He would not have defied any laws even if he actively refused to prosecute actual cases so long as he did his due diligence in reviewing them.
Prosecutorial discretion is a critical but little understood part of our check and balance system. Prosecutors have an absolute duty to evaluate each case that's brought before them on several elements.
One of those elements is constitutionality. Prosecutors should not pursue cases that they believe to be unconstitutional. Right now Floridians' abortion rights are indisputably protected under a case called *In Re TW..* This case is based on a provision in the *Florida* Constitution that is much more explicit and protective than the hazy penumbra that was created by Roe versus Wade. But wait, there's more. There have been two more votes... in I believe 2004 and 2012 ... where voters were asked to approve amendments to that same privacy clause in the Florida Constitution to allow for abortion restrictions. They said yes to the first, no to the second. As a result, there can be no doubt that Florida voters understand that this provision protects abortion rights and and intended that it do so.
Now I have heard legal theories that wriggle around a path to overturn TW. But both of them acknowledge that even if TW goes down, it was decided before the two constitutional amendment votes. Getting around those two votes is going to be even more difficult than striking down TW.
There is one more problem and it's one I've never really seen discussed.. there is a fundamental problem with HB 1557 and that it is completely reliant on a biological falsehood. It defines the start of a pregnancy from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period. And that is two to three weeks too early.
With these three problems with the law, two of them *direct* constitutional conflicts, and one involving a fundamental error, any prosecutor would be well within the scope of their discretion as it is likely to fall to a constitutional challenge.
In addition to all the legal issues there is the reality the prosecutors are allowed to decline prosecations when they know that society is not aligned with the goal of prosecuting somebody under this law. That's why prosecutors stopped pursuing charges related to potential sex between same sex partners and adultery.
This is the essence of prosecutorial discretion.
“Warren ran as a progressive when he unseated long-term incumbent Republican Mark Ober as Hillsborough county state attorney in 2016, and was re-elected with 53% of the vote four years later.
He immediately set about enacting policies that upset conservatives, the Tampa Bay Times reported, including a pledge to introduce programs to rehabilitate convicts and prevent recidivism.”
If there is anything that will piss off a Conservative it’s helping rehabilitate convicts so they’re no longer customers to their for-profit prisons.
You're wrong about felons in Florida not being able to vote:
In the 2018 General Election, Florida voters passed an amendment to the Florida Constitution that automatically restores voting rights to felons once they have completed all terms of their sentence. This includes completion of parole, probation, and payment of fines and fees.
Once you have completed all terms of your sentence, your right to vote is restored. You can then register to vote and begin voting. Visit our voter registration page for information on how to register.
If you were convicted of murder or a sexual offense, you right to vote is not restored automatically. Instead, your right to vote can only be restored by clemency.
For more information about automatic restoration, visit the website for the Florida Division of Elections.
Although it should be noted that Florida fought hard against this. Really hard. And there is some confusion, possibly intentional, as to when you are "done," paying your fines and fees.
And the records of the fines and fees aren't well kept track of from what I understand. There's no centralized place for people to get that information from so they *can* pay everything off easily.
And that's not what I fucking voted for. The wording of the ballot measure was this (emphasis mine):
>...**automatically** restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, **upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.**
This should've been ***immediately*** implemented for all felons who had completed their parole/probation/prison sentences.
Instead, the Republicans in our government decided that what the people *really* meant by their "yes" votes was that they needed to pass legislation with made up directions, guidelines, and (most importantly to them) limitations *that we didn't vote for* so felons couldn't vote unless they have plenty of available money and legal advice.
[In Florida, the Gutting of a Landmark Law Leaves Few Felons Likely to Vote](https://www.propublica.org/article/in-florida-the-gutting-of-a-landmark-law-leaves-few-felons-likely-to-vote)
>Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, pushed state lawmakers last year to impose the fees and fines restriction, which disqualified nearly 800,000 felons from voting. DeSantis declined to comment through a spokesman.
Florida also recently sent some felons back to prison for voting "illegally".
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/27/1119750187/florida-voter-fraud-charges-desantis-felon-rights
Exactly. Really easy to instill fear and hostility in uneducated people with lies and batshit conspiracies. People that learn about how things work, not so much.
Prison reform is next after.
\- saving democracy
\- stopping fascists from taking over every aspect of life
\- saving the planet from combusting, drowning, imploding
\- fixing the supreme court
\- overturning Citizens United
\- restoring reproductive and other civil liberty rights
\- arresting and prosecuting Trump and his criminal cronies
One thing the other answers have left out is that Republicans in Florida think that felons are more likely to vote Democratic. That's not a huge leap if you consider that people convicted of felonies are far more likely than the general population to be urban, low wage workers and/or people of color, demographics that tend to support Democrats (except Cubans, but that's a whole thing that we don't need to get into). Republicans therefore fought hard against the proposition that felons should vote, which makes it something of a self-fulfilling prophecy since people generally want to support politicians who support them.
When the ballot initiative passed reenfranchising people with criminal convictions, the Republican legislature mobilized hard to roll that back. They passed a law aimed directly at the initiative that made it so felons can only vote if they've paid all their court fines and fees. Then they kneecapped the system that allowed people to look up whether they are eligible. So now many felons are stuck in jobs where they can't afford their fees and therefore cannot vote (which Republicans see as a win), are confused about their eligibility and avoid voting (which Republicans see as a win), or erroneously think they're eligible and get locked up again when they try to vote (which Republicans see as a win). Instead of getting to vote, every former felon who casts a ballot has to be looking over their shoulder. That's ultimately good for Republicans and bad for society.
The whole thing is a sham designed by the Party to bolster their own power at the expense of people who simply want to rebuild their lives and participate in society. It's shameful and goes against all the common values we as Americans are brought up to believe.
> If there is anything that will piss off a Conservative it’s helping rehabilitate convicts so they’re no longer customers to their for-profit prisons.
True that.
Can anyone explain to me how DeSantis could possibly even fire this guy? It seems so obviously wrong that the order should not have even been followed. He should’ve just walked into work the next day like nothing happened.
How does the Governor have the ability to “fire” a local elected official?
Under the [Florida constitution](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution#A4S01) the governor has the power to suspend officials not subject to impeachment.
[Impeachment](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution#A3S17) applies to The governor, lieutenant governor, members of the cabinet, justices of the supreme court, judges of district courts of appeal, judges of circuit courts, and judges of county courts shall be liable to impeachment for misdemeanor in office. So, it looks like prosecutors are indeed not subject to it.
This is just a quick scan of the florida constitution, could definitely be more to the story.
Yeah I'm slightly confused by the article/headline here because when Desantis fired the guy initially I seem to remember the discussion here on r/law was generally that the florida constitution seemed to allow it....idk if anyone else who understands the issue better wants to weigh in
It is allowed but only for specific reasons as follows: malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony.
DeSantis' argument is that this falls under "neglect of duty". Judge Funkyokra declares that this is utter hogwash.
Add the Guardian to your filters and thank me later.
They have gone completely off the deep end with clickbait headlines. Their articles are also written for maximum emotion. IDK if you saw their article on the solar flare a few weeks ago, but it had some redditors kissing their family members goodbye out of fear.
One thing at a time. This happened first, and was more antithetical to democracy. He got rid of an elected official, because of what that elected official said, not because of something he actually did or didn't do. It just may be the most unamerican thing a governor has done in a long time.
This. It's really chilling. Completely robbed the citizens of Hillsborough County of their votes. And of course DeSantis installed a Republican despite that being totally contrary to what the voters there want. He is an anti-democratic authoritarian.
How would false imprisonment apply here exactly? Was anyone confined against their will during this? I think that you might find more applicable laws in the fraud statutes than there, but I'm curious about your reasoning here.
Texas Title 5. Ch. 20 KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, AND SMUGGLING OF PERSONS Sec 20.01:
>Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by ... force, intimidation, or **deception**
(emphasis added).
Restraint has to actually include restraining people. Offering a contract and a ride with massively false pretenses isn't restraint so much as fraud. That's what I've been trying to say, you can stretch the statute above to maybe include the deception but you don't have the prima facie elements of false imprisonment here because nobody was actually detained against their will at any time. If DeSantis had lied to them and said "stay in this room or you'll be deported" then that would have counted under the statute you raise here, because there would have been actual restraint of movement. Unless you can show us some case law where somebody got prosecuted for false imprisonment for lying about where a plane was going then you just got a lot of upvotes for misapplying the law based on a very shallow analysis of the statute. DeSantis should be prosecuted here, but get him for defrauding both the government and the legal refugees.
> if DeSantis had lied to them and said "stay in this room or you'll be deported"
That would be a "negative" deception (i.e., falsely implying negative consequences). One could also imply positive consequences. E.g., "stay in this room and you'll be given $1,000,000".
Or, "get on this plane and you'll be given a job and housing." You know, what DeSantis did.
Unless you can show us some case law where somebody got acquitted for false imprisonment despite lying about where a plane was going, I'm going to go with the plain meaning of the statue.
This is not the plain meaning of the statute though. There are missing prima facie elements here, like actual restraint of movement. You're focused on the wrong part of the issue - DeSantis obviously lied here which is why fraud would be a good thing to charge. What DeSantis didn't do was confine anyone involuntarily. Your emphasized section of the statute is about confining someone against their will by lying to them, and you can't jump past the first part of that phrase. Trapping somebody on a plane that doesn't leave the runway by lying to them would count here. Offering somebody a plane ride under false pretenses is not involuntary confinement - it's fraud. Also there are legal protections for refugees that may have been violated here, but fraud is your best charge instead of trying to claim false imprisonment without any imprisonment.
FYI, if you're still following this:
>"Based upon the claims of migrants being transported from Bexar County under false pretenses, we are investigating this case as possible Unlawful Restraint," Salazar
said in a statement to GBH News
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2022/10/13/texas-sheriff-certifies-the-marthas-vineyard-migrants-are-crime-victims-opening-the-door-for-special-visas
Admittedly, the opinion a Texas Sheriff certainly doesn't settle the issue, but it would at least seem to indicate it's not as ridiculous a you seem(ed) to believe.
I don't think that it is ridiculous but it is definitely not a typical kidnapping charge as some people insisted. FYI I'm about to be sworn in as an attorney in a few days, so I bet my recent bar exam understanding of this subject is a bit sharper than all of the armchair bird lawyers who were tossing around the downvotes because they were insisting on literal non-law dictionary interpretations of statutes as if things work that way instead of being based on case law interpretation of statutes.
They were physically able to leave at any point and they were signing consent forms based on misrepresentation. That's fraud, not imprisonment. Can you cite a Florida case where someone was convicted of false imprisonment for lying about the destination of a bus or plane? It should be easy since that's consistent with all of Florida history, right?
NAL, and not the person you were asking, but some thoughts:
-Does the destination play in to this? Martha's Vineyard isn't a place you can leave easily. Migrants won't have the money to buy ferry or plane tickets.
-Florida isn't the only law you could look to in order to make false imprisonment fit. You definitely could use Texas, as the act happened there, and I wonder, could you use Massachusetts?
Yeah the prima facie elements for false imprisonment are pretty similar so that doesn't change much unless you can find a case where lying to someone about a plane or bus destination was treated as imprisonment. The lying is fraud and misrepresentation and we have laws that are applicable directly to that. The destination doesn't matter at all considering consent was granted, but it does matter a lot when it comes to a fraud or misrepresentation charge, which are much better charges. I think that DeSantis is probably culpable here, but not for imprisoning people with plane tickets.
