Case Over

According to the Second District's website, the Sheriff's office Petition for Cert was denied. (Case No.:2D06-306) I guess that means you won. Congrats!

Hopefully this is the end. Thanks for all your support.

[Centurion]

Thank you Jim, Chip, and Luke for protecting the right of posters to remain anonymous when expressing non-libelous, non-slanderous opinion or concerns. While we have yet to see the draft of the 2nd DCA opinion, they have quashed the Gee appeal in its tracks.

This is truly a win for the little guys and after straight losses at every level of this lawsuit, I do hope that Gee and Co. can smell the coffee and start focusing valuable legal staff hours on more meaningful pursuits, as opposed to witch hunts.

I support Gee and where he is going generally with the HCSO. I opposed this lawsuit from the beginning as a misguided effort that has separated management at HCSO from the troops. Gee was supported by the rank and file because he came from them. This lawsuit and its pathetic pursuit after repeated trouncing has exposed a side of Gee that many did not know existed. As any good leader knows, it is the troops that make or break you, and attacking them is Exhibit A for how not to manage.

Sheriff Gee I ask you to return to the job you and your legal department were put in place to do, protecting Hillsborough County and its citizens (including your employees). Making your own employees out to be the bad guys, is fallacious and self destructive. Your legacy can be so much more than this pathetic string of losses. Please do not let the great strides in training and professionalism be overshadowed by this any longer. You can still make HCSO a model for service, and high morale thru positive management-employee relations. You could begin with an apology to LEO Affairs and the posters…

May God bless and protect our law enforcers.

Legal is there for one reason and one reason only, to protect the Sheriff and do what is in the Sheriff's best interest.

Libel and slander are only valid if what you are saying is false.
If it is true,,,,then it is true and you cant be held responsible for speaking the truth.
I wont accuse someone without knowing firsthand that it is true.
That means I actually witnessed the potentially slanderous event and can pass a lie detector.
Think twice before totally lying about someone.

Actually, the Sheriff should declare "Victory" and go on with his business at this point.

The fact is, the vile, nasty, villifying posts have stopped.

If they begin again the posters will find that the board is better monitored now and the posts will not be tolerated. The possibility also remains that if a post crosses the line into criminality, the courts will rule differently and the poster identified.

Yes, a few contemptable, cowardly scumbags escaped unpunished for their evil acts, but in the world of police work this has always been true. We never catch them all.

The Sheriff has prevailed.

:!:

[Sysop]

While I am pleased with the 2nd DCA outcome, I would like to clear up any misconceptions about LEOAFFAIRS.COM(tm) policies. It's possible to violate our Terms of Use without making a libelous post. Please read our Terms of Use if you are in doubt.

Now that that is done, HEY, WE DID IT!!! What fantastic news!

How about a link so you can check it out yourself?

http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket_search

Under "Case Number:" put "2D06-306"

The last line says it all...

07/12/2006 Denied - PC Denied

Thanks for your support!

But is it over, or will Sheriff Gee get bad advise from staff and continue his appeal to the State's highest court? If this happens I would hope that the media steps in as they have been very silent on this issue. Court after court has ruled, not only in this State but in others, that the information can not be had. It is time to stop wasting our tax dollars as it could be put to better use with the high gas prices.

Time for all at HCSO to come together and put this thing behind.

This may answer some questions if I have it all figured out correctly. I'm sure if I am wrong on anything someone will let me know!

The Second District's decision was included in the "PCA" section on its website which means that the decision was issued without a written opinion. More than likely the order that will be issued will just say something to the effect of "Petition for Writ of Certiorari Denied" without any other comment. The effect of the denial is basically that the Second District has decided NOT to hear an appeal of the lower court's ruling, so the lower court's judgment will stand. Not every decision by a lower court is automatically appealable, so Gee's lawyers had to file the Petition for Writ of Cert to ask the Second District to hear the appeal.

Not sure there is much left that Gee's people can do on this in the courts. Not sure if they can go to the Florida Supremes after the appellate district court wouldn't hear the case and didn't issue a written opinion.

You certainly dont catch them all when you dont even try.
Then someone is left wondering why you never did anything for the rest of their life.
By the time a new Chief comes in that cares (David Gee) that might do something, the statue of limitation has run out and he cant do anything anyways.
Let em all just get away and hope they dont prey on your family one day.

