Friday, July 31, 2009


There are many ways we have, over the years, snatched innocent clients from the maw of the state. But suffice to say the comment below leads us to believe this is the first time we have ever contributed to a not guilty by virtue of our humble work here:

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to let the blog know how much I appreciated it the other day in court. Mid-trial, while questioning a state witness on what they said during a hallway interview in order to impeach them, the state vehemently objected to the line of questioning. The judge asks if I have any case law to show that I am allowed to continue down this line of questioning. I knew of the recent 3DCA case that said yes, but couldn't find it in my emails or westlaw and was scrambling. Then almost immediately, co-counsel and I just realized you "briefed" it on the blog when it came out, and a quick search of the blog allowed us to find the case, cite it to the judge, and continue on with our line of impeachment questions of the key state witness. Needless to say, the result was a Not Guilty, and I have to kind of believe the blog had a small hand in that. Thanks again.

Friday, July 31, 2009 7:14:00 PM

This comment certainly merited its own post, the controversy over Milt Hirsch notwithstanding.

And as to the NG, we'll take em anyway we can get em.


Anonymous said...

The Milt issue shows a couple things:
He did not get a very good plea offer.
He was afraid to try a dog.
He suggested that the best move was to run and got taped suggesting it.

Not a pretty picture. Milt just earned himself opposition. And trust me, he can handle that.....

Anonymous said...

That attorney is a moron. Why don't you just read the weekly opinions from the 3rd on your own and file them?

Anonymous said...

Rumpole –

Section 934.06 of Florida’s wiretap statute specifically provides that if a wire or oral communication was intercepted in violation of the wiretap statute, then no evidence derived from such interception may be “received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The prohibition of use as evidence provided in this section does not apply in cases of prosecution for criminal interception in violation of the provisions of this chapter.”

This subsection of the statute is a per se exclusionary rule in and of itself, and is pretty clear on its face. The only exception is a prosecution for a violation of the wiretap statute. Ergo, the “evidence derived from such interception” (including both the actual taped conversations and any transcripts derived therefrom) could not be used in the Post Conviction Hearing (Judge Glick was absolutely correct), could not be used in a prosecution of Milt Hirsch or Dr. Rappaport for aiding and abetting, and could not be used in a Florida Bar proceeding against Hirsh.

The evidence could, however, be used in a prosecution of Sean Casey and/or his mother for violating the wiretap statute, or in a prosecution of whomever disclosed the contents of the conversation to the New Times (in his article dated July 28th, Francisco Alvarado claims that these transcripts were obtained by the New Times prior to the Court sealing them in May), and in a prosecution of Francisco Alvarado or anybody else at New Times who “intentionally disclosed or endeavored to disclose to any other person the contents” of the conversation “knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation” of the wiretap statute.

Let’s see how this plays out. My prediction, Sean Casey’s conviction is untouched, and so is everybody else (except Milt Hirsch’s reputation).

Someone in-the-know

jnc watcher said...

Would someone please xplain how the committee managed not to send up any of these four,

Miguel M. de la O
Patricia Kopco
Milton Hirsch
Samantha Ruiz Cohen

when they are all running for judge. Who is Alan Fine and how did he manage to get picked over Milt?

Unknown said...

Congrats to the blog!

Anonymous said...

come on more news re the pornstar intern.

lets hear from more chicks who banged this dude

Rumpole said...

I know who the moron is 2:15 am. Listen to me carefully.

Get up.

Go into the bathroom.

Look in the mirror.


the trialmaster said...

alan fein is with the stearns firm. The trialmaster had a case against him many yrs ago and obtained a great settlement .Revealing more would be interesting for my followers but might compromise the idenity of the trialmaster.He would be taking a huge cut in pay unlike most of the robed ones on the bench today.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the watching my back Rumpole. And to 2:15am, yes, read the opinions every week. I didn't have it immediately on hand with me in court mid trial, and couldn't find it in my email where I had thought I filed it. But recalled the blog having briefed it and linking it. In the heat of battle you use what you have to win.

Anonymous said...


2:15 here. I'd say considering I emailed you, got a response, then tracked your IP address to your exact location at the time you responded, I'd say the bigger moron I'd you for thinking you are so smug that no one has figured you out. I can expose you but really it's not worth it.

Anonymous said...

Simple. De la o has burned too many bridges.

Jonathan Blecher said...

Not gonna hide it. I am a close friend of Alan Fine.

Alan Fine's name was sent up because he is extremely bright, mature and displayed what would amount to a stellar judicial temperament to the JNC.

Alan Fine is a guy from the Judge Alan Gold mold. Very bright, practical, intellectual (Fine went to Princeton), and a calm demeanor...not a hothead or activist.

This blog doesn't know him because he is a civil lawyer. His practice is international banking, commercial and financial litigation, including civil forfeitures.

Most of the applicants were sufficiently qualified, but Alan has seasoned himself with 27 years of law practice and a stellar rep on the civil side.

He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton, with honors from UF Law, and was on law review. He clerked for US District Judge Sidney Aronovitz.

He wrote a UF Law Review comment on
Criminal Procedure – Self-Incrimination: Miranda Lives, 33 University of Florida Law Review 788, 1981.

All of the names that went up bring something to the table. But, even without a prior appointment by this Governor to bank on, Alan was able to separate himself from the pack in his first shot at an appointment.

The JNC doesn't send up a name on the first try unless the applicant has something special. Fine does, believe me.

Anonymous said...

The milt story shows why bondsman want to control who the defendant's lawyer is. if the lawyer thinks the case is "hopeless" and doesn't do their legal duty of advising their client to show up to be beheaded, then the "controlled" lawyer gives his/her bondsman a heads-up,and the client gets surrendered. Milt here essentially was f ing the bondsman too. I bet milt looked to see who the bondsman was first before he gave his silent approval.

Anonymous said...

Why is Bob Levy at 11:15 asking that question on behalf of all of this clients?? Bob, get off the blog and do something good for the community, like leave and go somewhere else. I suggest Thailand or Pakistan.

Anonymous said...

The Milt issue just makes me hope that not a single other criminal defense lawyer gets accused of something by their in-prison convicted client.


Anonymous said...

I do not know Hirsch. But let's put this contretemps in perspective. Any client who walks into an attorney's office wearing a wire has an ulterior motive: to trap the unwitting attorney into saying something incriminating or stupid. Put yourself in Hirsch's position. Your client, who stands accused of a crime for which he will serve a substantial sentence, starts hinting to you that he might flee the jurisdiction and asks repeated questions about the chances of getting caught and the like. He is a young gay man and his mother is traumatized over the thought of her son being in state prison. Any lawyer with any tact is going to tread very carefully before speaking. My first reaction would be to be as vague and re-assuring as possible while making it known that absconding is illegal. My first thought would be I do not want to say something that would cause my client to jump off a bridge. Add to this the fact that both client and mother are doing everything they can to cajole you into saying something to incriminate yourself. Most every attorney would make a comment, that taken out of context, would support an inference that he or she is counseling a client to flee. It is really unfortunate that Hirsch has to deal with this trial by innuendo.

Anonymous said...

To answer your question: Alan Fine is a civil litigator who has been practicing for 25 years. I went to law school with him. He started with the old Floyd Pearson firm and went on to establish his own very successful private practice. He is far above the caliber attorney you usually see seeking these positions.

Anonymous said...

11:15, Alan Fine is a lawyer with over 25 years expereince in complex litigation. An outstanding attorney and an excellent choice by the JNC. Jusrt because you decide to run for judge doesn't mean you are qualified. if that were the case, why do so many bloggers pick on Peter Adrian? Not only did he run, but he won?????

Rumpole said...

1013 pm- First name the COUNTRY I am- start with the continent- and then lets see how good you are. Oh yeah- before you get excited, try googling Web Ghost first as well. Hahahahaha.

Anonymous said...

2:15, anyone who knows how IP addresses work knows you can never tell someone's exact location. Now shut up and go continue being the lazy piece of crap lying hack you are. Go. GO!

Anonymous said...


You are seriously fooling yourself into believing that you buy and install web ghost and "poof," no one can crack it. Wrong. You are forgetting that many attorney's who read the blog are much more tech savy than you, and grew up taking classes in high school teaching us how to program C++ and other applications while you were brought up on the abacus.

Yes when you do the initial running of your IP it gives you a ghosted address. I didn't know how to get past that at first but asked a buddy who does some major programming at a tech firm and it took him about 10 minutes to get me the information.

Clearly under your logic people can buy a web/ip ghosting program, committ illegal crimes using the internet, and people such as the US government would never be able to figure out who you were since you dropped $50 on a program to disguise you. Brilliant.

Anonymous said...

trialmaster, you are talking about a different Alan Fein. The judicial committee nominee is Alan Fine, who has never been with Stearns Weaver

Anonymous said...

Why are these people not on the list:

De La O. Has done some things that have made many angry at him.
Ruiz: Probably did not have "chemistry" with committee.
Milt: Simple. Very smart and probably came off as arrogant.
Kopco, probably did not like her even though she is rather likeable.

Except, De La O, these people are qualified to be a judge and would probably be a good judge.

Anonymous said...

1. I googled web ghost found zip.

2. On the telephone taping issues Federal law allows taping is one party is aware of the recording. So does State law trump Federal law?

3. What is the party doing the taping is located in a State like New York that allows one party taping of calls? That party call into Florida so what jurisdiction prevails on the law of taping.

So some States require only one party consent and some States as does Florida, requires both party consent before recordings can be made.

In a County, that is as corrupt as Bernie Maddoff who benefits by having this wiretap law? Only a crooked politician!

Rumpole said...

I was writing code in machine language and assembly when you were in diapers. I was phreaking ATT and Bell Telephone before you were born.

Don't tell me about what computers can and can't do.

Anonymous said...

I repeat my question in reply to 11:39 - Why is Bob Levy at 11:15 (and now 11:39) asking and then answering his own questions on behalf of all of his clients?? Bob, get off the blog and do something good for the community, like leave and go somewhere else. I suggest Thailand or Pakistan.

The truth is Milt is arrogant and had no hope!!

Samantha has not practiced law in 7years and the committee was not going destroy their credibility and give her a leg up on Swartz or Adrien by putting her out for a position she has not earned.

De La O is an idiot. Enough said.

Kopco is just not qualified. Other than being an ASA, which is not enough, she has done little to distinguish herself.

Nice try Bo(o)b. Please, please, please go away.

Anonymous said...

There isn't any question that Fine would be taking a pay cut to become a Circuit Judge. Thats a pretty selfless act.

This the type of lawyer this Blog always clammors for to put his/her name in the hat.

Some of the other names are looking for career advancement and a bigger paycheck.

Anonymous said...

I join that last guy...

De La O is the kind of guy would would be a tough judge to deal with.

But, disagree...

Kopco does have lots of experience. She is family lawyer and works hard at it.

Ruiz, is she really not practicing law anymore? If so, that would kill you with the committee.

Milt, love ya but, you come across as rather arrogant sometimes. You are very bright but, need to tone it down about well, not so low that you become Spencer Eig........