The sensitivity to issues of domestic violence vary from judge to judge, and we’re already seeing where Judge Lester has certainly vocalized his “personal” opinions on this subject. By the way, his “personal” opinions should never interfere with his “judicial” opinions and the latter should always be rendered solely on the basis of the involved facts and established law, notwithstanding his personal opinions. Truth be told:

Domestic violence has become so pervasive over this last decade and it seems to touch almost every household these days — and you’d be right, I think, if you understood the judge’s comments to seemingly minimize some types of domestic “violence,” straining to differentiate those “less serious” cases from the more horrific cases of “strangulation,” “beatings,” and the others he described. How is this different than saying these are two types of stealing, one involving the mere theft of candy or less valuable items from a retail store, for example, as opposed to the more serious theft or embezzlement of larger sums of money from an employer or from the shareholders, etc. Theft is theft; deception and stealing, is deception and stealing; and the same applies to domestic violence — whether you push, strike, slap, punch or strangle, you’re doing “violence” to another human being; the victim is being bullied by the perpetrator, and are we to now quibble about the degree to which the victim is victimized? You can’t be a “little bit” pregnant; either you are or you’re not. Fyi:

If a prostitute charges only $20 in exchange for the use of his or her body, is this not the same crime of “prostitution,” as the high priced call girl or escort who makes 10 or 100 times that amount? Prostitution is prostitution. The brutal truth is, these crimes are by definition and reality essentially black or white; there are no shades of gray.

Those are my thoughts for today, whether you agree with me or not! I am,

always willing to be corrected or further enlightened, and ready to defend you whether you’re rightfully accused or not ,

John

John Contini, South Florida and Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer:

“It’s not unrelated to why we have so many people locked up in Florida, and why we now lead the world in prison population. The reasons are really quite simple:

People want to come to Florida to get some sun and fun, and after a little vacation experience — which is never reflective of any sense of reality or what life would be like if they were actually living here, they think of starting their life over and moving to sunny South Florida; but like the rest of us, they don’t learn what the experts say until it’s too late, that a “geographical cure” never works.

Emerson said it best in his famous book, “Self Reliance,” specifically, “Traveling is a fool’s paradise; your sad, relentless self wakes up with you wherever you go. Stay at home with the cause.” Soon, after they arrive here in Florida, the former vacationers realize that a lot of things are happening here that are not so visible behind the glare of all the rays, beaches, boats and palm trees. Like what, you might ask?

How about all the dozens of unrelated police agencies, jails and prisons, responsible now for incarcerating more of Florida’s citizens than those jailed per capita in any other State in the nation — yes, recently surpassing even California, Texas and New York in its percentages of locked up citizens; and for that matter, Florida now leads the entire world in per capita prison population, now that the United States has surpassed China in these stats.

Our new arrivals have a few drinks to self medicate after discovering that their new reality is quite different from their earlier memorable Florida vacation, they get in their cars and drive back to their new “home,” and little do they know, but the DUI Task Force teams are hunting them down like dogs. Even if they make it to their house, they learn soon enough that most misdemeanors back in their home State, have been upgraded to felonies right here in “paradise.” Welcome to sunny South Florida.

—–

The comments below have been sent to us by Ron McAndrew, a Prison and Jail Consultant from Dunnellon, FL:

Good morning John
Thanks for sharing this great overview. I’d add just one small ingredient and
that would be the ‘profit’ of locking folks up. Here in Florida a good number of
the prisons, jails, food service operations, medical operations, a political
organization called PRIDE, and a number of other entrepreneurs have bought their
way into our state budget. It boils down to the simple fact that the more we
lock up, the more money ‘somebody’ is getting from the taxpayer.
Have a blessed day
Ron

The federal sentencing laws in the United States, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, now allow for a federally sentenced defendant to “flip” on or cooperate against others well beyond a year after his or her original sentence. Check out this latest amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure, specifically Rule 35:

The court may reduce sentence on motion of the prosecutor based on substantial assistance *even AFTER one year from the date of sentencing, under these less often used subsections of Rule 35:

“Rule 35 (b) (2) (A) …
” … information NOT known to the defendant until one year of more after sentencing;

(B) “… Information provided by the defendant to the government within one year of sentencing, but which did not become useful to the government until more than one year after sentencing”

I will just briefly and generally state the legal defense of “mere presence,” a defense that is available to you or your loved ones (along with the doctrine of “corpus delicti”) any time you or your family members are wrongfully accused of being involved in a crime — accused simply because you are right there next to all the contraband or evidence of the crime:

You cannot be convicted of a crime, unless the State first establishes the fact that a crime has, in fact, been committed, and that someone is responsible for the commission of that crime. Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441 (Fla.1993), citing Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 276 (3rd Edition 1969); See also, Hodges v. State, 176 So.2d 91 (Fla.1965). See also, Jordan v. State, 560 So.2d 315, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); (The State could not establish the “corpus delicti” without reliance on the defendant’s statements; when the only evidence comes from extrajudicial statements, the evidence is legally insufficient to establish all of the elements necessary to establish the charged offense.); See also, J.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); (Corpus Delicti of offense must ordinarily be established independent of Defendant’s admissions).

This invokes the “mere presence” defense of being “merely present” along with culpable individuals “acting in an independent fashion,” evidence establishing, e.g., that the Defendant was merely present at the scene when the co-defendant trafficked in drugs, e.g., even with statements implicating the Defendant, etc. This is not sufficient to establish a conspiracy and may not be sufficient to establish that the Defendant was a principal in the crime. See Sheriff v. State, 780 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).

Almost everything that once was considered a “misdemeanor,” is now a “felony” and enforceable as such, and were that not bad enough just in terms of lengthy prison exposure (as opposed to only sitting for a short period of time in the local county jail), the fact of a “felony” arrest in and of itself now will preclude you from obtaining employment almost anywhere; and when that happens, our unemployment rates dramaticlly increase, homes are lost to foreclosure, child support does not get paid, welfare and food stamp rolls (and consequent tax burdens on society) are increased proportionately, and this says nothing of today’s increasingly alarming rate of depression and suicide among our nation’s population. We are not building anything within the construction industry these days aside from new prisons to warehouse our own people, our own dads and moms and brothers and sisters and friends. The attached decision/opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Lopez v. Gonzalez, shows you exactly what happens to you or your loved ones in an immigration concern, once the Government enhances the way they look at some of our transgressions in life. Check out this opinion: U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

Do not speak with an investigator, adjuster or any representative from an insurance carrier – even your own, before consulting with your lawyer.

Under no circumstances should you provide any representative of an insurance company – even your own, with a “statement” over the phone or in person – taped or otherwise, without your lawyer present.

Click here for more tips and information.

Better answer: Tell the head V.P. of the “Human Resources” dept., if the company is big enough to have one, and if not, see a lawyer about filing suit for sexual harassment.

Legal answer: Suppose you and your wife get in a heated argument and one of you slightly pushes the other, resulting in perhaps a return push or even a grab, even without the nasty slapping, hair-pulling or punching? The pushing or grabbing is still considered “Domestic Violence,” and when the 911 call is made in Florida, this means both of you will be going to jail.

Right answer: Dear self-declared Jerk, absolutely not! Sending a letter or a greeting card, even a nice one (or even flowers with an apology note) violates your restraining order and is illegal; or having a friend call and apologize for you (as you may erroneously think that it’s only you who cannot call her), is yet another violation of the “civil” restraining order, which disallows “any” contact, “direct or indirect.” When you’re arrested for the “new, separate crime” of “violation of restraining order,” you will be taken to jail, booked, fingerprinted and photographed, and you cannot make bail until a $3,500 bond is posted on your behalf; and if you live with the “victim” or person who petitioned the court for the restraining order, you cannot go to your home to even get your clothes to go to work! You will need a separate hearing before the Judge to “modify the terms and conditions of the restraining order,” to allow you to get your belongings.