Mr. Thompson kicks off the week with a letter to the ACLU, confirming the oft quoted affirmation that politics makes strange bedfellows. The letter is in the comments section.
Query re: The Bar and Broward Attorney Sean Conway: Should there be any regulatory supervision over what an attorney says about a Judge? Or should it just be a free for all?
Attorneys (are supposed to) occupy a special place in our society. In our practice we are very judicious about what we say to our clients about judges assigned to their case. The door swings both ways on this. A client who has a tough case assigned to a Judge that we believe is very fair and not afraid to grant a motion despite the consequences, may still well end up with a poor result (although hiring us is a step in the right direction.).
Similarly, a client with what appears to be an easy case may have a Judge who we believe is prosecution oriented to the extent they will ignore favorable case law if at all possible.
In those cases we believe, unless the circumstances are extreme, we have a responsibility to not disparage the justice system and try our best and let the client see the outcome in court. However, the Aleman scenario in Broward may well be that extreme situation. We would not have resulted to crass name calling on a blog (far be it from us to do that!). But we would have expressed an unfavorable opinion to the client about the Judge's policy of what we view as pure extortion in the misguided attempt to get clients to waive their rights to speedy trial by threatening them with a trial before their counsel had time to prepare.
But this analysis goes a step further. Assume the Bar exonerated Conway's statements because of Aleman's conduct. The result is a gutting of the Bar's prohibition regarding derogatory comments about Judges. Any Judge who had a case reversed on appeal would be fair game for the worst possible comments about their ability (hmm...we could be on to something here) and any attorney challenged by the Bar would have a sure-fire defense.
Questions of such magnitude are better suited for the wise and learned legislature and experienced Judges.
Ok. We shall stop joking. The serious issue is that unless we as attorneys and Bar members resolve this issue together with the Judiciary, we will have an answer forced upon us by yahoo politicians who never pass up an opportunity to disparage attorneys, especially criminal defense attorneys, to get curry favor with voters.
See You In Court, where we go out of our way to heap tons 'o' praise upon our learned and distinguished robed readers.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Sunday, December 16, 2007
DOLPHINS WIN!!!!
BREAKING BLOG NEWS!!!
DOLPHINS WIN
It was 3rd and 8, with 8:30 remaining in overtime as Cleo Lemon coolly stepped to the line and surveyed the vaunted Baltimore Ravens defense lined up before him.
Earlier, the Dolphins had surrendered a last second field goal in regulation - stopping the Ravens at the one foot line with 12 seconds left to play.
Then in overtime, Ohio State Phenom rookie QB Troy Smith marched the Ravens to the Dolphins 26 yard line. Ravens kicker Matt Stover, who was 5 for 5 in overtime field goals confidently strode out on to the field to kick the 44 yard game winner.
But today in the rain of Miami, it was a day for aquatic mammals and not birds, as the bad snap on the attempt caused the field goal to drift wide left, giving the Dolphins a sliver of hope for the game and the season.
The offense ran on to the field with a determined glint in their eye. It was now or never.
1st and ten from the 34 was a running play for a loss of three yards.
2nd and 13 saw Cleo Lemon scramble away from the blitzing Ravens for a 5 yard pick up.
And so with 8:34 left to play, on third down and eight, the fickle fingers of fate and history intertwined just the right way for our Dolphins.
The Ravens opened with 6 defensive backs.
The Dolphins countered with 4 wide receivers and Lemon in the shotgun.
Greg Camarillo, number 83 was in the slot to the right. Discarded by the San Diego Chargers earlier in the year, Miami had become his hope for redemption in the NFL. Camarillio returned the favor.
Lemon sent him into motion.
The ball was snapped and Lemon dropped back to pass. At about the Dolphins' 47 yard line a bullet of a pass hit Camarillo right between the 8 and the 3 and suddenly there was one man standing between the Dolphins and the trash pile of an inglorious 0-16 season and history.
The race went to the swift today as Camarillo scored on a 64 yard pass play, which just happened to be both Camarillo's first touchdown reception of his career and the longest play from scrimmage for the Dolphins this year.
What followed was a re-affirmation of love and faith between hopeful fans and tired but unbowed players. There was a celebration in the end zone, along with jubilation in the stands that spread all the way up to the owners box, where television cameras caught Wayne Huizenga with more than a tear in his eye.
Come what may, the Dolphins are no longer losers this year.
DOLPHINS WIN
It was 3rd and 8, with 8:30 remaining in overtime as Cleo Lemon coolly stepped to the line and surveyed the vaunted Baltimore Ravens defense lined up before him.
Earlier, the Dolphins had surrendered a last second field goal in regulation - stopping the Ravens at the one foot line with 12 seconds left to play.
Then in overtime, Ohio State Phenom rookie QB Troy Smith marched the Ravens to the Dolphins 26 yard line. Ravens kicker Matt Stover, who was 5 for 5 in overtime field goals confidently strode out on to the field to kick the 44 yard game winner.
But today in the rain of Miami, it was a day for aquatic mammals and not birds, as the bad snap on the attempt caused the field goal to drift wide left, giving the Dolphins a sliver of hope for the game and the season.
The offense ran on to the field with a determined glint in their eye. It was now or never.
1st and ten from the 34 was a running play for a loss of three yards.
2nd and 13 saw Cleo Lemon scramble away from the blitzing Ravens for a 5 yard pick up.
And so with 8:34 left to play, on third down and eight, the fickle fingers of fate and history intertwined just the right way for our Dolphins.
The Ravens opened with 6 defensive backs.
The Dolphins countered with 4 wide receivers and Lemon in the shotgun.
Greg Camarillo, number 83 was in the slot to the right. Discarded by the San Diego Chargers earlier in the year, Miami had become his hope for redemption in the NFL. Camarillio returned the favor.
Lemon sent him into motion.
The ball was snapped and Lemon dropped back to pass. At about the Dolphins' 47 yard line a bullet of a pass hit Camarillo right between the 8 and the 3 and suddenly there was one man standing between the Dolphins and the trash pile of an inglorious 0-16 season and history.
The race went to the swift today as Camarillo scored on a 64 yard pass play, which just happened to be both Camarillo's first touchdown reception of his career and the longest play from scrimmage for the Dolphins this year.
What followed was a re-affirmation of love and faith between hopeful fans and tired but unbowed players. There was a celebration in the end zone, along with jubilation in the stands that spread all the way up to the owners box, where television cameras caught Wayne Huizenga with more than a tear in his eye.
Come what may, the Dolphins are no longer losers this year.
WEEK FOURTEEN
The weather plays a significant factor in games today. It is not enough to just pick any game in the northeast and play the under. If you are serious about this and you are considering for instance the under in the Jets/Cheaters game, you should call someone in Beantown and see exactly what is going on.
In the Buffalo/Cleveland game, played in Cleveland today, the opening over/under line of 47 dropped ten points to 37 because of the weather. At last check, there was still a 100% forecast for snow this afternoon along with increasing winds. However, if there is a break in the front during the game, the over would be a sweet play.
Ravens at Miami. Call us a sucker, but as the season winds on we just can’t let go of the Dolphins and their futile attempt to just win one for the Shula. The Dolphins are 4 point home underdogs, and as we saw last week, the Fins are a different team lead by a Lemon. The Ravens have shown that they can play with the best team in the league, when they had the game one twice in the fourth quarter, only to have the Cheaters get three chances on fourth down (one naturally, on a Cheaters penalty) before the Cheaters finally converted and went on to win the game. No call here, but the Fins are competitive. Is that winning by two or losing by five? No idea.
The Cheaters are 22-24 point favorites against the Jets. This game has a lot of undercurrents. The weather should keep the scoring down which means take the Jets. Mangini, the coach of the Jets, left the Cheaters without the blessing of the dark prince Belichick. And of course, after the first game of the season Mangini dropped a dime on his former boss and cost him a half million bucks and a first round draft pick. Belichick has lots of reasons to run up the score here. Yet the weather and the desire to keep his players healthy may keep the margin of victory around 17 or so.
UPDATE: Based on the weather, we like the Jets +22 or even +20, and the under 50. We like those plays based on the weather, a lot.
The Colts roll into Oakland. The Colts need to keep winning and hold on to the second seed and first round bye. Oakland has shown signs of strength recently, and the Colts by 10 looks good.
The Lions visit San Diego, and again while we like the Charger -10.5 at him as they try and keep their playoff hopes alive, over 46 is the better play.
Green Bay Packers go to St. Louis, and play in doors. Favre historically plays much better outside, but he is having one of his best seasons ever this year. The Pack was one of the early trends we completely missed. We like the Pack – 8.5, and as is the theme today, we really like the over 45.5.
Seahawks at Carolina. The Seahawks have been quiet winners of their past five games, as Mike Holmgren prepares his team for another playoff run. The Hawks’ margin of victory on the road is around 5 or six, so seven points is a bit much here. But Carolina is having a disastrous season.
So….with the full understanding that our bookie has a bigger boat than we do because of teasers, and because we are 0-1 on our only teaser this season, we offer this sucker bet:
Remember you bet 110 units to win 100 on a teaser and each team gets an extra six points. Our teaser for today is : Seahawks -1 and Colts -4.5 Good luck.
In the Buffalo/Cleveland game, played in Cleveland today, the opening over/under line of 47 dropped ten points to 37 because of the weather. At last check, there was still a 100% forecast for snow this afternoon along with increasing winds. However, if there is a break in the front during the game, the over would be a sweet play.
Ravens at Miami. Call us a sucker, but as the season winds on we just can’t let go of the Dolphins and their futile attempt to just win one for the Shula. The Dolphins are 4 point home underdogs, and as we saw last week, the Fins are a different team lead by a Lemon. The Ravens have shown that they can play with the best team in the league, when they had the game one twice in the fourth quarter, only to have the Cheaters get three chances on fourth down (one naturally, on a Cheaters penalty) before the Cheaters finally converted and went on to win the game. No call here, but the Fins are competitive. Is that winning by two or losing by five? No idea.
The Cheaters are 22-24 point favorites against the Jets. This game has a lot of undercurrents. The weather should keep the scoring down which means take the Jets. Mangini, the coach of the Jets, left the Cheaters without the blessing of the dark prince Belichick. And of course, after the first game of the season Mangini dropped a dime on his former boss and cost him a half million bucks and a first round draft pick. Belichick has lots of reasons to run up the score here. Yet the weather and the desire to keep his players healthy may keep the margin of victory around 17 or so.
UPDATE: Based on the weather, we like the Jets +22 or even +20, and the under 50. We like those plays based on the weather, a lot.
The Colts roll into Oakland. The Colts need to keep winning and hold on to the second seed and first round bye. Oakland has shown signs of strength recently, and the Colts by 10 looks good.
The Lions visit San Diego, and again while we like the Charger -10.5 at him as they try and keep their playoff hopes alive, over 46 is the better play.
Green Bay Packers go to St. Louis, and play in doors. Favre historically plays much better outside, but he is having one of his best seasons ever this year. The Pack was one of the early trends we completely missed. We like the Pack – 8.5, and as is the theme today, we really like the over 45.5.
Seahawks at Carolina. The Seahawks have been quiet winners of their past five games, as Mike Holmgren prepares his team for another playoff run. The Hawks’ margin of victory on the road is around 5 or six, so seven points is a bit much here. But Carolina is having a disastrous season.
So….with the full understanding that our bookie has a bigger boat than we do because of teasers, and because we are 0-1 on our only teaser this season, we offer this sucker bet:
Remember you bet 110 units to win 100 on a teaser and each team gets an extra six points. Our teaser for today is : Seahawks -1 and Colts -4.5 Good luck.
Friday, December 14, 2007
LOVE IS IN THE AIR...AND IN COURT
about this woman who is being prosecuted for bigamy by our own Dade County State Attorneys Office. She is alleged to have married ten men.
There is no truth to the rumor Judge Farina will be creating a Bigamy Offender Felony (BOF) division to handle the influx of these cases.
And we can't even get a date for the Nutcracker.
WHICH WITCH IS WHICH?
The Broward Blog reports that the Wall Street Journal has picked up the story about the Florida Bar's disciplinary hearing into Broward lawyer Sean Conway's comments on the Broward Blog about Judge Aleman.
If Conway plays his cards right, he could turn this into a spot on Larry King and Letterman.
DEPOS?
If some early bird can give us an update on the 7:15 hearing before Judge David Miller (sponsored by Starbucks!) on the court reporter case, we would appreciate it.
The comments on the court reporter case have mostly been about the viability of depositions.
Here is what we wrote:
The States that don't have depos, have preliminary hearings. A Preliminary hearing would be easier for defense attorneys because we wouldn't spend two months fighting to get the cops to show up. The Court and the Prosecutor would do all the work.
If you do away with depos, you are adding a layer of bureaucracy- a Judge, a court reporter, a courtroom, a bailiff, a clerk- to the discovery process. Not to mention the support staff from the prosecutors office to get it all lined up. It doesn't sound cheaper to us.
Mr. Abe Laeser wrote in to support the veiw that depositions assist prosecutors in evaluating their case. Former Justice Kogan of the Florida Supreme Court (who was a former prosecutor and trial Judge in Miami Dade) wrote as a Supreme Court Justice of the benefits Mr. Laeser mentions to prosecutors in evaluating their case through the deposition process.
So, whither depositions?
The comments on the court reporter case have mostly been about the viability of depositions.
Here is what we wrote:
The States that don't have depos, have preliminary hearings. A Preliminary hearing would be easier for defense attorneys because we wouldn't spend two months fighting to get the cops to show up. The Court and the Prosecutor would do all the work.
If you do away with depos, you are adding a layer of bureaucracy- a Judge, a court reporter, a courtroom, a bailiff, a clerk- to the discovery process. Not to mention the support staff from the prosecutors office to get it all lined up. It doesn't sound cheaper to us.
Mr. Abe Laeser wrote in to support the veiw that depositions assist prosecutors in evaluating their case. Former Justice Kogan of the Florida Supreme Court (who was a former prosecutor and trial Judge in Miami Dade) wrote as a Supreme Court Justice of the benefits Mr. Laeser mentions to prosecutors in evaluating their case through the deposition process.
So, whither depositions?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
THE COURT REPORTERS STRIKE BACK
Tomorrow (or today if you are reading this on Friday) Circuit Judge David Miller will be hearing an emergency motion at 7:15 AM (yes 7:15 AM!!!) on this lawsuit:
GOLDMAN, NACCARATO, PATTERSON,
VELA, & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
versus
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE,
Miami-Dade County State Attorney;
Administrative Office of the Courts of the
11th Judicial Circuit, JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida,
RICHARD ROSENBAUM, “Private Court-
Appointed Counsel” or attorneys representing
“indigent for costs” defendants.
Defendants.
This gist of the lawsuit filed by attorney John R. Sutton: Goldman Naccarato, a well known and well respected court reporting firm, demanded that JAC pay their firm for 40 thousand dollars in unpaid court reporting bills. JAC responded in the manner that we would expect this wonderful agency to do- they terminated Goldman Naccarato's contract, including the six felony courtrooms the firm was contracted to cover.
HERE IS PART OF THE LAWSUIT'S REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:
32. The Plaintiff anticipates certain orders of transcripts after being terminated by JAC.
33. The Plaintiff recognizes and wishes to comply with its duties to timely provide proper transcription of all necessary proceedings.
34. The Plaintiff is unable to identify a responsible party for the invoices.
35. The Plaintiff has no available remedy as a matter of law and has come to
equity with clean hands.
36. This is a very real and emergent controversy for which there is an adversarial relationship regarding the payment of the Plaintiff’s invoices for orders in the future after termination.
37. This controversy is as emergent as is the operation of the Circuit Courts in and for Miami Dade County which require reporters to function.
38. The Plaintiff emphasizes its satisfaction in working for the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the Circuit Courts, but suffers the quagmire of substantial and sometimes overnight transcription, and delivery of lengthy transcripts of court proceedings when the Plaintiff is terminated by JAC and has no certain right to payment by any known party. As such, all interested parties are named herein.
39. The Plaintiff’s business is at stake as its reporters will resign if prompt payment under contract is not assured and the Exhibit 2 termination overruled as an improper tortious interference with contractual rights.
40. Upon knowledge and belief, it is clear and apparent that PCAC and indigent for costs attorneys will order both transcripts of court proceedings and deposition transcripts.
41. In contradiction to the above, it is clear and obvious that appellate courts will enforce prompt delivery of transcripts.
42. The Plaintiff wishes to carry out its duties under Exhibit 1 and urges interested Defendants to assist in the development of a certainly reliable plan for compensation.
43. This Court should take jurisdiction of this matter and find that it is a matter of great importance and schedule an appropriate evidentiary hearing to evaluate the status of the conflict in Exhibits 1 and 2 and thereupon render instructions to the Plaintiff so that it is not required to deliver transcripts on penalty of fine or contempt and then without payment.
44. It is the Plaintiff’s concern and belief that the JAC terminated its contractual relationship with Plaintiff as retaliation for Plaintiff filing a Complaint for outstanding payments.
45. The Plaintiff has elected to file this action to identify the predicament and obtain instruction from this Court regarding transcription of depositions and court proceedings including trial transcripts, to Defendants represented by court-appointed counsel or who have been declared insolvent for costs
Wherefore the Plaintiff prays for Declaratory Judgment, emergency evidentiary hearing and requests this Court order all Defendants appear in Miami Dade County Circuit Court to present its analysis of the problem and solution to the problem.
Rumpole says: when JAC refuses to pay court reporters, our clients suffer. In a sense, the prosecution is getting through the back door, what they couldn't get through the front door: doing away with depositions in felony cases. If JAC prevails, we will enter an era where your clients will truly only be able to get the justice they can afford to pay for.
Many of our readers know the court reporting firm and the principals who run it. We have had no contact with them on this matter whatsoever. We obtained the lawsuit from another source. However, it might be nice to tell the reporters that you stand behind them, and offer them whatever assistance they may need- from a donation to pay for costs of the litigation, to offering to be a witness in their case. We as defense attorneys are strongest as advocates for our clients when we speak with one united voice. In this matter more than the welfare of this court reporting firm is at stake. Our ability to defend our clients is also being directly threatened by JAC. We need to support these court reporters as they "strike back." May the force be with them.
See you in court.
GOLDMAN, NACCARATO, PATTERSON,
VELA, & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
versus
KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE,
Miami-Dade County State Attorney;
Administrative Office of the Courts of the
11th Judicial Circuit, JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida,
RICHARD ROSENBAUM, “Private Court-
Appointed Counsel” or attorneys representing
“indigent for costs” defendants.
Defendants.
This gist of the lawsuit filed by attorney John R. Sutton: Goldman Naccarato, a well known and well respected court reporting firm, demanded that JAC pay their firm for 40 thousand dollars in unpaid court reporting bills. JAC responded in the manner that we would expect this wonderful agency to do- they terminated Goldman Naccarato's contract, including the six felony courtrooms the firm was contracted to cover.
HERE IS PART OF THE LAWSUIT'S REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT:
32. The Plaintiff anticipates certain orders of transcripts after being terminated by JAC.
33. The Plaintiff recognizes and wishes to comply with its duties to timely provide proper transcription of all necessary proceedings.
34. The Plaintiff is unable to identify a responsible party for the invoices.
35. The Plaintiff has no available remedy as a matter of law and has come to
equity with clean hands.
36. This is a very real and emergent controversy for which there is an adversarial relationship regarding the payment of the Plaintiff’s invoices for orders in the future after termination.
37. This controversy is as emergent as is the operation of the Circuit Courts in and for Miami Dade County which require reporters to function.
38. The Plaintiff emphasizes its satisfaction in working for the State Attorney, Public Defender, and the Circuit Courts, but suffers the quagmire of substantial and sometimes overnight transcription, and delivery of lengthy transcripts of court proceedings when the Plaintiff is terminated by JAC and has no certain right to payment by any known party. As such, all interested parties are named herein.
39. The Plaintiff’s business is at stake as its reporters will resign if prompt payment under contract is not assured and the Exhibit 2 termination overruled as an improper tortious interference with contractual rights.
40. Upon knowledge and belief, it is clear and apparent that PCAC and indigent for costs attorneys will order both transcripts of court proceedings and deposition transcripts.
41. In contradiction to the above, it is clear and obvious that appellate courts will enforce prompt delivery of transcripts.
42. The Plaintiff wishes to carry out its duties under Exhibit 1 and urges interested Defendants to assist in the development of a certainly reliable plan for compensation.
43. This Court should take jurisdiction of this matter and find that it is a matter of great importance and schedule an appropriate evidentiary hearing to evaluate the status of the conflict in Exhibits 1 and 2 and thereupon render instructions to the Plaintiff so that it is not required to deliver transcripts on penalty of fine or contempt and then without payment.
44. It is the Plaintiff’s concern and belief that the JAC terminated its contractual relationship with Plaintiff as retaliation for Plaintiff filing a Complaint for outstanding payments.
45. The Plaintiff has elected to file this action to identify the predicament and obtain instruction from this Court regarding transcription of depositions and court proceedings including trial transcripts, to Defendants represented by court-appointed counsel or who have been declared insolvent for costs
Wherefore the Plaintiff prays for Declaratory Judgment, emergency evidentiary hearing and requests this Court order all Defendants appear in Miami Dade County Circuit Court to present its analysis of the problem and solution to the problem.
Rumpole says: when JAC refuses to pay court reporters, our clients suffer. In a sense, the prosecution is getting through the back door, what they couldn't get through the front door: doing away with depositions in felony cases. If JAC prevails, we will enter an era where your clients will truly only be able to get the justice they can afford to pay for.
Many of our readers know the court reporting firm and the principals who run it. We have had no contact with them on this matter whatsoever. We obtained the lawsuit from another source. However, it might be nice to tell the reporters that you stand behind them, and offer them whatever assistance they may need- from a donation to pay for costs of the litigation, to offering to be a witness in their case. We as defense attorneys are strongest as advocates for our clients when we speak with one united voice. In this matter more than the welfare of this court reporting firm is at stake. Our ability to defend our clients is also being directly threatened by JAC. We need to support these court reporters as they "strike back." May the force be with them.
See you in court.
BLOG AT YOUR OWN RISK
The Broward Blog (link on the left) and the Sun Sentinel HERE report that the Florida Bar (motto: "If you're a lawyer, we're gonna getcha") has found probable cause to proceed to a disciplinary hearing against Broward Attorney Sean Conway for calling embattled North Of the Border Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Aleman "an evil unfair witch" when blogging about her practice of setting cases for trial within two weeks of arraignment. (Now don't you robed readers in Dade start getting excited. Look where Aleman ended up-having to pay Bogenschutz a load of bucks to save her robe.)
Res Ipsa Loquitor anyone?
Conway is being defended by well known Broward defense attorney Fred Haddad, who plans to defend Mr. Conway with a little used, archaic concept mostly unknown to the Bar's grievance committee: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
We cannot confirm rumours that the Justice Department may file an amicus curiae brief denying the existence and legitimacy of the "so called amendment."
Caveat Blogger.
(Three latin phrases in one post. We suspect the eggnog in our office may well be spiked.)
HR.
Res Ipsa Loquitor anyone?
Conway is being defended by well known Broward defense attorney Fred Haddad, who plans to defend Mr. Conway with a little used, archaic concept mostly unknown to the Bar's grievance committee: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
We cannot confirm rumours that the Justice Department may file an amicus curiae brief denying the existence and legitimacy of the "so called amendment."
Caveat Blogger.
(Three latin phrases in one post. We suspect the eggnog in our office may well be spiked.)
HR.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Mercy Mercy
The quality of mercy is not strained, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blest:It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes the throned monarch better than his crown...
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's,
Portia, Merchant of Venice.
Many times (but not too many) in our fabled career, we have been called upon to beseech those that wear black robes to dispense both mercy and justice.
Lately, there has been commentary in the media about the 23 month sentence Michael Vick received. We have read and heard sports commentators and media figures state that while they believe Vick needed to be punished, his punishment, which caused Vick the loss of a 50 million dollar contract, was too severe. In essence, what they are saying is that because of what Vick lost, which is more than the average individual, his punishment exceeded what was necessary.
Our thoughts on this are mixed. However, what occurs to us is that people criticizing the sentence have no experience with clients being sent to prison (which unfortunately we do in those rare cases that our pleas before a jury fall on deaf ears).
Even the slightest prison sentence usually results in an individual losing their job, placing their house in jeopardy, and a hardship in economic and social matters beyond the months served. Basically everyone loses money and work and has career problems after going to prison. With privilege and great wealth comes responsibility, which Vick did not demonstrate.
Should the Judge have sentenced Mr. Vick to less time because Vick stood to lose significantly more than the average defendant? We say no. While personal considerations should be relevant in sentencing, business considerations rarely should affect a Judge’s decision to lessen a sentence. Mr. Vick ruthlessly participated in abusing and killing animals. If the collateral consequence of his sentence is that besides being incarcerated he loses 50 million dollars and years during a playing career that cannot be recaptured, so be it.
It was not that long ago when professional athletes were drafted into the armed service and sent to war. Ted Williams lost at least five years of professional baseball when he served his country as a front line fighter pilot during WWII and the Korean War. There are some things, perhaps many things, more important than an athletic career. We say this even though we recognize that athletic careers today, with the potential to earn over a hundred million dollars are vastly more lucrative than athletic careers were up through the 1970’s.
The only value we see in the Vick discussion is the value in understanding that incarceration is a severe form of punishment. To the extent the Vick saga lessens the general public’s appetite for the “lock em up and throw away the key” approach to criminal law, that is a good thing. But Vick deserves every day of the sentence he received, and we hope he feels in someway the pain and misery he has caused.
See you in court, where because of this blog and our big mouth, we can no longer wow Judges with our memorized recital of Portia’s elegant speech.
Upon the place beneath.
It is twice blest:It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes the throned monarch better than his crown...
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's,
Portia, Merchant of Venice.
Many times (but not too many) in our fabled career, we have been called upon to beseech those that wear black robes to dispense both mercy and justice.
Lately, there has been commentary in the media about the 23 month sentence Michael Vick received. We have read and heard sports commentators and media figures state that while they believe Vick needed to be punished, his punishment, which caused Vick the loss of a 50 million dollar contract, was too severe. In essence, what they are saying is that because of what Vick lost, which is more than the average individual, his punishment exceeded what was necessary.
Our thoughts on this are mixed. However, what occurs to us is that people criticizing the sentence have no experience with clients being sent to prison (which unfortunately we do in those rare cases that our pleas before a jury fall on deaf ears).
Even the slightest prison sentence usually results in an individual losing their job, placing their house in jeopardy, and a hardship in economic and social matters beyond the months served. Basically everyone loses money and work and has career problems after going to prison. With privilege and great wealth comes responsibility, which Vick did not demonstrate.
Should the Judge have sentenced Mr. Vick to less time because Vick stood to lose significantly more than the average defendant? We say no. While personal considerations should be relevant in sentencing, business considerations rarely should affect a Judge’s decision to lessen a sentence. Mr. Vick ruthlessly participated in abusing and killing animals. If the collateral consequence of his sentence is that besides being incarcerated he loses 50 million dollars and years during a playing career that cannot be recaptured, so be it.
It was not that long ago when professional athletes were drafted into the armed service and sent to war. Ted Williams lost at least five years of professional baseball when he served his country as a front line fighter pilot during WWII and the Korean War. There are some things, perhaps many things, more important than an athletic career. We say this even though we recognize that athletic careers today, with the potential to earn over a hundred million dollars are vastly more lucrative than athletic careers were up through the 1970’s.
The only value we see in the Vick discussion is the value in understanding that incarceration is a severe form of punishment. To the extent the Vick saga lessens the general public’s appetite for the “lock em up and throw away the key” approach to criminal law, that is a good thing. But Vick deserves every day of the sentence he received, and we hope he feels in someway the pain and misery he has caused.
See you in court, where because of this blog and our big mouth, we can no longer wow Judges with our memorized recital of Portia’s elegant speech.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
FEDERAL (yawn) SENTENCING
Here is some shocking news. You might want to sit down before you read this. The Supreme Court decided yesterday that Judges must issue .....(hang on now)
reasonable sentences.
Granted, some Judges North of the Border were fit to be tied upon hearing the news, as well as an unfortunate minority of Judges in our building, but other than that, the decisions issued yesterday by the Supreme Court in Kimbrough HERE and Gall HERE were run of the mill, post Booker/Blakley federal sentencing cases.
Because we are a full service blog, we will summarize the decisions for you, so you don't have to waste precious time reading case law.
1) The majority opinion by Justice Ginsberg in Kimbrough is nothing earth shaking. Rather, in post Booker sentencing, the decision affirms the trial court’s ability to fashion a sentence above or below the guidelines, so long as the sentence is reasonable, and addresses the statutory provisions that a sentencing court must consider. Ginsberg wrote:
The ultimate question in Kimbrough’s case is “whether the sentence was reasonable—i.e., whether the District Judge abused his discretion in determining that the §3553(a) factors supported a sentence of [15 years] and
justified a substantial deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Yawn. So what else is new? Judges have to issue a reasonable sentence that accomplishes the goals of §3553(a). So long as a Judge says the sentence meets those goals, and does a fairly accurate on the record analysis of the specific factors in 3553, an appellate court should not disturb it.
What caught our attention was Justice Thomas’s dissent. The dissent in Kimbrough is a fairly nifty “I told you so” repudiation of the remedy of Booker.
Thomas wrote:
The Court, (in the Booker line of cases) however, chose a more sweeping remedy. Despite acknowledging that under the mandatory Guidelines not “every sentence gives rise to a Sixth Amendment violation,” the Court rendered the Guidelines advisory in their entirety and mandated appellate review of all sentences for “reasonableness.”
As will be seen, Thomas has a problem with the remedy of Booker.
As a result of the Court’s remedial approach, we are now called upon to decide a multiplicity of questions that have no discernibly legal answers.
In other words, Congress makes the law, court’s interpret the law. But here, according to Thomas, the Court has gone beyond invalidating the sentencing scheme of the guidelines. The court has manufactured a remedy, which after Booker, it must now continually define.
And if you know Justice Thomas like we know Justice Thomas, you know that he has no patience for judicial law making.
Congress did not mandate a reasonableness standard of appellate review—
that was a standard the remedial majority in Booker fashioned out of whole cloth. The Court must now give content to that standard, but in so doing it does not and
cannot rely on any statutory language or congressional intent.
We are asked here to determine whether, under the new advisory Guidelines regime, district courts may impose sentences based in part on their disagreement with
a categorical policy judgment reflected in the Guidelines.
But the Court’s answer to that question necessarily derives from something other than the statutory language or congressional intent because Congress, by making the Guidelines mandatory, quite clearly intended to bind district courts to the Sentencing Commission’s categorical policy judgments. By rejecting this statutory approach, the Booker remedial majority has left the Court with no law to apply and forced it to assume the legislative role of devising a new sentencing scheme.
The Court had granted cert in a case asking just that question last year, but alas the Appellant assumed room temperature before the case was argued, mooting the decision, for him at least.
Justice Stevens wrote:
We also reject the use of a rigid mathematical formula that uses the percentage of a departure as the standard for determining the strength of the justifications
required for a specific sentence...
Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. ..But if the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, the court may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness. It may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the §3553(a) factors, on a
whole, justify the extent of the variance. The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.
While Stevens does a better job than Ginsberg of explaining and defending the post Booker sentencing scheme, the message of both cases is the same: a reasonable sentence carries the day.
See you in court, where we generally avoid this whole messy problem by going to trial...and winning.
ps. You know things must be slow if we are driven out of boredom to read (gasp) case law.
reasonable sentences.
Granted, some Judges North of the Border were fit to be tied upon hearing the news, as well as an unfortunate minority of Judges in our building, but other than that, the decisions issued yesterday by the Supreme Court in Kimbrough HERE and Gall HERE were run of the mill, post Booker/Blakley federal sentencing cases.
Because we are a full service blog, we will summarize the decisions for you, so you don't have to waste precious time reading case law.
1) The majority opinion by Justice Ginsberg in Kimbrough is nothing earth shaking. Rather, in post Booker sentencing, the decision affirms the trial court’s ability to fashion a sentence above or below the guidelines, so long as the sentence is reasonable, and addresses the statutory provisions that a sentencing court must consider. Ginsberg wrote:
The ultimate question in Kimbrough’s case is “whether the sentence was reasonable—i.e., whether the District Judge abused his discretion in determining that the §3553(a) factors supported a sentence of [15 years] and
justified a substantial deviation from the Guidelines range.”
Yawn. So what else is new? Judges have to issue a reasonable sentence that accomplishes the goals of §3553(a). So long as a Judge says the sentence meets those goals, and does a fairly accurate on the record analysis of the specific factors in 3553, an appellate court should not disturb it.
What caught our attention was Justice Thomas’s dissent. The dissent in Kimbrough is a fairly nifty “I told you so” repudiation of the remedy of Booker.
Thomas wrote:
The Court, (in the Booker line of cases) however, chose a more sweeping remedy. Despite acknowledging that under the mandatory Guidelines not “every sentence gives rise to a Sixth Amendment violation,” the Court rendered the Guidelines advisory in their entirety and mandated appellate review of all sentences for “reasonableness.”
As will be seen, Thomas has a problem with the remedy of Booker.
As a result of the Court’s remedial approach, we are now called upon to decide a multiplicity of questions that have no discernibly legal answers.
In other words, Congress makes the law, court’s interpret the law. But here, according to Thomas, the Court has gone beyond invalidating the sentencing scheme of the guidelines. The court has manufactured a remedy, which after Booker, it must now continually define.
And if you know Justice Thomas like we know Justice Thomas, you know that he has no patience for judicial law making.
Congress did not mandate a reasonableness standard of appellate review—
that was a standard the remedial majority in Booker fashioned out of whole cloth. The Court must now give content to that standard, but in so doing it does not and
cannot rely on any statutory language or congressional intent.
We are asked here to determine whether, under the new advisory Guidelines regime, district courts may impose sentences based in part on their disagreement with
a categorical policy judgment reflected in the Guidelines.
But the Court’s answer to that question necessarily derives from something other than the statutory language or congressional intent because Congress, by making the Guidelines mandatory, quite clearly intended to bind district courts to the Sentencing Commission’s categorical policy judgments. By rejecting this statutory approach, the Booker remedial majority has left the Court with no law to apply and forced it to assume the legislative role of devising a new sentencing scheme.
Rumpole says, what Justice Thomas does, and does very well, is point out the philosophical problem with post Booker sentencing: that the decisions apply court created remedies and thus now require the court to define the parameters of the remedy previously created. In Justice Thomas's world (and perhaps the world envisioned by our Constitution) Congress creates the law, the courts interpret the law.
In the other sentencing decision issued today, Gall v.US., Justice Stevens answered the question that the court could not get to last year: whether a reviewing court must apply a proportionality test to a sentence that is below the guidelines- meaning that should a sentence that is way below the guidelines be required to be supported by extraordinary reasons explaining the departure? Or is any departure that meets the reasonableness requirement valid no matter how disparate the variance between the guideline sentence and the ultimate sentence?
The Court had granted cert in a case asking just that question last year, but alas the Appellant assumed room temperature before the case was argued, mooting the decision, for him at least.
Justice Stevens wrote:
We also reject the use of a rigid mathematical formula that uses the percentage of a departure as the standard for determining the strength of the justifications
required for a specific sentence...
Assuming that the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. ..But if the sentence is outside the Guidelines range, the court may not apply a presumption of unreasonableness. It may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the §3553(a) factors, on a
whole, justify the extent of the variance. The fact that the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.
While Stevens does a better job than Ginsberg of explaining and defending the post Booker sentencing scheme, the message of both cases is the same: a reasonable sentence carries the day.
See you in court, where we generally avoid this whole messy problem by going to trial...and winning.
ps. You know things must be slow if we are driven out of boredom to read (gasp) case law.
Monday, December 10, 2007
TIME FOR TIME OFF
Our profession is full of ….legal fictions. ( You thought we were going to write something else?)
One legal fiction is setting a case for trial during the last two weeks of December. With many outside commitments including family, travel, office parties, not to mention year end work like getting ready for tax season, a lawyer’s life becomes so busy that the late December Monday trial setting evolves into little more than a legal fiction.
First of all, many Judges take off some or all of the holiday period. No offense to the great retired Judges who fill in, but many lawyers do not want their client’s important cases falling before a retired judge who might be more reluctant to grant a motion than a regular judge who has the better ability to evaluate a case.
So why all the nonsense about setting trial dates for the week of Christmas or the week before or the week after? Better to not set any trials for that week and realistically manage cases. We are not talking about shutting down the courts. Many defendants want to take a plea. Some clients are in jail and looking to get that CTS plea and get out. We are talking about the shooting cases, the grand theft first degree cases, the armed robbery cases, the drug trafficking cases. They are not going to get tried that week (spare us your December horror stories. Yes, some cases get tried, but it’s rare, and no one’s very happy about it.) So why not bring some truth into court scheduling and dial things back during the last weeks of December?
And that brings us to this friendly holiday reminder. Longtime and careful readers of the blog may remember our post: Trial Lawyers Bill of Rights. Indeed, we may just re-run it during this holiday season. But today we talk about one pet peeve that has not gotten any better: setting a case for trial the week a lawyer returns from vacation.
Nothing, repeat, nothing, tells us a Judge knows less about how difficult it is to be a trial lawyer, then when a judge sets a case for trial the week a lawyer returns from vacation.
Here is the scenario: a case is continued and the judge and lawyers start talking about a convenient trial date. The Judge mentions December 21 and the lawyer says s/he is out of town for ten days. So the Judge says “when are you coming back?” and the lawyer says “Sunday January 1”. So the Judge, feeling very magnanimous says, “well of course everyone is entitled to a vacation, so I’ll respect your time off and set this first degree death penalty case for Monday January 2.”
This is the first indication that the person wearing the black robe has never tried anything more serious than a bench trial for disorderly conduct.
Judges who do that have no clue how difficult it is to bring a case to trial. From last minute witness scheduling to subpoenas, to just holding a client’s hand the day before trial, no lawyer- prosecutor or defense attorney- can properly prepare for any serious type of case going to trial while flying home on the Sunday before the trial date.
So while we know that one of the many perks of being a Judge is the ability to spend the day before trial watching re-runs of the Beverly Hillbillies, or out on the golf course, or other such intellectual pursuits, remember that the lawyers are working their proverbial butts off for the ten days or so proceeding trial doing everything they can to get ready and make the trial at least a semi-orderly procedure.
Therefore, how about our robed readers making a New Years resolution to at least pretend they know or remember what it is like to try a case, and not jam a trial into the first working day a lawyer has when returning from vacation?
Lawyers should remember that it is entirely proper to tell a Judge they are not prepared. Not being prepared does not mean slacking off. It means you are busy with lots of cases. Judges should remember that not every judge is as kind, wise, and understanding as they are, and that some Judges put an incredible amount of unreasonable pressure on a lawyer to try a case when they are not ready.
The remedy is truth in calendaring cases. Cases should be set during a week that they have a realistic chance of going to trial (ie., not the week of Thanksgiving, or the 4th of July.) Lawyers should truthfully ask for the amount of time they need, and should request additional time well in advance of the trial date.
Ok. Now we brace ourselves for all the comments telling us how dumb we are- that lawyers from both sides play games with continuances, and that only a tough judge who moves cases can be successful.
That may be true. What we are saying is that the system is broken. And the happy fact is that things don’t have to be the way they are. Things can get better.
See you in court, scoffing at the December 31, trial setting, or whatever the last working day of the year is.
One legal fiction is setting a case for trial during the last two weeks of December. With many outside commitments including family, travel, office parties, not to mention year end work like getting ready for tax season, a lawyer’s life becomes so busy that the late December Monday trial setting evolves into little more than a legal fiction.
First of all, many Judges take off some or all of the holiday period. No offense to the great retired Judges who fill in, but many lawyers do not want their client’s important cases falling before a retired judge who might be more reluctant to grant a motion than a regular judge who has the better ability to evaluate a case.
So why all the nonsense about setting trial dates for the week of Christmas or the week before or the week after? Better to not set any trials for that week and realistically manage cases. We are not talking about shutting down the courts. Many defendants want to take a plea. Some clients are in jail and looking to get that CTS plea and get out. We are talking about the shooting cases, the grand theft first degree cases, the armed robbery cases, the drug trafficking cases. They are not going to get tried that week (spare us your December horror stories. Yes, some cases get tried, but it’s rare, and no one’s very happy about it.) So why not bring some truth into court scheduling and dial things back during the last weeks of December?
And that brings us to this friendly holiday reminder. Longtime and careful readers of the blog may remember our post: Trial Lawyers Bill of Rights. Indeed, we may just re-run it during this holiday season. But today we talk about one pet peeve that has not gotten any better: setting a case for trial the week a lawyer returns from vacation.
Nothing, repeat, nothing, tells us a Judge knows less about how difficult it is to be a trial lawyer, then when a judge sets a case for trial the week a lawyer returns from vacation.
Here is the scenario: a case is continued and the judge and lawyers start talking about a convenient trial date. The Judge mentions December 21 and the lawyer says s/he is out of town for ten days. So the Judge says “when are you coming back?” and the lawyer says “Sunday January 1”. So the Judge, feeling very magnanimous says, “well of course everyone is entitled to a vacation, so I’ll respect your time off and set this first degree death penalty case for Monday January 2.”
This is the first indication that the person wearing the black robe has never tried anything more serious than a bench trial for disorderly conduct.
Judges who do that have no clue how difficult it is to bring a case to trial. From last minute witness scheduling to subpoenas, to just holding a client’s hand the day before trial, no lawyer- prosecutor or defense attorney- can properly prepare for any serious type of case going to trial while flying home on the Sunday before the trial date.
So while we know that one of the many perks of being a Judge is the ability to spend the day before trial watching re-runs of the Beverly Hillbillies, or out on the golf course, or other such intellectual pursuits, remember that the lawyers are working their proverbial butts off for the ten days or so proceeding trial doing everything they can to get ready and make the trial at least a semi-orderly procedure.
Therefore, how about our robed readers making a New Years resolution to at least pretend they know or remember what it is like to try a case, and not jam a trial into the first working day a lawyer has when returning from vacation?
Lawyers should remember that it is entirely proper to tell a Judge they are not prepared. Not being prepared does not mean slacking off. It means you are busy with lots of cases. Judges should remember that not every judge is as kind, wise, and understanding as they are, and that some Judges put an incredible amount of unreasonable pressure on a lawyer to try a case when they are not ready.
The remedy is truth in calendaring cases. Cases should be set during a week that they have a realistic chance of going to trial (ie., not the week of Thanksgiving, or the 4th of July.) Lawyers should truthfully ask for the amount of time they need, and should request additional time well in advance of the trial date.
Ok. Now we brace ourselves for all the comments telling us how dumb we are- that lawyers from both sides play games with continuances, and that only a tough judge who moves cases can be successful.
That may be true. What we are saying is that the system is broken. And the happy fact is that things don’t have to be the way they are. Things can get better.
See you in court, scoffing at the December 31, trial setting, or whatever the last working day of the year is.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
WEEK 14
We feel that the time for the Dolphins to win a game passed last week. It was competitive for awhile...but then same old fins. Not much hope they can do much on the road this week.
Same thing for the Cheaters. Baltimore had the game won. But the Cheaters have made a deal with the Devil. Baltimore stops them twice on 4th down late in the 4th quarter only to have an untimely time out followed by an encroachment penalty give the Cheaters three chances to convert a 4th down. The rest is sadly history. You may want to consider taking the over 47 and the 10.5 points as the Steelers could keep it close. But the Steelers are a different team without Polamalu, and he is out today. While we are not ruling out an upset, we wouldn't bet too much on it. Strictly to keep things fun and give us a rooting interest against the Cheaters, the play is to lay 100 to win 450 on the Steelers to win outright, if you're looking for a little extra xmas money.
Carolina at Jax. Swallow hard and take the under 39.
San Diego at Tennessee. Consider the home dog Titans plus 1.5. This Titan is a different team with Haynesworth playing defense, and he is back this week.
Cleveland at the NY Jets. Look for a scoring festival as long as the weather is OK. Consider the +47.5 on the over.
We like the Seahawks at home over Arizona if you can find it at -6.5 instead of the -7. The number is out there if you shop it.
Same thing for the Cheaters. Baltimore had the game won. But the Cheaters have made a deal with the Devil. Baltimore stops them twice on 4th down late in the 4th quarter only to have an untimely time out followed by an encroachment penalty give the Cheaters three chances to convert a 4th down. The rest is sadly history. You may want to consider taking the over 47 and the 10.5 points as the Steelers could keep it close. But the Steelers are a different team without Polamalu, and he is out today. While we are not ruling out an upset, we wouldn't bet too much on it. Strictly to keep things fun and give us a rooting interest against the Cheaters, the play is to lay 100 to win 450 on the Steelers to win outright, if you're looking for a little extra xmas money.
Carolina at Jax. Swallow hard and take the under 39.
San Diego at Tennessee. Consider the home dog Titans plus 1.5. This Titan is a different team with Haynesworth playing defense, and he is back this week.
Cleveland at the NY Jets. Look for a scoring festival as long as the weather is OK. Consider the +47.5 on the over.
We like the Seahawks at home over Arizona if you can find it at -6.5 instead of the -7. The number is out there if you shop it.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
FREE PARKING IN MIAMI BEACH!!!!
If you know Rumpole (and nobody does) you know that nothing warms our heart like a good old fashioned prank.
Enter one Alfred Spellman, described by the HERALD
as a "professional filmmaker, amateur prankster".
Mr. Spellman allegedly opened a web site promoting free parking on Miami Beach this weekend, in which you could print out a receipt designed to fool the Miami Beach parking police.
Ha ha ha ha.
Now comes word that the city that brought you the 1968 Republican Presidential Convention, and is the butt of countless defense attorney jokes ("how many City of Miami Beach Officers does it take to throw a defendant down a flight of stairs? NONE. he fell.") has opened an economic crimes investigation against Mr. Spellman.
Why if we weren't anonymous, we would represent Mr. Spellman pro bono (Latin for: my client bounced the cheque again.)
While we would never counsel anyone to break the law, every now and then it's nice to "stick it to the man" in the words of Spellman's website.
Here's hoping Mr. Spellman makes it to court and is not found in some alleyway of Miami Beach beaten senseless with a bunch of unused parking meters.
Speaking of scams, another one is winding down as the law firm of Adorno & Yoss (motto: representing the public seven clients at a time) agreed to pay the City of Miami 1.6 million dollars which will be added to the 15.5 million that the City Of Miami has agreed to refund taxpayers in a class action lawsuit over the fire-fee case.
Adorno had agreed to represent the entire class at about the same time he and his pals at the City Attorneys Office were finalizing a seven million dollar settlement for seven clients, earning his firm a quick two million, and giving the rest of his clients (the tax payers of the City of Miami) bubkas (to use a technical legal term).
The Third DCA called it "a scheme to defraud." "More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients is difficult to imagine.'' The Court intoned.
Now comes word that as the Florida Bar continues its investigation of former Assistant State Attorney Hank Adorno, the embattled lawyer is quietly considering "The Spellman defense."
"It was a joke. A harmless prank. A way to 'stick it to the man'. No lawyer in his right mind would screw an entire city of clients to make a quick 2 million."
As Johnny Cochran might say "You can't disbar, if the prank didn't get very far."
See you in court, pondering how nice it would be to have 1.5 million in the operating account, even if we had to return it.
Enter one Alfred Spellman, described by the HERALD
as a "professional filmmaker, amateur prankster".
Mr. Spellman allegedly opened a web site promoting free parking on Miami Beach this weekend, in which you could print out a receipt designed to fool the Miami Beach parking police.
Ha ha ha ha.
Now comes word that the city that brought you the 1968 Republican Presidential Convention, and is the butt of countless defense attorney jokes ("how many City of Miami Beach Officers does it take to throw a defendant down a flight of stairs? NONE. he fell.") has opened an economic crimes investigation against Mr. Spellman.
Why if we weren't anonymous, we would represent Mr. Spellman pro bono (Latin for: my client bounced the cheque again.)
While we would never counsel anyone to break the law, every now and then it's nice to "stick it to the man" in the words of Spellman's website.
Here's hoping Mr. Spellman makes it to court and is not found in some alleyway of Miami Beach beaten senseless with a bunch of unused parking meters.
Speaking of scams, another one is winding down as the law firm of Adorno & Yoss (motto: representing the public seven clients at a time) agreed to pay the City of Miami 1.6 million dollars which will be added to the 15.5 million that the City Of Miami has agreed to refund taxpayers in a class action lawsuit over the fire-fee case.
Adorno had agreed to represent the entire class at about the same time he and his pals at the City Attorneys Office were finalizing a seven million dollar settlement for seven clients, earning his firm a quick two million, and giving the rest of his clients (the tax payers of the City of Miami) bubkas (to use a technical legal term).
The Third DCA called it "a scheme to defraud." "More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients is difficult to imagine.'' The Court intoned.
Now comes word that as the Florida Bar continues its investigation of former Assistant State Attorney Hank Adorno, the embattled lawyer is quietly considering "The Spellman defense."
"It was a joke. A harmless prank. A way to 'stick it to the man'. No lawyer in his right mind would screw an entire city of clients to make a quick 2 million."
As Johnny Cochran might say "You can't disbar, if the prank didn't get very far."
See you in court, pondering how nice it would be to have 1.5 million in the operating account, even if we had to return it.
Friday, December 07, 2007
THOMPSON v. TUNIS
We received this remarkable document in an email from Jack Thompson, Esq., and we reprint it in its entirety:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
TO DISQUALIFY REFEREE TUNIS
COMES NOW Bar disciplinary respondent Thompson and petitions this court for a writ of prohibition to disqualify and immediately remove Dava Tunis (Tunis) as referee herein, stating:
Any lay person, knowing the facts stated herein, would reasonably believe that Thompson could not possibly receive a fair trial presided over by Tunis, who is, in a bar proceeding, both the finder of fact and applier of the law. The standard for recusal is more fully delineated by Florida Statute, 38.10, and if Tunis does not, by her antics, qualify for recusal, then there should be no such remedy for any judicial misconduct.
Thompson has previously raised the propriety of recusal of Judge Tunis. She denied Thompson a continuance while his wife was facing life-threatening cancer surgery and arduous chemotherapy. She refused, for ten months to allow discovery sought by Thompson, even refusing to comply with Florida law that mandates subpoenas “shall” be issued upon the mere oral request of a party or attorney. Tunis, remarkably, even went so far as to deny Thompson’s simple request to look at The Bar’s own files it has on Thompson. Tunis upheld The Bar’s demand that Thompson pay $4000 up front simply to look at the files. No such payment by a party is imaginable under Florida law, as it violates Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.
This is a judge, acting as a referee, who afforded far more due process to the criminal defendants in orange jumpsuits in her courtroom than she did a lawyer in continuous good standing for 31 years with The Florida Bar. Thompson has been under attack from the porn industry with its SLAPP Bar complaints filed against him in order to “shoot the messenger” rather than defend their clients’ criminal activities on the merits.
But yesterday, eclipsing all that she had done before this, Tunis revealed herself to be either unwilling or incapable of acting like a judge. When Thompson made the point that the Preamble to Section 4 of the Rules allows for a harmonization of our roles in society with the role of lawyer, Tunis recoiled, stating derisively, Don’t enlist me into your culture war! It was a non sequitur revealing her bias.
Tunis had refused at the start of the trial on November 26, 2007, to conduct a hearing on jurisdiction. She had denied that hearing for months. As a result, The Bar had to admit, in the last hour of proceedings, after the nine-day trial itself was over, that the court never had jurisdiction over certain charges in the complaint.
When this revelation of fraud “hit the fan,” Tunis ran out of the courtroom for no apparent reason. It now appears that she did so in order to consult with someone, as she returned to the courtroom with a new and utterly contrived legal argument that was completely inapposite to the issue before the court. Tunis had taken on the demeanor and the function of a third Bar prosecutor.
Then it really hit the fan. One of The Bar’s prosecutors then asserted, again after all testimony had been given and long after The Bar had rested its case, that Tunis could, entertain and convict Thompson on new, never disclosed charges, despite testimony limited to the specific charge brought against him in the complaint at the behest of the Howard Stern Show shock radio law firm, Tew Cardenas—an alleged violation of Rule 4-8.4 (d). Tunis was told she could, in the months ahead, comb through 3000 pages of testimony and all of the Bar Rules and come up with new charges, conduct a trial on her own, with no witnesses, and convict Thompson of violations of undisclosed Rules with which he had never been charged and which were not even mentioned during the course of the trial.
How could The Bar do such a thing? Answer: The Bar, in the last hour of the proceedings, raised the notion that Rule 4-8.4(a) allows The Bar to have the referee conduct a trial all on her own, because the Rule states
“A lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;”
The Bar, however, in the charging document, the complaint, chopped off the last two items in the above series, and charged Thompson with “a violation of the Rules of Conduct” with no other Rules specified. Clearly, any sentient being knows that the above Rule 4-8.4 (a), in its entirety, is a rule against conspiracies to violate Bar Rules; namely, Thompson or any lawyer cannot either through surrogates, or acting as a surrogate on behalf of others, violate or attempt to violate, vicariously or through others, Bar Rules. In other words, Rule 4-8.4 (a) says that a lawyer cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.
But The Bar took only the first of the three in the series listed in Bar Rule 4-8.4 (a) and actually stated to the court that it means what is noted above, that Tunis could come up with any Bar Rule violations on her own and convict him, after trial, on the basis of what she thought Thompson might have done, with no input, of course, from him by way of a defense.
Tunis, upon Thompson’s protesting this ambush after the trial was over, again fled the courtroom. She returned to then lead The Bar’s prosecutor, from the bench, as if he were a child trying to ride a two-wheeled bicycle for the first time, through the tortured reasoning that would enable The Bar to have a referee indict, try, and convict a lawyer, in absentia, on charges of which he has never been apprised, in the privacy of her own home.
In the middle of the trial, with the Tew Cardenas porn lawyers on the stand and their having to admit that Thompson had no client, had not impacted a judicial proceeding, and was not engaged in the practice of law in his dealings with them (thereby making a Rule 4-8.4 (d) prosecution impossible), Tunis helpfully intoned, out of the blue, that Mr. Thompson had been also charged with a violation of Rule 4-8.4 (a). We, on the defense side, had no idea what she meant when she said this. But in the last minutes of the proceedings, yesterday, it became clear: The intention all along was to spring this “you can charge him and convict him of new offenses without any notice” surprise on him when the trial was over. Tunis had inadvertently tipped her hand that she was somehow in on the ruse.
It is so clear that Tunis may have been coached by someone during the trial, with her unexplained sprints from the courtroom as if she had a plane to catch, only to return with contrived legal arguments that no one had made previously, that Thompson has had to subpoena her phone records in the state court proceeding he has brought against the State of Florida for this regulatory assault upon the First Amendment that violates Florida’s Anti-SLAPP and RFRA statutes.
But Dava Tunis’ world late yesterday got even weirder. Earlier in the trial, The Bar’s counsel stood up in open court and announced that he had psychiatric records proving that Thompson’s co-counsel was mentally ill. The medical records waved by Mr. Bryk consisted of a favorite shrink used by The Bar’s FLA who claimed that this lawyer’s execution of an affidavit on Thompson’s behalf in Thompson’s federal civil rights action proved he, Thompson’s lawyer, was a “paranoid.” In other words, assisting Thompson shows mental illness. Mr. Bryk claimed all he was trying to do was apprise Mr. Thompson that his co-counsel was incompetent. If that were The Bar’s real desire, the whole issue , of course, would have been handled privately, discreetly, and not in open court. Thompson explained patiently to the court that Mr. Bryk could have shared the information with Thompson’s co-counsel and asked him to share it with Thompson, and then confirm that Thompson felt he had no problem. But, that, of course, was not what The Bar wanted to do. The Bar wanted to smear both his attorney and Thompson in open court. Judge Tunis held onto the stolen medical records in her possession. The co-counsel had never given a release allowing The Bar to have these records.
At the very end of the proceedings yesterday, Tunis asked what Thompson and his co-counsel would want her to do with the confidential, stolen medical records she held. It should be noted that the medical records are stolen, there having been no release of medical records form signed by co-counsel. Thompson’s co-counsel and Thompson asked and in fact demanded that the stolen medical records be returned to The Bar, as Tunis had absolutely no right to hold onto them, as they were not admitted into evidence. She was holding stolen property.
Co-counsel forcefully and emotionally stated that The Bar had committed a wrongful act in procuring these medical records without authorization, and they then compounded the offense by parading them in open court. Tunis then ordered co-counsel not to shout. He was forcefully and cogently identifying a wrong that had been committed against him by The Bar, and for an ulterior purpose.
Whereupon, Tunis, got to her feet, commenced shouting from behind her bench, and started flailing her arms wildly as if she were a Dutch windmill caught in a thermal inversion. It was the most bizarre, outlandish, odd, and embarrassing thing the undersigned has ever seen a jurist engage in during his 31 years of practicing law in Florida. Tunis made the “Crying Judge” Larry Seidlin in the Ana Nicole Smith case look like Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. She was out of control. She went from a jurist to a prosecutor to raving, shouting loose cannon in mere minutes.
When Thompson then referred to his co-counsel as his client in this medical records matter, she shouted from the bench He’s not your client! Is the court reporter your client, too???!!! With her meltdown, Tunis did more to harm the judiciary than anything Thompson is even alleged to have done.
She now sets off to prepare her Referee’s Report in a matter in which she displayed animus, bias, and a lack of judicial temperment. She has so tainted the proceedings with her pettiness and her injudicious comments and actions that no finding she could ever enter against Thompson can possibly be considered valid. This Bar must disqualify her immediately.
I SOLEMNLY AFFIRM, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading has been provided by mail and fax to Sheila Tuma, The Florida Bar, Orlando Bar Office, and to Dava Tunis, 1351 NW 12 Street, Miami, Florida, this December 7, 2007.
_____________________________
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney
Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
TO DISQUALIFY REFEREE TUNIS
COMES NOW Bar disciplinary respondent Thompson and petitions this court for a writ of prohibition to disqualify and immediately remove Dava Tunis (Tunis) as referee herein, stating:
Any lay person, knowing the facts stated herein, would reasonably believe that Thompson could not possibly receive a fair trial presided over by Tunis, who is, in a bar proceeding, both the finder of fact and applier of the law. The standard for recusal is more fully delineated by Florida Statute, 38.10, and if Tunis does not, by her antics, qualify for recusal, then there should be no such remedy for any judicial misconduct.
Thompson has previously raised the propriety of recusal of Judge Tunis. She denied Thompson a continuance while his wife was facing life-threatening cancer surgery and arduous chemotherapy. She refused, for ten months to allow discovery sought by Thompson, even refusing to comply with Florida law that mandates subpoenas “shall” be issued upon the mere oral request of a party or attorney. Tunis, remarkably, even went so far as to deny Thompson’s simple request to look at The Bar’s own files it has on Thompson. Tunis upheld The Bar’s demand that Thompson pay $4000 up front simply to look at the files. No such payment by a party is imaginable under Florida law, as it violates Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution.
This is a judge, acting as a referee, who afforded far more due process to the criminal defendants in orange jumpsuits in her courtroom than she did a lawyer in continuous good standing for 31 years with The Florida Bar. Thompson has been under attack from the porn industry with its SLAPP Bar complaints filed against him in order to “shoot the messenger” rather than defend their clients’ criminal activities on the merits.
But yesterday, eclipsing all that she had done before this, Tunis revealed herself to be either unwilling or incapable of acting like a judge. When Thompson made the point that the Preamble to Section 4 of the Rules allows for a harmonization of our roles in society with the role of lawyer, Tunis recoiled, stating derisively, Don’t enlist me into your culture war! It was a non sequitur revealing her bias.
Tunis had refused at the start of the trial on November 26, 2007, to conduct a hearing on jurisdiction. She had denied that hearing for months. As a result, The Bar had to admit, in the last hour of proceedings, after the nine-day trial itself was over, that the court never had jurisdiction over certain charges in the complaint.
When this revelation of fraud “hit the fan,” Tunis ran out of the courtroom for no apparent reason. It now appears that she did so in order to consult with someone, as she returned to the courtroom with a new and utterly contrived legal argument that was completely inapposite to the issue before the court. Tunis had taken on the demeanor and the function of a third Bar prosecutor.
Then it really hit the fan. One of The Bar’s prosecutors then asserted, again after all testimony had been given and long after The Bar had rested its case, that Tunis could, entertain and convict Thompson on new, never disclosed charges, despite testimony limited to the specific charge brought against him in the complaint at the behest of the Howard Stern Show shock radio law firm, Tew Cardenas—an alleged violation of Rule 4-8.4 (d). Tunis was told she could, in the months ahead, comb through 3000 pages of testimony and all of the Bar Rules and come up with new charges, conduct a trial on her own, with no witnesses, and convict Thompson of violations of undisclosed Rules with which he had never been charged and which were not even mentioned during the course of the trial.
How could The Bar do such a thing? Answer: The Bar, in the last hour of the proceedings, raised the notion that Rule 4-8.4(a) allows The Bar to have the referee conduct a trial all on her own, because the Rule states
“A lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;”
The Bar, however, in the charging document, the complaint, chopped off the last two items in the above series, and charged Thompson with “a violation of the Rules of Conduct” with no other Rules specified. Clearly, any sentient being knows that the above Rule 4-8.4 (a), in its entirety, is a rule against conspiracies to violate Bar Rules; namely, Thompson or any lawyer cannot either through surrogates, or acting as a surrogate on behalf of others, violate or attempt to violate, vicariously or through others, Bar Rules. In other words, Rule 4-8.4 (a) says that a lawyer cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly.
But The Bar took only the first of the three in the series listed in Bar Rule 4-8.4 (a) and actually stated to the court that it means what is noted above, that Tunis could come up with any Bar Rule violations on her own and convict him, after trial, on the basis of what she thought Thompson might have done, with no input, of course, from him by way of a defense.
Tunis, upon Thompson’s protesting this ambush after the trial was over, again fled the courtroom. She returned to then lead The Bar’s prosecutor, from the bench, as if he were a child trying to ride a two-wheeled bicycle for the first time, through the tortured reasoning that would enable The Bar to have a referee indict, try, and convict a lawyer, in absentia, on charges of which he has never been apprised, in the privacy of her own home.
In the middle of the trial, with the Tew Cardenas porn lawyers on the stand and their having to admit that Thompson had no client, had not impacted a judicial proceeding, and was not engaged in the practice of law in his dealings with them (thereby making a Rule 4-8.4 (d) prosecution impossible), Tunis helpfully intoned, out of the blue, that Mr. Thompson had been also charged with a violation of Rule 4-8.4 (a). We, on the defense side, had no idea what she meant when she said this. But in the last minutes of the proceedings, yesterday, it became clear: The intention all along was to spring this “you can charge him and convict him of new offenses without any notice” surprise on him when the trial was over. Tunis had inadvertently tipped her hand that she was somehow in on the ruse.
It is so clear that Tunis may have been coached by someone during the trial, with her unexplained sprints from the courtroom as if she had a plane to catch, only to return with contrived legal arguments that no one had made previously, that Thompson has had to subpoena her phone records in the state court proceeding he has brought against the State of Florida for this regulatory assault upon the First Amendment that violates Florida’s Anti-SLAPP and RFRA statutes.
But Dava Tunis’ world late yesterday got even weirder. Earlier in the trial, The Bar’s counsel stood up in open court and announced that he had psychiatric records proving that Thompson’s co-counsel was mentally ill. The medical records waved by Mr. Bryk consisted of a favorite shrink used by The Bar’s FLA who claimed that this lawyer’s execution of an affidavit on Thompson’s behalf in Thompson’s federal civil rights action proved he, Thompson’s lawyer, was a “paranoid.” In other words, assisting Thompson shows mental illness. Mr. Bryk claimed all he was trying to do was apprise Mr. Thompson that his co-counsel was incompetent. If that were The Bar’s real desire, the whole issue , of course, would have been handled privately, discreetly, and not in open court. Thompson explained patiently to the court that Mr. Bryk could have shared the information with Thompson’s co-counsel and asked him to share it with Thompson, and then confirm that Thompson felt he had no problem. But, that, of course, was not what The Bar wanted to do. The Bar wanted to smear both his attorney and Thompson in open court. Judge Tunis held onto the stolen medical records in her possession. The co-counsel had never given a release allowing The Bar to have these records.
At the very end of the proceedings yesterday, Tunis asked what Thompson and his co-counsel would want her to do with the confidential, stolen medical records she held. It should be noted that the medical records are stolen, there having been no release of medical records form signed by co-counsel. Thompson’s co-counsel and Thompson asked and in fact demanded that the stolen medical records be returned to The Bar, as Tunis had absolutely no right to hold onto them, as they were not admitted into evidence. She was holding stolen property.
Co-counsel forcefully and emotionally stated that The Bar had committed a wrongful act in procuring these medical records without authorization, and they then compounded the offense by parading them in open court. Tunis then ordered co-counsel not to shout. He was forcefully and cogently identifying a wrong that had been committed against him by The Bar, and for an ulterior purpose.
Whereupon, Tunis, got to her feet, commenced shouting from behind her bench, and started flailing her arms wildly as if she were a Dutch windmill caught in a thermal inversion. It was the most bizarre, outlandish, odd, and embarrassing thing the undersigned has ever seen a jurist engage in during his 31 years of practicing law in Florida. Tunis made the “Crying Judge” Larry Seidlin in the Ana Nicole Smith case look like Supreme Court Justice Kennedy. She was out of control. She went from a jurist to a prosecutor to raving, shouting loose cannon in mere minutes.
When Thompson then referred to his co-counsel as his client in this medical records matter, she shouted from the bench He’s not your client! Is the court reporter your client, too???!!! With her meltdown, Tunis did more to harm the judiciary than anything Thompson is even alleged to have done.
She now sets off to prepare her Referee’s Report in a matter in which she displayed animus, bias, and a lack of judicial temperment. She has so tainted the proceedings with her pettiness and her injudicious comments and actions that no finding she could ever enter against Thompson can possibly be considered valid. This Bar must disqualify her immediately.
I SOLEMNLY AFFIRM, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing facts are true, correct, and complete, so help me God.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this pleading has been provided by mail and fax to Sheila Tuma, The Florida Bar, Orlando Bar Office, and to Dava Tunis, 1351 NW 12 Street, Miami, Florida, this December 7, 2007.
_____________________________
JOHN B. THOMPSON, Attorney
Florida Bar #231665
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Thursday, December 06, 2007
CLUE
IT WAS THE CORRECTIONS CAPTAIN
IN THE LIBRARY
WITH THE CANDLESTICK.
A Miami Dade Corrections Captain was arrested on domestic violence charges of attacking her boyfriend with a candlestick. HERALD
NFL TONIGHT
Da Bears rumble into DC to play the Redskins who have had only one day of practice this week after burying their team mate Sean Taylor in Miami on Monday.
The Skins are three point favorites and while we would othewise avoid this game, the Skins are better than the Bears. If you need action tonight, lay the three points and put your feet up and have a couple of cold ones. Tomorrow is Friday and that means it is close enough to the weekend to start drinking.
IN THE LIBRARY
WITH THE CANDLESTICK.
A Miami Dade Corrections Captain was arrested on domestic violence charges of attacking her boyfriend with a candlestick. HERALD
NFL TONIGHT
Da Bears rumble into DC to play the Redskins who have had only one day of practice this week after burying their team mate Sean Taylor in Miami on Monday.
The Skins are three point favorites and while we would othewise avoid this game, the Skins are better than the Bears. If you need action tonight, lay the three points and put your feet up and have a couple of cold ones. Tomorrow is Friday and that means it is close enough to the weekend to start drinking.
Sean taylor Lineup.
The line-up is shaping up for the Sean Taylor murder case.
“The felony-murder rule completely ignores the concept of determination of guilt on the basis of individual misconduct,” the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in 1980.
Rumpole says: The felony murder rule is an anachronistic legal concept whose time has come and gone. It is certainly a powerful tool for prosecutors. But do we really think justice is served when a person who loans a car, or a person who drives a killer to the scene is sentenced to life in prison? If the prosecution believes an individual actively participated in planning a homicide, then a conspiracy charge is appropriate. But if the evidence is not there, and if all parties agree that a co-defendant had no idea the defendant was armed and planning to commit a murder, then why should both individuals be punished with life in prison, when one individual is clearly more culpable than the other?
The case has been assigned by the blind clerk to Judge Murphy. This couldn't be a better choice for both the Defendants and Taylor's family. Outside of the 8:00 AM soundings which the defense lawyers from Fort Myers will have a tough time making, we are confident Judge Murphy will handle this case with the experience and fairness he has always shown.
The Prosecution will be lead by Reid Rubin, one of the best trial lawyers the State Attorneys Office has. And whenever you see Reid in court, Penny Brill from the legal division cannot be far behind. Kathy Rundle has picked an experienced and talented legal team to seek justice in this matter.
The Defense attorneys are mostly unknown to us, however, Defendant Charles Wardlow is currently being represented by David Brenner, who was a Dade PD and was in private practice in Dade County for a while.
Predication: the length of time and costs of this case will eventually cause most if not all of the Defendant's to be represented by the PD and court appointed attorneys. Now the public will really see what they are getting from the conflict counsel's office for their tax dollars. And therein lies the problem- none of these defendants can expect to get an ounce of sympathy from the public in this high profile tragic murder case. And yet, as professionals, we know that for the legal system to work, these defendants need experienced attorneys. Right now the phrase "experienced attorneys" and "conflict counsel's office" do not necessarily fit in the same sentence. We shall see.
Legal issues:
The "shooter" in this case is 17 years old. As a juvenile he is not eligible for the death penalty. The remaining co-defendants are all facing first degree murder charges via the felony murder rule.
First question: under the principle of proportionality, can the prosecution seek the death penalty for defendants who were not the shooter when they are precluded from seeking the death penalty for the shooter based on the shooter's age?
Second question: is it time to do away with the felony murder rule?
England, Canada, India, and Hawaii, Kentucky and Michigan have all abolished the felony murder rule as contrary to the western legal traditions of punishing people in proportion to their criminal acts.
From the
NY Times Article on a man serving life in prison in Florida for loaning a friend a car:The Prosecution will be lead by Reid Rubin, one of the best trial lawyers the State Attorneys Office has. And whenever you see Reid in court, Penny Brill from the legal division cannot be far behind. Kathy Rundle has picked an experienced and talented legal team to seek justice in this matter.
The Defense attorneys are mostly unknown to us, however, Defendant Charles Wardlow is currently being represented by David Brenner, who was a Dade PD and was in private practice in Dade County for a while.
Predication: the length of time and costs of this case will eventually cause most if not all of the Defendant's to be represented by the PD and court appointed attorneys. Now the public will really see what they are getting from the conflict counsel's office for their tax dollars. And therein lies the problem- none of these defendants can expect to get an ounce of sympathy from the public in this high profile tragic murder case. And yet, as professionals, we know that for the legal system to work, these defendants need experienced attorneys. Right now the phrase "experienced attorneys" and "conflict counsel's office" do not necessarily fit in the same sentence. We shall see.
Legal issues:
The "shooter" in this case is 17 years old. As a juvenile he is not eligible for the death penalty. The remaining co-defendants are all facing first degree murder charges via the felony murder rule.
First question: under the principle of proportionality, can the prosecution seek the death penalty for defendants who were not the shooter when they are precluded from seeking the death penalty for the shooter based on the shooter's age?
Second question: is it time to do away with the felony murder rule?
England, Canada, India, and Hawaii, Kentucky and Michigan have all abolished the felony murder rule as contrary to the western legal traditions of punishing people in proportion to their criminal acts.
From the
“The felony-murder rule completely ignores the concept of determination of guilt on the basis of individual misconduct,” the Michigan Supreme Court wrote in 1980.
Rumpole says: The felony murder rule is an anachronistic legal concept whose time has come and gone. It is certainly a powerful tool for prosecutors. But do we really think justice is served when a person who loans a car, or a person who drives a killer to the scene is sentenced to life in prison? If the prosecution believes an individual actively participated in planning a homicide, then a conspiracy charge is appropriate. But if the evidence is not there, and if all parties agree that a co-defendant had no idea the defendant was armed and planning to commit a murder, then why should both individuals be punished with life in prison, when one individual is clearly more culpable than the other?
And don't start whining to us about the "independent act" jury instruction. In our opinion, that and 2 bucks gets you a cup of coffee at Starbucks allowing you to drown your sorrows in expensive caffeine after a guilty verdict.
As our society moves farther away from the principles of fairness and justice in sentencing, we can expect more two bit politicians trying to make a name on the backs of the accused. If the prosecutor in the NY Times article is correct when he told the jury " No car, no murder", then lets all back a provision to prosecute the car dealer who sold the car, the union workers who built the car, the bank officers who loaned the money to get the car, the engineers who designed the car, and the stockholders who financed the company to produce the car. If nothing else, it would create a lot more work for defense attorneys sitting around in December waiting for their phone to ring.
See you in court, where we have had nothing but unpleasant experiences with the independent act instruction.
As our society moves farther away from the principles of fairness and justice in sentencing, we can expect more two bit politicians trying to make a name on the backs of the accused. If the prosecutor in the NY Times article is correct when he told the jury " No car, no murder", then lets all back a provision to prosecute the car dealer who sold the car, the union workers who built the car, the bank officers who loaned the money to get the car, the engineers who designed the car, and the stockholders who financed the company to produce the car. If nothing else, it would create a lot more work for defense attorneys sitting around in December waiting for their phone to ring.
See you in court, where we have had nothing but unpleasant experiences with the independent act instruction.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
ALEMAN DAY II
The trial and tribulations of Cheryl Aleman and her discourteous behavior in court continues today North of The Border. The Broward Blog had several bloggers sitting in the courtroom yesterday posting updates on the exchanges between the judge and lawyers for both sides. We were not present and our view of the proceedings admittedly comes only from reading those postings.
We have two thoughts:
In one exchange Aleman was quoted as saying that she strictly guarded the due process rights of defendants who appeared before her. One wonders how she would have then explained her misguided decision to force defendants to choose between their rights to prepare a defense and their right to a speedy trial? Apparently her policy never came up during cross examination.
In another exchange, Aleman denied hearing that she was considered a prosecution oriented judge. One should remember that she was a prosecutor for the State Wide Prosecutor’s office prior to becoming a Judge. Her response, as reported on the Broward Blog was that she did hear that she was considered a Judge who scrupulously adhered to the rules and the law, and that may have “confused attorneys who did not have to follow the law in other courtrooms.” A Blogger then wondered whether they had heard her correctly testify that the law was not followed in other courtrooms in Broward? This may be an insight into her character and fitness to be a Judge.
The FEDERAL BLOG has some good posts on former Lawyer Louis Robles being sentenced to 15 years although both sides had agreed on ten years. This being Federal Court (motto: “You got rights, now waive them.”) there was an existing Appellate waiver prior to the plea agreement, so this may be one controversy that does not make its way to the 11th Circuit (“Carefully upholding rights you’ve waived since 1972”) .
The Federal Blog also reports on the attempted suicide of one of Padilla’s co-defendants, and the jury deliberations in the Liberty City Seven trial.
We have two thoughts:
In one exchange Aleman was quoted as saying that she strictly guarded the due process rights of defendants who appeared before her. One wonders how she would have then explained her misguided decision to force defendants to choose between their rights to prepare a defense and their right to a speedy trial? Apparently her policy never came up during cross examination.
In another exchange, Aleman denied hearing that she was considered a prosecution oriented judge. One should remember that she was a prosecutor for the State Wide Prosecutor’s office prior to becoming a Judge. Her response, as reported on the Broward Blog was that she did hear that she was considered a Judge who scrupulously adhered to the rules and the law, and that may have “confused attorneys who did not have to follow the law in other courtrooms.” A Blogger then wondered whether they had heard her correctly testify that the law was not followed in other courtrooms in Broward? This may be an insight into her character and fitness to be a Judge.
The FEDERAL BLOG has some good posts on former Lawyer Louis Robles being sentenced to 15 years although both sides had agreed on ten years. This being Federal Court (motto: “You got rights, now waive them.”) there was an existing Appellate waiver prior to the plea agreement, so this may be one controversy that does not make its way to the 11th Circuit (“Carefully upholding rights you’ve waived since 1972”) .
The Federal Blog also reports on the attempted suicide of one of Padilla’s co-defendants, and the jury deliberations in the Liberty City Seven trial.
Walking on to the stage of a press conference yesterday to the tune of the Britney Spears' hit
OOPS I DID IT AGAIN our President, with a sheepish grin, admitted that once again he had falsely accused a country (this time Iran) of possessing a nuclear weapons program.
If this wasn’t such a serious diminution of whatever is left of respect for our country around the world, it would be funny. The problem is that one day another president will have a real issue that might necessitate the use of force and nobody is going to believe him or her when they say they acted on credible intelligence. The harm this simpleton from Texas has done will take decades to erase.
See You In Court, where tis the season to get good plea offers, except in Federal Court.
See You In Court, where tis the season to get good plea offers, except in Federal Court.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
ALEMAN, BLOGGING, AND THE BAR
The Scene: Circuit Judge Cheryl Aleman’s courtroom, North of the Border.
Dramatis Personae: Judge Cheryl Aleman; Attorney Sean Conway; “anonymous sources” the Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure; The Florida Bar.
Sometime in October 2006, embattled Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Aleman, ever concerned for the rights of the accused, came up with a neat experiment: setting cases for trial within two weeks of the arraignment. The plan forced defendants to either waive their right to speedy trial or proceed to trial without proper time to prepare. In some twisted way, this was seen as a fair and just way of presiding over cases in criminal circuit court.
(We are working very hard at this point to refrain from expressing our views on this misguided policy and the individual who imposed it on defendants appearing in circuit court. Suffice to say, we expected nothing less from this “Judge”, and fervently hope she gets the same type of Justice at her JQC hearing that she so faithfully dispensed while on the criminal bench.)
Enter Attorney Sean Conway who posted this ARTICLE on the Broward Blog.
In documenting the exchange that had previously occurred between the Judge and the attorney in court over the new policy, the attorney saw fit to identify Judge Aleman in his transcript as “Evil Unfair Witch. Hereinafter EUW”
The Blog post found its way “anonymously” to the Florida Bar which opened an investigation and required the lawyer to respond to the complaint.
At issue is the following Rule from the Rules Of Professional Conduct:
RULE 4-8.2 JUDICIAL AND LEGAL OFFICIALS
(a) Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers. A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, public legal officer, juror or member of the venire, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office
Comment
Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney, and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. . .
To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.
Having appeared before Judge Aleman on numerous occasions, calling her “Unfair” appears to be nothing more than an astute observation given her brazen attempt to eviscerate the rules of criminal procedure and the Constitution. “Evil” is a personal opinion that the lawyer had, and one of the more mild perjorative labels one could have bestowed upon Aleman given her conduct. While it never occurred in any of our cases, we personally saw her take what could fairly be called “evil delight” in the problems of defendants and lawyers who appeared before her. And “Witch” quite frankly in our opinion does a disservice to those who practice the religion of Wicken.
So we’re back to calling the Judge a Witch. This is not something that we would have counseled a lawyer to say. However, enter the opinion of the wise and learned Judge Arthur Tarnow of the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan in Feiger and Steinberg v. The Michigan Supreme Court. We don’t have the cite, but the opinion is HERE
Judge Tarnow held a provision of the Michigan’s bar, similar to Florida’s rule of professional conduct cited above, unconstitutional.
From the opinion:
Limiting an attorney’s extrajudicial criticism of a branch of government in the name of preserving the judiciary’s integrity is likely to have an unintended, deleterious effect upon the public’s perception, since attorneys are often best suited to assess the performance of judges.
As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority in Bridges v. California:
The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably
engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.
The Broward Blog is reporting that as Judge Aleman’s day of judgment approaches, the Florida Bar is moving quickly to wrap up the Bar’s inquiry into the blog post calling her a witch.
Writing in a blog read by contemporaries in the legal field is wrought with problems. Lord knows that we have struggled with moderating our blog and walking a line between allowing fair commentary and criticism, and not allowing unsupported slurs designed to do nothing more than embarrass the subject of the comment.
While we side squarely with the attorney in this issue, the decision is not all black and white. As we often tell our clients “be careful what you ask for, as you may get it.” A “wild west” of the Internet where people savage each other on line is not exactly our idea of a free exchange of ideas.
While we don’t like being the self appointed arbiter of good taste, the potential for abuse on an un-moderated blog is large. Just the other day we counseled a lawyer who had a bad experience before a circuit court judge. The lawyer was so incensed that s/he was ranting about knowing the judge when s/he was in private practice and allegedly violating the seventh commandment on a regular basis. To allow anyone to anonymously make a scandalous if not life changing allegation on a widely read blog is not something we wish to be a part of. Therefore, we have taken the step of moderating comments.
But the issue is not our blog policy, but the words of the blogger who does not hide their identity and criticizes a Judge. Is that conduct actionable under by the Bar, or did Justice Black get It right?
For it is a prized American privilege to
speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all
public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely
in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably
engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it
would enhance respect.
Wise words indeed.
See you in court, openly rooting against Cheryl Aleman.
Dramatis Personae: Judge Cheryl Aleman; Attorney Sean Conway; “anonymous sources” the Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure; The Florida Bar.
Sometime in October 2006, embattled Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Aleman, ever concerned for the rights of the accused, came up with a neat experiment: setting cases for trial within two weeks of the arraignment. The plan forced defendants to either waive their right to speedy trial or proceed to trial without proper time to prepare. In some twisted way, this was seen as a fair and just way of presiding over cases in criminal circuit court.
(We are working very hard at this point to refrain from expressing our views on this misguided policy and the individual who imposed it on defendants appearing in circuit court. Suffice to say, we expected nothing less from this “Judge”, and fervently hope she gets the same type of Justice at her JQC hearing that she so faithfully dispensed while on the criminal bench.)
Enter Attorney Sean Conway who posted this ARTICLE on the Broward Blog.
In documenting the exchange that had previously occurred between the Judge and the attorney in court over the new policy, the attorney saw fit to identify Judge Aleman in his transcript as “Evil Unfair Witch. Hereinafter EUW”
The Blog post found its way “anonymously” to the Florida Bar which opened an investigation and required the lawyer to respond to the complaint.
At issue is the following Rule from the Rules Of Professional Conduct:
RULE 4-8.2 JUDICIAL AND LEGAL OFFICIALS
(a) Impugning Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officers. A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, public legal officer, juror or member of the venire, or candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office
Comment
Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney, and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. . .
To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.
Having appeared before Judge Aleman on numerous occasions, calling her “Unfair” appears to be nothing more than an astute observation given her brazen attempt to eviscerate the rules of criminal procedure and the Constitution. “Evil” is a personal opinion that the lawyer had, and one of the more mild perjorative labels one could have bestowed upon Aleman given her conduct. While it never occurred in any of our cases, we personally saw her take what could fairly be called “evil delight” in the problems of defendants and lawyers who appeared before her. And “Witch” quite frankly in our opinion does a disservice to those who practice the religion of Wicken.
So we’re back to calling the Judge a Witch. This is not something that we would have counseled a lawyer to say. However, enter the opinion of the wise and learned Judge Arthur Tarnow of the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan in Feiger and Steinberg v. The Michigan Supreme Court. We don’t have the cite, but the opinion is HERE
Judge Tarnow held a provision of the Michigan’s bar, similar to Florida’s rule of professional conduct cited above, unconstitutional.
From the opinion:
Limiting an attorney’s extrajudicial criticism of a branch of government in the name of preserving the judiciary’s integrity is likely to have an unintended, deleterious effect upon the public’s perception, since attorneys are often best suited to assess the performance of judges.
As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority in Bridges v. California:
The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably
engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.
The Broward Blog is reporting that as Judge Aleman’s day of judgment approaches, the Florida Bar is moving quickly to wrap up the Bar’s inquiry into the blog post calling her a witch.
Writing in a blog read by contemporaries in the legal field is wrought with problems. Lord knows that we have struggled with moderating our blog and walking a line between allowing fair commentary and criticism, and not allowing unsupported slurs designed to do nothing more than embarrass the subject of the comment.
While we side squarely with the attorney in this issue, the decision is not all black and white. As we often tell our clients “be careful what you ask for, as you may get it.” A “wild west” of the Internet where people savage each other on line is not exactly our idea of a free exchange of ideas.
While we don’t like being the self appointed arbiter of good taste, the potential for abuse on an un-moderated blog is large. Just the other day we counseled a lawyer who had a bad experience before a circuit court judge. The lawyer was so incensed that s/he was ranting about knowing the judge when s/he was in private practice and allegedly violating the seventh commandment on a regular basis. To allow anyone to anonymously make a scandalous if not life changing allegation on a widely read blog is not something we wish to be a part of. Therefore, we have taken the step of moderating comments.
But the issue is not our blog policy, but the words of the blogger who does not hide their identity and criticizes a Judge. Is that conduct actionable under by the Bar, or did Justice Black get It right?
For it is a prized American privilege to
speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all
public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely
in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably
engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it
would enhance respect.
Wise words indeed.
See you in court, openly rooting against Cheryl Aleman.
Monday, December 03, 2007
REMEMBERING EAL FLIGHT 401
December 29th will mark the 35th anniversary of the Eastern Airlines Flight 401 tragedy. Longtime Miami residents will remember that night when a modern airline disaster struck our town for the first time.
On December 29, 1972, flight 401, a Lockheed L-1011, was flying 163 passengers and 13 crew members from New York’s JFK to Miami International Airport. A small series of mistakes, starting with a faulty landing gear confirmation light spiraled out of control and eventually sent the airplane into the Everglades.
In memory of the victims of that disaster and as a tribute to the survivors, family members and rescue personnel, a ceremony will be held Monday, December 3rd, 2:00 pm, at the Metro-Dade Firefighters' Memorial Building, 8000 Northwest 21st Street, Doral, Florida
From the press release for the memorial service:
The guest of honor will be 78-year old, Mr. Robert "Bud" Marquis, who was the first civilian rescuer to arrive at the crash site in his personal airboat and render aid.
The night of December 29, 1972 Bud Marquis and his partner Ray Dickinsin (deceased) witnessed Flight 401 go down in the Everglades, while frog gigging 18 miles west of the Miami-International Airport.
In the dark of night, Bud Marquis navigated his personal airboat through the saw grass and debris of the plane to be the first person to render aid to victims of the crash.
Having no obligation, other than his commitment to his fellow man and without regard for his personal safety, Bud Marquis waded through jet fuel and hydraulic fluid filled water, choked with jagged metal and debris to free passengers still strapped into their seats. Mr. Marquis braved the burning fuselage to free trapped and injured victims. In doing so, he sustained burns to his arms, legs and face.
It was Mr. Marquis who used the headlamp that only a few minutes before he had been using for gigging frogs, to signal and direct the first arriving Coast Guard helicopter to the crash site.
Through the night and into the next day Bud Marquis used his airboat to shuttle rescuers, medical personnel and victims to and from the crash site, to awaiting ambulances.
Rumpole notes, our blog is read by many young lawyers, some who were not even born when this tragedy occurred. It was not that long ago when Miami was a sleepy tourist town and old-timers called home “Miam-ah”. Whether you are passing through on a three year commitment, or planning on making this your new home (as we did) it helps to know some of the history of our fair city.
There used to be a time when about one of every three or four jurors on jury panels were Eastern Airline Employees. Now EAL is just a fond memory.
Coming tomorrow: should the bar punish lawyers for blogging, or is the First Amendment alive and well in cyberspace?
See You In Court.
On December 29, 1972, flight 401, a Lockheed L-1011, was flying 163 passengers and 13 crew members from New York’s JFK to Miami International Airport. A small series of mistakes, starting with a faulty landing gear confirmation light spiraled out of control and eventually sent the airplane into the Everglades.
In memory of the victims of that disaster and as a tribute to the survivors, family members and rescue personnel, a ceremony will be held Monday, December 3rd, 2:00 pm, at the Metro-Dade Firefighters' Memorial Building, 8000 Northwest 21st Street, Doral, Florida
From the press release for the memorial service:
The guest of honor will be 78-year old, Mr. Robert "Bud" Marquis, who was the first civilian rescuer to arrive at the crash site in his personal airboat and render aid.
The night of December 29, 1972 Bud Marquis and his partner Ray Dickinsin (deceased) witnessed Flight 401 go down in the Everglades, while frog gigging 18 miles west of the Miami-International Airport.
In the dark of night, Bud Marquis navigated his personal airboat through the saw grass and debris of the plane to be the first person to render aid to victims of the crash.
Having no obligation, other than his commitment to his fellow man and without regard for his personal safety, Bud Marquis waded through jet fuel and hydraulic fluid filled water, choked with jagged metal and debris to free passengers still strapped into their seats. Mr. Marquis braved the burning fuselage to free trapped and injured victims. In doing so, he sustained burns to his arms, legs and face.
It was Mr. Marquis who used the headlamp that only a few minutes before he had been using for gigging frogs, to signal and direct the first arriving Coast Guard helicopter to the crash site.
Through the night and into the next day Bud Marquis used his airboat to shuttle rescuers, medical personnel and victims to and from the crash site, to awaiting ambulances.
Rumpole notes, our blog is read by many young lawyers, some who were not even born when this tragedy occurred. It was not that long ago when Miami was a sleepy tourist town and old-timers called home “Miam-ah”. Whether you are passing through on a three year commitment, or planning on making this your new home (as we did) it helps to know some of the history of our fair city.
There used to be a time when about one of every three or four jurors on jury panels were Eastern Airline Employees. Now EAL is just a fond memory.
Coming tomorrow: should the bar punish lawyers for blogging, or is the First Amendment alive and well in cyberspace?
See You In Court.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
TRISCADECAPHOBIA
WEEK 13 IN THE NFL:
Is 13 the charm? Is today the day the Dolphins shake off a season of discontent and woe? Maybe.
The Buffalo Bills travel to the Washington Redskins who are in mourning. But the Skins have a good defense and a developing QB. They ran with the Cowboys two weeks ago, and as we are seeing, that takes something these days. The line is -5.5. Give the points and take the Skins at home over the Bills.
Jacksonville goes to Indy in a battle for the number two spot in the AFC. The Jaguars apparently made the right choice in letting Leftwich go in favor of Gerard. However, the Colts are 7 point favorites at home, and they have an outstanding defense in their own right. The Jags are overrated. Even though the Jags usually play the Colts tough, not today. Give the 7.
The reeling NY football Giants travel to shy town to take on the Bears, who had a surprising upset win last week. Memo to the NFL: DON'T KICK TO DEVIN HESTER. We have already promised to never ever put our faith in the boys in blue for the rest of this year. They have broken our heart too many times. But the over/under is around 41, the weather is poor, and we like the under here.
Three quick bites: We like the over 37.5 in the San Diego/KC game, and the under 51.5 in the Cleveland/Arizona game. Keep an eye on the weather and the field in Pittsburgh. The over is 41 and there is a large winter storm moving through the area. The field has problems that are well known. The game is the 8:00 PM game tonight, and the under might be worth a look by then.
THIS IS THE WEEK!!!! They have no running game. Zack Thomas is out!!! There is no way the Dolphins even remain competitive in this one. Except the hated NY J..E...T...S have come to town. As Springsteen sings, "Your own worst enemy has come to town." And today they're wearing green. "Miami has the dolphins...a one and eleven football team." Yes, today we will be singing the praises of Ted Ginn and Jon Beck. Dolphins win!!!!
Is 13 the charm? Is today the day the Dolphins shake off a season of discontent and woe? Maybe.
The Buffalo Bills travel to the Washington Redskins who are in mourning. But the Skins have a good defense and a developing QB. They ran with the Cowboys two weeks ago, and as we are seeing, that takes something these days. The line is -5.5. Give the points and take the Skins at home over the Bills.
Jacksonville goes to Indy in a battle for the number two spot in the AFC. The Jaguars apparently made the right choice in letting Leftwich go in favor of Gerard. However, the Colts are 7 point favorites at home, and they have an outstanding defense in their own right. The Jags are overrated. Even though the Jags usually play the Colts tough, not today. Give the 7.
The reeling NY football Giants travel to shy town to take on the Bears, who had a surprising upset win last week. Memo to the NFL: DON'T KICK TO DEVIN HESTER. We have already promised to never ever put our faith in the boys in blue for the rest of this year. They have broken our heart too many times. But the over/under is around 41, the weather is poor, and we like the under here.
Three quick bites: We like the over 37.5 in the San Diego/KC game, and the under 51.5 in the Cleveland/Arizona game. Keep an eye on the weather and the field in Pittsburgh. The over is 41 and there is a large winter storm moving through the area. The field has problems that are well known. The game is the 8:00 PM game tonight, and the under might be worth a look by then.
THIS IS THE WEEK!!!! They have no running game. Zack Thomas is out!!! There is no way the Dolphins even remain competitive in this one. Except the hated NY J..E...T...S have come to town. As Springsteen sings, "Your own worst enemy has come to town." And today they're wearing green. "Miami has the dolphins...a one and eleven football team." Yes, today we will be singing the praises of Ted Ginn and Jon Beck. Dolphins win!!!!
Friday, November 30, 2007
A PENNY FOR YOUR POUND OF TOMATOES
Florida’s tomato fields in the south and southwest supply most of the tomatoes to our nation's fast food industry. Migrant farm workers were paid 45 cents for every 32 pound bucket of tomatoes they hand pick. Every worker picks about 2 tons of tomatoes a day.
Then in 2005 McDonalds and Taco Bell agreed to a one penny per pound increase (77 cents per 32 pounds) payable directly to the migrant farm workers. However, Burger King, whose headquarters is in Miami, has adamantly refused to agree to the penny per pound increase. Burger King’s entire exposure in the pay raise has been estimated to be $250,000.00 per year.
The Herald is reporting that today (Friday) the City Of Miami will close the streets along a nine mile march route of a protest staged by the Coalition of Immokaleee Workers (click to see their web site). The march will begin at the headquarters of Goldman Sachs (the largest shareholder of BK) at 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard. The march will end at the BK headquarters at Blue Lagoon Drive off of 836.
The top dozen or so executives of Goldman Sachs will probably be paid more than 200 million in year end bonuses this year. The ten thousand or so migrant farm workers of Florida will probably earn less than half that, or about $10,000.00 per worker per year.
Talk about “having it your way” at Burger King.
Charge an extra nickel for those French fries that are slowly killing us anyway, and give those farm workers a decent wage. We’d like to see some of those fat cats at Goldman Sachs hop off their spin bikes and stair masters and try some real exercise by bending over for 10 hours a day lugging a 30 pound bucket through Florida’s hot sun.
Rumpole vows that until Burger King antes up the penny a pound for the migrant farm workers, nary a Whopper will pass the lips of this blogger.
BOYCOTT BURGER KING!!! We say, until the King decides to pay.
See You In Court, where Au Bon Pain’s turkey wrap is just as good, and much better for you.
Then in 2005 McDonalds and Taco Bell agreed to a one penny per pound increase (77 cents per 32 pounds) payable directly to the migrant farm workers. However, Burger King, whose headquarters is in Miami, has adamantly refused to agree to the penny per pound increase. Burger King’s entire exposure in the pay raise has been estimated to be $250,000.00 per year.
The Herald is reporting that today (Friday) the City Of Miami will close the streets along a nine mile march route of a protest staged by the Coalition of Immokaleee Workers (click to see their web site). The march will begin at the headquarters of Goldman Sachs (the largest shareholder of BK) at 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard. The march will end at the BK headquarters at Blue Lagoon Drive off of 836.
The top dozen or so executives of Goldman Sachs will probably be paid more than 200 million in year end bonuses this year. The ten thousand or so migrant farm workers of Florida will probably earn less than half that, or about $10,000.00 per worker per year.
Talk about “having it your way” at Burger King.
Charge an extra nickel for those French fries that are slowly killing us anyway, and give those farm workers a decent wage. We’d like to see some of those fat cats at Goldman Sachs hop off their spin bikes and stair masters and try some real exercise by bending over for 10 hours a day lugging a 30 pound bucket through Florida’s hot sun.
Rumpole vows that until Burger King antes up the penny a pound for the migrant farm workers, nary a Whopper will pass the lips of this blogger.
BOYCOTT BURGER KING!!! We say, until the King decides to pay.
See You In Court, where Au Bon Pain’s turkey wrap is just as good, and much better for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)