Posted on 04/24/2005 10:02:02 PM PDT by IleeneWright
BAR PRESIDENT DENOUNCES ATTACKS ON JUDICIARY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 24, 2005 CONTACT: Francine Walker, The Florida Bar TELEPHONE: 850/561-5666
STATEMENT OF KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE FLORIDA BAR
TALLAHASSEE -- The tragic and high visibility case of Terri Schiavo has resulted in an unprecedented and unjustified attack upon our judiciary. Regardless of anyone’s personal or political feelings about the Schiavo case, this is a critical time for Americans to recognize the vital role of the judiciary in maintaining the rule of law and the importance of the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
It is in times like these that we should recognize that our judges, on a daily basis and not just in high profile cases, have the duty and responsibility to protect the rights and liberties afforded to all of us by law.
Judges have no control over which cases come before them and they will inevitably be involved in deciding difficult and unpopular cases. When presiding over a case, judges make rulings based solely on the Constitution and other laws, and not their own feelings or personal beliefs.
While we may disagree with decisions and actions of public officials including judges, it is entirely unacceptable and unfair for our judges to be criticized and even vilified when no judicial basis for such criticism exists. Unfortunately that is what is happening as emotions heighten in the Terri Schiavo case.
Florida newspapers are now reporting that Circuit Judge George Greer has not only been accused of murder and terrorism by congressional leaders in Washington, but has received death threats and was pressured to leave his church.
Societal dilemmas should never be confused with constitutional responsibilities. Florida’s legal profession knows from polling that Floridians want nothing less than a fair and impartial judiciary.
Judge Greer is an ideal representative of the type of judge citizens want to hear their case. His rulings are based on laws, not emotions and not politics.
Indeed, his rulings have been repeatedly reviewed and scrutinized by many different courts on many different occasions. We must continue to have confidence in our legal system and expect our judges to act with the knowledge and integrity required of their position.
Judges are limited by duty to responding to such unfair criticism. But Florida’s editorial boards, community leaders and the 75,000-member Florida Bar are not. The Florida Bar joins many of the state’s major newspapers and democratic advocates in denouncing the unwarranted attacks on the judges and courts which serve everyone in this great country.
About The Florida Bar: The Florida Bar is the statewide professional and regulatory organization for lawyers. With more than 76,000 members, the Bar serves as an intermediary for attorneys, the courts and the public. Headquartered in Tallahassee, the Bar is a unified state bar by rule of the Supreme Court of Florida.
Membership in the Florida Bar is a necessary component of Supreme Court regulation for all lawyers licensed to practice law in Florida. The foundation for the organization is built on a philosophy of equity and ethics.
Through its programs and services, the Bar supports this philosophy with four pillars that function as the mission of The Florida Bar: providing public service, protecting rights, promoting professionalism and pursuing justice.
lugsoul's 'cute' tagline is a result of a comment I made on another thread some days ago. Of course, since he only gives the quote and not the context, he intends to somehow discredit me by it. Unfortunately for him and his pro-death agenda, it doesn't even do that.
But just so you know the context, I made the comment that 'maybe those who are defending this judicial murder could be said to be worse than Nazis' because the Nazis did not have the history America has of valuing innocent human life, nor founding documents, national and state constitutions, that strictly forbid the State or the individual from taking any citizen's life short of a conviction of a capital crime.
We have less of an excuse for allowing the door to open to euthanasia than they did.
And I stand by what I said.
Oh!!! Okay, well NOW it makes sense! lol They all sound like programmed drones! Regardless of what board you visit, they all respond in the SAME manner! lol Apparently they're all equipped with the DNC version of the Energizer batteries, since they never seem to GIVE IT UP! lol
I know the kind of large percentages these parasites get from liability awards. I know the hourly rates they charge are unbeliveable. I know how hard they fight to prevent any reasonable restrictions on frivilous litigation (tort reform). I know what they will do to the gun industry -or any other for that matter if they have the opportunity.
They control the courts, they control the legislature and they all too often control the executive offices. Giving lawyers the opportunity to control new legislation is like permitting automechanics to design a car - they would be certain to make a high maintenance vehicle.
We have government by the attorneys, for the attorneys, and of the attorneys.
And if you know precisely how much of the gross national product is wasted on frivilous lawsuits you're pretty good as I doubt if anyone does, other than the fact that litigation generates an impressive amount of income for the legal "profession".
Aside from the accounting profession, the legal profession is one of the main obstacles to blocking income tax reform. Tax attorneys WANT a complicated system. They get rich from it. Their clients pay them big bucks to find or create those loopholes. I have spent enough time in their chateau-like offices to tell from the decor that they are doing quite well.
And like I said, jusitce should be blind, but it shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder which is the kind of justice our courts all too often dispense.
Its out of control.
And by your retort you indicate a potential connection to the legal "profession".
The Bar Association, like the Teachers' Unions, or the American Medical Association protects the best interests of its members, not the general public.
No point in debating it with you - you obviously "know what you know" even where you obviously don't know.
You Wrote:lugsoul's 'cute' tagline is a result of a comment I made on another thread some days ago. Of course, since he only gives the quote and not the context, he intends to somehow discredit me by it. Unfortunately for him and his pro-death agenda, it doesn't even do that.
But just so you know the context, I made the comment that 'maybe those who are defending this judicial murder could be said to be worse than Nazis' because the Nazis did not have the history America has of valuing innocent human life, nor founding documents, national and state constitutions, that strictly forbid the State or the individual from taking any citizen's life short of a conviction of a capital crime.
We have less of an excuse for allowing the door to open to euthanasia than they did.
And I stand by what I said.
My Reply: AND, I stand by you. There is an army of foot soldiers who also stand to your right side and left side.
I often have to force myself to remember that.
Thanks.
"No point in debating it with you - you obviously "know what you know" even where you obviously don't know."
Ditto
That being said, I'm not advocating a socialized court system, either, as you are.
You must've had something happen to you in the court system that makes you approach it from an irrational perspective. The very idea of having only government employees as attorneys is so contrary to the most basic principles of justice in a free society that I can hardly believe you uttered those words.
Oh, well. You know what they say - everybody hates lawyers until they find themselves in need of one.
"That being said, I'm not advocating a socialized court system, either, as you are."
Are the municipal, state and federal law enforcement authorities "socialized" law enforcement agencies?
How about the public road department or the air traffic controllers?
Sometimes I think there is an arbitrary line between what the government monopolizes and the private sector controls.
You have a "public prosecutor" what's so odd about a public defendor??
"The very idea of having only government employees as attorneys is so contrary to the most basic principles of justice in a free society that I can hardly believe you uttered those words."
If not, what do you propose to address the problems I laid out above with regards to the existing legal system?
Do we try a defendant, or do we actually "try" the attorney and prosecutor, or rather, their individual skills in presenting a case?
Errors in the report:
1.- The judges don't decide what cases they get to hear; but they can (AND SHOULD; no, no, the word is MUST) leave the case to other judge if there is something preventing them to be fair. As we all here know, there were conflicts of interests for jugde greer.
2.- Terry Schiavo case was reviewed for 19 judges, but ONLY ONE heard the FACTS (greer); the other 18 reviewed only the procedure.
3.- greer did NOT apply the law (Florida's Statutes); he actually acted against it.
WHAT A MORON WHOEVER WROTE THIS!. Yes, she must think we are idiots or something.
You seemed to have missed the point. You pooh poohed the article indicating he used no such language. He did.
Such inaccuracies weakens the arguement regarless of which side one is on. ;-)
The "abuses" you rage about deal with the civil system. Prosecutors and public defenders deal with criminal cases. The only time the government uses government employees in civil cases is when the government is a party to a civil case.
The reason prosecutors work for the state is because the state is the prosecuting party. The reason some cases are defended by public defenders is because one has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel, which the state provides to the indigent. Period.
In civil litigation, parties seek redress from the courts. You propose to tell private parties that they can't use the representation they want to use in court - they must use whoever the government gives them in your construct. Is that really what you want?
As far as your "abuses" go, they are so clearly anecdotal that they hardly deserve a response. For every attorney racking up huge personal injury case fees, there are 20 eeking by taking their massive 1/3 percentage on cases that are worth less than $15-20K. And that's only in the cases they settle or win. They go in the hole on the cases they lose. On the other side, where you talk about the huge hourly fees, they do exist with a small percentage of lawyers. Most defending cases are hired by insurance companies at rates most lawyers would consider paltry.
Frivolous cases? Yes, they exist, though they are far more rare than you imagine. You'll never see a news story about the woman who was awarded $35,000 to cover her medical bills and repairs to her car in an auto accident, because those cases aren't in the news. But for every McDonald's cup of coffee there are tens of thousands of such cases.
The key to getting rid of frivolous cases is to focus on frivolous cases - not to use the specter of litigation to push through reforms that don't target frivolous cases. A $250,000 cap? It doesn't take much sense to realize that such a cap only effects cases worth at least $250,000. In other words, good cases. What kind of logic tries to eliminate bad cases by penalizing good cases? Illogic. Except that eliminating the bad cases isn't really the goal. Capping the good ones is the goal. And it is not your friendly neighborhood business that benefits from it. It is your "friendly" multi-billion dollar multi-national insurance company. Whose premiums, despite what they tell you, don't have a doggone thing to do with the amount they are paying out in claims.
Although it is and I agree.....Tom Delay utilized the word TERRORISM?
The Dishonorable Judge Greer ignored this:
http://www.theempirejournal.com/0225051_florida_dcf_seeks_60.htm
and THIS:
5. Dr. Walker, Radiologist
2003 testimony regarding his concern with bone scan image taken of Terri in 1991
Q I realize you can't assign a cause to
these injuries that you picked up in this report.
But typically in your experience, what would be the
causes of this pattern of abnormality?
A In somebody her age, an auto accident is
by far the most typical cause.
(Excerpt)
http://www.zimp.org/stuff/03%20-%20WalkerDepositionDepo.htm
AND THIS IS JUST A DROP IN THE BUCKET.
Have you actually read the 2nd DCA opinions? Because, if you have, it should be impossible for you to make this comment.
Hey SUN!
Here, here is a thread totally dedicated to organizing all info, brain storming and then going after these morons who did this to Terri!
afterhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1375028/posts?page=409#409
Are you still here? lol
Sorry you don't care for what I have to say. I guess it is easier to just swim with the school and echo the same ol' misinformation and make each other feel good by demonstrating how only your little group knows the real truth and everyone else is just deluded by the big bad MSM.
Or, you could actually think. And dig into the facts for yourself, instead of echoing the pet points of others. Only problem with that is it is a lot harder. So I can understand you taking the easy route.
Unlike you, Ileene, I've been here for years.
Sorry you don't care for what I have to say. I guess it is easier to just swim with the school and echo the same ol' misinformation and make each other feel good by demonstrating how only your little group knows the real truth and everyone else is just deluded by the big bad MSM.
Or, you could actually think. And dig into the facts for yourself, instead of echoing the pet points of others. Only problem with that is it is a lot harder. So I can understand you taking the easy route.
Like I said....you still here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.