Robin Rosenberg officially nominated to District Bench (UPDATED w video from Supreme Court)

Congrats to Judge Rosenberg, who will be filling Judge Jordan's seat but likely sitting in Ft. Pierce.  Our previous coverage is here.

In other news:

• Former Mayor (and probation officer) Michael Pizzi's trial is continued till July.  (via Miami Herald)
• Rogerio Scotton was convicted of all charges before Judge Rosenbaum in Ft. Lauderdale.  This was the racecar driver representing himself who tried to introduce sex tapes to prove his marriage was not fraudulent.  Problem was: there were no sex tapes.  (via the Sun-Sentinel)

• Rumpole has an interesting post about the Luis Alvarez trial from 30 years ago.  Check it out. 

• Did you know it was a crime to "harangue" a Supreme Court Justice in the Supreme Court?  This guy got charged with the crime yesterday.  Via CNN:

Money is not speech," he reportedly said. "Overturn 'Citizens United!'" referring to a 2010 high court decision loosening a century of federal restrictions on corporate spending by "independent" groups like businesses and unions.

He was only able say a few words before police escorted him from the courtroom, and did not resist.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg identified the man as Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles.

Newkirk has been charged with violating federal law that makes it a crime to "harangue" or utter "loud threatening or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building."

The justices ignored the incident.

The court's official written transcript of the argument made no mention of the remarks.

Such outbursts are rare.

Court officials say the last time it happened was eight years ago, during an oral argument over a federal law restricting a certain type of later-term abortion procedure.

A similar interruption occurred about two decades ago.

The courtroom has about 330 seats available to the public. Court security instructs spectators before each public session to remain seated, not to speak, or demonstrate.

UPDATE -- Wow, someone snuck in a video recorder and took this video from inside the Supreme Court:

BREAKING -- Supremes decide Kaley this morning

Here is the opinion

The Eleventh Circuit is affirmed. The case is remanded; Justice Kagan writes for the Court. Vote is six to three. Roberts dissents, joined by Sotomayor and Breyer.  Very interesting lineup.

Will write more when I have had a chance to read it, but here is the holding:

When challenging the legality of a §853(e)(1) pre-trial asset seizure, a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable causeto believe the defendant committed the crimes charged.

What was found in El Chapo's home? (UPDATED)

UPDATED -- well, thanks to the comments, it looks like the pictures are not from El Chapo's home, but from a variety of cases.  They're still cool though.

A lot of money and gold (even gold-plated guns):

 

And even tigers and crazy hot tubs:





Insane.

In other news, friends of the blog, Alfred Spellman and Billy Corben debuted "The Tanning of America" last night on VH1. You should definitely check it out:

Get More:
The Tanning of America, Music News, Rock Docs

"Even though they threw me under the bus … There's a certain sense of unease about acquiring a house in this fashion."

That's Patrick Coulton after moving into his former lawyer's house.  Paula McMahon has the interesting story:


Patrick Coulton's lawyers ripped him off to the tune of $275,000 and left him to rot in prison.
But Coulton is getting payback: He now lives in his former lawyer's home — a three-bedroom house in Miramar that he will eventually own as part of a court-ordered punishment of the two misbehaving attorneys.
"Even though they threw me under the bus … There's a certain sense of unease about acquiring a house in this fashion," Coulton said after moving in last week. "I almost feel sorry for them."

The way Coulton and two federal judges tell it, this is the story of two very bad lawyers — Emmanuel Roy and Peter Mayas — and one very good one, Paul Petruzzi.
"Guys like them are the reason people hate lawyers," Petruzzi said. "They took everything from him and his family … I took it personally because this is what I do for a living. Lawyers are supposed to help people."


In other news, the DOJ is treating its discovery handbook the same way it treats discovery.  Its not turning it over without a fight:


The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers today sued the U.S. Department of Justice over public access to a criminal discovery "blue book" that was written after the collapse of the case against Ted Stevens.
The Justice Department last year turned down a request from the NACDL for a copy of the Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book. The lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Justice Department officials, according to the complaint, cited the book as an example of why federal legislation was unnecessary to prevent future discovery abuses among prosecutors.
During a hearing on Capitol Hill, in 2012, the Justice Department said the blue book was "distributed to prosecutors nationwide in 2011" and "is now electronically available on the desktop of every federal prosecutor and paralegal," according to the NACDL complaint.
"The due process rights of the American people, and how powerful federal prosecutors have been instructed as relates to the safeguarding of those rights, is a matter of utmost Constitutional concern to the public," NACDL President Jerry Cox said in a written statement. "The 'trust us' approach is simply unacceptable. And it is certainly an insufficient basis upon which to resist bipartisan congressional interest in codifying prosecutors’ duty to disclose."

NACDL is represented by the excellent Kerri Ruttenberg.

Thursday News and Notes

1.  Douglas Bates is going to plead guilty after seeing how the Kitterman trial went.  Paula McMahone covers the development:

Douglas Bates, 55, a Plantation lawyer who lives in Parkland, was indicted in August on the conspiracy charge and three separate wire fraud counts. His trial was scheduled to begin Monday in federal court in West Palm Beach.
But prosecutors filed updated court records on Wednesday charging Bates with the lone conspiracy count and U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks scheduled a change-of-plea hearing for 11 a.m. Thursday, a sign that Bates has reached a plea agreement with the government.
The charge carries a maximum punishment of five years in federal prison and significant fines. A felony conviction would also lead to Bates' disbarment from practicing law.
His decision to plead guilty comes a week after a jury found Christina Kitterman, an attorney who formerly worked for Rothstein, guilty of three counts of wire fraud. She could face nine years or more in prison when she is sentenced later this year, prosecutors said.

2.  Fane Lozman is not a happy camper, even after winning in the Supreme Court (from the DBR):

Fane Lozman won a U.S. Supreme Court decision finding his floating home was a house and not boat, but he said he's still not getting justice after a federal magistrate valued his loss at $7,500.
Lozman offered advertisements of comparable floating homes in the Florida Keys priced from $185,000 to $265,000 in a motion filed Tuesday to vacate U.S. Magistrate Judge Lurana Snow's report.
The West Palm Beach judge used a 5-year-old report ordered by a federal judge when Lozman's floating home, which had no engine, was originally seized as a maritime vessel by the U.S. Marshals Service in Riviera Beach.
"Are they pissed off I got them reversed? Now I'm being punished for winning this," Lozman told the Daily Business Review. "This is pathetic."
The 57-foot, two-story structure was towed to the Miami River by the city and set aflame in 2009 in a legal dispute that filled state and federal court files. Riviera Beach and federal authorities contended they had the right to seize the property under maritime law.
U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale sided with the city, but Lozman appealed. He had retired after making millions of dollars during the tech boom as a stock trader and made his floating home a cause celebre.

3.  Roy Black has an excellent post, explaining how to cross the sympathetic witness.  From the intro to the lengthy post on the SAC insider trading trial:

The government’s star witness and “insider” is Dr. Sidney Gilman, an 81 year old drug researcher who long sought a cure for Alzheimer’s and had published nine books and 240 articles during a highly distinguished career. Gilman testified that he at first “accidentally” passed confidential information to Martoma. He claimed he “slipped” in telling him about the deleterious side effects of an experimental Alzheimer’s drug. He admitted that after his slip he knowingly gave further detailed data on the drug’s failed clinical trial.
Gilman appears grandfatherly, vulnerable and fragile and has been taking anti-cancer drugs. A defense lawyer’s worst nightmare. And the government did their best to elevate Gilman while casting Martoma in an ugly light. Gilman testified that Martoma reminded him of his eldest son who had committed suicide, and suggested that Martoma used this to seduce Gilman, squarely placing most of the blame on their target Martoma. The government’s theme was that Martoma took advantage of a befuddled sick old man.
Despite the government’s efforts to paint him in a good light, Gilman came to the witness stand toting a lot of baggage. The government needed his testimony and gave Gilman a sweet deal. He received a non-prosecution agreement, a settlement with regulators requiring only repaying his consulting fees and retirement from the University of Michigan Medical Center in lieu of being fired. A pretty good global resolution of his myriad problems. All superior benefits the defense lawyer must explore on cross.
There are high stakes in this cross examination for Martoma because a month earlier, another former SAC employee, Michael S. Steinberg, was convicted of insider trading. Matoma’s lawyers are well aware that caution must be abandoned. This cross could go either way and maybe the difference between going home and 20 years in a federal facility.

4.  Rumpole posted about an elderly nun being sentenced to federal prison.  Is this insane or is it me?  From the Chicago Tribune:

A U.S. judge sentenced an 84-year-old nun, Sister Megan Rice, on Tuesday to 35 months in prison for breaking into a Tennessee military facility used to store enriched uranium for nuclear bombs.
...
Rice asked the judge not to take her age into consideration when handing out the sentence.
"To remain in prison for the rest of my life would be the greatest honor," the nun said in court. "I hope that happens."
Rice and the others admitted to spray painting peace slogans and hammering on exterior walls of the facility. When a guard confronted them, they offered him food and began singing.
The three were convicted by a federal jury last May of damaging national defense premises under the sabotage act, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, and of causing more than $1,000 of damage to U.S. government property.
Prosecutors contended the break-in at the primary U.S. site for processing and storage of enriched uranium disrupted operations, endangered U.S. national security and caused physical damage.
Dozens of supporters held a prayer vigil for the group outside the courthouse.
Federal sentencing guidelines called for Rice to receive up to a little more than seven years in prison; Walli, 65, more than nine years; and Boertje-Obed, 58, more than eight years. The defendants have been in custody since their convictions.

5.  And here's your moment of blog zen:

$1 million vase?

So, I'm sure you've read about the artist breaking the vase at the PAMM over the weekend. According to the press, the vase was worth $1 million. Here's a picture of the display of the vases. You tell me. (By the way, check out the artist in the background, breaking a vase.)



Meantime, it's just an excuse to post this Austin Powers clip:



Here's the video of the guy breaking the vase.

Should there be cameras in the Supreme Court?

Of course there should.  And now there's an ad campaign about it:

A coalition of media, public interest and open-government organizations today launched an unprecedented advertising and petition campaign to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to open its doors to cameras.
The Coalition for Court Transparency was created to generate momentum for a change in the high court's long-standing resistance toward allowing broadcast access to its proceedings, even as the demands of the Information Age have brought greater transparency to other government institutions.
A 30-second television ad urging the court to permit camera access will air in coming weeks on CNN, Fox, MSNBC and CNBC. Its message, in part: “The Supreme Court’s decisions impact the lives of Americans everywhere. But only a privileged few get to witness history and see justice in action … It’s time for a more open judiciary. It’s time for cameras in the Supreme Court.”
For decades, the news media have politely asked the court to change its policy, and bills have been introduced in Congress to require it to do so. But with congressional leaders reluctant to intrude on the justices’ turf and prerogatives, the bills have withered on the way to passage.
The news media in recent years have taken a largely passive approach, waiting for younger, more media-comfortable justices to join the court. But that strategy has failed as new justices, most recently including Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, “go native” and suddenly oppose cameras, even though they favored the idea before.
The court has taken some steps toward transparency over recent years, including quick online posting of its opinions and oral argument transcripts. The audio of arguments is available sooner than decades ago, but not same-day, except in rare circumstances. Televising proceedings, however, have been a bridge too far, with past justices Warren Burger and David Souter famously vowing cameras would roll into the court chamber only over their dead bodies.
The new campaign coalesced out of frustration with the court’s resistance, as well as a feeling that the court would benefit, not suffer, from greater public exposure.
“There’s nothing the government does that’s more impressive than the high-quality debates that take place before the Supreme Court,” said Doug Kendall, founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a member of the coalition.

Here's the ad:

President's Day News & Notes (Supreme Court style)

The Southern District of Florida is pretty quiet today, so here's some Supreme Court news for those of you in the office:

1.  Justice Stevens is still active.  Here are some good stories:

In his early days as a justice, Stevens recalled, Brennan persuaded him to attend the exclusive Gridiron Club dinner put on by Washington journalists. Brennan insisted on loaning Stevens his suit with tails for the occasion.
The problem, Stevens said, was that "Brennan was a good deal heavier than I was." As a result, Stevens worried all evening that the suit "would not protect my dignity." But it all turned out well. Stevens was seated next to the famed dancer and actress Ginger Rogers. "It was one of the best evenings I ever had, and I owe that to Bill Brennan."
As on other occasions since retiring in 2010, Stevens was critical of some of the decisions the court has handed down since he left. Both Snyder v. Phelps and United States v. Alvarez, he said, were too protective of false speech. The Snyder case went in favor of virulent protesters at military funerals, and Alvarez struck down a federal law that made it a crime to falsely claim to have won a military Medal of Honor.
The Alvarez ruling, Stevens said, "sends a terrible message to the youth of our nation and to the general public as well" by announcing a constitutional right to lie.
Neither Snyder nor Alvarez were 5-4 decisions, so the fact that Stevens would have voted differently than his successor Elena Kagan would not have made a difference in the outcome.
Still, Stevens' remarks underscored what a difference a single justice can make, even on a nine-member court. He recounted how, in Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, a libel decision he authored in 1989, he was first assigned to write a propress majority opinion. When he read the record, however, he changed his mind, deciding it was a rare instance when the press should be held liable for defaming a political candidate. The rest of the court followed Stevens' lead.
The behind-the-scenes maneuvering in the court's long line of libel cases is the focus of a powerful new book that was discussed at the conference. Written by court scholar Steve Wermiel and Lee Levine, partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, "The Progeny: Justice William J. Brennan's Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan" makes it clear that court opinions can be the product of months — and sometimes years — of negotiations and rewrites.

2.  Justice Scalia tackles the very important question of whether Chicago pizza is really pizza:

Scalia also displayed his famous sarcastic wit throughout, lastly directing it at Chicago deep dish pizza during questioning after his speech. He said he liked both Chicago and New York style pizza, but Chicago style “shouldn’t be called pizza” he said. “It’s very tasty, but it’s not pizza.”