When we last left the Honorable Jacqueline Schwartz (Motto" Last names matter") she had told the supporter of her opponent "F*&K YOU" literally and after winning he election, "F%#K YOU" figuratively to Miami's Latin Community. Here's the recap of her insulting the Cuban Community and her apology. Basically, after winning a contentious race where she cursed like a sailor, she reflected on her victory by saying "that voters had "gone past the days when any nondescript Hispanic could go on the ballot and defeat any Anglo sitting judge."
We covered the most infamous judicial victory speech here.
Now the Florida Supreme Court will publicly reprimand Judge Schwartz. For those of you not familiar with a public reprimand, the Supreme Court summons the offending judge to Tallahassee where basically they yell at her and ask "what the F%^K were you thinking?"
How will this all play out?
No F'ing idea.
See You in F'ing court.
Another triumphant day for judicial diversity in South Florida. Well to be fair, at least she wasn't drunk, like her compatriots in Broward. She got off easy, hopefully she will do better from here.
ReplyDeleteThis Third DCA opinion regarding civil forfeiture is worth reading. http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D14-0393.pdf This guy came into MIA with $100,000 in cash which he declared and stated the legitimate purpose for, MDPD seized it anyway and went through months of litigation to try to keep it, now the Third is ordered that MDPD pay the guys attorneys fees. Pretty harsh language regarding the boys in brown (and the trial judge that let the forfeiture action drag out) in this case.
ReplyDeleteThis is an outrage!Hopefully the Supreme court will reject the punishment and impose one thats is appropriately severe. The fix appears to be in at the JQC.
ReplyDeleteThe Herald article about Wacky Jackie went too far. I really don't think it was appropriate to put that Wacky Jackie comment in the article. So, if Ed Newman gets a JQC complaint, will the Herald say that lawyers call his court "special Ed?.
ReplyDeleteExcellent lawyering by Juan Berrio on that forfeiture case.
ReplyDeleteNo, Jackie will not do better. She simply cannot do the job. She was sent to our sandbox and lasted 3 weeks and had to leave. She has no business being a judge.
ReplyDeleteIf I took something out of a court file, I'd be in fucking jail. If a prosecutor did that, well, he or she would get nothing done to him or her... not even a Bar complaint.
I hope the court removes her.
The Professor says:
ReplyDeleteI am sure that it was Mr. Berrio, the prevailing attorney in the forfeiture case, that posted his success on this blog in hopes that all of us would read it, and then refer business to him. With that said, it is an interesting opinion in only one respect.
It is a reaffirmation of the lack of quality of the young, inexperienced judges Miami-Dade County has elected, and those judges playing politics with their decisions. The judge, Marcia Caballero, is named more than once in the opinion. The 3rd does not even refer to her as "Hon Marcia Caballero". They refer to her as the "the trial judge Marcia Caballero" or just "Judge Caballero".
It is evident she was incapable of saying no to the Miami-Dade PD and their legal adviser. Judge Caballero's way of dealing with her clear lack of experience, knowledge and fairness was to take the path of least resistance, and curry the favor of the police.
Caballero's successor judge, who granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of, but denied attorney fees to, the prevailing party is not named. It is rare that the trial court judge's name is written into the opinion once, let alone multiple times. That speaks volumes of the disdain the 3rd DCA judges have for Judge Caballero.
The 3rd needs to do this more. It needs to set aside the niceties of opinion writing in the face of incompetent judging, and give qualified challengers ammunition to run against, and remove, these incompetents.
just curious, but what do you, 5:10, think is an 'appropriately severe' punishment for this type of violation?
ReplyDeleteGet real 6:47, she is wacked out, disrespectful and has no place on the bench, eapecially after admitting to removing records from a court file because they showed her unethical conduct! Ed Newman is a nice guy who no matter what is always genuine and respectful.
ReplyDeleteThe Professor says:
ReplyDeleteI second the motion of 11:13. 5:10 what would be an appropriate punishment for a temper tantrum. Be sure it is proportional to much more serious violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct for which punishment less than removal was ordered.
That Judge Schwartz, she's so f**king classy. She adds a lot of f**king prestige to the bench. Also, she reminds me of Jules in Pulp Fiction whenever I hear about her classy antics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, who the f**k is Juan Berrio?
Professor,
ReplyDeleteThe successor judge, Tony Arzola, is named at n. 6.
