THE HARDEST WORKING MAN

When we last left beleaguered Assistant Public Defender Jay Kolsky, he was the hardest working lawyer in the REGJB- a PD with something like half a million open cases (or perhaps closer to 600). The PDs drew a line in the sand and said "no more." One more case and Jay would drop like a hamster on a wheel, going no where and about to take one step too many. 

The case went to the 3rd DCA who said in formal staid legalese: "Get back to work swine", but the PDs weren't done. Jay needed to be saved. So Quiet Charlie spoke and marshaled the troops and went to the Supremes in Tallahassee. 

"Help" said Charlie, he a man of few words. "Jay can't take it anymore." (According to the opinion it took 26 volumes of court records to say what we just said in one sentence. No wonder the planet is in trouble.) 

Today the Florida Supreme Court ruled here. 

"Jay sounds like a good guy" said the court. Indeed Kolsky caught some Tallahassee love in footnotes 10 and 11 of the opinion, which are just too good not to re-print here:


10. At the time, Kolsky was the sole third-degree felony attorney covering his courtroom and had to absorb the caseload of his co-worker who left the office for other employment.

11. At the time, Kolsky had thirty-six years’ experience and was considered one of the best and most experienced lawyers in the office. 

As for the rest of the opinion, we'll summarize it here:
The PDs might be able to withdraw en masse or refuse appointment (look out Regional Counsel) if Jay is still as busy as he was when the PDs courageously said they would no longer ride in the back of the bus. 

A statute prohibiting the PDs and Regional Counsel from refusing appointment or withdrawing because of excessive case load is neither unconstitutional nor means what it says:

The court ruled:

Thus, we find the statute to be facially constitutional and answer the certified question in the negative. However, the statute should not be applied to preclude a public defender from filing a motion to withdraw based on excessive caseload or

underfunding that would result in ineffective representation of indigent defendants nor to preclude a trial court from granting a motion to withdraw under those circumstances. 

And yet the statute reads:

section 27.5303(1)(d) provides that “[i]n no case shall the court approve a withdrawal by the public defender . . . based solely on the inadequacy of funding or excess workload. 

So much for the ol' "plain language of the statute" rule of statutory construction. 

And finally, and in our opinion, the worst part of the opinion with the potential for far reaching consequences, the nose of the State Attorneys Office stays firmly under the tent of a motion to withdraw. Or to put it another way, the State has standing to object to your motion to withdraw. Mark our words, this has the potential, to quote Chief Justice William Howard Taft, "to be a real pain in the ass."

And so life is circular and all things often end where they begin. The case is remanded to our wonderful little circuit. Jay Kolsky will wheel a few thousand files into a courtroom and stare at them forlornly  and say that he just can't take it anymore. And now the Judge has the ability to say: "I hear you Jay...Appoint Regional Counsel." 

Next up after what has been fondly called "PD11"? 

RC3 v. State. 

See you in court. 

WRAP UP

GOOD SATURDAY MORNING. Lets wrap up the current *contretemps about silent chucky:

There was a time not too long ago when the Dade Public Defenders Office was a wonderful place to work. The lawyers provided superior legal representation and loved their job. No more. Now an atmosphere of fear permeates the building emanating like a bad odor from a stuffed toilet drifting down from the 5th floor.

Why?

Politics and budgets have replaced the best interest of the client.

How so?

Item: It has been made very clear that entering a plea of no contest or guilty for a client at arraignment is against office policy. Indeed some believe that doing so on a regular basis could result in their dismissal. If a client insists on accepting a good plea and getting out of jail there are a series of forms that must be filed and the court must be told it is an un- counseled plea.

Rumpole says: When lawyers are forced to argue against their clients and work against their client's best interests it sucks the life out of their love for their job.

STATS: Like the Wizard of Oz, the silent one sits on the fifth floor behind a curtain and pours over the statistics of his lawyers.

What statistics are they measured against? Wins at trial? Motions granted? Below guideline sentences? Waivers of minimum mandatory sentences? In a word, are they measured against the success they achieve for their clients? NO.

No so much as they are measured against their work load.

How many depos have they taken that week is a very important statistic. Perhaps the most important. Can they dash off to jail to see a client? Not at the expense of taking depos. Jail visits must be arranged way in advance. Being in trial or conferring with a client is all well and good, but not at the expense of taking depos. And their depo load is monitored by supervisors on a weekly basis. Much like the sales of a car salesman, they must make their quota, or else.

Why? Because the Great Wizard must go to Tallahassee and beg for his alms, and to do that he needs statistics that show his minions are working.

What do the politicians want to see? Grist for the mill. They don't care (and perhaps don't even want) to see the PDs win at trial or get great results. What they want to see is the most work done for the money they spent. They want their state lawyers to process a mass of humanity and do it in a manner that shows that their money is being well spent.

And that means depos. Not wins. Not wonderful results that truly change a client's life.

When you impose your will to create stats on public service lawyers who got their law degrees to help people, you suck the pride right out of their work. You turn them from a lawyer racing to court to try a case with a big smile on his or her face to a shuffling stoop shouldered bureaucrat counting the days to 25 years.

What a shame.

Sorry to damper your weekend. Sunday is the first home day game for the Fins this year. Get your suicide pool picks in.

See You Monday.

* Our allegations in this post were taken from weeks of speaking with all sorts of lawyers and email communications with many more. We left out a lot of the even more petty stuff like PDs are no longer allowed to cover for private lawyers at a depo who may have to miss the depo because they are in trial, etc. What a bunch of bs.

A HOUSE DIVIDED

TUESDAY NIGHT UPDATE: There's a real debate going on in the comments section and we're loathe to get involved, so we're keeping the post up through Thursday. Have at it.

UPDATE: CASA CARLOS:

We want to print a fair representation of the comments. Many, including private emails, have been similar to this:

Anonymous said...

Rumpy,

Please make sure you have your facts right.

I too am a PD and I close cases without depos all the time.

I also have been told that the "rules" you cite are actually guidelines.

Still love ya even tho you hate my boss.

Monday, October 18, 2010 4:24:00 PM

However, there have also been many private emails along the lines of thanking us for shedding light on what they consider to be a serious problem. And then there was these:

Anonymous said...

The house divided started during thr Gabe Martin coup. There has been a spirit of discontent ever since. The office is run by men of little substance.

Monday, October 18, 2010 7:21:00 PM

Anonymous said...

3 lawyers resigned last week. 2 others left the month before.

Monday, October 18, 2010 5:59:00 PM

We report...you decide

First the important stuff: No one went out in the suicide pool, so five remain.

We went 1-1-1 in our picks and were +170 for the day. We are 10-11-1 for the season and plus sixty Rex Ryans (thank you Jets) for the year.

In our head to head duel Rumpole is 4-2 while Markus is 3-2-1.

House of Sadness:

Word filters in on almost a daily basis that Silent Charlie's PD office is wracked by low morale fostered by stringent and absurd rules.

Item: PDs are now (required? encouraged?) to take all depos on all cases before accepting a plea. Evaluations are on depos taken not case load or results or trial skills.

Item: No more "jail days".

Item: A PDs whereabouts are monitored and any PD must be in the office if not in trial or taking depos. No leaving early.

With regard to this last rule, we have no problem with that. The taxpayers pay for the office and they are entitled to a days work for a days pay.

We do have a problem with the rule about depos. More than one PD has written to us about "Gestapo like" (their words, not ours) tactics in reviewing cases and enforcing rules. The office is an unhappy office with people looking over their shoulders and various sects rising up to snipe at others.

It seems that it goes without saying that morale at the PDs office is so bad it approaches the morale of the SAO ( a traditionally difficult place to work since Ms. Fernandle took over)...... or Obama's west wing.

Meanwhile, as always, silent Charlie sits there, silently refusing to speak about his office or his questionable budget and office management practices.

Remember what Abraham Lincoln said in his famous "A house divided" speech: "A house divided will not be refinanced at a good rate and you will not be able to take money out to pay your amex bill...." or something like that.

CARLOS MARTINEZ IS NOT BORED

A message from your Public Defender.

Silent Charlie speaks!!! (so to speak).

From: Carlos J. Martinez
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:57 AM
To: All Users
Subject: LEGISLATIVE ALERT - CRITICAL BUDGET ITEM

Good afternoon.

This email is a follow up to our face to face meetings. By now, I hope you have had an opportunity to read the Miami Herald editorial (<-----click for the link to the editorial.) opposing privatization of our office. The battle is not yet over. The privatization proposal is much more than a rumor. It is an open secret. Last week, I was in Tallahassee meeting with legislators, FPDA, and lobbyists regarding the proposal being pushed by some Miami lawyers to cut our funding so they can be paid for handling the third degree felonies assigned to our office. I am in Tallahassee this week.

The proposal seeks to privatize a substantial amount of our felony work and pay a private law firm to do that work, transferring a disproportionate amount of our current funds to do so.

This privatization proposal is the biggest threat the office has ever faced. If approved, it would result in massive layoffs, between 100 and 240 employees, depending on how much money is taken out of our budget. While I do not want to alarm you, it is important that you have the facts.

The lobbyists for the Private Defenders’ Clinic have been trying to convince Representative David Rivera to file a last-minute proposal during budget negotiations. We have been fighting to prevent that from happening, and if it happens, from being approved. The Florida Bar, Florida Public Defender Association and Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers are actively lobbying against the proposal. The Dade County Bar Association, Florida Public Defender Association, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers-Miami have also unanimously passed resolutions opposing the proposal.

I met with Representative Rivera and explained why it’s a bad idea for our employees, clients, residents and the court system:
· The government bailout of private lawyers will not save one cent of taxpayer money.
· It’s a bad deal for taxpayers. It’s a waste of money.
· It’s bad public policy to have no bid contracts.
· Don’t fix what is not broken.
· We do it cheaper - $125-150 per case vs. $300-700 - with better quality.
· Cutting our budget would adversely impact our ability to provide quality representation in more serious felony cases.
· It will require massive layoffs.

Right now, Representative Rivera is the key person on this issue. Many of you live in the Representative’s current or possibly future district (zip codes 33014, 33015, 33016, 33018, 33030, 33031, 33032, 33033, 33034, 33035, 33157, 33166, 33170, 33175, 33176, 33177, 33178, 33182, 33183, 33184, 33185, 33186, 33187, 33189, 33190, 33193, 33194).
IF YOU THINK THE PRIVATIZATION PROPOSAL AND RELATED BUDGET CUT AFFECTS YOU AND WISH TO CONTACT REPRESENTATIVE RIVERA (850-488-7897) OR YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE OR SENATOR TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION, PLEASE DO NOT USE STATE RESOURCES (TELEPHONE, COMPUTER, EMAIL, ETC.) TO CONTACT THEM.
If you plan to call, know that personal stories are the most effective. Do not expect to speak to the legislator when you call. You can inform staff about your position.

Some tips if you decide to contact a legislator:

1. Keep the message short and to the point.
2. Start with your position (“I’m against” or “I’m in favor” of cutting the Miami-Dade Public Defender’s office budget to enrich private lawyers).
3. State your personal situation.
4. Ask staff to inform your legislator that you want the legislator to fight for your position.
5. Be polite; do not argue.

Thanks,
Carlos

Rumpole weighs in: We don't know much about the proposed legislation to sell off part of the PDs office. As a rule we avoid speaking to pimps, prostitutes and legislators. However, what we can gleam from the Herald editorial (and we also avoid the Herald, preferring the Times and Le Monde) is that this proposed legislation is the fallout from silent Charlie's lawsuit with PD Jay Kolsky as the busiest lawyer in the US. See our coverage about that here and here.

The Dade PDs went to court and said they should be able to conflict from a case simply because they have too many and cannot provide adequate representation to all their clients. This is turning out to not have been a very smart move in this economic environment in a day and age when legislators are searching everywhere to cut money. Lets face it, the last thing any legislator cares about is giving people whom they all view as criminals competent representation. Martinez files a lawsuit seeking permission to do less work, and is now shocked to find a target on his back.

Welcome to the big leagues buddy.

Perhaps that is one move you now regret. (Not speaking to us on how you budget monies for salaries is another. Saying your office is overworked when you hire less people than you are budgeted for and then spending the money on large raises for long time employees and even a consulting gig for Brummer is also not the wisest move in the world.)

Do we want to see the legislature gut the PDs office? No way.

Are we concerned about the competency of the person steering the ship over there and calling the shots? You betcha.

MORE ON SILENT CHARLIE'S PD OFFICE

The Dade Public Defender's office and all Public Defender offices across the state feel they are under direct attack from the Florida Senate led by Senator Victor Crist. Crist sees the Regional Counsel's office as the answer for the State's quest to provide affordable representation to indigent defendants in Florida while reducing expenses. Ever since the lawsuit challenging the creation of the Regional Counsels Office, Crist has put the Public Defenders offices budgets directly in his target sightline. Crist didn't like what the PDs did, and he intends to get even.

In Dade County the Public Defender's office has gone to the 3rd DCA in their much ballyhooed attempt to be able to withdraw from representation based solely on high existing caseloads. But as we wrote last week, Silent Charlie's real game plan is not to swamp the Regional Counsel's Office, but to starve it, by keeping as many cases within his own office as possible. High caseloads=high budgets. Give Silent Charlie credit for feinting left while going right. A masterful move if we may say so ourselves.

We have now learned that this plan was placed into effect at least two years ago, when the first hint of a second public defender's office wrinkled the nose of Silent Charlie and his danish eating sidekick.

Remember when the Public Defender's office assigned TWO C PDs to each felony division to handle the high case load of third degree felonies? Well, Silent Charlie put a stop to that when he realized that he needed high case loads to protect and preserve his budget. As early as two years ago, BEFORE the current budget crisis struck state governments, Silent Charlie stopped assigning two C PDs to each courtroom. This accounts for the high case loads, like 700 plus for APD Jay Kolsky, the hardest working PD in Miami and the "James Brown of the PD's office".

Silent Charlie and his mouthpieces will tell you that budget cuts caused him to remove the second C level PD. But don't let him fool you. Silent Charlie removed the second PDs before the budget cuts. And while we're on the subject of budget cuts, just how many C level PDs could Silent Charlie hire if he didn't have his old boss on retainer as an advisor while paying for his office to boot?

How many other State agencies during this time of fiscal crisis have former employees on salary as "advisors" while paying for a private office for the advisor?

The problem is Silent Charlie won't answer these questions, which is why is has the Nom d'blog of Silent Charlie.

IS JAY KOLSKY MIAMI'S BUSIEST PD?

The 3rd DCA heard argument yesterday on the Miami Public Defender's motion to withdraw from representation of a client. The Assistant Public Defender in question- one Jay Kolsky- was labeled "Miami's Busiest PD", and the court considered the question of whether being busy, by itself, was sufficient to merit withdrawal of the attorney from representation. The Dade PDs got spanked, Judge Schwartz was in fine form, and the title of the article links to the DBR's coverage of the thrashing.

What's really going on here folks? Is it that Jay Kolsky is just so busy, and his compatriots are almost (almost, but not quite) as busy as Kolsky, so that no one could step in and help "Busy Jay" prepare his case?

We think not.

For some reason Quiet Carlos A/K/A Public Defender Carlos Martinez A/K/A Silent Charlie got a bee in his bonnet over the establishment of the Conflict Counsel Office. We have not been a big fan of the Conflict Counsel's office, which we view as the State of Florida's attempt to take the cheapest way out in the State's obligation to provide quality attorneys to indigent individuals. But what is clearly going on here is Martinez's attempt to squeeze the Conflict Counsel's Office by swamping them with cases to the point where they cannot perform their job properly.

Why would Quiet Carlos care? The budget for the Conflict Counsel shouldn't affect his budget, which as we all know, he won't talk about. We think- and this is pure speculation- that Quiet Carlos is carrying the water for his private defense attorney pals who made a living off of the appointment system, and now have seen their income drop precipitously through the creation of the office of the Conflict Counsel. No other explanation seems to fit as to why the mere existence of the Conflict Counsel's office bothers Silent Charlie so much.

Any thoughts?

PD OFFICE- FLIP SIDE

UPDATE: Well no real surprise here, but now there's proof Texas has executed an innocent man. More on this tomorrow. 

The Public Defender's office has their own defenders:

These two comments probably settle the issue once and for all:

 Anonymous said...

i was at the ct house today and lawyers were telling me that morale at the office is not good!

Tuesday, September 01, 2009 3:25:00 PM

and...

 Anonymous said...

I know many PDs and they tell me they are not unhappy with Carlos.

Why did Rumpy have such a hate of Bennett and now such an issue with Carlos? Maybe Rumpy was fired by the PD????

Listen, most PDs think the office is just fine and the morale there is clearly a hell of a lot better than the morale at the SAO.

Please stop bashing Carlos Martinez. If you know him, and I do, he is a really hard working and caring guy.

Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:08:00 PM

THERE. That settles it I guess. 

Anonymous said...

The PDs office is still a fine place to work. Maybe it's a tighter ship now, but it's still a very good office with decent morale.

For example - I was at a happy hour for a B-level PD leaving the office for private practice. None other than Carlos Martinez himself was there, drinking a beer and chatting with young PDs. They were joking with him and calling him "Carlos." I was amazed. In all my time at the SAO, I saw KFR twice, and one of those times was when she interviewed me.

Anonymous said...

As a current PDO employee I can do nothing else but laugh at this article and some of the comments which have followed. Rump, your complete back off of your previous militant stance on these issues is telling in that, you realize that most of what you've been spouting have been unsubstantiated lies and the grumblings of some whinny babies. Lets discuss...

The large raise for one employee: He actually deserved it. Go ahead, publish the name. 

Dress Code for Jail: There is no dress code for jail. The dress code "change" was the office merely asking that you not wear jeans in the OFFICE. There was never a mention on what you can and can't wear to jail, in fact if you want to wear jeans to jail, then do so, just not in the office. Remember fellow PD employees, we do work in a professional law firm. How many other law firms allow their attorneys to walk around the office on a regular basis in jeans?

Nepotism?: Every attorney in this office has earned their right to be hired. The hiring process in our office was made to weed out the pretenders, and then send them over to the SAO. There is no one in this office who is employed in a position which he or she is not qualified for.

Supervising attorneys looking over the work of their attorneys who they are responsible for? What's wrong with that? They are doing their job. And with good reason. Word is the office just fired someone because he wasn't doing his. Note to all PDO's: "You work for your client's, not for yourselves."

[there was one portion of this comment we edited out- the only way we can do this is to copy the comment from the comments section and then post it here. We did that because it makes reference to a very serious charge we did not publish and will not unless we have evidence, which we do not have. We have allegations made by current employees, but no verification. Under the circumstances, we cannot publicize it.]

All in all, this article, and for the most part, this blog, is a bunch of hot air. It fans the flames of the so called "turmoil" when in fact, there is no turmoil.

[Rumpole asks one simple question: if the blog is so bad, why read it? Or did you mistakenly log on to the site while trying to find www-self-righteous dot com?]

And to any of my fellow employees who are in "turmoil", remember this...
You are a lawyer. You are a professional. Bound by a higher calling, a higer code of ethics, and in a profession which demands a higher work ethic. Start acting like it! 
This job is not supposed to be easy. It's supposed to be hard. Being hard is what makes it great. Your boss is supposed to be tough. You are supposed to be sharp. You are supposed to put in long hours. People's freedom and rights hang in the balance. If you don't like it, then head over to ABP in the courthouse and make me a breakfast sandwich in the morning. 
Perhaps that job will better suit your work ethic.

keeping it real

Rumpole responds:  The nepotism thing is tricky. It is apparently a "step parent" relationship, and does that qualify for nepotism? Additionally, it has been said the individual did not pass the Bar background check. But is that true? And even if it is true, perhaps the individual is otherwise a quality person and will be a great lawyer if given a chance. All we are reporting is that assistant public defenders have been complaining to us. 

PD OFFICE IN TURMOIL

It is our sad duty to report that the once proud Dade County Public Defender's Office is in turmoil.

Morale is in basement (and they don't even have a basement on 14th street, do they?)

Some top (very top) guys were at a goodbye party for a PD leaving for a civil firm last Thursday and were telling everyone that they were going to get poor Ol'Rumpole. This is apparently how scared they are of us mentioning that there are problems in Casa de Carlos.  One top PD  guy has "hacker friends" who are going to hack us and shut us down, while others are sure that a lawsuit would work. Tsk tsk. Don't you guys have a representation crisis? (click the link). 

Instead of drafting lawsuits against our humble blog, how about picking up a file and pitching in?

Anyway: here are some of the things that are bringing people down:  (note- these are summaries of emails we received from assistant public defenders. Some have identified themselves, others have not but have answered some of our questions to at least satisfy us they appear to be PDs. It should also be noted the context and tenor of the emails and the subjects they all mentioned were remarkably similar.  So after reading this  log in and respond- are things okay dokey at 14th street, or are there problems? We will print the responses on a front page post.)

ITEM: RAISES FOR SOME.

There is no money for raises. Yet-one very highly placed administrator's salary went up $49,000.00 from 2002 to 2006. 

ITEM: DRESS CODE FOR JAIL: Work for the PDs and go to jail. Do not pass Go, do not speak with silent Charlie, and DO NOT WEAR JEANS.

Yup. If morale wasn't bad enough in these tough times with no raises except for a few feeding at the public trough, the PDs are now being yelled at for their out of court dress.

There are other issues. A few PDs raised an issue of nepotism to us, but while we confirmed some details, others are still murky- but this issue has some assistant PDs upset. 

A few other PDs raised the issue of a supervisor accosting people in a parking lot on a few occasions and on one occasion rifling through the files of another PD while that PD was on vacation looking for evidence that the PD on vacation was not taking enough depos.

There have been in our emails even more serious and insidious allegations, but we can't confirm all the details, so we just write this so that the leaders at 14th street know we know about them, and apparently so does some major media outlets in our community. Maybe they amount to nothing. And maybe they don't. We'll be here to see. 

So there you have it: all the makings of a revolt in PD land. Morale is rock bottom, and the guy at the top ain't saying nuttin (just like they tell their clients to do. ) All they can do is threaten our humble blog. 

 In the history of the blog there have only been two other people to threaten to shut us down- one got disbarred but still shoots us threatening emails every now and then, and the other faded into obscurity, having achieved nothing. And now, it appears possibly some of the top people at the PDs office may be joining that august group of malcontents.

Here's a piece of advice: Try looking in a mirror and cleaning up your own house first. Either I work there, or a whole lot of your people are upset and talking. The blog is not your problem; morale is. 

We should all be on the same side here. The Dade PDs office produced some of the finest lawyers in this country. We here at the blog don't want them to fail. We want the PDs office to carry on the proud tradition and do the normally excellent job of defending their  clients that the attorneys have historically done.

 We used to feel the same way about the SAO, but since Janet Reno left that office has descended deeper and deeper into a bureaucratic morass killing the innovative spirt of all who work there. We would hate to see the same thing happen to the PDs office.  But that's the way it appears they are heading. It is true Mr. Martinez hasn't had a full year yet to get things running, and he is entitled to more time. But currently some of his employees are upset, and they're talking.   

Here's our advice:

Ease up a bit. Let the attorneys wear jeans to the jail and keep your eye on the ball- serving your clients. The rest is just BS. 

See you in court, getting PD tips all the time.

SHOOTING SNAFU?

First- SILENT CHARLIE - DAY 5. 

By virtue of the comments yesterday, some people have many of the questions we have about what's going on at the PDs office. 

ASA VON ZAMFT BLAMES MEDIA FOR SHOOTING:

This has been on our plate for a while, but we just couldn't get to it. 

In this New Times Story, ASA Michael Von Zamft gives his "personal opinion" that a news broadcast by Emmy Award winning reporter Jim DeFede about a shooting caused a revenge shooting thereafter. 

DeFede responded in his online column here- basically admitting that his interview with the mother of a 16 year old young man, who was tragically killed for what appears to be no reason, caused a drive by shooting of the woman's home in which bullets were sprayed and two more of the woman's children were shot, but not seriously. 

Gang war is out of control in Liberty City. That much is clear. 

Long Weekend coming up.  Another Tuesday after a Monday off. 

What will the lines be like? 

Will Silent Charlie address the questions swirling around his confused office and embattled administration? Until he does, he remains ensconced in his office, Nixon/Bush like, with a small circle of advisors telling him to hold on. 

Rest assured we will bring you those answers, and more, next week on your favourite legal blog. 

SILENT CHARLIE DAY 4

UPDATE: This comment by a reader says it all:

rump - I think the real horror that needs to be looked into is why PDs who work their butts off (and there are LOTS of them, besides what some of your readers think) haven't gotten raises. This when most of them are carrying ungodly amounts of student loans and live in the 3rd most expensive city in the US!

UPDATE: BLOCKBUSTER INDICTMENT!  A Former Federal and State Prosecutor in New Jersey, and now a prominent criminal defense attorney- Paul Bergrin-has been indicted in federal court on 14 counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The charges arise out of accusations that Bergrin orchestrated the murder of witnesses in two cases. High profile NYC defense attorney Gerald Shargel is defending Bergrin. The NY Times article is here. 

We are still wondering about our questions in re:  the 16 PD "Straw attorneys" whose position was budgeted by the Legislature, and whose salaries were paid by us tax payers, but who otherwise don't exist. Is what the PD's office did legal? Do other state  offices do this?  Is this why there's only one person at the clerk's office whenever we need a file? 

And here's a new one- while we were in the shower the other day we started, as is our wont, to do some math. 16 positions- assume on the low side an average starting salary of $30,000.00 per year, that's ..hmm...carry the two....ummm...$480,000.00 Brummers!!!  That's an awful lot of hay to give to the top horses in the barn. 

  And (because we take long showers) we also thought of this: Is this the first time BHB has done this?  We all know that no matter how bad the evidence is against out client, we all like to say "they've never done this before. It was a one time, stupid thing to do."

So has the PD's office been taking money for "straw lawyers" for years? And who got that money? 

You see, without the Susannah Nesmiths and now the Vanessa Blums of the world  (Markus reported Tuesday that the Sun Sentinel canned Blum for budget reasons)  who else is there to ask these questions and "follow the money"?

We'd much rather see Ms. Nesmith or Ms. Blum meeting with a strange and mysterious figure cloaked in a Macintosh and obscured by the shadows of a late night in the Jackson Medical Garage across from the PDs office.   "What is going on over there"? we imagine them saying, fog swirling in the background. 

"Follow the money" would be the whispered reply.  The glow of a cigarette breaking the dark and gloomy midnight hour. 

The problem is that at the rate we're going, this story will be assigned to the obit copy clerk, as there are no real reporters left in Miami to "follow the money" flowing through the strangely silent offices of Carlos Martinez and company. 

SILENT CHARLIE DAY FOUR.

And yes, we have been Twittering about the silent PD's office here. 

STRANGELY SILENT

(For a guy that clearly knows how to use a phone, Carlos Martinez is strangely silent these days.)

For a lawyer, for a defender, for an advocate for the poor, the weak, the gullible,  Miami Public Defender Carlos Martinez remains strangely silent over the controversy regarding his office.

His employees are not, judging from the response in the comments section of the last post. 

THE ACCUSATION: That facing times of trouble and crisis, the Miami Dade Public Defenders office used money designated by the Florida legislature for 16 new attorney positions for raises- mostly for upper echelon employees.  Someone from the Dade PDs office signed off on a budget request that included positions for 16 attorneys that they never had any intention of hiring. Who did that? Why?  Is it legal?  Do taxpayers have any rights here to find out what's going on in the Dade PDs office? What about the Florida Legislature? Do they care? How about other SAO and PDs offices who submitted legitimate budgets without straw positions? They played by the rules.  Do they have a right to complain?

There are lots of questions. Unfortunately, the person who knows the answers isn't speaking. 

THE RESPONSE BY CARLOS MARTINEZ:

(this space for rent. Inquire 305-545-1600. Ask for Carlos.)

THE FALLOUT: The 3rd DCA just spanked his office. More than 40 private attorneys have agreed to pitch in and help out the PDs office by taking cases for free. Now those attorneys are learning that they are working for free, not because the PDs office has no funds for new attorneys, but because the PDs office chose to use that  money for raises for  long term employees who mostly are not those in court fighting for clients. 

THE LEGAL COMMUNITY AWAITS THE RESPONSE FROM "SILENT CHARLIE."