Eglis Vinson [Sat. 09 Aug. 2014]
5115 South Lakeland Dr., Suite 1
Lakeland, FL 33813-2565
Phone: 863-619-7464; Fax: 863-619-8276

Cc: Lenore DeVore; Rick Rousos; Bill Rufty, staff/mgmt of The Ledger of LAKELAND ; file copies
Bcc: Selected priest(s) in my order, who have asked for Bcc(s)

Ms. Visnon:

Thank you for taking time to speak with me Wednesday-week ago (Wed. 23 July 2014) about the problems I was having with your boss' Facebook pages. I hate to bother you again; however, when we spoke, you promised to look into this, and give me a call back; however, I haven't heard from you since, and it's been more than 2 weeks. Since the initial issue was a rather contentious matter, I sought the best counsel on 'Conflict Resolution,' and I came up with this: In my religious order (“Christian”), Jesus is my highest authority; as sovereign king, his word is reliable as “good advice.” I also sought counsel/advice from a number of elders, peers, unnamed news experts, and religious leaders as well; their advice was uniformly the same that of Jesus, so I'll quote only King Jesus' word, for the sake of brevity. (I assume you, too, are a Christian, and thus accept his word as appropriate here, but, if you aren't a Christian, please overlook my inference, and please bear with me: This advice, on which many experts agree, seems appropriate here.)

Jesus' advice regarding 'Conflict Resolution':

Matthew 18:15-17 (Holy Bible, AMP, Words of Jesus in red)
15 If your brother [or sister (a)] wrongs you, go and show him his fault, between you and him privately. If he listens to you, you have won back your brother.
16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two others, so that [cf: Deuteronomy 19:15] every word may be confirmed and upheld by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
Footnote:
(a) Matthew 18:15 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verses 21 and 35.

That would be you, Ms. Vinson; strictly-speaking, you've wronged or offended me here (by not keeping your word to call me back), and we couldn't resolve this matter privately; so, I am, on the advice of many, seeking resolution and reconciliation of this issue. Since I believe your boss still has some unknown grievance(s) with me, I'm not visiting you in person, but, I feel an email would be more appropriate here, and, I am bringing along at least 1 or 2 others, via the cc line of my email, to (as Jesus said) be witnesses, and thereby avoid any “he-said she-said” issues & thus keep false allegation, confusion, & further misunderstanding to a minimum.

That's my sole grievance or complaint against you; I trust that it was an honest oversight, but I shall not assume anything, but, instead, merely inquire, and trust your response: your dealings with me the one-and-only time we talked were respectful, and so I have no reason to belabour the point.

That brings us up to the next (and more important) point: It will probably prove rather 'difficult' for you: But know that it's comparably (if not more-so) difficult on my end. So, please bear with me, here.

After we spoke that Wednesday, and I didn't hear anything back from you, the following Monday (August the 28th), I got a door-knob flyer from the campaign of your boss, Atty. John Hugh Shannon, and then realised I'd been slack in my duty to follow-up on your conversation with me. Feeling guilty here, I immediately called him up (at 863-944-6311, the number on his flyer) to find out why in the world he had blocked a total stranger who had no prior interactions with him –other than me asking one campaign question, and then emailing him a brief 'thank you' note. (You got one copy, remember? I Had trouble finding John's email address, and so I sent it to yours, evinson@johnhughshannon.com, which I found on the public registry date for his office website, johnhughshannon.com.)

Well, you told me that John didn't even manage his personal Facebook, much less his campaign one (if I am recalling correctly), and so, I assumed this was a misunderstanding. (In fact, a similar misunderstanding occurred with U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross, our congressman: “[LETTER] “Ross Has Heavy Hand Online,” THE LEDGER, http://www.theledger.com/article/20130124/EDIT02/130129635 Published: Thursday, January 24, 2013.) However, my good friend, Dennis Ross was innocent of blocking hoards of people here. (It was an aide, no longer with this office.) So, I assumed the same thing happened here: I figured some “over-zealous” aide had blocked me for simply “not fitting in” with the “rich and powerful” crowd, for my political views, or whatever? However, Mr. Shannon, when we spoke, disagreed with your view on the matter, claiming that he, himself, had blocked me. When he said that, I was shocked, and asked why. He then claimed that I had 'threatened' his secretary. Since you are the only secretary with whom I have ever spoken in his office –and since I only spoke with you one time –I would assume he meant that I threatened you. (If, on the other hand, there are other secretaries, then he may not have been referring to you.) In any case, you remember when you and I spoke, and neither of us threatened anyone. I will add here: Before I called you, I suspected something like this may happen, and took the liberty to get no less than five (5) witnesses who were present and witnessed my conversation with you.

I am not suggesting that I'm “assuming” you will lie for your boss here, Ms. Vinson; please don't misunderstand me here. But, although you were polite to me when we spoke that one time, I really don't know you, and I got nervous calling, and sought the watchful eyes and ears of many witnesses, in the rare (but non-zero) chance that you, later, decide to lie to protect your boss' false claims. (You do, after all, have a conflict of interest: He may fire you if you contradict his word, even though you and I both remember our conversation: Difficult? Yes. A bit lengthy? Yes. But we were both polite to one another, as I recall -and as will the many witnesses should I “get into a bind.”)

By the way, while I don't think Mr. Shannon will deny that he said these things about me, if he does, you contact me, and I will put you in touch with no less than 5 witnesses which saw and/or heard my conversation between me and him.

Now, before I go any further, I want to admit to you that I realise and recognise the difficulty in which you find yourself at this moment:

No matter whose version you support (and no matter whether you weigh in or clam up and remain silent), you WILL end up angering someone. That is inevitable: It is a forgone conclusion. But, consider this:

Since you know that no threats were hurled either way, when you finally do confirm my claims that John said this, it will mean that he not only lied about me (for supposedly threatening his secretary, you), but also lied about you (by misquoting you: I am assuming you did not say this).

So, should you side with him, and become a false witness, it will make it harder on me, for sure, but in the end, you will end up keeping your job, and working for a liar: No matter your religious views, or even lack thereof, I am confident that you see how unwise it would be for you to associate with such a person of low integrity. (Even a huge paycheck would not be enough to convince me to work for or with a known liar, because if he lied about you and me once, what would make you think he would not lie about you again?)

Now, I admit a slight “conflict of interest” here: If I email you, and ask you to make a statement, one way or the other, on this, there is a chance you may defend me, which would be good, because, it is my understanding that he is slandering my name, not merely blocking me on Facebook. (Facebook arguments/blocks, etc., while wrong of Shannon, are not a worthy complaint: I should not complain overs uch trivial matter; however, his slander to my name with such a serious accusation merits my undivided attention –and yours too, as I infer that he lied about you too.)

REQUEST – So, my request is this, Ms. Vinson: Please clearly make a statement one way or the other: When we spoke that one time that I called your office, did I – or did I not – threaten you, as Shannon alleges. – I implicitly trust that, if given the opportunity, you will “do the right thing” and tell the truth – no matter what it may be.

If you bear false witness, this will (assuming you are a Christian) violate our laws:

Exodus 20:16 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Deuteronomy 5:20 (KJV)
20 Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.

In case you might not have known, even silence on your part will be an egregious violation of the moral laws of God:

Leviticus 5:1 (NASB)
5:1 ‘Now if a person sins after he hears a [a]public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his [b]guilt.
Footnotes:
[a] Leviticus 5:1 Literally: 'voice of an oath'
[b] Leviticus 5:1 Or: 'iniquity'

Now, at this point you're probably wondering why I am writing you such a lengthy email, even though I stand nothing to gain, on balance. (You might help me, alright, but that chance is “offset” by the risks of me being falsely arrested and/or having an illegal injunction levied against me from our corrupt local police dept.)

Since I have no appreciable motive to gain anything (for myself), then why am I writing you?

ANSWER: I am a Christian, and am compelled by my conscience to look further into this, since I feel that there is a chance that, while Shannon is definitely guilty of being rude, blocking me, and then lying about both myself you you, nonetheless, he may have done some of this in an honest misunderstanding. For example, if there were, indeed, people who called your office and threatened someone, then it is possible that he may have gotten me confused with them. (I don't know this, but I can't discount it either, since I must be honest -and avoid assuming one thing or the other.)

REQUEST: Besides my initial request (above) regarding a statement from you about whether I threatened you or not (you may speak to my friends at The Ledger, since, though human, they are impartial, here), I have a 2nd request – this one, not for myself, but for John:

Since I think it's possible that he may have gotten confused or something, I would like to know the “real” reason he blocked me. (It could not be because of any conversation with you, the Secretary: Remember? I called you AFTER the Facebook cyber-bullying, thus whatever he may have thought about that, it could not have been the cause of something that had already happened: The cyber-bullying, therefore, was due to some other, as yet unknown, reason.)

So, my request for clarification about Mr. Shannon, here, is 2-fold: First, why did he block me on Facebook? (I had spoken to the secretary a total of ZERO times at the time I was blocked, so this was not the cause.) Secondly, why did he accuse me of 'threatening' you? (Did he, in fact, think I threatened you in response to my cal that Wednesday, and your subsequent inquiry –or, perhaps, were other threatening calls coming into your office, and maybe he got me confused with someone else??)

Let me remind you: As hard as this email is on you (it is not short at all, but a bit lengthy, sort of like the court brief I wrote on behalf of Terri Schiavo, where I lost 4-3 in case# SC03-2420, doing better than Jeb Bush's 7-0 loss in case SC04-925, for example, LOL), uh... as I was saying: Yes, this email is both lengthy and probably a 'difficult' subject matter for you, but it is more-so lengthy for me (I'm writing it, not reading it), and also more difficult (I am running a great risk of, say, false arrest, or worse for simply exercising my 1st Amendment rights to email you), and the only “real” thing I hope to gain (besides satisfying my personal curiosity) is to make sure and get all the facts so I don't accidentally “go overboard” in either legal action or news coverage against him:

John Shannon has made me very mad, make no mistake of that, but if he's innocent of some of the things where I think he's guilty -and/or if there are “mitigating circumstances” that will explain why he acted like a clown and a bully, and then falsely accused me to cover it up, I would like to know, so I can avoid blaming him for things where he may not be guilty:

I am a Christian, after all, and I am not only permitted to be a peacemaker (Matthew 5:9), but I am commanded by my sovereign King, Jesus, to so do (I Peter 3:11-12).

Matthew 5:9, HOLY BIBLE: Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.

I Peter 3:11-12a (AMP)
11 Let him turn away from wickedness and shun it, and let him do right. Let him search for peace (harmony; undisturbedness from fears, agitating passions, and moral conflicts) and seek it eagerly. [Do not merely desire peaceful relations with God, with your fellowmen, and with yourself, but pursue, go after them!]
12 For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous...

Matthew 5:23-24 (DRA, Words of our Lord in red)
23 If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee;
24 Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift.

(Of course, if I don't wish any ill will towards this man who, I'm sure you know, is a liar, or at least very proud and unable to admit a huge mistake, then I am even less apt to be bitter towards you, someone who appeared to be concerned with my problem the one time we spoke. But, I would be just as guilty of 'silence,' myself, if I refused to seek your clear and unambiguous statement on this matter, since, of course, I would be allowing Shannon to bully, lie about, and/or threaten others: This would be wrong of me to let both him and his victims continue in these preventable patterns of behaviour. If you wait a week or so, and then Google your name and/or Shannon's name, you will find the most updated information on the news media coverage that will appear. I'm mentioning this, not as a threat or anything – I trust you will “do the right thing” – but merely as a courtesy on my part, since I don't want to “go to press” about your matter without your having been notified.)

PS: Sorry my email here, was so lengthy, but please consider this: Were it you that had been not only cyber-bullied, but then slandered (in an apparent attempt at a cover-up), I'm sure **you** would be seeking to defend your good name, too. Remember, Eglis: It was not Nixon's crime that got him fired, but rather the bullying and cover-up; and, likewise, the Facebook bullying, whilst wrong, is small-fries compared to the clear and present slander that Shannon did against you and me -when he lied about both of us. How many other people will he bully? This must stop!

In closing, let me assure you that, no matter how this debacle here turns out, I don't wish any ill will or hatred towards Mr. Shannon, and should I meet with you all in the future, if you all are in need of food, clothing, shelter, directions, or any assistance within my power, I will try my best to help you all – within, of course, my human limitations. Thank you, in advance, for any insight you may offer regarding the questions I posed in both 'REQUEST' sections above.

Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL 33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411 Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth doesn't change because you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get Truth

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.
Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying: "Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists, Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "Speak up now or forever hold your peace!"-GWW