Happy Festivus...

...for the rest of us:

"Zee Zee" cleared by Magistrate Judge Johnson

That's Fort Lauderdale cardiologist and prominent Republican fundraiser Zachariah Zachariah (George Bush called him Zee Zee), who was charged civilly with using insider information to make $1 million in illegal stock profits in 2005. He was represented by Curt Miner of Colson Hicks. From John Pacenti's article in the DBR:

[Judge] Johnson said the evidence was not sufficient to show that Zachariah "would be willing to jeopardize his reputation and his career and put his family in harm’s way all for the opportunity to make what was an insignificant profit to him in light of his means at the time."

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra adopted Johnson’s findings on Monday, issuing a final judgment in Zachariah’s favor.

Zachariah’s attorney, Curtis Miner, a partner at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, said Johnson’s decision is "a pretty stinging rebuke of the government’s case. She said the government’s argument strained credulity."

In a statement, Zachariah said: "I have great faith in our justice system, and I always knew I would be fully vindicated. The government put me through a long ordeal, but I am very happy to turn 100 percent of my attention back to my medical practice. "

Zachariah practices at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale.

Zachariah’s bench trial in front of Johnson lasted nine days over two months this fall.

Awesome new blog

It's called Law and the Multiverse Blog, and the NY Times featured it today:

Is Superman’s heat vision a weapon? If so, would the Second Amendment protect his right to melt pistols and cook hamburgers with it?
You might not have thought to ask these questions. You might have, in other words, a life. But a new blog and the interest it is generating show that there are people who look at an epic battle between superheroes and super-villains and really, really want to know who should be found liable for the broken buildings and shattered streets.

Those people now have a blog called Law and the Multiverse: Superheroes, supervillains, and the law. Kicked off on Nov. 30, it addresses questions like: “What if someone is convicted for murder, and then the victim comes back to life?” And whether mutants are a legally recognizable class entitled to constitutional protection from discrimination.

Law and the Multiverse is the deadpan creation of two lawyers, James Daily, in Missouri, and Ryan Davidson in Indiana. Both are 28; they have only met online but collaborate like old friends.

Mr. Daily said the inspiration for the blog came, as so many great ideas do, over dinner with his wife and friends. They began discussing whether the parallel-dimension versions of a super-villain could somehow be brought to justice in a single trial. Alcohol, he insisted, was not involved. Once he discussed his plans for the blog on Metafilter, a collaborative site where people hash out projects, Mr. Davidson got in touch to offer his ideas and support — or, as he put it: “Hey, this looks awesome! Do you want a collaborator?”

Love it. I like these questions:

Other topics include the admissibility of evidence obtained through mind reading by Professor X of the X-men and whether the RICO Act could be effectively used by prosecutors against the Legion of Doom.

The answers are dry, technical and funny in their earnestness. The Second Amendment, Mr. Daily suggested, would protect many powers, but “at least some superpowers would qualify as dangerous or unusual weapons (e.g., Cyclops’ optic blasts, Havok’s plasma blasts)” that are “well beyond the power of weapons allowed even by permit.” Those super-duper powers would be tightly regulated, if not banned outright.

Then there’s this jurisprudential nugget: When Batman, the DC Comics hero, nabs crooks, is the evidence gathered against the bad guys admissible in court? Not if he is working so closely with Commissioner Gordon that his feats fall under the “state actor” doctrine, in which a person is deemed to be acting on behalf of government and thus is subject to the restrictions on government power. In fact, he might be courting a lawsuit claiming violations of civil rights from those who were nabbed.

“Either all of the criminals in Gotham have incompetent attorneys, the state action doctrine in the DC universe is weaker than it is in the real world, or Gordon has actually managed to keep his reliance on Batman a secret,” Mr. Daily wrote. “I’m going to opt for the second explanation.”

HT: MC

Quiet week

Not much to report at the end of this quiet week.

1. Uncle Luke (represented by Richard Brodsky) won before Judge Cooke.

2. Steve Binhak won a criminal environmental trial before Judge Gonzalez. From the PBP:

"It should send a shiver down your spine," Binhak told jurors. "Water seeping underground is connected all over the world. That means your backyard is connected to Florida Bay and the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge. Think about that the next time you cut your lawn."

3. Eddie O'Donnell Jr. and Bill Roppolo won a criminal tax trial before Judge Martinez.

Holiday time is a good time to try cases...

Have a nice weekend.

Update-- one other verdict from Friday: Paul Calli and Mike Pasano got a hung jury before Judge Hurley in a business opportunities case.

--DM

Acquitted Lyglenson Lemorin to be deported?

This blog has covered the horrible saga of Mr. Lemorin before. He was the one defendant in the Liberty City 7 case that was acquitted. But no matter, says an immigration judge. He sits in jail, awaiting deportation to Haiti.

This is really an outrage.

The fight is still going on, but it's not looking so good for Lemorin. From the Herald:

Lyglenson Lemorin was acquitted of all charges in the Liberty City Seven terrorism trial three years ago. But he soon faces deportation to earthquake-ravaged Haiti by immigration authorities who still consider him a terrorist sympathizer and threat to national security.

Lemorin's lawyer on Wednesday filed an emergency petition to stop the legal American resident's removal from the United States. The odds are stacked against him, however, because the federal appeals court reviewing his case rarely grants such relief.

``It's a complete tragedy, a complete disregard for human life,'' said Lemorin's immigration attorney, Charles Kuck. ``Haiti is still an unmitigated disaster.''

In court filings, Justice Department lawyers responded that they oppose the emergency petition, saying only that Lemorin won't be deported before Jan. 12.

Haitian-born Lemorin, 35, grew up in Miami. He has been jailed in Georgia, Florida and now Louisiana and could be deported as soon as January. That's when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement resumes deportations of Haitian nationals convicted of crimes in this country. Although Lemorin has no conviction, he is being lumped together with those who do, his lawyer said.

Feds arrest in case where only .01% chance of getting caught

At least that's what the defendant put the odds at in this UBS case (via the AP):

A former banker at Switzerland's UBS AG has been charged with tax fraud conspiracy for allegedly helping a wealthy U.S. client hide assets from the Internal Revenue Service.

Banker Renzo Gadola was named in the charging document filed Tuesday in Miami federal court. The document claims that Gadola and an unnamed second Swiss banker helped an unidentified Mississippi man hide an account at UBS and open another secret account at a second Swiss bank.

Gadola worked at UBS for 13 years, then in early 2009 began working as an independent investment adviser.

Prosecutors say Gadola and the other banker tried to prevent the client from disclosing his secret accounts to the IRS. During a November meeting at a Miami hotel, according to court documents, Gadola told the client the likelihood that his new accounts would be discovered was "practically zero percent."

"You have no link to UBS whatsoever, so 99.9 percent you have nothing to worry about," Gadola told the client, according to court documents.

Speaking of other things that happen only .01% of the time, a federal appellate court today ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in a Fourth Amendment case. And it was a biggie. Orin Kerr from Volokh has all the details of United States v. Warshak from the 6th Circuit, where the court held that email is protected by the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment. That almost deserves an !. (Hat tip: JK).

!!!

SFL isn't the only blogger that can discuss civil cases and exclamation points. From the published decision today in Isabel Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant, which addressed the issue of whether an affirmative defense was waived or not: "If ever there were a classic case of waiver, this is it!"

I think Elaine's boss said it best:

Monday morning quick hits

1. The DBR does its year in review. Lots of bad eggs in the year -- Rothstein, Freeman, Adorno, Tolz... I don't think Santa will be bringing those guys anything this year.

2. I forgot to post the Obama pardon story from a couple weeks ago. He finally pardoned some humans but the list is really a joke. It includes Ronald Lee Foster of Beaver Falls, Pa., who was sentenced to a year of probation and a $20 fine for mutilating coins in 1963. Wow, thank goodness Obama was on top of that one... "The president was moved by the strength of the applicants' post-conviction efforts at atonement, as well as their superior citizenship and individual achievements in the years since their convictions," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.

3. No more crush videos: President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into law a bill that outlaws the creation and distribution of so-called animal crush videos -- culminating a remarkably quick response to a Supreme Court decision handed down less than eight months ago.

It was April 20 when the Court, in United States v. Stevens, struck down an earlier federal law that banned a more broadly defined category of depictions of animal cruelty. The Court found that law to be "substantially overbroad" and therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment, because it could apply to hunting and fishing videos and other legitimate depictions.

The new law, passed with bipartisan support after hearings in recent months, focuses more narrowly on "obscene" animal crush videos in which animals are crushed or burned or otherwise mutilated. The definition ties the offense to obscenity -- which is not protected by the First Amendment -- by noting that the videos appeal to a particular sexual fetish.