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
1. Does Seaquarium’s orca tank currently meet AWA space and shade/shelter requirements?Here's a picture of her shortly before the storm.
2. What impact, if any, would the tank’s current failure to meet AWA space and shade/shelter requirements have on the pending Motions to Dismiss?
3. If Seaquairum’s orca tank does not currently meet AWA space and shade/shelter requirements, what, if any, remedy can this Court order to correct those deficiencies?
Convicted South Florida Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein, a disbarred attorney who ran a $1.2 billion investment scheme out of his Fort Lauderdale law firm, will not be receiving a reduction in his 50-year prison sentence because he lied to federal prosecutors, authorities said Tuesday.
Prosecutors withdrew their pending motion to reduce Rothstein's sentence based on his cooperation in the sprawling racketeering investigation because he was “untruthful in an affidavit” filed with the federal court. Rothstein, who helped the U.S. attorney's office gain convictions of almost 30 defendants, was hoping to see many years cut from his sentence for his assistance.
That reward won't happen.
“In the judgment of the United States, the defendant provided false material information to the government and violated the terms of his plea agreement,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Lawrence LaVecchio wrote in a motion to withdraw an earlier request for a sentence reduction with U.S. District Judge James Cohn. “Therefore, in the exercise of its sole discretion, the government moves to withdraw the previously filed motion.”
Goggins Motion to Dismiss Trump emoluments clause case by David Oscar Markus on Scribd
This is a tax case. Fear not, keep reading. In determining whether the IRS properly denied a taxpayer’s claimed deduction on his 2011 return, we must decide two important and (as it turns out) interesting questions. First up: Was the money that a homosexual man paid to father children through in vitro fertilization—and in particular, to identify, retain, compensate, and care for the women who served as an egg donor and a gestational surrogate—spent “for the purpose of affecting” his body’s reproductive “function” within the meaning of I.R.C. § 213? And second: In answering the statutory question “no,” and thus in disallowing the taxpayer’s deduction of his IVF-related expenses, did the IRS violate his right to equal protection of the laws either by infringing a “fundamental right” or by engaging in unconstitutional discrimination? We hold that the costs of the IVF-related procedures at issue were not paid for the purpose of affecting the taxpayer’s own reproductive function—and therefore are not deductible—and that the IRS did not violate the Constitution in disallowing the deduction.
