Chief operating officer Debra Villegas was charged Tuesday with conspiring to launder money from his massive investment racket (via Miami Herald). Here's the indictment which got assigned to Judge Zloch.
UPDATE -- an astute reader points out that it's an information, not an indictment, and that it says it will take the parties zero days to try the case. Looks like Ms. Villegas has worked out a deal to plead and cooperate...
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, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Now that Manuel Noriega ...
... is gone (on a plane to France), who is going to get that special wing in the prison, which has a TV, window, exercise equipment and a phone?
“These two judges are fed up with the government’s efforts to clean up the Everglades.”
Nothing like a good Guy Lewis quote on Monday Morning. He's talking about Judges Moreno and Gold. He continues: “You’ve got two of the finest judges in the district, and both are as patient as Job, and they have come to the conclusion that enough is enough.”
The DBR article covering the Everglades cleanup is here. Some more:
Lewis said Gold and Moreno have drawn a line in the sand after giving government agencies the benefit of the doubt for years. “They want to believe their orders are going to be complied with and the government in good faith is going to clean up our backyard, and it’s not happening,” Lewis said. “It’s a shame it’s gotten to the point the tribe and others have to go in and say, ‘Please, judge, force government to live up to its lawful obligation.’ It’s extraordinary.” Everglades restoration has been slow going, but a $7.8 billion restoration plan signed by President George W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in 2003 shows limited success. “Rule No. 1 in politics is the big dogs eat first,” Guest said. “There is a lot of talk and not much walk. … Everglades restoration entered into a Dark Ages under the Bush administration. The projects didn’t get funded even though they were spending money on all sort of things. They built up this giant budget deficit, and it didn’t go to Everglades restoration, and it could have.”
***
Lehtinen said Everglades water quality has been somewhat improved thanks to a judiciary that wants to see the cleanup project through. “If you beat them about the head and shoulders enough with court orders, you do see some progress,” he said. “These judges are critical.”
The DBR article covering the Everglades cleanup is here. Some more:
Lewis said Gold and Moreno have drawn a line in the sand after giving government agencies the benefit of the doubt for years. “They want to believe their orders are going to be complied with and the government in good faith is going to clean up our backyard, and it’s not happening,” Lewis said. “It’s a shame it’s gotten to the point the tribe and others have to go in and say, ‘Please, judge, force government to live up to its lawful obligation.’ It’s extraordinary.” Everglades restoration has been slow going, but a $7.8 billion restoration plan signed by President George W. Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in 2003 shows limited success. “Rule No. 1 in politics is the big dogs eat first,” Guest said. “There is a lot of talk and not much walk. … Everglades restoration entered into a Dark Ages under the Bush administration. The projects didn’t get funded even though they were spending money on all sort of things. They built up this giant budget deficit, and it didn’t go to Everglades restoration, and it could have.”
***
Lehtinen said Everglades water quality has been somewhat improved thanks to a judiciary that wants to see the cleanup project through. “If you beat them about the head and shoulders enough with court orders, you do see some progress,” he said. “These judges are critical.”
Friday, April 23, 2010
"Anything is possible when a criminal defendant makes himself the government’s darling in an effort to obtain a reduced prison sentence."
That was Paul Calli in this morning's DBR discussing Scott Rothstein and his upcoming (but delayed) sentencing. More from Paul:
Calli warned prosecuting a case built on the word of master criminals like Rothstein is especially unreliable. “You take a guy who is nothing but a con man and you rely on him to accuse others. He has a built-in incentive to lie,” he said.
Jeff Weiner represents someone that Rothstein has cooperated against:
He said it was “sad and pathetic” that the federal government would turn to the state’s top scam artist to entrap his client. He contends the government is delaying Rothstein’s sentencing in hopes of reforming his reputation for the witness stand. The postponement “is only to keep from being sentenced so the government can bolster his credibility, which he has none, against the many people he has cooperated against,” Weiner said.
I wonder if Jeff will be able to get Rothstein to pass out on the stand...
Sentencing is currently scheduled for June for Rothstein before Judge Cohn. My best guess is that he gets somewhere between 20 and 25 years. What do you all think?
Calli warned prosecuting a case built on the word of master criminals like Rothstein is especially unreliable. “You take a guy who is nothing but a con man and you rely on him to accuse others. He has a built-in incentive to lie,” he said.
Jeff Weiner represents someone that Rothstein has cooperated against:
He said it was “sad and pathetic” that the federal government would turn to the state’s top scam artist to entrap his client. He contends the government is delaying Rothstein’s sentencing in hopes of reforming his reputation for the witness stand. The postponement “is only to keep from being sentenced so the government can bolster his credibility, which he has none, against the many people he has cooperated against,” Weiner said.
I wonder if Jeff will be able to get Rothstein to pass out on the stand...
Sentencing is currently scheduled for June for Rothstein before Judge Cohn. My best guess is that he gets somewhere between 20 and 25 years. What do you all think?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
"For the tremendous philanthropic support he provides, the University of Miami is proud to name the Student-Athlete Lounge after Nevin Shapiro."
Newly minted SEC chief Eric Bustillo has come out of the box swinging with a $900 million Ponzi case against Mr. Shapiro. Shapiro is also charged in New Jersey and surrendered yesterday. He is represented by Mike Tein, Guy Lewis and Kate Meyers.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
8-1 Supreme Court strikes down law banning videos of animal cruelty
Rick Bascuas and I have had a lot to say on this issue as we represented the plaintiff in a similar case involving cockfighting videos. After the oral argument in Stevens (the dogfighting video case), I had this to say:
From what I heard, the case will be 8-1 in favor of the criminal defendant Stevens, holding that Section 48 -- prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty -- is unconstitutional. The one Justice that seemed to say that Congress could pass such a statute was Alito.
Too bad I can't call football games that well! Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the defendant Stevens and invalidated the statute. Alito was the one dissenter. From the New York Times:
In a major and muscular First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said the law created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous.”
***
As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs.” He continued, “Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
Having concluded that the First Amendment had a role to play in the analysis, the chief justice next considered whether the law on animal-cruelty depictions swept too broadly.
The 1999 law was enacted mainly to address what a House report called “a very specific sexual fetish.”
“Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,” according to the report. “In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter.”
When President Bill Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations, prompted by the First Amendment, and instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” But since then, the government has used the law in several prosecutions for trafficking in dogfighting videos.
Chief Justice Roberts said the law applied even more broadly. Since all hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, for instance, he said, the law makes the sale of magazines or videos showing hunting a crime here.
“The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders or magnitude,” he wrote.
The law contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Those exceptions were insufficient to save the statute, the chief justice wrote.
“Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature,” he said, “except in the sense that all life is a lesson.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, saying the majority’s analysis was built on “fanciful hypotheticals."
From what I heard, the case will be 8-1 in favor of the criminal defendant Stevens, holding that Section 48 -- prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty -- is unconstitutional. The one Justice that seemed to say that Congress could pass such a statute was Alito.
Too bad I can't call football games that well! Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the defendant Stevens and invalidated the statute. Alito was the one dissenter. From the New York Times:
In a major and muscular First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said the law created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous.”
***
As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs.” He continued, “Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
Having concluded that the First Amendment had a role to play in the analysis, the chief justice next considered whether the law on animal-cruelty depictions swept too broadly.
The 1999 law was enacted mainly to address what a House report called “a very specific sexual fetish.”
“Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,” according to the report. “In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter.”
When President Bill Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations, prompted by the First Amendment, and instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” But since then, the government has used the law in several prosecutions for trafficking in dogfighting videos.
Chief Justice Roberts said the law applied even more broadly. Since all hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, for instance, he said, the law makes the sale of magazines or videos showing hunting a crime here.
“The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders or magnitude,” he wrote.
The law contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Those exceptions were insufficient to save the statute, the chief justice wrote.
“Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature,” he said, “except in the sense that all life is a lesson.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, saying the majority’s analysis was built on “fanciful hypotheticals."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)