POA article on Appellate Panel Decision to Overturn Conviction of Perjury

[mtdjed]

Without getting into details, I question POAs statement (Dec 2023) relative to a person's entitlement to restitution of wages, benefits, legal expenses, and job, based upon the Appellate Panel decision. Wasn't the perjury charge initiated after the removal for cause? And, also by the State.

Seems like the POA statement is akin to the POA article on Page 12 ( VHA / Daily Sun Attempt to Manipulate Readers (setting the record straight - again)

Perhaps next month POA will clarify.

[Bill14564]

Without getting into details, I question POAs statement (Dec 2023) relative to a person's entitlement to restitution of wages, benefits, legal expenses, and job, based upon the Appellate Panel decision. Wasn't the perjury charge initiated after the removal for cause? And, also by the State.

Seems like the POA statement is akin to the POA article on Page 12 ( VHA / Daily Sun Attempt to Manipulate Readers (setting the record straight - again)

Perhaps next month POA will clarify.

I believe the removal was initiated after the charges were brought. The charges were the reason given for the removal.

I don't know the legal grounds for restitution and I suspect the POA does not either. The POA means well but they sometimes have a poor understanding of the facts.

[blueash]

The legal grounds for reinstatement as a commissioner is the Florida constitution. De Santis suspended Miller based on his authority given him to do exactly that, not requiring suspension but allowing for it. The exact same section of the constitution says:

(c) By order of the governor any elected municipal officer indicted for crime may be suspended from office until acquitted and the office filled by appointment for the period of suspension, not to extend beyond the term, unless these powers are vested elsewhere by law or the municipal charter.

See the magic words "until acquitted"? Miller has been acquitted of all charges against him. Thus his suspension is now voided, automatically by the wording of the constitution. He was elected in 2020 to serve four years, thus his term is not over even though it was filled by a replacement. The constitution seems to very clearly require that Miller return to his office until the end of the term for which he was elected.

And Florida law, see 112.51 (6) says the following: [my bold]

(6) If the municipal official is acquitted or found not guilty or is otherwise cleared of the charges which were the basis of the arrest, indictment, or information by reason of which he or she was suspended under the provisions of this section, then the Governor shall forthwith revoke the suspension and restore such municipal official to office; and the official shall be entitled to and be paid full back pay and such other emoluments or allowances to which he or she would have been entitled for the full period of time of the suspension. If, during the suspension, the term of office of the municipal official expires and a successor is either appointed or elected, such back pay, emoluments, or allowances shall only be paid for the duration of the term of office during which the municipal official was suspended under the provisions of this section, and he or she shall not be reinstated."

Now, tell me again why you think the POA is wrong? In fact it seems although IANAL, that Florida law REQUIRES, that upon a finding of not guilty that the person who suspended Miller must revoke the suspension forthwith. Ask yourself, why is Florida law being ignored to the detriment of Miller and the voters who elected him to serve a term ending in 2024?

[Normal]

The consecution of events demonstrates the injustice metered towards Mr. Miller. Restitution is warranted wherever it can be delivered.

The guy was charged on an incident that took place after the fact of original unproven claims. Politicians know what it is like to get tripped up on a tangent from an original charge. The original charge is irrelevant despite the questioning phase.

[Stu from NYC]

The developer wanted him gone and stay gone. He has a huge amount of power for better or worse.

[JGibson]

The legal grounds for reinstatement as a commissioner is the Florida constitution. De Santis suspended Miller based on his authority given him to do exactly that, not requiring suspension but allowing for it. The exact same section of the constitution says:

(c) By order of the governor any elected municipal officer indicted for crime may be suspended from office until acquitted and the office filled by appointment for the period of suspension, not to extend beyond the term, unless these powers are vested elsewhere by law or the municipal charter.

See the magic words "until acquitted"? Miller has been acquitted of all charges against him. Thus his suspension is now voided, automatically by the wording of the constitution. He was elected in 2020 to serve four years, thus his term is not over even though it was filled by a replacement. The constitution seems to very clearly require that Miller return to his office until the end of the term for which he was elected.

And Florida law, see 112.51 (6) says the following: [my bold]

(6) If the municipal official is acquitted or found not guilty or is otherwise cleared of the charges which were the basis of the arrest, indictment, or information by reason of which he or she was suspended under the provisions of this section, then the Governor shall forthwith revoke the suspension and restore such municipal official to office; and the official shall be entitled to and be paid full back pay and such other emoluments or allowances to which he or she would have been entitled for the full period of time of the suspension. If, during the suspension, the term of office of the municipal official expires and a successor is either appointed or elected, such back pay, emoluments, or allowances shall only be paid for the duration of the term of office during which the municipal official was suspended under the provisions of this section, and he or she shall not be reinstated."

Now, tell me again why you think the POA is wrong? In fact it seems although IANAL, that Florida law REQUIRES, that upon a finding of not guilty that the person who suspended Miller must revoke the suspension forthwith. Ask yourself, why is Florida law being ignored to the detriment of Miller and the voters who elected him to serve a term ending in 2024?

Fantastic research.

[New Englander]

The legal grounds for reinstatement as a commissioner is the Florida constitution. De Santis suspended Miller based on his authority given him to do exactly that, not requiring suspension but allowing for it. The exact same section of the constitution says:

(c) By order of the governor any elected municipal officer indicted for crime may be suspended from office until acquitted and the office filled by appointment for the period of suspension, not to extend beyond the term, unless these powers are vested elsewhere by law or the municipal charter.

See the magic words "until acquitted"? Miller has been acquitted of all charges against him. Thus his suspension is now voided, automatically by the wording of the constitution. He was elected in 2020 to serve four years, thus his term is not over even though it was filled by a replacement. The constitution seems to very clearly require that Miller return to his office until the end of the term for which he was elected.

And Florida law, see 112.51 (6) says the following: [my bold]

(6) If the municipal official is acquitted or found not guilty or is otherwise cleared of the charges which were the basis of the arrest, indictment, or information by reason of which he or she was suspended under the provisions of this section, then the Governor shall forthwith revoke the suspension and restore such municipal official to office; and the official shall be entitled to and be paid full back pay and such other emoluments or allowances to which he or she would have been entitled for the full period of time of the suspension. If, during the suspension, the term of office of the municipal official expires and a successor is either appointed or elected, such back pay, emoluments, or allowances shall only be paid for the duration of the term of office during which the municipal official was suspended under the provisions of this section, and he or she shall not be reinstated."

Now, tell me again why you think the POA is wrong? In fact it seems although IANAL, that Florida law REQUIRES, that upon a finding of not guilty that the person who suspended Miller must revoke the suspension forthwith. Ask yourself, why is Florida law being ignored to the detriment of Miller and the voters who elected him to serve a term ending in 2024?

Well said Blueash.

[mtdjed]

The legal grounds for reinstatement as a commissioner is the Florida constitution. De Santis suspended Miller based on his authority given him to do exactly that, not requiring suspension but allowing for it. The exact same section of the constitution says:

(c) By order of the governor any elected municipal officer indicted for crime may be suspended from office until acquitted and the office filled by appointment for the period of suspension, not to extend beyond the term, unless these powers are vested elsewhere by law or the municipal charter.

See the magic words "until acquitted"? Miller has been acquitted of all charges against him. Thus his suspension is now voided, automatically by the wording of the constitution. He was elected in 2020 to serve four years, thus his term is not over even though it was filled by a replacement. The constitution seems to very clearly require that Miller return to his office until the end of the term for which he was elected.

And Florida law, see 112.51 (6) says the following: [my bold]

(6) If the municipal official is acquitted or found not guilty or is otherwise cleared of the charges which were the basis of the arrest, indictment, or information by reason of which he or she was suspended under the provisions of this section, then the Governor shall forthwith revoke the suspension and restore such municipal official to office; and the official shall be entitled to and be paid full back pay and such other emoluments or allowances to which he or she would have been entitled for the full period of time of the suspension. If, during the suspension, the term of office of the municipal official expires and a successor is either appointed or elected, such back pay, emoluments, or allowances shall only be paid for the duration of the term of office during which the municipal official was suspended under the provisions of this section, and he or she shall not be reinstated."

Now, tell me again why you think the POA is wrong? In fact it seems although IANAL, that Florida law REQUIRES, that upon a finding of not guilty that the person who suspended Miller must revoke the suspension forthwith. Ask yourself, why is Florida law being ignored to the detriment of Miller and the voters who elected him to serve a term ending in 2024?

The original infraction was multiple violations related to the Sunshine law.

BUSHNELL — Two Sumter County commissioners have been arrested and charged with perjury, for allegedly lying under oath during a Sunshine Law violation investigation.

The perjury charges were dropped against one, but not the other. But both were relieved of duty. Could it be that the suspension from duty is unrelated to the perjury conviction which has been reversed by the Appellate .

[BrianL99]

The original infraction was multiple violations related to the Sunshine law.

BUSHNELL — Two Sumter County commissioners have been arrested and charged with perjury, for allegedly lying under oath during a Sunshine Law violation investigation.

The perjury charges were dropped against one, but not the other. But both were relieved of duty. Could it be that the suspension from duty is unrelated to the perjury conviction which has been reversed by the Appellate .

What ever happened to the original charge, of violating the Sunshine Laws?

2 Florida county commissioners from The Villages removed after perjury charges (https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/01/07/2-florida-county-commissioners-from-the-villages-removed-after-perjury-charges/)

DeSantis removes two commissioners arrested for possible Sunshine Law violations (https://historiccity.com/2022/staugustine/news/desantis-removes-two-commissioners-arrested-for-possible-sunshine-law-violations-133913#)

Sumter commissioners suspended from office | News | The Villages Daily Sun | thevillagesdailysun.com (https://www.thevillagesdailysun.com/news/villages/sumter-commissioners-suspended-from-office/article_88f72584-6f78-11ec-873c-f78e57f09958.html)

[mtdjed]

Now, tell me again why you think the POA is wrong? In fact it seems although IANAL, that Florida law REQUIRES, that upon a finding of not guilty that the person who suspended Miller must revoke the suspension forthwith. Ask yourself, why is Florida law being ignored to the detriment of Miller and the voters who elected him to serve a term ending in 2024?

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.

That is why I think the POA was wrong to suggest restitution is appropriate.

I do not expect a retraction of the POA opinion, but at the same time I do not expect to see taxpayer money provided to the two individuals.

Time will tell if the POA was right or wrong. However, I find that the POA is better at criticizing others than admitting their own errors.

Note, my original point was the potential error in the POAs position about restitution. IT was simply a question.

Whether your citation of laws is appropriate or not will soon be known. Do you really expect these guys to get reinstated and reimbursed? I would guess, not likely.

[RRGuyNJ]

What is a POA, and WHY are people so damn lazy they can't spell things out these days. POA to me reminds me of a Power Of Attorney but I'm guessing that's not the case.

[Bogie Shooter]

What is a POA, and WHY are people so damn lazy they can't spell things out these days. POA to me reminds me of a Power Of Attorney but I'm guessing that's not the case.

There the ones who throw their bulletin in your driveway.

[Bill14564]

What is a POA, and WHY are people so damn lazy they can't spell things out these days. POA to me reminds me of a Power Of Attorney but I'm guessing that's not the case.

Probably took longer to type that than to put "POA the Villages" into a google search.

The expansion of the acronym would not help you much, you still would not know anything about them. You would likely wind up typing "POA the Villages" into google anyway.

[Maker]

What is a POA, and WHY are people so damn lazy they can't spell things out these days. POA to me reminds me of a Power Of Attorney but I'm guessing that's not the case.

Property Owner's Association
www (DOT) poa4us (DOT) org

Like any organization that advocates a position, many like them, many do not. Look at their past positions on politics and decide for yourself.

[PhilG]

My understanding - Miller lied under oath - that is apparently not in dispute. When confronted with the facts, he retracted his lie. The court found that retraction effectively negated the "perjury" per Florida law.

Miller is not exonerated. Appears his dishonesty is confirmed. Can't speak to the legal aspects of back pay, reinstatement etc. or the relevance of Sunshine Law violation,- the court can chase that down. Personally, I wonder at having a commissioner so willing to commit the initial lie as well as the alleged interaction behind the lie.

suspect folks' opinions re. this matter are driven more by politics than substance.

[Dusty_Star]

What is a POA, and WHY are people so damn lazy they can't spell things out these days. POA to me reminds me of a Power Of Attorney but I'm guessing that's not the case.

Property Owner's Association of the Villages.

There are two (that I've heard of) the POA & the VHA Villages Homeowner's Advocates

Some contend that the VHA is controlled by the developer (another shorthand) & some contend that the POA is independent. Opinions can get heated. :duck:

[Wondering]

Without getting into details, I question POAs statement (Dec 2023) relative to a person's entitlement to restitution of wages, benefits, legal expenses, and job, based upon the Appellate Panel decision. Wasn't the perjury charge initiated after the removal for cause? And, also by the State.

Seems like the POA statement is akin to the POA article on Page 12 ( VHA / Daily Sun Attempt to Manipulate Readers (setting the record straight - again)

Perhaps next month POA will clarify.
If the Appellate judges reversed the lower court conviction, what does that say about the FBI, local district attorney and lower court judge who didn't know what the Florida law is dealing with the issue. Looks like a conspiracy to convict and get an innocent person out of a position. Pathetic!

[Bill14564]

My understanding - Miller lied under oath - that is apparently not in dispute. When confronted with the facts, he retracted his lie. The court found that retraction effectively negated the "perjury" per Florida law.

My understanding is that it was in dispute whether that was an intentional lie or an inaccurate memory of the timeline of events. To me, having remembered things incorrectly myself, there is a significant difference.

Miller is not exonerated. Appears his dishonesty is confirmed.
Legally, the conviction was overturned which I believe means it is treated as if it never happened. I would call this exoneration. And nowhere, other than poster's declarations, did I see any confirmation of dishonesty.

Can't speak to the legal aspects of back pay, reinstatement etc. or the relevance of Sunshine Law violation,- the court can chase that down. Personally, I wonder at having a commissioner so willing to commit the initial lie as well as the alleged interaction behind the lie.

suspect folks' opinions re. this matter are driven more by politics than substance.

For a third time, I strongly disagree with your assertion. I believe the investigation and prosecution was motivated by politics, not the eventual outcome. (Since discussing politics is not allowed on this board I cannot explain or give examples)

I do not know the individual personally nor have I had any interaction with him. I was around when he was the only local voice providing information on Covid vaccination sites in the area. It seems there was something else he was providing information on but I cannot remember what it was. I would welcome him as a commissioner again though I highly doubt that will be allowed to happen.

[blueash]

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 (https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2022/01/07/2-florida-county-commissioners-from-the-villages-removed-after-perjury-charges/). 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.

[blueash]

OREN MILLER vs STATE OF FLORIDA :: 2023 :: Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia (https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fifth-district-court-of-appeal/2023/5d23-0846.html)

"In response to leading questions, Miller twice acknowledged that no calls occurred after January. However, prior to those questions, Miller made clear his uncertainty as to precisely when calls with Search ceased. Specifically, Miller stated the phone calls ended “about the first two or three months” after he and Search took office in November 2020, or “maybe three or four months.” Thus, by Miller’s reckoning, the calls stopped between January and March 2021 or “somewhere in there.”Later in the sworn statement, Miller did not dispute that he received a phone call from Search in February, though he could not remember what they discussed. Further still, when asked about a phone call with Search in March 2021, Miller stated, that while he could not remember what they discussed, “[y]es, I promise you we had phone calls"

The appeals court excoriates the prosecution of the case for not understanding Florida law citing exactly what is required to support a charge and conviction for perjury.

"Even assuming Miller definitively and falsely stated that there were no calls after January as alleged, Miller may correct or clarify his answer(s) during later questioning. “[A]n initially false statement ... can be further explained so that the statement taken as a whole is not perjury. Such correction or clarification is not only permitted—it is encouraged. Permitting an individual to clarify or correct prior false or erroneous statements advances the core of judicial functions—a just determination of cases based on applicable law and the truth born from evidence. Florida law has long recognized this enduring principle.

Further:

The law encourages the correction of erroneous and even intentionally false statements on the part of a witness, and perjury will not be predicated upon such statements when the witness, before the submission of the case, fully corrects his testimony.... Here, even if Miller was considered to have definitively and falsely stated that no calls occurred after January, his later answers corrected or clarified the uncertain timing of calls, including those made or received in February and March 2021. As a result, as a matter of law, Miller cannot be found guilty of perjury as charged in the information my bold

The court took a highly unusual step. Typically a court finds a trial error and sends it back for a retrial, correcting the error. But in this case the Court declared

we REVERSE the judgment and sentence, VACATE Miller’s conviction, and REMAND with instructions that the trial court enter a judgment of not guilty in favor of Miller.

[blueash]

Judge J Soud wrote the opinion. He was appointed by DeSantis in 2023. Both other judges agreed with the opinion, no dissent. Those judges are Kilbane, appointed by DeSantis and Jay appointed by DeSantis.

[blueash]

If the Appellate judges reversed the lower court conviction, what does that say about the FBI, local district attorney and lower court judge who didn't know what the Florida law is dealing with the issue. Looks like a conspiracy to convict and get an innocent person out of a position. Pathetic!

You got that right. But to clarify, the FBI .. Federal Bureau of Investigation was NOT involved in this state matter. It was the Florida State Attorney's office headed by our Attorney General, Ashley Moody, doing the investigation.

[golfing eagles]

I didn't follow this case, primarily because I couldn't care less what happens to them.

My reason: Whenever any candidate is a lifelong member of party "A", but just prior to an election switches to party "B" so he is electable, I consider that dishonest and unethical. Not illegal, but highly disingenuous.

[Bill14564]

I didn't follow this case, primarily because I couldn't care less what happens to them.

My reason: Whenever any candidate is a lifelong member of party "A", but just prior to an election switches to party "B" so he is electable, I consider that dishonest and unethical. Not illegal, but highly disingenuous.

Does it speak worse of the candidate that recognizes the only way to get elected is to run as party "B" or does it speak worse of the voters who will only vote for candidates from party "B" and will vote for anyone as long as they are party "B"?

[DrMack]

If the Appellate judges reversed the lower court conviction, what does that say about the FBI, local district attorney and lower court judge who didn't know what the Florida law is dealing with the issue. Looks like a conspiracy to convict and get an innocent person out of a position. Pathetic!

He was acquitted. So no harm done. The move to cut wages, replace or anything else has to be reversed by law. I hope nothing like this happens in Lake county. We are new to Florida, hopefully the good ole boys days are over?

[golfing eagles]

Does it speak worse of the candidate that recognizes the only way to get elected is to run as party "B" or does it speak worse of the voters who will only vote for candidates from party "B" and will vote for anyone as long as they are party "B"?

No, the system speaks for the founding principle of American elections, which is "majority rules". We have strayed way too far from that principle in so many ways......

[blueash]

I didn't follow this case, primarily because I couldn't care less what happens to them.

My reason: Whenever any candidate is a lifelong member of party "A", but just prior to an election switches to party "B" so he is electable, I consider that dishonest and unethical. Not illegal, but highly disingenuous.

Interesting viewpoint. You don't care about someone sent to jail and wrong convicted, likely spearheaded by powerful figures if those who are harmed don't share your political party affiliation as lifetime members. A person with empathy would very much care what happens to anyone regardless of politics if their freedom is ended by a political prosecution that members of the same party as the prosecutors found to be an unjustified application of power.

Do you feel all those lifelong Democrats in the south who after the Civil Rights Act in 1964 switched to being Republicans so they could run in the changed political status of Alabama, Mississippi, etc. are dishonest and unethical? Or did they just accept the reality of the community in which they sought office and that the voters were no longer willing to vote for a Democrat.
But given the choice in Sumter county of two Republicans, one who supported the Developer in all the issues of the day and one who was willing to stand up against him when it benefited the public good, the voters here chose people with guts. It wouldn't have happened if Miller was a Democrat as so many only look at a letter. But once they looked at the platform of the person, not the party, he was overwhelmingly elected.

Recall that Oren Miller ran for the Florida statehouse and lost as a Democrat. His opponent... wait for it... was Bret Hage who later sponsored the Morse bill to deny counties the ability to set fees when it hurt Morse and who later was sent packing when it turned out he was seemingly a Morse bought official. (https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/state/2023/03/29/are-florida-lawmakers-real-estate-ties-a-conflict-of-interest/69946829007/)

By the way, Gary Search was also charged with perjury for the same phone calls. He AFAIK has never switched parties and was forced to resign his office and accept a series of fines and restrictions on his freedoms pending the outcome of Miller's trial. He chose not to fight the powers and get on with his retirement. It turned out people with guts could easily be degutted if you were in power and willing to use that power. Everyone should care about that.

[FredMitchell]

Thanks for the posts on the appeals court's decision, statutes, and the Florida constitution.

IANAL, as well, but unless the court ordered the restitution, I think Miller still might need to sue to get it, in which case law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/case_law) supporting arguments might need to be made as well. Access to case law is typically controlled by publishers and is not available for free. Law firms pay Lexis/Nexis or other sources for access to published judgments.

[LuvtheVillages]

Judge J Soud wrote the opinion. He was appointed by DeSantis in 2023. Both other judges agreed with the opinion, no dissent. Those judges are Kilbane, appointed by DeSantis and Jay appointed by DeSantis.

Thank you for naming the judges. At election time, I have found it impossible to find information about how the judges have performed.

What is the name of the judge at the original trial?

[Bogie Shooter]

Thank you for naming the judges. At election time, I have found it impossible to find information about how the judges have performed.

What is the name of the judge at the original trial?

Judy!:a040:

[BrianL99]

No, the system speaks for the founding principle of American elections, which is "majority rules". We have strayed way too far from that principle in so many ways......


One of the founding principles of a Democracy, is "majority rules". Democracy's basic and undeniable flaw, is "majority rules". If 1000 people make up the 'democracy" and 501 of them decide you can't wear "red" or that you're required to always wear a hat, the folks who love red shirts or like to show off their mullets, are screwed.

Which is why the founding principles of America, are those of a Constitutional Republic. We elect representatives, who are assumed to have better judgment than the masses and more willing to protect minority opinions ... & why we have an Electoral College.

Sorry, a bit off topic and semantics, but the words "majority rules" always rankles me.

[Indydealmaker]

Not acquitted of all charges. And the appellate court erred.

[Bill14564]

Not acquitted of all charges. And the appellate court erred.

Were there charges that he has not been tried on? If not then what charges has he NOT been acquitted of?

The court erred… in what way? What fact(s) of law did they get wrong?

[golfing eagles]

Interesting viewpoint. You don't care about someone sent to jail and wrong convicted, likely spearheaded by powerful figures if those who are harmed don't share your political party affiliation as lifetime members. A person with empathy would very much care what happens to anyone regardless of politics if their freedom is ended by a political prosecution that members of the same party as the prosecutors found to be an unjustified application of power.

Do you feel all those lifelong Democrats in the south who after the Civil Rights Act in 1964 switched to being Republicans so they could run in the changed political status of Alabama, Mississippi, etc. are dishonest and unethical? Or did they just accept the reality of the community in which they sought office and that the voters were no longer willing to vote for a Democrat.
But given the choice in Sumter county of two Republicans, one who supported the Developer in all the issues of the day and one who was willing to stand up against him when it benefited the public good, the voters here chose people with guts. It wouldn't have happened if Miller was a Democrat as so many only look at a letter. But once they looked at the platform of the person, not the party, he was overwhelmingly elected.

Recall that Oren Miller ran for the Florida statehouse and lost as a Democrat. His opponent... wait for it... was Bret Hage who later sponsored the Morse bill to deny counties the ability to set fees when it hurt Morse and who later was sent packing when it turned out he was seemingly a Morse bought official. (https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/state/2023/03/29/are-florida-lawmakers-real-estate-ties-a-conflict-of-interest/69946829007/)

By the way, Gary Search was also charged with perjury for the same phone calls. He AFAIK has never switched parties and was forced to resign his office and accept a series of fines and restrictions on his freedoms pending the outcome of Miller's trial. He chose not to fight the powers and get on with his retirement. It turned out people with guts could easily be degutted if you were in power and willing to use that power. Everyone should care about that.

That's one point of view. But I don't really believe that these 2 commissioners were squeaky clean by a long shot. They may have been acquitted, but that only means that in the opinion of the appellate judge, there was insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction, or that there was a procedural impropriety during the original trial. It does not mean that they are guiltless. I'm sorry, but to represent oneself as a member of party A after being a lifelong member of party B doesn't sit well with me. Yes, there are numerous examples of candidates changing parties, but usually due to a fundamental change in their perspective. This change seemed to be purely to get elected, as evidence by their entire history and platform. I also find it hard to believe that these 2 (3) peas in a pod never had a conversation outside of official meetings.

Here's a golf example--the recent Ryder Cup matches. The Europeans set up the course to give every advantage, some might even say an unfair advantage to their team. Yes, it's legal. Yes, both sides do it to some extent. But this year it was so over the top as the be on the verge of unethical. I mean, changing the distances of all the par 4's so they either need a long iron or could practically drive the green just to keep wedges out of the hands of the American team, coupled with narrowing the fairways and putting extra deep rough because the Euro's were straighter, was excessive and probably borderline violated the fairness of the game.

But, it was "legal", and in a court of law they would be "acquitted".

