Abramoff plea and other items...

Here is Jack Abramoff's plea agreement that was entered into here in Miami. A couple things to note -- Abramoff agreed to over $20 million in loss, that he used sophisticated means, more than minimal planning, that his actions affected a financial institution, and that he derived more than a million bucks... More significantly, he agreed that the sentencing guidelines would be binding and that he would not appeal his sentence. His only chance to get under the 70-87 month guideline sentence is if he successfully cooperates and if the government files a motion saying so. He and his lawyers must be pretty sure he can give up some big fish...

On a lighter note, a commenter points out:

Anonymous said...
What's the deal with Abramoff's hats? In D.C. he wore an old school fedora and down here he had a baseball cap on. I know his lawyers are giving him excellent legal advice, but who is giving him fashion advice?

Biggest case in the country?

Although the Abramoff case is getting tons of press, I don't think it's getting enough. To me, this is not only the biggest case in the Southern District of Florida right now, it's the biggest case in the country.

Cuban Five and Abramoff news

The breaking news banner on CNN.com this morning is that Abramoff has agreed to a plea deal. Details when I find them out... (update -- here's the CNN article).

In other news, Julie Kay has written about the government's opposition to the amicus briefs filed in the Cuban Spy case. I previously posted about the fight here. Here's some of the article:

The latest twist in the high-profile case came last week when the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami filed a motion seeking to block the 11th Circuit’s acceptance of two amicus briefs filed by state and national legal organizations that oppose the government’s position. The motion sharply urged the 11th Circuit not to accept the briefs. Two days later, Ricardo Bascuas, a University of Miami law professor who authored one of the amicus briefs, filed a strongly worded reply opposing the government’s position and reiterating why amicus briefs should be allowed. “The important civil rights precedents discussed by amici curiae hold that the Sixth Amendment protects us all from convictions tainted by racial, ideological, religious, ethnic, or other irrational prejudice,” states the brief. “As distinguished criminal defense organizations, amici offer to assist the court by presenting the cases most pertinent to the fair treatment of unpopular defendants.” The amicus briefs were filed by the National Lawyers Guild, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Federal Public Defenders and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.... “Everyone plays to win, I guess,” Federal Assistant Public Defender Richard Klugh, who likely will be arguing the case before the 11th Circuit, said in an interview. “But to not allow anyone except the Cuban defendants to argue is not right. These are respected American legal organizations and they should be allowed to participate in the process.” Markus angrily called the prosecutors “crybabies.” “Only insecure bullies cry and complain like this,” he said. “I’m really surprised that the [U.S. attorney’s office] would take this position.” ... The brief by Assistant U.S.Attorney Caroline Heck Miller calls the amici “surrogates for appellants.” The purpose of such a move, she suggests, would be to allow the defense to circumvent page limitations in their own briefs. Klugh angrily denies the allegation. He and other defense lawyers argue that they see no reason why the court shouldn’t allow the two amicus briefs. All parties should be allowed to express their views in the case, Klugh said. “I have never seen the government argue this before,” Klugh said. “I can see if there were 10 briefs filed, but there were just two, from respected legal organizations.” ... Richard B. Rosenthal, a Miami appellate lawyer, said the South Florida legal community was flabbergasted by the government’s move. “We were all surprised,” he said. “Those briefs are routinely allowed and the government’s decision to challenge the amicus brief smacks either of desperation or of sheer pettiness.” ...

New poll

In the spirit of the funniest Justice article (see post below), I've started a poll for funniest Southern District of Florida Judge (scroll down a bit; it's on the right of the page). I've only included a few of the judges... If you think one should be added (or taken off), please post your thoughts in the comment section. Have fun.

Abramoff to plead? (and cooperate?)

That's the word on the street. Judge Paul Huck gave Abramoff (and his lawyer, Neal Sonnett) until Tuesday to decide whether it's going to be a plea or a trial. I bet lots of Congressmen are hoping he goes to trial...

Happy new year!

Happy and healthy New Year to all.

For your weekend reading, here is some info about the funniest Justice. And to the left is the graphic from the article. I'll never forget when a Miami lawyer continued to confuse Justice Souter and Justice Breyer. Justice Scalia started his questioning of the lawyer by saying, "I'm Scalia." Now that's funny.

Amicus fight

Professor Ricardo Bascuas, on behalf of NACDL, FACDL-Miami, and NAFD, authored an amicus brief in the Cuban Spy case, in support of the panel's determination that venue was improper. Typically these briefs are filed with the consent of both parties. In this case, however, the government has opposed the filing of the brief, making some unbelievable claims. For one, it claims that it's not fair because it doesn't have enough space to respond to the arguments raised by amici -- it even takes a shot at the panel saying that the panel used more words than were given to the government in its brief. In the same breath, it also says that the arguments raised by amici are not relevant. Finally, it asserts that the brief is "partisan." I have never seen the government take such an odd position. Amicus briefs are filed by organizations that have a unique perspective on the subject being debated in court. Of course they have a position. And if the arguments raised aren't relevant, why does the government have to waste any of its space addressing them? In the interest of disclosure, I am NACDL's vice chair of the amicus committee for the 11th circuit and I signed the brief on behalf of NACDL.

Padilla moves

Lots of moves in the Padilla case. The Bushies asked the Supreme Court to order the transfer of Padilla to FDC-Miami to face the indictment filed last month. Lyle Deniston has a lot of great things to say on the subject. Here's his intro:

The Bush Administration, protesting that the Fourth Circuit Court has engaged in an "unprecedented and unfounded assertion of judicial authority," on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to order the prompt transfer of terrorism suspect Jose Padilla out of military custody and into a regular federal prison. The new filing, escalating the inter-branch constitutional conflict that has now arisen over Padilla, complained that the lower court had made "an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion," raising "profound separation-of-powers concerns" if not remedied swiftly. "The Fourth Circuit's order defies both law and logic," the new filing contended. Without waiting to see how the Justices would react to the rapid change of circumstances recently in Padilla's case, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement filed an application to shift Padilla to the Federal Detention Facility in Miami, so that he can face new criminal charges claiming he aided terrorism abroad. The Fourth Circuit last week refused to allow that transfer, saying the government may be trying to undercut Padilla's pending appeal to the Supreme Court. But the Circuit Court also said it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide Padilla's placement, and thus Clement turned to the Justices seeking what the lower court had denied.

Before this latest move, the Herald's Jay Weaver had this coverage of all the latest wrangling. And TalkLeft opines that Padilla's lawyers slap Bush Administration. The Daily Business Review (Julie Kay) had a piece about Padilla's and Hassoun's co-defendant, Kifah Jayyousi, but there is no public link available to review the article. Finally Brian Tannebaum has this to say about criminal defense lawyers in these sorts of cases.

The Southern District of Florida finds itself in the middle of this historic fight between the branches of government.