Wednesday, July 25, 2012


Your Florida Marlins packed it in this year, trading former NL batting champ Hanley Raminrez to the Dodgers and Anibel Sanchez and Omar Infante to the Tigers. We think they pulled the trigger too soon. 
Teams can make comebacks. 

Speaking of comebacks,  this documentary is about supermodels as they age. 

Is it us or is the REGJB just empty this summer? 

Mike Walsh is in trial in an interesting murder/self defense case before Judge Firtel. This is week two. You can check it out on the the 4th floor. 

Gun Control in the United Kingdom: here is how the UK responded to gun massacres. In August of 1987 a gunman killed sixteen people in Hungerford using semiautomatic rifles. The next year the Firearms Act was amended to ban the possession of  some semiautomatic weapons and shotguns with a capacity of more than three shells. 
In March of 1996 a gunman killed sixteen school children at the Dublane school.  In 1997 the Firearms act was amended to ban the possession of all semiautomatic rifles and handguns in the United Kingdom. 

In the United States in 2007 a gunman using semiautomatic weapons killed thirty two people at Virginia Tech. 
In 2012 in Colorado, a gunman killed twelve people and injured dozens in a shooting in a movie theater. 

The response to the last two firearm massacres in the United States has been, with regard to gun laws, do nothing. 

Wow. How tragic. 

See You In Court.


Anonymous said...

Marlins management sucks, has sucked and will suck in the future. Picked your pocket for the dumpy ass stadium. put out a shitty team and then folded when the going got tough. f them.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rump for taking a stand on this issue. It is truely disturbing how this country handles gun laws and I am somewhat surprised how many lawyers (I guess more intelligent than normal population) have such twisted and illogical views on the subject. Seems that if it were up to them, gun possession would be a requirement for every American and we should be able to possess rocket launchers and scud missles. Why not? Really don't see any difference between either of those weapons and a gun designed to fire 1500 bullets per second. Unreal!

CAPTAIN said...


From high up in the Colorado Rockies, where the weather is just fine.

Rump, I hear that the case before Judge Firtel is a real doozy.

Cristobal Palacio has been locked up for nearly four years. He was arrested in October of 2008 and charged with First Degree Murder.

Mr. Palacio was, at one time, married to Jennifer. They had two children, twins. They got a divorce.

Jennifer married Paul Winters.

On the day in question, Jennifer and her new husband Paul take the twin six year old children to drop them off at the ex's home for visitation.

Cristobal Palacio pulls a gun and shoots Paul Winters six times. The worst part of this case; the twins watch the entire episode unfold as they sit in the SUV in the driveway of their father's home.

For the State: Christine Hernandez-Baldwin.

For the Defense: Lead Counsel is not Michael Walsh; he is second chair. Lead is former ASA David Macey, (who, coincidentally started his career out here in the mile high city).

Jury selection took place last week before Judge Firtel. Witness testimony is this week.

Now I have to leave as I am going out to play 18 this morning and may even play another nine holes after lunch. No humidity out here you see.

Cap Out ....

Anonymous said...

The Marlins organization has won two titles during the team's short life. That is impressive... But this is a what have you done for me lately city. The truth is, if Hanley were playing in LA from the start of the year, he would already have 25HRs not 15. Marlins Stadium is way too deep. Obviously not designed by baseball guys.

Latino all da way.

Anonymous said...


On this gun issue, what I hear from you is absolutely no different than when I hear: "There is no way I want my tax dollars going to defend some child rapist or murderer." Quickly followed up by the tired old: "Why do criminal have more rights than victims?" Or, when a judge does the right thing on a case, and we hear "Look at that liberal, commi, acitivst judge ignoring the constiution." And I could go on and on.

As people who are intimately involved in the criminal justice system, whe know how misinformed these views are. We are educated on these issues, we are trained in the constitution, we see the injustice everyday.

So while these often expressed views -- hyperbolic views in my opinion -- on the criminal justice system are misinformed, they sell very well because nobody likes child rapists and certainly nobody wants to pay to defend them, and nobody wants to see them get off on "technicalities" (what you and I as trained lawyers call the constitution). You and I understand that for our Constitution and our freedoms to survive in meaningul way, we need to pay for indigent defense, we need to ensure fair trial, we need to make sure that the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments survive.

The right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution. Not far, in fact, from the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments that most people call a technicality. Why do you undermine your own credibiliy as a constitutional lawyer by picking and choosing which rights are important based on your own tastes. The fear that the Second Amendment will erode -- based on screams and shouts like yours -- is just as real as the erosion we have seen, and continue to see, in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. Why can't you see that?

To further undermine your position, you've obviously have never been around guns or taken any interest in them (which is fine) so you don't understand how the ownership of guns plays out for the law-abiding American. Guns in my house are very different from guns to a gang-banger or some nut. When you lash out against guns in general, you group all of us together, and that is why you get so much push back.

I'm really sorry to see you so persistent in your view that some rights in our Constitution are less important than others. Be careful, because that argument continues to get shoved up our ass as criminal defense lawyers, and in my view you have little credibility defending them, particularly when you claim that the ones you don't like are either less important or not there at all . . . remember the ones we defend every day are even less likeable to the general public

Anonymous said...

Miami Marlins:

The perfect scam unfolding right before our very eyes. Get a Taj Majal stadium built on the public's dime. Then promote season tickets based on this new and improved lineup. Then wait 4 months and go into "rebuilding" mode. Cut salary and then reap the benefits of the scammed stadium. All in front of about 6,000 fans.

ANYONE who goes to a Marlins game should be ashamed of themselves. I dont care how much you love baseball. This is not supporting baseball. This is supporting a scam by Loria, Samson, Beinfest and a lying organization. The City of Miami and Miami-Dade County are laying off teachers, cops and firefighters and the Marlins are rolling in more of our money than they know what to do with.


Anonymous said...

David macy is not even in the courtroom. i was there yesterday durring the direct and cross of the decedents wife.lsh was the only lawyer on the defense side( there was a woman at counsel table with alsh but dont know who she is or if she is an attorney). David Macy was not involved in the trial proceedings. Jason Grey

Anonymous said...

Dawn Denaro goes unopposed and Andrea Wolfson has 2 challengers? There is no justice in this world!

Anonymous said...

I have had rather pleasant dealings with both Dawn Denaro and Andrea Wolfson.

If you like judicial candidates, then stop bitchin and send everyone you know an email telling them to vote for good candidates. Give them your list.

Except us, no one knows who these people are and WE have to live and suffer with them!

CAPTAIN said...

Jason. Thank you for that update. Macey is the attorney of record and entered his N/A four months after the arrest in February of 2009. Walsh filed a notice of co-counsel in March of 2011. Wonder what happened to Macey?

CAPTAIN said...

Oh, yeah. Rump. It's the MIAMI Marlins, not the Florida Marlins, although I doubt anyone really cares.

Anonymous said...

what about Rod's victory???
what happens next??
dum dah dum dum daH!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

not sure if you saw the cover of the local section today. but if you did then you saw a picture of a man named jay bruns. not to my suprise, he was holding a 10 pound florida crawfish.

years ago he once caught a man on the causway helping himself to tools from his pickup . i asked jay what he did to the guy. jay said ' i kicked him to sleep'. He was not joking.

jay burns is still a bamf.

"American Minority" said...

I ran into Julien St.Patrick today at my bank, a member of the Courts Budget Committee and I expressed to him that the LR was a very bad piece of legislation. Have you guys been making any follow ups about this or just huffing and puffing on the blog? Let them know how we feel about this, and make our presence felt. I told him I will be watching his vote and I will not forget. If he takes no action I vote his ass out, period. You ladies and gents need to get on the good foot, as the late Godfather of Soul would say.

Anonymous said...


Surely you--a putative Britishman--must recognize the fundamental differences between our government and that of the U.K. that partly explain the differences in gun control laws. The U.K has no written constitution, no Supreme Court to interpret a constitution, and a Parlimentary system of government derived from a monarchical tradition of strong central government. All of these factors make it much easier to quickly pass legislation into law. Here, Obama could not get gun control legislation through either branch of Congress, and, if by some miracle he did, the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional as a violation of the Second Amendment.

lovelorn said...

Rump, I'm in love with a Judge.


Rumpole said...

11:28 am. With all due respect to the current supreme court, the right to bear arms clearly refers to the well regulated militia.

Since you have thought this issue out, please answer our questions: explain how more guns will equal less gun violence and how less guns will lead to more violence. Once you do that, we can talk further.

Kenneth Weisman said...

To 5:35 pm. That was indeed Mr. Jay Bruns on the cover of our local section of the Miami Herald. I too was lucky enough to be on the Anejo with Jay yesterday. We caught 120 lobster ( there were ten of us). As you might guess, the lion's share were caught by Jay. We went out today and almost caught the limit within two hours. He is one of the most talented boat captain/fisherman/lobster trapper I have ever encountered. I am privileged to say he is one of my dearest friends. If you Wickepedia BAMF you will see his portrait.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, apparently, you haven't read, or have conveniently chosen to disregard, the historical record surrounding the Founding Fathers and the Second Amendment that show that it is an individual right. Read the Yale law Review article "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" and similar publications, many of them by anti-gun scholars who do not compromise their academic and intellectual reputations to side with an ideology.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question, more guns in the hands of law abiding individuals equal less gun violence because they deter gun violence by those who do not respect the laws or the lives and rights of others.

Less guns in the hands of law abiding individuals equal more guns in the hands of criminals who do not have, then, an incentive not to commit gun violence.

If you abolish the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments, the state can easily, rapidly and efficiently put in prison or execute criminals who threaten the well being of society and commit violence against others without having criminal defense lawyers obstruct the swift and orderly administration of justice invoking those rights.

Rumpole said...

So let me see if I understand this: more guns and more access to guns will make it 1) easier or 2) harder for disturbed people like the gunman in Colorado to get automatic weapons?

More guns will apparently lead to more shootouts as more people having guns will use them.

And answer me this gun lover. You're walking down the street armed to the teeth. Up ahead of you a disturbed individual who has easy as pie access to automatic weapons comes steaming around the corner in his car, and seeing you and hallucinating that you are a Martian, opens fire when you least expect it. Your gun strapped to your waist protects you how? The gun in the room of the apartment next to where you are standing protects the person sitting at their kitchen table who gets hit by stay bullets how?

I know your fantasy is that you will be sitting in a theatre and a crazy gun man will announce themselves and give you a moment to put down your popcorn, pull your weapon and shoot the bad guy and save the day. But that is unfortunately a fantasy. You will be killed before you crunch all the kernels of popcorn you have just shoved into your mouth.

Rumpole said...

So here is the question: are you safer if a) you and the crazy person both have guns or b) neither you and the crazy person have a gun?

I understand your response is that you are not safe if the crazy person has an illegal gun and you have nothing. But quite frankly unless you walk around all the time with the gun cocked and aimed at every individual you meet, the crazy person will almost always get the drop on you. While you're eating in a restaurant, while you're in the head, while you're standing in line at church or praying with your head down, while you're watching the action at Dolphins stadium or while you have a beer in one hand and a hamburger in the other hand while tailgating in the parking lot.

Only in a world where people travel in gangs and several at any time have their weapons drawn and are on guard duty will you ever be truly safe in a world where everyone has easy access to guns.

I just hope you figure this out before the stray bullet with your name on it finds you.

Anonymous said...

Dawn Denero has an excellent reputation on the bench, as does Wolfson. Neither should have contests.

Anonymous said...

I have practiced in front of both denaro and wolfson they are both fantastic!

Anonymous said...

Geez Rumpole: You really are working from a deluded view of the Constituion to satiate your ideology. The Second Amendment says "well regulated militia" the same way the Fourth says "persons, houses, papers, and effects" I don't see the words computer or gps or telephone or wireless data in those words, yet the Fourth amendment has been interpreted to econmpass all these things that the amendment neither mentions nor could have contemplated. Rump, your intellectual dishonesty is getting annoying.

So, tell me who should be able to possess guns in your ideal world?

Lobster w/drawn butter said...

I'll see you in hell Kenny Weisman.

Rumpole said...

In my ideal world there are no guns. Now lets be real. You don't fix a problem of this magnitude overnight. But we need to start.
First- enforce the laws we have, which we don't.
Second- ban automatic and semi automatic assault rifles period. Can't imagine there is a police officer out there that disagrees with this. You want a rifle to hunt? No problem. Hunters aren't using AK's right?
Third. Require a very strict background check and a fifteen day waiting period after approval. So it take a month to buy a gun. Legitimate hunters and others can plan ahead.

What would the background check be? NCIC and something more. Not sure exactly at this moment.

Fourth. Make it extremely difficult to get a CCW permit.

Fifth. Create a series of CCW permits. One for hunting. One for the car. One for carrying in public.

Sixth. Enforce and enhance penalties for carrying a gun without a CCW permit. Incorporate these penalties with enhanced random screenings in public.

I might also make a mandatory trigger lock required with every individual who buys a gun and has a child.

That's a start.

Anonymous said...

A hunter will not use an AK-47 because it is not powerful enough for hunting. It uses a small 7.62 x 39 cartridge with a ponted nose full metal jacket bullet which, under the rules of war, is designed to penetrate and exit with minimum internal damage and no fragmentation, unlike civilian hollowpoint pistol and hunting ammunition. That's the reason why the survival rate is very high for people shot with AK's, AR-15's and similar light rifles that shoot military ball ammunition. Contrast that to the usually-fatal wounds of large hunting rifles firing civilian hollow point or soft point hunting ammo or the 12-gauge shotguns firing 9 large pellets of 00 buck shot or a pre-fragmented lead slug.

With respect to automatic rifles, those are already regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. To buy one, you have to pay a federal tax and submit to a background check including a police chief certification of your character or, in the alternative, open up a corporation or living trust to buy it. Since 1934, only one legal automatic weapon has been used in a crime, and that was by a cop in a domestic violence incident. Automatic weapons are expensive and waste too much ammo, that's why they are not usually used in crime. The pool of automatic weapons that can be legally transferred was frozen by a law passed by none other than a South Florida white collar criminal who was a member of Congress at the time.

With respect to the CCW permits, you should remember when the counties issued them and it was nearly impossible to get one in Dade County, yet our murder rate was skyhigh and it began to plummet after 1987 when the CCW law took effect. Check the statistics about criminal use of guns by CCW holders and you will see that your position on them is unreasonable and not fact-based. Then go to DCJ or FSP and ask any inmate how many times they have carried concealed firearms in crimes despite being convicted felons and not having CCW's.

And finally, I can't understand how criminal defense attorney like you can fight for the 4th Amendment and propose random screenings in public!

Instead of using ideological wishful thinking, support your gun-related arguments and/or rants with scientific facts of physics and ballistics.

Anonymous said...

There was talk years ago that the technology exists to make smart guns. Guns that cannot be fired by anyone other than the registered owner.

There are various other technologies that are available out there, to make guns safer. Manufacturers chose not to employ them, because people won't buy them.

Guns are bad.

But I wanted to see a movie this weekend, so I'm going to have to buy one. I am also purchasing a Kevlar body armor suit. I expect to be distracted by the movie, and surely any gunman will get the drop on me.