In 2018, WFTV’s 9 Investigates reported that then-Seminole County Manager Nicole Guillet faced code enforcement after additions to her own property were constructed without required permits. The reporting identified a screen room, garage and shed among the unpermitted improvements. An anonymous fraud complaint alleged that staff were expected to overlook permit and inspection issues, although the County Attorney’s review noted that Guillet had specifically requested that she receive no special treatment.
https://www.wftv.com/news/9-investigates/9-investigates-seminole-county-manager-cited-fails-to-get-permits-for-home-additions/809072876/

Follow-up reporting later said Guillet was required to obtain the missing permits and pay the same permit-related penalties that would apply to another citizen.

That story does not establish that county officials favored Mitch Marqui or discriminated against OptiView.

It does establish something important: even senior county leadership has been connected to significant unpermitted construction, and questions about consistent application of permitting rules are not imaginary.

If unpermitted additions could exist at the county manager's property while one county office knew about them and another apparently did not, what safeguards existed to ensure that OptiView received complete and timely information concerning pre-existing conditions at the property it leased?

For Joseph, consistency is at the heart of the dispute.

If construction without permits can occur within the orbit of senior county government, then a small-business tenant is entitled to ask whether enforcement, disclosure and administrative discretion were applied evenhandedly when the tenant encountered a pre-existing structure it says it did not build.

An even more striking example appeared in January 2026.

News 6 reported that Seminole County acknowledged issuing a residential pool permit in error. The county subsequently required a variance, fired the code-enforcement employee responsible for approving the permit, and ultimately entered into a $40,000 settlement to restore the affected property. County disciplinary paperwork reportedly described the original approval as a mistake that failed to comply with code requirements.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2026/01/22/county-error-leads-to-40k-settlement-after-seminole-county-front-yard-pool-controversy/

Again, that case does not prove Joseph’s allegations.

But it establishes a point that is highly relevant to the public-interest discussion surrounding OptiView:

A permitting decision made by government can be wrong and when it is wrong, real people can suffer substantial financial consequences.

That is exactly why Joseph has spent years asking for the OptiView permit history to be examined as a complete chronology rather than treating each delay as an isolated bureaucratic event.

WFTV reported that Patricia Johnson, a 12-year county employee and senior staff assistant, was fired after the county accused her of taking cash from people purchasing project permits and issuing bogus receipts. The Sheriff's Office investigated, and county records reportedly identified at least 28 instances involving approximately $4,000 in missing money. Johnson was appealing her termination at the time of the story.

https://www.wftv.com/news/local/county-worker-accused-stealing-thousands-taxpayer-/287918994/

Recent events at Pebble Creek at Lake Mary provide another important comparison.

In March 2026, Seminole County ordered dozens of apartment units vacated after Building and Code Enforcement personnel identified structural and life-safety deficiencies involving egress, stairwells and other structural components.
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/lake-mary-residents-unsafe-apartment-units-given-one-week-move-out

Later reporting placed the number deemed unsafe at 85 units and described continuing concerns with deteriorated stair systems. The county said the units remained unsafe and explained that it had worked to expedite permitting for temporary shoring repairs.

That response demonstrates how seriously structural access, egress and stair conditions can be treated when officials determine that public safety is implicated.

Joseph asks why his experience appeared so different.

He alleges that OptiView entered the Longwood property with an unauthorized upper structure already present and that significant problems associated with that structure were not fully revealed to the tenant until 9 months after the lease began.

The comparison makes the question legitimate:

If structural conditions can justify immediate action today, what happened when OptiView repeatedly attempted to obtain permits while a pre-existing structure allegedly stood in the way?

On November 19, 2025, a fire at The Edge at Lake Lotus apartments in Altamonte Springs displaced 20 residents after flames broke out inside a rear stairwell wall between the first and second floors. Seminole County Fire Department crews contained the fire to the stairwell, but 16 apartment units sustained smoke and water damage and power was shut off to the affected apartments. No injuries were reported, and officials said the cause remained under investigation.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2025/11/19/fire-displaces-20-at-the-edge-at-lake-lotus-apartments-in-altamonte-springs/

The incident highlights the importance of building safety, fire protection, inspections, and properly maintained residential structures throughout Seminole County.

In January 2026, residents of Altamonte Terrace Apartments in Altamonte Springs were given just 72 hours to leave units in two buildings after management cited mandatory building renovations. Residents reported troubling property conditions, including water damage, mold concerns, and even mushrooms growing from walls. FOX 35 reported that city officials acknowledged repairs were needed, while structural engineers determined that occupied units did not need to be vacated during the work.
https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/altamonte-springs-apartment-residents-told-leave-72-hours-amid-building-repairs

The situation raises important questions about property maintenance, building oversight, tenant safety, inspections, and accountability when serious conditions develop in residential properties.

In March 2026, Seminole County ordered 72 units at Pebble Creek at Lake Mary to be vacated after a county safety assessment identified structural and life-safety deficiencies. The review, conducted by the county’s Building and Code Enforcement divisions following a February fire, identified concerns involving egress, stairwell conditions, and other structural elements. Of the 72 units deemed unsafe for occupancy, 48 were already vacant when the order was issued.
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/seminole-county-orders-evacuation-72-apartment-units-lake-mary-complex/S5VDYO6OORHKDIZWWBDQUFP6HM/

The incident underscores the importance of building inspections, code enforcement, safe means of egress, structural maintenance, and timely intervention when potentially hazardous conditions are identified.

Case 24-57-CESM — We Dispute the Claim That OptiView Left Unpermitted Work Behind

OptiView firmly disputes any statement suggesting that we left unpermitted construction behind when we vacated 855 N. US Highway 17-92 in early 2024.

The available evidence from our departure tells a very different story. CCTV footage, photographs taken during the move-out, and our recorded exit walkthrough with the landlord document the condition of the property when possession was returned. In our view, that evidence directly contradicts any later assertion that OptiView abandoned unpermitted work at the building.

The later Case No. 24-57-CESM arose after we had already vacated the property. A summary of the January 2025 hearing attributes certain unpermitted work to an “evicted tenant,” but that statement appears to have come from contractor testimony and should not be treated as an established fact without examining the underlying inspection records, photographs, dates, permit history, and testimony.

We are therefore requesting the complete public record for Case 24-57-CESM, including inspection reports, photographs, contractor statements, Special Magistrate records, permit documents, plan-review comments, violation notices, and all evidence identifying when the cited work was performed and by whom.

We will not accept responsibility for work allegedly performed after we surrendered the property. The documentary record, timelines, CCTV, photographs, and exit video should determine the truth—not an unsupported statement made after the fact.

CASE 24-57-CESM PODCAST COMING SOON!

One of the most significant pieces of information is not an unrelated news article at all.

It concerns Marqui Longwood, LLC itself.

An exhibit supplied for the OptiView litigation reproduces a Seminole County Special Magistrate agenda entry identifying Marqui Longwood, LLC, at 855 N. U.S. Highway 17-92, under case 24-57-CESM. The violation displayed on that record is construction without the required permits, and the matter is marked “continued.”

The exhibit does not, standing alone, establish when the construction occurred, what work was involved, who performed it, or how the matter was ultimately resolved.

But its existence is highly relevant.

Joseph has spent years alleging that a central problem at this same property was a landlord-created or landlord-controlled structure that interfered with OptiView’s ability to proceed.

A later documented county code matter identifying the landlord entity itself for construction without required permits make plaintiff’s allegations considerably harder to dismiss as implausible.

The public deserves to know what work generated case 24-57-CESM, how long it existed, who authorized it, whether it involved portions of the property relevant to OptiView’s claims, and how county officials handled the violation.

