Time for a little update and recap and a quick quiz.
Here’s what we’ve learned so far:
In Miami it is dangerous to:
A) Shake hands with a federal prosecutor.
B) Get arrested in Miami Beach.
C) Issue a due diligence opinion letter.
D) Be acquitted of all charges in Federal Court.
E) All of the above.
Meanwhile, in the First District Court of Appeals (a/ka “The Animal House of the DCA’s”) who is more likely to face a JQC complaint and trial?:
A) The chief judge who has been called mentally unstable by his colleagues; who has affairs with court employees; and who issued a written opinion over turning the conviction of a State Senator where the chief judge is a former law partner with the State Senator’s closest friend;
or
B) The appellate Judge who wrote a separate opinion criticizing the chief judge for not recusing himself because of the appearance of impropriety.
If you said A, you haven’t had the pleasure of dealing with the JQC lately.
Not only did the JQC dismiss the complaint against chief judge Charles Kahn, (“I may be crazy, but I’m da Judge.”) but the JQC has added the additional charges of perjury against District Judge Michael Allen for testifying before the JQC that when he wrote the opinion criticizing Judge Kahn, he did so not out of animosity towards Judge Kahn, but because he believed he was following the law.
Sort of like the old “obstruction of justice” enhancement in Federal Court where if you testified and you were convicted, your sentence was enhanced because you lied. Or perhaps a more apt analogy is, sort of like Soviet Russia where they did anything they wanted to you, because they could.
13 of the 15 Judges of the First DCA (motto “Broward ain’t got nothing on us.” ) filed the complaint against the chief judge for the extra marital affair with the court employee. However, that hasn’t stopped the JQC from dismissing all charges against the Chief Judge and pursuing Judge Allen like he was the second coming of Lyglenson Lemorin.
The St. Pete Times article is HERE
Well, how’d you do in the quiz?
Rumpole, did you hear that Bill Barzee had breakfast with Carlos Martinez and pledged his endorsement of Carlos? Also did you hear Brian Tannebaum is considering running against Jackie Scola?
ReplyDeletewho gives a crap about the first bit. May god make the second paert come true.
ReplyDeleteand we wonder why the rest of the world can't stand Americans. If I heard these stories about another country I'd think it was a pretty fucked up country. No one embarasses themselves like the American govt. Props to you uncle Sam for being certifiable.
ReplyDeletedid you hear that monkeys will fly out of rumpole's butt at noon on the courthouse steps?
ReplyDeleteBrian is afraid of Bobby like the rest of us....
ReplyDeleteI think you simplify the problems in the 1st DCA. The issue of the extramarital affair is old news and was old news. At the time it became public the clerk in question was (and still is) working at the Florida Supreme Court. The real issue was the Childers conviction and the intent of the Chief Judge and one other panelist to reverse the conviction to the chagrin of the third judge and other remaining members of the ultra-conservative court.
ReplyDeleteWhen the opinion was circulating Judge Allen (who was a righteous SOB as a County Judge and a Circuit Judge) led what was equal to a coup de ta, by getting enough of his colleagues to order an en banc rehearing of the matter before the opinion was even published. The en banc court affirmed the conviction.
That was not enough for Judge Allen who proceeded to write in his opinion a personal attack on the ethics of Judge Kahn, a former chairman of the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee and no liberal himself. It is those personal attacks made on him in the written opinion that are the subject of the JQC complaint. Essentially Judge Allen is accused of abusing his position and bringing the judiciary into ill repute. He is guilty and should be reprimanded.
Was Judge Kahn guilty of an indiscretion? Yes. Did he sexually harass the clerk? No. Did he misspend state funds? No.
It is not as simple as the article or you make it out to be.
Mr. T, running for Judge!
ReplyDeleteLMFAO
What's next Rumpole for State Attorney?
Gee, the leftwing criminal defense bar and this insiders blog notwithstanding, Ben Kuehne might be a dirtbag afterall. What a freaking surprise:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami_dade/story/415658.html
Jack Thompson, Attorney
PS: Forgive the notion that Christians are not liberals' doormats.
Bobby S. and Jackie H. S. are people to fear. Ambitious, cut-throat and back-stabbing.
ReplyDeletePoll Question: Which Judge in the REG has the worst judicial temper?
ReplyDeleteJudge Allen could never have been a righteous SOB as a County Judge and a Circuit Judge, as he was never a County or Circuit Judge.
ReplyDeleteTo 1:10
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. He is a different Michael Allen than the county and circuit judge. However I stand with the self-righteousness comment. Even if I did not know that from prior experience (which I do) I certainly would know it from his actions in this matter.
Joel Denaro has more flow than Kenny Shark weisman. He has more pull. He can pick a better Jury, and wears a better suit, and gets a better table at a better restaurant. Joel is cool. Weisman is haz been. His day is done. Joely D is Barack Obama, Kenny W is McCain. Thanks for your service, now step aside and let the younger guys do their stuff.
ReplyDeleteJoely D is trying the biggest death penalty cases before Will Thomas against Abe Laser, Kenny Shark misses his CTS cases before Jerry Klein (you have a good lawyer, listen to what he says). See the difference?
Jack,
ReplyDeleteChristians are liberals. You can be a liberal and not be a Christian, but you can't be a Christian without being a liberal. Sorry.
J
Joely D is a double agent. He is in cahoots with the boots if ya dig man.
ReplyDeleteIsn't "Joely" a girl's name?
ReplyDeleteJoel didn't TRY that case - he did the sentencing portion.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to Lisa Walsh, our newest County Court judge.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days, Landslide Larry S would have won handsdown, BUT compared to the new generation of women Judges in REG these days, he's an amature.
ReplyDelete"Landslide Larry"- good one. Lol.
ReplyDeleteWorst temper? Hands down Jackie Scola- and she knows it.
Kenny verus Joel- do they even know each other? Both are great guys. Stop trying to pick a fight.
Billy Barzee- would have made a great PD. Sorry he dropped out.
The draft Alex 'dis is bulsheet" Michaels for PD has begun.
Mendy's engaged, for all you goils who had your eye on him, he's taken.
I will tell you that Mr. Thompson and I have been exchanging emails that grow more vitriolic by the moment. He is severly testing my comittment to the First Amendement and to not censor lawyers I disagree with. I find his rejoicing in Ben Kuehne's problems very distasteful, and I have told him so.
ReplyDeleteRump, please tell this Jack Thompson guy to get his own blog! I'm not sure why you were ever interested in his ongoing legal travails, but the rest of us are not!
ReplyDeleteMemorandum
ReplyDeleteTo: Jack Thompson
From: JC
Re: Ben Kuehne
He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at Ben.
Some of us might respect, or at least understand, Jack more if he'd explain -- with facts not vitriol, what the heck Ben did to him in Ben's limited role as Designated Reviewer.
ReplyDeleteRump:
ReplyDeleteIntersting post. So his comments now about Ben are testing you. Any reason that his comments about Justice Raul Cantero, Judge Dava Tunis, Ben pre-indictment, Barnaby Min don't ruffle your 1st Amendment feathers? You probably know more than you're posting, if you're in communication with him. Can you tell us if there's substance to anything he's saying or are all his posts on the offensive, because he has nothing else to write?
lurvy (aka Rumpole) is putting in for PD
ReplyDeleteFor real? Did Lisa Walsh finally get the nod? I think she'd be an excellent judge. Did she really get it?
ReplyDeleteHey 3:26 p.m.,
ReplyDeletewhat a lame, wussy, uncool thing to do... anonymously knock Kenny Weissman! If you are so exalted, why are you blogging in the middle of the afternoon? Why are you not signing up big-fee cases or trying a "death penalty" case?
I know Denaro from the hallways and he is a good guy. I have personally known Kenny for 20 years and he is as standup of a person as there is. HE would do anything for anybody. He is hardly a cut throat type of guy so not only is he not a "shark" but he should not invoke vitriol as well.
I feel young and quite up to kicking ass but I am probably perceived as an old timer. With that experience, I will give you this invaluable advice.
A lawyer cannot be evaluated by his net worth, verdicts, political connections etc. It gets more complicated than that . A lawyer that gets great results for their client yet has no life or neglects their family is a loser to me. If you work 18 hours a day, you are a sucker. If you kill yourself for your job do not forget that if you drop dead, you will never be missed. Other lawyers will pick up the cases, and your legacy will soon be forgotten (just ask Sy, Manny Crespo, Leyte Vidal, Alvin or any other lawyer from the past).
Some of these lawyers or even PDs that get great results, without the unlimited resources of the bigshots, may be better lawyers than some of the big shots. If I had funds for my own investigators, researchers, writers, etc I think it would affect some of the results of my cases.
Being a lawyer is not like being a sprinter, we cannot be quantitatively compared...there are too many variables that affect our performance and results.
Perhaps one of the biggest measuring sticks for a criminal defense lawyer is service to the profession.
Kenny has been banging it out for 20 years, does not improperly step on people's toes, has a strong practice and is a quality person...that is how you should judge him.
Under the color of a blog, to rip a lawyer (one of hundreds) is such a wimpy thing to do.
If you want to rip somebody, be a man and put your name on it. Judges are fair game, they put their names out there. But a lawyer that is not the subject of the news, to just single him out is just not right!
Jack
ReplyDeleteI get your hatred of Ben but, what do you have against porn?
OK- here's what I've decided, but its not written in stone and I will listen to arguments from the other side.
ReplyDeleteI will no longer post Mr. Thompson's pleadings in the comments section. They are endless and at this point I think we get the point. He will still be allowed like anyone else to post comments so long as he follows the rules.
Scott Saul for President! Or at least PD.
ReplyDeleteRump- here's the latest scouting reports on the two guys. Hopes this helps.
ReplyDeleteKenneth Montgomery Weisman. Born October 21, 1959, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Bats right. Throws right. Moves well off the pick and can hit the fifteen foot jumper, but can't rebound as well as he used to. Gets pushed around unde the boards more than he used to. Still has a few good years left.
Joel Filmore Denaro (named after the 13th President of the United States. Historians have well documented that Milard Fillmore was well known to his friends as Joel.)
Born August 15, 1970, Hialeah Gardens. Bats right. Throws right. 4.9-40 time on turf. Moves well, old snowboarding knee injury makes lateral moves suspect. Takes some plays off on defense, but overall has good all around game.
Congratulations Lisa! Def. the best choice among the group.
ReplyDeleteRump...tell us. What happened between 6:16 and 9:07pm? Has he been worse to you than to others? Now we want to know. What do we NOT know, that has lead to your quick decision?
ReplyDeleteJesus Christ is not a liberal.
ReplyDeleteHe practiced jewish traditions and as such, was conservative that he respected tradition and the first followers were Jewish Proselytes. Peter compelled even the converts to be Judaizers and follow custom.
Paul was a liberal, a Gentile breaking with Semitic tradition and he reformed the Church, promoting a liberal agenda like eating pork and not having to be circumcized.
Long live the religious right.
Tom Hagen:No. I slept on the plane. I've got the Weisman notes right here. Weisman is known as the Shark. He's supposed to be very good with a knife but only in matters of business or of some sort of reasonable complaint or at a restaurant. His business is criminal defense. He has the streets in Liberty City where they grow the defendants. He needs cash and he needs protection from the Gavaria crew for which he gives a piece of the action, I couldn't find out how much. The Roth Family is behind him here in Miami so they have to be in it for something.
ReplyDeleteDon Corleone: What about his trial record?
Tom Hagen: Not many cases. One in Italy and one here. He's known as a top narcotics defense man.
Don Corleone: Santino, what do you think?
Sonny: There's a lot of money in that criminal defense.
Don Corleone: Tom?
Tom Hagen: Well, I say yes. There's more money potential in narcotics defense than anything else we're looking at. Now, if we don't get into it somebody else will. Maybe the Givaria Crew maybe all of them and with the money they earn they'll be able to buy more police and political power. Right now we have the gambling and we have the unions and those are the best things to have. But narcotics defense is a thing on the future. If we don't get into it now we risk everything we have. Not now but ten years from now.
Sonny: Well, what's your answer gonna be, Pop?
Nothing happened other than I had a very nice dinner with an excellent rum punch. I just think that he's the only one posting pleadings, they take up a lot of space, and they're not really germane to the blog. He can write comments like anyone else.
ReplyDeletePrivately, I treat all emails sent to me as private, and I would not reveal them without permission. That being said, I very much disagree with his venom toward Ben Kuehne. I hope and believe Ben is innocent. I am very much against kicking a person when they are down. As I have written to him in so many words, "What would Jesus do?" with ben Kuehne? Would he retailiate against him for perceived slights, or would he forgive him and help him in his time of need? Mr. Thompson is entitled to his beliefs. Just as I am entitled to say that I find his behavior distasteful in regards to Ben. I have been in this business long enough to know that no matter how innocent you are, no matter how secure, and smart and brave and forthright a person is. A federal indictment is a devastating event and I would not wish it on anyone who did not deserve it and I fully believe Ben does not deserve to be indicted.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHe should create jackthompson.blogspot.com and put all his comments, pleadings, etc. there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRumpole,
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is "your" blog, it is fair to say that a blog is a community. When one member of a community abuses the privileges granted to him/her then it is incumbent upon the leader(s) of the community to protect the others from that abuse. Mr. Thompson's rantings have become a source of abuse to this community and therefore your decision to place restrictions on his access is both justified and proper.
The comment made by a poster that Mr. Thompson start his own blog is a capital idea. Maybe in one of your private emails you could explain to Mr. Thompson how he can accomplish that. Instead of his incessant rantings, he could just post comments stating his blog address and invite others to read and comment there. I would just warn him not to sit and wait for comments because a watched pot never boils. There are people who sent messages in a bottle years ago who are still waiting for a reply.
Mr. Thompson may post all the comments he wishes on the blog. He is neither censored nor banned. However, his pleadings take up a lot of space. Much like people are required to post a link to an article and summarize it, Mr. Thompson is now required to summarize his pleadings. He can also post a link if he wishes. For example, he can write : "I have filed my 64th motion to disqualify Judge Tunis. The motion is available at www. ..... or he can write "If you email me I will send you the motion. The motion states Judge Tunis should be disqualified because...."
ReplyDeleteGet the picture?
I cannot stand Jack Thompson mostly because of his attacks on Tunis. She does not deserve his abuse.
ReplyDeleteJack you might want to change the strategy from attacking to saying you are sorry for the grief you have cause all these good people. Start by saying "my wife was suffering from potantial ovarian cancer and I just checked out from sanity for a week or two".
People would be more receptive to the sense of forgiveness and possibly give you a break. Try and sit down with people and talk about how you will change.
Lastly, I have to admit your pleadings are entertaining.
The rest of us wish Jack Thompson would find some other blog to bother.
ReplyDeleteJack, GO AWAY and STAY AWAY.
We are not interested in your ranting and bullshit.
Dear Jack: this criticism of you is unwarranted. I applaud your exercise of your first amendment rights. I want to stick my tongue up your ass and give you the pleasure you crave so you don't commit an act of mass murder.
ReplyDeleteJack Thompson migrated! He used to haunt the JAABLOG and Gamepolitics....
ReplyDeleteHe got his ass handed to him in a few debates on JAABLOG, and was banned from Gamepolitics, so now he's come here. As someone who is used to JT's annoying, rambling, and insulting writing, you have my sympathy.
-Mnementh2230
(hey Jack - I'm still waiting for that libel suit you promised me!)
JT's antics have become quite famous now he was looking for places to land after JAABLOG kicked him out. he has find this blog for his rescue, very soon this blog wil get used to his annoying means
ReplyDeleteVikram
-----------
I challenge you to a game of trivia! Click here to battle against me online at ConQUIZtador. Let's see who's the winner...
https://www.conquiztador.com/?a=26041