Computer Virus Opens Door to Child Porn Charges

I had a horrid experience today, discovering during the lunch hour that my retired site http://www.nationalgaynews.com/, had been hacked into by an unknown party who basically seized my online newspaper and instead uploaded very graphic pornography onto the home page of what had been a news site.

In a frenzy, I tracked down my webmaster, server, and IT people to learn that the site was being run by an older type of program which had not been modernized, and was thus left open to corruption by third parties. Indeed, it had been pirated, commandeered, and stolen from me.

The tekkies who know of this kind of thing told me “You are running a very old Joomla installation (1.0.12) that has many security holes and is no longer supported, you'll have to upgrade to the latest version ASAP otherwise your site will be hacked again and your account will be subject to service suspension or termination per our ToS.”

Ironically, I stopped publishing the exhasutive news site months ago, and just re-linked it up to the 'Net so interested readers and researchers could at least access our first year of news online. Now I have had to temporarily shut it down again until I can clean it up and find a better security system. But there is a reason why this is more a story for my law blog than my gay news blog though. (http://www.nationalgaynews.blogspot.com/) Here’s why.

Just yesterday, Debra Weiss on the ABA journal posted an article about how computer viruses can upload child porn to your computer, the result of which has led to the arrest and prosecution of numerous individuals.

A few months ago we did a story and joked about the guy who said his kitten downloaded child pornography to his web site, but the Associated Press has done an investigation this year which revealed that innocent people have been branded as pedophiles after their co-workers or loved ones stumbled upon child porn placed on a PC through a virus.

AP cited the case of Michael Fiola, a former investigator with the Massachusetts agency that oversees workers' compensation. An Internet bill for his state-issued laptop showed he was using more than four times the online data of his colleagues. An investigation found child porn stored in a folder that contains images viewed online.

Fiola was fired and charged with possession of child pornography. He spent $250,000 on legal fees before prosecutors dropped charges. An inspection of the laptop had found it was programmed to visit as many as 40 child porn sites per minute.

"It ruined my life, my wife's life and my family's life," Fiola told AP.

While some prosecutors have discounted this, I think of the Innocence Project, revelations relating to DNA, and how many times people in power are wrong. So there is a moral here, and it begins with protect your computer from unknown users the same way you don’t lend your car to your best friend’s son.

Should Scott Rothstein Get A Bond When Arrested?

My words for Scott have so far been tempered and restrained.

Today they are harsh. The meteor has landed. Flamed out.

Yesterday was a special day for those oozing Scott Rothstein juices. So if you are going to interview him, now would be the time. There are no cameras or cocktails in Federal Court.

First, he who has been purportedly secreted and hidden by the Feds shows up at the Capital Grille for a Martini but winds up in a You Tube interview with New Times investigative reporter Bob Norman. Special.

Second, decidedly uncomfortable with the negative stream of publicity he has been getting, and clearly against his attorney’s advice, Scott Rothstein chooses to give an ‘exclusive’ interview to Channel 7 reporter Rosh Lowe. Foolish.

Third, while Scott is chatting, Feds are seizing. Legal authorities, armed with warrants have now entered his home and carted out reams of legal documents to be sure. But that was the sideshow. The trailers which landed on his properties carried away Rolls Royces and sportscars. His boat was taken to the same marina where the Feds brought Bernie Madoff’s a couple of months ago. Ouch!

Fourth, in court, lawyers for investors of his now unraveling Ponzi scheme have filed suits demanding the property be held in trust for them, which suggests they will have to do battle with his former law partners that want the money for themselves. If the money came from firm accounts, who gets it first, the lawyers, the trusts, or the investors in a scheme oiled by firm funds?

Yes, this is all really happening. But now that he has spoken to the press, there is a few things I would like to say to Scott, directly.

Number one. Scott you told the reporters yesterday you made a mistake. No, Scott, you did not make a ‘mistake.’ You, sir, committed a crime. If I could slap you in the face, and alert your moral compass, a mistake is an inadvertent and unintentional lapse where maybe you err for a moment and correct course. A ‘mistake’ is not when you consciously and deliberately over a course of time commit acts which are nefarious, fraudulent, deceptive, harmful, and outright criminal while rewarding yourself at the expense of others.

Number two. Scott you told a reporter yesterday you wanted to do the ‘right thing,’ so you came back to set things straight. Let’s make this clear. The ‘right thing’ would have been not to do the ‘wrong thing.’ Please don’t lavish yourself with false praise. You have not 'manned up.' You have chosen to face the music and do the honorable thing after getting caught, which was inevitable. You are simply doing what you had an obligation to be doing all along. That is better than leaving us a suicide note from Morocco, but this is no reason for self-congratulatory lauding.

Number three. Scott you told reporters yesterday that you had ‘very few friends left.’ Scott, your true friends and family will stand by you in a time of crisis because they love you for who you are and what you have been, regardless of how many toys and boats and big shots you surrounded yourself with. Those people you do not have to worry about it. Those are the people who did not sign autographed plaques in your office. Those are the people whose pictures you placed on your desk because you love them and they love you. Autographs not required.

Scott, even you had to know many of the people you have circled the wagons with the past few years were there for jobs and a never-ending cash flow and cycle of good times you poured their way. They were never there for you. They were there for your money, your blitz, your flash. You took them all for a ride and they went along willingly, so suffer them not. They will survive. Leeches are bloodsuckers who will find their way to other hosts.

The thing is Scott many of your partners and associates in the law firm are decent lawyers who joined with you because they believed you were honest and real and genuine. You have stained their lives forever, tarred the South Florida legal community unimaginably, and betrayed the trust of honorable colleagues and professionals who befriended you. Guess what, you do not deserve them as friends.

You can’t pay back the scarlet letter they will now wear, the jobs they will not have, the clients that will not go near them. Do you really think that when my personal injury case goes to trial I am going to want even one of the jurors to remotely think one of your firm’s named partners is my attorney? Do you think it is going to be easy for them to list on their resume they spent the last few years at RRA without someone laughing behind their back?

Number four. Scott, you said you want to pay ‘every penny back’ to everyone who was wronged except the people who ‘participated in this.’ So now the bank robber is determining which of the account holders will be repaid, huh? Does not work that way. The Feds, the Receivers, the Trustees in Bankruptcy, they will decide that for you. Your decision making days are over. From what it sounds like, they will be diving for dollars in a pile of pennies. What were you thinking?

Number five. They are taking this stuff from you with a warrant. You are not ‘voluntarily’ giving it back. Because, just a friendly reminder again, you did not make a ‘mistake.’ You do know this, right? You are not fooling yourself? I say this because you apparently, much to the regret of many of those of us who liked you, have committed several major crimes and it is more than likely you will now go directly to jail. You will not pass 'Go'. You will not collect $200. You played the game Monopoly and lost.

Number six. You do understand the major immediate legal issue you are facing upon your arrest is whether you should you be entitled to a pre trial bond. I suspect if the financial fraud is anywhere near the allegations the government is making you may be denied one. They are going to argue you fled the country once, that there are illegally gotten gains secreted in multiple venues, and that you orchestrated a criminal scheme which had been running for years; that you have threatened to harm yourself, and that you could be facing life in prison. You are going to say that you came back, you are trying to right the wrongs you have done, and that you have strong ties to the community. And you need to be free to help the government restore those who have lost funds. That is noble and righteous. Thank you. But who is going to trust you now to make it right? Good luck.

It is going to be a tough call for a judge to decide what to do, and you may be facing some of your last days as a free man. Ever. You gave so much to so many and you could have done so much more but instead you have taken everything away from yourself. Sadly, something you will only come to realize at sentencing, when you are cuffed and walked down that lonely corridor to a federal prison, you are the worst victim of your own fraud. You will suffer more than anyone else. Because you have sold your freedom for some material things that don't last anyway.

The glorious breath of an ocean breeze, the sounds of laughter at a ballpark, the cool air of independence on a ski slope, your own bed, all that you have given up. For what? To sit in a fancy car? Please.

I hardly had an extensive relationship with you Scott, but do you remember our last conversation when you said you were thinking of leaving the home you had just barely moved into on Harbor Isle because Wayne Huizenga had put his up for sale; that maybe you wanted that? And I commented, 'Scott have you forgotten what it is like to just live in a dorm room in college? At the end of the nite, you put your head down on one pillow in one bed, and what else do you need outside of a roof, a partner, and maybe a dog by your side?'

You have given that all up, man. Family. Friends. Your dignity. For what, for what, a brief, foolish roller coaster ride in the sun? That same sun which bronzes also burns. And you have baked yourself but good.

Ten Signs People Are Drooling Excessively over Scott Rothstein

Lust. Licentiousness. Lewdness. Smut. As Tom Lehrer said in a musical piece years ago, we love it. Right now we are oozing in it. Drooling over the Scott Rothstein crash and burn. Like gawkers on a highway we are reveling in every moment. Here are ten indicators of how we are overdoing it.

1. On Browardbeat.com, Buddy Nevins does a feature on how Rothstein owes a back due exterminator bill. The guy allegedly steals a hundred million and we are worried about a bill to the guy who killed ants in his house?

2. Tarnished by his now stained association with Rothstein, and attempting to save his already purloined soul, Roger Stone is pleading to the world that he had everything figured out a year ago. Oh, really? If that was the case Roger, you think not telling anyone about it this whole time makes you look good? Come on man, Nixon is dead, try being honest.

3. Kendall Coffey takes us on a public video tour of Rothstein’s office to show us pictures of his sports paraphernalia. He calls the office atypically ‘suspicious’ and ‘secretive’. Rothstein’s eccentricities were secretive? Please! He flaunted his ostentatiousness more than gay queens on Castro Street, from his bodyguards to his private police force, and everyone knew about it and no one cared, as long as the money kept on flowing.

4. Brian Tannenbaum blogs about how Rothstein once stood him up for lunch. Gosh Brian, I hate to break this to you, but Rothstein stood EVERYONE up for lunch. It was a running joke how many people would show up at the same time at Bova Prime for an appointment ‘to meet Scott’ to only find out he was blowing out birthday candles with Charley Crist and the other boys. Speaking of those boys, maybe Scott will have pictures of Charley Crist with one of them. Bob Norman and I have been looking for them for years. Jason Wetherington, where are you?

Speaking of which, a few weeks ago I did a wimpy and intellectual blog about Scott's war of words with Bob Norman. The Jewish Avenger vs the Tabloid Reporter. And I suggested they could both be right in their arguments and claims. Looks like I was wrong. Only one was, and today everyone is reading his columns at the Pulp. http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/

And perhaps the most illuminating revelation in this cacophony is the one that Steve Geller made a costume shirt for Scott Rothstein because of the 'Jewish Avenger' article. Do you think he sewed it himself? A little take off on that tourist T: " I gave $50,000 to his campaign and all I got was this t-shirt"

5. Bill Scherer says he represents clients who may have lost $500 million in investment funds. Gosh, Bill, if those rich people were so smart, why did those clients not come to read those contracts with you before they blew their money? I am not feeling too much sympathy for people who did not ask for accountings after the ‘Bernie Made Off’ with everything era. Why are smart rich people so stupid?

6. And Bob Norman, the flight plan that Scott Rothstein took back from Morocco is relevant how? Might have been juicier if he took a Ford Bronco. Still, you are the man to go for those who want the know. And nothing was better than the photo-shopped morphed picture of Scott in a purple suit, being carted away in cuffs. If you want to understand really how out there Scott was, he probably has two more suits just like that in his closet.

7. Does the Daily Business Review really consider it newsworthy to note that amongst Scott Rothstein’s real estate deals the Feds might be looking into is the transfer of a dock easement in 2007? Does that include his wife’s ability to pour a Blue Martini? Talk about Johnny come latelys! The DBR is all over this now, but don’t you think if any newspaper in town should have been checking Rothstein out all along it should have been the county’s legal newspaper.

8. I have not met anyone that really does not like Scott. Sure, he came across bombastic and pugnacious, but he was witty, charming, and supportive. So I do not see lots of people lusting for his demise. In fact, I think most people wanted to know why and how Scott was able to pull off what they could not. How did he get into the fast lane and they did not? Like that poster I once saw, ‘I either want less corruption or more a chance to be part of it.’

9. Joel Hirschorn tells the Daily Business Review that the Rothstein debacle is going to be known as the ‘Criminal Defense Lawyers Welfare Relief Act.’ Cute, but I doubt it. Most of the lawyers involved so far are stepping in pro bono to cover the arse of their friends, who by week’s end are essentially out of jobs and paychecks, and have nowhere to turn in a dwindling economy.

10. You know the firm will have a really hard time of surviving when the Receiver asks which lawyer would have the most skill at selling Scott Rothstein’s sports memorabilia on E Bay. He’s got some good stuff there, but I don’t think they allow it in Federal prisons. Ouch! Scotty, my buddy, my lansman, remember Shoeless Joe Jackson and the Black Sox scandal, when a young devastated fan cried out: ‘Say it ain’t so, Joe?”

Say it ain’t so, Scotty;
Say it ain’t so!
No, huh?
Damn.

On a serious note:

In this otherwise lighthearted column can I make an honest plea to all the lawyers that are there to please not forget in the midst of your stress, that you have lots of clients, and you need to call them, email them, or otherwise reach out to them and notify them that their files are okay and their cases are not in jeopardy.

I have to tell you what I find offensive about the media in this lust to sensationalize everything about this story, right up to the DBR piece about the firm's lawyers lawyering up, is the complete lack of the printed word about the hundreds, if not thousands, of clients left in the lurch, and what they are going through.

Mea culpa. I am one of them, on a PI case. Aside from appointing a receiver, I would like Judge Streitfeld to direct the remaining associates to take affirmative steps to insure that the legal rights and interests of all those being served by RRA are continually protected. Could there be in this media frenzy numerous clients are freaking out? Especially hearing that the FBI is seizing files?

Whether or not the firm can survive, individual lawyers have duties and responsibilities as members of the Florida Bar to reach out and ameliorate their clients' concerns, and it should be done proactively by those attorneys.

Update-http://www.abajournal.com/news/rothstein_firm_running_on_fumes_newspaper_says/?from=widget

Suit Against ‘Above the Law’ Blog Dismissed

Damn, I have not even had a chance to write about the lawsuit against the ‘Above the Law Blog’ and it is done and over.

So what’s up then? Last week, a University of Miami law professor arrested but never prosecuted on a charge of trying to solicit an undercover police officer sued the Above the Law blog for its posts on his predicament. But, in a startling development only days later, Donald Marvin Jones then abruptly dismissed the litigation, by posting a terse Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

The suit by the African-American professor claimed the blog portrayed him in a false light, invaded his privacy and infringed the school’s copyright on his faculty photo, the National Law Journal reported last week. The dude was asking for a cool 44 million. I hope that was not for the photo. Here is the complaint (PDF).

The Southern District of Florida suit claimed an October 2007 article about Jones’ arrest "instigated its readers not only to read the post but also to join in what was clearly a viciously racist series of rants.” A later post featured a photographic collage that included Jones’ face on a $20 bill—the amount police claimed he had offered to pay for sex. Since the solicitation charge was later dropped, and Jones’ record was expunged, and he says he was innocent of the charge, he claims libel.

Managing Editor David Lat said it was the only time in its three years of operation that ATL had been sued. The bottom line is that bloggers are growing and pushing the edge of free speech. To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'Not that there is anything wrong with that,' but we need to understand as I have blogged about fifty times now, bloggers are not exempt from defamation litigaton for what we say. We are in our infancy, we are feeling our power, and bloggers are cutting the edge. There is going to be a backlash.

Let me share an anecdote with you. A few weeks ago, one of my cases led to a national brouhaha in the sports blogging universe. I sued the defending World Champion Philadelphia Phillies and their first baseman, slugger Ryan Howard, in order to recover a 200th homerun baseball I felt was wrongfully swindled from a 12 year old girl. Here is the link in case you missed it. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/09/florida.baseball.lawsuit/index.html

Because the story went national, scores of writers blogged about it and me. I can’t begin to tell you the names I was called, many scandalous and libelous. Okay, so some would say truth is a defense, but being called a greedy, scummy, slimeball, dirtbag, by anyone other than the guy I live with is unacceptable. There were a lot of reckless bloggers I could probably legitimately sue. Many just do not grasp what constitutes defamation; what is not fair public comment.

From a legal standpoint, the Plaintiff in the ATL case may not be done. As no answer had yet been filed, he had a right to enter a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and did not need to seek the court's permission. That means, potentially, he can easily refile. There has been no settlement and apparently no discussions with the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Randazza, who publishes the great blog, The Legal Satyricon. So the story may not be over yet.

Here is Mark's comment: 'I’m relieved that Mr. Jones came to his senses. We were prepared to file a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions, and we were confident that both would have been successful. I am consistently unimpressed by academics and anti-speech parties who think that the courts are there for the redress of foolishness, not the legitimate redress of valid legal grievances.'

Woman Allegedly Batters Lover for Being a '10 Second Man'

Ms. Hernandez Didn't Get No Satisfaction

This is from the 'Okay, you can't make this stuff up department.'

Like Jack Webb on Dragnet, Detective Steven Davis from the Broward Sheriff's Office was just reporting the facts.

In this case, he responded to a domestic violence call on 104th Avenue in Tamarac, Broward County, Florida. The day was calm. The sun was out. It was a day like any other.

When he arrived, the detective wrote, he met the victim, one Borzoo Yazdanfar. Keep in mind now ever since the days of the police blotter, probable cause affidavits are public records of reported criminal acts.

Says Detective Davis in his report on this date: " The Defendant, Emily Hernandez-Murphy, did knowingly and intentionally batter her live-in Boyfriend by slapping him numerous times with open hand slaps, further grabbing and twisting his testicles, biting his left forearm, and throwing objects at him, because he failed to perform to her satisfaction during sexual intercourse, as she repeatedly verbally abused him by calling him a '10 second Man.' "

Mr. Yazdanfar said he tried to explain to the Defendant that he was tired after working all nite but she refused to accept his excuse for his 'quick performance.' Mr. Yadanfar's injuries were photographed. And Ms. Murphy went to jail. But really, couldn't they have just worked this one out by themselves, alone in a bedroom? Maybe with some ropes.

In court this morning, Magistrate Jay Hurley disposed of the case in a timely manner consistent with Mr. Yazdanfar's sexual skills, wrapping it up 'quickly' with a $1,000 bond and a stay away order. We suspect Ms. Hernandez Murphy will arrange for her bond later today. We hope so. She turns 20 years old this weekend.

After Court Rules Strippers Are Employees, Dancers File Class Action Against Clubs

In the Broward County legal community, it is almost hard to focus about anything other than the Scott Rothstein debacle right now. It has captured national attention, drawing unfortunate comparisons to Marc Dreier and Bernie Madoff. Not too long ago, though, I remember sharing some time with his Scott's former partner, Stuart Rosenfeldt.

We were at the Floridian on East Las Olas, having lunch, and the topic of strippers came up. Well, in a good way. As you may know, Stuart kind of majors in employment and labor law, and I represent a number of strip clubs. The employment status of strippers is a significant issue in adult clubs. Stuart mentioned how, for some of his own clients, he had recently drafted some unique contracts for dancers, which confirmed their status as independent contractors. I had a similar form which I used for my clients, and we compared our notes.

Obviously, Stuart has other things on his mind today. However, he might get a kick out of what is happening in Vegas this week, and my blog this morning. It seems that the Sapphire Gentlemen's Club in Las Vegas has been hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming that the dancers who entertain in their club are not independent contractors and are in fact, employees entitled to regular wages and overtime.

The suit follows a Nevada Supreme Court ruling last year allowing a similar class-action lawsuit against another topless club to proceed under state law claims. If the lawsuit gets certified as class-action, it could represent 5000+ dancers that have worked at the club over the last two years. Sapphire bills itself as the 'Largest Gentlemen's Club in the world' , is over 70,000 square feet and claims to have 400 dancers in the club every evening.

This suit could impact many of those that have already danced there as well as future performers. If the dancers win, employers could become liable for so many payroll taxes it could bankrupt them. The suit claims that Sapphire has so many rules governing the dancers' working conditions that they don't qualify as independent contractors. Sapphire requires dancers to work a minimum number of hours, stops them from leaving the club during their shift, meeting with customers during off hours or leaving with them while they are on duty. These types of rules are designed to comply with city-enacted morals codes, but they could fly in the face of IRS standards for independent contractors.

California and Florida, South and Central Florida particularly, have many strip clubs, most straight, some gay. I represent both. The bottom line is that straight or gay, the ruling in this Vegas case could have some residual impact here in our community and elsewhere in adult clubs throughout the country. At least it gives Mr. Rosenfeldt something else to think about in these difficult days for his firm.

I do see and I am sure you have now read that a receiver has been appointed and many of the RRA associates are standing by Stuart. It is going to be tough if the bank accounts have been raided and people have not been paid. We can only wish them the best during a challenging time. Hell, business is so bad in this town for so many lawyers already, that if their firm is broke, then they are just catching up to the rest of us :-)

The Rothstein Meteor

Meteors. They move fast. They capture your attention. They flame out quickly though, don't they?

Yesterday, in a day that will live in Broward County legal infamy, Scott Rothstein was sued by his own partner, Stuart Rosenfeldt, and his own law firm, scores of reputable and decent lawyers. Bummer for us. Bummer for them.

The initial allegations, in a surprisingly sketchy and bareboned complaint, are that Rothstein has misappropriated investor funds, in the millions. There is sure more to come. Represented by Kendall Coffey, a former US Attorney, this is the most dramatic right cross to the Broward County legal community since our former Sheriff was indicted. Oh yes, and he now works there at that firm.

The complaint is here: http://static.cbslocal.com/station/wfor/files/rothstein.pdf

It gets worse. The Feds and the FBI are apparently now investigating Rothstein, who hired Mark Nurik, the chief criminal lawyer at RRA to represent himself. When the named and senior partner of a major law firm has to lawyer up, that does not bode well for the firm. Already, other prominent associates have fled the door, seeking to disassociate themselves from their tarnished affilliation.

It gets worse still. The Chief Judge of our district, Victor Tobin, yesterday morning at 6:45 a.m. circulated to all jurists an inadvertently illiterate memo warning everyone that the firm may be filing for bankruptcy immediately, and was seeking the appointment of a receiver. Victor's early morning misspellings was probably due to problems with his wide fingers on a small blackberry. The more important message was for judges to go easy on lawyers from RRA who may not show to court, since they may have to share their desks temporarily with FBI agents.

An abrupt bankruptcy however, and the appointment of a receiver, means that decent secretaries and honorable lawyers are not going to get paid this Friday. This means that there is going to be a frenzied effort by clients to want to know what the hell is going on with their cases, their files, their funds. The Tower of Power is collapsing and it stinks because it makes all lawyers look crooked and bad. As if we needed any help.

The last time I did a blog about Scott Rothstein it dealt with his foolish brouhaha and challenging scuffle with journalist Bob Norman. Rothstein was part bully and part bulldog, declaring petulantly he would sue anyone that dissed him untruthfully in the press. I pointed out that while he had that right if he could prove up libel, it did not look good for him or his firm that a statured partner was presenting himself to the community as a Bronx pugilist. Today, I suspect he has bigger problems.

At the time, I also wrote that Bob Norman is one of Broward County's most preeminent journalists, a bulldog of his own, and his daily blogs expose newsbreaking stories on a more timely basis than any of the daily newspapers. Today, he has one of his biggest stories, and that is before a shred of evidence or a single fact has yet actually been proven up in a court of law about the alleged misconduct of Scott Rothstein. Of course, 'yet' is the operative word. So there will be more to write. Just wait.

While the mainstream media will now jump into the picture, I suspect no one will develop more truthful information about the inner workings of the discombobulating firm in the days and weeks ahead than Bob Norman. He is probably being swamped with emails from a wealth of disappointed and startled lawyers with unique insight into what is unfortunately transpiring. But while some are saying 'I told you so,' and others are chortling with glee, none of this is good or healthy for any of us in the legal community. It makes all lawyers look rotten, and authenticates the wrongful influences and 'culture of corruption' that has permeated this county for so long.

Significantly, it is a culture exposed as much by journalists from the outside than lawyers on the inside. Really, where is Senator Sam Ervin when you need him? What did those lawyers know and when did they know it? Already, Buddy Nevins is listing on his blog the politicians who are rushing to return campaign donations from RRA to a receiver for the firm that has yet to be appointed. Always the rush to integrity after the fact.

What happens to the playbills at 'Broadway Across America' with the firm's name on it as the Fall theater season unfolds? What happens to those ads for charities at the Bank Atlantic Center during intermission at Florida Panther games? What happens to those pledges? the charities? Some people are really going to get hurt here.

In legal circles, we talk about the appearance of impropriety. Today, we are again swimming in a sea of it. To those decent and honorable lawyers at the firm whose names are inappropriately being maligned in the oceans of 'guilt by association,' may you tread from those polluted waters and rise above them. The story everyone is writing about today is a pain intimately most yours.

Stuart Rosenfeldt may have summed up everyone's worst fears about RRA when he told the Sun-Sentinel yesterday that: ""I think we're going to go down in history in the same breath as [Bernie] Madoff." A very sincere and incisive admission from a good man enduring a bad thing.

In this county, regretfully, we have all survived worse, from self-indulgent million dollar parties at the now disbanded Port Commission to drunk Congressman dancing with strippers at nude bars, purportedly investigating the international drug trade. Yes, J. Herbert Burke, we remember you and Doug Danziger, too, the Vice Mayor who hated pornography but loved his prostitutes.

Scott Rothstein is just another story in the Naked City. The list goes on, from the International Gold Bullion Exchange to Mutual Benefits. There are 80,000 more of them. All we have done today is add another name.

AS THIS STORY IS UNFOLDING NATIONALLY AND IS BEING BLOGGED, WRITTEN UP, AND SPOKEN ABOUT BY ANYONE AND EVERYONE, THE BEST WAY TO UPDATE THE STORY IS JUST PUTTING IN SOME MAJOR LINKS TO THE BREAKING STORIES:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/fort-lauderdale/sfl-rothstein-law-firm-b110109,0,4262229.story

ABAJournal.com: “Miami Lawyer Says He Pointed Feds to Rothstein in Claimed $500M Scheme”
ABAJournal.com: "Rothstein Firm Seeks Allegedly Missing $100M to $185M; Is He in Morocco?"
ABAJournal.com: "Rothstein Rosenfeldt Seeks to Dissolve, Says MP Suspected of Wrongdoing Won’t Go"

Fleeing Felon Foiled by Fighting Ferret

I really have no clue how John Mesirow finds these pieces for his blog Legal Juice. But he does, and some are just worth repeating and giving him credit for because you just can't match the master. Here goes this newest item:

It's strange enough that the dude stole a ferret, but even stranger how he got it out of the pet store. By putting it down his pants! Per The Florida Times-Union:

A Jacksonville Beach police arrest report said a 17-year-old saw a man take a ferret from the pet store, stuff it down the front of his pants and walk out of the store. The teen alerted store clerks to the theft, then followed the man to a nearby parking lot on First Avenue North.

Lifting a line from a recent Juice favorite, Zombieland, it was time for the teen to "nut up or shut up." And nut up he did.

The teen tried to retrieve the ferret from the shoplifter, but the man punched him and they both fell to the ground. As they tussled on the ground, the man shoved the ferret in the teen's face and squeezed it.

The ferret, a small domesticated type of weasel, lunged at the teen and bit him, leaving two puncture holes in his ear, the arrest report says. The ferret was not injured.

Well done young man. And what happened to the thief?

... Rodney Bolton, was arrested ... and charged with stealing the $129 ferret from the Pet Supermarket at 609 Beach Blvd. in Jacksonville Beach. He was also charged with battery with a "special weapon," police said.

Too bad the "special weapon" didn't deploy as it was being stolen from the store ...

Understanding Florida’s Hate Crime Law

By Norm Kent

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to introduce Sheriff Al Lamberti at a rally commemorating the life of Craig Cohen, beaten senselessly last April outside the Peter Pan Diner in Oakland Park, Florida.

Not too long after Craig, 47, was attacked, so too was another young man, David Villanova. There was no rhyme or reason to either assault or beating; just another one of those shocking things we come home to at nite and turn our television on to see.

This assault frustrated the Sheriff and law enforcement. Because both men were gay, there was reasonable speculation that a youth gang was targeting gay men. If that could be established, the attack would be a ‘hate crime.’ But what exactly is a hate crime and how is it different from any other crime? Surprisingly, lots of people still do not know.

Hate crimes, or bias-motivated crimes, are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his or her race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, ethnicity, or national origin. Not surprisingly, in Florida, for a long time, African Americans have been primary targets. Since 9-11, nationally, Muslims have been increasingly victimized. But for the gay community, when it comes to hate crimes, we have always been the ‘chosen people.’

The most important thing to understand about a crime based on hate is that, if proven, it enhances or increases the penalties for the assailant. That is no small thing, because it can take a simple assault, which is a misdemeanor, and raise it to the level of a third degree felony.

Craig Cohen suffered many months in the hospital after his attack, but now he has died from the injuries. The suspects could be charged with premeditated murder, and may face the death penalty. There is no greater penalty, so that the offense might be a hate crime is inconsequential to those so charged. They already face the maximum penalty.

Since both David and Craig were attacked suddenly from behind, and could not offer detectives any evidence of what the assailants said prior to striking them, there was insufficient evidence to prove up a hate crime by their words.

The next best thing for detectives is to interview the attackers and see if they confess to their intentions. If it was proven that a group of attackers were sitting around in a room and had conspired to go out “and get them some fags,” law enforcement would have the necessary predicate to raise the offense from an aggravated battery where the guys would be facing up to 15 years to a first degree felony where they would be facing life.

Before interviewing the assailants, detectives may have suspected it was a hate based attack on both victims. But preliminary information released to the lawyers of the accused has now suggested that the sexual preference of the victims didn’t factor in when their attackers were planning or committing the crimes. They were just vicious human beings looking to rob someone they found defenseless. To charge the defendants with a hate crime then would subject the count to a motion to dismiss by a seasoned and skilled defense attorney.

The third way of prosecuting the case as a hate crime would be if independent witnesses heard something during the event that proved up the intent and bias of the assailants. A fourth way is if one of the accused turned on the others and said, “yeah, we planned it for the Peter Pan Diner because we knew we would get an easy gay target.” Neither of those circumstances has panned out in this case thus far.

Consequently, even if BSO had the best of intentions, the information they turned over to the State Attorney’s office is insufficient as a matter of law to charge a hate crime penalty enhancement. As to Craig Cohen, it will not matter anymore. Murder is murder and you face the harshest penalty. Where it would matter is if one of the other assailants, who simply watched or witnessed the attack, and did nothing, were charged. Under that circumstance, then a hate crime would boost their potential sentence.

Accordingly, if you are ever unfortunate enough to be exposed to such a tragic circumstance, do your best to keep your wits about you, consciously recording those words or deeds an attacker accosted you with, so that your claim you were the victim of a hate crime will be sustained as a matter of law. Sadly, both as to David and Craig, the swift and sudden assaults, and the grave injuries to each party, prevent the State of Florida from establishing a hate crime so far. That may stink, but that's the law.

Thus, we need not blame the sheriff or the state attorney. Instead, let us blame the culprits for their inexcusable hate. Let us light a candle and remind ourselves that though Craig may not have been targeted because he was gay, many of your brothers and sisters are still, from South Florida’s shores to California’s coasts.

We can pass laws that give us equal rights, but to tame the violence against gays and lesbians everywhere, we must also win the hearts and minds of all Americans to respect us as equally as the laws now provide for.

Broward Hate Crimes Lead the State

Long overdue, President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Act into law this week.

As it affects Broward, consider that Broward County’s law enforcement agencies reported the largest amount of hate crimes in Florida in 2008.

According to the Office of The Florida Attorney General Hate Crimes in Florida Annual Report, 25 hate crimes were reported in Broward County while Miami-Dade and Palm Beach Counties tied for the second most hate crimes with 18 each. 11 of Miami-Dade’s hate crimes occurred in Miami Beach.

Nine of Broward’s hate crimes were based on sexual orientation with seven classified as assaults against people and two were destruction of property. Miami-Dade County had four crimes based on sexual orientation and Palm Beach County had three.

“It’s a double-edged sword for us because no one likes to be the number one county for hate crimes, but on the other hand we have been telling people for over a year to report these crimes,” said Broward Sheriff’s Office Hate Crimes Anti-Bias Task Force Chief Richard Wierzbicki. “Our county also had the most number of agencies reporting. It says something about us doing it right in Broward and willing to accept reports from victims.”

Only 72 law enforcement agencies, out of the 415 statewide, reported 182 total hate crimes in 2008, and 12 of those agencies were in Broward County. Statewide data showed that 35 of the hate crimes were based on sexual orientation, about 20 percent of the total hate crimes.

The number of overall hate crimes reported in 2008 was also low. This is the 17th year the hate crimes report was commissioned, and the second lowest total of statewide hate crimes reported during that time period. Data tables also show a more than 30 percent drop from two years ago.

“We are highly encouraged that the number of hate crimes have decreased and think it is an excellent sign for the future,” said Office of the Florida Attorney General Information Specialist Shannon Knowles.Since 1990, Florida’s agencies have reported 5,084 hate crimes.

The Attorney General’s Office of Civil Rights, which compiles the report, also conducts hate crimes training for law enforcement throughout Florida and has developed programs for elementary, middle and high school students to teach them how to recognize hate crimes, how the law protects victims of hate crimes, and how such crimes affect Florida communities.

The goal of training and enlightenment is prejudice reduction. The goal of prejudice reduction is to tame the tides of violence against persons because of who and what they are. The truth be told, all crime is hate crime. It is an act of social violence against an otherwise innocent fellow citizen. But hate crimes reveal an invidious discriminatory bent that needs a strong cross-check. So task forces in these regards, such as those set up by BSO, or contemplated by the AG, should be applauded. They are steps in the right direction.

Commander Wierzbicki had it right when he stated "breaking the cycle of hate among the youth in communities is the way to prevent hate crimes from happening."

Ben Kuehne Wins Appellate Claim on Money Laundering Counts

I suspect one issue every criminal defense attorney will blog on this week is the decision on Ben Kuehne.

Here it is in full:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200910199.pdf

The federal appeals panel sided with Kuehne, who was accused of a crime for giving advice to attorneys for an accused Medellin cocaine cartel kingpin.

The Atlanta-based panel's ruling was a blow to the U.S. Justice Department, as the case tests whether federal prosecutors could charge a defense lawyer with money laundering under anti-drug laws that target profits from trafficking.

The ruling found that a lower court judge was "eminently correct" to dismiss the unprecedented indictment against Kuehne and two others on money laundering charges under the federal statute. It concluded that Kuehne was protected by an exemption in federal money-laundering statutes carved out by Congress for defense attorneys in 1988.

"This is a huge win not just for Ben Kuehne but for criminal defense lawyers," said David O. Markus, a Miami attorney who helped write a friend of the court brief on Kuehne's behalf for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. David publishes his own blog which you can link to.http://sdfla.blogspot.com/

"It sends the message to the government that criminal defendants are entitled to representation and criminal defense lawyers are entitled to represent clients without having this dark cloud hanging over their heads."

Meanwhile, no word on what prosecutors will do with the remaining counts against Kuehne, but he has a broad cross section of support from the best attorneys in South Florida and around the country. Many practitioners are of the belief, this legal blogger included, that the US government went off the deep end on this one.

http://browardlawblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Benedict%20Kuehne

Masturbatory Gesture to Adversary Gets Texas Lawyer 90 Days for Contempt

Adam Reposa simulated masturbation in court

A young and up front Texas lawyer, who made a masturbatory gesture to a male prosecutor in front of a female judge after disregarding the jurist’s instruction to conduct himself more professionally was found guilty of direct criminal contempt and sentenced to 90 days in jail. Yesterday, an appellate court issued a detailed opinion upholding the sentence. It is available in the link below.

When Kayo Morgan was suspended for 91 days for bringing his monkey to court or telling a judge to go make love to one, I thought the penalties were ludicrous and harsh.

When Sean Conway stood up to Judge Aleman’s intransigent posture of setting cases too swiftly I thought his sanction for publishing words on the Internet was ludicrous. Essentially, I do believe that zealous advocacy requires the litigant to stand up to the court, though I think where you draw the fundamental distinction disciplinarily is whether the attacks are personal or professional.

The advocate has to make his point as a lawyer and not as a crybaby. It’s a simple standard. Are you attempting to advance the cause of your client or just making an ass out of yourself in a courtroom? Are you repeating and restating the same thing time after time after a court has entered its final ruling?

Once you make your record, there is always an appeal. But make your record, point out who the players and witnesses are, what the court is doing that is intolerable, and lay the appropriate legal foundation for a justifiable recusal. Muttering under your breath after the fact is not only not going to help an appellate court; it is more likely to get you held in contempt by the trial court.

In this Texas case, according to the Tex Parte Blog, which opined about the ruling, Reposa unsuccessfully tried to argue that since the gesture was aimed at the county attorney and not the judge- he should escape discipline of the court. So I guess Al Milian, you just can’t give the finger to your adversary, let alone punch him out in a hallway.

The appellate court ruled that Adam Reposa’s gesture was “a purposeful act of disrespect and an affront to the dignity of the court,” even if it wasn’t directed at the judge. As such, it was deemed contumacious conduct that rises to the level of criminal contempt.

Most judges are not used to dealing with contempt. They have problems dealing with it procedurally because in the midst of their anger at the actions of an irresponsible attorney, they inadvertently fail to follow the peculiarly unique guidelines for such a proceeding. There are specific rules to follow. We don't live in that day when Judge Futch could turn to a bailiff and say "just put the son of a bitch in jail.” No, there is an actual procedure, and this case thoughtfully lays it out. Worth a read. Here it is:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OPINIONS/HTMLOPINIONINFO.ASP?OPINIONID=18903

The case talks about the differences between civil and criminal contempt and goes into the specific behavior the court found offensive; what and which evidence was admissible; judicial recusal and more. My gut reaction was and still is that the sentence is disproportionate to the offense, but even that issue was thoughtfully addressed by the Texas Court of Appeals. Though I disagree with their conclusions, I will at least applaud their efforts to reason out an approach to a difficult issue. I think it is a decision worth putting aside and holding onto for future reference.

See also as long as it is online Judge Zloch's opinion on contempt:
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/Web_Blog_Stories/2009/Oct/Contempt.html

Time for a DUI Court in Broward County

by Norm Kent

Here I go again, with one of those moderate and sensible proposals which have led to people calling me too liberal for years. I can live with it. Ideas should be debated robustly.

You see, by this column, I propose our courts initiate a one year project where we adopt a policy of an alternative to incarceration for DUI's. I suggest we mandate that anyone arrested and charged with a DUI be immediately screened for alcoholism within fourteen days of their initial incarceration.

Once released from custody, the accused defendant must be evaluated by skilled clinicians to determine if they are candidates for a DUI court that would be modeled after Felony Drug Court. Correspondingly, as an initial step, one county court judge would be assigned to the DUI court program.

Since our state mandates minimums for the DUI penalties, the proposal would call for courageous intervention by the State Attorney’s office. Instead of a standard adjudication and the minimums after six months, the DUI court should be one year in duration, with supervision and counseling monitored over that period of time. Upon completion of the program successfully, the State would agree to a plea to a reduced charge of reckless driving.

Theoretically, the option to enter the DUI court would be open to all first offenders, but the State could outline certain conditions occurring during the arrest which excluded some individuals from electing the program. A blue ribbon committee of defense attorneys, jurists, and prosecutors would work out these terms. So too would the committee iron out and reach an agreement on which second time offenders would be allowed entry into such a program. The terms can come later, but we should agree on the concept now.

Inclusive of the counseling that would be attendant with a DUI court are programs involving anger management, psychological counseling, and medical treatment, where necessary. There would be an educational component, therapy, and affirmative steps that have historically retarded recidivism. They would be alternatives to incarceration for VOPs too.

Here is what I know after being a lawyer for 30 years: alcoholism is a terrible thing which leads to self-destructiveness and violence. Unfortunately, many of those who abuse alcohol get behind the wheel of a car and become unwilling links to death and destruction. Sometimes they strike out in rage and cause families to suffer. But alcoholism leads to multiple other problems and road rage and lots of bad things. Let us do better things to help tame the problem we know exists.

