BRIAN KEISACKER The content of this website is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which are beliefs based on personal experiences with Brian Keisacker as well as court orders issued by the Circuit Court. Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3) which Brian Keisacker has willingly and purposefully violated by serving on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board as a consumer representative, which states... "The citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry."
Brian Keisacker has clearly and is willfully violating the law, ethics and his credibility.

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION


Opinion of the Court
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large". In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is both false and made with "actual malice", i.e., with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement. Although false statements lack inherent value, the "breathing space" that freedom of expression requires in order to flourish must tolerate occasional false statements, lest there be an intolerable chilling effect on speech that does have constitutional value.
To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of
Thomas Nast, who skewered Boss Tweed in the pages of Harper's Weekly. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.
Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the
Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.
Clearly, Falwell was a
public figure for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.[11]
Aftermath
DramatizationEdit
Further information: The People vs. Larry Flynt
The People vs. Larry Flynt, a 1996 film directed by Miloš Forman starring Woody Harrelson as Flynt and Edward Norton as Flynt's lawyer Alan Isaacman, features the case prominently.
Flynt–Falwell relationshipEdit
After The People vs. Larry Flynt appeared, Falwell and Flynt began meeting in person to discuss philosophy. They visited colleges to publicly debate morality and the First Amendment, and exchanged Christmas cards and family photos. After Falwell's death in 2007 Flynt wrote, "the ultimate result was one I never expected ... We became friends".[12]
See also
Notes
  1. ^ a b "Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell", Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, retrieved 3 Jun 2016 
  2. Taylor, Jr., Stuart (February 25, 1988), "Court, 8-0, Extends Right to Criticize Those in Public Eye", The New York Times 
  3. Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
  4. ^ a b James Castagnera; Philadelphia Inquirer (May 23, 2007). "Falwell vs. Flynt: See you in court". philly.com. 
  5. Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago–Kent College of Law, Oyez Project (September 12, 2012). "HUSTLER MAGAZINE v. FALWELL". oyez.org. 
  6. Chicago Reader, January 30, 1997, Adam Langer "Too Lewd for Larry"
  7. Kang, John M. (2012), "Hustler v. Falwell: Worst Case in the History of the World, Maybe the Universe", unlv.edu, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law 
  8. Warshaw, Robert G. (March 1, 1987). "Copyright Infringement: All is Fair as Falwell Hustles Flynt". lmu.edu. Loyola Law School. 
  9. Louis Menand; The New York Review of Books (February 6, 1997). "It's a Wonderful Life". nybooks.com. 
  10. ^ a b University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law. "Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell". umkc.edu. 
  11. "Hustler magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)". US Supreme Court. Find law. Retrieved 29 March 2012. 
  12. Flynt, Larry (2007-05-20). "The porn king and the preacher". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 10 January 2015. 

BRIAN KEISACKER:
Brian Keisacker Smug
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER NO MORALITY
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER IMPROPER
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER CONSTITUTION
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER UNFAIR JUSTICE
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER VILE
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER ETHICS

BRIAN KEISACKER:

BRIAN KEISACKER ABSURD



BRIAN KEISACKER:


ATTORNEY BRIAN MISCONDUCT

BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER UNFIT
BRIAN KEISACKER:
BRIAN KEISACKER IGNORES THE LAW
Brian Keisacker Mistake of law
BRIAN KEISACKER:

Brian Keisacker Unethical Lawyer

I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT RECOMMEND EVER HIRING THIS UNETHICAL LAWYER - BRIAN KEISACKER!
Brian Keisacker is Unethical
Brian Keisacker works for Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. in Sarasota, Florida.


One can only apply the facts and deduce that
Brian Keisacker is Unethical!

Brian Keisacker
BRIAN KEISACKER UNFAIR JUSTICE 2
Brian Keisacker
BRIAN KEISACKER unethical
Brian Keisacker
Brian Keisacker Outraged
Brian Keisacker
BRIAN KEISACKER Justice
Brian Keisacker
BRIAN KEISACKER 1
Brian Keisacker
Brian Keisacker Unprofessional Unethical

Brian Keisacker would rather be unethical, than follow the Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3).

From the transcript of August 15, 2019:
"…Attorney
Brian Keisacker, the rules -- the rules regulating the Florida Bar state that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. That rule is under the ethics Chapter 4, which is 4-8.4(d) as in David. I hereby request that you recuse yourself from this hearing and this board."

"…
I believe that you're violating the rules regulating the Florida Bar and I believe that it's unethical and you should not be serving on this board. And you've known for a long time that you derive income from the construction industry and are unqualified to serve on this board."
CHAIRMAN
KEISACKER: And if you feel that way, I invite you to inform the Florida Bar that you feel I'm in violation --
Arrogance and unethical behavior by
Brian Keisacker!
Brian Keisacker Due Process
Brian Keisacker
BRIAN KEISACKER Injustice 2
Brian Keisacker
BRIAN KEISACKER UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
BRIAN KEISACKER
BRIAN KEISACKER RIDUCULOUS LAWYER
Brian Keisacker

SEE SARASOTA COUNTY ORDINANCE 22-127(3)

BRIAN KEISACKER

Brian Keisacker Sarasota, Florida.

SEE SARASOTA COUNTY ORDINANCE 22-127(3)

  • (c)  The term "Consumer Representatives" used in this section shall be defined as set forth in F.S. § 489.131(10).
(2) Quorum. The General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board shall require six members present for a quorum and a majority of affirmative votes shall be required for passage of any Board action. The Mechanical Contractors Licensing and Examining Board shall require six members present for a quorum and a majority of affirmative votes shall be required for passage of any Board action.
  • (3)  Qualifications. Architects and Engineers are not required to be professionally registered in the State of Florida as a condition of appointment to a Board. The citizen at large member (Lawyer Brian Keisacker) shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry. Appointment shall be based on demonstrable training and experience acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Brian Keisacker is defiant!
  • 4)  Term of Appointment. Board members shall be appointed for a period of three years. The Board of County Commissioners may relieve Licensing Board members of their appointment for failure to attend a majority of the meetings each fiscal year. The appointed members of the Boards shall proceed to select a Chairman, Vice Chairman and a Secretary.
If a lawyer, namely Brian Keisacker does not know what due process is, ignores the legal doctrine of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, did not giving proper notice to a litigant before issuing a ruling stated notice was given when it wasn’t that was overturned by the Circuit Court and who serves on a local Sarasota County contractor board illegally as a consumer representative in violation of the ordinance then what was the purpose of going to law school at Stetson Law School? Is Brian Keisacker untrained? Is Brian Keisacker that corrupt and one sided? Is Brian Keisacker purposefully ignorant to the law? Or is Brian David Keisacker corrupt? You decide and ask yourself, would you even dream about hiring Brian Keisacker for any reason after discovering who he is? All the above are supported by the facts!

It is our beliefs from personal experiences with lawyer Brian D. Keisacker, has violated Respondent’s constitution rights where Brian D. Keisacker as chairman of the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board did not accord due process guaranteed under the United States Constitution and served as a consumer representative, Brian Keisacker is in clear violation of Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3), where Brian Keisacker earns income from the construction industry.
Yet
Brian Keisacker refuses to follow the law:

Brian Keisacker
Brian Keisacker sits on the Board as a “Citizen at large (consumer representative)," one of three such positions required by Sarasota County Code § 22-127(1)(a). Of note, "[t]he citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry." Sarasota County Code § 22-127(3) (emphasis added). See also, § 489.131(10), Florida Statutes (2019).
Brian Keisacker represents dozens of clients in matters that are directly related to the construction industry.

In a résumé submitted with Brian Keisacker’s advisory application, Keisacker states:


“Prepare and file pleadings, motions, and responses to all aspects civil litigation in areas including foreclosure, boundary disputes,
construction defects…”


Since Brian Keisacker practices construction law and collects fees from construction related clients, he is currently deriving income from the construction industry, which is prohibited for individuals serving on the Board in his capacity. Brian Keisacker’s application to serve on the Board clearly and definitively indicates Brian Keisacker derives income from the construction industry, thereby defeating the intended purpose of a citizen/consumer representative.
Brian Keisacker’s specializes in construction law and advertises on their website as follows:

“Our firm provides a variety of services to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, homeowners in connection with construction law matters, including preparation, negotiation and review of construction agreements as well as the preparation and service of notices to owner, claims of lien, contractor final affidavits and other document required by the Florida Construction Lien Law. Should litigation become necessary to enforce or defend the claim of a construction lienor, we prosecute and defend all aspects of lien foreclosure actions.”

Therefore, Brian Keisacker must not be on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, yet Brian Keisacker is defiant and will not follow the ethical rules Brian Keisacker is supposed to follow.
In sum, since
Brian Keisacker occupies a seat on the Board which forbids earning income from the construction industry, Brian Keisacker may NOT legally serve the citizens of Sarasota County on its General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board, and Brian Keisacker cannot and must not preside over matters within the jurisdiction of the Board. ALL Respondents have a right to be heard before a Board comprised of individuals who meet all of the statute and ordinance requirements for service on the Board. Brian Keisacker

BRIAN KEISACKER SHOULD NOT BE SERVING ON THE CONTRACTOR BOARD AS A CONSUMER REPRESENTATIVE WHEN HE EARNS INCOME FROM THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSRTY. THIS IS IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL.