Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Order Denying Monica Lewinsky's Application for Attorney Fees
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ^ | December 30, 2003 | SENTELLE, Presiding, FAY and REAVLEY, Senior Circuit Judges

Posted on 12/30/2003 9:22:37 AM PST by kennedy

ON APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Opinion of the Special Court filed Per Curiam.

Per curiam: Monica Lewinsky petitions this court under § 593(f) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. §§ 591–599 (2000) (the Act), for reimbursement of attorney fees that she incurred during and as a result of an investigation conducted by the Independent Counsel (IC). Because we conclude that Lewinsky has not carried her burden of showing that the fees would not have been incurred but for the requirements of the Act, we deny the petition.

I. Background

On January 16, 1998, Attorney General Janet Reno applied for and this court granted an order extending the jurisdiction of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr ‘‘to investigate TTT whether Monica Lewinsky or others suborned perjury, ob-structed justice, intimidated witnesses, or otherwise violated federal law TTT in dealing with witnesses, potential witnesses, attorneys, or others concerning the civil case Jones v. Clinton.’’The Jones v. Clinton case referenced in Attorney General Reno’s application and the court’s order was a civil suit filed by Paula Jones against then-President William J. Clinton. Jones alleged that during Clinton’s term as Governor of Arkansas and while Jones was a state employee, he had solicited sex from her, that she had declined, and that as a result, her state employment had been adversely affected, in violation of her federal civil rights as well as other rights.

Prior to trial, Jones’s attorneys sought to discover whether there were other government employees with whom President Clinton had conducted sexual relationships or from whom he had solicited sexual favors. In December 1997, Jones’s attorneys subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky, the fee petitioner here, directing her to appear the next month to testify and to produce certain items, including gifts from President Clinton. As the investigation ultimately revealed, Lewinsky, an intern and later employee in the White House, had been having a sexual relationship with President Clinton since about 1995. They had agreed, however, that they would deny the relationship if ever asked about it. In response to the subpoena, Lewinsky in early January 1998 executed an affidavit falsely denying any sexual relationship with the President. Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky accepted a job in the private sector which she was able to obtain with the assistance of a friend to the President, Washington attorney Vernon Jordan. See In re Madison Guar. Sav. and Loan (Jordan Fee Application), 344 F.3d 1250, 1252 (D.C. Cir., Spec. Div., 2003) (per curiam).

Attorneys for Jones also subpoenaed Linda Tripp, a friend of Lewinsky’s. On January 12, 1998, Tripp contacted the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) and advised that office that Lewinsky had told her that she was preparing to file a false affidavit, had and stated her intent to lie if deposed, and had urged Tripp to lie in her own deposition. Unbeknownst to Lewinsky, Tripp had taped conversations between herself and Lewinsky which corroborated the information she presented to the IC. On January 13, 1998, the OIC consensually monitored a conversation between Tripp and Lewinsky during which Lewinsky offered Tripp a one-half interest in a condominium if Tripp would join her in perjury in the Jones case. The OIC presented this information to the Attorney General.

On January 16, 1998, the Attorney General notified this court that she had commenced a preliminary investigation into whether Lewinsky or others had committed violations of federal criminal law. As a result of that preliminary investigation, she requested an expansion of the jurisdiction of then Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr to investigate further and determine whether prosecution was warranted. Referring to the consensually monitored conversation between Tripp and Lewinsky of January 13, 1998, the Attorney General specifically stated to the court ‘‘I have also determined that the taped conversation establishes that further investigation of this matter is warranted.’’

On January 17, 1998, Clinton was deposed in the Jones case. United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright of the District of Arkansas had traveled from Little Rock to Washington, D.C. to preside over the deposition. Despite the Court’s orders requiring discovery regarding state or federal employees with whom he had conducted or from whom he had solicited sexual relations, President Clinton during the deposition ‘‘by clear and convincing evidence TTT responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.’’ Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1127 (E.D. Ark. 1999).

In the meantime, on January 16, 1998, the OIC had confronted Lewinsky with evidence of her crimes and attempted to obtain her cooperation in exchange for immunity. Represented, at that time, by attorney William Ginsburg, whom her father had retained in California, Lewinsky rejected the immunity offer.

The investigation continued. Among other evidence, the IC obtained a box of gifts given by Clinton to Lewinsky during the course of their sexual relationship. After receiving the subpoena, Lewinsky had turned the gifts over to Betty Curry, Clinton’s personal secretary, who had secreted the gifts in further obstruction of the Jones litigation.

