I had assumed that the documents on his site would be full of legalese -- you know, 'heretofore' and 'forthwith'-- so I was going to wait for some of our legal folks here to do synopses so I wouldn't have to wade thru all the dry stuff. But I'm here to tell you, these are completely readable even for lay persons like myself. In his "memorandum in opposition to Judith Miller's motion for reconsideration ...," I'm especially enjoying Fitz's dry understatement. To wit:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/miller_brief_july2005.pdf<snip>
Miller now asks this Court to “reconsider” that order before being confined for even one minute, on the ground that confinement has no realistic possibility of coercing compliance with the Court’s order. Miller argues that her refusal to obey the law is based on a “moral and principled stance” and “beliefs that go to the core of her being” which, she contends, are commonly shared journalistic principles...
Coming as it does before she has served any period of confinement, Miller’s motion fails to carry her burden of establishing that the confinement provision of Section 1826 will be ineffective in achieving compliance with this Court’s order. (emphasis added by me)
<snip>
I also greatly enjoyed Fitzgerald's use of quotes from various journalists supporting his decision to throw ol' Judy in jail:
<snip>
The editor in chief of Time Inc. made news the other day by offering to do what most of us take for granted: Obey the law.
<snip>
The Times reports that the more Pearlstine looked at the issue, . . . the more he came to believe that it was more detrimental to hold on to the files. “The journalist and the lawyer were fighting in my head,” he said. “But if Presidents are not above the law, how is it that journalists are?” . . . “Thinking we’re above the law rings wrong to me,” he said.
<snip>
Maybe it's time for journalists . . . to stop staging these 1st Amendment melodramas. Journalists — who are citizens too — could help by being less promiscuous with offers of anonymity in the first place. If it is information you believe should not be out there — because it endangers lives (of a covert agent's contacts, for instance) or because it is wrong or deeply misleading — why should you even consider going to jail to protect the source?
<snip>
I'm lovin' it. Legal documents that are fun to read. :D