Quote:
Originally Posted by mtdjed
My response was that perhaps the Appellate decision is not the deciding factor regarding restitution since both supervisors were replaced. Only one was tried for perjury. Fact is, that both violated the Sunshine law and both initially denied the accusation. Both were in violation. Neither was innocent of the infraction. The recent Appellate decision didn't absolve anything regarding their initial violation.
Do you really expect these guys to get reinstated and reimbursed? I would guess, not likely.
|
I understand you might be grasping at straws, but you certainly would understand that people cannot be removed from office because somebody wanted an investigation done. Florida law does provide for a suspension but not a removal. And I cited the law for you. Neither commissioner was charged with violation of the Sunshine law, they were investigated and not charged with that violation for a simple reason. There was no convincing evidence of such a violation available.
Neither Miller nor Search was ever charged with Sunshine violations. Your post is wrong. They were both charged with perjury for allegedly lying about the details of phone calls to investigators. Specifically in regard to Miller he was charged with lying when he agreed with a statement about when the phone calls between Miller and Search ended. Even though, as pointed out in a very strongly worded reversal, he during the same interview said he was not sure when the calls ended.
Imagine this scenario. The cops ask me what model was the getaway car. I say a Ford. They have picture of the car and say they have evidence it was a Kia. I say, if you say so then I will accept your evidence. Should I be charged with perjury for lying about the model of the car? That is what they did to Miller.
And yes, if the law requires that Miller be paid for the time he should have been serving, then he should be paid. If taxpayer money were the only issue to be considered, he should have been left on the council until the legal system finished with adjudication.
See below for the exact wording from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.