Merry Christmas everyone, including Charlie Javice's lawyers

 I hope everyone is having a great holiday season.  

Here's an incredible story... Charlie Javice's legal team -- 147 timekeepers -- billed almost $80 million to defend Javice in her criminal case (she went to trial in NY).  And JPMorgan was required to pay it.  From Business Insider:

Three years later, JPMorgan claims that Javice and her lawyers have milked that order far past the point of what's reasonable. The 15 pounds of receipts submitted for reimbursement include high-end hotels, first-class flights, $530 in gummy bears, "copious amounts of alcohol," and "a $581 dinner for two that included a $161 seafood tower."

The bank's lawyers said Javice's lawyers continued to expense personal items into 2025, "including a pet hair roller, laptop privacy screens, stain remover, allergy and cold medication, nutritional supplements, tea strainer, face masks, a coffee maker, lamps, a kettle, Uber rides for ordinary daily commute to a timekeeper's home office, 'groceries for meal prep,' bottles of wine, batteries, room upgrade charges at $300 per night, and meals at New York's best restaurants."

It blasted law firm Quinn Emanuel for a $60 Uber Eats order that included "four cookies and a cookie box."

Quinn Emanuel, which is representing Javice in the Delaware court case, said in a statement to Business Insider that JPMorgan "is trying to walk away from its contractual obligation to pay Ms. Javice's legal bills." The bank is "highlighting a handful of attorney expenses (not incurred by Ms. Javice) over two years, the vast majority of which it already reviewed and paid or are not disputed," Quinn Emanuel spokesman Eric Herman said.

The bank also challenged the fees that Javice's lawyers charged for their time, as high as $2,700 per hour, including billing for trial attendance on a Saturday and other "non-trial days."

JPMorgan's lawyers said there were a total of 147 people — like lawyers and paralegals — who billed time to her defense, with the total bills across her criminal and civil cases crossing the $78 million mark. The bank said it has paid $60 million so far and says it shouldn't have to pay any more.

Most of Javice's bills, $47 million, have been rung up by Quinn Emanuel, whose team was led by celebrity lawyer Alex Spiro and partner Samuel Nitze, who co-chairs Quinn's crisis law and strategy group. Another $14 million was billed by attorney Jose Baez, a trial lawyer who defended Casey Anthony; $5 million by his frequent co-counsel, the Harvard law professor Ronald Sullivan; and $11 million by Mintz, another big law firm.

RIP Alan Greer (guest post by Bob Martinez)

 The wonderful Bob Martinez sent me this email, which he authorized me to post:

You may wish to include in your blog the passing of a great lawyer and person in our community.

I am an old friend of Pat Seitz and her husband Alan Greer. Pat informed me early today that Alan passed peacefully Sunday morning.

There will be a celebration of his life Saturday, January 10 at 10:30 AMat St Hugh Catholic Church in the Grove.

Alan, along with Danny Ponce and Steve Zach, was one on my first “bosses.” He was an outstanding lawyer and a wonderful person. I learned a lot about life and our profession from him, particularly the importance of integrity and treating each person, regardless of status, with respect and dignity.

I will miss him, but never forget him. I can still feel his presence and love.

Happy Holidays!

Bob

Happy Festivus (except for the SDFLA)

Apparently no one wants to do Epstein document review over the holidays.  So DOJ turned to SDFLA for help.  According to CNN:

The Justice Department’s leadership asked career prosecutors in Florida to volunteer over the “next several days” to help redact the Epstein files, in the latest Trump administration push toward releasing the hundreds of thousands of photos, internal memos and other evidence around the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

A supervising prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida’s US Attorney’s Office emailed the entire district office on Tuesday — two days before Christmas — announcing an “emergency request from the [Deputy Attorney General’s] office the SDFL must assist with,” according to a copy of the email reviewed by CNN. “We need AUSAs to do remote document review and redactions related to the Epstein files,” the email said.

The email raises the possibility of more Epstein files being released over the coming days, including the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. It also underlines the public and political backlash the Justice Department has faced since the deadline passed on Friday to release all documents in the federal government’s possession, as mandated by an act of Congress calling for transparency around Epstein files. The Justice Department acknowledged it had not gotten through redacting many of the files by Friday and has continued to release documents this week.

Feel free to email me anonymously if you'd like to share what is going on in the office.  The blog has never breached a confidence in over 20 years!   

John Brennan asks Chief Judge Altonaga to prevent forum shopping

Former CIA Director John Brennan is asking Chief Judge Altonaga to keep the government from "judge shopping" its case to Judge Cannon. The letter urges that any future litigation flow through the court’s normal, neutral processes, rather than what Brennan’s counsel colorfully describes as prosecutors trying to engineer judicial home-field advantage. Here's the AP article about it.  And here's the 16-page letter, which starts like this:

We write this letter to Your Honor in your capacity as Chief Judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) on behalf of our client John Brennan, the former
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We have been formally advised by prosecutors of the
Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida that Director Brennan is
a target of grand jury investigation NS 1840-020 in the Miami Division (24-06), which is
examining the circumstances surrounding the production of the 2017 Intelligence Community
Assessment about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.
As explained below, it has become clear that irregular activity is taking place in connection with
that grand jury investigation, which is affecting our client's rights to fair and impartial treatment
by the criminal justice system. One example is the violation of grand jury secrecy rules, by which
information about the investigation is being leaked to the media (see below at pages 15-16).
Another example of irregular activity – which is even more troubling and potentially harmful to
our client's rights - relates to the government's apparent effort to manipulate grand jury and case
assignment procedures to ensure that this investigation and any resulting prosecution will be
overseen by a particular District Judge of its preference.

Given the corrosive effect of judge-shopping on the perceived fairness and impartiality of the
criminal justice system – particularly when conducted by a federal prosecutor – we wish to alert
the Court to the evidence underlying our concern. And, as counsel to the identified target of this
investigation who has legal standing to challenge questionable prosecutorial conduct in the
handling of the investigation¹ – we request that Your Honor carefully consider this evidence and the clear inference of prosecutorial judge-shopping as you exercise your supervisory authority over
the prosecution's handling of this grand jury investigation.² In short, we are seeking assurance
that any litigation arising out of this grand jury proceeding will be heard by a judge who is selected
by the court's neutral and impartial processes, not by the prosecution's self-interested maneuvering
contrary to the interests of justice.

This letter will proceed through the following lines of discussion: (I) an introduction describing
the current environment in which certain federal prosecutors are increasingly overreaching as a
result of overt political pressure, and in which federal courts are, therefore, more closely
scrutinizing prosecutorial conduct and decision making; (II) an overview of the historical
background ofthe ongoing grand jury investigation; (III) a description ofthe Justice Department's
repeated efforts to forum-shop this investigation among different federal districts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Virginia, before assigning it to
prosecutors in this District; (IV) a description ofthe circumstances demonstrating that the United
States Attorney in your district is also judge- shopping the matter by steering it toward a favored
judge - the onlyjudge – in the Fort Pierce Division; (V) a discussion ofthe case law that prohibits
and condemns such judge-shopping, especially when conducted by the prosecution in a criminal
matter; and (VI) our request that the Court scrutinize the government's conduct in the current grand
jury investigation to detect and head off any prosecutorial judge-shopping that may threaten both
the perceived legitimacy of this Court and the judicial system and the due process rights of our
client.

RIP Mel Black

 Another one of the greats passed away today -- Mel Black.  He was a great guy and a wonderful criminal defense lawyer (for almost 60 years!)  That's him below with his client after a big NG.  He always had time to talk to you about a case or a problem.  And I loved that he recently took a year on a ship around the world.  I'll miss him.

CTA is A-OK

By John R. Byrne

Louis D. Brandeis once wrote that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."And the 11th Circuit just gave that sentiment a constitutional seal of approval, ruling that the Corporate Transparency Act doesn't violate the constitution. The act, passed in 2020, requires companies to disclose their "beneficial owners" to the Treasury Department (beneficial owners being people who exercise substantial control over an entity or who control at least twenty-five percentage of its ownership interests). The idea was to combat corporate shell games that allow bad guys to launder money, etc.

The panel (Judge Brasher writing) said (1) Congress could pass the law under the Commerce Clause and (2) the law doesn't facially violate the Fourth Amendment (Brasher noted that the Supreme Court had rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to similar uniform reporting requirements, including one that requires banks to report domestic currency transactions above a certain amount). 

Feels like a fact pattern you might get on your Con law exam. And because it's a Commerce Clause case, you know that had to cite to that old standby, Wickard v. Filburn. You know, the one about the farmer and his intrastate wheat.

Opinion here.

Another Trump defamation suit in the SDFLA

This one is against the BBC.  From the NY Times:

President Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion on Monday evening over the editing in a documentary that the British broadcaster said had left the “mistaken impression” that he called for violent action before the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

In a 46-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Mr. Trump accused the BBC of defaming him and violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He demanded $5 billion for each offense.

In a statement, the president’s legal team said that the lawsuit was designed to hold the British network accountable for what it described as wrongdoing.

 

11th Circuit Weighs the Fate of the False Claims Act

The future of the False Claims Act (FCA) hangs in the balance after a pivotal oral argument (before Judges Luck, Branch, Moreno) in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals this past Friday.

In United States ex. rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, a three-judge panel grappled with a challenge that strikes at the very heart of the statute: Do the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which allow private whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the government, violate the U.S. Constitution?

The oral argument offered a fascinating glimpse into the judicial tug-of-war between centuries of legal tradition and evolving theories on executive power. Here are the key takeaways from the arguments.

The appeal stems from a first-of-its-kind ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who declared the qui tam system unconstitutional earlier this year. Her reasoning—echoing concerns raised recently by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—was that private relators exercise significant executive power without being properly appointed as officers of the United States, a violation of the Appointments Clause.

On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit panel appeared torn between two competing narratives: the text of the Constitution versus the long history of the American legal system.

Judge Robert J. Luck’s questioning suggested a hesitation to overturn a system that has existed since the nation’s founding. He repeatedly pressed defense counsel to explain why qui tam actions should be deemed unconstitutional now, given that they have been present in the U.S. for roughly 250 years.

Judge Luck noted that historical records imply President George Washington and other founders did not view qui tam litigation as conflicting with executive powers. "It looks like some of this was sort of contemplated by some of our founders, was it not?" he asked, searching for any Supreme Court precedent that strictly requires executive appointment for non-government relators.

Judge Elizabeth L. Branch pushed back against the DOJ’s reliance on past circuit court consensus. When the government argued that courts have routinely upheld the FCA for decades, Judge Branch interjected, noting that those decisions are dated.

"It's been about 25 years, and we have some recent statements from the U.S. Supreme Court," she said, alluding to the 2023 opinion in Polansky where Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett signaled interest in revisiting the constitutionality of the whistleblower system.

The oral argument highlighted the stark difference in how each side views the role of a whistleblower:

• The Defense (Challenging the FCA): Kannon K. Shanmugam, representing the defendants, argued that the modern FCA (strengthened in 1986) is a different beast from early American statutes. He contended that today's relators hold the power of an "unaccountable office," forcing the government to expend resources and seeking massive penalties without executive oversight.

• The Relator/DOJ (Defending the FCA): Counsel for the whistleblower and the DOJ argued that relators are simply private litigants, not government officers. Tejinder Singh, representing the whistleblower, emphasized that relators lack true state power: "No one's handing them a windbreaker and a gun... They're litigating in the same way that a private fraud litigant would litigate."

If the Eleventh Circuit affirms Judge Mizelle’s ruling, it would create a circuit split and almost certainly fast-track the issue to the Supreme Court.