THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
V O T E
For the past two weeks, many of you have participated in our democracy by mailing in your Absentee Ballots or by going to the polls during Early Voting. Today is your last chance to exercise your right to VOTE.
Some STATS:
There are 1,286,905 registered voters in Miami-Dade County. Voter turnout is expected to be under 20%.
The latest reported numbers of people that have already cast their vote: 83,787 absentee ballots have been returned to the Elections Department of the 213,202 absentee ballots that were mailed.
Over a period of 14 days of Early Voting: 29,194 additional voters pulled the lever at the polls.
That means a total of 112,981 people have already voted.
Compared to 2012's primary election, the absentee ballots and early voting numbers are about the same. In 2012, the totals were about 105,000. In 2012, on election day, only 93,000 additional voters showed up to vote.
By seven pm tonight, or shortly thereafter, we could have eight new Judges in Miami-Dade County. Seven elections will be decided today; only the County Court race between Incumbent Judge Jacqueline Schwartz and her opponents, Rachel Dooley and Frank Bocanegra, could result in a runoff. A runoff would take place if none of the three candidates garners a majority of the vote; and the runoff would happen on the November general election ballot.
Stay tuned for our live-blogging of the election results. We'll leave it to Rumpole to decide whether he wants to take down the screening on the Comments section for the night.
Good luck to all the candidates.
CIRCUIT COURT
GROUP 16 (Leon Firtel retiring)
Thomas Cobitz v. Stephen Millan
GROUP 26
Judge Rodney Smith v. Christian Carrazana
GROUP 27 (Ron Dresnick retiring)
Mary Gomez v. Alberto Milian
GROUP 58 (Marc Schumacher retiring)
Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts v. Martin Zilber
GROUP 67
Judge Fleur Lobree v. Mavel Ruiz
GROUP 70 (Sandy Karlan retiring)
Veronica Diaz v. Renier Diaz de la Portilla
COUNTY COURT
GROUP 19
Judge Jacqueline Schwartz v. Rachel Dooley v. Frank Bocanegra
GROUP 36
Judge Nuria Saenz v. Victoria Ferrer
CAPTAIN OUT .....
Captain4Justice@gmail.com
Update: Thank you El Capitan for a great post. Coming soon (after the election results, breakdowns and analysis: "FACDL LISTSERV: A Right to Privacy? Anyone see a penumbra?"
http://therealdeal.com/miami/blog/2014/08/22/new-miami-courthouse-could-cost-540m/
ReplyDeletethe price of progress
If Al Milian becomes a judge, how will he top Judge Murphy from Brevard who told a PD he's hit him with a rock if he had one and then punched him in the hallway. Hold the presses... Al already did that to an opposing counsel.
ReplyDeleteThe Professor says:
ReplyDeleteWhen you vote today think about the bigger picture, the survival of our system of justice, and just simply what is right and what is wrong. Despite the fact that on legal acumen Rodney Smith is the more qualified candidate, he is the lesser candidate because he just does not respect his obligations to the system and the perceptions the public has of our judges. His actions effect every judge and taint the judiciary. Thus on the whole, Carrazana, even with the flaws he has, is the BEST CHOICE.
To those who have written comments responding to my criticism of Rodney Smith and Parillo, by claiming I don't know Parillo or the lawyers who work for him, I republish a comment to another post:
You write like I have never had a conversation with anyone from UAIC or even Parillo himself. I have, on more than one occasion. It is not about judges not following the law. It is about influencing judges to legitimatize the actions of UAIC and the Parillo family designed to maximize profits for them, and minimize, or in some cases deny any, payable benefits for insureds. This is about their greed, not the law.
As I have stated numerous times, don't even try to compare a few thousand dollars raised from a GROUP of reported contributors, and a quarter of million dollars spent by a SINGLE CONTRIBUTOR through a PAC with no reporting by the the candidate, no accountability to the voting public, especially when that contributor has as many as 5000 cases pending at any one time.
Either you are Parillo tying to justify your attempts to undermine the judicial system, or you are just as naive as others. Rodney is complicit in all of this. HE CONSPIRED WITH PARILLO to accomplish this. You just like Rodney and don't want to see the damage he and Parillo have done.
In response to the Herald I say:
ReplyDeleteWE SPENT 2.3 BILLION DOLLARS ON A STADIUM WE DID NOT NEED SO JEFFREY LORIA AND DAVID SAMPSON COULD MAKE 700 MILLION DOLLARS.
ReplyDeleteThe Captain Reports:
A couple of more facts ....
Today's post represents the 2,700th post since Rumpole took this BLOG online nearly nine years ago.
The Election Department will begin releasing returns shortly after the polls close at seven pm tonight. But, those first numbers will only represent the returns from counted absentee ballots and early voting results.
Cap Out .....
Captain4Justice@gmail.com
Vote early, vote often!
ReplyDeletePoll workers are telling me everyone who shows up is saying Oscar Oscar Oscar and a close second is Mavel.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is talking about them in the cafés on 8th street. Could be some upsets in the making ??
If Anglos and Blacks don't turn out then Smith loses.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who donated to Judge Smith clearly is backing a decent, honest and competent Judge. This Carranza character couldn't carry Rodney's shoes as a judge or a man. Simply by quitting his job when he had child support payments to make disqualifies him for the position. The professor is an idiot. The challenger should care more about his children than himself.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't do it. When I got to Group 70, I simply could not cast a vote.
ReplyDeleteI told myself going in that utterly incompetent would be better than self-entitled and corrupt, but couldn't convince myself to vote for Baby DLP. Then I countered that even an ethically compromised judge who can find the courthouse and knows where to sit is better than a hack politician. But I couldn't make myself vote for Little Miss Ultra.
In the end, I left that section blank. We all go before lousy judges sometimes. But I could never appear in front of either of these folks, knowing I helped to put him or her there. This was the truth for me, and I knew it in my heart.
How did the rest of your resolve that moral dilemma?
Shumie just voted !!!
ReplyDelete@FACDL, I faced the same Dilemma but I chose to go with Ms. Ultra. At least she won't get lost on her way to courthouse. God help us because one of them. Like it or not, will be on the bench for the next 6 years.
ReplyDeleteM. A. V. E. L.
ReplyDeletevote vote vote !!
Once there was a lawyer named oscar.
ReplyDeleteOscar oscar. Oscar.
And den he wanted to be a judge
Oscar run for judge- a
And on de day day dey all vote
De people always say
Oscar he will be a judge
Oscar oscar oscar
Oscar we will love de judge
Oscar oscar oscar.
( a little calypso on Election Day)
If shumie already voted then that can mean only one thing.
ReplyDeleteShumie Time at the REN (a venue).
Come by and drink and watch the returns. Free drinks for any losing candidate. On shumie.
ReplyDeleteI voted for Veronica Diaz. If even half of what The Captain reported last week is true about DLP, no way can I stomach a vote for that man:
Vernocia Diaz was speaking with a voter. The voter asked her position on same sex marriage.
Diaz told the voter that she could not take a position on political issues, let alone one that is currently the subject of litigation and that could possibly come before her in the future.
Portilla stepped into the conversation. He told the voter not to vote for Veronica because, unlike him, she does support "gay marriage" and she is endorsed by the "gay organization". He then looked at Veronica and stated:
"why don't you tell her about your endorsement, you were endorsed by the gays, you support the gays".
The voter responded to Portilla, by smiling and stated: "thank you, I now know how I will vote".
The Professor says:
ReplyDelete1:51, or should I say, Mr. Parillo, you unfortunately are the person of questionable intelligence, and even more questionable morality.
Carrazana was FIRED for daring to challenge Smith. He did not quit. What information do you have, Mr. Parillo that Carranaza is not making his child support payments or taking care of his children? The answer to that is none. But then again, what does the truth have to do with anything you say.
Could not vote for Veronica Diaz knowing that she is connected to Ben Alvarez. At least with DLP, there is a chance he wont be there 6 years. Then the JNC can name a replacement for either one of these 2 hacks.
ReplyDeleteNo way I could vote for any DLP - especially for Judge with only 6 years as an attorney - and not even practicing that whole time.
ReplyDeleteThis is the first election in over 30 years that I have not voted. I could not find one qualfied judcial candidate which would send me to the polls. All of them are merely looking for a paycheck that they are unable to receive in private practice. The bench is the worst I have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteI witnessed the most amazing thing at my local poll in Little Havana. There was a scuffle not to far away and a Stephen Millan poster was torn down. People were yelling and then out of nowhere a spontaneous demonstration erupted where several passerbys going to vote grabbed a Milan poster, hoisted it over their head and began chanting Milan Amigo! Miami con tieago. over and over while dancing a conga line. This lasted a few minutes and then as it spontaneously started it dissipated. Weird.
ReplyDelete@1:51 Anonymous
ReplyDeleteQuitting his job when he had child support payments to make disqualifies Carrazana? I don’t know what rock you have been hiding under, but Carrazana didn’t quit his job with the Panter firm. Everyone knows that because of press coverage. He was fired because he chose to challenge a judge (Rodney Smith) who really needed to be challenged. The Panters and David Sampedro screwed Carrazana by first telling him he didn’t have to resign if he challenged Smith; and when he stuck to his decision to run against Rodney, they fired him. Because of this, the Panters & David Sampedro are not looked upon very favorably by a number of folks. Its really sad because Carrazana was with them for TEN years. The truth is, the Panters and Sampedro have loyalty to no one except themselves.
Lastly, it is the other way around-------Rodney can’t hold Carrazana’s shoes. As far as legal acumen is concerned, Carrazana is the better candidate. Rodney is not a bright legal mind. I remember Rodney as a lawyer when he was in private practice on the civil side. I have also seen Carrazana argue in Court. When you compare the two, its not even close. Carrazana is bright….he knows his stuff and has the legal acumen to be an outstanding judge. But Rodney does not. If Rodney wins, those of you who practice on the civil side will see what I’m talking about when Rodney goes to 73 W. Flagler…
The bottom line is that Carrazana is the better candidate because unlike Rodney, he didn’t sell his soul to special interest. The fact Rodney sold out to United Auto disqualifies him.
Well, as sad as it is, it appears that the Parillo family have bought themselves a judge. Now they will only be embolden and go after more. Now Miami-Dade will be known as the United Automobile State of America.
ReplyDeleteWhat anonymous @7:20 p.m. said is true. You can’t compare Rodney to Carrazana on legal acumen. I litigated against Rodney when he worked for United and Allstate. In my opinion, he wasn’t a good lawyer. Carrazana in comparison, is a much better lawyer (its not even close when you compare the two). If the election was about legal acumen alone, Rodney would have lost. But unfortunately for Carrazana, we don’t elect judges because of their legal acumen alone (though we should). It is a political process. The candidates with the best legal acumen don’t always get nominated, appointed by the JNC or elected by the general public.
ReplyDeleteCarrazana put up a great effort despite the odds stacked against him from the start. But I’m glad (and many others are too) that he challenged Smith because this election proved what Carrazana said about Rodney Smith from the beginning (even though few believed him at first). Carrazana said it in a very nice way that Rodney Smith is an insurance hack. He was right. There is expenditure of $350,000 dollars from a United Auto funded ECO PAC proving his point.
Although Rodney won the election, this was no victory for Rodney. For Rodney, due to his desperation and fear of losing his seat, sold out to United Auto. Rodney doesn’t realize (and will eventually realize) is that victory with dishonor is no victory at all. No judicial seat is worth keeping at the expense of losing your dignity, reputation and respect by aligning yourself with the most corrupt insurance company in the State of Florida. The stigma of his association with United Auto will always remain with Rodney and it will be brought up if he is challenged again in 6 years (he probably will be challenged again b/c no judge with that type of association should keep his seat). So the loser here is Rodney, not Carrazana.
Wow. J. SCHWARTZ with 76,000 votes. That's why there were no pastelitos in the bakeries for the last 2 weeks and old age homes suspended their dining service. Thats what it takes folks!
ReplyDelete