David Crow issued this sharply worded Order yesterday, denying Gardiner's request for something called a "Retroactive Application Of Suspension". 

From the Order:

"The Motion is denied. There is no legal authority or factual predicate in the
evidence for this request. There is no legal precedent nor does the Respondent cite
any legal precedent for the proposition that a voluntary sabbatical or leave of
absence while still a member in good standing of the Bar is a suspension or should
retroactively apply to a suspension recommendation. Furthermore, as a matter of
fact, the Respondent's voluntary sabbatical/leave of absence was not a "self
imposed" discipline for the conduct for which I recommended a finding of guilt.
To the contrary, the Respondent maintained throughout the proceedings that THE
FLORIDA BAR lacked jurisdiction to discipline her, that she is not guilty of the
charges, or alternatively should not be disciplined in addition to her relinquishment
of her judicial position as a result of the Judicial Qualifications Commission
inquiry. The Respondent's voluntary sabbatical/leave of absence was for personal
and emotional reasons which, at least in part, were to defend the allegations of
." (emphasis added)



What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Page: 1 of 2
  • 1/15/2013 5:50 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Maybe now he knows he should have recommended to disbar her.
    Reply to this
  • 1/15/2013 5:55 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Hubris be thy name.
    Reply to this
  • 1/15/2013 8:32 PM Anonymous wrote:
    This seems to be part of a pattern. Maybe now he knows what he's been dealing with the whole time. She should have be disbarred permanently just to set an example for other out of control broward judges. After all, this ain't the first time she'd been to the rodeo. Even if it had been she should have been gotten five years.
    Reply to this
  • 1/15/2013 8:58 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Manipulate much?
    Reply to this
  • 1/15/2013 9:35 PM Anonymous wrote:
    If I had a time machine I would go back in time and tell the truth.
    Reply to this
  • 1/16/2013 1:01 AM Honest Abe wrote:
    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
    Reply to this
  • 1/16/2013 8:50 AM dropped banana wrote:
    Why did she resign after the JQC found out about the hundreds of phone calls and texts she and Scheinberg had exchanged and after the three witnesses, not counting Circuit Judge Charlie Kaplan, came forward about the incident at Timpano's? Because she knew what was coming down the pike for her, that's why. Then she goes to trial before the Bar. And now she wants her year suspension to somehow be retroactive? This chick has some set of balls after what she pulled. What's is she, a drama junkie or something? Bogenschutz sounds even more lame this time around. She really doesn't like having to give up the banana. There's been a very sad lack of truth since the begining of this. I guess that why they say a hollow drum beats the loudest. Bogenschutz might take that to heart about now.
    Reply to this
  • 1/16/2013 9:21 AM WEAK HAND wrote:
    Reply to this
  • 1/16/2013 4:09 PM Anonymous wrote:
    not the bang she expected this time
    Reply to this
  • 1/16/2013 9:53 PM bad habits die hard wrote:
    I see old bad habits still die hard. Gardiner embodies both.
    Reply to this
  • 1/17/2013 9:13 AM revocation wrote:
    Leave of absents? I thought she resigned after the JQC found out about the misleading statements given about the circumstances surrounding any relationship between she and Scheinberg, to wit the reported hundreds of phone calls and text messages exchanged between them during the actual trial?
    How she or anyone else can consider that a leave of absents rather than an attempt to stop any further investigation into what she tried to cover up with what must be considered to be untruths and misleading statements to the JQC inquiry is for anyone to figure out.
    And now she wants to use that as some sort of reason why she wants her suspension to be retroactive?
    I'm sure the bar by now as well as everyone else knows what they are dealing with.
    I don't look at any of her actions as anything but self serving in an attempt to spare her any further humiliation surrounding the bar's recommendation for the suspension.
    This woman and her attorney just don't know when to stop which is consistent with her past behavior.
    The Supreme Court should up the recommendation to permanent revocation.
    Reply to this
  • 1/17/2013 10:12 AM unfair 4 1 wrote:
    I say Poor Scheinberg. Not saying that the failure to make disclosures of the relationship in a Capital Murder Case was acceptable behavior; But, Judge Gardner is by far the more culpable and dishonest party in this case. Reports were that Scheinberg was honest and forthcoming when questioned. Whereas reports were Gardner was less than forth coming, deceptive and manipulative. Yet Scheinberg got the exact same punishment. What kind of message does that send about being honest and forthcoming?
    Reply to this
  • 1/17/2013 11:04 AM Anonymous wrote:
    The shenanigans never cease with gardiner. She needs to be taught a harsh lesson as an example to the others.
    Reply to this
  • 1/17/2013 7:14 PM the ole blame game wrote:
    What's with Bogenschutz' Satz bashing? Thought they were friends. You know he's got problems when he starts bashing Satz for doing his job. The blame game is always the way these things go when things r going bad. Nobody is responsible but Gardiner and Scheinberg. They both need to learn something from this. Gardiner looks worse every time she or her attorney open their mouths.
    Reply to this
  • 1/17/2013 9:29 PM Rambo wrote:


    Q2 C U N T uesday ?
    Reply to this
  • 1/17/2013 9:39 PM old tricks wrote:
    She's still up to her old tricks. It's gettin a little old now. So is she.
    Reply to this
  • 1/18/2013 12:37 AM discipline warranted wrote:
    In this particular case discipline is warranted for reasons all too apparent. I'm really surprised the Bar was so lenient under the circumstances. I don't think for even one moment she has considered she was wrong in her actions and the arrogance she exhibited when confronted despite the overwhelming evidence against her.
    Reply to this
  • 1/18/2013 8:26 AM WEB wrote:
    Gardiner is one spider that got caught in her own web.
    Reply to this
  • 1/18/2013 12:17 PM incorrigeable wrote:
    she's only concerned about the money and how much she'll lose. she's a slimey scourge with total lack of comprehension or concept of her crimes and the damage she caused. She is totally lacking in moral ability which she carries into her legal life.
    Reply to this
  • 1/18/2013 5:38 PM what u don't see wrote:
    Gardiner couldn't help herself ultimately. After being on the bench she lost it just like so many of the others. She was never cut out to be a judge. When I used to see the winking and open flurting going on from the bench to her boytoys it was disgusting. Then came the drivebys checking on them at parties she wasn't even invited to an resultant accident and leaving the scene incident. She couldn't keep them straight after a while. It's tough when you're trying to play them all against one another and then get caught up in it. What do u morons expect her to do but move on to the next one that can do her some good? In this case she got herself caught in the wringer depending on too many people to quash it from ever going any further in the beginning when it broke. She made a mistake. You can have your political buddies cover you just so far untill they start realizing she's pulling them down along with herself. The phony crap about her depressed state of mind and not knowing what social relationships are is just more of the same crap and that's just what it sounded like in her closing. I'm frankly surprised she didn't get her license whacked for good. It's not like any of her exploits weren't known by the whole courthouse with other judges trying to look the other way while encouraging it secretly. She can now thank all her political buds for helping their helping shape her MO. You play, you pay. She's lucky she didn't get whacked but good.
    Reply to this
  • 1/18/2013 7:56 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Sounds like she just fliped out
    Reply to this
  • 1/18/2013 8:34 PM FLORIDA U KNOW THIS COURT wrote:


    Reply to this
  • 1/19/2013 1:36 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Reply to this
  • 1/19/2013 10:52 AM Anonymous wrote:
    You lay down with dogs and up come up with flees. She must be really embarrassed to be seen in public.
    Reply to this
  • 1/19/2013 1:53 PM Rambo wrote:

    Q1 How humilitated do her fleas feel?

    Q2 Are fleas a genus or a species of
    parasites ?
    Reply to this
  • 1/19/2013 2:25 PM Rambo wrote:

    Q1 Is she so delusional to perservate

    that she is akin to Kathy Griffin

    with a perversion that she

    could "over achieve" & vault from

    the "D" to "A" list by trying to

    blow some Anderson Cooper types

    live at new year's eve parties ?
    Reply to this
  • 1/19/2013 2:42 PM Rambo wrote:

    Q1 Does this just an illusion or a real

    mythbuster "that you just can not

    beat the box"(except with a pessary?)
    Reply to this
  • 1/19/2013 2:58 PM Rambo wrote:

    Q 1 Why feel any pitty for her reversal

    of fortunes ?

    Q 2 Is she elibilible for compensation

    in the class action for failed &

    defective pelvic floor mess implants?
    Reply to this
  • 1/20/2013 9:05 AM Anonymous wrote:
    This chick along with her counsel don't know when to stop. Still trying to work it to the point of stupidity.
    Reply to this
  • 1/22/2013 10:16 AM Anonymous wrote:
    She deserves allot more for all the years this was going on
    Reply to this
  • 1/23/2013 2:54 PM two who know wrote:
    looks like she got off easy,just as we expected.......judical pen$$$$ion forth coming...what a sham.
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 2
Leave a comment


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.