From braintree!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!lavc!lavc!tom.klemesrud Tue Oct 24 12:47:07 1995
Subject: Two Fed Judges Under Investigation
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 17:02:21 -0700
A few days ago in the Ruby Ridge Senate hearings, Senator Arlen
Specter was discussing the appropriateness of putting Deputy FBI
Director Larry Potts on paid leave while there was a criminal
investigation as to Potts' possible involvement in a criminal
cover up in a shoot-to-kill order issued at FBI headquarters.
Senator Specter asked FBI Director Louis Freeh what the procedure
was for Federal Judges, if a particular Federal Judge was the
subject of a criminal investigation. Director Freeh indicated
that--unlike the Potts situation--Federal Judges under criminal
investigation are not suspended with pay; but rather, continue
with their civil adjudication--while they discontinue
adjudicating federal criminal cases. Director Freeh went on to
volunteer the information that there are two federal judges
presently under criminal investigation. He did not suggest who
the two were.
I wonder if anyone knows of a way to find out what federal judges
have lost their criminal case load, or how one might find this
In the February 21st hearing in the Northern District of
California there was a mix up on the time of the hearing.
Usually Judge Whyte sets aside 9:00 AM to hear motions in
relation to criminal proceeding; however, a few days before this
February hearing, the Judge changed the time of the hearing to
9:00 AM from 10:00 AM and only let the Scientology (Plaintiff)
parties know about the hearing's change in time. The Plaintiffs
did not bother to inform the defendants of the time change.
I have three questions:
1) What happened to Judge Whyte's criminal cases
for February 21st?
2) Why did Judge Whyte not inform the Defendants of
the hearing being moved up in time, and only informed the
3) Why even bother to move up the hearing time? It's just
a difference of one hour.
(This happened with Randy Weaver's case--he was informed
of a wrong time for his hearing: He was improperly informed that
the hearing was a few weeks later than it was actually scheduled
for. He could not have made it to the hearing, even if he had
intended to go.)
The Transcript of the hearing with regard to Judge Whyte's
scheduling discrepancy follows:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE, JUDGE
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER? A
CALIFORNIA NON*-PROFIT CORPORATION;
AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC., A
CALIFORNIA NON*-PROFIT CORPORATION,
VS. NO. C-95-20091-RMW
NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATION
SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; DENNIS ERLICH, AN
INDIVIDUAL; AND TOM KLEMESRUD,
AN INDIVIDUAL, DBA CLEARWOOD DATA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1995
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
THE CLERK: CALLING CASE C-95-20091, RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY
VERSUS NETCOM ON-LINE, ET AL. ON FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
MR. WILSON: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ANDREW WILSON, THOMAS
SMALL AND HELENA KOBRIN ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF. ALSO PRESENT
IN COURT THIS MORNING IS MR. WARREN MCSHANE.
MR. RICE: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. RANDY RICE AND MELISSA
BURKE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATIONS,
AND NETCOM ONLY.
MR. ERLICH: DENNIS ERLICH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE START, ONE CONCERN I HAVE
IS THAT THE ORDER SETTING THE HEARING FOR THIS MORNING DOES SAY TEN
O'CLOCK, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE MIGHT BE FURTHER
INDIVIDUALS APPEARING. DOES ANYBODY KNOW ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?
MR. RICE: YOUR HONOR, WE WERE NEVER SERVED WITH ANY NOTICE
OF WHEN THE HEARING WAS. SO WE FOUND OUT BY CALLING YOUR
CHAMBERS, AND THE CHAMBERS INFORMED US IT WAS 9:00.
THE COURT: 9:00 IS MY NORMAL CALENDAR TIME. BUT I THINK
WHEN I SIGNED THE ORDER, I USUALLY HAVE A CRIMINAL CALENDAR THAT
STARTS AT 9:00 AND I ASSUMED THAT WE WOULD HAVE SOME MATTERS ON
BEFORE THIS AND THAT'S WHY THE ORDER SAYS 10:00 I BELIEVE.
MR. SMALL: YES, YOUR HONOR. TEN O'CLOCK WAS IN THE ORDER AS
SIGNED AND AS DISTRIBUTED AND SERVED, BUT I DO RECALL THAT YOU
SAID NINE O'CLOCK AS THE TIME INTENDED. IT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT
THAT WAS MISSED.
THE COURT: DID I SAY TEN O'CLOCK AT THE TIME?
MR. SMALL: I THINK YOU SAID NINE O'CLOCK.
MR. WILSON: I THINK YOU SAID 9:00. WHEN WE HAD THE ORDERS
RETYPED, YOUR HONOR, AND I BROUGHT THEM IN HERE, I THINK I DIDN'T
CATCH THE FACT THAT THE ORDER WAS TYPED UP FOR 10:00 INSTEAD OF
9:00 WHICH I THINK YOU HAD WRITTEN IN THE PREVIOUS ORDER.
MR. ERLICH: I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS TEN O'CLOCK. I WAS
SERVED WITH PAPERS THAT WAS TEN O'CLOCK. THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T
BOTHER TO TELL ME THAT THE TIME HAD BEEN CHANGED OR THAT THEY
KNEW OF ANY DIFFERENT TIME. SO I HAVE PEOPLE COMING AT TEN
O'CLOCK. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN
THIS OR NOT, BUT TEN O'CLOCK WAS...
THE COURT: I THINK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I APOLOGIZE
PARTICULARLY, MR. RICE, TO YOU, I THINK WE BETTER WAIT UNTIL
10:00 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE ORDER SAYS.
MR. ERLICH: I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YOU WERE NOT SERVED WITH THE ORDER?
MR. RICE: WELL, WHAT HAPPENED, WE GOT EVERY PAPER EXCEPT A
SIGNED COPY OF YOUR HONOR'S ORDER.
THE COURT: WE'LL DO IT AT 10:00.
At 9:50 AM my attorney arrived ten minutes early.
Tom Klemesrud SP5
_/ Tom Klemesrud, Sysop _/ _/ L.A. Valley College BBS _/
_/ firstname.lastname@example.org _/ _/ FidoNet 1:102/837 KoX _/
_/ email@example.com _/ _/ North Hollywood, CA USA _/