Lauren Book's "expert witness" actually proves that Senator Lauren Book is a menace to society

We at Floridians For Freedom (F3) are over the moon seeing FloriDUH State Senator Lauren Book lose her blatant SLAPP Suit. But while it was great that the viuctory was overwhelmingly in Logue's favor, the news medua instead focused heavily on the dissenting opinion.

Judge Mel-UGH-nie G May (What does the G stand for? Goober? Goof? Germ? Grungy? Gullible? good-for-nothing?) decided to focus on the words by one of Lauren Book's witnesses:

"So if you have all those factors together, someone with an agenda, somebody who affiliates with others with that same agenda, somebody who increases their approach, somebody who's angry or has angry outbursts, somebody who announces their intentions in terms of what they're going to do, all of those things together can significantly increase an individual's risk potential."

Do you know anyone like this? Well I do. In fact, this fits Senator Book to a T.

"Someone with an agenda": Lauren Book has a single agenda, namely the passage of tough sex offense laws. She's willing to lie to the public as well as use her status as a professional victim to advance her cause. She doesn't do anything else, as evidenced by her antipathy towards the Parkland shooting victims. She had no problem, however, with using the Parkland shooter

"Somebody who affiliates with others with that same agenda": Lauren Book runs a charity to advance her cause and surrounding herself with like-minded people, including her father, who really runs the charity.

"Somebody who increases their approach": Lauren Book began with her charity, growing it into a multimillion dollar industry, then started a yearly march across the state, which got bigger and gaudier until a protest made her change her approach. Now she claimed an unopposed state senate seat.

"Somebody who's angry or has angry outbursts" When anyone dares to question Lauren Book on her questionable fundraising efforts, she hides behind her abuse narrative angrily, as noted in the Miami New Times in 2015:

"Political points?" Lauren asked incredulously. "I want to be clear about one thing. I was raped every day for six years, and they were the six most horrible and horrific years of my life. I felt guilty, ashamed, invisible, bad, dirty, hurt, and afraid every single day from the time that I was 11 until I was 16... Children in every community on the planet are also enduring the pain I suffered. I am trying to turn my personal pain into something positive and hopefully prevent this from happening to others."

In her BBC interview, Lauren Book admits to lashing out at her husband and gets very angry when she hears registered persons say they deserve a second chance.

Lauren Book is angry and has angry outbursts.

"Somebody who announces their intentions in terms of what they're going to do": In an interview with the BBC, Lauren Book stated, "We take away their civil rights... but if you commit a crime against a child... you shouldn't have a second chance... Why, because I, Lauren Book, is not willing to allow you to have a second chance."

"All of those things together can significantly increase an individual's risk potential."

What does this say about Lauren Book? She was willing to drag an innocent man through the mud for years, making false allegations, comparing him to mass shooters, and filing SLAPP suits against him. She's willing to force people to live in squalor while she eats rich foods from her ivory tower. She believes certain people dio not deserve a second chance and takes active stepd to deny them that chance. Now tell me who is the REAL danger here?

Head of Miami-Dade Homeless Trust Ron Book thinks feeding a homeless persion is "selfish" and "self-serving"

Ron Book's war on Miami's homelessness has reached Trumpian levels of absurdity. Yet, he's still running the Homeless "Trust."

Seems to me, Ron and his daughter take sick pleasure in harming as many human lives as possible, be it by assisting in bringing up false allegations against people or by slamming his lambroghini into another car while drunk then blaming the other driver for it.

Ron Book is a real danger to society.

#LockHimUp

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article243789187.html

Miami passes ordinance requiring permits to feed large groups of homeless people
BY MAYA LORA
JUNE 25, 2020 06:49 PM ,

Miami city commissioners on Thursday voted 3-1 to pass an ordinance restricting when and where individuals and organizations can feed people experiencing homelessness.

The ordinance, sponsored by Commissioners Joe Carollo and Manolo Reyes, is against “systematic street feeding,” Reyes said. But the ordinance drew opposition from District 2 Commissioner Ken Russell, the only dissenting vote, as well as from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ordinance requires individuals and organizations to obtain permits for feedings that will attract 25 or more people experiencing homelessness in a public place. Carollo was absent for the vote.

“We are organizing street feeding and making it more efficient,” said Reyes, who represents District 4 on the commission. “We are creating a program that really, if you want to help the homeless, you should be in favor of it, because we are going to have them as a group under a roof and we are going to supply them all of the support that they need.”

The ordinance states that groups of of houseless people tend to “gather, live and sleep” where food distributions take place daily. The ordinance argues this results in “an increase in unsanitary conditions and breeding conditions for outbreaks of communicable disease, which negatively impacts the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding businesses and residents.”

Additionally, in an op-ed published in the Miami Herald, Reyes argued public feedings produce “harmful side effects,” citing “garbage left on the streets, little attention paid to social distancing measures and volunteers exposed to the potential spread of COVID-19.”

Those who wish to feed large groups of homeless people must obtain a permit at least two days before a scheduled feeding from the Department of Human Services. A person or organization can provide only one feeding per week.

Additionally, feedings are restricted to five “designated feeding locations,” to be determined by the city manager. The ordinance states the locations must be “within easy walking distance to locations where large groups of homeless are known to congregate,” paved and have adequate parking and lighting. Each location may host only one feeding per day.

The ordinance goes into effect in 30 days.

Earlier in the meeting Thursday morning, Narciso Muñoz, of the nonprofit Hermanos de la Calle, said he supported the ordinance and thought it was important for the city to create spaces where people experiencing homelessness could get meals and connect with other social services. Muñoz said the city should also work toward moving people into housing.

“More than food, what the homeless need is housing,” he said. “Not a shelter. A house.”

The ordinance also lays out punishments for those who violate the new rules: a $250 fine for the first occurrence and $500 for each following occurrence. Russell said he supported the general idea of the ordinance but was against the included punishment, saying it sent the “wrong message.”

“We’ve talked about this for years. And step one to me is to create the program, not the punishment,” Russell said. “We’re taking the right steps in creating a program but we’re undermining it by creating the stick portion of this at this point.”

Russell proposed approving the ordinance without the section outlining the fines, but was shot down by Reyes.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union agreed with Russell, arguing in a letter to the commission that the requirements would make it too easy to penalize people or groups who are offering food to a few dozen people.

“The City of Miami should invest in constructive alternatives to end homelessness, instead of punishing unhoused persons and the charitable organizations that seek to feed the poor,” the letter reads.

In the letter, the attorneys criticized the proposal as “simply cruel and inhumane” and said the feeding ordinance “would effectively serve as an unlawful ban on all public food service to the homeless throughout the city.”

“During the current economic crisis and resultant reduction in food services to the poor, it is likely that all organizations that serve food to the homeless would attract at least 25 hungry persons, thus always triggering the operation of the proposed ordinance whenever anyone seeks to feed the poor,” the letter reads. “Given the proposed ordinance’s severe restrictions on the sites, instances and times in which food can be served to the homeless, this ordinance would therefore effectively operate as an unlawful ban on serving food to the vast majority, if not all, of the homeless throughout the entire City.”

Those watching the meeting via YouTube livestream seemed overwhelmingly against the proposal, based on comments in the chat that accompanied the stream. Commenters criticized the proposal, saying it “criminalized” helping the homeless population.

But Ron Book, head of the Homeless Trust, spoke in support of the ordinance Thursday.

“The most selfish and self-serving thing that we can do is hand someone a meal, leaving them to languish in their current circumstances. There is no humanity in that,” Book said. “What Commissioner Reyes’ program is going to do is give us an opportunity to give those people that are civic-minded to coordinate and to help participate in an organized way to sync it with our efforts to get people off the streets.”

Advocates assisting those experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 crisis have criticized Book and the Homeless Trust for not providing more housing and testing. Book has rebutted arguments that the organization isn’t doing enough to help, citing the trust’s efforts to place people in hotel rooms the organization acquires.

Derek Logue soundly defeats the evil Lauren Book AGAIN in Florida 4th Court of Appeals

FloriDUH Judge Mel-UGH-nie May,
who wrote the dissenting opinion

Bimbo Book defeated by an overwhelming 8-3 majority (the dissenting opinion was writeen by  by a Jeb Bush appointee who volunteers for children's charities so her opinion is worthless). She apparently Can't Understand Normal Thinking, much like the Bimbo she's defending.

A lawsuit against Bimbo Book seems to me like a reasonable next step.

At any rate, the media never gets Derek Logue's opinion on the matter, and this article by the Sun SLANTinel is trying to spin the story, but that's par for the course. A win is a win is a win.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-lauren-book-injunction-overturned-20200624-rbb7tuxjizboleebxboepnz3by-story.html

Cyberstalking injunction obtained by Sen. Lauren Book overturned by appeals court
By JIM SAUNDERS
NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA |
JUN 24, 2020 AT 6:10 PM

The 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Florida Sen. Lauren Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.
The 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Florida Sen. Lauren Book and from publishing any statement threatening her. (Phil Sears/AP)
TALLAHASSEE — Citing First Amendment rights, an appeals court Wednesday overturned an injunction that state Sen. Lauren Book obtained because of alleged cyberstalking and harassment by an activist who opposes laws dealing with sex-offender registries.

The full 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.

Book, who was sexually abused as a child by a nanny and is a prominent advocate for victims’ rights, pointed to actions by Logue at events in Tallahassee and New York and online posts in seeking the injunction. But the appeals-court majority, while describing Logue’s posts as “vulgar and insulting,” said Logue did not violate a state stalking law and that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.

“As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by stanching respondent’s (Logue’s) speech against petitioner (Book) with a court order, to do so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment and the wording of the stalking statute,” said the 19-page majority opinion, written by Judge Mark Klingensmith. “There was no evidence presented to the trial court that respondent incited action by urging people to threaten harm to petitioner or her family. Claims of threatening speech or harassing action are actionable if the speaker threatens, harasses or intimidates, and intended targets would reasonably perceive that intent. Merely posting public information, or potentially embarrassing and annoying content, without more, is not conduct within the stalking statute and does not entitle petitioner to an injunction.”

The opinion also cited Book’s status as a public figure.

“Respondent’s offensive vulgar and insulting posts are part of that friction and grist of public discourse intended by our Founders when forming this nation,” wrote Klingensmith, who was joined in the opinion by Chief Judge Spencer Levine and judges Robert Gross, Dorian Damoorgian, Jonathan Gerber, Burton Conner, Alan Forst and Jeffrey Kuntz. “Petitioner may feel discomfort by respondent’s anger as expressed in his postings, but discomfort is not tantamount to being threatened or harassed. His speech advocates for citizen-led political change and seeks to influence the legislative process. Though his words may be base and insulting at times, it is also pure, political, and protected protest deserving of the broadest possible First Amendment protections.”

But in a dissent, Judge Melanie May wrote that she agreed with the circuit judge that Logue “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed the petitioner through a course of conduct which caused her substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose.”

“Must we wait until someone commits some violent act before our system can protect its citizens? Haven’t we witnessed enough tragedies to know that our failure to address precursors of violence often leads to a more egregious tragedy?” wrote May, who was joined in the dissent by judges Martha Warner and Cory Ciklin. “Today we live in a culture where social media postings, like those involved here, have led people to lash out and wreak havoc on our children, families, friends, and communities. Social media posts, which direct attention and can motivate others to act, are threatening and dangerous. In fact, perhaps more so as the subject of the postings has no way of knowing who reads or may act upon them.”

A three-judge panel of the South Florida appeals court also ruled against the injunction in August, but the full court agreed to take up the case.

Book, D-Plantation, heads the nonprofit group Lauren’s Kids, which works on issues related to preventing sexual abuse of children. Wednesday’s majority opinion said Logue is a co-founder of what is described as the Anti-Registry Movement, which opposes sex-offender laws.

Part of the lawsuit involved Logue’s actions protesting a children’s march in Tallahassee and at a film festival in New York. The film festival included the screening of a documentary about sex offenders. Book answered audience questions after the documentary, and Logue took the microphone and asked a question that a law-enforcement officer testified was in a loud, aggressive manner, according to court documents.

All of the judges on the appeals court agreed that Logue’s conduct at the Tallahassee and New York events was protected by the First Amendment. But the judges focused on online posts by Logue that included Book’s address and a picture of her home, a video of a song with vulgar lyrics and a cartoon depicting a headstone, May wrote.

“The majority suggests the respondent’s ‘rants’ were simply vulgar expressions that he is entitled to make under the First Amendment,” May wrote in the dissent. “We disagree. When such rants are posted on social media, they take on a more global reach. In short, the petitioner proved the respondent willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed her.”

But member of the majority focused on free-speech rights.

“While the drafters of the First Amendment did not conceive of the internet, they know the paramount importance of freedom of speech,” Gross wrote in a concurring opinion with the majority. “Since the dawn of the Republic, it has been the responsibility of voters to exercise political judgment, to examine political speech and to separate truth from fiction in casting a vote. If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is that courts should rarely, if ever, interfere with the political process by punishing or penalizing political speech.”

Jim Saunders writes for the News Service of Florida.