QUESTIONS WOULD YIELD IMPORTANT ANSWERS
Sitting back and wondering, if I had the honor of being able to cast a vote in the upcoming chief judge election, what would I be looking for? What knowledge would I be seeking from the candidates?
Vic Tobin, in his memo to Dale Ross, wanted to have an open election, he wanted the ability to have the candidates nominated a week or two before the election. He proposed that the candidates have a question and answer session so the voters could fairly hear the candidates ideas in an open forum, all at the same time. He wanted to eliminate any form of secretness. Vic wanted a change from the old ways. He wanted to instill a feeling of change, a new beginning.
Dale being the chief judge decided to stay with the old ways, the established tradition of the current administration, no change needed. There was no need for prior nominations, no need to allow prior presentations, no need for openness. There was no prior need, Dale ran unopposed.
So what would be the questions that I would have wanted to ask? Here is a list that I felt would be important in my decision making for the best candidate.
What would be your first action taken or administrative order issued upon becoming chief judge?
Would you support term limits for chief judge? If so, how long could a chief judge serve and then how long would the judge have to sit out before being able to run again?
What would your criteria be for instituting division changes for judges?
Pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration, how do you see your role as a chief judge?
Do you believe that the Rules of Judicial Administration recognize any employer/employee or supervisory authority to be utilized on your fellow judges?
If so, how do you see your role as chief judge in administering change to a particular judge's policies or procedures?
As chief judge, what do you envision your role to be as pertaining to the public and bar?
When making appointments for general magistrate, how would you eliminate the potential appearance caused by appointing friends, family or former business associates of the judiciary?
Lastly, what promises or assurances, if made, have you given to fellow judges to secure their vote?
Jeff Ivashuk
Vic Tobin, in his memo to Dale Ross, wanted to have an open election, he wanted the ability to have the candidates nominated a week or two before the election. He proposed that the candidates have a question and answer session so the voters could fairly hear the candidates ideas in an open forum, all at the same time. He wanted to eliminate any form of secretness. Vic wanted a change from the old ways. He wanted to instill a feeling of change, a new beginning.
Dale being the chief judge decided to stay with the old ways, the established tradition of the current administration, no change needed. There was no need for prior nominations, no need to allow prior presentations, no need for openness. There was no prior need, Dale ran unopposed.
So what would be the questions that I would have wanted to ask? Here is a list that I felt would be important in my decision making for the best candidate.
What would be your first action taken or administrative order issued upon becoming chief judge?
Would you support term limits for chief judge? If so, how long could a chief judge serve and then how long would the judge have to sit out before being able to run again?
What would your criteria be for instituting division changes for judges?
Pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration, how do you see your role as a chief judge?
Do you believe that the Rules of Judicial Administration recognize any employer/employee or supervisory authority to be utilized on your fellow judges?
If so, how do you see your role as chief judge in administering change to a particular judge's policies or procedures?
As chief judge, what do you envision your role to be as pertaining to the public and bar?
When making appointments for general magistrate, how would you eliminate the potential appearance caused by appointing friends, family or former business associates of the judiciary?
Lastly, what promises or assurances, if made, have you given to fellow judges to secure their vote?
Jeff Ivashuk
and why....because he can !
Here's a question: Would you do everyone a favor and send O'Connor packing to Civil?
that would not be doing the civil litigants a favor
They can only maintain their particular brand of control (What else would you call it?) if things are done in the shadows, out of the light of public scrutiny. I wonder what Ross will do when members of the press decide it's in the public interest to attend this so called election for Chief Judge. One can only guess. But I hope with what we have seen with the judges here in Broward, that all the members of the press would see it as a necessity to be present to see if in fact we have a fair and honest election of a New Chief Judge in this Circuit. Dale Ross bears the sole responsibility for what has been a long accumulation of problems that in many ways he has encouraged and he still wants to run a show whose ratings have lagged far behind the times for a county the size of this one. Further, he doesn't seem to care about the quality of his stewardship and the legacy he will leave behind, just as long as he can direct the outcome. He has done more in the last twenty years to diminish the integrity of our judicial system than anyone that comes to mind, and could only do so as long as the deeds were done in secret. This circuit needs a good airing, so anyone interested should show for the vote and see if in view of recent events he has the temerity to turn anyone away. Things could look pretty bad for him if he thinks he can still play ball by the same old rules.
Jeff
quit lamenting and run so you can have your questions answered. you are experienced, successful, and have the support of the blog, why not.
I hear a lot of talk about wanting change on here but until someone around here steps up to run. until the it not but talk and talk is cheap.
i would hardly call it lamenting, sounds like good rational thought to me
at a minimum should there not be term limits/rotation of the position as is done in other circuits?
O'Connor to civil; I second that motion.
and...Would you support a common policy regarding respecting private lawyers (e.g.not making them wait two hours at callender calls)?
What should be done about baliffs who are consistantly rude and overbearing toward lawyers and the public?
I understand that the R. Jud. Admin have changed #s but under the old Rules-2.050(f) required a dubordinate judge to advise the CJ every month after 60 days that he or she had not done their lawful durt to rule in a timely manner and Rule 2.050(g) and (f) reqired the CJ to look into it and as a supervisor to do something about it instead of suborning and protecting it.
Maybe it should start there; a CJ doing its lawful assigned duty.
Here's another good question to add: What the heck is wrong with you people?
Here's a throwback to yesteryear when Judge Ross was just a toddling Chief Judge.
I harken back to the Ken Jenne "Day of Distinction" that Judge Ross entered.
Administrative Order I94-H-1E
http://www.17th.flcourts.org/I-94-H-1E.pdf
At the time, if memory serves correctly, Mr. Jenne was still a partner at Conrad, Scherer & Jenne (Now Conrad & Scherer). What an incredible troika. Rex Conrad, Bill Scherer and Ken Jenne.
And here's Judge Ross taking the time out to declare the first Friday of each November, "Ken Jenne Day".
LOL
Talk about playing favorites.
Judges in this county feel apparently that they are answerable to no one. To answer the above questions would require an honest effort to be accountable to the public they are supposed to serve.
Imagine that!
why can't we get satz to investigate ross and 2 other judges for rape. we have sworn statements and emails. no investigation. one reporter did a story on it and got demoted. are they all in bed together
WILL THE BALLOTS FOR THE CHIEF JUDGE ELECTION BE PRESERVED? WILL THE CONTENDERS BE ABLE TO VERIFY THE VOTES??
good question and why shouldn't the publick know who voted for who. we all want to know who we can trust
To David Lindsey,
Your questions is pointed and quite correctly observes true facts:
"David Lindsey wrote:
why can't we get satz to investigate ross and 2 other judges for rape. we have sworn statements and emails. no investigation. one reporter did a story on it and got demoted. are they all in bed together"
Now the answer: Michael Satz and Ken Jenne were good ole buddies along with Ross. The entire law enforcement community so to speak is right there in bed together.
You see, the good ole' boy network still thrives in our faire county. And because of it, the judges are allowed to get away with just about anything ... unless they're on the receiving end of a political hatchet job.
Satz will never investigate or prosecute a single judge in this county. Ross will see to it whether chief judge or just a little ole indian. There have been so many cover-ups its sickening. We know about them, but the evidence is also out there, right?
Like I keep saying, as the courthouse slowly yields its secrets, as the judicial closet slowly yields its skeletons, they will go from protecting each other to ratting each other out.
With a little elbow grease and some effort, it will all fall apart like wet toilet paper. You'll see.
If you have concerns about Satz, take it down to Dade County's chief prosecutor and have them recommend that the governor appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and charge whichever judges are guilty of a crime. If there is evidence, who is responsible for withholding it?
Remember the real goal here is to find honest people to work in and run our judiciary.
You are my favorite poster. Insightful and Informed. Please keep it up. My guess is you are a very wise, and dare I say, senior member of the human race?
thank u. i am going to send transcripts and email of attorney marilyn b. lindsey swearing she was raped by ross and 2 other judges. if they are not guilty then they nedd to have her disbarred for blaackmail
The JQC believes that the concurring opinion written by Judge Allen in Childers v. State, 936 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1 DCA 2006) is sanctionable. They have filed charges against the judge.
Judge Allen published this concurrence to point out that, without naming names, the original panel in that case voted to reverse Childers' conviction. Mr. Childers is a well-known, politically active and politically connected individual. The 1st District en banc, voted to consider the appeal and the en banc decision resulted in 10 separate opinions.
Judge Allen artfully republished 3 newspaper articles explaining the public perception that Childers was getting a better shake than the ordinary convicted criminal, because of his political connections. Sub silencio, without naming names, Judge Allen asserts those connections run to the 1st DCA.
What I find most intriguing is that the JQC, instead of investigating the connections resulting in the original 3 judge panel vote to reverse, based upon public perceptions of political corruption and favoratism, have been turned against Judge Allen instead.
Perhaps Judge Allen, who I believe has some personal degree of integrity, wanted the public to know why he felt the en banc decision was necessary to affirm Childers conviction, contrary to the 2-1 3 judge panel's initial ruling.
This is so because the original panel's initial ruling somehow became public knowledge and the en banc was quickly convened before it was officially published.
The whole point is that I believe Judge Allen is now, possibly, the victim of a political hatchet job. Payback for giving his honest opinion about public perceptions related to the case.
With 10 separate opinions, 8 concur, 2 dissent and 1 recused, its just nice to see someone cared enough to tackle the issue of sustaining the 1st District's integrity in the face of adverse public perceptions.
We should not be so parochial to think we have problems in just our little circuit. One should look to some of the more interesting things going on about the state at large and take them into perspective.
The one thing I think is very important, is that our goal is an honest judiciary. In Judge Allen's case, I wonder if they're just trying to squelch some bad press. This, I think, is dangerous.
All said and done, I admire an appellate judge who goes against the powers that be. Its admirable, courageous and he deserves some degree of respect for expressing his concern about public perceptions about that case and the players in it.
On the most sincerest of levels, opinions like that should never be used to threaten a judge with his job.