• ACLU
• Antiwar
• Break for News
• DailyKOS Reggie Walton
• Justice Policy Institute dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration
• Right Wing Watch from People for the American Way
• Scoop
• SourceWatch

• Judicial Watch  
• UofM FOIA Center
• US DOJ Dept of Justice
• Washington Post Libby indictment, Walton info
• Wikipedia, Walton

• ABA Walton
• GovExec "The judge (Walton) said he had no alternative but to dismiss the case "due not only to the nature of the information, but also because the imminent threat of terrorism will not be eliminated any time in the foreseeable future, but is an endeavor that will consume our nation's attention indefinitely."
• Judge Reggie Walton, US District Court, District of Columbia
• US DOJ Dept of Justice

• ACLU
• Antiwar
• Break for News
• DailyKOS Reggie Walton
• Justice Policy Institute dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration
• Narco News Edmonds  request for Walton recusal on grounds of total secrecy of his financial statements.
• Right Wing Watch from People for the American Way
• Scoop
• SourceWatch  Sibel Edmonds Story

• Judicial Watch  
• UofM FOIA Center
• US DOJ Dept of Justice
• Washington Post Libby indictment, Walton info
• Wikipedia, Walton

• ABA Walton
• GovExec "The judge (Walton) said he had no alternative but to dismiss the case "due not only to the nature of the information, but also because the imminent threat of terrorism will not be eliminated any time in the foreseeable future, but is an endeavor that will consume our nation's attention indefinitely."
• Judge Reggie Walton, US District Court, District of Columbia
• US DOJ Dept of Justice

Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds is taking the judge in her federal court case to task for his seemingly over-the-top pursuit of secrecy at the expense of transparency and justice. In a motion filed today with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., Edmonds claims federal Judge Reggie Walton has demonstrated a penchant for unwarranted secrecy, which has proven prejudicial to her litigation. As a result, she claims that Walton should not be allowed to continue as the judge for her case.

By the way, Walton is also the judge assigned to hear the criminal case of "Scooter" Libby, the former White House official accused of compromising CIA undercover operate Valerie Plame Wilson.  From a press release issued today by Edmonds:

Edmonds motion for recusal is based on Judge Walton’s pursuit of secrecy in his required yearly financial disclosure by redacting his entire disclosure statement, his deference to secrecy in his rulings on Edmonds’ previous claims where he was the presiding judge, and the unusual operations of the case assignment system concerning Edmonds’ cases. Narco News was the first media outlet to expose the fact that Walton’s financial disclosure statement was completely redacted in an article published on Dec. 17, 2005, on the Narcosphere.

From that story: The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times. … So Judge Walton seems to be in a critical role in serving as the point man in the federal judicial system for two explosive cases — the Edmonds civil case and Libby’s criminal case — both of which have vast implications for the White House and for the country in general.

So shouldn’t we know who’s buttering Walton’s bread in terms of financial backing? Why have ethics rules mandating such disclosures, if the information is not disclosed in cases, such as these, where the stakes are so high?  Well, it seems, at least according to the only document that Judicial Watch could shake loose in its public-records quest, that Walton doesn’t think so. His financial disclosure statement, the one released for public inspection through Judicial Watch, is completely redacted, every line of it.

Edmonds was fired from her job as an FBI translator after blowing the whistle on alleged espionage being carried out by a fellow FBI employee. She was prevented from pursuing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed in 2002 (based on alleged violations of her civil rights) because of the state-secrets privilege claim lodged by the U.S. government, a claim upheld by Judge Walton. That claim essentially shut down her ability to present evidence in the case under the smokescreen that it would jeopardize national security.

The U.S. Supreme court last year rejected Edmonds appeal in the case. She now has a separate case pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. Ironically, in both cases, Judge Walton was randomly assigned to hear her complaints at the District Court level. Walton also has been assigned randomly to hear the Plamegate case involving Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

Following is the full press release issued by Edmonds today, which includes links to her recent court pleadings:  

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. 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.

Edmonds motion for recusal is based on Judge Walton’s pursuit of secrecy in his required yearly financial disclosure by redacting his entire disclosure statement, his deference to secrecy in his rulings on Edmonds’ previous claims where he was the presiding judge, and the unusual operations of the case assignment system concerning Edmonds’ cases. For the recusal motion filed by Edmonds Click Here

The redaction of Judge Reggie Walton’s 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’s 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’s 2003 Financial Disclosure, Click Here. For the request letter sent to the U.S. Judicial Conference on March 6, 2006, asking for the release of Judge Walton’s unredacted financial disclosure statement Click Here.

In July 2004, Judge Reggie Walton disposed of Edmonds’ First Amendment case on the basis of the government’s assertion of State Secrets Privilege. On the same day as the decision, Judge Walton quashed a subpoena for Edmonds’ 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:

• When & where were you born? • Where did you go to school? • What languages do you speak? • What did you focus your studies on in school? • In what capacity have you been employed by the United States Government?

The convoluted route the Edmonds’ case has taken to Judge Reggie Walton’s courtroom appears suspicious and creates the perception that the system has been manipulated. Edmonds’ 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’ 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’ related FOIA case since July 2002. The court granted Edmonds’ request and transferred her case to Judge Huvelle. However, two days later, Edmonds’ 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’s motion to dismiss based on the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege.

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’ 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.

Sibel Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s 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.

In January 2005, the Justice Department's Inspector General vindicated Edmonds’ 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."

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’s Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President and as President Bush’s Senior White House advisor for Crime.

U.S. Supreme Court Opinions

FindLaw's searchable database of the Supreme Court decisions since 1893 (U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: US Reports 150-, 1893-). Browsable by  year and US Reports  volume number and searchable by citation, case title and full text.

Citation Search

Title Search

Full-Text Search

Reuters / AP

UPI

AFP