DOCSLIB.ORG

Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Duke Law Scholarship Repository Rethinking the Identity and Role of United States Attorneys Sara Sun Beale* The reputation and credibility of the Department of Justice were badly tarnished during the Bush administration. This article focuses on concerns regarding the role of partisan politics.1 Critics charge that during the Bush administration improper partisan political considerations pervasively influenced a wide range of decisions including the selection of immigration judges, summer interns and line attorneys; the assignment of career attorneys to particular details; the evaluation of the performance of United States Attorneys; and the decision whether and when to file charges in cases with political ramifications. The Inspector General’s lengthy and highly critical reports have substantiated some of these charges.2 The first two Inspector General (IG) Reports found that the Department improperly used political criteria in hiring and assigning some immigration judges, interns, and career prosecutors.3 The third report * Charles L.B. Lowndes Professor, Duke Law School, Durham, N.C. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding research assistance provided by Michael Devlin, Meghan Ferguson, Amy Taylor, and Molly Brownfield, and the helpful comments of Norman Abrams, Albert Alschuler, Rachel Barkow, Anthony Barkow, Candace Carroll, Colm Connolly, Ronald Goldstock, Bruce Green, Lisa Kern Griffin, James Jacobs, Susan Klein, Daniel Richman, and Adam Safwat. Of course any errors are my own. 1 Other serious concerns about the Department have been raised, particularly in connection with its role in the war on terror. For example, the Department has been the subject of intense criticism for legal analysis that led to the authorization of brutal interrogation techniques for detainees. See, e.g., Norman W. Spaulding, Professional Independence in the Office of the Attorney General, 60 STAN. L. REV. 1931, 1969–70 n.204 (2008) (collecting examples of the “burgeoning literature” on the work of lawyers in the Bush administration who offered formal opinions that purported to confer authority to torture and noting that most of the scholarship is “roundly condemnatory”). 2 The reports that I call the Inspector General Reports were prepared jointly by the IG and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). These reports are compiled in AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE REMOVAL OF NINE U.S. ATTORNEYS IN 2006 (2008), http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0809a/final.pdf [hereinafter IG REPORT ON REMOVAL OF U.S. ATTORNEYS]; AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICIZED HIRING BY MONICA GOODLING AND OTHER STAFF IN THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (2008), http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0807/final.pdf [hereinafter IG REPORT ON POLITICIZED HIRING IN OFFICE OF AG]; and AN INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF POLITICIZED HIRING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HONORS PROGRAM AND SUMMER LAW INTERN PROGRAM (2008), http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/s0806/final.pdf [hereinafter IG REPORT ON HONORS PROGRAM AND SLIP]. 3 See IG REPORT ON HONORS PROGRAM AND SLIP, supra note 2, at 98 (concluding that in 2002 “the data indicated that the Committee considered political or ideological affiliations when deselecting candidates” for entry level attorney positions and summer internships, and in 2006 “the 369 370 OHIO STATE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW [Vol 6:369 recommended that a special prosecutor be appointed to determine whether one U.S. Attorney was removed in an effort to influence voter fraud and corruption prosecutions.4 As to the other U.S. Attorney dismissals, the report found that they were done in an astonishingly slipshod fashion with little or no oversight (and no candor during the Congressional and IG investigations), but in general, not for improper reasons.5 There has been no resolution of other charges, made in Congressional hearings and in the media, that political considerations improperly influenced the course of other individual prosecutions, and that overall the Department’s prosecutions were disproportionately focused on Democratic office holders, party activists, and donors. The Inspector General has proposed specific responses to some of the problems identified in his reports, but these recommendations go principally to the hiring and assignment of immigration judges, summer interns, and career attorneys.6 Those are the easy issues because there is considerable agreement that politics should play no role at all in decisions concerning career and nonpartisan positions. The only challenge is to make sure that this principle is reiterated and enforced. The more difficult issue concerns the proper role of politics at the level of the U.S. Attorneys. The position of U.S. Attorney is, in a formal sense, plainly political: U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate,7 and they serve at the president’s pleasure.8 Once selected, however, U.S. Attorneys are expected to leave behind partisan politics, adhering to Screening Committee inappropriately used political and ideological considerations to deselect many candidates”); IG REPORT ON POLITICIZED HIRING IN OFFICE OF AG, supra note 2, at 135–37 (finding political considerations were used to evaluate candidates for certain career positions, including AUSA positions, and in the selection or approval of career attorney candidates for temporary details, and that the “most systematic use of political or ideological affiliations occurred” in the selection of immigration judges). 4 IG REPORT ON REMOVAL OF U.S. ATTORNEYS, supra note 2, at 186–200, 357–58 (recommending that an independent counsel be appointed to investigate the removal of U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to determine whether there were attempts to pressure him to accelerate his charging decision in a corruption case or to initiate voter fraud investigations to affect the outcome of an election, and to determine whether criminal conduct, including false statements and obstruction of justice, had occurred). 5 Id. at 325, 356–58 (stating that removal process was “fundamentally flawed,” conducted in a fashion that was “unsystematic and arbitrary . with little oversight,” and noting that Congressional testimony and statements by the Attorney General and other Department officials were “inconsistent, misleading, and inaccurate in many respects”). 6 IG REPORT ON HONORS PROGRAM AND SLIP, supra note 2, at 101–02 (recommending revision of internal manuals, statements, and orders; additional briefing of political appointees; and increased vigilance to ensure that political affiliations are not used as a criteria for evaluating candidates). 7 28 U.S.C. § 541(a) (2006). 8 28 U.S.C. § 541(c) (2006). 2009] RETHINKING THE IDENTITY AND ROLE OF U.S. ATTORNEYS 371 the norm of prosecutorial neutrality. In this context, prosecutorial neutrality means, at a minimum, that the decision whether and when to bring charges in individual cases should be made without regard to either the political affiliation of the individuals involved or the resulting benefit (or harm) to either political party.9 But one might argue that U.S. Attorneys who are selected by an overtly political process and supervised by other political actors will naturally be influenced in their decisions whether and when to prosecute, and that they will be likely to bring cases to embarrass or disable political opponents, but fail to bring charges against officials in their own party or their supporters. Some critics think that is exactly what occurred during the Bush administration, and during earlier administrations as well.10 Moreover, the nature of contemporary federal criminal law magnifies the potential for mischief, because the definitions of the relevant offenses are both broad and vague, giving the prosecutors extraordinarily wide discretion on which there are few checks.11 The current structure and the problems encountered during the Bush administration raise the question whether the role of the U.S. Attorney should be reconceptualized. If partisan political considerations should not influence prosecutorial decisions, why not insulate the position of U.S. Attorney from politics by redefining it as a nonpartisan career appointment? There are structural reasons to think that this would be desirable because it would place the Justice Department’s structure in rough parity with that of other cabinet departments and reduce the strain on the confirmation process at the beginning of a new presidential administration. The strain on the confirmation process could also be reduced by recharacterizing the U.S. Attorneys as political appointees not subject to Senate confirmation. The current structure of the Justice Department is anomalous. In comparison with other agencies, the Department has a disproportionate number of presidential appointees subject to Senate confirmation. During the Bush administration from 2001 to 2008, the Senate confirmed 134 appointees to positions in the Justice Department, including the U.S. Attorneys for the 93 federal judicial districts.12 In comparison, during the same period the Departments of Treasury and Defense each had fewer than 30 presidential appointees confirmed by 9 For a general discussion of the various elements of prosecutorial neutrality and the difficulty of applying that concept, see Bruce A. Green & Fred C. Zacharias, Prosecutorial Neutrality, 2004 WIS. L. REV. 837. See also id. at 869 (stating that one element of prosecutorial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Iqbal Brief: Barr Amicus Brief
    No. 07-1015 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States __________ JOHN D. ASHCROFT, former Attorney General of the United States, and ROBERT MUELLER, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Petitioners, v. JAVAID IQBAL, et al., Respondents. __________ On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit __________ BRIEF OF WILLIAM P. BARR, GRIFFIN BELL, BENJAMIN R. CIVILETTI, EDWIN MEESE III, WILLIAM S. SESSIONS, RICHARD THORNBURGH, AND WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS __________ Paul J. Larkin, Jr. Daniel J. Popeo 1314 Cleveland St. Richard A. Samp Alexandria, VA 22302 (Counsel of Record) (703) 931-1704 Washington Legal Foundation 2009 Mass. Ave, NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 588-0302 Date: September 5, 2008 QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet-level officer or high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual- capacity claims against those officials under Bivens. 2. Whether a cabinet-level officer or other high- ranking official may be held personally liable for the allegedly unconstitutional acts of subordinate officials on the ground that, as high-level supervisors, they had constructive notice of the discrimination allegedly carried out by such subordinate officials. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................... iv INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE..................3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................5 ARGUMENT...............................11 I. THE DECISION BELOW IMPROPERLY PERMITS COMPLAINTS TO PROCEED TO DISCOVERY BASED ON MERE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS OF WRONGDOING.......................11 II.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General
