UPDATE…LOCAL CASE NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS…OR NOT???

 

 

https://examplepro.me/2016/05/21/local-case-national-implecationsor-not/

 

Since I posted the teaser linked above a lot of folks have reached out to me with questions, primarily when will there be more. Most of those questions started coming in when I reached out to United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch in an effort to obtain her comments and ask a few questions. HONEST people I am working on this but it takes some time, analysis of the documents, attempts to get interviews from both sides, and corroborating my sources, something other local media outlets are unwilling to do. The Spokesman Review for example was provided information about the Bolton case as well as similar EEOC complaints in the local US Attorney’s Office two years ago when knowledge was widespread in the local legal community, including the possible involvement of Senator Patty Murray in the case, something Jim Camden was supposedly going to look into.

 

This case could really get interesting since two local criminal justice figures keep coming up including Jim McDevitt the former local US Attorney now leader of the Spokane Police Department, and Larry Haskell our current County Prosecutor who worked for a short period of time for McDevitt in the US Attorney’s Office.

In reaching out to some of the individuals involved in this case so far the only one who has responded is Bolton’s lawyer Mary Schultz who has agreed to answer questions once I have them formulated. Not being a complete dummy and knowing Mary from back in the day one of the first things I did establish with her is whether or not she is still involved in Karate to the extent she used to be, her response was “I’m still living Karate.” Be assured this reporter will still ask my usual pointed and hard questions…just from a safe distance!

 

Some folks are wondering why I would reach out to US Attorney General Loretta Lynch for comment, indicating she will never talk to you. They may be right but I have to at least try since she stated the following in her attempt to get the Bolton case dismissed and I would guess silence the bad press. The USAG’s attempt to have the case dismissed of course failed.

____________________________

  1. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Title VII claims related to the Agency’s decision to suspend her security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI are not justiciable because they would require the Court to second-guess national security determinations that are constitutionally committed to the “broad” discretion of the Executive Branch. Such claims are not subject to judicial review – under Title VII or otherwise – and as a result, they should be dismissed. Therefore, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the following claims: (1) the USAO management’s inquiry into the security breach; (2) the referral of Plaintiff’s actions – obtaining, without authorization, Privacy Act protected personnel information of other Agency employees – to other DOJ offices and individuals, including, but not limited to, the DOJ OIG and DOJ security personnel; (3) the subsequent investigation into Plaintiff’s actions by the DOJ OIG, which substantiated the allegations against Plaintiff; (4) Plaintiff’s placement on paid administrative leave; (5) the suspension of Plaintiff’s TS security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI; (6) Plaintiff’s indefinite suspension without pay from her position as an AUSA; and (7) Plaintiff’s constructive discharge.

 

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2016.

 

LORETTA E. LYNCH

United States Attorney General

s/ Ann E. Harwood

ANN E. HARWOOD

Special Attorney

 

Case 2:15-cv-00294-DWM Document 20 Filed 04/28/16

_________________________________

 

USAG Lynch clearly states in her filing that in her opinion based on the constitution the Executive Branch has broad discretion regarding suspension and eligibility for access to National Security Information.

________________________________

“Plaintiff’s Title VII claims related to the Agency’s decision to suspend her security clearance and eligibility for access to NSI are not justiciable because they would require the Court to second-guess national security determinations that are constitutionally committed to the “broad” discretion of the Executive Branch”

_________________________________

The question I would ask USAG Lynch, should be pretty obvious… “How does your position in the Bolton Case correlate to the Hillary Clinton Case?” I would of course have a number of follow-up questions.

 

Hopefully that explains why I made the effort. I have this feeling that USAG Lynch really doesn’t have much knowledge of this case. The odd thing about this case is that it appears, at least at this point, to be the “good ole boy” network versus the gals stepping up and complaining about it, yet nearly the entire case is in the hands of gals, Jill Bolton the plaintiff, Mary Schultz her lawyer, USAG Loretta Lynch the defendant, and Anne Harwood the USAG’s lawyer…. IRONIC TO SAY THE LEAST!

 

TRUST ME I’M WORKING ON IT SO THAT I REPORT YOU DECIDE!!!

 

Your Response Here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s