Friday, December 15, 2017

Hayward's Beggs & Lane Bill Payment Illegal?

Rick Outzen recently discussed the payment of Ashton Hayward's criminal defense bills. 

http://ricksblog.biz/factors-to-reimburse-public-official-for-legal-defense/

In his story, Outzen noted:

Mussetto said that Thomber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach established the acts involved must purportedly arise from the performance of his official duties. However, a public official is not entitled to taxpayer-funded reimbursement simply because an allegation of misconduct arises in the course of his public duties. The alleged misconduct must also serve a public purpose.

Mussetto asserted that four questions must be answered:

1) Was the official’s successful defense against the charges undisputed?
2) Did the challenged acts arise out of the official’s performance or public duties and serve a public purpose?
3) Is the substance of the litigation of interest to the administration of the business of the prospective payor ?
4) Did the prospective payor authorize the challenged acts?

Beggs & Lane attorney Nixon Daniel stated in a letter to Dick Barker:

"All of the matters which were subject of the investigation were within the scope of Mr. Hayward's responsibilities as Mayor."

Do you pinky promise Nix?

Daniel then gives the City CFO instructions to be blindly followed like an idiot:

"I have enclosed out statement for services rendered on his behalf. Mr. Hayward has paid $13,500 of that bill as indicated on the bill.  The attached statement shows the net amount due to our firm.  The $13,500 previously paid by Mr. Hayward should be reimbursed to him.


Bowling told Inweekly that she based her analysis and recommendation to pay the mayor’s legal bills on the letter received from the mayor’s attorney.

She later wrote in denying access to the Beggs & Lane files as public records:

"In any event, the City has never had, and does not presently have, possession of the files or access to them."

How do Bowling and Barker know?  They did not review the files.
How do Bowling and Barker know the Feds did not investigate personal issues the Mayor may have?
How do Bowling and Barker know the Feds did not investigate issues Mrs. Hayward may have?
How do Bowling and Barker know if the contractors themselves were a focus of the investigation?

These other potential issues and other non-city functions are supported by the bills.
  • 01/15/15 entry references bank records; Whose bank records?  Joint account? Partnerships?
  • 01/19/15 entry references insurance document from client.  How is the Mayors insurance city business?  
  • 9/8/14 entry references document from banks.  Who's accounts?
  • 9/11/14 entry references tax returns?  Is this a tax case?  How is that City business?
http://ricksblog.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/85188.pdf

The above indicates that more than bribery may have been investigated and if so why are the Citizens paying for his fees?

Don't ask Dick or Bobblehead, they just did as instructed without doing....THEIR JOB!

Did City CFO Dick Barker and City Attorney Bowling commit a crime in blindly paying for Ashton Hayward's criminal defense without doing any review of the files to determine the public purpose before authorizing payment?

This is definitely a question for the State Attorney.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's always the cover-up that gets em!

Anonymous said...

Lmao @ the “pinky promise”. That’s classic! But on a serious note, how is any of this even possible? The average citizen would have been in prison long ago if they had done half of what these people have done.