Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   "Free speech is not hassle-free"   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 31
    More: Florida, free speeches, Dixie Highway, public engagement, PDAs, city commission, sunshine law, yard sign  
•       •       •

7560 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2014 at 11:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-03-23 11:38:43 AM  
5 votes:
"I'm not threatening to sue these people," Green told me. "I'm just telling them to preserve evidence. ... Citizens have an absolute first amendment right to speak at public hearings. But with rights come responsibilities."

That's for a Judge to order, not a power hungry lawyer working for a corporation bent on intimidating private citizens.

What's great is when people fight back, like this company did when a larger company tried to use intimidation tactics.
2014-03-23 11:01:20 AM  
5 votes:
getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.
2014-03-23 10:36:24 AM  
5 votes:
The key to free speech is that everyone is free.  Meaning, you are free to say whatever you want, and everyone else is free to tell you you're a dumbass for it.
2014-03-23 12:27:43 PM  
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.


Dont - keep every harassing letter - its really helpful in case they actually try to come after you as you will have evidence of improper actions.  Using the profession to browbeat people without a real claim can trigger disciplinary action - and fun internet beat-downs.  See, e.g., the Oatmeal.
2014-03-23 11:59:33 AM  
3 votes:

DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.


If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.
2014-03-23 11:49:24 AM  
3 votes:
send him the same letter back with his name on it telling him that you will be requesting his emails,phone calls,pay receipts,etc to make sure that he isn't conspiring with people he shouldn't be.
2014-03-23 11:41:41 AM  
3 votes:
As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!
2014-03-23 11:08:09 AM  
3 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.


Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.
2014-03-23 11:04:13 PM  
2 votes:
Did the government do anything to stop you from saying what you wanted to say? No? Your First Amendment rights were not violated. Now f*ck off. Being harassed by someone other than the government is NOT a violation of your First Amendment rights.

I swear the last few years have seen hundreds of threads on various sites where people show a painful ignorance of what the First Amendment actually says.
2014-03-23 01:44:01 PM  
2 votes:

dr428: As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!


My wife and I have worked extremely hard for many years to be able to afford to live in a safe neighborhood with our young children. Unless it was a closed secure campus you're damned straight I would oppose a drug treatment center near our house. Unapologetically.
2014-03-23 12:56:40 PM  
2 votes:

DubyaHater: Mock26: DubyaHater: Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.

Yes, yes he does. Let's say that, at the meeting, the speaker said "I have reservations about patient treatment at this particular facility. I would like to see the track record of this company". However, on Facebook, the speaker actually said "I concerned with the possibility of black people in this facility bringing down my property values". I would like to know there is continuity in the speaker's logic and he isn't just talking out of his ass.

If that speaker is a private citizen then Mr. Green does not have the right to explore what is said outside of the meeting unless it is publicly available.  If that speaker's Facebook account is open for everyone to see then he can go log on to Facebook and find it.  If the speaker has YouTube video ranting about how evil black people are then Mr. Green can go to YouTube and find the video himself.  But, it is up to Mr. Green to find that on his own.  If the speaker's words on their own do not give any indication that he might be a racist then Mr. Green has no cause to go searching through that person's private emails, computer files, and images looking for anything that might indicate duplicity.

When you put yourself on a public forum, I have every right to scrutinize what you say. I'm not saying any laws should be broken, and neither is that lawyer. I do have every right though to investigate (within the limits of the law) and make you eat your words.


Exactly which law is it that gives you every right to scrutinize what I say outside of that public forum?  Which law is it that lets you send a letter to people saying that the documents stored on their personal computers are subject to search and seizure?
2014-03-23 11:25:48 AM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


Hopefully someone will file harassment charges against this guy.
2014-03-23 11:24:18 AM  
2 votes:
"I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.
2014-03-23 11:19:45 AM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: Marcus Aurelius: getting a letter from a corporate lawyer that reads: "We intend to examine all of your records, yard signs, notes, surveillance tapes, telephone and cell phone records, letters, emails (including those on private e-mail accounts), social media, documents and writings concerning [our client]...This not only includes paper writing and records but also electronic, taped and computerized writings and images...hard drives, PDAs, laptops, text messages, calendars...and all types of electronic storage media."

I tend to file those kinds of letters in my circular file.

If it's not a summons or a subpoena or an order issued by a judge, ignore it completely.

Yes but the intent is to create a mindset of fear and intimidation. Speak up and you could be hit with fines, jail time and all kinds of police and corporate harassment. So basically, you are free to speak up but oh dear gods will you pay out the nose for doing do.


I agree.  But in this case it ended up in the newspapers, and that's absolutely hilarious.  Hopefully the recipients will now discover they can wipe their asses with the lawyerly correspondence.
2014-03-23 10:44:08 AM  
2 votes:
Free speech is actually one of the most expensive commodities in existence
2014-03-23 07:19:19 PM  
1 votes:

Flint Ironstag: BraveNewCheneyWorld: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

You internet lawyers always bring the laughs.

I'm not a lawyer, though I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but even I know that was bull. Discovery applies to the parties in a trial, not to random members of the public who have objected to a new development in their neighbourhood.
To get information from them would need a subpoena, and only the court can issue that, not a lawyer for one side. And I very much doubt any judge would do that in a case like this. Fact is you have the right to object to a new development in your neighbourhood. Your personal reasons are nobodies business but your own. You could object because you are a shareholder in a competitor or because you are a Capricorn and Mars is rising. Makes no difference.
Now if they claimed that the hospital owner had broken the law or some other defamatory statement...


Actually, the lawyers for each side are the ones who do issue the subpoenas. The judge in the case has nothing to do with it. (at least in a civil suit) I just filed a couple subpoenas for my attorney this week. All a subpoena is, is a request for someone to appear for something, and provide information about a case that is being tried, pursuant to a court order or request for discovery. It's the court order that a judge has to approve, that the case actually has merit and can proceed. Once that's been done, then the attorneys issue their subpoenas to witnesses and each other.

Now, if a party chooses to ignore a subpoena, then the lawyer goes back to the court and files a motion to compel, which only the judge can grant; and THAT is what forces the noncompliant party to answer; like the deposition we've got this week, if the witness were to choose not to show up, we'd have to file a motion to compel answer (although probably wouldn't in this case).

In THIS case, what this lawyer thinks he's trying to do (besides intimidate people) is that, once a case is actually pending or in pretrial, the opposing side will sometimes send such a letter to companies telling them that they plan to file for discovery, and not to go destroying documents that might be requested in discovery. This puts the company on notice that certain documents are going to be looked for and expected in discovery and that their absence will also be noted in the case. But that kind of maneuver only applies when a case has actually been filed and discovery is imminent. You can't go around saying "Someday if a case might be filed I might want to see your records so don't go destroying anything just in case I eventually get around to looking at them."

Has anyone filed a grievance with this guy's state bar yet? It would be a good idea.
2014-03-23 05:13:38 PM  
1 votes:
I don't know what everybody is making a big deal about? It has an iron fence that rings the property, it is in what looks like a warehouse/business area. I googled the address and zoomed around the area, I don't get the NIMBYISM?

But I do get why everyone is up in arms about the a**hole lawyer though.


http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/16929307/5757-North-Dixie-Highway-Oak la nd-Park-FL/
2014-03-23 05:03:38 PM  
1 votes:

BraveNewCheneyWorld: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

You internet lawyers always bring the laughs.


I'm not a lawyer, though I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but even I know that was bull. Discovery applies to the parties in a trial, not to random members of the public who have objected to a new development in their neighbourhood.
To get information from them would need a subpoena, and only the court can issue that, not a lawyer for one side. And I very much doubt any judge would do that in a case like this. Fact is you have the right to object to a new development in your neighbourhood. Your personal reasons are nobodies business but your own. You could object because you are a shareholder in a competitor or because you are a Capricorn and Mars is rising. Makes no difference.
Now if they claimed that the hospital owner had broken the law or some other defamatory statement...
2014-03-23 03:18:03 PM  
1 votes:
Green likened some of the opposition to the treatment center to "a lynch mob," and said people can "speak lies and spew venomous discrimination and hate."

When you start doing the kind of crap you are doing while screaming about lynch mobs, I find myself hoping that someone takes that "lynch mob" label to heart and strings your neck up from a tall tree.

Chances are, nobody is going to do that, because this asshole isn't worth the jail time.

But I suspect you *could* hire a lawyer and sue him for defamation, since he's claiming you are part a a lynch mob.

Green's client, Palm Partners LLC

While you are filing the defamation suit, look into suing them along with Green.  He's working for them when he's attacking these citizens.  Most of the time, when an employee screws up, the company is liable.  Even if the part about them gets dropped, it'll piss them off, and worry them, and maybe they'll drop the asshole lawyer and go hire someone else.
2014-03-23 02:56:59 PM  
1 votes:

Mock26: "I have a right to explore what was said outside of the meeting," said Green.

No.  No you do not.


...unless it's in the context of an actual lawsuit and this is a formal request for discovery. Are you bringing a discrimination suit, counselor? Otherwise, a complaint to the state bar might be in order.
2014-03-23 01:41:04 PM  
1 votes:

MNguy: ITT, people who have never heard of 'discovery'


"The scope of information obtainable through discovery is quite broad and not limited to what can be used in a trial. Federal courts and most state courts allow a party to discover any information 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' Because of this broad standard, parties often disagree about what information must be exchanged and what may be kept confidential. These disputes are resolved through court rulings on discovery motions."

