Powered by TypePad

« Avast, Matey | Main | Bitter Recriminations And Premature Gloating, Take 1 »

February 15, 2007

Comments

Jane

Sad,

WEll I'm pretty sure we are all about YOU too!

Sara (Squiggler

Maybe we should trade our cancer for some credentials!

JOM is not here to provide psychotherapy. See a psychiatrist.

Posted by: Esni | February 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Oh my God, I can not believe someone would write such a vicious remark. This is absolutely disgusting!

topsecretkk9

DanS

I've thought ms. bostonish accent, who couldn't bring herself to talk in the first person, would be the one most incapable of thinking beyond first person. We shall see.

big russ

my 'cnn' barometer indicates zero chance of a Libby guilty verdict.

Their coverage has been scant, especially today...

'Cause and effect' between Libby being found guilty and amount of CNN coverage?

I just put it in the realm of a 'strong correlation', covering my ass in case I'm wrong. Kinda like being 90% on anthropogenic global warming.

PS-my son sold out his own integrity. I'm proud of the boy.

Jane

Predicting what a jury will do is a fool's errand. They will find what they find for reasons we may never know. All you can do is wait.

And I'm telling you, waiting for a jury is awful. Awful Awful Awful.

hit and run

sad:
Tom and male contributors, love ya too but I'm all about the great broads here.


sad - GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!

Christopher Fotos

Oh, and SAD, I know it sounds trite but hang in there. One of my best friends had an exceptionally grim cancer diagnosis years ago, beat it into remission and lived many, many happy and healthy years afterwards. One of the best afternoons of my life was spent with her more than a decade after that diagnosis. I'm so grateful that she refused to regard it as the last word.

Martin

I read the guy to be saying "we are unanimous in thanking the court" but that's all we can be unanimous about since we haven't discussed anything else about the case per the Judge's orders.

Sara (Squiggler

You guys that don't want one word about the ANS case mentioned here are missing the whole point. The media has moved on. ANS is far more tabloid interesting than the machinations of a political witchhunt. And, overall, the legal issues, as Sad has pointed out, are probably much more on point to us peons trying to live our lives than any brought out by the Libby case. Paternity and burial rights are people issues.

sad

ensi

"sad" are my initials not a state of mind. I apologize for unloading here, I just wanted a group of great women to know how much they are appreciated.

sara

it made me giggle- even without the pot

clarice

pete, well, (a) it would lend credence to the earlier suppositions that Eckenrode was leaking to Waas all along--perhaps we now have a motive, to get the DoJ officials to turn him lose,(b)but his report conflcits with the Eckenrode stipulation entered into by both parties and read to the jury yesterday--that Russert told him initially that his recollection was poor and he couldn't be positive he hadn't told Libby.

So there you go--liar's poker, I'm afraid and more Waas Nicht.

SunnyDay

Sad,

Maybe we should trade our cancer for some credentials!

JOM is not here to provide psychotherapy. See a psychiatrist.

Posted by: Esni | February 15, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Who is the hell are you???

TM, if you can get this troll's IP address, you can have it's internet access taken away for this.

Sue

[Guess we have nice Ted today]

Someone should explain to the queen of snark that Wells is probably a very nice man. He is fighting to keep his client out of prison. Excuse him for being a little perturbed when the judge rules against him. I get so tired of their fight for rights for terrorists and want Libby's stripped down to a monopoly card that says do not pass to go...

clarice

ensi is a little troll worm and we all know it.

Going anon for this post

sad-

Reread clarice's post to yourself every damn day.

The physiological/psychological barrier is a mystery.

OK now for the boring part-doctors will do more for people with a positive attitude-there has been studies on that.

It's kind of a sales job-they won't invest in a patient if a patient doesn't think the odds are that good.

Ack-it's been ions since I've studied psych but that was the jest of it.

Now-true story.

I know a lot of extreme achievers-that's what happens when you hang out at military academies.

One of the best traits-sometimes worst is these bastards are stubborn.

One guy I know is an astronaut,"Mr. I Don't Take No For An Answer" another came down with a rare disease.

He was sent to Andrews after Bethesda said he's Air Force not Navy.

Anyway-hell the doctors tried to wear him down heaped all the bad news on him and when they saw he wasn't going to break down emotionally that he was a fighter-after hours of drilling all of a sudden they were calling guys they knew at NIH who called guys in Canada that got him into the "latest" experiment.

