Dec 27 2005
Is Ex-FISA Judge Still Active?
We mentioned on this post we would see an indication of whether Judge Robertson is under investigation if we detected changes in his schedule on the District Court. We may or may not have seen such changes today. Here is what we posted earlier, schedule wise:
Is he clearing his docket of cases so he can go on a hiatus? We will know soon enough. Judge Roberts is due to be assigned emergency cases at the US District Court January 1-2, 2006. We shall see if that status remains for the time being. Robertson is also assigned Motions Court for February.
In an unspecified December 2005 update to the court’s schedule, Robertson appears to no longer be assigned to Motion Court in February, now it is Roberts (which is making me second guess what I saw previously). Robertson is not scheduled through the first 6 months of the year. I may have made a mistake given that the creation date for this schedule is supposedly 12/20/05, and my post was on 12/23/05. We shall see, I will now keep copies. I say supposedly because lots of things in files are editable (as opposed to edible!).
Robertson is scheduled for ‘status conferences’ on two cases on January 3rd, 2006. Hopefully someone familiar with the court system can explain what these status conferences are.
The only other schedule with Robertson is the Emergency Assignment list for March 18-19, 2006.
In a nut shell? I have no clue if I misread Roberts for Robertson the first time through – it is something I would do easily. But now I have a new baseline with saved files!
Hmmm… is this a coincidence with his FISA resignation after the New York Times article on the NSA program, or is the deck being cleared because Robertson’s suspected of leaking.
He had the means (FISA does involve lots of classified info), and he has the motive (at the minimum, a turf war).
status conference n. a pre-trial meeting of attorneys before a judge required under Federal Rules of Procedure and in many states to inform the court as to how the case is proceeding, what discovery has been conducted (depositions, interrogatories, production of documents), any settlement negotiations, probable length of trial, and other matters relevant to moving the case toward trial. Court rules usually require the filing of a status conference statement prior to the conference. In Federal courts the status conference is also the occasion for setting a trial date. (See: discovery)
SBD
Re: Roberts vs Robertson
I think John Roberts is Rehnquist’s successor on the Supreme Court
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1134641110755
The supreme court picks who goes on the FISA court.
The guy who quit FISA is Robertson.
Is that what is mixing you up?
It appears that this secret program is being leaked to provide a defense strategy for terrorists. In my opinion, the same could be said for Able Danger. It was also a secret program.
http://nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?ei=5094&en=8778e8e441c81c90&hp=&ex=1135746000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
December 28, 2005
SNIP
Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
and JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 – Defense lawyers in some of the country’s biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.
The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency’s domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration’s most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.
The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises “fascinating and difficult questions,” said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
(see rest of article at link)