Torts -- Legal malpractice -- Limitation of actions -- Commencement of period -- Statute of limitations did not
begin to run in this action until date on which parties filed the stipulation to dismiss underlying action with
prejudice -- In holding that malpractice complaint was barred by two year statute of limitations for professional
malpractice, trial court erroneously interpreted Silvestrone v. Edell to require a determination that
statute of limitations began to run when judgment on merits of patent infringement action became final,
although parties continued to engage in negotiations with the defendant in that action to settle issue of
attorney's fees and costs -- Conflict certified Reported at
33 Fla. L. Weekly D404a
Torts -- Medical malpractice -- Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan -- Notice to patient
-- Exception -- Emergency medical condition -- NICA notice must be given within reasonable time after
provider-obstetrical patient relationship begins, unless the occasion of the commencement of the relationship
involves a patient who presents in an “emergency medical condition,” as defined by the statute, or
unless the provision of notice is otherwise “not practicable” -- When patient first becomes an
“obstetrical patient” of the provider and what constitutes a “reasonable time” are
issues of fact -- Court recedes in part from Orlando Regional Healthcare System, Inc. v. Alexander --
In case at issue, the failure of providers to furnish patient notice within reasonable time was not excused by
emergency medical condition where it was undisputed that patient became an obstetrical patient well before her
delivery -- Question certified: When a NICA provider fails to provide the statutory notice to an obstetrical
patient within a reasonable time after the commencement of the provider-obstetrical patient relationship, is the
provision of notice excused because the patient subsequently presents in an “emergency medical
condition”? Reported at
33 Fla. L. Weekly D392b Courtesy of Florida Law Weekly Subscriptions (800) 351-0917
2/1/2008 9:05 PM
'Travesty of justice' prompts protest wrote:
A dangerous line was crossed when prosecutor succeeded in getting defense attorneys changed in Pike death penalty case, lawyers say.
By Bill Rankin The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/28/08
Prompted by the district attorney, a Pike County judge last November solved funding problems holding up a death-penalty case by replacing two experienced private defense attorneys with local public defenders.
2/1/2008 9:10 PM
Shames even Jenne wrote:
By Christian Berthelsen and Stuart Pfeifer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
January 28, 2008
As former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona prepares for trial on criminal charges that he sold access to his office for cash, favors and gifts, he has retained the best lawyers money can buy.
And he's getting them nearly free of charge. Jones Day, the fourth-largest law firm in the United States, with 2,300 lawyers worldwide and estimated annual revenue of $1.3 billion, has agreed to represent Carona on a pro bono basis. Based in Cleveland, the elite firm represents more than half the companies that constitute the Fortune 500.
Though not unheard of, the case -- defending an allegedly corrupt sheriff who is making about $200,000 a year in retirement -- is unusual by pro bono standards. Typically, pro bono work involves providing legal services to society's most vulnerable -- the indigent, the homeless, the infirm.
2/1/2008 9:14 PM
Releasing Crack Convicts Early wrote:
The first batch of convicted crack cocaine dealers will be getting out this year, and Virginia will feel the brunt. By Emma Schwartz
How this stretch of Virginia, which runs from the border of Washington, D.C., through Richmond and Norfolk, came to host more most federal crack cocaine cases than any other district has little to do with the prevalence of drug trafficking. Rather, the disproportionate share of affected individuals serves as an example of how the politics of criminal justice is always local.
2/1/2008 9:17 PM
Expensive judicial race worries pundits; contest tops $1 million wrote:
BY BRIAN BRUEGGEMANN News-Democrat
Mike Lawrence, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, thinks money doesn't belong in races for judgeships. He favors a system of appointing judges.
"But I also recognize the people of Illinois, in poll after poll, want to elect their judges. So this is what we're left with," Lawrence said.
2/1/2008 9:21 PM
NH Gov Calls for Judge's Resignation wrote:
Judge tells court she's okay with suspension
Governor has called on Coffey to resign
Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey told the state Supreme Court yesterday she is now willing to accept a disciplinary panel's recommended three-month suspension without pay, if necessary, for helping hide her husband's assets from creditors.
2/1/2008 9:23 PM
Bar Exam Controversy wrote:
Chief justice says effort to do the right thing led to passing 20 who had flunked By RICK BRUNDRETT - rbrundrett@thestate.com
CHARLESTON — The state’s top judge shed some new light Friday on the high court’s controversial decision to allow 20 people who flunked the July bar exam to pass — including the children of two prominent officials.
2/1/2008 10:05 PM
Md. Judge Reprimanded for Calling Three Black Female Lawyers 'the Supremes' wrote:
A county judge was reprimanded for calling three black female lawyers "the Supremes" in court and advising the defendant to get "an experienced male attorney."
2/1/2008 10:06 PM
Judge’s ignorance of AIDS draws fire wrote:
An Ontario judge is at the centre of a misconduct investigation after insisting a witness who is HIV-positive and has Hepatitis C don a mask while testifying in his courtroom.
2/1/2008 10:08 PM
Don't make the innocent beg for justice wrote:
Fair compensation
Don't make the innocent beg for justice
Alan Crotzer deserved better treatment from Florida's criminal court system. He spent 24 years in prison for a rape and robbery he did not commit. And when DNA evidence finally freed him, he deserved better than the treatment he got from the state. He had no job skills, no way to support himself, little help with readjusting to a life outside of a concrete cage.
Crotzer deserves better treatment from the Florida Legislature. In the spring session, he'll appear in committee rooms to tell his story and ask for compensation. The state has already taken away a significant chunk of his life -- when he was sentenced, Crotzer had every reason to think he would die behind bars. The state took his chance to watch his daughter grow up. The state took his chance to say goodbye to his mother.
2/1/2008 10:10 PM
Fewer juveniles shackled in Palm Beach County courtrooms wrote:
With little fanfare, the shackles that have been so hotly debated in Palm Beach County for more than a year have started to come off the children accused of crimes in juvenile court.
But it's only for certain hearings, and just one of the four juvenile court judges is allowing minors to stand before him unshackled.
For the past month, Circuit Judge Peter Blanc has directed that the children who come in his court for hearings to schedule their cases be restrained only in leg irons — no waist chains, no handcuffs as has been customary — provided that the child's attorney has already met with and can vouch for the child.
2/1/2008 10:12 PM
Violent-crime cases swamp prosecutors wrote:
Saying his office is drowning in murder cases and other violent offenses, Orange-Osceola State Attorney Lawson Lamar pleaded with lawmakers Wednesday to give him $5.4 million for new prosecutors to keep up with the region's crime wave.
2/1/2008 10:13 PM
Intern's use in court slammed wrote:
Public Defender Diamond Litty calls it a clerical glitch and an unintended oversight.
Her political opponents, however, say the discovery that a legal intern in her office was allowed to handle cases in court in St. Lucie and Indian River counties for several weeks without a required certification from the Florida Supreme Court is much more than a glitch.
Donald Chinquina, a Fort Pierce lawyer running against Litty this year for the public defender seat, said he knew it might appear politically motivated, but he felt an ethical obligation to speak out about the situation. He said he was so concerned about potential repercussions for the defendants whose cases were involved that he filed a complaint against Litty last week with the Florida Bar.
2/1/2008 10:16 PM
County's public defender itemizes costs of injustice wrote:
By TONYAA WEATHERSBEE, The Times-Union
Last week, Jacksonville Public Defender Bill White reminisced about the time he spared a man a possible 15-year prison term - and the taxpayers $300,000.
This guy, White said, had been arrested for burglary of a dwelling. He had been caught sleeping in an abandoned shack, on a night when temperatures had dipped into the 20s.
But he wasn't dangerous. He was just drunk and cold.
"He's intoxicated, he's poor, and all he could keep saying to me is 'I remember the newspapers.' I didn't know what he is talking about." White told members of the Times-Union's Editorial Board.
But he and his investigator soon found out what the man meant.
What they discovered was that he had wrapped himself in a pile of newspapers in that house, which had been abandoned for a decade. The owner of the property had grown weary of vagrants sleeping in it, White said.
But this guy was no burglar, because there was nothing in there to steal except, maybe, some old newspapers, he said.
"This guy didn't know what he had done, he didn't know what his crime was, and he was ready to plead to something," White said. "But it was an abandoned dwelling, which makes it not a dwelling since it hadn't been lived in for more than six years."
Because there was nothing inside to prove that his client intended to burglarize the place, White said, he was ultimately charged with trespass of a structure, which carries a maximum of 60 days. He was released after receiving credit for time served.
What White did wasn't being soft on crime. It was being smart on crime. Because if White's client had been sent away for 15 years, taxpayers would have been more broke than safe.
2/1/2008 10:21 PM
New Report Identifies the Slowest Federal Judges in the Land wrote:
Judge Stephen Robinson was confirmed to the federal bench in New York's Southern District in 2003, and he's been trying to dig himself out of his docket ever since.
Robinson, according to a new report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, had 155 motions pending for more than six months as of March 2007 -- the second-heaviest motions backlog in the country.
2/1/2008 10:24 PM
State can't scrimp on public defenders wrote:
Already, public defender caseloads around the state have reached well beyond that recommended by professional legal associations. Just look at what has gone on over time. In 1975, public defenders handled 134 cases for each funded position. Now that number stands at 306. When attorneys are asked to do too much, they breach their ethical duty to provide effective counsel and at some point have to stop accepting more cases.
2/1/2008 10:26 PM
Broward County had 118 homicides in 2007, more than any year since 1990. wrote:
Broward County had 118 homicides in 2007, more than any year since 1990. Use the searchable database below to find information about each victim, including location, motive and a brief description.
2/2/2008 3:46 AM
Fake Jack Webb wrote:
"Broward County had 118 homicides in 2007, more than any year since 1990."
A lot of loser people will kill rather than do a min man on a bullshit crime.
Not condoning it.
Just the facts maam.
2/4/2008 7:42 AMConcerned Citizen wrote:
3.) Statement of Incidences and Resulting Argument *Statement of original incidents attached* That, on 2005, while being unlawfully detained, the petitioner was “formally” arraigned by Broward County Judge _________________________________?.
That, on or about March 19, 2005 an acquaintance of the petitioner posted an appearance bond and the petitioner was subsequently released from BSO’s custody and was informed that a notice to appear would be served via U.S. mail.
That, although the petitioner had never received any notice to appear, through his own inquiry he learned that a pre-trial hearing had been scheduled in front of County Court Judge Robert Zack “ Judge Zack ” on July 08, 2005 (63 days after incident)
That, on July 08, 2005 the petitioner appeared in Judge Zack’s court, and filed an Affidavit which not only, directly attacked the State of Florida’s “ State” accusations and directly challenged the In Personam jurisdiction of the court, but emphatically reserved all God Given Rights” including but not limited to his Constitutional right to a fair, speedy and impartial jury trial. (2+ months after incident)
That, due to the fact no offer of proof substantiating the court’s lawful jurisdiction was offered or made available, and the 60 day time limit for a speedy trial upon demand had expired, the petitioner refrained from entering any plea of guilty, not guilty, no contest or otherwise, yet a not guilty plea was entered by the court. . That, Judge Zack further set the matter for hearing on August 25, 2005. (3 + months after incident)
That, Petitioner noticed Judge Zack and the Broward State Attorney’s Office that by August 25, 2005 time for a speedy trial would have had expired, yet all statements and submissions made by the Petitioner were ignored and dismissed.
That, on August 25,, 2005 the petitioner noticed Judge Zack of the numerous transgressions perpetuated upon him and emphasized the fact that even if the court was able to establish a valid proof of jurisdiction, his right to a speedy trial had not been recognized which, would in effect bar prosecution pursuant to F.S. 3.191, non assumpsit of jurisdiction.(3 + months after incident)
That, on October 06, 2005 the petitioner had appeared for a calendar call in Judge Zack’s court in which legal representation was refused due to insubordination. Partially due to the fact that no offer of proof of jurisdiction was made available by any claiming party nor had the court recognized that the time limitations for a speedy trial had expired and the Broward County Public Defender’s Office was not willing to demand such.(5 +months after incident)
That, on October 06, 2005 the petitioner had again emphasized to Judge Zack the fact that his right to a speedy trial had clearly been violated and that lawful discharge of the alleged offenses be ordered forthwith.(5+ months after incident)
That, although the petitioner remained emphatic, again all statement
2/4/2008 7:44 AMConcerned Citizen wrote:
again all statements and documents were ignored by Judge Zack, whom then rescheduled future proceedings for December 15, 2005(7+ months after incident)
That under protest the petitioner had appeared in Judge Zack’s court on December 15, 2005 but was informed that he was not on Judge Zack’s docket and that He would be receiving a future notice to appear via U.S. mail.(7+ months after incident)
That, on or about January 20th 2006, the petitioner had not received any information regarding the matter and had inquired online at the Broward County Clerk’s website and found that the case was listed as “no key date or count information” .(8+ months after incident)
That, due to the above fact and the obvious fact that numerous rights of the Petitioner had been denied and or violated, combined with the absence of any sort of rebuttal, the Petitioner had reasonably assumed that the matter was lawfully disposed of. .(8+ months after incident)
That, due to the fact that an error was made by someone other than the petitioner, a capias was issued for the petitioner for not being present for a hearing that He was not only unaware of, but that he reasonably assumed had been previously discharged under law.(7-9+ months after incident)
That, on or about December 31st 2006 the petitioner had learned that there was a capias issued by Judge Gary Cowart “Judge Cowart” whom somehow unbeknownst to the petitioner had been assigned to hear the matter.(19 + months after incident)
That, immediately the petitioner personally went to Judge Cowart’s office and spoke with his Judicial Assistant “Cristine” whom stated that the matter had been assigned “ all over the place” and that she ‘could not make heads or tails of it, and somehow the case had been assigned to Judge Cowart’s court. (19 + months after incident)
That, the petitioner hand delivered a motion to dismiss the capias and Cristine set the matter for February 01, 2007 (21 + months after incident)
That, in order to avoid further damages the petitioner had filed a motion to dismiss the capias to be filed, in which, the motion was set hearing on February 01, 2007.( 21 + months after incident)
That, under protest, but in fear of further damages, the Petitioner had appeared in front of Judge Cowart whom had dismissed the capias that was previously issued, but also refused to hear about any of the previous incidences leading up to the present situation.(5 + months after incident)
That, the Petitioner believes that the numerous points and authorities made herein, combined with the evidence substantially shows that Judge Cowart acted unlawfully by stating that the matter was being placed in Status Quo Ante and that this was a “new arraignment” and further set the matter for a hearing on March 09, 2007. (24 + months after incident)
That, on March 09, 2007 the petitioner had attempted to place Judge Cowart on judicial notice of the law and facts surrounding the matter, but Judge C
2/4/2008 7:48 AMConcerned Citizen wrote:
but Judge Cowart stated that he was refusing judicial notice and that anything that the petitioner had to state would be heard at trial and once again set the matter for hearing on April 20th 2007.(25 + months after incident)
That, due to Judge Cowart’s obvious usurpations, and refusal to recognize the Petitioner’s rights procedural or otherwise, and all other statements, the petitioner had reasonably foreseen that a seemingly unlawful trial was eminent. .(25 + months after incident
That, the Petitioner had attempted to acquire witnesses in his favor but was unsuccessful, due to the extensive time that had lapsed, which was from no fault of his own and Judge Cowart had further set the matter for hearing on May 24th 2007 (26 + months after incident)
That, being that due to the fact that Judge Robert Zack and Judge Gary Cowart have on numerous occasions failed to observe the declarations of common law rights that have been asserted, the petitioner has presumed that the court is not operating under a common law jurisdiction and had filed numerous jurisdictional inquiries, to which as of present no party of interest have challenged. (31 + months after incident)
That, on May 24th 2007 the petitioner had submitted a “Judicial Notice of Improper Jurisdiction”, “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal” and “motion for d6 clearance” which outlined along with numerous points of law the specific requirements necessary for a proper common law proceeding, to which as of present no affidavit of rebuttal substantially countering the document has been made available to the petitioner. (31 + months after incident)
That, Judge Cowart’s assistant “Cristine” had set the matter for hearing, on July 31, 2007.
That, on July 31st 2007 the petitioner had transportation issues and arrived for the hearing 26 minutes late and was informed by Cristine that a capias had been issued because he was late and Judge Cowart informed her to advise me to file a motion to dismiss the capias. (26 + months after incident)
That, on or about August 03, 2007 the petitioner had hand delivered a motion to dismiss the capias and the matter was set for hearing on August 20, 2007. (27 + months after incident)
That, on August 20, 2007 the petitioner appeared in Judge Zack’s court, whom stated that they could not find my file with the previous motions to be heard and set the matter for recall.(27 + months after incident)
That after some time Judge Zack recalled the matter and stated that they were still unavailable to find the file, he would go ahead and grant the motion to dismiss the capias, but that the petitioner was lucky that it was being dismissed and that next time he would not be so tolerant and set the matter for hearing on September 27, 2007 (28 + months after incident)
That, on September 27th 2007 the Petitioner arrived in expectation that stated motions were going to be heard, but was informed by Judge Cowart that he was not hearing to the motions and that t
2/4/2008 7:51 AMConcerned Citizen wrote:
That, on September 27th 2007 the Petitioner arrived in expectation that stated motions were going to be heard, but was informed by Judge Cowart that he was not hearing to the motions and that the Petitioner should have known that “Mondays are calendar calls” and that he “Does not listen to motions on Mondays” and further reset the matter “Motions” to be heard, on October 31st 2007.(29+months after incident)
That, on October 31st 2007, the Petitioner arrived, but found that Judge Cowart was only allowing certain portions of the motion to be heard, and asked the Assistant State Attorney if she had any objections, to which she had replied that the motion was not timely filed, to which Judge Cowart denied the motions presumably in that, the motion contained the word “acquittal” not “dismissal. (29+months after incident)
That, as of present, the Petitioner argues that he has on numerous occasions filed several affidavits and motions to dismiss throughout the course of the matter, and that all efforts have been in vein in that, they were never recognized or heard.(31+months after incident)
That, the Petitioner notified all known parties of interest, including but not limited to Judge Cowart, that he has never waived his right to a Speedy Trial or any other right, other than his right to representation, but to the contrary has redundantly emphasized and made formal reservation of the any and all Rights, throughout every stage of this matter. .(31+months after incident)
That, as of present, the Petitioner has on numerous occasions verbally notified Judge Cowart that this incident occurred nearly three years ago and that, by no fault or action of the Petitioner was this matter delayed, other than the 26 minutes that he was late on July 21st 2007.(26 + Months After Incident)
That the Petitioner has notified Judge Cowart that he had filed several motions and affidavits that, whether redundant and unorthodox or not, well established and noticed all parties of the fact that the window for a speedy trial had expired over two years ago, but that instead of being heard the matter was transferred from one bench to another.
That, on numerous occasions, the petitioner has notified Judge Cowart of the fact that on or about December 31st 2006 he had learned that a capias had been issued for his arrest and had, spent numerous hours in the courthouse in an attempt to discover which Judge had been assigned to hear the matter .
That, on November 16th 2007, the Petitioner informed Judge Cowart that it was not until, on or about December 31st 2006 the Petitioner had finally learned that the case had been assigned to Judge Cowart, which led to the series of events stated above. .(30 + Months After Incident)
That, November 16th 2007, Judge Cowart finally inquired of the Clerk as to how the case was mishandled, to which she replied that originally Judge Zack recused himself, the matter was transferred to a Judge Robinson (I believe), whom also recu
2/4/2008 7:58 AMConcerned Citizen wrote:
Judge Zack recused himself, the matter was transferred to a Judge Robinson (I believe), whom also recused herself and then was subsequently assigned to Judge Cowart. .(30 + Months After Incident)
That, during the hearing on November 16th 2007, the Petitioner once again informed Judge Cowart that he believed that substantially sufficient grounds for a lawful dismissal of the matter were contained the previously submitted documents, that he would rely on his those submissions.(30 + Months After Incident)
That, as of present and on every occasion Judge Cowart has dismissed all statements and submissions “at this time” and further ordered the Petitioner to undergo a psychological evaluation and reset the matter for hearing on November 16th 2007 (30+ Months after Incident)
That, although the Petitioner has notified all parties of interest, on numerous occasions, that the charge of driving with license expired is frivolous in that the Petitioner has had a valid driver’s license, issued from another state since 2003.
That, at the time of the incident, the Petitioner was not bound by any agreement or consent with the State of Florida to submit to any sobriety tests.
That, the Petitioner was not in control of any motor vehicle at the time of the incident, but to the contrary was the passenger of the vehicle, therefore not obligating him to perform any sort of sobriety testing.
That, as proof of this, the vehicle that was listed in the incident report, 1973 Ford f-350, VIN # ____________, Florida license plate # VAB 436, was dismantled, sold for salvage and not been in existence since October of 2000, therefore substantiating that all statements and accusations made by Broward Sheriff’s Office are utterly false, misleading, malicious and frivolous. (4+years prior to incident)
That, the Petitioner has substantially, even redundantly made formal reservation of all rights, liberties and entitlements at all stages of this matter.
That, although he did so under protest, the petitioner has always made himself available for all proceedings in this matter and by or through no direct action of the petitioner, has any of the proceedings been delayed.
That, due in part to the fact that such an extensive time period has passed, the petitioner sincerely believes that he would be prejudiced and does not reasonably foresee any logical way to receive a fair and speedy trial.
That, the petitioner is able to factually prove that as a direct result of this series of transgressions the petitioner has and continues to suffer intense personal damages and financial losses well in excess of three hundred thousand dollars.
Therefore due to the probability of a future civil action(s), with damages well in excess of $ 15, 000.00, the petitioner herein wishes to reserves this court’s jurisdiction in the seemingly likely event that further civil action is sought
That, the petitioner has endured nearly three years of financial and persona
2/4/2008 8:07 AMAnonymous Broward Deputy wrote:
This Guy needs to Stop his crying, We have a system and we get paid to enforce it. Get a lawyer or move to Mexico this is the U.S. and our government is the most powerful in history and if You think that will change then try to tell me that your "a Sovereing Citizen" and I'm a "Public Servant" when I pull You over, try it, I hope I get the honor of locking this freak up
A dangerous line was crossed when prosecutor succeeded in getting defense attorneys changed in Pike death penalty case, lawyers say.
By Bill Rankin
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/28/08
Prompted by the district attorney, a Pike County judge last November solved funding problems holding up a death-penalty case by replacing two experienced private defense attorneys with local public defenders.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/01/28/death0128.html
By Christian Berthelsen and Stuart Pfeifer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
January 28, 2008
As former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona prepares for trial on criminal charges that he sold access to his office for cash, favors and gifts, he has retained the best lawyers money can buy.
And he's getting them nearly free of charge. Jones Day, the fourth-largest law firm in the United States, with 2,300 lawyers worldwide and estimated annual revenue of $1.3 billion, has agreed to represent Carona on a pro bono basis. Based in Cleveland, the elite firm represents more than half the companies that constitute the Fortune 500.
Though not unheard of, the case -- defending an allegedly corrupt sheriff who is making about $200,000 a year in retirement -- is unusual by pro bono standards. Typically, pro bono work involves providing legal services to society's most vulnerable -- the indigent, the homeless, the infirm.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-probono28jan28,1,5959243.story?ctrack=3&cset=true
The first batch of convicted crack cocaine dealers will be getting out this year, and Virginia will feel the brunt.
By Emma Schwartz
Posted January 25, 2008
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/01/25/releasing-crack-convicts-early.html
How this stretch of Virginia, which runs from the border of Washington, D.C., through Richmond and Norfolk, came to host more most federal crack cocaine cases than any other district has little to do with the prevalence of drug trafficking. Rather, the disproportionate share of affected individuals serves as an example of how the politics of criminal justice is always local.
BY BRIAN BRUEGGEMANN
News-Democrat
http://www.bnd.com/homepage/story/239193.html
Mike Lawrence, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, thinks money doesn't belong in races for judgeships. He favors a system of appointing judges.
"But I also recognize the people of Illinois, in poll after poll, want to elect their judges. So this is what we're left with," Lawrence said.
Judge tells court she's okay with suspension
Governor has called on Coffey to resign
Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey told the state Supreme Court yesterday she is now willing to accept a disciplinary panel's recommended three-month suspension without pay, if necessary, for helping hide her husband's assets from creditors.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080126/FRONTPAGE/801260334
Chief justice says effort to do the right thing led to passing 20 who had flunked
By RICK BRUNDRETT - rbrundrett@thestate.com
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/297399.html
CHARLESTON — The state’s top judge shed some new light Friday on the high court’s controversial decision to allow 20 people who flunked the July bar exam to pass — including the children of two prominent officials.
A county judge was reprimanded for calling three black female lawyers "the Supremes" in court and advising the defendant to get "an experienced male attorney."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1201779830911
An Ontario judge is at the centre of a misconduct investigation after insisting a witness who is HIV-positive and has Hepatitis C don a mask while testifying in his courtroom.
http://www.thestar.com/article/298672
Fair compensation
Don't make the innocent beg for justice
Alan Crotzer deserved better treatment from Florida's criminal court system. He spent 24 years in prison for a rape and robbery he did not commit. And when DNA evidence finally freed him, he deserved better than the treatment he got from the state. He had no job skills, no way to support himself, little help with readjusting to a life outside of a concrete cage.
Crotzer deserves better treatment from the Florida Legislature. In the spring session, he'll appear in committee rooms to tell his story and ask for compensation. The state has already taken away a significant chunk of his life -- when he was sentenced, Crotzer had every reason to think he would die behind bars. The state took his chance to watch his daughter grow up. The state took his chance to say goodbye to his mother.
With little fanfare, the shackles that have been so hotly debated in Palm Beach County for more than a year have started to come off the children accused of crimes in juvenile court.
But it's only for certain hearings, and just one of the four juvenile court judges is allowing minors to stand before him unshackled.
For the past month, Circuit Judge Peter Blanc has directed that the children who come in his court for hearings to schedule their cases be restrained only in leg irons — no waist chains, no handcuffs as has been customary — provided that the child's attorney has already met with and can vouch for the child.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flpshackle0121pnjan20,0,1983622.story
Saying his office is drowning in murder cases and other violent offenses, Orange-Osceola State Attorney Lawson Lamar pleaded with lawmakers Wednesday to give him $5.4 million for new prosecutors to keep up with the region's crime wave.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-murder2408jan24,0,4212890.story
Public Defender Diamond Litty calls it a clerical glitch and an unintended oversight.
Her political opponents, however, say the discovery that a legal intern in her office was allowed to handle cases in court in St. Lucie and Indian River counties for several weeks without a required certification from the Florida Supreme Court is much more than a glitch.
Donald Chinquina, a Fort Pierce lawyer running against Litty this year for the public defender seat, said he knew it might appear politically motivated, but he felt an ethical obligation to speak out about the situation. He said he was so concerned about potential repercussions for the defendants whose cases were involved that he filed a complaint against Litty last week with the Florida Bar.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/tcoast/epaper/2008/01/27/m1c_sllawyer_0127.html
By TONYAA WEATHERSBEE, The Times-Union
Last week, Jacksonville Public Defender Bill White reminisced about the time he spared a man a possible 15-year prison term - and the taxpayers $300,000.
This guy, White said, had been arrested for burglary of a dwelling. He had been caught sleeping in an abandoned shack, on a night when temperatures had dipped into the 20s.
But he wasn't dangerous. He was just drunk and cold.
"He's intoxicated, he's poor, and all he could keep saying to me is 'I remember the newspapers.' I didn't know what he is talking about." White told members of the Times-Union's Editorial Board.
But he and his investigator soon found out what the man meant.
What they discovered was that he had wrapped himself in a pile of newspapers in that house, which had been abandoned for a decade. The owner of the property had grown weary of vagrants sleeping in it, White said.
But this guy was no burglar, because there was nothing in there to steal except, maybe, some old newspapers, he said.
"This guy didn't know what he had done, he didn't know what his crime was, and he was ready to plead to something," White said. "But it was an abandoned dwelling, which makes it not a dwelling since it hadn't been lived in for more than six years."
Because there was nothing inside to prove that his client intended to burglarize the place, White said, he was ultimately charged with trespass of a structure, which carries a maximum of 60 days. He was released after receiving credit for time served.
What White did wasn't being soft on crime. It was being smart on crime. Because if White's client had been sent away for 15 years, taxpayers would have been more broke than safe.
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012808/new_240355508.shtml
Judge Stephen Robinson was confirmed to the federal bench in New York's Southern District in 2003, and he's been trying to dig himself out of his docket ever since.
Robinson, according to a new report by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, had 155 motions pending for more than six months as of March 2007 -- the second-heaviest motions backlog in the country.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1200650742999
Already, public defender caseloads around the state have reached well beyond that recommended by professional legal associations. Just look at what has gone on over time. In 1975, public defenders handled 134 cases for each funded position. Now that number stands at 306. When attorneys are asked to do too much, they breach their ethical duty to provide effective counsel and at some point have to stop accepting more cases.
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/21/Opinion/State_can_t_scrimp_on.shtml
Broward County had 118 homicides in 2007, more than any year since 1990.
Use the searchable database below to find information about each victim, including location, motive and a brief description.
http://www.sun-sentinel2.com/homicide_database/broward_homicides_2007_01.html
"Broward County had 118 homicides in 2007, more than any year since 1990."
A lot of loser people will kill rather than do a min man on a bullshit crime.
Not condoning it.
Just the facts maam.
3.) Statement of Incidences and Resulting Argument
*Statement of original incidents attached*
That, on 2005, while being unlawfully detained, the petitioner was “formally” arraigned by Broward County Judge _________________________________?.
That, on or about March 19, 2005 an acquaintance of the petitioner posted an appearance bond and the petitioner was subsequently released from BSO’s custody and was informed that a notice to appear would be served via U.S. mail.
That, although the petitioner had never received any notice to appear, through his own inquiry he learned that a pre-trial hearing had been scheduled in front of County Court Judge Robert Zack “ Judge Zack ” on July 08, 2005 (63 days after incident)
That, on July 08, 2005 the petitioner appeared in Judge Zack’s court, and filed an Affidavit which not only, directly attacked the State of Florida’s “ State” accusations and directly challenged the In Personam jurisdiction of the court, but emphatically reserved all God Given Rights” including but not limited to his Constitutional right to a fair, speedy and impartial jury trial.
(2+ months after incident)
That, due to the fact no offer of proof substantiating the court’s lawful jurisdiction was offered or made available, and the 60 day time limit for a speedy trial upon demand had expired, the petitioner refrained from entering any plea of guilty, not guilty, no contest or otherwise, yet a not guilty plea was entered by the court.
.
That, Judge Zack further set the matter for hearing on August 25, 2005. (3 + months after incident)
That, Petitioner noticed Judge Zack and the Broward State Attorney’s Office that by August 25, 2005 time for a speedy trial would have had expired, yet all statements and submissions made by the Petitioner were ignored and dismissed.
That, on August 25,, 2005 the petitioner noticed Judge Zack of the numerous transgressions perpetuated upon him and emphasized the fact that even if the court was able to establish a valid proof of jurisdiction, his right to a speedy trial had not been recognized which, would in effect bar prosecution pursuant to F.S. 3.191, non assumpsit of jurisdiction.(3 + months after incident)
That, on October 06, 2005 the petitioner had appeared for a calendar call in Judge Zack’s court in which legal representation was refused due to insubordination. Partially due to the fact that no offer of proof of jurisdiction was made available by any claiming party nor had the court recognized that the time limitations for a speedy trial had expired and the Broward County Public Defender’s Office was not willing to demand such.(5 +months after incident)
That, on October 06, 2005 the petitioner had again emphasized to Judge Zack the fact that his right to a speedy trial had clearly been violated and that lawful discharge of the alleged offenses be ordered forthwith.(5+ months after incident)
That, although the petitioner remained emphatic, again all statement
again all statements and documents were ignored by Judge Zack, whom then rescheduled future proceedings for December 15, 2005(7+ months after incident)
That under protest the petitioner had appeared in Judge Zack’s court on December 15, 2005 but was informed that he was not on Judge Zack’s docket and that He would be receiving a future notice to appear via U.S. mail.(7+ months after incident)
That, on or about January 20th 2006, the petitioner had not received any information regarding the matter and had inquired online at the Broward County Clerk’s website and found that the case was listed as “no key date or count information” .(8+ months after incident)
That, due to the above fact and the obvious fact that numerous rights of the Petitioner had been denied and or violated, combined with the absence of any sort of rebuttal, the Petitioner had reasonably assumed that the matter was lawfully disposed of. .(8+ months after incident)
That, due to the fact that an error was made by someone other than the petitioner, a capias was issued for the petitioner for not being present for a hearing that He was not only unaware of, but that he reasonably assumed had been previously discharged under law.(7-9+ months after incident)
That, on or about December 31st 2006 the petitioner had learned that there was a capias issued by Judge Gary Cowart “Judge Cowart” whom somehow unbeknownst to the petitioner had been assigned to hear the matter.(19 + months after incident)
That, immediately the petitioner personally went to Judge Cowart’s office and spoke with his Judicial Assistant “Cristine” whom stated that the matter had been assigned “ all over the place” and that she ‘could not make heads or tails of it, and somehow the case had been assigned to Judge Cowart’s court.
(19 + months after incident)
That, the petitioner hand delivered a motion to dismiss the capias and Cristine set the matter for February 01, 2007
(21 + months after incident)
That, in order to avoid further damages the petitioner had filed a motion to dismiss the capias to be filed, in which, the motion was set hearing on February 01, 2007.( 21 + months after incident)
That, under protest, but in fear of further damages, the Petitioner had appeared in front of Judge Cowart whom had dismissed the capias that was previously issued, but also refused to hear about any of the previous incidences leading up to the present situation.(5 + months after incident)
That, the Petitioner believes that the numerous points and authorities made herein, combined with the evidence substantially shows that Judge Cowart acted unlawfully by stating that the matter was being placed in Status Quo Ante and that this was a “new arraignment” and further set the matter for a hearing on March 09, 2007. (24 + months after incident)
That, on March 09, 2007 the petitioner had attempted to place Judge Cowart on judicial notice of the law and facts surrounding the matter, but Judge C
but Judge Cowart stated that he was refusing judicial notice and that anything that the petitioner had to state would be heard at trial and once again set the matter for hearing on April 20th 2007.(25 + months after incident)
That, due to Judge Cowart’s obvious usurpations, and refusal to recognize the Petitioner’s rights procedural or otherwise, and all other statements, the petitioner had reasonably foreseen that a seemingly unlawful trial was eminent. .(25 + months after incident
That, the Petitioner had attempted to acquire witnesses in his favor but was unsuccessful, due to the extensive time that had lapsed, which was from no fault of his own and Judge Cowart had further set the matter for hearing on May 24th 2007 (26 + months after incident)
That, being that due to the fact that Judge Robert Zack and Judge Gary Cowart have on numerous occasions failed to observe the declarations of common law rights that have been asserted, the petitioner has presumed that the court is not operating under a common law jurisdiction and had filed numerous jurisdictional inquiries, to which as of present no party of interest have challenged. (31 + months after incident)
That, on May 24th 2007 the petitioner had submitted a “Judicial Notice of Improper Jurisdiction”, “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal” and “motion for d6 clearance” which outlined along with numerous points of law the specific requirements necessary for a proper common law proceeding, to which as of present no affidavit of rebuttal substantially countering the document has been made available to the petitioner.
(31 + months after incident)
That, Judge Cowart’s assistant “Cristine” had set the matter for hearing, on July 31, 2007.
That, on July 31st 2007 the petitioner had transportation issues and arrived for the hearing 26 minutes late and was informed by Cristine that a capias had been issued because he was late and Judge Cowart informed her to advise me to file a motion to dismiss the capias. (26 + months after incident)
That, on or about August 03, 2007 the petitioner had hand delivered a motion to dismiss the capias and the matter was set for hearing on August 20, 2007.
(27 + months after incident)
That, on August 20, 2007 the petitioner appeared in Judge Zack’s court, whom stated that they could not find my file with the previous motions to be heard and set the matter for recall.(27 + months after incident)
That after some time Judge Zack recalled the matter and stated that they were still unavailable to find the file, he would go ahead and grant the motion to dismiss the capias, but that the petitioner was lucky that it was being dismissed and that next time he would not be so tolerant and set the matter for hearing on September 27, 2007 (28 + months after incident)
That, on September 27th 2007 the Petitioner arrived in expectation that stated motions were going to be heard, but was informed by Judge Cowart that he was not hearing to the motions and that t
That, on September 27th 2007 the Petitioner arrived in expectation that stated motions were going to be heard, but was informed by Judge Cowart that he was not hearing to the motions and that the Petitioner should have known that “Mondays are calendar calls” and that he “Does not listen to motions on Mondays” and further reset the matter “Motions” to be heard, on October 31st 2007.(29+months after incident)
That, on October 31st 2007, the Petitioner arrived, but found that Judge Cowart was only allowing certain portions of the motion to be heard, and asked the Assistant State Attorney if she had any objections, to which she had replied that the motion was not timely filed, to which Judge Cowart denied the motions presumably in that, the motion contained the word “acquittal” not “dismissal. (29+months after incident)
That, as of present, the Petitioner argues that he has on numerous occasions filed several affidavits and motions to dismiss throughout the course of the matter, and that all efforts have been in vein in that, they were never recognized or heard.(31+months after incident)
That, the Petitioner notified all known parties of interest, including but not limited to Judge Cowart, that he has never waived his right to a Speedy Trial or any other right, other than his right to representation, but to the contrary has redundantly emphasized and made formal reservation of the any and all Rights, throughout every stage of this matter. .(31+months after incident)
That, as of present, the Petitioner has on numerous occasions verbally notified Judge Cowart that this incident occurred nearly three years ago and that, by no fault or action of the Petitioner was this matter delayed, other than the 26 minutes that he was late on July 21st 2007.(26 + Months After Incident)
That the Petitioner has notified Judge Cowart that he had filed several motions and affidavits that, whether redundant and unorthodox or not, well established and noticed all parties of the fact that the window for a speedy trial had expired over two years ago, but that instead of being heard the matter was transferred from one bench to another.
That, on numerous occasions, the petitioner has notified Judge Cowart of the fact that on or about December 31st 2006 he had learned that a capias had been issued for his arrest and had, spent numerous hours in the courthouse in an attempt to discover which Judge had been assigned to hear the matter .
That, on November 16th 2007, the Petitioner informed Judge Cowart that it was not until, on or about December 31st 2006 the Petitioner had finally learned that the case had been assigned to Judge Cowart, which led to the series of events stated above. .(30 + Months After Incident)
That, November 16th 2007, Judge Cowart finally inquired of the Clerk as to how the case was mishandled, to which she replied that originally Judge Zack recused himself, the matter was transferred to a Judge Robinson (I believe), whom also recu
Judge Zack recused himself, the matter was transferred to a Judge Robinson (I believe), whom also recused herself and then was subsequently assigned to Judge Cowart.
.(30 + Months After Incident)
That, during the hearing on November 16th 2007, the Petitioner once again informed Judge Cowart that he believed that substantially sufficient grounds for a lawful dismissal of the matter were contained the previously submitted documents, that he would rely on his those submissions.(30 + Months After Incident)
That, as of present and on every occasion Judge Cowart has dismissed all statements and submissions “at this time” and further ordered the Petitioner to undergo a psychological evaluation and reset the matter for hearing on November 16th 2007 (30+ Months after Incident)
That, although the Petitioner has notified all parties of interest, on numerous occasions, that the charge of driving with license expired is frivolous in that the Petitioner has had a valid driver’s license, issued from another state since 2003.
That, at the time of the incident, the Petitioner was not bound by any agreement or consent with the State of Florida to submit to any sobriety tests.
That, the Petitioner was not in control of any motor vehicle at the time of the incident, but to the contrary was the passenger of the vehicle, therefore not obligating him to perform any sort of sobriety testing.
That, as proof of this, the vehicle that was listed in the incident report, 1973 Ford f-350, VIN # ____________, Florida license plate # VAB 436, was dismantled, sold for salvage and not been in existence since October of 2000, therefore substantiating that all statements and accusations made by Broward Sheriff’s Office are utterly false, misleading, malicious and frivolous. (4+years prior to incident)
That, the Petitioner has substantially, even redundantly made formal reservation of all rights, liberties and entitlements at all stages of this matter.
That, although he did so under protest, the petitioner has always made himself available for all proceedings in this matter and by or through no direct action of the petitioner, has any of the proceedings been delayed.
That, due in part to the fact that such an extensive time period has passed, the petitioner sincerely believes that he would be prejudiced and does not reasonably foresee any logical way to receive a fair and speedy trial.
That, the petitioner is able to factually prove that as a direct result of this series of transgressions the petitioner has and continues to suffer intense personal damages and financial losses well in excess of three hundred thousand dollars.
Therefore due to the probability of a future civil action(s), with damages well in excess of $ 15, 000.00, the petitioner herein wishes to reserves this court’s jurisdiction in the seemingly likely event that further civil action is sought
That, the petitioner has endured nearly three years of financial and persona
I
This Guy needs to Stop his crying, We have a system and we get paid to enforce it. Get a lawyer or move to Mexico this is the U.S. and our government is the most powerful in history and if You think that will change then try to tell me that your "a Sovereing Citizen" and I'm a "Public Servant" when I pull You over, try it, I hope I get the honor of locking this freak up