[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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]

Originally Posted by LuvtheVillages

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]

Originally Posted by blueash

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]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

[Deseylou]

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

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by blueash

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

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