Comment #: FL9190
Rating:9.4
Comments:
Judge Devin George has multiple misrepresentations made to her by my ex-wife, the assistant prosecutor and even a probation officer. From a simple divorce to an injunction and the county trying to extort money and time out of an out-of-state resident. The prosecutor lied and the probation officer literally refused to meet and reported the failure to take a class which did not exist and an alternative class was taken. Despite these being people that work in her court, Judge George set the matter for a hearing and allowed the presentation of sufficient evidence to reveal the absurdity of the charges. The county has such corrupt practices it is almost unbelievable. But Judge George followed the constitution as best the arguments were presented and rendered justice.

Comment #: FL9164
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Zero understanding of how the constitution is applied to common law. She botched the first panhandling case from the new ordinance by failing to apply reed v. town of gilbert, which would have aligned her with the very core of why the federal judges keep finding these ordinances unconstitutional. She thinks that if an ordinance designed to chill free speech in a traditional public forum doesn't expressly mention the free speech it targets then it is content neutral and thusly constitutional. The reed court literally had judges like her in mind when they explained the the two pronged test they used to determine the constitutionality of an ordinance that was presented as a disguised safety issue.
"Prior to Reed, some federal courts upheld laws that, on their face, discriminated on the basis of content so long as the laws could be “justified” by a non-censorial motive.5 This approach led to two circuit court decisions—subsequently reversed—that rejected First Amendment challenges to laws restricting speech that asked for a donation. 6 Reed clarifies that a non-discriminatory purpose will not save a law that discriminates on its face on the basis of content. Thus, Reed explained that a law is a content-based restriction on speech if either of the following are true: (1) the text of the law makes distinctions based on speech’s “subject matter . . . function or purpose” or (2) the purpose behind the law is driven by an objection to the content of a message.7""
"See also Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976) in which the court stated: "Speech ... is protected even though it is carried in a form that is "sold" for profit, and even though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise pay or contribute money."

Masking the violation of citizen's right to contribute to whichever charitable cause they please as a safety violation is a clear cut constitutional violation and this judge had the opportunity to rule in favor of the people, yet chose to rule in favor of her masters, the lee county commissioners.