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

Saturday, March 22, 2008

OUR LEGISLATURE AT WORK

From the Broward Blog:

OUR LEGISLATORS HARD AT WORK DURING A BUDGET CRISIS:
A bill to be entitled An act relating to the indecent wearing of below-waist underwear; prohibiting a student from exposing below-waist underwear in a specified manner while on the grounds of a public school; providing penalties; providing an effective date.


Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. Exposure of undergarments.--(1) A student may not wear and expose below-waist underwear while on the grounds of a public school in a manner that exposes or exhibits one's covered or uncovered sexual organs in a vulgar and indecent manner.(2) For a first offense, a student who violates this section shall be given a verbal warning, and the school principal shall call the student's parents. For a second offense, a student shall be suspended from school pursuant to s. 1003.01(5)(b), Florida Statutes, for 3 days, and the school principal shall call the student's parents and send them a written letter regarding the student's suspension. For a third offense, the student shall be suspended from school pursuant to s. 1003.01(5)(b), Florida Statutes, for 10 days, and the school principal shall meet with the student's parents. For a fourth or subsequent violation, the student shall be suspended from school pursuant to s. 1003.01(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2008.

**AND WE KID YOU NOT:


Senators Aronberg and Baker moved the following amendment:Senate Amendment (with title amendment)
(3) This section does not apply to students who are studying refrigerator repair or plumbing.


Rumpole says: if things were so bad in this State; if our courts and our publicly funded programs were not in such dire straits, this would be funny. Instead, it's damn sad those morons are wasting their time and tax payer money on this arrant nonsense.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

is this april first?

did i miss the moment where every legislator in florida lost their mind?

fake english professor said...

Two things Rump: 1) Love, LOVE the label "MORONS";
2) You sir, are a student of the english language, because it is a rare writer indeed who uses, let alone properly uses the word "arrant".

Anonymous said...

I think we are now going to see an increase in the applications to refrigeration/plumbing trade schools, and the perps are gonna keep copies of that application in their back/ankle pockets when the fuzz tries to bust them.

I love America.

Anonymous said...

what a state, do we have the bulkyist criminal state code in the country, 250 pages of traffic. as we now commemorate the 4000th american soldier to die in the unjust Iraq war, as admitted numerous times by our commander in chief, and we have endless federal resources to investigate steroids in baseball while an act of multiple homicide occurs weekly and a school shooting is now weekly I would like to say to all that Barack Obama is the first politician since JFK who can restore confidence in our government and steer us away from this addiction to violence we have in america. I hope he is elected and not assassinated. he will end the war in Iraq, McCain will increase it, and Hillary will make the Nixon administration look honest.

Anonymous said...

if the legislature is actually going to enact such a law it will be the most absurd florida law since the amendment regarding the treatment of bacon producers.

Anonymous said...

don't worry charlie, your secret is safe with me.

The anonymouse said...

Query: Is one's butt a 'sexual organ' for purposes of this statute?

Answer: Only if it is being used correctly.

abe laeser said...

Perhaps my friends in the legislature fail to understand that if my office spends our limited resources to enforce this heinous offense, less funding will be available to hire and pay lawyers (at $40k); fewer dollars will be devoted to investigative and due process needs; capital expenditures may have to be reconsidered; and the effort to combat those crimes that deserve the effort -- those where peoples' lives are terribly altered by criminals -- will be diminished even further.

I hate the demagogue, the apologist, the self-promoter; and I still foolishly wish that wisdom would find its way into the minds of our legislators.

Hope springs eternal !

Anonymous said...

enlighten me, what does arrant mean?

thanks in advance

Anonymous said...

I hope they spend more time on halting the teaching of evolution. That is so much more important. If not then their should be a special session.

Anonymous said...

I get it. The argument is that the entire legislature should shut down because the court system has a funding problem. Right. By that logic, there should be no posting here of articles about Super Bowl odds, since, gee, the only thing we must worry about is ... You know the rest. By the way, how come we haven't seen here the following article that casts at least some doubt on the "Ben Kuehne is God" mentality of the criminal defense bar?

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePrinterFriendlyNLJ.jsp?id=1205491397525

Anonymous said...

and they say truth is stranger than fiction....

Anonymous said...

Instead of bitching that prosecutors should exercise discretion and go against their constitutional duties, why don't we defense attorneys (mostly PDs, I guess) exercise our discretion and refuse to represent defendants charged with marijuana possession and other "stupid" crimes. In those cases where the state is seeking jail, what would happen?

Rumpole said...

You cannot legislate morals. They must be taught at home. I just wonder if like some of my other readers, I am getting up in years, and miss the problem here. In my day, the people my age now ranted against the mini-skirt, hot pants with leather boots, and women bruning their bras. (If I am appealing to your prurient interests, please go to Mr. Markus's federal blog immediately.)
It was love (or more accurately sex) in an age where a quickie could not kill you.

I for one do not see the problem with young people making their own fashion statement, albiet with little red thongs showing and tight jeans worn below the waist line. (Again, head to Markus's blog now if you are getting aroused.)

Perhaps we should all just remember that in what will be a blink of an eye, these young people will be sitting somewhere bemoaning what the current set of teens are doing. Throughout our history, teenagers have sought ways to express themselves emotionally, artistically, and sexually. It is the primary job of the parents to handle the latter.

Anonymous said...

Saw Carlos Martinez last night campaigning for Public Defender. It is great to know the guy is so darn beatable. Will someone please move on this guy and let's finally have a good Public Defender.

BHB sucked, but Carlos will just be stale and still suck. What say you Miami-Dade?

Where is Gabe Martin or Lonnie Johnson when you need them?

Anonymous said...

Ummm, this makes sense...

Anonymous said...
C'mon people get a brain! Do you really think that Nick Bogert [sic] would do a story on NBC 6 regards the blog and not know who Rumpole is? Do you really think he plastered Phil R's picture on the TV saying he might be Rumpole if was not Rumpole.

Anyone who knowns how the media works they have sources and Nick knew who Rumpole was and said so on his TV report.

I really do not think any reporter would put a picture of me on the tube and state I think her is so and so without being sure.

Rumpole I know you will not allow this post because it is true. Right Phil?

Saturday, March 22, 2008 10:11:00 PM

Jack's Fact Checker said...

lastest installment of the Thompson trial transcripts here. Good stuff.

Anonymous said...

it is refreshing to see the legislature finally address pragmatically the "crack" problem in our state.

Anonymous said...

Here is what happened with Channel six- Bogart called me and asked if I would speak about the blog. I said yes, and we spoke for a few minutes. At the end he said "are you Rumpole?" I laughed and said something like "of course not." and that was the end of it. It was a toal AMBUSH. I was never told by him that I was the focus of his report, and I was NEVER given the chance to appear on camera and refute he charge. Instead, I started getting phone calls with my picture on TV. Clients thought I had been arrested. It was a major hassel and I was totally tricked by a reporter who has never had the guts to respond to my email to him. I can tell you that Mr. Bogart put my picture on television without ONE SHRED of evidence beyond a few people "knowing" it was me, and telling him that.

I challenge anyone to send a comment with ONE piece of evidence that I run this blog. I read it like a lot of lawyers. I find the commentary sometimes funny, and sometimes boring. But there is no evidence I run this blog, as I do not.

Phil R

JT RULES! said...

(Ms. Ward continues to idenify e-mails sent by Thompson, including…)

WARD: This is another e-mail that I received from Mr. Thompson. This one is dated December 21st, 2005. It is addressed to a number of different people, cc’d to a number of different people, most of whom I don’t know. The body of the e-mail is a letter that is addressed to Mr. Eibeler.

TUMA: The CEO of Take Two at the time?

WARD: At the time, yes. [reading] “Maybe the absolutely dumbest thing you did was hire Philadelphia’s Blank Rome as your law firm of choice to represent you in courtrooms and to serve as your registered lobbyist in the U.S. House and Senate… Blank Rome also, very importantly, managed to lose all motions to dismiss in our wrongful death lawsuit in Alabama arising out of a teen’s training on Grand Theft Auto… We expect to try this case in 2006. We also expect to take at that trial every single penny Take Two currently has.”

TUMA: And so that the record is clear, by [the time of this e-mail], the order revoking Mr. Thompson’s pro hac vice had not been vacated, had it?

WARD: No.

(the implication of this is that Thompson was no longer admitted to practice in Alabama at the time of the e-mail, but is still speaking of the case as though he were serving as an attorney…)

fake pannunzio said...

Dude...Phil is innocent and JT rocks.

MISERABLE AND MARRIED said...

MENDY! DON'T DO IT. THERE IS STILL TIME TO GET OUT OF THIS. BEING SINGLE...YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE GIVING UP. STOP! STOP I SAY.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Phil. He is too dumb to be running this blog. Man have you ever tried talking with the guy? The guy is as dumb as a box of rocks.

I do get his generic traffic lawyer flyers every once and a while and just laugh. The guy is as rude as they come.

Anonymous said...

I know this pisses off a ton of people to learn - but it's pretty clear that Rump's not jewish, and not married, and probably at least 50.

But those who accuse others of being rumpole arent really paying that much attention anyway. They're just throwing out names for the reaction. As if someone's really going to say "ugh, ya got me"

Grow up people.

Bunch of idiots.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Phil is a moron. He could never write this blog. Though, I challenge the unethical reporting and compare it to Susana Messmith who did the same in the past. We are all fully aware that innuendo is all that reporters need to sell news. If you do not believe me, look back and note the corruption in reporting and lack of content. Just enough to sell a story and push a career.

So, yeah. Phil stinks as lawyer and is too antisocial to be in the know. Mr. Bogart, if you want to talk, write your contact information and I would be more than happy to talk to you about Phil in more detail as well as some other notables. Hey, where if Fingerhut when you need him?

Anonymous said...

who did the crack job of reporting on this impending statute? I hope this is not a crack in the veneer of the stellar job our legislature has done in enacting thousands of laws?I don't believe the promulgation of a dozen new criminal laws a year is the work of a crackpot?I guess if you don't have time to tackle overhauling the juvenile code or gun violence in the schools you can at least go after boys and girls who flaunt to top of their ass crack. I am sure this has led to promisqueity amongst teens as opposed to internet and soap opera porn, magazines and sex in movies. On to more important things; who will CRACK the rumpole mystery?

Ferrero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rumpole said...

6:57- Get your head out of your ass. You confuse what I write with what readers comment on. Name me ONE just ONE post where I have trashed someone with unsubstantiated innuendo? You should see the crap I get emailed that I do not publish. I am very careful about a person's reputation. But go ahead big shot- just ONE post where I unfairly posted something about someone that was not true. Put your money where your mouth is big shot.

Rumpole said...

Oh yeah- and the person posting under the name "Ferreo" I have banned you. Yup= you are the first person I have banned. No more comments for you. And I promise you, jackass, I run five miles every day and I will out live you. Guaranteed.

Anonymous said...

6:03, when you do get Phil's flyers, when your clients bring them in so you can undercut all the other lawyers you pathetic hack?

Anonymous said...

6:57, on a scale of 1-10, whats the chance Nick bogert has any desire to talk with you about anything, ever? You're just an angry loser, were an angry loser, will always be an angry loser

Anonymous said...

Phil, Phil oh Phillip just calm down and relax all this anger. Jackie must have a field day sharing office space with a crack pot.

Now Phil why the nasty comments?

Anonymous said...
6:03, when you do get Phil's flyers, when your clients bring them in so you can undercut all the other lawyers you pathetic hack?

Sunday, March 23, 2008 8:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...
6:57, on a scale of 1-10, whats the chance Nick bogert has any desire to talk with you about anything, ever? You're just an angry loser, were an angry loser, will always be an angry loser

Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:16:00 PM

Anonymous said...

I am confused, is Phil still practicing?

Anonymous said...

Whoever Rumpy is, he has been fair to all.

Phil, admit it, you are Rump.

Real Friend of Phil R. said...

Not that Phil R. needs my help, but:

On first blush, Phil may not appear to be the most accessable or affable. No doubt he has a dour comport. He will be the first to give sound legal advice if approached, though.

His smiles are found when he is with his wife, his children, joking with his lunch crew and when he takes out his boat or rakes in a nice poker pot.

He is one helluva trial lawyer, but doesnt get to show it much lately. He can try the pants off of most of you.

Leave the guy alone.

Anonymous said...

I appreciate those people who believe me when I say that I do not run this blog. However, being called "too stupid" to run the blog was not exactly the rousing defense I was looking for. But as I tell my clients- "It doesn't matter how I win your case , as long as I do win your case, and I do it without violating any rules of ethics." So any port in a storm I guess.

While I do not send out "traffic mailers" my office does send out criminal traffic three fold flyers for cases that my partner/wife/boss does.(That means we do not do traffic tickets- but we do handle dwls cases) I make no apologies for how I run my business or make a living. I have made a very good living as a solo practitioner since 1993, good times and bad, and I have done so while providing what I think is excellent legal service. I handle all criminal cases, from DUI to federal white collar crime cases, and I have the not guilty verdicts on my wall to prove it. Yes I have a big ego about my legal abilities- any good trial lawyer does.

But I am not really interested in proving anything to the anonymous cowards who write comments without the guts to sign their name.

The reason I do defend myself about accusations about this blog is because since I have no control over it, I do not want to get painted with the brush. If Rumpole, who ever he is, writes something totally obnoxious about a judge or lawyer, it is very unfair to me that I become responsible for it. Especially if it is a judge, and I am before that judge, and that judge is upset about something on the blog that I do not know about and have no control over. That is the scenario that bothers me greatly.

Other than that scenario, I could really care less what anyone thinks about whether I run this blog or not. But since my reputation does mean something to me, I choose to defend it when it is challenged.

Phil R.

Anonymous said...

Phil is a great resource. I don't know him very well, but he's answered more than a few questions for this young pd.

Anonymous said...

Rump, how do you feel about this revelation from Phil? That it sucks to be accused of being Rumpole especially by all the judges? Doesn't that make you think about revealing yourself?

Anonymous said...

our illustriuos legislators subscribe to the old Jimmy Buffett slogan "Why don't we get drunk and screw".(it's what they do for 60 days and maybe drop there pants below there underwear or g-strings..didn't they pass a law about showing off underwear?)..fixing the budget crisis in Tallahassee what a joke who ever believes in that is jaded...

Anonymous said...

Hi Phil.
I think you get named as Rumpole, precisely for the reason that people think you are smart enough to make the intellectual comments that Rumpole makes.
It must suck to have the stigma as being the author, if you're not, but I would take it as a compliment.

Most of the morons who post on here can only wish that they were as smart/ funny/ witty as Rumpole.

"Non illegitimes carborundum!"