Go, Dore, Go!

One of my daughter's favorite TV shows is Go, Diego, Go!

Now we have a new blog feature: Go, Dore, Go! We'll track the fun quotes from Marshall Dore Louis during the Padilla trial (previous quotes here and here). Louis is second chair to Bill Swor, who represents Padilla co-defendant Kifah Wael Jayyousi.

The latest from today's Miami Herald:

''These gentlemen are not accused of conspiring to kill Americans,'' said Jayyousi's attorney, Marshall Dore Louis. ``It just inflames the jury against bin Laden more than they already are.''

Go, Dore, Go!

As the Padilla trial winds down, we're happy to post another installment of Go, Dore, Go!



From all accounts, it was a good day for Kifah Wael Jayyousi in court yesterday. From the AP:

The testimony by Erol Bulur was aimed at bolstering claims by Padilla co-defendant Kifah Wael Jayyousi that his group, American Worldwide Relief, was focused on providing humanitarian aid to oppressed Muslims around the globe and not on assisting Islamic extremist warriors.
Bulur ran a warehouse in Paterson, New Jersey, that received and dispatched four large shipping containers containing about 25,000 pounds (11,340 kilograms) each of supplies to Chechen refugees in 1995 and 1996. Jurors were shown a video of the warehouse, including boxes of goods labeled "AWR" for Jayyousi's San Diego-based organization.
"These were shipments coming in from around the country?" asked Jayyousi attorney Marshall Dore Louis.
"Yes," the Turkish-born Bulur replied.
The testimony provided a counterpoint to prosecution witnesses and FBI wiretap intercepts that implicate Jayyousi and Adham Amin Hassoun, both 45, in a worldwide support network for Islamic jihadist groups, including al-Qaida. Hassoun allegedly recruited Padilla, 36, to become a mujahedeen fighter while both attended a mosque in Sunrise, Florida.

And the Miami Herald had an article, titled: "Witness for Padilla presents strong testimony":

With the end of the trial near, a defense team in the Jose Padilla terror case put on its strongest witness Thursday, when he testified that a suspected front for terrorists was actually a legitimate Islamic relief group.
Erol Bulur testified that he used his New Jersey warehouse to store tens of thousands of pounds of used clothes, canned foods and medicine donated by American Worldwide Relief, an organization run by a defendant in the Padilla trial.
Bulur said in Miami federal court that the relief group's efforts accounted for as much as two-thirds of all the supplies that he shipped from his warehouse through Turkey to Chechnya's embattled Muslims in 1995 and 1996.
''A lot more than two or three boxes were sent by American Worldwide Relief,'' said the Turkish-born Bulur [in response to direct questioning by Dore Louis], rebutting a prosecutor's attempt to downplay the group's significant humanitarian role in the Chechen conflict. Indeed, jurors were shown video of Bulur's warehouse and 40-foot cargo containers.
His testimony was powerful because it called into question a central theme in the U.S. government's case: that defendant Kifah Wael Jayyousi, a leader of American Worldwide Relief, used the group as a front to provide money, equipment and other supplies to Islamic terrorists overseas.

Next week, we get to the prosecution's rebuttal case. Here's the Sun-Sentinel discussing the Padilla strategy of not calling any witnesses.

Go, Dore, Go!

In our continuing Go, Dore, Go! segment, here is Dore Louis from yesterday's hearing in front of Judge Cooke:

An attorney for Jayyoussi, a fundraiser for Muslim causes, launched a more direct assault on the government. ''The CIA and Justice Department destroyed evidence taken from people alleged to be unindicted co-conspirators in this case,'' argued Marshall Dore Louis. ``That's a problem.''

More from the Herald article here.

Monday news and notes -- Back to school edition

1.  Judge Huck is trying to tutor young lawyers.  Via the DBR:

Senior U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck said when he got out of law school in 1965, he didn't need to consult a career counselor.
Freshly minted lawyers simply cracked open the Martin-Hubbell Law Directory and figured out where they wanted to start practicing law. Then they started to make phone calls.
"Back then if a law firm was really busy and they needed a lawyer, they needed them right then," said Huck, who after graduating the University of Florida loaded up his Volkswagen Beetle and headed south to an Orlando firm.
Coming off the Great Recession, it's not so easy for new lawyers these days.
So Huck organized two seminars aimed at making it a little easier. Early last month, he again assembled the Federal Court Observer Program, a mainstay for seven years. He also reached out to young lawyers at his alma matter.

2. Go Dore Go.  Dore Louis' creative motion for NSA records started a new trend.  I think it's hilarious that the Miami Herald refers to Dore Louis not as Mr. Louis or Louis, but as Dore:

One of the first phone-records motions in a criminal case came from Marshall Dore Louis, a Miami defense attorney who represents Terrance Brown, implicated in a federal bank truck robbery conspiracy case. Dore may have started a trend.

After Dore filed his motion in June, he received calls and email messages from dozens of attorneys across the country interested in filing similar motions in their cases.

In addition, many more attorneys in drug-trafficking cases nationwide are said to be preparing motions after Reuters revealed on Aug. 5 that the NSA is a partner in a special Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) unit that supplies tips to local law-enforcement authorities. Those tips come from a massive phone-records database that the DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD) taps, Reuters said.

The expected onslaught of demands for NSA records from defense attorneys is an ironic twist for a once-secretive agency whose acronym was often jokingly said to stand for No Such Agency.

3.  Did Steven Steiner learn his lesson.  Judge Williams hands him a 15-year sentence:

Steven Steiner, a former executive for a Fort Lauderdale insurance brokerage business that fleeced hundreds of millions of dollars from investors, was sentenced Friday to 15 years in federal prison.
Steiner, 61, was convicted earlier this year of conspiring to launder the money to support his expensive lifestyle in waterfront homes in Fort Lauderdale and Maine, and a condominium in Manhattan.
His defense lawyer urged U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams to show mercy and sentence him to about five years, far less punishment than recommended under federal sentencing guidelines.
“Mr. Steiner is admittedly an imperfect soul,” attorney Joaquin Mendez wrote in an objection to the sentencing guidelines. “However, he requests that the court consider his good deeds and sensibilities, which the sentencing guidelines generally ignore, into account in determining the appropriate sentence.”
Federal prosecutors strongly disagreed, arguing that a 22-year prison term under the sentencing guidelines for Steiner’s offense would not be “unreasonable.”
Williams essentially split the difference in determining the punishment for the former vice president of Mutual Benefits Corp., the business that was shuttered by federal regulators almost a decade ago.
Steiner offered no apology for his wrongdoing, and instead penned a rambling, remorseless note to the judge. He described as “draconian” the indictment against him and his former partner, saying they lost everything in forfeiture to the U.S. government.
“There were clearly no real winners at the end of this trial,” Steiner wrote in his 14-page note, saying he was “no doubt one of America’s biggest losers.”
“I was ultimately punished for the greed and arrogance of others,” he concluded.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/16/3566762/convicted-fort-lauderdale-executive.html#storylink=cpy

Go Dore Go!

Dore Louis, along with his trusty trial partner Ricardo Martinez-Cid, scored a JOA yesterday before Judge Graham in a CJA "mere presence" case.  Interestingly, the judge granted the judgment of acquittal after the government closing (but before Dore closed).  Kudos to Judge Graham for continuing to call it like he sees it and not just letting cases go to the jury when they shouldn't be brought in the first place.

Go Dore Go!

Tiffany Foster gambled and lost a lengthy trial before Judge Altonaga.  She was taken into custody after the verdict was read and by all accounts was facing a substantial jail sentence.  But Dore Louis didn't give up -- and he won his post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal based on his defense of withdrawal.  From the Miami Herald:

A woman branded by prosecutors as the “matriarch of patient brokers” for a Hollywood hospital that fleeced about $40 million from Medicare has been freed by a federal judge in a rare ruling that spares her from spending potentially the rest of her life in prison.

U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga threw out a Miami jury’s guilty verdicts against Tiffany Foster, 49, saying the trial evidence showed that she had “withdrawn” from the scheme to bilk Medicare more than five years before prosecutors filed an indictment against her and others in May 2014.

As a result, Foster should not have been charged because the statute of limitation for that period had already run out. Altonaga concluded that Foster “cannot be punished for the offenses for which she was convicted.”

The clock was ticking for Foster, who faced up to 25 years in prison at her sentencing on April 30.

Foster’s defense lawyers said they were “elated” with the judge’s answer to their post-verdict bid for acquittal — almost always a long shot.

“It is an important decision not only for Tiffany, but for anybody who has made mistakes in the past and long since moved beyond them,” said Miami attorney Marshall Dore Louis, who worked on the defense with Hilary Metz.

Good stuff. A shout out to Dore, but also to Judge Altonaga for having the courage to throw the case out.

Meantime, Paula McMahon is covering the Swap Shop trial in Broward. It's really entertaining and you should check out this entire article. Here's a snippet:

Jurors in the civil suit that pits luxury brand Louis Vuitton against the owners of the Swap Shop flea market in a fight over designer fakes got their first chance Friday to hear from the multimillionaire couple.

And the testimony from Preston and Betty Henn was a doozy.

"Ask me a sensible question," Preston Henn, 84, fired off.

"It's none of your business." "Don't want to." "Don't ask me dumb questions." "I. DON'T. KNOW."

Though lawyers had warned the jury that Henn is "petulant" and "quirky," jurors laughed out loud at times when they saw him in action.

The couple testified about condoms, crayons and cash. They discussed their strong work ethic and how they run their business. But above all else, both Henns — who sat in the courtroom but testified via pre-recorded video footage — made it crystal clear they don't have much patience for other people's questions.

Louis Vuitton's lawsuit accuses the Henns of contributing to the violation of the ritzy designer's trademarks by allowing vendors to sell fake Louis Vuittons at the market on Sunrise Boulevard in Lauderhill. If the Henns are found liable, they could face civil penalties of $1,000 to $2 million per proven trademark violation.

Louis Vuitton argues the Henns knew what was going on right under their noses because they both work at the market seven days a week.

The defense says the couple has taken reasonable steps to try to shut down the sale of counterfeits but that even Louis Vuitton, a multi-billion-dollar operation, has been unable to stem the tide of fakes.

The Henns are millionaires many times over and travel from their Hillsboro Mile home to their Aspen, Colo., retreat in a private jet they bought for about $18 million.

But they don't put on airs.

Preston Henn wears faded blue jeans to court most days and refills his Hard Rock Casino commuter mug from containers he carries to court in a variety of bags — an insulated vinyl shopping tote, a canvas book bag and, one day, one of the family's genuine Louis Vuitton leather handbags.

Betty Henn, 80, told the jury she and her husband resolve their disputes "by screaming at each other." But he gets the final say because, "He's a man."

At the market, they call her "Miss Betty" and vendors know they're playing with fire if they tick her off.

But when the lawyers asked what her job title was, she deadpanned: "Slave."

Jurors laughed. Preston Henn chuckled and patted her arm lovingly.

Where in the world is Lyglenson Lemorin?

Check out this AP story, by Curt Anderson, about the one defendant who was acquitted in the Liberty City 7 case. Even when you win, you lose....

A U.S. jury did not think Lyglenson Lemorin was involved in a terrorism conspiracy to topple Chicago's Sears Tower and bomb FBI offices, but he did not walk out of court a free man.
Instead, federal agents took the legal U.S. resident to Georgia, where he remained Wednesday facing possible deportation to his native Haiti, his attorneys said. And Lemorin could be forced to return to court early next year in Miami to testify in the retrial of his co-defendants in the so-called "Liberty City Seven" case.
Lemorin's treatment has led people involved in the case to question the government's motives, especially if he is charged with largely identical terrorism-related offenses in deportation proceedings.

We also haven't had a Go Dore Go segment in a while, but the article quotes blog favorite Dore Louis:

His lawyers didn't know where he was until Monday, and Lemorin told them he feared he would be taken to the U.S. terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A Miami lawyer who represents a co-defendant in the Jose Padilla terrorism case said Lemorin was afraid for good reason.
"This is a category of individuals who are subjected to different rules," said attorney Marshall Dore Louis, who is not involved in the Liberty City Seven case. "I think anybody who is in that system should be terrified about what the government is going to do."

Go, Dore, Go!

There's a lengthy multi-defendant trial before Judge Rosenbaum right now. I've been hearing lots of interesting (and sometimes funny -- including Marc Seitles putting on a dress during a cross!) stories from the trial, and this one is worth sharing. Dore Louis filed a motion for phone records, which the government claims it doesn't have. But -- according to recent reports -- doesn't the government have all of our phone records? Judge Rosenbaum wants to hear from the government on this point:

Defendant Brown urges that the records are important to his defense because cell-site records could be used to show that Brown was not in the vicinity of the attempted robbery that allegedly occurred in July 2010. And, relying on a June 5, 2013, Guardian newspaper article that published a FISA Court order relating to cellular telephone data collected by Verizon,1 Defendant Brown now suggests that the Government likely actually does possess the metadata relating to telephone calls made in July 2010 from the two numbers attributed to Defendant Brown.

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f), when an “aggrieved person”2 moves “to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance[3] under [FISA],” the Court must provide the Attorney General of the United States with an opportunity to file an affidavit under oath indicating whether disclosure or an adversary hearing on the defendant’s request would harm the national security of the United States. If the Attorney General files such an affidavit, the Court must conduct an in camera and ex parte review of the application, order, and other materials to determine whether the surveillance of the movant was lawfully authorized and conducted. If the Attorney General declines to file such an affidavit, however, the Court may conduct this inquiry in open court.

Upon review of the application, order, and other materials, if the Court concludes that Defendant Brown was an “aggrieved person” and that the surveillance was not lawfully authorized or conducted, it must grant Defendant’s Motion and preclude the Government from using the evidence. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(g). And, even if the Court determines that the surveillance was lawfully authorized or conducted, it must order discovery or disclosure to the extent that due process requires it, although the Court must otherwise deny the motion. Id. Here, Defendant asserts that, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), due process requires the production of the July 2010 telephone records because they are anticipated to be exculpatory in that they are expected to show that Defendant Brown was not physically located at the scene of the alleged attempted Brink’s truck robbery in July 2010.

In view of Defendant Brown’s Motion and the requirements of FISA, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Government shall respond to Defendant Brown’s Motion and, if desired, shall file an affidavit of the Attorney General of the United States, as contemplated by Section 1806(f), by Wednesday, June 12, 2013. The Court regrets the short deadline for compliance but notes that the evidence that Defendant Brown seeks pertains to a trial that has been underway since May 31, 2013,4 and any order requiring the production of any materials sought would become meaningless if such items were not produced in sufficient time for the defense to use them in its case.5

Fascinating. The rest of the order, including the footnotes, are also worth reading.

Any predictions on how the government will respond?  Will we get an affidavit from General Holder?

Happy Valentine's Day, loyal readers!

Well, not much going on in the District the last couple days except that Dore Louis (of Go, Dore, Go fame) was on federal jury duty. I hear that even though he's a former prosecutor, the government struck him! No matter, the jury (in front of Judge Martinez on a misdemeanor case of bringing a knife into a federal building) acquitted in about an hour.

In other news, the WSJ blog posts this interview by the BBC of Justice Scalia. Enjoy:

On physical interrogation:
Smacking someone in the face could be justified. You can’t come in smugly and with great self satisfaction and say ‘Oh it’s torture, and therefore it’s no good.’

On assuming that the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applies to torture:
Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the Constitution? . . . . It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be? And how severe can the infliction of pain be?

On Europe’s view of capital punishment:
If you took a public opinion poll, if all of Europe had representative democracies that really worked, most of Europe would probably have the death penalty today. There are arguments for it and against it. But to get self-righteous about the thing as Europeans tend to do about the American death penalty is really quite ridiculous.

Go Dore Go!

Nice win today for friend of blog Dore Louis (as well as Joe Rosenbaum and Marcia Silvers) before Judge Cooke. Jay Weaver has the details on this crazy case:

In October, his criminal case on cigarette smuggling charges ended in a mistrial when the FBI arrested a juror who tried to extort money from the defendant’s family in exchange for the promise of a “not guilty’’ verdict. On Monday, a federal judge threw out the charges altogether, saying prosecutors failed to make their case against the Davie construction executive at his second jury trial. Marrero’s two-step journey rarely, if ever, happens in Miami federal court. “They were prosecuting an alleged fraud that occurred in Europe in a U.S. court,” said Marrero’s attorney, Joseph Rosenbaum. “They never should have charged him in the first place.” A year ago, Marrero, 48, was charged with conspiracy and money laundering. The indictment accused him of trying to “enrich himself” by buying cigarettes overseas, hiding the cartons inside cargo containers at the Port of Miami and shipping them to Portugal, Ireland and Germany — without attaching proper documents or paying customs duties. But U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke granted Rosenbaum’s motion for acquittal after the prosecution rested its case, saying the statute of limitation in the conspiracy case dating back to 2001 had expired. Cooke’s judgment of acquittal followed a guilty plea earlier this month by one-time juror Italo Campagna, just as Marrero’s second trial was getting underway. Campagna, 55, of Miami, was charged with soliciting a bribe after demanding between $50,000 and $100,000 from Marrero’s relatives to sway the 12-person jury during the first trial in October. Marrero and his family immediately contacted authorities.

Best posts of 2013

By far the post with the most hits this year was "Local AUSA Mike Garofola to be on The Bachelorette," (with over 20,000 hits) followed by "Go, Dore, Go" (which was about his novel motion to compel NSA records, with almost 15,000).  Make your own conclusions about the readership... 

But before you do, know that other top hit posts were mostly the scoops regarding JNC lists, judges, and magistrates --  including Robin Rosenbaum being vetted for the 11th Circuit seat and the Rubio/Thomas blue slip controversy.  With these posts in particular (of the almost 2,500 in total), the blog was able to fulfill its mission of getting District news out quickly and accurately to the local federal court family.  

  

End of Year Post

I hope everyone had a wonderful 2015.  Looking back at the over 200 posts, here are some noteworthy ones:

John Pacenti left the DBR

Jose Gonzalez, 50 years on the bench

Mary Barzee-Flores nominated

Mark Fuller

Cell-Site data

Docs v. Glocks again again and again

Khan!

Go Dore Go!

10th b-day for blog

Ed Carnes concurred with himself

Judge & Mrs. Davis remembered

RIP Judge Peter Palermo, Judge Shelby Highsmith

And the most popular post of the year was this because of the search terms in the title.

See you next year.  All the best!
--David Oscar Markus

I'm back

Hey everyone. I'm back. A big shout out to Vanessa Blum for filling in last week while I was out tending to the new Markus bambina.

Speaking of Vanessa, you all should go over here to the South Florida Daily Blog and vote for her and Dore for their guest-blogging on the interviews of the district judge and U.S. Attorney applicants. (UPDATE -- I just checked and we're in second. Come on people... Go vote!)

Judge Graham is back from his summer vacation and picked up the prestigious William H. Hastie award at the National Bar Association Convention in San Diego presented by the Judicial Council.

Another NG for the FPD's office last week. This time Ayana H. and Sowmya B. pick up the win in an illegal reentry case.

Good guy Dan Rashbaum has left the U.S. Attorney's office and has joined Matt Menchel in the Miami office of Kobre Kim.

Nick Bogert is moving to Chicago after 30 years of reporting in South Florida. He's having a party on Saturday, August 22 from 7-10PM at Pacific Time Restaurant 35 NE 40th St., Miami. Go wish Nick well. (I remember one exchange I had with Nick a couple years back, after the Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuella plea. There was a mass of cameras waiting for us outside of court, and I said that Gilberto was honorable for saving his family and not snitching; Nick yelled "Are you claiming that Gilberto Rodriguez is an honorable man after everything that he has done?" It was a fair question, and I stood by my answer.)

Federalist Society Panel

By Guest Blogger, Dore Louis

Last night the Federalist Society hosted an event at the Banker's Club entitled "War Zone or Crime Scene: Walking the Tightrope of Justice Ten Years After September 11th."

The panel included every person who held the position of US Attorney since 9/11 - Guy Lewis, Marcos Jimenez, Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Wilfredo Ferrer, and acting Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, who proved a bit elusive to the camera. Neal Sonnet moderated.


The night included everything one might expect a Federalist Society event to have: a well-stocked bar and plenty of time to mingle; a book co-authored by John Yoo, gifted to the panel members; a regional CIA recruiter mingling with the guests (no joke); Marshals to protect the dignitaries; and, the obligatory "Osama"...oops..."I sometimes say "Obama"" joke by a panelist.

All in all, it looked as if it was going to be a 'hanging jury' for Michael. As anybody who knows Michael would expect, Michael shined.

