| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Indications are some of the proposed literature coming out of the Allen campaign may be outright slanderous. Pickell was seen with Bob Winford's associate, Ruthie van Gilder at the White Horse allegedly to let them know that he will fight slander and out right lies vigorously.
I am also told Allen's campaign team is being blamed for receiving literature and not getting it distributed.
But then again the first piece of literature was not sent out county wide and was way too early in the campaign. That piece was also pretty inflammatory and some say inaccurate. |
|
|
Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:50 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell: Diane Nims no longer director of elder abuse program
Published: Monday, July 02, 2012, 12:19 PM Updated: Monday, July 02, 2012, 12:19 PM
By David Harris | dharris5@mlive.com
Fo
GENESEE COUNTY MI -- Diane Nims has been replaced as the director of the county's elder abuse program because her registered nurse license expired, said Sheriff Robert Pickell.
Pickell said he was notified Friday that Nims did not renew her registered nurse license, and had to be let go because that was a condition of her employment.
Nims ran the program for about four years.
"She engineered the program," said Pickell. "It was my concept but she engineered it and got it started and to a point where it became a model for programs nationwide."
Pickell characterized it as an "unfortunate paper mistake."
He said the license expired in March.
Cindy Voelker, who was a registered nurse with the program, will run the program on an interim basis.
The program uses a grant to fund items such as fans for seniors and investigates crimes against the elderly. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:39 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
I am betting that leotruth and numero407 know each other. The rumors about Pickell and Nims have been out there for a long time. Pickell and I discussed this issue and I believe him when he says there was never an affair. I am not convinced the position is even necessary and I dislike that it is funded through the millage. However every agency in the county had their hands out for this money.
When Pickell says he was informed that she was in noncompliance he did the honorable thing and complied with the contractual agreement,
.
When Pickell ran a federal task force with the Flint Police, there were no allegations that the grant was misused.
The Flint Journal should monitor and not allow spurious allegations to be made in their publications. This amounts to slander but because Pickell is a public figure under the law he is limited as to his options.
Word is the Allen campaign group was planning to run a campaign piece of this sort when they have no definitive truth, only speculation, that this is true.
leotruth
It is amazing how you people can twist any news article into what you want it to be. Numero407... If Nims was Pickell's girlfriend, then explain to me why she got fired. I can tell by your comment that you only get third hand information from people that really dont have a clue.
Instead of giving Pickell and Swanson a hard time, maybe you should see that they saw a wrong and fixed it. Obviously Pickell and Nims were close allies for a long time. That should prove to you that Pickell has the public's best interest at heart. He had to fire a dear co-worker/friend. A true corrupt person would have swept that under the rug. My hat goes off to Sheriff Pickell.
numero407
It is common knowledge throughout Sheriffs Department that Nims is Pickell's girlfriend. Nims is rumored to have manufactured evidence of neglect in several of the Sheriffs elder abuse prosecutions. Stay tuned folks this is about to get nasty before the election. Hopefully, this post is read before someone deletes it. Wannabe Undersheriff Christie Swanson and bad Toupee Tocharchick fired Nims Friday. Nims nursing license did expire. Rumor has it she was attempting to renew it using a subordinates credentials. Public servants at their worse.
Soon To Be Six Four
A thinly-veiled, desperate attempt by Sheriff Rollins to garner press coverage by any means available, trivial or otherwise. A real leader -- as opposed to a political prostitute -- would have stood beside his manager while an "unfortunate paper mistake" was worked out. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:52 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Numero407 usually has only negative things to say about positions of authority. It is apparent from other posts that he does not like Pickell. Someone should ask him about the two court cases involving excessive force he was named in and that the city paid out on.
PREVIOUS NUMERO407 POSTS:
Amen, someone with common sense on this blog.
Posted on 14-year-old dog fighting suspect back in custody after removing tether, sheriff says on May 10, 2012, 12:28PM
This dogfighting case is nothing more than a political soapbox for the Sheriff . He uses it for free publicity on a weekly basis. If you and other law abiding citizens cannot see that, then I guess I am jaded as you say. ( In case you wondered, being jaded is the trait of a good street cop.) Obviously someone had an issue with my previous post regarding this 14 year old suspect that I arrested three years ago. The same 14 year old that the Prosecutor did nothing about it at the time. As a law abiding citizen , you have no clue as to the disparity in law enforcing in this county in relation to the city. I said it once and I will say it again, Bob Pickell is a Media Whore.
Posted on 14-year-old dog fighting suspect back in custody after removing tether, sheriff says on May 10, 2012, 12:26PM
There are two standards of justice in Genesee County. One for Flint and one for everyone else.
Posted on 14-year-old dog fighting suspect back in custody after removing tether, sheriff says on May 10, 2012, 11:04AM
This would have happened earlier, however; Sheriff Bob the Media Whore went on television and prematurely announced the arrests. Effectively warning the gang that law enforcement was coming. But the voters of Genesee County will be asked to re-elect him this fall. Sheriff Bob is a wannabe Cop. He should stick to running the jail and leave street police work to the real Police.
Posted on 22 men charged with involvement in Flint's 'Howard Boys' gang on May 03, 2012, 7:56PM
And you came a running when the Sheriff called your Bosses.
Posted on All 28 animals taken in Flint dog-fighting raid euthanized on May 03, 2012, 12:18PM
Thank you Dayne Walling aka Munnbreslin.
Posted on Flint emergency manager to unveil public safety plan on May 03, 2012, 12:15PM
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:09 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Diane Nims retains defense attorney Frank Manley; disputes license lapsed
Published: Monday, July 02, 2012, 3:00 PM
By David Harris | dharris5@mlive.com
Bruce Edwards | The Flint JournalSheriff Pickell
GENESEE COUNTY, MI -- An attorney for the director of the elder abuse program let go on Friday said she still had her license as a registered nurse.
Diane Nims has retained defense attorney Frank Manley, who said his client was "stunned that she was terminated." Manley said he was retained to make sure her "reputation remained intact." He declined to comment further.
Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell said Nims' license expired in March and was not renewed. He said she "engineered" the program since its inception back in 2007.
Nims referred all comment to Manley.
Note: a commenter to this article stated that upon checking her license, it does not expire until 2013. Shouldn't the Journal have checked too?
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:14 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| The Journal deleted the comments by Numero407 and for good reason. Slanderous and libelous remarks should never be allowed. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Background
LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or entity communicates false information that damages the reputation of another person or entity. Slander occurs when the false and defamatory communication is spoken and heard. Libel occurs when the false and defamatory communication is written and seen. The laws governing libel and slander, which are collectively known as DEFAMATION, are identical.
A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court: First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement. Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message. Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.
There are four general defenses to slander and libel. Truth is an absolute defense. Consent by the plaintiff for the publication of the defamatory statement is a defense. Accidental publication of the statement is a defense. Finally, the statements of certain defendants in certain circumstances, such as lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses, are protected from defamation for PUBLIC POLICY reasons. This type of protection is known as privilege.
Prior to the American Revolution, the laws regarding slander and libel stemmed from the English COMMON LAW system, which permitted the publishers of LIBELOUS material to be prosecuted and jailed. James Madison saw the need for a press free from governmental restraint, and the Constitution's First Amendment reflects this value by prohibiting laws abridging FREEDOM OF SPEECH or FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
Prior to 1964, laws regarding slander and libel were made by the states. Courts at that time did not believe that libelous or slanderous communications were protected by the United States Constitution; therefore, defamation was an issue for the states rather than the federal government.
In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate.
The Court saw the need for balancing an individual's right to be protected from false and defamatory accusations with the country's right to be informed via a free marketplace of ideas. It determined that in the case of a public official, such as the police official in Sullivan, the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression outweigh the public official's rights unless the public official can prove that the defendant acted with actual MALICE. Actual malice means that the defendant who communicates a defamatory statement does so knowing that the statement is false or very likely false. The defendant need not harbor ill will toward the plaintiff for the public official to recover in an action for slander or libel; the public official need only prove that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth.
The actual malice standard only applies to public officials or public figures who sue for slander or libel. Other examples of public officials include elected officials, such as governors or senators, or non-elected government employees with substantial responsibility or control over public affairs. Courts have held that candidates for public office also are public officials and must prove the actual malice standard before prevailing in libel or slander lawsuits.
The Supreme Court in 1967 expanded the actual malice standard for public officials to include public figures as well. Public figures, unlike public officials, are not government officials but instead are extremely prominent private citizens whose prominence allows them to use the mass media to influence policy. Public figures, by the Court's definition, thrust themselves into the public arena. Examples of public figures include famous movie actors, musicians, professional athletes, authors, and others who are so prominent as to be household names.
Courts also recognize limited-purpose public figures, who may not be known in all households but are known for their involvement in a limited public controversy. Examples of limited-purpose public figures may include an attorney representing a notorious criminal in a highly publicized trial or the winner of a multi-million dollar lottery. Courts do not allow the media to create public figures or limited purpose public figures merely by thrusting private citizens into the spotlight; public figures must voluntarily place themselves in the spotlight by, for example, deciding to buy a lottery ticket or by deciding to play football professionally. Public figures and limited-purpose public figures must demonstrate a defendant's actual malice before prevailing in a libel or slander lawsuit.
Elements of Defamation
To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious.
The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. However, if the defendant intends to keep communication with the plaintiff private and communicates in a way that demonstrates that intent, publication does not occur when a third party inadvertently receives the communication. For example, a defendant who faxes the plaintiff a letter critical of the plaintiff's work skills is not guilty of publishing the letter if the plaintiff's co-worker receives and reads the letter by mistake.
An entity that republishes a defamatory statement is equally liable as the original publisher. This law means that a newspaper editor who receives a letter to the editor defaming another person is just as liable as the letter's writer if the letter ends up in print in the newspaper. However, this rule applies only if the entity knew or had reason to know the defamatory nature of the statement. Therefore, libraries and bookstores usually are not liable for republishing libelous material.
A plaintiff may not recover for libel or slander without proving that the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff. A defamatory statement that names the plaintiff clearly identifies the plaintiff as the subject of the defamation. Not all defamatory remarks name the subject, however, and defamatory messages alone do not damage reputations. A damaged reputation only occurs when recipients of the message know who the message is defaming. Defamation against one unidentified member of a general group or category of people is not slanderous or libelous. For example, a false ACCUSATION that an otherwise unidentified student at the state university cheated on final exams is not slanderous or libelous because the student remains unidentifiable. The question becomes more difficult if the message offers more identifiable information. A false accusation that a red-haired female business major who lives on the second floor of her sorority house and drives a black sports car cheated on a final exam in her accounting class could be slanderous or libelous if the female business major could show that others identified her as the subject of the defamation.
The final element of slander or libel is that the defamatory statement damaged the plaintiff's reputation, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Certain defamatory messages are slanderous or libelous PER SE, meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the message damaged his or her reputation. Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent. Other types of messages may damage the plaintiff's reputation, but because they are not per se slanderous or libelous, it remains the plaintiff's burden to prove that the defamation damaged his or her reputation.
Defenses to Libel and Slander
If the defendant can show that the substance of a defamatory statement is essentially true, then the plaintiff's claim for slander or libel will fail. For example, assume that the defendant publicly ACCUSED his boss of cheating on taxes. The boss could sue for slander or libel, depending on whether the accusation was written or spoken. If the defendant could prove that the boss actually did cheat on taxes, the defendant would prevail. If the defendant had no proof of such tax cheating, the plaintiff would prevail.
If the plaintiff consents to the publication of the defamatory information, the plaintiff may not prevail in a lawsuit for slander or libel. This defense most typically arises when the plaintiff has signed a valid document releasing the defendant from liability for statements made regarding the plaintiff. For example, an employee may ask a former employer to write a letter of recommendation regarding the employee's professional and career skills to assist the employee in obtaining a new job. The former employer may, as a precaution, insist that the employee sign a release of liability to ensure that the letter of recommendation does not result in a libel lawsuit. If the former employer then reveals unflattering descriptions of the employee's work habits in the letter, the employee may be precluded from suing for libel even if the unflattering remarks are untrue.
