HNY

I try not to post personal stuff on the blog, but I'm so proud of my daughter so today's post is a shameless plug for her 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization called Paper Wings Project.

The organization has sent personalized letters to 1,500+ individuals who are incarcerated in all 50 states and more than 87 countries/territories. The response has been extraordinary - countless heartwarming and heartbreaking responses that remind us about the situations some of our clients find themselves in after we have moved on from their cases. (see below for excerpts from some of the letter responses received). 

She's also putting together a literary magazine, Chrysalis, featuring writing and art submitted by the recipients of Paper Wings letters, and the first issue will be published in the beginning of 2026. 

The organization is seeking to build a worldwide network of letter writers to make a difference (however small) in these peoples' lives, and to reach as many inmates as possible. If you have a minute, please go on the web site at https://paperwingsproject.org/write-letter and write a few paragraphs to an inmate. It is an easy online form.  Paper Wings will convert it to a letter sent from Paper Wings that doesn't identify you by name, and will forward you any response received. 

In the alternative (or also) please consider donating (https://www.paperwingsproject.org/donate).  The charitable deduction rules are changing in a few days to make it much more difficult to deduct contributions, so now is a good time to support a meaningful criminal justice organization that is making a real difference in the lives of the people with whom we work.  And if anyone knows of (or is!) a potential corporate/law firm/nonprofit partner, please reach out.

Here are just a few of the quotes from the countless heartwarming and heartbreaking letters she has received: 

“This was the first . . . personal letter I have received in the last 27 years.” C. M., FCI Butner

“I am in receipt of your letter and it did shed some light on my day.  For that, you are a wonderful person and I am truly grateful.  It is hard in a dark place like this and it does make you feel forgotten.  I haven’t gotten letters in almost three years.” R.G., USP Beaumont 

“Your letter is like a small root in this dark hole.”  William Hernandez, USP Big Sandy

“It’s crazy how something as simple as a letter from the outside world can uplift one’s spirit.  You and I don’t even know each other yet my day was made by what I read!  It happens to be one of those days for me.  Then out of nowhere I get mail from you and it’s just what I need to turn my day around.” F. G. USP Fairton 

“First and foremost I just want to let you know that your letter made my day.  It brought a smile to my face and made me feel loved as a human being.”  Jose M. Perez, MDC Los Angeles

“I’m glad you wrote me because you don’t even know the big smile you put on my face and how happy my heart got . . .” Luis Lopez, FCI Loretto 

“Believe me there are very few things that surpass the emotion and the feeling of receiving a letter from someone.  With your letter, you have provided reprieve in the most significant way, and that is by challenging me to think outside the box.  I am alive and the energy you send my way is welcome with open arms.”  D.M., FCI Allenwood Low

“Quiero darle las gracias por haber sacado un momento de su valioso tiempo y dedicarme esas hermosas palabras para mi, usted no se imagina lo reconfortable que me senti al leer su carta; fue como un valsamo de alivio hacia todo lo que estoy pasando en estos momentos alejado de mi familia y mis hijos.”  [I want to thank you for taking a moment of your valuable time to write such kind words to me.  You can’t imagine how comforting your letter was to me; it was like a balm of relief from everything I’m going through right now, being away from my family and my children.]”  J. D., Brooklyn MDC

 

WIll SCOTUS founder Tom Goldstein be acquitted?

 His trial is set for the beginning of the year.  And it's very high stakes, but Tom is used to that.  Check out this fascinating NY Times article into Tom's life and what happened.  From Jeffrey Toobin's introduction:

The high point of Thomas Goldstein’s career as a Supreme Court advocate took place a few minutes after 10 on the morning of Oct. 7, 2020. Goldstein had just begun his argument before the justices on behalf of Google in an immensely complicated, but highly significant, copyright dispute with Oracle. The controversy arose when Google, in developing its Android operating system for smartphones, used about 11,500 lines of computer code from Oracle’s Java SE, a platform that allows developers to write programs that can run on various devices. In a lower court, Oracle won a judgment that Google’s use of the code violated Oracle’s copyright. Google was facing $9 billion in damages.

