JNC interviews today

Good luck to all of the applicants.

After the interviews, the JNC will cut the list to four (for two open seats).  I will post those four names as soon as I have them.

Bonds strikes out

Barry Bonds' conviction was affirmed.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Barry Bonds obstructed justice before a federal grand jury when he tried to duck a question about steroid injections with an evasive and irrelevant answer, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in upholding the felony conviction of baseball's home run king.
A jury in San Francisco deadlocked in 2011 on three charges that Bonds committed perjury when he denied, in 2003 grand jury testimony, that he had ever knowingly used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs.
But jurors convicted him of obstructing the panel's investigation after a prosecutor asked him whether his personal trainer had ever given him injectable drugs. Instead of a yes-or-no answer, he launched into a discourse about his "celebrity" childhood, as the son of ex-ballplayer Bobby Bonds, and his friendship with the trainer, and added, "I just don't get into other people's business."
Bonds appealed his conviction, saying he had testified truthfully. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said factually accurate testimony can be obstructive if it is intended to throw an investigation off course.
"When factually true statements are misleading or evasive, they can prevent the grand jury from obtaining truthful and responsive answers," said Judge Mary Schroeder in the 3-0 ruling.
Bonds' lawyers were not immediately available for comment. They could ask the full appeals court for a rehearing. His sentence of 30 days of house arrest, 250 hours of community service and $4,100 in fines and court costs has been on hold during his appeal.
Bonds issued a statement on his website Friday that read, in part: "I have instructed my attorneys to ask the court and probation officials to permit me to begin serving my full sentence and probation immediately. Meanwhile, I also intend to seek further judicial review of the important legal issues presented by the appeal that was decided today."

Here's the intro to the opinion:

 Barry Bonds was a celebrity child who grew up in
baseball locker rooms as he watched his father Bobby Bonds
and his godfather, the legendary Willie Mays, compete in the
Major Leagues. Barry Bonds was a phenomenal baseball
player in his own right. Early in his career he won MVP
awards and played in multiple All-Star games. Toward the
end of his career, playing for the San Francisco Giants, his
appearance showed strong indications of the use of steroids,
some of which could have been administered by his trainer,
Greg Anderson. Bonds’s weight and hat size increased, along
with the batting power that transformed him into one of the
most feared hitters ever to play the game. From the late-
1990s through the early-2000s, steroid use in baseball fueled
an unprecedented explosion in offense, leading some
commentators to refer to the period as the “Steroid Era.”1 In
2002, the federal government, through the Criminal
Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, began
investigating the distribution of steroids and other
performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”). The government’s
purported objective was to investigate whether the
distributors of PEDs laundered the proceeds gained by selling
those drugs.
The government’s investigation focused on the
distribution of steroids by the Bay Area Laboratory
Co-operative (“BALCO”), which was located in the San
Francisco Bay Area. The government raided BALCO and
obtained evidence suggesting that Anderson distributed
BALCO manufactured steroids to Bonds and other
professional athletes. The government convened a grand jury
in the fall of 2003 to further investigate the sale of these
drugs in order to determine whether the proceeds of the sales
were being laundered. Bonds and other professional athletes
were called to testify. Bonds testified under a grant of
immunity and denied knowingly using steroids or any other
PEDs provided by BALCO or Anderson. The government
later charged Bonds with obstructing the grand jury’s
investigation. After a jury trial, Bonds was convicted of one
count of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1503. He now appeals. We affirm the conviction.

In other news, the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of North Carolina is not going to put up with prosecutorial misconduct. The whole article is worth a read, but here's the intro from the Charlotte Observer:

In May, U.S. Court of Appeals judges were so upset with federal prosecutors from North Carolina’s Eastern District for persistently hiding or mishandling criminal case evidence that a tongue-lashing, perhaps never heard before in the stately wood-paneled U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals courtroom in Richmond, Va., was delivered from the bench.
“I’ve been an appellate judge for 28 years, and I have never made these kinds of comments to a prosecutor, never,” Appeals Court Judge Barbara Keenan told the prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Carolina’s 44-county region that stretches from Raleigh to the coast. “But the increasing frequency from your office of this kind of conduct is really troubling, really troubling.”
The circuit judges followed with a ruling two weeks ago in the securities fraud case of United States v. Gregory Bartko, suggesting that a prosecutor had ignored false testimony instead of correcting it during trial, among other concerns. The judges said the case further highlighted a troubling pattern of Eastern District prosecutors withholding evidence from defendants. They asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to review the behavior.
That has led to a shakeup at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the North Carolina Eastern District. Thomas Walker, the appointed U.S. Attorney since 2011, confirmed changes to the top ranks of his staff and said in an interview that he has adopted new rules for handling evidence in criminal cases.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/09/4294706/top-federal-prosecutor-in-nc-eastern.html?goback=.gde_1525477_member_273178346#.UjcNJj_ZV8F#storylink=cpy

Do Bloggers irritate judges?

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf has this post today on that exact subject (re Howard Bashman at How Appealing) at his blog, "Hercules and the Umpire."

Meantime, it appears that Judge Kopf has irritated an appellate judge with his use of language on his blog: 

While he thought the story was inspiring, a distinguished federal appellate judge from another Circuit thought my use of a vulgarity (“suck”) in the post about Shon Hopwood offended good taste.  I am glad the judge cared enough to write, and I sincerely thank him. Although I am not keen on receiving lectures on taste and decorum, the judge’s candid criticism about my use of rough, profane or vulgar language caused me to reflect seriously on his point.
I am of two minds. On the one hand, I understand the great strength of the judge’s point. Among other consequences, jarring language such as the word the judge complained about may unnecessarily diminish respect for other judges. Moreover, judges should model civilized writing if for no other reason than they expect civilized discourse from others. Still further, bad words are simply losing their utility in our coarsening society. On the other hand, I want to demystify the work of federal trial judges. Sometimes, rough language expresses my thoughts in a way that more refined language would mask. Indeed, from where I sit, much of what I see and hear is actually profane and vulgar no matter how I might wish to sanitize it.

I really enjoy reading Kopf's blog as it is a pretty open dialogue from a sitting district judge. He also engages his readers in the comment section. If you haven't already, you should check it out.

If you are interested in Supreme Court "beauty contests," there are two good articles to read:

The first is on Above the Law about how the law firms were selected in the Obamacare cases, and the second is from the Daily Report about a case headed to the Supreme Court between Georgia and Florida where Georgia took bids for the case:

Lawyers who want to defend Georgia from Florida's impending lawsuit over water rights range from a former U.S. solicitor general who regularly charges more than $1,100 per hour to a recent law school graduate who offered to work for free. Those were two of the 29 applications the Georgia Law Department received by Tuesday's deadline. Two other applications were submitted after the deadline, and the department has not yet determined whether they will be considered. This is the first time under Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens that the Law Department has sought bids for potential special assistant attorneys general.

Finally, the 11th Circuit decided that ghostwriting for a pro se litigant isn't so bad.  I wonder which law clerk wrote that opinion.

Judge happenings

Interesting news out of Atlanta regarding negotiations over judgeships for the 11th Circuit and the district seat.  From Robin McDonald's article:

Georgia's Republican U.S. senators have cut a deal with state Democrats that, if approved by the White House, would fill six judgeships on Atlanta's federal appeals and district court benches, Georgia lawyers familiar with the nomination process have told the Daily Report.
The package deal would remove roadblocks thrown up by Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson that have held up the confirmation of Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor, a partner at Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, for the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pryor was nominated in February 2012.
The deal also recommends the elevation to the Eleventh Circuit of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia. Carnes was appointed to her current post by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Carnes' move would create a fourth vacancy on the district court in Atlanta, where judges who left in 2009, 2010 and this year have yet to be replaced.
The new bargain includes the nomination of Leigh Martin May, a personal injury and product liability attorney at Butler Wooten & Fryhofer, for the Northern District bench. May was on a 2009 list of potential nominees that was sent to the White House by a committee appointed by members of Georgia's Democratic congressional delegation; May's law partner, James Butler, was a member of that committee. Chambliss and Isakson initially rejected May and others as nominees.
In return for their agreement not to block the nominations of Pryor and May, Chambliss and Isakson would name candidates to the other three district court vacancies. They include Troutman Sanders partner Mark Cohen, whose name the senators put forth first in 2010 for the Northern District bench and in 2011 for the Eleventh Circuit. Their remaining two picks are two state court judges appointed by Republican Governor Nathan Deal—DeKalb County State Court Judge Eleanor Ross and Judge Michael Boggs of the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Meantime, the JNC has cut the list for district judge in the Middle District.  Now it's up to the Senators to pick from these four:  

Paul Byron, Bill Jung, Carlos Mendoza, Waddell Wallace

Trial for Joel Steinger continued

Who can blame Judge Scola... the dude was in a hospital gown.  From Curt Anderson:

 On the eve of jury selection, a federal judge agreed Monday to delay the trial of the alleged mastermind of an $800 million insurance investment fraud scheme because the man suffers from severe pain and health problems caused by a chronic back ailment.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola granted the postponement after former Mutual Benefits Corp. chief Joel Steinger, 63, tearfully requested time for spinal surgery. Steinger, who uses a wheelchair and is on strong pain medications, appeared in court in a hospital gown. He frequently wrapped a blanket around his chest.

"You can't do this like this. I don't have the strength to go on. I can't take the pain anymore," Steinger said in a voice breaking with emotion. "You know what I'm thinking about now? Getting back to the hospital so I can get more dope."...

Steinger would have needed frequent breaks if trial had gone forward in his current condition, along with a special chair, oxygen bottle and a nurse standing by to handle his needs - all at taxpayer expense. These conditions, Scola wrote, "make his presence throughout the trial a logistical and hygienic nightmare" that surgery may avoid.

Justices out talking

 Justice Scalia spoke in Texas:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia visited Houston on Friday and offered his thoughts about Christian morality and economic systems.
The 30-minute lecture explored the question: Is capitalism or socialism more conducive to Christian virtue?

...

"The cardinal sin of capitalism is greed, but the cardinal sin of socialism is power. I'm not sure there's a clear choice between those evils," Scalia said. "While I would not argue that capitalism as an economic system is inherently more Christian than socialism … it does seem to me that capitalism is more dependent on Christianity than socialism is. For in order for capitalism to work - in order for it to produce a good and a stable society - the traditional Christian virtues are essential."
Scalia, who is Catholic, discussed how religious orders once took care of orphans and the elderly, which is now done in large part by "salaried social workers" and financed by tax dollars.
"The governmentalization of charity affects not just the donor but also the recipient. What was once asked as a favor is now demanded as an entitlement," he said. "The transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude. ... It's not my place or my purpose to criticize these developments, only to observe that they do not suggest the expanding role of government is good for Christianity."

Some of the Q and A:

Q: Have you ever noticed that positions of justices on a particular subject changes or becomes more liberal the longer they stay on the bench?

A: "It's demonstrably false. I've been there longer than anybody and I think I'm further from left than I was. … It is a common phenomenon."
Q: You are so persuasive and logical - why arent' you able to persuade your liberal colleagues?
A: "Most of these issues on which we disagree, it's fundamental stuff. … [People] think most of the time, we are contemplating our navels: 'should there be a right to die,' 'should there be legal abortion' - something that Joe Six-Pack knows the answer to as well as I do. … Most of the time we are doing real law: We're figuring out the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, the Internal Revenue code. That is hard and really dull stuff."
Q: Evaluate the condition of the Catholic Church in the United States.
A: "I think it's doing OK. It's been around a long time, you know."
Q: Are you a Redskins fan?
A: "I'm not really much of a football fan. To the extent I am, I hate the Redskins. In fact, I always root for Dallas."
Q: How would you handle Syria?
A: "Naw. I shouldn't talk about that. I have strong views on it, though."
Q: What is the constitutional basis for the principal of 'stare decisis' (legal principal of judges respecting the precedent established by prior decisions) and does it play inherently to the socialist?
A: "It is impossible to run a judicial system without it. You can't reinvent the wheel with every case. … The constitution implicitly expects the courts to function in a manner that is not nuts."
Q: What is the greatest miscarriage of constitutional justice during your tenure?
A: "Oh, there are many candidates. … The most disreputable area of our law is the establishment clause. (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.) … A violation of the establishment clause that does not affect someone's free exercise - there is no reason why you should have standing.

Meantime, Justice Ginsburg was speaking too:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently officiated at a friend's same-sex wedding, told a Philadelphia audience Friday that growing acceptance of gay marriage reflects the "genius" of the U.S. Constitution.

Ginsburg said equality has always been central to the Constitution, even if society has only applied it to minorities - be they women, blacks or gays - over time.

"So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning," Ginsburg said in a far-ranging discussion of her work at the National Constitution Center, steps from the nation's founding at Independence Hall.

... Ginsburg has often been on the losing side of the epic battles, but said some would have turned out differently had the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, not retired in 2006.

"The year she left us, in every case where I was among the four, if she had remained, I would have been among the five. So her leaving the court made an enormous difference," Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg criticized her majority colleagues for what she called "activist" decisions that overturned laws better understood by Congress, such as the Voting Rights Act, which had been extended by a series of bipartisan presidents, most recently George W. Bush.

"That's an example of striking down legislation on a subject that the people in the political arena are better informed about than the court is," she said.

Ginsburg, 80, gave no hint she would wind down her judicial career anytime soon, noting that the fall docket includes such important issues as campaign finance limits and affirmative action. And, despite her sharp ideological differences with some colleagues, including close friend Antonin Scalia, she said their work environment remains cordial.

"One of the hallmarks of the court is collegiality," Ginsburg said. "You could not do the job that the Constitution gives to us if you didn't, to use one of Justice Scalia's favorite expressions, `Get over it.'"

Closer to home, the psychic trial is still going.  Paula McMahon is covering it with her last two articles here and here.   You can't beat the headlines:

"Psychic dictated messages from Brad Pitt and Colin Powell, witness testifies"
and
"Dead husband's frozen sperm did not sire a child, psychic's client says she was told"

The articles are fun reads.

Friday news and notes

It's a quiet Friday after the Jewish holiday, so here's a quick post to get you through the weekend:

1.  Sen. Rubio is taking heat about his refusal to issue a "blue slip" for Will Thomas and another African-American judge, Brian Davis, in the Middle District.  From the Orlando Sentinel:

One seat in particular, in the Middle District, has sat empty since December 2011 — the result of a fight between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over his nominee: Judge Brian Davis, a Nassau County circuit judge.
Though Davis initially had the support of U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican recanted more than a year ago, citing concerns about comments that Davis made about two black officials tied to controversy in the Clinton administration.
Davis, who is also black, implied that the two — former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders and Dr. Henry Foster Jr., a nominee for that position — either lost the job, in Elders' case, or didn't get it, in Foster's, because of their race.
"Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have had objections to Judge Davis, and those should be taken seriously and reviewed thoroughly before moving forward," said Brooke Sammon, a Rubio spokeswoman, in a statement this week.
But the Obama administration isn't budging on Davis or its selection in November of Judge William Thomas, a Miami-Dade circuit judge, to fill a slot in the Southern District.
Rubio has withheld support for Thomas, citing — among other issues — a controversial decision by Thomas in January to sentence a hit-and-run killer to less than a year in jail. An attorney for the guilty driver, Michele Traverso, argued that a long sentence would be risky for Traverso, who has a rare genetic disorder. The light sentence angered family members of the victim, bicyclist Aaron Cohen.
A White House spokeswoman said the administration had no intention of replacing the nominations of either Davis or Thomas.
"They are both distinguished judges, combining for nearly three decades on the bench, and the nonpartisan American Bar Association has rated each of them 'well-qualified,'" said Joanna Rosholm, a White House spokeswoman.

2.  An important decision from the Second Circuit on securities law:

“We conclude as follows.  First, Section 10(b) and its implementing regulation, Rule 10b-5, do not apply to extraterritorial conduct, regardless of whether liability is sought criminally or civilly.  Accordingly, a defendant may be convicted of securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 only if he has engaged in fraud in connection with (1) a security listed on a U.S. exchange, or (2) a security purchased or sold in the United States.”

 
3.  "Small-time Miami actor, wife plead guilty to $15 million Medicare scam"  Via the Miami Herald:

Roberto F. Marrero, a bit-part TV actor in such shows as Miami Vice, pleaded guilty Thursday along with his wife and another Miami man to a $15 million Medicare fraud scheme.

4.  Bolivia official in trouble.  From Curt Anderson:

A high-ranking Bolivian National Police official was sitting in a South Florida jail Thursday on U.S. charges that he tried to extort thousands of dollars from the former owner of a Bolivian airline.
According to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court, Mario Fabricio Ormachea Aliaga, 42, flew from La Paz, Bolivia to Miami on Aug. 29 to meet with Humberto Roca, who formerly ran Bolivia's AeroSur airline.
Roca previously had fled to the U.S. to avoid Bolivian charges alleging he provided tickets to what authorities there called anti-government foreign mercenaries. The FBI affidavit said that Roca calls the charges politically motivated and is seeking asylum in the U.S.
Before the meeting with Ormachea Aliaga — whom Roca referred to as the "Colonel" — Roca contacted the FBI on the advice of a lawyer. Agents monitored and recorded their meetings, during which Ormachea Aliaga — the No. 2 official in the national police's anticorruption unit — allegedly told Roca that in exchange for $30,000 "he would drop the charges against (Roca) and charge someone else instead," according to the FBI affidavit.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/05/3607090/top-bolivia-police-official-jailed.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/05/3608135/small-time-miami-actor-wife-plead.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/09/05/3608135/small-time-miami-actor-wife-plead.html#storylink=cpy

News & Notes -- Rosh Hashanah edition

The Eleventh Circuit just decided Temple B'Nai Zion vs. City of Sunny Isles Beach.  It's quite a read.  The issue presented is one of ripeness: "This appeal presents the question whether an Orthodox Jewish synagogue’s statutory and constitutional challenges to its designation as a historic landmark by a municipality are ripe for adjudication."  But check out some of these facts:

The City was not supportive of the Temple’s expansion plans, and in the period that followed Rabbi Lankry met with Mayor Edelcup on several occasions to work out the differences. The meetings went badly. At one point, Mayor Edelcup allegedly referred to the Sephardic Jewish community as a “bunch of pigs.” When Rabbi Lankry inquired as to whether he could quote the mayor as to his pejorative comment, Mayor Edelcup responded, “I don’t care what the [expletive] you do.” The animosity between the parties now proceeded at full bore: when the Temple rebuffed the City’s attempt to purchase the property on which the Temple was situated (the Temple is apparently located adjacent to city hall), Mayor Edelcup directed the City’s code enforcement officers to inspect the Temple, and between September 2007 and February 2009, the Temple received 12 separate code violation notices from City officials.
***
At a public hearing held before the full City Commission on September 2, 2010, the same witnesses who had appeared before the Preservation Board appeared again and provided essentially the same testimony. Because the hearing was public, citizens were permitted to take the lectern and offer comments during the proceeding; many took the opportunity to complain about the operation of the Temple, accusing Rabbi Lankry and the Temple of removing memorial plaques from the walls, failing to light candles for deceased congregants, denying access to former congregants, and absconding with the Temple’s Torahs. The City Commissioners—three out of five of whom were members of the Temple congregation before it became Orthodox—also offered public comments before voting on the designation. Commissioner Gerry Goodman, who had previously sat on the Temple’s board of directors, for example, questioned Rabbi Lankry at length about why the Temple seemed to be closed to the public on certain days. Commissioner Goodman had purchased a memorial plaque for a loved one at the Temple some years earlier but had been unable to view the plaque when he attempted to do so. Goodman then began to ask Rabbi Lankry whether the Temple was being leased out, but Mayor Edelcup interjected, admonishing Goodman to “[f]ocus on the issues.” Before closing his remarks, Goodman asked Rabbi Lankry whether Lankry had called him an anti-Semite in the local newspaper.

Yikes.  At the end of the day, the Court engages in some technical ripeness analysis but asks the parties for some reflection (which is appropriate at this time of year!):

We do not know who will ultimately prevail between the Temple and the City in this ongoing feud. That question—a merits one—is not ours to answer. We merely decide today that the claims enumerated in the Temple’s complaint are ripe for judicial adjudication. And while we embrace some hope that the parties might bury their strife before the next stage of federal litigation comes to pass, again on that score, only time will tell. At this juncture, it is enough to say that the order of the district court is vacated, and that the Temple’s challenges to the enactment of the historic designation are ripe for review.

Dan Wallach of Becker & Poliakoff represented the Synagogue. Coffey Burlington represented the City.