being used by Mr. Minton; and, second, Mr. Minton is, in a
satirical fashion, hurling back their own words at them by
use of the internet. In short, they are protesting
Mr. Minton’s exercise of the First Amendment.

This is the only new information they have
provided to this Court for purposes of changing the remedy
which the Court, after a great deal of agonizing, fashioned
for purposes of granting them the remedy that they sought.
Because they have provided nothing new to this Court, the
injunction should come to an end.

The Court should not use the injunction to
enjoin the commission of any supposedly anticipated
criminal acts on the part of Mr. Minton because equity has
no jurisdiction to enjoin the commission of a crime. This
comes from Weiner v. Kelly , 82 Southern Second, Florida
Supreme Court case, Southern Second 155, Florida DCA case
from 1955.

There are certain statutory sections that do
not apply here, such as Florida Statute 812.025, Sub 6,
which pertains to a theft, or 772.14 which pertains to
civil remedies in certain criminal cases.

That is why I suggest to the Court that the
case of Hill v. Colorado does not apply here. They’re
talking apples and oranges. This is an injunction case.
And, again, an injunction cannot be used to enjoin the