Thursday, April 03, 2025

Editorial: Punishing free speech erodes principles that make our country great. (Orlando Sentinel & Virginia Pilot editorial, April 3, 2025)

Our Secretary of State MARCO ANTONIO RUBIO sounds ignorant.  Our Founding Fathers made the First Amendment the first amendment for a reason.  

I agree with the Orlando Sentinel and Virginia Pilot: 


Editorial: Punishing free speech erodes principles that make our country great. 

Orlando Sentinel & Virginia Pilot editorial, April 3, 2025)

Have the protections enshrined in the First Amendment been supplanted by the dictates of the administration?

What may have been a hyperbolic question only two months ago is now frighteningly serious, as federal authorities have arrested and threatened to deport hundreds of legal residents in recent weeks. The White House claims it is acting in the interest of public safety, but authorities have not charged these individuals with crimes or provided evidence of criminal activity.

Instead, most if not all were targeted because they exercised their constitutional right to free speech and peaceable assembly. These actions are a direct attack on fundamental civil liberties and will further erode American influence abroad.

One year ago, Rumeysa Ozturk, a graduate student at Tufts University in Boston, co-authored an op-ed column in the student newspaper that pressed school administrators to respond to resolutions passed by the student Senate condemning Israeli actions in Gaza.

“We, as graduate students, affirm the equal dignity and humanity of all people and reject the University’s mischaracterization of the [student] Senate’s efforts,” the authors wrote — the sort of argument published in campus newspapers for as long as campuses have had newspapers.

Last week, Ozturk was snatched off the street in front of her off-campus apartment by federal authorities. Footage of her detention released March 26 shows six officers with the Department of Homeland Security stopping the young woman, covering their faces with masks, taking her phone and her backpack, and handcuffing her before putting her in a vehicle and driving away.

Though her lawyer successfully petitioned a judge to prevent Ozturk from being removed from Massachusetts, records show federal authorities flew her to a detention facility in Louisiana in violation of that court order.

An international student from Turkey, Ozturk is studying for her doctorate in child study and human development. She came to the United States on a Fulbright scholarship and was a legal resident who holds an F-1 visa, which allows international students to study here full-time so long as they meet certain requirements.

Asked about the case last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “If you come into the U.S. as a visitor and create a ruckus for us, we don’t want it. We don’t want it in our country. Go back and do it in your country.” Rubio went on to boast that he had personally revoked more than 300 visas from international visitors who came to this country legally.

Ozturk’s experience mirrors the arrests and attempted deportation of other students across the country, all of whom are legally here and none of whom are accused of criminal activity.

Immigration agents recently attempted to arrest Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old who was the valedictorian at Grafton High School in York County, Va. A Columbia University student and legal resident, she has lived in the United States since age 7. Federal authorities also detained Badar Khan Suri, an Indian national and postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University, outside of his home in Arlington, Va. Neither has been accused of a crime; both were singled out for their pro-Palestinian advocacy and have been threatened with deportation.

These incidents should chill every American to the bone. Students such as Ozturk are the ambitious, talented and passionate people we should welcome into the United States, not drive away. It is another in a growing list of administration actions, such as attacking our North American neighbors and European allies and shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development, that stain on our national reputation and undercut our moral authority as an advocate for democracy, liberty and human rights.

The Constitution is the foundation of U.S. law, and its protections apply to everyone here, citizen and non-citizen alike. Undermining the fundamental rights of any individual or group makes them weaker for all.

None of this makes us safer. None of this makes us stronger. Rather, it makes us a shell of what we say this nation stands for and erodes those cherished rights that once made the United States the envy of the world.

This Virginian-Pilot and Daily Press editorial has been adapted by the Orlando Sentinel. The Sentinel sometimes adapts editorials that agree with our own positions. The Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board includes Executive Editor Roger Simmons, Opinion Editor Krys Fluker and Viewpoints Editor Jay Reddick. Send letters to insight@orlandosentinel.com.

Originally Published: 


Who is lobbying for Florida House speaker-designate's law firm to get St. Johns County Attorney contract?




Other-directed St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners would not adopt a lobbyist registration ordinance.  When Commissioner James Johns tried to adopt one, former RPM International EVP JAY MORRIS, then a County Commissioner from Ponte Vedra, cried crocodile tears saying it would be "burdensome."  (A $25 annual registration fee.) 

Ex-Commisioner PRISCILLA RACHEL BENNETT, former lobbyist for Senator-developer TRAVIS JAMES HUTSON, led the charge of the lobbyists who lobbied against lobbying registration, 

Lobbyists are trying to install the Florida Speaker of the House-designate's law firm as the St.  Johns County Attorney. 

We, the People, have a Right to Know  

I' ve filed records requests:

On Monday, March 31, 2025 at 12:00:35 PM EDT, Ed Slavin <easlavin@aol.com> wrote:


To: City of St. Augustine Beach Mayor Dylan Rumrell, Mr. Richard Rumrell, Florida House Speaker-designate  Samuel Garrison, SJC County Administrator Joy Andrews, SJC Interim County Attorney Rich Komando, SJC Intergovernmental Affairs Director Adam Tecler, and SJC records officer Ms. Betty Dixon, Ms. Galambos, Mr. Royle, et al:

Good morning.
1. Would you please be so kind as to send me PDFs of the paper or electronic documents and audio or video tapes on St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners and proposed work for it by RICHARD CHRISTIAN KOMANDO, ROBERT MILNER BRADLEY, SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON, the law firm of BRADLEY, GARRISON & KOMANDO, P.A., including.but not limited to the e-mails, text messages, telephone messages, meeting notes, presentations, gift reports, apointment records or otherwise.  
2. Please be sure to include all of the records of lobbying, advocacy and contacts of any kind by anyone supporting, opposing or commenting on the application and proposed selection of the BGK law firm as our St. Johns County Attorney.
3. Please include all related communications with St. Johns County Commissioners, County Administration, County Attorney's office, City Commissioners, FBI, FDLE or Governor's office.









Conflict of Interest? St. Johns County, Florida Hiring "Influence" of Florida House Speaker-Designate SAM GARRISON


Update, April 3, 2025:
STILL WAITING FOR RECORDS FROM Florida House Speaker-designate SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON, who stands to profit from a controversial St. Johns County Attorney contract, a contract violation of public policy rubber-stamped by Commissioners on 3-2 vote on March 25, 2025.  

I have now sent a third e-mail to County, which has not informed me about the date and time of the negotiation meeting, despite repeated requests to Commission Vice Chair Clay Murphy:  Commissioner Murphy said that the date for the negotiation meeting has not yet been set, but that he will advise me when it is scheduled, so that I can attend.

On Friday, March 28, 2025 at 03:27:56 PM EDT, Ed Slavin <easlavin@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Speaker-designate Garrison and Ms. Dixon::
Would you please be so kind as to tell me today the proposed date, time, place and agenda of the St. Johns County Attorney contract negotiation meeting between Vice Chair Clay Murphy and the law firm of Florida House Speaker-designate SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON?  
Please send all related documents by PDF today, including draft contract and draft and final public Sunshine notice of negotiation meeting.
Thank you.


Earlier, I sent a followup e-mail to Speaker-designate GARRISON and County:

On Friday, March 28, 2025 at 02:32:49 PM EDT, Ed Slavin <easlavin@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Speaker-designate Garrison and Ms. Dixon:
1. Please send me PDFs of the requested records today,
2. When would our Florida House Speaker-designate, Rep. SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON be available for an interview, either this weekend or on Monday, March 31, 2025,  about his BRADLEY, GARRISON & KOMANDO, P.A. law firm's proposed role as our St. St. Johns County Attorney based on "influence?"  
3. I look forward to hearing from both of you later today. 


Pray for putative "reform" St. Johns County Commissioner Clay Murphy to reconsider his rash decision, joining with two pro-developer hick hack sad sacks, tatterdemalion Commissioners CHRISTIAN WHITEHURST and SARAH ARNOLD, uninformed, uneducated and gullible as usual. 

On Thursday, March 27, 2025 at 01:39:10 PM EDT, Ed Slavin <easlavin@aol.com> wrote:


To Honorable Samuel Paul Garrison, Florida House Speaker-elect & Florida House Ethics Committee Chair 
and Ms. Betty Dixon, St. Johns County Attorney's office:

Dear Speaker-elect Garrison and Ms. Dixon:

1. Would you please be so kind as to send me by tomorrow all Florida Bar, Florida Ethics Commission,  Florida Attorney General, Florida House of Representatives or other legal opinions or requests for them, and all  correspondence, on Speaker-elect Garrison's corporate law firm (BRADLEY, GARRISON & KOMANDO, P.A.) and its proposed hiring as the County Attorney for St. Johns County, one of the fastest-growing counties in the State of Florida, on the basis of Speaker-elect SAMUEL PAUL GARRISON's "influence?" 
(Statement of Commission Vice Chair, Clay Murphy, on video, here: Mar 25, 2025 Special Board of County Commissioners - St. Johns County, FL




2. Florida law, F.S. 112.311,  states:

Legislative intent and declaration of policy:

(5) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state that no officer or employee of a state agency or of a county, city, or other political subdivision of the state, and no member of the Legislature or legislative employee, shall have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect; engage in any business transaction or professional activity; or incur any obligation of any nature which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his or her duties in the public interest. To implement this policy and strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of the state in their government, there is enacted a code of ethics setting forth standards of conduct required of state, county, and city officers and employees, and of officers and employees of other political subdivisions of the state, in the performance of their official duties. It is the intent of the Legislature that this code shall serve not only as a guide for the official conduct of public servants in this state, but also as a basis for discipline of those who violate the provisions of this part.
(6) It is declared to be the policy of the state that public officers and employees, state and local, are agents of the people and hold their positions for the benefit of the public. They are bound to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution and to perform efficiently and faithfully their duties under the laws of the federal, state, and local governments. Such officers and employees are bound to observe, in their official acts, the highest standards of ethics consistent with this code and the advisory opinions rendered with respect hereto regardless of personal considerations, recognizing that promoting the public interest and maintaining the respect of the people in their government must be of foremost concern. 
F.S. 112.311

C.  As I wrote our St. Johns County Board of County Commissioners on March 17, 2025 (items renumbered):

1. Conflicts of interest  must be scrupulously guarded against. See, e.g., United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co., 364 U.S. 520, 548 (1961)("the 'Dixon-Yates' case," involving TVA rivals' conflicts of interest in a proposed Memphis coal-fired powerplant), citing Matthew 6:24 -- "no [person] can serve two masters," holding that laws and rules preventing conflicts of interest are aimed "not only at dishonor but at conduct that tempts dishonor."   
2. All conflict of interest laws are based upon Matthew 6:24 ("A man cannot serve two masters"), which the unanimous Supreme Court decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren deemed to be both a "moral principle" and a "maxim which is especially pertinent if one of the masters happens to be economic self-interest." 
3. {Speaker-elect SAM GARRISON's law partner] Mr. [RICHARD CHRISTIAN] KOMANDO unilaterally refuses to disclose the identity of his law firm clients, not client confidences. His overbearing assertion of privilege is unadorned by any citation to any court or ethics opinions on lawyers who are government employees.  This flunks the "laugh test."  It also flunks the "smell test." Mr. KOMANDO said he would not apply for the permanent County attorney position.  Now, aving applied for the permanent position, Mr. KOMANDO is in no position to withhold information that is materially relevant to his suitability to be our St. Johns County Attorney. Mr. KOMANDO is acting as if he were the judge in his own case.  This is so wrong.
4. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10: "No [person] is allowed to be a judge in [his/her] own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time . . . ."
5. The United States Supreme Court held in In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955) (Black, J.), "[O]ur system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome."  See also TWA v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 102U.S. App. D.C. 391, 392, 254 F.2d 90, 91 (1958). Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264, 266 (1858); Publius Syrus, Moral Sayings 51 (D. Lyman transl. 1856) ("No one should be judge in his own cause."); Blaise Pascal, Thoughts, Letters and Opuscules 182 (Wight transl. 1859) ("It is not permitted to the most equitable of men to be a judge in his own cause."). As William Blackstone wrote, "[I]t is unreasonable that any man should determine his own quarrel," 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 91 citing Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Rep. 114a (C.P. 1610); see also City of London v. Wood, 12 Mod. 669, 687 (1701)(Lord Holt)(invalidating fine for refusal to serve as sheriff recovered by the city in its own court of Mayor and Aldermen). See also Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986)(overruling case where Chief Justice of Alabama Supreme Court wrongfully sat in judgment of case that would set precedent for his own pending case); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973); Withrow v. Larkin421 U.S. 35 (1975); Cinderella Career and Finishing Schools, Inc. v. FTC, 425 F.2d 583 (D.C. Cir. 1970); American Cyanamid Co. v. FTC363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1966); SCA Services, Inc. v. Morgan, 557 F.2d 110 (7th Cir.1977). 
6.  Being a secretive developer "team player" is not a bona fide occupational qualification in hiring a County Attorney. 
7. No "team players" are desired or required here. "Team player" is freighted with the speech-chilling implication that one is willing to "go along to get along," say what management wants to hear, and do what one is told by managers, no matter what the ethics or legality of the situation. In the political corruption case of United States v. Salvatti, 451 F.Supp. 195, 197-98 (E.D. Pa. 1978), one witness testified that "when she complained to the Mayor about Mr. Carroll's pressure, and advised him that the proposed payment to the Sylks would be totally improper and probably illegal, the Mayor chided her for not being a team player." See also Fitzgerald v. Seamans, 384 F.Supp. 688,697n7 (D.D.C. 1974), affirmed, 553 F.2d 220, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1977), reversed, Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (remarks of President Nixon et al. on need to fire heroic Department of Defense whistleblower A. Ernest Fitzgerald after he testified truthfully before Congress on C-5A transport cost overruns, with Nixon saying Mr. Fitzgerald was "not a team player"); Broderick v. Ruder, 685 F.Supp. 1269 (D.D.C. 1988)(sexual harassment at Securities and Exchange Commission); Tomsic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co, 85 F.3d 1472, 1474 (10th Cir. 1996); Geddes v. Benefits Review Board, 735 F.2d 1412, 1416, 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority considered workers' compensation claimant not a "team player"); Davis v. California, 1996 WL 271001 (E.D.Cal.1996); Schloesser v. Kansas Dept. of Health & Environment, 766 F.Supp. 984 (D. Kansas 1991); Stradford v. Rockwell International, 48 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 697, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,828,1988 WL 159939 (S.D.Ohio); Seymour M. Hersh, "Annals of National Security: The Intelligence Gap -- How the digital age left our spies out  in the cold," The New Yorker, December 6, 1999 at 58, 62.
8. Commissioners, please feel free to call me to discuss. 




Milbank Joins List Of Pushover Biglaw Firms Bowing To Trump It's a disturbing Biglaw trend. (Kathryn Rubino, Above the Law blog, April 2, 2025)

The late United States Department of Labor District Chief Administrative Law Judge Theodor von Brand's Prussian noble family left Germany upon Hitler's election. Courageous Judge von Brand ably presided over the landmark U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge National Laboratory environmental whistleblower case of C.D. Varnadore v. Oak Ridge National Laboratory  Lawyers from MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLLOY did not attend the sixteen day trial, but several ambitious young MILBANK lawyers, who did not cite to the hearing transcript, prepared a bumptious bullying "report" intended to influence ALJ von Brand  When the ORNL contractor tried to influence Judge von Brand by filing their "report" as evidence, he gave it no weight, as it was not evidence.  The rebarbative reprobates' MILBANK "report" did not cite to any admissible "evidence," but it was instead part of the contractor's P.R. influence operation.  The Big Law firm MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY typifies the genre of immoral, amoral and unethical corporate firms. MILBANK abused the name of trust of a "prestigious" MILBANK partner, former federal judge and former FBI & CIA Director WILLIAM HEDGCOCK WEBSTER, who was born in 1924.  Mr. Varnadore, his wife, Fran, my three co-counsel and I met with WILLIAM WEBSTER at a Hyatt Regency conference room in Knoxville, Tennessee in 1992.  WEBSTER looked stiff. He earlier met with the Chief Counsel and Oak Ridge Operations Manager, and fell asleep in the meeting, having ridden red eyes from Los Angeles to Tennessee while serving on a committee responding to the savage videotaped LAPD bearing of motorist Rodney King.  From Above The Law blog:  


Milbank Joins List Of Pushover Biglaw Firms Bowing To Trump

It's a disturbing Biglaw trend.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s been wielding his likely unconstitutional Executive Orders aimed at Biglaw firms like a cudgel, using the mere threat of them to get concessions from major firm. Even though the firms that have chosen to fight the good fight against the Trump administration have had slam-dunk victories in court, there’s a growing list of Biglaw firms that prefer to bargain their way into the good graces of Donald Trump. The latest firm to kiss Donald Trump’s ring is Milbank.

Similar to the deals with Skadden and Willkie (the other two firms that inked deals before they could be targeted by Trump), Milbank now owes the Trump administration $100 million in pro bono services. The deal includes a carveout that Milbank “will continue to grow its work with the Milbank Exoneration and Resentencing Review Unit at the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law School.”

Like all the other Trumpian deals, Milbank has also agreed to abandon its DEI efforts. The firm has also stipulated that attorneys’ political views will not impact their client intake “including in pro bono matters, and in support of non-profits.”

Milbank chair Scott Edelman made the following statement on the deal, “After a constructive dialogue with President Trump’s administration, Milbank is pleased that we were so quickly able to find common ground. Our agreement is consistent with Milbank’s core values. We are pleased to affirm a commitment to continue to engage in significant pro bono services in areas that are mutually supported by Milbank and the President. Milbank looks forward to continuing its working relationship with President Trump and his administration.”

According to Trump’s statement on the deal, Milbank “approached” him to put an end to the EO before it even started. And Trump’s statement ended saying, “The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL,” signaling the president believes that all the firms that have bent the knee are firmly #teamTrump.

This is how Edelman announced the deal internally, minutes before the news broke.

To the Milbank Community:

As many of you know, in recent weeks, the President has raised a number of issues about the practices of big law firms. In some cases, the President has issued executive orders against particular firms.

And many of you surely read that, on March 17, 2025, the Acting Chair of the EEOC sent letters requesting information about DEI in employment practices to twenty of the country’s largest law firms, including Milbank.

Late last week, we were contacted by representatives of the Trump Administration with questions and concerns about our approach to pro bono and diversity initiatives. The Trump Administration suggested to us that we enter into an agreement similar to one recently agreed to by Skadden. Having reviewed the Skadden agreement, we concluded that it was in the Firm’s best interest to agree with the Administration’s suggestion and enter into our own Skadden-type agreement. We did so for the following reasons:

First, our review of Skadden’s agreement convinced us that the terms agreed to by Skadden were not unreasonable. In reviewing the Skadden agreement, it became apparent that our present practices are consistent with the agreements that the Administration had required of Skadden. We therefore concluded that an agreement would not entail any significant changes to our current practices, and the new commitments are things that we are happy to do anyway.

Second, as a large law firm that does a majority of its work on transactional matters, we are dependent on our ability to navigate client issues in all parts of the Executive Branch. We believed that it was in the best interests of the Firm and its clients to resolve the Trump Administration’s concerns in a way that would foster our working relationship and avoid what could have been an unnecessary confrontation.

Third, the only commitments that we have made to the Government are those that we are happy to make. We are extremely comfortable providing the requested levels of pro bono activities to clients facing challenges that fall within the wide range of the agreed-upon initiatives.

The only commitment that I consider to be “new” is something that we were actively considering anyway, and that is to agree that we would ensure that we have lawyers with diverse political ideologies on our existing pro bono committee to ensure that pro bono matters are both consistent with the objectives of the Firm and represent the full political spectrum. Again, we think this is the right thing to do.

Milbank is a Firm that has always attracted lawyers with a diversity of viewpoints. Two of our partners served in the Executive Branch during the first Trump Administration. We believe that those differences of views and opinions are a strength that makes Milbank a better and more successful institution. This change to our committee will formalize our consideration of those different viewpoints in making decisions about pro bono.

With that background, we made the decision to provide the Administration with the following commitments that the President announced today:

1. Milbank will perform a total of at least $100 million in pro bono legal services during the Trump Administration and beyond on initiatives supported by both the President and Milbank, such as: assisting veterans and other public servants, including members of the military, law enforcement, and first responders; ensuring fairness in our justice system; and combatting antisemitism. In furtherance and as part of these activities, Milbank will continue to grow its work with the Milbank Exoneration and Resentencing Review Unit at the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law School.

2. Our pro bono committee will include partners at the Firm with diverse political ideologies to ensure that pro bono matters are consistent with the objectives of the Firm, and that our pro bono practices represent the full political spectrum, including conservative ideals.

3. Milbank will not deny representation to clients, such as members of politically disenfranchised groups and government officials, employees, and advisors, who have not historically received legal representation from major national law firms, including in pro bono matters, and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers. Milbank shall not deny representation to any clients on the basis of the political affiliation of the prospective client or because of the opposition of any government official.

4. Milbank acknowledges and affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention. Accordingly, the Firm will not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences. Milbank will continue to give fair and equal consideration to job candidates who have served in both Republican and Democrat Administrations, including the Trump Administration. Milbank will continue to work with independent outside counsel to advise the Firm to ensure employment practices are fully compliant with law, including, but not limited to, anti-discrimination laws.

We are comfortable with all of these provisions. By reaffirming our commitments on a number of these issues, we set a path for the Firm to continue its working relationship with the Executive Branch while at the same time zealously representing our clients.

Our pro bono activities have always represented a broad spectrum of clients and causes.

Of note, in 2024, we proudly announced our new partnership with the Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law, championed and sponsored by Laurie and Ike Perlmutter, to combat historical wrongs in the US criminal justice system with a focus on wrongful conviction, excessive sentencing and clemency. We established the Milbank Exoneration and Resentencing Review Unit at the Perlmutter Center, which has enabled the Center to grow its staff and expand its ability to review the high volume of requests it receives. As part of this commitment, we also pledged to provide pro bono legal services as a close partner with the Perlmutter Center at every stage of its work, from screening clients and writing case recommendation memos to litigating cases. The agreement we entered into with the Administration specifies that our work at the Perlmutter Center is one example of work that we are committing to do as part of our overall pro bono commitment.

There is nothing in our agreement that gives the Administration the right to dictate or approve the matters we take on. Nor have we restricted our pro bono activities or limited positions we could take on behalf of our clients. And, of course, no Milbank lawyer will be required to work on any pro bono matter that they do not support. That goes for more conservative lawyers and liberal causes, just as it goes for more liberal lawyers and conservative causes.

We believe that our agreement is very much in Milbank’s interest. The Administration’s expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours. With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm’s values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed. Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best—focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients.

As I often end my talks to you, I want to end by expressing my gratitude to all of you. Milbank continues to accomplish so much as a Firm and for its clients. All of those accomplishments are a reflection of you, our people. I want to thank all of you for everything that you do for the Firm. And I also want to thank you for what I am sure will be our shared commitment to fostering an environment that continues to allow and encourage inclusion of diverse viewpoints among all the members of our community.

Respectfully,

Scott

Milbank attorneys and other employees, how do you feel about the firm’s decision? Feel free to sound off by email, by text message (646-820-8477), or by tweet (@ATLblog). An insightful response — we’ll keep you anonymous — could find its way into an update to this story.


Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.


BLURRED ETHICAL LINES? THREE (3) COUNTIES HAVE SAME COUNTY ATTORNEY, RICHARD CHRISTIAN KOMANDO

Update, April 3, 2025: I am still waiting on documents from County on my Open Records requests on KOMANDO.  Commission meets March 25, 2025 to interview County Attorney candidates.

On March 20, 2025, KOMANDO was in federal court, representing two roofers sentenced to prison for pervasive tax fraud.  More here: xxx

RICHARD CHRISTIAN KOMANDO was hired as Interim County Attorney on the recommendation of then-commissioner ROY ALYRE ALAIMO, JR., who lost his election bid in 2024 after being appointed to the job by his former boss, Congressman RONALD DION DeSANTIS,  now Governor. ALAIMO recommended hiring KOMANDO, whom he openly and notoriously identified as his "friend."

On February 6, 2024, ALAIMO said KOMANDO was not interested in the job permanently.

KOMANDO has now applied for the job permanently. 

Triple-dipping Interim County Attorney RICHARD CHRISTIAN KOMANO (Florida Bar No. 181366) is now the current Putnam County Attorney, and the Bradford County Attorney and the Interim St. Johns County Attorney!

Who knew?

Is this illegal dual officeholding, a conflict of interest, or wasteful spending?

We have a Right to Know.

It's our money.

It's our government.

It's about our forests.

It's about our time on this planet in this special place. 

It's about overdevelopment and its effects on our schools, on our roads, on our quality of life, and on our democratic institutions in this constitutional republic.

Corruption junction, what's your function?

County Attorneys in Florida are often lapdogs for wealthy landowners.  

In this case, three (3) counties have the same County Attorney: St. Johns, Bradford and Putnam.

Conflict of interest?  

Dual offieeholding in violation of Florida's Constitution?

We need to know the etiology, nature, structure and performance of this close community of interests resulting in one-man being County Attorney for three Florida counties.

Here's my February 14, 2025 e-mail to St. Johns County government:

On Friday, February 14, 2025 at 08:30:51 PM EST, Ed Slavin <easlavin@aol.com> wrote:


Good evening:
Would you please be so kind as to send me instanter any legal research on Florida's Constitution dual officeholding prohibition and Richard Komando's current service as the Putnam County Attorney, the Bradford County Attorney and St. Johns County Attorney ad interim?  Please include any correspondence with the Florida Attorney General and Florida Ethics Commission on related dual officeholding and conflict of interest issues.
Thank you.