Monday morning Lost edition

Is everyone still deciphering last night's 2 1/2 hour Lost finale? I really liked it, and give it a solid B+. One of the great shows in the history of TV was the Lost Season I finale when they took Walt (there's the scene below). The show never really lived up to that moment, but it was still very good after that. I enjoyed how Jack had to fix the island and then how it was Hurley's turn to nurture/protect it. Plus, the purgatory twist in the Sideways world was cool. All in all, a good way to end the show.



Back to business -- John Pacenti is all over social networking and lawyering this morning. He references the 11th Circuit opinion we wrote about here. And yours truly is quoted. Here's a piece:

Social media issues have been litigated on claims of defamation, copyright infringement or violation of free speech, and platforms such as MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare and others have become a vital investigative tool for some attorneys. “There is a lot of stuff out there that is totally irrelevant, but every now and then there is a gem, and it’s well worth mining for,” said Richard Sharpstein with Jorden Burt in Miami. “Most lawyers feel it’s an important source of information.” Bob Jarvis, a law professor at the Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center, said social-networking sites are fair game for any prosecutor or defense attorney. “It’s really no different than a 19th century diary. It’s a person’s thoughts expressed prior to the time of litigation,” Jarvis said.

Miss me yet?

The Rekers scandal has reached the New York Times. The article raises the question of whether the lawyers who relied on Rekers' testimony as an expert witness have an ethical obligation to inform the court of what happened.

Do Rekers' lawyers have an obligation to inform the court of his scandal?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Okay, we are in a poll taking mood. Here's two more while we are at it:

Will Willy Ferrer and his new management staff change the way things are done at the U.S. Attorney's office?
	Yes, there will be a great deal of change
	Yes, but only minor changes
	Nothing significant will change
	There will be no change
pollcode.com free polls

And we'd like to see what you think about Rumpole's discussion of Graham:

Who got the better of the Graham argument re life for juveniles
	Justice Kennedy's majority opinion was correct and its reasoning was persuasive
	Justice Kennedy's opinion was correct but his reasoning was flawed
	Justice Thomas' dissent was right and its reasoning was persuasive
	Justice Thomas' reasoning was more persuasive but his conclusion was wrong
pollcode.com free polls

Ch-ch-ch Changes

Lots of change going on over at the U.S. Attorney's office. Multiple sources have told me that:

Ben Greenberg is now the 1st Assistant U.S. Attorney
Ed Stamm is Chief of Criminal
Ed Nucci has the new position of "Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern Offices"
Marcus Christian is the "Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney" in charge of hiring and recruiting
George Karavestos is the Chief of Narcotics
Joan Silverstein is the Chief of Economic and Environmental crimes
Bob Senior is the Chief of Public Integrity

Congrats to all.

"Put simply, Epstein believes he is above the law."

That was the statement by Peter Prieto and Steve Marks after they filed a civil complaint against Jeffrey Epstein for violating his agreement to pay the victims of his sexual offenses. The case landed before Judge Gold. Here's the AP story by Curt Anderson:

Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is violating an agreement with federal prosecutors by refusing to pay more than $2 million in legal fees to attorneys representing a dozen of his victims, according to a new federal lawsuit.
Epstein, a New Yorker who owns a Palm Beach mansion, a Paris apartment, a 70-acre Caribbean island and a 7,500-acre New Mexico ranch, could ultimately face federal prosecution stemming from his alleged assaults on mostly teenage girls if he continues to refuse to pay the fees, the victims' attorneys said Tuesday.

***
Under the deal Epstein signed with prosecutors in 2007, he would avoid federal charges and potentially lengthy prison sentences as long as he abided by several conditions — including paying fees for lawyers representing victims.
His failure to pay, according to the lawsuit, is a "material breach" of that agreement that could open the door to federal criminal prosecution, according the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court late Monday. An attorney for Epstein did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment and the Miami U.S. attorney's office — which signed the agreement with Epstein — declined comment.
Epstein, a 57-year-old investor, pleaded guilty in Palm Beach County in 2008 to two state prostitution counts and was designated a sex offender. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail following by a year of house arrest, which he is currently serving at his $6.8 million Palm Beach residence.

I guess today is civil day at the blog...

Judge Cooke to get a piece of the Scott Rothstein case

Well, SFL hasn't used Scribd in a while, so I figured I get in on the fun. Here's a complaint filed by David Mandel against Scott Rothstein and TD Bank for civil RICO that landed before Judge Cooke:

Coquina Complaint

Coquina, an investment partnership based in Texas, alleges that TD Bank was complicit with Rothstein in the Ponzi scheme. According to the complaint, Coquina’s representatives met directly with Rothstein and Regional Vice-President Frank Spinosa at TD Bank’s corporate offices in Fort Lauderdale. At that meeting, Spinosa allegedly vouched for both Rothstein and the safety of the Coquina’s investments.

Also of interest, last week Spinosa’s counsel informed the parties in the RRA bankruptcy proceeding that his client intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and will refuse to answer deposition questions.

This is the case that keeps on giving...

In other news, Rumpole is railing on Justice Scalia because he dissented in the Graham case yesterday. What Rumpole doesn't tell you is that Scalia also dissented in United States v. Comstock, in which the Supreme Court said that federal law allows a district court to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill federal prisoner beyond the date he would otherwise be released. Scalia said that Congress didn't have authority to pass such a law under the necessary and proper clause. He's not perfect, but Scalia is the best friend a criminal defendant has in the Supremes.