The 3rd DCA consolidated the Petitions, and succinctly noted that the legal-superstar-genius at CSK who picked Judge Miller out of all the judges and open judicial spots on the ballot .to run against was NOT an attorney in any of the cases before Judge Miller, and then, after some more civil mumbo-jumbo, DENIED the petition.
Or as the Daily News noted before the CSK candidate was even born: "Ford to City: DROP DEAD". Said headline capturing the sentiments, if not the actual words of president Gerald R Ford when he refused to bail out NYC during the nadir of it's 1970's budget crisis.
In any event, thanks to the putative, pusillanimous petition filed by CSK, we now know that just because a lawyer in a firm files to run against a judge, the firm doesn't get an automatic DQ of the judge on all their other cases. Whew! Glad that burning question has been resolved.
3D18-0755 csk bs by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
5 comments:
"...and succinctly noted that the legal-superstar-genius at CSK who picked Judge Miller out of all the judges and open judicial spots on the ballot .to run against was NOT an attorney in any of the cases before Judge Miller" - classic! BTW, Salter really is a superstar. A true scholar, and the dude can write an opinion. We're lucky to have him out there. This was the right result.
BREAKING NEWS ..... JUDGE MILLAN CASE .....
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
The Florida Supreme Court issued an Order today rejecting the proposed Sanctions against Judge Stephen Millan.
On May 21, 2018, Judge Krista Marx, on behalf of the Investigative Panel of the JQC, issued the following recommendation:
... the Investigative Panel of the Commission recommends to the Court that Judge Millan be suspended without pay for a period of 30-days, that he receive a public reprimand, and that he pay a $5,000 fine, to cover the administrative costs of providing judicial coverage during his suspension.
The Florida Supreme Court weighed in today stating:
Upon consideration of the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s Findings
and Recommendation of Discipline and the parties’ Stipulation, the Court rejects
the Stipulation and disapproves the proposed sanctions.
We remand for further proceedings to include a full hearing before the
Judicial Qualifications Commission in order to fully develop the facts regarding
any misconduct that occurred, so that the Court, in determining the appropriate
discipline, will be apprised of all the facts and circumstances bearing on the
alleged violations.
CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com
BREAKING NEWS ..... JUDGE MARIA ORTIZ CASE .....
THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:
The Florida Supreme Court issued an Order today rejecting the proposed Sanctions against Judge Maria Ortiz.
On May 4, 2018, Judge Krista Marx, on behalf of the Investigative Panel of the JQC, issued the following recommendation:
... the Investigative Panel of the Commission submits to the Court, that a public reprimand and a fine of $5,000 are sufficient to address Judge Ortiz’s conduct, and likewise serves as a reminder to all judges about the importance of monitoring their personal finances, and accurate reporting on their financial disclosures.
The Florida Supreme Court weighed in today stating:
Upon consideration of the Judicial Qualifications Commission’s Findings
and Recommendation of Discipline and the parties’ Stipulation, the Court rejects
the Stipulation and disapproves the proposed sanctions.
We remand for further proceedings to include a full hearing before the
Judicial Qualifications Commission in order to fully develop the facts regarding
any misconduct that occurred, so that the Court, in determining the appropriate
discipline, will be apprised of all the facts and circumstances bearing on the
alleged violations.
CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com
The problem with this opinion is that the three judges who wrote it are judges who don't have to worry about getting an opponent. Judges get really pissed off when they get an opponent. How can they assume it has affect on the judge? Really!
Anon @ 9:16 - I know the opinion has a lot of words, but if you take the time to read all of them, you'll see that the court acknowledges that there is a conflict between A LAWYER challenging an incumbent judge and the incumbent judge. That's settled law. But, there is no conflict that is imputed to the challenging lawyer's entire firm. The firm has nothing to do with THE LAWYER'S decision to challenge the incumbent judge (allegedly in these cases). So, the result is correct and it precludes a large law firm from DQing a judge on all of its cases just because one of its associates decides to challenge an incumbent judge. Jus' sayin'.
Post a Comment