« A Question of Timing | Main | Why Were the "Highest Levels of Government" Rushing Lam Out? »

May 02, 2007



1. He's guilty
2. Yes, I do.
3. Of course! (Was that a question?)
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. Answered by your next question
7. Most likely

Oh, those were rhetorical questions.... Never mind....

(Sorry, just coming up from air after a couple of extremely busy days at work)

Do you think it's possible that the San Diego USA lawyers would use the shady appointment of Jeff Taylor and the ongoing unresolved DOJ scandal in their arguments for keeping the venue in So. Cal? If they are really pissed off this would be a good way to send Abu G. a message.
Wouldn't it be funny if the judge agrees to a change of venue only to send them to Chicago.

I agree with William Ockham's answers, but may have an actionable claim for eye strain from flicking back and forth between the article and WO's answers to reach said conclusion. As a litigator this is a no brainer, and by far the salient factor would be getting under the umbrella of the DC Circuit for appellate purposes. If to many punches are pulled at the trial level, it is to obvious (although that doesn't appear to phase the duplicitous Bushies very often) but there is much mischief to be made behind the veil of the appellate level. This is especially heightened in a case like this that will likely produce interlocutory appellate issues during the pendency of the case; not to mention CIPA concerns. This is a motion that would have been filed irrespective of the identity of the USA assigned in California. You would like to see the argument by the Govt. made in response to the venue change motion that the court a) deny the motion or b) at worst remove it to Virginia. Seeing as how the Bush government/DOJ is on Foggo's side, this will likely not happen. Who is acting on behalf of the citizens in this case? Rhetorical question I'm afraid.


You did see that Foggo's lawyers are challenging CIPA constitutionally?

We shall see whether the folks who picked up this case are acting on our behalf. But it sure bears close watching.

bmaz, dearie, "to" as in "to obvious" is spelled "too." Otherwise, you are brilliant, and your thoughts add so much to the discussion.

William, great comment. You're on a roll. You too EW, as usual.

Er, also should be "fazed" instead of "phased." Love and admire your posts. Ducking out now, dearies!

On the money. If DC is the venue, they get Taylor as prosecutor, and a very friendly appeals court via Brett Kavanaugh and Co. Good point about ED VA. If there's a rational basis to change venue, hard to understand here, the CIA's home jurisdiction would seem the most appropriate. He may have too many enemies there, though, like a mixed bag of jurors whose friends and neighbors and families have ties to intelligence community salaries, and who won't have liked what Dusty is supposed to have done.

I guess our justice has been crippled. it may have been a mortal blow.
we saw two elections controlled by the winning party, having lost the vote
we have seen the supreme court rubber stamp the evacuation of the bowel on our constitution almost every day for years
we now have the prosecutors fired so they can't take down more of the installed criminals. tight little operation.

may have been a mortal blow? pretty funny. hardly a blip on the radar when everything seems to be a new crime and another conspiracy, each day of the week. it didn't take this long for nixon to resign. it didn't take this long for the republicans to say no, and respect the rule of law. we have no military, no national guard.

there are no relevant residual remains of a functioning government now. congress has been reduced to begging because they can't get the justice department, over which they hold final power, to respond to anything they want. the coup is complete.

why is everyone pining for the good old days? lettuce grow up and meet the new boss. or not.

yo, off topic here (kinda)

emptywheel, have you seen "drational's" diary at DKOS ???

I scanned the comments, but I didn't see a response from you

drational has some speculation about some new players, based on holes in sampson's missing emails

could you check it out and let us know what you think ???

Venue transfer occurs primarily (usually may be a more appropriate term) for only three reasons. Lack of subject mattrer jurisdiction in the original forum, lack of personal jurisdiction in the original forum or inability to recieve a fair trial in the original forum. Perhaps there is material contained in the pleadings that supports one or more of these grounds, but I am not aware of it from anything seen in the public discussion to date. EW, do you have a link or access to the CIPA challenge pleadings (ideally from both parties)? I no longer have a current PACER account, even if they were so posted. That is a fascinating argument conceptually; I assume it is based in large part on the confrontation clause, but I would be interested in how they phrased it. As a defense lawyer, I kind of agree with the proposition that it may well be an impermissable restriction on fundamental criminal due process rights. As to the ever present spelling and grammar police, I was awarded full immunity for such offenses over two decades ago by both Mo Udall and Barry Goldwater; additionally, my wife reports that I am not particularly trainable.


The lawyers for Kyle Foggo argue that the case is centered mostly in the district that includes Washington, D.C. based on following facts:
1)most of the alleged crimes occurring there.
2)Foggo, his family, his lawyers, and most potential witnesses for both the prosecution and defense reside there.

Here are my questions:
1)whether the venue chosen in criminal case,is the jurisdiction in which crime takes place?
2)in a case where multiple jurisdictions are involved,whether the residence of key witnesses and accused supports the choice of one over the other?

If the answers to the above questions are in positive,then given the veracity of information, detailed in motion,the case for change of venue is quite strong,regardless of any hidden motives.
Thus the response to the motion has to be based on negation of information included in motion.

Simpleaccounts - 1) Yes. If there are multiple jurisdictions, the proper forum is usually deemed to be where the greatest locus resides as to the crimes and events alleged. 2) Residence of witnesses and attorneys is a factor, but not necessarily a determinative one.

Keep in mind here that much of the conduct as to Foggo is intertwined with the actions of Wilkes and ACDS which are much more tied to California. Based upon EW's update however, the motion for venue change is certainly, at a minimum, viable.

yo, bmaz, feel free to check out the DKOS diary I mentioned above. I"d like to hear your comments too

I think we got a new member of the Upper Level Plameologists

if pollyusa is out there, you're invited too

I think the lead question is whether or not the Wilkes case should be severed from the Foggo Indictment, and that has to be dealt with before you get into venue decisions. I believe their indictments are in most respects quite parallel -- and it may well be the venue decision will not actually be reached. If Wilkes/Foggo is at least in part one criminal operation, I suspect the decision would be to try them together.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad