“chamgers”?

It’s going to be hard enough to get rid of all of the Fourthbranch Columnists in the Department of Justice - but guys like Nottingham, and Fuller in the Siegelman case, the only way to get rid of them is by impeachment and trial in the Senate.

Parking in disabled spaces? This guy is a cartoon!

Thanks.

I have to admit, I do wonder whether someone who had something hanging over Nottingham was able to influence his rulings in the Nacchio case. That’s how Karl really gains a hold over people, I think.

Gosh, this could be fun, a new way to clear the bench. Initiate private investigations of those of righty/tighty legal persuasion for conflict of interest and their many moral lapses.

You know what? I don’t like it when the Spitzer investigation stuff was leake dto the press and I don’t like it when the investigation into this judge’s ALLEGED prositution invovlement is leaked.

Here’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work, the FBI and the presecutors do an investigation as quietly as possible so as not to damage the reputations of the “innocent accused”. Oh, and they don’t violate GJ secrecy either.

If they actually find an indictable crime, they indict the sucker and put what they found in the indictment for all to see. Then they go to court and put up or shut up.

THAT’s how it works. Not all this leak slaicous stuff to the press that you don’t have the guts to put in an indictment you actually have tosihn off on.

Just like the KGB used to do. Scary.

On reading the link EW provided, the article notes that Nottingham’s wife ratted him out to the FBI about surfing for porn on his govt computer. Perhaps there was another source for this information? Wasn’t there another case where someone had hacked into judiciary computers? It sure would be helpful in certain cases to have access to a draft decision on certain matters ahead of time.

Well, seeing as how the sources for the story are the two people who accused Nottingham of ethical problems, and seeing as how the investigation is being done by a FORMER FBI Agent (that is, it’s not a grand jury investigation), it’s not exactly parallel.

True, but this isn’t a DOJ/FBI investigation; it is being run privately by the 10th Circuit judicial board. I agree that it should not have been leaked probably, but i have seen others similar to this that also were. I wouldn’t be surprised if Stern or another of Nacchio’s lawyers were the ones who let this out; and there are no secrecy requirements that I am aware of.

I would think that the appropriate thing for a federal judge to do while this investigation is current would be to take leave with pay - every case he hears from now on until he is found guilty of judicial misconduct or exonnerated is going to be tainted.

Denver’s TalkLeft has left this link to the 10th circuit appeal decision for Nacchio retrial announced on StPats; he must have found a fourLeafer on the way into that hearing.

Yeah, I dunno. All I have seen is extra-judicial stuff. He may be a perv or wildman; but I haven’t seen anything that impinges on his handling of cases other that that he is intemperate and works over attorneys. As I said a couple of days ago, that is, shall we say, not particularly unusual behavior out of federal judges. Here is the only conduct I have seen documented out of the Nacchio trial:

U.S. District Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham Jr. — who frequently humiliated lawyers in open court during this trial — was jumping on Jeffrey Speiser, attorney for former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio.
Speiser was fumbling in his effort to describe a court exhibit to a witness. Somehow, Speiser could not get the number right. Nottingham grew impatient.
Nottingham: “Are we talking about 809?”
Speiser: “Yes.”
Nottingham: “Well, you said 809, the witness just said no, so you’re looking at something different.”
Speiser: “I’m sorry, I was looking at the numbers upside down. (It’s) 608.”
Nottingham: “At least it’s not 69.”
The court fell oddly silent.

Here was my earlier comment on that:

Heh heh, “Federal Judge is pompous intemperate ass” is, um, shall we say, not exactly an unusual or new story. The ticky tack stuff in that story by reporter Lewis doesn’t even put Naughtyham in the big leagues of intemperate pompous ass federal judges. I have heard he was a bear in the Nacchio trial, but you’re going to need more than than a fleeting “69″ joke to make the case. A month long heated criminal trial is a war of sorts, it is the kind of setting where big boys and, occasionally, girls play; it is not for the meek. If a trial attorney heard that crack and did anything but chuckle and move on, they probably shouldn’t be in that courtroom. Now, that statement I just made may shock those with sensitive ears and conscience, and perhaps rightfully so; but from what I’ve seen, it is a fact.

There was a Federal District Judge, same as Judge naughty, in Houston that flat out sexually molested a female court employee in the courthouse (chambers I think); he is still there. These types of investigations are CYA affairs for the Circuit and to give a little wake up call to the judge; usually nothing more.

OT - Bush finally gets someone for the slot Fran Townsend left (she, of the girly gushy goodbye) and it’s a familiar face. Ken Waistein.

And also OT, TPM has up info from Lichtblau’s book (jiminy - why expect public servants and journalists to ever tell you anything important in the context of their jobs - apparently both slots are a time portal of info awaiting a book deal), about how Harman supported the Administration’s position that NYT not print the wiretap story.

But she said that the president’s public confirmation of the program’s existence after the Times story had allowed her to consult with “constitutional experts, the former general counsel of the CIA, some of the excellent staff on the House Intelligence Committee.” She continued: “then I learned, although I’m a trained lawyer, about some of the serious legal issues that I have been raising ever since.”

It doesn’t excuse the leak, but I wonder if the evidence to hand was overwhelming and they were afraid of this DOJ taking it nowhere, just as it has rewarded rather than investigated the questionable behavior of Judge Fuller, who presided over Don Siegelman’s trial in Alabama. Which bespeaks of similar politicization among a portion of the federal judiciary, not just the DOJ.

Still wrong, as LHD says — it would piss off any lawyer or judge to have his or her alleged wrongful conduct publicized before any facts were proven — but explicable, sauce for the goose, so to speak.

Yea, opens up another slot in our well-staffed, disinterested and professional DOJ.

I don’t think so. I think this is simply an internal personnel type of CYA by the Circuit. I have seen no evidence of any criminal conduct yet; quite frankly, I haven’t seen much evidence of judicial misconduct at all. I think they are taking appropriate steps to insure they don’t have sexual harassment issues now or down the line. I could easily be wrong, but from what I have seen so far, thats it.

I was referring to it being wrong that any inquiry about this district court judge had been leaked to the press.

I think you’re spot on: the 10th Cir. has a responsibility to investigate credible allegations against him. It is certainly on notice about warning signs of potential sexual harassment. I would say it also gently but publicly rebuked his conduct of the case, while taking no position on its merits.

Equally interesting is whether the local USA will retry Nacchio. Hard to see how they could avoid it, given the brouhaha involved in the original trial. But it could be like riding a tiger for them. A lot’s come out challenging the bona fides of the USG spying game, and credibility of the DOJ and USA’s in general. Nacchio may not appear to a new jury as quite as much a heavy as he undoubtedly was earlier. But there are still lots of people still smarting in Denver as a consequence of that merger; not everyone’s moved on smoothly or without paying a considerable price. I haven’t a clue about the credibility of the insider trading claims.

If the local USA does proceed, what would a reasonable timeline be? If there is anything to the wiretapping connections, could revelation, or even discussion of that now be too ‘timely’ for the Rethugs vis a vis the Nov elections?

Somewhat OT and definitely “Present Company EXCEPTED”, it appears there may be a bit of Ken $tarr style inve$tigating and John A$$croft ca$hing in going on in the NYC Dem legal community:

Spitzer’s mouthpiece has his own secrets to hide

I know, but even so, this leaking to destroy someones reputation in a way that they can’t really defend themsleves,instead of charging and putting your proof to the test,is really getting my dander up.

OT - Bush finally gets someone for the slot Fran Townsend left (she, of the girly gushy goodbye) and it’s a familiar face. Ken Waistein.

Now THAT’s interesting. I didn’t see that coming. I thought Ken would be stying in DOJ after the cahnge in Admin. I guess he either has fallen out of favor with his prfessional rabbis, or they don’t think they have the power to cover him (or he has lost faith in their abilty to cover him)

This implies htat Wainstein is certain to head into the private sector if when there is a Dem in the WH (so he needs the line on his resume and the connnects in private industry he will build in this job) or he will get kicked upstairs in a McCain presidency (so, he needs this line on his resume)

Up until today, I would have bet money that wainstein was still part of the “permanent” DOJ crowd (some of whom are in the private sector at the moment, but yearning to return)

Mary, you handed me a big surprise

Are you complaining that the prostitution stuff was leaked, or that the allegations that he improperly parked in a handicapped spot (and threatened to have a women arrested for complaining about it) was leaked? Because the latter appears to be non-libelous first amendment statements from the woman involved, along with her non-libelous first amendment statements relating that an investigator interviewed her about it. The first amendment exists for precisely this reason–that when a person in power abuses that power, people can legitimately complain about it.

My hope is that there are lots of good people who’ve left the DOJ and other departments who are anxious to come back and help rebuild, in effect, the federal bureaucracy. Congress may well have to lend a hand, but individual department heads would need to take the lead.

The woman in the parking lot is not a leaker, she’s a waitness and she has evry rigtht in the world to talk to the press. Mazaltoff to her.

Nope, the investigator is unprofessional to leak.

Same thing with the pornography. IF his pissed off wife wants to talk to the press, She should. But the professionals running the investigation sould not be leaking it. If they want to bring him up on ethics charges, or criminal charges, that’s theri way to expose this information and then they have to put up their proof.

But character assisnantion by the investitgation, with no charges to back it up? I’m not diggin’ it.

For the retrial? Some judges will schedule for the first available opeing in their schedule that is big enough. Some judges will want to enjoy a little motion practice frat so they can familiarize themsleves with the case.

I imagine the issue is not whether a private individual legitimately reveals facts known to him or her, but whether anyone revealed the existence or fruits of an investigation, if any, into an individual judge’s conduct.

Sexual harassment concerns, for example, are investigated all the time. Only a portion them establish the fact or likelihood that harassment took place; normally, even those would not be made public by an investigating body (as opposed to those directly involved).

But that’s precisely my point! This:

When contacted by ABC News, Brundage declined to comment as did a spokesperson for the 10th Circuit Court.

Strongly suggests that the court and the investigator AREN’T leaking. The only sources in the story are the individuals involved.

I’m not sure about the prostitution story–I need to go back and look at sources for that, though the sources include the prostitutes (which is why we know they called him naughty).

But this story–along with the two other allegations–appear to be coming from the people who are publicly complaining about his behavior.

If I understand right, the other allegations were pretty much public rumors already too (isn’t his wife even maybe a source?). To the best I can see, the only thing really “leaked”, that was not floating around in one form or another already, was that there was an official investigation by the 10th. Again, i am just cobbling crap together from different places; but it kind of looks that way.

Earl @18 - I dunno on a potential date for a retrial; I don’t think we can tell yet because the government may seek review of the recent decision, both en banc and, perhaps the Supremes. Looks hard for it to get in before August, and it ain’t gonna be in August because that is when the judges like to vacation and the Dem convention will be in town to boot. Was a month long trial; that is a lot of court time to have taken up by one case. Fall or later would be a decent bet; but I just don’t know.

