Tuesday, December 03, 2013

THREE STRIKES

BREAKING : DOM'S Federal Blog broke the news that State Court Judges Beth Bloom and Darrin Gayles are being vetted by the white house for the two openings on the bench in the Southern District. Both Judges are REGJB regulars, and both judges, now circuit court judges got their start in county court. 
REGJB/FED trivia: Name the last current District Court Judge in the Southern District who got his/her start as a Dade County Court Judge? 

Spend about twelve minutes and learn about how "three strikes"became the law. 

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gil Garcetti's disgracefull pandering to voters despite knowing what the right thing to do adds him to the long list of politicians who suffer from cryptorchidism when it comes to criminal punishment legislation.

Anonymous said...

Joan Lenard?

Anonymous said...

Judge Altonaga, I believe.

Rumpole said...

I think not at least that's not who I was thinking of.

Anonymous said...

Federico Moreno?

Anonymous said...

Altonaga, Moreno

old guy said...

Those are two very nice people. However, they are from the shallow end of the judicial pool.
Unfortunately, Thomas will remain as a State judge, while one of these pleasant - but lesser talented - will be selected.
Who says life is fair?

captain's personal secretary said...



Cecilia Altonaga

County Court 1996 - Gov Chiles
Circuit Court 1999 - Gov Bush
Federal Court 2003 - Pres GW Bush

Anonymous said...

Fred Moreno?

Anonymous said...

moreno?

Anonymous said...

Moreno

Anonymous said...

Altonaga

Anonymous said...

Cecilia Altonaga?

Anonymous said...

Beth has good potential, but her ego prevents her from reaching her potential.

BTDT

Anonymous said...

Scola

Anonymous said...

Scola

Anonymous said...

North Miami beach cop arrested in Plantation for obstructing justice and wearing a mask in public because he protesting Obamacare while wearing a Guy Fawkes mask and insisted on keeping his anonimity and refusing to ID himself. Maybe he will fight the case to have the mask law overturned.

http://rt.com/usa/florida-cop-arrested-anonymous-mask-667/

Anonymous said...

Fred Moreno

Anonymous said...

It is unlikely that the police officer will need to fight very hard to have the mask law overturned. If he was charged under F.S. 876.16, that law was declared unconstitutionally overbroad more than 30 years ago. Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 1076 (1980). Following the Robinson decision, the Legislature attempted to cure the statute's infirmity by enacting 876.155, which delineates the specific and limited circumstances in which it is unlawful to wear a mask while on public or private property. It does not appear (at least based on the news article) that any of those limited statutory circumstances applies to this situation.

Anonymous said...

9:40 a.m. is correct. None of the circumstances in 876.155 apply to the North Miami Beach cop who was charged with 876.12. Looks like he jus got himself some settlement money from the City of Plantation for false arrest and violation of civil rights

(Applicability; ss. 876.12-876.15.—The provisions of ss. 876.12-876.15 apply only if the person was wearing the mask, hood, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws or for the purpose of preventing the constituted authorities of this state or any subdivision thereof from, or hindering them in, giving or securing to all persons within this state the equal protection of the laws;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s exercise of any right secured by federal, state, or local law or to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal, state, or local law;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person; or
(4) While she or he was engaged in conduct that could reasonably lead to the institution of a civil or criminal proceeding against her or him, with the intent of avoiding identification in such a proceeding.)