58 thoughts on “JAABLOG RETURNS SHORTLY”

    1. 8

      0

      January.
      Great to see they are finally figuring out that if what she did happened as a judge, then hey can still discipline her after leaving the bench. Might have something to do with an actual crime was committed, “Touch or Strike Battery”.

      OK, they lost some teeth but;
      They can still fine and disbar her. Their usual MO is to drop it and say it’s a Bar problem, then the Bar says they can’t do anything because they were a judge and the JQC has to handle it.

      Back and forth, nothing being done. Maybe the pressure is having an effect.

      1. 0

        0

        BTW, this will probably be her attorney’s next move. She’s not getting paid anyway, lost the election, might as well resign and see if they’ll drop it.

    2. 5

      1

      All criminal defense attorneys and members of BACDL need to get the word out!!!!! VOTE OUT THE 4TH DCA!!!!!!!!!

      The 4th DCA has no respect for the criminal defense community. The court does not follow the law. The court is biased in favor of the State. The court rarely rules in a neutral or fair manner. Worst of all the court doesn’t even do it’s job! The court consistently uses PCAs as a tool to avoid addressing complex legal issues, or as a means to affirm the unlawful conviction of a defendant.

      The criminal defense bar must mobilize to vote out the 4th DCA! Until we have an appellate court that is fair, neutral, and competent, we must continue to vote “NO” on the retention ballot!!!!

      Let’s get the word out to voters! VOTE NO TO RETAIN THE 4TH DCA!!!!

      1. 1

        0

        LOVE THE VID DUDE
        LOOKS LIKE VAGINA NEEDS TO HIT THE VINEGAR
        ALONG WITH A FEW OTHER BROWARD JUDGES

        YOURES TRULY
        THE SKULLY BONES FAN CLUB

  1. 13

    0

    DONT WORRY
    THE 17TH WILL BE UP AND RUNNING BETTER THAN EVER VERY SOON
    BROWARD JUDGES ARE ENJOYING AN EXTENDED WELL DESERVED VACATION

    1. 3

      0

      Floridians will face a lengthy ballot in 2020. Depending on what part of the state they live in, voters will be asked the same question four, five or even six times: “Should Judge so and so of the District Court
      of Appeal be retained in Office?” This year, there is one justice from the Florida Supreme Court (Carlos Muniz) and twenty-four judges from the five district courts of appeal up for retention. I am encouraging all Florida voters to vote NO on all of these
      judges. I will give my reasons but first a little history:

      History and Georgraphy: In the early 1970’s Florida courts were consumed by scandals, especially the Florida Supreme Court, whose members were popularly elected. Governor Reuben Askew led a series of judicial reforms
      that resulted in the merit selection system. The thinking was that judges should face the voters periodically and could be removed by election if they were corrupt or incompetent. No judge has ever lost a merit retention election in Florida, and these ballots
      rarely draw any attention.

      Voters should understand that the Florida Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases, such as death penalty cases or when an issue has statewide importance. The District Courts of Appeal are intended to
      be the final stop for most appeals, whether civil or criminal. Florida is divided into five regions, so for instance, the First District covers north Florida, the Second District covers most of the west-central section, the Third District covers Miami-Dade
      and the Keys, the Fourth District covers the rest of south-east Florida, and the Fifth District stretches from the east coast to the west and includes Orlando.

      Why Vote No? For years I advised voters who asked me, to vote yes on all judges. This was based in large part on direction from the Florida Bar. Each election the Florida Bar polls its members, finds they overwhelmingly
      support retention, then publishes a voter’s guide that contain biographies of the candidates and descriptions of their job, and an admonition that none of the judges can discuss issues in any manner. The not so subtle message each election is that each judge
      should be retained, and I went along with this messaging in past elections.

      I have now been a member of the Florida Bar for 35 years. My first 23 years I worked almost exclusively as a criminal defense trial attorney handling major cases in the Sarasota Bradenton area. The past 12 years I
      began handling numerous appeals in the Second District Court of Appeal in Tampa. An appeal is of course important to someone who has been convicted and sentenced to prison and may represent their last chance at freedom. Appeals are also important for accountability,
      to make sure that trial judges and prosecutors are following the law, and to require new trials when the rules aren’t followed. Therefore, it is very important to ensure these judges are doing their job. In my opinion, they aren’t.

      As mentioned above, the District Courts of Appeal are the final stop for almost all cases. So imagine for a second that you were unjustly accused and wrongfully convicted of a serious crime in Florida. Imagine you
      hired an attorney who agreed with you that serious mistakes had been made in your trial and agreed to represent you on appeal. Imagine that the attorney works on the case for months, files a compelling written brief of arguments in the court, then makes a
      powerful oral argument to the judges. Now imagine that you get the ruling of the court; “Per Curiam Affirmed,” commonly known as a PCA. You ask the lawyer what it means, and you are told it means that you lost the appeal, that the court is giving no reasons
      for their decision, and you have no opportunity for any further appeals.

      Presently, the District Courts of Appeal in Florida are issuing a PCA in approximately 75% of all cases they hear. This means that three out of four times, the appeal is denied and nobody knows why, except the judges
      and they’re not telling. This is a terrible state of affairs for the citizens of Florida and for their attorneys. On the other hand, trial judges and prosecutors delight in PCAs, taking them as a stamp of approval that they can get away with anything without
      consequences.

      Attorneys have been complaining about PCAs for as long as I have been practicing. We have a sneaking suspicion that PCAs are used in most cases as a result oriented device to cover up the many errors that occur
      in a trial court. As such, PCAs have been a tool of mass incarceration, filling our prisons with citizens who were illegally if not wrongfully convicted. Our complaints about PCA’s have fallen on deaf ears, with appellate court judges justifying their use
      due to their alleged heavy work load. They also claim that PCAs are only used “when the points of law raised are so well settled that a further writing would serve no useful purpose.” Elliott v Elliott, 648 So.2d 137, 138 (4th DCA 1994) In my experience,
      this statement is utterly and completely false.

      I handled homicide cases for the most part, and these trials had numerous legal issues arise with no precedent in Florida law. These were substantial questions that needed definitive responses from the court,
      yet when I would appear for oral argument the judges showed little interest in the case or the issues. Invariably I would receive my PCA a few days later, giving me little confidence that the judges had considered my issues or even read the arguments. In my
      view, when Florida appellate judges are issuing PCAs in three out of four cases, they are not doing their job, and therefore should not be retained in office.

      My primary argument for voting NO on all Florida judges is that they are simply not doing their job. The problem is institutional and systemic, that is, the system is designed to fail, not to vindicate the constitutional
      rights of litigants. But why should an individual judge lose their job because of systemic failure? This leads to my next justification for voting NO on all judges — politics. Every judge up for retention in 2020 was appointed by a Republican governor.

      In the past I have been leery about politicizing judicial races but that position feels naive now. Without a doubt, Florida judges have been politicized over the past 20 years. These days, membership in the Federalist
      Society seems like a prerequisite to being named judge. Though they deny it, the Federalist Society is a political organization whose primary goal is to dismantle the regulatory state for businesses while reducing constitutional protections for individual
      litigants. Judges who come out of the Federalist Society are chosen because they will vote a certain way, not for their fealty to the law.

      Voters in Florida have been given the power of the ballot and it is time that they use it. If you are dissatisfied with mass incarceration, judicial hostility to constitutional rights and judges who won’t do their
      job, then VOTE NO. It is doubtful that this article will result in sufficient NO votes to remove any judge, and even if it did, Florida’s Governor (who is in large part responsible for these judges) gets to appoint their replacements. Nevertheless, each NO
      vote will send a message to Florida’s judiciary that they need to do better.

      FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

      All Florida voters will vote whether to retain Justice Carlos Muniz. Justice Muniz was appointed by Governor DeSantis in January of 2019. He has chosen to ignore binding United States Supreme Court precedent in death
      penalty cases. VOTE NO on Justice Carlos Muniz

      FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

      Joseph Lewis, Jr. was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2001. VOTE NO to retain Judge Lewis.

      Scott Makar was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO to retain Judge Makar.

      Rachel Nordby was appointed by Ron DeSantis in October of 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Nordby.

      Tim Osterhaus was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Osterhaus.

      Clay Roberts was appointed by Charlie Crist in 2007. Roberts was the director of the Florida Division of Elections during the disastrous 2000 presidential election. VOTE NO to retain Judge Roberts.

      Adam S. Tanenbaum was appointed by Ron DeSantis in October 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Tanenbaum.

      SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

      Drew Atkinson was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Atkinson.

      Morris Silberman was appointed by Jeb Busch in 2001. VOTE NO on Judge Silberman.

      Daniel H. Sleet was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO on Judge Sleet.

      Andrea Teves Smith was appointed by Rick Scott in January of 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Smith.

      THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

      Monica Gordo was appointed by Ron DeSantis in 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Gordo.

      Eric William Hendon was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Hendon.

      Fleur Jeannine Lobree was appointed by Ron DeSantis in 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Lobree.

      Thomas Logue was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO on Judge Logue.

      Bronwyn Catherine Miller was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Miller.

      FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

      Alan O. Forst was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Forst.

      Mark W. Klingensmith was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Klingensmith.

      Martha C. Warner was appointed by Bob Martinez in 1989. VOTE NO to retain Judge Warner.

      FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

      Kerry I. Evander was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2006. VOTE NO to retain Judge Evander.

      John M. Harris was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO to retain Judge Harris.

      Richard B. Orfinger was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2000. VOTE NO to retain Judge Orfinger.

      Meredith Sasso was appointed by Rick Scott in January, 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Sasso.

      F. Rand Wallis was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Wallis.

  2. 3

    1

    These people contacted us the other day I explained we are sewer cleaners and pretend attorneys sometimes political consultants and endorsers of issues we have no knowledge about.

    If there are any attorneys interested in helping with this plus provide us a finders fee, please contact us through our virus filled website and we’ll put you in touch with them after the check clears. Seems they have the money to pay an attorney: How do we know this? Wild guess.

    Govern Yourself Accordingly,
    Aaron

    1. 1

      6

      We know this because they told us they have money for an attorney. They have tried to hire some but were told by those attorneys they did not want the case because of this judges reputation of “kicking the can down the road” on cases like this.

      We are not pretend lawyers, we tell everyone that contacts us we cannot give them legal advise, nor are we qualified to do so.

      Since so many here are complaining about needing work we thought maybe someone may be interested in making some money. A phone call to them costs nothing.

      If anyone buys that crap about a virus filled website just google our name. We are on the first pages and google would never index a virus filled website, they would blacklist it looser.

      That being said we can be contacted at our gmail address. Now say that gmail is filled with virus’s fool.

      southfloridacorruptionATgmailDOTCOM
      We are at least TRYING to help people. What have you done to help anyone? NOTHING. You seem to be only able to harass.

      1. 1

        0

        All criminal defense attorneys and members of BACDL need to get the word out!!!!! VOTE OUT THE 4TH DCA!!!!!!!!!

        The 4th DCA has no respect for the criminal defense community. The court does not follow the law. The court is biased in favor of the State. The court rarely rules in a neutral or fair manner. Worst of all the court doesn’t even do it’s job! The court consistently uses PCAs as a tool to avoid addressing complex legal issues, or as a means to affirm the unlawful conviction of a defendant.

        The criminal defense bar must mobilize to vote out the 4th DCA! Until we have an appellate court that is fair, neutral, and competent, we must continue to vote “NO” on the retention ballot!!!!

        Let’s get the word out to voters! VOTE NO TO RETAIN THE 4TH DCA!!!!

        1. 1

          1

          SFC,

          It’s not just Broward judges that are corrupt!!! We need to vote out the 4th DCA!!! Look into them! They barely do their job. They’re slow and incompetent even in emergency situations. They don’t follow the law. They must be held accountable at the polls!!!

          Get the word out!

          1. 4

            1

            We told everyone here the last election we had a unique opportunity in Florida, may not be entirely too late.
            About half the FSC will have to retire, face retention hearings, that’s the big one.

            All Floridians need to do is say NO!, to all the retention’s. Good or not tell them Bye-Bye. New appointments then two years later again say NO! BYE!

            If Florida voters would have started doing that two years ago, we could have been able to indefinitely replace half the court every two years.

            Talk about Power To The People! huh.

  3. 8

    0

    PS
    Sewer cleaners may be appropriate though considering the 17th is an actual cesspool of sewage.
    Worst circuit in the state.

  4. 5

    0

    Video of the assault she did not commit. Again, our guess would be the person making the complaint to the JQC was the victim. Good reason not to let it go.

  5. 10

    0

    Think about how men, who have done the same,
    have been charged with nothing less than a felony because the contact was to the throat of the victim, categorically.

    Why are the impoverished, the unrepresented, and the “low end” of society treated as garbage, slammed with increased charges and nights in jail?

    Why is the DV construct a billion dollar industry preying on men disproportionately? Was the male victim just expected to “get over it” ? What about a woman with a male judge?

  6. 9

    0

    OUT OF CONTROL BROWARD JUDGES ARE NOT AN ANOMALY
    ITS A TREND THATS BEEN ALLOWED TO CONTINUE
    THE NUMBERS OF WHACKS TELL THE STORY

    1. 7

      0

      YOU’RE IN GOOD COMPANY VAGINA
      YOU MAY HAVE BEEN KICKED OFF THE LUCRATIVE GRAVEY TRAIN
      BUT THERE’S A NEW SUCKER BORN EVERY MINUTE

      BROWARD JUDGES ARE A BREED ALL THEIR OWN
      ONE YOU DON’T WANT TO BE RELATED TO

    1. 9

      0

      You better believe it ! They’d sell out their grandparents for personal advancement. The examples in Broward of this practice are endless.

      1. 7

        0

        Floridians will face a lengthy ballot in 2020. Depending on what part of the state they live in, voters will be asked the same question four, five or even six times: “Should Judge so and so of the District Court
        of Appeal be retained in Office?” This year, there is one justice from the Florida Supreme Court (Carlos Muniz) and twenty-four judges from the five district courts of appeal up for retention. I am encouraging all Florida voters to vote NO on all of these
        judges. I will give my reasons but first a little history:

        History and Georgraphy: In the early 1970’s Florida courts were consumed by scandals, especially the Florida Supreme Court, whose members were popularly elected. Governor Reuben Askew led a series of judicial reforms
        that resulted in the merit selection system. The thinking was that judges should face the voters periodically and could be removed by election if they were corrupt or incompetent. No judge has ever lost a merit retention election in Florida, and these ballots
        rarely draw any attention.

        Voters should understand that the Florida Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases, such as death penalty cases or when an issue has statewide importance. The District Courts of Appeal are intended to
        be the final stop for most appeals, whether civil or criminal. Florida is divided into five regions, so for instance, the First District covers north Florida, the Second District covers most of the west-central section, the Third District covers Miami-Dade
        and the Keys, the Fourth District covers the rest of south-east Florida, and the Fifth District stretches from the east coast to the west and includes Orlando.

        Why Vote No? For years I advised voters who asked me, to vote yes on all judges. This was based in large part on direction from the Florida Bar. Each election the Florida Bar polls its members, finds they overwhelmingly
        support retention, then publishes a voter’s guide that contain biographies of the candidates and descriptions of their job, and an admonition that none of the judges can discuss issues in any manner. The not so subtle message each election is that each judge
        should be retained, and I went along with this messaging in past elections.

        I have now been a member of the Florida Bar for 35 years. My first 23 years I worked almost exclusively as a criminal defense trial attorney handling major cases in the Sarasota Bradenton area. The past 12 years I
        began handling numerous appeals in the Second District Court of Appeal in Tampa. An appeal is of course important to someone who has been convicted and sentenced to prison and may represent their last chance at freedom. Appeals are also important for accountability,
        to make sure that trial judges and prosecutors are following the law, and to require new trials when the rules aren’t followed. Therefore, it is very important to ensure these judges are doing their job. In my opinion, they aren’t.

        As mentioned above, the District Courts of Appeal are the final stop for almost all cases. So imagine for a second that you were unjustly accused and wrongfully convicted of a serious crime in Florida. Imagine you
        hired an attorney who agreed with you that serious mistakes had been made in your trial and agreed to represent you on appeal. Imagine that the attorney works on the case for months, files a compelling written brief of arguments in the court, then makes a
        powerful oral argument to the judges. Now imagine that you get the ruling of the court; “Per Curiam Affirmed,” commonly known as a PCA. You ask the lawyer what it means, and you are told it means that you lost the appeal, that the court is giving no reasons
        for their decision, and you have no opportunity for any further appeals.

