By Terrence McCoy
By Allie Conti
By Terrence McCoy
By Scott Fishman
By Deirdra Funcheon
By Allie Conti
By New Times Staff
By Ryan Pfeffer
Dubya is still a deceitful chump:Regarding your January 5 cover story by Sam Eifling, "Liar, Liar...," a quick note to inform you that I find your antipatriotic, antimoralistic, and antisocietal message immature and obscene. I laugh at your attempt at "journalism" and suggest growing up. I will shun all businesses that carry your publication and inform them of the same. Good-bye, and good riddance.
Dump the politics: I am a neurosurgeon who has practiced at Broward General Medical Center for more than 20 years. Thank you so much for Bob Norman's courage in writing the truth about the North Broward Hospital District political machine ("Deliver Us," parts I and II, January 29 and February 5).
It took years for me to figure out that dedication, skill, hard work, and being the best meant very little at the district if you didn't have the right connections.
Via the Internet
And skewer the flimflammer!Thank you so much for Bob Norman's January 29 column, "Deliver Us." I am a midwife employed by SunLife and loved his article. All the SunLife employees want to do is deliver babies. Only one person changed at SunLife (the owner) and we lost the contract to a con man who cares only about money.
New Jersey? Civilized? Ha! Although Trevor Aaronson's January 29 news article, "One-Way Street," makes it clear that the current system for handling DUI charged drivers is flawed, it also had some interesting oversights. He points out that an average of 7,000 DUI arrests are made in Broward County every year, yet fails to make any comparison to other areas so the reader can determine if this number is in line with other areas of a similar size/makeup.
Aaronson mentioned only one case in any detail -- that of Lighthouse Point resident Craig Tidey. He mentions that Tidey refused to take a sobriety test and was arrested. It is my understanding that all drivers must by law agree to take any sobriety test. In fact, looking at my Florida driver's license, I can clearly see that it states (right above where we sign our names), "Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law." I recall being instructed when I originally was licensed to drive (although that was in New Jersey, which is a bit more civilized) that driving is a privilege and not a right (basically that the same civil rights we expect in other areas of life do not apply when operating a motor vehicle). Funny how Aaronson neglected to point out any of this in his article.
It appears Aaronson is not necessarily an advocate for those wrongly accused. If that is the case, I am curious -- how will he make your amends to the dead?
Defense lawyers drunker than a potted skunk:I've just read "One-Way Street" and would like to comment on some matters.
Although a defense lawyer pledges to zealously represent his client to the best of his ability, charlatan tactics are often used at the expense of integrity. Integrity? Yes. Sometimes circuitous and insidious measures are taken to allow a guilty person to escape punishment. Why? Money. Sadly, every form of motivation begins and ends with money.
What do I mean specifically? A police officer conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle for inoperative taillights. The traffic stop is conducted at 2 a.m.. A perfectly legal stop. The defendant exhibits all the classic clues of an individual who is intoxicated -- i.e., flushed face, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant, following the shrewd advice given to him, refuses to agree to a blood test. He is arrested and transported to a breath testing facility. There, the defendant refuses even to speak on video, his reticence taken as a refusal.
Now the criminal aspect of the case. Many times the defendant is exonerated because (a) the officer could not testify to a driving pattern, (b) there are no roadside sobriety exercises to examine, and (c) there are no incriminating breath, urine, or blood results.
An arrestee refuses a breath/urine/blood test for one reason and one reason only: He has something to hide. Worse still is the defendant who provides blood or breath samples with two or three times the legal limit yet walks on some ridiculous technicality.
To quote a wise man, the defense lawyer's sole purpose in the court room is to cause confusion and galvanize doubt in the minds of jury members. Seldom is it the pursuit of truth. I say "seldom" because I believe there are some noble souls left who have maintained a modicum of integrity.
While her stepson has no right to have written of Edie's "conversion," it is also clear that Bruce is seen as the black sheep of this nonfamily. This matter is no place for an attorney, unless the real reason for the litigation is a platform from which Rabbi Barry Silver may attack another (contrary) faith.