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
Monday, December 07, 2009
"Gotta get away from my lawyer. Sit tight. Say nothing. Write nothing. Brooklyn to bronx. I'll make u famous."
Of course, the most comprehensive place to go for Rothstein news is the Daily Pulp. Bob Norman is just churning out news over at his site. Good stuff.
In other news:
1. Ex-Broward Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion to plead guilty (via Herald). Looks like Ben Kuehne is back to work -- he and Kendall Coffee are representing Eggelletion.
2. SFL covers Judge Moreno's decision to pay Roberto Martinez and Colson Hicks $4.5 million more than initially approved for work as a receiver. Although Judge Moreno gave less than Martinez was asking for, he still about double the hourly rate that was billed ($450 vs. $218). Any thoughts on this? Should CJA lawyers be able to ask for a kicker when they do good work?
3. Honest-services fraud is before the High Court this week. Should be really interesting. More on this later, but here's a primer from USA Today.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
The Mandels score...
A federal jury decided Wednesday that Toronto-based TD Bank owes an investment group $67 million for its role in a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme that was operated by a now disbarred attorney, Scott Rothstein.
The verdict came in a lawsuit filed by Coquina Investments, based in Corpus Christi, Texas. It was the first to go to trial of several pending lawsuits filed by wronged investors against the bank and others. Coquina attorney David S. Mandel said the jury "sent exactly the right message to TD Bank."
Congrats to David and Nina Mandel who have been working very hard on this case. Judge Cooke presided over the first of what will be many Scott Rothstein-related civil trials.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
This is not a post about Scott Rothstein
Those who aren't can try betting on the Supreme Court.
Or watch some clips of Curb Your Enthusiasm, the best comedy on TV right now:
You prefer Glee, you say. Well here you go.
Fine, and if you must, here's a Scott Rothstein story. Blech.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
"Scott, relax"
I love reading transcripts of great cross-examinations, and Mary really devastates Rothstein (her cross starts at page 2393 and the whole thing is definitely worth reading). The blogs are abuzz about this exchange (at page 2427):
Q At some point Debra Villegas' best friend and then your former lover was murdered?
A That's correct. She was.
Q She was murdered because she knew too much, right?
A Excuse me? Are you attempting to insinuate that I had something to do with that poor girl's death? Have you lost your mind?
Q You would deny that?
A I would deny it? You're disgusting. Everyone knows that I wasn't involved in it. That's disgusting.
Q How about Julie Timmerman?
A No. No. That is disgusting. Okay. I was a criminal involved in white-collar crime, involved in fraud and the like, involved with the mob and corrupt politicians and corrupt law enforcement. I'm paying for that. Melissa Lewis was a good person. She didn't know too much. She was killed by a psychopath. And you're disgusting for doing that.
Q You gave Debra Villegas a house, right?
A Why drag her family through that? They're going to have to read this, for your purposes, to defend John Harris, who's guilty.
Q You gave Debra Villegas a house --
A You should be ashamed.
Q -- right?
THE WITNESS: I want five minutes. You should be ashamed of yourself. You think I should be in jail. You should be ashamed.
MS. BARZEE FLORES: We'll talk about Julie Timmerman when you come back.
THE WITNESS: You're a disgusting human being. You're the only one out of this entire group of lawyers. You are truly, truly a disgusting human being.
MR. NURIK: Scott, relax. (Thereupon, a recess was taken.)
This exchange made me laugh:
Q You've violated oaths before, though, haven't
you, sir?
A In my prior incarnation, I certainly did.
Q You violated your oath as an attorney?
A I did.
Q You lied to judges?
A I did.
Q You put money, filthy lucre, ahead of your
clients' interests?
A Filthy lucre?
Q Yes. Money?
A Yes. I know what "lucre" is. I've just never
heard anyone use that in a question before.
Q It's in the oath, sir.
A I know it is. I remember the oath. I just --
"for lucre or malice," I remember that. Yes, I violated
that oath.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Tuesday news and notes
2. Kim Rothstein's lawyer Scott Saidel was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison yesterday. From the Sun-Sentinel:
The courtroom was packed Monday morning, nearly 30 strong with supporters of the fallen attorney.
Saidel's defense attorney, Tama Beth Kudman, said her client was not driven by profit or greed and that he erred by viewing Kim Rothstein as a friend rather than a client.
