Thursday, July 13, 2006


Check out the post on everyone's favorite federal blog by David Markus (the link is on the left of this page) where Mr. Markus highlights a speech by Justice Kennedy complaining about the length of federal sentences (unlike certain former circuit judges now on the third DCA, Justice Kennedy is complaining that sentences are too harsh, not too lenient).

We have spoken out about this before on the blog, and been met with a resounding “zzzzzzzzzzzz”.

It would be very helpful if some judges (who can remain anonymous) would write in about what they think about sentencing in general.

Are minimum mandatory sentences the legislature’s way of saying they do not trust Judges?

What criteria does a Judge believe is important when sentencing a defendant after a trial.

Do Judges really sentence a defendant more harshly as a way of sending a message and trying to hold down the number of people who request a trial?

Does sentencing someone to 30 years as a way of sending a message (when 10 or 15 years would do) weigh on the conscience of a Judge?

Are there Judges now on the bench who regret past sentences and would do things differently now with some more experience?

Do Judges believe that with experience and more time on the bench they have issued harsher sentences, more lenient sentences, or stayed about the same?

Are there any Judges in Dade who do not believe in the death penalty?

How would a Judge wish to be known: as imposing harsh sentences, lenient sentences, or fair sentences?

Would it bother a Judge to know that the Dade legal community believes they are lenient in their sentences?

Finally, any candidate for Judge who wants their views known on this subject is invited to write in and we will post your thoughts and views.

Food for thought.

Of course these issues matter very little to us and Mr. Markus, considering neither of us are in the habit of having clients sentenced.

See You In Court winning acquittals.


Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen McWhorter's invitation to her fundraiser tonight? LOL...The person who wrote it is talking about a totally different person. Obviously, Neal R. Sonnett or the rest of the people that are listed in the invitaion have never practice before McWhorter. She is surely the worse Judge to ever be on the bench. How can we re-elect someone so mean and disrespectful. People do not complain later, if she is re-elected, which I doubt very much.

Your 3rd Grade English teacher said...

To the legal genuis who wrote the above post: you mean "worst" judge, don't you? And I think she is one of the best Judges, and more importantly, when she issues written orders, she uses spell check on her word processor.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that, Mr. R!

Anonymous said...

When are Markus and Rumpole going to try a case together? Have they already tried a case together? Are Markus and Rumpole the same person?

Rumpole said...

1) We did not write the post responding to the McWhorter fundraiser.
2) No one would ever mistake us for David O Markus with a K.
3) Mr. Markus generally does not accept disorderly conduct cases so there is not much chance we will be trying cases together.

David Oscar Markus said...

Rumpole, I'd love to try a case with you. Let me know and I'll be there...

Rumpole said...

a friend in need, is a friend indeed.

Anonymous said...

get a room boys.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Rumpole said...

Rumpole does not participate in alternate lifestyles, not that there's anything wrong with it.

Anonymous said...

broke back bloggers.

Anonymous said...

nice touch 7:12.

Anonymous said...

could rumpole be boy-george

Anonymous said...

please rump stop your whining about the fact that rothenberg is on the third. you defense attorneys have one thing that doesnt go your way and you run around like chicken little. the sky is not falling.

Anonymous said...

Many Dade judges don't care about being too lenient because they're too worried about keeping their jobs and they know that:

1. They need money to win re-election. Prosecutors are out-numbered by a hundred to one and make far less than defense attorneys. The judges know that they can raise a lot more money keeping defense attorneys happy than they can by keeping prosecutors and victims happy (particularly since many of these geniuses believe that there is no such thing as bad publicity).
2. Judges want good Bar pole ratings. Again, defense attorneys greatly outnumber prosecutors.

So.............we end up with the pathetic, pandering bench we have now. Good for the defense bar, bad for the community.

Rumpole said...

whine whine whimper whimper

Anonymous said...

does 9:08 have point?
does he have a bar license?
does he still were diapers?
does anyone care?

Anonymous said...

the fact is judges must keep prosecutors happy because bad publicity brings on opposition to run against you after your six years of just shaking the 8 ball for judicial rulings.

Lets take a in debt review. Judge Hernandez vs. Robin Faber. Faber has no raised nor is he seeking to raise a single cent. WHY you ask, because bad publicity has tarnished Hernandez and Faber ran for his seat because who is going to vote for a sitting Judge under criminal investigation.

So your point is off base.

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...

Ps. The prosecutors had everyright to prosecute these guys and did a honorable job of representing the people and sought the correct justice, because these guys committed a crime. The prosecutors should be commended.

The issue is the end result by the Judge and the appeals court on the harsh sentence.

Anonymous said...

Pilots Say Alcohol-Related Violations Extremely Rare
Linda Fantin
The Salt Lake Tribune

From 1995 to 2005, only 106 pilots recorded a blood-alcohol content above the official FAA limit, or fewer than 10 per year. From 2000 to 2004, it was one out of every 743 pilots tested.


Rumpole said...

To the person who posted the Alvarez for Judge website with corresponding resume of the candidate on the blog, I have removed it. Not because we will not be endorsing Mr. Alvarez, but because you are not a CAREFUL READER. You need to EMAIL that information to RUMPOLE so that Rumpole can make endorsements. All candidates will have a chance to have their website advertised in the blog. But we are not going to let this blog be turned into an electronic US 1 with signs littering the road way every few miles (or posts). Your post would just get a return post from Judge Miller and then you would post after her, and so on and so on until September 5, when one of you becomes a Judge and loses the ability to read and think rationally. SO NO CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING ON THE BLOG.


Rumpole said...

Speaking of being grouchy, to the person who wrote the defense of the pilots and request for compassion on behalf of them and their families: IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO POST YOUR COMMENTS ON EVERY TOPIC ON THE BLOG. NICE POST BUT NO NEED TO PUT IT UNDER THREE SEPERATE TOPICS. STOP IT. YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO ANNOYING US.

as you can tell, its early and we have not have our coffee yet.

Anonymous said...

To 9:08p.m. HERE HERE.

The truth 1:34 is that Faber loses. Only lawyers really know or care about Hernandez' problem. No one reads the Herald. Remember his name HERNANDEZ!!

P.Mason said...

dont forget the pilots turned down probation before trial.

but i think my good friend david young took advantage of the media coverage and grandstanded at the expense of the families of the two schmucks.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

The Miami Herald is running an article on the top 10 biggest self promoters in criminal defense.

Anonymous said...

who keeps voting over and over again for abe laeser to be the next public defender? weird.

Anonymous said...

Rubpole do you have the guts to make a posting on the below subject and poke fun at it?


Attorney Jim McGuirk will defend Julian Ramirez, son of Third District Court of Appeal Judge Juan Ramirez Jr., on a misdemeanor charge of leaving the scene of an accident with property damage.

Julian, 22, slammed into a tree on Heraldo Street in Coral Gables at around 9:30 p.m. July 2. He was not seriously injured. His mother Josie's '02 black Ford Mustang did not fare as well -- thousands of dollars in damage.

Coral Gables cops found the Mustang ''unattended,'' but soon Josie and the judge showed up. They told cops they took Julian home ''because he was upset that he crashed the car.'' Officers asked them to bring Julian to the scene, and the judge agreed, the report says. Officer Steve St. Amand followed the judge to his nearby home. Ramirez ''walked onto his property and locked the outside gates,'' telling police ``he will not let his son talk to anybody until his attorney was present.''

At 11 p.m., Julian came out with lawyer Sherri Romano, McGuirk's partner. Police arrested him on the leaving-the-scene charge, ticketed him for careless driving and took him to jail. He is out on $500 bond. Damage to the ''juvenile'' tree is listed at $100. No court date set.

Anonymous said...

Is anybody thinking about the hundreds of people in the plane and on the ground who could have been killed because of a couple of self-indulgent pilots? Anyone with a pilot's lisense knows the dangers. We are not talking about missing a stop light here. Have any of you ever seen the crash site of an airliner? No sympathy for the pilots. The families, yes, but that is not enough to moderate the sentence. David was right for turning down the plea. His sentence better than they deserved.

Anonymous said...

Judge Ramirez took his son home? How is that not aiding an abetting an LSA? What kind of example is he setting?


Anonymous said...

#1 Mark Eiglarsh

Anonymous said...

I too wonder why nothing is being made of the fact that judge ramirez took his son form an accident scene.

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, the pilots almost got away with murder. MASS MURDER. I don't care if it's a car, a boat, a bike or a plane that practically flies itself with pre-programmed computer program, they needed to be sober. they broke the law, got caught and got stuck with a judge who wants the publicity. It happens every day in the building.

Anonymous said...

#2 Brian Tannenbaum
#3 Ellis Rubin

Anonymous said...

I would take my son home, hide him out and do everything I could to protect him from being arrested whether I was a judge or a garbageman. Anyone who says different is a but wipe or doesn't have kids. Is the judge wrong for articulating his son's desire to exercise his constitutional right to remain silent?

Anonymous said...

Taking his kid home is not "articulating his son's desire to exercise his constitutional right to remain silent." It's LSA, pure and simple. He should be prosecuted.

P.Mason said...

look, the kid was probably d.u.i. which was the cause for the delay in speaking to the cops. Ramirez assumed the role of parent to protect his kid (as most good parents would do). either way hes in hot water. if he lets the kid talk to the cops immediately, the kid get popped for d.u.i, wait a few hours and its an LSA and he gets accused of 'obstruction". rock and a hard place as i see it.

ultimatley i would have done the same. but hes in for a hard look.

Hire ME!!!!!!!!!! said...

#1 is not EIglarsh, #1 with 300 subsections are all the cheesy attorneys who send brochures to arrested and ticketed defendants.

If that's not self promotion, I dont know what is.

Anonymous said...

FYI, Marc Seitles wrote the post on sentencing on Markus' blog, not Markus.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Simply stupid. There is no Criminal Investigation going and if there was, it would be about the Judges calling other candidates to change seats. The Herald spreads friendship by pushing garbage on the candidates that are going after their friends.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if many people get a chance to have the Police wait until their attorney is on the scene in a DUI? Judge Juan Ramirez needs to be investigated for abusing his power if he really made the police officer wait. Ramirez, you know better than that.

Judge Roberto M. Pineiro said...

You have posed some very interesting questions.
In response I offer the attached excerpts from a speach I gave some years ago at FIU.
Please, excuse my verbosity. You have accused "robed ones" of loving to pontificate so surely, this diatribe must be to your liking as proof positive of your allegations.

"In order to impose an appropriate and just sentence the judge must factor in the nature of the crime and the nature of individual who has been found guilty of that crime. When I first stated my legal career as an Assistant Dade County State Attorney, 25 years ago, during the dark ages, a judge had full discretion to impose whatever sentence she felt appropriate; the only limitation was the statutory maximum penalty. This gave the judge an opportunity to hand tailor what she thought would be the best sentence for a particular crime and for a particular defendant. The judge would be free to give whatever weight she felt various factors warranted. Without hindrance she could analyze various considerations such as:
1.the severity of the crime
2.the severity of the injury to the victim
3.the injury caused to society by the defendant’s actions
4.all the relevant circumstances of the crime
5.the convicts criminal record or lack thereof and his entire past history
6.the victim’s need for restitution
7.the possibility of rehabilitation
8.the possible need to send a message to the community
9.a host of other variables

The law gave the judge full discretion free of any limitation in all cases but one–first degree murder. That crime had a penalty of life in prison with a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years state prison. This meant that, regardless of any other consideration, the most lenient sentence a person convicted of this crime could receive was twenty-five years in state prison. A spouse who kills his partner to collect an insurance claim would face the same penalty as a spouse who pulls the plug on a terminally ill and suffering partner. In 1977 this was the only minimum mandatory sentence, or “min-man” in legal parlance, on the books.

While a judge enjoyed great freedom to fashion the best possible sentence in his estimation this free wheeling discretion led to great disparity of sentences for similar crimes throughout the state. Judges were, in no way, required to try to give similar penalties for similar crimes. There could be great differences in sentencing policies between courtrooms just a few feet apart from each other not to mention differences between cities such as Miami or Tallahassee. In order to promote more uniform sentencing across the state and across the hallway for similar crimes, a laudable goal, the legislature in the early 1980's created sentencing guidelines–thereby bringing mathematics into the art and science of judging. Crimes were categorized by their severity and were given a certain number of points–the higher the number the more severe the crime. Points were also assessed for other factors such as: victim injury, prior convictions, legal restriction at the time of the offense, such as probation, and any additional offenses. All the defendant’s points were then totaled up on a score sheet and the defendant’s guideline sentencing range was computed. Lawyers, many of whom came to the law because they hated the math required for medical school, were shocked to discover they had to learn how to use a calculator. I still don’t know how to use one. That’s why I became a judge; I force the lawyers to use them for me. By law, these guidelines are mandatory and the court must not deviate upwards or downwards absent some very precise and codified circumstances.

The sentencing guidelines did provide for more uniformity while allowing the court discretion to sentence within the sentencing range and to determine if any special circumstances exited for mitigation or aggravation of the sentence. The guidelines allowed judges a way of fashioning a sentence for similar crimes in line with other courtrooms around the state. Thus, defendants were treated more equally. The guidelines fashioned a good balance between allowing a judge full discretion to impose a punishment for one certain individual and providing for equal treatment of particular crimes across the state.

The guidelines were so successful that the legislature decided that even more uniformity was in order. They felt that certain crimes were so serious that minimum-mandatories or min-mans should be imposed. In the mid eighties in our country and, more particularly, in our state the “cocaine cowboys” were in full cattle drive mode. Substitute coke and other killer drugs for the cows. Our state was drowning in a deluge of illegal and lethal drugs. The drug trafficking also fostered a bloodbath of drug related murders. The Medical Examiners office had to rent a refrigerated Burger King truck to house the overflow stiffs. Drastic measures were needed to stem the tide. The legislature turned to minimum mandatory statutes; keep the drug dealers in prison for a time certain and, at least, that one charming fellow would be out action for a while. One less criminal for law abiding citizens to worry about. Starting with the one min-man statute on the books in 1977 min-mans have proliferated amazingly since the mid 80's; it’s like bunnies high on viagra. We now have dozens of min-man statutes. They include:
1.Possession of more than 25 lbs. of marijuana–3 years min-man
2.Possession of more than 2,000 lbs. of marijuana–7 years min-man
3.Possession of more that 10,000 lbs. of marijuana–15 years min-man
4.Possession of more than 28 grams of cocaine–3 years min-man
5.Possession of more than 200 grams of cocaine–7 years min-man
6.Possession of more than 400 grams of cocaine–15 years min-man
7.Possession of more than 150 kilos of cocaine–Life min-man

There are also min-mans for possession of other drugs. The preceding list is just some examples. The court has no discretion, whatsoever, to impose a lesser sentence. The mid level coke dealer in possession of 199 grams of cocaine faces the same min-man as the mule who swallows balloons filled with 29 grams of cocaine. This is where the persuasion and mediation and the uncommon sense of judging comes in–trying to help convince the prosecution that, perhaps, the equities of a particular case or defendant require a more lenient resolution and convincing the defendant that, if found guilty, the prosecution is in the driver’s seat, so it may be in his best interests to cut his loses and take the state’s plea offer.

Interestingly enough, while denying the judge, the elected official ultimately responsible to the electorate, the discretion for leniency the legislature gifted it to the State Attorney’s Office. In actuality, a prosecutor just a few years out of law school is in control of the min-man sentence, as opposed to a veteran jurist with decades of experience and with well earned grey hairs. How does the prosecution exercise it’s discretion to waive the minimum mandatory sentence? By law, the prosecution may waive the min-man if the defendant provides “substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of that person’s accomplices, accessories, co-conspirators or principals or of any other person engaged in trafficking in controlled substances”.

Substantial assistance can, in the first place, be provided by, in effect, ratting out your running buddies; your partners in crime. Well and good, you turn in other criminals who have already committed a crime. Certainly, this is of great benefit to society–some more bad guys off the street equals less crime being committed. However, there is a second way of providing substantial assistance. You can assist in the arrest or conviction of “any other person engaged in trafficking in control substances.” Basically, you will be turning in other people who are not your present partners is crime. How this works is that the police go on a fishing expedition trolling you as the bait. You become a police confidential informant, a C. I., and sent out with instructions to make provable cases for them. You are asked to commit crimes with the intention of arresting future criminals. Some plea agreements call for the informant to bring in a certain number of “fish” and of a certain weight. If you do not succeed, then do not pass go and go to prison for your minimum mandatory sentence. However, if you succeed then you are off the hook. You go free and your fish goes to jail; that is unless he too earns his C. I. wings and goes on the prowl, looking for his own catch to turn in. What if you actually do really, really well, better than expected–hey, lets give you permanent employment and start paying you a bonus for future provable cases. We’ll put you on commission. Who says crime does not pay? You have an untrained, highly motivated and proven bad guy engaging in crime with the court’s blessing. There have been notorious incidents where some of these valued confidential informants have committed perjury, have entrapped otherwise honest citizens; one especially infamous female informant traded sexual favors to help set up cases. Prostitution on behalf of law enforcement may not be the most laudable means of crime prevention. This manner of substantial assistance has become so unsavory that I refuse to accept substantial performance pleas involving this second type of assistance.

Regardless of the of type of substantial assistance provided, what type of criminal can provide it? The one time dealer who sees an opportunity to make a quick buck, perhaps at the suggestion, maybe even the urging, of a confidential informant? The moronic, desperate mule who is so behind the 8 ball that he would actually swallow balloons filled with poison? The bad guy who, not only, talks the talk, but who also walks the walk of the certified, no-good, down and dirty, poison pedaling scum of a drug dealer? If number three is your final answer, then you’re ready to go on to the next round. Yes, folks the guy most people would want off the streets in a big way has a new lease on life and has been reincarnated as Officer Friendly. Yes, this is the man who enjoys the state’s leniency–the one who least deserves it. The one time dealer knows very little and can’t help the cops. The mule, he’s at the very bottom of the drug dealing totem pole. All he can do is give the name of the person who gave him the drugs, in another country. The prosecution is not in agreement with Jesus Christ’s praise of the old widow who gave one coin to the temple because it was all she had. They’d rather deal with the certified drug dealers who can provide them with lots of gold in the form of substantial assistance.

There are other minimum mandatory penalties that apply based upon the geographical situs of a particular crime. If you are in possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver and are a certain distance from certain facilities, then some min-mans apply. Possession with intent to sell or deliver can be proven to a jury by the amount and packaging of the drugs in your possession. Drug dealers tend to sell drugs in small individualized plastic bags or tin foil. The problem is that drug buyers tend to buy drugs in small individualized plastic bags or tin foil, because that is how dealers sell them. So, how do you differentiate the seller from the buyer? It’s a judgement call for the jury.

If you are in possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver and are within a 1,000 feet of a house of worship, or within a 1000 feet of a child care facility, or within a 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary, middle or secondary school, or within a 1,000 feet of a convenience store, or within 200 feet of a private or public college or university, or within 200 feet of a public park, or within 200 feet of a public housing facility then you face a minimum mandatory penalty of, no questions asked, 3 years state prison. Can any one of you, please, tell me where I can find a place in Miami that is not within the proscribed boundaries of the aforementioned facilities? Unless the state can be persuaded to treat you with leniency, you’ll do your 3 years in the slammer, even if you are an honor student with a drug problem, even if you beg for drug treatment, even if you are a decorated veteran with a “jones” for heroin caused by war wounds, even if you didn’t know that the 7 Eleven was only 999 feet away and you’d never been to it anyway. You are still at the mercy of the state. Certainly, in the aforementioned circumstances you are bound to get some leeway, but you are not legally entitled to it. And well, who knows?

You say you’ll take it to the jury. Surely six good people from our community will see you are not really a bad guy; that you’ve never even been arrested before, and give you a break. They won’t find you guilty and send you away for 3 years, day for day, when they find out about how good you are and about how you were addicted because you served our country in war and how unfair the state is being to you. You’re lawyer will tell them to find you guilty of a lesser charge so that the min-mans don’t apply. Wrong. The jury will not find out that you’ve never been arrested before. It is against the law for them to do so. The jury will not find out you were addicted because of your war wounds. The evidence code says it’s not relevant and it is disallowed. The jury will not find out you are facing a minimum mandatory sentence of three years. This too is illegal and will not be allowed in evidence for the jury to hear. The jury is never told the penalty you are facing. Your lawyer will not be able to argue for a finding of guilt to a lesser charge because of the min-mans. The court is legally required to instruct the jury that if there is a finding of guilt it must be for the highest offense which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the foregoing will happen because, while I may think your cause is just and that you are deserving of a break, I am a sworn officer of the law and I will follow the law whether I like it or not. My personal feelings have absolutely no say in how I am duty bound to follow the laws by which we must all abide . Absent the state’s magnanimity, you’re goose is cooked...

The manic proliferation of these minimum mandatory statutes put the courts on the sidelines in the fashioning of an appropriate sentence. The legislature has let the pendulum swing too much toward lack of discretion and is creating, in many cases, cookie cutter justice. The legislature is to be lauded for giving judges the discretion to upwardly depart in the cases of career criminals and habitual violent offenders to the extent that they can be sentenced to even beyond the statutory maximums. Hopefully, in the future, greater discretion will be exercised in carving out further exceptions to the use of the reasoned discretion of the people’s elected judges. After all, if a judge is doing a poor job by sentencing too leniently, then exercise your right to vote and kick the bum out of office."

Judge Roberto M. Pineiro

Anonymous said...

Judge Pineiro,

Thank you for the above comments. That is a great lecture.


Catherine B. Parks

Anonymous said...

Sentencing is perhaps the most difficult function to perform as a circuit court judge.

The legislature has imposed all types of mandatory sentences, PRRPS, HVO's which can box you into a harsh penalty on a mope. If you have worked in the system 20 years or so, you have a sense of what a fair penalty would be given the offense and the harm done, but many legislative mandates negate your expertise or discount your judgment.

On a daily basis you have to scrutinize your behavior to make sure that you aren't slam dunking a defendant who goes to trial and loses to "send a message."

You have to weigh what the prosecution wants, the victim's harm or loss with the desparation of defendant's families facing their loss.

You have to live knowing that you send humans to live, for years in a place where you would be afraid to spend a day. Occasionally you see someone badly injured or killed by a defendant you didn't send away in the hope of giving that defendant a chance, and you live with that mistake.

And, yes there are circuit court judges who do not believe in the death penalty. What you personally believe in may be in direct conflict with your oath to follow the law and the constitution.

I'm not complaining about doing the job. But, when I upon rare occasion read the blog I detect a consistent thrum that judges don't think about these things. Some do. I do.

Anonymous said...


“The time is always right to do what is right.” Martin Luther King

-URGENT- Supporters of Robin W. Faber, for County Court Judge, CLICK HERE for the FLYER promoting Robin W. Faber for County Court Judge Print as many flyers as you can and post everywhere. We need your help now. Web Site Click Here.

Operation Restore Justice has officially Endorsed Judge Bronwyn Catherine Miller to be retained as County Court Judge. The Mayor of Miami-Dade County Carlos Alvarez has also endorsed Judge Miller.

06.28.06• MIAMI HERALD - Bar Association: Candidate violated canon of ethics. CLICK HERE

06.12.06 • MIAMI HERALD - County Court 'Super Glue' Case now tied to politics. CLICK HERE

06.10.06 • MIAMI HERALD - Judge Accused of Campaign Violations. CLICK HERE

06.07.06 • Judge Ivan Hernandez, Judicial Assistant has E-mailed O.R.J. threatening to sue us for slander: CLICK HERE

05.31.06 • MIAMI HERALD - touched on the facts surrounding this years testy judicial elections: CLICK HERE


04.05.06 • DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW - Judge's judicial aide on leave without pay. CLICK HERE

03.19.06 • MIAMI HERALD - New accusations against judicial aide. CLICK HERE

03.02.06 • MIAMI HERALD - Courthouse computer of judge's aide seized. CLICK HERE

03.01.06 • MIAMI HERALD - A political question in judge's chambers. CLICK HERE

03.01.06 • DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW - Justice System Courthouse extortion claimed. CLICK HERE

Highly respected, Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina, wrote to the Judicial Qualifications Commission "J.Q.C." regards several complaints his office received against Judge Ivan Hernandez and his JA, obstructing the access of litigants to Judge Hernandez's court. CLICK HERE to view the letter.
Bennett H. Brummer, the top defender of the poor in his capacity as PUBLIC DEFENDER of Miami-Dade County, wrote to Chief Judge Farina complaining about Judge Ivan Hernandez and his JA, Juan D'Arce. CLICK HERE to view the letter.

Highly respected, Attorney, Don S. Cohn, wrote to Chief Judge Farina complaining about Judge Ivan Hernandez and his JA, Juan D'Arce. CLICK HERE to view letter.

In 2006, Judge Ivan Hernandez a South Florida County Court Judge decided to ignore his duty to promote public confidence by continuing to employ his Judicial Assistant after the Judge's office was raided by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's office under a criminal subpoena. Judge Hernandez court house computer was seized in early March 2006, as part of the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office public corruption criminal investigation against the Judge and his Judicial assistant.

The Judge's right hand and judicial assistant also made several anti-Semitic slurs against highly respected administrative Judge Steve Leifman, because the administrative Judge had informed Judge Ivan Hernandez that he was getting numerous upon numerous complaints from litigants about the judicial assistants rudeness and obstruction of access to the court.

Judge Ivan Hernandez who is fortunately up for re-election this year will be facing opposition for his judicial seat. O.R.J. urges all who vote this year to restore justice and remove Judge Ivan Hernandez by voting for highly respected Attorney Robin W. Faber.

In addition to the criminal investigation Judge Ivan Hernandez, recently had a "show cause order" (writ of mandamus) issued against him by the Third District Court of Appeal, after his judicial assistant Juan D'Arce was rude and repeatedly denied a litigant access to his Court. CLICK HERE to view order.

Judge Samuel J. Slom (the Administrative Judge overseeing Judge Hernandez), tells the Miami Herald on May 30, 2006, that he has received numerous upon numerous complaints about Juan D'Arce being rude, insensitive and obstructing the access of litigants to the Court. CLICK HERE TO PLAY THE AUDIO.

Take a moment to watch the below video of the oral argument in the Third District Court of Appeal were Attorney Miguel De La O, (who is friends with Juan D'Arce) attempts to defend the conduct of Judge Hernandez and his judicial assistant.

Pay close attention to the rebuttal portion of the video



The 3rd DCA panel on the pending main appeal was,


The 3rd DCA panel that issued the show cause "writ of mandamus" order against Judge Hernandez, was,


CLICK HERE to view order.

O.R.J. Endorses

Click for Biography
O.R.J. Endorses

Judge Steve Leifman for re-election


Click for Biography

Opinions of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee


If you wish to report a violation of Chapters 104, 106, or Section 105.071, Florida Statutes, you can download a copy of the complaint form: CLICK HERE

An Aid to Understanding Canon 7. Guidelines to Assist Judicial Candidates in Campaign and Political Activities (updated May 15, 2006): CLICK HERE

Florida Supreme Court Justice R. Fred Lewis was sworn in as Florida's 52nd Chief Justice in a ceremonial session held at 3:30 p.m. in Tallahassee on June 30, 2006. To watch this historic event CLICK HERE. Chief Justice R. Fred Lewis, Biography CLICK HERE
Notice of District Court Assessment Survey: The District Court of Appeal Workload and Jurisdiction Assessment committee is asking lawyers, litigants and the public to complete an on-line survey to help them evaluate the district courts of appeal. The assessment committee will examine the survey results as they consider whether a court’s performance in a specific area could be appreciably improved with a jurisdictional change. CLICK HERE

"Operation Restore Justice" T-Shirt. Show your support for truth and justice. CLICK HERE

Letter from President George W. Bush CLICK HERE

Over - 90,000 - visitors and hits since June 7, 2006


Operation Restore Justice is geared toward exposing corruption in the Florida Court system. The web site is here to expose the very rare cases in which a Judge or those under the Judge's control violate the publics trust.

The Supreme Court of Florida has set a path of rooting out judicial wrong doing at all levels. The Supreme Court has released numerous opinions over the past few years making it clear to the general public that it will not tolerate violations of the code of judicial conduct either by a sitting judge or a candidate for judge. Recently the Supreme Court of Florida removed a judge from office because of violations of the code of judicial conduct that happened during his judicial campaign to become a Florida Judge.

All citizens of Florida can be sure that our highest court will NOT tolerate violations of the Code of Judicial conduct at any level. Our supreme court is not shy in expressing its condemnation of any Judge who violates the public trust by not following the code of judicial conduct.

Operation Restore Justice is under the control of a private citizen. It was due to the criminal investigation presently against Judge Ivan Hernandez and his Judicial Assistant, by the Miami-Dade State Attorneys office which has resulted in the seizure of the Judges computer under a criminal subpoena, that Operation Restore Justice was born in early 2006. In addition to complaints from numerous litigants of being denied access to Judge Hernandez court and Racial slurs by his Judicial Assistant against the administrative Judge.

Florida has some of the best Judges in the world. We cannot let a handful of bad apples destroy the prestige of Florida's judicial system. The Supreme Court of Florida through its recent opinions has demonstrated that it will NOT tolerate judges who do not follow the code of judicial conduct.