Thursday, May 31, 2012


BREAKING: John Edwards Jury has reached a verdict only on count 3 (the "Bunny Money" count for 2008). There is no verdict on any other count, including count 2 which is the "Bunny Money for 2007." The Judge did not have the verdict read  Edwards was acquitted on that count. The Judge sent the  jury back for more deliberations.   The Judge read an Allen charge and after further deliberation the jurors could not reach a verdict. A mistrial was declared. John Edwards spoke to the press afterwards and while denying that he did anything illegal, took responsibility for doing a lot of wrong things. 

"The Line" has been saved for now. The attorney entrance line at the back of the REGJB- scheduled for execution on Friday June 1, 2012 at 9:01 AM., has received a stay. For now the line will stay in business. The reason is ostensibly the backlog of applications for the REGJB Identity Card that all attorneys will need to gain entrance to the REGJB with waiting with Hoi Polloi (the great unwashed). 
NOTE: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE AN FACDL MEMBER TO GET AN ID CARD. You do have to be a lawyer and have your bar multi-state results immediately available. 

Now these next words hurt, but they must be said: Broward does it right (ouch) and Dade does not. Give us a moment to recover from this painful observation. 

In Broward they have an employees line that attorneys can use with a Bar card. It is much shorter than the general line. Therefore, when an attorney from Dade who infrequently visits Broward has the unfortunate requirement of attending court in Broward, s/he can still gain admittance within a reasonable time. However, when our brethren from Broweird head south, they will have to wait in a lengthy line because their Bar card will do them no good in gaining entrance to the REGJB. 

The question is why? 
A card that allows all attorneys entrance to the REGJB without being screened is an unmitigated security risk. Either people get screened or they don't. If you screen three quarters of the people entering the REGJB, or 90% of the people, you might as well not screen anyone. Not screening everyone  is a security gap that is intolerable in a gun-ridden society.  Any lawyer has just as much a chance of becoming imbalanced (and more so  for the judiciary-sorry, couldn't resist the cheap shot) as any other individual. 
So why not just have a separate line for attorneys and staff and those who work at the REGJB like clerks and court reporters? Just like they do in ...ughh...Broweird. 

Our understanding is that as things now sit, once the attorney line is closed, all staff members from the SAO or the PD or any intern working with an attorney will have to stand in lines that sometimes have more than an hour wait time. So will any attorney who happens to visit from West Palm or Broward or from any other jurisdiction. Imagine you are an attorney hired for a big case in Tampa. A six or eight week murder trial, and every day you have to wait in line for an hour to get into the courthouse. Think your opponent will have an advantage over you? 

The current system will never work. Please fix it Judges Brown and Soto. 
Thank you. 
See You In Court. 


Anonymous said...

The problem with the old attorney line, was that it was not just attorneys using it. Members of he press used it. Clerks, employees, SAO and PD employees used it. Deliveries for ABP went through there.

Then to top it off, the sensitivity was so high on the scanner, everyone ended up getting wanded. If the wand cleared you, you pass. Why not just use the wand, and forget the scanner.

Having the ID card happens to be great. I did not think it would be. But I never stand in line. I never get scanned or wanded, and I'm cancer free. More than worth he money.

I was already an FACDL member, but the rumor about having to join is a lie. You don't. But if you are in that building regularly, I can't imagine why you would not be an FACDL member.

Unless you are such a jerk that no one can stand to associate with you.

Love Uncle Miltie said...

Milton in rare form today, quoting Judge Hugo Friend in the 1921 trial Illinois v. Eddie Cicotte, (aka the Chicago Black Sox case) , the Leipzig War Crimes Trial (WWI war criminals); and a defense attorney in the Trial of the Prompartiya- a Russian Soviet trial in 1930 against several individuals accused of conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Throw in the odd Satchel Page quote. and recitation to literary works such as Uncle Tom's Cabin,Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, Death of a Salesman, and Splendor in the Grass and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and
and a quote from the film "The Sorrow and The Pity" and it was another day in Miltville.

Anonymous said...

Johns Edwards, Not Guilty! Now leave the man alone.

Anonymous said...

John Edwards case was a very distasteful prosecution, they should leave it alone. It's been obvious that the prosecution has been retribution for his infidelity, which is not a crime.I hope the govt. does not waste anymore money on that case. In my opinion no two people are going to be intimate with just each other for the rest of their lives. 1)Our egos won't permit that (man)or(woman). 2)Every human being is curious and indulges in (strange) every now and then, it's inevitable. Especially if your wife holds out on the goods to get her way.

DS said...

AP Reports :

BOSTON -- In an unanimous ruling, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act , that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman ,discriminates against gay couples because it doesn't give them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples.

The Court affirmed the lower Courts ruling that declared the Law unconstitutional.


here is the linc:


Anonymous said...

Bar card gets you in Leon County too

Anonymous said...

Someone please explain why a bar card and drivers license is not enough?????

Anonymous said...

Without doubt, a bar card and DL should allow you to use a separate line.

But short of that, the ID system implemented is the next best thing.

Anonymous said...

Simple answer: expedite the card process. A bar card and driver's license immediately gets you a card for a nominal fee at the REG. A quick check at the Florida Bar website to confirm that you are good and you get your card.

Anonymous said...

And why waste time with criminal background check? Didn't bar take care of that already? Is that what its taking so long?

Anonymous said...

Rump, other than American Minority, who are the attorneys under 40 with less than 7 years experience that are the upcoming good closers? I've seen a few in the building but their names elude me.

Anonymous said...

Broward has two scanners for defendants and visitors and one for attorneys and employees on the first floor. The lines in either scanner move very fast and they wand you very quickly if you beep. There are also two lines at the third floor entrance from the parking garage.

The problem in Dade is that the scanners are set way too sensitive, supposedly because either the building manager or the judges or both have ordered it so. That makes everyone beep and creates back ups when people have to remove shoes and belts and pass the scanner several times.

The system is set up to provide a semblance of security though there is no such thing as perfect security. The current set up creates unreasonable and unnecessary hassles without really adding security. Judges have to keep in mind that the REGJB is a criminal courthouse nor a family/domestic violence courthouse where the potential for violence is much higher, and our humble and crappy building is a very unlikely target for terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Amer Min., infidelity IS a crime. Check out FS 798.01. It's still a law on the books in Florida.
Case law has pretty much made it impossible to bring charges against someone for it, but it is a crime. 2nd degree misdemeanor.

And, North Carolina actually is one of those states, where not only is it a crime, but the spouse who was cheated on could also bring a case against the 3rd party for alienation of affection.

Anonymous said...

Lucky for Edwards and Humter his wife is dead from the cancer, which made her so un attractive that he had to go elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

9:35 am, remember when Off. Corzo from Metro-Dade PD arrested a man and a woman who were having sex in a car but were married to others and charged them with adultery?

Anonymous said...

9:35, In Georgia I knew it is law 16-6-19, apparently in FL as well,I didn't realize it was still on the books here. In Georgia if your the third party caught committing adultery, and your somehow assaulted by the spouse, your restricted from filing battery charges, and your still charged with the misdemeanor, fined, and susceptible to civil action.
My Case and point is this: I genuinely believe that, majority wise, no two people are going to be intimate with just each other for the rest of their lives. Our egos are to big, the need for revenge when we feel we've been slighted, offended,or taken for granted. I cant tell you how many woman have said "I want to go out he cheated or did or didn't this or that so hey lets go out" I believe getting strange is inevitable, Just about everyone is superficial, and the values have changed, women dress enticingly skimpy, competition everywhere you turn. Check out Dancingbear.com, you'll see ladies engaging in all sorts of behavior at various bachelorette parties, it leads you to think what sap sucker is going to marry this girl.Although I respect the institute of marriage, and I think it is the foundation of a good society. It's is an almost insurmountable goal, as far as longevity is concerned. My Grandparents were married for 60 yrs and are buried side by side, but I believe long gone are those days.

Anonymous said...

Not to mention George Holding appointed by W., secured the indictment, resigned, and ran for congress. So the case against Edwards was essentially a political prosecution. Why do we have a double standard in this country? No one prosecuted Ensign no one prosecuted Gov. Sanford for his infidelity soap opera, as he was at a press conference crying worse than Boehner at a Bush tax repeal.

Anonymous said...

JUDGE IN ZIMMERMAN CASE REVOKES BOND. Basis: He failed to disclose that his defense fund had raised $150,000 when he claimed he no money to post bond.

This is, as Alex would put it "Bull Sheeet". What are the change of circumsatnces? This is a guy who has fulfilled every condition of his release. Forgetting that he sat around for 44 days while the whole world convicted him and then surrendered when he was charged.

O'Mera should go directly to the 5th DCA, do not pass go and don't try to collect $200. Time to get a stay and appellate review. The judge gave him 48 hours to surrender. Obviously he does not believe he is a flght risk, so why order him into custody?

This is the same prosecutor who prosecuted a woman who, along with all of the victim's other "baby mommas" had been repeatedly abused and the victim bragged about it. All she did was shoot the weapon in the air and the victim said he wasn't afraid. The woman gets convicted of Agg Assault and now has a 20 year min. man. over her head.

I don't know if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, but this act of taking him into custody does not pass the smell test. The 5th reverses the order.

Anonymous said...

3:33pm, I differ partially, on your initial portion of your comment, the Judge clearly states Zimmerman mislead the court to believe he was indigent. You cant lie to the Judge and claim indigence knowing that is not true. I predict the judge will increase Zimmerman's bond to an appropriate amount. Question is will his wife be charged with perjury.

SANFORD, Fla. — A judge on Friday revoked the bond of the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with murdering Trayvon Martin and ordered him returned to jail within 48 hours, saying George Zimmerman and his wife misled the court about how much money they had available when his bond was set at $150,000.

Prosecutors claim Zimmerman had $135,000 available that had been raised by a website he set up. Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, testified at the bond hearing in April that they had limited funds available since she was a nursing student and Zimmerman wasn't working.

"He can't sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods," said Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester when he made his ruling.

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara said the fact that Zimmerman and his wife never used the money for anything indicated "there was no deceit." Since his release in late April, Zimmerman has been staying at an undisclosed location for his safety.

Prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda described the Zimmermans' testimony as "misleading."

"This court was led to believe they didn't have a single penny," said De la Rionda. "It was misleading and I don't know what words to use other than it was a blatant lie."

The judge said he would schedule a hearing after Zimmerman is back in custody so the neighborhood watch leader could explain himself.

Anonymous said...

Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.131 (5)
All in formation provided by a defendant in connection with any application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court personnel, or individual, soliciting, or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for or securing bail for the defendant, under circumstances such that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be used in connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate, truthful, and complete, without omissions, to the best knowledge of the defendant. Failure to comply with the provisions of this subdivision may result in the revocation or modification of bail.

Question is now;will Judge Lester modify or revoke Zimmerman bond ? My guess is he's going to hear argument at the rehearing and modify to $1000,000 bond which in my opinion would be an appropriate amount.

Anonymous said...

Not only is this the right thing to do and it surpasses any smell test as raised by 3:33pm, more importantly its the Law. Now is Mike Omara astute enough to shrewdly and ambiguously explain the theory as to Zimmerman's knowledge of his account funds, in which the state has jail tapes of him informing his wife to withdraw and deposit funds, to the judge. Secondly will his wife be charged with perjury? This second hearing shall be interesting to see the court's ruling.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you (see, someone does) that the prosecution was political and a waste of time and money.
However, you originally said "It's been obvious that the prosecution has been retribution for his infidelity"
I don't think they gave a sh*t about the infidelity. It was all political.

Anonymous said...

American Minority - you are truly a moron. Dancing Bear are paid porn stars (the women and men).

Anonymous said...

American Minority,

Your constant postings and ramblings are really ponderous.

Anonymous said...

It's troubling to know that a man can face thirty years, almost entirely, for another mans' political rivalry and ambitions.

Anonymous said...

It's one of those only in Miami things . A lawyer who can barely speak English ( heavily accented), can become a big money hotshot . That falls apart in trial because it's offensive and ditracting to non foreign jurors

Anonymous said...

Quiñón ahoyad represent John Edwards , same ethical standards

DS said...

Wrong. The Judge Should have had a hearing w/ Notice on Bond Revocation or even Contempt BEFORE ORDERING ZIM TO JAIL. Due Process and the Rules require a Hearing w the Defendant present n notice to Zim's ESQ, to revoke or modify Bond Conditions,. Not Arrest than determine if a violation occured.

This is more serious than the Edwards BS. Edwards was not in custody durning his trial.

AM, Having Never stood next to a guy ( ie a Defendant ) arguing with the Court and the ASA not to take him back in to custody, you may not realize the seriousness of Bond Revocation. Those of us who have been in the Pits of Justice, do understand.


Anonymous said...

DS, Oh I understand the importance of due process, due process is paramount. I agree with you on that point. However it is my understanding, that with his waived right to appear, accompanied by the fact that he apparently, intentionally mislead the court to believe he was indigent at the time he and his wife was questioned, is in direct violation of the law.
Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.131 (f) Revocation of Bail. state that "The court in it's discretion for good cause, any time after a defendant who is at large on bail appears for trial, may commit the defendant to the custody of the proper official to abide by the judgement, sentence, and any further order of the court.
As well, Rule 3.131(g)(1)(2)(3) Arrest and Commitment by Court. The court in which the cause is pending may direct the arrest and commitment of the defendant who is at large on bail when:
(1) there has been a breach of the undertaking;
(2)it appears that the defendant sureties or any of them are dead or cannot be found or are insufficient or have ceased to be residents if the state; or
(3) the court is satisfied that the bail should be increased or new or additional security required.
The order for the commitment of the defendant shall recite generally the facts on which it is based and shall direct direct that be arrested by any official authorized to make arrest and that the defendant committed to the official in whose custody he or she would be if he or she had not been given bail, to be detained by such official until legally discharged. The defendant shall be arrested pursuant to such order on a certified copy thereof, in any county, in the same manner as on a warrant of arrest. If the order provided for is made because of the failure of the defendant to appear for judgement, the defendant shall be committed. If the order is made for any other cause, the court may determine the conditions of release,if any.

Not only did Judge Lester revoke and grant the ASA's order, he implied that the SA herself is cognizant of the facts, and he expected a motion for pretrial detention. He also questioned why that motioned wasn't filed initially. Seems the Judge is abiding by the rules. One must be truthful to the court especially at Bond/Arthur Hearing.

If you have money or expect to have any disclose those facts , if your not indigent and are going to hide that fact, don't attempt to speak about it in code with your wife on a monitored jail facility phone.
~Loose lips, sinks ships.~

Anonymous said...

Ds btw, Edwards at least had the respect to disclose to the Judge, that he could afford the appropriate bond gave to him. Like I say "If your going to deviate from the rules know the exceptions, or deal with the consequences." Notwithstanding a child is dead, Zimmerman has the right to a fair trial indeed.I believe in our 5th & 6th Amendment's.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Am Min found the online link to Florida Rules of Procedure.

And all of a sudden it is all about due process and fair trials?? What happened to the guy who fell all over himself commenting on this blog about how guilty Zimmerman is? You already had him convicted before he was arrested.

You are a flip flopping, waffling douche who can't even be persuaded by his own argument.

And I still say you are a complete pussy for not confronting that guy in the elevator. I would have loved to see the security video footage of him slapping you down, you sissy.

See you on the escalator.


DS said...

Thanxs. Dude , like I NEVER read that rule NOT!
I have argued it hundreds of times . I was in ERU about '93, and that unit relies on those rules. By the way where were you in 1993.

How many people have you sat next to a Defendant trying to get them out or keep them out.

I dont believe that there was any substantial Change of Circumstances { Check it out-it is a legal phrase w/ important meaning} to revoke bond.
I admit part of the due process argument is wrong, because there was a hearing on the issue last week before the judge ruled. though it seemed sua sponte.

It was well publicized that there was a Internet site raising $ for his legal defense That isnt a NEW event and rather old news , so not usable. And SO What, he is broke and living on the kindness of others.
Poor People do that.

And Why Hold the Defendant NO BOND with Proof NOT Evident and Presumption NOT GREAT, as to SECOND Degree Murder.

Should Zim be held on a NO BOND Status where this may well be only

a Manslaughter,

or a NOT GUILTY due to Self D,

or the Defendant may well be IMMUNE from Prosecution under the Statute.

Also , what about a Judge telling the ASA that he was anticipating a Motion to Hold the Defendant No Bond for thiat hearing and expected to see it from the State in the near future.
Maybe a a Motion to Recuse the Judge because he told the State to file that kind of Motion in a Murder case.

Remember That The REF > Judge< Aint supposed to Coach the State.


DS said...


its DS all caps

not Ds

its my initials

David Sisselman

Si Si Si

Scott E is not allowed to play but a trivia question on why

Si Si Si

Anonymous said...

DS, watch the hearing over and listen to what the Judge said. He didn't tell the state to file the motion. BTW, Thanks for being civil in our disagreement points, I prefer and respect that.