Greenberg Traurig indicted...

...in Guam (via ABA Journal).

It relates to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Dersh on Spitzer

Here is Professor Alan Dershowitz's take on the Eliot Spitzer case. I post it because it is very different than the way most of us feel about Mr. Spitzer. Here's a snippet:

The federal criminal investigation that has led to Eliot Spitzer's resignation as governor of New York illustrates the great dangers all Americans face from vague and open-ended sex and money-transaction statutes.
Federal law, if read broadly, criminalizes virtually all sexual encounters for which something of value has been given. Federal money-laundering statutes criminalize many entirely legitimate and conventional banking transactions. Congress enacted these laws to give federal prosecutors wide discretion in deciding which "bad guys" to go after.
Generally, wise and intelligent prosecutors use their discretion properly -- to target organized crime, terrorism, financial predation, exploitation of children and the like. But the very existence of these selectively enforced statutes poses grave dangers of abuse. They lie around like loaded guns waiting to be used against the enemies of politically motivated investigators, prosecutors and politicians.

He concludes:

Lavrenti Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin's KGB, once quipped to his boss, "show me the man and I will find the crime." The Soviet Union was notorious for having accordion-like criminal laws that could be adjusted to fit almost any dissident target. The U.S. is a far cry from the Soviet Union, but our laws are dangerously overbroad.

Both Democrats and Republicans have targeted political adversaries over the years. The weapons of choice are almost always elastic criminal laws. And few laws are more elastic, and susceptible to abuse, than federal laws on money laundering and sex crimes. For the sake of all Americans, these laws should be narrowed and limited to predatory crimes with real victims.


Thoughts?

Judge Marcia Cooke speaks at the Federal Bar luncheon

While everyone else is wasting the day looking at "Kristen" pictures, we here at the SDFLA blog have pictures from yesterday's federal bar luncheon. Judge Cooke gave a very entertaining speech and demonstrated why she is so well liked by just about everyone who appears before her.

Reminder -- Judge Marcia Cooke to speak tomorrow at lunch

At the Banker's Club at noon.

Cost is $35.

There are a few seats left. You can pay at the door if you RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

See you there!

The mold problem couldn't be any worse, right?

Wrong.

There is mold throughout the James Lawrence King building. From John Pacenti's DBR article:

Another federal courthouse is riddled with mold, according to a private study last fall commissioned by the U.S attorney’s office. The study found mold spores in the air throughout the James Lawrence King building in downtown Miami. U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta said Monday he asked for the study after mold problems at the Dyer Courthouse across the street became public last year following the unusual death in 2006 of a federal judge from a mysterious pulmonary illness. Acosta said the study’s report found “areas of concern” spread throughout the building. He said it was not unusual for one floor to be affected on one side more than the other. He also confirmed a small number of employees have complained about respiratory illness. Sources say some workers have chronic bronchitis.

For our out of town readers, don't be surprised by this -- we have mold in just about every building in Miami. So, what should be done?

Acosta said the study — which he did not release — recommended an upgrade of the building’s air conditioning and humidity control system followed by the cleaning of the air handling units and replacing insulation in air ducts. “I became concerned with the air quality in this building and thought it appropriate and necessary to protect our employees with our own assessment,” Acosta said. “This is a quality of life issue and it needs to get done.” Acosta said air purifiers — purchased out of the U.S. attorney’s office budget — have been located in the most problematic areas. Acosta referred questions about cost of the project to the General Services Administration, which acts the government’s landlord by renting out space in federal buildings.

The bright spot to all of this -- the new building is supposed to open soon:

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Federico Moreno said a certificate of occupancy has been issued and technical services should move into the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. courthouse this month.

Client 9 and the Mann Act

The Mann Act is used quite frequently in this district to prosecute pimps and others who "persuade, induce, entice or coerce" women to cross state lines to engage in prostitution. 18 USC 2422 provides

Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

This seems like an easy prosecution for the feds if they choose to prosecute Eliot Spitzer, if the allegations are true. He certainly induced the prostitute to travel from New York to DC to engage in prostitution.

Now, should the feds pursue a simple prostitution case just because the prostitute traveled from state to state? There is nothing to suggest that the prostitute was coerced or was forced into this business (in fact, she was making more per hour than just about every lawyer in town). The original Mann Act of 1910 was really meant to outlaw forced prostitution (and was known as the "White Slave Traffic Act.") Although recent cases have greatly expanded the scope of the Act and the prosecution would be permissible, do you think such a prosecution is appropriate?

Trivia -- The most famous person prosecuted under the Mann Act is probably Charlie Chaplin.

TalkLeft has a bunch of good posts, including one exlplaining how the investigation started.

Pending motions list

In this morning's DBR, John Pacenti dimes out the district judges who have the most pending motions. Many judges check these stats out every month and want to make sure they have the lowest number of cases and motions.

When I clerked, Judge Davis would look at the list, but wouldn't really comment on it or seem to care too much about it. He always told us to work hard and not worry about the stats. (I guess his position might have been different if we were at the bottom of the list and not in the middle of the pack.)

Unless there is some glaring problem with a case or a motion that has hung around longer than it should, I think these lists are pretty silly. It's more important to get it right than to do it quickly.

What say you, SDFLA readers? (And pay no attention to Mr. Grumpy in the comments).

Chief Justice on cameras in the Supreme Court

"It's not our job to educate the public. Our job is to decide vitally important cases under the Constitution."

That's what he told a group of high school students in response to a question about why there were no cameras in the High Court.

Is it me or isn't that a very self-important, arrogant and obnoxious answer? I like the Chief Justice, but I disagree with him strongly on this point. How does educating the public at all take away from deciding important cases?