Investors in Paris Hilton's 2006 box-office bomb "Pledge This!" claim she owes $1 million in restitution for supposedly not promoting the movie enough.If you feel like blowing $2.40, you can read the trial brief on restitution damages here.
The investors asked a Miami federal judge Thursday to force Hilton to repay her fee from the film. They contend she ignored at least nine requests for interviews and other promotion events in violation of her contract.
Raoul Cantero: Did you know I used to be a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court?
Paris: [to assistant] tell that man with the glasses to shut up.
Raoul Cantero: I also chaired the Florida Supreme Court's Commission on Professionalism.
Paris: [to assistant] Did that person say something?
Raoul Cantero: I make lots of money at White & Case.
Paris: [looks directly at Cantero] That is so hawt!
The Bar’s international law section, hopes the bill and new rule will prompt more companies to use Miami as their seat for arbitration because attorneys all over the world are familiar with the UNCITRAL model.Got it......commies!
With South Florida’s high concentration of bilingual professionals and easy access to Latin America, it’s a convenient spot to conduct international arbitration, he said.
“The whole vantage point here is an international one,” Palmer said. “You have to be very mindful of what someone in London thinks, what someone in Stockholm thinks. There’s no particular problem with the old law. Just nobody knows what it is. Everyone in international arbitration knows this law.”
As stated above, it is well established that a pure bill of discovery does not lie to see if a cause of action exists, nor has it ever been available to aid a potential plaintiff in determining the extent of its damages. Precious Homes’ claim that it cannot determine a theory of liability when it is claiming an overcharge in violation of the agreement is without merit.In other words, just file a lawsuit.
Now I know why they don't want cameras recording Supreme Court arguments.Justice Scalia's questions yesterday showed that he has little empathy for those who find themselves in the position of signing extremely one-sided arbitration agreements because of unequal bargaining power, often as a precondition of employment or the receipt of essential goods and services. Here's what he said:
JUSTICE SCALIA: you can be a stupid person who voluntarily signs an unconscionable contract. Now, the courts may protect you because you are stupid, but you haven't been coerced.
That's an actual quotation from the argument, not a caricature. I suppose this means that, in Justice Scalia's world, a person who takes a low-wage job as a dishwasher, say, or as a line worker at a chicken processing plant, because it's the only job he or she can get, is simply "stupid" if they sign an employment contract containing various unconscionably one-sided terms.
Boudreaux, through his blue-eyed lawyer Michael Pizzi, also contends that when he brought these concerns to the City, he was "targeted for ridicule."Boudreaux's eight-page lawsuit said he intended to cooperate with the SEC inquiry -- but was punished for it.
Boudreaux says when he insisted on telling the truth about alleged ``malfeasance'' of former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, current Mayor Tomás Regalado, former City Manager Pete Hernandez and other top managers, he was terminated to ``discredit him.''
``This complaint concerns the actions of city of Miami officials to punish, smear, and even concoct false allegations of criminal conduct against this dedicated city employee who dared to tell the truth,'' the lawsuit said.
This matter is before this Court as a result of the issuance of an Order Granting Motion to Compel Discovery (D.E. 37) wherein (paragraph 2) plaintiffs were allowed to show good cause, in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed for the necessity of the filing of the motion to compel. Plaintiffs responded (D.E. 42). The Court finds the response without merit and notes that it completely fails to address the issue at hand, andlor evinces a lack of knowledge ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.There really should be a handbook for all the "special laws of discovery" that seem to crop up in pleadings nowadays.
The first four (4) plus pages of the response extol the merits of plaintiffs' case ... wonderful except that this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the issue of the necessity of the filing of themotion to compel. Then plaintiffs explain that their failure to respond in a timely matter (sic) "was not intentional" and that defendant "suffered no prejudice".
It is never explained just exactly how the failure to respond was not intentional. Nowhere in this response is it suggested that a clerical error was made, that a date was overlooked, that a paper was misplaced, or anything else "unintentional". What is explained is that: (1) the plaintiffs "are two elderly individuals, and a widow"; (2) that they "all live in a remote region of Venezuela"; (3) they "do not have e-mails or faxes"; (4) "the various documents need to be translated into Spanish" and (5) "[Clonditions in Venezuela are not ideal for the rapid transmission of information". The Court has looked far and wide for the special laws of discovery that apply in these instances and has discovered none... and none has been cited by plaintiffs. Conspicuously missing from this motion - and from the Court file - is anything related to why plaintiffs did not attempt to seek some relief from the Court BEFORE the filing of the motion to compel due to these alleged exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.
Actually, when I think of potential apps, that was not the first thing that came to my mind (but I may be a special case).The application features Southern District guidelines and local bar rules for Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Duval counties. And since Hopkins updates it regularly, he’d like to eventually add local bar rules from other parts of the state.
“You used to see a lot of lawyers using BlackBerries at the courthouse, but now it’s moved more toward iPhones,” Hopkins says. “You can get e-mails and read documents very easily.
“And with the popularity of iPhone apps, having access to rules of civil procedure, rules of evidence, those types of things, right on your phone — as opposed to walking around with a book — makes a lot of sense. The first thing that came to mind was doing something that had the rules of professional conduct.”
On Thursday, Blagojevich's lawyers asked a federal judge to subpoena the president to testify about questions surrounding the government's allegation that Blagojevich was selling or trading Obama's Senate seat after his election to the White House in November 2008.
"President Barack Obama has direct knowledge of the Senate seat allegation," reads Blagojevich's 11-page motion, filed with U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel.
The court erred when it posted the motion in a pdf file with redactions that could be revealed simply by copying and pasting the blacked-out portions to a plain text file.
Blagojevich attorney Sheldon Sorosky brushed off the error, telling Fox News that he didn't know how the redacted file became viewable, and blaming it on a "low tech guy."
Some news outlets captured the file, which was later removed from the court's website.
This is beyond stupid -- how many times have we been warned about this, yet it manages to happen accidentally on a motion that relates to the President?
The Senate voted unanimously Thursday for Ferrer, a one-time federal prosecutor in Miami and senior aide to former Attorney General Janet Reno. He most recently oversaw federal litigation for the Miami-Dade County Attorney's Office.
McCaskill said a total of about 80 nominees have passed through various committees without objection but have been held up on the Senate floor by various GOP senators who are trying to use them as bargaining chips.I know swlip -- BORK BORK BORK! -- but this is out of hand.
Because we conclude that the 2001 amendment creating the statutory presuit notice provisions constitutes a substantive change to the statute, we hold that it cannot be retroactively applied to insurance policies issued before the effective date of the amendment and quash the decision of the Third District in Menendez.Actually, the 3d already got quashed, squashed, whatever once in this case back in February.
see also CHARLES DICKENS, BLEAK HOUSE 4–5 (Pollard & Moss 1884) (“[The case] drones on. This . . . suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. . . . Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties . . . without knowing how or why . . . . [It] still drags its dreary length before the court . . . .”).I love this, but how can you bracket and insert "[The case]" and not actually reference Jarndyce and Jarndyce?
Two weeks ago, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a leading contender for appointment to the Supreme Court, presented her sixth argument there. She bantered easily with the justices, and she seemed to have a special rapport with Justice Antonin Scalia, at one point responding to a question from him with one of her own.Is this healthy?Justice Scalia’s reply suggested she had crossed a line. “Well, I’m not making the argument,” he said, declining to answer her question.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has had some testy exchanges with Ms. Kagan over the last seven months, made the point more sharply.
“Usually we have the questions the other way,” he said.
“I apologize,” Ms. Kagan replied.
Oy.The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?”
Other justices’ questions showed that they probably don’t spend a lot of time texting and tweeting away from their iPhones either.
At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.
“Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Kennedy asked.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrangled a bit with the idea of a service provider.
“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.
Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.
“Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.
How does the Judge know this (and why does it matter anyway)?Justice Samuel Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said fee enhancements for superior attorney performance are permissible in exceptional cases. But in this case, he said, the judge did not provide "proper justification" for the enhancement under a series of factors he listed, aimed at proving that the lodestar fee alone would not have been adequate to attract competent counsel.
The federal fee-shifting law, Justice Alito wrote, "serves an important public purpose by making it possible for persons without means to bring suit to vindicate their rights. But unjustified enhancements that serve only to enrich attorneys are not consistent with the statute's aim."
In a footnote, Justice Alito added that if the $4.5 million fee enhancement had remained in place, the lawyers for the foster care plaintiffs "would earn as much as the attorneys at some of the richest law firms in the country."
A computer game retailer revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of online shoppers, thanks to a clause in the terms and conditions agreed to by online shoppers.The retailer, British firm GameStation, added the "immortal soul clause" to the contract signed before making any online purchases earlier this month. It states that customers grant the company the right to claim their soul.
"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions."
GameStation's form also points out that "we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction."
The terms of service were updated on April Fool's Day as a gag, but the retailer did so to make a very real point: No one reads the online terms and conditions of shopping, and companies are free to insert whatever language they want into the documents.
Gee, I know of some precedent that would indicate this contract is valid and enforceable right here in the SD FL!
In its cover sheet, NPCDC asserted that in its complaint NPCDC made a demand for a jury trial. However, a review of the complaint reflects that no such demand was made. Additionally, NPCDC failed to comply with rule 1.430(b), and therefore, waived its right to a jury trial. See Fla. R. Civ. Proc. 1.430(d) (“Providing that a party who fails to serve a demand as required by this rule waives trial by jury . . . .”). We also conclude that even if NPCDC had made a proper demand for jury trial, NPCDC waived its right to argue on appeal that the trial court erred by setting the cause for a non-jury trial because it failed to object to the several orders setting the cause for a non-jury trial.Oy, better call the carrier.
Sanford Bosem, a licensed Florida attorney, contends the trial court erred in disposing of this case on summary judgment where allegations of fraud were at issue. Ordinarily, we would agree with Bosem that cases centering on allegations of fraud are unsuitable for summary judgment, see Burton v. Linotype Co., 556 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); however, we have before us the extraordinary case where the facts evidencing fraud are so clear from the record that entry of summary judgment is not only appropriate, but compelled. See Stephens v. Kies Oil Co., Inc., 386 So. 2d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)."So let it be written, so let it be done," the Judge added.
Despite Bosem’s eleventh-hour attempts to alter his position in response to Appellee’s affirmative defenses, counterclaims and motion for summary judgment, the facts of this case are clear. Appellant sought insurance benefits under the guise of “lost wages,” despite full compensation by his employer for a year’s worth of income. Furthermore, his calculation of weekly earnings was immensely exaggerated.1 It also was not until his suit was threatened by allegations of fraud that he began re-characterizing his claim as one of “loss of earning capacity,” as opposed to “lost wages,” notwithstanding the absence of any plausible evidence in support of this position.
Fraud provisions are enacted to provide a disincentive to individuals considering the commission of such misrepresentations.Ahh, the old "rational crook."
“My nemesis,” he calls it, by way of introducing his pre-law career as a major league pitcher for eight seasons, from 1971 to 1979.Actually, I really like this guy:
He did have other interests. For one, he was a surfer, and hung out with a crowd that kept its eyes on the ocean for the right waves. “It was a hoot,” he says. “And it still is.”
And he was a science fiction buff, with a passion for both movies and books. He has shelves of sci-fi books at his house, paperback and hardcover. He sought sci-fi films at places like the Paramount, and Saturday matinees at the theater on Clematis Street in West Palm Beach.
“I liked stories that were sort of factual fiction. There had to be enough fact in them so that they could have been real, or they might have been real — and maybe they will be real in the future.”
No reference to Bolero or Gin Gibsons anywhere, but otherwise a nice profile -- congrats Pete!
This matter is before this Court on plaintiffs' Objection to Judge Klein's Ruling of March 10,2010 (D.E. 586). The Court has considered the objection, the responses thereto, the reply, and all pertinent materials in the file. As usual, both sides have contributed to the problem.But then Judge Brown gets rolling:
Mr. Halmos should understand that the scope of allowable discovery is rather broad. It is not the same as admissible evidence. There are a limited number of allowable reasons for refusing to answer questions propounded (and "I don't want to answer that question" is not one of them). For example, while the Court recognizes that he might not want to answer certain questions regarding litigation between he and his family, and would completely understand his desire not to go there, that is not a basis for not answering. Comments by other plaintiffs' lawyers ("So now we're going to have an additional 20 minutes of questions about litigation in his family?") are improper and do nothing to improve the situation. The reality is, the fact that questions may seem irrelevant to the issues in the case is not a basis to refuse to answer .... even though the information to be furnished may be unpleasant, and even though the information derived may later be deemed to be inadmissible in the trial.Judge Brown is absolutely right about the sarcastic blather and potshots often thrown out by counsel for witnesses at a deposition, which serve no purpose other than to potentially derail the proceedings and allow the lawyer to feel self-important and in control of a situation he or she has no business attempting to control.
But, these plaintiffs are suing their insurance agents and their carriers for monies owed to them. It is not outside the realm of credulity to suggest that insurance carriers take to heart Ernest and Julio Gallo's famed line: "No wine before its time."Ernest and Julio Gallo?
The Court is having trouble ruling on plaintiffs' motion only because the Court is, quite frankly, stupefied! In all its years as a practicing attorney and a judge, this Court has never seen the actions displayed in this case by plaintiffs and the unimaginable audacity with which they proceed.See what I mean?
The deep waves have the distinguishing curl of Kelvin-Helmholtz billows, a type of wave present throughout nature. Scientists have long tracked these distinctive waves, finding them on the windblown sea, on sand dunes, among clouds and even in the churning gases of Saturn and Jupiter.See, I told you!
Seriously?"It was a beautiful day, and the crowd was amazing," West said.
"You get to the top of a hill and look forward, and all you see is an army of people. You've got the college girls from Wellesley slapping five and handing out phone numbers and holding ‘Kiss me' signs. It's a lot of fun."
At the hearing on the post-trial motions, Mr. Soltero argued that the $200,000 or $250,000 “view premium” was supported by evidence that Mr. Enriquez (the seller) told Ms. Aguila (the broker) that Unit 3608, with the view, was worth over $2 million, and that Ms. Aguila herself said it was worth $1.7 million to $1.8 million. See Transcript of Hearing [D.E. 228] at 51. That argument does not work for a number of reasons. First, Mr. Soltero cannot defend the “view premium” on what Ms. Aguila told him that Mr. Enriquez said to her about the supposed value of Unit 3608, or what Ms.Aguila herself opined. See, e.g., Bekins Van Lines v. Schaefffer, 630 So.2dQuery -- why not put on a damages expert for the difference in value?
633, 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (owner of property could not testify about property’s value “based upon telephone and personal conversations with others”). Second, if Mr. Soltero is suggesting that he bought Unit 3608 for less than what it was really worth with unobstructed water views (i.e., that he paid $1.7 million when it was really worth $2 million or more, as it was represented), then the benefit of the bargain theory may not even apply. Cf. Getelman v. Levey, 481 So.2d 1236, 1239-40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (the benefit of the bargain rule “is designed for a situation where a party has effected a sale of property by representing it as worth more than its actual value,” and does not apply where the buyer obtains the property representing that it is “worth less than its actual value”).
b. Mr. Soltero also relies, in part, on opinions he personally expressed at trial concerning Unit 3608’s actual value, or its value as it was represented. Those opinions, however, cannot save the verdict. First, my trial notes reflect that Mr. Soltero testified that Unit 3608 was worth $1.2 million at the time of trial (i.e., in July of 2009). Such a valuation does nothing to put an actual value on Unit 3608 at the time of the sale (i.e., in December of 2005), or to show what the value was if the representations about Asia had been true, which are the two critical numbers required under Florida law for an appropriate benefit of the bargain comparison. See, e.g., Studebaker, 19 So. at 179; Kind, 889 So.2d at 90. Second, to the extent that Mr. Soltero tried to put an actual or “as represented” value on Unit 3608 as of December of 2005, such an opinion was hopelessly speculative, as Mr. Soltero did not take into account or explain the effect on his valuation of either an overheated real estate market -- in which many were buying as speculators in the hope that prices would continue to climb -- or comparable sales on the 08 line of Carbonell around that time on his valuation.
It is true that under Florida law an owner of property, including an owner of real property, may generally express an opinion as to its value. But such an owner, like any other witness, must be shown to be competent to testify about valuation. Mere ownership, without more, is not enough. And when the valuation of a condominium apartment has to be made in the context of an unsustainable bubble market, like the one that existed in late 2005, and the alleged reduction in value is based in part on something as subjective as a less expansive water view, it was incumbent upon Mr. Soltero to explain that his opinion was something more than mere speculation.
In closing argument, Mr. Soltero’s counsel told the jury that “even $10 million in punitive damages is chickenfeed to Swire, who’s invested over $800 million in Brickell Key alone.” This argument was based on evidence that Swire Pacific Holdings -- and not the Swire defendants on trial -- had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Brickell Key. The defendants lodged a contemporaneous objection, but I mistakenly overruled the objection. Mr. Soltero’s counsel then told the jury “that’s what the law allows. Those are the punitive damages that [Mr. Soltero] is asking you to award.” As a result of this second statement, I gave the jury a curative instruction: “Let me just add one thing, ladies and gentlemen. Swire Pacific Holdings is not a party in this case. And you may not consider any assets or conduct of Swire Pacific Holdings in deciding the issues in this case, including the issue of punitive damages, if you should award them.”Guess you had to be there, but it sounds like the Judge got a little ticked over Ginsburg going over the line, which is fine, though the curative instruction was pretty good and probably sufficient in most circumstances.
After closing arguments were finished, I reminded Mr. Soltero’s counsel that I had repeatedly ruled that he could not use the assets of the related Swire entities that were not parties, admonished him for violating those rulings and for “playing games,” and said that I expressed no view on what effect, if any, that improper closing argument would have on a verdict in favor of Mr. Soltero. The response of Mr. Soltero’s counsel was that the $800 million figure came from the website of Swire Realty.
Republicans, for their part, have an obligation to hold their fire unless there are well-founded reasons to object. If Mr. Obama makes a centrist choice, the nominee deserves to be treated as such.
Mr. Obama no doubt believes that a president's prerogatives should be respected, barring a truly awful choice. He can help his own case -- as he did with Judge Sotomayor -- by avoiding the selection of an ideological firebrand.
Gay rights advocates said the rules change was inspired by one of those cases involving a same-sex couple, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were profiled in The New York Times last year. After Ms. Pond was stricken with a fatal brain aneurysm, Ms. Langbehn was denied visiting rights in 2007 by a Florida hospital. Although Ms. Langbehn had power of attorney and she and Ms. Pond were parents to four children they had adopted, the hospital refused for eight hours to allow her and the children to see Ms. Pond, her partner for 18 years. Ms. Pond died as Ms. Langbehn tried in vain to get to her side.Ms. Langbehn, represented by Lambda Legal, a legal advocacy organization, brought suit against the hospital, Jackson Memorial in Miami, but lost. On Thursday night, Mr. Obama called her from Air Force One to say that he had been moved by her case.
“I was so humbled that he would know Lisa’s name and know our story,” Ms. Langbehn said in a telephone interview. “He apologized for how we were treated. For the last three years, that’s what I’ve been asking the hospital to do. Even now, three years later, they still refuse to apologize to the children and I for the fact that Lisa died alone.”
Glad to see that hopey-changey thing working out for ya' at least a little bit.
Although well intentioned, I doubt that the federal courts have the inherent authority to ignore and override a statutory mandate in the interest of promoting a professional courtesy. I also do not believe that Congress intended to single out lawyers for exclusive treatment under the FLSA. Since it is now within the inherent authority and discretion of the district courts in our Circuit to hold that no attorney’s fee is a reasonable fee when no pre-suit notice is extended to defendants who are lawyers, I would consider this case en banc before permitting this new Circuit precedent to stand.Oy.
Tom Post spent millions of dollars and several years rebuilding the landmark castle on Versailles Road into a luxury inn that draws an increasing number of paying visitors in addition to curiosity seekers.Beat that, all you white-shoe macher wannabees fighting traffic to Brickell and dealing with billables, collections and annoying out-of-state partners who constantly tell you how to run your practice."I am the castle; the castle is me," said Post, a Miami lawyer who once lived in Lexington. . . .
Post has roots in the Bluegrass. A Lafayette High School graduate, he earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree at the University of Kentucky. At the University of Miami law school, he earned a master's of law degree.
But Post made his money in real estate. In downtown Miami he owned hotels, warehouses, office buildings and parking lots. "Real estate was very, very good to me," he said.
He sold the buildings a few years ago, before the real estate market crash, but Post said he still owns several downtown acres of vacant land and parking lots.
Practicing law in Miami for more than 30 years, Post specializes in property tax law. Property taxes are the main source of revenue for Florida and its cities. "Our job is to make sure our clients don't pay more than their fair share of property tax," Post said of his three-member firm.
This is a trucking accident negligence case in which Judge Areces granted a DV to defendant, and the 3d upholds.
The plaintiff's expert probably didn't help much:
Daniel Melcher, the accident reconstruction expert hired by the Plaintiff, testified that although he observed several defects, none of the truck’s defects contributed to the accident because, inter alia, there was no evidence that the Truck Driver took any measures to avoid the collision, including reducing his speed, braking, or swerving.Hernandez v. City of Miami:
Imagine that -- a defective storm drain in the City of Miami?
Shocking!
But the plaintiff apparently gave inconsistent and contradictory answers so the trial judge struck his pleadings and dismissed with prejudice.
Not so fast:
Invego v. Rodriguez:A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a case for fraud on the court is reviewed under a narrow abuse of discretion standard. See Cherubino v. Fenstersheib & Fox, P.A., 925 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). For the trial court to properly exercise its discretion, there must be an evidentiary basis to dismiss the case. See Ramey, 993 So. 2d at 1018.
Here, the trial court did not have a clear and convincing evidentiary basis to dismiss the case for fraud on the court. Therefore, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in striking the pleadings and dismissing with prejudice Hernandez’s claim.
Vigo was born in 1505 in the small country of Carpathia in Hungary, near Italy. He soon rose to power and ruled his country with an iron fist. Because of his evil ways he wasn't well liked by his people and subjects & killed hundreds of them. He was also known as Vigo the Cruel, Vigo the Torturer, Vigo the Despised, and Vigo the Unholy. Peter Venkman jokingly adds Vigo the Butch to the list of aliases.
He eventually died at the age of 105 in 1610, but not because of his old age. His people had led a rebellion and they tried and executed him in a manner that they sought fit for his rule. He was poisoned, shot, stabbed, stretched, disembowled, hung, and drawn and quartered. Just after they removed his head, he uttered this prophetic warning: "Death is but a door. Time is but a window. I'll be back. According to the movie, Vigo was a powerful magician, a tyrant, a genius in many ways, also a lunatic and a genocidal madman.
Ooops, got hung up on the Vigo part.
(Hey, it's a slow week!)
Dear friends and supporters:
I am disappointed to inform you that I am suspending my campaign for Circuit Court Judge in Group 21. As many of you already know, the replacement judge for Group 21 will no longer be selected by election, but rather by gubernatorial appointment. The explanation for this change is both simple and complicated. If you are interested in the intricate details, I set them out below. The simple explanation is that the incumbent judge in Group 21, who was scheduled to retire in January 2011, unexpectedly resigned last week.
I am grateful for the wise counsel many of you have provided me during the last five days. Based on that counsel, and my own thoughts and principles, I have made several decisions. First, all campaign contributions will be returned in full. I am going to personally absorb all campaign expenses that I have incurred.
Second, I will not run for election in any of the existing races for open seats to the Circuit Court. Those races already have qualified attorneys who have been actively campaigning (in some cases, for even longer than I have).
Third, I will not challenge any incumbent judges who are up for re-election. Although I have been encouraged to run against various incumbents, I believe lawyers should have good reasons to run against an incumbent. The mere fact I might win is not a good enough reason. Good incumbent judges deserve our support. I would be betraying my principles to challenge a sitting judge simply because of the likelihood of success on election night.
Fourth, I intend to apply to the Judicial Nominating Commission for appointment to the seat for which I was running, and hope my qualifications and proven commitment will weigh favorably in the minds of the JNC and – if nominated – the Governor.
I have been campaigning for over 14 months. During that time, I have benefited immensely from the opportunity to learn what members of our community, lawyers and non-lawyers, expect from judges who daily have the privilege and burden to make decisions that affect the lives of many, many people. Although disappointed that I will not stand for election this year, the support I have received over the past year has been humbling and energizing. I am as committed as ever to serving my community. I am also deeply grateful for all of the support you have shown me. I hope I continue to earn it, and that despite my decision not to run this election, I can count on you when I decide to run again.
I am especially grateful for the support of my family and my firm. Rosa and our children have borne the burden of my absence due to endless campaign events – as has the firm of de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton. These contributions cannot be returned in full, I can only repay their support with love and appreciation.
Miguel
Rump's coverage of this year's judicial election mess is here.
