4 ON 17
Posted by Jeffrey Ivashuk at 1/4/2008 10:00 PM 
Categories: Imperato, Goldstein, Gardiner, Luzzo, Aleman, OConnor, Vitale, Lebow, Greene, KaplanMichael, Cases-Civil, Holmes, Cases, gold
Categories: Imperato, Goldstein, Gardiner, Luzzo, Aleman, OConnor, Vitale, Lebow, Greene, KaplanMichael, Cases-Civil, Holmes, Cases, gold
... A new service, beginning today, featuring cases exclusively from the 17th, as ruled on by the 4th DCA. Links are only to cases containing a formal opinion due to informational value. Cases will be archived by Trial Judge's name (on the left of the JAABLOG site).
4D07-2519-Brizendine v. State
>
>> Gardiner Affirm in part, Reverse in part
Here's wher the bull of the PCA should stop. When a Circuit court judge opines, ie "expresses" an opinion contrary to statutory, constitutional or controlling case law like Ana Gardiner likes to do and teh 4th DCA PCA's this opinion with no other "expressed" opinion even as to why the law as written and decided does not duly and equally apply to the petitioner, then the PCA is an affirmance of that "expressed" opinion and therefore, also, by implied consent, becomes the "expressed" opinion of the DCA by default.
Taht way. liars like Gardiner and the DCA jusges like Klein, Shahood and Taylor who affirm their lying false, illegal opinions or 4th DCA jusges like Stone, Polen, Gunther and Farmer who PCA other Gardiner lying decisions taht specifically state the opinion is only what the presecutor wants regardless of black-letter or controlling case law--they should be allowed to reach the supreme court instead of allowing the 4th DCA jusges to cover up this fraud upon the court and resultant life and other felonies that result from those unstatutory opinions.
Why not just list a scoreboard. "17th" on the left "poor black loser but for the grace of god there goes I but iwill never admit it I sure hope there isn't a quiz when I die and meet St. Peter" on the right? Gee, what will the final tally be? RACISM LIVES IN BROWARD
What a surprise--Gardiner was actually reversed for allowing hearsay testimony/evidence the should not have been allowed--her systematic MO is to premit as much prosecutorial misconducr and malpractice as possible becaues she had declared on the record many times that she only favors what the prosecutor wants--not what the law or constitution requires and usually the 4th DCA agrees with her.
Gold is a good judge. No intellectual BS. Lots of riddles, and honest rulings.
Yes Ms Benson, what a surprise to you. Gardiner gets reversed and she gets affirmed both through opinion and pca just like all the other judges. Maybe this new service will educate you. Just because you may not have liked a ruling that impacted you is no excuse to label her continuously as you do. I guess your theory of constant cover up is put to rest here just by the first posting. Put the venom aside for its making you look like a snake with nothing but a forked tongue.
texas and broward- 30 people rleased from prison in tx after dna cleared -- after yrs in prison--do u think those prosecutors or judges feel bad, they have no conscience-sociopaths
Excellent addition to the Blog. Very useful information with which to make a choice which judges should go and which judges should stay when they're up for reelection. Great job. It has taken this blog to serve as a check and balance to abuse of judicial power, for it was never going to be looked at closely by any other route other than citizens taking the lead.
benson, is this what you refer to as the 4th protecting gardiner....see how silly you sound.
WALTER DENDY,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
CASE NO. 4D03-1914
Farmer, C.J., concurring specially.
I would also suppress the confession because of the testimony by an entirely neutral witness, a city councilman, that he heard defendant ask for counsel. In denying the motion to suppress, the trial judge did not mention or refer to this testimony. Nevertheless I assume she found it credible but felt
it somehow immaterial to whether defendant timely demanded counsel. Any other explanation would suggest that the denial of the motion to suppress is
utterly absurd. I concur in the reversal for a new trial.
TYPICAL ALEMAN. WOULD ANYONE EXPECT ANYTHING ELSE?
Sure to raise a few hairs!
Dendy - is that the case where a neutral bystander oveheard the improper police actions and came forward as a truthseeking citizen to inform the court and she ignored him completely? Am I remembering this right?
sound like dendy
The day you even mention your name and the day you refute one single fact with any sort of real proof, evidence or law is the day you will have any credibility you think you set forth. I don't read anybody factually refuting anything I have said and in fact don't expect to because I know for a fact taht you cannot and woluld love one ofe you socalled lawyers or judges to even try to pull me into a real court to attack me because you know what would happen. So burn you forked tongue. The fact that Gardiner is a Liar in her decisions and that 4th DCA judges don't also lie to cover her up does not change--I have not said it is a constant--only a consistent. Any any fraudulent system does break down once in a while.
No. What I refer to is deliberately delaying a 3,850 for 2 years to prevent ringing forward perjuredd testimony and several other claims the state never disputed in fact or law, so just prevented them from coming to trial. Then after 8 months of illeal delay of a timely ruling or even a hearing, mandamus petition 4D99-1337 by Shahood, Klein and Taylor delayed a mandamus and atimely ruling on it to compel Gardiner to do her lawful duty for another 15 months and 8 extensions until the The ?Supreme Court has to step in because the Klein and Shahood who opined the case law that that unlawful delay violates the states' lawful appellate processes and appellants right and Rule 2.050(f) Rule of Jud Admin. to obstruct a 3.850, but protected Gardiner and allowed her to not do her lawful duty for 2 years to avoid bringing forward Satz's and co perjured and suppressed exculpatory testimony, caliming, through Scott Raft taht Gardiner was too busy with her regular new docket to deal with a pending 3.850, at the same time she was playing guest appellate judge in the 4th DCA to further her political career under Shahood's wing who the mandamus against Gardiner to make Gardiner do her lawful duty in her own trial court that she was breaching, was directly before.
Then I'm takling about the imoposition of a statutorily illegal sentence which she refuse to correct becaue Scott Raft told he taht the wording of the statute and all the Florid Supreme Court Justices who said stated it was illegal are "simply wrong" and therefore liars. And Particularly Judge Stone, 4D01-2607 and panel who, after Stone opined in 1989 in Lareau, 554 So2d that "it is undisputed" that the sentence is illegaland cannot be imposed and must be corrected as a matter of statutoruy law and Const due process and euqal protection of law to which the S. CT agreed in Lareau, 573 So2d 813, 814-14 (Fla. 1991) and Stone's cited cases, and further upheld it in Gonzalez, 585 So2d 932, 933 n.2, specifically quashing Stone and Polen's contradictory holding because they lied about the facts and adopting Anstead's dissent holding that Lareau controls, and then Traylor, 785 So2. 1179 (Fla. 2000) where the Supremes came right out and said that the trial judge should have known the sentence was unlawful and forbidden and never impose it and when Gardiner spit in the face of the law as written and decided because Satz lying scumbag thug lawyer Scott Raft told her to, and when Stone, FARMER & Gunther heard the appeal, the covered up Gardiner's unlawful and declared biased, partial ruling by PCA without opinion because, theis prevented the S. Ct from hearing an appeal, protected Gardiner and the State judges and ASAs for their fraud upon the court,commit and contiunue Life felony kidnapping,false imprisonment, conspiracy and obstruction of justice and permitted every judge, ASA & defense attorney to cover-up & get away with the felonies without discovery.
So how silly is the law, now,LAWYER?
Excellent addition. Looks like it took alot of work. This should be very helpfull.
great feature. thanx jeff.