Thursday, July 30, 2015


So this happened...
Charges have been dropped against an injured Iraq war veteran who was arrested after being accused of growing medical marijuana.
Mathew Young was charged with cultivation after Pasco County deputies said they found plants in his home.
Young said a Jacksonville attorney gave him paperwork and false information that using medical marijuana was allowed.
"I really to this day don't believe I did anything wrong," Young said.
He said the cannabis gave him relief from a slew of medical problems he's had since returning from combat.
"It wasn't until I tried cannabis that everything turned around," Young said. "I could start functioning and start having a day. You have to have a day before you can start a life."
The State Attorney's Office decided to drop the charge against Young saying he is "a cooperating witness in an on-going investigation."
It's wonderful that Mr. Young will not face charges for the still criminal act of seeking relief from medical marijuana. But how long does this guy have to suffer without legal access to something that is really helping him???

If you think it's time to focus law enforcement efforts on criminals and not sick people, please download, sign and send in the petition to put medical marijuana on the 2016 ballot.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

3d DCA Watch -- My Face Is Melting Edition!

So it's about 125 degrees outside, but inside the hermetically-sealed bunker the temperature is a cool, dry 38 degrees -- coincidentally the optimal temperature to serve a fresh cold lager!

Let's see what those lucky concrete commandos are up to this week:

Moradiellos v. Community Asphalt:

Hey, our friend Judge Ramirez appears for the appellant!

(Don't worry Judge, I know how hard it is to actively maintain a blog!)

Key Biscayne Gateway v. Key Biscayne:

If the Village fails to approve a site plan after holding a hearing, is that a "ministerial act" such that mandamus could lie?

You'll have to click the link above to find out! 

South Florida Racing v. Florida:

This case involves a lawyer named "Spicola"!

(Sorry, that's all I've got -- the case is really boring.)

Romay v. Caribevision:

Lots of heavy hitters involved in this appeal of a receivership order by Judge Gordo, but the 3d held its nose and hid behind relied upon the standard of review:
We review the appointment of a receiver under an abuse of discretion standard. Puma Enters. Corp. v. Vitale, 566 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Based on the record before this Court, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering the order on appeal.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the parties’ underlying dispute, we affirm the trial court’s order appointing a receiver.
Smells Like Teen Spirit!

Trump Was Rude to Elizabeth Beck!

"It rubs the lotion on the skin or else it gets the hose again."

We all know The Donald's a douche, but the way he treated our colleague Elizabeth Beck is just wrong:
Donald J. Trump seemed irritated. He had been grilled for two hours in a lawsuit over a failed Florida real estate project, and he told the lawyer that her questions were “very stupid.”

When the lawyer, Elizabeth Beck, asked for a medical break, Mr. Trump and his lawyers objected, demanding that the deposition continue. Ms. Beck said it was urgent — she needed to pump breast milk for her 3-month-old daughter, and she took the pump out to make her point.

Mr. Trump erupted.

“You’re disgusting,” he told Ms. Beck, in a remark that is not disputed by either side. He then walked out of the room, ending the testimony for the day.
Here's a little more detail:
His temper sometimes flared. Under questioning by Ms. Beck in 2011 in the Florida real estate case, he was insulting. “Do you even know what you’re doing?” he challenged her.

But when Ms. Beck insisted on pausing for an hour to pump breast milk, Mr. Trump, in the words of her husband, had “a meltdown” during a break in the deposition. In a letter at the time, Mr. Beck said 
Mr. Trump had called his wife “uptight” as well as “disgusting.”

Mr. Garten, the Trump lawyer, did not dispute Mr. Beck’s account of Mr. Trump’s language, but said it “was in no way a statement about her decision to breast-feed or pump.”

“It was solely the fact that she was appearing to do it in the middle of a deposition,” he said — although no one involved suggested that she had gone beyond displaying the pump.

Mr. Garten added: “In my 20 years of legal practice, I’ve never seen more bizarre behavior at a deposition. That is what led to his remark.”

Mr. Garten said that “every accommodation” had been made for Ms. Beck to take breaks, but that he believed she was seeking to buy time to come up with new questions for Mr. Trump. The Becks lost one of their cases against Mr. Trump and are appealing.
What do you all think of this?

On the one hand, an hour seems like a long time to pump milk in the middle of a deposition, but does that justify the abusive words?

And I know Trump's lawyer is putting the best spin he can to protect his client, but there's nothing really "bizarre" about her request IMHO (except perhaps the length).

The suggestion that she needed another hour just to come up with more questions is also condescending, and the whole episode has a slightly sexist air to it, at least to me. 

But that's why I'm not worth $9 billion, I guess.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Message from Your Florida Bar President: "Everybody Chillax"!

The whole "reciprocity" brouhaha was just part of a larger visioning project, we're looking at lots of different things, nothing's been decided, we want your input, don't worry so much, thank you for being a member of the Florida Bar.

Look at the people above, if they can come together then there is hope for us all.

(I added that last part.)

Your Honor, We Had Some Major "Technical Difficulties"!

They involved not responding in time in the first place, not getting notice of the order granting leave to renew, and not including a meritorious defense in the motion to vacate.

God I hate technicalities!

Monday, July 27, 2015

Enjoy Your Summer Cruise From Hell! (Happy Monday).

Spence is back from Europe -- shaved, (relatively) booze-free, wearing his crisp suit and red power tie (with matching red hanky), and he's ready to strike fear provide cautionary advice to our many South Florida cruise passengers.

Happy cruising!

Friday, July 24, 2015

Open Letter to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Goodman

Dear Magistrate Judge Goodman,

We hope this finds you well and rocking out, as you ready for your weekend. (BTW - was that you stage-diving at the Smashing Pumpkins concert earlier this week???)

Knowing you like we do, we are confident our favorite song is one of your favorites as well and so heck, if it's not too much trouble, can you work it into an order?


The Blog

Magistrate Judge Goodman Goes Deep(ish)!

My eyes boggled -- is this a deep cut from our favorite loquacious pop-culture-citing Magistrate Judge (and in our favorite over-litigated case)?
“Why are we keeping secrets / Why don’t we both come clean and begin”
‐ Christine McVie, from the “Keeping Secrets” song1

As footnote one states, "[f]rom the 'Christine McVie' (Warner Bros., 1984) album, the second solo effort by the Fleetwood Mac vocalist and keyboardist."

So much better in the form of citation too -- just enough extraneous detail as to be informative and interesting!

Interesting order too -- what a surprise -- a party has over-designated tons of docs as "highly confidential" when there was in fact little basis for the designation.

Secrets, eh?

I love Christy, and respect the song choice -- here are few others on that theme off the top of my head:

Carly Simon, "We Have No Secrets":

 The Cure, "Secrets":

And of course:

The Beatles, "Do You Want to Know a Secret":

 This is fun -- please join in!

Happy Friday Plebes!!

Update:  Happy 79th Birthday Ruth Buzzi

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Spencer Knows Bologna!

A bleary-eyed travelogue from a slightly hung-over Spence:

Nice production values!


Stop the Nonsense!

Recent polls have shown a dip in support for same sex marriage following the Obergefell decision and no wonder. Fire and brimstone hysteria has run amok! The lies coming out about what the ruling means have been too preposterous to even give credence with comment, most centering around the idea that my civil marriage is somehow going to lead to the persecution of clergy.

Cue this nonsense.
In the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, here come conservative Florida legislators to propose a “Pastor Protection Act.” They say it’s needed to reassure nervous religious communities that they won’t be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that violate their principles.
State Rep. Scott Plakon, a Republican from Longwood, near Orlando, is collaborating with the Rev. Chris Walker, pastor of the Cathedral of Power International Church and the author of an online petition that has gathered more than 22,000 signatures.
And today, another Christian group is holding a news conference in Miami to urge Gov. Rick Scott and Republican legislative leaders to pass a measure meant to protect the tax-exempt status of churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. The Christian Family Coalition said in a news release that it wants a “Clergy and Religious Institutions Tax-Exempt Protection Act.”
Rev. Walker says in his petition that he seeks a law similar to those in Texas and Oklahoma stating “that no licensed, ordained or authorized official of a religious organization can be required to solemnize or recognize a marriage that violates that official’s conscience or religious belief.”
But all this is already protected by a little something known as the First Amendment.
It’s important to keep in mind that what the Supreme Court ruled on was civil marriage — not the religious marriage rite held in churches and synagogues, and presided over by clergy. The two, though often imagined as being intertwined and inseparable, are very different things.
One is a contract between individuals that holds implications for property, taxes, health benefits and many other worldly concerns. The other has to do with the union of souls and the sanction of God, however the deity is recognized by a specific religion. The distinction is perhaps clearer with divorce. We are all familiar with churches, or rabbinical councils, that won’t recognize a civil divorce for religious reasons.
The court’s ruling was about civil rights. That is, civil marriage. As Justice Anthony Kennedy framed the issue, in writing the 5-4 majority opinion in the gay-marriage case, the plaintiffs were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.” Nothing in the decision intrudes upon the traditions of a church, synagogue, temple or mosque.
The opinion expressly states that “it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures [it].”
Did we all get that? Good. Now if these turds really want to know what it is to be oppressed they should try being atheists.