Shortly ago, the United States Senate convicted Judge G. Thomas Porteous of the Eastern District of the Louisiana in his impeachment trial. Below is his statement:
“Today brought closure to the long controversy over my actions as a federal district judge. I am deeply saddened to be removed from office but I felt it was important not just to me but to the judiciary to take this fight to the Senate. I am deeply grateful to those Senators who voted against the articles. While I still believe these allegations did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as a constitutional matter, I understand how people of good-faith could disagree.
I am also thankful for the kind words of Senator Hatch in his final statement. Throughout this process, he was always kind and fair to me and my legal team. Finally, I wish to think my legal team of Professor Jonathan Turley and the Bryan Cave attorneys Dan Schwartz, P.J. Meitl, Dan O’Connor, Keith Aurzada, Brian Walsh, Ian Barlow, Sergey Basyuk, and Brad Currier and the other lawyers who fought so hard and so long for my acquittal. The one thing that everyone agreed about was that this was the best argued impeachment case in many decades.
I will now be returning to Louisiana and my family. My family has been a constant and vital source of support throughout this ordeal. I have previously apologized for the mistakes that I committed in this case. I never disputed many of the underlying facts and I previously accepted punishment in the Fifth Circuit. While I disagree with the decision of the Senate, I must now accept that judgment.”
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.
Why don’t we just write a list of suggestions for USCourts, DOJ and the Judiciary Committees? And OMB and the President too?
We can encourage brain storming and write lists of ideas to discuss further.
For instance, why doesn’t USCourts buy one of those neat ball systems they use to pick lottery numbers and adapt it somehow for assigning judges? They could even assign the judges from the halls of the Supreme Court for the whole country and broadcast it. Or maybe use a totally different system and let each side pick one judge they like and then have two judges?
Barbara Ann Jackson:
“Removal of Thomas Porteous does not helps ‘repair’ the DESPICABLE “federal judiciary,” but it is equivalent to asserting that extinguishing one roach “helps repair” roach infestation!”
****************
You seem to be saying if you can’t do everything you shouldn’t do anything. Porteous deserved to go and he did. Would you indict the entire system and banish everyone associated with it as well? No room or time for individual judgments? Just out they all go or do nothing!
You might want to consider Edmund Burke’s classic predicament in that regard which you seem to have resolved – at least in your own mind:
I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people.
(Speech on the Conciliation of America)
Although I loathe judicial impropriety because of the years I have been a victim –and knowing others who are victims of judicial corruption by judges OTHER THAN Porteous, I cannot deny my sympathy for Thomas Porteous. Due to the fact, that his behavior is the Louisiana NORM for the judicial system, I believe he was targeted for purposes of vendetta.
FURTHER,
Removal of Thomas Porteous does not helps ‘repair’ the DESPICABLE “federal judiciary,” but it is equivalent to asserting that extinguishing one roach “helps repair” roach infestation!
As a lifetime New Orleans resident with (easily verifiable proof of rampant judicial frauds), I am absolutely certain that the “federal judiciary” located in New Orleans is infested, sullied, and it will remain irreparably detrimental to non-elite, non-well connected society!
Thomas Porteous was THE LEAST problem for this “federal judiciary” stench! Also, demonstrating the fact of putrid judicial and attorney collusion was even provided from testimonies at Porteous impeachment trial and proudly displayed to the entire world on C-Span!
For approximately 4 years, it has NOT been the absent Porteous who used and continues to use the federal judiciary in illegal and socially detrimental ways. In fact, I would prefer FIVE Thomas Porteouses to ONE of the ten judges who are at large and perpetrating acts that are equivalent –and some acts surpassing Tom Porteous.
To celebrate removal of Porteous while Lucifer and his minions pillage the public is like rejoicing while being in the middle of the ocean aboard a plummeting Titanic! Emphatically, the “federal judiciary” located in New Orleans is indeed THE DEVIL’S DEN.
“prima facie proof that the courts of Louisiana serve the purpose of unfair enrichment, at the disadvantage of some people; and for certain politically-connected people, the courts serve as an avenue to ‘the good life’. Additionally, anyone who hinders Louisiana ‘good life’ pursuits becomes subjected to the vilest treatment by jurists who disguise themselves as upholders and enforcers of laws.
“. . ., as manifest from the testimonies the legal professionals are proud of how they operate. They are proud about things like status, one-upmanship, acclaim, and obtaining the highest personal gratification. Such things are part of the “Louisiana way.” In fact, the impeachment committee was informed about this “way” in no uncertain terms.
“. . .testimonies the legal professionals are proud of how they operate. They are proud about things like status, one-upmanship, acclaim, and obtaining the highest personal gratification. Such things are part of the “Louisiana way.” In fact, the impeachment committee was informed about this “way” in no uncertain terms.
“. . .there was a time when professional conduct meant something to the legal profession. Lawyers, judges, and politicians had pride about having served justice instead of themselves and their cronies. Therefore, what makes this all so much worse, is that the self-dealing legal system is irreparably harming defenseless people.
“. . .the witness statements and evidence presented at the trial unabashedly explained the routine of lawyers giving gifts and doing favors for Porteous. That routine is a component of the commonly known “Louisiana way.” But even though this is a trial of Judge Porteous, it is not possible for any reasonable person to imagine that the “Louisiana way” of lawyers giving gifts and doing favors is confined to only one judge, namely Porteous. Moreover, a reasonable person would be bereft of intelligence to believe that the only judicial friend those lawyers have is Porteous.
“Further specifically, it is not likely that lawyers other than the ones who testified at Judge Porteous’ trial, don’t also have friends who are judges – and like Porteous, gifts and favors very plausibly influence judicial rulings. It is equally very likely, that gifts to other judges have had similar unlawful, improper outcomes as what occurred with Judge Porteous. For litigants who have unfairly been deprived of justice, the “Louisiana way” is utterly unacceptable.
“The courts of Louisiana serve purposes of unfair enrichment, at the disadvantage of certain people; and for certain politically-connected people, the court systems are for no other purpose than an avenue to ‘the good life’. Whatever, or whoever hinders those ‘good life’ pursuits, becomes subjected to the vilest treatment by jurists who disguise themselves as upholders and enforcers of established laws.” **from: “Judge Thomas Porteous and the Judicial ‘Devil’s Den’ from Whence He Came”
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100922041842lawg.nb/topstory.html **and see: http://www.change.org/petitions/view/request_for_congressional_foreclosure_panel_to_examine_foreclosure_lawyers#
Doesn’t sound like Congress blogs.
Sir,
While I may think that he is a scumbag…I too agree that this did not rise to the standard for removal from office….the House presented a dog and pony show to the Senate and this is, I believe one more step towards civil disobedience aka anarchy…. in America….
How many crumbs of cake can one muster before the first shot is fired….
Aside from Professor Turley and his colleagues, the House’s private lawyers, and the Senate staff, didn’t the Senate just impeach the most HONEST person in the room?
Yeah, I guess that’s the way it is supposed to work in Washington.
Just asking.
There are many reasons to be sad about the Senate’s judgment. But I think Ken is right: you argued formidably, and with all the gumption possible, for “a despised client.” You did your best, before an “arbitrary” assembly of judges, i.e., senators. I wonder, as a question for you, what is the difference (or are the differences), between arguing before the Senate and arguing before a court?
This is a lay-person’s question, meant kindly and nicely.
His humility grants him a little bit of forgiveness from me.
L.A. TIMES ONLINE STORY
Senate convicts federal judge Thomas Porteous of corruption and perjury
Among the charges was that the Louisiana judge lied to the Senate and the FBI during his 1994 appointment process.
By Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau
December 9, 2010
Reporting from Washington — The Senate voted Wednesday to convict U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Louisiana on corruption and perjury charges, overcoming objections that it was ignoring precedent that protected officeholders from overzealous political prosecution.
With its votes, the Senate acted for only the eighth time in U.S. history to remove a federal judge through impeachment. It was also the first Senate impeachment trial since President Clinton stood accused of obstruction of justice and perjury in 1999.
Clinton appointed Porteous to the District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994.
Among the charges was that Porteous lied to the Senate and to the FBI during his appointment process. The House of Representatives, acting as the prosecutors in the impeachment process, also alleged that Porteous demonstrated “a level of moral depravity and bad judgment … completely incompatible with the responsibilities of a judge,” saying he accepted gifts from lawyers and friends to pay gambling debts.
Porteous never denied many of the facts in the case. His defense was based in part on the notion that officials could not be impeached for conduct that occurred prior to their attaining the office from which they would be removed. The second article of impeachment is based on the claim that Porteous, as a state judge, “maintained a corrupt relationship” with a local bail bondsman.
“In the history of this republic, no one has ever been removed from office on the basis of pre-federal conduct,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who led Porteous’ defense.
Arguing on the Senate floor Tuesday, Turley said that convicting Porteous would enable future Congresses “to dredge up any pre-federal conduct to strip the bench of unpopular judges, or to remove other federal officials” at whim.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D- Burbank), who led the team of House impeachment managers, countered that it was important for the Senate to establish that “if you committed serious misconduct and you’re nominated for a high office, it’s not enough to conceal that conduct from the Senate,” particularly when a lifetime appointment is at stake.
The votes on the four articles of impeachment, one of which was a unanimous 96 to 0, remove Porteous from the bench.
“That shows the extent to which everyone made an independent judgment and took their responsibilities very seriously,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who chaired the special Senate Impeachment Committee, said after the proceedings.
Though Congress found Porteous guilty, he does not currently face criminal prosecution. An eight-year investigation by the Justice Department and FBI ended in 2007 without an indictment, but spurred a formal complaint of judicial misconduct that led to the House being asked to consider impeachment in 2008.
michael.memoli@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
POLITICO SITE STORY ONLINE:
Navigate: POLITICOCongressSenate removes Louisiana judgeMain Content
Senate removes Louisiana judge
The Senate voted to remove Louisiana Judge G. Thomas Porteous from the bench.
CloseBy SHIRA TOEPLITZ | 12/8/10 11:31 AM EST Updated: 12/8/10 1:06 PM EST
In the midst of a hectic lame-duck session, the Senate diverted its attention Wednesday to oust a federal judge after a rare impeachment trial and closed-door deliberations.
The Senate voted to remove Louisiana District Judge G. Thomas Porteous from the bench after ruling him guilty of all four articles of impeachment, including charges of corruption.
POLITICO
The historic vote marks only the eighth time in history that a federal judge has been removed from office by the Senate. The timing of the hearing was far from convenient. The Senate was visibly preoccupied Tuesday and Wednesday with the tax-cut deal that President Barack Obama made with Republicans, but because a quorum is required for the entire impeachment proceedings, at least half of the Senate was forced to sit in the chamber for almost the entire day.
“But the fact that we set aside everything that we were doing and came together and sat as a Senate and listened to the arguments and deliberated extensively about this impeachment should be reassuring to every American,” said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who led the Senate Impeachment Committee, after the verdict was rendered.
The Senate closed its doors to deliberate in a closed session for almost three hours Tuesday evening before voting Porteous guilty on all four counts Wednesday morning. The Senate voted unanimously on the first article of impeachment that Porteous betrayed his profession, and the other three articles each passed with at least the minimum two-thirds support required.
The Senate then voted, 94 to 2, to disqualify Porteous from holding office ever again in the future.
The four articles of impeachment against Porteous accused him of conduct “incompatible with the trust placed in him” as a federal judge, a “longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve” in the role, making false statements related to his bankruptcy filing, as well as to the Senate and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to secure his seat on the bench.
While some of the charges of corruption were salacious — the most notable was a lap dance purchased by an attorney for Porteous’s son at his bachelor party in Las Vegas — the bulk of the proceedings Tuesday dealt with the judge’s solicitation of cash payments from attorneys with business before his court. Porteous also had a serious gambling problem that eventually caused him to file for bankruptcy under a fake name — a charge that was alleged under the third article of impeachment.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46134.html#ixzz17Zr3Td7U
CHICAGO TRIBUNE ONLINE STORY
Senate convicts federal judge Thomas Porteous of corruption and perjury
Among the charges was that the Louisiana judge lied to the Senate and the FBI during his 1994 appointment process.
Adam B. Schiff By Michael A. Memoli, Tribune Washington Bureau
December 9, 2010
Reporting from Washington — The Senate voted Wednesday to convict U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Louisiana on corruption and perjury charges, overcoming objections that it was ignoring precedent that protected officeholders from overzealous political prosecution.
With its votes, the Senate acted for only the eighth time in U.S. history to remove a federal judge through impeachment. It was also the first Senate impeachment trial since President Clinton stood accused of obstruction of justice and perjury in 1999.
Clinton appointed Porteous to the District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994.
Among the charges was that Porteous lied to the Senate and to the FBI during his appointment process. The House of Representatives, acting as the prosecutors in the impeachment process, also alleged that Porteous demonstrated “a level of moral depravity and bad judgment … completely incompatible with the responsibilities of a judge,” saying he accepted gifts from lawyers and friends to pay gambling debts.
Porteous never denied many of the facts in the case. His defense was based in part on the notion that officials could not be impeached for conduct that occurred prior to their attaining the office from which they would be removed. The second article of impeachment is based on the claim that Porteous, as a state judge, “maintained a corrupt relationship” with a local bail bondsman.
“In the history of this republic, no one has ever been removed from office on the basis of pre-federal conduct,” said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who led Porteous’ defense.
Arguing on the Senate floor Tuesday, Turley said that convicting Porteous would enable future Congresses “to dredge up any pre-federal conduct to strip the bench of unpopular judges, or to remove other federal officials” at whim.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D- Burbank), who led the team of House impeachment managers, countered that it was important for the Senate to establish that “if you committed serious misconduct and you’re nominated for a high office, it’s not enough to conceal that conduct from the Senate,” particularly when a lifetime appointment is at stake.
The votes on the four articles of impeachment, one of which was a unanimous 96 to 0, remove Porteous from the bench.
“That shows the extent to which everyone made an independent judgment and took their responsibilities very seriously,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), who chaired the special Senate Impeachment Committee, said after the proceedings.
Though Congress found Porteous guilty, he does not currently face criminal prosecution. An eight-year investigation by the Justice Department and FBI ended in 2007 without an indictment, but spurred a formal complaint of judicial misconduct that led to the House being asked to consider impeachment in 2008.
michael.memoli@latimes.com
A welcome byproduct of this vote is precedent that misbehaviour before attaining office can ground impeachment.
Next, Roberts CJ for misleading the senate during his confirmation hearings.
Bad decision. Bad decision.
Thank you Professor and thank your associates for your defense of the principles of the law.
“The judge is a gambler and he is betting that he can beat the system just one more time.” (Schiff)
The Judge may not have beat the system but the system surely beat the hell out of the Constitution.
THE TIMES PICAYUNE, NEW ORLEANS ONLINE STORY REPORTS:
Art. I 96-0
Art.II 69-27
Art. III 88-8
Art. IV 90-6
———————————————————–
Senate votes to remove Judge Thomas Porteous from office
Published: Wednesday, December 08, 2010, 9:19 AM Updated: Wednesday, December 08, 2010, 3:55 PM
The Times-Picayune
By Bruce Alpert and Jonathan Tilove
WASHINGTON –The U.S. Senate this morning approved all four articles of impeachment against New Orleans federal Judge Thomas Porteous, removing him from his lifetime seat on the federal bench and denying him his $174,000 annual pension.
With the 96-0 vote on Article 1, Porteous became the eighth federal judge to be convicted by the Senate and removed from office through the impeachment process.
Aside from losing his job and his pension, there is no other penalty, fine or imprisonment that attaches to his conviction.
“Today brought closure to the long controversy over my actions as a federal district judge. I am deeply saddened to be removed from office but I felt it was important not just to me but to the judiciary to take this fight to the Senate,” Porteous said after the vote. “I am deeply grateful to those senators who voted against the articles. While I still believe these allegations did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses as a constitutional matter, I understand how people of good-faith could disagree.
“I will now be returning to Louisiana and my family. My family has been a constant and vital source of support throughout this ordeal. I have previously apologized for the mistakes that I committed in this case. I never disputed many of the underlying facts and I previously accepted punishment in the Fifth Circuit. While I disagree with the decision of the Senate, I must now accept that judgment.”
The first article brought by the House charged that in 1997, Porteous, serving as a federal judge, should have recused himself from hearing and deciding the Lifemark Hospitals case, failing to disclose that, as a state judge, he had a “corrupt financial relationship” with attorneys who were subsequently involved in the hospital case. His behavior, according to the article, was “incompatible with the trust” placed in him as a federal judge and met the Constitutional standard of committing the “high crime or “misdemeanor” necessary to merit his removal.
The Senate also voted to convict Porteous on Article 2, which accused him of corruptly accepting meals, trips and other gifts from a bail bondsman while serving as a state judge. On this article, the vote was 69-27 for conviction, clearing the two-thirds threshhold. Jonathan Turley, Porteous’ counsel, had argued that the Senate should not convict Porteous for behavior that occurred before he served on the federal bench.
On the third article, alleging that Porteous lied during his personal bankruptcy case, the Senate voted 88-8 for conviction, The chair and vice chair of the Senate Impeachment Committee — Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah — voted “no” on both the second and third articles of impeachment.
On the fourth article, alleging that Porteous misled the Senate by not disclosing during his 1994 confirmation process the corruption of which he now stands convicted, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to convict.
Sens. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and David Vitter, R-La., voted guilty on all four counts.
After the vote on the final article, there were several minutes of confusion and disarray as the Senate figured out whether, by virtue of its previous votes, Porteous was already disqualified from ever holding future federal office, or whether that required a separate vote.
That latter was the case, and senators, some of whom were headed for the exits, were called back for a final roll call on the Porteous impeachment, but it was not conducted in the same formal manner as the previous four votes, in which each senator responded from behind his or her desk. The Senate then voted 94 to 2 to “forever disqualify” Porteous from federal office. The “no” votes were cast by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Joseph Lieberman, I-D, Conn.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the lead House impeachment manager, told senators Tuesday that Porteous had demanded payments and gifts from lawyers and bailbonds executives to help support “a lifestyle which he couldn’t otherwise afford” that included frequent gambling at casinos. Schiff said Porteous so corrupted the system that in a complicated federal hospital case one of the parties felt a need to bring in a “crony” of the judge to its legal team because the other side already had hired a Porteous friend.
“Everyone around the judge has fallen,” Schiff said. “The bailbondsmen have gone to jail, the other state judges he helped recruit have gone to jail, the lawyers who gave him the cash lost their law licenses and (have) given up their practices. The judge is a gambler and he is betting that he can beat the system just one more time.”
Turley, the George Washington University law professor who served as Porteous’ lead counsel, told senators that the judge made mistakes, mostly because of financial problems related to a gambling addiction. Some of it was unseemly, such as taking free lunches and other gifts, but none of his actions came close to the sinister plot of kickbacks painted by House impeachment managers, Turley said.
The graphic over the first vote today on C-Span stated “96 GUILTY, 0 NOT GUILTY”, after the completion of the live roll call vote as to Article #1.