Seminole County’s present public records show different individuals occupying important Building Division leadership positions. As of 2026, the county identifies Phil Kersey as Building Official and Sandra Riley as Building Division Manager.
https://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/peoples/people-info/phil-kersey
https://www.seminolecountyfl.gov/peoples/people-info/sandra-riley

County legislative materials from May 2026 also identified Mike Rhodes as Interim Development Services Director while Seminole County undertook revisions intended to modernize Chapter 40, improve regulatory clarity and support changes in code enforcement.

The County itself now says that major changes to the Building Division took effect July 1,

The extent of change makes retrospective examination reasonable particularly when a litigant has been claiming for years that decisions made under the earlier structure and previous staff severely harmed his business.

Perhaps most relevant to Joseph’s experience is the county’s 2026 restructuring of its building appeals process.
https://seminolecountyfl.gov/docs/default-source/pdf/changesduetolegislativeupdates-ada.pdf?sfvrsn=5acc7723_3

Seminole County approved changes to Chapter 40 establishing a new Building Code Board of Appeals, updating appeals procedures and clarifying enforcement authority. County staff expressly described the changes as intended to strengthen enforcement consistency and improve administrative processes.

Joseph believes that a clearer, independent avenue for challenging Building Division decisions could have changed the course of OptiView’s permit dispute.

The reform raises a compelling question:

What meaningful avenue did a commercial tenant have when it believed the Building Division was incorrectly combining the landlord’s violations with the tenant’s project, withholding information?

Joseph alleges that former Building Official Bob Pike required OptiView to incorporate work addressing the landlord’s building problems into the tenant’s permit.

Joseph says that decision had enormous practical consequences: it tied OptiView’s ability to open to work it alleges belonged to the property owner, increased construction expense, didn’t allow for fair contractor selection and extended the period during which OptiView was paying for a building without being able to fully monetize the infrastructure it was creating.

These facts are supported by the permit record, they deserve serious legal examination.

The permitting dispute eventually became a financial crisis.

Joseph maintains that the long delays depleted the capital that should have been used to launch OptiView’s operations, market the venue, hire more staff and generate revenue.

When rent difficulties followed, Marqui Longwood, LLC pursued eviction in Case 2023CC005453.

The uploaded court records show that Mitchell D. Marqui filed a sworn Affidavit of Default as manager of Marqui Longwood, LLC.

The affidavit states that February 2024 rent was $14,140.51, that $10,773.51 had been paid, and that $3,367.00 remained.

It separately states that October and November 2023 rent of $13,238 each had not been paid or deposited with the clerk.

Only weeks earlier, the United States Bankruptcy Court had entered an order governing the relationship between OptiView and Marqui Longwood, LLC.

That January 22, 2024 order required payment of $19,226.05 for December 2023 and $14,140.51 for January 2024 by January 24. It identified February 2024 rent as $14,140.51.

Importantly, the order treated the October and November 2023 amounts as cure rent, payable through seven monthly installments after entry of a final order granting the motion to assume the lease.

That procedural distinction matters.

The eviction affidavit later stated that those October and November amounts had not been paid or deposited. But the bankruptcy order itself contemplated a cure-payment schedule rather than simply treating the entire prepetition balance as immediately payable under the same terms as February rent.

Why the accounting deserves careful reconstruction?

Joseph additionally states that his law firm’s trust records document a $44,140.51 transaction connected to the bankruptcy cure and that his lease records show a $20,000 security deposit remained held by the landlord.

The trust ledger establishes payments not properly reflected in the landlord’s sworn affidavit, this is a significant evidentiary issue.

Joseph alleges that Mitch Marqui committed perjury in connection with the eviction affidavit.

That is a serious accusation.

A finding of perjury requires far more than an accounting disagreement; among other issues, the legal system would need to examine the precise statement, its materiality, its truth or falsity, and the affiant’s knowledge.

The affidavit accounting should be independently reconciled against the bankruptcy trust account, bank records, lease, security deposit, court orders and actual payment history.

If evidence demonstrates that a material sworn statement was knowingly false, that is a matter for appropriate legal authorities.

The bankruptcy order addressed the possibility of a future state-court eviction judgment.

It stated that, if a final judgment of eviction were entered, a writ of possession would not issue for 21 days, allowing the debtor time to remove its property. It also required Marqui to provide access for removal during specified hours upon notice.

Joseph says the eviction final judgment was entered on February 26, 2024, while OptiView was already engaged in packing and planning its exit.

He says he was never personally served with that final judgment and, because the bankruptcy proceedings had established a payment and cure framework, he did not understand that the state eviction case remained positioned to produce the lasting public judgment that now follows OptiView.

Joseph ultimately states that OptiView voluntarily completed its move from the property on March 26, 2024 and documented the condition of the premises through photographs and video.

An eviction judgment against a company is not merely historical paperwork when that company is trying to restart.

Joseph says the judgment now appears whenever prospective landlords, lenders or investors investigate OptiView’s history.

To them, a docket may show an eviction.

It does not automatically show the months of permit delays.

It does not show the disputed upper structure.

It does not explain which construction responsibilities belonged to the landlord.

It does not show the business infrastructure OptiView says it was prevented from activating.

It does not explain the bankruptcy negotiations.

Joseph alleges that Mitch Marqui committed perjury in connection with the eviction affidavit to obtain an eviction Final Judgment on the company’s record out of retaliation for the removal of his illegal upstairs.

And it does not tell a future landlord whether the financial default was the cause of OptiView’s collapse or one of its consequences.

Joseph says this has made finding a new location and rebuilding investor confidence dramatically more difficult.

That reputational consequence is one reason he continues seeking review of 2023CC005453.

Another fact requires careful treatment.

Judge Wayne Culver, who Joseph identifies as the judge in the eviction proceedings, was later suspended without pay for 60 days and publicly reprimanded by the Florida Supreme Court for misconduct in unrelated 2022 proceedings.

The Florida Supreme Court accepted findings that Culver engaged in abusive and intemperate conduct and violated multiple judicial canons requiring integrity, patience, dignity, courtesy and professional competence.

In February 2025, the Chief Justice publicly reprimanded Culver. News 6 reported that the discipline arose from incidents in which Culver used profanity and held or threatened to hold people in contempt.

This matters but it must not be overstated.

The discipline did not concern OptiView.

The Florida Supreme Court also considered significant mitigating evidence and described the misconduct as occurring during a period of personal stress.

What it does establish is that concerns about judicial temperament and procedural fairness involving this judge were serious enough to result in formal Supreme Court discipline.

For Joseph, that fact reinforces the request for lawyers to independently examine the eviction docket itself: what evidence was before the court, what notice was provided, how the bankruptcy order was handled, what financial representations were relied upon and whether OptiView received the process required by law.

The case should stand or fall on those records.

The argument is narrower and stronger:

There is now enough independent context, documented history and case-specific evidence to justify a serious review rather than dismiss Joseph’s allegations as the complaints of a failed tenant.

A meaningful review should examine:

• When Marqui Longwood, LLC first knew that the disputed upper structure existed.
• What Seminole County personnel knew about the structure during OptiView’s first permit review, and why the tenant wasn’t informed of its effect on the permit.
• Why landlord corrective work was incorporated into OptiView’s tenant permitting process!
• What construction was involved in code case 24-57-CESM against Marqui Longwood, LLC and whether it relates to earlier conditions alleged by Joseph.
• Whether the payments reflected in bankruptcy counsel’s trust records, the security deposit and all landlord credits weren’t accurately reflected in the sworn eviction accounting. Eviction: 2023CC005453
• Whether service, notice and procedure surrounding the February 2024 final eviction judgment complied with the bankruptcy order and applicable state-court requirements. Why wasn’t OptivView 360 Tours, LLC served its notices?
• Whether the cumulative permitting delays not merely the final rent balance were a substantial cause of the financial collapse that ultimately led to bankruptcy and eviction.

These are answerable questions.

They can be resolved through documents, testimony and accounting.

Joseph’s story now spans several proceedings:

United States Bankruptcy Court: 6:23-bk-04900-GER

Eviction: 2023CC005453

Civil Case: 2024CA001698

Civil Case: 2025CA000575

Each case has a different procedural history and should remain legally distinct.

But the factual narrative connecting them should not be ignored.

Joseph’s position is that the same underlying property and permitting problems produced financial distress; the distress produced bankruptcy and eviction; the eviction harmed OptiView’s reputation and ability to reopen; and the later civil cases represent his effort to obtain review of the conduct he believes caused that chain reaction.

That theory deserves to be understood correctly.

This is ultimately the question at the heart of the OptiView story.

Was this simply a company that could not afford its rent?

Or did a growing multimedia company enter a property with undisclosed problems, lose critical time and capital while attempting to navigate those problems, become financially distressed because its revenue infrastructure could not launch on schedule, and then have the resulting distress used against it?

Joseph believes the documents support the second explanation.

That is exactly why discovery, competent counsel and a fair evidentiary process matter.

OptiView had spent years developing unique programming, multimedia installations, entertainment concepts, photography, video, digital marketing and opportunities for artists & small businesses. The Longwood location was intended to become a major step forward at a crucial period as the economy emerged from COVID-19 restrictions.

Instead, the project became the beginning of bankruptcy, eviction and years of litigation.

The public record now includes county permitting controversies, documented government permit mistakes, aggressive later enforcement of structural safety rules, a new Building Code Board of Appeals, changed Building Division leadership, a code-enforcement matter against the landlord entity itself, and formal discipline of the judge associated with OptiView’s eviction proceedings.

Together, they make one thing increasingly difficult to justify:

Refusing to look, or let plaintiff be heard!

Joseph Andrew and the OptiView team are asking attorneys, journalists, civil-rights advocates, commercial-tenant professionals and public officials to examine the evidence independently.

If Joseph is wrong about a particular allegation, the record should demonstrate that.

If county officials acted correctly, their documentation should show it.

If the landlord’s accounting was accurate, it should reconcile.

But if the records instead show that a minority-owned small business absorbed the financial consequences of undisclosed property conditions, inconsistent permitting decisions or materially inaccurate representations, those facts deserve a courtroom where the complete story can be heard.

Accountability begins by asking the questions institutions would rather consider closed.

OptiView is asking that those questions finally receive answers.

This is not a request to believe one side blindly.

It is a request to examine the record completely.

Because justice cannot begin until the whole truth is allowed to be heard.

Justice Begins With the Truth.

An article about another property does not prove what occurred at OptiView.

A disciplinary proceeding involving a judge (Wayne Culver) does not automatically invalidate every judgment that judge entered.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/02/06/florida-supreme-court-publicly-scolds-seminole-county-judge/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIhCE7svFBA

A later leadership change does not prove that former county officials committed misconduct.

Those distinctions matter.

But outside events can provide context. They can reveal whether problems Joseph describes are impossible, unprecedented or worthy of investigation. They can show how the same government handles comparable permitting and building-safety situations. And they can demonstrate why records, communications and decision-making should be examined rather than dismissed.

That is where the larger Seminole County story becomes relevant.

This article contains Joseph Andrew Diaz’s allegations, personal experiences and interpretations of public records connected to pending or prior legal disputes. Allegations concerning Mitch Marqui, Marqui Longwood, LLC, Seminole County personnel, judicial proceedings, permitting decisions, sworn statements, perjury, discrimination, collusion or damages are not presented as final judicial findings unless expressly identified as such. News reports involving unrelated properties or proceedings are presented as public-interest context and do not independently prove misconduct in the OptiView cases. Named individuals and agencies may dispute Joseph’s interpretation and should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice or encourages harassment, threats or retaliation.