Before Goldstein appeared in front of the court, he had focused on one main point in his written brief: Oracle’s platform was simply not copyrightable, so Google could not have committed infringement. But after hearing the first few questions from the justices, Goldstein made a sharp pivot — and took a big gamble. Even if Oracle possessed a valid copyright in Java SE, he argued, Google had made “fair use” of the platform, which was a distinctly subsidiary point in his brief. “Fair use” of copyrighted material is not infringement.

Goldstein’s shift was so dramatic that even the justices took note of it. “Mr. Goldstein,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said, “if I understand the conversation so far, you are moving past, rather rapidly, the primary argument in your brief that the code just simply isn’t copyrightable. And I think that’s probably a wise move.”

It was. The following April, the Supreme Court gave Google a smashing victory, entirely along the lines that Goldstein had raised on the fly at the oral argument. In a 6-to-2 majority opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that Google’s copying of the lines of software amounted to fair use, and thus the court overturned Oracle’s victory. Google wouldn’t have to pay a cent.

For Goldstein, the decision was the latest chapter in an extraordinary story of professional ascent. The Supreme Court bar is a priesthood within a priesthood, an especially rarefied corner of the legal profession where almost all the leading performers share the same credentials: graduation from an elite law school, clerkship for a Supreme Court justice and service in the Office of the Solicitor General, which represents the federal government before the court. Goldstein did none of these things, but he still rose to the very top. At age 50, he had already argued more than 40 cases before the justices and co-founded SCOTUSblog.com, an authoritative guide to the work of the court. Thanks to a high-profile victory for a blue-chip client like Google, he could look forward to years of similarly important, and lucrative, assignments.

It hasn’t worked out that way. Just a couple of years after his victory in Google v. Oracle, Goldstein stunned the world of Supreme Court advocates and insiders by announcing that he would no longer represent clients before the justices. In public, he attributed the decision to the rightward drift of the court, but that explanation contained only a sliver of the truth. In fact, over the previous decade-plus, Goldstein had been leading a secret life of ultra-high-stakes gambling and “sugar daddy” relationships with multiple young women — a life so sheltered from those around him that no one knew the full extent of it, least of all his wife.

When it came to light, his life unraveled. His friends have largely abandoned him. His marriage of three decades is ending. He is nearly bankrupt. Most pressing of all, Goldstein is staring down a 22-count federal indictment on tax-fraud charges and a trial that is scheduled to begin in January. If convicted on the most serious charges, he will almost certainly face prison time.

Contemplating his future from his home office in Washington, Goldstein is frequently reminded of his current predicament. His bail conditions limit him to just two electronic devices — a phone and a desktop computer, where a message pops up every five minutes to inform him that the federal authorities are monitoring his activity. Goldstein sought to sell the house, valued at about $3 million, to pay his lawyers and expert witnesses, but prosecutors barred the sale; they plan to seize it, as the fruit of his crimes, if he is convicted.

 

 

Merry Christmas everyone, including Charlie Javice's lawyers

 I hope everyone is having a great holiday season.  

Here's an incredible story... Charlie Javice's legal team -- 147 timekeepers -- billed almost $80 million to defend Javice in her criminal case (she went to trial in NY).  And JPMorgan was required to pay it.  From Business Insider:

Three years later, JPMorgan claims that Javice and her lawyers have milked that order far past the point of what's reasonable. The 15 pounds of receipts submitted for reimbursement include high-end hotels, first-class flights, $530 in gummy bears, "copious amounts of alcohol," and "a $581 dinner for two that included a $161 seafood tower."

The bank's lawyers said Javice's lawyers continued to expense personal items into 2025, "including a pet hair roller, laptop privacy screens, stain remover, allergy and cold medication, nutritional supplements, tea strainer, face masks, a coffee maker, lamps, a kettle, Uber rides for ordinary daily commute to a timekeeper's home office, 'groceries for meal prep,' bottles of wine, batteries, room upgrade charges at $300 per night, and meals at New York's best restaurants."

It blasted law firm Quinn Emanuel for a $60 Uber Eats order that included "four cookies and a cookie box."

Quinn Emanuel, which is representing Javice in the Delaware court case, said in a statement to Business Insider that JPMorgan "is trying to walk away from its contractual obligation to pay Ms. Javice's legal bills." The bank is "highlighting a handful of attorney expenses (not incurred by Ms. Javice) over two years, the vast majority of which it already reviewed and paid or are not disputed," Quinn Emanuel spokesman Eric Herman said.

The bank also challenged the fees that Javice's lawyers charged for their time, as high as $2,700 per hour, including billing for trial attendance on a Saturday and other "non-trial days."

JPMorgan's lawyers said there were a total of 147 people — like lawyers and paralegals — who billed time to her defense, with the total bills across her criminal and civil cases crossing the $78 million mark. The bank said it has paid $60 million so far and says it shouldn't have to pay any more.

Most of Javice's bills, $47 million, have been rung up by Quinn Emanuel, whose team was led by celebrity lawyer Alex Spiro and partner Samuel Nitze, who co-chairs Quinn's crisis law and strategy group. Another $14 million was billed by attorney Jose Baez, a trial lawyer who defended Casey Anthony; $5 million by his frequent co-counsel, the Harvard law professor Ronald Sullivan; and $11 million by Mintz, another big law firm.

RIP Alan Greer (guest post by Bob Martinez)

 The wonderful Bob Martinez sent me this email, which he authorized me to post:

You may wish to include in your blog the passing of a great lawyer and person in our community.

I am an old friend of Pat Seitz and her husband Alan Greer. Pat informed me early today that Alan passed peacefully Sunday morning.

There will be a celebration of his life Saturday, January 10 at 10:30 AMat St Hugh Catholic Church in the Grove.

Alan, along with Danny Ponce and Steve Zach, was one on my first “bosses.” He was an outstanding lawyer and a wonderful person. I learned a lot about life and our profession from him, particularly the importance of integrity and treating each person, regardless of status, with respect and dignity.

I will miss him, but never forget him. I can still feel his presence and love.

Happy Holidays!

Bob

Happy Festivus (except for the SDFLA)

Apparently no one wants to do Epstein document review over the holidays.  So DOJ turned to SDFLA for help.  According to CNN:

The Justice Department’s leadership asked career prosecutors in Florida to volunteer over the “next several days” to help redact the Epstein files, in the latest Trump administration push toward releasing the hundreds of thousands of photos, internal memos and other evidence around the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

A supervising prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida’s US Attorney’s Office emailed the entire district office on Tuesday — two days before Christmas — announcing an “emergency request from the [Deputy Attorney General’s] office the SDFL must assist with,” according to a copy of the email reviewed by CNN. “We need AUSAs to do remote document review and redactions related to the Epstein files,” the email said.

The email raises the possibility of more Epstein files being released over the coming days, including the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. It also underlines the public and political backlash the Justice Department has faced since the deadline passed on Friday to release all documents in the federal government’s possession, as mandated by an act of Congress calling for transparency around Epstein files. The Justice Department acknowledged it had not gotten through redacting many of the files by Friday and has continued to release documents this week.

Feel free to email me anonymously if you'd like to share what is going on in the office.  The blog has never breached a confidence in over 20 years!   

John Brennan asks Chief Judge Altonaga to prevent forum shopping

Former CIA Director John Brennan is asking Chief Judge Altonaga to keep the government from "judge shopping" its case to Judge Cannon. The letter urges that any future litigation flow through the court’s normal, neutral processes, rather than what Brennan’s counsel colorfully describes as prosecutors trying to engineer judicial home-field advantage. Here's the AP article about it.  And here's the 16-page letter, which starts like this:

We write this letter to Your Honor in your capacity as Chief Judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) on behalf of our client John Brennan, the former
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. We have been formally advised by prosecutors of the
Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida that Director Brennan is
a target of grand jury investigation NS 1840-020 in the Miami Division (24-06), which is
examining the circumstances surrounding the production of the 2017 Intelligence Community
Assessment about Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.
As explained below, it has become clear that irregular activity is taking place in connection with
that grand jury investigation, which is affecting our client's rights to fair and impartial treatment
by the criminal justice system. One example is the violation of grand jury secrecy rules, by which
information about the investigation is being leaked to the media (see below at pages 15-16).
Another example of irregular activity – which is even more troubling and potentially harmful to
our client's rights - relates to the government's apparent effort to manipulate grand jury and case
assignment procedures to ensure that this investigation and any resulting prosecution will be
overseen by a particular District Judge of its preference.

