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.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.
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.
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.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.
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."
Also more HERE and HERE.