"He saw this woman drowning and he tried to help her," Kudman told the judge. "She was losing everything in the world through no fault of her own. … He handled this horribly, and what he did was absolutely wrong."
Kudman, in her quest for a minimal sentence, emphasized Saidel's "extraordinary life of kindness, and empathy and giving."
"He has lost his career … his wife and child have moved out of their home. … He has no money left," Kudman said. "He's lost everything in the world."
As part of his plea deal, Saidel has agreed to forfeit $515,000 to federal authorities — including the $65,000 he received in legal fees from Kim Rothstein, four expensive pens and a pair of mother of pearl, diamond and sapphire cuff links.
Federal prosecutor Lawrence LaVecchio did not discredit Saidel's good deeds or cooperation with authorities, but he did take issue with minimizing the forethought and planning that went into the scheme to hide the jewelry.
"Nobody gets dragged into federal criminal court in cases like these because they committed errors in judgment," LaVecchio said. "It's not some isolated event, or lapse in judgment, that brought the defendant here today."
From a lectern in the middle of the courtroom, Saidel offered a round of apologies to the government, prosecutors, the judge, the Florida Bar, friends, family and — his voice cracking with emotion — to his client, Kim Rothstein.
"I am profoundly sorry for the conduct that led me here today," he said. "I apologize to my family and friends, who I have let down and hurt and embarrassed, and to my client Kimberly Rothstein, who might not find herself standing here in this very same spot at a later time, if I had simply been a better lawyer."
Seems like a huge sentence to me. What are your thoughts?
3. Meantime, why do misbehaving prosecutors get a pass in court opinions? The Huffington Post examines the interesting issue in this interesting article:
Last month, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a prosecutor in San Mateo County, Calif., committed "textbook" misconduct when she "knowingly elicited and then failed to correct false testimony" during an armed robbery trial. A judge from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California also found misconduct in the case, but ruled it was a "harmless error" and upheld the conviction of the defendant, La Carl Martez Dow. The appeals court panel overturned that ruling, and Dow's conviction.
But an important detail was missing from both those rulings -- the prosecutor's name, Jennifer Ow. At the time of Martez Dow's conviction, she was an assistant district attorney for San Mateo county. She currently holds the same title in Nevada County, Calif.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal alleging misconduct by a federal prosecutor who made racially offensive remarks during a drug trial in Texas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion that excoriated the prosecutor, who, she wrote, "tapped a deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice that has run through the history of criminal justice in our Nation."
"It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century," she wrote. "Such conduct diminishes the dignity of our criminal justice system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice."
But Sotomayor didn't name the prosecutor, either. And while her opinion attracted a fair amount of media attention, those initial accounts also failed to give the prosecutor's name.
Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who now blogs at Popehat.com, checked the legal document service PACER and tracked down the name: Sam L. Ponder. He is still an assistant U.S. attorney in Texas.
After White found Ponder's name, many media outlets amended their original reports to include it. But the case is an exception. The names of misbehaving prosecutors are rarely if ever included in appellate court opinions that find misconduct. Those opinions aren't all that well covered in the media to begin with, but when they are, it can take a fair amount of digging for a reporter on the courts beat to match the prosecutor to the case. So most don't.
There's no formal rule precluding the publication of a prosecutor's name in an opinion. White says it's more about professional courtesy.
"It's tradition. It's an informal practice driven by the government's fairly strong stand that the names shouldn't be published," he said. "I've seen some really egregious, outrageous examples of misconduct in which the government actually asked for opinions to be republished to remove names of specific prosecutors."
4. The Sun-Sentinel has this long piece on how the Sunrise police department and others like it are making millions off of the cocaine business:
Police in this suburban town best known for its sprawling outlet mall have hit upon a surefire way to make millions. They sell cocaine.
Police confiscate millions from these deals, money that fuels huge overtime payments for the undercover officers who conduct the drug stings and cash rewards for the confidential informants who help detectives entice faraway buyers, a six-month Sun Sentinel investigation found.
Police have paid one femme fatale informant more than $800,000 over the past five years for her success in drawing drug dealers into the city, records obtained by the newspaper show.
Undercover officers tempt these distant buyers with special discounts, even offering cocaine on consignment and the keys to cars with hidden compartments for easy transport. In some deals, they’ve provided rides and directions to these strangers to Sunrise.
This being western Broward County, not South Beach, the drama doesn’t unfold against a backdrop of fast boats, thumping nightclubs or Art Deco hotels.
It’s absurdly suburban.
Many of the drug negotiations and busts have taken place at restaurants around the city’s main attraction, Sawgrass Mills mall, including such everyday dining spots as TGI Fridays, Panera Bread and the Don Pan International Bakery.
Why would police bring criminals to town?
Money.
5. Is a hot bench always a good thing at the Supreme Court. The NY Times looks into it:
The Supreme Court has what lawyers call a hot bench, and temperatures are rising.
Monday, December 12, 2011
There's going to be a long line at the King building
Just obtaining permission for his deposition was an ordeal, requiring dispensation from U.S. District Judge James Cohn, who is presiding over the criminal case, and the U.S. attorney’s office, which has charged eight defendants including Rothstein so far and plans another major racketeering indictment. “Obtaining Rothstein’s deposition is critical in order for the trustee to fully investigate all matters related to the Ponzi scheme,” Fort Lauderdale lawyer Paul Singerman, whose firm is working for the trustee, wrote in court papers. The goal is to “learn facts about potential targets and existing defendants ... as well as to have a complete understanding of the assets and liabilities of RRA, and the various roles that insiders, creditors and other third parties had with respect to the Ponzi scheme and the events at [the law firm].”UPDATE -- why are people lining up at the King Building? They should be in Judge Cooke's courtroom -- RRA's computer guy is on the stand right now! (10:35am)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
TD Bank admits to false statement; changes lawyers (UPDATED)
Wow, this is a big deal. From South Florida Business Journal:
TD Bank has acknowledged that it made a false statement to a federal judge about evidence in a lawsuit related to the Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, according to a notice filed on Tuesday in federal court in Miami.
The bank has also announced that a new law firm will be handling the case, which is on appeal.
***
TD Bank lost a $67 million jury verdict in January to investors who were bilked by Rothstein. The verdict in Coquina Investments vs. TD Bank is considered to be one of the first ever to hold a bank accountable for aiding and abetting fraud by one of its customers.
Since the verdict, Coquina has filed a previous motion to penalize the bank further for allegedly tampering with another document called a Customer Due Diligence form. The latest controversy over the Standard Investigative Protocol has resulted in U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke setting a hearing to determine why the bank shouldn’t be held in contempt of court.
***
In court motions, TD Bank said it had replaced Greenberg Traurig with two new law firms, McGuireWoods and Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman. The bank is facing several additional lawsuits related to the Rothstein case, including one by investor Emess Capital. The bank also dropped Greenberg in the Emess case, but Greenberg continues to represent TD Bank in other cases, Acevedo said Wednesday.
***
TD Bank’s new counsel, including Marcos Daniel Jimenez of Kasowitz Benson in Miami, filed an emergency motion to stay the contempt hearing until the firm can study the case further. In that motion, Kasowitz Benson warned that a conflict of interest may exist among TD Bank employees, the bank and Greenberg Traurig regarding the production of documents in the case.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Michael Szafranski sentenced to 2 1/2 years
Michael Szafranski told a crowded courtroom Monday that he betrayed his family and friends, lied, sinned and violated both U.S. law and the strict religious rules he was raised to follow.
"I come before you ashamed, embarrassed and humiliated by my actions," Szafranski told U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas before being sentenced for helping Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein rip off millions of dollars from investors, including members of his synagogue. "To say I am remorseful is an understatement."
Szafranski, 37, of Surfside, was sentenced to 2.5 years in federal prison after the judge agreed to follow a recommendation from the prosecution and defense. He pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud conspiracy in July.
He sobbed as he hugged his wife goodbye and was taken into custody in the Fort Lauderdale courtroom.
Szafranski said greed drove him to become a "despicable person" and that he has done everything he can think of to try to atone for what he did.
Szafranski "made full restitution" to victims five years ago when he paid more than $6.5 million to the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm bankruptcy trustee, his attorney wrote in court records. That amount represented more than 90 percent of his family's assets, the defense said.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Kitterman convicted and juror says that jury believed Rothstein
Her attorney, Valentin Rodriguez Jr., said Kitterman and he were "deeply disappointed" but had no regrets about their trial strategy.
"We felt he was essential to our defense … the jury needed to see him and how manipulative he was and is," Rodriguez said.
Juror Susan Schweiger, of West Palm Beach, said she thought Rothstein was "pretty much" a credible witness and jurors believed most of what he said.
"I don't understand why he was called by the defense because he did not help her," Schweiger said. "I think he was, for the most part, telling the truth. I think he lied about some stuff because you don't change your nature totally like that but we believed him."
She said jurors did not hold Kitterman's battle with drug and alcohol addiction against her at all, but believed she was guilty of the crimes prosecutors accused her of committing.
Here are the results from the poll taken a few days ago, which the readers got right:
Should the defense have called Scott Rothstein to the stand in the Kitterman trial? (multiple answers allowed)
Selection No, it's just way too risky
No, it was just a publicity stunt by the defense
Yes, you can dirty up the government by calling him
Yes, it will make for a nice comparison when Kitterman testifies
Friday, June 27, 2014
30 months for Russell Adler
Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein's former law partner Russell Adler was sentenced Friday to 2 1/2 years in federal prison for illegally funneling campaign donations to Republican presidential and senate campaigns.
Adler began visibly shaking in court as U.S. District Judge James Cohn announced that he deserved a punishment on the high end of the sentencing guidelines, which recommended incarceration for two to 2 1/2 years.
Adler, 52, of Delray Beach and Fort Lauderdale, put his fingers to his eyes and sighed deeply.
Apologizing for his criminal actions, Adler said he regretted that he insisted on having his name added to the law firm's name, making it Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, or RRA.
"Being the A in RRA turned into an ironic curse that has ruined my name and haunts and humiliates me to this day," he told the judge.
Supporters, including Senior Broward Circuit Judge Richard Eade, spoke on Adler's behalf and praised his professionalism, ethics and personal generosity. But Judge Cohn said Adler's crimes were serious and warranted punishment.
When the law firm was "awash with cash" in 2008 and 2009, the judge wondered aloud what Adler – an experienced attorney and name partner – thought was happening.
"Mr. Adler was at the epicenter, he was at ground zero. Was he blind and deaf as to what was going on?" the judge asked.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Congrats to the Hawk
Hometown hero Andre Dawson made the Hall. Sweet!
In SDFLA news, the Scott Rothstein plea has been set, but before Judge Cohn will conduct the change of plea hearing, he is having a McLain hearing next week and requiring the government to state in writing whether it is investigating Rothstein's lawyer Marc Nurik.
I'm in the Middle District today... Will report back this afternoon.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Fort Lauderdale jeweler Patrick Daoud gets house
Well-known Fort Lauderdale jeweler Patrick Daoud was sentenced to ten months of house arrest and two years of probation on Friday for helping to hide a huge 12.08 carat yellow diamond that Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein's wife was attempting to conceal from federal authorities.
Daoud, 55,the owner of Daoud's Fine Jewelry in Fort Lauderdale, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice last year.
***
His crime, prosecutors said, was lying about the diamond under oath when he was summoned to a deposition in federal bankruptcy proceedings in November 2011. He testified that he never received or kept the diamond and later, in June 2012, returned it to Weisman.
"He had the opportunity to do the right thing and chose not to," Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence LaVecchio said in court.
Daoud's lawyer, Fred Haddad, said that Daoud was "deliberately kept in the dark" and knew nothing of Rothstein's attempt to hide jewelry and other assets to try to keep her financially afloat after her husband's $1.4 billion investment fraud scheme was exposed in October 2009.
Daoud panicked when he figured out what was going on and got involved in a "misguided attempt to protect" Weisman – who he knew from attending charitable events – and his investment, Haddad said.
"Aside from losing a large sum of money in purchasing the ring, the embarrassment in a community where he is so well-known, [Daoud] has also been branded a felon, with a resultant loss of business," Haddad wrote.
When U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra asked Daoud if he wanted to say anything before he was sentenced, Daoud hesitantly replied: "I'd rather not."
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Where in the world is Scott Rothstein
Monday, February 22, 2016
Government asking for life sentence for convicted fraudster (Updated)
The former chief of the failed Clubs Resorts and Marinas will learn his sentence in a 9:30 a.m. Monday hearing at the Key West federal courthouse. Maximum combined sentences for the counts carry a potential 200 years behind bars, prosecutors wrote in a filing last week.
A life sentence "would be reasonable" for convicted bank-fraud defendant Fred D. "Dave" Clark, former chief of the failed Cay Clubs Resorts and Marinas, federal prosecutors say.
Clark "has repeatedly advanced his view that everyone is to blame for his conduct but himself," prosecutors wrote. The "defendant has exhibited a decades-long pattern of making up his own rules and avoiding responsibility for breaking the law. Until now."
The 11-page sentencing memo describes prison terms in other financial fraud cases, including the 50-year sentence imposed on disgraced Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Rothstein.
Clark was convicted Dec. 11 after a five-week retrial, after a jury could not reach a verdict in his first trial.
Federal authorities say Cay Clubs was a $300 million Ponzi scheme.
Yikes, a life sentence for this crime... when Rothstein -- the supposed worst of the worst -- gets 50. That seems way too high. What say you?
Meantime, it's the first oral argument without Justice Scalia this morning, in this exclusionary rule case: "Should courts suppress evidence obtained from a suspect after a police officer executes a valid arrest warrant, if the officer first illegally detained the suspect?"
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Quick news and notes
A prominent attorney whose fortunes rose with a Fort Lauderdale viatical insurance company at the center of a $1.25 billion investment fraud case pleaded guilty Wednesday to a single conspiracy charge, marking a major development in the long-running prosecution of executives and others at Mutual Benefits Corp.
Michael McNerney, 62, of Fort Lauderdale, admitted that as its lawyer, he helped the now-defunct company lure thousands of investors worldwide into buying dubious life insurance policies held mostly in the names of people dying of AIDS.
His role was part of an alleged investment scam lasting from 1995 to 2004 that authorities say rivals the $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme of disbarred Fort Lauderdale lawyer Scott Rothstein, convicted last year of selling fabricated legal settlements in a separate criminal case.
The Mutual Benefits and Rothstein cases rank as Florida’s largest fraud prosecutions.
He got a good deal -- a five year cap under Section 371.
2. The 11th Circuit's en banc decision today in Gilbert v. United States has all kinds of great rhetoric. Carnes wrote for the majority on complicated habeas issues, but he characterizes the issue as: "The primary question, in plainer English, is whether a federal prisoner can use a habeas corpus petition to challenge his sentence. Our answer is “no,” at least where the sentence the prisoner is attacking does notexceed the statutory maximum."
There are 105 pages of opinions, and I haven't read them in depth yet. But I found some good passages, especially from the dissents.
Judge Hill starts his dissent with this:
Ezell Gilbert’s sentence was enhanced by eight and one-half years as the result of his being found by the district court – reluctantly and at the explicit urging of the government – to be a career offender. Ezell Gilbert is not now, nor has he ever been, a career offender. The Supreme Court says so.
Today, this court holds that we may not remedy such a sentencing error. This shocking result – urged by a department of the United States that calls itself, without a trace of irony, the Department of Justice – and accepted by a court that emasculates itself by adopting such a rule of judicial impotency – confirms what I have long feared. The Great Writ is dead in this country.
More:
The government even has the temerity to argue that the Sentencing Guidelines enjoy some sort of legal immunity from claims of error because they are not statutes at all, but mere policy suggestions. And the majority appears not to understand that Gilbert’s imprisonment – no matter how his sentence was calculated – is the act of the Sovereign, who is forbidden by our Constitution to deprive a citizen of his liberty in violation of the laws of the United States.
I recognize that without finality there can be no justice. But it is equally true that, without justice, finality is nothing more than a bureaucratic achievement. Case closed. Move on to the next. Finality with justice is achieved only when the imprisoned has had a meaningful opportunity for a reliable judicial determination of his claim. Gilbert has never had this opportunity.
A judicial system that values finality over justice is morally bankrupt. That is why Congress provided in § 2255 an avenue to relief in circumstances just such as these. For this court to hold that it is without the power to provide relief to a citizen that the Sovereign seeks to confine illegally for eight and one-half years is to adopt a posture of judicial impotency that is shocking in a country that has enshrined the Great Writ in its Constitution. Surely, the Great Writ cannot be so moribund, so shackled by the procedural requirements of rigid gatekeeping, that it does not afford review of Gilbert’s claim.
Much is made of the “floodgates” that will open should the court exercise its authority to remedy the mistake made by us in Gilbert’s sentence. The government hints that there are many others in Gilbert’s position – sitting in prison serving sentences that were illegally imposed. We used to call such systems “gulags.” Now, apparently, we call them the United States.
One last thought. The majority spends an enormous amount of time arguing that Gilbert is not a nice man. Perhaps. But neither, I expect, was Clarence Gideon, the burglar, or Ernesto Miranda, the rapist. The Supreme Court managed to ignore this legal irrelevancy in upholding the constitutional principle under attack in those cases. Would that we could have also.
Wow. Now that's good stuff. I will post more as I wade through it all.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Lew Freeman who?
Friday, October 08, 2010
10 years for Villegas (Scott Rothstein's "right hand")
UPDATE -- maybe I spoke too soon about the sentence. Here's Curt Anderson on the details of the hearing:
But Debra Villegas, 43, will probably serve far less time because of her extensive cooperation with prosecutors, who said it was likely they would seek a sentence reduction later. U.S. District Judge William Zloch also took the unusual step of allowing Villegas to remain free until June 24, 2011, so she can assist in the ongoing investigation of the now-defunct Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler firm.
Other off-the-chart sentences are being handed out. SFLawyers covers one here, where "the kingdom of God" was invoked.
The Daily Business Review has a fancy new website. It looks really good and is much more user friendly. Go check it out.
Time for the weekend. I need to go figure out my pick against Rump.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
One year anniversary of Scott Rothstein's plea
Rule 35 requires prosecutors to file a motion to reduce a defendant's sentence based on cooperation withing one year. Well, they just got it in, filing the motion to reduce the 50 year sentence yesterday. The government didn't ask for a specific amount of time off of the sentence. So we will have to wait to see what kind of reduction Rothstein gets.
Any predictions?
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Welcome Back!
A quick morning roundup:
1. Justice Roberts is defending Justices Thomas and Kagan on the recusal issue:
In his year-end report on the state of the federal judiciary, Roberts for the first time addressed a growing controversy about when justices should recuse themselves from cases and whether a code of conduct that covers lower-court judges should apply to the justices as well.
***
Roberts said the public should keep in mind a key difference between lower-court judges and Supreme Court justices: While lower-court judges can be replaced when they recuse themselves from cases, that is not the case at the “court of last resort.”
“A justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy,” Roberts wrote. “Rather, each justice has an obligation to the court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case.”
Allowing the court itself to decide whether justices should recuse, Roberts said, “would create an undesirable situation in which the court could affect the outcome of a case by selecting who among its members may participate.”
2. In the NY Times, Peter Henning discussed white-collar prosecutions in 2011 and what to expect in 2012, but no mention of Scott Rothstein. Blasphemy!
3. Ellen Podgor gives out her "White Collar Crime Awards" here. My favorite, of course: The award for "Sentencing Sanity - To Hon. Ellen Huevelle for consistently rejecting DOJ's draconian sentencing recommendations ."
4. I also enjoyed reading this article about a big firm lawyer who spent a year as a prosecutor. Her take on how she handled so many cases:
"Controlling a room, or at least giving the impression you're in control, is absolutely fundamental," she says. "When people came to that room, I was gracious, but I treated them like a guest." That meant police officers, victims, defendants, bailiffs, court clerks, defense attorneys, and even "the judge, frankly, was a guest."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
How much time should Lew Freeman get?
Judge Huck is set to sentence him on Friday.
Joe DeMaria filed this sentencing memo on Freeman's behalf on Monday. It's an interesting contrast to the memo filed for Scott Rothstein, especially in tone. Also of note is that Freeman still seems to have the support of the community -- 277 letters were filed on his behalf. The biggest difference, of course, is the loss; here it's somewhere in the millions, not the billions.
I believe that the probation office calculated the guidelines at 78-87 months based on a high loss calculation, but the parties will be fighting over loss. The maximum sentence is 20 years.
Here is the sentencing memo:
Lewis Freeman Sentencing Memorandum
John Pacenti's article on the upcoming sentencing is here.