One year anniversary of Scott Rothstein's plea

Yup, it's been a whole year since he pled guilty.

Rule 35 requires prosecutors to file a motion to reduce a defendant's sentence based on cooperation withing one year. Well, they just got it in, filing the motion to reduce the 50 year sentence yesterday. The government didn't ask for a specific amount of time off of the sentence. So we will have to wait to see what kind of reduction Rothstein gets.

Any predictions?

Four Rothstein associates charged

They are: Howard Kusnick (a lawyer), Stephen Caputi (IT department), William Corte (IT department), and Curtis Renie (person who posed as a plaintiff in fake cases). They are all charged by information, so it appears that they have cut deals and are cooperating.

They drew Judges Marra (Kusnick), Dimitroleas (the two IT guys), and Zloch (Renie).

From the USAO press release:

The Information against Howard Kusnick alleges that, while an attorney at RRA, Kusnick engaged in a scheme to defraud two clients of RRA by authoring a letter purporting to settle pending litigation in the clients’ favor. In fact, however, no such litigation had been instituted and no such settlement existed. Rather, the purpose of the letter was to lull the clients into believing that RRA was pursuing litigation on their behalf when, in fact, the clients’ funds had been used to pay off earlier investors and to further the investment fraud scheme.

The Information against Stephen Caputi alleges that Caputi at times acted as both a purported banker and plaintiff during meetings with potential investors. For example, the Information alleges that Caputi, posing as an official from TD Bank, provided investors with fraudulent bank statements that reflected purported balances of trust accounts at TD Bank. In this way, Caputi lulled the investors into believing that the account balances were sufficient to fund their investments. On another occasion, Caputi posed as a plaintiff during a meeting with potential investors who had requested to meet with plaintiffs. Caputi pretended to be a plaintiff who had purportedly executed a $10,000,000 settlement agreement, thus raising potential investors’ confidence in the deal.

According to the Information against Curtis Renie and William Corte, these defendants worked at RRA’s IT Department as chief of information technology and as a document management specialist, respectively. Renie and Corte created a fictitious web page copying the legitimate web page of TD Bank. At Rothstein’s direction, the defendants posted false account balances on the fictitious web page to make it appear as if the accounts were well-funded. On one occasion, the defendants modified the phony TD Bank web site to reflect that RRA held between $300 million and $1.1 billion on deposit at TD Bank. In fact, however, no such funds were in the accounts. The false account balances were shown to investors to induce them to invest into the fraudulent investment scheme.

Rothstein feeder to pay $830 million

The Sun-Sentinel has more here:

The Fort Lauderdale hedge fund manager who was the largest feeder to Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein has agreed to give up much of his wealth as part of a settlement with bankruptcy attorneys.


The settlement agreement by George Levin and his Banyon investment entities — which funneled $830 million into Rothstein's $1.4 billion investment fraud — was filed late Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.


It does not spell out which assets Levin has agreed to sell and turn over to the trustee for Rothstein's now-bankrupt law firm, but Levin and his wife get to keep their $4.2 million Fort Lauderdale home and roughly $750,000 in personal possessions, according to the agreement.

In other news, Rumpole has admitted that he was wrong and "[o]f course Mr. Markus is right." 

It's 50 years...

...for Scott Rothstein.

More to follow.

Update #1 -- From the Sun-Sentinel article:

In the courtroom, Rothstein appeared visibly and dramatically changed by his six months in federal custody, much thinner with closely shorn gray hair and a goatee -- almost unrecognizable from the outsize personality he once was.He was wearing dark pants and an off-white dress shirt, and he was shackled at the waist and ankles. A humble Rothstein addressed the judge and the packed gallery, apologizing for all the harm he caused."I am truly and deeply sorry for what I have done. I don't expect your forgiveness. I don't," Rothstein said. "I am ashamed and embarrassed."

Update #2 -- More from Bob Norman, who was there. The post is excellent and worth a read. Here's a lengthy excerpt:

Rothstein looked like he'd lost a good 30 pounds. His hair was grayer still and he wore a goattee. He actually looked tanned and healthy in a long-sleeve white button-up shirt, dark pants, white socks, black sneakers and the chains shackling him.
His wife, Kim, sat in the second row behind him, and wept when Rothstein entered the courtroom. She sat next with her friend, Stacy Weissman at her left, and Scott's father Harvey at her right. Next to Harvey was Scott's sister, Ronni, and next to her was mother Gay. Also in the row was Kim's attorney, Scott Saidel, who sat next to Weissman.
Cohn opened the proceedings by asking if any of Rothstein's victims were present in the courtroom who wanted to speak. In the back row, a black woman stood up and said she'd like to speak. It was Shirley Blades, the mother (I think) of Charles Blades, from the Blades football family.
In what was a bit of a dramatic moment, she was led up to the podium and Cohn let her speak even though she was there to show Rothstein moral support. She simply turned to Rothstein, with tears streaming down her face, and said, "My brother, may God bless you. May God bless you."
That prompted Gay, Ronni, and Kim all to start crying. Blades was followed by Steven Bitton, a Plantation man who was a client of Rothstein's. He said that he was offered a settlement in a lawsuit with the City of Plantation that Rothstein simply never told him about (outside the courtroom he said the offer was for $650,000 and that the city was now claiming was no longer on the table and that the statute of limitations had passed). "I went to see him every month for four years," said Bitton. "... You trust your attorney. You put your faith in him. ... It's not just the investors [who were hurt]."
Then Nurik took the stage and spoke for over an hour on behalf of Rothstein. He started by asking Cohn to focus on "the rule of law, not the rule of mob, not the influence of the media, not the frenzy."
He asked Cohn to sentence Rothstein for "who he is, not for how he's been demonized." He said Rothstein, who turns 48 tomorrow, had lived 43 years as a "caring, loving person" before he turned to a like of crime.
Nurik also said that nobody would come to speak on his behalf -- expect Blades, whom he said was a surprise even to him -- for "fear of vilification ... and demonization" by the media and community.
Cohn asked Nurik why he thought Rothstein "engendered so much public attention."
"Mr. Rothstein lived larger than life," Nurik answered. "Mr. Rothstein was very brash, very vocal ... his face was plastered on every society page ... he was everywhere, doing everything."
Nurik continued that there was a lot "schadenfreude" in this case -- joy in the demise of another -- and that law firms and lawyers in town were "quite frankly jealous ... a lot of lawyers wondered how [RRA] could grows so fast."
"Isn't his lifestyle part of the manner in which the crimes were committed?" asked Cohn.
Nurik said it was "to some degree," specifically in terms of the political contributions and "certain things in town" (I assume he was talking about charity events) that he did to gain "access to certain people."

***

Then, finally, Cohn spoke. And man did he speak. He waxed poetic about Rothstein's case, saying it was "all about image, wealth, power, and influence" and that Rothstein rivaled "Madison Avenue" in the way he marketed himself.
"[Rothstein's] political connections stretch from the sheriff's office on one end of Broward Boulevard all the way to the Fort Lauderdale Police Department on the other end of Broward Boulevard to the governor's mansion in Tallahassee ... and down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House," Cohn said.
Cohn mentioned the society pages, the political contributions "funneled through Rothstein's attorneys and their wives," his attending sporting events "with BSO brass," all designed to create an "appearance of legitimacy but we now know was all a facade, a fraud.
"This was a This Ponzi scheme was not the result of a poor buisness decision. Quite the contrary, it was fraud at its inception ... causing 400 investors to love $400 million ... many people have been swept up in the tsunami that followed." Cohn not suprisingly said that he believed Nurik's comparison to the Dreier case was "unpersuasive" saying that there could be "no conduct more reviled" thatn Rothstein's forging of court orders.
"The court must take a step back and ask what makes the Rothstein case different," Cohn said. "Why has this case created such a media frenzy? ... I think the primary reason is that Mr. Rothstein infiltrated so many spheres of our daily life ... politics, sports, charities, the society pages, the legal profession, billboards. Mr. Rothstein was seemingly omnipotent. He was everywhere. He was not only everywhere, but everywhere with excess."
Just before he handed down the 50-year sentence (followed by three years of supervised release), Cohn said he felt that "public perception" was important.
While his mother wept, Rothstein didn't give a visible reaction. When Cohn was finished, he was led out of the courtroom through a side door. He didn't look back.

How much time will Rothstein get?

We asked that question in our poll here. Most readers are saying that he will get between 40 and 50 years.

The Sun-Sentinel has followed suit in its own poll. Other lawyers have weighed in this article. Here are the results of their poll as I write this post:

Poll: How much time should he get?
Convicted Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein will be sentenced Wednesday, June 9, in federal court. His lawyer has made a case for Rothstein to serve no more than 30 years. The prosecution has asked that the former high-flying Fort Lauderdale lawyer get 40 years in prison.

What do you think? How much time should Scott Rothstein serve?

10 years or fewer. He didn't have any real victims. (66 responses)
8%

30 years. His lawyer made a good argument. (84 responses)
11%

40 years. The prosecution made a good argument. (216 responses)
27%

100 years or more. He should not see the light of day. (344 responses)
43%

Any prison time would be too good for him. He should be waterboarded and flogged for the rest of his life. (83 responses)
10%

793 total responses
(Results not scientific)

My view of this is that it doesn't much matter because the big sentencing date will be the day Judge Cohn hears the Rule 35 motion, the motion to reduce Scott Rothstein's sentence. True, whatever Rothstein gets tomorrow will be the starting point for the reduction, but at the end of the day, the amount of cooperation credit will drive this sentence. Judge Cohn knows that he will have the discretion to sentence Rothstein to an appropriate sentence after the cooperation motion comes, so I expect a pretty high sentence tomorrow. That said, 30 years is a lot of time, and as I've said before, I'm surprised that Nurik didn't ask for less.

Monday news and notes

1. The government has asked Judge Cohn to sentence Scott Rothstein to 40 years, a (meaningless?) variance from the statutory maximum of 100 years. (pg. 2: "The Government concedes that a variance in this case is supported by several salient factors. While the Defendant’s criminal activity in this case can only be described as reprehensible, it is beyond dispute that his post-offense conduct has been extraordinary.")

I say meaningless because 40 years is basically a life sentence for 48-year old Rothstein. It may turn out to be important what Judge Cohn does though because a motion to reduce Rothstein's sentence will be coming, so the starting point will be important. If Rothstein gets 30 years this week, and then gets a third off, he will likely have something to look forward to...
Govt Response to Rothstein

2. Nice story on Willy Ferrer today by John Pacenti.

3. The Supremes decided Krupski today. Our prior coverage here. This is the relation-back case that Robert Glazier argued. Unfortunately for Mr. Glazier, he was on the wrong side of this one.

Scott Rothstein's right-hand charged

Chief operating officer Debra Villegas was charged Tuesday with conspiring to launder money from his massive investment racket (via Miami Herald). Here's the indictment which got assigned to Judge Zloch.

UPDATE -- an astute reader points out that it's an information, not an indictment, and that it says it will take the parties zero days to try the case. Looks like Ms. Villegas has worked out a deal to plead and cooperate...

"Anything is possible when a criminal defendant makes himself the government’s darling in an effort to obtain a reduced prison sentence."

That was Paul Calli in this morning's DBR discussing Scott Rothstein and his upcoming (but delayed) sentencing. More from Paul:

Calli warned prosecuting a case built on the word of master criminals like Rothstein is especially unreliable. “You take a guy who is nothing but a con man and you rely on him to accuse others. He has a built-in incentive to lie,” he said.

Jeff Weiner represents someone that Rothstein has cooperated against:

He said it was “sad and pathetic” that the federal government would turn to the state’s top scam artist to entrap his client. He contends the government is delaying Rothstein’s sentencing in hopes of reforming his reputation for the witness stand. The postponement “is only to keep from being sentenced so the government can bolster his credibility, which he has none, against the many people he has cooperated against,” Weiner said.

I wonder if Jeff will be able to get Rothstein to pass out on the stand...

Sentencing is currently scheduled for June for Rothstein before Judge Cohn. My best guess is that he gets somewhere between 20 and 25 years. What do you all think?

Ho hum

Scott Rothstein finally pleaded today. (Here's the agreement.) And Kim Rothstein made an appearance:



And there were even scuffles outside the courtroom.

UPDATE -- so I read the Rothstein plea agreement. It's pretty standard stuff. Things that jumped out at me about it -- the government agreed that if the guidelines are life, they will agree to a downward variance. I think that's quite a concession and one I rarely see in plea agreements. Second, Rothstein agreed to waive his right to appeal and to waive his right to a habeas proceeding. That means that Judge Cohn can sentence Rothstein anywhere from zero to life, and Rothstein cannot attack the sentence. He will have to eat whatever Judge Cohn gives him. (I never understood how a defense lawyer can agree to have his client waive his habeas rights -- if the defense lawyer is ineffective, how can he advise his client to waive that?)

Sick of the Rothstein stuff.... well, fellow geeks, check out this 7th Circuit opinion on Dungeons and Dragons -- finding that it's a threat to prison security! Above The Law covers it here. HT: SB.

1 millliooooon dollars

Julie Kay says lawyers are going to make a lot of money off of the Scott Rothstein mess:

While Scott Rothstein's alleged $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme has proved a tragedy to hundreds of former employees, creditors and investors, it has been a boon to one group -- South Florida's lawyers.
According to experts, when all is said and done, the case will result in legal fees topping $15 million. That figure includes fees to the receiver, Herb Stettin; the two law firms he hired to assist him; a cadre of lawyers and firms hired by creditors and the attorney for the creditors' committee; defense fees for banks, insurance companies and other sued parties; and fees paid to all the criminal defense lawyers hired by Rothstein partners, associates and family members.
``This is like the lawyer's relief act,'' said Guy Lewis, a Miami attorney and former U.S. attorney who has served as receiver in numerous Ponzi/fraud cases. ``It's going to be an eight-figure case. It's probably the biggest receivership in the country right now.''

"We have conduct that shocks the conscience."

That was Chief Assistant Federal Defender Michael Caruso (who should be the next PD after Kathy Williams becomes a judge) at the Jose Padilla oral argument in Atlanta discussing the treatment of his client at the Navy brig:

Convicted terrorism plotter Jose Padilla's attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to throw out his conviction, arguing that he was the victim of "outrageous governmental conduct."

Padilla gained notoriety when he was accused in 2002 of plotting to blow up a radioactive "dirty bomb," though those claims were eventually dropped. He was later convicted along with two others in an unrelated terrorism plot.

Padilla's lawyer told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that his client should have been granted an evidentiary hearing before the 2007 trial that would have proved he was being mistreated by the government.

***
In court filings and during arguments Tuesday, Padilla's attorney Michael Caruso contended there should have been an evidentiary hearing before the trial that would have proven he is the victim of "outrageous governmental conduct." He said his client was mistreated and tortured on a Navy brig, charges that federal officials have repeatedly denied.

"There can be no dispute that we have that here - extremely prolonged isolation, psychological and physical abuse, prolonged interrogation," said Caruso. "We have conduct that shocks the conscience."

It will be interesting to see what the Court does on this very sensitive case...

In other news:

SFLawyer covers the Federal Bar lunch here.

The Florida Bar is investigating a number of RRA lawyers (via Miami Herald).

And Scott Rothstein was before Judge Cohn today explaining that because he has known his lawyer Marc Nurik for 30 years (Nurik later said this was an exaggeration), he didn't think there could be a conflict:

Also, prosecutors said that Nurik could have exculpatory information since he worked with Rothstein.

But Rothstein told Cohn that he has no reservations about keeping Nurik as his attorney.

``I believe in his loyalty,'' Rothstein said.

When Cohn asked Rothstein if Nurik may attempt to protect other employees at the firm who prosecutors said may have criminal culpability, Rothstein said:

``I've known Mr. Nurik for 30 years, Judge. I don't believe that is a possibility for him.''

After the hearing, Nurik said that 30 years was an exaggeration -- he said he met Rothstein when he was a student in his trial advocacy class at Nova Southeastern University law school.

Rothstein racked up 20 Million AMEX points

Damn....

In other news, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts -- the confrontation case from last term that said lab reports were subject to Crawford and the Confrontation Clause -- may be on the chopping block. From Tony Mauro at Law.com:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was not on the Court for the Melendez-Diaz case, sent out mixed signals on whether she would provide the vote needed for reversal. (Her predecessor David Souter was in the majority.) As has become her custom, Sotomayor actively questioned both sides during Monday's argument in Briscoe v. Virginia.
Meanwhile Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored last year's ruling, fought vociferously to save it during the hourlong hearing, and he strongly implied that the four dissenters in Melendez-Diaz had voted to review Briscoe just to overturn the precedent. "Why is this case here except as an opportunity to upset Melendez-Diaz?" Scalia asked, later adding, "I'm criticizing us for taking the case."
In the case before the Court, Mark Briscoe and Sheldon Cypress were prosecuted in Virginia courts on drug charges based in part on "certificates of analysis" from the state laboratory attesting to the amount and type of drugs found during their arrests. They both invoked the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which gives defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. They argued that the drug evidence needed to be presented in person so it could be subjected to cross-examination. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld use of the written certificates because state law allows defendants to call the forensic analysts as witnesses, and Briscoe and Cypress had not done so.
The Court in Melendez-Diaz indicated that an approach like Virginia's, shifting the burden of calling the witness to the defendant, would not satisfy the Sixth Amendment.
Upholding the Virginia approach, said the defendants' lawyer Richard Friedman, would "severely impair the confrontation right and threaten a fundamental transformation in the way Anglo-American trials have been conducted for hundreds of years."
But a brief (pdf) filed by state attorneys general asking that Melendez-Diaz be overturned was on the mind of several justices. The brief said the decision has already had an "overwhelming negative impact" on drug prosecutions by requiring short-staffed and underfunded state labs to spend too much time in courtrooms.
When Friedman said that, in fact, "the expense is not inordinate," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. snapped, "How can you say that? We have an amicus brief from 26 states and the District of Columbia arguing exactly the contrary."
Virginia Solicitor General Stephen McCullough, joined by Leondra Kruger, an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued that a system in which the defendant has the burden of calling the forensic witness satisfies the Constitution.
McCullough said that, since the Melendez-Diaz ruling was handed down, Virginia has seen "extensive gamesmanship" by criminal defense lawyers using the requirement of in-person testimony to their advantage.
Sitting at the defendants' counsel table with Friedman was Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher. Either Fisher or Friedman has argued the defense side in a series of cases that, since 2004, have revived the confrontation clause as a tool for defendants.

UPDATE -- at the argument, there was some talk about the word orthogonal:

University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman was trying to define the scope of the confrontation clause in oral arguments yesterday when he was called on to define another term: orthogonal.
Friedman used the word when he indicated that a justice’s question was not pertinent to the present case, according to The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times and the Washington Post. "I think that issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue here," he said. The word is a math term meaning things are perpendicular or at right angles, but Friedman used it to mean that two propositions are irrelevant, the BLT says.
That got the attention of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "I'm sorry. Entirely what?" he said.
"Orthogonal,” Friedman replied. “Right angle. Unrelated. Irrelevant."
Friedman tried to continue, but Justice Antonin Scalia jumped in. "What was that adjective? I liked that," he said.
"I think we should use that in the opinion," Scalia later added. “Or the dissent,” said Roberts.

Kim Rothstein in the news

That's her high school yearbook picture. Brittany Wallman of the Sun-Sentinel has a great in-depth piece on Kim Rothstein. Bob Norman's wife scooped him!
From the article:

A health crisis struck when she was 12. She collapsed at a Plantation Central Park karate tournament. Doctors found she had a blood vessel disorder in her brain, a condition that causes seizures and headaches. She took a break from her beloved sport.
A 4.0 student at Seminole Middle School in Plantation, she became depressed and her grades slipped, the Sun Sentinel reported at the time.
But she made a comeback, despite the health risks.
"She's a great example of a never-quit attitude,'' her late grandfather John Shaffer told the newspaper.
"She is both charming and intelligent. Her accomplishments in karate are rather amazing,'' her doctor told the newspaper.
She went on to South Plantation High School.
After graduating in 1992, she and her mother owned and operated a wellness center on University Drive in Davie, selling books and offering classes on yoga, belly dancing and reiki. She is a spiritual person, a practicer of Transcendental Meditation, and a good person, said Linnet O'Neal, a longtime acquaintance. Since meeting her now-husband, Kim has been studying Judaism.
O'Neal shopped at the store and eventually bought it from Kim's mother, a spiritual adviser who now works at a holistic health center.
"You've heard of people who are gifted clairvoyantly, who have intuition where they guide people almost as a life coach? Lynn is a wonderful teacher, and very humble and giving person. And Kimmie is a very humble and very sweet girl,'' O'Neal said.
About nine years ago, Kim Rothstein went back to school to obtain her real estate license, making her mother proud, O'Neal said.

Did Scott Rothstein surrender or was he arrested?

There has been some debate about whether Rothstein was arrested or whether he was permitted to surrender. The answer is really neither. When a defendant surrenders, he is permitted to show up at magistrate court for his first appearance on his own (not in handcuffs). And when someone is arrested, federal agents show up at your house at 6:30 in the morning and bring you to court. Here, we had a little of both -- Rothstein wasn't arrested at his house (or the hotel he was staying at) and he didn't show up to magistrate court on his own. Instead, it appears he surrendered himself to the FBI office where they put him in handcuffs and brought him to court. The feds did this so that they could say they arrested him, but they allowed him to show up to the FBI office because it's pretty obvious he has been cooperating and so they gave him this small concession. Also, for some reason Rothstein's lawyer continues to say he isn't cooperating, so having him show up to court in handcuffs allows Rothstein to continue to say this even though I think everyone knows that train has left the station.

