As I mentioned before, Judge Gold's speech at the Federal Bar dinner last week was fantastic, and I got a copy of it, which I reproduce below:
William M HoevelerSpeech
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
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Congrats to Judge Bob Scola
Judge Scola was just informally sworn in. Here he is celebrating with his wife Judge Jackie Scola and Chief Judge Fred Moreno. Congrats!
Maple Agriculture Protection and Law Enforcement
Not enough federal crimes for you? Check out the MAPLE Act which makes it a felony to sell fake maple syrup. Apparently, having a federal misdemeanor for this offense wasn't enough. From the LA Times:
"Vermont iconic maple syrup -- painstakingly produced, and prized across the nation and beyond -- is one of our state's fine, high-quality, natural products," Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said in introducing the legislation. A growing number of people are claiming to sell genuine Vermont maple syrup when "they are in fact selling an inferior product that is not maple syrup at all,'' he said, adding that the misrepresentation undermines a key part of Vermont's economy.
"We are very proud of the high-quality maple syrup produced in Vermont," independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said in a news release. "Some of us think it's the best in the world. We think it is terribly wrong for people to produce a phony product and call it Vermont maple syrup."Leahy, who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is well positioned to advance the legislation, introduced it in the wake of a recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration investigation that found a Rhode Island man had been selling cane sugar-based syrup as maple syrup.
Under existing law, fraudulently representing something as maple syrup is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year behind bars.
"Too often, those who are willing to endanger our livelihoods in pursuit of their profits see fines as just a cost of doing business," Leahy said in the statement. "We need to make sure that those who intentionally deceive consumers get a trip to jail, not a slap on the wrist."
Monday, October 24, 2011
Some quick hits for Monday afternoon
1. Justice Stevens has written this interesting review of William J. Stuntz's intriguing book, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice. It starts out this way:
William Stuntz was the popular and well-respected Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law at Harvard University. He finished his manuscript of The Collapse of American Criminal Justice shortly before his untimely death earlier this year. The book is eminently readable and merits careful attention because it accurately describes the twin problems that pervade American criminal justice today—its overall severity and its disparate treatment of African-Americans.
2. Magistrate Judge Seltzer is skeptical of this skeptic (via Sun-Sentinel):
Pena, 49, and Randi, 83, have remained high-profile figures in the world of skepticism for decades, and Randi is famous around the world for debunking people who profess to have paranormal powers. He runs the James Randi Educational Foundation dedicated to skepticism.The deal to get Pena — whose full name is Deyvi Orangel Pena Arteaga — out on bond was worked out at the last minute Thursday night by Assistant U.S. Attorney Bertha Mitrani and Pena's defense attorney, Susan Dmitrovsky.U.S. Magistrate Barry Seltzer asked the attorneys if there was any paperwork — a passport or travel visas — to show Pena was who he said he was."Do we have anything to confirm this his true identity?" the judge asked. "I can't release a defendant unless I have some idea who he is."Mitrani said she and the federal agents working on the case had not had time to check for immigration records, but that she was comfortable Pena was his actual identity and that he would not try to flee the country if released on bond."We are going to verify and vet the information he gave us," Mitrani told the judge.
3. The NY Times has this piece on Justice Thomas. From the intro:
Justice Clarence Thomas was sworn in to the Supreme Court 20 years ago today. After two decades on the bench, he remains a legal outlier even on the conservative court. The results he reaches are often radical, and where his ideas come from even more so.
He favors cutting back the authority of the federal government and letting states “decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.”
He believes that “the Constitution left religion to the states” and that the First Amendment’s prohibition against Congress’s enacting laws on the establishment of religion “was intended to protect” the right of states to do as they please.
He wants to roll back what most Americans consider racial progress because the “Constitution abhors classifications based on race” and even when the government uses them to solve problems and confer benefits, “it demeans us all.”
Extreme as those views are, the most extreme part of Justice Thomas’s record is not what he decides, but how. Justice Antonin Scalia told a biographer of Justice Thomas, Ken Foskett, that Justice Thomas “doesn’t believe in stare decisis, period.”
He favors cutting back the authority of the federal government and letting states “decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.”
He believes that “the Constitution left religion to the states” and that the First Amendment’s prohibition against Congress’s enacting laws on the establishment of religion “was intended to protect” the right of states to do as they please.
He wants to roll back what most Americans consider racial progress because the “Constitution abhors classifications based on race” and even when the government uses them to solve problems and confer benefits, “it demeans us all.”
Extreme as those views are, the most extreme part of Justice Thomas’s record is not what he decides, but how. Justice Antonin Scalia told a biographer of Justice Thomas, Ken Foskett, that Justice Thomas “doesn’t believe in stare decisis, period.”
Friday, October 21, 2011
Federal Bar Gala
It was a nice evening last night at the Biltmore. Brett Barfield was sworn in for a second term, and Bernie Pastor is President-Elect. Judges Williams and Scola were toasted. And Judge Hoeveler received the Ned Davis Award, which was presented in a moving speech by Judge Gold. It was a huge turnout, and Brett has really done a fantastic job with the organization. It's an exciting time in the District...
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Eddie Dominguez leaving DBR
He's done amazing things with that paper, and it's too bad he is leaving. While most newspaper readership is declining, the DBR has been flourishing under Eddie's leadership. He's made the paper relevant and interesting, and he's been able to keep good, talented reporters. Not easy in this environment.
He's headed to City National Bank as Senior VP in charge of Communications, Marketing, and Community Relations, and I wish him well. Now he can take me, and his other sources, out to lunch...
His going away party is this Friday at Bin 18 if you want to see him off.
He's headed to City National Bank as Senior VP in charge of Communications, Marketing, and Community Relations, and I wish him well. Now he can take me, and his other sources, out to lunch...
His going away party is this Friday at Bin 18 if you want to see him off.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Everything is a crime these days
The Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving the Stolen Valor Act; i.e., whether it is a crime to lie about prior military service:
This was the case that Judge Kozinski said went too far because everyone lies:
While the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing that case, the Florida Supreme Court is going to decide whether loud music is a crime or not:
Really Mr. Catalano? Blasting Justice Timberlake?!
In other news, Cain is polling ahead of Obama...
The court said Monday it will rule on the constitutionality of a law that makes it a federal crime for people to claim falsely, either in writing or aloud, that they have been awarded the Medal of Honor, a Silver Star, Purple Heart or any other military medal.
The Stolen Valor Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming support in 2006, apparently has been used only a few dozen times, but the underlying issue of false claims of military heroism has struck a chord in an era in which American soldiers are fighting two wars.
At the same time, the justices have issued a series of rulings in recent terms in favor of free expression, striking down California's violent video restrictions and a federal law involving cruelty to animals. It also upheld the right of protesters to picket military funerals with provocative, even offensive, messages.
The federal appeals court in California struck down the military medals law on free speech grounds, and appeals courts in Colorado, Georgia and Missouri are considering similar cases.
The Obama administration is arguing that the law "serves a crucial purpose in safeguarding the military honors system." The administration also says the law is reasonable because it only applies to instances in which the speaker intends to portray himself as a medal recipient. Previous high court rulings also have limited First Amendment protection for false statements, the government said.
This was the case that Judge Kozinski said went too far because everyone lies:
Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying. We lie to protect our privacy (“No, I don’t live around here”); to avoid hurt feelings (“Friday is my study night”); to make others feel better (“Gee you’ve gotten skinny”); to avoid recriminations (“I only lost $10 at poker”); to prevent grief (“The doc says you’re getting better”); to maintain domestic tranquility (“She’s just a friend”); to avoid social stigma (“I just haven’t met the right woman”); for
career advancement (“I’m sooo lucky to have a smart boss like you”); to avoid being lonely (“I love opera”); to eliminate a rival (“He has a boyfriend”); to achieve an objective (“But I love you so much”); to defeat an objective (“I’m allergic to latex”); to make an exit (“It’s not you, it’s me”); to delay the inevitable (“The check is in the mail”); to communicate displeasure (“There’s nothing wrong”); to get someone off your back (“I’ll call you about lunch”); to escape a nudnik (“My mother’s on the other line”); to namedrop (“We go way back”); to set up a surprise party (“I need help moving the piano”); to buy time (“I’m on my way”); to keep up appearances (“We’re not talking divorce”); to avoid taking out the trash (“My back hurts”); to duck an obligation (“I’ve got a headache”); to maintain a public image (“I go to church every Sunday”); to make a point (“Ich bin ein Berliner”); to save face (“I had too much to drink”); to humor (“Correct as usual, King Friday”); to avoid embarrassment (“That wasn’t me”); to curry favor (“I’ve read all your books”); to get a clerkship (“You’re the greatest living jurist”); to save a dollar (“I gave at the office”); or to maintain innocence (“There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop”).
And we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk, as reflected by the popularity of plastic surgery, elevator shoes, wood veneer paneling, cubic zirconia, toupees, artificial turf and cross-dressing. Last year, Americans spent $40 billion on cosmetics—an industry devoted almost entirely to helping people deceive each other about their appearance. It doesn’t matter whether we think that such lies are despicable or cause more harm than good. An important aspect of personal autonomy
is the right to shape one’s public and private persona by choosing when to tell the truth about oneself, when to conceal and when to deceive. Of course, lies are often disbelieved or discovered, and that too is part of the pull and tug of social
intercourse. But it’s critical to leave such interactions in private hands, so that we can make choices about who we are. How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option?
While the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing that case, the Florida Supreme Court is going to decide whether loud music is a crime or not:
The Florida Supreme Court will soon rule on whether regulating car stereo volume is a violation of drivers' First Amendment rights, possibly eliminating local noise ordinances in one fell swoop.
The court announced Monday that it will hear arguments in State vs. Catalano in February, a case that began when police in St. Petersburg ticketed a corporate lawyer for exceeding the noise limit by blasting a little Justin Timberlake at 7:34 a.m. on his way to work.
Richard T. Catalano fought the $73.50 ticket, and he's fought it all the way to highest levels of state law.
Really Mr. Catalano? Blasting Justice Timberlake?!
In other news, Cain is polling ahead of Obama...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)