DOCSLIB.ORG

Judicial Watch, Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judicial Watch, Inc No. 03-475 In the Supreme Court of the United States RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COUMBIA JOINT APPENDIX VOLUME I THEODORE B. OLSON ALAN B. MORRISON Solicitor General Public Citizen Litigation Department of Justice Group Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 1600 20th Street, N.W. (202) 514-2217 Washington, D.C. 20009 JAMES F. PETERSON Judicial Watch, Inc. 501 School Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20024 Counsel of Record Counsel of Record for Petitioner for Respondent PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: SEPT. 30, 2003 CERTIORARI GRANTED: DEC. 15, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS District Court Docket Entries, No. 01-1530 .............. 1 District Court Docket Entries, No. 02-631 ................ 8 Court of Appeals Docket Entries ................................ 10 Second Amended Complaint, Case No. 01-1530 ........ 16 Attachment 1: Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff, “Big Energy at the Table,” Newsweek, May 14, 2001 ....... 43 Attachment 2: Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff, “A New Capitol Clash,” Newsweek, Feb. 11, 2002 ............... 51 Attachment 3: David Lazarus, “Memo Details Cheney-Enron Links,” San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 20, 2002 ....... 57 Attachment 4: Michael Weisskopf and Adam Zagorin, “Getting the Ear of Dick Cheney,” Time, Feb. 11, 2002 ..... 68 Attachment 5: Letter from David S. Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, to Rep. Tauzin et al., May 4, 2001 .................................................................................... 71 Attachment 6: Transcript of ABC News: Nightline, July 25, 2001 .................................................................................... 84 Attachment 7: Decision of the Comptroller General Concerning NEPDG Litigation, Jan. 30, 2002 ........................ 103 Attachment 8: Letter from Judicial Watch, Inc. to The Hon. Richard B. Cheney, June 25, 2001 ....................... 109 Attachment 9: Letter from David S. Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, to Larry Klayman, July 5, 2001 ........................................................................... 123 (I) II Table of Contents—Continued: Page Attachment 10: Joseph Kahn, “Cheney Withholds List of those Who Spoke to Energy Panel,” The New York Times, June 26, 2001, at A17 ....................................... 125 Express Wire Services, “Cheney Won’t Give Up Names,” June 26, 2001 .......................................... 128 Scott Lindlaw, “Congress Demands List of Participants in Cheney Energy Meetings,” AP, June 25, 2001 ........................................................... 130 Attachment 11: Letter from David S. Addington, Counsel to the Vice President, to Rep. Henry Waxman, Jan. 3, 2002 ....................................................................... 134 Complaint, Case No. 02-631 .......................................... 139 Presidential Memo., Jan. 26, 2001 ................................ 156 Plaintiffs’ Proposed Discovery Plan ............................ 160 Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Discovery Plan ............................................................. 166 Transcript of Status Hearing, Aug. 2, 2002 ............... 186 Plaintiffs’ First Request for Production of Documents ..................................................................... 215 Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories ....................... 224 Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production .......... 231 Volume II Declaration of Karen Knutson ...................................... 235 Order, Sept. 9, 2002 ........................................................ 242 Transcript of Omnibus Motions Hearing, Oct. 17, 2002 ........................................................................... 245 Defendant’s Amended Motion for Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and for Expedited Consideration of This Motion .................................... 279 Defendant’s Response to Order of Oct. 28 ................. 282 Transcript of Motions Hearing, Oct. 31, 2002 ............ 285 Order, Nov. 1, 2002 ......................................................... 327 III Table of Contents—Continued: Page Notice of Appeal .............................................................. 337 Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus .............. 339 Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appellate Review ........................................................................... 368 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Nov. 26, 2002 ...... 383 Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for rehear- ing En Banc ................................................................... 416 Response to Petition for Rehearing and to Sug- gestion for Rehearing En Banc ................................. 447 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC) Nos. 01:01-cv-01530-EGS JUDICAL WATCH, INC., ET AL , PLAINTIFF v. NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP ET AL, DEFENDANT Filed: July 16, 2001 DOCKET ENTRIES _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 7/16/01 1 COMPLAINT against NA- TIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP (Fil- ing fee $150 ). Filed by JUDICAL WATCH, INC.,. (mjk, ) (Entered: 07/25/2001) * * * * * 2/15/02 24 AMENDED COMPLAINT. Filed by JUDICAL WATCH, INC.,. (Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 02/15/2002) * * * * * (1) 2 _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 4/5/02 54 ORDER consolidating Civil Action No. 01-1530 (EGS) and Civil Action No. 02-631 (EGS) and ordering all future plead- ings to be filed under docket number 01-1530 (EGS).Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/5/2002. (lcegs2, ) (En- tered: 04/05/2002) * * * * * 05/28/02 80 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second. Filed by JUDICAL WATCH, INC.,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11) (Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 05/28/2002) * * * * * 7/11/02 92 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/11/2002. (lcegs2,) (Entered: 07/11/2002) 3 _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 7/11/02 93 ORDER. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/11/2002. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 07/11/2002) 7/19/02 94 STATUS REPORT – DIS- COVERY PLAN by SIERRA CLUB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B) (Gal- lagher, Patrick) (Entered: 07/19/2002) * * * * * 8/2/02 101 ORDER approving plaintiffs’ proposed discovery plan and scheduling Status Conference for 9/13/2002 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 8/2/2002. (lcegs2, ) (Entered: 08/02/2002) * * * * * 9/3/02 120 MOTION for Protective Order by RICHARD CHENEY. (Millet, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2002) 4 _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 9/3/02 121 MOTION for Protective Order Memorandum in support by RICHARD CHENEY. (Millet, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2002) 9/3/02 122 AFFIDAVIT re 120, 121 by Karen Knutsen by RICHARD CHENEY. (Millet, Thomas) (Entered: 09/03/2002) * * * * * 10/17/02 154 ORDER denying Motion for Protective Order 120, denying Motion for Protective Order 121, setting briefing schedule and hearing date for motion to stay. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 17, 2002. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/17/2002) * * * * * 5 _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS 10/21/02 158 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by Andrew Lundquist and by JOSHUA BOLTON, RICHARD CHENEY, LARRY LINDSEY, NATIONAL EN- ERGY POLICY DEVELOP- MENT GROUP. (Paisner, Jen- nifer) (Entered: 10/21/2002) 10/23/02 159 MOTION for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1292(b) and for Expedited Consideration Of This Motion by Andrew Lundquist and by JOSHUA BOLTON, RICHARD CHENEY, LARRY LINDSEY, NATIONAL ENERGY PO- LICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP. (Paisner, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/23/2002) * * * * * 11/01/02 02 Minute Entry: Ruling held on 11/1/2002 before Emmet G. Sullivani; order to be issued electronically (Court Reporter Jackie Wood, Miller.) (clv,) (Entered: 11/01/2002) 6 _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS * * * * * 11/7/02 181 NOTICE OF APPEAL re order of 11/1/02 [172], order of 10/17/02 135, and order of 9/9/02 154 by RICHARD CHENEY. Filing fee (gov- ernment waived). counsel notified. (cdw,) Modified on 11/14/2002 (td,). (Entered: 11/12/2002) 11/13/02 182 ORDER on Defendants’ Motion to Stay 158. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 13, 2002. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/13/2002) * * * * * 11/27/02 190 ORDER denying 159 160 Motion for Leave to Appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 26, 2002. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/27/2002) 7 _______________________________________________ _ DOCKET DATE NUMBER PROCEEDINGS * * * * * 9/30/03 199 ORDER denying without prejudice 143 Motion to Compel, denying without prejudice 144 Motion to Compel, and denying without prejudice 145 Motion to Compel, and administratively removing cases from the active calendar of the Court. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 30, 2003. (lcegs2) (Entered: 09/30/2003) * * * * * 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (WASHINGTON, DC) No. 01:02-cv-0631-EGS SIERRA CLUB , PLAINTIFF v. RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT Filed: April 4, 2002 DOCKET ENTRIES _______________________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southeast Clean Energy Resource Team Strategic Energy Plan
    Southeast Clean Energy Resource Team Strategic Energy Plan CERTS PARTNERS: Minnesota Department of Commerce The Minnesota Project University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships Rural Minnesota Energy Board Metropolitan Counties Energy Task Force Resource Conservation and Development Councils FUNDED BY: The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources from the U.S. Department of Energy Oil Overcharge Money The Carolyn Foundation The Blandin Foundation Minnesota Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Energy Community Assistantship Program, University of Minnesota, with financial sup- port from the Otto Bremer Foundation and Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships Program University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships FINAL REPORT Energy Use, Renewable Energy Resources and Potential for Meeting the Energy Needs of the Fifteen Counties in SE/SC MN from Local Renewable Energy Resources and Energy Efficiency From the Citizens on the THE SE/SC CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE TEAM Representing 15 Counties in SE/SC Minnesota: Blue Earth, Dodge, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Le Sueur, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele, Wabasha, Waseca, Winona JUNE 2005 Dedicated to Dick Broeker, 1942 - 2004 The SE/SC Clean Energy Resource Team (CERT) dedicates this report to the memory of Dick Broeker. As Director of the Experiment in Rural Cooperation in SE Minnesota, Dick was involved in establishing the CERTs Project. When the Clean Energy Resources Teams were formed in regions around the state in December 2003, Dick was instrumental in organizing our team and helping us with our work through June 2004, when he retired. During this time, we completed a Strategic Plan to guide our work and an Inventory and Assessment of the people, infrastructure and resources in our area.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Presidential Power—The Unitary Executive and the George W
    Rethinking Presidential Power—The Unitary Executive and the George W. Bush Presidency. Paper prepared for the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association April 7-10, 2005 Chicago, IL Christopher S. Kelley, Ph.D. Department of Political Science Miami University Oxford, OH [email protected] Abstract: Since the Nixon administration, modern presidents have had a difficult time relying upon the traditional powers of bargaining and persuading offered by the “Modern Presidency” theory of presidential power. As a result, presidents have relied on numerous unilateral actions in order to protect the prerogative of the office and to advance the president’s policy preferences by controlling the executive branch. The “unitary executive” theory offers such an explanation of presidential behavior that some regard as “imperial.” In this paper, I explain what the unitary executive theory is, how it has developed, and how the current Bush administration has fully embraced the theory in helping it govern since the very first day of office in 2001. I will focus on the use of signing statements, executive orders, and the OIRA to advance the administration’s objectives. Keywords: Unitary Executive, Signing Statements, Executive Orders, OMB, OIRA Dana Milbank, the former White House reporter for the “Washington Post,” wrote in an October 11, 2004 column profiling David Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s counsel, about an obscure theory of presidential power that permeated the Bush White House. The article described the detail to which Cheney and Addington had paid to preserving presidential power, from the now-famous “torture” memo to international law governing torture to withholding information about the energy task force formed in 2001 to deal with the country’s energy problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S450
    S450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 23, 2001 D.C. He began work in the Senate in and, under legislation passed by the doned, because up there rail transpor- 1982 after working in the White House last Congress it is now his prerogative tation is very important in moving our mail room. During his career in the to determine how U.S. international crops to market. Senate post office Gerard was recog- family planning assistance will be So she took it on. It was one of those nized for his perfect attendance record, used. unselfish things people do, leaders do. as well as numerous other performance But I would ask him, and his advi- And you find out that in these small awards. Many of our Senate staff will sors, to think long and hard about this places, in some of these remote places, remember Gerard as he traveled the decision, about how this decision we have great minds and great leader- corridors of Congress delivering the squares with ‘‘humble’’ U.S. leadership ship. mail with diligence and pride. He will of the international community and She and others formed an organiza- be sorely missed not only by his mail our commitment to help those around tion called ABLE, the Association for room colleagues but by all of the Sen- the world who need and want our help Branch Line Equity, which became a ate family. On behalf of the Senate I and assistance. model in this country for opposing thank Gerard for his service and dedi- I would ask the women of America, abandonments of railway lines in agri- cation and express our condolences to as they consider their own reproduc- cultural country.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties
    112 Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 6 ARTICLE Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap __________________________ Margo Schlanger* * Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan. I have greatly benefited from conversations with John DeLong, Mort Halperin, Alex Joel, David Kris, Marty Lederman, Nancy Libin, Rick Perlstein, Becky Richards, and several officials who prefer not to be named, all of whom generously spent time with me, discussing the issues in this article, and many of whom also helped again after reading the piece in draft. I would also like to extend thanks to Sam Bagenstos, Rick Lempert, Daphna Renan, Alex Rossmiller, Adrian Vermeule, Steve Vladeck, Marcy Wheeler, Shirin Sinnar and other participants in the 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop, participants at the University of Iowa law faculty workshop, and my colleagues at the University of Michigan Legal Theory Workshop and governance group lunch, who offered me extremely helpful feedback. Jennifer Gitter and Lauren Dayton provided able research assistance. All errors are, of course, my responsibility. Copyright © 2015 by the Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and Margo Schlanger. 2015 / Intelligence Legalism and the NSA’s Civil Liberties Gaps 113 Abstract Since June 2013, we have seen unprecedented security breaches and disclosures relating to American electronic surveillance. The nearly daily drip, and occasional gush, of once-secret policy and operational information makes it possible to analyze and understand National Security Agency activities, including the organizations and processes inside and outside the NSA that are supposed to safeguard American’s civil liberties as the agency goes about its intelligence gathering business.
