Susan Harrelle for Glades Sheriff
Results 1 to 5 of 5
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Susan Harrelle for Glades Sheriff

    Please elect her so we can get rid of her and her obnoxious husband here in Hendry County. She can bring all the drama and corruption with her. .

    Donna Storter and the Harrelles' goewsy back..... And deep .....

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    HARRELLE FOR SHERIFF!



    SHE and Donna Storter can run this county into the ground. And Max will be handling both of them since he is both campaign manager.



    BIG MONEY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN.........The Sky is falling and we are done again. No Happy Days are ever here again

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    HA! I used to work with her (and Max) in SB. Former (now dead) Chief Humston 'cooked the books' for her to get OT pay while she was going to the academy on PD time, getting full LEO pay but still doing "Administrative Asst" duties and NEVER 'patrolled' the City w/o Humston or another LEO being with her. Man...I could write a book (hmmm...) ;-)

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    HA! I used to work with her (and Max) in SB. Former (now dead) Chief Humston 'cooked the books' for her to get OT pay while she was going to the academy on PD time, getting full LEO pay but still doing "Administrative Asst" duties and NEVER 'patrolled' the City w/o Humston or another LEO being with her. Man...I could write a book (hmmm...) ;-)
    then what is stopping you, fear of a libel suit?

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    then what is stopping you, fear of a libel suit?
    Uhhh, YO...Sparky...I understand you're one of the quintessential, inbred, knuckle-draggin' 'Bubba Boys' from that podunk 'Metropolis' called 'The Glades', and your IQ is about room temp, so allow me to humbly 'educate' you (though, that in and of itself may prove fruitless).

    In 1964, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in New York times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964).

    For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection of the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a police official, had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel. The Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of *political debate.* The Court wrote that "libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the *political arena,* the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

    Since Sullivan, a public official or other person who has *voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye* must prove that a libelous statement "was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" (Sullivan). The actual-malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the *plaintiff can show* that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication" (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 [1968]).

    Also since Sullivan, the question of WHO is a public official has been raised often. In Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 S. Ct. 669, 15 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1966), the Court found that a NON-elected official "among the hierarchy of government employees *who have, or appear to have,* substantial responsibility for, or control over, the conduct of public affairs" WAS a public official within the meaning of Sullivan. Similarly, in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 91 S. Ct. 621, 28 L. Ed. 2d 35 (1971), the Court found that a CANDIDATE for public office fell within the category of *public officials* who must prove actual malice in order to recover.

    My apologies in advance if I may have short-circuited what FEW brain cells you may have left. Now...go out and start campaigning for Hillary (err, I mean, Susan), Harrelle.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •