MILT HIRSCH'S CONSTITUTIONAL CALENDAR ..... & A POSTSCRIPT ON JASON BLOCH .....

 

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

MILT HIRSCH'S CONSTITUTIONAL CALENDAR .....

John Provoo passed away 23 years ago this week. Who is John Provoo you ask:

"In the weeks and months before December 7, 1941 – that “day that will live forever in infamy” – the plan was simple.  When the armies of Imperial Japan came sweeping through southeast Asia, the American forces based in the Philippines would fall back upon positions in and around Manilla Bay, there to await rescue by America’s Pacific Fleet.  The plan was simple because it had to be.  America’s military presence in that part of the South Pacific was inadequate for any purpose but tactical retreat, and Americans burdened by the Great Depression were in no mood to fund an expanded military presence on the far side of the globe.

In the wake of their surprise attack on Hawaii, the Japanese destroyed Clark Field, America’s airbase in the Philippines, as well as other military and naval installations in and around Manilla Bay.  The Pacific Fleet, which according to the plan was to rescue the American forces in the Philippines, had been sent to the bottom of Pearl Harbor.

American and allied forces fell back upon such positions as were available to them, chiefly upon a barren rock called Corregidor.  Bereft of supplies, bereft of reinforcements, bereft of hope, they held out for four full months, obliging the enemy to engage them until April 9, 1942.  The fate that awaited the souls who surrendered was reported in the American press as the “Bataan Death March.”

During and after the Death March one American soldier, John Provoo, formed an alliance with his Japanese captors.  He was given decent nutrition and sanitary living conditions.  In return, he acted as a guard and informer against his own comrades, and later even made radio broadcasts for Imperial Japan.

It was not until 1949 that the United States Department of Justice was prepared to go forward against Provoo on charges of treason and related crimes.  The delay was entirely understandable.  Provoo’s crimes, committed in 1942, were beyond the reach of the law until the war ended.  Even then, there were military, economic, and other claims on the nation’s post-war attention that took priority over the prosecution of Provoo.  And when prosecutors did begin to assemble their case, they had precious little to work with: most of the witnesses were dead, and many of the survivors were in far-off Japan or Australia.  

In the meantime, on September 5, 1946, Provoo had found the perfect hiding place: incredible as it seems, he had quietly reenlisted in the United States Army.  He was stationed at Ft. Meade, in Maryland.

In June of 1949, the Department of Justice arranged to have Provoo taken into custody at Ft. Meade; transported under guard to Fort Jay, Governors Island, New York; and ordered to accept an “undesirable discharge” from the Army.  He was then turned over to agents of the F.B.I. who arrested him for treason.  Provoo was tried in the Southern District of New York, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Provoo’s lead counsel on appeal was George A. Spiegelberg.  Spiegelberg, the grandson of German-Jewish immigrants, was a Harvard Law grad; served prominently in World War II; and after the war was among the founders of the law firm that is today Fried, Frank .  He had little criminal-law experience, but when the Second Circuit appellate panel – an all-star team of Swan, Medina, and Harlan – asked him to undertake Provoo’s appeal, he agreed to do so on condition that he and his colleagues receive no compensation at all.  He would represent Provoo for principle, but not for money.  

On appeal, Spiegelberg had a powerful argument grounded in 18 U.S.C. 3238, which at that time provided that, “The trial of all offenses begun or committed . . . out of the jurisdiction of any particular state or district, shall be in the district where the offender is found.”  Provoo was “found” at Ft. Meade, in the District of Maryland.  His travel to New York was a contrivance of the Department of Justice.  It could not create venue.  In the words of the appellate court:

“We cannot blind our eyes to the fact that the real purpose in bringing [Provoo] to New York was to meet the wish of the Department of Justice to have him tried for treason under the indictment subsequently filed here.  Consequently we hold that the continuance of Provoo’s restraint in Ft. Meade . . . for the purpose of bringing him to New York for trial, was an apprehension for treason and that he was ‘found’ in Maryland within the meaning of the venue statute.”  United States v. Provoo, 214 F. 2d 531, 538 (2nd Cir. 1954).  

The Second Circuit’s opinion reversing Provoo’s conviction was dated August 27, 1954.  Of course the appellate ruling did not bar re-trial; on the contrary, it invited it.  On October 27, Provoo was indicted in the District of Maryland.  

The lawyers who represented him there dropped a bombshell: they moved to dismiss the charges against him on constitutional speedy trial grounds.  See Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. 183 (D. Md. 1955).  In essence, the motion to dismiss claimed that the delay of approximately five years associated with trial and appeal in New York had prejudiced Provoo’s defense irremediably.  The motion identified defense witnesses who had died, and evidence that had become unavailable, in the intervening period.  

The resolution of the motion would turn in substantial part on the government’s reason for having Provoo transferred to New York for trial.  In the America of the 1950's, all television and radio networks were headquartered in New York City, as were several of the nation’s largest daily newspapers.  It was almost certainly the case that the prosecution’s real reason for trying to manufacture venue in New York was so that a notorious traitor could be tried and convicted before the largest possible audience.  

The Maryland case would proceed before U.S. District Judge Roszel C. Thomsen, who had been on the bench for no more than eight or nine months when the case came before him.  But what Judge Thomsen lacked in experience he made up for in fidelity to the Constitution.  To the unspoken argument that so vile a traitor as Provoo should not be permitted to go unwhipped of justice for a violation of his right to a speedy trial – a violation of the sort that the lay public refers to as a “technicality” – Judge Thomsen replied: “The offenses charged could not be more serious.  But it would be a poor tribute to [a fellow-soldier whom Provoo was accused of betraying] to deny to this defendant the rights for which [that fellow-soldier] gave his life.”  Petition of Provoo, 17 F.R.D. at 196.  He explained:

“It . . . appears that Provoo . . . was taken to New York in September, 1949, charged with treason, and held in custody for more than five years before being indicted and brought to trial in a district having jurisdiction to try the case.

“The government must have known that venue in New York was at least doubtful . . . yet the government caused Provoo to be taken under guard from Fort Meade to Fort Jay, for the supposed advantage of proceeding in New York rather than in Maryland.  It therefore appears that a large part of the long delay – at least five years – has been due to the deliberate choice of the government, exercised for a supposed advantage.

. . .

“. . .  The long periods of imprisonment have caused other prejudice to the defendant beside the deprivation of his freedom, with a capital charge hanging over him.  He has been handicapped in his ability to locate and keep in touch with possible witnesses.  But even more serious has been the effect on Provoo himself. . . .  His ability to cooperate with his counsel in preparing his defense, and to testify in his own behalf with respect to matters which occurred from 1942 to 1945, has obviously deteriorated during the years in prison.”  Id. at 195.  

The case was dismissed.  Provoo went free.  But his story doesn’t end there.

It ends with a small piece in a Honolulu newspaper – just a small piece down in the corner on the obituaries page.  It was dated August 28, 2001, exactly two weeks before the debacle of September 11, and it noted the quiet death of an 84-year-old Buddhist priest at Hilo Medical Center in Hawaii.  His name was John Provoo, and he was buried at Hawaii Veterans’ Cemetery. "

JASON BLOCH, POSTSCRIPT:

The Comments section from our last post was filled with a back-and-forth about Judge-Elect Jason Bloch. (To the educated reader it would appear that Jason or someone very close to him wrote many of the replies to the somewhat negative comments about his last stint on the bench, how he won the election this time, his net worth, how he earned that money, and on and on and on).

As Joe Friday liked to say "just the facts". So here are the actual facts:

Jason Bloch reported raising $13,300 for his campaign. He contributed (loaned his campaign) an additional $170,975. He spent $313,978 on his campaign. (I have not figured out how that is actually possible - he spent $129,703 more than he had in his campaign account. Maybe Judge Bloch can weigh in on that matter in the Comments section or privately email us).

His opponent, Bonita Jones-Peabody, raised $50,270 and loaned her campaign $80,025. She spent $90,790.

According to the publically available documents, Jason's net worth indicates he had about $68,000,000 as of December 31, 2023. How he acquired that wealth has also been the subject of debate in the comments. But, strictly for argument's sake, who cares. If Jason Bloch wants to serve the public as a judge, and if the people of Miami-Dade County choose to elect him, then why does it matter how much he is worth on paper, or how he acquired that money.  Certainly, his abilities on the bench are fair game, and he will once again be judged by the attorneys that appear before him over the next six years. But his net worth - sounds like just a little bit of jealousy out there.

As for past elections, Jason ran twice in contested elections for Circuit Court Judge. He spent 20 years working at the Miami-Dade County Attorney's office before being appointed to the bench by Governor Rick Scott in 2014.

Two years later, in 2016, he ran as the incumbent against challenger Marcia Del Rey. Bloch lost that election 52% - 48%.

In 2022, Bloch challenged incumbent Judge Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts. Bloch lost that contest 50.4% - 49.6% (a total of 262,589 votes were cast - Bloch lost by 1,851 votes).

Those are the facts.

CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com

GROUP 52 - JUDGE OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-FONTS VS. JASON BLOCH

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

BREAKING NEWS: 

In a shocker of shockers, Governor DeSantis names Judge Renatha Francis as Florida's newest Supreme Court Justice. Check the Comments section for more on this developing story.

CIRCUIT COURT GROUP 52 ....

Pits Incumbent Judge Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts against former Judge Jason Bloch.

First a little background on the two candidates:

In 2014, Rodriguez-Fonts ran against Martin Zilber for Circuit Court Judge. Zilber beat him - we all know how that story ended.

In 2016, Rodriguez-Fonts ran against Rosy Aponte and Carol "Jodie" Breece. Rodriguez-Fonts beat Breece in the run-off.

Jason Bloch was appointed as a Circuit Court Judge in 2014 by Gov. Rick Scott. When he had to face the voters in 2016 he drew opposition from Marcia Del Rey. Del Rey won over the voters by a count of 52-48%.

Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts has a net worth of $24,000.  His salary comes from his work as a Circuit Court Judge. He is paid $161,688. He has raised $191,440 from a total of 409 contributors. He has so far spent $109,042 on his campaign.

Jason Bloch has a New Worth of $72,379,625 (that is not a misprint). Jason Bloch's salary (income) in 2021 was $1,699,142. That entire amount was made up from stock dividends in the amount of $374,063 and a stock sale of some (not all) of his Apple shares in the amount of $1,325,079. Mr. Bloch still owns at least $14,560,740 in Apple stock. Jason Bloch has no other apparent source of income at the present time. According to his campaign literature, since leaving the bench, Jason has focused his legal practice on pro bono representation of people in need, and working with nonprofit organizations. Mr. Bloch is self-funding his judicial campaign. He has reported spending $199,533 to date on his campaign.

Both candidates have been in the news lately and in the spirit of hearing from both sides here is what we can tell you.

Judge Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts appeared at a function organized by the Christian Family Coalition (CFC) of Florida.  He spoke at that function. The function took place the day after the United States Supreme Court announced its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned the right to an abortion as found in Roe v Wade.  Judge Rodriguez Fonts has been widely criticized for appearing at the CFC function, and for speaking at the function. Some people assumed that he was there because of his beliefs on the issue of abortion (and other issues that CFC stands for). Some people believed that his speech was saluting the SCOTUS ruling.

Judge Rodriguez-Fonts has adamantly denied all of those allegations.

1. Judge Rodriguez-Fonts has indicated that he had accepted an invitation to be at the CFC function well before Roe was reversed. (According to the President of the CFC, Anthony Verdugo, invitations to the event went out approximately 4-6 weeks before the SCOTUS decision).

2. Judge Rodriguez-Fonts has indicated that he spoke for less than five minutes and simply introduced himself and touted his candidacy for re-election as a Circuit Court Judge. (According to Verdugo, Judge Rodriguez Fonts spoke about his experience on the bench and his candidacy for re-election).

3. Judge Rodriguez-Fonts has professed that in no way did he endorse anything having to do with the issue of abortion.

4. Judge Rodriguez-Fonts has stated that he never signed any letter stating that he was anti-gay or anti- woman.

It should be noted that Judge Rodriguez-Fonts has received the “endorsement” from the CFC ( they do not call it an endorsement but instead state that he is a Highly Qualified candidate, as compared to his opponent).

The question does need to be asked though, what does it take for a candidate to earn the badge of Highly Qualified from the CFC?

According to the web site of the CFC of Florida, it states as follows:

“The Christian Family Coalition was founded with the purpose of serving as a voice for the pro-family citizens of Florida to ensure that our religious liberties are protected from government intrusion.”

“The Christian Family Coalition works to introduce pro-family legislation at the state and local levels of government. We inform and educate citizens on where candidates stand on the issues that affect the traditional family unit.”

