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, November 14, 2006

POINT. COUNTER POINT.

This post gives the other point of view about soundings and motions for continuances. It deserves to be read as a response to our post yesterday (plus, the writer goes out of his/her way to stroke our ego):

Anonymous said...

Rump: I have found you to be fair and even handed over this past year. You are virtually always a voice of reason. You tell it like it is. I think THAT'S why people log into this blog. If your ideas were always stupid, no one would care. When you think you're right you say so, and when you have been shown by others that you may have missed the mark, you likewise say so. That's why you have the following you do.


You correctly state Judge Dava Tunis's deserved credit for being respected and at the top of the list for any judge we'd want hearing a case. You say she is one of the best and the brightest, but then you write: "Making private attorneys do grunt work for no reason other than to frustrate their ability to continue a case is not the solution."

Come on Rump!

The policy she came up with applies not to just private attorneys, but to all attorneys-including pds and asa's. It also says that if there are legitimate reasons why a motion can't be made in time or in writing, she'll consider that. As far as I know, have seen, and have heard, she never simply denied a continuance because it wasn't in writing.
I have only two cases in there, but it has given me enough exposure to her efficiency. My guess is that it would be more like her to deny something because it's on its 8th continuance and is coming up on two years old, irrespective of whether the newest request to continue is in writing. Then she applies serious pressure toward trial/resolution, written continuance or not.

And as you fairly pointed out, those are 8 continuances that she herself did not grant over those two years. Frankly what I've seen of her in being in the court, I cannot imagine that she's going to deny a first time up or even second time continuance for any reason, written motion or not. She might remind the lawyer of the policy for future times, but as you said she's respected and one of the best and brightest.

It appears like she reads everything that's given to her and cuts down on the time it takes to address something, because she already has read whatever motion you have filed (terminate probation early/motion to travel/whatever) That also means she's not foolish with the decisions she makes. In the times I've been there and talked to the pit people on both sides, I've not had occasion to witness or hear about any strict knee-jerk reaction by her on anything. My guess, and it's just a guess from what I've seen in the flow of the court, is that she's just trying to come up with some policy to create accountability and stop that gravy train from continuing (no pun intended) to flow unchecked.

Besides, have you (or all of us) forgotten that the criminal rules provide for written motions of continuances 'with certificate of service stated by counsel that it's made in good faith'. 3.190(a),(g)(4)? [Rumpole says: We did not forget about that. We wrote that no motion should be put on calendar until it contains that certificate plus independent proof of what the attorney did to comply- like a letter to opposing counsel.]

Asking for something in writing is really not the Judge Izzy Reyes Reduex from last year that you compared this to. By the way, she already took your advice - three to four weeks before you posted it - when she discussed with all the people in her division not putting motions for disco/better addresses, etc. on calendar until they could show by memos or email that they have already made a good faith attempt to get the missing items, to avoid clogging up the calendar.

So, your comments about her are very fair and accurate, but this: ore tenus or nothing else, doesn't hold water. I personally faxed an Agreed Motion for continuance to her chambers sometime last month, asking my presence and my client's presence be waived on a first time up case. She granted it and I got a call from her JA asking me what trial date the state and I agreed to, without requiring my presence at the sounding.

So come on, lets get real and actually practice law. Just from the way she acts and welcomes suggestions in the court, I would imagine a tweaking to this policy could easily be accomplished, maybe by someone talking to her. But to say ore tenus or nothing, is a bit much.
Doesn't sound like that reasoned Rump I've come to know over this past year.

Rumpole says: Well done.

Maybe certain assistant public defenders who have taken to trashing us on TV and saying that the blog is just about attacking people might change her mind after reading your reply.

As President Lincoln once said about changing his mind: "You don't have to eat the whole egg to know it's rotten."

See you in court giving mean looks to a certain PD.

112 comments:

Anonymous said...

Kudos to you Rump for posting this morning's comments! See. You should keep this blog going, because the truth is that this all does matter and can be open conversation about important issues.

Anonymous said...

As a private lawyer with one or two cases in Judge Tunis' div, written motions are fine. But if I were the PD in that div, it wouldn't happen. That was a very nice post written by the only person who would have an interest in written motions for cont 5 days before sounding-Judge Tunis.

Anonymous said...

As someome from the PD's office that knows about her court, the cases we handle have been cut by over half, since she's been there-because of what she does in court with the attorneys. What's left is a lot of private's cases. Ask any ASA that's in there.

Anonymous said...

Have the PD's been trying a lot of cases in her div? Nope.

Anonymous said...

I heard the comments of the pd on tv last night and didnt see them as attacking the blog - the comments were truthful - this blog, while a venue for interesting discussions, IS used to anonymously attack judges and lawyers -

Anonymous said...

Judges who make all those fucking rules about written motions for continuance can kiss my ass at election time.

They need to try sitting in my office and doing all that bullshit.

Rumpole said...

Anonymous said...
I heard the comments of the pd on tv last night and didnt see them as attacking the blog - the comments were truthful - this blog, while a venue for interesting discussions, IS used to anonymously attack judges and lawyers -

Rumpole says: We try and remove the attacks, bit let the comments, positive and negative remain. Plus, she knew it would be a 5 second sound bite. Any fair interpretation of what she said by people who do not read the blog but watch TV is that I use the blog to attacks lawyers and Judges, and I do no such thing.
The more I think about last night's report, the less I like it.

Anonymous said...

Safie is a jerk, she is a born complainer. How's that for trashin'?

Rumpole said...

Well, lets not make her comments a self fulfilling prophecy.

Anonymous said...

Nushin Sayfie here. To Rumpole - call the reporter, Nick Bogert - he can vouch for the positive things I said about your blog...comments that were cut out. My mistake for talking to a reporter. Mistake of you and your readers - 1. jumping to conclusions about what you see on local news and 2. resorting once again to trashing someone anonymously on the blog. Nice.

Anonymous said...

To Rumpole - if you speak to the reporter, Nick Bogert, he will tell you that my initial positive comments about your blog were cut out. My mistake was talking to the reporter. Mistake of you and your reporters was to 1. jump to conclusion based on a local news report and 2. trash a lawyer anonymously on the blog. Nice.

Anonymous said...

stop repeating yourself.... we get it....

Trashin' Thomas said...

I am sorry Ms. Sayfie, I should not anonymously trash people before I have all the relevant information.

I take back my earlier comment calling "Ms. Safie" a jerk.

I misspelled you name: Ms. Sayfie is a jerk.

Anonymous said...

trashin thomas, did you enjoy that? Arent you happy you can write on this blog anonymously? You must be so giddy right now

Anonymous said...

To 8:26am: Rump I can't hold back on this one. I usually just read you and don't write. Stepping up to defend the various PDs that go in and out of Judge Tunis' Division as well as other divisions,let's see: we take depos, prepare cases, file rules to show cause (which she grants and excludes witnesses per the rules IF you bother to do the right work), file Demands, get Nolle Prosses, try cases, and oh yeah, actually litigate motions to suppress like the one that involved some defendant looking at a minimum mandatory on a firearm...which was granted by the judge. That took guts for her, but she followed the law we argued...you NEVER heard about it because it wasn't a media case, it wasn't on this blog, it was just some normal motion from a couple months ago by someone from our office, just some kid looking at 30 years that walked out because of her legal ruling on the law. So before you start a pd bashing, hang out in the court and see how hard we work. Do you know how many times a private attorney files a Demand...uh, like never. We've actually stopped filing them in Tunis' division, because she'll actually try the case within a few weeks. Quit bashing us because we work harder than you for way less money and quit talking about what you do not know about.

Anonymous said...

Beleive it or NOT...

I am a bystander in Court today before Judge Lawrence King and the attorney representing the defendant in a commercial landlord tenant dispute tells Judge King that the Attorney for the Corporate plaintiff has been suspended from practicing law since August 31, 2006 and presents the Judge documents email from the Fla Bar showing this.

Judge Lawrence King response "oh I am sure he will work that out..."

Well all you lawyers suspended from law Judge Lawrence King welcomes you with open arms. He will let you get writs, issue subpoenas, get final judgments and if you do not complete that pesky CLE course oh who cares its Judge "KING" court room no law license required.

As good Rumpole says see ya in Court were license to practice law is almost always required (exceptions do apply see Judge King's court for details)

Ps. In case you want to know the name of the idiot lawyer who got his bar license suspended "Ian Martinez" Bar #596671

Anonymous said...

Judge King not the sharpest pencil in the box.

Anonymous said...

whats up in kings court allowing lawyers suspended to practice law, seems like a JQC issue?

Anonymous said...

Ian Martinnez is the biggest dufus to get a bar license.

Anonymous said...

hey 2:14, great up to the minute post. does judge king accept ore tenus motions to continue old cases? how about judge huck? does he give you month after month after year of continuances, verbally made of course? if so, i'm closing my state practice and moving over to the king buiding to practice. i can't handle the pressure, just like the writer from 11:07. that one page motion is more than i can take...screw the state judges.

Anonymous said...

he's talking about larry king, the kid, not the fed judge

Anonymous said...

2:32

I am talking about Lawrence King the son who is a County Court Judge in Coral Gables.

King jr, County Court Judge who allows suspended lawyers to practice law before him and could care less read above post.

Note to all suspended lawyers you may still practice law just hop on over to Coral Gables District Court and file any claim under $15-k and bam your in.

Please note that you may get Hague or Schwartz and this deal does not apply with them.

Good luck with your new career as a suspended lawyer before County Court Judge Lawrence King.***

***some restrictions so apply, Fla Bar must not be aware your practicing without license.

Anonymous said...

this is some funny shit

Anonymous said...

does judge king even read this blog?

Anonymous said...

had a case before him and stood up to pass a document to a client, and he lost it...

temper temper temper

Anonymous said...

his temper not the document

Anonymous said...

"In case you want to know the name of the idiot lawyer who got his bar license suspended "Ian Martinez" Bar #596671"

yep just called tallahassee and his bar license was suspended August 31, 2006 for educational classes etc.

why would judge king stick up for a new lawyer who just got his law license suspended? Maybe they know each other?

Anonymous said...

you just called tallahassee to verify? it's that important to you?

whew

Anonymous said...

lol oh I am lol

Anonymous said...

curiosity killed the cat

Anonymous said...

I just called President Bush and yep we are staying the course

Anonymous said...

okay...this is awesome and hysterical. great stuff for a mid-day break. should we not practice in federal court as we have to be ready for TRIAL within six weeks from arrest on a case where our client is looking at life on money laundering counts? not practice in state court as we have to file a two page paper that says we need time to go on vacation, take depos, investigate the case, but we don't want to file it because we are 'sitting in our office doing all that bullshit' like mr/ms 11:07 who will screw any state judge at election time? or should we practice in coral gables (only in front of the one judge) that will let us practice without a law license. how far have we sunk? where is Giraldo when we need him?

Anonymous said...

actually, where is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz when you need him - im now thinking that was gabe

Fred Garvin said...

All lawyers are blood-sucking, motherless scum who should be incarcerated in prisons and only let out into the courtroom to defend the reasons why they shouldn't just be killed outright, and then killed anyway as a show of true justice.

In other news, GO BUCS! No not Tampa Bay you schmucks, THE Ohio State Buckeyes! Now go take some poor abused wife's last dime defending her against some Neanderthal psychopath that your drinking buddy is defending (and who you crack jokes about the case with) in your latest divorce case that you are dragging out in the hopes of collecting a greater percentage of the house money. You vile filth of a human being. I hope you get hit by a gas truck and taste your own blood as you die a slow, painful death. Of course you can all suck my ass before dying.

Alex M. said...

Hey Fred I've got a client who owes me money, maybe you can collect it for me and we will split 50/50?

Anonymous said...

damn you are an angry person...... some xanax needed perhaps????

Anonymous said...

fred garvin - blast from the past!

Anonymous said...

County Court Judge L. King is famous for making all kinds of stupid rules.

He is not liked.

His dad is also went far with very little.

Anonymous said...

although L King took great pictures on the cover of national papers looking for pregnant chads in 2000

Anonymous said...

Nushin Sayfie is a joke as a trial attorney. One time, when she was my so-called training attorney, she scolded me for not turning over IA reports I had on an officer to the State during a Battery on a LEO trial.

Tell me why would any good criminal defense attorney ever turn over impeachment material to
the prosecution? Moreover, why
would the PD's office be teaching
young lawyers to do that.

You have no obligation to turn over impeachment material. Especially, IA stuff. If the state hasn't done their own homework regarding their witnesses - tough luck.

Jason da Cruz

Anonymous said...

Jason

Where the hell you been?

Be nice.

Anonymous said...

thank you uh, jason, whoever you are

Anonymous said...

When you have lawyers like Bonnie Riley, Y. Colodny, N. Safie training young lawyers at the PD's office.....

You need a Captain to right the ship.

Anonymous said...

Its better than training at the SAO, which consists of

"no"
"try the case"

Anonymous said...

Yo Jason,

Where did you go to school? It's absolutely your ethical obligation to turn over impeachment material you plan to use at trial. You're one of the reasons why people consider defense attorney's unethical a-holes.

Anonymous said...

actually, if the reports in the states dominion and control, which OI reports infact are, you do not have to turn them over. i hope that you are a state atty not a PD!

Anonymous said...

Yo Anon at 6:47

Does that mean that when I impeach a cop with a police report I have to turn that over to the state?

Your the reason so many people are sitting in state prison....

Jason Grey said...

We are allowed to assume a states witness will not lie. Therefore anything we may have for impeachment purposes need not be turned over and is not relevant until the witness fudges the facts. This rule also applies to witnesses who need not be listed if called for impeachment purposes only. Impeachment evidence is offered as substantive evidence only to show that a witness has been untruthful about a relevant fact at some point, and therefore the witness cannot be believed.

Jason Grey said...

I meant not offered as substantive evidence

Anonymous said...

i'm not surprised an asa thinks impeachment material needs to be turned over - i'll never forget an asa saying that it was unethical for a defense lawyer to hire an investigator and have them speak to state witnesses without telling the asa.

Anonymous said...

7:43
i think it was a pd not an asa who held that opinion.....

Anonymous said...

You've got to turn over impeachment evidence that you could reasonably anticipate using. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

PS---no, you can't always assume a witness will tell the truth Jason. Especially if you took depos and learned otherwise. Willful blindness is not a defense.

Anonymous said...

i aint turning over shit, so deal with that and read the law

Anonymous said...

8:08
Are you saying that you have an obligation to turn over OI reports?

Rumpole said...

Ahm..we know something about this. There is a difference between impeachment "evidence" and impeachment information. What an investigator tells you is information that you can use or not.It does not need to be disclosed. If you want your investigator to tesitfy, that is evidence and must be turned over. If the witness has a prior, that must be turned over. If the witness made an inconsistent statament that the prosecution does not have, that must be disclosed. That is reciprocal discovery.

Rumpole said...

By the way- the comments for the most part today were very funny and entertaining.

Anonymous said...

'does not have' is the key and im' glad you argee old buddy. o.i. reports would be considered something the state has.

Anonymous said...

thanks phil, I mean stan, I mean.....

Anonymous said...

State the bottom line is we ain't gonna do your work for you. If you don't take the time to learn about
your own witnesses prior history,
i.e. IA reports, convictions, etc. - I am certainly not going to
do it for you.

Any good trial attorney - on either
side of the table - does their own
homework and knows their own case inside and out. Too bad if all are
not trained properly at the state or if you don't have the time.

Defense lawyers have no obligation
whatsoever to turn over, prior to
trial, items that are stricly for
impeachment purposes.

And if you think otherwise, please
cite the Rule, Caselaw or Ethical
Opinion you are relying on.

Anonymous said...

Rump

do you agree with 8:31?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know the magic "formula" for when a judge will be transferred from the criminal to another division?

About how long does it normally take?

Don't they need some new judges in the child support enforcement division?

Anonymous said...

Hey, so its true what my secretary told me. I just could'nt believe that about Suzanne, but I guess she had me fooled.

Anonymous said...

I guess she fooled everyone.

Anonymous said...

I just spoke with Diane from Rundle's office and she did not deny it. I guess the cat is out of the bag for Suzanne.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to ask Annette tomorrow and let you know if its true.

Anonymous said...

so none of you are confused, all these comments about suzanne are just a bunch of BS. I dont know suzanne, but this is all like the alan and chris stuff, total garbage, right alan? chris?

Rumpole said...

I would not turn over OI reports on a case. The prosecutor should have them. You have no obligation to tell them what you're planning. I would turn over IA Reports. They are not evidence in the case, yet reciprocal discovery requires an attorney to disclose evidence. The old bug-a-boo that attorneys do not need to reveal impeachment evidence is from the CIVIL (yuck) rules of procedure. The Criminal rules of procedure 3.220 I believe, require RECIPROCAL disclosure.

For example: a witness has a prior for perjury. You can use the prior. I would disclose and provide the state with a copy of the ceritifed copy of conviction.

For example: You list John Smith, and the state deposes him. They ask him about the alleged alibi he provides for your client. You do not need to disclose to the State that the prosecution's main eyewitness used drugs with Smith right before the crime and that Smith will testify to this.

I will note that the Supreme Court decision in Kyles v. Whitely, which holds that the prosecution is presumed to be in possession of all evidence the police have, may have a bearing on a defense attorneys decision to withhold a report they have, that the police have, but that the prosecution does not have. It is an interesting situation.

Anonymous said...

at least you seem to have worked your way to the correct answer. now write to all your previous clients and say sorry.

Anonymous said...

"The Criminal rules of procedure 3.220 I believe, require RECIPROCAL disclosure."

WTF Rumpole you cant get your fat ass up for 2 minutes and grab the ol rule book and just be sure!!!

Lazy blogger

Anonymous said...

I mean Phil

Anonymous said...

My investigator told me today that J.A.C. has run out of money and that Tallahassee is going to have to delay payment on court appointed cases. Does anyone have any further information on this?

Rumpole said...

its 3.220 jackass. You should really leave Mr. Reizenstein out of this. Hasn't he been slimed enough this week? You should see his email to me. He asked me not to print it and I respect his privacy, but really, without one shred of proof or evidence (and I know you do not have one shred of evidence because your guess is wrong) don't you think its time to stop making baseless allegations?

Anonymous said...

Phil, stop, its ok - just admit it

Anonymous said...

If you don't know Suzanne, how do you know its not true? Unless you are guilty too!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you're right. If the person does'nt know her, how do they know its bs.

abe laeser said...

According to the JAC website, they did run out of money for the "year". I guess that you can still incur bills this year + hope that they pay from next year's budget.

I assume they meant calendar year; since the fiscal year ends on June 30th.

If they run on a fiscal year, a lot of my cases just got continued by the defense.

Anonymous said...

Well I am neither Chris or Alan a h.

Anonymous said...

I know Suzanne's assistant, that's how I know it's true.

omar said...

it doesn't matter whether you disclose or not ...the better lawyer knows about it before trial; the great lawyer discloses it, looks the opponent in the eye, and says, "you will lose this case because i am more prepared than you." self doubt is a bitch.

all in the game, yo.

Anonymous said...

I guess I will have to post case numbers to prove it is not BS.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you watch ch 7 news right now. Another example will be airing in a moment. Then tell me if it's BS. It's a plague with the SAO.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I guess ch 7 news is lying too right!.

Anonymous said...

No its true I worked on that case.

Anonymous said...

Ok Already, Who the fuck is Suzanne?

Anonymous said...

Rumpole touched a nerve or are you just fat and offended?

Anonymous said...

Judge "no bar license required" King, is a real piece of work.

Anonymous said...

Shit another scandal

Anonymous said...

I wonder how far does it go into the SAO. Say are you a deep throat! LOL

Anonymous said...

Follow the money my judicial friend.

Anonymous said...

Hell after the last scandal maybe Rundle is in it too.

Anonymous said...

Will see if someone with balls in Tallahassee will do something about this scandal. Hell maybe tallahasse is in it too.

Anonymous said...

Rundle is the teflon queen.

Anonymous said...

Ha Ha

Anonymous said...

I have on numerous occasions seen lawyers and judges argue for long periods of time about the law when the answer could be obtained within 5 minutes of legal research, usually just be looking at the rule of procedure, statute, or evidence section.
A more complicated issue like the impeachment issue could be researched in less than 10 minutes in Ehrhardt's evidence. If you are a young lawyer aspiring to learn how to try cases if you don't have the aforementioned books with you in court when about to try a felony case you are not prepared and will look foolish at some point, especially when it is time to do the jury instructions. good luck.

rick freedman said...

TO ABE LAESER & OTHERS:

As some of you may have heard, the Court Appointed Counsel program is over budget. The fiscal year began on July 1, 2006 and runs until June 30, 2007.

According to the JAC, the fiscal annual budget for conflict cases is $37,436,067. One-half of the annual budget has already been disbursed. This money was budgeted to last until December 31, 2006, however, due to expenditures these monies were depleted by November 9, 2006.

The JAC is working with the Governor's Office on Planning and Budget and the legislative staff seeking early release of the third quarter monies. Those monies are due to be released on December 19, 2006, or before if the executive and legislative branches authorize early release. The Governor's Office on Planning and Budget has requested additional information from the JAC before they authorize early release of funds.

The JAC has asked us to inform all CAC attorneys to continue forwarding their invoices to them
for processing so there will not be an extended gap of payment when monies are released.

I will continue to keep you informed as I become aware of new information.

Rick Freedman
FACDL-Miami
Chair, Subcommittee on CAC

abe laeser said...

Rick,
Thanks for the update -- but if you follow the logic of JAC moving monies from each succeeding quarter, they still run out of funds around the Ides of March, 2007 (using the same rate as 2006). Then what -- Court stops for 3 1/2 months?

The County is not about to spring back into this mess; or do you think that Jeb/Charlie are really pissed about capital defendants missing out on some rights?

Maybe it is time to take that teaching job I have been considering?

NAH, Just Kidding!

Anonymous said...

re: jac has no money

are you serious? maybe if the jac didn't waste so much time and money on paperwork and red tape, they would have enough money to pay my sorry ass for my many many pcac cases. think the bank will let me post-date my mortgage check to 12/19? fuck me. and fuck you too jac! i hope you bitches are planning to pay me interest!

i should have been a gyno. they make shitloads of money and look at vaginas all day long. very nice!

Rumpole said...

The Channel 7 website and Google have nothing under the name of that ASA. I removed the posts. If the story is true you can post. if not, whoever is doing this is a complete moron for attacking a young lawyer for no reason

Anonymous said...

attacking a young lawyer, for no reason, ON THIS BLOG?

NEVER!

Anonymous said...

" IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING "
Blazing Saddles
Mel Brooks

Anonymous said...

History of the World, Part I; scene in which he plays King of France.

Ther are no kings in Blazing Saddles.

Bonnie Riley said...

To Nov. 14th at 5:15 pm. Thanks for the mention! If I'm in the company of Nushin and Yvonne, I feel pretty good!

I predict, just for fun, that whoever wrote that is Barzee, Britt, or Lonnie but I could be wrong.

Whoever wrote it, I would love to know who you are. I'll buy you lunch and we can compare win / loss ratios. Let me know!

Jason Grey said...

Wait a minute while I whip this out...

Jason Grey said...

Wait a minute while I whip this out...

Anonymous said...

TO 1:21.08
Right on
Glad someone is paying attention.
Of course Blazing Saddles is the incorrect attribution.
Sorry

Anonymous said...

The reason ch 7 and googles don't have anything on ASA Suzanne von Paulus is because of ignorant people like you, that because she is a young lawyer and female refuse to believe that she is capable of doing anything wrong. Did you go to the U of M with her? Maybe I know things you don't.

Anonymous said...

for us court appointed attorneys, check the link on justiceadmin.org at the top.

in conclusion, they state :"The JAC will be unable to process payments until we receive an additional release of funds".

MEMO to the JAC and Judges; I will be unable to provide skilled legal services until the funds are released."

hard enough to get a regular client to pay, now the state wont pay. its hard for a pimp out here...

Anonymous said...

Rump,
You are an egotistical nut job. The only difference between this blog and operationrestorejustice is that he does his in the light of day. Don't try to cast yourself under the banner of free speech and all that is good...only if you out yourself can you do that. You're no better than the schoolhouse pansy who is too afraid to say what he thinks aloud so he talks about people behind their backs. Have some balls or shut the fuck up.

Anonymous said...

Thats true, if you start censuring free speech without investigating the facts, then the truth will never come to light. Maybe that person is right about Suzanne von Paulus. I know she is an egoistical bitch. I deal with her everyday and that person is right about her.

Fred Garvin said...

It's "Excuse me while I whip this out." And that IS from Blazing Saddles.

If you vampires are going to quote movies could you at least get your facts right? Oh..right..you're lawyers...sorry, my bad. I forgot you are all mentally challenged. Scumbags.

Anonymous said...

The sad thing about ASA Suzanne von Paulus is that she has had a tragic life and you should feel sorry for her and not call her names. You should only know what she has had to overcome. Maybe what you consider to be egotistical, is merely a defense mechanism due to an extremely unhappy home life and childhood. Maybe her siblings behave in the same manner due to their horrific background. Be nice!

Anonymous said...

Did it ever occur to you people that Suzanne von Paulus's so called "egotistical" behavior might merely be a defense mechanism due to poor parental upbringing and a horrific childhood? You can't understand a woman until you've walked in her pumps people! Be nice! The important question isn't whether or not she's a bitch its whether or not she is an intelligent and capable attorney.