PRESS SUPPRESSION - SPECIAL TOPICS:

TESTING THE PROPOSITION:

"... any publicly made (non-frivolous) allegation of

serious misconduct ... against a Supreme Court Justice

would receive intense scrutiny in the press..."

    — 1993 Report of the National Commission on Judicial Discipline & Removal (at p. 122)
 

TEST #2:   2004 SUPPLEMENT TO IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT --

Examination of the U.S. Supreme Court's impeachable repudiation of congressionally-imposed obligations of disqualification & disclosure under 28 USC 455 and disregard for the single recommendation addressed to it by the National Commission on Judicial Discipline and Removal that it consider establishing an internal mechanism to review judicial misconduct complaints against its justices


CJA's March 1, 2004 memo -- STORY PROPOSAL
          New York Times:  Michael Janofsky
               (& for sharing with NYT Accredited Supreme Court Reporter Linda Greenhouse)

       Los Angeles Times: David Savage, Accredited Supreme Court Reporter
       Associated Press: Gina Holland, Accredited Supreme Court Reporter
       Washington Post: Charles Lane;
       Tony Mauro/Legal Times
       Marcia Coyle/National Law Journal

 


SEE: CJA's referred-to February 25, 2004 letter to Professor Steven Lubet

SEE: referred-to February 13, 2004 memos to congressional recipients --
         Senator Patrick Leahy, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
         Senator Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
         Congressman Joseph Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, House Judiciary Committee
         Congressman Howard Berman, Ranking Member, Courts Subcommittee-House Judiciary
         Congressman Henry Waxman, Ranking Member, House Committee on Government Reform
         Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
         Congressman Lamar Alexander, Chairman, Courts Subcommittee-House Judiciary &
                                     Co-Chair of the House Working Group on Judicial Accountability



CJA's March 2, 2004 e-mail to Marcia Coyle/National Law Journal -- "Subject: Story Proposal: Evidence-Based Investigation of Supreme Ct practices, policies, & procedures for recusal"

 


CJA's March 3, 2004 memo to Tony Mauro/Legal Times -- "RE: Supplementing & Reinforcing CJA's March 1, 2004 story proposal: your 'Courtside' column, 'Decoding High Court Recusals', Legal Times, 3/1/04"

           cc:  Professor Steven Lubet, Professor Monroe Freedman,
                 NYT (
Michael Janofsky & Linda  Greenhouse);
                 Los Angeles Times (David Savage);
                 Associated Press (Gina Holland);
                 Washington Post (Charles Lane);
                 National Law Journal (Marcia Coyle)
        


CJA's March 5, 2004 memo to Professors Steven Lubet & Monroe Freedman --
"RE: The EVIDENTIARY BASIS for assessing the U.S. Supreme Court's practices, policies, and procedures with respect to recusal"

         cc: Legal Times (Tony Mauro);
NYT (Michael Janofsky & Linda Greenhouse); Los Angeles Times (David Savage); Associated Press (Gina Holland); Washington Post (Charles Lane); National Law Journal (Marcia Coyle)


CJA's March 15, 2004 follow-up memo to Accredited Supreme Court reporters -- NYT (Greenhouse); (Los Angeles Times (Savage); Associated Press (Holland); Washington Post (Lane); Legal Times (Mauro); National Law Journal (Coyle) --
      "RE: BRINGING IN THE EDITORS TO REVIEW CJA's MARCH 1st story proposal & March 3rd supplement:  CJA's November 6, 1998 impeachment complaint against the Justices, pending uninvestigated at the House Judiciary Committee for over 5 years:
          'an appropriate starting point for an evidence-based investigation into the Court's practices, policies, and procedures with respect to recusal -- most importantly, investigation into the critical cert petition stage in cases where a party, unaided by any media attention, files a recusal application'"


SEE: CJA's referred-to March 12, 2004 letter to Supreme Court Clerk William Suter            



                             CONTINUES with "Disruption of Congress" -- media & academia (Supreme Court)