Long story short that didn't work but Mr Extreme Achiever did his own research and told the doctors about it-an off label use-and la viola after three years the disease stopped it's progression.

Ugh-I don't know what the damn moral of the story is other than put your game face on in front of the doctors, be a fighter and think positive.


If you think I've got no idea what you are going through you are right. Ugh it sounds like your kids might be young-hang in there.

topsecretkk9

SAD

I think Ensi is the "cryptic" commenter - so there is no real way to know if it was meant even as a criticism. The is no real way to know what, if anything, "cryptic commenter" means.

IOW let it go.

dorf

Waiting for a jury is horrible. I'd rather jump out of an airplane.

SunnyDay

You guys that don't want one word about the ANS case mentioned here are missing the whole point.

WE DISAGREE WITH YOU. Please.

Sara (Squiggler

You are too charitable Clarice. Worm? No, more like slimy slug.

Esni

Psychiatrists can help some, but not everybody.

Hillary is a lesbian if your wondering.

Sara (Squiggler

Sunny Day I've about had it with posters here who don't agree so take the position the person should shut up. So my answer is EFF OFF! My point was about news coverage so you are the ignorant one. Get a life. No one put you in charge.

clarice

Attitude does matter when it comes to doctors. My sister's were astonished when she challenged them to marathon races and brought them candy because she said she felt sorry for them having to deal with those issues every day, She is on the rolodex of every minister, priest and rabbi who call her to give the same pep talk to their parishioners that I gave to you.

No one knows who will live or die on any single day.
Choose life.
Choose optimism.
Choose hope.
It costs nothing.

Sara (Squiggler

This will be my last post:

The Sunlight Foundation Wants You To Research Congressional Web Sites!

imageimageThe Sunlight Foundation is launching a new citizen journalism project. This distributed research project asks you to dig through the official, taxpayer-funded Web site of a member of Congress, and help determine those that act as genuine tools for transparency.

We’re asking questions in three broad areas: do they provide access to basic information on what they do in Congress (the bills they sponsor, the committees they serve on); do they provide information from or access to any of the legally-required disclosures they have to file (on personal finances or junkets they take), and do they provide any additional information that furthers transparency (their daily schedule, lists of earmarks they’ve asked for or gotten).

We’re asking you to help us determine whether a member’s Web site, by furthering transparency, serves the interests of the citizens who pay for it. The findings will be used to highlight the best practices and to develop a set of transparency standards for sites of members to meet.

The project may take you ten minutes or longer, depending on the size and complexity of the Web site you’re looking at.


To get started, click here: http://www.sunlightlabs.com/research/sites/

Barney Frank

--Psychiatrists can help some, but not everybody.--

No kidding, exhibit A.

htt

Probably hurting the org more than helping.

Suicidal people are threats to others and are incarcerated immediately.

Found this might be good for lawyer types to research:

http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/

sad

Clarice
I too am very blessed to have a nonstop positive attitude. But in addition to attitude, I intend to incorporate another part of me that I used to despise:

procrastination

I intend to procrastinate my demise indefinitly.

brian lordan

i like the idea in an earlier thread of apostverdict jom reunion
would like to shake hands with all you folks whove tried to help out this fine civil servant attacked by outofcontrol federal prosecutor/reprensible media outlet[msnbc]-- particularly tom maguire. clarice. mark o and even crazy carol.

Cecil Turner

To say this moment was awkward would be an understatement.

No kidding. How odd. Kinda reminiscent of the "Pledge of Allegiance" scene in Runaway Jury . . . and that's not exactly reassuring.

clarice

How far will Hillary go to get Obama?

Yesterday two Black polls said they wouldn't back him because he'd lose and all Black politicians would, too in his wake-
Today we learn:
"Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign reached a deal to pay a key South Carolina black leader's consulting firm more than $200,000 just days before he agreed to endorse her run for president, it was revealed yesterday. The arrangement involves South Carolina state Sen. Darrell Jackson, a well-connected African-American leader and pastor whose support is coveted by national campaigns"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02152007/news/nationalnews/shocking_200g_hill_deal_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm>Outbidding Obama or Bought & Paid for

clarice

sad, we all do..Now I propose you change your moniker to Glad, the poster formerly known as sad. *kissing sad and giving her a big hug*

Alcibiades

Had I been on the jury, I , too would have passed on the tshirt thing as being, well, hokey and fashion backward..and I think Libby's innocent. From what I read about her elsewhere, I think at NRO, she was an art curator at the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art.

To me, that sounds like "guilty" from her. Wonder if she is the one with the jury questions that cannot be answered.

Barney Frank

Sad,

--I intend to procrastinate my demise indefinitly.--

My wife is procrastinating hers like nobody's business too.

I sent you an e-mail (hope that's your real address).

Charlie (Colorado)

JOM is not here to provide psychotherapy. See a psychiatrist.

Esni, may I say, with all due respect --- which ain't much: fuck you, and the bus you rode in on.

bad

I think I'm going to go with this one. It seems more exciting.

the poster formerly known as sad

Alcibiades

SAD,

So sorry to hear about your illness.

Patton

I would like to know if Wells can argue that the government didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because it failed to pursue witnesses that may clarify information.

For instance, was Libby intentionally lying about Russert, or did he just confuse him with someone else??
Fitzs own witnesses couldn't remember who said what to whom when. I would think their should ba a whole lot of doubt unless you nail down everyones story - including all the journalists.

If this were a murder case, or a robbery case, I would think there is no way it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

htt

Disloyalty and IP addresses?

'Law and Psychiatry: Dealing With Impaired Colleagues'

http://www.reidpsychiatry.com/columns/Reid09-99.pdf

http://www.nami.org/

clarice

Libby has filed two new pleadings --the most significant is his proposed revised defense instruction which sets ou the theory of his case:
"Mr. Libby contends that the government has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to or did obstruct justice, make intentionally false statements to the FBI, or make intentionally false statements to the grand jury. Mr. Libby contends that he told the FBI and the grand jury his honest recollections at the time, and to the extent any of those recollections were incorrect, his mistakes were innocent. He contends that he lacked any notes of the conversations about which he was questioned, and that he was unable to refresh his recollection by reviewing the notes of other people and discussing with them their recollections of events. He further contends that the amount and scope of vital national security issues and information confronting him on a daily basis during June and July 2003 may have affected his memory of any brief conversations about the employment of Mr. Wilson’s wife when he talked to FBI investigators in October and November 2003, three or more months after the conversation are alleged to have happened, and when he testified to the grand jury the following March. Mr. Libby further contends that when the investigation began, he knew that he had not provided any information about Ms. Wilson to Robert Novak. He also contends that he did not know that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was covert or classified and that he did not knowingly disclose classified

DCO1:466568.1

Case 1 :05-cr-00394-RBW Document 289-1

Filed 02/15/2007 Page 2 of 2

information about Ms. Wilson to any reporters. Further, Mr. Libby was well aware when he was first interviewed by the FBI and when he testified to the grand jury that the investigators could and likely would talk to government officials and the journalists he spoke with concerning Ambassador Wilson and that those officials and journalists would truthfully recount their recollections of the conversations he had with them. Mr. Libby submits he had no reason to lie to the FBI or the grand jury, and did not do so."

http://members.cox.net/liinda/289-1.htm

The second, is his revised proposed jury instruction.
"Special Verdict Form

The government’s proposed verdict form as to Counts One, Two, and Five violates the presumption, expressed in United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 910-911 (D.C. Cir. 1990), against the use of verdict forms that provide the jury with alternative theories for finding the defendant guilty on a single count. As the Court made clear in North, “as a general matter, in criminal cases, the preferable practice is to require the jury to come to one general verdict as to each count.” Id. at 910. Contrary to the principles set forth in North, the verdict form proposed by the government provides the jury with not one but three alternative bases for finding Mr. Libby guilty on Count One, t~o alternative bases to find him guilty on Count Two; and four alternative bases to find him guilty on Count Five. To ensure that the jury comes to one general verdict with respect to each Count, Mr. Libby requests that the Court provide to the jury the verdict form proposed by the defense on February 14 (Dkt 287). See generally North, 910 F.2d at 911 (courts may employ special verdict forms “when the defendant requests or approves a

—1—

Case 1 :05-cr-00394-RBW Document 288 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 2 of 4

special verdict as a means of more precisely determining an appropriate and fair punishment”) (emphasis added).

We recognize that in a case where an indictment alleges more than one factual basis for finding guilt, the jury must be informed, for the protection of the defendant, that it must reach a unanimous finding on the basis (or bases) for guilt. See id. at 878; United States v. Sayan, 968 F.2d 55, 65 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The proper means to guard against the risk that the jurors could find a defendant guilty on a single count under multiple, disparate theories is not, however, a special verdict form. Rather, it is a specific unanimity instruction. See United States v. Holley, 942 F.2d 916, 925 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405, 1407 (9th Cir. 1983) (Kennedy, J.) (special unanimity instruction appropriate where a single count charges “separate false statements, any one of which is sufficient to convict”).

Accordingly, we propose that the Court instruct the jury as follows with respect to Count

One:

You will note that Count One describes two allegedly false statements made by Mr. Libby to the grand jury. You need not find that both statements are false in order to find Mr. Libby guilty on Count One, but you must unanimously find that one or the other is false. In other words, you may not convict Mr. Libby on Count One because some of you find one statement is false, and others of you find that the other statement is false.

As to Count Five, we similarly propose the following instruction:

You will note that Count Five describes numerous statements made by Mr. Libby to the grand jury, and that the statements alleged to be false are italicized. You need not find that all of the italicized testimony is false in order to find Mr. Libby guilty on Count Five, but you must unanimously find that a particular statement is false. In other words, you may not convict Mr. Libby because some of you find one particular part of his testimony is false, and others of you find that a different part of his testimony was false.

If the jury is properly instructed as to the need for unanimity as suggested above, there is no need for a special verdict form and the defense opposes the use of such a form."

http://members.cox.net/liinda/288.htm

Alcibiades

That's a fascinating article from Murray Waas.

Props to whomever it was that suggested that Eckenrode was his source. It looks like they were right.

And now we know that NBC work around deal is even more problematic than it was before. That should have definitely been admitted for questioning. Frack that judge!

topsecretkk9

Oh yeah, get down with your bad self!

Holly

Anybody here care to respond to this question about this article?

This community has 40,662 members.

BTW, if these links work, then smooches to Charlie for the lesson yesterday!

Syl

s.a.d.

I'm so sorry to hear your sad revelation and am touched that you let us know. I can honestly say I have no advice, I wouldn't know where to begin, but you will be in my thoughts every day.

Ralph L.

I'll repeat my wise post from last night, and stifle the ANS joke:
I think the juror was trying to tell the judge that despite the obvious (partial) bonding, the jurors hadn't discussed the case yet.

clarice

"Ok....this guy was Vice President Dick Cheney's national security adviser and then his Chief of Staff and he can't remember what happen in the morning?????? WTF? I'm at a county level of government and if you are a Chief of Staff or Deputy to one of the top county positions and you are not sharp as a tack there is no way they hang on to jobs like that or even get it in the first place."

The smartest man I know is a gen-you-ine rocket scientist and he can't remember what day it is or something he heard 5 minutes ago.

In any event none of the prosecution witnesses had memories better than his and they weren't having to deal 24/7 with the stuff on his plate which was presented to the jury as an exemplar of even one day of CIA briefings and threat warnings.
If the clown who wrote that sharp remark is not sitting in bombed out rubble it is because guys like Lewis Libby were doing their round-the-clock best to keep that ass clown alive.

hit and run

Clarice:
The smartest man I know is a gen-you-ine rocket scientist


No I'm not.

bad

I would like to know if Wells can argue that the government didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because it failed to pursue witnesses that may clarify information.

Why isn't Hillary "resenting" the injustice of this case?

Sue

If I remember correctly, Hannah said Libby couldn't remember who told him something that morning, not that he couldn't remember what they told him.

topsecretkk9

FWIW ... Civil defendants "response" to Wilson's million page dismissal response is today. I'll check to see what's up

(HAH. Notice no one covered Wilson's response Jan. 17th)

Rick Ballard

"Why isn't Hillary "resenting" the injustice of this case?"

Bad,

I'm looking forward to reading your Baddest comments through the '08 campaign and elections.

Watch it buddy - I'm with Bad.

jwest

I’m certain the endorsement of Hillary by the black leaders and the consulting contract were mere coincidence. Apparently hanging around JOM makes people overly suspicious.

Clarice – How do you digest all this material so fast? Speed reading courses or a staff of underlings feeding you summaries?

Ralph L.

How much written information will the jury have besides their own notes? Instructions, GJ testimony, any trial props, actual trial testimony?

Ralph L.

I thought Libby's assumption of the truthfulness of the reporters was touching.
How long has he worked in DC?

clarice

Only Glenn Reynolds can read faster. (proofreading is another thing--I see what I meant.)

clarice

The jurors will get all the exhibits, including the transcripts of the gj (because it was an exh) and of Armitage's chat with Woodward. Normally they are not given trial transcripts (remember they contain side bar discussions not meant for the jury). If they have a question about testimony, someone reads that portion of the transcript to them.)

Cecil Turner

Anybody here care to respond to this question about this article?

Not bad. The quality of the commentary has risen considerably since the "he claimed he heard it from Russert, when actually he got it from the VP" days. As to memory issues, misattribution (remembering something but forgetting where you got it) is one of the most common failures. Kinda wish we'd had that memory expert. If so, he'd probably have said something like this (Daniel Schachter, The Seven Sins of Memory):

The sin of misattribution involves assigning a memory to the wrong source: mistaking fantasy for reality, or incorrectly remembering that a friend told you a bit of trivia that you actually read about in a newspaper. Misattribution is far more common than most people realize, and has potentially profound implications in legal settings.

Ralph L.

Thanks, glad the GJ testimony is in writing.
And the jury instructions?

topsecretkk9

Funny footnote number one in Rove's response

1 Plaintiffs assert that the Privacy Act is “irrelevant” because they claim that the White House Office is not an agency and “therefore not subject to the Privacy Act.” Opp. at 52. Although the Act’s preclusive effect on Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims does not depend upon whether it provides a remedy for Plaintiffs, it should be noted that the Privacy Act’s applicable definition is:

(1) "agency" as defined in section 551(l) of this title includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency....
5 U.S.C. § 552(f).

Sunnyday - if you want I can email the 3 I have so far (Rove, Armitage and Government) if you are interested/

clarice

They(instructions) are generally read to the jury and reread upon request. Perhaps that has been changed. But that is the general rule.

Syl

Russert burned one source, then turned around and fought a subpoena to protect [other] sources and proclaimed to the world he was a protector of journalism's 1st Amendment rights.

Trust me! Talk to me! I won't give you up!

All b.s.

The traditional media and the left will keep silent on this matter. Who will listen to us?

If Russert's hypocrisy ever became known to a wide audience, no source would trust anyone from NBC ever again. (Hence the NBC lawyers shenanigans.)

NBC wasn't protecting 1st Amendment rights, it was protecting its own reputation.

I think it's sick. Just sick.


Gary Maxwell

I think that regardless of what several folks think that the juror meant about the last unanimous comment, that it might be a window on his thinking. And that means thats Wells et al did a great job of screening jurors to the point that there are lots of independent thinkers in the group. And it only takes one resolute juror to send the prosecutor back to square one, and he does not pass go and does not collect $200. And if several independent thinkers are also bright and articulate, they may also win over the dim bulbs.

clarice

ts,looks like the good professor hasn't been putting too much time into this from that response.

Ralph L.

I hope the thread title doesn't mean we have to milk this one out til tomorrow night. That last one got unwieldy. I had to keep going back to the main page. And it probably scared away new readers by its sheer size.

ht

Found this cool blog that may really help!


http://www.mytherapy.com/sign%2Dup/

clarice

syl, you are talking about a network which keeps Matthews and Shuster off the breadlines and just announced they were putting Olbermann on their news shows.

topsecretkk9

Clarice

The good professor took a second tier role after the big splash. This is all Crew and some dude from California.

Plaintiffs’ argument that Ms. Wilson had “a reasonable expectation of continued employment relative to the actions of others outside of the CIA” ignores the fact that Ms. Wilson’s employment continued for two years after the allegedly wrongful disclosure of her status, and Plaintiffs do not allege that her voluntary retirement was the result of Mr. Rove’s conduct. Open. Br. at 32 (citing Am. Compl. ¶ 7). The most that Plaintiffs can allege (rather than a job loss or change in legal status) is that “Ms. Wilson could no longer function as a secret operative . . . [a] career which she thoroughly enjoyed and planned to pursue for years to come was taken away.” Opp. at 30. As discussed supra, Ms. Wilson never had a right in her covert employment status, regardless of her alleged enjoyment of that aspect of the job. Because Plaintiffs do not allege termination, demotion or a change in Ms. Wilson’s legal status, they have not alleged a valid property rights violation, and that claim should be dismissed.

there's also funny passage about Wilson's freedom of speech violations.

Sue

Are they going to put the jury instructions up once they are hammered out? I am not getting much from the swamp's abbreviated posting of the hearing. I suspect that the journalists, who she describes as leaving the hearing already, aren't understanding what is happening either.

Ralph L.

Maxwell U. Smart

Syl, the general public may not learn of Russert's duplicity, but soon "everyone" will know it. The Washington grapevine is very quick.

Extraneus

It seems more exciting.

I agree.

Gary Maxwell

Ralphie

Soon you will be denying the "everyone knows" comment just like Ms. Greenspan. LOL

tom maguire

Hey TM, there's still the civil trial to look forward to (if you believe there will be a trial),

I believe there *will* be a civil trial.

I also belive it will be presided over by the Easter Bunny and the star witness will be Paul Bunyan.

clarice

Sue,you can read the proposed instructions and the fights over them at cboldt's place.

G'daddy

This is the first time post by a daily reader of JOM from its earliest days. I appreciate Tom Maguire, Clarice Feldman, and the other commenters on this site. With few exceptions, those who comment here do so intelligently

The prosecutor has more power over the liberty of individuals in our society than anyone else. The abuse of that power should be a crime. Andy McCarthy's protestations aside, Patrick Fitzgerald has been horribly abusive of his powers in this case.

There are several aspects of the trial that trouble me deeply. They should also trouble others:

1. The Sixth Amendment Issues: I doubt that Libby can ever get the "impartial jury" guaranteed by the amendment in DC due to the bias against the Bush administration and the role the MSM has played leading up to the indictment. In addition, he was denied of his Sixth Amendment rights to present his full case by the judge; specifically, he was not allowed to call several witnesses that could help impugn the integrity of his primary accuser (Tim Russert). This amendment guarantees a fair trial to the defendant, the person whose personal liberty is at risk. It does not guarantee a fair trial to the government, yet the prosecutor and judge (neither of whom have their personal liberty at risk) were more concerned about fairness to the government than to the defendant.

2. Fifth Amendment Issues: The judge is at fault for insisting that Libby testify in order to present his full case. I believe that Judge Walton's position is a violation of Libby's Fifth Amendment right not to testify. President Bush is also culpable in the Fifth Amendment area for requiring that all administration employees waive their rights as a condition of employment.

3. The defense should have been allowed to directly respond to the lies and exaggerations of Fitzgerald at the press conference where he announced the indictment.

4. The purposes of having the special prosecutor were (a) to determine whether the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson was illegal and (2) (if it was illegal) to prosecute the person(s) responsible. It is clear that no crime was committed. It was probably clear from the very early days of the investigation. The investigation should have been terminated when the legality issue was resolved.

Unlike some others here including possibly Tom Maguire, I do not believe Libby committed perjury at all. I do believe Tim Russert is lying.

If the jurors are unbiased, the vote will be not guilty on all counts. They should reach that decision in less than a day of deliberations. Realistically for a Bush administration official with A DC jury, a hung jury is as much a victory as an acquittal. Even an 11-1 vote for guilty.

My prediction is that the jury will convict on three or more of five counts. Having closely observed the Martha Stewart trial where she was obviously not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I have no confidence in juries where the defendant is viewed as unsympathetic. Also, having served on several juries in both federal and state criminal courts, I know that the propensity of most jurors is to give the government the benefit of any doubt UNLESS the defendant is especially sympathetic. I hope my prediction is wrong.

topsecretkk9

IV. Plaintiffs Have Not Advanced Any Reason That Could Justify Overlooking The
Untimeliness Of Their Complaint

A. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Any Reason To Excuse Their Untimely Filing

Plaintiffs acknowledge that D.C. Code § 12-301(4) required them to bring a Public Disclosure claim within one year of the alleged wrong. Opp. at 42. They ask to be excused from
this requirement, however, because of the “discovery rule” or “equitable tolling” or “equitable estoppel.” Opp. at 42-47.5 They allege no facts, however, that would entitle them to the benefit of any of these doctrines.

The Supreme Court has held that, “Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of establishing two elements: 1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and 2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (denying a request for equitable tolling because “petitioner’s lack of diligence precludes equity’s operation”); see also Felter et al. v. Kempthorne, -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 120302 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Felter et al. v. Norton et al., 412 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2006). For this reason, the D.C. Circuit has remarked that “federal courts have typically extended equitable relief only sparingly.” Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 167 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Even the Hobson court, upon which Plaintiffs rely, noted the long- standing rule that the late-filing plaintiff who seeks to excuse dilatoriness for lack of knowledge must not have lacked knowledge through “any fault or want of diligence or care on his part.” Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d 1, 33 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Plaintiffs fall very far short of meeting this demanding standard. Plaintiffs do not allege that they took any action to discover the information needed to bring their complaint. Nor do they allege that the Defendants took any action to prevent them from making inquiries necessary to make a timely complaint. Rather, their claim to equitable relief from limitations requires this Court to ignore what Plaintiffs do allege. The very heart of their complaint is that Mr. Rove and others publicly disclosed private facts about Mrs. Wilson’s employment. Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 14. The specific conduct that Mr. Rove was alleged to have engaged in involves a discussion about Mrs. Wilson after her public disclosure, about which it appears, from the Amended Complaint, that Plaintiffs were contemporaneously aware. Moreover, the Court is free to take judicial notice of the fact that, within months of the alleged wrongful conduct, Mr. Wilson publicly remarked “wouldn't it be fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House inhandcuffs? And I measure my words." To suggest under these circumstances that Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief from
the statutory requirements governing their claim is absurd.
Notwithstanding Mr. Wilson's own contemporaneous, inflammatory remarks, Plaintiffs assert that they did not learn of Mr. Rove's involvement until Mr. Libby was indicted in October,
2005. Their claim is demonstrably false. The particular allegations against Mr. Rove in the Amended Complaint are nowhere to be found in the indictment, which does not mention Mr. Rove by name.7 While the Court is necessarily constrained in what it may consider at this stage of the proceedings, it need not set out on a fool’s errand.

clarice

Thanks for posting that TS--I'm w/ TM
"I believe there *will* be a civil trial.

I also belive it will be presided over by the Easter Bunny and the star witness will be Paul Bunyan."

Walter

TM,

I predict a mistrial, as Mr. Bunyan will be refused entry to the courthouse while carrying an axe.

Sue

g'daddy,

I think they are going to find Libby guilty of all of the charges involving Russert. And I hope Russert chokes on his own spit when he hears the verdict.

topsecretkk9

Armitage's response is a bit more to the point I guess

they must concede that speaking with reporters was part of Mr. Armitage’s duties as Deputy Secretary of State. Plaintiffs also attempt to create a disputed issue of fact regarding whether the alleged conduct occurred within the workplace during working hours. But this gambit manifestly fails as it relates to Mr. Armitage because Plaintiffs concede in their Amended Complaint that then Deputy Secretary of State Armitage spoke to Mr. Novak and Mr. Woodward at his State Department office during business hours. * * * This case never should have been brought against Mr. Armitage. Book deals and politics prompted this litigation, not legally redressable injuries. The Court should dismiss all claims against Mr. Armitage with prejudice.
clarice

ts--elbow TM..We need a Wilson Civil litigation thread!!!More red meat!!!

bad

Rick
My first predition for 08 is no combined ticket of Hillary and Obama. Hillary's "non-charasmatic" chromosome is unable to tolerate Obama the wasted.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I believe that Judge Bunny's schedule precludes hearing the case in question. His work on US v Egg will not be complete until April 8. Judge Lewis Carroll is next on the rota and seems eminently suitable for hearing argument on the matter.

topsecretkk9

OK, I'll stop after this

Moreover, in her Opposition, Ms. Wilson once again is careful not to allege that she was terminated from her employment from the CIA. In fact, she left voluntarily to pursue a lucrative book deal and other celebrity projects.


EM PHA SIS Armitage

Ralph L.

G'day, G'daddy:
I hadn't heard Bush insisted people waive their 5th amend. rights. Waiving reporter confidentiality is different, and how could Bush enforce that? It was certainly politically expedient of Bush, but you can bet the WH lawyers vetted it.
From the clarity of your writing, I thought you were a lawyer, but I didn't think they were allowed on juries.

maryrose

bad{formerly known as sad}
My thoughts and prayers are with you. What a wonderful mother you are thinking of your children first. You have our love and support here at JOM. You sound like a strong compassionate woman. I admire you.Keep posting as I always feel your comments are on point and very interesting.

G'daddy

Assuming Libby is convicted on one or more of the perjury and obstruction charges, do you believe Bush will pardon him? If "yes", before or after he spends some time in prison?

clarice

Ralph, wrong. He insisted they cooperate fully which meant they could not take the Fifth and had to sign waivers.
On that G'Daddy is dead right.

vnjagvet

Clarice:

In some Districts, Judges allow the instructions to go out with the jury. It is up the the Judge's discretion. I don't know what Walton's SOP is.

In addition, some Judges allow the jury to take notes that can go out with them. Others don't.

Finally, I'll tell all my most painful experience with a federal jury.

I was Plaintiff's counsel in a age discrimination case tried against an auto manufacturer in Detroit. I had a pretty good jury, I thought, but had to make a decision on whether to strike a particular juror who I didn't like. He was the "demographic clone" of my client -- middle management, married, still working, big company, 59 1/2 years old. If I struck him, he would be replaced by the first alternate juror, a demographic clone of the employee who replaced my client on the job -- 37 years old, male, married, employed by an auto manufacturer (a competitor of the Defendant), and who had a very pleasant demeanor, and was about my age at the time of the trial.

After consulting with my older local counsel, and my client, did not strike the older juror, and left the jury as it was.

After the best trial I have ever conducted in every way (and that still holds to this day), we lost a jury verdict. Had the case been tried to the judge, we would have had a substantial verdict.

Two days after trial, the alternate juror (who had been excused before deliberations) spotted my local counsel in the grocery store, tapped him on the shoulder, and asked him "how much money did you win". When told we had lost, he was astonished because, he said, we all thought there was age discrimination there.

Turned out, we found, the juror I failed to strike "rolled the jury" and convinced them that a small piece of evidence that was totally irreleveant, and that even defense counsel did not argue was dispositive against my client.

Go figure.

No possibility of appeal. Contingent fee for 2000 hours of work down the tubes. Unhappy client. Great gnashing of teeth followed.

At least I had not declined a settlement offer, because none was made.

ht

I found this, but it's down.

http://www.psychiatry.com/forum.php

I think Plame left because of the problems similar to those this blog is having. It was in the news.

Libby is going to be freed.


bad

..she left voluntarily to pursue a lucrative book deal and other celebrity projects.

What other celebrity projects?

Rick Ballard

"My first predition for 08 is no combined ticket of Hillary and Obama."

Bad,

I agree 100%. The question is whether he'll quit when he wakes up with the horse's head in his bed or is Mrs. Obama gonna get a cod wrapped in a copy of the NYT?

clarice

Urgh,vnjagvet--I don't pretend to be able to read people and I feel your pain

--Bob Cox(MBA) just called..A So Cal radio sta wants to set up an interview this afternoon on today's NYT article. If they can set it up it'll be a three way (probably Cox, Hamsher and me at 5:30 eastern time).

maryrose

sara:
I just had an excellent post to you which disappeared. The jist of it was recently you seem somewhat defensive. I like you as a commentator onthis blog. Sunnyday is a good poster and I think in light of sad's revelation we all know that life can get full of ballast. Let's try to remember what is most important in life-faith family and friends. Let's keep the friendships alive at JOM.

Walter

The movie, Bad.

or was that the bad movie?

Whichever.

(I extend my best wishes to you as well. Even if the women here do the heavy lifting, we men are in the background cheering y'all on. And that does include you and your uniformly worthwhile comments.)

Sue

Clarice,

Is the radio station on the internet?

Ralph L.

Clarice, is that legal? Wouldn't the USGME union sue? Oh, damn, another stupid question.

Bad, I don't think Hillary wants to stand next to Obama's cleanliness either. But wait, didn't they say that about Gore when Clinton chose him? Mr. Clean balancing Slick Willy. Well I hope your right.

G'daddy

D'day, RalphL, Sorry about that. You are right! Still, I believe that Bush did the wrong thing in making it a condition of employment.

I'm not a lawyer. Just an old, retired businessman and full time grandfather to a bunch of grandkids who call me G'daddy.

clarice

Sue, I have no idea..I think he said NPR/

maryrose

I have to disagree. Hil will not get the nomination. Obama hasn't yet begun to fight. The Left loves him and Hil is too old and her negatives are too high. She is wishy-washy and mean to boot. I mean she has been known to throw things at Bill while he was president. Shouldn't the secret Service have intervened there? And then there is her lie about not knowing about Monica...PUleeze!

bad

second prediction:

Rudy vs Hillary

Sue

S.A.D.

I like the idea of calling you "bad the poster f/k/a sad" in the good ole Prince fashion. You could also just come up with a symbol such as !*! and then we could refer to you as "!*! bad the poster f/k/a sad".

Warm wishes and blessed thoughts heading your way!

G'daddy

Wait, Clarice said I was right! In ant case, I'm not competent to make the call.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame