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

Tuesday, August 19, 2014

VOTE FOR JUDGE RODNEY SMITH

Before we begin, Monroe County State Attorney Cathy Vogel says we were mistaken and she wasn't the ASA in the murder case we referenced in the prior post.  To that end, we have edited the post to remove any reference to her. 

Long time and careful blog readers know we average about a mistake a year. If our memory was faulty, and we have no reason to not believe Ms. Vogel, we apologize. 

And there's our mistake for 2014. 

KEEP RODNEY SMITH JUDGE. 

We are going to endorse only one candidate in one race this year: Judge Rodney Smith. 
He is a self made man.
He is a Miami native who came from a poor family and made his way through college and law school with scholarships and hard work. 
Upon becoming a lawyer, he immediately gave back to his community by becoming a prosecutor.  From the prosecutor's office, he applied for and became a judge. For a talented lawyer, that means removing at least one digit from the monthly paycheck. 

For our community to not just survive but thrive, we need more people like Rodney Smith becoming lawyers, and we need more lawyers like Rodney Smith becoming judges. 

We are lucky to have Judge Smith as a judge, and there is NO GOOD reason for any lawyer to have targeted Judge Smith. 

Vote for Judge Smith. He has earned your vote. He certainly has earned ours. 

See you in court. 


37 comments:

Anonymous said...

2nd mistake for 2014 Rumpole …

line 4 in this post says "bog" (Blog?)

gotcha as Judge Alan Schwartz would say!

Anonymous said...

Wow

Anonymous said...

Third mistake for 2014. Rodney Smith also practiced law privately.

Anonymous said...


Rumple says that “there is no GOOD REASON for any lawyer to challenge Rodney Smith?” I and others disagree. You neglect to mention to your readers that a vote for Rodney Smith is a vote for United Automobile.

Per today’s Miami Herald article (the link is posted on another thread on this site), Hector Lombana RESIGNED from the Smith campaign when he learned of United Auto pouring in excess of $200k to support Judge Rodney Smith. When was the last time you heard a campaign manager or treasurer resign from a judicial campaign in a local election over something like that? Never. This is a first. When was the last time you have seen an insurance company, who is an active litigant in hundreds (if not thousands) of pending cases in our local court system, spending outrageous sums of money to make sure a judge (who is also a former employee) keeps his seat? NEVER. That too is a first.

It is your right to continue drinking the Smith koolaid and ignore the fact that there is an attack on the independence of our local judiciary where special interest like United Automobile is spending a fortune to the tune of thousands of dollars (while the average citizen cannot) in order to keep their cronies on the bench. This stinks to high heaven.

Vote for Smith? I don’t think so.

Anonymous said...

I didn't realize Smith was still a judge, haven't seen him on the bench in a long time.

Anonymous said...

In 2011, United Auto President Richard Parillo direct mailed a host of judges directly requesting their assistance in "reforming" the system, including many judges with pending United Auto cases on their docket. He has now poured a fortune into retaining two specific judges who rule on United Auto cases. One of these is Smith, his former employee. Why?

Anonymous said...

I don't know if grammatical mistakes count but I also noticed a split infinitive in the post.

Anonymous said...

Call the shumie for Smith's opponent. Put a fork in his ass. He's done.

The REN ( a venue) said...

This week at The REN (a venue) stop by in the early evening and hoist a chilled mug of your favorite adult beverage with the candidate of your choice as the REN (a venue) has become the unofficial place to hang out and wind down after a tough day of pressing the flesh and campaigning.
Special for the next two weeks: from 6-midnight, buy any drink, including top-shelf beverages, for any candidate on a ballot this August, and your drink is on the house!

Literati said...

@ 7:07 A split infinitive is not a grammatical "mistake." It's perfectly fine in English so long as the split infinitive avoids a clunk construction ("to go boldly where no one has gone before" lacks the ring of "to boldly go where no one has gone before").

Anonymous said...

Rump-in fairness, you have to be accurate with the facts. Rodney Smith didn't leave the prosecutor's office to take the bench. He was at the SA's (state attorney) office for 2-3 years. He left the SA's office to work at United Auto. He also worked for Allstate and Liberty Mutual at Rebecca Ridlers office. After moving around in the private sector, he was appointed to the bench in 08.

After taking the bench, Rodney Smith pissed off the plaintiffs bar as a county court judge and continued to do the same after taking the circuit bench with his appellate rulings.

Recent media coverage in the Miami Herald and Daily Business Review explains why Rodney has opposition---it's because of his rulings on the civil side and alleged bias or favoritism for United Automobile.

