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 AND LAWYERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE.
POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
3RD DCA ROUNDUP
Before we get to the 3rd DCA, the Fed, as we predicted the other day, agreed to buy about a billion dollars of US Treasury notes. The NY TImes article is here. The effect will be to lower interest rates, and give the Government treasury about a billion dollars more to spend. You see, this is a slight of hand. How does the Fed get a billion dollars to buy US Treasuries? Why it orders the treasury to print a billion dollars, which the Fed then promptly uses to buy Treasury notes, sending the billion back to a different arm of the government for it to spend on salaries and trips and spa sessions for AIG employees.
Can you say I...n...f...l...a...t...i...o...n? That's what happens when countries devalue their currency by printing more of it for no good reason.
And by the way, if you are per chance the holder of a note; if someone owes you money and is paying off the loan, when inflation hits, they will be paying you back with dollars worth considerably less than the dollars you lent them.
Just our government's way of saying "Capitalism? You must be joking".
3RD DCA ROUNDUP
Just two decisions reported this week, and one is a PCA. In the other one however, Judge Mark King Leban gets his second posting on the Wall of Shame for denying a rule 3.850 motion summarily without attaching portions of the record to conclusively refute the allegations.
From last week, which we neglected to report, Judge Peter Lopez joins Judge King Leban on the wall of shame for summarily denying a 3.850 motion without attaching portions of the record to refute the allegations. The decision in Redding v. State, is here.
In JB v. State, the juvenile's adjudication for delinquency for petit theft for stealing an officers handcuffs, by running away (while in handcuffs) after the officer arrested the juvenile for trespass, was reversed. The decision by Chief Judge Gersten noted that petit theft is a specific intent crime. While it was clear the juvenile was fleeing, it was not proved at trial that the purpose of the flight was to steal the officer's handcuffs. As CJ Gersten wryly noted at the end of the opinion:
Actually, we are sure that J.B. would have gladly relinquished any dominion, control, or possessory rights to the handcuffs if he only had the key to release them.
Who said those guys and gals at the 3rd DCA don't have a sense of humor?