Wednesday, January 25, 2006

BLOG GETS CHILLY AS PD'S SLING MUD


As we read these posts and prepared them for publication, we noted the decidedly icy tone the posts are taking. Is it post holiday blues? Disgruntled Bronco or Panther fans? CVS running low on Prozac or Paxil? Calm down and act a bit more civilized please.

Remember, no matter how bad it is, we are attorneys, and that means we don’t have to wait in the hour long lines with “Oh Susannah Nesmith “ our favorite Herald scribe.


Judge Larry Schwartz writes about the sounding/continuance fiasco:

I don't know where the sounding/continuance issue developed. I have never seen and administrative order or policy statement. As far as I'm concerned, that policy does not exist when I take over my new division next Monday, the 30th. Many things have been said about me here, but I think all will agree I always try to give BOTH sides a fair trial. Being ready is part of fairness. ANd by the way, the election in a two person race is September. That's when I"ll take your advice and WIN WIN WIN. Thanks for your vote of confidence.Judge LAS


A rare ASA logs on to the PD dispute:

Having been an ASA in County, I can tell you that the best representation that DUI defendants recieve is from the PDs. Even the PDs that are a year out do a better job in court than fat ed, fat best, or any of the other fools in there. Those guys beg for continuances if they are faced with a trial...oh, the cops are here...well judge...uh...uh, I am not ready, I have to be in federal court...yeah, that's it. It is only when they have a sure winner that the case goes. The pds take what comes and do one hell of a job trying the cases. I'd like to see fat ed or fat jim try a case where the state has evidence.

Rumpole huffs: Fat? Fat? We resemble that remark.

Anonymous writes:

Few ex-State PD's are hired by the Feds? Well tell that to Judge William Thomas, Bill Barzee, Jan Smith and Hector Dopico. Where areyou getting this stuff ignoramus?

Rumpole wonders: When did “ignoramus” become the favored epithet?


Anonymous rambles:

Idea for a poll: Fed PD LOVERS LIST oR x state PD'S LIST OF BEST ATTY'S. let the people decide.

Rumpole requests: Can someone please translate this into English for us so we can respond? Thanks.

Anonymous writes:

you name the cream of the crop. (you forgot migna!) all four, out of 400, during their collective time peiod, hired away. another 25 turned away. that's "few." thanks for making my point. state hack.

And a Kathy Williams Fan writes:

i've been reading with interest. no one mentioned that clearly Kathy values what good state PDs bring to the table. her predecessor wouldn't touch PD's, at least those from Dade. Kathy changed that with her hire of Will Thomas.

A sharp barb

did someone just comment that being an asa is "polish for the resume." !!! I guess it is if you finished at the bottom of your class at st. thomas...

Rumpole says: Ouch.

PD’s are getting nasty:

this state hack has never lost a murder trial (tried 3) and has lost5 trials out of 25 in the past 3 years - go back to the Feds andbeg for your cooperation agreements (snitch lawyer that you are).

Rumpole wonders: We are amazed. We would have bet a pretty penny the PD’s and ASA’s would be snipping at each other. Instead, the Federal and State PD’s are going at it like two lawyers fighting over the last muffin at Au Bon Pain.

PD Term limits?

After 6 years, PD's should be forced to leave. Term limits for Pd's. And don't give me this nonsense about older PD's helping out or showing the kids the ropes. Almost uniformly, the older PD's want nothing to do with trials, or work at all.

Rumpole posits: Every six years a judge should be required to spend 6 months litigating in the PD’s office and then 6 months litigating in the SAO. And we mean like a C or B, in the pits. That would humble them in a hurry.


No Fan Of Brian T

I believe in free expression and an open blog, but can't we make an exception for Brian Tannenbaum. The guy is just so annoying.

Rumpole replies: Post your name coward. You annoy us, not Mr. T.

No Fan of Joel Denaro:

Is Joel d Joel Denaro. Now I see why BB gets so much heat. Should I name your little friends, Joel? In due course, you'll all pay the price.

