Acosta at the Federal Bar Luncheon

Interim (soon to be permanent*) U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta spoke today at the Federal Bar Association Luncheon, praising the assistants in the office, even pointing out many by name. He also cited the large proseuctions currently pending in the district (Abramoff, the Rodriguez brothers, Rosenstein, Hamilton Bank, and others). He mentioned that he was going to focus on training young lawyers in the office and on paying them more (which will require hiring less attorneys) so that he can compete with hiring practices in Miami. The speech was about 15 minutes.

* Acosta emphasized that the articles saying his nomination was imminent were premature and that is only an interim U.S. Attorney.

$10 million bail...

... for Ze'ev Rosenstein "over the objections of federal prosecutors, who said they were concerned that Rosenstein had ready access to huge assets and could readily flee the United States." Rosenstein is represented by Roy Black. AUSA is Ben Greenberg. Magistrate Judge is E. Torres.

Welcome (permanently) Alex Acosta

All reports (here is Jay Weaver's Herald article from Saturday and Julie Kay has a piece in Monday's Daily Business Review) are that Alex Acosta has lost the interim from his title and is now the permanent U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, the best and busiest district in the country. Welcome Mr. Acosta and congratulations.

I'm thinking of posting my requests for the new administration. If you have any suggestions, put them in the comment section and I'll add them to the list.

Congress may not burn the house to roast the pig.

So says the 11th Circuit in US v. Williams, discussed below by Marc Seitles. Here is Carl Jones for law.com on the case.

PROTECT ACT PROVISION DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Today, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Williams, No. 04-15128, handed down a signficant decision holding that the PROTECT ACT's provision that prohibits the promotion of child pornography is facially unconstitutional as overbroad and vague. This case originated in Judge Middlebrooks' division. And Louis I. Guerra preserved the issue and won on appeal.

Here is an excerpt from the decision -

"In the wake of Free Speech Coalition, sexually explicit speech regarding children that is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse of a real minor retains protection of the First Amendment. We believe the Court’s decision in Free Speech Coalition leaves Congress ample authority to enact legislation that allows the Government to accomplish its legitimate goal of curbing child abuse without placing an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech. Certainly Congress took many cues from the Court in drafting the legislation at issue in this case.
Given the unique patterns of deviance inherent in those who sexually covet children and the rapidly advancing technology behind which they hide, we are not unmindful of the difficulties of striking a balance between Congress’s interest in protecting children from harm with constitutional guarantees. However, the infirmities of the PROTECT Act pandering provision reflect a persistent disregard of time-honored and constitutionally-mandated principles relating to the Government’s regulation of free speech and its obligation to provide criminal defendants due process. Because we find the PROTECT Act pandering provision, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B), both substantially overbroad and vague, and therefore facially unconstitutional, we reverse Williams’s conviction under that section."

Here's the whole opinion.