{"id":2703,"date":"2006-03-22T23:52:13","date_gmt":"2006-03-23T06:52:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2006-03-22T23:52:13","modified_gmt":"2006-03-23T06:52:13","slug":"sibel-edmonds-files-to-have-judge-walton-removed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2006\/03\/22\/sibel-edmonds-files-to-have-judge-walton-removed\/","title":{"rendered":"Sibel Edmonds Files to Have Judge Walton Removed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Via Sibel Edmonds, re: Judge Walton<\/a><\/p>\n

For Immediate Release- March 22, 2006<\/p>\n

Contact for Commentary: Professor William Weaver, wweaver@nswbc.org , (915.525.0483(M); 505.216.9853(H))<\/p>\n

Federal Judge in Libby Trial Deliberately Hides Financial Background<\/p>\n

Possible Violation of Federal Law Charged by FBI Whistleblower<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today, Sibel Edmonds, Former FBI Language Specialist and a whistleblower, filed a motion in D.C. Federal Court asking for recusal of Judge Reggie Walton from her pending case filed under the Federal Tort Claim Act. Walton is also currently hearing the perjury case involving I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who is suspected of leaking the name of former CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame Wilson to the media. <\/p>\n

Edmonds motion for recusal is based on Judge Walton\u2019s pursuit of secrecy in his required yearly financial disclosure by redacting his entire disclosure statement, his deference to secrecy in his rulings on Edmonds\u2019 previous claims where he was the presiding judge, and the unusual operations of the case assignment system concerning Edmonds\u2019 cases. For the recusal motion filed by Edmonds Click Here<\/a> [.pdf].<\/p>\n

The redaction of Judge Reggie Walton\u2019s entire Financial Disclosure Statement appears to be in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. The Ethics in Government Act requires that Federal Judges file a yearly financial disclosure statement with the U.S. Judicial Conference as a check on conflicts of interest. A disclosure may be redacted only to the extent necessary to protect the individual who filed the report and for as long as the danger to such individual exists. The Financial Disclosure Statement filed by Judge Reggie Walton in 2003 redacts all information except for the date of the filing and Walton\u2019s name. This is highly unusual. According to a recent GAO Report, less than one percent of judges on average request complete redaction of their financial disclosure each year. For Judge Reggie Walton\u2019s 2003 Financial Disclosure, Click Here<\/a> [.pdf]. For the request letter sent to the U.S. Judicial Conference on March 6, 2006, asking for the release of Judge Walton\u2019s unredacted financial disclosure statement Click Here<\/a> [.pdf]. <\/p>\n

In July 2004, Judge Reggie Walton disposed of Edmonds\u2019 First Amendment case on the basis of the government\u2019s assertion of State Secrets Privilege. On the same day as the decision, Judge Walton quashed a subpoena for Edmonds\u2019 deposition by attorneys representing over 1,000 family members who lost love ones during the terrorist attacks on 9\/11. In limiting the deposition in the case, Burnett et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., Judge Walton prevented the 9\/11 attorneys from asking a majority of the proposed questions related to the attacks. These included even the most mundane questions, such as:<\/p>\n

\u2022\tWhen & where were you born?<\/p>\n

\u2022\tWhere did you go to school?<\/p>\n

\u2022\tWhat languages do you speak?<\/p>\n

\u2022\tWhat did you focus your studies on in school?<\/p>\n

\u2022\tIn what capacity have you been employed by the United States Government?<\/p>\n

The convoluted route the Edmonds\u2019 case has taken to Judge Reggie Walton\u2019s courtroom appears suspicious and creates the perception that the system has been manipulated. Edmonds\u2019 First Amendment case, filed in July 2002, was assigned to Judge James Robertson who recently resigned from the FISA Court in protest of warrantless NSA eavesdropping. In February 2003, Edmonds\u2019 case was removed from Judge Robertson and reassigned to Judge Walton with no explanation provided. Edmonds filed a motion to request the case to be transferred from Judge Walton, and be assigned to Judge Ellen Huvelle who had been presiding over Edmonds\u2019 related FOIA case since July 2002. The court granted Edmonds\u2019 request and transferred her case to Judge Huvelle. However, two days later, Edmonds\u2019 case was removed from Judge Huvelle and reassigned to Judge Walton with no further information or reason provided. On July 6, 2004, Judge Walton granted the government\u2019s motion to dismiss based on the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege. <\/p>\n

In March 2005, Edmonds filed in D.C. Federal Court a separate claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and the case was randomly assigned to Judge James Robertson. However, five days later, Edmonds\u2019 claim was removed from Judge Robertson and reassigned to Judge Reggie Walton. This set of facts reveals apparent violations of local rules governing the assignment of cases. <\/p>\n

Sibel Edmonds<\/a> worked as a language specialist for the FBI\u2019s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege” and the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. <\/p>\n

In January 2005, the Justice Department’s Inspector General vindicated Edmonds\u2019 claims when it declared that many of her charges “were supported by other witnesses and documents, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Judge Reggie Walton was nominated to his position as a United States District Court of Columbia Judge in October 2001 by President George W. Bush. He served as President George H. W. Bush\u2019s Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President and as President Bush\u2019s Senior White House advisor for Crime.<\/p>\n

Update:<\/strong> Oops, I forgot the link to Sibel’s petition<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Via Sibel Edmonds, re: Judge Walton For Immediate Release- March 22, 2006 Contact for Commentary: Professor William Weaver, wweaver@nswbc.org , (915.525.0483(M); 505.216.9853(H)) Federal Judge in Libby Trial Deliberately Hides Financial Background Possible Violation of Federal Law Charged by FBI Whistleblower Today, Sibel Edmonds, Former FBI Language Specialist and a whistleblower, filed a motion in D.C. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[676],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-antiwar-movement"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2703"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}