Friday, May 17, 2013


After finding Alex Michaels in contempt, Judge Miranda denied a request to allow him to post a bond pending appeal. This is most disturbing. The sentence was two days jail. Without bond pending appeal there would be no way for Mr. Michaels to seek review of the conviction for contempt without having already served the penalty. The judge's decision indicates that perhaps her emotions were involved, and that she was not impartially dispensing justice, but was angry and seeking to punish without regard to the rules, which are fairly clear:

(a) When Authorized. All persons who have been adjudicated guilty of the commission of any offense, not capital, may be released, pending review of the conviction, at the discretion of either the trial or appellate court, applying the principles enunciated in Younghans v. State, 90 So.2d 308 (Fla.1956), provided that no person may be admitted to bail on appeal from a conviction of a felony unless the defendant establishes that the appeal is taken in good faith, on grounds fairly debatable, and not frivolous. However, in no case shall bail be granted if such person has previously been convicted of a felony, the commission of which occurred prior to the commission of the subsequent felony, and the person's civil rights have not been restored or if other felony charges are pending against the person and probable cause has been found that the person has committed the felony or felonies at the time the request for bail is made.

FL Rule Crim Proc.  3.691

The 3rd DCA promptly ordered Mr. Michaels released when the petition was faxed to them Friday afternoon. Judge Miranda was simply wrong and her failure to allow Mr. Michaels to seek review of her order casts doubt on her impartiality and her decision in this matter. 


Judge Miranda held a contempt hearing today for Alex Michaels. Nothing worth reporting about- sort of "dog bites man" story. In what week is Alex not in a contempt hearing?

But this afternoon, Judge Miranda sentenced Alex (he has a fake twitter account which is gaining cult status @draculawyer) to TWO DAYS DCJ!!!!

No idea yet what the allegations were, and whether Alex is out on appeal. Will update as we learn more.

Follow @Davidovalle305 of the Herald for the up to the minute theater.

UPDATE  1: Alex spent the week mumbling curse words under his breath allegedly about the judge and/or prosecutor. Not wise. 

UPDATE 2: 3rd DCA orders Alex released pending appeal. Alex happy Rudy Sorondo has retired. Who can forget the opinion in Quinones v. State, when everyone learned what "contumacious" means:
During the course of what should have been a simple case, defense counsel achieved unprecedented levels of attorney misconduct. Indeed, it is arguable that his intent was not to try the case at all but, rather, to sabotage it. Counsel's misconduct is best addressed as presented by the state in its motion for mistrial: first, repeated disobedience of the trial court's orders, and second, the suppression of physical evidence. His misbehavior unquestionably had a significant impact on the jury.

Defense counsel's disregard for the court's orders was not only unethical but contumacious. During the course of the trial, defense counsel directly and repeatedly ignored the court's ruling that no mention was to be made of the fact that the victim was incarcerated...

 But one bad omen on the horizon: Judge Rothenberg, who has held Alex in contempt when she was a circuit court judge, is on the 3rd DCA. Uhho.

UPDATE 3: David Ovalle has a portable putting green. 
Four letter word for  golf nut: nerd


Anonymous said...


This young lady, who wanted to fulfill her community service obligations at ULTRA, today was sentenced to 3 years in a youthful offender facility, and 15 years probation based on a plea agreement over the objections of several family member's who gave victim's impact statements detailing the loss of their beloved, who was struck from behind by a driver in a brand new Audi driving home drunk from the South Beach club scene.

Fake Alex Michaels said...

dis is bullsheeet!!

follow me @draculawyer

and please put some money in my jail account

Anonymous said...

It is numerous overzealous ASA's who constantly violate Brady, yet Judges hold no contempt hearing. Yet they somehow seem to constantly take issue with Mr. Michaels dilligent advocacy. With is telling that the majority of these judges are hacks.

Anonymous said...

Ignorant Minority, has Alex Michaels ever called you a whore on the record, in open court? If not, shut the fuck up!

Anonymous said...

Channel 7 has "Alex Michaels" scroll at bottom of screen now.


Fake Alex Michaels said...

HA. No jail can hold me. 3rd released me because they know better than (&&##%25241!%@$@# trial judge.

Anonymous said...

Seriously, Alex is a nut job and needs to grow up and show some respect for the system. When judges tell you not to discuss something you shut your fucking mouth and appeal.

This system we all use will not work if lawyers from either side disobey court orders.

It will still take mucho tiempo for Alex to beat jonathan Schwartz for the award for most contempt citations.

Anonymous said...


Your much to emotional to be a judge. My comment addressed the lack of judges disciplining dishonest contemptuous prosecutors. Seems your the ignoramous one.

Anonymous said...

801... if you start throwing accusations around the courtroom with no documentation, why can't Alex throw around accusations without documentation? Same thing.

Anonymous said...

Your [sic] a moron

Anonymous said...

If Rottenberg had any integrity she wouldn't way in on the case. I doubt she has any.

Anonymous said...

Ignorant Majority actually raises an important point, even if he did so in his usual asinine broad brushed manner.

Miranda is an excellent judge, and Alex is well known for his antics (I like and respect Alex; he's not being contemptuous.......it's who he is. Frankly, I'd like to see him get some help).

Regardless, IM's point should get lost because of his style. There simply is no place in our system for prosecutors who withhold Brady evidence. I too would like to see the judges (and the Bar) take a much stronger position. Of course, I'd also like to see judges (and the Bar) take stronger action against defense attorneys (and civil attorneys) who violate the rules as well. I'm sick of the lies, deceit, withholding of evidence, etc. that I see everyday from lawyers of all stripes.


Anonymous said...

Alex gets held in contempt. And not even an investigation into the withholding of an exculpatory audio tape for twenty five years in a murder case where the defendant was once sentenced to death and on re-trial was almost acquitted with a hung jury majority favoring acquittal? Come on people......

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows that Alex Michaels is wholly contemptuous of the courtroom each and every day. This isn't his first ride at the rodeo. Stop defending him! It makes you look just as out of control and unprofessional as he is.

Mami Top Ten List said...

Top ten headlines you will never see:

10. Avowed peace activist and death penalty abolitionist Gail Levine said today....

9. The FACDL announced the unanimous presentation of the Justice Gerald Kogan award to Judge Migna Sanchez Llorens....

8. The new Criminal Courthouse opened in Miami today. A technological marvel...

7. Brian Tannebaum quit twitter today, announcing Popeye like "I cans only stands so much and I can't stands no more..."

6. Celebrity Chef Kenny Weisman opened his fourth restaurant in Akron, Ohio last week. Akron has quickly become the epicenter of the new fusion cuisine sweeping the country....

5. Newly elected Dade Public Defender Simon Steckle announced sweeping changes in the beleaguered office...

4. The Miami Dolphins repeated their miraculous undefeated season for the second time in three years as coach Steve Spurrier celebrated.....

3. The sell out streak for the Marlins continues into its third month...

2. New Miami Dade State Attorney Edith Georgi announced a tougher policy on sentencing felons after trial....

1. Florida Bar Counsel Alex Michaels stated today that the Bar would continue its crackdown on rude lawyers.....

Anonymous said...

Anytime Alex gets under your skin all you have to do is ask him to speak English

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, those spoiled brat whiny Heat players are at it again.

This time Dwyane Wade decided to accept a high school girl's invitation to the Prom and he showed up to boot. Can you imagine.

Heat Fan

Anonymous said...

There are many rude and contemptuous prosecutors, who are coddled by and supported by Judges who are equally contemptuous and yet they continue to operate every day in the Gerstein Building with absolute impunity.

Anonymous said...

12:20. 8:30. 8:23. 9:08.

Folks, the word is not contemptuous. It is Contumacious. Two different words. And it means:

Willfully disobedient to authority

Perfect description of Alex Michaels. Look the word up and his photo is next to it in the dictionary.

Anonymous said...

Miranda an excellent judge? Are you fucking kidding me?

Anonymous said...

Can the person who posted this yesterday please please take an English grammar lesson. You make a good point, but you are simply put:. Illiterate. Illiterate. Illiterate. That's three times; one for each time you improperly used the word your, instead of the word you're.


If your a Defense attorney your clients are so fucked. You are punking your clients by dceiving them to believe your in their best interest. In essence your no better than a common crook.

Friday, May 17, 2013 8:05:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Curses in courtroom = Get to jail!

Argues in courtroom that someone should be killed = zealously pursuing justice.

I pray for Florida.

DIS sez said...

A update on what you can & Can not say about a Case .
Friday , I called the FLA Bar's 800 Ethics line. The Bar's position is anything we learn about a case or client, EVEN IF IN PUBLIC DOMAIN, is Confidential under rule 4-1.6.
We learned it during our representation and there fore cant even Post Got a Not Guilty Today, UNLESS THE CLIENT CONSENTS AND IT IS IN CLIENT's BEST INTEREST TO POST.
The Bar's position is EVEN a link, without comment to , the Herald / a newspaper or TV article/report is NOT allowed under the Confidentiality restrictions under 4-1.6.
I specifically asked about matters in open court , ON the Record, and the Bar's position is that duty to keep Client's confidences has NO PUBLIC RECORD EXCEPTIONS, things that happen in court are confidential because we learned about it during our representation of the client.
Any Questions, Call the Ethics line at 800 235 8619.

Anonymous said...

Rump- tool my 24 year old "interpreter" who is a senior at FIU to Vegas- staying at Wynn Encore suite. Told my wife I was going to Pensacola to see a Federal Client.
This little hottie is insatiable. Resting now. Then dinner, clubbing and then back to room about 2-3 am but we wont sleep until 6 am. Taking red eye back tomorrow night. Land Miami about 7 am. If you see me in court be nice to me. Bless these young girls. They keep 50 yr olds young.

3rd dca said...

924.065 Denial of motion for new trial or arrest of judgment; appeal bond; supersedeas.—

(1) Immediately after denial of a motion for a new trial or a motion in arrest of judgment, the court shall dictate the denial to the court reporter and sentence the defendant. The defendant may file notice of appeal following denial of the motion and sentencing. Upon filing of notice of appeal, the court shall set the amount of the appeal bond if the defendant is entitled to bail. The clerk shall prepare a certificate setting forth the filing and approval of the supersedeas bond, and the certificate shall be sufficient authority for release of the defendant.

903.132 Bail on appeal; conditions for granting; appellate review.—

(1) No person may be admitted to bail upon appeal from a conviction of a felony unless the defendant establishes that the appeal is taken in good faith, on grounds fairly debatable, and not frivolous. However, in no case shall bail be granted if such person has previously been convicted of a felony, the commission of which occurred prior to the commission of the subsequent felony, and such person’s civil rights have not been restored or if other felony charges are pending against the person and probable cause has been found that the person has committed the felony or felonies at the time the request for bail is made.

(2) An order by a trial court denying bail to a person pursuant to the provisions of subsection (1) may be appealed as a matter of right to an appellate court, and such appeal shall be advanced on the calendar of the appellate court for expeditious review.

Anonymous said...

LOL 416. You have no idea what kind of lawyer I am. And you must be a newbie.

Do you like all of your clients? Do you think they all should go free? If the answer is yes to either of these, you're a fool.

There are plenty of great lawyers who provide excellent representation who don't like many of their clients and abhor what they did. You see them every day in court. Get over it.


Anonymous said...

6:14 pm - you are a douchebag. My beloved niece just graduated UF. Your "hottie" must have suffered unimaginable childhood trauma to allow herself to be touched by someone as repulsive as you. I hope she gets the help she needs. I hope you get a painful std.

Anonymous said...


I'm disappointed that you allowed 6:14 through whatever filter you employ. I understand your position that such comments "stew in their own juices." The problem is that the juices are toxic, and infectious. Every reader of this blog is a woman, or the colleague of women, a father, a son, a brother, an uncle. 6:14's comment insidiously if subtly spreads his misogyny to your readership and beyond, as would published and unrebuked racist or homophobic comments. This is a blog that purports to promote moral standards for our profession. For the most part it does so. Your tolerance for sexist pusbuckets like 6:14 puts your mission at risk.

Anonymous said...

If I were a judge I too would keep this illerate ***hole in jail until he learns to speak english. I wonder, who would ever hire this guy to represent him or her after meeting him and listening to him speak? Even if his fees are dirt cheap or even free? I do not get it.

Anonymous said...

I'm still brooding over the sloshing discharge into these comments of that brimming pusbucket 6:14.

I'm also offended that, if Alex Michaels was held in contempt for calling a female asa a whore, he's being championed here with a "boys will be boys" bonhomie.

Don't misunderstand, I'm a defense attorney. I find many asas to be careerist asshats. But it's shabby to resort to sexist epithets -- bitch, son of bitch, slut, whore, cunt, blah blah. I don't even think there are parallel epithets for men.

It's not just shabby. It takes a toll on your woman readers, and eventually, inevitably on the women connected with your male readers.

I can recall twenty years ago being in trial in federal district court making a tricky winning argument in limine that really injured my opponent's case. He hissed "bitch" at me as he returned to his seat. It was like a fist to my belly, knocked the wind out of me.

I can understand if your response is, "want a blog that doesn't casually demean women lawyers, write it yourself." But I believe you're a thoughtful man who takes seriously this blog's well-earned role in our community. Perhaps we can consider non-sexist epithets that will do the job just as well.

I like douchebag or douchey or douchenozzle, but worry that these might also be sexist.

Anonymous said...

you all still haven't figured out that comments like 6:14 are fake and written here to get idiots to respond as if they are real? I just hope that no one who responded actually has a law license.

Anonymous said...

Alex Michaels for judge - oh, Miranda is up for election!!! Lets raise funds for Alex, if he does not win Miranda's folks will have to spend at least a years worth of salary!!!!!!! GO Alex Go

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with those that have questioned your decision to post 6:14 and others like his post over the years. You have your rules and you pretty much stick to them. You have repeatedly made mention of what you DON'T post

Your blog is well read and respected. You demean your own blog by repeatedly posting the drivel like that written by 6:14. Stop posting it and it soon will stop.

Please consider adding to your rule book, that ridiculous sexual escapade posts like we regularly seem to read on this blog be eliminated in the future.

The overwhelming majority of your readers would respect you and admire you that much more. And the buffoons that seem to enjoy seeing their drivel in print would simply stop sending it.

Jason grey said...

3:11. No one seriously thinks that any of those sexual escapade posts have any truth to them. That was not the point. The point is that we are suggesting that Rumpole rise above the subject matter of those posts and those losers will once and for all go away.

Jason Grey

Rumpole said...

I have read and respect your comments about the 6:14 comment. I may in fact not let such comments up in the future. But the reason I did is that I see this as a common occurrence. I know many of lawyers who (claim) they are sleeping with their associate, their assistant, their court reporter, etc. I know middle aged lawyers who are traveling on a regular basis to Colombia, Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, etc, because they say they are sleeping with beautiful women more than half their age. So this is an issue- or call it a problem. But it is something I hear about on a regular basis.

That being said, you as readers have complained and have complained in the past and I may indeed heed your complaints in the future.

Thanks for reading.

Anonymous said...

Don't know if Rumpole will let this up, but I am a man- 52- in great shape- swim about 45 min a day and yoga and eat well. I have almost visible abs, broad shoulders, and I guess with age my salt and pepper hair gives me a distinguished look. I have always dated young wonen. When I was 20 I dated 18 year olds. When I was 30 I dated 21 year olds. When I was 40 I still dated girls in their 20's and now that I am 52 I have had relationships in the past two years with one new CPA 26, and a new ER doctor- 34.

I don't take advantage of young women. I feel they are attracted to me for the same reason young guys say they want a "milf". In the past I have financially supported girlfriends who have been in college and it is something that I think just happens when an older individual who is financially secure can jhelp someone they are in a relationship with.

Anyway- my two cents

Anonymous said...

let's get something straight.. Alex didn't get held in contempt because he called anyone a whore. There was an entire hearing with at least 30 people watching who heard what the Judge's allegations were - she held him in contempt because he "allegedly" mouthed "F*uck you" - except no one, not even the prosecutors, could back up that allegation.

Anonymous said...

The Miami Dade SAO manipulates Brady and its progeny to their advantage. Just go to court and ask to see the SAO's prefile notes. You will get a frivolous response from the SAO and they will refuse to show them.

If you make a public records request after the case is closed you get another frivolous response from the SAO.

Just try to appeal the denial of a Brady motion to the 3rd DCA post trial. PCA: LOL

It is like the Miami Dade SAO is e exempt from Brady.

Anonymous said...

Siding with rumpole with this, sort of. 49 happily married. Couple of kids. But I know two lawyers in the courthouse who are on their second and third wife respectively, from Colombia- both of them in their 20's and both amazingly sexy. Both the lawyers are well into their late 40's early 50's.

That scandal with the secret service at the whorehouse in Colombia? Three Miami lawyers were there at the time and I must know two dozen lawyers who have traveled to Colombia to have sex with young women in their 20's.

Lawyers who sleep with the staff? You can't spit without hitting one in line to get into the courthouse. The bigger scandal is lawyers sleeping with their client's or their client's wives or daughters. The fact is that sex as an offshoot of power exits in our profession and you all asking Rumpole to ignore it and suppress what we all know is downright wrong.

Anonymous said...

749..........if you think that you are entitled to the SAO's pre-file notes in every case because of Brady, then you need to re-read the case.

There are plenty of prosecutors who can and should be criticized and punished for not providing information they should, but your position is contrary to the law.


Anonymous said...

I personally, not being a lawyer read this Blog every day. I started reading about two years ago because I wanted to learn about the Justice System and what really happens in our courts. I have learned a lot and I respect the great effort that is to keep up such line of information on an every day basis. But I do agree with the comments in reference to the sexual encounters that sometimes are posted, I think that this Blog is not the proper place to discuss the sexual encounters or infidelity as sometimes is posted. Maybe the discussion about who gets younger women, or travels to find young prostitutes do not belong here. As a woman I do find some of the Post insulting went it referes to does issues.
Rumpole I respect your time and work on your Blog, please do not admit such comments that trash the space.

Anonymous said...

52 yr old man,
Your comment seems a lot different than the original post everyone's talking about.

Dating younger women, even much younger, and helping them out while in a relationship is one thing. Assuming there's mutual respect.

Taking interns on flights to vegas for extra-marital sex or prostitutes in Colombia, cheating on wife with girls your own
daughters age is disgusting and, men who boast about it should be called out for it.
Fun to laugh and joke about it with your buddies until your own daughter is the one who tells you she just came back from a weekend in Vegas.

Anonymous said...


I didn't think you had the nerve to post anything much less insult me after I totally denunked, bebunked, your flawed theory of officers being able to say "I'm human" on the stand when caught in a lie and think that will suffice to a jury. As bias, pathetic, and imbecelic as you are you have chosen to use derrogatory adjectives because your such a lame brain cunt and my points deflate your lame standings and you cant attact the validity of my points or the merits thereof. So be it, I knew your were a numskull bottom feeder who claims to be a defense attorney, but you just added certified clown to your repatory.

As for 8:01, apparently you deserve what you got, although I and others don't believe you because your claims are unsubstantiated, Asshole

Let me reiterate for future reference don't wolf of at me just because you associate me in your bigot minds with the uncle tom negro minority you work with agrees with you everytime like a frightened battered spouse I'm not him and I'm not that type.So get it straight.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rump, just remember the two things men lie about the most are sex and money. Most of the crap written about sex is just that, crap.

DS sez said...

Bravo Jason, as usual direct & to the Point.
Though if YOU posted it I would believe it.

Anonymous said...

What's with all the "anonymous" postings? Why is it Jason Grey is the only one with the courage to say it the way it is?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you sure showed me UAM.



Anonymous said...

In 30 years of practice, can anyone say that Alex Michaels ever did anything for anyone other than take money and represent clients?

Anonymous said...

507.......you obviously don't know Alex very well. I'm not going to get into here, but Alex has faced challenges in his personal life that none of us would want to face.

Regardless, when I was in County Court many moons ago, I saw him jump up and help unrepresented defendants on multiple occasions when he thought they were getting screwed. And, he did that for nothing.

Alex cares for his clients and fights like hell on their behalf. While Alex can be a ball buster, I never had a problem with him when I was a prosecutor.

Don't be so judgmental (there's no reason to attack him personally as you did).


Anonymous said...

