I came across this post and thought instead of paraphrasing I’d just put it on out there for you.

“Maybe it’s just as well that most bar associations remain in the dark about Facebook and other social media. Via Above the Law, comes news from True/Slant that:

The Florida Bar Examiners, the group that decides who gets to become a lawyer in Florida, is considering forcing some wannabe lawyers to be subjected to a thorough social networking investigation prior to their being knighted esquires. Florida bar examiners will look for evidence of substance abuse in applicants with a history of those problems, and will of course check to see if you would like to overthrow the government.

In particular, the Florida Bar intends to single out the following applicants:

• Applicants who are required to establish rehabilitation under Rule 3-13 “so as to ascertain whether they displayed any malice or ill feeling towards those who were compelled to bring about the proceeding leading to the need to establish rehabilitation;”
• Applicants with a history of substance abuse/dependence “so as to ascertain whether they discussed or posted photographs of any recent substance abuse;”
• Applicants with “significant candor concerns” including not telling the truth on employment applications or resumes;
• Applicants with a history of unlicensed practice of law (UPL) allegations;
• Applicants who have worked as a certified legal intern, reported self-employment in a legal field, or reported employment as an attorney pending admission “to ensure that these applicants are not holding themselves out as attorneys;”
• Applicants who have positively responded to Item 27 of the bar application disclosing “involvement in an organization advocating the overthrow of a government in the United States to find out if they are still involved in any related activities.”

The Bar’s policy doesn’t make much sense, though. If applicants have already admitted to a history of substance abuse, why does the Bar have a need to see photos of them on Facebook in a drugged state? Likewise, if applicants have a history of UPL allegations, is Facebook really going to help? After all, if a lawyer is committing UPL, is he or she going to post about it in a Facebook status report? (”Tricked a judge today, and represented a client even though I didn’t pass the bar.”) Though I don’t endorse examining Facebook at all, if the Bar is going to do it, then the policy should apply to all candidates and not just those who are already suspect.

Again, though I don’t endorse review of Facebook pages, this policy wouldn’t be out of step with what other employers are doing. The True/Slant piece notes that more than a third of managers admitted to not offering jobs based on what they found on applicants’ social media pages. Because reliance on social media in job selection is becoming more prevalent, Daniel Solove of Concurring Opinions suggests that, at the very least, managers put candidates on notice that they intend to check their Facebook accounts.

Do you think bar associations should rely on social media to determine bar admission? And where do we draw the line on those aspects of a bar applicant’s private life that can be deemed relevant to his or her fitness as a lawyer? Or does putting one’s private life on Facebook, by definition, make it public?”

Check out the original article here: Will Bar Associations Review Facebook for Applicants’ Fitness?

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 30% [?]

A 60 year old grandfather was found guilty of groping a woman while she was dressed as Minnie Mouse at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida.

John Moyer was sentenced to 180 days of probation, 50 hours of community service, a $1,000 fine, he must undergo a mental health evaluation and write a letter of apology to the victim.

After he was sentenced, the Grandfather maintained his innocence.

“‘I’m not guilty,’” Moyer told the judge. “‘I haven’t, as the prosecution says, molested or grabbed — maybe unintentionally touched, but that’s as far as it went.’”

“‘Moyer was charged with misdemeanor battery in June after being accused of touching the woman’s chest and buttocks in the Toontown area of the Magic Kingdom.Prosecutors said during the trial that photographs show the Disney cast member pushing Moyer’s hands away from her after he touched her.’”

“‘It doesn’t matter she was grabbed. She’s just a mouse,”‘ prosecutor David Bear said, arguing against the defense. “‘It’s not just a mouse. It’s a person.’”

The woman who was playing Minnie Mouse did not yell at the time of the incident for fear of being fired for being out of character, but she did report the incident after Moyer left the area.

Check out the original article: Man Guilty Of Groping Minnie Mouse

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 12% [?]

A Florida town manager in the southern part of the state was fired in an “emergency meeting” after the mayor and other town officials learned that the woman he married last year is a Porn star.

