Face Down

 There's a pretty incredible trial going on that isn't getting much press -- Two Live Crew is in court before Judge Gayles.  And Uncle Luke is on the stand.  From Law 360:

Rapper and producer Luther Campbell, also known as Uncle Luke, told jurors Monday that the checks they'd been shown for payments to members of hip-hop group 2 Live Crew were for per diem expenses, not paychecks, and insisted that the group members were not employees of his record label and can therefore claw back their rights to their old hit recordings.

Campbell, who owns record label Luke Records, said he and the other three members of 2 Live Crew were paid advances and received shares of the profits from the group's albums, their live performances and merchandise. None of Luke Records' employees received that kind of compensation, he said.

He pushed back against the assertion by plaintiff Lil' Joe Records — which says it bought the rights to the songs in 1996 through a bankruptcy of Luke Records' assets — that the recordings were works for hire made while under employment by Luke Records.

"This wasn't work for hire," he said. "If someone comes in and plays guitar, that's work for hire. Or someone plays piano on a song, that's work for hire."

Lil' Joe Records, which is owned by former Luke Records general counsel and chief financial officer Joseph Weinberger, is suing Campbell and late 2 Live Crew members Christopher Wong Won and Mark Ross, whose heirs are defending their interests. The music label is trying to stop them from terminating the label's exclusive licenses of their material under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, which allows copyright owners to terminate licenses during a five-year window beginning 35 years after the publication of a work.

Jurors have been tasked with determining whether the 2 Live Crew members were employees of Luke Records when the songs in the five albums at issue in the suit were created. They also will have to find which of three operative agreements — one oral agreement and two written agreements in 1990 and 1991 — granted the transfer of ownership of the subject copyrights.

"Prosecutors erode our rights with show-and-tell indictments like Eric Adams’s"

That's the title of this op-ed in the Washington Post by Abbe Lowell.

Amen!

Here's the introduction:

Recently we witnessed what has become a familiar scene, so familiar that no one apparently stopped to consider how wrong it was: U.S. Attorney Damian Williams standing at a lectern, holding a news conference to announce the indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams on charges of bribery and campaign finance offenses.

In a 20-minute publicity event, framed on one side by the agents who worked the case and on the other by a color photo of the Turkish consulate building the mayor is alleged to have helped get approved, Williams detailed the charges using phrases such as “luxury travel,” “foreign influence,” “corrupt relationships” and “grave breach of public trust.” He made sure to describe every dollar exchanged as charged in the indictment. Then he invited an FBI supervisor and a New York City commissioner to jump in and add their claims of Adams’s “perver[sion] of greed, and dishonesty” and breach of “integrity, transparency and dedication.”

All this occurred on the day the charges were unsealed, not the day a guilty verdict was issued. You might be forgiven for being confused.

This sort of trial by lectern or show-and-tell indictment is a lamentable phenomenon that needs to be eliminated — now. It erodes the presumption of innocence and subverts the requirement for a fair trial. By the time a trial starts, would-be jurors have been tainted by hearing the worst allegations against a defendant with no rebuttal, and judges can easily form initial opinions that could carry over to their rulings.

 

Judge Darrin Gayles celebrates 10 years on the federal bench (and 20 as a judge)

20 years as a judge, wow.

Seems like yesterday we were brand new lawyers appearing before Judge Graham not knowing what we were doing.

Here's a cool picture of Judge Gayles with some of his law clerks and staff.

Congrats Judge Gayles.

School Board Gets a Lesson on Free Speech from the Eleventh

By John R. Byrne

Who knew school board meetings could get this intense? The Eleventh Circuit just issued an opinion holding that the Brevard County School Board's policies governing speech at school board meetings violated the First Amendment. The board had policies prohibiting "abusive," "personally directed," and "obsence" speech. The court said that while "abusive" and "obscene" speech could be restricted in principle, the school board had offered fuzzy definitions of the terms that would reach protected speech. According to the Court, "giving offense is a viewpoint" and "a restriction barring that viewpoint effectively requires 'happy talk,' permitting a speaker to give positive or benign comments, but not negative or even challenging one."

Judge Wilson dissented, in part. For much of his dissent, he offered examples of speech that the board actually allowed, his point being that it's not as though the board was out to muzzle any particular agenda. He also disagreed with the majority's ruling striking down the ban on "personally directed" speech. His point seems well taken here. It appears that the majority was overreading that restriction (Wilson pointed out that it only required a speaker to address their comments to specific board members/the board as a whole/the presiding officer, not that it banned a speaker from naming names). 

Anyway, on the off chance that you're speaking before the Brevard School Board anytime soon (or crafting speech policies for a limited public forum), a must read....

Happy Friday.

Moms for Liberty by John Byrne on Scribd

Eleventh Circuit Blesses Florida Riot Statute

By John R. Byrne

Hope everyone is staying dry and safe. Another win for the State of Florida at the Eleventh Circuit. After a series of protests opposing police violence, the Florida legislature amended Florida’s criminal riot statute. That led to challenges by various civil rights organizations. The challenges? Vagueness and overbreadth. Here is the statutory language:

A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in:

(a) Injury to another person;

(b) Damage to property; or

(c) Imminent danger of injury to another person

or damage to property.

Fla. Stat. § 870.01(2).

Judge Walker in the Northern District agreed with the challengers, enjoining enforcement of the statute. Though the Eleventh Circuit expressed its own misgivings about the statute’s meaning and reach, it certified a series of questions about it to the Florida Supreme Court. And the Eleventh Circuit was satisfied with that court’s “definitive” interpretation, writing: "The touchstone of liability under the riot statute is violence. This violence may not be incidental; it must be intentional."

Seems right to me, given the statutory language. Opinion excerpted below.

Dream Defenders by John Byrne on Scribd

Hurricane Milton court update (UPDATED)

 From the SDFLA website (as of Tuesday afternoon):

In anticipation of Hurricane Milton, the below courthouses will be closed as follows:
• Ft. Pierce (Alto Lee Adams, Sr. U.S. Courthouse) will be closed Tuesday through Thursday
• Palm Beach (Paul G. Rogers Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse) will be closed Wednesday and Thursday
• Ft. Lauderdale (U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse) will be closed Wednesday and Thursday
• Miami (Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr., C. Clyde Atkins, and James Lawrence King Courthouses) will be closed Wednesday and Thursday
• Key West (Sidney M. Aronovitz U.S. Courthouse) will be closed Wednesday

President Biden, it’s time to use your pardon power.

President Biden, it’s time to use your pardon power.

By David Oscar Markus

The federal criminal justice system is littered with terribly unjust convictions and sentences. The President of the United States has the power, granted to him by our Constitution, to fix these injustices – either by pardoning a person convicted of a federal crime or by commuting a sentence.  Unfortunately, President Biden has barely used that power to date.  Putting aside pardons for possession of marijuana, he has granted only 25 pardons and 131 commutations (which is less than 1.5 percent of all the petitions submitted to the pardon office to date).  And almost none of these are white collar offenses, which get very little attention for this sort of review.  

But it is not too late, Mr. President.  Traditionally, most presidents wait until the final few months of their presidency to use the wide power and discretion afforded them.  Here are some cases that cry out for the President's intervention:

The first case, United States v. John Moore and Tanner Mansell, is the ideal candidate for a pardon.  Moore and Mansell were crewmembers on a boat that facilitated shark encounters in South Florida.  During one such trip, they spotted sharks caught on a long fishing line that they mistakenly believed was illegal. They recorded as they retrieved the line and released the sharks, and called Fish & Wildlife to notify law enforcement of what they had found.  It turns out that the lines had been placed lawfully, an unusual circumstance. Despite that this was a good faith mistake, Moore and Mansell were indicted and convicted for theft of property within the special maritime jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 661.  The appellate court affirmed the conviction, but Judge Lagoa said she did so "with reluctance" because she had never seen "in eighteen years on the bench and three years as a federal prosecutor," facts like these.  She said that the prosecution "def[ied] understanding" and that the prosecutor took "a page out of Inspector Javert's playbook" for prosecuting this case.  She said the facts "plainly suggest[] a good faith mistake" and she could not understand how "this case was worth the public expense of a criminal prosecution, and the lifelong yokes of felony convictions."   

The next two cases are perfect for clemency.  In United States v. Tyson Rhame, James Shaw, and Frank Bell, the defendants were charged with fraud for selling the Iraqi currency, called dinar (an entirely legal product).  It was undisputed that every single customer got exactly what they paid for and that not one of the thousands of customers ever complained.  In fact, the dinar is worth today almost the same amount it was worth when customers purchased it years ago.  In other words, they did not lose anything.  The defendants themselves did not say anything fraudulent to any of the customers and they spent millions of dollars on compliance to make sure that they did not cross any legal lines.  Even the judge at trial said, "Let me put it this way: I don't know where this case is going to end up ... Well for one thing, I'm not prepared to even say, well this case is going to get past directed verdict.  These people can be found completely not guilty."  Unfortunately, the jury found them guilty. Ty Rhame  -- an Iraqi war hero, has donated tens of millions to charity, always paid his taxes, and is a loving father -- was sentenced to 15 years (!!) in federal prison for selling a legal product that is still openly sold today.  

In United States v. Johnny Grobman, Raoul Doekhie, and Sherida Nabi, the defendants bought baby formula from manufacturers saying on the basis that they would sell only in foreign markets, but they actually sold in the United States. The “victims” in this case, primarily very large corporations, made a profit from their sales to the defendants.  Their complaint is that they did not make as much money as they would have had they marked it up to be resold in the U.S. Based on the premise that these corporations may have been able to make more profit from these transactions, Grobman, a father to three young daughters, was sentenced to 18 years in federal prison even though he was a first time non-violent offender.  18 years!  A co-conspirator in Johnny’s case who did not go to trial and cooperated with the prosecution received a sentence of 2 years. 

 I am particularly attuned to the facts of Rhame and Grobman since I represent both of them on appeal (I was not the trial lawyer).  I could go on and on with other cases that President Biden should look after.  Another one of my clients who is currently appealing, Neil Cole, was acquitted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in the Southern District of New York, which was the top and most serious count.  The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the less serious counts, but the government decided to retry him anyway on the very same theory that the jury rejected for the conspiracy.  It's hard to beat the government once; it's almost impossible to beat the feds twice, especially where the government scares away defense witnesses with threats of perjury and obstruction.  

Many presidents issue a few pardons and commutations at the end of the their term to show at least a little mercy.  But President Biden has the opportunity do something truly special and unique -- clear the board of the many unjust convictions and sentences in our federal system.  Don't be stingy, President Biden.  Don't succumb to fear.  Do the right thing and make our criminal justice system just a little more fair.

False Claims Act Unconstitutional, says Middle District Judge. (Guess who).

If you guessed Judge Mizelle, bingo!

It's a fascinating read.

And she may very well be right.

Here's Reuters.

Over the last 20 years, the U.S. has routinely recovered upward of a billion dollars a year from False Claims Act lawsuits initiated by private whistleblowers who accuse defendants of defrauding the federal government. In 2023 alone, the U.S. took in more than $2.3 billion, opens new tab from hundreds of lawsuits initiated by private whistleblowers.

A federal judge in Tampa, Florida, ruled, opens new tab on Monday that these whistleblowers wield unconstitutional power. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Mizelle concluded that the whistleblower, or qui tam, provisions of the False Claims Act violate the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution because whistleblowers exercise executive-branch power without accountability to the president.

Mizelle, a former clerk of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who was 33 years old when she was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020, said False Claims Act whistleblowers are effectively acting as officers of the United States when they initiate and prosecute civil fraud lawsuits on behalf of the government.

And here's the (53 page) opinion.