Miami in the House!
JAABLOG Trivia - Q1: What circumstances would necessitate Gentleman Eric Hendon spending last Friday afternoon on Special Assignment in Broward County for, of all things, a 3.850?
A1: When the lawyer in the hot seat is now a Broward judge, of course. The case is State v. Marvis Johnson, and the lawyer/judge was/is Matt Destry. The ineffective assistance of counsel allegations are still sketchy at this time, but we'll be sure to follow-up with a later post ...
Q2: What Broward circuit judge did Hendon work with back in the day at the Dade Public Defender's Office?
A2: Michele Towbin-Singer.
Thanks for playing!
Paul Backman calling Part Deux- everybody knows about Backman calling Howard Finkelstein concerning the Gardiner transcripts when he was still an active member of the JQC. And everybody knows when we asked the judge whether or not it was true, he didn't deny it. Naturally, people are now wondering if there were other JQC cases involving Broward judges that Backman may also have inappropriately involved himself with, and whether the JQC knew anything about the Gardiner issue or any other instances of concern. Of course, JQC secrecy rules will make getting answers harder than solving a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, but that doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked. In fact, it's imperative that they're both asked and answered, JQC confidentiality be damned. After all, public confidence in the judiciary cannot be maintained if the judicial watchdog agency has been compromised, so hang on for what's sure to be a bumpy ride ...
“We’re gonna have to lien ya” - JAABLOG first reported on the growing Strawman movement back in 2011 and 2012. Now The New York Times ran this piece Friday, detailing the methods of "paper terrorism" employed by sovereign citizens in their war against "the false government". Pretty scary stuff, as the Broward judges who have had to deal with illegal liens filed against them in the past can attest. Presumably also scary stuff for the Bar, since it will likely kill them to have to admit lawyers can be reporters too. Anyway, the movement is definitely growing, so make sure to check your credit histories regularly ...
To disqualify, or not to disqualify? - as Bar v. Blog inches its way toward trial, we're starting to think about potential disqualifications, both now and down the road. Certainly we like having an unbiased local Grievance Committee, hopefully familiar with JAABLOG's role in the Broward legal community and reputation for being "the crystal ball of the courthouse". But we don't like calling assigned Bar prosecutor Navin Ramnath and having to deal with Chief Branch Discipline Counsel Adria Quintela, who certainly never took our calls before the witch hunt began. Sure, Ramnath is a Bar newbie, but why all the special interest from Quintela? A real head scratcher, for sure. In any event, we're checking with the Bar in Tallahassee to see if Quintela has any special relationship to Gardiner beyond her role as former supervisor to Juan Arias, or with Bobby Diaz, star of many of the articles cited by the Bar in their complaints.
Next up for consideration is none other than Supreme Court Justice Jorge Labarga. Long time readers may remember he starred on the blog many moons ago, stemming from some inappropriate comments on the record about Gary Kollin specifically, and hard charging lawyers in general. If Bar v. Blog eventually has to be considered by the Supremes like Sean Conway's case was, we don't think Labarga should be weighing in. Even if the JQC ultimately decided not to find probable cause regarding the statements publicized by JAABLOG, it doesn't change the fact he meant what he said.
From the Kollin transcript:
And, even when he’s winning, he likes to do that. And, uh, you know, I really don’t understand. Because when you pick a fight with a judge; ultimately you are going to lose. Not today, but five years from now, ten years from now, six years from now, that judge is going to remember you, always, always.
And, you know, when you do -– there is an old saying that if you go after a judge, you better kill him. Because, like I said, it’s true. You might win your battle today and I might lose it and do a direct contempt completely wrong because, I lose, I didn’t ask the right questions and it might reverse me and he would go after me right now. But, you know, five years from now, he may have an attorney’s fees hearing in front of me, he may have this in front of me and you are always going to remember those guys. I don’t know why they do that. I really don’t understand why lawyers do that.
But, he’s very combative. I have to be honest with you; I wish I had kept that case because he would have been fun. (chuckle)...
After reading that, we'd have to be crazy not to disqualify Labarga, right?
(Click here for the original Labarga v. Kollin article, and click here for the JQC's 2009 "No PC" letter)
Coming Soon - Trinci's Folly: Why 95 and the Sawgrass don't meet ...
Jim Morrison on his upcoming trial:
"I might even buy a suit, you know, to make a good impression ... Kind of a conservative dark blue suit ... I think I'll get a suit, and take a lot of tranquilizers, and just try and have a good time. Maybe I'll keep a diary of the whole thing and publish it in Esquire ... my impressions of my hanging." (The Village Voice 1970)
Thank You Mask Man
↧
SUNDAY NOTES
↧