cheney's "law"? -- in answer to steven howards' 2006 colorado false arrest case summons? "I am a King. Deal with it."

the issue of whether dick cheney
may be deposed at all, may ultimately
end up before the tenth cicuit, and
then on to the s.c.o.t.u.s., i guess.

last night, the "king of hush" filed his
latest effort to resist even being served
with a notice of deposition, in the false
arrest case filed by a first amendment
plaintiff, steven howards in the colorado
federal district courthouse.

dick's defense? i am [effectively], a king.

so, deal with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATED 5.21.08 pm -- tonight, in no small
victory for plaintiff howards, here,
Judge Wiley B. Daniel's Magistrate
has signed an order giving Mr. Howards
team a much sought-after extended time-
fram to complete their discovery -- essentially
through the late-section of the Summer of 2008.

and, this may yet provide the window he
needsto get dick cheney into a deposition seat,
as the newly-extended final pre-trial con-
ference is now set for December 2008, leaving
a real possibility that Mr. Cheney will no longer
enjoy the protection of his own fourth-branch,
by the time pre-trial conference really
gets underway -- call it, january 2009.

all mr. howards would need would be some
newly discovered evidence, say shortly after
january 21, 2009 -- the day the timer, at
right, hits zero-hour. it could happen.

it might. it just might.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

as ever, more to come.

. . .Lacking the predicate necessary to depose a high-level state or federal agency official, plaintiff seeks to depose no less an officer than the Vice President of the United States. [how DARE he?! for shame!] With no statutory basis, plaintiff has requested an order from this Court directing the United States Marshal to serve a subpoena on Vice President Cheney. The Magistrate Judge correctly denied that request.

First, the Supreme Court has held that a district court may not command action by a U.S. Marshal except as authorized by statute. Plaintiff has identified no statutory authority, however, requiring the Marshals to serve subpoenas for non-indigent civil litigants. The Court must deny plaintiff’s motion for lack of authority to grant it.

Second, even if the Court had the authority, it should not burden the Marshal with so extraordinary a task as serving the Vice President when the subpoena would only have to be quashed.

Given the number of witnesses who have already testified to the facts of plaintiff’s physical encounter with the Vice President, plaintiff cannot demonstrate that Vice President Cheney has unique personal knowledge [unless of course, the vice president ORDERED his secret service detail to walk back, and arrest mr. howards' -- as has been alleged in the original complaint -- after the encounter was effectively "over"! why would any of them be willing to admit to receiving that order, or any later order to not disclose the first order?] unavailable from other sources, as required for a deposition of any high-level official. Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge correctly found, additional witnesses have been identified who likely might provide the information plaintiff seeks, without need of deposing the Vice President. Under these circumstances, the Court must give paramount consideration to protecting the Vice President from vexatious litigation. . . [r-i-i-i-i-i-ght.]

[as ever, emphasis supplied; bracketed
material is the editor's commentary -- mine.]

stay tuned.