More on Diggs-Taylor — no stranger to ethical violations

Posted on August 22, 2006

I sense a pattern here…

Yesterday, I posted a NY Times piece on forum shopping and was lambasted on another blog for suggesting the possibility that the ACLU may have had an inside angle in securing not only the venue, but possibly even the judge they knew would give them a good shot at beginning this TSP litigation with a favorable decision. As Jay reported earlier, Judicial Watch is on the case about what looks like pretty strong evidence that there was more than a little game of footsies going on behind the robes — in the NSA case and another ongoing case in which much coin is being passed around. This makes my “dead horse beating” look even more plausible. Further evidence about this judge’s past makes this even more of one those “things that make you go hmmmm…” As others have reported, this judge has a pretty damning rap sheet when it comes to dishonoring her post while getting freaky-deeky with the left-wing political machine (what else is there but dishonor on the Left?).

From Opinion Journal back in ‘02: Disorder in the Court

Earlier, Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw–and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action–and consolidate it with a similar suit against the university’s undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort was dropped after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed “the highly irregular” effort of the chief judge. Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences.

More from University of Michigan:

Given the attention paid to this issue, it is curious that a highly unusual procedural maneuver by the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, has to this author’ knowledge gone entirely unreported. This maneuver has been described in an opinion by another judge in the same district and division, District Judge Bernard Friedman, as a violat(ion) of her legal and ethical duty.

Further:

The U-M’s lawyers faced a further problem. Chief Judge Taylor is married to University of Michigan Regent S. Martin Taylor. Thus there is a potential conflict of interest, since, as regent, Mr. Taylor is a Defendant in both suits. Judge Taylor recognized this and recused herself, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455. According to Judge Friedman’s opinion, Judge Taylor had two lawful procedures she could then follow to select a judge to rule on the assignment question. She could follow a federal statute (28 U.S.C. Sec. 136(e)) and select the district judge (in the district) who is next in precedence, that is, she could designate the next most senior judge serving in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. Alternately according to Friedman’s opinion, if she determined that the federal statute did not apply she could follow Local Rules 83.11(a)(1) and 83.11(d)(1) and use a random method to select a judge from the district to decide the matter. Neither procedure allows a recused Chief District Judge to influence a matter by personally selecting the judges who decide the question. Why not? According to a legal treatise concerning 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 which is quoted by Judge Friedman “this would violate the statutory command that the disqualified judge be removed from all participation in the case and might create suspicion that the disqualified judge will select a successor whose views are consonant with his own. ”

Yet, this is precisely what Judge Taylor did. Having disqualified herself, Judge Taylor then named a two-judge panel of Judges John Feikens and Julian Abele Cook, Jr. to decide the issues in the U-M?s motion. According to Judge Friedman, it was in this action that Judge Taylor ?violated her legal and ethical duty by selecting the legal officers who were to act in her stead.

Now Lefties, is it really out of the realm of possibility that this whole ACLU NSA suit was a more like the Summer Slam main event than litigation? …telegraphed maneuvers, pre-planned outcome, a lot of screaming from the crowd, completed by the phoniest choreographed finishing move we’ve ever seen (that would be Bigg Failure’s opinion)…but still talked about weeks later.

I gave Judicial Watch a shout today to suggest (if they hadn’t already considered this as part of the investigation) that they dig into whether the judge did in fact play a sneaky role getting this assignment as she has already demonstrated that her ethical obligations mean nothing when she’s going after a result. Interesting to see where this one goes.

Update by Jay: Sister Toldjah corrects my earlier post. Judicial Watch is a non-partisan Watchdog group.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, Border Control/Homeland Security, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

2 Responses to “More on Diggs-Taylor — no stranger to ethical violations”

LC Scott on August 23rd, 2006 12:06 am

Don’t forget this one . “in 1984, Taylor banned nativity scenes on municipal property in Birmingham and Dearborn in ACLU lawsuits.”

from http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006608070381
gabrielsutherland on August 23rd, 2006 11:03 am

The ACLU isn’t stupid. Alan Sears and Craig Murray document the public statements made by the architects of the ACLU to bring their cases before judges with a favorable view towards their complaint in “The ACLU vs America”.

It is also why the judiciary is segmented the way it is so that a plaintiff must repeatedly defend their complaint in a randomly assigned fashion.

I’d like to learn how Judge Taylor was assigned to this case. I’d also like to examine these things prior to oral arguments.