And we will update those wise words by adding "or someone who writes a widely-read, not to mention exceptionally well written blog."
But not everyone reads Twain, or follows his wise words.
And thus we received a comment by the suddenly popular Daniel Espinsoa, who can't leave well enough - or in his case-a monumental screw-up, alone.
Danny left us this comment which can be found in the preceding (the one below this one, Danny) post:
Danny Espinosa said...
Hi, Rumpole. It would be great if you were to report the truth, including the entire email you sent me, instead of omitting certain things and adding language in your response that you did not send to me. Also, it's interesting how you write posts (and comments) as if I wrote them. In the end, it says a lot about who you are when you celebrate the mistakes of others. I wish you the best. But I hope going forward you wish the best for everyone, not just me.
To set the record straight, we posted the entire email you sent us, and below, is the entire response we sent you. Why you feel this is significant, is beyond us. But the mere fact we do not deign to correspond to our legion of fans personally, does not mean we have forsaken our desire, nay, our right to respond in public when someone sends a smug, somewhat threatening email.
Furthermore, the blog post in which we responded to the email from Danny Espinosa does not in any way portend (appear to be, Danny) to be a reprint of an email from us to you. Rather, as we said in our email to you, we don't correspond privately with fans, readers, or disgruntled, putative judicial candidates. Thus we replied more fully, publicly. Capiche? ( See below Danny, because we're gonna make ya an offer ya can't refuse).
But in the interest of making sure the full story is out (although why you want this to have legs, is beyond us. The DBR just ran a story today, and quite frankly one would think a lawyer who cannot read the rules and regulations properly wouldn't want that sort of thing to be publicly discussed ad infinitim (again, and again, forever).
Now, finally, to address your comment that we write "posts and comments" as if you wrote them. Let us explain to you how a blog works. We write the posts. Each post here identifies the individual who wrote it. There is nothing we wrote in any manner in which the post on the front of the blog appears in any way, shape or form, to have been words written by you.
In the comments section WE DO NOT WRITE THE COMMENTS. We will admit, Danny, that wiser men (and women) than you have also somehow misapprehended what is in the comments section and from time to time someone emails us asking why we wrote something in the comments section.
The comments are written by readers.
The comments are written by readers.
The comments are written by readers.
Rinse. Repeat.
Now, because you appear to be new to this whole blogging thing, (BTW- there's this really cool thing called "you-tube" which has videos you can view on-line, and something fascinating called twitter, but you cannot be as verbose as we tend to be on it) let us clue you in on some rules we have. We don't allow ad hominem attacks (....never mind). We don't allow personal information to be posted in the comments section. But when a public figure (and Danny, when you tried your best to run for judge, you became a public figure) does something noteworthy (and sadly, here in South Florida the noteworthy stuff tends to be more "Danny Espinosa stuff" than "Barak Obama stuff") we comment on it and allow our readers to comment on it. So to the extent you are upset with the comments, you have to live with it. Or as we say in criminal court "don't apply for judge and screw it up twice, if you can't do the time", or something like that.
And finally, we say this. We don't know you. Your bar profile lists that you have been a member of the Bar for a whopping six years. We have cases older than that. We litigate for a living. Which means we deal all the time with judges who were lawyers for five or six years, couldn't make it, and then all of the sudden think they are the lord's gift to jurisprudence when they don a black robe. Meanwhile, our client's life is on the line, and they've never done or heard of a "Franks hearing" or a "Garcia hearing" and are looking at the prosecutor for help. So you will have to understand if we have a pre-disposed bias against someone who has been a lawyer less than the average career of a NFL running back, who somehow wants to be a judge.
Okay. Here are the emails in their full glory. Enjoy.
|
7:54 AM (9 hours ago)
 | | ||
We’ll be in touch soon, Howard.
Very Truly Yours,
Danny
Daniel Alberto Espinosa, Esq.
ESPINOSA LAW GROUP
10625 N. Kendall Drive
Miami, FL 33176-1510
Direct Line: 305.655.1501
|
11:24 AM (6 hours ago)
| | ||
sorry. We don't correspond with fans
BTW, your email called us "The National Enquirer of blogs" which we find some what offensive, but Donald Trump does not. The NE should only be as well written as this humble blog is.
Danny, should you wish to continue this, or explain anything, including the errors that led to you not being able to qualify, we make you this offer: THE BLOG. Send us an email, and as long as it follows certain rules (see above) it will be posted UNEDITED.
See you in court, but just not on the bench for a few years.
Some folks including lawyers are just plain goofballs.
ReplyDelete"Oh, Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling
ReplyDeleteFrom glen to glen and down the mountain side"
Perhaps Danny should hide behind the mountain. It is absolutely amazing that after appearing to be an absolute fool to the entire legal community, Danny the Dreamer seeks to perpetuate the perception of his ignorance by attempting to engage a writing duel with the rudimentary skills he garnered while learning English as a second language. It is a sad commentary that our law schools can graduate students like Danny, when there are many fifth graders with better writing and math skills. Danny, sit back and ask yourself the question, "are you smarter than a fifth grader ?" The answer is clearly no. It is time to act like a big boy and move on with your life.
Oh Danny Boy, you really, really don't get how this all works.
ReplyDeletezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ReplyDeleteHe needs a pr person or needs to get outta town for a few days. Take the kids to disney. He is only making things worse.
ReplyDeleteRumpole, you are smacking Espinosa a little harder than necessary. No reason to ridicule the guy, he's done enough damage on his own. Your post seems a bit like kicking a dog when he's down.
ReplyDeleteFair comment. I don't disagree I am being hard on him. BUT, he did two things- first, he sent me an email that appears, if you read it one way, to be threatening me. Just how are we going to speak later unless he thinks he is going to sue me and send a subpoena to Google. Others have tried and miserably failed. In fact, a lot of that occurred when the blog began before he was even a lawyer. before he was even in law school. If you threaten me, I smack you back to let you know threats of trying to shut me down will never get me to moderate my writing.
ReplyDeleteThen he accuses me of fabricating things in his name. Again- he can make the charge- now I have given him the opportunity to defend it. He can write a post, email it to me and it will go up UNEDITED. I have done it before.
But just like he applied for judge and didn't read or understand the rules, he has decided to fight with me without understanding the blog. He thinks all these comments- yours, the ones above you, the ones in the previous posts, are also written by me.
He needs to take a deep breath, relax, let this die down, move on with his life, and if he wants to be a judge, get his ducks in a row in a few years. In the meantime he can do things like volunteer for pro bono work, take a PD case, take a legal aid case, show that he is well rounded and interested in serving the community. But I will admit, I was harder on him because he's only been a lawyer for six years. I have serious cases. Many of us do. Sorry, but I don't want some kid ruling on them.
Attack me all you want. Don't accuse me of editing comments or his email or not telling the whole truth. Let's see if he wants to write a post.
Rumpole is not being hard on the dreamer. Danny's threat was open, obvious and most of all , unecessary. Danny is the genius that brought a twig to a gunfight and highlighted his own inadequacies. Perhaps he will take stock and learn from the experience, however, it does not appear to be the case. Oh Danny boy ...
ReplyDeleteWell we may never know who Rumpole is, but The Professor is former judge Jeff Swartz. His post on Milt Hirsch's death penalty ruling on this blog is the same as a post from a Jeff Swartz on the Herald website on the same story. And Swartz is a professor at Cooley Law school. Aha. I should be on the cold case squad.
ReplyDeleteTake a minute to realize something: THIS GUY WANTED TO BECOME A JUDGE. Let that sink in for second. Unfortunately for us, there are a lot of judges who act like Daniel on the bench. To our detriment.
ReplyDeleteDanny, Danny -
ReplyDeleteOh, I love these sentences memorialized forever in black ink, and archived in his computer somewhere (yes, Danny you can do that - "Save As")
"Knowingly, I enclosed a check in the amount of $5,843.20 from my law firm..."
In Miami lingo- I wrote a check out of my law firm's bank account (hopefully the operating account, right? ;-) ). Here is what's interesting, he knew he wasn't supposed to issue a check from his law firm's bank account.
BECAUSE:
"...and advise that "if the enclosed check for the qualifying fee is improper because it is not from my campaign account....."
Yes Danny, you knowingly enclosed a check out of an account the RULES clearly stated you could not use to fund your application/"qualification." You "knowingly" had to open a campaign account. You "knowingly" decided not to open a campaign account.
Why?
Beecos I am from Miami chico, and that's how we do it. Asere, aceptame ese check ahi que todo esta bien. Y si no "ju let me kno" and "I sen ju another chek," OKEEYYYY?!!! We cool? Nobody will notice, I read the rules, but I just wanted to pull a fast one.
Rules are meant to be followed sir, especially if you want to be a Judge. Okeeeeeeyyyyyy??!
ReplyDeleteFla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-1.8(d)
Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation.
Rumpole. Can you update the link to the broward blog. They changed their web address to
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jaablaw.com/
A key point in all this: The insanity of letting a five-year lawyer become a judge.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't theoretical. Consider judges who have taken the bench with only a few years' experience (Gordo comes immediately to mind). The way the system works, many of them will likely be on the bench for 30 years or more (again, Gordo) and yet, most of them never mature one day past their first day on the bench. (Did I mention Gordo?)
Even if they do grow in the job, even if a couple of terms down the road they start to develop some wisdom, some compassion, some humility, some insight and -- dare we hope -- a bit of plain courtesy, how many lives have they damaged by then?
No one should take the bench with less than 10 years out of law school. In fact, 15 would be more like it.
Danny is a young fool. Why would he think that a mere 5 years of being an attorney would qualify one to be a judge, even though it would be a big boost in salary and benefits over his bottom feeder practice. Probably no jury trial experience and needs a google map to find 73 Wesr Flagler.
ReplyDeleteHOLY SHIT! Don't kid me. The "Professor" is a professor at COOLEY?! For the past year whenever he slathered about a Republican disqualifying themselves for public office by being insufficiently liberal for him or posted some panting, desperate critique of Trump, I would heckle him in these comments and he would direct all his hysteria towards me.
ReplyDeleteBut Cooley? Scamming thousands and thousands of students who have no business being in law school, who will not pass the bar, who will not find legal employment, and who will ultimately default on their federally subsidized student loans, leaving us holding the bag?
And lest someone think I am being mean to Cooley students -- I have nothing but sympathy for them. We are all not meant to be, thank God, lawyers. They should get out now and make no further payments towards their legal "education". But this multi-state syndicate charging them tens of thousands of dollars (sometimes hundreds of thousands) in tuition and non-dischargeable debt, then pushing them out into the world with a ~30% bar passage rate.... holy shit what a racket.
THAT is where the "Professor" professes? HA.
No wonder he has such Trump animus! They participated in the same scam! To Trump's credit, TRUMP UNIVERSITY was only one business venture among thousands. But Cooley.....
Judge Hirsch declared the new death penalty statute unconstitutional. Yet, this blog is focused on some idiot lawyer who wants to be a judge because he can't hack it in private practice. This blog used to matter.
ReplyDelete4:20, you're my hero. You took the time to write EXACTLY what I was thinking when I saw the comment in the herald and the copy and paste job here. Well done, sir.
ReplyDeleteEvery lawyer at five years thinks they could be a judge. Then in year ten, you realize you had no business thinking you could be a judge. Then in year 15, you realize that in year ten, you didnt have what it takes. 15 is probably the right number.
ReplyDeleteRemember back when Henry Ferro beat Ted Mastos in an election, when he was only 30 years and had only 5 years experience. Then he quit before his first term ended because he didn't like the way things were happening in the criminal justice system that he was a part of. Danny Espinosa lacks two essential qualities for a judge: age and wisdom. Adios, Danny Boy.
ReplyDeleteProfessor is Swartz
ReplyDeleteCaptain Justice is Eiglarsh
Who is Trialmaster?
4:20 7:28, you are a both degree snobs. I am a Cooley grad and proud of it. After I passed the bar on my second try, and got my first job, no one ever asked where I went to law school. I now have my own firm with associates, some of whom are also Cooley grads.
ReplyDeleteYour claim of superiority disgusts me. Cooley’s mission has always been, since its inception over 40 years ago, to admit those, who other schools would not, a chance to live their dream, the same dream you had.
The education that Cooley provided has placed thousands of lawyers in Florida, who, like me, have been prosecutors, public defenders, general counsel to Circuits, county attorneys, private practitioners , corporate counsel and judges. And that is just in Florida.
Before you impeach the education Cooley provides, address your criticism to the grad who got top score in 2nd DCA on July’s Bar Exam or the grad who, as a result of an externship through Cooley, worked her way into being hired as an associate at Greenberg Traurig, and was the only associate offered a job with Holland and Knight when the partner she worked for defected there. Ask an assistant general counsel for the 13th Circuit about her education.
The chances are the reason why you hate Cooley so much is, if you are a prosecutor you have lost trials to Cooley grads, or if you are a defense attorney, a Cooley grad has kicked your ass up and down the halls of the REGJB. It belies your arrogant belief in the superiority of your degree.
Cooley provides the education, it is the grads’ job to do what is necessary to pass the bar exam. If they don’t, then that is on them. Do you have the same opinion of grads of your law school who fail the first time taking the bar exam? I doubt it.
Gordo is not a good judge. She only got elected because of her name, not any legal acumen. She has not matured during him time on the bench, she is still al legally immature now as when she was an Asa. She would make a great paralegal. In fact, if her name was Monica Smith she would be a paralegal, and we all know it. The irony is she thinks she is smart....
ReplyDeleteFerro did not quit because he had problems withe criminal justice system. A reporter
ReplyDeletesubsequently found out and published that he was under investigation for misconduct by the JQC.