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

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

TUESDAY AFTERNOON UPDATE.

BREAKING NEWS: ITS RAINING OUTSIDE.

An annoyed reader writes:

If your clients get the same attention you give this blog, you have to be F. Lee Bailey.

Rumpole notes, that we are not F Lee. We in fact are licensed to practice law in this State.

As to our attention to the blog, the heat of the summer has apparently dampened our clients desire to drink and act disorderly. Careful readers of the blog know that our practice is devoted almost exclusively to the drunk and disorderly, with an occasional murder thrown in for fun. Our knowledge of blood spatter and stains is almost legendary. Almost.

Good news to report: Several alert readers are working feverishly on an opinion as to whether or not we can make wry comments on the members of our beloved judiciary.
Condemning us to a career of pounding Bennett “the Banner’ Brummer is our idea of literary hell.
While we are on the subject:

BRUMMER BANS LAWYERS AND WILL NOT SPEAK ABOUT IT.

DAY 6.
WHEN WILL BRUMMER ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF BANNING LAWYERS?


IF YOU WANT TO BE BANNED BY BRUMMER, SEND AN EMAIL TO RUMPOLE AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM AND WE WILL ADD YOU TO THE LIST.

Lawyers banned by Brummer get a 10% discount at participating Barnes and Noble bookstores, and are entitled to one free CAFÉ BANACHINO (like a Frappuccino except the whip cream is banned) at all Starbucks. Simply present your “Banned By Brummer” ID card, say something nice about Gabe Martin, and the drink is yours to enjoy compliments of this blog.

QUERY: WHAT WILL HAPPEN FIRST: CASTRO’S DEATH, OR BRUMMER SPEAKS?

We finish on a disquieting note: the tenor of the posts today seems to indicate a certain joy, or schedenfraude (rapidly becoming our favourite word) in the possibility that we are not allowed to post funny comments that do not give the Judiciary the respect they have earned by their hard work on and off the bench.


(It hurt so much to write that last sentence that we may need to take a break and go drink a BANACHINO)

Why so much joy in Rumpole’s disquiet and concern?
Do we not serve the public with our comments and providing a forum for disgruntled lawyers to anonymously vent their feelings and frustrations?

OK. We admit we once said that Shelly Schwartz dresses in a manner that he is always ready if a gin rummy game breaks out. But he knows that when he wears the purple tie with the yellow shirt and green slacks that a certain amount of commentary occurs.

Are we by virtue of our lofty position in the Florida Bar (member, grudgingly admitted around 1985 or so) estopped from writing what everyone else thinks?

When Judge Thomas bravely follows the law and issues a motion to suppress, we can certainly express out admiration. But some Judge denies a motion for continuance on a case that is up for the first time and the lawyer has vacation plans with his children, can we not comment on the rudeness of that ruling?

And when a Judge in the middle of a heated election is “shocked” to find out that “someone” placed an ad in a newspaper that violated the rules of Ethics, are we gagged and otherwise silenced from making any comments about the fact that the offending party turned out not just to be his campaign treasurer, but his own wife?

Stay tuned as these and other equally important questions are answered.

See You In Court.


PS: A DeLuna Dilemma, as we remember it, is a situation in a multi-defendant case, where one defendant testifies, and another defendant does not, and the attorney for the defendant who testifies wants to comment on the fact that the other defendant did not testify. Had it happen in a case once. Cy Gaer was one of the attorneys.



20 comments:

Anonymous said...

RUMPOLE SAYS:

"Are we by virtue of our lofty position in the Florida Bar (member, grudgingly admitted around 1985 or so) estopped from writing what everyone else thinks?"

FLA BAR SAYS:

Reizenstein 1986
Freedman 1984
Shuminer 1984
Lurvey 1989
Lyons 1993
Blecher 1982

hmm

Rumpole said...

oohh...a Rumpole investigator is on the case.

Anonymous said...

And three dozen other lawyers that you failed to name. Circumstantial evidence proving nothing, to no one.

Eyewitness News said...

blecher definitely is Rumpole. i saw him on his laptop at starbucks trying to order a Banachino.

Anonymous said...

alan, is that true?

Anonymous said...

yes chris, it is.

Anonymous said...

did shumie fail the bar?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone seen Alvarez on Telemundo? Bronwyn better watch out!

MTV GUY said...

HOT RUMOR: PD WARREN SCHWARTZ and former Judge ALAN POSTMAN have agreed to appear on MTV's "Pimp Your Crib" as celebrity chefs in a charity cook-off. Warren will bake his famous "Rory Glory" morning muffins and Postman will make his favorite "Liars Pasta" dish. Proceeds to benefit the home for aged Judges defeated in elections.

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Fake Mark Panunzio said...

Dude. I watch MTV all day. I ain't seen nothing like that on the tube.

Rumpole said...

we deleted a comment accusing a lawyer of a crime. Thats a no no without proof.

fake Tony Genova said...

is fake mark panunzio allowed on the internet?

CAPTAIN said...

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

CAMPAIGN UPDATE - OR SHOULD I SAY -
CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS ????? IS THE MCWHORTER CAMPAIGN IN HOT WATER?

GROUP 1 - COUNTY COURT

This race pits the incumbent Judge McWhorter against the oft maligned, for amending her name at the last minute, Patricia Marino-Pedraza.

Ms. Marino has not done too well on the fund-raising circuit. She has only raised $22,558 and has had to add another $45k to the kitty for a total of $67,558. She needs it, because she has spread her money around to several consulting firms. She has paid Jordan Leonard $5,500; Stanley Shapiro $500; Hipolito Leon $2,500; Miguel Amador $2,000; Ramon Alonso $2,500, for a total of $13,000 so far.

Judge McWhorter, on the other hand, seems to be the master fundraiser, "can you say incumbent judge". She has amassed $99,373 and only kicked in $100 of her own money. She also has only given $750 in consulting fees to one Daisy Castellanos.

But the more important news is this: As our educated readers of the BLOG know, the maximum contribution is $500.

Well, here is the problem:

On April 23, 2005, Gonzalo Dorta gave $500. On June 18, 2005, Dorta gave another $250. McWhorter accepted the second donation.

On April 22, 2005, Burnadette Norris-Weeks gave $500. On July 28, 2005 she gave another $100. McWhorter accepted the second donation.

On May 17, 2005, the law firm of Weiss, Serota gave $500. On March 17, 2006 they contributed another $250. McWhorter accepted the second donation.

Each time she accepted the second donation, she violated the law which clearly states that a campaign may not accept more than $500 from one particular person or organization.

Now her campaign did finally refund the money to each of the three contributors. But she waited until April 5, 2006 to do so. That means she held the illegal contributions for 10 months on Dorta, 9 months on Weeks and three weeks on Weiss, Serota.

Now the really bad news: according to FS 106.08 (7)(a) and (7)(b): a candidate that accepts donations in excess of the maximum $500 allowed by law commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if they accept one donation in excess of the limit (7)(a) and it becomes a Felony of the Third Degree when the candidate accept two or more illegal contributions (7)(b).

So readers, what do you have to say now.......

AND THE CAPTAIN HAS SPOKEN .....

Anonymous said...

I say she probably gave it back after her treasurer alerted her to it. Looks like a mistake to me, but I support her. I guess if I didn't, I'd be calling her a criminal. Because thats how we do things here in Miami

Anonymous said...

oh my a mistake in miami politic's could never happen. Captain you must be confused with some Chicago campaign. Kindly recheck your facts.

Anonymous said...

"Its (sic) raining outside." Why can't lawyers figure out that It's means it is and Its is the possessive? Jeez, come on RUMPY!

Anonymous said...

The Daily Business Review published "More than Money," featuring assistant prosecutors and public defenders in South Florida. An interesting note from the article, is that assistant public defender Tamara Gray has worked for BHB 20 years and makes $80,000. Carlos Martinez worked for BHB 14 years and makes $136,000. Must be not so great to be a woman in the kingdom of BHB. Perhaps that was part of the whole salary uproar in the last campaign for Public Defender.

Anonymous said...

Everyone has just GOT to see what is going on in the Town of Surfside. Check out the "Corruption in Surfside" blog. Town officials have been busy at their personal agendas: Deleting ethics laws, closing important town facilities, greasing the zoning variance process, forcing out honest town employees so political hacks can be put into jobs instead, its amazing what they are getting away with. Town of Surfside, Florida, the new example of how a local government should NOT ever be. Government for the special interests, by the special interests, of the special interests.

Anonymous said...

As long as you have WD Higgingbotham as a so called town manager you will have one controversy after another.

Anonymous said...

Amongst the group of Corrupt Politicans in none other than one of your own, Commissioner Levine....and he want's to be a judge?

God help us all