WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Friday, August 11, 2006

JUDGE BRONWYN MILLER

Rumpole endorses BRONYWN MILLER FOR RETENTION:


Mr. George Alvarez is running against Judge Miller for a spot on the County Court bench. Mr. Alvarez appears to be a nice man. He is said to be even tempered and his friends say he has the perfect disposition for a county court judge. Mr. Alvarez also has experience outside of the law, serving on the Westchester Community Council.

HOWEVER:

Bronwyn Miller was appointed to the bench in March of 2005 by the current Governor. Judge Miller came to the bench with exceptional experience from her time as a prosecutor in the Dade County State Attorneys Office. She was a training attorney at the time of her appointment, and prior to that she was one of the more active prosecutors in trial, handling complex capital prosecutions as well as other cases. Her reputation among the judges and lawyers in the REGJB could not have been better.

We believe a lawyer should assume the bench with the type of legal experience necessary to do the job. As a trial lawyer ourselves, we believe the very best experience comes from trying cases.


The normal litigant appears in court seeking justice, which on the county court level, is most often delivered by the Judge. We believe that a lawyer who has been through the fire of jury trials obtains the necessary experience and prospective that can only be gained when you have stood in front of a jury on behalf of a client or the State of Florida.

The effects of trying 50 or a 100 cases molds the character of a lawyer in a way like no other. Much like the metal of character being pounded on anvils in the fire of trial, what you thought you knew gradually is replaced by what you learn, until you emerge, many years later, different, wiser, with more prospective on life.

Not every strong arm robbery deserves 20 years in prison, and not every person convicted of DUI deserves to go to jail.

A wise lawyer is one who learns from their jury trials. You celebrate the victories, but more importantly, you learn from your defeats.

As a citizen of this state, do we really want an attorney like Mr. Alvarez to learn about jury trials while sitting on the bench? Yes, it does happen. But in our view, the effects are disastrous.


We have walked away from too many jury trials conducted by Judges who tried few or no cases in their career and seen the look of sadness, anger, or disgust in a police officer’s eyes, or seen the look of horror in a family member’s eyes as a Judge with no experience issued a sentence beyond all reason.

The bench is not a place to learn. It is a place to teach.

Those of us with more than a few years experience remember fondly the late Judge C. P. Rubiera, who went out of his way to teach young prosecutors and public defenders how to be lawyers. What can Mr. Alvarez teach a DUI prosecutor who already has tried 6 or 8 cases, when Mr. Alvarez to our knowledge has not had any jury trials?

Judge Miller has the experience necessary to do the job, and George Alvarez does not. It is as simple as that, and that is why we are endorsing Judge Bronwyn Miller.

We choose this race as our first endorsement for one other important reason.

The bar requires attorneys to work for the betterment of the Judiciary. We believe this means that an attorney should not run against a qualified Judge merely because the attorney thinks he or she can win the election. We do not know if that is the case here. However, we suspect it is.


In this current age of politics in Dade County, we all know that there is a distinct advantage to running with a Hispanic sur name. Just ask defeated candidate Fritz Mann how well he did when he ran.

Judge Miller has been a fine Judge during the short time she has been on the bench. As a prosecutor she tried many cases, authored a scholarly article on an issue of evidence, and served on the boards of various legal organizations.

Mr. Alvarez should answer this question to the lawyers of Miami and the voters of Dade County: without mentioning any specific rulings which is prohibited by the rules of ethics, why should Judge Miller be replaced?

There are several candidates running against sitting Judges who could respond to that question by pointing out that the Judge has a reputation for being rude, or was sanctioned by the JQC. None of those factors seem to apply here, and unless Mr. Alvarez can answer that question, we are left with the conclusion that he is running against Judge Miller because he thinks he can win.

The judiciary is supposed to be better than that.
Lawyers are supposed to act with more dignity than that.

We all lose when a qualified judge with the experience that Judge Miller has is replaced for no reason other than her opponent had a more popular name.

Rumpole endorses Judge Bronwyn Miller for retention.


Kudos to the several alert readers who emailed us that Judge Miller has not been elected, she was appointed, so we endorse her retention not re-election.

101 comments:

Anonymous said...

You'll need to work faster rump. You got a lot of races to write endorsements for. This one was LOOOOONG but it was very thorough. Are they all going to be so detailed?

Rumpole said...

No.

Anonymous said...

alan, what does this mean?

Anonymous said...

It means you should vote for Judge Miller, Chris.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole said: Rumpole endorses Judge Bronwyn Miller for reelection.

Umm, Rump, although I whole heartedly agree with your endorsement of Judge Miller, umm, she is not running for reelection, she has never been elected.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole is Maury Udell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey Rumpole,,,shouldn't it be that you endorse her to be RETAINED,,not re-elected. She WASN'T elected in the first place!

Anonymous said...

I worked with Judge Miller, for several years when she was at the state. She was an exceptional person, and attorney. She deserves to be elected.
George, you should drop out of the race.
FYI, I am a hispanic lawyer in miami, and I support Judge Brownwyn Miller.

Anonymous said...

if chris is an alien, how can he vote?

Anonymous said...

It means both Alan and Chris should vote for Judge Miller. I will vote for her too!

Anonymous said...

Alan where are my shekels?

Anonymous said...

Scene at the Little Lord Fauntoroy's Miami Gentleman's club yesterday night:

Joel: So then Miffy said ad-in and I said, who are you, John McEnroe?

Me. Joel!!! Mah blogga!

Joel: pardon?

Me: Joel,, mah blogga? Wazzup?

Joel: Sir, this is a private club. Apparently you have me mistaken with some other gentleman.

Me: Joel,, mah blogga. You da man.

Joel: Sir, we have been through this before. I am most certainly not the man. Perhaps some other man is the man.

Me: Joel.. You mah blogga, and da man.

Anonymous said...

Alan....is Joel the man?

CAPTAIN said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

To the blogger that asked about campaign finaces for Faber (group 4) and Chavez (Group 43):

GROUP 4

Mr. Faber, the challenger, has been very successful in his fundraising efforts. It is not easy to beg for money every night at a different cocktail party. He has convinced 424 individuals to donate to his campaign for a total of $77,208. He added 10k of his own for a grand total of $87,208.

Judge Hernandez, on the other hand, seems to be having the same problems fundraising as with the rest of his campaign. He has raised only $5,400 (as of the March 31 reporting; there is no filing through July 28, 2006 as there is with Faber). Hernandez has added $21,000 of his own money for a total of $26,400.

In the spending area, Faber has given Josie Poitier $1,500 and Quantum Results, aka, Al Lorenzo, a grand total of $17,540. I hope he's worth it.

Hernandez, on the other hand, has spent a grand total of ZERO on campaign consulting.

CAPTAIN OUT ...............

CAPTAIN said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

and for GROUP 43:

Cecilia Armenteros-Chavez has raised $8,525 and thrown in another $7,500 for a total of $16,025. She has doled out to campaign consultants: Glen Poole $500; Margarita Armona $600 and MV Almer $500.

Michael Bienstock has raised ZERO money and tossed in $11,100 of his own money. He has spent ZERO on consultants.

Jose "Joe" Fernandez has raised an impressive $30,575 and added no extra money of his own. He has also spent zero on consultants.

Finally, kudos to RUMPOLE for the well thought out endorsement of the very qualified Judge Miller.

CAPTAIN OUT ................

Anonymous said...

Rump, Your endorsement of Judge Miller is nothing more than support of squatters' rights. Should someone seeking judicial office not run simply because the seat is already occupied? In this case, your desired outcome makes sense because the challenger doesn't seem to have any experience, but you go too far in saying that someone shouldn't run simply because they think they can win. I think, inherent in anyone's choice to put themselves on the ballot, he/she has more in mind than victory - its possible they think that their life experience will somehow benefit the judicial process. By your analysis, Judge Adrien should be retained come next election season because now he has some experience on the bench. P.S. Who are Alan and Chris?

Anonymous said...

Joel is Da Man, not THE man. get it straight.

Rumpole said...

2:42 No I do not think you get it. Judge Miller does not deserve opposition. Neither did the Judge that Judge Adrien was able to defeat. If Judge Adrien turns out to be a poor judge then he will merit opposition.

Dan Quayle said...

how can it be that hernandez hasnt spent a reported dime on campiagn consulting? i juan an accounting immediately.

he sure does have a lot of signs with a photo which looks like it was airbrushed by the photographers at reuters.

who is putting up all those signs? maybe his wife, who he does not seem to know.

Harwick's Shrink said...

Hardwick....is that the best you can do? For shame for shame. It must make a deranged person like yourself crazy beyond all belief when someone tells you NO. By the way, when Judge Hernandez wins, and Miguel De La O whips your butt, will you turn purple with rage, explode, and load that video on your web site?

Anonymous said...

I don't know this Hardwick character, but he's gonna go crazy when he reads that.

Anonymous said...

whats a harwick?

Anonymous said...

Big ups to atty Victor Wainstein who got a not guilty on an attemoted first and deadly missile in front of jimenez.

Anonymous said...

Yo Vic, whos da man? You and Joel da men.

Anonymous said...

Whats a henway?

Anonymous said...

Hey Hardwick...here's the difference between a nut like you and an attorney. How do you even know Rumpole is a lawyer? he could be a wannabe like you. Then where does your bar complaint get you? But, not being an attorney, you have no training in things like thinking beyond the observable facts.

Anonymous said...

Henway- 3 lbs?

Anonymous said...

A henwey? Probably 8-10 pounds?

CAPTAIN said...

in re Herandez accounting:

Because Judge Hernandez has yet to file his July 28, 2006 report, I only have the numbers through March 31, 2006. He may have spent some money on a consultant in the last four months.

CAPTAIN OUT ...................

Anonymous said...

Rump, just curious, but when you say Miller "has been a fine Judge during the short time she has been on the bench," what are you basing that on? For some reason, you don't seem like the type that ventures to So. Dade very often. Have you seen any of the PIP cases she handles? Do you know how she treats the attorneys who appear in front of her? Is this assessment simply based on knowledge of her before she was a judge? Obviously none of us has picked a jury in front of her. The rest of your loong thoughts seem to be okay, but try to be a little less vague than the Herald.

Anonymous said...

whom

Rumpole said...

4:26 Valid point. I based my statement about her performance based on speaking with attorneys who have appeared before her.

As to being vague, its hard to endorse a Judge when their particular rulings cannot be commented on during a campaign.
(This is something certain non lawyers have no idea about.) Therefore, all you can do is talk about demeanor and experience.

Anonymous said...

Pretty impressive for Jose L. "Joe" Joseph Giuseppie Fernandez raising that much in less than 2 months and when the well is pretty dried up. I guess his friends have really stepped up!

Anonymous said...

who

Anonymous said...

Who da man? Joe Fernandez and Joel and Vic da men.

Anonymous said...

thank you Captain for responding to my earlier requests. Now tell me the latest on Gloria oh Gloria v. Samuels please

Rumpole said...

SORRY GUYS BUT OUR RESIDENT LUNATIC WHO HAS NOTHING TO DO ALL DAY BUT MONITOR THE BLOG IS HAVING A FIT AND POSTING THE FLORIDA BAR LIST OF ATTORNEYS NAMES BUT I AM ON LINE SO WRITE YOUR POSTS AND THEY WILL GO RIGHT UP.

Anonymous said...

Great catch rump. I saw how you knocked McGirlie"s attempt to post.

Anonymous said...

Rumpster, what is your anticipated endorsement posting schedule?

Rumpole said...

All next week.

Rumpole said...

Unless he who can't do anything but complain and cry and threaten to sue finds us and....well fill in the blank, but his emails are truly the scary product of a deranged mind.

fake cal mapp said...

ah say, ah say, al righty ditty do, buy mah book and you will win your case

Anonymous said...

I think it's time to repost the criminal and traffic history of miss mcgillis. what say you Rump

Rumpole said...

As far as I understand the nature of mental illness, he who likes to threaten (HWLTT) has nothing better to do all day then monitor this site and desperately wants attention. We really are all more intelligent and have better things to do with our time than waste it on HWLTT. So rather than let him drag this blog down to his level of paranoia, lets stick to the REGJB topics. It apparently drives him nuts that he is not a lawyer, but we are, and there is nothing he can do about it. So lets move on.

Anonymous said...

big props to the dude who dropped in a dan quayle reference. that was fresh.

also, i gave my email to rump but did not get a private response. i feel dissed.

Rumpole said...

Plus, that really is the sort of personal attack that we discourage. Just google his name or run it on the clerk's website (I am surprised he hasn't sued the clerk) if you want the information about his sad story.

Rumpole said...

Send your email now. I'm right here..avoiding clients...working the blog.

Anonymous said...

whats his first name again?

Rumpole said...

oh...we're not gonna open that bag of worms. Google Judge Ivan hernandez and his web site of paranoia will appear and you can get whatever you want from that.

Anonymous said...

thanks bro

Anonymous said...

LONG LIVE MENUDO

Plans are underway in 2006 for the resurrection of MENUDO where five boys will be selected American Idol style then will turn into a 'Making the Band' reality show where the public will be able to follow the boys' preparing for concerts, interviews and more.

fake chris farley said...

Hi Rup. Remember that time that you said all those funny things about that guy?

Anonymous said...

alan...is this guy a threat to us?

Anonymous said...

yes Chris...he's a threat to all lawyers. He went nuts when a two bit lawyer from Google told him to stuff it.

Anonymous said...

Alan Postman versus Warren Schwartz on MTV's Pimp Your Courtroom. Charity Cookoff this weekend.

Anonymous said...

can i get rims on my courtroom? preferably 22's

Anonymous said...

god i love this blog

Rumpole said...

RTV (Rumpole TV) presents: PIMP YOUR COURTROOM.

LET THE SUGGESTIONS ROLL IN.

Fake He Who Likes To Threaten said...

STOP IT. I want attention. Me me me. I'm a lawyer just like you guys. Let me play too. Stop having fun without me. I hate Judge Hernandez. I love Robin Faber. Stop it and include me or I'll sue. I'll call Google and shut you down by noon. I'll hurt you. I'll poke you with a stick. I'll tell my mommy. Stop it this instant.

Anonymous said...

Too f'ing funny.

Anonymous said...

Alan...can he sue us?

Anonymous said...

No Chris...not unless he gets our last name.

Anonymous said...

Somehow I see Judge Adrien's Courtroom with DeBarge Posters, a disco ball, clerks on roller skates, a fog machine...and the Bee Gee's playing Night Fever followed by KC and The Sunshine Band. But that's just me.

Fake Mishkin said...

I don't know if anyone knows this about me...but I can name and sing every Perry Cuomo song (every Mario Cuomo song too). Does that count?

Fake Kenny Wiesman said...

I think I knew that. I'm pretty sure I knew that. Well...maybe I didn't know that.

Anonymous said...

Rump....65 comments and the blog is moderated and under attack. Pretty good day.

Fake Fast Gerry Klein said...

I just got a computer. What a blog. CTS.

Rumpole said...

Sorry, but even your anonymous posts don't get through.

Rumpole said...

Ok Guys, Mr. Lunatic...Rumpole is going on his yacht for a sunset cruise and dinner on the intercoastal. (See crazy guy, we lawyers live the high life). Anything you post will go up around 8PM.
TGIF

(thank goodness Im not fing crazy like you know who).

Rumpole.

Rumpole said...

To Rumpole and contributors:

It is been brought to my attention that an anonymous
comment ran on this blog circa July 23, 2006 including
the name of Judge Bonnie Lano Rippingale in a list of
individuals purported to be “crooks”. Those of us who
know Bonnie Rippingale know her to be a hardworking,
effective and compassionate judge. She is the
individual of absolute integrity and honesty as well
as an excellent trial lawyer. I am proud to have been
her partner for many years.

Furthermore, she is not a client of Mr. D’Arce. If
one is going to slander others anonymously the least
we should expect is that one gets one’s facts correct.

Ed Carhart

Rumpole said...

We received the above as an email from the distinguished Mr. Carhart. We post it here for all to see.

Anonymous said...

Ed Carhart!!! Now the blog has some class.

Anonymous said...

Bigtime props to Vic Wainstein for the acquittal. I ran into him at the Pickle Barrel, I guess, on his 2nd day of trial. He was knocked down a bit by Jimenez' rulings, but came up and walked the guy anyway. It's a beautiful thing.

CAPTAIN said...

RUMP:

I have the upmost respect for Ed Carhart and if you received a private email from him, I guess that means it's legit;

having said that, it appears that Ed has forgotten how to spend his former law partner's name:

it's Rippingille
not Rippingale

AND, FINALLY, you are more than welcome to join me, The Captain, on my yacht, any day of the week.

CAPTAIN OUT .............

Anonymous said...

the Chris?, and Alan shit is getting boooring. please stop

Anonymous said...

Dohn Cohn for Judge.

Anonymous said...

I really don't see the big deal here. Why can't we have judges learn on the bench? Isn't Camacho Adrien learning how to do a closing argument while being a judge? Alvarez can also learn how to send first-time dui offenders to the max without hearing arguments, which is what the great Adrien is doing in his infinite(not) wisdom. Obviously I'm being overly sarcastic here, but it happens all the time where unqualified judges who, as you mentioned, Oh, Great Rump, get to decide the future of someone with absolutely no idea how to do the job properly. as long as people are voting on names alone, it will happen. we might as well get used to it until maybe two generations from now when everyone will be named Sanchez, Alvarez, and Marino.

Anonymous said...

Judge: Bloggers Entitled to Immunity Under Communications Act
Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
06-02-2006

Bloggers cannot be hit with libel suits on the basis of anonymous postings on their Web sites because federal law grants them immunity by explicitly stating that they cannot be treated as the "publisher" of such comments, a federal judge has ruled.

In his 22-page opinion in DiMeo v. Max, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell held that the pre-emption clause of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- a provision that remains intact despite court rulings that struck down some of its key provisions -- effectively "overrides the traditional treatment of publishers under statutory and common law."

The opening paragraphs of Dalzell's opinion offer some jaw-dropping descriptions of the two colorful players in the case -- the blogger, Tucker Max, and the plaintiff, Anthony DiMeo III, the scion of a New Jersey blueberry farm owner who operates a publicity firm.

As Dalzell put it, "Tucker Max describes himself as an aspiring celebrity, 'drunk' and 'asshole' who uses his Web site, www.tuckermax.com, to 'share [his] adventures with the world.'"

DiMeo's lawsuit stems from a series of anonymous postings on the messageboards of Max's Web site that discussed a Dec. 31, 2005, party thrown by Renamity -- DiMeo's publicity firm -- that Dalzell describes as "the New Year's Eve party from hell."

According to court papers, Renamity held the party in Le Jardin, a restaurant located in the Philadelphia Art Alliance gallery. Planned as a four-hour fĂȘte for 325 guests with food and an open bar, the party ran into problems.

As Dalzell described it, "twice as many people appeared. When alcohol and food ran out well before midnight, attendees -- who had paid $100 each -- became disenchanted."

The party soon became a subject of discussion on Max's Web site, and anonymous posters directed a steady stream of nasty remarks at DiMeo.

In his lawsuit, DiMeo claimed that six of the postings were libelous.

Perhaps the harshest of the comments, according to the opinion, was one that read: "'You threw an absolutely disastrous party on New Year's Eve precipitated by false advertising and possible fraud.'" Another said: "'I can't believe no one has killed him yet.'"

Although DiMeo conceded that Max had not authored the comments himself, the suit alleged that Max was nonetheless liable because he had published them.

The suit also alleged a claim under Section 223(a)(1)(3), a federal criminal statute that prohibits anonymously using a telecommunications device to harass someone.

But Max's lawyers -- Michael K. Twersky, John G. Papianou and Katherine Skubecz of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads -- moved for dismissal of the entire suit, arguing that none of the comments, when read in context, was capable of defamatory meaning and that Max could not be held liable for anonymous speech that others posted on his Web site.

Now Dalzell has sided with the defense team and held that the CDA grants immunity to a blogger in such a case -- even if the blogger admits that he exercises some editorial control over the anonymous postings.

