"The value of freedom is found not only in the larger issues of life but also in the fanciful and strange."

So said Judge Middlebrooks about a naked protester in a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The case involved what it means to be the prevailing party in a civil rights case. Here's David Savage, from the LA Times on the case:

The Supreme Court's first ruling on an Iraq war protest is not likely to be remembered as a landmark in the law. In a 9-0 ruling, the justices rejected a claim for legal fees filed on behalf of a Florida nudist who wanted to form a peace symbol out of naked bodies on a state beach.Toni Anne Wyner's planned demonstration ran afoul of the state's Bathing Suit Rule, which, as its name suggests, requires beachgoers to cover up. In February 2003, she went to court to challenge this rule as a violation of her 1st Amendment right to free expression. In the past, the Supreme Court has said that nudity and nude dancing can be a form of expressive conduct, though it can be regulated. At first, a judge saw merit to her complaint and allowed the nude protest to take place — but behind a screen, to shield other beach patrons at John D. MacArthur Beach State Park in Palm Beach County. "The value of freedom is found not only in the larger issues of life but also in the fanciful and strange," said U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks. He continued: "Protesting a potential war through naked protest seems a bit quixotic, but it is also part of the freedom that both those supporting the war and those who oppose it seek to protect."After forming their peace symbol behind the screen, the nudists went into the water naked. When Wyner went back to court seeking a permanent order allowing such protests, the judge refused and ruled for the state. However, he said that the civil liberties lawyers who represented Wyner were entitled to be paid because they had won at least one round of the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed that decision Monday in Sole vs. Wyner. Federal law entitles the "prevailing party" in a civil rights or civil liberties case to obtain legal fees from the government. "Wyner is not a prevailing party, we conclude, for her initial victory was ephemeral," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court. A plaintiff who wins a preliminary injunction, then loses on the merits, wins a battle but loses a war, Ginsburg wrote.

Case changes focus

Prosecutors have changed the focus of the trial from Jose Padilla to Kifah Wael Jayyousi. Here's the AP report on how it started:

A Muslim convert testified Tuesday that he grew suspicious and distanced himself from the leader of an Islamic charity after an associate returned from war-torn Chechnya with part of a leg missing from a land mine explosion.
Jeremy Collins, 33, said he worked at American Worldwide Relief that was headed by Kifah Wael Jayyousi, who is on trial along with alleged al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla and an another man on charges of contributing to Muslim extremist causes worldwide. All three face life in prison if convicted.
“It was just chaos. There was no relief work,” Collins said he learned from his associate. “There seemed to be more fighting than relief work.”

Collins’ testimony focuses on Jayyousi’s years in San Diego, well before Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3½ years as an enemy combatant, came on the scene.
Questions about the organization also were raised when the group’s $20,000 satellite telephone was shut down in early 1996 at the request of the Russian government, said Collins, who was the organization’s then-vice president.

Wilk guilty

blogging from the road....

--------------------
Wilk guilty of 7 counts in murder of BSO deputy, wounding of another
--------------------

By Paula McMahon
Sun-Sentinel.com

June 5 2007, 4:40 PM EDT

FORT LAUDERDALE -- Jurors in a federal death penalty case convicted Kenneth Wilk on Tuesday of three capital counts in the murder of a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy and the wounding of another deputy almost three years ago.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-65wilk,0,3625341.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

Judge Altonaga is busy...

In addition to the 400 plaintiffs to be tried 5 at a time, Judge Altonaga also has the "child camel jockey" case, which was profiled this weekend in the NY Times:

The plaintiffs are thousands of boys from South Asia and Africa who say they were abducted, enslaved and forced to ride racing camels to entertain the rich in the Middle East. The defendants live in the United Arab Emirates.
But the case is pending in Miami, and the jockeys are represented not by human rights groups but by Motley Rice, a leading contingency-fee class-action firm based in South Carolina known for its work in tobacco, asbestos and other domestic injury cases.
The class-action bar is going global. Until recently, international human rights cases in American courts were brought mainly by public interest lawyers more interested in calling attention to abuses and in establishing universal legal standards than in a potential payday.
The prominent plaintiffs’ firms, their critics say, are in it for the money. And the fact that they have started to embrace international human rights law may be a reflection of the relatively limited opportunities left in domestic class-action suits after legislative and judicial efforts to cut them back.

Verdict in the NCL trial

Well, the first five plaintiffs can't be happy they went first in the case involving 400 plaintiffs against NCL for cruising through a big storm. They were zipped. Now what? I've heard that Judge Altonaga plans on using the same jury again in three months for the next five plaintiffs. Do they get to retry liability? Anyone in the know have any insight on what's the next step assuming no settlement.