Gag order lifted in part

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.

Big SDFLA day

Judge Cooke will impose sentence this morning in the Padilla case. The CSM asks the following question:

Can a suspected future terrorist receive the same harsh punishment meted out against actual terrorists who were personally involved in planning or carrying out genuine bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings?

The article then tracks some of Michael Caruso's arguments:

In a hearing on Friday, Padilla's lawyer, Acting Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, argued that there is no comparison between his client's conduct and the conduct of convicted terrorists currently serving sentences of life in prison.
•Richard Reid attempted to detonate a shoe bomb on a crowded commercial airliner over the Atlantic Ocean in December 2001.
•Zacarias Moussaoui admitted to infiltrating the US to serve in a second wave of Al Qaeda attacks similar to the massive 9/11 terrorist attacks.
•Ramzi Yousef planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six and injured at least 1,000 and was the mastermind of a foiled 1995 plot to assassinate the pope and simultaneously bomb 11 airliners carrying 4,000 passengers.
•Wadi El-Hage helped plan the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 and injured 4,500.

Professor Berman at his sentencing blog is covering the case here.

And the retrial of another big case starts up today, but I can't comment on it.

Tom Mulvihill on the front page of the NY Times

Interesting article here about the Venezuelan case that's been getting lots of national and international press.

From the intro to the article:

One day last August, an airport policewoman in Buenos Aires noticed something peculiar as she was monitoring a baggage scanner: the appearance of six perfect, dense rectangles inside a suitcase.
She asked the passenger, Guido Alejandro Antonini Wilson, one of eight people aboard a private plane chartered by Argentina’s national oil company that flew from Caracas, to open the case. “He became frozen and did not say a word,” the policewoman later said in a radio interview.
When he did open it, nearly $800,000 in cash spilled out.
Mr. Antonini, a businessman with Venezuelan and American citizenship, is now at the center of a spy mystery and diplomatic imbroglio involving Argentina, Venezuela and the United States. American officials portray the episode as a rare glimpse into President Hugo Chávez’s use of oil wealth to spread his influence, saying the cash was destined for the campaign of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Argentina’s new president.
Venezuela and Argentina describe it as an amateurish American attempt to smear their governments. Mrs. Kirchner has called the case a “garbage operation” by Americans, while Venezuela’s official news agency claimed this week that it was a plot by the Central Intelligence Agency.

And for those of you who read Spanish, here's' an article in which I am asked about Mulvihill.

P.S. The Sun-Sentinel ran a story this morning about our blog here. Surely, I can post it, right?