WASHINGTON, March 24 (UPI) -- An FBI whistleblower is calling on the judge in her case to recuse himself, because his decision to keep his financial disclosure information private creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI contract linguist who revealed the parlous state of the bureau's translation unit, filed her motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Wednesday.
Citing the provision of the U.S. code that requires a federal judge to disqualify himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," Edmonds' motion asks for District Judge Reggie Walton to withdraw and another judge to be assigned to the case.
The case in question -- a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act -- is the latest in a series that Edmonds has fought against the FBI in furtherance of her claim that she was retaliated against by managers after raising serious questions about security in the bureau's Washington translation unit.
Wednesday's motion cites Walton's decision to exercise a rarely used privilege and redact from public disclosure the entirety of his annual statement of financial interests, and what it calls "the convoluted movement of (Edmonds') cases among courts all leading back to Judge Walton."
The motion says that Edmonds first case -- a suit under the Freedom of Information Act -- was assigned to one judge, Ellen Huvelle, in July 2002. Her second case later that month -- a suit alleging violations of the Privacy Act and First Amendment -- was randomly assigned to a different judge, James Robertson.
The following year, in February 2003, her second case was moved from Robertson to Walton, "without explanation," according to the motion. Her lawyers filed a request that the second case also be heard by Huvelle, on the grounds that it was a "related case." DC Court rules require that related cases are heard by the same judge.
The court first granted the request for a transfer to Huvelle, but then -- just two days later -- transferred it back to Walton.
Finally, Edmonds third case -- under the Federal Tort Claims Act -- was filed in March last year. It was randomly assigned to Robertson, but then reassigned to Walton five days later.
"That is highly unusual," David Colapinto, Edmonds' attorney at the time, told United Press International. Not everyone agrees. "I've seen them bounce around like that before," said one lawyer who appears before the court frequently.
Nonetheless, the motion says these circumstances have created a "substantial public perception that the case assignment process was manipulated in order to put (Edmonds') cases before Judge Walton where they would be dealt with in a biased manner."
The motion says that the public perception -- whether justified or not -- is clearly visible on the Internet where a quick search "shows hundreds, if not thousands of news Web sites and bloggers advancing the belief or implying that the assignment of judge Walton to both (Edmonds') cases ... is anything but coincidence."
Shelley Snook, the administrative assistant to the court's chief judge, Thomas Hogan, told UPI that the Calendar Committee -- the body that assigns cases within the court -- had reviewed the issue after a reporter's inquiry.
"The matter was dealt with in compliance with our local rules," he said, declining to comment further.
Although legal observers are skeptical about Edmonds' chances of success, the motion will highlight the role of Judge Walton in a series of high-profile national security cases, and the lengths to which he has gone to shield from disclosure his financial interests.
Walton is also presiding over the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- the Cheney aide accused of lying to investigators trying to find out who in the government had leaked the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee.
The Ethics in Government Act requires federal judges to file annual financial disclosure statements as a check on conflicts of interest. But it also allows them to request redactions of parts of the disclosure "to the extent necessary to protect the individual who filed the report; and for as long as the danger to such individual exists."
The financial disclosure statement filed by Walton in 2003 redacts all information except for the date of the filing and Walton's name. His statement for the following year is largely unredacted.
The motion calls the 2003 redaction "highly unusual," saying that a recent Government Accountability Office report found "less than one percent of judges on average request complete redaction of their financial disclosure each year."
Walton could not be reached for a response, but the judicial code prohibits judges from commenting on cases currently being litigated.
