Welcome to the JQC - the 15th Circuit's Krista Marx and the 5th Circuit's Michelle Morley were elected by Florida's circuit judges yesterday to replace Preston Silvernail and Paul Backman on the JQC.  Both ran unopposed.  Marx increases Palm Beach's potency on the panel, joining current member  Jay White, an attorney based in West Palm Beach. 

Florida Bar v. Gardiner -
click here for the Bar's Reply Brief, made available online yesterday afternoon. 

Of course, the Bar does nothing to defend everybody's favorite blog, or question why so much emphasis was placed on it by David Bogenschutz.  Furthermore, the Bar makes no mention of all the nasty comments and lies that were posted on the blog concerning whistle blower Sheila Alu in rebuttal to Bogenschutz's claims.  That was another obviously significant point the Bar failed to make, even if no one can say who authored them.  The Bar also did not call into question the vast majority of the witnesses Bogenschutz relies on in his Answer Brief, including Richard Cole, who, according to Bob Norman, was awarded $600,000 in legal fees  by Gardiner prior to her joining Cole, Scott & Kissane.  In fact, the only Gardiner witness the Bar mentions is Michael Brannon, despite easy to draw connections that could have been made between the witnesses, Gardiner, and lawyer Bogenschutz.

From the Brief:

In her Answer Brief, Respondent continued her pattern of utilizing obfuscating and misleading statements in order to avoid responsibility for her misconduct, and demonstrated conclusively why disbarment is required in the instant case ... That she should continue to misrepresent her true relationship with Scheinberg before this Honorable Court conclusively demonstrates that she has not taken responsibility for her conduct and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter ...

Further, in the Answer Brief, Respondent argues that this Court should give great weight to the evidence of Respondent's severe depression in mitigation of the appropriate sanction ... However, in presenting this argument, Respondent neglected to mention that Dr. Brannon never diagnosed Respondent with depression. Dr. Brannon only saw Respondent twice in six months, and never in a professional capacity ... Indeed, when asked if he was making a diagnosis of clinical or severe depression, he answered "no one has asked me to do an evaluation or assess her in that way so I'm not doing it from a professional standpoint."

Additionally, in reference to her treatment for depression, Respondent asserts, "The Bar's suggestion that respondent go[t] no help until 2009 is belied by the testimony of Dr. Brannon ... Such statement by Respondent in her Answer Brief is yet another example of her tendency to state technically true facts, but through omission of pertinent details, create misleading and false statements ...

Further, even if this Court leaves aside the fact that Respondent was never diagnosed with depression, and that she did not seek treatment for any such condition until after her misconduct came to light, disbarment is still the appropriate sanction for Respondent. This Court has consistently imposed the sanction of disbarment despite evidence of depression and emotional problems of the Respondent ...

Indeed, the record is replete with Respondent's inability to grasp the severity of her misconduct, and to accept responsibility for her actions. She continues to argue that there was no real basis for the granting of a new trial, and even attack's the State's decision to provide one. However, this Honorable Court has repeatedly stated that, in a death penalty case, the appearance of impropriety "is as much a violation of due process as actual bias would be." ... This is because "life is at stake and . . . the . . . sentencing decision is so important."  Respondent‟s refusal to acknowledge that her actions, standing alone, violated defendant Loureiro's constitutionally protected due process rights, and entitled him to a new trial before a fair and neutral arbiter, are conclusive proof of her failure to accept responsibility for her misconduct. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent ...

And now it's up to the Supreme Court, with the entire legal establishment watching ...

Coming Soon - Laura Watson is no shrinking violet ...


What did you think of this article?

  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Page: 1 of 1
  • 8/6/2013 10:45 AM interesting wrote:
    Interesting coincidence, if not connection, between Gardiner's pending eminent fall and Backman's sudden choice to resign from the JQC, don't you think?
    Reply to this
  • 8/6/2013 12:12 PM anonymous wrote:
    Bill, just because the Bar did not raise your pet peeve arguments does not make the response ineffective. Take a step back, it is not all about you.
    Reply to this
  • 8/6/2013 12:26 PM Anonymous wrote:
    TFB would never have done anything if Bill hadn't pushed them.
    Reply to this
  • 8/6/2013 4:01 PM Anonymous wrote:
    I have lost all respect for Crow.
    Reply to this
  • 8/6/2013 5:37 PM Anonymous wrote:
    her goose is cooked
    Reply to this
  • 8/6/2013 9:49 PM George Sanders wrote:
    Disbar her already. This is getting boring.
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 7:59 AM Frat Stud wrote:
    Guys in my high school used to cite bad case law. It was no big deal.
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 8:59 AM Anonymous wrote:
    Since when does Brannon need a lot of time to form an opinion?
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 9:35 AM Dead Dan Futch wrote:
    Dave, can I have my hat back?
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 10:00 AM Paralegal 101 wrote:
    Doesn't Booger know how to Shep a case? Or is his position so weak he needs to cite bad law?
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 4:20 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Watson is on the right trial. The incestuous nature of these jokers make them all the subject of closer scrutiny because they're out for the same thing; what can do them and their cronies the most good in hopes of further political or monetary advancement which can often be the same thing.
    Hope Watson busts it wide open. Although because they might be exposed for what they really are, they'll probably realize they better run with their tail tucked between their legs and back off.
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 7:12 PM Anonymous wrote:
    if Watson doesn't, FUK will
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 7:39 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Reply to this
  • 8/7/2013 9:23 PM DUH wrote:
    Moreover, Respondent‟s reliance on The Florida Bar v. Lipman, 497 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 1986) for the proposition that her refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of her conduct cannot be considered as an aggravating factor, is without merit. While Lipman did address this issue, it has been distinguished by The Florida Bar v. Germain, 957 So.2d 613 (Fla. 2007) and is no longer prevailing authority.
    Reply to this
  • 8/8/2013 1:31 PM two who know wrote:
    and obviously very very stuffed...should feed bogey for a while
    Reply to this
  • 8/9/2013 1:43 PM Anonymous wrote:
    Backman failed to save her. Bogey failed to save her. Brannon failed to save her. She can't even save herself. What were these boobs thingking?
    Reply to this
  • 8/9/2013 8:36 PM Anonymous wrote:
    I've never cared much for Dr. Brannon. This thing with Gardiner confirms my own opinion of him.
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment


 Email (will not be published)


Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.