You as a reader like the Blog. The humor, the insightful commentary by a blogger who ONLY blogs and whose blog hasn't become a stepchild to a star-studded career as a Podcaster like you know who. Just call him Mr. Hollywood, Esq.
But as much as you like regular blog posts, you LOVE the County Court updates. Can't live without them if truth be told. So here is another one for you to revel in. The BIG news is you do not have to attend arraignments in County Court if you file an NOA, but they would like you to.
Update from Judge Faber:
All new cases in County Criminal are being set for arraignment regardless of whether a NOA/Discovery demand has been filed by counsel. There is no penalty for failure to appear when these documents are filed, the case will simply be set in a trial posture, but it is an effort to address all our cases before they are placed in that status in an effort to try and resolve them. We would appreciate counsel appearing for these arraignment hearings despite those documents being filed as it may facilitate resolution.
All current trial cases in County Criminal are being set for reports in each division to determine whether that case can be resolved without a trial. Attorneys are expected to attend those hearings.
Jury trials are not possible until February 1st pursuant to an order from Chief Judge Soto. Those jury trial cases that are certified ready (all outstanding pre-trial motions and issues resolved) will be scheduled after that date.
Best and be safe,
Robin Faber
Query: We are not County Court mavens. It is not our milieu. So we may be wrong about this, but if a lawyer files an NOA then do not the rules of procedure excuse her from attending the arraignment? If so, what makes the update "news" ? Just wondering.
And now the all important Security Card/Access Update that you have been anxiously waiting for. There is a reason you pay dues to the FACDL and this is it. An epistle from the Prime Minister of Defense, the head honcho of the Miami Chapter of the FACDL:
In light of the suspension of trials until February and the continued non-use of the Gerstein Building, I reached out to AOC and requested that the courthouse ID expiration be extended further than the February 28 deadline previously set. They agreed with our position, that such a brief extension doesn’t really do much for us because its pretty clear we still wont be “back” enough to even need the IDs. Further, the amount of interpersonal contact needed to distribute the IDs is just not safe.
As such, AOC has extended the expiration of the courthouse IDs until July 31, 2021. Come late-spring, we will discuss whether another extension will be necessary, or if we can begin the renewal process at that point in time. I had originally requested an extension until December 31, 2021, and this is not exactly what I wanted, but it’s at least a little bit better for now. As with everything else, this is a fluid situation and we are staying on top of it.
Rumpole says "well done"! Now how about extending that IRS deadline until July like last year?
32 comments:
Has anyone demonstrated better timing than the Big Easy E who sold his practice, his moderate Miami Real Estate empire and decamped to a compound on Penobscot Isle, Maine, where he creates water colors of Maine's amazing water fowl, and lends his expertise to various nationwide class action lawsuits while making stunning market trades. His widely sought "Ahead of Market Moves" weekly newsletter is a closely held piece of market gold to those lucky enough to be recipients of his sage investment advice.
Some of the short advice has minted a new class of millionaires.
It's nice to hear of a Miami- REG lawyer making good. There is life after DUIs.
Has any former public defender in recent memory done better the the man the myth the legend, CASH PATEL?
You gotta go see what is going on with Attorney Jonathan Schwartz. Run him by Bar # 579361.
He got found guilty and is pending yet another complaint. This one may get him suspended for a long time.
It appears that no Bar rules apply to him.
I myself and me am shocked to learns that clients and witnesses are not showing up for arrangements. It is in my crucial experience in criminal law the most important part of the case where all of the case is arranged (duh). witnesses have to agree to depositories whiere they will be deposited as to their knowings of the evidence, The trial and sentecnings have to be set and all defendants have to make plans to attend all depositories and trial and sentecning and I would accomposh all this at the arrangement. So in my courtroom, as John Fitzsimmons Cannady said as his president address let the words go forth to all people that they must attend my arrangements this will allow for a faster way to sentence the case and peoples.
Rumpole: When are you going to put an end to this treatment of Ms Aponte? It really is inappropriate and unattractive.Joe Klock
I think the more people complain the more people who dont like her will continue with the parody.
parodies are legal
In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the “actual malice” standard, saying the First Amendment protects the right to parody public figures, even if the parodies are “outrageous” or inflict severe emotional distress. The case arose from a parody of Campari liqueur ads in which celebrities spoke about their “first time” drinking the liqueur. Jerry Falwell – a well-known conservative minister and political commentator – was the subject of such a parody in Hustler, a sexually explicit magazine. The Court ruled that public figures may not be awarded damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that false factual statements were made with “actual malice.”
I hear you
I sort of think if she can't stand the heat she should not have run. check the blog when judge milt hirsch became a judge and there were tons of things like this ridiculing him for opinions citing tom sawyer and being pompous. It died out.
I understand someone or some people are making fun of her inexperience but the fact is she is perhaps the most inexperienced judge to ever get elected to circuit court. No trials. Probably no depos. It really is going to be a big problem for lawyers who need an experienced judge. I am certain based on the civil practice Mr. Klock that the worst possible thing that could happen to some plaintiff's case that maybe you have invested over $100,000.00 in costs in would be for me to be a judge and assigned to the civil division and handle your case. I've never done a summary judgement motion. I don't know where the jury instructions are for civil cases or how its done or how damages are calculated.
Now you know how I might feel if I have a stand your ground defense in a murder case or an entrapment defense in a drug case or need to file a motion to disclose a CI and Ms Aponte is the judge. Or how will she decide on the appropriateness of a question in a depo that is certified if she has never taken a depo? Or how will she rule on a challenge to a prosecution strike of juror if she has never picked a jury? Or an objection to relevance in an opening statement?
That is probably why some lawyers are quite upset she is a judge. But it's just a guess.
Say what you want but at least I air my laundry and print your criticisms.
HR
Joe,
Do you have any idea how bad Rosy has acted and how likely it will be that she is removed from the bench for her ambulance chasing? I don't know Rosy but, I know what I read and she has no business being a member of the Bar. The JQC is brutal and swift. Trust me, she'll be toast in no time so, the insults are not out of line but, also not worth reading anymore.
I'm just sayin...
Mr. 9: 31 am,
I read the Jonathan Schwartz files. Wow, he even lied about possible mitigation. Has anyone ever seen Mr. Schwartz speak the truth? I sat in court once and watched as he sent in a lawyer to ask for a continuance because he was in trial with another judge in another county. Yup, the judge didn't trust him and called the other judge and sure enough, he was not in a trial. That kind of bullshit makes us all look bad.
So that's two no votes for any more parodies of the judge elect. This is not a democracy but I am listening. If I should not post any more I won't.
I love Fake Rosy, give me more, MORE!
Aponte is a disgrace to the Florida Bar and soon she will be the dumbest most ignorant person ever to wear a black robe. And in Miami that is a very high bar to surpass. The JQC will be very busy dealing with her mistakes. Hopefully she will be buried someplace where she can do the least harm.
Rumpole: If you were appointed a judge and were assigned to civil, I would have no problem arguing anything to you because you are accomplished and smart. You would read what was put in front of you, and if you didn't know something, you would have no problem telling the lawyers before you to brief or argue a point because you were not familiar with it. We will see how Ms Aponte does. I think she will do well; you have your reservations. I respect that. I hope that I am correct, and not just because of the "wager.".
But, she is experienced as a criminal lawyer and I know that we will be facing two or three new criminal judges in the felony division come January. So, we know, at least for soem period of time, they are likely to follow the State's lead. Is that better than Ms Aponte? I do not think so.
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to go slow on the Aponte front. As a brother to seven sisters, all accomplished, I am sensitive to bullying females, although I recognize gender is not a "Get Out Of Jail" card. Thank you, and I hope that you are wrong about her and that I am correct. Lives hang in the balance, and we see too often that people do not treat diverse defendants as if they are people with families, souls, and lives. Isn't that why we do what we do? For sure, criminal lawyers in state court are not minting money. You have to go to federal to get the big money.
