Thursday, July 31, 2014


UPDATE: The judicial races are heating up, and the Herald via David Ovalle here covers the story here, and credits a local blog of some renown in breaking the story about candidate Carrazana being canned by his firm for filing against Judge Smith. 
Speaking of which, Judge Smith has swamped his opponent in fund raising and support, but that's what happens when an unqualified lawyer with an Hispanic surname as his only "qualification" for being elected runs against a supremely qualified Judge.

... Because life is too short 

not to travel

to drink bad wine

to not follow your dreams

to eat bad food

to associate with bad people

to represent pain-in-the-butt clients

to tangle with clueless judges

to not read great books

to not see great movies (go see "A Most Wanted Man" John LeCare's intricate spy thriller and Phillip Seymour Hoffman's last great role.)

to hate your job

to not love and laugh and live. 

So get off your couch and follow your dreams. 

See you in court Monday. 


Anonymous said...

Sh sh sh SHUMIE TIME!!!

Anonymous said...

Enjoy your birthday today and your long weekend.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole … am i going to see you in Truckee this summer?

Anonymous said...

Didn't Art Vandelay design Trains?

Anonymous said...

Rump, hated my job but found a new one. Taking Monday off. Great post.

Ouch, thats gotta hurt said...

Jackie Schwartz slammed in the CABA poll (59% unqualified) and then slammed again in the DCBA (36% unqualified) poll.

To put it in perspective, everyone's long time favorite unqualified judge, Jose Rodriguez, finished in second with 22% unqualified. Jackie almost lapped him.

Anonymous said...

Been on vacaa for three weeks already. You late.

South Florida Lawyers said...

Nicely done. Don't forget Polanski's first film, Knife in the Water, at the Cosford this weekend.


Anonymous said...

Just got my super late refund from the Judge Altfield Campaign.

Noticed Tomas Gamba is his Treasurer. Then again Hector Lombana recruited Veronica to run against Altfield.

Conflict here? Troubling?

Tomas and Hector are partners. Something is fishy here.

For the next elections I urge everyone to not donate to any candidate who has Tomas Gamba or Hector Lombana on as Treasurers or anything else. Seems these two clowns are playing games.

Judges wise up!

Anonymous said...

Blood-deep in its rightness.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole … try the "Squeeze In" Restaurant in Truckee while you are there. Delicious breakfast and brunch. IT is near where you stay on Donner Pass….

You will thank me later!

Anonymous said...

Loved "Garwoods" on the lake with all those great antique power boats. Not far from Truckee.

Rumpole said...

That's all so 2009. The Cape is now where it's at.

Anonymous said...

Cape Cod? Cape May? Cape Hatteras? Cape Canaveral?

Anonymous said...

I know you love Judge Smith. But his opponent (Carrazana) says he is running against Smith because of Smith's rulings that favor insurance companies. This is what the miami herald article by David O'Valle states:

"Carrazana denies playing ethnics politics. Instead, he says he is targeting Smith because he disagrees with Smith rulings over the years favoring insurance companies. Smith was once employed by campaign supporter United Automobile Insurance Company; the company’s executive operations manager also created a political action committee, Citizens for Judicial Fairness, to support the judge."

Is there truth to what Carrazana says about why he decided to challenge Smith? Lets look at the facts. Judge Smith did work for United Automobile and Allstate. Also confirmed as fact per the Department of Elections website and the herald article, the Citizens for Judicial Fairness was a PAC created by United Automobile and the PAC spent $150k to support Judge Smith and Judge Nuria Saenz last month. This past week a mailer in support of Judge Rodney Smith and Judge Nuria Saenz was sent out throughout Dade County that was paid for by Citizens for Judicial Fairness.

Rumple, I am sure you don't need to be reminded or made aware that there are thousands of pending lawsuits in the Dade county courts against United Automobile and it is circuit court judges like Smith who decide appeals involving insurance companies like United Automobile.

Hhhmmmmm ... Why would United Automobile put up that kind of money to support two incumbents who are up for reelection? The answer is obvious and it appears that Carrazana's stated reason to run against Smith is genuine. Good for him. Atleast someone has the courage to challenge an incumbent who appears to be nothin more than a puppet who is bought and paid for.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't three a judge back in 2004 who was chastised by you and others because he predicted just what you said about young, inexperienced and unqualified people running for judge with their only qualification being their surname is Hispanic. Amazing how you have changed your tune Rumpole. Guess that judge was right.

Anonymous said...

Tomas Gamba & Hector Lombana are not "clowns". They are excellent lawyers and also good men. My name is Jorge Pedraza and if you are going to call someone a clown, I think you should sign your name to your "clowns" comment.

Anonymous said...

DCBA Poll Results

Highest Exceptionally Qualified -- Lobree (47.24%) -- Rodney Smith (47.21%) -- Rebull (40.6%)

Lowest Exceptionally Qualified -- Fajarado (27.1%) -- Sanchez-Llorens (27.12%) -- Glick (28.01%)

Highest Unqualified -- Sanchez-Llorens (21.64%) -- Fajardo (14.74%) -- Glick (13.74%)

Lowest Unqualified -- Lobree (7.13%) -- Rodney Smith (7.49%) -- Colodny (8.39%)

ELECTION (Exceptionally Qualified/Qualified/Unqualified)

Rodney Smith (47.21/45.3/7.49)
Christian Carrazana (7.73/28.64/63.63)

Fleur Lobree (47.24/45.63/7.13)
Mazel Ruiz (13.62/41.94/44.44)

Thomas Cobitz (23.03/56.78/20.19)
Stephan Millan (17.98/59.31/22.71)

Al Milian (12.5/41.04/46.46)
Mary Gomez (12.72/50.87/36.41)

Oscar Rodriguez-Font(17.01/60.54/22.45)
Martin Zilber (20.85/45.26/33.89)

Renier Diaz De La Portilla (8.18/29.44/62.38)
Veronica Diaz (12.94/33.53/53.53)

Rachel Dooley (23.59/55.06/21.35)
Jackie Schwartz (15.85/45.47/38.68)

Victoria Ferrer (15.61/41.95/42.44)
Nuria Saenz (28.75/52.08/19.17)

napa valley said...

Is there a Cape in North Carolina? We are spending our week in wine country. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Actually it's Nantucket


Rumpole --- have you tried the food at TOPPERS in NANTUCKET? I think it is the very best!!! Let me know your thoughts. I would have bet that you were back in Truckee.

Rumpole said...

Please. The Cape is the cape. If you have to ask you cannot afford to stay here.

Anonymous said...

Rump Surprised you missed the Goldfinch reference. WTF?

Anonymous said...

UAIC and its owners (it is a closely held, family corporation) are as dangerous and subversive of our judicial system as nay organisation we have seen in our recent history. They are our local version of the Koch brothers.

UAIC is spending millions of dollars in support of judges and judicial candidates, and the threat of using even more against other judges, to intimidate and control judicial decisions in order to put even more hundreds of millions of dollars in their pockets. What they are spending is pocket change to them.

Many years ago there was an insurance company whose slogan was, "It is not our fault if you pay more." UAIC's slogan should be: "It is not our fault if we never pay, because you should know we don't."

Ten years ago, UAIC gave over $250,000 in cash and in-kind contributions to a judicial candidate to defeat the re-election bid of a County Court judge, who they deemed to be a threat and the "head of snake." By defeating that judge, they succeeded in intimidating the entire judiciary. That judge warned of this, and other threats to the independence of the judiciary, and everyone said it was sour grapes and did not listen. This former judge now stands vindicated, and don't you wish you had that judge back?

Any judge (or judicial candidate) that accepts the assistance of UAIC's PAC, or does not publicly renounce their endorsement and electioneering on their behalf, should be challenged. It does not matter if they are African-American, Cuban or Hispanic or Anglo.

The time has come to take back our judiciary on qualifications, not ethnicity, race, gender or corporate interests.

Anonymous said...

Rained all day Saturday on "the Cape." I'm here.

Anonymous said...

The only reason Schwartz has any hope is because she gave her campaign 200k!

Anonymous said...

As pointed out by the two bloggers above The Threat posed buy United Auto Money is VERY REAL! At least Rodney Smith is in Circuit Civil and unlikely to preside over the THOSANDS of PIP cases United Auto has pending as a result of their corporate policy to deny ALL CLAIMS.
However SHAME on JUGE NURIA SAENZ who presides over THOUSANDS of their cases to allow subversion of the legal system by accepting their money and allowing the overwhelming appearance of PARTIALITY and IMPROPRIETY!
Have you no morals or shame NURIA!

Anonymous said...

The connection between big insurance and Judge Smith is just as problematic, if not more, as Judge Saenz because Smith decides appeals from the miami dade county courts as a circuit court judge. Appellate rulings by Smith have a far greater reaching effect because the county courts must follow the rulings of the circuit appellate court. The truth is, despite what has been said by some who support Smith, this election is not about race. How can any reasonable minded person think or believe that Judge Smith and Saenz will be fair and impartial?

Anonymous said...

All the back-biting about PIP carriers, said with a straight face, while pointedly ignoring the obvious: Carrazana and Victoria Ferrer are plaintiff's lawyers - PIP plaintiff's lawyers. Their entire careers.

Here's what the outrage is really about: PIP plaintiffs' lawyers had a clear fundraising field for years and wholly funded county and circuit court races. And that's why PIP plaintiffs' lawyers enjoy attorneys' fees payouts of $350-$550/hr. The only people who see an insurance company conspiracy are the lawyers who have gotten rich with a paid-for judiciary. Rodney Smith is corrupt? An insurance company hack? Then why are the Panters supporting him to the point of firing their lap dog when he jumped into the race? And only in the through-the-looking-glass world of PIP could Nuria Saenz be considered "defense-oriented."

Make a straight-face argument that Carrazana or Ferrer will be "objective" within the ordinary meaning of that word. Are Valerie Manno-Schurr or Mari Sampedro Iglesia "objective" when they write opinions that fatten the pockets of their husbands (and, in Mari's case, her brother, who is Carrazana's former employer)? Opinions that swim against the tide of prevailing authority? Both Valerie and Mari were partners in their husbands' PIP practices before going on the bench and their husbands continue to rake in PIP dollars while their wives write appellate opinions that uniformly favor plaintiffs. Go to FLWSupp and look them up.

But I can understand the hysteria. When you start to see your $425/hr as entitlement, there's no such thing as rational discourse.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who actually steps foot in ounty court on a PIP case knows that the drivel about "taking back" the county courts from insurance companies is laughable. Shame on these posters, plaintiffs' lawyers all, for acting with such naked greed and spreading such disinformation.

Anonymous said...

I, 10:46, have never been a plaintiff's lawyer. I did, for a short time, represent malpractice insurers. I will tell you that other insurers do not involve themselves with judicial elections. Only UAIC, that should tell you something about the most litigious insurer in the United States.

The owners of UAIC are dangerous and have to be stopped. That will take reformation of campaign laws for judges, or better, taking judges out of the elective system.

Anonymous said...

No one is back biting ALL insurance carriers. The attack is on UAIC, because other carriers don't engage in the electioneering and wholesale attempt to purchase judges like UAIC does.

So, 4:51 and 4:57 (most probably the same person) your premise is incorrect. That is chutzpah for someone clearly employed by UAIC to go after plaintiff's lawyers, when, if UAIC would just pay the claims that are legitimate, they would put PIP attorneys pretty much out of business. But instead you follow your business model and 1. deny all claims on the basis that there is fraud, even if there is none; 2. believe that only 10% of those for whom you have denied payments will actually see a lawyer; 3. of those only half will file suit; and 4. delay pays the fees.

You are despicable and some day, God willing, someone will do a real examination of your company and the fines will put you out of business, or better yet, get you all indicted.

Anonymous said...

I think the point that's being made is that there is nothing inherently evil in litigants on both sides participating in the process. Both sides have done it and will continue to do it.

Anonymous said...

Seriously? This is just normal changes in demographics. No one complaint when being white and Jewish was the norm for judges.

Rump what are the percentages by race?

Anonymous said...

Jorge Pedraza is a clown with little computer skills. How can you want someone to certify they are who they are when you are not logged on yourself.


Being a good lawyer and being an unethical human are not the same things. Your comment is flawed.

Anonymous said...

They can be a fair and impartial as Hector Lombana are even though he sat on a JNC, is a member of the Florida Bar and is a campaign Treasurer who violates the Judicial Cannons on behalf of his candidate.

Wait that's a JQC and Florida Bar issue. Strike that.

Anonymous said...

Check out the 15 foot signs United Automobile Insurance Company has in their parking lot supporting Judges Smith and Saenz.

Anonymous said...

Today, DBR reporter John Pacenti wrote an article in the Daily Business Review about United's support of Judge Saenz and Judge Rodney Smith. Interesting piece.

According to the article, Hector Lombana resigned from the Smith campaign when he learned of the United ECO/PAC money in support of Saenz and Smith. WOW... Lombana's decision to resign was the ethical thing to do. Here is the link to the article:


Anonymous said...

We should pay attention to what the press is reporting about United Automobile using its financial power to influence this election. I agree with Hector Lombana’s (Smith’s former campaign treasurer) statement in the DBR article about the influence of big insurance money on judges. We should all be concerned about that.

A second flier was mailed out this past week in support of Nuria Saenz and Rodney Smith from the United Auto ECO/PAC. I received one in the mail. If you check the expenditure of United’s ECO, it reflects that United has now spent almost of a $226,859 to assist Judge Saenz and Judge Smith in this election. SMH ... Both Nuria Saenz & Rodeny Smith’s opponents have been criticized (unfairly, I think) by Rumpole and others because they chose to challenge two incumbents who appear to be in bed with United Auto. We should be glad that both Saenz and Smith are being challenged.

Anonymous said...

Just confirmed by David O’Valle of the Miami Herald in a new article, United Automobile Insurance Company spent $227,000 to support Rodney Smith and Nuria Saenz.

O’Valle also confirms that Hector Lombana resigned as Judge Smith’s campaign treasurer when he learned of the United PAC money.

The most laughable part of O’Valle’s article are the comments by Bob Levy, the campaign advisor for Judges Rodney Smith and Nuria Saenz. Levy states, “You have to fundamentally believe anyone who gets elected is going to be impartial no matter who endorses them?” Really? Someone should tell Bob Levy that “endorsing” a candidate versus dropping more than $227,000 to get a candidate elected are two different things. United Automobile is not endorsing anyone. United is buying influence. Anyone with a half a brain can see that.

The link to O’Valle’s article: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/19/4297691/auto-insurance-political-committee.html#storylink=cpy