Whoooops!

The WSJ blog has a story about Alberto Gonzales's resignation letter, which has a major grammatical mistake:

It has always been my honor to serve at your pleasure. After much thought and consideration, I believe this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives.

From the WSJ:

The mistake: “My family and I” should be “my family and me.” WSJ Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin, who first pointed out Gonzo’s error to us yesterday afternoon, suspects it privately will delight the attorney general’s critics, who snicker at the sloppy way Gonzales ended his tenure. Such errors may be common in everyday speech, but perhaps they don’t belong in carefully deliberated public letters from cabinet officers to the president. So, Law Blog readers, what does Gonzales’s grammatical lapse symbolize: slipping of standards at DOJ, a rare common touch in official Washington, or, well, just a negligible gaffe?

How embarrassing!

Maybe Rumpole is A.G., as he often makes similar grammar gaffes on his blog...

Traffic on US1

This was the truck in front of me this morning... I snapped the picture with my phone because I couldn't believe the guy was sleeping like that.

Gotta love Miami.

For a cool picture series on Miami, check out this Flickr page. That photographer recently took some pictures of a person on South Beach and StuckonthePalmetto blog is asking whether it's a man or a woman. You decide.

Hilarious

Bored with the news of the AG resigning?

Sick of the round the clock coverage of Michael Vick?

Then, you must read this NY Times article about AbovetheLaw blogger David Lat and his run-in with Nixon Peabody over a video he uploaded to YouTube. YouTube took it down because Nixon Peabody complained, but here is the song at issue And better yet, here is a great video mocking Nixon Peabody:

"After 30 years, judge working hard until ‘they carry me out’"

Here is a very interesting profile on Judge William Hoeveler by Julie Kay.

There is also a five part video series from the interview, with Part I here. It's a little hard to hear Hoeveler but if you turn your volume up, it's definitely worth watching. It's pretty rare to get a judge on the record like this, so it's fascinating...

Here are some of the Q&As from the article:

Do you regret speaking out about the Everglades case?
That needed to be said. I was disturbed that our settlement and order pursuant to that was torpedoed by the Legislature after just a few days. And the lobbyists’ role in the matter didn’t please me either. But [Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno] has the case now, and he’s a fine judge. He’ll do well with it. But I probably spoke out too much.

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
Yes. The environment and the Everglades are one of my favorite causes. I take environmental positions when they are correct and don’t when they are not.

What other causes are you passionate about?
The First Amendment. I’ve had several important First Amendment cases. I feel extremely strongly about the right to speak out. The First Amendment is an extremely important area. I’m a Constitution lover. I’m distressed at what is happening now to the Fourth Amendment [right to due process]. It is being chipped away … the right to privacy. But I better not say anything more about that, some cases might come before me.

Do you regret any of your rulings?
No. I’m comfortable with all my rulings.

How has the bench changed since you first arrived?
In the ’70s, we handled a lot of drug cases. Also, our bench has grown much larger. We had six or seven judges then, now we have 16 or 18. We’re getting more civil cases now because we have more judges.

Has the quality of lawyering before you changed any over the years?
Not much. They have excellent career prosecutors at the U.S. attorney’s office and lots of new young lawyers who are good. Both prosecution and defense are pretty high quality here.

Who are the best trial lawyers you’ve seen in action?
Roy Black, Albert Krieger, Pat Sullivan, Dick Gregorie, Neal Sonnett.

We hear a lot about activist judges. Do you believe there are activist judges?
I read a lot that there are. But I don’t think there are. They don’t please everybody. [He reads a passage from his well-worn copy of the book “The Imitation of Christ,” a 15th century Christian spiritual book.] “And he that neither coveteth to please men nor feareth to displease them, shall enjoy much peace. From inordinate love and vain fear ariseth all disquietness of heart and distraction of the thoughts.” All judges should follow that.

Have you ever received a death threat?
Once. I received a phone call at my house threatening me from someone when I was hearing the Omega 7 case in 1984. [The case involved an anti-Fidel Castro group accused of bombing the Venezuelan and Mexican consulates]. For two weeks, we had marshals around the clock. I don’t know how they got my home phone number because it’s not listed.

Were you afraid?
My wife was moved by it.

What was your hardest decision on the bench?
The rock mining case. But I can’t get into it because it’s on appeal.

Who are your heroes?
Former Chief Judge Clyde Atkins. 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Peter Fay. My contemporary judges are all my heroes, and some of the newer ones. Dwight Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter. He wasn’t that well-thought of but I thought he was a good and honest man. The writer Thomas Merton.

What about John F. Kennedy?
I didn’t like him. He played around too much.

Do you pray? [Hoeveler is a devout Episcopalian].
I pray every day. I pray before I rule.

Do you have any hobbies?
My hobby is my wife, Christine. We married three years ago. She was my physical therapist.

What are you most proud of in your career?
I’m proud of being a federal judge and doing what I think is right. Maybe I was wrong sometimes, but I have no regrets.

How long do you plan to keep working?
I’ll continue to work until they carry me out.

Noriega va en France

“This court never intended for the proclamation of defendant as a P.O.W. to shield him from all future prosecutions for serious crimes he is alleged to have committed,” Judge William Hoeveler said in his 12-page ruling, sending Manuel Noriega to France. “That being said, even the most vile offender is entitled to the same protections as those owed to a law-abiding soldier once they have been declared a P.O.W. It appears that the extradition proceedings should proceed uninterrupted.”

The NY Times reports on the case here:

Mr. Noriega was convicted in absentia in France in 1999 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for laundering more than $3 million in drug proceeds. France has agreed to hold a new trial if Mr. Noriega is extradited.
Mr. Noriega also faces legal jeopardy at home in Panama, where he was convicted in absentia of embezzlement, corruption and murdering political opponents. Although Mr. Noriega faces up to 60 years in prison for those charges, Panamanian law allows older convicts to serve prison time at home and Mr. Noriega’s Panamanian lawyers have expressed confidence they can beat the charges there and keep him out of jail.
Mr. Hoeveler, who presided over Mr. Noriega’s criminal trial in Miami, ruled that Mr. Noriega’s status as a prisoner of war does not prevent him from future prosecution.

....

Mr. Noriega may still appeal the ruling, which will keep him in U.S. custody for some weeks or months. Frank Rubino, Mr. Noriega’s Miami-based attorney, said he was disappointed by the ruling and would decide in the next week whether to challenge it in the United States Court of Appeals 11th Circuit or with the United Nations.