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. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

WSJ AND KUEHNE

The Wall Street Journal has closely covered the Ben Kuehne case.  The title of the post links to the article. 

Today is a travel day (for a case, not for the holidays)  so I will blog when the airport has a connection and I'm not sitting on a plane.  Anybody trying a case this week?

We used to say that walking into one particular Judge's courtroom was an affirmation of  Einstein's special relativity, because time in fact slowed down considerably.  You will remember that one of the consequences of special relativity is that the duration of  the time interval between two events can be different for individual observers. That Judge has since passed on,  so we refrain from mentioning his name. However, while we're on the subject of cosmology, here is an interesting article on dark matter.  Dark matter is NOT those items contained in the paragraphs of your client's federal Pre-Sentence Investigation report before the paragraph on the guidelines calculations.  Dark matter is that matter that is not visible that may make up a quarter of the universe.  The existence of dark matter has yet to be concretely proved, so this article is exciting.   (It's amazing the things one finds interesting in an airport at 5am). 

See You In Court as soon as I get home. 

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

First, natch.

Anonymous said...

rump, you are probably traveling to south dade courthouse for a misdemnor arrignment.

Anonymous said...

rump - I think the following merits discussion:

Judges who set hearings at 8:00am and show up on the bench at 9:30. Now I understand that things happen and we all are late sometimes, but there are a handful of Judges who consistently notice people at 8 or 8:30 and perch themselves on their throne an
Hour late. Interestingly, some of these are the same ones who will a/c my client if he is 15 minutes late. Is that hubris, hypocrisy or simply being self absorbed and selfish????

Anonymous said...

When I walk into Drug Court, I think of Judge Art Snyder. He was there for years.

Then, you see the picture of Judge Stan Goldstein on the wall and you again feel that he is still there too.

Anonymous said...

Here is a solution.

Before taking legal fees from drug dealers:

1. Have the legal fees deposited into a trust account for POSSIBLE use of legal fees.

2. Before doing #1, first inform the Court via motion that you intend to have funds deposited in a trust account located in the United States for POSSIBLE use of your legal fees.

3. After the funds are in the trust account inform the U.S. Attorneys office of the location of the funds and file a motion with the Court seeking approval to use the funds for legal fees.

4. If the U.S. Attorney files no timely objection use the money for legal fees.

5. If U.S. Attorney files an objection seek order from the Court and let that ruling guide you in the use of the funds.

This way the U.S. Attorney is informed of the facts before hand and can object or not.

Anonymous said...

Judge Lederman for Chief Judge!
Although that would mean she can't make any more good calls!
Finally, a smarter head prevails!

Anonymous said...

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke told prosecutors that an exception in federal money laundering statutes appears to allow lawyers to be paid legal fees without fear of prosecution as the defense argued.

Anonymous said...

Florida's strict law banning adoption of children by gay people was found unconstitutional Tuesday by a state judge who declared there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting

Anonymous said...

1046. now you leave rumpy alone. there are 300 pages of traffic laws in florida, just you try and prove on cross that you client did not roll through the stop sign as opposed to making that complete stop.

Anonymous said...

1:35, have you ever had a federal case? Nevermind.

Anonymous said...

What exactly was the "protected class" whose equal protection rights Judge Lederman found were violated?

eyeonrumpole said...

BY the by, if rump is indeed traveling then his chief suspect is in the clear because phil has been in trial all week. I follow this closely because I know one day rumpole will slip up.

Anonymous said...

the trialmaster could care less who Rumpole is. I am not the trial master, but I predict he, like I, have moved on long ago from these childish antics

Anonymous said...

I question everyones' ethics who support Ben.

the triallmaster said...

more proof that phil r is rump. r = rizenstein. rump claimed to be at the airport at 5 am, no one travels to a distant court on thanksgiving week. it is too hard to return on wednesday. and he asked if anyone was in trial when phil knew he was.case closed. fess up Phil.

indaknow said...

Lurvey is rumpole and his minions support him. Quite a little empire.

Anonymous said...

trialLmaster spelled his own named wrong. Unless trialLmaster is trying to be hip and cool.

Anonymous said...

I really don't understand the whole fascination with Rump's identity. Seriously, who cares who he/she/they are?

The beauty of this whole thing is the conversation it stimulates (of course, the unfortunate corollary is how many people choose to abuse the medium by making nasty personal attacks on anyone whose name comes up on it).

You guys focus way too much on the clutter. That's another good reason why things don't improve the way they can and should.

BTDT

A Judge who has the guts to do what is right said...

BREAKING NEWS: In what can only be the greatest ruling made by a Florida Judge.

Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled the gay ban on adoption unconstitutional.

Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban

By CURT ANDERSON, AP Legal Affairs Writer



MIAMI – A judge on Tuesday ruled that a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children."

She noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida. "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting," she wrote in a 53-page ruling.

Florida is the only state with an outright ban on gay adoption. Arkansas voters last month approved a measure similar to a law in Utah that bans any unmarried straight or gay couples from adopting or fostering children. Mississippi bans gay couples, but not single gays, from adopting.

The ruling means that Martin Gill, 47, and his male partner can adopt two brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for as foster children since December 2004.

"I've never seen myself as less than anybody else," Gill said. "We're very grateful. Today, I've cried the first tears of joy in my life."

He said the two boys have been practicing writing their new last names, and the older one said: "That's what's going to make us a family."

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent Gill, said the case was the first in the nation in which numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban.

The state planned a swift appeal, likely setting up a battle that could reach the Florida Supreme Court. A judge in gay-friendly Key West also found the law unconstitutional in September, but that ruling has not been appealed and has limited legal reach.

The state presented experts who claimed there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gay couples, that they were more unstable than heterosexual unions and that the children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma.

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association all support permitting same-sex couples to adopt.

Lederman rejected all the state's arguments soundly.

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent," the judge wrote. "A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."

Florida Assistant Attorney General Valerie Martin said an appeal would be filed on behalf of the state Department of Children & Families. She declined additional comment.

Neil Skene, special counsel for DCF, said the judge did an "excellent job" on the case, but the department still must enforce state law. He noted that DCF placed the foster children with Gill.

"We think this is a wonderful foster parent," Skene said.

Reaction came quickly from advocates of gay, lesbian and transgender parents who have long considered Florida's law the most draconian in the nation. Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Boston-based Family Equality Council, said the decision is a "long-overdue recognition of the equal ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to raise happy, healthy families."

"The best interests of children should be decided by parents, families, professionals and judges, not opportunistic politicians and interest groups," Chrisler said.

John Stemberger, chairman of a successful drive earlier this month to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Florida, called the ruling "classic judicial activism" and predicted it would be reversed on appeal.

"Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."

___

Associated Press Writer Bill Kaczor in Tallahassee contributed to this report.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
I question everyones' ethics who support Ben.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:06:00 PM
Those with such strong opinions should be more than willing to identify themselves, along with explaning their points of view.
Ellis Berger(former newspaper reporter, former communications assistant with the PD's office)

Anonymous said...

Lederman found the ban to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, this is not the first time. Circuit judges throughout the years and throughout the state have "lit the same fire." The appellate courts put it out almost immediately. I worked on a case like this in my last year of law school in 1997 when a Broward judge did the same thing. Got overturned. And if memory serves correct, a Key West judge did the same thing a few years ago. Got overturned.
Face it folks, no matter what you think, we're still in the deep south.

Rumpole said...

No more bashing people anonymously. You want to call Mr. Markus and Mr. Reizenstein (or anyone else) bad names? Sign your name and use an email address. Enough is enough- and no I'm not either of them. And quite frankly I have allowed so much crap about me to be posted how in the world can you call me short tempered?

Anonymous said...

Rump........re your 7:11 posting.........THANK YOU!

I've been advocating for that for a long time, as you know. The personal sniping is ridiculous. We have a chance, if we do this right and discuss issues in an intelligent way, of coming up with good, creative solutions. Instead, too many people are wasting time with utter nonsense.

BTDT

Rumpole said...

Yeah well- I'm very uncomfortable being in the position of monitoring these comments. I wish people could just stick to topics without calling someone an asshole or jerk or ass kisser. Of course the problem arises when someone goes after someone who I think deserves a little talking to. So I just try and keep the whole thing clean and I'm not sure I do a very good job of it. But the two comments I did not post were about people who have already had their entire lives dissected on the blog. I'm not either of them- but enough is enough already. Moveon.org.

Anonymous said...

TO: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 @1:35:00 PM

YOU SAID:

"Here is a solution.

Before taking legal fees from drug dealers:

1. Have the legal fees deposited into a trust account for POSSIBLE use of legal fees.

2. Before doing #1, first inform the Court via motion that you intend to have funds deposited in a trust account located in the United States for POSSIBLE use of your legal fees."

DIDN'T YOU, BY FIRST DEPOSITING THE MONEY IN YOUR TRUST ACCOUNT (#1), WITHOUT CHECKING THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS TO DETERMINE IF THEY WERE CLEAN, COMMIT THE OFFENSE OF MONEY LAUNDERING (at least under the DOJ's interpretation of the law)?

Anonymous said...

Cindy Lederman is a total flaming jerk who has pissed off many of us and many of her fellow judges.

Go to her court and find out. She is one of the worst judges I have ever delt with.

She is rude, offensive, pushy and makes it very clear that she is in charge of her court and could care less about what others think.

At least she made a good decision in the gay adoption case.

Finally, I can say something good about her.