Dalzell found that Congress enacted Section 230 for two reasons -- to "promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet," and to "encourage service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their services."

Dalzell concluded that the purpose of Section 230 was to provide immunity from libel suits for Internet providers -- including bloggers.

Without such immunity, Dalzell said, the freewheeling nature of speech on the Internet would suffer.

"Absent federal statutory protection, interactive computer services would essentially have two choices: (1) employ an army of highly trained monitors to patrol (in real time) each chatroom, message board, and blog to screen any message that one could label defamatory, or (2) simply avoid such a massive headache and shut down these fora," Dalzell wrote.

"Either option would profoundly chill Internet speech," Dalzell said.

Before the CDA was passed, Dalzell noted, courts had held that interactive service providers that removed offensive material from their sites risked liability.

In its 1995 decision in Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., the New York Supreme Court held a service provider liable because it screened and edited messages posted on its bulletin boards. Such editorial activity, the court reasoned, rendered the provider a publisher for defamation purposes and thus subject to strict liability.

Dalzell found that in passing Section 230, Congress was "concerned that cases like Stratton Oakmont would discourage providers from screening offensive content on their own sites."

As a result, Dalzell said, Congress enacted Section 230 "to insulate them from liability for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Dalzell concluded that the immunity applied to bar DiMeo's libel claims because "Max did not create the anonymous posts. The posters authored them entirely on their own."

DiMeo's lawyer, Matthew B. Weisberg of Prochniak Poet & Weisberg in Morton, Pa., argued that since Max admitted that he can select which posts to publish and that he edits their content, he exercises a degree of editorial control that rises to the "development of information."

Dalzell disagreed, saying, "If 'development of information' carried the liberal definition that DiMeo suggests, then Section 230 would deter the very behavior that Congress sought to encourage. In other words, Section 230(c)(1) would not protect services that edited or removed offensive material."

One of Congress' goals, Dalzell said, "was to promote this kind of self-regulation. Thus, 'development of information' must mean 'something more substantial than merely editing portions of [content] and selecting material for publication.'"

Since DiMeo alleges that Max did no more than select and edit posts, Dalzell said, "we cannot consider him to be the 'provider' of the 'content' that DiMeo finds to be offensive."

In his closing paragraphs, Dalzell cited his own 1996 opinion in American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno in which, as one member of a unanimous three-judge panel, the court struck down key provisions of the CDA:

"Some of the dialogue on the Internet surely tests the limits of conventional discourse. Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar -- in a word, 'indecent' in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice," Dalzell wrote.

That same sentiment, Dalzell found, applied to DiMeo's claims against Max.

"There is no question that tuckermax.com could be a poster child for the vulgarity we had in mind in 1996," Dalzell wrote.

"But as we added then, 'we should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates.' Here we do so by protecting the coarse conversation that, it appears, never ends on tuckermax.com."

In an interview Thursday, Weisberg said DiMeo intends to appeal Dalzell's ruling.

Weisberg said he believes Max is not entitled to Section 230 immunity because his Web site was "targeting" DiMeo, and "the intent was character assassination."

The evidence, Weisberg said, showed that Max "exercised such control that he became the speaker."

Meanwhile, Max's recent posts on his Web site express glee over Dalzell's opinion.

"The judge's decision is awesome. ... Most importantly, it completely and totally reaffirms basically all the tenets of free speech that DiMeo was challenging," Max wrote.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rump, why is it that you began with County Group 39. Is it your normal practice to start from the middle? Could it be that you, Rump, are none other than Hector Lombana or one of his flunkies?

herald watch said...

SAMUELS LOUDLY EXHALES, SHELLY CELEBRATES WITH A 4 FOOT CIGAR AND HIS POLKA DOT JACKET, BRONWYN WINS BEST PICTURE

Today the Herald says, "allright, enough already, we're tired of making up crap about all these judges and incumbents, here's the last three dammit."

As I said, Mike Samuels loudly exhales, because he not only gets the nod over Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer (who takes the road less traveled, actually the road that is not even a road anymore, it's got barracades and big reflective orange tape and flashing lights, and says "do not add Jewish last name to Gonzalez") but the Herald also lets him slide on his comment 10 years ago when he ran against Kevin Emas on the theme that Emas, as a criminal defense lawyer, "represents the bad guys."

That comment got him sanctioned by the Dade County Bar Judicial Ethics Committee, and elected by the fair residents of Miami-Dade County. The Herald didn't mention it, although they should have. NO one should forget that he used that tactic to get elected.

Samuels has acquitted himself (on a technicality Mike, if you know what I mean) and did spend the first few years on the bench bending over backwards (like jail inmates) as a way of apologizing for his stupid comments.

He tells the Herald, ''I strongly believe in our system of justice."

That's good Mike, and I hope you are being honest, because 10 years ago, you strongly believed in our system of prosecutors.

SUPERIOR SHELLY!

Let me begin by dispelling the rumor that this morning Shelly gave the Herald street vendor on 27th avenue and 8th street $20 bucks, told him to "beat it," and is handing out the paper himself.

(DRUMROLL) Unlike any candidate so far, they call him the SUPERIOR CHOICE!

SUPERIOR SHELLY!!!!!!!!!

Everyone!, to Austin Burke for a celebration, and a look at the fall line up of sport coats!

The Herald begins by saying that Migna Sanchez-llorens is a "good lawyer, and appears to be well-qualified for the bench."

"Appears" to be well-qualified for the bench? What does that mean? "Hey, that 'appears' to be a 747 in the sky, but no, it's a crow."

And she's a "good lawyer?" Based on what? I mean, I'm not saying she may not be a good lawyer, but I don't understand why the Herald gives no examples.

These statements go along the same line as the other statements that are either wrong, or state no basis for making them, such as saying that Superior Shelly has been "both a prosecutor and a public defender for the City of Miami Beach." (I think he prosecuted the Clevelander 7, and the China Grill Gang, and defended the "Parking Meter Terror Cell," as well as the "Lincoln Road Umbrella Thieves."

They do get it right when they say that Superior Shelly has a reputation for genuinely understanding and relating to people." It's kinda fun to be in front of him and hear him pontificate on a driver's license case. (MAAM, MAAM, ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME, YOU NEED TO GET A LICENSE BEFORE YOU KILL EVERYONE IN THIS TOWN)

No one can accuse him of not always trying to do the right thing. (Even if he does it in a purple jacket.)

BRONWYN WINS BEST PICTURE

Let's cut to the chase. This girl is beautiful. The judges in Miami-Dade County need only elect 11 more judges (yes, male and female, Judge Margolius) like Bronwyn to begin their fund-raising efforts to build a new courthouse by selling the "Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Calendar."

JEOPARDY BUZZER HERE

The Herald says George Alvarez practices civil and criminal law. Nope. He practices civil and criminal traffic tickets. Criminal law is the law that decides whether someone goes to jail, not driving school.

They note he has practiced law longer than Bronwyn, and say that "he is qualified." Why? TELL ME HERALD, WHY!!!!!!!

Nevermind.

They note at length Bronwyn's experience at the SAO and give her the nod, but not as strongly as they should have. Asking Alvarez why he wants Bronwyn gone would have exposed this race for what it really is.

Juan (are you sure, I mean, really sure it's not THAT Juan Gonzalez?) Gonzalez gets a mention in the correction at the bottom of the column, where they clarify that he has never worked at the PD's office.

God Bless the Holy Trinity.

Anonymous said...

I work at the south dade justice center and I'm an american non-hispanic female. Maybe Judge Miller is well qualified as assistant state attorney. Perhaps even as the next Miami Dade County State Attorney but she leaves much to be desired as a judge. I hear comments all the time from the clerk's office about how she is "lost" in civil court. She doesn't know what she is doing and she is definately getting "on the job training" on a daily basis. For the past several months she has been campaigning during the weekdays and special setting calenders as late as 4:45 pm making staff, interpreters, and security stay past closing to accomodate her schedule. When approached by staff to be a little considerate she has lied and told us that she has no control over that and that the clerk's office must have set those calenders. Judge we have been around far longer than you in the system and you can't lie to us that easily. I also know George Alvarez. I have known him for a long time. He has always been a kind man, very knowledgeable about the law, a very good attorney, and always very helpful to everybody at the courthouse. I see him as a future judge. Between the two of them I believe George is the better person and I will vote for him.

Anonymous said...

I know George Alvarez and I am a Cuban American Lawyer. George is a fellow who is very well suited to handling traffic tickets. When he is in any way challenged he loses his temper and acts as if he is out of control emotionally.He is a "Prima Donna" and cut from the same cloth as his advisor Juan D'Arce. I beleive that although he is a "good egg" otherwise, he has found his niche as a traffic ticket lawyer.He is certainly not qualified by temperament or training to be a County Court Judge.

Anonymous said...

To 8:44 What are you smoking?

Anonymous said...

Did you hear blog readers? Hector Lombana was recently seen driving an Israeli Tank in Lebanon and at the same time running this blog from his Blackberry.
Ain't that right Phi... I mean Rumpole?

Anonymous said...

Correction, Herald Watch. There is one last race for the Herald's recommendation. It should be tomorrow but probably Monday. And our friend Jose L "Joe" Giuseppe Fernandez is a shoe zapato pattino in to get it!

Right, Alan?

Anonymous said...

To the hot dog lady at the South Dade Justice Center who endorsed Alvarez...just make sure you have enough arepas to make it to the end of Judge Miller's calendar.

Anonymous said...

awwwwwww, 8:44 a.m., you have to work past 5?????????? I feel so, so, so sorry for you.

Anonymous said...

As will I! George Alvarez for Judge!

Anonymous said...

Re the 8:44 a.m. post: don't judicial assistant set the calendars in civil county court, not the clerk's office? Also don't clerks have to work until 5? It's pretty sad that you think there's a problem with a judge having a hearing at 4:45 p.m. Get a new job where you can work from 11 to 2.

Anonymous said...

SCOREBOARD JURY TRIALS

MILLER OVER 100

alvarez ZERO

ANY QUESTIONS?

Anonymous said...

Larry S. quit relaxing and start campaigning. Gina M. is passing you up while you drink iced tea on your hammock.

Anonymous said...

I am a former asa who was assigned to samuels a few years ago. every single time both sides were ready to try a case he would court continue the case and tell us he had a 2 pm tee time. after several months of this they

took the division away from him and made him a floater. what did he do to emas?

Anonymous said...

I saw Larry on his hammock too. No votes in your backyard. Get off your a** Larry.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Alvarez can find the time to try a case or two before running for judge? It would be nice if the person who rules on the many legal issues and objections that come up during trial actually knew what to do with them. Only a non-trial lawyer would vote for a judge with no trial experience (unless the opponent was a blithering idiot).

Anonymous said...

I confirm what 10:08pm from last night said about Judge Samuels' DV division a few years back. I was also there from the PDs office. Truthfully I don't remember Samuels ever saying he had a 'tee time', it was always an appointment somewhere. But he ABSOLUTELY court continued ready cases (with all witnesses and clients present in court) leaving early afternoon daily, to the point where the entire division got backed up. Everyone complained about it, from both sides. So they took the division away from him, brought in Judge Tunis (back when she was in DV), and she tried cases everyday. It was a lot of work for all of us (State, PDs, clerks, etc.) because there were so many cases that had to be tried, but the judge offered pleas to close out cases and tried her way through it. The first four months were brutal because of the back log created, there would be like 200 people in court for the trial calendar and we'd all be coming in with three boxes each with trial files. But the mess he left was cleaned up by Tunis and we got tons of trial experience. It was like night and day.

Anonymous said...

It's all about the Lurv.

Anonymous said...

i'm not voting for any incumbents.

Anonymous said...

me eithert.

Anonymous said...

and i'm not voting for anyone endorsed by the herald.

Anonymous said...

LOVE when the clerks weigh in on a judge's qualifications, as if a judge's knowledge about how the Clerk's Office does things matters 1/100th as much as the judge's legal knowledge and judgment.

Perhaps Alvarez should intern for the SAO or PD and try a few cases before running for judge.

Anonymous said...

I'm happy to see that Judge Miller has RETAINED her seat. Maybe now she'll be able to devote some family time