May 17, 2007: Plame Judge Hears Dismissal Motion

[CorpGovActivist]

"On May 17, 2007, Judge John D. Bates will hear oral argument on the defendants' motions to dismiss Joe and Valerie Wilson's complaint against Bush administration officials, as well as the motion to dismiss filed by the United States. Defendants Cheney, Libby, Rove and Armitage have all claimed that they are entitled to immunity from suit, because when they put into place their scheme to deliberately retaliate against Joe Wilson by revealing Valerie Wilson's status as a covert CIA operative, the law was not clearly established that doing so violated the Wilsons' constitutional rights. They have also argued that each of the constitutional claims, brought under the First and Fifth Amendments, does not state a cognizable claim. The United States has argued that it should be substituted for the common law tort claims against the individual defendants for publicly disclosing private facts, because each of the defendants was acting within the scope of his employment when he revealed, or caused to be revealed, Valerie Wilson's status as a covert CIA operative. The court has given each side 60 minutes in which to present argument."

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/ (This website has done a LOT of recent updating.)

Mark your calendars, and update your bookmarks.

; )

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

1. This will be a critical hearing for the Wilsons because if they prevail...

the defendants will have the burden of proof in a motion for summary judgment to show that in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs that there is no genuine issue as to law and facts for the jury to decide. Very unlikely defendants could prove that.

However, if the defendants succeed in having their motion to dismiss granted, plaintiffs are out of court, and there will be no court ordered discovery of the defendants.

This is a tactic often used by defendants to avoid having to comply with plaintiff's discovery requests. The rationale is that if the defendants can show the plaintiff's claims are wholly without merit they should not be required to incur the expense of complying with discovery and being deposed.

The note that the United States is attempting to intervene on their behalf, claiming they were just employees acting within the scope and course of their duties is ludicrous. No government employee is acting within the scope and course of their duties when they violate the law. period.

[CorpGovActivist]

2. Judge Bates' Pedigree Leaves a Lot to Be Desired...

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

Ken Starr's lackey, and a Bush 43 appointee ... what an awful draw they got!

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

4. I Have to Read the Defendants' Motion...

... but 12(b)(6) doesn't seem like it would hold water:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm

Do you think the Wilsons' counsel is shooting for - at a minimum - conversion to a motion for summary judgment?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule56.htm

Rules 26 through 37 must terrify the Executive Office of the President:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/#chapter_v

- Dave

[Blackhatjack]

9. Rule 12(b)(6) is a standard affirmative defense... here is the kicker....

A motion under 12(b)(6) - "dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" along with 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings CAN BE TREATED AS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS.

HOWEVER, the difference being that 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motions are decided on the pleadings alone, while under Rule 56(Summary Judgment) the court may receive and consider various kinds of evidence.

There are time requirements in Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment that provide for submitting evidence outside the allegations in the complaint, and the Judge can order that discovery be completed before he rules on crucial issues. All the plaintiff has to do is make out a prima facie case, show there is evidence to support each element of the claim alleged, and the burden shifts to the defendants to show there is no genuine issue for a jury to decide as to the facts or the law and that under no scenario could the plaintiff recover.

If the court allowed the United States to intervene on behalf of the defendants, it would result in a dismissal because of governmental immunity --and these defendants would all walk.

Hopefully the Plaintiffs have their strategy set to show that discovery is essential to defend against this Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for the US to intervene.

[benld74]

3. TREASON

[DCKit]

7. Hear, Hear!

[Marnieworld]

5. Do they really argue that outing her was in the "scope of their employment"?

That takes some serious cahones!

It's all within their jobs to out a covert CIA agent?

Perhaps their ruthless, political, disrespectful interpretation of their jobs but not their actual jobs.

As those with classified information are told, it is their job to keep the information secret and classified. There are no exceptions based on political gain. It was their responsibility to protect her despite whatever political fallout could come their way.

Outrageous and if this is the best that they and their overpriced lawyers can come up with the Wilson's do not have to worry. A jury would be disgusted ( I hope) with such a defense.

:grr:

[rcsl1998]

6. Judge John D. Bates

Some bullet points to keep in mind:

1) FISA Judge - appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to replace Judge James Robertson who resigned in protest of the 'warrentless surveillance program'
2) Deputy Independent Counsel appointee (1995-97) to the Whitewater investigation
3) Dismissed GAO lawsuit (2002) seeking disclosure of the records of the Vice President's Energy Task Force (ruled Congress lacked standing to sue Cheney)

any predictions where this is going?

[DCKit]

8. While it's the same cast of sleazeballs

Things are changing. Perhaps even a Bush appointed judge knows when to start doing the right thing.

[newyawker99]

13. Hi rcsl1998!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Gabi Hayes]

10. who's packed the courts? all the way to SCOTUS?

can you say State Secrets Privilege

move over, Sibel, your case has some company in the memory hole

[mmonk]

11. Yes and this is tacit admission IMO

that it was a conspiracy and that they knew she was covert.

[DemReadingDU]

12. morning kick