mr. levinson as a witness in thous' case. >> that's correct, madam chair. not at this time. >> and it's my understanding, mr. turley, that you do all want to call mr. levinson as a witness in your case. >> are we do, madam chair. we're prepared now, or he 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 finish their case, and mr. levinson will just have to stay over until -- i would ask, if possible unless you have a really good argument not to, obviously, the government is going to pay for him to stay here until your case begins. we would ask that you put him on at the beginning of your case so that he is not held over through the weekend. >> madam chair, i'll just point out that the committee has previously instructed us there were other cancellations by the government including judge greendyke cho occurred right -- which occurred right before the start of the trial, and we're under instructions t

levinson as follows. quote, if anyone wants to decide whether i'm a friend with mr. amato or mr. evinson, i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative, yes. mr. amato and i practiced law together probably 20 plus years ago. judge porteous further stated, yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have you ever been to either one of they're house the answer is definitive no. have i gone along to lunch with them 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 the hearing judge porteous portrayed his relationship with amato simplies same unexceptional relationship that he would have any member of the bar as, quote, going to lunch with him. even that that is misleading because the evidence will show judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato without reciprocating. more significantly in describing his relationship with amato, judge porteous makes no mention whatsoever what really is the issue. that is he has received thousands of dollars of cash f

mr. amato and the law firm and another of porteous' very close friends, leonard levinson, to represent them at trial. as mr. schiff noted, lifemark's counsel filed a motion to recuse judge porteous. they argued the timing of known close friends of judge porteous entering this this complex case raises suspicions about the integrity of the process. lifemark's attorney, joseph mole, had no idea that amato had, in fact, in partnership with creely given judge porteous close to $20,000 in cash. in october 1996 judge porteous conducted a hearing on lifemark's recusal motion. it is worth going through what happens at that recusal hearing in a little bit of detail. at the recusal hearing, judge porteous described his relationship with amato and levinson as follows: quote, if anyone wants to decide if i'm a friend with either of them, i will put that to rest. the answer is affirmative, yes. mr. amato and i practiced law together probably 20-plus years ago. he further stated, quote, yes, mr. amato and mr. levinson are friends of mine. have i ever been to either one of them's house? the answer is a def

mr. levinson are friends of mine. have i ever been to either of their house -- have i ever been to either one of them's house? the answer is a defensive no. have i gone to lunch with them? the answer is a definitive yes. the question -- have i been going to lunch with all members of the bar? the answer is yes. even that is misleading because judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato and his partner creely. but most significantly judge porteous made no mention whatsoever of what he knew was really the issue, that is, that he had received approximately $20,000 in cash from amato's law firm, money that he knew came from amato as well as creely. when mole at great disadvantage made a reference to the fact that amato and levinson had contributed to judge porteous's campaigns, judge porteous went on the offense. "well, luckily i didn't have any campaigns, so i'm interested to find out how you know that. i never had any campaigns, counsel. i have never had an opponent." he we

mr. levinson are friends of mine. have i ever been to either of their house -- have i ever been to either one of them's house? the answer is a defensive no. have i gone to lunch with them? the answer is a definitive yes. the question -- have i been going to lunch with all members of the bar? the answer is yes. even that is misleading because judge porteous had, in fact, accepted hundreds of meals at expensive restaurants from amato and his partner creely. but most significantly judge porteous made no mention whatsoever of what he knew was really the issue, that is, that he had received approximately $20,000 in cash from amato's law firm, money that he knew came from amato as well as creely. when mole at great disadvantage made a reference to the fact that amato and levinson had contributed to judge porteous's campaigns, judge porteous went on the offense. "well, luckily i didn't have any campaigns, so i'm interested to find out how you know that. i never had any campaigns, counsel. i have never had an opponent." he we

mr. levinson. and indeed he was. what we heard testimony fromn witnesses is and who gretna, a small town like many small towny that lawyers practiced in and judges preside, most judges know the attorneys in their courtrooms. if the judgesec have to recusewo themselves because they know a judge in the courtroom there would be no cases in these sma courts. commu these are small communities. and in gretna, the judges didn't recuse themselves. me correct our witnesses, let me correctsew that, the house witnesses saidge they never heard of a judgeuse recusing themselves because thei couldn't.judge porteous that was the tradition that thed judge came from and the judges agreed with that that as long ae you back knowledge you have a nt relationship it isn't being hidden you don't have to recuse and he w and he was friends with amatonig and creely and i will bea returning to mr. gardner in a ao second. he was friends with amato and creely since the 1970's both crh amato and creely said they were edth friends.ic the practice

mr. amato were levinson had given a contribution to judge porteous's campaign and these were the only factshoice. he had to try to ask the judge to remove himself for the case so he filed the motion. the judge makes it quite clear during the recusal hearing and we will share the concept of that hearing because it is one of the most illuminating pieces of evidence in the case the judge makes it clear he understands the ethical standards. he understands when he has to take himself off the case. he goes through that with council and then he tries mr. mole for suggesting he got the campaign contribution from mr. amato and mr. levenson. he said i never had a campaign. the contribution you're talking about is a contribution to all the judges for all their campaigns. a program that was called justice for all, to all the judges the election. that was the only money he got from these lawyers. this of course we know was a quite elaborate conceit and misrepresentation because in fact he had gotten thousands and thousands of dollars for the curator ships from mr. amato and mr. creely. if he had done hi