for which he was on parole. in the summer of 1994, at around the time period of the confirmation, marcotte went to judge porteous and asked him to set aside wallace burglary conviction to take the first step in getting rid of his felony conviction so that wallace will ultimately be allowed to obtain a bilmes license. the evidence will show that he told marcotte he would set wallace conviction aside but only after the senate had confirmed him. ..

>> can you fell us what his words were how he expressed to you his concern how things might become public? he said, louis, i'm i am not going to let wallace get in the way of my becoming a federal judge and getting appointed for the rest of his life to set aside his conviction. wait until it happens, and then i'll do it. in short with regard to article 4, the evidence shows that judge porteous did so in a calculated manner in the exercise of the confirmation speedometers. the record confers the testimony. judge porteous waited until he

was sworn in to set aside wallace's conviction. judge porteous was concerned if the set aside would have appeared to be justified. the media picked this up and reported he engaged in an unlawful act, but by this time, he secured his federal judgeship. after he became a federal judge, the relationship did not continue precisely as when he was a state judge. judge porteous could not do as much, and they did less for him. they stopped taking care of his cars, took him to lunch less frequently, however, even if the relationship slowed down, it did not come to an end. you will hear judge porteous was influ encial with other state

judges from the 24th where he previously decided. they knew it was useful to have a federal judge in their corner. the marcottes continued to take him to lunches to persons who they sought to impress be businessmen present. with one example, the evidence shows newly elected state judge in or about 1999. bodenheimer held the marcottes in low record held the same relationship that judge porteous previously had with them accepting mealing and hospitality on various trips and in return setting bonds as they requested. ultimately he and another state judge, allen greene, went to jail for conduct similar to

judge porteous. both louis and lori were convicted of felony offenses for giving numerous state officials incoming judges and law enforcement personnel things of value. article ii alleges when he was a state court judge 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 and his sister lori marcottes. it shows he solicited it accepted numerous things of value including meals and car repairs for his perm use and benefit while at the same time taking official actions that benefited the marcottes. he 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 the united states district court judge. the last aspect relates to the bankruptcy while a federal judge set forth in article iii. throughout the 1990s and into 2001, judge porteous' financial condition deteriorated due to gam ling at casinos that by the point of 2001 when he filed for bankruptcy, he had over $109,000 in credit card debt. there are different ways the evidence describes his financial activities, but perhaps the most compelling is that his credit card statements from 1995 through 2000 reflect over $130,000 in gambling charges, and his bank statements from 1997 through 2000 reflect over $27,000 in cash withdrawals at casinos. in 2000, judge porteous met with bankruptcy attorney, claude

lightfoot about his financial predicament. the evidence shows he did not tell the attorney at that time or indeed at any time that he gambled. they decided that lightfoot would work out the debts owed his creditors, and then if that failed. judge porteous would consider filing for bankruptcy. the attempts failed and in or about february of 2001, lightfoot and porteous commence preparing for chapter 13 bankruptcy. in march of 2001 in the weeks and days immediately prior to filing for bankruptcy, the evidence shows judge porteous undertook numerous actions to conceal assets, certain unsecured debts, and to structure his financial affairs so that he would be able to continue to gamble and obtain credit from casinos while in bankruptcy. first, judge porteous in consultation with his attorney agreed he would file the bankruptcy petition under a

false name. to further this plan, judge porteous obtained a post office box so that his initial petition would have neither his correct name or a readily io dent fieble address. he secured that post office box five days before he filed bankruptcy. in march 2001, he filed for bankruptcy under gtortis, and with the post office box listed as his address. he signed the petition twice, once under the representation i declare under the penalty of perjury the information provided in this petition is true and correct, and the other over the name gtorteous. he submitted a statement of financial affairs and schedules. this time they were filed under

his true name. however, the evidence will show they were false in numerous other ways also reflecting his desire to conceal assets and activities from the bankruptcy courts and his creditors. i'm not going through all his false statements during the bankruptcy at this time, but i wanted to point out some to you. he knowingly failed to disclose he filed for a tax refund claiming a $44 00 refund even though the forms require whether he filed for a form. he checked that box, no. he knowingly failed to disclose he had gambling losses in the prior year, even though the form asked that question. in fact, he has admitted before the 5th circuit he had gambling losses. he concealed gambling debts prior to to filing even though the forms in various places require those to be disclosed. he reported his account balance

as $100 when the day prior to filing he deposited $# ,000 into the act. he concealed all together a money market account he used in the past to pay debt. there's others to establish dirge the trial. -- during the trial. the principle that arranges this is his desire to conceal assets and his gambling to gamble while in bankruptcy without interfern from the creditors or his lawyer. in a hearing of creditors on may 9, 2001, he was asked to vouch for the schedules. everything here in here true and correct? judge, yes. that statement like some of judge porteous' statements under oath that you will hear about was false.

that bankruptcy trustee informed judge porteous that he was on a cash basis going forward. at the end of the june 2001, bankruptcy judge william greenedyke issued the chapter 1 plan and ordered him not to incur new debt without permission of the court, not with standing the order, judge porteous incurred debt. he applied for a credit card, and he continued to borrow from casinos without the court's permission and paid those debts back through the bank account he concealed. the evidence will show he engaged in a pattern of deceitful activity designed to con found the bankruptcy process. i know i've taken some time here, and i appropriate your attention. now i'll turn the podium back. >> senators, as i mentioned at the outset, the vast majority of

what you heard of the evidence is uncontested, # 10 what is -- so what are the issues here? there are two arguments the defense makes, and the central one is this. porteous did nothing wrong. judge porteous may have done all of these things, but there's nothing wrong with any of it. none was unethical or wrong, nothing more than an appearance problem. he is being impeached essentially for having lunch. that is the gist of the defense. now, there's a suggestion that judge porteous may have done all these things, but the house chose not to charge him for the violation of the kick back statute code section whatever. when the senate has made clear to counsel this is not a criminal case and the house has no obligation to charge or prove the elements of a particular statute. there will be a similar suggestion that the house has not charged the violation of the services statute when, of course, he is not charged with violating that statute neither, nor is the house required to

make a charge of a particular code section. there will be a suggestion that after all, senators, we're talking about new orleans. it's new orleans. they all do it. if you're going to impeach judges in new orleans for this stuff, you have to impeach all of them. there will be a hint of that, but the real argument is, he did nothing wrong, and on this, the house could not disagree more. we believe that the evidence in this case fully supports the view of the house of representatives, that sending cases to a law firm and taking cash back is dead wrong. allowing yourself to be wined and dines by lawyers who have a case before you is wrong. the evidence shows that allowing the lawyers to pay for parties, to pay for your lunches, liquor, hotel room, have a stripper dance on your lap is all wrong. to falsely represent your financial relationship with lawyers in the courtroom is unethical and wrong ands

evidence shows cash with a multimillion dollar case under submission in your courtroom is wrong, to set bail is wrong, to accept car repairs and home repairs and lunches and liquor from that same bail bondsman is wrong. the evidence shows the convictions of the employees to recruit other judges to perform in the same corrupt relationship is wrong, to file a false petition in bankruptcy is wrong. when you hear the uncon contested evidence, we believe you will see it's wrong and he must be removed from the bench. there is another comment i want to make briefly. that is the senate cannot consider the evidence of my of judge porteous' conduct before he was sworn into federal office. as the presentation made clear, some of the conduct in articles i and ii took place before the judge's appointment to the federal bench, during the confirmation proceeding, and after his appointment to the

federal bench. article iii, it involves conduct only while he was on the federal bench, and the final article iv involves the confirmation process itself. in judge porteous' view, it prohibits the senate from considering an impeachment proceeding anything that took place before his swearing in. the senate con confirmation process in this view is a high stakes game of hide of ball. if you can get confirmed, no matter what you conceal, no matter what false representation you make, you are home free for life. nothing in the constitution compels this view. in fact, the constitution is silent on when the high crimes or misdmeerms must take place. he has you read into the silence as an intent to make my prior conduct unreachable leading to an absurd result. the evidence shows the judge committed murder to a prior appointment.

could he not be removed? let's say the evidence shows a judge was sentenced to jail after the appointment to the federal bench, but based on conduct committed before they were appointed to the federal bench. can we imagine a situation where that judge might serve the rest of their life in jail and the senate would powerless to remove them? in this case, the defense makes # the fact that judge porteous was not prosecutorred by the department of justice, but let's say he had. it would be the defense's position that because the conduct took place before, not with standing that he goes to jail now, he cannot be impeached or removed from the bench. as a professor, one the nation's leading said before the house, if a judge bribed himself to a bench, would he be beyond impeachment? of course not. the standard we believe of impeachment is whether the judge

so misdemeaned himself that he betrayed the public's trust that he cannot be on the bench. it matter not when the conduct took place, but whether the public can have confidence that the judge will undertake his public responsibilities in accordance with law. in this case, we believe the evidence will show that the public cannot have that confidence. let me conclude where i began with one final observation on the standard to be applied as you hear the evidence. what does it mean to betray the public trust? i can only give you my view, and that is, if i were a member of the public, and i had to appear in judge porteous' courtroom in the future, could i have the confidence that he would undertake his responsibilities according to the law? if i had a case in his courtroom that was very important to me and opposing counsel was a friend of the judge, could i be confident he was note not --

not taking cash, december close his relationship with them, that i would not need to hire another crony of the judge to protect myself? i simply could not have that confidence. if i were a creditor in a bankruptcy case, could i expect a fair result when the bankruptcy party -- when the bankrupt party relied on alias or new debts, how could i have that confidence when the party in question can say, gung, how can you criticize me for filing under a false name? doesn't the name orteuos ring a bell? with that, senators, i conclude my remarks. >> thank you. judge porteous' counsel now has an opportunity for an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman

mccaskill and distinguished members of the impeachment trial committee. good morning. i have the honor of representing united states district court judge. joining me at counsel's table with judge porteous are my colleagues, daniel swharts, tg tgmidel from the law firm. senators, if the parties agree on one thing, it is this. by any measure, this is a historic moment. it's not simply because this constitutional proceeding has only occurred 14 times in our history. it's a proceeding that the framers crafted with the likes of james madison to guide your actions today, this week, and in this case.

in the history of this republic in over two centuries, there's only been 7 federal judges of thousands that have been removed under this standard. now, for past senators and frankly current senators, it would be an easy thing to convict a judge and yield to the passions of controversy, yet, this is an occasion where the senate is given a specific duty to ab jude kate, not just legislate or deliberate. impeachments are not about one judge. they are about all the judges, and the constitutional guarantees under which they serve. james madison stated it best when he warned removal must be based on a high showing and standard to avoid interpretations quote "actions

so vague" for that reason they adopted the reason of trn, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors. i know it is the obligations of the senators, and i know you take these seriously to make two determinations before voting to remove a federal judge. first, you must conclude that the underlying fact, the alleged acts were proven to have occurred. in a criminal case, facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. a standard should be no lower phenomenon an im-- for an impeachment where they were never afforded due process of a criminal trial. second, if the acts were proven to have occurred, you must determine that the acts constitute trn, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

in most past cases, the second determination was the focus of your deliberations. it was the focus of the senate. however, in this case, you're fact finding has far greater impact in the absence of a prior trial record than all of these prior modern judicial impeachments. as i mentioned, the house offered to bring this impeachments despite the fact he's never been indicted or convicted of any crime. that is unlike my impeachment. he signed three tolling agreements to allow the government to prosecute him regardless of the running of the statute of limitations. he waived that protection. as will be shown, the justice department investigated the very claims and found that they did not warrant criminal charges. as a result, there was no trial where evidence and witnesses were subject to judicial review

or a full adversary process. a trial of this kind in federal court would take weeks or months. in an actual court of law, you would have months simply spent ongoing through the evidence. indeed, even with a prior trial, former judge hastings trial last 17 days. after opening arguments, we cannot present a full panel of testimony as if there were a criminal trial. indeed, we've reduced our witnesses to stay within the allotted time. however, you will hear testimony that core allegations in this case either did not factually occur or had been contradicted by core witnesses including the house's own star witnesses. you'll be hearing new evidence never disclosed previously in

this case including facts that were never disclosed to the members of the house before their impeachment vote. indeed, i expect house members may be surprised to learn that the articles were based on alleged agents that we now know that could not have occurred. as well as alleged acts used for the basis of removal that were entirely waffle under judicial evidentics or bankruptcy rules. indeed, this is the first impeachment that i know where the house impeached on allegations that didn't occur. i know of no other impeachment where facts were found, and we'll demonstrate clearly the agents simply did not happen. the impeachment reads like a scene in sherlock holmes with the curious incident of the dog

in the nighttime. the guard objects and tells mr. holmes the dog didn't do anything in the nighttime and holmes responds that was the curious incident. it was the absence of the dog barking that holmes found so suspicious. the curious incident in this case is that while the house continually refers to a massive investigation of various judges called wrinkled robe and despite the fact that judge porteous waived the statute of limitations on crimes, no indictment was every brought against him after years of inquiry. there was a reason the dog did not bark in this case. judge porteous' actions while in some cases showing poor judgment, were in fact entirely legal. now, there's been an effort to portray the defense past inqir inquiries in this case to pass blame on judges of louisiana or

suggesting that misconduct is generally accepted here. mr. shift attempted to make that argument that it's just new orleans. that's not what we're arguing. we've refrained from answering those types of ill-informed taps in the time. we waited to present the evidence to you. the purpose of this evidence is to show how small courthouses work, not just in gretna, but around the country. sitting here in dc can warp your view of legal practice. on any corner of this city, you can throw a stick and hit two lawyers. in most towns, small communities carry out the daily business of the law in a civil and close-knit environment. lawyers and judges grow up together. they socialize with one another. what may seem sinister about a judge knowing a bail bondsman for example in washington is not

surprising in a town like gretna where there's one bails bonds mans handling all the bonds in the judge's chambers. we present new evidence to you, but keep in mind two legal truths. first, we feel obligated to deliver the factings about judge porteous when he was a state judge, a federal judge cannot be removed on the basis of prefederal conduct including in this case conduct going back 25 years before taking office. i will not argue the motions to dismiss that we have filed on these threshold issues. as you are probably aware, constitutional scholars criticized these articles as unprecedented and danger, dangerous to our system. the house did not invite a single scholar to testify to offer substantive evidence on

why these articles are so out of line with the constitutional standard. now, he refers to mr. lamar, professor omar saying this is not a problem. i found that rather surprising since what professor omar said is the state court stuff, while, that's just state court stuff. he dismissed federal conduct. now, we've not been able to argue the threshold issues before you. ipse the difficulty -- i understand the difficulty of presenting that before the committee, and i'm not questioning that decision, but we only ask the individual senators to support our request to present the issues to the full senate before closing arguments. the defense side of these issues has never been heard in oral arguments. they department call witnesses

to support that view in the house. we are asking for the same time allowed to the house and defense in the earlier motion to present why this is dangerous and unprecedented, and then we can go forward with closing argumented. we are not the only ones asking the members to hear such arguments. in the 5th circuit, judge dennis and his colleagues stress "congress lacks jurisdiction to impeachment judge porteous prior to any conduct before he was a judge." they want to change that. i think you should seriously consider whether you want to change that, and we'd like to be heard in the full senate to that effect. second, whether it is a lunch or a gift, none of these acts actually violated state ethics rules in louisiana and many other states. what the congress has impeached this judge for is an appearance

of inpropriety, a matter already addressed by the 5th circuit. indeed 4 appellate and the circuit expressive objected that the circuit only found and submitted appearance violations and not impeachable conduct. i commend that decision to you. it's one the best written opinions i have heard in a long time. judge porteous accepted punishment for any laps in judgment despite what the house toshes told you. he will retire next year from the federal bench. such appearance controversies are routine used as a basis wiping away press dept by this body in defining what are removable defenses.

perhaps for that reason, the house managers quoted in the media last week stating they want the senators to adopt a new standard to treat the impeachment process like a employee termination case. they would have this body adopt the very standard that madison rejected. for judges to serve at the pleasure of the senate like at-will employees. senators, federal judges are not at-will employees. you will hear from all four of the major house witnesses. they never bribed this judge, and that they did not and do not believe this judge could be braved. they will all tell you that judge porteous was viewed as a brilliant jurist not affected by friendships or gifts.

by observing our witnesses in the in evidence we gathered, we ask you to show the same burden in showing the house that you would want for yourself if you were accused of wrong doing and threatened with removal from federal officer without the due process of a trial. you may not approve of the state rules or even the choices made by judge porteous, however, impeachment as you know are not popularity contests. the framers left it to 100 senators who they believed had the institutional integrity to demand a showing of proof and not passion from the house. in two centuries, senators have shouldered that duty brilliantly and refused to remove judges when there is more passion than proof. now, unfortunately, this case proves one thing in the old military add damage when you

only have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. faced with witnesses who denied criminal acts including denials of bribings and other crimes by judge porteous, the house generalized ethical claims for the missing crimes in this case. it was not enough that judge porteous accepted sages sanctions from his court or announced his resignation last year. the staff of impeachment had been committed, and regardless of the damage to our constitutional system, the house demanded removal on the basis of appearance for inpropriety and minor bankruptcy violations. it is what madison warned against, a standard so benign that congress could remove judges at its pleasure. let's turn to article i. in article i, the house impeached judge porteous on the

theory he deprived the public and failed to rescue himself from providing in the case that my opposing counsel mentioned to you. this article poses a unique problem for you. for the first time in history, the house based an article of impeachment on a legal theory later found unconstitutional by the supreme court in the case of the united states. that is also in one of those pending motions asking to be heard on. putting aside the fact that the supreme court rejected that theory, and by the way, the house managers knew that case was pending when they crafted that article around honest services. this article seeks to remove a judge over his response to and failure to grant a recusal motion for a single case in decades of judging.

you will hear testimony of hundreds of judges who face recusal every year, and they are occasionally reversed due to personal conflicts in a case with counsel or parties. you will hear from new orleans professor who is a widely cited expert on the louisiana judicial system. you will see dozens of cases of personal conflicts with judges including financial conflicts and recusal controversies. to remove a judge for his decision not to rescue himself would create a low standard and could be used against literally dozens currently sitting judges. the use of such an instant because of his judicial decisions not because of his conduct. what is fascinating is that the lawyers in the lightmark case

testified judge porteous gave them a fair trial. even the lawyers that lost the case testified that judge porteous gave them a fair trial. now the house brings up this business about $# -- $2,000 that was due to a wedding gift that he received split by his two long time friends and former partners. the gift was made in conjunction with the wedding of judge porteous' son and did not occur until three years after the recusal hearing. now, i know that in impeachments facts become fluid, and friends are cronies. suddenly they are cronies, no friends. you'll hear from them. whatever disagreement we have

with their testimony, we don't believe they are cronies. indeed, judge porteous has never challenged their integrity or their creditability even though some evidence they gave were painful against him. you will hear from both witnesses on this allegation that they have stated unequivocally that they did not give this money to porteous as a bribe or to influence him. indeed, both testified that think were and continue to be absolutely certain that the wedding gift had no influence on porteous as a federal judge. it was a gift, a wedding gift from long standing friends. this is not to say there's not a

conspiracy in this case, there is. however, the real conspiracy involves judge porteous not -- i'm sorry the real conspiracy involves judge porteous not as the beneficiary, but the subject of the conspiracy. you will hear testimony that a large hospital corporation had hired an army of lawyers that succeeded in delaying a lawsuit brought against the corporation by a family of pharmacists. at issue was control of the st. jude hospital, potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. when this case came to judge porteous, the case had been bounced from judge to judge for years. in that three year time span, the parties had gone through 13 judges. that's over four judges per year. for its part, they seemed eager

to keep the case bouncing as a defendant from court to court and actually demanded a 14th judge. judge porteous was assigned to this case randomly and looked at this record and said in open court i'm going to be your last judge in this case. that did not sit well with lifemark or lead counsel. while judge porteous confirmed his close relationship with plaintiff counsel in a subsequent recusal hearing, he stated that he did not view that relationship as a barrier to his ruling fairly. and by the way, i also would like you to read that hearing transcript. i didn't see him pouncing on people. what i saw at the end of the transcript was his working with mr. mull to make sure he had everything to appeal him to the 5th circuit.

i commend you that trance script for you to read and you can decide who presented it fairly. you can hear from witnesses that judge porteous' response to the recusal motion was consistent with his practice and those of his colleagues in his former state courthouse in gretna. he had been a judge for 10 years there. it was common for judges to hear cases argued by friends, and recusals rarely occurred since most judges and lawyers in that small legal community grew up with each other or knew each other. it would shut down small town courts if judges rescued themselves from every case with a friend or acontain taps. you wouldn't get anything done. after judge porteous refused to pass the case to another judge, that 14th judge in three years, mole took an extraordinary step. the magistrate in the case, jay wilkenson was a friend of mull.

he wanted porteous gone, and he ultimately went to judge wilkenson's brother, the jefferson parrish attorney, someone to help with the problem of the judge. tom wilkenson is under criminal investigation in louisiana for corruption and his brother, magistrate wilkenson rescued himself from all criminal cases. tom wilkenson arranged with moll to have one of his closest friend, don gardener enter the case. gad near as you will hear was closer to porteous and his family than either of the attorneys. mull not only promised gardener $100,000 for just appearing in the courtroom in the case, he promised him an additional

$100,000 if he could get porteous to rescue himself or otherwise leave the case. under this effective bounty agreement on a federal judge, mull had just promised another lawyer a total of $200,000 for just appearing in the case and getting this judge to remove himself. what is remarkable, senators, is that this unethical promise was put into a written contract, and we have that contract. in return, gardener gave the magistrate's brother, tom wilkenson $30,000. the problem was that porteous wasn't going anywhere. while the conspiracy should have been the subject of an investigation, the house decided to call mull as they just told

you as their witness on the alleged unethical act of judge porteous. now, ultimately, judge porteous ruled against his closest friend, gardener, and cost him that $100,000 bounty and other possible fees. with only a gift made years after the recusal hearing, the house tried to rely on money given to judge porteous over a 25 year friendship before he became a federal judge. this is what led those judges in the r5th circuit to write that opinion that i just referred to. the house argued that judge porteous as a state judge granted curatorships to bob creighly to get occasional loans and gifts from his friend. you were told that the judge con seeds between the money and the

curatorships. that's news to me and certainly news to the judge. we never conceded that, however, let's look at the actual witnesses. mr. creeley recently testified that the senate allowed us to hold. this was his first exposure to the full examination of defense counsel. in that examination, mr. creeley denies there was any connection between his loans and gifts over decades of his relationship. that is why you didn't see quotes being thrown up on the screens by the housement instead they went back years to find better testimony. not that long ago just a matter

of a few weeks mr. creeley said he gave money to the judge because they were close friends. he testified that he never expected any benefit from small loans or gifts, and that small loans would never give him benefits, and he stated repeatedly, these gifts had nothing to do with curatorships. in fact, he noted in the few times he appeared before judge porteous, porteous ruled against him including one case that cost him a $400,000 judgment. the house continued this allegation on a base sis of a -- basis of a statement of a moo toe he remembers creeley telling him. he just testified saying he did not give money in relation to

the curatorship. he himself now expressive denied that in a sworn testimony. we can disagree with judge porteous' decision to remain in life marc, but judge porteous had good reason to kick this case down the road to a 14th judge. when you look at that docket, most dodge -- judges would view that docket as a mockery. someone is gaming the system. you cannot burn through 14 judges in three years. you will hear that judge porteous' reputation stops this type of thing from moving togethers along and resolving cases. by the way, if you look at that docket, you can tell a lot of the judges were more than eager to get rid of this case. it was highly complex. perhaps it was one of the most complex cases i have ever seen. ultimately, this spell bindingly complicated case was decided by