Rumpole wonders: Why threaten Joel D? Plus, his daddy can whoop your daddy (at least in court) any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Now we’re talking:

Why not just privatize the whole thing. Most Sapd's do a better job, anyway. (Or just give Sy Gaer $40 per case.)

Rumpole notes: Sy is a runaway winner in the poll.

Not a Fan of Judge Miller:

Can Judge Miller even write?

Rumpole knows this much: He can write “6 months DCJ for contempt” on your jail card, that’s for sure.


Anonymous, not a regular reader wonders:

Rump, what were the final results of the brummer hate or love poll. Did someopne ask you to take it down before we got the final results? The numbers were certainly going against brummer.

Rumpole grumbles: For the last time, you people need to stop seeing conspiracies behind every shadow, How many times do we have to say that we are computer idiots and we screwed up the blog until David with a K Markus rescued us? We have re-posted the Bennett poll.


Our Favorite Mystery Judge, he of the late night lengthy ramblings, weighs in:

I have examined my premise and it is sound. It is yours which is in error. Why should the "fast track" be deemed unjust? You, certainly, would never complain about being on the fast track to Pommeroy's Wine Bar. In fact, you would break down and whimper like a whipped dog if put on the slow track to said establishment. The destination is what matters and getting there quickly gives you less opportunity to screw up the case.

Moreover, a case can certainly be made that those defendants on the slow track may actually be the ones to get short shifted. This is well illustrated by Ambrose Bierce's definition of "Litigation" as contained in his Devil's Dictionary, to wit: a process by which one goes in as a pig and comes out a sausage. Not a pretty sight--the less time undergoing this process the better for the litigant.

Still Affectionately yours,

Judge Just-Slightly-Irked No-Bull-Ingham

Rumpole notes: 1) Who ever you are, we love your comments. 2) We still worry about your alcohol consumption.

3) On a serious note:

when a case is disposed of quickly, like a CTS plea, it is often done to clear a judge’s calendar regardless of whether the person is innocent or not. In all candor your honor, how would you feel if several dozen defendants in “dropsy” cases turned down CTS pleas and asked for a trial? The system could not handle it.

We cite Judge Irving Younger, (and give credit to the cite to our favorite federal blogger, Mr. David O Markus with a K)

“Were this the first time a policeman had testified that a defendant dropped a packet of drugs to the ground, the matter would be unremarkable. The extraordinary thing is that each year in our criminal courts policeman give such testimony hundreds perhaps thousands of cases- and that in a nutshell, is the problem of “dropsy” testimony…{W}hen one stands back from the particular case and looks at a series of cases, it becomes apparent that policeman are committing perjury in at least some of them, and perhaps nearly all of them.”

We ask you Judge No- Bull-Ingham, how many pleas to WH CTS have you taken in dropsy cases to clear your calendar and are you willing to stop that right now? People now get deported for taking those pleas.

See You In Court.

And stay tuned for “Jason Grey solves all our problems.” A massive post that deserves its own space. Plus, "In defense of Judge Jimenez" Coming soon.

We saw an “I read Rumpole” sticker , albeit a home made one, and we almost gave up our identity by bursting our laughing.

PSS. To that nice young PD in Judge Newman’s courtroom: yes you did make the blog, through no fault of your own, and no we do not believe for one second you are Portia. While you can accept the compliment of a reader who thinks you are “muy caliente” please accept our compliment that we think you are a pretty darn good and dedicated attorney. Keep up the good work.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Joel's daddy? Joel can defend himself without resort to his "daddy". Joel is an excellent lawyer in his own right.


Sincerely, Joel Denaro.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, are you really calling someone else a "coward" for not printing their real name? Are you serious, or have you forgotten that we (supposedly) don't know who you are?

Anonymous said...

To settle this state PD versus federal PD argument, let's have Jason organize a boxing match in the Mahi parking lot between both teams and take bets. The winning team then donates the prize money to their favorite judges' campaigns. What do you think?

Portia said...

Rumpooole: I have my own poll! You do flatter me. But no one has answered my ad. And I get awfuly lonely in my apartment at night, reading FLW's naked and wondering who will tutor me. I need some big strong defense attorney to cross examine me and spank me when I answer the wrong way. I'm sort of sad no one wants to see my long legs. Oh well..it would be nice if you guys could raise your eyes just a bit when talking to me. I do have a face you know.

Portia.

Rumpole said...

We are going to leave a comment here for once. 1) You do not know who we are, despite your mistaken beliefs to the contrary. 2) We are not cowards who call people names for no reason. If we do not like someone, the proper thing to do is to make a post: "Joe Blow is a jerk, and I am proud to say it. Signed, George Bush."
When we criticize someone, like our criticism of Bennett Brummer, it had a basis in fact. He settled a lawsuit. If we just made a post: Bennett Brummer is a jerk. Then you would be correct. But this blog has never been about that. However, given your limited intellectual abilities, we understand how you could be confused. See: That’s a cheap shot. Something we rarely do. People should not just leave cheap shots about Tannebaum or Reiff or anyone. If you don't like them, don't be a coward, be man or woman enough to tell them to their face. It's the golden rule of blogging. How would you like it if we just started calling you names for no reason while hiding behind this blog? That is not what this is about.

Anonymous said...

You should start a poll on which tv cop shows are the best and most accurate in thier portrayal of cops, prosecutors and defense attorneys and Judges

Anonymous said...

Ok, Portia, I'll raise my eyes and answer your ad. Leave your messages at portia_pd@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

OK OK I admit I was just was wrong about Ms. Williams (see recent poll numbers) but I'm sure proud of all rage it caused.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else think it's pathetic that Larry Schwartz keeps trying to defend himself on this stupid blog? He must have something better to do with his time. Come on Larry, go read some caselaw or something. Prepare yourself for what's coming.

Anonymous said...

maybe the miller being referred to is b. miller? how did she become a judge?

maybe instead of debating which group of pds is better, what about a debate about which judges are better? state or federal? could either miller ever be a federal judge?

Anonymous said...

Judge Lawrence is not at all trying to defend himself. He states that he believes in a fair trial and that soundings are the appropriate time to seek continuances. No one ever accused him of not giving a fair trial, or being procedurally unfair. If he was defending himself, he'd address why it is he is so rude to each and every person who appears before him, both lawyers and defendants.

Some passerby said...

Anonymous said....

Does anyone else think it's pathetic that Larry Schwartz keeps trying to defend himself on this stupid blog?

No. But it is amusing someone would insult the very blog they were using as their anonymous soap box.

Anonymous said...

don't call me fat.

/s/ fat jim.

Anonymous said...

Relax...even Leo McKern was a bit...umm....fleshy?

Anonymous said...

who is fat Ed?

Anonymous said...

fat Ed is a surprisingly crafty individual who can be seen walking the halls of the REG building from time to time. Somtimes, he appears realtively young and spry, other times, he dones a disguise, gains 60 pounds and begins to use words that he does not appear to fully understand. Warning, to his credit, in disguise, he is an extremely impressive and accomplished defense attorney capable of causing riots in a sigle bound. He also posesses the uncany ability to appear in both disguse and in person in the same location at the same time! This character trait is known to be endearing to jurors, women and young children. Any prosecutor attempting to confront this individual should use extreme caution, especially when he is in disguise.

Jason Grey said...

Now that we know the answer to What is fat Ed ? please answer the original question.

Anonymous said...

How did B. Miller get dragged into this? The fact is that she is one of the best young lawyers in the county. She handled (and won) more difficult hearings and trials than any other young lawyer at the Miami SAO (I'd rather have her hearing my case than the vast majority of lawyers who have been practicing 25+ years. She certainly has better experience than many of the other appointees with more years in). She's extremely bright, got great judgment and is reasonable. Hopefully, after a few years of seasoning as a county judge, she can move to circuit and beyond. We need more top young lawyers to pursue this course.

PS----with her abilities and incredible work ethic, she easily could leave public service and make a hell of a lot more than she does now. Would that be preferable?