        Presently, the District Courts of Appeal in Florida are issuing a PCA in approximately 75% of all cases they hear. This means that three out of four times, the appeal is denied and nobody knows why, except the judges
        and they’re not telling. This is a terrible state of affairs for the citizens of Florida and for their attorneys. On the other hand, trial judges and prosecutors delight in PCAs, taking them as a stamp of approval that they can get away with anything without
        consequences.

        Attorneys have been complaining about PCAs for as long as I have been practicing. We have a sneaking suspicion that PCAs are used in most cases as a result oriented device to cover up the many errors that occur
        in a trial court. As such, PCAs have been a tool of mass incarceration, filling our prisons with citizens who were illegally if not wrongfully convicted. Our complaints about PCA’s have fallen on deaf ears, with appellate court judges justifying their use
        due to their alleged heavy work load. They also claim that PCAs are only used “when the points of law raised are so well settled that a further writing would serve no useful purpose.” Elliott v Elliott, 648 So.2d 137, 138 (4th DCA 1994) In my experience,
        this statement is utterly and completely false.

        I handled homicide cases for the most part, and these trials had numerous legal issues arise with no precedent in Florida law. These were substantial questions that needed definitive responses from the court,
        yet when I would appear for oral argument the judges showed little interest in the case or the issues. Invariably I would receive my PCA a few days later, giving me little confidence that the judges had considered my issues or even read the arguments. In my
        view, when Florida appellate judges are issuing PCAs in three out of four cases, they are not doing their job, and therefore should not be retained in office.

        My primary argument for voting NO on all Florida judges is that they are simply not doing their job. The problem is institutional and systemic, that is, the system is designed to fail, not to vindicate the constitutional
        rights of litigants. But why should an individual judge lose their job because of systemic failure? This leads to my next justification for voting NO on all judges — politics. Every judge up for retention in 2020 was appointed by a Republican governor.

        In the past I have been leery about politicizing judicial races but that position feels naive now. Without a doubt, Florida judges have been politicized over the past 20 years. These days, membership in the Federalist
        Society seems like a prerequisite to being named judge. Though they deny it, the Federalist Society is a political organization whose primary goal is to dismantle the regulatory state for businesses while reducing constitutional protections for individual
        litigants. Judges who come out of the Federalist Society are chosen because they will vote a certain way, not for their fealty to the law.

        Voters in Florida have been given the power of the ballot and it is time that they use it. If you are dissatisfied with mass incarceration, judicial hostility to constitutional rights and judges who won’t do their
        job, then VOTE NO. It is doubtful that this article will result in sufficient NO votes to remove any judge, and even if it did, Florida’s Governor (who is in large part responsible for these judges) gets to appoint their replacements. Nevertheless, each NO
        vote will send a message to Florida’s judiciary that they need to do better.

        FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

        All Florida voters will vote whether to retain Justice Carlos Muniz. Justice Muniz was appointed by Governor DeSantis in January of 2019. He has chosen to ignore binding United States Supreme Court precedent in death
        penalty cases. VOTE NO on Justice Carlos Muniz

        FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

        Joseph Lewis, Jr. was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2001. VOTE NO to retain Judge Lewis.

        Scott Makar was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO to retain Judge Makar.

        Rachel Nordby was appointed by Ron DeSantis in October of 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Nordby.

        Tim Osterhaus was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Osterhaus.

        Clay Roberts was appointed by Charlie Crist in 2007. Roberts was the director of the Florida Division of Elections during the disastrous 2000 presidential election. VOTE NO to retain Judge Roberts.

        Adam S. Tanenbaum was appointed by Ron DeSantis in October 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Tanenbaum.

        SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

        Drew Atkinson was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Atkinson.

        Morris Silberman was appointed by Jeb Busch in 2001. VOTE NO on Judge Silberman.

        Daniel H. Sleet was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO on Judge Sleet.

        Andrea Teves Smith was appointed by Rick Scott in January of 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Smith.

        THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

        Monica Gordo was appointed by Ron DeSantis in 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Gordo.

        Eric William Hendon was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Hendon.

        Fleur Jeannine Lobree was appointed by Ron DeSantis in 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Lobree.

        Thomas Logue was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO on Judge Logue.

        Bronwyn Catherine Miller was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Miller.

        FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

        Alan O. Forst was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Forst.

        Mark W. Klingensmith was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Klingensmith.

        Martha C. Warner was appointed by Bob Martinez in 1989. VOTE NO to retain Judge Warner.

        FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

        Kerry I. Evander was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2006. VOTE NO to retain Judge Evander.

        John M. Harris was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO to retain Judge Harris.

        Richard B. Orfinger was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2000. VOTE NO to retain Judge Orfinger.

        Meredith Sasso was appointed by Rick Scott in January, 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Sasso.

        F. Rand Wallis was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Wallis.

        VOTE THEM OUT 2020!!!!!!!

    2. 0

      0

      Who’s to blame for your inability to write a proper English sentence? The word ‘are’ rather than ‘is’ better matches the word ‘holders’. Your time will be better spent educating yourself.

  7. 7

    0

    Ok. So goes my looney legacy into the toilet along with my management skills.
    As long as I can get paid for just sitting at home.
    After all, this is the 17th Judicial Circuit where the buck stops with me.

  8. 14

    0

    vote yes on the issue relating to broward county governmental functions. As usual the ballot can read confusing to some voters. It allows broward to keep their investments as it has been for years with a AAA rating. Otherwise the clown of court will oversee the county finances. To say she’s not qualified is the understatement of this century.
    She and her minstrel of overpaid idiots can’t run a bake sale.

    1. 6

      0

      Speaking of bake sales what happened to that money those morons made selling baked goods in the courthouse.

      1. 1

        0

        Jeff Weinsier
        Jeff Weinsier joined Local 10 News in September 1994. He is currently an investigative reporter for Local 10. He is also responsible for the very popular Dirty Dining segments.

        email
        facebook
        twitter

        You must obtain a permit from the DOACS to process food for sale to the public. To obtain information/requirements for a food permit, please call 850-488-3951 or visit the DOACS Food Inspections.

        The Division of Food Safety is directly responsible for assuring the public of a safe, wholesome and properly represented food supply. We accomplish this through the permitting and inspection of food establishments; inspection and evaluation of food products; and the performance of specialized laboratory testing on a variety of food products sold and/or produced in Florida.

        The division proactively monitors food from manufacturing and distribution to retail. We administer and enforce the food and poultry and egg laws, support the enforcement of other food safety laws, and investigate consumer complaints related to food.

    2. 4

      0

      Yeah she’s so good at money she had a writ of garnishment flying around the courthouse for a student loan she wasn’t paying on. What a loser

  9. 6

    1

    Floridians will face a lengthy ballot in 2020. Depending on what part of the state they live in, voters will be asked the same question four, five or even six times: “Should Judge so and so of the District Court
    of Appeal be retained in Office?” This year, there is one justice from the Florida Supreme Court (Carlos Muniz) and twenty-four judges from the five district courts of appeal up for retention. I am encouraging all Florida voters to vote NO on all of these
    judges. I will give my reasons but first a little history:

    History and Georgraphy: In the early 1970’s Florida courts were consumed by scandals, especially the Florida Supreme Court, whose members were popularly elected. Governor Reuben Askew led a series of judicial reforms
    that resulted in the merit selection system. The thinking was that judges should face the voters periodically and could be removed by election if they were corrupt or incompetent. No judge has ever lost a merit retention election in Florida, and these ballots
    rarely draw any attention.

    Voters should understand that the Florida Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases, such as death penalty cases or when an issue has statewide importance. The District Courts of Appeal are intended to
    be the final stop for most appeals, whether civil or criminal. Florida is divided into five regions, so for instance, the First District covers north Florida, the Second District covers most of the west-central section, the Third District covers Miami-Dade
    and the Keys, the Fourth District covers the rest of south-east Florida, and the Fifth District stretches from the east coast to the west and includes Orlando.

    Why Vote No? For years I advised voters who asked me, to vote yes on all judges. This was based in large part on direction from the Florida Bar. Each election the Florida Bar polls its members, finds they overwhelmingly
    support retention, then publishes a voter’s guide that contain biographies of the candidates and descriptions of their job, and an admonition that none of the judges can discuss issues in any manner. The not so subtle message each election is that each judge
    should be retained, and I went along with this messaging in past elections.

    I have now been a member of the Florida Bar for 35 years. My first 23 years I worked almost exclusively as a criminal defense trial attorney handling major cases in the Sarasota Bradenton area. The past 12 years I
    began handling numerous appeals in the Second District Court of Appeal in Tampa. An appeal is of course important to someone who has been convicted and sentenced to prison and may represent their last chance at freedom. Appeals are also important for accountability,
    to make sure that trial judges and prosecutors are following the law, and to require new trials when the rules aren’t followed. Therefore, it is very important to ensure these judges are doing their job. In my opinion, they aren’t.

    As mentioned above, the District Courts of Appeal are the final stop for almost all cases. So imagine for a second that you were unjustly accused and wrongfully convicted of a serious crime in Florida. Imagine you
    hired an attorney who agreed with you that serious mistakes had been made in your trial and agreed to represent you on appeal. Imagine that the attorney works on the case for months, files a compelling written brief of arguments in the court, then makes a
    powerful oral argument to the judges. Now imagine that you get the ruling of the court; “Per Curiam Affirmed,” commonly known as a PCA. You ask the lawyer what it means, and you are told it means that you lost the appeal, that the court is giving no reasons
    for their decision, and you have no opportunity for any further appeals.

    Presently, the District Courts of Appeal in Florida are issuing a PCA in approximately 75% of all cases they hear. This means that three out of four times, the appeal is denied and nobody knows why, except the judges
    and they’re not telling. This is a terrible state of affairs for the citizens of Florida and for their attorneys. On the other hand, trial judges and prosecutors delight in PCAs, taking them as a stamp of approval that they can get away with anything without
    consequences.

    Attorneys have been complaining about PCAs for as long as I have been practicing. We have a sneaking suspicion that PCAs are used in most cases as a result oriented device to cover up the many errors that occur
    in a trial court. As such, PCAs have been a tool of mass incarceration, filling our prisons with citizens who were illegally if not wrongfully convicted. Our complaints about PCA’s have fallen on deaf ears, with appellate court judges justifying their use
    due to their alleged heavy work load. They also claim that PCAs are only used “when the points of law raised are so well settled that a further writing would serve no useful purpose.” Elliott v Elliott, 648 So.2d 137, 138 (4th DCA 1994) In my experience,
    this statement is utterly and completely false.

    I handled homicide cases for the most part, and these trials had numerous legal issues arise with no precedent in Florida law. These were substantial questions that needed definitive responses from the court,
    yet when I would appear for oral argument the judges showed little interest in the case or the issues. Invariably I would receive my PCA a few days later, giving me little confidence that the judges had considered my issues or even read the arguments. In my
    view, when Florida appellate judges are issuing PCAs in three out of four cases, they are not doing their job, and therefore should not be retained in office.

    My primary argument for voting NO on all Florida judges is that they are simply not doing their job. The problem is institutional and systemic, that is, the system is designed to fail, not to vindicate the constitutional
    rights of litigants. But why should an individual judge lose their job because of systemic failure? This leads to my next justification for voting NO on all judges — politics. Every judge up for retention in 2020 was appointed by a Republican governor.

    In the past I have been leery about politicizing judicial races but that position feels naive now. Without a doubt, Florida judges have been politicized over the past 20 years. These days, membership in the Federalist
    Society seems like a prerequisite to being named judge. Though they deny it, the Federalist Society is a political organization whose primary goal is to dismantle the regulatory state for businesses while reducing constitutional protections for individual
    litigants. Judges who come out of the Federalist Society are chosen because they will vote a certain way, not for their fealty to the law.

    Voters in Florida have been given the power of the ballot and it is time that they use it. If you are dissatisfied with mass incarceration, judicial hostility to constitutional rights and judges who won’t do their
    job, then VOTE NO. It is doubtful that this article will result in sufficient NO votes to remove any judge, and even if it did, Florida’s Governor (who is in large part responsible for these judges) gets to appoint their replacements. Nevertheless, each NO
    vote will send a message to Florida’s judiciary that they need to do better.

    FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

    All Florida voters will vote whether to retain Justice Carlos Muniz. Justice Muniz was appointed by Governor DeSantis in January of 2019. He has chosen to ignore binding United States Supreme Court precedent in death
    penalty cases. VOTE NO on Justice Carlos Muniz

    FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

    Joseph Lewis, Jr. was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2001. VOTE NO to retain Judge Lewis.

    Scott Makar was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO to retain Judge Makar.

    Rachel Nordby was appointed by Ron DeSantis in October of 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Nordby.

    Tim Osterhaus was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Osterhaus.

    Clay Roberts was appointed by Charlie Crist in 2007. Roberts was the director of the Florida Division of Elections during the disastrous 2000 presidential election. VOTE NO to retain Judge Roberts.

    Adam S. Tanenbaum was appointed by Ron DeSantis in October 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Tanenbaum.

    SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

    Drew Atkinson was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Atkinson.

    Morris Silberman was appointed by Jeb Busch in 2001. VOTE NO on Judge Silberman.

    Daniel H. Sleet was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO on Judge Sleet.

    Andrea Teves Smith was appointed by Rick Scott in January of 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Smith.

    THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

    Monica Gordo was appointed by Ron DeSantis in 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Gordo.

    Eric William Hendon was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Hendon.

    Fleur Jeannine Lobree was appointed by Ron DeSantis in 2019. VOTE NO on Judge Lobree.

    Thomas Logue was appointed by Rick Scott in 2012. VOTE NO on Judge Logue.

    Bronwyn Catherine Miller was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO on Judge Miller.

    FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

    Alan O. Forst was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Forst.

    Mark W. Klingensmith was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Klingensmith.

    Martha C. Warner was appointed by Bob Martinez in 1989. VOTE NO to retain Judge Warner.

    FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

    Kerry I. Evander was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2006. VOTE NO to retain Judge Evander.

    John M. Harris was appointed by Rick Scott in 2018. VOTE NO to retain Judge Harris.

    Richard B. Orfinger was appointed by Jeb Bush in 2000. VOTE NO to retain Judge Orfinger.

    Meredith Sasso was appointed by Rick Scott in January, 2019. VOTE NO to retain Judge Sasso.

    F. Rand Wallis was appointed by Rick Scott in 2013. VOTE NO to retain Judge Wallis.

      1. 6

        0

        Whenever we are asked who we would back in any election that does not have some kind of self imposed term limits, judicial races do not, our answer has always been;

        VOTE THEM ALL OUT EVERY TIME.

        If the legislature won’t impose them, the people actually have the power to impose them with their vote.

  10. 0

    0

    File a Complaint About a Food Product or Food Business

    If you are sick or injured from food you ate, file a Food Illness or Injury Complaint.

    If your complaint is about a restaurant, file a Restaurant Complaint.

    For a complaint regarding a food product or food business regulated by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, please complete the form below.

    Regulated food businesses include supermarkets and grocery stores, convenience stores, coffee shops, bakeries, retail meat markets, seafood markets, juice and smoothie bars, bottled water plants, ice and water vending machines, all food processing plants, food warehouses, food salvage stores, and certain mobile food units selling only prepackaged foods or non-potentially hazardous food items.

    Food products are limited to those products purchased at a retail business such as a bakery, grocery store, supermarket, convenience store, retail meat or seafood market, health food store, or dairy or dairy farm.

    Information submitted to the department is a public record unless exempted by Florida law. You may also share this information with us by contacting our consumer assistance team at 1-800-HELP-FLA or 1-800-435-7352 (en Español: 1-800-FL-AYUDA or 1-800-352-9832) or by sending correspondence to: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Plaza Level 10, The Capitol, 400 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800.

  11. 0

    0

    You Cannot Hire Help according to the Florida Cottage Food Law

    Many cottage food operators in Florida are not aware that hiring temporary help is not allowed. However, according to an Environmental Specialist with the Florida Department of Agriculture, cottage food operators cannot hire employees of any type, not temporary, full-time, part-time or volunteers. You must do all of the work yourself and if you deliver your product, you must deliver it yourself. Cottage Food production is not regulated, CFO’s produce small-batch products, low volume and permits are not required.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.