Saturday, July 08, 2006

Rumpole wins in Supreme Court 5-4

On Judge Glick:

For the record, the discussion on Judge Glick, his thoughts on Miami elections, and his record as Judge, have been intelligent and thoughtful. Some people like him, some don’t. But the discussion has been within the bounds of decency. For the record, we printed EVERY comment on Judge Glick, meaning that when cretins know we are moderating the comments, they don’t waste their time writing the type of garbage that makes us ashamed to be associated with the blog.

Our view is that people do Judge Glick a disservice labeling him “state oriented.” Does anyone believe he would assist the prosecution in the conviction of an innocent man? He may not tolerate criminals easily, but what Judge should? We think he calls it like he sees it. There are too many prosecutors who have felt the brunt of his criticism for us to agree that he is “state oriented.”

On Judicial IQ'S:

We think science missed a golden opportunity with the appointment of Reemberto Diaz to the bench. It would have been great to have his IQ tested every six months for the next five years to prove our thoroughly un-scientific proposition that there is a direct inverse relationship between the ‘wearin o the robes” and IQ. (you didn’t think we were going to say all those nice things about judge Glick without taking a shot at the judiciary as a whole, did you?)

On Candidate Parks and the "darker" side of people:

Catherine Parks resigned her job to run for Judge full time.
Dedicated? Or in need of medication?
People support Ms. Parks because of the life experience she brings as a nurse prior to being an attorney.

Our only comment to Ms. Parks is that if elected,
If you thought you saw a lot of …ahem…when giving enemas in a hospital…
Wait to you get to our little world in the REGJB.
We mean, there’s a whole world of attorneys and bondsmen who will make you feel dirtier than the working end of a colonoscopy camera.


How did we do in our little federal free-for-all?
To quote our friend and former Judge, Rudy Sorrondo, when he was in the private practice of criminal defense (before he became a big-shot) : “UFR” (usual federal result).


On the order we received from the Honorable Chief Judge John Roberts, to return the blog to the wild days gone by:

You are in the minority. Justice Kennedy writing for a majority of the court (Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer concurring) wrote:

“[t]he right of free speech has traditionally been tempered by restrictions such as the laws against libel, and the doctrine of fighting words. In this day and digital age, when rumors on the internet one minute can become ill-conceived “facts” the next, we find that the restrictions used by Rumpole, namely his moderation of the comments so that no scurrilous and un-founded rumors will not be published, are a rational and reasonable restriction and do not violate the first amendment.
Rumpole strikes a blow for decency, and wins!”

Justice Scalia, in a scathing dissent, joined by Roberts, Alito, and Thomas wrote:

“Rumpole is a jerk and his blog is now boring. He blew it with a capital B man.”

See You In Court savouring our victory.
(You know you've really made it when you are mentioned in a Scalia dissent. I bet we can get a good table at Mortons or Joes now.)


President George W Bush said...

I have made a executive decision and the blog is ordered back to the old days.

President George W. Bush

Anonymous said...

this may sound like a dumb question, but why is defense attorney Philip Reizenstein telling the Miami Herald what a dufus Hernandez and D'Arce is


when he is sending judge hernandez campaign donations


I am confused, can someone maybe phil can help me on this subject.

Anonymous said...

Catherine Parks just wants to win, that's all!

Anonymous said...

The Parks race is a winner for Parks.

Anonymous said...

A candidate like Cathy Parks who is committed enough to resign and run full-time gets my vote. And I think she knows plenty about the criminal arena and what she's getting herself into.

Anonymous said...

rumpole can kiss my ass

Phil R said...

I have never said a bad word about Judge Hernandez. To the person who posted a comment above, I spoke to the herald after Juan D'arce threw a motion to set aside a bench warrant in the trash and told the attorney I sent to schedule the motion "I don't set motions for Phil Reizenstein." This happened after Mr. D'arce showed up at my house uninvited on a Sunday afternoon ranting and raving and demanding to know why I did not return his phne calls.

Anonymous said...

Parks lost to Thomas because Thomas is crafty. He is a great trial judge also. As for Parks having a clue about criminal trial work or any trial work for that matter, well.... When was the last jury trial she first chaired? 0000. She should be running for a county court seat.

Anonymous said...


I must disagree with you on the Glick issue. First and foremost, I like Judge Glick. He is smart, personable and a very good judge. Second, I have been in front of him as an ASA and defense atty. But he is definitely state oriented, as most defense attorneys and ASAs would agree. To say he is not state oriented b/c he would not work with the SAO and railroad an innocent man is not how you become labeled "state oriented." No judge would do that. Instead, I think that you are labeled state oriented when you side for the State on an overwhelming majority of any type of discretionary decision. The SAO runs the show in his Court and the defense has very little chance in there on a day to day basis. Just look at how down and out the PDs are in there, especially since Barzee left. Dont think for a minute that the State wont be crying the day he leaves, regardless of who comes in for him. And to reiterate again, I like Judge Glick. But on the list of judges I want my client in front of, he is near the bottom of the list.

If you dont think Glick is state oriented, who is? And why?

Anonymous said...

sounds like a ass kisser to me,

Anonymous said...

Robin W. Faber Dog T-Shirt

Robin W. Faber, for County Court Judge Merchandise through www.operationrestorejustice.com

Product Information
Put your pooch in his own cool doggie t-shirt from American Apparel. He’ll be the envy of all the pups in the park. Let him wear a doggie-cool design so he can express what he’d like to bark out loud. Do it up in doggie style!



see its real.

Anonymous said...

State of the American Judiciary

Join Justice Antonin Scalia and other opinion leaders for the U.S. Chamber's State of the American Judiciary on July 18. The event will examine the current condition of civil judicial practice by debating election versus appointment/merit selection of judges; the development of specialty courts; and the role of judicial pay in recruiting candidates for the job. Register today.

Anonymous said...

Norman Parks Bates

Rumpole said...

RE: the above comment on Judge Glick. You are correct that our defense of the Judge as not being state oriented was way too broad a brush stroke. A rushed weekend and too much wine. We have some more thoughts on this, but it is a bit late and we are still mourning our countrymen's loss on the soccer pitch last week at the world cup in Germany.

Rumpole said...

Dear President Bush- we have a constitutional duty to refuse to obey illegal orders. But for a few other men and women standing up to you, and the world would be a different place today. Sorry, the blog stays as it is for now.

Anonymous said...

This is Catherine B. Parks.

Re 5:07 above. I both respect and admire Judge William Thomas. You are right in your analysis that he is crafty, that he is a good politician, and that he ran a good race in the 2004 election. That is precisely why he beat me in the election. And, indeed, I think, he is a very good trial judge. Don Cohn, Josie Velis, amd I know that we, too, ran good and honorable races. That's why we all remain friends,despite the fact that we were opponents. In this (2006) race, I intend to win (provided that the Supreme Court does not take away the opportunity). I confess that I do not have a lot of time to look at the Blog, as I am busy campaigning, and I suspect that the other candidates are busy as well. I did take the opportunity to review it this Sunday afternoon, and frankly Rump, I found it quite fascinating. Everyone can learn a lot by reading it, and I will recommend it.

Anonymous said...

Ofcourse Cathy Parks found the blog fascinating all her supporters have been writing GO PARKS! all week long...

Anonymous said...

driving around this town seeing posters for delpino, jacobi, and alvarez, make me realize the sad state of judicial elections in this town. None of these people would even consider running in any other town, anywhere in the US.

What a complete joke. These people are barely lawyers, much less qualified to be judges.

Anonymous said...

Hey, I'm one of those allegedly "down and out" PDs in J. Glick's division. The guys who are sitting in jail on coke possessions and DWLS's because they can't get a plea may be down and out, but not us. Is Glick state-oriented? Sure. The ASA's in there would be the first to tell you that. But he's friendly, he's smart, and he's got a personality, which puts him ahead of the game in my book. And he drew the open-ended assignment of covering division after Barzee left which I'm sure he didn't want and has handled it well. And I'm a big fan of the 9:30 calendar start. I certainly have my complaints about him as well, but he obviously reads the blog and will probably know whose writing this so I'll keep them to myself. But I just want to set the record straight that we are not "down and out" as the poster above claims. Watch us in court, I believe we're being aggressive, we're standing up the State and the judge when they're wrong, we're having a good time, and we're getting good results. And the cases we know Glick will slam our guys we're just continuing until after he's gone, no big deal.

Anonymous said...

hey shepd. don't continue cases cause your afraid your guy will get crushed by glick. try the hard ones and the easy ones. don't be a cherry picker.

Anonymous said...

Hey 11:28, you sould be even more scared of the people who are running to be the lawmakers of this sate.

