Judges Seek To Oust Chief Of Marshals
Service's Cuts Heighten Concern Over Security
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
I'm sure some C.O.L. (Clueless Old Liberal) will blame this on cuts from the Bush budget or something similar, but personally I'm glad that the judges involved are demanding change and better security. And for the record, this, like many other things, isn't the fault of President George W. Bush.
From The Washington Post, headline is linked.
Judges Seek To Oust Chief Of Marshals
Service's Cuts Heighten Concern Over Security
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 16, 2005; Page B01
Leaders of the federal judiciary have privately urged Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to consider replacing the director of the U.S. Marshals Service, complaining that weak management has left judges and courthouses in danger, according to several court officers, judges and federal officials.
In public, the normally reserved federal judges have criticized the Marshals Service for what they consider the lackluster performance of its director, Benigno G. Reyna, and his failure to respond quickly to their pleas for more security. Those concerns were magnified in February, when an angry litigant broke into the home of U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow in Chicago and killed her husband and mother.
The judges' increasing frustration is scheduled to be aired this week on Capitol Hill, when Lefkow and others plan to testify at a hearing exploring security issues. Reyna also is on the witness list for the session Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the Washington area and nationwide, federal judges said they fear for their families at home and members of the public in their courtrooms. They said the Marshals Service has ordered deep cuts in the ranks of deputy marshals, who secure prisoners, monitor courtrooms and protect judges.
At the U.S. District Court in Washington, one of the 10 busiest courthouses in the country for terrorism and criminal cases, the judges learned in March that Reyna's office was cutting 22 deputy positions from the courthouse's force -- just two weeks after Lefkow's family members were killed.
At a recent congressional hearing, Jane R. Roth, an appellate judge based in Wilmington, complained about a secretive agency that she said pays lip service to its primary mission -- protecting judges -- but does not devote enough money to the job. Roth chairs a security committee for the Judicial Conference of the United States, a policy-making arm of the federal judiciary.
In her testimony, Roth revealed that she had expressed concern to Gonzales "about leadership at the Marshals Service, the vacancies in several critical positions" and the service's lack of a clear response to judges' security concerns.
"Because the Marshals Service will only share limited amounts of information about how . . . resources are deployed, it's anyone's guess as to whether threats against the judiciary are being handled appropriately," Roth told a panel from the House Judiciary Committee.
Reyna declined requests for an interview. Three members of his office who were authorized to speak to a reporter said that the service is doing a very good job protecting roughly 2,000 judges and 400 court buildings with the 3,300 deputy marshals on its payroll.
Marc Farmer, acting director of the Marshals Service's judicial security division, said the feedback he gets indicates that "judges are very much satisfied with the level of security we provide them. . . . The real issue is this: No judiciary person, no judge, has not had security when that is what was needed."
According to the Marshals Service, the agency handles about 700 instances of threats or inappropriate communications to judicial officials each year. In 2003, the agency monitored and managed 20 protective details for federal judges and federal prosecutors, including 12 that ran around-the-clock.
... more at linked article
Some great nuggets buried in this article.
At a recent congressional hearing, Jane R. Roth, an appellate judge based in Wilmington, complained about a secretive agency that she said pays lip service to its primary mission -- protecting judges -- but does not devote enough money to the job.
That statement alone speaks volumes.
In anycase, these judges are right to demand better. Now hopefully our government will deliver better.
From The Washington Post, headline is linked.
Judges Seek To Oust Chief Of Marshals
Service's Cuts Heighten Concern Over Security
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 16, 2005; Page B01
Leaders of the federal judiciary have privately urged Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to consider replacing the director of the U.S. Marshals Service, complaining that weak management has left judges and courthouses in danger, according to several court officers, judges and federal officials.
In public, the normally reserved federal judges have criticized the Marshals Service for what they consider the lackluster performance of its director, Benigno G. Reyna, and his failure to respond quickly to their pleas for more security. Those concerns were magnified in February, when an angry litigant broke into the home of U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow in Chicago and killed her husband and mother.
The judges' increasing frustration is scheduled to be aired this week on Capitol Hill, when Lefkow and others plan to testify at a hearing exploring security issues. Reyna also is on the witness list for the session Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the Washington area and nationwide, federal judges said they fear for their families at home and members of the public in their courtrooms. They said the Marshals Service has ordered deep cuts in the ranks of deputy marshals, who secure prisoners, monitor courtrooms and protect judges.
At the U.S. District Court in Washington, one of the 10 busiest courthouses in the country for terrorism and criminal cases, the judges learned in March that Reyna's office was cutting 22 deputy positions from the courthouse's force -- just two weeks after Lefkow's family members were killed.
At a recent congressional hearing, Jane R. Roth, an appellate judge based in Wilmington, complained about a secretive agency that she said pays lip service to its primary mission -- protecting judges -- but does not devote enough money to the job. Roth chairs a security committee for the Judicial Conference of the United States, a policy-making arm of the federal judiciary.
In her testimony, Roth revealed that she had expressed concern to Gonzales "about leadership at the Marshals Service, the vacancies in several critical positions" and the service's lack of a clear response to judges' security concerns.
"Because the Marshals Service will only share limited amounts of information about how . . . resources are deployed, it's anyone's guess as to whether threats against the judiciary are being handled appropriately," Roth told a panel from the House Judiciary Committee.
Reyna declined requests for an interview. Three members of his office who were authorized to speak to a reporter said that the service is doing a very good job protecting roughly 2,000 judges and 400 court buildings with the 3,300 deputy marshals on its payroll.
Marc Farmer, acting director of the Marshals Service's judicial security division, said the feedback he gets indicates that "judges are very much satisfied with the level of security we provide them. . . . The real issue is this: No judiciary person, no judge, has not had security when that is what was needed."
According to the Marshals Service, the agency handles about 700 instances of threats or inappropriate communications to judicial officials each year. In 2003, the agency monitored and managed 20 protective details for federal judges and federal prosecutors, including 12 that ran around-the-clock.
... more at linked article
Some great nuggets buried in this article.
At a recent congressional hearing, Jane R. Roth, an appellate judge based in Wilmington, complained about a secretive agency that she said pays lip service to its primary mission -- protecting judges -- but does not devote enough money to the job.
That statement alone speaks volumes.
In anycase, these judges are right to demand better. Now hopefully our government will deliver better.