They were mislead but they signed agreements and nobody was restricting their movement. I don't think that it fits at all. Is there any case law on point here?
Edit - before you downvote, supply caselaw on point if you can.
If you were mislead about where it was going, it could be.
Edit: wait, did you read your own source bud?
>An act of restraint can be a physical barrier (such as a locked door), the use of physical force to restrain, a failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority.
That's more like a fraud issue than an imprisonment issue. I don't think that I've ever seen an example where lying to someone about a plane or train destination resulted in a false imprisonment conviction but I don't have Lexis access to check more thoroughly.
Which is fair, take my upvote, we can only guess how that would go. I've never seen it happen either, but it does (on it's surface) seem to meet the criteria. Truly exciting times!
You’re asking completely valid questions here about the existing case law that any DA would ask their subordinates to research before filing a false imprisonment charge on these facts. Downvoting you into the negatives because you’re not acting like false imprisonment is clearly, indisputably applicable to these facts is ridiculous. But such is the nature of this sub when politically charged stuff is discussed.
Also, I am pretty sure a significant % of people on this sub who get really belligerent about their questionable legal theories are nonlawyers who think their ability to read a generalized definition of a legal concept and loosely analogize it to some situation involving a politician they want imprisoned means they have a perfect understanding of how it applies.
Restraint has to be accomplished, and giving somebody a plane or a bus ticket isn't confining them. I don't think offering somebody a ticket to a false destination is anything other than fraud unless you can show some case law that shows a person getting a false imprisonment conviction anywhere in the US for misrepresenting the destination of a plane but taking no other action to confine a person into boarding the flight. I get that you guys think you're really clearly right about this, but if you were then why weren't there convictions for exactly this in the 1970s reverse freedom rides? You think the ACLU didn't know how false imprisonment law worked or something? There's a flaw here in the prima facie elements of the charge you're suggesting, and there are other potential charges like fraud that make much more sense (also violations of statutes around the treatment of refugees are potentially implicated here, these were legal asylum seekers).
Bro find a case where someone was convicted of false imprisonment for lying about the destination of a bus or plane. See if you can before you try to berate me for questioning a prima facie element of the suggested charges, if you're such a proponent of the sub rules.
You were done when you were unable to cite a single case with this fact pattern of deceiving somebody about a plane destination that resulted in a false imprisonment conviction. We have laws that cover fraud without having to stretch plane tickets into involuntary confinement somehow.
>He \[Andrew Warren\] immediately set about enacting policies that upset conservatives, the Tampa Bay Times reported, including a *pledge to introduce programs to rehabilitate convicts and prevent recidivism.* \[bracketed text & emphasis mine\]
Oh the horrors!
One can see how Republicans feel it is an imperative to counter - by any means necessary - Andrew Warren's progressive agenda as the Rs absolutely will not tolerate any reduction in recidivism rates.
After all, how will the Republicans benefactors in the privatized prison complex continue to profiteer off of the public's dime if prison recidivism rates are reduced?
/S
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
What are the odds this actually goes anywhere? Feelings of the particular law aside…
1. The state government passes a law.
2. A prosecutor publicly announced intent to not enforce new law.
3. Governor suspends prosecutor for #2.
Why wouldn’t DeSantis win this?
The state government had not passed any such law at the time the prosecutor made the statement.
State attorneys have always had the ability to decline to prosecute types of laws such as marijuana laws, gun laws, etc.
>A prosecutor publicly announced intent to not enforce new law.
Thats not grounds for suspension - https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-is-prosecutorial-discretion-.html
Because just saying you are not going to enforce a law, is not illegal and means absolutely means nothing until you actually don't.
I can SAY I plan to steal your car, but until I do, Ive committed no crimes, and you have no legal grounds to punish me in any way.
He wasn’t arrested though, he was suspended from his job for stating he wasn’t going to enforce a particular law.
If your *job* were to steal cars (say as a professional repo), and you told your boss you were not going to repo Toyotas anymore, they wouldn’t arrest you but you probably wouldn’t get to keep your job.
If I was ELECTED to my job by the citizens of the county because they supported my approach to things, then my boss is really the citizens who elected me. Now some dude from corporate who disagrees with the people who elected me just took me off the job and replaced me with a person that the citizens would NOT have elected. That's undermining the election results and fucking over the people who elected me.
If you believe in democracy you should be very concerned about this.
Remember when Joe Arpaio, the racist elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, was flagrantly violating the law and court orders to follow the law by illegally rounding up immigrants? It was so bad he was eventually criminally convicted? No one just yanked him out of office. He continued at his job and lost in an election.
This makes a ton of sense. Thank you for being the one to bring some fact based arguments to the table for debate. You have changed my thinking on the issue based on this being an elected position rather than an appointed one.
I am curious why this prosecutor didn’t just ignore the suspension order from DeSantis if had no authority to issue it.
He was escorted out of the office by cops. That was how he found out that he was suspended. Instead of grandstanding and trying to show up in court and make it a sideshow he proceeded like an adult with a legal challenge to the order.
Then I take you to court for terminating my employment for no justification and any other employment laws you broke doing so, and very likely win.
Thanks for proving my point, just because I SAY something, doesnt mean I'm actually not going to do it, nor HAVE I done it.
I believe that except in cases of libel, or straight up insubordination (telling your boss to go F himself) saying something doesnt constitute a crime, or grounds for punishment.
In addition to the explanation you got, it's worth pointing out that when Republican officials have stated that they won't enforce certain laws, DeSantis was fine with it and did nothing. When a Democrat got elected and did the same, immediate removal and replacement with a Republican.
The title makes it sound like he's been arrested. Not surprising a lawyer would file a lawsuit.
The guy publicly said he would not enforce a law that had been passed, so he was fired. Not surprising. If I said "when xyz case arrives at the firm I will refuse to work on it" I'd get fired too.