Defamatory statements made during court proceedings or written in legal documents for purposes of LITIGATION generally are privileged, or protected, from slander or libel lawsuits. This privilege exists for reasons of public policy. A witness at a criminal trial, for example, would have difficulty testifying completely and truthfully about witnessing a crime if she feared that her statements could result in a slander lawsuit against her. Similarly, a lawyer who prepares a lawsuit must describe in writing the nature of the accusation against the defendant, and such court pleadings are almost always defamatory in nature. Justice would not be served if the judicial process were hampered by the constant threat of slander or libel lawsuits.
Additional Resources
West's Encyclopedia of American Law. West Group, 1998.
Organizations
Libel Defense Resource Center, Inc
80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 200
New York, NY 10011 USA
Phone: ((212)) 337-0200
URL: www.ldrc.com
Source: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, ©2003 Gale Cengage. All Rights Reserved. Full copyright. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:00 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
This is the reason the Flint Journal removed the statement from Numero 407. The previous comments from Numero 407 could be construed as malice and that he was not concerned with the veracity of the comments he was making. I understand he is supporting another candidate, but that is no reason for any candidate to spread unsubstantiated and vicious rumors.
I have had my disputes with Pickell and it could be said that I have a real right to dislike him. However, I would like to think that I am above the stage or rumormongering and hateful diatribe. I asked Pickell about this issue and his response was genuine and I believe truthful.
This race should be run on the facts and whether or not Pickel, Allen or Johnson is the best candidate.
"An entity that republishes a defamatory statement is equally liable as the original publisher. This law means that a newspaper editor who receives a letter to the editor defaming another person is just as liable as the letter's writer if the letter ends up in print in the newspaper. However, this rule applies only if the entity knew or had reason to know the defamatory nature of the statement. Therefore, libraries and bookstores usually are not liable for republishing libelous material"
|
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:08 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
| Numero407 brags that he hopes this misinformation gets out and says the upcoming election will get nasty. I too have heard that a real mudslinging campaign is coming, but I hope cooler campaign officials will think twice before resortingt o such vicious and hateful campaign tactics. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 5:15 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
The person most able to sue for defamation is Diane Nims as Numero 407 alleged specific criminal acts on her.
While the defamatory comments were removed, the Journal left the comments of Leotruth who disputes the allegations. So,basically the allegations are to some extent still out there. Also, there has been a whisper campaign for many months. |
|
|
|
Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:13 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Genesee County Sheriff Robert Pickell left to decide what's next for elder abuse program
Published: Sunday, July 08, 2012, 11:15 AM
By Ron Fonger | RFONGER1@mlive.com
GENESEE COUNTY, MI -- Time is running out on a contract between the county and the company that provides staffing for Sheriff Robert Pickell's elder abuse program.
But despite the termination of the program director last week and a contract that expires Sept. 30, Pickell said he's still leaning toward continuing to work with Integrated Community Services rather than another company.
Robert Pickell
"(ICS President) Mike James has been a good partner, very helpful to us," the sheriff said. "My preference is to stick with him or do it" with independent contract employees.
Diane Nims, who had headed the county's elder abuse program for about four years, was replaced last week because of a lapse in her registered nurse license, according to county officials.
James, who said he set up ICS to help the county establish its elder abuse program, said he's willing to continue if Pickell wants.
"It's his decision," James said. "They are really his employees on a separate payroll system."
Although Pickell oversees the elder abuse program, the county Board of Commissioners must approve contracts with ICS or any other company and there's been no move to request proposals from any other company to date.
ICS is running the elder abuse program through a $345,437 contract with the county, paid for with proceeds from a voter-approved special 0.7-mill property tax for senior citizen services.
The contract calls for ICS to provide the county with a program director, full-time social worker, part-time nurse/social worker and two part-time clerical employees.
It mentions Nims specifically, making her assignment to the county a condition of the contract. It also gives the sheriff the right to terminate the contract if Nims is discharged without his approval.
Nims was terminated from her position with Pickell's approval after the county Office of Senior Services determined her nursing license had lapsed. Maintaining the license was one of several minimum requirements of the director's job, spelled out in the contract.
Frank Manley, an attorney representing Nims, has called that expired license an "inadvertent paperwork mistake."
The Nims dismissal is the latest in a string of events that has raised questions about ICS.
Earlier this year, the company chose not to bid on continuing a separate contract with the county to provide assessment, coordination and referrals for other senior services like Meals on Wheels providing services.
That decision came after the county ordered the company to stop pre-qualifying senior citizens for some millage-funded services because waiting lists were already too long, potentially wasting the cost of assessments that typically cost more than $300 each. |
|
|
|
Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:38 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
In my opinion the problem with the senior millage lies with the county commissioners who placed the issue on the ballot when they had no comprehensive plan on how they were to manage the program. They duped the voters who thought the elderly were to get services thst were never rendered. Some county facilities saw salary increases for their senior centers while the benefits depended on the power of that areas representation. there was little equity in the system and the poorest seniors were little served.
Patricia_Stewart_870
The Elder Abuse Task Force is a very important addition to Genesee County and cannot go to the wayside. Perhaps it is time to utilize a different contract company to supply the staff but the program itself is a necessity. I am in full agreement that all monies collected from the Senior Millage should go directly to programs for Senior Citizens. I don't see anyone "padding pockets" from said millage but one is entitled to an opinion. First and foremost it is the care of our Senior Citizens that should be issue, not politics, not lawyers. Granted some Seniors in Genesee County may not have need for the services provided but should we ignore those that do? The Elder Abuse Task Force has helped in some horrendous abuse cases and by continuing the program perhaps a few more cases can be stopped. I am sure an amicable solution can and will be made.
wayover50
The senior citizens millage proposal was a fast-tracked-get-it-on-the-August ballot-when-most-county-voters-aren't-available-to-vote-and-figure-out-how-to-use-the-money-later boondoggle to begin with.
ICS and all other previously non-existent "senior services" entities that sprouted like weeds once the millage passed just proves again there's nothing like "free" tax money to foster creation of myriad ways to spend it.
And lost in the multiple newly created 6 figure salary "administrative" senior citizen tax money grab are the very seniors who this proposal was sold to voters as in need of expanded meals on wheels, medical needs transportation, etc.
You can take my comments as a definite NO renewal vote of the citizens millage unless ALL monies are redirected to senior center services as was initially sold to voters and none to pad the pocket books of ICS' Mike James, Pickell and their ilk. |
|
|
|
Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:46 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
There are complaints from Allen and others about the jail overcrowding. What would they do when the jail is holding some suspected gang members (like the Pierson Hood) being prosecuted whose trials have gone on for years. What about a right to a speedy trial? What would these pundits do -just release these criminals without the permission of the courts. It was former county officials who built a new jail smaller than the old one.
Budget restraints and limitations set by the County Commissioner have set the stage for much of the limitations currently being experienced. Many of my friends did not want to go to the Flint Police about drug dealers, etc., because they feared exposure by the police and possible retaliation. They preferred the Posse of Pickell's. The county disbanded the Posse, so how do these wantabes expect to do all of the crimebusting they are proposing without funding? I believe there are still laid off deputies.
Some services are mandated and must be paid for. Others must find funding. Look at how the county was trying to locate funding for 2 deputies to assist in duties of the Regional Juvenile facility.
The candidates discuss entering Flint for patrols. County Commissioner complained when Pickell's paramedics were helping out too much with medical emergencies and eventually kept the paramedic millage. Some Commissioners are looking at the cost of deputies helping out in Flint now so why do these candidates think they can operate any way they want. There are fiscal and budgetary limitations on all Sheriff functions. |
|
|
|
Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:46 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
