The Register

Good Republicans, Bad Republicans: Truth is stranger than fiction

Local Lakeland, Fla. Attorney, John Hugh Shannon, is bullying and threatening to slander little people for reasons unknown: Documentation of said claims

More about Mr. Watts:

* 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. ( and

* 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)
[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)
[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)
[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.

By GORDON WAYNE WATTS (Special Report - Breaking)
Published: Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 at 05:07:08 p.m.
* UPDATE: While I believe I acted with good motives at every turn/juncture, I need to clear Atty. John Shannon's name, regarding the news item, below - as touching misconceptions on my part about his own motives: Earlier this evening, Tue. 19 Aug. 2014, I attended a debate between Ms. Burton and Mr. Shannon, and, after the debate, hosted by a local "9-12" group, I made it a point to apologise to Mr. Shannon. (Although the only thing I could think of that I might have done wrong was be a bit talkative to his secretary, when making an inquiry as to why was blocked, nonetheless, whether any of this was my fault or not, I felt it was the 'right' thing to to to apologise to him.) While I am still not sure I know what happened on his end (and while I don't know whether he 'connected' my name and face & recognised me), Mr. Shannon was good enough to accept my apology, and appeared genuinely sincere. Later, I hope to have more updates, which include some news coverage of the debate. So, when you read this account, below, please keep in mind that Mr. Shannon (and his secretaries & staff, like all of us) is human, and subject to mistakes, and please be accordingly patient with all our human limitations, mine included.

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: and aka: Archive: For comparison, see the old archive of my campaign page, from when I ran for that same office: and

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.

Shortly afterwards, however, I got a "postal mailer" political attack ad, accusing Burton of advocating for illegal aliens to receive driver's licenses. I am not a cruel person, and, were an illegal alien in need of emergency medical service, I would not oppose granting this, but to reward law-breaking illegal immigrants -and put them in line ahead of Legal Immigrants -is morally wrong (and bad policy), and, as such, this attack ad flyer greatly unsettled me. So, I decided to research it. Eventually, I determined that the attack ad had not misquoted Burton, but had left out part of her complete quote, in which she supported helping illegal immigrants follow the law to pursue citizenship. (Even their website admitted as much.) Also, besides the wrong mischaratarisation of the attack ad, I was also concerned with Burton, herself, as well, because The Ledger reported that "Colleen Burton says opponent John Shannon has aired illegal attack ad":

"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 charatarising 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 field 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.

Deja 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-bulling" 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:

  • First, he did not even say how I had supposedly 'threatened' or been 'threatening' to his secretary. (Even assuming he had a legitimate gripe -which he does not -he should not have a problem clarifying what, exactly, I had done. He could not tell me anything specifically.)
  • Secondly, he made a strong allegation here: when I am accused (most especially, when it is false, as it is here), I demand proof of any allegations brought against me. (Of course, as here, when he has a false allegation, he can offer no proof, no testimony, no evidence, no reasonable explanation.)
  • Third, and probably the most important consideration, is this: What motive would I have to threaten, harass, or otherwise bother a total stranger who is very similar, politically, to me, and who also has been polite, in the one and only time we spoke? (If he's referring to the 1st time I called his office to ask him a question, I would ask: Why would I be rude to you or your secretary, who were total strangers at the time when I called with my political question? Also, were I rude to her, why, then, did you not say something after the secretary passed my phone call to you? If you refer to the 2nd time I called, let me remind you: I did not speak with your secretary until AFTER you blocked me, so it could NOT have been the cause; further, she and I had a good conversation, so there were no 'threats' either to or from, here.)
  • Fourth, however, is still relevant - He can fool others, but he can't fool me: I was there, and I know what did (or did not) happen. So, my question to you, Mr. Shannon, is this: how many other people are you going to bully or threaten to slander for no reason... other than, maybe, you were annoyed that I was not a 'big' rich person who could contribute to your campaign -or perhaps because you and I did have some small, but distinct, disagreements on issues and policy? -- I can not, in good conscience, allow your behaviour to go unchecked -and thus mistreat others.
  • It is noted, however, that when I took you to task for threatening to slander me (why, who in their right mind would think you wouldn't?), that I do admit that you implied this was not true (with your statement that you were making these false claims to me, and me only, which, technically, is not slander, but perhaps harassment). However, I do not accept your claims that you have not slandered me, since you admit out of your own mouth that you spoke to your secretary, and told her as much. (This begs the question -which you never answered when we spoke: if your hot anger and illegal slander were not because of my call to your secretary -remember, my call came in response to your blocking me, and thus after, not before -then, why did you block me, and what other false things have you said about me -and others? And, how many others will you bully, threaten, harass, and slander for no legitimate reason? This must stop.)
  • Now, the proof:

    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:

  • LEGAL RESEARCH: Memorandum of Law about Fla Privacy Law (PDF)
  • LEGAL RESEARCH: Memorandum of Law about Fla Privacy Law (Word *.doc)
  • LEGAL RESEARCH: Memorandum of Law about Fla Privacy Law (Web-page *.html)
  • 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.]

  • Recording of both phone calls in question with commentary [YouTube mirror]
  • Recording of both phone calls in question with commentary [Facebook mirror]
  • Recording of both phone calls in question with commentary [Local copy]
  • 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:


    [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 |


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

    821 Alicia Road
    Lakeland, FL

     * MAIN 
     * Alt. 
    (863) 688-9880 (main) ---
    # # #