A LINE IS DRAWN

For those of you not on summer sabbatical, the lines for attorneys to enter the REGJB were interminable last week- and just in time for the real hot and sticky weather!

Once safely ensconced in their air conditioned offices attorneys did what they do best: complain!

Dear Esteemed Colleagues;

Or in this instance “Steamed” Colleagues.

I also go through the line. It is ridiculous, stupid, time consuming, degrading…I have seen many of our Sisters in Law get searched in front of colleagues, I won’t say inappropriately, but it’s worse than the airport at times.

We are on top of this. If we get nowhere next week. I suggest we start an email campaign. I will provide all the names and emails of the powers that be and we will handle it the good old fashioned American way!!

In the interim, Our Public Defender Carlos Martinez has volunteered to use the system set up at the PD’s office to get the ball rolling. We need approval of Sandra Lonergan, the Trial Court Administrator and Chief Judge Joel Brown.

I will advise.

Rumpole (sitting behind a large desk in his study)

Bonasera, Bonasera, what have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you'd come to me in friendship, this scum who ruined your suit would be suffering and sweating this very day. And if by some chance an honest man like yourself made enemies they would become my enemies. And then, they would fear you.

We have known each other many years, but this is the first time you've come to me for counsel or for help. I can't remember the last time you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee. But let's be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And you feared to be in my debt.

I understand. You found paradise in America. You had a good trade, you made a good living. The police protected you and there were courts of law. So you didn't need a friend like me. Now you come and say "Rumpole, make the line shorter." But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship.

You want respect from those who make the decisions? You can try your little email campaign from your namby pamby "list serv" or you can use the blog. Your choice.

Keep cool baby....

OPEN FOR BUSINESS

SATURDAY UPDATE: Well here we are, right in the middle of a hot summer. It's raining on the English Coast in Sandwich as they play the British Open. If you've finished reading Matterhorn (and you should be done by now. Do try and keep up.) then try "Memory Of Running" by Ron McClarty. It's a great debut novel and it's what Rumpole is reading to pass the long steamy summer days.

UPDATE: We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that Judge Linda Wells is the new CJ of the 3rd DCA (motto: No More Extensions!). And a Rumpolian "Well Done Sir" to Judge Juan Ramirez who concluded his tenure as Chief Judge.

Minnesota is open for business again, doncha know.

The land of 10,000 lakes now has a government back in business.

The Times reports here.

Now it remains to be seen if the Federal Government can get its act together.

Meanwhile, one of our summer time favourite events- watching the British Open, promises to provide us with several enjoyable hours this weekend.

See You in Court.

THE CAPTAIN REPORTS:

"The hero and the coward both feel the same thing, but the hero uses his fear, projects it onto his opponent, while the coward runs. It's the same thing, fear, but it's what you do with it that matters." Gus D'Amato

If you missed the ESPY's on Wednesday night, you missed the story of DEWEY BOZELLA. Bozella was presented with the Arthur Ashe Courage Award for 2011 at the annual ESPN awards show last night. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6740501.

During his acceptance speech, Bozella used a quote from the great boxing trainer Gus D'Amato about fear. You see, for 26 years Dewey Bozella stood strong and stared fear directly in the face, and finally, fear blinked.

In 1977, Emma Crasper was 92 years old when she was robbed, beaten, and murdered near her home in Poughkeepsie, New York. In 1983, six years after the murder, two inmates told prosecutors that it was Dewey who'd murdered the old woman. They lied because it enabled them to cut deals that would get them released. Despite the fact that there was absolutely no physical evidence connecting Dewey to the crime, a jury found Bozella guilty and he was sentenced to 20 years to life. The case was appealed and Bozella was granted a new trial. In 1990, during the second trial, the ADA offered Bozella the chance to plead guilty and get credit for time served. Bozella turned down the offer - the jury convicted him again - and he returned to prison. Once again he faced the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars.

During his time in prison, Dewey was a model prisoner. He earned a bachelor's degree from Mercy College. Then a master's from New York Theological Seminary. He got married. Several guards wrote several times to the Parole Commission recommending Dewey be released. At each parole board hearing thereafter, with a chance to walk out of jail if he just confessed to the crime he was convicted of, Dewey maintained his innocence.

Bozella began writing to the Innocence Project, and he did so every month for several years before they finally responded. But when they finally got a chance to look at his file, all of the physical evidence had been destroyed. Eventually, the Innocence Project was able to convince the high-powered law firm of WilmerHale to handle the case on a pro bono basis. Two associates (with no prior criminal defense experience) spent 2,500 hours on the case between 2007 and 2009. Finally, in October of 2009, they convinced the trial judge to grant Dewey yet a third trial. Given the Judge's ruling, the State dropped the charges against him, and on October 28, 2009, after spending 26 years in jail for a crime he did not commit, 50 year old Dewey Bozella walked out of the courthouse a free man. He had spent more than half of his life behind bars for a murder he did not commit.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of Dewey Bozella's in our prisons throughout the State of Florida and all across this country. And the only thing standing between our clients and their freedom is you, the criminal defense attorney. So, the next time your client tells you he/she didn't do it, think about Dewey Bozella and how he handled fear. He stared it down for 26 years until fear finally lost. Don't ever back down from your convictions when fighting for the freedom of your client. You owe it to all of the other Dewey Bozella's of this world.

And, if you want to do more, contact David Rothman locally (he is Board Treasurer of the Florida Innocence Project) or contact the Florida Innocence Project directly at 850-561-6767 or visit their web site at http://floridainnocence.org/index.php .

CAPTAIN OUT ......

THAT TRIAL EXPLAINED

Update: Rumors of a young ASA firing a weapon in the presence of his girlfriend ASA are unfortunately true. The Herald article is here. Lets not get too crazy. People make mistakes. Thankfully no one was injured and one young man lost his job that he worked very hard to get. That's enough. Move on.

Against our better judgment we make one final reference to THAT trial. And actually we are saying nothing. Mr. Abe Laeser said it in an article the Miami Herald ran last Sunday here. Here are some excerpts, but please use the link and read the entire article on the Herald's website.

WHY IS CAYLEE DEAD?

Think you know? Why — did you see her die? Did you look any witness in the eye and ask them questions? Or are you relying on a commentator’s beliefs about what is a just verdict? If so, you are not alone — but you were not a juror in the Casey Anthony trial....

Let us talk about this cottage industry of each media hiring an expert to analyze the case. I would compare the use of these ‘talking heads’ to choosing a doctor. If your personal physician was an experienced general practitioner, or even a skilled hand surgeon, would that doctor be your first choice in case a family member had severe brain injuries caused by a car accident? Not all doctors are the same, nor are all lawyers. Getting on television may bring in more legal business, but it does not make one any smarter — or right....

Because a lawyer may have been in a courtroom during their careers, what do they know about building a case in which the death penalty is being sought? The death penalty is rarely sought, and properly so. Very few have ever stood in the pit and asked that another person be put to death, or try to prevent it. It is daunting in the extreme, and requires the most thorough possible level of preparation...

The use of lawyers on television as a part of the drumbeat for conviction is immoral, unprofessional, and downright frightening. The use of ‘talking heads’ in the media screaming about their expectation of a certain verdict is no more or less than a form of televised lynch mob. If the press and their hired experts are calling for a conviction, or even the death penalty, they are doing so in the knowledge that they are not using the same evidence that the jury has heard in the courtroom. The legal profession must take itself to the woodshed for fueling such improper speculation. Those lawyers must act professionally, and not as advocates or even shills shouting over each other for one result or another...

Why is Caylee dead? It becomes nothing more than a part of one side’s theory of a motive to commit the acts. But it is only a theory. Yes, it seems horrible that she partied, perhaps even after knowing that her child was dead. That makes her seem evil, and it is a simple mental link to believe that she could have caused the death. Quite obviously there are contrary theories; including the most obvious one: even if Casey benefited from the death, was able to restart her life without the “burden” of a child, reach out for a second chance at Bella Vita — no matter how terrible the concept behind that theory is — it still does not give us one bit of proof as to how and why Caylee is dead...

In truth, having all of these versions of the degree of the crime, the manner of the crime, and little proof as to how any one theory precludes the reasonable doubts raised by the alternate theories —
the jury in the trial of Casey Anthony had no legal option but to find the existence of such doubt. If so, they would have been acting contrary to their sworn oaths to convict. They chose to act lawfully. We should all be proud of their courage, even as some may see the with anger at the result. Sure, the evidence points to Casey and she may have done it; perhaps you think that she probably did it; or that she must have done it — but relying only on the proof presented at trial, and asking yourself all of the questions the jurors’ would be duty bound to ask themselves — do you have a doubt about how, in what manner, at whose hands, and Why is Caylee dead?

SEEK ONLY TRUTH

A minor contretemps has broken out on the issue of whether or not a criminal trial is a search for the truth. Louie Jepeway is filing motions to remove signs from our courtrooms saying that we labour in court to seek the truth, and DOM posted part of an op-ed piece written by Professor Alan Dershowitz in the Wall Street Journal here. Professor Dershowitz argues in a nutshell that a criminal trial is about neither truth nor justice for the victim but merely an enterprise designed to answer one simple question- has the prosecution presented proof of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Dershowitz writes:

That is why a criminal trial is not a search for truth. Scientists search for truth. Philosophers search for morality. A criminal trial searches for only one result: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rumpole rumbles: au contraire good professor. Lets take a closer look before we pahrk that cahr in the Hahvard yahrd.

A criminal trial is a search for truth, just not necessarily for the ultimate truth. The problem with Dershowitz's argument is that he tosses truth out of court like some misbegotten rag doll, neither needed nor wanted. In light of the Casey Anthony verdict courts have a public relations problem, whether we like it or not. The last thing we want to do is rub the public's nose in our judicial process by thumbing our nose at truth.

It is true that a criminal trial is not a search for the ultimate truth: "did the defendant do it?"

By definition and grand tradition, a criminal trial is a decision only on whether the prosecution has presented proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But within that framework truth has an important place, indeed the most important place, in a criminal trial.

Did the witness tell the truth when s/he said s/he saw the defendant steal the car?

Did the witness tell the truth when s/he said s/he has no bias against the defendant?

Did the officer tell the truth when s/he said the defendant confessed?

Can we believe the officer when s/he said s/he did not trick the defendant into confessing or did not threaten the defendant or his family with more serious crimes?

Did the officer actually see the Defendant possess the drugs before they found the drugs on the floor of the car?

Do we believe the expert is indeed an expert in the field they say they are?

Did the lab technician competently perform the work they said they did?

Did the defendant's alibi witnesses tell the truth?

Did the defendant tell the truth when he said he acted in self defense?

At every stage of the trial the jury is constantly being required to evaluate testimony to determine what is the truth and whether a witnesses was mistaken or lied or was believable.

In Florida the jury is instructed among other things to consider whether the witness "was honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys questions?" In other words, "was the witness believable? Did the witness tell the truth?"

A criminal trial is and must be a search for the truth. The prosecutor has the job of seeking justice while the defense attorney has the obligation to challenge the evidence as he or she sees fit so that the jury can determine which evidence is believable, which evidence is not. From those dozens or sometimes hundreds of decisions an individual juror makes during a trial a decision is eventually reached- the prosecution did or did not present evidence in the form of witnesses and physical evidence that proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So Professor Dershowitz, we say you acted a bit too hasty in your defense of the American criminal justice system when you tossed truth out the door. Truth remains the anvil upon which evidence is hammered by one side or the other until a decision is reached.

Without truth there can be no verdict. Lest the good professor forget, "Verdict" is a word derived from two Latin words- "Veri'- meaning "truth" and "dicta"- meaning to speak.

When a jury renders a verdict, they speak the truth. So lets be careful before we toss truth out the door.

See You In Court.

WE WHO LABOR HERE...

UPDATE: This was the scene Monday morning as lines to enter the REGJB streatched around the block as thousands of Dade County citizens lined up to view the signs hanging in courtrooms in the REGJB.

Not since old Judge Willard said he saw the Blessed Virgin Mary in a slice of Cazzoli's Pizza has the public been so interested in seeing something inside our humble little courthouse.

Attorney Louie Jepeway is on a mission. (Cue Mission Impossible Theme).

He wants to get rid of the sign that hangs above every judicial bench in Dade County: "We who labor here seek only the truth."

Jepeway has filed a motion to have the sign removed in a case before Judge Sayfie.

The Miami Herald and ace reporter David Ovalle broke this sign shaking story here.

From the article:

According to Miami-Dade’s courts historian, the sign was introduced in the late 1940s by Circuit Judge George S. Holt, a philosopher of sorts who once wrote his fellow jurists should “carry this saying etched in their hearts” in their “fervent quest for justice for their fellow man.”

Best anyone can tell, Holt came up with the saying, which is often quoted in other courts and has even made it’s way into a couple appeals-court opinions.

“This is the first time I’ve ever heard of anyone attacking the declaration,” said Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Scott Silverman, the historian.

Rumpole says: If anyone has a copy of Judge Holt's email to his "fellow jurists" about the slogan, we would love to see it.

Truth be told, we have rubbed that sign in the face of prosecutors and their witnesses more times then we can remember. It is a fairly effective tactic in closing argument to recall for the jury a witness for the prosecution who obviously was not telling the truth and then point to the sign and ask rhetorically "Do you think they believe what is on that sign that applies to the rest of us who work in this courtroom?" (Rumpole trial tip# 17- always try and use phrases containing words like "us" and "we" when speaking to the jury to align yourself with the jury.")

While we're on the subject of signs can we please start challenging Judges who blatantly violate the 14th amendment by banning citizens (namely children, or some signs say "babies") from their courtroom by hanging a sign on the door prohibiting them from entering the courtroom? We would love to see them defend their right to exclude a whole class of people from their courtroom. We have noted before that in enlightened jurisdictions Judges have their bailiffs approach the person with a child to find out why they are in court. The information is then passed to the Judge who calls that person's case out of turn. We of course applaud the child care option in the REGJB, but that still does not give Judges the right to ban children from their courtroom as a blanket policy, so to speak. .

See You In Court, seeking truth.

TALLY HO

TOMORROW: "SIGNS, SIGNS, EVERYWHERE A SIGN..."

UPDATE: A retired Judge writes in on the Ties that bind, below.

The Mail Online, one of the UK rag sheets has picked up the story of the case of the "pictures in the potty" here.

The Broweird SAO has announced that they will be prosecuting the snap-happy traffic mag since the SAO does not handle measly traffic infractions.

What we didn't know about Derek Jeter getting his 3,000th hit was that he was the first Yankee to reach that milestone.

We'd like to pick a day soon and have a TIE-OUT where all male lawyers in court in the REGJB (who are not in trial or in motions) don't wear a tie. Judges can opt in as well if they want.

Who's in? When?

UPDATE: We received this comment:

Former Judge (*happily enjoying life) has left a new comment on your post:

Rumpole - I agree on the tie issue in the summertime. For those who are old enough, Judge Howie "the mouse" Gross always wore a guayabera shirt with no tie. Judge Jose Rodriguez never wears a tie. Attorney Michael Kaufman runs courtroom to courtroom and never wears a tie. I always came in on a Friday during the summer and would never wear a tie (although I wore a robe and zipped it closed). I would never have faulted a hard working attorney, who was not picking a jury, for coming into my courtroom in a casual manner - so long as they did not treat the everyday proceedings in an informal manner or without respect. My advice, just do it. I would be shocked if any of my colleagues would say anything. If they do, I will come out of retirement to vigorously defend you!

Alcee's in hot water again as he's being sued for sexual harassment by a staff member of the Helsinki Commission (what do they do?). For those of you who studied for the Bar in a Starbucks, Representative Alcee Hastings was a Federal Judge in our district until he was Impeached!

It feels like it's going to be a long hot summer.

See You Monday.

WAITIN ON A SUNNY DAY

UPDATE: Who likes a juicy story about two federal judges (Moreno and Zloch) feuding?

Who doesn't?

DOM has all the juicy details here along with the troubling possibility that Federal PD Kathy Williams' nomination to the Federal bench may be collateral damage of Zloch's anger at Moreno. As always Judge Moreno is both a gentleman and the true epitome of a Judge as he tries to navigate these rocky waters while giving a gentle boost to Ms. Williams' nomination.

UPDATE II- The Traffic Magistrate who snaps pictures:

The JAA Blog has links to the PC Affidavit (here) and the Sun Sentinel article here that Browierd Traffic Mag Rhonda "F-Stop" Hollander was taking pictures of men standing at the urinal in the men's bathroom. She also is alleged to have bitten the finger of a BSO deputy who was tasked with investigating the "Case of the Pictures in the Potty."

More fun in Browierd as it develops....

"It's raining. But there ain't a cloud in the sky..."

Bruce Springsteen, "Waitin On a SunnyDay"

Ahem...

Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) is now following you on Twitter!

jayne weintraub (@jcw1818) is now following you on Twitter! You know you're big time when your email in box has those messages in it. Apologizes to DOM for stepping on his federal toes and posting the jury note in Bill Matthewman's case. That is clearly DOM's milieu.

THE JURY NOTE

Last week Bill Matthewman obtained a remarkable acquittal for his client in federal court. We wrote about it a few posts ago here.

Here is the aforementioned jury note that was written by the jury who requested that it be read after the verdict.

VALDEZ.jury Note

DSK COMPLAINING WITNESS SHOCKER!

As incredible as it seems, the NY Post is reporting that the hotel maid who claimed she was attacked by the former head of the IMF performed acts of prostitution while ensconced in a hotel by the Manhattan DA's office for weeks after the attack.

There is also word today that the woman has filed a libel lawsuit against the Post.

Miami used to get the good cases.

See You In Court.

BACK TO WORK TUESDAY JULY 5, 2011

How was your holiday weekend? Did the rain get you down? We managed to get some rest and eat a Chicago style dog or two, and now we're raring to go.

Karma is a funny thing sometimes, and other times it is tragic. Here is a sad story of a motorcyclist who died when he hit is head in an accident in a ride protesting- you guessed it- New York State;s law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

What's not funny sometimes is crime. This shocking incident shook us to our core. We have immediately reached out to the poor victim to offer her comfort and whatever help she may need. Sometimes a person just has to stop being a spectator and jump in and help. This case pushed us over the edge.

That big hullabaloo trial in Orlando is nearly over. We could care less and don't look here for updates on the verdict. And when we write we could care less what that means is that coverage of this trial is way over blown. A young child is dead and that bothers us greatly. These morons who are getting paid to feast on TV over this tragedy and speculate as if they are some sort of expert make us ill.

Those who can try cases do try cases. Those who can't try cases like to talk about trying cases. They should be ashamed to show their faces in public, after we have all seen them desperately clawing for TV time and publicity over the body of this dead child. And that's the last you will hear us speak about this case and those phony creeps.

Two weird things happened in Broweird over the holiday weekend.

1) Traffic Magistrate Rhonda Hollander was arrested on felony charges for what the JAA Blog calls "a bizarro" incident.

2) Bob Norman has the info on a Broweird ASA (Corey Ackerman) suspended over his prior conduct at RRA (Scott Rothstein's old firm).

