tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-247549022011-08-22T11:40:38.840-04:00An Attempt at Objective Observationcboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.comBlogger2391100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-9382019782089766522009-04-15T09:27:00.000-04:002009-04-15T09:28:43.585-04:00

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment IA-0257-09 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-48668965173955448232009-04-07T12:04:00.000-04:002009-04-07T12:05:29.047-04:00

Case 3:08-cv-04373-VRW Document 18 Filed 04/03/2009 Page 1 of 36 1 MICHAEL F. HERTZ Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division 2 DOUGLAS N. LETTER Terrorism Litigation Counsel 3 JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch 4 VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director 5 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Special Litigation

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-56981557257283804622009-04-03T11:28:00.000-04:002009-04-03T11:30:04.262-04:00

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 07-1499 Filed April 3, 2009 KATHERINE VARNUM, PATRICIA HYDE, DAWN BARBOUROSKE, JENNIFER BARBOUROSKE, JASON MORGAN, CHARLES SWAGGERTY, DAVID TWOMBLEY, LAWRENCE HOCH, WILLIAM M. MUSSER, OTTER DREAMING, INGRID OLSON, and REVA EVANS, Appellees, vs. TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, In His

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-20896510173035980832009-03-26T10:33:00.000-04:002009-03-26T10:35:12.181-04:00

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ROBERT FEILBOGEN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 3:03CV1624(DJS) : AIG TRADING GROUP INC. and AIG : FINANCIAL

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-62338001558456191372008-09-28T18:40:00.002-04:002008-09-28T19:16:40.967-04:00

Source: http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/ayo08c04_xml.pdf Michelle Malkin Article O:\AYO\AYO08C04.xml [DISCUSSION DRAFT] 110TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. _______ To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-80165114270415361992008-09-18T10:28:00.002-04:002008-09-18T10:32:13.238-04:00

September 17, 2008: Not only no debate, no text for the public. The bill (S. 3002) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed, as amended, as follows: (The bill will

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-82062040865190886992008-08-12T16:06:00.000-04:002008-08-12T16:13:36.026-04:00

Source: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200808/07-5257-1132633.pdf This is a split decision (2-1) affirming the court below. Wilson's complaint (damages on account of loss of privacy when Plame's identity was disclosed by Armitage, Libby, and Rove) failed to state a cause of action, and was properly dismissed. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-30054239926396251802008-08-04T14:36:00.002-04:002008-08-04T14:37:27.721-04:00

Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 1 Filed 07/29/2008 Page 1 of 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) GRAND JURY ORIGINAL ) v. ) Criminal No. ) THEODORE F

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-50300011226521132142008-07-22T09:41:00.000-04:002008-07-22T09:43:37.364-04:00

In the "Gertz must testify as to who his government sources were" case ... The Bratt Declaration, which the government fought to maintain under seal. See "Justice Dept. Balks in Case of Reporter" by Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun. Obviously, an OCR Job. Case 8:05-cr-00293-CJC Document 757-2 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 6 _.. . FILEO - SOUTHERN olvl lo_ . . CLERK, U.S.

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-58770270745516580342008-07-18T14:35:00.001-04:002008-07-18T14:39:35.803-04:00

Source: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2004cv1519-108 Excellent summary by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog. "Judge: “World’s eyes on Guantanamo”; Lawyers: no appeal now UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, : : Plaintiff, :

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-28441093072153702062008-07-03T14:44:00.000-04:002008-07-03T14:46:54.001-04:00

Source: http://www.eff.org/files/Al-HaraFISA-order.pdf Article: New NSA Spying Decision Undermines Arguments for Telecom Immunity Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 453 Filed 07/02/2008 Page 1 of 56 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE: MDL Docket

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-14944606706200020642008-06-18T22:46:00.000-04:002008-06-18T22:48:04.835-04:00

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JEANETTE McMAHON, as Personal CASE NO: 6:05CV1002-ORL-28JGG Representative of the Estate of Michael McMahon, TRACY GROGAN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Travis Grogan, and SARAH MILLER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Harley Miller

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-90541989285612250122008-06-02T08:09:00.000-04:002008-06-02T08:11:43.440-04:00

Case 8:05-cr-00293-CJC Document 406 Filed 03/07/2007 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SA CR 05-293(A)-CJC Date March 7,

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-127337723454247342008-05-23T08:08:00.006-04:002008-05-23T10:00:57.666-04:00

Just wordplay on "The Chronicles of Narnia" and "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". Guess who? If you guessed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you're correct!. Thanks, cartan, for the contribution of "wordy rube". Turns out, this post is the first time that phrase resulted in a hit on a Google search. ;-) The Lying Witch and the Wordy Rube ... has a nice ring to it, I think, and fits

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-53074015481578005482008-04-30T11:48:00.001-04:002008-04-30T11:56:32.563-04:00

Source: http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/08-4-30Rivkin,%20David%20testimony.pdf Hearing Testimony: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3305 OCR Job. Typos are all mine. Statement by David B. Rivkin, Jr. Before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution "Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government" April 30, 2008 The United States today

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-11905351582295693172008-03-11T18:34:00.004-04:002008-03-11T20:13:52.124-04:00

Source: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/nsaspying/H3773AMD_002_xml.pdf Alt Source: http://www.netrootsmass.net/extras/Glenn_Greenwald/H3773AMD_002_xml.pdf Article: Targeting bad Democrats - by Glenn Greenwald (Salon) [Discussion Draft] AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 3773 OFFERED BY M __________________________

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-66549296440875325102008-02-10T06:28:00.000-05:002008-02-10T08:16:56.570-05:00

Political Review - Through the Lens of FreeRepublic Weekend Show Preview and Sunday Talk Show Review February 9, 2008 (final edition) February 10, 2008 Disgust and frustration with the choices resulting from the political process [GOP delegates on Super Tuesday: McCain 617 / Romney 205 / Huckabee 155 / Paul 10] [DEM delegates on Super Tuesday: Obama 845 / Clinton 836] [Romney

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-6978362598138558842008-02-08T19:59:00.000-05:002008-02-09T07:54:36.446-05:00

Source: http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf Hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy: Congressional Brief in DC v. Heller No. 07-290 In the Supreme Court of the United States DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , ET AL., Petitioners v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER ,

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-59929419097130002002008-02-01T15:05:00.000-05:002008-02-09T07:21:30.589-05:00

Source: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200802/06-1197c.pdf Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/.../bismullah-parhat-rehear-order-2-1-08.pdf Article Context: No rehearing on major detainee ruling (SCOTUSblog) United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Filed February 1, 2008 No. 06

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-68522478435098132502008-01-27T18:45:00.000-05:002008-01-27T18:57:19.413-05:00

Source: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2008_cr/bond-fisamyths.pdf THE "FACTS STRIKE BACK" ON FISA 50 Myths Exposed: The December 17, 2007 Senate Filibuster TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Terrorist Surveillance Program II. FISA as the Exclusive Means to Conduct Electronic Surveillance III. Foreign Targeting IV. Liability

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-63669249776656078862008-01-11T08:55:00.000-05:002008-01-11T09:00:46.614-05:00

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/kennedy-order-re-cia-1-9-07.pdf Article: Judge refuses to probe CIA tape destruction Judge Kennedy is the same judge who issued the original preservation of evidence order, in June of 2005. "... all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-82414737850279511312007-12-20T10:32:00.000-05:002007-12-20T10:33:21.903-05:00

OCR Job. May be somewhat "out of rig" too (i.e., out of order, with parts of some pages appearing in the wrong place). Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2007/Hamdan-Jurisdiction%20After%20Reconsideration%20Ruling.pdf H/T: Howard Bashman at http://howappealing.law.com uNInD STATES OF AMERICA ON RECONSIDERATION RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS v. FOR LACK OF JuRIsDIcnoN SALIM AHMED

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-54972368302331463242007-12-05T14:54:00.000-05:002007-12-05T14:55:24.313-05:00

Source: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/06-1195.pdf Official - Subject to Final Review 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 3 LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE, ET : 4 AL. : 5 Petitioners

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-47774718152633687032007-11-05T09:03:00.000-05:002007-11-05T09:51:46.587-05:00

The core arguments and contentions in Mr. Ashcroft's November 5, 2007 editorial in the New York Times strike me as weak or divisive. Paragraphs of the editorial in blockquote. This is not the complete editorial, although I did have critical thoughts about every paragraph. Just the same, I'll bet this post is pushing the limits of fair use of the NYT's OpEd. Uncle Sam on the Line - By

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-11612854580796354382007-11-01T10:29:00.000-04:002007-11-01T10:46:42.073-04:00

Source: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/067427.P.pdf Note that Judge Hudson is -NOT- part of the 9 member panel involved in rehearing the case, as the Fourth Circuit sits en banc. Nonetheless, his dissenting opinion is clear and direct. Rehearing en banc granted, August 22, 2007 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-80401853155034818972007-09-22T11:04:00.000-04:002007-09-22T11:09:34.183-04:00

CASE #: 1:06-cv-06964 Date Filed: 12/18/2006 The government moved to delay the deadline for filing an answer to the civil complaint, to 30 days post the decision on venue. This venue decision is dated September 19, 2007. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-55601581622183495652007-09-06T14:20:00.000-04:002007-09-06T17:06:08.060-04:00

Source: Doe and ACLU v. Gonzales 05-0570-cv(L) and 05-4896-cv(CON) (2nd Cir. 2005) This is not the entire opinion, although the entire opinion is necessary to obtain the formal legal posture of the two cases consolidated for appeal. Why post this now? Because Judge Morrero has today, September 6, 2007, issued a 106 page opinion on the remand, again finding parts of the USA PATRIOT Act to be

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-64571918585020102092007-09-06T08:55:00.000-04:002007-09-06T09:05:27.390-04:00

Hat tip ScotusBlog (click the link for Lyle Denniston's review and comments) Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/US%20reply%20in%20Paracha%209-5-07.pdf OCR Job. Spell checked, but otherwise minimally reformatted. This is the "trial" end of classified information, and this filing is a particularly clear and concise window into the tension between the Court's desire to see

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-75898204341185466712007-09-05T16:55:00.000-04:002007-09-05T17:04:23.498-04:00

Hat tip HowAppealing.law.com. Source: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv0214-34 This is related to an attempt to obtain the legal rationale underlying the Terrorist Surveillance Program. The government response to this FOIA request and subsequent litigation is illuminating of the kind of response that is apt to be obtained in a FOIA request for the legal rationales

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-49630600267268431042007-09-01T09:23:00.000-04:002007-09-03T13:22:29.355-04:00

OCR Job. No doubt, some typos remain. Link to my previous comments, prediction of grounds for rejection, etc. Source: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/dojresponse_fisc_request.pdf Accompanying ACLU Press Release UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. Docket Number: MISC. 07-01 IN RE MOTION FOR RELEASE OF

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-32086906831133885462007-08-24T10:00:00.000-04:002007-08-24T10:01:54.293-04:00

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/CMCR%20hearing%20order.pdf Comments: War crimes appeals court hearing Friday United States Court of Military Commission Review Post Office Box 3627 Arlington, V.A. 22031 SCHEDULED HEARING _____________________________________

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-79759381810171241832007-08-18T06:44:00.000-04:002007-08-19T20:06:52.055-04:00

OCR Job, manually converted to html. Source: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/fisc_order_08162007.pdf My first thought was that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had shifted the chore of stiffing the public for information about the legal justification for warrantless surveillance from itself, to the NSA/DOJ/snooper. It turns out my first thought sucked. My second

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-33444571878941706032007-08-17T15:26:00.000-04:002007-08-17T15:27:34.966-04:00

H/T FAS at Court Overturns Dismissal of "State Secrets" Case Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/statesec/horn062907.pdf Jancice Rogers Brown dissented. The opinion views the case (and the issue of state secrets privilege) from both sides. Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-60977107978199850652007-08-10T19:01:00.000-04:002007-08-11T16:02:47.546-04:00

This is a proposed supplemental complaint, proffered to Judge Walker as an attachment to a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint. A few hours after I obtained this from PACER, ScotusBlog published First test of new wiretap law's constitutionality, including links to the motion for leave to file, and the supplemental complaint. http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/new%

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-22468180388951152502007-08-09T18:46:00.000-04:002007-08-09T19:55:47.639-04:00

The FISA modification being put to use to dispose of litigation. Notice that this is aimed at only one plaintiff, likely one whose claim is based on the allegation of actual interception, rather than on a claim of having call records transferred from the telco to the government. CCR IN COURT TODAY TO CHALLENGE NSA DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM AND NEW FISA LAW According to attorneys, there are

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-27600576622368867852007-08-03T18:26:00.000-04:002007-08-23T09:05:56.049-04:00

Competing FISA modernization proposals. H.R.3356 - House Democrats S.2011 - Senate Democrats (Levin/Rockefeller) S.1927 - DNI proposal presented by Senate Republicans DNI - July 27 Letter from Mike McConnell Source: http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/FISA2007.democratic.fix.pdf Shorter source: [Congressional Record: August 3, 2007 (House)] [Page H9685-H9695] The

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-33612277098520931662007-07-22T09:01:00.000-04:002007-07-22T09:07:56.016-04:00

Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/ParachaOpening.pdf Commentary at ScotusBlog: Opening brief in first DTA review The opening pages of the brief contain a concise summary of the various GTMO detainee cases, including their present procedural posture. The body of the brief lays out Paracha's fact pattern as well as some details of the legal process that has been available

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-11659969997701575632007-07-21T11:52:00.000-04:002007-07-21T12:00:43.818-04:00

Source: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-1197a.pdf H/T: HowAppealing Some analysis at Scotus Blog, noting how this decision relates to and will play a part in SCOTUS hearing of Boumediene v. Bush (06-1196) and Al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196) United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued May 15, 2007

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-9303539733815548752007-07-13T10:20:00.000-04:002007-07-13T15:36:26.333-04:00

    Terse commentary on the July 11, 2007 Statement of David B. Rivkin Jr. regarding the Libby case.     Uncharacteristic for him in an official venue, Rivkin is a bit "snarky." He says "Prosecutor Fitzgerald is undoubtedly an honorable man, and, by all accounts, does not have a partisan bone in his body." But later in the same paragraph, he says the appointment of a special prosecutor

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-6680504443004969062007-07-06T20:32:00.001-04:002007-07-06T21:30:11.629-04:00

H/T to ScotusBlog Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/US%20opp%20to%20Abraham%20CADC%207-6-07.pdf Commentary: Fallout from Boumediene order begins. The Abraham Declaration can be obtained from the Al Odah Reply brief, linked from Final push for rehearing for detainees (June 22). OCR Job. Some spelling correction undertaken. Typos are presumptively mine.

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-14634055540283221392007-07-04T09:59:00.000-04:002007-07-04T10:04:09.370-04:00

OCR Job on Docket Entry No. 383. A legal technicality as to whether the law permits supervised release at all, when a convicted defendant does not serve time in prison. I'd go with the plain reading of the law. Supervised release is out of the question, and since probation wasn't imposed to begin with, probation is out of the question too. I doubt this was a planned artifact of the clemecy

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-22586338788455883722007-06-29T12:41:00.000-04:002007-06-29T13:24:15.461-04:00

Hat tip to howappealing.law.com, here is an early view of the opinion unsealing further parts of the record in the "Miller and Cooper must comply with Fitzgerald's subpoenas" cases. Unredacted parts of the opinion follow the Court's rationale for circumscribing the unsealing. I have not seen any further unredacted parts of Fitzgerald's affidavits in support of his demand for testimony and

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-44194186383318638542007-06-13T10:27:00.000-04:002007-06-13T10:29:04.000-04:00

OCR Job. After spell check (more or less) no doctoring planned. Doc 368 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) GR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as "Scooter Libby," ) Defendant. ) I. LEWIS LIBBY'S REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL The government is correct that it is the defense's

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-36289819802080267482007-06-12T09:16:00.000-04:002007-06-13T07:37:53.979-04:00

Source: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_o70612_Govt_Resp_Bail.pdf Thread: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/06/government_resp.html Libby's reply is due at 9:00 a.m. on June 13, the motion hearing is scheduled for 11:30 a.m., June 14th. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 366-1 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 1

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-43491053652762019042007-06-04T19:43:00.000-04:002007-06-04T19:44:54.301-04:00

Source: http://nimj.com/documents/Khadr%20Order%20on%20Jurisdiction.pdf Hat tip: National Security Advisors } UNITED STATES Order } OF on

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-70738175443864582302007-05-31T17:44:00.000-04:002007-05-31T18:12:08.003-04:00

Doc 358 - NOT an OCR Job See also Libby Opposition to Government Memorandum of Law [Doc 357] This filing is not at all what I expected, and at first glance, it comes off as a form of contrition. As for Doc 357, Libby has the better argument (by far) - Fitzgerald's naked assertions are overreaching and come off as vindictive. All in all, a good strategy by Libby defense at the sentencing

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-38838472455629705142007-05-31T15:43:00.000-04:002007-05-31T17:47:39.202-04:00

Doc 357 - NOT an OCR job UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY,

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-60780650913652160852007-05-31T13:28:00.000-04:002007-05-31T13:29:51.293-04:00

Source: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_walton_letter_order.pdf Hattip thenexthurrah.typepad.com. (I checked the docket about an hour too early) OCR job. If VP Cheney wrote a testimonial letter, it appears that fact, and the contents of the testimonial, are likely to be made public at some point in time, on or after June 5th. ORDER     Currently before

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-71900754787824446152007-05-30T22:30:00.000-04:002007-05-30T22:31:51.566-04:00

OCR Job. Doc 355 Filed on May 30, 2007. RESPONSE OF MR. I. LEWIS LIBBY TO COURT'S ORDER OF MAY 29, 2007 On May 29, 2007, the Court raised the question whether the media has any right to access to sentencing letters prior to the 7une 5, 2007 sentencing hearing. Mr. Libby opposes disclosing any of these private letters prior to sentencing absent their author's consent as the media possesses no

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-50779373440406426062007-05-30T13:14:00.000-04:002007-05-30T13:17:00.109-04:00

A couple of changes in document numbering (Doc 349 becomes 351, Doc 350 becomes 351-1 and 351-2), an order granting the government motion to seal portions of the government's Sentencing Memorandum (redacted portions noted in the filing), and Court Orders imposing deadlines for filing arguments on two separate subjects. Grouped together here just because they are all short and to the point. --

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-28159417213398859602007-05-27T18:07:00.000-04:002007-05-31T10:40:45.026-04:00

Source: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070525_Sent_Covert.pdf OCR Job - Skipping Exhibit B, as it is the transcript of Ms. Wilson's testimony at Waxman's hearing, and the text is available elsewhere. My take, given the weak substance that Special Counsel has proffered as representing evidence of meeting the "covert" elements of IIPA, is that Ms. Wilson was -NOT- covert

