MANATEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CLERK R.B. "CHIPS" SHORE
See below.
The Second DCA just decided a case adverse to AKERMAN SENTERFITT and its client, 33-year veteran R.B. "CHIPS" SHORE, CLERK of COURTS, MANATEE COUNTY, Respondent.
We can't imagine our St. Johns County Clerk of Courts, Cheryl Strickland, behaving this way. We can't imagine why AKERMAN SENTERFITT took this case on appeal, other than to make more money for its partners from R.B. "CHIPS" SHORE, CLERK of COURTS, MANATEE COUNTY.
SHORE has already been billed nearly $10,000 by AKERMAN SENTERFITT in a case in which the Court of Appeals denied any oral argument. Mr. SHORE may spend more money on AKERMAN SENTERFITT if he decides to ask for reconsideration or permission to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.
Eschewing the rule that an appellate record is paper, SHORE and AKERMAN SENTERFITT somehow supposed that a CD-ROM sufficed.
They were wrong.
AKERMAN SENTERFITT is often wrong.
AKERMAN SENTERFITT is the band of brigands who billed our City of St. Augustine more than $200,000 for the dubious proposition that illegally-dumped solid waste dumped in our Old City Reservoir (in the African-American community of West Augustine) could somehow legally be brought back to the African-American community Lincolnville (2000 truckloads) and, mirabile ductu, turned into a "park." We paid for AKERMAN SENTERFITT's mistakes. Cleanup was required and ordered by the State of Florida after we blew apart AKERMAN SENTERFITT's smoke and mirrors. The City and State agreed that the State of Florida was right in the first place, ordering the waste -- 40,000 cubic yards of it, or enough to fill in six Olympic sized swimming pools to a depth of six feet -- deposited in a Class 1 landfill.
We're not the only ones who have paid the price for AKERMAN SENTERRFITT's corporate arrogance.
Representing corporate and government wrongdoers (like MANATEE COUNTY and our CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE), AKERMAN SNETERFITT and its stable of hired guns are often adverse to the State Attorney General, a post coincidentally coveted by longtime shareholder/partner (he says "of counsel) DANIEL SAUL GELBER.
From how many cases might DAN GELBER have to recuse himself?
That's why I've filed an Open Records Request with the AG today.
See below.
Also, in the interest of fairness, here's Mr. SHORE's press release:
Clerk Loses 2nd DCA Appeals Court Ruling for Being A Conscientious Steward of Public Funds
Thursday, July 29, 2010—As state and local budgets continue to shrink, public agencies across Florida strive to find more efficient ways to serve the public. In many cases, technology offers solutions that lower costs and minimize the complexity of previously manual processes. In March 2010, Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court, R.B. “Chips” Shore used technology to achieve both of those outcomes and has now been sued by the State of Florida’s Attorney General’s Office and the Public Defender of the Tenth Judicial Circuit.
At issue is Shore’s use of technology to provide all necessary copies of original transcripts for indigent criminal appeals. In March, the Clerk’s office began providing transcripts on CD-Rom to the Attorney General and the Public Defender. The decision to provide transcripts in electronic format is based on Administrative Order 2010-1-2 signed by the Honorable Lee Haworth, Chief Judge of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, in re: Court Reporting Plan. A portion of the plan calls for the clerk to provide copies of transcripts for indigent criminal appeals. “In all publicly-funded cases the clerk of the lower tribunal, rather than the court reporter, shall prepare all necessary copies of the original transcripts…the court reporter shall furnish electronic copies of all transcripts in Microsoft Word on a CD-Rom to the clerk…” Instead of printing out voluminous copies of the transcripts at taxpayers’ expense, Mr. Shore prepared copies of the CD-Rom provided to his office by the court reporter along with the Record on Appeal and the index of the transcript.
In response to Mr. Shore’s decision to provide electronic copies to their offices, Attorney General and the Public Defender filed a joint motion to compel the Manatee County Clerk’s office to prepare records on appeal in paper form and to maintain the status quo. They also filed a petition for writ of mandamus or emergency relief. The Attorney General and the Public Defender want paper copies for their indigent criminal clients and they want the Manatee Clerk and taxpayers to continue to bear that expense.
On June 1, 2010, Mr. Shore filed responses to both motions with the Second District Court of Appeals. In the responses he cites the statutes, rules and orders that give him the discretion and legal authority to provide copies electronically. First, the Florida Supreme Court, by administrative order, has authorized the Manatee County Clerk of Court to operate as a paperless clerk of court and has stated, “The clear policy of the Florida Supreme Court is that advances in technology should benefit the people whenever possible by lowering financial and physical barriers to public record inspection…Florida's court system as a whole is working toward the day when electronic filing of all court documents will be an everyday reality.”
Second—and consistent with the Florida Supreme Court orders—Florida Statutes governing clerks of court mandate that clerks operate electronically, and further, provide clerks of court with the option of how records are to be maintained and reproduced. In 2009, the Florida legislature mandated that clerks of court were to operate electronically no later than March 1, 2010. Last, the rules of court and appellate procedure in no way prohibit the Clerk from providing transcript copies in electronic, rather than paper, format.
Today, the Second District Court of Appeals (DCA) issued an opinion granting the petition for the writ of mandamus. Citing the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 2.535 (f)(1) and 9.140 (f)(2)(F), the DCA concludes that the Clerk is required to prepare paper copies of the transcripts for the parties. Rule 2.535(f)(1) defines the default format of a transcript as the traditional bound paper format. Rule 9.140(f)(2)(F) directs the clerk to prepare copies of the "original transcripts."
“The decision makes no sense in this age of technology and the current state of the economy. We have the pilot program from the Florida Supreme Court under which we are authorized to operate paperless, and the cost of printing transcripts on paper when they are available electronically is a waste of taxpayer dollars. While we have no choice but to comply with the decision for now, we intend to ask the Second District to certify the matter as a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court and otherwise seek Florida Supreme Court review,” says Shore.
(end of SHORE press release). No AKERMAN SENTERFITT press release.
Evidently AKERMAN SENTERFITT only runs press releases when it hires new judges and other partners, or when it succeeds in beating consumers and the enviornmental and public interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment