MILLER MUDDLED BY PREGNANCY

Update: Tune in tomorrow for important Survivor Pool updates. The NFL season begins tomorrow night, and 85% of our survivor players are totally confused. 

Some Judges like 

And some Judges like 

and this is a story about a judge who chose the golf cart over the child and threw the baby out with the bath water until world took notice.  

When you see what judges do when the harsh light of the media is shinned upon them, you can only wonder at the tyranny of their actions when no one is watching. 

Which brings us to Circuit Judge David Miller, and his initial denial of a continuance of a civil trial involving a cop, a kart, and a person at a Dolphin game that was up for the first time. The defense attorney and his wife had tried for several years to conceive via IVF, and having done so, the attorney moved for a continuance for a trial set for the first time so he could be present with his newborn baby 

DENIED wrote the judge, and then threatened sanctions if the lawyer sought additional relief. 

GRANTED wrote the judge after intrepid Herald Ace David Ovalle, a new father he BTW, swung into action and wrote of the infamy and tyranny of a judge who decided the birth of a lawyer's child was not as important as a trial over a cart and a person attempting to violate the laws of physics in the Dolphin Stadium parking lot by both of them occupying the same space at the same time. You cannot do that. Newton proved it. 

You also cannot deny a continuance when a lawyer or their spouse is giving birth.  The Florida Supreme Court said so. 

“As adopted, subdivision (a) of new rule 2.570 requires that absent a finding of one or more of the reasons listed in the rule, a court must grant a timely motion for continuance based on the parental leave of the movant’s lead attorney, due to the birth or adoption of a child, if the motion is made within a reasonable time after the later of the movant’s lead attorney learning of the basis of the continuance, or the setting of the proceeding(s) or the scheduling of the matter(s) for which a continuance is sought,” 

From El Herald: 

The reason: A Miami-Dade judge had refused to allow the postponement of a civil trial, even though all of the attorneys involved are OK with Fumagali taking parental leave. The decision by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge David Miller appeared to go against a recently enacted Florida Supreme Court rule that requires judges to grant postponements of cases for lead attorneys for the birth of a child.

But on Tuesday afternoon — hours after the Miami Herald published this story online — the judge backtracked, granting the continuance because of the lawyer’s “need for parental leave,” according to an order.

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/article265348906.html#storylink=cpy

David Ovalle

@DavidOvalle305

·

4h

GOOD NEWS! Hours after we published a story on Judge David Miller refusing to grant attorney Alex Fumagali a trial continuance for the birth of his baby, the judge changed course.

Monday's child is fair of face, Tuesday's child is full of grace, Wednesday's child is full of woe, Thursday's child has far to go, Friday's child is loving and giving, Saturday's child works hard for a living.

And the child that is born on the trial day, will miss his Father if Judge Miller has his way. 

JQC SPEAKS ..... JUDGE DAVID MILLER LISTENS .....

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

HERE COME THE JUDGE, HERE COME THE JUDGE ......

JUDGE DAVID MILLER AND THE JQC:

Judge David Miller, who has been on the Circuit Court bench for the past 20 years, found himself in the cross hairs of the JQC recently.  Today the JQC issued their Findings and reported them to the Florida Supreme Court for their review and determination as to whether they will accept the Recommendations.

From the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINE: (the entire nine page Report can be found here).

“On the afternoon of January 17, 2020, Judge Miller was presiding over a lengthy tobacco-related civil trial. After resumption from an extended lunch break, the trial proceedings were interrupted continuously by loud noise from the public lobby outside of Judge Miller's courtroom. The source of the sound was a result of many people congregating and not promptly disbursing from the public lobby at the conclusion of Judge William Altfield's investiture ceremony, which had occurred in the ceremonial courtroom on the same floor.”

“Judge Miller instructed his court Bailiff to go out and try to quiet the people in the lobby. When that was unsuccessful, Judge Miller sent the Court Clerk and his Bailiff back into the lobby. That too was unsuccessful.”  “Judge Miller stepped down from the bench wearing his robe and proceeded into the lobby accompanied by his Bailiff. Several witnesses, including judges and lawyers, observed Judge Miller to be "yelling," and waving his arms at the people in the lobby while trying to get them be quiet.”

“While trying to quiet the groups of people in the lobby, Judge Miller observed one person shaking her head while looking at him. Judge Miller believed she was telling him, "no," indicating that she would not cooperate with his attempt to quiet the crowd. Responding to what he believed was contemptuous behavior, Judge Miller approached the individual and shouted, "Do not shake your head at me." Judge Miller then twice threatened the person with contempt, demanding to know, "Do you want to be held in contempt?" When the person answered that "no" she did not want to be held in contempt, Judge Miller continued to question the individual asking her name and whether she was employed in the Courthouse, before going back into his courtroom.”

“In this Stipulation Judge Miller admits that his conduct as alleged in the Notice of Formal Charges and outlined above was inappropriate, and should not have occurred.”  “Because Judge Miller's conduct, including his inappropriate threat of contempt, plainly fell below the high standard of conduct required by the Canons and this Court, the Commission finds and recommends that the interests of justice will be well served by a public reprimand of Judge Miller.”

CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com

JUDICIAL ELECTIONS 2018 ..... CONGRATS TO OUR THREE NEWEST JUDGES .....

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

QUALIFYING DAY HAS COME & GONE .......

Congratulations to our newest judges who will all take the bench in January of 2019. None of them received opposition as of Noon today:

CIRCUIT COURT

Carlos Lopez

COUNTY COURT

Betsy Alvarez-Zane

Jacqueline Woodward (and Happy Birthday to Jackie today).

AND NOW FOR THE CONTESTED ELECTIONS. ANY PREDICTIONS .....?

CIRCUIT COURT

19 Incumbent Circuit Court Judges were reelected without drawing any opposition; (for a list of those judges please see our post from May 3rd ). There are three contested races this year. One candidate, Renee Gordon, returns for a second try after losing in the primary in 2016 to eventual winner Mark Blumstein. Judge David Miller is the only incumbent Judge in Miami-Dade County to draw opposition. Judge Miller is no stranger to contested elections - in 2012, the last time he ran for office, he also drew an opponent. He soundly defeated Mauricio Padilla in that contest with 62% of the vote. Miller first won election to the Circuit Court in 2000, when he defeated two other candidates, Arthur Spiegel and David Peckins (in the runoff). In fact, the only time Miller has not faced opposition was in 2006.

GROUP 8

Elisabeth Espinosa
David Miller - INCUMBENT

GROUP 14 (OPEN SEAT - Judge Cindy Lederman retiring)

Vivianne del Rio
Renee Gordon
Louis Martinez

GROUP 25 (OPEN SEAT - Judge Dennis Murphy retiring)

Yery Marrero
Joe Perkins

COUNTY COURT

17 Incumbent County Court Judges were reelected without drawing any opposition; (our May 3rd post also includes the names of these judges). There are five contested races this year. Four of the candidates have past experience running for Judge. In 2016, Milena Abreau just missed out when she lost a close County Court race to Incumbent Judge Fred Seraphin. Abreu lost by only 677 votes out of a total 210,919 ballots cast. Lizzet Martinez lost out in 2016 as well, to Incumbent County Judge Ed Newman. Rosy Aponte lost a Circuit Court race in the primary to eventual winner Oscar Rodriguez-Fonts and Elena Ortega-Tauler lost a Circuit Court race to Incumbent Judge George Sarduy.　

GROUP 2: (Judge Mary Jo Francis retiring):

Rosy Aponte
Kristy Nunez
(Jeffrey Cynamon withdrew from this race at 11:58 AM today).

GROUP 32: (Judge Caryn Canner Schwartz retiring):

Lizzet Martinez
Chris Pracitto

GROUP 33: (Judge Teretha Thomas Lundy retiring):

Olanike Adebayo
Eleane Sosa-Bruzon

GROUP 40: (Judge Don Cohn retiring):

Michael Barket
Elena Ortega-Tauler

GROUP 43: (Judge Joseph Davis, Jr retiring):

Milena Abreu
Mike Mirabal

The primary election takes place on August 28, 2018 with any runoffs to be decided on November 6th. Good luck to all of the candidates.

CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com

CONSTITUTION REVISIONS COMMISSION a/k/a "CRC" .....

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

MARCY’S LAW - THE CRC HAS SPOKEN .....

While most of our loyal readers have been focusing on the really important issues of the day - Trump, North Korea, Comey and his new book, and Attorney/Client Privilege via the Michael Cohen case, many of you may have missed the latest on the venerable CRC - a/k/a Florida’s CONSTITUTION REVISION COMMISSION.

For those not in the know, the CRC is reborn once every 20 years in the State of Florida. Its mandate is to review the Florida Constitution and propose changes for voters to consider. For the past year, at dozens of public meetings held around the State, the 37 members have been listening to the voters of Florida. The membership of the CRC is overwhelmingly chosen by only three elected leaders, all Republican; 34 of the 37 members were selected by Governor Rick Scott, House Speaker Richard Corcoran, and Senate President Joe Negron.

After spending the past year listening to proposed amendments to our state constitution, the members whittled down the list of ideas to 23 workable proposals for final consideration. Those 23 proposals were reduced to 11 proposed final drafts for consideration by the CRC. And on Monday, after nine hours of debate between the members of the CRC, they voted to approve eight amendments to go before the voters in November, while rejecting three others.

You can read the Title and Content of each of the eight amendments by going here:

The Amendments range in subject from: Crime victims; judges; first responders and the military; public colleges & universities; school boards; offshore drilling; vaping; property rights; lobbying; and the oh so important industry of dog racing.

Today, we focus on just one amendment, P6001: "RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES". The proposed amendment/s would create a new constitutional right for crime victims to receive information and provide input during criminal cases. Known as "Marcy’s Law", the measure would, among other things, establish a right for the safety of victims and their family members to be considered when bail is set in criminal cases. The package of amendments also includes expanding the mandatory retirement age for judges (from the current age 70) to age 75, while also eliminating the provision permitting judges to serve out their term if they had served more than half their term by the time they reached retirement age.

Here is just some of the language:

(b) To preserve and protect the right of crime victims to achieve justice, ensure a meaningful role throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems for crime victims, and ensure that crime victims’ rights and interests are respected and protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than

protections afforded to criminal defendants and juvenile delinquents, every victim is entitled to the following rights, beginning at the time of his or her victimization ...

(10) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related postjudgment proceedings.

a. The state attorney may file a good faith demand for a speedy trial and the trial court shall hold a calendar call, with notice, within fifteen days of the filing demand, to schedule a trial to commence at a date at least five days but no more than sixty days after the date of the calendar call unless the trial judge enters an order with specific findings of fact justifying a trial date more than sixty days after the calendar call.

b. All state-level appeals and collateral attacks on any judgment must be complete within two years from the date of appeal in non-capital cases and five years in capital cases, unless a court enters an order with specific findings as to why the court was unable to comply with this subparagraph and the circumstances causing the delay. Each year, the chief judge of any district court of appeal or the chief justice of the supreme court shall report on a case-by-case basis to the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate all cases where the court entered an order regarding inability to comply with this subparagraph. The legislature may enact legislation to implement this subparagraph.

The entire proposed amendment P6001 can be read by going here.

For any of the amendments to become law, they must win the support of 60% of the voters.


JUDICIAL ELECTIONS .... UPDATE ......

As alluded to in the Comments section last week, veteran Judge David Miller has drawn opposition, again. This time it is from Elisabeth Espinosa, a ten year member of The Florida Bar. According to her bio, she is a partner at Cole, Scott’s Miami office and she defends insurance cases. She was an ASA in Orange County for six years, and also spent time as a criminal defense attorney. She states that she has tried over 70 jury trials.
　
CAPTAIN OUT .......
Captain4Justice@gmail.com