The fifth day of the Senate trial for United States District Court Judge Thomas Porteous starts today at 8 a.m.
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
Blouise,
I am shocked that Judge Porteous’s defense team was limited to 20 hours for cross and direct exam in view of the importance of this constitutional litigation!
I am shocked that senators come and go and break up the schedule each trial day. I’m shocked we start with quorum 7, and stop when one leaves.
I’m shocked at the bias shown by the chair in failing to remain netural in her rulings and questions. I’m shocked by the slanted questions of the senators who are fact gatherers and fact finders, and not suppose to favor either side during this “Trial”.
I submit in viewing these 5 days, that the procedure has not been fair nor even handed.
Buddha,
They can all think he’s as guilty as sin but are the infractions he is alleged to have committed grounds for impeachment? Since that is the argument are they not obligated to give that argument a fair hearing?
Buddha, as always raises an interesting point. We are watching a CIVIL proceeding that uses CRIMINAL terms and is modeled after a CRIMINAL jury trial process. The chair/”judge” uses or ignores the rules of evidence and procedure; the report, when given to the full senate, calls for a vote of “conviction” under the charged article of impeachment, or dismissal of the article. But Judge Porteous is not subjected to a loss of freedom, not criminal conviction. He is subjected to removal from office, loss of life time appointment and his federal pension for life.
So will my fellow blogger accept this amendment to his statement that Judge Porteous is not presumed innocent until proven guilty, because we are not in a “real” criminal trial where that axiom of law truely applies? I would submit from the questions of the chair/”judge” and her fellow 6 senators/”jurors”, that the “defendant” in THE UNITED STATES VS. JUDGE PORTEOUS, that he has not enjoyed the presumption of innonence.
Frank said, “I am working under the assumption he was not.” And correctly so. The proper assumption is innocent until proven guilty. Without state action to resolve that question, we’ll never know.
Part of the confusion here is because we don’t have enough information. If Judge Porteous commited a chargeable offense (federal or state, felony or misdemeanor, why wasn’t he indicted or charged? Was there a statute of limitations problem in the state or federal jurisdiction? Was he subject to a bar ethical complaint from the State? Was a complaint made to the judicial retirement and removal committee? Was he named in a civil lawsuit for civil fraud? I am working under the assumption he was not. So, for whatever reasons, we are here at the Hart Senate Building. We are all watching history in the making and watching some good damn good lawyering.
Yeah BIL,I get that,Federal vs State Appointment,And Frank I got
your point also.
Thanks to you both.
Frank M III,
“The real question as I see it, is: do the actions, if true, reach the highest standard of impeachment? I, for one, do not believe so based on the evidence I’ve seen. Is he a “bad guy”. did he take advantage of his position, is there an appearence of improperity, etc., etc., etc. But those are not the correctly framed issues in answering the ultimate question of whether a retiring federal judge should be impeached by the senate.
Once again, slanted views of an old crimonal defense attorney in KY.”
Those same points are in the Prof’s positions as I read them.
It seems to me that there is a power grab going on in D C … the Executive is grabbing from the Legislative and the Legislative from the Judicial … it’s like a giant gladiator contest
This discussion brings to mind the deposition of President Bill Clinton in answering “..it’s depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is, ” or words to that affect.
Words are subject to different meanings in different contexts.
When is a false name a false name?
Was it deliberate with intent to deceive?
Deceive who?
Is false swearing false swearing if acting on advice of counsel?
If corrected before notice to the creditors, is is a material false statement?
These questions are sometimes difficult to answer. Sometimes it is not black or white, but shades of gray.
The answers to these questions are judged differently in a criminal jury trial by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt by 12/12 votes; in a civil trial by perponderance of the evidence(51%) usually 7/12-9/12 votes; and in this impeachment process by the conscience of the senator 67/100 votes.
The real question as I see it, is: do the actions, if true, reach the highest standard of impeachment? I, for one, do not believe so based on the evidence I’ve seen. Is he a “bad guy”. did he take advantage of his position, is there an appearence of improperity, etc., etc., etc. But those are not the correctly framed issues in answering the ultimate question of whether a retiring federal judge should be impeached by the senate.
Once again, slanted views of an old crimonal defense attorney in KY.
eniobob,
No it didn’t and it should have, however, don’t take your eye off the ball here – it’s not that Porteous didn’t commit bad actions as a state judge, it’s that the Senate has no charges based on wrong doing while he was on the Federal bench. The Senate only has jurisdiction over Federal judges, not state judges.
That the State of Louisiana failed to prosecute Porteous is their failure and I’ll stipulate an unacceptable failure.
The failure of the Senate to address these issues during the appointment process is their failure and I’ll stipulate an unacceptable failure.
But the Senate overreaching their proper jurisdiction – for any reason – is trying to right a wrong by committing another wrong.
If your concern (and a rightful one it is) that someone of suspect character was sitting on the Federal bench, Porteous was effectively neutralized when he was suspended with pay. It is a matter of public record that Porteous intends to retire in 2011 regardless of the outcome of this hearing. Were he to fail to do so, he could still be kept on suspension. This whole proceeding smells of those two most basic political ploys by the Senate: CYA for their failure in the appointment process and an power grab to extend their reach beyond their Constitutional mandate. This “trial” is as much about the Senate as it is about Porteous.
Totally off topic but this news made my day…
Our local (Belgian) paper gave the best pro-drugs arguement of the year. I’ll keep the Dutch version for your comic relief but you can take the content quite serious:
“Drugs in general (in traffic) increase the chance of an accident with 2 to 3 percent. Alcohol increases the chance of an accident with 4 percent.”
“Drugs in het algemeen verhogen de kans op een ongeval met 2 tot 3 procent. Bij alcohol stijgt de ongevalkans met ongeveer 4 procent.”
If the people don’t get their opium, I guess they’ll just have to crash into some more of our children?
BIL:
Thanks.
“C. Whoever commits the crime of filing false public records shall be imprisoned for not more than five years with or without hard labor or shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.”
Didn’t happen here,though.
eniobob,
That bar opinion is fairly narrow in scope and only applies to the LRPC as to how attorneys do business and advertise – particularly under d/b/a’s and making representations of specialty or somehow imply relation to a state agency.
What you are looking for is LA RS 14:133.
§133. Filing or maintaining false public records
A. Filing false public records is the filing or depositing for record in any public office or with any public official, or the maintaining as required by law, regulation, or rule, with knowledge of its falsity, of any of the following:
(1) Any forged document.
(2) Any wrongfully altered document.
(3) Any document containing a false statement or false representation of a material fact.
B. The good faith inclusion of any item of cost on a Medical Assistance Program cost report which is later determined by audit to be nonreimbursable under state and federal regulations shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of this Section.
C. Whoever commits the crime of filing false public records shall be imprisoned for not more than five years with or without hard labor or shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
Amended by Acts 1980, No. 454, §1; Acts 1982, No. 676, §1; Acts 1992, No. 539, §1; Acts 1995, No. 787, §1.
I hope that answers your question.
This is the closest I seem to be able to come to find out the cosequences of filing information under a fictitious name in Louisiana.Wether it applies here I don’t.
But I know someone will explain that to me/us.
Louisiana State Bar Association
Rules of Professional Conduct Committee
PUBLIC Opinion 07-RPCC-0121 April 3, 2007
Identification of a Law Practice – Fictitious or Trade Names; Multiple Business Identities
http://www.lsba.org/DocumentIndex/EthicOpinions/07-012%20RPCCPublicationPro..pdf
19 jr
1, September 21, 2010 at 11:59 am
this is not politics. this is a crooked judge who would never have been confirmed has a proper background check been done.
————————————————————-
Please read Jonathan’s written Prehearing pleadings addressing the 4 articles individually and the prehearing overall statements. They appear in several different days styled Porteous Trial.
They address from Jon’s point of view what the senate knew (or should have known) or had access to during the confirmation process.
jr
1, September 21, 2010 at 11:59 am
this is not politics. this is a crooked judge who would never have been confirmed has a proper background check been done.
========================================================
If nothing else has come out of this trial certainly the point you just made has been illuminated to the extent that I would agree with you … but impeachment is not the way to deal with it, in my opinion.
“Too bad the Senate is attempting to cover their failure to do due diligence in the confirmation process by overreaching their Constitutional mandate to actions that happened outside the Federal judiciary. Which would indeed make it political.” (Buddha)
Aptly put and a motivation I had not previously considered.
Adjourn now @ 12:29 P.M. until 3:15 P.M. EDT.
whooliebacon
1, September 21, 2010 at 12:13 pm
F Mascagni
Would you please explain the purpose for which the House attorney keeps asking these obviously expert witnesses “are you aware that this is an impeachment trial.”
————————————————————–
My sense of it is that House counsel is trying to distinguish errors made (intentional or by mistake, on advise of counsel or not) in bankrupty court with different standards and possible impact is very different than the standards to be applied by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding. Words like materiality and intent may be given different weight and meaning here vs. their intention and materiality in a bankruptcy case. In other words, any opinion given by defense witnesses that helps Porteous, is limited to that proceeding and does not in and of itself address nor resolve these issues in the matter. Good lawyering by house counsel.
It is amazing how differently Alan Baron questioned Judge Barliant as compared to how he literally yelled at and badgered Prof Pardo. Hmmmm, I wonder why…
F Mascagni
Would you please explain the purpose for which the House attorney keeps asking these obviously expert witnesses “are you aware that this is an impeachment trial.”