the judge, and by the way, the 5th circuit reversed it in part and upheld it in part, but they disagreed with the judge's ruling. this was a texas panel disagreeing with judge porteous on a rather arcane aspect of louisiana law. now, i'm not going to explain that arcane louisiana law anymore than mr. shift did for one reason. i'm not sure i understand it. reviewing this case only reaffirmed my decision to be a constitutional law professor, in the end, however, a disagreement over his judicial decision, his woefully insufficient as a basis for removal and would e vat a -- elevate a routine complex issue to a constitutional clash between two coequal branches of government. moreover, the house would have

you remove a judge not only on the basis of prefederal conduct, but conflicted prefederal conduct evidence. you have two former partners who now disagreed on the underlying facts, and evidentiary status that would not even meet the lower preponderance of evidence in a court. once you strip away all the rhetoric, and once you look at all the evidence, you will find that the house's solution to this problem was not to increase the evidence to meet the standard, but as you just saw, to try to lawyer the standard to meet the evidence. let's turn to article ii. in article ii, the house impeached judge porteous purely on the basis of prefederal conduct that goes back decades before he became a federal judge. this is precisely, by the way, what the house's own experts said they could not do. article ii alleges that while a

state judge, judge porteous received "things of value from bail bondsman, a brother and sister, and took actions that benefits the marcottes." notably, not only did the federal government reject this as a basis of the criminal charge, but the 5th circuit ruled out relying on such acts on the state level as relevant to his position as a federal judge. the allegations in article ii were not part of the 5th circuit inquiry. the marcottes didn't testify because those judge z as with past senators treat conduct as immaterial rather he abused his office as a federal judge. the house position on the bond allegations with the marcottes has continued to evolve and conflicts evidence has mounted in recent weeks. as you will see, roughly a week

ago, the house stated in its pretrial statement that quote "the house does not allege that judge porteous said any particular bond too high or too low." so despite months of splitting bonds, the house is now saying judge porteous did not manipulate bond amounts to assist the marcottess. what is left is he signed bonds as a state judge who handled 95% or more of the bonds in that court. what is left is that judge porteous received gifts from the marcottes as did other judges in the district. yet the government does not claim a single bond, not one was ever set by judge porteous as too high or too low to assist the marcottes. they concede judge porteous did

not sign a single bond, not one, to the marcottes as a federal judge, not high, not low, not ever as a federal judge. putting aside the fact that judge porteous' conduct as a state judge is irrelevant to his conduct as a federal judge. article ii ignores that judges are not barred from receiving meals and gifts from lawyers or others. while the house cannot produce any receipts for the gifts or meals, i just told you it could be hundreds of meals, but if that's the evidentiary standard, it could be millions of meals. he could have never stopped eating. the fact is we don't have the receipts in the record, but we don't deny that judge porteous and all of the judges in gretna often had lunches bought for them. they are suggesting that is is quote "corruption" even if it didn't violate judicial

evidence. you will hear that all judges in gretna were regularly bought lunches, given gifts by lawyers and others. we're not saying that this was a den of corruption. we're saying it was lawful. if you go to a lot of small towns, you'll see the same thing. if you want to restrict the rules, you can change the rules, but by the way, we put into the record opinions by courts who believe this is a good thing to have judges and lawyers who have social relationships. we have put that in the record. this is something that's not new. you will see this comes up a lot when people fled the refusals. and the courts will say don't just say he is the close friend. that's not enough to remove a judge in a constitutional trial. the house says it's best to take a small number of lunches as a

federal judge and make it look sinister. the problem is that the house could only come up with six lumplegs at a place -- lunches in a place called the beef connection. those lunches, six, now, what the house did is they presented these lunches and basically portrayed the total value of the lunches that went to judge porteous. it looks like he received a considerable amount of money in these lunches. however, as this display shows, the house actually was dealing with a totals of meals for large parties where judge porteous was just one of many lunch guests. they just charged the whole lunch against him. in reality, even if he was present at these lunches, it would amount to less than $250

in five years. i'd like to repeat that, $250 in five years. these meals included meals as low as $29. now, by the way, i said if porteous was at these lunches, the reason i say if is because the house included a couple meals where there's no specific record of judge porteous being actually at the lunch. however, what their position is that since someone had absolut vodka, and judge porteous is known to drink that, it must be judge porteous. they just added that against him. in our visit to the beef connection, we were able to confirm that judge porteous was not the only person in loose who drinks absolut vodka, but as you can see, the key fact that they

rely on is a notation that somebody at this table had two absolut, and they submitted that to you to through in the mix of a federal judge. the house suggests that such meals from the marcottes were intended to influence judge porteous and get him to help them with bonds, a type of beef for bonds theory. by giving him beef, they give him bonds. of course, now the house can see that they're not saying he set bonds too high or too low for the marcottes. you didn't hear him cite any bonds that were invalid whereas this guy didn't even deserve a bond. after our deposition with the marcottes, the house had to concede this point. you will hear from both

marcottes if their testimony is consistent that they did not believe that judge porteous was influenced in his decisions on bonds by meals or gifts. there was no beef for bonds. indeed, they both testified that judge porteous regularly rejected bonds from them and could not be bought. you will hear from gretna criminal clerk, darcy griffin that any representations made by the marcottes be checked out with the district attorney, the police, or the jail before the granting of a bond. up deed, you will hear testimony that judge porteous himself picked up a phone, called the prosecutors or the jail to personally make sure that the gorped lying facts were correct. perhaps the most serious misrepresentation to the house with the portrayal of judge porteous' granting bonds and

splitting bonds. now a split bond is well-known to criminal defense attorneys. it is simply split between a commercial component and a property or third party component. in this way, a person who might not be able to afford the full or entire bond could still secure the bond by getting a family member to come in and put her property up as assurety. now, judge porteous did not invent split bonds. most judges, you will hear testimony, most judges in gretna split bonds with the support of the state prosecutors. split boppedz were viewed as a -- bonds were viewed as a way for prisoners who would be otherwise released to get a bopped on a guy, someone will find him because they have a financial interest to find them.

you will hear from a louisiana judge on how and why split bonds were widely used and accepted in gretna. like wise, the house alleged that judge porteous dramatically increase the the number of bonds that he was leaving to take the bench. this is what the house was told before the impeachment. it's called the flood gates theory, and you heard part of it today, but you notice they stopped talking about the bonds suddenly, and now they talk about one or two expensionments set aside. the flood gate theory talked about is in the last month, the last day, judge porteous issued an unusually number of high bonds in repayment for the beef and other benefits from the marcottes. the only problem with the flood gate allegation is it happens to be untrue. it turns out that there was only

one bopped signed by judge port yows on his last day, and only 29 signed in the last month. it actually comes to 27 if you look at from the time he was confirmed. this is described by the marcottes in their testimony as the average number of bonds for any period. it's no flood gate. however, to december pell any -- dispel any doubt, we asked the clerk to send us random years of bonds. we got 1996. we had no other information other than it was before marcottes established themselves in the bond business. take a year before the marcottes controlled the business. those bonds had been submitted into the record and show that various months of that year exceeded the number of bonds signed by judge porteous during

the so-called flood gate month in 1994 even though the marcottes were not involved. up deed, one month, september 1986 shows 51 bonds signed by judge porteous, far greater than 19 bonds that was presented in this sinister way as this muff been a rush to try to pay back for the beef. moreover, the 1986 records show a total of approximately 3200 bonds signed by all judges in the district. now, we extended over 10 years, and by the way, the number should be higher because gretna expanded and the court system expanded, but let's take the lower figure and forget about expansion. that would mean at least 32,000 bonds passed through gretna while judge porteous served on the bench. the house was never told what the total pool of bonds were.

.. wallace's burglary conviction was set aside on september 1, 1994, before judge porteous was confirmed. not only that, in the hearing,

judge porteous said he intended to expunge the record report he was confirmed. i was in open court. all that remains in this case is the fact that judge porteous sign bonds for the marcotte. fuel your although dogs signed for the marcotte for one simple reason. the marcotte did 95% or more of the bonds. virtually no one else is doing on thin gretna. if you take any judge, you will find lovely 95% of the bonds came from marcotte for that obvious reason. moreover, you will hear testimony that judge porteous was a national advocate for the use of bomb as a vital part of the criminal process. jefferson parish during this entire period was under a court order for overcrowding. it was a case where virtually any prisoner in bed one prisoner

out. it was one of the most stringent court orders in the nation. and so, people, thousands of felons were being released under court order and were just vanishing. and these judges and gretna would constantly call these people and they would just be told they are gone. judge porteous -- and wait for the houses on witnesses admit this, often spoke publicly encouraged other judges to use bonds because the chance that a person will return if they have a bond on them is much, much higher because you got a bill jumper agent who will find them. otherwise, the only way these people would be found as they get pulled over by a police officer and happened to run the record and say you are a bond jumper. but if you put a bond on them, someone is a clear financial interest to locate that site into it. in fact, judge porteous who has spoken nationally on this was

correct. studies show by getting a bond on any prisoner, the chances that they will end up in court and not fully or at least not flee them be found are much, much higher. in the end, when you take all this evidence and strip away the false claims, article ii is nothing more than what they best described a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. he sign bonds to the judge like the other judges and gretna. let's turn to article iii. now, we actually agree with other managers when they say this is the one that isn't based on free federal comment. we actually proved that appeared article iii is in fact it's a non-pre-federal conduct article. instead -- basically what they are arguing is that if pre-federal conduct is he made a

series of errors in connection with a bankruptcy that tina slate escamilla filed in 2001. what is most striking about article iii that the house is trying to use common problem that could really occur in hundreds of thousands of bankruptcy cases, which you hearing testimony. they are trying to take something that occurs in hundreds of thousands of cases and faith be it came to things like treason and free. to do this, how suggests these errors are part of a nefarious way in to defraud bankruptcy court for his creditors. the problem with this theory is that judge porteous -- i want to emphasize this, paid more than he was scheduled to pen bankruptcy. he paid more than what originally he was scheduled to pay to his creditors.

that was never explained to house members. they just talk about this bankruptcy and errors in the bankruptcy as if that isn't a new and bankruptcy. it's thousands of citizens each year, judge porteous made mistakes in a personal bankruptcy case. those mistakes have nothing to do with the basis for removing him as a federal judge. the porteous is filed chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2001. this case was processed like every other bankruptcy case with one exception. but ultimately resulted in the successful discharge of the portion of their debts in 2004. after they paid more than $57,000 to the trustee of which 52,000 were to their creditors, the exception i was referring to was that this case was scrutinized far more heavily than a bankruptcy case.

he had to bankruptcy judges preside over. a chapter 13 trustee, mr. barliat administered the federal bureau of administration and the department of justice investigate. in fact committed doj and the fbi specifically met with the bankruptcy trustee while the porteous bankruptcy case was still pending. this wasn't after. they met with the trustee while it was pending and discussed with them all the delegations. nevertheless, never one of these authorities, not bankruptcy churches, not the trustee, not the fbi, not the doj, take any steps to alter the bankruptcy case. there simply was no part to be heard to change the status of the bankruptcy case. what's more, the doj specifically declined to pursue criminal charges against judge

porteous in connection to this bankruptcy case. as you know, the doj routinely prosecutes bankruptcy. finally, none of the porteous creditors ever made an objection or file the complaint. they had no problem with this bankruptcy. the porteous is, like so many americans simply became overwhelmed with their mounting credit card debt, which is a result of raising kids in at the house managers keep referring to the fact that the campbell. alright come the secret is out. the porteous says campbell. they gambled for recreation. they probably campbell too much, but that's not illegal. with credit card bills mounting, they sought the help from a bankruptcy attorney that the house managers referred to earlier, mr. lightfoot. embarrassed about their deteriorating financial situation, they asked mr. lightfoot to help them work out or restructure their debt.

this was an effort to avoid bankruptcy they work through the summer and fall of 2000 the winter of 2001 to avoid the bankruptcy and then they concluded they would have to declare bankruptcy as mr. lightfoot tried to work with the creditors. so, february 2001, it became clear that they had to file for bankruptcy. like many of us in that case and certainly most of the people in bankruptcy, they were shown to be horrible for a few cheaters and that many managers. that's a fairly common trait in people declare bankruptcy. they tend to have problems with records and money management. during these discussions, mr. lightfoot proposed the idea that the porteous is file the original bankruptcy petition under the pseudonym porteous. let me repeat that. mr. lightfoot proposed that they

filed under that name. has previously testified to that effect. he said it was his idea to avoid embarrassment for the porteous says and for their children. because they didn't want prosser held over the times. the newspaper in 2000 was published weekly names of everyone who sought bankruptcy protection in comella was particularly embarrassed by that type of publicity for the family. but most bankruptcies enjoy anonymity through this process involves so many cases, public figures were and are singled out as file as public figures yourself, i'm sure you can understand these filings are examined in excruciating detail and people love it. they love to read about bankruptcy by famous people. to avoid this, mr. lightfoot

proposed that they filed their original bankruptcy petition under the pseudonym and they also used the p.o. box that mr. lightfoot advised judge porteous to obtain. mr. lightfoot has testified that neither he nor judge porteous ever intended to defraud the court in any of porteous' creditors. he wanted to assist in a fraud. his purpose was obvious. and he was trying to protect a family from the initial embarrassment of bankruptcy. the porteous' however when they filed those original papers included their true social security numbers. those numbers as you wish your important bankruptcy because that's what they used to track. as a creditors use to track people and bankruptcy.

trustee bully oocyte t-cell than in other cases and from the names changed before the first estimate to creditors, he said quote, no harm no foul. because bush you have to understand is the names are changed about 12 days later, several creditors got this material. there were no creditors that were misled. in the trustee himself said it's no harm no foul and you all here by the way, even though the house makes sense great deal about the use of p.o. box can you hear po boxes are used all the time. but more importantly commit the credit trustees say no harm no foul. in-house turnaround and said maybe no harm no foul, but let use it to remove the eight federal judge in the history of the republic. judge porteous and mr. lightfoot plan to file in 12 days,

correcting the name and address. as a result, no creditor received any notice in connection with the porteouses without full and accurate information. in the end, the only party that did not give information with the times tribune that was not correct for me short time and quickly began running the very news story that mr. lightfoot in the porteouses wanted to avoid. throughout the bankruptcy process and in connection to the decisions about what information to include in these filings, judge porteous relied heavily on mr. lightfoot. and now, he's a federal judge. i think you would understand as federal judges do not have expertise in bankruptcy. the house is further alleged a series of other errors and inaccuracies in the porteous bankruptcy schedules and materials. the house argued that each of these discrepancies must be part of the dark plan to co-opt the

bankruptcy system for his own gain. here again, facts simply don't support allegations. and the allegations even if true, even if you take everything that my colleagues from the house outside, it would still not warrant a basis for removal. the house decided small on missions of assets to suggest the creditors were defrauded. however the house never told the house members that the porteouses were the minority of debtors to successfully complete their bankruptcy. they were the minority of debtors who completed their bankruptcy. indeed, they provided almost 35% repayment to unsecured creditors in over $52,000. you hear from experts, former judges, trustees that this is actually significantly more value to his creditors and would have been the case under chapter

seven liquidation. the house also relies on the fact that judge porteous gave lightfoot his may 2000 paystub for cincom, but he later didn't supply enough dated pasteups, reflecting a slight increase in salary. what the house did not inform the house members who said this difference amounted not just to only specifically $173.99 per month, but that it had no material impact on the creditors who were paid $52,000. moreover, lightfoot files shows that judge porteous did tell him that his net income was $7900. he did tell him. he did reveal it. he revealed it was higher than

that paystub. the errors were his councils are not judge porteous. either way,, once again, not casting this on mr. lightfoot. these are small and could have been a bankruptcy. when you have all these receipts coming from people who had trouble managing their money. likewise, the house i such errors as the bank one account. you just heard about some of this. they had had the slowest $200 in absence of some high clever design to describe creditors. the sidetrack -- i mean, does that really make sense? $200? then there's the fidelity homestead association account. now here you didn't just have $200 we can see that. you had $283.42. so let's rounded upwards, shelley? would save $300. is that going to be relied on for the removal of a federal

judge is 16 years of service? whether it is a tax refund check or single credit card, these problems are routine. thus these experts are going to tell you. moreover, recited by the house members were actually not material to the bankruptcy planned, such as the business of small pre-petition payments that were not listed in the farm. the house numbers heard they were pre-petition payments that you should consider to impeach this judge. the problem was i pre-petition payments are illegal under bankruptcy law. while the house site is incurring new data, there is no bar to encourage that by statute in this area. it's important to remember that the confirmation order that you're going to hear about was designed to complete -- to guarantee the completion of the repayment plan. most people don't completed. the porteous -- porteouses did.

now throughout these allegations, the house mentioned errors and mistakes, but never mentions that those issues had no impact -- material impact on creditors who are after all the focus of the bankruptcy process. both the porteouses gambled as their primary form of recreation , a practice that judge porteous stopped and husband present sense. however, the house managers keep trying to distract the senate as they did the house by disclosing -- without disclosing key louisiana law, governing what are called markers. that's what you're going to be hearing about. that's a marker. that's what you're going to be hearing about. in the dissent in the porteous case come before the fifth circuit, judge dennis and his colleagues objected to the use of markers as evidence of wrongdoing in bankruptcy matters because -- and i call, under

louisiana commercial, markers are considered checks as defined by louisiana statute. they treat this as an uncashed check. now, should it continue to gamble? no. but in the end, this continued gambling was not a problem for the creditors of the porteouses. it was a problem for the porteouses. it is a personal problem and the judge overcame it. we will be creating a record that was never made in the house on this issue of bankruptcy. you hear from professor raffaella cardell from the university of washington, who will explain important differences between chapter seven chapter 13 bankruptcy is that the house appears to have missed an earlier discussion. he will show errors like these are quite common by both debtors and creditors in bankruptcy

cases and mistakes in this case created no material harm to creditors. you'll also hear from united states bankruptcy judge of the northern district of illinois, ronald barliat who is widely cited and respected in his field. judge barliat will describe how chapter 13 cases develop and how judges in bankruptcy will lie on trustees like magistrate barliat. he will explain how the bankruptcy code contained no authority for error barring a debt or incurring a typed after a bankruptcy petition, simple as that. something the house that just didn't mention. we will also explain that congress has specified that the principal consequence for unauthorized debt is that the debt is simply nondischargeable. the consequence. if you have that data, it's nondischargeable. i would say that is significantly different in

magnitude than being removed in a senate trial as a federal judge. he will secure the united states -- united states bankruptcy trustee, hank hildebrand. were not just calling barliat, we're going to call a separate trustee. magistrate hillebrand is another leader in his field. his work and opinions are cited quite widely. he will explain chapter 13 of the voluntary repayment program and the most serious problems simply result into the threat of a dismissal of the case and that that threat is usually withdrawn as soon as the problem a remedy. he will explain how chapter 13 debtors frequently fail to complete plans. he will explain that 55% of debtors fail to fulfill the plan that the porteous porteouses were the minority for paying

more to creditors. none of these issues were explained to the house. instead, the house impeached a federal judge of errors that did not material affect creditors, did not stop him from completing his time for creditors was originally told. this would take the senate from a standard citing such crimes as treason to the removal of a judge based on such things as a $200 discrepancy on a credit card. let's move to the last article. as with article ii, article xlvi judge porteouses's approval on the federal misconduct going back decades. this time under the guise of a failure to disclose such conduct during confirmation. the standards that the house seeks to impose is frankly absurd the object did. the judge porteous failed to disclose information i.t., judge porteous that would be embarrassing to president

clinton? assuming judge porteous thought he had done nothing wrong or inappropriate and that's where we're going to be preventing evidence about camino truth would think it would not be embarrassing or to president clinton. even if the senate comes to the conclusion that judge porteous acted improperly and should have put something of these floating allegations down, it can't conclude that he thought these actions were improper and therefore embarrassing without concluding judge porteous acted with the intent to deceive. there is no basis for that conclusion. the evidence will show the pelicans in this article are also completely and demonstrably untrue. i'm not saying challenged. i'm saying untrue. for example, the house specifically impeached judge porteous on the failure to mention a brief conversation he had with louis marcotte. he didn't hear this mentioned by

the house managers in their presentation, but it was mentioned before in more important it was in the article. the house managers have said that the judge should be impeached because he failed to mention the conversation when he filled out the forms -- when he filled out the background form for example. the only problem is we would field after the house impeached this judge, conversation occurred after the forms were filled out. it was impossible for them to put into these documents a conversation that hadn't occurred yet. moreover, even if you believe that a judge, with some unlike marcotte says the most common being that background witnesses tell nominees, it could be a clean bill of health. even if you've lived there something wrong with him that he

could pick out the funny thing i to submit a supplemental filing famous guy given a clean bill of health, even if you believe that warrants impeachment. it couldn't have happened in this case the way the article stated. indeed, i believe this is the first impeachment that i know of, were a fact containing an article of impeachment simply did not occur. the embarrassment question as you know, as senators is universally answered in the negative by nominees. even though there are many cases were some embarrassing facts are in fact disclosed, testimony from experts will show you what the figures are like on this, with the cases are like. but nominees routinely omits financial ethical, even criminal histories to background reports, omissions of curt literally dozens of high-profile cases, that resulted in no action, no

action, taken against the nominees, including some cases where the embarrassing facts were revealed before confirmation and they were confirmed, revealed not by the nominee, but they were confirmed. furthermore, evidence will show the curator ships were in line with the other judges. there's a reason why he would say this is embarrassing because i didn't something that allah bless him gretna did, not because it was corrupt but because i was then. it was not illegal. finally, we'll show the basic allegations contained in article iv were known by the yakima senate committee before judge porteous's confirmation. this is precisely what the house's own experts warned could not be the basis for removal of. the pre-federal conduct referred by the house was known at the time of confirmation.

we are put into the record proof of that. the house numbers were never told that before impeachment. once again, this is never discussed or disclosed to the house. we found new evidence before the senate. moreover, not only are curator ships of public record that judge porteous took no effort to conceal they were in fact the same records in action of all of the judges. you will hear testimony for professor calvin mackenzie was widely viewed not as a leader in this field, he is the leader in this field. he has numerous books on the confirmation process in background investigations. he will hear testimony at the theater to make disclosures is common among federal nominees, with literally dozens of these cases. as senators, we admit we probably don't have to tell you this. you deal with that regularly. using countless such

questionnaires. and i daresay, i would be surprised if you know of many questioners who were so embarrassed of the question a negative. the professor mckenzie will come and show you dozens of cases where was answered in the negative neither before successful confirmation or after, embarrassing things were displayed, not just for judges, but also justices. if this could be the basis of removal, think about it. congress could send a background questionnaire and simply remove a judge at will failures to disclose. you can just buy all the things for things they do think he should now have thought were embarrassing and bring them up on the identical articles, article iv, literally dozens of judges could be removed on the same ground, judges sitting today on the federal court. in this case, the house wants you to remove a judge and a failure to disclose information

that he did not consider relevant or embarrassing when those allegations were already known by the senate and the fbi. in closing, i would note that in only a couple of months of representing judge porteous, we've been able to show fundamental errors, contradictions and withheld evidence in this case. this is the peril of perceiving to an impeachment without a prior criminal trial. that's why congress has in all modern impeachments waited for a criminal trial. any of the trial, by the way, a quiz, a quiz for judges to stop you hear from you impeachment, but what does give the trial record. indeed a late last night we received new evidence on how bad the justice department, literally hours before these proceedings began. the record in this case continues to change not by the week, not by the day, but by the

hour. i will only submit to you with an impeachment trial should not be works of progress subject to casual or incomplete disclosures it's more important than that. indeed, we don't play today that we've received all the material evidence in this case. few senators have been called upon to fulfill this unique role that you have under current dictation. in the end, you have to decide whether judge porteous once the extraordinary action of removal for only the eighth time in the history of this republic. while the fifth circuit sent the congress this case to consider, for judges to the trouble to write a 49 page opinion, warning view, speaking directly to you that this case would eradicate core constitutional standards that protect the independence of our court.

it should not occur, as some people seem to indicate, simply because someone is dressed up for an impeachment would be a disappointment not to dispatch the accused. it should not occur as the managers suggest because you decided to drumcree the constitutional standard to a type of virtue or give job interview. the impeachment standard speaks to all judges. you don't have the option of saying well, it's close enough for jazz and just remove a judge on innuendo and conflicted five. the house case is going to be exposed in this room for the first time to a fully adversarial process. please give us a chance. what remains after all the half-truths and distortions melts away will dictate not just the future of this judge, but the future standard for all judges. we ask only that you, like her

predecessors, mind the constitutional mind. my colleagues and i are now ready to address these allegations and we are now ready to present the case in defense of the united states district court judge, g thomas porteous junior. thank you very much. >> thank you, council. we will take a 15 minute break and when we come back we will look for the first witness for the house. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning to all. i want to thank my colleagues for being there so probably this morning. i apologize there was a coffee in the back when you got here, but it should be here any minute. so as long as there is seven of us, people are free to wander back and get a coffee as it arrives. i want to thank everyone. i think we had a very long and productive day yesterday were going at the same kind of day today. and we do a little housekeeping in terms of this schedule. we are supposed of a series series of three vote beginning at 11. so it is my intention to go without a break until those votes are called. wait until five or 10 minutes into the first vote and then adjourned until approximately

11:40, so everyone will have an opportunity to go cast all three we want to run back and forth. but as soon as the third those discounts, i would ask all of you to come back very, very quickly so we can get an hour in between approximately 11:40 and 12:40 and that we will break for caucus lunches and we will then resume -- i think will resume probably at 2:30 and then it's my intention to stay is not as late, almost as late as we did yesterday and hopefully we will be able to get a lot more done. there was a motion yesterday. there was a -- there was a motion by the house to admit into evidence the exhibit was a 302. we have visited with our counsel and senator hatch and i have visited about it. i think the committees

inclination is to not admit to 302 s. evidence for the same reason that we did not admit the grand jury testimony and total, but even more so because it was not under oath and so therefore we think probably it's not appropriate for it to be admitted into evidence. obviously, using any method you have to impeach torture refresh recollection is okay, but we're not going to admit the 302 s. evidence in and of themselves. so i want to give you that decision. i may also give your time. the house has 15 hours and 40 minutes remaining. a judge porteous has 16 hours 13 minutes remaining. and i think there has been a request. it is my understanding, congressman schiff that you have decided not to call mr. levin and in the house case. >> that is correct, madam chair,

not at this time. it's my understanding, turley that you want to call him as a witness in your case? >> we do not share. we are prepared now or we could be held over. >> i'm not -- i'm trying to let you all try your cases and i think it's not appropriate for us to interrupt the house's case with a witness for judge porteous, so i'm going to let the house finished their case and mr. levenson will just have to stay over. i would ask if possible -- unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously the government will pay for him to stay here until your piece begins, we would ask you put them on at the beginning of your case so that he is not held over to the weekend. >> madam chair, i'll just point out the committee is previously instructed us there was other kids asians by government including judge green greendyke and we are on instructions also to put in four to 70 pretty disrupted in fact in our case

because our bankruptcy witnesses and lawyers must leave when we start our case we have a short time before they'll have to leave. that's one of the reasons why suggested they could just pass the witness today. they could say what is your name and we passed the witness. if we don't tobacco and it is our bankruptcy people because they are leaving town and were already shifting one of their previous witnesses forward to accommodate mr. greendyke. we will try to get mr. levenson is mr. levenson as soon as possible, blini two of the witnesses outdistance pots full. >> are the bankruptcies and witnesses under subpoena? >> several of them are paid for experts. the lake mr. greendyke, when they witness and i have to leave, we were told okay, call him early, so we shifted oliver witnesses. and our witnesses have reservations to not enough because they've canceled this

morning. we talk them tonight and there was no cancellation of mr. levenson. >> let's do this, when when i wake it started than over the break orbit the lunch break will have an opportunity to discuss this is a matter of house keeping when witnesses are called. i will gently point out with a smile on my face that perhaps this can move along more quickly and will have a chance to get the bankruptcy lawyers and mr. levin in and the judge before we finish work on thursday. >> madam chair, let me point out in the terms of our allotted time, just to give the senators a heads up on this, domain for witnesses begun to two of them. we have tomorrow to have a big chunk of time and in the time periods become much, much shorter. so we've got two more eyewitnesses for both sides who have a large investment in. can i raise one more issue, madam chair? >> yes. >> as the committee is aware, the night before the trial, we received additional discovery and i want to thank committee

and the staff to get the department of justice to release the information. i know the staff worked very, very hard against a reluctant agency. with that information came a letter from ronald wright, the assistant attorney general. and he stated that the department of justice would not be turning of remember ringtones, specifically on why judge porteous was not charged with a crime. in that letter actually stayed or concedes that they did turn over that same information in prior impeachments and concede that indeed in the nixon proceedings, they turned it over. it makes a curious point, but there is a trial in that case, which in our view it's even more important as evidence when there isn't a trial in the case. but would like to do is to things is once again asked the committee again to point out to them that this is a very conflicted and we don't see the wealthiest reason not to turn over the important evidence that

was turned over to other recused judges. second, would like to enter this letter into the record as evidence as porteous exhibit 2005, so that a minimum letter should be in the case. >> it was turned over nixon because of prosecutorial misconduct. we have a subpoena under excitement as we speak. is there an objection to the inclusion of this letter as exhibit? >> there's no objection. >> the letter will be included as an exhibit that we are working on trying to get all the information that we can. >> and we thank you for that, madam chair. >> okay. >> bottomed chair, one additional issue. the house has said scheduled votes at 6:00. we wouldn't need to respond to the 15 minute. then come back there after a company want to make sure the senate was aware at that. >> will be happy to accommodate scheduled that regard.

how many are there? sample in a row, do you know? >> as can the person be the 15 minute vote in them we have one or two others after that. >> okay, will work with you to make sure you don't miss those. you may call your next witness, congressman schiff. >> housecalls louis marcotte. >> with the witness please rise? do you swear that the evidence you give in this case before the united states of judge thomas

porteous junior should be the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. would you please state your full name? [inaudible] >> would you put a microphone? maybe we need to turn it on there. >> and lewis marion marcotte the third. >> that's great. mr. marcotte, where do this? >> i live in new orleans comilla louisiana. >> with you for a living? >> i have a clothing store called italy to right. >> what type of clothing is that? be maggots in time boutique that sells high-end clothing. >> till the senators a little bit about your life. where did you corrupt? i grew up in a town called gretna, louisiana, on the other side of were from new orleans. >> was your financial background growing up? >> weicker a pretty poor, me and my family. we had a two room house with

about six of the senate and we barely made ends meet. >> what kind of education do you have? >> i graduated from high school and i have one year of college. >> at some point in your life, did you go into the bail bonds business? yes, i did. around 1979. >> how did that come about? >> and went to work for a guy named barack abere. when he died -- the >> what did you do for mr. abere? >> i was a janitor. i started there is a janitor cleaning his building and picking up trash and stuff like that. >> at some point you came to start your own company? >> ask him after he died i saw an opportunity across the jefferson parish courthouse and i opened an office they are.

and it was called the blue house. >> to remember the approximate year? >> probably around 82, 83. >> was the name of your company? >> up on some limited. >> at any other family members were there? >> yes, whole family worked there. my mom, my sister, my dad, my other, laurie and lisa. >> so this is a mom-and-pop business starting out? >> yes, it was. >> what the glory due? >> laurie beasley handled the controls of the business, meaning all the accounting. and she did sales as well as basically that's what i've been into, the sales department. the mac was laurie about the operations of the company? >> yes, she was. >> tissue are closer to? >> very close. >> by the late 1990s, what was the size of your business? >> i was probably in the late

90s, probably six, 7 million in premium. >> and by the time the business closed, what were you doing? >> somewhere around 30 million. >> him in the states were operating in? >> about 34 states. >> how many employees did you have? >> at 300 plays in a thousand licensed agents in the field. do not describe her life in the bail bonds business. what was it like? >> in the beginning -- well, for a very long time i slept in front of the jail and is the families waiting to get bonds, i ran behind them. >> said he works long hours? >> yes, i slept in my car and i slept in my office. >> and why did she do that? >> because when someone gets arrested, the families go to the jail first. so if you're parked in front of

the jail and sleeping there, go see the families walk in and you can hustle them and bring them back to your office and write the bond. >> is it fair to say you were the bail bonds business until about 2003? >> yes, sir. >> we put out of business as result of a federal criminal investigation? >> yes, sir, i was. >> let me step back here. in that span dell bonds business to the senate and in particular how you as a bail bonds make money in the bail bonds business? >> yes, i can. a bill bondsman is nothing but an insurance agent. we make a commission selling a policy. the amount of money that she make determines the contract that you have with the insurance company. if you want to take all the risk, you make 90 cents on a dollar, if you want w. make 50 cents on a dollar. in my case, i took all the risk of may 90 cents on a dollar.

>> so, the magistrate without a bond? is touted were nearly start? >> yes, magistrate was at the bond every morning. >> okay, if the prisoner can't meet the bond, then he would work with a bill bondsman, is that correct? >> yes, he led. >> code that arrangement where? >> well, if i cut them at the jail at 3:00 in the morning and had them in my office until i could get a bond said, you know, before the magistrate -- >> the magistrate set a bond for $50,000, what would your arrangement be? >> i would ask the defendant or the family coming to the 5000 tickets a minute deal? >> is that a standard rate? >> yes, it is. >> as you have an interest in how high the bond was set at? >> yes, i did. >> how did that work? >> well, you know, if the family had a $50,000 bond -- i mean, if

there was no bond, a guy could make $100,000 bond and i would get a $10,000 fee out of it, i would be the highest bond i could get. >> so if the bond was set too high and the prisoner could make a comedy to make any money? >> no, i couldn't. >> if the bond was set really low for the prisoners were released on recognizance, which you make much money or any money? >> i couldn't make any money. >> already. again, if the bond is set up a hundred thousand dollars, how much will you make? >> with my contract with the insurance company, $9000. >> said the bond would be 10,000 inuit make 9000. where would the other thousand go? >> to the insurance company. i remember the insurance company would hold harmless. i was liable for the 100,000. all they did was play the paper.

for us to post at the jail. there was a real dollars. it was just paper. >> got yet. in gretna, louisiana, in the 1990 to 1994 time frame, i want you to mock those senators how bouncers at a maturity would be like. first, who would typically set the bond? >> the magistrate. >> describes circumstances when you want to wait the magistrate and go to a judge to set the bond. >> i would either get the bonds before the magistrate came in in the morning and so he had no chance of getting released on the free bond. >> if you were concerned the magistrate would release them on his own recognizance, what does you do? >> advocate a judge to set the bond so i could make money. >> if you thought the magistrate said the bar too high, what you do? >> i would go to a judge that

would reduce it. >> were there times you also need access to a judge for competitive purposes because there were other bill bondsman in the courthouse? >> yes, there were plenty of times where we would go to the judge with the worksheet. worksheets needed to request. and the request that bill bondsman vanessa judge ford. and while the request was in the judges office, we wouldn't have them call the bond and until we have an agent at the jail ready to post it, so we wouldn't visit. >> if you wanted to avoid the magistrate, could you coach with a judge in the courthouse? >> not in a judge. in different times in those 20 years, it was different judges. >> already. when you attack a judge about a bond come with a prosecutor or defense attorney be present? >> no, they wouldn't.

>> every time a judge set a bond for a premium, is that many in your pocket? >> yes, it is. >> did there come a time when you met judge porteous? >> yes, there was. >> how do you recall meeting judge porteous? >> is a guy named adam barliat and his dad was in the courthouse for a long time. adam had connections with a few different judges because of his father. and so, adam actually introduced me to porteous enron to his secretary. >> he was another bondsman? harju former relationship of judge porteous? >> you know, by making porteous and getting closer to him, because adam introduced into hand, then all of a sudden he started, you know, he started spending more time with me than

adam. >> what kind of timeless? >> you know, dinners, lunches. more lunches and dinners, but lunch twice a week, something might have. >> also come you started to get to know his secretary, rhonda danos. >> yes, i did. >> overtime, can you describe the urgency with which he took the judge to launch? >> i would say several times a week, you know, i guess to would be a good guess. >> how would these lunches be arranged? did you call him or did he call you? some cases he would call me, some cases through a cobranded would set a. >> was it just you and judge porteous? >> not necessarily. most of the time i had a group of people with me. >> also that beat?

>> brown, a few people from my office. if we can invite other judges or state reps, anybody who is connected with the criminal justice system, we try to bring them to the table as well. >> did you include pronto? >> yes, i did. >> did you let tempering or invite whoever he wanted to? >> yes, i did. >> to judge porteous know he was permitted to invite other persons? >> well, yes. it was unspoken, but, you know, we were okay with anyone he wanted to bring. >> described judge porteous' personality and a group situation like these lunches. >> a leader, very funny guy, very smart, too. >> did you want him to have a good time? >> i wanted him to have an excellent time. >> was it good for you to be

seen that judge porteous? >> yes, it was. because what it would do would make me look more like a businessman acidity bill bondsman. because of the world of bail, the bill bondsman doesn't have a real good reputation. >> were what was judge porteous' reputation as a former prosecutor and a judge? >> well, he was donis deleter. >> described these lunches. what happened? >> we would sit down and drink, eat and talk about different things. but we always talked about bill. >> would they go on for? >> sometimes an hour, sometimes two hours, sometimes five hours. >> a lectern in sometimes. lots of drinking. >> where would you take him? >> roots chris, beef connection,

salvatore's. >> what types of restaurants where these? >> kind of high-end restaurant. >> like the steakhouse? may be known outside of new orleans. >> i'm familiar with the steakhouse. or the other restaurants you took comparable? >> in some cases they were. i can't ever remember going to eat at a loose sandwich shop, but it's been a long time, too. >> sure, did you enjoy these lunches? >> i did enjoy them. and then at some point i wasn't enjoying them anymore because i started sending other people to go. >> do you have -- could you take all afternoon often do this kind of name?

wasn't a problem? >> in some cases i could in some cases i couldn't. some cases i didn't want to. >> do you have any sense for when these lunches darted? >> you know, it's been several years. ninety-four, 95. you know, it's been a long time. >> could it have been earlier than that? >> it could've been earlier. >> do you recall when you first met judge porteous? >> you know, again, sometime in the 90s. >> okay. >> it might go to 89, 88, but i don't think any earlier than not. >> sure. did you start taking him to lunch not long after he first met him? >> well, it took a little while, but maybe six months or something. >> at the end of judge porteous his tenure on the bench, how

frequently would she take him another thought to lunch? >> after he was on the state bench? >> before he became a federal judge, at the end of the time he was on the state bench. >> just about twice a week, which would be a good guess. >> who pay for these lunches? >> bb you pay it, i paid. bail bonds unlimited. >> how many times to judge porteous paper lunch? >> as i can recall, none. >> never. >> when you take judge porteous and a group out to lunch come in your mind the money spent on that real money, money that you spend on judge porteous? >> well, i kind of looked at it as an investment. >> for whose benefit? >> for my benefit and in some cases his benefit. >> let me turn now to the

subject of automobiles. did you have anything to do with judge porteous as cars in the time. prior to 1994? >> do now, it is hard to say the timeframe. he was 93, 92, you know. >> sometime in the early 90s? >> i fixed cars for he and his family. >> what do you mean by that? >> tyers, radios, transmissions, bodywork. you know, every time i took one of his karzai felted up with gas and washed it as well. i mean, i really wanted to make a statement when i did something for him. >> how did that start? >> it started with adam barliat

bringing the keys. >> adam barliat was the earlier bondsman? >> user to print in the keys and he wanted to share the expense. he would pay half and i would pay half. but i didn't have contact with porteous but is pain enough. then at some point, i started paying the whole thing in kind of edged amount of the way probably because i have more money and adam was not is probably trustworthy public eye. >> can you describe these cars could >> yet, they were old and kind of the death. >> how many cars are we talking about? >> were talking about three, four cars. you adjust for the judge himself? >> know, for us kids and maybe i repaired his wife's car. i'm not exactly sure about that. but i can say right now that his

kids in his car. >> how did it come to attention that these cars needed repairs, needed washing and someone? >> well, there were different times like, we would be a bunch in say look, tommy's car is broke and i was a judge, i'll take care of it. it would be times rhonda was called and said the judges car is broke. he wants you to come get a key. >> how frito-lay did you make repairs to the cars? >> you know, it's been a long time, but i would say it probably been once a month or once every three months. you know, again, it's been a long time. >> to remember some of the names of the other repair establishment that did the repairs? >> one of them was totally cool. i believe that the tires on his

car. d-delta electronics put a stereo in his car and there was different mechanics that worktime carburetors and mechanical problems. transmissions. i think the transmission shop was on manhunt over it. i do remember the name, but i note that the transmission in one of the cars from that place or rebuilt one. ..

anything that would what not get me out of my office because it didn't want to lose sales. selected judge porteous never took to directly heated car work? >> yes, sir. i would have lunch with him and he would say tom's car needs to be fixed. here's the keys. >> who paid for the repair? >> i did. >> did judge porteous ever reimburse you? >> no, never. >> did there come a time you provided home repairs to judge porteous? >> yes. a storm, some of his offense blew down and i assigned jeff and aubrey to do repair on the fence. >> did you recall whether he had to purchase construction

material? >> yes he did. >> and if you stated in 2004 due thought jeff me have paid $200 for the board's? in your mind what jeff have a better idea how much he spent? >> jeff would no more because i was so involved with other things, you know, boards on defense were not really a priority in my life at that time. >> did jeff and skeeter actually do that work? >> yes, they did. >> in order about 1993 or '94 did you ever have occasion to arrange a trip to las vegas with judge porteous? >> yes, i did. >> do you recall how that came about? >> well, a kind of wanted to get closer to him and felt if we went on a trip together, you know, it would build a better relationship, a closer relationship. >> do you recall what your that was? >> you know, if you say it's 94

or 93, mean i don't know exactly because it's been a long time, 20 years almost. >> who went on that trip do you recall? >> and two of my buddies of the time, filippo kneal and bruce, to lawyers, me and there was a few other people. maybe one or two friends with us, too. >> indigent porteous? and you think some of judge porteous' france? what were the lawyers and fight? >> welcome again, the stain at a bail bond industry on a national level, you know, i wanted to make some lawyers and so it wouldn't look so bad him going to las vegas with me without some lawyers to respect who invited the lawyers?

>> i invited the lawyers to win them look let's go to las vegas with porteous. we can develop a closer relationship with him if we - anodyne. >> you think it included bruce that servile? >> yes indeed. >> who paid for the trip? >> bruce, philip and myself. >> how did you pay for the trip? >> butryn my office & feld, we've rounded up on enough cash to pay for his trip to vegas and gave the cash to rhonda who deposited and cut the check for his loss figures tickets. >> granda been george porteous' secretary? why was the payment of the trip and ranged in that fashion? >> because we were trying to hide it from the world.

>> what do you remember george porteous devin in las vegas? >> the whole time he drank and gambled. >> let me turn to the real question. why did you do all of this for judge porteous? >> because of wanted to better my business and be able to get the bonds done. >> how did judge porteous help to make money? >> several different ways. he helped me make money with bombs, he helped me make money by grooming other people to help me. >> let's talk about the bonds first. when you say you make bonds and that helped to make money what did he do in particular that helped you? >> he was available to me to do bonds at my request to

>> when you say to bonds would this be a situation where the magistrate hadn't set the bond or said the bond to high? >> yes, it would be cases the bonds were too high, cases the bonds were not set at all. >> see you could go to him to sit bonds? >> this i could. schenectady go for him to do anything else but bonds? >> just to reduce. >> describe for the members how you went about having judge porteous said bonds. >> we had some work sheets what we would do is the worksheet will have the request and we would get the bond set to the amount the defendant could make. >> would you go to his chambers? how would you do this? >> there would be different ways. we would go to the chambers, drop them off with rhonda, we would call the house and

basically, you know, sometimes at lunch he would approve the worksheet and then granda would take the worksheet back to the courts and call the bond. >> did you ever need to get in touch with him when the court was not in session like that might or row for the weekend? >> yes i did. >> how did you do that? >> called him. >> called him on the phone? >> yes, sir. >> describe how that would happen. >> judge, i have this bond, this guy could make 100,000. >> was ron but important to you in dealing with judge porteous? >> yes, she was the gatekeeper. >> described the conversation was like this to you and judge porteous about setting bonds. what would you tell? >> if i didn't have a worksheet

or if i had a worksheet i would say judge, this is the kind of bond the defendant can make. >> was it important to you to tell them this is the amount the if defendant could afford? >> yes that was because to the bond i would ask for would maximize the profits of my company. >> when you went to him to set the bond he would have the amount in mind to set? >> yes i would. >> how did you know what the person could afford? >> there's a few ways that we could -- we would know. we would qualify and to get application, from credit reports to see if they were financially able to pay a certain amount of money. >> the most important thing to you is how much they could afford to pay, not how much would be likely they would have to put up for a particular

crime, you were looking to maximize your return and those based upon what? >> profits for our company. >> and what is the maximum profit you could make from an individual prisoner? >> by being able to post a bond and get 10%. >> would be the maximum amount they could pay, don't know if i'm understanding the question, 10%. >> the information you gathered from the credit records from the interviews, from talking to family members allowed to to ascertain how much money they had. >> yes, sir. >> how would you utilize the information in setting the bond? >> well as far as the credit report, you get the history of someone's credit. >> when you got that information you knew how much money they could gather would you do with that?

>> hi but said the bond -- either reduce the bond or set it to the amount the defendant could make. >> in your conversations with judge porteous, did you ever specifically tell him what the prisoner could afford? >> yes i could. i was always say judge, if you could see fit setting this want this is what i would like to have set. >> to be you on occasion tell judge porteous he can only make 5,000-dollar bond for 10,000 or bond or whatever? >> yes. >> was judge porteous aware when he said bonn set your request you made money? >> anyone that didn't they would have to be an idiot not to know. >> now you went to all the judges is that correct? >> yes. not all of them but most them.

