Tag Archives: disqualification

Comey hired possible witness as his lawyer to block testimony, DOJ says

Posted on by
Reply

The government has asked the court to approve a “filter protocol” to allow a neutral team to review seized communications between James Comey and several lawyers, including Michael Fitzgerald, to determine whether the material is privileged or evidence of misconduct.

“Based on publicly disclosed information, the defendant used current lead defense counsel to improperly disclose classified information,” prosecutors wrote.

### A Case Rooted in 2017 Memo Leaks

Comey, 64, was indicted on September 25 for allegedly making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding related to his 2020 Senate testimony about the FBI’s Trump-Russia investigation. He pleaded not guilty earlier this month, insisting he never authorized leaks to the press and accusing the Justice Department of mounting a vindictive prosecution encouraged by former President Trump.

According to a Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG) report from August 2019, Comey leaked copies of his personal memos—documenting conversations he had with Trump—to at least three attorneys: David Kelley, Michael Fitzgerald, and Daniel Richman. He later tapped all three as his personal lawyers. These memos contained detailed accounts of Oval Office meetings and one-on-one calls in which Trump allegedly urged leniency for then-national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Prosecutors now argue that Comey is repeating the pattern that started with that arrangement. Because Fitzgerald is now representing Comey in the criminal case stemming in part from those very disclosures, the government says Fitzgerald’s presence on the defense team “raises a question of conflict and disqualification.”

### Classified Information and the Breach

The FBI later concluded that some of the memos shared with the trio contained information classified at the “confidential” level and moved to delete them from the attorneys’ computers in early 2018, underscoring the seriousness of the breach.

“Before litigating any issue of conflict or disqualification, the parties should have access to all relevant and non-privileged information,” prosecutors wrote in their Sunday night filing. “The sooner that the potentially protected information is reviewed and filtered, the sooner the parties can make any appropriate filings with the Court.”

### OIG Found Comey ‘Set a Dangerous Example’

Former DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 2019 report described Comey’s actions as a serious breach of policy, saying he “set a dangerous example” for FBI employees by retaining and leaking government documents for “a personally desired outcome.” The watchdog said Comey kept four of seven memos in a personal safe at home after his firing and failed to notify the bureau he had done so.

Although the Horowitz report found no evidence that Comey or his lawyers shared classified information with the media, it concluded that his handling of official records violated FBI policy and DOJ regulations. Prosecutors at the time declined to bring charges, citing a lack of proof that Comey intentionally mishandled classified material.

One of the leaked memos described Comey’s February 2017 Oval Office meeting with Trump, in which the president allegedly said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting Flynn go.” The contents of that memo, leaked through Richman to The New York Times, helped trigger the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

Prosecutors have since charged Comey with lying to Congress about leaking, although the details of the DOJ’s case remain unclear.

### How the Leaks Were Shared

The inspector general reported that Comey emailed four memos from a personal account to Fitzgerald within days of his May 2017 firing. Fitzgerald then forwarded the messages to Kelley and Richman, both of whom were advising Comey at the time. Separately, Comey sent Richman a photograph of the Flynn memo from his cellphone.

Copies of the memos later released to Congress showed that four were classified as either “secret” or “confidential” following an FBI review led by counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap. Comey disputed the secret designation for one of them, though investigators found he never sought classification guidance from the bureau before sharing the material.

In a 2019 FBI interview, Richman said Comey had not authorized him to discuss the bureau’s Hillary Clinton email investigation with reporters but acknowledged Comey knew he sometimes engaged with the press.

### First Pretrial Standoff Comes to the Forefront

Comey’s same 2017 relationships with close confidants are now at the heart of the government’s latest inquiry into whether Comey can keep his current lead counsel. Fitzgerald’s own involvement in transmitting Comey’s memos to other lawyers could make him a fact witness in the case, raising ethical questions about whether he can simultaneously defend his former client.

### Jack Smith’s Former Right-Hand Man Joins Comey’s Defense Team

The government’s disqualification effort comes on the heels of Comey’s move last Friday to hire an additional attorney, Mueller counselor Michael Dreeben, who also assisted former special counsel Jack Smith during his case against Trump last year over alleged election interference.

Dreeben’s involvement could present another unique conflict, though the government has yet to raise a specific issue with him being on the case.

Comey’s team has also accused the DOJ of mishandling privileged materials and is preparing to argue that the prosecution itself was politically motivated in additional filings expected Monday afternoon.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/3857132/comey-hired-possible-witness-as-lawyer-patrick-fitzgerald-doj-says/

Why is a spectre of empty classrooms looming? | Explained

Posted on by
Reply

**Tamil Nadu Seeks Review of Supreme Court Judgment on Teachers Eligibility Test**

The State of Tamil Nadu has sought a review of a recent Supreme Court judgment mandating in-service teachers from Classes 1 to 8 in non-minority schools across India to clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) within two years, failing which they face compulsory retirement. Several other States have also expressed concerns over the September 1 judgment, highlighting its harsh impact on lakhs of teachers employed validly in government, aided, unaided, and private schools covered under Section 2(n) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. These States are likely to follow Tamil Nadu’s lead and approach the top court.

### The Situation in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu alone employs 4,49,850 teachers in government and aided schools, of whom 3,90,458 are not TET-qualified. The States have argued that implementing the Supreme Court ruling risks the collapse of the entire school system. This is due to the potential mass disqualification of teachers, which could lead to millions of children being denied classroom instruction.

Tamil Nadu further contends that the judgment directly conflicts with Article 21A of the Constitution — the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children aged six to 14 years. The State seeks a balanced approach that ensures quality education while safeguarding children’s right to education.

### What Did the Judgment Mandate?

The two-judge Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, aware of the ground realities, authored the September 1 judgment. Justice Datta acknowledged the contributions of non-TET qualified teachers who were appointed before the RTE Act came into force.

The court recognized that dislodging elementary school teachers might be too harsh since many have taught students for decades without significant complaints. Therefore, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the court exempted teachers with less than five years remaining before retirement from taking the TET. However, these teachers must qualify the TET if they seek promotion.

On the other hand, teachers with more than five years of service remaining must mandatorily clear the TET within two years from the date of the judgment. Failure to do so will result in compulsory retirement with terminal benefits. From now on, future appointments or promotions in non-minority schools will require TET qualification.

Additionally, the Bench referred the question of whether minority educational institutions should fall under the RTE Act to a larger Bench. The court observed that minority status has been misused by some school managements to avoid the RTE Act’s mandate for TET-qualified teachers in elementary education.

The judgment, based on appeals challenging the insistence on TET qualification even in minority institutions, criticized a 2014 Constitution Bench decision in the *Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust* case. That ruling had excluded minority institutions from the RTE Act’s ambit entirely.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to bring minority-run schools, whether religious or linguistic, within the RTE fold to uphold the universal elementary education vision. It stated that exempting minority institutions fragments the common schooling vision and weakens the idea of inclusivity and universality envisaged by Article 21A.

### Arguments Presented in the Review Petitions

Review petitions filed by Tamil Nadu and Kerala-based teachers’ union Deseeya Adhyapakha Parishad (NTU) argue that while enhancing teaching quality is a legitimate objective, forcing pre-RTE Act appointees to pass the TET under threat of disqualification is disproportionate.

Tamil Nadu has recommended less intrusive alternatives such as:

– In-service training,
– Capacity-building workshops,
– Refresher courses,
– Bridging programmes

These approaches, the State contends, can improve teaching quality without destabilizing the education system.

### The Core Legal Issue: Interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act

At the heart of the controversy lies the interpretation of Section 23 of the RTE Act. According to Section 23(1), the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) prescribed minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher for Classes 1 to 8 through its August 23, 2010 notification. An essential qualification is passing the TET conducted by the appropriate government.

The rationale behind including the TET is to introduce national standards and benchmarks of teacher quality in the recruitment process.

However, Tamil Nadu in its review petition contends that Section 23(1) applies only to future recruitments. The State points to Section 23(2), which empowers the Centre to relax minimum qualifications through notifications for a limited period (not exceeding five years) to address situations like teacher shortages.

Furthermore, a proviso attached to Section 23 clarifies that any teacher who, at the commencement of the RTE Act, did not possess the minimum qualifications (including TET) must acquire them within five years.

Tamil Nadu argues that Section 23 does not mandate a blanket TET requirement, nor does it allow retrospective disqualification of teachers who were validly appointed before the minimum qualifications notification.

The State warns that enforcing the September 1 judgment as it stands will result in empty classrooms and cause immense distress among teachers struggling to secure their livelihoods over the next two years.

—

The evolving situation highlights the tension between maintaining teacher quality standards and protecting the rights of current educators and students’ access to education. As Tamil Nadu and other States push for a review, the Supreme Court’s response will be closely watched by stakeholders across the country.
https://www.thehindu.com/education/why-is-a-spectre-of-empty-classrooms-looming-explained/article70125871.ece