Email this article Printer friendly page

 For Immediate Release
Jul 7, 2000 Contact: Press Office
202-646-5172


SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ASKED ABOUT POSSIBLE ROLE IN JUDICIAL SCANDAL

Judicial Watch Asks Justice Souter to Issue Statement About His Role in Case that May Lead To Impeachment of Former Colleague in New Hampshire

New Hampshire Politicians Failed to Question Justice Souter

(Washington, D.C.) Judicial Watch yesterday hand-delivered a letter to The Honorable David Souter, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, concerning the impeachment of his former colleague, David A. Brock, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. The New Hampshire legislature is considering impeaching Chief Justice Brock for, among other things, his alleged interference in a case concerning a powerful New Hampshire politician. Press reports show that Justice Souter, when he served on the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 1987, was also involved in this case. Despite his involvement in the case, Justice Souter was the only justice from the New Hampshire Supreme Court of 1987 not to be questioned by New Hampshire legislators investigating the controversy. As Justice Souter may have relevant information to the controversy, Judicial Watch thought it in the public interest to ask him to issue a public statement about his knowledge of the matters. A copy of the letter to Justice Souter is available on the Judicial Watch Internet site at www.judicialwatch.org.

"We hope that Justice Souter responds quickly to our letter. We urge Justice Souter, both in the interests of justice and in fairness to his former colleagues on the New Hampshire bench, to issue a statement to ‘clear the air' of any lingering questions about any role he may have had in the scandal," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Responding to the fact that the New Hampshire scandal came to public light only after a law clerk came forward, Fitton added, "We wish other members of the judiciary had come forward in New Hampshire earlier about the improper practices of their colleagues. What is interesting about the investigation of the Chief Justice in New Hampshire is that it is happening at all. Too often, corruption in the judiciary goes unchecked."

Judicial Watch is a public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes public corruption.

The letter to Justice Souter is copied below:

BEGIN LETTER--

Via Hand Delivery

July 6, 2000

The Honorable David H. Souter
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Justice Souter:

Judicial Watch, Inc. is a non-profit foundation dedicated to restoring a sense of ethics and morality to our nation's public life. To reach these goals, Judicial Watch pursues litigation concerning public corruption and monitors the judiciary – that branch of government that we believe can be instrumental for restoring the rule of law and ethics to our nation. We are supported, financially and otherwise, by millions of American citizens.

It is because Judicial Watch has the utmost respect for the judicial process that I write to you now.

As you may know, if true, recent news stories have reported on a terrible breach of ethics on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, of which you were once a member. Indeed, New Hampshire Chief Justice David A. Brock was just yesterday recommended for impeachment by the Judiciary Committee of the New Hampshire state legislature. See Pamela Ferdinard, "N.H. Chief Justice Faces Impeachment," The Washington Post, July 6, 2000, attached as Exhibit 1. According to these press reports, you adjudicated a case at the center of the impeachment drama in New Hampshire. Holly Ramer, a reporter with the respected Associated Press, recently wrote:

    A criminal investigation in March led to the resignation of one justice and prompted the committee's impeachment inquiry [by New Hampshire's House Judiciary Committee], which has focused on the case and on judges failing to report alleged ethics violations by colleagues.

    The case was a contract dispute between two fuel companies, one owned by Edward Dupont, then majority leader of the state Senate. Lawmakers have focused on it because of allegations that Chief Justice David Brock called a lower-court judge, Douglas Gray, to remind him of Dupont's powerful position.

    Gray and another Superior Court judge, Kenneth McHugh, both had rulings in the case overturned by the state Supreme Court. They told the committee this month that the speed with which the high court handled the case made them suspect Dupont got special treatment.

    "The subject matter of this case did not warrant the treatment it got," McHugh said.

    Gray, now retired, said: "I live in the real world. This case was moving along."

    Gray ruled against Dupont in March 1987. Souter drew at random the job of evaluating Dupont's appeal. He eventually wrote the relatively speedy November 1987 opinion that partially overturned Gray's ruling.

    Souter's reasons for speeding the case along aren't clear. In May 1987, the court clerk told him in a memo that the case would become moot because a non-compete clause in the contract expired after a year. A month later, the clerk wrote to the other justices, saying Souter recommended the case be expedited.
See Holly Ramer, "Souter Won't Face N.H. Case Probe," The Associated Press, June 28, 2000, attached as Exhibit 2.

Apparently, you have yet to make any public statements concerning the scandal rocking the New Hampshire Supreme Court, nor are you to be questioned by legislators considering the impeachment of your former colleague, New Hampshire Chief Justice David A. Brock. Ms. Ramer's article concludes:

    Souter is the only justice from 1987 who has not testified before the committee. He has repeatedly declined to comment on the investigation.

    Republican Rep. Tony Soltani was in the minority that wanted Souter to testify.

    "Some justices have pointed to Justice Souter as justification for some of the things that have happened," he said. "He has information to help us."
Judicial Watch thus urges you, respectfully -- both in the interest of justice and in fairness to your former colleagues and citizens in New Hampshire -- to issue a public statement about this controversy. We believe it would be in the public interest for the following issues, in particular, to be addressed:
    The nature and substance of any contact between you, Chief Justice Brock, or any other New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice about Edward Dupont's case.

    Whether you did "expedite" Mr. Dupont's case and, if so, for what reasons.

    Any knowledge you have of New Hampshire Supreme Court justices, including yourself, ever participating in cases from which they had recused themselves. See Pamela Ferdinand, "N.H. Justices in the Balance as Impeachment Is Weighed," The Washington Post, July 1, 2000, attached as Exhibit 3.
Given the reluctance of the politicians on the House Judiciary Committee to question you directly, as they have every othe

Top of Page