To be perfectly honest, when you see United Auto spending almost a quarter of million dollars to help Rodney Smith keep his seat, all that does is validate everything Smith's opponent (Carrazana) has been saying in the media.

Since United Auto is the most active litigant in courts of Miami-Dade, all this does is give the appearance of impropriety.

Anonymous said...

United Auto is "actively" in court because they refuse to pay valid claims and generally are a horrible insurance company.

They waste so much taxpayer money on their PIP suits. You don't see State Farm there every day getting slammed by judges.

Anonymous said...

With this "United Auto" thing...

since Smith's been in the "criminal division", how can that be relevant? I'm sorry, but he's been targeted because of racial and economic vulnerability...not over anything meritorious . This is akin to a bullshit explanation to a " Slappy" challenge.

We must band together to stick up for the worthy opponent and take away the incentive from such an obvious predator.

Anonymous said...

I want to publicly thank you for your recent call on the stock market. When you advocated selling stocks, I did just the OPPOSITE and increased my position substantially in my Vanguard S&P 500 fund. Today the S&P set an all-time high. The formula for success in the market is simple. Just do the OPPOSITE of whatever you recommend. This also applies to your picks with regard to recent Super Bowls. I do not wish to disparage you, but I have made a lot of money following this approach. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

For the State of Florida

Preamble

Definitions

Canon 1. A Judge Shall Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 2. A Judge Shall Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all of the Judge's Activities

Canon 3. A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

Judge Saenz has 297 United Auto Insurance cases on her docket while accepting the benefits of a large part of $226,000 in UNITED AUTO INSURANCE CO. PAC money for re-election .Anyone see a problem with this under the Canons of Judicial Conduct ?......What about if she gets reelected and has to preside over THOUSANDS United Auto Cases then?
Hector J Lombana

Hector J. Lombana

Anonymous said...

I want to clarify that although I resigned as campaign treasurer for Rodney Smith I continue to support him that I voted for him and that I urge all to vote for him. He has done a great job in Circuit Criminal and I am confident that he will do the right thing (recuse) if he is assigned to a United Auto Case in the future

Hector J Lombana

Anonymous said...

The Professor says:

3:32 - I can give you two reasons why the UAIC matter is relevant in regards to Rodney Smith's re-election:

1. Smith sits in the Circuit Appellate Division and most of the cases before the Circuit Judges in that division are PIP cases, and a majority of those are UAIC cases.

2. What makes you think that Smith will remain in the Criminal Division? Have you heard of rotation? He will be in Civil, most probably in the next rotation.

That should satisfy your curiosity.

Anonymous said...


And I lost money on the coin flip at the Super Bowl, all because I followed Rumps advice.

Anonymous said...

Liberal Baby Boomers see a black person criticized and are confident it can only be due to racism. News at 11.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 3:32:00 P.M.

You said, “Smith has been in the Criminal Division,” how can that be relevant? Here is your answer:

Is it highly relevant because Judge Rodney Smith decides appeals from the County Courts and most of those appeals are PIP insurance cases. Why is that important? Here is why:

As a circuit court judge, Rodney Smith decides appeals from the Miami county courts and many of those appeals are PIP cases. The decisions of the circuit court in appeals have a greater effect than the rulings by county court judges because the county court judges must follow the appellate rulings of the circuit court. Now you see the big picture? A decision by the circuit court in its appellate capacity has a domino effect on thousands of PIP cases in the county court. That is part of the reason why UNITED is breaking the bank to make sure Rodney keeps his seat. This is chess, not checkers.

The DBR quoted Carrazana in a recent article where he cited one appellate case that Smith ruled in favor of United that led him to challenge Smith. Here is the link to the article:

http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/id=1202666733909/United-Auto-PIP-Lawyers-Square-off-in-Judicial-Races?slreturn=20140720171730

When you look at the big picture, it is hard to argue that Carrazana is wrong for targeting Smith.

Nonetheless you state Smith is targeted because of racial and economical vulnerability? Not true. Carrazana has been ripped by people who believe he targeted Smith because Smith is black. Now the egg is on their face when Carrazana appears to have been right about Smith’s alleged favoritism and ties to United Auto.

But since you bought up the race card, I will reference the most interesting dynamic of the race card no one has yet to mention----and that is the irony of Rodney Smith’s ties to United Auto. The irony is that United Automobile has for many years been exploiting racial minorities such as latinos and african americans who live in poor neighborhoods and can’t afford first class auto insurance coverage. So you have to ask yourself, “Why does an African American judge like Rodney Smith have ties to a company like that?” Hhhmmmm… That is a question the African American community should be asking themselves…

Economic vulnerability you say? How so? When Smith, as an incumbent, has raised more money than his opponent… and the truth is, many law firms would not openly support his opponent because many firms are afraid to support someone who is challenging an incumbent for fear of retribution in the event the incumbent wins. Incumbents usually fund raise more anyway.

Truth be told, no one believes the race card noise anymore. Besides, today’s headlines in the Miami Herald don’t say Carrazana targeted Smith because he is black. The headlines instead say that United Auto paid $227,000 to support Rod Smith.

Needless to say, you don’t have to be a genius to figure out why United Auto shelled out 227k to keep Smith on the bench. Even a blind person can see what is happening.

Considering the recent news, voting for Smith is not good for the judiciary because it sends the message that United Auto can put whomever they want on the bench-and if United succeeds in keeping Smith on the bench, State Farm and other insurers will start doing the same. It will set a terrible precedent and it will destroy the independence of our judiciary.

Keeping it real and saying it like it is…

A Citizen who really wants Judicial Fairness

Anonymous said...

There is a bunch of hypocrisy here. No one is mentioning the generosity of the contributions (usually the max) the PIP lawyers have given through the years to judges that rule in their favor in PIP cases and routinely grant their motions for attorney fees in the $350-$500 an hour range. As criminal defense lawyers we have all represented insurance fraud defendants that rip PIP policies off with staged accidents and fake treatments in fraud clinics. We have all seen PIP lawyers representing the clinic as a corporate entity and filing PIP suits to colect the fraudulent bills while the clinic lawyer is in prison or on probation after being convicted of PIP fraud. Look at what you pay now for PIP insurance and compare it to what you paid 5 years ago for a lot more coverage due to the rampant PIP FRAUD. plaintiff attorney target judges too when they don't rule in their favor and sic oponents against them, so those holier than thou attitudes of rhe plaintiff lawyers are just prima facie evidence of their hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 7:20 pm

There is a big difference between individual contributions to a candidate (which is capped at $1,000) versus an ECO (electioneering communications organization) where the spending/contributions is UNLIMITED. Average citizens, even lawyers, cannot compete with the economic spending power of big insurance companies in an ECO.

Anonymous said...

For the record, the comment in this thread by "The Professor" was not written by the individual who has commented on this blog previously under that name.

Anonymous said...

The reality that the PIP plaintiffs' lawyers want to ignore (and make no mistake, most of your anti-Smith/Saenz commenters here are members of the plaintiffs' PIP bar) is that up until very recently they had a clear field in fundraising for the judges they appear before. They had effectively "purchased" the judiciary for years until carriers (yes, United Auto) woke up and realized it was a losing game to stay on the sidelines.

Past performance is an indicator of future results. We know what happens when plaintiffs' lawyers go on the bench, particularly the circuit bench. Mari Sampedro Iglesia and Valerie Manno Schurr have been lining their own pockets for years by writing favorable appellate opinions for their husbands' PIP practices. Where is the outrage over that? Of course, your commenters don't see even the appearance of impropriety in that, do they?

We know what we would be getting with Carrazana on the circuit bench even before we get into judicial temperament issues. I would be curious to hear some defense of Victoria Ferrer and how "fair" she would be, if elected, when she finally rotates back to civil and presides over PIP cases. Will she recuse herself in all Neil Gonzalez cases? Or those by anybody who greased her campaign this time around? Why not?

Come on, Hector Lombana, you want to be a kingmaker. Make a straight-face argument that running plaintiffs' PIP lawyers against judges somehow equates to a "fair" judiciary. Getting rid of judges you have a personal vendetta against, fine. At least man up and own your true motivation.

Anonymous said...

The Professor says:

While I agree no sitting judge should be targeted solely due to their ethnicity, race or gender, I have to say the reverse. NO judge should be given a pass on legitimate issues of fairness and impartiality due to their ethnicity, race or gender. In other words, the fact that Rodney Smith is African-American should not protect him from the fact that he has serious issues regarding his acceptance of over 1/4 million dollars of assistance from UAIC.

The system was set up to protect against such actions and influence on our judiciary and Smith and UAIC have clearly crossed the line. That does not mean that Carrazana is "the better choice" on legal acumen and raw ability. But, the fact that Smith is a risk of undue influence is the most deciding factor. Better someone not as capable, than someone capable of being unduly influenced.

I like Rodney. He is capable, but he has shown very poor judgment in his campaign. He has put himself in this position, and now I believe he must pay the price for that mistake. In showing bad judgment, I fear he will show the same bad judgment in his appellate decisions and his eventual actions in the civil division.

Sorry Rodney.

Anonymous said...

In the spirit of ad hominem attacks on the two sitting judges for receiving campaign support from UAIC, where has the discussion been about the clients the two challengers represent in the PIP arena?

For example, Victoria Ferrer works at Gonzalez & Associates. A solid chunk of that firm's clients have been convicted in the Sledgehammer fraud case going on in the S. District of Florida.

A good example would be the PIP clinic BIRD ROAD REHAB CENTER. Ms. Ferrer (and other firms) have filed several dozen cases on behalf of this clinic. To date, its "owner", its "administrator", its "office manager", and two of the "treating" therapists have all copped guilty pleas in federal court. In fact, its medical director, Dr. Lazaro "Laz" Rodriguez (a chiropractor) is currently a wanted fugitive from justice who is believed to have fled to Cuba.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/south-florida-insurance-fraud_n_3289964.html

And yet, Gonzalez & Associates still continues to litigate the above cases.

So while I can concede that UAIC does not always have clean hands, let us agree that the challengers also get funding from individuals with dirty fingernails.

Anonymous said...

So when was the last time a client funding your child's private school education, leased Panamera, side-piece, or yacht made you compromise your ethical boundaries? Would you feel happier if a Judge said "No I can't possibly accept you legally supporting my (re-)election"? When was the last time your check, your wife's check, your child's check, and everyone in your firms check was returned by a candidate because they didn't want to appear improper, or they just took the checks and said "Thanks, and I will recuse myself when you appear before me"? To throw a double whammy, by your logic Carazana is also not qualified or compromised because PIP lawyers have funded a PAC for him.

Since people have pointed out that Smith sits on the appellate panel and does hear appeals that involve PIP cases, does he somehow get the other two judges to drink his kool-aid too, because last time I checked appellate panel was three judges, and one person a majority does not make.

In his big moment to say why he is running against Smith and show how Smith has made horrible decisions and does not follow the law, the village idiot only brings up ONE case. ONE CASE, really? Uno momento papi, if that's the measuring stick for an unqualified Judge why don't we just abolish the judiciary as a whole, charge admission, and set up a boxing ring, ufc cage, or whatever other challenge (dominoes, spades, chess or checkers included) you can think of, let the defendant and alleged victim play and the winner, if av gets to sentence, if defendant he gets to go home. The more counts the more you have to win (3 counts = best of 3).

If you want to change the way judges are put into office kudos for that. Lets get to work doing it. But don't say a person is wrong for not condemning a legal entity who lawfully supports them.

If you are put into office by JNC you have to go up for retention vote by people every 6 years; if not retained the JNC gets to field applications and renominate someone. If you run for an open seat or newly created seat you have to face a re-election every 6 years.

Anonymous said...

The Professor has a good point. Rodney didn’t have to accept 1/4 of a million bucks in support from United’s ECO/PAC. Yes, the money from an ECO is theoretically “independent” ... but Smith didn’t have to accept it. He could have asked United to stop the mailers. Now the net result of the United ECO/PAC money is that it validates Carrazana’s stated reason for targeting Smith and now people are talking about this on the air waves on Spanish talk radio. Needless to say, for a judicial candidate in this community to be associated with United Auto in any way is not good.

I don’t recall every seeing this kind of drama in a judicial election which all started with Carrazana being fired from the Panter firm for his decision to run against Smith. Speaking of the Panter firm, they look like bigger jerks now for firing their associate.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, a person that is requesting that Hector Lombana to man up, writes the blog as an anonymous writer. Why don't you man up, state who you are, and who you work for? Perhaps you are a United cronie!

Juan Gonzalez said...

I've practiced against Judge Smith when he was an A.S.A practiced before him in County and Circuit court and have observed him presiding over his calendar. He is a man of integrity and decency who treats everyone he encounters with respect. Donations are a necessary part of the election system, Judge Smith cannot be bought.

Anonymous said...

The Professor says:

I'm sorry Juan, but being bought for a max individual contribution does not seem likely, but for $225K, that is too much to forget and ignore. The use of a PAC by Parillo is a quid pro quo for Rodney.

Believing that this will have no effect on Smith, knowing that Parillo will punish him if he does not perform, is beyond naive. The Rodney Smith you knew is compromised and damaged goods.

