|
ABC News 20/20 Transcript of “Junkets for Judges”
Segment,
April 6, 2001
(to view a Windows Media Player file of the segment, click
here)
Three
o’clock on a glorious Tuesday afternoon in Tucson, Arizona.
It’s the middle of the workday for most people.
But
here at one of the top golf courses in the country, a group
of U.S. federal judges, their courtrooms and black robes far
away, is finishing up the ninth hole. Brian
Ross: Afternoon
Across
the fairway, two other federal judges, from Iowa, where it
was cold and snowy on this December day, are heading for a
tough par 5.
Brian Ross: How was
the game.
Judge Edmonds: Oh we are not done. We’re just on the
third hole.
And at the swimming pool, there’s a federal judge from Ohio
doing laps, while another one, from California, leisurely
catches up on some sun and the newspapers, all part of an
educational program that others call an entirely inappropriate
junket.
Brian Ross: You wouldn’t call this a junket?
Judge Osteen: I wouldn’t,.. oh, no. Well, it depends
what you mean by junket.
They’re all here for the week at the luxurious Omni Tucson,
along with about a dozen other federal judges, courtesy of
a little-known but well-financed organization which finds
golf resorts a nice place to help educate the judges.
Dean Mark Grady: That's a very useful place to have
a conversation in my experience.
Each year about one in ten federal judges will attend similar
private gatherings at some of the finest resorts in the country,
virtually free, sponsored by a handful of groups which get
their money from big corporations and pro-business organizations,
with a lot more in mind than just a few rounds of golf.
Doug Kendall: This is the way corporate America is
lobbying the judiciary—teaching judges to rule as if they
were a corporate CEO.
Doug Kendall is the director of The Community Rights Counsel,
a non-profit environmental group that has linked the judges'
seminars with what it calls the ten most dramatic rulings
against environmental protection laws.
Doug Kendall: We found that in all ten of those cases
the judge writing the opinion had been to at least one of
these junkets. In
six of those ten cases, the judge was attending a junket while
the case was pending before them.
One of them, a case involving the timber industry and a federal
judge, who after attending one of the private seminars, completely
reversed an earlier position, to the benefit of the timber
industry. Although
the Judge denies the seminar affected his decision.
Doug Kendall: He came back, he switched his vote and
he wrote the opinion striking down a critical portion of the
Endangered Species Act.
It turns out that corporations and pro-business groups have
quietly been spending millions of dollars to finance such
lavish outings for judges.
Here in Tucson, after a morning of classroom lectures, the
judges headed to lunch poolside.
At taxpayer expense, U.S. Marshals were assigned to guard
the judges throughout the week, although they never did spot
our 20/20 undercover team.
This particular seminar was sponsored by what’s known as the
Law and Economics Center, run out of the law school of George
Mason University in suburban Washington, a school whose pro-business
teachings have made it a favorite among many corporate executives.
Doug Kendall: That’s the niche that
George Mason fills.
The judges' week included seven separate sessions, which the
school says offer differing viewpoints and that over the years
have included Nobel prize-winning economists.
But others call the sessions here a kind of ideological boot
camp.
Doug Kendall: It’s famous as a conservative, right
wing law school
One lecturer this week in Tucson was a professor who calls
himself an anarchist economist, well known for his views about
who is responsible for industrial pollution.
Doug Kendall: What he says is that if the neighbor
didn’t live by the steel company the pollution wouldn’t be
hurting or killing anyone. It’s as much the neighbor’s fault
as it is a corporation’s fault. And so you have part junket,
part biased seminar and problems on both ends.
But the judges we talked to on the golf course had nothing
but praise for the seminars,
including Judge William Osteen of North Carolina.
Judge William Osteen: George Mason does a terrific
job.
Brian Ross: Why do they hold it here, instead of at
their campus in Washington, D.C.?
Judge Osteen: You’ll have to ask them about that. I
don’t know.
Brian Ross: Could it be the weather, do you think,
and the golf course?
Judge Osteen: I don’t know about that. You’ll have
to ask them.
Brian Ross: Well, what do you think?
Judge Osteen: I don’t have any thoughts about that.
Federal magistrate Paul Zoss and bankruptcy judge William
Edmonds, both of Iowa, said they had earned the right to a
little relaxation, even if they didn't know who paid for it.
Judge Zoss: Well, we worked all morning. I haven’t
taken a vacation all year.
Brian Ross: Is this your vacation?
Judge Zoss: Yeah, this is my vacation.
Judge Edmonds: Yes, this is a vacation.
Brian Ross: And who pays for it?
Judge Edmonds: Um, it’s the Institute.
Brian Ross: And where do they get their money, do you
know?
Judge Zoss: I have no idea.
In fact, the corporate sources of the money are not made public
by the George Mason law school, which is located a long way
from the golf courses of Tucson, in the suburban sprawl of
Arlington, Virginia.
No seminars for judges are held here.
Dean Mark Grady: These are academic retreats.
What could be more natural than for a law school to
seek to train academic judges?
Brian Ross: Why does it have to be at a golf course?
Dean Grady: It is a retreat.
Dean Mark Grady, who rejects the conservative label many have
attached to his law school, says he cannot understand why
anyone would object to the programs for federal judges--which
he says are unbiased--or why anyone would raise questions
about the source of the money.
Dean Grady: It comes from major corporations.
That's right.
I'm not, I'm not disputing that it comes from major
corporations. And
in fact, I.........
Brian Ross: Which ones?
Dean Grady: Which major corporations?
It comes from a variety of major corporations.
Brian Ross: Can you give me the names of your three
or four biggest?
Dean Grady: We do not publicize our, our, our sources
of funding because the academic program stands on its own
feet.
The corporate names used to be publicized until 1994, around
the time criticism of the program began.
The list was a who’s who of Fortune 500 companies—-many with
numerous cases before the federal courts--and also included
a foundation run by a reclusive, ultra conservative multi-millionaire...Richard
Mellon Scaife, best known for financing investigations of
President Clinton’s personal life.
But the Dean refused to talk about who is on the list now,
including Scaife.
Brian Ross: Does it include the Scaife Foundation?
Dean Mark Grady: Does it include the Scaife Foundation?
As I say we do not publicize our sources.
But our 20/20 investigation found tax documents showing Scaife,
through the foundation he runs, continues to help pay for
the judges’ free trips, some 150-thousand dollars last year
alone.
Dean Mark Grady: To be honest with you I don’t understand
why you’re making such a big production out of this. Where
are you going with this? What difference would it make if
the Scaife Foundation or any other foundation donated to these
programs?
A significant difference, in the view of two leading ethics
experts we talked with.
Judges are allowed to attend such seminars but the
two experts say, under the ethics rules for judges the Judges
have a responsibility, to determine who’s paying for their
free week at the golf
resort to avoid possible conflicts with pending cases.
The week after the seminar, Judge Osteen of North Carolina
was assigned a major case involving the Philip Morris company,
which at least in the past, was publicly listed as giving
money for the George Mason seminars. Phillip Morris refuses
to say if it still contributes.
Judge Osteen: I have no idea where they raise their
money, but it comes through there.
Brian Ross: And have you understood they receive it
from corporations, from conservative, non-profit groups?
Judge Osteen: No, I have not understood that.
Judge Biggers: They don’t tell us that.
Judge Neal Biggers of Mississippi.
Brian Ross: Don’t you think you ought to find out?
Judge Biggers: Not necessarily, because what’s the
difference? I, if I don’t know who is paying for it, then
I am not going to be affected either way by it, who, by who
it is.
Brian Ross: Well, aren’t you affected by who they choose
to speak to you?
Judge Biggers: Not at all, it’s an educational thing.
At night, in Tucson, the money from Richard Scaife and others
pays for the day’s final activity, cocktails and dinner on
the veranda, all part of the plan to make everyone comfortable.
And all, according to one distinguished former judge,
creating for those on the outside the appearance of
improper and unethical behavior.
Judge Abner Mikva: I think judges should realize that,
that they don’t have that much credibility to spare.
As chief judge of the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals
for years, Abner
Mikva says he was appalled to see many of his own colleagues,
good judges he says, being wined and dined by corporations
in the name of judicial education.
Judge Abner Mikva: The appearance of impropriety is
considered as important as the impropriety itself. I don’t
care if the judge can pass a lie detector test to prove that
he wasn’t reached. And it doesn’t matter how the judge rules.
What matters is that the people who have to accept that decision
as having been made on the merits are suspicious.
And our 20/20 investigation also found many judges attend
more than one of the free seminars, including James Jarvis
of Tennessee. This was his fifth seminar.
When we talked to him in Tucson, he wanted to stress that
judges pay their own greens fees.
Judge Jarvis: There’s no sin in playing golf as far
as I know and I paid for this, I paid for this.
Brian Ross: Who paid for the room?
Judge Jarvis: Well, George Mason paid for the room.
Brian Ross: And who paid for the airplane ticket.
Judge Jarvis: Well, I paid for them, but I expect to
be reimbursed.
Judge Jarvis told us he had no idea who the corporate sponsors
were, but our 20/20 investigation found that since he began
attending the seminars, Judge Jarvis has presided over at
least six cases involving large corporations, all of which
confirmed to us they were at the time helping to pay for the
George Mason seminars.
Judge Jarvis says any suggestion that he is being influenced
by the free trip or the classroom courses is wrong.
Judge Jarvis: I can understand that you all could spin
it that way if you want to; I mean that’s your business, you’re
in the news business.
And the judges from Iowa said they regarded the seminars as
a valuable educational experience but that they couldn’t possibly
be influenced by a free vacation.
Judge Zoss: Nobody has tried to influence me. I know
that.
Brian Ross: Subtly, perhaps?
Judge Zoss:
I don’t think I’m influenceable.
But the judges may not know just what their hosts have in
mind, then. The law school dean openly boasts of trying to
influence the thinking of federal judges at the private luxury
seminars.
Dean Mark Grady:
We're proud of that.
Brian Ross: So you're out to change the judges' minds?
Dean Grady: We are, yes, we are, we are out to influence
minds.
Brian Ross: And if court cases are changed as a consequence?
Dean Grady: If court cases are changed, ah, then, ah,
that is something that we are proud of as well.
And by the most recent count,
at least 550 federal judges in this country, including
two Supreme Court justices, have quietly accepted free trips
to the George Mason luxury seminars.
Judge Mikva: Most of the time we think about judges
with more respect and more deference than we think about elected
officials. I want to keep that distinction. We don’t want
judges to be considered as just another bunch of politicians.
To read CRC's press release
on the junkets for judges segment on 20/20, click here.
|
