Monday, January 19, 2009

A New Hope

I am so bummed... Instead of watching the inauguration tomorrow, I will be stuck in state court in Broward. I kid you not. Shouldn't courts be closed tomorrow? Thank goodness for TiVo.
A big shout out to all the FOB (friends of blog) who are in DC. Please send pics and we will post them.
It's a very exciting time, no matter what political party you belong to. Some interesting questions:
1. Who will President Obama appoint to be the next U.S. Attorney? When will that happen? Any chance that it is Alex Acosta?
2. Who will President Obama appoint to fill the first open Southern District judgeship?
3. Who will sit on the federal JNC to help in these selections?
And finally:
4. Will Rumpole reveal himself?


Anonymous said...

willie ferrer, mary barzee, who gives a crap and rumpole will never reveal himself

South Florida Lawyers said...

Missing the inauguration to be in state court in Broward?

That's doubly wrong!

Anonymous said...

What is it with the Acosta refrain? Have you noticed nobody else seems to support your opinion anywhere. He was a terrible pros., and today your sponsor DBR provides an IG report to prove what a horrible manager (and shill) he is. Gonzalez' boy can go go go and the sooner the better.

We need an intelligent, decent, smart, balanced US Attorney - NOW.

Anonymous said...

the best picture ever!

Anonymous said...

Wolf Blitzer: "John Roberts had one job to do today and he kind of screwed it up."

Anonymous said...

That should not be a surprise, with few exceptions, most people appointed by bush are screwups.

Anonymous said...

12:55, that is also the answer to this blog's question on whether the president should keep Acosta on too.

Anonymous said...

On Acosta, the IG Report states:

"...there were three Assistant Attorneys General for the Civil Rights Division appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate from 2001 through 2007. Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., served as AAG from July 2001 to July 2003; R. Alexander Acosta served in that position from August 2003 to June 2005; and Wan Kim was the AAG from November 2005 to August 2007.

"Acosta told us that while he was AAG, the hiring process in the Division remained largely the same as it had been under Boyd. He altered the process slightly in a December 1, 2003, memorandum by setting specific deadlines and requiring that the Principal DAAG be included in the hiring process. He said he delegated responsibility for hiring along with the day-to-day management of the Division to Principal DAAG Bradshaw. Acosta told us he was not involved in the attorney hiring process and that attorneys were often hired without him knowing about it.

"Acosta acknowledged that Schlozman had significant responsibility for hiring during Acosta’s tenure as AAG. Acosta said he was not aware that Schlozman acted inappropriately in the hiring process. Acosta said he believed that all attorneys hired in the Division were recommended by the section chief and the DAAG overseeing that section. Acosta said no one complained to him that inappropriate hiring practices were taking place.

"However, Special Litigation Section Chief Shanetta Cutlar told us she complained directly to Acosta about Schlozman’s intent to hire as her deputy an applicant whom she considered unqualified even for a line attorney position. Cutlar said she also told Acosta that Schlozman had hired a number of applicants she considered unqualified, although she told us she was not “bold enough” to tell Acosta she believed Schlozman was considering applicants’ political and ideological affiliations in making hiring decisions. Acosta, on the other hand, told us he had no recollection of Cutlar complaining to him about Schlozman’s hiring practices. According to Cutlar, Acosta declined to get involved, referring her instead to Principal DAAG Bradshaw. Cutlar said that when she complained to Bradshaw, he told her Schlozman handled hiring decisions.

"Acosta acknowledged that during his tenure as AAG he became aware of some problems with Schlozman’s management approach and conduct. He said Schlozman was “very loose with his language” and sometimes made inappropriate jokes. For example, Acosta described an instance in which Schlozman passed along an inappropriate e-mail.38 Acosta also said that he became concerned about Schlozman’s judgment and “appropriateness” in approximately December 2004, when Acosta received notice of an attorney’s grievance regarding his performance appraisal. Acosta could not remember the name of the attorney or the specifics of his concerns, but said he asked Bradshaw to review the matter and grievances of other performance appraisals Schlozman had approved. Acosta said he became more concerned about Schlozman’s judgment around the time he was preparing to leave the Division in mid-2005 as a result of discussions Acosta had with retiring Voting

[note 38] In that incident in August 2004, Voting Section Chief John Tanner sent an e-mail to Schlozman asking Schlozman to bring coffee for him to a meeting both were scheduled to attend. Schlozman replied asking Tanner how he liked his coffee. Tanner’s response was, “Mary Frances Berry style – black and bitter.” Berry is an African-American who was the Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from November 1993 until late 2004. Schlozman forwarded the e-mail chain to several Department officials (including Principal DAAG Bradshaw) but not Acosta, with the comment, “Y’all will appreciate Tanner’s response.” Acosta said that when he was made aware of the incident, he required Schlozman to make a written apology to him for his role in forwarding the e-mail and that Schlozman did so. Acosta said that he believed Schlozman wrote him the apology in an e-mail, but we were unable to retrieve Acosta’s e-mails and did not find such an e-mail among Schlozman’s recovered e-mail messages.

Section Chief Joseph Rich about Schlozman’s management. Yet, Acosta took no action to alert those in his chain of command.


"B. Analysis

We believe that AAGs Acosta and Kim and Principal DAAGs Bradshaw and Wiggins had indications of potential problems in Schlozman’s actions and judgment, and that each had sufficient information about Schlozman’s conduct to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision of him. Indeed, Kim, Wiggins, and Bradshaw were informed of specific instances that should have raised concerns that Schlozman was using impermissible political considerations in making hiring decisions. Despite the warnings, they took no action to investigate, bring the matter to the attention of their supervisors, or change Schlozman’s role in hiring for the Division.

For example, Cutlar said that in 2004 she told Acosta about Schlozman hiring applicants she considered to be unqualified. At that time, Acosta also became aware of an attorney grievance filed against Schlozman about his performance appraisal and learned that Schlozman forwarded an inappropriate, racially insensitive e-mail to other Department officials. Although these incidents did not directly relate to the consideration of political or ideological affiliations in hiring, these
matters should have put Acosta on notice of potential problems with Schlozman’s conduct and judgment.
However, Acosta did not take sufficient action in response to the information. Acosta asked for Schlozman to apologize to him for forwarding the offensive e-mail, but he did not ensure that Schlozman was more closely supervised. Acosta’s response to Cutlar’s complaint was also passive. According to Cutlar, Acosta told her that Bradshaw handled hiring and that she should discuss the matter with him. With respect to an attorney’s grievance of a performance appraisal that was approved by Schlozman, Acosta also delegated further inquiry of the matter to Bradshaw. At the same time, Acosta allowed Schlozman to continue to control the hiring responsibilities for the sections he supervised and for the Honors Program.
While Acosta said he developed greater concerns about Schlozman’s management by the middle of 2005, shortly before Acosta left the Division to become U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, it was not until 2007, based on this same information, that Acosta expressed his concerns to anyone at the Department. At that time, he informed the Office of the Attorney General of his concerns about Schlozman’s suitability to become Director of EOUSA. Yet, Acosta took no steps while AAG to more closely manage Schlozman or reduce his role in hiring within the Division, and we found no evidence that Acosta raised any concerns before Schlozman became Acting AAG for the Civil Rights Division or interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri.


"We concluded that Acosta and Kim did not sufficiently supervise Schlozman....


Rumpole said...

YES!!!!! Longtime and careful readers of my blog well know that "upon my appointment to the 3rd DCA or any court of equal or higher level and upon confirmation" I will indeed reveal myself. Until then, don't hold your breath.

Poor David- slumming with the rest of the hoi poloi in Broward State Court. Did they call you last?

Once in a very high profile Broward case at arraignment when the court inquired about a trial date the prosecutor- with the press present and the cameras rolling started screaming about being ready for a trial now and to bring down a jury right this minute!!! needless to say the case was not tried on that day, and when it was tried, they lost.

Anonymous said...

That is a good story Rumpole, tell more about it

Anonymous said...

The Markus Acosta thing is typical--markus is sucking up to power like he does on this blog constantly