Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A resolution impeaching G. Thomas Porteous - GUILTY (Shocking /sarcasm look who voted NOT GUILTY)
Senate Roll Call vote #264 ^

Posted on 12/08/2010 10:02:48 AM PST by davidosborne

Shocking !! /sarcasm


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clinton; connecticut; december2010; gthomasporteous; guilty; illinois; impeachment; iowa; judge; kansas; louisiana; maryland; michigan; minnesota; nevada; neworleans; porteous; slickwillie; spartansixdelta
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: joe fonebone

H. Res. 1031

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 11, 2010.
Impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and all of the people of the United States of America, against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., while a Federal judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge, as follows:

Judge Porteous, while presiding as a United States district judge in Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, denied a motion to recuse himself from the case, despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship with the law firm of Amato & Creely, P.C. which had entered the case to represent Liljeberg. In denying the motion to recuse, and in contravention of clear canons of judicial ethics, Judge Porteous failed to disclose that beginning in or about the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, he engaged in a corrupt scheme with attorneys, Jacob Amato, Jr., and Robert Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Amato’s law partner as a `curator’ in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm. During the period of this scheme, the fees received by Amato & Creely amounted to approximately $40,000, and the amounts paid by Amato & Creely to Judge Porteous amounted to approximately $20,000.

Judge Porteous also made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the extent of his personal relationship with the two attorneys. In so doing, and in failing to disclose to Lifemark and its counsel the true circumstances of his relationship with the Amato & Creely law firm, Judge Porteous deprived the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of critical information for its review of a petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to overrule Judge Porteous’s denial of the recusal motion. His conduct deprived the parties and the public of the right to the honest services of his office.

Judge Porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the Lifemark v. Liljeberg bench trial, and while he had the case under advisement, in that he solicited and accepted things of value from both Amato and his law partner Creely, including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash. Thereafter, and without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the attorneys of Amato & Creely PLC or his receipt from them of cash and other things of value, Judge Porteous ruled in favor of their client, Liljeberg.

By virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a Federal judge, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for, and confidence in, the Federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of Federal judge.

Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

Article II

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge. That conduct included the following: Beginning in or about the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, and continuing while he was a Federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman Louis M. Marcotte, III, and his sister Lori Marcotte. As part of this corrupt relationship, Judge Porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the Marcottes. These official actions by Judge Porteous included, while on the State bench, setting, reducing, and splitting bonds as requested by the Marcottes, and improperly setting aside or expunging felony convictions for two Marcotte employees (in one case after Judge Porteous had been confirmed by the Senate but before being sworn in as a Federal judge). In addition, both while on the State bench and on the Federal bench, Judge Porteous used the power and prestige of his office to assist the Marcottes in forming relationships with State judicial officers and individuals important to the Marcottes’ business. As Judge Porteous well knew and understood, Louis Marcotte also made false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an effort to assist Judge Porteous in being appointed to the Federal bench.

Accordingly, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., has engaged in conduct so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit to hold the office of Federal judge, and should be removed from office.

Article III

Beginning in or about March 2001 and continuing through about July 2004, while a Federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., 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. Judge Porteous did so by—

(1) using a false name and a post office box address to conceal his identity as the debtor in the case;

(2) concealing assets;

(3) concealing preferential payments to certain creditors;

(4) concealing gambling losses and other gambling debts; and

(5) incurring new debts while the case was pending, in violation of the bankruptcy court’s order.

In doing so, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for and confidence in the Federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of Federal judge.

Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.

Article IV

In 1994, in connection with his nomination to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge. These false statements included the following:

(1) On his Supplemental SF-86, Judge Porteous was asked if there was anything in his personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail him, or if there was anything in his life that could cause an embarrassment to Judge Porteous or the President if publicly known. Judge Porteous answered `no’ to this question and signed the form under the warning that a false statement was punishable by law.

(2) During his background check, Judge Porteous falsely told the Federal Bureau of Investigation on two separate occasions that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce, or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment, or discretion.

(3) On the Senate Judiciary Committee’s `Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees’, Judge Porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination. Judge Porteous answered that, to the best of his knowledge, he did `not know of any unfavorable information that may affect [his] nomination’. Judge Porteous signed that questionnaire by swearing that `the information provided in this statement is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate’.

However, in truth and in fact, as Judge Porteous then well knew, each of these answers was materially false because Judge Porteous had engaged in a corrupt relationship with the law firm Amato & Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Creely as a `curator’ in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm and also had engaged in a corrupt relationship with Louis and Lori Marcotte, whereby Judge Porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the Marcottes. As Judge Porteous well knew and understood, Louis Marcotte also made false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an effort to assist Judge Porteous in being appointed to the Federal bench. Judge Porteous’s failure to disclose these corrupt relationships deprived the United States Senate and the public of information that would have had a material impact on his confirmation.

Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Clerk.


41 posted on 12/08/2010 11:15:56 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney
Not Voting - 4

Brownback (R-KS) Dodd (D-CT) Kirk (R-IL)

Is this like "a three-letter word: JOBS"?

42 posted on 12/08/2010 11:16:59 AM PST by rfp1234 (Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

His lawyer: Jonathon TURDLEY


43 posted on 12/08/2010 11:20:33 AM PST by LeonardFMason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LeonardFMason

Turley is what comes up when you drain a septic tank.


44 posted on 12/08/2010 11:25:53 AM PST by Melchior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Some of the idiot dems voted yes because they thought the vote was about Petraeus.


45 posted on 12/08/2010 11:27:27 AM PST by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

My goodness, if they can’t even count the Senate vote correctly, how can any of our elections be trusted?

Not Voting — 4
1. Brownback (R-KS)
2. Dodd (D-CT)
3. Kirk (R-IL)
4. ???


46 posted on 12/08/2010 11:28:04 AM PST by TheOldLady (The only way to run our country is conservatively.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

There has GOT to be more to this story.


47 posted on 12/08/2010 11:38:16 AM PST by Texas resident (Hunkered Down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

I would have never beleived a dem controlled house and senate would do what my tagline says...now that we have control of the house, i can think of no better way to make the commies in the senate squirm than to live up to my tagline...and there are plenty of targets


48 posted on 12/08/2010 11:38:45 AM PST by joe fonebone (The House has oversight of the Judiciary...why are the rogue judges not being impeached?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

The fourth non-vote was Lincoln (D-AR).


49 posted on 12/08/2010 11:56:54 AM PST by Hunton Peck (Life, Liberty, Property, and the means to protect them, are what it's about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

you are correct in your terminology.. the House voted to Impeach and the Senate voted to Remove.. the interesting point.. and the subject of this thread was to point out the facts as to WHO VOTED “NOT GUILTY” ..


50 posted on 12/08/2010 11:57:28 AM PST by davidosborne (I am SpartanSixDelta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident

oh there is.. trust me there is.... coming to theater near you


51 posted on 12/08/2010 11:58:32 AM PST by davidosborne (I am SpartanSixDelta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Poor reporting again? Doesn’t the House impeach and the Senate vote to remove??? Senators cannot “impeach.”

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

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.

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment 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 convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.


52 posted on 12/08/2010 12:02:16 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

guilty of what?


53 posted on 12/08/2010 12:05:43 PM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 .....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney; Maelstorm; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; PhilCollins; chicagolady; ChicagoConservative27; ...
>> Not Voting -
Kirk (R-IL)
<<

=================================

MARK KIRK TRUTH FILE
JUST SAY NO TO SOCIALISM

" "The GREENEST candidate in the race... better than Barack Obama!"
-
Carol Calabresa/The Sierra Club, 2008
" The strength of our campaign remains the Democrats"
- Mark Kirk, 2008


Freepmail me to get ON or OFF this list.

=============================================

Heh. I thought it was soooooooooo important to "seat Kirk immediately" so we would have more Republicans to vote against bad Democrats during the lame duck session. The other two Senators who didn't vote are both no longer in the Senate but their term hasn't expired yet -- Dodd is retiring, Brownback is Governor-elect.

What's Kirk's excuse? Had to be in Chicago for a combine meeting?

Very poor performance, Senator, if you can't even bother to show up to convict a corrupt RAT judge, and represent "all of Illinois" by canceling out Dick Durbin's not guilty vote as your constituents would want.

But of course, Mark Kirk doesn't give a damn about the citizens of Illinois, his masters are the mainstream media elites. And unfortunately for Mark Kirk, a NOT GULITY vote for his RAT buddies would be political suicide for him. And since he can't pull an Obama and vote "present", I guess the only way out of his responsibility was to be AWOL during the roll call.

Sad little spectacle. And of course the freepers who supported this commie are no where to be seen.

54 posted on 12/08/2010 12:24:41 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Could it be (remember, “could” means is it possible, and I don’t know the answer) that he was not present because he was on active duty for his Navy Reserve job? I remember that he had said a couple of weeks ago that he had postponed it but would have to do a certain number of days. This was on a Chicago interview. I’m not making excuses, but I’m just wondering.


55 posted on 12/08/2010 12:29:48 PM PST by Ray'sBeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ray'sBeth

Weren’t there 4 impeachment votes? I think on one of them many Republicans voted no.


56 posted on 12/08/2010 12:35:34 PM PST by bjcoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

lol.. I understand the process my friend.. if you read the title of the thread more carefully you would clearly see the word “GUILTY” in capital letters.. this clearly references the SENATE action in this matter since the HOUSE only gets to vote for or against impeachment.. which is basicly an accusation... the SENATE votes or for lack of a better term conducts the “TRIAL” and then votes guilty or innocent.. but then again I understand that I am in fact preaching to the choir here on FR.. maybe you just missed that extra word in the title of the thread my friend..


57 posted on 12/08/2010 12:40:21 PM PST by davidosborne (I am SpartanSixDelta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; chicagolady; Impy; PhilCollins; Dengar01; BlackElk; Dr. Sivana

Maybe Kirkie was down at the Charlie Crist Happy Bottom Riding Club in Tarpon Springs, Florida...


58 posted on 12/08/2010 12:42:30 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Springman; sergeantdave; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; ...
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.

It's not as if Komrade Karl has anything to fear.

59 posted on 12/08/2010 12:44:04 PM PST by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

consider that as the article poster, most replies to post #1 happen to be addressed to you but do not necessarily involve you.


60 posted on 12/08/2010 12:45:49 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson