DOCSLIB.ORG

THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011 Council for Court Excellence The D.C. Bench Bar Media Dialogue Project Final Report to the State Justice Institute This document,was developed under grant number SJI-09-E-163 from the State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the Council for Court Excellence and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute. July 28 , 2011 [THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………2 Project overview and goals……………………………………………………………………….2 Programs………………………………………………………………………………………….2 Findings Program findings………………………………………………………………………….4 Committee organization findings…………………………………………………………5 Project committee…………………………………………………………………………………7 Appendix Invitation: Sharing Perspectives…………………………………………………………..8 Invitation: Press on Trial: The Libby Case………………………………………………..9 Flyer: Confidentiality vs. Open Access in DC Juvenile Cases…………………………..10 Flyer: Social Networks, Computer Technology and the Courts…………………………11 Council for Court Excellence Page 1 [THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011 Introduction This report summarizes the experiences and findings of the Council for Court Excellence’s DC Bench-Bar-Media Dialogue Project, supported by a grant from the State Justice Institute. The report is intended to serve as a resource to other jurisdictions that may be considering the development of a similar bench-bar-media committee. This project was funded by the State Justice Institute, grant number SJI-09-E-163. The report is by the Council for Court Excellence and should not be construed to reflect the Project overview and goals The DC Bench-Bar-Media Dialogue Project was an educational program series designed to foster discussion on issues of current interest to the bench, bar and media and, by so doing, to promote a better understanding between them. These sectors seldom have occasion to reflect upon and engage in dialogue on issues outside of their daily practice. The project planned and convened four programs on topics selected by a 17-member program committee comprised of public information officers from the local and federal courts in DC, judges, media attorneys, and representatives of the media. Initial topics identified in the 2009 SJI proposal included: the challenges of blogging and electronic access to the courts, and the fairness / accuracy of media coverage of the courts. These initial topics were addressed, respectively, in the fourth and first dialogue programs, which are described below. The planned audience for these programs included the judges and staff of the local and federal courts in DC, the media bar, and journalists. In addition to attracting attendance from each of these sectors, the programs also garnered attendance from faculty and students of law and journalism programs, subject matter experts (in the case of the Juvenile Justice program), and the broader civic community. Programs The Dialogue Project convened four programs between July 2010 and June 2011, with a six- month project planning process from January to June 2010. The program titles, brief descriptions and dates held were: 1. Sharing Perspectives , a closed-door session designed to let judges, attorneys and journalists candidly discuss issues of common complaint. The moderated discussion centered on hypotheticals presented to the attendees about a prior restraint in the press, access to jurors, and a grand jury leak. Held July 29, 2010. 36 attendees. 2. Press on Trial: the Libby Case , a public panel discussion with participants in the Scooter Libby trial in the US District Court for DC, emphasizing how trial courts can address and manage media attention in high-profile trials. Topics included: the court’s views about the success of its media center, established for the coverage of high profile trials; the value to the court of having a press liaison; the consideration by the judge of issuing a Council for Court Excellence Page 2 [THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011 gag order in response to a prosecutorial press conference; a blogger’s ability to get a press credential; the court’s perspective on press coverage by a blogger; attorney perceptions of press coverage; reporter’s privilege; waivers offered by prosecutors to permit press to testify; members of the media appearing to testify in court; whether the Libby case was a good test case for further court consideration of reporter’s privilege; media access to juror voir dire; and jurors speaking with the press. Held December 9, 2010. 107 attendees. 3. Confidentiality vs. Open Access in DC Juvenile Cases , a public panel discussion about the effects of recent DC legislation to open certain juvenile records, where juvenile records and proceedings are presumptively confidential and closed to the media. Topics discussed included: how the legislation may affect admonitions about disclosure that judges currently give to parties, witnesses and the media in juvenile court; how the legislation impacts press coverage of juvenile matters; the psychological effects of disclosure on juvenile offenders; the possible effects of the new legislation on the code of ethics that govern doctors, psychologists and lawyers, which compel them not to reveal certain information about their clients; among others. Held May 23, 2011. 42 attendees. 4. Social Networks, Computer Technology and the Courts, a video-recorded public panel discussion conducted in a “Fred Friendly” hypothetical format discussing how DC courts, journalists and attorneys are reacting to and addressing social network and computer technology issues. The hypothetical was about the trial of fictional Mayor of Anycity, USA, and the challenges to the trial as a result of social network usage by jurors, court staff and reporters. Topics including judicial admonitions about use of social networks, jurors who use Twitter during trial, witnesses and lawyers who are LinkedIn contacts, live blogging from the courtroom, and cameras in the courtroom. Judges and reporters on the panel were asked about how these would, respectively, affect their management of the trial and decisions about when to report or not. Held June 15, 2011. 170 attendees. The invitations or flyers, indicating the program participants or, in the case of the closed-door session, the ground rules for program participation, are provided in the attached appendix. Programs flyers were circulated by email to the Council for Court Excellence Board of Directors and its supporters, to judges and staff in the local and federal courts in the District of Columbia, to print and broadcast journalists, to the faculty and staff at local law schools and journalism programs, to the DC Bar’s media law committee, and to organizations with a broad media interest or mission, such as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Maryland- Delaware-DC Press Association. Council for Court Excellence Page 3 [THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011 Findings The project derived a number or findings from the programs as well as from the experience of organizing a bench-bar-media committee. The major findings, divided into “program findings” and “committee organizational findings” are discussed below. Program findings 1. Journalists: judicial ethics matter. When citing why a judge cannot comment on a case, it is important to write “judicial ethics prohibit a judge from commenting on a current matter,” as opposed to “the judge did not respond to questions” or “the judge declined to answer.” Judges are concerned that the public not interpret the ethical prohibition to comment as an attempt to avoid speaking to the press or, by extension, to the public. (From Sharing Perspectives dialogue.) 2. Journalists: know the rules; when in doubt, ask. Rules regarding media access in courtrooms vary slightly from judge to judge, e.g., rules about use of electronic devices in the courtroom. According to the June 15 program on Social Networks, some judges would consider, if asked, permitting on a case-by-case basis the use of electronic devices for reporting a trial from the courtroom. For a current example, US District Court Judge Reggie Walton permitted live Twitter feeds to be posted from the courtroom in the Roger Clemens trial. However, under no circumstances are cameras or recording devices allowed in local or federal DC courtrooms. (From Social Networks Dialogue.) 3. Judges: direct journalists to sources who are permitted to explain the court’s actions. Journalists often times do not need a quote from a judge, just an explanation about why a judge ruled a certain way or what might happen next. The story lines that come from courtrooms have long been good fodder for news stories, and journalists get frustrated, with inaccurate reporting a possible result, when the lines of communication are cut or made difficult. (From Sharing Perspectives dialogue.) 4. Judges: when possible, arrange for a media room to permit access to a high-profile trial. If courthouse space permits, establishing even a temporary space for journalists to access a live audio feed of a high-profile trial will reduce the administrative burden on courts of accommodating press in the courtroom. (From Press on Trial dialogue.) 5. DC Council: The DC “Expanding Access to Juvenile Records Amendment Act of 2010,” permitting the naming of juveniles in certain serious matters, is perceived by prosecutors, defense attorneys, journalists and juvenile advocates to be ineffective. The District of Columbia Council, the equivalent of a state legislature, enacted this legislation in partial response to the publication of the name of a juvenile alleged to have been involved in a high-profile crime, as well as in partial response to growing media pressure to grant them access to juvenile cases, as elsewhere in the country. The legislation, permitting journalists only to name juveniles convicted more than once of a Council for Court Excellence Page 4 [THE D.C. BENCH BAR MEDIA DIALOGUE PROJECT] July 28, 2011 serious or violent crime, does not permit any additional access by journalists to juvenile proceedings or records.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse
    USA SEE NO EVIL GOVERNMENT TURNS THE OTHER WAY AS JUDGES MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSE Amnesty International Publications First published in February 2011 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2011 Index: AMR 51/005/2011 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Judges point to human rights violations, executive turns away ........................................... 4 Absence
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission Report Of
    District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission Report of Recommendations and Chief Judge Designations and Presidential Appointments to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia May 8, 1975 to September 30, 2013 INTRODUCTION On October 31, 2011, the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (“JNC” or “Commission”) published an historic report of JNC recommendations made to the President of the United States, Presidential appointments to the District of Columbia courts, and the JNC’s designations of the Chief Judges for those courts, with the commitment to update the report annually. The report relies on available records, including Congressional and District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission records, as well as notices published in the Daily Washington Law Reporter. This is the second annual update of the report. The Commission Chair, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, gives special recognition and expresses his appreciation to Executive Director Kim M. Whatley and Summer Intern Joseph R.A. Fruth for their tireless and meticulous efforts in researching and compiling the initial report, which spans forty years and encompasses the various branches of both the federal and District of Columbia governments. Judge Sullivan also expresses his appreciation to Addy Schmitt, Esquire, for first suggesting this project more than five years ago and devoting many hours since then to its completion, and to Executive Assistant Eunice Holt-Martin for her assistance and support in this endeavor. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia were established by Congress on July 29, 1970 (Public Law 91-358, 84 Stat.
    [Show full text]
  • SPRING 2020, Vol. 34, Issue 1 SPRING 2020 1
    SPRING 2020, Vol. 34, Issue 1 SPRING 2020 1 MISSION NAWJ’s mission is to promote the judicial role of protecting the rights of individuals under the rule of law through strong, committed, diverse judicial leadership; fairness and equality in the courts; and ON THE COVER 19 Channeling Sugar equal access to justice. Innovative Efforts to Improve Access to Justice through Global Judicial Leadership 21 Learning Lessons from Midyear Meeting in New Orleans addresses Tough Cases BOARD OF DIRECTORS ongoing challenges facing access to justice. Story on page 14 24 Life After the Bench: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Honorable Sharon Mettler PRESIDENT 2 President's Message Hon. Bernadette D'Souza 26 Trial Advocacy Training for Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, Louisiana 2 Interim Executive Director's Women by Women Message PRESIDENT-ELECT 29 District News Hon. Karen Donohue 3 VP of Publications Message King County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington 51 District Directors & Committees 4 Q&A with Judge Ann Breen-Greco VICE PRESIDENT, DISTRICTS Co-Chair Human Trafficking 52 Sponsors Hon. Elizabeth A. White Committee Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County 54 New Members 5 Independent Immigration Courts VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLICATIONS Hon. Heidi Pasichow 7 Resource Board Profile Superior Court of the District of Columbia Cathy Winter-Palmer SECRETARY Hon. Orlinda Naranjo (ret.) 8 Global Judicial Leadership 419th District Court of Texas, Austin Doing the Impossible: NAWJ work with the Pan-American TREASURER Commission of Judges on Social Hon. Elizabeth K. Lee Rights Superior Court of California, San Mateo County IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 11 Global Judicial Leadership Hon. Tamila E.
    [Show full text]
  • Confidentiality Complications
    Confidentiality Complications: How new rules, technologies and corporate practices affect the reporter’s privilege and further demonstrate the need for a federal shield law The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press June 2007 Lucy A. Dalglish, Esq. Gregg P. Leslie, Esq. Elizabeth J. Soja, Esq. 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 807-2100 Executive Summary The corporate structure of the news media has created new obstacles, both financial and practical, for journalists who must keep promises of confidentiality. Information that once existed only in a reporter’s notebook can now be accessed by companies that have obligations not only to their reporters, but to their shareholders, their other employees, and the public. Additionally, in the wake of an unprecedented settlement in the Wen Ho Lee Privacy Act case, parties can target news media corporations not just for their access to a reporter’s information, but also for their deep pockets. The potential for conflicts of interest is staggering, but the primary concerns of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are that: • because of the 21st-century newsroom’s reliance on technology, corporations now have access to notes, correspondence and work-product information that before only existed in a reporter’s notebook; • the new federal “e-discovery” court rules allow litigants to discover vastly more information than a printed page – or even a saved e-mail – would provide during litigation; • while reporters generally only have responsibilities to themselves,
    [Show full text]
  • Newsfollowup.Com Transparencyplanet, Promote Open Govt/Biz
    NewsFollowUp.com TransparencyPlanet, Promote open govt/biz NewsFollowUp.com Franklingate sex scandal econ charts pictorial index sitemap home Mukasey, Gonazales U.S. Judiciary / DOJ_2 replacement ... Will Mukasey sabotage the Rosen Weissman trial? below back to Judiciary page 1 Conflict of interest, below DOJ, Mukasey, Rosen, Weissman Sibel Edmonds U. S. Supreme Court and Federal Courts Stacking courts International Courts Judge Reggie Walton Watch 'Protect Act' & Judicial discretion Giuliani / Mukasey / Kerik Conflicts of Interest Please Donate to NewsFollowUp.com to help us continue this work. News Research: Topic Index Plame / Wilson / Novak Pentagon mole, AIPAC Spies AIPAC, Giuliani, Mukasey Common Plamegate Timeline AIPAC Mukasey, Rosen, Weissman Flight 77, Pentagon Brewster Jennings & Assc. AIPAC - Cheney Clinton, AIPAC, Iran Marc Rich, L. Libby Flow chart AIPAC Rosen Weisman Iraq War Iran / Syria Operations Group Leakers, Leak Launderers? Trial Iran Iran, Iraq Miller, Judith & subpoena AMDOCS Rosen Weissman Timeline Israeli Art Students, 9/11 Anthrax Iraq War Plans 2001 Giuliani, Mukasey, Palfrey Ledeen - Fascism Miller, WMD deception 9/11 Propaganda Cheney / B-52 / Syria / Iran Niger, Forged Yellowcake Timeline Archive Israeli Intelligence, Iran Israel documents Timeline: 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Archive & (2006) under construction Mukasey, Rosen, Weissman and Clinton top PROGRESSIVE REFERENCE CONSERVATIVE* Alex Geana Blackwater / Blackstone group Family Research Council, stop filibuster of connections Summary Fed judges. Antiwar "in Rosen's own secretly-recorded Feinstein The shadow of Israel / AIPAC words – about the Khobar Towers terrorist over Washington. Whitehouse press releases, on Protect Act attack, which he claimed he had received Latest trial date January 14, 2008 McConnell, Mitch, Senator Conservative from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT of COLUMBIA JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION DC SUPERIOR COURT the Honorable Emmet G
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION DC SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan 515 5th STREET, NW Chairperson SUITE 235 WASHINGTON, DC 20001 Bianca Garcia (202) 879-0478 (Phone) Executive Director (202) 737-9126 (Fax) Website: http://jnc.dc.gov Email: [email protected] February 11, 2019 The Honorable Charles Allen Chairperson, Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 110 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Chairperson Allen: On behalf of the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission (“Commission”), I respectfully provide the following responses to the questions set forth in your letter dated January 15, 2019. General Questions 1. Please provide a current organizational chart for the agency, including the number of vacant, frozen, and filled positions in each division or subdivision. Include the names and titles of all senior personnel, and note the date that the information was collected on the chart. a. Please provide an explanation of the roles and responsibilities of each division and subdivision. Response: See Attachment 1, the Commission’s organizational chart. b. Please provide a narrative explanation of any changes to the organizational chart made during the previous year. Response: There were no organizational changes made during the previous year. 2. Please provide a current Schedule A for the agency which identifies each position by program and activity codes, with the employee’s name, title/position, salary, fringe benefits, and length of time with the agency. Please note the date that the information was collected. The Schedule A should also indicate if the position is continuing/term/temporary/contract or if it is vacant or frozen.
    [Show full text]
  • DCCA Opinion No. 97-CO-1141
    Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 97-CO-1141 GRANT ANDERSON A/K/A JIBRIL L. IBRAHIM, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (Hon. Reggie B. Walton, Trial Judge) (Submitted January 5, 1999 Decided June 8, 2000) Grant Anderson, pro se. Elizabeth H. Danello, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Wilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney, and John R. Fisher, and Thomas J. Tourish, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for appellee. Before WAGNER, Chief Judge, and REID, Associate Judge, and MACK, Senior Judge. WAGNER, Chief Judge: Appellant, Grant Anderson, a/k/a Jibril L. Ibrahim, (Anderson) appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion seeking recusal of the trial judge from further post-trial proceedings in his case. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Anderson failed to state adequate grounds for granting it. We affirm. I. Anderson was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape while armed, assault on a police officer while armed, and two counts of first degree burglary while armed. His convictions were affirmed on appeal in an unpublished opinion on February 28, 1990, with instructions to the trial court to vacate one of the burglary convictions on double jeopardy 2 grounds.1 Thereafter, Anderson filed numerous post-trial motions pro se.2 Among these motions was an “Affidavit for Disqualification or Recusal of [Judge Reggie Walton]” which Anderson filed on August 8, 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Appointments to the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
    Justice System Journal ISSN: 0098-261X (Print) 2327-7556 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujsj20 Secret Law: The Politics of Appointments to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Nicholas R. Seabrook & Nicholas C. Cole To cite this article: Nicholas R. Seabrook & Nicholas C. Cole (2016) Secret Law: The Politics of Appointments to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Justice System Journal, 37:3, 259-271, DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2015.1110468 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1110468 Published online: 16 Nov 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 41 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujsj20 Download by: [University of North Florida] Date: 20 July 2016, At: 08:51 JUSTICE SYSTEM JOURNAL 2016, VOL. 37, NO. 3, 259–271 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2015.1110468 Secret Law: The Politics of Appointments to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Nicholas R. Seabrook and Nicholas C. Cole Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, Florida ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This study investigates the politics of appointments to the United States FISC; judicial ideology; chief Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the court established under the 1978 justice appointments; Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to review secret federal surveillance government requests for warrants related to national security investigations. Since the FISA Court’s creation, its members have been appointed entirely at the discretion of the Chief Justice of the United States, who selects FISA Court judges from among the pool of existing U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report
    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 48 Number 4 Summer 2021 Article 3 Summer 2021 Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report: How the Department of Justice’s Failure to Subject the Special Counsel Regulations to Notice and Comment Undermined the Rule of Law M. Akram Faizer Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation M. Akram Faizer, Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report: How the Department of Justice’s Failure to Subject the Special Counsel Regulations to Notice and Comment Undermined the Rule of Law, 48 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 536 (2021). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol48/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESIDENTIAL IMPUNITY AND THE MUELLER REPORT Presidential Impunity and the Mueller Report: How the Department of Justice’s Failure to Subject the Special Counsel Regulations to Notice and Comment Undermined the Rule of Law by M. AKRAM FAIZER1 Abstract: Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Special Counsel, Robert S. Mueller, III’s two-volume, 448-page Report on the Investigation into Russian Inter- ference in the 2016 Presidential Election (“the Report”), did an outstanding job in evidencing that President Trump’s actions in office satisfied the fed- eral obstruction of justice standards. However, due to Mueller’s limited brief and his concern for maintaining the proper separation of powers, the Report, submitted confidentially to former Attorney General Barr as required by De- partment of Justice Regulations, abjured a determination as to Presidential criminality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commander-In-Chief and the United Nations
    Note The Commander-in-Chief and the United Nations: Why the President Can Use the United Nations Security Council as the Constitutional Basis for Military Operations Short of War Samuel Kleinert I. IN TRO D UCTION ............................................................................................................................ 359 II. QUASI-CONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM AND THE WAR POWER ......................................................... 362 III. THE CONSTITUTION AND THE U.S. ENTRANCE INTO THE UNITED NATIONS ............................... 366 A . D um barton O aks............................................................................................................... 367 B. Roosevelt, the United Nations, and Presidential Power ................................................... 370 C. Ratifying the U.N. Charter and Presidential Power...............................371 D. The United Nations Participation Act and Presidential Power......................................... 373 IV. U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION AND FULL-SCALE WAR .......................................... 375 A . T he K orean W ar ............................................................................................................... 376 B. The Truman Administration's Flawed Interpretation of the UNPA................... 380 C . The G ulf W ar........................................................................................................... 381 V. U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZATION AND MILITARY ACTION SHORT OF WAR ............. 386 A . S
    [Show full text]
  • Kavanaugh Part 2
    Dinh, Viet From: Dinh, Viet Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:52 PM To: Willett, Don; Koebele, Steve; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Enron/Owen Options Heather and Matt: Thoughts? Feinstein told Hutcheson that she has a problem with Owen not returning Enron contributions, an(b) (5) -----Original Message----- From: Willett, Don Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:56 AM To: Koebele, Steve; Dinh, Viet Subject: RE: Enron/Owen Options (b) (5) -----Original Message----- From: Koebele, Steve Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:33 AM To: Dinh, Viet Cc: Willett, Don Subject: Enron/Owen Options Viet, for your discussions today, please consider the following options ... (b) (5) Suggestion: (b) (5) Options: 1 2(b) (5) 007104-002458 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7387 3 Viet, I again recommen 007104-002459 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7387 Dinh, Viet From: Dinh,Viet Sent: Wednesday,March20,200212:14PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: VRADraftViewsletter Attachments: VRAviewsletter--final.wpd 007104-002460 Document ID: 0.7.19343.7300 Koebele, Steve From: Koebele, Steve Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:39 PM To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: McMahon, Lori; Goodling, Monica; Willett, Don; Dinh, Viet; O'Brien, Pat; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; (b)(6) Jennifer Oschal Email Dinh, Viet; Newstead, Jennifer; Keefer, WendyJ Subject: Owen Attachments Attachments: Biography-Owen.wpd; Campaign Fin-Enron 03-01-02.wpd All --Attached for your use are two documents related to Justice Owen: (1) a Biography that showcases her strong background;and (2) responsive talking points on the Enron case opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Dedication “Adrenaline of Excellence”: the Career Of
    DEDICATION “ADRENALINE OF EXCELLENCE”: THE CAREER OF JUDGE GERALD BRUCE LEE The editors of the American University Law Review proudly dedicate this issue of the Law Review to the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee, an alumnus of the American University Washington College of Law. As is made clear by the collection of Tributes below, Judge Lee has had a lasting impact not only on this law school and the legal community, but also on the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The Law Review hopes that this collection of Tributes, authored by individuals who know Judge Lee best, captures the “adrenaline of excellence” that Judge Lee brought to his career and continues to bring to his ongoing service to the various communities to which he is a part. The Law Review is truly honored to make this dedication. 1443 1444 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 67:1443 © Jose Rosado. All rights reserved. 2018] “ADRENALINE OF EXCELLENCE” 1445 TABLE OF CONTENTS Giant Steps Vernida R. Chaney ................................................................. 1447 Tribute to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee Pamela M. Deese .................................................................... 1451 A Tribute to the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee Jocelyn D. Francoeur .............................................................. 1455 Reach Back and Lift Up: A Tribute to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on Behalf of His Law Clerks, Interns, and WCL Students Miles L. Galbraith ................................................................... 1459 Tribute to the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee: A Jurist’s View of Grace The Honorable Roger L. Gregory ......................................... 1463 Judge Gerald Bruce Lee Claudio Grossman .................................................................. 1467 Recognizing Humanity Geremy C. Kamens ................................................................. 1471 A Tribute to Judge Gerald Bruce Lee: A Man Who Was Given Much and Who Gave Back Even More Elliott S.
    [Show full text]