ELECTION UPDATE

Rumpole writes the following disclaimer: the following is NOT a parody.

More Judges of a certain…ahem…persuasion are getting opposition.
County Court Maven and Judge, Lord Of the Traffic Magistrates, hero to the homeless, mentor to the mentally ill, and all around good guy (although he is the traffic attorneys favorite whipping post) the honorable Judge Steve Leifman (previously parodied in this blog as part of the judicial odd couple on December 22, 2005) has opposition.

Attorney Juan Gonzalez has ponied up the cash and thrown down the election gauntlet.

Here is what our alert readers have to say:

Leifmas WAS a good judge 4 or 5 years ago.

Rumpole notes: “Leifmas” no mas, its Leifman.

A person about to be indicted for violating the Ashcroft rule against criticizing a federal employee writes:

Juan Gonzalez is not a nice (or good) federal prosecutor.

Rumpole notes, by executive order of former attorney General John Ashcroft, effective the day it was signed, all “nice” federal prosecutors were fired, hung, or both.

Anonymous writes:

What Juan Gonzalez is it? The federal prosecutor, the former traffic hearing officer, or the defense lawyer with the hoarse voice?

Anonymous votes:

The federal prosecutor or the traffic hearing officer would be awful choices, but the defense lawyer would make a great judge.

Anonymous remembers:

i was in front of him about 5 years ago and that is in fact what i am basing my opinion on. the man was solid back then!! if he has changed since then i am not aware of it. i thought he had administrative duties now. how bad can he be?


Judge Leifman’s "campaign manager" writes:

Leifman is a great judge

A reader responds:

It looks like anonymous, who says that Leifman is a great judge, doesn't appear often in front of him or his hearing officers.. We need to step up and support this guy. Same with Murphy

Rumpole steps in: whoa whoa whoa. On very good rumor, we hear that the Juan Gonzalez who is opposing Judge Leifman is none other than former Traffic Magistrate Juan Gonzalez who was unceremoniously removed from office by none other than the Lord of the Magistrates, Judge Steve Leifman.

Do we smell bitterness here?

Remember, revenge is a dish best served cold.

Rumpole further responds: The comment about magistrates raises an interesting point. While far from our milieu (robed readers can look it up at dictionary.com) we have heard rumors that in his capacity as administrative judge and Lord of the Traffic Magistrates, Judge Leifman has in the past issued “edicts” on how magistrates should rule on certain motions, and monitors how many people are adjudicated, the level of the fines, etc. If so, that type of backroom judging offends the Constitution. What does he think traffic court is? Federal Court, where they offend the constitution on an hourly basis?

Rumpole ominiously notes that like a certain legislator/lawyer from Illinois, Leifman has lost his previous election. Of course Abe Lincoln didn’t let his loss to Stephen Douglas deter him.

Finally, our favorite lexicographic reader, he/she of the hundred dollar words like “pluralism” writes about the changing face of the judiciary:


The chief benefit to pluralism of experience on the bench would be in the determination of credibility. The trial judge’s determination of credibility is basically unreviewable; that determination is their main job. But judges who understand the importance of docket control know that law enforcement personnel credibility is the glue that holds the process together. In the communities of Miami there is widespread skepticism in the integrity of law enforcement. This creates the rift between judges and juries in the building. If judicial elections created pluralism on the bench that rift would not exist. Credibility in domestic cases is another example. Judges abdicate on wading into these families’ inner lives and play it safe by believing the women. This is not to say that domestic violence does not exist. But its well known that a very high number of complaining witnesses willing to go forward with a prosecution have an alternate agenda. Like the rap group Yong Gunz said, “no no, don’t make me the bad one/ then negotiate when the man with the badge comes.” These are perhaps the most difficult credibility determinations to make. And I feel like there is a judge-jury rift there too. Thanks for the encouragement Rump- it helps to salve my disappointment over never making law review!

Rumpole responds: we never read the law review, so we didn’t know what we were missing.

See You In Court earning money to write checks to election campaigns.