NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously, every time I hear anything about the government in Florida, I just wonder if we can get rid of it. Maybe just hand it all back over to the Seminoles?

Anyways, here is the story. My boyfriend's brothers both live in Florida. One of them (I'll call him Bob just because I need a name to tell the story) was dating this girl for several years (we'll call her Suzie). They lived together for at least a year. One day, she comes home and says she needs some space and starts moving out - pretty much with no warning at all. Bob was, of course, devestated, but he was getting over it.

Then he found out that she has become addicted to meth and is dating a dealer with his own meth-lab in his house. This guy has at least one warrant out for his arrest - for gun charges I believe. Bob turns him in and the guy gets arrested.

Suzie is pissed off. So pissed off in fact, that she decides to place a restraining order against Bob (not sure how she managed it with no reason at all to think he might be violent, but whatever). Anyways, before there is any chance of it being served, she calls him in tears, saying that she needs to have someone around and could he please come over. Being the nice guy he is, he goes over to her house, where she promptly has him arrested for breaking a restraining order. (Can anyone say ENTRAPMENT?) Anyways, luckily he had gotten a bit paranoid after the whole drug dealer thing and was screening and taping all of his phone calls. He had the bitch on tape asking him to come over.

But they didn't drop the charges yet, and when he goes to his court date, he is arrested again, because she claims he broke the order again (which he didn't). The idiots put him in jail and then "lose the paperwork" and forget he is there. He is denied food and water for 48 hours. Paperwork or no paperwork, someone had to know he was sitting in the cell, no?

Well, his court date comes up, and the crazy druggie bitch doesn't even show up. The judge releases him on his on recognisance (sp?). They go back to the jail and "lose the paperwork" yet again. He sits in jail for 12 extra hours because the people there are apparently complete idiots.

Now, he's out, but his family is suggesting that he come stay with them (in GA). They asked the deputy sherrif if he is allowed to leave the state, and she said yes. However, no one is going to be stupid enough to let the system screw him over anymore. Our suggestion to her was that she get signed letters from both the judge and the prosecuting attorney specifically stating that he can leave the state until his court date. If they refuse to provide such letters, the next step is to begin prosecution for criminal neglect (for refusing him food and water for 48 hours).

The funny thing is, that if we took this to the press, they'd be screwed. They have this guy obviously being screwed over - clearly a sympathetic victim. Then, we bring in the fact that his brother is a soldier in special ops who has been to Iraq more times than just about anyone and keeps going back even though they have repeatedly offered him a desk job. Yeah, the press would eat that one up.

That is the point where you call a lawyer and file a lawsuit

Ihatevacations']That is the point where you call a lawyer and file a lawsuit

The ACLU might be willing to help you out there.

Ihatevacations']That is the point where you call a lawyer and file a lawsuit

Lawyer has already been called. Not sure if a lawsuit can be filed until the one against him (a misdemeanor, no less - all this for a false charge of a misdemeanor) is completed. Then we figure we can file charges against her for submitting a false police report and charges against the warden of the prison (and maybe up the chain from him) for criminal neglect. The way I understand the law, you can't file a lawsuit against the state of Florida, but you can sue all the individuals up the chain of the executive branch individually - right up to Jeb.

It won't fly. You want a prosecution for criminal neglect which requires the prosecuter for the very jurisdiction that has incarcerated him to charge the jail administrators with neglect. These people are on a first name basis. What they will tell you is that they have an administrative solution which must be used. You will fill out a complaint, it will be investigated and dismissed.
You feel the media will slam them. It won't fly. This man is considered by them as an incarcerated perpetrator until proven innocent. (just the way it is) In this day and age, a man is automatically arrested simply because a woman said so. That is the policy and law almost everywhere. The media supports this injustice as being sensitive to womens rights. Now, if the incarcerated individual was a woman the media may take on the task, but if it is a man. So whats new.
Sorry to bear the news and I know it isn't right, but liberal justice is its own kind of animal.

I'm afraid I have to agree with LB. You're only hope for justice lies in charges against Suzie.

Liberal justice = an oxymoron.

Liberal justice = an oxymoron.
Give me a break. Don't start with the friggin' namecalling..as though ineffeciency and idiocy are purely liberal traits.

The word(s) is(are) civil suit against the State of Florida. They also violated his 6th Amendment rights (if I'm reading this passage correctly):He sits in jail for 12 extra hours because the people there are apparently complete idiots. It sounds like he was detained without charge there. That's really not good for the state.

Liberal justice = an oxymoron.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid I have to agree with LB. You're only hope for justice lies in charges against Suzie.

Liberal justice = an oxymoron.
Guess what branch of the political spectrum's in power in florida?

It starts with a C.

He should have challenged the original restraining order.

And he is techinically guilty, because he did violate it. Too late now.

Also he can no longer own a gun.

Lawyer has already been called. Not sure if a lawsuit can be filed until the one against him (a misdemeanor, no less - all this for a false charge of a misdemeanor) is completed. Then we figure we can file charges against her for submitting a false police report and charges against the warden of the prison (and maybe up the chain from him) for criminal neglect. The way I understand the law, you can't file a lawsuit against the state of Florida, but you can sue all the individuals up the chain of the executive branch individually - right up to Jeb.
Counter suits can be filed immediately. You can sue Suzie for bearing false witness (the police report) and for diffamation of character. If Bob wins the first lawsuit, diffamation is a given.

At the urging of the plaintiff of the restraining order. She basically recanted her own order when she asked him to come over.
Legally, it doesn't matter what she says. There's years of precedent on her side.

At the urging of the plaintiff of the restraining order. She basically recanted her own order when she asked him to come over.

I am assuming that the restraining order was a court injunction. Therefore it doesn't matter what she urged, he was still in contempt of court, regardless of her feelings at that time. Only the court can lift it, not the complainant.

He should have challenged the original restraining order.

And he is techinically guilty, because he did violate it. Too late now.

Also he can no longer own a gun.
He was never served with it...


Generally, you have to be served with it for it to become valid, to prevent crap like this from happening. (IANAL)

This is yet another example of why all Meth-heads should be given a "choice": Forced, permanent, court enforced withdrawal and abstinence, or DEATH, preferably by a very painful method. Meth can and will turn the sweetest most gentelest person into an evil, heartless and cruel shithead. Zero tolerance for Meth, and that includes those addicted to it. It was a fucking Jibhead who caused all this mess in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if the idiot Warden was on it too.

Well, no, we can't kick Florida out of the union, not for any reasons listed so far.

This is yet another example of why all Meth-heads should be given a "choice": Forced, permanent, court enforced withdrawal and abstinence, or DEATH, preferably by a very painful method. Meth can and will turn the sweetest most gentelest person into an evil, heartless and cruel shithead. Zero tolerance for Meth, and that includes those addicted to it. It was a fucking Jibhead who caused all this mess in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if the idiot Warden was on it too.

I was going to say something like that:

The only thing more dangerous than meth is hanging around with people who use it. :p

He was never served with it...


Generally, you have to be served with it for it to become valid, to prevent crap like this from happening. (IANAL)

Yeah, I missed that bit.

But now I want to know how an order can be issued without him being noticed?

At most she could get a TRO, and those only last a few days, until the guy can be noticed &c.

In fact, how can she get an order at all, if he hasn't done anything.

He should have challenged the original restraining order.

And he is techinically guilty, because he did violate it. Too late now.

Also he can no longer own a gun.

He is challenging the restraining order.

However, I don't see how you can break a restraining order you haven't even yet been served with. On top of that, he has clear proof that she intentionally entrapped him. Thus, no judge with a brain is going to find him guilty.

Give me a break. Don't start with the friggin' namecalling..as though ineffeciency and idiocy are purely liberal traits.

Please let me explain:

It is unlikely that any charges will be filed against the sheriff's dept. It will be settled administratively. Liverbreath said it well in post #5. I have friends who are prison guards and who are sheriff's deputies and they talk about their work. Based on what I hear in general it probable that LB is right.

That's not justice, nor are they liberals - they are employees of the government and they transcend elections - they are part of a beaurocracy. I'm not referring to them in the statement I made about liberal justice. And I deplore that they can't be charged for abusing Bob. It's not right, it's how it is, and it should make us angry. It makes me angry and I hope there's a way to get them. But I doubt it.

Liverbreath in #5 above, second paragraph, stated what I believe to be true. I can't improve on his statement, so I won't elaborate. The only hope of getting at the Sheriff is through the media. The liberal media won't have any interest for reasons LB mentioned. Ok, this you can call me on, it's an assumption - but I think it is true. If the liberal media won't help in getting justice for Bob then they are part of the problem.

If the liberal media will not help bring law enforcement to justice, the only possible option for Bob is to press charges against Suzie.

I should have phrased my earlier post differently. But I will stand on this: the liberal media is not concerned about justice.

Please let me explain:

It is unlikely that any charges will be filed against the sheriff's dept. It will be settled administratively. Liverbreath said it well in post #5. I have friends who are prison guards and who are sheriff's deputies and they talk about their work. Based on what I hear in general it probable that LB is right.

That's not justice, nor are they liberals - they are employees of the government and they transcend elections - they are part of a beaurocracy. I'm not referring to them in the statement I made about liberal justice. And I deplore that they can't be charged for abusing Bob. It's not right, it's how it is, and it should make us angry. It makes me angry and I hope there's a way to get them. But I doubt it.

Liverbreath in #5 above, second paragraph, stated what I believe to be true. I can't improve on his statement, so I won't elaborate. The only hope of getting at the Sheriff is through the media. The liberal media won't have any interest for reasons LB mentioned. Ok, this you can call me on, it's an assumption - but I think it is true. If the liberal media won't help in getting justice for Bob then they are part of the problem.

If the liberal media will not help bring law enforcement to justice, the only possible option for Bob is to press charges against Suzie.

I should have phrased my earlier post differently. But I will stand on this: the liberal media is not concerned about justice.
Media ain't liberal buddy, they're capitalists who only care about what makes for good TV.

He is challenging the restraining order.

However, I don't see how you can break a restraining order you haven't even yet been served with. On top of that, he has clear proof that she intentionally entrapped him. Thus, no judge with a brain is going to find him guilty.

Yeah, like I said above, I missed the bit that he hadn't been served.

That said, if there is a valid court order, you cant break it just because the complainant changes her mind. You would still be in contempt. I imagine if this was just a TRO, he would still be in contempt. Nevertheless I doubt the judge would punish him for it, as she invited him over and he had no notice.

Media ain't liberal buddy, they're capitalists who only care about what makes for good TV.

How true. Unfortunately they often would like you to think that they care about social issues, and champion them. Were a woman in Bob's position they probably would have made a production out of this. "Fair and balanced", "most trusted name in news" my ass.

Please let me explain:

It is unlikely that any charges will be filed against the sheriff's dept. It will be settled administratively. Liverbreath said it well in post #5. I have friends who are prison guards and who are sheriff's deputies and they talk about their work. Based on what I hear in general it probable that LB is right.

The good thing about bringing suit in the executive branch is that you can take it up the chain.

If the DA in that area won't bring charges against the people at the prison or settle them in some way, the next step would be to go to the warden's superiors and bring charges against him. If that doesn't work, his superior.

Like I said before, it could go all the way up to the governor of the state - as this happened under his administration.

Meanwhile, my guess is that, if charges are brought, they will be promptly settled. There is no way that anyone can argue that denial of food and water for 48 hours is not criminal neglect.

Liverbreath in #5 above, second paragraph, stated what I believe to be true. I can't improve on his statement, so I won't elaborate. The only hope of getting at the Sheriff is through the media. The liberal media won't have any interest for reasons LB mentioned. Ok, this you can call me on, it's an assumption - but I think it is true. If the liberal media won't help in getting justice for Bob then they are part of the problem.

I think Liverbreath is underestimating things a bit. First of all, I doubt that the media in Florida, especially where they are, is all that liberal.

Second of all, we have a good all-American white guy (in Florida) with a military family, no less, getting screwed over by a druggie. He has the tape to demonstrate the lengths she will go to to get him in trouble and, on top of that, was neglected while in jail.

Even if the media there is liberal, the chance to jump the administration will be hard to resist.

<snip>

Even if the media there is liberal, the chance to jump the administration will be hard to resist.

I'm still skeptical of the press, a self-admitted bias of long standing, but I'm rooting for you. Hope justice prevails. Can you report back with the results, preferably blow-by-blow?

The good thing about bringing suit in the executive branch is that you can take it up the chain.
<snip>
Like I said before, it could go all the way up to the governor of the state - as this happened under his administration.
<snip>
Even if the media there is liberal, the chance to jump the administration will be hard to resist.

Demi - I just re-read the thread. This may be splitting hairs a bit, but the law enforcement agency is the Sheriff's Dept. and the Sheriff runs the jail, right?

The Sheriff is elected and serves the county. The chain of responsibility therefor will end at the Sheriff, not with Jeb Bush. It's a far shorter chain and will maybe get a lot less publicity - the media will have to run it as a local story, though a County paper might pick it up.

Demi - I just re-read the thread. This may be splitting hairs a bit, but the law enforcement agency is the Sheriff's Dept. and the Sheriff runs the jail, right?

The Sheriff is elected and serves the county. The chain of responsibility therefor will end at the Sheriff, not with Jeb Bush. It's a far shorter chain and will maybe get a lot less publicity - the media will have to run it as a local story, though a County paper might pick it up.

County sherrifs have a superior as well, I believe (although I could be wrong).

County sherrifs have a superior as well, I believe (although I could be wrong).

No, they are elected. They are the top dog. Sheriff's can, however, be un-elected. The term of office in NY is 4 years, dunno about Florida.

Well, no, we can't kick Florida out of the union, not for any reasons listed so far.

I know. Sad, isn't it? Their government seems to screw things up to no end, but we have to keep them around. They're like the black sheep of the Union.

No, they are elected. They are the top dog. Sheriff's can, however, be un-elected. The term of office in NY is 4 years, dunno about Florida.

So county sherrifs can do whatever they want, and have only the voters to answer to?

