The TrentoVision Team launches an investigation into the so-called, Southern "Poverty" Law Center to find out why the Obama Administration works so closely with this "filthy rich" front group for the radical left! Our special guest is Peter Sprigg, Research Fellow of the prestigious Family Research Council. August 2012, Peter was a target of a radical homosexual activist who wanted to kill him and 14 others at FRC. Throughout this five-part series we will look at the finances, pro-gay agenda, pro-Islamic jihad agenda and the all around anti-American activities of the SPLC.
WATCH SHERIFF GRADY OF POLK COUNT (TAMPA) ANGRILY AND LOGICALLY EXULT OVER HIS FEDERAL SPLC VICTORY!
Southern Poverty Law Center Rebuked: Court Rejects SPLC's Allegations About Jail
Juveniles not mistreated by Sheriff's Office, medical contractor
Published: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 8:59 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 9:49 p.m.
TAMPA | A U.S. District Court judge handed Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd a decisive victory Thursday in a federal lawsuit brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center alleging that young defendants were being held in overly harsh conditions at Polk's Central County Jail.
Judge Steven Merryday in Tampa ruled that Southern Poverty, representing a group of juveniles in the facility, failed to prove that neither the Sheriff's Office nor Corizon, the medical company contracted to treat detainees, "was deliberately indifferent to any substantial risk of serious harm."
But his ruling went further, rebuking Southern Poverty for the legal arguments it presented.
"(Southern Poverty's) view of the law is generally wrong, and the (Sheriff's Office's) view is generally right," he wrote.
"(Southern Poverty's) proposed legal standards are decidedly and demonstrably not the law of the land and constitute an aggressive and novel understating to insert the federal judiciary forcefully into the administration of a county's juvenile detention in a manner and to an extent without warrant, without precedent, and without bounds," the ruling stated.
"(Southern Poverty's) offer in defense of this proposed intervention is both a flawed interpretation of the pertinent precedent and a nearly
uniform reliance on decisions that are either not binding, not applicable, not persuasive, or not — for example, in the citation as authority of a settlement — precedent at all.
"Although the law of the Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit is plentiful, accessible, and precisely governing," the ruling stated, "(Southern Poverty) largely chooses to look elsewhere for guidance.