    U.S. Department of Justice An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Office of the Inspector General July 28, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................................. 1 I. Scope of the Investigation.................................................................. 1 II. Methodology of the Investigation ....................................................... 2 III. Organization of this Report ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND.................................................................. 5 I. Monica Goodling ............................................................................... 5 II. Kyle Sampson ................................................................................... 6 III. Susan Richmond and Jan Williams................................................... 7 IV. Department Components and Personnel ........................................... 7 V. Hiring Standards ............................................................................ 11 A. Department Career and Political Attorney Positions ............... 11 B. Legal Standards..................................................................... 12 CHAPTER THREE GOODLING’S ROLE
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 153 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 No. 47 Senate The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was appoint the Honorable MARK L. PRYOR, a After all, this was a President who called to order by the Honorable MARK Senator from the State of Arkansas, to per- won two elections by the barest of mar- L. PRYOR, a Senator from the State of form the duties of the Chair. gins, first by the Supreme Court. Yet Arkansas. ROBERT C. BYRD, after 9/11, instead of uniting the coun- President pro tempore. try, he has chosen to push the envelope PRAYER Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the of his authority. On everything from The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- chair as Acting President pro tempore. the runup to the war in Iraq, to the fered the following prayer: f plan to destroy Social Security, to the Let us pray: RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY use of warrantless wiretapping, this ad- Lord, You have promised to work for LEADER ministration has governed without the good of those who love You. Work compromise. in the lives of our lawmakers, The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- The political purge of U.S. attorneys strengthening them for every problem, pore. The majority leader is recog- is only the latest example of this Presi- trial, and temptation they face. Open nized. dent’s unhealthy disregard for checks their eyes to see Your hand at work f and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Selective Non-Prosecution of Stokley Carmichael
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 62 Issue 1 Article 2 Fall 2010 A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Selective Non-Prosecution of Stokley Carmichael Lonnie T. Brown Jr. University of Georgia School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lonnie T. Brown, Jr., A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Selective Non-Prosecution of Stokley Carmichael, 62 S. C. L. Rev. 1 (2010). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Brown: A Tale of Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ramsey Clark and the Select A TALE OF PROSECUTORIAL INDISCRETION: RAMSEY CLARK AND THE SELECTIVE NON-PROSECUTION OF STOKELY CARMICHAEL LONNIE T. BROWN, JR.* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 II. THE PROTAGONISTS .................................................................................... 8 A. Ramsey Clark and His Civil Rights Pedigree ...................................... 8 B. Stokely Carmichael: "Hell no, we won't go!.................................. 11 III. RAMSEY CLARK'S REFUSAL TO PROSECUTE STOKELY CARMICHAEL ......... 18 A. Impetus Behind Callsfor Prosecution............................................... 18 B. Conspiracy to Incite a Riot..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public
    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
    [Show full text]
  • Fewer Hands, More Mercy: a Plea for a Better Federal Clemency System
    FEWER HANDS, MORE MERCY: A PLEA FOR A BETTER FEDERAL CLEMENCY SYSTEM Mark Osler*† INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 465 I. A SWAMP OF UNNECESSARY PROCESS .................................................. 470 A. From Simplicity to Complexity ....................................................... 470 B. The Clemency System Today .......................................................... 477 1. The Basic Process ......................................................................... 477 a. The Pardon Attorney’s Staff ..................................................... 478 b. The Pardon Attorney ................................................................ 479 c. The Staff of the Deputy Attorney General ................................. 481 d. The Deputy Attorney General ................................................... 481 e. The White House Counsel Staff ................................................ 483 f. The White House Counsel ......................................................... 484 g. The President ............................................................................ 484 2. Clemency Project 2014 ................................................................ 485 C. The Effect of a Bias in Favor of Negative Decisions ...................... 489 II. BETTER EXAMPLES: STATE AND FEDERAL .......................................... 491 A. State Systems ................................................................................... 491 1. A Diversity
    [Show full text]
  • Drowning in Data 15 3
    BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES WITH AMERICANS’ DATA Rachel Levinson-Waldman Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law about the brennan center for justice The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. about the brennan center’s liberty and national security program The Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program works to advance effective national security policies that respect Constitutional values and the rule of law, using innovative policy recommendations, litigation, and public advocacy. The program focuses on government transparency and accountability; domestic counterterrorism policies and their effects on privacy and First Amendment freedoms; detainee policy, including the detention, interrogation, and trial of terrorist suspects; and the need to safeguard our system of checks and balances. about the author Rachel Levinson-Waldman serves as Counsel to the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, which seeks to advance effective national security policies that respect constitutional values and the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • DOJ BACKGROUND/RECORDS A. Key Officials
    DOJ BACKGROUND/RECORDS A. Key Officials --Attorney General-- Robert F. Kennedy, 1961-6 Nicholas Katzenbach ? Ramsey Clarke, 196_-__ Griffin Bell (worked with HSCA) --Deputy Attorney General--Nicholas deB. Katzenbach (under Kennedy) --Associate Attorney General --Office of Legislative Affairs --Assistant Attorney General Michael Uhlman, worked with the HSCA --Office of Public Affairs --Office of Policy Development --Office of Information and Privacy --Office of Legal Counsel --Norbert A. Schlei (Assistant AG under Kennedy) --Frank M. Wozencraft (1968) --Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Division --Herbert J. Miller, Jr. (under Kennedy) --Fred M. Vinson, Jr. (@ 1965-68) --Composed of the following sections:General Crimes; Fraud; Organized Crime & Racketeering (the Chief of the Organized Crime Section in 1963 was William G. Hundley); Administrative Regulations (covers immigration); Appeals and Research. --Jeff Fogel was on the JFK Assassination Task Force in 1980 --Internal Security Division --J. Walter Yeagley (under Kennedy and Johnson) --Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division --John W. Douglas (1965) --Barefoot Sanders (1967) --Edwin Weisl, Jr. (1968) --Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division --Burke Marshall ? (under Kennedy) --John Doar (1967) --Robert Owens (1968) --Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division --Louis Oberdorfer (under Kennedy) --Robert L. Keuch, Special Counsel to the Attorney General (G. Bell), worked with the HSCA B. Assassination Records Located to Date --Microfilmed DOJ Records from the JFK Library (Need To Review) --Office of Information and Privacy Files re: FOIA Appeals of Harold Weisberg (Civi Action No. 75-0226) and James Lesar, including the documents that were the subject of the appeal. Approximately 3,600 records were identified and 85% transferred to NARA.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Honesty Won't Aid Enemies; CIA INTERROGATION TACTICS
    Honesty won’t aid enemies; CIA INTERROGATION TACTICS The National Law Journal (Online) November 26, 2007 Monday Copyright 2007 ALM Media Properties, LLC All Rights Reserved Further duplication without permission is prohibited Length: 949 words Byline: Andrew Kent / Special to The National Law Journal, Special to the national law journal Body The Bush administration maintains that it cannot publicly discuss or even name the harsh interrogation techniques used by the CIA to break the silence of ″high value″ al-Queda captives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who devised the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Recently, Michael Mukasey’s nomination to be attorney general ran into trouble when he declined senators’ requests for his opinion on the legality of waterboarding ? forced inhalation of water, causing choking and asphyxiation ? a technique reportedly used by the CIA on Mohammed and a few others. Mukasey was confirmed, but controversy about the CIA’s methods of interrogating al-Queda leadership, and the official secrecy about them, continues. The Bush administration and its supporters typically offer two reasons why the CIA’s interrogation methods must be secret. Neither is convincing. The principal justification is a variation on the tune the administration has played for years ? opposing us means aiding the enemy. The other justification is protecting CIA interrogators from potential liability. President Bush has repeated that the administration cannot discuss specific methods because ″it doesn’t make any sense to broadcast to the enemy what they ought to prepare for and not prepare for.″ As another official put it, the government cannot ″publicize to the enemy what practices may be on the table and what practices may be off the table.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
    [Show full text]
  • A Gift from Alumni to the University Alumni Park by the Numbers
    A GIFT FROM ALUMNI TO THE UNIVERSITY ALUMNI PARK BY THE NUMBERS CONTENTS 1.3 Size of the park in acres 7,877 Trees, shrubs, grasses, and Park Yourself Here ..................................................................................2–3 perennials planted A Plan 109 Years in the Making ................................................................4–5 500 Linear feet of improved shoreline Content and Conversation...................................................................... 6–7 50 Park exhibits, including Make a Splash .........................................................................................8–9 sculptures, statues, panels, and inscriptions The Bucky Statue ...................................................................................10–11 4,000 Donors who contributed to the Your Guide to the Lights ...................................................................... 12–13 creation of Alumni Park and One Alumni Place Your Home Base ................................................................................... 14–15 17 Number of boat slips at the World Wide Park ...................................................................................16–17 Goodspeed Family Pier UW Alumni Featured in the Park .......................................................... 18–21 207 Alumni names inscribed in the park: 123 featured alumni Thank You, Friends of Alumni Park ..................................................... 22–28 plus 84 donors and contributors 4 Number of alumni Nobel Prize laureates featured
    [Show full text]