text:
User talk:Imchrisru

Stop vandalising Wikipedia
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 21:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 21:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely as all of your changes were vandalism. Hall Monitor 21:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Imchrisru


text:
Talk:Mike Marshall (musician)

Untitled
I want to give my heart-felt thanks to whomever created this article. Nonetheless, it needs considerable attention, especially in giving it an encyclopedic tone. -Acjelen 21:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll see what I can do over the summer. Dan 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mike Marshall should be described as a "mandolinist", not a "bluegrass musician" since he works in several traditions. -Eric 18:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, he is described that way, at least in the article's introduction. -Acjelen 00:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you are referring to the paranthetical in the article title. I wonder which would be better Mike Marshall (mandolin), Mike Marshall (mandolinist) or Mike Marshall (mandolin player)? -Acjelen 00:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, Marshall plays other instruments, so perhaps Mike Marshall (acoustic musician) would work best. -Acjelen

I agree with Acjelen, i believe that mike marshall started on guitar when he played with the david grisman quintet, i think he also plays fiddle and banjo........Piratebob13 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Odd. First a notice on my watchlist about changes to Short Trip Home (about Mike Marshall).  Then changes to Mike Marshall's talk page (or rather the Mike Marshall article's talk page).  Is it a coincidence?  There's no reason we can't be bold Piratebob13.  Oh never mind.  Someone already was. -Acjelen 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)  While I was typing! -Acjelen 20:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as the individual members of the Soultans don't rate a page, this page should be at Mike Marshall (musician) with a note at the top reading something like: "For the R&B musician of the same name, see the German band, the Soultans"--this is assuming that the Soultans are notable enought to have a page (which is not obvious to me). -MrFizyx 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Mike Marshall (musician)


text:
Plame affair grand jury investigation

The CIA leak grand jury investigation (related to the "CIA leak scandal", also known as the "Plame affair") was a federal inquiry "into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee's identity", a possible violation of criminal statutes, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 793.

CIA leak scandal ("Plame affair")
The "CIA leak scandal", or the "Plame affair", refers to a dispute stemming from allegations that one or more White House officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity as "Valerie Plame" to reporters.

In his July 14, 2003 Washington Post column, Robert Novak revealed the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame, wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had covert status. Wilson, a former U.S. Ambassador, had criticized the Bush Administration in a July 6, 2003, editorial in  The New York Times. Wilson argued that the Bush Administration misrepresented intelligence prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In his column, Novak diminished Wilson's claims:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate ..."

On October 1, 2003, Richard Armitage told both Secretary of State Colin Powell and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that he "was the inadvertent leak".

Appointment of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
On September 26, 2003, at the request of the CIA, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft initially headed up the investigation. On August 13, 2005, journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Karl Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall. In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, from whose prior campaigns Rove had been paid $746,000 in consulting fees, had been briefed on the contents of at least one of Rove's interviews with the FBI, raising concerns of a conflict of interest. An October 2, 2003 New York Times article similarly connected Karl Rove to the matter and highlighted his prior employment in three previous political campaigns for Ashcroft. Ashcroft subsequently recused himself from the investigation, apparently at the end of December 2003.

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed Special Counsel on December 30, 2003.

Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney:

"By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department."

Fitzgerald began investigations into the leak working from White House telephone records turned over to the FBI in October 2003.

Fitzgerald learned of Armitage's role in the leak "shortly after his appointment in 2003".

The first grand jury
On October 31, 2003, a grand jury was sworn in and began taking testimony. A complete list of witnesses to testify there is not known, in part because Fitzgerald has conducted his investigation with much more discretion than previous presidential investigations.

Some individuals have acknowledged giving testimony, including White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former special advisor to the president Karen Hughes, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Fitzgerald interviewed both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

Legal filings by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by Plame's identity being revealed.

In March 2004, the Special Counsel subpoenaed the telephone records of Air Force One.

Cabinet

 * Alberto Gonzales — Attorney General, then serving as White House Counsel
 * Colin Powell — former Secretary of State on August 16, 2004

CIA

 * George Tenet — former Director
 * Bill Harlow — former spokesman
 * John McLaughlin — Deputy Director

Vice-President's Office

 * Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr. — Chief of Staff
 * Mary Matalin — former advisor

President

 * Karen Hughes — former special advisor
 * Karl Rove — Senior Advisor
 * Israel Hernandez — former advisor to Karl Rove, Commerce Department official
 * Susan Ralston — secretary to Karl Rove

White House Press Office

 * Claire Buchan — Deputy Press Secretary
 * Ari Fleischer — former Press Secretary
 * Adam Levine (press aide) — former press aide
 * Scott McClellan — Press Secretary

Other government officials

 * Carl Ford — former director of Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the State Department.

Media

 * Matt Cooper — Time journalist
 * Judith Miller — The New York Times journalist
 * Walter Pincus — Washington Post journalist
 * Bob Woodward — Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor
 * Robert Novak — columnist who published Plame's identity
 * Viveca Novak — Time magazine reporter
 * Tim Russert — NBC News senior correspondent, host of Meet the Press

Other

 * Robert Luskin — attorney for Karl Rove.

Journalists and contempt of court
Several journalists have testified on this matter.

Novak
Columnist Robert Novak, who later admitted that the CIA attempted to dissuade him from revealing Plame's name in print, "appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor" (according to Newsweek) and he was not charged with contempt of court.

Cooper
On July 2, 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to TIME reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in TIME, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials", confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction". Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA". This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If Rove were aware that this was classified information at the time, then both disclaimers by his lawyer would be untrue. Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of July 3, 2005 ) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper.

On July 6, 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying", but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" an indication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph).

Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. The 'dramatic change' which allowed Cooper to testify was later revealed to be a phone conversation between lawyers for Cooper and his source confirming that the waiver signed two years earlier applied to conversations with Cooper. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case", The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question, a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer. According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.

Cooper testified before a grand jury on July 13, 2005, confirming that Rove was the source who told him Wilson's wife was an employee of the CIA. In the July 17, 2005 TIME magazine article detailing his grand jury testimony, Cooper wrote that Rove never used Plame's name nor indicated that she had covert status, although Rove did apparently convey that certain information relating to her was classified: "As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which, ... [but] was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me." Cooper also explained to the grand jury that the "double super secret background" under which Rove spoke to him was not an official White House or TIME magazine source or security designation, but an allusion to the 1978 film Animal House, in which a college fraternity is placed under "double secret probation".

Miller
New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who met with Lewis Libby on July 8, 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Plame affair, but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to confidential sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On June 27, 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari, TIME magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper, and Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury after receiving a waiver from his source. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigations.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller served a civil contempt jail sentence from early July 2005 to September 29, 2005, for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

Miller was jailed on July 7, 2005, in Alexandria, Virginia. She was released on September 29, upon reaching an agreement with Fitzgerald to testify at a hearing scheduled on the morning of September 30, 2005. Miller indicated that her source, unlike Cooper's, had not sufficiently waived confidentiality. She issued a statement at a press conference after her release, stating that her source, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, had released her from her promise of confidentiality, saying her source "voluntarily and personally released [her] from [her] promise of confidentiality".

In August 2005 the American Prospect magazine reported that Lewis Libby testified he had discussed Plame with Miller during a July 8, 2003, meeting. Libby signed a general waiver allowing journalists to reveal their discussions with him on this matter, but American Prospect reported that Miller refused to honor this waiver on the grounds that she considered it coerced. Miller had said she would accept a specific individual waiver to testify, but contends Libby had not given her one until late September 2005. In contrast, Libby's lawyer has insisted that he had fully released Miller to testify all along.

On October 16, 2005, Judith Miller published an account of her grand jury testimony for the New York Times. In the article, titled "My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room", Miller writes:

"My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A. My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or 'operative', as the conservative columnist Robert D. Novak first described her in a syndicated column published on July 14, 2003. (Mr. Novak used her maiden name, Valerie Plame.) ... My interview notes show that Mr. Libby sought from the beginning, before Mr. Wilson's name became public, to insulate his boss from Mr. Wilson's charges. According to my notes, he told me at our June meeting that Mr. Cheney did not know of Mr. Wilson, much less know that Mr. Wilson had traveled to Niger, in West Africa, to verify reports that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium for a weapons program ... Although I was interested primarily in my area of expertise — chemical and biological weapons — my notes show that Mr. Libby consistently steered our conversation back to the administration's nuclear claims. His main theme echoed that of other senior officials: that contrary to Mr. Wilson's criticism, the administration had had ample reason to be concerned about Iraq's nuclear capabilities based on the regime's history of weapons development, its use of unconventional weapons and fresh intelligence reports. At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: 'Wife works at Winpac.' Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons. I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative ... Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words 'Valerie Flame', clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall."

The investigation expands to perjury and obstruction
On May 13, 2005, citing "close followers of the case", The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses. Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.

On October 6, 2005, Fitzgerald recalled Karl Rove, for the fourth time, to take the stand before the grand jury investigating the leak of Plame's identity. Fitzgerald had indicated that the only remaining witnesses to call were Cooper and Miller before he would close his case.

Indictment of Libby
On October 28, 2005, the grand jury issued a five-count indictment against Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, on felony charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to the FBI and the grand jury investigating the matter.

Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matt Cooper of Time magazine. According to the Indictment, the obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5, and March 24, 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury's investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.

From January 20, 2001, to October 28, 2005, Libby served as Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. After the indictment was released to the public, Libby resigned his position in the White House.

On November 3, 2005, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby entered a not guilty plea in front of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, a former prosecutor who has spent two decades as a judge in the nation's capital.

The second grand jury
The first grand jury's term expired on October 28, the day it indicted Libby. On November 18, 2005, Fitzgerald submitted new court papers indicating that he would use a new grand jury to assist him in his ongoing investigation. The use of a new grand jury could indicate that additional evidence or charges are coming, but experienced federal prosecutors cautioned against reading too much into Fitzgerald's disclosure:

"It could just mean that the prosecutor needs the powers of the grand jury" to further his investigation and make a final determination whether to charge, said Dan French, a former federal prosecutor now representing a witness in the inquiry.

"One of the greatest powers of the grand jury is the ability to subpoena witnesses ... and Fitzgerald may want that authority to pursue additional questions", French said. He might also need subpoenas to obtain documents, telephone records and executive branch agency security logs.

After a six-week break, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald presented information to a new grand jury on December 8, 2005.

Court proceedings
Due to the huge amount of classified material that had been requested by Libby's defense, David Corn speculated that Libby was using Graymail as defense tactic. Libby had added the graymail expert John D. Cline to his defense team.

In December 2005, Patrick Fitzgerald responded to a motion by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., to unseal all or part of the redacted portion of a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia opinion issued on February 15, 2005. The opinion pertained to oral arguments held on December 8, 2004. The opinion of the court was released on February 3, 2006, to the public. It states:

"As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as 'a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years' — representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support. (8/27/04 Aff. at 28 n.15.)"

On January 31, 2006, letters exchanged between Libby's lawyers and Fitzgerald's office concerning matters of discovery were released to the public. Reportedly, Fitzgerald states:

"A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document. In any event, we would not view an assessment of the damage caused by the disclosure as relevant to the issue of whether or not Mr. Libby intentionally lied when he made the statements and gave the grand jury testimony which the grand jury alleged was false."

On March 17, 2006, Patrick Fitzgerald filed the government's response to a motion by Scooter Libby's defense team to dismiss the indictments.

On April 5, 2006, Patrick Fitzgerald filed the government's response to a motion by Scooter Libby's defense team on issues of discovery. On April 12, 2006, Fitzgerald issued a correction to some of the information in the government's motion. In the memo, he writes:

"Nor would such documents of the CIA, NSC and the State Department place in context the importance of the conversations in which defendant participated. Defendant's participation in a critical conversation with Judith Miller on July 8 (discussed further below) occurred only after the Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE. Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation with reporter Miller — getting approval from the President through the Vice President to discuss material that would be classified but for that approval — were unique in his recollection. Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person's state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President."

Karl Rove testified before the new grand jury for the fifth time in the case on April 26, 2006, and, on June 12, 2006, his attorney stated that Rove had been formally notified by Fitzgerald that Rove would not be charged with any crimes.

According to Mike Allen, in Time magazine, Rove's attorney Robert D. Luskin told reporters that he received a fax from Fitzgerald indicating that "absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove". John Solomon of Associated Press reported that the news came by telephone rather than fax. The New York Times reported that the news was announced by Fitzgerald "in a letter to Mr. Luskin". Luskin's own public statement indicated only that he was "formally advised" of this news by Fitzgerald, and Luskin's office has so far refused to comment further on that statement.

In a court filing on May 12, 2006, Fitzgerald included a copy of Wilson's op-ed article in the New York Times "bearing handwritten notations by the vice president" (See photograph). Fitzgerald's filing declares that Libby ascertained Plame's name from Cheney through conferences by the vice president's office about "how to respond to a June 2003 inquiry from Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson's trip to Niger". In the filing, Fitzgerald states:

"The June 12, 2003, Washington Post article by Mr. Pincus (to whom both Mr. Wilson and the defendant spoke prior to publication of the article) is relevant because Mr. Pincus' questions to the OVP sparked discussion within the OVP, including conversations between the defendant and the Vice President regarding how Mr. Pincus' questions should be answered. It was during a conversation concerning Mr. Pincus' inquiries that the Vice President advised the defendant that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. (To be clear, the government does not contend that the defendant disclosed the employment of Ms. Plame to Mr. Pincus, and Mr. Pincus's article contains no reference to her or her employment.) The article by Mr. Pincus thus explains the context in which the defendant discussed Mr. Wilson's wife's employment with the Vice President. The article also served to increase media attention concerning the then-unnamed ambassador's trip and further motivated the defendant to counter Mr. Wilson's assertions, making it more likely that the defendant's disclosures to the press concerning Mr. Wilson's wife were not casual disclosures that he had forgotten by the time he was asked about them by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and before the grand jury."

Fitzgerald sought to compel Matt Cooper, a Time magazine correspondent who had covered the story, to disclose his sources to a grand jury. After losing all legal appeals up through the Supreme Court, Time turned over Cooper's notes to the prosecutor. Cooper agreed to testify after receiving permission from his source, Karl Rove, to do so. Robert Luskin confirmed Rove was Cooper's source. A July 11, 2003, e-mail from Cooper to his bureau chief indicated that Rove had told Cooper that it was Wilson's wife who authorized her husband's trip to Niger, mentioning that she "apparently" worked at "the agency" on weapons of mass destruction issues. Newsweek reported that nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggested that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative, although Cooper's Time magazine article describing his grand jury testimony noted that Rove said, "I've already said too much". Neither Newsweek nor Time released the complete Cooper e-mail.

On May 16, 2006, a transcript of court proceedings before Judge Reggie B. Walton was released. Libby's lawyers sought communications between Matthew Cooper and Massimo Calabresi, authors of an article published by Time magazine on July 17, 2003, and titled, "A War on Wilson?" Libby's lawyers contend that Massimo called Joe Wilson after Cooper learned from Karl Rove that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Libby's lawyers also told the judge they have an e-mail Cooper sent to his editor describing a July 12, 2003, conversation with Libby in which there is no mention of Plame or her CIA status. An e-mail was sent to Cooper's editor on July 16, 2003, "four days after his conversation with Mr. Libby and 5 days after his conversation with Mr. Rove, about the article they are planning to write in which they are going to mention the wife. And the e-mail says — talks about him having an administration source for the information about Ms. Wilson". Thus, Libby's lawyers sought communications between Massimo and Cooper to determine if Cooper conveyed to Massimo that Libby was a source as well for the information on Wilson's wife:

"And I submit to Your Honor there is — as you can see, the credibility of Mr. Cooper with respect to his description that Mr. Libby confirmed M[s]. Plame's employment by the C.I.A. is going to be very much at issue in this case. And that is what cases are all about, and we should be entitled to anything that Mr. Cooper has said ro that others have said or done, such as Mr. Massimo talking to Mr. Wilson on the basis of what Cooper said. And that kind of information is directly relevant to the cross-examination, and we submit that it should be enforced.  And certainly we have established specificity with respec to that.  The other thing I would say is this is the first I have heard that Time has a document that refers to Ms. Plame.  Now, perhaps, that's Mr. Copper's communication with Mr. Massimo, or perhaps it is Mr. Massimo's notes with Mr. Wilson.  I don't know, but certainly if there is a document that does refer to Ms. Plame prior to July 14, we submit that that's relevant and should be produced as well. That's all I have on Time and Cooper, Your Honor."

On May 26, 2006, Judge Walton ruled on the motion:

"However, upon reviewing the documents presented to it, the Court discerns a slight alteration between the several drafts of the articles, which the defense could arguably use to impeach Cooper. This slight alteration between the drafts will permit the defendant to impeach Cooper, regardless of the substance of his trial testimony, because his trial testimony cannot be consistent with both versions. Thus, unlike Miller, whose documents appear internally consistent and thus will only be admissible if she testifies inconsistently with these documents, Cooper's documents will undoubtedly be admissible. Because of the inevitability that Cooper will be a government witness at trial, this Court can fathom no reason to delay the production of these documents to the defendant, as they will undoubtedly be admissible for impeachment."

"For the reasons discussed above, this Court will grant reporter Judith Miller's motion to quash, and grant in part and deny in part the remaining motions. Therefore, at the appropriate times as designated in this opinion, those documents subject to production must be produced to the defendant so that they can be used as impeachment or contradiction evidence during the trial. In addition, based on the facts of this case, this Court declines to recognize a First Amendment reporters' privilege. And, the Court concludes that any common law reporters' privilege that may exist has been overcome by the defendant."

Richard Armitage is confirmed to be primary source of leak
On August 29, 2006, Neil A. Lewis reported in The New York Times that Richard Armitage has been confirmed to be the first and primary source of the CIA leak investigation. On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Valerie Plame's role as a CIA operative in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak.

On September 6, 2006, The New York Times noted that in 2003, early in his investigation, Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the primary source of the leak. The Times raised questions as to why the investigation proceeded as long as it did. New York Times

According to lawyers close to Libby, "the information about Mr. Armitage's role may help Mr. Libby convince a jury that his actions were relatively inconsequential".

Fitzgerald never issued a statement about Armitage's involvement.

The trial
The trial began on January 16, 2007.

Libby, who was questioned by the FBI in the fall of 2003 and testified before a Federal grand jury on March 5, 2004, and again on March 24, 2004, pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Libby retained attorney Ted Wells of the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to represent him in the case.

On January 23, 2007, the Associated Press reported that Wells alleged "that administration officials sought to blame Libby for the leak to protect Bush political adviser Karl Rove's own disclosures".

After Libby's motion to dismiss was denied, the press initially reported that he would testify at the trial. In February 2007, during the trial, however, numerous press reports stressed that whether or not he will testify was still uncertain, and, ultimately, he did not testify at trial.

The jury received the case for their deliberation on February 21, 2007.

Verdict
After deliberating for ten days, the jury rendered its verdict at noon on March 6, 2007. It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him — two counts of perjury, one count of obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to federal investigators — and acquitted him on one count of making false statements. Given current federal sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory, the convictions could result in a sentence ranging from no imprisonment to imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of one million US dollars. Given those non-binding guidelines, according to lawyer, author, New Yorker staff writer, and CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on Anderson Cooper 360°, such a sentence could likely be between "one and a half to three years". Sentencing was scheduled for June 2007. His lawyers have announced their intention to seek a new trial and, if that attempt fails, to appeal Libby's conviction.

Comment on the verdict by juror
As reported in CNN Newsroom, and subsequently on Larry King Live on CNN and by various other television networks, including MSNBC (on Scarborough Country), one juror — "Denis Collins, a Washington resident and self-described registered Democrat", who is a journalist and former reporter at The Washington Post and the author of a book on espionage and a novel — "said he and fellow jurors found that passing judgment on Libby was 'unpleasant.' But in the final analysis, he said jurors found Libby's story just too hard to believe ... 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like ... he was the fall guy' ... Collins said the jury believed Libby was 'tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.'"  Collins offers a day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial in an "Exclusive" at The Huffington Post.

Press coverage of the trial
Blogs have played a prominent role in the press coverage of this trial. Scott Shane, in his article "For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder", published in The New York Times on February 15, 2007, quotes Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, who observes that United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby is "the first federal case for which independent bloggers have been given official credentials along with reporters from the traditional news media".

Karl Rove
On June 13, 2006, Robert Luskin released the following statement:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove. In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

On June 14, 2006, Joe Wilson responded to Luskin's statement by stating that "this is a marathon ... it's not over." He referred other questions to a statement released by his lawyer, Christopher Wolf. In the statement, Wolf stated that "while it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."

Following the revelations in the Libby indictment, sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials urged President Bush to suspend Karl Rove's security clearance for his part in outing CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Media request CIA to unseal records
On December 22, 2006, the Associated Press reported that AP and Dow Jones, parent company of the Wall Street Journal, have requested a federal court to force the CIA to release testimony records. The AP and Dow Jones allege that special prosecutor Fitzgerald never needed to subpoena the media's records, including those of the New York Times and Washington Post, because he knew the source of the leak all along.

Criticism
Because the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch, some critics of the Bush Administration contend that the absence of rapid and effective action has been deliberate.

General Paul E. Vallely has criticized Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on FOX News for not contacting a number of people who publicly stated they knew of Plame's job at the CIA.

"Many of us as private citizens really challenged the depth and the extensiveness of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald because he never called in Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame, who was an analyst by the way, and that's documented, or any of the hierarchy of the CIA. And so to me that's an incomplete process and should probably be null and void."

General Vallely has been criticized by some for allegedly lying about his part in the affair. Vallely has claimed that Joe Wilson informed him that his wife was a covert agent, but did not reveal this until more than two years after the fact, and a year and a half after the investigation had begun.

An editorial in the Washington Post reads:

"The special counsel was principally investigating whether any official violated a law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent — and mostly erroneous — allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited. To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest ... That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury. No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire's face. In this case, they seem to have contributed to Mr. Fitzgerald's distressing decision to force a number of journalists to testify about conversations with a confidential source. Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove appear to have allowed the White House spokesman to put out false information about their involvement."

John W. Dean, the former counsel to Richard Nixon, writes in an open letter to Patrick Fitzgerald:

"In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of 'the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity.' (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004, you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are 'plenary.' In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States.

In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that 'A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information.'

Troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration.

Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration's crimes, and keep criminals in office.

The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters — and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else.

That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters."

Federal laws
Crimes
 * Conspiracy
 * Contempt
 * Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (full text)
 * Making false statements
 * Obstruction
 * Perjury
 * Treason

Fitzgerald's position
 * Special Counsel (under Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600)

Attorneys of record

 * Floyd Abrams — for Judith Miller, journalist at the New York Times.
 * Robert S. Bennett — for Judith Miller, journalist at the New York Times.
 * Daniel French — for Adam Levine, former White House press office staffer.
 * James Hamilton — for Robert Novak, syndicated journalist and media person.
 * William Jeffress — for Lewis Libby, former Vice-president Chief of Staff.
 * Don Kinsella — for Adam Levine, former White House press office staffer.
 * Robert Luskin — for Karl Rove.
 * Terrence O'Donnell — for Vice President Dick Cheney
 * James E. Sharp — for President George W. Bush.
 * Joseph Tate — for Lewis Libby, former Vice President Chief of Staff.
 * Ted Wells — for Lewis Libby, former Vice-president Chief of Staff.
 * Christopher Wolf — for Joseph Wilson and wife, Valerie Plame.

Judges

 * Judge Thomas Hogan — Chief U.S. District Judge
 * Judge Reggie Walton — U.S. District Judge

Special Counsel Office Attorneys

 * Patrick Fitzgerald, Special Counsel, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
 * Debra Riggs Bonamici, Deputy Special Counsel, from US Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois
 * Kathleen Kedian, Deputy Special Counsel, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC
 * James Fleissner, Deputy Special Counsel, Department of Justice (DOJ)
 * Ron Roos, Deputy Special Counsel, DoJ prosecutor — National Security Section.
 * Peter Zeidenberg, Deputy Special Counsel, DoJ prosecutor — Public Integrity Section.

Courthouses
Location of CIA leak grand jury
 * E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Pop culture
Another film closely paralleling the case is Nothing But the Truth, directed by Rod Lurie and starring Kate Beckinsale as a reporter who is imprisoned for revealing the identity of a CIA agent (played by Vera Farmiga), but not the sources of her information. The movie was released in 2008.

United States Courts

 * Biography of Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
 * United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel
 * United States District Court for the District of Columbia
 * United States District Court for the District of Columbia

title: Plame affair grand jury investigation


text:
Terence Butler

Terence Butler may refer to:
 * Geezer Butler (born Terence Butler 1949), English bassist of the band Black Sabbath
 * Terry Butler (born 1967), American bassist of the band Six Feet Under
 * Terry Butler (rugby league) (1958–2016), Australian rugby league footballer

title: Terence Butler


text: User talk:140.32.120.188

title: User talk:140.32.120.188


text:
User talk:Wizling

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Binabik80 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Wizling


text:
Courtyard Crisis

The Courtyard Crisis (Borggårdskrisen) was a constitutional conflict between Sweden's King Gustaf V and the Liberal Prime Minister Karl Staaff.

The crisis has been seen as the culmination of the struggle between the pro-King conservatives and the pro-parliamentary forces. It was rooted in differing views on how much money should be spent on defense - Gustaf V advocated higher funding than the government. World War I broke out in July 1914, six months after the Courtyard Speech, and united the parties on the defense issue.

Context
In 1909, universal and equal suffrage for men was introduced in the elections to the Andra kammaren (The Second Chamber of Parliament), significantly increasing the number of eligible voters to 1 million. This was a development that conservative political forces saw as threatening and wanted to stop. The right to vote in the Första kammaren (The First Chamber of Parliament) had also been extended after the 1909 reform - from 4,000 to 40 votes for the richest - but was still weighted, which meant that the conservatives continued to control the Första kammaren. The King and the conservatives thus had not only the will but also the opportunity to slow down the development towards greater democracy and parliamentarism.

In 1911, the liberal Karl Staaff formed a liberal government with the support of the Social Democrats, not least because new groups of voters with liberal and social democratic sympathies were given the opportunity to vote. The differences between the right and the left were already very great, and with the election of Staaff as prime minister, the differences deepened further. A major issue that the Liberals had pushed in their election program was to reduce defense spending. In 1911, more than half of the state budget was spent on defense, compared to 5.8% of the state budget in 2021. The right-wing government under Arvid Lindman that preceded Staaff's government had decided to build several new armored boats to expand the Swedish defense. With the Liberal election victory, the construction of the boats was stopped, which led to strong criticism from conservative quarters. The conservative reaction included right-wing politicians, the conservative newspapers, the military, the church and nationalist commentators.

The Ungkyrkorörelsen ("Young Church Movement") and the Conservatives each started their own private armored boat collection. Sven Hedin's book Ett varningsord ("A word of warning") was published in 1912 in a million copies. The book warned of Russia and described the horrors of an imaginary Russian occupation. The pro-King arguments followed the pattern of aggressive nationalism that was a common European phenomenon at the time. Down in Europe, the zeitgeist helped lower the threshold for the outbreak of violence in 1914. For Sweden, this meant a mixture of national romanticism, passion for Charles XII and fear of Russia. Attacks on Staaff were very vicious, from allegations of treason to the sale of ashtrays with Staaff's face on them.

Peasant armament support march
On December 21, 1913, Staaff relented and, against the background of increasing international tension, advocated in a speech the expansion of the navy and investments in the army. On the same day, there was a call for a peasant march in support of defense. The King's speech to the 30,000 farmers (The Courtyard Speech, Borggårdstalet, February 6, 1914) was a rhetorical masterpiece in the spirit of the times, written by Sven Hedin with the support of General Staff Officer Carl Bennedich. The King more or less distanced himself from the Staaff government, while at the same time asserting the personal power of the King, and thus the right to act as supreme commander. Contemporaries suspected that the speech had been written by Verner von Heidenstam, but this was not correct (see below).

The speech stated that the King demanded the right to dictate to the assembly what should be decided on matters of importance to him. He had spoken of "my army" and "my navy". Nor had he allowed the prime minister to read the speech in advance. The Social Democrats responded within a few days with a so-called workers' rally, with some 50,000 participants, in support of the Liberal government, under the slogan "The will of the people alone shall decide in the land of Sweden!"

Government crisis and aftermath
The King's Courtyard Speech could constitute a restriction of the power given to the government, which prompted the Prime Minister to ask him a number of questions shortly afterwards:

 * Did the King maintain what he had said in his speech, that the defense issue must be resolved in accordance with the military's "inescapable demands"? That is, against the government's proposals.

 * Had the King in any way taken into account any issue in the expected defense bill before the government had had the opportunity to present the matter to him?

The answers were not satisfactory to the Government. Staaff then presented the King with a proposal for a royal statement that involved a retreat. In addition, Staaff demanded that in future the King should inform the Prime Minister or the minister responsible in advance when the King made statements on political issues. Finally, the government threatened to resign unless the King could "graciously grant these wishes". These exchanges of correspondence between the King and Staaff were of course not public. However, the King responded publicly, referring to Staaff's proposals, which he considered impertinent, and declaring that he could not agree to this arrangement "as I do not wish to relinquish the right to communicate freely with the people of Sweden" - a response that brought the constitutional conflict to a head and showed that the King had no intention of giving in.

Government resignation
The Liberal government resigned as a consequence on February 10.

The leaders of the Liberal Party in the Riksdag expressed their almost universal solidarity with the minister and issued a manifesto stating that the political struggle had now become about "one of the foundations of all democratic politics; it concerns the self-government of the Swedish people". "The first main demand of the liberals: a parliamentary system of government, with the country's government based on the confidence of the people's representation, is thus jeopardized," they wrote.

The Conservative Party leadership, on the other hand, focused its manifesto primarily on the threatening foreign policy situation, which had led other peoples to "submit to the greatest personal and economic sacrifices in order to increase still further their defensive power". The manifesto continued: "Our people, faced with the gravity of the world situation, have no time to dwell on fruitless but grueling constitutional battles. The life of the realm demands that the question of our defense be settled now, without delay and in a coherent manner." As for the substance of the constitutional conflict itself, the Conservatives took the King's position: that he could not agree to the government's demands because it "would deprive him of a right that every Swedish citizen possesses".

In the manifesto of the Social Democratic Party, the constitutional conflict was described as "a struggle for or against the personal royal power in our country". "A court camarilla", it said, "which counts among its ranks notorious agitators against the power of the Riksdag over state life, has pushed the King to the unconstitutional step of proclaiming a personal policy on the question of armaments." This, according to the party, meant "a relapse into the position of royal autocracy" and was contrary to the deepest meaning of the advance of democracy in recent decades. On the question of defense, the Social Democrats advocated a reduction, rather than an increase, in defense costs and the training time of conscripts. Instead, the emphasis was on social reforms that promoted the material and cultural development of the whole people as "indispensable elements of a capable defense for our independence and our future prospects".

The King and his inner circle of advisers, including Queen Victoria, Marshal Ludvig Douglas, Ernst Trygger and Sven Hedin, had temporarily won, but it turned out that they had gone too far, even for the right-wing of the Riksdag. Preparations for a new government were inadequate. The right-wing party under Arvid Lindman had not wanted to dismiss the government in this way, even though the right-wing press eagerly supported the move. There were rumors of a coup d'état, and similar ideas were discussed between Hedin and Bennedich in their correspondence later in 1914.

New Elections
After a week, the government was succeeded by a government of civil-servants under the academic Hjalmar Hammarskjöld. This "courtyard government" decided to dissolve the second chamber immediately and call new elections so that the people could have their say on the question of defense. In the conference where these decisions were taken, the King finally declared: "I wish to take this opportunity to declare that any desire or aspiration towards a personal royal power has been, is and always will be alien to me. Following the commandments of the Constitution and in its spirit, I have, true to my motto, hitherto exercised my royal vocation. From my firm resolve to continue to do so, I will never waver."

In the elections that followed the resignation of the government, the electorate became polarized. The Liberals fell back while the Right and the Social Democrats made strong gains. A few years later, universal and equal suffrage had prevailed and parliamentarism was implemented.

The government's program included a continuous winter training for the infantry with 250 days of recruit school, plus four refresher exercises totaling 105 days. The navy was to be reinforced with seven additional F-type armoured boats and more powerful destroyers and submarines. The Liberal program was now specified in terms of infantry training time to be increased by 40 days. The government's program received unexpectedly large support, but although the opponents lost several seats in parliament, they still had the majority at their disposal.

Then, at the end of July 1914, the Great World War broke out. It was now clear to all parties that the most important thing was to show the world that the entire Swedish people were united in the decision to defend themselves with all their might. Both the Liberal and the Social Democratic party leaders now contributed to a solution of the defense question, which they had previously felt they had to fight. Under the impression of the impending danger, they spoke exhorting words of national unity to their fellow citizens. As early as August 8, Staaff was able to inform Hammarskjöld that the government's proposal on infantry training time could now count on such support from the Liberal Party that it had the backing of a majority in the Riksdag. The government's proposal was also essentially approved on other points.

Heidenstam and The Courtyard Crisis
The author of the King's speech to the peasants was a well-kept secret for many years, and there was a persistent rumor that Verner von Heidenstam was behind the speech; this was repeated in newspapers and books well into the 1940s.

Hedin revealed in his book Försvarsstriden 1912-14 ("The defense battle") (1951) that he and Bennedich (who died in 1939) were the authors, and this is considered to be true even if it is not directly confirmed by other sources. Hedin and Bennedich had a lively correspondence at this time, partly in a conspiratorial tone with cover names for people etc. In the same book, Hedin claims that Heidenstam wrote another, shorter speech that the King gave to courting students, also in the Palace courtyard, and that this speech would have been reviewed by Ernst Trygger, the King's strongest ally in the Riksdag and the one he was expected to offer to form a government.

The speech was delivered on February 11, the day after the Staaff government had resigned. This information has been noted by Jan Stenkvist and Leif Kihlberg. Hedin, as Stenkvist points out, is not always credible, but he stated that he had learned this not from Heidenstam, a good friend since 1911, but from the parliamentarian and historian Karl Hildebrand, who in turn would have received the information from Gustaf V himself. There are indications that both this chain of sources and the factual information itself are correct and in that case it is the only occasion we know of when Heidenstam directly cooperated with the royal couple and a leading person in the right-wing radical group in the Riksdag on a political issue - Hedin was not a parliamentary politician. The Borggård crisis and the whole year 1914 are also the time when Heidenstam came closest to making direct nationally conservative statements in practical politics and in constitutional matters; his public statements on political issues were otherwise rhetorically effective but lacking in concrete meaning.

title: Courtyard Crisis


text:
R v Collins (1987)

R v Collins [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 8 and was a leading case on section 24(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 which allowed for the exclusion of evidence upon infringing the Charter. The Collins test for section 24(2) was developed for determining if the administration of justice was brought into disrepute by the inclusion of the evidence. The test was later replaced in R. v. Grant.

Background
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Drug Squad in Vancouver had Ruby Collins under surveillance as part of an investigation into a "heroin problem". One of the officers approached her in a local pub, told her that he was a police officer, and then grabbed her by the throat and in the process dragged her down to the floor in what is known as a "throat hold" used to prevent suspects from swallowing drug filled balloons. The officer then told her to let go of a heroin filled balloon she had in her hand, and she did so. The officer then arrested Collins for drug possession.

At the voir dire, Crown counsel sought to justify the search under what was then section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act (NCA). The search power in s. 10 required the officer to "reasonably believe" there is an illegal narcotic in a place. In order to establish the officer's reasonable belief, Crown counsel asked the officer when he began to suspect that Ruby Collins was in possession of heroin. The officer began to respond: "We were advised..." but defence counsel objected with an interruption, arguing that whatever the officer had been told by a third party was hearsay. (In fact, as Lamer J. notes, the fact was not hearsay and the trial judge should have been overruled.) In this way, the grounds for the officer's belief that Ruby Collins possessed heroin was never established at trial, and the trial judge concluded that, since the requirements of s. 10 were not met, the search was illegal.

Reasons of the court
The majority judgment was given by Lamer J.

Section 8
Lamer began by examining if the search violated Collins rights under section 8 that protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. A search can only be reasonable, Lamer held, if it met three requirements:
 * 1) the search must be authorized by law;
 * 2) the law itself must be reasonable;
 * 3) the manner in which the search is carried out must be reasonable.

In this way, the Supreme Court disagreed with some lower courts, and some American jurisprudence, in holding that an illegal search was automatically unreasonable.

Lamer J. concluded that, since the Crown had not established that the search had met the requirements of section 10 of the Narcotics Control Act, it was not authorized by law. Therefore, it failed the first prong of the three-part test and was an unreasonable search under s. 8 of the Charter.

Section 24(2)
Once a violation was found, the case turned on the meaning of section 24(2) which said that once a violation of an individual's charter rights have been found, the evidence obtained through the violation must be excluded if its inclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Lamer examined the meaning of "disrepute". He rejected the previous use of the term established in Rothman v. The Queen [1981] 1 S.C.R. 640 which suggested evidence should be excluded on grounds that it would "shock" the community. Instead, he stated, the standard should be lower. He does not give a clear definition of "disrepute" but instead gives a set of three weighted factors to determine if there has been disrepute. The factors consist of:
 * 1) factors affecting the fairness of the trial,
 * 2) factors relevant to the seriousness of the violation; and
 * 3) factors relevant to the effect of excluding the evidence.

The method of analyzing the first set of factors was presented in R. v. Stillman which produced the "Stillman test". This analysis includes looking at the nature of the evidence and whether there would have been any alternative means of obtaining the evidence.

The second point of analysis examines whether admission of the evidence would implicitly condone the illegal practices of the police. The courts focus on the manner in which the evidence was obtained. This includes factors such as whether it was done in good faith. Namely, was it inadvertent, merely technical, or whether it was deliberate or wilful. As well, the courts can consider whether there was any exigent circumstances, urgency, or necessity in the act.

The third set of factors look at the effect of the exclusion on the repute of the administration of justice. The effect of the admission must be weighed against its exclusion. The courts compare the seriousness of the breach and the fairness of the trial against the importance of the evidence in the Crown's case and the overall.
 * The question under s. 24(2) is whether the system's repute will be better served by the admission or the exclusion of the evidence, and it is thus necessary to consider any disrepute that may result from the exclusion of the evidence. In my view, the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by the exclusion of evidence essential to substantiate the charge, and thus the acquittal of the accused, because of a trivial breach of the Charter.

Subsequent decisions
In 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada found that courts were having trouble applying the Collins test in s. 24(2) analysis, and replaced it with a completely new test in R. v. Grant.

title: R v Collins (1987)


text:
Battle of Big Sandy Creek

The Battle of Big Sandy Creek was fought in northwestern New York on May 29–30, 1814, during the War of 1812. American troops and Oneida Indians launched an attempted surprise attack on British troops and sailors, who were pursuing them inland from Lake Ontario.

With the loss of a boat, and its subsequent discovery by British forces, the Americans lost the element of surprise prior to the battle. Nevertheless, the strategy was still implemented successfully, forcing the entire British force to surrender and ending their advance.

Background
After the successful attack on Fort Oswego on May 5–6, 1814, the British withdrew to the Galloo Islands in northern Lake Ontario where they could monitor and intercept any supplies on their way north to Sackets Harbor, New York. At the American ship yards in Sackets Harbor, two brigs, USS Jefferson (1814) and USS Jones (1814), and a frigate, USS Superior (1814), waited for armament and rigging necessary for their launch. The supplies needed to outfit the ships had been transported from the Brooklyn Naval Yards on Long Island to Albany, New York, and from Albany up the Mohawk River to Wood Creek and Oneida Lake, finally arriving at the Oswego River. These supplies still needed to be transported from Oswego to Sackett's Harbor, but it needed to be done without alerting the British.

On April 21, 1814, Commodore Isaac Chauncey sent orders from Sackets Harbor to Lieutenant Melancthon Taylor Woolsey directing him to choose five officers and twenty-five men to proceed in USS Lady of the Lake to Oswego and then bring the shipbuilding supplies north to the shipyards.

Battle
On the rainy evening of May 28, Woolsey set out with 150 riflemen under the command of Major Daniel Appling in 19 boats loaded with supplies. On the morning of May 29, they arrived at the mouth of the Big Salmon River having mysteriously lost one of their boats. This boat, discovered by the British forces, eliminated the secrecy of Wooley's mission.

At Big Salmon, the American forces met up with the Oneidas (estimates range from 120 to 130 Indians), who Woolsey had dispatched the previous day. The Oneidas marched north along the shore as the boats proceeded in the lake. At noon on May 29, they reached the mouth of the Big Sandy Creek. All the boats were sent as far inland as possible.

Woolsey then sent a lookout to scout for British ships. The lookout discovered that a gunboat and three barges were headed for the location of the American forces. Woolsey set out a call for the neighboring militia and hastily prepared for battle.

At 8 a.m., the British began to cannonade the American forces from the mouth of the Big Sandy Creek. The American forces hid along the shoreline of the creek and waited for the British to advance inland. At about 10 a.m., when the British forces had progressed up the creek, the American forces rose from their concealment, and a brief ten-minute battle ensued. The British officers quickly surrendered to avoid further casualties.

Losses
The Americans suffered 2 wounded: an Oneida Indian and a U.S. rifleman. Appling wrote to Brigadier General Edmund P. Gaines on May 30, listing the British casualties as 13 killed; 2 lieutenants of the Royal Marines and 28 sailors and marines wounded and captured; 7 officers and 133 others taken prisoner. Also captured were three gunboats (one with a 24 pdr and a 63 pdr gun), two cutters and one gig.

Aftermath
The Americans won the battle but the British Navy still maintained a presence on Lake Ontario. Overland was the only way for the Americans to get their supplies the rest of the way to Sackets Harbor. Ox carts carried most of the supplies except for the 4-ton anchor cable for the USS Superior. 200 volunteers carried the cable on their shoulders the remaining 20 miles. 100 men at a time shouldered roughly 100 pounds each for three days successfully avoiding the British.

title: Battle of Big Sandy Creek


text: User talk:70.21.144.201

title: User talk:70.21.144.201


text: Category:Communications in Tanzania

title: Category:Communications in Tanzania


text:
Southwell School

Southwell School is an independent co-educational Anglican boarding and day school set in 32 acres of park like grounds in central Hamilton, New Zealand. Southwell offers education to children aged 5 to 13 years. A number of international students attend the school.

In November 1911, Mr Cecil Ernest Ferris started Southwell School with one boy, Robert Oliver, and later, Vernon Wilkinson, at Allington Homestead which is now the site of Melville High School. In 1912 three D'Oyly Snow brothers joined the School, which was then held in a small building beside St Peter's Hall. By 1913 the roll had grown to twelve and the School had moved to Hukanui Road. In 1917 Mr H G Sergel became Headmaster and the School moved to Opoia Road, by the railway bridge on River Road. Every Sunday the students walked to St Peter's Church. In 1921 the School moved to its present site on Peachgrove Road. The Sergel Family owned the school until 1963, when they transferred it to an independent Educational Trust, to be administered by a Trust Board.

Specialist facilities
Southwell School has modern purpose built facilities for teaching subjects including: math, English, science, social science, art, pottery, drama, performing arts, languages (French, Chinese), music, technology, and sport.

Sport
Options include: rugby, football, hockey, cricket, tennis, touch, netball, cycling, softball, water polo, gymnastics, chess, cross country, swimming, athletics

Notable alumni

 * Daniel Gillies - actor
 * Rt.Hon Sir Doug Graham - former Cabinet Minister
 * Lance Hohaia - New Zealand and Warriors rugby league player
 * Tūheitia Paki - current Māori King
 * Rt.Hon Simon Upton - former Cabinet Minister and Rhodes Scholar
 * Quinn Tupaea - All Black

Notable former staff

 * Maurice Marshall, Headmaster, Olympic & Commonwealth Games athlete

title: Southwell School


text:
Aloysius John Wycisło

Aloysius John Wycisło (June 17, 1908 – October 11, 2005) was an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church who served as the eighth bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay in Wisconsin from 1968 to 1983. Previously, he served as an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Chicago in Illinois from 1960 to 1968.

Early life and education
Wycisło was born on June 17, 1908, to Simon and Victoria Czech Wycisło in Chicago, Illinois. He attended St. Mary of Czestochowa School in Cicero, Illinois; Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary (high school) in Chicago; Mundelein Seminary at the St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois; and The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., where he earned a master's degree in social work.

Priesthood
Wycisło was ordained on April 7, 1934, by Cardinal George Mundelein at the University of St. Mary of the Lake. During World War II and into the 1950s, he served in Catholic War Relief Services, established refugee camps in the Middle East, India, and Africa, and later worked coordinating aid throughout Eastern and Western Europe at the request of the Polish American Relief Organization. Wycisło was among the first American priests to enter Poland after the war and he reported that the postwar Polish government had forbidden mentioning the pope in the press and in Polish churches.

Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago
Wycisło was consecrated a bishop on December 21, 1960, and served as auxiliary bishop to Cardinal Albert Meyer of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

In September 1962, Cardinal Meyer asked Wycisło to direct the Archdiocese of Chicago's observance of Poland’s millennium of Christianity. Wycisło handled all the preparations, including arrangements for the visit of the primate of Poland, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński.

Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)
Wycisło was a council father from the first session of the Second Vatican Council in Rome, which opened October 11, 1962, to the concluding liturgy for the entire Council on December 8, 1965.

In addition to attending all the sessions, Wycisło served as a member of the American Bishops’ Commissions on the Lay Apostolate and on the Missions and the Oriental Church. He met and became friends with Karol Wojtyła, then-Archbishop of Krakow, Poland, and who became Pope John Paul II.

Bishop of Green Bay
Wycisło was appointed Bishop of the Diocese of Green Bay on March 8, 1968, by Pope Paul VI. Wycisło was installed on April 16, 1968. His episcopal motto was Caritati Instate (Be Steadfast in Charity).

Retirement and legacy
On June 17, 1983, his 75th birthday, Wycisło submitted his letter of resignation to the Holy See. He remained active during his retirement by performing confirmations.

On Aloysius Wycisło's death in 2005 at the age of 97, he was the oldest living Roman Catholic bishop in the United States, and also was one of the few living Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.

Publications

 * Vatican Two Revisited; Reflections by One who was there
 * The Saint Peter

title: Aloysius John Wycisło


text:
Presinge

Presinge is a municipality of the canton of Geneva in Switzerland.

History
Presinge is first mentioned after 1000 as in Presiago. In 1180 it was mentioned as villa que appellatur Presingium.

The village of Presinge was part of ancient Burgundy and settled in 443 by 'le peuple germanique des Burgondes'. Regarding the German-sounding names of the surrounding villages - albeit now with French spelling (adding an '-e' to the ending) - the text cites the villages of Presinge, Puplinge, Corsinge, Merlinge, etc. - 'which tended to indicate an area of Germanic preponderance'.

The branch of the noble family (Presinge/Pressinge) that gave its name to the village decreased in influence and number very gradually over the centuries.

There is a copy of an old map dated 1740 by Philippe Bauche (the original is kept in the Bibliothèque de Genève) showing the other old spelling of "Pressinge".

Geography
Presinge has an area,, of 4.72 km2. Of this area, 3.2 km2 or 67.8% is used for agricultural purposes, while 0.88 km2 or 18.6% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 0.61 km2 or 12.9% is settled (buildings or roads), 0.02 km2 or 0.4% is either rivers or lakes and 0.01 km2 or 0.2% is unproductive land.

Of the built up area, housing and buildings made up 8.5% and transportation infrastructure made up 3.4%. Out of the forested land, 16.3% of the total land area is heavily forested and 2.3% is covered with orchards or small clusters of trees. Of the agricultural land, 54.0% is used for growing crops and 6.6% is pastures, while 7.2% is used for orchards or vine crops. All the water in the municipality is flowing water.

It consists of the village of Presinge and the hamlets of Cara and La Louvière. The municipality of Presinge consists of the sub-sections or villages of Cara, L'Abbaye, Presinge, La Renfile and La Louvière.

Demographics
Presinge has a population of. , 16.3% of the population are resident foreign nationals. Over the last 10 years (1999–2009 ) the population has changed at a rate of 7.8%. It has changed at a rate of 32.1% due to migration and at a rate of -22% due to births and deaths.

Most of the population speaks French (520 or 84.7%), with Albanian being second most common (22 or 3.6%) and German being third (15 or 2.4%). There are 6 people who speak Italian.

, the gender distribution of the population was 47.0% male and 53.0% female. The population was made up of 228 Swiss men (34.7% of the population) and 81 (12.3%) non-Swiss men. There were 266 Swiss women (40.4%) and 83 (12.6%) non-Swiss women. Of the population in the municipality 94 or about 15.3% were born in Presinge and lived there in 2000. There were 207 or 33.7% who were born in the same canton, while 75 or 12.2% were born somewhere else in Switzerland, and 124 or 20.2% were born outside of Switzerland.

In there were 3 live births to Swiss citizens and were 15 deaths of Swiss citizens and 3 non-Swiss citizen deaths. Ignoring immigration and emigration, the population of Swiss citizens decreased by 12 while the foreign population decreased by 3. There were 3 Swiss men and 5 Swiss women who emigrated from Switzerland. At the same time, there were 10 non-Swiss men and 5 non-Swiss women who immigrated from another country to Switzerland. The total Swiss population change in 2008 (from all sources, including moves across municipal borders) was a decrease of 9 and the non-Swiss population increased by 14 people. This represents a population growth rate of 0.8%. The age distribution of the population is children and teenagers (0–19 years old) make up 26.7% of the population, while adults (20–64 years old) make up 53.4% and seniors (over 64 years old) make up 19.9%.

, there were 256 people who were single and never married in the municipality. There were 264 married individuals, 61 widows or widowers and 33 individuals who are divorced.

, there were 184 private households in the municipality, and an average of 2.6 persons per household. There were 52 households that consist of only one person and 19 households with five or more people. Out of a total of 193 households that answered this question, 26.9% were households made up of just one person and there were 2 adults who lived with their parents. Of the rest of the households, there are 48 married couples without children, 66 married couples with children There were 14 single parents with a child or children. There were 2 households that were made up of unrelated people and 9 households that were made up of some sort of institution or another collective housing.

there were 78 single family homes (or 62.4% of the total) out of a total of 125 inhabited buildings. There were 20 multi-family buildings (16.0%), along with 22 multi-purpose buildings that were mostly used for housing (17.6%) and 5 other use buildings (commercial or industrial) that also had some housing (4.0%). Of the single family homes 28 were built before 1919, while 10 were built between 1990 and 2000. The most multi-family homes (6) were built before 1919 and the next most (4) were built between 1991 and 1995. There was 1 multi-family house built between 1996 and 2000.

there were 194 apartments in the municipality. The most common apartment size was 3 rooms of which there were 44. There were 3 single room apartments and 83 apartments with five or more rooms. Of these apartments, a total of 170 apartments (87.6% of the total) were permanently occupied, while 15 apartments (7.7%) were seasonally occupied and 9 apartments (4.6%) were empty. , the construction rate of new housing units was 0 new units per 1000 residents. The vacancy rate for the municipality,, was 0%.

The historical population is given in the following chart:

Politics
In the 2007 federal election the most popular party was the Green Party which received 21.09% of the vote. The next three most popular parties were the LPS Party (17.51%), the SP (16.05%) and the SP (16.05%). In the federal election, a total of 197 votes were cast, and the voter turnout was 48.6%.

In the 2009 Grand Conseil election, there were a total of 408 registered voters of which 188 (46.1%) voted. The most popular party in the municipality for this election was the Les Verts with 22.5% of the ballots. In the canton-wide election they received the second highest proportion of votes. The second most popular party was the Libéral (with 17.1%), they were first in the canton-wide election, while the third most popular party was the PDC (with 13.9%), they were fifth in the canton-wide election.

For the 2009 Conseil d'Etat election, there were a total of 408 registered voters of which 217 (53.2%) voted.

In 2011, all the municipalities held local elections, and in Presinge there were 11 spots open on the municipal council. There were a total of 431 registered voters of which 245 (56.8%) voted. Out of the 245 votes, there were 1 blank votes, 3 null or unreadable votes and 78 votes with a name that was not on the list.

Economy
, Presinge had an unemployment rate of 4.8%. , there were 25 people employed in the primary economic sector and about 11 businesses involved in this sector. 5 people were employed in the secondary sector and there were 4 businesses in this sector. 158 people were employed in the tertiary sector, with 15 businesses in this sector. There were 235 residents of the municipality who were employed in some capacity, of which females made up 46.8% of the workforce.

the total number of full-time equivalent jobs was 157. The number of jobs in the primary sector was 16, all of which were in agriculture. The number of jobs in the secondary sector was 5 of which 1 was in manufacturing and 4 (80.0%) were in construction. The number of jobs in the tertiary sector was 136. In the tertiary sector; 3 or 2.2% were in wholesale or retail sales or the repair of motor vehicles, 8 or 5.9% were in the movement and storage of goods, 18 or 13.2% were in a hotel or restaurant, 21 or 15.4% were technical professionals or scientists, 2 or 1.5% were in education and 72 or 52.9% were in health care.

, there were 159 workers who commuted into the municipality and 181 workers who commuted away. The municipality is a net exporter of workers, with about 1.1 workers leaving the municipality for every one entering. About 21.4% of the workforce coming into Presinge are coming from outside Switzerland. Of the working population, 11.5% used public transportation to get to work, and 64.7% used a private car.

Religion
From the, 224 or 36.5% were Roman Catholic, while 139 or 22.6% belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there were 2 members of an Orthodox church (or about 0.33% of the population), there were 3 individuals (or about 0.49% of the population) who belonged to the Christian Catholic Church, and there were 6 individuals (or about 0.98% of the population) who belonged to another Christian church. There was 1 individual who was Jewish, and 1 individual who was Islamic, and 1 individual who belonged to another church. 118 (or about 19.22% of the population) belonged to no church, are agnostic or atheist, and 119 individuals (or about 19.38% of the population) did not answer the question.

Education
In Presinge about 151 or (24.6%) of the population have completed non-mandatory upper secondary education, and 133 or (21.7%) have completed additional higher education (either university or a Fachhochschule). Of the 133 who completed tertiary schooling, 46.6% were Swiss men, 37.6% were Swiss women, 9.0% were non-Swiss men and 6.8% were non-Swiss women.

During the 2009-2010 school year there were a total of 126 students in the Presinge school system. The education system in the Canton of Geneva allows young children to attend two years of non-obligatory Kindergarten. During that school year, there were 9 children who were in a pre-kindergarten class. The canton's school system provides two years of non-mandatory kindergarten and requires students to attend six years of primary school, with some of the children attending smaller, specialized classes. In Presinge there were 14 students in kindergarten or primary school and - students were in the special, smaller classes. The secondary school program consists of three lower, obligatory years of schooling, followed by three to five years of optional, advanced schools. There were 14 lower secondary students who attended school in Presinge. There were 28 upper secondary students from the municipality along with 8 students who were in a professional, non-university track program. An additional 23 students attended a private school.

, there were 4 students in Presinge who came from another municipality, while 82 residents attended schools outside the municipality.

title: Presinge


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew McKissick

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk 23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Drew McKissick
Was listed for speedy as a nn-bio, but it does just barely assert notability, so I'm bringing it here. Even though I refrained from speedying it, I vote delete because I'm still not convinced he's notable enough. Angr/undefined 21:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree not notable. Only thing that is close to notability is being a delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and that's not notable enough. And everyone has a blog nowadays, promo. feydey 22:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, while I continue to caution against a bias against blogs and bloggers, I agree that this is not a blog of note. While Mr. McKissick may be notable, more information is needed (if the author reads this before the 5-day period is over, consider a rewrite with any information you feel may better support the notability of this subject).  This feels too much like promotion for the blog.  While I do consider a delegate to a national party convention significant, I can't justify it as notable enough as there are simply so many delegates and they are often chosen for patronage reasons, not substantive ones, so that such a selection automatically conveys notability. el_amante 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:85.96.161.180

title: User talk:85.96.161.180


text:
Harry Connick Sr.

Joseph Harry Fowler Connick Sr. (March 27, 1926 – January 25, 2024) was an American attorney who served as the district attorney of Orleans Parish (New Orleans), Louisiana, from 1973 to 2003. His son, Harry Connick Jr., is an American musician and actor.

Early life
Joseph Harry Fowler Connick was born in Mobile, Alabama, on March 27, 1926, the second of eight children of Jessie Catherine (née Fowler, 1898–1985) and James Paul Connick (1901–1979). Both his parents and grandparents were from Mobile. His father worked for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. When Harry was two years old, the family moved to New Orleans.

Music was a large part of his early life, and he was particularly influenced by Glenn Miller. After high school, he served in the U.S. Navy in the Pacific during World War II. After the war, he returned to New Orleans and graduated from Loyola University New Orleans with a degree in business administration.

Connick later joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a civilian employee, where he met his future wife, Anita Livingston, an accomplished flute player who became a lawyer and judge. She was one of the first female judges in the city of New Orleans. They married in Tunisia, and spent time in Casablanca, where Connick Sr. contracted tuberculosis. They were sent back to the United States and eventually ended up in New Orleans again. When Harry and Anita Connick returned to New Orleans, they opened a record store. Ultimately they owned two stores while simultaneously pursuing law degrees, one working in the store while the other was at school. They also had a daughter, Suzanna, and a son, Harry Jr.

Music and life in New Orleans
In New Orleans, Connick was frequently involved with local music and culture. In 1993, he and his son were part of the group that founded the Krewe of Orpheus, a superkrewe that participates in annual Mardi Gras parades. He was nicknamed "The Singing District Attorney" by Time magazine. This nickname was given to him because he spent many nights singing in clubs in the French Quarter, including Maxwell's Toulouse Cabaret.

New Orleans District Attorney
In 1973, Connick defeated incumbent New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who had recently been tried and acquitted of corruption charges.

As district attorney, he was the defendant and petitioner in Connick v. Myers, a free-speech case in public-employment law. In the case, Connick asked Sheila Myers to take a transfer to another position in his office. She had resisted, finally saying she would consider it after a meeting with Connick. Later the same day, she distributed a questionnaire on issues of employee morale to her fellow prosecutors, after which Connick fired her.

Myers sued in federal court, alleging Connick violated her First Amendment rights by firing her. He maintained she had been fired for refusing the transfer, but judge Jack Gordon of the Eastern District of Louisiana held that the distribution of the questionnaire was speech on a matter of public concern and thus constitutionally protected. Since the facts indicated to Judge Gordon that Myers had been fired for it, he ordered her reinstated. After the Fifth Circuit affirmed Gordon, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and narrowly reversed the ruling, holding that Myers' questionnaire largely touched on matters internal to the office that were not of public concern and thus she was lawfully fired.

In 1987, Connick waged an unsuccessful challenge to incumbent William J. "Billy" Guste Jr. for the position of Louisiana Attorney General. Guste prevailed over Connick, 516,658 (54%) to 440,984 (46%). Both were registered Democrats, but in Louisiana a general election can feature two members of the same party.

In 1989, Connick was indicted on racketeering charges for aiding and abetting a gambling operation by returning gambling records to an arrested gambler. He stated that he returned the records to the man in question because he needed them to file tax returns. On July 25, 1990, he was acquitted.

In 1995, while district attorney, Connick promised to the Assassination Records Review Board and at a public meeting in New Orleans that he would donate the Garrison investigative files, which were still in his office. According to the review board's final report, Connick instructed one of his investigators, Gary Raymond, to destroy these documents after he took office. Raymond took them home instead and kept them because he did not feel right about burning the records, stating, "It's not every day you are assigned to burn the records of investigations into the assassination of a president." When he found out about the review board in 1995, he gave the records to television reporter Richard Angelico for Angelico to deliver the records to Congress, stating, "When Congress asks for all documents, they mean all documents." A battle ensued between Connick and the Review Board after Connick demanded that the papers were returned to him and threatening to withhold the investigation papers. After many subpoenas going both ways, and with the help of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Review Board won and all of the documents in question are in the JFK Collection.

In 2003, Connick did not seek re-election and was inducted into the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame in Winnfield.

Prosecutorial misconducts and innocents on death row
There are several allegations of systemic misconduct by Connick and his prosecutors. "According to the Innocence Project, a national organization that represents incarcerated criminals claiming innocence, 36 men convicted in Orleans Parish during Connick's 30-year tenure as DA have made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, and 19 have had their sentences overturned or reduced as a result."

In the case of Shareef Cousin, Connick's attorneys withheld a key witness statement from the defense, arguing that the prosecution was under no legal obligation to disclose such information. As a result, Cousin was put on death row at the age of 16, but the conviction and death sentence were overturned after four years, in 1999.

Conversely, Connick's office was also accused of not prosecuting in a timely manner. In 1988, Dino Cinel, a priest at St. Rita's Parish in New Orleans, of which Connick was a parishioner, was found to have produced child sexual abuse materials of himself and boys in the rectory of the parish, where he was living at the time. Connick's office allowed the parish to hold onto the tapes for an extended period of time and initially declined to prosecute, citing lack of sufficient evidence. After a series of television interviews aired on WWL-TV and WDSU-TV, attracting media attention and outrage (including a Vanity Fair article that details the relationship between Connick and Cinel ), Connick reversed his decision and charged Cinel in 1995. The latter was acquitted because he had made and/or acquired the tapes prior to child pornography laws being enacted in 1986.

Charges
In 2007, John Thompson, who was wrongfully convicted of murder by Connick's DA office due to evidence withholding, was awarded a $14 million verdict by a federal court jury. The jury found "that Thompson's 18 years behind bars (14 of which he spent in solitary confinement on death row) were caused by Connick's deliberate failure to train his prosecutors on their obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence." The Orleans Parish DA's office appealed and the case, Connick v. Thompson, was orally argued before the U.S. Supreme Court during the October 2010 term. By a 5–4 vote split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court overturned the $14 million award in a decision issued on March 29, 2011. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, construed the series of admitted violations not to amount to a pattern of "similar" violations of Brady v. Maryland (1963), and such a pattern was necessary to hold Connick liable for the incompetence of his employees. The dissenting opinion, read from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted that Connick's office had in fact committed a pattern of violations, failing to disclose exculpatory blood type evidence, failing to disclose audio tapes of witness testimony, failing to disclose a deathbed confession of evidence destruction by the prosecuting attorney Gerry Deegan, and failing to disclose eyewitness identification of the killer that did not match Thompson. Ginsburg noted that the office had employee turnover so high a young attorney could advance to a senior supervisory position within four years, thus the office offered little training in ongoing developments in criminal procedure law despite its large number of inexperienced attorneys.

Personal life
Connick was a Roman Catholic of Irish, English, Northern Irish, and German ancestry.

Connick's first wife, Anita Frances Livingston Connick (née Levy), was Jewish. They raised their two children, Suzanna and Harry Jr., in the Lakeview neighborhood of New Orleans. Harry Connick Jr. is a musician, actor, and television show host. Anita died of ovarian cancer in July 1981.

Connick later married Londa Jean Matherne on March 25, 1995, in County Tipperary, Ireland.

Connick was the uncle of Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick and State Senator Patrick Connick, also of Jefferson Parish.

Harry Connick Sr. died in New Orleans on January 24, 2024, at the age of 97.

title: Harry Connick Sr.