Our friend Dave Lord and colleagues are asking for your consideration to defeat the following bills. Read his provocative analysis and the "Myths" published by the St. Pete Times (see attachment) in order to help you make up your mind. 

                                        *** MYTH Attachment Click here, please! ***

Afterwards, please contact members of your Legislative delegation to express your views. 

Dave has convinced me to support his cause because this legislation deprives Citizens from airing their grievances to seek appropriate remedy of their complaints. 

To the Marion county Legislative delegation: 

These bills are headed to the floor of your respective chamber. It is not too late to vote NO! 

Even if you voted YES in committee, make time to review this material, to enable you to know the true facts. Then, vote NO in deferrance to representing the rights of ALL Florida Citizens. 

Each of you and my friends living in a deed restricted community with a mandatory homeowners association understand the comparisons aluded to in my appeal. Thank you. 

The best to you and yours, 
Bob
Ocala, FL 
Public Relations - CCFJ, Inc., 
                      **************************** SEE BELOW ***************************

Citrus Canker Bill- An injustice to all
A Citrus Canker bill (SB 1926) appears destined to  be signed into law. It takes direct aim at crushing a legitimate legal challenge, which is scheduled to be heard on April 16, 2002 in Administrative Court. The central  issue is the validity of the 1900 ft rule. The DOA claims that this rule is substantiated by  extensive study and endorsed by university and USDA researchers. They claim it's validity can  be proven in court. The municipalities, including Broward and Miami-County, have just two retired pathologists to challenge this claim. Does this appear to be a significant challenge? 

The Department has no intention of appearing in court and defending it's rule. The Citrus Canker bill now in the legislature puts into law the 1900 ft policy so it can not be challenged. If this bill  passes, all 200,000 healthy trees will be cut down before there is any hearing on the 1900 ft policy. 

One must wonder if the science behind the 1900 ft rule is so fragile that two retired scientists can sway the court that it is not based on competent work?. If DOA can't defend it in court, should they be allowed to cut down all the trees? If DOA can't defend it in court, it should not be part of Florida statutes. 

Doesn't it make sense to get the validity of 1900 ft resolved in court before cutting down the trees, rather than afterwards in the form of class action lawsuits seeking damages?

Senate bills, 1926/Hb 1539, are an injustice to all residents who only seek answers and the truth.
                                   READ Sb 1926 & Hb 1539 HERE!
 ----- Original Message ----- 
From: David Lord 
To: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; LERNER.CINDY ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] 
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Citus Canker - Separating the Myths from Fact

To the Legislators,

The following attachment separates the "myths" that the Department of Agriculture, would like you to believe, as apart from the facts on citrus canker. It is based on an editorial appearing in the St. Petersburg Times.

In year 2000, the Department used the words "devastating" and "deadly" in describing canker. Now, in 2002, we see it "disfigures" and "destroys" trees. The Department and all their scientists know better. 

Since January 2000, when Mr. Crawford proclaimed the 1900 ft rule, there is no document, report, court testimony that states the 1900 ft rule is the "proven" or recommended result of the epidemiology study. Dr. Gottwald, in fact, insisted in Court that this was not the case and his Letter to the Editor, published in Phytopathology makes this clear. You will find nothing in any document prepared by Dr. Gottwald that states; "95% of all bacteria falls within 1900 ft of an infected tree." This has been repeated for 2 years- by the Department officials - as if it was "science-based". It is not. 

The Legislators are being asked to make a quick end-run against a legitimate court hearing, now in Administrative Court to be heard on April 16, 2002. Do not let the Department circumvent the law. Do not pass SB 1926 or HB 1539. Let the residents have their day in court.

Dave Lord
Resident of South Miami, FL
www.citruscanker.com