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.
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.
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?
GW continues to amaze me. He is courageous and doesn't lose sight of his compassion and wisdom simply to please either party.
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.
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.
Who the heck is Tom Fitton?
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.
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.
Paging the U. S. Attorney General...
And then disbarred, tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
"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]
She should be thrown off the bench for this.
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.
Judicial Watch, which was mentioned in the story. He wants to line his pockets with more suckers' money.
Memorialized in song - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688416/posts
OIC, ok.
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.