>> were there particular bonds you went to judge porteous to set for you? >> yes. >> what were they? >> fugitive bonds, probation bonds, probation bonds on the other judges that it wasn't his case. the fugitive on the committee what me to expand -- >> explain why you would go to judge porteous when you have another judge handling the case. >> well, in some cases -- well i could get it done with him and some judges i knew i couldn't get it done with so why would you is if somebody had fugitive bond or extradition bond wanted in washington or on burglary of the export is a fugitive bond in new orleans and the guy could get released in jefferson and have a hearing with her yet to

come back here or not but i would get the defendant out. >> you use -- tell the senators would split bonds are. >> a split bond is say the judge has a 200,000-dollar bond on a guy. on the family we do credit reports. we see that they can make. if they can make 100 the bond is 200 well, if we only get 10,000 on the 200th we don't make any money because there's other fees that are at the jail. on bail they've got a 40% tax at

the jail so by the time might be the insurance company and by the time i pay the assure the company i wouldn't have any money and i would have the liability so what i would do is get a family member to come from its colin secure measure tecum have a family member come, he could be joe blow worth zip but as long as he had a fat lady he signs for 100,000 on his name and we would post 100,000 commercial bond furious been exceeded maximize that in 100,000 the of the 100,000 would be on somebody's a shorty? >> unsecured ashura the delete the basically oppressor remote in some cases was worth nothing. and 100,000 commercial was worth 100 grand. >> it helped that judge porteous was willing to split and reduce bonds that others were not? >> it was already helpful because there was hardly anyone

we couldn't get out of jail. >> did you ever talk about bond sitting on the day you took him to lunch? >> yes i did. >> before, during and after lunch? >> we showed up with worksheets for lunch not in the beginning that as our relationship grew we started bringing the work sheets at the table and rhonda would be there and he wouldn't call from the lunch table what would approve them and when rhonda would get back with the work sheets then she would call for jail. >> would you go back to his chambers after lunch? >> yes i go back to his chambers and if i didn't see him i would see rhonda and see if he did the launched and most of the time they were done. >> look-see would drop $100 from $200 for lunch, right terrapin

lunch you could talk to the judge about bonds will go back to his chambers after lunch and get him to sign bonds? >> yes. >> to the name of the conversations concerning repairs to his car occur in his chambers when he was sitting on -- setting bonds? >> at the lunch table it's more the car is broken again or rhonda would call and after she called me be ten minutes later would call and say judge, can you do this bond? and he was a little more apt to do things when i was fixing cars and we were going to lunch together. >> i previously asked you about jeff duhon. when he started working for you what did he do? >> he kind of started like i did

in the business as a janitor, cleaning up, you know, criminal my errands and i would have so many to run but i did have a lot and so it wasn't full-time jobs wanted to be working but at some point he started answering the phones and waiting on people to roll out of jail because of some one mold them out of children to take them back to the office and take a picture so it became advantageous to me to get him licensed to be >> wind jeff first worked for you could he right bonds? >> no he could not. >> why not? >> because he had a conviction. >> what was the conviction? >> i believe was a burglary psp mix what was a felony? >> this search. >> what it could prevent him from holding bonds? >> they have to pull dillinger vince license unless the commissioner approves you can't

be convicted of anything and i knew i couldn't get the commissioner to waive it so we thought it would be easier to try to get the conviction satisfied and have his record expunged. >> is their anything you did to help jeff and help your business deal with the felony conviction? >> yes. what i did was [inaudible] jeff's caisse was not allotted porteous, it was allotted to another judge so another judge had jeff on probation so i wanted to get porteous to talk to the judge to see if he would

expunge and set aside jeff's conviction so you can become a bail bondsman. >> do you know whether judge porteous did that or did he expunge it himself? >> he said he asked the judge. i don't know if he did because i wasn't there but at some point, he set aside the conviction -- >> judge porteous did? >> yes he did and expunged his record. >> did you personally have a conversation with judge porteous concerning this request? >> to be honest with you you know, maybe a couple months. winner you going to do it, whether you going to do it? and at some point he did it. >> how certain are you judge porteous expunged jeff duhon's

conviction that your request? >> i was able to get him a they'll license. >> was their anything about that action by judge porteous that stands out as particularly unusual? >> yes because he set aside the conviction and expunged the record on another judge's case. >> whose case was it? >> i think it was richard's case, but -- and judge richards. >> why do you recall that? >> because, you know, again, i think it was judge richards but it was definitely another judge's case. >> let me turn to the summer of 1994. were you ever made aware judge porteous was under consideration to be nominated as a federal judge? >> yes loveless. >> or you ever interviewed by the federal bureau of investigation, the fbi as part of the background check? >> missile was speaking

connection to testimony has your memory been refreshed on how many times you were interviewed? >> yes, it has to the estimate how many times? >> i was interviewed twice. >> did judge porteous know you were going to be interviewed? >> yes he did. because he told me that they were coming to interview me. >> and you'd been asked about what you said on the background check on prior occasions? first, the fbi agent right of the background check reflects he said -- and we have a slide to pull up. can you in march that? so taking these sentences one at a time, the first refers to alcohol and reports you were saying, quote, the candidate will have a beer or two at lunch, that referring to judge porteous.

was that a true statement? >> no, the was a false statement to the estimate for the record what you refer to what this exhibit you are referring to? >> i'm sorry. it is part of exhibit 69 bea. >> thank you. >> the number of a sport for 72 and this is from the fbi background check. >> need to speak to the microphones we have a record of what you're saying. >> countries are. as a base number. this port for 72 exhibit 69b is the background check file. >> thank you. >> so we were talking about why the statement he made he had a beer or to have lunch was false. why did you know the was false? >> because i watched him drink five, six, seven absolute and

straight up. >> why would you lie for him? >> because through the years he was good to me and i wanted to see him get his federal appointment and then, you know, at that point we still had time left with him and if i were to tell the truth i didn't have a reason to tell the truth he was good to me and i wanted to see him get what he wanted. >> the second sentence states you have, quote, no knowledge of the candidate's financial situation. was that the truth? >> no, that wasn't the truth because you could tell by his surroundings with the cars and they were old and they were broken and you could see that he was having financial problems. >> did he have lifestyle issues? >> yes he did. he gambled a lot and he drank. >> and did you know that those were costly to him? >> yes i did.

>> why didn't you tell the fbi you knew judge porteous had financial problems? >> because, again, you know, i wanted him to be confirmed. i was trying to protect him. but wanted him to get his lifetime appointment. >> of the third is the sentence that reports that you were, quote, not aware of anything in the candidate's background that might be the basis of attempted to influence, pressure, coercion, compromise or that would impact negatively on the candidate's character, a tradition, judgment or discretion. do you see that? >> i heard that. >> you were aware of everything that you just testified to, correct? >> mr. petraeus began using your own leash inches was improper. >> decided. >> and you you couldn't to get to las vegas? stand yes i did. spec at times of the interviews you were hiding the extent of your relationship with judge porteous?

>> yes i did. >> why? >> to protect him and to protect myself, too. >> than on a separate interview, you were asked about a particular case called the keith klein case. do you recall that? >> yes i do. >> that involved an allegation that he received money from an attorney to lower bail on that case is the right? >> yes, sir. >> did you have firsthand knowledge of the allegations? >> not first hand, but yeah, the lawyer told me to keith cline was in his office and he felt like he was wired and asking questions about -- >> the lawyer being whose lawyer? >> the lawyer who got the bond reduced. >> in your interviews with the fbi, what was your motive? >> to make sure porteous got his lifetime appointment.

>> and did you feel you are telling the fbi what judge porteous wanted to tell? >> yes i did. >> did you feel your interview with fbi was part of the relationship that you described where you would do things for him and he would do things for you? >> yes. >> did you have conversations with judge porteous after even though both of those interviews about the interviews? >> yes. the conversation before when he told me he was going to be coming to see me and then, you know, two or three of the times when we went to lunch we talked about, you know, i guess he asked me to or three times to make sure everything was clarified. >> what did you tell him you told the fbi? [inaudible] >> in the summer of '94 do you recall making a request to judge porteous regarding aubrey wallace? >> yes i did. >> what do you recall asking

judge porteous? >> i said judge, i need his record expunged so he can become licensed they'll agent. >> do you recall having one conversation or more than one conversation on the topic? >> again, wrote on him not like it finally get him to do it. >> do you recall judge porteous' response? >> he kept putting me off, putting me off. he said look, lois, i'm not going to let anything stand in the way of me being confirmed in my lifetime appointment. so after that's done my will do that. >> did he say why he wanted to put off until after the confirmation? >> again, she didn't want anything to get in a way of his lifetime appointment. >> what kind of things could get in the way of it. >> i guess big government would

have found out some of the things he was doing with me. it would probably stop him from getting a disciplined and. >> with their be a public record of that? >> yes, there would be this but maybe it would come out in the newspaper. >> in fact, did judge porteous do what he said he would do? >> he did. >> did he set aside wallace burglary conviction? >> yes he did. >> was after he was confirmed by the senate? >> yes it was. >> did you understand this as something he did for you or something he did for wallace? >> something he did for me. >> and was this something worked out between you and judge porteous? >> yes it was. >> just so it's clear, if judge porteous could not have helped you as you testified in setting bonds, taking other judicial elections, lending prestige with others, would you have taken him

out to lunch to the extent you did? >> no i wouldn't have. >> would you have to give him to las vegas? becnel i wouldn't have to respect what you have prepared his cars? >> no i wouldn't. >> after judge porteous was confirmed as a federal judge could he still hoped to win this thing we seated before as a state judge? >> no he could help me but not in the same way, not as far as reducing bond. >> he could not set bonds for you. did you go to judge porteous and ask him to help you with the rules in the u.s. district court regarding the issuance of commercial bonds? >> yes i did. as a magistrate i asked him what he talked to willie more and several court they were taking a lot of 10% deposits and that means when you put up 10% with the court's and eliminate the bill bondsmen and i asked porteous to see if he could get him to change the bond to commercial bonds, and he told me

he went to him but, you know, did he really? i don't know. >> did you attempt to maintain a relationship with judge porteous even after you become a federal judge and continue to have lunch with him? >> yes i did. >> why? >> because i thought it would be important to have a federal judge sitting next to me and because of several people to the table he would bring shrimp. >> did you want judge porteous to help you recruit new judge? >> decided to beat >> with their times u.n. arranged lunches with you and judge porteous and other people who you want to impress? >> decided to use >> to make any requests of judge porteous relative to judge bodenheimer? >> he said. >> what did you ask george porteous about judge bodenheimer?

>> i talked to him and i would like him to step into his shoes. >> if judge porteous is now a federal judge, judge bodenheimer is a state court judge, to your knowledge did judge porteous see anything on your behalf to judge bodenheimer? >> i think he did. he told me he did. >> after judge porteous told you he spoke to judge bodenheimer, how did your relationship with judge bodenheimer developer? >> well, it got stronger. mahlon had a relationship with bodenheimer a little bit before porteous, but porteous actually made a stronger. >> and with respect? >> because again, he was a leader and always had been a leader. everyone follows the leader.

>> did he become more helpful sitting on squawks >> yes he was. >> did you start doing this for judge bodenheimer? >> decided to estimate what did you do? >> i did some repairs on his house and basically started taking him to dinners and lunches and made one trip with him. >> where? >> a casino in mississippi. >> i think we mentioned in 2002 you were under criminal investigation; is that correct? >> this search. >> or you know where you were under surveillance? >> no sir. >> have you seen the fbi surveillance tape of you entering emma's restaurant? >> yes i did. >> when you viewed it did you to view it as being an accurate? >> yes it's accurate.

>> who went to lunch that day? >> joan. she was a state judge. steve, porteous, myself and i think bodenheimer was there. >> quote was the purpose of the lunch? >> grooming. >> who? >> more grooming with bodenheimer and [inaudible] >> who invited judge porteous? >> my secretary administrator would have called rhonda and invited her. estimate and he was a federal court judge at this time was he not? >> yes, sir. >> why did you want judge

porteous to be there? >> because i wanted him to talk about baled and how good it is for the system and so she would start doing bonds. after porteous left i needed as many people as i could to fill in the gap to estimate what purpose did judge porteous fulfilling that want? -- fulfill in that lunch? >> talking about male and how good it is for the system and a state judge sitting with a federal judge, you know, it's that brings power to the table. >> let me show you the receipt from that launch. >> do you recognize it? i was going to blow it up for you here. >> it's my signature. >> all right. how much was it for?

first of all, madam chair, i would ask this be identified as house exhibit 375. >> the exhibit will be so identified in the record. >> how much was it for? >> 41,429 cents. >> do you see the restaurant check which i think is the other half of that? >> yes, sir. >> is their anything on the check that confirms in your mind judge porteous was present? >> yes. the absolute. >> i'm going to show you a videotape now and as i do want you to simply identify who is on the screen who you can identify and madam chairman this is house exhibit 48.

>> that is joan's car and it is judge porteous -- >> judge porteous on the right. >> and the judge's secretary. their on jam. steve and bodenheimer. >> judge binges the last one coming now? >> yes, sir. let me show you house exhibit 241 which is a still photograph from the videotape. who are the four people in that photograph? >> steve, me, bodenheimer i

really can't see who the other two are to the right. >> is that judge porteous? >> yeah, porteous, me and bodenheimer. i don't know. it's kind of blurry. >> but you do see yourself? panicky yes, sir. >> you see judge bodenheimer? >> usurp use branigin you see judge porteous? >> yes, sir. >> in 2004 was a knowledge you are under investigation? >> yes, sir. >> at some point to the request come to you from judge porteous' lawyer? >> this year. >> what was that request? >> he kept calling me. he wanted me to sign a document that said porteous didn't take anything of value from me.

>> let me show house exhibit two leedy -- 280. we are going to blow that up. do you recognize your signature? >> yes or this been a what is the document? >> that is an affidavit saying that he didn't take anything of value, money or any type of quid pro action, and i signed that. >> who prepared the affidavit? >> porteous' lawyer. >> let's go through the to briefly. 3 cents at no time have i ever given anything that falls due to judge porteous for reducing or altering in the bond. do you believe this to be true of the time you signed it?

>> completely false. >> that it was prepared by judge bolio attorney. >> in ways that not true? >> all of the meals and cars and the wining and dining, the trips , all that was for him to do bonds. >> why did you sign this if it was not true? >> well, i was trying to protect him. >> the rest of the document has to do with the keith wind case we referred to earlier. there was the subject of the confirmation check-in three. the fbi was interested in that. >> yes, sir. >> do you know why that was included? >> because he thought maybe i knew something about he was taking money from the low year. i can't read it. >> did you make this false

statement to help judge porteous? >> yes i did. >> and just like he made false statements in connection with the background check? >> is survived it. >> was this a continuation of the same relationship to describe it that had its roots back in the 24 in the state court where you did things for him and he did things for you? >> yes, sir. schenectady plead guilty to a federal corruption offense? >> decided to use chemical that we should exit 71a the information you pleaded guilty to. it charges on or about a certain date beginning prior year to 1991, you commenced in a conspiracy with certain unnamed persons and persons known and unknown to the grand jury. going back to 1991 who did you have a corrupt conspiratorial relationship with? >> porteous. >> to be clear and pleaded guilty to having a corrupt

relationship with judge porteous among others is that correct? >> mr. tariffs denied the charges this could not only the things you get judges but also described the conduct of the judges as follows. triet was for their part of the conspiracy that in return for things of value certain judges would make themselves available to beebee you quickly respond to the requests of btu, bill bonds unlimited and set reduced increase and split bonds to maximize the profits minimize the liabilities and hinder the competition. it was a further part of the conspiracy that to allow to maximize profits of the conspirator judges who would engage in the practice of bond splitting. at the request the conservator judge would set the commercial portion of the bond at an amount the defendant could afford and that set the balance in some other manner.

they would then post the commercial portion of the bond and collect a percentage of the bond us commission to read this practice allowed to maximize its profits and minimize its liability. is that if a description of the conspiracy to which she pleaded guilty? >> yes it is. >> finally did you go to jail for the things to give judges? >> kissell 8q estimate what was your sentence? >> 37 months. >> and that is on page two. was that reduced? >> i got the program and went to the 18 months in jail. >> did you lose your job over this? >> decided to respond to lost bbu? steny decided. >> you can no longer be in the bill on the business because you gave things to public officials? >> yes, sir. >> but at least one public official who received those things remains on the bench; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> no further questions.

>> thank you, madame chair. good morning mr. marcotte. we met before. my name is jonathan and i did your deposition earlier. >> yes, sir. >> let's just start with some basic questions so we can clarify the record. most the questions are yes or no, but feel free to answer them as you wish. you never gave cash directly to judge porteous at any time, did you? >> not directly psp mcginn you never gave a campaign contribution to judge porteous, did you? >> malae did not. >> once he became a federal judge, he never set a bond for you, did he? >> no, he did not. >> and you testified earlier

judge porteous never gave you a kickback or the you never gave judge porteous kickback isn't that correct? >> not in cash. >> we were talking about the bond process and some of us have been been familiar with the process and some of us may not be. isn't it true that in your experience if a district attorney or assistant district attorney objected to a bond that generally the judges would reject the bond? >> yes, sir. >> wasn't that your experience with judge porteous as well? >> yes, sir. >> wasn't it your experience of the district attorney or assistant district attorney objected to an expansion and generally the judges would deny the expunge it? >> yes, sir. >> was it your experience with judge porteous as well? >> yes, sir.

>> now, in 1993 and 1994 we've been talking a lot about that period. how many bonds men were working in gretna? >> i would say maybe three or four agencies. >> two or three? >> two or three. >> and you previously testified that even with two or three bondsman you were handling 90% of the bond at that time or more; correct? >> you know, it's a long time ago and privacy probably 90% of them. >> during that period, first let me ask you would it surprise you going earlier for its sandlin 1986, with a surprise you to learn that in that given year there were more than 3200 bonds that passed through the

courthouse? >> that wouldn't surprise me. >> madame chair, i would like to introduce a cd of bonds we previously gave to the committee and gave to the house. the cd is marked porteous exhibit 2,001. as evidence will be referring to it. >> any objection? >> madame chair if i could have a moment. >> we have no objection. >> the exhibit will be entered into the record. >> would it surprise you mr. marcotte to learn in one of the months september 1986, there were 51 bonds signed by judge porteous? >> it wouldn't surprise me. >> madame chair, we have separated out those bonds' referred to the committee earlier to the bonds in the

opening statement and would like to go ahead and mark those as porteous exhibit 2002. >> without objection. >> would it surprise you that in february of that year, judge porteous find 41 bonds? >> what your? >> 1986 petraeus connect it wouldn't surprise me. >> madame chair we separated those bonds for the record. we are marking that has porteous exhibit 2003. >> the record will note. >> would you be surprised to learn that in december of that year, 1986, judge porteous sign 29 bonds? >> it would not suppress the psp and that is the final exhibit in the series? remarked that as porteous exhibit 2004, madam chair. >> can i ask what you mean by signed?

>> he was the judge who signed on those and then approved of the bonds. or just set them? >> he has lined them and approved the bonds and was the judge signed the bonds. >> they were released on his signature? >> presumably that is what is in the record. >> those have been marked specific senate 2004 and of course it will be our offering introduced in evidence. >> without objection. >> i'm going to try to get an idea of what the situation was like in gregg. during most of this period, correct, and certainly all of the period judge porteous was a judge, was sent jefferson parish and the record order for overcrowding? >> yes they were. >> now, that was a pretty strict court order are right? did it require mandatory release

of prisoners? >> yes, sir after it got to a certain capacity. >> and was at that capacity for most of that period, wasn't it? >> yes, sir. >> and isn't it true that during many parts -- during the months and years and that, as people were brought in and they have to be released to satisfy that quarter? >> yes it is. >> and this was a big concern for judges and gretna, wasn't it? >> some. >> some didn't care? >> some didn't care, some just didn't want to put their name on anything so they said the bond high. >> and wasn't a problem that the judges discuss that many of these prisoners who were released on mandatory court

orders of over car and disappeared? >> cancer estimate isn't it your experience the chances that a person will return to the court after release its high year if they have a bond on them? >> yes it is. >> why is that? >> because the of someone hunting them. >> you, right? otherwise if a guy like you is not looking for these guys would usually has to happen for them to be caught? >> if they get pulled over in a traffic stop and then the arrest them. >> so it's premature accident, right? >> and the police like other cities regularly difficult for the bail jumpers, right? >> in some cases they did, but most of the time not. too most the time not. thank you.

>> would you say the haulier the bond was set the more likely someone would be to come back to court? >> yes, sir. >> now we had talked about this idea of a magistrate judge and i just want to clarify something because once again people might not be familiar with it. a magistrate during that period was a judge, correct? >> yes, in some cases appointed lawyer. estimate that during this period wasn't the magistrate system a judge selected to serve for the week to handle bonds? >> yes, sir. estimates of this was done by rotation, correct? a lot of judges didn't like that to be committed a? >> yes, sir, they didn't. >> a lot of reputation for not being available, did in the? >> yes they did.

>> and if they were not available as a magistrate judge you couldn't get anything done, could you? >> no sir. >> wasn't it true it was common for bail bondsman if they couldn't find a magistrate to try to find another judge isn't that true? >> yes it was. >> infected and that sometimes called bond shopping? >> yes, sir. >> so when a bail bondsman is shopping, but then they sometimes go to the courthouse to try to see who is available in the courthouse? >> yes, sir, they would. >> and you did that, right? >> yes, sir. >> isn't it true sometimes you go into court house and just see who store was open or which judges were still there? >> which the judges would be

acceptable to let me in. >> now, you testified earlier judge porteous was viewed as one of the more experienced judges in dealing with criminal matters? >> yes, a leader. >> now isn't it correct sometimes when you went looking for a judge unit to judges of the revenge of porteous, right? >> kissell i did. >> let's talk about this blood bonds for the second. was judge porteous the only judge to split bonds in gretna? >> no there were others as well. >> are split on see legal?

>> no search the are not. >> they were pretty, and warned the? >> yes they are produced in the a lot of charges thought they were a good idea today? >> yes they did this been a lot of split bonds didn't object right? >> no they did not. >> part of the value of your testimony is to educate people as mr. goodlatte did on this process. isn't it true that sometimes a bond is initially set too high because of the original charges? >> yes, sir. for a number of reasons they set them high. >> isn't it true if someone comes in they could come in on a very serious charge but the actual charge they are being held for trial is much lower isn't that true? >> yes, sir. sometimes they threw out some

charges. it's been a often the bonn this set with the original charge that we have been reduced or dropped, correct? >> the example is he's got recharges, charged with burglary resistance and the rest and public intimidation. they might toss to of that now and then you have one amount of 2500 the other so the total might have been 7500. >> so in a case like that lets say a guy gets pulled in and he's charged with eight large possession weight of drugs and stolen car and the bond is set for that. and then if they drop the drug and possession you've got a bond left that's too high, right? >> yes, sir. >> actually that goes away because when the screen into the through the charge out and it is exonerated at that point. >> but there is a need for the

bond to be lower than the original bond so the judges would reduce the bond when the charges were reduced, correct? >> yes, the what. >> but in most cases the bond was set and then it goes through a screening process and toss the bond out, through the charges out. >> okay. that's fine. i think i can clarify with the next question is it true some judges of the split on this as a way of dealing with artificially high bonds? >> usurp. >> now isn't it also true that many judges view split bonds as a way of getting more bond on people so they wouldn't just be released on their own recognizance? >> yes, sir. >> because that makes it more likely they will come back,

correct? >> yes, sir. >> by the way, you testified earlier judge porteous would turn you down for bonds, isn't that right? >> he turned me down for a few. >> isn't it true you testified earlier that judge porteous standard operating procedure was to check out the representation made in bonds? >> meaning? >> that he would call the firm. >> yes to the estimate isn't it true he would also call a prosecutor of the jail to confirm the facts -- >> most of the time he would have rhonda call the jail, normally we went there were able to call and get the rap sheet and we would have that on the worksheet but he would also double check in some cases.

>> didn't he do that on a regular basis he would get that confirmation? >> most of the time but sometimes he didn't. >> use a york for an individual named adam barnett, do you recall? >> yes, sir. >> isn't it correct prior to 1993, prior year to you and your sister developing the relationship with charges that deduce adam barnett to approach judges, correct? >> yes i would estimate isn't it correct you used him to approach judge porteous on bonds prior to 1992? >> decided. >> is it correct there came a point you stop using adam barnett because you didn't think the judge trusted mr. barnett? >> yes, sir. >> now, you testified before the house of representatives and i am quoting i met judge porteous through another day all agent.

at some point they'll agent the doubt and we became close with judge porteous after he faded out, do you recall something like that? >> yes, sir. >> referring to adam barnett? >> yes. >> i would like to introduce house exhibit 19 ze, 119, and mr. marcotte, this is an article we showed you in a deposition this is a times to to an article from september 13th, 1993 in the headline of the article reads $80,000 house is used as a sure the 300,000 in bonds. do you see that? >> yes, sir. >> you remember that article? >> yes, sir. >> i remember it, you know what i mean, everything that's in there, i mean i remember it right here. >> i'm not going to quiz you want it. is it true that article was

about to the defense that led barnett to fade out? >> yes, sir it is. >> because that was an embarrassing story for people, correct? >> yes, sir it was. >> and then it was after that article that you can close with judge porteous began to cannot to launch more, and it? >> yes, sir. >> isn't it correct you dealt with porteous far more often in 1994 than 1991? >> this server. >> let's talk about the lunches. was it your experience and legal community and gretna tha