The fourth day of the Senate trial for United States District Court Judge Thomas Porteous starts today. Yesterday, we called Timmy Porteous, son of Judge Porteous and one of the judges who pleaded guilty in the Wrinkled Robe investigation. The latter was a House witness who was dropped at the end of their case in chief.
Some this testimony will center on Article IV of the impeachment. I have attached our motions to dismiss Article Fourth and our general summary if you are following the case.
Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.’sMotion to Dismiss Article IV
Porteous Pre-Trial Statement
Porteous Pre-Trial Statement – Exhibits
Yes. I believe I understand your point.
Thanks for helping me see the light.
mickey,
I direct you to Frank’s excellent summations. This statement sums it up well. “It’s like a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These facts, if true, should be addressed elsewhere other than a federal impeachment trial.”
In effect, the issues the Senate are addressing are outside their jurisdiction. They have oversight of Federal judges, not state judges. If they had done due diligence in their approval process when Porteous was nominated for the Federal bench, they should have found out then and acted appropriately by not appointing him to the bench. Judge Porteous is not being confronted with bad actions he might have taken while on the Federal bench. If he was, then and only then would the Senate have jurisdiction over the matter as a term of their Constitutionally defined powers. In asserting that they have the ability to impeach a Federal judge based on actions while he was a state judge, they are overreaching their authority.
Why? A corporate backed political hit is a possibility as is the possibility that they are trying to cover their own actions in appointing him to the bench without doing the properly required due diligence in the appointment process.
The danger is that this establishes a dangerous precedent that would allow effectively extend the Senate’s power over the judiciary to the state level and allow politics to influence how they administer the Federal bar. Lifetime appointments of Federal judges are specifically for the purpose of insulating the Federal judiciary from political attack.
Does this answer your question?
To:
eniobob 1, September 16, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Frank Masacagni III:
Thanks for that,I have been wondering why these issues weren’t addressed when they happened,and if they were what was the outcome?
—————————————————————–
Jon filed written pretrial motions containing these arguments and if ruled upon, which I doubt, were over-ruled by the chair/”judge”.
If not ruled upon, the 12 member senate committee will rule upon these, and many other motions, at the conclusion of the “trial”.
Or, since I don’t know the senate rules governing this “trial”, their final report will address these arguments, which will be prepared and given to the full senate for their consideration. These are my best guesses.
But I would submit, since this proof is being heard by the “jury”, they have been denied or taken under submission to be revisited at the conclusion of these proceedings.
I’m not a jurist so I beg forgiveness from those of you who are. Based on my prior entry, some of you may have correctly determined that I am from the New Orleans area. More specifically, I had Judge Porteous as a coach in playground football (per his son, Timmy’s testimony.) As such, I am quite versed in the “Louisiana way.”
Many of you are discussing the bias of the Senators, the legitimacy of the impeachment, etc. But, as a layman, I have to ask a much simpler question. That is, “Why are we here in the first place?” Had Judge Porteous not taken part in activities that fell into the “gray”, there would be no argument for the prosecution to make.
Yes, in Louisiana, “all the judges” eat with “all the attorneys.” Heck, we elected Edwin Edwards as governor AFTER he had been repeatedly indicted! (And he could still probably run and win even after serving time.) But I can tell you that just because the citizens in New Orleans are accustomed to seeing this activity take place, we are not naive enough to presume it is innocent. We have a reputation of tolerating it more, but we completely understand what it is. We recognize it for what it is – influence and favors.
Use fancy words. Base your arguments on the nuance of language. Justify his actions by following them with the words “just sort of.” State it as “Judge Porteous was unfortunate enough to find himself in the precarious position of interacting with baked goods residing in a poly-ceramic vessel.” I translate that for what it is…..”He got himself caught with his hands in the cookie jar!”
eniobob,
I’ve been taking psychic lessons from Blouise. 😀
BIL:
You have been reading my mind.
It is indeed quite clear that most of the Senators have made up their minds already.
Is it just me, or is Senator Risch ( a
member of the 12 member “Jury”) showing his non-disguished prosecution bent in his forceful condesending questioning, rather than as a fact finder asking non-challenging questions of expert Pardo to clear up his testimony?
Now “judge” McCaskill is showing her true colors challenging Pardo as well, not as a “judge”, but as a true challenger of the witness’s testimony. WOW! The prosecutor really isn’t needed in this process, is it?
Senator Shaheen did it the right way, as a seeker of information, not a contester of the testimony given.
I really, really need these brief isolated moments of true fairness to sooth my savage brow [ or as other bloggers have referred to as a pounding headache].
3:00 P.M. EDT next witness on for the defense. Frank
Frank Masacagni III:
May I borrow from what Blouise has said:
“Frank Mascagni III,
I was completely new to the medium of blogging a year ago and these fine folk took me in, clothed me, fed me, and educated me. It’s a lively and entertaining group … teachers, authors, musicians, nurses, business men and women, LEO’s, poets, scientists, mathematicians, and, of course, lawyers.
I hope you decide to remain with us as we would all benefit from your presence.”
And what others have said but it all means the same.
This layman feels extremely honored to be amongst some of the brightest and caring people that I have met online and would like to express my enjoyment of your presence here also.
They sometimes send me to my room,but they are kind they allow me to take milk and cookies and watch tv.:-)
Frank Masacagni III:
Thanks for that,I have been wondering why these issues weren’t addressed when they happened,and if they were what was the outcome?
You need to read the pleadings filed by Jonathan which he posted on this blog for 100% clarity.
But as I understand Jon’s defense to the first 2 Articles Of Impeachment as being these actions, even if true, were all before he was sworn in as a federal judge. Most of the testimony about lunches, trips, home and car repairs, money for his son’s wedding expenses, and money for curator appointments were when he was a state judge not a federal judge.
It’s like a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These facts, if true, should be addressed elsewhere other than a federal impeachment trial.
Yeah, I bet Pardo gives one helluva good course. He’s a sharp guy.
Just catching the repeat of the reporter from Louisiana,and I think he put it in a nutshell,The defenses position is that the judge should not be held accountable for things that he did before he was appointed to the federal bench.
Did I get that right?
Blouise,
“This McCaskill Committee is well on its way to being a National embarrassment.”
And I’m willing to barter percentages for sweat equity in the form of strategic and tactical advisory assistance. 😀
The Department of Justice made a decision, for reasons not disclosed to us yet, NOT TO INDICT the Judge for a federal crime.
He has been suspended from being a federal judge, with pay for the last 2 years, recently enlarged to include up through and including December, 2010.
Until he is convicted post-impeachment, he holds his lifetime appointment and federal pension after retirement. That’s what he stands to lose if convicted by the full 100 member senate by a 2/3’s vote after this 12 member report is made in November, 2010(?).
I liked that last witness. He refused to be bullied by the prosecution.
Am I right in thinking that Porteous is just another bent judge on the take who got off once before but has now been taken to task and is in the dock over it and the house is favouring the prosecution?
and the government is producing the criminals who paid him off as witnesses against him right?
Then what good would trying to doubt the character of the witnesses do as the simple fact that they can be tracked back to Porteus in any way other than in his professional position ie hew tried them, surely just casts more shadows on his own character.
Elaine M.,
I have lots of funds coming in … I will contribute.
As to the headache … I just got a call from a lawyer friend who has asked me to dinner tonight … a couple LEO’s will also be coming … I have decided that the exceptionally tasty Margarettas prepared at this establishment will be a proper cure for my headache. I told him I was watching the McCaskill Committee so wouldn’t be free till after 6pm.
He laughed and told me his entire office was watching and making appropriately loud noises to almost every ruling. I asked if any judges would be present and gave notice that I would not pay for their dinners as I didn’t, ten years from now, want to be testifying in front of the Senate. He noted my caution.
FFL:
An example somewhat to your point.
“However, the government’s own star witnesses are convicted felons, as Prof. Turley noted”
This article is about the political figure. For the British engineer, see Oliver Danson North
Oliver L. North
Born October 7, 1943 (1943-10-07) (age 66)
In Iraq, December 2007.
Nickname Ollie
Place of birth San Antonio, Texas
Allegiance United States of America
Service/branch United States Marine Corps
Years of service 1968–1990
Rank Lieutenant Colonel
Unit 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines
3rd Battalion 8th Marines
2nd Marine Division
Commands held Marine Corps Northern Training Area, Okinawa
Battles/wars Vietnam War
Awards Silver Star
Bronze Star
Purple Heart(2)*
Presidential Service Badge
Other work correspondent with the Fox News Channel
United States Senate candidate
Oliver Laurence North (born October 7, 1943) was a US Marine Corps officer. Currently, he is a political commentator, host of War Stories with Oliver North on Fox News Channel, a military historian, and a New York Times best-selling author.
North was at the center of national attention during the Iran-Contra affair, a political scandal of the late 1980s. North was a National Security Council member involved in the clandestine sale of weapons to Iran, which served to encourage the release of U.S. hostages from Lebanon. North formulated the second part of the plan: diverting proceeds from the arms sales to support the Contra rebel groups in Nicaragua. North was charged with several felonies and convicted of three, but the convictions were later vacated, and the underlying charges dismissed due to the limited immunity agreement granted for his pre-trial public Congressional testimony about the affair.[1]
Anyone commenting here care to chip in to buy a round trip plane ticket for Mr. Gardner?