*

*

Local Lakeland, Fla. Attorney, John Hugh Shannon, is bullying and threatening to slander little people for reasons unknown: Documentation of said claims
* UPDATE: Since this story published on July 29, 2014, there were four (4) key updates, as reflected in the story, below: [#1] First, while meeting with Mr. Shannon, at a debate event, shortly after this published, this writer got hints that he was not guilty of the social media bullying, as reflected in the August 20, 2014 updates, below, but there was not proof, and the investigation trail ran cold. [#2] Secondly, on Christmas Day, 12-25-2017, this writer learned that Mr. Shannon and 4 others perished in a tragic airplane wreck on Christmas Eve, the day before. [#3] Then, The Register discovered several visits to the home page, referred from this page: *.PNG Portable Network Graphics image ** *.JPG "Jay Peg" image ** Surely, there were many more that read our story (Update: actually, there were many - see recent: Pan View * Zoom View), yet without clicking on our front-page news, as shown above; thus, we know that the news of Mr. Shannon's untimely & tragic death sparked numerous visits to our story, over four (4) thousand to one mirror alone. [#4] Lastly, after being tipped off that there was a sharp increase in visits to The Register, we decided to look deeper, and were honestly freaked out by what we found: A simple search under Google for john shannon lawyer that yielded over 3-Million hits - 3,140,000 to be exact (screenshots: PAN view * ZOOM view) found that The Register was ranked on the fourth (4th) page in the world, a very high ranking for such a general Google search. That explains what we found next:

First, looking at the GordonWayneWatts.com domain and accessing the cPanel metrics in order to look at the raw page visit logs, turned up this visitor data: In November 2017, there were only 114 visits to this news item; however, in December 2017, there were 617 visits, a sharp increase by any measure. In fact, on Dec. 31, 2017, alone, there were 74 visits, and that only went from "[31/Dec/2017:06:09:02 -0600]" to "[01/Jan/2018:00:05:50 -0600]," i.e., no matter which "time zone" correction you use, you can see it was only for about 18 hours, or 3/4th of that day, an 'access log' of the most recent visits on that day, which hadn't ended yet.

Then, when logging in to the GordonWatts.com domain and accessing the metrics on visitors there, as well, things got even stranger: In November 2017, there were only 103 visits to this news item; however, in December 2017, there were 4,149 visits, yes, over four (4) thousand visits, probably most of them only from Christmas Eve, 12-24-2017, when Mr. Shannon was tragically killed, which amounts to about 578 visits per day, above-and-beyond what we normally have per month in visits to this story.[[***]] In fact, on Dec. 31, 2017, alone, there were 85 visits, and that temp log was only from "[31/Dec/2017:05:14:20 -0700]" to "[31/Dec/2017:22:41:55 -0700]," in other words, about a 22.5-hour day, not quite 24 hours. (Note the time-zone offset for GoDaddy is "-0700," instead of "-0600," for the HostGator domain, above.) However, no matter how you slice the "website data" mumbo-jumbo, it is plainly obvious that there was a huge increase in traffic to The Register by visitors, looking for information on the untimely and tragic death of Mr. Shannon. Therefore, it became clear that we should move quickly to update the story with newly-learned information, and add clarification on prior roadblocks to 'out' Shannon's staff-member, who was the true guilty party in the cyberbullying incident, and, we believe, the same staff-member who was fired by Congressman Dennis Ross, for a similar incident, referenced in a letter to The Ledger (LINK * screenshot * PDF archive), dated January 24, 2013, which was shortly before my misunderstanding with Mr. Shannon.
[[***]] 4,149 minus 103 reflects about 4,046 extra visits that Dec-2017 saw, above Nov-2017, and over the 7-day week at the end of the month, that was about 578 visits per day extra, as a result of the intense interest by The Register's readers, who found us under a generic Google search.

While the subsequent updates to clear his name on most of the charges, below, will be slow to publish (due to transcoding issues with the debate video and limited Internet access, with slow upload speeds), both honour to Truth and journalistic integrity require The Register to correct "errors of omission," e.g., leaving out critical updates. While the story, below, was not false when it published, newly-learned information should be published as soon as practically-possible, especially given the fact that clarification and clearing Shannon's name of these charges has the potential to lighten the load and avoid unnecessary pain to the remaining family regarding his tragic and unexpected loss. Accordingly, we will update our story in a timely fashion, as able: See below. ~Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief, The Register

More about Mr. Watts: * After the misunderstanding with Shannon, in which heated words were exchanged, both parties apologised to each other, and, while Shannon never revealed the identity of the staffer who was the guilty party in the cyberbullying matter, both parties let it drop, and moved on, and, subsequently, Watts wrote a letter to the editor (scan of a PRINT COPY), giving Shannon credit where credit was due on his hard work on the "Strong Mayor" debate (a local, city government issue). * Watts, a conservative Republican, ran for this seat back in 2008, as a write-in candidate. Another write-in candidate, in that race, was Dr. Alton Smith, who is a conservative Democrat. (http://GordonWatts.com/Campaign.html and http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Campaign.html) * Both Watts and Smith were quoted in The Ledger as saying they were asked to run as write-ins, in order to close the universal primary, sometimes known as the "write-in scam," where a candidate runs a lame-duck candidacy and does not actually seek office. Smith and Watts, however, did not run lame-duck campaigns, but actually did try to win this seat (unsuccessfully, however), and both were honest enough to admit their role (not a common occurrence in this scenario). ("Stargel Faces Write-In's Smith, Watts," By Robin Williams Adams, THE LEDGER, Fri, Oct 17, 2008) - ("Write-In Loophole," By Gordon Wayne Watts, Letters to the Editor, The Ledger, Fri, Oct 31, 2008) * Watts, who is not a lawyer, nearly won in court on behalf of Terri Schiavo, doing better than all other pro-life litigants, combined: [1] In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE 'TERRI' SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing (Watts got 42.7% of his panel) http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf [2] In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing. (Bush got 0.0% of his panel before the same court) http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/dispositions/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf [3] Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal. (Terri Schiavo's own blood family only got 33.3% of their panel on the Federal Appeals level) http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200511556.pdf [4] Sample brief * Gordon W. Watts, who has no plans to run again for elected office, is an FSU honours graduate with a double major in Biological and Chemical Sciences, and, presently, is the Editor-in-Chief of The Register, as well as a part-time advocate for other worthy causes.

Shannon's pastor, Ron Pennekamp, the senior pastor at St. Paul Lutheran in Lakeland, where Shannon's family attended, is quoted by WTSP as saying: "He’s a master pilot and I’ve flown through fog with John, he’s instrument-rated," Pennekamp said, referencing one trip in which Shannon piloted them in a trip from neighboring Valrico, Florida: "He turned on his instruments, turned on his landing lights and we came out of the fog just above the ground and we were right on target. So I don’t think its fog, honestly I really don’t," Pennekamp went on to say.

USA Today reported that: "He had a private pilot's license since Oct. 4, 2010, with an instrument rating that allows a pilot to fly solely by referring to flight instruments in clouds or low visibility, according to Federal Aviation Administration records."

Updated analysis: This writer investigated the capacity of the Cessna 340, and discovered that it is rated for one (1) pilot and five (5) passengers. (Sources: AirzFlying.com * Wikipedia.org * CorpJetCharters.com * Inc.com) And, with a empty weight of 3,697 to 3,921 pounds, and a 'gross' or 'Max. takeoff' weight of 5,975 to 5,990 pounds (Sources: aopa.org and Wikipedia, respectively), the payload may safely be in up to 2,293, or at the least, up to 2,054, using conservative values. Even AirzFlying.com is quoted as saying: "Maximum Useful Load: 1,450 lbs," for this plane, which, for 5 people (1 pilot and 4 passengers), would yield up to 290-pounds per person, including luggage, and maybe more, if this figure refers only to the additional luggage. Thus, John's choice to carry only four (4) passengers does not seem to implicate pilot error on this head.

Research shows human error is the main factor in deadly aviation accidents: Independent.co.uk * DailyMail.co.uk In fact, FlightDeckFriend.com is quoted as saying: "For example, if the aircraft suffers a serious technical problem (but one that shouldn’t result in the loss of an aircraft) and it’s subsequently mishandled by the pilots resulting in a crash, does that count as pilot error or mechanical breakdown? The mechanical breakdown on it’s own shouldn’t have meant the plane crashed, but could have been handled correctly by the pilots.

Therefore the statistics for the causes of aircraft crashes are not always clear. It is however widely accepted that the following statistics are a reasonable representation:

55% Pilot Error
17% Aircraft Mechanical Error
13% Weather
8% Sabotage
7% Other (ATC, Ground Handling, Unknown)" Source: https://www.flightdeckfriend.com/ask-a-captain/why-do-planes-crash

However, of the major probably causes (instrument/mechanical error; pilot error/incapacitation/health; Other forms of 'human error', such as errors by maintenance engineers, air traffic controllers, dispatchers, loaders, fuellers, etc.; design/manufacturing errors; weather; excess load; unbalanced load; birds striking the aircraft; sabotage; and, both ground & mid-air collisions), I have eliminated pilot error, weather, and excess load as "likely" causes. (Tho, in all fairness, we don't know, as yet, what caused the crash.) That leaves mechanical error and unbalanced load, the latter of which is a special type of pilot error, where the load on the craft is too far in the front, back, left, or right, causing the craft to be unbalanced. In a small craft, an unbalanced load of a certain number of pounds, if it occurs, is a larger percentage of the total 'gross' luggage/passenger weight, and any mechanical error in the tail rudders, which can compensate for unbalanced loads, would be more sensitive in smaller craft, for the same reason. But, to be fair, while I have eliminated some causes as 'likely,' we don't know, as yet, the cause, at the time of publication of this update. So, let us be charitable to those with different views, and let us pray for the aviation investigators to find the truth, whatever it is. And, let us continue to pray for the remaining family, who are left with the loss of their family and friends.

Initially, my 7-29-14 story held Shannon accountable for the cyber-bullying, but the 8-19-14 meeting with Shannon at a GOP Primary Debate event (when he was running for Fla. State House, as reflected in the 8-20-14 update) left doubts in my mind as to his guilt, especially given his candor and willingness to not be mad at me over our misunderstanding. Moreover, in a letter to The Ledger (LINK * screenshot * PDF archive), dated January 24, 2013, which was shortly before my misunderstanding with Shannon, I accused Congressman Dennis A. Ross (R-FL-15) of the very same thing: cyberbullying & blocking people on social media. The Ledger, while 'Liberal' in is defense of the weak, is 'Conservative' in its tacit but firm requirements for proof of such claims (which I and others freely provided). So, Ross was caught red-handed, or was he? Shortly after this incident, I and the others were unblocked, and I spoke with an unnamed source (a friend of mine) in the Ross campaign, and pointed out that the same political hack who was on Ross' campaign was also on record as working for Shannon, and I asked if this was the person who managed social media, and blocked the people without good cause. My source told me that, 'yes,' this was the person who was blocking people, and that Ross had to fire him for this (and other reasons). The source told me that this young man was "trying to be the congressman" and that Ross (and not this aid) was the Congressman, and had to be let go. For those that doubt my story, I would point out that Ross' Congressional Office unblocked myself *before* my embarrassing letter published, and without having been tipped off. To help verify that, here are my retraction letters to the following three (3) news media: Congressman Ross, himself * The Ledger, which published my original letter (but chose not to publish the retraction, for reasons unknown) * The Register, which is my own online paper. Therefore, Ross' unblocking of us was not "in reaction" to bad press, since my "letter heard 'roud the world" did not publish until about half a day later, after he had unblocked us. Lastly, neither Ross nor any of his staff, ever never even hinted at anger toward me, and frequently called on me in Town Hall Meetings (both in person and TeleTownHalls via the telephone).

Thus, it became plainly obvious that the fired aid (and not Ross) was the guilty party here. So, when that aid's name surfaced at Shannon's campaign, and I became blocked shortly thereafter for no reason (I had not attacked Shannon, who was, up until that point, just another GOP candidate I knew), it was clear to me that this political hack (and not Shannon) was the guilty party. But, as I did not feel that my unnamed source wanted to 'out' his former aid, and as Shannon, likewise was polite, but not willing to disclose who, on his team was the guilty party, I felt that, without definitive proof, e.g., 2 or more witnesses willing to go on record (and not merely my 2nd-hand-word hearsay testimony that I was told by a trusted friend), my investigation ran cold.

As much as I wanted to clear Shannon's innocent name (regarding the initial claims that I believed he had been a cyberbully & blocked people on his social media), I did not feel comfortable moving forward, and let the matter drop. But, now that I've learned that Shannon has been tragically killed in a horrific plane wreck, and recalling my initial true (but embarrassing) story, I feel that I have a moral (even if not legal) obligation to clear his name of the allegations that I implied (even if I didn't outright explicitly accuse him, personally).

To be clear, Shannon was human like all of us, and as the record shows, a bit short-tempered, but I was probably more guilty of the same thing: Especially given that I had just overcome a similar misunderstanding with Ross, I should have had less trouble overcoming my impatience to press Shannon to reply to me over my having been blocked on his social media. Thankfully, both of us reconciled and dropped our hard feelings about this, even though I do regret not pressing him further to reveal the identity of the "bad apple" on his staff, and go on record to out this character. But, I trusted both Shannon and my other friend, who implied that we should avoid embarrassing this bad actor, as he, too, was a human, and that this might be excessive reaction, and beyond justifiable self-defense of ourselves.

So, while this article initially was about the cyberbullying incident, I am now appending it to show proper respect for the dead, and show proper sensitivity to his remaining family & friends. Thus, while I will not remove my initial report (it is on the Internet forever anyways, and accordingly is a matter of public record), I will update this story to add proper perspective and clarify some issues:

Video Description: This is the raw footage from the debate between REPUBLICANS, Colleen Burton and Atty. John Hugh Shannon, who are vying for the GOP Primary nomination for Florida House seat, District 40. Both candidates gave great answers and were genuinely conservative, even though they occasionally disagreed on a few points, such as tort reform and also the precise application of the 2nd amendment in our high schools and colleges. Highlights of this debate include my question (starting at about 51:30) and my apology to Mr. Shannon (starting at about 1:23:00 or so). The Lakeland, Fla. branch of the 9-12 Club (somehow or another affiliated with The Blaze and Glenn Beck) was good enough to both host this in The Liberty Building as well as provide food - and a Q&A session after the debate proper. The Ledger (formerly known as The Lakeland Ledger) also did news coverage, but, as they didn't have to process unwieldy-large file sizes with barbarically low technology, they were able to publish ahead of The Register.

** Lastly, I owe it to my readers to explain why I was so slow to update my news story, here, seeing Shannon was killed in the plane crash on Sunday, 12-24-2017, and today is Thursday, 12-28-2017:

The original story will remain, as an archive of history -- see below -- but reflect on the above to show perspective and proper respect. EDITOR'S NOTE: Not corrected for spelling errors, as I am too fatigued at present, and must publish this now so-as to not be unsafe to drive back home. Editor-in-Chief, The Register, Gordon Wayne Watts

* (Friday, December 29, 2017 at 01:04 a.m. EST ; Sunday, December 31, 2017 at 02:07 a.m. EST ; and, Wednesday, January 03, 2018 at 02:12 a.m. EST) | Updated to correct for updated web-traffic metrics, bad links, spelling typos, and style. ~Editor

(Tuesday, July 29, 2014) | LAKELAND, Florida | This is not a story I was planning (or hoping) to write, as a political reporter; however, my conscience would bother me were I to fail to bring these matters to the attention of the community and public at large. As the title implies, major misdeeds were done by the local attorney named in the title, and it is with great regret that I must even consider writing or addressing this topic, but the failure to do so would be the greater crime, as I would aid and abet in allowing his crimes to go unchecked. So, I shall chronicle this issue, from start to finish -and also (since it happened to me), in unconventional, 1st-person, narrative (as opposed to traditional 3rd-person news reporting style, normally employed by writers here, at The Register), which would be the more appropriate writing style for this case.

When the political season rolled around, and I noticed two candidates running in the Republican Primary for Fla. House of Representatives, in my district, I decided to research the candidates and issues -so as to not be a prejudiced or uneducated voter, but both candidates were lacking a little bit in the 'Issues' section of their official campaign websites: ColleenBurton.com and JohnHughShannon.com aka: ShannonForHouse.com Archive: For comparison, see the old archive of my campaign page, from when I ran for that same office: http://GordonWatts.com/Campaign.html and http://GordonWayneWatts.com/Campaign.html

Some time around Monday, June 30 or Tuesday, July 1 (I rightly don't recall the exact date), I called up Atty. John H. Shannon at his law office, and asked his take on some issues, and he was kind enough to take time to talk to me and answer some questions I had on the issues. I sent him a thank you note on Wednesday, July 2, 2014 (Screen shot to verify this is what I sent), and, in case I got the wrong email address, or it got "lost in the system" (and that does happen), I followed up with a short thank you note to his Facebook page, later that day. Some time later, I sent him a Facebook friend request, seeing we had like 3 or 4 mutual friends in common, and he was good enough to accept my friend request. I posted a very short (probably 1 sentence) thank you note on his wall feed, thanking him for accepting my add request. (I said something along the lines of: "Wow, that was a fast response to my add request; quick reflexes are a good quality in those wishing to serve the people & run for office.") My parents raised me to respect other people -and thank them for any help or courtesy they show me. Although I do not have a copy of that comment (it was either deleted or I can not see it at the current time), here are a couple other examples, to show what I mean:

(example 1)

(example 2)

Saturday, July the 5th (according to my outgoing email records), I emailed Colleen Burton, asking for her phone number (as I had forgotten that it was listed on the Dept. of State's candidates page), and she replied a few days later, telling me I could call her, and that, if she wasn't there, she'd return her messages. Shortly afterwards, I was able to speak briefly with her by phone, as well, and, like Atty. Shannon, she was polite and answered all my questions.

Likewise, I sent her a short email, thanking her for taking time to speak with me. At this point, I thought nothing of this local primary race, and nothing seemed out of the ordinary or odd.

"TV Ad Draws Controversy to GOP Race," By Rick Rousos, THE LEDGER, Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Since the postal mailer ad came from Melbourne-based political group, Families for Lower Taxes, then The Ledger's claims that the TV ad was also from them seemed tenable, and I was displeased that Burton would likewise make a rash move. Besides the political group's wrongful action (of casting Burton in false light, and not characterising her position correctly), and Burton's jumping the gun (to incorrectly attribute the ad to Shannon), I was also not fully pleased with Shannon's answer to my question on the issues. But that was pale by comparison to the other things, and he seemed mostly (albeit not totally) conservative, and so I had no reservations for voting for either in the general election, and -even though both of them have made human mistakes -nonetheless, I held them both Burton and Shannon in high esteem -not only for their conservative views -but also for taking time to speak with me and answer my questions.

The next day, Wednesday, July 23, I decided to write a Facebook note, as I have a large friends list, many of whom follow me on Facebook. However, when I tried to 'tag' Shannon (even though most of what I said about Shannon was positive, I tagged him as a courtesy to let him know I was talking about him), I was unable for some reason. (I was, however, able to 'tag' Burton.) So, tried to email him to give him the "heads up," as a courtesy (based on my Christian upbringing to consider/think of others), but I was unable to email him:

This got me curious, and after some investigation, I determined that he had 'blocked' me on his Facebook page -where he had, just a few days earlier, accepted my Facebook friend request.

I appear blocked from both his 'personal' page as well as his 'public' (Fan) page. A friend, however, sent me this screen shot: He is not blocked, thus we see that Shannon's page is working. My problems seeing it were not from a bad link, or similar, but rather, someone blocked me.

This is where things get real strange -but the truth is often stranger than fiction, and my responsibility as a news reporter is to simply report the news -report the truth without any fears of reprisal -and so I shall show honour for those who fought for our First Amendment:

I decided to call him and ask what was going on here. (I had done nothing to provoke him. Indeed, I had not communicated with Shannon any, whatsoever, other than to call him one time, and then send him a thank you note, both to his regular email, and then to his Facebook, as described above.) His secretary informed me that he did not manage his personal Facebook, and I am glad that I gave him the benefit of the doubt here. (I would have been wrong to rashly jump to conclusions -and assume anything here.) She did, however, seem to imply that since this was his 'personal' Facebook account, it was OK. Of course, this is like a person's personal home, as opposed to an elected leader's public office complex. While it may be legal say, for example, (former) Mayor Gow Fields to invite a bunch of people over to his house for a party (tantamount to Shannon inviting people to send him friend requests, and then accepting them), but then, later, for Mayor Fields to then kick a person off his property -and then have the police visit him and trespass him (analogous to what Shannon did to me), it would be immoral. No political leader with any scruples would just have a person escorted off and trespassed, like this, were the person to merely hold a different political view (which is the only thing I can infer as a reason for Shannon's action here). (I am not sure if I am inferring correctly, here, regarding my belief that Shannon's secretary thought it was 'OK' to kick me off, simply because this was his personal Facebook, but she implied this by comparing his fan page; so, please be patient with me: Solid proof follows these strong allegations.) In any event, she was patient and courteous, and took down my number and promised to look into it, this past Wednesday.

Monday (July 28) rolled around, and I had heard nothing, and then, when I got a door-knob flyer from Shannon, and saw his phone number, I decided to call him, myself, and ask him if he knew anything about this matter.

Déjà Vu

This was not the first time a political leader (or candidate, as here) has kicked people off his Facebook. The recent 'Heavy Hand' letter that The Ledger published ("[ LETTER ] "Ross Has Heavy Hand Online," by Gordon Wayne Watts, Thr, Jan 24, 2013, and the follow-up press about the 'Twittergate' scandal, documented U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross being accused of just the same thing. However, Ross' office has told me that they think an aide, no longer with the office, did this. their claim seems reasonable since, to their credit, they addressed all these matters before the letter published. Since I know that the Ledger staff did not tip them off (they even apologised to me for not having time to speak to Ross' office on my behalf), then this seems to prove that Ross' office was not acting under pressure from the press, but rather for the right reasons. Also, Ross and his office, have treated me very well, letting me participate in, probably, more than my fair share of Town Hall questions. Dennis Ross not only addressed me by name one time after a long time since the last time we met, but has always been professional and polite.

So, knowing what happened with the misunderstanding with how Ross' office had blocked/banned a bunch of people -due to a bad aide that is no longer with the office -I felt comfortable in giving Shannon the benefit of the doubt, sure that the same thing had happened; however, to be sure, and let Shannon know what had happened, I called him late Monday afternoon.

Shannon was exceptionally rude, and, at first, he said he didn't even have time to talk to me. (This was very surprising; if he is this way now, how will he be if he get into office? We expect him to be a good steward of small matter, such as proper phone manners, before we entrust him to larger matters, such as elected office.) He claimed that he, himself, deleted me from his Facebook friend's list. When I asked why, he accused me of calling his office and threatening his secretary. This is incredible, considering that I have only called his office twice: The first time, I called, as described above, and I did not talk to his secretary other than, perhaps, that she transferred me to him, and we [meaning me and Mr. Shannon] had a good conversation; nothing out of the ordinary happened. I called his office a second time, but this was only *after* he had blocked me. So, since he blocked me *before* I spoke to his secretary, then any claims that this was the reason are demonstratively false. Well, not quite: It is, technically-speaking, impossible to prove a negative.
Editor's Note - I was incorrect in my statement, above:
I initially claimed that I could not "prove a negative" - that is, disprove Shannon's false allegations that I threatened his secretary, but I was wrong:
- (1) - Had I called, threatening her *after* the conversation, depicted in the video, the police would have hauled me in: By that point, Shannon's office knew who I was. (I told them who I was: Listen to the call.)
- (2) - Had I called, threatening her *before* the one time, depicted in the video, the secretary (Eglis Vinson, Legal Assistant for John Hugh Shannon, PA) would have gone ballistic on me, remembering that I "threatened" her. (She did not.)
(PS: Yes, I did make an audio recording of my phone calls to both Shannon and Vinson. And: no, this is not illegal: See the Memorandum of FLORIDA Privacy Law, below.)

So, since I have shown proof I did not threaten anyone at that office either before *or* after this call, then the only time I spoke to any secretary was *this* time. Listen to the video of my convo with her, in the links below: Did either of us threaten (or even harass) the other? If the answer is 'no,' then, John Hugh Shannon is not only a liar, but also a "cyber-bullying" bully, for blocking me -and no doubt many others -for no reason, and then refusing to discuss it. Also, he implicitly admitted he discussed this with his secretary, so his claims to not slander are also false, as well. Even if he's "right" on policy, both the integrity issues - lying - and other issues, such as refusing to address the initial matter -and attempting a cover up (like Pres. Nixon, which made a bad matter worse) -make Shannon unfit for office. -End of Editorial Update-

But, assuming that I am telling the truth above, and I only spoke to his secretary on those 2 occasions, it is easy to prove that he is lying about me:

When Atty. Shannon and I first spoke, either in late June or early July (I rightly forget), I had no reason to suspect this guy was nutty. (As such, I didn't feel the need to fire up the CamCorders and Tape Recorders to 'document' this call.) However, when I noticed that I was blocked off his Facebook, I knew something was amiss, because I took special care to not "rock the boat," be "Gabby Gordon," or otherwise "over-stay my welcome." In other words, I said and did the bare minimum to try and find out the political views of both Shannon and his primary opponent, Colleen Burton.

As such, I did not tape record any phone conversation. (And, in fact, Florida is a '2-party' state, which, according to State Law, normally requires consent from both parties.) However, after I saw some odd behaviour on his end, I knew that whatever the cause, it was not myself, and so, feeling threatened, I sought to protect myself.

Ignorance of the law...

There is an old adage: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." [Well, technically, there are exceptions: such as Lambert v. California (knowledge of city ordinances) and Cheek v. United States (willfulness requirement in U.S. federal tax crimes) but Shannon is an attorney, so he is held to a higher standard: he ought to know.]

It is NOT illegal legal, in Florida, to tape record others without their knowledge, permission, or consent:

Exceptions are given in State Law, and these exceptions are clarified in long-standing State and Federal case law. Shannon's case is one such exception, and as such, he has no expectation of privacy, and moreover, even were he to have one, it would not be an expectation that the Courts are willing to protect.

So, to be clear, once I felt threatened, I fired up the tape recorder (and CamCorder -just to have a backup), and then proceeded with caution to phone his workplace. (The Morningstar ruling, for example, holds that there is no expectation of privacy in a workplace; I called Shannon's workplace, this past Wednesday.)

Then, Monday, after I had not heard from Shannon or his secretary, I called back to the number listed on Shannon's flyer (apparently, a campaign cell phone). While it may be argued that this was his "personal" number, the courts have clearly held that, if used for business purposes (he is 'working for himself,' at present -and applying for a state job, here, and thus, this is his work number in every sense of the word), it is a business number -and one in which there is no expectation of privacy.

You can listen to the only 2 times I called him (once at his office and once at his cell number) and come to your own conclusion. (He could falsely claim that I called other times, and I could not prove otherwise, but I am a long-time resident and well-known to my community to be an honest person. As U.S. Rep. Dennis Ross is fond of saying, even if we disagree -and we often do -we must be civil in our discourse, and Ross is right.)

I don't know whether Shannon will be honest and admit that I am correct in my claims here -or whether he will try to allege that I called on other occasions, not documented here. (But, even were Shannon to have had a valid and legitimate grievance with me, he should have told me what, precisely, I did, when I supposedly did it, and why he didn't come to me about it when it supposedly happened; he did none of these, strongly implying he is either a liar or so incompetent that he can't address something supposedly this important in a timely manner: incompetence or dishonesty? Either is bad.)

One hopes Shannon will come clean and admit that these are the only 2 times I called him (I have no reason to lie, and this is the actual truth, as well), and clarify why, exactly, he has a beef with me. This would go a long way in regaining the trust that was lost: I would say that I deny him my vote -but "without prejudice" to run again (or, even sooner, if he can regain his composure, to make a coherent appeal as regards his actions). [For all our non-lawyers out there, when I say 'without prejudice,' that is a legal term that means that a court has denied a petition, but the litigant may refile his/her petition - in other words, the court is giving a person a '2nd chance' if they think that they have a case; this is only appropriate, given the morals of my religion, which are described elsewhere on my online paper.]

OK, now that you've seen the proof of my claims (and also proof that is is quite legal, in this circumstance, to record), you may safely go back, above, and re-read my strong claims -this time, with an assurance that I have proven my claims.

After thought: Since I am a Christian, I normally disdain public mud-slinging. In fact, Scripture plainly demands that I go "privately" to my brother, if either he offends me (Matt. 18:15-17), or on the other hand, if I've somehow offended him (Matt. 5:23-24). In fact, I Corinthians, chap. 6 forbids a Christian taking a fellow-Christian to court. However, when I tried to talk "privately" to Mr. Shannon, he refused. Secondly, nowhere do I see on any of either his personal, work, or campaign websites any mention of him being a Christian. So, God can not hold me accountable for failing here if I have tried my dead-level honest best. Clearly, Mr. Shannon is not a Christian (or, at the least, not an observant one), and he definitely is my enemy (for reasons unclear to me). But my religious beliefs accept Proverbs 16:7 of the Holy Bible, which hold out hope that I can still come to a peaceable resolution with Mr. Shannon: God promises to do His part, so long as I do my part: (selected quotes from the Holy Bible)

Proverbs 16:7
When a man's ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.

Matthew 18:15-17
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Matthew 5:20-26
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

I Corinthians 6
1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?
2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.

If, therefore, Mr. Shannon were a Christian, I would hope to avail myself of the remedies listed above, but he doesn't "have time" (his own words, as recorded in the video) to do what is right. I, therefore, do my best, and then, once I have a clean conscience, I ask God for help here.

Timeline of events: 2014 [1st quarter] ACT I: (Late June / Early July) – Mr. Watts asks the 2 candidates where they stand on selected issues; Shannon and Burton are both are polite, fully answering his questions in telephone interviews. [2nd Quarter] ACT II: (Early July) – Watts 'Likes' the Campaign pages of the 2 candidates, adds them to his Facebook, and sends them both a short 'thank you' note for taking time to speak by phone. (Documentation below.) Half-time: (Tue. 22 July 2014) The Ledger reports: "TV Ad Draws Controversy to GOP Race," By Rick Rousos. The next day (the 23rd,) Mr. Watts tries to blog about this but discovers he is unable to 'tag' Shannon: Atty. Shannon has, for some reason, begun cyber-bullying Watts, removing him from his Facebook, and then blocking him from both his 'personal' Facebook page as well as his 'Public' Campaign pages. [3rd Quarter] ACT III: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 – Watts called and spoke with Eglis Vinson, asking why he was blocked: She took his number and agreed to call him back. (See video) [4th Quarter] ACT IV: Monday, July 28, 2014 – Shannon's campaign places a door-know flyer on Watts' door, with Shannon's cell number, 863-944-6311. This reminds Watts to follow-up on his call with Vinson, since she never called back, as promised, asking Shannon if he knows anything about the Internet/Facebook cyber-bullying. Shannon responds by accusing Watts of 'threatening' his secretary. (See video) OVER-TIME: (Late July / Early August – to PRESENT) Watts, feeling threatened by the false accusation, takes matters to the free press, while also quietly working behind the scenes to attempt to find out what happened, and why Shannon began cyber-bullying -and also slander, threats, false accusations, etc. (Sunday, Aug. 10, 2014: This chart and news item updated) Timeline of events: | June 01 | June 30 | Jul 01 | July 22 | Jul 23 | July 28 | August 01 | August 10 | 2014

* UPDATE: Since this story published on July 29, 2014, there were four (4) key updates, as reflected in the story, above: [#1] First, while meeting with Mr. Shannon, at a debate event, shortly after this published, this writer got hints that he was not guilty of the social media bullying, as reflected in the August 20, 2014 updates, above, but there was not proof, and the investigation trail ran cold. [#2] Secondly, on Christmas Day, 12-25-2017, this writer learned that Mr. Shannon and 4 others perished in a tragic airplane wreck on Christmas Eve, the day before. [#3] Then, The Register discovered several visits to the home page, referred from this page: *.PNG Portable Network Graphics image ** *.JPG "Jay Peg" image ** Surely, there were many more that read our story (Update: actually, there were many - see recent: Pan View * Zoom View), yet without clicking on our front-page news, as shown above; thus, we know that the news of Mr. Shannon's untimely & tragic death sparked numerous visits to our story, over four (4) thousand to one mirror alone. [#4] Lastly, after being tipped off that there was a sharp increase in visits to The Register, we decided to look deeper, and were honestly freaked out by what we found: A simple search under Google for john shannon lawyer that yielded over 3-Million hits - 3,140,000 to be exact (screenshots: PAN view * ZOOM view) found that The Register was ranked on the fourth (4th) page in the world, a very high ranking for such a general Google search. That explains what we found next:

First, looking at the GordonWayneWatts.com domain and accessing the cPanel metrics in order to look at the raw page visit logs, turned up this visitor data: In November 2017, there were only 114 visits to this news item; however, in December 2017, there were 617 visits, a sharp increase by any measure. In fact, on Dec. 31, 2017, alone, there were 74 visits, and that only went from "[31/Dec/2017:06:09:02 -0600]" to "[01/Jan/2018:00:05:50 -0600]," i.e., no matter which "time zone" correction you use, you can see it was only for about 18 hours, or 3/4th of that day, an 'access log' of the most recent visits on that day, which hadn't ended yet.

Then, when logging in to the GordonWatts.com domain and accessing the metrics on visitors there, as well, things got even stranger: In November 2017, there were only 103 visits to this news item; however, in December 2017, there were 4,149 visits, yes, over four (4) thousand visits, probably most of them only from Christmas Eve, 12-24-2017, when Mr. Shannon was tragically killed, which amounts to about 578 visits per day, above-and-beyond what we normally have per month in visits to this story.[[***]] In fact, on Dec. 31, 2017, alone, there were 85 visits, and that temp log was only from "[31/Dec/2017:05:14:20 -0700]" to "[31/Dec/2017:22:41:55 -0700]," in other words, about a 22.5-hour day, not quite 24 hours. (Note the time-zone offset for GoDaddy is "-0700," instead of "-0600," for the HostGator domain, above.) However, no matter how you slice the "website data" mumbo-jumbo, it is plainly obvious that there was a huge increase in traffic to The Register by visitors, looking for information on the untimely and tragic death of Mr. Shannon. Therefore, it became clear that we should move quickly to update the story with newly-learned information, and add clarification on prior roadblocks to 'out' Shannon's staff-member, who was the true guilty party in the cyberbullying incident, and, we believe, the same staff-member who was fired by Congressman Dennis Ross, for a similar incident, referenced in a letter to The Ledger (LINK * screenshot * PDF archive), dated January 24, 2013, which was shortly before my misunderstanding with Mr. Shannon.
[[***]] 4,149 minus 103 reflects about 4,046 extra visits that Dec-2017 saw, above Nov-2017, and over the 7-day week at the end of the month, that was about 578 visits per day extra, as a result of the intense interest by The Register's readers, who found us under a generic Google search.

While the subsequent updates to clear his name on most of the charges, above, will be slow to publish (due to transcoding issues with the debate video and limited Internet access, with slow upload speeds), both honour to Truth and journalistic integrity require The Register to correct "errors of omission," e.g., leaving out critical updates. While the story, above, was not false when it published, newly-learned information should be published as soon as practically-possible, especially given the fact that clarification and clearing Shannon's name of these charges has the potential to lighten the load and avoid unnecessary pain to the remaining family regarding his tragic and unexpected loss. Accordingly, we will update our story in a timely fashion, as able: See above. ~Gordon Wayne Watts, Editor-in-Chief, The Register

Contact: Gordon Wayne Watts
Editor-in-Chief, The Register

821 Alicia Road
Lakeland, FL
33801

 * Gww1210@aol.com MAIN 
 * Gww12102002@yahoo.com Alt. 
(863) 688-9880 (main) ---

GordonWatts.com
GordonWayneWatts.com
# # #

Navigation:
* http://GordonWatts.com
* http://GordonWayneWatts.com
* http://Twitter.com/Gordon_W_Watts
* http://GordonWayneWatts.BlogSpot.com
* http://YouTube.com/GordonWayneWatts
* http://Facebook.com/GordonWayneWatts
* http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
* (Permalinks to this story: #1 * #2 * #3 * #4)