On The Judiciary and Benefit-O-Doubt
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007The Honorable Judge Walker D. Miller, as of September 19, has filed a new order, to which the Denver Post has given admirable coverage here. The actual text of the order begins as follows:
This matter is before me on the defendants’ response to my August 31, 2007 order for the defendants to provide information regarding their procedures and steps taken concerning the name check related to plaintiff’s naturalization application. As defendants readily acknowledge, they failed to fully comply with my order because the redacted copies do not disclose the results of the name check process. Defendants volunteer to submit unredacted copies for in camera and ex parte review.
Which, as I’ve hammered on before, they were already ordered to do as of August 31, so don’t think too highly of this “volunteering” shtuff.
To continue:
I construe defendants’ response to be a request to file the documents required by my order under seal, pursuant to D.C.COLO.L.CivR 7.2.
Damn generous of him, to give them the benefit of the doubt here, to construe their stalling tactics as a legitimate request–and a request they could have explicitly made at the August 31 hearing, for goodness’s sake! Attorney Happy Apple stood there and said “Can I get that in writing?” so I see no reason she couldn’t have said “In addition to submitting the documents in camera, may I file them under seal pursuant to yadda-yadda-yadda?”
I, personally, would have “construed” the current round of foot-dragging as clear communication of defendants’ intent to never comply with the judge’s orders. I would have said, “That’s it! You blew it! That’s one defiance of the law too many for my tastes! Apparently if anyone’s gonna be naturalized around here, I’m the one that’s got to do it. Raise yer right hand, Mr. Plaintiff–”
But I am told that Judge Miller has a lot of savvy when it comes to this sort of thing. Giving the defense the benefit of the doubt here not only gives them less of a leg to stand on should they appeal an eventual decision in the plaintiff’s favor, but also should remove doubt from any jingo’s mind that he has concern for legitimate security issues. Not, you understand, that I buy that this is a legitimate security issue, but I’m not the one with the gavel and the wig, you see. And I’m not the one probably feeling a bit of pressure from the DHS along the lines of See this line? You had better toe it. Don’t give us “this man has rights.” We’re in power now, we decide who has rights, and we decide who’s got a bench. Capische?
Diplomacy. Not just for breakfast.
So as of September 19, the defendants are now ordered to “file, on or before September 28, 2007, duly authenticated copies of the unredacted documents containing the results of the name check process,” which they may file “ex parte” under seal for the judge’s “in camera review.”
None of this even approaches the issue of chronology: if these 70+ pages of redacted documentation actually do relate to a completed name check, then the name check was completed as of March of last year. If that’s the case, then all the runaround since the lawsuit about no it wasn’t completed, yes it was, no it wasn’t, should never have happened. The original lawsuit (filed in May 2006) need not have happened. Why has Zuhair been put through this ordeal?
I’m guessing that can be answered in two words.
“National Security.”
National Security my [censored]. It’s Constitution Week, bucko. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al gotcher National Security right here. And you can kiss it.