Why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?
Why do we require only a certain segment of attorneys who appear in court to wear a coat and a tie in the summer?
Why do we pay movie actors and athletes more than soldiers or teachers?
Why is it OK for the Village of Palmetto Bay to pay $600,000 in legal fees to White and Case for a dispute (they lost) over a limit of 250 students (900 vs 1150) at a private school, but not OK to pay a court appointed lawyer a fair fee for their work?
Why do the Judges in Broward act so strange?
Longtime super criminal defense attorney Alan Ross's mother passed away. Read about her amazing life in the Herald obit here.
Some civil guttersnipe that "guest writes" (that means they have neither the ability nor imagination to write their own blog) for a blog doesn't like us. (yawn). We'd invite them to a sit down at the courthouse to settle the manner, but you know most civil lawyers don't know where the courthouse is and Google-maps we're not.
We all know Roy Black is a great trial lawyer. But he is also a great writer. Read his reflections on swimmer Jason Lezak's swim of the anchor leg of the 4 x 100 freestyle race in the 2008 Beijing Olympics here and see if you don't agree. When you read Mr. Black's blog it is readily apparent he has many interests (and an unfortunate taste for James Joyce's Ulysess) and is knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects. While they may not realize it, that is one of the many things his clients are paying for.
A great trial lawyer is almost always a well rounded individual with a working knowledge on a variety of topics. You never know when a small piece of obscure knowledge will be needed during cross. To be able at a moment's notice to quote from the Inquisition of Galileo or Yogi Berra ("nobody goes to that restaurant anymore, its too crowded" for example) or to summarize an informant's financial windfall with a perfect quote from Shakespeare ("Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall") will not by themselves win you any case. But it will get the jury listening to you and your defense, and that can be all the difference in the world.
For those civil lawyers upon whom the last two paragraphs were wasted, you can go here.
Enjoy your summer weekend.
Saturday, July 07, 2012
Thursday, July 05, 2012
WHERE EAGLES FLY
WON: The Legal Eagle closing argument contest. By Warren Zinn of Shohat, Loewy & Shohat.
The final four included three criminal law practitioners: PD Matthew McElligot, ASA Scott Holtz, and Mr. Zinn. Zinn and Holtz squared off in the finals and Zinn prevailed. The crowd erupted in a spontaneous round of "Werewolves of London" (oh, wait- that's Warren Zevon- never mind). The initial details of the competition were announced by Legal Services of Greater Miami here.
We promised the winner fame if not fortune. So Warren Zinn take a bow. You are a Legal Eagle. You're an award winning closer. You get coffee.
Note to Mr. Zinn- your firm's web presence is woeful. A Google inquiry yields results for Bierman, Shohat & Loewy.
FOUND!!??
It's chunky, if not hefty. The largest of its playmates and cohorts. Its shy. In fact its never been officially seen. But without it, nothing fits and no explanation of everything works.
What is this never seen yet rather large enigma?
The Higgs Boson Particle of course, and French physicists at CERN may have found the building block of the universe. Although it weighs 125 billon electron volts- which is small but large for a particle- our universe would not be the same without HBP. Without the Higgs field there wouldn't be atoms, life, or ring dings. A dark existence indeed.
GONE.
Sheriff Andy Taylor nee Matlock- a/k/a Andy Griffith passed away July 3.
Do yourself a favour and rent or download "A Face In The Crowd", Elia Kazan's 1958 masterpiece about a drifter who becomes a not too likable star. The film shows the wide acting range of Mr. Griffith who otherwise was known for playing the persona of a lovable bumpkin who was smarter than he seemed. Andy Griffith long ago became part of "Americana" and his passing on the day before July 4th seems to be kismet.
BANNED.
Foie Gras. In California. The practice of force feeding ducks to enlarge their liver is barbaric and California banned the possession, sale or consumption of Foie Gras.
"This is the City- Los Angeles. 12 million people. They like to eat dinner. 'You! At the table. Put down the Pinot Noir. Put your hands in the air and step away from the Foie Gras.' I'm a cop. I arrest people who eat duck livers. It's my job."
We haven't eaten foie gras in many years. We miss it. But we don't eat it.
ARRESTED:
Three Homestead Police Officers for beating up three men in separate incidents. One victim was elderly. The PBA fought back accusing State Attorney Kathy Rundle of playing politics with an upcoming election. The Herald report is here.
Rumpole wonders: Police officers? Beating people up? Police officers? In Miami? Beating up people they are paid to serve and protect? Huh?
The final four included three criminal law practitioners: PD Matthew McElligot, ASA Scott Holtz, and Mr. Zinn. Zinn and Holtz squared off in the finals and Zinn prevailed. The crowd erupted in a spontaneous round of "Werewolves of London" (oh, wait- that's Warren Zevon- never mind). The initial details of the competition were announced by Legal Services of Greater Miami here.
We promised the winner fame if not fortune. So Warren Zinn take a bow. You are a Legal Eagle. You're an award winning closer. You get coffee.
Note to Mr. Zinn- your firm's web presence is woeful. A Google inquiry yields results for Bierman, Shohat & Loewy.
FOUND!!??
It's chunky, if not hefty. The largest of its playmates and cohorts. Its shy. In fact its never been officially seen. But without it, nothing fits and no explanation of everything works.
What is this never seen yet rather large enigma?
The Higgs Boson Particle of course, and French physicists at CERN may have found the building block of the universe. Although it weighs 125 billon electron volts- which is small but large for a particle- our universe would not be the same without HBP. Without the Higgs field there wouldn't be atoms, life, or ring dings. A dark existence indeed.
GONE.
Sheriff Andy Taylor nee Matlock- a/k/a Andy Griffith passed away July 3.
Do yourself a favour and rent or download "A Face In The Crowd", Elia Kazan's 1958 masterpiece about a drifter who becomes a not too likable star. The film shows the wide acting range of Mr. Griffith who otherwise was known for playing the persona of a lovable bumpkin who was smarter than he seemed. Andy Griffith long ago became part of "Americana" and his passing on the day before July 4th seems to be kismet.
BANNED.
Foie Gras. In California. The practice of force feeding ducks to enlarge their liver is barbaric and California banned the possession, sale or consumption of Foie Gras.
"This is the City- Los Angeles. 12 million people. They like to eat dinner. 'You! At the table. Put down the Pinot Noir. Put your hands in the air and step away from the Foie Gras.' I'm a cop. I arrest people who eat duck livers. It's my job."
We haven't eaten foie gras in many years. We miss it. But we don't eat it.
ARRESTED:
Three Homestead Police Officers for beating up three men in separate incidents. One victim was elderly. The PBA fought back accusing State Attorney Kathy Rundle of playing politics with an upcoming election. The Herald report is here.
Rumpole wonders: Police officers? Beating people up? Police officers? In Miami? Beating up people they are paid to serve and protect? Huh?
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
A SAINT IN THE CITY
I had skin like leather and the diamond-hard look of a cobra
I was born blue and weathered but I burst just like a supernova
I could walk like Brando right into the sun
Then dance just like a Casanova
With my blackjack and jacket and hair slicked sweet
Silver star studs on my duds like a Harley in heat
When I strut down the street I could feel its heartbeat
The sisters fell back and said "Don't that man look pretty"
The cripple on the corner cried out "Nickels for your pity"
Them downtown boys sure talk gritty
It's so hard to be a saint in the city ....
It's Hard To Be A Saint in The City, Bruce Springsteen, Greetings From Asbury Park, 1975.
It's also hard to be a saint on the reservation... or when representing the reservation as this RICO civil lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit hits Mike Tein, Guy Lewis, Dexter Lehtinen, Chairman Billy Cypress and Morgan Stanley with participating in fraud to steal well over twenty million dollars from the Miccosukee Nation. $2,000.00/per hour legal fees; hundred thousand dollar Las Vegas junkets are just some of the blockbuster allegations in the lawsuit. It's not often TWO former US Attorneys are named as co-conspirators in one lawsuit.
