Valerie Plame's lawsuit dismissed

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to leak her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.


Read more: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/headlines/D8QFRCA04.html

[spotbird]

1. On what grounds? nt

[pat_k]

30. ruled that she hasn't exhausted administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act

Dismissal is no surprise. The real fight will be in higher courts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2923410&mesg_id=2923509

[kanrok]

43. Why on earth

Did her lawyers blow off the Form 95 procedure? The law is pretty clear that in order to sue the king, they have to consent. The method by which the Federal government consents to being sued is under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The procedures to bring a tort action are straight-forward. Follow the administrative rules. Here, file a Form 95, serve the proper parties, wait 6 months for them to deny the claim, then, you're good to go. I sure hope the attorney had a good reason for failing to follow the rules.

[potone]

48. I don't get this either.

If this was expected, why follow this course of action? Could someone please answer this?
Thanks.

[leveymg]

78. FTCA isn't the best course of action if the point is to show that Gov't officials acted illegally

FTCA is a good remedy when there's been damages due to negligence, such as when a policeman smashes into your car. A straight law suite is allowed when the officials have acted criminally or with malice with unlawful intent to harm, as the jury indeed found in convicting Scooter in the criminal trial.

If the point one wants to make, as is the case here, that the actions of the White House were inherently illegal, then FTCA isn't the best remedy.

Mr. and Mrs. Wilson don't so much want money damages as to make a point.

[JDPriestly]

60. This is basic employment law.

But, do Federal Rules provide an exception for futility of the exhaustion of administrative remedies? Seems that would apply here maybe. I should think that would have been persuasively argued.

[pat_k]

65. Haven't researched, but from my cursory review. . .

. . .back when it was filed it seemed to me that they had put together a good case. I'm not up on the applicable statutes, but you are probably right. In any case, I have little doubt that they have a some persuasive arguments to draw on in their appeal.

Something that we often seem to forget is that the law is intended to serve our will, not thwart it. True justice is rarely found though narrow interpretation of the letter of the law. There is always a balance of interests. Fundamental principles that must be balanced against "technicalities." (Unfortunately, given the state of the judiciary, I don't have much faith that rulings on appeal will be backed by a justifiable analysis of the facts and the law or a reasonable balance of interests.)

[JDPriestly]

73. Agreed.

If administrative remedies are available and clearly defined, however, usually a good employment lawyer will make sure they are exhausted. I haven't had (and won't have this evening) the time to read the motions or the court's ruling, so I don't really know what the facts and applicable law were in Plame's case. If you know more, please advise.

[kestrel91316]

2. My first question is: who is the judge? A RW brown-noser???

[brentspeak]

7. If it was John D. Bates, then yes.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. some bio info on the judge

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

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1968 and received a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1976. From 1968 to 1971, he served in the United States Army, including a tour in Vietnam. Judge Bates clerked for Judge Roszel C. Thomsen of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from 1976 to 1977 and was an associate at Steptoe & Johnson from 1977 to 1980. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1980 to 1997, and was Chief of the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1987 to 1997. Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997. In 1998, he joined the Washington law firm of Miller & Chevalier, where he was Chair of the Government Contracts/Litigation Department and a member of the Executive Committee. Judge Bates has served on the Advisory Committee for Procedures of the D.C. Circuit and on the Civil Justice Reform Committee for the District Court, and as Treasurer of the D.C. Bar, Chairman of the Publications Committee of the D.C. Bar, and Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. In 2005, he was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to serve on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management. In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

[Prophet 451]

35. That's a "yes" then n/t

[xxqqqzme]

53. the only thing missing from that bio is

traveled to Florida as a member of the * 2000 election legal team.

[ihelpu2see]

71. Bates = Bush appointee nt

[Bill219]

3. http://www.cnn.com/

[Ganja Ninja]

14. From CNN:

(snip)
U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the lawsuit raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials" -- but in a 41-page decision, Bates found the Wilsons failed to show the case belongs in federal court.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I just heard the same thing on MSNBC

Sucks .....

[no_hypocrisy]

5. She can appeal if she can prove that her complaint sufficiently addressed every

element of whatever action she was claiming and have it resurrected.

[spotbird]

9. And because the elements are secret

and the court won't order their release....

[no_hypocrisy]

18. That doesn't sound right. Your premise would make an appeal

impossible.

I just found out the action was dismissed for jurisdiction. Ms. Plame can re-file in the appropriate venue and try again. All is not lost.

[kikiek]

25. That's what I got out of it by reading the story. She just needs to refile.

[Sanity Claws]

49. If the statute of limitations has not run

[bjobotts]

50. The DoJ serves at the pleasure of the president.

Proving once again they are above the law...civil or criminal. They succeeded in privatizing the CIA by outing career agents and the organizations they set up. Doug Fruit (I mean Feith) in place of Valerie Plame. Cheney gets no respect or honor and has proved himself to be lower than scum.

[papau]

74. The judge said she should follow "Privacy Act" procedures- is that possible?/how different

from the civil suit would such a course be?

Bates said that relief for Plame's claim was only available administratively under the Federal Tort Claims Act. So a Bush appointee will decide if she gets damages and that bars her use of the Courts?

Bates also refused to recognize an "implied damage remedy" for her constitutional claims or to express an opinion on those claims. Can Bates be over-ruled by the full federal appeals court?

[JuniperLea]

6. We are doomed...

Long live King George. Motherfucker.

[Pachamama]

8. Long live King George Motherfucker....

The fix is in place....we no longer have a democracy....they are protected from anything and everything and can do as they wish. :puke:

[howmad1]

59. And that is exactly what will happen in Aug. 2008.

They will arrange an attack on the U.S. Bush will proclaim martial law, eliminate the election and make himself president for life. And the sheeple will await the new edition of American Idol.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

66. Over my dead body.

Literally.

[EFerrari]

10. So, they will file again in a different venue? onenote? Anyone? nt

[bunkerbuster1]

13. Appeal to the Supremes? well...

from Judge Bate's bio

"In February 2006, he was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a judge of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

[EFerrari]

21. I don't know if that's their only remedy. Do you?

:shrug:

[pdefalla]

32. A tool, for sure

Bates was on the Whitewater investigation, and was recently appointed by chief justice Roberts to the (guess what) FISA board!

[LibDemAlways]

12. Seems that Judge Bates is a judicial protector of the

Bush Crime Family. According to his wikipedia entry he dismissed the GAO's effort to learn with whom Cheney's energy task force conferred. Also appointed to FISA court by Roberts. Good little Bushbot.

[Squatch]

15. Is anybody here SURPRISED?

[bunkerbuster1]

16. Not now, that I know who was the judge in the case.

I'm not sure why anyone thought there'd be justice from a Whitewater investigator who wound up getting his current appointment from Roberts.

Still sucks, though.

Although I fully expect our side to renew our calls for a shakeup in the Justice department. Anything that focuses attention on these evil, corrupt pricks can't be all bad.

[Miss Chybil]

17. "...dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds..."

So, who has jurisdiction?

[tofurkey]

23. That's what I'm wondering...

State court?

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

39. In this guy's mind, God, then Bush.

[dennis4868]

56. I think you mean...

Bush then God.

[Usrename]

19. WTF?

I remember a 9-0 Supreme Court decision that allowed Paula Jones to sue Clinton.

WTF?

It's time to get the torches and pitchforks and stop playing with these monsters.

[SteppingRazor]

27. The difference between this and Paula Jones...

is that the Jones case wasn't related to public office.

[Usrename]

57. And that's supposed to matter because.... what?

There was no criminal conduct alledged in the Jones case either.

:banghead:

[SteppingRazor]

76. But the conduct in the Paula Jones case was "unofficial conduct"

To quote Clinton v. Jones:
"The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts--i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749 , 752, and n. 32--provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct."
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=95-1853)


In other words, the Paula Jones thing was completely unrelated to the fact that Clinton held executive office. Plamegate, however, isrelated to official conduct (i.e. the whole thing wouldn't have happened were the actors not in executive office), thus immunity to civil lawsuits due to both lack of jurisdiction and separation of powers. Additionally, the SCOTUS in Clinton v. Jones reiterated that, as the aciton in question took place before Clinton took office, it was even less likely to result in immunity. With the Plame thing happening during the term of office, then, immunity to lawsuits seems more likely, not less.

I don't like it, but I do think the court made the right decision here.

[Usrename]

79. The logic seems very, very circular to me. And very arbitrary.

In Clinton's case, the civil case could go forward. He was held accountable as a public servant for things that occurred in his private life. Even though it did not affect national security or breech the public trust. The Monica affair happened while he was in office.

Then, in Cheney's case, the civil case cannot go forward. Here we have actions that do affect national security and do breech the public trust, but because they happened while he was in office, there is no civil legal recourse that can occur.

There is no legal bar to doing anything, it would seem, once in office if you are Cheney; and there is no legal cover whatsoever if you are Clinton. And we know that this is true because of Monica-gate. Clinton had to cut a deal with the judge in that civil case, and surrender his law licence for a while, for actions that he took while he was in office.

But the purpose of shielding the office holder is to allow them to "perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability."

This seems inconsistant to me with the facts of these two cases.

[L. Coyote]

20. If someone broke the law and was convicted, this could change. Also, appeals??

[catmandu57]

22. Well this sucks

If I had known this about the judge before I wouldn't have got my hopes up. It looks like if any justice is to be done now it will have to come from the people.

[Initech]

24. This is why the president shouldn't be allowed to pick judges.

Because then you get the courts stacked in his favor and he gets off scot-free.

[orleans]

26. k&r. goddamn! n/t

[pat_k]

28. Expected. The real fight will be in higher courts.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Judge_throws_out_Plame_lawsuit_0719.html">Judge throws out Plame lawsuit
Nick Juliano
Raw Story
Thursday July 19, 2007

. . .
The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction over Plame's case because she has not exhausted administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is the "proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim."

The act provides a waiver from the government's immunity from being sued when its employees act negligently within the context of their jobs.

Plame's lawyers expected the decision to be thrown out anticipate filing an appeal, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, whose executive director is representing Joseph and Valerie Wilson.

"While we are obviously very disappointed by today’s decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court," said Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director. "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends.". . .

[cureautismnow]

29. Outing CIA Agents is part of Cheney's "Normal Duties"

"U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901395.html

Evidently, TREASON is a normal duty in the VP's job description. :mad:

Can't we just impeach EVERY RW nutjob in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branch of our government? :argh:

[troubleinwinter]

63. Treason, indeed.

Outing a covert CIA agent WMD non-proliferation expert, her cover company and hence all associated operatives and assets domestically and in other countries, putting an unknown number of lives at risk (or worse) is just "trying to rebut criticism... certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties"?

Bullshit. "Duties" would entail the upmost careful protection and safety of our assets, not playing political games with patriots' lives to cover the administration's lies.

[robinlynne]

64. Interesting how they always say "Wilson criticized" instead of simply Wilson wrote the truth...

[LSK]

31. no justice in America anymore

[ProudDad]

70. What do you mean anymore

there never was for the un-rich...

Still ain't...


For instance:

10 Years in Prison For Consensual Sex (he was a minor at the time)
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/17/1356206

Is Georgia about to Execute an Innocent Man? The Story of Troy Davis
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/16/1330218

The Case of the Jena Six: Black High School Students Charged with Attempted Murder for Schoolyard Fight After Nooses Are Hung from Tree
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/10/1413220



And this is just in the last 2 weeks!!!

That's why I call it the Criminal-Injustice "system"...

[stressfulreality]

33. really? even though bush himself admits...

that someone from his administration likely leaked it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Thursday acknowledged publicly for the first time that someone in his administration likely leaked the name of a CIA operative, although he also said he hopes the controversy over his decision to spare prison for a former White House aide has "run its course."

"And now we're going to move on," Bush said in a White House news conference.

The president had initially said he would fire anyone in his administration found to have publicly disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and a CIA operative.

Ten days ago, Bush commuted the 30-month sentence given to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby by a federal judge in connection with the case.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, had been convicted of lying and

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/12/bush.leak.ap/index.html

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and gents, this is NOT america.

[Sam Ervin jret]

55. jurisdiction exemption is for employee's negligence LOL

The judge wrote that he could not take this case due to the Torte rule that states that the government cannot be held responsible for the neglect of one of its employees. :dunce: At this point negligence would be a moral giant step forward. This was nothing
like that. This was a deliberate act of treason, and what the judge did was play a class A game of Political pass the hot Potato.

I'm Telling you my new friends when the Speaker of the house "dealt" or Right to impeach "off the table like a rookie poker player
at his/her first big game, it became clear to me that more than just Republicans needed to do what the forefathers wanted. Their Duty. If they can't or won't or simply do not know what that is then they need to be out. It will only be a republic as long as we keep it. We wont be able to keep it with a group that has so little respect for what it is.

[Laurab]

67. You are quite right.

And it's not looking good. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[myrna minx]

34. I'd like to see an actual opinion. This is outrageous. n/t

[rateyes]

36. The ruling said that Plame has to exhaust remedies

available administratively. If those remedies fail to provide justice, then she can refile in the court that just dismissed the case. The lawsuit is NOT dead.

[BrotherBuzz]

40. Here's hoping those 'remedies' include depositions

[JDPriestly]

61. But the time for administrative remedies is probably

long gone. I wonder what the facts are on how this case was handled with regard to administrative remedies. Sometimes the parties disagree about what administrative remedies are available.

[VP505]

37. That really does

suck, but its not surprising and that's what we are going to have to live with for a long time to come. I wonder if its possible for a Dem President to turn that around, anyone know???

[lies and propaganda]

38. even though Shrub admitted it.

I say treason, you say tomato..

[SharonRB]

41. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

NOT!

The courts are so stacked against us.

[valerief]

42. We are the Soviet Union our parents and grandparents warned us about. nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

44. Your lawsuit gets addressed if your

cleaners loses your suit and you sue them for 60 million dollars, but if you are the victim of treasonous actions, FUCK YOU.
We truly have a fucked up legal system.:mad:

[Duppers]

45. I'm sick.

and exploding, I'm so angry.

:nuke:

[dkofos]

46. The Wilson's need to shop for a judge that is not a tool for the bushies!!

[ComerPerro]

47. is anyone suprised at all? honestly...

[bobthedrummer]

51. Judge John D. Bates also prevented the release of info about Cheney's National Energy

Policy Development Group in 2002 as Buzzflash contributor Mike Clark noted 12-9-2002
"Courts Rigged In Favor Of Bush/Cheney
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/12/09_Bates.html

Again, take a look at his official bio
Judge John D. Bates
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html

:mad:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

52. Yes, re-file Mrs Wilson, don't give up

if you are listening don't give up now.

and find a new judge!

[april]

54. We all should be very worried.....

they are just chipping away at all of our rights..we need to all realize this .

[Gman]

58. Typical dorky looking right wing nutcase

What a fuckin' dweeb

[rpannier]

62. I see...

For a second there I thought elmer had claimed executive priviledge...
Oh...that's right he's not part of the executive branch...
So...maybe legislative priviledge...
Not a legislator either??? Oh...
Then maybe he'd try cliaming..."F*ck you! I'm f**king Dick Cheney Prince of the Underworld and you can't touch me."

on a serious note: Thanks for the post. I live overseas and saw only a blip of the story on my way to work.

[texpatriot2004]

68. Just heard this news on KO. WTF? Not dismissed on the merits

of the actual case they said. So, it was all in a days work at the WH - COMMITTING TREASON! That's it?

Oh this makes me mad :mad:

[ProudDad]

69. Didn't they get this judge's name wrong

shouldn't it be Norman Bates --- he used to run a motel... :crazy:

[CK_John]

72. Just the first step in a long march. n/t

[cassiepriam]

75. It is now official. The United States of America no longer has a court system.

[leftist.]

77. Lawyers, help! Plame vs Paula Jones

I know there's an explanation, I'm just not smart enough to think of it myself. How was Jones allowed to go through with her silly case against Clinton and this one is pushed back a bit? This one seems the more serious of the two.

Thanks.