    [Show full text]
  • Former Secretaries of Commerce Urge Congress to Pass Trade Promotion Authority
    Former Secretaries of Commerce Urge Congress to Pass Trade Promotion Authority March 25, 2015 As former Secretaries of Commerce, we strongly support Trade Promotion Authority for President Obama. From our experience, it is critically important for American businesses to access new customer markets while staying competitive in the world economy. American companies grow and succeed in the global market place through high-quality high-standard trade agreements that help our firms gain access to new overseas markets. With 95 percent of the world’s consumers living outside the United States, we must not allow opportunities to pass us by. Last year, the U.S. exported $2.34 trillion dollars of goods and services. Those exports support a total of 11.7 million American jobs at over 300,000 companies – 98 percent of which are small and medium sized businesses. These numbers are especially important as export-related jobs pay up to 18 percent more on average than non-export-related jobs. New U.S. trade agreements will generate more export opportunities for American companies, boost our economy, create jobs, and yield overall prosperity for our country. Currently the U.S. government is working on two key trade agreements that have the potential to open overseas markets for U.S. companies. Once completed, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) will give the United States free trade arrangements with 65 percent of global GDP and give our businesses preferential access to a large base of new potential customers. But before we can finalize those agreements and our businesses can benefit from the new markets, Congress must pass trade promotion legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Law Faculty Scholarship Law Faculty Scholarship 4-2009 The etD ainees' Dilemma: The irV tues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror Peter Margulies Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fs Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Peter Margulies, The eD tainees' Dilemma: The irV tues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror, 57 Buff. L. Rev. 347, 432 (2009) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Scholarship at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 57 Buff. L. Rev. 347 2009 Provided by: Roger Williams University School of Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Nov 17 10:09:44 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 APRIL 2009 NUMBER 2 The Detainees' Dilemma: The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror PETER MARGULIESt INTRODUCTION For detainees in the war on terror, advocacy outside of court is often the main event.' Analysis of advocacy through the prism of Supreme Court decisions 2 resembles surveying t Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law; e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee
    Stanford Law Review Volume 73 June 2021 NOTE Indirect Constraints on the Office of Legal Counsel: Examining a Role for the Senate Judiciary Committee William S. Janover* Abstract. As arbiter of the constitutionality of executive actions, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) possesses vast authority over the operation of the federal government and is one of the primary vessels for the articulation of executive power. It therefore is not surprising that the OLC has found itself at the center of controversy across Democratic and Republican administrations. OLC opinions have justified the obstruction of valid congressional investigations, the targeted killing of an American citizen overseas, repeated military incursions without congressional approval, and, most infamously, torture. These episodes have generated a significant body of proposals to reform, constrain, or altogether eliminate the OLC. All of these proposals can be categorized as either direct or indirect constraints on how the OLC operates. Direct constraints target how the OLC actually creates its legal work product. Indirect constraints instead focus on the OLC’s personnel or the public scrutiny the Office’s opinions will face. This Note expands on this existing body of research, focusing on how one institution unstudied in this context, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, can operationalize meaningful indirect constraints on the OLC. Unlike the other actors that scholars have examined, the Committee’s position outside the executive branch allows it to sidestep the President’s ever-expanding reach within the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, the Committee’s oversight powers and its central role in the nomination of both the OLC’s leader and Article III judges give it important constitutional and statutory authority to constrain the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Intervenor-Defendant American Petroleum Institute's Objections And
    Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 131-1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 37 C. Marie Eckert, OSB No. 883490 Marie.eckert@millernash Suzanne C. Lacampagne, OSB No. 951705 [email protected] MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP 3400 U.S. Bancorp Tower 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 224-5858 Facsimile: (503) 224-0155 Frank R. Volpe [email protected] Benjamin E. Tannen [email protected] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendants The National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and American Petroleum Institute UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC Plaintiffs, INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT v. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE’S OBJECTIONS AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF Defendants. DOCUMENTS __________________________________________ Intervenor-Defendant the American Petroleum Institute (“API”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, hereby respectfully submits the following Objections and 1 Intervenor-Defendant American Petroleum Institute’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents Case 6:15-cv-01517-TC Document 131-1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 2 of 37 Responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents to Intervenor-Defendant American Petroleum Institute (“Requests”), submitted February 17, 2017, and states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. API objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information and documents which are not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party or proportional to the needs of the case, per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
