RIP Frank Rubino

Frank Rubino passed away over the weekend. 

He was best known for his representation of Gen. Manuel Noriega.

 

But I also really like this story about his love of classic cars:

Now what for Tom Goldstein?

He's on house arrest.

And speaking of the house, he asked for a jury trial on the forfeiture of his house.  The jury returned a verdict for him, so at least his house is not immediately forfeited.

He's got sentencing and his appeal next.

Professor Todd Haugh discusses his prospects here:

Goldstein may have a few cards left to play. To be convicted of loan fraud, the government must prove proper venue, meaning that the criminal offense took place in the charging district. Under the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Mosby, mere “preparatory” acts to the underlying offense cannot provide a basis for venue.

The defense will argue that while prosecutors may have proven preparatory acts such as filling out loan applications took place Maryland, they didn’t prove from where he sent the documents. The Second and Eleventh Circuits would seem to agree, but language from the Tenth Circuit could create a split. That is the meatiest of a number of arguments, including over the admission of statements made in media interviews and the wording of jury instructions, that he will surely make on appeal.

Goldstein built a career managing legal risk at the highest level. Yet he’s never faced what’s happening now: being on the other side of a white-collar conviction. He undoubtedly will continue to push his chips forward.

Tom Goldstein found guilty

 Dang, I feel really awful for Tom.  Here's Bloomberg's coverage of the verdict:

Poker-playing former US Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein has been found guilty of 12 of 16 counts following a six week trial in Maryland.

Jurors returned their verdict late on Wednesday following two and a half days of deliberations.

Goldstein was found guilty on one count of tax evasion, one count each of willful failure to timely pay taxes for four tax years, three counts of making a false statement on a loan application, and four out of eight counts of aiding and assisting in preparation of a false tax return. He was found not guilty on the other four counts.

The convictions for making a false statement on a loan application carry the heftiest potential penalties—a maximum of 30 years for each count. He also faces a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment for tax evasion, three years for each count of assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, and one year on each count of willful failure to pay taxes.

Meantime, I was in trial this week in a criminal case before Judge Middlebrooks with Lauren Krasnoff and Lauren Perez. The jury hung.  Bocanewsnow covered some of the interesting jury notes we received.

Black History Month Event

 By John R. Byrne

The Court held its Black History Month event this past Friday. The program was titled, "From Promise to Progress: The Legacy of Black Lawyers in South Florida" and featured four panelists (Eugene K. Pettis, Sia Baker-Barnes, George Knox, and Dwayne Robinson) and a moderator (Chanel T. Rowe). The panelists spoke about their impressive careers and the importance of blazing a trail that other black lawyers and leaders can follow. Best of all were the pearls of wisdom offered by Mr. Knox, who drew several analogies to Forrest Gump when telling his stories.

Sharing a picture below, which was posted by attorney Charise A. Morgan.

From left to right: Dwayne Robison, George Knox, Sia Baker-Barnes, Eugene K. Pettis, Chanel T. Rowe, and Judge Gayles. 

The Times May be a-Changin’

By John R. Byrne

There are certain Supreme Court case names people just know. Marbury v. Madison. Brown v. Board of Education. Miranda v. Arizona. I think you can also put New York Times Co. v. Sullivan on that list. But should the case, which set the standard for defamation cases, be added to the "endangered precedent" list? 

The New York Times, of all periodicals, covered the latest installment in Allen Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit against CNN here. The case, you may recall, was filed in our district, with Judge Singhal ultimately granting summary judgment to CNN. In so doing, though, Judge Singhal openly questioned the legal soundness of Sullivan, calling it “a great example of how bad facts can contribute to the making of unnecessary law, and why judges and justices should not be in the business of policy writing.” On appeal, Judge Lagoa seemed to echo those sentiments, writing, “the only thing standing between Dershowitz and justice is Sullivan.”

It now looks like some of the Supreme Court justices may be open to taking a closer look at the Sullivan standard. When Dershowitz filed his cert petition, CNN waived its right to file a response, which may have been an effort to signal confidence in the continuing vitality of Sullivan. But the Supreme Court appears to have interpreted the move as whistling past the graveyard. It just ordered CNN to file a response.

Very interesting stuff. For lawyers who defend the media in defamation cases, there could be a boom in business on the horizon. 

A, B, C, D, F, U

That was district judge Thomas Ludington when asked to say the alphabet after being pulled over for DUI.  From Bloomberg:

Michigan federal Judge Thomas L. Ludington recited a portion of the alphabet as “A, B, C, D, F, U” during a field sobriety test following his 2025 drunken-driving crash, a state police report revealed.

He also twice identified himself as a federal judge after the arresting trooper and other law enforcement arrived at his damaged car, struggled to follow directions, and didn’t remember crashing or his airbags deploying, according to a report released Thursday that provided new details about the incident.

The Eastern District of Michigan judge was arrested in Emmet County, where he has a cottage, and a post-crash test showed a blood-alcohol content of 0.27—far above the legal limit of 0.08.

In local news, The Trump v. JP Morgan suit got removed to federal court.  Chief Judge Altonaga has it.

And finally, the Tom Goldstein jury has the case.  Holly Barker, who has covered the case gavel to gavel, reported on the closings here:

Prolific US Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein engaged in a “textbook tax evasion scheme” that he executed “almost flawlessly,” prosecutors told jurors at the close of his criminal case Wednesday.

