Search For Roe V Wade Leaker Ramps Up

[Rightguide]

​

AMERICAN NEWS May 31, 2022 7:42 AM EST​

Clerks 'alarmed' as officials request cell phone records to find SCOTUS leaker​

Sources familiar with the matter say that the exact language of the affidavits or the time period covered or content sought in the phone records search remains unclear.

Hannah NightingaleWashington DC

May 31, 2022 7:42 AM

As Supreme Court officials continue to escalate their search for the source of early May’s leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would see the end of legacy decision Roe v. Wade, those officials have reportedly taken steps to require the court’s law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits.

Three individuals with knowledge of these efforts told CNN that some clerks have become "so alarmed" over the actions, that they have begun considering whether to hire outside counsel.

The actions are the most striking development to date in the investigation into who may have leaked the draft opinion document, written by Justice Samuel Alito, to Politico, which published it on May 2. The opinion indicated that a majority of the court was poised to overturn Roe v Wade.

CNN reported that Chief Justice John Roberts met with the law clerks as a group following the breach, but it remains unclear whether individual interviews have been conducted.

Lawyers outside of the court warn that potential inquiries into phone records may be intrusive to clerks’ personal activities outside of the disclosure to media, "and say they may feel the need to obtain independent counsel," CNN reported.

https://thepostmillennial.com/clerk...ords-to-find-scotus-leaker?utm_campaign=64487

 

[ll74]

I'm sure the right to privacy doesn't apply or something

 

[pecksniff]

The public is not exactly clamoring for the leaker's head.

 

[Rightguide]

I'm sure the right to privacy doesn't apply or something

Not in this case. The clerk has sworn an oath of confidentiality in regard to the business of the court. They can be forced to sign a sworn statement they didn't leak or be put on the box.

 

[Wrong Element]

I'm sure the right to privacy doesn't apply or something

If anyone knows their rights here, Supreme Court clerks should. Since I assume clerks rotate out at the end of a term, I wonder if any of them could stall this inquiry until they head off to the remainder of their professional lives.

One thing to point out here is that there have been a lot of leaks coming out of the Court over this past month. Contact with a reporter, even if it's with the Politico reporters on the original story, doesn't imply a leak of the draft opinion.

 

[pecksniff]

The worst thing this leaker can be said to have done is spoil a surprise.

 

[ll74]

Not in this case. The clerk has sworn an oath of confidentiality in regard to the business of the court. They can be forced to sign a sworn statement they didn't leak or be put on the box.

Feel free to provide said "oath"

 

[phrodeau]

Did Ginni Thomas take such an oath?

 

[PaxNurgle]

Why is it people are more alarmed about who the "leaker" is than about the implications of WHAT he leaked?

THAT is what people ought to be more upset about. Whoever the leaker is, in my opinion he (or she) deserves some kind of commendation, not punishment.

 

[pecksniff]

The public is not exactly clamoring for the leaker's head.

The worst thing this leaker can be said to have done is spoil a surprise.

Both points to keep at the front of our minds here.

 

[Sh1ne0n67]

The support for a leaker always comes from those who approve of the leak.

The same people are equally aghast when the shoe is on the other foot.


__________________________________________
Democrat born. Democrat bred. Libertarian led (by Democrats).

 

[ll74]

Why is it people are more alarmed about who the "leaker" is than about the implications of WHAT he leaked?

THAT is what people ought to be more upset about. Whoever the leaker is, in my opinion he (or she) deserves some kind of commendation, not punishment.

Because they want to continue to play the victim.

They spent multiple decades to get this win, but grievance porn gets them the votes, not celebrating

 

[HisArpy]

I'm sure the right to privacy doesn't apply or something

The Right to Privacy in the 4th Amendment isn't unlimited (HAH! That's called Karma, dude.) All the Marshall needs to do is apply for a warrant based on probable cause that the evidence of a crime exists in the place to be searched. He'll get it.

What crime? Espionage if nothing else but there are other grounds available. You can argue whether there actually is an "actionable crime" here (see; Sussman trial), but that's not the same as arguing that there's no probable cause. There is ample evidence to show that someone involved in the handling of secured government documents misappropriated the contents of those documents for personal advantage - ie, a "crime" sufficient to pass the standard required for sufficient probable cause needed for a warrant.

In addition to that, the clerks and interns are correct, the Marshall needs a warrant and they cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This is black letter law. That these people may insist on the court following the procedures isn't surprising, they work for the court which created that black letter law.

What the media isn't telling you is that while the individuals can insist on following the law, the law allows for the obtaining of a warrant to seize the evidence. So it's eventually going to be in the hands of the Marshall anyway.

 

[ll74]

The Right to Privacy in the 4th Amendment isn't unlimited (HAH! That's called Karma, dude.) All the Marshall needs to do is apply for a warrant based on probable cause that the evidence of a crime exists in the place to be searched. He'll get it.

What crime? Espionage if nothing else but there are other grounds available. You can argue whether there actually is an "actionable crime" here (see; Sussman trial), but that's not the same as arguing that there's no probable cause. There is ample evidence to show that someone involved in the handling of secured government documents misappropriated the contents of those documents for personal advantage - ie, a "crime" sufficient to pass the standard required for sufficient probable cause needed for a warrant.

In addition to that, the clerks and interns are correct, the Marshall needs a warrant and they cannot be compelled to be a witness against themselves. This is black letter law. That these people may insist on the court following the procedures isn't surprising, they work for the court which created that black letter law.

What the media isn't telling you is that while the individuals can insist on following the law, the law allows for the obtaining of a warrant to seize the evidence. So it's eventually going to be in the hands of the Marshall anyway.

Yes, a warrant would be good.

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, a warrant would be good.

The procedure calls for one but the media want everyone to believe that the Marshall Of The Court is trying something nefarious.

Nothing nefarious about asking the "persons of interest" to pony up. Those who do voluntarily are probably innocent, although that's not always the case. Those who don't are either sticklers for the rules (nothing wrong with that when it comes to gov invasiveness) or they have something to hide.

Let the Marshall apply for the warrants. If the DC District Court rejects them, have the Marshall appeal that rejection. If the appeals court affirms the rejection, appeal it again - to SCOTUS - which will reaffirm the law regarding warrants and instruct the lower court to issue them.

Personally I think the leaker knows they fucked up and that their fuckup is going to ruin the rest of their life. That's why they haven't come forward to give the finger to "the man" about what they did.

 

[Rightguide]

Feel free to provide said "oath"

28 U.S. Code § 951 - Oath of office of clerks and deputies​

Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, ___ ___, having been appointed ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925.)

 

[phrodeau]

28 U.S. Code § 951 - Oath of office of clerks and deputies​

Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, ___ ___, having been appointed ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925.)

Missing: confidentiality

 

[ll74]

28 U.S. Code § 951 - Oath of office of clerks and deputies​

Each clerk of court and his deputies shall take the following oath or affirmation before entering upon their duties: “I, ___ ___, having been appointed ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all orders, decrees, judgments and proceedings of such court, and will faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God.”
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 925.)

Not seeing the part about leaks for some reason

 

[Rightguide]

Not seeing the part about leaks for some reason

"faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office" which would include the confidentiality pledges required of new law clerks. In addition the leaker violated the chain of custody system that is "intricate and inviolate." The leaker committed obstruction justice.

This from Senator Mike Lee who was a law clerk for Justice Alito:

“When I was a law clerk, every law clerk had a burn bag next to his or her desk.”

“And in the rare moment when you need to print out a draft opinion, often you didn’t need to, you got a separate, secure system, not connected to the internet, inside the court, allowing us to exchange and edit drafts without any internet connection – no risk of leaks there,”

“the rare moment when you actually needed to print one, rather than making edits on your computer, there was a set of procedures that would accompany that.” “you’re not supposed to take them home, you’re not supposed to leave the building with them, when you’re finished with them you don’t put them in the wastebasket you put ’em in a burn bag.”

“The burn bag at the end of the day is collected by court personnel who take the burn bag and its contents and draft opinions.” “They shred them. Twice. Vertically and horizontally, turning it into confetti.”

“even then you take that confetti and they put it into an incinerator and burn it and mix it into a slurry with water so that it can’t possibly be read. Only then does it leave the custody of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

 

[SamSang]

Did Ginni Thomas take such an oath?

no

neither did your Uber driver

 

[ll74]

"faithfully and impartially discharge all other duties of my office" which would include the confidentiality pledges required of new law clerks. In addition the leaker violated the chain of custody system that is "intricate and inviolate." The leaker committed obstruction justice.

This from Senator Mike Lee who was a law clerk for Justice Alito:

“When I was a law clerk, every law clerk had a burn bag next to his or her desk.”

“And in the rare moment when you need to print out a draft opinion, often you didn’t need to, you got a separate, secure system, not connected to the internet, inside the court, allowing us to exchange and edit drafts without any internet connection – no risk of leaks there,”

“the rare moment when you actually needed to print one, rather than making edits on your computer, there was a set of procedures that would accompany that.” “you’re not supposed to take them home, you’re not supposed to leave the building with them, when you’re finished with them you don’t put them in the wastebasket you put ’em in a burn bag.”

“The burn bag at the end of the day is collected by court personnel who take the burn bag and its contents and draft opinions.” “They shred them. Twice. Vertically and horizontally, turning it into confetti.”

“even then you take that confetti and they put it into an incinerator and burn it and mix it into a slurry with water so that it can’t possibly be read. Only then does it leave the custody of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

So they don't have an oath about burn bags....got it

 

[jomar]

Not in this case. The clerk has sworn an oath of confidentiality in regard to the business of the court. They can be forced to sign a sworn statement they didn't leak or be put on the box.

Well, if republican senators can ignore and defy their sworn oaths of office, then I suppose a mere clerk can too.

 

[phrodeau]

“They shred them. Twice. Vertically and horizontally, turning it into confetti.”

They, not we law clerks? Who are they then?

 

[pecksniff]

“They shred them. Twice. Vertically and horizontally, turning it into confetti.”

They, not we law clerks? Who are they then?

Wouldn't be surprised if there were staffers tasked with nothing else.

 

[Rightguide]

So they don't have an oath about burn bags....got it

There are legal statutes that cover the handling of classified information.