Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
About Me
- Richard A. Harrison
- Richard A. Harrison is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Stetson University (B.A. 1983) and an honors graduate of the Stetson University College of Law (J.D. 1986), where he served as Articles & Symposia Editor of the Stetson Law Review. He is rated (av) by the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory. Mr. Harrison served as President (2000-01) of the Stetson Lawyers Association and currently serves as a member of the Board of Overseers for the College of Law. The Board of Overseers counsels, advises and assists the Dean of the College of Law and the President of the University in the development of the program of legal education and of financial and other resources. Mr. Harrison is Board Certified in City, County and Local Government Law by The Florida Bar Board of Legal Specialization and Education. He dedicates his practice almost exclusively to the representation of local governmental agencies.
Never Forget
2 comments:
As far as Ch 2007-39 Laws of Fla., as in this Mandamus action, it's very obvious that the possible santions that can be imposed for violating the public record laws are so minimal that nothing has changed, as far as criminal pot conviction issues, as in see http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_caseyear=2007&p_casenumber=3243&psCourt=1&psSearchType=
Curtis Bailey vs. John H. Rutherford, et al. Case Number: 1D07-3243 this agency has a long history of theses stall tactics, and evev FDLC compliance section can't compel state officers to comply with Ch 2007-39, initial Ch. 119 request was submitted 1/3/06, Mandamus filed circuit court pursuant to Section 119.11, even the lower tribunal would not comply, what santions can be sought in a situation like this, when the stall tactics are to hinder the due diligence burden on movants, and the identical issue is common place with Department of Corrections, Question after many formal complaints filed with Bureau of Standards Chief Vickie Marsey, even in her professional capacity can't compel state officers to comply with Ch 2007-39, what sactions other than a request for a judgement for filing cost , attorney fees are not applicable in a Pro Se action ? or is it ?
ctops.legal
As argued in the 1st DCA case #1D07-3243, Bailey v. Rutherford, hearing was held, exculpatory evidence that was at issue was a MPEG (movie clip) that was alleged to have been transmitted by sheriff's detective in 2001, in violation of Ch. 847.0138 F.S., never was produced, Ch. 119 to state attorney to obtain file did not contain "MPEG" clip, FDLE lab report did not contain any evidence of MPEG, which made Sheriff's Department the only agency that could have ever possessed this record, hearing was held 11/9/07 4th judicial circuit Mandamus was granted in part, judge stated "sheriff's office must respond to Ch. 119 request for inspection of MPEG record within 30 days, counsel for that agency stated that all public record request would be handled properly form now on, but going to there site there is still no link of information to make it reasonably easy for citizens to make Ch. 119 request, do have audio from the hearing it is part of the record, follow up hearing in about 30 days, “and unbelievably opposing counsel is preparing the order" will ask Mr. Harrison to post it, very novel issue in Florida.
ctops.legal
Post a Comment