A federal judge's limerick in response to a 465 page complaint

"Plaintiff has a great deal to say,
But it seems he skipped Rule 8(a).
His Complaint is too long,
Which renders it wrong,
Please re-write and re-file today."

via ABA Journal (and Seattle Times)

Sailfish, beagles, and...

...turtles. Oh my.

Tom Watts-Fitzgerald is prosecuting a business for selling small turtles. From Vanessa Blum's article last week:

There's a new salmonella threat in South Florida and this time it's tiny turtles, not tomatoes.Federal prosecutor Thomas Watts-Fitzgerald filed misdemeanor charges last week against a Hollywood-based reptile business. The business is accused of violating a public health law banning the sale of turtles with shells less than 4 inches long.Strictly Reptiles, which claims to be the nation's largest wildlife importer/exporter, illegally supplied 400 undersized Mississippi map turtles and 600 Yellow-bellied sliders that turned up for sale at flea markets, kiosks and pet stores, prosecutors allege.Congress enacted the ban in 1975, after public health investigations identified small turtles as a major source of human salmonella infections, particularly in children who liked to put the critters in their mouths.

Three Years Old!

Happy Birthday to us!

Fourth of July weekend three years ago, the SDFLA blog was born -- the first (I think) legal blog in South Florida (since then, a bunch of great local legal blogs have become daily reading -- Rumpole, Broward Blog, SFLawyers, to name a few).

Here's our very first post.
Our 1st b-day post.
And our 2nd (and here).

This is the 930th post! The blog has grown quite a bit and it's been a lot of fun. Thanks for stopping by and reading.

Happy 4th

Have a great weekend.

SPECIAL NOTE TO AUSAs and PDs -- on July 23rd we are having a lunch time talk (sponsored by the Federal Bar Association) on opening statements. The panel will include Chief Judge Moreno, Jan Smith, Ed Stamm, and Matt Menchel. Lunch will be served. RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov AUSAs and PDs only for this one.

From the most boring post ever to .....

Well, I've been trying not to blog this story for a bunch of reasons, but everyone is talking about this and I have received more than 20 emails from lawyers, judges, and others asking about it and why I haven't written about it (and thanks for all the tips that came in). So, for the few of you who haven't heard, there was an altercation between Bill Barzee and Benson Weintraub yesterday. I am including a passage from someone who claims to have knowledge of what happened:

"Bill Barzee was headed into the FDC yesterday when he ran into Benson Weintraub on the way out. They ran into each other in front of the tower building. Apparently words were exchanged about one of Bill's clients. Benson told Bill that he was taking over the case. He told Bill to go back to his office and write him a check. He told Bill that there was no need to go into the jail. This led to a further exchange of words...

Benson then attacked Bill, punching him twice in the face. Bill was carrying his briefcase in one hand and his jacket in the other. Bill then tried to push and kick Benson away. He put Benson in a headlock and subdued him until the Marshals came and broke it up.

Benson told others that he cold-cocked Bill because of Bill's comments."

If you were an eyewitness or have further information please email me.

Most boring post *ever*

This post is coming straight at you from the en banc 11th Circuit. I know, I know -- b-o-r-i-n-g.

1. First up is United States v. Svete. The Court agreed to hear the case en banc. This is going to be followed by all prosecutors and defense lawyers. The panel decision reversed a mail fraud conviction because, the court held, mail and wire fraud offenses do not encompass schemes which are not calculated to deceive a reasonably prudent person. The Court will address whether mail fraud (and related offenses) encompass schemes which are not calculated to deceive a reasonably prudent person? Get fired up baby!

2. Next is Jerry Greenberg v. National Geographic Society. No, not that Jerry Greenberg. This Jerry Greenberg. Can National Geographic reproduce (on a CD set) old magazines with Greenberg's pictures without his permission?

Judge Barkett wrote the majority opinion, which starts out this way:

Appellant National Geographic Society is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization that has published a monthly magazine since 1888.2 The Society also produces televised programs and computer software as well as other educational products through National Geographic Enterprises, a wholly-owned and for-profit subsidiary of the Society. Appellee Jerry Greenberg is a freelance photographer, some of whose photographs were published in four issues of the National Geographic Magazine. For decades, the Society has reproduced back issues of the Magazine in bound volumes, microfiche, and microfilm. In 1997, National Geographic produced “The Complete National Geographic” (“CNG”), a thirty-disc CD-ROM4
set containing each monthly issue of the Magazine, as it was originally published, for the 108 years from 1888 through 1996—roughly 1200 issues of the Magazine. In addition, the CNG includes a short opening montage and a computer program that allows users to search the CNG, zoom into particular pages, and print. Greenberg sued National Geographic, alleging that it had infringed his copyrights by reproducing in the CNG the print magazine issues that included his photographs. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of National Geographic, holding that because the CNG constituted a “revision” of
the print issues of the Magazine, the reproduction of Greenberg’s photographs in the CNG was privileged under 17 U.S.C. § 201(c) of the Copyright Act and did not constitute an infringement of Greenberg’s copyrights. However, a panel of this Court in Greenberg v. National Geographic Society (Greenberg I), 244 F.3d 1267, 1275–76 (11th Cir. 2001), reversed and remanded for the district court to “ascertain the amount of damages and attorneys fees that are, if any, due as well as any injunctive relief that may be appropriate.” After a jury trial on damages, the jury returned a verdict against National Geographic in the amount of $400,000.
National Geographic appealed again, this time arguing that the intervening decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), decided after Greenberg I, mandated a reversal of the jury verdict against it. A second panel of this Court agreed, finding that Tasini compelled a reversal of the jury verdict because, under Tasini’s rationale, National Geographic was privileged to reproduce its print magazines in digital format pursuant to § 201(c) of the Copyright Act. See Greenberg v. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y
(Greenberg II), 488 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2007).5 This Court then vacated the Greenberg II panel opinion and granted rehearing en banc to address the question of whether National Geographic’s use of Greenberg’s photographs in the CNG is privileged.

The conclusion:

In the light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Tasini that the bedrock of any § 201(c) analysis is contextual fidelity to the original print publication as presented to, and perceivable by, the users of the revised version of the original publication, we agree with the Second Circuit in Faulkner and find that National Geographic is privileged to reproduce and distribute the CNG under the “revision” prong of § 201(c).

The CNG—albeit in a different medium than print or microform—is a permissible reproduction of the National Geographic Magazine. Greenberg’s photographs are preserved intact in the CNG and can only be viewed as part of the original collective works in which they appeared. Similar to the microforms of Tasini, which preserve the context of multiple issues of magazines, the CNG’s digital CD-ROMs faithfully preserve the original context of National Geographic’s print issues. The CNG’s additional elements—such as its search function, its
indexes, its zoom function, and the introductory sequence—do not deprive National Geographic of its § 201(c) privilege in that they do not destroy the original context of the collective work in which Greenberg’s photographs appear.21 We REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Supreme Court Term is over

There aren't many jobs where you get the entire summer off -- school teachers and.... Supreme Court Justices.

Here's Linda Greenhouse's summary of the October 2007 Term. She is retiring, so this may be her last article.

Here's a cool graphic from the article on the major cases of the Term:

News and Notes

1. We previously covered the plea/sentencing that went bad in the Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan's case. She was sentenced to 29 months a week after Judge Cohn sentenced her to credit time served. Today, that plea and sentence was vacated because everyone, including the prosecutor and the judge, believed that the guidelines were 0-6 when Gholikhan pleaded guilty. The Sun-Sentinel article is here. Trial coming up in August. Bill Barzee for the defense.

2. The Sun-Sentinel also covers this shocking case here. According to the civil defendants in this case, Florida is an "anti-gay" state. Here's the intro from the article:

The family vacation cruise that Janice Langbehn, her partner Lisa Marie Pond and three of their four children set out to take in February 2007 was designed to be a celebration of the lesbian couple's 18 years together.But when Pond suffered a massive stroke onboard before the ship left port and was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital, administrators refused to let Langbehn into the Pond's hospital room. A social worker told them they were in an "anti-gay city and state."Langbehn filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday charging the Miami hospital with negligence and "anti-gay animus" in refusing to recognize her and the children as Pond's family, even after a power of attorney was faxed to the hospital within an hour of their arrival.The case raises questions about the way hospitals deal with same-sex or unmarried partners of patients, which has led to controversy in the past. Hospital industry officials say they are constrained by patient privacy laws that can restrict giving visiting access and medical information to nonrelatives, a stance that some patient advocates have branded as discriminatory.