x

x

FLORIDA POLITICS
Since 2002, daily Florida political news and commentary

 

UPDATE: Every morning we review and individually digest Florida political news articles, editorials and punditry. Our sister site, FLA Politics was selected by Campaigns & Elections as one of only ten state blogs in the nation
"every political insider should be reading right now."

E-Mail Florida Politics

This is our Main Page
Our Sister Site
On FaceBook
Follow us on Twitter
Our Google+ Page
Contact [E-Mail Florida Politics]
Site Feed
...and other resources

 

Welcome To Florida Politics

Thanks for visiting. On a semi-daily basis we scan Florida's major daily newspapers for significant Florida political news and punditry. We also review the editorial pages and political columnists/pundits for Florida political commentary. The papers we review include: the Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Palm Beach Post, Naples News, Sarasota Herald Tribune, St Pete Times, Tampa Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, the Daytona Beach News-Journal, Tallahassee Democrat, and, occasionally, the Florida Times Union; we also review the political news blogs associated with these newspapers.

For each story, column, article or editorial we deem significant, we post at least the headline and link to the piece; the linked headline always appears in quotes. We quote the headline for two reasons: first, to allow researchers looking for the cited piece to find it (if the link has expired) by searching for the original title/headline via a commercial research service. Second, quotation of the original headline permits readers to appreciate the spin from the original piece, as opposed to our spin.

Not that we don't provide spin; we do, and plenty of it. Our perspective appears in post headlines, the subtitles within the post (in bold), and the excerpts from the linked stories we select to quote; we also occasionally provide other links and commentary about certain stories. While our bias should be immediately apparent to any reader, we nevertheless attempt to link to every article, column or editorial about Florida politics in every major online Florida newspaper.

 

Older posts [back to 2002]

Previous Articles by Derek Newton: Ten Things Fox on Line 1 Stem Cells are Intelligent Design Katrina Spin No Can't Win Perhaps the Most Important Race Senate Outlook The Nelson Thing Deep, Dark Secret Smart Boy Bringing Guns to a Knife Fight Playing to our Strength  

The Blog for Thursday, July 21, 2005

GOoPer Laywers in "Cross Hairs"

    In "Possible leak of ruling probed" we read:
    In the inquiry's cross hairs: Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, one of Florida's top-flight law firms ... .
    I'm not sure I would call Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell "top flight", whatever that means. They are, as discussed below, well connected. In any event,
    The court's internal inquiry, completed July 8 by Inspector General Ken Chambers, labeled Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell "the most likely recipient" of the information, but didn't rule out the other lawyers in the case. The statement -- and the corresponding suggestion of unethical conduct -- irritated law firm founder Thom Rumberger, who called Chambers' speculation "b---s---."
    Rumberger is a well known GOoPer mouthpiece; from his bio:
    Representing the Republican Party of Florida in 1992, he was instrumental in redrawing the historic district lines during the Florida Redistricting. ... He was Chairman of the Florida Lawyers for President Bush in the 1988 and 1992 Presidential Campaigns, Florida General Counsel for the George Bush Presidential Campaigns of 1988 and 1992, and Florida General Counsel for the Bob Dole Presidential Campaign.
    [source] See also "Florida in election crosshairs again" (Rumberger referred to as "a major fundraiser for Bush").

    Here's what happened:
    In the case in question, the justices had wrangled among themselves for 19 months over whether Rodrigo Aguilera, a Miami warehouse worker, was entitled to sue his workers' compensation insurance carrier for allegedly denying him essential care. Eight days before they ruled 4-3 that he was, the company settled with Aguilera in exchange for his agreement to ask the court to dismiss the appeal without a decision.

    The court insisted on deciding it nonetheless. The reason, it is now clear from the inspector general's report, is that someone had already warned the court that the case would be settled because the probable outcome had leaked. Should that turn out to be true, it would be a serious matter. Aside from the fundamental ethical proposition that no litigant should have a back channel to the court, inside information is the stuff of which windfall profits could be made from timely financial transactions.

    Whether it was tipped or not, the company obviously thought it was better to pay Aguilera than to risk exposure to a damaging precedent and to a trial. The question remains: Why didn't it think so much earlier?"
    Court leaks can't be tolerated". There's something rotten in Denmark.

5:23 AM

<< Home