Consul.
Counsel.
j/k - but couldn't resist.
Posted on 04/06/2009 3:22:21 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Greg Pollowitz points me to this report from the Anchorage Daily News, that the judge in the failed corruption prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens is still fuming at the Justice Department. The paper reports that Judge Emmet Sullivan, "on his own, without a request by either party" issued a pair of orders over the weekend, "indicating he may not be ready to give up jurisdiction of the case even as the government is asking for all charges to be dismissed." The report elaborates that the judge
directed federal prosecutors to provide him copies of everything they had gathered in the post-trial reviews and investigations and which they had provided to Stevens' defense attorneys. He also directed them to provide everything they had uncovered and produced related to the complaint by Anchorage FBI agent Chad Joy into the conduct of the Alaska corruption investigation and the prosecution of Stevens' case.... Sullivan also demanded the notes of prosecutors from an April 15, 2008, interview of former Veco Corp. chief executive Bill Allen. It was the discovery of those notes two weeks ago by a new prosecution team that led Attorney General Eric Holder to seek dismissal of all charges against Stevens "in the interest of justice." The notes directly contradicted a key piece of Allen's testimony six months later at Stevens' trial and should have been turned over to the defense, Holder said....
Judge Sullivan also directed the government not to "destroy any evidence or documents connected to the case," including e-mails, notes, memos, investigative files, audio recordings, etc.
At least based on what's reported here, these are lawless orders. Judge Sullivan — though he no doubt has the best of intentions — should stand down.
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
Uh-huh. Figures.
It’s not lawless.
Judges, esp. federal judges, have inherant power to see to it that the lawyers before the tribunal act in accordance with the required ethical guidelines.
Judges can, and should sanction the Hell out of these lawyers, including getting them disbarred and/or spend jail time for contempt of tribunal.
These justice department lawyers (Executive branch) set out to alter a US election (Legislative Branch) by abuse of their powers.
The judge is well-within his Constitutional authority, and should slap them down so hard they never can practice law again.
These lawyers hid evidence of innocence and intentionally threw an election to Democrats.
The only thing shocking is the Dhim Senator has not stepped down.
Actually, I did some deeper digging and find that his first two federal appointments were by Ronald Reagan and George Bush, respectively.
good deal.
I have to agree with you. I can't quite understand where NRO is coming from here. The judge is examining the behavior of consul that was exhibited in his courtroom. He certainly has the power to hold a hearing to find the appropriate sanctions. And, I don't see anything wrong with it.
That hearing wouldn't damage any other or additional proceedings that might be held if disciplinary actions are taken against these attorneys.
hopefully this will lead to a housecleaning. but then its evidently illegal to fire a lawyer.
You are correct, sir. Trial attorneys are considered ‘Officers of the Court”, and as such, are obligated to follow the rules of the court and ethical guidlines. It falls to the presiding judge to enforce the rules of the court through issuing contempt rulings and bringing the matter before the appropriate Bar.
This judge is within his rights to review all evidence and work material related to a case brought before him in order to enforce the rules of the court.
This is understandable but foolish. It's also a separation-of-powers violation. {snip} Besides, judges don't have any general supervisory authority over the Justice Department and they don't have any jurisdiction to conduct investigations. What the judge has is authority to dismiss the indictment. After that, it's up to the Justice Department. The judge can stamp his feet, Congress can conduct oversignt, but neither branch has the power to order a criminal investigation, or to conduct one.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
The judge is within his rights during the trial. Is he within his rights after the trial is over? Counsel is no longer before the Court.
Morally? Yes.
Legally? I don't know.
I'd be interested to hear the opinions of FR legal experts on this one, which is why I posted the article. Maybe we can get RaceBannon to weigh in on this one?
I doubt anything will come of this.I will bet some heavies from DOJ will shut the judge up.Like the paperwork for his pension will be a nightmare to sort through.etc,etc
No. It's only illegal for Republicans to fire lawyers. Holder will probably get some kind of medal.
Hey Judge there is a Certain Birth Certificate we would all like to see ,You think we can squeeze that in to your order ?
2. All judges have inherent authority to control the conduct of the lawyers who appear before them. Both the federal rules and our local state rules allow sanctions even after a case is concluded, especially where there has been concealment of facts from the court. Lawyers are officers of the court and are subject to the general contempt powers of the judge.
3. If the judge finds due cause he can refer these idiots to their local bar for disbarment proceedings. Of course he would have to do an investigation before referring. I'm not sure where this writer is coming from. I hope he's not a lawyer.
Counsel.
j/k - but couldn't resist.
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.