Mr Isreals radio interview

[Unregistered]

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.

It would appear that this post is acurate. The governor's order doesn't say anything about malfesance and if this post is accurate malfesance isn't even applicable.

[Unregistered]

Scotty is an idiot and a buffoon puppet that kowtowed to even bigger idiots.

[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.

He can not stop him from retiring, but if there is pending IA or other issues he can hold back your payouts of sick, vacation and possibly other related benefits.

[Unregistered]

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.

Alot of this is your opinion, so I will leave it alone because opinions cant be changed when you believe so strongly in something as you obviously do in your numerous post’s. But unfortunately you are incorrect in one fact that a Sheriff is not responsible for their deputies action, The State of Florida Statue that pertains to Sheriff’s were written specifically and say’s the following, notice it say’s SHALL and not MAY and specifically the word NEGLECT. How many deputies are currently under investigation for this right now?

30.07 Deputy sheriffs.--Sheriffs may appoint deputies to act under them who shall have the same power as the sheriff appointing them, and for the neglect and default of whom in the execution of their office the sheriff shall be responsible.

[Unregistered]

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.

Respectfully, I think you’re analysis is over simplified. I mostly agree with your conclusions on incompetency, which is why I didn’t mention it in my earlier post.

I believe he’s going to have an uphill fight with training issues specifically addressed in the EO. Training is a huge factor in vicarious liability claims as I’m sure you’re aware. If they can establish a nexus between a failure to adequately train, and the mishaps that occurred at Stoneman Douglas, then he is unlikely to prevail.

Dipietro did not share a similar fact pattern, and as I pointed out earlier, the reason for removal was a malfeasance claim. I don’t see the similarities you’re referencing.

But I do see you are a skilled lawyer. So I know you’re aware of the training issue. I’m curious why you haven’t addressed it.

[Unregistered]

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.

Oh and FYI, I never suggested malfeasance was in the EO. I simply pointed it it was the basis for he Dipietro removal by then Governor Scott.

[Unregistered]

He can not stop him from retiring, but if there is pending IA or other issues he can hold back your payouts of sick, vacation and possibly other related benefits.

So basically what you're saying is he CAN stop him from RETIRING. Leaving without any benefits isn't retiring. Its just resigning.

[Unregistered]

FU*K FLPD, they destroyed this agency. Those pieces of human trash! Go away and take your scumbag disloyal command with you!!! You lost the troops and sold your soul to get elected! It won’t happen again !! I’d rather Shaq be the sheriff in 2020 then have those dirtbags back!

Trust me, the “current” FLPD guys are not interested in SI and his crew.

[Unregistered]

Respectfully, I think you’re analysis is over simplified. I mostly agree with your conclusions on incompetency, which is why I didn’t mention it in my earlier post.

I believe he’s going to have an uphill fight with training issues specifically addressed in the EO. Training is a huge factor in vicarious liability claims as I’m sure you’re aware. If they can establish a nexus between a failure to adequately train, and the mishaps that occurred at Stoneman Douglas, then he is unlikely to prevail.

Dipietro did not share a similar fact pattern, and as I pointed out earlier, the reason for removal was a malfeasance claim. I don’t see the similarities you’re referencing.

But I do see you are a skilled lawyer. So I know you’re aware of the training issue. I’m curious why you haven’t addressed it.

Exactly correct. "Nexus" is a hair product to one individual making false claims; in addition to creating diversions for the purpose of instilling fear.
VERY unlikely to prevail. Besides, the foundation has already been dismantled. There will be no show of support to restore his former position in this political climate.

[Unregistered]

Respectfully, I think you’re analysis is over simplified. I mostly agree with your conclusions on incompetency, which is why I didn’t mention it in my earlier post.

I believe he’s going to have an uphill fight with training issues specifically addressed in the EO. Training is a huge factor in vicarious liability claims as I’m sure you’re aware. If they can establish a nexus between a failure to adequately train, and the mishaps that occurred at Stoneman Douglas, then he is unlikely to prevail.

Dipietro did not share a similar fact pattern, and as I pointed out earlier, the reason for removal was a malfeasance claim. I don’t see the similarities you’re referencing.

But I do see you are a skilled lawyer. So I know you’re aware of the training issue. I’m curious why you haven’t addressed it.

Greetings on this rainy day,

As we're in agreement on the incompetance claim the only issue left is the claim of "neglect of duty".

The question for a court(s) to decide isn't if the training was sufficient, insufficient, good or bad. "Neglect of duty" in the removal of a constitutinaly elected official is very basic and specific which is why it only takes one hearing and basically no discovery; is the official performing their job/poisition and cannot get into the quailty of the job itself. Basically, if you show up for work and do your job even though every decision you make is a poor decision you cannot be sucessfully charged with "neglect of duty". Let's say the elected official was an active alcoholic that rarely performed any of his/her duties because they were always home drunk/hungover. This would be grounds for a charge by the governor of "neglect of duty".

Certainly, there are claims that the BSO training was deficient, ineffective, poor, etc. However, it's not in the courts pervue to judge the quailty and/or effectiveness of the training in a Petition for Que Warranto which is most likely the avenue Israel will travel. That's a question for the courts in a civil proceeding to asses liabilty.

Again, I'm not defending Israel and/or any of the practices of BSO.

The bar for the removal of a constitionally elected office is set exceptionally high so as to prevent opposing politicans from removing their political enimies. All of the bad and horribile claims made against Israel, the 5th floor and BSO in general are not an issue for this type of proceeding but most likely will at election time and possibly in the pending civil litigation.

The parellel to the DeSantis case is in that the exeutive order attempted to hold DePietro responsbible for the acts that the board of directors made. In the DeSantis EO he's attempting to assert the liability on to Israel for the actions of the deputies. Not allowed in such a proceeding as the court so ruled.