[Dusty_Star]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.

[blueash]

OREN MILLER vs STATE OF FLORIDA :: 2023 :: Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal Decisions :: Florida Case Law :: Florida Law :: US Law :: Justia

"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]

Originally Posted by Wondering

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Wondering

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]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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?

Judy!