Saturday, May 19, 2007

Your Comments Please

Charlie Grapski has crossed the line. He claims his protege Michael Canney (Green Party Chair for Alachua County) did not send me a threatening email. He claims he has access to this particular email and finds that it is not threatening by any means. Well, this email is now up for all to see, what do you think about it?

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:56:04 -0400
From: "Michael Canney"
To: "Christian Duque"


I have expressed my concerns before about your airing your dispute with Charlie in the public arena, so I won't repeat them here. I just want you to know that I am concerned for Charlie's physical safety. He has received a number of warnings since he has been here about the dangers he faces for doing what he's doing politically. Whether you agree with him politically or whether you get along with him, if you care about his personal safety then you will cease and desist from the personal gossip about him.

In your comments about Charlie you outed his location at the Sports Pub. This demonstrates either poor judgment or a callous disregard for Charlie's safety. This is not a game. I will be up front with you. I have no problem with you criticizing anyone or debating the issues in a principled way. I have no problem with you airing your personal issues. I don't care who you talk to or associate with in Alachua. But if your behavior - whether intentionally or not - undermines my safety and presents a threat to me, my family or my friends (including Charlie) I will have no choice but to take protective measures, the first of which of which will be to stop communicating with you.

We have mortal enemies here who have nothing but contempt for the law and the democratic process. They will put us in jail - or worse - if they can get away with it, and they have the full power of the state behind them. They have already made two felony arrests of Charlie, and have tried to get a felony charge on me. if you're acting in such a way as to make it easier for these thugs to fuck with us then you become my enemy. I don't want that.

You should have enough common sense and consideration not to talk about where people live, where they drink beer, who they associate with, etc. on a public blog that is closely monitored by people who are actively working to do us harm. If you want to write pages about Charlie's "personality disorder" or your personal issues with him, be my guest. It's none of my business. But if you are writing stuff that compromises our safety, it is my business. I'm watching Charlie's back (and my own as well) and right now you present a security risk.

When Charlie said he wasn't going to attend the meeting last night, I suggested that he invite you to the pub for a beer and to hash out your differences. I'm sorry that didn't happen, and I know its difficult to communicate when egos and emotions are overactive. I just wish you didn't feel the need to publish all your personal issues with Charlie on the web (honestly, people end up thinking you're both nuts). IF you're going to do that, I'm asking that you think more carefully about what you are revealing and whether it might compromise someone's privacy or personal safety. Alachua is not Gainesville, and we are not paranoid. Look at the posts on the Speak Out about Charlie and the sports pub. These are a warning to him and to the pub that they are being watched.


When I received this email I immediately fired off an email to attorneys Joe Little & Gary Edinger, cc'ing several friends on the City and Opposition side. I asked that all correspondence and contact from Canney & Grapski cease.

To be quite honest, I showed this letter to an attorney, friend of mine in South Florida and he found it troubling, though Mr. Grapski says there's not threats here, I disagree. I'm suspected of "fucking with people,", I'm called a security risk, I'm told that there will be any number of unspecified retaliations, one of which will be to break contact (it's understood this is one of many by the text), and so on. If you take this email, coupled with Grapski's initial phone call to me and the words many of his supporters had for me outside, after my first City Commission meeting, then you too would know how scared I actually felt. Not scared in my own home, but scared going to Alachua.

I don't think the press in Gainesville realizes what exactly is going on in Alachua. This isn't 1995 and this isn't the Charlie we know fighting the system, this is a well-funded group of looney-toons waging a war on development and fighting an almost democratically (as in DNC) controlled local government. Grapski claims that those threatening my job are in fact members of the City posing as members of his crew, but the reality is, Charlie has attacked with his name and spoken about my career w/ his own name.

I will be promoting this entry all over the State of Florida and to friendly political/legal links throughout the world. I hope to publish some letters in the future.

What do you think about this letter? AM I CRAZY TO HAVE FELT THREATENED? Or, is Charlie correct in that this is a perfectly normal letter?


Bud Calderwood said...

I find Mr. Canneys e-mail very interesting. He seems to think that Mr. Grapski was in some danger because you "outed" his location. If someone wanted to find him it wouldn't be very difficult since Mr. Lewis was in the same sports bar on the same night and actually spoke with him.

Mr. Canney says that he isn't paranoid but he is afraid that he is in some danger from unknown people. Neither he nor any of his friends has ever been harmed. He makes a giant leap from non-threatening public comments made by people who dislike his politics to physical danger to himself and others of the same mind.

I have been threatened to my face by a member of the ALA and my practice was vandalized twice with anti-Wal Mart graffiti. I don't fear these people. I find them annoying.

Anonymous said...


He signed his letter "peace." Not exactly threatining if you ask me. You're a nut job.

You're are a security risk. That is not a threat just an observation. There is no threat of personal or bodily harm. He may just request a restraining order.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:09, you are a member of the ALA and I claim my five pounds.

Christian Duque said...

There is ample areas of threat in that email. But according to your logic you can lay out all sorts of threats and crass comments, but by signing *Peace* then it's suddenly non-threatening? That's a nonsensical theory, I suggest you avoid making such foolish counterpoints and re-read the letter.

Anonymous said...

I don't find the letter to be particularly threatening in any manner that is really significant. Threatening to cut off contact with someone, while childish... isn't really what I would call a "threat."

That being said, I do find the e-mail to be very fucking ridiculous. To say that disclosing the bar where someone drinks could cause them harm from some unknown person(s) is borderlin ridiculous. If you showed me this letter with no context I would be led to believe the author was a high functioning schizophrenic.

I suppose you should apologize for every time you've said that Jon Boyles goes to Swamp or Josh Weiss does. I mean obviously you compromised their security as several members of the community aren't happy with the job they've done. The next logical step is obviously mounting a full fledged assault force on the swamp and taking them out.

When it's all said and done I think its kind of ridiculous that Charlie and his supporters want to sit around and throw out accusations (many of which are false), lawsuits (many of which without grounds), and other damaging slanderous comments and then expect not to be retalliated against (I don't mean in a physical manner). Charlie and his supporters cry foul anytime they don't get their way or someone actually tries to protect themselves (via say a counter-lawsuit, an arrest, or a restraining order) they cry foul.

Seeing as how the public would obviously choose to side with the city (because we're mindless and can't look at facts and decide for ourselves), Charlie and his supporters have gone further and said that they are "in danger" from some unbeknownsts figures of authority. Basically they think if people believe they are actually in danger, then their argument must be true. Nevermind that they haven't demonstrated this danger and just keep talking about it over and over again and hope nobody will call them out on it not being true. (Hey this looks familiar to a certain Pants tactic which I seem to remember Christian supporting. You know accusing members of the other side of something like say... cheating in an election over and over again and hope nobody ever actually looks at say an election commission hearing. It seems to me Christian you're fine with this type of tactic when it benefits you, and when it doesn't well then you get on your high horse. I find it be kind of offensive and extremely hypocritical - but that aside yes Charlie and his band of lunatics are in fact that... lunatics.)

Christian Duque said...

I don't know who you are, but you make valid points and I thank you for your post and your readership, genuinely. :)

Anonymous said...

Christian, stop it now. Send all your readers to the Observer!

Anonymous said...

I said that because we never had our head up Grapski's ass. I think I should stop drinking.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Charlie when is he finishing his PhD? if you are amused by the concept of 7+ years to complete an undergrad education!
Charlie quit the crap, your dissertation committee is waiting!

bruce said...

I think the election commission gave us a very fair and unbiased hearing. :)

Anonymous said...

Yeah because when you show up and you say "So-and-so was intimidated" and they say "give me proof" and you say "I spoke with them on the phone, but have no actual evidence" and then the person themself gets up and says "Thats not what happened."

Your right in a fair world they definitely would have ruled in your favor. I hope to god your not going to law school.

bruce said...

Not looking to divert the purpose of this thread and its comments, but just two things.

1. Not having enough evidence doesn't mean we (myself actually) were lying. And I wasn't upset with the commission's rulings with regard to those grievances. The purpose of those complaints was letting students know what we had been experiencing. No doubt if I was going to lie, I could have come up with a better story.

2. I was alluding to "stickergate"

I am happy knowing we upset some people, though. It probably means we did things the right way.

Cheers :)

Christian Duque said...

Btuce, how can I put this for you...
As PANTS I. & II. you inherited the reins of the GDI movement for almost a full consecutive year, from this day forth, you will be put under scrutiny by the System, but worse than any scrutiny you could have experienced at those hearings, this scrutiny will last a lifetime.

You've been marked.
Welcome to the Club:)

bruce said...

No worries. I'll always be around to give my impressions. I never had anything to hide. :)

Still optimistic about what Moseley is doing too.

Anonymous said...

You're right. JCB actually already hired assassins to track down Bruce. Watch out, man. You're a security threat to Evil Unholy System of Corruption and Cronyism...led by a 20 year old with a comb over. lol