Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Preview of the emergency motion before the Florida Supreme Court

I haven't read Appellant's "Emergency Motion for (1) Review of Circuit Court Order Vacating Rule 9.310(B) (2) Stay of order under appeal (Circuit Court Order Granting Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto), and (2) Reinstatement of that Stay" in the FACDL lawsuit yet, but have heard from a source some of what it argues.

Since I haven't verified it yet, I'll leave that hanging for now. Let me just say that I hope it is as I've been told, because I expect the particular argument to be easily overcome.

Vague enough? Stay tuned.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is becoming more of a cliff hanger than many of my favorite mystery books. Will they or won't they. If it did not affect so many people it would be more than funny. We, in Marion County dependency court, still have no regional counsel appearing in our court. We are operating as normal and moving right along. I look forward to a resolution of this mess.

Anonymous said...

Broward is the same. RC wasn't up and running in dependency court even before the stay was lifted.

I read through the emergency motion and I still don't get the difference they try to strike between civil and criminal cases. The constitution creates public defenders to provide services as determined by general law. As such the legislature presumably could charge a pd office to so dependency but the pd would still have to be elected not appointed. To that extent, I read 1088 as unconstitutional regardless of which area of the law you look at. There may be other concerns when it comes to criminal but we shouldn't lose sight that outside of a few dependency cases brought by grandparents, the state is the petitioner/prosecutor and the state's action interferes with constitutionally protected parental rights.

ArrMatey said...

That's a very good point, anonymous.

The folks who are crafting the pleadings read this blog, and presumably the comments, so good job

Anonymous said...

They just reinstated the stay.
No interest in protecting indigent clients from the chaos the state creates, I guess.

And FACDL's response to the state's motion was really right on.