The other day,
eafredel pointed out the lengths to which Manny Miranda is going to prevent the courts from deciding once and for all whether
what he did was theft or not.
Manny says it's not, but "common sense" says otherwise. Most Americans would say this is a job for the courts. But not Manny...
In an attempt to foreclose further investigation and prosecution, Manuel Miranda filed a civil action against then Attorney General John Ashcroft and W. Ralph Bashman, Director of the U. S. Civil Service. The complaint seeks "a declaratory judgment that plaintiff did not violate certain laws of the United States, namely Section 1030(a)(2)(B), Section 641, and Section 1001(c) of Title 18, that certain of these laws are unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to the Plaintiff, or nonjusticiable, and that Plaintiff is immune from prosecution, or testimony under these laws pursuant to the Speech and Debate Clause." Mr. Miranda then filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief, including an order "that the Defendants and any grand juries under their control be, and hereby are, enjoined from investigating, indicting, or prosecuting the Plaintiff for any matter arising out of the Plaintiff's service to the United States Senate..."
Judge Gladys Kessler denied the application for a TRO on October 1, 2004, on the grounds that (1) Mr. Miranda could not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) Mr. Miranda did not allege irreparable harm with sufficient particularity, and (3) a strong judicial policy advocated against intervening in ongoing criminal investigations or prosecutions. The request for preliminary injunctive relief was denied on similar grounds on November 15, 2004.
What's up, Manny? You've had your say and so has the U.S. Attorney. Why not let the judges have an up-or-down vote on whether or not you're a criminal?
Why is Manuel Miranda filibustering the federal courts?