Panama City, Bay County, Florida
Friday, October 10, 2014
By: Kevin Earl Wood, Email: allunited@bellsouth.net
In Florida it is a crime for a Clerk of Court, or contractor doing public business with the court, to falsify or evade a public record according to Section 839.13 of the Florida Statutes. Furthermore, it is a crime to “cause or procure” such offenses under Section 839.13 F.S.
Section 839.13 F.S. states in pertinent part:”
839.13 Falsifying records.—
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), if any…clerk…or other public officer, or employee or agent of or contractor with a public agency, or any person whatsoever, shall …falsify or avoid any record…any paper filed in any judicial proceeding in any court of this state, or shall knowingly and willfully take off, discharge or conceal any issue, …filed in any court,…or shall fraudulently…falsify…any minutes, documents, books, or any proceedings whatever of or belonging to any public office within this state; or if any person shall cause or procure any of the offenses aforesaid to be committed, or be in anywise concerned therein, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
It has been brought to the attention of Bay Community News that in one particular case the Clerk of Court of Bay County, or his employees, has falsified entries and made other improper entries on the docket of the case in question. This begs the question as to how many other cases this may have happened in.
Bay Community News would not raise these serious allegations without evidence to back it up.
Bay Community News has been alerted that in one particular case, there may be others, that Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul, Bay County, Florida, has allowed his clerks to enter false entries and other improper entries on the criminal docket of the Bay County Courthouse and Mr. Kinsaul refuses to correct these improper entries.
Bay Community News has interviewed Chief Assistant Bay County Clerk Jody Walls who has provided a statement on behalf of Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul, “Mr. Kinsaul verified the case and it is accurate and all the documents are either state attorney documents or judge approved court documents.” However, this statement still does not explain the false and improper entries on the docket in the case which we will now analyze.
Figure 1: Case Docket Summary Falsified
The first item of interest is in the docket summary section shown above in Figure 1, Improper Entry A. As shown by the docket the case was tagged as “PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION” as the “DISPOSITION” of the case. This is false.
The case was not disposed of by PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION but was in fact disposed of by a “NO INFORMATION” filed with the Clerk of Court by the State Attorney in which the State Attorney “dropped and abandoned” the case. The docket entry under “DISPOSITION” should be dropped/abandoned/nolle prossed or a similar entry.
At this point let’s talk about “PRE-TRIAL DIVERSION” and its purpose.
Pre-Trial Diversion is a nationwide program that allows first-time offenders the opportunity to meet certain criteria criteria and to have all charges dropped against them if they meet the criteria.
If the these first-time offenders meet the criteria then they will have no criminal record so that future employment, security clearance, and other background checks will show no criminal record.
It is the responsibility of the Clerk of the Court to ensure that the docket makes no reference to pretrial diversion. This is because a pretrial diversion is a private agreement between the defendant and the State Attorney prosecuting the case.
Once the State Attorney announces to the judge in the case that pretrial diversion is being negotiated, the case stops dead in its tracks. The Clerk of Court should not make any further entries unless and until the pretrial diversion is successful, or not successful.
Pretrial diversion is equivalent to a “stay” of proceedings where the court case stops and the Clerk of Court should make no entries on the docket unless and until pretrial diversion is successfully, or unsuccessfully, completed.
In the current case being analyzed in this story, the Clerk of Court, Bill Kinsaul, has allowed not only improper entries related to pretrial diversion, but has also allow false entries on the Clerk’s docket.
Figure 2: Docket Listing Annotated
From Figure 2 above we can note a number of improper and false entries.
Under the 9/24/2014 entries we clearly see that the State Attorney filed a “No Information” which means that the prosecutor has dropped and abandoned the case.
Improper Entry B “DEF SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED PTI PROGRAM” should not be on the docket. This defeats the purpose of pretrial intervention in that it basically places a “Scarlet Letter” on the head of the defendant. PTI is a private, although written, agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor which, if completed, entitles the defendant to a sole annotation on the Clerk’s docket that the case was dropped and/or abandoned by the prosecutor.
Improper Entry C in Figure 2 is outrageous for the Clerk to make such an entry because it places the Defendant in false light to background investigators or others that Defendant was placed on probation by the court, which he was not. It is arguably a false libelous entry on the docket.
Figure 3: Probation Services Intake Form
Figure 3 is an Intake Form used by Florida Probation Service, LLC, (FPS) for clients. The intake form was signed by Theresa Barker, an employee of FPS.
Bay Community News has interviewed Richard Stewart who is the owner and registered agent for for FPS, LLC. Richard Stewart is a former County Commissioner in Bay County. He was less than cooperative.
Mr. Stewart has refused to confirm how the Intake Form was sent to the Clerk of Court and appeared on its docket. Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul has likewise refused to investigate how this FPS internal form got placed on his docket in this case.
Mr. Stewart claims that he is required to file this information by law but refused to cite a law that requires this.
It is of interest to note that the defendant in this case did not sign or initial on the bottom of the form under “Probationer.” This is because the defendant in this case was not on court ordered probation.
Yet, in Figure 2, Improper Entry C, Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul falsely annotates that this is a “NOTICE TO REPORT TO PROBATION SERVICES” knowing that the court never placed defendant on probation. Mr. Kinsaul has provided no explanation how this FPS intake form appeared on the docket.
The intake form states in pertinent part, “I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the court’s conditions of probation and a copy of my sentence…”
This statement is completely bogus. First, the court NEVER assigned conditions of probation and second the defendant in this case was not sentenced.
This record on the Clerk’s docket is libelous at minimum and could destroy defendant’s future opportunities for employment, a security clearance, etc. For Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul to not strike this document and entry on the docket is inexcusable.
Furthermore, it is Mr. Kinsaul’s, and Mr. Stewart’s, responsibility to investigate and explain how this internal FPS document got to the clerk to be filed.
The form is initialed by TUB, Theresa Barker, an employee of FPS and Mr. Stewart. Mr. Stewart has an obligation to explain how this form got filed with the Clerk of Court on its docket.
Next we have Improper Entries D and E on Figure 2, the docket listing.
Entry D falsely states that the case is “CLOSED” because of Entry E “PRETRIAL DIVERSION.”
As addressed earlier, Pretrial Diversion does not “CLOSE” a case but instead “STAYS” a case. This case was “CLOSED” as a result of a “NO INFORMATION” filed by the state, not by Pretrial Diversion.
The “CLOSED” entry has a false date associated with it. The case was not “CLOSED” on 9/10/2014 but was “CLOSED” on 9/24/2014 by the state’s announcement of a “No Information.”
Next we have Improper Entry F, Figure 2, on 9/10/2014 that falsely states, “DEFENDANT ENTERED PLEA OF NO PLEA.” This is bogus. Their is no such thing as a “plea of no plea” in Florida according to Nancy Daniels, the top public defender for North Florida out of Tallahassee.
The entry F date is false as is the plea.
On 07/07/2014 defendant entered a plea of “not guilty.” Entry F should be corrected to reflect the date of 07/07/2014 and reflect the entry of a “not guilty” plea. Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul refuses to correct this false entry.
The defendant in this case has contacted his public defender in Bay County, Ryan Phillips, who is considering filing a Motion to Correct the Docket to get an order from the court directing Clerk of Court Bill Kinsaul to correct the docket where Kinsaul refuses thus far to do so.
As this Motion progresses, Bay Community News will report on the status of the Motion and associated court proceedings.