Anonymous said...

You tell 'em Jude

Anonymous said...

Uh, Mr./Ms. PD in Glick's courtroom, I'm sure the State is making offers on coke possessions and HTOs, you (and your clients) just don't like them. So to say that your clients "can't get a plea" would be a misrepresentation, which is a polite word for a lie. But you're a PD, so you're familiar with, uh, misrepresentations.

Anonymous said...

Obviously the state is making offers. Often, those offers are a less attractive alternative to sitting in jail pending trial. Thus, they are often rejected. I thought that sequence of events would be obvious to anyone who works in the building and used "can't get a plea" as a shorthand for it. To call that a lie displays a certain intellectual rigidity that must make you a joy to work with.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Ms. Parks for giving us your thoughts. I will vote for you.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Im voting for Parks too. But only because she was a Nurse. I think Nurses are great.

Anonymous said...

Regards the Pilots who got no compassion:

They did not deserve prison. It was there first offense and the better sentence would have been the max fine and a with-hold sentence of the max and I mean max probation.

We treat career criminals with slaps on the wrist, why are we sending 2-guys that yes made a huge error in life to prison. First time it’s a mistake, second time you do not pass go, you go directly to jail.

Probation you say does not send a message. It does because a max probation is better than a soft prison sentence because if they fuck up they will get prison on the max withhold sentence.

Why is there no remorse for these guys. They have families, wife's, a mom and dad.

We have become to quick to just throw away a life. Many factors should come into play at sentencing not just public pressure (and a Judge is supposed to not rule under public pressure). Does there whole life of never doing anything wrong and being stellar Americans mean nothing?

Why then should we all be good decent citizens if when at our lowest point in life we cannot cash in on all the good we have done as American’s.

We all at some-point in life will commit human error.
We all should be able to cash in on all the good we have done for a one-time break (ie. special probation conditions that put the defendant in prison for the max if they violate probation).

The problem is these pilots did not have any connection to Miami so they had no political ties that could have helped as we know has helped many of our more famous local crooks in time of need. If our judges were appointed for life just like Federal Judges they would not have had the rulings or the sentence they received. Look the district court federal judge at first trumped the charges (although reversed on appeal). That federal judge was not under national and local public pressure.

Is there no human compassion in our legal system for human error? Before you disagree with this stop and think for just a moment that maybe, you get wrongly accused and wrongly convicted do you want to cash in all the good deeds you did in life for compassion for your first human mistake.

Anonymous said...

I would buy your argument if it had been anything other than a huge aircraft with hundreds of passengers.

Lady_Themis said...

I'm not here to put down any of the Candidates running for group 80. I say, good luck to all. However, when it comes to Criminal Law, it is very important to have someone at the bench who is qualified and has the experience in Criminal Law itself. I see many are choosing to vote for Catherine Parks solely because, she was a nurse. I would vote for Ms. Catherine Parks if she was running for Chief of Nurses, or a Nurse Practitioner. Why, because I feel she would be out of the Candidates running against her, the best fit for the position. She has the experience in the Medical field opposed to the other two candidates. However, the Harold did say, Ms. Park has a few years of experience as a Litigator apart from her medical experience. She does not have the experience in Criminal Law. Yes, she may be a great person, but on the other hand, it does not mean I should give a vote to someone, just because she was a nurse. On the other hand, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, has 20 yrs + experience in the court system and/or with Criminal Law. Ms. Mendez, has served as a CJA, Appellate Courts of Appeal, Public Defender, and the list goes on. Apart from all this, Ms. Mendez worked for Roy Black. She was even elected first choice by the Herald in this 2006 years election. If I recall, the last election, I believe in 2004, Ms. Catherine Parks was the Heralds first choice. Not for this election! The Herald chose Marisa Tinkler Mendez oppose of choosing Catherine Parks again. This means a lot to me! Marisa Tinkler Mendez was chosen by the Herald because she is the Candidate who has more experience and would be the proper qualified candidate for the bench. I believe the Harold is correct and so do many! Marisa Tinkler Mendez is also a caring person, a great Mother, and has helped many in the Community as well. My vote will go to Marisa Tinkler Mendez, punch 87 because out of the other candidates running against her, she is the one that fits this position and the most qualified person for this seat at this time. Good luck to all----------------and all the best to Marisa Tinkler Mendez who has my vote and many other standing to support as well! Go Marisa—All the best!