Court Order Sought in E-Mail Controversy
Court Alerts
A private group told a federal court that the Bush administration made apparently false and misleading statements in court about the White House e-mail controversy.
The group asked the judge on Thursday to demand an explanation regarding alleged inconsistencies between testimony at a congressional hearing last week and what the White House told a federal court in January.
"This evidence demonstrates defendants' blatant disregard for the truth and the processes of this court," Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy in court papers.
CREW wants the judge to compel the Executive Office of the President to explain why it should not be held in contempt of court.
In a sworn declaration, White House official Theresa Payton told the court on Jan. 16 that "substantially all" e-mails from 2003 to 2005 should be contained on back-up computer tapes.
However, at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Feb. 26, the panel's Democrats released a White House document that called that claim into question.
E-mail was missing from a White House archive for the period of Sept. 30-Oct. 6, 2003 from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, the White House document states. The backup tape covering that seven-day period was not created until Oct. 21, 2003, raising the possibility that e-mail was missing from the earlier period. That time span was in the earliest days of the Justice Department's probe into whether anyone at the White House leaked the CIA identity of Valerie Plame. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was eventually convicted by a jury of four felonies in the leak probe.
The congressional panel also released written statements by a former White House technical supervisor saying that a 15-person team conducted an extensive multi-phase assessment that resulted in a final 250-page analysis on the problem of missing White House e-mail.
In her sworn declaration to the federal court in January, the White House official said she was aware of a chart created by a former employee regarding missing e-mails, but said nothing about the 250-page analysis.
Related listings
-
Man Pleads Guilty in Missing Girl Case
Court Alerts 03/06/2008A man has pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a Connecticut girl found at his home after a yearlong disappearance.Prosecutors are recommending a 30-year prison sentence for 42-year-old Adam Gault of West Hartford.Judge Dav...
-
'Elvis' Shows Up at Kentucky Court Drunk
Court Alerts 03/06/2008One central Kentucky Elvis Presley impersonator may be singing "Jailhouse Rock" after showing up for court drunk and dressed like Presley.A Jessamine County District Court judge says 64-year-old David Blaisdell of Lexington must spend three days in j...
-
Man Who Punched His Lawyer Sent to Jail
Court Alerts 03/05/2008A man who punched his lawyer in a Kentucky courtroom last month has been sentenced to six months in jail.Peter Hafer also has a new lawyer. Mark Bubenzer said his client is sorry and didn't mean to disrespect the court.But Scott County Circuit Judge ...
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.