My View

The Sept. 18 Sarasota Observer devoted considerable ink to a front-page article on Michael Barfield, entitled “Open for Discussion.” I hasten to join the discussion because, although the piece ably dealt with the expenses borne by the city because of Barfield’s extortionate behavior, it failed to cover the backstory, without which, I submit, the “expense report” is incomplete.

Who is Michael Barfield? He is a confessed liar, thief and fraudster who, since the age of 17, has amassed 68 (no typo) criminal convictions, including forging checks and using stolen credit cards. In 1999, he was convicted of the felonies of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury before a federal grand jury. The first three offenses involved his concoction of false accusations leveled against a federal judge and an assistant U.S. attorney in a scheme designed to remove them from a pending case. The other two convictions were for extorting $50,000 from two felons awaiting sentence by promising them that he had “connections” and, thus, could obtain leniency for them. The promise, of course, was a scam.

In 1997, in a plea agreement arising out of his theft of clients’ funds, the “menace,” as he was labeled, was banished from Palm Beach County. Unfortunately, Palm Beach’s “menace” became Sarasota’s. Past Observer editorials have rightly described Barfield as “a master of the destructive craft of legal extortion” and his hostage-taking of the city government as a “con.” That is the backstory.

Based on the mountain of fact comprising his unsavory past, to believe his present claim to be “passionate about the need for transparent government,” brings to mind the title of Judge Judy’s book, “Don’t Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining.” Is it not clear that Barfield is a dedicated conman masquerading as a public benefactor? Setting a new standard for chutzpah, he pronounces himself to be “an armchair constitutional scholar.” Putting this stunning pretense aside, it is worth noting that Sunshine Law lawsuits do not involve constitutional issues.

Barfield acknowledges that he is “an easy guy to hate.” But his complete self-description is that he is an easy guy to hate “for those in power.” In fact, to an alarming extent, he is accepted, enabled, encouraged and shown unwarranted toleration by many in power, including, in particular, County Commissioner Joe Barbetta and City Commissioner Paul Caragiulo. Herald Tribune columnist Tom Lyons considers Barfield’s 68 criminal convictions to be mere “irrelevant historical dirt.” Barfield has been a principal speaker on the subject of the Sunshine Law at the invitation of the Tiger Bay Club. Although he is not an attorney, and despite his unsavory past, he enjoys access to the city attorney to discuss at the threshold his threats of lawsuits. All of these people should shun him. Instead, they enable him to plunder the city.

Barfield’s threats should not shape the advice given by the city attorney to the city commissioners, nor should they be heeded. Should he actually initiate a lawsuit, an obvious, unquestionable Sunshine Law violation should, of course, be settled. Otherwise, the city should take him to the mat, as Commissioner Susan Chapman has done and, thus, make it clear that it will not tolerate a stickup without a gun. For in the long run, settling dubious claims is more expensive than litigating them.

How has this submission to Barfield’s con game come about? Why is it that the mere threat of a lawsuit by this piranha is enough to dominate the advice the city attorney gives to the city commissioners? Recently, city commissioners sought the advice of the city attorney as to whether a Sunshine Law violation would occur should two or more of them attend a luncheon at which discussion would be had on a matter eventually sure to appear before the City Commission, i.e., Mote Marine Lab’s plan to develop an aquarium on city property, assuming — and this is vital — that no commissioner spoke at the event, but merely listened. Despite his opinion that the non-lawyer Barfield’s “interpretation of the law is incorrect” and “somewhat ludicrous,” the city attorney’s advice was that to attend would be “taking a risk.”

Of course, there is always a “risk” that Barfield will commence a lawsuit, even if based on the flimsiest of evidence. Whether the suit will succeed is another matter. If it is apparent that such a suit would more than likely fail, it is inexcusable that the city bend to his will and abjectly surrender solely to save litigation expenses.

Frank Brenner practiced law for 50 years in Manhattan, N.Y. He worked as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan and was a judge in New York City Criminal Court.