Given the corrosive effect of judge-shopping on the perceived fairness and impartiality of the
criminal justice system – particularly when conducted by a federal prosecutor – we wish to alert
the Court to the evidence underlying our concern. And, as counsel to the identified target of this
investigation who has legal standing to challenge questionable prosecutorial conduct in the
handling of the investigation¹ – we request that Your Honor carefully consider this evidence and the clear inference of prosecutorial judge-shopping as you exercise your supervisory authority over
the prosecution's handling of this grand jury investigation.² In short, we are seeking assurance
that any litigation arising out of this grand jury proceeding will be heard by a judge who is selected
by the court's neutral and impartial processes, not by the prosecution's self-interested maneuvering
contrary to the interests of justice.

This letter will proceed through the following lines of discussion: (I) an introduction describing
the current environment in which certain federal prosecutors are increasingly overreaching as a
result of overt political pressure, and in which federal courts are, therefore, more closely
scrutinizing prosecutorial conduct and decision making; (II) an overview of the historical
background ofthe ongoing grand jury investigation; (III) a description ofthe Justice Department's
repeated efforts to forum-shop this investigation among different federal districts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Virginia, before assigning it to
prosecutors in this District; (IV) a description ofthe circumstances demonstrating that the United
States Attorney in your district is also judge- shopping the matter by steering it toward a favored
judge - the onlyjudge – in the Fort Pierce Division; (V) a discussion ofthe case law that prohibits
and condemns such judge-shopping, especially when conducted by the prosecution in a criminal
matter; and (VI) our request that the Court scrutinize the government's conduct in the current grand
jury investigation to detect and head off any prosecutorial judge-shopping that may threaten both
the perceived legitimacy of this Court and the judicial system and the due process rights of our
client.

RIP Mel Black

 Another one of the greats passed away today -- Mel Black.  He was a great guy and a wonderful criminal defense lawyer (for almost 60 years!)  That's him below with his client after a big NG.  He always had time to talk to you about a case or a problem.  And I loved that he recently took a year on a ship around the world.  I'll miss him.

CTA is A-OK

By John R. Byrne

Louis D. Brandeis once wrote that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."And the 11th Circuit just gave that sentiment a constitutional seal of approval, ruling that the Corporate Transparency Act doesn't violate the constitution. The act, passed in 2020, requires companies to disclose their "beneficial owners" to the Treasury Department (beneficial owners being people who exercise substantial control over an entity or who control at least twenty-five percentage of its ownership interests). The idea was to combat corporate shell games that allow bad guys to launder money, etc.

The panel (Judge Brasher writing) said (1) Congress could pass the law under the Commerce Clause and (2) the law doesn't facially violate the Fourth Amendment (Brasher noted that the Supreme Court had rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to similar uniform reporting requirements, including one that requires banks to report domestic currency transactions above a certain amount). 

Feels like a fact pattern you might get on your Con law exam. And because it's a Commerce Clause case, you know that had to cite to that old standby, Wickard v. Filburn. You know, the one about the farmer and his intrastate wheat.

Opinion here.

Another Trump defamation suit in the SDFLA

This one is against the BBC.  From the NY Times:

President Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion on Monday evening over the editing in a documentary that the British broadcaster said had left the “mistaken impression” that he called for violent action before the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

In a 46-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Mr. Trump accused the BBC of defaming him and violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He demanded $5 billion for each offense.

In a statement, the president’s legal team said that the lawsuit was designed to hold the British network accountable for what it described as wrongdoing.

 

11th Circuit Weighs the Fate of the False Claims Act

The future of the False Claims Act (FCA) hangs in the balance after a pivotal oral argument (before Judges Luck, Branch, Moreno) in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals this past Friday.

In United States ex. rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, a three-judge panel grappled with a challenge that strikes at the very heart of the statute: Do the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which allow private whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the government, violate the U.S. Constitution?

The oral argument offered a fascinating glimpse into the judicial tug-of-war between centuries of legal tradition and evolving theories on executive power. Here are the key takeaways from the arguments.

The appeal stems from a first-of-its-kind ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who declared the qui tam system unconstitutional earlier this year. Her reasoning—echoing concerns raised recently by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—was that private relators exercise significant executive power without being properly appointed as officers of the United States, a violation of the Appointments Clause.

On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit panel appeared torn between two competing narratives: the text of the Constitution versus the long history of the American legal system.

Judge Robert J. Luck’s questioning suggested a hesitation to overturn a system that has existed since the nation’s founding. He repeatedly pressed defense counsel to explain why qui tam actions should be deemed unconstitutional now, given that they have been present in the U.S. for roughly 250 years.

Judge Luck noted that historical records imply President George Washington and other founders did not view qui tam litigation as conflicting with executive powers. "It looks like some of this was sort of contemplated by some of our founders, was it not?" he asked, searching for any Supreme Court precedent that strictly requires executive appointment for non-government relators.

Judge Elizabeth L. Branch pushed back against the DOJ’s reliance on past circuit court consensus. When the government argued that courts have routinely upheld the FCA for decades, Judge Branch interjected, noting that those decisions are dated.

"It's been about 25 years, and we have some recent statements from the U.S. Supreme Court," she said, alluding to the 2023 opinion in Polansky where Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett signaled interest in revisiting the constitutionality of the whistleblower system.

The oral argument highlighted the stark difference in how each side views the role of a whistleblower:

• The Defense (Challenging the FCA): Kannon K. Shanmugam, representing the defendants, argued that the modern FCA (strengthened in 1986) is a different beast from early American statutes. He contended that today's relators hold the power of an "unaccountable office," forcing the government to expend resources and seeking massive penalties without executive oversight.

• The Relator/DOJ (Defending the FCA): Counsel for the whistleblower and the DOJ argued that relators are simply private litigants, not government officers. Tejinder Singh, representing the whistleblower, emphasized that relators lack true state power: "No one's handing them a windbreaker and a gun... They're litigating in the same way that a private fraud litigant would litigate."

If the Eleventh Circuit affirms Judge Mizelle’s ruling, it would create a circuit split and almost certainly fast-track the issue to the Supreme Court. 

Jason Reding Quiñones sworn in

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, had his swearing-in ceremony at the Wilkie D. Ferguson Courthouse on Friday. Apart from his duties as U.S. Attorney, he continues to serve as a Lietuenant Colonel in the military reserves. Major General David P. Garfield, the Honorable Christine Hernandez of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier all spoke. Pictured below is the U.S. Attorney and some guy.

Judge Atkins

By John R. Byrne

Ever heard someone mention the "Atkins Building" or "Atkins Courthouse"? It's located across from the Wilkie D. and it's where many of our magistrate judges currently sit. The courthouse is named after Judge C. Clyde Atkins. A tribute from UF law school described him as a "champion of civil rights and a defender of those who were less fortunate." Among his important rulings were his orders desegregating Miami-Dade County Public schools (Pate v. Dade County School Board, 315 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Fla. 1969).

FBA write-up below.

Judge C. Clyde Atkins was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and served on the district court from 1966-1999. In Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992), Judge Atkins found that the City of Miami violated the constitutional rights of unhoused individuals through a policy of arresting them for unavoidable, life-sustaining acts in public and by seizing and destroying their property, warranting injunctive relief under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The façade and entrance of the courthouse that bears Judge Atkins’s name recently received an impressive renovation.

Judge Smith Orders Release of Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts

By Jordi C. Martínez-Cid

Judge Rodney Smith has granted a motion to unseal the grand jury transcripts from the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in the mid-2000s. Though a previous motion was denied, Judge Smith held that the newly enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act trumps Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6's prohibition on disclosure. The Department of Justice has until December 19 to comply. Full order is here.

Blogger Returns

 By John R Byrne

Cue the “Welcome Back, Kotter” theme music. After a three-month-plus long civil RICO trial in state court, DOM is back at his desk at SDFLA Blog HQ. The verdict? A mistrial. Oof. Then again, any day your corporate client isn’t told by a jury to stroke a check for $1.2 billion has to be a good one. The trial ended with some drama, with one juror accusing another of misconduct in a note apparently crafted with the help of AI (the judge concluded the allegations were not credible). Oh, and jurors dressed up like Dr. Seuss characters from “The Cat and the Hat” on Halloween. Federal judges with Halloween trials take note! Article on the trial is here.

A different deliberative body had no issue delivering its verdict on Saturday. The College Football Playoff Committee released the greatly anticipated 12 team playoff slate. No lack of drama here either. Like a high stakes version of musical chairs, there were three teams (Miami, Notre Dame, or Alabama) fighting for two at-large playoff seats. The CFP went with Miami and Alabama. 

Miami was a no brainer. But putting Alabama in over ND was just criminal. Alabama had three losses and looked awful over the past month, losing to Oklahoma, squeaking by a terrible Auburn team, and getting walloped by Georgia on Saturday. What drove the committee’s decision? Basic SEC bias? Fear of the potential wrath of powerful SEC commissioner Greg Sankey? A five-minute Zoom call with universally loved federal judge and diehard Alabama fan James I. Cohn? These are the questions we want answers to!

Judge Mehrtens

By John R. Byrne

Today we're featuring Judge William O. Mehrtens. Longtime district court judge (served 15 years). Double Gator. Served as a lieutenant commander in the Navy during World War II. Best remembered for his important opinion backing treasure hunter Mel Fischer in his dispute with the State of Florida over the wreck of a 17th-century Spanish galleon carrying hundreds of millions in treasure. Case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which mostly affirmed Mehrtens's ruling. Check out that opinion here. I like this quote: "As grave as the perils of sea are and were, the gravest perils to the treasure itself came not from the sea but from two unlikely sources. Agents of two governments, Florida and the United States, who have the highest responsibility to protect rights and property of citizens, claimed the treasure as belonging to the United States and Florida."

FBA write up below.

Judge William O. Mehrtens was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and served on the district court from 1965-1980. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Mehrtens served in the U.S. Naval Reserve during World War II. In Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 459 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Fla. 1978), Judge Mehrtens ruled that Treasure Salvors, Inc. retained exclusive rights to treasure, including “gold, silver, artifacts, and armament” salvaged from the sunken Spanish vessel Nuestra Señora de Atocha, rejecting Florida’s competing ownership claims.

Who do you think won the Megan Thee Stallion trial?

The jury found for Megan but only awarded her $75,000.  Meghann Cuniff, who has covered the whole trial, has the scoop here:

A jury in Miami, Florida, on Monday found an online commentator liable for defaming rapper Megan Thee Stallion and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on her by coordinating with the rapper who’s in prison for shooting her five years ago.

Milagro Cooper also was found liable for promoting a digitally altered sexual depiction of Megan.

Jurors awarded Megan $75,000 in damages, though that will drop to $59,000 if U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga agrees with the jury Milagro qualifies as a media defendant and dismisses the defamation claim because Megan’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, didn’t notify her before they sued her.

Milagro’s total amount due could increase substantially, however, because the sexual depiction claim allows Megan to recoup attorney fees.

If you are more interested in Megan Thee Stallion's courtroom outfits, she posted each of them at her IG page: 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Megan Thee Stallion (@theestallion)

Ghost Candidates and the $14 billion Drop

By John R. Byrne

Securities lawsuits can sometimes be dry. Not this one. In Jastram v. NextEra Energy, Inc., the plaintiffs' class action complaint contained some fairly unusual (and Pelican Brief-esque allegations)--a  utility company allegedly bankrolling ghost political candidates, surveilling reporters, and buying influence in local media. Though the utility company (NextEra Energy, Inc.) initially denied the allegations, its leadership later, according to the Eleventh Circuit, "began to backpedal." On Jan. 25, 2023, the company filed unscheduled disclosures and abruptly parted with its CEO. The same day? The company's stock plunged 8.7 percent, wiping out $14 billion-plus in market cap. Taken together, the Court said, the complaint's allegations were enough to plead loss causation.

If you handle securities cases, this is a must-read. Opinion here. 

A Tale of Two Voting Rights Act Cases

By John R. Byrne

Three-judge panels aren't just reserved for the courts of appeal. You can sometimes get them at the district court level. One common example is when plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of congressional or statewide legislative maps as racial gerrymandered under the Equal Protection Clause. In such a case, the chief judge of the federal appellate court appoints two judges to sit on a panel with the district judge who originally drew the case (one of the two "added" judges must be a circuit court judge).

That’s how a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Becerra, Judge Ruiz, and Circuit Judge Britt Grant ended up deciding whether there was enough evidence to send a racial-gerrymandering challenge to trial in Cubanos Pa’lante v. Florida House of Representatives. Judge Becerra had the case first, and Chief Judge Pryor designated Judges Ruiz and Grant to join her. Ultimately, the panel held there was sufficient evidence for a factfinder to conclude that “race played a predominant role in the drawing of” four of the eight challenged district (seven state-house districts and one congressional district). Decision here.

So, those three judges were on the same page. Now let me introduce you to another recent Voting Rights Act. This one's from Texas, LULAC v. Abbott, and also dealt with racial gerrymandering claims. No such harmony here. The circuit judge appointed to sit on that panel, Judge Jerry E. Smith, issued a blistering dissent from the panel's issuing of a preliminary injunction. That decision here. 

Hard to really describe the intensity of this dissent. Here are a few quotes:

"In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved."

"The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law."

"When I was a newer on the bench, a friend asked me, 'Now that you’ve been a judge for a few years, do you have any particular advice?' I replied, 'Always sit with your back to the wall.'"

Whoa. 

Curious whether the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit should have foreseen that combustible panel mix coming. 

More Megan Thee Stallion

Meghann Cuniff has everything Megan Thee Stallion, the defamation trial before Judge Altonaga.  Closing arguments will be tomorrow (Monday).

Here's the latest -- Megan is on the stand and Miami's Jeremy McLymont is crossing (John O'Sullivan from Quinn put her on):

Jeremy McLymont, an attorney in Miami, Florida, focused on Megan’s testimony that she was not drunk and that she had nerve damage in her left foot, despite a doctor’s report that said there was no “nerve involvement” in her left foot.

He also emphasized eyewitness Sean Kelly’s testimony about two women fighting as he implies Megan lied when she testified Lanez shot her and implies that the gunfire came from her now-former friend Kelsey Harris as Milagro has contended.

McLymont also implied Megan is wrongly accusing Milagro when Megan says Lanez told Milagro to say Megan is an alcoholic.

“That’s your opinion?” McLymont asked.

“Yes,” Megan answered.

“It’s not a proven fact, right?” McLymont asked.

“It can’t be proven because we can’t see the messages,” Megan said, referring to the thousands of texts deleted by Milagro in violation of a legal notice.

“It’s not a proven fact, but you’re stating it as though it’s a fact?” McLymont asked.

“Just like Milagro stated that it’s a fact that I lied about Tory shooting me,” Megan answered.

“So are you defaming Tory Lanez and Milagro Cooper when you say that it’s your opinion that Milagro Cooper is getting information from Tory Lanez?” McLymont asked.

“No, I’m not defaming her or him,” Megan answered.

“Alright. But Ms. Cooper is defaming you when she gives her opinion?” McLymont asked.

“Yes, and presents it as facts,” Megan answered.

Megan’s lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP didn’t object to her being asked to give a legal conclusion.

McLymont, a licensed attorney in Florida since 2018, took a slow and conversational approach to his cross-examination of Megan. At one point, he implied Megan is suing Milagro out of jealousy, emphasizing that Milagro “has some sort of relationship with Tory Lanez.”

“You do not like that?” McLymont asked.

“I don’t care about whatever you’re trying to ask me. What I care about is Tory giving this woman information to say about me, to lie about me, about the trial. That’s what I care about,” Megan answered.

McLymont at one point told Megan, “So I’m asking questions. All I need is just simple answers” when Megan asked what he was getting at, but he mostly didn’t push back when Megan responded with her own questions. He said rappers Meek Mill and Drake support Lanez and Megan asked, “Are you saying that make it OK” for Milagro to harass her.

“No, I just want to make sure that we’re actually pinpointing the cause of any emotional distress” and not blaming it on Milagro, McLymont told Megan.

McLymont described Milagro as someone who “has the least amount of influence,” and Megan asked why he thinks that.

“Is it because she’s a woman and the rest of everybody is a man?” Megan asked.

“Well, she’s not famous, right?” McLymont answered.

Megan said Milagro is famous “for talking crap about me online.”

McLymont and Megan were discussing Milagro’s level of fame when U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga said, “Mr. McLymont, you’re an attorney” and told him to stop speaking when the witness speaks.

“I’ve never heard of that, judge,” McLymont said.

The judge chuckled and said, “I’m telling you that.”