Ethics Complaint Filed

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927. No candidate approved this advertisement.

Maureen Rupe, candidate for D1 County Commissioner, has given commentators a challenge. An Ethics Commission complaint has been filed (and found by the Ethics Commission to be "legally insufficient" - they don't see a problem with what is being alleged: it's not a violation of the law) against a fellow website, Maureen Rupe Exposed. Technically, her HUSBAND, Robert Roy Rupe, Jr., has filed the complaint against Maureen Rupe Exposed. It is his signature on the complaint, so he is the complainant. By signing it in front of the notary he swore he wrote it and came up with the wording for it. He seems to have a habit of doing this sort of thing since it was his signature on the Ethics Commission complaint filed against the PSJ Civic League during the PSJ Incorporation battle. Both the PSJ Civic League and Maureen Rupe Exposed just happened to be under the guidance of the same man, too. Mr. Maureen Rupe seems to like filing complaints. Whether he likes filing complaints in general, or he likes filing complaints against this one particular person, I am unsure. I just know this is the second such filing (separated by six years and two separate issues) by Mr. Maureen Rupe against the owner of Maureen Rupe Exposed.

Here are links to the two pages of the complaint (page one [be sure to read the bottom of the page] and page two [read the top of the page]) so you can read them for yourselves. Warning: try not to laugh too hard. Shall we suffice it to say that the sentences are confused, unstructured, misspelled, grammatically incorrect and comical?

Read the actual complaint copy and see if you agree with me. Here is the body of the complaint (Not Mr. Maureen Rupe's personal info you saw in the actual complaints, just the "body" of the complaint without changing anything):

"This PAC has the web address of http://www.maureeenrupeexposed.com/cvs.html states its sole purpose is the defeat of Maureen Rupe, who is running for District 1 County Commission. On July 18, 2008, I found on the Maureen Rupe Website a police report of a vandalized sign of Jack Parker, who is running for Brevard County Sheriff. The PAC filed its paperwork stating its scope: had the sole purpose of defeating Maureen Rupe in the election. The vandalism webpage on the PAC's site seems to be linked to an email that the PAC is calling a threat http://www.maureenrupeexposed.com/email1.html. There is no mention in the email concerning the election of the Sheriff. The PAC has either made a criminal accusation on Maureen Rupe, or is the PAC is in violation of 106.03, as the PAC is operating outside the scope the PAC registered with the state, in violation of 106.03 Registration of political committees(2) The statement of organization shall include (g) Any issue or issues such organization is supporting or opposing

"If I am incorrect on this violation, I must assume the Maureen Rupe Exposed PAC is accusing Maureen Rupe of vandalizing the Sheriff Parker election sign, which Maureen Rupe will be able to fight this slander in a court of law.

"It also shows earlier complaints against Mauren Rupe was a malicious intent to injure the reputation of such respondent by filing the complaint with knowledge that the complaint contains false allegations."

So you see my dilemma. If I comment too much further on the grammar, punctuation, style, structure, etc., of the complaint assertions, I get accused of attacking a candidate's family. Although, it is fair game to comment on the public record. Since it was Mr. Maureen Rupe's complaint that brought this into the public arena, I will comment mostly on the ideas of the complaint. But first, I must point out a few fun grammatical errors.

1) Mr. Maureen Rupe's sentence structure has him saying that, "On July 18, 2008, I found on the Maureen Rupe Website a police report... [my underline and bolding]". (Gasp!) He did! He found all that nasty stuff on his wife's own website? She should be spanked! And he should do the spanking! (Check the scan of the complaint to see if I'm telling the truth.)

2) Also, consider the statement, "a vandalized sign of Jack Parker". I'm sorry, but I didn't know Jack Parker was a sign. Did he get a picture of himself enlarged so he could be a sign? Just asking.

Now on to the more serious stuff.

The focus of the complaint centers around (besides payback) two unrelated events. The first of those two events was Jim Kellison sent the owner of Maureen Rupe Exposed an e-mail that contained a threat within it: something to do with the IRS. Thus the e-mail from (ex-Sheriff's Deputy and PSJ incorporation supporter) Jim Kellison. Two days later, the second event happened: vandalism of a Maureen Rupe Exposed sign that the owner of Maureen Rupe Exposed had placed between the CVS pharmacy and the southbound lanes of US1. That sign was vandalized within two hours of being put up. The Sheriff's office was called and a Deputy came out and took a report on the incident. Thus, the information on the sign went up on the Maureen Rupe Exposed website.

The idea of the Maureen Rupe Exposed PAC being held responsible for two events that happened to them is ridiculous. Maureen Rupe Exposed had no more to do with the sending of the Kellison e-mail than they had to do with their sign being vandalized. They had no more control of Kellison writing a threatening e-mail to Maureen Rupe Exposed than Maureen Rupe has over my writing this site. Should I turn her in to the Ethics Committee because I see something on her site that I can stretch, twist, and misconstrue to play "Gothcha'!" with an Ethics complaint?

I must also point out the fallacy of what Mr. Maureen Rupe is asserting. Go to the page, Vandalism and see what the complainant is talking about. It's not a sign of Jack Parker's: neither his enlarged photo, nor an election sign. It is the business card of the Sheriff's Deputy who took the report about the Maureen Rupe Exposed sign being vandalized. That's all it is. The whole page is dedicated to the fact that a Maureen Rupe Exposed sign had been put up that day at 8 a.m. and had been vandalized by 10 a.m.

Then there is the problem with the statement about a supposed link between the e-mail and the vandalized sign. The problem here is that the vandalism page on the PAC's site is not linked to the threatening Kellison e-mail that Maureen Rupe Exposed received. The Kellison e-mail is totally different from the vandalism issue. Yes, the Kellison e-mail came in two days before the vandalism happened, but that neither proves nor implies anything. On the website Maureen Rupe Exposed, there is no direct link from the Vandalism page to the Kellison e-mail page. They are two totally separate, individual pages and events: not linked and not related. On the vandalism page, you have to either go back to the previous page and get to the Kellison e-mail that way, or you have to click on the "Threats/Vandalism" link at the top of the page and then click on the Kellison e-mail link from there. Either way, it is at least two clicks away on a website that has (as I put this page together and count them) eight (8) pages. That's quite a trip for such a small site and to say that those two pages are "linked", is preposterous. This is a link. See how many clicks it takes you to get from the vandalism page to the Kellison e-mail page without copying and pasting the addresses. Going through two links to get to something does not qualify as being "linked" in webmaster or any other valid terminology.

Now to point out the worst part of it. How much of a stretch of the imagination; how much of a really twisted thought pattern; how much of a vengeful attitude do you have to have to make this into an Ethics Complaint? How can anyone look at the "Vandalism" page and see an "endorsement" of Jack Parker for Sheriff? How can anyone look at that page and see anything other than what it was: a properly processed report of an incident with a properly identified Case Report Number and the name and badge number of the Sheriff's Deputy who took the report? How reaching, grasping and conniving does one have to be in order to be able to see anything even remotely close to being an Ethics violation?

Even more than that, how desparate a candidate to let one's husband go to those lengths and damage his own reputation in the effort to bring an opponent some measure of grief -- no matter how small -- and no matter the cost to your own family and your own husband, in order to get even?

My final thought must be the question: Is winning the D1 County Commissioner race that important to you, Maureen Rupe, that you would go that far?

Paid electioneering communication paid for by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927

Paid political advertisement. Paid for and approved by Linda McKinney 6025 Keystone Ave. Port St. John, FL 32927. No candidate approved this advertisement.

Now available:

Coming Soon!