who gets demoted?

Read in the St Pete Times today that Judge Crenshaw ruled Marion Serious Lewis was fired inproperly, imagine that. The city fires somebody improperly and he will problably get his job back along with a big fat retro check.

Which one of the two new Captains gets demoted now?

The judge cannot make the city hire him back. She can just rule it was wrong/improper or illegal, which opens the door for him to sue to be compensated. I heard the city is appealing the decision. Act II still to come.

Lewis may have a problem getting rehired. He was not fired, he resigned. The judge ruled that he was not required to resign to run for mayor, but he did anyway. He may have had a case if he was fired, but he voluntarily left the department. There's a good chance the appeals court will decline to hear the case as moot.

Lewis may have a problem getting rehired. He was not fired, he resigned. The judge ruled that he was not required to resign to run for mayor, but he did anyway. He may have had a case if he was fired, but he voluntarily left the department. There's a good chance the appeals court will decline to hear the case as moot.

Hate to tell you this but once he signed up to run, he was handed the retirement papers and ordered to fill them out or be fired.......that is not a voluntary action.

It depends on if he decided to collect his pension. Then HE decided to retire, despite being "forced" to resign. He can't undo collecting that pension. There was someone at the department (who was recently laid off) collecting money for his "hardship" times.

The City is appealing, and even if he ever came back, which I doubt, he would not be allowed to go back to Narcotics.

Lewis may have a problem getting rehired. He was not fired, he resigned. The judge ruled that he was not required to resign to run for mayor, but he did anyway. He may have had a case if he was fired, but he voluntarily left the department. There's a good chance the appeals court will decline to hear the case as moot.

Well, no.

He refused to sign the resignation papers prepared for him by the City.

The City declared that they "considered" that to be a resignation. They didn't say they fired him. They just pretended that he had resigned and quit paying him.

The appeals court will hear the case. If they support the lower court, he has his job back. He doesn't have to sue.

If the city ignores the order of the lower court to re-hire him after the appeals court supports the lower court then the lower court can just declare his boss - the Chief of Police (not the mayor) - in contempt of court and THROW HIM IN JAIL FOR CONTEMPT.

Remember that the whole issue was who was his boss with the power to hire and fire. The judge says it is not the mayor, but the Chief.

:twisted:

He did not sign the paperwork and has not collected his pension. He will be back, and even as a non ABLE member I can tell you this is a better place with him. He is THE ONLY CAPTAIN with the balls to stand up to this administration.

Due Process - where'd you get your info? The City was the plaintiff in the lawsuit, not Lewis, and he didn't counter-sue. It was a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of the charter. There is no court order to give Lewis his job back in that kind of case, so that whole thing about the Chief being held in contempt is bs.

As for former Capt. Lewis being the only one with the balls to stand up to the administration - rotflmao! He has talked to the press about the department behind our backs, took campaign contributions from drug dealers that he should have known about (accepting them because "if God can forgive them, so can I" - puhlease!), and never stood up to the admin while he was here - only when it suited him politically to slam the rest of us. He sat on his arse in Narc and let the sergeants and major run it. The only thing he did in that office was hold impromtu ABLE meetings.