Notably, pursuant to the memo, “[c]harges should not be filed simply to exert leverage to induce a plea.”

I also note that certain U.S. Attorney Offices and units within DOJ  have developed policies in the post-Booker era requiring defendants entering into plea agreements to forego arguing for Booker-Gall-Kimbrough downward variances. It would seem that the May 19 memo implicitly prohibits any such unvarying policy by a DOJ unit or OUSA. If each individual defendant and case must be examined on a particularized basis, then no DOJ prosecutor should ever tell a defense attorney that ”our policy” prohibits plea agreements that leave defendants free to argue for a downward variance.

Not a sermon. Just an obsession.

If Pellegrini tipped off ACA, what does it mean? For one thing, it helps to explain why Paulson & Co. wasn’t added to the  SEC’s suit based on aider and abettor liability. For another, it will substantially weaken the SEC’s case. If key players at ACA knew that Paulson was going short, it will be virtually impossible for the Government to show that ACA was misled. Even if Goldman misled and intended to mislead ACA as to Paulson’s role, such activity would have been rendered immaterial once ACA in fact learned of Paulson’s role.

Although the Pellegrini revelation, if substantiated, may not theoretically affect the part of the SEC’s suit related to the alleged misleading of investors, ACA’s knowledge of Paulson’s role, along with its participation in the deal, will undoubtedly change the atmospherics of the case.

If only Beltway politicians could understand as well as a child!

In response to complaints of judicial misconduct lodged in August 2007, the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council initiated misconduct proceedings against Judge Edward Nottingham. As additional allegations developed and subsequent misconduct complaints were filed, the Judicial Council expanded the initial misconduct proceedings.

The Judicial Council, through its appointed Special Committees, conducted a thorough and extensive investigation, interviewed many witnesses, considered voluminous documentation, and conducted two hearings. At this critical time in the investigation of these multiple complaints of misconduct, Judge Nottingham has stepped down, effective immediately, as Chief Judge of the District of Colorado, has ceased judicial duties, and has resigned his commission as a United States District Judge effective Wednesday October 29, 2008. The Council will have no further statement until Judge Nottingham’s resignation is effective.

9News, which broke the latest allegations involving Nottingham and a prostitute, has more, including speculation that he could face obstruction of justice charges.

UPDATE: The  US District Court has issued a statement (.pdf) on the resignation, announcing that Judge Wiley Daniel will be the new chief judge in the district.

The latest allegations against Nottingham involve a former prostitute who claims the judge asked her to lie to investigators and not tell them he paid her for sex. Last Friday she filed a written complaint with the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. According to 9NEWS:

The former prostitute claims he initially paid her $300 an hour for sex, but became a VIP member after 25 visits and was then only charged $250 an hour for his weekly sexual visits.

This frequent flier discount was given by the (I’m not making this up) Bada Bing escort agency, where the woman worked in 2003 and 2004. Nottingham’s name also appeared on a list of clients from Denver Players, an alleged prostitution operation raided early this year. The Rocky Mountain News has more.