You don’t have to “check your common sense” at the door, Justice Department lawyer Sean Beaty told jurors at closing argument. “How is it possible that someone who can argue the most complex cases at the Supreme Court can’t understand his legal obligation to pay his taxes on time and not lie to the IRS?”

The trial, in its sixth week in the US District Court for the District of Maryland, will head to jurors for deliberations on Thursday.

Beaty cataloged instances that Goldstein had been dishonest with people in his life—something he’d also done while cross-examining the SCOTUSblog co-founder.

“If this case comes down to credibility, there is no reason to believe Tom Goldstein,” he said. “He lied to people when he wanted something from them,” and now he “wants something from this jury.”


Goldstein’s counsel, Jonathan Kravis, countered in his closing argument that the government was attempting to mislead jurors.

Among other things, the government attempted to mislead jurors about where the loan applications at issue were signed, Kravis said.

Travel records put Goldstein in the US Virgin Islands when one of the applications was signed, and records show another application was signed in Washington, DC.

The government’s only evidence that Goldstein was in Maryland when the other applications was signed is the IP address associated with the e-filing. But the IP address isn’t reliable because it was the same even when Goldstein was out of the country.

The government could have obtained cellphone data to place Goldstein, but they didn’t. It’s just another investigative step the government failed to take, Kravis said.

When Goldstein took the stand, and the prosecution finally had the chance to ask him any question it wanted to, it “flinched,” Kravis told the jury.

Instead of confronting Goldstein about his gambling calculations, misclassified transactions, or the “actual charges” in the case, they asked about his spending.

“Why? Because at the end of the day, they got nothing,” Kravis said.

Judge Norman C. Roettger

By John R. Byrne

I never appeared before Judge Roettger but people told me that he was often armed while sitting on the bench. That got my attention. There was also his magnificent handlebar mustache, rendered perfectly in the portrait below. 

Judge Roettger was serving as Chief Judge of the district when the planning for the "new" Miami federal courthouse began. He chose Judge Moore to oversee the project, which ultimately produced the Wilkie D., where his portrait now hangs with the portraits of the other chief judges. 

FBA write up below.

Judge Norman C. Roettger was nominated to the district court by President Nixon and served from 1972 to 2003, including a term as chief judge from 1991 to 1997. Prior to his legal career, Judge Roettger served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. In Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000), the Supreme Court affirmed Judge Roettger’s decision, holding that firing someone as part of a RICO conspiracy isn’t enough to sue under civil RICO unless the firing itself was racketeering or otherwise independently wrongful under RICO.

Horsefeathers!

There's always a lot of debate about whether judges should be writing colorful opinions.  There's this opinion from yesterday referencing Orwell's 1984:

As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto “Ignorance is Strength,” this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not. The President’s House is a component of Independence National Historical Park that commemorates the site of the first official presidential residence and the people who lived there, including people enslaved by President George Washington. On January 22, 2026, the National Park Service (“NPS”) removed panels, displays, and video exhibits that referenced slavery and information about the individuals enslaved at the President’s House. 

The Hill reported about Judge Rufe's opinion here:

A federal judge ordered the National Park Service to restore exhibits about slaves who lived at the nation’s one-time executive mansion in Philadelphia, agreeing with the city that the Trump administration likely unlawfully removed the displays.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe invoked the dystopian novel “1984” as she blocked the Trump administration from changing or damaging the site, which is now an outdoor exhibition.

And then Lawfare covered Judge Leon's use of exclamation marks:

U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Leon loves exclamation marks. He uses a lot of them. Back in May, he opened his opinion striking down President Trump’s executive order targeting the law firm of WilmerHale with the statement, “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!” The opinion also contained such memorable phrases as, “The causal chain contains at most two links, and it is certainly not highly attenuated!” and “All warrant summary judgment for WilmerHale!” 

Yesterday, Judge Leon struck again, this time in the civil case brought by Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The 29-page order, which enjoins Hegseth from attempting to reduce the senator’s retirement pay for having made a video reminding servicemembers that they don’t have to follow illegal orders, contains no fewer than 14 sentences punctuated with an exclamation mark. Here they all are—some with a little context added, some nakedly unadorned:

• “Unfortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military. This Court will not be the first to do so!”
• “To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!”
• “Here, Senator Kelly's First Amendment claim presents a justiciable controversy!”
• “To say the least, those issues are in the wheelhouse of Article III courts, not military officials!”
• “Third, the outcome of the administrative process would, in all likelihood, be a fait accompli!”
• “Second, ‘the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration’ is severe!”
• “As applied to a sitting Member of Congress, the Parker rule has even less force!”
• “Indeed, if legislators do not feel free to express their views and the views of their constituents without fear of reprisal by the Executive, our representative system of Government cannot function!”
• “Defendants respond that Senator Kelly is seeking to exempt himself from the rules of military justice that ‘Congress has expressly made applicable to retired servicemembers.’ Horsefeathers!”
• “The First Amendment ‘is a limitation on the power of Congress,’ . . ., not the other way around!”
• “There is no question that such actions would deter ‘a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff's position.’ . . . Indeed, they already have. Per an amicus brief submitted by forty-one retired officers, many veterans are today ‘declining’ to ‘participate in public debate on important and contested issues’ out of fear of ‘official reprisal.’ That is a troubling development in a free country!”
• “Defendants also argue that Senator Kelly has pied himself out of irreparable injury by asserting that he ‘intends to continue to speak on matters of public concern’ and ‘will not be silenced.’ Please!”
• “Put simply, Defendants' response is anemic!”
• “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”