If the rendition here on the blog of what Smith had to say at CABA is accurate, then his cold and callus answer to the question raised shows he has purposely and knowingly accepted Parillo's help. He owes Parillo, and you know Parillo will remind Smith at every opportunity.

Again and again I say: Sorry Rodney, I like you, but you must go.

Anonymous said...

Professor

The earlier rendition on this blog concerning what took place at the CABA luncheon is accurate. I was there. Carrazana did great. He was direct and to the point. But Rodney did not help himself. When asked whether PACs are good for judicial elections, Rodney gave a politician’s answer by not answering the question. Rodney simply said that “(a) PACs are legal, (b) he has no control over them and (c) that he stands by his record.”------that was ALL he said. SMH…. By not addressing the issue, Rodney gave credence to the current perception about his ties to United. For him not acknowledge that there is a problem (when we all know there is) makes Rodney look bad and unfortunately, less than honest… and for Rodney to also say he has no control over them (PACs) is not true in this case. I’ll explain why. On this blog but I think on another thread, someone said that the owner of United Auto held a fundraiser for Rodney a week or so before United created the PAC. That is true. So that being the case, what does that tell you? For Rodney to feign ignorance or claim he has no control over what happened or didn’t know what was happening just isn’t believable. There is no doubt in mind that Parillo must have spoken to Rodney about the ECO/PAC at the fundraiser. The timing of fundraiser and ECO/PAC can’t be ignored. Also, keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with a law firm holding a fundraiser for a judicial candidate or judge-but this was not a law firm doing the fundraiser. This was a LITIGANT with unlimited spending power and who happens to be the most active litigant in Miami Dade County-and also happens to be Rodney’s former employer. Put that into perspective people.

Now the strange thing about the CABA luncheon is that Rodney did get a HUGE applause after the Q&A. It was surreal b/c it was as if everyone forgot that he never answered the question, but at the same time everyone knew Rodney was full of shit. Crazy.. Perhaps that happened because Rodney is the incumbent and more people know Rodney than his opponent…

As for Carrazana, like I said, he did well in the Q&A. I don’t know him personally, but I admire and respect his courage for taking on a popular incumbent. Most folks don’t have the balls to do what he has done. He didn’t quit after he was canned by the Panter firm (when most folks would). He didn’t quit despite going against a popular incumbent who has ALOT more support, a lot more money plus a generous donation of $227000 from his former employer (United Auto) in an ECO/PAC. Plus there were personal attacks against him and his candidacy (especially here) or motive for targeting Rodney .... but at the end of it all, Carrazana was right—and Rodney’s performance at CABA luncheon was the final nail in the coffin. Rodney's performance gave more credence to Carrazana’s position. No matter what happens in this election, win or lose, Carrazana has earned respect (well, in my book he has). As for Rodney, if he wins, he still loses because the stigma of his association with United will remain with him and that is unfortunate.

Anonymous said...

News update. United Auto has now spent about $350k in support of Rodney Smith and Nuria Saenz. When this is over, there should be an investigation regarding where this money is going.

Rodney and Saenz should step down from the bench. This is a black eye for the judiciary.

If anyone wants to see the expenditure, here is the link:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/committees/ComDetail.asp?account=64180

Anonymous said...

The Professor says:

I will be watching tomorrow night. I will be immensely disappointed and deeply concerned if Rodney Smith is reelected. It depends on the turnout in the Hispanic vote.

If Rodney is counting on the Anglo, or even the African-American vote to carry him, it is a misplaced reliance.

If he wins, I will be watching every opinion with his name on it. Since I have an interest, I will be watching when he goes to civil, every ruling on discovery issues, rulings on Motions in Limine and MSJ's. Where I see bias for UAIC I will not hesitate to call it. In other words Rodney, I will be watching your every move and will call you out. You are damaged and suspect goods.

This sorry affair will be brought to the attention of the the new governor's office when he takes office. Appropriate legislation relating to judicial elections, which is constitutional, will be proposed.

The Florida Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, which is responsible for rule changes for the Code of Judicial Conduct, should consider a rule regarding acknowledgement by judicial candidates of PAC contributions and in-kinds in campaign funding reports for the public to see who is trying to buy a judge.

Smith has to be watched because Parillo is the Ebola virus on our judicial system, and patient zero is Smith. The rights of all who depend upon our judges to be fair and impartial must be protected.

Anonymous said...

What is the difference between a pac and a bunch of plaintiff pip attys getting together and contributing 100k, nothing. United is tired of judges not following the law. Judges just look at them as deep pockets and constantly are ruling against the LAW to satisfy the plaintiff bar. They just want a fair trial period. Why don't you just call up United and talk to them. You will see for yourself.

Anonymous said...

The Professor says:

8:54 - You write like I have never had a conversation with anyone from UAIC or even Parillo himself. I have, on more than one occasion. It is not about judges not following the law. It is about influencing judges to legitimatize the actions of UAIC and the Parillo family designed to maximize profits for them, and minimize, or in some cases deny any, payable benefits for insureds. This is about their greed, not the law.

As I have stated numerous times, don't even try to compare a few thousand dollars raised from a GROUP of reported contributors, and a quarter of million dollars spent by a SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR through a PAC with no reporting by the the candidate, no accountability to the voting public, especially when that contributor has as many as 5000 cases pending at any one time.

Either you are Parillo tying to justify your attempts to undermine the judicial system, or you are just as naive as others. Rodney is complicit in all of this. HE CONSPIRED WITH PARILLO to accomplish this. You just like Rodney and don't want to see the damage he and Parillo have done.

Anonymous said...

I have litigated thousands of cases against United Auto. I can say by far they are the most evil insurance company on the planet. Basically, they have a very corrupt business model:

1) Take in millions of dollars of auto insurance policy premiums from small local insurance agents from economically disadvantaged people.
2) When your insureds get in accidents, deny 90% of the resulting claims.
3) Use the Court system as a bottleneck. Deny, delay, don't pay, hire corrupt doctors to say that none of the treatment was needed, solely to create an issue for fact for a jury. Go to trial on every last case, because even if you deny 5000 claims per year, you realistically will only go to trial on 50 of them per year. Refuse to settle any case, even if it becomes overwhelmingly apparent that you are wrong. Instead, take up the courtroom for that month with a total loser case, just to create a bottleneck. Kick, stomp, spit, and scream at the result. Appeal for no reason. And when you lose and you have to pay attorney fees because you have illegally denied a claim, complain like the attorneys are stealing from your grandma's pension. Appeal the fee awards too. Hire attorneys that will only "drink the Kool Aid", who display a bitter contempt for any judge or attorney that dares to oppose United, because United is obviously right and any judgment against United must be illegal and fraudulent.
4) In a "Gus Fring"-esque attempt to deflect attention from your horrible, illegal, unethical behavior, claim that everyone ELSE is actually the fraudster, everyone else is a thief, everyone else should be in jail. Blow out of proportion the amount of fraud in the system. This hides the fact that you are a white collar criminal yourself.
5) Hire a special "investigations" department that will bully, harass, and intimidate everyone who makes a claim in a way that would make the SS proud. Sue medical providers on trumped up charges so that the providers have to endure expensive litigation.
6) Bribe, cheat, and pay for as much corruption and influence in your favor as possible. Hire a former SAG who is friends with most of the third DCA as your appellate attorney. Bribe Rick Scott to pass bad laws. And now their poison is seeping into our judiciary.

ANYONE on here who says ANYTHING that United does is somehow legitimate is someone from the Office of the General Counsel of UAIG. Nobody else would defend them. These people are truly human garbage, sycophants to a vampire squid, hoping for some of the owner's crumbs to fall into their lap, while post-hoc rationalizing their support of an unethical insurance company.

Rodney Smith was a part of this axis of evil at one time. He may be a decent criminal judge, but I can think of at least 10 opinions in Circuit Appellate that he has made that ignore statutory, policy, or rule based language, in favor of United Auto. He does not deserve to be a judge.

I know someone who used to work with Rodney Smith's campaign. Early on this person told me that Smith did not understand why Carrazana targeted him. I informed this person that it was because Carrazana saw his 11th Circuit Appellate Decisions as obvious suck up moves to United. At that point, Rodney has about $20k in is campaign account. This person told me that Rodney was just going to beg Parillo (United's Owner) for money. Now Parillo has given $350,000 to an ECO which supports two judicial candidates (Saenz and Smith).

Saenz is even worse. United LOVES her because she has done ONE jury trial in the last five years. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything in that Courtroom.

I know many of you like Rodney, but you have not seen the damage he has done in his position on the 11th Circuit Appellate. He really has been devastating to the small businesses who try to make a living helping people like United Auto's insureds, and to anyone who tries to make an insurance claim in small claims court.

So there, Rumpole. You said there was no reason for him to go. That is your reason. Respond to THAT, please.