Schadenfreude

Sure, there's a lot of that going on with the Scott Rothstein case, but the guy isn't doing anything to help his cause. SFL covers his Herald interview, which was a total train wreck:

"I am sitting here smoking cigars with [my lawyer] Marc [Nurik]."

"Doing pretty good."

"During the brief interview with Nurik, Rothstein could be heard heartily laughing in the background."

It only gets worse:

Nurik would not disclose Rothstein's whereabouts -- a Florida location that Nurik said he -- not federal authorities -- chose.

"I have him hidden," Nurik said. "I'm not going to tell anybody where, including the government. I don't know where people are coming up with this stuff. I have been discussing his case with the government as any defense counsel would under these circumstances.

"I have been in contact with the government," Nurik said. "My client is at an undisclosed location of my choosing and he is talking to no one but me. He hasn't even met with his family."

Nurik declined to discuss the case, but added that Rothstein wanted to say goodbye.

"I'm doing really good," Rothstein said. "Marc is a great lawyer, a great friend. We will speak when the time is right."

YIKES! I'm not even sure that Alan Shore's closing argument on Schadenfreude could help Rothstein:

From the German words, Schaden and Freude, damage and joy. It means to take spiteful, malicious delight in the misfortune of others. We used to dismiss this as simply an ugly side of human nature, but it is much much more than that. Recently a Stanford professor actually captured Schadenfreude on a brain scan. It’s a physiological medical phenomenon. When we see others fall it sometimes causes a chemical to be released in the dorsal striatum of the brain which actually causes us to feel pleasure. If you watch the news or read the papers, which of course you don’t because the Judge said not to, but if you did, you would see the undeniable delicious joy of the media and the public over Kelly Nolan’s plight. I have no doubt that you want Kelly Nolan to be punished. She married for money, she had an affair, she carried on naked in the pool with her boyfriend. She’s cold, materialistic, unlikable, and it might bring you all pleasure to see her go to jail. But as for evidence to establish that she committed a murder beyond all reasonable doubt? It just isn’t there. The only possible route to a guilty verdict here is Schadenfreude.

Do as I say, not as I do

From the oral arguments on Tuesday of this week in the Supreme Court:

MR. BARNHOUSE: The lawsuit would be -- the lawsuit itself would be property, but the -- but any recovery would not be property until it became choate, until there was an amount of money assigned to it.

JUSTICE SCALIA: There is no such adjective -- I know we have used it, but there is no such adjective as "choate." There is "inchoate," but the opposite of "inchoate" is not "choate."

MR. BARNHOUSE: All right.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Any more than the -- I don't know.
(Laughter.)

MR. BARNHOUSE: Well, I'm wrong on the -- on the -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Exactly. Yes. It's like "gruntled."

MR. BARNHOUSE: But I think I am right on the law, Your Honor.

Scalia was apparently trying to make the point that some people mistakenly assume the opposite of “disgruntled” is “gruntled.” Well, Josh Blackmun says gruntled is a word:

Oxford English Dictionary Confirms, gruntled seems to be the opposite of disgruntled.
Definition: Pleased, satisfied, contented.

A law professor responds:

Gruntled is indeed in the dictionary, as the opposite of disgruntled. But it’s pretty clearly not idiomatic, as a Google search shows. So it’s not a mistake to assume that there is a word “gruntled” that’s the opposite of “disgruntled.” But it is a mistake to assume that there is such a word in common usage, and especially in common serious usage (since “gruntled” as the opposite of “disgruntled” has a humorous connotation, I think).

Anyway, a bit closer to home, Dan Christensen has a couple interesting posts about Zachariah P. Zachariah, a top Republican fundraiser.

And of course, everyone is talking and writing about Scott Rothstein and his inner sanctum and intercom and autographs and on and on and on. I find the whole mob mentality a bit sickening. Here's my Friday morning question to you all: Should Scott Rothstein get a bond when he gets arrested?

A bunch of people have been sending me this video, which is unbelievable:

Above the Law case voluntarily dismissed

Well that was quick.

Here's ATL on the dismissal:

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice. But if Professor Jones were to attempt to refile at this point in time, he would encounter a statute of limitations problem.

There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to our prior posts, and we have paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.

Smart move by Professor Jones as the lawsuit appeared frivolous and likely sanctionable. Congrats to ATL.

Federal Bar Association lunch

Fun event today with Judges Gold and Jordan. (Yes, that's my terrible phone camera picture to the left.)

Some of the topics discussed:

Facebook, Blogs, and Roshambo.

And there was even a question about how Iqbal has been affecting the courts. Perhaps SFLawyer was in the audience...

I like Twizzlers

"When you have a Twizzler in your mouth, you can't have a serious conversation."

"The red-colored licorice are kinda sweet ... pleasant tasting. They put you in a good mood."

"There were two ways to eat the Twizzler: Sucking on the licorice, like a baby with a pacifier, or tearing it into small pieces and gobbling it down."

Those are quotes from federal district judge Kevin Castel on why he gave Twizzlers to the jury in the John Gotti Jr. trial. More from the article:

The Twizzlers were there to candy-coat the panel's jangled nerves.
"If you feel frustrated, you now have something to take that frustration out on," Castel said.
Juror No. 1 then carried the red-topped bucket of candy into the jury room.
A day earlier, Castel tried sweet-talking the jury - although he apparently decided that wasn't enough.
"I'm just asking you for help in being kind and considerate to all your fellow jurors," Castel told Juror 7 after her Monday spat with Juror 11.
It was the latest bit of juror animosity in the feds' fourth prosecution of the ex-Gambino family boss. With the racketeering trial in its seventh week, tensions are running high on the anonymous panel.
Earlier, the judge received a juror's letter complaining about Juror 7's abrasive conduct and her love of Gotti's lawyer, Charles Carnesi. The letter, signed "A Concerned Juror," described Juror 7 as antagonistic and foul-mouthed.
Castel is trying to keep the jury together as the trial heads into its final days. Closing arguments in the case could come as soon as Monday.
Personality clashes among jurors increase the possibility of yet another mistrial for Gotti.
If the panel benefits from the candy karma, they might hear from Gotti before the defense rests. Junior wants to testify, said Carnesi, but he doesn't want to answer questions from prosecutors about crimes involving other people.
Gotti "does not believe he should solve his problems by dumping them" on mob associates, Carnesi said.
The defense team will let Castel know by 5 p.m. today if Gotti is going to take the stand.
"Do I think there is any downside?" Carnesi asked. "No."
The second-generation gangster opted not to testify at his three previous racketeering trials. All ended in hung juries and mistrials.

Above The Law Sued by UM Law Professor Donald Jones

NLJ has the details:

It's the kind of story that tends to get big play on the legal blog Above the Law: A prominent University of Miami School of Law professor and civil rights advocate arrested on suspicion of soliciting an undercover officer for sex.
The blog had plenty of fun with the story in October 2007 with a series of posts about Donald Marvin Jones, whom it dubbed "The Nutty Professor."
The only problem was that it didn't happen that way, and the blog's coverage veered into racism, according to a lawsuit Jones has filed in federal court. He alleged that Above the Law portrayed him in a false light, invaded his privacy and infringed the university's copyright on his faculty photo. Jones seeks $22 million in damages.
An online article about the arrest by David Lat, Above the Law's managing editor, "instigated its readers not only to read the post but also to join in what was clearly a viciously racist series of rants" directed at the African-American professor, the suit claims.
Jones did not respond Monday to calls for comment on the lawsuit, which he filed pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 27. The suit names Lat, Above the Law publisher David Minkin and parent company Dead Horse Media Inc., now called Breaking Media LLC, as defendants. Lat also declined comment on the suit.

Judge Cooke pulled the case. Here's the complaint.

Where in the world is Scott Rothstein

Thanks to a tipster, we have more evidence that bloggers are taking over the world. This time, they've tracked down Rothstein! No joke.

Key count kicked in case against former head of DEA

Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum recommended (in a 43-page order*) that an obstruction count be dismissed against Tom Raffanello, the former DEA chief and then head of security for Allen Stanford. The Herald has the details here:

Two months after one of Miami's most celebrated drug cops was charged in the Allen Stanford financial scandal, a federal magistrate is recommending that one of the key charges be thrown out.
Judge Robin Rosenbaum said prosecutors failed to prove Tom Raffanello -- head of security for Stanford's worldwide enterprise -- interfered with a federal investigation by ordering the destruction of reams of company documents.
The former Drug Enforcement Administration chief, who left the agency to join Stanford's security force in 2004, was charged with ordering the shredding of records just days after federal agents shut down Stanford's empire in a massive fraud case in February.
Though prosecutors said Raffanello defied a court order by destroying the documents, Rosenbaum said the government failed to show he impeded the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's probe.
The magistrate fell short of rejecting the entire case, however, saying prosecutors were able to show the former drug cop destroyed records in the course of a federal investigation. Her recommendation will be taken up by presiding Judge William Zloch later this month.

You can always count on Sharpie for a good quote:

Raffanello's attorney, Richard Sharpstein, said he was pleased with Rosenbaum's recommendation.
``We hope Judge Zloch not only agrees with Judge Rosenbaum, but throws out the entire case,'' he said.
Lead prosecutor Paul Pelletier could not be reached on Monday. However, prosecutors have argued in prior hearings that Raffanello and co-defendant Bruce Perraud were aware of a judge's order to preserve all company documents when they called a shredding truck to the company's Fort Lauderdale security bunker on February 25.

UPDATED -- Here's the DBR article by John Pacenti.

*Even though it's not 90 pages, Judge Marcus would still be proud.