    [Show full text]
  • Letter of Notification of Presidential Records Release (George W. Bush)
    VIA EMAIL (LM 2014-108) January 8, 2015 The Honorable W. Neil Eggleston Counsel to the President The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Mr. Eggleston: In accordance with the requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. §§2201-2209, this letter constitutes a formal notice from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to the incumbent President of our intent to open George W. Bush Presidential records in response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) appeal, and systematic processing project, listed in Attachment A. This material, consisting of 21,677 pages, 2,877 assets, and 2,491 photographs, has been reviewed for the six PRA Presidential restrictive categories, including confidential communications requesting or submitting advice (P5) and material related to appointments to federal office (P2), as they were eased by President George W. Bush on November 15, 2010. These records were also reviewed for all applicable FOIA exemptions. As a result of this review, 710 pages in whole, 2,174 pages in part, 969 assets in whole, 35 assets in part, and 754 photographs have been restricted. Therefore, NARA is proposing to open the remaining 18,793 pages in whole, 2,174 pages in part, 1,873 assets in whole, 35 assets in part, and 1,737 photographs that do not require closure under 44 U.S.C. § 2204. A copy of any records proposed for release under this notice will be provided to you upon your request. We are also concurrently informing former President George W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Commander-In-Chief and the Necessities of War: a Conceptual Framework
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2011 The ommC ander-in-Chief and the Necessities of War: A Conceptual Framework John C. Dehn Loyola University Chicago, School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation John C. Dehn, The ommC ander-in-Chief and the Necessities of War: A Conceptual Framework, 83 Temp. L. Rev. 599 (2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEMPLE LAW REVIEW © 2011 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION VOL. 83 NO. 3 SPRING 2011 ARTICLES THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND THE NECESSITIES OF WAR: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK * John C. Dehn While the current Administration has largely abandoned claims of plenary presidential authority to fight the nation’s wars, courts, scholars, and policy makers continue to debate the nature and scope of the powers conferred by the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. This Article examines primarily Supreme Court precedent to distill the general scope and limits of the President’s powers to fight the nation’s international and non-international armed conflicts. It concludes that the Supreme Court has expressly endorsed and consistently observed (although inconsistently applied) two concepts of necessity attributable to the Commander-in- Chief power. The first is military necessity: the power to employ all military measures not prohibited by applicable law and reasonably calculated to defeat a national enemy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conference Board
    THE BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE NETWORK THE CONFERENCE BOARD newsletter summer 2002 Sharon Patrick on the Conference Board Strategic Model of Martha Forms Blue-Ribbon Governance Group Stewart Living Omnimedia The Conference Board’s newly-formed Com- mission on Public Trust and Private Enter- prise has begun to examine critical corporate Sharon Patrick is President and Chief governance issues and will issue its first Operating Officer of Martha Stewart report and recommendations this fall. Living Omnimedia Inc. The creator of The co-chairs of this blue-ribbon group MSLO’s “Omni” business model and a are Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of The major force in the profitable growth of Blackstone Group and Chairman of the Fed- the company, Patrick is responsible for eral Reserve Bank of New York, and John the company’s strategic development W. Snow, Chairman of CSX and former and transactions, and runs MSLO’s S Chairman of the Business Roundtable. day-to-day business operations. “Misconduct by highly visible corpora- A Trustee of The Conference Board, tions is eroding shareholder value for all cor- Patrick was Martha Stewart’s consultant porations and public confidence in critical beginning in 1993, a founding partner of elements of our economic system,” they MSLO with Stewart in 1996, and declared. assumed her current position in 1997. The Conference Board’s long-standing She received an MBA from the Harvard Sharon Patrick Business School, and a bachelor’s degree reputation for independent fact-finding and in history from Stanford University. She the experience, accomplishments, and rep- was interviewed by Randall Poe in The Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of State Electric Industry Restructuring Activity -- As of February 2003
    Status of State Electric Industry Restructuring Activity -- as of February 2003 -- (February 2003 was the last update. No further updates are currently planned) Status of State Retail Access Timeline (Click on a State below to see Restructuring Activity Customer Participation in Retail Access Current Restructuring Status) Table Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming This site provides an overview of the status of electric industry restructuring in each state. Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have either enacted enabling legislation or issued a regulatory order to implement retail access. The local distribution company continues to provide transmission and distribution (delivery of energy) services. Retail access allows customers to choose their own supplier of generation energy services, but each state's retail access schedule varies according to the legislative mandates or regulatory orders. The information in the “Status of State Electric Industry Restructuring Activity Map” was gathered from state public utility commissions, state legislatures, and utility company web pages. The state activity map is coded by color to indicate each state's restructuring progress. Purple colored states are active in the restructuring process, and these states have either enacted enabling legislation or issued a regulatory order to implement retail access. Retail access is either currently available to all or some customers or will soon be available.
    [Show full text]