Saturday, June 02, 2007


Before we start with our post, this strange sentencing caught our eye.
Let It Be? Hardly.


Sergeant Allen Cockfield of the Metro Dade Police Department has been arrested and charged with killing his partner, Duke, a four year old German Shepherd K-9. Cockfield allegedly kicked Duke during a training exercise. The incident was witnessed by several other officers. Duke collapsed and was taken to an animal clinic where he was pronounced dead.

The investigation into the case included hot shot Dade Medical Examiner Dr. Emma Lew who opined that the well placed kick interrupted the rhythm of the heart and killed the K-9 dog.

The Miami Herald reported the arrest here:

It is a third degree felony to kill a police dog.

Rumpole says, police dogs. like police officers, train hard and sometimes are asked to risk their lives for our safety. We support a vigorous prosecution of this officer. If found guilty, he should be punished. We have no tolerance for those who abuse animals or children in our society. No one who has the kind of temperament that this officer is alleged to have, should be entrusted with the job of police officer, much less a supervisor.

And in other news, our State Attorney took a break from vacation to return to Miami to hold a press conference to announce that parents should lock up their guns now that children are home from school.

Rumpole says, we support gun safety. Indeed, we support any measure that would make guns less accessible to the public. However, we would like to suggest to our State Attorney that when on break from vacation, she try a few less press conferences, and a little more court appearances. We would like see our elected State Attorney, just once, in court, letting her prosecutors know she is in their corner and on their side.

Memo to the State Attorney: When you walk outside of your office building, directly across the street are two large buildings, connected by a bridge. The building to your left is the courthouse. The building to the right is the jail. We recommend that prosecutors try their best and avoid the Dade County Jail. You will need ID, and should not attempt to bring any weapons with you. (insiders tip: use the back entrance, which is right in front of you, between 8-11 AM., and you can enter in the lawyers line- (you have kept up to date with CLE, right? It doesn't hurt to ask.) )

Anyway, bring your bar card and driver's license. Once inside the building, just wander around. We do. It's fun. When you're finished, go out the way you came in, but don't forget to stop off in Au Bon Pain. The chocolate chip cookies are great.

What say you, young ASA's? Would you like to see the boss in court every now and then? Give us your comments.

See You, and maybe the State Attorney, in Court.


Anonymous said...

give the case to susan dannelly, she asked for 5 years for someone who killed a puppy.

old guy said...

Of course. And can we also see manna from the sky and Weed's hair spin on his head. While we are at it, the new see through outfits for the PD hotties woud be cool, too.

If miracles happen, we should get them all at once.

Anonymous said...

i have seen ms. rundle in the mjb within the last couple years. in her day she would even try a case..
on the other hand, bhb has not entered the bldg. since the pdo was located in the mjb.

Fake Chris Sclieppi said...


As a former servant to the people of Miami-Dade County, I wish you would have posted those instructions years ago while I was collecting interest from the State.

Im certain KFR found it difficult to find the Courthouse when saddled with the Closius/Davenport A-form special. I know I did.

However, maybe KFR did not want to journey into the building for fear of being overshadowed by my tight package of trial skills. Clearly, it was enough to scare many innocent people into saying "Cupable!"

Fear the Sclieppi.

Anonymous said...

It is disturbing to hear of such a situation taking place. I hope justice is served.

now for something funny, notice how in contributors it says

Anonymous said...

Here's a little ditty:

Shumie doobee doo
no 3rd DCA Shumie...
Shumie doo bee doo
why did you make me blue?
Shumie doo bee dee
Why are you leaving me????

Shumie doo bee doo
I'm gonna miss you
Shumie doo bee dye
I feel like I wanna cry...

Shumie doo bee doo
no morning calendar
Shumie doo bee dee
no afternoon shoping
Shumie doo bee doo
I'm gonna miss you..you....you.

I on Q said...

Fear who?

Only fear the Q

Check out the I on Q podcasts whereever fine podcasts are downloaded.

The DUI Guy said...



THE GOOD: The Cray is Back up and running. All nthe techs in Boston are back from vay-cay

The Bad: At great personal expense we purchased the latest version of the DUI Ranking software.

However, the software takes several hours to load, because it has to update the thousands of old downloads before it can begin computing the new rankings.

The techs say it will be fully functional by Monday. Which means no DUI Rankings again this Sunday, but new rankings with fresh data and new information coming next Weekend.

For instance, the new rakings should inculde an overall power rating, a motion ranking, a trial ranking, and even a break down versus not guilty or dismissal ranking!!!

Just hold on to your intoxilyzers a little longer please.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, You are a hypocrite. If the officer hired you, you wouldn't be on such a high horse. you would be saying all the right defense attorney crap. You just hate cops.

And to the other poster, it's "C-U-L-P-A-B-L-E"

Anonymous said...

Let's wait and see before passing judgment on the K-9 sergeant. The story seems awfully strange and is worthy of taking it with a big grain of salt.

Skeptical about dog case said...

Two vets could not detect internal injury in the dog, but Emma Lew, the "people" medical examiner and SAO lackey opines that a kick could have stopped the dogs heart. Hmmmm...overzealous prosecution?

Anonymous said...

you know what is really pathetic is that animal worshipping freaks will care far more about this cop killing his doggie than the murder of a human being who they deem to be dope dealer or lowlife.

crazy thing is that this case has far more jury appeal than most cases becuase, like hitler, most people care far more about animals than they do about human beings

Anonymous said...

There is yet another scandal with affordable housing funds, this time in the City of Miami, and at the center of the scandal, among other politicians and public figures, is Al Lorenzo, the self-styled "king of the absentee ballots" and campaign manager for Miami mayor Manny Diaz and for countless judges in Miami-Dade County who dutifully pay him and Bob Levy a "consulting" fee before they even get opposition.

Here's the link to the Herald's story http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/houseoflies2/index.html

It is very sad to see how poor people stayed in cramped, unsanitary and rat-infested apartments while the City let the money go to waste or to the pockets of the politicians' cronies.

Who will indict and prosecute these people? Certainly not Kathy Rundle. She'd have a major conflict. And who'd try those cases when almost all judges in Miami-Dade County, with notable exceptions like Judge Murphy, dutifully hire Al Lorenzo year after year?

Anonymous said...

Here's the link to the Herald story about affordable housing along with the readers' comments.

Anonymous said...

Here's the link to the Herald's story on affordable housing along with the readers' comments:


Anonymous said...




v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354




COMES NOW respondent, John B. Thompson, hereinafter Thompson, on his own behalf, but filing this with the approval of co-counsel Ray Reiser, and together they move this Honorable Court, on his behalf, for a continuance of the trial herein, stating in addition to the grounds already provided the following:
1. Respondent would like to settle this entire matter, as he has repeatedly indicated. What has made that impossible is that Bar prosecutor Sheila Tuma recently wrote Thompson and Ray Reiser a letter in which she stated that she no longer wanted a 90-day suspension to settle all this. She wants now a 91-day suspension, which is an entirely different matter, as the court knows full well.
2. Ms. Tuma advises in writing there are “two new matters,” arising out of talks with Blank Rome’s SLAPP-happy lawyers. She says in her letter demanding the 91-day suspension that Thompson has acted unethically in advising an expert witness in the Alabama case and representing that his Alabama clients are in fact his clients. The clients have recently reconfirmed that they are Thompson’s clients, and Thompson has been advising expert witnesses as to their testimony since 1981. Ms. Tuma might as well be saying that Thompson has acted unethically because he has drunk a glass of water. Thus, Ms. Tuma has not really told Thompson and Reiser what the two new matters are about with any particularity whatsoever so that they can be evaluated in the context, into which she put them, to try to resolve this matter now before this court.
3. Indeed, Reiser many days ago wrote Ms. Tuma asking her to provide any documentation of any kind as to what these new matters are about. She has refused to respond. Similarly, Thompson has served a formal Request for Production on Ms. Tuma in this regard. She refuses to comply with it. This is why the defense herein calls her the “Peek-a-boo Prosecutor.” Before coming to Florida to be a Bar prosecutor, that is what Ms. Tuma did for the State of Illinois’ Bar. She apparently has never head a law job in the private sector, preferring to prosecute lawyers for a living. Maybe she needs a broader professional perspective, which is indicated by her repeated use of deception. The ends justify the means, it seems, with a prosecutor who has never done anything else as a lawyer.
4. It is Ms. Tuma and The Bar who have, apparently in desperation, tied “two new matters” to this pending disciplinary proceeding now before this court, in an attempt to bully Thompson and Reiser into a negotiated settlement of this matter. That’s fine. But no one can evaluate a Bar complaint, for settlement or any other purposes, unless her or she sees it and knows what the heck it is! The Bar itself acknowledges this by having an “investigation period” during which it can evaluate whether there is anything to a filed complaint. Thompson, according to Ms. Tuma’s demand, is to hand over his law license, with a 91-day suspension, on the basis of a complaint that she maintains he cannot see prior to handing it over! Honestly, has this court ever heard of such a thing? This is akin to Kathy Rundle or one of her minions strolling into Judge Tunis’ courtroom and telling the court that she wants the defendant incarcerated for a crime the nature of which the State Attorney will not disclose. Absurd.
5. It appears that there are in fact no complaints filed against Thompson. Thus, Ms. Tuma once again has been found, we believe to be deceitful. All of the current SLAPP complainants have confirmed to Thompson and Reiser that there are no new filings, but Ms. Tuma is maintaining that she has something on Thompson that must result in a resolution of it and THIS current matter, now before this court, with a 91-day suspension.
6. Again, as Thompson and Reiser have repeatedly indicated, they desire to resolve this matter as amicably as possible, but Ms. Tuma refuses to tell us what this is all about. She refuses to communicate to such a bizarre degree that we have no idea what she is talking about. Maybe neither does she.
7. The court then must a) continue the trial date of this matter until such time as The Bar comes clean as to what these two new matters are, so that possible settlement can be evaluated and achieved, and b) order The Bar to disclose to respondent and his co-counsel what in the world Ms. Tuma is talking and writing about this time. If there really are no new complaints against Thompson, then Ms. Tuma herself should be disciplined by The Bar for making such an idle, baseless threat. This may indeed be why she refuses to disclose any documents about these “two new matters.”
8. This is how The Bar has behaved from day one in all of this. Deceit has served as disclosure. Threats have served as negotiation. That has got to stop. Let’s see what The Bar has that is holding up settlement of this entire matter, these specific proceedings included. It isThe Bar that has tied this and those together.
9. Finally, the above narrative is part of the rationale as to why there must be mediation in this matter. Ms. Tuma thinks she is playing poker with Thompson’s career. It is time for her and The Bar to place their cards face up on the table so that settlement might possibly be effectuated. As it now stands, The Bar appears to be playing with blank cards that it thinks it can unilaterally proclaim to be whatever suit and denomination The Bar chooses. And Thompson is the one who needs mental health care, according to Ms. Tuma’s letter?
WHEREFORE, respondent moves for a continuance of the trial herein.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this has been provided to Sheila Tuma, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Drive, Orlando, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 2007, with a fax also sent to the Judge, given its emergency nature, the hearing on this motion to continue to be heard Monday, June 4, 2007.

Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Phone: 305-666-4366

Anonymous said...

What Joan Fleischman left out in her article today in the Herald:

"Alan Shuminer, husband of new TV Cristina Shuminer, is also thought to be one of the two people behind the secretive Justice Building Blog. Shuminer is believed to run the blog with his friend "Sneaky" Pete Heller. Neither Shuminer nor Heller would "confirm or deny" that they are indeed the mysterious Rumpole."

Rumpole said...

1)to Saturday at 11:44am: Of course I would represent the officer. "This is the business we have choosen." I have sworn to represent any client I accept to the very best of my ability. If I represented this officer, and in fact he did what he was charged with, and the prosecutors or police blew the case with sloppy work, I would do my job, and do it well, and have him acquitted.

That does not mean that I support animal abuse, or child abuse, or any crime. I do not. What I do support and defend is the Constitution- and it requires me not to judge my client, but to defend him. If you cannot see that larger principle, well, there are plenty of jobs at 7-11 for you.

2) Mr. Jack Thompson has been emailing us his pleadings recently. We take no position in the matter. However, it does have some bearing on the REGJB because Judge Tunis is appointed in his case. We would prefer if Mr. Thompson could host a web site, and then publish links to his pleadings. (like you know who-- did we just write that????)
Anyway, we give him some...repeat some latitude here.

Anonymous said...

Shumie and Heller running the blog

Cristina gets a TV job and Shumie takes a jog

Now Petey's running the blog by himself

while Shumie can afford cigars off the top shelf!!!!

Anonymous said...

Rump missed the big news of the week:

For the defense in State v. Utpal Dighe:

Rudolph? (oops, he's doing Dighe's bar work.


Anonymous said...

Any judge or judicial candidate who hires Levy or Lorenzo for the 2008 election should be investigated, voted against, and criticized sharply. These people are crooks and as proven by Dennis Murphy are unnecessary tools for victory. Undoubtedly, however, when Levy or Lorenzo disappear, other dishonest lowlifes are set to take their place. Aren't I right Pertierra and Lombana?

Anonymous said...

ASK the other candidates, including Murphy who didn't hire anyone, why they paid RUBY FIERRA, TANGIE SPEARS, and a whole slew of other "non-consultants."

Anonymous said...

Which makes you a hypocite bc you only become nonjudgmental when you are paid. You compromise principles for $$$$. You are the worst of the worst.

I for one would never represent anyone charged with victimizing a child in any way. I have turned away MANY a large fee bc of it. I won't even refer another lawyer. I simply say I'm sorry and tell them to find other counsel on their own.

I happen to the understand the principle you speak of and happen to prefer CIrcle K myself.

Rumpole said...

Dear Circle K Clerk:
For reasons not pertinent to this blog, I respect your right to represent whomever you so desire. But let me ask you-

Are you a criminal defense attorney? If so, do you just defend innocent people?

You apparently have no idea about the presumption of innocence, as you have stated you would not represent someone accused of child abuse. I have represented someone accused of child abuse. He was innocent- not just not guilty- he did not do it, and we proved it at trial.

But that is really beside the point. The system does not work unless there are skilled lawyers to represent people accused of horrible crimes. Look at how many INNOCENT people have been exonerated from just death row: over a hundred. You however, could not contribute to such an honorable task, as the mere charge would be enough to send you running. Indeed, your views disqualify you from even being a jurror.

Finally, lets hope that whatever you do for a living, that someday when you need a doctor, they do not look at your job, and decide you are not worth saving. For your sake, I hope the doctor acts- as any professional lawyer would- and does his or her job regardless of their personal opinion of you. Otherwise, I would advise you in your career as a Circle K clerk to neither get sick, nor be accused of theft. Because if your employer accuses you of drinking a couple of extra coffees you haven't paid for, you may have trouble finding a lawyer who agrees to represent a thief.

Anonymous said...

What do you have against Circle K or 7-11 clerks? You think you are better than they are? Oh, I forgot, you are a judgmental jerk.

Let me ask you this, if the cop comes in and pays your excessive fee (excessive because it's obvious you think so highly of yourself) would you tell him that you have stated most publicly that “...police dogs. like police officers, train hard and sometimes are asked to risk their lives for our safety. We support a vigorous prosecution of this officer. If found guilty, he should be punished. We have no tolerance for those who abuse animals or children in our society. No one who has the kind of temperament that this officer is alleged to have, should be entrusted with the job of police officer, much less a supervisor.”

And when you say, “We have no tolerance...” , do you mean unless I get paid, then I have all the tolerance in the world?

I represent whomever I feel like representing and turn away whomever I want.

Anonymous said...

Rump? No response? I just took a dip in my pool. It's shaped like a circle with a "K" in the center. Do you jhave a pool? Is it a circle shape with a "J" in the middle?

Rumpole said...

Dear Clerk: For the record we have nothing against Clerks. We were one ourselves. Of course it was for a Federal Judge, but labouring to assist another is an honourable field.

Now, we realize that you did not and cannot respond to our last post on the issue of professionalism, and things like presumption of innocence, etc.

So putting aside your weak writing and argumentative skills, lets get right to the point:

In your view, if someone is a criminal defense attorney, they like crime. Thus, they could and should never be a Judge, or a prosecutor, or like John Adams, the President of the United States.

You are incapable of understanding the difference between representing a system of justice and representing a defendant. In your mind, the attorney espouses the view of the client, much like the doctor who heals the patient, the waiter who serves someone their food, the chef who cooks the food, the airline pilot who flies the person. In your mind, in your dark little world, one must first agree 100% with all the ideals, goals, philospohy, and acts of an individual before interacting with them in any way.

Well, lucky for you that is not my view, or you would not be allowed to post your somewhat simple minded comments here.

Good day sir!

Anonymous said...

You are a hypocrite hiding behind the Constitution which you certainly don't respect as you are probably of the ilk that believes that it is an ever-changing, living, breathing document. It is, in fact, a legal document that doesn't change unless amended. I don't work for the Constitution, I work with it.

And a good day to you, hypocite.

Rumpole said...

My dear, dimwitted clerk,

first- I will overlook the spelling error, and move on to the definition:
Hypocrite: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.

OK- I support and defend the constitution. The constitution says that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

You my poor confused conservative friend, are a hypocrite- You pretend to support the constitution, but only pick and choose which articles or amendments you like. Thus, if someone is charged with a crime you don't approve of- rather than see that he is afforded counsel under the sixth amendment, you choose to move right to sentencing. Wait, just wait until they come for you. Then you will understand. Until then, make sure the coffee is fresh and the slurpee machine works.

Hyprocrisy comes in all shapes and sizes. You can start out by looking in the mirror.

As to a pool, no I do not have one. I have a boat. I like to swim in the ocean.

Anonymous said...

Oh, you poor misguided people. Is no one going to run against Josie Velis? Or against "Abby" Cynammon? Or against some of the others? Or is everyone just going to sit idly by the wayside? Bob Levy and Al Loreno have nothing to do with the campaigns. Their "wins" have historically had little to do with their candidates' ultimate sucesses. Ask Judge Ward, Judge Thomas (not a client), Judge Tinkler Mendez, Judge Rubenstein, and others. Most will likely say that Levy/Loreno's push/influence was nominal at best. Ditto for Gutierrez. Poor Josie has used all of the above and she hasn't seen success yet. Others (like Schleschinger and perhaps Don Cohn) won b/c of their stamina, charm, wife, and overall abilities, but not b/c of Levy or Lorenzo. Former Judge Rippengille hired everyone and still did not win. It's a crap shoot.