Los
Angeles,
California
January 5,
2006 ______________________________________________________ The
Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Their
Government The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
________________________________________
A schism has arisen in South Dakota between the federal branches of government, namely The Judiciary vs. The Executive. The issue: appointing power and control of the Office of U.S. Attorney.
Interestingly in this debate is the presence of party politics on each side of the issue. The battle was instigated when a federal judge decided to appoint a new interim U.S. Attorney, however, the Bush Administration says that appointments of U.S. Attorneys are not within the prerogative of the federal courts.
South Dakota judges clash with U.S. Justice
Department
A federal judge in Sioux Falls tried to appoint Mark Meierhenry as
interim U.S. Attorney in South Dakota last month.
But Judge Larry
Piersol�s order was overruled by the Department of Justice, which put an
Oklahoma lawyer in place instead.
Steven Mullins, an assistant U.S.
attorney in Oklahoma City, took over the office on Dec. 22.
But on
Tuesday, another federal judge, Karen Schreier of Rapid City, stepped into
the conflict and took the unusual step of ordering Mullins to appear in
court for a hearing on his appointment.
The unique legal clash has
political overtones.
Piersol, Schreier and Judge Charles Kornmann
of Aberdeen were appointed by Democratic Pres. Bill Clinton. The Justice
Department that oversees the U.S. Attorney�s Office is under the
Republican Bush administration.
Traditionally, the senator from the
party in power, in this case Sen. John Thune, forwards recommendations for
the U.S. attorney�s job to the president. The office has been vacant for
almost a year and Thune has not yet made public a
recommendation.
In the interim, the post has been filled by
Michelle Tapken.
In a statement filed Tuesday in an unrelated
criminal case, Kornmann challenged the validity of Mullins�
appointment.
�All of this brings into play some uncertainty,�
Kornmann wrote. �It is entirely possible that the purported appointment of
Mr. Mullins is not valid and that he has no legal authority to act as the
Acting U.S. Attorney in South Dakota.�
A number of court actions
could be subject to challenge and may be void under some circumstances, he
said. �Promises to recommend a certain sentence or to possibly make a
motion may not be enforceable.�
For more on this story, see
Thursday's Argus Leader.