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-53131788604150252752007-05-27T17:23:00.000-04:002007-05-30T12:38:20.255-04:00

Source: http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070525_Sent_calc.pdf OCR Job. This one is certain to fan the flames. See especially pages 5-6, and footnote 3, where the Office of Special Counsel asserts that Mrs. Wilson was covert under the meaning of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA, codified at 50 USC 421 et seq). The same assertion appears later as well, but the

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-15709017007684265432007-05-25T19:27:00.000-04:002007-05-25T20:31:08.422-04:00

Doc 345 MOTION to Seal Portions of Government's Sentencing Memorandum by USA as to I. LEWIS LIBBY. Doc 346 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by USA as to I. LEWIS LIBBY Doc 347 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by USA as to I. LEWIS LIBBY Government Memorandum Regarding Disclosure of Sentencing Letters Doc 348 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by I. LEWIS LIBBY Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 345

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-68116589333384641232007-05-14T15:35:00.000-04:002007-05-14T16:26:23.234-04:00

A Patrick Johnson of Newport Beach, California filed one such letter, which is entered as Doc 339, dated April 27. Mr. Johnson claims he will be personally harmed and requests that bail be revoked for Mr. Libby. The letter is an interesting read, although I think Mr. Johnson overstates his allegation of personal harm and damages. In other news, the Court granted another extension of time for

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-23026270730282935372007-04-26T09:33:00.000-04:002007-04-26T09:39:14.138-04:00

None of the noted pleadings appears as a "fresh" entry on the docket sheet. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 336     Filed 04/16/2007     Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW)

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-34139337137254426782007-03-22T10:59:00.000-04:002007-03-23T09:22:42.628-04:00

The licensed manager of an investment fund is approached by three men, representing American Trade Industries Inc. The men offer the fund manager a deal that promises 10% per month return, where the invested money is always in the control of the investor, and the deal is overseen by the Federal Reserve. Now that's a good deal. But it's a deal too good to be true, and is in fact a scam.

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-35853830258822337972007-03-16T09:47:00.000-04:002007-03-16T19:58:43.945-04:00

As predicted, the debate reverts to "leak." As SOME people are aware, the Libby trial was about LYING, but that sure doesn't stifle the curiosity on the leak angle. In fact, Libby's recent obstruction, false statements and perjury convictions seem to have stoked interest in the leak subject. The fire is burning HOT right now. I further observe ("opine", for you pedants) that those who

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-69719567704986562832007-03-09T10:36:00.000-05:002007-03-09T16:04:55.484-05:00

Courtesy of the howappealing.law.com, some good news from the DC Circuit ... Divided three-judge D.C. Circuit panel holds that the District of Columbia's gun control laws violate individuals' Second Amendment rights. The majority holding is right on the money too. That right .. was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-2102239211648352962007-03-07T10:45:00.000-05:002007-03-07T15:41:31.759-05:00

I never intended this space to focus exclusively on the Libby trial, but for whatever reasons, it took on being primarily a Libby-case pleadings presentation site. If you're interested in retrieving the Libby-case pleadings, bookmark this: Link to Libby Trial Pleadings. I'm apt to edit that page (as opposed to making entries at the top of the blog) as the grounds for retrial are asserted and

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-49424191277141393352007-03-06T12:34:00.000-05:002007-03-08T14:27:55.191-05:00

Fitzgerald's return will be fun to watch by John Kass - a must read. Transcript : Statement by Libby's Attorney - New York Times Transcript: Fitzgerald Answers Questions - New York Times Transcript: Libby Juror Answers Questions - New York Times ---===---     I stand by my long-held prediction, that regardless of the outcome of the trial, the opposing political sides will remain

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-9781106081675394222007-03-06T06:55:00.000-05:002007-03-06T11:32:39.177-05:00

    A placeholder while waiting for the court to publish the March 5 jury questions.     Long story short? The confusing date formulation in Count 1 of the jury instructions was instigated by the government, and it represents a defect in the instructions. Walton will (he MUST, no ifs ands or buts) repair the defect. He MUST also retain the requirement that the jury have unanimity as to

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-61076732838567627282007-03-05T13:03:00.000-05:002007-03-05T14:45:35.310-05:00

Source: http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/juryresponsemar5.pdf OCR Job (short and sweet this time - I gave up on the 48 page opinion) I'm going to add the reply to question two to the list of Grounds for Appeal, because Judge Walton has expressly opened up the entirety of the grand jury testimony, rather than limiting the jury to the specific conflicting historical hypotheticals recited

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-75329351547837331332007-03-02T11:13:00.000-05:002007-03-02T11:42:10.874-05:00

OCR Jobs. Memorializes past rulings. The "Accompanying Memorandum Opinion" is Doc 310. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 309     Filed 03/02/2007     Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORDER     For the reasons set forth during the trial of this matter, and as expanded upon in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby this 1st day of

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-3764654483124725432007-03-01T19:32:00.000-05:002007-03-02T14:37:10.373-05:00

    The story that will never end. Here is evidence that opposing sides in the Libby trial are entrenched. This exchange from over a year ago (the links work, and I urge readers to "go there" to see the complete exchange), where "the Real fifi" and I tangled briefly, could have happened yesterday.     The closing contention of that year old thread ... The contest is NOT between the

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-49196306136104799942007-03-01T06:45:00.000-05:002007-03-01T12:27:04.099-05:00

In other news (not related to jury instructions - posted here because I think some people check the top of the blog instead of the frequently-updated index of proceedings) ... Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 307     Filed 03/01/2007     Page 1 of 4 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW And on the subject of jury instructions ...

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-86680170276081208412007-02-28T16:27:00.001-05:002007-02-28T22:00:57.036-05:00

Sources: http://talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/obstructionstatements.pdf http://talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/memoryinstructionfinal.pdf OCR Job. Seven pages of jury instructions, taken from Jeralyn Merritt's February 28 article, Libby: Factors to Consider While We Wait. They show that the 127 pages of instructions contain very little text on each page, being in rather large print. As an aside, the

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-47501438136471936502007-02-27T18:05:00.000-05:002007-02-28T06:43:59.639-05:00

Another OCR job, this one is pretty easy though. The docket sheet contains some entries that are much more mentally stimulating than the introduction of a DVD into evidence - this filing is just a formality to accompany the delivery of tangible media for evidence already described in a pleading. To wit, Libby's February 14 Memo in Support of Introducing Additional Evidence to Impeach

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-85866727331326185092007-02-22T13:03:00.000-05:002007-02-22T15:15:21.209-05:00

    On February 17, Mark Kleiman composed a post entitled "Was Valerie Plame Wilson's employment classified information? - A challenge to Red Blogistan."     His post threw down the gauntlet on the subject of the "covert" and/or "classified" status of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, and solicited rebuttals from "Glenn Reynolds, Tom Maguire, Victoria Toensing, Clarice Feldman, Byron York, and

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-25079286178681371372007-02-21T06:43:00.000-05:002007-03-08T09:22:26.612-05:00

This page is a collection of renditions to text, of handwritten notes. Of course, the handwriting itself, and most of the foibles associated with handwriting, don't reproduce in typed text. The handwriting is neat and legible, it is the same on Docs 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 308, 314, and 316. My sense is the handwriting is the handwriting of a female. [After the verdict, varions news reports

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-803575618572575802007-02-20T11:46:00.000-05:002007-02-23T13:29:33.941-05:00

    Closing arguments have a way of crystallizing the difference between opposing sides. Ted Wells laid it all out in several sentences, paraphrased here by Marcy Wheeler ... I also told you this was a case about he said she said. Case about different recollections between Libby and some reporters. There is no charge in this indictment about Libby's conversation with Grossman, Fleischer

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-30893611666844916992007-02-20T09:34:00.000-05:002007-02-20T09:41:29.044-05:00

OCR Job -- needs to get out timely, as closing arguments start shortly. Please pardon any and all bubus. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 299     Filed 02/20/2007     Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRIEF OF I. LEWIS LIBBY ON THE PROPER SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S REBUTTAL     The Court has allotted each party three hours for its closing

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-68730969838441540872007-02-20T00:59:00.000-05:002007-02-20T01:02:31.247-05:00

OCR Job In response to Government's Request for More Closing Argument Time [Doc 297] Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 298     Filed 02/19/2007     Page 1 of 4 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I. LEWIS LIBBY'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT TIME AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE VERDICT FORM     In light of the Court's decision to

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-66505752870274772622007-02-19T19:29:00.000-05:002007-02-19T19:31:57.785-05:00

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 297 Filed 02/19/2007 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. )

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-47085726658439527292007-02-18T21:57:00.000-05:002007-02-18T22:10:21.853-05:00

Juror questions and witness answers, collected from a variety of sources and, for the most part, not sterilized of the sources' editorial remarks. In some caes, follow-up questions were asked (of the witness) by counsel for the defense or the prosecution. Links provided above each "Q & A" so you may review context for yourself. Grossman - January 24 from James Joyner ... Q. Did State

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-7594034192623174142007-02-18T07:24:00.001-05:002007-02-18T09:56:30.802-05:00

For the index averse readers, additional recent filings: Libby Response to Court's Draft Jury Instructions [Doc 295] Libby Objections to Proposed Verdict Form [Doc 294] This filing reiterates many of the arguments made in Fitzgerald's Consolidated Proposed Jury Instructions [Doc 285], filed on Wednesday, February 14. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 296 Filed

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-47849566708639686492007-02-17T18:23:00.000-05:002007-02-19T07:41:20.046-05:00

OCR Job. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 295     Filed 02/17/2007     Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I. LEWIS LIBBY'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS     I. Lewis Libby, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the following objections and requests regarding the set of jury instructions proposed by the Court on

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-73730576319065697122007-02-17T18:16:00.000-05:002007-02-17T20:31:27.353-05:00

OCR Job Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 294     Filed 02/17/2007     Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I. LEWIS LIBBY'S OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED VERDICT FORM     The Court's proposed verdict form provided to the defense on February 16, 2007, includes special interrogatories on Counts One, Two, and Five. Mr. Libby, through his counsel, objects to

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-59079366556042019852007-02-16T11:17:00.000-05:002007-02-17T01:27:55.183-05:00

OCR Job - Combined pleading and Exhibits for 13 pages. With regard to Exhibit C, it stands for the proposition that Libby has good recall of information, but maybe not such good recall of where that information came from. The misattribution that he wants the jury to conclude involves crossover between the civilian and the government sides -- where if he heard something (Mrs. Wilson works at

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-18915816498134631162007-02-16T10:47:00.000-05:002007-02-16T15:11:06.618-05:00

Docket entry that results in refiling of Doc 290 as Doc 292 ... 02/16/2007 NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document #290 as to I. LEWIS LIBBY was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading. Pleading contains numberous errors. (hsj, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007) I got a kick out of "numberous errors" recited in the Notice. Anyway,

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-70658279384897950952007-02-15T18:21:00.000-05:002007-02-16T07:17:08.466-05:00

Recent Action in the Dow Jones (and AP) Motion to unseal the papers that represent Fitzgerald's affidavits and the presently redacted opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals, in what I refer to as the "Miller and Cooper Must Testify" case -- a case that was conducted as a prelude to the Libby indictment. 2/9/07 PER CURIAM ORDER filed [1022187] denying motion to unseal

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-37913310836391953662007-02-15T16:02:00.000-05:002007-02-16T09:22:43.259-05:00

    Wordsmithing the Libby theory of defense, with the benefit of the trial itself intervening between. The Theory of Defense was first propounded on January 19 [Doc 249] and is now, February 15, submitted the the Court in revised form [Doc 289].     Merged (by hand) to show changes. Clearly an improvement over the original, but doesn't materially alter Libby's personal theory of defense.

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-86483974096968613842007-02-15T13:20:00.000-05:002007-02-15T15:44:19.484-05:00

OCR Job, again. Of particular interest for it's appearance of telegraphing grounds for appeal. Also humorous is the defense backing off from its January 29 verdict form, saying that its inital submission was the wrong draft, submittted due to a clerical error. Excuse me, it's "signed" by Jeffress, Wells, and Cline. I note in passing the rank and pervasive erroneous bases of speculation that

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-14380955102205890062007-02-14T17:33:00.000-05:002007-02-14T17:34:23.692-05:00

OCR Job, again. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 287     Filed 02/14/2007     Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VERDICT FORM Count One     With respect to the offense of obstruction of justice, we, the jury, unanimously find Mr. Libby:     Not Guilty _____             Guilty _____ If you find Mr. Libby Not Guilty, please continue to Count Two.

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-37644904623393532802007-02-14T16:34:00.000-05:002007-02-14T16:35:36.295-05:00

OCR Job. Case 1:05-cr-00395-RBW     Document 286     Filed 02/14/2007     Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROPOSED AGREED INSTRUCTION CONCERNING THE STAMP ON THE APPROXIMATELY JUNE 12 NOTE     The parties have agreed that the "Treated as Top Secret/SCI" or "Treated as secret/SCI" stamp should be removed from all versions of Mr. Libby's

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-24135397245425111682007-02-14T16:17:00.000-05:002007-02-14T16:18:51.999-05:00

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 285 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. )

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-3839362934263419442007-02-14T12:43:00.000-05:002007-02-14T15:59:28.227-05:00

Three new filings as of 12:20 PM Eastern on February 14. Click links to see two filings by Team Libby ... Doc 282 - Libby argues to admit evidence to impeach Russert Doc 283 - Libby's Second Set of Proposed Jury Instructions In the below, note that Count One (obstruction) has 4 elements. If Miller's July 12 conversation had been included, it TOO would need to be proved. Eliminating

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-70615809100471759572007-02-14T12:30:00.000-05:002007-02-14T15:41:41.987-05:00

OCR Job ... blech. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 283     Filed 02/14/2007     Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Cr. No. 05-394 (RBW) I. LEWIS LIBBY also known as "Scooter Libby," Defendant. I. LEWIS LIBBY'S SECOND SET OF PROPOSED

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-16839960896931567542007-02-14T12:26:00.000-05:002007-02-14T12:29:06.712-05:00

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 282 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171361974146514542007-02-13T05:18:00.000-05:002007-02-19T19:20:27.406-05:00

These pleadings hit the docket out of order. The Movant's Reply is by nature a rebuttal to Opposition's Response. The docket sheet looks to be a few days behind the service of pleadings by and on opposing sides. February 5: Libby Motion [Doc 264] February 12: Fitzgerald Response [Doc 280] (this page) February 11: Libby Reply [Doc 277] Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 280

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171319734492960832007-02-12T17:34:00.000-05:002007-02-12T17:36:49.493-05:00

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 279     Filed 02/12/2007     Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF THE JULY 12 MILLER CONVERSATION     Mr. I. Lewis Libby, through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court to give an instruction at the beginning of the defense's case informing the jury that the

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171248853974744602007-02-11T21:53:00.000-05:002007-02-11T22:04:26.023-05:00

OCR Job. I may just skip the Team Libby filings, this OCR conversion is a pain in the neck. Anyway, expect to find typos and other oddities in here. Note though, the February 8, 2007 date (at the end) is in the original, and is obviously incorrect because this filing refers to a filing dated February 9. Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW &nbsp   Document 278 &nbsp   Filed 02/11/2007 &nbsp   Page 1

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171247318602984822007-02-11T21:21:00.000-05:002007-02-11T21:31:20.943-05:00

OCR Job. I have the motion and the raw conversion, but will defer to others to put up a quality reproduction at this point. I'm in no hurry to clean up the OCR conversion, but want to have a placemarker for when the clean-up has been completed. __se 1 _a5__r_oo3___RBw Oo__m_nt ___ r_lgd 0_/1 1/z00_ PagP _ of 1z UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPLY BRIEF OF

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171210179831472842007-02-11T11:07:00.000-05:002007-02-11T12:14:28.866-05:00

Two reporters filed Motions to Quash subpoena to testify, Sanger and Mitchell. Sanger's case has been heard by Judge Walton, according to the docket entries, and Sanger's Motion to Quash was denied in open court. 1:07-mc-00050-RBW 02/01/2007 1 MOTION TO QUASH Subpoena and supporting documents ( Filing fee $ 39 receipt number 4616001989.) filed by DA VID E. SANGER.(jsc) (Entered:

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171198109161173082007-02-11T07:47:00.000-05:002007-02-11T13:01:43.933-05:00

    Filed Friday in response to Libby's Opposition to Motion to Preclude Testimony of Adrea Mitchell. This then is the 3rd document in the series. Fitzgerald's Motion to preclude [Doc 266], Libby Opposition (Response) [Doc 275], and this, Fitzgerald's rebuttal (Reply) to Libby's Response.     See also Mitchell's Reply to Libby's Opposition to Mitchell's Motion to Quash.    

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171054310247323572007-02-09T15:50:00.000-05:002007-02-11T11:49:22.640-05:00

For those who don't check the list of Libby pleadings ... February 9: Libby Motion to Admit Mitchell [Doc 275] This is good for something. Wilson's January 16 Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss is a good read too. /cough/ Case 1:06-cv-01258-JDB Document 35 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1171048417679492432007-02-09T14:00:00.000-05:002007-02-09T19:01:17.893-05:00

Libby had until 1:30 PM today (Friday, February 9) to file Memorandum of Law as to the basis for compelling Andrea Mitchell to testify. As of 1:58 PM, the D.C. District Court online docket hasn't shown any entry more recent than Libby's Response to Fitzgerald's Motions to Preclude, but I expect something will appear well before Monday. Also expected is a (or a series of) Rule 29 Motion,

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1170945895960187012007-02-08T09:42:00.000-05:002007-02-08T15:57:45.836-05:00

OCR Job Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 274-1     Filed 02/08/2007     Page 1 of 4 RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT I. LEWIS LIBBY TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE CONCERNING IMPEACHMENT OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES     The government has filed two motions seeking to insulate its witnesses from attacks on their credibility: a general motion in limine, which recites a series of abstract and largely

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1170903382981107772007-02-07T21:55:00.000-05:002007-02-07T21:56:23.000-05:00

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 273 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 7 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) v. )

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1170899517254915542007-02-07T20:49:00.000-05:002007-02-08T07:59:29.783-05:00

OCR Job Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW     Document 272     Filed 02/07/2007     Page 1 of 3 I. LEWIS LIBBY'S RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO GOVERNMENT WITNESS TIM RUSSERT     To ensure that it has all materials necessary to prepare an effective cross examination of the government's final witness, NBC correspondent Tim

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24754902.post-1170866347673382062007-02-07T11:37:00.000-05:002007-02-07T11:39:07.706-05:00

Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 271 Filed 02/07/2007 Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW) v. )

cboldthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129946522293576169noreply@blogger.com0