-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Judge Again Bars Effort to Keep Cheney Files Secret November 28, 2002 By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - A federal judge today again rejected Bush administration efforts to protect as confidential documents from Vice President Dick Cheney's energy committee. The 36-page ruling is the latest step in a lengthy procedural dispute between the White House and Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Nothing of substance was resolved in the ruling. The White House has ignored Judge Sullivan's rulings, going over his head by asking a higher court to exempt Mr. Cheney from having to comply with the judge's orders over the last five months to turn over the documents. The judge set Dec. 12 as the next time for the administration to meet back in court with the two groups, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, that brought the case. The earlier order compelling the White House to release the documents by Dec. 9 remains in effect. The case is also in two other forums, and either could see action before Dec. 9. First, the administration has gone directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to appeal Judge Sullivan's earlier orders that require it to produce nonprivileged documents or explain in detail why it does not want to. Second, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, is suing Mr. Cheney, arguing that the White House has to disclose whom Mr. Cheney met as he formulated energy policy and what they discussed. The Sierra Club suit says the administration violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act by refusing to tell the public how it developed that policy. Environmental groups say energy companies that were big contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 wielded undue influence in formulating the policy. The administration says that it has made public 36,000 pages of documents and that releasing additional files would jeopardize the ability of advisers to speak candidly with the president and vice president. A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Monica Goodling, said: "What is at issue at this point is a limited number of additional documents from the president's closest advisers, the disclosure of which would raise serious constitutional concerns. "We believe that the president's constitutional authority to gather candid advice from his advisers is so important that we are appealing this issue through the court of appeals and an application to the D.C. Circuit." A lawyer for the Sierra Club, Sanjay Narayan, said the administration had not produced any of the documents that his group sought. "The question is whether the White House is subject to discovery at all," Mr. Narayan said. "The administration says the White House is beyond the court's reach and can't be asked any questions. The judge has rejected that. So they went to the Court of Appeals, saying that what Judge Sullivan did was so extraordinary that it requires their immediate intervention." In his ruling today, Judge Sullivan said the administration's merely disagreeing with his opinions was not a sufficient basis for circumventing his court. "Sullivan," Mr. Narayan said, "basically said he doesn't want to hear this anymore and that he thinks they are basing their arguments to the Court of Appeals on mischaracterizations of the law and of the record." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/politics/28CHEN.html?ex=1039490124&ei=1&en=40d53ecff3b29c03 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
