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.