Fed Up With Govt Misconduct, Federal Judge Takes Nuclear Option

Federal Judges Fed Up With Government Misconduct | New York Observer


"In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California."


Holder has been running the DOJ like a shakedown racket for 6 years. If the allegations are true then Holder needs to go to jail.

I think back now to the bizarre DOJ attack on Gibson Guitars... someone might need to crack the books on that case as well, it certainly fits the shakedown M.O.

I'm no legal beagle, but I don't see anything earth shattering here.

The Defendants (Sierra Pacific Industries) are basically saying that they aren't guilty after the fact and are now alleging that state (CA) and federal (U.S. District Court) prosecutors presented false evidence against them as to how the forest fire began (a spark from a bulldozer that was subcontracted by Sierra Pacific Industries). Since the defendant had previously agreed to a large financial settlement ($55M over 5 yrs, down considerably from the original settlement of $122.5M), they couldn't come back and courter the settlement themselves. So, they along with their trustees and landowners (all the "other named Defendants) are fighting the settlement by claiming "false evidence".

In a move to ensure impartiality based on the allegations of unethical behavior by the Plaintiff (the U.S. Government), the Chief Judge for the Eastern District of CA has recused himself and all other District Judges and Magistrates of the Eastern District from the case until an impartial judge has a chance to review the case and assign a new judge.

Until the new evidence is presented, I see this more as an 11th hour ploy by the Defendants to get out of paying the settlement since nowhere in the order does it state that any new evidence has been presented. Rather, it makes clear that this recusal is based strictly on "allegations" made by the "other Defendants". Nothing more. (See federal rules under which a final judgment may be set aside, particularly rule 60(d)(3).) If this were really a matter of fraud, why didn't the defendants use rule 60(b)(3) instead which makes clear that final judgment can be set aside if fraud was committed?

Objective Voice said:

I'm no legal beagle, but I don't see anything earth shattering here.

The Defendants (Sierra Pacific Industries) are basically saying that they aren't guilty after the fact and are now alleging that state (CA) and federal (U.S. District Court) prosecutors presented false evidence against them as to how the forest fire began (a spark from a bulldozer that was subcontracted by Sierra Pacific Industries). Since the defendant had previously agreed to a large financial settlement ($55M over 5 yrs, down considerably from the original settlement of $122.5M), they couldn't come back and courter the settlement themselves. So, they along with their trustees and landowners (all the "other named Defendants) are fighting the settlement by claiming "false evidence".

In a move to ensure impartiality based on the allegations of unethical behavior by the Plaintiff (the U.S. Government), the Chief Judge for the Eastern District of CA has recused himself and all other District Judges and Magistrates of the Eastern District from the case until an impartial judge has a chance to review the case and assign a new judge.

Until the new evidence is presented, I see this more as an 11th hour ploy by the Defendants to get out of paying the settlement since nowhere in the order does it state that any new evidence has been presented. Rather, it makes clear that this recusal is based strictly on "allegations" made by the "other Defendants". Nothing more. (See federal rules under which a final judgment may be set aside, particularly rule 60(d)(3).) If this were really a matter of fraud, why didn't the defendants use rule 60(b)(3) instead which makes clear that final judgment can be set aside if fraud was committed?

Click to expand...

Department of Justice purposely withholding evidence in court is kind of a big deal. Having whistle blowers point the finger directly at the USAG office is doubly so.

As they say, power corrupts.

Objective Voice said:

I'm no legal beagle, but I don't see anything earth shattering here.

The Defendants (Sierra Pacific Industries) are basically saying that they aren't guilty after the fact and are now alleging that state (CA) and federal (U.S. District Court) prosecutors presented false evidence against them as to how the forest fire began (a spark from a bulldozer that was subcontracted by Sierra Pacific Industries). Since the defendant had previously agreed to a large financial settlement ($55M over 5 yrs, down considerably from the original settlement of $122.5M), they couldn't come back and courter the settlement themselves. So, they along with their trustees and landowners (all the "other named Defendants) are fighting the settlement by claiming "false evidence".

In a move to ensure impartiality based on the allegations of unethical behavior by the Plaintiff (the U.S. Government), the Chief Judge for the Eastern District of CA has recused himself and all other District Judges and Magistrates of the Eastern District from the case until an impartial judge has a chance to review the case and assign a new judge.

Until the new evidence is presented, I see this more as an 11th hour ploy by the Defendants to get out of paying the settlement since nowhere in the order does it state that any new evidence has been presented. Rather, it makes clear that this recusal is based strictly on "allegations" made by the "other Defendants". Nothing more. (See federal rules under which a final judgment may be set aside, particularly rule 60(d)(3).) If this were really a matter of fraud, why didn't the defendants use rule 60(b)(3) instead which makes clear that final judgment can be set aside if fraud was committed?

Click to expand...

Covering up esculpatory evidence is a crime.

The defendants also reveal that another former federal prosecutor, Eric Overby, left the Moonlight Fire prosecution team also, stating: “It’s called the Department of Justice. It’s not called the Department of Revenue.” According to the motion, Mr. Overby told defense counsel that in his entire career, “I’ve never seen anything like this. Never.”

Read more at Federal Judges Fed Up With Government Misconduct | New York Observer
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

Click to expand...

Thats a pretty damning charge. I can see going after big fines for intentional negligence but a spark from a bulldozer hitting a rock? Kind of BS.

jmotivator said:

Department of Justice purposely withholding evidence in court is kind of a big deal. Having whistle blowers point the finger directly at the USAG office is doubly so.

Click to expand...

I think you're a little confused.

There's nothing in any of the linked articles from the OP that points directly to the U.S. AG or the Justice Department. The only direct involvement to the Sierra Pacific Industries case - if you wish to call it that - are the blogs and other so-called "articles" that stretch the Justice Department's involvement using conjecture and innuendo. That's it!

I'm not defending the AJ nor the Justice Department in any way. I'm just saying it's all speculation with no direct link whatsoever. Case and point: U.S. Attorney's are appointed at the District Court level. You could say that all U.S. District Courts receive their marching orders from the Justice Department but even that would be a stretch to assume that all such order are given directly from the USAG himself or anyone in his office.

Here's a map to U.S. federal districts across the U.S. It's pretty clear that each District pretty much runs its own show. That's why when you read the New York Observer article nowhere does it mention the Department of Justice, but instead points the finger directly at the U.S. Attorney's office for the lower CA District Court.

apdst said:

Covering up esculpatory evidence is a crime.

Click to expand...

That may be, but again there's nothing in any of the articles that deal with Sierra Pacific Industries that give any indication that the Justice Department was involved. Reading through the articles and blogs it's very evident that the authors are trying to tie the USAG and the Justice Department to this case (or cases), but the matter was settled at the District level, not the federal level (i.e., U.S Justice Department). To further illustrate my point, the following comes directly from the Office of the U.S. Attorney's website:

The United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. There are 93 United States Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. One United States Attorney is assigned to each of the 94 judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands where a single United States Attorney serves in both districts. Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

So, again, I get the connection between the U.S. District Court and the DoJ, but the offices work independent of each other.

Fishstyx said:

Thats a pretty damning charge. I can see going after big fines for intentional negligence but a spark from a bulldozer hitting a rock? Kind of BS.

Click to expand...

I hear you, but would we lay a camper blameless for starting a forest fire even if done unknowingly because embers were left burning and it was discovered later during an investigation that the camp fire was ground zero for starting the blaze?

I get that accidents happen, but someone has to be held accountable.

Objective Voice said:

I hear you, but would we lay a camper blameless for starting a forest fire even if done unknowingly because embers were left burning and it was discovered later during an investigation that the camp fire was ground zero for starting the blaze?

I get that accidents happen, but someone has to be held accountable.

Click to expand...

Sure but that would be caused by irresponsible or negligent behavior. This was a bulldozer hitting a rock while doing work. Would you hold a camper responsible for a fire caused by his car axle scraping rock, causing a spark while going to his camp sight?

Objective Voice said:

I think you're a little confused.

There's nothing in any of the linked articles from the OP that points directly to the U.S. AG or the Justice Department. The only direct involvement to the Sierra Pacific Industries case - if you wish to call it that - are the blogs and other so-called "articles" that stretch the Justice Department's involvement using conjecture and innuendo. That's it!

I'm not defending the AJ nor the Justice Department in any way. I'm just saying it's all speculation with no direct link whatsoever. Case and point: U.S. Attorney's are appointed at the District Court level. You could say that all U.S. District Courts receive their marching orders from the Justice Department but even that would be a stretch to assume that all such order are given directly from the USAG himself or anyone in his office.

Here's a map to U.S. federal districts across the U.S. It's pretty clear that each District pretty much runs its own show. That's why when you read the New York Observer article nowhere does it mention the Department of Justice, but instead points the finger directly at the U.S. Attorney's office for the lower CA District Court.
That may be, but again there's nothing in any of the articles that deal with Sierra Pacific Industries that give any indication that the Justice Department was involved. Reading through the articles and blogs it's very evident that the authors are trying to tie the USAG and the Justice Department to this case (or cases), but the matter was settled at the District level, not the federal level (i.e., U.S Justice Department).

Click to expand...

You are clearly the one confused. Here is the order of recusal (pdf) with the charges.

"Specifically, Defendants allege, among other things, that the United States presented false
evidence to the Defendants and the Court and/or concealed material evidence from the
Defendants andthe Court; advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence, or for which material
evidence had been withheld, and obtaining Court rulings based thereon; prepared key Moonlight Fire
investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most
important aspects of their investigation; and failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with
the Moonlight Fire lead investigator's direct financial interest in the outcome of the invest
igation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminate"

Fishstyx said:

Sure but that would be caused by irresponsible or negligent behavior. This was a bulldozer hitting a rock while doing work. Would you hold a camper responsible for a fire caused by his car axle scraping rock, causing a spark while going to his camp sight?

Click to expand...

Only if the driver knew his action caused a fire and he did nothing to extinguish it or failed to call for help.

But again, I get it. It's a crappy call to make here because from my reading of events it was an accident. I guess from the District Attorney's perspective when you're a major corporation and your actions cause such widespread damage said corporation should have taken the proper safety precautions to prevent a fire from spreading out of control. As such, they believed the corporation should've been held liable. :shrug:

jmotivator said:

You are clearly the one confused. Here is the order of recusal (pdf) with the charges.

"Specifically, Defendants allege, among other things, that the United States presented false
evidence to the Defendants and the Court and/or concealed material evidence from the
Defendants andthe Court; advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence, or for which material
evidence had been withheld, and obtaining Court rulings based thereon; prepared key Moonlight Fire
investigators for depositions, and allowed them to repeatedly give false testimony about the most
important aspects of their investigation; and failed to disclose the facts and circumstances associated with
the Moonlight Fire lead investigator's direct financial interest in the outcome of the invest
igation arising from an illegal bank account that has since been exposed and terminate"

Click to expand...

I've read the court order. I know what it says. But once again, there's nothing in that order that speaks directly to the U.S. Department of Justice. It speaks to the lower District Court, specifically the Eastern District and Magistrate Judges of California.

Therefore, on the Court’s own motion and pursuant to the Code of Conduct for United States Judge, Canons 2 and 3, in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and because a judge has a duty to disqualify him or herself if his or her impartiality could be reasonably questioned, whether or not such impartiality actually exists, the Court recuses itself from the above-captioned case. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Accordingly, all District and Magistrate Judges in the Eastern District of California are RECUSED from hearing case number 2:09-cv-02445 and all related matters.

Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:

I've read the court order. I know what it says. But once again, there's nothing in that order that speaks directly to the U.S. Department of Justice. It speaks to the lower District Court, specifically the Eastern District and Magistrate Judges of California.

Click to expand...

The ruling is a recusal of the judges of the Eastern District judges because of the actions of the corrupt behavior of the federal prosecutors.

jmotivator said:

The ruling is a recusal of the judges of the Eastern District judges because of the actions of the corrupt behavior of the federal prosecutors.

Click to expand...

What federal prosecutors were involved except for those working at the District Court level? Can you show where individuals employed from the DoJ/USAG's office were directly involved? You seem to think that by saying "federal prosecutors" it automatically means "Department of Justice". There are federal prosecutors (i.e., U.S. Attorneys) at the District level as well.

Objective Voice said:

What federal prosecutors were involved except for those working at the District Court level? Can you show where individuals employed from the DoJ/USAG's office were directly involved? You seem to think that by saying "federal prosecutors" it automatically means "Department of Justice". There are federal prosecutors (i.e., U.S. Attorneys) at the District level as well.

Click to expand...

You either know nothing about court proceedings or are being deliberately obtuse.

Do you actually believe it was the court that withheld evidence?? Who do you think "district level" U.S. Attorneys work for ??? Here's a hint, they work for Holder. The Department of Justice brought this frivolous lawsuit and tried to make sure the evidence fit their theory. It was no better than a mob shakedown.

Their only problem was that two DOJ attorneys did not have the stomach to sit back and watch the travesty:

But now two former DOJ lawyers in the office that prosecuted the action corroborate Sierra Pacific’s claim that the DOJ’s case was based on fraud and deception. Using information provided by these lawyers, Sierra Pacific told the federal court that “the United States presented false evidence to the Defendants and the Court [and] advanced arguments to the Court premised on that false evidence or for which material evidence had been withheld.”

Click to expand...

Gill said:

You either know nothing about court proceedings or are being deliberately obtuse.

Do you actually believe it was the court that withheld evidence?? Who do you think "district level" U.S. Attorneys work for ??? Here's a hint, they work for Holder. The Department of Justice brought this frivolous lawsuit and tried to make sure the evidence fit their theory. It was no better than a mob shakedown.

Their only problem was that two DOJ attorneys did not have the stomach to sit back and watch the travesty:

Click to expand...

I'd agree with you except there's no evidence linking the Justice Department with this case. All we have here is speculative evidence that suggests that the District Attorney acted unethically of its own accord.

Objective Voice said:

I'd agree with you except there's no evidence linking the Justice Department with this case. All we have here is speculative evidence that suggests that the District Attorney acted unethically of its own accord.

Click to expand...

Who other than the Justice Dept. is representing the United States in court ???

Gill said:

Who other than the Justice Dept. is representing the United States in court ???

Click to expand...

Gill,

I'll say it again:

Objective Voice said:

What federal prosecutors were involved except for those working at the District Court level? Can you show where individuals employed from the DoJ/USAG's office were directly involved? You seem to think that by saying "federal prosecutors" it automatically means "Department of Justice". There are federal prosecutors (i.e., U.S. Attorneys) at the District level as well.

Click to expand...

So, as much as you'd like to believe that this case rises to the level of a federal-DOJ case, it isn't. This is a U.S. District Court case and although I'm sure the DOJ did offer some input on the matter as they should since ALL U.S. DISTRICT COURTS come under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, this is still a U.S. District Court matter unless and until it rises to the level requiring the federal court (DOJ) to fully take over and the only way that happens is IF this legal matter goes up to the Supreme Court.

So, again try as you'd like to tie the two together, but as things currently stand this is a matter for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to resolve.

Objective Voice said:

Gill,

I'll say it again:



So, as much as you'd like to believe that this case rises to the level of a federal-DOJ case, it isn't. This is a U.S. District Court case and although I'm sure the DOJ did offer some input on the matter as they should since ALL U.S. DISTRICT COURTS come under the jurisdiction of the DOJ, this is still a U.S. District Court matter unless and until it rises to the level requiring the federal court (DOJ) to fully take over and the only way that happens is IF this legal matter goes up to the Supreme Court.

So, again try as you'd like to tie the two together, but as things currently stand this is a matter for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to resolve.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss....

I'll ask you one final question and see if you can answer it honestly:

Who filed suit against Sierra Pacific, prosecuted the case, and negotiated the settlement ???

To help you out, here's an excerpt from the judge's order:

Defendants base their Motion on the grounds that the United States'
prosecution of this action constituted a fraud upon the Court when the United States
attorneys and the Moonlight Fire investigators and their counterparts in co-pending state
actions, operating under a joint prosecution agreement with the United States, advanced
a corrupt and tainted prosecution, violated Defendants' due process rights, and engaged
in investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct.

Click to expand...

Gill said:

Ignorance is bliss....

I'll ask you one final question and see if you can answer it honestly:

Who filed suit against Sierra Pacific, prosecuted the case, and negotiated the settlement ???

To help you out, here's an excerpt from the judge's order:

Click to expand...

Could it have been the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of California? :doh

jmotivator said:

You are clearly the one confused. Here is the order of recusal (pdf) with the charges.

Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:

Could it have been the U.S. District Attorney for the Eastern District of California? :doh

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly... and do you know who U. S. District Attorneys work for ??

Gill said:

Undoubtedly... and do you know who U. S. District Attorneys work for ??

Click to expand...

Sure I do. See my post #7.

Gill said:

Undoubtedly... and do you know who U. S. District Attorneys work for ??

Click to expand...

Sure I do. See my post #7.

You just need to understand and accept that although the DOJ may have provided legal advice/counsel in this matter, it doesn't mean that the DOJ acted unethically mainly because each U.S. District Court acts independently. Everything presented about this case include the court order that brought about the recusal indicates that the District Court acted alone and of their own accord. So, unless it can be proven that the U.S. DA of Eastern CA acted unlawfully on the advice and counsel of the USAJ's, all you have are accusations; nothing more.

Objective Voice said:

Sure I do. See my post #7.

You just need to understand and accept that although the DOJ may have provided legal advice/counsel in this matter, it doesn't mean that the DOJ acted unethically mainly because each U.S. District Court acts independently. Everything presented about this case include the court order that brought about the recusal indicates that the District Court acted alone and of their own accord. So, unless it can be proven that the U.S. DA of Eastern CA acted unlawfully on the advice and counsel of the USAJ's, all you have are accusations; nothing more.

Click to expand...

You act as though the U.S. Attorneys and the U.S. District Courts are the same thing. They are not. U.S. Attorneys present cases to the District Courts just like any other attorney does. Your statement in Post 18 that District Courts fall under the authority of the DOJ is flat wrong. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, District Courts are part of the Judicial Branch of government. A refresher course in Civics 101 might be useful to you.

I was going to post a quote showing how wrong you are that U.S. Attorneys do not work for the DOJ and the Attorney General, but the post you mention above already does that. It might help you if you actually read your own quotes. It would save you a lot of embarrassment.

The United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. There are 93 United States Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. United States Attorneys are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. One United States Attorney is assigned to each of the 94 judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands where a single United States Attorney serves in both districts. Each United States Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer of the United States within his or her particular jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Gill said:

You act as though the U.S. Attorneys and the U.S. District Courts are the same thing. They are not. U.S. Attorneys present cases to the District Courts just like any other attorney does. Your statement in Post 18 that District Courts fall under the authority of the DOJ is flat wrong. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, District Courts are part of the Judicial Branch of government. A refresher course in Civics 101 might be useful to you.

I was going to post a quote showing how wrong you are that U.S. Attorneys do not work for the DOJ and the Attorney General, but the post you mention above already does that. It might help you if you actually read your own quotes. It would save you a lot of embarrassment.

Click to expand...

Gill,

I'm not going to keep going around in circles with you over this. So, I'll just point you to Wikipedia which explains it all in detail and be done with it.

United States Attorneys (also known as federal prosecutors and, historically, as United States District Attorneys)[1][2][3] represent the United States federal government in United States district court and United States court of appeals.

...

U.S. Attorneys and their offices are part of the Department of Justice. U.S. Attorneys receive oversight, supervision, and administrative support services through the Justice Department's Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

Click to expand...