• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Florida Sheriff Acquitted

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
It is ironic that when a official record is ordered to be "expunged" (destroyed?) they are found to be extremely difficult to destroy. When a cop just tosses one into a circular file on his own all hell breaks loose.
Probably because no official record is ever truly destroyed, not today's digital climate. Even if a state arrest record is expunged, it's still available to the Fed's.
 

Brent Hartman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Gallatin, Missouri, United States
Does the underlying reason really matter?

Personally I prefer my Sheriff's not to violate laws A & B because of his personal feeling on law C.

It's a good thing that in this case the sheriff didn't have to violate any laws to defend his feelings on upholding his oath to the Constitution. I'm not sure why that pisses you off so bad. I hope that if you are ever arrested for engaging in a constitutionally protected act, that your sheriff will conduct himself in a way that conforms to the views you shared in this case.
 

Brent Hartman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Gallatin, Missouri, United States
By the way, it took me awhile to find this thread after the moderators moved it. I don't live in Florida, so I typically don't visit the Florida forum. I just wanted to thank the moderator for wasting my time in having to locate the thread I started. Thanks!
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
It's a good thing that in this case the sheriff didn't have to violate any laws to defend his feelings on upholding his oath to the Constitution. I'm not sure why that pisses you off so bad. I hope that if you are ever arrested for engaging in a constitutionally protected act, that your sheriff will conduct himself in a way that conforms to the views you shared in this case.

It does not 'piss me off' at all. I would just prefer that Florida Sheriff's do not violate laws. Especially when those specific laws have nothing, at all, to do with his personal feelings regarding the constitutionality of another completely unrelated law.

And yes, it is his personal opinion about the unconstitutionality of the firearms laws. Regardless if I agree with him or not ( I do) no court of competent jurisdiction has ruled these laws unconstitutional. Therefore he may have actually violated both his oath and the law. However, I was not present at trial and have not reviewed the evidence presented (although the evidence released to the public at the beginning of the case was quite damming.) The jury has spoken, it is over.


I hope that if you are ever arrested for engaging in a constitutionally protected act, that your sheriff will conduct himself in a way that conforms to the views you shared in this case.
I can only hope to get a Sheriff that is honest and follows the law.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
I see. I can only conclude that your comment suggests that the acquittal was handed down in error.

I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest the jury made an error. :eek:

The initial information released to the public was very damming.

I was not present at trial to observe the 'justice system' in action here, but I am well acquainted with the common understanding the the justice system has nothing to do with justice, it's just a battle between lawyers to see who can win.

The trial is over, and he's Sheriff again. He'll be back in the news soon - mark my words.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
And yes, it is his personal opinion about the unconstitutionality of the firearms laws. Regardless if I agree with him or not ( I do) no court of competent jurisdiction has ruled these laws unconstitutional. Therefore he may have actually violated both his oath and the law.

I refuse to accept that jurisprudence can make the unjust just, the aggressive non-aggressive, or that which is within right, not. I can see no reason to criticize those who, in contradiction to the law, fail to jail the innocent, and every reason to criticize those who aggress, regardless of the content of the law.

In other words: I don't give a damn what the "law" says; if a person arrests or prosecutes over non-aggressive actions protected by the second amendment, that person is aggressive and a criminal.

The "rule of law" has no intrinsic merit; it must earn respect by being moral and just.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Marion Hammer

Marion Hammer is supporting Mr Finch. This is surprising and seems to confirm that the sheriff is a good guy and believes in our rights:
DATE: November 4, 2013





TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer

USF Executive Director

NRA Past President

We have been flooded with requests for information concerning the arrest of pro-gun Sheriff Nick Finch of Liberty County, Florida, for his actions in upholding the Second Amendment.

And his subsequent prosecution by Willie Meggs, the anti-gun State Attorney for 2nd Judicial Circuit, Florida.

Many have asked if there is anything they can do to help, and the answer is YES.

The trial is now over and Sheriff Nick Finch has been reinstated as Sheriff of Liberty County.

It only took the jury a little over an hour to find Sheriff Finch NOT GUILTY.

While Meggs used taxpayer dollars to conduct what many have called a malicious, witch hunt prosecution, Sheriff Finch is left with a whopping debt for defending himself. (information is listed at the end of this report on how you can help Sheriff Finch)

Pro-gun Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona attended the trial and posted his report online with OathKeepers.org. To read Sheriff Mack on Sheriff Finch's Acquittal in the November 1 edition of Oath Keepers, please click here.

NOTE *** Sheriff Nick Finch is left with a six-figure debt for defending the Second Amendment. If you want to help, you can send a check payable to:

"NICK FINCH LEGAL DEFENSE FUND" and send it to:

Nick Finch Legal Defense Fund
c/o P.O. BOX 10378,
Tallahassee, FL 32302

For more information on this case please read Sheriff Nick Finch Acquitted, Immediately Reinstated by Governor in October 31 edition of The New American.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
And yes, it is his personal opinion about the unconstitutionality of the firearms laws. Regardless if I agree with him or not ( I do) no court of competent jurisdiction has ruled these laws unconstitutional. Therefore he may have actually violated both his oath and the law.

the destroying public records is clearly illegal, but ordering his department not to enforce a law is not in violation of any oath, it's part of his authority as the chief executive of his county law enforcement to determine how to act.

many departments in states where MJ is illegal for example, set MJ as a low enforcement priority. in Illlinois county DAs refused to enforce ILs AUUW statute and permitted legal gun owners to carry concealed.

in some places a DA who opposes the death penalty may refuse to seek the death penalty in any cases.

elected officials in charge of law enforcement have the right to administratively decide which laws to enforce and at what priority. if the people don't like how he does it they can elect a new sheriff.

there is nothing illegal about deciding not to arrest for CCW and releasing anyone from jail who is arrested for it.
 

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
And that would is just as unlawful as Barry doing it from the White House.

In Barry's world, his E.O.'s are legal and enforced until challenged and proven otherwise. We need more legislative safeguards to keep scoundrels in check!!!!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I would never be so presumptuous as to suggest the jury made an error. :eek:

The initial information released to the public was very damming.

I was not present at trial to observe the 'justice system' in action here, but I am well acquainted with the common understanding the the justice system has nothing to do with justice, it's just a battle between lawyers to see who can win.

The trial is over, and he's Sheriff again. He'll be back in the news soon - mark my words.
The underlying matter does seem to matter.....to the jury anyway. You, not so much. You dedication to the law is and should be respected. It is a rule here on OCDO to obey the law, not advocate violating the law, work to change "bad" laws via the vote or a judge.

The sheriff exercised his discretion and did what he thought correct with the law in mind.....the 2A. I guess it boils down to a when does a official record become official. You have voiced you views and I can only conclude that the record becomes official at inception and not filing.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
The underlying matter does seem to matter.....to the jury anyway. You, not so much. You dedication to the law is and should be respected. It is a rule here on OCDO to obey the law, not advocate violating the law, work to change "bad" laws via the vote or a judge.

The sheriff exercised his discretion and did what he thought correct with the law in mind.....the 2A. I guess it boils down to a when does a official record become official. You have voiced you views and I can only conclude that the record becomes official at inception and not filing.


You have voiced you views and I can only conclude that the record becomes official at inception and not filing.
Yep, Florida law is clear on this and also specifies retention parameters.

The underlying matter does seem to matter.....to the jury anyway.
Have there been any published news stories about wht the jury made the decision they did? Or do you have some sort of inside source?
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
the destroying public records is clearly illegal, but ordering his department not to enforce a law is not in violation of any oath, it's part of his authority as the chief executive of his county law enforcement to determine how to act.

many departments in states where MJ is illegal for example, set MJ as a low enforcement priority. in Illlinois county DAs refused to enforce ILs AUUW statute and permitted legal gun owners to carry concealed.

in some places a DA who opposes the death penalty may refuse to seek the death penalty in any cases.

elected officials in charge of law enforcement have the right to administratively decide which laws to enforce and at what priority. if the people don't like how he does it they can elect a new sheriff.

there is nothing illegal about deciding not to arrest for CCW and releasing anyone from jail who is arrested for it.

As I've stated many times before. The proper, legal manner in which the Sheriff could 'enforce' his desires is to simply instruct his deputies not to make arrests in the first place. But once an arrest is effected, his hands a tied, legally speaking.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
I refuse to accept that jurisprudence can make the unjust just, the aggressive non-aggressive, or that which is within right, not. I can see no reason to criticize those who, in contradiction to the law, fail to jail the innocent, and every reason to criticize those who aggress, regardless of the content of the law.

In other words: I don't give a damn what the "law" says; if a person arrests or prosecutes over non-aggressive actions protected by the second amendment, that person is aggressive and a criminal.

The "rule of law" has no intrinsic merit; it must earn respect by being moral and just.

Official misconduct and destroying public records are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Yep, Florida law is clear on this and also specifies retention parameters.

Have there been any published news stories about wht the jury made the decision they did? Or do you have some sort of inside source?
You have me at a disadvantage Sir. The below link seems to be one of the statutes that the sheriff was charged with.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0839/Sections/0839.13.html

I have not been able to find the court transcripts to determine if evidence was presented that would remove reasonable doubt as to the sheriff being guilty of the above statute.

[SIZE=-1]838.022 Official misconduct.—(1) It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause harm to another, to:(a) Falsify, or cause another person to falsify, any official record or official document;
(b) Conceal, cover up, destroy, mutilate, or alter any official record or official document or cause another person to perform such an act; or
(c) Obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to the commission of a felony that directly involves or affects the public agency or public entity served by the public servant.

(2) For the purposes of this section:(a) The term “public servant” does not include a candidate who does not otherwise qualify as a public servant.
(b) An official record or official document includes only public records.

(3) Any person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0838/0838.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]The above seems to be the other statute[/SIZE] violation alleged.

I have not been able to find the retention criteria that you speak of.

Anyway. I have no specific information other than the statutes. The jury did not find him guilty of violating either one so [SIZE=-1]I can only conclude that he did not do what you contend he did. You disagree with the findings of the jury[SIZE=-1], no bi[SIZE=-1]g deal.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[/SIZE]
 

Brent Hartman

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
62
Location
Gallatin, Missouri, United States
The state attorney acknowledged during an Oct. 3rd hearing that is has been “common practice to Wite-Out names on the jail log of people released since 2005.”

The Florida General Records Schedule for Law Enforcement Item 32 states that records must be retained until "obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost"

When the Sheriff decided that the arrest was unjust,and that charges were not going to be filed, the arrest record was obsolete, had been superseded, and all administrative value had been lost. Under state guidelines the Sheriff was under no obligation or duty to maintain the arrest record. He never violated the law, so the jury was bound to acquit.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
So anyone here actually reside in this sheriff's county?

Is this a free reign to OC in this county? Would one still need to fear city cops and state troopers?
 

2OLD2W8

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
138
Location
Black Waters
The state attorney acknowledged during an Oct. 3rd hearing that is has been “common practice to Wite-Out names on the jail log of people released since 2005.”

The Florida General Records Schedule for Law Enforcement Item 32 states that records must be retained until "obsolete, superseded, or administrative value is lost"

When the Sheriff decided that the arrest was unjust,and that charges were not going to be filed, the arrest record was obsolete, had been superseded, and all administrative value had been lost. Under state guidelines the Sheriff was under no obligation or duty to maintain the arrest record. He never violated the law, so the jury was bound to acquit.

Some may disagree with his position and actions, I applaud both. It's quite evident he is not (one that goes along to get along). The sheriff acted on his principles. Maybe he chooses to serve the sovereign free man in lieu of calming the sheeple and their precious ever changing feelings.....

If an action doesn’t violate anyone's constitutional rights or private property, no crime has been committed.
 
Top