Another one rides the bus

I asked Horace Middlemier* to proofread this one. He thought I was being a little hard on various news-making attorneys and others. In the spirit of compromise, this post has been pre-censored to assuage lawyers' feelings everywhere. 

Al Yankovic released a parody, Another One Rides the Bus (Beechwood Music, 1980). Lamenting the crowded city bus, he complained that at stop after stop,

And another comes on,

And another comes on,

Another one rides the bus.

The bus became crowded and uncomfortable. It was a take off on the Queen classic, Another One Bites the Dust (EMI, 1980), whose more violent lyrics had victims biting "the dust" rather than "riding the bus." Each is a sound metaphorical reference to accumulation of population. 

The topic of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is back in the news; old news that is. In Plagiarism Now (February 2025), I noted that there are broad concerns about its shortcomings in the field of legal practice:

Everyone is now familiar with the hapless attorneys using AI ignorantly and lazily. They ask a large language model (LLM) to prepare a brief or memo, count on its candor and care, sign that creation, and file it with some court. They have done so ignorantly and trustingly, mistakenly and recklessly, regrettably and repeatedly. The many news stories of discipline mean no attorney can credibly express ignorance any longer.

I was so wrong. 

Various professionals have found their path to Andy Warhol's promised Valhalla of fifteen minutes of infamy. He said everyone is famous for an instant. How? From simply disrobing to scandalous product placement to irrational rants, people have done various questionable things in search of their 15 minutes in the internet age. 

The internet facilitates it, social media enables it, and our dopamine demands drive it. Ask,com published a list of questionable human tricks, but there have also been doughnut lickers, bad intriguing tattoos, questionable wardrobes, and more. The New Yorker noted that, "on the internet, we're always famous." As much as you may want to "go viral," do you want to be a meme?

In fairness, that is not a kind meme. As Horace suggested, no one is actually "stupid," that is just a pejorative; some of us merely make poor decisions sometimes, in the moment.

Nonetheless, there was a flash in the pan in 2023 with the filing of false and misleading information in court proceedings. The (mal)practice knew no categorization, lawyers new and experienced, big firms and small, asked computer programs to build them legal documents. See AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023); Mamma Always Said (June 2023). Some speculated it was novelty, others felt lawyers wanted a shortcut, and others still were not as kind. 

The news reports have been persistent. I have used Forrest Gump (Paramount, 1994 "stupid is as stupid does"), Dumb and Dumber (Universal, 1994, "According To The Map, We've Only Gone 4 Inches!"), and more to try to illustrate the fallacy and naivete of relying on AI for legal research. That has perhaps resonated with a few readers. Maybe my repetition here has saved a soul or two from complacency and embarrassment. Or, perhaps I have offended - apologies if I have hurt feelings with these observations on the fallaciousness of relying on the AI for these tasks. 

What is needed is for the perils of AI to "go viral" because apparently, there remain many lawyers who have not noticed the dangers or simply do not care.  

All this leads up to the recent report by Business Insider, noting that "AI hallucinations in court documents are a growing problem." Thus, the news coverage is not driving improvement. The problem and practice are growing, not contracting. Some might ask a lawyer filing  hallucinated authority in 2025, "how did you not know?" "What planet have you been vacationing on over the last two years?" There are educated, sophisticated lawyers who are continuing to cite AI-generated authority, despite the various news, warnings, and sanctions. 

A gentleman has now "created a public database of 120 cases in which courts found that AI hallucinated quotes, created fake cases, or cited other apparent legal authorities that didn't exist." Business Insider notes that these are the instances in which a judge or opposing party has discovered the misrepresentations. So, perhaps there are more instances?

Notably, that is not a very nice word, "misrepresentation," but as Walt Whitman noted, "simplicity is the glory of expression." See Workers' Compensation Misrepresentation Defense (February 2017); Candor to the Tribunal and Misrepresentation (April 2018); Sanctions (January 2023); Disuse Atrophy (December 2024). Imagine being found guilty of a felony for telling an untruth or providing "incomplete, or misleading information?" Section 440.105(4)(b), Florida Statutes.

There are two small solaces in perceptions of the new database: not all the uninformed lawyering is in the United States, and not all involves lawyers. There are examples cited in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Great Britain, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, and even South Africa. But the vast majority are here in the U.S., scattered among various state and federal courts. They are of varying degrees, extent, and situation. But, all are regrettable at best. 

Business Insurance says that there are many "mistakes" and, in truth, we all make mistakes. But there is support to conclude that the prevalence of attorney misrepresentations is increasing. The amount of publicity should be working this in the other direction (decreasing). Seriously, how did you not know to check the citations in your filing? what planet have you been vacationing on? To be clear, it is not a clear defense to say "my client would not pay me for the legal research that was needed."

Simple truths:

AI tools (LLMs) are not databases.

AI tools tend to rely on the most popular websites (Wikis lead most search results, and anyone can create and edit wiki entries).

AI hallucinates (makes things up).

You simply cannot rely on Artificial Intelligence to perform legal research or draft legal arguments. Use them for inspiration? for revisions? for suggestions? certainly. But using them for research and drafting is beyond dangerous. If you do, you must independently, personally (it is not a defense that the cites came from your paralegal, associate, partner, neighbor, etc.), check each case:

1. Is the citation correct - an actual case, at the volume and page cited, an actual statute in the code at the noted reference?
2. Does the cited material actually say what your filing says it says (quotes)?
3. Does the cited authority stand for the proposition you portray?
4. Has the authority been questioned, impugned, overruled, or superseded?

What a pain, right? But that is what lawyering is. It is details. It is skilled. It is human. And it requires patience, focus, and attention. 

Courts are imposing sanctions. Lawyers have been fined and even suspended. I believe a disbarment is coming. I don't know where, when, or more, but it is coming. Some lawyer is going go permanently be relieved of their license to practice. With each story that is published, it will become increasingly difficult to attribute hallucinated citations, authorities, and arguments to anything except sloth (sorry, Horace, but that particular word uniquely describes the danger). 

The BI article concludes: "Cases of lawyers or litigants that have mistakenly cited hallucinated cases has (sic) now become a rather common trope." Each lawyer must choose whether to sacrifice their credibility and name on the altar of expediency and sloth. For some reason, brother Bluto comes back to mind: "Seven years of college down the drain" (Animal House, 1978). It is something to think about.]

And another comes on,

And another comes on,

Another one rides the bus.

If you want to be internet famous, lick a donut instead. It is just as silly, but it is less permanent than a tattoo, and the path back is far more expedient.   

A compendium of my previous AI posts is on my website: https://dwlangham.com/blog-compilations

*Horace Middlemeir is not a real person, but a literary trope. Any resemblance to any real person, living or dead, is coincidental and unintentional. In this instance, the suggestions came from an everyman perspective and were welcomed feedback. 

Increased Discipline

The Florida Supreme Court entered an interesting order on May 15, 2025, in No. SC2023-0869, The Florida Bar v. Ryan Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell is a 2007 graduate of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and was admitted to The Florida Bar in 2009. 

The disciplinary proceedings followed his "plea of no contest to two criminal misdemeanors for physically assaulting his wife and throwing her cellphone into a pool." The case is interesting because of the punishment delivered by the Court and the procedural process that led to it. 

The attorney was involved in an altercation with his spouse in 2021. While "three minor children were in the home," a "physical altercation" ended with the spouse "sustain(ing) significant injuries, including a fractured nose and a black eye." The spouse's cell phone was also deposited in the pool, and the attorney departed "before law enforcement arrived."   

The altercation details are, unfortunately, too common. Healthline reports that domestic violence is significant. The determination of how significant is frustrated by "various systemic, legal, social, and emotional roadblocks to reporting." Despite this, they conclude, "domestic violence affects approximately 10 million people in the United States each year." That is a great many. 

The criminal court in this instance withheld adjudication and imposed probation that included education, "mental health evaluation," and "drug and alcohol evaluation," among other conditions. The Florida Bar instigated disciplinary proceedings, and a referee recommended a finding of guilt:

"of violating rules 3-4.3 (Misconduct and Minor  Misconduct) and 4-8.4(b) (“A lawyer shall not . . . commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.”)"

The referee noted that as of 2023, the attorney "was in full compliance with his misdemeanor probation," and recommended that the Court publicly reprimand the attorney and require "private therapy until the end of the criminal probation." 

The Florida attorney discipline system is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Thus, the Bar investigates and makes decisions about charging, a referee, usually a Circuit Judge, conducts hearings and makes recommendations, and ultimately, the Court makes decisions as to guilt and punishment.  

The Florida Bar did not agree with the referee recommendation and sought "a 90-day suspension followed by one year of probation and participation in a FLA, Inc. contract." That is Florida Lawyer's Assistance, Inc. I have known many lawyers to benefit from contact with that group. Their focus began with alcohol issues, but their team can be helpful with anything from stress to addiction. 

The Supreme Court, in this instance, did not agree with either the referee (reprimand) or the Bar (90 days). It noted that it is not bound by a recommended punishment, and that it is the Court's ultimate "responsibility to order the appropriate sanction." It noted that a public reprimand is appropriate in specific instances, but "is not applicable here" based on some specific definitions and "Standard 5.1(c)."  

The Bar has adopted Florida's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, which is "An amended version of the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions." The Court cited the ABA standards in The Fla. Bar v. Hosner, 513 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 1987), but in 1988 cited instead "to Florida's Standards for Imposing Lawyer sanctions," The Fla. Bar v. Newhouse, 520 So. 2d 25, 26 (Fla. 1988). 

Thus, those standards are long-standing, almost 40 years old. There are hundreds of citations to the Florida Standards since. The preface to the Standards notes their adoption and that "The Florida Bar will use," though leaving discretion to the Court. Perhaps it was that directive language that led the Bar to disagree with the referee here. 

It is likely that, despite reading many attorney discipline decisions, most lawyers are unaware of the Standards and how they might influence, guide, or constrain attorney discipline. They are not mentioned in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Section 3, Rules of Discipline. Nonetheless, the Standards are published on the Bar website in downloadable pamphlet form (50 pages approx.). 

In arriving at its ultimate conclusions in the present case, the Court discussed both aggravating and mitigating factors found by the referee. 

The Court noted that one mitigating factor relied on  by the referee, the payment of over $2,000 in medical bills, was "only after he was ordered to do so as a condition of his probation." Mitigation is voluntary action(s), not court-ordered actions. Furthermore, in any estimation, $2,000 is significant. The Court also noted that the mitigation overall in this case was insufficient to justify "a downward adjustment" in punishment. 

Despite the " significant showing in mitigation," the Court concluded that the "choice to commit a violent criminal act - especially one directed against his spouse" was "significant" and "cannot be sufficiently addressed through a public reprimand or tolerated in the legal profession." The decision does not seem to focus on the presence of the minor children, but one wonders about the effect this interaction had on those three lives. 

After a brief discussion of precedent, the Court imposed "a two-year rehabilitative suspension." Justice Canady dissented in part. He noted that the appropriate suspension would be "three years rather than two years." The pertinence of this decision for all lawyers is worthy of review.

1. Criminal activity is troublesome in professional and personal life. 
2. Mitigation is voluntary, not merely obeying court orders. In this vein, one might say that restitution is mitigation but not a cure.  
3. Ultimately, the Court is responsible for determining an appropriate sanction. 

This instance is worth reading. It provides insight into the Standards and their potential impact. It is a reminder that criminal activity is a broad category, well beyond the constraints of the lawyer's practice, professionalism, and capability. The rules constrain lawyer activity on a 24/7/365 basis, which is perhaps sobering. Some might say onerous. 

Finally, the decision is interesting in its distinctions on punishment. The referee recommended only illumination and embarrassment by reprimand. The Bar sought a 90-day suspension, and the Court imposed two years. Here, there is also a reminder of the importance of 90 days. The Standards, 2.2, remind:

Suspension is the removal of a lawyer from the practice of law for a specified minimum period of time. A suspension of 90 days or less does not require proof of rehabilitation. A suspension of more than 90 days requires proof of rehabilitation and may require passage of all or part of the bar examination. No suspension is ordered for a specific period of time in excess of 3 years. (Emphasis added). 

Thus, if imposed, the Bar recommendation of 90 days would have rendered the attorney eligible for readmission with no burden of proving anything beyond the passage of 90 days. The suspension for more than 90 days "requires proof of rehabilitation" and perhaps more. Any future readmission to The Florida Bar will likely involve a petition, hearing, and Court action. 

The imposition of such a significant sanction signals the perception of severity about such a situation, and the seriousness of a physical attack that caused such significant personal injury. 

There is much to ponder here indeed. 

Are I Diminishing? Am you?

The idea of losing capacity through disuse is not new. See We are Regressing (March 2025), Disuse Atrophy (December 2024), Evolution and DNA (November 2022), and Are You Innumerate? (July 2018). Any Joe Bauers can see the potential for disuse resulting in declining mental capacity. The potential is so patent it is nearly laughable.

The social media mavens have begun to post on it in force. There is a growing wave of criticism for artificial intelligence. One "detector" suggested that some of the most critical and caustic social media is perhaps written by large language models (LLMs). AI is apparently being used to criticize AI. It is almost poetic, but also a bit tragic.

I have engaged with people who resort to AI at every turn. Their suggestion for every question is "let's see what AI would say." That may be driven by curiosity. It may be encouraged by perceived efficiency. And yet, it may also be part of a spiral downward into progressive dependence in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Is it empirical? Some would conclude that the beginnings of empirical proof are surfacing. A 2025 study largely attributed to Microsoft has raised some notable findings. It is titled:

The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers

It is a somewhat challenging read, 23 pages long. Rather than read it, I clicked on the "view summary" button suggested by my web browser. I had to "agree" to the terms and conditions. Notably, there was no warning that using this AI summary creator could diminish my critical thinking skills. The warning did not even tell me which AI brand would build the summary.

The summary concluded:

"Knowledge workers engage in critical thinking primarily to ensure work quality, with motivations including enhancing quality, avoiding negative outcomes, and skill development. Barriers to critical thinking include time pressure, lack of awareness, and difficulty in improving AI responses."

And, it concluded that use of AI is impacting those of us who engage in critical thinking tasks (or who are supposed to):

"The use of GenAI tools generally reduces the perceived effort required for critical thinking tasks, especially when users have high confidence in AI capabilities. However, those confident in their own skills perceive greater effort, particularly in evaluating AI outputs."

The critical thinking demands are seemingly shifting to a new paradigm that includes "goal and query formation," "inspecting responses," and "integrating responses."

This is perhaps pulling the entire world into a greater dependence on "groupthink." Algorithms have already done this masterfully. Our Google searches drive us to information provided by the highest bidder first (those with resources can drive engagement and push perception or ideology).

Our research drives us to ideas and concepts that are the most popular - hits, likes, and more drive search engine outcomes to the ideas getting the most exposure without any regard for the value or foundation of those ideas. Where is the dissenting voice? It is too often buried on page 47 of a list of results that most of us will never venture down.

There is a long-standing draw of the easy. Many seemingly intelligent people have come to view Wikis as authoritative. Judges and courts cite such examples as Wikipedia as meaningful and sound foundations for legal decisions impacting people's lives and livelihoods. There was a time that any fool knew better than to cite such nonsense. That time is past. 

There was a time when citing such a source would draw an "F" on your term paper. I recently discussed Wiki with an academic who could see no harm in such reliance. The frog is boiling. See The Dying Professionalism (May 2025). That time is past. 

The AI-generated summary concludes that:

"Higher confidence in GenAI leads to perceived lower effort in critical thinking."

"Workers with high self-confidence perceive greater effort in evaluating AI outputs."​

"Shift from task execution to oversight is noted, with increased focus on verifying AI-generated content."

Thus, we remain driven by our critical thinking foundations. The critical thinkers are not yet ready to unthinkingly accept the AI output any more than we are confident of the input (the "prompt" or "query").

That reminded me of iRobot (20th Century Fox, 2004). There, a character is investigating a murder and following digital breadcrumbs left by the victim. The victim, through technology, is "speaking" to the investigator, but because the communication is figmental and recorded, his "responses are limited." His avatar often repeats that response/warning.

The protagonist is cautioned, "You must ask the right questions." The irony of this movie, a predictor that robots will be among us, ubiquitous, by 2035, is palpable. I suspect that it is prophetic and that, too, scares me. 

Nonetheless, there are career paths today that are about writing prompts, asking the "right" questions. There are entities that employ people to help the team ask better questions. There is a flood of social media advice on how to better ask "the right questions."

A recent example is to include "do not rely upon or cite any wiki in your response." Some suggest that this is so important that it should be included in every prompt. I question why that limitation is not hard-wired into every large language model. 

To me, it seems as simple as remembering "don't take advice from Gilligan." If you don't get that generational reference, think instead perhaps Jerry Smith from Rick and Morty, or Joey Tribbiani on Friends? Homer Simpson? If none of these make sense, paste that last sentence in an LLM prompt "what do Gilligan, Jerry Smith, Joey Tribbiani, and Homer Simpson have in common." Or write your own prompt, find your own reference point, and ask your own questions. 

The real point is that empirical proof is evolving. The use of AI is demonstrably impacting the manner in which we think, and it is very likely to impact and impair the motivation to think. As we lose motivation, can we avoid losing ability? We are focusing on the how and the when of AI, and there is some intellectual struggle with that.

Meanwhile, there are a growing number who have no thoughts or reservations about this new shortcut. They are engaging it, living it, and relying upon it. The machines are replacing human analysis, and increasingly doing so based on repetitive, brief, unthinking, and non-critical prompts or queries.

While AI may be a boon to all, I suggest again that I am far less fearful of its engagement by active minds. A 30-year physician using AI and comparing its results to her experience and training, frankly, is not overly concerning. A newly minted doctor prompting AI for diagnosis or complications based on minimal experience frankly terrifies me.

I am not picking on doctors. The same is true for the engineer, architect, accountant, lawyer, and a raft of others whose critical thinking I rely upon and value.

That said, tech is here. Today, I can almost instantly run calculations and composites with technology that took me hours to complete with a pencil years ago. I can find data with a quick Google search that used to take hours in the library. I can instantly find legal authority with search engines that used to require careful Boolean algebra queries and so much filtering. 

Are we asking the right questions?

Are we being critical in that process?

Are we being critical of the results?

Are we being honest with ourselves in evaluating all of this? 

Can we be?

Can we pass the test of using the tech without succumbing to it?

Are I diminishing?

Am you?

Do you care?

A compendium of my previous AI posts is on my website: https://dwlangham.com/blog-compilations

A Dime for Your Thoughts

When I was a kid, there was a cartoon character named Scrooge McDuck, who was Donald Duck's uncle (on his mother's side). His story lines were often related to money, and one was centered on his affinity for the first dime he ever earned, which he kept. Disney fandom describes the Number One Dime:

"The Number One Dime ... first appeared in an Uncle Scrooge comic story titled The Round Money Bin ... (September 1953). In this story, the dime is so old that it has become thin as a razor blade and allows Scrooge to cut binding ropes"

That is one thin dime! A dime back then (1953) might purchase a thing or two. In today's money that value would be about $1.20. Some years after 1953, in my youth, there were vending machines from which a dime might yield a handful of candy or some useless toy in a plastic globe. Today, not much value in a dime. It may be as antiquated as a penny, but just more popular?

Thoughts of the venerated dime came back when I recently ran into an intriguing notice on a sandwich counter during a trip out of state. This state provides a 1% sales tax reduction for people who are over 85 years old. I am a big fan of the old folks, and though not at the 85-year-old mark yet, I aspire to it. It makes some sense to take good care of the folks who have made it through this life, contributing so much to our society, wisdom, success, and experience.

But then I paused. 1%? So, the sandwiches at that shop were reasonably priced. A sandwich with chips or fries averaged about $11.00. So, 1% of that is about $.11, essentially a dime. An 85-year-old has to be buying for "personal use," presumably not for the whole family, must specifically ask for the dime, and must present proof of age to qualify for the dime. For a dime?

What had first struck me as a nice gesture to the seasoned citizen crowd seemed less sincere after doing that math. If an 85-year-old manages to get to a restaurant to purchase a sandwich, they could save a dime! I know a few in that population. 

They are the "Silent Generation," an unfortunate and untrue characterization. They were not the "Greatest Generation," did not save the world from Hitler, but they build a largely lasting peace that has persevered since 1945. They had a Greatest foundation, and brought us the Boomers. In truth, they were anything but Silent.

How might we thank them? It is unlikely that many of them are eating out regularly. That generation tended to cook at home. As notably, there are few of them remaining. Some estimate only about 6 million in the U.S., about 1.9% of the population. This is not a big sandwich shop demographic. 

What would be more appropriate than a dime? Perhaps a simple "thank you" once in a while? Holding a door at the store, or pulling a cart free to offer? How about just a smile and greeting when you happen upon one of them in your day? It is certain that a few could use the dime, but more certain they would value your smile, kindness, and greeting far more. 

Now that I write this, it occurs to me that would be true of most any member of any generation. A dime? The smile and greeting are worth a thousand dimes and more. Think about it as you travel through your day. 

 

Impaired Driving

Impaired driving remains in the news. It is amazing to me that decades pass, laws pass, and victims pass, but the impaired driver perseveres. While the first DUI arrest was in the 19th century, the real war on DUI started in the late 1970s and became a force in the mid-1980s, according to History.

courtesy https://www.uber.com/ca/en/u/reasons-to-ride/

The efforts and recriminations of course started with drunk drivers. The whole "MADD" movement was focused on DD - Drunk Drivers. But impairment, we know, can come from a variety of chemicals. See Misinformation and Misdirection (July 2024), and the posts cited there. The challenges of pot are discussed in Pot, Impairment, and Car Crashes (July 2017). None of this is new. 

In 2022, I noted that impaired driving was destined for the scrap heap of history, along with so many of our challenges. See Safety is Coming (March 2022). Of course, the other coming tools like self-driving cars are of significant import also. Nero May Be Fiddling (April 2017).

Nonetheless, the issue remains. And, the predicted presence of impairment detectors in 2026 vehicles looms over our present (the new model year will begin in 6 months). That is not to say there cannot be some "pause," but as yet . . ..

The news in 2025 has been surprisingly quiet regarding these devices. They are intended to keep your car from functioning if the sensor concludes that you are not functioning. Truth About Cars reported in February 2025 that "kill switches" have been on the mind this year. There is some feeling that a legislative "walkback" may be in the works.

The Truth article provides interesting history on the topic as well as a comparison with the EeeeYew and their conclusions. See also The Eeeeyew Says What (December 2024). The folks across the pond have periodically influenced our decisions and lives.

Despite the European (EU) trend, Truth concludes that "more U.S. legislators are coming out against the premise." Nonetheless, the auto industry is installing cameras to watch us driving and could connect with those cars later to implement an impairment detector process through a software update.

In the midst of this, the New York Legislature is debating whether to make impaired driving a crime there. No, not drunk driving, impaired driving. CBS News reports that a loophole exists in New York.

There, it is illegal to drive drunk. If you have doubts, message Justin Timberlake, and he will explain the law to you. In fact, some believe that New York is a leader in DUI arrests. A 2024 report says there were 22,000 arrests there in one recent year.

The loophole? People charged with "driving while impaired by drugs" see their charges dismissed. In New York, it is not enough that the person driving is impaired, the state has to prove what substance has impaired them. If the state does not figure out what chemical it is and prove that the chemical is on its prohibited list, then the driver "cannot be charged with drugged driving."

This does not make impaired driving legal. It merely makes the enforcement mechanism nearly useless. It works if the vehicle driver names the substance they used or if there is blood testing to make a finding. 

Nevertheless, the loophole does make drug-impaired driving all the more dangerous. Whether New York changes its law and prevents further tragedy, there is the potential that the Panic-era federal law on vehicles and detectors will proceed next October and invade all of our privacy. This may disable the impaired driver's car, but will not change the situation with New York's chemical identification requirement.

Does it matter what impairs the driver? Should we treat exhaustion differently from alcohol? Should we treat alcohol differently from drugs? Is impairment alone sufficient?

The conflict between detecting the impaired and invading the privacy of everyone in a car is intriguing and troubling. The idea of drugged driving being excused while drunk driving is prosecuted is the same. The problems are worthy of consideration, but so is the outcome and consequences of bill drafting and clarity.

Littering?

Arlo Guthrie has been here before. He was a balladeer of the 1960s and is perhaps best known for Alice's Restaurant. The tune is epically long, though not even close to the longest, see Progress Depends on Definition (May 2025).

I have referenced Alice's for its thoughts on groupthink, Thanksgiving, and more. See Why Can't We Be Friends (August 2019); and Kids' Chance, an Organization, a Movement (November 2016). A twenty-minute song will yield many usable points. 

Nonetheless, The Massacree (Alice's) is about garbage. The Bumped Knee Massacree (November 2015). You see, the troubles Arlo and his friends encountered that fateful Thanksgiving all arose when they found the dump closed and elected to throw their garbage in a ditch.

Their logic was perhaps impeccable. They happened upon the pile of garbage in a ditch:

"And we decided that one big pile is better than two little piles, and rather than bring that one up we decided to throw our's down."

The song proceeds to tell the story of their arrest, interactions with the judge, and Arlo's conviction as a "litterbug." One irony is that the local constable, "Officer Obie" caught Arlo because he "found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half-ton of garbage." 

When questioned about the envelope, Arlo admits only, "I put that envelope under that garbage." Wit, sarcasm, admission? I was reminded of Alice, Arlo, and the Massacree again recently when litter stories appeared in my news feed. I shall never understand the science of algorithms generally, nor why suddenly I am getting trash stories (no pun intended). 

KTSM El Paso made the national feed with the arrest of A 61-year-old woman ... charged with illegal dumping." She allegedly disposed of 100 cubic feet of trash. That is about the same as the interior room of a small sedan (though the car rental companies would tell you it is "full size," but I digress.

The arresting deputies found "two large piles of trash." From this, they "collected evidence" and filed charges. The accused faces "up to one year in jail, a fine of $4,000, or both" for this "serious crime." It never occurred to me that littering was a police focus.

A Google search suggests that it is, in West Virginia ("bags of trash"), in New York ("24 tons of concrete"), Mississippi, and even in Florida ("3,000 pounds of trash"). The police captain in Jackson, Mississippi, promised, "We will track you down, we will find you, and we will hold you accountable for your actions here in the city of Jackson." 

Ah, "Officer Obie's" kin no doubt, sifting for that incriminating envelope? Fingerprinting the empty soda cans? 

That is somewhat intriguing. CBS News reports that "roughly four in 10" killings in Jackson, Mississippi, go unsolved. The story notes that "Jackson suffers from one of the highest murder rates in the country." That said, they are deeply committed to finding and holding litterbugs accountable.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation notes that perhaps only about "17.2 percent of property crimes were cleared by arrest." An amazing 83% of property crime goes unsolved? And yet, there is time to search for litterbugs.

There are degrees of criminality. That is not to excuse or minimize anyone's suffering. Certainly, I would be perturbed if the litterbugs visited my property to make a deposit, even if it were not a ton or two. And yet, one might be more upset if their property were stolen, or a loved one were killed.

There is, perhaps, in the broad spectrum of criminality, some room for a sense of proportion? Perhaps more of the property crimes and murders might be solved with the resources currently devoted to tracking litterbugs, or to news conferences about tracking litterbugs?

The critics in the gallery are screaming and pulling their hair by this point. Where's the workers' compensation in this post? Well, Virginia, there is room for proportionality in all things. The point here is prioritization, and this post is for those who struggle with it. No, I am not advocating littering or ignoring those who do.  

That said, you may spend all day searching for your favorite paper clip. You can rationalize your affinity, rip apart your office, and call each of your friends who may have seen it. You can fret, frustrate, and chase rabbits down holes. That paper clip can be pursued to the end of the earth. But, really, why not just throw a staple in that stack and move on? 

Too often, particularly with the younger professionals, I see examples of undue focus on the trivial. They run themselves to ground looking for, complaining about, and prognosticating on that clip. This distraction eats minutes, hours, and days. They find themselves overstressed and without the necessary time for critical tasks, reflection, growth, and learning. 

With experience comes the ability and perhaps the willingness to Let It Go (Frozen, Disney, 2013 - "turn away and slam the door"). Young professionals need to accept that each day will only afford 24 hours, 1,440 minutes, 86,400 seconds. How many of them will you spend chasing the litterbug (paperclip, etc.), Office Obie? 

Each minute you do, that is a minute you don't accomplish something real. Real could be a big project at work, a meal with someone you love, or silent time lying in the grass staring at clouds. 

You decide. I did a long time ago, and "the cold never bothered me anyway!"

Is the Evidence is Coming to Light?

If I had a nickel for every time someone has told me that dope is harmless, I would be living on the Queen Mary, tied to the quay here in Paradise. I have heard so many assurances that weed should be legalized because it is so good and can do no harm. 

Some contend that smoking it is riskless - "cannabis smoking doesn’t 'impair lung function” and even “increase(s) lung capacity.'” WebMD says that "marijuana smoke has many of the same harmful substances as tobacco and often more of them." Some researchers have noted decreased lung function in marijuana smokers. Who is right?

More broadly, overdose has been a problem with other substances. The stories have been noted here time and again. We have been focused on prescription opioids, Fentanyl, and even Nitazenes. See Nitazenes are Worse (June 2024), and the posts cited there. That post noted that 2023 brought some decrease in deaths, only 107,543 overdose deaths. Only. 

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported in February 2025 that the figures for 2024 are more encouraging. They believe we may see a 24% decline for 2024 (this is based on "provisional data," and if it is confirmed, this will be great news indeed. Perhaps we could get our annual overdose deaths lower than the annual Russian war dead in Ukraine (45,287 in 2024)? 

The overall numbers are important, but there is more to unpack on the National Vital Statistics site. No matter how you unpack it, drug overdose currently kills about twice as many people as the war in Ukraine kills Russians. Sobering. See Desensitized to Death (August 2020). To make it clearer, our American drug deaths each year are more than we lost in the entire Vietnam conflict, over 20 years. Sobering indeed.

But the dope proponents persist in their mantra of safety. They proclaim that marijuana cannot harm, and that it never has. That said, a kid in Colorado ate a cookie that did not agree with him. New Testing for Marijuana (April 2016), See also Edibles and Illness (November 2023). 

In Fort Smith Arkansas, a couple will soon be tried for child endangerment. Their toddler was hospitalized after an alleged THC overdose. In fairness, THC can come from various sources, pot is only one. The child reportedly suffered "acute respiratory failure and secondary THC poisoning due to overdosing on THC." The "unresponsive toddler was flown to Arkansas Children's hospital." Four of five children in that home "Tested positive for THC."

Perhaps the fans of pot and other THC sources can assuage their conscience with singularity. This is but one child. So, much like the cookie discussed above, perhaps we can just look the other way and pretend that examples are rare?

Some public health officials have warned that "overdose is real." An Ohio student overdosed on THC last October. Two Middle Schoolers in Jacksonville last November. A man in the drug capital of "anything goes" overdosed on THC in January. A Pennsylvania toddler did in January. A young child in Georgia did in April.  An Indiana student did in April. A student who thought they were using THC actually got hospitalized for Fentanyl recently. 

The examples were not hard to find. In fact, there are many instances in which dope and derivatives poison people. There are significant overdose statistics. The decriminalized pot is just another path to problems for people and society. 

Why is this coming to light now? There was a long period when little, if any, testing or research was done on dope. There was little reason to study something that was (is) patently illegal. I have said it time and again, it is still illegal. But the states decided not to prosecute people for having or using, and the federal government has stood by. 

The substances are all around us, in weed, edibles, and cocktails. You can obtain illegal weed and derivatives through the mail or a the mall. It has quickly become ubiquitous. 

Will the innocent continue to encounter it? Almost inevitably. Will research catch up and answer the questions about potential harms to the lungs or more? Time will tell. Will pot ever go away? That is clearly a no, but it may find a path to taxation like tobacco before it. Those who sell it may find their fortunes similar to big tobacco, but not today.  

Big Data - Not Infallible

There are mathematical equations processing information about our every moment. Algorithms have become an ubiquitous part of our daily lives, powering everything from facial recognition on your smartphone to predicting what websites and advertisers might appeal to your current needs. These predictive computer programs are being used to observe and assess you persistently, perhaps without you noticing. 

In their most fundamental form, they are merely instruction sets that provide processes and procedures for computers. They perform some preset degree of analysis and prompt their next action or reaction. The algorithm is not "thinking," but it is completing tasks relying on these programming instructions. Because it does so rapidly, it might be perceived as thinking. 

