Posted on 08/22/2006 5:33:26 AM PDT by IrishMike
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Serves as Secretary and Trustee of Foundation that donated funds to ACLU of Michigan, a Plaintiff in the Case
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 American Civil Liberties Union (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, available on Judicial Watch’s Internet Site, www.judicialwatch.org.
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 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.)
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
Link to judical Watch for actual press release
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml
Shocking! Absolutely shocking! (not)
Well, well, well, things that make you go hmmmmm.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/5862.shtml
Aug 21, 2006 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5188
U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
I screwed up something with judical watch link...........
Clearly Rove's handiwork once again, no?
very interesting
Figures. Like the Nazis, they consider any public office they hold as just another tool to use to advance the party's interests. And there are no limits on it's use.
I don't know about "stupid", but she's definitely corrupt to the core. Prostitutes have more integrity than Judge Anna Diggs Taylor.
....things that make you go hmmmmm.
This is the fat lady singing !
Wonder what they will say now.
Break out the popcorn.
Yes, we in Texas know very well how the Democrats use the Courts to advance their agenda.
Judge Taylor's ruling is both perverse and dangerous
By striking down the Terrorists Surveillance Program, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has, one hopes, opened the eyes of the American public to the leftist political insurgency that is undermining the United States' ability to defend itself against future terrorist attacks.
We don't need the left wing for that, we have the right, which won't control the borders.
Yes, we in Texas know very well how the Democrats use the Courts to advance their agenda.
.
.
.
Don't forget what the DRats pulled in New Jersey
when Bob (the Torch) Torcelli , the DRat primary winner was badly behind in the polls.
Against New Jersey election laws, with the blessing of the NJ state courts, he was replaced by the retired cadaver
.... Frank Lautenberg.
When was the the first time ...where she got caught trying to manipulate the outcome of an affirmitive action case? Times are different now. It's not going to stand as so many of us are aware of the rampant activism, and yes, judicial corruption at the federal level. I don't know the powers of the Chief Justice too well, but Roberts might have to excercise some authority here.
Someone get this to Limbaugh...
The border is a piece of the puzzle no doubt, the war on terror is a very big puzzle.
TREASON is being committed by LEFTISTS....
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of scholars, lawyers, journalists and nonprofit groups that communicate with people in the Middle East that they fear might be targets for surveillance. Given that the TSP is only conducting surveillance on individuals and groups that have ties to Islamic terrorist groups, it raises some suspicion that the ACLU and the groups they represented in the suit might be communicating with people whose mission is to kill and maim as many American men, women, and children as they can.
It's reasonable to believe most people would expect to have their phone calls monitored by the government if they were talking with extremists that have taken a vow to destroy our country. And the vast majority of Americans would also expect our government to constantly monitor the conversations and activities of suspected terrorists in this country and around the world.
Prior to Taylor's ruling, no American court had ever ruled that a U.S. president did not have the authority to conduct such surveillance programs. Even though not a single specific abuse of the TSP has been found, and despite the fact that it has proven successful in helping to stop terrorist attacks, Taylor took the unprecedented step to terminate the program.
Being a Lib and a Carter appointee was enough of a conflict for me!
At the least, there go this judge's chances of ever joining her soul mate, Sister Boogie Woman Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the Supreme Court.
Leni
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.