U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler (Photo: AP)
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler allowed the Justice Department to sue Tobacco Companies under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Posted on 01/19/2005 4:04:52 PM PST by Willie Green
As the nation's capital prepares itself for the presidential inauguration by going into lockdown mode and placing portable Stinger missile launchers throughout the city, Americans may be stunned to learn that the District of Columbia has been forced by a federal judge to hand over intelligence data on police tactics, training, and strategies from the last inauguration to an organization with documented ties to terrorist groups and Saddam Hussein.
The District of Columbia was forced by court order to turn over this information to the International Action Center (IAC), a group involved in Thursday's protests of the second Bush inaugural through the A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition. The anti-Bush groups expect as many as 100,000 will converge on the nation's capital and they intend to get as close to the presidential motorcade as possible. Some media pundits have expressed surprise that the District has offered protestors "prime real estate" along the parade route along Pennsylvania Avenue. But this is largely because of legal pressure exerted by the protesters and their radical law firms.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
...which is why they wont approve Condi until later.
Am I crazy or does this fit the "Honorable" Judge Gladys Kessler.
(Please God, don't let her be related to the truly Honorable Judge Kessler in SW Ohio)
Maybe I'm really crazy but does this fit the "Honorable" Judge Gladys Kessler, or not?
(Please God, don't let her be related to the truly Honorable Judge Kessler in SW Ohio)
A well they should and that just for minimal starters.
I swear I just can't BELIEVE this isn't some sick, onion spoof! There's a poster that always signs off: Pray for the president and our troops. It's the best thing I can think of at moments of insanity like this.
PING - - WOW! Need to do some judge hanging!
Other reports indicate the protesters will be far away.
Something is fishy about this.
I agree with you but what scares me is that they aren't idiots. If they are, no problem. However, it seems to me from what I've read that they are highly sophisticated treasonists. Why would we put up with that crapola. People who love this nation, when do we protest?
Sorry for the double post. I'm a little angry right now. OK, not "a little".
Yea, like they know something we don't. I'm sure the FBI, CIA, and all agencies are on this. Let's hope this one turns out alright.
Please ALL, freep Judge Kessler (see poster #17 for phone numbers) and pass this information onto your e-mail list. This woman is another Clinton judge! What country does she think she lives in…this Is just appalling and down right stupid. If she had any brains, she would really be dangerous!
National Legal and Policy Center -- Organized Labor Accountability Project
UNION CORRUPTION UPDATE
July 30, 2001 -- Vol. 4, Issue 15
**AFL-CIO/DNC Election Scandal**
Judge Helps AFL-CIO/DNC Suppress Public Documents
U.S. Dist. Judge Gladys Kessler (D.D.C., Clinton) blocked the Fed. Election Comm'n July 16 from re-releasing public documents from FEC's probe of 1996 campaign efforts of AFL-CIO, the Democratic Nat'l Committee, and other liberal entities. Kessler's preliminary injunction, sought by AFL-CIO/DNC, came a day before FEC planned to re-release the documents, which may contain evidence of union embezzlement crimes whose statutes of limitations are due to run this Fall. Despite this, Kessler's order will remain in effect until at least Oct.; she claims no one will suffer a great injury from the delay. AFL-CIO/DNC claim the documents contain "proprietary information," including campaign strategies and employees' names. [AP 7/16/01; BNA 7/17/01]
Clinton records on pardon applications denied
* A federal district judge in Washington, D.C., denied a public interest group's request for pardon records from the Clinton administration.
April 2, 2003 -- Documents concerning pardon applications considered or granted by former President Bill Clinton are privileged presidential communications, Judge Gladys Kessler of the federal district court in Washington, D.C., ruled March 28, denying Washington, D.C.,-based Judicial Watch records it sought under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
Judge Kessler said that "as strong a supporter as the Court is of FOIA's liberal disclosure of government documents and as great as the public interest in disclosure of the documents requested . . . may be, the case law concerning the ability of the government to withhold certain documents under the presidential communications privilege is clear."
Tuesday, February 05, 2002
The Bush Administration lost its fight earlier this week with the partisan and hatemonger Mary Frances Berry of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A federal judge, Gladys Kessler, ruled that appointees to the commission are entitled to full six-year terms, even if they are specifically appointed to fill the term of another commissioner. The ruling allows presidents to stack the commission if they wish, by having appointees step down right before a change of administration, and then appoint members en masse. It would take a two-term president to have any hope of cleaning the commission up. The Bush Administration has said that it will appeal the ruling.
******
And just who is this judge, Gladys Kessler? Well, she's a Clinton appointee who's been in the news before. She was one of three Clinton-appointed judges who decided to take Linda Tripp's suit against Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon and the Clinton adminstration out of Judge Royce Lamberth's courtroom. Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, was hearing the case that involved the illegal disclosure of details from her personnel file at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Kessler also put a hold on the release of the FEC's investigation into the illegal campaign collusion between the Clinton re-election campaign and the AFL-CIO. The two had coordinated campaign messages in Clinton's 1996 campaign, in clear violation of federal law.
Judge Rules U.S. Must Release Detainees' Names
By Steve Fainaru and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 3, 2002; Page A01
A federal judge in Washington yesterday ordered the Justice Department to release the names of more than 1,000 people detained in the investigation of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying the information was essential to verifying that the government is "operating within the bounds of the law."
snip
Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia gave the Justice Department 15 days to release the names of the detainees and their attorneys. The government can leave out the names of any detainees who request in writing that their names be kept private, Kessler ruled.
Feature: D.C. judge in center of storm
By Sharon Otterman
Published 8/9/2002 7:02 PM
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 (UPI) -- When U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled last Friday that the names of hundreds of immigrants detained after Sept. 11 should be made public, she touched off a political firestorm. The Justice Department accused her of increasing the risk of terror attacks -- and conservative groups charged her with political bias.
But being at the center of controversy is a position increasingly familiar to the 64-year-old judge.
Since President George W. Bush took office, Kessler has handled some of the highest-profile federal cases. Before the detainee decision, Kessler ruled in February that the secretive Energy Task Force led by Vice President Dick Cheney must make thousands of documents public.
Kessler is also handling a third case that casts the Bush administration in a bad light. That suit alleges that the Department of Justice and the Bush-Cheney Inaugural Committee illegally limited public protest at Bush's swearing-in January 2001.
U.S. District Court judges are assigned cases randomly, legal experts said. But for Kessler, a Clinton appointee with a history of ruling in favor of the public's right to know, the turn of the court calendar has turned her into a judicial stumbling block for the administration.
While conservative groups charge that her political stance regularly creeps into her rulings, her friends and colleagues describe her as a brave woman who judges according to the law.
"There's a beauty in the fact that someone as judicious as she is is a judge," said Judith Lichtman, a long-time friend and president of the National Partnership for Women and Families.
Ken Boehm, chairman of the conservative National Legal and Policy Center, disagreed.
"Kessler has a reputation for being one of the most political judges on the D.C. circuit," he said. "Judges can have whatever kind of politics they want, but politics are supposed to stop at the chamber door."
Early in her career, Kessler was involved with Democratic politics, and served as a legislative aide to a number of Democratic congressmen shortly after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1962.
Before becoming a D.C. Superior Court judge in 1977, she also worked for the National Labor Relations Board, an organization traditionally associated with Democrats.
Off the bench, Kessler continues to supports women's issues in the National Association of Women Judges. She assists with educational efforts to promote equal treatment in court for women and minorities, and is also involved in supporting programs that help women in prison, said Constance Belfiore, the executive director of the National Association of Women Judges.
Kessler herself declined to comment for this article. But her supporters insisted that her political opinions do not affect her rulings.
They pointed out that Kessler has also supported Bush administration positions, most notably in a January decision to toss out a Puerto Rican lawsuit aimed at stopping the military from using the island of Vieques for bombing practice.
"She has her own personal beliefs, like anyone does, but she takes her role as an impartial judge very, very seriously. At the same time, she has a lot of courage. If the law does support her, she will make the ruling," said Brenda Smith, Kessler's former law clerk and an associate professor at American University's School of Law.
Kessler's recent rulings have turned her into somewhat of a hero to a growing number of civil liberties groups, especially those which have involved requests for secret government information.
Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy, a small organization that is part of the Federation of American Scientists, called Kessler's March 2001 decision to release some government documents to nuclear energy workers "a work of art."
"Kessler is one of the few judges who has displayed an understanding of the Freedom of Information law and has applied it the way Congress originally intended. She distinguishes carefully between those things the law is intended to protect and those things which should be withheld," Aftergood said.
Other judge watchers, even conservatives, have praised Kessler's ability to come to compromise solutions in rulings. Catholic University Law School Dean Douglas W. Kmiec, who headed U.S. Department of Justice's office of legal counsel in the Reagan and Bush administrations, called Kessler's ruling in the Sept. 11 detainee case "reasonable."
"I'm generally a supporter of the attorney general's efforts, but in these matters, there is always a burden of proof on the prosecution," Kmiec said. "I think that Kessler made a reasonable ruling, one that is faithful to due process, and at the same time, does not close the door to national security concerns," he said.
Boehm, however, cited a number of recent rulings that he said showed a clear partisan slant. Among them was a case earlier this year in which Kessler ruled against a Bush administration nomination to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. The ruling was later reversed by a three-judge panel, Boehm said.
But her supporters said that critics were just upset that the tough judge's rulings were not in their favor. They described Kessler as a wise woman who enjoys reading novels and going to the theater when she's not working.
"You may or may not agree with her decisions, but all say that they are very well reasoned. She does her homework," Belfiore said.
Gladys Kessler had worked for the National Labor Relations Board in the Kennedy administration, for left-wing Rep. Jonathan Bingham of the Bronx, as a labor lawyer for the New York City Board of Education and finally for 17 years as a superior court judge in D.C. appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
******
Robert Novak (archive)
July 23, 2001
Labor's Free Pass
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Four days after the House briefly debated rival campaign finance reform bills that both overlooked the AFL-CIO's political excesses, Big Labor got another break. A Clinton-appointed federal judge last Monday blocked the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from its scheduled release the next day of thousands of documents that neither the union nor the Democratic National Committee (DNC) wants made public.
This is evidence from the notorious 1996 national election, where the Democratic Party and the AFL-CIO joined in questionable practices leading to the re-election of Bill Clinton. The supine FEC last year dismissed a Republican complaint that the party and the labor federation coordinated activities in violation of the law. At issue since then has been investigative files that Democrats and labor complain reveals too much of their political strategies.
Their concerns produced last Monday's injunction by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler of the District of Columbia, whose career is closely tied to liberal-labor Democrats. Unless reversed, her edict would keep evidence out of the hands of congressional and Justice Department investigators until the five-year statute of limitations for embezzlement under the Landrum-Griffin Labor Reform Act expires in November. Labor appears to be getting another free pass.
Big Labor is untouched by the campaign finance reform pending in Congress. So far, it is escaping unscathed from its misadventures of 1996, including DNC and AFL-CIO collaboration in rigging that year's Teamsters election. Labor leader Richard Trumka has taken the Fifth Amendment about the plot but is still secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO. Fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe, a business and political partner of labor in many ventures, is listed in one indictment as a party to conversations with alleged conspirators, but he is now chairman of the DNC.
Still, labor was uneasy about evidence collected by the FEC before, characteristically, ruling that there was nothing illegal about the 1996 collaboration between the AFL-CIO and the DNC. Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia, chairman of the House Workforce Protections Subcommittee, requested 55,000 pages of documents. He was most interested in proof that labor was using union dues for political purposes without consent of members, but labor leaders did not relish the prospect of hostile investigators pouring over their political secrets shared by the Democratic Party.
Labor went to court, and -- as is often the case in the District of Columbia -- found a friendly judge. Before President Clinton named her to the federal bunch in 1995 at age 57, Gladys Kessler had worked for the National Labor Relations Board in the Kennedy administration, for left-wing Rep. Jonathan Bingham of the Bronx, as a labor lawyer for the New York City Board of Education and finally for 17 years as a superior court judge in D.C. appointed by President Jimmy Carter.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler (Photo: AP)
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler allowed the Justice Department to sue Tobacco Companies under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton appointed this *itch.
Additional concern is generated by the fact that the IAC is linked to Colombian terrorist groups now said to be involved with Islamic terrorists. Terrorism experts cite the secretive tri-border area of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, where Colombian and Islamic terrorists are said to be coordinating their activities. Other reports suggest the presence of Islamic terrorist groups in Venezuela, where the anti-American regime headed by Hugo Chavez is also said to be aiding and providing sanctuary for Colombian terrorists.
Here Comes the Judge
The information provided by the D.C. Metro Police Department by court order to the IAC so far includes:
• Lesson plans and handbooks on use of aerosol sprays, force and tactical batons;
• Management of Mass Demonstrations, Civil Disturbance Units training documents;
• Metro Police Department (MPD) instruction on use of firearms and other service weapons;
• Portions of Operations Plan, Parade Manual and Civil Disturbance Unit Response Plan for the 54th Inauguration of the President of the United States;
• All rooftop and street-level surveillance videotapes of the presidential inauguration;
• Redacted logs from the Synchronized Operations Command Center and the Running Resume for the Inauguration Day intelligence teams; and
• The identification of all plainclothes MPD officers who were detailed to intelligence teams for the Inauguration.
The plainclothes intelligence officers identified by name were stationed at various locations along and near the presidential parade route in order to monitor the crowds and to report any information heard or observed concerning plans, attempts or actions that might disrupt Inaugural events and/or violate the law and to take law enforcement action, if needed.
Judge Gladys Kessler, who handled the case, issued the orders disclosing the security data. (Kessler was appointed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in July 1994 by former president Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate.)
D.C. Fights Back
The security data was sought during the discovery process of the ongoing lawsuit which charges the U.S. government, the Bush-Cheney Presidential Inaugural Committee and the District of Columbia with constitutional violations. Plaintiffs' charges include the use of government agents provocateurs who allegedly assaulted protesters lining the inauguration parade route, the discriminatory operation of security checkpoints to deny access to protesters and unconstitutional disruption tactics of the police Civil Disturbance Units. Judge Kessler attributed significant importance to the lawsuit and its attendant First Amendment issues, and she bent over backwards to accommodate the plaintiffs
The plaintiffs(aka Kooks and terrorist's sympathizers) allege covert law-enforcement personnel beat, pepper-sprayed, intimidated and terrorized peaceful protesters. They also contend a key checkpoint that was supposed to be manned by either the Secret Service or the Metro Police Department was instead delegated to the control of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a private corporation that subsequently detained protesters for hours while allowing Bush supporters to pass. Lawyers from the Partnership for Civil Justice filed the case on behalf of IAC.
In the case, which is still ongoing, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages from the Presidential Inaugural Committee and compensatory damages from the District of Columbia, as well as the filing of various permanent and declaratory injunctions.
Lawyers for D.C. unsuccessfully fought handing over most of the data, arguing that the IAC had made "exceedingly broad" discovery requests that were irrelevant to the claims and which were protected from disclosure by the law enforcement privilege. Several of D.C's and the federal government's requests to withhold information were granted by the court but the majority were granted despite warnings of repercussions to national security.
Notwithstanding D.C.'s production of "thousands of pages of documents," the IAC pushed for more, prompting another reaction:"[We] object to producing intelligence reports and the Intelligence Operational Plan developed for the Presidential Inauguration." After the judge ruled in favor of D.C. on the Intelligence Operational Plan, IAC pushed once again to get the document.
Since the plaintiffs were in part seeking information related to the pepper-spraying of protesters, Assistant Police Chief Alfred Broadbent, in his Declaration, argued that "[N]othing in the Intelligence Operational Plan or the intelligence reports authorizes, sanctions or directs the use of O.C. spray by Metropolitan Police Department officers in the manner alleged in the complaint filed in this civil action. Neither the Intelligence Operational Plan nor the intelligence reports authorize, sanction or direct undercover officers to suggest or take any illegal action.
Moreover, the events at 14th and K Streets, NW, were based on reports of a large crowd of demonstrators marching in the street, south on 14th Street, without a permit, and reports of cars and/or property being damaged, and vending machines being thrown into the street." Attached to the declaration was a "Destruction of Property Incident Report."
The IAC also sought any correspondence from MPD officers to counterparts in other jurisdictions or countries; audits, evaluations, and reviews that relate in any way to mass protests
D.C. refused to produce a video copy of the MPD training video on "Crowd Control Formations," arguing it was not relevant and could be misused to counter such formations.
Undercover Operation Exposed
As these court decisions played out in the courtroom, another drama was unfolding. Before the lawsuit was filed in 2001, undercover police officers had monitored or infiltrated the IAC and its affiliated organizations. As the court case progressed, they continued their assignment to gather intelligence for law enforcement agencies. Soon, however, the courtroom spotlight focused on these undercover officers. The IAC succeeded in convincing Judge Kessler to order the disclosure of the identities of these officers, arguing the plaintiffs needed to "evaluate the conduct" of the officers. Now the tables had been turned: the plaintiffs were positioned to gather intelligence about the undercover officers, adding to their pile of discovery about law enforcement tactics, training and strategies.
How did it happen? First, the plaintiffs told the court that one undercover officer had already been revealed when he tackled a demonstrator at a protest, sprayed people with pepper spray and was recognized as having attended the meetings of the organizations. A second officer was allegedly revealed when he was recognized leaving the courthouse and admitted he was a detective. Court documents dated April 4, 2003 note, "District of Columbia refused to acknowledge that these officers were, in fact, undercover officers."
The plaintiffs told the court that they sought to compel the disclosure of all undercover officer identities because they wanted to "evaluate the conduct of the officers" and "determine whether additional acts of alleged misconduct [had] occurred." The IAC complained that the "officers" did more than passively observe, but that they engaged in "conduct disruptive to the organization's purposes and that reflected poorly on the organizations." What sort of disruptive conduct? Court documents note, "For example, an undercover officer could seriously disrupt Plaintiff's legitimate protest activities by accepting responsibility for certain tasks at an event and then failing to follow through or by suggesting the organizations engage in illegal and violent conduct."
Did these as-yet anonymous undercover officers engage in such activity? Many allegations were made. Court documents note the plaintiffs alleged one undercover officer they were able to identify on their own "disrupted a meeting by allegedly 'suggesting that activists place bombs on bridges and call in bomb threats.'" Plaintiffs complained that they lacked information as to who else might have been an undercover officer and so could not "necessarily link any other disruptive conduct to such unidentified persons."
Secrets Revealed
Kessler agreed. This information was relevant and the IAC ought to have it. Furthermore, Kessler argued, "Plaintiffs had little chance of obtaining this information through alternate sources." She concluded that information was not protected by the law enforcement privilege and in an order filed August 30, 2002 Kessler wrote: "ORDERED that Defendants shall…disclose the identities of those undercover officers who infiltrated Plaintiff's organizations…" (In the course of the lawsuit DC did not object to identifying plain clothes officers but it did object to identifying undercover officers.)
The District asked the court to reconsider and vacate that order, arguing that the law enforcement privilege was indeed applicable, that there was no compelling need for such disclosure. Public interest in non-disclosure outweighed plaintiff's stated need for disclosure, they argued.
"[P]laintiffs have never specifically described any other 'disruptive' or illegal conduct that occurred at their meetings that they suspect may be attributable to an undercover officer in order to determine whether such misconduct may have occurred," the defense argued. The law enforcement privilege is rooted in the need to "minimize disclosures that might impair the necessary functioning of an executive branch department" and based on "the understanding that many law enforcement operations cannot be effective if conducted in full view, they stated. [Cited: Black v. Sheraton Corporation of America, 564 F.2d 531, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1977)]
D.C. laid out risks involved in such disclosure:
• "Law enforcement's ability to prepare for and provide security at countless demonstrations that occur in Washington, D.C. and to gather critical related intelligence would be impaired if the identity of undercover officers was disclosed."
• "…related techniques and strategies…would, necessarily, be ascertained if the undercover officer's identity was disclosed."
• "Defendants do object to identifying any 'undercover officers.' 'Undercover officers,' if utilized, conduct on-going investigations to monitor and report on individuals and groups who may be planning actions that threaten property or persons or otherwise violates the law. Unlike officers in plain clothes, 'undercover officers' do not carry MPD issued service weapons, do not take law enforcement action while acting in an undercover capacity and take precautions not to identify themselves as police officers. Their operation (and safety) depends on their ability to ensure their anonymity."
D.C. also cited a declaration by Assistant Police Chief Broadbent given at a hearing on the issue on December 12, 2002. The declaration described how disclosure of the undercover officers' identities would impair and thwart the Department's ability to prepare for and provide security at demonstrations and jeopardize and/or chill the department's intelligence-gathering capability.
Among Chief Broadbent's concerns reiterated by the defense in the motion to reconsider and vacate the order were:
• "[D]isclosing the Department's intelligence reports, Intelligence Operational Plan or the identity of any undercover officer that may have been conducting an investigation…would undermine significantly the Department's ability to plan for and provide security at mass demonstrations."
• "Disclosure would create a huge void in the Department's intelligence gathering capability, threaten undercover officer's physical safety and expose citizens, visitors, and demonstrators themselves to increased risk of violence, physical injury, and property damage."
• "Disclosing such information could forewarn suspects and suspect groups, providing them with sensitive law enforcement information, including possible strategies, procedures and directions for confidential investigations."
• "…[T]he Metropolitan Police Department's intelligence gathering methods, including the use of undercover investigations, have been integral to the Department's success in minimizing property damage, violence and physical injuries at mass demonstrations."
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.