The purpose of this post is to posit the inexpert, non-authoritative and quite possibly nonsensical scenario that NJ Superior Court Judge Innes might only grant a partial stay,, or postponement, of the release of the Corzine and Katz emails pending their appeal.
On May 29, 2008 Superior Court Judge Innes decided the emails exchanged by Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz during recent labor negotiations are public documents and must therefore be released to the public. Upon the opinion's May 30, 2008 release, Attorney General Ann Milgram immediately responded by stating the decision by Judge Innes will, if necessary, be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. A result of her commitment to pursue the appellate process is the likely hood the case will drag into the 2009 gubnatorial election year.
CORZINE MAY ASK THE COURT TO STAY RELEASE OF ALL DOCUMENTS PENDING APPEAL BUT MIGHT ONLY GET A PARTIAL STAY.
Pursuant to the Judge Innes' order it appears that approximately 796 pages of documents are ordered to be released to the public. According to the Asbury Park Press "Corzine's office gave up to 796 pages to the judge to be reviewed ... Corzine spokeswoman Deborah Howlett said 'Friday's court decision requiring Corzine to release e-mails between himself, his staff and Carla Katz involved 72 e-mails.' ... Howlett said they include 11 from the governor to Katz, 50 from Katz to the governor and 11 from Katz to Tom Shea, who was Corzine's chief of staff at the time. Howlett said these e-mails account for exactly 100 pages. ... Howlett said most of those [other] pages were legislation and newspaper articles, for example, that explain and support the
e-mails."
It seems that Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz are entitled to have the trial court order that releases these documents, and thus the opinion the order is based on, reviewed by an appellate panel. N.J.R.CP. 2:2-3.
Because Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz have a right to an appellate review it also seems they have the right to ask the court to stay the order releasing the Corzine & Katz emails until after the appellate court has made and announced its decision. N.J.R.CP. 2:9-5B. Logic suggests, however, the court may only partially grant the request.
The reasons to grant a stay are (1) release of emails alleged by Corzine and Katz to be deliberative prior to appellate review would effectively make any appellate decision meaningless, and (2) release risks irreparable harm to the Governor and Ms. Katz as an appellate ruling favorable to them could not have the intended result of preventing public disclosure.
Conversely, it seems utterly fantastic that the Governor will claim that documents such as newspaper articles are confidential. Thankfully, Governor Corzine's characterization of the emails or attachments as deliberative, however, will not decide the matter. One must believe the court will differentiate between deliberative writings and plain and / or investigative facts. This is especially true for documents available at the local library or available from the Office of Legislative Services.
Thus, it seems reasonable that simple facts such as legislation and newspaper articles, standing alone, are not inherently deliberative, and without more, do not deserve protection pending appeal. Furthermore, it also seems reasonable that, given the court has a power to redact deliberative material; such facts should not be allowed to be concealed by their placement in a deliberative document. If so, such documents or such portions of documents could well be immediately released despite a pending appeal.
Showing posts with label email. Show all posts
Showing posts with label email. Show all posts
Friday, June 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
WILSON v CORZINE & KATZ: IS GOV. MENACING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE?
This post has three purposes concerning the Corzine-Katz emails. The first is to recognize that by all appearances the Judge has done his best governing the case. The second purpose is to recognize a unique confluence of events that, intentional or not, may open the door for an increasingly unpopular Governor to silently exert an inappropriate influence on the decision in Wilson v. Corzine & Katz. The third, and ultimate purpose, is to let Governor Corzine know we know what he knows and thus he should forget about it.
BACKGROUND
For Hamilton, Jefferson and Jay the ability of either the Executive or Legislative branch to exercise any power over judicial decision making is incompatible with a democratic republic: "`Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.'" Federalist Papers, No. 47.
The founding fathers sought to protect the judiciary from both Executive and Legislative encroachment by memorializing what is likened to lifetime tenure and permanent compensation in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. They reasoned;
“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. ... it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” Federalist Papers, No.78. “NEXT to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support. The remark made in relation to the President is equally applicable here. In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’S SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.” Federalist Papers, No. 79.
INFLUENCE
The issue of Executive influence takes two forms in Corzine – Katz. The first is somewhat subtle and indirect – The matter of another judicial pay increase is to be decided during the November lame duck session of the legislature. The second is direct and obvious – the Judge deciding Corzine- Katz does not have life tenure and is thus dependent on favorable near term action by the Governor to obtain it.
First, Corzine – Katz is being tried by a bench trial in the Mercer County Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. It also appears the Judge may live in the Mercer County. This is important because on September 25, 2007, ten days before the most recent hearing in Corzine-Katz, the article about judicial pay increases suddenly appears in the Trenton Times. Reporter Linda Stein writes that “Two months after getting their first pay raise in five years, Superior Court judges are seeking another increase, officials confirmed on Tuesday.” Stein goes on to write:
“Tammy Kendig, a spokeswoman for the state judiciary, said the administrative Office of the Courts will ask the legislature to consider another salary boost for the Judges in November after the election.” The next hearing date concerning the Corzine- Katz emails is scheduled for November 15, 2007.
Furthermore, since the first article, numerous news stories concerning a judicial pay raise are published. The following news report list is meant to be representative rather than inclusive. Moreover, it is not to suggest a press conspiracy. Rather, it is a statement that another pay increase is news and good news distribution includes frequency and reach.
“Shame on Judges for Salary Whining” - Asbury Park Press, 09/30/07
“Judges Don’t Need Another Pay Bump” – Courier Post, 09/30/07
“Chief Justice Says State Judges Deserve Another Raise” – Press of Atlantic City, 10/11/07
“Judges have No Case for Another Pay Raise” – Home News Tribune, 10/11/07
“N.J. Chief Justice Calls judges Underpaid” – Asbury Park Press, 10/12/07
Now, at first glance, the Governor’s power to determine whether or not the State’s judges get a pay raise may appear to make no difference in Corzine-Katz. Each and every New Jersey Superior Court Judge would face the same outside pressure as Judge Inness. Moreover, there is no plan to lower judicial pay. The purpose is more subtle. Objectively, both the timing and detail of these stories is to matter-of-factly catch the attention of all the Judges in general, and the attention of Judge Innes in particular. Peer pressure.
Accordingly, Judge Innes faces the carrot and the stick. He faces Governor Corzine’s informal power to push the legislature for or against a raise, as well as the Governor’s real power to approve or veto any lame duck November legislation that raises judicial pay.
Second, Judge Inness does not have life tenure (tenure during good behavior). The Judge was appointed for a seven year term in 2002. Governor Corzine was elected in 2006 and his term expires in 2010. Thus, Judge Inness must again be nominated by Governor Corzine and confirmed by the Senate in 2009 before his tenure can be permanent. The decision as to whether the Judge continues on the bench rests first and therefore solely, with whether Governor Corzine chooses to nominate him. If not, he will no longer be a judge.
It would therefore seem prudent to remember ;
The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress. Federalist papers, No. 78.
BACKGROUND
For Hamilton, Jefferson and Jay the ability of either the Executive or Legislative branch to exercise any power over judicial decision making is incompatible with a democratic republic: "`Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.'" Federalist Papers, No. 47.
The founding fathers sought to protect the judiciary from both Executive and Legislative encroachment by memorializing what is likened to lifetime tenure and permanent compensation in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. They reasoned;
“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. ... it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” Federalist Papers, No.78. “NEXT to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support. The remark made in relation to the President is equally applicable here. In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’S SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.” Federalist Papers, No. 79.
INFLUENCE
The issue of Executive influence takes two forms in Corzine – Katz. The first is somewhat subtle and indirect – The matter of another judicial pay increase is to be decided during the November lame duck session of the legislature. The second is direct and obvious – the Judge deciding Corzine- Katz does not have life tenure and is thus dependent on favorable near term action by the Governor to obtain it.
First, Corzine – Katz is being tried by a bench trial in the Mercer County Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. It also appears the Judge may live in the Mercer County. This is important because on September 25, 2007, ten days before the most recent hearing in Corzine-Katz, the article about judicial pay increases suddenly appears in the Trenton Times. Reporter Linda Stein writes that “Two months after getting their first pay raise in five years, Superior Court judges are seeking another increase, officials confirmed on Tuesday.” Stein goes on to write:
“Tammy Kendig, a spokeswoman for the state judiciary, said the administrative Office of the Courts will ask the legislature to consider another salary boost for the Judges in November after the election.” The next hearing date concerning the Corzine- Katz emails is scheduled for November 15, 2007.
Furthermore, since the first article, numerous news stories concerning a judicial pay raise are published. The following news report list is meant to be representative rather than inclusive. Moreover, it is not to suggest a press conspiracy. Rather, it is a statement that another pay increase is news and good news distribution includes frequency and reach.
“Shame on Judges for Salary Whining” - Asbury Park Press, 09/30/07
“Judges Don’t Need Another Pay Bump” – Courier Post, 09/30/07
“Chief Justice Says State Judges Deserve Another Raise” – Press of Atlantic City, 10/11/07
“Judges have No Case for Another Pay Raise” – Home News Tribune, 10/11/07
“N.J. Chief Justice Calls judges Underpaid” – Asbury Park Press, 10/12/07
Now, at first glance, the Governor’s power to determine whether or not the State’s judges get a pay raise may appear to make no difference in Corzine-Katz. Each and every New Jersey Superior Court Judge would face the same outside pressure as Judge Inness. Moreover, there is no plan to lower judicial pay. The purpose is more subtle. Objectively, both the timing and detail of these stories is to matter-of-factly catch the attention of all the Judges in general, and the attention of Judge Innes in particular. Peer pressure.
Accordingly, Judge Innes faces the carrot and the stick. He faces Governor Corzine’s informal power to push the legislature for or against a raise, as well as the Governor’s real power to approve or veto any lame duck November legislation that raises judicial pay.
Second, Judge Inness does not have life tenure (tenure during good behavior). The Judge was appointed for a seven year term in 2002. Governor Corzine was elected in 2006 and his term expires in 2010. Thus, Judge Inness must again be nominated by Governor Corzine and confirmed by the Senate in 2009 before his tenure can be permanent. The decision as to whether the Judge continues on the bench rests first and therefore solely, with whether Governor Corzine chooses to nominate him. If not, he will no longer be a judge.
It would therefore seem prudent to remember ;
The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress. Federalist papers, No. 78.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
POLLS: KATZ NOT BRAND, CORZINE – KATZ MADE PUBLIC
Farleigh Dickenson and Quinnipiac University have both released polling data which seem to contradict each other as to the impact of local Communication Workers of America (CWA) President Carla Katz's relationship with Governor Corzine. From September 18 – 23, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,230 , pg.3, New Jersey voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind poll of 701 likely voters statewide was conducted from September 17 through September 23 and has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.
At first blush the polls may appear contradictory and therefore open to spin. Fairleigh reports that 428 (61 %) of the 701 surveyed have not heard of Carla Katz (pg.3) . Quinnipiac, however, finds that 677 (55 %) of the 1,230 surveyed (pg.12) think Corzine - Katz - Riccio should be a matter of public record. The implied contradiction is if people do not know recognize the name “Carla Katz” how can they think the Corzine -Katz emails should be released to the public? The apparent inconsistency is especially interesting because the July 22, 2007 Monmouth University - Gannett poll found "about half (49%) , pg.6, of the New Jersey public have heard reports about emails Corzine exchanged with Carla Katz, a former girlfriend who heads one of the CWA locals involved in the state contract negotiations this year.
Finally, none of the polls demonstrate the attributes of bias or disinformation associated with a “push poll”.
The answer seems to be context. Fairleigh asked participants’ , pgs. 1 - 3, were asked four similar questions in succession; (1) have you heard of Jon Corzine? (2) Have you heard of Frank Lautenberg? (3) Have you heard of Bob Menendez? And, (4) have you heard of Carla Katz?
The conclusion to be drawn from this progression is the independent brand name recognition for “Carla Katz” is somewhat low. Why independent? It’s called the Zeigarnik effect. Just as a restaurant waiter only remembers orders as long as the order is in the process of being served,
so survey participants only remember the question until it is answered. Therefore, survey respondents are associating the names as separate brands of politician and are not thinking about and in fact have forgot about Jon Corzine when they answered the Katz question.
Carla Katz’ low name, or brand, recognition, however, is not a plus for the Democrats since voters’ not familiar with her apart from Governor Corzine have yet to form, or more probably express, their opinion about the Corzine – Katz email matter.
This leads one to the Quinnipiac poll. First, its strucure is equivalent to the Monmouth University - Gannett poll , pg.6.
Quinnipiac question 51, pg.11, reads as follows:
“It was recently reported that Governor Corzine gave gifts totaling $15,000 to Rocco Riccio, the brother-in law of former girlfriend Carla Katz. How much have you heard or read about this issue - A lot, some, only a little, or nothing at all?”
Question 52 reads (pg.12):
“The Governor says that he used private resources to help someone in financial trouble, it is a private relationship and should be a private matter. Others say these monetary gifts should be a matter of public record and suggest an independent investigation to be sure there is no conflict of interest. Which comes closer to your view on this issue - It is a private matter between Jon Corzine and Rocco Riccio or it should be a matter of public record and independent investigation?”
Answers to # 51 show 873 (71%) of the 1230 people surveyed had at least some familiarity with the matter. And, answers to #52 show 677 (55%) think Corzine-Riccio should be a matter of public record and an independent investigation.
At first blush the polls may appear contradictory and therefore open to spin. Fairleigh reports that 428 (61 %) of the 701 surveyed have not heard of Carla Katz (pg.3) . Quinnipiac, however, finds that 677 (55 %) of the 1,230 surveyed (pg.12) think Corzine - Katz - Riccio should be a matter of public record. The implied contradiction is if people do not know recognize the name “Carla Katz” how can they think the Corzine -Katz emails should be released to the public? The apparent inconsistency is especially interesting because the July 22, 2007 Monmouth University - Gannett poll found "about half (49%) , pg.6, of the New Jersey public have heard reports about emails Corzine exchanged with Carla Katz, a former girlfriend who heads one of the CWA locals involved in the state contract negotiations this year.
Finally, none of the polls demonstrate the attributes of bias or disinformation associated with a “push poll”.
The answer seems to be context. Fairleigh asked participants’ , pgs. 1 - 3, were asked four similar questions in succession; (1) have you heard of Jon Corzine? (2) Have you heard of Frank Lautenberg? (3) Have you heard of Bob Menendez? And, (4) have you heard of Carla Katz?
The conclusion to be drawn from this progression is the independent brand name recognition for “Carla Katz” is somewhat low. Why independent? It’s called the Zeigarnik effect. Just as a restaurant waiter only remembers orders as long as the order is in the process of being served,
so survey participants only remember the question until it is answered. Therefore, survey respondents are associating the names as separate brands of politician and are not thinking about and in fact have forgot about Jon Corzine when they answered the Katz question.
Carla Katz’ low name, or brand, recognition, however, is not a plus for the Democrats since voters’ not familiar with her apart from Governor Corzine have yet to form, or more probably express, their opinion about the Corzine – Katz email matter.
This leads one to the Quinnipiac poll. First, its strucure is equivalent to the Monmouth University - Gannett poll , pg.6.
Quinnipiac question 51, pg.11, reads as follows:
“It was recently reported that Governor Corzine gave gifts totaling $15,000 to Rocco Riccio, the brother-in law of former girlfriend Carla Katz. How much have you heard or read about this issue - A lot, some, only a little, or nothing at all?”
Question 52 reads (pg.12):
“The Governor says that he used private resources to help someone in financial trouble, it is a private relationship and should be a private matter. Others say these monetary gifts should be a matter of public record and suggest an independent investigation to be sure there is no conflict of interest. Which comes closer to your view on this issue - It is a private matter between Jon Corzine and Rocco Riccio or it should be a matter of public record and independent investigation?”
Answers to # 51 show 873 (71%) of the 1230 people surveyed had at least some familiarity with the matter. And, answers to #52 show 677 (55%) think Corzine-Riccio should be a matter of public record and an independent investigation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
