Posted on 12/30/2003 9:22:37 AM PST by kennedy
ON APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Opinion of the Special Court filed Per Curiam.
Per curiam: Monica Lewinsky petitions this court under § 593(f) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. §§ 591–599 (2000) (the Act), for reimbursement of attorney fees that she incurred during and as a result of an investigation conducted by the Independent Counsel (IC). Because we conclude that Lewinsky has not carried her burden of showing that the fees would not have been incurred but for the requirements of the Act, we deny the petition.
I. Background
On January 16, 1998, Attorney General Janet Reno applied for and this court granted an order extending the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ‘‘to investigate TTT whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, ob-structed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law TTT in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Jones v. Clinton.’’The Jones v. Clinton case referenced in Attorney General Reno’s application and the court’s order was a civil suit filed by Paula Jones against then-President William J. Clinton. Jones alleged that during Clinton’s term as Governor of Arkansas and while Jones was a state employee, he had solicited sex from her, that she had declined, and that as a result, her state employment had been adversely affected, in violation of her federal civil rights as well as other rights.
Prior to trial, Jones’s attorneys sought to discover whether there were other government employees with whom President Clinton had conducted sexual relationships or from whom he had solicited sexual favors. In December 1997, Jones’s attorneys subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky, the fee petitioner here, directing her to appear the next month to testify and to produce certain items, including gifts from President Clinton. As the investigation ultimately revealed, Lewinsky, an intern and later employee in the White House, had been having a sexual relationship with President Clinton since about 1995. They had agreed, however, that they would deny the relationship if ever asked about it. In response to the subpoena, Lewinsky in early January 1998 executed an affidavit falsely denying any sexual relationship with the President. Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky accepted a job in the private sector which she was able to obtain with the assistance of a friend to the President, Washington attorney Vernon Jordan. See In re Madison Guar. Sav. and Loan (Jordan Fee Application), 344 F.3d 1250, 1252 (D.C. Cir., Spec. Div., 2003) (per curiam).
Attorneys for Jones also subpoenaed Linda Tripp, a friend of Lewinsky’s. On January 12, 1998, Tripp contacted the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) and advised that office that Lewinsky had told her that she was preparing to file a false affidavit, had and stated her intent to lie if deposed, and had urged Tripp to lie in her own deposition. Unbeknownst to Lewinsky, Tripp had taped conversations between herself and Lewinsky which corroborated the information she presented to the IC. On January 13, 1998, the OIC consensually monitored a conversation between Tripp and Lewinsky during which Lewinsky offered Tripp a one-half interest in a condominium if Tripp would join her in perjury in the Jones case. The OIC presented this information to the Attorney General.
On January 16, 1998, the Attorney General notified this court that she had commenced a preliminary investigation into whether Lewinsky or others had committed violations of federal criminal law. As a result of that preliminary investigation, she requested an expansion of the jurisdiction of then Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr to investigate further and determine whether prosecution was warranted. Referring to the consensually monitored conversation between Tripp and Lewinsky of January 13, 1998, the Attorney General specifically stated to the court ‘‘I have also determined that the taped conversation establishes that further investigation of this matter is warranted.’’
On January 17, 1998, Clinton was deposed in the Jones case. United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright of the District of Arkansas had traveled from Little Rock to Washington, D.C. to preside over the deposition. Despite the Court’s orders requiring discovery regarding state or federal employees with whom he had conducted or from whom he had solicited sexual relations, President Clinton during the deposition ‘‘by clear and convincing evidence TTT responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.’’ Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1127 (E.D. Ark. 1999).
In the meantime, on January 16, 1998, the OIC had confronted Lewinsky with evidence of her crimes and attempted to obtain her cooperation in exchange for immunity. Represented, at that time, by attorney William Ginsburg, whom her father had retained in California, Lewinsky rejected the immunity offer.
The investigation continued. Among other evidence, the IC obtained a box of gifts given by Clinton to Lewinsky during the course of their sexual relationship. After receiving the subpoena, Lewinsky had turned the gifts over to Betty Curry, Clinton’s personal secretary, who had secreted the gifts in further obstruction of the Jones litigation.
Although Lewinsky had rejected the proffered immunity on January 16, 1998, Lewinsky’s attorneys, William Ginsburg and Nathaniel Spates, first attempted to negotiate an immunity agreement then spent months attempting to enforce in court an immunity agreement that they claimed had been struck. The District Court for the District of Columbia, then- Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson presiding, rejected that claim. See In re Sealed Case, 144 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal on jurisdictional grounds). Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky dismissed attorney Ginsburg, retained Plato Cacheris of Washington, D.C. as her lead counsel and also added attorney Jacob Stein. Within two months Lewinsky’s new attorneys were able to negotiate full transactional immunity for Lewinsky in exchange for her agreement to cooperate with the investigation. They entered into an agreement on July 28, 1998. Lewinsky prays fees for legal services rendered both before and after the entry of the immunity agreement.
As a result of the evidence of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Clinton on December 19, 1998. On February 12, 1999, following trial on two articles of impeachment, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. Although a majority of Senators voted for removal, the vote fell short of the two-thirds’ concurrence necessary for conviction of President Clinton.
The IC concluded that the basic allegations against President Clinton were substantiated and that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute him. Final Report of Independent Counsel at 19–20, 23, 28–29, 32–34, 41–43. However, rather than seeking an indictment of the President, the IC entered into an agreement with Clinton whereunder the departing President admitted his responsibility, accepted professional discipline from the Arkansas Bar, and agreed not to apply for any counsel fees in relation to this investigation. Under an agreement with the Arkansas Bar, Clinton agreed that he ‘‘would accept a five year suspension, pay[ ] a $25,000 fine (as legal fees for the [Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct’s] outside counsel) and formally acknowledg[e] a violation of one of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct.’’ Letter from David E. Kendall, private counsel to President Clinton, to Robert W. Ray, Independent Counsel (Jan. 19, 2001) (quoted in Final Report of Independent Counsel at 19).
Pursuant to the agreements with the IC and the Arkansas Bar, Clinton admitted:
A. That he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers in violation of Judge Wright’s discovery orders, concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in an attempt to conceal from plaintiff Jones’s lawyers the true facts about his improper relationship, which had ended almost a year earlier.
B. That by knowingly giving evasive and misleading answers, in violation of Judge Wright’s discovery order, he engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in that his discovery responses interfered with the conduct of the Jones case by causing the court and counsel for the parties to expend unnecessary time, effort, and resources, setting a poor example for other litigants, and causing the court to issue a thirty-two page Order civilly sanctioning Mr. Clinton.
Based upon Clinton’s admissions, the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled that he had committed professional misconduct and ‘‘engag[ed] in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.’’ Agreed Order of Discipline at 3–4, Neal v. Clinton, No. Civ. 2000–5677, 2001 WL 34355768 (Cir. Ct. of Pulaski Co., Ark. Jan. 19, 2001).
Lewinsky now petitions the court for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,165,390.97 that she states she incurred during the IC’s investigation of this matter.
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov ...
huh? too bad they didn't write it in plain english...
In December 1997, Jones’s attorneys subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky ... directing her to appear the next month to testify and to produce certain items, including gifts from President Clinton. As the investigation ultimately revealed, Lewinsky, an intern and later employee in the White House, had been having a sexual relationship with President Clinton since about 1995. They had agreed, however, that they would deny the relationship if ever asked about it. In response to the subpoena, Lewinsky in early January 1998 executed an affidavit falsely denying any sexual relationship with the President. Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky accepted a job in the private sector which she was able to obtain with the assistance of a friend to the President, Washington attorney Vernon Jordan.
... On January 12, 1998, Tripp contacted the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) and advised that office that Lewinsky had told her that she was preparing to file a false affidavit, had and stated her intent to lie if deposed, and had urged Tripp to lie in her own deposition. Unbeknownst to Lewinsky, Tripp had taped conversations between herself and Lewinsky which corroborated the information she presented to the IC. On January 13, 1998, the OIC consensually monitored a conversation between Tripp and Lewinsky during which Lewinsky offered Tripp a one-half interest in a condominium if Tripp would join her in perjury in the Jones case.
On January 17, 1998, Clinton was deposed in the Jones case. United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright of the District of Arkansas had traveled from Little Rock to Washington, D.C. to preside over the deposition. Despite the Court’s orders requiring discovery regarding state or federal employees with whom he had conducted or from whom he had solicited sexual relations, President Clinton during the deposition ‘‘by clear and convincing evidence [Clinton] responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.’’
In the meantime, on January 16, 1998, the OIC had confronted Lewinsky with evidence of her crimes and attempted to obtain her cooperation in exchange for immunity. ...
The investigation continued. Among other evidence, the IC obtained a box of gifts given by Clinton to Lewinsky during the course of their sexual relationship. After receiving the subpoena, Lewinsky had turned the gifts over to Betty Curry, Clinton’s personal secretary, who had secreted the gifts in further obstruction of the Jones litigation....
As a result of the evidence of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Clinton on December 19, 1998. On February 12, 1999, following trial on two articles of impeachment, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. Although a majority of Senators voted for removal, the vote fell short of the two-thirds’ concurrence necessary for conviction of President Clinton.
Betty Curry's criminal act has not been pursued to my knowledge. Does anyone know of any?
But seriously folks, after reading this court document, can anyone deny that one lie was used to backup another until the whole process broke down? The same happened with the the Rose Lawfirm files, the F.B.I. files and the the countless other "Gates" that the Clinton Co-presidency besmirched our nation with.
Do you realize the Clintons, after doing all this, still run the Democratic Party under Terry McAuliffe?
My prayers are that the Clintons continue their control of the Democratic party to its logical conclusion.
You've got to admit, a court fight between Monica and Slick would be way more entertaining than anything that's in the news media right now, as far as legal tales are concerned!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.