this hearing of the house judiciary taskforce on judicial pietschmann will now come to order without objection the chair be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing i will now recognize myself for an opening statement this hearing has been called to commence the inquiry into whether united states district court judge thomas porteous should be impeached by the united states house of representatives article one section two of the constitution vests the sole power of impeachment in the house of representatives as has been noted in the past such a task is not one that we welcome however it is an important responsibility that has been entrusted to us by the founders in late one nine hundred ninety nine the united states department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation began a cripple investigation  years later the department of justice submitted a complaint referring allegations of judicial misconduct concerning judge circuit court of appeals the complaint noted that the f b i and a grand jury had been investigating for many years but decided not to bring criminal charges and instead referred the case to the courts in congress for disciplinary proceedings and potential impeachment despite the department's decision not to charge judge porteous with violations of federal criminal law complaint stated that the investigation uncovered evidence of pervasive misconduct committed by judge the complaint states collectively the evidence indicates the judge may have violated federal and state criminal laws controlling canons of judicial conduct rules of professional responsibility and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all federal judges the evidence of misconduct cited included the  district and its owners in exchange for access and assistance number three evidence that the judge filed false pleadings and concealed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding and violated an order of that court number for  incompetent to serve the department of justice is complaint concluded that the instances of honesty in his own sworn statements and court filings is decade long course of conduct in soliciting and accepting a stream of payments  igants and lawyers with matters before him and his repeated failure to disclose those dealings to interested parties and the court all render him unfit as an article three judge upon receipt of the department complaint the fifth circuit appointed a special investigatory committee to investigate the allegations hearings were held at which judge representing himself made statements cross examine witnesses and called witnesses on his own behalf in november two thousand and seven the special investigator tory committee issued a report detailing the findings of their investigation of the special committee concluded that the matter should be referred to the judicial conference of the united states because had engaged in conduct which might constitute grounds for impeachment under both article one and article three of the constitution or twentieth two thousand and seven the full judicial council the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit by a majority vote excepted and approved the special investigatory committee's findings and certified the matter to the judicial conference of the united states on june seventeenth two thousand and eight the conference of the united states voted unanimously to certify to the speaker of the house terminations that consideration of impeachment of judge may be warranted based on substantial evidence that repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath in violation of law concealing the cash and things of value he solicited received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him repeatedly committed perjury by signing false statements under oath in a personal bankruptcy proceeding in violation of the law and the code of conduct for u s judges  willfully and systematically concealed from litigation and litigators and the public financial transactions by filing false financial disclosure forms in violation of law and the judicial code of conduct the judge violated several concluded that this conduct has individually and collectively brought disrepute to the federal judiciary on september tenth two thousand and eight consul of the fifth circuit issued an order and public reprimand taking the maximum disciplinary action allowed by law against judge suspending him for two years or until congress takes a final action on the proceedings whichever occurs earlier on september seventeenth two thousand and eight the house of representatives passed house resolution four hundred forty eight by nanna's consent authorizing and directing this task force to inquire whether judge porteous should be impeached this is already was continued in january two thousand and nine pursuant to house resolution fifteen accordingly we are conducting this evidence for a hearing today article three section one provides that the judges both of the supreme and inferior courts hold their offices during good behavior and challenge stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office article two section four the constitution provides that all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office for on impeachment for and conviction of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors the framers sought to protect the institutions of the government according to one impeachment report by providing for the removal of persons who are unfit to hold positions of public trust the congressional research service has written the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is not defined in the constitution or in statute no definitive list of types of conduct falling within the high crimes and misdemeanors language has been forthcoming as result of this debate but some measure of clarification has emerged the precedents in this country reflect the fact that conduct which may not constitute a crime but which may still be serious misbehavior bringing dis upon the public office involved they provided sufficient grounds for impeachment the purpose of this in future hearings will be to develop a record upon which the task force can recommend whether to adopt articles of impeachment proceedings do not constitute a trial as the constitutional power to try impeachment resides in the senate this inquiry will focus on whether judge conduct provides basis for impeachment in order to develop the record the task force is called witnesses and will admit documents that will help us determine whether the constitutional standard for impeachment has been met the task force will proceed in a fair open and deliberate and thorough manner in our work has and will continue to be done on a bipartisan basis today task force staff has interviewed over fifty individuals deposed about twenty witnesses under oath and obtain documents from various sources including for witnesses the twenty fourth judicial court in jefferson parish louisiana and the department of justice i would like to note that was offered the opportunity respond personally to questions concerning his conduct in the form of the deposition he declined our invitation today's hearing will focus on allegations that judge violated the public trust the law and ethical canons by presiding over the case in in re little jo'burg enterprises incorporated and that matter which was tried without a jury the evidence in the case the judge denied a motion to recuse himself from the case based on his relationship with the lawyers in the case in denying the motion he failed to disclose to the lawyers in question had provided him with cash there after a while a bench verdict was pending there was evidence that he solicited and received from the lawyers appearing before him the legal right to these in the form of cash and other things of value as the judicial conference noted this conduct which was undertaken in a concealed manner deprive the public of its right to his honest services and constituted an abuse of his judicial office and subsequent hearings we will cover other allegations involving false statements and bankruptcy proceedings a corrupt relationship with the owners of a bail bond company   counsel could you introduce yourself and you'll be given an opportunity to make a statement during the hearing as well as an opportunity to question witnesses if you choose to accept that invitation we have also invited to submit documentary evidence on his behalf he has also been given the opportunity to request that specific individuals be permitted to testify as i just mentioned counsel permitted to question any of the witnesses that he so chooses for ten minutes while this is consistent with past precedent it should be noted that this is an extraordinary prerogative that is being granted after all is not a trial but it is more in the nature of a grand jury proceeding of the task force reminds judge  twenty minutes providing a general overview of the matter under consideration today after his presentation the first witness will be sworn in and question for up to twenty minutes by taskforce counsel after that initial period members will be recognized for questions under the called hearing no objection that will be the procedure i would now like to recognize my colleague mr goodlatte the distinguished ranking member of the task force for his opening remarks and i want to thank him again for the manner in this morning are fair and will facilitate a comprehensive hearing on this particular aspect of our inquiry into the conduct of judge porteous i also want to thank you for administering this task force in a bipartisan manner article three of the constitution provides that federal judges are appointed for life and they shall hold their offices during good behavior indeed the brainers knew that an independent judiciary free of political motivations was necessary to the fair resolution of disputes and the feared minist ration of our laws however the framers were also pragmatists and had the foresight to include checks against the abuse of independence and power that comes with a judicial appointment article one section two clause five of the constitution grants the house of representatives the sole power of impeachment this is a very serious power that should not be undertaken lightly however if evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office the integrity of the traditional system becomes compromised and the house of representatives has the duty to investigate the matter and take any appropriate actions to that to end the abuse and restore confidence in the judicial system as the committee of jurisdiction over the federal bench and the committee with a over the impeachment process the judiciary committee has a somber obligation to root out activities that undermine the impartiality of the federal bench for orderly society to continue it is crucial let citizens continue to have faith that the judicial system will exercise its authority to determine disputes fairly and without partiality i thank chairman conyers and ranking member smith for authorizing this task force on judicial impeachment while this is not pleasant work it is necessary today we are examining the potential misconduct of judge thomas porteous the judicial conference of united states forwarded this matter to the congress for further consideration after concluding that judge porteous quote has engaged in conduct which might constitute or more grounds for impeachment and quote since then the task force has been working diligently to investigate already its conduct and has worked with law enforcement and you to show officials as conducted numerous interviews taking depositions from key witnesses and gathered evidence and transcripts from the previous investigation these efforts have uncovered a large amount of information that the task force members need to consider we will hold a series of hearings to examine all of this information however today's hearing will focus on judge porteous conduct leading up to and during the little jibber case which was argued before judge porteous the witnesses here today represented the litigants in the little bird case and they have first hand knowledge of the incident surrounding that case is worth noting that judge porteous was extended an invitation to come make a statement before the task force and respond to questions but has so far declined to do so it is also worth noting that the task force has permitted judge porteous counsel to ask questions of the witnesses today if the evidence shows that wrongdoing occurred in the task force will make the appropriate recommendations to the full judiciary committee and we will have more work to do i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and rooting out the facts in an objective manner thank you mr chairman for holding this important  i thank the gentleman then and now like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee mr lamar smith of texas for his comments thank you mr chairman thank you for holding this important hearing to consider the possible impeachment of judge ito as porteous and i appreciate the way you and the ranking member mr goodlatte have conducted the ongoing investigation the constitution grants the house of representatives the sole power to impeach a sitting federal judge this is a very serious power that congress does not take lightly impeachment by the house constitutes one of the few checks on the judiciary and is to be used only in instances when a judge betrays his office or unfit to hold that position of trust we want to be fair to judge forty s and  and to that end the task force has granted his attorney the opportunity to examine the witnesses who will be called to testify judge for years has also been invited to appear and testify these hearings in order explain why his conduct is not one impeachment is our constitutional duty not to prejudge the evidence in this matter or to anticipate the course of these proceedings however it should be noted that the allegations of misconduct and improprieties by judge porteous are serious numerous varied and occurred over a period of many years based on a review of the allegations of misconduct by judge porteous that the task force has examined the judicial conference certified to the speaker of the house the consideration