Florida Woman Fired After Speaking at Tea Party Protest
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 6:09 AM
She spoke at a tea party protest. She was canned.
A Florida assistant state attorney was fired after she spoke at a tea party protest.
Jasksonville.com reported:
An assistant state attorney in Live Oak was fired Monday after she refused to stop speaking to tea party rallies and other groups, her boss said.
Prosecutor KrisAnne Hall asked a federal judge Friday for a ruling that would have allowed her to keep speaking and prevented her boss, State Attorney Skip Jarvis, from following through on threats to fire her if she didn’t stop.
Courtroom arguments on that request hadn’t been scheduled by Monday afternoon, when Jarvis said he fired Hall shortly after receiving a copy of her federal complaint.
He called her a good prosecutor, who crossed an ethical line with her speeches and radio appearances.
“You can’t take a job advocating for the state and go out and take a position against the state,” Jarvis said. “I advised her from my first learning of her activity that she was free to say and do whatever she desired within the law, but she could not do so while assistant counsel for the state.”
Hat Tip Joseph H.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Busted!… Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996 **FLIER**
Published May 24, 2012 at 8:46 pm - 87 Comments
bill-tb commented:
It’s a good thing she didn’t speak at a union event. Now that would be really bad.
Say wait a minute, how do government employee unions protest anyway? Isn’t that one of the big problems with government unions?
Britny commented:
I don’t care if she was a 911Truther and was undermining the Bush Administration.
Speak up honey.
Saint commented:
Its unusual for them to come out and say they fired an employee for speaking against the democrats.
Its also very stupid, since its a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
lyle commented:
If that’s a sample of Jarvis’ legal thinking, he’s not much of an attorney.
He ought to read his own job description more carefully. State attorneys represent ‘the people of the state’, not ‘the state’. There is no conflict in advocating for the people of the state inside a court room and at a Tea Party.
Further, to state the blindingly obvious, Tea Parties are attended and addressed by lots of politicians, including those who hope to use Tea Party support to gain elective office. They are no more advocating against ‘the state’ than attendees at a civil rights rally.
How do nitwits like Jarvis ever pass a bar exam?
Auntie Em commented:
Jarvis does not know the law….he must be a democrat.
Time for his public flogging by blogging…
HandyBill commented:
The ACLU coming to her rescue in 3..2..1..
gus commented:
Oh dear, didn’t Mr Eric Holder hire 9 or more attornies that advocated for MUZZTARD TERRORISTS??
Liberals cannot help themselves. They are mentally ill.
Auntie Em commented:
Well whaddaya know!!!!….he DOES have an agenda….
http://election.dos.state.fl.us/candidate/CanDetail.asp?account=45753
Red commented:
Hire a lawyer
double "D" commented:
….Shame on you skip ! this is America. not amerika !!
newton commented:
Psst, State of Florida!
I can see a lawsuit from her house…
WSG commented:
Jarvis obviously has an “us v. them” mentality. Had he actually realized that TEA partiers are largely concerned with Federal overreach, he might have realized that she was speaking for the home team. Inexplicably, Jarvis does not seem to be able to imagine the state of Florida being on the opposite side of an issue than the federal government.
Was she actually talking about the state of Florida trying to erode personal freedom and liberty? Is there evidence that she was not pursuing prosecutions she might disagree with?
We are just one big happy public sector aren’t we?
Agent99 commented:
Sarah Palin, Trigg Palin, GERALD WALPIN, Joe The Plumber….ETC. Just the way COMMIES would treat their CITIZENS as they did to KrisAnn Hall SEE http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=7331065&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=3&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hm Author writing about Palin moves next door to her
Published: 5/26/10, 10:05 AM EDT
By MARK THIESSEN
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) – Sarah Palin has taken to her Facebook page to complain about her new neighbor – a writer penning a book about her.
Author Joe McGinniss has taken up residence in a house next to Palin’s lakeside home in Wasilla.
McGinniss previously wrote a critical expose on Palin and her natural gas pipeline plan for the Conde Nast publication Portfolio last year, and is planning a book about the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate. It’s tentatively titled, “Sarah Palin’s Year of Living Dangerously” and could be on the shelves in the fall of 2011.
“Yes, that Joe McGinniss. Here he is about 15 feet away on the neighbor’s rented deck overlooking my children’s play area and my kitchen window,” Palin posted on Facebook late Monday, hours after returning from a trip to the Lower 48 and learning of McGinniss’ presence.
“We’re sure to have a doozey to look forward to with this treasure he’s penning. Wonder what kind of material he’ll gather while overlooking Piper’s bedroom, my little garden, and the family’s swimming hole?” she wrote.
McGinniss is renting the place “for the next five months or so,” Palin wrote.
Neither McGinniss, author of such best-selling books as “The Selling of the President,” “Blind Faith” and “Fatal Vision,” nor his agent were available for comment Tuesday.
However, his publishing house, Broadway Books, released a statement.
It reads, in part: “McGinniss is the author of “Going to Extremes,” a classic book about Alaska, and his work-in-progress returns him to the 49th state to examine Sarah Palin’s significance as both a political and cultural phenomenon and as an embodiment of the contradictory forces that shaped Alaska as it moved into its second half-century of statehood.
“Well regarded for his in-depth, up-close reporting, Mr. McGinniss will be highly respectful of his subject’s privacy as he investigates her public activities,” the statement says.
Palin has promised to ensure that privacy.
“And you know what they say about ‘fences make for good neighbors’? Well, we’ll get started on that tall fence tomorrow,” she wrote on Facebook.
___
Broadway Books is part of The Crown Publishing Group, which is a unit of Bertelsmann AG’s Random House Inc.
NeoKong commented:
Uh hoh please….
State employees participate in politics all the time.
Using Jarvis’s logic would mean that he as a state prosecutor could never prosecute someone working for the state or someone who is his superior.
Using his logic that would mean that school teachers could not protest or strike for better wages because they work for the state.
He is just trying to punish someone for their political beliefs.
bg commented:
++
this too shall come to be the “norm”..
start practicing now and you can
go to the back of the firing line..
1 + 1 = ONE
Chaos is Peace
Wealth is Slavery
Death is Life
your mother is a pig & your father is a dog..
oh wait, that’s on the subliminal message list..
==
Agent99 commented:
PUNISHED for their Beliefs??? Per Neo Kong!! Exactly!! AND JUSTICE for others?? NOPE!! What about JUSTICE for America..The Black Panther Case from Philadelphia. Gerald Walpin the IG who was fired without warning or notice JUST BECAUSE Walpin investigated AmeriCorp?? BHO had Walpin FIRED for ”going after his Buddy” at ST HOPE!!! Other Injustices too. Strange & Scary Times http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Gerald-Walpin-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-AmeriCorps-firing-48030697.html REMEMBER?? WALPIN?? Glenn Beck Interviewed Walpin.
Kevin P commented:
I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even play one on TV. But even I can see the violation of First Amendment rights here.
Hey, State Attorney Skip Jarvis, this right is not granted by you or any govt. entity. It is endowed by her Creator!
The only thing you can do Skip is either get out of her way and let her enjoy her Creator endowed right, or infringe on it. Which side are you on Skip?
Agent99 commented:
YES bg!! You are, as always, Spot on!! God Bless You and Thanks!! BTW ….fellow Citizens ….Please be aware that COMMIES are IN CONTROL!!! Stalinist Russia!! Where one was ASSIGNED their Apartment, their Job, and Failure to conform meant a one-way ticket to the Gulag!! Hard Labor In a Camp! If 15 minutes Late for assembly line job or equivalent meant HARD LABOR as this meant that said person Late for Work Endangered the Communist Society…per the Logic of Lenin/Stalin/Marx!!
Agent99 commented:
# 19 ..YOU may wish to educate yourself about SOCIETY in a Communist Controlled Country! A Card-Carrying Member of the Communist Party was PUNISHED far More severely than a peasant on a Communal Farm because the Card Carrying Member Should Have Known Better!!!
Lib R. Al commented:
Would you dummies be defending her if she had spoken at a white supremacist rally instead? You know, because that’s her “god given right” and all.
T-bone McGee commented:
2008 General Election
Florida State Attorney
Circuit 3
Robert L. “Skip” Jarvis Jr.
Democrat
Big surprise, Skipper is a Democrat!
chuck in st paul commented:
You all may be completely wrong (1st Amendment-wise)
Some government employees are restrained by law from publically advocating political things. I was a Federal employee. Federal law specifically said we could speak as an individual in private discussions but were forbidden to advocate for any party or party politics in public. I couldn’t even act as a poll judge because you had to declare a party affiliation.
Many states have the same type of law. I don’t know if that’s the case here. If not then she has a wrongful dismissal case for sure. Otherwise she screwed up.
Agent99 commented:
Just Now saw this http://weaselzippers.us/2010/05/26/breaking-us-national-debt-just-broke-13-trillion/ “The USSR spent themselves into oblivion, Mr. Wonderful seems intent on duplicating that feat…” USSR Spent MONEY on MILITARY and Socialist/Communist Ideology! We are NEXT????
clyde commented:
The tea party is not against any state,they are for limited government as spelled out in clear language in the federal and state constitution that all those in office are sworn to support.
bigkahuna commented:
Seems like this moron needs his email and phone numbers listed so everyone can call or email and suggest to him where this idiot can stick his communist attitude / manefesto. At least then he would be able to read it since thats where his head is.
firstHat commented:
As a state employee (not Florida) part of my employment agreement says that I may not participate in political activities that may adversely affect my employers (not the exact wording, but something like it). I’ve been expecting to see something like this. However, I party on
Lib R. Al commented:
Durrrr, the Creator says people are allowed to speak at protests where the average IQ never exceeds the temperature, and goll darn the stupid “law” if it don’t like it! durrrr!
neomom commented:
Lib R. al, your Mom is calling from the top of the stairs, your Chicken Nuggets and Tater Tots are done. Wash the lotion off your hands before you eat. Idiot Troll.
Kevin P commented:
Lib R. Al – are you the same hate-monger that’s always on 97.1? The same liberal Al who does not let the facts confuse the issue?
Oh wait – liberal means by definition you don’t let the facts confuse the issue.
Agent99 commented:
# 25 …CHUCK!! Yes that crossed my mind! And YET look at what other FEDERAL EMPLOYEES have done or said!! To be “”Neutral”" or a Fence-Sitter without Speaking Out is difficult, indeed! As for me, I feel that ppl should speak out and TAKE A STAND while WE STILL CAN!! Yes, it has come to that!! The Jackboots are on our Necks as I type. Time is “”Short”" TAKE A STAND!!
Kevin P commented:
Lib R. Al #23 – no, we’d let the ACLU be scream then.
lyle commented:
Lib R Al #23
Why compare a Tea Party rally to a white supremacist rally? Tea Parties currently have wider support among the public than either political party.
A more rational comparison would be to a civil rights rally. If she were a democrat speaking at a civil rights rally and got canned, would that be okay with you?
Chip Bennett commented:
@Chuck in St. Paul:
It is perfectly reasonable to restrict activities carried out in one’s official capacity, as such activities can be misconstrued as representing official positions.
However, state law cannot supersede Constitutional law. Thus, this person’s freedom of speech, and of assembly, and of petition for redress of grievances cannot be abridged simply because she is a state employee.
There is a huge difference between speaking at a lay function/protest (TEA party) and holding a state office (poll worker).
My guess is that your prohibition against being a poll worker had more to do with being a state employee (poll worker) simultaneously with being a Federal employee than it did with having to declare a party affiliation. After all: what of all the states that require declaration of party affiliation in order to vote in a primary? Would you be prohibited from voting in said primary if you were a resident of such a state? I think not.
Agent99 commented:
LIBBER @ # 23!! Have You ACTUALLY SEEN such as You State?? I have NOT! If YOU have seen a White Suprematist Rally…then WHERE & WHEN and why were YOU their??? TXS!
Chip Bennett commented:
Whether this firing is actionable or not depends on whether or not the assistant state attorney works at the pleasure of the state attorney. If so, then the state attorney can hire and/or fire the assistant attorney with or without cause.
Of course, even in such a scenario, when the state attorney indisputably admits that the firing is based on clear discrimination, the case may even still be actionable. IANAL
But, my ultimate thinking is that state law and policy cannot deprive a person of the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances – regardless of that person’s status as a state office-holder.
Chip Bennett commented:
@firstHat:
Your employers are the citizens and taxpayers of your state.
Party on!
Sickofobama commented:
Sue like a libtard would.
Jarvis is a commie pig who is another lying cockroach for the Communist Party – formerly known as the Democrat Party.
Chip Bennett commented:
@ [Liberal Troll]:
Why, yes, as a matter of fact.
And I would be first in line to debate and refute her positions, if she supported that ideology.
But the First Amendment is clear. Even if you don’t like someone’s ideology, or even if such ideology is clearly and unquestionably wrong (morally, practically, or in any other way), that person’s freedom to espouse that ideology through speech cannot be infringed.
What part of that is so difficult for you to understand?
Radegunda commented:
How is it “against the state” to speak in favor of the U.S. Constitution and a limited federal government that doesn’t trample on the rights of individuals or the prerogatives of states??
Jarvis is just a typical lefty who wants to muzzle people who disagree with him.
And the idiot troll is blissfully unaware that Tea Party activists on average have a higher education level and are more informed than the average of the population at large.
bg commented:
++
Agent99 @| 9:37 am #18
excellent, thank you..
that’s how Obama et al operate.. they put so much crap out there it’s nearly impossible to keep track of it.. meanwhile their train wreck is rolling along full steam ahead without fear of derailment..
if we’re waiting for elections to save US, then
we’re in the exact place they want US to be..
==
bg commented:
++
Lib R. Al @ 9:50 am #22
if $hit were nickel’s, you’d be a millionaire..
==
Agent99 commented:
We are living, as bg says, (SEE bg @ # 17) As for me…I have lived in many places from England to South Korea to Tx to SC to WV. A State Worker in, say WV, is much more likely to a DEMOCRAT!! As Opposed to TX! As The US MILITARY says and I agree, for the TYPICAL State Worker or even Fed, one must Have “”Connections” for successful applicancy as well as continued employment. Seems the State and Federal Gov’ts are VERY Reluctant to hire a VET! For Proof..ASK A VET!! This is a sickening reality for our Veterans. God Bless the USA! ((***And CHIP***)) THXs ..that was excellent! Logic vs innuendo!
lyle commented:
Lib R Al # 43
What a sloppy piece of writing. Can’t you even think a clear thought?
gus commented:
LIBTARD AL, if you want an answer to your WHITE SUPREMECY RALLY question, I suggest you call 202-224-3954 and ask for GRAND KLEGEL BOB C BYRD.
He’s an expert on these matters.
TJ commented:
Chuck in St. Paul…
Is the tea party a recognized political party in Florida?
I think it more like the civil rights movement …
I’ll be surprised if the firing is legitimate… I’ll also be surprised if a judge stands up and recognizes the US Constitution as valid!
Andreas K. commented:
All animals are equal. Just some animals are more equal than others.
Everything George Orwell wrote in “The Animal Farm” and “1984″ is coming true. We even have “Newspeak” these days.
Lib R. Al
May 26th, 2010 | 9:50 am | #22
Would you dummies be defending her if she had spoken at a white supremacist rally instead? You know, because that’s her “god given right” and all.
Hmm, I know your kind. White supremacist rally = bad. La raza = good.
Freedom of speech either applies for everyone or no one. There is no other way.
See, I really loath Nazis, but the fact that all the Nazi crap is banned in Germany and Austria is a violation of free speech. And before anyone screams: communist crap isn’t banned. The SED, which formerly ruled Eastern Germany, simply renamed themselves into “Die Linke” (lit. The Left), kept all the SED money, and nobody ever was prosecuted for killing thousands of East Germans.
See the double standards? Nazi = bad. Commie = good. Despite the fact that both come from the same garbage dump of history and without Karl Marx neither would exist.
Agent99 commented:
bg …I actually DO Think exactly as you do! I have warned as many as I can!! Mostly to no avail!! It is, as I posted some Days Ago, from a recent Book. Obama In Wonderland! The Strange Adventures of Insane Hussein. If it were up to ME…I would pull “”our”" money from the Stock Market ASAP! Based on Actions of BHO as well as his Puppet Masters. And the Takeover of GM. Banks. Health Care OverHaul. AND the NEW Financial Regulations. And many OTHER reasons to include Cloward-Piven. WE ARE LIVING IN AN ”ALTERNATE UNIVERSE” of sorts! Heading in the Wrong Direction and just about over the Cliff.
Kevin P commented:
Lib R. Al IS a mental disorder
gus commented:
TJ, you made a very very good point.
What would LIBTARDS say if any black employee was fired for speaking at CIVIL RIGHTS PROTESTS??
Maybe in Birmingham or Montgomery or Jackson, or SELMA???
LIBTARD AL? Have you made the call to your Grand Klegel friend yet??
Agent99 commented:
Andreas K. THX! Gee I forgot..I lived in Vandenburg Germany! But I was more or less a child then. Daddy away lots on ‘Missions’ of infiltration…if you get my drift. He was ‘handler’ ….Read between the lines please.
ice commented:
‘You can’t take a job advocating for the state, and go out and take a position against the state’…..
Can we replace the words ‘state’ with ‘country’ and apply the same sentence to President Obama?
jetstream commented:
There is NO tea Party. There are tea parties. They are composed of people who belong to various political parties, not just the Republican Party. In fact, some say that the Democrats started the tea parties when the PUMAs (Party Unity My A**) became enraged over the stolen primary.
FL State Attorney Jarvis has just cost the citizens of Florida a hefty civil rights lawsuit.
Kevin P commented:
Ice #53 – excellent point. Isn’t that what ObowMao has been doing 24/7?
lyle commented:
Has Lib R Al been banned? What happened to his demented comment #43 with personal insults directed at Chip Bennett? Trolls like Lib R Al do serve a purpose. They remind us of the ignorance and stupidity of our critics.
gus commented:
LIBTARD AL, Robert Byrd is still waiting for your call son.
Chip Bennett commented:
@lyle:
Must have gotten deleted pretty quickly. I didn’t even get a chance to see his comments.
I can guess, though: long on invective and pejorative, short on logic.
Chisum commented:
Chip,
Bingo!
Finncrisp commented:
“You can’t take a job advocating for the state and go out and take a position against the state,” Jarvis said.
I want that rep. in AZ to resign, immediately.
Most of the Obama administration should resign as well for their comments about their country, if this is the standard.
jetstream commented:
I hope KrisAnne Hall takes some of the money she will win in her civil rights lawsuit and runs for office. She appears to have guts, fortitude, and knowledge of the law.
Opaobie commented:
Bottom line, she may have a legitimate lawsuit to bring IF she was speaking as a private citizen and did not use her official capacity as a Deputy State Attorney to construct a policy statement. Here is a case from a lawyer representing the FOP in a somewhat similar case, but in the case below, the individual was not acting solely as a private citizen, so the case went against him.
The Law Enforcement Officer’s Right to Free Speech
After the US Supreme Court Decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos
Larry H. James, General Counsel
National Fraternal Order of Police
Does a public employee retain the right to exercise free speech? The US Supreme Court has placed limitations on free speech when public employees exercise such rights pursuant to their official duties. In other words, public employees can be punished and/or reprimanded for comments made during their duties as a public employee. Public employees’ communications are only protected if they are acting as citizens on a matter of public concern.
First Amendment protections may not be available when public employees make statements in the course and performance of their employment. If the public employee was acting as a citizen, the employer may still limit the public employee’s statements if the employer can adequately justify treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. Adequate justification would constitute a showing that the statements of the public employee, acting outside of his or her official capacity, adversely affected the employer’s ability to operate efficiently and effectively. An employer cannot create excessively broad definitions of employee duties in an attempt restrict employee speech, and the job description need not be inclusive of every duty that may be deemed to be an official duty.
The general rule is that a public employee has no right to object to conditions placed upon their terms of employment–including those which restrict the exercise of constitutional rights. However, this rule is qualified in two important respects: (1) public employees do not surrender all of their First Amendment rights by reason of their employment; and (2) in certain circumstances the First Amendment can be employed to protect government employees’ rights, to speak as a citizen addressing matters of public concern.
In order to determine whether public employees’ speech is protected under the constitution, they must ask themselves: “Did I speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern?” If the answer is no, then the employees are not protected from punishment and/or reprimand from their employers. If the answer is yes, then they may be protected from punishment and/or reprimand from their employer by the constitution. The government employer must justify treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. The power of the government to act is increased when assuming the role of the employer, but the restrictions imposed must be directed at speech that has some potential effect on the entity’s operations. A balance must be struck between the interest of the public employee as a citizen commenting on a matter of public concern, and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs through its employers.
The Garcetti decision offers an excellent example of a government employee not acting as a citizen. Mr. Ceballos was a supervising deputy district attorney who felt that an affidavit used by police made serious misrepresentations. Mr. Ceballos expressed his opinion with his supervisors. Mr. Ceballos’ supervisors did not agree with Mr. Ceballos’ interpretation. Mr. Ceballos pressed the issue by submitting a disposition memorandum which further advocated his position. Mr. Ceballos then alleged that he was punished for his memorandum.
The question was posed, “Did Mr. Ceballos, a government employee, speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern?” Indeed Mr. Ceballos spoke on a matter of public concern, but because the memorandum was written in the course and performance of his duties as a government employee, he was not acting as a citizen. Therefore, Mr. Ceballos was denied protections that would otherwise be provided if he were not acting in the course and scope of his employment. The rationale for limiting Mr. Ceballos’ rights are: (1) government employees can have a greater propensity to adversely affect government operations because public employees often occupy trusted positions in society; and (2) government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter.
The Supreme Court does not provide a definition of “official duties.” However, the Supreme Court points out that job descriptions need not be assigned in order for an act to be considered an official duty. On the other hand, the Supreme Court also rejects the notion that employers can create excessively broad job descriptions as a way to limit the speech of its employees. What was important in the Garcetti case was not the place or the subject matter of Mr. Ceballos’ comment, but the manner in which it was expressed. Mr. Ceballos expressed his opinion in an official communication, and the U.S. Supreme Court commented that “official communications have official consequences.” It should be remembered, though, that there are still numerous protections in place for public employees such as the whistle-blower protection laws and labor codes.
A public employee retains the right to exercise free speech when acting as a citizen who is speaking on a matter of public concern. However, as a result of the Garcetti decision, limitations may be placed on free speech when public employees exercise their free speech pursuant to their official duties. In other words, public employees can be punished and/or reprimanded for comments they make while in the commission of their duties as a public employee. Public employees’ communications are only protected if they are acting as citizens on a matter of public concern. — Dated: 7/11/06
Rock commented:
Question for Florida residents, what do you think will be more expensive, all the cost incurred with the lawsuit this will generate, or continuing to let Skippy draw a paycheck. Actually that was a trick question, his continued employment will result in more such actions, and if you fire him, he’ll bring on his own lawsuit. Now don’t forget your losing all that money NASA generates, and many of your pristine beach will no longer be the draw they once where, so bye bye to all that tourist income, but then maybe the One will raid his private stash to keep you afloat, tell me again how many times has been down your way to appraise the BP disaster. Looks like your stuck between kool aid and a useful idiot. Then again maybe you might explain to him that his job is to represent you not Pelosi and crew.
bg commented:
++
for those of US who ever wondered how in the hell power over the people’s lives were ever handed to dictators in the first place.. wonder no more, you are more or less experiencing the process..
btw: “they were elected” doesn’t cut it anymore.. elections are on a slow boat to China.. once the Islamists are finished running as Socialists (not that they aren’t, i mean, take a good look at their side profession, they ‘redistribute’ to the poor.. what the poor poor don’t know is, they keep them poor so they can be totally relied upon for their very existence {sound familiar to you dhimmi-progs-dems??} that’s called power over the people, not power to the people)..
and forget Monday Night Football, are
ya ready for Friday Night Shariah?!?!?
==
jetstream commented:
Interesting decision, Opaobie.
From the WHOLE article linked to in this post:
“Hall responded that she was speaking on her own time and was careful not to be introduced as an assistant state attorney. She said she spoke in response to a request to help educate people about the Constitution.”
and:
“Jarvis said he first learned of Hall’s activities last month from a constituent after she spoke at tea party gatherings in North Florida and on a Lake City radio station.
“They were confronting me about my office being used to legitimize what they consider to be a fringe right-wing group,” Jarvis wrote in an e-mail attached to Hall’s lawsuit. “I hate to do this, but I have to ask you to disassociate yourself from these folks.”
Not only that, but she was fired BEFORE the judge could rule on her federal complaint:
“Prosecutor KrisAnne Hall asked a federal judge Friday for a ruling that would have allowed her to keep speaking and prevented her boss, State Attorney Skip Jarvis, from following through on threats to fire her if she didn’t stop.
Courtroom arguments on that request hadn’t been scheduled by Monday afternoon, when Jarvis said he fired Hall shortly after receiving a copy of her federal complaint.”
xxx commented:
Hussein likes dead dogs; Maoic chinese ephanizm for republicans who need or have been crushed by radical revolutionary [ stupids].
The rightwing purges already have begun.
xxx commented:
people. Please do not speak about laws, they no longer apply to communists
Richard Romano commented:
Andreas K.No Gravatar
May 26th, 2010 | 10:26 am | #48
See the double standards? Nazi = bad. Commie = good. Despite the fact that both come from the same garbage dump of history and without Karl Marx neither would exist.
Well said, Andreas. Marx, along with Freud, Darwin, and Saussure, is a progenitor of modernism, which jettisoned religiously-inclined values and traditions in favor of an all-encompassing materialism.
Fuzzy commented:
Horrible!
And people wonder why conservative bloggers sometimes prefer to use screen names rather than our real names. Some of us like our jobs and know that we’d be fired for our political views.
chuck in st paul commented:
#35 Chip and #47 TJ,
perhaps I did not make my point clearly. In the case of Federal employees and many state employees you are free to join in a Tea Party protest action. However, you are generally forbidden to be a public speaker at such an event. Although in the case of the Tea Parties one might have a case that there is no alignment with a political party, therefore no sin has occurred. There are many cases of Federal employees getting fired, but in most all the ones I heard of they were at a rally for the GOP or Dims or such.
If she had such an employment agreement and if the Tea Party can somehow be construed as supporting a political party and/or candidate and she was a public speaker (I know, a lot of ifs) then she could be terminated for cause. I suspect she does have a case for wrongful termination though.
Oh yeah guys, if you sign such an agreement you have voluntarily given up some of your First Amendment rights, they weren’t taken from you. Much like being in the military you voluntarily give up some of your rights when you swear in.
Opaobie commented:
chuck in st paul, the Supreme Court disagrees with you…on BOTH counts. Go back up to #62 and point out where her actions violate the ruling…and she is NOT in the military, so any restrictions on their free speech don’t apply to her. Even cases where an employee was forced to forfeit rights in order to obtain employment have been struck down if they constituted an “unreasonable restriction”, e.g., you MUST come to work NUDE if you want to be my Private Secretary.
bg commented:
++
Andreas K. @ 10:26 am #48
[See the double standards? Nazi = bad. Commie = good. Despite the fact that both come from the same garbage dump of history and without Karl Marx neither would exist.]
the more things change..
The Posthumous Muslim
[After reading many of those 'jewels' from the Hadis we discovered that it will be possible for you to get out of Islamic Hell by simply doing a few rituals. First, make an appointment to see Muhammad (in Islamic Paradise, of course) and announce that you have accepted Islam as your faith since you find no difference whatsoever with your 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' and the Islamic declaration of world domination by force. Once you have repented to Muhammad for your misdeed of not reading the Qur'an and Ahadith, he will contact Allah to forgive you, and please know that Allah will always please Hazrat Muhammad, the best creation of Him. After you have finished concurring with Muhammad, you need to make some changes to your personal habits and hygiene. On your personal habit, besides prostrating five-times-a-day, you must adopt the following five additional practices as dictated in Sahih Bukhari:]
eM & eN
IslaMarxism
==
ProudConservative commented:
I can see November from my porch!
This guy just stepped in a huge LAWSUIT!
Militant Conservative commented:
Not a scholar but i’d sue the pants off of the state of Florida. Unlawful termination.
Chaos is a coming, powder up.
myohmy commented:
Is it time to sue for wrongful firing?
JoeKenHa commented:
I’m so glad this got posted. It just made my blood boil. There is no defense for her firing, only political posturing.
Opaobie commented:
Just another subtle “chilling” reminder that we are no longer under the rule of LAW and the Constitution; we are enduring a soft Tyranny that is hardening with each passing day.
anAKan commented:
Every employee at the University of Alaska is encouraged to lobby for the UA budget ON COMPANY TIME. So, they each get paid to lobby the UA’s position. Ms. Hall spoke on her own time. How is this justice?
.
Don Rodrigo commented:
she was speaking against the state?
Huh?
How revealing a statement is that? Was she advocating for the overthrow of the state government? To a Democrat these days, opposing Democrat-run government policies is considered sedition. Remember, Democrats these days consider successful elections to be the equivalent of military victories, and they themselves as triumphant occupiers. It is the closest thing to “one man, one vote, one time” as we’ve gotten (so far) in our country.
Norine H commented:
The government left the Constitution, the prosecutor did not.. If anything, SHE is within legal rights and the government should be punished for its unconstitutional “fundamental transformation”.
kato commented:
Too bad her face isn’t black. Then she could be an avowed communist, and her boss, along with the asskiss media, would be trumpeting her First Amendment rights.
LibsAreCommies commented:
What about when Obama admin department heads headline Dem fundraisers?
dee dee commented:
Well I am sure , there is a legal fight going to come out of this one..THEY were wrong in firing this woman. She has the right to do this on her own time. And they cant dictate to her what she is able to do when she is off the clock. oh wait , they were probably Liberals who let her go, They do think they can DICTATE to people.
Holly commented:
So Skippy can donate money for a leftist to run for office and a democrat can defend their rights to speak but a Conservative be dam&^%!
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?d=1257812314
donh commented:
Since when is tea party membership ” TAKING A POSITION AGAINST THE STATE ? “
donh commented:
Hillary Clinton’s finest moment????…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0
Mike commented:
Did she make these speeches stating that she worked for the state or as a assistant state attorney? If she did then I think it’s okay to fire her. But if she was just making statements or speeches as a private citizen then i would sue them big time.