Although Lewinsky had rejected the proffered immunity on January 16, 1998, Lewinsky’s attorneys, William Ginsburg and Nathaniel Spates, first attempted to negotiate an immunity agreement then spent months attempting to enforce in court an immunity agreement that they claimed had been struck. The District Court for the District of Columbia, then- Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson presiding, rejected that claim. See In re Sealed Case, 144 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (dismissing appeal on jurisdictional grounds). Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky dismissed attorney Ginsburg, retained Plato Cacheris of Washington, D.C. as her lead counsel and also added attorney Jacob Stein. Within two months Lewinsky’s new attorneys were able to negotiate full transactional immunity for Lewinsky in exchange for her agreement to cooperate with the investigation. They entered into an agreement on July 28, 1998. Lewinsky prays fees for legal services rendered both before and after the entry of the immunity agreement.

As a result of the evidence of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Clinton on December 19, 1998. On February 12, 1999, following trial on two articles of impeachment, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. Although a majority of Senators voted for removal, the vote fell short of the two-thirds’ concurrence necessary for conviction of President Clinton.

The IC concluded that the basic allegations against President Clinton were substantiated and that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute him. Final Report of Independent Counsel at 19–20, 23, 28–29, 32–34, 41–43. However, rather than seeking an indictment of the President, the IC entered into an agreement with Clinton whereunder the departing President admitted his responsibility, accepted professional discipline from the Arkansas Bar, and agreed not to apply for any counsel fees in relation to this investigation. Under an agreement with the Arkansas Bar, Clinton agreed that he ‘‘would accept a five year suspension, pay[ ] a $25,000 fine (as legal fees for the [Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct’s] outside counsel) and formally acknowledg[e] a violation of one of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct.’’ Letter from David E. Kendall, private counsel to President Clinton, to Robert W. Ray, Independent Counsel (Jan. 19, 2001) (quoted in Final Report of Independent Counsel at 19).

Pursuant to the agreements with the IC and the Arkansas Bar, Clinton admitted:

A. That he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers in violation of Judge Wright’s discovery orders, concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, in an attempt to conceal from plaintiff Jones’s lawyers the true facts about his improper relationship, which had ended almost a year earlier.

B. That by knowingly giving evasive and misleading answers, in violation of Judge Wright’s discovery order, he engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in that his discovery responses interfered with the conduct of the Jones case by causing the court and counsel for the parties to expend unnecessary time, effort, and resources, setting a poor example for other litigants, and causing the court to issue a thirty-two page Order civilly sanctioning Mr. Clinton.

Based upon Clinton’s admissions, the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled that he had committed professional misconduct and ‘‘engag[ed] in conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.’’ Agreed Order of Discipline at 3–4, Neal v. Clinton, No. Civ. 2000–5677, 2001 WL 34355768 (Cir. Ct. of Pulaski Co., Ark. Jan. 19, 2001).

Lewinsky now petitions the court for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,165,390.97 that she states she incurred during the IC’s investigation of this matter.

[snip]

(Excerpt) Read more at pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: billjob; clinton; lewinsky
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last
A well written public and permanent record of Clinton's legacy.
1 posted on 12/30/2003 9:22:37 AM PST by kennedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kennedy
Nothing like being known in history for your oral prowess. She is disgusting. I still can't look at a cigar in the same way I used to.
2 posted on 12/30/2003 9:26:01 AM PST by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
"As the investigation ultimately revealed, Lewinsky, an intern and later employee in the White House, had been having a sexual relationship with President Clinton since about 1995. They had agreed, however, that they would deny the relationship if ever asked about it. In response to the subpoena, Lewinsky in early January 1998 executed an affidavit falsely denying any sexual relationship with the President. Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky accepted a job in the private sector which she was able to obtain with the assistance of a friend to the President, Washington attorney Vernon Jordan."

BUMP.
3 posted on 12/30/2003 9:28:25 AM PST by Rebelbase (If I stay on topic for more than 2 posts something is wrong. Alert the authorities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
See Lewinsky: 'I can't get a man'
4 posted on 12/30/2003 9:30:11 AM PST by kennedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
What ever happened to Vernan Jordan? Anyone know?

Also, O.J. Simpson's SUV driver guy? Forget his name. Where's he at these days?
5 posted on 12/30/2003 9:33:12 AM PST by BushisTheMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


6 posted on 12/30/2003 9:35:21 AM PST by kennedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
A well written

huh? too bad they didn't write it in plain english...

7 posted on 12/30/2003 9:36:51 AM PST by Drango (Democratic fund raising....If PBS won't do it, who will?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
And what did we do to deserve that picture?
8 posted on 12/30/2003 9:41:27 AM PST by OldFriend (Always understand, even if you remain among the few)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drango
That's nothing if not plain English;
not 3rd-grade-level, maybe, but plain enough.
9 posted on 12/30/2003 9:44:26 AM PST by Redbob (this space reserved for witty remarks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I don't ever remember Clinton actually admitting he had sex with "that woman" He went on national tv and said he had an "inappropriate relationship" but here in these documents it states that a sexual relationship actually occured in the courts records.
10 posted on 12/30/2003 9:48:47 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
That's hot...sweet
11 posted on 12/30/2003 9:49:25 AM PST by My Favorite Headache (Rush 30th Anniversary Tour In May 2004...Be There)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Drango
It's pretty clear. You just have to skip over the legalese.

In December 1997, Jones’s attorneys subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky ... directing her to appear the next month to testify and to produce certain items, including gifts from President Clinton. As the investigation ultimately revealed, Lewinsky, an intern and later employee in the White House, had been having a sexual relationship with President Clinton since about 1995. They had agreed, however, that they would deny the relationship if ever asked about it. In response to the subpoena, Lewinsky in early January 1998 executed an affidavit falsely denying any sexual relationship with the President. Shortly thereafter, Lewinsky accepted a job in the private sector which she was able to obtain with the assistance of a friend to the President, Washington attorney Vernon Jordan.

... On January 12, 1998, Tripp contacted the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) and advised that office that Lewinsky had told her that she was preparing to file a false affidavit, had and stated her intent to lie if deposed, and had urged Tripp to lie in her own deposition. Unbeknownst to Lewinsky, Tripp had taped conversations between herself and Lewinsky which corroborated the information she presented to the IC. On January 13, 1998, the OIC consensually monitored a conversation between Tripp and Lewinsky during which Lewinsky offered Tripp a one-half interest in a condominium if Tripp would join her in perjury in the Jones case.

On January 17, 1998, Clinton was deposed in the Jones case. United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright of the District of Arkansas had traveled from Little Rock to Washington, D.C. to preside over the deposition. Despite the Court’s orders requiring discovery regarding state or federal employees with whom he had conducted or from whom he had solicited sexual relations, President Clinton during the deposition ‘‘by clear and convincing evidence [Clinton] responded to plaintiff’s questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.’’

In the meantime, on January 16, 1998, the OIC had confronted Lewinsky with evidence of her crimes and attempted to obtain her cooperation in exchange for immunity. ...

The investigation continued. Among other evidence, the IC obtained a box of gifts given by Clinton to Lewinsky during the course of their sexual relationship. After receiving the subpoena, Lewinsky had turned the gifts over to Betty Curry, Clinton’s personal secretary, who had secreted the gifts in further obstruction of the Jones litigation....

As a result of the evidence of perjury, subornation of perjury, and obstruction of justice, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Clinton on December 19, 1998. On February 12, 1999, following trial on two articles of impeachment, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. Although a majority of Senators voted for removal, the vote fell short of the two-thirds’ concurrence necessary for conviction of President Clinton.

12 posted on 12/30/2003 9:50:36 AM PST by kennedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
Maybe she ought to go see Bill Clinton again and practice her sole job skill again. He only reminds us every time he opens his mouth of just how rich he is these days, so surely he could help her out with her legal fees.
13 posted on 12/30/2003 9:55:20 AM PST by CFC__VRWC (AIDS, abortion, euthanasia - don't liberals just kill ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
After receiving the supoena, Lewinsky had turned the gifts over to Betty Curry, Clinton's personal secretary, who had secreted the gifts in further obstruction of the Jones litigation...

Betty Curry's criminal act has not been pursued to my knowledge. Does anyone know of any?

15 posted on 12/30/2003 10:08:19 AM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
Vote Hillary, Give Bill another In-Tern

But seriously folks, after reading this court document, can anyone deny that one lie was used to backup another until the whole process broke down? The same happened with the the Rose Lawfirm files, the F.B.I. files and the the countless other "Gates" that the Clinton Co-presidency besmirched our nation with.

Do you realize the Clintons, after doing all this, still run the Democratic Party under Terry McAuliffe?

My prayers are that the Clintons continue their control of the Democratic party to its logical conclusion.

16 posted on 12/30/2003 10:14:10 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
No one has been 'pursued' to my knowledge, either.
Doesn't it just burn you up to see how the DOJ closed the books on eight years of criminal activity.
The subject is just too hot to handle, it seems!
17 posted on 12/30/2003 10:17:07 AM PST by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kennedy
$1,165,390.97. That's alot of twinkies.
18 posted on 12/30/2003 10:21:11 AM PST by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
By the looks of her in the above picture, she can't afford to give up any twinkies.
19 posted on 12/30/2003 10:24:14 AM PST by jerod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Why can't she sue Slick for it? His evasion of the truth caused the expenditure of her attorney fees, and made her name a national joke. Sure, her conduct was responsible for having her name synonymous with a certain sex act, but if he had simply given Paula Jones an apology at an early stage, she would have never been investigated.

You've got to admit, a court fight between Monica and Slick would be way more entertaining than anything that's in the news media right now, as far as legal tales are concerned!

20 posted on 12/30/2003 10:28:16 AM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson