I usually read Herald editorials purely for their comic and/or sleep-inducing values.

So I was a bit surprised to see one today about our own federal blogger uber-lawyer:

U.S. District Judge Alan Gold used that term, ''win at all costs,'' to describe the egregious misconduct of three U.S. prosecutors in an exhaustive 50-page reprimand last week. The judge was justifiably outraged by the way prosecutors Sean Cronin, Karen Gilbert and Andrea Hoffman handled a narcotics case against a Miami Beach doctor.

The prosecutors conducted a secret investigation of the defendant's attorneys, using informers to try to entrap them into bribery. They taped the defense attorneys' conversations, but all they got was lawyers saying No to the informers' invitations to commit bribery.

Becoming vengeful

The prosecutors then used their informers as witnesses in the trial, asserting that they were impartial and neutral, which could hardly be the case since they had tried to help set up the defense team. The prosecutors neglected to tell the judge or their boss, the U.S. attorney, about their extra-curricular venture. When the defense team wasn't cooperative enough, the prosecutors became vengeful. They increased the original 26 charges to 141.

None of this worked. A witness revealed the bribery entrapment scheme on the stand. The defense used this to argue that the prosecutors had a weak case. The jury agreed, and the defendant was found not guilty on all counts.

Now Judge Gold has ordered the U.S. attorney's office to pay the former defendant, Ali Shaygan, $600,000 as a fine for the prosecutors' bad behavior. The fine will reimburse Dr. Shaygan for his legal fees.

(psst, wake up little SFL, you have been dreaming again of Diora Baird as an Orion in the new Star Trek movie.....)

Sheesh, could you write any more boring? These guys could make reporting on the Normandy invasion seem like a snoozefest.

And thanks John Pacenti for finally covering the Tom Tew story we wrote about six days ago.

Don't worry, it's ok that you didn't mention this crappy blog for breaking that story -- I do it all for love, my peoples.

I don't know, I'm starting to get sick of writing about the law all the time. Are you folks getting sick of reading about it?

A friend passed along Judge Tjoflat's recent spankdown of Judge Cooke the other day. My reaction -- why be so personal? You don't agree with her ruling, fine, but no one needs to go overboard or embarrass anyone, particularly when you are in a position of power as an appellate court. It's just not necessary.

(Judge Schwartz, are you listening?)

And another friend passed along this spankdown of Tom Tew and Rachlin Cohen -- what the hail?

I guess Tom is the Receiver and was trying to get Rachlin paid for some tax work, but it kinda went off the rails, big time.

The opinion needs to be read in full, but this snippet gives you a flavor:

Through emails, memoranda, revised, re-revised, and thrice-revised invoices, the Receiver and Rachlin offered a stream of unresponsive and obsfucatory answers to the Monitor's inquiries reminiscent of the "Who's on First?" Abbott and Costello comedy routine.

Oy.

The opinion ends with a finding of an actual conflict of interest and a strongly worded show cause order.

Maybe my age is showing, but I don't recall that bit in the Abbott and Costello routine.