In what promises to be a very entertaining lunch, Judge Martinez is speaking Wednesday APRIL 16th, at the Banker’s Club at noon. Lunch is $35. RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov
CORRECTED POST -- I originally put this Wed -- that is incorrect. It is Wed the 16th. Thanks.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Monday, April 07, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
News & Notes
1. Since Rumpole is shut down, I have invited him to blog over here.
2. The Justice Dept is investigating Dade County jails. I'm very happy about this. Broward should be next. The conditions are just appalling.
3. I've been slow to cover this story. But there is a lawsuit in our District re the Beatles. From Jay Weaver's article:
A London company representing The Beatles has won the first legal round to stop a Miami Lakes business from releasing rare live recordings of the group at a German club in 1962.
Apple Corps Limited and Fuego Entertainment struck an agreement approved by a Miami federal judge on Friday that requires Fuego to halt plans to release eight song recordings featuring Ringo Starr on drums as a Beatle for the first time.
The injunction also requires Fuego to remove any information about the planned release from its website, which has featured a sales pitch to customers to buy the CD. And it requires Fuego to cease any use of the trademark, The Beatles, for commercial purposes.
The temporary injunction remains in effect until a lawsuit is resolved.
4. Just when you think it can't get any worse for Broward judges...
2. The Justice Dept is investigating Dade County jails. I'm very happy about this. Broward should be next. The conditions are just appalling.
3. I've been slow to cover this story. But there is a lawsuit in our District re the Beatles. From Jay Weaver's article:
A London company representing The Beatles has won the first legal round to stop a Miami Lakes business from releasing rare live recordings of the group at a German club in 1962.
Apple Corps Limited and Fuego Entertainment struck an agreement approved by a Miami federal judge on Friday that requires Fuego to halt plans to release eight song recordings featuring Ringo Starr on drums as a Beatle for the first time.
The injunction also requires Fuego to remove any information about the planned release from its website, which has featured a sales pitch to customers to buy the CD. And it requires Fuego to cease any use of the trademark, The Beatles, for commercial purposes.
The temporary injunction remains in effect until a lawsuit is resolved.
4. Just when you think it can't get any worse for Broward judges...
Thursday, April 03, 2008
New courthouse is opening
Sort of.
Read Julie Kay's article here:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1207133079914
Other than the flooding, air conditioning, and electrical failures, it should be great.
--David Oscar Markus
www.markuslaw.com
305-379-6667
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
"Is it against the law to swear an oath to al-Qaida, agreeing to abide by the directives of al-Qaida?"
That was the fascinating question that the Liberty City 6 jury asked Judge Lenard today.
Curt Anderson from the AP has more here.
Unsurprisingly, the government said that the Court should answer the question Yes, while the defense said No.
According to Anderson: "U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard answered with her own note telling jurors to carefully read her instructions in the case, particularly those describing material support to a foreign terrorist organization." *** "This is a determination for them to make," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "They may see it as providing material support or they may not."
This is not an easy one -- In a pure vacuum, it's obviously not a crime to swear an oath to al-Qaida. The question is whether it's a crime in this case -- did the defendants have the requisite intent to offer material support for a terrorist organization? In that sense, the oath can be viewed as evidence.... So I think Judge Lenard's answer was the appropriate one, although probably not altogether satisfying to either party or to the jurors.
Curt Anderson from the AP has more here.
Unsurprisingly, the government said that the Court should answer the question Yes, while the defense said No.
According to Anderson: "U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard answered with her own note telling jurors to carefully read her instructions in the case, particularly those describing material support to a foreign terrorist organization." *** "This is a determination for them to make," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "They may see it as providing material support or they may not."
This is not an easy one -- In a pure vacuum, it's obviously not a crime to swear an oath to al-Qaida. The question is whether it's a crime in this case -- did the defendants have the requisite intent to offer material support for a terrorist organization? In that sense, the oath can be viewed as evidence.... So I think Judge Lenard's answer was the appropriate one, although probably not altogether satisfying to either party or to the jurors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)