The whole surrender vs. arrest thing has always bugged me. If a defendant knows about the charges and hasn't gone anywhere, he should be permitted to surrender even if he isn't cooperating. The government should not be able to use the threat of arrest to coerce a person into pleading... It's a complete waste of resources. Obviously, this is not the typical case, so perhaps the government, for political reasons, couldn't allow him to simply show up to court on his own (especially since he's been sipping martinis for the past couple weeks in everyone's face).
The other topic being discussed is the information vs. indictment. Rothstein has been charged by way of information, meaning that the feds didn't have to go to a grand jury. This generally is a tell-tale sign that the defendant is cooperating. But again, the whole information vs. indictment thing has never made much sense to me. Who cares whether you are charged with an information instead of an indictment. It does absolutely nothing for the defendant whatsoever. I guess it saves an agent from an afternoon of explaining the case to a grand jury. In my view, we should just get rid of the grand jury altogether. That would require a constitutional amendment though, and we haven't had one of those in a while.

Here's Jeff Sloman at the press conference yesterday:

Vamos a Cuba

Gotta love Miami -- Denials of cert are rarely newsworthy, especially front-page newsworthy. But the cert denial re Vamos a Cuba landed on the front page of the Miami Herald:


A three-year battle that pitted claims of censorship against the right of Miami-Dade schools to remove from their shelves a book that portrays an inaccurate view of life in Cuba ended Monday on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a huge win for the Miami-Dade School Board, the high court declined to take up the case -- leaving in place a decision by a federal appeals court that said the board's right to set educational standards is not equivalent to censorship.
``This is a great victory for the School Board and for Cuban Americans,'' said board member Perla Tabares Hantman, who from the beginning supported removing the book Vamos a Cuba from school libraries.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the district after the book was removed from school shelves, called the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the case ``a blow to the First Amendment.''
``What the Supreme Court did was to give the School Board the power to cleanse the library shelves of various books,'' executive director Howard Simon said. ``That sets a dangerous precedent.''


Here's our prior coverage of the book banning case.



Bob Norman is churning out stories about Rothstein so fast that the rest of us can't keep up. It's really incredible what he is doing over at his blog. The investigation, insight, etc. Even if you are exhausted over the Rothstein coverage, his blog is worth a read. Here's one story about 1000 times chai. You can't make this stuff up!



And if you aren't watching Curb this season, you are really missing out. Here's a taste of this week's episode (be careful watching at work; rated R):

"WAWW"

That was the name of 22 of Scott Rothstein's corporations and it stood for "What a Wonderful World." Indeed. Here's the Sun-Sentinel story covering the genesis of the Rothstein spending, which started sometime in 2005.

I know, I know, enough Rothstein. But the Wall Street Journal got in the act, even including a slide-show. And here's the accompanying article, with some interesting stories including this one:

At an Eagles concert this year, Don Henley, the band's drummer, singled out Mr. Rothstein and his wife, Kimberly. "I don't normally do this, but this goes out to Scott and Princess Kimmy on their one-year wedding anniversary," Mr. Henley told the audience as the band ripped into "Life in the Fast Lane," its paean to the perils of excess. Mr. Rothstein paid $100,000 to one of Mr. Henley's charities for the dedication.

If you are sick of Rothstein, you're gonna want to puke after another story about how abysmal Obama has been with judicial selections. The New York Times has weighed in:

President Obama has sent the Senate far fewer judicial nominations than former President George W. Bush did in his first 10 months in office, deflating the hopes of liberals that the White House would move quickly to reshape the federal judiciary after eight years of Republican appointments.
Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into the judicial pipeline and left a strong stamp on the courts, had already nominated 28 appellate and 36 district candidates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to appeals courts and 14 to district courts.
Theodore Shaw, a Columbia University law professor who until recently led the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., said liberals feared that the White House was not taking advantage of its chance to fill vacancies while Democrats enjoy a razor-thin advantage in the Senate enabling them to cut off the threat of filibusters against nominees. There are nearly 100 vacancies on federal courts.
“It’s not any secret that among the civil rights community and other folks there has been a growing concern about the pace of nominations and confirmations,” Mr. Shaw said. “You have to move fairly quickly because things are going to shut down before you know it, given that next year is an election year and who knows what is going to happen in the midterm elections. No one wants a blown opportunity.”

Seriously, what is taking so long?