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

mr. amato and creely and a close friend leonard levenson to represent them at trial. as mr.entering this complex case raised suspicion about the integrity of the process. lifemark's had known a partnership with creely given judge porteous close to $200,000 in cash. in october, 1996, judge porteous conducted a hearing on lifemark recusal motion. it is worth going through what happened at that recusal during and a little bit of detail. now that the recusal during judge porteous described his relationship with amato and pleasants and as follows. quote, if anyone wants to decide if i'm a friend with mr. amato reluctance and i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative yes. mr. amato and i practice law to give the public 20 plus years ago. judge porteous further stated, quote coming this mr. amato and mr. levenson our friends of mine. have i ever been to either one of their houses? the answer is a definitive no. how far gone along to lunch with him? the answer is a definitive yes. have i been going to lunch with all the members of the bar? the answer is yes. in short, at th

mr. levenson. he said i never had a campaign.the contribution you're talking about was a contribution to all the judges for all their campaigns. a program that was called justice for all. that was the only money he got from these lawyers. now, this of course we know was a quite deliberate conceived, and misrepresentation because, in fact, he had gotten thousands and thousands of dollars or the curatorships from mr. amato and mr. creely. none of which he discloses. all he does is chide the attorney for not doing his homework. of course, if mr. mole had really done his homework, he would've found out about all this cash the judge had received, the recusal motion on appeal as he later appealed and the court of appeals does not information and denies him, they appeal would've been successful and the judge would have been forced to recuse himself. but the judge refuses, the case goes to trial. after the case goes to trial, judge porteous takes the case under submission. this is worth an enormous amount to the law firm of amato and cre

mr. levenson or friends of mine. have i ever been to either of their house -- haveee i evern bs to either one of ben's house? the answer is a definitive no. e ans have a gun to lunch with them? e the answer is a definitive yes.e have i been going to lunch with all the memberss of the bar? answer is yes. even not as misleading because t judge porteous had unpacked except in hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants. sigcant but most significantly, judge whatsoever of what he knew was that is, that it received approximately $20,000 in cash wes creel from y.amato's law firm, money that he knew came from amato as well as creely. when mole, a great disadvantageo many reference to the fact thate amato and levenson had contributed to judge porteous'st campaign, judge porteous went on the offense. l quote, well, ucluckily i didn't have any campaigns, so i'mted to interested to find out how you know that. any i never had any campaigns, oppo" counsel.he went i've never had an opponent, andt quote. he went on to say, the first

mr. levenson. mole not only promised gardner $100,000 for just appearing in the courtroom in the case, he promised them an additional $100,000 if he could get porteous to recuse himself or otherwise leave the case. under this effective bounty agreement on a federal judge, mole 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, gardner gave the magistrate's brother, tom wilkinson, $30,000. the problem was that porteous wasn't going anywhere. while the mole conspiracy should have been the subject of an investigation, the house decided to call mole, 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, gardner, and cost him that $100,000 bounty, and other possible other fees. with only a gift made yea