I was under the impression that there was a little more cohesion in law enforcement than that.

So county sherrifs can do whatever they want, and have only the voters to answer to?

I was under the impression that there was a little more cohesion in law enforcement than that.

Well, they shouldn't do whatever they want. But it is the voter whom they answer to. It's a powerful position.

There is some cursory oversight from the state, but the position is supposed to be autonomous. The system is designed to keep some local control over law enforcement, rather than having the state step on local toes. So in many areas the state police work the highways and the Sheriff's and their deputies work the communities.

Update:

Interesting news on the second false report she filed about him breaking the restraining order. He was in a Wal-Mart at the time that she claims he was somewhere completely different. The security cameras have been reviewed, and he was quite clearly at Wal-Mart. This is the second time she can be proven beyond any doubt to be lying.

In addition, his lawyer has decided to call her as a witness. That way, if she doesn't show up at the next court date, she can be charged with contempt of court for not showing up for a subpeona.

I know. Sad, isn't it? Their government seems to screw things up to no end, but we have to keep them around. They're like the black sheep of the Union.

I expect most states to be like them in due time... paves the way for the cleansing, pure power of centralized big government.

I expect most states to be like them in due time... paves the way for the cleansing, pure power of centralized big government.

Um....

*sincerely hopes that was sarcasm*

Um....

*sincerely hopes that was sarcasm*

Well the "cleansing and pure" part was.

It is at this point that you find the Floridan equivelent of the San Andreas fault, then you plant a nuclear device in it and SINK DAT SONUVABITCH.

It is at this point that you find the Floridan equivelent of the San Andreas fault, then you plant a nuclear device in it and SINK DAT SONUVABITCH.

You can do that if you want to, just wait untill August when I get out.

It is at this point that you find the Floridan equivelent of the San Andreas fault, then you plant a nuclear device in it and SINK DAT SONUVABITCH.

Ok, but only if I can get my friends and family out first.

Meanwhile, my guess is that, if charges are brought, they will be promptly settled. There is no way that anyone can argue that denial of food and water for 48 hours is not criminal neglect.
I would file a police report about the denial of food in an adjoining county. You're not going to get Jeb. Iif Bob's brother came home from Iraq, was well spoken and telegenic, you might get some footage out there that was a real dagger in the heart come election time, especially if he tied his brother's troubles into some of Florida's other scandles (such as a proprensity for losing children). But it should be pretty trivial to find out who it was that was supposed to be directly responsible for 'Bob.' That said, something that might be particularly satisfiying would be pursuing a complaint with the Florida Bar against the prosecuting attorney. That they went to trail with such poor evidence, and in fact may well have suborned perjury to help a drug dealer's whore (let's be honest) exact revenge for the incarceration of her fix doesn't speak well for her character. But from what I know of Florida, you guys love to elect actual criminals and enjoy the specticle of the shit hitting the fan, so I've got to imagine that the local media would be receptive.

But if you want national exposur:. tom@blowmeuptom.com, or perhaps even Rush Limbaugh.

If you hit Tom Leykis like right now, you might make his show today.

The ACLU might be willing to help you out there.

Depends on who it is you're sueing and what race/gender/sexual orientation/political affiliation/religion you are.

Bumped for Cat-Tribe. Hopefully he'll look. =)

Bumped for Cat-Tribe. Hopefully he'll look. =)

FYI, I'm looking.

I am assuming the original restraining order was a TRO, is that correct?

FYI, I'm looking.

I am assuming the original restraining order was a TRO, is that correct?

As far as I know, that is correct.

Seriously, every time I hear anything about the government in Florida, I just wonder if we can get rid of it. Maybe just hand it all back over to the Seminoles?

Anyways, here is the story. My boyfriend's brothers both live in Florida. One of them (I'll call him Bob just because I need a name to tell the story) was dating this girl for several years (we'll call her Suzie). They lived together for at least a year. One day, she comes home and says she needs some space and starts moving out - pretty much with no warning at all. Bob was, of course, devestated, but he was getting over it.

Then he found out that she has become addicted to meth and is dating a dealer with his own meth-lab in his house. This guy has at least one warrant out for his arrest - for gun charges I believe. Bob turns him in and the guy gets arrested.

Suzie is pissed off. So pissed off in fact, that she decides to place a restraining order against Bob (not sure how she managed it with no reason at all to think he might be violent, but whatever). Anyways, before there is any chance of it being served, she calls him in tears, saying that she needs to have someone around and could he please come over. Being the nice guy he is, he goes over to her house, where she promptly has him arrested for breaking a restraining order. (Can anyone say ENTRAPMENT?) Anyways, luckily he had gotten a bit paranoid after the whole drug dealer thing and was screening and taping all of his phone calls. He had the bitch on tape asking him to come over.

But they didn't drop the charges yet, and when he goes to his court date, he is arrested again, because she claims he broke the order again (which he didn't). The idiots put him in jail and then "lose the paperwork" and forget he is there. He is denied food and water for 48 hours. Paperwork or no paperwork, someone had to know he was sitting in the cell, no?

Well, his court date comes up, and the crazy druggie bitch doesn't even show up. The judge releases him on his on recognisance (sp?). They go back to the jail and "lose the paperwork" yet again. He sits in jail for 12 extra hours because the people there are apparently complete idiots.

Now, he's out, but his family is suggesting that he come stay with them (in GA). They asked the deputy sherrif if he is allowed to leave the state, and she said yes. However, no one is going to be stupid enough to let the system screw him over anymore. Our suggestion to her was that she get signed letters from both the judge and the prosecuting attorney specifically stating that he can leave the state until his court date. If they refuse to provide such letters, the next step is to begin prosecution for criminal neglect (for refusing him food and water for 48 hours).

The funny thing is, that if we took this to the press, they'd be screwed. They have this guy obviously being screwed over - clearly a sympathetic victim. Then, we bring in the fact that his brother is a soldier in special ops who has been to Iraq more times than just about anyone and keeps going back even though they have repeatedly offered him a desk job. Yeah, the press would eat that one up.

I'm not sure I fully understand the facts, I have no knowledge of relevant Florida law, and limited knowledge of some of the specific legal questions involved. Obviously, I am not giving a legal opinion as to anything here. Bob has an attorney, who should be looked at for actual advice.

I'm taking the facts as given at face value, unless I indicate otherwise (in which case I am merely speculating).

I'm particularly unclear as to what charges Bob still faces at this time.

This breaks down into several different events/questions.

1. The original TRO

That the original temporary order was issued is entirely proper. Suzie had to swear to certain facts in order to get it. We don't know the exact terms of the order, but in general it would do little more than restrict Bob here from coming around his ex-girlfriend. That Suzie wanted it, swore to good reasons for it, and it normally would cause little harm to him except force him to stay away from someone that didn't want him around fully justifies it.

Apparently, she lied her ass off and was manipulating the system. That is unfortunate for many reasons -- foremost for its effect on Bob.

2. The original arrest

The facts are a little foggy here and I am not clear why the TRO would apply before it was served.

It appears Bob was arrested, but quickly released.

It is unclear exactly how he came to be arrested (i.e., when she called the police, under what circumstances the police arrived and found them, etc). But it appears the police were presented with probable cause for an arrest. They had a woman with a TRO and a man in clear violation (absent the question of service). An arrest does not seem unreasonable -- despite the fact he had mitigating evidence (although it appears it didn't have it with him at the time).

I'm not sure what steps occurred afterwards regarding this arrest. The DA could have used discretion to drop the charges, but the timeline of when this might have occurred is unclear. Bob's attorney might persuade the DA to drop the charges based on the tape and the lack of notice. The attorney might feel it would be better strategically to wait. Of course, a court could not dismiss the charges until a motion was brought and evidence was presented.

3. The second arrest

Apparently this occurred at a hearing regarding the first arrest. Not clear on what happened at that hearing regarding the first charges.

Apparently Suzie swore he had violated the order. Her word could serve as probable cause. I'm not sure what other evidence was available to the police and how the relevant Florida statutes read.

This arrest is unfortunate, but does not appear necessarily unreasonable.

4. 48 hours in jail w/o food or water

That Bob spent the next 48 hours in jail without food or water is obviously unreasonable. Not clear if his attorney knew he had been arrested, if he had an attorney at this point, etc.

Obviously someone arrested may have to spend some time in jail before they are processed. That is unfortunate -- particularly where they are innocent. The reasonableness of the length depends on the circumstances and the reasons for it. The treatment should not.

5. Court date

Apparently, this was a hearing on the second arrest. The ex-girlfriend didn't show up, so Bob was released.

Just because the complaining victim doesn't appear at one hearing wouldn't necessarily mean the charges would or should be dropped, but obviously releasing him was the best course.

6. Extra 12 hours in jail

It usually takes a brief time for someone in custody to actually be released. 12 hours is obviously ridiculous -- although I've seen it take longer.

7. Leaving the state

Obviously, whether Bob should leave the state and what assurances he should get from the authorities before he leaves the state is a question best left for his attorney to arrange.

There are usually standard forms or practices for such arrangements that depend on jurisdiction. These should be followed.

8. Going to the press

At least until all charges are resolved and all potential lawsuits are resolved, I would leave this to the judgement of the relevant attorneys.

I certainly think you are right that at least the local press would have a field day with these facts. That could well backfire in the treatment of Bob. Making the local authorities pissed at Bob could be less than helpful. Moreoever, these facts would likely be misused by pundits for political agendas unrelated to the case.

If, after the legal interests are resolved, Bob wishes to embarass the local authorities, they could consider going to the press, but he should carefully consider what they expect to achieve by such publicity.

(Note: if and when a lawsuit is filed against the local authorities, the media will likely be interested anyway.)

9. Potential lawsuit

Much of the discussion appears to confuse a civil lawsuit by Bob with criminal charges being brought by the authorities. Obviously, the second is less likely (except perhaps against Suzie) and is beyond the control (but not the influence) of Bob.

Who could be sued and for what depends on a lot of facts and complicated law. Let me just make the sweeping generalization, that, yes, Bob could sue lots of people and entities. Obviously Suzie could be sued for a variety of reasons. The local jail authorities -- both officially and individually --- can be sued for a variety of reasons.

What suits could and should be brought are a matter for an attorney that specializes in this area and is informed of all the facts. That said, I would agree that there appear to be several good causes of action based on what I've been informed. I would also agree that such causes of action would either depend on or should wait until dismissal of/acquittal from the pending charges against Bob.

As for the immunity of local jailors based on a buddy system, I'd take that with a grain of salt. Obviously, a local DA is generally unlikely to file criminal charges against a local sherrif, law enforcement, etc without extremely good reason. Personal friendships and power networks may exacerbate this inertia.

But that is a different question than if a private party may sue such individuals and authorities. Broadly speaking, they can. Judges and juries may or may not sympathize.

Any remaining specific questions you wanted my 2-cents on, Dem?

Seriously, every time I hear anything about the government in Florida, I just wonder if we can get rid of it. Maybe just hand it all back over to the Seminoles?

Anyways, here is the story. My boyfriend's brothers both live in Florida. One of them (I'll call him Bob just because I need a name to tell the story) was dating this girl for several years (we'll call her Suzie). They lived together for at least a year. One day, she comes home and says she needs some space and starts moving out - pretty much with no warning at all. Bob was, of course, devestated, but he was getting over it.

Then he found out that she has become addicted to meth and is dating a dealer with his own meth-lab in his house. This guy has at least one warrant out for his arrest - for gun charges I believe. Bob turns him in and the guy gets arrested.

Suzie is pissed off. So pissed off in fact, that she decides to place a restraining order against Bob (not sure how she managed it with no reason at all to think he might be violent, but whatever). Anyways, before there is any chance of it being served, she calls him in tears, saying that she needs to have someone around and could he please come over. Being the nice guy he is, he goes over to her house, where she promptly has him arrested for breaking a restraining order. (Can anyone say ENTRAPMENT?) Anyways, luckily he had gotten a bit paranoid after the whole drug dealer thing and was screening and taping all of his phone calls. He had the bitch on tape asking him to come over.

But they didn't drop the charges yet, and when he goes to his court date, he is arrested again, because she claims he broke the order again (which he didn't). The idiots put him in jail and then "lose the paperwork" and forget he is there. He is denied food and water for 48 hours. Paperwork or no paperwork, someone had to know he was sitting in the cell, no?

Well, his court date comes up, and the crazy druggie bitch doesn't even show up. The judge releases him on his on recognisance (sp?). They go back to the jail and "lose the paperwork" yet again. He sits in jail for 12 extra hours because the people there are apparently complete idiots.

Now, he's out, but his family is suggesting that he come stay with them (in GA). They asked the deputy sherrif if he is allowed to leave the state, and she said yes. However, no one is going to be stupid enough to let the system screw him over anymore. Our suggestion to her was that she get signed letters from both the judge and the prosecuting attorney specifically stating that he can leave the state until his court date. If they refuse to provide such letters, the next step is to begin prosecution for criminal neglect (for refusing him food and water for 48 hours).

The funny thing is, that if we took this to the press, they'd be screwed. They have this guy obviously being screwed over - clearly a sympathetic victim. Then, we bring in the fact that his brother is a soldier in special ops who has been to Iraq more times than just about anyone and keeps going back even though they have repeatedly offered him a desk job. Yeah, the press would eat that one up.

I'm not sure I fully understand the facts, I have no knowledge of relevant Florida law, and limited knowledge of some of the specific legal questions involved. Obviously, I am not giving a legal opinion as to anything here. Bob has an attorney, who should be looked at for actual advice.

I'm taking the facts as given at face value, unless I indicate otherwise (in which case I am merely speculating).

I'm particularly unclear as to what charges Bob still faces at this time.

This breaks down into several different events/questions.

1. The original TRO

That the original temporary order was issued is entirely proper. Suzie had to swear to certain facts in order to get it. We don't know the exact terms of the order, but in general it would do little more than restrict Bob here from coming around his ex-girlfriend. That Suzie wanted it, swore to good reasons for it, and it normally would cause little harm to him except force him to stay away from someone that didn't want him around fully justifies it.

Apparently, she lied her ass off and was manipulating the system. That is unfortunate for many reasons -- foremost for its effect on Bob.

2. The original arrest

The facts are a little foggy here and I am not clear why the TRO would apply before it was served. It is my understanding of Florida law (and the law in general) that the TRO does not -- and cannot -- apply until the subject has notice.

It appears Bob was arrested, but quickly released.

It is unclear exactly how he came to be arrested (i.e., when she called the police, under what circumstances the police arrived and found them, etc). But it appears the police were presented with probable cause for an arrest. They had a woman with a TRO and a man in clear violation (absent the question of service). An arrest does not seem unreasonable (absent the question of notice) -- despite the fact he had mitigating evidence (although it appears it didn't have it with him at the time).

I'm not sure what steps occurred afterwards regarding this arrest. The DA could have used discretion to drop the charges, but the timeline of when this might have occurred is unclear. Bob's attorney might persuade the DA to drop the charges based on the tape and the lack of notice. The attorney might feel it would be better strategically to wait. Of course, a court could not dismiss the charges until a motion was brought and evidence was presented.

3. The second arrest

Apparently this occurred at a hearing regarding the first arrest. Not clear on what happened at that hearing regarding the first charges.

Apparently Suzie swore he had violated the order. Her word could serve as probable cause. I'm not sure what other evidence was available to the police and how the relevant Florida statutes read.

This arrest is unfortunate, but does not appear necessarily unreasonable.

4. 48 hours in jail w/o food or water

That Bob spent the next 48 hours in jail without food or water is obviously unreasonable. Not clear if his attorney knew he had been arrested, if he had an attorney at this point, etc.

Obviously someone arrested may have to spend some time in jail before they are processed. That is unfortunate -- particularly where they are innocent. The reasonableness of the length depends on the circumstances and the reasons for it. The treatment should not.

5. Court date

Apparently, this was a hearing on the second arrest. The ex-girlfriend didn't show up, so Bob was released.

Just because the complaining victim doesn't appear at one hearing wouldn't necessarily mean the charges would or should be dropped, but obviously releasing him was the best course.

6. Extra 12 hours in jail

It usually takes a brief time for someone in custody to actually be released. 12 hours is obviously ridiculous -- although I've seen it take longer.

7. Leaving the state

Obviously, whether Bob should leave the state and what assurances he should get from the authorities before he leaves the state is a question best left for his attorney to arrange.

There are usually standard forms or practices for such arrangements that depend on jurisdiction. These should be followed.

8. Going to the press

At least until all charges are resolved and all potential lawsuits are resolved, I would leave this to the judgement of the relevant attorneys.

I certainly think you are right that at least the local press would have a field day with these facts. That could well backfire in the treatment of Bob. Making the local authorities pissed at Bob could be less than helpful. Moreoever, these facts would likely be misused by pundits for political agendas unrelated to the case.

If, after the legal interests are resolved, Bob wishes to embarass the local authorities, they could consider going to the press, but he should carefully consider what they expect to achieve by such publicity.

(Note: if and when a lawsuit is filed against the local authorities, the media will likely be interested anyway.)

9. Potential lawsuit

Much of the discussion appears to confuse a civil lawsuit by Bob with criminal charges being brought by the authorities. Obviously, the second is less likely (except perhaps against Suzie) and is beyond the control (but not the influence) of Bob.

Who could be sued and for what depends on a lot of facts and complicated law. Let me just make the sweeping generalization, that, yes, Bob could sue lots of people and entities. Obviously Suzie could be sued for a variety of reasons. The local jail authorities -- both officially and individually --- can be sued for a variety of reasons.

What suits could and should be brought are a matter for an attorney that specializes in this area and is informed of all the facts. That said, I would agree that there appear to be several good causes of action based on what I've been informed. I would also agree that such causes of action would either depend on or should wait until dismissal of/acquittal from the pending charges against Bob.

As for the immunity of local jailors based on a buddy system, I'd take that with a grain of salt. Obviously, a local DA is generally unlikely to file criminal charges against a local sherrif, law enforcement, etc without extremely good reason. Personal friendships and power networks may exacerbate this inertia.

But that is a different question than if a private party may sue such individuals and authorities. Broadly speaking, they can. Judges and juries may or may not sympathize.

Any remaining specific questions you wanted my 2-cents on, Dem?

here's the plan. WE BUILD A GIANT DITCH in between northern and southern florida. northern florida is given to georgia, and it is placed under martial law. southern florida is fenced off, thern attacked with WW2-era Stuka dive-bombers. and then, we send in several thousand poorly trained mercenarie troops, armed with old rifles (like the garand, or the springfield 03) and do not back them up with armor or aircraft. but we give them very crappy artillery. they will be fighting the floridans, who also have no armor or aircraft, and probably not much artillery, if any. what would procede is a WW1 like war faught in horrible trenches and such. after lots of fighting we give our mercenary troops very crappy tanks (im talking about an suv with tin plates on it). and let them pummel over the remains of southern florida. when they reach orlando, they shall fight for EVERY LAST roller coaster in disneyland. after we taker disland (which ideally should take at least 3 months) we burn it to the ground. after more fighting.. we should reach the everglades. at this poiint, we send a second mercenary force and tell them to hide in the everglades and shoot anyone who comes near. THUS when the first group goes into the everglades a huge swamp battle will begin and it will be a bloody horrible foolish waste of lives. then. in secret, we supply the south floridans with huge turrets and guns and armor and stuff.. and they turn miami into a huge fortress. then. we get our mercenary greoups, add several thousand more mercenaries to the group. and tell them to assault the fortress at miami, even there is no point, and obviously they will fail. after all the mercenaries are dead. we bomb miami to rubble with napalm. LOTS AND LOTS OF NAPALM. and thats the end

i had lots of fun writing that. hope you guys enjoyed it as much as i did

I'm particularly unclear as to what charges Bob still faces at this time.

At this point, it is my understanding that he still faces charges for both alleged cases of breaking a restraining order. In the first case, he had not yet been served and has presented the tape as evidence that she essentially tricked him into coming over with the purpose of getting him arrested. In the second case, we now have video tape of him at a Wal-Mart far from where she claims he was. We're pretty sure that, once the charges are actually before a court, he will be completely exonerated based on these points of evidence.

I believe there are also some countersuits in the works, but we are hoping to get him as far away from her as possible right now.

2. The original arrest

The facts are a little foggy here and I am not clear why the TRO would apply before it was served.

We aren't sure either. I was under the impression that it must be served before it is enforceable, but the fact that he had not been served didn't seem to make much of a difference to them.

It appears Bob was arrested, but quickly released.

Well, when his brother showed up with a tape of her calling him and asking him to come over, they let him out pretty quick. They did not, however, for reasons I don't fully understand, drop the charges.

An arrest does not seem unreasonable -- despite the fact he had mitigating evidence (although it appears it didn't have it with him at the time).

No, I don't think it was. In the case of the first arrest, I am glad that they were enforcing a restraining order (although this one is certainly unnecessary). I would argue that it shouldn't really be enforced until it has been served, but that is the type of thing that can kind of fall between the cracks of paperwork.

3. The second arrest

Apparently this occurred at a hearing regarding the first arrest. Not clear on what happened at that hearing regarding the first charges.

My understanding was that he was arrested upon showing up for the first hearing, and the hearing was actually not held.

4. 48 hours in jail w/o food or water

That Bob spent the next 48 hours in jail without food or water is obviously unreasonable. Not clear if his attorney knew he had been arrested, if he had an attorney at this point, etc.

Obviously someone arrested may have to spend some time in jail before they are processed. That is unfortunate -- particularly where they are innocent. The reasonableness of the length depends on the circumstances and the reasons for it. The treatment should not.

And this is the main part that really gets to me - and what, with your interest in civil rights issues, I thought you might have some insight into. Obviously, the police cannot dismiss a restraining order out of hand. Even with evidence that she had cried wolf before, I would not expect them to ignore it. Even with the fact that she is not the most reliable of people (a drug addict), I would not expect them to ignore it.

However, as you said, the treatment he received at that point is completely unsupportable. Knowing the way his family works, I know that any possible lawsuit that can be filed in this probably will, unless it is settled in some other way. I know that your general person doesn't care how a prisoner is treated, but this is clearly outrageous. He lost 20 lbs between those two days and the rest of all of this (no small feat for someone as skinny as he already was).

5. Court date

Apparently, this was a hearing on the second arrest. The ex-girlfriend didn't show up, so Bob was released.

Just because the complaining victim doesn't appear at one hearing wouldn't necessarily mean the charges would or should be dropped, but obviously releasing him was the best course.

Interestingly, we suggested to his attorney that he actually put in a subpoena for her as a witness for the next hearing. At that point, if she doesn't show up, she is in contempt of court. We are wondering if she feels that she has gone a bit too far and gotten in over her head. There are certainly things that she wouldn't exactly want brought up in front of a judge.

8. Going to the press

At least until all charges are resolved and all potential lawsuits are resolved, I would leave this to the judgement of the relevant attorneys.

I certainly think you are right that at least the local press would have a field day with these facts. That could well backfire in the treatment of Bob. Making the local authorities pissed at Bob could be less than helpful. Moreoever, these facts would likely be misused by pundits for political agendas unrelated to the case.

If, after the legal interests are resolved, Bob wishes to embarass the local authorities, they could consider going to the press, but he should carefully consider what they expect to achieve by such publicity.

(Note: if and when a lawsuit is filed against the local authorities, the media will likely be interested anyway.)

Yeah, the press thing was something that was kind of talked about and thrown around when we were all still incredibly angry. I think it is more of a step to take if things aren't getting resolved. For instance, if and when charges are filed against the authorities (there is still discussion on this matter), we figure there is a chance that the charges may be ignored and that going to the press (or the threat of doing so) may be necessary in that case.

9. Potential lawsuit

Much of the discussion appears to confuse a civil lawsuit by Bob with criminal charges being brought by the authorities. Obviously, the second is less likely (except perhaps against Suzie) and is beyond the control (but not the influence) of Bob.

Who could be sued and for what depends on a lot of facts and complicated law. Let me just make the sweeping generalization, that, yes, Bob could sue lots of people and entities. Obviously Suzie could be sued for a variety of reasons. The local jail authorities -- both officially and individually --- can be sued for a variety of reasons.

What suits could and should be brought are a matter for an attorney that specializes in this area and is informed of all the facts. That said, I would agree that there appear to be several good causes of action based on what I've been informed. I would also agree that such causes of action would either depend on or should wait until dismissal of/acquittal from the pending charges against Bob.

As for the immunity of local jailors based on a buddy system, I'd take that with a grain of salt. Obviously, a local DA is generally unlikely to file criminal charges against a local sherrif, law enforcement, etc without extremely good reason. Personal friendships and power networks may exacerbate this inertia.

But that is a different question than if a private party may sue such individuals and authorities. Broadly speaking, they can. Judges and juries may or may not sympathize.

Ok, so this is what I was most interested in. I think that there is clearly a case to bring some sort of charges here, although I am not really sure what the civil v. the criminal charges would be. Would a civil case brought against the authorities (for instance, the sherrif/officers in the jail at the time) still be on the basis of neglect? Or would criminal charges be necessary for that?

And, just to be clear, I'm not asking you these things to actually really use them as legal advice. I'm a little more removed from the case than his immediate family, and won't likely be speaking to his attorney, so I am just curious as to what sort of actions can be taken in this case or one similar. I understand that, in principle, it isn't always easy to get any sort of case brought against government officials, because the people who have to take care of it are also government officials.

Any remaining specific questions you wanted my 2-cents on, Dem?

None but those above. I just figured that you would be able to give a calm and rational (which my opening rant makes it clear that I am not) view of the situation and what sorts of things might come out of it, at least based on what information I have. Obviously, in the end, the legal advice will come from his attorney, who knows all of the details regarding the case. =)

Thanks for checking it out! =)

Relevent Florida Statute (I believe):
914.24 Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness.--

(1)(a) A circuit court, upon application of the state attorney, shall issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the harassment of a victim or witness in a criminal case if the court finds, from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a criminal case exists or that such order is necessary to prevent and restrain an offense under s. 914.22, other than an offense consisting of misleading conduct, or to prevent and restrain an offense under s. 914.23.

(b)1. A temporary restraining order may be issued under this section without written or oral notice to the adverse party or such party's attorney in a civil action under this section if the court finds, upon written certification of facts by the state attorney, that such notice should not be required and that there is a reasonable probability that the state will prevail on the merits. The temporary restraining order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of such order, be specific in terms, and describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts being restrained.

2. A temporary restraining order issued without notice under this section shall be endorsed with the date and hour of issuance and be filed forthwith in the office of the clerk of the court issuing the order.

3. A temporary restraining order issued under this section shall expire at such time as the court directs, not to exceed 10 days from issuance. The court, for good cause shown before expiration of such order, may extend the expiration date of the order for up to 10 days or for a longer period agreed to by the adverse party.

4. When a temporary restraining order is issued without notice, the motion for a protective order shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and takes precedence over all matters except older matters of the same character; and, if the state attorney does not proceed with the application for a protective order when such motion comes on for hearing, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.

5. If, on 2 days' notice to the state attorney or on such shorter notice as the court may prescribe, the adverse party appears and moves to dissolve or modify the temporary restraining order, the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require.

(2)1(a) A circuit court, upon motion of the state attorney, shall issue a protective order prohibiting the harassment of a victim or witness in a criminal case if the court, after a hearing, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a criminal case exists or that such order is necessary to prevent and restrain an offense under s. 914.23.

(b) At the hearing referred to in paragraph (a), any adverse party named in the complaint has the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

(c) A protective order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of such order, be specific in terms, and describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts being restrained.

(d) The court shall set the duration of the protective order for such period as it determines is necessary to prevent the harassment of the victim or witness but in no case shall the duration be set for a period in excess of 3 years from the date of the issuance of the order. The state attorney may, at any time within 90 days before the expiration of such order, apply for a new protective order under this section.

(3) As used in this section, the term:

(a) "Harassment" means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that:

1. Causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and

2. Serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.

(4) Nothing in this section precludes a court from entering any other order or remedy which may be appropriate in the circumstances.

Relevent Florida Statute (I believe):
*snip*

Thanks that is helpful.

Unfortunately that statute doesn't talk about when the temporary protective order becomes effective, how it is enforced, etc.

*snip*

Thanks, that helps a bit.

Although now I am left wondering what kind of "reasonable grounds" she made up. The only truthful thing she could have said was "He turned in my drug-dealing, gun-law breaking boyfriend," and I don't think that is reasonable grounds to think he would harrass her personally. I especially don't think it is reasonable grounds enough to use whatever special order they use to enforce a TRO without notifying the person being restrained.

Finally! Someone else who has seen the light! Get rid of Florida! Give Disneyworld and Universal Studios to Georgia, cut the peninsula off with a big-time canal, and let Cuba have it!

Thanks, that helps a bit.

Although now I am left wondering what kind of "reasonable grounds" she made up. The only truthful thing she could have said was "He turned in my drug-dealing, gun-law breaking boyfriend," and I don't think that is reasonable grounds to think he would harrass her personally. I especially don't think it is reasonable grounds enough to use whatever special order they use to enforce a TRO without notifying the person being restrained.

I am rather certain that the TRO does not apply until notice is given. Obviously, the police were mistaken about that.

Although ... I am wondering whether Bob learned about the TRO at some point during his visit to Suzie but prior to his arrest.

That she called him and invited him over is relevant -- but not technically a defense if he had notice of the TRO.

We don't have enough facts here about the sequence of events to explain what happened. Based on what we know so far, he is clearly not guilty. That doesn't mean they didn't have probable cause to arrest.

Thanks that is helpful.

Unfortunately that statute doesn't talk about when the temporary protective order becomes effective, how it is enforced, etc.

Well surely the TRO is effective without notice, and any violations are treated as contempt of court.

edit: tros being ex-parte and all.

Thanks that is helpful.

Unfortunately that statute doesn't talk about when the temporary protective order becomes effective, how it is enforced, etc.
This is as close as I can find (ROs related to domestic violence)
"(4)(a) A person who willfully violates an injunction for protection against domestic violence issued pursuant to s. 741.30, or a foreign protection order accorded full faith and credit pursuant to s. 741.315, by:

1. Refusing to vacate the dwelling that the parties share;

2. Going to, or being within 500 feet of, the petitioner's residence, school, place of employment, or a specified place frequented regularly by the petitioner and any named family or household member;

3. Committing an act of domestic violence against the petitioner;

4. Committing any other violation of the injunction through an intentional unlawful threat, word, or act to do violence to the petitioner;

5. Telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with the petitioner directly or indirectly, unless the injunction specifically allows indirect contact through a third party;

6. Knowingly and intentionally coming within 100 feet of the petitioner's motor vehicle, whether or not that vehicle is occupied;

7. Defacing or destroying the petitioner's personal property, including the petitioner's motor vehicle; or

8. Refusing to surrender firearms or ammunition if ordered to do so by the court

commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. "


The key is willingly isn't it?

Well surely the TRO is effective without notice, and any violations are treated as contempt of court.

edit: tros being ex-parte and all.

Is that a typo or grammatical error?

The TRO is issued without notice.

I don't think you can be guilty of violating it without notice.

This is as close as I can find (ROs related to domestic violence)
"(4)(a) A person who willfully violates an injunction for protection against domestic violence issued pursuant to s. 741.30, or a foreign protection order accorded full faith and credit pursuant to s. 741.315, by:

*snip*

commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. "


The key is willingly isn't it?

You are correct. Willfulness requires knowledge.

Is that a typo or grammatical error?

The TRO is issued without notice.

I don't think you can be guilty of violating it without notice.

According to the statute CSW posted, it can.

1 (b)

Edit: Ok, I think I see what you are saying. But how can you issue something without notice that can't be enforced without notice? If you are never going to give notice, how can the TRO ever be useful?

According to the statute CSW posted, it can.

1 (b)

Edit: Ok, I think I see what you are saying. But how can you issue something without notice that can't be enforced without notice? If you are never going to give notice, how can the TRO ever be useful?
I think you have to be given notice within 24 hours, but my head is a bit fried from the legalese (sorry cat-tribe)

According to the statute CSW posted, it can.

1 (b)

Edit: Ok, I think I see what you are saying. But how can you issue something without notice that can't be enforced without notice? If you are never going to give notice, how can the TRO ever be useful?

You issue it without giving notice to the other party before you give notice. It is the product of an ex parte (one-party) hearing.

You then give notice to the other party that it has issued. It remains in effect until it expires or is successfully challenged.

Ex parte orders exist in lots of contexts where urgency is given priority over hearing both sides before a decision is made.

But penalizing someone for a violation of an order that they did not know about is an entirely different kettle of fish.

CSW's statute is clear in requiring willful violation of a protective injunction. You cannot willfully violate something about which you have no knowledge.

Everything I have found says the TRO must be served.

Is that a typo or grammatical error?

The TRO is issued without notice.

I don't think you can be guilty of violating it without notice.

Yah, I would assume that you can. It's essentially a court order of very limited duration. AFAIK orders of protection in NYS require an arrest without notice, however the penalty at that time is mitigated. I don't believe however that criminal charges can be attached at that point. It is more sort of an enforced stay away order until a temporary injuction can be issued. In other words till both parties can state their case. (About seven days for a TRO - depending on how notice is given of the motion).

Yah, I would assume that you can. It's essentially a court order of very limited duration. AFAIK orders of protection in NYS require an arrest without notice, however the penalty at that time is mitigated. I don't believe however that criminal charges can be attached at that point. It is more sort of an enforced stay away order until a temporary injuction can be issued. In other words till both parties can state their case. (About seven days for a TRO - depending on how notice is given of the motion).

I now what a TRO is. Although they are different in the domestic violence/family law context, they are not unique to that context.

Generally, they must be served immediately. I know for certain that a domestic violence TRO must be served on the other party.

What may vary by state law is what happens if the terms of a TRO are violated before the other party is served.

I am skeptical that it even could be criminal conduct without notice. It is an interesting question.

I know an expert on the relevant law of several states, but she is not home. :( (She isn't likely to know Florida specifically, but will know about in general and about many states.)

I now what a TRO is. Although they are different in the domestic violence/family law context, they are not unique to that context.

Generally, they must be served immediately. I know for certain that a domestic violence TRO must be served on the other party.

What may vary by state law is what happens if the terms of a TRO are violated before the other party is served.

I am skeptical that it even could be criminal conduct without notice. It is an interesting question.

I know an expert on the relevant law of several states, but she is not home. :( (She isn't likely to know Florida specifically, but will know about in general and about many states.)

Yeah, you have to serve it, but I do know in NYS that it becomes effective when issued; before it is served. (Techinically it is an order of protection, not a TRO).

The duration is extremely short for this type of order, and it expires if proper notice is not given. But they do exist.

Though as I indicated earlier, I am not sure if actual criminal charges would attach in the first period. I think it is more a sort of early protection for domestic violence victims. (You know, at least they can get an arrest, which you can't normally get under NYS law).

Yeah, you have to serve it, but I do know in NYS that it becomes effective when issued; before it is served. (Techinically it is an order of protection, not a TRO).

The duration is extremely short for this type of order, and it expires if proper notice is not given. But they do exist.

Though as I indicated earlier, I am not sure if actual criminal charges would attach in the first period. I think it is more a sort of early protection for domestic violence victims. (You know, at least they can get an arrest, which you can't normally get under NYS law).

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks.

Well thank you Cat. And may I just say, above the havoc of war, I have found your posts to be extremely insightful. Indeed, you have caught me in more than a few errors, and it would be a poor gentleman that didn't acknowledge the situation as such.

In other words; keep posting: I read all of your contributions with interest and respect.

Really this is a small picture of the American government in general not just florida.


and you people want your health care handled by them....lol geezus talk about natural selection at work on the americans soon.

Well thank you Cat. And may I just say, above the havoc of war, I have found your posts to be extremely insightful. Indeed, you have caught me in more than a few errors, and it would be a poor gentleman that didn't acknowledge the situation as such.

In other words; keep posting: I read all of your contributions with interest and respect.

Why thank you. The respect is mutual. :)

...

Although there is still a little voice in my head that still wants to know your profession/education!!! You never confirmed or denied!! :eek: :p ;) :D

Although there is still a little voice in my head that still wants to know your profession/education!!! You never confirmed or denied!! :eek: :p ;) :D

I told you; I have an masters in structural engineering.

I told you; I have an masters in structural engineering.

Oh, shit. I forgot. My bad. Sorry.

But are you also studying or practicing law? (The two aren't mutually exclusive.)

You just seem too knowledgeable about law not to have studied it.

Oh, shit. I forgot. My bad. Sorry.

But are you also studying or practicing law? (The two aren't mutually exclusive.)

You just seem too knowledgeable about law not to have studied it.

Nah, Cat. Ask your wife. We civil engineers are quite well able to follow what is going on without stressing about it. (Though I will say, much of it makes no sense).

Nah, Cat. Ask your wife. We civil engineers are quite well able to follow what is going on without stressing about it. (Though I will say, much of it makes no sense).

LOL. Actually, my wife used to literally scare some of my lawschool classmates because she understood stuff we were studying better than they did!!! (Seriously, a couple of our friends flat told her she freaked them out.) :D

Although it had an inherent hubris, my statement was fully meant as a complement. :)

And don't worry much of the law makes no sense to me either. (Some because it doesn't make sense, and some because I don't understand it.) :D

Take care. :)

The funny thing is, that if we took this to the press, they'd be screwed. They have this guy obviously being screwed over - clearly a sympathetic victim. Then, we bring in the fact that his brother is a soldier in special ops who has been to Iraq more times than just about anyone and keeps going back even though they have repeatedly offered him a desk job. Yeah, the press would eat that one up.
I would go so far as to (kindly) demand that you take it to the press, because this story is just crying to be on the front page of the New York Times!

Really this is a small picture of the American government in general not just florida.

and you people want your health care handled by them....lol geezus talk about natural selection at work on the americans soon.

Meh.

It is very small picture of 2 people and government on a county level in one state in America. Similar or more distubing "pictures" can be cropped from any government -- and worse from lawless regions without government.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid.
She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again - and that is well;
but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." ~ Mark Twain

An update for anyone interested:

The second court date came and went and the girl still did not show up. In the meantime, he has been staying at his parent's house and she has been incessently calling there - after the first call, all calls were recorded.

An actual jury trial is scheduled for this week - as there is no way he is going to plead guilty to any of this.

http://www.ushra.com/ushra/multimedia/wallpaper/GraveDigger_640x480.jpg

:)

get rid of california, we'd be alot better without having to deal with international issues

Counter suits can be filed immediately. You can sue Suzie for bearing false witness (the police report) and for diffamation of character. If Bob wins the first lawsuit, diffamation is a given.
defamation might be better ;) Defamation cases are notoriously hard to win though and I'm doubting that she has any money to pay a judgment anyway.

The stuff you said about the prosecutor and the jailers scratching each others backs here is true as well, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

The jail was negligent, but damages are going to be hard to prove and he probably would come out of it with nothing. I think your brother is screwed.

The good thing about bringing suit in the executive branch is that you can take it up the chain.

If the DA in that area won't bring charges against the people at the prison or settle them in some way, the next step would be to go to the warden's superiors and bring charges against him. If that doesn't work, his superior.

Like I said before, it could go all the way up to the governor of the state - as this happened under his administration.

Meanwhile, my guess is that, if charges are brought, they will be promptly settled. There is no way that anyone can argue that denial of food and water for 48 hours is not criminal neglect.



I think Liverbreath is underestimating things a bit. First of all, I doubt that the media in Florida, especially where they are, is all that liberal.

Second of all, we have a good all-American white guy (in Florida) with a military family, no less, getting screwed over by a druggie. He has the tape to demonstrate the lengths she will go to to get him in trouble and, on top of that, was neglected while in jail.

Even if the media there is liberal, the chance to jump the administration will be hard to resist.

You really need to brush up on the difference between legislative, executive and JUDICIAL branches of the govt.

As far as FL media bias goes - you really ought not make unfounded assumptions. There is not far to look to demonstrate your assumptions false.
(cough - Miami - cough cough Orlando - cough hack - Palm Beach cough)

You really need to brush up on the difference between legislative, executive and JUDICIAL branches of the govt.

I'm well aware of the difference. In this case, the judicial branch issued a restraining order on nothing more than the word of a junkie. The executive branch was then required to serve and then enforce that order, based on the laws passed by the legislative branch. Before it was ever served, they were called upon to enforce it.

Members of the executive branch then committed criminal neglect - something they can be prosecuted for in the judical system, based on laws passed by the legislative branch (and the US Constitution). The entire case is now in the judical system, where no rational jury member would ever find the defendent guilty.

Of course, in this case, if the accuser fails to show in court again, charges can be dropped on the basis that the defendent cannot confront his accuser.

As far as FL media bias goes - you really ought not make unfounded assumptions. There is not far to look to demonstrate your assumptions false.
(cough - Miami - cough cough Orlando - cough hack - Palm Beach cough)

Well, as none of this took place in Miami, Orlando, or Palm Beach - whether or not the media in those cities has any liberal slant is irrelevant.

Guess what branch of the political spectrum's in power in florida?

It starts with a C.


LOL. You too should look up the difference between legislative, executive and JUDICIAL.

Then take a close look at this;
http://www.legalreforminthenews.com/StateProfiles/FL/FL_Supreme_Court.html


You should know - the late Lawton Chiles was a democrat.

I'm well aware of the difference. In this case, the judicial branch issued a restraining order on nothing more than the word of a junkie.

And there you have the root of the problem.

get rid of california, we'd be alot better without having to deal with international issues

Don't you love it when the only thing people read is the headline?

To put it another way: Ritlina, WTF does this have to do with anything? What, exactly, does California have to do with internaional incidents or with this thread?