So, what questions did Judge Rodriguez-Fonts answer, and what were those answers that earned him the Highly Qualified stamp of approval?

We asked those questions directly to the President of the Christian Family Coalition of Florida, Mr. Anthony Verdugo. Mr. Verdugo was very cordial and answered all of our questions. In order to be considered for a rating from the CFC of Highly Qualified, a candidate is invited to do three things:

1. Complete an Application
2. Answer a Questionnaire
3. Appear before a live panel and answer questions.

Mr. Verdugo was very clear to point out that, while he is not an attorney, several attorneys do serve on the panel. They are all aware of the prohibition of judges, or judicial candidates, taking a position on any issues. Therefore they do not ask questions concerning issues such as abortion or gay marriage, etc. They understand that judicial contests are non-partisan, they just want to know that the candidate will represent the entire community.

The CFC wants a commitment from the Judge that they will abide by the written text of the constitution and the laws of the State of Florida. They invite all candidates to participate in the process. If a candidate refuses to participate that is their choice but it certainly shows a “lack of respect” for our organization, and the entire community, if they do not participate. They ask the candidate whether they believe that the constitution is a living and breathing document or should be interpreted precisely as written. They want to know that a judge will “follow the law” and “honor their oath of office”. Some judges “make up the rules as they go along and those judges do not have integrity nor character”. 

We then spoke directly with Judge Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts. We wanted to know whether he was required to sign anything that mentioned abortion, gay rights, or any other issues. Here is what Judge Rodriguez-Fonts said to us in response:

“You are correct, as to the three things a candidate does as part of the CFC process.  I assure you that at no time did I take a stance on Gay marriage or abortion issues while at the CFC candidate panel interview.  In fact, it should be noted that when I was assigned to the Family Law Division, I routinely entered orders granting the adoption of children by same sex married couples.  In addition, contrary to the allegations being published about me, I have never signed any letter or document denouncing womens' rights or LGBTQ rights. 

I hope this was helpful in responding to your questions. “

Thank you,

Oscar

Jason Bloch has also made the news recently. More than a few people began receiving text messages recently maligning the candidacy of Judge Rodriguez-Fonts. According to some of our readers, the content of these texts stated that:

“Judge Rodriguez-Fonts signed a letter denouncing women’s rights groups and LGBTQ groups.” The text went on to say that Rodriguez-Fonts was a “radical” judge.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL TEXT MESSAGE:

Many people assumed that Jason Bloch was responsible (through consultants or others) for these text messages. We contacted Mr. Bloch and asked him to address the allegations. Here is his response, unedited:

Dear Captain,

“I admit that upon the advice of colleagues when I became a judge, I’ve tried to avoid reading the Blog, without complete success.  But I understand that you put out a fair and well-written column and so I thank you for the opportunity to respond.

With reference to text messages, my campaign hasn’t engaged in any text message efforts.  I became aware of what I assume is the text you refer to when friends shared it with me.  Prior to that, I had not seen it or been aware of it.

You may be aware that there is a Facebook page purporting to be on behalf of my opponent’s campaign, presently named “Elect Al Juez Correcto,” and previously named after my opponent (“Elect Rodriguez Rodriguez-Fonts”).  It shares his picture and campaign material, levels attacks against me and a sitting judge, and is laden with appallingly racist posts and offensive content.  My opponent denies that he is responsible, and I take him at his word.

My point is when there are voices in support or against a candidate, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are from the campaign.

I believe I can make my case for election based on qualifications and merit alone.  

That said, I believe my opponent’s relationship with the CFC going back many years, and especially his highly visible participation in their recent “Legislative Victory and Candidates Breakfast,” which celebrated the CFC’s legislative achievements and the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, has raised a legitimate issue for lawyers and voters.

I have observed that this issue has garnered significant attention on its own, without needing any help from me.  I have heard from many individuals and organizations who are genuinely troubled by this, and who have expressed reactions ranging from profound disappointment to outrage.  Many have undertaken their own messaging and advocacy efforts in response, all quite independent from me and my campaign.  While my campaign has noted the CFC’s backing and stances in some of our materials - and we stand behind those - we are not responsible for the text messages you cite.

I was not invited to attend the CFC’s “victory” (and so-called “candidates” breakfast), nor would I have gone if I had been. (My understanding is that my opponent was the only judge to attend.)  The “victories” being celebrated, including the demise of Roe, were well known beforehand, as the Miami Herald reported on it in advance of the event as did the CFC itself.  Further, the timing and stated purpose of this event made it particularly fraught.  The Judicial Canons, see e.g., Canons 1, 2, 4 and 7, and good judgment, counsel against my attending any event advocating either side of a divisive or polarizing issue, regardless of personal beliefs or legal opinion. 

For better or worse, judicial candidates must campaign and seek votes. But preserving the impartiality of the judiciary, and the perception of impartiality, is on a much higher plane, perhaps now more than ever.  This must always trump the aspirations of any candidate.  There is reason why the Canons preclude judges from attending political events and place other limitations on conduct. 

I was also not invited to participate in the CFC’s endorsement or screening process.  So, I am not well-versed in the details, but my understanding from others is that the CFC requires those who they back, like my opponent, to sign a letter to maintain CFC’s “highly qualified” rating.  I do not have any proof one way or another whether my opponent signed the letter described in the message.  I never alleged he did.

I suggest that you ask CFC and my opponent what is required to get CFC’s backing and whether he signed any letters for them.”

Thanks…Jason

So now you have the facts. Our humble Blog believes that our readers, and the voters of Miami-Dade County are entitled to the facts and to be well informed on the qualifications, (or lack thereof), of the judicial candidates.

It is now for you to decide who gets your vote: Judge Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts or his opponent Jason Bloch.

ON A SEPARATE NOTE:

There seems to sometimes be confusion on who exactly is the author of these judicial election posts. When you see THE CAPTAIN REPORTS that is the work of Captain Justice for the Justice Building Blog. I write the columns (posts) about the JNC process, gubernatorial appointments, and judicial elections.  Rumpole has been kind enough to lend me this thread for the past 17 years, and in all that time, he has only censured me one time. I have never been compensated once in those 17 years for anything that appears under my byline. I do not personally know Judge Jean; I have never personally appeared before her. I may have attended a bar function that she also attended and said hello. That is the extent of my connection to Judge Jean. I thank Rumpole for always having my back and for responding to all of those ridiculous comments in my post from Wednesday accusing me (and him) of somehow profiting from the Jean camp. 

CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com

BLOCH BLOCKED

Queen Elizabeth famously said that 1992 was her annus horribilus.  Two of her children divorced their spouses that year; the last part of the realm in Africa abandoned the Monarchy; her daughter-in-law Diana wrote a tell all book; while tapes of the first in line to the throne- Charles- canoodling with his long time love over the phone were released. And then on November 20- the Queen's  wedding anniversary, part of her home-Windsor Castle- caught fire and was severely damaged.

For Jason Bloch 2016 will be his annus horribilus.  
He received the political opposition for his judicial seat that a long-time opponent had promised. And although scandal rocked his opponent in the form of her being caught telling people she was a prosecutor when she wasn't, and the revelation that she resigned an internship at the State Attorneys Office because the hours were too long (a problem she need not worry about once she dons a robe)- Bloch couldn't capitalize on his opponent's problems. 
 Lawyers grumbled when he solicited them for donations despite his financial disclosures revealing an almost Rumpolian level of wealth. His ill-timed, poorly planned, and horribly executed lawsuit aimed at knocking his opponent off the ballot blew up in his face, with losses in the district court and Third District Court Of Appeals generating even worse publicity. Even the revelation that her family derives a significant amount of income from motels designed to assist in extra-martial assignations didn't derail her candidacy and Judge Bloch was defeated soundly at the polls.

And now to add insult to injury; a prime example of being kicked while down- the JNC declined to forward his name to Governor Scott to fill the seat of retired Judge Stan Blake (whose retirement tour continues with a night by the Miami-Heat honoring him in November)*.

Bloch couldn't elbow one of these guys/gals out:

Jason E. Dimitris; Ayana N. Harris; Spencer Jet Multack; Victoria del Pino;  Lourdes Simon; and  Andrea Ricker Wolfson. 

Judge Bloch can take solace in this fellow, lost mostly to history, who had a long and tortured path before he was unceremoniously shot and killed.
At age 23 he lost his job and ran for election to the state legislature and lost. The next year his business failed; a year later his girlfriend died and the year after that he suffered a nervous breakdown at age 25. At age 34 he was defeated in a run for congress. Six  years later his application to be a land officer was denied.
At age 45 he ran for senate and lost and four years later his second bid for senate also ended in  defeat.

This was a simple man with a law degree who had continually been defeated in his bid for elective office. He was a pretty decent lawyer, and one of his successful bids for congress only lasted two years, when by virtue of a promise he made, he did not seek reelection.

At age 51, having lost his last two elections for the senate, Abraham Lincoln was elected the sixteenth president of the United States and went on to save the Union and become our greatest president. 

So Judge Bloch, hang in there. Being rejected by the JNC is nothing like what President Lincoln went through.  Just be wary of the play "Our American Cousin" should Judge Altfield and his troupe elect to stage a revival.

See You in Court.

*The Miami Heat is not honoring the retirement of Judge Blake, although they appear to be one of the few establishments in town where a retirement party hasn't been held recently. 

Lincoln Trivia:  What does Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas off of Key West have to do with the Lincoln Assassination?  Anyone but Judge Milton Hirsch may answer. 

POLICE OFFICER CHARGED WITH MURDER .....

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

HAVE YOU EVER WITNESSED A MURDER .....?

Police officers have, arguably, one of the most difficult jobs in our country.  At the ripe young age of 18, they can apply for admission into one of many police academies.  If they get through the physical and mental examinations and manage to learn something about the law, they can graduate with a diploma and earn the right to possibly get hired by a police department.

After they are employed, and given a period of probation, where a Field Training Officer (FTO) usually spends six months with them, they are then placed on the street to "protect and serve".  They are issued a service revolver, a Taser, a badge, and presumably, enough understanding of the law, that they can enforce it - fairly and safely - to the public and to themselves.

In every profession, there are bad apples.  There are bad lawyers, bad politicians, and there are, bad cops.  The difference with the police officer is, that they are sometimes forced into making a split second decision, one that could mean the difference between life and death; and then that decision will be analyzed and scrutinized, second by second, and if there is video, that second can even be broken down into milliseconds, about their decision-making in a certain event.

Officer Michael Slager is a police officer employed by the North Charleston Police Department.  He is 33 years old and he is white.  And today, he was charged with the murder of 50 year old Walter Scott, a black man, who was driving his Mercedes Benz, with a broken tail light.

This is a BLOG run by a criminal defense lawyer and many of our readers are criminal defense lawyers.  So, being a fellow criminal defense lawyer, we will presume Officer Slager innocent and wait until all of the facts are presented in a court of law.  But, unfortunately for Officer Slager, and fortunately for Mr. Scott's family, and the rest of the citizens of North Charleston, an innocent bystander caught some of the encounter between Slager and Scott, on video. 

Here are some of the facts:  Scott had previously been arrested about ten times; mostly for failing to pay child support.  His most serious arrests include an assault and battery in 1987 and a 1991 conviction for possession of a bludgeon.  Scott's brother surmised that, Scott likely had an outstanding warrant for back child support and didn't want to be taken into custody.  Thus, he ran from the traffic stop.

Slager was previously in the US Coast Guard for five years before joining the police force.  He fired his weapon eight times, striking Scott five times; three times in the back, once in the buttocks, and once in the ear.  One of the shots entered Scott's heart.

You can read the entire New York Times story here.

The video of the alleged murder is disturbing and today, the lawyer for Scott's family released it to the New York Times.  Here it is below.  Did the officer shoot because he was in fear for his life?  (The Supreme Court has held that an officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect only when there is probable cause that he “poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”). Was the color of Scott's skin a factor in how and why all of this got started?  Scott was driving a Mercedes Benz.  This was all over a tail light being broken.  How does that kind of traffic stop escalate into an officer shooting at someone, running away from the officer, eight times, striking him five times, and killing him?

So, now it's your turn to weigh in on this.  Have at it.

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2016 - UPDATE .......

Today, newly appointed Circuit Court Judge Jason Bloch woke up to reality.  After Judge Darrin Gayles ascended to the Federal bench last year, Governor Scott appointed Bloch to replace Gayles in November of 2014.  Enter Marcia Del Rey.  Ms. Del Rey has been a member of The Florida Bar for nine years.  She has a family law practice.  If you Google her, you may recall seeing her rather large billboard promoting her law office.  If you Google her, you also may not hire her.  From reading many of the comments posted from Avvo, or Yahoo, or City Search, etc., it appears Ms. Del Rey has made a few enemies of her former clients.

CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com