LEGAL ABUSES MUST BE MONITORED

Courts are supposed to be arbiters of legal disputes, not weapons for partisan politicians to punish their opponents. It is time to start demanding accountability from politicians who exploit the legal system for political ends.

Bill Clinton browbeat the Justice Department into reversing its position not to bring a civil suit against the tobacco companies. Some two and a half years after announcing that the Justice Department had no jurisdiction to bring such an action, Attorney General Janet Reno filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the industry.

And Clinton, with Reno's assistance, filed phony privilege claims to obstruct the judicial process and stonewall the independent counsel's investigation. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder reportedly confessed privately that the Justice Department had less than a 5 percent chance of prevailing in appellate court in seeking to establish a privilege to prevent Secret Service agents from testifying. Yet, Clinton and the Justice Department doggedly pursued the matter anyway.

While the executive branch has a particular duty not to use the courts to create legislative policy or to achieve political ends, so does the legislative branch. Indeed, all elected officials have an even higher duty than ordinary citizens to respect the integrity of our legal system and not to allow it to be politicized.

Yet about a year ago, Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy, as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, filed a lawsuit against majority whip Tom Delay accusing him of racketeering in connection with his fund raising for three conservative organizations. It stretches credulity to conceive that Kennedy believed there was any merit to his lawsuit or that Congress intended for the racketeering statutes to be used for such purposes. Even some of Kennedy's Democratic colleagues criticized his abuse of process. Kennedy's purpose was to neuter Delay as a fund-raising dynamo.

Well, last week, just a few weeks before the baseless trial was scheduled to proceed, Kennedy voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. Just like Clinton asserted, then withdrew, his baseless executive-privilege claims after they had served his purposes of obstructing investigations, Kennedy abandoned his action. In case you have any doubt about Kennedy's motives in bringing the suit, some of his colleagues confessed that the case accomplished its intended effect of undermining Delay's fund-raising efforts.

Bill Clinton, as the nation's chief law enforcement official, set an example of flagrant disrespect for the law. Aside from a few exceptions, he acted with impunity as he trampled our legal system and defamed reputable officials who were operating lawfully within it.

Though Clinton was held in contempt of court and ultimately surrendered his law license for five years, he skated on the most heinous of his abuses. He has never paid for his unforgivable assaults on independent counsel Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp.

Litigants and their lawyers are routinely sanctioned by courts for abusing the judicial process in ways that pale in comparison to Clinton's and Kennedy's excesses.

Because the Kennedy case was dismissed as a result of an agreement between the two parties, sanctions probably are not available as a remedy. But unless we want the Clinton model of disrespect for the legal system to prevail, we must be mindful of these abuses and condemn those who commit them. If their actions go unpunished and unreported, we should expect more of the same.

~David Limbaugh is a Cape Girardeau lawyer, author and syndicated columnist.