In other words, yes, the info he is requesting can be "discovered", but only if a judge decides it is discoverable; the opposing lawyer cannot simply demand whatever he wants and expect you to hand it over without question. Well, he could, but he can also expect Justin Bieber to turn into a dragon and shoot rainbows out of his arse.
2014-03-23 01:28:11 PM  
1 votes:

Hobodeluxe: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?


Winner!  First there would have to be actual litigation, as in a complaint filed.  Next, Mr. Green would have to file a request for 3rd party production of discovery, which can be opposed.  Followed by a hearing, where it would be unlikely that Mr. Green would prevail since it is his burden to show that the production would lead to meaningful discovery.

But my solution would be to widely publish both Mr. Green's home address and the address of the office he reports to each day.  Then, after he spends some time looking over his shoulder every time he goes to his car, we'd see how serious he is about this.  But then again, I have anger issues.
2014-03-23 12:53:24 PM  
1 votes:

dr428: As much as I hate lawyers, I totally despise @sshole residents that rally around NIMBYism and all it stands for.  NIMBY's have ruined many a good project under their heart-tugging BS claims that the world would stop if that particular project was allowed to proceed.  Screw ALL NIMBY's!!!


On the flip side:

I've seen a good number of idiot things cities do to placate groups and companies. Currently, our local city is putting in painted bike lanes, which 40 years of research in Europe have shown to actually make things worse. The proper way to put in bike lanes, according to the best bike cities, is to 'uncouple' them from normal traffic. This necessitates rebuilding the road, as you are adding an extra curb, or even redoing the sidewalks so a bike path can be added. Places from Finland to Germany to Netherlands to the UK have found that painted bike lanes actually increase the risk of cyclist injury. They've even found that it is better to not paint lines at all!

The difference is the infrastructure cost. Paint is cheap and results in bikers feeling safer. Putting in an actual safe infrastructure is expensive, and more expensive to maintain.

NIMBY isn't always the cause.
2014-03-23 12:11:37 PM  
1 votes:

MNguy: Hobodeluxe: MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.

wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?

Yes, approved by a judge, but if facts are lacking in the course of litigation, and you have access to those facts...you need to provide them.


I don't think he has enough to warrant such a discovery. ianal but seems to me this is pure intimidation. these people don't want this built. they should be allowed to voice their concerns both publicly and privately to whomever they choose. and unless he has some evidence that they were conspiring in an illegal fashion then his request should be denied.
2014-03-23 12:04:45 PM  
1 votes:
If someone tries to suppress your First Amendment rights, counter them with your Second Amendment rights.
2014-03-23 12:03:47 PM  
1 votes:

MNguy: If you want to ignore attorney requests for information, that's fine.  Probably not going to cost you too much when all is said and done.  But, in the end, you do have to provide it.  Not a first amendment issue at all.


wouldn't it have to be approved by a judge? and wouldn't they have to show some reason that they would need such information? I mean what does he think he will find? some collusion between those people and their representatives? that they are paying them to vote a certain way?  seems there should be some determination made to justify this. and what about his client? couldn't you request their info too? all their contributions to elected officials,lobbying,communications etc?  how do we know they aren't trying to sway the vote through collusion?
2014-03-23 12:02:49 PM  
1 votes:
The 'people' sending those letters could get a fowl of anti SLAPP laws.
2014-03-23 11:53:33 AM  
1 votes:

MNguy: But hey.  Basically the framers wanted to create a society where your rights extended to the point where you can't trample on others' rights.  We've been parsing this for 200 years.


What the framers wanted? We've been told not to care about original intent anymore. The hip new attitude is that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean.
2014-03-23 11:24:38 AM  
1 votes:

doglover: Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.


The "second amendment"?
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-23 11:09:15 AM  
1 votes:
It's surprising that they don't think of the PR effect of this sort of thing.  I would oppose the facility just because they are assholes.
2014-03-23 08:49:45 AM  
1 votes:
Well, duh.

The second amendment is not different from the any of the first 10. Basically all of those enumerated rights and restrictions on the Federal gov't were split numerically for the sake of convenience of learning. But they're a unified whole. And the reason they're a unified whole is because they all mesh. You can't have free speech without risking attacks upon your person, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

The nail that speaks up gets hammered down, pulled up, and melted by the blacksmith of oppression. That's why have the right to share this info and get all the other nails around and pin that farking blacksmith to the wall by his scrote with political movements.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report