Friday, November 23, 2007

Judge Kessler Cancels November 28, 2007 Hearing.


I received this email from Montgomery Sibley late on Wednesday. Looks like Vitter got a temporary free pass not to testify in the hearing. Vitter not testfying? Judge cancelled the hearing? AUSA refused the subpoena by Ms. Palfrey's defense team? Something smells rotten in Denmark...


Mr. Sibley wrote:


Greetings:

At 4:22 p.m. this afternoon, Judge Kessler entered an order which canceled the hearing she had previously set for Wednesday, November 28, 2007, on whether the injunction prohibiting Jeane's suit against a former escort should be dissolved. Earlier this week Jeane had served a subpoena on Senator Vitter for that hearing and demanded the appearance of AUSA William Cowden to testify upon the allegations he made under oath last March in order to obtain the temporary restraining order from Judge Kessler. By canceling this hearing, those witnesses will not now be cross examined under oath anytime soon.

Additionally, Judge Kessler today entered an order requiring all criminal counsel in this case to comply with Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b)(3) which limits my public comments on the pending matter.

Accordingly, until I have had time to review in detail the orders of today, neither Jeane nor I will be making any public comment on them.

1 comment:

airJackie said...

If this Judge is honest there is alot of problems for the Prosecutor. Now it's time to talk to the Assignment Judge and for the Prosecutor to talk to Mikie/Mark. Once a lawyer lies to a Judge in a trial it's over, he/she can't be trusted at their word. In court that's the only thing a lawyer has is his word. To protect the guilty the Prosecutor has to as that this case be dismissed. If not all the secret crimes of the GOP will come out. Now think about a jury hearing a case with only the Prosecutors story as the Defense says they never got discovery or allowed to call witnesses. Most of the jury already heard Vitter cry on TV and the other dude said he didn't have sex. Now most intelligent jurors would say how can we judge a case where the defense can't and isn't allowed to defend itself.