at the property on this date when I went. He was very cooperative. Basically, again, there's the sealing paint that's falling or, you know, peeling. You've got the column with the broken stucco and algae-like substance. You've got the building itself with algae-like substance. The tenant did allow me in the backyard and showed me that the window is broken. The initial officer had written that up, but I didn't see it until this time. Other minimum housing, again, they've got the boards along the soffit area for some reason that aren't treated. Chipped and peeling paint on the side of the house, again, on the soffit, on the ceiling. And, again, the trash and debris is very minimal. The current tenant is keeping the yard cut. He said he's going to get rid of these for the owner. So, again, it's there, but it's minimal. And it's not overcome. You still feel it's a violation now? You know, honestly, I would like to ask for a finding of fact for that when we get to it, and I'm more than happy to comply that violation. I sense, David, that's where you were going on. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Sounds like a good idea. Okay, and the last picture is basically, again, the current tenant has told me, I don't know this as fact, that he has spoken with the owner, has offered, if he can supply a dumpster, or to just simply remove it, because it was put up, supposedly, again, this is hearsay by a previous tenant, but it definitely was done without a zoning clearance. Oh, this structure here? Yeah, so you can see it's attached to the back of the house. I see that. It kind of went over the back window here. It's got bare untreated wood, and it's kind of starting to fall apart. That's got to be resolved, yeah. Yeah, so, again, per the tenant that's there now, who's been very forthcoming and, like I said, invited me in the backyard and everything, says that he's been in communication, and basically the owner is stating that they are trying to get a date to have the house painted. He's offered to remove the accessory structure, the awning, himself, as long as they provide a dumpster. So, basically, the magistrate request, or magistrate, the county requests that you find the property in violation and issue an order to have the property brought into compliance. What I would like to request is a finding of fact order for 58304 for the trash and debris. And because I'm assuming to hire someone to come and paint, which supposedly is going to happen, and for him to go on his own to remove the structure in the back, I'm actually going to ask for the allowance of 60 days or $100 per day for $22,299 and $138.90. Okay. For the record, I'm accepting composite exhibit A as well as composite exhibit B in the photograph into evidence. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I find that with regard to trash and debris, 58-304, they found it was in violation, but they are in compliance now, so I'll be just entering a finding of fact that they were in violation. And with regard to the minimum housing, 22-299, I'm going to pose a fine of $100. That fine can be abated. There's compliance within 60 days, which would be March 17th, 2026. By 5, March 17th, 2026, by 5 p.m. Similarly, with regard to the zoning violation, 138-90, give the owner 60 days, which would be March 17th, 2026, by 5 p.m. Otherwise, there would be a fine of $100 per day. Costs are awarded to the county. Thank you, Master Chief. Surger, I feel like I've seen this before. Oh, similar. Surger is number 8, number 7. Who, I'm sorry? Which one? Well, you gave me as number 8 here to Surger, but we've done that already, right? Oh, yes, I'm sorry. It's not, um, number 8 is Buck. It's Buck. The 8 is Buck. Oh, okay. So I can just put this aside. I'm like, well, we did that. Okay. Yeah, let's do Buck. Call it. Item number 8, Department Code Enforcement Matters Zoning Code Violation Case Number CCM-25-00102. Officer D. DeVall, owner, Buck Anthony P. Estate. Notice address, Buck Anthony P. Estate, 214 Maple Avenue. Palm Harbor, Florida, 34684. And D. DeVall, Special Magistrate Officer. Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street. Clearwater, Florida, 33756. D. DeVall at Pinellas.gov. Violation address, 214 Maple Avenue. Palm Harbor, Florida, 34684. With the record reflect that the gallery's empty and the only one in the court left is county officers, Vanellas County. Officer DeVall, if you could raise your right hand. Do you swear, firm, that the testament would give the truth nothing but truth? I do. Thank you. This is a repeat violation? Yes, sir. It is a repeat. Do you want to give me a summary? I have the package. Actually, I would like to go through this. I was just going to say, if you pointed out. I'd like to put, make sure that everything is very clear on the record with what's happened and what I'd like to do. Yep. Yep. Let's do that. Magistrate, this violation, actually the property where the alleged violation exists, is located 214 Maple Avenue in Palm Harbor, which is in unincorporated Pinellas County. The owner is listed as Anthony Buck Estate, and we have no representation from that estate present here today. Have you received anything from them before today or anything? I have received and or had no communication with the people at the property. I do know that the gentleman that lives at the property is the son of Anthony Buck. When I say no record, no communication as of current from the previous magistrate, we did have some communication with them. I believe they were at the last hearing. So, but as of late, nothing. So, what I would like to do is, I would like to enter into evidence this, the Exhibit A. This violation originally existed or has been an occurrence since April 3rd of 2025. So, I'd like to enter into evidence the Notice of Hearing and Composite Exhibit A, which I will go through page by page. Thank you, Tanya. So, the first three pages are the Notice of Hearing for Repeat Violation that was sent to Anthony Buck Estate at the address of 214 Maple Avenue. The next three pages, three pages, yes, are the Affidavit of Repeat Violation and Request for Hearing that was sent out to the Anthony Buck Estate. On page two of the Affidavit, I'd like to just make note, under further comments or Section D at the top of the page. Yeah, I was just reading that. Go ahead. Magistrate, this case was originally heard July 14th, 2025, found in violation of, there were several code sections, but one of them was 138-3220. Respondent was given until August 15th to come into compliance and the property was complied at that time for the original code sections were 22-299 for minimum housing and 58-304 trashing debris and 138-3220 for outdoor storage as a zoning violation. So, not to interrupt you, officer, just so I could follow it. So, the case was storage of outdoor items. Correct. A lot of junk outside, and they came into compliance before August 15th. Correct. And it's the same thing again today. Correct. Got it. Yes. I'm following you. So, again, storage of items not appropriate for outdoor storage, not screened from public view, and included several different miscellaneous items, the plastic storage bins, saw horses. Everything was located in the front of the property in the driveway. So, this was the order for joint stipulation that was entered into with the representative for the property, again, the son that does reside at the property. This was for the original case that was back in July. Because there's an agreement in July Judge Fuller signed off on. Yes. Got it. And these were the notices of violation that were sent out at that time, just reviewing for cases. Right, going back in time, right? Yes. And, again, showing Pinellas County property appraiser. Everything's still listed in the Buck estate. Property appraiser, tax collector. Excuse me. That was tax collector. This is property appraiser. The warranty deed showing original purchase of the home back in 2019. This is what we went back out to. So, the complaint came in on the 15th of December. We did go out on that day, and these were the photos that were taken showing all of the miscellaneous items that had returned for outdoor storage. This is just 30 days ago. Correct. So, at that point, he was notified. We did, on the 15th, reach out to him as well, tried to make contact. No one came to the door. So, the notice of violation did go out. Not notice of violation, excuse me. The notice of hearing going out to him showing that this is a repeat violation. If I could just interrupt you. Well, sorry, I apologize. But this is an estate, right? Correct. And do you know how long it's been an estate? It looks like somebody in the estate just put everything in the garage and they dragged it back out. Is that what's going on here? Not necessarily. The son has a bit of a hoarding situation going on. Okay. All right. This seems a little odd. That's why I'm asking you. And we have a neighbor that gets very upset about this. I bet, yeah. So, all these items, they get cleaned up, everything looks okay, we comply things, and then they come right back out again. Right, it's not trash and debris, there's a storage of items. No, these are actually items that... A value, yeah, I see that. Yeah, he's got sawhorses, he's got, you know, all kinds of things. So, not having heard from anyone representing Mr. Buck's estate, we went out there, again, actually there were several drive-bys by officers. I kept saying to them, if you're in the area of drive-by, let me know if that violation has been brought into compliance. So, on the 31st of December, we finally did have a drive-by that showed that the property had been cleaned up. We had not been notified by them in any way, but I was hopeful that at some point we would be able to have this be complied, because from the date of when we originally saw it on the 15th, now we have until December 31st, that's 16 days that it was in violation. Got it. So, this is the picture just showing, again, it looks good. Everything, in some way, shape, or form, got back into the garage. I don't care if the garage door is open or not. I see it right there. Yeah. Your concern is probably that they're going to open the door next week after what we do, and they'll put it back out there, right? So, I'm hoping maybe when they