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
test
Frank Mascagni III,
Once again, thank you for the additional information.
Haven’t heard much from the little green guy but I’m sure he is lurking somewhere.
I have a lot of people due here in another hour but wanted to take some time to read your latest post.
I trust all is well with you.
Give some consideration to dipping your toe into other threads … the one on Lincoln and the Civil War is extremely interesting and I’m certain others would welcome your comments.
I have a huge file growing on this Porteous subject as I “cut and past” all your posts so that I may study them in the hours I am off-line.
My husband just called out … the grandchildren have arrived “en masse” so must sign off.
Do give some thought to expanding your participation.
ORDER AND PUBLIC REPRIMAND BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, JUNE 17, 2008:
FIFTH CIRCUIT
Before: Edith H. Jones, Chief Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit; Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Circuit Judge; Carolyn Dineen
King, U. S. Circuit Judge; W. Eugene Davis, U. S. Circuit Judge;
Rhesa H. Barksdale, U. S. Circuit Judge; James L. Dennis, U. S.
Circuit Judge; Edith Brown Clement, U. S. Circuit Judge; Priscilla
R. Owen, U. S. Circuit Judge; Jennifer Walker Elrod, U. S. Circuit
Judge; Leslie H. Southwick, U. S. Circuit Judge; Sarah S. Vance,
U. S. District Judge; James J. Brady, U. S. District Judge; Tucker L.
Melancon, U. S. District Judge; Neal B. Biggers, U. S. District
Judge; Louis G. Guirola, Jr., U. S. District Judge; Sam Cummings,
U. S. District Judge; Hayden Head, U. S. District Judge; Thad
Heartfield, U. S. District Judge; Fred Biery, U. S. District Judge
DOCKET NO. 07-05-351-0085
IN RE: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against United States
District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. under the Judicial Conduct
and Disability Act of 1980
ORDER AND PUBLIC REPRIMAND
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United
States unanimously adopted the Report and Recommendations of the Committee
on Judicial Conduct and Disability concerning United States District Judge G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr.;
WHEREAS, in accordance with a recommendation contained in the Report
and Recommendations of the Committee on Conduct and Disability requesting
2
that the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council make a considered judgment on the
continuation or suspension of the underlying misconduct proceeding relating to
Judge Porteous;
NOW, having considered the aforementioned recommendation from the
Committee on Conduct and Disability, the Council, by a clear majority vote,
takes the following action:
1. The Council hereby PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS Judge Porteous
under Rule 20(b)(1)(D)(i) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-
Disability Proceedings for the following conduct that is prejudicial to the
effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts within the
Circuit:
Judge Porteous repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial
disclosure forms under oath in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621. This perjury
concealed the cash and things of value that he solicited and received from
lawyers appearing in litigation before him.
Judge Porteous repeatedly committed perjury by signing false statements
under oath in a personal bankruptcy proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 152(1)-(3), 1621 as well as Canons 1 and 2A of the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges. This perjury allowed him to obtain a discharge of his debts while
continuing his lifestyle at the expense of his creditors. His systematic disregard
3
of the Bankruptcy Court’s orders also implicates 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(3) and
18 U.S.C. § 401(1).
Judge Porteous wilfully and systematically concealed from litigants and
the public certain financial transactions by filing false financial disclosure forms
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 5 U.S.C. App. 4 § 104, and Canon 5C(6) of the
Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which require the disclosure of
income, gifts, loans, and liabilities. This conduct made it impossible for litigants
to seek recusal or to challenge his failure to recuse himself in cases in which
lawyers who appeared before him had given him cash and other things of value
and for the Council and the Judicial Conference to determine the full extent of
his solicitation and receipt of such cash and things of value.
Judge Porteous violated several criminal statutes and ethical canons by
presiding over In Re: Liljeberg Enter. Inc. v. Lifemark Hosps. Inc., No. 2:93-cv-
01784, rev’d in part by 304 F. 3d 410 (5 Cir. 2002). In that matter, which was th
tried without a jury, he denied a motion to recuse based on his relationship with
lawyers in the case, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Canons 3C(1) and 3D of
the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. In denying the motion, he failed
to disclose that the lawyers in question had often provided him with cash.
Thereafter, while a bench verdict was pending, he solicited and received from the
lawyers appearing before him illegal gratuities in the form of cash and other
4
things of value in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B). This conduct, undertaken
in a concealed manner, deprived the public of its right to his honest services in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346, and constituted an abuse of his
judicial office in violation of Canons 5C(1) and 5C(4) of the Codes of Conduct for
United States Judges.
Judge Porteous made false representations to gain the extension of a bank
loan with the intent to defraud the bank and causing the bank to incur losses in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014 and 1344.
Judge Porteous, in his conduct described above individually and
collectively, brought disrepute to the federal judiciary.
2. The Council, pursuant to Rule 20(b)(1)(D)(ii) of the Rules for
Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings and 28 U.S.C.
§ 354(a)(2)(A)(i), orders that no new cases be assigned to Judge Porteous for two
years from the date of this Order and Public Reprimand or until Congress takes
final action on the impeachment proceedings, whichever occurs earlier.
3. The Council, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), orders that Judge
Porteous’s authority to employ staff be suspended for the period of time
encompassed in paragraph 2 above.
4. The Council, consistent with 28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(2), directs all
judicial officers and employees within the Circuit, particularly the Chief Judge
5
of the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Clerk of Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, to take all necessary steps to carry into effect the above
orders of the Council.
In issuing this Order and Public Reprimand and executing the actions
contained herein, the Council is taking the maximum disciplinary steps allowed
by law against Judge Porteous. Any further action to remove Judge Porteous
from office and the emoluments thereof is the responsibility of Congress.
In conjunction with the issuance of this Order and Public Reprimand, the
following documents are being made available for public access:
1. Report by the Special Investigatory Committee to the Judicial
Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, Docket No. 07-05-351-0085, submitted November 20,
2007 and Volume 1 of 2 Volumes of Exhibits and Volume 2 of
2 Volumes of Exhibits;
2. Reply Memorandum to the Report by the Special
Investigatory Committee, submitted December 5, 2007;
3. Response to Reply Memorandum, submitted December 10,
2007;
4. Memorandum Order and Certification of the Judicial Council
of the Fifth Circuit, dated December 20, 2007;
5. Dissenting Statement to the Memorandum Order and
Certification of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit;
6. Petition for Review of the Memorandum Order and
Certification, The Proceedings Conducted by the Special
Investigatory Committee, The Fifth Circuit Judicial Council
6
Report, and Judge Dennis’ Dissent From the Memorandum
Order and Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 357(A) and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Argument and
Exhibit 1A, Exhibit 1B, Exhibit 1C, Exhibit 2A, Exhibit 2B,
Exhibit 2C, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6,
Exhibit 7, Exhibit 7A, Exhibit 8, Exhibit 9, and Exhibit List;
7. Certificate to Speaker, United States House of
Representatives and Report and Recommendations of the
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and
Disability, and;
8. Crime Fraud Order dated June 21, 2004, and Crime Fraud
Order dated October 19, 2004.
This Order and Public Reprimand is effective immediately and concludes
the matter IN RE: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct against United States
District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. under the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 before the Council.
DONE this 10th day of September, 2008.
FOR THE COUNCIL:
Chief Judge
7
Links to publicly available documents:
Report by the Special Investigatory Committee to the Judicial Council of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Docket No. 07-05-351-0085,
submitted November 20, 2007
Volume 1 of 2 Volumes of Exhibits
Volume 2 of 2 Volumes of Exhibits
Reply Memorandum to the Report by the Special Investigatory Committee,
submitted December 5, 2007
Response to Reply Memorandum, submitted December 10, 2007
Memorandum Order and Certification of the Judicial Council of the Fifth
Circuit, dated December 20, 2007
Dissenting Statement to the Memorandum Order and Certification of the
Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit
Petition for Review of the Memorandum Order and Certification, The
Proceedings Conducted by the Special Investigatory Committee, The Fifth
Circuit Judicial Council Report, and Judge Dennis’ Dissent From the
Memorandum Order and Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 357(A) and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Argument
Exhibit 1A
Exhibit 1B
Exhibit 1C
Exhibit 2A
Exhibit 2B
Exhibit 2C
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 7A
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit List
SERIES OF ARTICLES POSTED ON LINE SEPTEMBER 20, 2010- SEPTEMBER 13, 2008 BY VARIOUS AUTHORS AND VARIOUS SOURCES ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE PORTEOUS
Victims-of-Law
Open Discussion
Judge Porteous News & View
West, a Thomson Reuters business, is the leading provider of integrated information solutions to the U.S. legal market
A Victims-of-Law Associate
September 2010
With friends like Judge Porteous’, who needs enemies?
James Gill, Times-Picayune of New Orleans
09-26-10 — As a succession of witnesses cooked federal Judge Thomas Porteous’ goose at his impeachment trial, you had to keep reminding yourself they had been called in his defense. . . . The House members handling the prosecution had put on some pretty damning testimony of their own, but it was hardly necessary. Each time a Porteous pal took the stand to vouch for him, his depravity was thrown into even sharper relief. . . . Porteous had some pretty fancy mouthpieces, led by George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who admittedly faced a daunting task. But they made it even more so. The defense trial tactics defied understanding. How could such a distinguished intellect as Turley call such a shady bunch of bozos to the stand? . . . Surely someone could have pointed out that relying on Ronnie Bodenheimer was stark raving mad. Perhaps the idea was that, since part of the rap against Porteous is that he was a corrupt state judge before his elevation to the federal bench, he wouldn’t look so bad if an even more corrupt ex-state judge could be produced.
——————————————————————————–
Judge Thomas Porteous and the Judicial ‘Devil’s Den’ from Whence He Came
By Barbara Ann Jackson, News Blaze Op-Ed Contributor
09-22-10 — The impeachment trial of federal Judge Thomas Porteous, is a once in a lifetime chance for urgently-needed judicial reforms to happen in Louisiana. . . . There is massive, inherent legal corruption in the judicial system, taking place in Louisiana, in what I call the “Devil’s Den.” This corruption has terrible consequences for citizens, and for the legal system itself. . . . I am alarmed that, even after exposure of irrefutable facts and truths at Porteous’ impeachment trial, scandalous behavior will continue because Porteous is not the only problem – just the most conspicuous culprit. . . . The sustained Louisiana judicial decadence is now acutely displayed at this historical Congressional hearing, which the entire world can see for itself on C-Span. Facts, evidence, and testimonies therein solidify my convictions that the purpose of Louisiana courtrooms has very little to do with delivering justice.
——————————————————————————–
Law & Grace, Inc.
Mail all correspondences / requests to
Law & Grace, Inc, P.O. Box 5373, Shreveport, LA 71135
e-mail: justice@lawgrace.org
——————————————————————————–
Impeachment hearings end for federal judge
The fate of District Judge G. Thomas Porteous — who ran up gambling debts, accepted gifts and filed for bankruptcy under a false name — will likely be decided in November, a senator says.
By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau, The Los Angeles Times
09-21-10 — Only seven federal judges in American history have been impeached and removed from office — for offenses that include being intoxicated on the bench and waging war against the United States during the Civil War. . . . On Tuesday, a special Senate impeachment committee finished five days of testimony to decide whether to add to the list a judge from New Orleans who ran up gambling debts, filed for bankruptcy under a false name and accepted gifts from lawyers and friends. . . . He has not been criminally charged. But if the full Senate votes to remove him from office, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. — called “G.T. Ortous” in his bankruptcy filing — will lose his $174,000 yearly salary and pension. . . . Though he offered to retire next year if he could keep his pension, Porteous has refused to resign, even after being stripped of his legal duties by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
——————————————————————————–
Law professor testified as ethics expert in judicial impeachment
Indiana University
09-20-10 — A Senate committee that is presiding over the impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Thomas G. Porteous called Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Charles G. Geyh to testify as a witness on Sept. 15. . . . Geyh, the John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, testified as an expert witness in the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee’s proceedings on four articles of impeachment against the U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Appointed in 1994, Porteous has been accused of declining to disqualify himself from a case in which he solicited money from a lawyer with whom he had a longstanding, corrupt relationship; giving bail bondsmen preferential treatment in exchange for meals, trips and services; perjuring himself in his bankruptcy proceeding; and lying under oath during his Senate confirmation proceedings.
——————————————————————————–
Wines.com, the leading supplier of private label and personalized wines online!
A Victims-of-Law Associate
——————————————————————————–
Lap dance, bucket of shrimp, ‘Gretna mentality’ discussed in Porteous impeachment hearings
Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune
09-19-10 — During the first four days of the Judge Thomas Porteous impeachment trial, senators heard scholarly discussions about the intentions of the Founding Fathers on removing unfit federal officials and detailed discourse about arcane rules of federal bankruptcy law. . . . They also listened as the judge’s son was asked whether he received a lap dance during a Las Vegas bachelor party, which was attended by his father’s lawyer friends. For the record, Timothy Porteous, 37, said he did and the woman who became his wife was OK with it. . . . Other testimony included the revelation that when employees for the Jefferson Parish firm Bail Bonds Unlimited returned the then-Jefferson Parish judge’s cars, after providing free repairs, they would sometimes leave a bucket of shrimp and Absolut vodka on the front seat for good measure. Porteous, 63, a federal judge in New Orleans, is accused of making bail decisions that benefited Bail Bonds Unlimited.
——————————————————————————–
Lawyers in Judge’s Impeachment Mount Defense
Attorneys for Porteous Say Accepting Money and Other Favors Was Just Part of the Culture of La. Legal Community
(AP) CBS News
09-17-10 — Defense attorneys for a Louisiana judge facing an impeachment trial in Congress began trying to chip away at the case against him, arguing that money and other favors he accepted were simply part of the culture of a tight-knit New Orleans-area legal community. . . . After three days laying out its case, the House team prosecuting U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous rested Wednesday evening, leaving Porteous’ attorneys to begin calling their own witnesses. . . . Their first was Porteous’ son, Timothy Porteous, who said two lawyers gave the judge thousands of dollars in cash over the years only because they were close family friends who once practiced law together. . . . Another prosecution witness, Dane Ciolino, a Loyola University law professor specializing in judicial ethics, said that Louisiana standards for judges accepting meals and gifts from lawyers were loose and unclear until recent revisions to the law.
——————————————————————————–
‘Louisiana way’ on full display at Judge Thomas Porteous’ trial: Stephanie Grace
Stephanie Grace, The Times-Picayune
09-16-10 — U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, one of five House members prosecuting New Orleans federal Judge Thomas Porteous, predicted at the outset of the impeachment proceedings that the judge would defend himself against charges that he compromised his office back when he was a state judge by invoking Louisiana’s sordid political reputation. . . . “After all, senators,” Schiff said he expected Porteous’ team to say, “‘It’s New Orleans. They all do it, and if you’re going to impeach judges in New Orleans for this sort of stuff, then you’ll have to impeach all of them.'” . . . Porteous’ lawyers have just launched their defense, so it’s too soon to say whether Schiff’s prediction is accurate. . . . But the California Democrat was right about one thing: From the moment the impeachment trial opened this week, the so-called Louisiana way has been on full display. . . . As a district judge in Jefferson Parish, Porteous grew accustomed to being supported in a certain lifestyle, a parade of prosecution witnesses said.
——————————————————————————–
Judge Thomas Porteous was vulnerable to blackmail, Louis Marcotte says
Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune
09-14-10 — Even if the free lunches, travel and car repairs provided by a Gretna bail bond company weren’t enough to influence Judge Thomas Porteous, there was another compelling reason for him to help the firm, according to testimony Tuesday at his impeachment trial. . . . Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., one of five House members serving as prosecutors for the trial of the New Orleans federal judge, asked Louis Marcotte, the executive at Bail Bonds Unlimited, whether it was true he was in a position “to destroy” Porteous with the threat of reporting the gifts to the FBI. . . . “Yes, I was,” said Marcotte, though he testified he didn’t report any of the gifts when he was interviewed by the FBI about Porteous’ nomination to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994.
——————————————————————————–
Impeachment trial of federal judge gets underway in U.S. Senate
By the CNN Wire Staff
09-13-10 — The U.S. Senate on Monday begins the impeachment trial of federal judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. — the first such trial since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1999. . . . The Senate Impeachment Trial Committee will submit its summary to the full Senate, which is expected to vote later this year. The judge is accused of corruption and accepting kickbacks, as well as lying about his past to the Senate and FBI regarding his nomination to the federal bench. . . . In March, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to impeach Porteous, making him the nation’s 15th federal judge ever impeached. . . . Porteous is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. . . . Last year, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held evidentiary hearings that led to unanimous approval of the four articles of impeachment, citing evidence that Porteous “intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings,” a House release said.
——————————————————————————–
Senate Prepares for Trial of Federal Judge
Proceedings would be first against a jurist in 21 years
David Ingram, The National Law Journal
09-08-10 — One of the nation’s least used courts is opening for business. . . . Next week, a special U.S. Senate committee is scheduled to begin the impeachment trial of G. Thomas Porteous Jr. The rarely held proceeding will determine the future of the New Orleans federal district judge who is accused of decades of corruption, including an alleged kickback scheme with a law firm. . . . The trial will be the Senate’s first since 1999, when the presidency of Bill Clinton hung in the balance, and the first for a member of the judiciary since 1989. The House of Representatives has impeached or considered impeaching other judges since then, but they resigned. . . . The case against Porteous was more than two years in the making, delayed by the impeachment of another judge and by client conflicts among the lawyers. It will present some unusual questions for the senators who serve as judges and jurors, including whether a judge can be removed for conduct that occurred before he took the bench. . . . The trial will take place amid two other ethics proceedings in Congress — those of Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. — putting an unusually bright spotlight on the ethics of federal officials.
——————————————————————————–
Find more than 1,500 coins from nations across the world and from across the centuries!
A Victims-of-Law Associate
——————————————————————————–
August 2010
Judge’s Previous Testimony Will Be Used Against Him at Impeachment
By David Ingram | The National Law Journal | New York Lawyer
08-31-10 — When a special U.S. Senate committee meets next month for a rare impeachment hearing, testimony the impeached judge himself has given could be among the evidence. . . . U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr, accused of taking cash from lawyers and other schemes, had wanted his prior testimony excluded from the impeachment and trial process. He gave the testimony in 2007 to an investigative committee of the 5th Circuit, and his testimony was immunized from use in a “criminal case.”
——————————————————————————–
Lawyers Battle Over Evidence in Impeached Judge’s Trial
David Ingram, The National Law Journal
08-05-10 — Lawyers for impeached Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana asked a special U.S. Senate committee today not to allow certain evidence in the judge’s upcoming trial. . . . The argument came on the same day a federal judge in Washington declined to intervene in the Senate proceedings, and about a month before the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee is scheduled to begin its week-long trial of Porteous on four articles of impeachment. . . . In a pre-trial hearing, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who is leading Porteous’ defense, asked the committee not to admit two sets of evidence: testimony that Porteous gave to a 5th Circuit investigative committee; and transcripts and records from prior proceedings before the 5th Circuit and the U.S. House of Representatives.
——————————————————————————–
West, a Thomson Reuters business, is the leading provider of integrated information solutions to the U.S. legal market
A Victims-of-Law Associate
——————————————————————————–
July 2010
Immunity Granted for Lawyers to Testify Against Impeached Judge
The BLT: Blog of Legal Times
07-28-10 — A federal judge in Washington has granted immunity to two Louisiana lawyers ahead of their expected testimony before the U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial Committee. . . . Members of the Senate committee requested the grants of immunity as they gather evidence about impeached U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. A trial on whether to remove Porteous, who sits in the Eastern District of Louisiana, is set to begin as soon as September. . . . The two lawyers, Jacob Amato Jr. and Robert Creely, practiced before Porteous in both state and federal court, according to congressional testimony and documents from a judicial ethics inquiry into the judge. Amato and Creely told investigators that they gave Porteous cash payments at the judge’s request and that Creely took Porteous on fishing trips for free, according to the testimony and documents.
——————————————————————————–
No point on Judge Thomas Porteous dummying up
James Gill, NOLA.com
07-28-10 — Although it is generally sound tactics for shady characters to take the Fifth, it would definitely be a mistake for Tom Porteous. . . . Porteous is a shady character all right, but there is no point in dummying up when he could not possibly be more morally degenerate than we already know. He can forget about remaining a federal judge if he sits there and keeps respectfully declining to answer on advice of counsel. . . . House members presenting the impeachment case against him have announced they will call him as a witness at the Senate hearing in September. Straight talk would appear to be his only refuge. . . . Of course, he probably can forget about remaining a federal judge anyway. There was not a dissenting voice when the U.S. Judicial Conference, under Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts no less, recommended Porteous be impeached, or when the House of Representatives obliged. The Senate committee that will conduct the hearing seemed to be taking a perfunctory approach by scheduling a mere three days for the four articles of impeachment.
——————————————————————————–
For freelance professionals and companies looking to hire
skilled freelance experts.
A Victims-of-Law Advertiser
——————————————————————————–
April 2010
McCaskill to chair Senate impeachment trial of federal judge
Malia Rulon • Gannett Washington Bureau
04-14-10 — Sen. Claire McCaskill today will kick off the impeachment trial of a Louisiana judge accused of taking money, expensive meals and other gifts from lawyers and others doing business before him. . . . The impeachment hearing against G. Thomas Porteous Jr., U.S. District Court judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is only the fifth such trial in the last two decades. . . . McCaskill, D-Mo., will chair the 12-member bipartisan committee charged with holding the trial, which is expected to last four months. . . . “It’s a serious responsibility, and we are going to treat it as such,” McCaskill said Monday, describing her role in the proceedings as an “honor.” . . . “It’s quite an undertaking. It’s a full-blown evidentiary proceeding,” she said.
——————————————————————————–
A Victims-of-Law Associate
——————————————————————————–
March 2010
McCaskill oversees judicial impeachment panel
David Goldstein Kansas City Star
03-18-10 — Sen. Claire McCaskill will chair a bipartisan panel investigating the evidence in the Senate impeachment trial of a federal judge in New Orleans. . . . U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous faces impeachment over allegations that he accepted gifts from lawyers involved in cases before him. . . . Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appointed McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, to lead the 12-member committee. The evidence it gathers will be reviewed by the full Senate. . . . Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is the panel’s vice chairman.
——————————————————————————–
Judge Thomas Porteous impeachment case moving to Senate today
By Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune
03-17-10 — Less than a week after the House unanimously approved four articles of impeachment against New Orleans federal Judge Thomas Porteous, the Senate is starting the process for a trial that could lead to his removal from the $174,000-a-year job. . . . The Senate will receive the charges today from the five House impeachment managers. All senators present will take an oath to impartially consider the allegations against Porteous and vote on a resolution to appoint a 12-member committee, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, to conduct the trial. The committee can make recommendations, but it will take a vote of two-thirds of the Senate to remove Porteous from office.
——————————————————————————–
Charging Corruption, House Impeaches Federal Judge
David Ingram, The National Law Journal
03-12-10 — The U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday to adopt four articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., wrapping up a wide-ranging investigation into allegations that Porteous took cash and gifts from lawyers and lied in his own bankruptcy case. . . . With four unanimous votes, the stage is set for a trial in the Senate unless Porteous resigns from his seat in the Eastern District of Louisiana. He has so far declined to do so, despite high-profile investigations by the House, the 5th Circuit Judicial Council and the Department of Justice. . . . Though an impeachment of a federal judge is extremely rare, this is the second in as many years. U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of the Southern District of Texas resigned last year shortly after the House impeached him for obstructing an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. Kent had pleaded guilty to the charge in federal court but resigned only after the Senate began preparing for a trial.
——————————————————————————–
House may impeach federal judge
By Jake Sherman, Politico
03-09-10 — The House this week will consider the impeachment of a federal judge accused of accepting money from lawyers arguing cases before him. . . . G. Thomas Porteous is accused of signing false financial disclosure forms in an attempt to conceal “cash and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him.” . . . The House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 21 approved four counts of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the New Orleans-based judge, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1994 for the federal bench in eastern Louisiana. . . . The impeachment resolution, which will likely hit the House floor late this week, said that Porteous “engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge.” If the House votes to impeach Porteous, his case would head to the Senate for a trial.
——————————————————————————–
HELP KEEP VICTIMS-OF-LAW ON THE WEB
SHOP OUR ADVERTISERS OR CONTRIBUTE NOW
——————————————————————————–
January 2010
House Committee Adopts Articles of Impeachment Against La. Federal Judge
David Ingram, The National Law Journal
01-27-10 — The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously on Wednesday to adopt two articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., accusing the judge of misconduct over three decades. It was poised to adopt two additional articles after a late-morning break. . . . Porteous, who has refused to resign, would be the eighth federal judge ever removed from the bench if the full House of Representatives impeaches him and the Senate convicts him. He has been a judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana since 1994 but is not currently hearing cases because of the ethics questions surrounding him. . . . This is the second time in as many years that the House has taken action against a federal judge. In June, the House impeached U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of the Southern District of Texas, who had pleaded guilty to obstructing an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment. It was the first impeachment of a federal judge since 1989. Kent resigned before the Senate began his trial.
——————————————————————————–
Facing Impeachment, Federal Judge Mounts His Defense
David Ingram, The National Law Journal
01-25-10 — On Thursday, a task force of the U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously in favor of four articles of impeachment against a federal judge from Louisiana. How does the judge, G. Thomas Porteous Jr., plan to head off impeachment and removal from office by the Senate? . . . His lawyer, Richard Westling of the Washington office of Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, is outlining a defense based on two major points: first, that much of what Porteous is accused of doing happened before he was on the federal bench, and second, that the U.S. Department of Justice chose not to prosecute Porteous for what he has done. . . . The debate will heat up in the next several weeks, as the House Judiciary Committee and then the House itself consider whether to adopt the four articles of impeachment. Lawmakers from both political parties say Porteous is unfit to serve. Click here (PDF) to read the articles.
——————————————————————————–
House Panel Recommends Impeaching La. Federal Judge
Ben Evans, The Associated Press
01-22-10 — A House task force recommended unanimously Thursday that Congress impeach a federal judge from Louisiana, accusing him of improperly taking cash and lying during his Senate confirmation. . . . U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous would face four articles of impeachment if the full House accepts the recommendation, which accuses him of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that go back decades. . . . “His long-standing pattern of corrupt conduct, so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity, demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States district court judge,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led the task force.
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
Help Support Victims-of-Law on the web by
purchasing from its Advertisers
——————————————————————————–
December 2009
Judge faces impeachment case
House hears of cash gifts, falling prey to influence
Ben Evans, Associated Press, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
12-21-09 — It’s not the lifestyle of a typical federal judge: five or six vodka cocktails during lunch; gambling with borrowed money; bankruptcy under a phony name, and cash, trips or home repairs from lawyers and a bail bondsman with business before his court. . . . Witnesses in the congressional impeachment case against U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous paint a jarring portrait of the former Louisiana state judge who was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. . . . As Congress wrapped up several weeks of evidence-gathering hearings last week, legal experts who testified before a House task force suggested Porteous is a clear candidate to become just the eighth federal judge in U.S. history to be impeached and convicted by Congress. Lawmakers appear poised to take their advice and bring charges early next year, setting up a historic trial in the Senate.
——————————————————————————–
Impeachment appears imminent for federal judge
Corruption found during FBI state probe
By Ben Evans Associated Press, The Washington Times
Haraz Ghanbari / The AP
U.S. District Judge
Thomas Porteous
12-19-09 — It’s not the lifestyle of a typical federal judge: Five or six vodka cocktails during lunch; gambling with borrowed money; bankruptcy under a phony name; cash, trips or home repairs from lawyers; and a bail bondsman with business before his court. . . . Witnesses in the congressional impeachment case against U.S. District Court Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. paint a jarring portrait of the former Louisiana state judge appointed to the federal bench in 1994 by President Clinton. . . . As Congress wrapped up several weeks of evidence-gathering hearings this week, legal experts who testified before a House task force suggested Judge Porteous is a clear candidate to become just the eighth federal judge in U.S. history to be impeached and convicted by Congress. Lawmakers appear poised to take their advice and bring charges early next year, setting up a historic trial in the Senate. . . . “The fact is that we are discovering a pattern of misbehavior that occurred over such a long period of time that it’s virtually unique in the annals of impeachment,” Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina, told the House panel. “Just imagine what happens if you don’t act here – what kind of precedent does that set?”
——————————————————————————–
Judge Thomas Porteous impeachment backed by 3 legal experts
By Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune, NOLA.com
12-15-09 — Congress can impeach U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous even though most of the accusations against him predate his federal judicial tenure and none of the accusations has produced a criminal indictment, three constitutional law experts testified Tuesday. . . . “Every day that a fraudster continues to claim the title of a federal judge and to draw his federal salary is an affront to fellow citizens and taxpayers to say nothing of the parties unfortunately to come before him,” Akhil Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School, told a House task force considering whether to recommend Porteous’ impeachment. “The mere fact that criminal prosecution of Porteous might not be warranted should not mean that he should therefore escape the scrutiny and verdict of an impeachment court.” . . . Porteous, 63, would never have made it to the federal bench if he had revealed during the vetting process that he had received payments as a Jefferson Parish judge from lawyers that had cases before him and that he helped arrange bail amounts for defendants benefiting a bail bond company that provided him with meals and other benefits, Amar said.
——————————————————————————–
Bail bondsman testifies in hearing for Judge Thomas Porteous
By Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune NOLA.com
12-11-09 — With Thomas Porteous, his benefactor on the Jefferson Parish Court about to be sworn in as a federal judge, convicted bail bondsman Louis Marcotte III told a House task force Thursday that he tried to rush through as many bond rulings as he could in those final days. . . . “We wanted to make as much money as we could while he was on his way out,” Marcotte told the 12-member task force, which is deciding whether to recommend that the House Judiciary Committee proceeds with the impeachment of Porteous from the U.S. District Court in New Orleans. Marcotte said he told associates that “we’re going to wear him (Porteous) out.” . . . In fact, according to Alan Baron, the special counsel advising the task force, Judiciary Committee investigators have found 50 bail decisions benefiting Marcotte’s bail bond company in the two months before Porteous was sworn in as a federal District Judge on Oct. 28 1994. . . . One of the rulings came the day before the swearing in, Baron said.
——————————————————————————–
Judge Thomas Porteous accused of bankruptcy fraud during impeachment hearing
By The Times-Picayune, NOLA.com
12-10-09 — U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous of Metairie was accused at his impeachment hearing Tuesday of obtaining a new credit card and racking up thousands of dollars in casino debt without permission during his 2002 bankruptcy proceedings. . . . The testimony came during the House Judiciary Committee’s judicial impeachment task force inquiry into whether the Eastern District of Louisiana judge should face impeachment charges based on allegations that he solicited cash bribes from local lawyers and other irregularities.
——————————————————————————–
A Victims-of-Law Advertiser
——————————————————————————–
November 2009
Probe of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous could touch lawyers
By Drew Broach, The Times-Picayune
11-30-09 — With impunity so far, five lawyers have told federal investigators they regularly gave cash or other gifts to Judge Thomas Porteous of Metairie as long ago as the 1980s, including two who testified this month before a congressional task force considering whether Porteous should be impeached. . . . None of the lawyers has been criminally prosecuted for the payments, although professional sanctions could be in the offing. . . . The chairman of the Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board said last week that it’s not unusual for its sanctions process to take a back seat to other investigations, and two of the lawyers who ponied up for Porteous, Jacob Amato and Robert Creely, told Congress that they are indeed subjects of pending professional complaints. . . . The delay in reprimanding the lawyers sheds new light on the workings of the disciplinary board and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which acts as the principal investigator and prosecutor of professional misconduct by lawyers.
——————————————————————————–
Judge Thomas Porteous accusation of bias troubles impeachment task force member
By Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune NOLA.com
11-27-09 — As a former state judge, U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., says one accusation against federal District Judge Thomas Porteous of Metairie stands out: his refusal to recuse himself from a case in which he was secretly receiving money from one of the attorneys. . . . “That goes to an issue that I am very concerned about,” said Johnson, who argues that a judiciary free of bias is “fundamental to the functioning of our legal system.” . . . Johnson, a member of the 12-member House Judiciary Committee task force considering Porteous’ impeachment, isn’t alone. Comments by fellow task force members during the first two days of hearings last week suggest a consensus building that the accusations against Porteous are serious enough to warrant his removal from office. . . . Several more hearings are likely in December, and perhaps January, before the task force decides whether to recommend an impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. . . . After listening during two days of hearings to criticism of his client’s actions, Porteous’ attorney, Richard Westling, expressed concern that “there is a certain amount of predisposition on the panel.” He urged task force members to keep an open mind, saying they will hear testimony that “there has never been an argument that what happened in Judge Porteous’ courtroom was anything but fair.”
——————————————————————————–
October 2009
Federal judge’s tax returns sought in probe
By Bruce Alpert, Times-Picayune
10-1-09 — The top Democrat and Republican on the House Judiciary Committee are asking the House to give the panel authority to inspect tax returns and “tax return information” as part of its impeachment investigation into U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana. . . . The requested resolution from Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and ranking Republican Lamar Smith of Texas, has been referred to the House Rules Committee and indicates the panel’s investigation is proceeding. . . . Attorneys for the committee have been in New Orleans interviewing witnesses for the past several months, aided by a House resolution that allows them to grant witnesses immunity from prosecution for any information they provide. . . . The core facts in the case aren’t in dispute. . . . Porteous has admitted he had a drinking problem, was addicted to gambling, filed a false statement in a bankruptcy application and that friends had helped him out of financial jams even when they had cases pending before him.
——————————————————————————–
May 2009
Scalise urges quick action on Porteous impeachment probe
by Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune
5-4-09 — Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, is asking the House Judiciary Committee to “act swiftly” to complete its impeachment investigation of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous in the Eastern District of Louisiana. . . . The probe, which began last year, was reauthorized in January but delayed for three months after it was determined the private attorney hired to oversee the probe was subject to House conflict of interest rules. . . . His law firm, Holland & Knight, would have been barred from lobbying members of the Judiciary Committee while he conducted the Porteous probe. As a result, the probe was in limbo until Barron found a position in March with another firm, Seyfarth Shaw, which doesn’t do lobbying. . . . Now, that the lawyer is back on the job, Scalise wants the investigation expedited. . . . “We cannot afford to have another Congress pass without a resolution to this matter, as happened with the conclusion of the 110th Congress,” Scalise said in a letter to committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and ranking Republican, Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
——————————————————————————–
Get your FREE Last Will & Testament from RocketLawyer.com!
——————————————————————————–
Help Support Victims-of-Law on the web by purchasing from its Advertisers
——————————————————————————–
April 2009
Conflict of Interest at Holland & Knight Sets Back Impeachment Inquiry
Facing accusations of perjury and bribery, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous would be the first federal judge in two decades to be impeached
David Ingram, Legal Times
4-27-09 — An impeachment inquiry of a federal judge has been set back by three months because of a conflict of interest between Holland & Knight’s lobbying practice and a partner at the firm who is serving as counsel to the House Judiciary Committee. . . . Alan Baron, an expert on judicial impeachment, signed up with the committee in October to lead its investigation of U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of the Eastern District of Louisiana. Porteous, who is facing accusations of perjury and bribery and would be the first federal judge in two decades to be impeached, has said he’s broken no laws. . . . The inquiry initially had Holland & Knight’s blessing, but in January, when Baron’s contract came up for renewal, the firm’s management decided that Baron’s work would interfere severely with the firm’s lobbying. A House ethics rule restricts the lobbying activities of a law firm if anyone at the firm is working for the House. The rule, in effect since 2000, would have kept Holland & Knight lobbyists from talking to any of the Judiciary Committee’s 39 members or their staff on any subject.
——————————————————————————–
A Victims-of-Law Advertiser
——————————————————————————–
February 2009
Most likely to be impeached?
James Gill, The Times-Picayune
2-27-09 — The race to be named federal judge most likely to be impeached has been nip and tuck, but we always knew the winner would come from this very circuit. . . . The smart money for a long while was on the Louisiana-bred Thomas Porteous, with Samuel Kent of Texas the only other candidate with an exacta shot. . . . Kent’s odds just shortened considerably, and maybe we should put him on top, because he appears penitentiary bound. He copped a plea Monday, with prosecutors agreeing to settle for a sentence of three years. . . . Don’t write Porteous off, though, for he has pretty good form. After being caught filing for bankruptcy under a false name and putting the arm on attorneys appearing before him, he was suspended by the Fifth Circuit and recommended for impeachment by the Judicial Conference of the United States, chaired by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, no less. . . . A U.S. House of Representatives investigation was cranked up again a few weeks ago after being interrupted by last fall’s elections. Porteous appeared to top the sleaze rankings. . . . But he has never been charged with, let along convicted of, a crime so that Kent, in pleading guilty to obstruction of justice, may now have stolen a march on him. U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who sits on the judiciary committee, has already called for impeachment after Kent is sentenced in May.
——————————————————————————–
October 2008
Counsel picked for Porteous probe
House panel trumpets lawyer’s track record
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune
10-16-08 — A veteran Washington lawyer who helped oversee the impeachments of two federal judges in the 1980s was selected Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee to lead its impeachment inquiry of federal Judge Thomas Porteous. . . . Chosen for the high-profile job was Alan Barron, a partner with the Washington firm of Holland & Knight. . . . “Our investigation must be thorough, fair and fully in accordance with the letter of the law,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who was chosen last month to chair a 12-member Judiciary Committee task force overseeing the probe. “Mr. Baron’s experience and upstanding reputation leave me no doubt that he will be a great help to the task force, and I look forward to working with him.”
——————————————————————————–
Judge’s secretary paid his gambling debts
by Richard Rainey, The Times-Picayune
10-5-08 — When the Judicial Council of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals effectively suspended District Judge Thomas Porteous last month, it quietly shuttered his chambers and laid off his staff of five, including a secretary who played an integral role in the financial history of the disgraced judge. . . . Rhonda Danos, described in private conversations as fiercely loyal to Porteous, lost a post she held in his front office for 24 years. Beyond the usual trappings of a secretary’s duties, she paid some of Porteous’ gambling and credit card debts and, according to testimony from one witness, delivered money to the judge from lawyers who had a case in his court. . . . “Tom Porteous says she’s a very fine lady and that he’s had her with him for many years, and he feels terrible that she somehow has been dragged into this,” said Porteous’ attorney, Lewis Unglesby. “And now with the 5th Circuit not even giving her a chance to defend herself, she has to lose her job.”
——————————————————————————–
September 2008
House Committee Names Task Force to Investigate Possible Impeachment of Federal Judge
Pamela A. MacLean, The National Law Journal
9-22-08 — The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday announced 12 members of the task force that will investigate whether U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of the Eastern District of Louisiana should be impeached. . . . Chairman John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and ranking Republican Lamar Smith, R-Texas, named seven Democrats and five Republicans to the task force with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., to chair the group. . . . The leading Republican member of the committee will by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. . . . Porteous, appointed to the federal bench in Louisiana by President Bill Clinton in 1994, has been suspended for two years by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and stripped of court staff. . . . He allegedly “solicited and received” cash from lawyers with cases pending before him while a state judge and later on the federal bench, lied on financial disclosure statements and committed perjury by filing false statements in his personal bankruptcy.
——————————————————————————–
A rank odor in the judge’s chambers
Drew Broach, Jefferson Report, The Times-Picayune
When the FBI debriefed him on corruption at the Jefferson Parish Courthouse, the crooked Ronnie Bodenheimer recalled a conversation he had upon being elected to the bench in 1999. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Tom Porteous told the 24th District Court’s newest jurist that “he would never again need to pay for his own lunch.” . . . Porteous knew what he was talking about. He had enjoyed the perks of a being Gretna judge for 10 years before moving over to the hallowed halls of the federal district court in New Orleans. There, it seems, the gratuities continued: lawyers paying for his lunch and travel, litigants taking him on hunting trips, cash for the asking and easy credit from casinos. . . . Now, however, Porteous is holding justice hostage for more than a free steak. He wants nothing less than full disability retirement benefits. He’s got doctors who say he’s depressed to the point of incompetence. . . . His problem is that his bosses over at the 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals don’t see it that way. Under the iron-fisted leadership of Chief Judge Edith Jones of Houston, an investigative committee of the circuit’s Judicial Council hired its own psychiatrist who determined “that Judge Porteous is fully capable, but at this point in his career he ‘dislikes’ being a judge. He looks forward to life off the bench,” according to the committee’s report.
——————————————————————————–
History on the side of accused judge
Only 7 have been removed from office
By Richard Rainey, The Times-Picayune
9-21-08 — U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous admits he came to depend on alcohol to get through the day and that he was addicted to gambling. He does not deny that he submitted false statements in his personal bankruptcy, on his annual financial disclosure forms and on his application for a bank loan. He concedes that lawyer friends bailed him out of one financial jam after another over the years, even when they had cases pending in his court. . . . His own attorney said Porteous deserves the public reprimand he received this month from his superiors. . . . But Porteous now faces the prospect of the ultimate sanction, impeachment and possible removal from office, in an arena where the standard for conviction is high and the guidelines for booting a judge are open to considerable interpretation. . . . Federal judges are appointed for life, and the Constitution makes removal of one almost impossible. That’s to keep one branch of government from unduly influencing another. Should the House of Representatives approve articles of impeachment against Porteous, he would advance to trial in the Senate, where two-thirds of the members present must agree before he can be convicted and kicked off the bench.
——————————————————————————–
Task force named for judge inquiry
Jurist Porteous is facing impeachment
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune
9-19-08 — The House Judiciary Committee named a 12-member task force Thursday to begin an impeachment inquiry of federal Judge Thomas Porteous. . . . The task force, made up of seven Democrats and five Republicans from the committee, will be chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. The panel’s top Republican will be Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. . . . The selections were made by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the panel’s top Republican, . . . The Judiciary Committee voted unanimously Wednesday to begin the impeachment probe in response to a June recommendation from the Judicial Conference of the United States. The conference, chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, said the House should consider impeachment on the grounds that Porteous signed false financial disclosure forms and presided over a trial in which lawyers from both sides gave him money.
——————————————————————————–
House Panel Moves Toward Impeaching Federal Judge
Laurie Kellerman, The Associated Press, Law.com
9-18-08 — The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to open the first impeachment probe of a sitting judge in almost two decades. . . . With little discussion, the Democratic-led panel voted unanimously to launch an investigation against U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous, a Louisiana jurist, who is charged with presiding over a trial in which the lawyers involved had given him money. He’s also accused of filing for bankruptcy under a false name. . . . Porteous was appointed by President Clinton. . . . The Judicial Conference of the United States reported in June that Porteous may deserve impeachment. If the full House impeaches Porteous, the case would advance to a Senate trial. A guilty verdict would remove him from the bench. . . . It would be the first impeachment of a federal judge since 1989, when the House impeached Walter Nixon of Mississippi and the Senate convicted Alcee L. Hastings, now a Democratic congressman from Florida, who had been impeached the year before.
——————————————————————————–
How to get rid of a bad judge?
James Gill, The Times-Picayune
9-17-08 — Logically, Congress cannot impeach district judge Tom Porteous, and he will spend two years on full pay before returning to the bench. . . . Now, don’t get all purple in the face and start frothing at the mouth. There are weightier issues involved than the fate of one squalid judge. . . . You probably still want Porteous gone. Look on the bright side, and remember that Congress is by no means always constrained by logic. . . . Any more than the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit is always constrained by the Constitution. . . . The trial and appellate judges who make up the council last week imposed the severest penalty at their disposal, ordering Porteous suspended and issuing a public reprimand. . . . But that does not satisfy. A large majority on the council is urging Congress to give Porteous the permanent heave-ho. The impeachment call is a big overreach. . . . Porteous, of course, is a foul excrescence on the federal bench and would, if he had any shame, resign forthwith. But he is merely a liar and sponger with no apparent grasp of judicial ethics. He is small potatoes, and not worth impeachment, which the framers, in order to guarantee judicial independence, reserved for cases of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
——————————————————————————–
House panel moving on Porteous impeachment
by Richard Rainey, The Times-Picayune
9-16-08 — The U.S. House Judiciary Committee could form a task force as early as Wednesday to examine the case for impeachment against federal Judge Thomas Porteous. . . . Committee leaders called today for a vote to jumpstart the congressional inquiry into Porteous’ alleged misdeeds, including accusations of bankruptcy fraud, perjury and wanton gambling. The move signals the first actions in Congress to examine the Porteous case since the Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, recommended in June that the House go forward with impeachment proceedings. . . . “We take it very seriously when the governing body of the judiciary sends us a referral for impeachment,” said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the Judiciary Committte. “Upon review, we believe this matter merits a full investigation.” . . . “Public corruption at any level should not be tolerated, but it is especially egregious when a federal judge, who has been appointed for life, falls under allegations of bribery and unethical behavior,” said the committee’s senior Republican, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas. “While I regret that these actions are necessary, Congress has a responsibility to investigate and restore credibility to the federal bench.”
——————————————————————————–
Judge Who Faces Impeachment Took Cash, Gifts From Lawyers With Pending Cases
by Christina Jewett , ProPublica –
Federal Judge Thomas Porteous Jr. faces impeachment for accepting cash and gifts, including rooms in Las Vegas. (Credit: Flickr User: fusionpanda/ProPublica)
9-16-08 — As Hurricane Ike barreled down on south Texas and revelations came to light about sex, cocaine and insider deals at the Department of the Interior, the presiding judge of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals posted a raft (PDF) of documents accusing one federal judge of gambling, bribery and judicial misconduct. . . . Chief Judge Edith H. Jones released results of a Justice Department investigation (PDF) and 5th Circuit special committee report alleging that District Judge Thomas Porteous Jr. of New Orleans lied in his personal bankruptcy case and accepted rooms in Las Vegas and envelopes of cash from attorneys with cases awaiting his decisions. . . . The reports ask the House Judiciary Committee to hold an impeachment hearing of Porteous. If the case is taken up, it would mark the first time a federal judge has faced impeachment in nearly two decades. The committee plans to vote Wednesday on whether to create a task force to recommend whether to proceed with impeachment. . . . The reports allege the judge was an alcoholic and “reckless gambler” who accepted money — and at times demanded it — from five attorneys and representatives of two companies with more than 25 cases before him. . . . New Orleans attorney Jacob Amato told investigators he and his law partner paid Porteous an estimated $10,000, according to the DOJ report. Amato chipped in $2,000 toward the wedding for one of Porteous’ children while he awaited the judge’s decision on a $110 million civil case. The decision came down in Amato’s client’s favor but was later overturned.
——————————————————————————–
Federal Judge Slammed by 5th Circuit in Disciplinary Action
Pamela A. MacLean, The National Law Journal
9-15-08 — U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana, already faced with a recommendation for impeachment and suspended from the bench since the spring, got more bad news Thursday from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. . . . The circuit’s Judicial Council ordered all his cases removed for two years, or until Congress acts on the impeachment request, removed Porteous’ staff and issued a public reprimand, along with hundreds of pages of previously secret documents in the investigation. . . . The judicial complaint against Porteous alleges he “solicited and received” cash from lawyers with cases pending before him, lied on financial disclosure documents and committed perjury by signing false statements in his personal bankruptcy case. In re Complaint for Judicial Misconduct against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr., 07-05-351-0085. . . . He was not been charged with any criminal conduct by the Justice Department.
——————————————————————————–
Editorial: Rid us of this unfit judge
The Times-Picayune
9-13-08 — Despite his record of wrongdoing and the shame he’s brought to the federal judiciary, U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous seems intent on hanging on to a post for which he’s gravely unfit. . . . That’s why Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the New Orleans-based judge before its members adjourn in a few weeks — and Louisiana’s delegation must take the lead in ridding the bench of this disgraceful judge. . . . Anyone who still harbors doubts about Judge Porteous’ misdeeds should read previously-secret documents released this week on the Web site of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, at http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov. . . . They detail how Judge Porteous repeatedly perjured himself by systematically hiding illegal gifts and cash he got for years from lawyers with cases in his court. The judge also lied under oath several times during his 2001 bankruptcy proceedings and tried to defraud a bank by lying on a loan application. . . . Among the most incredible revelations, lawyers Robert Creely and Jacob Amato admitted they made cash payments to Judge Porteous for more than a decade, according to the documents. When Mr. Creely decided to stop the payments, the judge began steering legal work to Mr. Creely and asking for kickbacks, which the documents said Mr. Creely provided. . . . When Judge Porteous asked the two lawyers to help pay for his son’s wedding in 1999, they funneled several thousand dollars to him.
——————————————————————————–
Thomas Porteous – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Judge G Thomas Porteous Jr (born 1946) is a United States District Judge for Louisiana, and had been a judge of the Louisiana Judicial District Court from 1984 before being appointed to the U.S. District Court in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. . . . In 2001, Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy, which led to revelations in the press about his private life, specifically the fact that he was alleged to have had close ties with local bail bond magnate Louis Marcotte III, at the center of a corruption probe, which has more recently led to his being the subject of investigation himself by federal investigators. In May 2006, Porteous, beset by the recent loss of his wife and still under investigation by a federal grand jury, was granted temporary medical leave and began a six-month furlough from the federal bench.
Blouise: You’re welcome. I missed you and Buddha. As my clients say, “What Up?”.
CORRECTION/ADDITION: Here is the full site to get to the actual transcripts listed above. Sorry, Frank
Judge G Thomas Porteous, Jr. Impeachment Materials. H. Res. 1031 Report Resolution with Articles of Impeachment, H.Res. 1031 1/27/10 – House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.Res.1031 …
judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_judicialimpeachment.html · Cached page
Frank Mascagni III
Thank you
Judiciary.house.gov online info from the House of Representatives
Judicial Impeachment Inquiry
Judge G Thomas Porteous, Jr. Impeachment Materials
H. Res. 1031 Report
Resolution with Articles of Impeachment, H.Res. 1031
1/27/10 – House Judiciary Committee Markup of H.Res.1031 Impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors
1/21/10 – Transcript of House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force Meeting to consider articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. for recommendation to the full committee
11/17 and 11/18/09 – Transcript of House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force Hearing Part I to consider possible impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
12/08/09 – Transcript of House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force Hearing Part II to consider possible impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
12/10/09 – Transcript of House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force Hearing Part III to consider possible impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
12/15/09 – Transcript of House Judiciary Impeachment Task Force Hearing Part IV to consider possible impeachment against U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
ARTICLE ONLINE 9-302010 FROM JUDGEPEDIA
Federal judges who have been impeached
From Judgepedia
Fifteen federal judges have been impeached.
Four were acquitted.
Seven were convicted.
Two resigned, resulting in a dismissal and no impeachment trial.
One resigned, resulting in a impeachment, but no trial to convict.
One is awaiting an impeachment trial in the United States Senate.
1803
John Pickering. Pickering was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804.
1804
Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Chase was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805.
1830
James Hawkins Peck of the District of Missouri was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831.
1862
West Hughes Humphreys, U.S. District Court for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Tennessee.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 6, 1862, on charges of refusing to hold court and waging war against the U.S. government; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, June 26, 1862.
1873
Mark W. Delahay, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 28, 1873, on charges of intoxication on the bench; resigned from office, December 12, 1873, before opening of trial in the U.S. Senate.
1904
Charles Swayne, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, December 13, 1904, on charges of abuse of contempt power and other misuses of office; acquitted by the U.S. Senate February 27, 1905.
1912
Robert Wodrow Archbald, U.S. Commerce Court.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 11, 1912, on charges of improper business relationship with litigants; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, January 13, 1913.
1926
George Washington English, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, April 1, 1926, on charges of abuse of power; resigned office November 4, 1926; Senate Court of Impeachment adjourned to December 13, 1926, when, on request of the House manager, impeachment proceedings were dismissed.
1933
Harold Louderback, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, February 24, 1933, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers; acquitted by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 1933.
1936
Halsted Lockwood Ritter, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, March 2, 1936, on charges of favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers and practicing law while sitting as a judge; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, April 17, 1936.
1986
Harry Claiborne, U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, July 22, 1986, on charges of income tax evasion and of remaining on the bench following criminal conviction; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 9, 1986.
1988
Alcee Hastings, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, August 3, 1988, on charges of perjury and conspiring to solicit a bribe; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, October 20, 1989.
1989
Walter Nixon United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives, May 10, 1989, on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury; convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office, November 3, 1989.
2009
Samuel Kent of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Impeached on conviction of inappropriate sexual misconduct towards female law clerks and using taxpayer funded resources while pleading guilty to a crime. Kent was impeached on June 19, 2009 by the House of Representatives and resigned from the Federal judiciary on June 30, 2009 before any trial in the Senate could be scheduled.
2010
Thomas Porteous of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Porteous is charged of engaging in corruption while serving as a federal judge, violating a bankruptcy judge’s order, and perjury to the United States Senate. Porteous was impeached on March 11, 2010 and awaiting trial in the U.S. Senate.
See Also
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980
External links
List of impeached federal judges from the Federal Judicial Center.
Retrieved from “http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Federal_judges_who_have_been_impeached”
Category: Impeached federal judgesViews
INFO FOUND ONLINE AT U.S. History 9-30-2010 on IMPEACHMENT
Acts, Bills, and Laws, U.S. Constitution
Impeachment is the process that enables a legislative body to remove a public official from office; it is composed of two parts: (1) an accusation or indictment and (2) a trial.
This practice has its roots in English constitutional history. Members of Parliament employed impeachment against royally appointed Stuart officials in the 1600s. The concept was brought to the American colonies, where legislative assemblies used it against royal officials. Few other countries have provisions for impeachment.
The U.S. Constitution makes the following provisions for the impeachment of federal officials:
Article I, Section 2
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Section 3
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party, (defendant), convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Under this two-part procedure, the House of Representatives is charged with initiating the process by bringing articles of impeachment against an accused official. The Senate, in turn, tries the accused on the charges provided by the House. Few guidelines exist for these Senate trials. If the President has been impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is designated to preside; the Vice-President has presided in all other instances.
A two-thirds vote of the Senate is necessary to convict and remove the official from office. Those so convicted are barred from holding federal office in the future.
No rule prevents the impeachment of members of the House or Senate, but that action has never been successfully taken.
The Constitution also makes reference to those offenses deemed to be impeachable:
Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason and bribery are usually clearly understood concepts, but “high crimes and misdemeanors” are open to a wide latitude of interpretation. Some constitutional scholars have argued that only criminal offenses meet that standard, but others have maintained that a simple breach of the public trust is sufficient.
During the Constitutional Convention, some of the Framers urged that “maladministration” be added to the list of impeachable offenses. Others wisely opposed that addition, fearing that impeachment might become a trivial political matter.
—————————————————————–
The following table summarizes the handful of impeachments that have occurred over the years. This remedy has been used primarily against federal judges, who are lifetime appointees and do not stand for election.
Federal Official Position Date Result
William Blount U.S. Senator
Tennessee January 14, 1799 Lack of jurisdiction led to dismissal of charges.
John Pickering U.S. District Judge District of New Hampshire March 12, 1804 Removed from office.
Samuel Chase Associate Justice
U.S. Supreme Court March 1, 1805 Acquitted.
James H. Peck U.S. District Judge District of Missouri January 31, 1831 Acquitted.
West H. Humphreys U.S. District Judge District of Tennessee June 26, 1862 Removed from office.
Andrew Johnson President
of the United States May 26, 1868 Acquitted.
William H. Belknap Secretary of War August 1, 1876 Acquitted.
Charles Swayne U.S. District Judge District of Northern Florida February 27, 1905 Acquitted.
Robert W. Archbald Associate Judge
U.S. Commerce Court January 13, 1913 Removed from office.
George W. English U.S. District Judge Eastern District of Illinois November 4, 1926 Resigned from office; dismissed.
Harold Louderback U.S. District Judge Northern District of California May 24, 1933 Acquitted.
Halsted L. Ritter U.S. District Judge Southern District of Florida April 17, 1936 Removed from Office.
Henry E. Claiborne U.S. District Judge District of Nevada October 9, 1986 Removed from office.
Alcee L. Hastings U.S. District Judge Southern District of Florida October 20, 1988 Removed from office.
Walter L. Nixon Jr. U.S. District Judge Southern District of Mississippi November 3, 1989 Removed from office.
William J. Clinton President
of the United States February 12, 1999 Acquitted.
—————————————————————-
I believe it has become more than obvious that The Times-Picayune wants Judge Porteous impeached. James Gill is doing the Master’s biding in denigrating the defense. Questionable ethics seem to be the norm in that neck of the woods no matter what the profession.
My only comment to James Gill is that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is the standard for the President and Vice President under Article II, Sec. 4.
The standard for judges is different. They “hold their offices during good Behavior” under Article VII, Sec. 1.
ARTICLE ON LINE SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2010 NEW ORLEANS, LA
The Times-Picayune
With friends like Judge Porteous’, who needs enemies? James Gill
Published: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 7:00 AM
James Gill
As a succession of witnesses cooked federal Judge Thomas Porteous’ goose at his impeachment trial, you had to keep reminding yourself they had been called in his defense.
The House members handling the prosecution had put on some pretty damning testimony of their own, but it was hardly necessary. Each time a Porteous pal took the stand to vouch for him, his depravity was thrown into even sharper relief.
Porteous had some pretty fancy mouthpieces, led by George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who admittedly faced a daunting task. But they made it even more so. The defense trial tactics defied understanding. How could such a distinguished intellect as Turley call such a shady bunch of bozos to the stand?
Surely someone could have pointed out that relying on Ronnie Bodenheimer was stark raving mad. Perhaps the idea was that, since part of the rap against Porteous is that he was a corrupt state judge before his elevation to the federal bench, he wouldn’t look so bad if an even more corrupt ex-state judge could be produced.
Bodenheimer certainly fit that bill, having done four years in the pen after proving more than willing to pervert the course of justice for a few bucks. But he was there not as an exhibit; he was there to deliver his opinion that Porteous had been a fine and much respected jurist in Jefferson Parish.
Senators must have been aghast that Turley would offer an encomium from such a snake. Bodenheimer proceeded to undermine it anyway by conceding that Porteous was not always sober and had a reputation for ruling in favor of attorneys who were his friends.
Several of those friends were in the habit of slipping Porteous money, and Turley decided to put one of them, Don Gardner, on the stand. That was asking for trouble too, and Gardner promptly provided it by admitting that a federal litigant, alarmed to discover that the other side had retained some friends of Porteous, paid him $100,000 as a counterbalance.
Gardner conceded that he was recruited for the case, although he lacked any relevant expertise, as “a pretty face, someone who knew the judge.” He added that he could have pocketed an extra $100,000 by persuading Porteous to recuse himself, but made no attempt to do so, not wanting to be a “whore.” Senators probably did not agree that Gardner’s virtue was intact.
Also making the trip to Washington to praise Porteous was his old boss, former Jefferson Parish District Attorney John Mamoulides, who helped get him elected to the state bench and appointed to the federal one. Mamoulides wound up burying Porteous too. When asked under cross-examination whether he thought it was OK for Porteous to expunge convictions for employees of a bail bondsman who lavished him with gifts and took him to Las Vegas, Mamoulides replied it was “probably improper from an ethics standpoint.”
He also said that the one time a bail bondsman had sent him a gift, he returned it. So much for the “Gretna mentality” defense — the notion, a calumny which would hardly have exonerated Porteous in any case, that integrity is a foreign concept around here.
The defense also wheeled out an expert to counter the charge that Porteous had played fast and loose in his bankruptcy petition. It was common for bankrupts to misstate facts, senators were told, but Porteous’ expert was forced to admit that it was not at all common to file, as Porteous did, under an alias.
The committee that tried Porteous is now charged with providing an objective summary of the evidence so that the full Senate can decide his fate. But it will be a major challenge to find any favorable evidence to summarize. For Porteous, who hasn’t done a lick of work for the last two years, it will soon be bye-bye to a $174,000 salary, and he can forget about that fat pension.
His only faint hope is to persuade enough senators that, since the Justice Department declined to indict him, his antics do not amount to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the Constitution requires for removal. But politics may be just as important as constitutional exegesis in an impeachment trial, and it does not augur well for Porteous that four articles were unanimously approved in the House.
After that vote, it was time to line up some friends to testify on his behalf. Perhaps they would have been wiser to stay home.
James Gill is a columnist for The Times-Picayune. He can be reached at jgill@timespicayune.com or at 504.826.3318.
Related topics: louisiana politics, thomas porteous
LOUISIANA LAWSUIT ABUSE WATCH (LLAW) POSTING 9-22-2010; ONLINE PETITION TO U.S. SENATE TO IMPEACH JUDGE PORTEOUS AND SET UP A FACEBOOK PAGE TO IMPEACH THE JUDGE. FYI, FRANK
Press Release – September 22, 2010
Citizen Watchdog Group Launches Online Petition to Support Impeachment of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous
BATON ROUGE- Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch (LLAW) today launched an online petition to urge the United States Senate, which just wrapped up an impeachment trial on U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous, to quickly and faithfully complete its investigation and take the final step to remove Judge Porteous from the bench.
“We are calling on the people of Louisiana and concerned citizens across the country to stand with us in speaking out against this corruption,” said Melissa Landry, Executive Director of LLAW, the state’s leading grassroots legal watchdog group. “By seeking bribes, taking kickbacks and falsifying statements, Judge Porteous misused his judicial power and eroded the public’s trust. Every day he continues to claim the title of a federal judge and draws his $174,000 salary is an insult to the citizens and taxpayers of this country. One house of Congress has already investigated charges against him and certified the impeachment, and it is long past time for him to go.”
After a lengthy investigation earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved four articles of impeachment against Judge Porteous in March 2010.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chair of a House Task force that reviewed the accusations against Porteous, recently said in an Associated Press article, “It is the unanimous view of the House of Representatives that his conduct is not only wrong but so violative of the public trust that he cannot be allowed to remain on the bench without making a mockery of the court system.”
The “Impeach Judge Porteous” petition is available online at “http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/impeachjudgeporteous/.
LLAW has also established a FaceBook Fan Page to track daily developments in the case. It is available online at http://www.facebook.com/ImpeachTheJudge.
Porteous’ Senate trial is the final step in the impeachment process, and the panel wrapped up hearings on the matter yesterday. Now, the U.S. Senate Impeachment Trial Committee will complete an impartial summary of the trial and submit it to the full Senate for consideration. The Senate is expected to vote on the matter sometime after the Nov. 2 mid-term elections. A two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to convict him.
The online petition to support Judge Porteous’ impeachment is part of LLAW’s ongoing campaign to improve Louisiana’s legal system.
With the fall primary elections approaching, LLAW is also urging Louisiana voters to study their local judicial races and be prepared to make an informed decision when getting to the ballot box on October 2nd.
“There are more than a dozen judicial races taking place all across the state and it’s important that voters take the time to get to know these candidates,” said LLAW board member Dr. Elisa Arrillaga.
“Judge Porteous impeachment trial is a sobering reminder that sometimes judges do not live up to the high ethical standard that is expected of them. When this happens, our faith in the legal system can be diminished. But that’s why it is so important for us, the voters, to hold them accountable for their actions. We have the power to elect them into office, and we have the power to kick them out.”
Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Porteous served as an elected judge in Jefferson Parish from 1984 and 1994.
ARTICLE ONLINE 9-29-2010 ON THE PELICAN POST
Pelican Post
Louisiana Politics and PolicyHomeAboutAnything Less Than Impeachment of Judge Porteous a Detriment to Citizens, Justice System
Posted by Jamison Beuerman on September 29, 2010
Corruption
As the protracted impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous draws to a close in the Senate, the local watchdog group Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch has issued a petition in support of his impeachment. Anyone who has followed the trajectory of Judge Porteous’ career and trial knows that he should, and likely will, be impeached. Judge Porteous has been dogged by accusations of all sorts of corruption from accepting bribes to being drunk while in court. The most appalling- and credible- transgression by Porteous, however, is that he habitually set bonds favorable for his friend, former bail-bondsman, Louis Marcotte III in exchange for a plethora of monetary and material favors.
While his dereliction of duty alone justifies impeachment, this measure is also necessary because if he is allowed to retire the taxpayers are on the hook for his lavish retirement plan. Impeachment would not be a vindictive measure, as it would prevent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars from going to support the lofty pension and salaried retirement benefits for a federal judge. Only voting for impeachment can assure that Porteous does not continue to accumulate a $174,000 annual salary for a position which he abused and desecrated.
The Times-Picayune published an effective excoriation of the judge and the culture of corruption he typifies. Noting the dangers of allowing Porteous to remain in office any longer, the editorial provides that, “Judge Porteous has also gamed the system, delaying his possible ousting so he can continue to receive a $174,000 annual salary while doing no work and possibly reach enough years on the bench to secure lifetime pay. That would be a travesty.”
The Louisiana Lawsuit Abuse Watch’s petition to ensure that Judge Porteous is impeached can be found here. Judge Porteous has demonstrated what happens when our justice system is perverted from within. It is now imperative that our justice system exhibit the ability to hold those officials who violate the law fully accountable if we are to restore our faith in this system.
Related posts:
Louisiana Monks Face Jail For Selling Caskets
Institute for Justice Stands Up for Louisiana Entrepreneurs
Read more: Anything Less Than Impeachment of Judge Porteous a Detriment to Citizens, Justice System | The Pelican Post http://www.thepelicanpost.org/2010/09/29/anything-less-than-impeachment-of-judge-porteous-a-detriment-to-citizens-justice-system/#ixzz10xM7KuPs
HOUSE RESOLUTION 1031 TO BE CONSIDERED ON MARCH 11, 2010
Legislation News & Resources Media Solutions Blog Contact RSS & API PERMALINKThis is the permanent location for the current document.
To see this page after today, visit the URL below.
SHARE THIS PAGE
Del.icio.us LinkedIn
Digg Twitter
Facebook StumbleUpon
Most Recent Legislative DigestPolicy NewsArchiveBillsRoll Call VotesLegislative Documents
H.Amdt. 1031
Impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors
Sponsor Rep. Conyers, JohnJr. (Judiciary Committee)
Date March 11, 2010
111th Congress, 2nd Session
FLOOR SITUATION
H.Res. 1031 is expected to be considered on the floor of the House on Thursday, March 11, 2010, as a priveledged resolution. The legislation was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on January 21, 2010, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was ordered to be reported by a vote of 24 – 0 on January 27, 2010.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
H.Res. 1031 would impeach G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The bill sets forth four articles of impeachment.
Among the reasons for impeachment, the bill lists the following:
•While a U.S. district court judge, G. Thomas Porteous, engaged in a pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a judge;
•Judge Porteous denied a motion to recuse himself from a case where one of the parties was represented by a corrupt law firm with which he had a financial relationship;
•Judge Porteous made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing and engaged in corrupt conduct after the trial, and while he had the case under advisement;
•Judge Porteous engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a U.S. District Court Judge and engaged in a pattern of conduct inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as a federal judge by knowingly and intentionally making material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury related to his personal bankruptcy filing, and by repeatedly violating a court order in his bankruptcy case; and
•Judge Porteous knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the U.S. Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in order to obtain the office of U.S. District Court Judge.
H.Res. 1031 states that Judge Porteous is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
BACKGROUND
In June 2008, the Judicial Conference of the U.S. transmitted to the Speaker of the House a Certificate indicating that “consideration of the impeachment of Judge Porteous may be warranted.” After an extensive investigation and a series of hearings the Judiciary Committee voted to refer four articles of impeachment to the House for its consideration. The articles involve the following conduct:
(1) A curatorship kickback scheme the judge had with two attorneys;
(2) The judge’s inappropriate handling of a federal case involving both material misrepresentations he made during a recusal hearing, and his soliciting and accepting money from an attorney involved in the case, while he had the matter under advisement;
(3) The judge’s corrupt relationship with two bail bondsman and his actions taken both as a State and federal judge to assist them in their business;
(4) The judge’s numerous false and misleading statements and other violations of orders of the bankruptcy court in connection with his 2001 bankruptcy filing; and
(5) The judge’s false statements to both the FBI and the Senate during his nomination and confirmation process which led him to obtain his judgeship under false pretenses.
COST
CBO does not have a score of H.Res. 1031.
ARTICLE ONLINE FROM THE WASHINGTO POST SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
Federal judge’s impeachment trial ends
The Senate impeachment trial of a federal judge is over, but he’ll have to wait until after the midterm elections to learn his fate.
U.S. District Court Judge of Louisiana G. Thomas Porteous Jr. on Sept. 16 at his Senate impeachment trial. (Melina Mara/Post)Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of New Orleans was impeached by the House in March and a committee of 12 senators spent most of the last 10 days hearing 30 hours of testimony from 27 witnesses regarding the four articles of impeachment.
The proceedings included tales of a Las Vegas bachelor party, buckets of shrimp and other highlights of the often-sordid state of Louisiana politics. (Colleague Ann Gerhart brilliantly captured the scene last week.)
The Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, chaired by Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), plans to submit a full report on the proceedings to the full Senate by mid-November. Aides stress that the report will not recommend how the full Senate should vote, but will instead summarize the testimony and evidence for each senator to review.
Once the Senate is ready to debate and vote on the case, Porteous’s lawyers and members of the House of Representatives will make their closing arguments on the Senate floor. A conviction on just one of the articles is enough to remove Porteous from office.
Leave your thoughts in the comments section below
2010
09
23
11
00
By Ed O’Keefe | September 23, 2010; 11:00 AM ET
Categories: Congress, Oversight
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS, FOUND ONLINE FOR THE BLOGGERS TO REVIEW BEFORE JON’S TWO HOUR ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE FULL SENATE AFTER THE 11-15-2010 TRIAL REPORT IS GIVEN TO THE FULL SENATE. QUITE INTERESTING. FRANK
—————————————————————–
Visit JURIST | Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online | About JURIST | Feedback
For more information on Senate impeachment trials,
see Impeachment Procedures/Senate Trial, in JURIST’s Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
[From Rules and Manual of the Senate; revised pursuant to S. Res. 479, 99–2, Aug. 16, 1986]
I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice.
II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: ‘‘All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ——— ———’’; after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the impeachment, of which due no-tice shall be given to the House of Representatives.
III. Upon such articles being presented to the Senate, the Senate shall, at 1 o’clock afternoon of the day (Sunday excepted) following such presentation, or sooner if ordered by the Senate, proceed to the consideration of such articles and shall continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful. Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment, the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.
IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached, the Chief Justice of the United States shall preside; and in a case requiring the said Chief Justice to preside notice shall be given to him by the Presiding Officer of the Senate of the time and place fixed for the consideration of the articles of impeachment, as aforesaid, with a request to attend; and the said Chief Justice shall be administered the oath by the Presiding Officer of the Senate and shall preside over the Senate during the consideration of said articles and upon the trial of the person impeached therein.
V. The Presiding Officer shall have power to make and issue, by himself or by the Secretary of the Senate, all orders, mandates, writs, and precepts authorized by these rules or by the Senate, and to make and enforce such other regulations and orders in the premises as the Senate may authorize or provide.
VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.
VII. The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
VIII. Upon the presentation of articles of impeachment and the organization of the Senate as hereinbefore provided, a writ of summons shall issue to the person im-peached, reciting said articles, and notifying him to appear before the Senate upon a day and at a place to be fixed by the Senate and named in such writ, and file his answer to said articles of impeachment, and to stand to and abide the orders and judgments of the Senate thereon; which writ shall be served by such officer or person as shall be named in the precept thereof, such number of days prior to the day fixed for such appearance as shall be named in such precept, either by the delivery of an attested copy thereof to the person impeached, or if that can not conveniently be done, by leaving such copy at the last known place of abode of such person, or at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place therein; or if such service shall be, in the judgment of the Senate, impracticable, notice to the person impeached to appear shall be given in such other manner, by publication or otherwise, as shall be deemed just; and if the writ aforesaid shall fail of service in the manner aforesaid, the proceedings shall not thereby abate, but further service may be made in such manner as the Senate shall direct. If the person impeached, after service, shall fail to appear, either in person or by attorney, on the day so fixed therefor as aforesaid, or, appearing, shall fail to file his answer to such articles of impeachment, the trial shall proceed, nevertheless, as upon a plea of not guilty. If a plea of guilty shall be entered, judgment may be entered thereon without further proceedings.
IX. At 12:30 o’clock afternoon of the day appointed for the return of the summons against the person impeached, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary of the Senate shall administer an oath to the returning officer in the form following, viz: ‘‘I, ——— ———, do solemnly swear that the return made by me upon the process issued on the —— day of ———, by the Senate of the United States, against ——— ———, is truly made, and that I have performed such service as therein described: So help me God.’’ Which oath shall be entered at large on the records.
X. The person impeached shall then be called to appear and answer the articles of impeachment against him. If he appears, or any person for him, the appearance shall be recorded, stating particularly if by himself, or by agent or attorney, naming the person appearing and the capacity in which he appears. If he does not appear, either personally or by agent or attorney, the same shall be recorded.
XI. That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a committee of Senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine, and for such purpose the committee so appointed and the chairman thereof, to be elected by the committee, shall (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) exercise all the powers and functions conferred upon the Senate and the Presiding Officer of the Senate, respectively, under the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of the committee so appointed. The committee so appointed shall report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings and testimony had and given before such committee, and such report shall be received by the Senate and the evidence so received and the testimony so taken shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject to the right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and materiality, as having been received and taken before the Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in open Senate.
XII. At 12:30 o’clock afternoon, or at such other hour as the Senate may order, of the day appointed for the trial of an impeachment, the legislative and executive business of the Senate shall be suspended, and the Secretary shall give notice to the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to proceed upon the impeachment of ——— ———, in the Senate Chamber.
XIII. The hour of the day at which the Senate shall sit upon the trial of an impeachment shall be (unless other-wise ordered) 12 o’clock m.; and when the hour shall arrive, the Presiding Officer upon such trial shall cause proclama-tion to be made, and the business of the trial shall proceed. The adjournment of the Senate sitting in said trial shall not operate as an adjournment of the Senate; but on such adjournment the Senate shall resume the consideration of its legislative and executive business.
XIV. The Secretary of the Senate shall record the proceedings in cases of impeachment as in the case of legislative proceedings, and the same shall be reported in the same manner as the legislative proceedings of the Senate.
XV. Counsel for the parties shall be admitted to appear and be heard upon an impeachment.
XVI. All motions, objections, requests, or applications whether relating to the procedure of the Senate or relating immediately to the trial (including questions with respect to admission of evidence or other questions arising during the trial) made by the parties or their counsel shall be addressed to the Presiding Officer only, and if he, or any Senator, shall require it, they shall be committed to writing, and read at the Secretary’s table.
XVII. Witnesses shall be examined by one person on be-half of the party producing them, and then cross-examined by one person on the other side.
XVIII. If a Senator is called as a witness, he shall be sworn, and give his testimony standing in his place.
XIX. If a Senator wishes a question to be put to a witness, or to a manager, or to counsel of the person impeached, or to offer a motion or order (except a motion to adjourn), it shall be reduced to writing, and put by the Presiding Officer. The parties or their counsel may interpose objections to witnesses answering questions pro-pounded at the request of any Senator and the merits of any such objection may be argued by the parties or their counsel. Ruling on any such objection shall be made as provided in Rule VII. It shall not be in order for any Senator to engage in colloquy.
XX. At all times while the Senate is sitting upon the trial of an impeachment the doors of the Senate shall be kept open, unless the Senate shall direct the doors to be closed while deliberating upon its decisions. A motion to close the doors may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the motion shall be voted on without debate by the yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record.
XXI. All preliminary or interlocutory questions, and all motions, shall be argued for not exceeding one hour (unless the Senate otherwise orders) on each side.
XXII. The case, on each side, shall be opened by one person. The final argument on the merits may be made by two persons on each side (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate upon application for that purpose), and the argument shall be opened and closed on the part of the House of Representatives.
XXIII. An article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purpose of voting thereon at any time during the trial. Once voting has commenced on an article of impeachment, voting shall be continued until voting has been completed on all articles of impeachment unless the Senate adjourns for a period not to exceed one day or adjourns sine die. On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered; but if the person im-peached shall be convicted upon any such article by the votes of two-thirds of the Members present, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration of such other matters as may be determined to be appropriate prior to pronouncing judgment. Upon pronouncing judgement, a certified copy of such judgment shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State. A motion to reconsider the vote by which any article of impeachment is sustained or rejected shall not be in order.
Form of putting the question on each article of impeachment.
The Presiding Officer shall first state the question; thereafter each Senator, as his name is called, shall rise in his place and answer: guilty or not guilty.
XXIV. All the orders and decisions may be acted upon without objection, or, if objection is heard, the orders and decisions shall be voted on without debate by yeas and nays, which shall be entered on the record, subject, however, to the operation of Rule VII, except when the doors shall be closed for deliberation, and in that case no member shall speak more than once on one question, and for not more than ten minutes on an interlocutory question, and for not more than fifteen minutes on the final question, unless by consent of the Senate, to be had without debate; but a motion to adjourn may be decided without the yeas and nays, unless they be demanded by one-fifth of the members present. The fifteen minutes herein allowed shall be for the whole deliberation on the final question, and not on the final question on each article of impeachment.
XXV. Witnesses shall be sworn in the following form, viz: ‘‘You, ——— ———, do swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that the evidence you shall give in the case now pending between the United States and ——— ———, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: So help you God.’’ Which oath shall be administered by the Secretary, or any other duly authorized person.
Form of a subpena be issued on the application of the managers of the impeachment, or of the party impeached, or of his counsel.
To ——— ———, greeting:
You and each of you are hereby commanded to appear before the Senate of the United States, on the —— day of ———, at the Senate Chamber in the city of Washington, then and there to testify your knowledge in the cause which is before the Senate in which the House of Representatives have impeached ——— ———. Fail not.
Witness ——— ———, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, at the city of Washington, this —— day of ———, in the year of our Lord ————, and of the Independence of the United States the ———.
——— ———,
Presiding Officer of the Senate.
Form of direction for the service of said subpena
The Senate of the United States to ——— ———, greeting:
You are hereby commanded to serve and return the within subpena according to law.
Dated at Washington, this —— day of ———, in the year of our Lord ——, and of the Independence of the United States the ———.
——— ———,
Secretary of the Senate.
Form of oath to be administered to the Members of the Senate and the Presiding Officer sitting in the trial of impeachments
‘‘I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ——— ———, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’
Form of summons to be issued and served upon the person impeached
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss:
The Senate of the United States to ——— ———, greeting:
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States of America did, on the —— day of ———, exhibit to the Senate articles of impeachment against you, the said ——— ———, in the words following:
[Here insert the articles]
And demand that you, the said ——— ———, should be put to answer the accusations as set forth in said articles, and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, and judgments might be thereupon had as are agreeable to law and justice.
You, the said ——— ———, are therefore hereby summoned to be and appear before the Senate of the United States of America, at their Chamber in the city of Washington, on the —— day of ———, at —— o’clock ——, then and there to answer to the said articles of impeachment, and then and there to abide by, obey, and perform such orders, directions, and judgments as the Senate of the United States shall make in the premises according to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Hereof you are not to fail.
Witness ——— ———, and Presiding Officer of the said Senate, at the city of Washington, this —— day of ———, in the year of our Lord ———, and of the Independence of the United States the ———.
——— ———,
Presiding Officer of the Senate.
Form of precept to be indorsed on said writ of summons
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ss:
The Senate of the United States to ——— ———, greeting:
You are hereby commanded to deliver to and leave with ——— ———, if conveniently to be found, or if not, to leave at his usual place of abode, or at his usual place of business in some conspicuous place, a true and attested copy of the within writ of summons, together with a like copy of this precept; and in whichsoever way you perform the service, let it be done at least ——— days before the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Fail not, and make return of this writ of summons and precept, with your proceedings thereon indorsed, on or before the appearance day mentioned in the said writ of summons.
Witness ——— ———, and Presiding Officer of the Senate, at the city of Washington, this —— day of ———, in the year of our Lord ———, and of the Independence of the United States the ———.
——— ———,
Presiding Officer of the Senate.
All process shall be served by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.
XXVI. If the Senate shall at any time fail to sit for the consideration of articles of impeachment on the day or hour fixed therefor, the Senate may, by an order to be adopted without debate, fix a day and hour for resuming such consideration.
——————————————————————————————————
Return to JURIST’s Guide to Impeachment and Censure Materials Online
——————————————————————————————————
JURIST: The Law Professors’ Network™ is directed by Professor Bernard J. Hibbitts, Associate Dean for Communications & Information Technology, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in consultation with an international Advisory Board. E-mail JURIST at JURIST@law.pitt.edu.
© Bernard J. Hibbitts, 1998. All rights reserved. These pages may not be copied, reposted, or republished, in whole or in part, electronically or in print, without express written permission.
NOTICE
JURIST regrets that it cannot provide legal advice. For assistance with specific legal problems, please consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
——————————————————————————————————
wikipedia 9-23-210 on ADAM B. SCHIFF
Adam Schiff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adam B. Schiff
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from California’s 29th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 3, 2001
Preceded by Jim Rogan
California State Senator
In office
1996–2001
Born June 20, 1960 (1960-06-20) (age 50)
Framingham, Massachusetts
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Eve Schiff
Children Alexa Schiff
Elijah Schiff
Residence Burbank, California
Alma mater Stanford University, Harvard University
Occupation Lawyer
Religion Jewish
Adam Bennett Schiff (born June 20, 1960) is an American politician. He has been a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2001, representing California’s 29th congressional district and in 2007, he became a member of the House Appropriations Committee. The district, which was numbered as the 27th District during his first term, includes Alhambra, Altadena, San Gabriel, Burbank, Glendale, South Pasadena, Temple City, Monterey Park, and Pasadena. He is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition.[1]
Early life
He was born in Framingham, Massachusetts. He received a political science degree from Stanford University and a law degree from Harvard University. He was a lawyer before entering politics, working as an assistant prosecutor in the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. Attorneys Office. He was a member of the California State Senate before entering the House, serving as the chair of that body’s judiciary committee during his one term.
Personal
Schiff has settled in Burbank, California with his wife Eve and two children, Alexa and Elijah. [2]
State legislative record
During his tenure in the California State Senate, Schiff authored Senate Bill 1847, Chapter 1021. Signed into law in 1998, this created the Pasadena Blue Line Authority, which continued work on the stalled then-Blue Line light rail extension to Pasadena, which would later be named the Gold Line instead.
Congress
Schiff was elected in 2000, defeating Republican incumbent Jim Rogan, citing Rogan’s staunch support of the Interstate 710 extension and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The district had once been a Republican stronghold, but had been trending Democratic since the early 1990s. In what was the most expensive House race ever at the time[3] (several elections in 2006[4] and 2008[5] later eclipsed it), Schiff unseated Rogan, taking 53 percent of the vote to Rogan’s 44 percent. He became only the second Democrat to represent this district since its creation in 1913 (it was the 9th District from 1913-33, the 11th District from 1933-43, the 20th District from 1943-75, the 22nd District from 1975-93, and the 27th District from 1993-2003).
In 2010, Schiff is running for reelection against Republican John Colbert.
HUFFINGTON POST ONLINE
Posted: September 22, 2010 05:34 PM
Porteous Takes On Water
It was only one witness, Professor G. Calvin McKenzie of Colby College, testifying late on Tuesday afternoon. And he was the last witness of the Senate trial proceedings in the impeachment of District Judge G. Thomas Porteous of New Orleans, which will not go to a vote until after Thanksgiving, well after the November elections. But the episode demonstrated how impeachment trials are so very different from regular trials, and just how dim Judge Porteous’ prospects are.
The defense called Prof. McKenzie as an expert witness on the presidential appointments and confirmation process. The target was Article IV of the charges against Porteous. That article accuses him of lying during his confirmation by failing to disclose his prior misdeeds in response to FBI and Senate “catchall” questions about whether anything in his background would disqualify him from becoming a federal judge. Article IV claims that when Porteous failed to disclose his receipt of money from lawyers practicing before him when he was a Louisiana state judge, or of non-cash benefits from bail bondsmen, he committed a “high crime and misdemeanor.”
Article IV is thus a bootstrap argument to try to remove Porteous from the federal bench for bad conduct that occurred before he was a federal judge. It is an innovation in the slow-developing world of impeachment law. None of the fourteen earlier impeachment trials has included such an accusation.
Prof. McKenzie has studied the appointment process for thirty years and written extensively on the subject. A recent book is the wonderfully-titled Innocent Until Nominated. The point of his testimony was that successful candidates for high judicial and executive offices virtually always answer “no” to catchall questions whether there is anything bad in their past. The questions, he stressed, are not useful to the process, though on cross-examination he insisted that he sees nothing wrong with catchall questions. They simply, he repeated again and again, are not very helpful. Since the question before the Senate in the impeachment trial is whether Porteous committed a high crime and misdemeanor, not whether the Senate confirmation process is intelligently-structured, McKenzie’s testimony could not have been very helpful to the defense.
It turned out way worse than that.
On cross-examination, lead prosecutor Adam Schiff pointed out that background checks about judicial appointees are particularly important because judges cannot be fired, only removed by the cumbersome impeachment process. That was an effective point by the California congressman, who has been a smooth and well-prepared advocate during the trial proceedings. Then, however, Schiff tried to cross-examine the professor by reading him the overheated views of other scholars that Porteous is — as the Doonesbury cartoon strip put it during the Watergate hearings years ago — guilty, guilty, guilty. That was empty grandstanding, not good cross.
When the senators questioned the professor, it swiftly became clear not only that Prof. McKenzie’s testimony had done no good for Judge Porteous, but that Article IV appeals strongly to them.
The first clue came when the defense initially offered McKenzie as an expert, and committee chair Claire McCaskill (D-MO) expressed some well-mannered but unmistakable pique. She asked why the Senate, which conducts the confirmation process, would need an expert to explain the process to it? Right.
And the questions that came from across the political spectrum of senators made it clear that they did not find Prof. McKenzie very helpful — from Ted Kaufman (D-DE) to Jim Risch (R-ID), and from McCaskill to Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
As several pointed out, and as Hatch most succinctly and gently stated, there is a reason why successful candidates all seem to have answered “no” to catchall questions about bad episodes in their past. That is because the questions prompt the withdrawal from the nomination process of most candidates who have such bad episodes in their pasts. Those who do not pull out even though they have such bad episodes, the senators made clear, are presumptively lying intentionally. They want the job too badly to demonstrate the good sense to stay in private life.
Lecturing senators about their own jobs, not surprisingly, turned out to be a bad idea for the defense. McKenzie’s testimony, and the senators’ response to it, underscored one more time the uniquely political nature of impeachment process. Article IV appeals to the senators because they take the confirmation process very seriously and are troubled by the accusation that Porteous lied to them. No one likes being lied to.