“Fort Myers Beach town council voted 5-0 to fire Scott Janke ‘without cause’ after Mayor Larry Kiker called the Tuesday night meeting.”

“Kiker told the News-Press of Fort Myers he learned that afternoon that Janke’s wife is an adult film star, and the elected officials took the action a few hours later.”

“We did everything we could not to judge,” Kiker told the paper. “It’s not about him and her. It’s about the town.”

Janke’s wife goes by the stage, or should I say screen name, Jazella Moore.

Kiker states that there was a clause in Janke’s contract that permitted the council to fire him with a majority vote.

He says he still considers the Janke’s friends though.

I have one question… How did they find out his wife was a porn star?  Someone must have stumbled upon it. So how are you going to persecute someone for participating in an act that you are actually supporting?

Check out the original article: Florida Town Fires Manager Married to Porn Star

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com. SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Florida Judge Thomas E. Stringer spent over thirty years building his legal career. He worked his way up from an assistant state attorney to an appeals court judge in the Tampa Bay area. In 2007, he was even inducted into his law school’s hall of fame.

Well all of that time of hardworking and perseverance has become tarnished by scandal.

“It is axiomatic that ‘Judge‘ and ‘Stripper’ showing up in a headline is never a good thing, especially if you happen to be the ‘Judge,’” then Tampa Tribune columnist Daniel Ruth wrote after the story broke”

Last spring, the well respected married judge found his face plastered all over the place next to a troubled, kimono clad exotic dancer. The dancer claimed that the judge had helped her hide money from creditors, rented an apartment in NYC for her, and claimed that the two had been romantically involved.

“Criminal charges are possible, though the FBI declined to comment. The state agency that oversees judges dropped misconduct charges after Stringer, who stepped down in February and draws monthly retirement benefits of $8,069, agreed never to be a judge again.”

“Stringer, 64, graduated from Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport in the 1970s. He was the first black graduate from his law school. He became an assistant state attorney and later a circuit judge in Tampa’s Hillsborough County. There, in the family law division, he built a reputation as a judge who insisted that all sides be heard.”

In March 2008, Christy Yamanaka, 48, came forward saying that she said she met the judge in 1995, when she was a stripper in Tampa. Five years later, she was deep in debt and turned to him for advice. Later, she said she went public after Stringer refused to repay money he owed her.

The plot gets thicker. Click here to read the original article.

RealDealDocs.com is a division of Practice Technologies, Inc. the creators of SmartRules.com.
SmartRules provides step by step guides to local rules and civil procedure for state courts & federal courts throughout the country.

Popularity: 5% [?]

In the blink of an eye, Broward County FLA Judge Ian Richards dropped his gavel, hopped over his bench and tackled a defendant in his courtroom after the defendant attacked a woman who testified against her former boyfriend in a domestic violence case. Score: Judge - 2, Defendant - 0.

“A bailiff was putting handcuffs on the 29-year-old defendant when he bolted around his attorney toward the witness, Nicole Word. She sought refuge in a corner between the bench and the witness box with Reasee close behind. It was then that the judge vaulted the bench to help a court security officer and two Lauderhill police officers subdue the attacker”

Judge Richards, who was elected to the bench in August, remanded John Charles Reasee II into custody Tuesday on domestic violence charges.

“Richards did not return a call for comment by deadline Tuesday. But he told the Miami Herald that the episode was “unfortunate” and he hoped “both individuals can get on with their lives and learn to behave.”

Right on Judge Richards.

To view the original article, click here.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Effective December 1, courts in several Florida counties have instituted foreclosure diversionary programs. Great news for homeowners struggling to hold onto their property. Setting up a special system for foreclosures was West Palm Beach Chief Judge Kathleen Kroll, ordering all foreclosures to mediation and mapping out steps lenders must go through before any foreclosures are approved.

And on Monday, Chief Judge for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Lee Haworth issued a similar plan. Titled “Administrative Order Establishing Standard Procedures for Residential and Commercial Mortgage Foreclosure Actions,” Haworth’s order requires lenders/borrowers to talk to one another at a “confiliation conference” before the foreclosure actually gets rolling.

Haworth sent this to law firms: “In 2006, we had 1,000 foreclosures in Sarasota County. In 2007, we had 4,100. We’re expecting to have 8,000 by the end of this year. It became evident that we had to do something, because of the lack of communication between these sides. If we can get them to talk, maybe we can hold off on some.”

Many more Florida counties are following in Haworth and Kroll’s footsteps.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Floridians are in the wet seat as Hurricane Fay left residents in Central Florida wrecked. The streets flooded and that’s the “good” news out of this soggy saga. The bad news is that alligators and snakes are swimming in the streets, creating a dangerous environment for people.

“We have removed alligators, we have removed snakes and we’ve removed all kinds of wildlife,” Brevard EOC Director Bob Lay told Local 6 News in Orlando. “Our animal services and enforcement officers have been doing this all over the county for the last three days.”

Although forecasters expected the storm to continue a “zigzag course” by hitting the state for a third week, along with Georgia, they didn’t think it would transform into a hurricane over the Atlantic.

No deaths have been reported but people have traded cars for canoes as the storm continues… Just hope they can dodge all the wild life and remember that while force majeure clauses in legal agreements protect homes and businesses after a hurricane, they don’t mean squat to the alligators so beware.

Popularity: 9% [?]

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JOHN B. THOMPSON ON BEHALF
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Petitioner,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE
SOFTWARE, INC.,
Respondents.
VERIFIED PETITION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BEFORE ACTION
COMES NOW petitioner, an attorney, on his own behalf and on behalf of the
State of Florida as authorized by Florida Statute 60.05, and files this Verified Petition to
Take Deposition before Action, and states as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Petitioner has been a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, continuously
since 1976. He is a citizen of the United States, more than eighteen years of age, and he
is otherwise sui juris.
2. Respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Wal-Mart), is a foreign
corporation registered to do and doing business in the State of Florida, at various retail
stores located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Wal-Mart is one of the largest, and
possibly the largest in volume of sales, retailer of video games in the United States.
3. Respondent Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (hereinafter Take-Two), is a
foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida by virtue of a) its distribution
and sale of millions of units of its video games in the State of Florida, most notably the
hyperviolent Grand Theft Auto franchise of video games linked to numerous killings
2
around the country, and b) the direct marketing of its products in the State of Florida
through magazine, retail store, and television advertisements.
THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE UNDERLYING ACTION
4. Petitioner plans to bring an action against the respondents herein based upon
their distribution and sale of a violent, interactive video “game” entitled Bully (discussed
more fully infra), which distribution and sale will constitute a public nuisance under
Florida law. The statutory basis for the underlying action is as follows:
5. Florida Statute 823.01 states:
823.01 Nuisances; penalty.–All nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the
health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the
second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, except that a violation of s. 823.10 is
a felony of the third degree.
6. Florida Statute 823.05 states, verbatim, as follows:
823.05 Places declared a nuisance; may be abated and enjoined.–Whoever shall
erect, establish, continue, or maintain, own or lease any building, booth, tent or place
which tends to annoy the community or injure the health of the community, or become
manifestly injurious to the morals or manners of the people as described in s. 823.01, or
shall be frequented by the class of persons mentioned in 1s. 856.02, or any house or place
of prostitution, assignation, lewdness or place or building where games of chance are
engaged in violation of law or any place where any law of the state is violated, shall be
deemed guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and the building, erection, place, tent or booth
3
and the furniture, fixtures and contents are declared a nuisance. All such places or
persons shall be abated or enjoined as provided in ss. 60.05 and 60.06.
7. Florida Statute 60.05 states, verbatim, as follows:
60.05 Abatement of nuisances.-
(1) When any nuisance as defined in s. 823.05 exists, the Attorney General, state
attorney, city attorney, county attorney, or any citizen of the county may sue in the name
of the state on his or her relation to enjoin the nuisance, the person or persons
maintaining it, and the owner or agent of the building or ground on which the nuisance
exists.
(2) The court may allow a temporary injunction without bond on proper proof being
made. If it appears by evidence or affidavit that a temporary injunction should issue, the
court, pending the determination on final hearing, may enjoin:
(a) The maintaining of a nuisance;
(b) The operating and maintaining of the place or premises where the nuisance is
maintained;
(c) The owner or agent of the building or ground upon which the nuisance exists;
(d) The conduct, operation, or maintenance of any business or activity operated or
maintained in the building or on the premises in connection with or incident to the
maintenance of the nuisance.
The injunction shall specify the activities enjoined and shall not preclude the operation of

Popularity: 12% [?]

Title XLVI CRIMES

Chapter 823 PUBLIC NUISANCES

823.01 Nuisances; penalty.–All nuisances that tend to annoy the community, injure the health of the citizens in general, or corrupt the public morals are misdemeanors of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.083, except that a violation of s. 823.10 is a felony of the third degree.

Popularity: 9% [?]

Disclaimer: This is part of the 2006 version of Florida Statutes and it is offered for general information purposes. The statutes on this site should not be relied on without reviewing your legal situation with an experienced medical malpractice lawyer and making sure you are using the appropriate version of the statute for your case. The provisions applicable to your potential claim may or may not be the version that was in effect at the time of the incident because some changes to statutes are retroactive and some changes are not. Other statutes and other case law interpreting or applying these statutes may also apply to your case.

(The information on this site applies to Florida only)

768.16 Wrongful Death Act.–Sections 768.16-768.26 may be cited as the “Florida Wrongful Death Act.”

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35; s. 105, ch. 2003-1.

768.17 Legislative intent.–It is the public policy of the state to shift the losses resulting when wrongful death occurs from the survivors of the decedent to the wrongdoer. Sections 768.16-768.26 are remedial and shall be liberally construed.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35; s. 106, ch. 2003-1.

768.18 Definitions.–As used in ss. 768.16-768.26:

(1) “Survivors” means the decedent’s spouse, children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters. It includes the child born out of wedlock of a mother, but not the child born out of wedlock of the father unless the father has recognized a responsibility for the child’s support.

(2) “Minor children” means children under 25 years of age, notwithstanding the age of majority.

(3) “Support” includes contributions in kind as well as money.

(4) “Services” means tasks, usually of a household nature, regularly performed by the decedent that will be a necessary expense to the survivors of the decedent. These services may vary according to the identity of the decedent and survivor and shall be determined under the particular facts of each case.

(5) “Net accumulations” means the part of the decedent’s expected net business or salary income, including pension benefits, that the decedent probably would have retained as savings and left as part of her or his estate if the decedent had lived her or his normal life expectancy. “Net business or salary income” is the part of the decedent’s probable gross income after taxes, excluding income from investments continuing beyond death, that remains after deducting the decedent’s personal expenses and support of survivors, excluding contributions in kind.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35; s. 66, ch. 77-121; s. 40, ch. 77-468; s. 1, ch. 81-183; s. 3, ch. 89-61; s. 1, ch. 90-14; s. 1167, ch. 97-102; s. 107, ch. 2003-1.

768.19 Right of action.–When the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person, including those occurring on navigable waters, and the event would have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued, the person or watercraft that would have been liable in damages if death had not ensued shall be liable for damages as specified in this act notwithstanding the death of the person injured, although death was caused under circumstances constituting a felony.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35.

768.20 Parties.–The action shall be brought by the decedent’s personal representative, who shall recover for the benefit of the decedent’s survivors and estate all damages, as specified in this act, caused by the injury resulting in death. When a personal injury to the decedent results in death, no action for the personal injury shall survive, and any such action pending at the time of death shall abate. The wrongdoer’s personal representative shall be the defendant if the wrongdoer dies before or pending the action. A defense that would bar or reduce a survivor’s recovery if she or he were the plaintiff may be asserted against the survivor, but shall not affect the recovery of any other survivor.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35; s. 1168, ch. 97-102.

768.21 Damages.–All potential beneficiaries of a recovery for wrongful death, including the decedent’s estate, shall be identified in the complaint, and their relationships to the decedent shall be alleged. Damages may be awarded as follows:

(1) Each survivor may recover the value of lost support and services from the date of the decedent’s injury to her or his death, with interest, and future loss of support and services from the date of death and reduced to present value. In evaluating loss of support and services, the survivor’s relationship to the decedent, the amount of the decedent’s probable net income available for distribution to the particular survivor, and the replacement value of the decedent’s services to the survivor may be considered. In computing the duration of future losses, the joint life expectancies of the survivor and the decedent and the period of minority, in the case of healthy minor children, may be considered.

(2) The surviving spouse may also recover for loss of the decedent’s companionship and protection and for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury.

(3) Minor children of the decedent, and all children of the decedent if there is no surviving spouse, may also recover for lost parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury. For the purposes of this subsection, if both spouses die within 30 days of one another as a result of the same wrongful act or series of acts arising out of the same incident, each spouse is considered to have been predeceased by the other.

(4) Each parent of a deceased minor child may also recover for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury. Each parent of an adult child may also recover for mental pain and suffering if there are no other survivors.

(5) Medical or funeral expenses due to the decedent’s injury or death may be recovered by a survivor who has paid them.

(6) The decedent’s personal representative may recover for the decedent’s estate the following:

(a) Loss of earnings of the deceased from the date of injury to the date of death, less lost support of survivors excluding contributions in kind, with interest. Loss of the prospective net accumulations of an estate, which might reasonably have been expected but for the wrongful death, reduced to present money value, may also be recovered:

1. If the decedent’s survivors include a surviving spouse or lineal descendants; or

2. If the decedent is not a minor child as defined in s. 768.18(2), there are no lost support and services recoverable under subsection (1), and there is a surviving parent.

(b) Medical or funeral expenses due to the decedent’s injury or death that have become a charge against her or his estate or that were paid by or on behalf of decedent, excluding amounts recoverable under subsection (5).

(c) Evidence of remarriage of the decedent’s spouse is admissible.

(7) All awards for the decedent’s estate are subject to the claims of creditors who have complied with the requirements of probate law concerning claims.

(8) The damages specified in subsection (3) shall not be recoverable by adult children and the damages specified in subsection (4) shall not be recoverable by parents of an adult child with respect to claims for medical negligence as defined by s. 766.106(1).

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35; s. 2, ch. 81-183; s. 1, ch. 85-260; s. 2, ch. 90-14; s. 1169, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2002-44; s. 66, ch. 2003-416.

768.22 Form of verdict.–The amounts awarded to each survivor and to the estate shall be stated separately in the verdict.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35.

768.23 Protection of minors and incompetents.–The court shall provide protection for any amount awarded for the benefit of a minor child or an incompetent pursuant to the Florida Guardianship Law.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35.

768.24 Death of a survivor before judgment.–A survivor’s death before final judgment shall limit the survivor’s recovery to lost support and services to the date of his or her death. The personal representative shall pay the amount recovered to the personal representative of the deceased survivor.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35; s. 1170, ch. 97-102.

768.25 Court approval of settlements.–While an action under this act is pending, no settlement as to amount or apportionment among the beneficiaries which is objected to by any survivor or which affects a survivor who is a minor or an incompetent shall be effective unless approved by the court.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35.

768.26 Litigation expenses.–Attorneys’ fees and other expenses of litigation shall be paid by the personal representative and deducted from the awards to the survivors and the estate in proportion to the amounts awarded to them, but expenses incurred for the benefit of a particular survivor or the estate shall be paid from their awards.

History.–s. 1, ch. 72-35.

Popularity: 28% [?]