Mr Isreals radio interview

[Unregistered]

I'm not sure where you got your JD but I received mine from Nova. The negative comments about Israel in some instances are well deserved. I'm not opining on my or anyone else's personal opinion on his work performace nor his likely to win an election in 2020. I'm providing a legal opinion which is routed in fact and case law.

Here's some information on the previously mentioned Broward case in which the then Governor's executive order of suspension was quashed in court. I believe even a blind man will see the similarties:https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...411-story.html

Also, in reply to the other post about a change of venue. No reason/basis for a change. Judges typically do not rule based on the political climate but rather the law.

Respectfully, You’re a NOVA law school graduate? I’ve read here where you say you’re providing a legal opinion routed in fact and case law.

You then provide a link to the reinstatement of DiPietro. You then exclaimed a blind man would see the similarities. I also attended law school.

The facts in DiPietro dealt with a claim of malfeasance. Obviously, that’s very different than a claim of neglect of duty.

The facts of this case are very unique and deal with public safety in a much more direct way than Dipietro. There are virtually no similarities in either the legal reason for removal, or the facts surrounding the case.

What similarities other than the procedural aspects of a governor simply invoking a suspension were you referring to?

The now removed Sheriff may or may not prevail in this, but’s it’s going to be a lot closer than anybody thinks.

[Unregistered]

Respectfully, You’re a NOVA law school graduate? I’ve read here where you say you’re providing a legal opinion routed in fact and case law.

You then provide a link to the reinstatement of DiPietro. You then exclaimed a blind man would see the similarities. I also attended law school.

The facts in DiPietro dealt with a claim of malfeasance. Obviously, that’s very different than a claim of neglect of duty.

The facts of this case are very unique and deal with public safety in a much more direct way than Dipietro. There are virtually no similarities in either the legal reason for removal, or the facts surrounding the case.

What similarities other than the procedural aspects of a governor simply invoking a suspension were you referring to?

The now removed Sheriff may or may not prevail in this, but’s it’s going to be a lot closer than anybody thinks.

You can’t ignore the facts of this case because there are two mass active shootings and an escape of a murder suspect from the courthouse. Really the only recent removal I can think of that dealt with neglect of duty was Brenda Snipes.

Through some artful legal maneuvers she was ordered reinstated by a federal judge under a due process violation claim. The reason that succeeded was because she was being denied a hearing before the state senate. That was due to her submitting her resignation prior to the lawsuit and then subsequently rescinding it.

Make no mistake, this will be a case where the courts will have the opportunity to discuss what amounts to neglect of duty.

That issue was never addressed in the Snipes case because of the due process finding and subsequent order of reinstatement.

And if it’s addressed it’s going to deal with directives and policies initiated by the Sheriff. Many of which have been called into question publicly by the union representing the deputies. And whether can directly link those policies to what happpebes in Parkland. A day that will live in infamy.

[Unregistered]

What hasn't worked:

Blaming the NRA

Blaming IUPA

Blaming ONE deputy

Poking at the BCC

Going after Runcie directly would bring both down, but as far as getting the voters on his side, he needed to go no further from day one, than two schools; Westglades and MSD. Israel should have been attacking the school principals in public, relentlessly, for leaving the gate open. All of the fault could have been contained to one city. Between those two schools, their respective administrations and their ESE departments, there was more known corruption than needed to show that felonies were tweeked and that Parkland school administrators created the environment for Cruz to erupt. One person who knew this got out of dodge immediately. That action would have had a rippling effect on the county and kept Israel afloat. Glad that he and his band of misfit advisers were either too uniformed to see it; or the baseball bat incident prevented this avenue. Nothing left in the bag of tricks now but a showdown with Runcie. Step # 2 of the discipline matrix puts it all back in the lap of BSO. Runcie is a despicable character, but he's not stupid.

[Unregistered]

Not that many want him back, but Israel will return. He will likely lose the election, but he will be back long enough to surround himself with a different breed of professional. Select top brass have shown their true colors and they will be white with panic in a couple months. Id also suggest that folks not speak garbage of those who are gone and are soon to be gone or demoted. You may see some of them them again. To UIPA's turd and cut rate attorney (lkipshiitz?) and CSA Bell. You have won a small, short lived battle, but you are about to lose a substantial war.

[Unregistered]

Not that many want him back, but Israel will return. He will likely lose the election, but he will be back long enough to surround himself with a different breed of professional. Select top brass have shown their true colors and they will be white with panic in a couple months. Id also suggest that folks not speak garbage of those who are gone and are soon to be gone or demoted. You may see some of them them again. To UIPA's turd and cut rate attorney (lkipshiitz?) and CSA Bell. You have won a small, short lived battle, but you are about to lose a substantial war.

Says one who was obviously sent packing about a week ago. Your reign of terror is over dude. Get a white shirt and some beige slacks. The used car lots need sales guys.

[Unregistered]

Respectfully, You’re a NOVA law school graduate? I’ve read here where you say you’re providing a legal opinion routed in fact and case law.

You then provide a link to the reinstatement of DiPietro. You then exclaimed a blind man would see the similarities. I also attended law school.

The facts in DiPietro dealt with a claim of malfeasance. Obviously, that’s very different than a claim of neglect of duty.

The facts of this case are very unique and deal with public safety in a much more direct way than Dipietro. There are virtually no similarities in either the legal reason for removal, or the facts surrounding the case.

What similarities other than the procedural aspects of a governor simply invoking a suspension were you referring to?

The now removed Sheriff may or may not prevail in this, but’s it’s going to be a lot closer than anybody thinks.

Dear Fellow Law School Attendee,

Thank you for your display of courtesy, professionalism and respect which is sadly lacking on this message board.

First, please understand that due to the linking limitations of this board we're not able to attached documents. Therefore, it's difficult to provide anything more than publicly available links such as the Sun-Sentinel. I cannot attached complaints, petitions, orders, etc unless some public source has linked them.

Now, let's look at the Executive Order suspending Israel https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/upl...9/EO_19-14.pdf

Please note there isn't any allegation of "malfeasance" as you've suggested. Furthermore, the definition of "malfeasance" is "Malfeasance is defined as the commission of some act which is positively unlawful. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1109 (rev. 4th ed. 1968)". There are no allegations of Israel committing any "unlawful" act in the EO.

The EO alleges a claim of "incompetence" by the Parkland deputies and it attempts to attach through vicarious liability to Israel. First, "incompetence" for the procedures is defined as follows, "incompetency as a ground for suspension or removal of an officer must be one which has arisen since and did not exist at the time of the election of the officer sought to be removed or suspended, and the defect under which the officer is laboring must be one that has made him unfit or unable to continue to hold the office since the time he has assumed the discharge of his duties". This definition does not fit any alleged facts against Israel nor even the cited deputies even though Israel cannot be held responsible in a suspension/removal action for the acts of the deputies.

The only other charge asserted in the EO is for "neglect of duty" which is defined as "the intentional or reckless failure to carry out required duties". The facts asserted in the EO do not allege that Israel "intentionally" and/or "recklessly" "failed to carry out required duties". There are certainly serious claims about decisions that were made which is totally different than "failing to carry out required duties". That decision is made by those that elect the officer not the governor nor the senate.

In conclusion, the EO cites two basis for suspension/removal but allege facts that do not conform to the necessary requirements. Example: probable cause hearing charges the defendant with "armed robbery" but the facts alleged in the PC affidavit tell a narrative in which the defendant's wife walked out of a restaurant without paying the bill and got into the car with her husband/defendant who then drove away. The judge will dismiss the charges against the husband/defendant on the spot. The process in court on an EO of suspension is much the same. The EO must specify facts which support the facts even if the facts asserted are false. It would then be up to the Florida Senate to determine if the facts are truthful, accurate and should be grounds for removal. In Israel's case the EO fails to make it across that threshold and should be quashed by the court.

The DiPietro case I previously cited a link was a very similar situation as I've suggested herein.

[Unregistered]

Monkey ears won’t be back! He won’t win his case because he created the policy allowing Petersen to be a coward. He also let Petersen retire when he should have been under investigation! Israel you are an incompetent piece of sh!t, that won’t be coming back and won’t get elected to any position anywhere! Be a man for once in your life and just go away, you monkey eared shmuck!

This sounds like someone who is clueless. The policy says "may" because it is not a suicide mission. In training we are taught to engage the shooter. There is a case opened on Peterson but the Sheriff cannot stop someone from retiring if he has the time in. DUH!!! The rest of the quote seems to lean toward a New York Jewish person.

[Unregistered]

Says one who was obviously sent packing about a week ago. Your reign of terror is over dude. Get a white shirt and some beige slacks. The used car lots need sales guys.

Nope, check again. Still here blogging from my office and watching this sheet show. LOL Reign of terror... That's way overplayed, you drama queen.

[Unregistered]

This sounds like someone who is clueless. The policy says "may" because it is not a suicide mission. In training we are taught to engage the shooter. There is a case opened on Peterson but the Sheriff cannot stop someone from retiring if he has the time in. DUH!!! The rest of the quote seems to lean toward a New York Jewish person.

You sound like a gay fellow, but your bro the hairplug wearing man could have held up Peterson’s benefits and effectively stopped him from retiring until the investigation completed! Just saying Queenie.

[Unregistered]

Not that many want him back, but Israel will return. He will likely lose the election, but he will be back long enough to surround himself with a different breed of professional. Select top brass have shown their true colors and they will be white with panic in a couple months. Id also suggest that folks not speak garbage of those who are gone and are soon to be gone or demoted. You may see some of them them again. To UIPA's turd and cut rate attorney (lkipshiitz?) and CSA Bell. You have won a small, short lived battle, but you are about to lose a substantial war.

lol !!!!!! Yeah, actually you ARE "transparent"

Love the analogies... how about a football analogy for old time's sake.