This is not artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence is beyond algorithms; it is reliant on algorithms and intertwined with algorithms. Nonetheless, AI is a much larger concept. Algorithms, instructions, tell machines what and how to do.  That is referred to as "top down," in the same spirit as you instructing a child how to do something. Algorithms are often that "top-down" instruction.

AI is a much broader construct that has been described conversely as "bottom up" and is more akin to children playing unsupervised. The children will learn from experience. They will gather many successes and failures, and will learn, acclimate, and assimilate those lessons. 

Neither approach is perfect, nor even approaching perfection. The failure potential was recently illustrated by the Spanish police, who use an algorithm to analyze data and predict risk. Their process involves a 35-question inquiry into the situation of people alleging domestic violence. This includes:

"the abuse and its intensity, the aggressor's access to weapons, his mental health and whether the woman has left, or is considering leaving, the relationship."

The computer then assesses these variables and reaches a conclusion as to whether the risk or threat is actionable. 

This was reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently, regarding the complaints of Lina, who sought police protection and a restraining order in January. The algorithm predicted that she faced a "medium risk" of violence, and the restraining order was denied. Shortly thereafter, she was dead. 

The BBC notes that the program in use in Spain, the "VioGen" is similar to programs in use elsewhere. It notes various processes and programs that similarly strive to tease out particulars and details, which are then considered in a big picture process. In this way, various potential facts are assigned weight or significance. and the overall quotient, average, product or result is produced. 

Fans of the algorithm claim that this efficiently manages information to allow effective allocation of resources and reaction. There is significant faith in the algorithm output, with the police relying on its conclusions "95% of the time" in Spain. Nonetheless, there is acknowledgment that the technology fails, as it did with Lina. 

Lesson one today - computer programs are not perfect. 

Beyond that, there is the potential for humans to fail. The BBC reports that the restraining order recommendation from VioGen is only part of what each judge reviews in making a decision about restraining orders. The judge may grant an order for someone at "low risk" or may deny one for someone at "high risk." 

That is critical - the computer is assessing, measuring, quantifying,  and reporting. A human is making critical decisions. 

That will remain true regarding any software. Event the relatively simple Grammarly that is signaling me as I write this. It finds fault, makes suggestions, and proposes rewrites (it did not notice the first word of this sentence should be "even," not "event"). I accept some, reject others, and frankly do not comprehend still others. It is influencing me, but I am writing this. 

Today, the technology exists for analyzing data as never before. Programs are capable of addressing incredible volumes of data points and producing amazingly rapid output. Despite our progress, the speed and sophistication continue to increase. 

With the advent of AI, this is now possible with either "top-down" or "bottom-up" analysis, either of which will produce results, outcomes, and conclusions. Thus, it is possible to analyze a problem or simply search vast data to find a problem. 

And each process may produce highly relevant, pertinent, and persuasive conclusions. Or, each may produce junk. Each may be exemplary or worthless. 

In the end, it was a judge who assessed the risk to Lina. Lesson two today - humans are imperfect, their choices will be imperfect, and while machines will help us, they will not make us perfect. 

The judge in Lina's case was a human relying on apparently the best technology available, and the data it produced. The outcome of this interrelationship will draw criticism and introspection. The micro-outcome here will be assessed against the perceived macro-usefulness or effectiveness. 

We have to consider Mitch Ratcliffe. See AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023), Cybersecurity 2021 and WCI (May 2021), $11 Billion (December 2023); and Everybody Wake Up (October 2024).

This is pertinent in the workers' compensation world because big data has been part of this community for years. There are a multitude of programs currently assessing the potential of various elements, indicators, and predictors. Algorithms and AI are predicting the likelihood of requiring surgical intervention, the probable duration of disability, the likely permanent impairment and future medical costs, and more. 

The day of the machine is not dawning; we are merely awakening to its presence. As we do, the two lessons here will be critical touchstones. Because of them, the presence of both computers and the human touch will remain co-equal and critical, intertwined, and necessary. 

Professor Jack O'Donnell

All too often these days, I receive word of someone passing. The most recent will not be known to many of my readers; he was an instructor at Pensacola Junior College (PJC - n\k\a Pensacola State College, PSC) when I began teaching there in 2003. His name was Jack O'Donnell, and I was fortunate to have known him. 

He was an argumentative soul when it came to the law. We had many conversations and disagreements about the law over the years. I learned that he simply liked to debate. No matter the perspective I took on a news story about the law, he would usually take a contrary posture. I suspect I knew where his heart was, so I tended to take "his" side on topics so he would have to champion the opposite. It did not slow him down any. Our best debates were about the Constitution and torts. I know nothing of Criminal Law, and that was his forte. 

He shared an office with Dr. Hightower, who was the program coordinator. The two of them had essentially started the PJC Legal Assistant Program that later became the PSC Paralegal Program. In my very limited teaching career, I have instructed over 1,000 students, usually one class per semester. Dr. Hightower and O'Donnell taught two or three classes each semester for decades. I cannot imagine the lives they each touched over the almost four decades they spent there. 

Dr. O'Donnell was a fixture at PSC when I arrived. He had "officially" retired that year after twenty years in the Paralegal program. His career before that had been in the Judge Advocate General's office, from which he retired as a Captain, U.S.N. He told some great stories about his time in the Navy, the bureaucracy, intricacies, and challenges. At times, he delved into stories of intrigue and politics that were astounding. I will remember him as someone who always had an anecdote at hand. 

I will forever remember him keeping a box of rocks at his desk. You read that right. He would periodically take the box to class with him and set it on the table in front of the class. When he could not get a response from the students, or was not satisfied with their thought process in an answer, he would walk over and listen to the silent box of rocks. The message was unspoken and yet so clear. I suspect that would not be tolerated today, but he was an icon and it was perhaps still a different age. 

Another example of "not today," Dr. O'Donnell would sometimes hand back tests or papers to the students with a form attached. He would obtain these from another department on campus, one that trained for a different career path that he saw as less lofty or intellectual than the law. So, the student would see their disappointing grade and have handy an application for a different department. He did not mean for them to leave, but he meant for them to understand this was an intellectual and challenging curriculum. Suffice it to say that he did not hold back. That message was likewise crystal clear. 

He had an affinity for the U.S. Supreme Court decision on defamation that involved an adult publication. He professed confusion as to why he was not allowed to bring his copy of the offending parody to class to show his students. In truth, he got it. Nonetheless, he liked to raise the prohibition in driving discussions of First Amendment, defamation, and more. He loved debating the Constitution. 

I remember filling in for Jack in a Criminal Law class years ago. I presented and opened with "I understand we are on chapter __ today." I launched into the lecture only to be interrupted by a student who said "we have been here __ weeks, and you can just assume we know nothing of Criminal Law." That led to a conversation where I learned that they harbored some frustration that Dr. O'Donnell offered them only examples, anecdotes, and stories. 

Those students wanted mantras, recipes, checklists, and facts. They wanted to memorize and regurgitate. Dr. O'Donnell was trying instead to get them to analyze, think, and process. There is memorization in the law, but the real task is thinking, organizing, and arguing. I suspect those students knew more than they ever thought, if they were listening. 

Jack O'Donnell was 94 years old. He had taught at the college until SARS-CoV-2, when he was 88 or 89 years old. I hope I am still teaching when I reach that mark. I enjoyed his company, anecdotes, and stories. I admired his longevity, persistence, and personality. He was a character, and the world needs those. Godspeed Jack. 

Night Court

There is some debate about provenance, but several famous actors have been credited with "Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.” (Some say: Gregory Peck, Jack Lemmon, Edmund Gwenn, and the list goes on). Regardless of who said it, there is a ring of truth. Anyone who ever told a joke knows this. Some punchlines land where you intended, and others just hover in the room and stink.

That said, humor in the legal profession is infinitely more difficult. Sure, there are those who go there. See Laugh and World Laughs with You (August 2019), Humor and Failure (August 2022); Science or Art (November 2023), and Funny or Offensive (October 2022). Humor persists in the judicial world, but it is literally in the ear of the beholder.

Hollywood has certainly made humorous references about the judiciary. The characters in examples such as Boston Legal (20th Century, 2004-2008), From the Hip (Lionsgate, 1987), My Cousin Vinny (20th Century, 1992), and more have made light of the legal system and judges. 

Perhaps the most glaring caricature was Judge Stone from Night Court (Warner Bros. 1984-1992). The character was irreverent, and both told jokes and performed magic tricks in first-appearance court. Fandom describes the character as displaying "zany antics and (a) goofball sense of humor." The show was popular. That said, it was Hollywood. Is "goofball" something to be sought?

The topic of judicial humor returned to my focus on reviewing allegations pending against a judge regarding humor. The Qualification Commission has alleged that some attempts at humor "were wholly inappropriate, undignified, or discourteous." It has recommended a judge's suspension for the comments, and the case remains pending. In the allegations, any judge may find guidance and instruction. 

My point here is not to suggest any conclusion regarding the allegations; that is for the Supreme Court. Instead, the reader is encouraged to consider the quoted material that follows from the beholder's perspective suggested. In view of the broadest constraint or interpretation, would the reasonable person find the comments funny? (Think Jimmy Stewart, perhaps.)

Important in this regard, the "broadest" of the constraints in the ABA Model Code is likely Canon 1: "shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." This is in Canon 2 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct. The challenge is that this precludes more than misfeasance, it precludes what others might perceive as misfeasance - back to the beholder.

Upon hearing the alleged jokes, what does the reasonable observer perceive, conclude, or believe? The following are from the Notice of Formal Charges filed by the Qualifications Commission. 

Coincidentally, the accused judge referenced Night Court: "...I’m thinking about doing some night court,” in possible reference to the popular show, its antics, and atmosphere. 

While the entertainment value of a show that runs eight seasons may be hard to deny, one might nonetheless question whether that Hollywood perspective portrays a judiciary in which we see dignity, and in which the public would have confidence. The Preamble to the Florida Code stresses "respect," "honor," trust," and charges judges to "strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system."

The following excerpts are offered for the reader's consideration and conclusions: 

"in response to being informed that a litigant is expecting the birth of three children, you laughingly mock the litigant who was expecting three children with different women, exclaiming, 'Ok, you've been busy. You were just shooting all over the place! That’s good, do you know their names? First and last? Romantic are you? Don’t tell Susie about Jane don’t tell Jane about Mary God bless you man. One’s enough.'” 

"Later in the proceeding you tell the defendant that you are going to put him on pretrial release, “I’m going to order that you wear a condom at all times. For your own good, Ok?! Probation is going to check. No, I’m kidding. I’m kidding.” 

"you tell the defendant that he has been assigned a new attorney from the Public Defender’s Office. You laughingly instruct the defendant, 'You are going to get a new attorney: Ms. [female attorney] She’s going to reach out to you, Ok? Don’t get her pregnant.'” 

"while presiding over the matter involving State v. Georgia Smith, you begin singing a song about 'Sweet Georgia,' and you tell the defendant, 'You’re supposed to say ‘peachy’. How you doin’ Georgia? Peachy!' While the attorneys are discussing the status of the case, you continue to sing, ‘She gets her peaches down in Georgia’. ‘You get your weed in California.’" 

"You play music from your phone while presiding over court proceedings. For example: ... on August 15, 2024, you played music from your phone for over 80 seconds, which you referred to as the 'song of the day.' (asking those present to guess the title of the song). 

"you referenced and quoted extensively from a comedy sketch that makes fun of gay people. Laughing, and in a mocking voice you say, 'Marlon Wayans—In Living Color. Two snaps and a sweater! He likes it when the Oilers play the Packers! He used to be a tight end! Now he’s a wide receiver. Oh, that’s bad. Court reporter in the sky, please! Strike that from the record!'” 

"While presiding over the August 15, 2024 hearing you said, 'Spring is here, I got so excited I wet my plants' and 'What did the shirt say to the pair of pants? Wassup britches!' 

"While presiding over first appearances on October 15, 2023, you: ... chided a defendant that she did not own the Broward mall, ... to which she replied, 'Yes I do, sir.' Ordering a mental health evaluation, you called the next case and joked to those in attendance that you should have asked for a discount.” 

"In a bond proceeding, the defendant’s attorney jokingly said, 'I gotta tell you judge, in the history of kidnappings, this would be the first time someone gets kidnapped and taken to a strip club...' You laughingly replied, 'J was about to say, I think there’s a long list of husbands who have claimed exactly that in the past. We’ve all been taken against our will.'” 

"presiding over a felony criminal docket ... 'J was watching Nova last night... there was a story about a king who was only 12 inches tall. He wasn’t much of a king, but he made a great ruler.' Nobody laughed, and a person present told you they had an update for you on a case." 

"After addressing that update, you laughingly chided the person that they 'kind of glazed over the joke. It was a great joke. Mr. [attorney] is all business when he gets in here. All business.'” 

"You then tell the person that if he 'had hair we would get you a mullet. Business up front, party in the rear.'” 

"Addressing a female attorney, you tell her that she has 'the glow of private practice on [her] face.'” 

"While taking a plea of guilty from a defendant ... you asked ... if he was under the influence of any alcohol or prescription medication. The defendant replies, 'No, sir.' You say, 'I’m gonna move on and accept that answer even though I have my doubts.' When the defendant asks what you mean, you laughingly ask him, 'Do you drink Courvoisier?' When the defendant asks you to repeat yourself, you say, 'Nothing' and laughed." 

"While presiding over a felony criminal docket on July 22, 2024 ...  During a pause in proceedings, you ask an attorney 'Are you a fan of the Flintstone’s Mr. [attorney present]? It’s one of the most popular shows in the world. They don’t like it in Dubai though. I don’t know, but the people of Abu Dhabi do.'” 

"While presiding over the case of State v. Gregory Jacques, you laughingly joke, 'Mr. Jacque’s case is making me remember one of the best defendant’s names ever. Guys name was Jacques Drapp. Remember that one...?' There is no record of any (such) defendant ..."

"While discussing the issuance of multiple capias warrants, you inform the attorneys and court staff present that the 'correct plural form of capias is capiai...It’s the plural. Octopi. It’s just like octopus. You don’t say - well, I’m not even going to say it.'” 

"While presiding over a felony criminal docket on July 24, 2024: ... 'My neighbor got one of those chair lifts. I offered her twenty dollars for a ride. I think she’s gonna take me up on it. Try not to step on it, Mr. [attorney present in court]. We’re supposed to be working together here.'” 

"M's. [attorney present in court], good morning. That headband is not nearly as colorful as some of the ones you have been wearing this week. Little bit of a letdown, I’m not gonna lie. You look very nice, I’m just teasing.” 

“I called the incontinence hotline. They told me to hold.” 

“Mr [attorney present in court] is aghast.” “You heard about the new movie about diarrhea? It’s running all week.” 

“J watched iRobot... maybe we'll slow down on all this AI. stuff. Cause, I mean, I don’t know if [prosecutor] is a real person, or an automaton that’s been sent here to convict people."

"Addressing the case of ... a homeless person without a fixed address, who had allegedly violated her probation by failing to be at her registered address and failing to check in for days, you criticized the probation officer who had filed the report. You said that this case was 'annoying,' and 'this is a case of an officer taking things to an extreme level. ... It just creates a disparate system of justice where somebody who is 'homeless can’t be put on a probation situation because of an anal-retentive probation officer.'”

"You then denounced the probation officer." 

"While discussing the return of a defendant’s firearm at the completion of his case, you remarked, 'We are a country with a dru-gun addiction problem. And I hate it. But it’s the law. So, I enforce it.'” 

"While presiding over the case of Yahaira Torres, you lambasted an Assistant Public Defender over her personal political views. In response to her client’s answer that Joe Biden was President of the United States, APD Lucia Scatamacchia made a comment. You exclaimed, 'Unfortunately?! ‘Unfortunately’ did you say Ms. Scatamacchia? The greatest president, arguably we’ve ever had in our history?! The number one economy we ve ever had?! The stock market over 4,000? Did you really say- Are you a MAGA? Oh my goodness! Oh my gawd. Thank God you’re going to Dade County.'”

"After conducting an ad hoc competency evaluation of the defendant, you continued, 'Next, I’m putting Ms. Scatamacchia under oath. I think there are serious questions about her competency now. Oh, my goodness gracious.'” 

"Later, while making legal findings of the defendant’s competency and accepting her guilty plea, you state, 'J find she is alert, oriented, cognizant of these proceedings and the consequences thereof. I find that she does not agree with Ms. Scatamacchia regarding our current president.'” 

"Later that day you continued to mock the beliefs of Assistant Public Defender Lucia Scatamacchia who had been in your courtroom with clients earlier that day. To an open courtroom you declared, 'Off the record, I am still reeling from Scatamacchia this morning. How can she- how can she MAGA AND a Public Defender? These things are mutually exclusive Oh my goodness gracious, that blew me away. All right, back on the record now.'” 

"While presiding over a felony criminal docket on July 31, 2024: 'I’m alittle bit down. A good friend of mine worked for Pepsi for 30 years. He just got laid off. He tested positive for coke.'” 

"While advising a defendant that she would have to get approval to travel, you joked that, '...in Hawaii it is illegal to laugh loudly? You have to keep it to aloha. A-lo-ha. Ma’am have a seat and think about that joke for a while. You’re going to be fingerprinted and meet with probation before you leave.'” 

"Jokingly referring to a court staff member who had returned to your courtroom as 'Peaches.' 'I’m Herb. Peaches and Herb.' Later you tell her, 'Don’t leave me Peaches. We just got reunited here.' And later, 'Thanks, Peaches.'

"In response to an attorney’s question, '[Do] they not trust you with the first-degree felonies,' you responded, 'Guess not. The dad jokes don’t go well in murder cases, you know. It’s a little disconnect there. ...I’ve turned down four times moving up. I like it here. This is the people’s court. ...I’m thinking about doing some night court.'” 

“And your pants match! You've got gully (ph) bear pants too! Look at that.” 

"While attorneys were discussing the status of an outstanding warrant with you, you interrupted saying, 'Hold on a second. I can’t focus. I- I’m distracted by Mr. [attorney present in court’s] socks. ...from here, she looks like one of the kids on Despicable Me. That’s what I thought they were.'” 

“Mr. [attorney present in court] is that grinding sound I hear the gears in your brain working?” 

“Excuse me the deputy twins just walked in. You're going to hurt somebody with those eyelashes, girl. Gotta be careful giving a hug. Not unless its someone you want to let go of, either.” 

“Mr. [attorney present in court] go to law school.” 

“My [court] notes are like Shakira’s hips. They don’t lie.” 

"Addressing whether a defendant qualified for a sentence enhancement as a violent offender, you commented: 'Habitual Offender? You see her smile?'” 

"While attempting to persuade the prosecutor to provide a more favorable outcome for a defendant, you remarked, 'So State, you guys, please. He had a marijuana card. It was expired at the time of the accident. Can we please get a down charge?'” 

"Later, discussing the same case, you tell the prosecutor, 'Really a down charge would be appropriate- if not a nolle prose.'” 

“Z think Tavares is our highest-ranking platinum club member. I think he has got more cases and more appearances in this court than anybody.” 

When addressing a defendant named Lamour, you began singing, “My Cherie A’more.” 

The examples are worthy of review and consideration. The constraints of the Code and the encouragement of the Preamble to the Florida Code: "respect," "honor," trust," and "strive(ing) to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system" will perhaps each be considered. 

Updated 05.15.25: Florida judge suspended from bench after reportedly telling ‘G-rated dad jokes’ in court.