Intervention for a first time offender may sometimes just not be necessary. But let's find out if it is a precursor to a deeper issue. The DUI may have been committed by some kid at a birthday party who just went off the deep end on a singular nite; some young person who could not control his liquor. The real drunk could pound down twice as many beers and drive better even while impaired. The DUI program is for the real drunk of course, but it is to prevent future drunks too.

We can put the person in jail just as easily I know. We always have. And we still have alcoholism and drunk drivers. But we are all so aware that so many people have drug and alcohol problems. Why do we not have a DUI court? Why do we simply offload and independently contract to others the responsibility? Let probation do this. Let someone else do that. What about in house supervision by the courts and the judiciary?

Historically, we know that drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services into the justice system. We know that alternatives to incarceration reduces recidivism and creates opportunities for offenders to turn around their lives, while actually saving taxpayers’ money.

Therefore, I propose this program be initiated, and the Chief Judge take those steps necessary and proper to get it underway. Won’t cost anyone a dime, and may save the system thousands.

A DUI court component to our justice system is so obvious I do not know why we do not have one already. But ask yourself this as a defense attorney or judge: when we rush through a plea for a DUI how many routinely fulfill the probationary terms with a minimal effort just to get through the six months and move on?

How many times is there legitimate judicial follow-up to reduce recidivism?

I am guessing, to be honest, since the first time pleas do not involve jail time, but straight probation, no lawyers have ever pressed for a DUI court. But maybe we serve our clients better if we give them an opportunity to be supervised longer.

Maybe we serve our society better if we do more than just get the best deal for the moment but work out the best answer to prevent our client from coming to us again, this time as a recidivist offender facing mandatory jail.

The bottom line is a DUI court would serve this community better than straight probation does. We ought to give society and our clients that option. And if it opens up the door to second offenders or reducing the final penalties for first offenders, we can all be for discussing the proposal. And I apologize if someone is already doing this and I just don't know about it.

Anonymous Blogger Sued for Defamation May Be Unmasked

As readers of this blog know, I have steadily written about the unfolding laws of bloggers’ and their rights.

People that host blogs are generally protected by a section of federal statutes which shields them from liability for what others post. It allows for the free dissemination of speech in the Blogosphere. But when those postings are defamatory, a prospective litigant is not without redress. He indeed may sue the blog to disclose the IP address of the alleged defamer. Then, after acquiring the same, the aggrieved party can determine if he wants to sue the author, once tracked down.

It is therefore not surprising to see then that a Tennessee judge has ruled that a husband and wife who operate a halfway house for recovering drug abusers may unmask an anonymous blogger who allegedly defamed them. This usually requires suing the host of the blog. So they did.

The anonymous blogger accused a couple, Donald and Terry Keller Swartz of Old Hickory, Tennessee of committing arson, evading taxes and being drug addicts themselves. That is some serious defamation. They subpoenaed Google to reveal the blogger, and the blogger filed a motion to quash.

Judge Thomas Brothers ruled against the blogger:

“Internet anonymous speech is not entitled to absolute protection,” Brothers wrote in his Oct. 8 opinion (PDF posted by the Citizen Media Law Project). “The free speech of the defendant must therefore be balanced with the reputation and privacy interests of the plaintiffs.”

Brothers applied a five-step standard established in a 2001 New Jersey appellate case, Dendrite International v. Doe. It requires a reasonable attempt to notify the blogger, a reasonable time to respond, identification of allegedly defamatory statements, a substantial showing of proof, and a balancing of First Amendment interests.

Brothers said his decision may be immediately reviewed. What I can tell you is that a new era of American jurisprudence is unfolding, and it is going to require caution and a steadied jurisprudential hand to find the proper blend between free speech and wrongful abuse.

Indecent Exposure Brouhaha Nothing New to Floridians

Equus he is not, but the way Eric Williamson of Virginia tells it to the Washington Post, he might have been making coffee or flipping eggs when a woman and her 7-year-old son walked by his house and saw him, through the window, naked.

He says he never saw them and never knew they'd seen him -- until the police showed up. In a case that gained international attention last week, hitting a nerve for anyone who has ever dashed from the bedroom to the laundry room in the buff, Williamson was charged with indecent exposure.

There are conflicting accounts of what happened Monday morning, but everyone agrees on this: The 29-year-old was naked and home alone, and he could face up to a year in jail.

"I looked straight at the cops and said, 'You're telling me that none of you guys have ever walked across your kitchen or run to the laundry room to get some pants?' " said Williamson, who was handcuffed and taken before a magistrate. "I was treated like an animal. If there was something offensive, would not a knock on the door and heads-up suffice?"

This is nothing new to Floridians. Years ago, in Southwest Florida, a couple making love in a first floor condo next to the community swimming pool was similarly prosecuted. The legal standard is that you have a right to be naked in your own home but that nakedness is compromised by the fact that your shades better be closed because if you are looking out your living room bay windows stark naked and your neighbors can see you its off to the hoosegow.

The legal dispute in the Fairfax case will probably be whether the nude dude intended to be seen. Now I have a roommate who occasionally gets up in the middle of the nite to grab a smoke and walk the dogs, and I swear to God sometimes he forgets that he sleeps naked.

The element of intent is critical in Virginia. It defines indecent exposure as the intentionally obscene display of private parts in a public place or "any place where others are present."

Come on, how many times have you seen your neighbor walk outside on a Sunday morning in a bathrobe and bend down to pick up his newspaper while revealing more than the newsprint? The amazing aspect of this is that the guy is now caught up in this media whirlwind which will play out on blogs and tv newscasts across the globe.

Having blogged last week that California is disallowing nudity on some of its public beaches, this new piece fits right in to that tired American puritanism which still captures our need for lust and lewdness. Nudity is news, whether it is in a public park for a community photograph, or on bicycles for the Nude Bicyclists of America, who I blogged about a few months ago.

Years ago, at a place called the Seminole Health Club, I served as a judge in their annual nudist contest, courtesy of an invitation from long time South Florida icon Pat Mascola, the publisher of Around Town Magazine. Once, in a lifetime far away, after a ten mile swim, I remember coming back into my Coral Springs apartment, looking at myself in a mirror, and saying, "I like my body." That was 35 years ago though. Now I think if somebody saw my body, it would be a crime that shocked the conscience. I am thinking maybe I should have to do community service or pay for their therapy.

I feel kind of sorry for this guy. First of all, this is not the way you want to become famous. Half the community will forever think he is a pervert. He has to hire a lawyer whose best defense is going to be that the evidence would not stand up in court, and he can't even go on Larry King and show everyone what exactly happened.

Matthew Shepard Law Goes Federal

In a move welcomed by gays and lesbians, the US Senate has passed groundbreaking legislation making an assault on an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity a federal crime.

The measure expanding federal hate crimes law was added to a $680 billion defence authorization bill. It now goes to the desk of President Barack Obama who has pledged to sign the measure. President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure.

The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crime law could be used to criminalise conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Holder called Thursday’s 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defence spending bill that included the hate crimes measure “a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence.”

This month Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians.

“Despite the progress we’ve made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open,” he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. “This fight continues now, and I’m here with the simple message:

“I’m here with you in that fight.”

Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

He also has urged Congress to pass laws to recognize same-sex marriages and extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers.

More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or “nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June.

The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data. All crime is hateful, but some more hate-specific than others. The law is welcome and overdue.

Minnesota Court Rules Bong Water Counts as Illegal Drug

Michael Phelps- World Famous Bonger

MINNEAPOLIS — In Minnesota, bong water can count as an illegal drug.

That decision from Minnesota’s Supreme Court on Thursday raises the threat of longer sentences for drug smokers in that state who fail to dump the water out of bong, which, in case you do not know, is a type of water pipe often used to smoke herb.

The court said a person can be prosecuted for a first-degree drug crime for 25 grams or more of bong water that tests positive for a controlled substance. Lower courts had held that bong water is drug paraphernalia. Possession of that is a misdemeanor crime. This is why I went to law school. This is why you can become a judge. So you can spend your evenings deciding if the water in a bong is illegal because it is laced with THC.

The case involved a woman whose bong had about 2½ tablespoons of liquid that tested positive for methamphetamine. A narcotics officer had testified that drug users sometimes keep bong water to drink or inject later. So he charged her with surfing in illegal waters. And the courts agreed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33437583 MORE DETAILED PIECE OFF MSNBC

see also

http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=79774040&gid=76141&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Fminneapoliscriminallawyer%2Eliberty-lawyer%2Ecom%2F2009%2F10%2F23%2Fminnesota-court-waters-down-legal-definition-of-illegal-drugs-toilet-water-now-criminal-to-possess%2F&urlhash=C6H4&trk=news_discuss

Nude Sunbathing KO'd in California

Nude sunbathers in California have been asked to cover up. This could affect my retirement. Just as I was heading to the Bay.

Refusing to hear a case brought by a local nudist group, the state’s top court has upheld a ban on nudity at state beaches, including those that have been informally designated as “clothing-optional.”

The court Thursday unanimously denied review of a lower-court ruling upholding a May 2008 decision by State parks director, Ruth Coleman, to allow officers to cite nude sunbathers on a portion of San Onofre State Beach in Orange County where they had previously been undisturbed.

“This is a tremendous setback…” officials of The Naturist Action Committee and Friends of San Onofre Beach said Thursday. “But the battle has not ended.” I expect some stiff competition.

Coleman’s action revoked a policy announced in 1979 by then Parks Director Russell Cahill, who said officers would wait until someone complained before enforcing regulations that forbid public nudity at state parks and beaches. Even Fox news has not said a word.

Under that policy, officers who got a complaint would tell the nudist to put on a swimsuit or leave for the day. Otherwise, they took no action as unclad sunbathers and swimmers congregated in isolated sections of state beaches from San Diego to Eureka.

The latest ruling favoured state officials, who last spring decided to crack down on a more than 20-year tradition of nude sunbathing at the 1,000-foot stretch of beach known as Trail 6. Tradition! So much for Topol.

Despite the new ruling, park rangers won’t be conducting sweeps of beaches up and down the coast looking for lawbreaking nudists, Roy Stearns, spokesman for the Parks and Recreation Department, said Thursday. It also does not apply to private land where nudists congregate, such as a portion of Muir Beach in Marin County.

But park rangers could enforce the ban at traditionally clothing-optional state beaches such as Gray Whale Cove south of Pacifica and Red Rock Beach in Mount Tamalpais State Park.

California may be broke, earthquakes may threaten its citizens, but its beaches will be safe.

The Week's Best Late-Night Jokes

For those that don't know about this feature, it comes courtesy of Daniel Kurtzman at about.com. You can get a subscription to the very funny humor it generates.

"A new study shows that the phrase most often used by President Obama is, 'Let me be clear.' The phrase he uses the least often? 'Let me be specific.'" -Jay Leno

"Federal agents will no longer go after patients taking medical marijuana or their suppliers under the new guidelines by the Obama Administration. President Obama is very smart. He figures if he couldn't appease the left by withdrawing from Iraq or closing Gitmo or appealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' they'll all be too stoned to care." -Jay Leno

"It was smart for them to try this balloon stunt while President Obama's in office. That wouldn't have worked with Bush Administration. Cheney would have shot that balloon down." -Jay Leno

"Did you see what happened to Rush Limbaugh? Hey wanted to buy the St. Louis Rams and they wouldn't let him. He said this was a dream he had, to some day own black people." -Bill Maher

"A new survey found that the average man cries about six times a year. That number would be a lot lower if it weren't for Glenn Beck." -Jimmy Fallon

"The White House is calling for bailed-out executives to get a 90% pay cut. They want their pay cut 90% so it's more in line with the job they're doing. Here's my question: why can't we get this for Congress?" -Jay Leno

"The Dow hit 10,000 this week, everybody! For the first time since the market collapse. And people were so excited, they took to the streets to celebrate, which is easy because so many of them live there." -Bill Maher

"Yesterday in Louisiana, a judge denied an interracial couple a marriage license because he felt, I quote, their children would later suffer in life from being interracial. Like when they become president or win the Masters or get an Oscar." -Jay Leno

"Here's the latest form the Pentagon. The generals are worried that the White House is spreading itself thin by trying to fight a war on two fronts: with Afghanistan and Fox News." -Jay Leno

"Obama is going to send $250 to all of those senior citizens. The bad news is that he's going to send them $10 at a time on their birthday." -Jimmy Fallon

Administration Will End Raids on Marijuana Dispensaries

In what can only be described as major departure in the so-called ‘war on drugs’, the Obama Administration has issued a new three page memo on medical dispensaries.

You can now read the memorandum, signed by Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden, here.

I can only applaud the victory won today by marijuana activists. We can only celebrate the good and just fight anchored by NORML and its founder, Keith Stroup, who engaged this cause decades ago.

You can also share your thoughts with the White House on the administration's decision via NORML's Take Action Center here-mapping out the federal government’s new guidelines for states that have laws protecting medical cannabis patients. It is quite enough to be sick. It was sicker that our own government would further target sick patients.

Last February Attorney General Eric Holder indicated in a press conference that the Obama Administration–which favors physician-recommended access to medical cannabis–would abate from what had been an aggressive law enforcement (and propaganda) campaign against medical access to cannabis. After some delay, and some criticism, from impatient soldiers in the fight, such as me, that day has come. That victory is now won.

There is still much to do but this is one small toke for man, one giant joint for humankind.

Good article entitled 'Tokeville' in Harper's Magazine's October issue, for those so intrigued by this issue.