Superbowl Monday

Great game; great weekend for Miami. Now what peeps? Who's in trial? What's going on?

Here are a couple of items:

1. Justice Thomas is making the rounds. Here he is speaking at UF Law. Thomas gave a big shout out to a Florida lawyer in his talk. He'll be here in April.

2. Who should Obama nominate for the S.Ct. pick? Let the debate begin.

3. What about the other judges though?

4. More on Alito vs. Obama here.

Who wants to be a Magistrate? (UPDATED TWICE)

Unfortunately, the applicant list and interviews for the open magistrate position were kept secret... That said, the committee acted quickly and cut the list to 5. Now the judges get to pick the next magistrate. I've heard from multiple sources about 4 of the 5 candidates:

1. Jackie Arango (AUSA)
2. Rick Del Toro (AUSA)
3. Jonathan Goodman (Akerman Senterfitt)
4. Daryl Trawick (State Circuit Judge; U.S. Attorney finalist)
5. UPDATE -- well, we got this one wrong, so I am taking it down.... Sorry! I will post it back up when I have the right info! SECOND UPDATE -- Okay, now I got the right person: Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes (Legon Ponce & Fodiman)

If you know who the 5th person is, please email me. (UPDATE -- thanks to all my tipsters!)

So who do you all want for the job?

Four of the five are current or former federal prosecutors...

"It has become so partisan, it's really uncomfortable."

That was Justice Thomas, not speaking about the Supreme Court, but instead answering why he doesn't attend the State of the Union. There's lots more in the article, but here's a snippet of the article covering his talk at Stetson Law School:

Race and politics don't appear to be his favorite subjects. But Thomas, one of the most conservative thinkers on the court, didn't shy away from them.
"They don't care that I don't judge a case as a Catholic," he said. "But they yell because I don't judge a case as a black man."
During President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech last week, Justice Samuel Alito appeared to mouth the words "not true" after the president criticized the court's campaign finance decision.
Thomas wasn't at the speech and wouldn't address the issue. Politics, he said, is why he stopped going to the annual address.
"It has become so partisan, it's really uncomfortable for a judge," he said. "There's a lot of things you don't hear on the broadcast.
"You have catcalls and people muttering under their breath."

Justice Thomas will be addressing our District at the Bench & Bar conference in April.

Lots of shredding

The first Allen Stanford trial is underway. From the South Florida Business Journal:

Jury selection is under way this morning in the case against two South Florida men charged with shredding evidence in the case of R. Allen Stanford.
Former Stanford security personnel Bruce Perraud and Thomas Raffanello are the first to go to trial in Miami federal court in what federal prosecutors have alleged is a $7 billion Ponzi scheme led by Stanford and run through his Antigua-based bank.
Perraud, a global security specialist in the Fort Lauderdale office of Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, allegedly oversaw the shredding of documents at a warehouse facility last February. He was indicted in June.
Raffanello, who once led the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Miami office, worked as a security director for Stanford and is the husband of well-known defense attorney Susan Raffanello, of the Coffey Burlington law firm in Miami.

Interestingly, the case is being tried before visiting judge Richard Goldberg, who told jurors that the trial would last about two weeks.

The first witness testified today that in February 2009, there was more shredding than in any other month. Here's the AP on the first witness.

"A Law for the Sex Offenders Under a Miami Bridge"

Miami is in Time Magazine again. This time for sex offenders living under the bridge:

The Julia Tuttle Causeway is one of Miami's most beautiful bridge spans, connecting the city to Miami Beach through palm-tree-filled islands fringed with red mangroves. But beneath the tranquil expanse sits one of South Florida's most contentious social problems: a large colony of convicted sex offenders, thrown into homelessness in recent years by draconian residency restrictions that leave them scant available or affordable housing. They live in tents and shacks built from cast-off supplies, clinging to pylons and embankments, with no running water, electricity or bathrooms. Not even during a recent cold spell, when nighttime temperatures dropped into the 30s, could they move into temporary lodging.

***

But with the disturbing bridge colony putting Miami under increased national scrutiny — it has managed the improbable feat of arousing sympathy for pedophiles — Miami-Dade County hopes to return some sanity to the issue. A new law takes effect on Monday that supersedes the county's 24 municipal ordinances, many of which make it all but impossible for offenders to find housing. It keeps the 2,500-feet restriction, but applies it only to schools. It also sets a 300-foot restriction to keep offenders from loitering near anyplace where children gather, which many experts call a more practical solution than harsh residency restrictions.

County officials, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, hope the law will prod states and perhaps even the U.S. Congress to craft more-uniform laws to prevent the kind of residency-restriction arms race that Florida let local governments wage. "The safety of Floridians has suffered as local politicians have tried to one-up each other with policies that have resulted in colonies of homeless sex offenders left to roam our streets," says state senator Dave Aronberg, a Democrat running for state attorney general. The excessive rules, he adds, "have the effect of driving offenders underground and off law enforcement's radar." Aronberg is co-sponsoring a new bill that would establish uniform statewide residency rules fixed at 1,750 feet — studies show that in many cities, over 50% of available housing is within 2,500 feet of schools — and include the sweeping no-loitering zones.

Monday morning...

Monday morning + Rain = FREAKING HORRIBLE TRAFFIC

As you all know, I'm not a fan of judicial elections. Tony Mauro writes that the recent Citizens United decision might kill judicial elections:

For years now, judicial reform groups have more or less resigned themselves to the reality that the public likes to elect its state judges and will fight any effort to appoint them instead.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 21 decision in Citizens United v. FEC may have altered that sober truth -- or at least has given reformers a glimmer of hope that it might. By supersizing possible corporate domination of judicial elections, the thinking goes, the Supreme Court's decision may finally make the public see how unseemly the elections are -- and move toward merit-based selection as an alternative.
"There is a silver lining to the decision," said Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who has taken the lead in seeking change in Ohio's elective system for judges. "For those of us who have been trying to impress upon the public the deleterious effects of money in these elections, it helps us make the point that we need to get the money out."
"The time is now for change," said Rebecca Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court justice and executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. "I believe we can revitalize the merit-selection movement."
Kourlis spoke at a Georgetown University Law Center conference on judicial elections convened on Jan. 26 by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In retirement, working with Kourlis and others, O'Connor has become a merit-selection evangelist who energizes the movement by her sheer presence. O'Connor's calendar is dotted with meetings with local good-government groups across the country aimed at jump-starting the effort to change the way state judges are chosen. Currently, O'Connor said, more than 80 percent of state judges have to win a political election to gain or retain their seats.

Rev. Ike hit with $5 million verdict in federal court

How did no one cover the male on male sexual harassment case before Judge Cooke? Rev. Ike just got hit for $5 million!

The case was: Augusto Medina vs. United Christian Evangelic Association & the Estate of Frederick Eikerenkoetter (Rev. Ike) -- Case No. 08-22111. Congrats to Robyn Hankins and Jennifer Ator for their big win.

I am working on getting some of the details of the case and will post soon. In the meantime, here's a clip of Rev. Ike:



UPDATE -- lots of great stories rolling in about the case. Here's one:

Rev. Ike testified in his deposition, which was played at trial, that he never had any sexual contact with Plaintiff Medina, and that there was no way this could have been consensual because it never happened. Also when asked if there was anyone who could overrule a decision made by him, Rev. Ike said, "All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say, I resign. No."

In the closing argument, Defendants' attorney said that Rev. Ike lied at his depo and that the sex was consensual. Of course Rev. Ike denied it ever happened, the lawyer said, because of his position and Medina knew that he had to deny it and would deny it, which is further proof of the calculated plan to extort money from Rev. Ike.

Apparently there was a gasp from Rev. Ike's widow, who was in the audience, when the lawyer revealed that there was consensual sex.

Wow.

Why I love my TiVo

I got to watch Justice Alito's horrible poker face about 6 times before my wife made me continue with Obama's speech last night. After the President criticized the Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United, Justice Alito mouthed "not true" and shook his head. Here's the video:



All the other Justices kept their poker faces, but Alito was not a happy camper.

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.''

Bedtime stories

Two articles worth a look:

1. "After 34 Years, a Plainspoken Justice Gets Louder" in the New York Times about Justice Stevens. HT: Rumpole

2. "U.S. Attorney candidates face attacks from old adversaries" in the St. Pete Times about the fighting to become U.S. Attorney in the MDFLA. HT: SFLawyers

Who dat

Looking forward to the Saints/Colts Superbowl. Thank goodness it's not the Jets.

What up people?

Anyone in trial?

Bob Norman was at the Scott Rothstein auction and took some video here.

Here is the Florida Bar's webpage addressing its Haiti relief effort.

That's all I got for you this Monday morning. Hit me up with some news.

UPDATE -- Curt Anderson covers the Supreme Court's decision not to review Manuel Noriega's case.

Justice Stevens has a bad day

Yesterday was a big day in the Supreme Court with the campaign finance decision. But it was also noteworthy because those in the courtroom noted that Justice Stevens was having some trouble reading his dissent. Many have speculated that Justice Stevens is going to retire at the end of the Term, in part because he's hired only one clerk. From the BLT:

It's rare, and always dramatic to watch, when a Supreme Court justice reads from a dissent on the bench. On Thursday, when Justice John Paul Stevens read at length from his stinging 90-page dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it was also a little painful to watch.
For more than 20 minutes, Stevens spoke haltingly as he read from a summary of the dissent, a task he'd ordinarily breeze through. The 89-year-old justice seemed off his game, tripping on some words, getting stuck on others. At one point, he kept mispronouncing the word "corporation" as something like "corpo-russian," and he could not quite get it right.
As CBS News Court correspondent Jan Crawford noted on her blog with similar observations, "Maybe it was just a bad day, and Lord knows we’ve all had those." And the written product is more important than how it was read aloud. But with a justice who is said to be on the verge of retiring at the end of this term, and in a case of such high impact, it was hard not to notice Stevens' tough morning.

Where are the judges?

Jeffrey Toobin asks this question in the New Yorker. It's a fair question. What is taking Obama so long? Toobin:

When Obama took office, there were more than a hundred vacancies on the federal appeals and district courts. One year into his tenure, Obama has made only thirty-one appointments to those courts, and just twelve have been confirmed. In George W. Bush’s first year, with a similar number of vacancies, he made sixty-four nominations. White House officials assert that ten new district court nominations are imminent, but the overall pace remains astonishingly slow. I wrote about this aspect of Obama’s Presidency last September, and the trend has continued.

Why is this? In part, it’s because a Supreme Court vacancy, which the President filled with the admirable Sonia Sotomayor, occupied the White House through the summer months. That successful nomination is both more important—and was more time-consuming—than any of the others.

But there is another major factor as well. As a former Senator himself, the President is a believer in the tradition of senatorial direction of district-court nominations, and senatorial influence on appeals-court choices. The President wanted to include senators in the process, including those of the opposition party. It was an example of Obama’s post-partisan plans in action. If Republicans had a voice in the judicial nominations process, the theory went, partisan bickering would slow, if not cease, and the judiciary would inch away from the culture wars.
As in other areas, Obama’s hopes for post-partisanship failed when it came to the judiciary. Republicans have stalled on many nominations, fought others, and mostly done their best to slow down the pace. What’s perplexing is that Obama himself has not filled the pipeline with nominations; if he did, Republicans might feel some pressure to move the process along. Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held prompt hearings for all of Obama’s nominees, but he can’t hold hearings on nominations that haven’t yet been made.

I don't think either of these explanations work. So what that the administration was working on Justice Sotomayor? It should have been working equally hard on filling the other slots. And as for wanting the Senators' support, I'm not sure this is true. In Florida, for example, the rumors are that the Oval Office did not want a recommendation from the Senators (even though that's how it had worked in the past), which delayed the process. Thankfully, Kathy Williams is finally being vetted. But more openings are on the horizon in the District; hopefully we'll see them filled faster.

UPDATE -- Well, at least one open seat (Lanier Anderson's) just got filled -- the Senate just confirmed new 11th Circuit judge Beverly Martin 97-0. Congrats!

Supreme Court addresses case of the chocolate penis

This is not a joke -- check out Wellons v. Hall, a case that comes out of the 11th Circuit. Here's the AP and the ABA:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider the claims of a Georgia death row inmate who is challenging his rape and murder conviction based on some unusual chocolate gifts given to the trial judge and bailiff.
Some jurors hearing the case against defendant Marcus Wellons gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts.
In a 5-4 ruling (PDF), the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion ordered the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider whether Wellons is entitled to discovery and a hearing in light of a high court ruling last year on behalf of an inmate who contended prosecutors withheld evidence of his drug addiction.
“Neither Wellons nor any court has ascertained exactly what went on at this capital trial or what prompted such ‘gifts,’ ” the Supreme Court wrote in the per curiam opinion. “Wellons has repeatedly tried, in both state and federal court, to find out what occurred, but he has found himself caught in a procedural morass.”
The court said that defense counsel did not learn until after the trial about unreported ex parte contacts between jurors and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff planned a reunion, and that jurors gave the chocolate gifts to the judge and bailiff either during or immediately after the penalty phase of the trial.
“From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect,” the Supreme Court said in the per curiam opinion. “The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner’s constitutional claims.”

Ah, that's just too good. In other news: Judge Jordan sentences the Crime Stoppers cop to two months.

And American Idol is back: