http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

 

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.)

So it seems that she is presiding over cases where a group she belongs to is one of the litigants. This seems ready-made for alot of appeals. Culture of corruption: its not just for Republicans.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

So it seems that she is presiding over cases where a group she belongs to is one of the litigants. This seems ready-made for alot of appeals. Culture of corruption: its not just for Republicans.

No, she isn't. Read the article more carefully, trying to detect the facts instead of the implications and hints. She is part of a charitable foundation, which happens to make donations to the ACLU, who happen to be party to the suit. She is NOT part of an organization who is party to the suit. A community organization makes donations to the ACLU? Big surprise.

 

Culture of corruption my big hairy behind. Of course a culture of corruption exists, on both sides of the aisle - but this doesn't have the slightest bearing on that.

 

Of all the stretches I've seen in here, this rises towards the tops. GMAFB.

I don't see any problem. They made a donation. Big deal.

I don't see any problem. They made a donation. Big deal.

 

 

As little as it seems she still made a poor ethical choice. She should have, at the very least, told the parties involved about it and they could have requested she be replaced.

As little as it seems she still made a poor ethical choice. She should have, at the very least, told the parties involved about it and they could have requested she be replaced.

Because she belongs to an organization that made a donation? Do you know the list of every charitable cause your church donates to? Or any professional organization you may belong to? Do you wholeheartedly support all of those causes? I don't really follow the logic of why she should be removed. . .

As little as it seems she still made a poor ethical choice. She should have, at the very least, told the parties involved about it and they could have requested she be replaced.

Why? She was not directly involved with the litigants. Whats the conflict?

 

If we are to go that far with every judge as to conflict, then no judge will ever be able to preside over any case, ever. Think not? Imagine you are lawyer or judge, and therefore part of all sorts of professional societies and charitable organizations. Consider every organization you are part of now or have been a part of. Now think of all the organizations that those organizations donated to or were connected to in some other way. What do you have there? You have a conflict with virtually every stance on every issue.

 

Seriously. If this judge's organization was actually party to the suit, WHICH THEY ARE NOT, then you'd certainly have a case for conflict of interest. But they aren't. There is no foundation in fact for the accusation.

As little as it seems she still made a poor ethical choice. She should have, at the very least, told the parties involved about it and they could have requested she be replaced.

 

i agree, while it seems a minimal connection to the ACLU, the judge should have disclosed every and all possible conflicts to the parties and let them decide if any want to move to disqualify her. thats out of the canons on judicial conduct.

Calling it a conflict of interest is weak. Calling it a culture of corruption? Now THAT'S funny.

Because she belongs to an organization that made a donation? Do you know the list of every charitable cause your church donates to? Or any professional organization you may belong to? Do you wholeheartedly support all of those causes? I don't really follow the logic of why she should be removed. . .

 

She was invloved in this organization a bit more than your common member of a church. No, I don't know the name of every cause my church donates to, but I bet I would if I was the Trustee. She was in an elected position as Secretary and Trustee. While I don't see any big problem with this whole thing, I understand Jenksismy...'s point.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5862.shtml

So it seems that she is presiding over cases where a group she belongs to is one of the litigants. This seems ready-made for alot of appeals.

 

 

the ruling was going to get overturned anyways and i'm not suprised she has close ties to the ACLU and then rules for them

 

She was invloved in this organization a bit more than your common member of a church. No, I don't know the name of every cause my church donates to, but I bet I would if I was the Trustee. She was in an elected position as Secretary and Trustee.

 

 

^^^

Based on logical standards, she should have at least disclosed the connection or should be out today saying she didn't know in response to the press report.

 

Based on the Scalia standard, the ACLU owes her a free hunting trip.

Based on logical standards, she should have at least disclosed the connection or should be out today saying she didn't know in response to the press report.

 

Based on the Scalia standard, the ACLU owes her a free hunting trip.

QUACK!

Couple other noteworthy bits here:

 

The foundation's Web site shows it gave $45,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union to back a gay rights project. The ACLU has challenged the warrantless surveillance program.

 

...

The foundation released a statement Tuesday saying Taylor is one of 50 volunteer members of its board of trustees, which oversees grant-making decisions.

That organization donates some $50 million to charitable causes per year. It gave $45,000 to a gay rights project through the ACLU. Linky on that.

 

So, she's 1 of 50 trustees, that's less than .1% of their total donations for that year, and the donation did not have anything specific to do with the case.

 

Clearly, the ACLU owes her a hunting trip.

If you keep adding context, how can we justify our false outrage that should be aimed at our judicial system even though its acting properly?

CANON 5

 

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE

EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE

THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES

 

 

B. Civic and Charitable Activities. A judge may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality or interfere with the performance of judicial duties. A judge may serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization not conducted for the economic or political advantage of its members, subject to the following limitations:

 

(1) A judge should not serve if it is likely that the organization will be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the judge or will be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court.

 

It's not likely that she voilated b(1), however, like I said earlier, she should have told the parties in the case about it. That's the standard of conduct she signed up for when she became a judge.