SUNDAY NOTES

Settlement! - Mike Wrubel and Jim Green have reportedly made a deal on behalf of Frank Lee Smith, the man Satz sent to Death Row, only to be exonerated by DNA after dying from cancer while waiting to be executed.  Smith is only one of many victims of Broward's beloved SAO (click here and here for more), but his story was told by PBS's Frontline

As the Sun Sentinel reported last February, the case was slated for trial this summer.  On Friday, however, Defendants BSO and the two former Detectives who handled the case, Richard Scheff and Phillip Amabile, reportedly agreed to terms of a settlement.  Specifics are still unavailable at this time, but hopefully will be made public soon. 

Satz was not a Defendant, as prosecutors enjoy the fruits of absolute immunity.  BSO could be held accountable, under the partial umbrella of qualified immunity.  That being said, let's hope Satz at least musters the courage to apologize to Virginia Smith and the rest of the Smith family for his role in this particularly chilling travesty of justice.  Just don't hold your breath ...

Can you say awkward? - someone at T.J. Reddick either has a tremendous sense of humor, or really needs to bone up on party planning.  Seated together at Saturday's 21st Annual Awards & Scholarship Gala were none other than Ian Richards and Jonathan Kasen.  Richards wasn't the only judge at the table either, which must have amped the tension even higher.  In any event, Kasen's appearance at the must attend political event can only mean he's in it for real.  Put it together with Mike Dutko's clever non-response* to questioning Friday as to whether rumours are true he started this ball rolling by lunching with Kasen a while back, and it sure looks like game on ...

* "I have lunch with a lot of people".

Damn It! - imagine our disappointment.  We tracked down a copy of the Bars Initial Brief  in the ongoing appeal of David Crow's recommended one year suspension for Gardiner, and it's rock solid.  No wholesale Bar bashing can follow on this topic, except to say maybe the Palm Beach judge wouldn't have been so generous with his sentence if the Bar hadn't followed its horse shit investigation with a totally limp courtroom presentation.

As first reported by the Sun Sentinel's Rafael Olmeda earlier this month, the Bar is seeking to disbar Gardiner, as they have been all along.  That's why they're attempting to disturb Crow's ruling, much to Team Gardiner's chagrin, which would never have looked a gift horse in the mouth by taking an appeal.

In any event, if the Supreme Court follows the law as laid out in the Bar's brief, there can be no other outcome except a well-earned disbarment.  Instance after instance of dishonesty is clearly laid out, together with voluminous corresponding case law citations, like this example from pages 27-28:

Indeed, this pattern of dishonest conduct carried over to the instant disciplinary proceeding, and provides support for finding another aggravating factor. Standard 9.22(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process is also present in this case. It is apparent that truth for Respondent is whatever is expedient, and she will say whatever is needed depending on the forum she is speaking to and the concern she is attempting to address. This is evidenced, for instance, by her testimony before the JQC wherein she purposely diminished her relationship with Scheinberg in order to support the JQC’s finding of only minor misconduct, in comparison with her sworn testimony before the Grievance Committee, wherein she purposefully and falsely magnified her relationship with Mike Tenzer in order to demonstrate that she had a similar relationship with defense counsel as she did with Scheinberg. (See TFB Ex. 16, pages 26-27, 29). At the Hearing before the Grievance Committee, Respondent testified that she and Mike Tenzer were great friends, that they often had breakfast and lunch together, and had been out to dinner together. She indicated that she spent most every Saturday at the gym with him, and they had breakfast together afterwards. Similar to her intentional misleading of the JQC regarding her relationship with Scheinberg, by this testimony she deliberately and intentionally misled the Grievance Committee regarding the nature and extent of her relationship with Tenzer. (TFB Ex. 16, pages 26-27, 29). Respondent omitted the pertinent details that would have accurately portrayed her relationship with Tenzer. Again, in the Final Hearing in this cause, Respondent testified under oath that her relationship with Tenzer was similar to, or on par with, her relationship with Scheinberg. (TR 517). However, these statements by Respondent were not true. Mr. Tenzer testified that they were not friends, they did not socialize, but instead were mere professional acquaintances who sometimes happened to dine in the same locations. (TR 83-85). The appropriate sanction in this case is disbarment. Indeed, in The Florida Bar v. Senton, 882 So.2d 997 (Fla. 2004), this Court held that lying in the disciplinary proceeding alone is worth disbarment.

Fun stuff, except when you consider it's just a circus side show following the main event, when two dangerous clowns put a man on death row via a deeply corrupted trial*.  We'll be posting more highlights throughout the week, just in case you don't have the stomach to read through it all for yourself ...

* The jury in the second, clean trial refused to impose the death penalty, despite the arguments of Brian Cavanagh, perhaps the most effective prosecutor to ever grace a Broward courtroom.

But wait!
- you didn't think the Bar was going to get off scott free tonight, did you?  We've now spoken to multiple sources who say the Bar has been feeling judicial heat in recent times to take their complaints more seriously.  The end result is Joe Q. Public may be getting short shrift, as we're told the Bar has indeed implemented measures to JUMP when told to by someone wearing a robe.  But is it also true there's an "unwritten rule" in place that all judicially motivated complaints must go to Grievance Committee, no matter how frivolous or misguided?  Developing ...

Coming Soon - Update on the Scheinberg appeal; If Gardiner got to go to the Grievance Committee, why can't we?;  Lemons into Lemonade: Florida Bar defense work seems pretty easy, and much more lucrative than street law ...



                    You got old, Bitch.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 6/3/2013 8:49 AM Judges for Ana wrote:
    Any Judge that testified for Ana is a bad judge of character. Friendship is one thing, but lending the integrity of a judgeship that belongs to the people to support someone who lied at every critical juncture of the proceedings is horribly wrong. Don't let them claim ignorance either. Everyone knew the score and chose either the right or the wrong side. The big black eye Ana gave the Circuit was spit in by Judges who still supported her despite wholesale denigration of all that is sacred about the system of law.
    Reply to this
  • 6/3/2013 10:53 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Which Judges testified for Judge Gardiner?
    Reply to this
  • 6/3/2013 11:28 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison Sheriff Ken Jenne went to prison
    Reply to this
  • 6/3/2013 2:06 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Maybe the bar filed complaints to get the blog back on Ana's case?
    Reply to this
  • 6/3/2013 7:04 PM Reinfeld's Vagina wrote:
    Will somebody please say ready for trial in a case with alleged civil attorney Dan Reinfeld?

    Every time that happens, he starts shaking & as Dan's vagina, I really like that!
    Reply to this
  • 6/5/2013 12:22 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Richards changed the way things are done. No special treatment for the well connected. He did more trials than anyone in a regular division with few appeals.
    He cut the caseload by more than half and gave victims time to be heard. Made sure defendants did not disappear in jail or get railroaded just because they are accused of a crime. I will support him and I am sure many others are supporting him. When defendants and victims tell him thanks outside the office. Then you know you got a good judge.
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.