Superbowl Monday

Great game; great weekend for Miami. Now what peeps? Who's in trial? What's going on?

Here are a couple of items:

1. Justice Thomas is making the rounds. Here he is speaking at UF Law. Thomas gave a big shout out to a Florida lawyer in his talk. He'll be here in April.

2. Who should Obama nominate for the S.Ct. pick? Let the debate begin.

3. What about the other judges though?

4. More on Alito vs. Obama here.

Who wants to be a Magistrate? (UPDATED TWICE)

Unfortunately, the applicant list and interviews for the open magistrate position were kept secret... That said, the committee acted quickly and cut the list to 5. Now the judges get to pick the next magistrate. I've heard from multiple sources about 4 of the 5 candidates:

1. Jackie Arango (AUSA)
2. Rick Del Toro (AUSA)
3. Jonathan Goodman (Akerman Senterfitt)
4. Daryl Trawick (State Circuit Judge; U.S. Attorney finalist)
5. UPDATE -- well, we got this one wrong, so I am taking it down.... Sorry! I will post it back up when I have the right info! SECOND UPDATE -- Okay, now I got the right person: Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes (Legon Ponce & Fodiman)

If you know who the 5th person is, please email me. (UPDATE -- thanks to all my tipsters!)

So who do you all want for the job?

Four of the five are current or former federal prosecutors...

"It has become so partisan, it's really uncomfortable."

That was Justice Thomas, not speaking about the Supreme Court, but instead answering why he doesn't attend the State of the Union. There's lots more in the article, but here's a snippet of the article covering his talk at Stetson Law School:

Race and politics don't appear to be his favorite subjects. But Thomas, one of the most conservative thinkers on the court, didn't shy away from them.
"They don't care that I don't judge a case as a Catholic," he said. "But they yell because I don't judge a case as a black man."
During President Barack Obama's State of the Union speech last week, Justice Samuel Alito appeared to mouth the words "not true" after the president criticized the court's campaign finance decision.
Thomas wasn't at the speech and wouldn't address the issue. Politics, he said, is why he stopped going to the annual address.
"It has become so partisan, it's really uncomfortable for a judge," he said. "There's a lot of things you don't hear on the broadcast.
"You have catcalls and people muttering under their breath."

Justice Thomas will be addressing our District at the Bench & Bar conference in April.

Lots of shredding

The first Allen Stanford trial is underway. From the South Florida Business Journal:

Jury selection is under way this morning in the case against two South Florida men charged with shredding evidence in the case of R. Allen Stanford.
Former Stanford security personnel Bruce Perraud and Thomas Raffanello are the first to go to trial in Miami federal court in what federal prosecutors have alleged is a $7 billion Ponzi scheme led by Stanford and run through his Antigua-based bank.
Perraud, a global security specialist in the Fort Lauderdale office of Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, allegedly oversaw the shredding of documents at a warehouse facility last February. He was indicted in June.
Raffanello, who once led the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s Miami office, worked as a security director for Stanford and is the husband of well-known defense attorney Susan Raffanello, of the Coffey Burlington law firm in Miami.

Interestingly, the case is being tried before visiting judge Richard Goldberg, who told jurors that the trial would last about two weeks.

The first witness testified today that in February 2009, there was more shredding than in any other month. Here's the AP on the first witness.

"A Law for the Sex Offenders Under a Miami Bridge"

Miami is in Time Magazine again. This time for sex offenders living under the bridge:

The Julia Tuttle Causeway is one of Miami's most beautiful bridge spans, connecting the city to Miami Beach through palm-tree-filled islands fringed with red mangroves. But beneath the tranquil expanse sits one of South Florida's most contentious social problems: a large colony of convicted sex offenders, thrown into homelessness in recent years by draconian residency restrictions that leave them scant available or affordable housing. They live in tents and shacks built from cast-off supplies, clinging to pylons and embankments, with no running water, electricity or bathrooms. Not even during a recent cold spell, when nighttime temperatures dropped into the 30s, could they move into temporary lodging.

***

But with the disturbing bridge colony putting Miami under increased national scrutiny — it has managed the improbable feat of arousing sympathy for pedophiles — Miami-Dade County hopes to return some sanity to the issue. A new law takes effect on Monday that supersedes the county's 24 municipal ordinances, many of which make it all but impossible for offenders to find housing. It keeps the 2,500-feet restriction, but applies it only to schools. It also sets a 300-foot restriction to keep offenders from loitering near anyplace where children gather, which many experts call a more practical solution than harsh residency restrictions.

County officials, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, hope the law will prod states and perhaps even the U.S. Congress to craft more-uniform laws to prevent the kind of residency-restriction arms race that Florida let local governments wage. "The safety of Floridians has suffered as local politicians have tried to one-up each other with policies that have resulted in colonies of homeless sex offenders left to roam our streets," says state senator Dave Aronberg, a Democrat running for state attorney general. The excessive rules, he adds, "have the effect of driving offenders underground and off law enforcement's radar." Aronberg is co-sponsoring a new bill that would establish uniform statewide residency rules fixed at 1,750 feet — studies show that in many cities, over 50% of available housing is within 2,500 feet of schools — and include the sweeping no-loitering zones.

Monday morning...

Monday morning + Rain = FREAKING HORRIBLE TRAFFIC

As you all know, I'm not a fan of judicial elections. Tony Mauro writes that the recent Citizens United decision might kill judicial elections:

For years now, judicial reform groups have more or less resigned themselves to the reality that the public likes to elect its state judges and will fight any effort to appoint them instead.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Jan. 21 decision in Citizens United v. FEC may have altered that sober truth -- or at least has given reformers a glimmer of hope that it might. By supersizing possible corporate domination of judicial elections, the thinking goes, the Supreme Court's decision may finally make the public see how unseemly the elections are -- and move toward merit-based selection as an alternative.
"There is a silver lining to the decision," said Ohio Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, who has taken the lead in seeking change in Ohio's elective system for judges. "For those of us who have been trying to impress upon the public the deleterious effects of money in these elections, it helps us make the point that we need to get the money out."
"The time is now for change," said Rebecca Kourlis, former Colorado Supreme Court justice and executive director of the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver. "I believe we can revitalize the merit-selection movement."
Kourlis spoke at a Georgetown University Law Center conference on judicial elections convened on Jan. 26 by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In retirement, working with Kourlis and others, O'Connor has become a merit-selection evangelist who energizes the movement by her sheer presence. O'Connor's calendar is dotted with meetings with local good-government groups across the country aimed at jump-starting the effort to change the way state judges are chosen. Currently, O'Connor said, more than 80 percent of state judges have to win a political election to gain or retain their seats.

Rev. Ike hit with $5 million verdict in federal court

How did no one cover the male on male sexual harassment case before Judge Cooke? Rev. Ike just got hit for $5 million!

The case was: Augusto Medina vs. United Christian Evangelic Association & the Estate of Frederick Eikerenkoetter (Rev. Ike) -- Case No. 08-22111. Congrats to Robyn Hankins and Jennifer Ator for their big win.

I am working on getting some of the details of the case and will post soon. In the meantime, here's a clip of Rev. Ike:



UPDATE -- lots of great stories rolling in about the case. Here's one:

Rev. Ike testified in his deposition, which was played at trial, that he never had any sexual contact with Plaintiff Medina, and that there was no way this could have been consensual because it never happened. Also when asked if there was anyone who could overrule a decision made by him, Rev. Ike said, "All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say, I resign. No."

In the closing argument, Defendants' attorney said that Rev. Ike lied at his depo and that the sex was consensual. Of course Rev. Ike denied it ever happened, the lawyer said, because of his position and Medina knew that he had to deny it and would deny it, which is further proof of the calculated plan to extort money from Rev. Ike.

Apparently there was a gasp from Rev. Ike's widow, who was in the audience, when the lawyer revealed that there was consensual sex.

Wow.

Why I love my TiVo

I got to watch Justice Alito's horrible poker face about 6 times before my wife made me continue with Obama's speech last night. After the President criticized the Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United, Justice Alito mouthed "not true" and shook his head. Here's the video:



All the other Justices kept their poker faces, but Alito was not a happy camper.