1. More Jack Abramoff news at the Herald. Jay Weaver reports here on Ohio Rep. Bob Ney's connection to the case: "Federal authorities want to know whether an obscure Ohio congressman improperly influenced negotiations in the $147 million SunCruz Casinos deal five years ago as a favor to a politically connected lobbyist and his business partner, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican better known for touting coal shippers in his district, thrust himself into the sensitive sale in March 2000 when he publicly trashed Fort Lauderdale-based SunCruz owner Gus Boulis in Congress. Sources say investigators want to know whether Ney deliberately sought to handicap Boulis by highlighting his troubles with Florida authorities at a time when the magnate -- pressured by federal prosecutors -- was desperately trying to sell his gambling ships to Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff and New York businessman Adam Kidan."
2. WHOOPS! In the well-publicized drug prosecution of Evintz Brillant, the government's star witness picked out Justice Department attorney Thomas Pinder when asked to identify the defendant. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Weinstein quickly recovered and asked the witness to stand up and look around the courtroom for Brillant. ''I made a mistake,'' he said. "He's sitting right there, wearing a blue shirt.''
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela to get free lawyer
So reports Jay Weaver. This seems wrong to me. Appointed lawyers are meant for indigent defendants. The man has money. Lots of it. He could spend it at Publix or for a doctor or for clothes. Why not a lawyer?
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Judiciary Committee votes 13-5 in favor of Roberts
Final vote: Yes - 13; No - 5
Yes: Specter (R), Hatch (R), Grassley (R), Kyl (R), DeWine (R), Sessions (R), Leahy (D), Kohl (D), Feingold (D), Graham (R), Cornyn (R), Brownback (R), and Coburn (R)
No: (All Democrats) Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin.
Professor Ronald Dworkin begins a recent essay about the Committee's confirmation hearings as follows: "Almost every recorded political statement John Roberts has made throughout his life, from adolescence to his nomination as chief justice, suggests that he has strong conservative political convictions and instincts, and many people naturally fear that he will use his great power on the Supreme Court in the service of his politics. He promised that he would not, but the Senate Judiciary Committee should have been more effective than it was in testing that promise. In fact it failed dramatically in its responsibility to do so." Here is the entire essay.
Yes: Specter (R), Hatch (R), Grassley (R), Kyl (R), DeWine (R), Sessions (R), Leahy (D), Kohl (D), Feingold (D), Graham (R), Cornyn (R), Brownback (R), and Coburn (R)
No: (All Democrats) Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, and Durbin.
Professor Ronald Dworkin begins a recent essay about the Committee's confirmation hearings as follows: "Almost every recorded political statement John Roberts has made throughout his life, from adolescence to his nomination as chief justice, suggests that he has strong conservative political convictions and instincts, and many people naturally fear that he will use his great power on the Supreme Court in the service of his politics. He promised that he would not, but the Senate Judiciary Committee should have been more effective than it was in testing that promise. In fact it failed dramatically in its responsibility to do so." Here is the entire essay.
Top Aristede drug cop passed DEA polygraph
As David noted earlier, the trial against Evintz Brillant, Aristede's top drug cop, begins this week. The Herald reports today that Brillant passed a DEA polygraph exam in August 2002. Apparently, the DEA asked Brillant if he ever received a gift or bribe from a drug trafficker; ever provided protection for a cocaine smuggler; or ever participated in any illegal drug activity outside the scope of his official duties. He answered no to all questions.
Now, the government does not want the jury to hear this evidence. Judge Cooke will decide by Friday.
The Herald quotes Brillant's attorney, Howard Schumacher, as saying that he only learned last week from prosecutors that his client had taken the polygraph. This case has been pending for months, why did the government only disclose this evidence on the eve of trial?
Now, the government does not want the jury to hear this evidence. Judge Cooke will decide by Friday.
The Herald quotes Brillant's attorney, Howard Schumacher, as saying that he only learned last week from prosecutors that his client had taken the polygraph. This case has been pending for months, why did the government only disclose this evidence on the eve of trial?
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
The Porn Wars
Come on! This is a joke, right? The feds aren't really placing a top priority on porn, are they? As one FBI agent put it, "I guess we've won the war on terror." Apparently so as AG Gonzales has made porn a #1 priority. I earlier posted about the interim US Attorney's porn wars here. I guess it's time to make the base happy...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)