Posted on 03/08/2008 2:15:53 AM PST by Iron Munro
A federal judge held a former USA Today reporter in contempt of court Friday and ordered her to pay up to $5,000 a day if she refuses to identify her sources for stories about a former Army scientist under scrutiny in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said Toni Locy must pay fines out of her own pocket as long as she continues to defy his order that she cooperate in scientist Steven J. Hatfill's lawsuit against the government.
Hatfill accuses the Justice Department of violating his privacy by discussing the investigation with reporters.
Locy had asked that a contempt citation be delayed while she appeals to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The judge refused.
Starting at midnight Tuesday, Locy is ordered to pay fines of $500 a day for the first week, $1,000 a day for the second week and $5,000 thereafter until she appears before the judge on April 3.
"To maximize the potential that Ms. Locy will ultimately comply with the court's order ... Ms. Locy is required to personally bear the responsibility of paying the fine the court imposed," Walton wrote.
Locy "is precluded from accepting any monetary or other form of reimbursement," the judge added.
Locy, 48, is a former Associated Press reporter who wrote about Hatfill while working at USA Today.
"I'm terribly disappointed in the judge's ruling," said Locy, now a professor at West Virginia University's journalism school. "I had hoped he would reconsider this draconian sanction."
In his decision, the judge said that further delay of a case that is already over four years old "may very likely prejudice Dr. Hatfill, with the potential result being the erosion of his ability to effectively establish" his Privacy Act claims.
"When weighing ... Dr. Hatfill's need to identify the leakers before their memories are exhausted against Ms. Locy's desire to preserve her ability to pursue her appeal, her interest, at a minimum, is counterbalanced by Dr. Hatfill's," the judge added.
Explaining his rationale for making Locy pay the money out of her own funds, the judge pointed to statements Hatfill's lawyers made in court papers. Hatfill's legal team said that while Locy's reporting was conducted "within the scope of her employment for USA Today, her contempt was not. It began long after she left the employment of USA Today."
Five people were killed and 17 sickened when anthrax was mailed to Capitol Hill lawmakers and members of the news media just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft called Hatfill, who worked at the Army's infectious diseases laboratory from 1997 to 1999, "a person of interest" in the investigation.
Walton ruled in August that five journalists must identify the government officials who discussed details about the case. Though reporters said testifying would chill the flow of information, Walton said that fear is outweighed by Hatfill's rights in his Privacy Act lawsuit.
Three reporters cooperated after their sources identified themselves to Hatfill's lawyers. Locy says she cannot remember whom she talked to about Hatfill specifically and is refusing to identify all the sources she spoke to about anthrax generally.
The judge is also considering whether to find former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt.
Stewart says that his cooperation is no longer necessary since several law enforcement officials have already acknowledged talking to reporters in the case about information similar to what Stewart reported.
Nobody was charged with the anthrax attacks and Hatfill's lawyers say the Justice Department destroyed his good name by discussing details of the case with reporters. Walton has scheduled time for settlement negotiations that could head off a trial, but Hatfill's attorneys have said it appears unlikely they will settle.
When I hear some one is a “Leaker, I have to say, “Oh that Poor Republican”...
sad but true in my eyes
Get the waterboard...
She should be sent to prison. Journalistic “license” should not include complicity in libel/slander.
Members of the 4th estate AKA 5th Column must follow the same laws as everybody else.
Toni Locy totally destroyed the life of Steven J. Hatfill, an innocent man.
The First Amendment does not cover yelling “Fire” in a packed movie house with no fire. Even if Hatfill wins, he is a broken man, a la Richard Jewell, another media lynching of an innocent man. Jewell died recently at a young age of an MI (a broken heart).
The despicable USA Today and Toni Locy must be brought to justice!
What other occupation but teaching could this “journalist” have gone into?
Really?
Locy: “I had hoped he would reconsider this draconian sanction.”
Judge: “DRACONIAN? Let’s make that $10,000 a day! How do you like me NOW?!?”
“To maximize the potential that Ms. Locy will ultimately comply with the court’s order ... Ms. Locy is required to personally bear the responsibility of paying the fine the court imposed,” Walton wrote. Locy “is precluded from accepting any monetary or other form of reimbursement,” the judge added.”
Locy is a moral leper who should be triced up and flogged until she cooperates. That said, how can it be Constitutional or legal in any way for a judge to order this?
Thanks for posting this IM. We need to keep in mind we still don’t know who sent the anthrax, and a terrorist attack with this type of weapon can happen again.
This Locy woman was part of a process ~ maybe even a conspiracy ~ to destroy Hatfill's freedom and civil liberties.
I'll get the towel, you get the bucket of water, and you guys over there start strapping her down. Judge Walton, you can hold her head to keep her from wiggling.
Judge Walton neatly solves that problem. In his Order (which is on my web site), Walton says that when (or if) Locy names her sources, after Dr. Hatfill deposes them, Dr. Hatfill will be violating a Protective Order if he publicly identifies any "source" who did not actually provide information about Dr. Hatfill.
First, as to enforcing contempt of court, the power of a court is "extra-constitutional" -- hard to explain, but it means the judge has police-type powers to enforce his judicial power regarding his courtroom. That's why you can be thrown in jail indefinitely without a trial for contempt of court.
Secondly, and I like this move, the judge has essentially determined that the reporter's refusal is not within the scope of her employment, and is willful. Therefore, it is against public policy to allow bad actors to commit WILLFULLY BAD ACTS (beyond negligent) and then get indemnified by 3rd parties, i.e., the newspaper.
The judge is within his power to disallow that, even if that indemnification was a part of the reporter's employment contract, for example. The court can just say "no, I won't allow it."
We all know Atta had a strange rash on his arm, so I have to think that his gang was involved. Why they wanted to hang this one on a most likely innocent non-terrorist, I don’t know, but it’s been a strange case.
Pinging Shermy, who I believe has an interest in the anthrax goings on.
She’s not naming her sources because she’s complicit in the crime of misdirecting the anthrax investigation away from radical Islamists.
She deserves a firing squad, but fines and jail will have to suffice.
She witnessed a crime. She doesn't want to name the criminal.
She should at the very least go to jail for her complicity in said crime.
That she is a "reporter" or any other profession should give her no immunity for her aiding and abetting.
“She should at the very least go to jail for her complicity in said crime.”
Of course I agree with that. That’s not what I meant.
How can the judge forbid her to accept financial help from others?
“First, as to enforcing contempt of court, the power of a court is “extra-constitutional”
Thank you for the explanation.
I don’t like the idea of anyone having “extra-constitutional” powers. Matter of fact, I’m pretty much dead set against it.
bump
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.