Category: News Feeds

Rod Rosenstein still believes he’s one of the good guys. In fact, he filed a Declaration saying just that last Friday in FBI agent Peter Strzok’s wrongful termination lawsuit. He had to secretly release his employees’ personal texts in the dead of the night with strict instructions that reporters should attribute them so as to imply that they were leaked by Congress. Because if he hadn’t breached every department norm and thrown his employees under the bus, then surely Lisa Page and Peter Strzok would have been ritually humiliated by congressional Republicans. If you think about it (but not too hard), Rosenstein really did them a big favor.

Yes, that’s really the line they’re going with here.

In fall of 2017, the Mueller investigation was rocked by the news that Page and Strzok, two members of the Mueller team investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, had been having a clandestine affair and sent personal messages critical of Trump during the campaign. Congressional Republicans went ballistic and summoned Rosenstein to answer for himself before the House Judiciary Committee on December 13.

The Justice Department raced to provide the Committee with a complete copy of the pair’s thousands of texts, but they had a list of 375 particularly inflammatory messages that they wanted to get out to the press before the hearing. So late in the evening of December 12 and early the next morning before Rosenstein’s testimony, DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores invited several reporters to view those salacious messages at DOJ headquarters on condition that they not attribute them to the department.

Except Natasha Bertrand, then of Business Insider, published a story about Isgur’s gambit before Rosenstein’s House appearance on the 13th. Several former Justice employees were quoted saying it was highly inappropriate for the DOJ to release evidence during a live investigation.

“It’s appalling behavior by the department,” former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller told Business Insider. “This is an ongoing investigation in which these employees have due-process rights, and the political leadership at DOJ has thrown them to the wolves so Rosenstein can get credit from House Republicans at his hearing today.”

Asked about it by Democrat Hakeem Jeffries at the hearing, Rosenstein defended himself, saying,  “We consulted with the inspector general to determine that he had no objection to releasing the material. If he had, we would not have released it.”

Only that turned out to be … less than accurate. Just two days later, the IG sent a letter in response to a query from House Judiciary Democrats saying that he hadn’t even okayed the release to Congress, much less members of the press.

Sarah Isgur Flores was similarly squirrelly about the text leak, as documents pried loose by the FOIA warriors at CREW demonstrate. Isgur went on the warpath against Thomson Reuters reporter Mark Hosenball, who dared to suggest that DOJ doesn’t make it a regular practice to disclose evidence in the middle of an investigation.

Asked for a response to Page’s complaint that the DOJ threw her to the wolves, subjecting her to a relentless rightwing smear campaign — including simulated orgasms by Donald Trump at his campaign rallies — Rosenstein told the Daily Beast, “Ms. Page received more opprobrium than she deserved for her mistakes, but the Department of Justice is not to blame.”

And in yesterday’s Declaration appended to the Department’s Motion to Dismiss Strzok’s wrongful termination case, he defended himself thusly:

Some congressional members and staff were expected to release them intermittently before, during, and after the hearing, exacerbating the adverse publicity for Mr. Strzok, Ms. Paige, and the Department. The disclosure obviously would adversely affect public confidence in the FBI, but providing the most egregious messages in one package would avoid the additional harm or prolonged selective disclosure and minimize the appearance of the Department concealing information that was embarrassing to the FBI.

Rosenstein also pinky swears that he consulted the Department’s Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer, who verbally advised him on December 12 that releasing Strzok and Page’s messages without the IG’s go-ahead during an active investigation was totally kosher, so Strzok’s Privacy Act suit must fail.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson will  evaluate Peter Strzok’s legal claims. But you don’t need a gavel to see that Rosenstein didn’t exactly cover himself in glory here. Pretending that his motives were purely noble is really just the icing on the cake.

---

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

When Michael Avenatti got arrested in California last week for unspecified violations of his pre-trial release, he was remanded to New York’s MCC, the prison where Jeffrey Epstein may or may not have killed himself.

According to his attorney H. Dean Steward, Avenatti is being held in the same cell where the government held El Chapo pending trial, which is the federal prisons equivalent of “the hole” — a “special administrative measures” area where inmates are cut off from contact with other inmates. Steward is asking the court to direct the Bureau of Prisons to move Avenatti to the general population.

Regardless of your feelings about Avenatti, there isn’t much of an argument for keeping the guy in solitary. Inmate Martin Gottesfeld, housed adjacent to the El Chapo unit, describes the conditions for The Intercept:

The facility itself is trash, with cockroach-infested meal trays and frigid, leaky cells. One inmate resorted to drinking from his toilet when the water was shut off. (Its sister facility across the river is now the subject of public attention, as detainees have been living without heat.)

Not to get conspiratorial, but what honest BOP official looked at Michael Avenatti charged with pilfering from clients and thought, “El Chapo… Avenatti… seems about right.” One of them led a murderous drug cartel and the other might have swiped thousands of dollars he owed to his clients. Totally equivalent!

His former client and alleged victim Stormy Daniels got a bum rap that looked every bit like some a trumped up political charge. Could Avenatti be getting the same treatment from a BOP MAGA-head?

Inside El Chapo’s Confinement: Cockroaches, Frigid Temperatures, Tacos, and a Three-Lieutenant Escort [The Intercept]
Michael Avenatti being held in same cell that housed Joaquín ‘El Chapo’ Guzmán, lawyer says [NBC News]

---

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Generally, if a company is “one of the largest unlawful monopolies ever seen in the United States” undertaking “the most brazen, willful anticompetitive scheme in a generation,” there are some well-worn remedies to make it not that anymore. You can make it pay a whole bunch of money. You can make it stop doing things deemed anticompetitive. You can force it to sell off pieces to make it not a monopoly anymore. If things are really that dire, you can break the company up to break its power. Or you can do a combination of the above.

It took a few weeks to hand out questionnaires and vet hundreds of potential jurors but considering the sturm und drang surrounding the Harvey Weinstein sex-assault case, a jury was picked relatively quickly, queueing things up for testimony to begin Wednesday.

There was a minor kerfuffle when supermodel Gigi Hadid showed up in the venire, but it was a welcome diversion considering there’s nothing more boring for reporters than watching sidebar conferences and days of voir dire.

At one point the action outside was more interesting than inside when a group of black-clad women with red scarves and dark stockings wrapped around their eyes formed a flash mob on the sidewalk, pointing toward the courthouse.

During jury selection, prosecutors protested what they saw as defense systematically striking young white women from the panel. Defense attorneys voiced objections when they learned that a woman author, whom both parties selected, was writing a novel about the relationship between a young woman and a predatory older man. While she stated she was a novelist on her jury questionnaire, she failed to include the subject of her book. The judge, however, refused to unseat her or grant a mistrial.

The makeup of the jury is mostly white males including an Upper East Side businessman, a banking executive and the managing partner of an investment firm. Only two white women were seated, the novelist among them.

Both sides denied they’d struck potential jurors based on race, gender, or age, but that’s always a factor in determining jury makeup. Why? Conventional wisdom has it that everyone relates more to the party that looks like them. Successful professional businessmen (especially older ones) might see Weinstein as “there but for the grace of god, go I.” Whereas, working women who’ve experienced sexual harassment on the job are more likely to sympathize with the complainants.

The judge made clear that the case is “not a referendum” about the #MeToo movement, but by permitting four women not named in the indictment to testify about how they were sexually assaulted by Weinstein (the prosecutor couldn’t charge this in the indictment because of the statute of limitations), the scale is tipped against the former movie mogul. Sure, jurors will be instructed that they can’t consider these witnesses’ testimony to show Weinstein has a criminal propensity to sexually assault women. But jurors are only human. As we saw with the Bill Cosby conviction, there’s strength in numbers.

In this early stage, it appears the prosecution has the wind at their backs.  Weinstein has been vilified globally and the #MeToo movement is widely lauded as a way for women to even the score after having been subjected for decades to sexual harassment at the workplace.

But the case won’t be easy. Although the prosecution has poised, educated, well-spoken female witnesses, defense attorneys will key into every minute inconsistency, the fact that the women didn’t report the abuse for years, and that many stand to gain civil judgments through lawsuits against Weinstein.

There’s also the problem of Detective Nicholas DiGaudio who allegedly told a complainant (now dropped from the indictment) to delete information from her cell phone that would have been favorable to Weinstein. Any witness with whom DiGaudio had interactions before he was kicked off the case will be undermined by that fact.

Defense attorneys will imply through cross-examination that each complainant was a willing accomplice to Weinstein’s advances. They knew he was a powerful man and that being with him could lead to getting better jobs.  In many cases, they continued either working for him or socializing with him even after the alleged criminal acts occurred.

While it’s fair game to question a witness’s motive and credibility, however, it’ll be a tightrope walk for defense attorneys not to alienate jurors by “blaming the victim.”

One thing I’d stake money on -– Weinstein himself will not take the stand. The case is about whether the prosecution can prove its case against him, not whether Weinstein is actually innocent.

The only reason to have Weinstein testify is because he has a reasonable story to tell or to gain some sympathy. Sympathy is out of the question even though he’s using a walker to amble to and from court. The accusations against him are too widely cast in number of victims and time frame. No one will feel sorry for him. Furthermore, it’s unlikely any story he’d tell would counter the detailed versions complainants will give. Because of the number of witnesses scheduled to testify against him, there’s just too much to explain away.

Taking the stand would only shift the burden from whether Weinstein committed these crimes to whether he’s as sleazy a customer as he appears to be. That’s a risk he can’t afford to take.

---

Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.

Happy new year! And happy new installment of Supreme Court Clerk Hiring Watch. My last SCOTUS clerk hiring roundup came out back in June 2019, so there’s tons for us to discuss.

(I don’t feel quite as much pressure to publish these reports now that I tweet the hires in real time, over at @SCOTUSambitions — originally the Twitter feed for my novel, now converted to a clearinghouse for SCOTUS clerk hiring news. These Above the Law write-ups offer color commentary and analysis, but if you just want the hires, follow @SCOTUSambitions.)

We now have a complete clerk roster for October Term 2019 (and we have checked the names for accuracy against the official list released by the Court’s Public Information Office). This means that we now know the identity of the one clerk who was missing from the last roundup: Joseph Masterman (Yale 2016/Thapar (E.D. Ky.)/Kethledge), now clerking for Justice Samuel Alito. Since he was the last clerk we learned about, we will, consistent with tradition, give Joe Masterman a special profile in these pages, as ATL’s “Mr. Irrelevant.”

In some ways, Masterman seems like a typical SCOTUS clerk. He’s a white guy with impeccable credentials: Harvard College and Yale Law School, followed by clerkships with two feeder judges, Judge Raymond Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit and Judge Amul Thapar, then a district judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky (but as you can see on Masterman’s LinkedIn profile, he also clerked for Judge Thapar for a few months on the Sixth Circuit). After his clerkships, Masterman worked at Cooper & Kirk, the elite D.C. litigation boutique that’s a “feeder firm” to the conservative justices, before arriving in the Alito chambers.

But in other ways, Joe Masterman is not your typical SCOTUS clerk. Here are some tidbits we’ve gleaned about him from our sources:

• He was the quarterback of his high school football team — which is “hilarious to anyone who knows him,” and the team was terrible.
• Speaking of hilarity, he’s known for being very, very funny — and he has the credentials to prove it. In college, he was a member of the Harvard Lampoon, the celebrated humor publication whose alumni include Conan O’Brien, Colin Jost, and some two dozen writers for The Simpsons.
• At Yale Law School, Masterman won the moot court competition — along with his moot court partner Zayn Siddique, now clerking for Justice Elena Kagan.
• While at YLS, Masterman served as a speechwriter for then-Dean Robert Post — where he regularly wrote jokes into Dean Post’s remarks, which kept on getting cut.
• Speaking of cuts, for a number of years Masterman “sported an ill-advised mustache — but wisely chose to shave it before starting his clerkship with Judge Kethledge.”

I’m guessing that Masterman is the only Lampoon alumnus among the OT 2019 clerk class — but as reported by the Associated Press, the 16 women and 23 men are an extraordinary group who boast many other distinctions. They include a former Marine who served two tours in Afghanistan (Joseph Falvey — thanks to him for his service); the second blind person to serve as a SCOTUS clerk (Laura Wolk, who had retinal cancer as a child); two Rhodes Scholars (Megan Braun and Mark Jia); a law professor (Mark Storslee, clerking for Justice Neil Gorsuch — who has hired another law prof as a clerk, Stephanie Barclay, for OT 2020); and a true Mr. Irrelevant, James “Matt” Rice, who was picked 1,525th — i.e., dead last — in the 2010 Major League Baseball draft.

Turning to the bigger picture, now that we have the full list of OT 2019 clerks, we can make some demographic observations:

1. Gender. As noted, the class of 39 clerks has 16 women and 23 men, making it 41 percent female — below last term’s figure of 45 percent, but above the historical average since 2005, which hovers around a third.

2. Feeder schools. The mix of schools producing SCOTUS clerks is a bit more diverse and a little less elitist than last term. For OT 2018, the perennial top three schools in the U.S. News rankings — Harvard, Yale, and Stanford — produced 25 out of 37 clerks. For OT 2019, the trio produced only 23 out of 39 clerks, and the third-ranked school for minting clerks was U. Chicago, not Stanford.

For this Term, Yale again led with 11 clerks, followed by Harvard with nine, Chicago with four, California rivals Stanford and Berkeley with three apiece, Notre Dame and Columbia with two each, and five schools — Cornell, Duke, Michigan, NYU, and UVA — claiming a single clerk.

3. Feeder judges. The 39 clerks served, by my count, 47 different judges before coming to the Court — an even higher number than last term’s 41. Recall, of course, that many clerks do at least two lower-court clerkships before arriving at SCOTUS (and one, Breyer clerk Nicholas Rosellini, did three). That figure of 47 includes then-Judge Kavanaugh and then-Judge Gorsuch, but even if you subtract them, you’re left with 45 lower-court judges.

The judges with more than one clerk at the Court for this term are Garland (3), Katzmann (3), Sutton (3), Friedrich (3), Kavanaugh (2), Fletcher (2), Friedland (2), Griffith (2), Katsas (2), Livingston (2), Srinivasan (2), Thapar (2), Wilkinson (2), and Chhabria (2). Excluding Kavanaugh, you’re left with 13 feeder judges, of whom four hail from the D.C. Circuit — down from last term’s six (but that six included then-Judge Kavanaugh). Two are district judges, Judge Friedrich (D.D.C.) and Judge Chhabria (N.D. Cal.). (I’m not counting Judge Thapar, now on the Sixth Circuit, but his two clerks now at the Court both clerked for him when he was a district judge.)

One thing to note on feeder judges: it’s a bit arbitrary to focus on just one term, since the track record of a true feeder judge spans multiple years, and it can be a bit of an accident as to why a clerk ends up in one term or another. For example, sometimes a justice will hire two clerks at or around the same time, but have one clerk start in one term and the other clerk start in the subsequent term.

So if you want to get a better sense of feeding patterns, don’t look at just OT 2019 in isolation. Instead, consider the completed OT 2019 list, the not yet completed OT 2020 list, and the handful of hires already made for OT 2021, also reported below. That changes the picture quite a bit.

For example, consider these three feeders: Judge O’Scannlain (9th Cir.), Judge Furman (S.D.N.Y.), and Judge Oetken (S.D.N.Y.). Judges O’Scannlain and Furman have only one clerk each at the Court in OT 2019, and Judge Oetken has none. But if you look at the three terms in aggregate — OT 2019, OT 2020, and OT 2021 — Judges O’Scannlain and Oetken have a much more impressive three clerks (with the last two terms far from complete), and Judge Furman has a whopping four.

I’ve already given shout-outs to some of the more notable OT 2019 clerks. Here are two OT 2020 clerks who stand out to me as “firsts”:

1. Justice Sotomayor has stated that she seeks to hire clerks “committed to making a contribution to the world.” One of her OT 2020 clerks, who won’t arrive at the Court until the summer, has already broken barriers.

Imelme Umana (Harvard 2018/Wilkins) is the first African-American woman to serve as President of the Harvard Law Review. She’s also the first African American in the role since a certain Barack Obama, almost three decades ago.

2. Joshua Revesz (Yale 2017/Garland) will be clerking for Justice Kagan in OT 2020. If his distinctive surname rings a bell, perhaps you’ve heard of his famous father: Professor Richard “Ricky” Revesz, former Dean of NYU Law School, and a former Supreme Court clerk (Marshall/OT 1984).

What makes Josh Revesz a possible first? Consider his similarly high-powered mother, Professor Vicki Been, currently serving as Deputy Mayor of Housing and Economic Development for New York City — and also a former SCOTUS clerk (Blackmun/OT 1984).

Upon information and belief — I posed this question to #appellatetwitter, and nobody could give me an earlier example — Josh Revesz is the first child of two SCOTUS clerks to go on to clerk for the Court himself. There have been many parent-child SCOTUS clerks over the years — for examples, see Tony Mauro’s list of father-daughter SCOTUS clerk pairings — but I’m not aware of a SCOTUS clerk who can claim this divine DNA on both sides.

I did, however, predict this would come to pass, in a 2004 post at my very first blog, Underneath Their Robes (“UTR”). Commenting on the Times wedding announcement of two Supreme Court clerks, I wrote: “Was that the announcement for a wedding, or for a legal professional eugenics experiment gone mad? Such is the way of the world. … [L]egal geniuses marry each other — and produce brilliant babies. The Elect [UTR-speak for SCOTUS clerks], like Ptolemaic rulers, marry one another, so as not to dilute their bloodlines. Their weddings are presided over by fellow members of the Elect. And a generation later, their offspring will join the ranks of the Elect themselves, heading off to clerk at the Court, where they will in turn meet the loves of their lives, beginning the cycle anew …”

Whoops, sorry, I got lost in reverie! Back to reality.

Here are the SCOTUS clerk lists for OT 2019 and OT 2020, plus a few hires for OT 2021 (not yet in list form, but I’ll put them in list form once I have a critical mass). Again, remember to follow @SCOTUSambitions for real-time hiring updates (or fairly real-time updates; I don’t tweet anything until I’ve confirmed it upon good authority).

If you have any corrections to this information, or if you have any hiring news I have not yet reported, please reach out by email or text (917-397-2751). Please include the words “SCOTUS Clerk Hiring” in your email or text message, perhaps as the subject line of your email or the first words of your text, because that’s how I locate these tips in my overwhelmed inbox. Thanks!

OCTOBER TERM 2019 SUPREME COURT CLERK HIRES (as of January 21, 2020)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
1. Zaki Anwar (Harvard 2017/Sutton/Srinivasan)
2. David Beylik (Harvard 2018/Kavanaugh/Friedrich (D.D.C.))
3. Megan Braun (Yale 2016/Brinkema (E.D. Va.)/Katzmann/Bristow Fellow)
4. Joseph Falvey (Yale 2017/D. Friedrich (D.D.C.)/Griffith)

Justice Clarence Thomas
1. Caroline Cook (Chicago 2016/ Sykes/Katsas)
2. Brian Lipshutz (Yale 2015/W. Pryor/Katsas)
3. Matt Rice (Berkeley 2016/Ikuta)
4. Laura Wolk (Notre Dame 2016/J.R. Brown/Hardiman)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1. Alyssa Barnard-Yanni (Columbia 2015 / Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) / Katzmann)
2. Marco Basile (Harvard 2015 / Watford / Barron)
3. Susan Pelletier (Harvard 2016 / Garland)
4. Michael Qian (Stanford 2016 / Garland / Bristow Fellow)

Justice Stephen G. Breyer
1. Celia Choy (Yale 2012/Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.)/Katzmann)
2. Dahlia Mignouna (Yale 2016/Srinivasan)
3. Nicholas Rosellini (Stanford 2016/C. Breyer (N.D. Cal.)/Friedland/Cuellar (Cal.))
4. Eugene Sokoloff (Yale 2012/Sack)

Justice Samuel Alito
1. Hunter Bruton (Duke 2016/A. Duncan/Huvelle (D.D.C.)/Bristow Fellow)
2. Richard Cleary (Columbia 2015/Livingston/Leon (D.D.C.))
3. Jessica Wagner (UVA 2014/O’Scannlain/J. Smith)
4. Joseph Masterman (Yale 2016/Thapar (then-E.D. Ky.)/Kethledge)

Justice Sonia Sotomayor
1. Siobhan Atkins (NYU 2014/Furman (S.D.N.Y.)/Lohier)
2. Nick Crown (Yale 2016/Ellis (E.D. Va.)/Higginson)
3. Jodie Liu (Harvard 2015/Livingston/Millett)
4. Anuradha Sivaram (Berkeley 2014/Thapar (then-E.D. Ky.)/Kozinski)

Justice Elena Kagan
1. Jordan Bock (Berkeley 2017/Friedland/Chhabria (N.D. Cal.))
2. Alex Miller (Harvard 2017/Moss (D.D.C.)/Griffith)
3. Mica Moore (Chicago 2017/W. Fletcher/Chhabria (N.D. Cal.))
4. Zayn Siddique (Yale 2016/D. Pregerson (C.D. Cal.)/Tatel)

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
1. Michael Francisco (Cornell 2007/Tymkovich)
2. Kelly Holt (Chicago 2017/Wilkinson)
3. Kurt Johnson (Michigan 2015/Wilkinson)
4. Stephen Yelderman (Chicago 2010/Gorsuch)

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
1. Audrey Beck (Notre Dame 2017/Larsen/Sutton)
2. Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld (Yale 2018/Grant)
3. Trenton Van Oss (Harvard 2017/Friedrich (D.D.C.)/Grant)
4. James Xi (Stanford 2017/Sutton)

Justice John Paul Stevens (retired/deceased)
1. Michael Knapp (Harvard 2016/Gleason (D. Alaska)/Garland)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (retired):
1. Clayton Kozinski (Yale 2017/Kavanaugh)

Justice David H. Souter (retired):
1. Mark Jia (Harvard 2016/W. Fletcher)

---

OCTOBER TERM 2020 SUPREME COURT CLERK HIRES (as of January 21, 2020)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts
1. Leslie Arffa (Yale 2018/Livingston/Boasberg (D.D.C.))
2. Patrick Fuster (Chicago 2018/Watford/Chhabria (N.D. Cal.))
3. Benjamin Gifford (Harvard 2017/Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) /Katzmann)
4. Stephen Hammer (Harvard 2018/Sutton/Katsas)

Justice Clarence Thomas
1. Phil Cooper (Chicago 2017/W. Pryor/Stras)
2. Jack Millman (NYU 2016/O’Scannlain/E. Carnes)
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1. Jack Boeglin (Yale 2016/Srinivasan/Calabresi)
2. Eliza Lehner (Yale 2017/Watford/Furman (S.D.N.Y.))
3. David Louk (Yale 2015/Boasberg (D.D.C.)/Katzmann)
4. ?

Justice Stephen G. Breyer
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Hired by Justice Breyer for OT 2021: Elizabeth Deutsch (Yale 2016/Pillard/Oetken (S.D.N.Y.))

Justice Samuel Alito
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor
1. Greg Cui (Yale 2017/Fletcher/Furman (S.D.N.Y.))
2. Kristen Loveland (NYU 2016/Furman (S.D.N.Y.)/Lohier)
3. Imelme Umana (Harvard 2018/Wilkins)
4. Sarah Weiner (Yale 2017/Tatel/Oetken (S.D.N.Y.))

Justice Elena Kagan
1. Peter Davis (Stanford 2017/Srinivasan/Boasberg (D.D.C.))
2. Madeleine Joseph (Harvard 2018/S. Lynch/Howell (D.D.C.))
3. Isaac Park (Harvard 2018/Srinivasan/Oetken (S.D.N.Y.)
4. Joshua Revesz (Yale 2017/Garland)

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
1. Trevor Ezell (Stanford 2017/Sutton/Oldham)
2. John Ramer (Michigan 2017/Kethledge/Bristow)
3. Mark Storslee (Stanford 2015/O’Scannlain)
4. ?

Hired by Justice Gorsuch for OT 2021: Stephanie Barclay (BYU 2011/N.R. Smith) and Louis Capozzi (Penn 2019/Scirica/Wilkinson).

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
1. Harry Graver (Harvard 2019/Wilkinson)
2. Tyler Infinger (NYU 2016/Rao)
3. Zoe Jacoby (Yale 2019/Barrett)
4. Megan McGlynn (Yale 2017/W. Pryor/Friedrich (D.D.C.))

Hired by Justice Kavanaugh for OT 2021: Athie Livas (Yale 2019/Thapar/Friedrich (D.D.C.)).

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (retired):
1. ?

Justice David H. Souter (retired):
1. ?

Once again, do you know about a hire not previously reported, or do you have an addition or correction to any of this info? Please share what you know by email or text (917-397-2751). Please include the words “SCOTUS Clerk Hiring” in your email or text message, as the subject line of your email or the first words of your text, because that’s how I locate these tips in my inundated inbox. Thanks!

Earlier:

---

David Lat, the founding editor of Above the Law, is a writer, speaker, and legal recruiter at Lateral Link, where he is a managing director in the New York office. David’s book, Supreme Ambitions: A Novel (2014), was described by the New York Times as “the most buzzed-about novel of the year” among legal elites. David previously worked as a federal prosecutor, a litigation associate at Wachtell Lipton, and a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. You can connect with David on Twitter (@DavidLat), LinkedIn, and Facebook, and you can reach him by email at dlat@laterallink.com.

Some of my favorite assignments as a young associate related to anti-counterfeiting work. I was employed by a firm (Greenberg Traurig) that had (and continues to have) a robust anti-counterfeiting practice, which meant that I would sometimes be asked to join a litigation team as another set of hands on an anti-counterfeiting matter. To someone who was primarily staffed on patent cases, there was a whiff of the exotic on the anti-counterfeiting front, with its cases involving brand name (literally) clients, international intrigue, private investigators, and, on occasion, physical raids of warehouses. The latter component was most exciting, whereby together with law enforcement and other lawyers on the team, we would enter a warehouse housing counterfeit goods — brandishing our court orders and seizing computers, files, and, when present, the goods themselves. Exhilarating work, with the added benefit of helping to chop yet another head off the hydra of international criminal elements that are behind most of the counterfeiting that continues to plague brand owners and unsuspecting customers worldwide.

For all the visceral excitement of a raid, or even obtaining a TRO and seizure order in advance of one, a significant amount of investigative work was the necessary foundation for any successful anti-counterfeiting project. From working with the brand owners and private investigators to get evidence of the infringing products’ manufacture, transport, and sale, to poring over seized financial documents and shipping manifests — anti-counterfeiting work was a collaborative, as well as expensive,  time-consuming endeavor. The cost considerations were significant, which led to a roster of clients mostly composed of large, multinational brands, despite the fact that counterfeit goods were (and continue to be) a problem that did not discriminate based on brand size.

With the perspective of some distance from my limited (but fondly remembered) time in the trenches on the anti-counterfeiting front, I realized that I retained an interest in that type of work. Thankfully, the rise of Amazon and other e-commerce marketplaces have made the global local for U.S. customers, which has led to a recent rise in anti-counterfeiting type work for our firm on those platforms. At the same time, I know that brands of all stripes continue to deal with counterfeiting on a global scale, despite the increasing awareness worldwide that strict legal treatment of counterfeiters is a necessary corrective to a problem that has run amok. Even the Chinese, long the source of (brazen) counterfeiting issues for brands, have at least started to pay lip service to reining in the problem. But the issue primarily remains one for IP counsel and brand owners to confront, often in the face of great expense and uncertainty about whether those efforts are having an impact beyond the immediate results of a particular case.

While challenges remain, I was interested in seeing what legal approaches are finding favor in terms of addressing counterfeiting. To that end, I was fortunate to have assistance from Rachel Bailey, a former trademark litigator and legal data expert at Lex Machina, who was very helpful in providing me with data from Lex Machina’s robust databases about a particular subset of anti-counterfeiting actions — mass counterfeiting cases. Lex Machina defines those types of cases as ones that “allege counterfeiting and meet one of the following criteria: 1) there are 20 or more defendants, 2) the case has only anonymous Doe defendants, or 3) the defendants are listed on an attached schedule.” WIth that definition in mind, let’s look at the data. First, filings in such cases have increased significantly over the past decade. 2019 was a banner year, with over 400 cases filed, a significant percentage of the nearly 2,000 mass counterfeiting cases filed over the course of the decade.

It seems safe to assume that these cases have been at least marginally successful for filers, considering the increased uptake of this type of legal proceeding. Indeed, Lex Machina’s data shows almost 80% of the filed cases resolved either with a default judgment against the counterfeiters (69%) or a voluntary dismissal (11%), suggesting settlement. Again, it makes sense that opportunistic counterfeiters would choose to close up shop rather than fight, considering their extremely limited set of viable legal positions in civil cases. At the same time, the data on the most prolific filers of mass counterfeiting cases continues to suggest that it is a game for the wealthy to play, with the roster composed of luxury brands like Chanel and Louis Vuitton, as well as mass-market brands like Deckers and Oakley, to name four of the top five filers.

Who represents them? The mix of firms bringing these types of cases includes small firms, some Biglaw firms, and even some solo practitioners — evidence that this is a niche practice area. It is also understandable, of course, that a brand that commits to pursuing this type of case would lean toward using a firm with experience in the area.

What about remedies? Interestingly, Lex Machina’s data suggests that most of these cases result in damages awards of between $50,000 and $1 million per defendant. Considering that many of those awards are on default, however, it is not very clear how much a plaintiff could expect to win in the unlikely event that one of these types of cases was contested through trial, for example. Also interesting, but not surprising considering how important e-commerce has become, is that cybersquatting claims arise in many of the filed mass counterfeiting cases, suggesting that the brand owners also hope to have infringing domains either shut down or transferred as part of their filing objectives.

Ultimately, it is important for IP litigators to at least have a passing familiarity with the different types of IP cases that are being filed around the country. Thanks to the data available from Lex Machina and others, it is easier than ever to quickly get a snapshot of litigation activity across the IP spectrum. With that data in hand, it is easy to extract lessons that are of potential use to our clients. Here, any IP lawyer that represents a brand suffering from counterfeiting would do well to consider how the rise of mass counterfeiting cases may present them and their clients with yet another avenue for legal redress. Because the anti-counterfeiting whack-a-mole promises to continue, it is best to have as many mallets in hand as possible. If you want to win for your clients, at least.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique, and Markman Advisors LLC, a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

* Litigation formerly known has the wrongful death case involving Prince has been resolved. [Marin Independent Journal]

* A Syracuse man has been freed from jail eight months after he gave a false confession to the police. [Syracuse.com]

* A New York jurist is in hot water after calling a lawyer’s clients “pig-headed Greeks.” [New York Post]

* An NAACP attorney is accusing Amtrak of wrongdoing after a conductor forced her to relinquish her seat on an Amtrak train. [The Root]

* U.S. Marshalls have transported Michael Avenatti to New York by private jet ahead of his upcoming criminal trial. At least he’s travelling in style. [Los Angeles Times]

---

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

It is believed to be the first security organisation in Zimbabwe to offer internationally qualified
close protection personnel for this service.

While Zimbabwe is a relatively safe country compared to many others, high profile business
people, politicians and diplomats from other countries may often feel anxious about their
security, given the image projected of the country in foreign media.

This may make them reluctant to visit the country unless they can be assured of their safety.
This is what Safeguard’s new closed security unit is designed to offer them.

Safeguard’s Close Protection Unit officers have all obtained specialist international training in
close protection and achieved the Enhanced FPOS Intermediate Skills (Level Three Medic) and
HABC Close Protection Operators International Level Three certificates.

Their training included journey management, executive protection and executive support. It also
involved advanced driving skills, weapon handling, searching of buildings and people, and how
to deal with the psychology of different people, as well as an introduction to kidnapping and
extortion and how to deal with these.

The close protection teams are responsible for protecting either an individual or a group of
individuals from any danger, including theft, assault, harassment, physical harm or kidnapping.
“In any operation, our teams first undertake risk assessments and come up with a risk profile for
the person or persons they are assigned to protect,” said Safeguard Security group training
manager Iain Henson.

“The risk profile will help us to determine the level of support required for each job. At this
stage of planning we work with the client, making recommendations where necessary, prior to
confirming a plan” he said.

“Thereafter, our teams conduct visits and risk assessments of all locations to be visited by the
client, thereafter firming up the routes being used and finally add this information to the final
plan.,” Mr Henson said.

Additionally, Mr Henson said, Safeguard Security is able to provide close protection services
across borders in instances where the VIP has international business to attend to in other
countries.

Post published in: Featured

Here are some great summer dinner ideas that are will make you feel as though you’ve just won an online casino jackpot prize. they’re fast, easy-to-prepare, require a few basic ingredients and are super healthy!

Pasta Salad with Pesto

This one is almost too easy to be true. You need pesto, pasta and….that’s it.

First, make your pesto.  It’s definitely suggested that you prepare you own because that way, you’ll be sure that the oil is olive oil, not any other type of vegetable oil which diminishes the taste.  Blend your chosen pesto vegetable (roasted red peppers, basil, parsley, broccoli, spinach or any other type of green that you may prefer) with pine nuts (you can also use walnuts), salt and good olive oil.

Mix in with cooked pasta.  You can add grated cheese to the pasta directly or sprinkle it on afterward.

Pair with some nice crusty bread and cut up vegetables and your dinner is an assured success.  (if you have picky eaters, you can leave some pasta on the side and let the fussy ones mix it with cottage cheese or some other mild tasting preference.)

Tuna Salad

Another easy salad that can be whipped up in a matter of minutes.  Mix 2 cans of tuna (or as many as you need) with canned corn, diced tomatos and olive slices.  No need for mayo – eat with some good bread or whole wheat crackers with sliced vegetables on the side.

Noodle Pudding

This sweet pudding does require a ½ hour in the oven but the preparation is simple and quick and it provides a complete meal in one pan.

You’ll need to cook ½ package of broad noodles (250 grams) until they are soft.  Then, mix them with 1 kilo of cottage cheese, ½ cup milk, 4 eggs, ¼ cup brown sugar, 1 tsp cinnamon, pinch of salt and 1 cup of raisins.

Put in a pan and bake in a medium oven for about half an hour.

Gazpacho

The nice thing about Gazpacho soup is that you can pair it with just about anything for a refreshing cold soup on a hot summer evening.  You won’t want to attempt this recipe without a food processor but if you have even a simple food processor, you’re good to go.

Cut into chunks:

• About 4 large tomatos
• 1 small onlin
• A small cucumber
• 1 medium red pepper (cored, peeled and seeded)

Pulse in a food processor together. Then add

• ¼ cup fresh basil leaves, plus extra for garnish
• 2 Tbsp red wine vinegar
• 1 large garlic clove (more if you like a garlicky taste)
• 1 tsp sale (best is sea salt)
• Black pepper to taste

Add ¼ cup olive oil and blend together. Garnish with basil leaves and serve with a nice crusty bread.  If you want to make the gazpacho into a meal of its own, melt some cheese on the bread for a nice cheesy toast or add garbanzo beans or some other type of dry bean to the soup.

Fruit

During the hot days of summer, sometimes you just want some cool and refreshing fruit.  You can turn your melons, berries and other fruit fancies into an evening meal.

For a great fruit salad/supper, cut up chunks of your favorite summer fruit and  serve it alongside cottage cheese or even salty white cheese. Filling, healthy and delicious!

Alternately, you can make a fruit juice or a shake.  Add the fruit to a blender mix.  Then you can add yogurt and ground walnuts or almonds to boost the nutritional value.  Pair it with rice crackers and you’ve got a hit for the whole family.

Salmon

The nice thing about salmon is that it goes with just about anything and can be prepared with a minimum of fuss and bother in 20 minutes.  Salmon goes well with almost any herb or sauce and can be served as a simple meal or presented elegantly.

One of the easiest ways to prepare salmon is to brush it with olive oil that’s been mixed with salt.  Then sprinkle any herbs that you have, either dry or fresh – chives, parsley, basil, oregano, tarragon, thyme or others.  Bake at a medium temperature for about 20 minutes.  If it’s a large fish, it may need a bit more time.  Serve with potatos, rice, sweet potatos or any other easy side dish.

Pesto Pizza

If you want to try a pizza that deviates from the traditional tomato-sauce/cheese/toppings pizza, try serving some pesto pizza for a meal with pizazz.  Brush pita bread with pesto and then lay on the toppings.  Be creative – cheese is a standard but you can add slices of tomatos, red pepper, olives, mushrooms, pineapple, tuna fish and other types of extras.

If you cut the pita into quarters you’ll make it easy for even the youngest members of the family to pick up pieces and enjoy the meal.

Healthy Muffins

One of the biggest advantages of muffins is that you can prepare them ahead of time and then put them out as needed.  They can be prepared ahead of time and stored for a day in a plastic bag or frozen if you want to have them to serve a few days from their preparation time.

One of the other benefits of muffins is that you can add fruit and vegetables to them to boost their nutritional value with little change in taste.

A popular basic muffin recipe is

• 1 ¾ whole wheat flour
• 1/3 cup coconut oil (preferred) or other vegetable oil
• 2/3 c buttermilk (can also use regular milk with 2 tsps vinegar mixed in)
• 2 eggs
• ½ cup honey (brown sugar is also OK)
• ¾ c chopped almonds, walnuts or pecans
• 1 tsp cinnamon
• 1 tsp baking powder
• ½ tsp salt
• ½ tsp baking soda
• ¼ tsp nutmeg
• ¼ tsp. allspice
• 2 tsp vanilla extract

Now you can add in grated carrots, zucchini, apples or any other addition.

Pour into cupcake tins and bake for 20 minutes in a medium oven.

Post published in: Featured