Congrats to Detra Shaw-Wilder. The judges voted today and she emerged victorious.
Detra frequently participates in panel discussions on complex litigation matters and trial skills programs. She is currently Chairperson of the Business Litigation Committee of the Florida Bar Business Law Section and Vice President of the University of Miami Law Alumni Association. Detra is a past Board Member and Region XI Director for the National Bar Association. She is also a member of the Federal Grievance Committee for the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida and previously served on the Florida Bar Grievance Committee for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida.
Detra is passionate about community involvement and is involved in several charitable organizations and is a co-founder of the Kozyak Minority Mentoring Foundation. Outside of the practice of law, Detra is a dedicated sports mom and enjoys spending time on the soccer pitch or track field watching her two teenage kids participate in sports.
17 comments:
Congratulations 🎈🎊🎉
Detra is as good as it gets. This is tremendous news for the district.
Congratulations Federal Magistrate Judge!
Congratulations!
Congrats to her!
Great news!
They got this pick right. She’s great.
So sad she had to settle for Magistrate when she is much much mich more qualified than the majority of Dostrict Judges nominated in the last few years! Congratulations. None the less, hopefully she isn't assigned to a nut!
LOL. What an asshole comment. Do you even know how Magistrate Judges are selected? And it’s Magistrate Judge, not Magistrate. What’s Dostrict?
Yeah...most don't realize that they spend a couple of years being do-boys and girls for the District Court Judges' pet projects. Oooh, someone got their feelings hurt, probably a Magistrate Judge, whose Duty Court day ran past the noon hour.
@8:24pm there’s really no need to be so nasty in response to someone’s comment. You hurl an insult, question the poster’s intelligence, and then mock a typo. Just, why? So you don’t agree, awesome. Why not just say that and why.
No offense to Detra Shaw-Wilder, but 28 USC § 631 et seq is a lawless, unconstitutional, abomination of the judicial power of the United States established by Article III. A US Magistrate Judge is a lawyer hired for a short term, usually 4 or 8 years, which term is renewable if the hired lawyer pleases the boss, the Article III judges in the district court where the hired lawyer is employed. Judicial independence is out the window, far more so that the senior status Article III judges who get assigned cases by the chief district court judge. Just keeping it real.
Interesting comment (namely, that 28 USC s. 631 et seq. is "unconstitutional"). It prompted me to do some early-morning Westlaw research. LOL. SCOTUS seems to disagree with you (at least with regard to some of the provisions), for what it's worth. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980). And parties and the district court must comply with its provisions. See PB Legacy, Inc. v. Am. Mariculture, Inc., 104 F. 4th 1258 (11th Cir. 2024) (holding that unless the parties consent, a magistrate judge can't preside constitutionally over a trial).
RE: "And parties and the district court must comply with its provisions" LOL
In my civil litigation with Google, I gave notice under FRCP 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) that I did not consent to proceedings by a U.S. Magistrate Judge. US Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens ignored that, and entered an adverse order. That is why I call it "unconstitutional". SCOTUS routinely makes mistakes, and not only in big cases like Dred Scott or Korematsu.
In the American justice system, judges matter most, not the rule of law. The judge in a case is far more important than the law. A good judge will sanction prosecutorial misconduct. The rest either look away, or engage with malice aforethought. Especially judges who are former prosecutors presiding over cases being prosecuted by their former colleagues. But that is another topic.
You may disagree, fine. But the American people know it, and elected DJT, who was convicted of 34 felonies, or perhaps guilty of one misdemeanor repeated 34 times, or maybe not guilty at all. That's the difference a judge makes. Judge Merchan or Judge Cannon.
Regarding Lammens, check his application for the job, his juvie record.
What was the "adverse order"? The statute is clear what kinds of "pretrial matters" district judges may (and may not) designate magistrate judges "to hear and determine," which would then be subject to review by the district judge. You may think that that is unconstitutional, but I'm unaware of any SCOTUS decision stating otherwise.
@141P the felonius DJT spoke the truth when he said the election was rigged.
Unconstitutional, Federalist style?
Post a Comment