Three pictures of the day:
and one item without a picture -- apparently the 11th Circuit is investigating a judge.
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
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Monday, May 03, 2010
Monday morning...
Feels like summer is here, no?
SFL already has posted on the FBA BABC. It was a good event. Tons of people showed up, and most of the judges were there. Big shout out to Adam Rabin and Brian Spector for their hard work. From the criminal bar perspective, I thought it was interesting to see the prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers engaging each other on a variety of topics, including sentencing, discovery, cooperating witnesses, and so on. I got a lot out of it. To the left is one such discussion taking place. Good stuff...
Today is Willy Ferrer's first day on the job. Should be interesting to see how things shake out...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
We miss you Paris
She wasn't in court today for a follow-up hearing on her case before Judge Moreno. The AP covers the hearing here. See everyone tomorrow at the Doral for the Bench & Bar conference.
UPDATE -- Even though Paris wasn't in court today, Dan Marino was. He was testifying in O.J. McDuffie's state court med mal case.
Judge Kozinski says we need cameras in the courtroom
And I wholeheartedly agree. From the Above the Law post on his comments:
Kozinski started his talk by going over some of the arguments he has made before [PDF] in support of cameras (e.g., studies show cameras don’t affect the proceedings, quoting his “old boss” Warren Burger — “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”).
It wouldn’t be like the O.J. trial, which decidedly set the cameras-in-the-courtroom movement back. Kozinski advocates stationary cameras that would not zoom in, zoom out, or otherwise overly dramatize the courtroom events. Kozinski acknowledged that if you were to choose between a O.J. media circus or reports from informed journalists like Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse, one might be happy to live without cameras.
But that’s not usually the choice one has. Kozinski pointed to the “long, slow decline of the newspaper industry” and the “rise of a much more diffuse style of coverage” as a major reason why cameras should be brought into courtrooms. Increasingly, the public is relying on “pseudo-journalists” (aka bloggers) for their instantaneous legal news.
“On the Internet, the loudest voice gets the most attention,” said Kozinski, who said that tends to lead to a distortion of the coverage of a case. He also raised the risks of relying on unknown bloggers, pointing to the case of “Dr. Flea.”
Someone explain to me why our federal courtrooms should be closed to the public.
Kozinski started his talk by going over some of the arguments he has made before [PDF] in support of cameras (e.g., studies show cameras don’t affect the proceedings, quoting his “old boss” Warren Burger — “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”).
It wouldn’t be like the O.J. trial, which decidedly set the cameras-in-the-courtroom movement back. Kozinski advocates stationary cameras that would not zoom in, zoom out, or otherwise overly dramatize the courtroom events. Kozinski acknowledged that if you were to choose between a O.J. media circus or reports from informed journalists like Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse, one might be happy to live without cameras.
But that’s not usually the choice one has. Kozinski pointed to the “long, slow decline of the newspaper industry” and the “rise of a much more diffuse style of coverage” as a major reason why cameras should be brought into courtrooms. Increasingly, the public is relying on “pseudo-journalists” (aka bloggers) for their instantaneous legal news.
“On the Internet, the loudest voice gets the most attention,” said Kozinski, who said that tends to lead to a distortion of the coverage of a case. He also raised the risks of relying on unknown bloggers, pointing to the case of “Dr. Flea.”
Someone explain to me why our federal courtrooms should be closed to the public.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
More associates charged...
...but this time it isn't Rothstein's people; it's Lew Freeman's. Here's the information charging Jose Wong and Steven Jockers. Like Rothstein's COO, they are charged in an information, which is a clear sign that they've already cut a deal. According to the USAO press release:
Jose Wong began working as an employee at LBFP in1992. Wong held various accounting positions in LBFP, and was ultimately promoted to comptroller at LBFP. In this position, Wong performed all the bookkeeping related to LBFP’s operating accounts and managed Lewis B. Freeman’s personal finances. Wong also prepared financial reports, such as bank reconciliations and cash-flow reports, on a number of matters to which Freeman had been appointed as the fiduciary. Additionally, Wong deposited a large number of unauthorized checks payable to LBFP from the fiduciary accounts into the LBFP operating accounts.
Steven Jockers worked as an employee at LBFP since1998. Jockers frequently assisted Freeman and other principals of LBFP in the day-to-day functions required to maintain receiverships, liquidating trusteeships, and assignments for the benefit of creditors. Jockers also did bookkeeping and prepared financial reports, such as bank reconciliations and cash-flow reports, on a number of matters to which Freeman had been appointed as the fiduciary.
It is estimated that Freeman issued more than 100 unauthorized checks and consequently misappropriated more than $6 million from fiduciary accounts he was responsible for safeguarding.
The case is assigned to Judge Lenard.
Jose Wong began working as an employee at LBFP in1992. Wong held various accounting positions in LBFP, and was ultimately promoted to comptroller at LBFP. In this position, Wong performed all the bookkeeping related to LBFP’s operating accounts and managed Lewis B. Freeman’s personal finances. Wong also prepared financial reports, such as bank reconciliations and cash-flow reports, on a number of matters to which Freeman had been appointed as the fiduciary. Additionally, Wong deposited a large number of unauthorized checks payable to LBFP from the fiduciary accounts into the LBFP operating accounts.
Steven Jockers worked as an employee at LBFP since1998. Jockers frequently assisted Freeman and other principals of LBFP in the day-to-day functions required to maintain receiverships, liquidating trusteeships, and assignments for the benefit of creditors. Jockers also did bookkeeping and prepared financial reports, such as bank reconciliations and cash-flow reports, on a number of matters to which Freeman had been appointed as the fiduciary.
It is estimated that Freeman issued more than 100 unauthorized checks and consequently misappropriated more than $6 million from fiduciary accounts he was responsible for safeguarding.
The case is assigned to Judge Lenard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)