Tom Knight v. Rick Mottolla

[Unregistered]

http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20...jury-concludes

ouch

[Unregistered]

A jury ruled in favor of Sheriff Tom Knight on Friday in a lawsuit alleging he had retaliated against Capt. Richard Mottola by transferring him from courts to corrections.

Col. Kurt Hoffman, general counsel for the Sheriff's Office, said after the verdict that Knight was "vindicated" by the decision.

"We're just pleased that the sheriff's employment decision was upheld by the jury," Hoffman said. "It was never retaliation."

[Unregistered]

"We're just pleased that the sheriff's employment decision was upheld by the jury," said Col. Kurt Hoffman, general counsel for the Sheriff's Office. "It was never retaliation."

Would Hoffman lie? Again?

https://www.scribd.com/document/3224...t-Hoffman-News

You be the judge!

[Unregistered]

Would Hoffman lie? Again?

https://www.scribd.com/document/3224...t-Hoffman-News

You be the judge!

The answer is "yes." If you want to know the future behaviors of someone, then look at his past repeated behaviors.

Everybody knows that in order to win, a deputy MUST sue the sheriff in federal court and not in state court. It’s a mystery why two deputies sued (and lost) in state court. We have never had a deputy win a lawsuit against a sitting sheriff in state court, BUT we have had a deputy win a lawsuit against a sitting sheriff in federal court. We still have another pending deputy-lawsuit against Knight, but it’s in federal court because the former detective moved the case out of state court. That was a very wise legal decision on his part. It will be interesting to see the legal outcome.

[Unregistered]

Hoffman said, "It was never retaliation."

Yes, it was most definitely retaliation, but proving it in court is difficult because Florida’s courts have ruled that management has a right to stick employees anywhere they want, as long as there isn’t a reduction in pay. If there was a reduction in pay, then it could be construed as punishment or retaliation. Also, this stuff gets complicated for a jury. And a jury isn’t allowed to know all the facts of a case (aka “justice is blind”). For example, if the jury was made aware of Hoffman’s history of lying, then would that have been a game changer in the jury room? Yes, of course! But that’s just one example and there are many more.

[Unregistered]

In reality, the transfer was a grudge **** and was a form of punishment, but from a legal perspective, it was not civil punishment. So there you go in there you have it.

[Unregistered]

Rick sucked the Balkwill tit for so long and got his way under Balkwill that he thinks it can still work with Knight. Obviously, that's not the case. Enjoy being jail Captain until you retire. Dumb move on your part.

[Unregistered]

Rick sucked the Balkwill tit for so long and got his way under Balkwill that he thinks it can still work with Knight. Obviously, that's not the case.

Sucking Knight's tit is working for Walsh, Tutko and others, so why not? They enjoy it and Knight likes it.

[Unregistered]

Sucking Knight's tit is working for Walsh, Tutko and others, so why not? They enjoy it and Knight likes it.

There's new teats in town. Get in line to suck'em.

[Unregistered]

The jury might have said one thing but I say another. It was a grudge transfer and Knight knows it. Anyone with real world knowledge knows that Rick was punished. End of story. Defendants win in court everyday doesn't make them innocent.