The Issues

Home | Latest News | Judicial Misconduct | The Issues | Links | The Usual Suspects | On the lighter side | Contact Us
James K. Robinson, former Assistant Attorney General represented Jon Tukel and Judge Rosen.

Robinson sites Glen Fine and the Office of the Inspector General as "one component of the Department" that "has recognized the need to restore credibility to" the core mission of the Department of Justice.
Of course, this is AFTER he gets Glen Fine and the OIG to alter the REPORT OF INVESTIGATION done on the leak against Rick Convertino for his client Jon Tukel

Restoring Public Confidence in the Fairness of the Department of -

CLICK HERE to watch a YOU TUBE video about what James K. Robinson has to say on the politicization of the Justice Department.

 Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth in Washington, D.C. is the judge presiding over the lawsuit filed against the Department of Justice.


Royce C. Lamberth was appointed United States District Judge for the District of Columbia on November 16, 1987. He became Chief Judge on May 1, 2008.

Judge Lamberth is former Chairman of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Federal Bar Association, and The Federal Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Federal Lawyers were drafted by Judge Lamberth's Committee. 
I believe that once Judge Lamberth learns the truth about the Justice Department's unethical conduct in this case, he will react the same way he did in the recent lawsuit brought by another Federal Employee.
A Drug Enforcement Agency official, Richard Horn, claimed he was illegally spied on by the CIA station chief and a top diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in Burma in 1993. Horn alleges his American embassy colleagues put a coffee-table in his home which contained some kind of surveillance device.
The Government was able to effectively prevent the lawsuit from progressing by making false claims of classified information and covert operatives.  When the claims proved false earlier this year, Judge Lamberth ruled that the government's actions in the case were a "fraud on the court."
After Rick filed his lawsuit against the Justice Department in 2004, the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation against him.  They were then able to place all of the documents related to the lawsuit under a Protective Order, claiming that without the order, ongoing investigations could be compromised.
Now, almost 2 years after being acquitted by a jury in a criminal trial and cleared by the State Bar of Michigan of any ethical violations, the Justice Department still wants the Judge to keep the documents protected.  Without the entire truth being exposed, Rick will not be vindicated and his reputation will always be tarnished by the actions of the DOJ.
We know why the government wants to maintain the Protective Order and it has nothing to do with classified information or ongoing investigations.  It has everything to do with protecting the individuals, many of whom were in the Public Integrity Section, who engaged in unethical and potentially criminal behavior during the years of retaliation against Rick Convertino.

In 2004, the Office of the Inspector General was tasked with finding out who was responsible for the malicious leak against Rick Convertino. Unfortunately, the investigation turned out to be a farse.  We know from Jonathan Tukel's motion to intervene, that the government has always had incriminating emails between Jon Tukel and his attorney, James K. Robinson because the emails had been sent from Tukel's computer at the United States Attorney's Office. 


Yet, despite having this incriminating evidence against Mr. Tukel, the Office of the Inspector General INSISTED that the sources of the leak could not be determined. It seems the government has known all along who criminally leaked information about Rick Convertino and then it lied in the report.  While the DOJ was conducting retaliatory investigations against Rick Convertino, we counted on the Inspector General to remain neutral and conduct the investigation without either bias or influence by other divisions within the DOJ.

But not only did the Inspector General allow outside influences from those in the DOJ, he also allowed a private attorney, James K. Robinson, to influence the wording of the Report of Investigation.  The DOJ has been trying to claim "attorney / client priviledge" on behalf of Mr. Tukel for years now to protect him and others.

The Protective Order on all of the documents in this case should be lifted!  The only thing being protected by this order are the corrupt individuals within DOJ who orchestrated both the retaliation against Rick Convertino and the overturning of the terrorism case.

Why doesn't the public  have a "right to know" about what really happened in this case?
Just as Attorney General Eric Holder did in the case against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, an investigation into the actions of the Public Integrity Section in this case should be conducted.
The truth cannot set us free of this 9 year-long nightmare if the truth cannot be told!
Please ask Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, D.C. to lift the protective order!


 By Valerie Convertino

Published in The Bay City Times
Wednesday January 14, 2009


While it is true that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, limitations on both are imposed by the Constitution. Anonymous sources have always been necessary, but there are many different reasons a source may wish to remain anonymous. In addition to authenticating the accuracy of the information being provided, a reporter has an ethical responsibility to examine possible motives behind the anonymous leak, and the protection of criminals ought not to be allowed.

What the Free Press has failed to disclose is that David Ashenfelter and his editors disseminated confidential information, for which the leakers are criminally liable, when there was no public "right to know" the leaked information.

They also refused Rick the opportunity to provide proof that the allegations were unfounded prior to printing them. While it may have been "accurate" to report on the "existence" of the particular internal allegations that were made against Richard Convertino, the "truth" of the allegations was always in dispute. After five years of retaliation against him for his criticisms on the handling of the war on terror, he has been cleared of all ethical and criminal charges. Unfortunately, the cloud over his reputation will never dissipate.

The fact is that the newspaper's dissemination of the false allegations against Rick ended his public credibility as a federal prosecutor and representative of the American people, something he was exceptionally good at and very proud to be. Is it sufficient to say that a reporter's obligation has been met if he merely reports "correctly" on the "existence" of the allegations?

Perhaps his legal obligations are met, but not his ethical ones. Although the damage of the past cannot be undone, it can be rectified, and Mr. Ashenfelter and his editors can expose the real public corruption in this case by disclosing the sources of the leak.

I believe the press must be a "watchdog" for corruption, but it also has a sacred responsibility to try to "do no harm" to innocent people. There are many individuals who believe that if an allegation is made against someone in the paper, or in court, it must be true. Pray that these individuals never sit in judgment of someone you love.