The discussion was very interesting and quite non-partisan. Essentially, it was a walk trough the history of the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, from 9/11 onwards. Michael did a great job adding color to the other side of the equation - bringing home the impact that ramped up prosecutions for offenses such as routine immigration violations or the effects prolonged isolated confinement have on people.

Guy Lewis led off. He talked about how he and other members of the office sat watching the terrorist attacks unfold on 9/11 and the eerie "radio silence" that prevailed from DOJ during the attacks. 16 of the 19 hijackers had either lived in the Southern District or otherwise had connections here, and they were simply not on the radar. The day after 9/11 GL convened a meeting of federal and local law enforcement and began to redirect the priority of the office from prosecution of offenses such as violent crime, cyber crime and money laundering to the prosecution and prevention of terrorism.

Marcos Jimenez took over after GL left to D.C., and one of his first impressions was how much the office changed from when he had been a AUSA. MJ really gave the audience a good feel for how much pressure a US Attorney feels while in the office, including the fear that his efforts would not be enough to prevent an attack from happening. MJ specifically mentioned port security and the nightmare scenario that something would happen on a cruse ship, and bunch of people would get killed and he would have "egg on his face."

Other than Michael (who I admit to being partisan to and who will always have my vote), Dean Alex Acosta was the most impressive speaker of the night. I did not realize what an intellectual the guy is. AA gave a terrific overview of military tribunals in the United States, going back to Nazi spies in the beginning of WWII. Whether you agree or disagree with the policies the government pursued post-9/11, it is very apparent that AA had thoroughly thought through the legal basis for the actions taken, and would be able to provide justification for each and every one. Frankly, if AA presents like this always, I fully expect to be calling him Judge in the future - if that is what he is after.

Jeff Sloman, who had been involved in terrorism prosecutions and investigations before 9/11, spoke to a concern that was raised by MJ. Radicalized people who are willing to die for a cause. Such concerns led to cases such as the Liberty City 7 case, that were targeted at neutralizing threats before they became capable of carrying out a terrorist act.

Willy Ferrer was obviously more constrained in what he could say because he is the current US Attorney - he was able to provide statistics and a broad overview of efforts that are ongoing to prevent terrorist acts. But what WF said that struck me most, was the mention of his law school class mate - Geoffrey Cloud, who went to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and was killed in the attacks.

I am certain that people like WF, who lost friends during 9/11 will not forget the destruction of that day. Whether you agree or disagree with the policies that our government pursues, folks like those who hold the office of US Attorney in the Southern District of Florida are tasked with keeping us all safe. I want them to remember that day, and I want that memory to drive them to do the best job they can.

Whether ultra left or ultra right, we all hate terrorism and want our government to keep us safe. That is the point that Michael was really able to drive home - yes, we need to be kept safe, but at the same time, we need to protect our Constitutional liberties and hold true to the values that have made us this great Nation.

How far can law enforcement can go to protect us? God forbid something terrible happens again - law enforcement did not go far enough. In the name of terrorism prevention, continue prosecuting immigrants who try to sneak into America with the sole intention of working hard and earning a living - too far.

It is a very difficult question to address, and the reason that we should all encourage participation in more events like the Federalist Society panel discussion. That organization and its leadership deserve a lot of credit for gathering the panelists together to attempt to confront the issues.

The threat is real, it is deadly, and we do not want the people protecting us to forget it.

- Bette and Peter Cloud, the parents of terrorist attack victim Geoffrey Cloud of Sudbury, speak about their son to people gathered for a 9/11 remembrance at the September 11th Memorial Garden at Heritage Park in Sudbury Sunday.

Motion to sever from "dirty bomber"

William Swor and Dore Louis have filed a motion to sever their client Kifa Jayyousi from Jose Padilla, arguing in part that the media frenzy surrounding the alleged "dirty bomber" will invariably and prejudicially spill-over to him. One media outlet has had the audacity to ask the Court permission to bring in a cell phone and laptop so you know there is going to be some wild stuff going on in at the (new?!) courthouse! [To go off on a tangent for a second, it amazes me that the feds are so afraid of cellphones. Yes, we lawyers can bring them in, but shouldn't everyone be permitted to carry their phone? In Ft. Myers it's even worse. Lawyers can't bring their phones into the courthouse? WHY NOT?!!?!? I do not get it. More on this later.]

In other news, I figured out it wasn't the oysters that got me sick. It was the damn peanut butter sandwich that the hotel gave out free one night. Salmonella. No kidding. In freaking peanut butter!

Great Ruling on Strange Issue

By guest blogger, Dore Louis

Judge Cooke has just issued an Order in an interesting matter.

In July of this year, Governor Scott signed into law Fla. Stat. § 790.338, which contained a few odd provisions. Basically, the statute provided a basis to impose sanctions upon a doctor or health care provider who asks a patient about gun ownership or otherwise discriminates against a patient because of gun ownership.

"According to the State’s legislative findings, the State passed the law in reaction to an incident in Ocala, Florida, where a physician advised the mother of a minor patient that she had thirty days to find a new pediatrician after the mother refused to answer questions about firearms in her home."

Governor Scott is our Tea Party Governor. Big free market ideas...'let the market sort it out, government shouldn't be telling us what to do, etc.'; so it seems odd to me that he would sign into law a regulation that mandates a physician treat a patient who that physician does not want to treat because he/she owns a gun. Free market theory would instruct that if there are enough gun owners in the marketplace, the physician will either change his/her ways or go out of business.

Turns out the reason the pediatrician was doing what he/she did, was because the American Academy of Pediatrics counsels physicians to give guidance on gun safety. We don't want kids like this walking around, no matter how cute they are.



But why should politics make sense? Thankfully, Judge Cooke is able, through her thoughtful order, to make sense of subjects I was not particularly good at in Law School - First Amendment and Preliminary Injunction Law. What are those standards?

"At issue in this litigation is a law directed at maintaining patients’ privacy rights regarding firearm ownership within the context of the doctor-patient relationship. In effect, however, the law curtails practitioners’ ability to inquire about whether patients own firearms and burdens their ability to deliver a firearm safety message to patients, under certain circumstances. The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act thus implicates practitioners’ First Amendment rights of free speech. The Act also implicates patients’ freedom to receive information about firearm safety, which the First Amendment protects."

...

"The State has attempted to inveigle this Court to cast this matter as a Second Amendment case. Despite the State’s insistence that the right to “keep arms” is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights. The right to keep arms refers to the right to “retain,” “to have in custody,” and “to hold” weapons, including firearms."

...

"I will not speak to the wisdom of the legislation now before me. Questions of a law’s constitutionality do not create “a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). The First Amendment, however, “was not designed to facilitate legislation,” whether wise or not. FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 503 (2007) (Scalia, J., concurring). Based on the foregoing, I find that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional challenge."

...

"Each of the factors for a preliminary injunction weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. For that reason, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The State is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6). The State is also preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(8), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1) and (2) constitute grounds for disciplinary action. The State is further preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 456.072(1)(mm), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6) shall constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions specified under § 456.072(2) may be taken."

I am a bit saddened that there were no Yosemite Sam references. Here is the Order.

Wollschlaeger Order

Breaking-- Judge Scola grants rule 29 in Pakistani terror case

For one of the defendants, Izhar Khan. He was represented by Joe Rosenbaum, Dore Louis, and Kim Acevedo.

Congrats to the defense team. This is the second of three defendants to be dismissed from the case. The first was represented by Michael Caruso, the FPD. Also congrats to Judge Scola for having the courage to issue this ruling.

From the Herald article by Jay Weaver:

A federal judge threw out the terrorism charges against a young Muslim
cleric from Broward County in a trial where he and his father, an imam in
Miami, are accused of providing financial support to the Pakistani Taliban
terrorist organization.

Izhar Khan, the imam of a mosque in Margate, will be a free man later
Thursday after U.S. District Judge Robert Scola issued a verdict of
acquittal for the 26-year-old Muslim scholar.
The prosecution, which rested its case Wednesday in the material support
trial, failed to mount sufficient evidence of wrongdoing against the
younger imam, imam of Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen mosque off Sample Road.

“I do not believe in good conscience that I can allow the case to go
forward against Izhar Khan,” Scola ruled Thursday.

The judge also noted that the government nonetheless “proceeded in this
case against Izhar Khan in good faith.”

After the judge’s verdict, the defendant hugged defense lawyer Joseph
Rosenbaum and members of his Margate mosque shook each other’s hands,
quietly celebrating.