Mr Isreals radio interview

[Unregistered]

You see this is where you may be wrong. The suspended Sheriff elect may not garner much sympathy in the republican held senate but that’s not the only route he can take. He can take this straight to a Federal Judge who is far less constrained by politics due to lifetime appointments.

A Federal Judge is much more likely to follow he law and not politics. And the legal case for suspension, when you break it down, frankly isn’t that strong. The key areas the Governor’s team would rely on would be misfeasance, malfeasance, neglect of duty and incompetence. Those are a few of the direct reasons a Governor can suspend/remove a Sheriff. However, it isn’t just a matter of proving these things were present. Rather, you would have to directly link them to something the Sheriff did or instituted through policy or directive. That correlation or nexus is tantamount to removal. Without it, the Governor loses his case. This isn’t JAG court anymore, the Governor is in the big pond now.

A fedderal judge? Under what federal law does this case pertain? The removal process is clearly laid out in the state's constitution and the process is being followed. He will have the option to defend himself against the suspension charges in the state senate as STATE law provides. Maybe he can argue in federal court that the law is unconstitutional, but a case like that wouldn't be over before the 2020 election.

[Unregistered]

The city of Lauderhill backs Isreal 100%... I mean not enough to rely on his police services but...

[Unregistered]

The city of Lauderhill backs Isreal 100%... I mean not enough to rely on his police services but...

Maybe Lauderhill is looking for a new Police Chief? If so, everybody at BSO would provide a glowing recommendation letter for him...for that position. This way we would know he is NOT coming back here and stops with the BS 2020 run. BTW, here's a message to the FORMER Sheriff, you will need money to run in 2020, your bankers are not that dumb!!

[Unregistered]

A fedderal judge? Under what federal law does this case pertain? The removal process is clearly laid out in the state's constitution and the process is being followed. He will have the option to defend himself against the suspension charges in the state senate as STATE law provides. Maybe he can argue in federal court that the law is unconstitutional, but a case like that wouldn't be over before the 2020 election.

I’m ashamed for you that I even have to answer this question. No person shall be deprived of Life , Liberty, or property, without due process of law. It’s called the 14th Amendment. And you might want to read up on it and stop being so goddamn ignorant. You guys are plain dumb, when it comes to the law. Frankly, I’m sick of explaining the law to nitwits.

[Unregistered]

A fedderal judge? Under what federal law does this case pertain? The removal process is clearly laid out in the state's constitution and the process is being followed. He will have the option to defend himself against the suspension charges in the state senate as STATE law provides. Maybe he can argue in federal court that the law is unconstitutional, but a case like that wouldn't be over before the 2020 election.

This is a constitutional issue you dumbass. That falls directly within the purview of the Federal courts. Marbury V. Madison. Please got to law school before you open your pie hole again.

[Unregistered]

This is a constitutional issue you dumbass. That falls directly within the purview of the Federal courts. Marbury V. Madison. Please got to law school before you open your pie hole again.

Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that established federal courts have the sole power to strike down government actions that contravene the constitution. Such as for instance the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. There you go genius, you just finished your first day of law school.

[Unregistered]

Maybe Lauderhill is looking for a new Police Chief? If so, everybody at BSO would provide a glowing recommendation letter for him...for that position. This way we would know he is NOT coming back here and stops with the BS 2020 run. BTW, here's a message to the FORMER Sheriff, you will need money to run in 2020, your bankers are not that dumb!!

Excellent Idea!!

Perhaps Connie wouldn't mind forfeiting her position for the cause. Actually, Lauderhill should initiate this change. Let's see if she is okay with being the new N. Anderson, dragged around as a "see, some of my best friends are black" accessory.

[Unregistered]

I’m ashamed for you that I even have to answer this question. No person shall be deprived of Life , Liberty, or property, without due process of law. It’s called the 14th Amendment. And you might want to read up on it and stop being so goddamn ignorant. You guys are plain dumb, when it comes to the law. Frankly, I’m sick of explaining the law to nitwits.

What a coincidence. Us nitwits are sick of hearing internet lawyers nonsensical explanations of the law too. So why dont you just go away.

[Unregistered]

This is a constitutional issue you dumbass. That falls directly within the purview of the Federal courts. Marbury V. Madison. Please got to law school before you open your pie hole again.

What part of "maybe he can argue rhe law is unconstitutional..." did you not get please go to a remedial reading class before you ooen your pie hole again.

[Unregistered]

What part of "maybe he can argue rhe law is unconstitutional..." did you not get please go to a remedial reading class before you ooen your pie hole again.

I read all the stupid sh!t you wrote. Don’t you get it? He doesn’t have to win that argument immediately to be placed back in charge of the agency.

All he has to show is the governors removal violated his due process rights. The challenge to the state law itself which allowed the removal is a completely separate issue the courts would decide on their own sweet time.

So once again, even if the state law is found constitutional, the removal may not have been constitutional because it violated the 14h Amendment.

I’m going to break it down for you in another way. If they get a judge who is a strict constitutionalist the sheriff is likely going to prevail in a due process fight. Which is ironic considering the sheriff elect didn’t give much deference to the 2nd Amendment.

But just know this thing isn’t over with yet. I’m not taking sides I’m just trying to explain the law. If you don’t want the sheriff back you better hope they get an emotional judge who doesn’t strictly follow the constitution.