of the impeachment a judge porteous may be warranted around the same time the judicial council the first circuit issued an order and public reprimand imposing the maximum disciplinary action allowed by law against judge for us as of september tenth two thousand a judge for years has been suspended from the bench for two years or until congress takes final action on the impeachment proceedings the judges rule on the law they are not above the law to preserve equality and fairness in our constitutional democracy we must protect the integrity of the courts the time has come for congress to determine whether judge for his conduct has deemed him unworthy on the federal bench thank you mr chairman again i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and i thank the gentleman the at this time i would caesar's wife beyond reproach as people have to have a highest opinion of fairness in that division of our government not that they shouldn't all three but  personal friendships nevertheless that does raise an issue about the appearance of impropriety and certainly something caesar's wife would not have been involved in the same  friendship attorneys appeared before the bench and if the friendship were that close it's troubling to know that the defense receiving money is as close friendship and of the friendships that close to work people give cash money that they wouldn't be that they'd be allowed to practice before him and they wouldn't be any disclosure to the other party or to the public about the close personal relationship there is a series of transactions and involvements that as a but our duty is to try to see what the facts are and maintain the integrity of the judiciary system in light of the task given us by the chairman and determine whether attempt to conceal the relationship goes to an issue that i am concerned about subcommittee courts and competition policy will be examining the state of federal can clearly be interpreted as bribe counsel with cases in front of him and false statements on his two thousand and one bankruptcy filing i look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today and thank with our justice system judges are called upon to be neutral arbiters of the pending before them nearly as important as actually impartiality appearance of impartiality for the thank you very much mr chairman if you bring that my very close to i think we can hear you a little better thank you very much mr chairman members of the task force first i want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today  here with me along with other counsel and members of the team that have been working on this matter we appreciate the courtesies extended by the committee and the opportunity to participate in the hearing i think the thing that people need to prosecutor and then as a defense lawyer for many years i'm well aware of his reputation in the community and you will find that there are no lawyers who are ever going to tell you the judge did anything but the right thing in his own mind when he made decisions from the bench as someone who has spent his life in a trial courtroom the ability of a judge to properly discharge a critical in my line of work as it is for many of you before you came to this body and i think what you'll find is that there has never been an argument that what happened in judge for his courtroom was anything but fair and i think the testimony before the committee will bear that out this is not a case that involves abuse of judicial office it is a case that involves friendships that go back years and it involves some decisions that perhaps in the light of looking backwards would have been made differently under different circumstances but we have to remember and this committee is well aware that the constitutional standard for impeachment is very high the independence of the judiciary and its ability to do its job fairly and forthrightly is critical to the functioning of this nation and of the balance of powers between the branches of government and that's why i'm confident this committee will carefully weigh the issues before it we simply hope that you all will as you've indicated keep an open mind evaluate the evidence fairly and give us our opportunity who already agreed to do to participate as much as possible under the rules thank you thank  proceed chairman members of task force what i intend to do is to provide you with an overview of what constituted really three investigations into the activities of one by the department of justice the initial of because the house has this unique function that is the sole power to and although we built upon the investigations that were conducted by the executive and judicial branches we felt that the house had to make its own investigation and reach its own determination the member should have before them a manila folder which has within it hearing memorandum also what we call the little jibber timeline will be the organizing principle of the presentation i make this morning and finally copies of the powerpoint which will be integrated into the timeline morning december of one thousand nine hundred six and he will be sixty three this you for money were you walking around with hundreds of dollars on you or did you have to take steps in order to get the cash responds i don't remember the first time i had money in my pocket and i handed it to him very well could have done that but the bottom line was the right how much money does he need and i would say five hundred or a thousand dollars or whatever i just want to be fair to him and we go get a check and give him the money now interesting thing is  capacity which would have prevented us if it had been successful from using his test testimony in the fifth circuit on the grounds alleged grounds that it violated his fifth amendment rights last night  judge richard leon of the u s district court in the district of columbia dismissed the motion and denied the temporary restraining order you can understand why would not want that testimony made public more isn't that right again you're asking me to speculate i have no idea so i can tell you when did you first start getting cash probably when i was on the state and that practice continued into ninety four when you became a federal judge  sit in to send a letter to the last known address it was a very minor thing basically a paralegal or a secretary even the lawyers and the fee was paid by the bank in most instances and it was a very modest couple hundred dollars what you're then started calling and saying look i've been sending you curators you know can you give me the money for the cure i said so i talk to my law partner you know man what do we do as well just go ahead and give it to him we decided to give him the money we would deduct the expenses  answer occasionally as part of the task force effort the curatorship have been mentioned in a paragraph in the referral letter from the department of justice to the fifth circuit was not particularly explored in the fifth circuit as i recall mark best  advise them by the way i think there's a computer run at the old firm that lists the curator for the firm well they went they got the with