Dog bites man (yawn). Judges in NY are leaving the bench to get more money. (Yawn). They don't feel appreciated. Poor things.

Rumpole Rant:

Here we are right in the middle of summer and our chief judges still refuse to recognize that the rest of the civilized southern legal establishment (and also Broward County) puts a summer dress code into effect that allows all lawyers (not just female lawyers) to appear in court for routine matters sans tie.

But not here in Dade County. No, here in Dade County our chief judges still expect male attorneys to dress as if it is the middle of January in Minnesota- (which is still shut down by the way)- with a coat and a tie. And by the way, this rant extends to our Chief Judge for the federal courts in the southern district. He doesn't get a pass.

See you in court.

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY

H A P P Y 4TH O F J U L Y

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

THE DR IS IN

Welcome to Minnesota.

We are currently closed and apologize for any inconvenience.

We hope to re-open shortly doncha know.

Have a good day.

And anytime you feel the pain, hey Jude, refrain
Don't carry the world upon your shoulders
For well you know that it's a fool who plays it cool
By making his world a little colder

r-mqc;gck.dr -in post. edit Minn closed+Beatles/sun/mqc

LONG WEEKEND AHEAD

UPDATE: MATTHEWMAN GETS A NOT GUILTY!

It took two trials, two Allen charges and two very long deliberations and one special post verdict jury note, , but Bill Matthewman walked his client out of Judge Dimitrouleas's courtroom Thursday night on a Conspiracy PWID +500 grams.

It takes a very good lawyer to get an NG in federal court. It takes a great lawyer to get one after a hung jury. And that's just what happened Thursday. A great lawyer prevailed. A Rumpolian WELL DONE Mr. Mathhewman. Well done indeed.

Post script: the case is USA v. Fabiola E Valdez. 11-80034-cr-WMD or 11-80034-cr Cohn as Judge Cohn was the original Judge. The DEA claimed Mr. Matthewman's confessed. But they have their precious policy of not recording post arrest statements. The jury sent out this note: We are disappointed by the agents' failure to record the statement, or videotape or photograph the surveillance of the defendant, which therefore caused the agents to fail to submit proof to us of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The original note should be up on Pacer soon. We no nothing about this case, but beyond what must have been stellar cross examination, you want to know where this case was won? It was won in the most important part of the case: Voire Dire! Mr. Matthewman got a jury that understood burden of proof, reasonable doubt and was not afraid to apply the law. What a great lesson on the eve of independence day. It's what we as Americans are all about.

Judging from the last two posts the lawyers in the REGJB are primarily interested in 1) Good Barbecue and secondarily interested in 2) non-lawyers who practice law and steal their fees.

FYI- and in case the yahoos at the Florida Bar are interested (We can do that- we're anonymous!)

Court Options promotes a "Record Sealing Specialist" named Melanie Covey who is 1) not licensed (ok- maybe she has a driver's license) and 2) not regulated by any agency in her record sealing endeavors.

Here's the real rub (continuing with our barbecue theme): a Florida lawyer, no matter how experienced, is precluded from identifying themselves as a specialist in any area of the law. But some individual who may or may not have their GED apparently is allowed to solicit clients and identify herself as a "specialist" in a particular area of the law. Go figure.

The sexual assault case against former head of the IMF- Dominique Strauss- Kahn, is about to fall apart. The Times article is here.

OK: now the important stuff.

The 4th of July approaches. How do you take your hot dog? On the grill, boiled, fried, with kraut, or (our personal favourite) Chicago Style.

For you neophytes, a Chicago Style dog is steamed/boiled, and put on a seeded bun with yellow mustard, sweet raw onions, sweet relish, a tomato slice, a pickle slice, and a small pickle pepper. A dash of celery salt finishes the dog off. In some parts of the country it is entirely acceptable to put some french fries on top of the dog. However. it is absolutely forbidden to put ketchup on a Chicago Dog. Some of the real old time vendors in the Second City do not even carry ketchup in their establishment.

Below is a typical Chicago Style Dog.