Knight’s legal battle: Can a judge tell a sheriff where to provide security?

[Media]

Snip of article from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune newspaper:

This court case started when Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight abruptly pulled his deputies out of all non-courtroom facilities that are operated by the court. Chief Judge Charles Williams then sent the sheriff an administrative order, telling him to return deputies to the screening stations. The case centers on the sheriff’s role in screening for weapons.

Conigliaro, an attorney for the judge, explained that: “Sheriff Knight is [only] willing to provide what the order requests if they are ‘the four corners of the courtroom.’ Sheriff Knight takes the position that things change if they are 'outside the four corners of the courtroom'.”

DCA Judge Stevan Northcutt said: “The question here is, 'does the court have the authority to direct its executive officer [the sheriff]'?”

Appellate judges are now ascertaining the chief judge’s powers and how they impact Sheriff Knight’s [court] responsibilities.

The case could impact court and sheriff relations statewide. A decision is expected in months.

A Florida sheriff is both (1) the executive officer of the court and (2) a constitutional officer with executive powers.

Judge Northcutt said: “The question is clear. Statutorily and constitutionally, the sheriff is the executive officer of the court. The scope is to what limits does the sheriff operate as an officer [of the court]. We have to set a limit here.”

Patrick Duggan, Knight’s attorney, told the judges: “We seek a declaration to determine the proper branch to oversee court…”

Northcutt interjected: “The sheriff has executive authority — is the sheriff not acting as an officer of the court? Is he not under the direction of the chief judge?”

Duggan replied: “I don’t believe so. When the court’s not there, what security needs to be done?”

Northcutt said: “The proposition I’m putting to you is that in this case, the sheriff is not a member of either branch. [Instead], the sheriff is an officer of the court, and [so] the administrative order from the judge is to the sheriff as an officer of the court, [and] not as a member of the executive branch.”

The three appellate judges also noted the historic common law relationship of the sheriff to the courts.

Duggan said: “What Sheriff Knight is being asked to do in the administrative order is not part of common law because these are very detailed operations — like searching people and keeping guns out of courtrooms. With common law, people carried guns wherever they wanted.”

Conigliaro said: "There is nothing in the judge's administrative order to Sheriff Knight that the sheriff and his predecessors were not already doing for many years."

Pending legal case between Sheriff Knight and the 12th Judicial Court in Florida:
https://www.scribd.com/document/355181357/TK-Rotisserie

Full story:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20...-judge-impasse

[Unregistered]

Knight is going to lose this case big time.

The ONLY way Knight can beat the legal rap is if he gets his buddy (Senator Greg Steube) to CHANGE the law in 2018 to pull the legal rug out from under the feet of the chief judge.

Senator Greg Steube believes his 2018 courthouse carry bill has a good chance of passing in 2018.

If Steube’s courthouse carry bill becomes law, then it would settle a dispute between Sarasota Sheriff Tom Knight and the chief judge.

[Editor's note: Steube’s proposal would allow CCW permit holders to carry guns inside all court buildings that do not have courtrooms. It would circumvent the court battle between Sheriff Knight and the 12th Judicial Court by changing the law in favor of the sheriff].

Full story:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20...rsial-measures

Will Senator Steube be able to change the law in 2018 to rescue Knight from his legal mess???

[Unregistered]

The ONLY way Knight can beat the legal rap is if he gets his buddy (Senator Greg Steube) to CHANGE the law in 2018 to pull the legal rug out from under the feet of the chief judge.

Will Senator Steube be able to change the law in 2018 to rescue Knight from his legal mess???

• If enough legislators are made aware of the facts of this case, along with what Steube's courthouse carry proposal will actually do... then no, Steube's courthouse carry bill will not pass in 2018.

• If legislators are unaware of the fine details and legal outomes of this case, as it relates to Steube's courthouse carry proposal (and it's direct relationship to the case between Knight v. 12th Judicial Circuit), then yes, it will slip passed them and it will pass.

• Legislators need to be made fully aware of what's really going on with Steube's courthouse carry proposal.

[Unregistered]

Judge Northcutt asked Pat Duggan: “The sheriff has executive authority — is the sheriff not acting as an officer of the court? Is he not under the direction of the chief judge?”

Knight got rid of half the school resource deputies to save taxpayers money. Can you give one reason why Knight shouldn't also get rid bailiffs to save money since bailiffs just stand around wasting taxpayer dollars? The money could be better spent at Benderson Park since it generates money instead of wasting it.

[Unregistered]

Knight’s legal battle: Can a judge tell a sheriff where to provide security?

Mr. Knight claims that a judge loses all his authority "beyond the four corners of a courtroom." However, Judge Northcutt appears to disagree with Mr. Knight. Go figure!

Either Mr. Knight is a genius who has "suddenly discovered" that Florida's sheriffs have been doing it all wrong for the last 100 years --- or Mr. Knight is a blowhard who has no idea what he's talking about --- and now Mr. Knight is trying to get Senator Greg Steube to try and change the law via backroom deals to save Mr. Knght's legal arse.

Chief Judge Charles Williams was very gracious for not arresting Mr. Knight for contempt-of-court. Instead, the judge allowed Mr. Knight to appeal the decision. However, the chief judge has suffered a political injustice from Mr. Knight's defiance of him. However, what goes around eventually comes back around!!! It's coming.

Here are two legal gems for Mr. Knight:
1. Mr. Knight, it is not better to commit an injustice than to suffer one.
2. "Oh what a web we weave when we attempt to deceive!"

[Unregistered]

Knight got rid of half the school resource deputies to save taxpayers money. Can you give one reason why Knight shouldn't also get rid bailiffs to save money since bailiffs just stand around wasting taxpayer dollars? The money could be better spent at Benderson Park since it generates money instead of wasting it.

Elected Clerk of Court: Karen Rushing's website:
http://www.sarasotaclerk.com/how-do-...aren-e-rushing

Karen Rushing paid Knight for the security checkpoint in the Clerk of Court building, so Knight's abandonment of those paid-for security services is more akin to theft (and not saving taxpayers money). Similarly, Knight's abandonment of the other paid-for checkpoint is also closer to theft (and not saving taxpayers money). Knight cannot have his cake and eat it too.

[Unregistered]

DCA Judge Stevan Northcutt said: “The question here is, 'does the court have the authority to direct its executive officer [the sheriff]'?”

Common sense says that answer to Northcutt's question is clear. Hoffman is basically saying to us, "You're just a deputy. Stay out of this and just go do your job. You're not smart enough to handle these technical-legal answers." Conversely, it was Hoffman's initial idiotic gumshoe analysis that led Knight down this idiotic legal path that leads to nowhere. This entire paper trail fiasco is a waste of the court's talents and time -- and is a waste of taxpayers money.

[Unregistered]

Common sense says the answer to Northcutt's question is clear. Hoffman is basically saying to us, "You're just a deputy. Stay out of this and just go do your job. You're not smart enough to handle these technical-legal answers." Conversely, it was Hoffman's initial idiotic gumshoe analysis that led Knight down this idiotic legal path that leads to nowhere. This entire paper trail fiasco is a waste of the court's talents and time -- and is a waste of taxpayers money.

Herr Kurt Hoffman's first memos make it clear that he is fully responsible for this nightmare. However, Herr Hoffman was politically astute enough to distance himself from the official paper trail, after Mr. Knight made a suicidal political commitment to jump into the legal rabbit hole.

[Unregistered]

Knight’s legal battle: Can a judge tell a sheriff where to provide security?

• From a historical perspective, the answer is unequivocally yes.
• From Tom Knight's surreal fantasy, the answer is no.
• However, Tom Knight's surreal fantasy is soon to meet face-to-face with the court's unequivocal reality.
• What will Tom Knight do? For a clue, look at how he backed-off his surreal threat to file an ethics complaint against Caroline Zucker after he gave her a signed endorsement (an endorsed check). Hint Hint -- Tom Knight backed down because he had no legal substance.

[Unregistered]

Karen Rushing paid Knight for the security checkpoint in the Clerk of Court building, so Knight's abandonment of those paid-for security services is more akin to theft (and not saving taxpayers money). Similarly, Knight's abandonment of the other paid-for checkpoint is also closer to theft (and not saving taxpayers money). Knight cannot have his cake and eat it too.

Elected Clerk of Court: Karen Rushing's website:
http://www.sarasotaclerk.com/how-do-...aren-e-rushing

Lest we forget, Ms. Karen Rushing is also enjoined in the litigation against Mr. Knight, due to his unauthorized abdication of his legal responsibilities. Ms. Rushing has a legal claim against Mr. Knight.