MIAMI ASA DAVID RANCK BLOWS THE WHISTLE FOR JUSTICE
DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Legal Blogs Reignite Controversy Over Miami Shooting
"A series of 4-year-old letters between Assistant State Attorney David Ranck and his superiors began surfacing on a Web log maintained by Ranck and were picked up May 4 by the anonymously penned Justice Building Blog, a blog that focuses on events in Miami-Dade Circuit Court's criminal division.
In the memos, Ranck, who is still a Miami-Dade prosecutor, claimed he was pulled off the investigation into Barquin's death by office brass after he raised questions about whether the shooting by police was justifiable homicide. Ranck said Barquin was shot twice from behind in the lower body Jan. 16, 2004."
DAVID RANCK'S "TRANSCRIPTS, RECORDS, DOCUMENTS" BLOG
Imagine if some of Satz's mob spilled the beans......
Incidentally, the statute of limitations for police officers does not commence until they leave the force.
It's no secret that Rundle's office has been no friend to law enforcement. So when they say that this ASA was acting inappropriately and had formed opinions before even seeing any police reports, I find myself having to side with them. What type of ASA has his own blog??? Sounds like a loose canon to me. Just my thoughts.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
THE FLORIDA BAR,
Complainant,
v. Case Numbers SC 07 - 80 and 07- 354
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE ‘RECOMMENDATIONS”
Respondent files this motion to strike the referee’s “Recommendations” herein. Respondent hopes that this referee can read, because unless she can and then strikes these Recommendations, she will have nailed shut the coffin on The Bar and on herself individually in the coming federal action. Read, “Judge Tunis,” what Florida Bar Rule 3-7.6 says about what you were supposed to do:
(m) Referee’s Report.
(1) Contents of Report. Within 30 days after the conclusion of a trial before a referee or 10 days after the referee receives the transcripts of all hearings, whichever is later, or within such extended period of time as may be allowed by the chief justice for good cause shown, the referee shall make a report and enter it as part of the record, but failure to enter the report in the time prescribed shall not deprive the referee of jurisdiction. The referee’s report shall include:
(A) a finding of fact as to each item of misconduct of which the respondent is charged, which findings of fact shall enjoy the same presumption of correctness as the judgment of the trier of fact in a civil proceeding;
(
(C) recommendations as to the disciplinary measures to be applied;
(D) a statement of any past disciplinary measures as to the respondent that are on record with the executive director of The Florida Bar or that otherwise become known to the referee through evidence properly admitted by the referee during the course of the proceedings (after a finding of guilt, all evidence of prior disciplinary measures may be offered by bar counsel subject to appropriate objection or explanation by respondent); and
(E) a statement of costs incurred and recommendations as to the manner in which such costs should be taxed.
(2) Filing. The referee’s report and record of proceedings shall in all cases be transmitted together to the Supreme Court of Florida. Copies of the report shall be served on the parties including staff counsel. Bar counsel will make a copy of the record, as furnished, available to other parties on request and payment of the actual costs of reproduction.
Can this referee read? The “Referee’s Report” is to include specific “findings of fact” and then “recommendations.” There is no provision whatsoever in the Rules for a separate finding of “Recommendations” separate and apart from “findings of fact.”
What you have done, Ms. Tunis, is generate a document that is not even identified in our Rules and for which you have absolutely no
@Jack Thompson:
Why, Jack, since there's already an article on JAAblog relating your Referee's finding of guilt, must you post your bowel motions willy-nilly to other articles which are in no way germaine to you or anything having to do with you? You make me have to chase you up and down and back and forth this site. How about you just stick to articles which are in some way -- no matter how remotely -- related to the nonsesnse you're about to post?
And, FYI, your post above ended abrutply. Just like your legal career's fixin' to end abruptly.
"It's no secret that Rundle's office has been no friend to law enforcement"
What does this mean? Is the SAO supposed to back up crooked or dishonest police? Is that what being a "friend" is?
@Jack Thompson:
FYI, Rule 3-7.6(m)(1)(A through E) merely lists the required components of the referee's report. Nowhere does the Rule state, as you argue, that component A must preceed component B, and component B must preceed component C, and C preceed D, etc. Nor does the Rule state, as you argue, that components A through E must be submitted simultaneously. On my read of the Rule, nothing prohibits a referee from breaking the required components into pieces and submitting them piecemeal and in any order they choose, provided they do so within the time by which they must fully submit their report.
You got a lot of gall asking anyone if they can read when your reading and comprehension skills are so obviously lacking.
@Jack Thompson:
And your never-ending attempts to find some loophole, no matter how niggling, through which you can wiggle your way out of what you've got coming to you are most unbecoming. How about, instead of thrashing around and screaming like a little bitch, you just take it like a man. You'd have still taken it, yes, (and you're gonna take it, either way) but at least you'd have some measure of respect left to you.
@JDKJ --
You know who won't be reading that letter? Why, the Supreme Court of Florida, that's who! I reckon that will be returned with the rest of all of Jack's foolishness.
@Dog Welder:
Ignore the caption (the part about "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA"). All filings in Bar disciplinary proceedings are similarly captioned. I'd assume he filed this latest proof of his retardation with Judge Tunis and not with the Supremes. That's assuming he even filed anything anywhere. He's been know to post "court filings" with a blog but yet not file them with the court.
@Jack Thompson:
I understand your contention that Judge Tunis is not a judge. I don't think it's worth a hill of beans, but, as a theoretical matter, I understand your position. However, your theory is by no means a foregone conclusion. I know you often operate from the premise that merely because you say something is so, that makes it so. Unfortunately, that ain't so.
So, perhaps, until your theory that Judge Tunis isn't a judge is proved valid, you should refrain from referring to her as "Ms. Tunis." Not only is it prematurely disrespectful and discourteous, but I doubt it's winning you any Brownie points anywhere, including down at the Southern District (who you seem convinced beyond a doubt are going to bail you out). Remember, judges can be cliquish.