NSA Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Secretary of Fund that bankrolled Michigan ACLU

Judicial Watch ^ | 8/21/06 | Judicial Watch

[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.

[budanski]

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

[budanski]

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

[doug from upland]

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

[tobyhill]

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

[doug from upland]

DON'T ANYBODY SEND A PENNY TO TOM FITTON

[sgtbono2002]

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.

[TeleStraightShooter]

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

[MindBender26]

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.

[TeleStraightShooter]

concur - there is a small chance of it succeeding, however, it would illustrate to the voters how the (D) senators support her unethical actions.

[GeronL]

.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

[mockingbyrd]

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

[stickandpucknut]

how much will cnn push this NONE

[EagleUSA]

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

[DCPatriot]

Pretty cool.

[Springman]

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

[MindBender26]

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.

[georgiarat]

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.

[mockingbyrd]

"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.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

“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.

[jrooney]

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.

[Redbob]

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?

[Republic]

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

[jrooney]

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.

[jrooney]

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.

[BW2221]

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.

[phoenix0468]

Who the heck is Tom Fitton?

[Solemar]

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.

[indcons]

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.

[jrooney]

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.

[zot]

Paging the U. S. Attorney General...

[Roy Tucker]

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

[jrooney]

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.

[rottndog]

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

Ain't gonna happen with the limpd##ks in the senate.

[Solemar]

"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]

[EternalHope]

She should be thrown off the bench for this.

[jrooney]

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.

[doug from upland]

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

[doug from upland]

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

[phoenix0468]

OIC, ok.

[DakotaRed]

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

[VOA]

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.

[Tzimisce]

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. :)

[Solemar]

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.

[Solemar]

"CFSM" not "CSFM"

[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).

[taxesareforever]

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

[ashamedtobefromparkridge]

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.

[GoLightly]

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?

[Bullish]

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.