You certainly dont catch them all when you dont even try.
Then someone is left wondering why you never did anything for the rest of their life.
By the time a new Chief comes in that cares (David Gee) that might do something, the statue of limitation has run out and he cant do anything anyways.
Let em all just get away and hope they dont prey on your family one day.


Sniff, sniff. It smells like anti i/a is in the room!

Your post is clearly off-topic.

:roll:

With all that being said.........David Gee you contradicted one of your oaths of office. The oath to protect each CITIZEN'S constituional rights. That includes the constitutional right of free speech of the CITIZENS that you employ.

Because of this contradiction you have lost the support (and votes) of myself and many friends and family members.

Not that it matters to you, you dont need our measley few votes to win the next election. :roll:

With all that being said.........David Gee you contradicted one of your oaths of office. The oath to protect each CITIZEN'S constituional rights. That includes the constitutional right of free speech of the CITIZENS that you employ.

Because of this contradiction you have lost the support (and votes) of myself and many friends and family members.

Not that it matters to you, you dont need our measley few votes to win the next election. :roll:


You are singing the tired old refrain that there is such a thing as unlimited free speech. It is most tiresome to again hear this mistaken idea. Not even Luke Lirot argued that this was the case at the 2nd DCA.

There is a constitutional right to free speech, but not a constitutional right to be employed by the sheriff's office. A limit on some constitutional rights is a condition of employment at all police agencies; not just HCSO.

And you are probably correct that the sheriff's successes in the reduction of violent crime (see the Tribune article this week) and his proactive work against gangs, drugs and aggressive drivers have made him so popular with the general public that these facts will keep him in office without the support of you and your family and friends. It's a shame that you can't see how much he has done for our community.

8)

I really appreciate all the support received from those of you posting and from the many deputies that I know personally. You folks are great.

Finally, I can speak up about this issue. Sheriff Gee and I worked as Robbery Detectives many years ago. We worked several cases between our agencies. I've known David and respect him. Still do. He has done a lot throughout his career and continues to do so for his Department. Make no mistake here, I am not going to apologize for taking a stand on this issue.

Sheriff Gee thought he had a right to the information about someone who posted here. Chip and I believed we were right and took a stance to protect the identities of those who posted. We never took a stand on the content of the posts but felt they did not meet any criteria that would force us to give up any information which might give up the identities of the posters. In fact by the time the subpoenas came, the posts had scrolled off and we could not have given the information anyway as it was gone. We did not want to be used as a tool for the Sheriff to discipline someone based on annonymous posts.

The court fight was really about future posts. Censoring future speech. The content of the posts in question lost their relevance a year ago.

We disagreed with the sheriff and his legal team. The courts have now agreed with us in 4 rulings now. LeoAffairs.com was never sued. We were only listed as a witness and "keeper of records". We fought to protect the identities of the individuals who had used our site. This is a private enterprise. It would have a chilling effect on those of you who use the site to know that we could be forced to identify anyone who posted something the Sheriff did not agree with. For the government to force a private citizen to give information in this manner was as we believe a violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The courts have validated our opinion and the stance we took. We also have a ruling in our favor that I have no doubt that other agency heads have been watching.

The courts have also agreed that you do not lose any rights by virtue of your employment. However, as someone pointed out you do not have a right to employment. It could be argued that you do have property rights once employed though, which is why you have a collective bargaining agreement. Would have been interesting to see if your bargaining agent would have defended any deputy terminated as a result of posting on here. Hopefully it would not come to that.

Chip and I think very highly of the HCSO. It is a great agency because of the employees not in spite of it's employees. I still think highly of David (not so much of some of his advisors). We disagreed on this issue. It was costly to Chip and I having to fight it out in court with attorneys versus legal department at county expense but it seems we have prevailed.

Lets move on and talk about more pressing issues. Enjoy the site. And David, I know you will be reading this.

We never took a stand on the content of the posts but felt they did not meet any criteria that would force us to give up any information which might give up the identities of the posters.


A prudent person would take this to mean that there could be posts in the future which might have content which WOULD justify furnishing the IP addresses of the posters to appropriate law enforcement authorities.

Therefore, a prudent person would be circumspect in what he posted.

:idea: