Skip to comments.
U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping ... Conflict of Interest
Chronwatch ^
| Tuesday, August 22, 2006
| Judicial Watch
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 governments 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 Taylors financial disclosure statements, available on Judicial Watchs 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 Foundations 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 Taylors court [Case No. 06-10968 (Mich. E.D.)]. In 2003, the CFSEM donated $180,000 to ACCESS.)
(Excerpt) Read more at chronwatch.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: aclu; activistjudges; annadiggstaylor; blackrobedtyrants; bush; congress; corruption; crime; election; election2006; electioncongress; elections; geopolitics; judges; judicialwatch; liberal; liberalmedia; nsa; rats; scotus; senate; terror; terrorism; terrorists; war; waronterror; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 next last
To: crosslink
Oh right. It was Roberts and the Hamdan case. Roberts had a "conflict of interest" because he was interviewing for a job that didn't exist yet (there was no vacancy at the time).
41
posted on
08/22/2006 7:34:59 AM PDT
by
zendari
To: IrishMike
Impeachment time!
Oh, never mind, it would have to be introduced by a Congressman with cojones.
42
posted on
08/22/2006 7:45:04 AM PDT
by
thoughtomator
(There is no "Islamofascism" - there is only Islam)
To: oh8eleven
Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest
POTENTIAL ???????
.
.
.
Excellent observation
43
posted on
08/22/2006 8:39:41 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
(Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
To: Alex1977
But we need to know what can be done.
.
.
.
An earlier post suggested the link be sent to Rush / Fox.
44
posted on
08/22/2006 8:43:47 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
(Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
To: zendari
I think it was Roberts, investing in a fund, later they claimed he should have rescued himself from, because he owned shares in a company, one of many the fund had as holdings.
Same with Alito (I believe) ...
he had to rescue himself from the decision (last month)
in the terrorist case where the Supremes decided terrorists get lawyers, because he had struck it down on an earlier circuit case, which was the one being appealed.
45
posted on
08/22/2006 8:48:20 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
(Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
To: thoughtomator
Oh, never mind, it would have to be introduced by a Congressman with cojones.
.
.
.
I wonder if DOJ can investigate conflicts with regards Federal Judges ?
In new York City they lock up / fine city judges on a regular basis.
That reverse DRat culture of corruption thing.
46
posted on
08/22/2006 8:53:22 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
(Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
To: IrishMike
Wiretapping Case Judge has Possible Conflict of Interest
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71068 Wiretapping Case Judge has Possible Conflict of Interest
8/22/2006 10:42:00 AM
To: National Desk
Contact: Jill Farrell of Judicial Watch, 202-646-5188 or
jfarrell@judicialwatch.org
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- 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,
http://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 re-elected 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.
47
posted on
08/22/2006 9:05:42 AM PDT
by
IrishMike
(Democrats .... Stuck on Stupid, RINO's ...the most vicious judas goats)
To: mware
Wonder what they (NYT) will say now. "I see no-thing!"
48
posted on
08/22/2006 10:21:51 AM PDT
by
talleyman
(Kerry & the Surrender-Donkey Treasoncrats - trashing the troops for 40 years.)
To: EdReform; RepCath; Liz; IronJack; Grampa Dave; MeekOneGOP; Iris7; wkdaysoff; Nick Danger; ...
49
posted on
08/22/2006 6:41:53 PM PDT
by
Jay777
(My personal blog: www.stoptheaclu.com)
To: All
50
posted on
08/22/2006 6:47:25 PM PDT
by
Sun
(Hillary had a D-/F rating on immigration; now she wants to build a wall????)
To: IrishMike
Wonder if judicial watch watches over state supreme courts. They are loaded with conflict of interest judges.
51
posted on
08/22/2006 7:18:05 PM PDT
by
gidget7
(PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
To: mware
Break out the popcorn.K...
52
posted on
08/22/2006 7:24:41 PM PDT
by
b4its2late
(There are good terrorists - dead ones.)
To: IrishMike
To: IrishMike
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the governments 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 Taylors financial disclosure statements What part of "Conflict of Interest" doesn't she understand?
54
posted on
08/22/2006 8:26:20 PM PDT
by
AnimalLover
( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
To: IrishMike
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor is an activist for the
Surrender Party
55
posted on
08/22/2006 8:32:30 PM PDT
by
CurlyBill
(Democrats: Weak on defense, weak on crime, tough on your wallet)
To: PajamaTruthMafia
Add Marshall Applewhite at the end of that lineup!
56
posted on
08/22/2006 8:33:18 PM PDT
by
CurlyBill
(Democrats: Weak on defense, weak on crime, tough on your wallet)
To: PajamaTruthMafia
57
posted on
08/22/2006 8:39:13 PM PDT
by
CurlyBill
(Democrats: Weak on defense, weak on crime, tough on your wallet)
Comment #58 Removed by Moderator
To: IrishMike
Well, how about that!! Liberals are the most despicable people on the face of the earth. What arrogance to think that she wouldn't be found out.
59
posted on
08/22/2006 10:40:26 PM PDT
by
NRA2BFree
(PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW ISLAM ARE KORANIMALS!)
To: zendari
Thye were on Alito because he had a Vanguard mutual fund, and ruled on a case involving Vanguard. Of course, the fund was only managed by Vanguard, so he had no money invested directly in Vanguard, so the complaint was kind of dumb.
60
posted on
08/22/2006 11:22:49 PM PDT
by
Homer1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson