The following order of recusal places Judge Scola in the pantheon of great federal judges like his former colleague Judge Gleeson of the EDNY.
However, more significantly, Judge Scola is a man who when he sees a wrong does not refrain from speaking out. As John Kennedy said in a speech in which he quoted Edmund Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Judge Scola is a great man. And he did something. He didn't remain silent in the face of the "immoral and barbaric" actions of an insurance company.
Well done Judge Scola. Well done indeed.
Order of Recusal (1) by Anonymous PbHV4H on Scribd
9 comments:
I like scola. But even if he is right, the order is totally inappropriate. If you recuse, just recuse without opinion. Saying i have to recuse, but BTW if you rule for one party it is barbaric, oh and here it my *personal story* on why it's barbaric, is totally totally absurd. Imagine being the judge receiving this case... don't you feel like scola is making a political play to box you into ruling for once side? Do we want judges making political plays like that?
Bobby Scola always was a good guy with guts but, hey, it's easy to have guts when you don't have to worry about a 33 year old female Hispanic running against you just so she can "be somebody."
Calling out the insurance industry. Bully for you Bobby!
Total grandstand
I agree with 9:54. Judges recuse themselves all the time because they had pissing matches with attorneys or parties. To give a reason is really not right. Imagine:
1. "Attorney A is a dick. He and I were in the same division as prosecutors and he always took credit for things I did. He was an ass kisser with the judges. I hate his guts. I recuse myself."
2. "I am not 100% sure but I think Attorney A f____cked my wife one night 30 years ago in his car behind the Marine Bar. While we were getting divorced, she yelled it out during her deposition just to watch me cry. I recuse myself."
3. "Attorney A is a cheat. We played golf 10 years ago and we pressed all of our bets and had $200 riding on the 18th hole at Miami Shores. He moved his ball in the rough and then knocked his shot 5 feet from the pin and drained it. Since birdies were $25, I lost $225.00. I shut up then but not now. I recuse myself."
I could go on but you get the drift. Not a good precedent.
Scola was never afraid of elections. He had guts when he was sitting in state court and always called them as he saw them.
5:45, Marine Bar, huh?
Aaah, the good days.
How ironic. The Plaintiff in this case, Richard Cole, is the Cole of Cole Scott Kissane, the largest insurance defense law firm in the State of Florida. They spend 24/7/365 defending large insurance companies against those that claim personal injury and wrongful death. They fight back against the little guy/gal who just wants their medical bills paid, their lost wages reimbursed, their future medical care covered, and something for their pain and suffering. They stand up for the big insurance giants and against anyone who has ever had the guts to fight the insurance industrial giants.
Now, Richard Cole is on the other end of the stick. I hope he beats his cancer; I hope he gets the treatment he needs and that his health insurance company is forced to pay. But I also hope that he will have just a little more empathy and understanding for the claims of the personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs in the future.
I know this post is a week old which means 100 years in tech time but let’s stop the hyperbole and have a little perspective. The Cole Scott firm is not some nefarious Darth Vader monstrosity spun out of The Firm or The Fortune Cookie. It defends parties who have purchased policies of liability insurance and are entitled to a defense. That includes condominium associations, small businesses, and a myriad number of other honest businesses who have been overwhelmed by the ripoff practices of greedy plaintiff firms.
Post a Comment