RICO WAMPUM
I was born blue and weathered but I burst just like a supernova
I could walk like Brando right into the sun
Then dance just like a Casanova
With my blackjack and jacket and hair slicked sweet
Silver star studs on my duds like a Harley in heat
When I strut down the street I could feel its heartbeat
The sisters fell back and said "Don't that man look pretty"
The cripple on the corner cried out "Nickels for your pity"
Them downtown boys sure talk gritty
It's so hard to be a saint in the city ....
It's Hard To Be A Saint in The City, Bruce Springsteen, Greetings From Asbury Park, 1975.
It's also hard to be a saint on the reservation... or when representing the reservation as this RICO civil lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit hits Mike Tein, Guy Lewis, Dexter Lehtinen, Chairman Billy Cypress and Morgan Stanley with participating in fraud to steal well over twenty million dollars from the Miccosukee Nation. $2,000.00/per hour legal fees; hundred thousand dollar Las Vegas junkets are just some of the blockbuster allegations in the lawsuit. It's not often TWO former US Attorneys are named as co-conspirators in one lawsuit.
RICO WAMPUM
Monday, July 02, 2012
PRISONER'S DILEMMA
To join the limited registry or not? Game Theory can assist our solution tree.
Game Theory- a strategic decision making model based on mathematics; developed by Jon Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. See, Theory Of Games and Economic Behavior, Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944).
Terms you will need: Zero Sum Game: one winner all others are losers. For example, Poker (hi-lo games excluded). Non-zero sum game: a gain by one player does not necessarily mean a loss for another and players can act in concert to achieve greater results. Example:
Prisoner's Dilemma is the classic example of game theory analysis. The analysis shows why two individuals might not cooperate even if it can be shown mathematically that it is in their best interests to do so.
The Dilemma: Two people are arrested. The police do not have enough complete information to convict either on the most serious charge. They are separated. The deal is made to both: If one confesses and betrays the other (betrayal strategy) he goes free if the other one remains silent (loyalty strategy). The silent prisoner goes to prison for five years. If each choose to confess they each get one year. if each chooses to remain silent and loyal, they both go free.
It is assumed for this game that each player's interest is only in maximizing their own benefit. i.e, they have no emotional loyalty to the other player. Thus the simple/first glance answer is that the player is better off remaining silent. But that is not what the math and game theory shows.
PRISONER B BETRAYS / PRISONER B SILENT
PRISONER
A SILENT (each goes free) / (A gets 5 years, B goes free)
PRISONER A
BETRAYS (B gets five years, / ( each gets one year)
A goes free )
The choice for A or B individually is always to betray. By doing so they minimize their exposure (by betraying they will never get five years) and maximize their chance for going free or getting one year (known as a Mini-Max strategy). The individual strategy choice of betrayal is said to dominate the known best strategy of staying loyal which yields the best result for both participants. Since the rational strategy for each is too betray the other, they get more time acting rationally ( 1 year) then not ( going free).
Lets apply this to the limited registry.
If you apply to the limited registry (the betrayal option in prisoners dilemma) you will have first crack at all cases since by law the clerk must appoint a LR attorney if available. However choosing LR yields less money.
If you choose not to go on the LR wheel (the loyalty option in prisoners dilemma) you maximize your chances for income because as a general registry attorney you can exceed the cap if needed but you also expose yourself to not getting any cases if your colleagues join the LR wheel.
The solution to Prisoner's Dilemma that allows players to choose the best strategy is to allow exchange of information which allows both prisoners to then choose the best strategy (remain loyal and silent) and go free.
Game theory analysis conclusively shows that if all attorneys chose not to join the LR then every attorney achieves the optimal solution of getting more money per appointment.
We can mathematically (email us for the solution if you need it) demonstrate that as long as everyone communicates, their best personal solution is to remain loyal and not join the LR. The optimal and rational answer to the question of whether to join the LR is to not join LR and force the clerk in every case to appoint a general registry attorney. The only time the non-optimal solution dominates the optimal solution is when the parties cannot communicate. Since all attorneys can communicate in regard to this issue, THERE IS NEVER ANY BENEFIT TO ANY ATTORNEY TO JOIN THE LIMITED REGISTRY WHEEL. *
Please pass this information on to your colleagues and if they don't understand this solution have them email us and we can explain it better in further detail.
The choice is yours. Act rationally.
H.R.
* One might posit that an attorney could say that by joining the LR they will get more cases and thus more money. But observe that is the non-optimal solution. Once the LR is in existence and working with attorneys who have signed up, then the non-optimal choice will dominate the rational choice- as in prisoners dilemma. And recall that the non-optimal choice in prisoners dilemma resulted in each player receiving a year in prison ( a non-optimal result). When an attorney chooses the non-optimal solution and joins the LR -they make the LR a success which means they lose the result of getting more money per case. They also lose the result of just getting more money, since once LR succeeds more attorneys will join LR and dilute their appointment opportunities. The attorney who makes the non-optimal choice and joins LR achieves only the worst result: working longer and harder for less money. There can be no rational incentive- and no mathematical solution that yields an optimal result by joining the LR.
Game Theory- a strategic decision making model based on mathematics; developed by Jon Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. See, Theory Of Games and Economic Behavior, Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944).
Terms you will need: Zero Sum Game: one winner all others are losers. For example, Poker (hi-lo games excluded). Non-zero sum game: a gain by one player does not necessarily mean a loss for another and players can act in concert to achieve greater results. Example:
Prisoner's Dilemma is the classic example of game theory analysis. The analysis shows why two individuals might not cooperate even if it can be shown mathematically that it is in their best interests to do so.
The Dilemma: Two people are arrested. The police do not have enough complete information to convict either on the most serious charge. They are separated. The deal is made to both: If one confesses and betrays the other (betrayal strategy) he goes free if the other one remains silent (loyalty strategy). The silent prisoner goes to prison for five years. If each choose to confess they each get one year. if each chooses to remain silent and loyal, they both go free.
It is assumed for this game that each player's interest is only in maximizing their own benefit. i.e, they have no emotional loyalty to the other player. Thus the simple/first glance answer is that the player is better off remaining silent. But that is not what the math and game theory shows.
PRISONER B BETRAYS / PRISONER B SILENT
PRISONER
A SILENT (each goes free) / (A gets 5 years, B goes free)
PRISONER A
BETRAYS (B gets five years, / ( each gets one year)
A goes free )
The choice for A or B individually is always to betray. By doing so they minimize their exposure (by betraying they will never get five years) and maximize their chance for going free or getting one year (known as a Mini-Max strategy). The individual strategy choice of betrayal is said to dominate the known best strategy of staying loyal which yields the best result for both participants. Since the rational strategy for each is too betray the other, they get more time acting rationally ( 1 year) then not ( going free).
Lets apply this to the limited registry.
If you apply to the limited registry (the betrayal option in prisoners dilemma) you will have first crack at all cases since by law the clerk must appoint a LR attorney if available. However choosing LR yields less money.
If you choose not to go on the LR wheel (the loyalty option in prisoners dilemma) you maximize your chances for income because as a general registry attorney you can exceed the cap if needed but you also expose yourself to not getting any cases if your colleagues join the LR wheel.
The solution to Prisoner's Dilemma that allows players to choose the best strategy is to allow exchange of information which allows both prisoners to then choose the best strategy (remain loyal and silent) and go free.
Game theory analysis conclusively shows that if all attorneys chose not to join the LR then every attorney achieves the optimal solution of getting more money per appointment.
We can mathematically (email us for the solution if you need it) demonstrate that as long as everyone communicates, their best personal solution is to remain loyal and not join the LR. The optimal and rational answer to the question of whether to join the LR is to not join LR and force the clerk in every case to appoint a general registry attorney. The only time the non-optimal solution dominates the optimal solution is when the parties cannot communicate. Since all attorneys can communicate in regard to this issue, THERE IS NEVER ANY BENEFIT TO ANY ATTORNEY TO JOIN THE LIMITED REGISTRY WHEEL. *
Please pass this information on to your colleagues and if they don't understand this solution have them email us and we can explain it better in further detail.
The choice is yours. Act rationally.
H.R.
* One might posit that an attorney could say that by joining the LR they will get more cases and thus more money. But observe that is the non-optimal solution. Once the LR is in existence and working with attorneys who have signed up, then the non-optimal choice will dominate the rational choice- as in prisoners dilemma. And recall that the non-optimal choice in prisoners dilemma resulted in each player receiving a year in prison ( a non-optimal result). When an attorney chooses the non-optimal solution and joins the LR -they make the LR a success which means they lose the result of getting more money per case. They also lose the result of just getting more money, since once LR succeeds more attorneys will join LR and dilute their appointment opportunities. The attorney who makes the non-optimal choice and joins LR achieves only the worst result: working longer and harder for less money. There can be no rational incentive- and no mathematical solution that yields an optimal result by joining the LR.
Friday, June 29, 2012
NEW CIRCUIT APPOINTMENTS
SUNDAY FOOTBALL UPDATE: Today at 2:30- Span/Italy for Euro2012. Predictions?
UPDATE: A rare Saturday update: The administrative order implementing the limited registry is out. Judge Brown issued it Friday at 3:55:42 PM EDST. Whilst you and your loved ones are out frolicking during this semi-holiday weekend, a team of dedicated (not to mention unpaid) FACDL lawyers are parsing the order, legally poking it to find the its vulnerable underbelly.
Our next post will discuss a Game Theory approach to defeating the limited registry. "Prisoner's Dilemma" coming soon!
Your two new Circuit Court Judges are......
County Court Judge (and REGJB denizen) Cristina Miranda and
County Court Judge Rodney Smith.
Congratulations to both. One of these judges came very close to being elevated previously. In fact we know just how close, and we are sure the Judge has made the requisite "adjustments."
What is Rumpole Reading?
Many people want to know what we're reading as their summer vacations approach. We poured through Robert Caro's "The Passage of Power" (the must read of the summer) and now we've turned our attention to some old favourites. There's something about Kazu Isihguro's third novel- Remains Of the Day, that just draws us back every summer or so. The genteel English Butler, adapting to a new american employer- so magnificently portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins in the movie- is just the ticket for a lazy summer afternoon. Of course to get our blood boiling for some upcoming trials, we go back time and again to Henry V:
This story shall the good man teach his son,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.
Roy Black fancies himself a connoisseur of fine literature. He recommends aspiring attorneys plow through Ulysses. We took him to task on his blog and he responded. The "tete'-a-tete'" was of course conducted in gentlemanly discourse.
Mr. Black currently finds himself enthralled with the fiction of Deon Meyer and his latest thriller- Trackers. Mr. Meyer is a resident of one of the former African colonies. We have yet to try Mr. Meyer's tome, but one could get a worse recommendation about a book than from Mr. Black (although not Ulysses. A monumental waste of time.)
Enjoy your fourth of July weekend. Yankee doodle dandy and all that for you members of the former colonies.
UPDATE: A rare Saturday update: The administrative order implementing the limited registry is out. Judge Brown issued it Friday at 3:55:42 PM EDST. Whilst you and your loved ones are out frolicking during this semi-holiday weekend, a team of dedicated (not to mention unpaid) FACDL lawyers are parsing the order, legally poking it to find the its vulnerable underbelly.
Our next post will discuss a Game Theory approach to defeating the limited registry. "Prisoner's Dilemma" coming soon!
Your two new Circuit Court Judges are......
County Court Judge (and REGJB denizen) Cristina Miranda and
County Court Judge Rodney Smith.
Congratulations to both. One of these judges came very close to being elevated previously. In fact we know just how close, and we are sure the Judge has made the requisite "adjustments."
What is Rumpole Reading?
Many people want to know what we're reading as their summer vacations approach. We poured through Robert Caro's "The Passage of Power" (the must read of the summer) and now we've turned our attention to some old favourites. There's something about Kazu Isihguro's third novel- Remains Of the Day, that just draws us back every summer or so. The genteel English Butler, adapting to a new american employer- so magnificently portrayed by Sir Anthony Hopkins in the movie- is just the ticket for a lazy summer afternoon. Of course to get our blood boiling for some upcoming trials, we go back time and again to Henry V:
This story shall the good man teach his son,
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered,
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition.
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's Day.
Roy Black fancies himself a connoisseur of fine literature. He recommends aspiring attorneys plow through Ulysses. We took him to task on his blog and he responded. The "tete'-a-tete'" was of course conducted in gentlemanly discourse.
Mr. Black currently finds himself enthralled with the fiction of Deon Meyer and his latest thriller- Trackers. Mr. Meyer is a resident of one of the former African colonies. We have yet to try Mr. Meyer's tome, but one could get a worse recommendation about a book than from Mr. Black (although not Ulysses. A monumental waste of time.)
Enjoy your fourth of July weekend. Yankee doodle dandy and all that for you members of the former colonies.
BLOGGER REVIEW
Some emails have said we treated Judge Hirsch too roughly yesterday; that Judge Hirsch had the courage to tackle a very unfair law and did so with the best of his ability and that he should receive kudos for his courage to issue what could be considered among the public as a very unpopular ruling.
So there you have the other side of this coin. Does Rumpole owe Judge Hirsch an apology? We think not, although we do agree Judge Hirsch should be lauded for the intellectual honesty and courage to grant a very difficult motion. There is no doubt Judge Hirsch ruled the way he ruled for no other reason than he thought it was the right thing to do. That is always the final arbiter of a great Judge and in that regard Judge Hirsch gets very high marks regardless of what Judge Rothenberg had to say.
ACA DAY TWO:
In our view Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the health care law for two reasons: first-if it was going to be 5-4 then Roberts felt an obligation to uphold the law and turned to Justice Holmes, whom he quoted in the opinion, for support: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act.”
Second: no matter the result, Roberts had bigger fish to fry than health care: the commerce clause. This case gave the Roberts' court a clear shot at knocking the commerce clause back down from the "super- clause" status that was in the past used to desegregate Ollie's barb-be-que (See, Katzenback v. McClung, 379 U.S 294 (1964) in which the court used the commerce clause to outlaw segregated restaurants) and was used to force private businesses to abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Bill (See, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964).) As true conservatives have said for years, if the court could use the commerce clause to forbid a farmer from eating the wheat he grew (See, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) ) what couldn't the court do? The proper result in the civil rights cases never fully erased the court's use of the commerce clause to eviscerate private property rights. True conservatives believe that while racism is abhorrent, private property rights are the foundation of all other rights and thus should trump an ignorant racist's desire to run a segregated business.
Roberts went out of his way to stop "his fellow liberals" (especially Ginsburg) in their tracks and prevent them from re-invorigating the commerce clause by using the clause to justify congress's power to force all americans to buy health insurance. Roberts cast the deciding fifth vote, but he did it on the basis of the power to tax, not regulate commerce. For Roberts the decision became a win-win situation. He achieved a political end (stopping a 5-4 reversal) and struck a blow for the cause of real conservatism by knocking the commerce clause down a peg or two.
Note a few changes in the CJ's announced summer schedule: He will NOT be attending a fourth of July Picnic at the Ronald Reagan library. Instead he will be attending a private fourth of July celebration with the Obamas at Camp David. He will not be driving with Justice Thomas in his camper across the country this summer- he will be attending summer teas with Ginsberg and Kagan and Breyer.
COFFEE
Not to digress, but there was a brief bit of conversation in the comments section about the best coffee in town. We have in the past moderated very fruitful discussions of important topics like the best bar-be-que. So lets have it- Starbucks (cheap swill) excluded- who has the best cup of Joe?
What are the best beans and where can you find them? Our vote: Peaberry coffee. A Peaberry bean is a bean that occurs in only 5% of coffee beans. Most coffee beans occur two to the coffee cherry bean. However a peaberry is produced when the cherry produces only one bean- almost always smaller than a regular coffee bean.
What is the best way to brew the best beans? French press? Percolator? Mr. Coffee?
The Marlins have a home stand this weekend. Do yourself a favor and go see a game.
Enjoy the weekend.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
REVERSED
893.13. A judicial love story. Or -"Possession means less than you think it does."
In a lengthy, Shakespeare and Twain riddled opinion, Judge Milt Hirsch declared to the delight of defense attorneys everywhere that Florida’s drug possession statute- 893.13 was unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment (this will become important shortly) because the statute does not make knowledge of the illicit nature an element of the offense. Lack of knowledge in the Sunshine State is relegated by the statute to the ash heap of affirmative defenses, like venue or entrapment.
The prosecution argued that this issue had been settled in Taylor v. State, 929 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006) rev. den. by the Florida Supreme Court 952 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 2007) (“tough cookies. Cert. Denied.” Id. ).
“But would not due process by any other name smell as sweet?” inquired Judge Hirsch, citing to Shelton v. DOC, 802 F. Supp. 2d. 1289 (M.D. Fla. 2011), which found that the statute violated federal due process guarantees.
So off to the Third DCA went the case with several dozen other defendants piling on. Judge Rothenberg drew the assignment to write the opinion:
"The record, however, reflects that the trial judge’s assumption was incorrect, and counsel for the defendants concedes on appeal that the only federal court whose decisions bind state courts is the United States Supreme Court. See State v. Dwyer, 332 So. 2d 333, 335 (Fla. 1976) (“A decision of a Federal District Court, while persuasive if well reasoned, is not by any means binding on the courts of the state.)”
When you’re a trial judge with an order on appeal, it helps to have talented and aggressive counsel fighting for your decision. Pity Judge Hirsch. Under a subheading “Trial court’s failure to follow the law” Judge Rothenberg leads with this gem: “Counsel for the defendants candidly concedes on appeal that the trial court’s presumptions, analysis, and conclusions were completely erroneous, but he agrees with the result.” Ouch.
And: “The result, however, was a dismissal of the charges based on the defendants’ facial constitutional challenge despite binding precedent from this Court and other district courts of appeal. That result can never be 'the correct result.' The correct result would have been to deny the motions to dismiss on the authority of Taylor. The trial court was then free to express its disagreement with Taylor and to request reconsideration of the holding in Taylor en banc. While a lower court is free to disagree and to express its disagreement with an appellate court ruling, it is duty-bound to follow it.” Double ouch.
But Judge Rothenberg was not done. She has a black belt. She went to Israel to help during the Gulf War. Saddam's Scuds didn't scare her so she sure ain’t a scared of no federal judge, as this subheading to her opinion demonstrates: “The trial court relied on a flawed federal trial court order."
Remember, up to this point Judge R has already got the Appellees to admit that the trial court erred in following a non-supreme court federal decision. But that wasn’t enough for her. She wanted to drive a stake through the vampire heart of her federal court colleague’s decision. No rising from the dead for Shelton, to wander the courts of Florida, randomly obtaining dismissals of drug possession cases.
Shelton said 893.13 created a strict liability crime. Judge Rothenberg said “nyet!”: “Section 893.13 does not create strict liability crimes because, although scienter, or “mens rea,” is not an element of these offenses, the statute provides that the defendant’s lack of knowledge may be raised as an affirmative defense.”
There’s more to the analysis of the (flawed?) federal due process analysis, and we have the opinion below for you to peruse. But the opinion’s conclusion makes it crystal clear- without resort to quotes from Twain, Shakespeare, Paradise Lost, or Harold and Kumar go to White Castle- what the trial court should have done:
“The trial court was therefore duty-bound to follow binding precedent, not ignore it.
Reversed.”
Triple ouch.
E-LEGAL AND A HEMINGWAY LOOK-A-LIKE-FRACAS
BREAKING: From the Scotus blog- live blogging the health care opinion. Individual mandate survives as a tax! Roberts veers to the left on this one. Almost entire law upheld 5-4. Some individual medicaid provisions limited but not thrown out.
Scalia said to have thrown a pizza cutter at Roberts in disgust. More soon.
Roberts: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."
From Scotus live blogging:
Amy Howe:
The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
UPDATE: The Supreme Court will be issuing the opinion on the health care law Thursday. We're not saying we've seen an advance copy, but we are saying the Roberts authored opinion is a doozy.
Check back often today and when the opinion is out, we will give you all the info you need to sound intelligent at happy hour tonight.
Speaking of opinions, coming tomorrow: Leslie and Milt- a love story.
You must email your pleadings, no, ifs and, or "AOLs" about it.
Hat Tip to the honorable Judge Juan Ramirez's (Ret) blog here, which you should check out every few days for appellate law updates (and gentle jibes at Judge Rothenberg).
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, --- So. 3d --- (Fla. June 21, 2012) adopted Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 (Service of Pleadings and Papers) to provide that all documents required or permitted to be served on another party must be served by e-mail. Under subdivision (b)(1) (Service by Electronic Mail (―e-mail), upon appearing in a proceeding a lawyer must designate a primary e-mail address, and may designate up to two secondary e-mail addresses, for receiving service. Thereafter, service on the lawyer must be made by e-mail. The rule does permit several limited exceptions to this requirement. A lawyer may file a motion to be excused from e-mail service, demonstrating that he or she [is living in the stone age and] has no e-mail account and lacks access to the Internet at the lawyer’s office. Similarly, individuals who are not represented by an attorney may designate an e-mail address for service if they wish; however, pro se litigants are not required to use e-mail service.
The Opinion is here.
Civil lawyers must email by September 1, the criminal bar has until October 1 ( a reader says the date is 10/1/2013?? Either way, no time like the present to start the ol' Zeos 286 microprocessor and start sending emails) to fire up their laptops and PDF files.
Need an email account for free? Gmail works great. Sign up here.
FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
It tolls for those trial lawyers who look like Papa Hemingway:
Order Denying Louderback Time Off
Scalia said to have thrown a pizza cutter at Roberts in disgust. More soon.
Roberts: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."
From Scotus live blogging:
Amy Howe:
The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
Amy Howe:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
Lyle:
Essentially, a majority of the Court has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won.Check back often today and when the opinion is out, we will give you all the info you need to sound intelligent at happy hour tonight.
Speaking of opinions, coming tomorrow: Leslie and Milt- a love story.
You must email your pleadings, no, ifs and, or "AOLs" about it.
Hat Tip to the honorable Judge Juan Ramirez's (Ret) blog here, which you should check out every few days for appellate law updates (and gentle jibes at Judge Rothenberg).
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, --- So. 3d --- (Fla. June 21, 2012) adopted Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.516 (Service of Pleadings and Papers) to provide that all documents required or permitted to be served on another party must be served by e-mail. Under subdivision (b)(1) (Service by Electronic Mail (―e-mail), upon appearing in a proceeding a lawyer must designate a primary e-mail address, and may designate up to two secondary e-mail addresses, for receiving service. Thereafter, service on the lawyer must be made by e-mail. The rule does permit several limited exceptions to this requirement. A lawyer may file a motion to be excused from e-mail service, demonstrating that he or she [is living in the stone age and] has no e-mail account and lacks access to the Internet at the lawyer’s office. Similarly, individuals who are not represented by an attorney may designate an e-mail address for service if they wish; however, pro se litigants are not required to use e-mail service.
The Opinion is here.
Civil lawyers must email by September 1, the criminal bar has until October 1 ( a reader says the date is 10/1/2013?? Either way, no time like the present to start the ol' Zeos 286 microprocessor and start sending emails) to fire up their laptops and PDF files.
Need an email account for free? Gmail works great. Sign up here.
FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
It tolls for those trial lawyers who look like Papa Hemingway:
Order Denying Louderback Time Off
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
PRESSURE
"PRESSURE (presh-er) The exertion of force upon a surface or item by an object in contact with it."
When Lyndon Johnson unexpectedly became the 36th president of the United States, he was faced on November 23, 1963 with multiple challenges. To reassure a nation, project confidence and calm, and start the logjam-stalled process of getting President Kennedy's bills passed- none of which a recalcitrant congress had deigned to do during 1963. In the space of 8-10 weeks, facing unrelenting pressure, Johnson lowered the budget 5 billion dollars, reduced the total number of federal employees, got an unpopular tax cut bill passed (ironically, in 1963 it was Democrats fighting for a tax cut to stimulate the economy while being fought by conservative republicans who wanted higher taxes and no deficits) and got the most comprehensive civil rights bill passed in the face of southern democratic senate opposition that had prevented such bills even coming up for votes in over fifty years. Viewed by liberal northerners as a fake liberal, and conservative southerners as a turncoat traitor to the south, Johnson had pressure everywhere he turned. And there was also that troubling issue with a small country called Vietnam.
Joel Brown, the 4th administrative judge of the 11th Judicial Circuit (in our memory- Wetherington, Rivkind, Farina, and Brown) is facing pressures of his own to implement the new Limited Registry Act (LRA). The LRA a/k/a "the cheap two bit lawyers act") provides for minimum wage level payments for court appointed attorneys (for example, $2,000 for a non-death penalty first degree murder case. Assume 200 hours prep time over two years and 25 hours in trial time, and five hours in post trial work, motions, sentencing, yields 2000/230= $8.70 per hour). The law requires the administrative judge of each circuit to issue administrative orders implementing the act.
On one side Judge Brown has the Florida Legislature, backed up presumably, by public opinion firmly opposed to spending tax- payer dollars on criminals and their sleazy lawyers. On the other side is the criminal defense bar, warily watching the Judge, ready to pounce (presumably) with objections, motions, requests for hearing, lawsuits, appeals, mud wrestling challenges- basically all the tools in a trial lawyer's tool box/belt.
Pressure cannot build forever. Even continental shelfs rubbing against each other in unrelenting slow motion for hundreds of years (check out DOM's post on self pleasuring here) eventually release their pressure in the form of earth quakes. When that happens nuclear power stations melt down and spill radioactive waste into the sea contaminating the seafood of the world's largest seafood consumer- just to mention one bad outcome of pressure.
The rumor mill of the REGJB says that Judge Brown will release his administrative order and unleash fee armageddon this Friday. Judge Brown for his part is as willing to speak with us on this issue as President Obama is willing to buy Justice Scalia a beer and chat about his dissent in Arizona v. U.S (which you should really read.)
Will Brown melt down? Will REGB lawyers be reduced to panhandling for scraps of fees- working for an hourly rate less than the hotdog vendor on the corner or the janitorial staff that make our courtrooms so sparkling clean?
What can Brown do for you?
We shall see.
When Lyndon Johnson unexpectedly became the 36th president of the United States, he was faced on November 23, 1963 with multiple challenges. To reassure a nation, project confidence and calm, and start the logjam-stalled process of getting President Kennedy's bills passed- none of which a recalcitrant congress had deigned to do during 1963. In the space of 8-10 weeks, facing unrelenting pressure, Johnson lowered the budget 5 billion dollars, reduced the total number of federal employees, got an unpopular tax cut bill passed (ironically, in 1963 it was Democrats fighting for a tax cut to stimulate the economy while being fought by conservative republicans who wanted higher taxes and no deficits) and got the most comprehensive civil rights bill passed in the face of southern democratic senate opposition that had prevented such bills even coming up for votes in over fifty years. Viewed by liberal northerners as a fake liberal, and conservative southerners as a turncoat traitor to the south, Johnson had pressure everywhere he turned. And there was also that troubling issue with a small country called Vietnam.
Joel Brown, the 4th administrative judge of the 11th Judicial Circuit (in our memory- Wetherington, Rivkind, Farina, and Brown) is facing pressures of his own to implement the new Limited Registry Act (LRA). The LRA a/k/a "the cheap two bit lawyers act") provides for minimum wage level payments for court appointed attorneys (for example, $2,000 for a non-death penalty first degree murder case. Assume 200 hours prep time over two years and 25 hours in trial time, and five hours in post trial work, motions, sentencing, yields 2000/230= $8.70 per hour). The law requires the administrative judge of each circuit to issue administrative orders implementing the act.
On one side Judge Brown has the Florida Legislature, backed up presumably, by public opinion firmly opposed to spending tax- payer dollars on criminals and their sleazy lawyers. On the other side is the criminal defense bar, warily watching the Judge, ready to pounce (presumably) with objections, motions, requests for hearing, lawsuits, appeals, mud wrestling challenges- basically all the tools in a trial lawyer's tool box/belt.
Pressure cannot build forever. Even continental shelfs rubbing against each other in unrelenting slow motion for hundreds of years (check out DOM's post on self pleasuring here) eventually release their pressure in the form of earth quakes. When that happens nuclear power stations melt down and spill radioactive waste into the sea contaminating the seafood of the world's largest seafood consumer- just to mention one bad outcome of pressure.
The rumor mill of the REGJB says that Judge Brown will release his administrative order and unleash fee armageddon this Friday. Judge Brown for his part is as willing to speak with us on this issue as President Obama is willing to buy Justice Scalia a beer and chat about his dissent in Arizona v. U.S (which you should really read.)
Will Brown melt down? Will REGB lawyers be reduced to panhandling for scraps of fees- working for an hourly rate less than the hotdog vendor on the corner or the janitorial staff that make our courtrooms so sparkling clean?
What can Brown do for you?
We shall see.
SNARLS
Fast on the heels of Mondays monumental traffic jams caused by the rain and "you know who",
the commander in chief, Barak Obama will be here Tuesday afternoon, just in time for rush hour.
One is the loneliest number:
DOM has the close up details of why Onan would have been much better off being represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office of the Southern District and having his case decided by the 11th Circuit instead of a biblical injunction against...certain deeds better off done alone in the privacy of your home, but legally accomplished nonetheless in a waiting room of a VA hospital with an attractive veteran nearby. Confused? Click here.
Citizens dis-united:
The U.S. Supreme court is might satisfied with the political landscape the$e day$ with billionaire$ able to drop tens of millions of dollars into campaigns with no oversight and no disclosure. The court made that abundantly clear in its per curiam (latin for "you didn't just lose, you got creamed") decision in American Tradition v. Bullock in which the court said the holding in Citizens United applies to Montana (and presumably the other 49 states). The dissent by Breyer is interesting. with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg joining (that's a 5-4 per curium affirmed for those of you keeping score at home).
As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.”...
Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
So money doesn't corrupt politics. Duh!
It's Torture:
For those of you firmly in the "Scalia is really a friend to the criminal defense bar camp" note that he had no trouble concurring with Justice Thomas's view of the eighth amendment in his dissent in Miller v. Albama:
As I have previously explained, “the Cruel and Unusual Punish- ments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. The clause does not contain a “proportionality principle...
In short, it does not authorize courts to invalidate any punishment they deem disproportionate to the severity of the crime or to a particular class of offenders. Instead, the clause “leaves the unavoidably moral question of who ‘deserves’ a particular nonprohibited method of punishment to the judgment of the legislatures that authorize the penalty...
the commander in chief, Barak Obama will be here Tuesday afternoon, just in time for rush hour.
One is the loneliest number:
DOM has the close up details of why Onan would have been much better off being represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office of the Southern District and having his case decided by the 11th Circuit instead of a biblical injunction against...certain deeds better off done alone in the privacy of your home, but legally accomplished nonetheless in a waiting room of a VA hospital with an attractive veteran nearby. Confused? Click here.
Citizens dis-united:
The U.S. Supreme court is might satisfied with the political landscape the$e day$ with billionaire$ able to drop tens of millions of dollars into campaigns with no oversight and no disclosure. The court made that abundantly clear in its per curiam (latin for "you didn't just lose, you got creamed") decision in American Tradition v. Bullock in which the court said the holding in Citizens United applies to Montana (and presumably the other 49 states). The dissent by Breyer is interesting. with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg joining (that's a 5-4 per curium affirmed for those of you keeping score at home).
As Justice Stevens explained, “technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much the same way as direct contributions.”...
Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana. Thus, Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
So money doesn't corrupt politics. Duh!
It's Torture:
For those of you firmly in the "Scalia is really a friend to the criminal defense bar camp" note that he had no trouble concurring with Justice Thomas's view of the eighth amendment in his dissent in Miller v. Albama:
As I have previously explained, “the Cruel and Unusual Punish- ments Clause was originally understood as prohibiting torturous methods of punishment—specifically methods akin to those that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. The clause does not contain a “proportionality principle...
In short, it does not authorize courts to invalidate any punishment they deem disproportionate to the severity of the crime or to a particular class of offenders. Instead, the clause “leaves the unavoidably moral question of who ‘deserves’ a particular nonprohibited method of punishment to the judgment of the legislatures that authorize the penalty...
Lets us interpret the Thomas dissent for you:
The eighth amendment cruel and unusual prohibition applies to the manner of punishment, not the length. Torture is prohibited. Getting fifty years for stealing a candy bar is not, so long as a bunch of yahoo legislators approve such a law.
A friend in need, is a friend indeed.
See You in court.
Monday, June 25, 2012
DREAM
UPDATE: Supreme Court rules life sentences without parole for juveniles are unconstituional. Miller v. Alabama.
If you're not reading Robert Caro's The Passage Of Power, you're missing out on the remarkable story of Lyndon Johnson's humiliating years as Vice President and the even more remarkable way he took control of the county within hours of becoming president. It is a breathtaking story full of pathos and containing more intrigue and twists and turns than any fictional story writer could invent.
With the Miami Heat generating intense discussion, we turn to a less emotional subject:
The Dream Act:
Marco came to the United States with his mother when he was 18 months old. His father had been killed before he was born. With relatives in the United States promising her a steady job and the chance of a better life for her son, Marco's mother entered the United States illegally. That was seventeen years ago. Today Marco has graduated high school as the valedictorian. His scores on math and science exams established him as one of the brightest prodigies in the United States. Schools like Stanford and MIT are interested. During the past seventeen years Marco's mother has lived a law abiding life, working for a cleaning service and having her payroll taxes deducted.
What is to become of Marco, an illegal immigrant?
Should he self deport as Mitt Romney wants?
Should he be held responsible for the acts his mother did on his behalf when he was an infant?
Should he benefit from his Mother's crime?
Should the United States extend citizenship because of his intellectual promise?
The Dream Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) first proposed in 2001 by senators Hatch (R, Utah) and Durbin( D, Illinois) provides a path to permanent residency for certain aliens, who came to this country as minors, lived here continuously and in a law abiding manner, and who then complete two years of military service or two years of college.
The bill in various forms has been re-introduced every year since 2006.
On June 15, 2012 President Obama signed an executive order ending the deportation of illegal aliens who meet the conditions for permanent residence under the Dream Act.
Fair? Foul? A usurpation of legislative power by the chief executive?
Is this still a country of immigrants or is immigration at unsupportable levels one of the serious drains on our economy? Discuss.
If you're not reading Robert Caro's The Passage Of Power, you're missing out on the remarkable story of Lyndon Johnson's humiliating years as Vice President and the even more remarkable way he took control of the county within hours of becoming president. It is a breathtaking story full of pathos and containing more intrigue and twists and turns than any fictional story writer could invent.
With the Miami Heat generating intense discussion, we turn to a less emotional subject:
The Dream Act:
Marco came to the United States with his mother when he was 18 months old. His father had been killed before he was born. With relatives in the United States promising her a steady job and the chance of a better life for her son, Marco's mother entered the United States illegally. That was seventeen years ago. Today Marco has graduated high school as the valedictorian. His scores on math and science exams established him as one of the brightest prodigies in the United States. Schools like Stanford and MIT are interested. During the past seventeen years Marco's mother has lived a law abiding life, working for a cleaning service and having her payroll taxes deducted.
What is to become of Marco, an illegal immigrant?
Should he self deport as Mitt Romney wants?
Should he be held responsible for the acts his mother did on his behalf when he was an infant?
Should he benefit from his Mother's crime?
Should the United States extend citizenship because of his intellectual promise?
The Dream Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) first proposed in 2001 by senators Hatch (R, Utah) and Durbin( D, Illinois) provides a path to permanent residency for certain aliens, who came to this country as minors, lived here continuously and in a law abiding manner, and who then complete two years of military service or two years of college.
The bill in various forms has been re-introduced every year since 2006.
On June 15, 2012 President Obama signed an executive order ending the deportation of illegal aliens who meet the conditions for permanent residence under the Dream Act.
Fair? Foul? A usurpation of legislative power by the chief executive?
Is this still a country of immigrants or is immigration at unsupportable levels one of the serious drains on our economy? Discuss.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
"WHEN THE GERMANS BOMBED PEARL HARBOR" ....
THE CAPTAIN RETORTS:
..... Quiet. Rumpole's on a roll.
POINT. COUNTERPOINT.
JANE HORACE YOU IGNORANT SLUT. http://www.hulu.com/watch/2306
When I first emailed Rumpole the other day, it was because he had removed my post on the HEAT victory Thursday evening. But, after he told me why he removed it, I challenged him to a Point. Counterpoint. After reading the comments section from the past three days, I think the readers have done a much better job than I ever could have done.
For most of the readers, this one included, we could care less what Ann Rand* would have written about Lebron James and his "decision" to take his talents to South Beach rather than stay in the "marble pits" of Cleveland with Mo Williams, J.J. Hickson, Anthony Parker, Anderson Varejao, and a 37 year old Shaq (his teammate starters in his final year with the Cavs).
It seems that the tenor of this debate has changed somewhat. What I thought this debate was supposed to be about was this:
POINT:"The Heat couldn't win a championship last year. They won't win one this year and they will implode next year, all because they are not a team and cannot handle adversity. Watch."
Counterpoint:
OKC drops four straight. HEAT wins NBA Championship.
POINT:"As to the Heat- this goes with what I have been saying all along. This is not a team. This is three spoiled stars who are now down to two stars and look what happens- they can't win. Can't make a free throw. Can't make a layup. A good team will beat these spoiled brats any day of the week in a seven game series. "
Counterpoint:
Shane Battier, Mario Chalmers, Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem, Norris Cole, Joel Anthony.
POINT:"The Heat are down 2-1 against the Pacers. Game 4 is in Indiana. Miami Superstar Dwayne Wade was 2-13 and scored 5 points in the Heat's latest shellacking. Let us take a moment to analyze this series....seriously...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a bunch of spoiled babies. One player gets hurt and the whole team collapses. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Counterpoint:
LBJ 40-18-9 and DWADE 41-10-3.
POINT:
"Rumpole predicts: Celtics in six. "
Counterpoint:
HEAT in seven.
POINT:"I have extremely limited knowledge of basketball. My knowledge about strategy stopped sometime around the same time Dean Smith's four corners offense was outlawed with the college shot clock.
Put another way- I have as much knowledge about basketball as I do about case law. But what I do know is people. It's how I win cases. And it's why I am supremely confident that a well coached team will always beat a bunch of whiny prima donnas (the New England cheaters not withstanding.) "
Counterpoint:
Where do I begin. You were right (see first red highlights). Scott Brooks: NBA Coach of the Year in 2010; in just four years has taken his team to the NBA Finals, losing last year in the Conference Final to eventual champion Mavs.
POINT:"I am not an expert in Basketball. However, I stick to this proposition- good coaching and team work will beat a team of stars that do not play well together"
Counterpoint:
Right again. Erik Spoelstra and his nine (James, Wade, Bosh, Battier, Chalmers, Miller, Cole, Haslem, Anthony) beat KD, Westbrook and Harden. And they beat Garnett, Allen, Pierce and Rondo.
