there very well may have been some shady things going on w/ the close of the Sundancer bar and Tunnell's role in that. and the "interviews" of elderly black voters most certainly sends off all sorts of alarm bells. that investigation surely must be held up to the light of day and explored thoroughly.
that said, let's take Judge Mickle's ruling in the Sundancer case in the proper context. from the very little bit i've read about it, it looks like it was when Mickle was ruling on a motion for "summary judgment." during that part of the case, the judge looks at it and says "assuming that all facts are just as one side (usually the plaintiff) is alleging they are, can they still win the case?" if the judge finds that the plaintiff has presented evidence that supports her side of the case, and, if true, would allow her to win the caes, the judge will deny summary judgment (even if the defendant has contradictory evidence). so, rather than conclusively finding that Tunnell and the Commission did actually acted discrimitorily here, the judge is merely saying that there seems to be conflicting evidence on the matter, and the issue is one that's properly decided by a jury.
so, i want to make sure we don't misconstrue what the Mickle opinion really said (although, admittedly, i haven't read it). don't want to have a credibility problem like say, oh, the Swifties are currently experiencing.
there very well may have been some shady things going on w/ the close of the Sundancer bar and Tunnell's role in that. and the "interviews" of elderly black voters most certainly sends off all sorts of alarm bells. that investigation surely must be held up to the light of day and explored thoroughly.
that said, let's take Judge Mickle's ruling in the Sundancer case in the proper context. from the very little bit i've read about it, it looks like it was when Mickle was ruling on a motion for "summary judgment." during that part of the case, the judge looks at it and says "assuming that all facts are just as one side (usually the plaintiff) is alleging they are, can they still win the case?" if the judge finds that the plaintiff has presented evidence that supports her side of the case, and, if true, would allow her to win the caes, the judge will deny summary judgment (even if the defendant has contradictory evidence). so, rather than conclusively finding that Tunnell and the Commission did actually acted discrimitorily here, the judge is merely saying that there seems to be conflicting evidence on the matter, and the issue is one that's properly decided by a jury.
so, i want to make sure we don't misconstrue what the Mickle opinion really said (although, admittedly, i haven't read it). don't want to have a credibility problem like say, oh, the Swifties are currently experiencing.
Posted by WN | Link to this comment | 08-20-04 1:43 PM
Yes, thanks.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 08-20-04 1:51 PM
Thanks for covering the truth about Tunnell. For a good story on the sham background investigation on Tunnell check out http://insider-magazine.com/RootsofOppression.htm and compare to the current Orlando actions by Tunnell's folk. For a complete copy of the Mickle order against Tunnell go to http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/naacp_opposes_fdle_appointee.htm and scroll to bottom.
Posted by Kevin Wood | Link to this comment | 08-22-04 1:38 AM