Rump:
I think the fake Rosy comments bring down the blog. They're mean-spirited, often vaguely racist (in their use of stilted English designed to parody a native-Spanish speaker) and -- perhaps worst of all -- not terribly funny.
What's more, presuming they're being authored by an attorney -- and that seems likely -- they likely violate of Rule 4-8.2(a):
"A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . ."
Notice there's no exception in the rule for "statements" made by those lacking the courage to attach their name.
Now, I'm a free speech absolutist, near as makes no difference. As for me, the brave fake Rosy poster can say what he pleases. (We all agree it's a man, writing in a misogynistic parody of a woman, right?) But if the RPC have anything to do with articulating a standard of decent, professional behavior, these posts clearly fall outside of that. (I also admit it's personal: Something about the comments' anonymous character rankles all the more -- some fellow taking shots from hiding, knowing he'll never have to face a real response.)
Hey, it's fake Rosy's moral hazard, and it's your blog. But you asked about our preference (damned rare for you to do) so I thought I'd share.
She is being made fun of for her national origin. The pidgin English nature of the posts makes that clear. It's nasty and offensive. The author of the posts may as well be signing off with the old "will the last white man moving north please bring the flag" (or whatever it is that the old bumper sticker said).
Re: Attorney Jonathan Schwartz
I read up on the man. Clearly the Supreme Court does not want a defense lawyer defending his client.
A lying prosecutor files a bullshit complaint. After a full hearing a Circuit Judge finds him not guilty. Then some politicians pull some political nonsense and the not guilty is transformed into suspension and probation.
The kid he saved went on to graduate from Stetson, instead of the long prison term the lying prosecutor wanted.
When your "justice" system is run by folks that railroaded this poor guy it is little wonder that so few people respect it.
Rump:
I think the fake Rosy comments bring down the blog. They're mean-spirited, often vaguely racist (in their use of stilted English designed to parody a native-Spanish speaker) and -- perhaps worst of all -- not terribly funny.
What's more, presuming they're being authored by an attorney -- and that seems likely -- they likely violate of Rule 4-8.2(a):
"A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . ."
Notice there's no exception in the rule for "statements" made by those lacking the courage to attach their name.
Now, I'm a free speech absolutist, near as makes no difference. As for me, the brave fake Rosy poster can say what he pleases. (We all agree it's a man, writing in a misogynistic parody of a woman, right?) But if the RPC have anything to do with articulating a standard of decent, professional behavior, these posts clearly fall outside of that. (I also admit it's personal: Something about the comments' anonymous character rankles all the more -- some fellow taking shots from hiding, knowing he'll never have to face a real response.)
Hey, it's fake Rosy's moral hazard, and it's your blog. But you asked about our preference (damned rare for you to do) so I thought I'd share.
Ok I am not sure how many people are rising to her defense but I guess the criticism of the poor English being a mean comment or mocking her heritage (whatever it may be) put me over the edge. No more for the time being pending any new act that invites more criticism.
I didn't see an attack based on her being Hispanic. I thought the parody was based on her deficient performance at the debate that was recorded and has been viewed.
But for now discretion is the better part of valor. No more.
And BTW I would be a AWFUL civil court judge. I wouldn't know where anything is. The rules of civil procedure. The jury instructions. I ve never seen a standard jury instruction for a tort. I would be awful.
Robert- assume a lawyer wrote the fake rosy and attached his or her name- are they protected because it is obviously a parody?
Also, are you at all offended as I clearly am, about the allegations of her using paralegals to go to accident scenes to solicit cases? Aren't you a civil lawyer?
Anyway, your commentary has convinced me. I won't allow any more unless the tone changes.
"assume a lawyer wrote the fake rosy and attached his or her name- are they protected because it is obviously a parody?"
You know what happens to attorneys who openly criticize judges, even when the denunciations are well founded. You yourself covered it.
http://justicebuilding.blogspot.com/2007/12/aleman-blogging-and-bar.html
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_agrees_to_reprimand_for_blog_tirade
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-mtblog-139884-no_free_speech_for_lawyers_in-story.html
The Florida Bar has made clear time and again that truth is no defense to speaking ill of the judiciary. "Appearance" is what matters above all.
Plenty of actual judicial corruption and impropriety was only discovered because of blog "rumors" that snowballed into something else. All the bootlicking lawyers here who carp about anonymity and demand people identify themselves are just carrying water for higher-ups.
"If you feel your comment is a legitimate concern, then why not put your name to it? If your goal is to promote a positive change, then why not put your name on it?"
Those words, uttered to Tonya Alanez, sound more like a threat than a comment. Gardiner, who is the subject of plenty of rumors of judicial improprieties herself, is basically saying, "Put your name on it and then watch me and my powerful friends destroy you."
https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/is-the-wheel-of-broward-justice-coming-off-6451667
Rump:
The Bar has gone after lawyers under that rule for statements in appeals that said no more than, essentially, "the court got it wrong" -- something you'd think an appeal would more or less HAVE to say. So as they say in your world, you might beat the rap, but you (maybe) wouldn't beat the ride.
My opposition to the comments here should absolutely NOT be taken to mean I favor state action against this (or nearly any) speech. Part of my practice is defending lawyers against the Bar and, yes, I'd happily defend the comments here against Bar enforcement on the notion that an obvious parody cannot really be a "statement" that falsely (or recklessly) impugns a judge's integrity or character. I've actually been into the case law on this rule and didn't see that defense litigated, but it might work.
Yes, my practice is civil law (commercial litigation, mostly), and although I don't do PI, yes sending folks to accident scenes -- besides being a patent violation of the RPCs regarding solicitation -- is appalling. That said, I haven't any idea if such conduct is relevant to J. Aponte, and -- even if it were -- my views on the Fake Rosy comments would stand. As I said, my heartburn with the comments was that they struck me as vaguely racist -- and I sort of despise anonymous shot-taking.
I mean (sniffle) I was just (sniff sniff) having some fun I sit in this condo all day and night long cashing dividend checks and watching hulu and netflix and I thought people (sniffle) were enjoying it and now everyone hates me! (sob sob!) and I thought it was (sniffle) and fun and now I'm a pariah like Fake Tannenbaum and no one every heard (sniffle) from him again once the real Tannenbaum put him in his place and I don't have any friends except my cats and I have nowhere to go and I finally thought I had something that made me popular and relevant and now I'm....just .....(sniffle) ....a big nothing (sob sob) and nobody likes me, and uhh...I just,,,uh, would like to say I'm sorry and I won't do it again and I'll just go back to my TV and on line words with friends and chess and stuff and thank you for this Rumpole and I won't bother anyone ever again.
Well Robert I very much respect your view, I did not see the racism but then although I have eyes I do not always see and they will not be posted anymore despite my posting the apology. That's the end of it.
I fully believe she worked for a firm which was run by an out of state lawyer since disbarred in his home state of NY and that, based on the multiple affidavits submitted by former clients, the evidence of her participation in solicitation of cases at accident scenes is overwhelming and it is very disappointing a lawyer who engages in such outrageous conduct was elected. Her performance at the Wilkie Ferguson Bar Association meeting was astounding. She could not put together intelligent sentences and her use of a pejorative term for African Americans was unbelievably ignorant and her defense of the use of the term by citing Megan Markle was comical if the situation was not so dire. She apparently has not demonstrated one whit of intellectual curiosity about the law and I fully believe she lied when, struggling to find any community service she performed, she said she went to the Camillus house and cooked. I called the Camillus house. They run a professional service and they just don't let people in off the streets to cook food. Its a figment of her imagination.