permission they got the computer run it turned out that they had over three you look at the next slide out of the two hundred and eight hundred ninety one were sent by judge porteous to the model law and if you know which sounds like a small matter  hundred dollars really who's going to not know much you get excited about but when you're talking about close to two hundred of them we're now talking about a pool of money out of which judge could call up and say hey how about some money of approaching briefly without going into much detail it's a complex case it involves foreclosure on a hospital property it involves bankruptcy issues real estate issues contractors who had the right to run the pharmacy in the  but before this case comes to judge porteous because he doesn't get it till he's a federal judge judge porteous is now being considered as of april of ninety four he's considered for a possible federal judge as part of that process that inquiry is to the best of my knowledge i do not know of any unfavorable information that may affect my nomination complexity was not normally the kind of they did a lot of personal injury work divorce work this was not saying they were incapable of handling it but it certainly wasn't their type and it's just six weeks until the trial is supposed to come on they were also knows word of mouth around town that they are very close cronies of the judge he also knows this is just really doesn't make a lot of sense that they'd be coming in just six weeks before the trial supposed to start he file a motion to recuse essentially saying judge you should not sit in this case because of your close relationship with these lawyers who just got into the case he doesn't know anything rule approving a motion to recuse if it's appropriate quoting now a lawyer who recently believes that the judge before whom he's appearing should not must raise the issue so that it may be confronted and put to rest any other course would risk undermining public confidence in our judicial system that's the quote and i cite that so that everyone understands that i recognize my duty and obligation and i am fully prepared to listen  told me that the wedding his son's wedding ran over budget and that he couldn't afford it and could i land give him somehow to get him some money to help out i don't remember the exact words no but clearly wanted provided money to help him yeah the amount of to say basically that he got the money he doesn't did you ever pay back the loan no i didn't i declared bankruptcy in two thousand and one and of course i didn't list it  i'm not sure what to say there but the point is if it were a debt presumably it would have been listed in his bankruptcy but that's his testimony again it's undisputed about what happened there are other events during the time the case the actual event when he asks for the money from a motto at the fishing trip that was on june twenty ninth one thousand nine hundred ninety in late ninety nine a model pays fifteen hundred dollars for a perjury that the testimony you are about to provide the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of your knowledge information and belief thank you maybe i have a problem hearing and when you  any time please ask that we stop and repeat the question and we'll we'll try to make sure the mikes are closed to us but again if you have any trouble hearing please stop and would you please repeat the question questions just to cover your background and then we'll get into the heart of the question that i'm going to ask you can you hear me ok i can hear you i'm doing the best i can to hear you ok first in the one nine hundred seventy s did you go to four and you maintained a friendship with judge porteous after he became a state judge correct that consisted of taking him to lunch taking him on a hunting trip other socializing of that nature correct and generally whenever you the members here did there come a time when judge porteous was a state judge that he made requests for cash and can you describe what you recall about those requests how they began and how they changed over time i don't understand how they began but it was time again to resist making payments and he began to use excuses  between he and i about what he wanted but he made a request let there be no doubt in my testimony that i gave him money ok and the very first requests he made were those smaller amounts of money very small amounts of money ok now did you like giving him money you know what if anything did you do or say to judge porteous to communicate your displeasure with his requests i told him quite frankly i thought it was an imposition on our friendship for him to continue to ask me for money and did you say to that you say that to him more than once but once again you're going back twenty five years i'm doing the best i can my recollection is yes and after you communicated to judge porteous your displeasure what did judge porteous do so that you could have money to give him absentee defendant ok and was there a small in the nature of two hundred dollars or thereabouts that your office would receive for handling this curatorship i don't remember what the fee was but that was a small believe it was a hundred fifty two hundred seventy five it could be two hundred dollars but there was a fee that we received to representing the indigent or the absentee defendant ok and if the clerk's office as represented to us by nine hundred eighty nine was two hundred in relation to his request for money what was the relationship between those two events was the relationship between his assigning curatorship and his reckless thing money from you in my mind there was no want to give him money before i didn't want to give him money after i began to avoid much as i could because i knew he was going to be asking me for money eventually didn't appreciate him calling my office and to that i made no relationship between him giving me curators and me giving him gifts of money and that the evolution of that in your mind was it clear to you that judge porteous had assigned you curators curatorship so that you would have a pool of money so you could give him back cash that was not my mind so i'm asking in your mind did you not understand that judge porteous was assigning curatorship so that you would have to give him back eventually that's what i thought it was he was doing and what is it that caused you to have that understanding because he kept calling my office and how was it that he communicated the link between the curatorship and the cash i don't know that he did communicate i don't believe he had a record of curators kept asking me to give him money over the years and i kept complaining about giving him money ok but he made in in your office about the curatorship that he had sent to you correct and you understood that you understood that he linked simon of curatorship to you giving him cash correct you knew he did that because you were giving him money correct i suspected that he had that motivation yes ok so he was taking official act to enrich himself correct i can't speak for him but that was my understanding ok now and in fact he took hundreds of official acts in a sign you curatorship so you would have money so he could ask for money or hundreds of official act had these curatorship influence your attitude about giving judge porteous money tap to give back to him the monies went into our operating account i did not try to cure rate of a cure rate of what i gave him he would make requests monthly and i would i would give him money when he made these requests i would avoid him until i couldn't avoid him any more than i made a payment to him ok now you have previously estimated that you about when he was a federal judge most of that happened in his last years on the state court bench correct they happened while he was on the state court now the amount of curatorship that have been identified or i have estimated and guestimated as to the amount of cash i gave him i can tell you other than other than what i gave him i made a guest on that i gave him ten thousand dollars and my law partner gave him ten thousand dollars and by the way this was all cash correct now did you feel comfortable giving judge porteous cash in response to his request yes i felt uncomfortable of felt put upon ok i felt taken advantage of i did ok now i want to turn to nine hundred ninety four the f b i right up they did on it write up of the interview with you and you it says that you dated and i'm reading verbatim cruelly advised that he knows of no financial problems on the part of the candidate and the candidate appears to live within his economic do you dispute making that statement no i do not dispute giving that statement and what that statement i've been true quotes you as saying that you know of no financial problem that wouldn't have been a true statement right and why would you make a statement like that to help judge porter in the background check process so you didn't want to also i mean as a practical matter you don't want the f b i poking around in your financial relationship with judge porter if i didn't want that to happen i would have never volunteered to give the interview i would not wouldn't  and he had the time the judge porteous suggested that the f b i call you judge porteous knew that you had given him thousands of dollars correct and that's not something that you said or somebody at the casino because he was drunk and with my mind play ok i got up and left but the point simply is not only did you not tell the f b i the truth about his financial circumstances you also didn't tell him the truth about his drinking correct ninety as we talked about earlier the only expense that of paying for him was a meal me a document ok let's just talk about the meal was that about a five hundred dollar meal and the recall that showing me a dog do you recall paying for his room as well paying for his room do you dispute that if the records show in conjunction with your connection with your memory that you spent close to a thousand dollars  interview of an elderly woman that was horribly mistreated in front of him he ruled in my favor nobody could have lost when he was in federal court  i made a record i appealed and the united states court of appeal overturned his ruling that's all i remember doing in front of him thirty years so i got nothing back  our counsel i want to start out ask you about the curator ships i think you testified earlier in answer to mr best questions that you didn't ask for the money for some time maybe purity years he would hit you up for money and you were started tell him it's got to come to an end correct i'm sorry for some years you were giving him money you got tired of giving and around the time you told him had to stop the curator ship started showing up in your office is that right correct now during the course of your receiving curatorship wouldn't judge call your office and inquire how so the conversations the judge had with you about the curatorship when he would call your office for curatorship was at the same time that he would make requests for money is that right the request for money of your secretary ordered always go directly made i'm only aware of what he made so you don't know whether you didn't get a message from your secretary that the judge called you wanted to know how many curatorship sent over and he wants more money did your secretary of it tell you something along you know man what do we do he says well just go ahead and give it to him we decided to give him the money we would deduct expenses we would pay income taxes on it that was your testimony before the grand jury was that accurate testimony  to give the money we would deduct the expenses we would pay income taxes on it you say you always paid in cash how did you account for that in the books of the law there was no  undertaking that you were going to provide funds to the judge for the benefit of your legal practice you would say well let's take an amount equally and give it to the judge as opposed to firm was brought into the  there is a list that was requested by mark through these proceedings i have not i knew the other judges other than campaign contributions those were checks yes but you never gave cash to another judge so the only reason you gave the judge porteous is because he asked for it and he was your friend is that right the only reason i gave it to him was because he was a friend in need do you because he was a friend in need the right i got nothing back in state court for doing nothing but your firm was hired in this particular case is that correct and your senior partner in the firm yes or did you benefit from from the overall profits of the share in the profits in the just like the other side on this case apparently and i hadn't read the judgement they lost they took an appeal were they not the defendant so that whoever the defendants where they were i don't know will defendants all i know adult from almost high school best friends i hunted with him i fished with him we were friends and everybody in the of the best of my recollection i took him on three hunting for out of the country too when he was on the state court bench one early on when he was on the federal bench no football tickets nothing like that no football tickets but did they ever ask you for money for personal expenses they were after you for money in cash no did they ever send a member of their court staff to your office to pick it's not normal but our friendship was very different but let me ask you about the proprietorship propriety excuse me  in the federal case where there is a motion of recusal involving your law firm do you think your law firm had any obligation to represent of your l beneficiary of thousands of dollars of cash donations contributions gifts whatever you want to call it from your law firm absolutely but i was not a party of that proceeding didn't even know it was going on  to your knowledge did a representative of your law firm of which you are a senior member make that information available on the public record to the other attorney or again getting taking advantage of i don't i don't want anybody what do you mean when you say taken advantage what do you mean but i don't believe in my mind apologize for my absence and i'm going to ask a couple of questions the staff has provided me with some of the information mr baron was able to go over as he made his presentation and i apologize if i repeat some of it i just want to make sure that would we would pay income taxes on it am i missing something here no you identified money that was being paid as a result of an appointment by a federal district judge you identify that money is t payment for your services as a curator before i'm just talking about after this point you don't see the connection there and i don't mean to be harsh or whatever i just think we're all lawyers  of but you know there was discussion in the area that other attorneys were asked for money like you had been the names of attorneys testified to that he testified do very uncomfortable you're sitting here at the table the judge is right behind you understand that i am curious that's got to be tough on that is that considered a business expense for tax purposes how do you deal with that you just take that right out of your own pocket and as it sounds like a process of doing business when you pay a thousand dollars is that a business expense i'm asking i really don't know we paid income taxes on it we absorbed it isn't you know i knew that you had but i'm talking about once you gave money to the judge i didn't give any money to the judge  i gave it to my law partner and allowed the judge apparently because i was avoidant doing it i was avoiding doing it i say you gave it to your law partner and he provided it to the judge divided it from what i to provide a thousand dollars cash even though you give it to your partner in the partner i didn't know if you later dealt with that as a business expense because it certainly cost you as an attorney is that correct when did you first meet him if you remember time there has been ever any exchange of money between you and your partner in judge porteous that you're aware of while sitting as a federal judge was in connection with this request arising from the fishing trip is that correct  mr greeley did you ever give money to judge porteous because he was a judge or was it always because he was first and foremost your friend the only reason i would give money to anybody was because they were my friend  charitable contribution not given him money because he was a judge and i think you testified but at no time did you ever have an experience that led you to believe he was influenced by any of the money that you had given him over one is that right that you appeared in front of him or do i have that incorrect and that didn't go so well for you is that right it was a removal of court wasn't filed in federal court it was removed on a federal yes and i take it that you practice in and around the city of new orleans where there is a very close relationship between lawyers and the bar is that right and that's true of lawyers something like that going on it happens all the time it happens every day and the community is well aware of it both inside the court has inside the courthouse and outside the courthouse co the took with him on a hunting trip to mexico took a defense lawyer from the law we didn't discuss hunting and fishing we hunted with other judges we hunted with other lawyers treated fairly none of that was done to influence anybody on anything or any case that i had and if you believe that any of the money that you were asked for by judge porteous when he was in difficult personal circumstances was in fact designed to influence him you would have told him no you would not given that money isn't that  length about the period of time when in which the issues of curators came up and i think what you've said is that you gave him money before and after the curator's is that right correct and that he asked for money without ever talking of course you made payments during the curator's correct and you made payments during the time he was giving you the curator's right and did he give you curator ships all the way up into the point he left the state bench you have the records i believe that he did and so you testified that he continued give you payments when the curator's ended he left the state but you have testified in answer to mr west questions that you gave him money before he even started send you and you continue giving him money when the curator and it the implication being you would have given him money regardless of i just want to follow up on a couple of questions of my colleagues my colleague mr goldman asked you if you are aware of other attorneys having told you that they gave money to the judge and you said that you we then made reference to judge testimony or prior statements i would like to follow up on my colleague's question what other turnings have told you that they have given money  anyone else with business before the bar in the bail bonds business attorneys private individuals have any other people told you that they have given judge porteous money earlier counsel asked you about your interview with the f b i and you stated there that there were certain things you did not tell the f b i in terms of your relationship with the judge the money gambling except for correct you did that because you didn't want to insure your friends chance of taking the federal bench correct correct i don't have the same problem here today and i know you have a friendship with a judge or testified about but i want to ask you once again are you aware of any other tourney than the ones you've mentioned that have either given been to where to your knowledge has ever been to mr modest home and do you know why mr motto your partner was brought into the little jailbird case only six weeks before trial bird that you knew nothing about six weeks before trial that's an answer that you want me to say yes i want you to give us the truth i'm trying to be truthful that may very well have been the reason why he was brought in maybe  whatever we would get money i was aware of that and during the pendency of this case where your firm stood to earn between half a million to million dollars the judge asked you for twenty difficult why couldn't you avoid him where would you see him when he asked you for  question is as a lawyer you had to go to the courthouse periodically whether you were in his court or not didn't you and as he was in the courthouse did it make it difficult for you to avoid him completely because your business took you to the same building question you said you were trying to avoid the judge because he kept hitting you up for money was it difficult to avoid the judge completely because you had to practice in the same courthouse it was because this was the court building but the court reporter in the transcript will reflect what cup you're pointing to for a building let me just ask you very simply did you did your work as a lawyer take you into the same building where judge port either had his chambers or the courtroom in which he  then go from his chambers to lunch d i don't believe any on our side have any additional questions of this witness subpoena and has previously been served with an immunity order that compels his truthful testimony of proceedings before the house i will now swear the witness mr malvo please raise your right hand i don't know if you're able to rise  you repeat after me do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to provide the committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of your knowledge information and belief tha ok in a nice loud voice please introduce yourself to the members of the panel ok when you just i'm sorry birds and was that shortly before trial was scheduled in that not that i know of that doesn't ring true because i know i worked on it for eighteen months two  years before it ever went to trial ok it turns out trial was postponed but you recall when you were first retained to or sorry first engaged your parents rather that that was just a few weeks before the of what the sides are asking for what did you really realistically expect to be the range of what you could have hoped to if if your client were successful in that case what that what was that work worth let me complete my thought or do you recall whether or not you made any disclosure to mr mole that while judge porteous was a state judge you and your partner had given him tens of thousands of dollars relevant to joseph and life marc yes and why is it that you did not make any such embarrassing for judge porteous correct and you were not about to say anything or make any disclosure which would have embarrassed him and your role as a judge on the federal bench correct that's correct  disclosure but in your mind were you staying silent because you were going to follow the lead of judge porter to see what he was willing to disclose or would disclose at the hearing  april of two thousand and that's the period that you've just testified that as part of your whole life you took him to restaurants that we've just mentioned correct right and oh by the way you've taken him to restaurants hundreds of times in your life fair ninety nine did you go on a fishing trip yes you reviewed your calendar in connection with your deposition and you recall that your calendar reflects that fishing trip to have been on the day i just imagine correct pretty sure that's a da now if it came up in the context of a discussion of whether he'd received campaign contributions what it had been for him to say that he'd not gotten money except in one thousand nine hundred four and not disclose lawyers in light of the fact that he'd been receiving thousands of dollars from you wasn't that a misleading statement with your opposing counsel for suggesting that you had given him money that in fact went for a different program at the same time had in fact received thousands of dollars from you wouldn't be misleading the court not to reveal that and wouldn't be misleading the court to take issue with counsel for not doing their homework when the court did not disclose that they had received thousands of dollars from y the judge also said during that hearing i have always taken the position that if there was ever any question in my mind that this court that i would notify counsel and give them the opportunity if they wanted to ask me to get off given the fact that he did not notify counsel and did not give them the opportunity to ask him to get off of that a misleading statement by the judge other attorneys tell you that either they were asked for cash or they know of other parties who gave money to the judge in discussing the curatorship a couple times you made reference you said the judge would ask for some of that money referring to the curator ship money was there ever any doubt in your mind that what the judge was asking come your house in terms of the amounts of cash that you and mr crilly provided to the judge you said you thought it was a neighborhood of ten to twenty thousand is that right and with that have been individually or between the two of you ten to twenty thousand indicated that the amount of the curatorship overtime approximated forty thousand indicate to you more accurately how much you think you would have given the judge over time between the two  you mentioned i think you didn't like having to make these payments you weren't strong enough to say no and in part because you thought it would break up your partnership with mr why do you feel would have broken up the the amount you had to pay back the judge because as you indicated earlier that's a violation of louisiana law to be paying the judge that's probably right and why why would you have to i know you didn't report it but you said you didn't want you were worried that if you didn't make the payments you would have to break up your partnership and if you broke up your partnership you'd have to report that relationship in those payments with the judge to  the wrong thing to make those payments to the judge at the time the payments were being made now when you were hired for the case what type of illegal practice did you in the two years that you had worked on this you didn't take any new business you basically sacrifice what could have been work that would have developed give or take three hundred thousand dollars if you amortized over your career it comes to more than a couple of thousand dollars a month so what you gave him was was i mean a week i mean you gave him was a week's salary at on the low and did you ask him if he was having a problem i couldn't afford a  probably a combination and if you had to kind of do a weighted verdict what percentage would you give the judgment you were looking toward money and you didn't give other people money you said there were three reasons and what i was you felt sorry for him and what he was your friend and the other was he had this case before him which meant a lot to your financial future now sometimes in damages you can apportion damages and you can give a certain percentage on each one and everybody takes a portion percentage there are negatives in comparative negligence compared to part of that factor would you allocate to the judges being the determiner of your financial fate well seventy percent eighty percent probably i think the facts speak for themselves it sounds like the that the  chairman i just have a few questions after the trial was concluded and while a decision was pending did judge porteous ever solicit a cash contribution from  for his wedding yes were there any other solicitations related to the wedding or a bachelor party during this period not that i'm not f find that an erroneous decision by them or erroneous conclusion by that where they say the district court finding of a conspiracy to wrest control of the hospital medical office building from the very enterpris where they say the idea that mark deliberately subordinated mortgage interest to travelers knowing it would result in a required payment to wait approximately seven point eight million dollars to travelers at any comes close to be nonsensical you find that  law and your ability in federal court y the curatorship and they asked you how much and you said it was never an amount that was astonishing it was always a couple thousand  we've had testimony about  during the pendency of the federal case do you recall mr model i'll try to work through this quickly i know you've been up here a long time first i think i just want to clarify your testimony has been clear that there was only a single time the judge porteous ever asked you for cash money and involved in them in an attempt to determine whether you thought you could bring back a judgment is that a fair and so in this particular case you made a comment about looking at the looking at the records the work that you did in that regard you throughout your career judge to do the right thing like your relationship ever made a difference when you were in his court in terms of the way he would eventually rule now you've talked about the motion and that was filed in october of ninety six that sound about right you were brought in about a month before that does that sound about right i don't know  apparently what happened you were brought in by lawyers who were already working on the case correct and one of those lawyers was and he remained involved in the case through the trial  that he was insistent that would not delay any longer but it would get to trial and resolution now you've also indicated that your sense of the facts was that the little birds had been victims of life is that we're dealing here with a major national corporation is that correct and it was basically kind of health care is that right and they're the same company that entered into a nine hundred million dollars settlement with the federal government within the last several years  you stated during your testimony that there was never a doubt in your mind that once the curator started the money that the judge was asking for was coming out of the curatorship is that  right was that based on conversations you had with mr crilly this clearly made it plain those conversations that the judge was calling and he wanted the money from the creatorship and you remember that distinctly question that there were several reasons why when the judge for money during the fishing trip that you gave it to him you mentioned it was part friendship it was part of feeling sorry for him and you mentioned it was part judge about the little job and you said something very interesting you said that the judge told you you better prove your facts because otherwise the fifth circuit will take away take it away is that what the judge told a conversation with a judge i appreciate your feeling about the merits of the case but i just will make sure that we have this accurately what the judge told you was not that you had to prove the case for his benefit but you needed to y to overturn the decision and when you asked him how is the judgment coming this was at a time when that had been under submission for some time  like i don't think the relationship of a an attorney representing a client before a judge is the same as how are you going to vote you know election you didn't feel you had any obligation to disclose to opposing counsel that and finally you used the word unfriendly use the word unfriendly that you thought you had a good chance to prevail in the case because the judge was not in fr simile you mentioned that you thought maybe one of the reasons why you were brought into the case was because of the wide knowledge that you had a friendship with the judge part of that friendship prove your case and you characterized his message to you i'm not saying these are his words you characterize his message as you're not getting a gift how do you come to have a conversation with him where you would send a message you not getting if you have to prove your case he said you better prove your case for the circuit is going to take it away from you what do you think he meant by  you better prove your case for the fifth circuit is going to take away from you how could he know that in advance what he really is going to be going to take it away from him that he was giving you a judgement but you better have enough evidence to sustain it or they would take it away lawyer understands that what a judge expects from well that's a good standard for a judge to have for himself why would he be setting the standard for the fifth circuit rather than for himself reputation for doing the right thing and you said always is that what you thought when you were worried about breaking up your partnership because you were engaged in a kickback scheme with the judge and he was sending ships over and you were getting this work for your partner was getting this work and you were the two of you sending money from the law firm to the judge was he doing the right thing then what did and as a judge he was he was making the decision about who got the curatorship is that not correct yeah right but i mean you saying that he had a different standard for himself on the state court than he had on the federal court you saying he did have a different standard than you did have a different standard in the state court than he did in the federal court why would you expect that because i know the man but you know the man took legal proceedings gave them to your law firm with the expectation that your law firm would provide him with cold hard cash that he could use for whatever purpose was going to the court was going to be his own benefit and that would be what you knew about him before he moved to the federal court now in the federal court he says you better prove you not or i'll overturn or our rule against you he said you better prove your case or the circuit is going to take it away as if to say you better make me look good with the evidence you produce when i rule in your favor because otherwise and is that is that right that your understanding is that he was going to move this case along with the case it already been pending for eight months before you came in it didn't  it didn't go to trial in point of fact until the following june another nine months after it was originally scheduled and then a decision was not rendered for nearly three years after that the cash payment that what's made by you and your partner but also a number of other benefits in terms of trips and dinners and so on all going on for  period of almost three years after after he'd heard the evidence in the case that he wasn't trying to move this case along swiftly apparently and in the meantime at some point you don't remember when but some but you don't think that he was suggesting to you that you better give him a good basis for making the decision as opposed to simply telling you that he was going to try this fairly and honestly being fair and always doing the right thing correct he wasn't either fair or doing the right thing during the hearing was  a misleading statements that i read to you earlier that was neither fair the right thing for him to leave the parties to believe that he had no cash relationship with the lawyers in the case was it and by failing to inform the opposing party that he'd received cash from you over the years didn't the judge deprive that party of and if they have a legitimate basis to make a motion to recuse or to appeal the denial of a motion to an appellate court don't they have the right to expect the judge will be truthful in presenting the facts be the basis of that motion to recuse and were deprived of that when judge failed to inform the parties that he had received cash from lawyers in the case