 |
| Both sides have compelling arguments, but only one side will ultimately prevail.... |
Both of these legal briefs have now been filed with the 1st District Court of Appeals in Tallahassee. Both are exceptionally well-written, and both make several interesting yet diverging points and arguments about the appropriateness and the legality of the repayment.
After reading the pro-repayment filing--one might naturally assume it is completely appropriate for the taxpayers to repay the costs of the legal bills immediately.
But after reading the county's position on the matter and filing--the one lingering, intriguing point that stands out in bold to me is this: Repayment of a Public Official's legal fees must not occur until the issue at the center of the matter, the misconduct which triggered the litigation initially, is decided by the court first--- and that the public official is exonerated.
And that has yet to happen.
The current case is unusual and odd in that the merits of the original conduct which triggered the lawsuit have never been addressed by the court. It was never either proven to be valid, public part of a commissioner's necessary work nor was it disproven and deemed an intentional, willful malicious tort action instigated by a sitting member of the county commission outside the scope of his duties.
The trial court did not address the action nor the validity of the claim of defamation--but rather simply stated the conduct at issue was a part of the commissioner's duty and subsequently was silent and didn't speak specifically to the defamation claim by the area citizen in dismissing the case---- stating an elected official has broad, almost absolute immunity from a defamation suit when and if he is/was acting in the public interest and within the scope of his job.
On the other side of it--the other brief (county's side) wants the original conduct which drew the suit to be ruled upon first before public monies can/should be expended to pay for the public official's legal defense. Because if the conduct at issue was malicious, reckless and an intentional tort--this would negate the obligation to pay for the legal costs as such behavior would not, could not be construed as an official acting in the public's interest and within the scope of his office.
So it is really interesting, and again------both briefs are compelling.
But the seminal question that must be answered has not been: Was this defamation and libel? Or was this allegation by the elected official actually factual and a part of legitimate county business? We need a judge to rule on this question first, please, is the way I see it, too. The county's brief illuminates the need for this with a quote from a previously adjudicated case the crux of which says "There is no public interest in defending guilty officials from prosecution."
It will be interesting to see which way the DCA rules. No matter what happens, I do believe this will eventually go to the Florida Supreme Court.
It will be interesting to follow.
Meanwhile--to say an elected offical should never face a defamation lawsuit because he/she enjoys "absolute" immunity is dangerous. Does this mean I can say a pizza place I'm upset with has roaches and rats in it ----based upon a code violation not assocoated with the pest control/vector issue--particularly if my best friend owns a competing restaurant? Could I accuse an auto shop of unlawfully overcharging based upon hearsay from constituents only or made up from whole cloth only--while my brother in law's shop picks up the business from those fleeing the shop I have now, for all intents and purposes, libeled? There are a million variations on this which all scream for one thing: Address the defamation allegation and determine if it is warranted first. To say "No, he can say whatever he wants online or in person or anywhere to whomever he wants and make any accusation he wants as long as he says he is doing it as a part of his job" is simply too much power to give.
Absolute immunity is like absolute power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the famous saying goes.
No, there must be a guidepost. There must be.
Most everyone knows he was running his suck being a jerk on ECW safe space as was his trademark and legacy.
ReplyDeleteAn honorable person would own up to the error of his ways and pay his own bills for his time in the limelight of being able to demonstrate publicly of how to be the biggest Ahole in town.
Part of his duties had nothing to do with the need to be on social media, out of chambers. A normal person would shut up and go away...but oh no, he can't help himself because in his eyes he is a god.
No one really even wants to take the energy of responding to or about him much less fund his failures.
Pay your bills D.H. Doug
Duh, it was a conversation on facebook, when the policy was no social media allowed. He flagrantly published that he would not comply with the ordinance.
ReplyDeleteHe right there was not upholding the law and oath of office. He thought he was above the rules.
Even so--
It was a discussion about ST Aerospace and Miller was contributing and Dildo Doug went on the attack trying to discredt Miller, bringing up acusations about another matter entirely --- just being an all around POS as usual.
He needs to pay his own bills that he himself racked up. Don't pay. He isn't even a board member now. He ran the clock out on the ethics complaint and did the same here.
Too late.
Move along.
What a time suck waste of oxygen. Another black hole energy drain.
He can not use his office as a sword and a shield simultaneously. That is an abuse of power.
Take it to the FL Supreme Court.
It will end up at the Florida supreme court 10:35. It has to. There are simply too many permutations on how a maniacal, narcissistic "elected official" could weaponize this "Absolute Immunity" and use it to libel, slander, denigrate and malign in serious attempts to destroy average, ordinary citizens and businesses with sheer vindictiveness for reasons that are political (but possibly even personal or financial--albeit attenuated as described in my post). Oh wait--we've already seen that, right? And thus far, it appears like the ending to the original 1968 Thomas Crown affair--as the crook glides away unpunished for all the transgressions committed. No, this will change, it must. The county's overall position, via the very well-written brief by Rick Figlio-- will prevail because cutting through all the other clutter of both briefs is the quote that is an axiom of truth, undisputed, and says it all: There is no public purpose in protecting guilty officials. Period, end of story. If we simply glide over misconduct that is potentially intentional and malicious and never investigate/address/adjudicate it but rather take the transgressor's "word for it" and subsequently "trump it" with this dandy "Absolute Immunity" defense and precedent ruling---how in God's green earth will we ever really know if the conduct/misconduct was actually done as a part of an official's position rather than what we know it may have been---a reckless, malicious and intentional tort action. Answer--under this current ruling that stands ..... WE WON'T EVER KNOW FOR SURE. Thus, it must change; I'm confident it will.
ReplyDeleteThere is no PUBLIC purpose to defend a guilty wanton malicious tort from a past elected officials self imposed problems that were performed clearly OUT of the realm of his uofficial public duties.
ReplyDeleteDon't Pay.
Sure Flemings is a smart guy, but no, Underhill does not have absolute immunity. Nice try.
Win this case Escambia.
Much as I hope you're correct, Commissioner Bergosh, the elephant in the room is that a judge actually made that idiotic ruling for absolute immunity in the first place, and left the meat of the matter undecided.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the rule of law is only as good as the judges who uphold it. And our state Supreme Court just ruled that DeSantis can spread his covid conspiracies by convening a Grand Jury so he can continue to squander millions of our tax dollars through the courts as a mechanism for pouring Koolaid down the throats of his base.
If it's anything that I learned during my time of being sued for absolutely no reason, it's that judges are the god of their courtrooms and they can and will do whatever they want. Draw a judge like Burns? You're absolutely screwed. Have a judge like Dannheisser step in to clean up the mess? A blessed deus ex machina. They're not all as good at their jobs, or as honest, as your brother is. And the appeals process in the State of Florida has long been irrevocably messed up short of a total restructuring of the way the appeals court works. We appealed that horrible sua sponta ruling of Judge Burns's--spent a lot of money doing it. Those three judges washed their hands of it and kicked it back down to the lower court, and it never would have been resolved if Judge Dannheisser hadn't rolled up his sleeves and cleaned up that case.
There's entirely too much intrigue and money, as well, in how judges get decided. I don't need to tell you that Local lawyers (ahem) have had a *lot* of past sway in who sits those benches in the appeals court, and probably still do. I stopped paying attention to the politics of judgeship when a local prosecutor who had no business on God's green earth being a judge was appointed one by DeSantis, against the recommendations of a lot of good local lawyers and judges. It's too depressing to think about, and nothing can be done about it, anyway.
Fingers crossed, but I stopped being shocked by ridiculous rulings and blatant prosecutorial and judicial negligence a long time ago. Anything could happen, sadly.
Continuing to run this case through the courts just to prove a point for your little vendetta is an irresponsible waste of tax payer funds. Taking this avenue is going to cost us far more than settling, closing the door, and walking away.
ReplyDelete810, tell Underhill to drop it.
ReplyDelete@8:10
ReplyDeleteNope.
Can't allow absolute immunity for public official's ruling to stand.
Simple as that.