Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NSA Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Secretary of Fund that bankrolled Michigan ACLU
Judicial Watch ^ | 8/21/06 | Judicial Watch

Posted on 08/22/2006 8:06:06 PM PDT by motife

U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

According to the CFSEM website, “The Foundation’s trustees make all funding decisions at meetings held on a quarterly basis.”

“This potential conflict of interest merits serious investigation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”

(Judge Diggs Taylor is also the presiding judge in another case where she may have a conflict of interest. The Arab Community Center for Social and Economic Services (ACCESS) is a defendant in another case now before Judge Diggs Taylor’s court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)

From the commentary for Judicial Canon 5(B)(1):

The changing nature of some organizations and of their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the judge’s relationship with it. For example, in many jurisdictions charitable hospitals are now more frequently in court than in the past. Similarly, the boards of some legal aid organizations now make policy decisions that may have political significance or imply commitment to causes that may come before the courts for adjudication.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: aclu; annadiggstaylor; enemywithin; fellowtravelers; fundingtheleft; judicialwatch; nsa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 08/22/2006 8:06:09 PM PDT by motife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: motife

Gateway Pundit's Website... http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-anna-diggs-taylors-dirty.html


2 posted on 08/22/2006 8:07:53 PM PDT by budanski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Gateway Pundit's take... http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-anna-diggs-taylors-dirty.html


3 posted on 08/22/2006 8:10:04 PM PDT by budanski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Of course it is a conflict of interest. She should be impeached.


4 posted on 08/22/2006 8:11:59 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Of course she didn't disclose her affiliations or the Government lawyers would have filed a motion to have her removed.


5 posted on 08/22/2006 8:12:13 PM PDT by tobyhill (The War on Terrorism is not for the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife
DON'T ANYBODY SEND A PENNY TO TOM FITTON
6 posted on 08/22/2006 8:12:37 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

The ACLU didnt go Judge shopping. Anna Diggs-Taylor did the shopping, She had already made a decision all she needed was someone to bring forth the suit. She needs to be impeached.


7 posted on 08/22/2006 8:13:18 PM PDT by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife
CFSEM Secretary/ trustee Taylor Diggs probably sent a note with that $45,000 to the Michigan ACLU.


Dear ACLU -
Here's $45,000 to fight Bush's Terrorist Surveillance program.


Yours truly, and your always welcome in my court
- Justice Taylor Diggs
..... XoX
8 posted on 08/22/2006 8:13:25 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife
Judicial ethics do not just prohibit impropriety

The prohibit any appearance of impropriety.

Clearly, she should have recused herself. Absent judicial notification, at the time of case assignment, to both sides of her prior associations, it is clearly open for a nul verdict and remand.

9 posted on 08/22/2006 8:15:17 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
concur - there is a small chance of it succeeding, however, it would illustrate to the voters how the (D) senators support her unethical actions.
10 posted on 08/22/2006 8:17:00 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: motife
.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest

MAY??? MAY??? I would dare say this is definitely a conflict of interest

11 posted on 08/22/2006 8:20:31 PM PDT by GeronL (flogerloon.blogspot.com -------------> Rise of the Hate Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Why should she recuse herself? The rules never apply to the ACLU and their cohorts. I am surprised that you did not know this. ;)


12 posted on 08/22/2006 8:21:32 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TeleStraightShooter

how much will cnn push this NONE


13 posted on 08/22/2006 8:21:36 PM PDT by stickandpucknut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: motife

This Commie [female dog] should be hung out to try. God Bless Judicial Watch!!!!


14 posted on 08/22/2006 8:24:35 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Pretty cool.


15 posted on 08/22/2006 8:25:28 PM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

No one will have the B***s to do it.


16 posted on 08/22/2006 8:27:25 PM PDT by Springman (9-11-06, what will happen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd
These are the type of cases where you go screaming "per valde volo quod Boom Box" (Latin (?) for "with great speed and volume") to the "Wise Men" (appeals court) for immediate relief.
17 posted on 08/22/2006 8:27:50 PM PDT by MindBender26 (Having my own CAR-15 in RVN meant never having to say I was sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: motife

Judges are simply human beings, not gods. They are as political and corrupted as other politicians. When will we have a president who has the nerve to tell a judge you are unelected, a human being, and if you want to enforce your ruling go do it but I do not agree and will not support your ruling. Andrew Jackson did and has been known favorably ever since because of it. I repeat. No judge or judicial court is god no matter what they think.


18 posted on 08/22/2006 8:38:29 PM PDT by georgiarat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"quod Boom Box"

Must have missed that during Latin class.

I am concerned that this will be overturned only on technicalities now, instead of addressing the true legal issues.
19 posted on 08/22/2006 8:40:53 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: motife
“If Judge Diggs Taylor failed to disclose this link to a plaintiff in a case before her court, it would certainly call into question her judgment.”

The text of the ruling itself calls into question the competence and judgement of the affirmative-action appointment, judge Diggs-Taylor.

20 posted on 08/22/2006 8:48:47 PM PDT by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: georgiarat

Actually president Bush just said that yesterday. Unless we are going to blame GW because of the ruling. GW has bigger gonads than ANY president in modern times, including Reagan. Even though I liked Reagan allot and respected him, he never put himself on line AS MUCH AS GW.


21 posted on 08/22/2006 8:49:16 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: motife

Of course everyone remembers her involvement in the Uof M racial preferences case? When she tried hard to get that cas assigned to her instead of to the next judge in line?


22 posted on 08/22/2006 8:51:27 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

GW continues to amaze me. He is courageous and doesn't lose sight of his compassion and wisdom simply to please either party.


23 posted on 08/22/2006 8:53:13 PM PDT by Republic (I have AMAZING CONFIDENCE and TRUST in our PRESIDENT! I LOVE HIM and his ENTIRE TEAM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

Any judge that campaigns to be assigned to a case versus just having a case assigned to them, is not fit to be a judge.


24 posted on 08/22/2006 8:56:17 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Republic

He may not be the great speaker Reagan was that could woo people with his presence and charisma, but he is a GREAT STATEMAN and we are very fortunate to have him during these troubling times. He is the right man at the right time in history. History will judge him to be a great determined man and steady president. Just like Reagan was remembered with fondest when he was called home, so will GW when his time comes. I for one am proud he is my POTUS.


25 posted on 08/22/2006 9:00:28 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
Unfortunately, history also will judge him on issues like border security and immigration too. While I voted for him twice, it's been five years since 9/11 and he hasn't done anything of substance to secure the borders (other than ride around in a dune buggy for a Michael Dukakis dune buggy shot.
26 posted on 08/22/2006 9:10:38 PM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

Who the heck is Tom Fitton?


27 posted on 08/22/2006 9:12:22 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Sheeesh.

This is what happens when you get arrogance and stupidity rolled into one.

It didn't even occur to them that this connection would easily be discovered?

Unbelievable.


28 posted on 08/22/2006 9:12:39 PM PDT by Solemar ("Frognostication": The science of predicting the exact date and time that France will surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: motife

Surprise! Surprise!! The NY Slimes has actually published an article on this: http://tinyurl.com/ezx4f

Let us see if the TV channels (other than Fox) even cover this blatantly unethical behavior.


29 posted on 08/22/2006 9:21:06 PM PDT by indcons (Islam Delenda Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BW2221
Things are being done on the borders. Maybe not as much as the likes of crazy Buchanon would like. It is a sticky situation politically and I for one do not want to be a member of the minority party for a very long time for alienating most hispanics.

We can build a big wall, put in cameras and deport all illegals, then be voted out of office because statistically we need the hispanic vote to maintain our majority. Once out of office for 4, 8, 12 years or maybe longer, the donks will pass many laws we hate, appoint US Supreme court justices like Ginsburg, fill up the federal courts, raise our taxes and attempt to change our social values nationwide. There is a bigger picture out there for me and my family in the long run.

Things need to be done on immigration, please do not get me wrong and they are slowly getting there.

The main thing is WE HAVE NOT BEEN ATTACKED AGAIN, and that is not by pure luck.
30 posted on 08/22/2006 9:23:41 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: motife

Paging the U. S. Attorney General...


31 posted on 08/22/2006 9:24:19 PM PDT by zot (GWB -- the most slandered man of this decade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

And then disbarred, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.


32 posted on 08/22/2006 9:26:28 PM PDT by Roy Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Solemar
I think it is the arrogant mindset of liberals. They think we common people are too stupid to catch on to their agenda, and they need to supervise us and lead us by the hand.

Over the last 40 years or so they have been getting away with things like this. Until recently they have had full run of the field to get away with their radical agendas. Times are a changing and there is not much of a future for liberals in the coming horizon.
33 posted on 08/22/2006 9:27:57 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Of course it is a conflict of interest. She should be impeached.

Ain't gonna happen with the limpd##ks in the senate.
34 posted on 08/22/2006 9:28:50 PM PDT by rottndog (WOOF!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

"Actually president Bush just said that yesterday. "

Do you mean that Bush mentioned this conflict of interest yesterday? I miss something?

And what mouth-breather at the NSA missed THIS connection before trial?

OR.....

[donning tinfoil hat]

NSA knew the conflict existed, but was unsure about what the outcome might be, so permitted the case to proceed with this obviously conflicted judge in order to attack the ruling when they lost.

[/removing tin foil hat]


35 posted on 08/22/2006 9:30:36 PM PDT by Solemar ("Frognostication": The science of predicting the exact date and time that France will surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: motife

She should be thrown off the bench for this.


36 posted on 08/22/2006 9:31:00 PM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Solemar

I agree with your removing the tin foil hat. Good catch BTW. GW just said yesterday he disagreed with the ruling, it was wrong and would be appealled. He was not pleased with the judge. Sounded like a rebuke to me.


37 posted on 08/22/2006 9:33:09 PM PDT by jrooney ( Hold your cards close.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468

Judicial Watch, which was mentioned in the story. He wants to line his pockets with more suckers' money.


38 posted on 08/22/2006 9:34:25 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: motife

Memorialized in song - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688416/posts


39 posted on 08/22/2006 9:36:13 PM PDT by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

OIC, ok.


40 posted on 08/22/2006 9:37:13 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: motife

So long as the left gets the ruling they wanted, there is no conflict of interest. Just ask them.


41 posted on 08/22/2006 9:43:02 PM PDT by DakotaRed (The legacy of the left, "Screw you, I got mine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Even if the "judge" isn't impeached...
at least her subversion of the judicial system has been exposed.

Before the wide-spread use of high-tech research tools (Internet),
there was a much greater chance of folks like the "judge" getting away
with her fraud on the court with ZERO consequence.

I wonder if lawyers entering her court now will be fighting to not have
her sit on their cases due to conflicts of interest.


42 posted on 08/22/2006 9:45:24 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

It's never a conflict of interest if you're a lib. That's cause they're already fair and balanced and know the right thing to do. :)


43 posted on 08/22/2006 10:32:13 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife
Okay. Prior comments notwithstanding....

And the fact that the opinion itself was based on specious (at best) reasoning:

I visited the Judicial Watch website and followed the links. It appears that our esteemed judge is a secretary and trustee of the Community Foundation of Southern Michigan. In my practice I have had a great deal of experience with community foundations.

If CSFM is like any other community foundation I have come in contact with, it works like this:

1. The point of these organizations is to permit donors to make charitable gifts without the administrative expenses of creating their own private foundation.

2. Donors can set up a fund at the foundation for the benefit of a pet charity or a donor-advised fund (donor gets to pick and choose upon which of the downtrodden masses to bestow his or her largesse).

3. Donors can also give money to a specific fund under the foundation's umbrella (i.e., a fund created by another donor) or a general "discretionary" fund (a-la United Way) that makes discretionary gifts to other charities.

The "HOPE Fund" referred to by Judicial Watch appears to be a GLBT focused charity (not civil liberties).

[donning teflon suit, raising "devil's advocate" flag]

In any event, it is not clear from the article whether this judge had any discretionary authority to allocate funds. The ACLU may have been designated by the creator of the HOPE Fund as a recipient - meaning the judge had no discretion.

If this was a discretionary gift, the documents cited by Judicial Watch do not indicate whether or not our esteemed jurist had any discretionary authority over whether distributions were made to the ACLU. Generally (a-la United Way), discretionary gifts are selected by committee, although they are ultimately approved by the board as a whole.

Some unanswered questions:

-Was this a discretionary gift?
-Did Mme. judge have discretionary authority?
-Did she as a trustee abstain from a vote approving such a gift?

[removing charred tatters of teflon suit]

Notwithstanding the above, the standard is an APPEARANCE of impropriety - and she should have known better and recused herself.
44 posted on 08/22/2006 10:36:55 PM PDT by Solemar ("Frognostication": The science of predicting the exact date and time that France will surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Solemar

"CFSM" not "CSFM"


45 posted on 08/22/2006 10:43:35 PM PDT by Solemar ("Frognostication": The science of predicting the exact date and time that France will surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Solemar

The HOPE Fund is a discretionary fund. Gifts are given as determined by a grants committee.

Here's the fund's 2005 annual report.

http://64.9.210.50/publications/PDFs/HOPE%20Annual%20Report%202005.pdf#search='H.O.P.E.%20Fund%20and%20CFSEM'

Doesn't seem our jurist is a member of the grants committee (last page) or a donor (although I just skimmed this).


46 posted on 08/22/2006 10:57:33 PM PDT by Solemar ("Frognostication": The science of predicting the exact date and time that France will surrender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: motife

Nothing to see here but liberal fraud. Move along. /s


47 posted on 08/22/2006 11:21:08 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

My uncle had to recuse himself from a case involving a musician because 15 years ago he owned stock in the music company the musician belonged to.


48 posted on 08/22/2006 11:23:12 PM PDT by ashamedtobefromparkridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Self ping, to remind myself to call my Congresscritter's office tomorrow. The Congressional Judicial Committee is the correct body to look into this, right?


49 posted on 08/23/2006 1:34:38 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: motife

Business as usual for liberals.

No wonder the ACLU shopped the case to her court.

If a conservative judge were caught doing something like this for say, the NRA, there would be hell to pay. The NY times would be screaming in headlines on the front page, top of fold, demanding the judges removal from the bench.


50 posted on 08/23/2006 1:47:44 AM PDT by Bullish ( The pig headed monkeys of Islam can kiss my grits!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson