Gonzales gave firing authority to aides
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1113014422.jpg|width="100" height="131" alt=""|_##]An internal US Department of Justice order disclosed Monday by the National Journal gave two top aides to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wide discretion to fire and hire political appointees within the Department who were not subject to Senate confirmation. The memo, dated March 2006, authorized then-Gonzales chief of staff D. Kyle Sampson and Gonzales's White House liaison, a post later filled by Monica Goodling, "to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of almost all non-civil service DOJ employees. Sampson and Goodling both resigned earlier this year in the midst of controversy over their roles in the firings of eight US Attorneys for allegedly political reasons.
An early version of the March order had authorized the officials to act without even having to consult the Attorney General, but the wording of the instrument was later revised at the urging of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which was concerned about the constitutionality of such broad-brush delegation of power. An unnamed "senior executive branch official" quoted by the National Journal said of the order that it was "an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed similar concern over the root strategy apparently reflected in the order, saying in a statement Monday:
This development is highly troubling in what it seems to reveal about White House politicization of key appointees in the Department of Justice. The mass firing of U.S. attorneys appeared to be part of a systematic scheme to inject political influence into the hiring and firing decisions of key justice employees. This secret order would seem to be evidence of an effort to hardwire control over law enforcement by White House political operatives.
Leahy called for the order and its supporting materials to be formally turned over to the Senate and House Judiciary committees looking into the US Attorney firings.
Related listings
-
Federal Court Shuts Down So-Called “Warehouse Bank”
Lawyer Blogs 05/01/2007[##_1L|1201677052.jpg|width="150" height="153" alt=""|_##]A federal court in Seattle has shut down a nationwide “warehouse banking” scheme whose promoter falsely promised customers they could legally hide their income, assets, and identities from the...
-
Gonzales gave aides power to hire, fire appointees
Lawyer Blogs 05/01/2007[##_1L|1349219371.jpg|width="140" height="112" alt=""|_##]Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty told congressional investigators that he had limited involvement in the firing last year of eight U.S. attorneys and that he did not choose any to be re...
-
Supreme Court Backs Police in Chase Case
Lawyer Blogs 04/30/2007[##_1L|1318291473.jpg|width="180" height="122" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court on Monday gave police officers protection from lawsuits that result from high-speed car chases, ruling against a Georgia teenager who was paralyzed after his car was run off ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.