Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, September 6, 2010


The story of Inspector General Gerald Walpin being fired made some significant waves in the summer of 2009 as far as political scandals go. It's not over apparently. In June of 2009, Walpin was fired by the Obama administration after given 45 minutes notice. A law designed to protect IGs, which Obama voted for when a Senator, states that Inspectors General must be given 30 days notice before getting fired pending congressional review. This was written into the law to afford IGs protection against politically motivated firings - IGs often uncover uncomfortable truths when allowed to do their jobs.

That's exactly what Walpin claims happened to him. So he filed a lawsuit demanding his job back. Small problem. The judge assigned to the case - U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts - appears to have quite a cozy back-scratching relationship with Attorney General Eric Holder.

The Washington Times reported on September 1st:
''I've got your back." That's what U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts said to his decades-long friend, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., in introducing the AG at an April 22 speech at Vassar College. At that time, Judge Roberts was ignoring several legal deadlines to the benefit of Mr. Holder's administration on numerous motions and countermotions in a key lawsuit for which Mr. Holder's underlings effectively were acting as defense attorneys.

Pressed by a higher court to justify his delays, Judge Roberts two months later ruled completely in the administration's favor - tossing out the suit, without trial, of Gerald A. Walpin, the AmeriCorps inspector general whose investigations had embarrassed several of President Obama's friends.
Now Walpin is not only demanding that his case be reinstated but that it be put in front of a new judge. The relationship between Roberts and Holder is quite extensive and goes back many years. Based on Roberts' stalling and ultimate dismissal of Walpin's case given obvious reasons to allow it to proceed, the argument that Roberts should have recused himself appears well-founded.

WND reported:
Roberts dismissed Walpin's suit on June 17 of this year, on the grounds that the act does not guarantee that even an illegally fired inspector general will get his job back.

In an August 30 brief, attorneys representing Walpin asked the district court of the District of Columbia to reinstate the case, and either reassign it to another judge or order Roberts to adjudicate it swiftly and fairly.

The brief argues that Roberts repeatedly ignored deadlines, denying Walpin swift justice and dragging the case out for nearly a year, to the benefit of the Obama administration. Conversely, it also points out that Roberts took less than 24 hours to reject Walpin's nearly 500-page motion for a preliminary injunction.

As Walpin's attorneys pointed out, the motion constituted "a volume realistically impossible to digest in that short time."

Roberts rejected the motion in one terse sentence: "Plaintiff had failed to make an adequate showing that he risks suffering irreparable injury."
Be sure to read both the WND piece as well as the Washington Times piece if you need a refresher on the details surrounding Walpin's firing, which included his contention that Obama friend, former NBA basketball star, and Sacramento mayor, Kevin Johnson misused government money.

Also more HERE and HERE.

No comments:

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive