More on Kuehne R&R

SFL here, hope you had a nice weekend.

Here's a nice quote from John Pacenti's article on Judge Bandstra's R&R on Ben Kuehne:

If Bandstra’s decision stands, the case would be down to five substantive money laundering counts. Kuehne and Saldarriaga are accused of using a money broker to hide the movement of drug profits into the defense fund. The money broker was an informant working with the government and exchanging pesos for dollars used in U.S. drug stings.

Miami litigator Jane Moscowitz, one of Kuehne’s attorneys, said she was thrilled with the Bandstra ruling.

“It took my breath away that the motion had been granted,” she said.

And us too, Jane.

And here's some more background on the IRS/UBS suit, which is being closely watched in financial and legal circles:

While the deferred prosecution agreement reached between Swiss banking giant UBS and federal prosecutors on Wednesday might have initially looked like a great deal for the government, in reality the Zurich-based bank isn't disclosing nearly as many client names as law enforcement officials are suggesting, says Miller & Chevalier tax partner George Clarke III.

Clarke says that the decision by the Justice Department to file suit against UBS on Thursday in Miami is evidence of this.

Despite forking over $780 million in penalties as part of its deferred prosecution agreement, UBS, represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz litigation partner John Savarese, managed to secure a pretty good deal for itself, Clarke says.

Sure, not bad for a bunch of carpetbaggers from New York. But what are we, chopped liver?

Another one bites the dust

The government's case against Ben Kuehne is in utter shambles -- Count I (the most serious count) was already dismissed. The case against a co-defendant has been dismissed. And now, Magistrate Judge Bandstra has recommended that Count 7 -- the wire fraud count -- be dismissed against all defendants. It is time for the government to concede defeat, no?

Is It Friday Already?

By SFL

Boy the federal court beat is...a little beat today.

Does it count as SD FL news that I saw Judge Moreno having a nice lunch at La Loggia yesterday?

No, guess not -- darn, where's Julie Kay when you need her?

Anyways, the always-in-trial big man already updated us on Joe Cool. Judge Huck set sentencing for May 6.

Third time's the charm in the Liberty 6 retrial, which is starting to feel like Jarndyce and Jarndyce -- only longer.

What do you all think of this line from the defense opening:

“This case is a 100 percent setup; this is a manufactured crime,” the lawyer, Ana M. Jhones, said in her opening argument, which drew several objections from the prosecution, most notably when she remarked that “taking an oath to Al Qaeda is not a crime.”

True, but do must jurors think it should be?

And finally, more details on the IRS v. UBS showdown unfolding right here in sunny South Florida:

With today’s lawsuit, the U.S. asked a federal judge to enforce its so-called John Doe summonses. On July 1, a federal judge in Miami approved an IRS summons seeking information on thousands of UBS accounts owned or controlled by U.S. citizens. Negotiations between the U.S., Switzerland and UBS have been at a standstill since then, according to a Justice Department filing.

UBS said in a statement that it expected today’s filing.

“UBS believes it has substantial defenses” to the U.S. attempt to enforce the summonses and will “vigorously contest” the case, the bank said in the statement. The bank’s objections are based on U.S. laws, Swiss financial privacy laws, and a 2001 agreement between UBS and the IRS, according to the statement.

Anyone know who has been retained to represent UBS on this? I know a certain humble blogger who's available.

Have a great weekend all!

Joe Cool verdict

Guilty.

I am loving guest-blogger South Florida Lawyer. Great stuff below...

Thanks.

New Plea Agreement Policy Becomes Effective Tomorrow

SFL here, still muckin' around this joint while David tries another big case.

Boy I feel like a dinosaur thinking back to the days when the clerk's office was not automated, and you had to actually walk over to Court to pull a docket or see an administrative order.

Now the clerk can just imprint them directly into the microchip transmitter located behind your retina, saving a lot of time and also something they used to have a long time ago called "trees."

Wait a minute -- that upgrade is set to launch in 2010.

I guess in 09 they're still using old fashioned emails, and I got one earlier today from the clerk that said this:

Administrative Order 2009-2, effective February 20, 2009, provides in part:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that as of February 20, 2009, the Southern District of Florida's current policy of providing limited electronic access to plea agreements is rescinded. All plea agreements filed on or after February 20, 2009 will be public documents, with full remote access available to all members of the public and the bar, unless the Court has entered an Order in advance directing the sealing or otherwise restricting a plea agreement.

Please visit the Southern District of Florida web page at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov for the full text of Administrative Order 2009-2.

Hmm, I have to think this is a good thing, right?