Judges who have committed violations relating to campaign finance reports have been suspended without pay. Scwartz committed a crime by altering and destroying a court file to conceal wrongdoing. What she did was out and out corruption. She should be removed and jailed for that alone. What do you think 11:13?
ReplyDeleteModesty suits you, Mr. Berrio.
ReplyDeleteWacky Jackie has no F'ing business being a judge. She's F'ing crazy. How on earth can the Supreme Court forgive her for taking the F'ing records out of the F'ing court file and throwing them a F'ing way. What's next, a judge who punches the lawyer for disagreeing? Oppsssss. That happened up state already. They're trying to remove him.
ReplyDeleteA reprimand is not enough. Removal is warranted.
The 3rd mentioned Arzola as the successor judge but the humiliation of Caballero was well deserved. How she came to rule that the claimant could not put on evidence to prove the money was legitimate because it did not relate to probable cause is one of the greatest knucklehead rulings of all time and disqualifies her from the position. This is the type of ruling you would expect in the Soviet judicial system.
ReplyDeleteI see the pompous ass "professor" has reared his oversized head again. Read it again and pay attention this time. Arzola is the successor. The comment about Berrios is envious and the 3rd doesn't have any Learned Hands,in fact they've got their heads between the government cheeks deeper than anyone. They may disdain Caballero but that's just their reflection.
ReplyDeleteThe Professor said:
ReplyDeleteTo: 8:40 pm
Yes, the successor judge, Hon. Tony Arzola, is mentioned as the trial court judge in note 6, but he is not mentioned by name, nor is he severely criticized in the body of the opinion, a significant difference from, and an even more significant humiliation for, you, Marcia Caballero. (I feel no need to address you as Honorable or Judge, since the DCA did not feel the need either.)
I am not jealous of Mr. Berrios, since I have no desire to be him, or do the work he does. I can only hope for him the financial success I have achieved over the many years of my career. His win is deserving of congratulations, but not self-adulation.
As far as the 3rd DCA is concerned, the collective level of intellect there is far greater than you, Marcia Caballero, could ever hope to attain. You got slammed for being nothing less than incompetent at your job. Just take your well-deserved beating, and don't diminish those who are smarter and better than you as your defense.
PS Didn't anyone tell you, Ms. Caballero, that if you are a judge trying to defend yourself on a blog: (1) You shouldn't, or (2) Make sure you are not identifiable by what you say?
The Professor said:
ReplyDelete5:10 Wednesday and 5:19 Thursday,
It is clear that you have no love lost for Judge Schwartz. OK, that may be appropriate depending on your reasons outside of this incident. However, let's stick to the facts the JQC was able to establish.
As to the incident at the dry cleaners, judges have thrown temper tantrums in court, and not been disciplined at all. Yes, her conduct was inappropriate, but it did not rise to the level of others, who have committed far greater breaches, and received nothing more than a private reprimand.
As far as the notes being removed from the court file, I did not see anything in the JQC petition that indicated that they were evidence of fraud, as you 5:19 allege. I suspect you are most probably the complaining lawyer and the loser in the underlying case, or her opponent in the last election, which is why you show how articulate you are in your language.
It is inappropriate for a judge to remove his/her personal notes from the file, if they are placed there, even if it was in error. That is why she is receiving a public reprimand and nothing more.
Her conduct, although sanctionable, is not anywhere near the level of removal. It is to her credit that she did not contest the allegations, and is accepting her punishment.
If you think it is a small matter, you are wrong. Maybe you should buy an airline ticket, and see it for yourself when it happens. It is humiliating to stand in the well of the Florida Supreme Court, be berated by the Chief Justice and then being told to leave, all without being able to say a word. I have witnessed it, and it is embarrassing to watch, let alone suffer through.
You may be upset she was re-elected, but she was, so get over it.
Well said Jackie
DeleteBetter than I go to Tallahassee, how bout you going to the courthouse, pull a case file from the clerk, piss on it in the presence of the police then report to us your experience.
ReplyDeleteThe Professor said to 6:24 (aka 5:10, 8:17, 3:29 and 5:19) his final words on this subject.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, if you are going to continue to write comments, at least identify yourself by the time of your original post or by some nom de plume. You are fooling no one into believing your posts are from numerous individuals.
Is that really the best you can do? Is that the best comeback you have in your arsenal? Your eloquence and command of the English language is clearly demonstrated by the depth of your vocabulary skills. You must be a product of the Florida Public School system.
Engaging in a battle of wits with you is, for me, like dueling with an unarmed man. You no longer amuse me.