We now have a circuit court judge who can sentence people to death, who can incarcerate people for decades, who can remove children from their parents, who has not, it has been alleged, even taken a deposition much less try a case. I cannot imagine a worse candidate for judge other than me, but for other reasons.
But we get the officials we deserve and we elected her so now she will be a judge in a few weeks. so we shall see.
"My opposition to the comments here should absolutely NOT be taken to mean I favor state action against this (or nearly any) speech. Part of my practice is defending lawyers against the Bar"
If you defend lawyers against the Bar, you know openly speaking ill of judges will bring the Bar's wrath, even if the lawyers tried to make those criticisms cordial and genteel in appellate briefs. If you have some brilliant legal strategies to stop the Bar's free speech suppression, go for it. But lawyers shouldn't have to pay you a retainer to be able to denounce a lackluster judge.
"and I sort of despise anonymous shot-taking"
Guess you "despise" the anonymous informants who brought down Nixon?
You don't support state/official punishment of speech, but you "despise" people who try to speak so as to avoid that "ride"? Forgive them for not having unflappable faith in your Bar defenses.
For the time being, she's been assigned to Circuit Civil. Next campaign slogan: "Give a Chaser a Chance"
Hey PC correct people! Can a Hispanic Woman be dumb? Can an African American be dumb? Or can we only call white Europeans dumb? I think the parody and criticism of the INDIVIDUAL (lord forbid I identify him/her by name) was spot on. The parody did not attack him/her for his/her heritage. The parody made fun of him/her because by all accounts the electors of Miami Dade elected a person who is not intellectually capable of being a judge. Simple as that. There are plenty of dumb judges spanning all sexes and races.
In the immortal words of the greatest military leader our country has ever produced, Sgt Hulka, "LIGHTEN UP FRANCIS!"
Bubba out
9:16 The parody suggested that she could not put words r sentences together or spell. I guarantee you that if she were in a protected category, that type of attack would not be tolerated. Furthermore, you have pemitted people to suggest that there was something improper about her firm in Miami, when her operating agreement and the status of the New York partner was before the bar and ruled upon before she joined them down here. Finally, she has taken over 50 depositions, did many mediations, and has appeared in court regularly.
Finally, what really irritates me is that if she had not chosen to run against someone who people liked, this problem would not have arisen. For future reference, folks who run against an incumbent should find out whether you and your friends think well of the incumbent. Joe Klock
I do not like electing judges. I also do not like membership in the Federalist Society to be a litmus test for appointment, but as long as that is the case, I guess the only other way of getting on the bench is to run.
So maybe before the anonymous trasher, who probably strung toilet paper in the front yards of disfavored neighbors in Halloweens past, attack her as a judge, he should go into her courtroom and observe.
Meanwhile, you might take some time to see who is being assigned to criminal. If criminal lawyers financially supported the election campaigns of judges in that division, those judges would not have to run two year election laps in Civil and could stay where they do excellent jobs and protect those who need protection.
OMG ROSY you did---- strike that--- 10:37 am...Rosy did over 50 depositions!!! Are you freaking kidding me ? And she is only a circuit court judge? With FIFTY DEPOSITIONS???? Why didn't she apply for the 3rd DCA or the Federal Courts with OVER FIFTY DEPOSITIONS?>???
RUMPOLE YOU NEED TO APOLOGIZE IMMEIDATELY '
You have allowed a lawyer with an amazing and almost unbelievable* amount of experience to be attacked on your blog as inexperienced. Did you know she did OVER FIFTY DEPOSITIONS?
Why isn't she being considered for Joe Biden's solicitor general of the United States with that type of experience? Jesus H F'ing christ have we all gone mad here allowing a woman of such wide and deep experience to be attacked like this??
Please Rumpole, immediately apologize and I hope the judges are reading this and with the election of a new chief judge about to take place in January 2021, I hope they realize the amazing talent that is joining their ranks and with OVER FIFTY DEPOSITONS she SHOULD IMMEDIATELY MADE CHIEF JUDGE until she can be elevated to the supreme court.
* yeah unbelievable in the sense that anyone with a brain would actually argue this as proof of experience. She hustled cases with runners, and by the time a new PD out of law school is sworn into the Bar that have taken over fifty depositions you idiot. 50 depos is NOTHING except if you are an unqualified slug. Then I guess it is everything.
Rumpole Why don't you make 4:23 identify himself. You said she had never taken a deposition. You said that she had improperly worked for a disbarred New York lawyer. You have allowed people to say that she will be disciplined for various bad acts. There are no pending bar complaints against her. How about just a little class? But you know, you have said in the past that if you do not like what is written, don't read it. You win. I won't. Joe Klock
You have no idea how blogs worked. Try creating one and learn. I doubt you will get readers but you will understand how it works. I cannot, repeat, cannot make anyone identify themselves. I get a comment to review. If the person clicks "anonymous" as you did in your last comment, I cannot force them to identify themselves. The person made an unsubstantiated claim that your pal took fifty depos. First, we have no idea if that is true, and second, as the other parody comment mentioned, a first year PD out of law school takes fifty depos a month before they even get admitted to the bar. So I am not falling down in shock and awe, were the comment to be true. What I know is this- we have a circuit court judge who has the power of life and death who for certain has never picked a jury and never tried a case. How is she going to know what to do when Gail Levine or any experienced prosecutor tries to steamroll my client during voire dire, since she has never been in that position?
Second, and I know this for a fact- she worked for a law firm AND PERSONALLY INTERACTED with the runners who went to the scenes of accidents and solicited clients for her firm. She knew this. And I know for a fact she knew it.
And now she is a judge with no moral character that I can see and clearly no experience other than maybe fifty depos. I am sorry, but with a 150 plus jury trials and about 55 OA's in appellate courts, I am not falling down over her "experience" as a litigator.
Some "win"
because we all have lost with someone like that on the bench.
Mesdames et Messieurs, and forgive me for using the formal French, but as a student of early American History, I often fall back into the language that Thomas Jefferson loved. Because as we are fond of saying, Ce n’est pas la mer à boire. (It is not as if you have to drink the sea).
There is much to the contretemps about me in the comments section of the blog. May I say, or rather quote, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." ~ Louis Brandeis, Supreme Court Justice.
I of course will be starting the next part of my wonderful legal journey as your Judge within a few weeks. While meditating, as few thoughts came to mind:
First, I support the blog, because as we all know
"The Press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a Free and Unrestrained Press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a Free Press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people." ~ Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice
And second Homines quod volunt credunt- men believe what they want to.
As to the path I have taken in my life before this honor, I aver
Si hîc esses, seires qua me vellicen- nobody can fully understand another person's hardship.
So I ask that all the mean comments about me and the fighting cease. We are all one people. We are all one nation. I am a healer not a divider. I find the Fake Rosy humorous, because if we cannot laugh at ourselves, what are we? And if we are not for ourselves, then who are we?
I will be publishing a bi-annual law school review article on the interesting issues I encounter in my new journey. I invite all readers of the this blog, friend and foe alike, to drop their arms, unclench their fists, stop their angry typing and blogging, and join me in a new Miami Dade County where each of us, contributes our abilities, and those who are needy have their needs fulfilled.
I remain,
Your obedient humble and Public Servant....
Judge Elect You Know Who...
Joe, you are not going to beat the readers of this blog. You somehow convinced Rumpole not to post the Fake Rosy stuff, which I thought was funny and not racist, but never mind.
For those of us with a sophisticated sense of humor, the fake you know who post, with it's uber-intellectual content, is more of a spoof on the judge you are defending, then the fake rosy stuff. Because we all know she is not that smart, so the foreign languages, the latin, the quotations of supreme court justices does more to mock her than someone parodying her where they use the term arrangement for arraignment.
So even when you win you lose. Welcome to the blog loser.
Joe, Ask el Aponte to release the bar complaints and the bar responses and findings.
Post a Comment