POINT:"For those of you who kept asking us what we say now about the Heat? Here now is our answer:
We think they're a bunch of losers with no heart. What do we think of the Heat? Give us a well coached team manned by players with heart and guts any day over this band of spoiled prima donnas."
Counterpoint:
See below. We think the HEAT have a lot of heart and guts and they showed it best in their times of adversity.
POINT:"I think the Heat are in trouble. They are not a team. They are two stars, a third almost star and a poor supporting cast. A good team well coached will wipe the floor with them."
POINT:
"I still don't think the Heat has what it takes"
Counterpoints:
In case you have not been reading this Blog over the past fourteen months, all of the quotes above are from the man himself, Rumpole.
I think I'll end this with a quote from one of Rumpole's favourite leaders in British history. And the quote speaks volumes when you consider that most of America wrote the HEAT off at least three times during these playoffs; including most of the sportswriters and sports broadcasters; Skip Bayless, Steven A Smith, John Barry, Tim Legler, Stuart Scott, Chris Mullen, Michael Wilbon, just to name a few.
They wrote the HEAT off when the Pacers were up 2-1 in Round Two. What did the HEAT do: only win the next three games in a row, all without Chris Bosh in the lineup. And in the pivotal Game Four, Lebron James put up 40, 18 and 9.
They wrote the HEAT off again when the Celtics were up 3-2 in Round Three. What did the HEAT do: only win the next two games and take the series 4-3. And in the pivotal Game Six, Lebron James put up 45, 15, and 5.
They wrote the HEAT off again when the Thunder were up 1-0 in Round Four. What did the HEAT do: only win the next four games in a row and take the Championship series 4-1. And in the pivotal Game Two, Lebron James put up 32, 8, and 5.
For the Finals, LBJ averaged 28.6 points, 10.2 rebounds, and 7.4 assists in the five games. His closeout game was a resounding triple-double.
In the words of the late, great Winston Churchill:
"NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP"
Winston Churchill, October 29, 1941, Harrow School, U.K.
*intentional
And in response to the words of the great, but fortunately for us all, not late, Horace Rumpole, when he said on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, at the beginning of these playoffs: "The Heat couldn't win a championship last year - they won't win one this year". We say:
WE ARE THE
WE ARE THE
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS .... OF THE WORLD
..... Quiet. Rumpole's on a roll.
POINT. COUNTERPOINT.
When I first emailed Rumpole the other day, it was because he had removed my post on the HEAT victory Thursday evening. But, after he told me why he removed it, I challenged him to a Point. Counterpoint. After reading the comments section from the past three days, I think the readers have done a much better job than I ever could have done.
For most of the readers, this one included, we could care less what Ann Rand* would have written about Lebron James and his "decision" to take his talents to South Beach rather than stay in the "marble pits" of Cleveland with Mo Williams, J.J. Hickson, Anthony Parker, Anderson Varejao, and a 37 year old Shaq (his teammate starters in his final year with the Cavs).
It seems that the tenor of this debate has changed somewhat. What I thought this debate was supposed to be about was this:
POINT:"The Heat couldn't win a championship last year. They won't win one this year and they will implode next year, all because they are not a team and cannot handle adversity. Watch."
Counterpoint:
OKC drops four straight. HEAT wins NBA Championship.
POINT:"As to the Heat- this goes with what I have been saying all along. This is not a team. This is three spoiled stars who are now down to two stars and look what happens- they can't win. Can't make a free throw. Can't make a layup. A good team will beat these spoiled brats any day of the week in a seven game series. "
Counterpoint:
Shane Battier, Mario Chalmers, Mike Miller, Udonis Haslem, Norris Cole, Joel Anthony.
POINT:"The Heat are down 2-1 against the Pacers. Game 4 is in Indiana. Miami Superstar Dwayne Wade was 2-13 and scored 5 points in the Heat's latest shellacking. Let us take a moment to analyze this series....seriously...... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a bunch of spoiled babies. One player gets hurt and the whole team collapses. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Counterpoint:
LBJ 40-18-9 and DWADE 41-10-3.
POINT:
"Rumpole predicts: Celtics in six. "
Counterpoint:
HEAT in seven.
POINT:"I have extremely limited knowledge of basketball. My knowledge about strategy stopped sometime around the same time Dean Smith's four corners offense was outlawed with the college shot clock.
Put another way- I have as much knowledge about basketball as I do about case law. But what I do know is people. It's how I win cases. And it's why I am supremely confident that a well coached team will always beat a bunch of whiny prima donnas (the New England cheaters not withstanding.) "
Counterpoint:
Where do I begin. You were right (see first red highlights). Scott Brooks: NBA Coach of the Year in 2010; in just four years has taken his team to the NBA Finals, losing last year in the Conference Final to eventual champion Mavs.
POINT:"I am not an expert in Basketball. However, I stick to this proposition- good coaching and team work will beat a team of stars that do not play well together"
Counterpoint:
Right again. Erik Spoelstra and his nine (James, Wade, Bosh, Battier, Chalmers, Miller, Cole, Haslem, Anthony) beat KD, Westbrook and Harden. And they beat Garnett, Allen, Pierce and Rondo.
POINT:"For those of you who kept asking us what we say now about the Heat? Here now is our answer:
We think they're a bunch of losers with no heart. What do we think of the Heat? Give us a well coached team manned by players with heart and guts any day over this band of spoiled prima donnas."
Counterpoint:
See below. We think the HEAT have a lot of heart and guts and they showed it best in their times of adversity.
POINT:"I think the Heat are in trouble. They are not a team. They are two stars, a third almost star and a poor supporting cast. A good team well coached will wipe the floor with them."
POINT:
"I still don't think the Heat has what it takes"
Counterpoints:
In case you have not been reading this Blog over the past fourteen months, all of the quotes above are from the man himself, Rumpole.
I think I'll end this with a quote from one of Rumpole's favourite leaders in British history. And the quote speaks volumes when you consider that most of America wrote the HEAT off at least three times during these playoffs; including most of the sportswriters and sports broadcasters; Skip Bayless, Steven A Smith, John Barry, Tim Legler, Stuart Scott, Chris Mullen, Michael Wilbon, just to name a few.
They wrote the HEAT off when the Pacers were up 2-1 in Round Two. What did the HEAT do: only win the next three games in a row, all without Chris Bosh in the lineup. And in the pivotal Game Four, Lebron James put up 40, 18 and 9.
They wrote the HEAT off again when the Celtics were up 3-2 in Round Three. What did the HEAT do: only win the next two games and take the series 4-3. And in the pivotal Game Six, Lebron James put up 45, 15, and 5.
They wrote the HEAT off again when the Thunder were up 1-0 in Round Four. What did the HEAT do: only win the next four games in a row and take the Championship series 4-1. And in the pivotal Game Two, Lebron James put up 32, 8, and 5.
For the Finals, LBJ averaged 28.6 points, 10.2 rebounds, and 7.4 assists in the five games. His closeout game was a resounding triple-double.
In the words of the late, great Winston Churchill:
"NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER GIVE UP"
Winston Churchill, October 29, 1941, Harrow School, U.K.
*intentional
And in response to the words of the great, but fortunately for us all, not late, Horace Rumpole, when he said on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, at the beginning of these playoffs: "The Heat couldn't win a championship last year - they won't win one this year". We say:
WE ARE THE
WE ARE THE
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS .... OF THE WORLD
Friday, June 22, 2012
YOUR MIAMI HEAT
UPDATE: Coming soon: The captain rises to the defense of the Heat.
No one will ever mistake the 2012 Miami Heat with the 1969 Mets, or the 1972 Dolphins, or the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team. No, the Heat have all the emotional impact of a black stretch limo pulling up to a G4 at a private airport.
When Michael Jordan spent all those years falling just short in the playoffs, he didn’t demand a trade to play with Magic Johnson. When the Larry Bird led Celtics beat the Lakers, Magic didn’t play out his contract and sign with Boston.
When Ali walked into the ring in Kinshasa, Zaire against George Foreman- the George Forman who had arms the size of most men’s legs and the George Forman who in 1973 knocked Joe Frazier to the canvas five times in less than two rounds; the George Foreman who faced Ali with a record of 38-0, 35 by knockout- Ali didn’t demand that Ken Norton help him in the ring.
In the 1980 Olympics it was a bunch of college kids, mostly from Minnesota or Boston University, that faced the Russians- the greatest hockey players of their generation, and won.
Name the starting lineup of the 72 Dolphins. Their quarterback Bob Griese will never be remembered as the premier quarterback of his era. The 72 Dolphins achieved perfection because their coached molded an entire team. When Griese went down in the fifth game of the season, 38 year old journeyman Earl Morrall, claimed before the season by Coach Shula off of waivers for $100.00, stepped in and guided the team to wins through the rest of the season and the first playoff game.
Americans love an underdog. Namath beating the mighty Colts in 69. The miracle Mets of the same year. Sea Biscuit was an undersized, knobby kneed horse who was raced 35 times as a two year old before being claimed for $2,500.00. The horse went on to win the match of the century against Man of War and then recovering from a seemingly career ending injury, went on to win the Santa Anita Derby after having lost it twice before.
No one will ever look at the 2012 Miami Heat and think of Ali on the ropes doing the unthinkable and unbelievable. No one will remember the Heat the way they think of the 69 Mets or the 1980 US Hockey team. There are no Earl Morralls on this team of high priced superstars. There are no athletes on this team with the heart of Sea Biscuit. No member of the Miami Heat ever looked deep inside of himself and found a way to will his team to victory like Michael Jordan did or Magic Johnson did when he took over center for the Lakers in game six of the championship series. With hall of famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the bench, Magic scored 42 points as the center and beat the Dr. J led 76’ers for the title.
Sure Lebron James is a good player. He has great talent. But he doesn’t have heart. When he couldn’t win in Cleveland he left. Magic never left LA; Larry Bird never left Boston. Mike Eruzione and Jim Craig never let their hockey team give up and Tom Seaver and Cleon Jones and Tommy Agee always believed that their Mets- the joke of the league during the 1960’s- could win it all.
The Heat victory is a victory for corporate America. With limos and luxury suites and seats that costs more than most people make in a month, they are the best team money can buy. The Heat and their fans will never know what it is like to take the field of play being an underdog – being given no chance- being written off by everyone but themselves. Ali reached deep down inside of himself and found the courage and heart of a champion; Lebron James skipped town when he couldn't win with the Cavaliers.
The Heat are the champions; we give them their due. Go celebrate their victory if you want to. You can have them and all that they stand for.
No one will ever mistake the 2012 Miami Heat with the 1969 Mets, or the 1972 Dolphins, or the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team. No, the Heat have all the emotional impact of a black stretch limo pulling up to a G4 at a private airport.
When Michael Jordan spent all those years falling just short in the playoffs, he didn’t demand a trade to play with Magic Johnson. When the Larry Bird led Celtics beat the Lakers, Magic didn’t play out his contract and sign with Boston.
When Ali walked into the ring in Kinshasa, Zaire against George Foreman- the George Forman who had arms the size of most men’s legs and the George Forman who in 1973 knocked Joe Frazier to the canvas five times in less than two rounds; the George Foreman who faced Ali with a record of 38-0, 35 by knockout- Ali didn’t demand that Ken Norton help him in the ring.
In the 1980 Olympics it was a bunch of college kids, mostly from Minnesota or Boston University, that faced the Russians- the greatest hockey players of their generation, and won.
Name the starting lineup of the 72 Dolphins. Their quarterback Bob Griese will never be remembered as the premier quarterback of his era. The 72 Dolphins achieved perfection because their coached molded an entire team. When Griese went down in the fifth game of the season, 38 year old journeyman Earl Morrall, claimed before the season by Coach Shula off of waivers for $100.00, stepped in and guided the team to wins through the rest of the season and the first playoff game.
Americans love an underdog. Namath beating the mighty Colts in 69. The miracle Mets of the same year. Sea Biscuit was an undersized, knobby kneed horse who was raced 35 times as a two year old before being claimed for $2,500.00. The horse went on to win the match of the century against Man of War and then recovering from a seemingly career ending injury, went on to win the Santa Anita Derby after having lost it twice before.
No one will ever look at the 2012 Miami Heat and think of Ali on the ropes doing the unthinkable and unbelievable. No one will remember the Heat the way they think of the 69 Mets or the 1980 US Hockey team. There are no Earl Morralls on this team of high priced superstars. There are no athletes on this team with the heart of Sea Biscuit. No member of the Miami Heat ever looked deep inside of himself and found a way to will his team to victory like Michael Jordan did or Magic Johnson did when he took over center for the Lakers in game six of the championship series. With hall of famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the bench, Magic scored 42 points as the center and beat the Dr. J led 76’ers for the title.
Sure Lebron James is a good player. He has great talent. But he doesn’t have heart. When he couldn’t win in Cleveland he left. Magic never left LA; Larry Bird never left Boston. Mike Eruzione and Jim Craig never let their hockey team give up and Tom Seaver and Cleon Jones and Tommy Agee always believed that their Mets- the joke of the league during the 1960’s- could win it all.
The Heat victory is a victory for corporate America. With limos and luxury suites and seats that costs more than most people make in a month, they are the best team money can buy. The Heat and their fans will never know what it is like to take the field of play being an underdog – being given no chance- being written off by everyone but themselves. Ali reached deep down inside of himself and found the courage and heart of a champion; Lebron James skipped town when he couldn't win with the Cavaliers.
The Heat are the champions; we give them their due. Go celebrate their victory if you want to. You can have them and all that they stand for.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
A SEASON ON THE BRINK
Having battled back from the brink of elimination, your Miami Heat now stand at the brink of an NBA Championship, their first in the Lebron era that was ushered in with confident assurances that multiple championships were not just likely, but inevitable.
We shall see.
DOM has a nice piece on the 11th Circuit's dismissal of Giglio issues in a Florida Death Penalty case
( Trepal v. DOC)
As June winds to a close Supreme Court Justices become increasingly edgy to start their summer vacations. Thus the speculation on the imminent decision in the Affordable Health Care case has become rampant.
Closer to home, defense attorneys are waiting breathlessly for Judge Brown to release his administrative order implanting Florida's Affordable Court Appointed Attorney Act (Motto: "Cheaper is better."). Rumors that the FACDL among others will strike hard and quick at the law and the administrative order are- thankfully- true.
Wednesday is the first day of summer, so naturally it's raining in South Florida.
A HIGHER AUTHORITY:
The law suit of all lawsuits has been filed alleging that Hebrew National hot dogs are NOT kosher. As the South Florida Lawyers blogger would say: Oy!.
Longtime and careful readers remember that we've always been partial to Chicago style dogs.
See You In Court.
We shall see.
DOM has a nice piece on the 11th Circuit's dismissal of Giglio issues in a Florida Death Penalty case
( Trepal v. DOC)
As June winds to a close Supreme Court Justices become increasingly edgy to start their summer vacations. Thus the speculation on the imminent decision in the Affordable Health Care case has become rampant.
Closer to home, defense attorneys are waiting breathlessly for Judge Brown to release his administrative order implanting Florida's Affordable Court Appointed Attorney Act (Motto: "Cheaper is better."). Rumors that the FACDL among others will strike hard and quick at the law and the administrative order are- thankfully- true.
Wednesday is the first day of summer, so naturally it's raining in South Florida.
A HIGHER AUTHORITY:
The law suit of all lawsuits has been filed alleging that Hebrew National hot dogs are NOT kosher. As the South Florida Lawyers blogger would say: Oy!.
Longtime and careful readers remember that we've always been partial to Chicago style dogs.
See You In Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)