This is a real press release from the SDFLA U.S. Attorney's Office: "NEWS RELEASE: TWO MIAMI-DADE WOMEN CHARGED IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR OPERATION OF A SPA PERFORMING ILLICIT SILICONE INJECTIONS"

Oh boy...  From the release:

        Maribel Jimenez, with assistance from Magaly Del Rosario, a manager of Bella Beauty, administered deep tissue buttock injections of substantial quantities of silicone, an adulterated medical device when used and intended to be used in this manner, to hundreds of Bella Beauty clients.

        The silicone which was unlawfully injected into Bella Beauty clients was clandestinely smuggled into the United States by Jimenez and co-conspirators by means of approximately 170 separate DHL air carrier shipments.  To avoid the scrutiny of Customs and Border Protection, upon importation into the United States, each bottle contained false labelling stating in Spanish that the contents consisted of “Depilatory Wax” and alleged instructions on how to apply this purported rosin-based substance in a manner consistent with hair removal.

After the injections, Jimenez had been informed by a number of Bella Beauty Spa clients that they were experiencing adverse health related symptoms.  Jimenez and Del Rosario failed to advise the clients that silicone had been injected into their bodies. The defendants also intentionally concealed the potential health consequences arising from the injection of silicone into their clients’ bodies.

The email address that the government set up might be my favorite part:

Individual clients of Bella Beauty Spa who have undergone buttocks injection procedures, regardless of how far in the past, are urged to contact bellabeautyinjections@fda.hhs.gov in order to receive additional information, address individual concerns, and to receive information concerning their status and rights as potential victims.

Should judges be using social media?

Judge Dillard, who has a great Twitter feed @JudgeDillard, says yes in this interesting article:

One of the primary concerns often voiced by critics of judges using social media is that it is demeaning to the office. I do not consider this argument particularly persuasive. To be sure, a judge can demean his or her office through the use of social media, just as he or she can do so at a local bar event by engaging in unprofessional behavior. The difference is that an unprofessional remark on social media by a judge is far more likely to receive widespread attention than a similar comment made at an event in front of only a handful of people. Indeed, this type of “viral” incident can and will harm the reputation of that judge and, no doubt, the confidence that many have in the judiciary. Nevertheless, the fact that there is the potential for some judges to embarrass themselves on social media is not, in my view, a compelling reason to support a blanket ban of all judges doing so. One could even argue that there is some benefit to having the missteps of judges documented on social media, just as the missteps of other elected officials are documented. Transparency reveals what it reveals, and it is not always going to be pretty. But knowing more about our public officials’ actions and beliefs allows us to make informed decisions on Election Day. And that, in my view, is a good thing.

But what about Federal Judges?  Should they be using social media?  Some judges, like 7th Circuit Judge Posner, are prolific bloggers.  Or at least used to be.  I really enjoyed District Judge Kopf's blog, but that was shut down too. And now, of course, there's #appellatetwitter (see the law.com article here).  You can guess my opinion... we need more interaction with the judiciary and social media is a good place for it.  But it's hard to imagine some of our federal judges tweeting.

Anyway, here's your moment of zen:

"How ritual chicken sacrifices in Miami helped halt Trump’s travel ban"

That's the Miami Herald headline from David Ovalle's article about the unique Miami connection to the Trump travel ban.  Fun times:

In ruling against President Donald Trump’s “Muslim travel ban,” a trio of federal judges relied in part on a distinctly South Florida court case — one that granted religious protections for the ritual sacrifice of chickens and goats.
The unanimous ruling Thursday night upholding a halt to the White House executive order cited a famous 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a Hialeah law banning Santería animal sacrifices. Justices found that the city ordinance infringed on constitutionally protected freedoms.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais AP

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit court made clear that judges can consider outside statements made by elected leaders — in this case, President Donald Trump himself — in trying to figure out if the intent of a government action was to discriminate against a religious group.
“In Hialeah in the 1990s, it was Santería. With Trump, it’s Muslims,” said University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, an expert on religious liberties who successfully argued the Hialeah case.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article131983429.html#storylink=cpy

News and Notes

1.  Former Carnes clerk, former AUSA and current Circuit Judge Robert Luck was named today to the 3rd DCA.  From the DBR:

In an earlier interview, Luck told the Daily Business Review that Carnes taught him "lawyers and judges, both orally and when we write, should speak in a way that the everyday person can understand."

During Luck's time at the U.S. Attorney's Office, he handled 19 jury trials — a rarity for a young lawyer. Luck secured a guilty plea in the largest student visa fraud to date. He also persuaded a court to impose a 20-year prison sentence on a doctor who ran a $50 million Medicare fraud scheme, and he got a guilty plea from a boat captain who tried to smuggle dozens of Dominicans into the U.S.
Luck became a circuit judge the first time he applied. In August's judicial election, he kept his seat in the circuit's criminal division by a margin of 53.5 percent to challenger Yolly Roberson's 46.5 percent.

2. Tonight is the big shindig for the Federal Bar Association at the Hyatt.  It's the "36th Annual Federal Judicial Reception" from 5:30-8:30.  Enjoy!

3.  And tomorrow is the DCBA's Bench and Bar conference. Lots of interesting panels.  They stuck mine during the lunch hour... I'll be moderating a panel at noon on "Trends in Criminal Law" with some great speakers including Judges Milton Hirsch and Nushin Sayfie, Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, State Public Defender Carlos Martinez, State Attorney Kathy Fernandez Rundle, and U.S. Attorney Willy Ferrer.

“My life is over.”

That was Akin Gump lawyer and former prosecutor Jeffrey Wertkin after being arrested in disguise trying to sell a sealed complaint to an informer. Sad. From Bloomberg:

A Washington lawyer at a prominent firm was arrested in a disguise while trying to sell a copy of a secret lawsuit involving a company that was under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department.
Jeffrey Wertkin was picked up Jan. 31 in the lobby of a hotel in Cupertino, California, where he believed he was about to collect $310,000 for selling the lawsuit, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Wertkin, who worked in Washington for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, believed he would hand a copy of a complaint to an employee of the company, which was accused in the complaint by a whistle-blower of falsely billing the government. Wertkin, who was wearing a wig and using the name of Dan, was met instead by an FBI agent, according to arrest documents unsealed on Feb. 6.

Here's the criminal complaint, courtesy of Above the Law.

"Are you arguing then that the President's decision in that regard is unreviewable? A. Yes."

Alrighty then.  That was August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, answering questions during yesterday's oral argument, which was live-streamed (take note, 11th Circuit and Supreme Court!). Here's the argument.

Meantime, Trump was tweeting:

If the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

And Sen. Warren was being silenced:




Fun times!

The Falcons won the popular vote.

And other funny memes:

Lots of funny ones zooming around the internet. Meantime, Jason Pierre-Paul settled with ESPN in his suit about the disclosure of his medical records. The case was before Judge Cooke. From the AP:

 New York Giants defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul and ESPN have settled a lawsuit over the network's disclosure of his medical records from a 2015 fireworks accident.

ESPN announced the settlement on Friday, saying it believes that the network's reporting about the injury was newsworthy and journalistically appropriate.

Giants spokesman Pat Hanlon declined comment.

The network said despite their different points of view, the parties agreed to resolve their dispute amicably.

The case was set for trial in August after a Miami federal judge rejected ESPN's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Pierre-Paul was hospitalized in Miami after the July Fourth accident, which caused serious injuries to his right hand. The lawsuit claimed ESPN and a network reporter violated his privacy and Florida medical confidentiality laws by posting the records on social media.

Former U.S. Attorneys rise up! (UPDATED)

Well, well, well... what do we have here?  35 former prosecutors, including 3 former U.S. Attorneys from the S.D. Florida, have penned this open letter concerning Trump's executive order, which led to Sally Yates' firing.  The whole thing is worth a read, and it's interesting to look at all of the signatories, but here is the conclusion:

In short, the Executive Order is inimical to the values of the Justice Department and the United States, most significantly, that individuals may not be treated more harshly under the law solely on account of their religion. In our view that is exactly what the Executive Order does, and is intended to do. It would be our job, if we were representing the United States today, to say, no, this Executive Order is wrong and should not be defended.

UPDATE -- Jay Weaver from the Herald covers the letter here:

 Three dozen former federal prosecutors — many Democrats, but some Republicans — issued a statement Thursday denouncing President Donald Trump's executive order temporarily banning people from the predominantly Muslim countries of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen from entering the United States.
“If we were called upon to defend the executive order, could we do it within the guidelines we learned and lived by as lawyers for the United States?” said the statement signed by 36 former federal prosecutors who worked in South Florida, including three U.S. attorneys in Miami. “We could not. ...
“It would be our job, if we were representing the United States today, to say, no, this executive order is wrong and should not be defended,” the statement reads.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article130316814.html#storylink=cpy