Per Juditial Watch:
“(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‚Äôs 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‚Äôs 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.)
I agree. Not only should Judge Agenda be investigated, but if true the ruling should be overturned immediately and she removed from the bench.
You knew something stank about her, now we know.
H/t to readers and to Flopping Aces.
No Response
shm10
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:17 pm
1What amazes me Mac, is that these so called “very intelligent people” have not yet learned that in todays’ internet age they cannot rely on the MSM to cover for them anymore.
This decision was fuzzy as a peach initially according to all I have read, now it just seems to be covered with mold. Let’s hope the Circuit Court hears this one real soon!
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Judge Taylor Participated In $45,000 Donation To The ACLU
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
2[...] Macsmind [...]
Carol Johnson
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:26 am
3Hi Mac,
I posted this over at Flopping Aces and wanted to put it here as well.
‚ÄúIt appears she may be shielded from any kind of ethics violation but it does look and smell fishy.‚Äù – Flopping Aces
I read everything I could about this CLEAR conflict of interest and I strongly disagree with the assessment of some who say that this doesn’t rise to the level of, at least, an ethics violation! What about the right of anyone who comes before Judge Taylor’s court and expects impartial justice! They simply won’t get it!! If we let this one go by with just a wink and a nod then I fear our system of “justice”(?) is truly and finally broken. If we can’t expect (and DEMAND) true impartiality from our judges, why do we even bother to maintain the mascarade that we HAVE a fair legal system? Its only going to get worse from here out unless we stop it…and NOW!
Are we, and have we, become so jaded and so complacent that we will tolerate ANY and all transgressions in the name of “so what…there’s nothing we can do about it?” This isn’t the first time that this particular judge has used her position to mouth and support her own political views. Her record speaks for itself. This agonizing over whether she can or should be held to account is just one more thing eating away at the very heart of the notion of a fair trial for both defendant and plaintiff.
I fear we are beginning to see a world where NOTHING is too outrageous, too dangerous, and too unacceptable!! I can’t even believe that we are debating this issue. I am utterly shocked this morning to find that some think it is too DIFFICULT to DO THE RIGHT THING!!! Amazing!…and totally depressing!!
Carol
azdad
August 23rd, 2006 at 6:04 am
4Totally agree, Carol! She needs to ‘retire’ prior to impeachment–preferably yesterday. Judges are not beyond the law either.
Merry Whitney
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:42 am
5You said it all, Carol, and I fully agree with every word.
I also read, can’t recall the source so can’t take it to the bank, that her husband is employed or contracted to/with, some direct money connection, with one side (the winning side) of a prior case she sat on. That may’ve been the affirmative action U of Mich case? (That would probably be an ACLU connection for hubby — darn, where did I put that ginko biloba?).
Carol Johnson
August 23rd, 2006 at 10:08 am
6Merry,
I heard that too. Here’s more:
…..
Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University who has worked on cases involving the ACLU, said the statement by Judicial Watch had no merit.
“By no stretch of the imagination is this a conflict of interest,” Sedler said, adding that the real motive for the group’s claims may be politics. “Conservative groups are upset that the Bush administration has lost another case in the so-called war on terrorism.”
…..
This is a RAGING conflict of interest! This case was decided long before it was even heard. That, my friends, is NOT justice and never will be in my book! I don‚Äôt merely think that Judge Taylor should recuse herself from this case, I think she should recuse herself from the bench‚ĶPERIOD!! You and I know that will never happen as long as the courts operate on a wink and a nod basis. I don‚Äôt know about you guys, but I DON’T need some ‚Äúinformed‚Äù legal jackass’s opinion to know this stinks and should be rounded rejected as an excuse for letting stand that which should never have been brought.
I know the case will probably be overturned, but that does not diminish, in the least, the naked attempts at Judicial sabotage here. We shouldn’t just bypass the critical necessity for impartiality ESPECIALLY with the judge! She is not a Prosecutor and should not assume that role under ANY circumstances!! She is also not an advocate for the Defense!!
Some people seem determined NOT to make a BIG DEAL out of this. I tell you…if this conduct is allowed to continue, we can only blame ourselves for sanctioning it by ignoring it or excusing it!
Sorry for the rant.
Carol
Specter
August 24th, 2006 at 8:24 am
7Well…I think that her opinion will be tossed for the “air-headedness” of it all. But, for those that think our justice system is “fair”, you need to dig into it more. It has become a haven for “intellectuals” that legislate from the bench based on their own POV. That is why Taylor’s ruling should not have been a surprise – I mean the ACLU shopped around for a judge that would rule in their favor. And things get even worse when you dip into the criminal/civil side of our courts. There it is all about quickly clearing the dockets. The business of the courts at that level is not “justice” any longer, but to clear the calendar. Sheesh….and to think that we may have the best system in the world….
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Top Stories in the Blogosphere News
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac. Starting at just $149.95 with free shipping.
The Commander in Chief at Work!
News
Reading List
Most Popular Posts
Macsmind – Politics, Culture and Breaking News and the 2012 Presidential Election! Copyright 2008, Macsmind is a registered trademark of Macsmind Media - BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease