Judge Lenard held a hearing today on my motion in the Liberty City Seven case regarding the gag order that extended to acquitted defendant Lyglenson Lemorin, his lawyer Joel DeFabio, and DeFabio's agents (me).
On January 12, we filed a motion for clarification of her order, asking how far the gag order reached and who was covered. Then on January 24, Scott Srebnick and I filed a writ of mandamus with the Eleventh Circuit attacking the gag order.
Today, Judge Lenard clarified the earlier gag orders. Lemorin's wife is now free to speak. And all of us can speak about Lemorin's immigration case, so long as we don't touch on the facts of underlying criminal case. Query how we will do that since the immigration case is based on the same facts. We still cannot discuss the facts of the first trial that led to Lemorin's acquittal. Accordingly, we will proceed with our appeal in the 11th Circuit.
Judge Lenard indicated she will be writing an order to memorialize her oral findings today, which I will post.
What struck me most about the hearing was the Government's repeated discussion about trying to protect the rights of the six men still on trial. As Srebnick and I argued in court today, none of those charged men objected to Lemorin speaking to the press. Lemorin has been detained for almost 19 months since the Government issued a press release calling him an agent of al Qaeda who wanted to blow up buildings. He should be permitted to respond to those false allegations in the media to restore his reputation and to shine light on the allegations in his immigration case.
I generally do not blog about cases with which I'm involved, but this is an exception because the gag order affected the blog. So I feel that it's okay to discuss these issues here.
Here's an article from the DBR in today's paper setting out what had occurred up till today. They'll be a bunch more in the paper tomorrow, which I will post.
UPDATE -- here are articles from the DBR, Herald, Sun-Sentinel and the AP about yesterday's proceeding.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
5 comments:
I deleted the earlier comment because of the personal attack. Please comment again without attacking others. Thank you.
A post about wrongfully gagging an attorney AND the public figure in question, that is still supporting the order you are asking the Eleventh Circuit to issue MANDAMUS on, cannot be criticized for his office's position, for which HE is responsible?
How is it wrong to point out that this public figure's refusal to support that which he is sworn to protect and uphold - including the First Amendment and the constitutional rights of all (even those belonging to people formally prosecuted by him and especially those whom a jury has declared to be innocent) - should lead to his being passed over for future positions that involve public trust?
Which Court do I petition to issue a writ of mandamus against you?
Ha! Nothing wrong with making that point, but separate ad hominen attacks by anonymous posters won't be tolerated.
Okay, I don't remember the ad hominium attack, but I am sorry.
Post a Comment