Did Scott Rothstein snitch on his wife? (UPDATED)

That's the theory Charles Lichtman floats in this Herald article about the case:

Charles Lichtman, a Fort Lauderdale attorney for the bankruptcy trustee, said he suspects Scott Rothstein told prosecutors about his wife’s alleged obstruction plot rather than go along with it. The reason: Rothstein is hoping to reduce his 50-year prison sentence by continuing to cooperate with authorities.
“My belief is that Scott came clean on his own accord,” Lichtman said. “In the five weeks of depositions I have sat through with him, we have yet to find an instance where he was untruthful.” 

If that's true, then I have an even lower opinion (if that's possible) of Scott Rothstein than I did before.  Ratting on your own wife?!  Despicable.  

UPDATE -- John Pacenti drills down on the snitching angle:

Berger Singerman partner Charles Lichtman, who represents the bankruptcy trustee for Rothstein's defunct law firm, indicated the ex-lawyer cooperated in the investigation.
"I have reason to believe he responded truthfully to whatever questions he was asked about the circumstances," Lichtman said. "It never made sense to me that there was so much missing jewelry."
The new federal charges filed in two cases don't detail how the missing jewelry was uncovered but give plenty of hints.
"I got to believe there's a good chance Scott Rothstein ratted Kim out because Scott is grasping at straws to get out of prison," said Fort Lauderdale public relations executive Chuck Malkus, who has written a book The Ultimate Ponzi: The Scott Rothstein Story due out in February.
Malkus said he got a tip Kim Rothstein was in a jewelry store in downtown Fort Lauderdale with several high-end watches. When they met, Malkus said Kim Rothstein told him, "I can't go anywhere these days. I can't even get batteries for my watches."

In more pleasant news, my friends have opened up their own law practice: Gelber, Schachter and Greenberg.  Julie Kay covers it here:

Schachter and Greenberg said they decided to leave Stearns Weaver not out of dissatisfaction but out of a desire to start their own law firm.
"We always had an interest in starting our own firm and practice law in a lean, close-knit environment," said Greenberg, son of former Miami-Dade County Attorney Murray Greenberg and brother of Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Greenberg.
Schachter said, "It was a tough decision, but it's been incredibly gratifying to take control of our careers."

It couldn't have been an easy decision as Stearns Weaver is one of the best places in Miami to work.  I wish them well.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/06/v-fullstory/2987970/scott-rothsteins-wife-others-charged.html#storylink=cpy

Kim Rothstein charged with money laundering, obstruction, and witness tampering.

It's an information, so she's already got a plea agreement in place. From the USAO press release:

Earlier today, an Indictment was filed charging Marin and Daoud on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. Also today, a Criminal Information was filed charging Kimberly Rothstein, Stacie Weisman and Scott F. Saidel with conspiracy to commit money laundering, to obstruct justice, and to tamper with a witness.

According to the charging documents, former Ft. Lauderdale attorney Scott W. Rothstein, who was the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the law firm of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. (RRA), used the funds obtained from the operation of a Ponzi scheme to purchase tens of millions of dollars of real estate, vehicles, vessels, business interests, luxury watches, jewelry and sports memorabilia for himself, his wife, Kimberly Rothstein, and others. As part of his plea agreement, Scott W. Rothstein agreed to forfeit to the government all assets acquired with funds derived through the aforesaid Ponzi scheme. On November 9, 2009, agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, went to the Rothstein residence, where Kimberly Rothstein assisted the agents in retrieving what was believed to be all of the available cash, jewelry and luxury watches which had previously been purchased by Scott W. Rothstein with proceeds derived from the Ponzi scheme. In fact, before, during and after the aforesaid seizure by federal agents on November 9, 2009, Kimberly Rothstein, Stacie Weisman, and Scott F. Saidel knowingly took action to conceal certain items of jewelry, valued in excess of one million dollars for the purpose of preventing the government from exercising its authority to take such property into its lawful custody and control. Thereafter, Kimberly Rothstein and Stacie Weisman sold and attempted to sell a portion of this jewelry to and through various persons, including Eddy Marin and Patrick Daoud.

The charging documents further allege that, in connection with civil proceedings instituted by the Trustee in bankruptcy for RRA, all of the defendants took steps to obstruct justice by concealing the true location of certain items of jewelry in order to prevent its availability for use in those proceedings. It is further alleged that Marin and Daoud committed perjury during depositions in connection with those proceedings, and that Kimberly Rothstein, Stacie Weisman and Scott F. Saidel sought to have Scott W. Rothstein testify falsely in connection with those proceedings.

UPDATE--

Kim Rothstein has issued her own press release through her lawyer David Tucker:

In response to the Information filed against Kimberly Rothstein, please be advised that Kim welcomes the opportunity to put a very challenging time in her life behind her.
Kim would like to take the opportunity to express her disappointment, shame, and sadness in regard to all of the victims of her husband, Scott Rothstein’s, actions related to the Ponzi scheme for which he has previously been sentenced. She had no involvement or knowledge of his fraudulent activity.
She takes full responsibility for her actions in regard to the charge filed today.
Kim is a vibrant, diverse, and deeply caring person who looks forward to being a productive citizen in the years to come.
This is a very difficult time in her life and we ask that the media be sensitive to her privacy in this matter. Any inquiries should be directed to her attorneys below.

Headline writer needed

According to Rumpole, my headlines for posts aren't exciting enough.  I need more like "Summer is Over."  Oh well.

Anyway, there's lots of coverage regarding the Posner-Scalia debate, including Brian Garner's latest response in which he says that "Judge Posner went seriously off the rails in his review."  Yikes.  David Lat spoke to Posner and asked if this was personal.  Posner's response:

There is no personal animosity between Justice Scalia and me, or at least not on my side — I haven’t seen him for five or six years (we were at a conference on national security in Ottawa about that long ago). As you point out, we were colleagues in the 1970s at the U. of C. law school before we both became judges. I think I’ve described him in print as the most influential Supreme Court Justice in the period since his appointment, and I certainly adhere to that view.
I suppose it’s unusual for a lower court judge to criticize judicial or extra-judicial work by a Supreme Court Justice in public; but recall that Judge Wilkinson wrote a very critical law review article about Justice Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case. (I wrote a critical article about the opinion, as well, for the New Republic.) It’s probably not an accident that both Judge Wilkinson and I are former academics, to whom disagreement in print, without personal animosity having engendered it, comes naturally.

Meantime, Scalia is in Vegas:

A planned visit by conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to a Las Vegas Roman Catholic church for a ceremony seeking divine guidance for legal professionals and to a Las Vegas Strip casino reception afterward was drawing criticism Tuesday from a liberal activist who promised demonstrations to mark the events.
Scalia, who is due to begin his 27th year on the court next month, also is scheduled Wednesday to speak to law students and faculty at the Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Linda Overbey, a union organizer and volunteer with the advocacy group MoveOn.org, focused on Scalia's planned attendance at a Red Mass liturgy and a reception following the service hosted by the conservative St. Thomas More Society of Nevada at the Palazzo resort. The property is owned by Las Vegas Sands Corp. and its chief, Sheldon Adelson.

 Maybe this could be the subject of a future Pacenti rant.

Wednesday happenings

1.  Nice win for Marc Seitles and Ed Kacerosky, which is covered by John Pacenti in the DBR:

For Seitles, it was the equivalent of going all in during a poker round. He waived attorney-client privilege and laid out what he had for prosecutors. Seitles decided to take "a different road with this case" for the man who was Colombia's air security secretary from 2002 to 2005.
"I never worked harder on something in all my life," he added.
The U.S. attorney's office had no comment on the charge being dropped. The document dismissing the charge Friday supplied no explanation.
Both Seitles and Kacerosky started working pro bono, knowing Ortega's family could no longer afford the long hours it took to root out the truth. Even though the government said it had a cooperating witness, Kacerosky found a co-defendant who told him authorities had arrested the wrong Carlos.
They went through hundreds of hours of phone calls. They found Colombian authorities mixed up not only two airplane brokers named Carlos, but a third who was nicknamed Carlos.
Ortega's family was in tears when they picked him up outside jail.

2.  The lawyer under the microscope of Judge Turnoff took 5 more than 80 times.  Via The Sun-Sentinel:


Disbarred lawyer Emmanuel Roy got a chance Tuesday to explain himself in a South Florida case where a federal judge found Roy behaved so outrageously that he should return $275,000 in exorbitant fees to a former client.
Instead of explaining, Roy invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination — more than 80 times in less than an hour — when called to testify in federal court in Miami Tuesday by the lawyer who is now representing Roy's former client.
"I'm exercising my Fifth Amendment right," Roy said in response to questions from lawyer Paul Petruzzi.
The answer was the same regardless of the question — does Roy have any bank accounts, has he hidden assets in other people's names, does he currently live with his wife, could he identify himself in a photograph? It got so repetitive that Roy, who is also facing mortgage fraud charges in New York, abbreviated his answer to "Exercising my Fifth Amendment right" over and over again.

3.  Jay Weaver covers Judge Moore's decision concerning in-state tuition prices for students who live in Florida but have non-resident parents:

A federal judge in Miami has ruled the state is discriminating against potentially thousands of U.S. citizens who live in Florida, by charging them higher out-of-state tuition as nonresident students simply because their parents may lack legal U.S. residency.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore found Tuesday that Florida's rule classifying such students according to their parents' undocumented immigration status violates the Constitution's equal protection provision.
"By virtue of their classification, (these Florida students) are denied a benefit in the form of significantly lower tuition rates to the state's public post-secondary educational institutions," the judge found in a 19-page opinion that was highly critical of the state's policy.
"This creates an additional obstacle for (them) to attain post-secondary education from one of the state's public institutions that is not faced by other residents."
Moore, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed in 1992, further found the policy "does not advance any legitimate state interest, much less the state's important interest in furthering educational opportunities for its own residents."

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/09/04/2675656/judge-rules-against-florida-policy.html#storylink=cpy

Tuesday morning news and notes

1.  Adam Liptak has this interesting article in the NY Times about "the death clerk" at the Supreme Court:

The unseemly and unsettling spectacle of a last-minute legal scramble in the shadow of the ultimate deadline, with the condemned inmate waiting for word of his fate just outside the death chamber, may suggest that the Supreme Court does not render considered justice when it is asked to halt an execution.

But it tries. Indeed, the court goes to extraordinary lengths to get ready, and its point person is a staff lawyer named Danny Bickell.

“Cases where there is an execution date,” he said with a sigh, “that’s where I come in.”

Mr. Bickell’s formal title is emergency applications clerk, but capital defense lawyers have an informal title for him, too. They call him the death clerk.

In remarks at a conference of lawyers specializing in federal death penalty work at a hotel here last month, Mr. Bickell provided a rare inside look at the Supreme Court’s oversight of the machinery of death in the United States. 

2.  Another prosecutor behaving badly and again DOJ goes to bat for him.  Via BLT:

A clash between the U.S. Justice Department and the D.C. Office of Bar Counsel over a former federal prosecutor's alleged ethics transgression is playing out in front of a Washington attorney ethics board.
Andrew Kline, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, is challenging an ethics committee's conclusion in March that he didn't play by the rules in a shooting case when he kept certain information to himself that the victim had earlier provided to police.
The Justice Department is backing Kline in the dispute, pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. DOJ lawyers argue that the hearing committee too broadly interpreted a prosecution conduct rule, opening the door for ethics cases and "unwarranted sanctions" against prosecutors. Kline is no longer in government service.
The D.C. Office of Bar Counsel this month filed a response to Kline and DOJ, which submitted an amicus brief in the case supporting the former assistant U.S. attorney. You can read bar counsel's brief here and the DOJ brief here.

At issue in the case is whether Kline, in 2002, should have turned over information the victim told police shortly after the shooting. The victim's recollection cast doubt on the identity of the shooter. Kline obtained the information from a police officer who spoke with the victim at a hospital.
DOJ lawyers contend Kline was not obligated to turn over the victim information because it was not "material," or relevant, to the defense.
Elizabeth Herman, deputy bar counsel, said in her brief that Kline's legal team "selectively picks and highlights information from the criminal trial records and disciplinary hearing in an attempt to distort the record and sanitize his testimony before the committee."

3.  Griselda Blanco was assassinated.  Rumpole covers it here:

The history of Miami includes many characters, some good, some bad. Griselda Blanco, as bad as she was, occupies a place in this town's history. Her murder, if she was indeed killed, does little to assuage  the wide swath of death and destruction she wrought in our town. Blanco's story was the centerpiece of director Billy Corben's Cocaine Cowboys documentary.  If you new ASAs and PDs want to know the history of where you're working, Cocaine Cowboys is a good place to start.

I like Billy's quote in the Herald article: “This is classic live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword,” Corben said Monday. “Or in this case, live-by-the-motorcycle-assassin, die-by-the-motorcycle assassin.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/03/2983362_p2/cocaine-godmother-griselda-blanco.html#storylink=cpy

Friday News & Notes

1.  An interesting oral argument early this morning in the 11th Circuit (8am start!). I love pirate cases. U.S. v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, Case No. 11-14049: A consolidated appeal in which four defendants are challenging the constitutionality of applying U.S. jurisdiction, under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, over a vessel transporting cocaine, seized in Panamanian territorial waters, pursuant to Congress's authority "[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."  U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 10. The question is whether drug trafficking in foreign territorial waters is a violation of the "Law of Nations" and thus within Congress's authority to criminalize. Appellate gurus were on the case-- Tracy Dreispul argued the case for the FPD and Jonathan Colan for the USAO.

2.  Judge Richard Posner wrote an cutting piece about Justice Scalia's book on interpretation.  This comes after Scalia made fun of Posner.  Cat fight!  Here's a snippet from Posner's article but the whole thing is really worth a read:

Those are more persuasive points than the dictionary’s definition, and as is often the case, the court got the definition wrong. (Scalia and Garner miss this, too.) A sandwich does not have to have two slices of bread; it can have more than two (a club sandwich) and it can have just one (an open-faced sandwich). The slices of bread do not have to be thin, and the layer between them does not have to be thin either. The slices do not have to be slices of bread: a hamburger is regarded as a sandwich, and also a hot dog—and some people regard tacos and burritos as sandwiches, and a quesadilla is even more sandwich-like. Dictionaries are mazes in which judges are soon lost. A dictionary-centered textualism is hopeless.

3.And while we're in the 11th Circuit, check out this opinion today dealing with Segways and Disney.  Disney didn't want them in the park and people freaked out, including DOJ, a bunch of Attorneys General and others.  The 11th affirmed, basically saying that the settlement was fair in which Disney agreed to "develop a four-wheeled, electric-stand up-vehicle (“the ESV”) for those for whom a stand-up mobility device is a necessity and who are unable to utilize a mobility device that requires sitting, such as an electronic wheelchair or motorized scooter."

4. HAVE A NICE LONG HOLIDAY WEEKEND.

BREAKING -- William Thomas being vetted for Federal Judgeship

That's been the talk of the town for the past few weeks, but now FBI agents and ABA officials are doing their background on Judge Thomas and the secret is out.

This is fantastic news -- Will Thomas is a great judge and person.  He enjoys a very strong reputation as a trial judge in state court where he has handled both criminal and civil cases.  He also has a federal background having worked at the Federal Public Defender's Office.

Judge Thomas is known as a hard worker, sometimes trying cases late into the night.  And he is known as fair, calling cases right down the middle.  Both sides respect him and he'll make a great federal judge.

Now the only question is timing.  With the election around the corner, will Judge Thomas be nominated and confirmed before the end of the year?  I really hope so.

"Only Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off.”

That was Chief Justice John Roberts when we he was an attorney in the Reagan adminstration.

Slate has an article today asking whether the Supreme Court really should be taking the summer off:

Either way, the summer recess comes with some significant costs. Because the justices do not meet to decide whether to grant or deny review in cases during the summer months, thousands of legal petitions pile up during their absence. The court plows through this backlog at their first conference (aptly referred to as the “long conference”) in the last week of September. But they obviously cannot give these petitions the same consideration as those that arrive later in the term. (For this reason, savvy appellate attorneys know that it is best to avoid filing petitions over the summer if they can.)

The impending summer recess can also force the court to rush decisions without taking the time to articulate their reasoning, as at least one scholar argues occurred in the Pentagon Papers case—a momentous case with serious national security implications that was decided in a three-paragraph, unsigned opinion in late June. The summer break was behind the timing of this past term’s health care decision. As was widely reported, a decision had to be made by the end of June because of Chief Justice Roberts’ Malta trip in the first week of July.

When pressing issues arise during the recess, the matter is often handled by a single justice “in chambers” who must make important decisions about whether to grant stays, injunctions, or extensions without consulting with his or her absent colleagues. For example, Justice William Douglas issued an “in chambers” order in August 1973, which put a stop to military operations in Cambodia. He explained that he would normally have referred this question to the full court, but the summer recess made that “impossible.”

The three-month break is particularly galling at a time when the Supreme Court decides fewer cases than any other court in modern times. In recent years, the court has heard an average of about 80 cases a term, which is half the number they heard 20 years ago and makes up fewer than 1 percent of the approximately 10,000 review petitions they receive. The rest of the federal judiciary does not get the same extended summer vacation, and they handle a great deal more cases. It is also a little disconcerting that many of the justices use the time off to generate outside income. Shouldn’t their time be filled by the job they are paid (by all of us year-round working taxpayers) to do?