Discussion in 'Local Government and Groups' started by WileCoyote, Oct 16, 2014.
Sun Editorial Cartoon
To be fair to Walton SAO Supervisor Greg Anchors, he was asked by the Walton Sheriff's Office for guidance on a case that involved local political figures. These are called "direct file" or "investigative" cases. It was eminently reasonable for him to remove consideration of the case away from Walton County to preserve the perception of impartiality. Imagine the comments hurled his way if he had kept the decision local, no matter which way he decided on the complaint.
As with many conflicts, real or perceived, these cases are referred within the circuit, but out of the county. It seems to me that an impartial analysis of the sworn complaint was performed by the SAO office most-removed from Walton County and a decision was made regarding the substance of the complaint. In a well-reasoned analysis, the State Attorney explained the complaint, the applicable law and its application to the case at hand. A press release was appropriate because of the high profile of both the complainant and the person against whom the complaint was lodged. This is just the way such matters are handled. No matter whose side you are on, the SAO handled it professionally and within protocol.
Gonna call BS on the Greg Anchors thing.
I was originally misinformed.
G. Marcille is Elected Official Bill Eddins #2 guy. Eddins is a problem.
Big guns out of Pensacola!
A very common way to cover ones ass is to conduct an investgston and then "referr" it to the State Attorney. Why do you get paid? Make a decision...
This is done in sensitive investigations when one (sheriff) has no balls to make the decision himself. Unless its one that has something over him\her.
They are able to please both sides at the same time, while saving face.
Reality is that this should have been quashed upon receipt.
If this DL issue was looked into how about the dozens of sex offenders that don't have their actual residences listed on their DLs, yet we don't arrest them, yet it is a clear violation on State Statute?
State Attorney answer that...
The fact that our paper has an actual cartoon about this should make all of us feel great to live here, up is down, down is up, its all a big joke...
It sounds to me as if you're saying is that Sheriff Adkinson had no clue what a "Florida Only" license is/was.
If the information was easily attainable via a google search (it was) and everyone else on this board knew this was a BS bogus complaint including the BS about Ms. Harris voting fraudulently even though she is a current Florida resident with (at the time) legal dual licenses and a condo she resides in full time, along with a soc security number (which is all you need to vote in Florida) why didn't the Sheriff just apply the law?
There is nothing vague about the law...it's very clear. What was there to investigate to start with had the Sheriff applied Florida law as it is written?
My 7 year old grand child could have googled the information and understood it the way it's written.
Brannon and his buddy Clay probably went running to the Sheriff *thinking* "We got her and the Sheriff will send it to the State for us and we'll have her investigated and charged for all kinds of misdeeds."
The reason I say Clay is because I seriously doubt Brannon is smart enough to have written that complaint in the legal jargon it was written in without the help from a lawyer. Assuredly he wasn't smart enough to google results that were posted to this board long before the "Press Release".
P.S. If a regular citizen had brought this complaint to Sheriff Mike Adkinson it would never have seen the light of day let alone the State Attorney's office!!
Just my opinion, sending it to the State Attorneys Office was the right move. You may or may not like it but I am comfortable with the process.
Me, too. I'm not sure exactly what recent-entry-to-the-forum, John G., is complaining about. First he screws up his facts about the SAO hierarchy, putting Marcille answering to Anchors (actually, Marcille is closer to the top than anyone except the elected SAO, Bill Eddins), now he is complaining about the Sheriff not making a knee-jerk decision on the complaint. (Btw, sex offenders are required to register with the local sheriff and MUST change their D/L within 10 days of moving. This is strictly enforced, as you might have guessed with convicted sex offenders. Another mistake.)
Misty also seems concerned that this was not handled at the Sheriff's Dept. As the prosecuting authority, the SAO is in a much better position to research the applicable law and determine whether it should be prosecuted. They did the investigation (along with the WCSD), researched the law and decided they couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? I don't understand the complaints.
I don't like it but I guarantee that people would have been screaming cover-up and favoritism if the complaint had not been forwarded to the SAO and a complete investigation conducted. It is a shame that taxpayer dollars must be expended just to head off criticism but that is reality.
Here's the basis for my "complaint" about how this was handled.
It was a FAVOR. Its that simple.
As for the comment about a "sworn complaint", yet to see that posted... All that's posted is a letter, no a sworn affidavit of complaint which is required.
I look for that and wonder if it exists.
You can defend the WCSO and State all day long, they allowed themselves to be put into this position by favors done in the past. All involved should be embarrassed.
Stop the political favors.
As a citizen, I'd like to think I am capable of reading the law and understanding what constitutes a violation of the law so that I don't end up arrested or brought up on bogus charges because some jacka$$ isn't capable of understanding what a "Florida Only" drivers license is. An EX-County Commissioner and the Walton County Sheriff should both have a better grasp of the law than an average citizen.
No one has said the SAO office didn't conclude the right decision...the problem is, the people in power who should have known better didn't!!!
Again this was a huge waste of resources in a County where we have far bigger fish to fry. Personal vendettas are not and should not be on the Sheriff's agenda and this should never have gone before the State Attorney.
Applicable law: (c) Part-time residents of this state issued a license that is valid within this state only under paragraph (b) as that paragraph existed before November 1, 2009, may continue to hold such license until the next issuance of a Florida driver license or identification card. Licenses that are identified as “Valid in Florida Only” may not be issued or renewed effective November 1, 2009. This paragraph expires June 30, 2017.
Granted the D/L issue was clear. But I think you must agree that the voting issue was much more nuanced. As Marcille indicated in his Report, residency is, to a great extent, subjective. Marcille clearly laid out the applicable law and the facts. He then stated his well-supported conclusion that the SAO could not support the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of the subjectivity of the voting issue, this decision was best removed from the scrum that is Walton County politics. I remain at a loss to understand the controversy in it being handled this way.
All you need to have in the State of Florida to vote: New applicants must provide a current and valid Florida driver’s license number (which Ms. Harris had) (FL DL#) or Florida identification card number (FL ID#). If you do not have a FL DL# or FL ID#, then you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security number (SSN)
What is nuanced about that?
This State allows anyone to vote here...even dead people.
Hasn't the local GOP proven pretty succinctly that we don't have an issue with voter fraud?
Fraud was never a problem with them, it was minority voting.
I will be the first one at the news box to buy the Herald/Beach Breeze box tomorrow to buy a copy to see if they even do a story on this and to see if Scott was available for comment. He could be too busy filing more complaints against her. One thing I have not see is his sworn statement about this. Not sure how he got her drivers license info but I am pretty sure it is protected under the Federal and State law. He is not permitted to use this information as you can read on the DMV site under Driver Privacy Protection Act Exemptions. Just think anyone can get your information if it was this simple for Scott. Drivers license, date of birth and address as well as driver license numbers. This would sure help someone trying to hack into bank and credit card accounts. Mrs Harris beware this could happen to you!
Sworn Statement to sheriffs office and / or state attorney please...
Please produce one (I sincerely hope there is one...)
Yes it would be interesting to find out where he obtained her DL# not only from Florida but Alabama as well.
It would not surprise me if a well known attorney didn't hand him the information. I could almost understand having the number for the Florida license because Ms. Harris has been involved in legal proceedings here but having the one from Alabama is a show stopper.
http://www.flhsmv.gov/forms/90511.pdf Scroll down to the 2nd page and it will tell you when it's legal for someone to have the info Brannon obtained so freely.
Bob Hudson...when you request information via the FOIA isn't identifying info such as DL# and Soc Sec blacked out?
FOIA stands for "Freedom of Information Act" and is applicable to requests made to Federal Agencies. In Florida we have "Public Records Requests" which are defined in State statutes. That statute details those things that are exempt from disclosure and are redacted before being provided.
Separate names with a comma.