receive a fine for a repeat violation, they will not do that anymore. All right. This isn't going to, you're not going to be requesting, you're in compliance now, you're requesting a one-time fine here. I am requesting a repeat violation fine of $100 per day for each day that it was in violation, starting from the 15th of December, and then showing compliance December 31st. So, 16 days. Yeah, so you look for, like, $1,500 a year, which comes to a one-time, how you calculate that. Right, $1,600 total for 16 days and $100 a day. Got it. Plus our court costs to get us here today. Got it. Got all that. So, that is what the county is requesting. Oh, okay, because I was, yeah, I understand. I presume that's what you were going to do. Yep, that is what we are, and it is going to be specific to Code Section 138-3220, which is a zoning violation. It's a zoning violation. Okay, let's, for the record. Composite A, okay, I'm accepting into evidence, okay, with the attached photographs. We then had the additional photographs. I'm going to call those composite. Exhibit B. Exhibit B. No, that's okay. No. We're going to call these two pages of, which are dated December 31st, 2025. Exhibit B. I'm accepting them into evidence. If you calculate, so how many days is that, officer? Starting from the 15th of December and showing compliance on the 31st. 16 days? 15 days. Actually, it would be 15 days because we would call the 31st the compliant date. Right, so that's $1,500, right? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm going to, I'm going to. $100 a day. Okay, anything else? No magistrate. That concludes it. All right. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I'm going to find that the respondent is in, is not in violation now, but was in violation for 15 days on this zoning violation and opposed a fine of $100, I'm going to oppose a fine of $1,500, which is reflective of $100 a day for this repeat violation, and the county's awarded all costs. Thank you, magistrate. Thank you, officer. That was very clear. Yes, that'll be a $1,500 fine. $1,500? Yes. Okay. We just put it at $1,500 fine as a repeat violation. Okay. You know what I mean? We don't need to get into the time frame, how it's calculated. Perfect. I just wanted to put that on the record, plus costs. Chambers or Patakis? Which one do you want to do? Chambers. Okay. She has two more motions to initiate foreclosures. We can take a break, officer. Oh, I was going to say. It's up to you, doesn't it? Officer Hughes, you're the lucky winner of the motions to initiate foreclosure. Yes, sir. Am I getting that right? How about we call it? Item number nine, department code enforcement. Matter, motion to initiate foreclosure. Case number, CFC-25-00014. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Chambers Robert A. Estate. Notice address, Chambers Robert A. Estate. Respondent, 2627 Westbury Avenue, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34685-1308. And B. Hughes, special magistrate officer, plaintiff, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Colorado, Florida, 33756. Let the record reflect that the gallery is empty. The only one in the courtroom is Pinellas County Code Enforcement officers. No one answered the call of the list. First, Officer Hughes, if you could raise your right hand, do you swear for him that the testimony you'll give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. I have the package with the notice of hearing. Have you heard from anyone in this case? No, sir. As a matter of fact, we've mailed everything to the heirs. Of course, this code case has been going on for a long time. And the only thing that I've gotten from anyone has been a one Lori Buck or Buck, B-A-U-C-K. She filed a disclaimer of property interest. Otherwise, we've had no contact. The neighbors have had no contact. There's been absolutely no contact from anyone. Okay. I've read the motion to initiate foreclosure. If you want to go through it, it's up to you. Basically, just to, I guess, if you'd like to get on the record what's in here, kind of like what you were doing previously. So, basically, we have the notice of hearing that was mailed for the foreclosure, which included the motion to initiate foreclosure. That also included the Exhibit A motion with the showing that it's still in the name of the estate. The order determining homestead real property, which was what's in there as the deed or in the deed location. Well, can we hold there for a second? Mm-hmm. The order determining homestead status, okay. Is it a homestead? No, not anymore, now that it's in the status of the estate. I believe this was when he, I believe he inherited the property. Oh, this is back in 11. Yes, sir. Got it. So, when he inherited the property, this is what they put in the place of the, if you look up where the deed is, this is what you'll find, and I believe it's because he inherited the property and requested homestead status. I just want to make sure, I know the motion said that, well, it can't be a homestead of property. Go ahead. Yes, sir. That's right. And then just exhibit the motion to see just shows the notice of violations that went out back in 2024. The notice of hearing back from the magistrate case in 2024. It includes the affidavit of violation and request for hearing. Of course, the posting notice. I see. My order in 2024, right? Yes, sir. That was the next order with the order. And then, of course, the affidavit of noncompliance, showing that they were not in compliance. I want to get to some current photos in just a second. The lien that was filed. Yeah, see, that's the 28,000, 20,800, right? Yep, the lien reminder notice. And then just showing that I actually have gone out again, but there have been no changes. The neighbors continue to cut the front. However, the pool's stagnant. The roof is in very bad repair. The backyard is overgrown. There's still fenced debris. I did have mosquito control go and put the fish in it to try to help the neighbors, at least, for mosquitoes. It's rather odd, this case, isn't it? I mean, the case is kind of a nice house. It's kind of weird. It's in a very nice neighborhood. I would be afraid to see what the inside looks like just because the roof is in such poor condition. Of course, then there's the air search that we did. And again, the only contact we've received back has been the disclaimer saying they don't want to have anything to do with it. Actually, two disclaimers. This is just showing that... It was a lawyer's letter, yeah, I see that. Oh, with another disclaimer notice saying that she's not an heir to the property, along with a death certificate of her spouse. So, basically, it is a non-homesteaded property. We've not had anyone come forward as an heir. It continues to be owned by the estate or the respondent. It has not been declared to be the homestead of the respondent. The petitioner has an interest in the property by virtue of Pinellas County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Lien in the amount of $20,828.20 as of September 7, 2025. The lien is accruing daily fines in addition to interest. The petitioner provided the respondent with notice that the property was found to be in violation of the county's ordinance. The petitioner provided the respondent with notice that the property remained in violation of the county's ordinances after the respondent was afforded due process and given a period in which to cure or remedy the violations of the county's ordinances of the property. The respondent had actual or implied knowledge of the process and procedures employed by the petitioner, as Code Enforcement Division, and Special Magistrate for imposition of the Code Enforcement Lien. And magistrate, based on the evidence provided in the motion, the county requests that you issue an order granting the Pinellas County the ability to initiate foreclosure. Thank you, Officer. That was a good summation. And consider the public portion of the hearing closed, I'm entering an order initiating the foreclosure on the property. Thanks, sir. The next one? Yes, sir. All right. I guess we're not breaking for lunch, huh? No. I mean, unless, Officer... Unless, Officer, you didn't see it. That doesn't take you. Can you handle one more to Officer? Yeah, she doesn't. That's 1.30. He's still got time. And you have this packet also, sir. All right. I've reviewed it. Yes. I'm going to call it. Item 10, Department Code Enforcement. Matter. Motion to initiate foreclosure. Case number CFC25-00015. Officer B. Hughes, owner, Patakis Christopher, Patakis Valerie. Notice address, Patakis Christopher, Patakis Valerie, 390 South Middle Bush Road, Somerset, New Jersey, 08873. And B. Hughes, Special Magistrate Officer, Plaintiff, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, C631 Chestnut Street, Colorado, Florida, 33756. Let the record reflect that the gallery is empty. The only one's in the courtroom. Officers from Pinellas County Code Enforcement. No one responded to the call. Officer, you could raise your right hand. Do you swear, affirm, that any testimony you give today be the truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You may proceed. And I do have the package here. The motion has been filed. Great. Okay. So, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article 8 of Pinellas County Code and Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes, Pinellas County is seeking a motion to initiate foreclosure against the respondents, Christopher and or Valerie Patakis. The property is located at 1209 Sutherland Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida, 34683, located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The property is a non-homestead property in an unincorporated Pinellas County. And I would like to submit into evidence the motion to initiate foreclosure, which consists of a history of the case and the attached exhibits. You may proceed. Okay. So, and just before we get started on it, just to let you know, Mr. Patakis was here with his son during the initial magistrate case. So, he was aware of, was present for the... You mean the code enforcement case? Yes, the initial magistrate case. So, he is aware of this, and I'll also give a, in my summation, I'll explain that he's also aware of this foreclosure motion and what his intentions are. No, no. Go ahead. So, basically, we have the notice of hearing mailed to the owner of record, who I did confirm by phone that it was mailed to the correct address. Yes. We have the motion to initiate the foreclosure. We have, of course, the property appraisers showing that they are the owner of record and that it is not a homesteaded property. The quitclaim deed showing them as the owners of the property. It's not homesteaded, right? It is not homesteaded. They live up in New Jersey, right? You've got that on... Yeah, I got that. We've got the notice of violations that were mailed back in 2024 for the minimum housing, for the trash and debris. We've got the notice of hearing for the magistrate case. Then the affidavit of violation request for hearing, again, for the minimum housing and trash and debris. The posting notice, which they were present, so they were aware of it. The order assessing the fine until compliance is achieved. That's in March of 25, but... Yes, sir. The affidavit of noncompliance as of April 25, the recorded lien, the lien reminder notice showing that it was over $89,000. Yeah, I see that. And it's all trashed into big little stuffy, expensive house. Yeah, go ahead. So this, I believe at one point, was some kind of multifamily housing. Oh, is that what it was? Because I was looking at the assessed value and everything. I was trying to get a... Yes, sir. So it's in Palm Harbor. It's in a very nice location. And it used to be a multifamily. And the roof apparently is in such bad condition that it's starting to fall apart. I think people were breaking in. There's, you know, they had to secure the door with some wood. There's broken windows. You can see the deteriorated soffit. You can see, you know, the tarp, the overgrowth, all the other items that are still there. And basically, at this point, the roof has started to collapse and fall in. So Mr. Patakis did call me, and I did speak with him last week. Christopher Patakis? Yes. Yeah. And he said his intention is to demolish the structure. I did explain that I was going to move forward because I'd seen absolutely no progress since this went to magistrate back in March of 2025, that I was going to request to have the motion for foreclosure get approved. But I did say that, you know, as soon as I see that he actually puts in an application for the demo permit and starts working on that, but, of course, I would wait to submit it to the county attorney. But that he's shown, again, no progress, and right now the roof has started to collapse. There's holes in the roof. Did you, do I need to address any of those promises made, or do you want me to just? No, I mean, you certainly, if you'd like, you know, I've never had it where a motion for foreclosure is given a deadline date. No, no, it's kind of, that would be somewhat difficult. I either give you an order that you may initiate the foreclosure. Yes, sir. I'm a little hesitant to say you can't initiate it until a certain time. That can be problematic. Yes, and I verbally told him that I would much prefer to not continue with it and to see him get that demolition permit and take care of it himself, that my goal, that we, the county would prefer that than us going through the foreclosure, but that I needed to see some kind of forward progress, and, you know, just, I would be, I would wait 30 days anyway before I even did another inspection and forward it to the county attorney. Well, I would recommend if you had promised them that, then you could wait 30 days, but that's up to you, so. No, I usually do. You're seeking an order to initiate the foreclosure. Yes, sir. I usually wait 30 days anyway just to make sure that there's no objection. Let them get it. So, basically, again, it's not homesteaded property. It continues to be owned by the respondent. They owe over $89,000 in liens as of July 10, 2025. We provided the respondent with notice that the property was found to be in violation of the county's ordinances, and they were present during the magistrate hearing. We provided notice that the property remained in violation of the county's ordinances after the respondent was afforded due process and given a period in which to cure or remedy the violations of the county's ordinance. The respondent had actual or implied knowledge of the process and procedures employed by the petitioner, its code enforcement division, and special magistrate for imposition of the code enforcement lien and magistrate based on the evidence provided in the motion. The county requests that you issue an order to grant Pinellas County the ability to initiate foreclosure. For the record, there's no additional evidence. The motion and all the attached documents are a part of the record. I'm going to consider the public portion of the hearing closed. I am granting the county's motion and entering, and I will enter an order that they may initiate foreclosure. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is this... Do you want me to stop it? Yeah, stop it. Yeah, I think we're done. Communications, please stop recording. Thanks, Nicole. Um, so we, this, Mr. John...