There are people, who ask you quietly, and somewhat shyly, at cocktail parties if you have ever, done what they do as a guilty pleasure– gotten out a pad of paper and done a buget and figured out how you can deal with your expenses so as to be able to withstand the pay cut to go back to the gov’t.

Then there are the people who call you up and offer to come to your house and sit at your kitchen table and help you draw up such a buget.

Yep, lot’s of folks are thinking about coming back so they can bring back the institutional memory of what their former agencies are SUPPOSED to be be like. People hired in the last 7=8 years wouldn’t know anything was wrong, because they don’t know what it’s supposed be like.

How can you miss something you’ve never experieineced?

Jim Comey gave a wonderful speech at the NYC Harvard Club a couple weeks ago about instilling an organizational culture, how you createe it, buld it and keep it alive.
How a good, helathy ethical culture helps he people working in it to make good choice, but how those same people will most often make bad choices in an unhealthy unethical organizational culture.

So,I guess, oldtimers who remeber the good culture will be needed to bring it back and lead by example

Right.

And the news of the investigation, again, seems to be coming from the two people who complained in the first place, not from the Court or the investigator.

It may be my mistake, but the excerpt didn’t read that way to me. I’m not following this closely, so …..

And I’m obviously still doing a bit of a slow burn about the Spitzer leaks. Lot’s of info by people “briefed on the case” , still no charges

The publicity related to a retrial of Nacchio might be greater than the first time and won’t be as favorable to the GOP, a consideration that seems to weigh heavily with this DOJ, this administration and the GOP. They certainly wouldn’t want a trial going on during the Dem convention in Denver.

Obviously, if there’s a good case that Nacchio traded on insider information, prosecute him. I guess I’m most worried about the abuse of prosecutorial discretion that has the DOJ using scarce tax dollars and abusing the criminal justice system by ignoring or hiding comparable GOP conduct.

Excuse the OT, but Brian Ross on ABC just said that only Clinton had failed to release her tax returns. Last I heard, McCain had not, either, but Ross said he had.

I know a colleague just below SES level who’s still “inside”. S/he’s endured multiple reorganizations, an empty desk and phone for nearly a year, bosses twice his/her age who know nothing about the department arbitrarily overriding decisions, having to ask permission for something as simple as agreeing to one day extension to a deadline, ad nauseum.

Still there, still cleared, but a lot of friends had to leave, replaced by GOP’ers who’d helped in Florida, had joined the Federalist Society, had the right extra-curriculars, etc., and many seemingly too young for the work.

That’s why I suggested Congress may need to step in with revisions to the rules governing non-political hires. Rebuilding could be exhausting, time consuming, expensive and litigious, but we can’t afford not to do it.

Ismael if you’re in Canada, and have been there most of the time, you do an exemplary job following the antics of “justice” in the U.S.

DOJ and the Federal Judiciary have been a circuis for a long time. As long as the ringmaster is Mukasey, you aren’t going to have a significant change. Fox is guarding hencoop for an administration that clearly believes they are beyond good and evil–particularly when other peoples’ money is hemorrhaging, family are dying, and the roofs over their head are disappearing.

Here’s the passage that makes it clear that this story is based on the disabled woman as a source.

Another case of judicial misconduct against Nottingham was filed by disabled Denver resident Jeanne Elliot.

Elliot says she confronted Nottingham last year after he parked his car in a handicapped space.

“He waved his judge’s badge and threatened to have me arrested by federal marshals,” Elliot told ABC News.

She said former FBI agent Brundage, who identified himself as a special investigator for the 10th Circuit Court, has interviewed her about the incident. “His interview skills were great,” said the one-time attorney.

There aren’t enough independent investigators on the planet. Nottingham is very representative and in a minute I’ll show you how.

A lifelong Canadian, but a political junkie who loves all things American as well, which makes it all the more infuriating to see what is happening to your country. EW and other amazing bloggers like Horton and the commenters here make it easy to stay in the loop.

21 - Well, TPM handed it lhp, but I’ll take credit. *g*

Wainstein was either counsel or COS for Mueller at FBI through a lot of what they did and didn’t do. And he has twisted like pretzel on wiretaps and how he represented items to Congress. I know you think a lot of Kelly and they were partners, but I’d be just real happy to see an end for the DOJ career of the guy who helped serve as the legal dead end for the very few FBI torture complaints that came in and who had to have known all about thousands of NSL issues, even as he and the rest of the Ashcroft crew were doing the hard sell on the Patriot Act.

And not being a big Comey fan as you know, I have to say that some of that speech, “how those same people will most often make bad choices in an unhealthy unethical organizational culture” sounds like a nice big cya. As a prosecutor, did he make it a habit to offer byes to people who did bad things if they could blame it on being part of an unhealthy, unethical organization? To me it sounds a lot like the excuses for everyone at DOJ so happily working for years for a torture adminstration and shrugging off their direct roles, by failure to ever publically object to anything, in that long list that Hugh put together.

I don’t recall, when Arar’s case hit, Comey saying that Larry Thompson ought to bear the consequences, at a minimum the civil consequences, of his part in the conspiracy to ship Arar to Syria. Instead I recall him playing CYA and filing a state secrets affidavit in that case. I don’t recall him saying that Haynes should bear the consequences for basically engaging in sniper attacks on the JAG corps and taking our military to disgrace and institutionalizing detainee abuse and depravity and their coverups and directing the military to ignore the Geneva Conventions. Instead, I recall him joining with Goldsmith and sending out a nifty epistle on how Haynes should have a lifetime appointment to the Fourth Circuit because he did such a nice job with paperwork and he didn’t really like torture as much as some other people did.

He wakes up every day and knows that he did far worse than Nifong and that there was a Pentgaon report on the SO Car brig abuses issued a month before he stood up at the Padilla press conf and said everything was fine and dandy and the Padilla detentions/interrogations, the DOJ had conveniently failed to tell anyone, anywhere, to preserve detainee abuse evidence despite a cart full of cases that required that kind of response and he allowed it and in his Padilla investigation would have known all about the waterboarding of Zubaydah and KSM and all the unreliable info from Z and that Z was crazy - all when he gave that press conf.

He wakes up every day and knows that there are specific victims of specific crimes - and their families, that he has worked hard to keep from ever having justice - and that there are lies upon lies upon lies that he helped “sell” and that have resulted in untold damage. He’s not the worst - he’s one of the best. And that’s what is so awful. He gave the leadership - and it was leadership to appease, overlook, protect your friends in DOJ no matter what they do, advance political interests over all else, and make sure the American public can NEVER look to DOJ for the truth if there is Executive Branch crime. Just another disinformation press conference, another “no charges filed” detainee beaten or frozen or otherwise tortured to death, another child with a father disappeared - or even the child disappeared (whatever did happen to KSMs children - certainly no one wanted any pictures out circulating while they were still just 6 and 8, did they?), some more evidence destroyed, and a few more letters to the President, telling him how wonderful he is as Thompson goes to Pepsico, Haynes to Chevron, Comey to Lockheed, etc. etc.

I don’t know western Canada, but am partial to Toronto, no matter how sterile it’s considered, Montreal and Quebec City. Georgian Bay and Tobermory are something, too.

34 - “That’s why I suggested Congress may need to step in with revisions to the rules governing non-political hires. Rebuilding could be exhausting, time consuming, expensive and litigious, but we can’t afford not to do it.”

But how do they do it without all kinds of opening of doors that should stay shut? I don’t see any good, workable way to get there, but if there is one, it would be great.

Re Nottingham:

Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Colorado
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on October 20, 1989, to a new seat created by 98 Stat. 333; Confirmed by the Senate on November 21, 1989, and received commission on November 27, 1989. Served as chief judge, 2007-present.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1786

There’s the rub. Like a constitutional convention, changing the civil service legislation could lead to more abuse than Bush has already created.

I don’t know what the answer is. Certainly, Obama or Clinton should make management talent a high priority in their senior nominees. Cheney chained the federal bureaucracy to the back of a pick up truck and dragged it round Foggy Bottom.

OT - CREW in a “reply brief in support of its motion to show cause why a number of White House officials should not be held in contempt in CREW v. EOP” again defines CIO (Chief Idiot Officer) Theresa Payton as an Idiot (pdf), perhaps even a contemptuous Idiot.

There is a private site for rating judges.

44 - Go CREW.

This is why I was whining like a wounded coyote last summer about initiating impeachment proceedings against freaking Gonzales before he idly walked back to the hole he came from scott free. Do that and throw all the Goodling, Sampson etc. stuff in the hamper with him and you not only get a vehicle for inquiry right into Rove, Miers, Addington and on up the totem pole of excrement; but you might well filet open a basis for bouncing a bunch of zombie druid Regent Federalist clones in the career ranks of the DOJ for being illegally hired in the first place. I don’t really know if that would work or not, but there is no hope of bouncing established career Goop-pods without laying some kind of foundation. I don’t care what they accomplish from here on out, I honestly believe that Pelosi, Hoyer and Emmanuel have knowingly, intentionally and egregiously violated the letter of their oath and duty to office to such an extent that it is nearly traitorous by blithely and unblinkingly insisting that “impeachment is off the table in all circumstances”. It may not rise to a capital crime, but it ought to; it is hard to imagine how their acts have not contributed to the sever and grievous injury to the morals and fabric of American society.

There is no doubt that lhp is absolutely right that criminal investigations/allegations for Spitzer, Judge Nottingham or anyone else should never be leaked. These are the ethical standards that a lot of people adhere to, but they are unfortunately different on the street.

LHP asked recently if anyone could remember flagrant long term leaking by DOJ/FBI in her comment on a Spitzer thread at FDL, and I remember a few. One that comes to mind that leaked information as snitches were flipped and investigated over a period of 4-5 years was the investigation of a large city Mayor, Bill Campbell in the Northern District of Georgia. This included information from his business associates and co-workers, and a local affilliate news anchor who was one of his mistresses, who now reads the news in Chicago.

Allegations against Federal Judges that make them look like characters in a Lisa Scottoline novel (former law clerk to Judge Sloviter in the Third Circuit) aren’t that unusual. I never heard of a judge waving a “badge” but what the hell. It would have made a great You Tube if only Denver attorney Jeanne Elliot had filmed Nottingham with her cell phone. I know of no impropriety for that incident’s publicity–whether he was prosecuted or not (he could be if the incident actualy happened).

They “impropriety” seem to be misdemeanors if true.. I don’t konw or care about the nuances of the Denver state courts or municiple courts, I’ll leave that to people like Jerilyn Merritt who wade in them. I guess we could play the Mann act game, but we all know Feds don’t use Mann except when going after predators or the type of rings that force prostitution slavery/cruelty and may involve kidnapping as well. Most of these johns aren’t trying to bring women accross state lines–they’re just trying to bring women.

For me, the allegations of dating the women of Denver Sugar/Denver Sugar, hitting the strip bars, or surfing porn wouldn’t be that unsual for a federal judge. Their sex lives for me are far less important than the way they play fast and loose with precedents they and their law clerks can’t find or don’t know, and particularly FRE.

After all, I remember the flap right before the 911 Judicial Conference a few years ago where AOC Chief Leonides “Ralph Cramden” Mecham tried to flex his muscles (if you could find any on him) and was backed down by a number of judges including then Chief Judge Mary Schroeder and the flamboyant Alex Kozinsky. AOC decided to monitor web surfing in all federal chambers and court offices. Mecham alledged he had statistics that had a 6.5% porn surfing ratefrom federal chambers computers (law clerks, secretaries, judges and probably the ocassional strolling District/Circuit Executive or marshall, FBI agent who might be at a computer in chambers). This included District Court Executive Offices and Circuit Executive Offices, as well as probation offices. Maybe one person’s porn is another person’s aesthetics or vice-versa. Was that a line from Keats, Wordsworth or Shelley or Alfred Prufrock?

I’m sure they had brains enough (well, maybe) to know sufing history could be easily retrieved 66 ways to Chrismas, they just didn’t think the AOC would log their keystrokes.

I like the Ninth Circuit’s approach. Chief Judge (then) Schroeder shut down the pcs in all the Ninth Circuit and district court offices for about two weeks. Kozinsky threatened to have the FBI investigate Meacham so that he could be indicted. AOC food fights are always fun. Meacham who is widely known as a bully, backed down.

There were threats from federal judges to investigate and have Meacham prosecuted for a violation of the EPCA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1896).

This was about the time when file sharing cases were beginning to be brought against individuals to force them into an average of $3500 settlements. I always wondered what happens when the teen age son or daughter of a federal judge or the judge themselves show up on a list for hitting the torrents/file shares a little too frequently.

Plan for Web Monitoring in Courts Dropped

Mr. Mecham said last week that two senior appeals court judges had misrepresented the matter in efforts to derail the program, referring to Judge Kozinski and to Judge Mary Schroeder, the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, who had written letters opposing the monitoring.

He also contended that Judge Kozinski was ”advocating his passionate views that judges are free, undetected, to download pornography and Napster music on government computers in federal court buildings on government time even though some of the downloading may constitute felonies.” He also said Judge Kozinski had shown ”great interest in keeping pornography available to judges,” especially of what Mr. Mecham called ”the more homosexual and exotic varieties.”

Rebels in Black Robes Recoil At Surveillance of Computers

Judge Kozinski’s Open Letter to Federal Judges

Report of Judicial Conference on Automation and Technology 9/01

Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, drafted and distributed an 18-page legal memorandum arguing that the monitoring was a violation of anti-wiretap statute.

Judge Kozinski, widely known for his libertarian views, said the court employees who were disciplined, an estimated three dozen, could be entitled to monetary damages if they brought a lawsuit.

The info on Nottingham seems to have come from an IRS investigation, similar to the one that ICE Alumnus Mike Garcia launched (found Spitzer and currently is debating violations and coming up very empty) but there may well have been a pissed off ex-Mrs. Ed Nottingham that led the tipsters to precipitate the warrants for phone logs or wiretapping, and the ex-Mrs. Nottingham could have called the media to gain leverage in her divorce settlement.

If in fact Judge Nottingham was into “Denver Sugar”, then I suppose the only charges would be misdemeanors and they wouldn’t be hard cases to make unless the Feds wanted to eat one of their own and could show a technical Mann Act Violation since working girls do fly in and out of the Denver airport. This is very unlikely, and substantive discipline by the Tenth Circuit would be equally unlikely. A recent initiative by the Judicial Conference to tighten diciplinary procedures and consequences for federal judges flew like a lead baloon.

Judge Nottingham’s alledged stupidity/arrogance in contacting prostitution services on his cell though is remarkable, given the current hypocrisy and moral posturing that is always superimposed on stories like this.

I find it difficult to have sympathy for an ex-DOJster on the bench who abuses attorneys verbally with smart assed remarks when a review of his own trial conduct shows very minimal familiarity with FRE and FRCrP,or conduct where he intentionally ignores them. (Federal Rules of Evidence/Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure).

Stealing a handicapped parking space from a women a physician designated to have one by threatening to have a marshall arrest a lawyer may win Nottingham the Schlameal of the year award, and there are laws against this in most states, if this in fact occurred. It’s pending investigation. The lawyer should have photographed Nottingham and his license plate/car with her cell phone. I would have like to. They were in a public place.

The common pathway for the vast majority of 765+ or minus a few) federal trial and appelate judges–the ones with no federal litigation experience whatsoever or a whole other problem and they certainly are sprinkled throughout the 93 district courts and federal appellate circuits as well.

What is far more serious and very systemic is that Nottingham foreclosed introduction of an expert witness that might have made Nacchio’s case. Nottingham was an AUSA from 1976-1978. Of course he should have known better, but like most DOJsters he came to the bench with an agenda. Nottingham frequently abuses the defense bar in his courtroom. It’s hard to tell from his spotty CV what he did for 9 years after leaving DOJ and Daddy H.W.Bush put him on the bench.

I haven’t read the trial transcript. I don’t understand why Nottingham would not have allowed arguments on the inclusion of the expert witness. I cannot remember an appellate panel or an en banc remanding a case and removing a judge, but I’m sure it may have happened very rarely somewhere.

Cutting, nasty, and threatening comments from the federal trial bench are in fact, very common. They are abusive, particularly so when the individual judges are Westlaw/Lexus challenged in crucial ways as are their very green law clerks.

That is the serious problem in this current Nacchio case/appeal and it is systemic in the federal judiciary. Laziness and arrogance are prime components in this equation.

No one should be surprised that the government has asked for a 30 day extension to motion for a en-banc rehearing of the 10th Circuit panel’s opinion. Extensions to file an en banc motion are rarely granted, but who knows. What is far more common is a Circuit taking a decision en banc on its own–it happens not infrequently in the polarized Ninth Circuit.

I hope Nacchio’s attorneys kick ass, and I would love to see them put do some serious damage to the Bush Administration, which might be one strong motivation for an en banc hearing in order to screw with this opinion.

I have to admit, I do wonder whether someone who had something hanging over Nottingham was able to influence his rulings in the Nacchio case. That’s how Karl really gains a hold over people, I think.

I don’t know the answer to that, but given that the government is now angling for an en banc rehearing with a motion to request a rarely granted 30 day extension to the 14 days always allowed via the Tenth Circuit F.R.A.P., I’d sure consider the politics in the equation of an en banc rehearing and new opinion from the Tenth Circuit could possibly be connected with protecting this administration from any exploration of their rancid, egregious Telcom dealings and paperwork that probably exists.

AUSAs Motion for Extension of the 14 Day Rule to File En Banc Motion in Nacchio

What worries me is the politics of an en banc opinion shutting down this opportunity to open up the government’s misconduct in wiretapping if the en banc motion by the government is granted.

Correct me here , but the Tenth Circuit (which Circuit isn’t?–and the Ninth has a reputation for being a wild eyed liberal circuit but it is pretty evenly split right now actually)is very conservative, and I’m concerned that the could scotch the panel’s opinion by replacing it with an en banc opinion.

That they do, but if it weren’t for the escalation of foreign affairs crises in the last ten years, I’d be doing good to find a tenth of the places in the news on the map.

It’s admirable.

watercarrier @ 19, thanks for that raw story/Spitzer link…interesting.

I especially liked this tidbit:

He’s the same investigator who dismissed as not “sufficiently credible” the testimony of a decorated Navy Captain who was part of a secret data mining operation that uncovered evidence of 9/11 hijackers in the U.S. more than a year before the attacks.emphasis mine.

ok. back to lurking.

While reading more of the documents related to the CREW v. EOP lawsuit, I revisited some of the Oversight Committee documents they referenced.

In particular, the Sources for Supplemental Information has some really interesting material as it relates to the “declaration” of CIO (Chief Idiot Officer) Theresa Payton.

One of these interesting “tidbits” is that the White House Office of Administration (OA) used a product called “Mail Attender” from a company called Sherpa Software.

A description from Sherpa’s website on the Mail Attender product describes its capabilities as:

PST Administration

- Locate all PST files (network and desktop)
- Report on PST files and their location
- Access and manage content within desktop and network PST files
- Export information out of PST Files
- Enforce corporate policies within PST file and mailboxes files concurrently

As well as this “Content Administration” set of capabilities:

- Manage mailbox and PST data based upon actions such as delete, move, export, copy, forward, replace, and change status
- Customizable rule criteria includes: keywords, age, size, name, date, type, status, and wildcards
- Powerful searching of message subject, body and attachments

So the point that CREW is hammering that the OA, and in particular, Chief Idiot Officer Theresa Payton are making statements to the court that are on their face, contradictory.

The usage of this “Mail Attender” product would define, log, and report the existence of all PSTs, and therefore, the non-existence of PSTs too!

Chief Idiot Officer Theresa Payton and the White House’s position (including Miss Clueless herself, Dana “Pig Missile” Perino) that they don’t know whether email is missing or not yet, is simply fallacious.

CREW is right to call for contempt of court penalties.

Wasn’t there another case where someone had hacked into judiciary computers?

I don’t know of any hacking into federal judiciary computers although someone might know of a case, but I do remember well the game of chicken where the federal judiciary backed down their bullying Administrative Office of Court Administrator Leonides Ralph (”Kramden”) Mecham who began following the keystrokes of all AOC offices including judicial chambers, administrative offices, and probation offices, and I linked to some of it here. There was the allegation by AOC that 6.5% of the downoads were illegal file shares or porn. There have been about 20,000 cases in federal district court now where the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) have filed civil suits successfully against individuals to get judgements–the average has been $3500.

In one case in Kentucky, the downloader was a teenybopper whose father was deaf. The case was filed against the deaf daddy because he owned the computers.

I don’t know what happens when a federal judge’s household is identified as the perp for downloads. The 6.5% rate would indicate that the judges may be illegally downoading porn, movies, software, or music from the comfort of home.

The case probably gets lost fast, since the RIAA needs cooperation of these judges to squeeze individuals. Downloaders have also been prosecuted federally, but this has been rare and the amount of downloading has been in the terabyte neighborhood–call it uber file sharing. This situation was highlighted on the old Tech TV Screen Savers show, and I think Leo Laporte is not only podcasting but on the radio in Canada though he broadcasts from San Fran.

I may have missed it here, but does anyone have a link to the 3 page order by Magistrate John Facciola the other day?

Tis here (via CREW’s website list of related documentation).

Many thanks for the links.

I haven’t done a full review of the article cited, largely because it didn’t say much that isn’t known around Denver. Hence, I say, I’m not sure what you are asserting is leaked. Check out the site below; go below the narrative at the top of the linked page, to the articles and already-filed linked documents.

http://www.knowyourcourts.com/.....ingham.htm

That is what I was remembering, thanks! As for the discussion about judges, what you describe as common on the US Federal Circuits surprises me - I did a federal clerkship in Canada, and while judges are human of course, you just don’t see this kind of crap among the judiciary in Canada - there are a few extreme cases, but for the most part, the biggest problem I have with our judges is that they are drawn disproportionately from big firms and Crown Prosecutors and are small “c” conservatives for the most part. And this is in a system where there is no Senate confirmation of judges, it is really all done in the backrooms - not a good thing, but we do seem to have avoided a politicized judiciary in Canada notwithstanding.

Yes, that would be our little sandbox out here, the 9th Circuit, that is by far the most liberal (still) of all circuits (and also the most reversed; heh go figure). By the way, Mary Schroeder was around my law school a lot while I was there and participated in the special federal courts seminar I was in for my writing/thesis requirement and her husband was my professor for secured transactions. My best friend in law school’s father was also a 9th Circuit judge (he’s now senior status) with Mary and through Christmas and other holiday parties and what not, I got to know Mary a fair bit for a while. She is absolutely brilliant and really way cool to boot.

Back to the District Trial judges for a minute. There are a whole lot of em that are really tough on attorneys; if you are going to weed out on that basis, you are going to be missing a substantial portion of the total. Oddly enough, I have always found the cranky tough old farts to be the ones that actually had the cojones to make tough rulings; so I’m not sure I am down with the plan to weed those out.

As to Nacchio, I think you, and for that matter just about everybody else, are putting way too much stock in a retrial as a vehicle for prying open and displaying the illegal wiretapping program violations. I don’t think it’s going to happen. cboldt read the actual decision and saw the clincher before I did, but now that I have, I think he is right. The remand order from the 10th Circuit appears to pretty much rain all over that parade. I always thought there was an arguable lack of relevance and probative value to the charges against Nacchio (is more germane to a pre-trial selective prosecution motion if anything, but the case isn’t going back to that phase as far as I can tell). Here is the crux of the operative part of the remand order in this regard:

Mr. Nacchio also argues that the district court was wrong to prevent him from presenting certain classified information as evidence at trial. He claims that the evidence would have shown that he personally had reason to believe that Qwest’s economic prospects were much better than others realized. Thus, he says, this evidence should have been permitted both to show that he did not have material information and to negate scienter. We affirm the district court’s decision, because even if the classified information were presented and established what he said it would, it could not exonerate Mr. Nacchio as he claims.

Essentially, Mr. Nacchio argues that undisclosed positive information can be used as a defense to a charge of trading on undisclosed negative information. We disagree. If an insider has material information that he cannot disclose because it is confidential or proprietary, then he must abstain from trading. That is the lesson of In re Cady, Roberts & Co., Exchange Act Release No. 6,668, 40 S.E.C. 907, 911 (1961), later applied in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 848, 850 n.12 (2d Cir. 1968), and Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 226 -29 (1980). It is black-letter law that insiders must disclose their material information or else abstain.

It is true that in cases like Texas Gulf Sulphur, insiders were trading in bullish positions ahead of the disclosure of the company’s proprietary discovery, and thus their trading correlated with the inside information, while here Mr. Nacchio argues that his possession of classified information neutralizes his possession of other inside information. However, the general rule applies. If an insider trades on the basis of his perception of the net effect of two bits of material undisclosed information, he has violated the law in two respects, not none.

If you can’t get into a selective prosecution evidentiary hearing setting, and I don’t see that at this point, the wiretapping stuff just ain’t happening from what I see.

And for EW, who wondered back in this post, this document defines what “SIS’ actually is.

Tis the “Systems Infrastructure and Support” branch of the Office of Administration (OA)/Information Systems and Technology Division (IS&T).

Google is our friend, but only if we ask nicely. *g*

LHP, thanks for this:

[Comey said] “…instilling an organizational culture, how you create it, buld it and keep it alive. How a good, helathy ethical culture helps he people working in it to make good choices…”

Organizational cultures seems extremely important, especially after FISA, surveillance, and Abu Gharib.

Too bad Wm Ockham doesn’t seem to be around — there’s a good article in a recent Scientific American: ‘Do All Companies Have to be Evil?’ that supports Comey’s claims about the importance of a healthy organization. Social psychs compared Enron (under Lay and Skilling) with Google (under Brin and Page’s leadership).
http://www.sciam.com/article.c.....to-be-evil
The research strongly supports Comey’s contention that organizational health is a critical factor in helping people make ethical judgments. This also has implications for the Circuit Court system, one should think.

But to relocate this intriguing question to a slightly different context (still related to US government), note the military ‘leadership; shown by David Petraeus**, posted today at UPI’s Iraq Oil Report:

March 18 (UPI) — Gen. David Petraeus is calling on “large Western corporations” to invest in Iraq’s energy sector as Iraq looks outside to boost oil, gas and power production.

Petraeus, who as commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq overseas all coalition troops there, said Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked him to convey the message to companies.

http://iraqoilreport.com/2008/.....uits-world’s-largest-energy-companies-on-behalf-of-prime-minister-maliki-…/

Reading this, one wonders what other retired military commanders think about Petraeus’s post-Cheney-visit willingness to shill for ‘investments’ from oil multinationals? One wonders how activities like this might affect military culture.

Here’s hoping that Comey and others can soon return to DoJ and restore it to better health.

—–
** Same guy that Fallon is said to have called a ‘chickensh*t ass-kisser’. Interesting that Fallon ‘resigned’ last week, and within ten days Petraeus is ‘calling on oil companies to invest in Iraq’. Wonder what Comey would make of it?

Has Patraeus properly registered as a foreign interest lobbyist? Gee, I dunno, this seems a little unusual and inappropriate for the Man Known As Petraeus.

ESPN has an article up on who got snubbed by the Selection Committee. You’ll be unsurprised, I’m sure, at who’s #1 on that list, bmaz.

Probably not registered as a lobbyist; Dick was just over there and probably rewrote Petraeus’ job description to include ‘lobbyist’ so there’s no need to register.

Yeah, Petraeus totally busted my BullshitMeter this time. Mine only goes up to 8000 psi; I think Petraeus’ bullshit rates about 10,000 psi.

Wonder what VoteVets and the retired military think of that little remark? Wonder what Fallon thinks of it?
I’m sure guys like Nottington wouldn’t see any problem with it.

honestly believe that Pelosi, Hoyer and Emmanuel have knowingly, intentionally and egregiously violated the letter of their oath and duty to office to such an extent that it is nearly traitorous by blithely and unblinkingly insisting that “impeachment is off the table in all circumstances”.

Amen, bmaz! I’ve been saying this to anyone who’d listen (and more who didn’t or wouldn’t) ever since she “took impeachment off the table” in May, 2006.

I thought the unit of measurement was “bsi”, not “psi”.

Hey, Lookee Here: One of our favorite NRCC Bogeyman Chairmen is calling it quits! Buh bye Tom Reynolds.

Glad to hear the Sherpa news; may have time to read the crew filing tomorrow. I thought the null set might catch the erasure motif, or the record of filesize change. There was a surprisingly thoughtful commentary on Petraeus yesterday on freshAir, especially about his PhD and innovative view of his responsibilities, only heard a few minutes of it, though found difficult to shut the radio off, as the Globe reporter kept saying promising things, some of which seemed to fly. On Pelosi table comment, there was a fear of her as a different kind of leader at the time of the shift of dominant party in that Chamber; and she is a party loyalist with realist bent; I think her softpedal approach has fostered a lot of work committees have done, though there were 6 preceding years to try to cover in this sole 2-year span of the 110th congress.

Glad to hear the Sherpa news…

Don’t spend too much effort on Sherpa’s Mail Attender, because Chief Idiot Officer Theresa Payton says that OA has purchased Documentum from EMC to be their “official” enterprise content management system.

If instead of “taking it off the table” she’d said something to the effect:

“Impeachment was intended by the Founders as a last-resort tool of accountability and should never be used lightly. However, if there are actions that show indications that they may approach the Constitutional criteria of “crimes and misdemeanors”, we will not hesitate to conduct a thorough and balanced investigation and, if the results so indicate, take whatever legal and Constitutional measures are warranted.”

If the Democratic House leadership had taken a position such as the above, I doubt that the Bush-Cheney cabal would be emboldened enough to continue with their program of pillaging the Department of Justice, as they are doing as we read and write on this blog.

Are you telling me that the one fucking thing in the world that these asswipes did NOT chat and bend the law and rules on is a freaking software licensing agreement? You know, the the thing that every office in the world violates? Did I read that right? Geneva Conventions, Constitution, 4th Amendment, FISA, War Crimes, PRA, obstruction, perjury, IIPA, and a cast of a thousand others, no problem blasting past criminal culpability on those; but they lost a boatload of critical email central to everything because they just could violate a freaking software certificate?

“chat” should read “cheat” above

Having just finished “The Informant” by the NYT’s Kurt Eichenwald which documented the massive worldwide price-fixing schemes run by Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) (as well as your garden variety kickback peccadillos which netted the “Informant” himself who worked as a division President at ADM about 9 million dollars, and when finally brought to justice, 9 years in prison), I’m quite confident that no hanky-panky could ever occur at the White House.

Confident, I say. Abso-fookin’-lutely confident. Aren’t you?

Man, I think I did misread that; I thought it said they didn’t use the program that would have worked because they hadn’t purchased the documentation (certificate). I am a dope with bad eyes. Now that I have enlarged the text size (MadDaog, you gots to get one of these Mac Airs, you just make a finger spreading motion on the trackpad and everything gets incrementally bigger) I see that it didn’t say that at all. So what is “Documentum”, did they ever use it, would it work, what’s the deal? By the way ADM, the oh so warm and fuzzy sponsor of PBS and kindly old Paul Harvey, are very bad dudes, criminals in fact, that rape, pillage and plunder everything in their path. Very bad.

this will probably be EPU’d, nevertheless….

“….I don’t really know if that would work or not, but there is no hope of bouncing established career Goop-pods without laying some kind of foundation….”

Bmaz, let me tell you how to clean out the gooper pod people.

You make them work.

You see, the political cadres will shuffle their opponents off to empty desk and no work. To someone who cares about the Department’s mission, that is like death. But these folks don’t care about the mission. They wished to destroy the organization, or at least remake in their image.

So you make them work. You make them work on areas they find politically abhorrent. You make them take cases and fight battles, in court, against their most strongly held beliefs. If their work is substandard, you make them stay late and do it again. You never let up on the pressure and you make them do their damn job.

Do it that way, and I guarantee you’ll clear em out like a scythe reaps wheat.