NSA Judge Anna Diggs Taylor Secretary of Fund that bankrolled Michigan ACLU

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.)

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.

Even if the "judge" isn't impeached...
at least her subversion of the judicial system has been exposed.

Before the wide-spread use of high-tech research tools (Internet),
there was a much greater chance of folks like the "judge" getting away
with her fraud on the court with ZERO consequence.

I wonder if lawyers entering her court now will be fighting to not have
her sit on their cases due to conflicts of interest.

Okay. Prior comments notwithstanding....

And the fact that the opinion itself was based on specious (at best) reasoning:

I visited the Judicial Watch website and followed the links. It appears that our esteemed judge is a secretary and trustee of the Community Foundation of Southern Michigan. In my practice I have had a great deal of experience with community foundations.

If CSFM is like any other community foundation I have come in contact with, it works like this:

1. The point of these organizations is to permit donors to make charitable gifts without the administrative expenses of creating their own private foundation.

2. Donors can set up a fund at the foundation for the benefit of a pet charity or a donor-advised fund (donor gets to pick and choose upon which of the downtrodden masses to bestow his or her largesse).

3. Donors can also give money to a specific fund under the foundation's umbrella (i.e., a fund created by another donor) or a general "discretionary" fund (a-la United Way) that makes discretionary gifts to other charities.

The "HOPE Fund" referred to by Judicial Watch appears to be a GLBT focused charity (not civil liberties).

[donning teflon suit, raising "devil's advocate" flag]

In any event, it is not clear from the article whether this judge had any discretionary authority to allocate funds. The ACLU may have been designated by the creator of the HOPE Fund as a recipient - meaning the judge had no discretion.

If this was a discretionary gift, the documents cited by Judicial Watch do not indicate whether or not our esteemed jurist had any discretionary authority over whether distributions were made to the ACLU. Generally (a-la United Way), discretionary gifts are selected by committee, although they are ultimately approved by the board as a whole.

Some unanswered questions:

-Was this a discretionary gift?
-Did Mme. judge have discretionary authority?
-Did she as a trustee abstain from a vote approving such a gift?

[removing charred tatters of teflon suit]

Notwithstanding the above, the standard is an APPEARANCE of impropriety - and she should have known better and recused herself.

History will judge him to be a great determined man and steady president.

Abe Lincoln was one of the most hated presidents ever during his time in office. Now he is seen as one of the greatest presidents in history by members of both parties.

I believe GW Bush is in line for the same type of legacy. Once all the dust settles and the history books are written.

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.