Archive Message - 1995

From braintree!!!netcomsv!!netcomsv!!lavc!lavc!tom.klemesrud Tue Oct 24 12:47:07 1995 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Path: braintree!!!netcomsv!!netcomsv!!lavc!lavc!tom.klemesrud From: Subject: Two Fed Judges Under Investigation Message-ID: <> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 17:02:21 -0700 Lines: 153 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 out. 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 Scientologists? 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, PLAINTIFFS, 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 SERVICES, DEFENDANTS. ___________________________________ 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 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 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 _/ _/ _/ _/ FidoNet 1:102/837 KoX _/ _/ _/ _/ North Hollywood, CA USA _/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/


Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank