Posted on 08/22/2006 8:06:06 PM PDT by motife
U.S. District Judge Who Presided Over Government Wiretapping Case May Have Had Conflict of Interest
(Washington, DC) 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 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.
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 American Civil Liberties Union (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.)
From the commentary for Judicial Canon 5(B)(1):
The changing nature of some organizations and of their relationship to the law makes it necessary for a judge regularly to reexamine the activities of each organization with which the judge is affiliated to determine if it is proper for the judge to continue the judge’s relationship with it. For example, in many jurisdictions charitable hospitals are now more frequently in court than in the past. Similarly, the boards of some legal aid organizations now make policy decisions that may have political significance or imply commitment to causes that may come before the courts for adjudication.
Gateway Pundit's Website... http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-anna-diggs-taylors-dirty.html
Gateway Pundit's take... http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-anna-diggs-taylors-dirty.html
Of course it is a conflict of interest. She should be impeached.
Of course she didn't disclose her affiliations or the Government lawyers would have filed a motion to have her removed.
The ACLU didnt go Judge shopping. Anna Diggs-Taylor did the shopping, She had already made a decision all she needed was someone to bring forth the suit. She needs to be impeached.
Clearly, she should have recused herself. Absent judicial notification, at the time of case assignment, to both sides of her prior associations, it is clearly open for a nul verdict and remand.
MAY??? MAY??? I would dare say this is definitely a conflict of interest
Why should she recuse herself? The rules never apply to the ACLU and their cohorts. I am surprised that you did not know this. ;)
how much will cnn push this NONE
This Commie [female dog] should be hung out to try. God Bless Judicial Watch!!!!
Pretty cool.
No one will have the B***s to do it.
Judges are simply human beings, not gods. They are as political and corrupted as other politicians. When will we have a president who has the nerve to tell a judge you are unelected, a human being, and if you want to enforce your ruling go do it but I do not agree and will not support your ruling. Andrew Jackson did and has been known favorably ever since because of it. I repeat. No judge or judicial court is god no matter what they think.
The text of the ruling itself calls into question the competence and judgement of the affirmative-action appointment, judge Diggs-Taylor.
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.