 |
| Judge Richard Kopf |
Senior judge Richard Kopf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska the other day ruled in favor of Stephanie Rose and the government in the case that fired assistant U.S. attorney Martha Fagg brought against the Justice Department. Fagg had alleged harassment and discrimination while the U.S. attorney’s office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa was run by Rose, who now is a federal judge in Des Moines.
It was kind of a nasty case, and it was particularly interesting because it involved a federal judge relying in part on the testimony of two other federal judges as he wrote about a fight between a fourth federal judge and the daughter of a fifth federal judge. It involved “the careers and reputations of several lawyers and a judge,” Kopf noted, and he called the three principals -- Rose, Fagg and assistant U.S. Attorney Teresa Baumann, “fine people and very good lawyers.”
He went on to say that “nothing worthwhile would be served by reciting a litany of facts, with ‘blow-by-blow’ details, except to needlessly sully reputations or feed the voracious appetites of voyeurs.”
Then he sullied reputations and fed the voracious appetites of voyeurs.
“In my opinion, there is absolutely no question that Fagg was openly disrespectful of Rose and Baumann,” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
“At times, and in my opinion, [the efforts of Rose and Baumann] to bring oversight and discipline to the Civil Division, and Fagg in particular, were overly zealous and harsh,” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
“Rose and Fagg are unrepentant ‘hard heads,’” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
“Were it not for the lawyers representing the parties, I would be utterly depressed,” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
Parties in a lawsuit deserve to know why they won or lost. What the judge thinks of them -- be they hard-heads or zealous or disrespectful -- is irrelevant. How he came to his ruling -- how those blow-by-blow details figured in -- is relevant.
As for those voyeurs with voracious appetites -- well, one judge’s voyeur is another’s citizen trying to explore, or perhaps explain, democracy in action.
It was kind of a nasty case, and it was particularly interesting because it involved a federal judge relying in part on the testimony of two other federal judges as he wrote about a fight between a fourth federal judge and the daughter of a fifth federal judge. It involved “the careers and reputations of several lawyers and a judge,” Kopf noted, and he called the three principals -- Rose, Fagg and assistant U.S. Attorney Teresa Baumann, “fine people and very good lawyers.”
He went on to say that “nothing worthwhile would be served by reciting a litany of facts, with ‘blow-by-blow’ details, except to needlessly sully reputations or feed the voracious appetites of voyeurs.”
Then he sullied reputations and fed the voracious appetites of voyeurs.
“In my opinion, there is absolutely no question that Fagg was openly disrespectful of Rose and Baumann,” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
“At times, and in my opinion, [the efforts of Rose and Baumann] to bring oversight and discipline to the Civil Division, and Fagg in particular, were overly zealous and harsh,” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
“Rose and Fagg are unrepentant ‘hard heads,’” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
“Were it not for the lawyers representing the parties, I would be utterly depressed,” he wrote, without citing any facts to back that up.
Parties in a lawsuit deserve to know why they won or lost. What the judge thinks of them -- be they hard-heads or zealous or disrespectful -- is irrelevant. How he came to his ruling -- how those blow-by-blow details figured in -- is relevant.
As for those voyeurs with voracious appetites -- well, one judge’s voyeur is another’s citizen trying to explore, or perhaps explain, democracy in action.
No comments:
Post a Comment