Your friendly neighborhood blogger....

...is back from the Middle District.

Thanks to Professor Bascuas for the great posts while I was out.

I'm looking at the huge pile of mail, email, and calls that I need to wade through right now. So I will be back to post in a little bit.

In the meantime, you may want to check out this new album that came out today!

Three-week-old news

It seems that some important findings and conclusions came out while D.O.M.—who has been indefatigable with his exhaustive coverage of Paris Hilton—was out of town. This oversight needs immediate and painstaking correction.

You will doubtlessly recall that the receiver to a film company claims Paris breached a contract by failing to promote the film Pledge This!. Last year, The Chief, applying New York law, held that the receiver was not entitled to reliance damages, i.e., the $8.3 million spent making the movie. (Seems like a lot for a film that The Chief noted was “hardly destined for critical acclaim.” {I hope that doesn’t mean he had to watch it.}) Nonetheless, the receiver might be entitled to some of the $1 million paid to Paris if she has been unjustly enriched. (Not in general—Paris Hilton is obviously unjustly enriched, if anyone is—but with regard to this project.)

So, the receiver had an expert go through a bunch of Paris Hilton’s contracts to figure out what it costs to have her, say, show up at a party and do some “non-meaningful speaking” and what it costs to have her attempt the other kind of speaking. Paris’ lawyers argued, apparently seriously, that this method “fails to value the benefit the producers received from Ms. Hilton’s acting services.” Notwithstanding, about three weeks ago, The Chief decided that Paris failed to deliver $160,000 worth of meaningful speaking.

The next step is for the parties to figure out whether the work Paris did—including her dramatic rendering of protagonist Victoria English, leader of “the most popular and exclusive sorority” at South Beach University—was worth more than $840,000. How could it not be? Briefs are due on October 15, 2010. So, expect a report from D.O.M. on that.

Judge Gold and the EPA face off

Back in April, having granted summary judgment largely to the plaintiffs in an Everglades environmental suit, Judge Gold told the EPA to quit dragging its feet and clean up the Everglades. A hearing was set for October 7 at which the EPA administrator was to explain to the court why the agency had failed to comply with various orders. On September 8, the EPA filed a 9-page motion saying that head Lisa Jackson was too busy to personally attend and would send her Water guy instead. The plaintiffs filed a 9-page response saying that it would really be helpful if Lisa herself came since, you know, this has been going on a long time already and there are lots of things that need to be cleared up. (I’m paraphrasing here.) And then Judge Gold entered a 9-page order saying that the EPA could bring anyone they wanted, as long as Lisa Jackson was among them. Money quotes:

Despite knowing for approximately five months that the EPA Administrator was ordered to appear at the hearing, Defendants now move—one month prior to the October 7, 2010 hearing—for a substitution of appearance.

In sum, Defendants have not demonstrated any showing of a matter of national importance, issue, or great significance to preclude the EPA Administrator—a named party—from attending the hearing. Rather, as recognized by all parties, protection of the Everglades is of considerable national importance. The Court's findings regarding the past actions of all Defendants, including the EPA, reveal how this litigation has continually persisted over the course of years. The Court must be able to make an intelligent inquiry regarding the EPA's position and policy matters, to be addressed by the EPA Administrator.

Well, the EPA filed a notice of appeal referencing that order yesterday. That's what they meant when they told the Herald they were “working with the Department of Justice to respond to the judge’s order.”

Get out your red pens

So, there are press reports that a bunch of neo-red-scare-artist-types have signed a letter to President Obama asking for the release of the five Cuban spies convicted here in the SDFla a while back. The problem is I can’t find a report about this that doesn’t ultimately trace back to Granma, the official news organ of the Cuban government. So, I don’t know whether to believe that these people are comunistas or victims of a comunista smear campaign. Either way, here are their names: Miguel Bosé, Juanes, Olga Tañón, Sean Penn, Benicio del Toro, Ry Cooder, Pete Seeger, Bonnie Raitt, Oliver Stone, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, and Ed Asner (“Oh, Mr. Grant, how could you?”). There’s a bunch more, but I got tired.

Trials in the news

D.O.M. and Michael Pasano are in separate trials, and both are in the news. (D.O.M.’s trial violates topicality for this blog because it is not in the SDFla, but, given that D.O.M. doesn’t really take topicality seriously at all, I figure I can get away with a link.)

Pasano’s tax fraud trial is in this district, before Judge Zloch, and since I can’t readily link to the DBR, I’ll again follow D.O.M.’s lead and liberally quote from it:

Michael Pasano, a partner at Carlton Fields in Miami, on cross-examination accused [government witness] Habib Levy of trying to hide assets from the government of Venezuela. He also brought up an affair the married Levy had with a woman who worked for Cohen Assor at a perfume business in Paris.

The exchange was clearly the most colorful in a trial full of technical documentation and signature comparisons.

Okay, one more thing: a look at the docket shows that the government and Pasano had a little pre-trial skirmish in their supplemental trial briefs about the latitude the Sixth Amendment affords a criminal defendant in demonstrating bias on the part of a witness. I will leave the government’s position to your imagination. Suffice it to say that, if I had 20 students in my evidence class rather than 140, I could use trial briefs like these to have way more interesting class discussions than the textbook affords.

A sign of the times

Missouri is attaching little price tags to its pre-sentence reports so that judges realize that executing sentences is not free. Defense attorneys applaud this, and prosecutors decry it. Money quote: “‘No one can put a price tag on being a victim,’ said Scott Burns, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association.”

Oh, Scott, did they not teach torts at your law school? It turns out that one of the main reasons we have law, Scott, is to put a dollar value on the harm visited upon victims of intentional and accidental wrongs. True, money is never going to bring back the dead, but it’s what we do so that civilization doesn’t crumble in a chaotic cycle of retribution and vigilanteism. It’s been going on for hundreds of years, and it works pretty well.

There’s also a lot of good reasons why we have judges—and not victims—craft sentences. One of those is that judges are supposed to act dispassionately and create a sentence that will maximize the public good—not only vindicate the victim. Judges can do that better if they are aware of the impact their choices have on the public fisc. Plus, if this were implemented at the federal level, it would give probation officers something to put into a pre-sentence investigation report that doesn’t entail having them make legal arguments.

I hope this goes to trial

Sometimes it’s hard to tell the cops from the robbers. That’s more or less what defense attorney Robert Pelier told the press about his client, Hialeah Gardens Police Detective Lawrence Perez. The federal government, for its part, alleges that Detective Perez conspired with one “Negro” and one “Chuchi” to rob a marijuana stash house. The news accounts don’t mention the aliases of Detective Perez’s alleged co-conspirators, but I thought you should know. Negro is supposedly a drug dealer and wanted Detective Perez’s help to rob a competitor. You would never know all this from the indictment, which sticks to the tried-and-true charges of attempting to possess with intent to distribute and conspiring to do so. Thankfully, the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s press releases fill the lacuna of narrative detail. The government and Detective Perez stipulated to a $50,000 corporate surety bond before Magistrate Judge McAliley. Federal Public Defender Kathleen Williams’ office was appointed to represent Negro. There is no record of Chuchi having had his initial appearance. Judge Jordan has the case.

How is this not a bigger deal?

So, I started doing some reading to figure out what’s going on in the SDFla so that I can guest-host while D.O.M. rededicates himself to the practice of law. The news is good and bad. The good news is that the feds caught two people who really needed to be caught and who are guilty of the sort of crime that cries out for federal retribution. The bad news is that the factual proffer from Friday’s plea colloquy before Judge Marra makes me think that there may well be a deep circle in hell set aside for these defendants. Alfonso Baldonado, Jr., and Sophia Manuel admitted to extorting money from Filipino workers and luring them to Boca with false promises of lucrative employment at places like the Ritz. These victims went into substantial debt to travel here only to become an exploited cheap labor pool for the defendants’ staffing company. The two convicts confiscated the workers’ passports and terrorized them with threats of jail and deportation. Thirty workers slept side-by-side “on the kitchen, garage, and dining room floors.” They were fed “chicken feet, necks, innards, and rotten vegetables.” The litany of horribles goes on and on. Sentencing is set for December 10.

What I don’t understand is how this slavery case gets all of four short paragraphs in the newspapers. Maybe part of the reason is that Willy Ferrer put out a very professional and measured quote—“They came here seeking a better life, but found their dream of freedom transformed into a real-life nightmare of servitude and fear.” If I were U.S. Attorney, I would have said something like, “These defendants deserve to be tortured gruesomely and slowly, and I am frustrated that all we can do is put them in the same prisons where we put drug dealers.” Which alone is enough to explain why I’m not U.S. Attorney.