*Plaintiff alleges Alito conflict...Says judge should have recused self*

[Guest guest]

Is Judge Samuel Alito UNETHICAL? Or does he simply have Republican

amnesia? (Republican Amnesia is now a documented and named disease, much

as Crohn's Disease was named for Dr.Burrill B.Crohn.)

 

Did Judge Alito BREAK a promise he made to the senate, when he was

confirmed to the 3d Circuit Court, to RECUSE himself from any case in

which he had a CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

 

Yes.

 

 

<<Alito: " I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases

involving the Vanguard companies. " >>

 

Look, I don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy, but I know he did

NOT keep his word.

 

 

<<Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of

the Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more

than $390,000 in Vanguard funds and later complained about an

effort to remove him from the case, court records show --

despite an earlier promise to recuse himself from cases

involving the company. . . . (L)awyer, John G. S. Flym, a

retired Northeastern law professor, said in an interview

yesterday that Alito's ''lack of integrity is so flagrant " in

the case that he should be disqualified as a Supreme Court

nominee.

 

Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares

in 2002 when she requested his financial disclosure forms

after he ruled against her appeal . . . ''I just started

seeing Vanguard after Vanguard, and I almost fell to the

floor, " she said in an interview at the Jamaica Plain home she

shares with a friend after losing her own home in the course

of the prolonged litigation. ''I just couldn't believe that it

could be so blatant. "

 

In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his

nomination to be a circuit judge, he said in written answers

to a questionnaire that he would disqualify himself from ''any

cases involving the Vanguard companies. "

 

After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he

complained about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove

him from the case, writing to the chief administrative judge

of the federal appeals court on which he sat in 2003: ''I do

not believe that I am required to disqualify myself based on

my ownership of the mutual fund shares. " >>

 

 

<< In the 1990 questionnaire, Alito was asked how he would

resolve potential conflicts of interest. He responded: I do

not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my

financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however,

disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard

companies. " >>

 

------

 

*Plaintiff alleges Alito conflict...Says judge should have recused self*

 

by Sarah Schweitzer and Michael Kranish,

The Boston Globe

November 3, 2005

 

<<Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. ruled in a 2002 case in favor of the

Vanguard mutual fund company at a time when he owned more than $390,000

in Vanguard funds and later complained about an effort to remove him

from the case, court records show -- despite an earlier PROMISE to

RECUSE himself from cases involving the company.

 

The case involved a Massachusetts woman, Shantee Maharaj, who has spent

nearly a decade fighting to win back the assets of her late husband's

individual retirement accounts, which had been frozen by Vanguard after

a court judgment in favor of a former business partner of her husband.

 

Her lawyer, John G. S. Flym, a retired Northeastern law professor, said

in an interview yesterday that Alito's ''LACK of INTEGRITY is so

FLAGRANT " in the case that he should be DISQUALIFIED as a Supreme

Court nominee.

 

Maharaj, 50, discovered Alito's ownership of Vanguard shares in 2002

when she requested his financial disclosure forms after he ruled against

her appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

 

''I just started seeing Vanguard after Vanguard, and I almost fell to

the floor, " she said in an interview at the Jamaica Plain home she

shares with a friend after losing her own home in the course of the

prolonged litigation. ''I just couldn't believe that it could be so

blatant. "

 

In 1990, when Alito was seeking US Senate approval for his nomination to

be a circuit judge, he said in written answers to a questionnaire that

he would disqualify himself from ''any cases involving the Vanguard

companies. "

 

After Alito ruled in Vanguard's favor in the Maharaj case, he complained

about her efforts to vacate his decision and remove him from the case,

writing to the chief administrative judge of the federal appeals court

on which he sat in 2003: ''I do not believe that I am required to

disqualify myself based on my ownership of the mutual fund shares. "

 

The White House, asked about the seeming contradiction between Alito's

two statements, said that Alito was put on the case due to an error by a

computer system that should have warned that he was taking a

Vanguard-related case, because the investments were listed in the

database.

 

Asked why Alito did not recuse himself after learning that it involved

Vanguard, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticized those who are

raising questions about Alito's actions.

 

 

[NOTE FROM ME: Typical Bush White House reaction to a scandal:

attack the messenger.]

 

''Clearly there are some who are trying to tarnish the reputation of a

lifelong public servant who is praised for his integrity, fairness, and

temperament from people from all walks of life, " Perino said via e-mail.

 

 

 

[NOTE FROM ME: When Alito broke such an important promise to

the senate, he certainly ERASED the word " integrity " from that

sentence, didn't he? Erased " fairness, " as well.]

 

''These facts remain: Judge Alito had no financial interest in the

company involved in this case, he immediately recused himself to avoid

any hint of a conflict, his opinion was vacated and the plaintiff's case

was taken up by a new panel, and his answer on the questionnaire

obviously refers to any matter in which he would have a financial

stake. "

 

In the 1990 questionnaire, Alito was asked how he would resolve

potential conflicts of interest. He responded: " I do not believe that

conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to

arise. I WOULD, however, DISQUALIFY myself from ANY cases

INVOLVING the Vanguard companies. "

 

Yesterday, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate

Judiciary Committee, raised the case during a meeting with Alito. A

Leahy aide said the senator plans to ask Alito more questions about the

matter during confirmation hearings.

 

The long-running case, played out in both Massachusetts and

Pennsylvania, has its roots in Boston. Maharaj arrived in Boston from

her native Trinidad in 1973 and, shortly afterward, met her husband, D.

Dev Monga. At the time, she was a student at the University of

Massachusetts at Boston, and Monga was attending Suffolk University Law

School at night while he worked by day as an engineer, she said.

 

They married in 1986 and moved to Marblehead. That year, she said, Monga

started two companies, one an environmental engineering consulting firm

and the other a drilling concern. Both companies were based in Peabody.

Monga took on an associate in both concerns, but disputes between the

men arose and the two ended up in court.

 

In 1991, a Massachusetts superior court awarded the associate $478,904.

The court, acting on allegations that Monga had fraudulently transferred

properties to avoid paying the judgment, appointed a receiver to collect

Monga's assets, including two Vanguard IRAs. Vanguard froze the funds,

and in 1995 Monga filed suit in Pennsylvania, where the Vanguard funds

were located, seeking to claim them.

 

When Monga died in 1996 after a brief battle with colon cancer, Maharaj

took up his legal battle. Maharaj, who said she obtained a law degree

from Northeastern University, acted as her own lawyer, alleging that

Vanguard had improperly seized her husband's IRAs and wrongly blocked

her from obtaining the funds. A US district court judge in Philadelphia

dismissed her case in 2001, and she appealed it to the Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit.

 

In April 2002, ALITO , writing for a three-judge panel, RULED in

Vanguard's favor.

 

Maharaj requested the judges' financial disclosure forms and

DISCOVERED Alito's Vanguard holdings. She contacted Flym at

Northeastern and he agreed to assist her in a motion that alleged that

Alito's participation was UNLAWFUL under judicial ethics rules because

of his Vanguard holdings.

 

In 2004, Anthony Joseph Scirica, the chief administrative judge for the

circuit, VACATED Alito's order and assigned the case to a NEW panel,

which again ruled against Maharaj.

 

 

[NOTE FROM ME: Proof that this was unethical on Alito's part

is that the chief administrative judge for the circuit,

VACATED Alito's order and assigned the case to a NEW

panel. Chief administrative judge do NOT willy-nilly go around

vacating other judges' rulings and orders. ]

 

The Massachusetts case is still on appeal and a decision is expected

shortly.

 

Alito told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2004 that his decision in the

case was not influenced by his ownership of Vanguard shares.

 

''They have $600 billion invested with them, " Alito said of Vanguard.

''The idea that a case like this would affect that is just ludicrous. "

 

 

[NOTE FROM ME: It does NOT matter, Mr. Alito; you made a

promise and you did NOT keep it. SEE Alito's statement above;

it is quite clear.]

 

He also told the Inquirer that his holdings were not a conflict because

they were investments in mutual funds and, as such, he was an investor

in Vanguard, not an owner of the company.

 

 

[NOTE FROM ME: Wow, I'd love to see the Supreme Court rule on

THAT one.]

 

Federal judicial ethics rules permit judges to rule on cases involving

some mutual funds in which they have a stake, but not those in which

shares convey an ownership interest in the fund. The Vanguard Fund

describes itself as owned by the ''fund's shareholders " in its corporate

literature, Flym and Maharaj argue.

 

Vanguard spokesman John Woerth said in an interview that his company

took control of the IRA assets to comply with a court order from

Massachusetts.

 

''Vanguard acted properly. . . " he said. ''We are simply complying with

a court order to disperse the assets. "

 

According to a 2002 court filing submitted by Flym alleging the conflict

of interest, ''Alito owned shares worth $390,000 to $975,000 in

seventeen Vanguard funds. "

 

Surrounded by piles of legal documents at her temporary home yesterday,

Maharaj held up one of the briefs in the case submitted to the Third

Circuit and pointed to the listed parties, which included The Vanguard

Group Inc., Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard/Morgan Growth

Fund Inc.

 

''How could [Alito] not have known Vanguard was a defendant? " she asked.

''He had to have. " >>

 

 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/11/03/plaintiff_alleg\

es_alito_conflict?mode=PF

 

 

 

 

" When the power of love becomes stronger than the love of power, we will have

peace. "

Jimi Hendrix