Anonymous lashes out:
Rump how exactly could a pd screw something up that would hurt in the election. You are showing yourself to be a former state attorney here. In the SAO, an ASA could do something on a case which would reflect poorly on the office and the elected official. But what act could an assistant pd take which would make the public mad at bhb? I am being serious here Phil/Rumpole, stop thinking like the ex asa that you are and answer this one.Rump you are being a little too wishy washy on this whole issue. You correctly criticize BHB's reign on terror but then kind of like a defense in a rape case saying that Lonnie deserved what he got or a worse fate such as feeding Judge Postman breakfast for eternity. Come on Rumps, this is not the issue to equivocate on.Besides coming out 100 percent against the BHB regime on this one gives you more opportunities to write about the am dining habits and non- appearance in court of everyone’s favorite 100k per year government lawyer Rory Stein.
Rumpole replies:
On the issue of our identity, leave it alone already. How embarrassed will you be if you are wrong? You label us as Phil Reizenstein, but you do not sign your name.
Is it fair to anyone to be tagged with our opinions without proof of identity beyond a reasonable doubt?
It brings to mind this quote:
“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. “
Winston Churchill- a favorite of ours, and probably Mr. Reizenstein as well.
As to Mr. Brummer, call us wishy washy if you must. However, we believe we are being fair. Mr. Brummer was wrong. However, one wrong does not a career make. We see excellent representation by assistant public defenders in court every single day. And we have seen it for years. Mr. Brummer and his staff must be doing something right. We think the assistant public defenders are better trained, more able to think on their feet, and overall- better trial lawyers at an earlier stage than assistant state attorneys. In many respects, that’s because the ASA’s are hamstrung with having to ask permission to use the bathroom, much less evaluate a file and make a proper plea offer. (This ought to get the prosecutors off their duffs and behind their keyboards)
Again, despite our ire at Mr. Stein for making baseless accusations against us, he and Mr. Brummer and their staff must be doing something right.
To conclude the matter, if Mr. Brummer had someone as inventive and creative as we are on his staff, then as you have said, there are much worse fates than being fired. The Judge in question was QUITE FOND of dining at Mortons, Capital Grill, Joes, etc.
Anonymous quips:
Do misd. trials even count? C'mon!
Rumpole replies: They do when we lose a first DUI and the client gets 60 days DCJ. (Thank goodness that hasn’t happened, but it can and has to other unfortunate individuals).
“Gayle” writes to tell us
Hey Rumpole-did you hear that the county is installing new equipment incounty court to promote case dispositions-they are installing telephoneson every judges bench so they don’t have to take a recess and go to theirchambers to call Judge Slom or Judge Leifman to see how they shouldrule -they can just call directly from court and not waste everyone’s time
Rumpole replies:
Everyone knows Judges Slom and Leifman “give good phone”. Actually, most judges use the phone to call 1-800-horoscope or to confirm lunch.
And this thought just occurred to us: who do those Judges call when they have a question?
We do not necessarily disapprove of a Judge who has the humility to say “I don’t know” and then gets another opinion. We have had several trials with judges in circuit court who have openly told both parties that they were going to consult another judge on an unusual issue that arose during the case.
“Sometimes wrong..never in doubt” is not the best motto for a judge. We hope the Judge on the phone is fair enough to give the calling judge the overview of the law, versus telling them “ oh.. just deny that motion and see if they appeal you.”
Thanks for the tidbit.
See You In Court
Saturday, December 17, 2005
THE PD EMPIRE SRTIKES BACK.
Anonymous, probably a PD writes this astonishing post:
the brummer machine is working overdrive to suppress free speech again! this time, on the internet. try to google justice building blog and see what comes up. bennet made john from his i.t. department flood the search engine with other sites in order to deny us Rumpole Blogger.
Rumpole responds: As you may have gleaned, we love to quote lines from literature. Certainly the Godfather and Star Wars ranks up there with Shakespeare and Yeats.
When we read your post, our thoughts immediately went to Princess Leia as she was about to be executed:
Governor Tarkin: Princess Leia, before your execution, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. No star system will dare oppose the Emperor now.
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
If Brummer is tampering with the internet and trying to block access to this site, and we have no idea that he is doing that, then Brummer should return his ACLU award and hang his head in shame.
Plus, we will start referring to him as DARTH VADER, and we know the nickname will take off.
Clearly, the more he tries to suppress this blog- make it forbidden fruit if you will- the more his disgruntled employees will read and discuss it. WE WILL BE HEARD.
Before we invoke the Force and fight back, we invite other PDS to let us know if they believe this to be true and if they are being denied their right to free speech, this blog, and http://www.girlsgonewild/.
We just Googled ourselves, (first time ever).
We were alone.
The lights were low.
The door was closed.
And.. if you Google "Justice Building Blog"
We're number 1!!!
We come up first.
Does that happen on the PD computers?
MORE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT DARTH VADER:
Anonymous writes:
Does Rumpole find disturbing former veteran ASPD Art Koch's charge that Mr. Brummer ordered him not to work the Chavez case up until after the Brummer/Norris election for fear of negative media coverage? Is Rumpole aware that Mr. Chavez has now raised this issue on rule 3? Rumpole, this charge seems more serious to us then then the Richardson settlement. Please humor us....
Rumpole replies:
That charge was made and has been publicized before . Mr. Koch, who we consider to be an unimpeachable source, based on his years as a top notch defense attorney and his reputation for truth, and professionalism, will probably be called to testify. We will be watching. We will also secure the rule 3 and review it. Anyone who can email it would save us some time. But don’t worry, we will get it. The truth will out.
If the allegation is true, then the charge is 1000 times more serious then la affair du Brummer.
Nothing, Nothing is more important and sacrosanct then an attorney’s duty and loyalty to represent his/her client to the very best of their ability.
Now we will take license and preach just a bit. We are proud of our profession.
The worse the charge, the more horrendous the allegations, the harder the attorney must strive to make sure he/she puts their personal feelings aside and give their client the best defense possible. Mr. Koch was an outstanding choice in that regard for the defense of a client charged with unspeakably horrific acts.
If, as we have written, prosecutors are vested with special powers, then defense attorneys are given special responsibilities. A client puts their life in your hands. The responsibility is awesome. It is a privilege not many people in their lifetime will ever enjoy.
If Brummer put personal or professional rewards over the interests of a client, he should be disciplined, impeached, and scorned.
Criminal defense attorneys in this City have accepted appointments to horrible cases that have affected their careers forever. Attorneys have accepted appointments in cases where clients have murdered police officers. Most knew that representation in that type of case meant: 1) little chance of ever being appointed a judge; 2) opposition from the police union if they ran for judge. 3) Scorn and even harassment from the community.
This issue bears watching, and as this blog seems to have established early on: people will be watching, and commenting.
Final thought: where was all this vitrol, accusations, and bad blood during the election? Could Gabe Martin have been that bad a candidate?
the brummer machine is working overdrive to suppress free speech again! this time, on the internet. try to google justice building blog and see what comes up. bennet made john from his i.t. department flood the search engine with other sites in order to deny us Rumpole Blogger.
Rumpole responds: As you may have gleaned, we love to quote lines from literature. Certainly the Godfather and Star Wars ranks up there with Shakespeare and Yeats.
When we read your post, our thoughts immediately went to Princess Leia as she was about to be executed:
Governor Tarkin: Princess Leia, before your execution, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. No star system will dare oppose the Emperor now.
Princess Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
If Brummer is tampering with the internet and trying to block access to this site, and we have no idea that he is doing that, then Brummer should return his ACLU award and hang his head in shame.
Plus, we will start referring to him as DARTH VADER, and we know the nickname will take off.
Clearly, the more he tries to suppress this blog- make it forbidden fruit if you will- the more his disgruntled employees will read and discuss it. WE WILL BE HEARD.
Before we invoke the Force and fight back, we invite other PDS to let us know if they believe this to be true and if they are being denied their right to free speech, this blog, and http://www.girlsgonewild/.
We just Googled ourselves, (first time ever).
We were alone.
The lights were low.
The door was closed.
And.. if you Google "Justice Building Blog"
We're number 1!!!
We come up first.
Does that happen on the PD computers?
MORE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT DARTH VADER:
Anonymous writes:
Does Rumpole find disturbing former veteran ASPD Art Koch's charge that Mr. Brummer ordered him not to work the Chavez case up until after the Brummer/Norris election for fear of negative media coverage? Is Rumpole aware that Mr. Chavez has now raised this issue on rule 3? Rumpole, this charge seems more serious to us then then the Richardson settlement. Please humor us....
Rumpole replies:
That charge was made and has been publicized before . Mr. Koch, who we consider to be an unimpeachable source, based on his years as a top notch defense attorney and his reputation for truth, and professionalism, will probably be called to testify. We will be watching. We will also secure the rule 3 and review it. Anyone who can email it would save us some time. But don’t worry, we will get it. The truth will out.
If the allegation is true, then the charge is 1000 times more serious then la affair du Brummer.
Nothing, Nothing is more important and sacrosanct then an attorney’s duty and loyalty to represent his/her client to the very best of their ability.
Now we will take license and preach just a bit. We are proud of our profession.
The worse the charge, the more horrendous the allegations, the harder the attorney must strive to make sure he/she puts their personal feelings aside and give their client the best defense possible. Mr. Koch was an outstanding choice in that regard for the defense of a client charged with unspeakably horrific acts.
If, as we have written, prosecutors are vested with special powers, then defense attorneys are given special responsibilities. A client puts their life in your hands. The responsibility is awesome. It is a privilege not many people in their lifetime will ever enjoy.
If Brummer put personal or professional rewards over the interests of a client, he should be disciplined, impeached, and scorned.
Criminal defense attorneys in this City have accepted appointments to horrible cases that have affected their careers forever. Attorneys have accepted appointments in cases where clients have murdered police officers. Most knew that representation in that type of case meant: 1) little chance of ever being appointed a judge; 2) opposition from the police union if they ran for judge. 3) Scorn and even harassment from the community.
This issue bears watching, and as this blog seems to have established early on: people will be watching, and commenting.
Final thought: where was all this vitrol, accusations, and bad blood during the election? Could Gabe Martin have been that bad a candidate?
Friday, December 16, 2005
POLLS AND POSTS
Going to bring down some polls next week. This is Florida, so vote early and often. Stan Blake holds a slim lead over Rosa Rodriguez on the poll about who you would want as a Judge if you were arrested. Luise Krieger Martin with a very respectable showing as well. New Poll on the current topic: BENNETT BRUMMER: LOVE HIM OR HATE HIM- actually there are several categories and you can check more than one box. A new feature!
Mr. Tannebaum writes about his picture:
I apologize to the overwhelmingly offended individual who took the time to ask that my picture not be posted, but as a fellow blogger, my picture automatically appears when I comment, unless I comment anonymously, which I do not do. Unfortunately, I choose to be named, and seen.
Rumpole responds: Your wife has authorized us to accept your apology. She was a mite angry at the time she left the post. Seriously, We applaud your courage in signing your name.
Rumpole in 08???
Anonymous writes:
brummer will have democratic opposition in '08. the kid should have run as a democrat in '04instead he tried to play ethnicpolitics by running as a CubanRepublican.the head PD has got to be a Democrat - you just can't winotherwise.any takers for '08?from the likes of these comments,it sounds like you've got a built in base of support.
Rumpole replies: Please do not mistake our commenting on Brummer for the belief he should not be PD. We have never said that. We believe several PDs would commit various forms of aggravated battery upon us if they could verify our identity. However, all we did was 1) BREAK the story about the 200 grand settlement. 2) Opine that Mr. Brummer was wrong in his actions.
To paraphrase the 36th President of the United States "I will not be a candidate in 2008. I shall not accept the nomination of mah party."
We have no political aspirations beyond getting one of those appointments to be a Judge at the Hawaiian Tropic Beauty Contests.
Finally, Prosecutors are brought into the sentencing fray: Anonymous writes:
I agree with Hersch, but to add to the discussion I would also like to point out that it is just as much a disgrace or probably more for prosecutors to ask for harsher sentences than they offered prior to trial. I think its even worse than the judges actions, since at least the judges can say they did not know all of the facts prior to trial. The prosecutor on the other hand knows all the facts and yet asks for 20 years after trial when they had offered 10 prior to trial.
Rumpole replies: There is a prohibition against vindictive prosecution and vindictive sentencing. However, lets say a prosecutor truly believes a defendant deserves 20 years, but the victim is reluctant and begs the prosecutor to offer 5 years to settle the case and the prosecutor agrees. The Defendant rejects the offer, goes to trial and loses. What then? We can posit a myriad of possibilities that would support or criticize a prosecutor's decision to offer a more severe sentence after trial. That is why the position of prosecutor is so special and the people who hold that office must be taught to understand the power over people's lives they hold. We do not see enough training and enough emphasis on justice versus punishment.
Being a prosecutor requires the extremely important ability to- right in the middle of fighting for something you passionately believe in- stop and give your opponent more ammunition (Brady Material) that may cause you to lose. Prosecutors need to be passionate about winning and protecting victims and society and just as passionate about justice and upholding all of the law, including Brady and its prodigy. It's that final point that we do not see enough training being done at the SAO.
We are not foolish enough to believe any training is required by the FEDS. Anyone who has ever had to deal with 2000 pages of Jenks after the witness gives direct testimony knows that "discovery" and "Brady" and "fair trial" are all quaint notions that the Attorney General believes should go the way of the horse and buggy.
See You In Court (unless the feds get me first).
Mr. Tannebaum writes about his picture:
I apologize to the overwhelmingly offended individual who took the time to ask that my picture not be posted, but as a fellow blogger, my picture automatically appears when I comment, unless I comment anonymously, which I do not do. Unfortunately, I choose to be named, and seen.
Rumpole responds: Your wife has authorized us to accept your apology. She was a mite angry at the time she left the post. Seriously, We applaud your courage in signing your name.
Rumpole in 08???
Anonymous writes:
brummer will have democratic opposition in '08. the kid should have run as a democrat in '04instead he tried to play ethnicpolitics by running as a CubanRepublican.the head PD has got to be a Democrat - you just can't winotherwise.any takers for '08?from the likes of these comments,it sounds like you've got a built in base of support.
Rumpole replies: Please do not mistake our commenting on Brummer for the belief he should not be PD. We have never said that. We believe several PDs would commit various forms of aggravated battery upon us if they could verify our identity. However, all we did was 1) BREAK the story about the 200 grand settlement. 2) Opine that Mr. Brummer was wrong in his actions.
To paraphrase the 36th President of the United States "I will not be a candidate in 2008. I shall not accept the nomination of mah party."
We have no political aspirations beyond getting one of those appointments to be a Judge at the Hawaiian Tropic Beauty Contests.
Finally, Prosecutors are brought into the sentencing fray: Anonymous writes:
I agree with Hersch, but to add to the discussion I would also like to point out that it is just as much a disgrace or probably more for prosecutors to ask for harsher sentences than they offered prior to trial. I think its even worse than the judges actions, since at least the judges can say they did not know all of the facts prior to trial. The prosecutor on the other hand knows all the facts and yet asks for 20 years after trial when they had offered 10 prior to trial.
Rumpole replies: There is a prohibition against vindictive prosecution and vindictive sentencing. However, lets say a prosecutor truly believes a defendant deserves 20 years, but the victim is reluctant and begs the prosecutor to offer 5 years to settle the case and the prosecutor agrees. The Defendant rejects the offer, goes to trial and loses. What then? We can posit a myriad of possibilities that would support or criticize a prosecutor's decision to offer a more severe sentence after trial. That is why the position of prosecutor is so special and the people who hold that office must be taught to understand the power over people's lives they hold. We do not see enough training and enough emphasis on justice versus punishment.
Being a prosecutor requires the extremely important ability to- right in the middle of fighting for something you passionately believe in- stop and give your opponent more ammunition (Brady Material) that may cause you to lose. Prosecutors need to be passionate about winning and protecting victims and society and just as passionate about justice and upholding all of the law, including Brady and its prodigy. It's that final point that we do not see enough training being done at the SAO.
We are not foolish enough to believe any training is required by the FEDS. Anyone who has ever had to deal with 2000 pages of Jenks after the witness gives direct testimony knows that "discovery" and "Brady" and "fair trial" are all quaint notions that the Attorney General believes should go the way of the horse and buggy.
See You In Court (unless the feds get me first).
Thursday, December 15, 2005
IDENTITY CRISIS
NOR LAW, NOR DUTY BADE ME FIGHT
NOR PUBLIC MEN, NOR CHEERING CROWDS,
A LONELY IMPULSE OF DELIGHT
DROVE TO THIS TUMMULT IN THE CLOUDS"An Irish Airman Forsees His Death, Yeats.
In our post on Friday December 9, entitled "Motion to Suppress ID Granted" we briefly addressed the issue of our identity. We clearly stated that we would not respond to any guesses. It should be clear that if we don't deny your particular guess, that does not mean you are right.
If you want to engage in a private discussion of identity, then send an email from your regular email address to mailto:howardroark21@gmail.com We cannot reply to an email that is sent from the comment section here, as it comes as anonymous.
No one has overcome the burden of reasonable doubt. Lest we remind you, (and we apologize to our judicial readers for using the legal, complicated, and strange terms to follow)
"A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary
or forced doubt...after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the
evidence, [if] there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if having a
conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which waivers and vacillates,
then the charge is not proven.... and you must find the defendant not
guilty."
Of course, those sharp readers who practice in federal court know that the standard over there is a bit different.
To briefly summarize the federal "Ashcroft" standard:
"where's there is smoke..there is fire. If the defendant was arrested and looks guilty, and unless some immediate unusual act of the lord interrupts this trial, then the defendant is guilty."
Some guesses have been fun and thoughtful. But we suggest you beam that legal brain on one of the issues of the day. Colleagues have emailed us begging us to reveal ourselves so they will not have to continuously deny it to their friends, spouses, children, clients, and certain angry police officers.
How would you feel if you were accused of something you didn't do?
When you think about it, that's the basis for our profession.
(That, and getting fees large enough to pay for that Porsche).
People email us anonymously to write about the issues of the day, complain about a judge, or tease HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED.
Why can't we enjoy the same anonymity?
We believe we have been responsible custodians, posting all comments, even those critical of us, and deleting any comment that violates our simple rules (no personal attacks, no comment about a person's private life, etc).
We have not used our anonymity to attack a judge or a colleague for a petty issue. That would be cowardly.
We continue to believe that by remaining anonymous, we can best serve our little community. We can question a public figure for a well deserved reason, (see, la affair du Brummer) and still be able to get a few court appointments now and then.
We promise, upon our selection to become a district court judge, upon our appointment to the Third DCA (so we can write dissenting opinions designed to make Judge Rothenberg as angry as He Who Must Not Be Named) or upon our untimely demise, our identity will be revealed.
Until then, lets just have fun with the topics of the day.
See You In Court.
THE PDS HAVE ARRIVED!!!
THE PDS HAVE ARRIVED!!
Anonymous opined:
“you dui lawyers are funny.”
Rumpole replies: That’s because they do all their drinking at home and then log on to our humble site. But as we have seen in a previous post, there is a danger to drinking and blogging.
Anonymous wrote:
“tidy up retirement? a place for a drunk to get a new start. are you f***ing (edited by Rumpole) joking? that can't be what the office is all about all about these days. i guess times have changed. the current administration has lived of the lorals of the old gaurd for much to long. anyone with a sense of history understands that brummer was never well regarded by the GREATS(n) ie the original ten. he was the only guy who wanted the job back then. and make no mistake about it, a trial is not a word that benny b is comfortable using. the kid should have held out for 500k.rumpole come back to the dark side”
Rumpole Replies: You have been reading Brummer Bummer. Welcome to the site. Better late than never. By the way, in case you haven’t heard, Bush nipped Gore in a close one. As to Brummer, there were two compelling sides to the story. As we have previously said, BHB (someone e mailed us that those were his initials) deserved to get zinged for his conduct. He has also served for many many years producing great lawyers who give indigent clients a great defense. He deserved to have us recognize his accomplishments as well.
There is no “dark side” of Rumpole. We are not out to ruin or maliciously hurt anyone. However, hypocrisy will be outed. Self important dodos can expect to get put through the ringer. What we really seek is a great discussion of the issues of our building.
PS: Did you go to public school with Jason Grey? You can’t spell “laurels” or “guard” but have no problem with spelling “fucking”.
Another Reader, either late to the Blog, or just a very thoughtful old chap, also saw fit to comment on La Affair Du Brummer:
Why is everyone giving Brumm a hard time? Even though he's basically worthless, who else (besides some idiotic 20somethings) would want to deal with a bunch of lazy gov't pissants?
Rumpole Replies:
Brummer is an elected public official. He is held to the highest of standards. He fired a PD for working on the other guy’s election and got caught with his hand on the trap door lever. He was sued and we tax payers paid the bill. He has been treated fairly in this arena.
OK. Now we get it. The PD’s have found the Blog!!!! Better late than never we say. Welcome, PDs. And get Mr. Stein to respond to our challenge. What did we write that was incorrect? Mr. Anonymous, who also appears to have signed his name wrote:
I GIVE MY BOSS A BREAK! HE IS A GREAT LEADER WITH SOLOMONIC INSTINCT. PLUS, WERE IT NOT FOR HIM, GREAT LAWYERS SUCH AS , RORY S. , CARLOS M. , C. DAVID WEED , BECKY COX, ETC... WOULD NOT BE WHAT THEY ARE TODAY. THE BEST OF THE BEST...LEAVE BRUMMER ALONE!! WARREN S.
That crash you heard was us falling out of our chair. Could this be the great, wise, respected Warren Schwartz? The Ben Franklin of Felonies? This barely made it past our censors, as we are suspicious it could be someone writing as Mr. Schwartz. The posting was done anonymously. However, hoping against hope, there is joy in Mudville. As the Casey of The Courthouse, a real heavy hitter is reading our blog. We have arrived at last!
Anonymous opined:
“you dui lawyers are funny.”
Rumpole replies: That’s because they do all their drinking at home and then log on to our humble site. But as we have seen in a previous post, there is a danger to drinking and blogging.
Anonymous wrote:
“tidy up retirement? a place for a drunk to get a new start. are you f***ing (edited by Rumpole) joking? that can't be what the office is all about all about these days. i guess times have changed. the current administration has lived of the lorals of the old gaurd for much to long. anyone with a sense of history understands that brummer was never well regarded by the GREATS(n) ie the original ten. he was the only guy who wanted the job back then. and make no mistake about it, a trial is not a word that benny b is comfortable using. the kid should have held out for 500k.rumpole come back to the dark side”
Rumpole Replies: You have been reading Brummer Bummer. Welcome to the site. Better late than never. By the way, in case you haven’t heard, Bush nipped Gore in a close one. As to Brummer, there were two compelling sides to the story. As we have previously said, BHB (someone e mailed us that those were his initials) deserved to get zinged for his conduct. He has also served for many many years producing great lawyers who give indigent clients a great defense. He deserved to have us recognize his accomplishments as well.
There is no “dark side” of Rumpole. We are not out to ruin or maliciously hurt anyone. However, hypocrisy will be outed. Self important dodos can expect to get put through the ringer. What we really seek is a great discussion of the issues of our building.
PS: Did you go to public school with Jason Grey? You can’t spell “laurels” or “guard” but have no problem with spelling “fucking”.
Another Reader, either late to the Blog, or just a very thoughtful old chap, also saw fit to comment on La Affair Du Brummer:
Why is everyone giving Brumm a hard time? Even though he's basically worthless, who else (besides some idiotic 20somethings) would want to deal with a bunch of lazy gov't pissants?
Rumpole Replies:
Brummer is an elected public official. He is held to the highest of standards. He fired a PD for working on the other guy’s election and got caught with his hand on the trap door lever. He was sued and we tax payers paid the bill. He has been treated fairly in this arena.
OK. Now we get it. The PD’s have found the Blog!!!! Better late than never we say. Welcome, PDs. And get Mr. Stein to respond to our challenge. What did we write that was incorrect? Mr. Anonymous, who also appears to have signed his name wrote:
I GIVE MY BOSS A BREAK! HE IS A GREAT LEADER WITH SOLOMONIC INSTINCT. PLUS, WERE IT NOT FOR HIM, GREAT LAWYERS SUCH AS , RORY S. , CARLOS M. , C. DAVID WEED , BECKY COX, ETC... WOULD NOT BE WHAT THEY ARE TODAY. THE BEST OF THE BEST...LEAVE BRUMMER ALONE!! WARREN S.
That crash you heard was us falling out of our chair. Could this be the great, wise, respected Warren Schwartz? The Ben Franklin of Felonies? This barely made it past our censors, as we are suspicious it could be someone writing as Mr. Schwartz. The posting was done anonymously. However, hoping against hope, there is joy in Mudville. As the Casey of The Courthouse, a real heavy hitter is reading our blog. We have arrived at last!
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
REIFF RIOT
POPULAR GUY/POPULAR TARGET
Jason Grey said...
Having played on ice hockey teams with bobby I must confirm the rumor that Mr reiff spends a good amount of time in the penalty box . Cross check him and expect the same back. It's bad policy on the ice to let opponents get away with dirty play and do nothing, it only emboldens them.bobby won't put up with it there,why should he here.I have won a lot of trials , and I have lost a lot of trials, It is what tends to happen when one tries a lot of cases . Some of the best fights I've ever had were un -winnable at the time I laced up the gloves but you fight them anyway ,cause its in your blood, and sometimes.... things fall into place just right and with a little luck and guts, guess what you just won . nothing tastes better than that.sometimes clients go to jail. some times they should. I just want a Judge with guts enough do do what He/She believes is right, not what is pollitically safe.I contribute to the campaigns of judges not because I expect anything, But I fear that good judges will lose an election to some "name" on the ballot who has never been in a courtroom, much less a trial I try to help judges I feel have the stuff to make hard decisions.pardon my spelling and grammer I went to public school.
Jason Grey
BOBBY RESPONDS TO THE REPLY TO HIS POST:
At Least Spell The Name Right … [Hopefully] The Last Word On The Subject.Dear Anonymous:I would prefer not to “litigate” this in public, but your refusal to sign your name leaves me no choice, so I’ll address this for the last time. I took offense to your anonymous post on December 6, 2005 wherein you wrote “Geez you guys Write five hundred dollar checks to these folks [such as Judge Pando, who you were castigating] and they treat you like royalty. When I was a young ASA I recall that whenever a Bobby Reiff Or Mike Catalano went to trial and lost ( I know I know they claim that they have never lost but they have) the Fine Jurists of County Court would rarely if ever punish thier clients for excescising thier right to trial.” (spelling and grammatical mistakes in original).Now you write that I “should actually take it as a compliment when I mentioned you about not losing a trial. It was meant as a compliment and I in no way meant to compare you to the man who does in fact make the claim that he has never lost a case or had a client plead guilty.”If that original post was a compliment, I must have missed it. You write that you “cant believe that you can actually play ice hockey and be as thin skinned as you are.” (spelling mistakes, etc. in original). Sorry, but when you play hockey, if you get knocked down by a clean hit, you get up and skate back into the play. When someone hits you with a cheap shot, then the gloves come off.By the way, at least spell the name right; it’s REIFF, not Rieff.
I don’t go around spelling your name Anonymoose.
Bobby Reiff
AND IN REPLY- SAFE BEHIND HIS VEIL OF ANONYMITY- "ANONYMOOSE" FIRES A SLAP SHOT AT MR. REIFF
Anonymous said...
Mr. Reiff I take your choosing not to argue with many of my main points as your admission that there is some truth In what I write about the disparate treatment between those who can afford the likes of you and those who are represented by the Public Defender.You really should take what I wrote as a compliment even if it was a backhanded compliment. If I wrote the same words and Instead of using your name I put in the name of some hack( I was going to insert a name but why?) who never goes to trial my point would not have been made.
anonymoose
Jason Grey said...
Having played on ice hockey teams with bobby I must confirm the rumor that Mr reiff spends a good amount of time in the penalty box . Cross check him and expect the same back. It's bad policy on the ice to let opponents get away with dirty play and do nothing, it only emboldens them.bobby won't put up with it there,why should he here.I have won a lot of trials , and I have lost a lot of trials, It is what tends to happen when one tries a lot of cases . Some of the best fights I've ever had were un -winnable at the time I laced up the gloves but you fight them anyway ,cause its in your blood, and sometimes.... things fall into place just right and with a little luck and guts, guess what you just won . nothing tastes better than that.sometimes clients go to jail. some times they should. I just want a Judge with guts enough do do what He/She believes is right, not what is pollitically safe.I contribute to the campaigns of judges not because I expect anything, But I fear that good judges will lose an election to some "name" on the ballot who has never been in a courtroom, much less a trial I try to help judges I feel have the stuff to make hard decisions.pardon my spelling and grammer I went to public school.
Jason Grey
BOBBY RESPONDS TO THE REPLY TO HIS POST:
At Least Spell The Name Right … [Hopefully] The Last Word On The Subject.Dear Anonymous:I would prefer not to “litigate” this in public, but your refusal to sign your name leaves me no choice, so I’ll address this for the last time. I took offense to your anonymous post on December 6, 2005 wherein you wrote “Geez you guys Write five hundred dollar checks to these folks [such as Judge Pando, who you were castigating] and they treat you like royalty. When I was a young ASA I recall that whenever a Bobby Reiff Or Mike Catalano went to trial and lost ( I know I know they claim that they have never lost but they have) the Fine Jurists of County Court would rarely if ever punish thier clients for excescising thier right to trial.” (spelling and grammatical mistakes in original).Now you write that I “should actually take it as a compliment when I mentioned you about not losing a trial. It was meant as a compliment and I in no way meant to compare you to the man who does in fact make the claim that he has never lost a case or had a client plead guilty.”If that original post was a compliment, I must have missed it. You write that you “cant believe that you can actually play ice hockey and be as thin skinned as you are.” (spelling mistakes, etc. in original). Sorry, but when you play hockey, if you get knocked down by a clean hit, you get up and skate back into the play. When someone hits you with a cheap shot, then the gloves come off.By the way, at least spell the name right; it’s REIFF, not Rieff.
I don’t go around spelling your name Anonymoose.
Bobby Reiff
AND IN REPLY- SAFE BEHIND HIS VEIL OF ANONYMITY- "ANONYMOOSE" FIRES A SLAP SHOT AT MR. REIFF
Anonymous said...
Mr. Reiff I take your choosing not to argue with many of my main points as your admission that there is some truth In what I write about the disparate treatment between those who can afford the likes of you and those who are represented by the Public Defender.You really should take what I wrote as a compliment even if it was a backhanded compliment. If I wrote the same words and Instead of using your name I put in the name of some hack( I was going to insert a name but why?) who never goes to trial my point would not have been made.
anonymoose
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
PENALTY ON REIFF? VIDEO REVIEW
Anonymous responds to Bobby Reiff:
HIGH STICKING ON RIEFF GO TO THE BOX FOR TWO MINUTESI would like to respond to some of your points. Sorry but I would like to remain anonymous as I am the one taking the politically unpopular stand on this one.
First you attack me for a number of points that I didnt make in my post. I know this tactic works quite well when you litigate against the increasingly inept ASA's who staff County Court but I am not one of them.
1. Please make no mistake I am not saying that you gave money to Judge Pando. I dont even think a fair reading of what I wrote could even imply that. I simply wrote that it was my understanding that she was removed not for angering a dimunutive prosecutor but for some remarks she made on the bench. I said that this was what I heard and was far from expressing certainty. If Judge Pando was removed for granting too many motions to supress and anyone can prove that to me, I will accept that.
2. I Followed that up with my belief that no Judge would get removed from county court for being too pro-defense. I have been practicing in this town for many years and there have been many a Judge who wasnt afraid to grant a motion and many of them were later elevated to Circuit Court. Judges Schumacher and Pinero are excellent Judges and both would grant motions to suppress when they felt it was warranted when they were in County.
3. I then stated a thought which most with any intellectual honesty will admit. Now admittedly that group excludes you Bobby, but most people who were once Public Defenders will agree with the proposition that when thier clients who are roofers or landscapers go to trial, Judges often got thier brownie points and MADD awards by tacking on 30 days of jail to thier 1st DUI minimums. Most Pd's would also say that When members of the private bar took cases to trial thier clients would usually get extra community service hours tacked on to thier first minimums.
Mr Stein drop the danish and back me up on this one. Or what about you Bobby Aaron stop collecting campaign checks and back me up on this one. It is one of those dirty little secrets that no one likes to admit. I know Bobby it only helps your great stature among the Judges to defend thier honor and cling to the lie that no judge would treat your clients differently, but when you do this you sound alot like Bush when he says we dont torture. I am also not saying that your 500 bounty buys you no jail for your clients. As one former Judge once said "500 wont buy you a dismissal but It may get you a continuance down the line". Do you dispute that those words were said? Do you dispute that there isn't some kernel of truth in that departed Judges words?
5. You should actually take it as a compliment when I mentioned you about not losing a trial. It was meant as a compliment and I in no way meant to compare you to the man who does in fact make the claim that he has never lost a case or had a client plead guilty. The man who used to sign paychecks for you before you became the uber DUI lawyer.
6. I cant believe that you can actually play ice hockey and be as thin skinned as you are
Rumpole weighs in:
1) We love the fact we started a trend: now everyone wants Mr. Stein to drop his danish and do some work.
2) We do not feel the need to defend Mr. Reiff so we will not comment on the content of this post. We do note that Mr. Reiff has signed his name and that counts for a lot. It is easy to hide behind the curtain of anonymity (we should know as we are safely hidden there).
See You In Court
HIGH STICKING ON RIEFF GO TO THE BOX FOR TWO MINUTESI would like to respond to some of your points. Sorry but I would like to remain anonymous as I am the one taking the politically unpopular stand on this one.
First you attack me for a number of points that I didnt make in my post. I know this tactic works quite well when you litigate against the increasingly inept ASA's who staff County Court but I am not one of them.
1. Please make no mistake I am not saying that you gave money to Judge Pando. I dont even think a fair reading of what I wrote could even imply that. I simply wrote that it was my understanding that she was removed not for angering a dimunutive prosecutor but for some remarks she made on the bench. I said that this was what I heard and was far from expressing certainty. If Judge Pando was removed for granting too many motions to supress and anyone can prove that to me, I will accept that.
2. I Followed that up with my belief that no Judge would get removed from county court for being too pro-defense. I have been practicing in this town for many years and there have been many a Judge who wasnt afraid to grant a motion and many of them were later elevated to Circuit Court. Judges Schumacher and Pinero are excellent Judges and both would grant motions to suppress when they felt it was warranted when they were in County.
3. I then stated a thought which most with any intellectual honesty will admit. Now admittedly that group excludes you Bobby, but most people who were once Public Defenders will agree with the proposition that when thier clients who are roofers or landscapers go to trial, Judges often got thier brownie points and MADD awards by tacking on 30 days of jail to thier 1st DUI minimums. Most Pd's would also say that When members of the private bar took cases to trial thier clients would usually get extra community service hours tacked on to thier first minimums.
Mr Stein drop the danish and back me up on this one. Or what about you Bobby Aaron stop collecting campaign checks and back me up on this one. It is one of those dirty little secrets that no one likes to admit. I know Bobby it only helps your great stature among the Judges to defend thier honor and cling to the lie that no judge would treat your clients differently, but when you do this you sound alot like Bush when he says we dont torture. I am also not saying that your 500 bounty buys you no jail for your clients. As one former Judge once said "500 wont buy you a dismissal but It may get you a continuance down the line". Do you dispute that those words were said? Do you dispute that there isn't some kernel of truth in that departed Judges words?
5. You should actually take it as a compliment when I mentioned you about not losing a trial. It was meant as a compliment and I in no way meant to compare you to the man who does in fact make the claim that he has never lost a case or had a client plead guilty. The man who used to sign paychecks for you before you became the uber DUI lawyer.
6. I cant believe that you can actually play ice hockey and be as thin skinned as you are
Rumpole weighs in:
1) We love the fact we started a trend: now everyone wants Mr. Stein to drop his danish and do some work.
2) We do not feel the need to defend Mr. Reiff so we will not comment on the content of this post. We do note that Mr. Reiff has signed his name and that counts for a lot. It is easy to hide behind the curtain of anonymity (we should know as we are safely hidden there).
See You In Court
Monday, December 12, 2005
FINCH FIGHT!
Anonymous rips Finch's post:
Is Finch out of his mind when he writes that the judges are afraid of the Herald. Does this man practice in Dade County?If Judges were so afraid of the Herald why would they offer 90 percent of the career criminals who don’t face minimum mandatory sentences the bottom of the sentencing guidelines right before trial?IF they were so concerned about the Herald, why would the Judges engage in this charade in which they switch calendars with each other so that their colleague can offer defendant's a low ball plea offer and they can still max the guy after trial and not seem vindictive?If the Judges were so concerned about the Herald, Why, As Rumpole has noted, Would they sentence someone with no prior arrests to jail because they went to trial?If Judges were so concerned about the Herald why would they try to brow beat all the parties into settling every case without a trial?
Which brings me to a second thought. Why do people who don’t want to try case or decide anything become Judges in the first place? I know the money the retirement blah blah blah but really you gotta do a lot of unpleasant things to get elected and stay elected. You have to grovel for money from people who will no doubt appear before you. You have to go to a lot of rubber chicken dinners and go to a lot of kiwanis club meetings. You have to subject yourself to the embarrassing JNC process and interviews with the Herald. Why go through all that headache if you really don’t want to do what Judges are supposed to do in the first place?
Which brings up a third issue which I think you ought to address rump-- Should Judges even offer pleas at all before trial?
Rumpole Responds: A well thought out reply indeed. I am intrigued about the second point you raised: Some Judges switch calendars so their colleagues can engage in plea negotiations. Then, if the client elects to go to trial, the trial Judge is not bound by the low plea offer.
As fair minded observers, we must see both sides of this issue: On the one hand, as defense attorneys, sometimes we welcome a little judicial intervention with a plea offer a little less than what the prosecutors are offering, to settle the matter. On the other hand, if the client is cantankerous enough to ignore our best advice and proceed to trial, why should the trial judge be bound by the courtesy they extended with the better plea offer to begin with?
We personally have never seen anything nefarious behind the ol’ calendar switch.
This whole issue of trials and sentencing is very complex indeed. To bad our robed readers refuse to enter the fray, even anonymously.
Your comments about chicken dinners and the Kiwanis Club are bound to rub Judge Rosinek the wrong way. He likes the Kiwanis Club meetings and the food they serve. That’s why he’s in drug court. So many rubber chicken dinners have made him very sympathetic to the sufferings of other people with similar addictions.
As to the Herald, we think it has been very clear since the late 80's that a Herald endorsement for Judge is like an oral contract- neither is worth the paper they are written on. We are not blasting the Herald for once, just observing that the sophisitication of politics has passed the Herald's ability to affect a judicial race.
As to Judges even making plea offers, we do have some ideas. We will post them shortly. We try to keep the posts short enough for the attention span of our robed readers who are persuing this while also doing an arraignment calender (so we've heard...snicker snicker snicker).
See You In Court.
Is Finch out of his mind when he writes that the judges are afraid of the Herald. Does this man practice in Dade County?If Judges were so afraid of the Herald why would they offer 90 percent of the career criminals who don’t face minimum mandatory sentences the bottom of the sentencing guidelines right before trial?IF they were so concerned about the Herald, why would the Judges engage in this charade in which they switch calendars with each other so that their colleague can offer defendant's a low ball plea offer and they can still max the guy after trial and not seem vindictive?If the Judges were so concerned about the Herald, Why, As Rumpole has noted, Would they sentence someone with no prior arrests to jail because they went to trial?If Judges were so concerned about the Herald why would they try to brow beat all the parties into settling every case without a trial?
Which brings me to a second thought. Why do people who don’t want to try case or decide anything become Judges in the first place? I know the money the retirement blah blah blah but really you gotta do a lot of unpleasant things to get elected and stay elected. You have to grovel for money from people who will no doubt appear before you. You have to go to a lot of rubber chicken dinners and go to a lot of kiwanis club meetings. You have to subject yourself to the embarrassing JNC process and interviews with the Herald. Why go through all that headache if you really don’t want to do what Judges are supposed to do in the first place?
Which brings up a third issue which I think you ought to address rump-- Should Judges even offer pleas at all before trial?
Rumpole Responds: A well thought out reply indeed. I am intrigued about the second point you raised: Some Judges switch calendars so their colleagues can engage in plea negotiations. Then, if the client elects to go to trial, the trial Judge is not bound by the low plea offer.
As fair minded observers, we must see both sides of this issue: On the one hand, as defense attorneys, sometimes we welcome a little judicial intervention with a plea offer a little less than what the prosecutors are offering, to settle the matter. On the other hand, if the client is cantankerous enough to ignore our best advice and proceed to trial, why should the trial judge be bound by the courtesy they extended with the better plea offer to begin with?
We personally have never seen anything nefarious behind the ol’ calendar switch.
This whole issue of trials and sentencing is very complex indeed. To bad our robed readers refuse to enter the fray, even anonymously.
Your comments about chicken dinners and the Kiwanis Club are bound to rub Judge Rosinek the wrong way. He likes the Kiwanis Club meetings and the food they serve. That’s why he’s in drug court. So many rubber chicken dinners have made him very sympathetic to the sufferings of other people with similar addictions.
As to the Herald, we think it has been very clear since the late 80's that a Herald endorsement for Judge is like an oral contract- neither is worth the paper they are written on. We are not blasting the Herald for once, just observing that the sophisitication of politics has passed the Herald's ability to affect a judicial race.
As to Judges even making plea offers, we do have some ideas. We will post them shortly. We try to keep the posts short enough for the attention span of our robed readers who are persuing this while also doing an arraignment calender (so we've heard...snicker snicker snicker).
See You In Court.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
HERE'S....BOBBY!
Mr. Reiff’s wonderful post follows.
Careful readers will note that Mr. Reiff, Mr. Hersch, Mr. Catalano, and Mr. Tannebaum (who also posts his picture) are all unafraid to sign their names to their posts. We are pleased to announce these fine lawyers and faithful Bloggers are all in the running for our monthly prize of “Post Of The Month”.
December’s winner can choose among the following: A $20.00 Starbucks Card; An Autographed Copy of the First Rumpole Omnibus; or finally, an autographed copy of the soon to be released, guaranteed to be a best seller, the unauthorized biography of Judge Ed Newman: “From Shula to Soundings; From Dolphins to DUI; From Trap Blocks to Entrapment: Tough On the Field and Tough On The Bench- the completely unauthorized biography of Judge Ed Newman.”. (We think Judge Newman is a great gentleman and we hope he laughs and takes this in the spirit it was intended. He is a fine Judge and a credit to the bench.)
Mr. Reiff, unafraid to sign his name, wrote the following:
Dear Rumpole:
Thank you for creating this interesting and clever site and for your insightful (if not warped) observations on the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building.
I feel compelled to respond to the comments made by the anonymous writer in "Pando, Pando, Pando."
Quite frankly, I don't know what disturbed me more; that I was somehow lumped in with Catalano (only kidding Mike) or that the writer somehow perceived that I hold myself out as having never lost a DUI case.
Unlike a certain heavy-set lawyer who we have not seen in court since well before certain public defenders were chained to their desks and Danish, I have never held myself out as being perfect or having never lost (or entered a no contest plea in) a DUI case. However, I am concerned about several of the misstatements made by the anonymous writer.
1. I have never donated to Judge Pando's campaign, although I would be happy to do so if requested. I never found Judge Pando to be anything but polite and well mannered to the lawyers who appeared before her who were professional and prepared. At worst, you could say she "does not suffer fools gently", a trait I'm sure several judges would plead guilty to.
2. I would like to think that the respect given to people such as Catalano (as well as numerous other well-respected criminal defense lawyers in town) and myself by judges such as Judge Pando are because we have earned it. Let's face it, the judges know who the good/honest/creative/trustworthy lawyers are (as well as their opposites) and I'd like to believe that any rulings we have received in our client's favor are because we earned it. If you believe that $500.00 (and I have only given that much to long-time personal friends who I have known long before they ascended to the bench) is enough to get a judge to grant your motion when you do not deserve it, or to give no jail where the offense calls for jail, you really need to start looking for a profession where you have respect for those you work with.
3. Sorry anonymous buddy, but I have not had a guilty verdict returned against a client of mine since 1995 (I looked it up). That does not make me infallible (and certainly not perfect; just ask my wife or the guys on my ice hockey team). It is a combination of luck, knowledge, hard work and luck (not to mention my boyish charm and good looks before the jury). The client in the '95 case was given jail time by Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher (not "no jail", as you claimed), but considering the fact that the jury found him not guilty of the more serious felony offenses (and he was a 3rd DUI offender), he could hardly complain about Judge Schumacher giving him jail time for the misdemeanor conviction. Prove me wrong if you are man (or woman) enough (and have the facts, not allegations), to do so (you know, that old proof stuff, not mere baseless allegations).
Try working hard and working smart and maybe you'll earn the respect (instead what sounds like the wrath) of such well-qualified judges as Judge Pando.
Not Afraid To Sign My Name,
Bobby Reiff
It doesn’t get any better than that. Well said, old chap (except for the "warped" riff).
See You In Court.
Careful readers will note that Mr. Reiff, Mr. Hersch, Mr. Catalano, and Mr. Tannebaum (who also posts his picture) are all unafraid to sign their names to their posts. We are pleased to announce these fine lawyers and faithful Bloggers are all in the running for our monthly prize of “Post Of The Month”.
December’s winner can choose among the following: A $20.00 Starbucks Card; An Autographed Copy of the First Rumpole Omnibus; or finally, an autographed copy of the soon to be released, guaranteed to be a best seller, the unauthorized biography of Judge Ed Newman: “From Shula to Soundings; From Dolphins to DUI; From Trap Blocks to Entrapment: Tough On the Field and Tough On The Bench- the completely unauthorized biography of Judge Ed Newman.”. (We think Judge Newman is a great gentleman and we hope he laughs and takes this in the spirit it was intended. He is a fine Judge and a credit to the bench.)
Mr. Reiff, unafraid to sign his name, wrote the following:
Dear Rumpole:
Thank you for creating this interesting and clever site and for your insightful (if not warped) observations on the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building.
I feel compelled to respond to the comments made by the anonymous writer in "Pando, Pando, Pando."
Quite frankly, I don't know what disturbed me more; that I was somehow lumped in with Catalano (only kidding Mike) or that the writer somehow perceived that I hold myself out as having never lost a DUI case.
Unlike a certain heavy-set lawyer who we have not seen in court since well before certain public defenders were chained to their desks and Danish, I have never held myself out as being perfect or having never lost (or entered a no contest plea in) a DUI case. However, I am concerned about several of the misstatements made by the anonymous writer.
1. I have never donated to Judge Pando's campaign, although I would be happy to do so if requested. I never found Judge Pando to be anything but polite and well mannered to the lawyers who appeared before her who were professional and prepared. At worst, you could say she "does not suffer fools gently", a trait I'm sure several judges would plead guilty to.
2. I would like to think that the respect given to people such as Catalano (as well as numerous other well-respected criminal defense lawyers in town) and myself by judges such as Judge Pando are because we have earned it. Let's face it, the judges know who the good/honest/creative/trustworthy lawyers are (as well as their opposites) and I'd like to believe that any rulings we have received in our client's favor are because we earned it. If you believe that $500.00 (and I have only given that much to long-time personal friends who I have known long before they ascended to the bench) is enough to get a judge to grant your motion when you do not deserve it, or to give no jail where the offense calls for jail, you really need to start looking for a profession where you have respect for those you work with.
3. Sorry anonymous buddy, but I have not had a guilty verdict returned against a client of mine since 1995 (I looked it up). That does not make me infallible (and certainly not perfect; just ask my wife or the guys on my ice hockey team). It is a combination of luck, knowledge, hard work and luck (not to mention my boyish charm and good looks before the jury). The client in the '95 case was given jail time by Circuit Court Judge Marc Schumacher (not "no jail", as you claimed), but considering the fact that the jury found him not guilty of the more serious felony offenses (and he was a 3rd DUI offender), he could hardly complain about Judge Schumacher giving him jail time for the misdemeanor conviction. Prove me wrong if you are man (or woman) enough (and have the facts, not allegations), to do so (you know, that old proof stuff, not mere baseless allegations).
Try working hard and working smart and maybe you'll earn the respect (instead what sounds like the wrath) of such well-qualified judges as Judge Pando.
Not Afraid To Sign My Name,
Bobby Reiff
It doesn’t get any better than that. Well said, old chap (except for the "warped" riff).
See You In Court.
WINS, LOSSES, TIES THAT BIND
Anonymous rips off a quick one:
Glad to see Mike C isnt denying that he ever lost a trial.
Rumpole replies: Any attorney who says they have never lost a case has never tried more than one case. Whenever opposing counsel starts mentioning to us about how many cases they have won, we know they are afraid and we have them right where we want them.
One secret to success is not being afraid to fail.
Mike C having lost a case or two speaks to his abilities not his lack of ability.
COMING NEXT WEEK: IDENTITY CRISIS. STOP THE GUESSING.
Judging by the amount of posts we are receiving, we are being forced to deal with this identity mess. Read about it next week. But for now, anonymous defended a potential suspect behind this blog. In keeping with our policy of not acknowledging names- but you can read the unedited comment in the comments section- we reprint the email with the name omitted (plus the guy he’s defending is much bigger than us).
Anonymous writes:
In defense of ABC (name of lawyer) Rump said he was out of town and I am sure I saw ABC l at the Justice Building, although that may be a well crafted ruse; 2- His ego is too big (sorry ABC) to let someone else take credit for this. Dark horses are DEF, GHI, JKL, etc. I just don’t thinks it him.
Rump responds: Our final (we hope) comment on this silly issue will be posted next week in IDENTITY CRISIS.
SEE YOU IN COURT.
Glad to see Mike C isnt denying that he ever lost a trial.
Rumpole replies: Any attorney who says they have never lost a case has never tried more than one case. Whenever opposing counsel starts mentioning to us about how many cases they have won, we know they are afraid and we have them right where we want them.
One secret to success is not being afraid to fail.
Mike C having lost a case or two speaks to his abilities not his lack of ability.
COMING NEXT WEEK: IDENTITY CRISIS. STOP THE GUESSING.
Judging by the amount of posts we are receiving, we are being forced to deal with this identity mess. Read about it next week. But for now, anonymous defended a potential suspect behind this blog. In keeping with our policy of not acknowledging names- but you can read the unedited comment in the comments section- we reprint the email with the name omitted (plus the guy he’s defending is much bigger than us).
Anonymous writes:
In defense of ABC (name of lawyer) Rump said he was out of town and I am sure I saw ABC l at the Justice Building, although that may be a well crafted ruse; 2- His ego is too big (sorry ABC) to let someone else take credit for this. Dark horses are DEF, GHI, JKL, etc. I just don’t thinks it him.
Rump responds: Our final (we hope) comment on this silly issue will be posted next week in IDENTITY CRISIS.
SEE YOU IN COURT.
SENTENCING DEBATE RAGES ON
On whether Judges do or should punish defendants for going to trial, Anonymous writes:
The Judges are not punishing people who go to trial. That is silly. The defendants get convicted, and then they get an appropriate sentence. What IS happening is that people get REWARDED for NOT going to trial by getting a lower sentence than is appropriate. This is entirely fair, and appropriate.
Before Rumpole can manage a reply, quick as a cat, Mr. Richard Hersch, who we have dubbed THE ELDER STATESMAN, steps in front of us and eloquently responds:
Anonymous presents simple logic. simple minded logic. My client doesn’t give two shakes about whether the extra jail is a punishment or a "lack of reward". Charging rent on a courtroom is a shameless effort to chill basic rights. not in an effort to make the system more fair, the verdicts more reliable, just more "efficient.
Picking ourselves up from the floor after the BUMP from Hersch, we brush ourselves off and add: We would love a Judge to weigh in on this. The topic is good, hot, current and important.
COMING MONDAY: BOBBY REIFF IS NOT AFRAID TO SIGN HIS NAME. READ WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, MONDAY, IN A RUMPOLE EXCLUSIVE.
The Judges are not punishing people who go to trial. That is silly. The defendants get convicted, and then they get an appropriate sentence. What IS happening is that people get REWARDED for NOT going to trial by getting a lower sentence than is appropriate. This is entirely fair, and appropriate.
Before Rumpole can manage a reply, quick as a cat, Mr. Richard Hersch, who we have dubbed THE ELDER STATESMAN, steps in front of us and eloquently responds:
Anonymous presents simple logic. simple minded logic. My client doesn’t give two shakes about whether the extra jail is a punishment or a "lack of reward". Charging rent on a courtroom is a shameless effort to chill basic rights. not in an effort to make the system more fair, the verdicts more reliable, just more "efficient.
Picking ourselves up from the floor after the BUMP from Hersch, we brush ourselves off and add: We would love a Judge to weigh in on this. The topic is good, hot, current and important.
COMING MONDAY: BOBBY REIFF IS NOT AFRAID TO SIGN HIS NAME. READ WHAT HE HAS TO SAY, MONDAY, IN A RUMPOLE EXCLUSIVE.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
COMMENTS AND REPLIES
As to the post about Mr. Clark spending 24 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, anonymous writes:
Please leave these sorts of stories and the attendant soap box preaching to the website of he who cannot be named. This blog and its focus on the Justice building is much more entertaining.
Rumpole Replies: Your point is noted, counsel. However, one thing that really gets us is wrongful convictions. As we have posted before, if 6% of all people on death row have been exonerated, and assuming death penalty cases get the most resources, best investigators, and best defense attorneys, then how many people are rotting away serving 20. 30, 40, or life sentences for crimes they did not commit? And since the most money allocated for post conviction relief is for death penalty cases, who is working on exonerating those unfortunate souls who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes other than murder?
To make the system work, we have to have vigilance from the top down, and that starts with Judges and Prosecutors who have zero tolerance for bad police investigations. If a prosecutor out of law school handling Domestic Violence or DUI cases learns to look the other way when the police make un-true allegations ( has any officer making a DUI arrest ever arrested anyone whose face was not flushed? We know that when we have had too much Chateau Miami River, our face does not flush) then what will that prosecutor do in several years when they are handling murder or robbery cases? The breeding ground for wrongful convictions starts when people who are charged with enforcing the law look the other way on the small stuff.
Woops, we forgot you do not like this.
On the Curious Judge Leban comment, anonymous writes:
Relative to the Judge Leban allegation-Rumpole, i am surprised at you-being the worldly Justice Building warrior you claim to be -you know perfectly well when in doubt go to the tape-try June 25,2005 Misdemeanor Bond Hearing where the defendant Roy Rogers, charged with trespass, appeared before His Honor and listen to what he said to him
Rumpole replies:
1) we smell a trap. We go and request the tape, and BAM our identity is revealed.
2) Assuming this is not a trap, you have a lot of info on this case. Was it your client? Also, this apparently occurred six months ago. Are you upset with Judge Leban? Are you upset he was recently elevated to circuit court?
3) We never claimed to be a REGJB warrior. We are just a humble little lawyer, occasionally cashing an SAPD check, and occasionally rising on our hind legs and objecting to an unfair comment by our learned friends across the aisle. Every now and then our defense of reasonable doubt ends in an acquittal, and we repair to our favorite watering hole and regale our comrades with exaggerated tales of our heroics.
4) Not to make light of this, we will endeavor to get to the bottom of Judge Leban's alleged comment. However, assuming Judge Leban made the comment, perhaps he regretted it the moment it left his mouth? Perhaps he made a mistake. No one else has come forward to suggest Judge Leban is anything but a fair and conscientious jurist.
On the issue of Judges punishing Defendants who go to trial, anonymous, in a stream of consciousness writes:
Of course it's true. But I don't see it necessarily as a sign of laziness. There has to be some sort of "jury tax" to keep a division's caseload down. Even the judges who love trying cases have to do it, or else everyone will demand a trial. So you have to do it just because of the math of it all. On the other hand, some do just want to get out of there early.
Rumpole replies: 1) What's wrong with everyone who wants a trial getting a trial? The defendant and the defense bar cannot be concerned with caseloads or funds available to try more cases. Our job is justice. 2) If a defendant who pleads no contest is helping the court, then shouldn't he or she be rewarded? In a felony case, there is nothing akin to the federal system's reduction in sentence for acceptance of responsibility. Not getting the maximum sentence does not seem like a great incentive to plea.
How come a person charged with a first offense for a third degree felony can get PTI, but a person charged with the misdemeanor offense of DUI cannot, even if it is their first offense? Politics and money.
This is the perfect comment for a member of the judiciary to emerge from behind their curtain, like the Wizzard of Oz, and make a comment. If you email us the comment, it arrives as "anonymous" and we know of no way to trace it.
Come on Judge, regale us with your views on sentencing. Hop in and join the debate, the water's warm and getting hotter.
Please leave these sorts of stories and the attendant soap box preaching to the website of he who cannot be named. This blog and its focus on the Justice building is much more entertaining.
Rumpole Replies: Your point is noted, counsel. However, one thing that really gets us is wrongful convictions. As we have posted before, if 6% of all people on death row have been exonerated, and assuming death penalty cases get the most resources, best investigators, and best defense attorneys, then how many people are rotting away serving 20. 30, 40, or life sentences for crimes they did not commit? And since the most money allocated for post conviction relief is for death penalty cases, who is working on exonerating those unfortunate souls who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes other than murder?
To make the system work, we have to have vigilance from the top down, and that starts with Judges and Prosecutors who have zero tolerance for bad police investigations. If a prosecutor out of law school handling Domestic Violence or DUI cases learns to look the other way when the police make un-true allegations ( has any officer making a DUI arrest ever arrested anyone whose face was not flushed? We know that when we have had too much Chateau Miami River, our face does not flush) then what will that prosecutor do in several years when they are handling murder or robbery cases? The breeding ground for wrongful convictions starts when people who are charged with enforcing the law look the other way on the small stuff.
Woops, we forgot you do not like this.
On the Curious Judge Leban comment, anonymous writes:
Relative to the Judge Leban allegation-Rumpole, i am surprised at you-being the worldly Justice Building warrior you claim to be -you know perfectly well when in doubt go to the tape-try June 25,2005 Misdemeanor Bond Hearing where the defendant Roy Rogers, charged with trespass, appeared before His Honor and listen to what he said to him
Rumpole replies:
1) we smell a trap. We go and request the tape, and BAM our identity is revealed.
2) Assuming this is not a trap, you have a lot of info on this case. Was it your client? Also, this apparently occurred six months ago. Are you upset with Judge Leban? Are you upset he was recently elevated to circuit court?
3) We never claimed to be a REGJB warrior. We are just a humble little lawyer, occasionally cashing an SAPD check, and occasionally rising on our hind legs and objecting to an unfair comment by our learned friends across the aisle. Every now and then our defense of reasonable doubt ends in an acquittal, and we repair to our favorite watering hole and regale our comrades with exaggerated tales of our heroics.
4) Not to make light of this, we will endeavor to get to the bottom of Judge Leban's alleged comment. However, assuming Judge Leban made the comment, perhaps he regretted it the moment it left his mouth? Perhaps he made a mistake. No one else has come forward to suggest Judge Leban is anything but a fair and conscientious jurist.
On the issue of Judges punishing Defendants who go to trial, anonymous, in a stream of consciousness writes:
Of course it's true. But I don't see it necessarily as a sign of laziness. There has to be some sort of "jury tax" to keep a division's caseload down. Even the judges who love trying cases have to do it, or else everyone will demand a trial. So you have to do it just because of the math of it all. On the other hand, some do just want to get out of there early.
Rumpole replies: 1) What's wrong with everyone who wants a trial getting a trial? The defendant and the defense bar cannot be concerned with caseloads or funds available to try more cases. Our job is justice. 2) If a defendant who pleads no contest is helping the court, then shouldn't he or she be rewarded? In a felony case, there is nothing akin to the federal system's reduction in sentence for acceptance of responsibility. Not getting the maximum sentence does not seem like a great incentive to plea.
How come a person charged with a first offense for a third degree felony can get PTI, but a person charged with the misdemeanor offense of DUI cannot, even if it is their first offense? Politics and money.
This is the perfect comment for a member of the judiciary to emerge from behind their curtain, like the Wizzard of Oz, and make a comment. If you email us the comment, it arrives as "anonymous" and we know of no way to trace it.
Come on Judge, regale us with your views on sentencing. Hop in and join the debate, the water's warm and getting hotter.
Friday, December 09, 2005
MISTAKEN EYEWITNESS ID KEPT INNOCENT MAN IN PRISON 24 YEARS
Robert Clark Jr., 45, was released from a Georgia state prison after serving 24 years for a crime he did not commit. In prison since 1982, Mr. Clark was released December 8, 2005 after DNA testing initiated by the Innocence Project proved he was innocent. Go here for the Innocence Project story: http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_profile.php?id=167
Mr. Clark was charged with rape and kidnapping. He was arrested driving the vehicle of the victim, who, although she told the police her attacker was 5’7”, and Mr. Clark is 6’1, identified Mr. Clark in court at the trial. Other irregularities in the identification procedure are listed in the Innocence Project story.
The car Mr. Clark was driving did not have the steering wheel broken or any other indication that it was stolen. Mr. Clark had gotten the car from his friend, Floyd Antonio Arnold, but the Detective who investigated the case never bothered to check out Mr. Arnold because Mr. Clark had initially lied to the police about where he obtained the vehicle.
The DNA sample that exonerated Mr. Clark was sent to a State database for a check against felons. The DNA sample was a positive match for: you guessed it- Mr. Floyd Arnold, who is currently in prison with a sentence set to expire in January 2006.
The NY Times reported that when Clark was sentenced he told the Judge: “Your Honor, they had Tony right here, I can’t put him on the stand. He’ll tell you I didn’t do nothing but drive the car two weeks later.” The Judge replied: “Mr. Clark you have had your trial. Just remain silent.”
Mr. Clark ignored that command, and told everyone and anyone he could reach over the next quarter century that he was innocent. At the time Mr. Clark was wrongfully convicted, he was the single parent of a 5 year old boy. The justice system didn’t just rob Mr. Clark of his life, it stole the childhood and a father from a young innocent boy as well.
There are two lessons to be learned here: 1) EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS ARE INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE. Study after study shows that they are the worst piece of evidence. Judges, lawyers, and police officers all need to stop relying on the identification of an eyewitness. Read “The Seven Sins of Memory” for a thorough and scientific analysis of why memory and eyewitness identifications are unreliable. Go to Amazon here to order this book that no defense attorney should be without:
The second lesson is for prosecutors.
We know that as criminal defense attorneys we sometimes piss you off. You get frustrated as you see the justice system let go or go lightly on defendants for a variety of reasons. You have to let the anger or frustration or disappointment go with the end of each case. If you carry a grudge, if you think everyone in custody sitting in the box is guilty, you will eventually contribute to a tragedy. Question all the evidence. Push your detectives to do a perfect job every time. Demand perfection and thoroughness. Always keep an open mind even when an attorney you don’t like approaches you with a story that needs to be checked out. Never forget that your first job, as Janet Reno used to say over and over again, is to make sure the innocent are not prosecuted. Your second job, is to prosecute the guilty. Don’t ever mix up the two, or you will end up prosecuting an innocent man or woman.
As a prosecutor, you are the gate keeper of the system. If a criminal defense attorney is the last line of defense, the prosecutor is the first line of defense against convicting the innocent. Just because a defendant lies to a cop when he’s stopped or in the police station does not mean he or she is guilty. Just because a detective or a victim believes a defendant is guilty does not mean it is so. If that detective in Georgia had bothered to check out Mr. Clark’s “friend” he would have seen a man that perfectly matched the victim’s description of her assailant. But the detective didn’t feel the need to do that. He had a man in custody who lied to him, who was identified, and who was driving the victim’s car. Case Closed. Except for two small facts: Clark was innocent and a rapist remained at large for many years thereafter.
It’s a big joke in Miami about “dropsy” cases, or police officers who write in A-Forms that the Defendant dropped the drugs when the officer approached the suspect. You know what that is? It’s a police officer who is frustrated. He or she can’t build a legitimate case against a local drug dealer, so they shake them down, do a bad search, find drugs, or worse, don’t find drugs but say they do.
The officer thinks “what’s the big deal? It’s not like the guy’s innocent.”
That type of thinking is the thin edge of a large wedge. Do we really want a justice system where cops make the call on the scene? “This guy’s guilty so lets write a good a-form, throw in a spontaneous admission, and make sure we don’t lose in court.”
Of course this doesn’t happen all the time. But it happens enough and Judges and Prosecutors look the other way.
Someone looked the other way in Mr. Clark’s case, and in the blink of an eye, an innocent man lost 25 years. He lost the ability to raise his son. He lost the ability to take care of his mother.
It’s amazing, after reading the story, that Mr. Clark did not lose hope or his soul.
See you in court.
Mr. Clark was charged with rape and kidnapping. He was arrested driving the vehicle of the victim, who, although she told the police her attacker was 5’7”, and Mr. Clark is 6’1, identified Mr. Clark in court at the trial. Other irregularities in the identification procedure are listed in the Innocence Project story.
The car Mr. Clark was driving did not have the steering wheel broken or any other indication that it was stolen. Mr. Clark had gotten the car from his friend, Floyd Antonio Arnold, but the Detective who investigated the case never bothered to check out Mr. Arnold because Mr. Clark had initially lied to the police about where he obtained the vehicle.
The DNA sample that exonerated Mr. Clark was sent to a State database for a check against felons. The DNA sample was a positive match for: you guessed it- Mr. Floyd Arnold, who is currently in prison with a sentence set to expire in January 2006.
The NY Times reported that when Clark was sentenced he told the Judge: “Your Honor, they had Tony right here, I can’t put him on the stand. He’ll tell you I didn’t do nothing but drive the car two weeks later.” The Judge replied: “Mr. Clark you have had your trial. Just remain silent.”
Mr. Clark ignored that command, and told everyone and anyone he could reach over the next quarter century that he was innocent. At the time Mr. Clark was wrongfully convicted, he was the single parent of a 5 year old boy. The justice system didn’t just rob Mr. Clark of his life, it stole the childhood and a father from a young innocent boy as well.
There are two lessons to be learned here: 1) EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS ARE INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE. Study after study shows that they are the worst piece of evidence. Judges, lawyers, and police officers all need to stop relying on the identification of an eyewitness. Read “The Seven Sins of Memory” for a thorough and scientific analysis of why memory and eyewitness identifications are unreliable. Go to Amazon here to order this book that no defense attorney should be without:
The second lesson is for prosecutors.
We know that as criminal defense attorneys we sometimes piss you off. You get frustrated as you see the justice system let go or go lightly on defendants for a variety of reasons. You have to let the anger or frustration or disappointment go with the end of each case. If you carry a grudge, if you think everyone in custody sitting in the box is guilty, you will eventually contribute to a tragedy. Question all the evidence. Push your detectives to do a perfect job every time. Demand perfection and thoroughness. Always keep an open mind even when an attorney you don’t like approaches you with a story that needs to be checked out. Never forget that your first job, as Janet Reno used to say over and over again, is to make sure the innocent are not prosecuted. Your second job, is to prosecute the guilty. Don’t ever mix up the two, or you will end up prosecuting an innocent man or woman.
As a prosecutor, you are the gate keeper of the system. If a criminal defense attorney is the last line of defense, the prosecutor is the first line of defense against convicting the innocent. Just because a defendant lies to a cop when he’s stopped or in the police station does not mean he or she is guilty. Just because a detective or a victim believes a defendant is guilty does not mean it is so. If that detective in Georgia had bothered to check out Mr. Clark’s “friend” he would have seen a man that perfectly matched the victim’s description of her assailant. But the detective didn’t feel the need to do that. He had a man in custody who lied to him, who was identified, and who was driving the victim’s car. Case Closed. Except for two small facts: Clark was innocent and a rapist remained at large for many years thereafter.
It’s a big joke in Miami about “dropsy” cases, or police officers who write in A-Forms that the Defendant dropped the drugs when the officer approached the suspect. You know what that is? It’s a police officer who is frustrated. He or she can’t build a legitimate case against a local drug dealer, so they shake them down, do a bad search, find drugs, or worse, don’t find drugs but say they do.
The officer thinks “what’s the big deal? It’s not like the guy’s innocent.”
That type of thinking is the thin edge of a large wedge. Do we really want a justice system where cops make the call on the scene? “This guy’s guilty so lets write a good a-form, throw in a spontaneous admission, and make sure we don’t lose in court.”
Of course this doesn’t happen all the time. But it happens enough and Judges and Prosecutors look the other way.
Someone looked the other way in Mr. Clark’s case, and in the blink of an eye, an innocent man lost 25 years. He lost the ability to raise his son. He lost the ability to take care of his mother.
It’s amazing, after reading the story, that Mr. Clark did not lose hope or his soul.
See you in court.
GO TO TRIAL WILL YOU?
Yoda, talking doing we are. Fun not this is. arrgggh.
We wanted some posts about the issue of Judges “punishing” Defendants who elect to go to trial.
Anonymous wrote:
Judges seem concerned only with finishing early so they can leave the building and go about personal business. It is therefore necessary to charge "rent" for the courtroom, and hammer any one found guilty of anything. If word got out (god forbid),that you could loose at trial and get the same sentence offered before trial then everyone might want a trial. Holy 6th amendment Batman! Can’t try cases all day and still pick up the kids from private school at 3pm. It used to be that most Judges were older folk who had made tons of money and actually were taking a pay cut to become a Judge. They felt that they were giving something back, and had real world experience. It seems many judges now are young and got a large pay raise when they became a judge, along with much shorter hours(it's good to be a king),. They often rule against the defense so the Herald won't get mad and give an opponent ammo in the next election.
Rumpole Replies: We remember the days when the 5th floor was comprised of the following judges: Fast Gerry Klein, Mort Perry, Alfred Nesbitt, Robert Deehl, and Arthur Winton. DUI and Traffic Courts (which were separate then) had as Judges Henry Oppenborn, Arthur Rothenberg, Fred Moreno, and a few other floaters.
See any trends there? All men, all white, all older except for Fred Moreno. In fact, we seem to vaguely remember Katie Pooler as one of the first female DUI Judges to hit the building.
Now a days, the trend is clearly towards younger judges from all walks of life. That has to be a good thing. Certainly there is an argument to be made that many people aspire to be judges because of the security and the problems of being in private practice. Certainly we could do without the incessant collect calls from jail and the problems inherent in visiting a client in jail (take off your shoes, now your belt, now your watch, now your glasses, now your socks, ...wait 40 minutes- shift change- please leave and come back in 2 hours and start all over again.) Of course, maybe we should just do a better job at the bond hearing.
The issue is does a multi- cultural judiciary give the impression of either fairness or a better ability to understand where a defendant is coming from? Our belief is yes and no. A person who is Asian may initially feel happier if their Judge is Asian, but being Asian does not guarantee that the Judge will be more fair than an older white male. Could anyone better fit the model of fairness than Mort Perry? With age comes experience, temperament and the ability to look back. Beyond the issue of race or sex, we feel most confident in a Judge who has had some real life experience.
Personally, we love rising for the defense. We can’t imagine not being able to lumber to our feet, peer at a witness over our reading glasses, knowing, just knowing, we have the lying weasel just where we want them. Is there any better feeling than getting the truth out during a great cross examination?
However, in closing, the commenter has stated that Judges give stiff sentences as a way of warning other defendants not to go to trial. This in turn, reduces the Judge’s workload and lets them leave early. Anyone else believe this to be true?
We wanted some posts about the issue of Judges “punishing” Defendants who elect to go to trial.
Anonymous wrote:
Judges seem concerned only with finishing early so they can leave the building and go about personal business. It is therefore necessary to charge "rent" for the courtroom, and hammer any one found guilty of anything. If word got out (god forbid),that you could loose at trial and get the same sentence offered before trial then everyone might want a trial. Holy 6th amendment Batman! Can’t try cases all day and still pick up the kids from private school at 3pm. It used to be that most Judges were older folk who had made tons of money and actually were taking a pay cut to become a Judge. They felt that they were giving something back, and had real world experience. It seems many judges now are young and got a large pay raise when they became a judge, along with much shorter hours(it's good to be a king),. They often rule against the defense so the Herald won't get mad and give an opponent ammo in the next election.
Rumpole Replies: We remember the days when the 5th floor was comprised of the following judges: Fast Gerry Klein, Mort Perry, Alfred Nesbitt, Robert Deehl, and Arthur Winton. DUI and Traffic Courts (which were separate then) had as Judges Henry Oppenborn, Arthur Rothenberg, Fred Moreno, and a few other floaters.
See any trends there? All men, all white, all older except for Fred Moreno. In fact, we seem to vaguely remember Katie Pooler as one of the first female DUI Judges to hit the building.
Now a days, the trend is clearly towards younger judges from all walks of life. That has to be a good thing. Certainly there is an argument to be made that many people aspire to be judges because of the security and the problems of being in private practice. Certainly we could do without the incessant collect calls from jail and the problems inherent in visiting a client in jail (take off your shoes, now your belt, now your watch, now your glasses, now your socks, ...wait 40 minutes- shift change- please leave and come back in 2 hours and start all over again.) Of course, maybe we should just do a better job at the bond hearing.
The issue is does a multi- cultural judiciary give the impression of either fairness or a better ability to understand where a defendant is coming from? Our belief is yes and no. A person who is Asian may initially feel happier if their Judge is Asian, but being Asian does not guarantee that the Judge will be more fair than an older white male. Could anyone better fit the model of fairness than Mort Perry? With age comes experience, temperament and the ability to look back. Beyond the issue of race or sex, we feel most confident in a Judge who has had some real life experience.
Personally, we love rising for the defense. We can’t imagine not being able to lumber to our feet, peer at a witness over our reading glasses, knowing, just knowing, we have the lying weasel just where we want them. Is there any better feeling than getting the truth out during a great cross examination?
However, in closing, the commenter has stated that Judges give stiff sentences as a way of warning other defendants not to go to trial. This in turn, reduces the Judge’s workload and lets them leave early. Anyone else believe this to be true?
MIKE C WEIGHS IN ON PANDO PANDO PANDO
DUI SUPER ATTORNEY MIKE CATALANO WRITES:
Judge Pando is a friend of mine and I like her. All I ever ask of judges is to be nice and be fair. She has been both to me and my clients.She granted motions and was not affraid to acquit. That is the ONLY reason she is in Hialeah right now.
Mike Catalano
Rumpole replies: We know Judge Pando. Judge Pando is a friend of ours. And you sir, are no Judge Pando.
Woops, wrong retort.
We agree with your comment which started this thread. There was a strong indication that prosecutors sought to drive Judge Pando out of the REGJB because she was not afraid of MADD and to grant a motion when she thought it was the legally correct thing to do. We must be ever on guard against Judges who feel the political pressure to rule a particular way. Perhaps this is a good time to consider a change in the system and only allow for Judges to removed on an up or down vote like the appellate court judges. Will removing the threat of electoral opposition make a Judge better or worse ?
Judge Pando is a friend of mine and I like her. All I ever ask of judges is to be nice and be fair. She has been both to me and my clients.She granted motions and was not affraid to acquit. That is the ONLY reason she is in Hialeah right now.
Mike Catalano
Rumpole replies: We know Judge Pando. Judge Pando is a friend of ours. And you sir, are no Judge Pando.
Woops, wrong retort.
We agree with your comment which started this thread. There was a strong indication that prosecutors sought to drive Judge Pando out of the REGJB because she was not afraid of MADD and to grant a motion when she thought it was the legally correct thing to do. We must be ever on guard against Judges who feel the political pressure to rule a particular way. Perhaps this is a good time to consider a change in the system and only allow for Judges to removed on an up or down vote like the appellate court judges. Will removing the threat of electoral opposition make a Judge better or worse ?
ANSWERING THE MAIL WHILE WE ARE AWAY
When we get back, the rumors and news will return. Email us any juicy tidbits you may have.
Anonymous writes:
The worst thing you can do to a reader is bore them.
Rumpole Replies:
Dear Mom: we asked you to stop bothering us at work, Good luck in rehab.
Anonymous writes:
Those remembrances of Fed Moreno certainly predate his ascension to the Royal Court. Once he entered the Fed Palace, he changed dramatically, punishing defendants for exercising the right to trial. Now, trial means a heavier sentence or an acquittal -- the only discounted sentences come on pleas, but that does not help the guy who may be innocent or less culpable than charged.
Rumpole Replies: Au Contraire mon ami, Au Contraire. We hasten to disagree. We have won and lost before Federal Fred. And we have always found him to be very fair and even handed. However, that’s what this blog is about. We believe Judge Moreno is very fair, but we encourage others to post their experiences with him or the other members of the College Of Cardinals.
What other Judge would you rather have in Federal Court?
Anonymous Writes:
since anyone and everything seems to be grist for your mill-rumor hasit that Gov. Bush's recent Circuit Court appointee Judge Mark LeBancharacterized the weekend bond hearing overwhich he was presiding as a"lynching" to a defendant who happened to be an afro-american
Rumpole Replies: We have not heard about this. But from your post, it almost seems as if the fair Judge was remarking about something unfair occurring rather than being insensitive. Could you expand on what occurred? No one has ever suggested this Judge to be anything but fair, and that is a very serious charge you seem to be making.
And we do have standards, you know. If you read earlier posts, “anything and everything” does not go on here (much like our personal life-its a bit boring). We will not post about boring case law and unimportant stuff like that. Go to the federal blog here for that nonsense. http://www.sdfla.blogspot.com/
Seriously, we will not allow posts attacking people on a personal basis or on matters that are private.
Anonymous writes:
Hi. You wrote about him, so why don'y you know BHB is Bennett H. Brummer?
Rumpole Retorts:
We thought the H stood for “Hardly Working”.
A FREQUENT CRITIC WRITES:
Rumps -- Even if you profess not to care about spelling and grammar in your hastily-written posts, at least clean up the permanent banner on the left side-bar: The word BUIDLING (the third one of four before the end of the first sentence) is obviously misspelled. And UN OFFICIAL is not two words unless referring to a member of a diplomatic mission of the United Nations.
RUMPS responds:
We do care about grammar and spelling. Sometimes we work very hard on a post, then save it, then go back to it and a client walks in, and we post it without a final edit. You are write, we are rong- we promise to wurk harder on usin good english.
As to the errors in the permanent banner: you are an eagled eyed SOB. That’s what we get for coming up with the idea for this blog, and starting it after a late night. Drinking and blogging obviously don’t mix, and we may well need to hire Bobby R if you file Blogging under the Influence charges.
SEE YOU IN COURT
Anonymous writes:
The worst thing you can do to a reader is bore them.
Rumpole Replies:
Dear Mom: we asked you to stop bothering us at work, Good luck in rehab.
Anonymous writes:
Those remembrances of Fed Moreno certainly predate his ascension to the Royal Court. Once he entered the Fed Palace, he changed dramatically, punishing defendants for exercising the right to trial. Now, trial means a heavier sentence or an acquittal -- the only discounted sentences come on pleas, but that does not help the guy who may be innocent or less culpable than charged.
Rumpole Replies: Au Contraire mon ami, Au Contraire. We hasten to disagree. We have won and lost before Federal Fred. And we have always found him to be very fair and even handed. However, that’s what this blog is about. We believe Judge Moreno is very fair, but we encourage others to post their experiences with him or the other members of the College Of Cardinals.
What other Judge would you rather have in Federal Court?
Anonymous Writes:
since anyone and everything seems to be grist for your mill-rumor hasit that Gov. Bush's recent Circuit Court appointee Judge Mark LeBancharacterized the weekend bond hearing overwhich he was presiding as a"lynching" to a defendant who happened to be an afro-american
Rumpole Replies: We have not heard about this. But from your post, it almost seems as if the fair Judge was remarking about something unfair occurring rather than being insensitive. Could you expand on what occurred? No one has ever suggested this Judge to be anything but fair, and that is a very serious charge you seem to be making.
And we do have standards, you know. If you read earlier posts, “anything and everything” does not go on here (much like our personal life-its a bit boring). We will not post about boring case law and unimportant stuff like that. Go to the federal blog here for that nonsense. http://www.sdfla.blogspot.com/
Seriously, we will not allow posts attacking people on a personal basis or on matters that are private.
Anonymous writes:
Hi. You wrote about him, so why don'y you know BHB is Bennett H. Brummer?
Rumpole Retorts:
We thought the H stood for “Hardly Working”.
A FREQUENT CRITIC WRITES:
Rumps -- Even if you profess not to care about spelling and grammar in your hastily-written posts, at least clean up the permanent banner on the left side-bar: The word BUIDLING (the third one of four before the end of the first sentence) is obviously misspelled. And UN OFFICIAL is not two words unless referring to a member of a diplomatic mission of the United Nations.
RUMPS responds:
We do care about grammar and spelling. Sometimes we work very hard on a post, then save it, then go back to it and a client walks in, and we post it without a final edit. You are write, we are rong- we promise to wurk harder on usin good english.
As to the errors in the permanent banner: you are an eagled eyed SOB. That’s what we get for coming up with the idea for this blog, and starting it after a late night. Drinking and blogging obviously don’t mix, and we may well need to hire Bobby R if you file Blogging under the Influence charges.
SEE YOU IN COURT
MOTION TO SUPPRESS ID: GRANTED
We were worried this would happen. Many of the emails and posts are guessing about our identity. We have been accused of being a judge (which was very creative thinking), and besides that, about two dozen names have been emailed to us.
Here is one post we received:
ANONYMOUS WRITES:
He Who Must Not Be Named: --- your putting him in the role of person to out you is a sleight of hand that would make Mark Felt proud.
[this portion was edited to remove the name of an attorney accused of being Rumpole]
…someone in the pd's office-- Your on the target stuff on laffaire brummer almost sounds like you have inside information. Your attacks on Rory Stein seem to stem from a real bitterness that can only come from actually dealing with him. And since you correctly point out that the last time he went to court was during gulf war one, I have to think that you must have had some unpleasant dealing with him at the pdo. Got to figure who you are though still working on that
Rumpole Replies: The guess about He Who Must Not Be Named and Mark Felt was ingenious. But we think He Who Must Not Be Named doesn’t like us. Although his supporters have emailed us that we are wrong and he has said as much as well. But not to belabor the point, It is Not HIM.
As to any other name (and we edited the above email to remove the name of one attorney) - we will not confirm or deny any name. It seems best for us to go on as Rumpole, but if we are outed we will continue the blog, as most people like it and it is serving the purpose of generating a nice discussion within the Justice Building Community. But we do not want the identity thing to become the focus of this.
We are not bitter about Mr. Stein. We are upset that he will not put down his coffee and danish and crossword puzzle and respond to our comment. He accused us in the press of being inaccurate about the Brummer Bummer. So Mr. APD: What was inaccurate about what we wrote? Send a comment and we will print it in its entirety.
See You In Court.
Here is one post we received:
ANONYMOUS WRITES:
He Who Must Not Be Named: --- your putting him in the role of person to out you is a sleight of hand that would make Mark Felt proud.
[this portion was edited to remove the name of an attorney accused of being Rumpole]
…someone in the pd's office-- Your on the target stuff on laffaire brummer almost sounds like you have inside information. Your attacks on Rory Stein seem to stem from a real bitterness that can only come from actually dealing with him. And since you correctly point out that the last time he went to court was during gulf war one, I have to think that you must have had some unpleasant dealing with him at the pdo. Got to figure who you are though still working on that
Rumpole Replies: The guess about He Who Must Not Be Named and Mark Felt was ingenious. But we think He Who Must Not Be Named doesn’t like us. Although his supporters have emailed us that we are wrong and he has said as much as well. But not to belabor the point, It is Not HIM.
As to any other name (and we edited the above email to remove the name of one attorney) - we will not confirm or deny any name. It seems best for us to go on as Rumpole, but if we are outed we will continue the blog, as most people like it and it is serving the purpose of generating a nice discussion within the Justice Building Community. But we do not want the identity thing to become the focus of this.
We are not bitter about Mr. Stein. We are upset that he will not put down his coffee and danish and crossword puzzle and respond to our comment. He accused us in the press of being inaccurate about the Brummer Bummer. So Mr. APD: What was inaccurate about what we wrote? Send a comment and we will print it in its entirety.
See You In Court.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
PANDO PANDO PANDO
PANDO PANDO
On the Judge Pando comment, we received this comment:
Rumpole you got your facts wrong here. My understanding is that the Pando thing had nothing to do with granting motions to suppress and everything to do with some rather intemperate remarks made by the Judge. I wont repeat them here becuase you have said that you wont a la judith miller go to jail and protect me. I also dont want a libel suit and I dont want to give any Judge the justification to ask Thier freinds in law enforcement to peer into this site.Seriously Rump no Judges get removed for granting too many motions to supress. Dont cry the defense attorney blues about how it is so unfair. Geez you guys Write five hundred dollar checks to these folks and they treat you like royalty. When I was a young ASA I recall that whenever a Bobby Reiff Or Mike Catalano went to trial and lost ( I know I know they claim that they have never lost but they have) the Fine Jurists of County Court would rarely if ever punish thier clients for excescising thier right to trial. If on the other hand, the client was a PD client and was a roofer instead of a stockbroker they always felt quite happy to sentence those folks to 30 days in jail.
--Posted by Anonymous to JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG at 12/06/2005 05:08:03 PM\n",0]
);
D(["ce"]);
//-->
Rumpole Replies:
Mike C and Bobby R are drafting the complaint for damages and libel as we write this.
We tried to be clear that we had no hard and fast proof why Judge Pando left the Justice Building like McCarthur left Corregidor- in the middle of the night on a boat. There was a great bit of discussion and there was a petition alleging that she was moved because of her actions on the bench regarding motions and trials.
The day we write a check for $500.00 for a Judge is the day we run ourselves, and not until then. We are cheap cheap cheap.
Your comment raises a great new topic:
SHOULD A JUDGE “PUNISH” A DEFENDANT WHO GOES TO TRIAL AND LOSES?
One Judge we respect to no end is the Honorable Judge Federico Moreno. When we was on the County Bench, and the Circuit Court Bench, before the Federal Bench, he used to always comment that when he presided at a trial he learned more about the case. That meant that if a defendant was convicted the defendant could get more or less time than the pending offer.
The thing about Judge Moreno was that he meant it. He sentenced Defendants who lost trials to sentences below the plea offer or the guidelines as they existed at the time on more than one occasion. With Judge Moreno, you knew you would get a fair sentence.
But these days, the court house is full of stories of first offenders for DUI getting 30 or 60 days, or first offense for Possession of Cocaine getting 364, etc after getting convicted at trial . At least one Judge has gone out of HIS way to say he wants to be known as
MAXIMUM___________(insert Judge’s last name.)
Any comment about this?
On the Judge Pando comment, we received this comment:
Rumpole you got your facts wrong here. My understanding is that the Pando thing had nothing to do with granting motions to suppress and everything to do with some rather intemperate remarks made by the Judge. I wont repeat them here becuase you have said that you wont a la judith miller go to jail and protect me. I also dont want a libel suit and I dont want to give any Judge the justification to ask Thier freinds in law enforcement to peer into this site.Seriously Rump no Judges get removed for granting too many motions to supress. Dont cry the defense attorney blues about how it is so unfair. Geez you guys Write five hundred dollar checks to these folks and they treat you like royalty. When I was a young ASA I recall that whenever a Bobby Reiff Or Mike Catalano went to trial and lost ( I know I know they claim that they have never lost but they have) the Fine Jurists of County Court would rarely if ever punish thier clients for excescising thier right to trial. If on the other hand, the client was a PD client and was a roofer instead of a stockbroker they always felt quite happy to sentence those folks to 30 days in jail.
--Posted by Anonymous to JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG at 12/06/2005 05:08:03 PM\n",0]
);
D(["ce"]);
//-->
Rumpole Replies:
Mike C and Bobby R are drafting the complaint for damages and libel as we write this.
We tried to be clear that we had no hard and fast proof why Judge Pando left the Justice Building like McCarthur left Corregidor- in the middle of the night on a boat. There was a great bit of discussion and there was a petition alleging that she was moved because of her actions on the bench regarding motions and trials.
The day we write a check for $500.00 for a Judge is the day we run ourselves, and not until then. We are cheap cheap cheap.
Your comment raises a great new topic:
SHOULD A JUDGE “PUNISH” A DEFENDANT WHO GOES TO TRIAL AND LOSES?
One Judge we respect to no end is the Honorable Judge Federico Moreno. When we was on the County Bench, and the Circuit Court Bench, before the Federal Bench, he used to always comment that when he presided at a trial he learned more about the case. That meant that if a defendant was convicted the defendant could get more or less time than the pending offer.
The thing about Judge Moreno was that he meant it. He sentenced Defendants who lost trials to sentences below the plea offer or the guidelines as they existed at the time on more than one occasion. With Judge Moreno, you knew you would get a fair sentence.
But these days, the court house is full of stories of first offenders for DUI getting 30 or 60 days, or first offense for Possession of Cocaine getting 364, etc after getting convicted at trial . At least one Judge has gone out of HIS way to say he wants to be known as
MAXIMUM___________(insert Judge’s last name.)
Any comment about this?
3 MORE COMMENTS
THREE FOR A DOLLAR: These are not- it seems- from the same person. When you leave a comment it is e mailed to us directly as "anonymous"
Anonymous writes:
Nice try judge. Your rude obnoxious and dare I age myself;were not a very good defense attorney. Judge Schwartz is not a credit to the bench and needs to go the way of a certain female judge who was run out of town.P.S.Have a nice day.
Rumpole Responds: 1) Do you imply a Judge is writing this???? How creative. Rumors fly as to our identity and it would be great- but it is untrue- if we were a member of the Judiciary.
2) Which Judge Schwartz are you referring to? There are two with opposition.
3) Which Judge got "run out of town"?
Anonymous writes:
Has Judge Soto ever started late?There goes the Cuban time... gender....claim.P.S. I love the blog!
Rumpole Writes: We knew we would get into a sticky wicket with our "gender comment". We do not have enough knowledge about Judge Soto's starting times to respond.
We are glad you like our blog. Not everyone does. HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED, clearly does not like us, as well as the commentor below:
Anonymous writes:
You should, at the very least, proofread your posts. If you get rid of the spelling and grammar mistakes, you'd be a D writer instead of an F
Rumpole retorts: YEAH? YOU AND WHAT ARMY? Seriously, we try to proof read our work, but sometimes in the heat of the battle, we screw up. We take full responsibility for our work, but we do not correct the spelling or grammar of the posts. We suggest you go a little light on the posts by the members of the Judiciary. They have enough to worry about without trying to spell CAT correctly all the time. Ease up a bit ol chap.
Anonymous writes:
Barzee...yeah!!!Christina...well Shumminer married her!
Rumpole replies: This just made it past our censor for comments on a Judge's private life, which are off limits. Other than that, we are not sure what you mean.
Anonymous writes:
Nice try judge. Your rude obnoxious and dare I age myself;were not a very good defense attorney. Judge Schwartz is not a credit to the bench and needs to go the way of a certain female judge who was run out of town.P.S.Have a nice day.
Rumpole Responds: 1) Do you imply a Judge is writing this???? How creative. Rumors fly as to our identity and it would be great- but it is untrue- if we were a member of the Judiciary.
2) Which Judge Schwartz are you referring to? There are two with opposition.
3) Which Judge got "run out of town"?
Anonymous writes:
Has Judge Soto ever started late?There goes the Cuban time... gender....claim.P.S. I love the blog!
Rumpole Writes: We knew we would get into a sticky wicket with our "gender comment". We do not have enough knowledge about Judge Soto's starting times to respond.
We are glad you like our blog. Not everyone does. HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED, clearly does not like us, as well as the commentor below:
Anonymous writes:
You should, at the very least, proofread your posts. If you get rid of the spelling and grammar mistakes, you'd be a D writer instead of an F
Rumpole retorts: YEAH? YOU AND WHAT ARMY? Seriously, we try to proof read our work, but sometimes in the heat of the battle, we screw up. We take full responsibility for our work, but we do not correct the spelling or grammar of the posts. We suggest you go a little light on the posts by the members of the Judiciary. They have enough to worry about without trying to spell CAT correctly all the time. Ease up a bit ol chap.
Anonymous writes:
Barzee...yeah!!!Christina...well Shumminer married her!
Rumpole replies: This just made it past our censor for comments on a Judge's private life, which are off limits. Other than that, we are not sure what you mean.
MORE EMAILS
MORE EMAILS. Delay due to Rumpole was traveling on a quick vacation for the weekend yesterday. Brrr… this is why we live in the Magic City.
Anonymous writes about our comment on the PDs and their comment to the Daily Business Review:
Love that last line. The moon will indeed be blue when we see mssrs Stein, Weed and some of the other wildly overpaid members of Brummers kitchen cabinet in court.
Rumpole Responds: No reply yet as to the ping pong match. The sale of the TV rights should net a few dozen dollars.
Anonymous writes about our comment on the PDs and their comment to the Daily Business Review:
Love that last line. The moon will indeed be blue when we see mssrs Stein, Weed and some of the other wildly overpaid members of Brummers kitchen cabinet in court.
Rumpole Responds: No reply yet as to the ping pong match. The sale of the TV rights should net a few dozen dollars.
COMMENT ON JUDGE SHELDON SCHWARTZ
Pardon the delay. Its cold in the Mountains, and it affects our typing. Emails are pouring in.
ON JUDGE SHELDON SCHWARTZ WE RECEIVED:
JUDGE SHELDON SCHWARTZ MAY DRESS LESS THAN CONSERVATIVE,WITH COLORFUL TIES,ETC.BUT HE IS A GOOD JUDGE.HE EXPECTS HIGH STANDARDS,WITH ATTORNEYS APPEARING IN COURT,NOT FILING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW ETC.AND NOT HAVING THEM HEARD AND NOT APPEARING ETC.WE MUST REALIZE,THE PRACTICE OF LAW IS PROFESSION AND CANNOT BE LOOKED UPON AS A BUSINESS ENTITY ALTHOUGH LAWYERS SHOULD MAKE A LIVING.JUDGE SCHWARTZ IS DEMANDING AND CALLS ATTORNEYS WHEN THEY FAIL TO APPEAR IN COURT.IN HIS COURT YOU DO NOT PLAY GAMES AND HE IS GOOD AT RUNNING HIS DOCKET,AND OH YES IN HAVING PEOPLE GET DRIVERS LICENSES QUICKLY(ONE WEEK VS.MONTH TILL NEVER).HE HOLD BOTH DEFENSE AND STATE TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY WHILE MEETING OUT JUSTICE.ASK ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE HIM OR EVEN THE PUBLIC WHO APPEAR BEFORE HIMTHAT IS THE TRUE CRITERIA.I AM ONE WHO HAS APPEARED BEFORE HIM MANY TIMES.
RUMPOLE RESPONDS: We support the re-election of Judge Schwartz. The fancy schmancy poll listed below indicates that a majority of people believe he is getting opposition because he deserves it.
ON JUDGE SHELDON SCHWARTZ WE RECEIVED:
JUDGE SHELDON SCHWARTZ MAY DRESS LESS THAN CONSERVATIVE,WITH COLORFUL TIES,ETC.BUT HE IS A GOOD JUDGE.HE EXPECTS HIGH STANDARDS,WITH ATTORNEYS APPEARING IN COURT,NOT FILING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW ETC.AND NOT HAVING THEM HEARD AND NOT APPEARING ETC.WE MUST REALIZE,THE PRACTICE OF LAW IS PROFESSION AND CANNOT BE LOOKED UPON AS A BUSINESS ENTITY ALTHOUGH LAWYERS SHOULD MAKE A LIVING.JUDGE SCHWARTZ IS DEMANDING AND CALLS ATTORNEYS WHEN THEY FAIL TO APPEAR IN COURT.IN HIS COURT YOU DO NOT PLAY GAMES AND HE IS GOOD AT RUNNING HIS DOCKET,AND OH YES IN HAVING PEOPLE GET DRIVERS LICENSES QUICKLY(ONE WEEK VS.MONTH TILL NEVER).HE HOLD BOTH DEFENSE AND STATE TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY WHILE MEETING OUT JUSTICE.ASK ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE HIM OR EVEN THE PUBLIC WHO APPEAR BEFORE HIMTHAT IS THE TRUE CRITERIA.I AM ONE WHO HAS APPEARED BEFORE HIM MANY TIMES.
RUMPOLE RESPONDS: We support the re-election of Judge Schwartz. The fancy schmancy poll listed below indicates that a majority of people believe he is getting opposition because he deserves it.
RUMPOLE YIELDS TO THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN FROM MIAMI
Ahhem….Mr. Brian Tannebaum (we also have been misspelling his name)
requests that we print, in its entirety, his FULL comment to the Daily Business Review:
My full comment to the Daily Business Review, sent via email was
"As long as he is fully prepared and knows that he will be discovered, I completely support his right to criticize whatever and whomever he wants."
requests that we print, in its entirety, his FULL comment to the Daily Business Review:
My full comment to the Daily Business Review, sent via email was
"As long as he is fully prepared and knows that he will be discovered, I completely support his right to criticize whatever and whomever he wants."
Monday, December 05, 2005
OF JUDGE PANDO AND GENERAL MCCARTHUR
Anonymous wrote:
“I think Joan is one of the foxiest reporters around. “
Rumpole Responds:
1) Thanks for reading. We vented about her several posts ago.
2) Foxy or not, she did not give us credit. And as HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED * would agree, we hate not being given credit.
3) Most optometrists can see you on short notice.
* We had a very disturbing exchange of emails with an attorney who we allege, was very very upset with us. He ended the exchange by accusing us of being angry. He says he is a jolly fellow and loves “a good ribbing”. We disagree. We respect his privacy and –outside of him wearing a dress in court- or doing something else designed to capture attention: we have decided to no longer name him. He will forever be referred to in these pages as
HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED.
ps: its not him:
Although he doesn't like us either.
And in response to our comment about the good Judge Pando, we received this missive:
Judge Pando is one of the finest judges in Miami-Dade county. She is a judge for the people, not simply a judge for lawyers.
Rumpole responds:
Thank you Judge Pando for participating in our blog.
No, seriously, we agree and feel that many of our colleagues would also join in your kind words. We (gently) chided Judge Pando for a proclivity to be a bit late for court.
Recall the circumstances surrounding Judge Pando’s removal from the Justice Building. A petition was circulated to protest her removal. This would have been a great cause for Rumpole to champion. It was alleged that a Dade County Prosecutor, a “Chief” of County Court as it were, was behind her removal for Judge Pando’s temerity in granting Motions to Suppress and actually rule against the Prosecution when warranted.
Bully for You! We say to Judge Pando. You are missed. You should return to the Justice Building like McCarthur wading ashore on Leyte in 1944.
Judge Pando was seen in the Herald in a picture,(not above- but she looked great) smiling as she had the honor and distinction of swearing in Hialeah’s new Mayor. Because she was involved in swearing in the new Mayor of Hialeah, she is now designated as a witness for the next Federal Prosecution. Not that there is any corruption in Hialeah or anything like that. Nooo….. And please, if we are outted, we don’t want the Chief Of Police’s sons coming to beat us up. We bleed easily.
Who actually had more Teflon, John Gotti or the former Mayor of Hialeah?
We hear ace Criminal Defense Attorney Jose Quinones actually named his new boat after the former Mayor. The former Mayor had more trials and hung juries then Elizabeth Taylor had husbands.
Back to Judge Pando: this blog can serve to publicize outrageous attempts by prosecutors to silence, intimidate, or remove Judges from the Justice Building. We are not naming the prosecutor behind Judge Pando’s transfer,
but if you look in the dictionary here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/twerp
You would see a picture of him.
See You In Court.
“I think Joan is one of the foxiest reporters around. “
Rumpole Responds:
1) Thanks for reading. We vented about her several posts ago.
2) Foxy or not, she did not give us credit. And as HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED * would agree, we hate not being given credit.
3) Most optometrists can see you on short notice.
* We had a very disturbing exchange of emails with an attorney who we allege, was very very upset with us. He ended the exchange by accusing us of being angry. He says he is a jolly fellow and loves “a good ribbing”. We disagree. We respect his privacy and –outside of him wearing a dress in court- or doing something else designed to capture attention: we have decided to no longer name him. He will forever be referred to in these pages as
HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED.
ps: its not him:
Although he doesn't like us either.
And in response to our comment about the good Judge Pando, we received this missive:
Judge Pando is one of the finest judges in Miami-Dade county. She is a judge for the people, not simply a judge for lawyers.
Rumpole responds:
Thank you Judge Pando for participating in our blog.
No, seriously, we agree and feel that many of our colleagues would also join in your kind words. We (gently) chided Judge Pando for a proclivity to be a bit late for court.
Recall the circumstances surrounding Judge Pando’s removal from the Justice Building. A petition was circulated to protest her removal. This would have been a great cause for Rumpole to champion. It was alleged that a Dade County Prosecutor, a “Chief” of County Court as it were, was behind her removal for Judge Pando’s temerity in granting Motions to Suppress and actually rule against the Prosecution when warranted.
Bully for You! We say to Judge Pando. You are missed. You should return to the Justice Building like McCarthur wading ashore on Leyte in 1944.
Judge Pando was seen in the Herald in a picture,(not above- but she looked great) smiling as she had the honor and distinction of swearing in Hialeah’s new Mayor. Because she was involved in swearing in the new Mayor of Hialeah, she is now designated as a witness for the next Federal Prosecution. Not that there is any corruption in Hialeah or anything like that. Nooo….. And please, if we are outted, we don’t want the Chief Of Police’s sons coming to beat us up. We bleed easily.
Who actually had more Teflon, John Gotti or the former Mayor of Hialeah?
We hear ace Criminal Defense Attorney Jose Quinones actually named his new boat after the former Mayor. The former Mayor had more trials and hung juries then Elizabeth Taylor had husbands.
Back to Judge Pando: this blog can serve to publicize outrageous attempts by prosecutors to silence, intimidate, or remove Judges from the Justice Building. We are not naming the prosecutor behind Judge Pando’s transfer,
but if you look in the dictionary here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/twerp
You would see a picture of him.
See You In Court.
HOT DAY FOR EMAIL
WE received this comment:
Love your blog. keep it up. I cannt be IDed, I work for XXX.
Concerning your lit choices: Please don't blow up the building Howard, by the way the movie was great, I love Gary Cooper, the actor not the attrny.. I also love appearing infront of the Circus Court Judges in the Metro Injustice Bldg.
Liberty next to Last champion
Rumpole responds:
Unlike Mr. Roark, we did not design the Metro Justice Building, and our design has not been stolen and ruined, unlike what happened to Howard Roark. The Movie was very good, although Ms. Rand commented that she did not like it. But as we all know, she was very difficult to please. Even more difficult then certain Judges who have been mentioned in these pages.
Dear Reader: I took the liberty of substituting the initials you included with XXX. But I did not recognize them anyway. If you like, email me an explanation. Or Not.
See You In Court.
PS: To the weasel who opined that we cannot write: psbbtht.
Love your blog. keep it up. I cannt be IDed, I work for XXX.
Concerning your lit choices: Please don't blow up the building Howard, by the way the movie was great, I love Gary Cooper, the actor not the attrny.. I also love appearing infront of the Circus Court Judges in the Metro Injustice Bldg.
Liberty next to Last champion
Rumpole responds:
Unlike Mr. Roark, we did not design the Metro Justice Building, and our design has not been stolen and ruined, unlike what happened to Howard Roark. The Movie was very good, although Ms. Rand commented that she did not like it. But as we all know, she was very difficult to please. Even more difficult then certain Judges who have been mentioned in these pages.
Dear Reader: I took the liberty of substituting the initials you included with XXX. But I did not recognize them anyway. If you like, email me an explanation. Or Not.
See You In Court.
PS: To the weasel who opined that we cannot write: psbbtht.
OUCH!
ANONYMOUS JUST EMAILED ME:
Looks like both the commentor and Rumpole are the same person. Neither knows how to write.
1) Not True at all.
2) OUCH.
See You In Court.
Looks like both the commentor and Rumpole are the same person. Neither knows how to write.
1) Not True at all.
2) OUCH.
See You In Court.
VOTES FOR BLAKE AND IVAN FERNANDEZ: THUMBS DOWN FOR LARRY S.
Here is the comment:
Anonymous said...
Maybe the fact that some long standing judges have drawn opposition, will provide the bench with a wake up call. The message being: be polite, fair and respectful of attorneys and their time constraints. Larry Schwartz is a diffuclt judge to appear in front of (as evidenced by the collective groan emitted by both prosecutors and defense attorneys upon hearing of his return to the criminal section). He is often times mean-spirited and ill-tempered. Maybe both judges should have talk with Judge Klein, Stan Blake, or Ivan Fernandez on how to deal with attorneys.
We are on record as supporting Judge Larry Schwartz. See below, TIS THE SEASON.
Our fancy/schmancy new polls (down on left) indicate both a strong preference to have either Judge Stan Blake or Ivan Fernandez assigned to a case if you were arrested, and also indicate a strong belief that the Judges currently with opposition have oppositon because of
“Gender Politics”.
Keep viewing/keep voting (except for you- Stan and Ivan-we’ve told you this before: STOP VOTING FOR YOURSELVES)
See You In Court.
Anonymous said...
Maybe the fact that some long standing judges have drawn opposition, will provide the bench with a wake up call. The message being: be polite, fair and respectful of attorneys and their time constraints. Larry Schwartz is a diffuclt judge to appear in front of (as evidenced by the collective groan emitted by both prosecutors and defense attorneys upon hearing of his return to the criminal section). He is often times mean-spirited and ill-tempered. Maybe both judges should have talk with Judge Klein, Stan Blake, or Ivan Fernandez on how to deal with attorneys.
We are on record as supporting Judge Larry Schwartz. See below, TIS THE SEASON.
Our fancy/schmancy new polls (down on left) indicate both a strong preference to have either Judge Stan Blake or Ivan Fernandez assigned to a case if you were arrested, and also indicate a strong belief that the Judges currently with opposition have oppositon because of
“Gender Politics”.
Keep viewing/keep voting (except for you- Stan and Ivan-we’ve told you this before: STOP VOTING FOR YOURSELVES)
See You In Court.
OUR RESPONSE TO THE DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW ARTICLE
Well, now we’re big time. The word is out.
As to the article:
1) We are deeply sorry if we ever conveyed the thought or idea we would reveal a personal confidence about a Judge or attorney that would affect their personal life. We would not do it. Ever. Even if a Judge was dating a lawyer who appeared before them, we do not think (however unethical that might be) that it is our place to report that. That is not the type of blog we want to be. However, as we have tried to make clear, if that Judge was showing up late, being rude to lawyers, taking people into custody for no good reason, we would report our colleagues feelings in the matter.
2) As to the comment about the Judge in Dade County with twins. That was written by us in response to the Broward JNC asking a candidate who is a single mother of two children if she could balance her family and professional life. We NOTED that there is a very successful and respected in Judge in Dade who happens to be the single mother of two children. Because we respect this Judge’s privacy, we did not mention her name. Hopefully our post was very very clear that the inappropriate conduct was from the Broward JNC, and not the Judge in Dade.
3) As to APD Rory Stein. When we mentioned in our post about Brummer’s cozy little fiefdom with political cronies cashing big checks. Well, if the shoe fits.... But nothing that we “reported” about La Affair Du Brummer was incorrect. We are not reporters. But we do our best to try and confirm any facts or tidbits we are given. If we are not sure, we say so. We are 100% sure of the facts we stated in our comment BRUMMER BUMMER and we challenge Mr. Stein to either put down his coffee and danish and state otherwise, or to a ping pong match at dawn-loser leaves town (we are great at ping pong and we don't believe in violence).
Lately we like to end our comments with “See You In Court”, but as we believe it has been decades since Mr. Stein has tried a case, we cannot say that as to him.
4) We need to amend out comments about being outed. We would not be embarrassed if our identity is determined. We think the feedback about this blog has been positive. The comments about Judges are mostly in fun, and the serious criticism will be dealt with seriously. We are not ashmed of this blog at all.
By remaining anonymous, it gives the site a little “pizzaz” as people can (and have been doing at an alarming rate ) speculate about who we are. But we need to make this clear: WE ARE NOT REMAINING ANONYMOUS SO THAT WE CAN SLANDER OR MALICIOUSLY ATTACK ANY JUDGE, PROSECUTOR OR LAWYER. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS SITE IS ABOUT. WE WILL NOT ALLOW OR TOLERATE ANY TYPES OF POSTS THAT ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.
We are wary of our fellow blogster David O Marcus and his comment to the Daily Business Review. It is clear any subpoena to our email account will out us. But we hope, that since we are not violating any laws, no subpoena will be issued. You see, Mr. Marcus operates in the Federal World, where the Patriot Act allows for subpoenas to be issued at the drop of a hat, so he has a right to be suspicious.
So, in closing, if you have found this site, check in a few times a week. You may like what you read. If a Judge has a severe case of Judgeitis, leave a comment or send us an email and we will print it. If something funny happens in court-let us know so we can share in the laughter.
And if you see Rory Stein in court- run outside and look up, because the Moon will be blue.
See You In Court.
As to the article:
1) We are deeply sorry if we ever conveyed the thought or idea we would reveal a personal confidence about a Judge or attorney that would affect their personal life. We would not do it. Ever. Even if a Judge was dating a lawyer who appeared before them, we do not think (however unethical that might be) that it is our place to report that. That is not the type of blog we want to be. However, as we have tried to make clear, if that Judge was showing up late, being rude to lawyers, taking people into custody for no good reason, we would report our colleagues feelings in the matter.
2) As to the comment about the Judge in Dade County with twins. That was written by us in response to the Broward JNC asking a candidate who is a single mother of two children if she could balance her family and professional life. We NOTED that there is a very successful and respected in Judge in Dade who happens to be the single mother of two children. Because we respect this Judge’s privacy, we did not mention her name. Hopefully our post was very very clear that the inappropriate conduct was from the Broward JNC, and not the Judge in Dade.
3) As to APD Rory Stein. When we mentioned in our post about Brummer’s cozy little fiefdom with political cronies cashing big checks. Well, if the shoe fits.... But nothing that we “reported” about La Affair Du Brummer was incorrect. We are not reporters. But we do our best to try and confirm any facts or tidbits we are given. If we are not sure, we say so. We are 100% sure of the facts we stated in our comment BRUMMER BUMMER and we challenge Mr. Stein to either put down his coffee and danish and state otherwise, or to a ping pong match at dawn-loser leaves town (we are great at ping pong and we don't believe in violence).
Lately we like to end our comments with “See You In Court”, but as we believe it has been decades since Mr. Stein has tried a case, we cannot say that as to him.
4) We need to amend out comments about being outed. We would not be embarrassed if our identity is determined. We think the feedback about this blog has been positive. The comments about Judges are mostly in fun, and the serious criticism will be dealt with seriously. We are not ashmed of this blog at all.
By remaining anonymous, it gives the site a little “pizzaz” as people can (and have been doing at an alarming rate ) speculate about who we are. But we need to make this clear: WE ARE NOT REMAINING ANONYMOUS SO THAT WE CAN SLANDER OR MALICIOUSLY ATTACK ANY JUDGE, PROSECUTOR OR LAWYER. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS SITE IS ABOUT. WE WILL NOT ALLOW OR TOLERATE ANY TYPES OF POSTS THAT ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.
We are wary of our fellow blogster David O Marcus and his comment to the Daily Business Review. It is clear any subpoena to our email account will out us. But we hope, that since we are not violating any laws, no subpoena will be issued. You see, Mr. Marcus operates in the Federal World, where the Patriot Act allows for subpoenas to be issued at the drop of a hat, so he has a right to be suspicious.
So, in closing, if you have found this site, check in a few times a week. You may like what you read. If a Judge has a severe case of Judgeitis, leave a comment or send us an email and we will print it. If something funny happens in court-let us know so we can share in the laughter.
And if you see Rory Stein in court- run outside and look up, because the Moon will be blue.
See You In Court.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
WELCOME DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW READERS
You have found your way to the hottest new blog in the Miami Legal Community.
You can peruse the previous posts to get a flavor of what we’re about.
Quick review of the rules:
1) Almost anything goes, but we strongly discourage ad hominem attacks. (Judges, go here for a definition: http://www.tmsdebate.org/main/forensics/glossary.htm).
2) Comments or posts that reveal personal information will be removed unless the individual consents. So, that juicy tidbit with the 40’s ASA and the 20’s PD intern at Mynt will be removed (despite our admiration for the ASA). No personal information about public officials will be allowed: its illegal. You can’t publish the home address of a Judge or Prosecutor. You can publish their personal web site, like www.imadofus.com
3) Witty repartee is rewarded.
4) Back-handed allusions to the diminished mental capacity of some our learned colleagues is appreciated. (See, the link to the definition published for our Judicial readers, above.) As our welcome to the blog states, we delight in taking down the “stuffed shirts” and self important people who practice among us, a notch or two.
5) We think the legal community needs an outlet to discuss Judges, Lawyers, Issues, without fear of reprisal. How can you complain about that Judge who’s been on the bench 30 days, and wants to start jury selection at 6:00 PM, without damaging your ability to practice before him/her? HERE IS THE PLACE. And just maybe, that Judicial Genius will be told about this blog, your comment, and someone will read it to him/her and they will change their misbegotten ways.
BEST OF RUMPOLE:
We’re new, but we’ve already have some pretty good lines:
1) “Say what you want about Judge Shelly Schwartz, but he is always dressed appropriately in case a Gin Rummy game breaks out.” SEE: TIS THE SEASON November 28, 2005.
2) Judge Larry Schwartz is a real pro. With a long stint as a State Court Prosecutor, and the social consciousness of a Green Peace activist, Judge Larry Schwartz brings fairness along with a great deal of experience to the job. Id. (If you are a Judge, go here to learn about short form cites: http://www.ualr.edu/~cmbarger/shortfrm.htm#id)
3) Courage and Character. 55 years ago, one woman had enough to fuel a generation of change. Some days just cry out for the reverent, not the irreverent.December 1 is one of those days. PERIPETEIA, December 1, 2005.
4) Holla Back NYC here: http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ which, [we are not making this up] encourages New Yorkers to Holler Back at people on the street who are annoying them. Just what those quiet and inoffensive people from NYC need: a little encouragement to be more aggressive. People in Miami know better than to “Holler Back” at people on the street. That’s why for the fifth consecutive year our murder rate has fallen. ) DIS AND DAT, December 1, 2005.
So you can see, we like smart comments. We like to comment about the absurb, and the topics of the day. But most of all, we encourage a sharp and witty exchange of ideas about the world we work in: THE JUSTICE BUILDING.
See you in Court.
You can peruse the previous posts to get a flavor of what we’re about.
Quick review of the rules:
1) Almost anything goes, but we strongly discourage ad hominem attacks. (Judges, go here for a definition: http://www.tmsdebate.org/main/forensics/glossary.htm).
2) Comments or posts that reveal personal information will be removed unless the individual consents. So, that juicy tidbit with the 40’s ASA and the 20’s PD intern at Mynt will be removed (despite our admiration for the ASA). No personal information about public officials will be allowed: its illegal. You can’t publish the home address of a Judge or Prosecutor. You can publish their personal web site, like www.imadofus.com
3) Witty repartee is rewarded.
4) Back-handed allusions to the diminished mental capacity of some our learned colleagues is appreciated. (See, the link to the definition published for our Judicial readers, above.) As our welcome to the blog states, we delight in taking down the “stuffed shirts” and self important people who practice among us, a notch or two.
5) We think the legal community needs an outlet to discuss Judges, Lawyers, Issues, without fear of reprisal. How can you complain about that Judge who’s been on the bench 30 days, and wants to start jury selection at 6:00 PM, without damaging your ability to practice before him/her? HERE IS THE PLACE. And just maybe, that Judicial Genius will be told about this blog, your comment, and someone will read it to him/her and they will change their misbegotten ways.
BEST OF RUMPOLE:
We’re new, but we’ve already have some pretty good lines:
1) “Say what you want about Judge Shelly Schwartz, but he is always dressed appropriately in case a Gin Rummy game breaks out.” SEE: TIS THE SEASON November 28, 2005.
2) Judge Larry Schwartz is a real pro. With a long stint as a State Court Prosecutor, and the social consciousness of a Green Peace activist, Judge Larry Schwartz brings fairness along with a great deal of experience to the job. Id. (If you are a Judge, go here to learn about short form cites: http://www.ualr.edu/~cmbarger/shortfrm.htm#id)
3) Courage and Character. 55 years ago, one woman had enough to fuel a generation of change. Some days just cry out for the reverent, not the irreverent.December 1 is one of those days. PERIPETEIA, December 1, 2005.
4) Holla Back NYC here: http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ which, [we are not making this up] encourages New Yorkers to Holler Back at people on the street who are annoying them. Just what those quiet and inoffensive people from NYC need: a little encouragement to be more aggressive. People in Miami know better than to “Holler Back” at people on the street. That’s why for the fifth consecutive year our murder rate has fallen. ) DIS AND DAT, December 1, 2005.
So you can see, we like smart comments. We like to comment about the absurb, and the topics of the day. But most of all, we encourage a sharp and witty exchange of ideas about the world we work in: THE JUSTICE BUILDING.
See you in Court.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
AY DIOS MIO
Now we’ve done it. We’ve been accused of being too hard on our Judges who are of Cuban American Heritage.
Here’s the comment :
Anonymous said...
Rump why are you being so hard on Cuban judges as being the ones who set there calendar for 9 and show up at 1030? that only describes one particular judge who used to be in on the second floor who is now in backup and likes to juggle a bean bag throughout trial. He also liked to wear a microphone a la Madonna.As a former ASA now in ciminal defense i can also state that this judge is equally angry and abusive towards the state and the defense. That said, why would you compare all of our fine and punctual cuban american judges with this one judge who does these things?
Here’s our response:
When we arrived in Miami from the (comment censored to protect the identity of Rumpole) in the 1980’s, we kept hearing about this term: “Cuban Time”. We mostly heard it from Cubans. It was a term of -what appeared to us to be- endearment used to laughingly describe a penchant of some people to be late.
Now many many Judges seem to have little regard for the time of the attorneys and clients sitting in their courtroom. We remember when Judge Lando was in the Justice Building, she wouldn’t take any lawyers out of turn. But when it came to some Judges being habitually late for court, we were NOT thinking of Judge Rodriguez. Indeed, we like the fact that Judge Rodriguez starts at 10:00 or 10:30 and tells everyone about it. I makes it easy for us to schedule our time. One word of warning: We remember the last Judge who scheduled his court late: Former Judge and Current Felon Roy T Gelber used to start his County Court DUI calendar at 1:30 PM! We kid you not. And we all know what happened to him: he ended up in an eight year handball game at your favorite Federal Correctional Institute. Not to even remotely compare Judge Rodriguez to Gelber. One’s a respected judge and one sold his robes.
Back to Cuban time. When we made that little comment, we actually were thinking of Judge Pando, who was a great judge in County Court, but had a penchant for starting very late. We think she would admit this.
Now, we are in a quandary and very close to putting out legal foot in our mouth. Do we make a pun on Judge Pando’s heritage, or Judge Pando’s gender? Hmm.. truly either way there lies ahead a rocky road.
Discretion being the better part of valor, lets move on and conclude with this: We took a cheap shot at all Hispanic Judges with that little quip about running late. Certainly, if you did a study, we are sure there are no genetic components to running late, although if we had to choose, we would chalk it up to gender. [See below].
Many Hispanic Judges run a tight ship, and some don’t. The ones that don’t just have to grin and bear the “Cuban time” quips, while the Judges who run late and are not Hispanic just get cursed at under the attorneys breath.
If you think about it, it’s better to have a friendly quip tossed your way, then a curse.
Go here to file your gender bias complaints: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/howtofil.html.
See you in court.
PS: Judge Rodriguez has been compared to Madonna, although we do not even want the image of him wearing a gold plated bustier in our mind for one second.
The question is: What do you think his favorite Maddona song is?
Leave a comment.
Here’s the comment :
Anonymous said...
Rump why are you being so hard on Cuban judges as being the ones who set there calendar for 9 and show up at 1030? that only describes one particular judge who used to be in on the second floor who is now in backup and likes to juggle a bean bag throughout trial. He also liked to wear a microphone a la Madonna.As a former ASA now in ciminal defense i can also state that this judge is equally angry and abusive towards the state and the defense. That said, why would you compare all of our fine and punctual cuban american judges with this one judge who does these things?
Here’s our response:
When we arrived in Miami from the (comment censored to protect the identity of Rumpole) in the 1980’s, we kept hearing about this term: “Cuban Time”. We mostly heard it from Cubans. It was a term of -what appeared to us to be- endearment used to laughingly describe a penchant of some people to be late.
Now many many Judges seem to have little regard for the time of the attorneys and clients sitting in their courtroom. We remember when Judge Lando was in the Justice Building, she wouldn’t take any lawyers out of turn. But when it came to some Judges being habitually late for court, we were NOT thinking of Judge Rodriguez. Indeed, we like the fact that Judge Rodriguez starts at 10:00 or 10:30 and tells everyone about it. I makes it easy for us to schedule our time. One word of warning: We remember the last Judge who scheduled his court late: Former Judge and Current Felon Roy T Gelber used to start his County Court DUI calendar at 1:30 PM! We kid you not. And we all know what happened to him: he ended up in an eight year handball game at your favorite Federal Correctional Institute. Not to even remotely compare Judge Rodriguez to Gelber. One’s a respected judge and one sold his robes.
Back to Cuban time. When we made that little comment, we actually were thinking of Judge Pando, who was a great judge in County Court, but had a penchant for starting very late. We think she would admit this.
Now, we are in a quandary and very close to putting out legal foot in our mouth. Do we make a pun on Judge Pando’s heritage, or Judge Pando’s gender? Hmm.. truly either way there lies ahead a rocky road.
Discretion being the better part of valor, lets move on and conclude with this: We took a cheap shot at all Hispanic Judges with that little quip about running late. Certainly, if you did a study, we are sure there are no genetic components to running late, although if we had to choose, we would chalk it up to gender. [See below].
Many Hispanic Judges run a tight ship, and some don’t. The ones that don’t just have to grin and bear the “Cuban time” quips, while the Judges who run late and are not Hispanic just get cursed at under the attorneys breath.
If you think about it, it’s better to have a friendly quip tossed your way, then a curse.
Go here to file your gender bias complaints: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/howtofil.html.
See you in court.
PS: Judge Rodriguez has been compared to Madonna, although we do not even want the image of him wearing a gold plated bustier in our mind for one second.
The question is: What do you think his favorite Maddona song is?
Leave a comment.
Friday, December 02, 2005
BIG NEW INTERVIEW WITH US IN DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW MONDAY
People have been asking about our identity.
Personally, I think the picture adds ten pounds.
PRO BONO
Law.comN.Y.
Firms Pledge Lawyers Will Log 50 Pro Bono Hours AnnuallyThursday December 1, 3:01 am ET Thomas Adcock, New York Law Journal
Thirty of the 55 large Manhattan law firms asked by the New York City Bar Association to endorse its aspirational "Statement of Pro Bono Principles" did so Tuesday.
Included in the statement is a pledge that signatory firms perform 50 or more hours per lawyer per year.
A "substantial majority" of those hours should be in the cause of civil legal help for poor people -- or about 30 hours, said Bettina B. Plevan, city bar president.
Umm... we can send them all the referrals they could ever want. In fact, they can just fly down here for the winter, handle a few calendars for us, and meet their pro bono needs.
We are just trying to log 50 billable hours a year.
Firms Pledge Lawyers Will Log 50 Pro Bono Hours AnnuallyThursday December 1, 3:01 am ET Thomas Adcock, New York Law Journal
Thirty of the 55 large Manhattan law firms asked by the New York City Bar Association to endorse its aspirational "Statement of Pro Bono Principles" did so Tuesday.
Included in the statement is a pledge that signatory firms perform 50 or more hours per lawyer per year.
A "substantial majority" of those hours should be in the cause of civil legal help for poor people -- or about 30 hours, said Bettina B. Plevan, city bar president.
Umm... we can send them all the referrals they could ever want. In fact, they can just fly down here for the winter, handle a few calendars for us, and meet their pro bono needs.
We are just trying to log 50 billable hours a year.
BAGGED
Law.com reports that
“Judge Rejects Charge That 63 Zip Bags Were Drug Paraphernalia”
A teenager who was allegedly carrying 63 empty zip-lock bags while trespassing in a Manhattan housing project cannot be charged with second-degree criminal use of drug paraphernalia, a Criminal Court judge has ruled. Penal Law §220.50
criminalizes the possession of "gelatin capsules, vials, capsules, or any
other material suitable for the packaging of individual quantities of narcotic
drugs or stimulants under circumstances evincing an intent to use [them for
the] packaging or dispensing" of drugs. In granting defendant Andrew Maass' motion to dismiss, Judge Deborah Kaplan held that his presence in the stairway of the building beyond signs that read "No Trespassing" fell short of the "circumstances evincing" the intent required under the law. "The information does not allege that the defendant made any statements indicative of involvement with narcotics, that any money was exchanged for the bags, or that the defendant had recently come from an area with a high incidence of drug
trafficking," Judge Kaplan wrote in People v. Maass, 089178/04.
"The mere allegation that the defendant was trespassing at the time he
possessed the bags simply does not establish the mens rea requirement of
Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree."
Folks, this is a great decision for those of us who practice criminal defense. But to look a
little deeper into the case, isn’t this really a case about bad police work?
Can any of us who practice in Miami think for one minute that a good, dedicated, well trained City Of Miami Police Officer would not have seen the defendant “drop” some pieces of crack cocaine as he ran away?
The cops in NY obviously need some help in their investigative techniques.
“Judge Rejects Charge That 63 Zip Bags Were Drug Paraphernalia”
A teenager who was allegedly carrying 63 empty zip-lock bags while trespassing in a Manhattan housing project cannot be charged with second-degree criminal use of drug paraphernalia, a Criminal Court judge has ruled. Penal Law §220.50
criminalizes the possession of "gelatin capsules, vials, capsules, or any
other material suitable for the packaging of individual quantities of narcotic
drugs or stimulants under circumstances evincing an intent to use [them for
the] packaging or dispensing" of drugs. In granting defendant Andrew Maass' motion to dismiss, Judge Deborah Kaplan held that his presence in the stairway of the building beyond signs that read "No Trespassing" fell short of the "circumstances evincing" the intent required under the law. "The information does not allege that the defendant made any statements indicative of involvement with narcotics, that any money was exchanged for the bags, or that the defendant had recently come from an area with a high incidence of drug
trafficking," Judge Kaplan wrote in People v. Maass, 089178/04.
"The mere allegation that the defendant was trespassing at the time he
possessed the bags simply does not establish the mens rea requirement of
Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree."
Folks, this is a great decision for those of us who practice criminal defense. But to look a
little deeper into the case, isn’t this really a case about bad police work?
Can any of us who practice in Miami think for one minute that a good, dedicated, well trained City Of Miami Police Officer would not have seen the defendant “drop” some pieces of crack cocaine as he ran away?
The cops in NY obviously need some help in their investigative techniques.
COMMENTS
Just in case you all are not clicking to read the comments, and because we so value your insights, here is what our latest visitor who bothered to comment had to say:
"Anonymous said...
great site rumpole. keep up the good work. i hope people use this site to let the judges know what those of us who labor in the mjb really think of them. they get thier bar poll numbers and they pay armando guttierez his cash and if they are not jewish men they get no opposition and think they are doing a great job. lets hope this site can be used to let them know that all is not ok in the mjb
Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:04:43 PM"
Because we are an amatuer detective, much like Detective Monk on TV, here is what we can deduce:
1) Our commentor is single and does not work very hard, as he or she is up at 11pm. Most people with kids are exhausted by then and asleep. But our commentor is busy surfing the web.
2) Our commentor is a fan of the poet ee . cummings, who was famous for not capitalizing.
3) Our commentor has latent hostility towards our fair and learned judiciary. Our commentor is frustrated that more of our learned judiciary does not get opposition. Our commentor doesn't like Judges who are smug because no one runs against them.
4) Our commentor forget to take their Wellbutrin this week.
You see folks, this is truly what this site should be. As attorneys, we cannot bite the hand that incarcerates our clients, and the bar poll just isn't frequent enough for us to release our frustrations in private. (hmm.. there are some very latent masturbatory themes underlying what we just wrote. Well, they say you should only write about things you know very well.)
Anyway, without being too vicious- like saying a judge has a big nose, etc., or getting too personal about matters that should remain private, this site is a great way for attorneys to vent that Judge so and so thinks its ok to show up for a 9AM trial calendar at 10:30, (not to pick on our learned and respected Judges from the Isle of Cuba or anything) and we would like more people to use this site as a way to let Judges know what they think could be done better. We have it from some very good eavesdropping that we did this week that a few of our robed friends truly get a chuckle from this site and visit often.
Those Judges not suffering from an incurable case of "robe-itis" will take the good criticisms to heart, and the other Judges will demand the FDLE issue subpoenas for this site. And by the way folks, if for one second you think we're gonna go sit in DCJ to protect a source like Judy Miller formerly of the NY Times did when she sat on Scooter Libby spilling the beans on Valerie Flame, you have another thing comming. We have enough problems with clients confessing all sorts of crap that we just don't want to know.
Also, if any of our Robe wearing readers want to comment that attorney XYZ from Dewey Cheatum and Howe is an unprepared mope who dresses badly, speaks poor english, and needs notes just to arraign someone, we'd love to hear about it.
Subject to any pressure (as we crack easily under questioning) we will keep your identity private. No, really, if any Judge emailed or left a comment anonymously, we would keep your identity private.
Finally, if any of our Judges would want to break the black wall of silence and comment about their fellow members of the bench...well, that would make our day. We can promise you the full Alan Postman treatment: Dinner at Joes or Mortons (Or both!!!) all expenses paid, naturally, and a star in our soon to be announced hall of fame.
"Anonymous said...
great site rumpole. keep up the good work. i hope people use this site to let the judges know what those of us who labor in the mjb really think of them. they get thier bar poll numbers and they pay armando guttierez his cash and if they are not jewish men they get no opposition and think they are doing a great job. lets hope this site can be used to let them know that all is not ok in the mjb
Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:04:43 PM"
Because we are an amatuer detective, much like Detective Monk on TV, here is what we can deduce:
1) Our commentor is single and does not work very hard, as he or she is up at 11pm. Most people with kids are exhausted by then and asleep. But our commentor is busy surfing the web.
2) Our commentor is a fan of the poet ee . cummings, who was famous for not capitalizing.
3) Our commentor has latent hostility towards our fair and learned judiciary. Our commentor is frustrated that more of our learned judiciary does not get opposition. Our commentor doesn't like Judges who are smug because no one runs against them.
4) Our commentor forget to take their Wellbutrin this week.
You see folks, this is truly what this site should be. As attorneys, we cannot bite the hand that incarcerates our clients, and the bar poll just isn't frequent enough for us to release our frustrations in private. (hmm.. there are some very latent masturbatory themes underlying what we just wrote. Well, they say you should only write about things you know very well.)
Anyway, without being too vicious- like saying a judge has a big nose, etc., or getting too personal about matters that should remain private, this site is a great way for attorneys to vent that Judge so and so thinks its ok to show up for a 9AM trial calendar at 10:30, (not to pick on our learned and respected Judges from the Isle of Cuba or anything) and we would like more people to use this site as a way to let Judges know what they think could be done better. We have it from some very good eavesdropping that we did this week that a few of our robed friends truly get a chuckle from this site and visit often.
Those Judges not suffering from an incurable case of "robe-itis" will take the good criticisms to heart, and the other Judges will demand the FDLE issue subpoenas for this site. And by the way folks, if for one second you think we're gonna go sit in DCJ to protect a source like Judy Miller formerly of the NY Times did when she sat on Scooter Libby spilling the beans on Valerie Flame, you have another thing comming. We have enough problems with clients confessing all sorts of crap that we just don't want to know.
Also, if any of our Robe wearing readers want to comment that attorney XYZ from Dewey Cheatum and Howe is an unprepared mope who dresses badly, speaks poor english, and needs notes just to arraign someone, we'd love to hear about it.
Subject to any pressure (as we crack easily under questioning) we will keep your identity private. No, really, if any Judge emailed or left a comment anonymously, we would keep your identity private.
Finally, if any of our Judges would want to break the black wall of silence and comment about their fellow members of the bench...well, that would make our day. We can promise you the full Alan Postman treatment: Dinner at Joes or Mortons (Or both!!!) all expenses paid, naturally, and a star in our soon to be announced hall of fame.
NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS
No cute quips. Our country executed its 1000th person last night.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4490842.stm
The quote from Amnesty International in the BBC article, says it all: That this milestone puts the US in the same category as countries like China, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Vietnam.
Leonard Pitts column in the Herald today , that we have in all likelihood already executed an innocent man reminds us that the system is broke and needs to be fixed.
As I wrote in a posting to this site on November 17, 2005, over 6% of the people sentenced to death in Illinois were INNOCENT. What makes us think that the unfortunate young (25) man that Mr. Pitts wrote about was the only innocent person sentenced to death?
Maybe, on this sad day we should reflect on some words of wisdom:
“From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery ofdeath. For more than 20 years I have endeavored — indeed, I have struggled — along with a majority of this Court, to develop proceduraland substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance offairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue tocoddle the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has beenachieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally andintellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penaltyexperiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that nocombination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can savethe death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. Thebasic question — does the system accurately and consistently determinewhich defendants "deserve" to die? — cannot be answered in the
affirmative.
In 1971, in an opinion which has proved partly prophetic, the secondJustice Harlan, writing for the Court, observed: "Those who have come to grips with the hard task of actually attempting to draft means of channeling capital sentencing discretion have confirmed the lesson taught by the history recounted above. To identify before the fact those characteristics of criminal homicides and their perpetrators which call for the death penalty, and to express these characteristics in language which can be fairly understood and applied by the sentencing authority, appear to be tasks which are beyond present human ability. . . . For a court to attempt to catalog the appropriate factors in this elusive area could inhibit rather than expand the scope of consideration, for no list of circumstances would ever be really complete."
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 204, 208. CALLINS v. COLLINS, 510 U.S. 1141, 1145
(1994) (J. Blackmun, dissenting).
If ever there was a day that cried out for some lawyer or judge to put his or her foot in their mouth, so I can get this Blog back on track, today is the day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4490842.stm
The quote from Amnesty International in the BBC article, says it all: That this milestone puts the US in the same category as countries like China, Iran, Saudia Arabia and Vietnam.
Leonard Pitts column in the Herald today , that we have in all likelihood already executed an innocent man reminds us that the system is broke and needs to be fixed.
As I wrote in a posting to this site on November 17, 2005, over 6% of the people sentenced to death in Illinois were INNOCENT. What makes us think that the unfortunate young (25) man that Mr. Pitts wrote about was the only innocent person sentenced to death?
Maybe, on this sad day we should reflect on some words of wisdom:
“From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery ofdeath. For more than 20 years I have endeavored — indeed, I have struggled — along with a majority of this Court, to develop proceduraland substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance offairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue tocoddle the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has beenachieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally andintellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penaltyexperiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that nocombination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can savethe death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies. Thebasic question — does the system accurately and consistently determinewhich defendants "deserve" to die? — cannot be answered in the
affirmative.
In 1971, in an opinion which has proved partly prophetic, the secondJustice Harlan, writing for the Court, observed: "Those who have come to grips with the hard task of actually attempting to draft means of channeling capital sentencing discretion have confirmed the lesson taught by the history recounted above. To identify before the fact those characteristics of criminal homicides and their perpetrators which call for the death penalty, and to express these characteristics in language which can be fairly understood and applied by the sentencing authority, appear to be tasks which are beyond present human ability. . . . For a court to attempt to catalog the appropriate factors in this elusive area could inhibit rather than expand the scope of consideration, for no list of circumstances would ever be really complete."
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 204, 208. CALLINS v. COLLINS, 510 U.S. 1141, 1145
(1994) (J. Blackmun, dissenting).
If ever there was a day that cried out for some lawyer or judge to put his or her foot in their mouth, so I can get this Blog back on track, today is the day.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
PERIPETEIA
December 1, 2005. 55 years ago there was a turning point in our country.
A young woman, simply, with dignity, decided she had enough.
Racism reached what Aristotle described as a Peripeteia, or reversal of fortune occurring after a chain of events.
You see, the courage of Rosa Parks in not riding in the back of the bus, was not in her just saying no. Any aspiring leader could face a wrong and take a stand. The courage of Rosa Parks was that she was just a simple person.
Rosa Parks has been called the mother of the civil rights movement. But in a strange way that diminishes her courage. Because Parks courage came when she had no one behind her, and no reason to know that her actions would cause anything other than harm to herself. Parks was not the mother of the civil rights movement on that bus that day. She was just tired after working a long day. What Parks did not know and could not know was that her act of defiance was the fulcrum for the turning point. After her simple act of courage there was a definite and observable change in direction of the civil rights movement in our country.
The Montgomery bus boycott followed, and eloquent men said eloquent things like dreaming of a day when children would be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. But that speech was delivered before a hundred thousand people on August 23, 1963. Eight years earlier, frightened, and without a crowd roaring approval, one simple woman decided she had enough, and in the process of overcoming her fear and standing up to evil, she help change a country.
Where do we find our Rosa Parks today? Many are on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. A few brave souls died on September 11, 2001, when they refused to leave their friends and colleagues in a burning building, and 343 firefighters (NY’s Bravest) died because of their commitment to do their job in the face of overwhelming danger.
But I wonder what would happen today if some simple and unknown person was suddenly thrust into the limelight with a heroic act. Would they get a Nike contract and do a Doritos commercial with Bob Dole? Rosa Parks never cashed in on her fame, and that speaks volumes about not just her courage, but her character.
Courage and Character. 55 years ago, one woman had enough to fuel a generation of change.
Some days just cry out for the reverent, not the irreverent.
December 1 is one of those days.
Thanks for reading.
A young woman, simply, with dignity, decided she had enough.
Racism reached what Aristotle described as a Peripeteia, or reversal of fortune occurring after a chain of events.
You see, the courage of Rosa Parks in not riding in the back of the bus, was not in her just saying no. Any aspiring leader could face a wrong and take a stand. The courage of Rosa Parks was that she was just a simple person.
Rosa Parks has been called the mother of the civil rights movement. But in a strange way that diminishes her courage. Because Parks courage came when she had no one behind her, and no reason to know that her actions would cause anything other than harm to herself. Parks was not the mother of the civil rights movement on that bus that day. She was just tired after working a long day. What Parks did not know and could not know was that her act of defiance was the fulcrum for the turning point. After her simple act of courage there was a definite and observable change in direction of the civil rights movement in our country.
The Montgomery bus boycott followed, and eloquent men said eloquent things like dreaming of a day when children would be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. But that speech was delivered before a hundred thousand people on August 23, 1963. Eight years earlier, frightened, and without a crowd roaring approval, one simple woman decided she had enough, and in the process of overcoming her fear and standing up to evil, she help change a country.
Where do we find our Rosa Parks today? Many are on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. A few brave souls died on September 11, 2001, when they refused to leave their friends and colleagues in a burning building, and 343 firefighters (NY’s Bravest) died because of their commitment to do their job in the face of overwhelming danger.
But I wonder what would happen today if some simple and unknown person was suddenly thrust into the limelight with a heroic act. Would they get a Nike contract and do a Doritos commercial with Bob Dole? Rosa Parks never cashed in on her fame, and that speaks volumes about not just her courage, but her character.
Courage and Character. 55 years ago, one woman had enough to fuel a generation of change.
Some days just cry out for the reverent, not the irreverent.
December 1 is one of those days.
Thanks for reading.
DIS AND DAT.
A NEW AND BETTER BLOG:
CHECK OUT OUR FANCY NEW POLL FEATURE: SCROLL DOWN A BIT, ITS ON THE LEFT.
TRY CLICKING ON THE COMMENT BUTTON: IT SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO LEAVE A COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY
One of the many downsides of having business slow down is that we don’t get to the building every day. (if you have to ask “what building?” , you are at the wrong blog. Try the Bored Housewife blog here: http://boredhousewife.blogspot.com/ or the hot dog blog [they’re not related] http://www.hotdogspot.com/ or
Holla Back NYC here: http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ which, [we are not making this up] encourages New Yorkers to Holler Back at people on the street who are annoying them. Just what those quiet and inoffensive people from NYC need: a little encouragement to be more aggressive. People in Miami know better than to “Holler Back” at people on the street. That’s why for the fifth consecutive year our murder rate has fallen. )
With less business, less court appearances, and our sources of rumor and innuendo dry up.
Our new web counter reveals we had about seventy five viewers the other day. Which is comforting because it confirms that we are not the only attorney sitting around in our office with nothing to do except surf the web and wait for the phone to ring. The web counter can tell not only how many people are viewing the page, but where they are from. Besides South Florida, we had viewers from New York, the Mid-west and Ireland.
Ireland? Maybe we annoyed some people with our crack about Judge Murphy’s 6AM Friday soundings. Well Kiss the Blarney Stone! It was just a little blog-license to exaggerate. And to be fair to a very fair Judge, Judge Murphy is the picture of kindness when we stumble in at 10:30 or so muttering a half baked excuse as to why we are late. Usually the look we get from his honor is such that we know he is thinking that we’d better have a better defense for our client then we have for ourselves or at least one of us will not be going home that night.
Thanks to David O Marcus at http://www.sdfla.blogspot.com/ who runs the South Florida Federal Blog. He gave us some nice and much needed publicity (since jeffe BT still won't publish our web address to his loyal subjects at the FACDL) and was astute enough to recognize that we have not given very much clue as to our identity, including our gender. More on who we are not, in a later post.
As we told the Daily Business Review (who interviewed us today for Monday's edition, and we sure hope that *67 turned off the caller ID or our identity will be revealed) Mr. Marcus’s Blog is way too intellectual for us. It is clear to see by reading his Blog that Mr. Marcus spends way too much time reading slip opinions, legislative history and comments on proposed changes to the Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, and briefs before the Supreme Court.
We of course, spend our time at the Hot Dog Blog listed above.
So, dear readers your choice is clear: want the latest case law? Read the Marcus Blog, and wow the judge during your next hearing. Want a list of the top ten excuses Judge Murphy will buy when you show up late? Stick with us. We won’t let you down.
10. Bench trial with Judge Newman.
9. Calendar call with Judge Mills-Francis.
8. It’s the day of the Ticket Blitz.
7. The Judge in Broward would not take us out of turn.
6. Damn Au Bon. The Pickle Barrel never took as long.
5. Juvenile, Juvenile, Juvenile.
4. Did you know Hialeah has a new branch court???
3. Leslie Rothenberg at the Third District slowly tore our brief up into little pieces during oral argument, and it took an hour to stop crying.
2. (insert name here) Federal Judge granted our motion to suppress and we are still in shock.
1. You were serious about 8:00 AM? (guaranteed to get a few laughs and one free call to your bondsman).
CHECK OUT OUR FANCY NEW POLL FEATURE: SCROLL DOWN A BIT, ITS ON THE LEFT.
TRY CLICKING ON THE COMMENT BUTTON: IT SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO LEAVE A COMMENT ANONYMOUSLY
One of the many downsides of having business slow down is that we don’t get to the building every day. (if you have to ask “what building?” , you are at the wrong blog. Try the Bored Housewife blog here: http://boredhousewife.blogspot.com/ or the hot dog blog [they’re not related] http://www.hotdogspot.com/ or
Holla Back NYC here: http://hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ which, [we are not making this up] encourages New Yorkers to Holler Back at people on the street who are annoying them. Just what those quiet and inoffensive people from NYC need: a little encouragement to be more aggressive. People in Miami know better than to “Holler Back” at people on the street. That’s why for the fifth consecutive year our murder rate has fallen. )
With less business, less court appearances, and our sources of rumor and innuendo dry up.
Our new web counter reveals we had about seventy five viewers the other day. Which is comforting because it confirms that we are not the only attorney sitting around in our office with nothing to do except surf the web and wait for the phone to ring. The web counter can tell not only how many people are viewing the page, but where they are from. Besides South Florida, we had viewers from New York, the Mid-west and Ireland.
Ireland? Maybe we annoyed some people with our crack about Judge Murphy’s 6AM Friday soundings. Well Kiss the Blarney Stone! It was just a little blog-license to exaggerate. And to be fair to a very fair Judge, Judge Murphy is the picture of kindness when we stumble in at 10:30 or so muttering a half baked excuse as to why we are late. Usually the look we get from his honor is such that we know he is thinking that we’d better have a better defense for our client then we have for ourselves or at least one of us will not be going home that night.
Thanks to David O Marcus at http://www.sdfla.blogspot.com/ who runs the South Florida Federal Blog. He gave us some nice and much needed publicity (since jeffe BT still won't publish our web address to his loyal subjects at the FACDL) and was astute enough to recognize that we have not given very much clue as to our identity, including our gender. More on who we are not, in a later post.
As we told the Daily Business Review (who interviewed us today for Monday's edition, and we sure hope that *67 turned off the caller ID or our identity will be revealed) Mr. Marcus’s Blog is way too intellectual for us. It is clear to see by reading his Blog that Mr. Marcus spends way too much time reading slip opinions, legislative history and comments on proposed changes to the Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure, and briefs before the Supreme Court.
We of course, spend our time at the Hot Dog Blog listed above.
So, dear readers your choice is clear: want the latest case law? Read the Marcus Blog, and wow the judge during your next hearing. Want a list of the top ten excuses Judge Murphy will buy when you show up late? Stick with us. We won’t let you down.
10. Bench trial with Judge Newman.
9. Calendar call with Judge Mills-Francis.
8. It’s the day of the Ticket Blitz.
7. The Judge in Broward would not take us out of turn.
6. Damn Au Bon. The Pickle Barrel never took as long.
5. Juvenile, Juvenile, Juvenile.
4. Did you know Hialeah has a new branch court???
3. Leslie Rothenberg at the Third District slowly tore our brief up into little pieces during oral argument, and it took an hour to stop crying.
2. (insert name here) Federal Judge granted our motion to suppress and we are still in shock.
1. You were serious about 8:00 AM? (guaranteed to get a few laughs and one free call to your bondsman).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)