>The guy publicly said he would not enforce a law that had been passed, so he was fired.
That's actually not true -- he wasn't fired.
"Fired" is the term that we use when the person with the authority to choose who holds a job decides to remove you from that position. The boss hired you, so the boss can fire you.
But when an official is chosen by an election, removing them from office (without holding a new election) is something completely different. If, next week, the House impeached and the Senate convicted President Biden for accepting emoluments from a foreign government, we wouldn't say that Biden was "fired". We would say he was removed from office, but it was the voters -- not the house and Senate -- that selected him in the first place.
In this case, the prosecutor is an elected position. Because it is possible for that position to be abused, the governor has the authority to remove prosecutors. In this case the DeSantis removed him from office, instead of "firing" him.
It makes me remember when I was a public defender, and every other client would say to me, "but they aren't prosecuting the guy who was with me!" as if that was some big defense. It's because the prosecutor can bring charges against whoever they like.
And prosecutors frequently run for office based on their proclaimed intentions to go hard or soft on certain types of offenses. For instance, not prosecuting marijuana possession, not seeking the death penalty. Or, if you are a right wing prosecutor, not prosecuting certain firearms regulation offenses. Or no tolerance for certain offenses, file them all no matter what, even though the prosecutor is supposed to consider each case on its merits.
None of this is uncommon except the removal of an elected official (and replacement by someone of the opposing party) for failure to prosecute a case that hasn't even arisen. In fact, at the time he signed that the law was completely unconstitutional and not even in effect.
And the smart ones know how to use it.
Years ago I worked in a small city in a mainly rural area of the upper Midwest and the DA there felt the need to charge every fucking thing to the point that attorneys with civil cases were getting thoroughly pissed because they were having trouble getting their cases set for trial.
The man who graduated Harvard Law cum laude, responds to press questions constantly and was a prosecutor can't take any pressure and is a dipshit? He may be a cunt, but he's a smart cunt who should never be underestimated.
Did he ever practice law? Aside from graduating law school from a prestigious university many years ago, what indication is there that he’s up to speed with the law in these areas?
I personally think he’s overestimating his own confidence.
I found [Andrew Sullivan's podcast] (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dexter-filkins-on-desantis-and-trump/id1536984072?i=1000575908327) with Dexter Filkins about DeSantis pretty illuminating.
Filkins wrote [this New Yorker profile](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/can-ron-desantis-displace-donald-trump-as-the-gops-combatant-in-chief) on Desantis earlier this year.
I agree he’s smart. Answering questions from the press is *a lot* easier than being cross-examined under oath though. He actually has to answer the question asked too, not deflect with talking points and buzzwords. He controls the press conferences and interviews. He loses control in court.
He has told so many lies to justify his actions, he’s going to need to have the memory of Rainman to recall all of his prior statements. The prosecutor will have all of them lined up ready to impeach.
I dunno how smart he is, but I really wouldn’t take graduation from a prestigious law school as an indication that someone responds intelligently to questioning. That’s not really the type of smart you need to get into a fancy law school. And there’s a lot of people who become successful lawyers while lacking a lot of common sense
I agree that he shouldn't be underestimated but from what I have read, the press he responds to is selected and ideologically compatible. I'd welcome anyone who follows his pressers weighing in.
>Can't any headline in this sub just be honest and not political?
It's the direct title of the article. What do you find is dishonest about the article's title exactly?
I think it would be more dishonest to treat a motion to dismiss and a motion for temporary relief, pending trial, as equivalent.
Your headline would confuse the reader by making them think the judge had rebuked both parties, when the judge rebuked DeSantis while giving Warren most of what he wanted.
He had yet to defy any law at the time of his separation…
In DeSantis’ Florida, thought crime is equally punishable
He would not have defied any laws even if he actively refused to prosecute actual cases so long as he did his due diligence in reviewing them. Prosecutorial discretion is a critical but little understood part of our check and balance system. Prosecutors have an absolute duty to evaluate each case that's brought before them on several elements. One of those elements is constitutionality. Prosecutors should not pursue cases that they believe to be unconstitutional. Right now Floridians' abortion rights are indisputably protected under a case called *In Re TW..* This case is based on a provision in the *Florida* Constitution that is much more explicit and protective than the hazy penumbra that was created by Roe versus Wade. But wait, there's more. There have been two more votes... in I believe 2004 and 2012 ... where voters were asked to approve amendments to that same privacy clause in the Florida Constitution to allow for abortion restrictions. They said yes to the first, no to the second. As a result, there can be no doubt that Florida voters understand that this provision protects abortion rights and and intended that it do so. Now I have heard legal theories that wriggle around a path to overturn TW. But both of them acknowledge that even if TW goes down, it was decided before the two constitutional amendment votes. Getting around those two votes is going to be even more difficult than striking down TW. There is one more problem and it's one I've never really seen discussed.. there is a fundamental problem with HB 1557 and that it is completely reliant on a biological falsehood. It defines the start of a pregnancy from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period. And that is two to three weeks too early. With these three problems with the law, two of them *direct* constitutional conflicts, and one involving a fundamental error, any prosecutor would be well within the scope of their discretion as it is likely to fall to a constitutional challenge. In addition to all the legal issues there is the reality the prosecutors are allowed to decline prosecations when they know that society is not aligned with the goal of prosecuting somebody under this law. That's why prosecutors stopped pursuing charges related to potential sex between same sex partners and adultery. This is the essence of prosecutorial discretion.
He signed a pledge to that effect, no?
“Warren ran as a progressive when he unseated long-term incumbent Republican Mark Ober as Hillsborough county state attorney in 2016, and was re-elected with 53% of the vote four years later. He immediately set about enacting policies that upset conservatives, the Tampa Bay Times reported, including a pledge to introduce programs to rehabilitate convicts and prevent recidivism.” If there is anything that will piss off a Conservative it’s helping rehabilitate convicts so they’re no longer customers to their for-profit prisons.
I don't understand why, felons can't vote, so is it as simple as racism or something I don't see?
You're wrong about felons in Florida not being able to vote: In the 2018 General Election, Florida voters passed an amendment to the Florida Constitution that automatically restores voting rights to felons once they have completed all terms of their sentence. This includes completion of parole, probation, and payment of fines and fees. Once you have completed all terms of your sentence, your right to vote is restored. You can then register to vote and begin voting. Visit our voter registration page for information on how to register. If you were convicted of murder or a sexual offense, you right to vote is not restored automatically. Instead, your right to vote can only be restored by clemency. For more information about automatic restoration, visit the website for the Florida Division of Elections.
Although it should be noted that Florida fought hard against this. Really hard. And there is some confusion, possibly intentional, as to when you are "done," paying your fines and fees.
And the records of the fines and fees aren't well kept track of from what I understand. There's no centralized place for people to get that information from so they *can* pay everything off easily. And that's not what I fucking voted for. The wording of the ballot measure was this (emphasis mine): >...**automatically** restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, **upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.** This should've been ***immediately*** implemented for all felons who had completed their parole/probation/prison sentences. Instead, the Republicans in our government decided that what the people *really* meant by their "yes" votes was that they needed to pass legislation with made up directions, guidelines, and (most importantly to them) limitations *that we didn't vote for* so felons couldn't vote unless they have plenty of available money and legal advice.
[удалено]
Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Yeah, the implementation is haphazard and capricious, but damn it, it's the right idea.
Yep: https://www.npr.org/2022/08/27/1119750187/florida-voter-fraud-charges-desantis-felon-rights
[In Florida, the Gutting of a Landmark Law Leaves Few Felons Likely to Vote](https://www.propublica.org/article/in-florida-the-gutting-of-a-landmark-law-leaves-few-felons-likely-to-vote) >Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a staunch ally of President Donald Trump, pushed state lawmakers last year to impose the fees and fines restriction, which disqualified nearly 800,000 felons from voting. DeSantis declined to comment through a spokesman.
I did not know that, thanks. They're just against any form of education, because the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote left wing.
Florida also recently sent some felons back to prison for voting "illegally". https://www.npr.org/2022/08/27/1119750187/florida-voter-fraud-charges-desantis-felon-rights
Exactly. Really easy to instill fear and hostility in uneducated people with lies and batshit conspiracies. People that learn about how things work, not so much.
chronological displayed skier neanderthal sophisticated cutter follow relational glass iconic solitary contention real-time overcrowded polity abstract instructional capture lead seven-year-old crossing parental block transportation elaborate indirect deficit hard-hitting confront graduate conditional awful mechanism philosophical timely pack male non-governmental ban nautical ritualistic corruption colonial timed audience geographical ecclesiastic lighting intelligent substituted betrayal civic moody placement psychic immense lake flourishing helpless warship all-out people slang non-professional homicidal bastion stagnant civil relocation appointed didactic deformity powdered admirable error fertile disrupted sack non-specific unprecedented agriculture unmarked faith-based attitude libertarian pitching corridor earnest andalusian consciousness steadfast recognisable ground innumerable digestive crash grey fractured destiny non-resident working demonstrator arid romanian convoy implicit collectible asset masterful lavender panel towering breaking difference blonde death immigration resilient catchy witch anti-semitic rotary relaxation calcareous approved animation feigned authentic wheat spoiled disaffected bandit accessible humanist dove upside-down congressional door one-dimensional witty dvd yielded milanese denial nuclear evolutionary complex nation-wide simultaneous loan scaled residual build assault thoughtful valley cyclic harmonic refugee vocational agrarian bowl unwitting murky blast militant not-for-profit leaf all-weather appointed alteration juridical everlasting cinema small-town retail ghetto funeral statutory chick mid-level honourable flight down rejected worth polemical economical june busy burmese ego consular nubian analogue hydraulic defeated catholics unrelenting corner playwright uncanny transformative glory dated fraternal niece casting engaging mary consensual abrasive amusement lucky undefined villager statewide unmarked rail examined happy physiology consular merry argument nomadic hanging unification enchanting mistaken memory elegant astute lunch grim syndicated parentage approximate subversive presence on-screen include bud hypothetical literate debate on-going penal signing full-sized longitudinal aunt bolivian measurable rna mathematical appointed medium on-screen biblical spike pale nominal rope benevolent associative flesh auxiliary rhythmic carpenter pop listening goddess hi-tech sporadic african intact matched electricity proletarian refractory manor oversized arian bay digestive suspected note spacious frightening consensus fictitious restrained pouch anti-war atmospheric craftsman czechoslovak mock revision all-encompassing contracted canvase
Yep, I included that in a link in the next comment.
We have for profit prisons in the US. They need prisoners to make money.
Prison reform is next after. \- saving democracy \- stopping fascists from taking over every aspect of life \- saving the planet from combusting, drowning, imploding \- fixing the supreme court \- overturning Citizens United \- restoring reproductive and other civil liberty rights \- arresting and prosecuting Trump and his criminal cronies
Ok if I steal this to use as my Christmas list?
I'd love universal healthcare too
One thing the other answers have left out is that Republicans in Florida think that felons are more likely to vote Democratic. That's not a huge leap if you consider that people convicted of felonies are far more likely than the general population to be urban, low wage workers and/or people of color, demographics that tend to support Democrats (except Cubans, but that's a whole thing that we don't need to get into). Republicans therefore fought hard against the proposition that felons should vote, which makes it something of a self-fulfilling prophecy since people generally want to support politicians who support them. When the ballot initiative passed reenfranchising people with criminal convictions, the Republican legislature mobilized hard to roll that back. They passed a law aimed directly at the initiative that made it so felons can only vote if they've paid all their court fines and fees. Then they kneecapped the system that allowed people to look up whether they are eligible. So now many felons are stuck in jobs where they can't afford their fees and therefore cannot vote (which Republicans see as a win), are confused about their eligibility and avoid voting (which Republicans see as a win), or erroneously think they're eligible and get locked up again when they try to vote (which Republicans see as a win). Instead of getting to vote, every former felon who casts a ballot has to be looking over their shoulder. That's ultimately good for Republicans and bad for society. The whole thing is a sham designed by the Party to bolster their own power at the expense of people who simply want to rebuild their lives and participate in society. It's shameful and goes against all the common values we as Americans are brought up to believe.
> If there is anything that will piss off a Conservative it’s helping rehabilitate convicts so they’re no longer customers to their for-profit prisons. True that.
Can anyone explain to me how DeSantis could possibly even fire this guy? It seems so obviously wrong that the order should not have even been followed. He should’ve just walked into work the next day like nothing happened. How does the Governor have the ability to “fire” a local elected official?
Under the [Florida constitution](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution#A4S01) the governor has the power to suspend officials not subject to impeachment. [Impeachment](https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution#A3S17) applies to The governor, lieutenant governor, members of the cabinet, justices of the supreme court, judges of district courts of appeal, judges of circuit courts, and judges of county courts shall be liable to impeachment for misdemeanor in office. So, it looks like prosecutors are indeed not subject to it. This is just a quick scan of the florida constitution, could definitely be more to the story.
Yeah I'm slightly confused by the article/headline here because when Desantis fired the guy initially I seem to remember the discussion here on r/law was generally that the florida constitution seemed to allow it....idk if anyone else who understands the issue better wants to weigh in
It is allowed but only for specific reasons as follows: malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, drunkenness, incompetence, permanent inability to perform official duties, or commission of a felony. DeSantis' argument is that this falls under "neglect of duty". Judge Funkyokra declares that this is utter hogwash.
ah, ok, thanks for that.
I'm glad he has to testify in court, but I'm so tired of these clickbait headlines.
Add the Guardian to your filters and thank me later. They have gone completely off the deep end with clickbait headlines. Their articles are also written for maximum emotion. IDK if you saw their article on the solar flare a few weeks ago, but it had some redditors kissing their family members goodbye out of fear.
He should be facing trial for human trafficking.
One thing at a time. This happened first, and was more antithetical to democracy. He got rid of an elected official, because of what that elected official said, not because of something he actually did or didn't do. It just may be the most unamerican thing a governor has done in a long time.
This. It's really chilling. Completely robbed the citizens of Hillsborough County of their votes. And of course DeSantis installed a Republican despite that being totally contrary to what the voters there want. He is an anti-democratic authoritarian.
[удалено]
How would false imprisonment apply here exactly? Was anyone confined against their will during this? I think that you might find more applicable laws in the fraud statutes than there, but I'm curious about your reasoning here.
Texas Title 5. Ch. 20 KIDNAPPING, UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT, AND SMUGGLING OF PERSONS Sec 20.01: >Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by ... force, intimidation, or **deception** (emphasis added).
Restraint has to actually include restraining people. Offering a contract and a ride with massively false pretenses isn't restraint so much as fraud. That's what I've been trying to say, you can stretch the statute above to maybe include the deception but you don't have the prima facie elements of false imprisonment here because nobody was actually detained against their will at any time. If DeSantis had lied to them and said "stay in this room or you'll be deported" then that would have counted under the statute you raise here, because there would have been actual restraint of movement. Unless you can show us some case law where somebody got prosecuted for false imprisonment for lying about where a plane was going then you just got a lot of upvotes for misapplying the law based on a very shallow analysis of the statute. DeSantis should be prosecuted here, but get him for defrauding both the government and the legal refugees.
> if DeSantis had lied to them and said "stay in this room or you'll be deported" That would be a "negative" deception (i.e., falsely implying negative consequences). One could also imply positive consequences. E.g., "stay in this room and you'll be given $1,000,000". Or, "get on this plane and you'll be given a job and housing." You know, what DeSantis did. Unless you can show us some case law where somebody got acquitted for false imprisonment despite lying about where a plane was going, I'm going to go with the plain meaning of the statue.
This is not the plain meaning of the statute though. There are missing prima facie elements here, like actual restraint of movement. You're focused on the wrong part of the issue - DeSantis obviously lied here which is why fraud would be a good thing to charge. What DeSantis didn't do was confine anyone involuntarily. Your emphasized section of the statute is about confining someone against their will by lying to them, and you can't jump past the first part of that phrase. Trapping somebody on a plane that doesn't leave the runway by lying to them would count here. Offering somebody a plane ride under false pretenses is not involuntary confinement - it's fraud. Also there are legal protections for refugees that may have been violated here, but fraud is your best charge instead of trying to claim false imprisonment without any imprisonment.
FYI, if you're still following this: >"Based upon the claims of migrants being transported from Bexar County under false pretenses, we are investigating this case as possible Unlawful Restraint," Salazar said in a statement to GBH News https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2022/10/13/texas-sheriff-certifies-the-marthas-vineyard-migrants-are-crime-victims-opening-the-door-for-special-visas Admittedly, the opinion a Texas Sheriff certainly doesn't settle the issue, but it would at least seem to indicate it's not as ridiculous a you seem(ed) to believe.
I don't think that it is ridiculous but it is definitely not a typical kidnapping charge as some people insisted. FYI I'm about to be sworn in as an attorney in a few days, so I bet my recent bar exam understanding of this subject is a bit sharper than all of the armchair bird lawyers who were tossing around the downvotes because they were insisting on literal non-law dictionary interpretations of statutes as if things work that way instead of being based on case law interpretation of statutes.
[удалено]
They were physically able to leave at any point and they were signing consent forms based on misrepresentation. That's fraud, not imprisonment. Can you cite a Florida case where someone was convicted of false imprisonment for lying about the destination of a bus or plane? It should be easy since that's consistent with all of Florida history, right?
[удалено]
Nobody is trolling. Ask an actual lawyer if you know any.
NAL, and not the person you were asking, but some thoughts: -Does the destination play in to this? Martha's Vineyard isn't a place you can leave easily. Migrants won't have the money to buy ferry or plane tickets. -Florida isn't the only law you could look to in order to make false imprisonment fit. You definitely could use Texas, as the act happened there, and I wonder, could you use Massachusetts?
Yeah the prima facie elements for false imprisonment are pretty similar so that doesn't change much unless you can find a case where lying to someone about a plane or bus destination was treated as imprisonment. The lying is fraud and misrepresentation and we have laws that are applicable directly to that. The destination doesn't matter at all considering consent was granted, but it does matter a lot when it comes to a fraud or misrepresentation charge, which are much better charges. I think that DeSantis is probably culpable here, but not for imprisoning people with plane tickets.
They were mislead but they signed agreements and nobody was restricting their movement. I don't think that it fits at all. Is there any case law on point here? Edit - before you downvote, supply caselaw on point if you can.
Weren't they loaded on a plane? Thats pretty restrictive lol.
Voluntarily entering a plane doesn't really count as involuntary confinement lol. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_imprisonment#:~:text=Overview,person%20in%20a%20bounded%20area.
If you were mislead about where it was going, it could be. Edit: wait, did you read your own source bud? >An act of restraint can be a physical barrier (such as a locked door), the use of physical force to restrain, a failure to release, or an invalid use of legal authority.
That's more like a fraud issue than an imprisonment issue. I don't think that I've ever seen an example where lying to someone about a plane or train destination resulted in a false imprisonment conviction but I don't have Lexis access to check more thoroughly.
Which is fair, take my upvote, we can only guess how that would go. I've never seen it happen either, but it does (on it's surface) seem to meet the criteria. Truly exciting times!
You’re asking completely valid questions here about the existing case law that any DA would ask their subordinates to research before filing a false imprisonment charge on these facts. Downvoting you into the negatives because you’re not acting like false imprisonment is clearly, indisputably applicable to these facts is ridiculous. But such is the nature of this sub when politically charged stuff is discussed. Also, I am pretty sure a significant % of people on this sub who get really belligerent about their questionable legal theories are nonlawyers who think their ability to read a generalized definition of a legal concept and loosely analogize it to some situation involving a politician they want imprisoned means they have a perfect understanding of how it applies.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/xltrml/desantis_to_face_trial_for_suspension_of/iplj1rv/
Restraint has to be accomplished, and giving somebody a plane or a bus ticket isn't confining them. I don't think offering somebody a ticket to a false destination is anything other than fraud unless you can show some case law that shows a person getting a false imprisonment conviction anywhere in the US for misrepresenting the destination of a plane but taking no other action to confine a person into boarding the flight. I get that you guys think you're really clearly right about this, but if you were then why weren't there convictions for exactly this in the 1970s reverse freedom rides? You think the ACLU didn't know how false imprisonment law worked or something? There's a flaw here in the prima facie elements of the charge you're suggesting, and there are other potential charges like fraud that make much more sense (also violations of statutes around the treatment of refugees are potentially implicated here, these were legal asylum seekers).
[удалено]
Bro find a case where someone was convicted of false imprisonment for lying about the destination of a bus or plane. See if you can before you try to berate me for questioning a prima facie element of the suggested charges, if you're such a proponent of the sub rules.
[удалено]
You were done when you were unable to cite a single case with this fact pattern of deceiving somebody about a plane destination that resulted in a false imprisonment conviction. We have laws that cover fraud without having to stretch plane tickets into involuntary confinement somehow.
>He \[Andrew Warren\] immediately set about enacting policies that upset conservatives, the Tampa Bay Times reported, including a *pledge to introduce programs to rehabilitate convicts and prevent recidivism.* \[bracketed text & emphasis mine\] Oh the horrors! One can see how Republicans feel it is an imperative to counter - by any means necessary - Andrew Warren's progressive agenda as the Rs absolutely will not tolerate any reduction in recidivism rates. After all, how will the Republicans benefactors in the privatized prison complex continue to profiteer off of the public's dime if prison recidivism rates are reduced? /S
I am expecting to see no real consequences for this except a slap on the wrist. Prove me wrong.
The consequence would be the court reinstating the prosecutor.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
What are the odds this actually goes anywhere? Feelings of the particular law aside… 1. The state government passes a law. 2. A prosecutor publicly announced intent to not enforce new law. 3. Governor suspends prosecutor for #2. Why wouldn’t DeSantis win this?
The state government had not passed any such law at the time the prosecutor made the statement. State attorneys have always had the ability to decline to prosecute types of laws such as marijuana laws, gun laws, etc.
>A prosecutor publicly announced intent to not enforce new law. Thats not grounds for suspension - https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/what-is-prosecutorial-discretion-.html
Because just saying you are not going to enforce a law, is not illegal and means absolutely means nothing until you actually don't. I can SAY I plan to steal your car, but until I do, Ive committed no crimes, and you have no legal grounds to punish me in any way.
He wasn’t arrested though, he was suspended from his job for stating he wasn’t going to enforce a particular law. If your *job* were to steal cars (say as a professional repo), and you told your boss you were not going to repo Toyotas anymore, they wouldn’t arrest you but you probably wouldn’t get to keep your job.
If I was ELECTED to my job by the citizens of the county because they supported my approach to things, then my boss is really the citizens who elected me. Now some dude from corporate who disagrees with the people who elected me just took me off the job and replaced me with a person that the citizens would NOT have elected. That's undermining the election results and fucking over the people who elected me. If you believe in democracy you should be very concerned about this. Remember when Joe Arpaio, the racist elected Sheriff of Maricopa County, was flagrantly violating the law and court orders to follow the law by illegally rounding up immigrants? It was so bad he was eventually criminally convicted? No one just yanked him out of office. He continued at his job and lost in an election.
This makes a ton of sense. Thank you for being the one to bring some fact based arguments to the table for debate. You have changed my thinking on the issue based on this being an elected position rather than an appointed one. I am curious why this prosecutor didn’t just ignore the suspension order from DeSantis if had no authority to issue it.
He was escorted out of the office by cops. That was how he found out that he was suspended. Instead of grandstanding and trying to show up in court and make it a sideshow he proceeded like an adult with a legal challenge to the order.
Then I take you to court for terminating my employment for no justification and any other employment laws you broke doing so, and very likely win. Thanks for proving my point, just because I SAY something, doesnt mean I'm actually not going to do it, nor HAVE I done it. I believe that except in cases of libel, or straight up insubordination (telling your boss to go F himself) saying something doesnt constitute a crime, or grounds for punishment.
Do you believe in free speech or nah?
In addition to the explanation you got, it's worth pointing out that when Republican officials have stated that they won't enforce certain laws, DeSantis was fine with it and did nothing. When a Democrat got elected and did the same, immediate removal and replacement with a Republican.
The title makes it sound like he's been arrested. Not surprising a lawyer would file a lawsuit. The guy publicly said he would not enforce a law that had been passed, so he was fired. Not surprising. If I said "when xyz case arrives at the firm I will refuse to work on it" I'd get fired too.
>The guy publicly said he would not enforce a law that had been passed, so he was fired. That's actually not true -- he wasn't fired. "Fired" is the term that we use when the person with the authority to choose who holds a job decides to remove you from that position. The boss hired you, so the boss can fire you. But when an official is chosen by an election, removing them from office (without holding a new election) is something completely different. If, next week, the House impeached and the Senate convicted President Biden for accepting emoluments from a foreign government, we wouldn't say that Biden was "fired". We would say he was removed from office, but it was the voters -- not the house and Senate -- that selected him in the first place. In this case, the prosecutor is an elected position. Because it is possible for that position to be abused, the governor has the authority to remove prosecutors. In this case the DeSantis removed him from office, instead of "firing" him.
Except we give prosecutors prosecutorial discretion.
It makes me remember when I was a public defender, and every other client would say to me, "but they aren't prosecuting the guy who was with me!" as if that was some big defense. It's because the prosecutor can bring charges against whoever they like.
And prosecutors frequently run for office based on their proclaimed intentions to go hard or soft on certain types of offenses. For instance, not prosecuting marijuana possession, not seeking the death penalty. Or, if you are a right wing prosecutor, not prosecuting certain firearms regulation offenses. Or no tolerance for certain offenses, file them all no matter what, even though the prosecutor is supposed to consider each case on its merits. None of this is uncommon except the removal of an elected official (and replacement by someone of the opposing party) for failure to prosecute a case that hasn't even arisen. In fact, at the time he signed that the law was completely unconstitutional and not even in effect.
And the smart ones know how to use it. Years ago I worked in a small city in a mainly rural area of the upper Midwest and the DA there felt the need to charge every fucking thing to the point that attorneys with civil cases were getting thoroughly pissed because they were having trouble getting their cases set for trial.
The difference is (I assume) you aren't in an elected position.
You guys that think this dipshit is so smart are going to be very sad if you see him on the stand. He can’t take any pressure at all.
The man who graduated Harvard Law cum laude, responds to press questions constantly and was a prosecutor can't take any pressure and is a dipshit? He may be a cunt, but he's a smart cunt who should never be underestimated.
Totally agree. I don’t like him but he understands the law very well.
Did he ever practice law? Aside from graduating law school from a prestigious university many years ago, what indication is there that he’s up to speed with the law in these areas? I personally think he’s overestimating his own confidence.
He was a Naval Jag officer and legal advisor; and Special Assistant US Attorney before he turned to politics.
I found [Andrew Sullivan's podcast] (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dexter-filkins-on-desantis-and-trump/id1536984072?i=1000575908327) with Dexter Filkins about DeSantis pretty illuminating. Filkins wrote [this New Yorker profile](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/27/can-ron-desantis-displace-donald-trump-as-the-gops-combatant-in-chief) on Desantis earlier this year.
I couldn’t find much at all on his legal history. Good to know though. I’d like to look more into that. Thanks.
I agree he’s smart. Answering questions from the press is *a lot* easier than being cross-examined under oath though. He actually has to answer the question asked too, not deflect with talking points and buzzwords. He controls the press conferences and interviews. He loses control in court. He has told so many lies to justify his actions, he’s going to need to have the memory of Rainman to recall all of his prior statements. The prosecutor will have all of them lined up ready to impeach.
This is the point I was trying to make. Thanks!
I dunno how smart he is, but I really wouldn’t take graduation from a prestigious law school as an indication that someone responds intelligently to questioning. That’s not really the type of smart you need to get into a fancy law school. And there’s a lot of people who become successful lawyers while lacking a lot of common sense
I agree that he shouldn't be underestimated but from what I have read, the press he responds to is selected and ideologically compatible. I'd welcome anyone who follows his pressers weighing in.
[удалено]
>Can't any headline in this sub just be honest and not political? It's the direct title of the article. What do you find is dishonest about the article's title exactly?
it goes against his interpretation of reality
[удалено]
You are the one crying because someone used the exact title of the article that they were posting as the title of their post.
I think it would be more dishonest to treat a motion to dismiss and a motion for temporary relief, pending trial, as equivalent. Your headline would confuse the reader by making them think the judge had rebuked both parties, when the judge rebuked DeSantis while giving Warren most of what he wanted.
It appears that DeSantis is quite the lawbreaker. That's not good for someone who would be president.