Alexander brothers trial gets started

The opening statements were interesting.  Madison Smyser opened for the prosecution.  Teny Geragos (who opened in Diddy) and Deanna Paul opened for the defense. three women in a sexual assault case against 3 men.  

Howard Srebnick reserved opening for the third brother.  Have any of you ever reserved opening?  It's an interesting strategy when you have co-defendants who are laying out the defense.  It gives the defense another opportunity at the end of the prosecution case to address the jury.  

Here's ABC on the openings:

Three sons of wealth and privilege "were partners in crime" who used their money and status to lure women and girls with promises of trips, exclusive parties and celebrity encounters so they could sexually assault them, a federal prosecutor said Tuesday during opening statements in the trial of Alon, Oren and Tal Alexander.

"These three brothers masqueraded as party boys when really they were predators," the prosecutor, Madison Smyser, said. "The brothers used whatever means necessary -- sometimes drugs, sometimes alcohol, sometimes brute force -- to carry out their rapes."

The former real estate titans, Oren and Tal Alexander, along with their brother, Alon Alexander, have denied sexually assaulting anyone or running a sex trafficking conspiracy, as prosecutors have charged. They sat at the defense tables with their lawyers in suits and open-collar shirts.

***

"They came from a wealthy family, and they lived a life of luxury.  But their luxurious lifestyle had a dark side," Smyser said.

A defense attorney called the brothers successful, ambitious, arrogant young men "who liked and pursued women" so they could have as much sex as possible. 

"That's not trafficking. That's dating. That's hooking up," the lawyer, Teny Geragos, said during opening statements.  She said the accusers, many of whom are expected to testify under pseudonyms, are motivated by shame, regret or money.

Prosecutors told the jury of six men and six women they would see a recording of Oren Alexander's alleged rape of a then-17-year-old who will testify under the name Amelia.  She was "far from sober, almost incoherent" at the time and has no memory of what happened, Smyser said. 

***

The defense conceded the brothers were womanizers who jurors might find immoral but insisted they were not criminals.

"It was crude, it was arrogant, it will make you cringe," defense attorney Deanna Paul said.  "But we're not here for the Asshole Awards."

InnerCity Press covers the case in detail here, including Howard's cross of the first witness.  

 

 

Judge Alicia Valle's "Divestiture"

 By John R. Byrne

This past Friday, the Court held a retirement reception for Magistrate Judge Alicia Valle. She dubbed the event her official "divestiture." Magistrate Judge Hunt was the master of ceremonies for the event, which featured several speakers, including retired Magistrate Judge Barry Seltzer, Magistrate Judge Matthewman, Chief Judge Altonaga, and Holland & Knight partner (and former Valle law clerk), Cary Aronovitz. The speakers did an excellent job conveying Judge Valle's work ethic and heart. We also learned that, for years, Judge Valle and Judge Hunt coordinated their Halloween costumes (some great pairings, including Gomez and Morticia Addams of Addams Family fame).

Judge Valle was an excellent magistrate judge and universally respected by attorneys, civil and criminal alike. We're going to miss her. 

Alexander Brothers trial to start

 The Miami brothers will be starting trial tomorrow with opening statements after a week of motions and picking the jury in SDNY.  Howard Srebnick and Jackie Perzcek have one of the brothers.  Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos (of Diddy fame) have another.  The judge is known for being as pro-prosecution as they come and has already precluded the defense from putting in basic evidence -- for example, that one of the brothers got married (which evidence would show withdrawal from any supposed conspiracy and is just basic background evidence that is always admissible).  That's what I like about trying cases here in SDFLA -- most judges (even the most prosecution friendly) will at least let you try your case.  

Here's CNN with a preview of the trial:

Federal prosecutors accuse two of New York’s top real estate brokers, and their brother, of sexually assaulting over a dozen women and young girls over a period that spanned more than a decade.

During the trial’s opening statements, which are scheduled for Monday, prosecutors are expected to describe to a jury how they believe the three brothers — Oren and Tal Alexander, the real estate brokers to the ultra-wealthy, and Alon, an executive at the family’s security company — used their wealth and position to lure women to lavish parties or vacation destinations, drug them with cocaine and club drugs, and violently rape and sexually assault them.

Law enforcement allege the brothers identified women they found attractive on dating apps through party promoters and chance encounters, and often would pool financial resources to pay for the women’s travel expenses, according to court filings. The alleged assaults occurred from 2008 until 2021 in luxury locations in the Hamptons, Aspen, Las Vegas, Manhattan, and during a Caribbean cruise, according to court filings. 

Judge Valerie Caproni, who is presiding over the trial in the Southern District of New York, ruled that several of the accusers can testify using pseudonyms, including women who were minors at the time of the alleged assaults. More than 20 women could be called to testify in the case.

Prosecutors have argued in court that they have text messages between the brothers and others arranging travel in addition to photos and videos. 

As of Friday, a jury of six women and six men was selected for the trial, which is expected to last at least a month.

 

 

Congress and DOJ Seek to Get Rid of Judges and Warrants

Two explosive stories this week reveal how the Department of Justice and its allied political forces are undermining judicial independence and constitutional checks on law enforcement.

1. House Leadership Backs Impeaching Federal Judges

House Speaker Mike Johnson publicly announced support for impeaching federal judges whose rulings block the Trump administration’s agenda. Johnson signaled he is “for it” when asked about impeachment resolutions targeting at least two judges accused by senators of “egregious abuses” of power. The push is centered on judges who have issued orders adverse to the administration’s immigration and other policies. Pretty troubling.

This isn’t just rhetorical bluster — Legislators have introduced resolutions against judges like James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman, and Johnson’s willingness to embrace impeachment raises the specter of legislative retaliation for judicial rulings, undermining the separation of powers that anchors our constitutional system.

2. ICE Can Enter Homes Without Judicial Warrants

Across the law enforcement landscape, another alarming shift is unfolding: an internal ICE memo disclosed this week authorizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to forcibly enter private homes without a judge-signed warrant, using only an administrative immigration document for individuals with final deportation orders. This breaks with long-standing Fourth Amendment norms requiring a judicial warrant for residential entries and seizures.

Whistleblowers say the memorandum, drafted in May 2025, is being used to train new ICE officers, even though it conflicts with previous training that limited administrative warrants to public arrests. Critics contend this policy effectively instructs agents to bypass constitutional safeguards, and legal challenges are already brewing.

Orin Kerr has a lengthy post explaining the law here. 

Who is going to stand up for our judges and our Constitution?

Israel's Impending Constitutional Crisis

By John R. Byrne

I hope everyone has recovered from the Miami's heartbreaking loss in the national title game (or, at least, the Hurricane fans out there). Still a great season, and I foresee the Hurricanes clocking in at #1 in the prestigious SDFLA Blog 2026 Pre-season Poll.* 

Separately, sharing Judge Altman's review of Yonatan Green's book "Rogue Justice: The Rise of Judicial Supremacy in Israel." In the review, Altman highlights the sweeping power of the Israeli Supreme Court and, in particular, its relatively unconstrained power of judicial review. 

*Prediction will hinge on the Hurricanes landing Duke QB Darian Mensah in the transfer portal (Duke is trying to stop that).

Hammer Time

A number of sources inside the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida tell me that the entire office was summoned yesterday at 4:00 p.m. 

Mandatory attendance. 

No agenda disclosed. 

At the meeting, the U.S. Attorney reportedly said that defense counsel* in a recent trial unearthed old tweets by Will Rosenzwieg criticizing Donald Trump. He then said that the defense "forced" the government's hand in firing Rosenzweig. Losing the trial after being "forced" to fire a prosecutor was not an option.

So the Office assembled its “dream team” of prosecutors—David Turken, Roger Cruz, and Rob Moore—to try the case.

In front of the entire office, the trio was presented with the first-ever “Golden Hammer” awards. Actual, oversized, shiny golden hammers. ...

 * Defense counsel vehemently denies it, says it's completely untrue, and it didn't come from them.

SCOTUS decides a 4th Amendment case

It's been a while! The decision is Case v. Montana, which held: Brigham City’s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss and was satisfied in this case. From SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of a Montana man who was convicted of assaulting a police officer. In a unanimous decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled in Case v. Montana that police officers in Anaconda, Montana, did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they entered William Case’s home without a warrant, rejecting Case’s contention that the police officers needed “probable cause” to go into his house. Under the Supreme Court’s earlier cases, Kagan wrote, it was enough that the police officers reasonably believed that Case – whose former girlfriend had called them to tell them that Case had threatened to commit suicide – needed emergency assistance.

The case began in 2021, when Case told his former girlfriend, identified in court papers as J.H., that he “was going to kill himself” and would also shoot any police officers who came to his house. J.H. called 9-1-1, which sent three police officers to the scene for a “welfare check on a suicidal male.”

Although Case did not answer when police officers knocked on the door or yelled into an open window, the police officers saw empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and what they believed to be a suicide note in the house. The police officers were also aware that Case had threatened to commit suicide before; on another occasion, police officers believed that Case was trying to goad them into shooting him.

Roughly 40 minutes after they arrived, the police officers entered the home. Case was hiding in a closet in an upstairs bedroom, where he was holding a black object that officers believed was a gun. One officer shot Case in the abdomen; another officer discovered a handgun in a laundry hamper near Case.

Case asked the trial court to exclude the evidence that law enforcement officials obtained after they entered his house, arguing that police officers should have had a warrant. But the state courts rejected that argument, prompting Case to come to the Supreme Court.

Case contended that if police officers enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency assistance, they must have probable cause “to believe someone is in urgent need of help.” On Wednesday the Supreme Court disagreed. In an 11-page opinion, Kagan acknowledged that the sanctity of the home is at the core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects the people from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” As a general rule, she explained, “[w]hen the intru­sion is into that most private place, ‘reasonableness’ usu­ally means having a warrant.” But there are exceptions to that general rule, she continued, including “the need to provide an occupant with emergency aid.”

Speaking of SCOTUSblog, its founder Tom Goldstein started his trial this week. I think they opened today. More on that soon.

First Amendment and UF

Really interesting First Amendment order out of the 11th Circuit involving a UF law student and some really horrible speech.  2-1 in favor of UF.  Branch write the opinion, Lagoa joins, and Newsom dissents.

From the introduction:

The University of Florida ("UF") expelled Preston Damsky,
a law student, for posts he made on X (formerly Twitter), including
one post that stated, "Jews must be abolished by any means necessary." Damsky then sued Chris Summerlin, UF's Dean of Students, arguing that UF violated his First Amendment rights. UF
now appeals the district court's order granting Damsky a
preliminary injunction and requiring UF to reinstate him as a
student. We find that UF is likely to succeed on the merits because
Damsky' s speech was likely not protected by the First Amendment.
UF was allowed to regulate Damsky's speech because, particularly
when read in context, his statements were reasonably interpreted
as a call for extralegal violence that caused a serious disruption to
other students' educational experiences and the school's ability to
provide its services. Accordingly, we grant UF's motion for a stay
of the district court's injunction pending appeal.

From the dissent:

Based on a post that Preston Damsky published on his
personal "X'' account,* the University of Florida ("University" or
"UF") expelled him from its law school, just a semester shy of his
expected graduation. Damsky sued on the ground that his
expulsion violated the First Amendment, and he sought a
preliminary injunction requiring the University to reinstate him. In
a thorough opinion, Judge Allen Winsor granted Damsky
preliminary injunctive relief, prohibiting the University from
"continuing to take adverse actions against" him and ordering him
returned to "normal standing" at the law school. Dist. Ct. Order,
Nov. 24, 2025, at 28.
Today, this Court stays Judge Winsor's order. I respectfully
dissent. The University hasn't shown a reasonable likelihood that
it will succeed in its effort to vacate or modify the injunction,
which, to my mind, correctly concludes that Damsky's posthowever
disgusting- enjoys constitutional protection. 

 

*Both the majority and the dissent explain that Twitter is now X.  I think everyone knows that now, just like we all know that opinions from the old 5th Circuit control per Bonner!

Magistrate Judge News

 Congratulations are in order for two good people -- first to Detra Shaw-Wilder on her investiture. 

And second to Yeney Hernandez, who the judges voted on at their judges' meeting today to be our newest magistrate judge.  

Have a great weekend and GO CANES!

Andy Adler wins in SCOTUS -- again

Congrats to AFPD Andy Adler for this 5-4 habeas victory in the Supreme Court, which held: Title 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive Section 2255 motion for postconviction relief, and Subsection 2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under Section 2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.

Adler convinced Roberts and Kavanaugh to join the 3 moderate Justices for the majority, which starts this way (per Sotomayor):

Congress has created a comprehensive scheme to address when and how state and federal prisoners can seek postconviction relief in federal courts.  A state prisoner can file an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. §2254. A federal prisoner, by contrast, can file a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence under §2255.  Each provision contains its own procedural and substantive requirements that an individual must satisfy. This case concerns the more complicated situation when a prisoner returns to federal court after a prior attempt for relief has failed. In this situation, Congress has enlisted the courts of appeals to play a gatekeeping role in the consideration of second or successive filings brought by federal and state prisoners. Under this system, before a prisoner can bring such a filing in a district court, a court of appeals must certify that the filing meets certain threshold conditions. Section 2244 governs authorization requests made by state prisoners, and §2255(h), in turn, governs requests made by federal prisoners. The two have distinct requirements, but through a limited cross-reference in §2255(h) to §2244 for how a filing is “certified” by a “panel,” Congress has borrowed certain of the procedures that apply to state prisoners and applies them to federal prisoners too. This case presents two questions regarding which aspects of §2244 fall within the scope of §2255(h)’s cross-reference. The first is whether §2244(b)(3)(E), which prohibits the “denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application” from being the “subject of a petition for . . . a writ of certiorari,” bars this Court’s review of authorization decisions concerning the motions of federal prisoners. If it does, this Court would lack jurisdiction to hear this case. The Court holds that it does not.  In the narrow cross-reference to the procedures in §2244, Congress has not clearly indicated that it intended to incorporate §2244(b)(3)(E)’s certiorari bar. The second question is whether §2244(b)(1), which directs courts to dismiss a claim “presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application,” applies to motions filed by federal prisoners. It does not: Section 2244(b)(1), by its express terms, applies only to state prisoners’ habeas applications under §2254, not to federal prisoners’ motions under §2255. 

Should 92 year old Judge Hellerstein preside over the Maduro case?

 Jeffrey Toobin says no here:

There is no simple procedural mechanism for lawyers, or the public, to challenge the fitness of judges. A culture of deference — and the fear, especially among active lawyers, of courting retribution — limits most inquiries into the abilities of aging judges. The parties can ask a judge to recuse himself for bias, but that is not the issue here. What tends to happen, rather, is that peers tend to step in informally and gently encourage a judicial colleague to step aside. The chief judge of the Southern District of New York, Laura Taylor Swain, should make such an overture to Judge Hellerstein if he does not himself recognize the need to face reality.

We've had the issue come up in our District three times that I can think of... I wonder how they will handle it in NY. 

"Justice For Venezuela at Last"

 That's the title of this WSJ op-ed by our very own Judge Roy Altman.  It starts this way:

My family in Caracas awoke to loud explosions on Saturday morning. They came to learn, at daybreak, that the country’s repressive dictator, Nicolas Maduro, had been seized in a daring raid by American commandos. “God willing,” my cousin whispered into a phone, still afraid of who might be listening, “this is the end of our decades-long nightmare.” 

That’s a hope my family shares with the millions of Venezuelans who have been exiled over the past two decades.

I’m only the second Venezuelan-born federal judge in U.S. history. A few years ago, at the end of an emotional and lengthy federal-murder trial, I went to thank the jurors for their weekslong service to our country. When I entered the jury room, I found the foreman, a man in his mid-40s, fighting back tears. He explained that he had read about my own family’s journey from Caracas to South Florida, that he too had fled Venezuela with his family and that he only wished his grandfather—a lawyer who had been forced to escape the Maduro regime—could have lived long enough to witness what our jurors had seen: an important federal trial in America, presided over by a free Venezuelan-American judge and a free Venezuelan-American foreman.

“One day,” I promised as I embraced him, “you’ll live to see a free Venezuelan justice system too.”

Judge Eaton

 By John R. Byrne

First portrait post of 2026 is Judge Joseph Oscar Eaton. He was a state senator before his time as a judge. FBA write up below.

Judge Joseph Oscar Eaton was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and served on the district court from 1967-2008. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Eaton served in the U.S. Air Force, reaching the rank of major. In Diaz v. Weinberger, 361 F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Fla. 1973), a three-judge panel including Judge Eaton struck down the five-year continuous residency requirement for non-citizens seeking Medicare supplemental insurance, holding that it violated the Fifth Amendment due process clause by discriminatorily excluding lawful immigrant seniors—such as Cuban refugees—from essential medical benefits without a rational basis.

Year end reviews are in

We have one from the Chief Justice.

One from the U.S. Attorney.

And even one from Markus/Moss!

Blog contributor John Byrne has one as well from his firm here.

The Chief Justice's ends this way:

As we approach the semiquincentennial of

our Nation’s birth, it is worth recalling the

words of President Calvin Coolidge spoken a

century ago on the occasion of America’s ses-

quicentennial: “Amid all the clash of conflict-

ing interests, amid all the welter of partisan

politics, every American can turn for solace and

consolation to the Declaration of Independence

and the Constitution of the United States with

the assurance and confidence that those two

great charters of freedom and justice remain

firm and unshaken.” True then; true now.

As always, I am privileged and honored to

thank all the judges, court staff, and other ju-

dicial branch personnel throughout the Nation

for their commitment to public service and

their dedication to upholding the rule of law.

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.