TO BTDT @8:02

There doesn't need to be cases cited for the state to produce all statements of witnesses. But there are plenty of Florida cases. Look at the definition of a statement under F. R. Cr. P. 3.220(B)(1)(B)

Oh, and by the way, have you forgotten about something called the Due Process Clause? You may want to take a look at the Federal cases under that as well.

Anonymous said...

1:14............again, you're incorrect. Due process (Brady, etc.) only requires a prosecutor to turn over exculpatory and impeachment information that's material.

Discovery is a creature of statute. There is no general constitutional right to discovery.

3.220 does not apply to closed cases (it's a discovery statute). Further, a prosecutor's notes regarding a statement are not discoverable unless the prosecutor directly quotes a witness (and, even then, only the quoted language is turned over).

Generally speaking, a prosecutor's notes are not discoverable (of course, if they contain exculpatory of impeachment information, that's different).


Anonymous said...

Have a manslaughter case. Two years in I learn the state took a statement from the co-defendant. Never disclosed it. When I found out their response to the court was "it wasn't exclupatory so we don't have to turn it over". Dismissing for the moment that 3.220 specifically states they have to turn over these statements, think about what that means. Any inculpatory info- dna, fingerprints, police reports, anything not exculpatory the state is on the record saying they do not have to turn over. Bizzare.

Anonymous said...

Take it back Rumpole. You said Judge Miranda was simply wrong and the third released Alex Michaels as a result. The Third just decided they "improvidently granted the writ." Translation = carelessly, foolishly, imprudently. Hadn't seen that before.

You stated that the Judge may have been angry and not impartially dispensing justice and ignoring the rules. Apparently not.

Rumpole said...

When did that happen? Do you have a copy of the decision?

Anonymous said...

In light of all the recent events, let's take a step back and analyze what is going on. The practice of law is a profession that deals with rules and no attorney, or judge, should tolerate the violation of those very rules.

As far as the antics of Alex Michaels, they are not cute or amusing, they are offensive and they should not be tolerated just because it is Alex and he somehow operates under a different set of rule. If anyone violates the Rules of Professional Ethics we all share, we have an obligation to to file a complaint with the Florida Bar, failure to file such a complaint is a violation in and of itself. Short of that, a judge has the right to take the necessary steps to control his, or her, courtroom and although Contempt is one of the tools in their toolbox, it should be reserved for only the most serious of violations. A good judge is able to control the actions of their courtroom without resorting to Contempt. That being said, Alex needs to be reigned in and he needs to comport himself in an appropriate manner.

The issue of Brady material isa very important one because it goes to the very core of our system of justice. Prosecutors are wield tremendous powers and are given a sacred responsibilities. No attorney should have the "win at all costs" mentality. The sacred duty of every member of the Bar is to zealously represent their respective clients within the confines of the rules and the facts of a case are the facts of a case, good or bad. A prosecutor must abide by the rules and deal with whatever hand they are dealt. Janet Reno's approach to Discovery was that you turn over everything except your notes-period! She strongly believed in open Discovery and if your case was strong enough to prevail in the end, then so be it; if not, then you lose and either way, justice is served. There can be no toleration for any prosecutor who willfully withholds evidence as it constitutes a clear abuse of power.

We, as members of the Bar, must not tolerate any violations, if we do, we are belittling our very own profession. It is not an issue of government v. defense, it is the soul of our very profession.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers suck. A butch of dickheads.

Amy said...

Looks like good old loser Alex has another POS client and Alex is an animal hatter! http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article41229912.html Prosecutors have charged two ripped body builders with animal abuse after three starving, emaciated horses were found on their rural South Miami-Dade ranch.

Milagros Cowan, 50, was arraigned Friday on four misdemeanor counts of animal abuse. Her husband, Alex Paez, 48, was earlier charged with the same counts and is scheduled for trial in December.

The two — who travel across the country to compete in body-building competitions — were arrested on similar horse-abuse charges four years ago. The charges were dropped after they completed a “pre-trial intervention” program for first-time offenders.

Paez’s lawyer, Alexander Michaels, on Friday said the newest charges “were no big deal.”

“I wish the police would spend more time on human victims, and child victims, than on horses who skipped a meal,” Michaels said. BTW Alex these horses are far from just skipping a meal, further animal abuse is just a start for human abusers.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article41229912.html#storylink=cpy