On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eLibrary - All Crimes and More Recorded!
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!
Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Judge Vindicates Recall Initiative

As the story is starting to wane in the minds of some, let us recall what the judge said at the December 1, 2006 hearing: “I will rule by this afternoon”.

Ten days have passed since the afternoon we were all supposed to have been enlightened by one of the many sages of the “law”. And in these ten days some may have sat idly by, speculating at what could have been if the ruling had been this or that or neither this nor that.

And in the same span of eternity, others have waited for nothing and thereby adhered to the tenets of a true sage when he (the true sage) said “There wasn’t any reason to pay attention to the words of a madman, because if luck hadn’t been with your grace, and the stone had hit your head the way it hit your chest, then what kind of condition would we have been in to defend the lady!

Adhering to the latter, can we then ask, what exactly is everyone waiting for? Better phrased: Can’t anyone interpret the silence?

By the Numbers
Did the judge lie by stating that he would rule ten days ago, and then failed to do so? Unlikely – lawyers and judges don’t lie – right Mr. Tucker?

Is the judge unaware of the timing constraints on the second phase of a recall drive as predicated by law? Unlikely, given that the judge was made plainly aware of the timing issue.

Is the judge shirking from his judicial responsibility to rule on a time-sensitive case? That would make him unprofessional – a conclusion one can’t make rationally.

Is the judge irresponsible to such an extent that he deems inconsequential the financial costs undertaken by one person to defend himself from a law suit (yes, it’s a lawsuit)? Is the judge discounting that fact that this one individual is being attacked because he is exercising his constitutional right to petition the government for a redress? We can only hope not, for such would cast aspersions when there is absolutely no reason to think ill of the man or his motives.

And then there is the speculation by which to parse by the numbers. It’s a hot topic. It will be a first in the state. The judge and one of the plaintiffs are pals. The judge does not want to take the heat. The judge would rather wait and see.

The Answer Some of You Have Been Waiting For
The answer is that he has already ruled. He did not lie when he said that he would rule by the afternoon of December 1st. He did rule. He ruled in silence. By saying nothing, he did not stop the recall drive. By saying nothing, he did not invalidate the petitions. By saying nothing, he informed the well-financed councilpersons that their action (yes, their action) does not deserve the merit of even an answer.

The answer simply came in children’s terms. Who amongst us can recall when our children were young and asked some really stupid questions in a disrespectful manner, to which the only plausible reply was to ignore the question and walk away? And as yet another real sage once said when asked why did he not respond to his children’s diatribes, “Why have two idiots in a situation?”.

For Now
So for now, the recall drive and the recall petitions have been vindicated and therefore the process has been given the blessing in silence to continue.

Maybe tomorrow the coin-flip that is the basis for the American legal system will occur. But for now, the court has vindicated the recall initiative by virtue of the fact that neither an order halting the recall, or an order invalidating the petitions, has been issued.

To those hoping for a deathblow to the recall drive via a judicial maneuver, interpret the silence from the court. Interpret it well.

3 Comments:

  • The judge has ruled. The recall is ordered stopped because elected officials can not be recalled because one disagrees with the way that they have voted. Plain and simple.

    I hope this stops the insanity that has fattened the lawyer's purse and cost our city!

    By Blogger Randy, at Thursday, December 14, 2006 3:52:00 PM  

  • Randy, wrong again. The insanity lies with Tucker, Minozzi and Trotter fighting this thing. They will go. They command respect only from those who serve them. They refuse to accept the will of their constituents and are paying the price. The people of Marco Island will never again permit them to serve in any capacity except dog catcher. They are bad men and deserve what they have harvested.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Saturday, December 23, 2006 6:38:00 AM  

  • making the lawyers' wallet fat is solely a product of the suit brought on by the city council against ordinary citizen(s). the democratic process, as put forth in the laws and the statutes, allow for a recall, devoid of legal action. by having allowed the recall to go to a vote, several things were guaranteed:

    1. the people would speak
    2. the wishes of the people would be made clear
    3. the councilpersons could have been recalled, or could have been retained - either way - solely by the will of the people
    4. if the recall would have lost at an election, those wanting a recall would have been silenced since the majority would have spoken against them
    5. regardless of the outcome of the election, divisions and suspicions would have been assuaged - at least to the reasonable public - which thankfully is still the majority

    but, FOR NOW, since once again an activist judge has ruled not according to law or to common sense (read his own opinion how it contradicts itself) but according to politics or to something ethereal, the citizen is left with no choice but to continue to seek his right to vote.

    what is amazing is what escapes the devotees of the three councilpersons: there is a law that allows any citizen to seek the recall of any elected official and that law allows for the citizen to allege ANYTHING. since the framers of the constitution had a lot more faith in the general public than the present day corrupt judges have, the founders knew that if some crackpot citizen alleged that that an elected official was from pluto and hence should be recalled, the majority of the citizens would probably not sign the petition in round one, most likely not sign the petition in round two, and assuredly the recall would fail in the general election. hence, stop-gap constitutional measures to ensure that stupidity does not prevail by the electorate while at the same time ensuring that the electorate have their voices heard.

    all true except here in southwest florida where the electorate are not allowed to exercise that fundamental right with the built in security measures.

    and that is the true sadness of what has occurred. not that the fat lawyers are getting fatter or more corrupt (impossible). but that ALL citizens, regardless of their inclination on the recall or the sewers or the POP issue or the asbestos fiasco were denied their right to exercise their right to vote - a right that one day will be denied to those very same ones that are now heralding the unconstitutional and unethical decision by a "judge".

    every time this occurs, more rights are taken away from us. and then many sit around the table with a drink in their hand bitching about how they cant do this or that, or that in the old days it was easier or better. and some just dont even realize it.

    so, keep exalting the victory, for ignorance is bliss.

    By Anonymous mario, at Tuesday, January 02, 2007 2:03:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home