[BrianL99]

Here's a golf example--the recent Ryder Cup matches. The Europeans set up the course to give every advantage, some might even say an unfair advantage to their team. Yes, it's legal. Yes, both sides do it to some extent. But this year it was so over the top as the be on the verge of unethical. I mean, changing the distances of all the par 4's so they either need a long iron or could practically drive the green just to keep wedges out of the hands of the American team, coupled with narrowing the fairways and putting extra deep rough because the Euro's were straighter, was excessive and probably borderline violated the fairness of the game.

But, it was "legal", and in a court of law they would be "acquitted".


It's what "Home Field Advantage" has always been about, in every sport. NHL slowing down the ice, when the Montreal Canadians were in town. If you can't take your game on the road, you're in trouble.

How many guys do you know, who can shoot 75 at their club, every day ... but can't break 85 "on the road"?

[Bridget Staunton]

We like you Oren Miller & helped vote you into office. Then politics & campaign donations got involved. You did your best to explain the phone calls but they it didn’t help you.

[blueash]

That's one point of view. But I don't really believe that these 2 commissioners were squeaky clean by a long shot. They may have been acquitted, but that only means that in the opinion of the appellate judge, there was insufficient evidence to uphold a conviction, or that there was a procedural impropriety during the original trial. It does not mean that they are guiltless.

You again are misstating what are easily found facts. Nobody asks anyone to be squeaky clean. The acquittal was not the opinion the "appellate judge". It was the unanimous finding of three judges all appointed by DeSantis.

This judicial panel did not say there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. They unanimously said that a clear reading of the law said there was inadequate reason to support ever charging Miller. They said that the law actually fully supported a person making a sworn statement to have the opportunity to correct earlier or later in that statement any facts in question to actually get at the truth. Which is what Miller did in the interview.

The judicial panel did not say that there was a procedural error at the trial or a technicality. The court in fact said that the charge was bogus and never should have been brought as a simple reading of Florida law and prior decisions on what is required for a perjury charge should have been obvious to the prosecutor's office. That office it seems to me had a different agenda than following the law as it is written and as it has long been applied in Florida according to the 5th circuit court findings.

[blueash]

Thank you for naming the judges. At election time, I have found it impossible to find information about how the judges have performed.

What is the name of the judge at the original trial?

Anthony M. Tatti

[golfing eagles]

You again are misstating what are easily found facts. Nobody asks anyone to be squeaky clean. The acquittal was not the opinion the "appellate judge". It was the unanimous finding of three judges all appointed by DeSantis.

This judicial panel did not say there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. They unanimously said that a clear reading of the law said there was inadequate reason to support ever charging Miller. They said that the law actually fully supported a person making a sworn statement to have the opportunity to correct earlier or later in that statement any facts in question to actually get at the truth. Which is what Miller did in the interview.

The judicial panel did not say that there was a procedural error at the trial or a technicality. The court in fact said that the charge was bogus and never should have been brought as a simple reading of Florida law and prior decisions on what is required for a perjury charge should have been obvious to the prosecutor's office. That office it seems to me had a different agenda than following the law as it is written and as it has long been applied in Florida according to the 5th circuit court findings.

Thak you for setting it straight. Like I said, I didn't follow it much. IF everything that you've stated is true, it sounds like there's a "rotten fish in Denmark"

[blueash]

Thak you for setting it straight. Like I said, I didn't follow it much. IF everything that you've stated is true, it sounds like there's a "rotten fish in Denmark"

Thank you for that comment. If you wish to check the accuracy of my posts, I did provide the link to the full text of the appeals court decision. It is only a few pages and takes less than 10 minutes to read. It includes the facts of the charges and the correct application of the Florida law. It is easily understood by a non-lawyer.

I will post it again for those who now wish to read it.

OREN MILLER vs STATE OF FLORIDA :: 2023 :: Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia (https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fifth-district-court-of-appeal/2023/5d23-0846.html)

[Deseylou]

If anyone has any questions perhaps they should contact the sates attorney office.

[mickey100]

Thank you for that comment. If you wish to check the accuracy of my posts, I did provide the link to the full text of the appeals court decision. It is only a few pages and takes less than 10 minutes to read. It includes the facts of the charges and the correct application of the Florida law. It is easily understood by a non-lawyer.

I will post it again for those who now wish to read it.

OREN MILLER vs STATE OF FLORIDA :: 2023 :: Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia (https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fifth-district-court-of-appeal/2023/5d23-0846.html)

Thank you. Its nice to see someone actually post "facts".