hp wo ens comieserehretieve?_

6010

abandoning the rule of law been known before his confirmation, the Senate would not have accepted his promise that he
‘would simply follow the law. His job at the Justice Department was akin to a judicial role in which he was supposed to
‘advise the President on what the law was, not what the President wanted it te be. Mr. Bybee distorted the law to conclude
what he wanted to conclude and give the President unchecked authority to authorize barbaric acts.

‘The record of Mr. Bybee should give us all pause in considering Mr. Nahmias’ nomination today. That record demonstrates
that when we confirm individuals in this Administration wna do not candidly describe their role in considering crucial legal
Issues we take too great a risk. New information has come to light since Mr. Bybee's confirmation - information that the
nominee failed to disclose to the Senate during his consideration - that should serve as a lesson to us as we consider the
nomination of David Nahmias.

We are asked to consider the nomination of David Nahmias to serve as a U.S, Attorney in Georgia. Mr. Nahmias has held
‘senior positions at the Department of Justice and unequivocally supported broad executive power in the war on terror -
positions that the Supreme Court has soundly rejected. At the Department of Justice, he has worked on the legal
tunderpinnings of the President's war against terror and given speeches about enemy combatants and the applicability of
the Geneva Conventions, among other issues.

In speeches, he has unequivocally supported the President's authority as Commander in Chief to designate and detain
suspected terrorists, including American citizens, as enemy combatants without judicial review by an Article I court. In
the case of the American citizens detained as enemy combatants, he argued that there was no reason for judicial review
‘of their detentions because they, "received the absolute ultimate executive branch process," because the “President of
the United States, operating as the Commander-in-Chief, personally reviewed their cases, and personally designated
them as enemy combatants.” The Supreme Court strongly rejected this position this year and held that the detainees in
Guantanamo Bay and U.S. citizens being held as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detentions in federat
courts

Mr. Nahmias has also made other troubling comments - such as saying that having hearings for enemy combatants would
tundermine national security; and that what is "unusual about the military commissions” is “the amount of procedural
protection that's being offered in those commissions compared to the way they work historically and in other parts of the
wortd."

asked Mr, Nahmias questions about his views on the rights of enemy combatants, his role in investigating, approving, or
otherwise reviewing rules, procedures, or guidelines involving the interrogation of individuals held in the custody of the
US. government or an agent of the U'S. government, and his role in the prosecution of domestic terrorism cases. His
original answers were largely non-responsive, despite the number of words used, and I sent him further questions to
Clarify his record and views. Again, he failed £0 provide complete responses.

For example, 1 asked him about his role in the development or review of advice from the Office of Legal Counsel on the
Interrogation of detainees, a serious and important issue to this Senate and the American people. As we all now know,
Mr, Bybee's torture memo was written during Mr. Nahmias’ tenure at the Department. This memo redefined torture to
allow all sorts of brutal treatment (such as mock burial alive, simulated drowning, electrocution, tearing off of fingernails,
{and other such barbaric treatment) 50 long a5 the pain caused is not akin to organ failure, and Concluded that, as
‘commander in chief in the war against terror, the President and federal agents are not constrained by anti-terror laws.

Before confirming Mr. Nahmias to this important appointment, Senators should know what role he played in the
development of this policy. We should know what role he continues to play in these matters. This is an area where
bipartisan leaders and attorneys have called for increased Senate oversight and action. Unfortunately, however, Mr.
Nahmias decided to give us as limited information as possible while on its face appearing to answer the question. He do
not thoroughly describe his communications with OLC, the nature of his work, or what he was asked to do. Instead, he
writes, “While T have participated in portions of that internal deliberative process {related to the interrogation of
detainees}, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail about my involvement in the process.”

U.S, Attorneys serve as the nation’s lead prosecutors and conduct most of the work in which the United States is a party
‘and should not be selected merely on the basis of partisan loyalty. Mr. Bybee’s nomination reminds us of the importance
of careful review, and tells us something about the sort of individuals President Bush Is selecting. In his case - and the
case of some of the other 200 nominees confirmed for President Bush - the Senate has perhaps acted too promptly to
Confirm nominees with questions remaining in their records

Despite two rounds of questions, I still do not know the full extent of Mr. Nahmias's role in the review of interrogation
procedures for detainees, and whether he worked to sanction cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, or assisted in the
distortion of the rule of law to give the President unlimited authority. For this reason, I cannot support his nomination
today.

LOAD-DATE: January 25, 2005

‘Scurce: News & Business > Combined Sources > News, Ail (English, FullText)
“Terms "Sen, Leahy Issues Slaterent on Nomination of Davia Nahmias” (Et Search| Suaues! Terme fr My Search | Eeedhack on Your Search)

21028:39ea340e428MT00b | TEIGUSSBesve-Néeform-searchFormB_fimisr-FULLRdocaum=1& 8/31/2010

DEFO2462


5840

26 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

As applied, it hasn’t expanded the law greatly, but as a result, we have
this shorter laundry list than the District of Massachusetts, with largely the
same kind of criteria. The debtor has one asset, few unsecured creditors and
their claims are small in relation to the mortgage, few employees, foreclosure
action, essentially a two-party dispute which is pending in the state court and
the timing evidences an intent to delay or frustrate the creditors.

It’s interesting, because the older 11th Circuit authority cases, such as
In re Natural Land Corporation involved the "new debtor syndrome” and
I think the whole concept of bad faith came about in these new debtor cases
that were really egregious, but in the I Ith Circuit it is now argued and applied
in the typical single asset real estate case.

‘As far as how it’s applied, though, in this type of test, most of the
judges, with varying degrees of flexibility, still look at the feasibility of
reorganization as a very important factor. You find, for example, that Judge
Paskay dismisses a lot on bad faith grounds, but also has published cases
where he has denied bad faith motions or stay relief motions at the outset
because there is some possibility of reorganization.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: That brings in an interesting question.
In a lot of instances when you go through the checklist, you will find many of
the factors are satisfied, but that there’s a smell somewhere that the debtor has
got something to work with. Do you all do anything to manage those cases
like requiring, for instance, a capital infusion prior to the time of the
disclosure statement hearing, in order to assess — condition the case on proof
of some sort of viability? If, indeed, the main argument is this debtor is a
dead duck and it won’t work, do you say to the debtor or its principals, I am
going to find this, unless you can disprove it by coming up with the money to
make the deferred improvements or to meet the deferred maintenance costs in
the form of a deposit. Do you ever do anything like that?

PROF. GROSS: There is another way of asking that question.
How much time do you give a debtor to make the showing that it is feasible
that it will file a plan? For me, one of the differences between the good faith
standard in the plan context and the implied good faith standard is that of
timing. The issue ostensibly comes up later in the plan context but with
implied good faith, the issue comes up right on filing. So, there is a critical
timing issue in determining good faith.

TM Natural Land Corp. v. Baker Farms, (In re Natural Land Corp.), 825 F.2d 296 (11th Cir. 1987),

HeinOnline ~ 1 Arn. Bankr. Inst L. Rev. 26 1993

DEF02273


6039

L Levstexsstttoant sr ect ete sono eo
Tecarch esearch Tasks¥ Get a Document © shepordy® Tales ota utigatr Transactional Advisor counsel StectorY oss |

Pocus Tans Vert hoomin 721 Yom Get Covinad mde Sec tn Ong ient(1-5) 5 I Asn

‘Soue: Neus & Susinees > Combined Sources > News, All English, FullText) >
“Terns: "Bell Wins Approval in 75-21 Vote; Bellis Confmed as Attomey General; Attomey General May Face Clash on Ousting Kelley” (sit
‘Seam | Suncast Terms for My Seach | Feedback on Your Sears)

Bell Wins Approval in 75-24 Vote;Bell Is Confirmed as Attorney General;attorney General May Face Giash On Ousting
Kelley The Washington Post January 26, 1977, Wednesday, Final Edition

Copyright 1977 The Washington Post
The Washington Post

January 26, 1977, Wednesday, inal Edition
SECTION: First Section; At

LENGTH: 1278 words

HEADLINE: Bell Wins Approval in 75-24 Vote;

Bell Is Confirmed as Attorney General;
‘Attorney General May Face Clash On Ousting Kelley

BYLINE: By Spencer Rich and John M. Goshko, Washington Post Staff Writers

BODY:
Griffin B. Bell won confirmation as Attorney General from a divided Senate yesterday, only to find himself facing a
Sensitive new problem ~ a possible clash with FBI Director Clarence M. Kelley over Kelley's departure from the FBI

‘The potential confrontation was precipitated by Kelley, who sent Bell a letter stating that he does not intend to retire as
FBI director until Jan. 1, 1978. That ran directly counter to the widespread impression that Bell and President Carter want
to put thelr own man at the head of the embattled FBI at a much earller date.

‘The problem with Kelley surfaced as the Senate confirmed Bell by a vote of 75 to 21. The approval came only after a
heated debate in which some senators blasted Bell's civil rights record, challenged his judicial ethics and raked over his,
appointment as an act of political cronyism by Carter.

With the confirmation of Bell and the swearing in yesterday of Joseph A. Califano Jr. as Secretary of Health, Education
and Welfare, 10 of Carter's 11 Cabinet nominees have been approved. The last, F. Ray Marshall of Texas, is expected to
be confirmed as Secretary of Labor by the Senate today.

Bell, a 58-year-old Atlanta lawyer and former federal appeals court judge, was the most controversial of the Cabinet
choices - @ fact underscored by the substantial number of votes against him yesterday.

His nomination was vigorously opposed by several civil rights groups, and their charges were echoed by the two
Republican senators, Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (Pd.) and Edward W. Brooke (Mass.), who led the assault on Bellin
yesterday's debate

They sald they opposed Bell because he had been an adviser to former Georgia Gov. Ernest Vandiver during that state's
“massive resistance” to schoo! desegregation in the late 1950s; because his decisions as an appeals court judge from
1962 to 1976 had an allegedly ant-civil rights cast, and because he had upheld the attempt to bar Julian Bond, a black,
from the Georgia legislature for anti-war statements.

“They also criticized him for failing to disclose for six years that he had received free memberships in two Atlanta clubs
that exclude blacks and other minorities, for falling to disqualify himself from a 1976 case involving a similar cub, and for
failing to excuse himself from ruling on 2 1963 Georgia desegregation case, although he had advised state officials on the
Issues in that case before becoming a judge.

While these charges were ebing rehashed on the Senate floor, Bel's position as the Carter administration's biggest
‘magnet for controversy received a boost from another quarter - revelation of the letter from Kelle.

Autharitative-sources said last night that Kelley, in setting next Jan. 1 as the time for his retirement, has acted on his own
Initiative without consulting Bell. Kelley's alm, the sources said, was to tell Bell of his intentions; and, some sources
‘added, put the new Attorney General on notice that he will resist efforts to remove him from the FBT directorship before
that time.

{ta comesearehetive?_r9e901 eset 99THG Bese AOdfecb csvc~bléecformesearchForm& fost FULLAdoemumn=14e__._ 8/31/2010
DEFO2491

PORT Exhibit 1127


5904
child; absent special circumstances a friendly relationship does not require automatic
disqualification).
In a misconduct case alleging that a judge was improperly influenced because of
the judge’s friendship with a United States Senator, it was aptly stated about the judge’s
personal relationships with the Senator and within the community at large:

By itself, the judge’s friendship with the Senator poses an insufficient
incentive for wrongdoing to lead a reasonable observer to doubt the judge’s
impartiality. Reasonable observers understand that federal judges may in
the course of their lives have established friendships with those serving in
other branches of government; reasonable observers also presume that
federal judges, like the vast majority of unelected public officials, are able
to disregard the political views of their friends and carry out their
responsibilities in a fair and impartial manner. See United States v. Jordan,
49 F.3d 152, 157-59 & n.6 (5" Cir. 1995)(friendship between a judge and a
person with an interest in the case does not necessarily result in an
appearance of impropriety); United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1537-
38 (7" Cir. 1985)(an ordinary friendship between judge and lawyer
appearing in case does not create an appearance of impropriety).

In the Matter of a Charge of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, 85 F.3d 701, 707 (Judicial
Council of the District of Columbia Circuit, 1996)(Tatel, J., concurring).

Allegations of delay in an individual case are also not cognizable in judicial
misconduct proceedings, absent truly extraordinary circumstances, because remedies exist
using the normal judicial processes. In re: Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 593 F.2d 879
(9" Cir. Judicial Council 1979). The type of circumstances in which delay in a single
case might be considered in a misconduct proceeding are discussed in the Commentary to

Rule 1, Rul the Judicial Council of the Third Circuit Goveming Complaints

DEF02350


5806

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Eastem District of Louisiana
Ine: Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmella A. Porteous CavetNo, 01-2383 Section “A”
436-64-1306 434-78-3002 Chapter 43,

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL AFFAIRS

1. Income from employment or operation of business

None _State the gross amount of income the dabtor has received from employment, trade, or profession, or from
iors business from the beginning of this calendar year to the date this case was
mounts received during the two years immediately preceding this

yr has maintained, financial records on the basis ofa fiscal rather
"year may report fiscal year income. Identity the beginning and ending dates of the debtor's
fiscal year.) Ife joint petition is fled, state income for each spouse separately. (Married debtors fling under
chapter 12 or chapter 13 must state income of both spouses whether or nota jint petition is fled, unless the
spouses are separated and a joint petition isnot filed.)

AMONT SOURCE
148,450.00 Joint Gross income
146,709.00 Joint Gross Income
35,325.00 Joint Gross income 2001

2. Income other than from empiayment or operation of business.

income received by the debtor other than from employment, trade,
profession, or operation of the debtor's business during the two yeare immediately preceding tho
‘commencement of this case. Give particulars. Ifa joint petton Is filed, state income for each
‘spouse separately, (Married debtors fling under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must state income for
each spouse whether or note joint petition is filed, untess the spouses are separated and a joint
pettion is not fled.)

3. Payments to creditors

None _@,_Listal payments on loans, installment purchases of goods or services, and other dabts,
ceggragating more then $600 to any creditor, made within 90 days immediately preceding the
‘commencement of this case, (Married debtors fling under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must include
peyments by elther or bath spouses whether or nota join petton is filed, unless the spouses are
ssepersted and a joint petition isnot fied.)

DATES OF ‘avout AMOUNT
NAME AND ADORESS OF CREDITOR PAYMENTS PAD STULOWNE
Normal installments

None __b._Listell payments made within one year immediately preceding the commencement ofthis case

EI to or for the beneft of eredtors who ere or were insiders. (Merried debtors filing under chapter 12
‘or chapter 13 must include paymé ither or bath spouses whether or not a joint petition is
filed, unless tre spouses are Seperated end a joint petition is not fied.)

4, Suits and administrative proceedings, executions, garnishments and attachments

‘2. List all suts end edministrave proceedings to which the dabtor is or was @ party within one yeer
mediately preceding the fling ofthis bankruptcy case. (Merried debtors filng under chapter 12 oF
chapter 13 must include information concerning elther or Both spouses whether or nat a joint petition is
filed, unless the spouses are separated end a join petition isnot fied.)

DEF01942


5935

FILED

JUDICIAL COUNCIL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 2.9 1998
In Complaint of Judicial Misconduct

No. 97-80629 SATHY A catrenson,
° Us. 00uRT Or appa

Report and Recommendation of the Special Investigative Committee

This report is submitted to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Judicial Circuit
by the Special Investigative Committee appointed by the Chief Judge to investigate the claim
of judicial misconduct filed against District Judge James Ware of the Northern District of
California, The Report is made pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) and the Rules
of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or
Disability. This Committee recommends that the Judicial Council publicly censure and
reprimand Judge James Ware for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the courts. The procedural history of this
complaint and the events leading to it are set forth in Part I, below; the findings of this
Committee are set forth in Part II and the reasons for the Committee's recommendations are
set forth in Part IH.

L

This investigation was initiated when the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit
entered an order on November 25, 1997, identifying a complaint of judicial misconduct.

The order recited that the basis for the complaint against Judge Ware was “his recent
admission that he had falsely misrepresented in numerous speeches and interviews that he was
the James Ware whose younger brother, Virgil, was shot and killed in 1963 while both were

riding a bicycle in Birmingham, Alabama.”

DEF02381


5930

Among the notes reviewed by the Committee were the following:

(1) "Old shoeless Jesse is going to argue — Hey that was signed after I was hired —
So how can I be bound —That’s Nancy’s bias, too But — all of his claim re [unknown] is evidence
by what he heard after he came to work, too!”

(2) "Ah is im po tent!"

(3) [Deputy] "He's been a con man for a long time! [Judge] Yes and in my
experience, a Mormon money man makes the Jews & Chinese look like rank amateurs!

[Deputy] That doesn’t sound right to me— [Judge] Mormons never cheat steal lie or use birth
control (my daughter Sara went to Ricks College too!"

(4) "Guys in Black suits are union mafia

Don’t they look like gangsters
why would any" ~

(5) "Wm. Powell looks like a cadaver with his eyes open! He needs some sun (or
gin!)"

(6) [Judge] "Rice (as in Rice Aroni) tells Nancy that his rebuttal will take us into
next week at least most of Monday! If so we certainly are going to quit at noon tomorrow.
[Deputy] Why didn’t he tell us that yesterday in chambers?? [Judge] Because he is a devious
little bastard."

‘The circumstances of these notes, and the notes themselves, were carefully
reviewed by the Committee with Judge McDonald and counsel, his former court reporter and
counsel, his former courtroom deputy, and lawyers who appeared before Judge McDonald.
Regarding the “old Shoeless Jesse" reference, Judge McDonald was quite confident that this note
was written to himself. The plaintiff in that case was an African American named Jesse Jackson.
Judge McDonald said the reference was not to race, but rather to the white baseball player
Shoeless Joe Jackson. The note stating "Ah is Im potent" was written by Judge McDonald
during or immediately following testimony by an African American witness. There is some
dispute as whether this note was written to himself or passed to the courtroom deputy. Judge

McDonald stated that it was a reference to himself, and one that he frequently made in a self-

4

DEF02376


5779

(Ommetal For 1) (6497)

joluntary Petition ‘Nun of edit FORMBI, Page?
(Phe page mat be completed ard fled in every cote) G.T. Ortous
CA. Ortous
Prior Bankruptcy Case Filed Within Last 6 Years (If more than ope, attach additional sheet)

‘Where Fets NONE
‘Pending Bankruptcy Cave Filed by any Spoute, Partner or Affiliate ofthis Debtor (If more than one, attach additional sheet)

Toxion [ Con Name Dae Fine

rs Gor Rob Danie
NONE
Dae Tsai Tele
Signatures
‘Signature(s) of Debtor(s) (Individual Jolaty ‘Signs seo Deer Capea e

1 cae under pena on prove in
ote aes a tenn et as peten
Sacha he det.

Paterna ihe hp oe, ad
oe Spe ints pao,

1x Not Applicable
Siar f Authorized Tava

Ftd Nama of Antiorbed aida

Taal

Dae

‘Sigostare of Non-Attorney Petition Preparer
Legit ans pn pus eind US § 0,

Claude C. Lightfoot, Jd, LA 17989

‘Rasted Name of Attorry for Detar) Bar No Sempiate
“ne ” o Printed Name of Bankruptcy Petition Preparer
laude © Lightfoot, J.P.
fenton =
3S00 N. Causeway Biv. Suite 450 Semone
aes
‘Metsirie, LA 70002 “ie
(609 6989571 (ion 500 998857 amet Sol Sey mabe a ria we prop
ress Sihatlaenene dere
-2b¢
oa
stmt ne enc pred hi doce ach atin sheets
obec frist pn ace ‘Sloeg oh gop oil om arch pom.
{Ce erm es 10S a ae
Econ act els resng a oe tr) x Not Applicable
C2 Exhibit A is attached and made part ofthis petition. ‘Signature of Bankruptcy Petison Preparer

DEFO1915


5900
I
The judicial misconduct statute provides a remedy if a federal judicial officer, “has
engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the
business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). A Chief Judge may dismiss a complaint
brought under the statute if, after review, he finds that it is not cognizable under the
statute, is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or is legally

frivolous or lacks sufficient evidence to raise an inference of misconduct. 28 U.S.C. §

352(b)(1)(ANG:
Section 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(ii)), which provides
for dismissal of complaints related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling,
reflects Congress’ concern that a misconduct complaint not be used as vehicle by which
disappointed litigants may challenge judicial action or inaction occurring in the course of
litigation which is reviewable by appeal or mandamus.’ The Senate Report on 28 U.S.C.
§ 372(c) states, “It is important to point out what subsection (c) does not mean; it is not
designed to assist the disgruntled litigant who is unhappy with the result of a particular
case.” S. Rep. No. 362, 96" Cong,, 2d Sess. 8 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N.

4315, 4322.

> Effective November 2, 2002 the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 replaced the
former 28 U.S.C. § 372(c), which governed complaints of judicial misconduct or
disability, with 28 U.S.C. § 351, et seq. Although certain additions and minor changes
were made in regard to the complaint procedures, the substance of the former 28 U.S.C. §
372(c) remains intact.

DEF02346


5849

1993) ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 35

other things that Congress needs to spend its time doing besides worrying
about bankruptcy cases.

PROF. GROSS: One thing that this legislation would do is
that it would mean that it is not, per se, bad faith to file a single asset Chapter
11 real estate case.

JUDGE HILLMAN: It doesn’t say that at all.
PROF. GROSS: You don’t think so?
JUDGE HILLMAN: No.

PROF. GROSS: You think you could still raise the bad faith,
good faith debate if this proposed legislation were in place?

JUDGE HILLMAN: Certainly.

JUDGE FENNING: It’s clear from the legislative history
currently that it's not per se bad faith to file a single asset real estate case.
‘There’s discussion about contemplation of single asset real estate filings. It’s
not a per se situation, You have to have a whole list of different kinds of
factors even now.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I agree, you would have to question
the ability of many portions of section 365 if we were to get rid of single asset
teal estate cases.

JUDGE FENNING: I don’t think it would be a good idea to
get rid of single asset cases. They are a good check on the system in many
states that allow creditors to just jump the gun on foreclosures where it’s really
not warranted. I would not favor an elimination of single asset cases. It
would help, however, if there were clear standards about what constitutes
confirmability for a plan. Then debtors would not have to play Russian
Roulette on assignment of judges. Currently, the luck of the draw on judges
can determine case outcome: some judges would let the debtor confirm this
plan, but the next judge down the hall wouldn’t. I think that clear standards
for confirmability would simplify the single asset problem enormously and
reduce the litigation,

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 35 1993

DEF02282


6015

Proxmire confined his questioning of Miller today to economic matters, and did not bring up the Textron controversy.

“In this case it appears there was a cover-up by Textron when Nr. Miller was chairman, of a pattern of bribery, the SEC
hhas now disclosed,” Proxmire said.

‘Asked if he thought Miller ought to resign as Treasury secretary, Proxmire said, "No, no, that’s entirely up to the
president.” But he said Americans "should insist on integrity in the highest levels of government.”

Miter refused to answer reporters’ questions about the SEC sult as he entered the Senate Caucus Room for the economic
hearing.

‘The SEC says Miler knew when he headed Textron that the firm failed to disclose spending $600,000 to entertain Defense
Department officials between 1971 and 1978. Most of the money was spent on meais, the complaint sad.

‘Although such expenditures were not illegal in themselves, Pentagon officials operate under regulations prohibiting them
from being on the receiving end of such entertainment from potential defense contractors.

Moreover, federal law requires that such expenditures by publidly-held corporations be disclosed to stockholders.
It was the alleged failure to make that disclosure that prompted the SEC sult, fled Thursday in U.S. District Court.

White House press secretary Jody Powell, asked about Thursday's developments, said, "I'm not in a position to make a
definitive comment on this.”

‘A Justice Department official, who asked not to be named, said the department's criminal division has been reviewing the
‘Textron matter since It was referred by the Senate Banking Committee at the time of Miller's confirmation hearings in
1978 on his nomination to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

‘The offical said Miller is not a subject of that review, but that the department would obtain and review the SEC fling in.
the case.

Textron accepted a settlement in which it neither denies nor acknowledges guilt, but agrees to take various remedial
actions.

‘The same suit says Textron paid $5.4 million to forelgn officials in 10 countries to secure sales worth hundreds of millions
of dollars over an 8-year period. It said some of the funds were funneled through bank accounts in Switzerland and
Luxembourg.

‘The complaint cited payments -- Proxmire calls them "bribes" - to officials in tran, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates,
Ceylon, Morocco, Indonesia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ghana and Iraq.

‘Although many of the allegations involving foreign payments had been made previously, the SEC action fled Thursday
‘was the first mentioning a domestic slush fund.

‘The complaint sald “senior Textron officials and its chairman ... knew of this practice" and that "Textron entertainment
expenses were recorded on its books in a manner designed to conceal that Textron was entertaining U.S. government
personnel.”

‘The SEC did not link Miller by name to any of the payments or allege that he lied about the foreign payments, some of
which came up during his confirmation hearings to head the Federal Reserve Board, a post he held until being appointed
treasury secretary last year,

In testimony at that time, Miller said he knew of no improper foreign payments made by Textron or any subsidiary. The
matter of entertainment funds for U.S. government offiais did not come up,

Miller was chief executive officer of Textron from 1968 through 1974 and chairman and chief executive officer from then
until being appointed to the Fed post in 1978 by Carter.

Sowoe: News & Susines > Combined Souces > News, All English, FullText)
‘Terms "Lawrence L. Knutson” and "g. willam miller” (Eat Search| Suguest Terms for My Search)

‘View.
Dote/Time: Tuvsday, August 31, 2010-659 PM EDT

: Deum rob | oe Zta saat Lansachonal Advan | Counsel Selector
Sanh esearch Tasks | i Pe hs | att ces canara Con Sela

omiesearcukeneve?ec=B-pushme=| ling BSelnall&totldo

JaggedDoce-dtopsleValteRnumnDacsChkedsORgre TDS, 8/31/2010
DEF02467


5933

JUDICIAL COUNCIL F] L E D

AUG -
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ? 1998
ome Co SATERSON Cure
OF APPEALS
In re Charge of ) No. 97-80629
) ORDER AND
Judicial Misconduct ) MEMORANDUM
)

ee |
Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER, THOMPSON, NELSON, and

SILVERMAN, ' Circuit Judges; LODGE and HOGAN, Chief

District Judges; and KEEP and EZRA, District Judges.

On November 25, 1997, a complaint of judicial misconduct was
identified by the Chief Judge against District Judge James Ware. Administrative
consideration of such complaints is governed by the Rules of the Judicial Council
of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability
(Misconduct Rules), issued pursuant to the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. 28 U.S.C. § 372(c).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(4)(A) and Rule 4(e), the Chief
Judge appointed a special committee to investigate press reports that Judge Ware
publicly misrepresented himself as the James Ware whose younger brother,
Virgil, was shot and killed in 1963 while both were riding a bicycle in
Birmingham, Alabama. This matter comes before the Council upon the filing of

the Special Investigative Committee’s report.

‘Sitting in lieu of Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
DEF02379

PORT Exhibit 1111 (k)


5860

U.S. Department of Justice
Criminal Division

Washington, B.C. 20850

April 13, 2004

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
S. J. Beaulieu, Jr.

433 Metairie Rd., Suite 307
Metairie, LA 70005

‘Dear Mr. Beaulieu:

‘We are writing with regard to an April 1, 2004, letter from your staff attomey, Michael F.
‘Adoue, to FBI Special Agent DeWayne Homer, which Agent Homer has forwarded to us. We
appreciate you sharing your thoughts and concerns.

As we previously discussed, we cannot comment on the existence or nature of an ongoing
investigation or share any evidence that may have been gathered in the course of such an investigation.
In Mr. Adoue’s letter, he identifies several subjects about which it might be possible for you to make
inquiries or take other investigative steps, but, as we stated previously, we take no position as to
whether you should pursue any investigation in any case before you. It is entirely at your discretion
whether you choose to do so. Please feel free to contact us with any additional questions.

Sincerely yours,

Noel L. Hillman
Chief, Public Integrity Section

» AB

Noah D. Bookbinder
Daniel A. Petalas

Trial Atiomeys

Public Integrity Section
Criminal Division
(202) 514-1412

cc: Special Agent DeWayne Homer, FBI

NDBjw

‘Typed: 04/13/04 (by NDB)

Records Section Chron. $c00420
Bookbinder(1) _—Petalas (1) ACTS# 200000436

DEF02303
PORT Exhibit 1109


6049

96 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

significant efforts were made, beginning in the 1960s, to develop alternatives
to money bail, and four states—Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, and Wisconsin—
have outlawed commercial bail altogether.

In place of commercial bail, Illinois introduced the Illinois Ten Percent
Cash Bail or “deposit bond” system. In a deposit bond system, the defendant
is required to post with the court an amount up to 10 percent of the face
value of the bond. If the defendant fails to appear, the deposit may be lost
and the defendant held liable for the full value of the bond. If the defendant
appears for trial, the deposit is returned to the defendant, less a small service
fee in some cases.” Some counties will also release defendants on unsecured
bonds. Unsecured bonds are equivalent to zero-percent deposit bonds. That
is, defendants released on an unsecured bond are liable for the full bail amount
if they fail to appear, but they need not post anything to be released.

The pretrial release system is designed to ensure that defendants appear
in court. It is often asserted that the commercial bail system discourages
appearance. In a key Supreme Court case, for example, Justice Douglas
argued that “the commercial bail system failed to provide an incentive to
the defendant to comply with the terms of the bond. Whether or not he
appeared at trial, the defendant was unable to recover the fee he had paid
to the bondsman. No refund is or was made by the professional surety to a
defendant for his routine compliance with the conditions of his bond.””?

Similarly, Jonathan Drimmer said, “Hiring a commercial bondsman re-
moves the incentive for the defendant to appear at trial.”"" John S. Goldkamp
and Michael R. Gottfredson suggest that the “use of the bondsman defeated
the rationale that defendants released on cash bail would have an incentive
to retum,”” and in their influential set of performance standards for pretrial
release, the National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies” said that under
commercial bail, “the defendant has no financial incentive to retum to
court.”"*

In light of the persistent criticism that surety bail encourages failure to
appear, itis pethaps surprising that the data consistently indicate that defen-
dants released via surety bond have lower FTA rates than defendants released
under other methods. Part of this might be explained by selection—FTA

‘mounts necessary to ensure equal PTA rates are not linear in wealth, then such rates can
‘enerate unequal rates of release across income classes,

* National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies, Performance Standards and Goals for
Pretrial Release (2d ed. 1998)

"© Schill v, Kuebel, 404 U.S. at 373.

"Jonathan Drimmer, When Man Hunts Man: The Rights and Duties of Bounty Hunters in
the American Criminal Justice System, 33 Hous. L. Rey. 731, 742 (1996).

TM John §. Goldkamp & Michael R. Gottfredson, Policy Guidelines for Bail: An Experiment
{in Court Reform 19 (1985).

See note 9 supra,

“See also Thomas, ed., supra note 7, at 13. Because of this issue, Thomas calls the surety
system “irrational.”

DEF02607


FORM BE (Oe Fo er 57)

5796

‘case No. _01-12383 Section “A”

Inve: Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmelta A. Porteous
esor

‘Won

SCHEDULE F - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS

Dl check baci debtor has ne crc holding urntcuted nog els reper on his Schade.

cro mae a0 be) ovecummsneunte |g

WALNG ANDRESS nD SAnDERATON FOR Ca Agus oF

Noto EP CODE ‘eeoaresumecre cri

i Settee Soha

es saTaeRTIOT © | 07-2000 Thaséa7
“American Exprse Centurion Bank creat card
Sune 002
hee, 60670-0002
rasan SavenootToaziea =| wo72300 aaa
Bank of Louuana Mastercard crt Card
Po. ox 6072
Mita LA 7000-8072
Jes Fontan i
Fenton & Fontana, LLC.
{ons Loyela Avenvo
New Oneane LA T0113
Tecan S4910414700R081 [Te] rer 2000 Tones
Chase Pstinum Mastercard creat card
Box s2060
Proeni, AZ 650722050
aro asosaTaoetcd Te} 72200 ror)
chibank Advantage credit card
po. Boxecen
‘re tanee, NV 88002408
rani aasoseosazeime "o87 200 mane
Cribank Advantage Creat care
7.0. Box 0000
‘he anes, NV 85162-4000

7 cana memes

> $68,483.50

DEFO1932


6011

View. Ful
DateTime. Tuesday, August 31, 2070-657 PM EDT

‘Sanh | Resourch Tavis | Seta Document | Sheowcts® | Ales | Total agate | Transactional Advisor | Counsel Selector
in alan Waener zat | Sch Cin PrefrereesSn Ou lp

Uw LowisNenis, peut uetins | Tams 8 conamions | contact vs
‘SSESaRRLE otc CSsatecnss Ste of Reed Eee Ie A ight erred

ip.www: lec comreserehretieve?_m-Se210239ea2fos28AOb]TeL649SResverBl&FormsearchFarm& fnistFULLAdoenum=1.. 8231/2010

DEFO2463


6054

BAIL JUMPING 101

from the marginal probabilities p'(x) and p"(x) estimated from a discrete-
choice model. In this case,

@

We use an ordered probit model (see further below) to generate propensity
scores.

It is important to emphasize that the propensity scores are not of direct
interest but rather are the metric by which members of the treated group are
matched to members of the “untreated” group (“differently” treated in our
context), After matching, and given the conditional independence assumption,
the treated and untreated groups can be analyzed as if treatment had been
assigned randomly. Thus, differences in mean FTA rates across matched
samples are estimates of the effect of treatment.

Less formally, matching on propensity scores can be understood as a
pragmatic method for balancing the covariates of the sample across the dif-
ferent treatments.” Note that the covariates that we care most about balancing
are those that affect the treatment outcome. Assume, for example, that X
influences treatment selection but does not independently influence treatment
outcome. If the goal of the selection model were to consistently estimate the
causes of treatment selection, we would want to include X in the model, but
it is not necessarily desirable to include it when the purpose is to create a
metric for use in matching A simple example occurs when X predicts
treatment exactly. Inclusion of X would defeat the goal of matching because
all propensity scores would be either zero or one. Similarly, we will include
model variables in the propensity score that may affect the treatment outcome
even if they do not casually affect treatment selection.

Elp"TM"(a)|p'(x), PTMG)) = E

IV. Data AND Descriptive Statistics

We use a data set compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau
of Justice Statistics called State Court Processing Statistics, for 1990, 1992,
1994, and 1996 (Inter-tniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research
[ICPSR] study 2038). We supplement these data with an earlier version of
the same collection, the National Pretrial Reporting Program, for 1988-89
(ICPSR study 9508). The data are a random sample of 1 month of felony
filings from approximately 40 jurisdictions, where the sample was designed
to represent the 75 most populous U.S. counties. The data contain detailed
information on arrest charges, criminal background of the defendant (for

» Dehejia & Wahba, supra note 4.
TM Boris Augurzky & Christoph M. Schisidt, The Propensity Score: A Means to an End
(Discussion Paper No. 271, IZA 2001).

DEF02612


6067

14 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

TABLE 4

EFvECT OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT VERSUS SURETY BOND ON FAILURE-TO-APPEAR AND
Fucrrive Rates (Conditional on Failure to Appear), 1988-96

(Own Recognizance
versus Deposit versus Cash versus
Surety Bond Surety Bond Surety Bond

2 (18) =16 44)
29) 435.7" BO)

[Treatment effect on failure-to-appear rates $7.8" (1.6)
‘Treatment effect on fugitive rates +148"* 23)

(Nore.—Individuals ‘rom states that have banned surety bonds are matched with similar individuals
releauod on surety band. Standard errors are in parealheses. The matching caliper is .000)
‘* Statistically significant at the greater than 1% level (two sided).

F. Comparison with Counties in States That Have
Banned Commercial Bail

Some states have banned commercial bail. It seems plausible that matching
can find two individuals who are comparable but for the fact that one in-
dividual could not have been assigned surety bail while the other could and
‘was assigned surety bail. Comparing these individuals gives us a measure
of what would happen if a county lifted its ban on commercial bail.*

Table 4 demonstrates that states that ban commercial bail pay a high price.
We estimate that FTA rates are 7-8 percentage points, or approximately 30
percent, higher for individuals released on deposit or own recognizance than
if the same individuals were released on surety bond.” As before, we find
that cash bond is about as effective as surety bond at controlling FTA rates.
The fugitive rate conditional on FTA is much higher under own recognizance,
deposit, or cash release than under surety—higher by some 15, 20, and 36
percentage points, or 78, 85, and 93 percent, respectively—figures even larger
than we found earlier.

VI. LookiNG FOR UNOBSERVABLE VARIABLES

Matching is a powerful and flexible tool, but it is not a research design
that magically guarantecs the identification of causal effects. In this section,
‘we test for robustness and attempt to Tule out the potentially confounding
effects of unobservable characteristics. We focus on two identification strat-

Since we are interested in the cross-county variation, the propensity scores for these tests
were generated from an ordered probit that did not include county fixed effects but was
otherwise identical to that used earlier

% Note that in Table 4, we examine the treatment effect of own recognizance, deposit, and
cash relative to surety because this is the relevant comparison when considering the experiment
Of lifting the ban on commercial bail. As noted earlier the treatment effect on the treated and
‘untreated groups are similar, so we could also have exarnined the surety treatment effect relative
to the altemalive release types.

DEF02625


5978

system" (1993 Annual Report, p. 6). The Judicial
Administrator of the Supreme Coury serves as the
administrative arm of both the Supreme Court and the
Judical Council,

‘The committees of the Judicial Council are staffed by
the Office of the Judicial Administrator of the Supreme
Court. A current project of the Judicial Council is
expected to "dramatically improve the management
information available to the Judicial Council and the
‘Supreme Court” (1993, p. 6). ‘The Case Management
Information System (CMIS) Project is on a "fast track"
to development of (1) a statewide court-based felony
disposition reporting system and (2) a master plan for an
automated case management system for all trial courts in
the state, The disposition reporting system is expected to
be in place by the end of 1994, with the master plan for
‘an integrated case management system to be developed
by the end of 1995. The CMIS project is being funded
by a one-dollar court cost on all felony, misdemeanor,
traffic, and ordinance convictions.

Coordinators
ice

‘The Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council (CICC) was created by councilmanic ordinance
‘in 1980 to coordinate crime control and criminal justice
activities in the parish (JP Code Div. 19, sect. 2-771.
The council is composed of 19 members and includes
citizens, representatives from community and
professional organizations, and the agency heads from
the criminal justice agencies in the parish, as well as the
parish president and the chairman of the parish council,
‘An executive committee directs the CIC. All members
serve during their term of office and without
compensation.

The CIC is responsible for coordinating the
activities of the public and private agencies involved in
the parish’s criminal justice system; mediating in
interagency conflicts when requested; recommending
policies and priorities for criminal justice activities;
‘conducting research on crime control programs and
‘monitoring and evaluating criminal justice programs,
advising local units of govemment in seeking all types of
revenue for the implementation of criminal justice
programs; and overseeing the parish courts’ case
‘management system.

16—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

The office has a staff of nine and had a budget of
$421,553 for 1993-1994. The office is supported both
by the parish and by money it receives for administering
various grant programs. The CJCC manages all federal
and state criminal justice grants received by thé parish,
currently amounting to approximately $640,000. These
cover juvenile justice, victim assistance, and anti-drug
abuse programs.

For the last thirteen years, the CJCC has been
involved in monitoring the jail population in the parish.
‘The emergency release program currently administered
by the sheriff was designed in cooperation with the
CIC staff. ‘This program has assisted the sheriff's
office in maintaining compliance with the federal court
order that mandates population limits and staffing
standards at the jail. The CJC has also assisted the
sheriff's office and the office of probation and parole in
developing and implementing the home incarceration
Program.

LCLE

The Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Criminal Justice (LCLE) was created
by Executive Order in 1967 and by statute in 1976 to
serve, among other functions, as the central planning and
coordinating agency for adult and juvenile correctional
systems. It consists of 51 members who represent
various professional associations or are appointed by the
‘governor or other elected officials. ‘Terms are concurrent
with the governor’s; and members, except for legislators,
serve without any compensation or reimbursement of
expenses.

There are eight law enforcement planning districts in
the state, each of which bas an advisory council. Until
1980, Jefferson Parish was part of the nine-parish New
Orleans metropolitan planning district. Now Jefferson
Parish comprises its own planning district, according to
the CIC.

Under the law establishing the LCLE, parish
governing bodies are authorized to create criminal justice
information system policy boards responsible for the
planning, establishment, and oversight of the criminal
Justice information system. No such poticy board has
been created in Jefferson Parish

DEFO2424


5909

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS y. 5, court OF APPEALS.

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FILED
FEB 2 6 2001
CHARLES f. FULBRUGE Ii
CLERK

Docket Number: 01-05-372-0034

MEMORANDUM

Complainant complains of actions taken by the subject United States District
Judge while he served on the state court bench, before his appointment to the federal
judiciary. She states that the judge should not have dismissed her two pro se civil suits,
should not have permitted an amendment to the pleadings in one suit, and should not
have granted a continuance in the other. She urges that the judge’s acts were
“prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the
courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 372(¢)(1).

Even if a judge’s pre-appointment conduct could be said to meet this statutory
standard so that it might be subject to review under § 372(0), this complaint would be
subject to dismissal under § 372(c)(3)(A)(li) because it relates directly to the merits of
the judge’s rulings.

Judicial misconduct proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) are not a substitute
for the normal appellate review process, nor may they be used to obtain reversal of a
decision or a new trial.

An order dismissing the complaint is entered simultaneously herewith.

Cs crcrctanee Lleee a) ae
Carolyn Dineen King

Chief Judge
February /7, 2001

DEF02355


5915

record ties her to plaintiffs’ counsel while this earlier case was pending before the
subject judge. Other than his bald assertion, complainant has provided no information
that the judge was aware of her working on any private matter or case outside of his
docket while in his employ, or had any information about her future employment plans.
This aspect of the complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
352(b)(1)(A) (iii).

Complainant also complains that the clerk was named liaison counsel for the PSC
so as to exert influence over the subject judge. Nothing in the record indicates that she
was appointed liaison counsel. He states that the judge “ordered” that the parties could
present ex parte comments to him concerning settlement which facilitated improper ex
parte communications. Such an order is not apparent from a review of the docket sheet,
which does reflect separate settlement discussions with defendants. Nevertheless, ex
parte communications in connection with settlement efforts are standard procedure for
mediators. Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct provides that a judge may, with the
consent of the parties, confer separately with the parties and their counsel in an effort to

mediate or settle pending matters.

In the context of the PSC’s motion to disqualify him, complainant issued a
subpoena for various documents, including those concerning ex parte communications
with the judge and the employment of his son.’ The PSC moved to quash, and the
subject judge referred the motion to another district judge. Complainant filed a petition
for writ of mandamus asking this court to vacate the referral order. In its order denying
the petition, our court wrote that it found no merit in complainant’s accusations.

' Complainant states in the complaint that his attorney submitted discovery requests, which
were referred to another district judge, in anticipation of filing a motion to recuse against the subject,
judge.

3.

DEF02364


6033

ssya01

s-corfnewslaticle/49218 pero24ss



5970

recommendations of the recent Governor's Task Force
on Homicide and Violent Crime.

To be evaluated by the "Code 6” criteria, a person
must have a minimum of five felony arrests and/or two
felony convictions. Number and recency of crimes of
violence and number of felony convictions are the most-
heavily-weighted Code 6 criteria. Others are the number
of different crime categories involved in the arrest, drug
arrest, juvenile felony arrest, arrest for a crime involving
a gun, and recent felony arrest.

Al individuals held in the parish jail must, under a
federal court order, appear before a judge or magistrate
for a bail hearing within 72 hours of being arrested.
Since 1991, the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court has
handled these hearings by having an appointed magistrate
hold court at the jail every weekday moming. For
persons charged with a crime carrying a possible
sentence of hard labor, a district court judge must set
bail; and district court judges rotate this responsibility on
a weekly basis.

Persons charged with misdemeanors, traffic offenses,
and code violations are unlikely to appear before the
‘magistrate because they are not brought to jai in the first
place. Such individuals are customarily given tickets or
citations to appear in court instead of being jailed. From
January through April 1994, the magistrate handled
1,822 arrestees at their initial court appearances. Of this
total, nearly 70 percent were repeat offenders. About 18
percent (325) had violated the terms of their probation or
parole, and nearly 50 percent (903) had a prior
conviction.

‘Who Is Released?

‘No current, comprehensive analysis is available that
indicates how many arrestees are released on bail or
some form of non-monetary, either supervised or
‘unsupervised, release, and with what types of crimes they
have been charged.

BGR researchers were given access to the sheriff's
"Bond Book,” a log used by the sheriff's office to record
who is let out of jail and the type of release of each
individual. ‘The "bond book" also contains various
identification numbers and other, sometimes incomplete
or improperly placed, information about an individual's
current criminal charge. Without reference to individual
case files, the bond book is not an adequate source of
information from which to analyze the release decisions

8—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

made by the sheriff and/or jail officials or to assess the
potential threat of those releases to the community or to

‘A sample of releases over the last 12 months revealed
that the majority (71 percent) of individuals released
from the jail were released virtually on their own
recognizance, that is, with no bail, no conditions, and no
supervision. Thirty-four percent of the releases were of
misdemeanants and traffic offenders, under a 1976
federal court order. Twenty-one percent were emergency
releases of misdemeanor or felony offenders made at the
discretion of the sheriff. Seventeen percent of the
releases were released on a personal bond undertaking
(PBU), in which arrestees are able to sign themselves out
of jail. Fifteen percent of those in the BGR sample were
released into third-party custody (personal bond surety
undertaking, or PSBU) and 12 percent were released on
8 commercial, cash, or property bond.

In 1987, 50 percent of those released on bond had
been released in effect on their own recognizance or on a
"personal bond undertaking," and 20 percent were
released to a third party. Twenty-seven percent were
released on commercial or cash bond, and three percent
‘were released on a property bond (Baiamonte, 1990, p.
3).

Emergency Release, Since April 1991, the sheriff
has operated an emergency release program under which
new artestees or individuals already being held on a
pretrial basis are released if they are regarded as less of
threat to the community than other new arrestees. About
45 inmates per week have been released under this
program. Between April 1991 and August 1994, 8,754
individuals were released by the sheriff. About 6,800
were released immediately after booking, and almost
2,000 were released because of the need to accommodate
‘more dangerous defendants. As of May 1994, personne!
in the Detective Bureau of the Jefferson Parish Sherif?’
Office administered the emergency release program.
Prior to that time, this function had been performed by a
jail population control officer at the correctional center.

"Good Time." In addition to those inmates released
under the sheriff's emergency release program, others are
released early by means of the sheriff's "good time”
policy. This practice, optional under state law, is the
granting by the sheriff of a reduction in sentence to
nates who eam such a reduction through work. Only
those inmates with acceptable disciplinary records are
eligible to eam "good time." The local "good time"

DEFO2416


5959

The Parish
of Jefferson;
Government
Matters

Part I
Jefferson Parish
Criminal Justice System

September 1994

>BGR

4 Bureau of
# Governmental Research

DEFO2405
PORT Exhibit 1113


5855

1993) ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 4

Goop FarTH 10 YEARS AHEAD

PROF. GROSS: As a way of concluding this discussion, let
me ask the following: if you were all clairvoyant, where would you see the
issue of single asset Chapter 11 real estate cases and the questions of good
faith in that context ten years from now?

JUDGE HILLMAN: If we are lucky, Massachusetts will be
over its depression by then.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: We'll be paying attention to
something else like individual Chapter 11 cases or the Chapter 13 problems we
talked about earlier involving apartments. I think we are going to work
through it all. I think once Massachusetts gets rid of all their real estate cases
and a couple of second timers around, it will pretty much be done — that has
been our experience in Houston,

JUDGE FENNING: I guess I am with Bill, I am hoping that
California is out of its real estate depression by the end of the decade. I
believe that norms will develop, just as they have around the "new debtor
syndrome" pattern where experienced bankruptcy lawyers have a client come
to them and say I want to file this case in the Central District of California.
‘The lawyers respond, "Look at Victory Construction. 1 won't file the case for
you. It doesn’t make sense. Let’s do something else to deal with your
problem."

It would help a lot if the Supreme Court will resolve some of the major
substantive legal issues surrounding these cases, like the new value exception
and the classification issues. If those are resolved, these cases will sort
themselves out in the wash and they won’t occupy the kind of time on our
calendars anymore. A turn in the real estate market will solve 90 percent of
it, of course.

JUDGE MARK: With the RTC and FDIC, after fighting like
crazy to get stay relief and foreclose in bankruptcy, selling properties for 20
cents on the dollar, there are such bargain prices now being paid by the new
‘owners that they probably won’t wind up in Chapter 11. So T am —

PROF. GROSS: You are optimistic.

HeinOnline — 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 41 1993

DEF02288


6037

| texters as cnc nc ct Ponce | Sen te
Mocaten® Research Tasks Gt» Gocurent © Shapartu® lens otal Liter Transactional AdvsotYounse Selector omer

2 (EE po
source: Ss usa > Canad Sees News Al (Enlsh Fl Tex)
“Temms: "Ginsburg Hearings End in a Secluded Meeting” (Egit Search | Suagest Tens for My Search)

Ginsburg Hearings End In a Secluded Meeting The New York Times July 24, 1993, Saturday, Late Edition - Final

Focus Toma “Oras bins Enna caer” sor in nga Race

Copyright 1993 The New York Times Company
“The New York Times

View Relates Topics
uly 24, 1993, Saturday, Late Eéition - Final

‘SECTION: Section 1; Page 26; Column 4; National Desk

LENGTH: 646 words

HEADLINE: Ginsburg Hearings End In a Secluded Meeting

BYLINE: By NEIL A. LEWIS, Special to The New York Times

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, July 23

Bopy:
‘The Senate Judiciary today held its frst closed hearing ever to hear personal accusations against a Supreme Court
nominee, but the session for Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg was really ust for practice, committee members sald,

No substantive charges surfaced in the 20-minute session, committee aides sald, and Judge Ginsburg seemed headed for
‘an easy if nat unanimous confirmation after three days of public testimony. The committee vote is scheduled for
Thursday,

‘Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr,, the Delaware Democrat who leads the committee, said this month that he would hold a
closed hearing for Judge Ginsburg and any future Court nominee so that committee members could review the classified
investigation of the nominee by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any accusations brought about the candidate's
personal conduct. Mr. Biden, who was criticized for his handling of Prof. Anita F. Hil's accusations against Justice Clarence
Thomas during his confirmation hearings in 1991, added the closed hearing to avoid future problems,

Committee spokesmen said they would not discuss what occurred today, but an offical present at the session said the
main topic was one that had already been aired publicly at Thursday's session: Judge Ginsburg's initial failure to list as a
fit an initiation fee for a country club near Washington. In the early 4980's, when it routinely waived fees as a courtesy
fo members of the Federal bench, the Woodmont Country Club waived Its $25,000 initiation fee for Judge Ginsburg and
her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer.

Why She Left Club

Judge Ginsburg has said that she regretted not listing the waived fee as a gift on her financial disclosure forms. But she
did refer to the waiver indirectly in her statement to the committee. She said that she resigned from the club when it
changed its policy to require payment of the fee. She resigned, she said, because the imposition of the fee obliged &
Colleague on the appeals court, Judge Harry T. Edwards, to resign because he could not afford it

‘She said that she never knew whether the change in policy was almed specifically at Judge Edwards, who was the club's
nly black member at the time, but that it seemed as if t might have been. As a result, she and her husband left
Woodmont and then joined a different golf club, which had several black members.

Judge Ginsburg, a 60-year-old member of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was
nominated by President Clinton last month to replace Justice Byron R. White, who retired this spring. If she becomes the

nation’s 107th justice, Judge Ginsburg would be the first Justice placed on the court in 26 years by @ Democrat and the
Second woman ever, after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

sudge Ginsburg completed her public testimony Thursday night, ending three days in which she offered strong support for
the constitutional right to abortion but fended off questions on other issues.

Most Speakers in Favor

‘utp tenn comtesestehretive?_ene 915241 9457SFTNGASRe47b786492<2Besve-bleform=searchFonma_fntstr-FULLAdocmum~14&_.. 8231/2010

DEF02489
PORT Exhibit 1126


5813

Siete sores xaos
‘SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF PLAN PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY TRUSTEE
A. Total debt provided under the Pian and administrative expenses
— s7g9
toa 235
ao Fe
tees 333
$ Totem ast
Fa taoae aaa
‘Total payments to above Creditors 30,000.00
“Trustee percentage 1,500.00
Saas
—
“ime teal me teh npn a
B. Reconciliation with Chapter 7
‘tentang
near
tema URE
© property 52,850.27
FE aaa 3g
ier sei
1 RSE Sa acne sate
a recrtaet oene P ves
Aetna 0
‘Attomey for Debtor(s):
Cet
nie

Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr. P.C.
3500 N. Causeway Blvd,
Suite 450

Metaitie, LA 70002

Claude C, Lightfoot, Jr. [

Chapter 19 Plan Page 3 ofS

DEFO1949


6005

warranted.” Then she went a step further, announcing that Justice lawyers would defend Cuomo, Retsinas, and Riccobono
In the latest Oceanmark suit.

‘Cuomo's spokesmen now cite Reno's statement in rebutting the Oceanmark charges. In a letter to TAS, “HUD staff
wrote:

‘The real question...is will you allow your publication to be used as 2 mouthpiece for the bogus and self-serving allegations
made by Oceanmark Bank. You are now on notice that the allegations...are false. You are also on notice that these
allegations are ten years old, previously published, and now proven baseless by the Department of Justice, FBI, and
Republican Senate. The publication of these statements which you now know to be false and slanderous is actionable.
‘Your publication has a history of printing false material regarding Mr. Cuomo. The Secretary intends to pursue all legal
avenues regarding this matter. 2

2 The current allegations are, of course, not ten years old, but arise from the Fensters’ 1996 refusal to sign a statement
Similar to their 1988 apology'to Cuomo, Cuomo's problems with the thritt were "previously published” in the October
1934 TAS, in connection with Oceanmark’s efforts to obtain the secret supervisory agreement. The "false material" in
question, HUD staff has specified, was an item on Secretary Cuomo's press conferences. (See On the Prowl, TAS,
December 1997, and Correspondence, TAS, January 1998.)

A similar letter to TAS from Cuomo’ private lawyers states, "We intend to protect his interests and will not tolerate any
Purported reporting, based on smear tactics, to enhance anyone's private business agenda or to increase circulation.”

OTS recently withdrew its examiners from Oceanmark, and the Fensters' latest suit alleging an elaborate “Cuomo
Conspiracy” seems strained at best. But there do appear to have been violations of the supervisory agreement, which
federal regulators have failed to pursue--specificaly the divestiture of the investors’ stock. The case also puts a spotlight
‘on some people who Cuomo perhaps wishes would remain in the dark.

“The New York Group

Heading up the New York Group was Sheldon Goldstein. Originally from Brookiyn, Goldstein moved to nearby Rockland
County in the mid-fifties, where he set up shop as a real-estate developer and businessman. By the 1980's he was a
millonaire several times over and had a long list of corporations to his name.

Goldstein could also be a generous political benefactor. According to an analysis by Newsday, Goldstein, his family, and
associates donated over $102, 000 to Mario Cuomo's gubernatorial campaigns from 1982 to 1989. In the 1982 campaign
alone, the Goldstein machine contributed more than $49,000. Shortly after Cuomo was first elected, Goldstein was
appointed chairman of the State University Construction Fund, a lucrative patronage ttl.

In addition to Oceanmark, Goldstein, Cuomo, and others in the New York Group shared extensive interests in two other
financial institutions, Hudson United and the Savings Bank of Rockland County. Oceanmark’s Lynn Fenster recalls how the
New York Group operated: "Shelley Goldstein would put out a call for money, and you would go. And if you didn't go--you
almost didn’t have a choice. You didn't have a say. The first time you didn't bring your money--he told me this--you didn’t
get to go again. And the first time you ever got worried about your money or didn't want to stay there, he would literally
write you a check and you would never get called again.” This seems to be borne out in an April 16, 1987 memo
Oceanmark obtained from Cuomo's files. "It is imperative that you anc I sit down together and discuss the whole Venture
eal and on Monday I will put out the call for $500,000," Goldstein wrote to Cuomo. "What Ed Wachtel (a New York Group
Investor) and I decided to do is call for all monies, put it in the Savings Bank of Rockland County and draw the money as
we need it but to have it in the bank." Jeffrey Fenster, Lynn's brother and partner, paints a similar portrait: "Shelley
would gin up an investment and he would put out a call for money. And Shelley had a thing that no one would ever lose
‘money. He always gave them their money back if they lost money.

Goldstein was also a chief client of Cuomo--and Blutrich and Falcone--at thelr law firm. Other aspects of the cozy
Goldstein-Cuomo relationship frequently cropped up in New York papers during the mid-1980's, including:

y In 1984 Arco Management won a state contract to manage the Bridge and Jackie Robinson housing projects in New
York City. Tt later turned out that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, the state agency that awarded the
contract, had done so under a non-competitive bid. The following day the agency director daimied that the unorthodox:
‘move was in response to an emergency. The director also told the New York Times that Arco was " recommended to me
bbut by whom I don't remember." Arco was owned by Goldstein and managed by one of his two sons, both of whom
belonged to the New York Group. John O'Connell, another New York Group investor, was also a member of Arco. Andrew
Was his dad's right-hand man in Albany at the time, and Goldstein, as chairman of the State University Construction
Fund, was a state official.3

3 Arco is currently a "prime contractor” for HUD property management in Minnesota, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
{and every state east of the Mississippi River. Upon becoming HUD secretary, Cuomo recused himself trom decisions
directly involving Arco.

ups te lexis conreserchetrieve”_=973a469e2S4RO2F2 62857 Tabsesve=bi-form-searchFormM_fmte-FULLAdocnam=1&_ 8/31/2010
DEFO2457


5884

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
J.C. Nos. 04-35 & 05-16

IN RE: COMPLAINTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
OR DISABILITY

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 351
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Filed: August 2, 2005)
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

These are complaints filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 against a United States
District Judge (Respondent). The complaints are a continuation of Complainant’s efforts
to have Respondent disqualified from hearing a now concluded civil action. The
underlying civil action was removed to federal court from state court by the defendants
and was assigned to Respondent’s docket in 2002 when he became a federal judge.'

Complainant’s principal allegation is that Respondent had been employed by a law

firm that represented one of the defendants in the case. Respondent was employed by the

‘ The dismissal of Complainant’s civil action was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals. That dismissal was based, in part, on determinations that some of the claims
presented were res judicata because they had been, or could have been, considered in
earlier state court proceedings and because the statute of limitations had run on other
claims.

DEF02330
PORT Exhibit 1111 (d)


5820

United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of Louisiana

In Re: Case No.
Gabriel T. Porteous 01-12363,
‘Canmella A. Porteous

P.O. Box 1723

Harvey, LA 70059

SSN (1) 436-64-1366 SSN(2) 434-78-3992 Date: 05-29-01

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER 13 PLAN

S.J. Beaulieu, Jr., Trustee in the above captioned cause, files the following.
Summary and Analysis of the Debtor(s) Chapter 13 Plan, in accordance with 11 U.S.C.
Sec. 1302.

1, Exhibit ‘A” reflects the Debtor's good faith estimate of income and reasonably
necessary living expenses, and reflects the apparent ability to fund the Plan.

2. The Debtor proposes to pay the sum of $1,600.00 per month, for a period of
36 months to be distributed as indicated in the following paragraphs.

3. The Plan proposes to make the following disbursement to the Debtor's

attorney:
‘Name Of Atty. ft Tem Total
Claude Lightfoot, Jr. $375.00 0! Mth. $1750.00

$ 50.00 28 Mths.
4, Secured Creditors:

‘A. The following secured claims are dealt with pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec.
1325 (a) (5) (B):

Nameo{Craior ChmAmtOrSchAmt — ValusofCollural == Int. Rate Mibly Pint
NONE
B. The following secured claims are dealt with pursuant to 11 U.S.C. See.
1325 (a) (5) (C):

‘The Debtor abandons ail interest in the collateral securing the claim and will
‘surrender possession thereof upon confirmation of the Plan.

C. The following secured claims are dealt with pursuant to 11 U.S.C Sec.
1322 (b) (5) as follows:

1. BANK ONE : The debior, in lieu of the Trustee, shall act as disbursing agent for the
regular contract installment in the amount of $ 495,00, for the duration of the plan,

sc00694

DEF01978
PORT Exhibit 1100 (0)


6031

snya01

npvnnwensnews comfnewsartclet9218,
DEFO2483


6027

“In any case, itis clear that the Sotomayor Senate questionnaire
incomplete and unreliable. It must be sent back to her and to the White
House, marked ‘Retum to Sender, with instructions that itis not to be
redelivered to the Senate without complete answers and all required
documents,” she added.

‘A spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee said only that
“committee staff is reviewing the questionnaire now."

Calis to the offices of LatinaJustice PRLDEF ~ the former Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund ~ were not turned by press time,

Like this story? Then sign up to receive our free daily E-Brief newsletter

Viewer Comments,

‘The following comments are posted by our readers and are not necessarily the opinions
of ether CNSHews.com or the story's autho. To be considered for publication,
Comments must adhere to the Terms of Use for posting to this Web site. Thank

you.

Showing 14100118 Newer to Older A 2Next
Comments

texasnoshoet yor a9)
191206 what are you? Some extreme eft wing iberal that believes | should
pay for your heath care, your family in prison, and your house payment? | can
afford you or your family anymore! Dent you democrates ever get red of
taking?

sandyinohio yeas age)
The trouble with some people is they are “Virtuous” liberals, are naive tke
slrmmny Carter, believe is & lars, have no moral compass as relativism &
humanism is thei region, hate America’s history & culture of freedom, do not
like liberty for ALL the people, and want to control everybody else & their
‘money too! Other than that, though, they are nica people. Sort of. Wellin an
‘Obama-ike way; as charming as a snake :)| see more & more comments on
various sites like : THROW OUT ALL INCUMBENTS EVERY ELECTION
CYCLE! We dont need a professional political ciass. No more better health
Insurance than most taxpayers; no more better pensions than most taxpayers;
‘no more bills writen by lobbyists & think tanks. Talk about saving the country
[AND monoy! There you got Let all polticians have to lve by the bills they vote
into being. What a great and novel idea: les party ike, say, Boston TEA Party!
‘Coming near you over 4th of July. Be there, don't be square!

sanynohio (ea)
Gee sity me, Lahays thought the standards for opinions on cases were what
‘was written in the constitution, variouslaws, and past judgments, not popular
opinion, no matter how many people espouse it. How can we have “rule of law"
whereby people know thew beforehand and can reasonably be expected 9

-scominenvarcl/9218

savani0
DEFO2479


5945

Dissent of Judge Coughenour:

I must respectfully dissent from the recommendation of my fellow members of the
Special Investigative Committee that Judge Ware be publicly censured and reprimanded.

While I concur with the factual recitation of the events which are the subject of this
investigation, I cannot, for several reasons, agree that censure or reprimand is necessary.
First, the family of Virgil Ware has, with profound grace, accepted the apology of Judge Ware,
and stated that they believe he has suffered enough. Second, Judge Ware has publicly and
forthrightly acknowledged his error, and apologized to the family of Virgil Ware. Third,
Judge Ware made the statements about the Virgil Ware tragedy as part of an effort to heighten
the public's awareness of the evil of racial hatred, and not for any personal gain or as part of any
judicial function, Last, Judge Ware has already suffered serious public embarrassment over this
episode and, in my view, no purpose would be served by adding to this burden.

For these reasons, I dissent from the conclusion of the majority.

DEF02391


5845

1993] ‘ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 31

cases is the opposite: don't be skeptical initially; make the judgment about
good faith early, if you can and dismiss cases early if necessary.

JUDGE HILLMAN: I think that should be the same rule in
any case. If you can make the determination early, what is the point of
waiting until confirmation, when you can tell two weeks into the case that this
is a sick puppy that’s not going to make it?

JUDGE MARK: In the context, though, it’s different. For
example, in the Chapter 13, you might have an individual that files a 13 on the
eve of the foreclosure sale and with few unsecured creditors, but in a 13,
because it’s got special rights, they can have a feasible plan. So I would have
to find some real abuse and subjective bad faith to knock out a 13 early before
we had a chance to really analyze the facts and the trustee had made his
recommendations on the feasibility of curing the arrearage.

So you have suddenly a new bundle of rights in a 13 that you don’t
really have in an 11. There are different rights in 11 than you have in state
court obviously, but the context, I think, does affect how you look at the good
faith issue.

MR. GREENDYKE: I don’t think it’s the same. I agree with
what you are saying. I don’t think there’s the same need for a judge to
monitor 13’s or 7’s. You have trustees in both those cases and they are
watching, and they are on a much quicker fuse — a quicker time track than the
11's are in large part. 1 can remember years ago actively looking at the 11°s
to try and find cases I thought were susceptible to a bad faith attack, cases in
which we had new businesses or undeveloped real estate, cases that really
needed to be looked at and managed actively by me — that’s just a different
approach than we take in 13's.

JUDGE FENNING: I guess I have a slightly different
perspective. This is not the major bad faith issue in the Central District of
California. Our principal bad faith problem is with a huge volume of Chapter
7's and 13's being filed solely to avoid eviction from a residential tenancy
where an unlawful detainer judgment has already been entered in state court.

I haven't put that in the hopper as a single asset real estate case
because they don’t have any interest in real property, strictly speaking. It’s a
different category that’s more predominant unfortunately in our jurisdiction
than anyplace else for a variety of reasons. We examine the “unlawful
detainer” cases very closely and if they fit a prima facie bad faith pattern, we

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L, Rev. 31 1993

DEF02278


6047

94 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

Defendants who fail to appear impose significant costs on others. Direct
costs include the costs of rearranging and rescheduling court dates, the wasted
time of judges, lawyers, and other court personnel, and the costs necessary
to find and apprehend or rearrest fugitives. Other costs include the additional
crimes that are committed by fugitives. In 1996, for example, 16 percent of
released defendants were rearrested before their initial case came to trial.?
We can be sure that the percentage of felony defendants who commit ad-
ditional crimes is considerably higher than their rearrest rate, We might also
expect that the felony defendants who fail to appear are the ones most likely
to commit additional crimes. Indirect costs include the increased crime that
results when high failure-to-appear (FTA) and fugitive rates reduce expected
punishments.’

‘The dominant forms of release are by surety bond, that is, release on bail
that is lent to the accused by a bond dealer, and nonfinancial release. Just
over one-quarter of all released defendants are released on surety bond, and
a very small percentage pay cash bail or put up their own property with the
court (Jess than 5 percent combined); most of the rest are released on their
own recognizance or on some form of public bail (called deposit bond) in
which the defendant posts a small fraction, typically 10 percent or less, of
the bail amount with the court.

Estimating the effectiveness of the pretrial release system in the United
States can be characterized as a problem of treatment evaluation. Treatment
evaluation problems can be difficult because treatment is rarely assigned
randomly. Release assignment, for example, is based on a judge’s assessment
of the likelihood that a defendant will appear in court as well as on consid~
erations of public safety. Correctly measuring treatment effects requires that
we control for treatment assignment. In this paper, we control for selection
by matching on the propensity score.*

‘We estimate the treatment effect for three outcomes—the probability that

the release, failure-to-appear (FTA), and fugitive (defined as FTA for 1 year or more) rates
from the random sample. See note 2 infra.

* U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban
Counties, 1996 (1999) (http:/wwrw.ojp.usdoj gov/bjs/pub/pdPflluc96. pdf)

> Justice delayed can mean justice denied in practice as well as in theory. Thousands of
ceases are dismissed on constitutional grounds every year because police fail to serve warrants
in 2 timely manner, See Kenneth Howe & Erin Hallissy, When Justice Goes Unserved:
‘Thousands Wanted on Outstanding Warrants—but Law Enforcement Largely Ignores Them,
S.F. Chron., June 22, 1999, at AL

“For the matching method, see Donald B. Rubin, Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments
in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies, 66 J. Educ. Psychol. 688, 701 (1974); Donald B.
Rubin, Assignment to Treatment Group on the Basis of a Covariate, 2 J. Educ. Stat. 1, 26
(977); Paul R. Rosenbaum & Donald B. Rubin, Reducing Bias in Observation Studies Using
‘Subelassification on the Propensity Score, 79 J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 516, 524 (1984), Rajeev H-
Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, Causal Effects in Non-experimental Studies: Re-evaluating the Eval-
uation of Training Programs (Working Paper No. 6586, Nat'l Bur. Econ. Res. 1998); James J
Heckman, Hidehiko Ichimura, & Pelra Todd, Matching As an Econometric Evaluation Esti-
‘ator, 65 Rev. Econ, Stud, 261, 294 (1998)

DEF02605


5984

No descriptive analysis of the jail population is available;
and the information needed to develop the case flow
analysis system-wide is just beginning to be recorded,
collected, and maintained. Raw data

detailed reports and analysis for review by elected
officials and citizens are not. For example, we do not
know with precision the characteristics of those persons
either held or released. We do know that 75 percent of
the jail population is awaiting (rial or sentencing. We do
know that about 56 percent of those in jail in the spring
of 1994 were "Code 6" violators—maultiple, violent
offenders. We do not, however, have complete
information on the rest of the pretrial detainees, about 20
percent of the total jail population

Much data, nevertheless, support the need for
additional jail space, The 1981 jail study, based on then-
current jail use, estimated the need for over 1,100 beds
by the end of 1989. Current usage coupled with the
release of an average of 45 inmates per week since 1991,
at least some of whom are repeat felons, indicate a
facility operating beyond capacity. Many experts argue
that a jail operating at 80 percent capacity should be
regarded as “full,” for sound operational purposes. By
that measure, though technically under capacity, the
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center has been over its
operational capacity for the last 20 years.

BGR considered the possiblity that improvements in
‘court management and a concomitant decrease in the
number of pretrial detainees would eliminate the need for
additional jail beds. On the basis of a CJC evaluation
of the parish’s special Drug Court, an experiment in
improved court management, such improvement would
result in the availability of no more than 150 beds.
Moreover, it is possible that enhancing court operations
‘would increase, not decrease, demand for jail beds.

Need for Coordination

In Jefferson Parish, perhaps precipitated by the
problem of a jail at its legal capacity, many successful
efforts at coordination are already taking place,
especially where the various authorities interact directly
with each other. Many of what are generally regarded as
“reform” measures for releasing pressure on a jail or
prison facility are already in use in Jefferson Parish.
‘Some, such as extensive use of citations instead of arrest,
‘were put in place prior to the most recent wave of
“overcrowding.” Others, such as emphasis on supervised
pretrial release, have fallen into disuse as the persons for

22—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

whom they were appropriate are no longer detained in
the first place,

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the
position of Judicial Administrator of the District Court,
and the district court judges en banc are all mechanisms:
that can be used more aggressively as instruments of
coordination and improvement. Similarly, on the state
level, the Judicial Council of the Supreme Court and the
LCLE (Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and
‘Administration of Justice) are tools that can be
maximized for developing a coordinated and integrated
system in which all the parts work together smoothly.
The emphasis on smooth operation of the system is not a
‘matter of speed, but of effectiveness and accountability.

The Conclusions

Based on the study findings, BGR concludes that the
Jefferson Parish criminal justice system is not working as
‘2"systern” or with optimum effectiveness. In answer to
the orienting questions of the study, BGR concludes that
additional jail space is needed but is far from all that is
needed.

BGR concludes that additional jail space is needed for
the following reasons: (1) to provide space to sanction
less serious offenders, whether as deterrence, constraint,
or punishment; (2) to provide space for effective jail
management; and (3) to provide space for holding
persons charged with crimes and for whom there is &
substantial risk that bail or other devices will not ensure
their presence at trial. Based on the limited analysis of
jail data currently readily available to the public,
however, BGR is unable to make a specific
recommendation on the number of jail beds needed.
Additional planning and analysis are required in order to
make that determination.

BGR is convinced that additional jail space alone will
not solve the problems of the Jefferson Parish criminal
justice system. Experience across the nation indicates
that if jails are built, they will be filled; and if other
shortcomings of the criminal justice system are not
addressed directly, those shortcomings will remain.
‘What is needed in Jefferson Parish is system-wide
improvement incorporating all of the recommendations
outlined betow.

DEF02430


5929

The notes that are the subject of both complaints first came to light in a January
2000 newspaper article. Although most of the notes were obtained from Judge McDonald’s
former court reporter, some of them came from an attorney who removed them from a courtroom
wastebasket after court had recessed. The notes are not dated, but the evidence indicates that
they date from the latter half of the 1980's to perhaps as recently as three years ago. Judge
McDonald himself stated that he and staff members passed "literally thousands" of notes over a

period of 12 or 13 years.

Itis undisputed that the notes supplied to the Committee were either written by
Judge McDonald on the bench, or by his former courtroom deputy, in the courtroom!” Some
notes were passed to or from him to his staff, while others were exchanged between his former
courtroom deputy and his former court reporter without being seen by him. Judge McDonald
said that most notes dealt with courtroom business such as scheduling and were a matter of
necessity. He further indicated that sometimes the notes between his deputy and him "would
include comments on the way cases developed, the interesting incidents that would occur, the
performance of counsel or a witness and on occasion some effort at humor or jest to break the
tedium of long court days."

Itis also undisputed that a note stating "It smells like oil in here - too many
Greasers" was written by the courtroom deputy during a trial with Hispanic defendants and
lawyers present, and was not shown to Judge McDonald prior to this investigation. Furthermore,
although there was evidence that the courtroom deputy told racial jokes at times, there was no
evidence that Judge McDonald was ever aware of her remarks. Indeed, Judge McDonald stated
that his deputy was aware that such conduct would not be tolerated by him, based on his earlier
disciplinary counseling of a court secretary who made a racially insensitive remark in chambers.
The courtroom deputy confirmed during the Committee interview that Judge McDonald would

not tolerate such conduct.

DEF02375


5816

rem Bs
eo
® Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmetta A. Porteous

‘casa, 01-12383 Section “A’

Debtor oe (Whew)
AMENDED SCHEDULE J - CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF INDIVISUBL DEBTOR(S)

{Check his bax jin petiin is fed and debts spouse maintains a seperate household. Copgatetiateranee A 27

schedie of expenditures labeled "Spouse

(1

Rent or home mestgage payment (clude lt rene for mobs home) CLERY, 1
‘Are real estate tmces included? Yes ca No its o
Is propaty cee cid? es 77
Uti "city ae heting tn s 350.00
Wat and sewer $ 710.00
‘Telephone $ 200.00
ober s ono
Home matterae paew ep) 3 200.00
Food $ 450.00
hating $ 300.00
Laundry andr ening 3 150.00
Medicale eral exeraes 5 300.00
“rnepetaon ren a grt) 3 250.00
Recreation, cia an enter newepapar, mapas. $ 0.00
Charaie condone s
insurance (nt cuca for mages ode inher morgage pant)
Hemecwner err’ s
tte s
ean $
Ate $
Ober s
Tass (ot deat rn wage red na og Baye)
(Spectty) $ 0.00
Inert SPOOR Yn CGT an TG PP Da RT aT
rade ’ 330.00
Other Second Car Lease 3 330.00
‘Second Mortgage on Family Home s 495.00
Alimony, maintenance or support paid to others: $ 0.00
Pamats or wpa of tna doperderts nat ng your home : new
Rega expenses rm operation buns oar ach tad ttervrt) so
‘Other Cable Television $ 45.00

‘TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENSES (Report also on Summary of Schedules)
FOR CHAPTER 12 AND 13. DEBTORS ONLY]

3 5875.00

Provide the informaton equested below, incucing whether pan payments ere to be made bi-weekly, monthly, analy, o at

‘ome he epubr Peer

A. Teal projected orth come s 1531.82

8. Tot projected merth¥y expenses s 5,875.00

©. Exess income (A minus 5} 3 ~ 4868.52

©. Tefal amour tobe paid ro pan each Monthy s 1,800.00
(interval)

C oo AOn De

DEF01957


5848

34 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

JUDGE FENNING: Or you have to wait a year or whatever
the formula is, for other judges.

JUDGE HILLMAN: Whatever it is. Those judges who are
doing that now are the reason why Congress was asked to act. No matter what
Congress does, those judges will still require three motions or a year before
they are going to grant relief from stay. So I don’t think that the proposed
legislation is going to accomplish anything.

JUDGE FENNING: I think it may change some of the
practices of the judges that are inclined to extend the stay forever.

JUDGE HILLMAN: You are much more optimistic than I.

JUDGE FENNING: Well, I believe that some of the judges
who hold those views and don’t grant relief from stay very liberally or very
often and certainly not early, strongly believe that that’s the job they are
supposed to be doing, per Congressional direction. And this will give clear
Congressional direction that that’s not what they are supposed to be doing.
They are supposed to move these cases up and out. And I think it would
change practice for some judges. It would not change the practice in my
courtroom particularly, because I take a similar approach already and a number
of my colleagues do, but not all of them.

JUDGE MARK: | suspect it would slow us down.

PROF. GROSS: You are on a faster track than the legislation?

JUDGE MARK: I suspect so.

PROF. GROSS: Judge Greendyke.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I don’t think there is any need for
legislation. Without getting into other subjects, I think there are a lot of other
things that need fixing besides this. I think the case law on good faith works
fine and we in Texas have worked with it. Massachusetts clearly has.
California has known a long time how to do it.

You are never going to iron out the differences between judges and
how they practice the art of judging bankruptcy law. I just think there are

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Banke. Inst. L. Rev. 34 1993

DEF02281


5971

policy reduces an inmate's sentence by one day for every
day served, effectively halving local sentences.

Early Release. Inmates serving parish time are also
eligible for a 30-day early release from the jail. Good
behavior is the primary criteria for eligibility. It is
possible but unlikely that inmates who have not received
good time credits will secure a release. Inmates are
recommended for early release by the sheriff, but the
district attorney and the sentencing judge must consent
before an individual leaves the jail.

Who's Calling the Jail Full?
Federal Judge’s Order

‘The capacity of the Jefferson Parish Comrectional
Center is established by order of a United States District
Judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, specifically
an Amended Consent Order in the case of Holland v.
Donelon, the latest one signed in August, 1991. Th
capacity is set at a maximum of 700, with specific limits
for the number of persons who can be held in specific
"pods" on various floors.

Prior Increases in Space

‘The federal court first established jail population
limits in May 1973. At that time, the sheriff and warden
of the parish jail were ordered to reduce the inmate
population to the jail’s design capacity of 110. One
‘month later the limit was raised to 132. In July 1975,
parish officials submitted a "comprehensive jail
‘overcrowding plan,” including construction of a new
facility. The new, 302-bed Correctional Center opened
three years later.

Just three months after the new jail opened, however,
the old jail was reopened with permission of the federal
court; and the population limit was raised to 428. In
1983, the cap was raised to 602. Two years later, it was
raised to 636, where it remained until 1989, when the
Correctional Center Annex opened and the cap was
raised to 666. The limit was raised again in 1990 and
1991, when it was set at 700, the present maximum. For
only two years in the last 20 have the parish correctional
facilities operated at less than 90 percent capacity, in
1985 and 1986.

Options to Jail and
Jail Construction

‘The problem of jail overcrowding is clearly not
limited to Jefferson Parish or to Louisiana. Recent
national surveys have demonstrated that most states and
hundreds of local jurisdictions have had to deal
increased demand for jail or prison space in the face of
court-ordered capacity limits. Short of constructing new
cr additional jail space, what other options exist for
dealing with the problem of jail overcrowding? To what
extent have Jefferson Parish officials utilized these
options in addressing the local problem?

In order to answer these questions, BGR developed a
comprehensive inventory of approaches that have been
used in other jurisdictions throughout the country 0

various options identified by BGR. These options were
drawn from a seasch of the national literature and
discussions with representatives of national criminal
justice organizations. A narrative description of many of
‘these options is included as Appendix B.

‘The options are intended to include a broad s
of system approaches ranging from speeding up the court
process to providing additional community services in
lieu of incarceration. Strategies include law
enforcement, jail administration, court processing,
probation and parole, alternatives to incarceration, and
total system initiatives.

‘After developing this inventory of alternatives for
addressing jail overcrowding, BGR interviewed key

implemented locally, to what degree, and whether an
option was still in use. In some cases, BGR staff
verified the information collected in the interviews with
field observations.

Of the 54 options identified in the survey, Jefferson
Parish has already implemented or currently utilizes
almost 61 percent (33) of them. ‘The major strategies
that have been utilized in dealing with jail overcrowding
in Jefferson Parish include: emergency release (#8 in the
table); early release (10); diversion from prosecution
(13); priority handling of jail cases (14, 18); prompt

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—9

DEF02417


5977

‘The average number of active criminal cases is about
170 cases for each division, according to the DA’s
executive assistant, As many as 400 additional cases in
each division of court may be open because of
outstanding attachments—that is, inability to locate the
defendants. In 1993, according to.the DA’s office, over
5,700 felony attachments (orders to arrest for non-
appearance in court) were issued.

‘While the number of cases handled is by itself far
from an adequate measure of judicial workload or
performance of either the court as a whole or of an
individual judge, knowing the size, age and status of a
pending caseload is essential to developing more
adequate measures. This information will be more
readily available under the clerk of court’s new
information management system.

In April 1991, the Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council outlined the "fundamental
caseflow management plan, many of
which have still not been implemented. ‘These elements
parallel national guidelines for improved caseflow
‘management, and they need not be limited to jail cases.

‘These elements include:

+ Judicial commitment and leadership

+ Judicial consultation with all elements of the *
criminal justice system

+ Court supervision of case progress, from
allotment to sentencing,

+ Time standards and goals

+ Adequate information system and effective
‘monitoring thereof

+ Trial date certainty

+ Control of continuances

Rules Adopted by Judges

Although individuals and officials who deal with the
judiciary of the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court
‘emphasize the independence of separately-clected judges,
the separate divisions of the court exist, according to
state law, "for the purpose of nomination and election of
judges only.” The judges en banc may enact rules of
‘court to govem procedures and make the operations of
the district court as a whole flow more smoothly and
efficiently. They have not maximized their authority to
do so in order to implement district-wide case
management methods.

‘An example of specific steps that can be taken by the
Chief Judge, with concurrence of the other judges, is a
recent move that speeds up the judges” signing of papers
“committing” sentenced prisoners to the State
Department of Public Safety and Corrections. In
February of 1994, the Chief Judge, at the sheriff's
request, notified all other judges of the need to sign
‘commitment papers as quickly as possible, in order to
free up additional beds for unsentenced defendants.

‘The Clerk of Court set time standards for his
‘employees, encouraging the minute clerks to have all
commitment papers prepared within 72 hours following
sentencing. The judiciary has complied with the Chief
Judge’s request.

Role of Jadicial Administrator

‘The function of the Judicial Administrator of the
Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court appears to be to
provide administrative assistance and business
management, rather than the proposal or administration
of any court rules to enhance uniform case reporting,
monitoring, and management. The Louisiana Court
Administrators Association, a professional association
affiliated with the National Association for Court
“Management, is working, however, to involve both court
‘managers and judges in the improvement of court
‘management in Louisiana.

Role of Clerk of Court

‘The Clerk of Court is in the process of implementing
a computerized integrated criminal case tracking system
so that any participating entity in the Jefferson Parish
criminal justice system will be able to track a case from
arrest to final disposition. Once this system is in place,
it will be possible—as it is not now—to clearly identify
points of delay in the processing of cases, identify
pattems of delay and reasons for them, and implement
solutions.

Role of State Supreme Court

Responsibility for administrative leadership of
Louisiana courts rests with the Chief Justice and the
Supreme Court of the State. The Judicial Council of the
Supreme Court of Louisiana was established in 1950 to
evaluate and monitor certain operations and procedures
of the judicial system of the state, It "serves as a
clearinghouse for ideas for simplifying and expediting
judicial procedures and/or correcting shortcomings in the

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—15

DEF02423


5885

law firm for approximately six months in 19872 Complainant also seeks to establish later
post-employment ties between Respondent and the law firm, which Respondent has

denied?

Complainant also alleges that Respondent committed perjury during his Senate
confirmation hearings, contending that a conspiracy has shielded discovery of these
allegedly false statements. At least some of the allegations contained in the complaints

were previously considered by the Court of Appeals, which declined to grant relief to

Complainant.*
In the first complaint, the Complainant states:

‘The following evidence is “clear and convincing” that [Respondent] did in
fact, knowingly and willfully, provide false statements to the Senate of the
United States in violation of U.S. Code, Chapter 18, Sec. 1001. Such
conduct is without question prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the courts. [Respondent] must be held accountable for his
actions, Since October 12, 2002, [Respondent] has managed to avoid that
accountability and has been aided and abetted by a cabal of individuals all
of whom are in violation of the following appropriate sections of the U.S.

2 In two petitions for writs of mandamus, and in the direct appeal from the
dismissal of the civil action, the Court of Appeals held that Respondent was not
disqualified.

3 In the second complaint, Complainant alleges, “It appears that [Respondent] was
groomed to be [the law firm’s] friend on the court and that his recusal on [law firm] cases
‘was unacceptable.” There is no factual basis for this claim.

* Complainant had also requested the prior Chief Judge to take action under Rule

19(A), judicial cil of the Third Circuit Governing Complaints of
Judicial Misconduct and Disability. The prior Chief Judge declined to take action under

that provision of the rules. Complainant was advised through the clerk of court that he
should file a formal complaint if he believed that Respondent had committed misconduct.

2

DEF02331


5948

on March 29, after he agreed to handle the March 31 hearing
Magistrate Dunsmore learned that Blackshear's attorney,

Chevene B. King, Jr., was engaged in the trial of a criminal case
in Brunswick, Georgia, in the state superior court, and that
there was a good chance that the trial would continue into

March 31 and thus prevent Mr. King from appearing in Savannah for
the injunction hearing that day. Mr. King said he would try to
have his associate attend the hearing in Savannah and Magistrate
Dunsmore understood that either Mr. King or his associate would
cover the hearing in Savannah.

On March 31, a few minutes before the injunction hearing was
to begin, the district court clerk's office in Savannah informed
Magistrate Dunsmore that Mr. King was still in trial in Brunswick
and that the lawyer (an associate in his law firm) he had hoped
would be available for the hearing would not be attending the
hearing because he was tied up in state court--in a criminal
case--in Albany, Georgia. Upon hearing this, Magistrate Dunsmore
called the superior court judge presiding over the criminal trial
in Brunswick and confirmed that the trial was still in progress
and that Mr. King would not be able to get to Savannah in time
for the injunction hearing. The judge asked Magistrate Dunsmore
if he would like to speak to Mr. King, who was standing nearby
and Magistrate Dunsmore stated that he would not. Magistrate
Dunsmore then told the judge that he would be sending two deputy
U. S. Marshals to Brunswick with instructions to bring Mr. King

to Savannah as soon as the trial was over and to relay this

DEF02394


5907

(C) Form, A petition should be in the form of a letter addressed to the clerk
of the court of appeals, beginning “I hereby petition the judicial council for
review of the chief judge’s order....” There is no need to enclose a copy of
the original complaint.

The full text of Rule 5 is available from the Clerk’s Office of the Court of Appeals

of the Third Circuit.

{si I. Sci
Chief Judge

Dated: July 5, 2006

DEF02353


6032

31201

InapAwwwcnsoews comnewstcll49218
DEFO2484


5826

12 ABI LAW REVIEW {Vol. 1:1

the Supreme Court has entered into this debate in Johnson v. Home State
Bank,? where sequential filings were deemed to be not, per se, bad faith.

Implied good faith has been raised in a wide variety of contexts, and
let me give several examples. One example would be a Chapter 11 case where
one seeks to obtain relief from tort’ claims or environmental claims.’
Another example might be a Chapter 13 case which is filed in order to get a
discharge of debts which would be non-dischargeable in a Chapter 7 case,° or
even a Chapter 7 case which is filed to obtain relief from a state court
judgment which was granted as a result of a debtor’s deliberate breach of an
employment contract.’ Most recently, with the growing number of single
asset Chapter 11 cases, courts are increasingly confronting whether these types
of cases should be dismissed because they do not represent a good faith
filing.”

For an excellent overview of the implied good faith filing requirement, see Lawrence Ponoroff & F.
Stephen Knippenberg, The Implied Good Faith Filing Requirement: Sentinel of an Evolving Bankruptcy
Policy, 85 N.W. U. L. REV. 919 (1991). See also Brian S. Katz, Single Asset Real Estate Cases and the
Good Faith Requdrement: Why Reluctance to Ask Whether a Case Belongs in Bankruptcy May Lead to the
Incorrect Result, 9 BANKR. DEV. 3. 77 (1992).

* 1118. Ct. 2150, 115 L. Ed. 24. 66, 59 U.S.L.W. 4609, remanded, In re Johnson, 940 F.2d 609 (10th
Cir. 1991), and remanded, In re Johnson, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18769 (D. Kan. 1991). In Johnson, the
debtor had defaulted on mortgage notes and filed a petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 while foreclosure
proceedings were pending. After the state court entered an in rem judgment for the bank, but before @
scheduled foreclosure sale, the mortgagor filed for reorganization under Chapter 13. Id. ‘The Supreme
Court declined to address the good faith issue (remanding it for determination below), indicating that such
8 sequential filing is not, per se, bad faith. {d. at 2156.

« See In re Johns-Manville Corp., 36 B.R. 727 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984), appeal denied, 39 B.R. 234
(S.D.N.Y. 1984) (Chapter 11 filing commenced to seek respite from class action (asbestos) tort claims); fn
re Whipple, 138 B.R. 137 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1991) (Chapter 13 filing to avoid tot claim).

5 See United States Environmental Protection Agency v. Environmental Waste Control, 131 B.R. 410
(N.D. Ind. 1991); see also In re Pierce Coal & Constr., 65 B.R. 521 (Bankr. N.D. W. Va. 1986).

§ See Handeenv. LeMaire (In re LeMaire), 883 F.2d 1373 (th Cir. 1989); Jn re Rogers, 140 B.R. 254
(Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1992); In re Bush, 120 B.R. 403 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1990); in re Stewart, 109 B.R. 998
(D. Kan. 1990); Washington Student Loan Guar. Assoc. v. Porter (In re Porter), 102 B.R. 773 (th Cit.
1989), aff'd, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20578 (Sth Cir. 1990); In re Kosenka, 104 B.R. 40 (Banke. N.D. Ind.
1989); In re Adar, 82 B.R. 128 (Bankr. D. Or. 1988).

7 See Industrial Ina. Servs. v. Zick (In re Zick), 931 F.2d 1124 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Bybee v. Geer
(Un re Geet), 137 B.R. 37 Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1991).

* Humble Place Joint Veature v. Fory (In re Humble Place Joint Venture), 936 F.2d 814 (Sth Cir.
1991); In re Deaver Inv. Co., 141 B.R. 228 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1992); Pieasant Pointe Apartments, Lid. v.
Kentucky Hous. Corp. (In re Pleasant Pointe Apartments, Lid.), 139 B.R. 828 (W.D. Ky. 1992); In re
Avrora Invest., 134 B.R. 982 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991); Jn re Nesenkeag, 131 B.R. 246 (Bankr. D. N.H.
1991); In re Reiser Ford, 128 B.R. 234 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. 1991); In re 1020 Warburton Ave. Realty Corp.,
127 B.R. 333 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991); In re 195 Technology-Industrial Park, L-P., 126 B.R. 11 (Bankr.
D. R.1. 1991); In re Campus Hous. Developers, 124 B.R. 867 (Bankr. N.D. Fis., 1991).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 12 1993 DEF02259


5868

is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in. I'm
not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler, I
want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which
is extremely unusual. When somebody has come in in
that way they sometimes have tried not to exercise much
power. In this case, like Mussolini, he has exercised
extraordinary power. He has exercised power, claimed
power for himself that has not occurred since Franklin
Roosevelt, who after all was elected big and who did
some of the same things with respect to assertions of
power in time of crisis that this President is doing.
It seems to me that one of the things that is at stake
is the assertion by the democracy that when that has
happened it is important to put that person out,
regardless of policies, regardless of anything else, as
a statement that the democracy reasserts its power over
somebody who has come in and then has used the office
to take... build himself up. That is what happened
after 1876 when Hayes could not even run again. That
is not what happened in Italy because, in fact, the
person who was put in there was able to say “I have
done all sorts of things and therefore deserve to win
the next election.” That’s got nothing to do with the
politics of it. It’s got to do with the structural
reassertion of democracy. Thank you.

By letter to Chief Judge Walker dated June 24, 2004, the
Judge apologized for the ACS remarks:

I write you as Chief Judge to express my profound
regret for my comments at last weekend’s American
Constitution Society Conference. My remarks were
extemporaneous and, in hindsight, reasonably could be -
and indeed have been ~ understood to do something which
I did not intend, that is, take a partisan position.

As you know, I strongly deplore the politicization of
the judiciary and firmly believe that judges should not
publicly support candidates or take political stands.
Although what I was trying to do was make a rather
complicated academic argument about the nature of
reelections after highly contested original elections,
that is not the way my words, understandably, have been
taken. I can also see why this occurred, despite my
statements at the time that what I was saying should
not be construed in a partisan way. For that I am
deeply sorry.

DEFO2314


5789

romanes
sane
tnre Gabrie!T. Porteous, J. Carmella A. Porteous, Catena. — 01-42383 Section “A”
beter (own)
SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY
Fg cl
i GARRET VALUE oF
‘DESCRIPTION ANDLOCATION PROPERTY Wt
TYPE oF PROPERTY ‘OF PROPERTY SureemueTismY
(|) Ee
on
1.caah on a
2. Charting, ners or ober te Bank One Checking Account No. 002378554 c 100.00
Scin coteaie of Spent,
‘Shree bara, erg td bo,
large
Seecctioe ota oe barge
omen,
2. SearyGopeate wh ul tes,
‘ephone corn
4 coed ac emai, Household Goods and Furnishings Cy 15,000.00
[lang mea Mr, ad ore
sed her acts, Family Photos, Prints, ete. c 250.00
tigre spc cod pe
Se and reactor |
6 Wang par Wearing Apparet c 3,000.00
1. ny
8. Froame and sot, phtogrci,nd One Rifle H 200.00
ener
‘hres in acace pein
tech pty
is corre ea
10. Aen. homies mare sah
‘ee
“Vuimea in RAL ERA Koghoroter | | Federal Judicial Pension (unvested) 4 NO GASH VALUE
‘slo peli are erie
Fidelity Investmenta IRA ¢ 9,500.27
“2 Sk ae Hara consid et
‘bipsaponiad bnoeen, Borie
“2. etre in patent okt
votre, bene,

DEF01925


5782

Discover Platinum
P.O. Box 6011
Dover, DE 19903-6011

Edward F, Bukaty, IIT
One Galleria Blvd.
Suite 1810

Metairie, LA 70001-2082

Fidelity Homestead Association
222 Baronne Street
New Orleans, LA 70112

First USA Bank
P.O. Box 94014
Palatine, IL 60094-4014

J.C. Pennny
P.O, Box 27570
Albuquerque, NM 87125

Jules A. Fontana, III
Fontana & Fontana, L.L.C.
1022 Loyola Avenue

New Orleans, LA 70113

MBNA America
P.O, Box 15137
Wilmington, DE 19886-5137

MBNA America
P.O. Box 15019
Wilmington, DE 19886-5019

MBNA America
P.O. Box 15137
Wilmington, DE 19886-5137

Regions Bank
301 St. Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70130

Chrysler Credit Corporaiton
P. 0. Box 7000
Covington, LA 70434

DEF01918


6045

| LevsNexis neymenr ser | ove rmre|Seroew
Presearen Tasks Get a Document shepar'® ales Total Litgator Transactions Advisor Ycouneel Selector onsen

18" em ptm meni tcninnoSac W enaieG=2)

Source: News & Business > Combined Sowrees > News, All (English Full Text)
“Tema. "Sen, Kyl Issues Statement on Rep, Solls Confirmation as Secretary of Labor” (Edit Search | Suanest Toms for My Seach | Feedback on Your
Seat)

SEN, KYL ISSUES STATEMENT ON REP. SOLIS CONFIRMATION AS SECRETARY OF LABOR US Fed News February 25, 2009
Wednesday 11:32 AM EST

Copyright 2009 HT Media Lta.
All Rights Reserved
US Fed News

February 25, 2009 Wednesday 11:32 AM EST
LENGTH: 206 words
HEADLINE: SEN. KYL ISSUES STATEMENT ON REP. SOLIS CONFIRMATION AS SECRETARY OF LABOR
Bopy:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- The office of Sen. Jon kyl, R-Ariz., issued the following statement:

‘The U.S. Senate today approved the nomination of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) to become the U.S. Secretary of Labor. U.S.
Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl opposed the confirmation and issued the following statement: "I opposed Rep. Hilda
Solis's confirmation, in large part, due to her unwillingness to provide substantive answers during her confirmation
hearing, as well as her failure to disclose her ties to the pro-labor union organization, American Rights at Work. She
Corrected her House disclosure forms only after the issue came to light, raising questions about her motivations to set the
record straight. “And, although she was a cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act when she was a member of the
House of Representatives, she refused to offer specifics about the issue during her hearings. "While the President is
entitled to nominate those who reflect his views, I take seriously my responsiblity to vet nominees. I believe Rep. Solis
should have been more forthright during the confirmation process; therefore, I withheld my support."For more
Information please contact: Sarabyit Jagirdar, Email:~ htsyniication@hindustantimes,

LOAD-DATE: March 24, 2009

‘Source: News & Business > Combined Sources > News, Al (English, Full Test)
‘erm: "Sen. Kf issues Statement on Rep. lls Confirmation as Secretary of Labor" (Et Search| Suaaee! Teme fr My Search | Eeedback on
You Seat)

Mew: Fut
DateTime: Tuesday, August 31, 2010-7-13 PMEDT

h | Research Tasks | Get 2 Document | Shepardn@ | Alerts | Total Ligator | Transactional Advisor | Counsel Selector
‘sl | Delve, Warogor [Dest | Sich Glo | ofrecws | San Oui

LexisNexis® Absutlasides |Terms 6 conditions 1 Contac. Us
@ LexisNexis: GEE cl Bes tein of aaa ear nc AF gts eve

omsearb/ereve?_=6Sace3#3230e84610c357848049876kesve=bécform=searchFomns,fntst-FULLAdocmim=1&_..W/312010
DEFO2497

PORT Exhibit 1130



5931

deprecating way. He said that it did not refer to the witness, whom he said was likable and had

not come across as self-important in his testimony.

The note referencing Mormons began with a statement written by the courtroom
deputy that was responded to by the judge during the testimony of a Mormon witness. Judge
McDonald told the Committee that his daughter is a Mormon, that the note went on to reference
that fact, and that he meant no insult to any of the identified groups. The "mafia" reference was a
note by the judge to himself, conveying that the trial lawyer should not have permitted his clients
to appear in court dressed in a stereotypical manner. The notes referencing attomeys Powell and
Rice were personal comments about their appearance and performance. In addition, there were a
number of notes written in court by the judge commenting on the appearance or performance of
certain other attorneys and witnesses, as well as several notes exchanged with his colwrtroom

deputy that were aptly characterized in the press as constituting "offensive banter.”

Al interviewees - judges, court personnel, and public and private attomeys who
appeared repeatedly before Judge McDonald, including several Hispanic attomeys - told the
Committee that they never witnessed any racial, religious, or ethnic bias of the judge, either in or
outside of the courtroom. One judge noted Judge McDonald’s efforts to include additional
questions about bias on the court’s jury questionnaire, in order to ensure impartiality of juries,
and two judges noted Judge McDonald’s support for increased hiring of minorities and women

by the probation department.
In.

Disciplinary action is appropriate when a judge "has engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." 28
USC. § 372(c). Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides guidance by
stating: "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All

Activities." Subsection A of Canon 2 explains that: "A judge should . . . act at all times in a

5

DEF02377


6066

BAIL JUMPING 13
Survival 4
Percentage
08

0.6

04

02

Surety

50 700-150 «200° 250-300-350
Time in Days

Fioure 3.—Kaplan-Meier survival function for defendants on surety bond versus those
released on cash bond or deposit bond or released on their own recognizance—using matched
samples,

skip bail is evident within a week of the failure to appear: By 200 days,
the surety survival rate is some 20-30 percentage points, or SO percent, lower
than the survival rate for those out on cash bond, deposit bond, or their own
recognizance; that is, the probability of being recaptured is some 50 percent
higher for those released on surety bond relative to other releases. (Note that
there are three surety bond survival functions, one for each comparison group,
but these are nearly identical.)

A log-rank test confirms Figure 3; we can easily reject the null hypothesis
of equality of the survivor fumctions—defendants released on surety bond
are much more likely to be recaptured (that is, less likely to remain at large,
or “survive”) than those released on their own recognizance, deposit bond,
or cash bond.*

© A number of estimates have been made that bounty hunters take into custody between
25,000 and 35,000 fagitives a yeas, depending on the year (see various sources in Drimmer,
‘supra note 11; and also W. P. Barr, letier to Charles T. Canady on the Bounty Hunter Re-
Sponsibility Act, NABIC Bull., March 2000). These figures are consistent with 9 recapture rate
of over 95 percent and are consistent with the number of fugitives on surety bond. It appears,
therefore, that almost all fugitives on surety bond are recaptured by bail enforcement agents
‘and not by the police. Bounty hunters, however, will sometimes track down defendants and
‘then tip police as to their whereabouts, so police will sometimes be involved in some aspects
of recapture.

The exact results of the log-rank test and similar results matching on propensity score and
bail can be found in Helland & Tabarrok, supra note 43.

DEF02624


5823

United States s Bankruptc Court 01-12363
Eastern District of Louisi - (Case Number
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE'S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT
Inve: GABRIEL T PORTEOUS OR This case was:
CARMELLA A PORTEOUS COMPLETED
4801 NEYREY DR Final Meeting of Creditors:
METAIRIE LA 70002 8:40 AM, May 18, 2004

S. J. Beaulieu, Jr., Chapter 13 Trustee, respectfully submits for the Court's approval a report of his administration of this
estate, avers thatthe case has been fully administered pursuant to FRBP 5009, and prays that he be relieved of his trust.
‘The total amount received from or on behalf of the debtor was $ 57,600.00, which was disbursed as follows:

+ we =
Tl BANK ONE DIRECT PAY
G2 GORYSLER EIMMicTAL comp DIRECT PAY
RYSLER FINWICIAL CORP RECT
8 FTOELETY HOMESTEAD. DIRECT PAY
05 ECAST SETTLaNENT Cone UNSECURED
08 BAM OF LOUISIANA
lL

25 DILLARD ATIONAL BAN UNSECURED
j 3.27428 Dighuteed 0 PRIORITY Greaictes

Paid to Trustee
Paid to Attorney:
Refunded to Debtor

31780:00 Disbursed to SECURED C: 00
ed to UNSECURED Creditors: § 52,567703

8.70 Die

cc: CLAUDE C LIGHTFOOT oR
STE 450
3500 N CAUSEWAY BLVD
METAIRIE LA 70002

eis S. J. Beaulieu, Jr.
pm aces Chapter 13 Trustee

DEFO1994
PORT Exhibit 1100 (z)


5942

November 6, 1997, Judge Ware publicly admitted his misrepresentations and withdrew his
nomination for the Court of Appeals.

On November 7, 1997, Judge Ware made plane reservations to go to
Birmingham to apologize to the Ware family. Judge Ware also asked to see Judge Clemon
to express his regrets and explain the misunderstandings concerning Judge Ware's silence
in the time that elapsed since Judge Clemon communicated with Judge Henderson in August.
Judge Ware arrived in Birmingham on November 9, accompanied by his son, where he met
with Judge Clemon and James Ware and his brother Melvin Ware. Judge Ware and
Judge Clemon discussed the chronology of the newspaper article confusion, reaching a mutual
understanding of the facts surrounding the miscommunications, Judge Ware apologized
to Judge Clemon for the inconvenience and difficulties he had caused. More important,
Judge Ware apologized to the Ware brothers in Birmingham, who graciously accepted the
apologies. James Ware has told the Committee that he believed Judge Ware’s apologies were
sincere, and that he believed Judge Ware had not deliberately set out from the beginning
to misrepresent his identity. Nevertheless, the Ware family remains understandably saddened
that Judge Ware did not put an early end to the misunderstandings he had fostered.

tl.

Disciplinary action against a judge is called for when a judge “has engaged in
conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the
courts." 28 U.S.C. § 372(c). Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges
provides guidance by stating: “A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of

Impropriety in All Activities.” Subsection A of Canon 2 explains that: “A judge should

DEFO2388


5854

40 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

JUDGE HILLMAN: I want to look at what the new debtor
obtained in exchange for that promise. If there was some sort of reworking
of the deal that was very much in the debtor's favor and they had the benefit
of that for sometime and they just couldn't go any longer and they now filed,
I think I would be inclined to say, you bargained away any rights you
otherwise have in 11.

JUDGE MARK: I think there’s a danger in saying that you
would enforce that kind of stipulation because it will immediately wet the
appetite of lenders and lenders’ counsel to draft it in and it is already
happening in Florida as a result of a couple of decisions that really were
typical bad faith dismissals, but also mentioned in passing that there were pre-
petition stipulations and implied, if not directly stating, that they were
enforcing those. One was the Citadel Properties case by Judge Proctor.
Another was In Re Aurora Investments, which was Judge Paskay. The
Paskay decision noting that there was a stipulation that a bankruptcy filing
would be deemed to be bad faith and the Citadel Properties enforcing, which
I think was almost dictum, pre-petition agreement for stay relief.

I don’t think we can anticipate any expansion of that concept, if that
concept is even really implicit in these cases, but I agree with Bill and with
Lisa, that you look at that as another indication of the pre-petition misconduct
or pre-petition conduct. And I have found a case where the debtor or
borrower obtained a six-month extension on the eve of a judgment in the state
court promising that it will sell off enough property in the development to pay
you by December. If not, it will stipulate to judgment in sale.

They didn’t. They filed Chapter 11, Motion to dismiss on bad faith,
What is your plan? Well, now we are going to sell it off over the next four
years. [say forget it. You made a deal in state court. You bought six more
months. In this instance, you don’t get another chance in bankruptcy to
change the deal. So I think it does get into what happened pre-petition, what
consideration was given for these promises, more so than just a stipulation
itself.

TM In re Citadel Properties, 86 B.R. 275 (M.D. Fla, 1988).
144 BR, 899 (M.D. Fla. 1992).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Banks, Inst. L. Rev. 40 1993

DEF02287


5863

Further, the allegation that the presiding district judge wrongfully accepted complainant’s

guilty plea arises from judicial orders entered during the course of the criminal proceeding, “The

complaint procedure is not intended to provide a means of obtaining review of a judge’s de
or ruling in a case... Only a court can do that.” Rules of the Judicial Council of the First Circuit
Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, Rule 1(e). Accordingly, the
allegations against this judge are dismissed as directly related to the merits of a decision or
procedural ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 372(cX3\A)Gi)?

Finally, complainant presents no evidence that the presiding judge participated in a
conspiracy or other wrongdoing in connection with complainant's prosecution. Therefore, the
allegations against this judge are also dismissed as fivolous, See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(i)

Consequently, the complaint is dismissed as not in conformity with the requirements of the
statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(), as directly related to the merits of a decision or
procedural ruling, see 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(ii), and as frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. §
372(c)()(A)(ii).

hhief Judge Torruella

The record shows that complainant, in fact, successfully challenged the court's acceptance of his guilty
plea on appeal. The First Circuit Cour of Appeals held thatthe district court erred in denying complainant's
motion to vacate his sentence on the ground that his plea had been accepted in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the legal issue arising from the court's acceptance of complainant's plea
‘was decided in complainant's favor almost twenty years ago.

3

DEF02309


5778

{Otmctat Form 7 (987)

FORM ET

United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of Louisiana

Voluntary Petition

‘Namie of Debsor (if individual, enter Lat, Firs, Middle
Ortous, GT.

‘Name of Jom Debtor (SpouseXLast, Firs, Middley
Ortous, CA.

‘Alois Nepes wed by he Dc he st HORAN CBF

Geet mated,

Biba Name dy We Jats Debora et 6 yas
Gade ro acon 2 ae

Soc. See/Tax LD. No. (ifmore than one, state all):

‘S9e Sec Tax LD. No. (if more than one state aly.

Principal Place of Business: Jefferton Pariah

436-64-1366 434-798-3992

‘Sireet Address of Debtor (No, & Siret,Cily, State & Zip Cole) ‘Suet Adress of Joint Debtor (No. & Stes, Oty, State & Zip Code).
P.O. Box 1723 P.O. Box 1723

Harvey, LA 70059-1723, Harvey, LA 70089-1723

‘County of Residence or of the Coty of Ries oof te

ipl Place of Buriness: Jefferson Parish

‘Mailing Address of Debtor (if different from streot address

‘Mailing Address of Joint Debtor (i different from street address):

Location of Principal Assets of Business Debtor
(Cetra en seo aes shove):

4-41 2ZL2

Information Regarding the Debtor (Check the Applicable Boxes)

eat (Chck ay apiable bos)

1B etter has been domi or has had residence, princi place of bain o
thi pion flrs eget prt of a 180 da an ay ober Dac

ici sti tis Disc ir 10 days iment preceding te dete

Theresa bankruptcy at concern Stor lina, general pac, pare pending inthis Disc

‘Type of Debtor (Check all boxes that apply)
invita) Raita
Ol Corprsen

GD Stctbreker
G Parmenhip 1B Conmociy Broker
Di otter

‘Nature of Debts (Check one bor)
1 ComumerNon Busnes O Bain

(Chapter or Section of Bankruptcy Code Under Which
the Petiion is Filed (Check one bor)

Ci cptertt B cope 3

‘Chapter U1 Small Business (Check all bores th
Deter is sl basins dfs in 1 USC § 101
(Geter is nee be cored «imal snes der

USC. §1121(¢) (Opin)

Rule 1006). See Offa Form No.3.

‘Statistica/Adminstratve Information (Exiates oly) Pris space 1s FOR COURT USE ONLY
eter ha ft wilt vb fr tron sae rtn,
(Deter exe air ry nrg rope aide annual epee pi i will
‘Re hdr alii or arbutonotncun oor,
a ee
emt ner of Cron ooo ob ‘Oo oO
Tact he
foe Sail siounty Mtoe Samo HAMEL au Mac
Be TABS Seer SHES tate” sawn stern
ee a a fi
Tanabe
sso SAE SP GRE CUPRRL HERE “son stl
0 O 6'O a 3 a a
DEF01914
PORT Exhibit 1100 (b)

GPO,


5889

These two cases are cited as examples of the improper acts in furtherance of the
alleged conspiracy. In these cases, there was an appearance by the law firm of the Chair
of the judicial selection committee that made recommendations as to candidates for
federal judgeships.® That committee, according to Complainant, rated Respondent as
“recommended.” No request for Respondent’s disqualification was made by the parties in
either of the two cases to which Complainant refers.

Both cases were pending at the time that Respondent joined the District Court.

The first case was reassigned to Respondent shortly after he joined the Court. Six months
Jater, an attorney from the selection committee chair’s law firm entered an appearance in
the case. After six days of trial, the case settled.

As to this case, Complainant alleges that Respondent, “participated in the
orchestration of the assignment of a [ ] firm case for his adjudication.” Complainant
alleges that Respondent appointed the Chair’s law firm to represent the pro se plaintiff in
the case. But the record proves otherwise. The docket demonstrates that plaintiff was at
all times represented by counsel. Nor is there any indication that the Chair’s law firm was

appointed or that Respondent was responsible for its involvement in the case.

® This “committee” is not official and is appointed by the two United States
Senators.

DEF02335


5963

Executive Summary

: The Criminal Justice System in Jefferson Parish

‘The Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System, like its counterparts across the nation, is less a “system” than
‘an accumulation of parts, with sometime overlapping and sometime barely intersecting jurisdictions. For
purpases of this BGR report, the parish criminal justice system was defined to include the following agencies:

Jefferson Parish Sheriff and Jefferson Parish Correctional Center

Jefferson Parish District Attomey

‘Twenty-fourth Judicial District Indigent Defender Board

Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court

‘Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court

First and Second Parish Court

Jefferson Parish Regional Office, Division of Probation and Parole,
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Jefferson Pi

Juvenile Court tos
Jefferson Parish Department of Juvenile Services and Rivarde Detention Center
Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CICC)

‘These agencies, together with the municipal law enforcement agencies, employed approximately 2,500
people and spent approximately $94 million in 1993, as shown in Exhibits 1 and 2. ‘These figures do not
reflect the additional sales tax approved for the sheriff's office in 1993, estimated at $10 million per year, or
the hiring of 82 new deputies anticipated for 1994. Nor do they include the parish Human Services
‘Authority's intensive probation program, which began in May 1994, with a budget of $100,000 and a staff of
four.

The Study

This BGR study is an overview of the system as a whole and the individual agencies which make up the
system. Within this system perspective, BGR’s scope of review was designed to focus on two separate but
related questions: Is additional parish jail space needed, or isthe apparent jail overcrowding a result of other
parts of the criminal justice system’s not working properly?

The rationale for the focus on jail overcrowding was based on the recognition that this is a major public
poliéy matter resulting in the citizens of Jefferson Parish’s being asked to decide, in recent years, on two
proposals for financing and constructing jail space. In addition, it is quite possible that voters will be asked to
consider another proposal to approve the financing of additional jail space in‘an election later this year or
early 1995.

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System —1

DEF02409


5912

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE
FIPTH CIRCUIT we 1 2 2008
IN RE: NO. 04-05-372-0069 i
PETITION FOR REVIEW BY BLES A. FULBRUGE tt
CLERK

THE FINAL ORDER FILED JUNE 29, 2004, DISMISSING

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT AGAINST
UNDER THE

JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980.

ORDER
An Appellate Review Panel of the Judicial Council of the
Fifth Circuit has reviewed the above-captioned petition for

review, and all the members of the Panel have voted to affirm the

Order of Chief Judge King, dated June 29, 2004, dismissing the

and Disability Act of 1980. The Order is therefore

AFFIRMED.

E. Grady Jolly
United States Circuit Judge,
For the Judicial Council of
the Fifth Circuit

GF Ave 'ot

Date

DEF02358


5940

consistent with the way he had presented himself publicly, but that at the time he believed chat
he may well have been related to a Virgil Ware in Birmingham. There is no evidence that
Judge Ware ever repeated the Virgil Ware story or asserted any relationship to Virgil Ware
during interviews for the Ninth Circuit position. The subject did not come up at his
confirmation hearing in October 1997.

By late August 1997, District Judge U. W. Clemon of the Norther District of
‘Alabama had learned that Judge Ware had been nominated for the Ninth Circuit through a
newspaper article in the Birmingham World. Judge Clemon also had knowledge of Judge
Ware's version of the 1963 events from viewing a C-SPAN telecast of one of Judge Ware’s
speeches. Judge Clemon had also recently seen an article in a different newspaper, the
Birmingham News, commemorating the events of 1963, including the murder of Virgil Ware.
The article included a photograph of Virgil’s brother, James Ware of Birmingham, who had
been on the bicycle.

Realizing that Judge Ware had made serious misrepresentations and was now
being considered for a higher judicial post, Judge Clemon communicated his concerns to
Chief Judge Thelton Henderson of the Northern District of California. He also endeavored to
contact Judge Ware, who was on vacation.

Unfortunately, the newspaper article in the Birmingham World describing
Judge Ware's nomination had erroneously included a photograph of someone other than
Judge Ware, and Judge Ware had seen that article. Judge Ware did not know, however, in
August and September of 1997, about the article and photograph of Mr. James Ware in the

Birmingham News, describing Mr. Ware’s role in the 1963 tragedy.

DEF02386


5781

American Express Centurion Bank
Suite 0002
Chicago, IL 60679-0002

Bank of Louisiana Mastercard
P.O. Box 6972
Metairie, LA 70009-6972

Bank One
P.O, Box 32490
Louisville, KY 40232

First USA Bank, N.A.
First USA Bank, N.A.

P.O. Box 8864
Wilmington, DE 19699-8864

Chase Platinum Mastercard
P.O, Box 52050
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2050

Citibank Advantage
P.O. Box 6408
The Lakes, NV 88901-6408

Citibank Advantage
P.O, Box 6000
The Lakes, NV 89163-6000

Citibank USA
P.O. Box 15109
Wilmington, DE 19850-5109

Citifinancial
P.O. Box 17127
Baltimore, MD 21297

Dillards
P.O. Box $2079
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2079

Dillard's
P. 0. Box 52067
Phoenix, AZ 85072

DEF01917


5972

Exhibit 3

Range of Options For Responding to Jail Overcrowding
in Jefferson Parish

[OPTION Tried or currently in use
in Jefferson Parish

YES NO.

Law Enforcement

‘Summons in lieu of arrest Y

Prearrest diversion to a community resource N

Timely and accurate completion of incident reports N

Jail Administration

. Access to defendants for pretrial screening Y

Detention and case monitors and/or expediters

4.
'5. Provision of analysis of jail population data to key decision-makers N
6
7.

Citation release

8. Emergency release

‘9. "Good Time"

<|<|<|<|<

10. Early release

Prosecution

11. Prearrest warrant screening
12, Early screening
13. Diversion from prosecution

14. Priority handling of jail cases

<|}<|<}<|<

16. Vertical prosecution

Defense

16. Prompt indigency screening Y

Early inves

ion and plea negotiation Y

18. Priority handling of jail cases Y

10—The Parish of Jefferson: Government

DEFO2418


5992

individual is released from detention unsupervised; Conditional
or Supervised Release, where no money is required to secure
release from the jail, but certain conditims imposed by the
court must be met, such as regular reporting to special
reporting center, agency oF outpatient clinic, or continued
employment or educational activity; Third Party Releae or
Personal Surety Bond Undertaking (PSBU), where a third
party—ausually a family member—guarantees an individual's
appearance in court; and Emergency Release, a extrsordinary
form of release on recognizance used to reduce jal over-
crowding whereby a sheif, jail administrators, and/or judges
decide to release certain desinees in order to sccommodete
‘ew ones. Supervised release methods ae the least available
option in Jefferson Parish

Extensive use of emergency release eventually renders
‘meaningless the conditions of other forms of non-monetary
release, and there are two types of emergency release now in
use in Jefferson Parish. They are the sheriff's emergency
telease program, in operation since April 1991, and the release
of misdemeanants under a 1976 federal court order.

‘Other Options for Release or Partial Release

Day Reporting Centers. Day reporting centers are
facilities to which persons must report daily for structured
services and/or activities. Feilure to report may result in
revocation of release and return to jail. In many cases,
individuals released to day reporting centers are required both
to report physically to the center and to call in by telephone on
a regular basis. No programs ofthis type currently exist in
Jefferson Parish.

Halfway Houses. Halfway houses provide lower security
supervision in a residential setting. They are especially
effective as transitional facilities where inmates can be supet-
‘vised in later stages of their sentences. Release from jail to
some halfway houses requires participation in drug or alcohol
(reatment programs, work’study programs, or employment
counseling. There is currently one facility ofthis type in
Jefferson Parish, used by the Intensive Probation Program.

Electronic Monitoring, Electronic monitoring uses
electronic devices worn or carried on one's person to enforce
hhome or home-and-work detention of pretrial suspects or
sentenced offenders. Jefferson Parish currently has an elec~
tronic monitoring program funded by the parish and in use
since March 1991. Criteria for program participation were
developed by the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, the
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, and the state Office of
Probation and Parole. One hundred monitoring devices are
available forthe program. The parish's juvenile court is using
40 units, and 20 units are being used for adults awaiting trial
for sentenced to parish time. The Fist Parish Court expects to
begin using electronée monitoring by the end of 1994

30—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

"Boot Camp"Shock Incarceration. "Boot camp" or
shock incarceration programs are designed to minimize the
likelihood that participants will become habitual offenders.
Modelled after the military boot camp, these programs rely on
physical drills and discipline and have a rehabilitative
emphasis. Early research reveals that for the first time
offender without a long criminal history and with a willingness
to participate, boot camp programs can have a positive impact.

Boot camp programs were originally used as an alternative
to a prison sentence, but recent research indicates that
programs are being developed as a sentence at the local level.
Since 1983, 41 boot camps have been opened in 26 state
correctional jurisdict n to many being developed
and being considered in cities and counties and for juveniles
(MacKenzie etal, p. 1). The Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections has operated a boot camp program
since 1987 at the Hunt Correctional Center in St. Gabriel. The
recent anti-crime session of the state legistature also authorized
planning for boot camps for juveniles in Louisiana.

Boot camps proposed for juveniles are not be be confused
with the "Young Marines" platoons operating locally. The
"Young Marines” program offered by the United States Marine
Reserve, with corporate sponsorship, is not for offenders. It is
offered for young people who are actively secking positive
Rperitnces to help them cultivate discipline and self-esteem,

‘Other Non~Jail Sentences

Suspended Sentence. Courts occasionally will order 2
sentence and then suspend it, meaning the individual will not
actually serve the sentence unless he or she engages in further
criminal activity or violates the conditions of release. When
Judges suspend sentences, they have the prerogative to place
‘the defendant on active or inactive probation.

Fines, Fees and Restitution, Offenders can be required to
‘pay part of the cost of supervision, legal proceedings, or
‘dumage incurred as a result of their crimes. Fees for probation
supervision, court fees, and restitution are most common.

Community Service, Community service or some public
activity is sometimes required of offenders who are not
employed or who cannot reasonably be expected to make
‘monetary payments.

Probation, Offenders can be sentenced to probation
instead of jail or prison. Probation usually requires meeting on
at least a monthly basis with a probation officer and paying @
‘monthly fee. Individuals on probation must meet the special
conditions of their probation as ordered by the courts, These
special conditions are sometimes determined after a
presentence investigation (PSI) is completed by a probation
officer.

DEF02438


5890

In the second case, the Chair had entered an appearance in the case four days
before it was reassigned to Respondent. That case also settled. Complainant suggests
that bribery may have occurred, but offers no factual basis for this allegation.

I

The judicial misconduct statute provides a remedy if a federal judicial officer, “has
engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the
business of the courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 351(a).” A Chief Judge may dismiss a complaint
brought under the statute if, after review, he finds that it is not cognizable under the
statute, is directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or is legally
frivolous or lacks sufficient evidence to raise an inference of misconduct. 28 U.S.C. §

352(b)(1)(A)(-iii).

Section 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) (formerly 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(ii)), which provides
for dismissal of complaints related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling,
reflects Congress’ concern that a misconduct complaint not be used as vehicle by which
disappointed litigants may challenge judicial action or inaction occurring in the course of

litigation which is reviewable by appeal or mandamus. The Senate Report on 28 U.S.C. §

372(c) states, “It is important to point out what subsection (c) does not mean; it is not

” Effective November 2, 2002 the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 replaced the
former 28 U.S.C. § 372(c), which governed complaints of judicial misconduct or
disability, with 28 U.S.C. § 351, ef seq. Although certain additions and minor changes
were made in regard to the complaint procedures, the substance of the former 28 U.S.C. §
372(c) remains intact.

DEF02336


5811

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
Eastem District of Louisiana

lnm Gabeel. Porteous, Jr, Carmella A Porteous casoNo. 01-12389 Section “A
peony sseresoee crager 13
os
CHAPTER 13 PLAN Dmg
NOTICE

‘THIS PLAN CONTAINS EVIOENTIARY MATTER WHICH, IF NOT CONTROVERTED, MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT
[AS TRUE. CREDITORS CANNOT VOTE ON THIS PLAN BUT MAY OBJECT TO ITS CONFIRMATION PURSUANT TO.
‘BANKRUPTCY CODE § 1324, AND LOCAL RULES. ABSENT ANY SUCH OBJECTION, THE COURT MAY CONFIRM THIS
PLAN AND ACCEPT THE VALUATION AND ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED HEREN,

‘The Debtors) above named hereby proposss the fowing pian.

1. Debt A debts are provided fr by this Plan, Only cretors holding clans duly proved and alowed shail be entiled to payments fom the Trustee
(Gee Notice of Fing of Bar Det) Trusten shal nt fle a cain on bea of any crete,

2. Payments. As ofthe dat ofthis plan the debtor has pal! $0.00 othe Trustee. Debtor andr any eny from whom the debtors) receive income
shal pay tothe Trusie te sum f $876.00 Monthly, commmancing April 28, 2004, for 38 months fra total of 531,500.00 or unt such amount are
aid the wl ford payment ofa alowed and proven claims in the esrounts payable under his Pan.

Graduated Payments: BEGIN MONTH OF MONTHS ADJUSTMENT

3. Plan Payments, The Teste, from evelabe funds, shall make payments to creditors inthe folowing amounts and erder. AN dates for beginning ot
payments are ealmates ely and may be adhste bythe Truste ws necessary cary othe tea of this plan,

A DEBTORS FEE PADTO BALANCE —_—— PAYMENT SCHEDULE — JOTAL
‘ATTORNEY REQUESTED DATE —«DUE.—PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH PAYMENTS
Claude C, Lightfoot, Jr. 4,750.00 0.00 1,750.00 83333 2 1,750.00

090 0.00 mse 3 1
B, Moaage Arrears, (Regular monty payments tbe made by Debiar and to sat on the fret due date afr dat offing pttion
PAYMENT SCHEDULE— TOTAL
cREDITOR RATE ARREARS «PAYMENT MONTH LenTH PAYMENTS
NONE

CC. Secured Claims, (A crc’ secured ct nha be the net amount ue as of date of fing othe valve of the clteral to which creditor's Han
Sitaches, whichever fe les. itera! shal be slowed at contact rate o 8.00% APR whichever le, Creditor aha retain is en unt the allowed
secured potion ofthe cam i uly pais)

CREDITOR & —PAYMENT SCHEDULE —
COLLATERAL RATE CLAM = PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH
|. Secured Claims «Pai in ful

NONE

1. Secured Claims - Cure defauit only

NONE

‘TOTAL
PAYMENTS

ed
eta Pet

DEF01947


5994

Governor's Task Force on Indigent Defense. Report of the Task Force on Indigent Defense. May 1994.
Governor's Violent Crime and Homitide Task Force. Report of Recommendations. May 26, 1994.
Henry, D. Alan, "Pretrial Programs: Describing the Ideal.” Federal Probation, $7(1993): 23-27.
Jefferson Parish, 1994 Operating Budget, Proposed.

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Crime Tax Proposal, October 16, 1993.
——. Jefferson Parish Jail Overcrowding. April, 1991.

———._ Number of Offenses Known to Police, 1970-1993, in Louisiana, Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish.
January 28, 1994,

——. Number of Offenses per 100,000 Residents, 1970-1993. January 31, 1994,

‘Number of Prisoners Released from the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center on an Emergency Basis by the
April 3, 1991 to February 6, 1994, (no date].

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and Guillot-Vogt Associates Inc. Prison Facility
Requirements: Jefferson Parish, LA. September, 1981.

.. Study of the Construction Alternatives to Relieve Jail Overcrowding at the Jefferson Parish Correctional
Center. November, 1991 vo

Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court. Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court 1988 - Present. 1993,

Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court. Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Year
Ended June 30, 1993.

Jefferson Parish Department of Juvenile Services. 1993 Annual Report
Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office. General Purpose Financial Statements. December 31, 1993.

Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. Daily Jail Sheet. April 18, 1994.

General Purpose Financial Statements, 1992-1993

~. Parish Prison Population Daily Head Count Monthly Report. March 1994.
Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Annual Report. 1980-1993,
Kennedy, Edwin. "How Does Your Court Perform?” State Cowrt Journal, 11 (1987).

Kerle, Ken. Managing Editor, American Jails Magazine. Telephone Interview, July 13, 1994,

Koehler, Richard and Linder, Charles. “Altemative Incarceration: An Inevitable Response to Institutional

Overcrowding.” Federal Probation, (September) 1992, 12-18,

Landrieu, Moon. Report of the Chairman of the Commission to Study the Orleans Parish Judicial System. February,
1993.

‘32—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

DEFO2440


5870

Ir

We first consider the claim that the Judge’s presence and
participation at an event of the ACS is in itself a breach of
ethics. Next, we consider the several claims premised on the
substance of the Judge’s remarks. Last, we consider the claim
based on statements attributed to the Judge’s wife at the Yale
Protest.

Speaking at the ACS Conference

The complaint docketed under 04-8547 claims that, regardless
of the content of the Judge’s remarks, the fact that he spoke at
all at the ACS convention violated the Canon 7 prohibition
against political activity and making speeches for a political

organization. See Canon 7(A(2) ("A judge should not ... make
speeches for a political organization...”). It is alleged in the

complaint that the ACS is, “by definition[,] left-leaning and
{has} always had a partisan mission and agenda.”

The ACS describes itself on its web site, found at
www.acslaw.org, as a “progressive legal organization” which seeks
to Counter “a narrow, conservative approach to the law” that (it
asserts) “has come to dominate American law and public law.”
According to the web site, contributions to the ACS are tax-
deductible; it “is a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c) (3)
educational organization”; and it does “not, as an organization,
lobby, litigate, or take positions on specific issues, cases,
legislation, or nominations." A review of the various events
listed on the web site supports the allegation that the ACS
mission is “left-leaning,” but it also reveals that speakers at
the listed events appear to be from across the political
spectrum.

The claim that speaking at an ACS event constitutes
political activity does not withstand analysis under Canon 7.
The phrase “political organization" in Canon 7(A) (2) likely
refers to groups organized primarily for political purposes, such
as political parties, rather than to groups organized primarily
for other purposes, such as legal education or debate, even if
there is sympathy between a particular group or its mission and
partisan entities. This distinction is suggested by Canon 7(C),
which states: “A judge should not engage in any other political
activity [referring to activities specified in 7(A) and (B)];
provided, however, this should not prevent a judge from engaging
in the activities described in Canon 4.” Canon 4 in turn
provides: “[a] judge may engage in extra-judicial activities to

5

DEF02316


5980

operation of a new 700-bed facility at a cost of $18
million (though early cost projections were for $21
million). The tax did not pass. In thé fall of 1993, the
Jefferson Parish Council proposed a 1/4 cent sales tax for
construction of the same type of facility, which also did
not pass.

Non-Jail Construction Needs

itations on jail space, the current
Judicial district court facilities are also harapered by
Timitations of space and security. The building was not
originally built as a courthouse and, as a result, has
inadequate space and design features to handle the
current volume of court activity. Perhaps the most
serious security problem is that inmates must be led
through the courthouse to arraignment and trial. There
are no witness rooms in the courthouse. There is
presently one more judge than there are courtrooms.

Despite any other needs, however, itis anticipated
that bringing the building up to local fire standards and
into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
will be addressed before additional space is added or
physical security is provided for. According to the Chief
Judge, these improvements in and modifications to the
existing courthouse are anticipated to cost approximately
$600,000.

Use of Sheriff's 1993 Sales Tax
for Juveniles and District Court

‘As part of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's successful
proposal to increase the parish sales tax by 1/4 cent in
the fall of 1993, the Sheriff pledged to spend $1 million
‘on a juvenile intake and booking facility and $1.5
million on additions and/or renovations to courtrooms in
the Twenty-fourth Judicial District. A letter of
agreement between the Parish Council and the Sheriff
was signed prior to the election. The parish is legally
required by state law to provide for both of these
facilities.

These funds are being collected by the sheriff and
held in escrow until plans are finalized for these two
projects. Design planning for the construction of the
jjuvenife facility has already begun, and requests for
proposals will be sent out by late 1994. Construction
is expected to begin on the $1 million project in 1995,
and completion is expected to take up to 14 months,
The facility will be staffed by personnel from the

18 The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. Juvenile intake and
booking currently takes place at the parish’s adult
correctional facility in Gretna. State and federal law
both require juveniles to be separated from adult
inmates and defendants.

Specific plans for additional space for the Twenty-
fourth Judicial District Court have not yet been
developed. The fourth floor of the courthouse
annex—currently occupied by the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeal—may become available within the next three
to five years, as the parish has recently donated space for
the construction of a new facility for that court.

Arrangements With Other
Public Authorities

Other Parish Jai

In the 1970's, one of the first responses of the
Jefferson Parish Sheriff and jail warden to local j
overcrowding was to transfer an average of between 35
ang 40 inmates to eight neighboring jails. This transfer
was made under the authority of L.R.S. 15:706. After
the Jefferson Parish Community Correctional Center
opened in 1978, this practice of “farming out" state
prisoners to area jails was discontinued. It was resumed
in 1989 and continued until 1993.

Orleans Parish Jail

Since 1993, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff has
transferred to Orleans parish the inmates sentenced to the
state Department of Public Safety and Corrections. This
Practice frees bed space in Jefferson Parish and accounts
for the comparatively low percentage of "state" inmates

in the Jefferson Parish jail. The Orleans Parish Criminal
Sheriff is seimbursed by the state for holding these state
prisoners, atthe rate of $21 per day established by state

law.

Since 1975, state law has provided for state payment
of a per diem to local sheriffs to maintain those
offenders who have been sentenced to the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections but are housed in parish
jails. The initial per diem was $2.25. Current law sets
the payment at $21 per day, for which the legislature
makes an annual appropriation based on projections from
the state department.

DEF02426


5865

As the allegations against the second judge arose during the course of a criminal
proceeding over which the judge presided approximately 20 years ago, they were dismissed as not
in conformity with the requirements of the statute, See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c}(3)(A}4); see also
Rules of the Judicial Council of the First Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or
Disability, Rule 1(6) (“Complaints should be filed promptly... A complaint may ... be dismissed if
it does not indicate the existence of current problem with the administration of the business of
the courts.”). Further, the allegation that the second judge wrongflly accepted petitioner's guilty
plea arose during the course of the criminal proceeding. Accordingly, this allegation was also
dismissed as directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling. See 28 U.S.C. §
372(c\3A)(i). Finally, because petitioner presented no evidence that the second judge
participated in a conspiracy or other wrongdoing in connection with petitioner's prosecution,
these allegations were also dismissed as unsubstantiated. See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c(3(AViii).

In the petition for review, petitioner basicaly reiterates the original allegations, but
includes a copy of the district court decision in which the court granted petitioner's motion for
dismissal of the indictment after the case was remanded by the Court of Appeals. The petition for
review contains no argument or evidence in support of his claim of judicial conspiracy or other
misconduct that was not appropriately disposed of by the Chief Judge's order of dismissal. We
therefore affirm that order for substantially the same reasons as set forth by the Chief Judge.

‘The order of dismissal is affirmed.

DEF02311


FORMS
0)

‘new: Gabrlal T. Porteous,

It

Carmella A. Porteous

5793

Chee, 01-12363 Section “AY

SCHEDULE D - CREDITORS HOLDING SECURED CLAIMS

checkin bt dab has ne ros hang secur nso apart i Sched D.

i) omgcamasnavaren, HUNT
ich AN
CRIALING ADDRESS Ei ccscrmrenanpiaemer | 6) §) g] wrnour, | Masse
WWOLUDING BP ODE VALUE OF PROPERTY ; NAlueos | FAW
4 COLLATERAL
oar c “4900.50.00
Bank Ove Para Hore
P.O. Box 32490 vey
zo Nerey Ove
Lovievile KY 40292 Meta, tA 70002
aceon
ory Le a00|wa
teaee
creer Get Corporation 000 Jep Cherokee (Lease)
Covington, LA 70434 | VALUE: NO CASH VALUE
Soe 00 WA
Chrysler Creat Corporaitn
P.0, Box Toon
Covington, LA 70434
emer 2007372850 TTe 443,279,64|0.00
Fidelty Homestead Axvocition Fea woraage
222 Baronne Siret
450 Here Deve
New Orem, LA 70112 tec CA 70008
aca Raa oR
[DContinustion sheets attached — *
sth [REED
ee P sazre.3]

Rene scoamemyaiaeant

DEF01929



5986

Appendix A: The Parts That

Make Up

the Whole

For total parish criminal justice system expenditures and
ruber of employees for 1993, see Tables A-I and A-2.

Law Enforcement
‘The Sheriff

Article V Section 27 of the State Constitution provides for
the Office of Sheriff in Louisiana in all parishes except
Orleans. According to the Constitution, the sheriff isthe chief
Jaw enforcement officer of the parish, the executor of parish
court orders and processes and the parish tax collector. The
sheriff is also responsible for the operation of the correctional
‘center. The sheriff is elocted every four years at the time of
‘gubernatorial elections.

As chief law enforcement officer of the parish, the sheriff
has direct responsibility and complete authority in the
‘unincorporated areas ofthe parish and concurrent jurisdiction
with the law enforcement agencies in the incorporated areas,
‘The sheriff and the parish council share overall responsibility
for the parish jail. The parish is legally responsible for
providing the sheriff with a facility, and the sheriff is
fesponsible for managing the facility. Under the state law
providing for special parish law enforcement districts, the
sheriff is also given authority to levy sales and property taxes
which can be used for jail construction, among other purposes.

‘The Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office (JPSO), with neatly
1500 employees, is the second largest speci
government in Jefferson Parish. Only the Jefferson Parish
Public School System employs more people,

The JPSO is funded from a variety of sources, but most
(85 percent) of its funding is from commissions on taxes
collected (45 percent), and revenue from ad-valorem taxes (22
percent) and sales taxes (8 percent). Expenditures on salaries
(67 percent) and operating costs (8 percent) comprise most of
the sheriffs office's expenditures. The SPSO annual budget
‘was projected at $60 million for 1994, including the proceeds
of a half-cent sales tax passed in October 1993,

Others

‘Twelve agencies in Jefferson Parish in edition to the
sheriff's office have arrest authority and can refer cases tothe
district atomey's office These ure the police departments of
the incorporated areas of Kenner, Gretna, Harahan, Westwego,
Grand Isle and Jean Lafitte; the Greater New Orleans

24—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

Expressway Commission (Causeway) Police; the Stete Potice;
the East Jefferson Levee District Police; the Louisiana Wildlife
and Fisheries Department; the Misisippi River Bridge
‘Authority, and the State Motor Vehicle Police,

Clerk of Court

The office of Clerk of Court is provided for by Article V
Section 28 of the Louisiana Constitution. ‘The clerk serves as
clerk of the civil and criminal divisions of the Twenty-fourth
Judicial District Court, clerk of the two parish courts, clerk of
the parish juvenile court, recorder of mortgages, register of
conveyances, custodian of notarial archives, custodian of
evidence, chief elections officer, andthe official in charge of
Jury management. Jefferson Parish's clerk of court performs
the duties performed by eight elected and one appointed
official in Orleans Parish

‘The clerk of court is elected for a four-year term. The
clerk hires his own employees and is responsible for his own
budget and the receipt and disbursement of funds. State law
requires the parish council to pay or provide for certain
operating expenditures,

At the end of 1993, the clerk of court had 284 full-time
and 14 parttime employees. The number of full-time
employees has been reduced by over 20 percent (from 360)
since the present clerk took office in 1988, According to the
clerk, this reduction was made possible by increased
‘sutomation and decentralization of management. Six
‘supervisors handle divisions that correspond to the direct
responsibilities of the clerk (various courts, recording of
mortgages and conveyances). Three supervisors handle
information systems, human resources and finance, and
‘warehouse and records storage.

Total expenditures of the office of clerk of court for FY
1992 were just over $8 million. Revenues for that office are
primarily self generated by fees and charges. In FY 1992, foes
and court costs generated revenues of almost $8 million. The

ligated under state law to provide office
and other operating expenses.

space and support of uti
For 1992, the parish provided approximately $531,000 for
various office expenses. For 1993, the parish was expected to
provide about $711,000. Unused funds have sometimes been
‘eturmed to the parish annually, and funds over a specified
portion are required to be returned to the parish upon
completion ofthe clerk of court's term of office

DEF02432


5835

1993] ‘ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 2

least under the 5th Circuit case law, to protect our jurisdiction. If you find
that somebody is doing something that’s inappropriate or that would constitute
an abuse of your jurisdiction, you can cleanse your docket, in effect.

I am paraphrasing liberally Judge Jones’ words in Little Creek and
cases that have followed that. That’s where we do it and how we do it.

JUDGE FENNING: But you also find it in Rule 11.

PROF. GROSS: Some people find it in Bankruptcy Rule
9011."*

JUDGE FENNING: And 28 U.S.C. section 1927, which is
an alternative source of sanction law. It's implicit in federal court that you can
review all filings to determine whether they have been made in good faith. I
just don’t think you have to get to all of those more generic formulations
where you are dealing with a statutory requirement that, in order to accomplish
what you are supposed to be accomplishing in a Chapter 11 case, you have to
be proceeding in good faith. I mean, I rely primarily on section 1129.

JUDGE MARK: I think the 11th Circuit cases just find that
section 1112(b) is not exhaustive and that it allows the court to dismiss in the
best interest of creditors for cause and then they say there is another ground
for dismissal, not expressly stated, but there is a valid ground based on bad
faith — and the doctrine has developed. It's sort of an unnumbered cause now
under section 1112(b) in the 11th Circuit.

JUDGE HILLMAN: That's exactly how the Bible spoke.
JUDGE FENNING: In the 9th Circuit we have Victory

Construction,"’ which deals with the badges of fraud in “new debtor
syndrome” cases. That is the primary scenario in which bad faith is pled and

TM Providing in peninent pan,
that to the best ofthe attomey's or party's knowledge, information, and belief formed
sRer reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing Lxw

(or good faith argument forthe extension, modification, or of exising ine,
‘and that itis not imerposed for any purpose, such as to harass, to cause delay, or to
Increase the cost of litigation,

BANKR. R. PROC. 9011 (1992).
Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Vieiory Constr. Co., No. 85-C-07077, 1985 WL 4066 (N.D. Ill. Nov.
25, 1985).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am, Bankr, Inst. L. Rev. 21 1993

DEF02268


5952

Mr. King's arrest if presented with a written complaint, made
upon oath before him, charging Mr. King with a federal offense,
see Fed. R. Crim. P. 3, but no one had presented him with such a
complaint. If Magistrate Dunsmore believed that Mr. King had
acted contumaciously and should be sanctioned for contempt of
court, all that he could do was to "certify the facts
[constituting the contempt] to a judge of the district court
+ + + and serve or cause to be served (upon King] an order
requiring [him] to appear before a judge of that court upon a day
certain to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt
by reason of the facts so certified," 28 U.S.C. § 636(e).
Second, during his March 31 conversation with the superior
court judge who was presiding over the trial in Brunswick,
Magistrate Dunsmore learned that the case would go to the jury
that morning after the prosecutor and Mr. King delivered their
closing arguments to the jury. Magistrate Dunsmore also knew
that, prior to delivering his closing argument to the jury, Mr.
King learned that two deputy U. S. Marshals would be taking him
into custody immediately after the jury returned its verdict.
Third, in making Mr. King proceed with the injunction
hearing after the deputy U. S. Marshals had brought him--
handcuffed and chained--to the courthouse in Savannah, Magistrate
Dunsmore also disregarded the rights of Mr. King's client, Tony
Blackshear. Under the circumstances, Mr. King was in no

condition to render his client the effective assistance of

DEF02398


6069

116 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

TABLE §

EFPECT OF SURETY TREATMENT EFFECT VERSUS OTHER RELEASE TYPES ON REABKEST
"RATES USING SAMPLES MATCHED ON p-SCORE AND BAtL, 1988.

Surety versus Surety versus Surety versus

(Own Recognizance Deposit Bond Cash Bond
Sorety bond 76) 58 (10) 45% (13)
Matched observations 14,928 9,740 7,064

‘Note. —The matching caliper is 001.
‘Statistically significant atthe greater than 1% level (9 sided).

rates, Recall from Table 2 that we found that PTA rates were slightly higher
under surety than under the cash bond treatment. The evidence from rearrest
rates suggests that unobservable characteristics may be responsible for part
of this and that the true treatment effect is somewhat lower. Similarly, al-
though we found large negative effects on fugitive rates from the surety
treatment (relative to cash treament), the evidence suggests that, if anything,
the true treatment effects are even more negative.*

The rearrest data allow for another interesting comparison. For a small
subset of our data, 1,331 observations from 1988 and 1990, we know the
rerelease type for those individuals who are arrested and released on a second
charge. We do not know whether the individual failed to appear on the second
charge, which is why we do not have repeated observations. Nevertheless,
the second arrest and release data may be revealing.

‘Suppose that the initial release is own recognizance and the second release
is via surety bond, By monitoring and possibly recapturing the defendant if
he skips on the second trial, bail bondsmen and their agents create a positi
extemality with respect to fugitive rates on the first trial. This potential
externality means that we need not compare own-recognizance to surety
releases to measure a surety treatment effect. Instead, we can compare de-
fendants released on their own recognizance with other defendants released
on their own recognizance in their first release and on surety bond in their
second release. Similarly, we can compare fugitive rates on the first trial for
defendants whose first and second releases were own recognizance and own
recognizance with those whose first and second releases were own recognizance
and surety bond. With this comparison, we contro! for selection effects on the
first release.

The unconditional fugitive rate of defendants who are released on their

% Since we find that rearrest rates vary litle by treatment category, we should also find that
trcatment effects measured in the rearrest sample, that is, using only those defendants who
‘were subsequently arrested for a second crime, should be similar to those found in the one-
arrest sample. We have run these matching tests on propensity score and bail and do find
similar results, which we omit for brevity

DEF02627


5877

Finally, in his June 24, 2004 letter of apology to Chief
gudge Walker, the Judge suggested that his remarks were only
contextually inappropriate, and that they were “properly the
stuff only of an academic seminar." However, in response to the
Committee’s report, the Judge has acknowledged that the remarks
also would have been inappropriate in an academic setting. Based
on the Judge’s acknowledgment, the Judicial Council concludes
that no further action need be taken on that issue.

2. ing the i to Hitler a

The remarks concerning Hitler and Mussolini were cast in
terms of the supposed similarity in how the President, Hitler and
Mussolini gained power. However, the Judge went on to make a
direct comparison between the President and Mussolini: “{i]n this
case, like Mussolini, he [President Bush] has exercised
extraordinary power.” Under the circumstances, however, there is
no need to parse these remarks. The Judge’s August 12, 2004
letter to Acting Chief Judge Jacobs characterized the use of the
Hitler and Mussolini examples as a mistake:

With respect to the examples of other situations
where persons came into power as a result of the
illegitimate act of a legitimate body, I unquestionably
would have been much wiser to limit my examples to
those from American history. My use of the
appointment of Mussolini and Hitler as examples -
however much it may have been a natural, off-the-cuff
example for someone with my childhood, and however much
I meant it as a comparison of the Supreme Court’s use
of its power to that of Victor Emmanuel ITI and
Hindenburg, and not at all a comparison of President
Bush to the dictators - was obviously not so reported
or read. That was reason enough for me to apologize,
as I have said, “profusely” and “deeply.” I stand by
my apology completely.

The Hitler and Mussolini analogy is contextually subsumed in
the reelection remarks, which are discussed above. See, e.g.,
Complaint docketed under 04-8541 (describing. comparison as part
of “a pattern of thinly disguised political advocacy”). No
incremental action is required or justified. Moreover, even if
the comparison remarks are treated as independent of the
reelection remarks, no incremental action would be needed for the
following reasons.

12

DEF02323


5966

Criminal Justice System Employees
1993, Total 2,477

Exhibit 1

Criminal Justice System Expenditures
1993, Total $93,664,554

Exhibit 2

4The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

DEFO2412


6036

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Countrywide Mortgage, remains as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee despite having received
a sweetheart loan from one of the worst of the subprime mortgage villains,

‘The Charlotte Observer endorsed Barack Obama for president, but is having second thoughts:

“Two weeks into the Obama presidency, we like his campaign better than his administration,” the Observer said
Wednesday. "While some of his appointments are outstanding, others were either badly botched or reflect a half-hearted
commitment to the change principle central to his ballot box success.”

seca coum Pst Gaetan The (ob) Bee ees 1226-47 Mow tea suet

Innptiwore pos-gnzete com/pg09039/947810-373.m sino.
DEFO2488


6043

Souree
Teme

> Combined Sows > News, Al (English, FullText)
ezinstl Lacks Judicial Temperament” (Eat Search | Suaansl Terms for My Seach)

Mew: Ful
Dote/Tine: Tuesday, Apgst 31,2010. 7:10 PM EDT

‘nce | Hesesch Tass | Geta Ongurent|Sheparée| Ales | Tot! | Teneaston! Adie | Counsel Secor
' “APRS ee | RS Uae aa lame tag

*LexisNexign atmibentns |Tamg condone | coms
@ Lexishexis: Re a REE eae ene A tte renrves

upedhn lexi comfesearhetieve? mob2ib20738454187F4NSeD6t06dbckesve=lkeFomesearhForms,intst=FULL deca,

sniao10

7 DEF02495,


5951

to make such certification "unless (King gave him] some facts

+ + + to indicate that [he] should not make that certification to
Judge Edenfield." Mr. Farrington responded for Mr. King. He
suggested that Magistrate Dunsmore had assumed the role of the
prosecutor in the matter and should not, in addition, assume the
role of the judge, take evidence, and decide the case. A
colloquy with counsel ensued, and Magistrate Dunsmore decided to
certify the matter to Judge Edenfield. On April 4, he did so.

In his certification, Magistrate Dunsmore stated that he "fully
expected that Mr. King would provide an associate [counsel] or
himself appear" at the March 31 hearing"; Magistrate Dunsmore
then found that, when Mr. King realized that he could not attend
the hearing, his failure "to provide . . . associate counsel for
the . . . hearing" amounted to "an act of contempt for the orders

of this Court." Judge Edenfield subsequently held a bench

trial--to determine whether Mr. King should be convicted of
criminal contempt for his failure to have an associate at the
March 31 hearing--and, after considering the evidence and

argument of counsel, found Mr. King not guilty.

Ir.
The Judicial Council concludes that a public censure and
reprimand is necessary in this case for the following reasons.
First, Magistrate Dunsmore had no authority to order the
U. S. Marshals Service to arrest Mr. King on March 31, 1988.

Magistrate Dunsmore did have the authority to issue a warrant for

DEF02397


6022

Breyer is a familiar figure at the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is expected to begin confirmation hearings in July. He
was the panel's chief counsel in 1979 and 1980, winning the respect of members of both parties.

President Jimmy Carter appointed Breyer to the Ast U.S. Circult Court of Appeals in Boston in 1980 on Kennedy's,
recommendation,

Clinton praised his nominee as a consensus-builder with political savvy who has been exposed to “the full range of
political issues" and appeals to all parts of the political spectrum.

“He's got Sen. Kennedy and Sen, Hatch together,” Clinton remarked. "I wish I had that kind of political skill.”

Breyer, who was informed of his appointment by telephone Friday afternoon, has strong liberal ties in his background. He
was clerk to the late Justice Arthur Goldberg, lawyer for Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and a former aide to
Kennedy,

But he cannot be classified as a liberal.

In fact, conservative Republicans extolled Breyer for his open-minded ability to see all sides and his strong support of
government deregulation of business.

“He has all the credentials that anybody would look for in a Supreme Court nominee,” Hatch said.

Conservative advocate Clint Bolick, who has campaigned against liberal nominees in the past, said of Breyer: “I have not
heard of anything that would give us any serious concerns about him."

‘But Breyer {s likely to face some criticism from the left. Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, calling Breyer "the corporate
candidate for the Supreme Court,” said "several liberal groups will oppose the nomination even if no senators do."

LUberal Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, said he had “questions about Judge Breyer’s interpretation of our nation’s pro-
Competition laws, particularly as they relate to small business,”

Last year, after Clinton dropped Babbitt from his list of candidates to succeed Justice Byron White, the president
Concentrated on Breyer, who was recovering in a Boston hospital from a bicycling accident.

iinton summoned Breyer to the White House for a luncheon, but decided to name another federal appeals judge, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, instead,

‘The Breyer candidacy alco stumbled last year over his failure to pay Social Security taxes for a household helper. He since
‘has paid, but White House counsel Lloyd Cutler said the Internal Revenue Service since has ruled that his helper did not
‘qualify as an "employee" and that Breyer may be entitled to a refund.

‘A thumbnail sketch of the Supreme Court:

* William H. Rehnquist, 69. A member since 1972, elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986, Popular with
colleagues as “frst among equals.” Consistently conservative.

* Harry A. Blackmun, 85. Appointed in 1970, court's senior member. Once a moderate conservative, now a liberal. Will
retire at end of court term, probably in ite June,

‘John Paul Stevens, 73. Appointed in 1975. May inherit Blackmun's title as court's most liberal member.

= Sandra Day O'Connor, 64. Appointed in 1981. A moderate conservative generally considered at court's ideological
center,

* Antonin Scalia, 58. Appointed in 1986. Court's mast outspoken conservative.

+ Anthony M, Kennedy, 57. A member since 1988, A conservative who has voted with the moderate-liberal faction in
some high-profile cases.

* David H, Souter, 54, Appointed in 1990. A moderate conservative whose political power on court seems to be rising,
* Clarence Thomas, 45. A member since 1991. Consistently conservative.

* Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 61. Appointed in 1993. Off to quick start as opinion writer and interrogator of lawyers. Widely
viewed as moderate to liberal.

LOAD-DATE: November 12, 2009

Ings tua es comesearcvretnevetee pushes | tpl BSelalioabioes=& ageelDoes=AioggkeValue=snumDocsChked-ORpre(FDS . $31/2010
DEFO2474


5856

42 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol, 1:1

JUDGE MARK: I hope that doesn’t cause me to be audited
again.

PROF. GROSS: On behalf of the American Bankruptcy
Institute, I want to thank you all, Let me also say that, as an academic, where
most scholarship is done in law review articles and those types of articles are
viewed as the sine qua non of how to address legal issues, I think this type of
format works remarkably well. Perhaps it is even better. So, in addition to
addressing good faith, maybe we have begun a trend and have come up with
a new format for how to think about legal issues.

HeinOnline — 1 Ae. Bankr. Int. L. Rev. 42 1993

DEF02289


‘Administration; Charles W. Robinson, a former deputy Secretary of State; and William Turner, a former delegate to the
‘Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
GRAPHIC: Illustrations: Photo of Wiliam Casey arriving for Senate hearing
Source. Nav § Susiness > Combined Sources > News, All English, Full Text)»
eins "Casey Tells Federal Ethics Agency He Omatied Three Siock Moldings” (El Search| SungestTeums for My Search| Feedback on Your
Pe)

Mew:
onttine, Teeny, Aug 31, 2010-7 026M EOT

ch | Research Tasks | Get a Document | Shepard's® | Alerts| Total Litgator | Transactonal Advsor| Counsel Selector
SRP SSS | SLI |e

W lovidoxis 4

bout Lexiatents | Terms A.CondRlons | Contact Us
‘Eipyiant er Zoho Levens, son of Reed lavier In, Alights reserves

Intps vt les conrsearchierieve”_m=ddde0SSGehTs69sre12 MI9872S

15

csverblteformsearchForm& fosi-FULLAdoemum=1&._ B/31/2010
DEFO2470


5999

The Washington Times
DAVENPORT: Hard questions for Holder

Is beena rough few months for Atlomey General Ene H! Holder J, me shold face more tough questioning when he reports for the Senate Judiciary
Comte oversight haanng on Tursta.

{nthe egal war on testo alons, he has boo nde fire for scheduling the wal of Khalid Staikh Mohammed in civil cou in New York rater han in
suldary tribunal, for Mzandving the Chisonas Day bomber suspect, fer tying fo relocate Guantanamo detainees where people dont want ther for
“rogsig sft belo finally revealing ot east me lawyers in his depanment who formerly represented urns deta, and, most rece, (Or
‘reporting that he ile ip disclose nhs confirmation heaigs seven bets in which he participated as layer, cluding ones ivolvang the War cm

Even wih health care andthe economy a the Font-bumer issues n Mr Obama's fist year, no Cabinet office’ department has generated more smoke
than Mr Holder's Senators even the resident hmsell- shouldbe emuning these several problems and asking whether Mr. Holders realy up tothe
Job of, peshape worse, wheter thse iene ad upto an agenda to pte legal scale sharply favor of detance rigs and avay fom atonal cunts

Lets start wth the latest aps because, taken together, they scem to aise questions flea philosophy at the Deparment of Justice In November, Sen
Chale F. Gressey, Iowa Republican asked Mr Holder t deny departvent lawyers who may ae confhcts of terest or ving represented
‘essinees. na surpisinglyc00l response, Mf. Holder sid hed conser i and then sat on it for yee months. Finally, last mand he provided an
incomplete answer, adzuting hee were atleast mane department lawyers who had represented detainees, idelying just two of them

“Thon the departaent acknowledged this week tat Mr. Holder hd fad to disclose some of his wn work on several bef, ntnding one on behalf of
enemy combslan! Jose Pcl, dang Hs confirmation bers as atorey genera, caling an oversight A case that wert al the way to the Supreme
(Court would soem to be dificult forget or overlook

does scem to bea far concer why Mi Holder, who works for a president promising the most anspaentalminisstion in history, would stonewall the
‘Senate and even now fal to provide a complete response on who in his department represented detamecs and ther caren resposibiues Those who
‘questioned his respons, however, promped que a skleshow as severolpromanen! lawyers cane forward to defend the obligation of en attorney
‘present unpopular conse, This nally sidestep the rel question, wich s nat whether these awe ace ropes before they came 0 Justice, but
tater, why Ma Holdr chose 1o hie so many eam and what they are doing now. Belive me, had the Secures and Exchmge Corassion hired a
‘Ste of Forune 100 general councels to enforce seeuntes laws or he Environmental Protection Agency able fl of lawyers om el compan, sich
questions would be

eri uin Mor snl ev a answer vie ae tno eri epi hain ih vot
ered to malay conmausion as "Largatb cours” ands ening teri egal "assumption of risk” we must 1s qualified to

Sothern on anes mute Or fr tht ister wha Me Hoses mp then ayer hab of Pada’ Be tel
Uusabout his own view of detains ghis Af al, because somo of those es were no produced for hs Confirmation, that Was a conversation Ihe
senators did aot hve wil him when courted

“There are to schools of thought about the Heal war on err. Oe essentially stants from the premse that trois suspects, enemy combatants and
<dcanness shold ot be trod as “crumuals” and are nt ented to the fll pmoply of constitutional ngs afforded to US eitzens Instead, they should be
tred in multary tnbunals, wth enore mad rights Avery diffrent view, beld by man’ human nghis advocates, tha ron spats shold be weated
ssone of our own citizens, evew athe risk of retrring enemy covrbatants to the feld to allack again

‘The US, Senate, and the American people, have every right to know who 1s sting policy for the legal war on texror and an which ofthese disectons they
sree hr Hole wo do welt orgs a noe oth anes thse sn qustons whe oes ere te
Jodseury Commitee next eck

avd Davenport ia ressarch fellow atthe Hoover Instunon.
Ads by Google cS Human Riglts  AMuman Rihls Abuse Muman Rights Cou LLMinKuman Rahts Human Rights (aw

Intp Are washnglontnescomess/2010/nar/9hard.qesionsfor-holereiny 8512010
DEFO2451

PORT Exhibit 1115


5817

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Eastem District of Louisiana
lore: Gabriel T. Porteous, Jt Carmela A Porteous Case No. 01-12909 Section “A”
ose306 sere. crater
“TED
AMENDED - CHAPTER 13 PLAN

qa wat 29 A & 27
CF ougttnes

‘TW PLAN CONTANS EVIDENTIARY MATTER WHICH IF NOT CONTROVERTED, MAY BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT
[AS TRUE. CREDITORS CANNOT VOTE ON THIS PLAN BUT MAY OBJECT TO ITS CONFIRMATION PURSUANT TO.
BANKRUPTCY CODE § 1324, AND LOCAL RULES. ABSENT ANY SUCH OBJECTION, THE COURT MAY CONFIRM THIS
PLAN AND ACCEPT THE VALUATION AND ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.

NOTICE

‘The Debter(e) above named heraby proposes the flog plan.
4. Debte, At dette are provided fo by this Plan, On eaclorshakdng eal duly proved and alowed shal be ered to payments from the Trustee,
(See Notice of Fin of Bar Duta.) Trustee shall rc flea claim on beta of ery erecor,

12 Payments. Aso the date ofthis plan the door hs pad $0.00 tothe Trustee. Deblor anor any ey trom whom the debtors) recive income

sa pay Tete sum ct $1,408.00 Monty, cman Apr 28,288 fo 38 mei oa of 7,800.0 cr rl uch ance
ald Bit wil ated payment ofa alowed and proven jercurts payable unde

CGredveted Payments: BEGIN MONTH OF MONTHS ‘ADUUSTMENT

3. Plan Payments, The Trustee, rm ovalabe fads, shal ack payment to cradtors nthe folowing amounts end oder. Al dates for begining of

payranta as ecinates ony and may be cused by the Taste es necessary to cary out the tra of ti plan.

A DEBTOR'S FEE PADTO BALANCE © — PAYMENT SCHEDULE — a
‘ATTORNEY REQUESTED DATE ©OUE.—=PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH PAYMENTS.
Claude €. Lightfoot, Jr. 475000 0.00 475000 1.82381 1 1 4,750.00

000 0.00 28192 1
1B. Moraage Areas, (Regular moth payments o be made by Debtor and sat onthe frst de date after dete of fing pttion
— PAYMENT SCHEDULE — OTAL
CREDITOR RATE ARREARS «PAYMENT MONTH LenaTH PAYMENTS

NONE
. Secured Chir. (A creo’ secured cm shall be tha nt amount due as of ate of ling or te value of the coltara to which creo an

wshicheve is ess tere! shal be slowed a contact rate or 8.00% APR whichever is fess. Credorshallretain ts Fen ut the alowed
secured prin of the cai ia hy pid)

CREDITOR & PAYMENT SCHEDULE — TOTAL
COLLATERAL RATE CLAM_—PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH PAYMENTS
1 Secured Clana «Paid in fut

NONE
1, Secured Clana - Cure deta only
NONE

vere rt urs

DEFO1958
PORT Exhibit 1100 (i)


5962

359.7638

our
fap LIT
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 5
Study Process 6
Presentation 6
‘A Note on the Special Legislative Session 6
Jail Overcrowding in Jefferson Parish 6
Who Is Filling the Jail 7
Who's In Jail? 7
Who’s Calling the Jail Full? 9
Options to Jail and Jail Construction 9
Improved Case Management 13
Law Enforcement 13
The District Attorney 13
Indigent Defense 13
Probation and Parole 14
The Courts 14
Coordinators 16
Options for Securing Additional Jail Space 17
"Temporary" Jails 17
Construction 17
Non-Jail Construction Needs 18
Use of Sheriff's 1993 Sales Tax 18
Arrangements With Other Public Authorities 18
Multiparish Prisons 19
Privatization 20
Conclusions and Recommendations 20
Findings 20
Conclusions 22
Recommendations 23
Appendix A: The Parts That Make Up the Whole 24
Appendix B: Non-Jail Measures for Decreasing a Jail Population 29
Sources Consulted 31

DEF02408


6001

DatorTive: Tuvsday, August 31, 2010-654 PMECT

Search| Research Tasks ment | Shapere® | Ales | Total Agata | Tansactonal Advisor | Counsel Selector
' ' Soe user te Sesion ewe ana |

i be stout sites | Teme 8 Condens |Contact

AB Lovishenis GREENE o nets san of Reed Getler Ic. A ght reserved

tp. ewe levis convesoarchteneve?_m=42Rb] Ic TeSSbSeaeTIN2S836dR477akesve=besform=scarchForma&_finist=FULLAedoenm=l&. 8291/2010
DEFO2453


5829

1993) ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 15

take a Chapter 11 golf tour when they are not sitting because we also have a
lot of country club developments that are in Chapter 11.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: When I started out in 1987 I had
given to me 540, 550 Chapter 11 cases, and I would say hundreds of them
were single asset cases that took years to get rid of. Now I have 125 cases and
probably 25 of those are two large conglomerate-type debtors that are not real
estate related at all.

The single asset real estate cases are virtually a thing of the past in
Houston. Coincidentally, 1 was in a hearing for three hours this afternoon
with one, but it’s been since the springtime since I’ve had a confirmation
hearing in a single asset Chapter 11.

We in Houston raise good faith issues sua sponte. Of course, creditors
always had good faith on their minds because it was their first punch besides
a motion to lift.

JUDGE FENNING: In the seven years I have been on the
bench in the Central District, the percentage of single asset filings on my
calendar has fluctuated with the real estate economy. And for awhile I had a
lot of Texas single asset real estate cases, but those are history.

At the moment, probably about half of my Chapter 11 cases are single
asset real estate cases. About a quarter of those are “house” cases, that is,
where the only purpose for filing a consumer Chapter 11 is to try and stave off
foreclosure on the house. In the Los Angeles housing market, a lot of fairly
ordinary houses are sufficiently costly to put people over the debt limits for
Chapter 13. Most of our Chapter 11 "house” cases are pro se filings.

The single asset cases at this point include apartment buildings,
shopping centers and vacant land. Most have been filed by limited
partnerships, although recently, more single asset debtors are corporations. In
addition to the single asset cases, I have some very large individual Chapter
11 cases filed by entrepreneurs in the real estate development or management
business who own 20 or 30 or 40 apartment buildings within their individual
estates. Those Chapter 11 cases technically don’t qualify as "single asset"
cases, The overwhelming bulk of my current pending case load of about 620
Chapter 11 cases consists of real estate based cases of one sort or another.

JUDGE HILLMAN: The District of Massachusetts is famous
for Chapter 11's. The four of us each have more 11°s than any other judges
in any other district in the country. I think I have 500 right now. Of those,
about one-quarter of them are single asset real estate. Of those, very few are

HeinOnline - 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 15 1993 DEF02262


5898

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
J.C. No. 06-24

IN RE: COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
OR DISABILITY

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 351
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Filed: July 5, 2006 and Amended August 17, 2006)*
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

This is a complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 against a United States
District Judge (Respondent). Complainant was convicted of drug trafficking and a related
firearms offense in a trial before another District Judge and received a lengthy prison
sentence. After that Judge retired, a pending 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was re-assigned to
Respondent for decision. This complaint, alleging bias, conflict of interest and undue
delay, was filed after the § 2255 motion was dismissed.

Complainant claims that Respondent has demonstrated:

“a personal bias or prejudice towards movant or favoritism towards the

prosecution due to his duties in his former capacity as an assistant united

States attomey, in which he worked hand-in-hand In criminal

investigations/prosecutions with AUSA [the prosecuting attomey in his

case] in the 1980's and 90's.

* The.August 17, 2006 amendment corrected typographic errors in the
Memorandum Opinion as it was originally issued.

DEF02344
PORT Exhibit 1111 (e)


5834

20 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

PROF. GROSS: I think what Martin Bienenstock is talking
about is an implied good faith standard."* I think what Judge Fenning is
raising is the issue of why we need to focus on this when an explicit good faith
standard shows up in section 1129(a)(3)? Can one infer from that you don’t
think you need —

JUDGE FENNING: I think this is an "angels on the head of
apin” question. You have to pass a good faith hurdle in order to do anything
in a Chapter 11. So that can be tested at the beginning of the case as well as
at the end of the case, if you have enough evidence at the beginning of the case
to reach a conclusion on that question.

JUDGE MARK: Although it's not going to apply in the 11th
Circuit because we have clear 11th Circuit authority to dismiss on a finding of
bad faith, I think a good argument could be made that in most instances, the
same results could be obtained by either stay relief for cause under section
@(1) of 362 or just a finding under the express provisions of 1112(b) — either
(0)(1), that there is continuing loss or diminution of the estate in absence of a
reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation or, (b)(2), that there is an inability to
effectuate a plan. And it may be that the factors we often look at in
determining whether a case is right for dismissal under bad faith just go in a
sense to how quickly after the filing of a case do you look at (b)(1) and (b)(2).
And part of a way to do it without a separate doctrine of bad faith is just to say
that you will look immediately at the ability to effectuate a plan if certain
criteria exist. But as I said, in the 11th Circuit we have that doctrine that’s
now well-established and although lawyers alternatively argue 1112(b)(1) and
(0)(2), we can plug into the 11th Circuit doctrine of bad faith and still proceed
in that fashion.

JUDGE HILLMAN: It’s a question of how far forward do
you want to drag the confirmation issues.

PROF. GROSS: Well, if there is an implied good faith
standard, where is it found? Where is the authority to create it?

JUDGE GREENDYKE: | think it’s a case law creation and
it probably comes in under section 105 or just a general inherent ability, at

8 Magm

|. BIENENSTOCK, BANKRUPTCY REOROANIZATION 28-39 (1987).

HeinOnline — 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 20 1993

DEF02267


The Recommendations

BGR makes the following recommendations:

All the elements of the Jefferson Parish criminal
Justice system should actively cooperate with the

Clerk of Court in continued development of an

integrated information system that can be used and
is used by all parts of the criminal justice system

for planning, budgeting, management, and
reporting purposes.

Comprehensive, system-wi
bbe aggressively pursued, including:

improvements should

5985

specific recommendation of how much additional jail
space is needed. Such a case would entail:

1 detailed analysis of the jail population, such
as that described by the National Institute of
Corrections or the National Institute of
Justice, Partial information on what sorts of
‘inmates are being held and why is currently
available. A descriptive analysis of the jail

population (including numbers of persons
according to length of confinement, status of
case, seriousness of charge or crime, criminal
history) is not currently available.

* pursuit, by the judiciary, of judicial system
‘management improvements, including
participation in the development and
refinement of a case tracking system,
provision of caseload information to judges
and other interested parties, development of
baseline data and formulation and adoption of
case processing time standards, and adoption
of an effective continuance policy

formulation, under the auspices of the CJCC
as planning and coordinating entity, of a
community policy on the use of acceptable
altematives to traditional incarceration > «

careful consideration, by all parties in the
system and under the auspices of the CICC,

overcrowding (including the options from the
national perspective review that have not been
implemented, as shown in Exhibit 3)

+ an analysis of case flow throughout the entire
criminal justice system, for the purpose of
identifying specific points at which delays and
inefficiencies cause unnecessary increases in
Jail population. Such an analysis would
reflect the seriousness and complexity of
cases.

‘The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, as the

planning and coordinating entity for Jefferson

Parish, should, on an ongoing basis, articulate the
ies and authority for the funding and

responsi
‘operations of all the elements of the criminal

justice system, so that citizens as well as officials,

ccan understand who is responsible for what.

Consolidation and clarification of authority in state
Jaw may be desirable but is not within the ebility

pf Jefferson Parish alone to accomplish.

The entity designated to be responsible for jail

planning should clearly put forward its ease for a

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—23

DEF02431


5919

evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
352(b)(2), a complaint may also be concluded after appropriate remedial action has been
taken. The issues raised in this complaint have been addressed with the subject judge.
Jam assured that these concerns have been appropriately noted and that due care will be
given in future judicial proceedings to avoid situations that could be misinterpreted in
ways that might have the effect of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial

process.

An order dismissing and concluding the complaint is entered simultaneously
herewith.

ZH Ue, Grea
Edith H. Jones
Chief Judge

March Z7, 2007

DEF02365


5830

16 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

residential. Most of them are what we call triple-deckers, small real estate folk
who went out and bought themselves — they listened to the lecturers on
television at night and they went out and bought themselves one asset and
maybe they leveraged it and they are down to one.

PROF. GROSS: How do you get to the name “triple-decker"?

JUDGE HILLMAN: In the working class neighborhoods of
the Northeast, three-story houses inhabited by three families were built, my
guess is 1900 give or take 20 years, and they are called triple-deckers, and
they are investment properties in the older residential areas. You live in one
and you rent two, that is, if you can get tenants.

JUDGE FENNING: You also asked whether single asset cases
are being dismissed for bad faith, In our district, I don’t think any of the
judges are raising the issues sua sponte. Bad faith is sometimes an argument
that is added onto a relief from stay motion. Almost always we are seeing
these cases for the first time on a relief from stay that’s filed within the first
60 days or on a cash collateral motion that’s filed by one or the other parties.

At the moment, the real estate market is about what it is in
Massachusetts. It’s entirely dead, but we are still having some evidentiary
hearings because the appraisals are drastically in conflict. The outcome of the
relief from stay motion usually depends upon valuation, rather than "bad
faith."

PROF. GROSS: Is that true for you also, Judge Mark, that
good faith is not raised sua sponte?

JUDGE MARK: There is no need for it. You would virtually
be committing malpractice as a creditor attorney in the 11th Circuit if you did
not raise the bad faith issue early on in a Chapter 11, if it met the criteria that
have led to dismissals in the 11th Circuit.

PROF, GROSS: We'll get to the standards in a minute but
first, do judges raise good faith concerns sua sponte in Massachusetts?

JUDGE HILLMAN: It’s been known to happen from time to
time. We very seldom see a motion to dismiss in the first few days. I think
that’s because the case has been in foreclosure and it’s in the hands of a real
estate lawyer, not a bankruptcy lawyer. But within two weeks they have

HeinOnline ~ 1 Ant, Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 16 1993

DEF02263


5996

“ORR RG | 8010 crexaron

US. Department of Justice. Law Enforcement Assistance Association. Criminal Justice Plarming for Local
Governments. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1980.

U.S. Department of Justice. National Insitute of Comections, The Intermediate Sanctions Handbook: Experiences
‘and Tools for Policymakers. Longmont, CO [no date}.

US. Department of Justice. National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division. Jail Capacity Forecast Workbook.
Longmont, CO [no dete}

——. The Local System Assessment: Facility Development Information and Application. Longpoint, CO [no date}

US. Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice, Alleviaring Jail Overcrowding: A Systems Perspective, by
‘Andy Hall, Washington D.C.; GPO, 1985,

USS, Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. An Evaluation of Shock Incarceration in LA, by Doris
Layton McKenzie, et al. Washington D.C.: GPO, June 1993.

Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 1990, by Pheny Z. Smith. Washington D.C. GPO, 1993.
——. Intermediate Sanctions, by Vorsile B. Gowdy. Wasington D.C.: GPO {no date).

——. The Implications of Effective Case Processing for Crowded Jails: A Manual for Judges, by Jolanta Perlstein
and D. Alan Henry, Washington D.C.: GPO, 1986,

——. The Implications of Effective Case Processing for Crowded Jails: A Manual for Prosecutors, by Jolanta
Peristein and D. Alan Henry. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1986.

—— Issues in Contracting for the Private Operation of Prisons and Jails, by Judith Hackett et al. Washington
D.C; GPO, 1987.

———. The Privatization of Corrections, by Joan Mullen et. al. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1985.

US. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Pretrial Services Programs: Program Brief. Washington
D.C: GPO, 1990.

‘34The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

DEF02442


5990

‘except in specific cases when a child is treated as an adult
under the law, child in need of care proceedings, families in
need of services proceedings, traffic proceedings, voluntary
and involuntary termination of parental rights proceedings,
adoptions, and mental health proceedings. They have
{jurisdiction over adults in proceedings involving the care,
custody, ar contro of a child, including child abuse or neglect,
child custody, and child support.

Jefferson Parish Employees 1993
Criminal Justice System

Office/Agoncy Number of Employees
JPSO, including parish 4,356
Correctional Center
District Attomey 180
Indigent Defender Board 20
Clerk of Court 298
24th Judicial District Court 65
‘st and 2nd Parish Courts, 63
Probation and Parole a7
Juvenile Court “a
Dept. of Juvenile Services, 14
including Rivarde Detention
Center
Criminal Justice Coordinating 9
Council
Municipal Law 300
Enforcement (est)

TOTAL 2477

SOURCE: Jefferson Parish 1994 Operating Budget
Proposed; Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office, 1993,
COrganizatonal Tables; Criminal Justice Coordinating
Gounci; and BGR interviews.

el
Table A-2

28The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

‘The Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court is composed of three
judges. The Juvenile Court employs directly 41 people and
has an annual budget of $1.9 million. In the Jefferson Parish
Juvenile Court, the Judicial Administrator is directly involved
in structuring the court calendar for productivity and in
‘managing information for case handling as well as réporting
purposes.

Department of Juvenile Services

‘The Department of Juvenile Services and the postion of
Director of Juvenile Services were created by parish council
‘ordinance in 1987, to administer juvenile services for the
parish (JP Code, Div.28, sect. 2-2510f1). The director is
appointed by the parish president with the approval of the
council

‘The primary duties of the director include providing policy
guidance to the parish president in the area of juvenile
services; working with the parish president to formulate and
evaluate operating policies, programs and procedures relating
10 juvenile services; and preparing reports on departmental
operations.

‘The department has 112 employees, in five divisio
community services, volunteer services, probation, detention,
and evaluation. The community services division is
responsible for arranging agreements with local social service
agencies. The head of that division estimates that
approximately 80 percent of the juveniles who noed treatment
are able to receive it, but delays are a persistent problem.

‘The probation division currently handles over 1,200
Juveniles, with each probation officer handling an average
cascload of between 50 and 60 cases. The department also
operates the 55-bed co-educational Rivarde Detention Center.

‘A Juvenile Services Advisory Board was crested in 1989 to
coordinate planning and policy development of juvenite
programs. It is composed of seven persons nominated by local
colleges, universities, and professional organizations and
appointed by the parish council on recommendation of the
parish president. The board meets on a monthly basis.

DEF02436


NOT FOR CIRCULATION

Li BBD. +
200.
Bureau of Government.

| Research (La.)

jThe Parish of Jefferson

5997

DEFO2443


5859

“peR-BT-20B8 13:19 NEU ORLEANS LA 504 816 m5 P.O
United States Bankruptcy Court 01-12363
‘arte Disc of Lousiana Coo rune

CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

| Inve: GABRIEL T PORTEOUS JR “This ease was:
CARMELLA A PORTEOUS COMPLETED
4201 NEYRBY DR Final Meeting of Credivors
METAIRIE LA 70002 8:40 AM, May 18, 2

S.J, Beaulieu, Jr, Chapter 13 Trustee, cexpectully submis for the Cour's approval a report of his administration of this

estate, avers that the case has been fully administered pursuant to FRBP 5009, and prays that he be relieved
‘The oral amount received from or on behalf of the debsor was $ 57,600.00, which was disbursed as follow:

‘of his trust.

a 7H Taaas GAIN we veRNGHnAG po DORRIT FO
eras get % 0 ny
8 GANS ewer cp IEE BAY 8 e.g % %
3 Sevate Fpl co Bat Beret % %
login nes Saget Bae 105.408. 98 tf
& feast gertaent ge Thess %
8€ Bane of Lassi oe 150.00 %
aes ow wore our By %
oe tase same sehices Ut 9% to
% ee 0 rf
1 Ream corm sewces— RSEORED %
Ho Sinsismeta Ine Sane 9
2 Etienwcha Dues larice ay 29
5 ater Ii Worle ot 88
14 DILLARD MATION SECURED 00
15 51lUaD hale a ose ]
TE Sisto fimwciar sewices — USECWED %
, i fcr treed |
‘ 1B sfoeenencan hse 20
2% f trseesed A 8
2 erste E Be %
8 ioe om teen Bisse 1 o
EB _oitLS3 Natiow. son. BL oe
Faldo rusees: § 5 /37¢29 Digbureed, to PRIORITY Cretieon e
338890 “Bleburgea'to secunED creditor
2.58 _pigbureed Co UNSECURED s2,567!00
cet CLAUDE ¢ LIGHTFOOT JR .
STE 450
3500 N CAUSEMAY BLVD :
METAIRIE LA 70002
- S. 3. Beaulieu, Jr.

Chapter 13 Trustee

$c00419

TOTAL P.06


5869

I will not take the time here to outline the non-
partisan theoretical framework I was trying to develop.
In retrospect, I fear that is properly the stuff only
of an academic seminar. For, whatever I had in mind,
what I actually said was too easily taken as partisan.
That is something which judges should do their best to
avoid, and there, I clearly failed.

Again, I am truly sorry and apologize profusely for the
episode and most particularly for any embarrassment my
remarks may have caused you, my colleagues, and the
court.

You should feel free to share this letter with our
colleagues.

Chief Judge Walker forwarded the Judge's June 24 letter to
the other members of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, with a
memorandum of his own, which stated the following:

Although [the] remarks were presented as an
academic point with various historical analogies, the
principal issue his remarks presents has nothing to do
with the merits of what he said nor with his intent in
saying them. The issue is whether his remarks could
reasonably be understood as a partisan political
comment. Partisan political comments, of course, are
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As [the
Judge] has acknowledged, his remarks reasonably could
be--and indeed have been-~so understood, whatever his
intent. He has sent me the enclosed letter, which he
has urged me to share with the members of the Court.

I am pleased that [the Judge] has promptly
recognized that his remarks could too easily be taken
as partisan and hence were inappropriate, and I urge
all members of the Court to exercise care at all times,
but especially in an election year, to refrain from any
conduct or statements that could reasonably be
understood as “political activity” or “publicly
endors [ing] or oppos{ing] a candidate for public
office.”

The next day, the Judge’s June 24 letter and Chief Judge
Walker's dune 24 memorandum were released to the press, with the
express approval of the Judge.

DEFO2315


5824

HEINONLINE
Citation: 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 11 1993

Content downloaded/printed from
HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)
Mon Aug 23 15:31:57 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance
of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license
agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from
uncorrected OCR text.

-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope
of your HeinOnline license, please use:

hitps:/www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do?
&operation=go&searchType=0
&lastSearch=simple&all=on8&titleOrStdNo=1068-0861

DEF02257
PORT Exhibit 1104


5910

U.S, COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE UNITED sTATES Court or aPpEaLs «FIL ED
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUN 2 9 2004
CHARLES R, FULBRUGE ti!
CLERK

Docket Number: 04-05-372-0069

MEMORANDUM

Complainant complains of actions taken by the subject United States District
Judge while he served on the state court bench, before his appointment to the federal
judiciary. She submits that the judge should have recused himself because his wife is
distantly related to one of the defendants.

Even if a judge’s pre-appointment conduct could be said to be subject to
review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 et. seq., the complaint would be subject to
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 352 (b)(1)(A)(ii) and (b)(1)(B).

Judicial misconduct proceedings are not a substitute for the normal appellate
review process, nor may they be used to obtain reversal of a decision or a new trial.

This is complainant’s second merits-related misconduct complaint relating to
proceedings that took place sixteen years ago ina state court. She is WARNED that
should she again try to use the complaint process to attack the merits of a judicial

ruling, she may be required to show cause why she should not be barred from filing

DEFO2356
PORT Exhibit 1111 (a)


5894
the Court of Appeals. To the extent that Complainant seeks to embellish these claims
with allegations of perjury and conspiracy, his allegations are conclusory, speculative and
not supported by the evidence.

Nor do Complainant’s allegations involving the selection committee chair’s law
firm rise to the level of judicial misconduct. The allegations are too remote and
attenuated to create an appearance of impropriety in regard to either his, or his firm’s,
appearance in cases before Respondent. Furthermore, Complainant has provided no
factual basis for his bare allegations.

Accordingly the complaints are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

352(b)(1)(A)(i)(ii) and (iii).

DEF02340


6052

BAIL JUMPING 99

people wanted for violent crimes, including more than 2,600 outstanding
homicide warrants. Kenneth Howe and Erin Hallissy report that “local, state
and federal law enforcement agencies have largely abandoned their job of
serving warrants in all but the most serious cases.” Explaining how this
situation came about, they write, “As arrests increased, jails became over-
crowded. To cope, judges, instead of locking up suspects, often released them
without bail with a promise to return for their next court date. For their part,
police, rather than arrest minor offenders, issued citations and then released
the suspects with the same expectation. When suspects failed to appear for
their court dates, judges issued bench warrants instructing police to take the
suspects into custody. But this caused the number of warrants to balloon,
and the police did not have the time or staff to serve them all."*”

TI. THe MatcHinc Moper wit MuLTiPLe TREATMENTS

Ideally, in a treatment evaluation we would like to identify two outcomes:
one if the individual is treated, ¥;, and one if no treatment is administered,
Yor- The effect of the treatment is then ¥,— ¥y;. But we cannot ‘observe an
individual in both states of the world, making a direct computation of
¥, — Yo impossible. All methods of evaluation, therefore, must make some
assumptions about “comparable” individuals. An intuitive method is to match
each treated individual with a statistically similar untreated individual and
compare differences in outcomes across a series of matches. Thus, two sta-
tistical doppelgangers would function as the same individual in different
treatments,

‘An important advantage of matching methods is that they do not require
assumptions about functional form. When the research question is about a
mean treatment effect, as it is here, matching methods also allow for an
economy of presentation because they focus attention on the question of
interest rather than on a long series of variables that are used only for control
purposes. Unfortunately, matching methods typically founder between a rock
and a hard place. The technique works best when individuals are matched
across many variables, but as the number of variables increases, the number
of distinct “types” increases exponentially, so the ability to find an exact
match falls dramatically.

In an important paper, Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin go a long way
to surmounting this problem.” They show that if matching on X is valid,
then so is matching on the probability of selection into a treatment condi-
tional on X. The multidimensional problem of matching on X is thus trans-

* id

ma

* Rubin, Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments, supra note 4,

» Paul R. Rosenbaum & Donald B. Rubin, The Central Role of the Propensity Score in
‘Observational Studies for Causal Effects, 70 Biometrika 41, 55 (1983).

DEF02610


5903

which the United States Attorney’s Office appears.’ Since this determination must be
made on a case by case basis, it is a merits-related decision which is not cognizable in a
misconduct proceeding.

Likewise, the allegations that Respondent knows and has personal relationships
with both counsel in Complainant’s case must be dismissed not only as being related to
the merits of the Respondent’s decisions or procedural rulings but also as legally
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii).’

A judge is permitted to have friends and participate in society, even when that
means coming into contact with attorneys or others who might appear before him or her
on the bench. See e.g. Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory
Opinion 11 (January 21, 1970, as revised January 16, 1998)(disqualification by judge not

required when one of the attomeys appearing before him was the godfather of the judge’s

§ Given the length of time which has passed since Respondent left that office, it
would appear that disqualification would seldom, if ever, be required because of a
conflict resulting from his prior employment with that office.

7 Complainant also avers that Respondent has a personal bias or prejudice against
him. Other than this conclusory allegation, there is no basis for this claim as presented in
the complaint.

All of Complainant’s allegations that the Respondent acted with some
inappropriate animus are speculative and conclusory in nature and not supported by any
factual allegations in the record, but rather, appear to be based solely on Complainant’s
opinion as to what the outcome of the decision on his § 2255 motion should have been.
These allegations, therefore, are not only subject to dismissal as being merits-related but
also as legally frivolous.

DEF02349


5991

Appendix B: Non-Jail Measures
for Decreasing a Jail Population

Decisions that impact the population size at local jail re
made at a series of points in the criminal justice system. At
these decision points, there are alternatives to holding an
individual in jail, or oven aresting a person in the first place.
‘These alternatives range fram diverting a person from the
criminal justi system altogether, to sentencing a person to
intense detention experiences away from jal,

Diversion Instead of Arrest

AL the point of initial encounter with a law enforcement
officer, an individual may be arrested or not. ‘The decision to
arrest a person lies with the law enforcement officer on or
called to the scene. An individual may be diverted from the
system, that is, simply released or referred or retuned to a
family or community resource.

Citation in Liea of Arrest
‘An individual may be issued a citation (a *ticket") ot a
notice to sppear in court (a “summons”) instead of being
arrested.
Diversion After Arrest
Diversion fromm detention can also occur after arrest. Early

Preval services programs are both  cost- and crime-
control measure. They can reduce jail populations and,
therefore, costs, by expanding the use of various forms of
release, When such programs provide for supervision, they
reduce the likelihood of additonal criminal activity. There is
no formaaly-estblished pretrial services agency in Tefferson
Pasish.

ce in court is
customarily the most critical moment in determining detention
cor release at the pretrial stage. This isthe stage at which bail
is considered for all defendants.

The purpose of bail is to insure thatthe accused will
appear for trial. Bail amounts are established according to
both severity of the offense and the magistrate or judge's
expectation thatthe accused will be present for trial
Misdemeanor bail limits follow a schedule, while judges have
wide discretion in seting bail for felonies.” In addition, bail
‘may be non-monetary as well as monetary

Monetary Bail, Judges can require actual cash or things
cof cash value to be paid or "posted" to secure release from the

screening of either by a pretrial services agency or
by prosecutors, can help identify those individuals who can
safely be released without conditions or released to
‘participation in some special program.

‘The District Attomey’s Office has since 1977 operated a
voluntary diverson program for first-time, non-violent
offenders. The District Attorney's Screening Division identifies
cligible individuals. Program participants must be between the
ages of 17 and 25, except persons arrested for shoplifting, who
are eligible whatever their age. Even some felony arrestees are
eligible, if they are between the ages of 17 and 25 and have no
prior record.

Pretrial Services

Some of the same services that are called "pretrial" may
actually occur “prearrest” or be used as an alternative sentence.
“postal” “Pret” services may be goverumental or private.
‘They may-simply-provide sereening for identification of
individuals with special needs. They may provide information
on an’arrestee of on community resources, enlarging the range
of release or sentencing options that prosecutors or judges may
consider. Pretrial services may also extend to the active
supervision of various forms of conditional release,

jail. Defendants can pay their bail amount in ful, or they can
pay a commercial bonding company a deposit (usually 10
percent) and transfer the monetary responsibility of mecting
bail to the bonding company. When commercial or bonding
‘companies are used, these companies assume the responsibility
of guaranteeing an individual in court and paying
the court's fall bail amount in the event ofa defendant's non-
appearance. Deposits paid to commercial bonding companies
ae nonrefundable.

Occasionally, judges will accept partial payment of bail as
sufficient for release from pretrial detention. Nominal or
‘unsecured bail is the payment to the court of a small amount
‘of money for which the defendant is liable if he/she does not
appear in court. Deposit bail is the posting of a percentage of
‘the full dollar bail amount. Cash bail paid by the defendant is
retuned if all court appearances are made.

‘Non-Monetary Bail. Non-monetary bail usually takes the
form of community service.

Other Non-Monetary Pre-Trial Release. Other non-
‘monetary forms of pre-trial release include: Release on
Recognizance (ROR) @r a Personal Bond Undertaking (PBU),
‘where no financial deposit or conditions are required and an

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—29

DEFO2437


5908

U S. COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE
MAY 1-7 2001
FIFTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES 9. FULBRUGE iil
CLERK

IN RE: NO, 01-05-372-0034

PETITION FOR REVIEW 5Y QA oF THe
FINAL ORDER FILED FEBRUARY 26, 2001, DISMISSING

JUDIC CONDUCT COMPLAINT AGAINST (a?
» UNDER THE
JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY ACT OF 1980.

ORDER

An Appellate Review Panel of the Judicial Council of the Fifth Circuit has
reviewed the above-captioned petition for review, and all the members of the Panel

have voted to affirm the Order of Chief Judge King, dated February 26, 2001,

dismissing the Complaint of (uD a0 inst Sy

emmmee lil the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980. The Order is
therefore

AFFIRMED.

ISMAY' O( Chet ee,

Date E. Grady Jolly
United States Circuit Judge,
For the Judicial Council of
The Fifth Circuit

DEFO2354
PORT Exhibit 1111 (f)


6014

| LexisNexis arose sare | chant eters | 8
Search Y Revearch Tasks ¥ Geta OocumentY shepar's® Tales T Tota LiigatorY Transactional Advisot V counsel Selector Y omer ten
oCuRTM Teng LnwereL tani we's wa ne? Senin. cranes tt 1) ZI sores

Source, News & Busnase> Gonbned Sous > News, Al (English, FullText)
“Teme: "Lawrence L, Kautson” andy, william miler” (Edt Search| Suggest Terme for My Seach)

‘Select for FOCUSTM or Delvery
The Associated Press February 1, 1980, Friday, PM cycle
Copyright 1980 Associated Press
All Rights Reserved
‘The Associated Press
February 1, 1980, Friday, PM cycle
SECTION: Washington Dateline
LENGTH: 950 words
BYLINE: By LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
Boy:
‘Treasury Secretary G. William Miller denied today he had any knowledge of bribes or other questionable payments
‘made by Textron Corp. while he was chairman

But he said “questionable and improper" payments were made by other corporate officials. although he said the
Information was withheld from him.

“Wes true I was not aware,” he told a news conference. “I believed T could reasonably rely on my senior people. It tuned
out I was incorrect."

He said that "T deeply regret” the questionable payments.

‘The Securities and Exchange Commission said in a complaint Thursday that Textron had made $5.4 million in payments
to foreign officials, much of it while Miller was chairman, to win contracts to sell military equipment.

‘The SEC complaint also made a new charge that Textron spent $600,000 to entertain Pentagon officials during Miller's
tenure without informing stockholders, as required by federal law.”

Regarding the Pentagon entertainment expenses, Miller said there was nothing improper in those payments, in Textron's
view, because they were not illegal. He sald they were primarily for meal expenses in connection with contract ngotiations
and did not exceed $100 for any guest.

Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis., said today the Senate Banking Committee, of which he is chairman, will soon decide
whether to conduct a new investigation of what he called a "cover-up" and "a pattern of bribery" by Textron while Miller
was its chairman,

Miller said the SEC complaint did not present any significant new information that should cause anyone to question his
Fitness to serve as treasury secretary.

"Ido not intend to resign,” he said in answer to a question. He sald there has been “no communication from the president
‘suggesting such a thing.”

roxmire said the foreign payments were "an extremely serious matter.”

Proxmire cast the committee's lone vote against Miller's nomination to be Federal Reserve Board chairman in 1978. The
senator said the SEC complaint “certainly confirms my opposition to Mr. Miller.”

“Whether he knew about those bribes, we don’t know, but he should have known,” Proxmire told reporters following an
‘appearance by Miller before the Joint Economic Committee, of which Proxmire is a member.

hops ww exis comfesearchreieve7ec=Spushme= | tmpFBSel-alétotldoes

nggedDoes=RtoggleValue=esimDoesChKed-ORprefFHS . 8791/2010
DEFO2466

PORT Exhibit 1120


6003

{As the eldest son of Democratic lion Mario Cuomo, Andrew had one of the best educations in hands-on politics, He got
Inte the game at 16, helping in his father's fist state-wide race. He took part in Mario's losing bid for mayor of the Big
Apple in 1977, and in his successful run for lieutenant governor a year later. But Andrew's real start came in 1982 when,
‘at 24, he ran his father’s winning gubernatorial campaign. In a primary against the formidable New York City Mayor Ed
Koch, Andrew led the campaign from 37 points down to a victory margin of four. In the general run-off against the vastly
better financed Republican Lew Lehrman, Andrew again prevailed. The uphill victories testified to Andrew's burgeoning
‘campaign and management sil

During his father's years in the governor's mansion, young Cuomo refined his political touch. He campaigned hard for
Walter Mondale’s presidential bid, bringing in savvy media consultants. And he was largely responsible for staging one of
his father’s most memorable moments, the carefully crafted speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention.

‘Young Cuomo also got an education in hard-nosed politics. In 1983, the New York State Investigation Commission (SIC)
concluded that Cuomo and two other aides--including current NBC News star Tim Russert--bullied members of the allied
Liberal Party to support a Cuomo-favored candidate to head the party. According to the SIC report, the three men
“intervened in the internal affairs of the Liberal Party in order to obtain a resolution of the factional dispute.” Party
members testified that the governor's aides threatened them with the loss of lucrative state jobs and patronage if the
party's fight was not resolved in a way “acceptable” to the governor.

After this brush with notoriety, Andrew left Albany in 1984 for Manhattan to join the staff of New York District Attorney
Robert Morgenthau. In 1985 he became a partner in the Park Avenue law firm of Blutrich Falcone & Miller, a haven for his,
{dad's financial boosters. One partner, Lucile Falcone, was Mario's chief fundraiser and, according to reports, Andrew's
Gifriend. In his memoirs the governor even wrote he would likely join the firm when he left public service, (It ceased to
‘exist before he could do so.)

‘Also in 1985, Andrew took a leaf from the playbook of his future brother-in- law Joseph Kennedy, who had started his
Career by founding a non-profit corporation to provide low-cost heating fuel to the poor. Andrew's variant was a non-
profit called Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged (HELP), which provides transitional homes and services to the
homeless. In 1988 he quit his law practice to work full-time as president of HELP, a post he manned until joining HUD as
assistant secretary for community planning and development in 1993,

(Cuomo's zeal for philanthropy turned not-so-neighborly, however, when community legislators questioned the location
and size of HELP projects, and when they attempted to Siow what they saw as the non-deliberative, willy-nilly speed with
which those project proposals were approved. One of these communities was Westchester County, a largely affluent New
‘York suburb whose liberal denizens were shocked at the prospect of a housing project in their backyards.

Paul Feiner, then a county legislator who was skeptical toward HELP, says Cuomo interrupted a telephone conversation
tne night in 2988 with an emergency breakthrough by an operator. Cuomo's call was a tongue-lashing for Feiner's
position on HELP. "There was a tremendous amount of pressure,” recalls Feiner. At the time he told a reporter that
‘Cuomo had threatened him, saying, "I'l run your career. I'l break every bone in your body," unless Feiner supported the
project. Cuomo dismissed these allegations. "It's sad that (Feiner’s) mind would work in such a way," he said. "I think i's
‘even ethnically disparaging."

Now the Democratic supervisor of a Westchester town who holds a seat on HELP's advisory board, Feiner hardly seems
‘out to get Cuomo. In fact, he calls HELP a “total success” and says that "perhaps without the pressure it would have been
impossible to get the complex bullt... But I would have preferred a little more compromising with the community. Tt was a
bad taste of government where things were being rammed through.”

“The Oceanmark Bog

Notwithstanding such unpleasantness in the non-profit sector, it's one of Andrew's for-profit ventures that has now come
back to haunt him. As a corporate lawyer in the Blutrich firm, he represented a group that in 1986 decided to invest in a
family-owned, federally chartered savings and loan in North Miami Beach called Oceanmark. Andrew himself was also one
of the investors, The original owners of the thrift, the Fenster family, had lived in Florida for generations, and they soon
concluded that they were losing control of the bank to outsiders who wanted to plunder Its assets and discard the shell

‘Their suspicions were aroused by the accidental discovery that what they called Cuomo's "New York Group,” supposedly
five major investors, consisted of at least 22, who among them controlled more than half of Oceanmark's stock.
Concealed takeover groups are a major no-no in financial regulation, and Cuomo's group had filed none of the required
cchange-in-control papers. So the Fensters' lawyers hit them with the first of what has become a series of lawsuits.

‘A constant theme In this convoluted legal history is the politcal well- being of Andrew Cuomo. The New York Group
Offered to settle this frst suit in 1990, just an hour before the Fensters’ legal team was set to take a deposition from
Andrew. (Several months before, Cuorno had backed out of another scheduled deposition, submitting an affidavit that he
‘was sick with nausea, diarrhea, and headaches. The next day the New York Post had run a picture of Cuomo, wearing,
black tie at a party the previous night, over the caption, "He's one sick puppy.”)

{As part of the deal, Lynn Fenster and her family signed off on a press release apologizing to Andrew for "statements

stesearhiretive?

That d69 1 284RSDAC2TGADRSAROTTabecsvebieformesearchFomAe fnist=FULLAdocnum=1&_. 9231/2010
DEFO2455



5932

manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality." Canon 3A(3) of the
Code further provides that: "A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to
litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity,

and should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control ...."

It must be reiterated that the evidence indicates and the Committee specifically
finds that Judge McDonald is not and was not biased against any ethnic, racial, or religious
group. Nonetheless, the Committee concludes that Judge McDonald on occasion violated the
statutory standard of conduct by his practice, and by his condoning the practice among his
courtroom staff, of writing and exchanging in open court, notes that could reasonably be
interpreted as reflecting bias. Regardless of their intent as to meaning or audience, they certainly
created an appearance of impropriety, undermined the public’s confidence in an impartial
judiciary, and impugned the dignity and seriousness of the ongoing court proceedings. For these

reasons, the Committee concludes that more than a private reprimand is warranted,

The Committee therefore recommends that the Judicial Council issue a public
reprimand to Judge McDonald for engaging in conduct in open court that both created an
appearance of impropriety and violated Canons 2A and 3A(3).

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas G. Nelson, Circuit Judge, Chair
Proctor Hug Jr., Chief Circuit Judge

Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge

Terry J. Hatter, Chief District Judge (C.D. Cal.)
Michael R. Hogan, Chief District Judge (D. Ore.)

Special Committee

DEF02378


5936

‘That order was prompted by a number of events that were reported widely
in the media. Judge Ware had been nominated in 1997 for elevation from the District Court
to the Court of Appeals. The Senate Judiciary Committee held its confirmation hearing
on October 29, 1997. The nomination was reported in the Birmingham, Alabama press
because Judge Ware had been raised in that city. An earlier speech by Judge Ware had been
televised nationally in which he described how, while he was pedaling a bicycle in
Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, his brother, Virgil, was shot off the handlebars and killed by
white youths. Judge Ware’s speech described the event as having occurred on the same day
that four black girls had been Killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in
Birmingham. Also reported in the Birmingham press in 1997 was the reopening of the
investigation of the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing. ‘These reports included an
interview with James Ware, a power plant employee living in Birmingham, who was the true
brother of the Virgil Ware killed in 1963. During the first week of November 1997, family
members of Virgil Ware publicly disputed Judge Ware’s claims that he was the brother of the
Virgil Ware killed in 1963.

On November 6, 1997, Judge Ware withdrew his nomination in a public
statement admitting that he had publicly misrepresented being the James Ware whose brother
was killed in 1963.

On December 5, 1997, the Chief Judge filed with the Council an order
appointing this Special Investigative Committee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(4)(A) and
Misconduct Rule 4(e), to investigate the charges in the Order Identifying a Complaint of

Judicial Misconduct and to make a report and recommendation to the Judicial Council.

DEFO2382


5780

United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of Louisiana
NOTICE TO INDIVIDUAL CONSUMER DEBTOR

“The purpose of his noice st acquaint you wh the feu chaplrs of the Federal Bankrupley Code under which you may
fie a banicuptey pettion. The bankruptcy lw is complicated nd not easly described. Therefore, you should seek the

_adiica ofan atlomey to fear of your rights and responsibites under te lw should you decide to fe w pation withthe

court Court employees are prohibited from giving ou lege advice.

CChapter7: Liquidation ($155.00 fling fee plus $30.00 administrative fe plus $16.00 trustee surcharge)

1. Chapter 7 is designed for debtors in inane itfieuty who do nt have the abit to pay thi exiting debt,

‘2 Under chaster7 a trusie takes possession ot al your property. You may claim ceftain ct your property as exempt under govering tow. The stew
then Bquidates th property and Uses the precaeds fo pay your redtore according to pris ofthe Bankrupy Code.

2 The punese tng a chair 7 casita x dacarge ferent, owe, ew fund ve cried cata kindof
improper conduct deverbed nthe Bankrupey Code, you dzhorge may be deried by the cour, and the purpose for which you fled banirupley
petion wil be defeated.

4, Even you receive a discharge, thee ae some debts that are nt discharged under the aw. Therefore, you may sil be responsible for such debts as
‘can thes and student eas almany and supper paymerta, criminal rextRdton, and debt fr death er personal injury caused by drving whe
‘rtasoated tor alcoho or erugs-

5. Under certain dreumstances yeu may keep propery that you have purchased subject lo a valé vecufty interest. Your attorney can expan the options
thatareevatabe to you.

Chapter 13: Repayment of Ail or Part of the Debts of an individual with Regular Income

{$155.00 filing fee plus $30.00 administrative fee)
+. Chae 138 degre tc th mane wh re enony pe ne ig no a oy a ae et
pated ole. You ae oly gigi for chaper 13 f your debts do rot exceed certain doar amount set fr inthe Bankruptcy Code.

2. Under chapter 13 you must fie plan wih he court tea your cedars lor par ofthe money thal you owe her, using your future earings.
Usual, the period alowed by the cout a repay your dette free years, but ro mere than five years, Your plan must be approved by the court before
can take effet.

‘Under chapter 13, urike chapter 7, you may keep al your propery, bth exempt and non-exempt ong a you canine to make payments under
the plan,

4. After competion of payments under you ian, your debts are docharged excep alimony and suppor payments, student loans, certain deta incucng
criminal fea and restsion and debt for death or personal injury caused by diving whe ntoscated rom alcohol er droge, and ong term secured

Chapter 11: Reorganization ($800.00 filing fee)

Chapter 11s designed primary forthe reorgeizaion of a business bus slso avalabe to consumer debor. ts provisions are qute competed, end
‘ny decison by an individual to le Chaplet 11 ptton shoud be reviewed wih an storey.

‘Chapter 12: Family Farmer ($200.00 filing fee)

qtr pert ei rant fia ene anne may enact 8
‘he geiyenaeen We Aeon er pry toms any ound arm

DEFO1916


6030

ss12010
DEFO2482

Inepy/onwwensnews com/newsaticle/49218


6034

‘News “CNSNews TY » Commentary «Cartoons «Subscribe Donate + RSS Feed: Privacy Statement

‘Al eviginal CNSNews.com materi, copyright 1998-2010 Cybercast News Service,

312010

rw ensnews com/newvarticle
tpn cominowvatcle/49218 DeFosse


6059

Propensity Score

ee =
1 ATI L |
Wl erg :

Ficuae 1.4, p-score distribution for each release type conditional on actual release (the
onder within type is own recognizance, deposit, cash, surety, not released); B, pairwise p-score
distributions for own recognizance versus surety

DEF02617


5926

After due consideration of the special committee's
report, the Council adopts the findings and recommendations of
the committee and attaches as a part of this order that report.
For the reasons stated by the committee, the Council reprimands
Judge McDonald for his conduct, having concluded that such
conduct is prejudicial to the effective administration of the
business of the courts.

This order shall be made public. 28 U.S.C.

§ 372(c) (6) (B) (vi); Misconduct Rules 14(f£)(1) and 17(d).*

Dated this eleventh day of September, 2000.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Proctor Hug, Jr., Chief Judge
Mary M. Scroeder, Circuit Judge
Thomas G. Nelson, Circuit Judge
A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge
Barry G. Silverman, Circuit Judge
Michael R. Hogan, Chief District Judge
David A. Ezra, Chief District Judge
James K. Singleton, Chief District Judge

Judith Keep, District Judge

* Judge McDonald has waived his right to petition for review
by the Judicial Conference of the United States and therefore the
Judicial Council is releasing this Order immediately.

2

DEF02372


5887
questionnaire submitted to the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary’ The crux of the

complaint is that:

[Respondent] swore he “...represented the interests of [], a
manufacturer of asbestos cloth in depositions and trials in state and
federal courts” during his employment with [the firm]. A red flag arose as
to the credibility of these claims when [Respondent’s] legal experience
consisted of nine years of criminal law no known civil experience and he
was suddenly trial counsel in a major class action asbestos litigation in state
and federal courts.

Exhaustive measures were taken to confirm [Respondent’s] swom
statements concern his contact with [the firm]. A comprehensive search of
the state and federal dockets did not reveal any entry of appearance by

5 The releyant portions of the questionnaire as identified and quoted by
Complainant are:

[Question] 18(b)(2) Describe your typical former clients, and mention the
areas, if any in which you have specialized.

[Answer] [ ], a manufacturer of asbestos blankets, was my sole client during
my tenure at {the firm].

[Question] 18(c)(1) Describe whether you appeared in court frequently,
occasionally or not at all. If the frequency of your appearances in court
varied, describe each such variance, providing dates.

[Answer] I occasionally appeared in court while employed at [the firm].
[Question] 18(c)(4) State the number of cases in courts of record you tried
to verdict or judgment rather than settled, indicating whether you were sole

counsel, chief counsel or associate counsel.

[Answer] | served as lead counsel in all matters in which 1 appeared in
court. I was counsel of record in several thousand bench trials and

approximately seventy jury trials.

DEF02333


6073

120 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

Dehejia, Rajeev H., and Wahba, Sadek, “Causal Effects in Non-experimental
Studies: Re-evaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs.” Working
Paper No. 6586. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Re-
search, June 1998.

Drimmer, Jonathan. “When Man Hunts Man: The Rights and Duties of
Bounty Hunters in the American Criminal Justice System.” Houston Law
Review 33 (1996): 731-93.

Feeney, Floyd. “Foreword.” Pages ix-xiii in Bail Reform in America, edited
‘by Wayne H. Thomas, Jr. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1976.

Freed, Daniel J., and Wald, Patricia M. Bail in the United States: 1964,
Washington, D.C.: National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice, 1964.

Goldkamp, John S., and Gottfredson, Michael R. Policy Guidelines for Bail:
‘An Experiment in Court Reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1985.

Greene, William H. Econometric Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 2000.

Heckman, James J; Ichimura, Hidehiko; and Todd, Petra E. “Matching as
an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job
Training Programme.” Review of Economic Studies 64 (1997): 605-54,

Heckman, James J; Ichimura, Hidehiko; and Todd, Petra. “Matching As an
Econometric Evaluation Estimator.” Review of Economic Studies 65
(1998): 261-94,

Helland, Eric, and Tabarrok, Alexander. “Public versus Private Law Enforce-
‘ment: Evidence from Bail Jumping.” Working paper. Fairfax, Va.: George
Mason University, 2003. http:/;mason.gmu,edu/~atabarro/PublicvsPrivate.pdf.

Howe, Kenneth, “Massachusetts Undertakes Sweeping Reform of Its War-
rants System.” San Francisco Chronicle, June 23, 1999.

Howe, Kenneth, and Hallissy, Erin. “When Justice Goes Unserved:
‘Thousands Wanted on Outstanding Warrants—but Law Enforcement
Largely Ignores Them.” San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 1999.

Imbens, Guido W. “The Role of the Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-
Response Functions.” Technical Working Paper No. 237. Cambridge,
Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, April 1999.

Kennedy, Spurgeon, and Henry, D. Alan. “Commercial Surety Bail: As-
sessing Its Role in the Pretrial Release and Detention Decision.” Wash-
ington, D.C.; Pretrial Services Resource Center, 1997.

Kimbrough, Carla J. “Crowded Jails Put Squeeze on Bondsmen.” Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, June 7, 1989.

Landes, William M. “The Bail System: An Economic Approach.” Journal
of Legal Studies 2 (1973): 79-105.

Landes, William M. “Legality and Reality: Some Evidence on Criminal
Procedure.” Journal of Legal Studies 3 (1974): 287-337.

Lechner, Michael. “Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects of Mul-

DEF02631


6068

BALL SUMPING WS

TABLE 5

Mean Rearrest Rares py RELEASE
CatecoRy, 1988-96

Rate (%) N
‘Own recognizance 139 20985
Deposit bond 133 3.605
‘Cash bond 4 2.482

Surety bond 2 9.202

egies; a number of alternative strategies, described briefly below, are devel-
oped in the working paper.

Our first identification strategy takes advantage of the fact that some 14
percent of defendants out on pretrial release are arrested for another crime
before they arc sentenced for the first crime. It is plausible that the probability
of being rearrested is positively correlated with the probability of becoming
a fugitive. Assume, for example, that guilty defendants are less likely to
show up for trial than innocent defendants and that innocent defendants are
less likely to be rearrested than guilty defendants. There is good evidence
for some such assumption because in the raw data, defendants who are never
rearrested have an FTA rate of 11 percent, but defendants who are rearrested
for another crime have an FTA rate of 43 percent.

If rearrest is positively correlated with the probability of becoming a fu-
gitive and if treatment docs not influence rearrest rates, then rearrest rates
by treatment will track unobserved characteristics. Table 5 provides evidence
for the second clause—in the raw data, there is very little variation in rearrest
rates across treatment categories.” Thus, Table 6 (matching on propensity
score and bail) presents faux “treatment effects” for the effect of various
release types on rearrest rates. We emphasize that our hypothesis is that
treatment does not influence rearrest—the faux treatment effects, therefore,
are indications of the influence of unobserved variables.

In Table 6, the surety versus own recognizance and surety versus deposit
comparisons show positive but very small and statistically insignificant ef-
fects, which suggests that unobserved variables have little influence on FTA
and fugitive rates across these comparisons. The surety versus cash bond
comparison suggests that the surety treatment increases rearrest rates by 4.5
percentage points, which implies that unobserved variables operate in a di-
rection that offsets the true treatment effect of surety on FTA and fugitive

© in the raw data, there appears to be a slight decrease in rearrest rates for those released
fon commercial bail. Although the searrest ofa defendant is not usually grounds for the forfeiture
of the bond dealer's bond, bond dealers do monitor their charges, and such monitoring might
feduce rearrest rates. Bond dealers might be also be able to select defendants who are unlikely
to flee and thus also unlikely to be rearrested. Once we control for observable characteristics,
however, the slight decrease in arrest rates for those on commercial bail disappears and in
some cases reverses (see Table 6)

DEF02626


5847

1993] ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 33

PROPOSED LEGISLATION

PROF. GROSS: Let me change gears here. As everyone is
aware, Congress contemplated legislation specifically to address single asset
real estate Chapter 11 cases.” My first question is: Do you think we need
a statutory fix or should we leave things as they are for case-by-case
determination? And then more specifically, as you may know, the proposed
legislation in essence provided a fast track for Chapter 11 single asset real
estate cases. The legislation contemplated permitting a stay to be lifted to go
up to the point of sale in the context of foreclosure, and then allowed for the
plan process to be sped up.” And, if it didn’t speed up or if payment wasn't
made to a secured creditor, then the legislation allowed the stay to be lifted and
foreclosure to conclude." So my question is: Do you think we need
legislation, and if so, what is your view as to what that legislation should be?

JUDGE HILLMAN: I say, first of all, we don’t need it.
What it’s addressing is the attitude of a number of judges that you don’t get
relief from stay right away. There is one judge who says to me repeatedly,
you have to try three times before I grant relief from stay.

® 5, REP. No. 279, 1024 Cong., 24 Seas. (1992).

TM §, 1985, 1024 Cong., 2d Sess § 211 (1992), ‘The section provides in pertinent ps
‘With respect to & stay of an act against real property under subsection (a), if the
property is single asset real estate, and the debtor has not, withia 90 days afer the
filing of # petition under section 301 or section 302 of this title, or the entry of an
order for relief under section 303 of this ttle, filed a plan of reorganization which has
1 reascaable possihility of being confirmed within a reasonable period of time, of the
debtor has commenced payment to the holder of a claio secured by such real property
of interest on « smonthly basis at a current fair market rate on the value of the
‘creditor's secured interes in such property. The court may extend such 90-day period
‘only for cause and only if an order granting such an extension is entered within such
‘90-day period.

14
1 1d. ‘The section provides in pertinent past:
‘Upon eequest of a party in interest in a case under this ttle in which the property of
the entate in single asset real estate, the court, with or without « hearing, shall grant
ssich limited relief from « say provided under subsections (8X1), (1@), and (a)(4) of
this section, as is necessary to allow such party in intereat to proceed during the
pendency of the cass under this title with a foreclosure proceeding, whether judicial
‘or nonjudicial, which bad bees commenced before a petition was fled under this
‘up to but not including the point of aale of such real property.

HeinOnline ~ ¥ Am, Bankr. Inst L. Rev. 33 1993

DEF02280


5833

1993) ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 19

illogical, and unworkable in its application." Do you have any views as to
the merits of that observation?

JUDGE HILLMAN: That’s Marty Bienenstock”? and he had
me two-thirds convinced before I came on the bench, and I thought about it a
great deal. Then when I came on, I came into a district where we have a case
called In Re The Bible Speaks.

PROF. GROSS: An unforgettable name.

JUDGE HILLMAN: The holy writ from Judge Queenan in Jn
re The Bible Speaks” is that there is a good faith test and there was a good
faith test under Roman XI and there is a good faith test under Arabic 11. So
the cases in my district are uniform, and there is good faith, Marty to the
contrary, notwithstanding.

JUDGE FENNING: I think there is implicit good faith, but
we are talking about Chapter 11"s here. You cannot confirm a Chapter 11
plan without a determination that it’s being proposed in good faith.

JUDGE HILLMAN: That's back end.

JUDGE FENNING: That's back end, but if there is no way
they can clear that hurdle at the end of the case and it's obvious at the
beginning of the case, you can address the good faith issue at the beginning.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: That is Leif Clark's Anderson Oaks
case"* — if one can find out in a 362 hearing or a hearing on a motion to
dismiss that it is impossible to confirm a plan, just stop the case right there.

JUDGE FENNING: In the interest of full disclosure, we
should tell you Judge Clark just walked into the room a few minutes ago.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I figured he’d be here.

4 MARTIN J, BIENENSTOCK, BANKRUPTCY REORGANTZATION 28 (1987).

© Matin J. Bienenstock is a partner with the firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges in New York.
65 BR, 415 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1986).

Jn re Anderson Oaks, 77 B.R. 108 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1987).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 19 1993

DEF02266


6058

BAIL JUMPING 105

decisions." Other, nonindividual variables include the police clearance rate,
defined as the number of arrests divided by the number of crimes per county.
The clearance rate provides a crude measure of police availability that may
affect FTA rates. County and year effects are included in the selection equa-
tion (county 29 and 1988 are excluded to prevent multicollinearity).” The
results of the ordered probit estimation are presented in Appendix Table Al.

B. Matching Quality

A match is defined as the pair of observations with the smallest difference
in propensity scores so long as the difference is less than a predefined caliper.
Ifa match cannot be made within the caliper distance, the observations are
dropped. We use matching with replacement, so the order of matching is
irrelevant, and every untreated observation is compared against every treated
observation.“

The match quality is good, as we match large proportions of the sample
despite using a caliper of only .0001.*S Figure 1 presents a box-and-whiskers
plot of the propensity scores for each treatment category (including the “treat-
ment” of not released) conditional on the actual treatment. The leftmost part
of the graph, for example, gives the box-and-whiskers plot for the propensity
of being in the own-recognizance, deposit, cash, surety, and not-released
treatments for all defendants in the own-recognizance treatment.“*

© Ayres & Waldfogel, supra note 6, identifies eight characteristics that judges may consider
in setting bail: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense (if relevan‘), (2) the evidence
against the defendant, (3) the defendant's prior eriminal record, (4) the defendant's prior FTA.
record, (5) the defendant's family ties, (6) the defendant's employment record, (7) the de-
fendant's financial resources, and (8) the defendant's community ties. Although Ayers and
‘Waldfoge!'s study deals only with Connecticut, the eriteria are similar in other states.

“© The use of county effects in the selection equation is noteworthy because it implies that
matching will occur with “quasi"-fixed effects. A true fixed-eflects estimator would require
that comparable observations come from within the same county. The matching estimator takes
into account county effects when seeking a match but does not insist that every match must
bbe within county. In particular, some counties do not release on deposit bond, and others do
not release on surety bond. Afixed-effects estimator would not use information from these
counties in estimating the effect of the deposit and surety treatments. The matching estimator
will use information from these counties if matching is strong on other variables. A. pure fixed
effects estimator may also be important, however, and in the working version of this paper,
Eric Helland & Alexander Tabarrok, Public versus Private Law Enforcement: Evidence from
‘Bail Jumping (Working paper, George Mason Univ. 2003), we pursue this altemative approach.
Results are consistent with those discussed here.

“ Dehejia & Wahba, supra note 4, finds that matching with replacement is considerably
superior to matching with nonreplacement

“When matching on variables with fewer observations, such as fugitive rates conditional
oon faire to appear as we do below, we match using a caliper of 001. The caliper size makes
litle difference to the results,

“ Ina box-and-whiskers plot, the box contains the interquartile range (IQR): the observations
between the 75th percentile (the top of the box) and the 25th percentile (the bottom of the
box). The horizontal line toward the center of each box isthe medisn observation. The whiskers
are the so-called adjacent values that extend from the largest observation less than oF equal

DEF02616


5954

eventually suffered. Such treatment of a member of the Bar by a
magistrate cannot be accepted if the bench and bar of the federal
courts are to adequately administer justice to the citizens of
this nation.

It is, accordingly, ordered that the Chief Judge of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
cause.this order to be filed with the clerk of that court in
Augusta, Georgia, and that the clerk make the same available to
the public.

FOR THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
L dep (fi
Chit sudge
of the Eleventh Judicial circuit

Dated: __{ babu & 1970

DEF02400


5882

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE
SECOND CIRCUIT

In re
CHARGE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT No. 91-8500
Memorandum and Order

Before: Chief Judge James L. Oakes

Circuit Judges Thomas J. Meskill
Jon 0. Newwan
Amalya L. Kearse
Richard J. Cardamone
Ralph K. Winter
George C. Pratt

Chief Judges Charles L. Brieant
Thomas Cc. Platt
Michael A. Telesca
Franklin S. Billings, Jr.
Ellen Bree Burns
Neal P. McCurn

On January 4, 1991, the complainant filed a complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 372(c) and the Rules of the Judicial
Council of the Second Circuit Governing Complaints Against
Judicial officers (Local Rules), making allegations of improper
conduct against a Bankruptcy Judge of the Southern District of
New York (the "Judge"). The initial complaint consisted of the
complaint form adopted pursuant to the Local Rules, a typed
statement of facts, and exhibits.

By orders dated January 23, 1991 and April 29, 1991, Chief
Judge James L. Oakes appointed a Special Committee (Committee)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372{c) (4) and Rule 9 of the Local Rules,
and notified both the complainant and the judge of its formation.
In addition to the Chief Judge, the Committee includes Circuit
Judges Amalya L. Kearse and George C. Pratt, Eastern District
Judge Eugene H. Nickerson and District of Connecticut Judge Alan
H. Nevas.

The Judicial council of the Second Circuit has received a
comprehensive written report from the above Committee.

The complaint concerns the Judge's testimony in a case over
which complainant, himself a former Bankruptcy Judge, presided
during his judicial tenure. The testimony was by the Judge after

1

DEF02328
AO Tan PORT Exhibit 1111 (c)


6040

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago, Bell said that Kelly would give way to a new director
“before too fong.” Although he deliberately avoided specitying a timetable, Bells remark was widely interpreted as
‘meaning that the changeover would take place in the near future,

Now, Kelley's letter confronts Bell with some sensitive choices. If he allows Kelley to remain until the end of the year, his
action is likely to be interpreted as a backing down in the face of a challenge from the FBI director.

In addition, there is widespread feeling in law enforcement circes that Kelley's now-stated intention to retire at the end of
the year would put the crisis-ridden FBI in the position of being run by a lame-duck director without influence or
authority

On the other hand, should Bell attempt to force Kelley out against his will, he would risk charges that the Carter
administration is trying to bring the FBI back under the sway of partisan political influence. Such charges were heard in
yesterday's Senate debate, and Kelley is understood to have made his move partly because he feels that he can count on
Congressional support

Bell's reaction was to temparize by having his aides issue a statement yesterday noting that Bell does not have the legal
authority to dismiss Kelley and stating that Bell “will set in motion a procedure for the orderly transfer of the directorship
of the bureau." But the statement said nothing about when the new administration wants Kelley to leave.

Kelley, 65, became FBI director in July, 1973, and is serving under a law that grants the director a single term of 10
years. Tt was unlikely that he would have served the full term in any case, since the law states that an incumbent must
retire at age 70 unless the President waives that requirement.

However, Senate sources familiar with the history of the faw say categorically that the 10-year term does not preclude a
President from firing the director. The FBI, they note, Is part of the executive branch and Its director serves at the
pleasure of the President.

However, the sources note, by specifying a 10-year term the Senate did intend to insulate the office somewhat from
political Considerations

‘Another complicating factor involves Kelley's pension. Under a new federal law, the three years that Kelley has served as,
director would allow his pension from earlier FBX service to be recomputed on the basis of the higher director's salary.

But the law does not take effect until Oct. 1, and Kelley would have to remain in active federal service until that date to
take advantage of its provisions.

For that reason, Gal's believed to be planning to keep Keley atthe FEI in ome sort of emertusoradiory slot that
would open the way for appointment of a new director

In the Senate debate, some Republicans taunted Democratic liberals, most of whom voted for Bell although obviously
Uncomfortable with the appointment, for applying "a double standard.”

Brooke and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.) both noted that when Southern Supreme Court nominees with backgrounds similar to
Bell's were sent to the Senate by a Republican President, Richard M. Nixon the Democratic majority rejected them.

Said Brooke, "I think that a Republican nominee who had engendered this kind of controversy and contradictory
testimony may have been summarily rejected by this Congress."

Dole added, "Would this Senate have confirmed If President Ford had won and nominated a man with the same
background . .. who belonged to restrictive country clubs . . . a close political associate, 3 man who contributed a
substantial amount to the President's campaign? I think the answers are obvious."

“The American people are tired of watching brothers, campaign managers, law partners and old friends sprinting the
Inside track to the Justice Department,” said Lowell P. Weicker Jr, (R-Conn.

Mathias, in summing up the opposition, asked, "Do we automatically have to give our consent" to a Cabinet appointee
merely if he “is not a convicted felon . | . or lunatic?”

(On the other side, Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), who led a successful fight against two Nixon Supreme Court nominees from the
South several years ago, argued that the evidence showed Bell had tired to act as a moderating influence on Vandiver
during the "massive resistance” period.

"Perhaps we should not be so pious as to the standards of people 25 years ago who lived in a different part of the
country," declared Bayh.

Before approving Bell, the Senate killed, 71 to 24, a move by Brooke to recommit the nomination to the Judiciary
Committee.

nny lexis com/researetowe?

3:90] Tea 204991 DECSBeSe HOdfocb3Bcsve=biReform"seachFonnéfrst-FULLAdocmum=1&_... 8531/2010
DEFO2492



None
Z

None
a

None

None

None

None
Ca

Nona
a

5807

. Describe all property that has been attached, garnished or seized under any legal or equitable
process within one year immediately preceding the commencement ofthis case. (Maried debtors
fling under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must include information concerning property of elther or both
‘spouses whether or nota joint petition is filed, unless the spouses are separated and a joint

petition is not fled.)

5. Repossessions, foreclosures and retums

Lst all property that has been repossessed by a creditor, soldat «foreciosure sale,
transferred through a deed in liu of foreclosure or retumad tothe seller, within one year
Immediately preceding the commencement ofthis case. (Matried debtors fing under chapter 12
‘or chapter 13 must Include information concerning property of either or both spouses whether or
not a joint petition is fled, unless the spouses are separated and a joint petition isnot fled.)

6. Assignments and receiverships

1, Describe any assignment of property forthe benefit of creuitors made within 120 days
immadiately preceding the commencement ofthis case, (Married debtors fling under chapter 12
fof chapter 13 must include any assignment by either or both spouses whether or not a join pettion
Is file, untess the spouses are separated and a joint petition is not fled.)

. Lit all property which has been in the hands of a custodian, raceiver, or court-appointed official
within one year immediately preceding the commencement of this case. (Married debtors fling

‘under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must include information conceming property of either or both

‘spouses whether or nota joint petition is filed, unless the spouses are separated and a joint

Petition is not filed)

Gifts

List all gits or cheritable contributions made within one year immediately preceding the
commencement ofthis case except ordinary and usual gifts to family members aggregating less
than §200 In value per individual family member and cheritable contributions aggregating lees
than $100 per recipient. (Married debtors fling under chapter 12 or chapter 13 must include gifts
or contributions by either or bath spouses whether of nota joint petition is fled, uniess the spouses
fare separated and a joint petition is not fled.)

8. Lose:

List al losses from fre, thet, other easuaty or gambling within one year immediately preceding
‘the commencement of this cate or since the commencement of this case. (Married debtors fling
tnder chapter 12 or chapter 13 must include losses by etther or both spousas whether or not @
joint pettion is fled, unless the spouses are separated and a joint petition is not fied.)

Payments related to debt counseling or bankruptcy

List ett payments made or property transferred by or on behalf ofthe debtor to any persons,
including attomeys, for consultation concerning debt consolidation, relief under the bankruptcy few
or preparation of a petition in bankruptcy within one year immediately preceding the commencement
of this case,

DEF01943


6009

LexisNexis ts/Rosucn ston nu ce tees | ena? 0
Search Research Tasks ¥ Geta Document sheparts®V Alents Tota Litgator Transactional Asvsor counsel Selector coerfssen jt

EARS coors

Source News & Busness > Combed Sowees > News, All English, Full Text)
“Terms, "Sen, Leahy Issues Statement on Nomination of David Nahmias” (Edt Sear | Soaget Terms for My Search | Feedback on You. Search)

SEN. LEAHY ISSUES STATEMENT ON NOMINATION OF DAVID NAHMIAS US Fed News September 30, 2004 Thursday 9:09
AM EST

Copyright 2004 HT Media Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
US Fed News

‘September 30, 2004 Thursday 9:09 AM EST

HEADLINE: SEN. LEAHY ISSUES STATEMENT ON NOMINATION OF DAVID NAHMIAS
BYLINE: US Fed News
DATELINE: WASHINGTON

Boy:

The office of Sen. Patrick S. Leahy, D-Vt,, issued the following statement:
‘Statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy:

After months of stonewalling by this Administration, we are stil trying to uncover the truth about the abuse of prisoners
In US. custody overseas. I have long said that somewhere in the upper reaches of the executive branch a process was
set in motion that rolled forward untit it produced this scandal. To date, senior Administration officials have avoided any
accountability for these atrocities - confirming them to presidential appointments would only underscore this Senate's
willingness to ignore its oversight responsibility

Last year, the Senate was asked to consider the nomination of Jay Bybee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. During Mr.
Bybee's cominations proceedings many Members of the Judiciary Committee questioned him about his legal work - as
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department - on Issues concerning
interrogation techniques, the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to individuals in U.S. custody, and the legal
underpinnings of the fight against terror. His answers were non-responsive. For example, when T asked him to discuss his,
thinking about the status of detainees, Mr. Bybee responded: "As an attorney at the Department of Justice, I am
obligated to keep confidential the legal advice that I provided to others in the executive branch. T cannot comment on
whether or not have provided any such advice and, if so, the substance of that advice.” One of the nominees on our
agenda today, Mr. Nahmias, has provided similar responses to me today on similarly crucial issues.

Despite these non-responsive answers, Mr. Bybee's nomination was strongly pushed by the Administration and he
promised the Senate that he would be fair and impartial. So, he was confirmed to a lifetime position on the Ninth Circuit
by the Senate on March 13, 2003 by a vote of 74-19.

‘Since his confirmation, we have learned of the "torture memo" that he signed in August 2002, while his nomination was
pending for consideration by the Senate. In this memo he advised the President that he could ignore laws forbidding
torture, in violation of international law, and that individuals acting pursuant to the president's commander-in-chief
authority could be shielded from prosecution under U.S. torture statutes and the U.N. Convention Against Torture for
torturing detainees. Mr. Bybee's aggressive and partisan legal work for the President apparently earned him a promotion
to a lifetime job on the federal bench.

Now, however, with the scandal surrounding his recommendations, the Bush Administration has repudiated the memo
and Senior Justice Department officials have said that the memo would be withdrawn and rewritten. However, aS a group
of lawyers, including 12 former presidents of the American Bar Association and several former federal Judges, wrote in a
memorandum to the President in August, this subsequent repudiation “coming after public outcry, confirms [the Bybee
‘memo’s} original lawless character."

Unfortunately, because of his evasiveness, we did not know about a significant part of his record - and his failure to follow
‘the law - prior to his confirmation. Had Mr. Bybee's role in sanctioning cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and

oon tes com oscar?

-Se2102Ke en 40e4284TB06 17154958 cave~blacform-scarchFonm&_fmis~FULLAdocmum=1&_.. 8231/2010
DEFO2461

PORT Exhibit 1118



| texisNexiss reo Sn svete | on nt
earch Research Tasks Geta Document sheperds® Valente Total Lugator Transactional advisor Y Counsel Selector W onsen =

rats SEE oars

Source News & Gusness > Combines Sauces > News, All English, Full Text)
“Terms: "Casey Tells Fedetal Ethies Agency He Omitied Tare Stock Holdings” (Cait Search | Suggest Terms for My Seach |Epedback on Your
Sex)

FOcusTM tons “ctl seen gy On Te Sc San YN Ong

CASEY TELLS FEDERAL ETHICS AGENCY HE OMITTED THREE STOCK HOLDINGS The New York Times July 31, 1981,
Friday, Late City Final Edition

Copyright 1981 The New York Times Company
‘The New York Times.

uly 34, 1981, Friday, Late Cty Final Edition
SECTION: Section A; Page 11, Column 5; National Desk

LENGTH: 510 words

HEADLINE: CASEY TELLS FEDERAL ETHICS AGENCY HE OMITTED THREE STOCK HOLDINGS

BYLINE: By EDWARD T. POUND, Special to the New York Times,

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, uly 20,

Bop:

Willart J. Casey, the Director of Central Intelligence, has notified a Federal ethics agency that he failed to disclose stock
holdings in three corporations when he filed a personal financial disclosure statement in January.

According to David R. Scott, chief counsel in the Federal Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Casey, through documents,
Submitted to the ethies agency by the Central Intelligence Agency, explained that he had inadvertently failed to list his,
holdings in the concerns. Mr. Casey said that he was amending his financial disclosure report to reflect this.

Mr. Scott identified the corporations as Vanguard Ventures, the Energy Transition Corporation and SWC Information
Company. Mr. Casey's failure to report is stockholdings in Vanguard Ventures was reported in The New York Times
Saturday. As a result, Mr. Scott said, his agency asked the C.LA. for information.

He Values Tt at $50,000

According to the information supplied by the agency, Mr. Scott sald, Mr. Casey valued his Vanguard holdings at $50,000.
In amending the report, Mr. Casey publicly reported stock interests in the Energy Transition Corporation, a Washington

concern formed in 1975 to develop energy projects, and SWC Information Company, which is involved in publishing. tt
was formed in the mid-1970's.

Mr. Scott said that Mr. Casey had valued his stock in Energy Transition at $10,000 and in SWC at $15,000 value. The
Ethies in Government Act of 1978, under which Mr. Casey Submitted his statement, requires a Federal official to disclose
holdings valued in excess of $1,060,

Not Reported to Senate Group

In the separate financial disclosure report he filed with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics during confirmation
proceedings in January, Mr. Casey also did not disclose his interests in the three corporations. According to Stanley
‘Sporkin, General counsel to the intelligence agency and a spokesman for the director, Mr. Casey disclosed to the
inteligence committee this week that he had omitted his interest in the three companies in the report he flied with the
Panel. Mr, Sporkin said Mr. Casey's fallure to report was "just an oversight.

Mr. Sporkin said The Times's article saying that Mr. Casey had not reported his Vanguard Venture stock "jogged" the
director's memory. He said Mr. Casey started checking his records and discovered that he had not reported his interests
in the two other companies.

In December or January, according to officials of Energy Transition, Mr. Casey resigned as a director and secretary,
Robert W. Fri, president, said that the company had five stockholders and that all had once held Government posts.

He was acting administrator of the Federal Energy Research and Development Administration, a predecessor of the
Department of Energy. He sald that the three others were Frank G. Zarb, a former head of the Federal Energy

Irtps/ioww lens comeseatchetive?_mm-dide Sch 7469ece12744987255Ta Stkesvesblcformseurhom&_fnist-FULLE doen

le _ sn¥a0i0
DEF02469

PORT Exhibit 1121


5803

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
MPLOYEE EARNINGS STATEMENT

|__DOSLAECNOLAB __MONTHLY PAY PERIOD 06 ENDING 05/31/00 ____01007 |
[LOUISIANA EASTERN DISTRICT JUDGE & STAFF NEW ORLEANS |

PORTEOUS dh..G. THOMAS I 436-64-1366 Uy 00/05
DIRECT DEPOSIT 065000029 RETIRI
‘SALARY 141,300.00
‘YTD.

PAY PERIOD EARNINGS DAK: PAL

REGULAR 30.0 11,775.00 70,266.66
GROSS EARNINGS 11,775.00 70,266.66
PAY PERIOD DEDUCTIONS DEDUCTIONS YTD DEDUCTIONS
FICA - 889.72 5,320.06
FEDERAL TAX MS-M EXEMPT-02 ERTRA-0000 2,603.27 15,564.22
STATE TAX LA MS-M EXEMPT-02 EXTRA-000 313.91 1,876.30
HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN 105 135.03
GOV/T LIFE INS. PLAN BASIC 48.36 288.48
"ANDARD ) 3,03 18.18
OPTION-B (ADDITIONAL) 230.75 918.13
OPTION-C (FAMILY) 9.75 19.50
HEALTH INSURANCE PRE-TAX 144,69 723.45

NET PAY 7,531.52

MESSAGES +
THE FOLLOWING TWO CHANGES BECAME EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 2000:

(1) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GROUP LIFE INSURANCE ELECTIONS MADE DURING
THE 1999 OPEN ENROLLMENT PERIOD

(2) NEW LIPE INSURANCE RATES FROM OPTION C-PAMILY COVERAGE FOR AGES
65 AND OVER

THESE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED IN THIS PAYCHECK.

DEFO1939


5886

Code [citing 18 U.S.C. § 1001, statements or entries generally; 18 U.S.C. §
4, misprision of felony; 18 U.S.C. § 1512, tampering with an informant;
and, 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to commit offense}.

The complaint concludes by stating:

It is clear that [Respondent] cannot document his sworm statements to the
Senate Judiciary Committee or he would have. The docket numbers and
dates of [Respondent’s] court appearances in the trials in state and federal
courts where he appeared as lead counsel for [the firm] on behalf of [the
asbestos manufacturer] simply do not exist. [Respondent’s] conduct has
raised substantial doubt as to his judicial integrity, undermined confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, betrayed the trust of the
people of the United States, disobeyed the laws of the United States and
brought disrepute on the Federal courts and the administration of justice by
the Federal courts.

Complainant alleges that although the resume Respondent sent to the Department
of Justice as part of the nomination process did not reflect the circumstances of his

employment with the law firm, this information was disclosed in Respondent’s sworn

DEF02332


5943

respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The Committee concludes that Judge Ware has violated the statutory standard
by knowingly misrepresenting his relationship to the tragic events in Birmingham. The
misrepresentations reflect negatively not only on Judge Ware’s integrity, but quite possibly
have had a regrettable effect on public confidence in the Judiciary. The Committee is also
sensitive to the acute pain inflicted on the Birmingham Ware family by Judge Ware’s public
exploitation of their very private grief.

Because of the very public nature of the original tragedy and the public nature
of the misrepresentions, as well as their discovery, it is important that discipline of
Judge Ware be public and a part of the historical record. For these reasons, the Committee
concludes that more than a private reprimand is called for.

We find no indication, however, that the conduct here under discussion, all of
which occurred off the bench, had any effect on the judge's otherwise highly regarded abilities
asa judge. The Committee therefore does not recommend reducing or withdrawing the
judge's judicial caseload.

There remains the question of whether there is in the record sufficient indication
of impeachable conduct to warrant the Council’s forwarding the matter to the Judicial
Conference of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(7)(A). The making of false
statements, even in public, is not criminal activity. Judge Ware did not reap material reward
from his misstatements. A criminal statute of the United States does, however, proscribe the
making of a material false statement to a government agency, when the statement is made
knowingly and wilfully. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Judge Ware made no statement to any

-9-

DEF02389


5946

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
“ELEVENTH CIRCUTT,

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL oct 91890

OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT —,,
~ MIGUEL J. CORTEZ
Miscellaneous Docket No. 88-2104 “i.5-5 CLERK

IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT FILED BY
GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL
DEFENSE LAWYERS AND NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS

Judicial Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)

ORDER

This order is issued by the Judicial council of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in the exercise of its authority under 28 U.S.c.
§ 372(c) (6) (B) (vi) to censure or reprimand a judge or magistrate
by means of public announcement for engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of
the business of the courts. In this case, the Judicial Council
publicly censures and reprimands the Honorable John W. Dunsnore,
a United States Magistrate of the Southern District of Georgia.
The conduct giving rise to this action by the Judicial council is
set forth in part I below; the reasons therefor are set forth in

part II.

I.
The conduct giving rise to the Judicial Council's action in

this matter took place on March 31, 1988. On that date,

DEF02392
PORT Exhibit 11114 (1)


5950

government's application would continue and that the matter of
Mr. King's arrest would be taken up later. Mr. King then asked
for a recess, so that he could obtain counsel for his client, and
at 2:40 p.m. Magistrate Dunsmore declared a recess. During the
recess, Mr. King contacted Fletcher Farrington, a Savannah
lawyer, and when Magistrate Dunsmore resumed the injunction
hearing, at 3:30 p.m., Mr. Farrington was present, with Mr. King.
Mr. Farrington moved Magistrate Dunsmore to recuse himself,
contending that his conduct toward Mr. King that day rendered him
disqualified to preside over the Blackshear matter. Magistrate
Dunsmore denied the motion, continued the hearing, and, when it
was finished, granted the government's application for a
preliminary injunction. Magistrate Dunsmore then declared a
recess, stating that he would take up the matter concerning Mr.
King that evening.

At 6:25 p.m., the court reconvened, so that Magistrate
Dunsmore could decide what to do about Mr. King. Present, in
addition to the magistrate, were Mr. King, his attorney Fletcher
Farrington, and William H. McAbee, an assistant United States
Attorney. Magistrate Dunsmore opened the proceeding with a brief
statement for the record, and, then, asked Mr. King "to explain
to [him] what [had] happened." He told Mr. King that he lacked
the authority to hold him in contempt of court, but that he
"could certify facts to [United States District] Judge Edenfield
and ask that he hold a hearing to show cause as to whether [King]

should be found in contempt of Court." He said that he intended

DEF02396


5815

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER
Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. 01-12363
Carmella A. Porteous Section “A”
DEBTORS CHAPTER 13

AMENDED SCHEDULE F AND MODIFIED CHAPTER 13 PLAN

Respectfully submitted,

CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR., P.C.

Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr. (17989)
3500 N. Causeway Blvd.

Suite 450

Metairie, LA 70002

PH: (504) 838-8571

Attorney for Debtors

a qn

DEFO1956
PORT Exhibit 1100 (h)


5956

Sheparaze: Rest Oy endnote

‘cu procedure > Auneals > Aonalinte Jurisdiction > State Court Review
m8 3See 28 US.CS.§ 2106.

COUNSEL: Galen S. Brown, Deputy City Atty., New Orleans, La., for Moria et a.
Luke Fontana, New Orleans, La., Mark Moreau, New Orleans, Legal Assistance Corp., New Orleans, La., for Hamilton et al

J, Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., La. Dept. of Justice, Baton Rouge, La., for Phelps et a
R. James Kellogg, Robert M. Hearin, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Howard et al
Richard F. Knight, R. Bradley Lewis, Bogalusa, La., for Robert Lyons.

Ind SHARP * , District Judge.

JUDGES: Before CHARLES CLARK and RANDALL, Circuit Judges,

+ District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana, siting by designation.
OPINION BY: PER CURIAM:

OPINION

[+352] In Cause No, 81-3146, C. Paul Phelps, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Corrections, has moved this
court to issue a writ of supervisory mandamus to stay further proceedings in federal district courts within the State of
Louisiana dealing with interrelated issues of unconstitutional overcrowding in the state penitentiary, parish prisons, and
parish and city jails. A panel of this court previously granted the stay pending appeal and ordered consolidation of the
above-styled and numbered [**2] related causes now pending in this court. The court has heard argument of counsel in
the consolidated actions.

This court has previously dealt with conditions in Louisiana prisons. In Williams v. Edwards, 547 F.24 1206, 1219 (Sth Cir,

1977), this court approved the judgment of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana which
imposed a limit on the prison population of the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, based upon available space of 80
‘square feet per inmate, but remanded the action for further consideration of a maximum inmate population for the
Institution in light of a more complete record which was to be developed. We cautioned that these remand procedures
should be accomplished as soon as possible to alleviate the backup of prisoners in parish jails and in other forwarding
Institutions. Our opinion further specifically directed the district judge's attention to overcrowded conditions in the Orleans.
Parish and Washington Parish prisons, then and now the subject of pending appeals. See note 9, 547 F.2d at 1219. A
‘maximum limit on the number of Inmates was ultimately placed on the Angola Penitentiary. In Hamilton v. Landrieu,
Docket No, 77-2087, [##3] we received reports from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana, and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana regarding the interrelation of then
pending state penitentiary and parish prison and jai! [#353] litigation. The report of the Eastern District, dated July 11,
1977, concluded with the following paragraph:

Finally, with the plethora of similar prison cases that are clogging the dockets of the Eastern, Middle and
Western Districts of Louisiana, we would urge that the Appellate Court, if at all possible, designate one Court
in the State of Louisiana to handle all prison cases, thus eliminating possible conflicts of interpretations as
conflicts between the various courts.

‘The report of the Middle District of Louisiana, dated eight days later, disagreed. No consolidation was effected. The
petitioner in this case represents that at the present time 25 Louisiana parish jails either are subject to pending sults
Concerning or are under court orders imposing limits upon jail populations.

We conclude that Itigation In the United States District Courts in the State of Louisiana seeking to protect the
constitutional [**4] rights of inmates in the state penitentiary, parish prisons and all jalls throughout the state due to
‘overcrowded conditions must be considered as a unified whole and not in piecemeal fashion. If coordinated consideration
and a unified judicial overview at the trial level is not provided, adequate constitutional protection cannot be accorded
either by district courts through individual adjudications or by this court through episodic review of separate cases. The
backup of state prisoners in local prisons and jails caused by limits imposed to protect against overcrowding at the state
penitentiary may deprive local prisoners of constitutional rights in those prisons and jails. The expense of housing state
prisoners in local institutions and the financial burden of providing for their boarding and care impose improper capital
‘costs and operating expenses on local governmental institutions. The alternative of releasing or nat imprisoning
dangerous criminals is equally unacceptable

Ip: lexis com/esearchetrievs?_m-G909tStalad85a27473091400924PDs9Resve~ledeform-byCitation®(intstFULLAdocnum-14 st. 82312010

DEFO2402


6057

104 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

V. RESULTS

A. Propensity Scores from Ordered Probit

We generate propensity scores for matching using an ordered probit model.
By law, judges must release defendants on the least restrictive conditions
they believe are compatible with ensuring appearance at trial. Own recog-
nizance, the least restrictive form of release, is out first category, followed
by release on deposit bond, Although defendants released on deposit bond
‘must put up some cash, which they will forfeit if they fail to appear, the
amount is typically less than $500."° Few people are ever held because of a
failure to raise cash for a deposit bond. Defendants who were offered financial
release (but not a deposit bond) and who paid their bonds in cash are the
third category of release, Cash bond is more expensive than a deposit bond
but does not involve the monitoring of sureties. Defendants released via
surety bond are the fourth category. Although the Constitution guarantees
that excessive bail shall not be required, it does not require that bail should
always be set low enough for a defendant to be able to afford release. Indeed,
judges sometimes set bail in the expectation (and hope) that the defendant
will not be able to raise bail. Thus, we include defendants held on bail or
detained without bail as the final, most restrictive category, not released
Emergency releases are also included in the final category because, had it
not been for the emergency, these individuals would have not have been
released. From the ordered probit, we generate conditional propensity scores
for each possible pairwise comparison.“'

Variables in the ordered probit specification include individual-specific
indicators that denote whether the defendant has been accused of murder,
rape, robbery, assault, other violent crime, burglary, theft, other property
offense, drug trafficking, other drug-related offense, or driving-related offense
(with misdemeanors and other crimes in the constant). We also include var-
ables for past experience with the criminal justice system. Three binary
variables are set equal to one if the defendant had some active criminal
justice status at the time of the arrest (for example, was on parole or pro-
bation), had prior felony arrests, or failed appear at trial in the past. The
defendant’s sex and age are also included. Note that these variables are
exactly the sorts of variables that judges use to make treatment selection

“©The median deposit bond amount is $5,000, and releasees typically must deposit 10 percent
or less of the bond amount

“\ We have also estimated the results using a multivariate logit model. The results are sub-
stantively similar (on the ordered probit model, see, for example, William H. Greene, Econ-
‘ometric Analysis (4th ed. 2000)).

DEFO2615


6012

[LexisNexis armen | enc eee Sen
in Research Tests ¥ Geta Document spepars's®V Alerts T rota tigtorY Transactional Advisor T counsel Selector Y ose]

Pocus tems Sassen 8 oe, sea Wen Cgnst aut (L 3) BART sores
‘Source, News & Suaness > Combined Sources > News, All (Englzh, Full Text)
“Terms, Baxter Role Upheld in LBM. Case, (Est Search | i Seas

BAXTER ROLE UPHELD IN J.8.M, CASE The New York Times June 18, 1982, Friday, Late Cy Final Edition

Copyright 1982 The New York Times Company
“The New York Times.

June 18, 1982, Friday, Late Cty Final Eltion
SECTION: Section D; Page 1, Column 6; Financial Desk

LENGTH: 677 words

HEADLINE: BAXTER ROLE UPHELD IN

BYLINE: By ANDREW POLLACK

Bopy:
‘A Justice Department internat investigation has concluded there was no conflict of interest involved when Wiliam F.
Baxter, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the antitrust division, dismissed the Government's suit against the
International Business Machines Corporation, a department official said yesterday.

3, Paul McGrath, an Assistant Attorney General, disclosed the findings of the investigation to an appeals court in New
York. He told the three-judge panel that the Justice Department considers the dismissal final and does not plan to reopen
it

"The findings do not raise any questions about the propriety of the dismissal," Mr. McGrath said. "There was no conflict of
Interest which barred him from doing that," he added, referring to Mr. Baxter.

Question Raised

But he sald the report questions whether Mr. Baxter should have disclosed to Congress his prior dealings with 1.8.M.,
which did not come to ight until ater Jan. 8, when Mr. Baxter dismissed the 13-year-old case as being without merit.

“The disclosure of the Justice Department's conclusions appeared to deal a biow to attempts by opponents of the dismissal
to keep the case alive.

Federal District Judge David N. Edelstein, who presided over the I.B.M. case, has scheduled a hearing Monday on whether
the dismissal should be nullified because of Mr. Baxter's past consulting work for I.B.M. Last month the judge held a
hhearing on whether the public should be allowed to comment on the dismissal under a law known as the Tunney Act.

Yesterday's hearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was in response to an 1.8.M. motion
that Judge Edelstein be made to cease holding hearings relating to the case and that fe be removed from the case
because of bias against 1.8.M. The three appellate judges did not immediately rule on the I.8.M. requests.

Links with Corporation

‘The investigation of Mr. Baxter by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility began in March after it
came to light that as a Stanford University law professor in the 1970's, he had been paid $1,500 by a law firm defending
1.B.M. to help evaluate expert witnesses,

‘Subsequently, several other links between I.B.M. and Mr. Baxter were discovered: Mr. Baxter in 1976 had written a letter,
to the incoming Carter Administration transition team saying the case should never have been brought; a grant from
1.B.M, had financed part of a year's research by Mr. Baxter in the late 1960's, and last fall, while in the process of
deciding to drop the I.B.M. case, Mr. Baxter was arguing on I.B.M.'s behalf before officials of the European Economic
Community, which also has an antitrust suit pending against the company.

Rex E. Lee, the Justice Department's Solicitor General, who Is in charge of acting on the report, said in a telephone
Interview from Washington that a fuller statement of findings, though not the entire report, would eventually be released,
He said he had still not decided what to do about Mr. Baxter’s fallure to disclose his dealings with 1.8.M. during his Senate
confirmation hearings.

utp a lens comresercretive?_mrOebeUb3o3e8623a8/%2F4INO32leccsve=HecfonnssearchFormd& finss-FULL&decmumnié&_ 81/2010
DEF02464

PORT Exhibit 1119


5896

(C) Form. A petition should be in the form of a letter addressed to the clerk
of the court of appeals, beginning “I hereby petition the judicial council for
review of the chief judge’s order...” There is no need to enclose a copy of
the original complaint,

The full text of Rule 5 is available from the Clerk’s Office of the Court of Appeals

of the Third Circuit.

Dated: August 2, 2005

DEF02342


6046

‘THE FUGITIVE: EVIDENCE ON PUBLIC VERSUS
PRIVATE LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM

BAIL JUMPING*
RIC HELLAND and ALEXANDER TABARROK
Clarenont Mekong College George Mason Univesity
ABSTRACT

On the day of their trial, a substantial number of felony defendants fail to appear.
Public police have the primary responsibility for pursuing and rearresting defendants
who were released on their own recognizance or on cash or government bail. De-
Fendants who made bail by borrowing from a bond dealer, however, must worry
about an entirely different pursuer. When a defendant who has borrowed money skips
trial, the bond dealer forfeits the bond unless the fugitive is soon retumed. As a
result, bond dealers have an incentive to monitor their charges and ensure that they
do not skip. When a defendant does skip, bond dealers hire bounty hunters to return
the defendants to custody. We compare the effectiveness of these two different systems
by examining failure-to-appear rates, fugitive rates, and capture rates of felony de~
fendants who fall under the various systems. We apply propensity score and matching
techniques.

I. Intropuction

Avprroximarey one-quarter ofall released felony defendants fail to appeat
at trial, Some of these failures to appear are due to sickness or forgetfulness
and are quickly corrected, but many represent planned abscondments. After
1 year, some 30 percent of the felony defendants who initially fail to appear
remain fugitives from the law. In absolute ‘numbers, some 200,000 felony
defendants fuil to appear every year, and of these, approximately 60,000 will
remain fugitives for at least 1 year.

+ The authors’ names are in alphabetical order. We wish to thank Jonathan Guryan, Steve
Levitt, Lance Lochner, Bruce Meyer, Jeff Milyo, Christopher Taber, Sam Peltzman, and serpinar
participants at Claremont MeKenna College, the American Economic Association annual mect-
Ings (2002), George Mason University, Norhwestem University, and the University of Chicago.

' These figures are from the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) program of the Bureau
‘of Justice Statistics and can be found in U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties (various years). We desribe the data at greater
fength below. The SCPS program creates a sample representative of 1 month of eases from
the 75 most populous counties (which account for about balf of all reported crimes) In 1996,
the sample represented 55,000 cases, which in turn represent some 660,000 filings in a year
‘and 1,320,000 filings in the nation. The absolute figures are calculated using this total, and

[Journal of Law and Economics, vol. XI.VII (April 2004)]
© 2004 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0022-2186/2004/4701-0005801.50

93

DEF02604

PORT Exhibit 1134


5975

(5) a fully-operating, fully-integrated criminal justice
information system to facilitate systemwide
planning, budgeting, and accountability and to
enhance communication between and among
agencies

Improved Cas
Management

Improved case management is one of the fundamental
strategies for addressing jail crowding. If pretrial detain-
es, for example, comprise a major portion of the jail
population, and can be brought to trial more speedily,
that segment of the jail population may decrease. On
the other hand, if trials result in conviction and there
are limited non-jail custody and/or supervision methods
available, speedier trials could increase the
population.

Even if improved case management alone does not
relieve pressure on local jail facilites, it can be pursued
for reasons of improved employee morale and perfor-
‘mance and increased voter and taxpayer confidence ig
public officials and employees.

The following, opportunities for improved case
management have been found by BGR to exist in
Jefferson Parish.

Law Enforcement

Incident reports forwarded to the district attomey are
not always complete, and incomplete reports slow down
the screening division’s ability to make a deeision on
‘whether to charge an individual and with what crimes.
‘The Office of the District Attomey follows up with law
enforcement agencies with requests for additional
information on priority cases. ‘Training by that office
right assist law enforcement officers in the preparation
of complete reports.

Among efforts currently underway at the state level to
improve criminal justice records for local and statewide
use is the Louisiana Incident-Based Reporting System
(LIBRS) being developed by the Louisiana Commission
on Law Enforcement and the Louisiana Sheriff's

Association. According to the State of the State 1994,
this system is part of a larger effort to improve criminal
justice records at the local level by (1) standardizing the
information collected at point of incident and arrest and
(2) creating standards for the electronic transfer of law
enforcement data statewide.

Another state effort to improve law enforcement at
both the local and the state level is the Criminal History:
Improvement Program (CHIP), a joint project of the
Louisiana State Police and the Supreme Court of
Louisiana, Under this program, a new criminal history
computer and a new fingerprint computer are to be
installed in the Louisiana State Police Bureau of
Criminal Investigation and will form the foundation of a
statewide integrated network with local law enforcement
agencies. According to the State of the State 1994,
‘Lovisiana will be the first state to have such a network.

The District Attorney

The district attomey’s office began using a computer
system 15 years ago and appears to have in place much
of the information, management, and training structure
needed to reduce delays in case handling. The district
attomey (DA) indicates that his office has been driven
by jail cases for the past 10 years.

‘The DA’s office receives information from the
sheriff's office daily on who is held and who has been
released from jail. The DA has established a goal, not
yet achieved, of 90 days from arrest to trial. He
indicates that excluding first degree murder cases, his
office can take a case to trial in under 60 days.

Delays include, from the point of view of the DA:
(1) receiving incomplete incident reports from law
enforcement officers, so that the DA’s screening division
is delayed in deciding which cases to prosecute, (2) the
time lapse between filing of the bill of information
(charge) or indictment and allotment (assignment) of the
case to a judge, and (3) defendants” not appearing for
trial, due to the sheriff's not having enough space to hold
them until the trial

Indigent Defense

Physical access to defendants is reported to be
problem for the indigent defenders in Jefferson Parish,
due to limited hoyrs and the availability of only two
visiting booths, down from four in prior years. ‘The

Aefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—13

DEF02421


6044

cin eon Sanat
i Rosearh Tasks Get a Document Shepar’s® Tales Total uttgator Transactional AvsoF Counsel selector owen

Focus Yen Sony ey Dat sew in Oras (-8) 2 EE sae

Source: News & Business > Com 12> News, All (English, Pll Text)
Terms: “Senate Secrecy and Secretary Dalton” (Gt Search| Suagest Terms fo: My Search | Feedback on Your Senet)

Senate Secrecy and Secretary Datton The New York Times July 27, 1994, Wednesday, Late Eaton - Final

Copyright 1994 The New York Times Company
‘The New York Times.

duly 27, 1994, Wednesday, Late Edition - Fina
SECTION: Section A; Page 20; Column 1; Editorial Desk

LENGTH: 294 words

HEADLINE: Senate Secrecy and Secretary Dalton

BODY:

‘When the White House announced the choice of John Dalton as Secretary of the Navy last year, it publicly praised his
management skis while concealing his leadership role in a savings and loan failure that cost taxpayers more than $100
inilion, The Senate confirmed him unanimously, Without debate, after the Armed Services Committee also praised him
Publicly - while burying a major business failing and charges by Federal regulators that he had shown "gross negligence”
in running the bankrupt Seguin Savings Association in Texas.

‘That is a shabby performance by both branches. The White House had a duty to disclose its nominee's business and
regulatory problems. The Senate, which is supposed to monitor the executive branch and inform the public through the
Confirmation process, kept this important information not only from the public but from most senators as well

‘Such an event in Mr. Dalton’s career deserved to be part of the public phase of his confirmati
session like some stale old charge in an F.B.1. report. The information bore directly on his a
‘government agency that needs hard-headed management of the highest integrity. So did an incident in which the Federal
Home Loan Bank Board, which Mr, Dalton once headed, took the unusual step of blocking a $750,000 fee to him fram an
Investor group for his access to board officials and information

Perhaps the committee did a great job of questioning and deliberating behind closed doors. If so, it can vindicate its
performance and reassure the public by releasing the record of its executive session on the nomination. Such belated
penness could be a modest antidote to the cynicism the committee's secrecy has spawned,

LOAD-DATE: July 27, 1994

Source: News & Business > Combined Sources > News, Al (English, FullText
Teme: anal Secrecy and Secretary Dat” (Es sm | | Beedbask on Your Search)
DatarTme: Tuesday, Angust 31, 2010-712 PM EDT
Sentch| Research Tess | Get Document | ShenaiB| Aus | Tal att | Transactional Advso| Counsel Secor
: ‘sin can Geet | Sesh Gin Patra | ale

sNencis: S20ubLeisheue | Toms a condions | contac Us
isNexis: SSvrait voto Caxias, dvaen of Reed Elavor Inc. Aight eserves

Ge

tps: ess comesearetrieve?_m-cbs72behOD4OF394185eOfEH afdDeTResve=bAcform=seachFormé,fnis=FULLAdocmum=1&_.. 8/31/2010
DEF02496

PORT Exhibit 1129


6038

‘The expedited schedule was designed to allow her to be sworn in as soon as possible so she may acquaint herself with the
Court's docket this summer in preparation for the beginning of the fall term in October.

At today's inal public session, the committee heard testimony from six panels of witnesses, all but one of which spoke in
favor of the nomination. The opposition panel included six speakers who mainly objected to Judge Ginsburg’s statement
on abortion.

"Women don't need to mutilate their bodies and kill their children to be equal to any man,” said Kay C. James, vice
president of the Family Research Council

Professor Gerald Gunther of the Stanford Law School, who testified in favor of the nomination, said Judge Ginsburg
"passesses the requisite intellect, temperament and character" to be a great Supreme Court justice.

GRAPHIC: Photo: Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, second from left, walking to a session of the Senate Judiciary Committee
yesterday, the last day of her confirmation hearings after three days of testimony. The committee will vote on Thursday,
‘With her Was Ron Kiain of the White House Counsel's office, (Michael Gelssinger for The New York Times)

LOAD-DATE: July 24, 1993

Source: News & Businass> 2 ans, ha gi, Fo Ten
Tes: “Ginsburg Hearings Enain a Seehded Neeting” (ES Seach SuncestTems or My Sen)

View
ontetne Fey, Aut 3, 2010-709 PMEDT

“Tangactional Advisor
‘Seach | Renearch Tank | Got Dosunent| Sheps | Aes | Tot ints | Tanezcton | Counsel Selector

@ LexisNexis: Beevers | messes

PEPE ere. i ighis reserved

psa Jens comesarchreticve?_en-S#S2e19AS7SFIDG4RRCATOICTRGADDe2Besve~blcformseatehForme, fatst-FULL@doemun~1&,... 8/31/2010

DEFO2490


6053

100 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

formed into a single-dimension problem of matching on Pr(T = 1|X), where
T = 1 denotes treatment.” The probability Pr(T = 1X) is often called the
propensity score, or p-score.

The matching technique extends naturally to applications with multiple
treatments through the use of a multivalued propensity score with matching
on conditional probabilities." Assume that there are M mutually exclusive
treatments, and let the outcome in each state be denoted Y,, Y., and so forth.
‘As before, we observe only a specific outcome but are interested in the
counterfactual: what would the outcome have been if this person had been
assigned to a different treatment? Rather than a single comparison, we are
now interested in a series of pairwise comparisons between treatments m
and J. The treatment effect on the treated is written

Og! = EY" YT = m) = B"|T =m) ET =m), (1)

where 05" denotes the effect of treatment m rather than /.

Identification of (1) can occur under appropriate conditions, the most im-
portant being that treatment outcomes are independent of treatment selection
after conditioning on a vector of attributes, X (the conditional independence
assumption). Formally,

YY ATX = x. Q

If this assumption is valid, we can use the conditional propensity score to
identify the treatment effect,”

0" = BY" |T = m) ~ Eypnf Ep", T= DIT =m) GB)

In practice, the conditional propensity score, p"!TM\(x), is computed indirectly

» Matching methods are common armong applied statisticians and natural scientists but have
only recently been analyzed and applied by econometricians and economists. Papers on the
‘econometric theory of matching include Heckman, Ichimura, & Todd, supra note 4; and Guido
W. Imbens, The Role of the Propensity Score in Estimating Dose-Response Functions (Technical
Working Paper No. 237, Nat'l Bur. Econ. Res. 1999), Mote applied work includes James J.
Heckman, Hidehiko Ichimura, & Petra E. Todd, Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Bs-
timator: Evidence from Evaliating a Job Training Program, 64 Rev. Econ. Stud. 605, 654
(1997): Dehefia & Wahla, supra note 4; Michael Lechner, Programme Heterogeneity
Propensity Score Matching: An Application to the Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies
(Contributed Paper No. 647, Econ, Soc'y World Congress 2000). Our mulitreatment application
is closest to that of Michael Lechner, Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects of Multiple
‘Treatments under the Conditional independence Assumption (Discussion Paper No. 91, IZA
1999)

3 Lechner, Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects, supra note 30; imbens, supra
note 20.

» Lechner, Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects, supra note 30.

DEF02611


6006

y In 1987 Goldstein and Cuomo were wrapped up in a criminal and civil case and a State Investigation Committee (SIC)
inquiry into a campaign quid pro quo. The allegations were that after Goldstein was denied part-ownership in a Manhattan
buliding rented to the state, he influenced the governor's office to cancel part of the lease. Afew years earlier, while a
special assistant to his father, Andrew had amended the lease, According to the Times, Goldstein told the SIC, "T
threatened to ruin (the building owner) in the state of New York as a window contractor.” Soon after, Goldstein resigned
as chairman of the State University Construction Fund for "personal reasons,” according to a state spokesman, but
presumably under pressure to do so after his embarrassing admissions. Cuomo testified to the committee that he had
Acted in the state's best interests at the time, not Goldstein's,

y In 1988, plans for a proposed thruway exit near Sterling Forest, the largest timberland tract in the New York City area,
‘were scotched for economic and environmental reasons. The project had been pushed by Governor Cuomo. A report by
the state comptroller noted that, "over the years, this project has been repeatedly rejected by past state governors and
the New York State Thruway Authority as unwarranted based on the area's traffic needs and as simply a boon for private
land developers." Goldstein, according to the New York Times, had extensive property interests in the area and, in 1986,
attempted to purchase the 30-square-mile forest. Andrew Cuomo was his attorney in the deal.

When questioned about his tes to Goldstein, Cuomo has distanced himself. * I am one of 10, 15, 20 lawyers who
represent him,” he told the New York Times in December 1987. But the April memo from earlier that year suggests a
closer relationship. "I realy don't know what you did on your taxes,” Goldstein wrote Andrew. “I called and found out you
filed for an extension, Please, please let’s put it gether or some day it will come back and bite us.”

The Witness Formerly Known as Blutrich

‘Another New York investor in Oceanmark was Michael Blutrich, a name partner in Cuomo's firm. In 1996 Blutrich was
exposed as a target in one of the largest-ever FEI fraud probes, and in November 1998 was convicted on 22 counts of
racketeering, fraud, and money-laundering. In that scam, Blutrich and others plotted with the then-chairman of the
Orlando, Florida-based National Heritage Life Insurance Company to loot some $237 milion from the company through
Inside loans and sham real-estate deals.

In 1990 the Blutrich group approached Heritage and offered to invest $4 million. There was just one problem: They only
had a million. So the investors illegally "borrowed" the rest from an escrow account at Blutrich’s firm. Soon after, a $3-
milion advance for "future commissions” was drawn from the insurance company by the Blutrich group and deposited
into the firm's escrow account. The investors bought land near the Catskills in New York, then billed Heritage for millions
more than they had paid

‘Another sham oan involved a Bronx land parcel owned by 4305 Associates, a two-person corporation formed in 1988 and
named for the parcels street address. Blutrich was vice-president and 50-percent shareholder; Lucille Falcone, president
and equal shareholder. Blutrich persuaded a cohort to pose as a real-estate appraiser, who valued the property at
$2,346,000. It was actually worth only $700,000. Heritage made a $1.5 milion loan, a large chunk of which found its way
into Blutrich’s pockets.

Predictably, Heritage soon found itself in financial straits, and its directors became uneasy for thelr shareholders, 26,000
(75 percent) of whom were elderly. Two years later, the insurance company collapsed, a $440- milion debade. The
Blutrich group, meanwhile, had walked away with $93 million in laundered money, and sunk over two and a haif times
that much in bad deals. By July 1996, Heritage's chairman pled guilty to the scam and received eight years in prison in
exchange for his cooperation. Blutrich, along with several associates, was indicted the following month and has since
begun to cooperate with the FBI. One of the loans that federal agents are investigating was a piddling $300,000 to
underwrite Scores, a New York strip club which the Feds charge became a racket for the Gambino crime family

In exchange for testifying and helping the FBI, Blutrich recently entered the federal Witness Protection Program—-and a
substantially discounted lifestyle. in court documents, one of Blutrich's former associates, Shalom Weiss, charges that
during the heyday of the scarn Blutrich dropped $50,000 per week "supporting a lavish ifestyle and expensive habits.
‘The lavishness included a Porsche, a yacht, and a $12,000 wristwatch, all of which he gave up as part of his plea
agreement,

Blutrich's expensive tastes included a passion for boys’ basketball. According to Weiss, "much of Blutrich's ill-gotten gains
‘were spent supporting or covering up" pedophilia. "He expioited the young boys he raped and molested. He Deguiled the
parents of the boys whose basketball teams he coached so he could meet his prurient need.” In 1994, after a two-year
sting, Blutrich was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault on @ minor (to which he secured a sweetheart ple
bargain), and a story in the December 1998 Penthouse quotes an anonymous partner in Biutrich’s law firm saying,
Everyone knew what Michael was doing with these young boys. On more than one occasion a mother of one of these boys
would come up to the office screaming and complaining about what Blutrich was doing.” According to the story, several
Sources "close to the situation" said Cuomo left the firm In 1988 in part because of Blutrich’s behavior. A former partner
Of Cuome’s disputes this, however, "That's a total lie. No one had knowledge that (Blutrich) was involved in any of this s-~
1,” says the source, who wishes to remain anonymous.

Cuomo downplays his relationship with Blutrich, In a letter to TAS, the secretary's Fort Lauderdale attorneys wrote, "Many

‘nop lexis convrescrcvetieve?_mr-97BadS5O1CZ8A8u2(e276a28SU8aTabtesveebldcformesearhFormé_ futstrFULLA&doemm=1&_ 8312010
DEFO2458


5917

were put in place.’ No appeal was taken. This contention is therefore merits-related
and subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A\(ii).

Complainant asserts that the subject judge should have recused himself because of
close personal ties to counsel. For example, the judge attended the out-of-state wedding
of one of plaintiffs’ counsel (at the judge’s own expense) and complainant alleges that he
also attended “at least one” college football game as a guest of counsel. Canon 5 of the
Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that judges may engage in social and
recreational activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judge’s
office or interfere with the performance of the judge’s duties. The Commentary to
Canon 5 states that a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the
judge lives. Nothing in the complaint leads to the conclusion that the judge’s ability to
carry out his judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence was
impaired. Moreover, a complaint of judicial misconduct is not to be used as a substitute
for the normal appellate process. This aspect of the complaint is subject to dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii).

Complainant states that the subject judge became overly invested in promoting
settlement. For example, he complains that after the first case had been pending before
the judge for three years and nine months, the judge called one of the firms representing
the plaintiffs to alert them to the fact that counsel representing a recently-added
defendant was retained to represent the Judge’s wife in a suit involving an automobile
accident, and that as a result of the phone call the new defendant was dismissed from
the suit. Complainant’s description of the situation implies that the judge was trying to

* Though complainant was not counsel of record for the objectors, he did provide them with affidavits in
support of their motion to recuse, and he did represent individuals who had opted out of the settlement in ordeér to
preserve their rights to pursue further relief in state court

Se

DEF02363


5958

{+ Caution: Possible negative teatment
> Postive treatment is indicated

Q- Citing Refs. With Analysis Available

43 itaton information avaiable

Olek on any Shepard signal to Shepardize® that case.

.ocumer ‘Transactional Advisor | Counsel Sel
‘Search | Research Tasks | Geta Deumert| Shenard® | Alerts| Total fats | tay | Counsel Setector

About LexisNexis | Teems & Condtions | contact us
@ LexisNexis: AAR | EAS RRS, FRRAE EE ern. a ot reseed

tp: es corvesearchtrieve?_m~€909(S{i8ad85a277319 140092UDaPResve~Iedeform-byCitstion& fntst-FULLAdocmum=1& st. 31/2010

DEF02404


6070

BAIL JUMPING 117

TABLE 7

UNCONDITIONAL Fucrmive Rates py ARREST-
Reanrest CATEGORY, 1988, 1990

Category Rate
1. Own and not rearrested 8.48 [17,828]

2. Ownown 8.04 [191]

3. Own-surety 1.49 (134)

44 test (row 1 = row 3) 29; p(l>3 = 0019)
5. mest (ow 2 — row 3) 26: p(2>3 = 0047)

Nove.—Owa-own indicates first release on own recognizance
‘and second release on own recognizance. Own-surety indicates
first release on ovin recognizance and second release on surcty
bond.

‘own recognizance and not rearrested is 8.48 percent.” The fugitive rate of
defendants who are released on their own recognizance and who are rearrested
and then released again on their own recognizance is almost identical, 8.04
percent. But the fugitive rate for those defendants initially released on their
own recognizance but then rearrested and rereleased on surety bond is just
1.9 percent. The difference between the own-recognizance and the own-
recognizance+ surety fugitive rate is statistically significant at the greater
than | percent level. The difference between the own-recognizance+own-
recognizance and own-recognizance+ surety rate, which controls for rearrest,
i also statistically significant at the greater than 1 percent level. Table 7
summarizes.

In the working paper, we supplement the above analysis in a variety of
ways to control for county effects, individual effects observed by judges but
unobserved by us, and pure unobserved effects of a very general nature.
Most generally, the cream that judges skim are released on their own re-
cognizance and deposit bond, while the skim are released on cash or surety
bond. Consistent with this, observable selection effects on fugitive rates are
positive, and the evidence from a variety of independent tests suggests that
unobservable characteristics are not biasing our results upward. Taken to-

» Earlier we focused on fugitive rates conditional on having FTA. We focus on unconditional
fugitive rates here because we have fewer observations. We have data on rearest and rerelease
type for 1988 and 1990.

“© Helland & Tabarrok, supra note 43.

* One of our supplementary tests is a completely independent test using instrumental var-
inbles When jails become overcrowded, judges afe pressured to release individuals on their
town recognizance rather than run the risk of setting a bail amount that the defendant might
not be abe to secure. (We present evidence in the working paper that bond dealers understand
that overcrowded jails mean less surety business.) We define Ratio as the county jail population
divided by the official jail capacity. A value of Ratio greater than one indicates overcrowding,
‘We suggest chat jal overcroviding is not likely to be correlated with unobservables that affect
FTA and fugitive rates, Using Ratio as an instrumental variable, we again find that surety bail
significantly reduces fugitive rates. For details, see Helland & Tabarrok, supra note 43.

DEF02628


5839

1993} ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 25

JUDGE FENNING: I think that laundry list includes pretty
much every factor that we look at, but it doesn’t tell you what’s enough, and
that’s the hard case. We have inexperienced counsel coming in sometimes
arguing dismissal for bad faith filing simply because the case was filed on the
eve of foreclosure. Our response is, "Every real estate case is filed on the eve
of foreclosure.” So by itself, unless we are told that real estate doesn’t belong
in bankruptcy, that is not enough to make this a bad faith filing. There's no
magic formula.

PROF. GROSS: Well, Judge Fenning, do you have an
approach that you or your district take?

JUDGE FENNING: Well, the "new debtor syndrome” cases
do not last long in our district, but we don’t see that many of them filed by
experienced bankruptcy lawyers because they know there is no point. You are
going to be out of court at the first hearing and probably damage your
reputation in the process as a lawyer for filing such a case.

The marginal bad faith cases that we get tend to be somewhat more
complex than that. Debtors try and use excuses about how well they really can
formulate a plan, if only the following fifteen things happen but most of which
would require a miracle.

But as I said, we usually are not litigating the bad faith issue. The bad
faith is normally present in our cases as a back drop to relief from stay as an
additional factor for relief from stay, or as an additional reason to deny
confirmation of the plan, rather than as a free-standing justification to dismiss
the case.

Dismissal of a case requites notice to all the creditors and sometimes
it’s a lot easier to file a motion for relief from stay with a more restrictive
notice list under 4001 and get out on relief from stay and not worry about the
procedural problems of dealing with a motion for dismissal.

JUDGE MARK: In the Ith Circuit we have the authority of
several decisions. Most recently and one most often cited is In re Phoenix
Piccadilly,” which is a 1988 case, which sent shock waves through the debtor
bar because in that case the court said even if the debtor has equity in the
property, bad faith dismissal may be appropriate.

B49 F.24 1393 (1th Cir, 1988),

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L, Rev. 25 1993

DEF02272


5893

352(b)(1)(A)(iii).’ The claims alleging either an actual impropriety or an appearance of

impropriety do not rise to the level of judicial misconduct.

Complainant’s allegations involving a conflict of interest in his case because of

Respondent’s former association with the law firm, have been considered and rejected by

5 As noted, in regard to Complainant’s case the Court of Appeals rejected many of

Complainant’s arguments in three different appellate proceedings. In one of those
decisions, the Court noted that Respondent stated that he had no continuing relationship
with the firm after leaving in 1987, after six months of employment.

The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct has suggested that a

disqualification of at least two years from hearing cases involving a judge’s former law
firm is adequate and appropriate unless some type of extenuating circumstances are

present:

Apart from recusal during the period when the judge is receiving payments
from a former law firm, there is a broader question of the appearance of
impropriety in the judge's hearing cases involving that firm. Many judges
have an automatic rule of disqualification for a specified number of years
after leaving the law firm. How long a judge should continue to recuse
depends upon various circumstances, such as the relationship the judge had
at the law firm with the lawyer appearing before the judge, the length of
time since the judge left the law firm, and the relationship between the
judge and the particular client and the importance of that client to the firm's
practice. The Committee recommends that judges consider a recusal period
of at least two years, recognizing that there will be circumstances where a
longer period may be more appropriate. In all cases in which the judge's
former law firm appears before the judge, the judge should carefully
analyze the situation to determine whether his or her participation would
create any appearance of impropriety.

Advisory Opinion No. 24 (September 1, 1972 as revised July 10, 1998). Here,
Respondent severed his ties with the firm fifteen years ago. There are no circumstances
that would create an appearance of impropriety, or an actual impropriety as to
Complainant’s case.

10

DEF02339


5857

“peR-o7-2004 13:39 eu ORLEANS LA 0s wie swe p.02
i 433 Metairie Road, Suite 307
S. J. Beaulieu, Jr. Metairie, Lousiana 70005
(CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE (504) 831-1313
Apuil 1, 2004
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Attn: Wayne Homer
2901 Leon C. Simon Dr,
‘New Orleans, LA 70126

Inre:_InRe Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr & Carmella A. Porteous
Case No.: 01-12363

Deer Mr. Horner:

Tam Staff Attomey for 8, J. Beaulieu, Jr., Chapter 13 Trustee. This letter is to respond to
a conversation of Mr, Besuilieu with one of the FBI agents earlier this month.

In January, 2004, othe request of the FBI, Mr. Beaulieu met with you and several other
agents. Prior to that meeting, the FBI refused to divulge why the meeting was needed or what
‘would be discussed at the meeting. During the meeting, it was disclosed that Mr. Beaulieu was
being interviewed with respect to an ongoing investigation into the captioned Chapter 13 case
‘and debtors’ activities regarding same. Also, during the meeting, the agents discussed some
allegations conceming potential bankruptcy improprieties involving debtors related to: filing the
original petition with their name misspelled, undisclosed income, income tax refunds, the use of
credit cards, transfers of property, and lifestyle activities that might not be consistent with the
debtors’ schedule “I” disclosures.

Inthe conversation this month, the FBI agent sdvised Mr. Beaulieu that he should pursue
further investigation into debtors’ activities in this case. However, the only allegation that the
Trustee has evidence of relates to debtor's FICA tax withholding which should have stopped
after the FICA withholding limits were met: The additional income to debtor was not taken into
account in evaluating debtors’ disposable income to fund the Chapter 13 plan over three (3)
years. In Mr. Beaulieu's opinion, extending the plan at this late date to recoup the difference in
disposable income would not substantially increase the percentage paid to unsecured creditors.

Regarding the other allegations, the FBI has refused to provide the Trustee with any
evidence of improprieties by debtors. Since Mr. Beaulieu has no evidence to support the

suspicions expressed by the FBI agents, he does not intend to take further action related to these
allegations.

Tam enclosing a copy of the Final Account prepared in this case, The case is currently set
for a Final Account hearing on May 18, 2004, at 8:40 an. You may file an objection to the

$C00417

DEF02300
PORT Exhibit 1108


None
a

None

None
a

None
a

None

5809

16. Nature, location and name of business

‘Ifthe debtor is an individual, list the names and addresses ofall businesses in which the
debtor was an officer, director, partner, or managing executive of a corporation, partnership, sole
proprietorship, or was a self-employed professional within two years immediately preceding the
‘commencement of this case, or in which the debtor owned & percent or more of the voting or equity
securities within the two years immediately preceding the commencement ofthis case.

b, Ifthe debtor Is a partnership, list the names and addresses of al businesses in which the
debtor was 2 partner or cwned 5 percent or more ofthe voting secures, within the two years
lmmediately preceding the commencement of this case.

. Ifthe debtor is @ corporation, list the names and addresses of all business in which the
debtor was a partner or owned 5 percent or more ofthe voting securities within two years:
immediately preceding the commencement of this case.

17. Books, records and financial statements

‘List all Bookkeepers and accountants who within six years immediately preceding the filing of
this bankruptcy case kapt or supervised the keeping of books of account and records of the debtor.

, List all rms or individuals who within the two years immediately preceding the filing ofthis
bankruptcy case have audited the books of account and records, or prepared a financial statement
of the debtor.

‘e. Lista firms or individuals who at the time of the commencement ofthis case ware in
possession of the books of account and records of the debtor. If any of the books of account and
records are not availabe, explain.

List all nancial institutions, creditors and other partes, including mercantile and trade
agencies, fo whom a financial statement was issued within the two years immediately preceding the
‘commencement of this ease by the debtor.

18. Inventories

‘2. List the dates ofthe last two invantories taken of your property, the name of the person who
supervised the taking of each inventory, and the dollar amount and basis of each inventory.

, List the name and address of the person having possession ofthe records of each of the two
inventories reported in 182., above,

49, Current Partners, Officers, Directors and Shareholders

{the debtor is.
‘member ofthe partnership.

rtnership, lst the nature and percentage of partnership interest of each

DEFO1945


5875

“conclude the proceeding” on the grounds that corrective action
has been taken or intervening events have made action
unnecessary, or order corrective action. See Local Rule 14(a)-
(g). There is no definition of “censure” or “reprimand” or any
other possible sanction in the misconduct statutes or Local
Rules, or the case law and scholarly writing interpreting them.
However, the use of those and related terms in the ethics rules
of the United States Senate and House of Representatives provides
some guidance.”

For the reasons that follow, the Judicial Council (a) finds
that the Judge violated Canon 7. when he made the statement
concerning the President’s reelection, (b) concurs in Chief Judge
Walker's July 24, 2004 admonition, and (c) concludes that the
dissemination of Chief Judge Walker’s admonition--together with
the Judge’s apology--and the Judicial Council’s concurrence with
the admonition, constitute both a sufficient sanction and
corrective action.

‘The Commentary to Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges states that the question of “{w]hether disciplinary
action is appropriate, and the degree of discipline to be
imposed, should be determined through a reasonable application of
the text [of the Code] and should depend on such factors as the
seriousness of the violation, the intent of the judge, whether
there is a pattern of improper activity, and the effect of the

> Based on the ordinary meaning of those terms, and their
use in the Senate and House ethics rules, “censure” and
vreprimand” are deemed to be more serious sanctions than
vadmonishment.” See Rules of Procedure of the Senate Select
Committee on Ethics, 149 Cong. Rec. S2677-01 at *S2677, *S2683
(Feb. 25, 2003) (§ 2(a) ((2) (B), found under “Part I: Organic
Authority,” and Rule 4(g), found under “Part II: Supplementary
Procedural Rules”) (listing as most serious sanctions for
Senators: expulsion, censure, payment of restitution, and change
in seniority or responsibilities; listing as less serious
sanctions: reprimand or payment of restitution; listing a public
or private letter of admonition as least serious sanction); Rules
of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 108%
Congress, 149 Cong. Rec. 2375-01 at *H2381 (Mar. 26, 2003) (Rule
24) (describing reprimand as “appropriate for serious violations,”
censure as “appropriate for more serious violations,” and
expulsion as “appropriate for the most serious violations"; a
“letter of reproval" is apparently the least severe sanction). A
public letter of admonition is quite obviously a more severe
sanction than a letter that is private.

10

DEFO2321


5790

son
hey
we cri Poa cameina purest canto st etn
ss ses
SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY
(Continuation Sheet)
i c
Ey
; steno nos i] Seenae
TYPE OF PROPERTY OF PROPERTY ‘OUT DEDUCTING ANY
i) Sees
\eaaaaaRRia ie
=
peters
rs x
Coomera |x
sy er
Sa
cree |*
caawaat en,
Taearimneee |*
ereome
spies
Sakae
a
amrpegceceete
— z
21. Patonts, copyrights, and x
—
ar
—
Tgamyeomegeowew | Yi np San a =| ne aaanvane
‘cane em
sn np Bai = [came
mmmonuomna fk
———— P
scmseemesinannoe |X
aoe
Tmemeweemen
smurnr

DEF01926


5858

FPR-07-2004 13019 NEU ORLEANS La S04 ais MSPS
Federal Bureau of Investigation
‘Attn: Wayne Homer
Apsil 1, 2004
Page2

‘Trustee's Final Account or you may provide Mr. Beaulieu with evidence of wrongdoing and
same will be investigated.

If further information is required, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
With kindest regards, Tam
Sincerely,

-

If ALS ——
‘Michael F. dove
Staff Attorney (Ext. 222.)

Enclosure

cc; R. Michael Bolen
United States Trustee, Region 5

$c00418

DEF02301


5864

Circuit CoUNCIL
FoR THE First CIRCUIT

INRE
COMPLAINT No. 285

BEFORE

Selya, Boudin, Stahl, Lynch, Lipez, Circuit Judges
Hornby, Zobel, DiClerico, Casellas, Lagueux, District Judges

ORDER

ENTERED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2000

Petitioner, a litigant, has filed a petition for review of Chief Judge Torruella's dismissal of
his complaint of misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) against two district judges in the First
Circuit.' The complaint alleged that the judges maliciously prosecuted petitioner and coerced
him into submitting a plea of guilty on an allegedly unsupported criminal charge over 20 years
ago. Petitioner asserted that the indictment on this criminal charge was based upon false
information contained in a newspaper article and that both judges knew that the information in the
article was false. Petitioner concluded that the judges effectively coerced him into pleading guilty
because the wrongfilly added charge carried a far longer prison sentence than the other charges
for which petitioner claimed he would have chosen to stand trial.

As petitioner’s allegations of misconduct against the first judge arose approximately 10
years before the judge was appointed to the federal bench, this judge was involved in petitioner's
case only as a federal prosecutor. The allegations against this judge were dismissed as not in
conformity with the requirements of the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3(A)(0.

‘The complaint was also directed against an Assistant United States Attorney. Because the misconduct
statute authorizes complaints only against federal judges, the allegations concerning the United States Attorney
‘were not addressed in the order of dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1), and the Rules of the Judicial Council of
the First Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, Rule 1(¢).

DEF02310


View Ful
DateTime Tuesday, August 31, 2010-696 PM EDT

Seah Resanch Tasha | Geta Damar] Shopan@ |e Tota ina |Tansathonal Adve | Counsel See
' "SSeS ote eB ca Has

scinhevwin SBOULLeNels |Teoms & Condions | Conta Us
AWD LewisNonis Covaantg) 3ote Connie» sviion of Road Elsevier Ine Alright tered

nephew lexis comMresearchetricve?_m=973atd9]e28482(22 762854867 TabteesverbiReformeseenhForm& Gist FULLAdoenum=1&_ 8/1/2010
DEFO2460


5786

a
=
United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of Louisiana

se anatpnt ee mene
=
SUMMARY OF SCHEDULES
aoe eo
A> Real Proparty: YES 1 235,110.00
ee
ore yes 1
—s
a
=
=
aa
a
J+ Current Expenditures of ]
=
‘in ALL Schedules TM

DEFO1922


5892
judiciary, the alleged discrepancies in the information provided to Congress are not
subject to challenge in a judicial administrative disciplinary proceeding.

Even if the alleged inconsistencies in testimony and submissions to the Senate
Judiciary Committee were a proper subject for a complaint filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
351, dismissal of these complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii) would be
required. Complainant asserts that Respondent's answer to question 18(c)(4) misstated or
overstated his role in regard to his representation of the asbestos manufacturer and may
not have been consistent with answers given to other questions. But there is no evidence
that Respondent intentionally misled or knowingly made materially false statements to the
Senate. Complainant’s allegations of criminal conduct by Respondent are conclusory and
not supported by the evidence.

Complainant's allegations that Respondent (and others) have improperly failed to
assist him in locating the docket numbers and dates are frivolous. Neither Respondent,
nor others, were obligated to assist Complainant in researching matters of public record in
various state and federal courts. There is no evidence presented in the complaint to even
suggest the existence of a conspiracy.

Finally, Complainant’s assertions concerning the alleged conflicts of interest are

without merit and must also be dismissed as legally frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

DEF02338


5862

prison sentence than the other charges for which complainant allegedly would have chosen to
stand trial. Complainant includes the allegedly erroneous newspaper article describing
complainant's arrest; a partial order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued in the
case; and miscellaneous correspondence between complainant and several government offices

regarding the alleged misconduct.

First, complainant's allegations of misconduct against the first judge arose when the judge
was an Assistant United States Attomey, approximately 10 years before the judge was appointed
to the federal bench. The misconduct statute, 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1), provides a procedure for
alleging that a “circuit, district, or bankruptcy judge, or a magistrate, has engaged in conduct
prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts...”
[emphasis added]. “The purpose of the complaint procedure is to improve the administration of
justice in the federal courts by taking action when judges have engaged in conduct that does not
meet the standard expected of federal judicial officers...” Rules of the Judicial Council of the First
Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, Rule 1(a) [emphasis added).
Therefore, the complaint against this judge is dismissed as not in conformity with the requirements
of the statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(i). In addition, the allegations of conspiracy and
coercion by this judge are unsupported and are also dismissed as frivolous, See 28 U.S.C. §
372(c)(3)(AMGii)

The allegations against the presiding district judge arose during the course of a criminal
proceeding approximately 20 years ago. The judicial misconduct procedure is intended to address
‘a current or recent problem in the administration of justice. “Complaints should be filed
promptly... A complaint may... be dismissed if it does not indicate the existence of a current
problem with the administration of the business of the courts.” Rules of the Judicial Council of the
First Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability, Rule 1(d). As the
allegations against this judge arose many years ago and do not reflect a current or recent problem
in the administration of justice, they too are dismissed as not in conformity with the requirements

of the statute, See 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(3)(A)(i).

DEF02308


5969

comprehensive approach, including but not limited to
additional jail space.

The Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System, like its
counterparts across the nation, is less a "system” than an
accumulation of parts, with sometimes overlapping and
sometimes barely intersecting jurisdictions. The parish
system is comprised of approximtely 33 entties—some
part of parish government, some part of state
government, and some independently elected officers.

These include the Sheriff's Office and other law
enforcement authorities; city, parish, and district cou
the Offices of the District Attomey and the Clerk of
Court; the Indigent Defender Board; the Jefferson Parish
Correctional Facility (the “parish jail"); the state Office
of Probation and Parole; the parish Department of
Juvenile Services, the Juvenile Court, and Rivarde
Detention Center; and the parish Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council. A brief description of these
entities may be found in Appendix A.

Together, these agencies spent approximately $94
million in 1993, not including about $2.5 million in
miscellaneous expenditures by the Parish Council to
support various parts of the judicial system as required
by state law. See Table A-I in Appendix A.

In 1993, these agencies together employed > «
approximately 2,500 people, of which more than half
‘were involved in law enforcement. See Table A-2 in
Appendix A.

‘There were 22 percent more reported crimes and 76
percent more criminal cases filed in the Twenty-fourth
Judicial District Court in 1992 than in 1982. There were
23 percent more persons being held in the parish
correctional center in 1991, the last year the jail was at
less than 100 percent legal capacity, than in 1981. Does
1 prison filled to capacity mean more crime or less
crime, more justice or less justice? Does a crowded court
docket mean more or less crime, more or less justice?

This study will narrow the focus of those questions
considerably by approaching two much smaller ones
currently under discussion by voters, public officials, and
public employees in Jefferson Parish: Is additional
parish jail space needed, or is the apparent jail crowding
a result-of other parts of the system not working,
properly?

In order to answer those questions, one needs to be
able to describe the jail population: Who is in jail, with
‘what are they charged, what risk do they pose to
themselves and others? One needs to be able to identify
the parts of the criminal justice system as a whole and
how their actions impact the population of the parish jail.

Who’s Filling
the Jail?

Who's In Jail?
‘Who Is Held?

In March 1994, 20 percent (137) of the 700 inmates
in the parish jail were serving "parish time," that is, they
had been convicted of a crime that does not necessarily
carry a sentence at hard labor. Three and one-half
percent (24) of the inmates were awaiting transfer to the
custody of the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections (DPS&C), and 76.5 percent (524) were
pretrial detainees.

According to the Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council, the portion of the jail populati
consisting of pretrial detainees has been at over 70
percent since 1990. It is unclear, however, how many of
these “pretrial” detainees are awaiting what step in the
pretrial process. "Pretrial" detainees could be:

‘+ awaiting booking by law enforcement officers
awaiting initial appearance before a magistrate
awaiting the filing of a bill of information by the
district attomey

+ awaiting allotment by the clerk of court

awaiting trial, which will require coordination by
judge, district attomey, and defense attomey

In mid-April, 56 percent of the jail’s inmates were
rated "Code 6," the designation for arrestees who are
repeat and/or violent felony offenders. ‘The Code 6
designation is used to identify these dangerous multiple
offenders as high priority for continued detention or for
vertical prosecution by the district attomey. Statewide
implementation of this program was among the policy

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—7

DEFO2415


5888

[Respondent] in state of federal court on behalf of [the asbestos
manufacturer.

Aside from searching the dockets of various courts for cases in which Respondent,
“appeared as lead counsel on behalf of [the firm] on behalf of the [asbestos
manufacturer],” Complainant avers that he contacted Respondent, the prior Chief Judge
of the Court of Appeals, the chairperson of the law firm and a United States Senator to
request assistance in finding these cases. He also avers that he filed a Freedom of
Information Act request (for which Respondent declined to waive privacy restrictions)
seeking this information. Additionally, Complainant filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus in the Court of Appeals seeking to compel Respondent to provide him with the
information. The Court of Appeals declined to issue a writ because the information
requested was a matter of public record.

In the second complaint, Complainant elaborates on the details of his attempts to
obtain information about Respondent’s employment at the law firm from the Respondent
and others. Complainant concludes that his failure to receive responses to his inquires
demonstrates the existence of a conspiracy to thwart him from receiving the requested
information.

Besides reiterating and elaborating on many of the same allegations made in the
first complaint, Complainant in the second complaint alleges that Respondent has
participated in two other cases in which he had conflicts of interest resulting from the
judicial selection process that led to Respondent’s nomination to the federal bench.

5
DEF02334


5873

reasonably questioned, for purposes of a recusal motion in
criminal case, where she previously gave lecture to
police/prosecutor drug enforcement task force “about steps they
might take to increase the prospects for conviction in narcotics
cases,” in light of fact that lecture also included “several
emphatic criticisms of prosecutors” and judge also participated
in programs for defense lawyers and “commendably lectures to a
variety of trial practice seminars”).

For the foregoing reasons, the claim is dismissed.?

B. Remarks

The following claims based on the ACS remarks are presented
in one or more of the five complaints: .

1. Advocacy that the President Not be Reelected. This
claim is explicitly made in one complaint and is implicit in
most of the others, as most of their allegations of
political bias or political advocacy rely in part on the
reelection-oriented portion of the remarks.

2. Presi i eral ini. This
claim is explicitly made in one complaint.

3. Political Bi En in Political adv
Aside from the reelection-related claim, four of the
complaints make the more general claim that the ACS remarks,
or portions of them, demonstrate the Judge's “bigotry,”
political bias, or political advocacy.

4. with Bush v. Gore. One complaint claims
that this demonstrates incompetence.

We review these claims one by one. The general political
advocacy allegations will be discussed in tandem with the
reelection claim, as there is significant overlap between the two
claims and, in any event, the same principles apply to both. The
political bias claim will be discussed separately since it

? To the extent that the complainants rely on the portion of
canon 7 which proscribes a judge from “mak[ing] speeches for a
political organization,” Canon 7(A) (2), that portion of the Canon
does not apply since the Judge was not making his remarks “for”
the ACS, i,e,, he was not purporting to represent the
organization or actively soliciting support for it.

8g

DEF02319


5961

Acknowledgments

‘The Bureau of Governmental Research gratefully acknowledges the contribution of the Jefferson Business
Council in requesting and providing financial underwriting for this report.

BGR appreciates the cooperation and assistance of the elected officials of the Jefferson Parish criminal
{justice system, including District Attomey John A. Mamoulides; the judges of the Twenty-fourth Judicial
District Court, especially Chief Judge Patrick C. McCabe and Martha B. Sassone; Clerk of Court Jon
Gegenbeimer, and Council Chairman, Robert B. Evans, Jr; Juvenile Court judges Anne Murry Keller and
Thomas P. McGee; Judges J. Bruce Naccari and George W. Giaccobe of the First Parish Court; Second Parish
Court Judge J.J. Molaison; and District Court Magistrate Vernon J. Wilty I—all of whom were interviewed
in person or by telephone. We also thank Sheriff Harry Lee.

Special thanks are due to the following appointed officials and employees for their valuable responses to
repeated requests for information: Dr. John V. Baiamonte, Jr, Executive Director of the Jefferson Parish
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; Richard M. Tompson, Director of the Twenty-fourth Judicial District
Indigent Defender Board; Robert Pitre, Executive Assistant to the District Attomey; and Stephanie Rondenell,
Director of Information Services for the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court’s Office.

We also thank Dr. Hugh A. Collins, Judicial Administrator of the State Supreme Court, and his staff,
especially Paulette H. Holohan, for their assistance.

Essential information for this report was also provided by the following individuals:

James C. Boulware, Judicial Administrator, Dr. Walter Maestri, Director, Jefferson Parish
Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court Department of Juvenile Services

Judith Curry, Supervisor, Jefferson Parish John Nobles, Clerk to Judge Calvin Hotard,
Regional Office of Probation and Parole Second Parish Court of Jefferson

Rodney De la Gardetle, Judicial Administrator, Deputy Chief Gary Schwabe, Warden,

Second Parish Court of Jefferson Jefferson Parish Correctional Center

Dr. Eric Gorham, Chair, Juvenile Services Beatrice Trancini, Judicial Administrator,
Advisory Board First Parish Court of Jefferson

Chief Glen Jambon, Assistant Warden, Dr, Leslie Tremaine, Executive Director,
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center Jefferson Parish Human Services Authority
Luceia LeDoux, Director, Pretrial Diversion, Willard Tucker, Chief Administrator, Jefferson
Jefferson Parish District Attomey’s Office Parish Regional Office of Probation and Parole

Sam Lewis, Director, Clinical Outpatient Programs,
Jefferson Parish Human Services Authority

‘BGR

Bureau of Governmental Research
837 Gravier Street, Suite 1308
New Orleans, LA 70112
(504) 525-4152
G9 "JEFFERSON PARISH LIBRARY

DEF02407


5964

The Findings

The study finds:

a jail at its legal capacity and beyond its functional design capacity

the lack of a fully-functioning system to accumulate information about the operations of the criminal
justice system that is both complete and accessible to all who need it (a problem shared with the rest of
the state)

+ a lack of clear and undivided responsibility for constructing or otherwise securing and funding the
operation of the facilities needed by the various elements of the criminal justice system (such as space for
detaining pretrial defendants, courtrooms, and space for housing sentenced offenders), due to the legal
framework provided by state law

lack of authority or ability to coordinate policy-making, decision-making, and funding for "system"
needs, due to the legal and financial structure provided by state law

a system in which resources of personnel, technology, and facilities are unevenly distributed and in a
number of cases inadequate to the task

a district court system which (I) lacks a uniform managment approach and performance standards that
‘re consistent from division to division and (2) has made inadequate use of modem technology, both in
its own management and in reporting to its overseers and the public

* no clearly-stated community policy on what classifications of suspects and sentenced offenders citizens
want and are willing to pay to have held behind bars, and no mechanism for devising such a policy that
would be binding on all the decision-makers and operators in the system

The Conclusions

Based on the study findings, BGR concludes that the Jefferson Parish criminal justice system is not
working as a "system" or with optimum effectiveness, In answer to the orienting questions of the study, BGR
concludes that additional jail space is needed but is far from all that is needed. On the basis of the limited
analysis of jail data currently readily available to the public, BGR is unable to make a specific
recommendation on the number of jail beds needed. Additional planning and analysis are required in order to
make that determination.

BGR is convinced that additional jail space alone will not solve the problems of the Jefferson Parish
criminal justice system. Experience across the nation as well as in Jefferson Parish indicates that if
built, they will be filled; and if other shortcomings of the criminal justice system are not addressed directly,
those shortcomings will remain. What is needed in Jefferson Parish is system-wide improvement incorporating
all of the recommendations outlined below.

‘2—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

DEF02410


5841

1993] ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 27

JUDGE MARK: Well, I have a procedure I have used in three
or four cases and it’s, I guess, a carryover of giving debtors rope to hang
themselves, which I liked to do when I did creditor work before I was
appointed. But if you find in a typical case that meets these basic criteria the
issue becomes what does a debtor have to show to establish that there’s a
feasible reorganization. If the debtor hasn't gotten a judgment yet, typically
stay relief, at least through the point of judgment, is given. There’s usually
not a lot of argument against that in these cases, but if it’s a case where they
already have a judgment and it’s a question of delaying the sale, we put them
on an extremely fast track where they may have 20 days to file a plan. We'll
expedite the hearing on the disclosure statement and I, rather than hearing a
lot of happy talk at the first hearing on the motion to dismiss as to what they
are going to do, I will say file your plan and at the disclosure hearing, which
we are going to have in 10 or 15 days after you file your plan, we'll have a
further evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss and you will have to put
on a prima facie case that your plan is feasible at the disclosure hearing. Not
for disclosure purposes, because it doesn’t really fit in for disclosure, What
1 like to see is the feasibility of an actual plan, not just what they think they
are going to do. And that may mean putting up money. If they are going to
put in new money to try and reorganize, that will mean putting up money.

PROF. GROSS: So the burden of proof for you, Judge Mark,
is on the debtor to prove good faith as opposed to on the creditor to prove bad
faith?

JUDGE MARK: I think that overstates it a bit. I think once
the case fits what we use as a shorthand sort of the Phoenix Piccadilly mold
in the 11th Circuit; it has these criteria. They have gotten a judgment. It’s a
two-party dispute. Conceptually, if you still believe there is some purpose to
Chapter 11 for equity versus mortgagee, and you are giving them some
chance, the burden shifts, I guess, for them to prove that there is a feasible
plan and to prove it quickly in order to stave off complete stay relief or
dismissal for bad faith.

JUDGE HILLMAN: It may be that this entire process we
have been discussing is nothing more than factors you look at when you come

HeinOnline — 1 Am. Baakr. Inst. L. Rev. 27 1993

DEF02274


5837

1993) ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 23

are presented with a situation in which you have just two creditors fighting,
there’s lots of case authority to say, "send them out."

If you have a situation like Mike McConnell was confronted with in
Little Creek," where he found the only reason why they went into bankruptcy
court was to dodge a state court judgment and avoid the posting of a
supersedeas bond, there’s a line of cases that say that constitutes bad faith, but
it’s really an example by example situation. It’s a matter of how offended the
bankruptcy judge is that these parties are in front of him or her and whether
or not the judge decides that the case is one that is susceptible of
reorganization.

PROF. GROSS: Would you say, then, that there is an
objective test to determine whether a debtor is reorganizable? Of course, in
applying that test, lots of factors must be taken into account.

JUDGEGREENDYKE: Well, it’s both. It can be a subjective
test or it can be an objective test. My favorite approach is to be objective
about it because every debtor "is a bad guy” and they are going to give you
lots of evidence about how bad the debtor is and how bad the debtor has been
historically. It is very difficult to establish subjective standards and thresholds.
It’s a lot easier to try the case from an objective standpoint and allow the
subjective evidence that comes forth to be kind of a shading on what you find
objectively.

While Judge Jones ruled in Chemical Research probably on a
somewhat subjective basis, she was looking at objective evidence on what the
situation was in front of her to make that determination. So, yes, I guess the
first approach is objective and then I would allow the subjective evidence to
just sort of help you make your decision.

PROF. GROSS: And Judge Greendyke, you also seem to be
looking at this issue by categorizing types of cases: single asset cases which
are on the eve of foreclosure, single asset cases which are two-party disputes,
and...

JUDGE GREENDYKE: — the new debtor cases. that we
‘mentioned.

TM Lite Creek Dev. Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. (In re Little Creek Dev. Co.), 779 F.2d
1068 (Sth Cir. 1986).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bank. Inst. L, Rev. 23 1993

DEF02270


5799

Garmelis A. Porteous

Caretio. 01-12363 Section "
(tov)

SCHEDULE F - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS

ran
cacmuene [ol] onecammmnnonmn —_|y]s
NALNG ADDRESS $8] mwocowsbrmrion ror cian, awount oF
INCLUDING ZIP CODE 4 JF CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO CLAM
B SETOFF, SO STATE
ae eT =| wera —
——— ott
Ta semesir
peeoUNT T_Te] 1008 5,000.00
rene bane peontton
eee ioe
alrscarr ts
etm 1dineinsnesiiveinunsonamrnyaneniinney ms aan
an a
=. ery

DEFO1935


6016

i ‘bout Lesa | Ten & Conditions | ContactUs
AB Lexishenis Sioroneg oid Lanes a dvion of Reed Eatin In. A ight reserved,

nips lens comeseachetnene

all&intldoes"daggedDocs-doggleVaine=@numDoesChked-Opre(FBS . 8/31/2010
DEFO2468


5828

14 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

Goop FAITH CHALLENGES IN SINGLE ASSET CASES

Are all of you seeing a large number of single asset cases in your
Districts, and are these cases being challenged either by you or by creditors on
the basis of good faith?

JUDGE MARK: I would guess that in the Southern District
of Florida we may have the highest percentage among the panelists here of
Chapter 11°s that are, in fact, single asset real estate cases. It varies and it
may be slowing down a bit, but we certainly see many single asset real estate
cases and I would even say it’s a substantial percentage of the Chapter 11’s in
total.

PROF. GROSS: How many of those cases are challenged on
the basis of good faith?

JUDGE MARK: Virtually all of them sooner or later, unless
there is some consensual arrangement that’s been negotiated at the start of the
case. I am overgeneralizing, of course, but typically the cases are filed right
before summary judgment hearing or often right before the foreclosure sale.
The creditor/borrower is sophisticated enough, given the state of law in the
11th Circuit to come in quickly with a motion for stay relief under section
362(d)(1) for cause, or for dismissal, arguing bad faith. So we are confronted
with these motions early on in many cases.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: Judge Mark, what kind of numbers
are we talking about in terms of total number of Chapter 11’s and what
percentage of that might be single asset real estate cases? I really don’t have
an idea what kind of numbers you are talking about.

JUDGE MARK: I probably have maybe 150 pending Chapter
11’s. My numbers may be way off. I didn’t really do a statistical check.
And it may very well be that half of them are single asset real estate cases.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: That’s a lot.

JUDGE MARK: South Florida has been over-built with

shopping centers, office buildings, and less commonly, residential properties.
We have visiting judges coming down to Palm Beach and they could virtually

HeinOnline — 1 Am, Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 14 1993 DEF02261


6050

BALL JUMPING 97

rates, for example, may be higher for those defendants charged with minor
crimes—pethaps these defendants reason that police will not pursue a failure
to appear when the underlying crime is minor—and defendants charged with
minor crimes are more likely to be released on their own recognizance than
on surety release. A second reason, however, is that bond dealers, just like
other lenders, have numerous ways of creating appropriate incentives for
borrowers.

‘Most obviously, a defendant who skips town will owe the bond dealer the
entire amount of the bond. Defendants are often judgment proof, however,
so bond dealers ask defendants for collateral and family cosigners to the
bond (which is not done under the deposit bond system). If hardened criminals
do not fear the law, they may yet fear their mother’s wrath should the bond
dealer take possession of their mother’s home because they fail to show up
for trial. In order to make flight less likely, bond dealers will also sometimes
monitor their charges and require them to check in periodically. In addition,
bond dealers often remind defendants of their court dates and, perhaps more
important, remind the defendants mother of the son’s court date when the
mother is a cosigner on the bond.”*

Tf a defendant does fail to appear, the bond dealer is granted some time,
typically 90-180 days, to recapture him before the bond dealer’s bond is
forfeited. Thus, bond dealers have a credible threat to pursue and rearrest
any defendant who flees. Bond dealers report that just to break even, 95
percent of their clients must show up in court.'* Thus, significant incentives
exist to pursue and retum skips to justice.

Bond dealers and their agents have powerful legal rights over any defendant
who fails to appear, rights that exceed those of the public police. Bail en-
forcement agents, for example, have the right to break into a defendant's
home without a warrant, make arrests using all necessary force including
deadly force if needed, temporarily imprison defendants, and pursue and
return a defendant across state lines without the necessity of entering into
an extradition process.”

‘At the time they write the bond, bond dealers prepare for the possibility
of flight by collecting information that may later prove useful. A typical
application for bond, for example, will contain information on the defendant's
residence, employer, former employer, spouse, children (names and schools),
spouse's employer, mother, father, automobile (description, tags, financing),

'S See Mary A. Toborg, Bail Bondsmen and Criminal Courts, 8 Just. Sys. J. 141, 156 (1983).
Bail jumping is itself a crime that may result in additional penalties.

"© Drimames, supra note 11, at 793 (1996); Morgan Reynolds, Privatizing Probation and Parole,
in Entreprencurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science 117, 128 (Alexander
Tabarrok ed. 2002).

° Dimmer, supra note 11. See also Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366 (1873).

DEF02608


5832

18 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

cash flow. That is, they were income-producing, but with a negative cash flow
that raised the question of whether the debtor could possibly confirm a plan.

JUDGE HILLMAN: Then I suppose when you get to vacant
land you have to consider as a single asset the acreage that has been platted,
broken out into lots and is still undeveloped.

JUDGE FENNING: We get a lot that have tentative tract
maps out that are pending final plan.

JUDGE HILLMAN: It’s still a single asset case. It's one
mortgage on one piece of real estate.

PROF. GROSS: Let me try a hypothetical. What is your view
of a corporation that was set up to hold a patent or a contract right. Is that a
single asset Chapter 11 debtor for purposes of our discussion?

JUDGE MARK: Good topic for law school, but we don’t see
it much.

PROF. GROSS: Okay, fair enough.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I think from a practical standpoint,
we are all talking about real estate cases whether it’s undeveloped real estate
or somebody that’s got one apartment complex or one shopping center. It can
be a patent. My most humorous example of a single asset case arose at a show
cause hearing in 1987 where I found out somebody had a model railroad and
T inguired about what the scope of the railroad was. He said, "Well, it’s about
20 feet by 15 feet,” and that was a single asset. It can be anything you want.
But by and large we are talking about real estate.

Is IMPOSITION OF A Goop FAITH REQUIREMENT APPROPRIATE?
PROF. GROSS: Since you have all taken after academics, let
me refer to a commentator, who is not an academic, but who has certainly

written academic material. He stated the following about good faith: "The
imposition of the good faith requirement appears contrary to the statute,

HeinOnlige ~ 1 Am. Bankr Inst. L. Rev. 18 1993

DEF02265


6042

Peeves sini | ect toe | Soro
aren’ Research Tasks Get a Document © shepards? Clans Tal Ltgtor transection! visor counsel etectorY ones

OCUN* Tere neon ct een cx yin nisi 2)" SE Aono

Source: News & Business > Combined Sours > Nows, All English, Full Text
"Teme: “Levin: Korinshi Lacks Judea Temperament” (Eat Search | Suanes Tes fs My Search)

Levin: Kozinski lacks judicial temperament United Press International November 2, 1985, Saturday, PM cycle

Copyright 1985 U.P.

United Press International
November 2, 1985, Saturday, PM cycle

'SECTION: Washington News

LENGTH: 430 words

HEADLINE: Levin: Kozinsi

lacks judicial temperament

BYLINE: By CHRIS CHRYSTAL

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

Bopy:

‘Alex Korinski has the brains and ability to serve on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but lacks proper judicial
‘temperament, senators said at a Judiciary Committee hearing.

ozinski, 35, the administration's nominee to the nation’s second highest court, was approved by the panel Sept. 12, but
Senate confirmation stalled because of allegations by former employees that he was harsh, cruel and demeaning while
heading a federal office that protects government whistleblowers for exposing wrongdoing.

Committee Chairman Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., said the Senate would act on the confirmation next week and complained
that 2 rehearing Friday into questions about Kozinsk's conduct in office turned up nothing new.

“T think these are the puniest, most nitpicking charges of any I've ever heard in any hearing,” Thurmond said after the
daylong hearing

Sen. Cart Levin, D-Mich., who is not on the Judiciary Committee, but was allowed to grill Kozinski, said he plans a four~
hour debate of the nomination on the Senate foor.

Levin said he is "very troubled” by Kozinski's testimony that he could hardly remember terminating two sick employes, an
elderly black woman suffering from cancer -- two months before her retirement -- because age and illness had slowed her
performance, and a 25-year veteran who was on sick leave for high blood pressure.

“Lam struck by his failure to remember the detalls of two very sad cases," Levin said. "I find a lack of sensitivity there.”

He sald Kozinski misled the committee by claiming an excellent working relationship with his former staff when six people
had fled affidavits that he treated employees unfairly.

Kozinsk, chief judge of the U.S. Claims Court, previously headed the Office of Special Counsel to the Merit Systems
Protection Board in 1981-1982

‘Sen. Charles Mathias, R-Md., the only Republican to chailenge Kozinski at the rehearing, and Sen. Paul Simon, D-Il, also
{questioned his temperament.

ther allegations claimed Kozinsk's refusal to prosecute a sexual harassment case discouraged others from coming

forward, and that he didn't tell the committee the whole story about his fring of Mary Eastwood, his predecessor at the
SC.

Eastwood testified that Kozinski was “less than honest” with the panel by implying she had dropped her appeal of the

firing, when she had not, and by failing to disclose that she eventually won with back pay.

‘Six of eight lawyers and eight of 15 investigators quit during his regime along with haif the clerical staff of the
Washington office, she said

nepat lexiscomeserevetrieve?_m=b2R.2073S4S41STINBOSeR6I96déckesve=tlkcform~seachFormd,fmisteFULLAdoenum1&_. 8/31/2010
DEFO2494

PORT Exhibit 1128


5861

Circurr Counci.
For THE FIRST CIRCUIT

INRE
COMPLAINT NO. 285

BEFORE

Torruella, Chief Circuit Judge

ORDER

ENTERED: May 25, 2000

Complainant has filed a complaint of misconduct under 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) against two
istrict judges in the First Circuit. Complainant alleges that the judges maliciously prosecuted
complainant and coerced complainant into submitting a plea of guilty on an allegedly unsupported
criminal charge over 20 years ago."

First, complainant alleges that the judges conspired to conceal facts that, if known, would
have resulted in dismissal of an additional criminal charge against complainant for threatening to
harm the son of business man with whom complainant had had contact. At the time of the alleged
misconduet, one of the judges had not yet been appointed to the bench but was an Assistant
United States Attorney involved in the case, Complainant asserts that the indictment was based
upon false information contained in a newspaper article complainant encloses and that both judges
knew the information in the article was false. Complainant concludes that the judges effectively
coerced complainant into pleading guilty because the wrongfully added charge carried a far longer

“The complaint is also directed against an Assistant United States Attomey. The complaint procedure
provided for by the misconduct statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1) and the Rules of the Judicial Council of the First
Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or Disability authorize complaints only against “judges of
‘the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and district judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges of federal
courts within the circuit.” Rules of the Judicial Council ofthe First Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial
‘Misconduct or Disability, Rule 1(c). Therefore, complainants allegations of misconduct by the Assistant United
States Attorney are not addressed herein.

DEF02307
PORT Exhibit 1111 (a)


5923

Honorable Charles B. McCormick May 7, 1985

In the course of the January 22 transcript, when this
practice surfaced, you defended your action by stating that you
frequently ask lawyers to submit proposed orders. On the other
hand, your letter of April 11 reveals only four such ex parte
instances. That feature is of course the vice involved: While
you stated in the same transcript that you do not have time to
sit down and draft orders and therefore you have lawyers submit
proposed orders, your April 11 letter does not admit to any
other instances where this was done ex parte. You also stated
in the January 22 transcript that you'do not regard as improper
the procedure you employed, adding that you “think it's a
procedure that's followed from time to time not only in this
court but probably in most every other court." Your April 11
letter to me does not reveal any other instances except these
four, and you add therein that you have "no knowledge of
whether any of ay fellow judges engage in that practice." I do
not agree with you that your secret procedure in these four
instances has been followed by other members of your court or
by other judges. No such instance has ever been brought to our
attention, and all of us were shocked when we learned of your
practice in at least these four instances.

The misconduct here is especially disquieting since counsel
for Wisconsin Steel was successful in all four uncovered
instances. It is understood that the Executive Committee of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois is looking into that firm's unfortunate behavior in
these four instances.

As you know, there has been considerable publicity about
your conduct in this bankruptcy proceeding, thus persuading the
Judicial Council of this Circuit that a written public censure
is essential in addition to the oral reprimand that I have
meted out this day. These sanctions are warranted under 28
U.S.C. § 372(c) (6).

As you admitted in your April 11 letter to me, you now
realize that your conduct in this case has "given rise to the
appearance of unprofessional conduct." In the future, in
accordance with the Canons of Judicial Ethics, you must of
course eschew any incidents which would ever again give rise to
the "appearance of impropriety.”

Very truly yours,

W ollee 2. Covwecrning
Walter J. Cummings,

Chief Judge of the
Seventh Circuit

DEF02369


5916

Furthermore, the fact that an attorney may have clerked for a judge does not
compel the conclusion that the attorney will then be in a position to exert undue
influence over the judge. In fact, another of the subject judge’s former law clerks was
also involved in the on the defense side. This aspect of the complaint is subject to
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii).

Complainant also claims that the judge was informed that a class representative
was an employee or spouse of an employee of one of the plaintiff firms, and that a class
representative’s spouse had received a car from one of the plaintiff attorneys, but did
not take any action. Complainant appears to suggest that these allegations were raised
by counsel for objectors in the context of their opposition to the settlement agreement,
but later states that they “agreed to drop the allegations against class counsel”. In
essence, this aspect of the complaint is related to the merits of the judge’s decision not

to investigate the allegations and is subject to dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii).

Complainant claims that the subject judge should not have presided over the class
action fairness hearing because he could not be neutral about a settlement he helped
create. There is no doubt that the judge was substantially involved in the settlement
process. In discussing the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure Rule 16, the Committee on Codes of Conduct has stated that neither
the Canons nor Rule 16 require a judge who engaged in settlement discussions to recuse
from presiding over subsequent proceedings in the case. Advisory Opinion No. 95,
“Judges Acting in a Settlement Capacity”. Instead, the question of recusal should be
decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. The objectors’ motion to recuse the judge from
presiding over the fairness hearing on this ground was denied by him and later

withdrawn after certain protections for individuals seeking additional relief in state court

DEF02362


5794

ese

Fava)

nm Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmella A. Porteous . Cusate, 01-12383 Section
ar mi

SCHEDULE E - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED PRIORITY CLAIMS

Check tis bax debtor hes no erdtors holding unsecured prirty clams to rept on this Schedule
‘TYPESOF PRIORITY CLAIMS (Check he appropite box(es below I claims In hat catogry are fat onthe attached sheets)

Extensions of credit nan involuntary case
Chan ving nthe ornarycouree ofthe debtor's business or francil afar aer th commencement the case but
‘before the ear ofthe appointment ofa trustee othe order for rele. 118.6. §S07%—X2).

Cl Wages, salaries, and commissions

Wages, salaries, and commissions, Inuding vacation, severance, and sick lave pay ovingto employees and commissions
tng to quaSying Independent sales representatives upto $4,300" par parson eared win 90 days Irmedately preceding
‘he fing ofthe erga pettion, er he cessation cf business, wrchever occured fis, tothe eet proved in
11USC. § 50713)

Contributions to employes benef plans

‘Money owed to employee benefit plans fr services revered within 180 days immediatly preceding the fing of the erga
petion, othe cessation of business, wrichever occured fr tothe exten provided in 11 U.S.C. § S07(AK4),

a

Certain farmers and fishermen
‘Giaims of certian farmers ant fhermen, upto $4300" per farmer or sherman, aga the defor, a8 provided in 11
USC. §507(0N5)

1D Deposits by individuals

Claims of individuals upto $1,950" for depots fo the purchase, eae, cr rental of property or wences for personal
famdy, or housed use, tat werent delvered er provided. 11 USC. § 507}

1 Alimony, Maintenance, or Support

(aims of m spouse, former spouse, cr chi ofthe debtor for alimony, maintenance, or suppot, othe extent provided in
11S. §50710X7)

1D) Taxes and Cartan Other Debts Owed to Governmental Units

Tere, customs dies, and pena own to federal, sate, and lca governmental units asset forth in 11
USC.§507(0K0).
1 Cormmitments to Malntain the Capita of an insured Depository nsttutlon

Ctaims besed on commfmerts tothe FDIC, RTC, Director ofthe Office of Tht Supervision, Compt ofthe Curancy,
‘or Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or ther predecessors cr successor, to maintain the capial of
‘en insured depostoryinsttuion. 11 U.S.C. § 507(aX9}.

1 other Priosty Debts

* Amounts ae subject fo eustmert on Apt 1, 2001, and every thre years thereafter wh respect to cases carmmenced on
ster the dete of adustert.

11 Cannan sane states

DEFO01930


6061

108 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

TABLE 2

TREATMENT EFFECTS oF RoW VERSUS COLUMN RELEASE CATEGORY ON FAILURE-TO-
APPEAR RATES USING MATCHED SAMPLES, 1988-96

Own Deposit Cash Surey

Recognizance Bond Bond Bond
‘Own recognizance 26 32° (10,11) 48°01; 12) 6S (78: 78)
Deposit bond = “3.188 (1.1512) 21 alee (1S) 16) 31% (14513)
‘Cash bond 1316) “15 (0.6; 20) 20 18; 2.0 (1.4: 1.8)
Surety band (78; 89) —3.9°¢ (1112) 1.73: 14) 17

Nore. —Mean failure 1o-appear rates (in 4) for release categories for te fll sample are along the main
diagonal OFF diagoraleleraens are the estimated weatment effects ofthe row category versus the coluran

tealegory, Standard ecors are in parentheses—the first standacd err assumes thatthe p-score is estimated
‘with certainty; the second uses bootstrapping to estimate the standard error including uncertainty ofthe
score. Matching caliper = .0001

‘+ Statistically significant atthe greater than 1% level (Wo sided),

C. Estimated Treatment Effects: Failure to Appear

In Table 2, the row variable denotes the treated variable and the column
the untreated variable.” For reference, the main diagonal includes the mean
FTA rate in that category from the full sample." Reading across the surety
bond row, for example, we see the estimated difference in FTA rates caused
by the surety treatment relative to the column treatment—that is, the estimate
of the effect of treatment on the treated. The matching estimator suggests
that similar individuals are 7.3 percentage points, or 28 percent, less likely
to fail to appear when released on surety bond than when released on their
own recognizance. Similar individuals are also 3.9 percentage points, or 18
percent, less likely to fail to appear when released on surety bond than when
released on deposit bond. The estimated treatment effect for those on surety
bonds versus cash is small and not statistically significant.**

© Two standard errors are presented in Table 2. The first takes into account uncertainty in
the matched samples but assumes that the propensity score is known with certsnty, The second
estimate is a bootstrapped standard error that takes into account uncertainty that propagates
from the estimation of the propensity score. The “regular” and bootstrapped standard errors
are close, with the bootstrapped errors being approximately 8-20 percent higher. All the sta-
tistcally significant results are significant at greater than the 1 percent level sing either standard
cervor. Since the estimation of the propensity score adds very little uncertainty to the matching
estimators and because calculating bootstrapped errors is very time and resource intensive, we
present only the regular standard errors in future results and Jeave adjustments to the reader.
‘The bootstrapped errors were calculated using 100 replications of the model. The procedure
took over 48 hours on a reasonably fast Pentium computer.

©The mean FTA rate for the full sample is included as rough guide to absolute effects.
Note, however, that the matched sample is usually smaller than the full sample, so the mean
FTA rate for the matched and full samples ean be slightly different.

‘As a test of matching quality, we also ran a linear regression on the matched samples that
included surety bond and all the variables in Table 3. The results are similar, as they should
be if the matched samples divide other covariates as if they were assigned randomly. The
coefficient on surety bond in the surety versus own recognizance regression, for example, is

DEF02619


5918

avoid an unnecessary disqualification after the judge and the parties had invested much

time and effort in the case.

Whether the dismissal was provoked by the judge’s telephone call or by other
independent reasons is beyond the scope of my investigation. However, Canon 3D of
the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that (with exceptions not
pertinent to this inquiry) when a judge might be disqualified in a proceeding because
“the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”, the judge may participate in
the proceeding if all parties and lawyers, after notice, agree to waive the
disqualification. It is apparent from the Canon that the alleged situation is one that can
be cured, and the judge chose to cure it by requesting dismissal of the party. This
aspect of the complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii)
as it is, in effect, a complaint challenging the merits of the judge’s action in this respect

Complainant also alleges that in his zeal to promote a compromise, the subject
judge imposed settlement terms on the parties and refused to consider motions to
remand filed by defendants uncomfortable with his settlement strategy. If the judge
applied undue pressure on the defendants to settle the case, one would expect them to
complain, but there is no record of their having done so. Arguably, while settlement
discussions appeared to be productive, the more efficient course was first to see if they
would be successful and not divert the focus of court and counsel. Regardless, any
complaint addressing the judge’s actions while assisting the parties to negotiate a
settlement or relating to his management of the case are merits-related and subject to
dismissal. 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii).

Ihave conducted a limited inquiry pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352. Certain aspects
of this complaint should be dismissed as either merits-related or lacking sufficient

6

DEF02364


5836

2 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

argued strenuously as opposed to a throw-away alternative argument on relief
from stay in the 9th Circuit. "New debtor syndrome" is the nickname for a
new entity created to hold the real property which then is dumped into
bankruptcy with no employees, no history, no other source of income.

JUDGE HILLMAN: We have adopted the Ordin test from
Victory, but we use it also when it isn't a new debtor. If you take the
catalogue of events and it just doesn’t happen to be a new debtor, it still may
flunk the good faith test.

‘WHat Is THE TEST FOR Goop FAITH?

PROF. GROSS: Since we are all talking about what the
standard is, let’s talk about that specifically. How is it that a court should
determine what is good faith in a Chapter 11 single asset real estate case? As
you answer, I assume you are answering for yourself, but if you have the view
of your circuit or the judges in your district, it may be worth identifying that.

Judge Greendyke, do you want to go first?

JUDGE GREENDYKE: | think, at least from my standpoint,
it’s difficult to say here's the test. It’s usually four or five criteria because it
is inherently a fact-intensive type of search. One of the best examples that we
have had and used down here is a District Court opinion that was penned by
a circuit judge who was sitting by designation, Judge Jones.

‘The case is called Chemical Research" and it involved two quarreling
factions of a joint venture. One of the venturers, Chemical Research filed for
relief under Chapter 11 to gain advantage in state court. It basically
represented a two-party dispute over entitlement to some intellectual property
rights. ‘There were virtually no creditors, and the company was solvent, with
a wonderfully lucrative, profitable business. Judge Jones just said, look, you
all don’t have the right kind of attitude toward this case. You are not in
subjective bad faith, but you are not in objective good faith. ‘That is, you
meant well but what you are doing is wrong. This is a two-party dispute and
it needs to be resolved outside of bankruptcy court.

Well, I don’t think 1 have ever seen a case like that since then, but
lawyers like to argue its application in any apparent two-party dispute. If you

TM IN RE Chemical Research & Licensing Co., No. 85-00210-HI-S, (S.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 1986) Gones,
1, siting by designation).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 22 1993

DEF02269


5783

oy
precrorn hn O1-12363 Sechon tt
aT -
United States Bankruptcy Court
Eastern District of Louisiana Voluntary Petition
Amended

Tae of Db (Fc Tat FW Tan of Dir Spo Ft Hl
Perteus, Se, Gab! | Pareous, Cert
Nass wien’ Tis Nase ety a aD
7 cn achag stele Es peepee nee
Sa Sai TD No rr tn we Fay Sax Safa Ne nae thn om ia
‘Gesu es ere991
See er DRS WB SE BCE Tp COS] it a Dr B,C Bae Tp CY
{801 Ney Drive {001 Newey Dre
eats LA 0 ea A 7002
Goan of Reece he aay of Reade
Siete tates Jeteron Pr Piast sPDuseea Jeter Perish
Maing Ares of Deter Geet en sco Wailing Ades font Dkr iets sos acy

[Lecalion of Principal Assets of Business Debtor
i fre tose ses tbo)

Information Regarding the Debtor (Check the Applicable Boxes)

Veros (Check ay apt bas)
I Dettr has teen deme or has hada eis, princi plc f bse, x prncipal sin this Dist a 180 day iumetnely pressing the dat
i pton for ngs pat uch 1B ys han nay oer Dist.

00 Fe Petey tesco at len pot pe ty eng Die
Te of Dear (Ck toes Gat ppb) Chaper or Selon of Batrapiey Code Unaer Which
© Individuals) 8 Railroad ‘the Petition is Filed (Check one box)
D1 Corporation Stockbroker o 7
8 oe a Chapter Bowen Chapter 13
G oor ere |S SEE cu tay Sig
Nar of bt (Oh ns bn) Gera
coma be Gone ie Cater
‘nye Sal Berns (Check al bere tet app) | Hester ithe
1 bows mnaaien nase USC $0 ee ce pein ea eee
B Dre cdeaiobeceeed el se der See Sars

MUSE. 511210) Opies
‘Statistica Administrative Information (Estimates only)

THs SPACE Is FOR COURT USE ONLY|

Deter ete at ft wil ib fr ibn ued i
1D Deter cae ter ry eos rey ene nd diise pea  l
emotes lil atone ear,
1 ee Wl) maw lane
o @ o oOo oOo
mae Aaa
Se Same Heme wnaie nome Hamme sem
seo Tages “Segms’ “Stee “Homa “Sonn” “Sotanen—sttin
ao “es "oO a a a a
carn
te tibie Oke Rape Hom same SHI Men
ce a a LT
oo ‘fs Go a a a a

er

DEF01919
1100 (c)

PORT Exhil


5955

ecco |Peewe | Ban ce
a esearch Tasks Get Document © sneponrs® Tales Tota itgtr Transaction! Advisor ¥Counse Setector ore

recut Teme secon onprtnents(t-3) BEY howe

Get by LEXSEEO
Sinton: Sa eda set

644 F.2d 351, *; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14089, **

Louis HAMILTON et al., Plaintffs-Appellees, v. Ernest N. MORIAL, Mayor et al., Defendants-Appellants; Louis HAMILTON
et al, Paintifs-Appeilees, v. Ernest N. MORIAL, Mayor of the City of New Orieans et al., Defendants-Appellees; Oliver
HOWARD et al., Plaintiffs-Appeliees, v. C. Paul PHELPS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 80-3392, 81-3111, 81-3146
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FIFTH CIRCUIT. UNIT A
644 F.24 351; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14089,

Aprit 24, 1981

PRIOR HISTORY: [**4] On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant Louisiana Department of Corrections sought a writ of supervisory mandamus in
{an effort to stay further proceedings in federal district courts within the State of Louisiana, for cases dealing with
interrelated issues of unconstitutional overcrowding in the state penitentiary, parish prisons, and parish and city jails.

OVERVIEW: Throughout the state of Louisiana, numerous lawsuits were instigated concerning issues related to
‘unconstitutionally overcrowded conditions in the state prisons for the purpose of protecting the constitutional rights of
inmates in the state penitentiary, parish prisons, and all jalls throughout the state, Appellant Louisiana Department of
Corrections sought to consolidate these actions and sought a writ of supervisory mandamus with the purpose of
staying further proceedings in federal district courts. A panel of the court granted a stay pending appeal and
consolidated the cases. The court granted the writ, finding that appellant had asserted proper grounds for such. The
‘court held that it had jurisdiction to order such a writ as was delegated by Congress. Meeting the requirements of that
‘elegation, the court (ound that it had an independent basis for exercising its jurisdiction to issue the writ and that the
Issuance of such writ would aid in its jurisdiction. The court ordered that all such prison overcrowding cases were to be
heard in one district court in order to achieve uniformity in the application of justice.

OUTCOME: The court granted a writ of supervisory mandamus on behalf of appellant Louisiana Department of
Corrections and stayed further proceedings concerning jall overcrowding when it determined that it had an
independent basis for jurisdiction and that the issuance of such writ would ald In jurisdiction, The court assigned all
related cases, both current and future, to be heard by a designated district court in order to achieve uniformity in
justice.

CORE TERMS: prison, jal, inmate, state penitentiary, overcrowding, transferred, issue writs of mandamus, writ of
mandamus, pending appeal, consolidation, interrelated, Penitentiary, supervisory, overcrowded, coordinated, alleviate,
entertain, prisoners, issuance, maximum, backup, decree, moet, state prisoners, action pending, constitutional rights,
future action, consolidated, assigned, unified

=

LEXISNEXIS® HEADNOTES
‘Process > Remais > wats > wre At

‘Gavecoments > Cours > Graton 8 Organzation
wns See

‘GuiLencsdute > lution > Junsctinal Sources > General var
‘Gi procedure > Remedies > Wats > alLvicss.s ©
‘Sui procedure > Remedies > wits > Common Law Wis > Mandamus
‘nn Under 28 U.S.C.S § 1651, the court of appeals must have an independent basis of jurisdiction for the issuance
‘of @ writ of mandamus and that the writ must issue in aid of that jurisdiction. More Like his Headnate |

“cor fedacomesearch retnieve?_m-690915f8ndRSA27H7091400924PBEBResve“TeBeform-hy Citations fmst-FULLAdosnum2& st. 8312010

DEFO2401
PORT Exhibit 1112



5979

Options for More
Jail Space

future" of the 1990's and beyond. It did state that the
provision of sufficient beds based on the history of
previous years would be a "serious problem for the
governing authorities of Jefferson Parish.” It went on to
suggest that a "long term, yearly updated, planning

“Temporary” Jails

One option for incarcerating prisoners is the use of
facilities such as “ent cities," which are in fact
"temporary" jails. As supplemental housing facilites,
“tent cities" and other modular types of inmate housing
have been erected on or near existing jail sites as a way
to accommodate low-risk inmates. These arrangements
however, have proven to be problematic, In 1983, the
Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff constructed a small
‘outdoor “compound” of tents and 400 beds with the
intention of filling it with municipal prisoners. It
quickly became filled, however, with pretrial detainees.

Although it was intended to be a temporary measure
to help reduce overcrowding, the Orleans Parish Criminal
Sheriff's "tent city” was a continuing fixture of the City
of New Orleans’ correctional system until the new jail
opened in 1994, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff
officials point out the management challenges and
liability issues associated with a “tent city": (1) it is not
casily staffed, (2) itis exposed to the elements, aid ($) it
is usually crowded, Therefore, such a facility contains
elements of confinement which are easily challenged in
court.

Construction
1981 Jail Plan

In 1981 the Jefferson Parish Council contracted with
Guillot-Vogt Associates, Inc., to conduct a jail facility
requirements study that addressed the long-term
correctional needs of the parish. At that time, the
Jefeson Parish adult correctional system had a total
of 428 beds, 302 accredited beds in the
Jefferson Parish Correctional Center and 126 substandard
beds in the old parish prison.

‘The 1981 study recommended a 624-bed addition to
‘the existing 302-bed center, to be completed in 1986.
‘The study estimated the need for an additional 10S beds,
for a total of 1,131, by the end of 1989. These estimates
were based on a straight-line projection of the priot
seven years’ inmate population. The 1981 study
explicitly did not address the jail needs of the “distant

process be initiated now..." (p. 4).

No funds were made available to proceed with prison
construction in the early 1980"s. No construction was
undertaken until 1987, when the parish received $2.5
million in state funds which permitted construction of a
$2.9 million, 176-bed Correctional Center Annex.

‘The Annex was completed in 1989, and the
substandard old parish prison was demolished.
‘Throughout the 1980's, increases in jail space were
made possible by double-bunking (a practice increas-
ingly acceptable to federal authorities), converting a
gymnasium into a 22-bed unit, and adding beds where
possible. By 1989, when the Annex was completed,
Jefferson Parish had 666 parish jail beds.

1991 Jail Plan

In 1991, the Jefferson Parish Council contracted with
Guillot-Vogt and Associates, Inc., once again, to evaluate
the feasibility of renovating existing buildings and/or
constructing a new jail facility. The 1991 study used

inmate population by the year 2000.

The 1991 study considered some eleven alternatives,
from renovating existing warehouses to the construction
of river barges designed for detention and incarceration.
Tt conctuded that construction of a new traditional multi-
story institutional structure in the parking lot adjacent to
the existing facility was the best choice. Criteria
included cost, proximity to the existing complex,
cexpandibility, and floor-plan configuration.

After this site was selected for recommendation, the
proposed number of beds was increased to 700, including
fully building out all five floors. ‘The projected cost of
construction in 1992 dollars was $14.8 million. To
renovate the old kitchen, which serves 700 inmates from
a facility designed for 300, would add another $600,000,
for a total construction and architectural and engineering
fees cost of $15.4 million

In the fall of 1992, the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's
Office proposed a 1/2 cent sales tax for construction and

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—I7

DEF02425


6002

| texisNexis tetsu son ue eet mn | en 2,400
earch Revenrch Tasks Geta Document sheparts® Valens Yta nigator Transactional Advisor T counsel Slector ose oon

recuse Teme TaiegsndyCuons i Sacmin we Rt each gma Ret 8) EID saws
‘Source, News & Susness > Combined Sources > News, All English, Ful Text)
‘Terms, “Banking on Andy Cuomo: HUD Secretary and Alsing” (Est Search| Sunnest Terms for My Search| Feedback on You Search)

Banking On Andy CuomoHUD Secretary and rising Democratic star Andrew Cuomo wants to go places-- assuming he can
eave some baggage behind. The American Spectator January, 1999

Copyright 1999 The American Spectator
‘The American Spectator

January, 1999
SECTION: FEATURE

LENGTH: 5468 words

HEADLINE: Banking On Andy Cuomo

HUD Secretary and rising Democratic star Andrew Cuomo wants to go places:
behind,

assuming he can leave some baggage

BYLINE: Sam Dealey & James Ring Adams.
‘Sam Dealey is TAS's assistant managing editor, James Ring Adams is an investigative writer for TAS.

Boy:

It couldn't have been more straightforward. The Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee had a form. The
form was entitled * Statement for Completion by Presidential Nominees.” The nominee was President Clinton's choice for
housing secretary, 41-year-old Andrew Cuomo, who was to complete the questionnaire and return it before his,
confirmation hearing in January 1997. Simple, no?

Evidently not. One question read: "Give the full details of any civil or criminal proceeding in which you were a defendant,
fr any inquiry or investigation by a Federal, State, or local agency in which you were the subject of an inquiry or
Investigation.” One of the cases he fisted, Smith v. Cuomo, et al, had been brought against him and others by the owner
of a south-Florida savings and loan, alleging an illegal takeover attempt. But Cuomo failed to disclose a later sult, brought
by the SQL Itself, and settied only two months before his hearing. Why? Perhaps because Oceanmark v. Cuomo, etal
revealed that in 1988, federal banking regulators investigated Cuomo and fellow investors for possible change-in-control
violations. The nominee should have listed that investigation, too, in answer to the second part of the question, He did
not.

How serious is this? Reagan White House aide Edwin Meese was investigated by an independent counsel for incomplete
personal financial disclosures. Several Reagan administration officials were prosecuted in the Iran-contra matter for
withholding information from Congress. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has his own special prosecutor, probing the
Question of false statements to Congress. And then there's Cuomo's predecessor at HUD, Henry Cisneros, who resigned in
the face of an independent counsel investigation. The allegation Making false statements to the FBLabout pay-offs fo a
blackmailing mistress during a routine background check

‘The Justice Department apparently has nat investigated Cuomo's responses. But it has looked at him for another reason.
‘The issue: Did Cuomo retaliate against Oceanmark by pressuring the federal agency charged with thrift oversight to close
the S&L? After a preliminary investigation, Attorney General Janet Reno concluded that the standard for appointing an
Independent counse! had not been met. Yet Reno's inquiry was narrowly tailored. Abroader review of Cuomo’s
involvements with Oceanmark reveals serious questions of bank-regulation skirting.

‘Some of Cuomo's fellow investors in Oceanmark are also prominent figures in an array of political and financial scandals.
And the secretary clearly grows anxious when asked about his past business associates and their affairs. HUD lawyers
even threatened a lawsuit when TAS submitted detailed questions.

Most notable among Cuome's past associates is Michael Slutrich, head of the law firm which Cuomo joined as a $150,000-
2-year partner in 1985. Blutrich recenty pled guilty to looting an insurance company in Florida of some $237 million,
Some of which went into a business controlled by the Gambino crime family. Andrew Cuomo would like to play down his
close relationship with Blutricn and dismiss it as a thing of the distant past, but nancial disclosure documents show a
relationship lasting practically to the day of Cuomo's Senate confirmation hearing as HUD secretary in 1997.

‘The Son Also Rises
upon comiresearuretive”_m=9T3aide91c 28484212 Ta2BSite TabResve~bldcformscarhForm&,GnseFULLAoemum=1&_. 8312010
DEF02454
PORT Exhibit 1117


5944

government agency that he was the James Ware who rode the bicycle in 1963. Judge Ware
did state under oath in his 1997 OPM Form 86 that he had a half brother named Virgil Ware.
Judge Ware has credibly stated to the Committee that at various times in his life he came to
believe that he might have had a half brother named Virgil and that he knew that his father had
family members with whom he was unacquainted. Although Judge Ware now acknowledges
that the belief had little if any corroboration, it is not clear that Judge Ware knowingly and
wilfully made a material false statement at the time he completed the OPM Form 86.

For the foregoing reasons, the Committee recommends that the Judicial Council
issue a public reprimand to Judge Ware for falsely misrepresenting in numerous speeches and
interviews that he was the James Ware on the bicycle with a younger brother, Virgil, who was
shot and killed in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963.

Respectfully submitted,

IN Sthawolen —
Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge, Chair
Procter Hug, Jr., Chief Circuit Judge
Alfred T. Goodwin, Senior Circuit Judge
Terry Hatter, Chief District Court Judge,
(C.D. Cal.)
Jobn Coughenour, Chief District Court Judge,

(W.D. Wash.)
Special Investigative Committee

-10-

DEF02390


5853

1993) ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 39

ENFORCEABILITY OF PREPETITION “BAD FAITH” AGREEMENTS

PROF. GROSS: There is one more question I would like to
ask, namely, has there been some pragmatic change in how lawyers are
functioning to address good faith problems? Let me present a hypothetical.
‘Suppose a debtor and a creditor agree in a workout context that should any
Chapter 11 ultimately occur, it will be deemed to be bad faith. Then, they
write that into their out-of-court workout agreement. Suppose then that for any
number of reasons, the out-of-court workout agreement either is not
consummated or if it is consummated there is a default under it. Do you think
those kinds of provisions are enforceable when the single asset Chapter 11 case
is ultimately filed?

A variation on the. theme is that suppose that the debtor and creditor
in this context agree that if a Chapter 11 case is ultimately filed, the stay can
automatically be lifted with no need for a hearing and the lender can just
proceed ahead to foreclosure. Is that kind of lawyering now appropriate? Are
these types of provisions enforceable?

JUDGE FENNING: I don’t think it’s enforceable. You are
dealing with a different entity once the filing has occurred. Different parties
who were not represented at the table at the time that deal was struck, namely
other creditors of the estate, have an interest to be protected. Such an
agreement is certainly admissible as evidence of the intent of the parties on the
issue of whether the filing is in bad faith, but it would be one of several factors
to be considered.

‘And I think it’s entirely appropriate to draft agreements with recitals
about the intent of the parties and all of that kind of thing as evidence that can
later be used, but it’s not binding on the court. Such recitals may be awfully
persuasive, but they are not binding.

PROF. GROSS: But in a single asset case, where there are
very few other creditors, can’t you just sort of say, there aren’t that many of
them to be protected anyway. ‘There may even be none.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: That may be the call. 1 agree with
Lisa, I think it’s good lawyering, but I think once the case is filed, it’s sort of
a public case and it becomes her call or my call as to what’s going to happen
to it, and I want to look at it and 1 want to know. The agreement may be a
factor in deciding whether or not it’s a bad faith filing, but it won't be a per
se bad faith filing just because of the existence of this agreement.

HeinOnline — 1 Am. Bankr. last. L. Rev.39 1993

DEF02286


None
CI

None
a

None

None
I

None
ci

None
w

5808

10. Other transfers

‘2 Uist all other property, other than property transferred in the ordinary course of the business of
financial affairs of the debtor, transferred either absolutely or as security within one year

immediately preceding the commencement ofthis case. (Married debtors fling under chapter 12

or chapter 13 must include transfers by etther or both spouses whether or nat a joint petiton is

filed unless the spouses are separated and a joint pettion

11. Closed financial accounts

List al financial aecounts and instruments held in the name of the debtor or for the beneft of
the debtor which were closed, sold, or otherwise transferred within one year immediately preceding
‘the commencament of this case. Include checking, savings, or other financial accounts,
certficates of deposit, or other instruments, shares and share accounts held in banks, credit
‘unions, pension funds, cooperatives, associations, brokerage houses and other financial
institutions. (Martied debtors fling under chapter 12 or chapter 43 must include information
‘concerning accounts or instruments held by or for elther or both spouses whether a not a joint
petition is fled, uniess the spouses are separated and a joint pettion isnot filed.)

12. Safe deposit boxes

List each safe depost or other box or depostior in which the debor has or had secur
cash. of eter valuables within one year Immediately procading the commancomient of ths case
{Moried debtors fing under chapter 12 or chaptor 12 must Inaude boxes or depostories of ether
Grbcth spouses whether or nota jit pettion Ie fad, unless the spouses are separated and 2
joint petition isnot fed)

13, Setofts

List all setofts made by any erediter, including a bank, against a debt or deposit of the debtor
within 99 days preceding the commencement of this ease. (Married debtors fling under chapter 12
for chapter 13 must include information conceming either or both spouses whether or not a joint
pettion is fled, unless the spouses are separated and a joint petition is not fled.)

14. Property held for another person
List all property owned by another person that the debtor holds or controls.

15. Prior address of debtor

I the debtor has moved within the two years immediately preceding the commencement ofthis
case, lst all premises which the debtor occupied during that period and vacated prio to the
‘commencement of his case. if joint petition is fied, report also any separate address of ether
spouse.

DEFO1944


5851

1993] ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 37

PROF. GROSS: There is a recent article by two law
professors, Lawrence Ponoroff and Stephen Knippenberg,” who suggested
that this good faith debate is really quite misguided and that what we are really
talking about is a discussion of how we feel or how we believe that bankruptcy
law should function.” What Professors Knippenberg and Ponoroff are really
saying is that this whole discussion is really a debate about bankruptcy policy,
not good faith. I'd like your view as to whether or not what we are really
talking about is what is the role and function of bankruptcy law or the role and
function of a Chapter 11. Alternatively, are we talking about a much narrower
issue — good faith?

JUDGE MARK: I think there’s policy issues here. The
Phoenix Piccadilly case 1 have talked about in the 11th Circuit is applied more
readily by some judges than others to knock out single asset cases. When
applied in the extreme, I think it does get into almost a policy decision by
judges that Chapter 111 shouldn’t be used by equity when it's just equity against
‘a secured creditor. But I think other than when applied in the extreme, { still
believe most of us that deal with these single asset cases and put them on a
short fuse or require a quick showing that there is a reorganization that’s
feasible are consistent with what I believe to be the policy of allowing single
asset cases to be filed and giving them a chance to reorganize. Again, it's just
a matter of timing.

SANCTIONS FoR GooD FAITH

PROF. GROSS: If there is a finding of bad faith, do you think
that sanctions are warranted and if so, what should the range of those sanctions
be and against whom should they be brought?

JUDGE HILLMAN: It depends upon the circumstances.
‘There is no bard and fast rule, I have denied sanctions in cases where there
was a possible basis for the filing, even though I didn’t accept it.

TM Lawrence PonorafT & F. Stephen Knippenberg, The Implied Good Falth Filing Requirement: Sentinel
of en Evolving Bankruptcy Policy, 85 N.W. U. L. REV. 919 (1991).
fd. a 973-974.

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 37 1993

DEF02284


5927

JUDICIAL COUNCIL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT F | L E D

In Complaints of Judicial Misconduct
No. 00-80018 SEP! 4 2009

No. 00-80045
CATHY A CATTERSOS
Us. counr ee tee

Report and Recommendation of the Special Committee

This Report is submitted to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Judicial Circuit by
the Special Committee appointed by the Chief Judge to investigate the claims of judicial
misconduct filed against Senior District Judge Alan A. McDonald of the Eastem District of
Washington. The Report is made pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) and the Rules
of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct or
Disability ("Misconduct Rules"). The procedural history of these complaints and the events
surrounding them are set forth in Part I, below; the findings of this Committee are set forth in

Part Il; and the reasons for the Committee’s recommendation are set forth in Part II.

‘This investigation was initiated when the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit entered
an order on February 3, 2000, identifying a complaint of judicial misconduct. The order recited
that the complaint against Judge McDonald was based on "the allegations detailed in several
recent news stories that the judge made disparaging comments about people in his courtroom."
Beginning in January 2000, newspapers had reported that Judge McDonald and his courtroom
deputy had exchanged a series of notes in court, commenting about litigants and lawyers. Some
of the quoted notes were interpreted in newspaper reports as being disparaging to A frican

‘Americans, Hispanics, Mormons, Jews, and Chinese people.
Pursuant to Misconduct Rule 4(e), Judge McDonald was afforded an opportunity

to respond to the complaint. Judge McDonald noted that most of the notes were made public by

his former court reporter, who had been terminated by the district court some years earlier and

DEF02373


5844

30 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

dischargeable in a Chapter 7 case or the Chapter 7 case that is filed to get rid
of a state court defamation judgment that you didn’t likeTM®

JUDGE HILLMAN: In a broad sense.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I agree. I think the standards almost
have to be the same. It’s just that Chapter 11 single asset cases are so much
different than any other fact pattern. I do not think it is a helpful question or
comparison.

JUDGE MARK: 1 would disagree, in part. In the 11th
Circuit, as the law developed and as it’s been applied, and this goes back to
the objective versus subjective analysis of a debtor’s filing. I have looked
debtor principals in the eye and said, I am not saying you are a bad person.
I am not finding that you are evil or that are acting subjectively in bad faith,
but objectively, under these criteria, you are gone in shorthand.

JUDGE FENNING: I have been known to say that, too.

JUDGE MARK: So to go back to your question, I don’t think
that it’s necessarily in terms of bad faith or absence of good faith in other
sections of the Code where you may be focusing more on actual proof of bad
intent, which we don't really need to find in the 11th Circuit under the Phoenix
Piccadilly test.

PROF. GROSS: The reason I raised this whole line of
inquiry, and it may not be one with which you all agree, is that there are cases
involving individual debtors as opposed to corporate debtors where the good
faith issue is raised early and then the courts say you ought to be much more
reluctant to dismiss those cases initially on an implied good faith standard since
the philosophy of the Code is to let people have access to the system in the
first instance.” The Courts go on to say, at least in the context of a Chapter
13, that good faith can be raised later in the context of the plan — where good
faith is specific. What seems to be said here about single asset real estate

% See supra oases 45.
7 See Im re Love, 957 F.24 1380 (Tih Cir. 1992); In re Ristic, 142 B.R. 856 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1992);

In re King, 131 B.R. 207 (Banke. N.D. Fla. 1991); In re Powers, 135 B.R. 980 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1991).
#11 U.S.C. § 132500).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr Inst. L. Rev. 30 1993

DEF02277


5801

pat
oo

nre: Gabriel T. Porteous..Jr, ___CarmellaA Porteous __.
Deo

SCHEDULE H - CODEBTORS

Check this bax If debtor has no codebtors,

Cameo. 1.12362 Section “AY —_
{ft toew)

[NAME AND ADDRESS OF CODEBTOR

NAME AND ADORESS OF CREDITOR

DEF01937


5818

Inve Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmella A. Porteous Case No. 01-12383 Section “AY
496-84-1308 434.78.3002 Chapter 43,

. Brie Cisins, (Unsecured claims erie to prorty under 11 U.S.C. § 507 shall be paid in fila folowe.)

Priogery — PAYMENT SCHEDULE — TOTAL
CLAM
CREDITOR PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH paywents

. Separate Clas of Unsecured Claims, (May include co-signed debts as provided for by 11 U.S.C. § 101, inching interest at contract rat)

CREDITOR & UNSECURED

GLASSIFICATION cla — PAYMENT SCHEDULE — TOTAL
RATE PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH — paywents,

F. Unsecured Crestor, (A other crctore not scheduled above are deemed unsecured without oraty and thal’be pad pro rata trom funds

remaining wher of above scheduled claims, Debtor estates the unsecured cas fo otal S 193,035.83, and proposes to provide least

$589,107.14 wich wl pay nfl said erecitor cline, orn no event, provide w composition percertage of ess than 27.51%. (Funds

Proved Unsecured Cha)

6. in Akane, (Detar ited fe aman, pruart ie Bankue Re 4003) oak rorgoeesetr,

"7 sed in
‘hoocured sat, pryooe cf he pl we ning pon cota, basen al eave ree

1. Lenses and Contracts, The Debtor herby assumes the floving uneped leses and eeciory contacts, areca ches

NAME OF CREDITOR DESCRIPTION
Chrysler Credit Corporaiton 2000 Jeep Cherokee
(Chrysler Credit Corporaiton +2000 Jeep Cherokee

|. Miacelsneous Provisions,

Debtors assume the vehicle leases with Chrysler Credit.

4. Secured Clan - Paid directly by debtors), The folowing cradles’ clsie are ful secured, salle pal rect by the deblor, and receive no
payments under paragraph 3 above:

CREDITOR COLLATERAL, MARKET VALUE AMOUNT OF CLAIM
NONE

‘5 Future Income, Debtor(s) submis future eamings or other future income fo such supervision and cont ofthe Truste as is necessary forthe
‘execution of fis Pan,

6. Sunn Taton Prcenan se Purrs 28 SC § 580), he Ary Gane canton whe ted Sate Tre, st
percentage fee not to exoeed tan percent of paynents mace fo creditors by the Trust under the tenne of tis Plan.

‘Chapar13 Pl -Poge 20

DEFO1959


5938

Judge Ware left Alabama in the mid 1960s to attend college in California.

He remained in California throughout college and law school, graduating from Stanford Law
School in 1972. Judge Ware states that he has no recollection of ever representing to anyone
during that period that he was the brother of the murdered Virgil Ware, and there are no
reports of any public statements by him to that effect. He states, however, that his college
roommate went on a visit with him to Alabama in 1968 and, according to Judge Ware, his
roommate recalls hearing him say during that visit that he probably had a half brother named
Virgil.

After graduating from law school in 1972, Judge Ware went into private
practice, The first public speech he recalls referring to the 1963 tragedy was a public forum in
1973. Judge Ware states that in researching civil rights history for that presentation he found
a description of Virgil Ware’s death. He read the description to the group. He concluded the
presentation with what he recalls as an ambiguous statement that “this James Ware stands with
you today committed to civil rights.” Judge Ware realized that, although his statement was
made for dramatic effect, it could have given the erroneous impression that Judge Ware was
the James Ware who was on the bicycle in 1963, Although Judge Ware states that he regrets
giving that impression, he did not take any steps to correct it. The meeting in 1973 was not
publicly reported.

Judge Ware was confirmed to the district court bench in 1990. The Committee
has found no evidence that Judge Ware ever told anyone involved with his 1990 nomination
and confirmation to the district court about the 1963 tragedy in Birmingham or that anyone
involved in that process had any knowledge of any misrepresentations Judge Ware made prior

to 1990 about that episode.

DEF02384


6025

Long told CNSNews.com that her group had obtained a copy of

the memorandum from an undisclosed source--and was convinced of its
authenticity. The copy of the memorandum attached to JCN's letter to the
Judiciary Committee is signed by a three-person task force of the Puerto
Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) that included
Sotomayor.

Long said that in her Senate questionnaire Sotomayor had accurately
disclosed the fact that she worked for the PRLDEF from 1980 to 1992, and
held high-ranking positions with the organization.

‘She also truthfully listed on the questionnaire an April 10, 1981 letter from
PRLDEF to then-New York Gov. Hugh Carey, opposing reinstatement of
the death penalty

“But what she omitted, and what is far more substantive and revealing,”
Long told CNSNews.com, “is the underlying policy memorandum that she
‘and two other task force members sent to the board of the Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund with all their reasons for opposing the
death penalty, and arguing for the organization itself to take the stand that it
Ultimately did take in its leer to Gov. Carey.”

The memo that Sotomayor signed makes a number of “controversial,
unsupported, and badly reasoned assertions” about the death penalty,
Long added.

‘The memo, titled “Task Force on the Bill to Restore the Death Penalty in
New York State,” and dated March 24, 1981, states:

"An impressive array of highly respectable organizations have (sic) taken
2 public position opposed to the restoration of death penalty. All the major
religious organizations have issued public statements opposed to it”

~n the review of the current iterature of the past two years, no
Publications have been found that challenge the evidence and the rationale
presented in opposition to the death penalty

“Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society. The
‘number of minorities and the poor executed or awaiting execution is out of
proportion to their numbers in the population.”

~"The problem of crime and violence in American society is so complex, it
is unreasonable to think that capital punishment will result in preventing it
| or diminishing it."

itp eww ensnews.comnewsartcl/49218

‘Sotomayor Overturned Prison Regulations to
Allow Santeria-Practicing Convicts to Wear Be

‘Senate Democratic Leader: ‘if I'm Fortunate,
Won't Have To Read One" of Sotomayor’s
Judicial Opinions

‘Sotomayor Ruted Fish Must Be Protected from
Power Plants Regardless of Cost-Benefit analy

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped
Down Reverse Discrimination Casein One-
Paragraph Opinion

Department of Justice Wont Say if Kagan Too!
Full Pay After She ‘Ceased Full Dties as Solicr
General

Senate Republicans Demand Answers from kag
‘on Whether She Must Recuse Herself from
Constitutional Challenges to Obamacare

Sen, Specter: ‘appropriate’ for Kagan to Recus
Herseif From Cases on Which She Took Forma,
Position’ As Solicitor General

Leahy, Sessions, Send Competing Messages on
Kagan

Related Videos

‘Obama, in Senate, Gave Littl
Respect to Court Nominees, §
Sen Sessions

Senate Democrat Leader Hop
‘to Never Read a Sotomayor
Opinion

Sen. Brawn Says Constitution:
Power to Mandate Health
Insurance mm Same Place as
Medicare

sny2010
DEF02477


5838

24 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

PROF. GROSS: Or the new debtor syndrome. In essence,
you are lumping single asset cases into various discrete categories.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: Well, the lawyers are going to want
to lump them in categories. I guess to a certain extent they are susceptible to
some type of categorization. Again, each one is usually so different that it’s
not fair to the parties to lump them entirely into one group.

JUDGE HILLMAN: The judges in the District of
Massachusetts started with Little Creek and then developed a list of 14
characteristics. The best place to find it is In Re Village Green Realty
Trust,” which is a Judge Gabriel decision in 1990, and he lists fourteen
factors, which I can either read to you, or I can put them in a footnote,
however you want to handle it, but they are there.”

Now, what most of us seem to be doing with that list is you count up
how many of the fourteen they have hit and if they hit enough, they move.

PROF. GROSS: Would seven or more satisfy the test?

JUDGE HILLMAN: I don't know. In In re Thane,” which
I decided about four or five months ago, | said that ten out of fourteen did it.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: But it's not fair to you on a
case-by-case basis to have to set a limit like that to say that it needs to be more
than fifty percent. If the case is so egregious, if you will, that one factor
outweighs all the others, you just need to consider all the remaining factors or
to look at their potential application to make sure of your decision. It is
appropriate to give different weight to the various factors.

% 113 BLR. 105 Bankr. D. Mans. 1990).

11 Jd. wt 115-16, Lit of fourteen characteriaics: Debtor hes few or 90 unsecured creditors, previous
filings, pre-petition improper conduct; the petition effectively allows the debice to evade court orders, few
debts to n0n-moving creditors; the petition was filed on the eve of foreclosure; the foreclosed property
the sole of major asset; the debtor has no ongoing business or employees, no possibility of reorganization
the debtor's income is not sufficient to operate; no pressure from nos-moving creditors; reorganization
‘essentially involves the resolution of a two-party dispute; a corporate debtor was formed and received title
to ite major assets immediately prior to fling; and/or the deblor fies solely to create the automatic say.
a.

2 143 BR. 310 (Bankr. D. Mase, 1992).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev.24 1993

DEFO2271


6024

{ St Louis: Mom tums $97 into $6039
‘We investigated and found ob that can ear youS77/hr
from.
Consumer News Reports om

&
‘ew Equifax comm

Keep up with your credit files!
‘Check your scores and reports from Experian, TransUnion

News

| oistews rv

Commentary | cartoons | About Us

Home » News = Politics

Sotomayor Failed to Disclose to Senate Memo in Which

She Argued Death Penalty Is ‘Racist’
Friday, June 05, 2009
Winn,

By Pe

(CNSNews.com) — The Jucicial
Confirmation Network (ICN) says
Judge Sonia Sotomayor filed to
disclose to the Senate Judiciary
‘Committee a controversial docurnent
arguing thatthe death penalty is
“racist" and a violation of the present
“humanist thinking of society

‘The 1981 memo, they say, should
have been disclosed as required under
Question 12 (b) of the questionnaire that the Supreme Court nominee
tumed in Thursday.

of he Whe House In
Weshnglon (AP Pratthen Brandon)

Question 12(b) requires a nominee to “(s)upply four (4) copies of any
reports, memoranda, or policy statements you prepared or contributed to
‘the preparation of on behalf of any bar association, committee, conference,
cr organization of which you were or are a member or in which you have
participated.”

JON Counsel Wendy Long sent. letter Friday to Senate Judiciary
Chairman Patrick Leahy (0-VL) and members of the committee arguing
that Sotomayor had not property complied wit this requirement because
she had not submitted the 1881 memo on capital punishment.

“itis... clear that (Sotomayor) has omitted controversial materi
past in which she asserts that (cJapital punishment is associated with
‘evident racism in our society’ and advocated public opposition to restoring
the death penalty in New York state,* Long wrote to the committee.

rpinoewcensnews commen slarocll49218

sutscrte | donme | Rex

Free CNSNews.com Dally E-Brief

Enter your email to start recelving daily
‘CNSNews.com stories in your Inbox!

CNSNews.com Toolbox

Print article

ek above
‘Subscribe to CNSNews.com

i CNSNews.com News Ticker

|g Usten to Commentary Podcasts

Join CNSNews.com on:

Founding
«  Prineiples

Related Articles

Cornyn to Vote against Sotomayor

Pro-Sotomayor Repubtican Senator: “We Cann
ake Every Supreme Court Vacancy a Battle C
Our Cutture"

saino.
DEF02476

PORT Exhibit 1124


5804

Form Bes
(630)
Inre_ Gabel, Porteous, Carnes A Porteous

‘case io, 0112989 Section “A”

Destor (inom)
SCHEDULE J - CURRENT EXPENDITURES OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR(S)

[Chock this boxit joint ptiion is led and debtor's spouse maintans w saparate household. Compote a caparata

schedule of exandtures bead "Spous’
Rent home margage payne (nice kt reed for mabie hone)
‘Are rea exe tse included? Yo _¥ No
'spropery Insurance etude? Ys 7
ules Eleticy and eating fuel

Water and sever

Telephone

Other

Home malntenance (repairs and upkeep)
Food

Clothing
{und and ry elsaing
Medial and dental epenses.
“Transporation (not inctucirg car payments)
Recreation, cbs and enfetainmert, newspapers, magazines
(Chattable contrition
Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in home mertgege payments)
Homeoaners or raer's
Ute
Heath
‘Auto

Other

“Tones (rot dade from wages or included in hone motgage payments)
(Specty)

lnstatinan yea! (i Ghaplt 2 end TS cases, do nol ll payment fo be ncuded inthe plan)
‘Ato

$ 330.00

Other Second Car Laat 8 7330.00

Second Mortgage on Family Home s 495.00

‘Agmony, maintenance or suppor paid to others s 0.00
Perma emp wel pert eg Ya hoe $ 706.00
Regular frm operation of 3 rf (atach detaled $ 0.00
Other Cable Television, s 45.00
TOTAL MONTHLY EXPENSES (Report leo on Summary of Schedules) $ 6,580.00

IFOR CHAPTER 12 AND 13 DEBTORS ONLY]

Prove iferaton elo ing whether plan payments ee fo be made week, month, annual, or at
‘re era nanel “oo

A Total projected manthl income
8, Total projected morihty expenses
. Excess income (A minus 8)

Total amount tobe pl ito plan each Monthly

7,531.52

6,580.00
951.52

875.00

‘aera

DEF01940


5925

FILED

SEP 41 2000

‘CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

FOR THES NINTH CIRCUIT

)
In re Charge of )
) No. 00-80018
) No. 00-80045
) ORDER AND
) MEMORANDUM
)

Judicial Misconduct

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER, NELSON, TASHIMA and
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, HOGAN, EZRA and
SINGLETON, Chief District Judges, and KEEP,
District Judge. ~

On February 3, 2000, a complaint of judicial misconduct
was identified by the chief judge against District Judge Alan A.
McDonald. On April 4, 2000, a separate complaint against Judge
McDonald was received and filed. The complaints were
consolidated on April 26, 2000. Administrative consideration of
such complaints is governed by the Rules of the Judicial Council
of the Ninth Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct
or Disability (Misconduct Rules), issued pursuant to the Judicial
Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.
28 U.S.C. § 372(c).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c) (4) (A) and Rule 4(e), the
chief judge appointed a special committee to investigate press
reports (and the subsequent complaint) alleging that the judge
wrote and passed notes that made disparaging comments about
people in his courtroom. This matter comes before the Council

upon the filing of the special cowmittee’s report.

DEFO2371
PORT Exhibit 1111 (j)


5871

improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of
justice." Among other things permitted by Canon 4, “[a] judge
may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other
activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the
administration of justice.” Canon 4{A). The Commentary to Canon
4 states:

[ala a judicial officer and person specially learned in
the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute
to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and
the administration of justice, including revision of
substantive and procedural law and improvement of
criminal and juvenile justice. To the extent that the
judge's time permits, the judge is encouraged to do so,
either independently or through a bar association,
judicial conference, or other organization dedicated to
the improvement of the law.

canon 4 Commentary. “{T]o qualify as a Canon 4 activity, the
activity must be directed toward the objective of improving the
law, gua law, or improving the legal system or administration of
justice, and not merely utilizing the law or the legal system as
& means to achieve an underlying social, political, or civic
objective." Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee
on Codes of Conduct, Advisory Opinion 93, Extrajudicial

ivities 4 and 5, § 3 (1977, last revised Oct.
1998). Because “judicial participation in Canon 4 activities is
actively encouraged [, ] a judge will be given greater latitude
when participating in extrajudicial activities expressly covered
by Canon 4," id. at § 2, but, when an activity is “politically
oriented,” Canon 4 activities are construed “narrowly,
restricting them to activities that are most directly related to
the law and legal process,” id. at { 13.

A judge may attend or speak at an event even if it is
sponsored by a group that has an identifiable political or legal
orientation or bias. It does not follow therefrom that the judge
is an adherent of the group’s political or legal mission, or a
fellow traveler. See Judicial Conference of the United States,
Committee on Codes of Conduct, Compendium of Selected Opinions, §
4.5(k) (2001) ("A judge who is a member of the American Bar
Association is not regarded as personally supporting positions
taken by the Association without the judge’s involvement.");
Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Codes of

Conduct, Advisory Opinion 93, Bxtrajud: vities Und
Canons 4 and 5, § 12 (1977, last revised Oct. 1998) ("a judge may

remain a member of a bar association which takes controversial
positions on policy issues so long as the judge abstains from

6

DEFO2317


6064

BAIL JUMPING ui

4| Own Fugitive

Surety Fugitive

Surety FTA

0 5 1
Propensity Score

Ficure 2.—Failure-to-appear and fugitive rates by own recognizance versus surety treatment
plotted against p-scores,

their own recognizance or surety bond. The slope of each line indicates the
direction and strength of the effect of observable characteristics on selection
in that treatment. The difference between the own-recognizance and surety
lines at any given propensity score is an estimate of the treatment effect,
controlling for observable characteristics. The difference is roughly constant,
which indicates that despite some mild selection, the treatment effect is
roughly independent of observable characteristics.

For both the own-recognizance and surety treatments, PTA rates decrease
as the propensity for being in the surety treatment increases. That is, FTA
rates decrease as observable characteristics move in the direction of predicting
surety release. The decline is gentle; moving from a near-zero propensity to
a near-one propensity reduces the FTA rate by approximately 5 percentage
points. The effect is sensible if we recall that many FTAs are short term—
the defendant forgets the trial date or has another pressing engagement. These
sorts of FTAs are likely to be more common for defendants with observable
characteristics that predict low p-scores because judges release most defen-
dants on their own recognizance and reserve surety release for defendants
accused of more serious crimes. Few people will forget to show up for their
murder trial, but some may do so if the trial involves a driving offense. At
the same time, however, we expect that defendants accused of more serious
crimes—who have more to lose from being found guilty—are more likely

DEF02622


5953

counsel due him under the sixth amendment to the United States

Constitution--a right Magistrate Dunsmore had a duty to protect.

Fourth, in asking Mr. King, when court reconvened at
6:25 p.m. on March 31, to explain what had happened-~in effect,
to show cause why he should not be cited for criminal contempt--
Magistrate Dunsmore exceeded his authority. He knew that, under
28 U.S.C. § 636(e), all that he could do--if he thought that Mr.
King's conduct in not providing associate counsel to cover the
injunction hearing that morning constituted criminal contempt--
was to certify the facts constituting the contempt to the
district court.

In summary, the Judicial Council concludes that Magistrate
Dunsmore in dealing with Mr. King's inability to appear, or to
obtain counsel to appear for him, at the March 31 injunction
hearing exhibited a degree of insensitivity for the rights of a
member of the Bar and his clients, that cannot be tolerated.
There was no reason whatever for taking Mr. King into custody.
If it was not clear to Magistrate Dunsmore that he was taking
some drastic action against Mr. King in the matter, it should
have become clear when the Marshals Service informed Magistrate
Dunsmore that it would have to place Mr. King in handcuffs and
chains if it carried out his directive to seize Mr. King and
bring him to Savannah. When he instructed the Marshals Service
to proceed, Magistrate Dunsmore in effect, if not in fact,
directed the Marshals Service to handcuff and chain Mr. King and

to subject him to the personal and public humiliation he

8

DEF02399


5825
GOOD FAITH: A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION

The following is a Roundtable Discussion of good faith issues in
bankruptcy by four distinguished bankruptcy judges: Hon. Lisa Hill Fenning,
Hon. William Greendyke, Hon. William Hillman, and Hon. Robert Mark.
The discussion was moderated by Prof. Karen Gross of the New York Law
School, a member of the Board of Directors of the American Bankruptcy
Institute and the Advisory Board for this Law Review. The editors express
their appreciation to the judges and Prof. Gross for their generous donation of
time and effort to this project.

PROF. GROSS: Let me begin this RoundTable discussion by
introducing our distinguished participants: The Honorable Lisa Hill Fenning
from the Central District of California; the Honorable Robert Mark from the
Southern District of Florida; the Honorable William Hillman from the District
of Massachusetts and the Honorable William Greendyke from the Southern
District of Texas. I want to begin this discussion by first providing a brief
contextual overview.

Issues of good faith are arising with increasing frequency in cases
under the Bankruptcy Code. Although the Code contains explicit references
to good faith, for example, sections 303, 542, 921, 1129 and 1325, among
others,’ courts have increasingly scrutinized cases to determine if there is an
implied standard of good faith in cases which have been filed.” Indeed, even

' See 11 U.S.C. §§ 303@)(2), 542(c), 542(4), 921(€), 1129(a)@), 1325(a)(@) (1992); see also 11 U.S.C.
$$ 109()S)B), 363¢m), 364(c), 548(c), 549(c), S501), 550((Z), 550(6)(1), 727(AH9)BYG),
1113()(2), 1114(Q), 1125(€), 1126(€), 1144(1), 1225@) (1992).

* Chapter 7: Industrial Ins. Servs. v. Zick (fn re Zick), 931 F.2d 1124 (6th Cir. 1991); see also In re
Krohn, 886 F.2d 123 (6th Cie. 1989); In re Khan, 35 B.R. 718 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 1984); John A. Majors,
In Re Zick: Chapter 7's Good Faith Threshold Standard, 23 U. ToL. L. REV. 583 (1992).

‘Chapter I1: Little Creek Dev. Co. v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. (In re Little Creek Dev. Co.),
779 F.2d 1068 (Sth Cir. 1986); In re Aurora Inv., 134 B.R. 982, 985 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1991) (“{I}t is now
established beyond peradventure that the court may di ‘Chapter 11 case for cause if the court finds
the Petition was filed in ‘bad faith.'"); In re Victory Constr. Co., 9 B.R. $49 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1981),
modified, 22 B.R. 597, vacated as moot, 37 Bankr. 222 (9th Cir. 1984). See infra note 7 (listing more
recent decisions).

Chapter 12: Schuldies v. United States (fn re Schuldies), 122 B.R. 100 (D.S.D. 1990); in re Bird, 80
B.R. 861 (Bankr, W.D. Mich. 1987).

Chapter 13: In re Love, 957 F.2d 1350 (7th Cir. 1992); In re Earl, 140 B.R. 728 (Bankr. N.D. Ind.
1992); In re Powers, 135 B.R. 980 (Bankr. C.D. Cal re King, 126 B.R. 777 (Bankr. N.D. Dl.
1991); In re Roberts, 117 B.R. 677 (Bankr. N.D. Okl. 1990); Jn re Gaudet, 95 B.R. 4 (Bankr. D.R.I.
1989).

i

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 11 1993 DEF02258


5866

ORIGINAL

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF
THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 04-8529
In re No. 04-8530
CHARGES OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT. No. 04-8541
No. 04-8547
No. 04-8553

Memorandum and Order

Before:

The Judicial Council of the Second Circuit.

In June, July, August, and September 2004, five complaints of
judicial misconduct were filed against a circuit judge of this
Circuit ("the Judge”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 and the Rules
of the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Governing
Complaints Against Judicial Officers ("the Local Rules").

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 353(a) and Local Rule 9, Acting
Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs (designated following the recusal of
Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr.) appointed a special committee to
investigate the allegations in the above-referenced complaints.
The special committee ("the Committee”) consisted of the Acting
Chief Judge, Circuit Judge Joseph M. McLaughlin, and District
Judge Carol'B. Anon of the Eastern District of New York.

Michael Zachary, a supervisory staff attorney for the Court of
Appeals, was appointed counsel to the Committee pursuant to Local
Rule 10(c). The Committee submitted a report to the Judicial
Council of the Second Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 353(c) and
Rule 10(e) of the Local Rules. The report was based on a

1

DEFO2312
PORT Exhibit 1111 (b)


6035

post-gazette.com

FES saucy

Culture of Corruption Il

‘What happened to Obama’s promise to clean up Washington?

‘When in the last election Democrats spoke of a "culture of corruption” in Washington, few realized ‘they were making a.
promise

‘The Obama administration is not yet three weeks old but already features a growing collection of ethically challenged
officials.

‘The late-night comics have noticed, "There was a huge scientific breakthrough today," said Jay Leno. “Researchers say they
are very close to finding someone from Obama's Cabinet who's actually paid their taxes."

‘Mr. Leno was referring to former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whose nomination for secretary of health and
human services was withdrawn after it was disclosed that he dida't pay $101,000 worth of taxes owed for a car and driver,
(of $83,000 on consulting income, and Timothy Geithner, who was confirmed as treasury secretary despite his failure to pay
payroll taxes for four years.

Hours before Mr. Daschle withdrew his nomination Tuesday, Nancy Killefer withdrew hers as chief compliance officer
‘when it was revealed thatthe District of Columbia had placed a lien on her Wesley Heights mansion for failure to pay
‘unemployment compensation tax for a household employee.

Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif, the nominee for secretary of labor, apparently violated House rules by failing to disclose she was
an officer of a group lobbying Congress.

Eric Holder was confirmed as attomey general despite having circumvented Justice Department rules ~- when he was
deputy attorney general in the waning days of the Clinton administration -- to obtain a pardon for fugitive financier Marc
Rich, In a 2002 report, the House Government Operations Committee described Mr. Holder's behavior in the Rich affair as
“unconscionable.”

On Jan. 6, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew as the nominee for secretary of commerce when it was disclosed
that the FBI was investigating him in connection with a "pay-to-play” scandal.

Gov. Richardson was, many think, President Obama's second choice. Mr. Obama was thought to have wanted to name
Penny Pritzker, his eampaign finance chairman, to the commerce post, but feared that doing so might bring unwelcome
scrutiny to her role in the subprime mortgage crisis. (Ms Pritzker pioneered the nefarious instruments at her now defunct
Superior bank in suburban Chicago.)

President Obama on Monday chose Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire for the commerce post, Soon
‘Wednesday we leam that Mr. Grege's former legislative director was tangentially involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

“The most recent candidate in the malleable ethics sweepstakes is Ron Sims, chosen Monday to be deputy secretary of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. As King County (Seattle) executive, Mr. Sims was fined $124,000 for
blatant” violations of Washington state's public records act for failure to release documents having to do with the financing
of the stadium where the Seattle Seahawks play. Last month the state Supreme Court said the fine should be increased

Congress has tumed an indulgent eye to these ethical lapses because there are many in Congress who are guilty of the same,
cor worse, Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., remains chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee despite his failure to pay
taxes on $75,000 in rental income, and — according to a report issued Wednesday ~ repeatedly failing to comply with
congressional financial disclosure rules.

npr post gazette corvpe/09039/917430.573 stm sni2010
DEFO2487

PORT Exhibit 1125


6065

112 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

to purposively abscond. If this is correct, we ought to see a positive correlation
between the surety propensity score and the fugitive rate conditional on
having failed to appear.

‘The two upward-sloping, thicker lines plot smoothed fugitive rates against
the surety propensity score. As before, the slope of the plots gives the di-
rection and strength of effects caused by selection on observable character-
istics, and the vertical difference is the treatment effect for any given pro-
pensity score. As observable characteristics move in the direction of a greater
propensity to be selected for surety release, the fugitive rate increases. It is
interesting to note that the effect of selection on defendants released on surety
bond is less than that on defendants released on their own recognizance (that
is, the “slope” of the plot is less). This suggests that the surety treatment
works well even for those defendants whose observable characteristics would
predict higher ETA rates.

‘We examine the issue of unobservable characteristics at length below, but
since selection by observable characteristics has litle influence on fugitive
rates, Figure 2 already suggests that observables would have to be very
different from observables in order to greatly affect the results.

E. Kaplan-Meier Estimation of Failure-to-Appear Duration

The higher rate of recapture for those released on surety bond compared
with other release types can be well illustrated with a survival function, For
a subset of our data, just over 7,000 observations, we have information on
the time from the failure to appear until recapture (return to the court). A
survival function graphs the percentage of observations that survive at each
time period. We estimate a survival function for each release type using the
nonparametric Kaplan-Meier estimator. Typically, the Kaplan-Meier esti-
ator is used only for preliminary analysis and is then followed by a para-
metric or semiparametric model. Although parametric and semiparametric
models allow for covariates, they require sometimes tenuous assumptions
about functional form, Instead, we follow our earlier approach of creating
matched samples. Thus, using the same procedure, we create three matched
samples: surety Versus own recognizance, surety versus deposit, and surety
versus cash. We then compare the survival function across each matched
sample. The matching procedure ensures that covariates are balanced across
the matched samples, 50 it is not necessary to include additional controls for
covariates.

Figure 3 presents the survival functions. In each case, the survival fiction
for those released on surety bond is markedly lower than that for those
released on their own recognizance, deposit bond, or cash bond. The ability
of bail enforcement agents relative to police to recapture defendants who

DEF02623


5957

‘To this time, the Courts have limited relief from unconstitutional overcrowding to prohibitory injunctive measures. The
Louisiana legislature, which is now in session, is the political body which can and [**5] should deal affirmatively to
effect critically needed changes in the entire system. The legislature is in the best position to determine whether and
where to provide additional inmate housing or whether and how to establish alternatives to imprisonment for non-violent
offenders or both. Working with a single Court will enable the executives charged with administration of these institutions
to best advise lawmakers where constitutional minimums will require changes. The magnitude and seriousness of the
problem bring with them a chellenge to Louisiana to lead the nation in finding the best answers. Consolidating all court
Bctions allows the issues that will not go away to te squarely faced without harassment,

Congress has given this court authority to issue writs of mandamus: "MFA courts established by Act of Congress may
‘sue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law." 28.U.S.C. § 1651.

‘This court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for supervisory writ of mandamus in these cases because of the
necessity to achieve proper judi administration in the federal system, [**6] LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co. 52 US.
0. 3 nson, (th Gir. en banc

$575) Bauman Sar Sy # 2a o50 (ath Ca-IS7E Wnght Miler, Cooper & Gressman, Federal
Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction § 3934; 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 110.28, This situation is one that Involves
extraerainary creumstances which permit extraordinary action. Koshring Co-v, Hyde Const Cu, 282 865,

4 "A part ofthe extraordinary nature of what is before us is the compelling need to settle a
new issue so that I can become only an ordinary issue." Une Stas v Hushes, 412 F.24-1248, 1249 (Sth Cit. 1968),
vacated as moot, 397 U.S. 93, 90 S. Ct. 817, 25 L. Ed,

Nz [#354] Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court of appeals must have an independent basis of jurisdiction for the
Issuance of a writ of mandamus and that the "writ must issue “in aid of that jurisdiction.” Wright, Miller, Cooper &
Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction § 3932 at 188. The first requirement is met here. While the
plaintiffs argue that the appeal in No. 81-3146 [**7] Is moot and that the order appealed from is non-appealable, there
Is no dispute that we have independent jurisdiction in the other causes, Further, we will be able to entertain appeais in
Howard v. Phelps at some future stage af the proceedings. Thus, we have power "in proper circumstances ...to issue writs
of mandamus reaching” that case. LaBuy v, Howes Leather Co.,'352 U.S. 249, 255, 77 S. Ct. 309, 313, 1 L.Ed, 2d 290,

1296.(1957). That the issuance of the writ will aid our Jurisdiction Is certain. That it will enable the district court to make
and us to evforce a just and consistent judgment in these interrelated cases is equaly certain. No ather adequate means
's available to attain the relief desired. Allied Chemice (01 S.C. 188, 66 L.Ed,

93 (1960), Te coordinated procedures we must require here cannot be achieved rh review in the Course of
Subsequent appeals. In r ntainer Antite E,

‘To achieve justice under the circumstances, * our order must extend to every court under our supervision wherein the
problem exists or may arise. We direct any United States district {**8} court in the Fifth Judicial Circuit which now has
{an action pending before itor in which a future action may be filed seeking to alleviate crowded conditions in the
Louisiana State Penitentiary, or any prison or jail operated or maintained by any political subdivision of the State of
Louisiana which is or may be affected directly or indirectly by an order of a United States district court limiting inmate
population, to transfer such pending or future action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana. The Chief Judge of that court is directed to cause all such actions pending in or transferred to his district to be
‘assigned to a single judge for consideration and disposition. The judge to whom such actions are assigned may determine
‘whether all or any part of such actions shall be consolidated for hearing or disposition and whether any portions of such
actions not dealing with or affected by limitations on inmate population should be transferred back to the district from
which it was transferred,

FOOTNOTES

a "Nhe Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or
reverse any judgment, decree or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review, and may remand the cause and
direct the entry of such appropriate judgment, decree, or order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may
be just under the circumstances.” 28 U.S.C, § 2108.

191

Senos: Get by LEXSEE®
Gator: 64a 12a 351
‘View Full
DaterTine. Tuesday, August 31, 2010-8:44 AM EOT

+ Sigal Log
BP era Neasive resents inate

[+ Questioned: Valaty questioned by cing refs

bp: lexis com/esearhictreve?_m-€909{5fa8ad85a2767319140092d0Ssesve~leefoem-byCitation®,fmnst-FULLAdocmum=14 st. 871

DEF02403

010


5993

Sources Consulted

‘American Bar Association. Just Solutions: A Program Guide to Innovative Justice System Improvements. 1994,

Ashburn, Kevin. Regional Director, American Correctional Association, Department of Accreditation and Standards.
Telephone Interview, February 9, 1994.

Baiamonte, Sohn V. Jr., Ph.D., An Evaluation of Division "S" (Drug Court) of the Twenty-Fourth District Court,
Jefferson Parish, LA. 1993.

——. "Holland v. Donelon Revisited: Jail Litigation in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 1971-1991." The Prison
Journal, Fall-Winter, 1990.

——. Letter to Jefferson Parish Council Chairman Robert B. Evans, Jr. February 14, 1992.
——. Letter to Jefferson Parish Council Chairman Robert B. Evans, Jr. February 7, 1993.
——— Letter to Jefferson Parish District Attorney John Mamoulides. August 10, 1992.
——. Letter to Jefferson Parish Sheriff Harry Lee. September 11, 1992.

Bottoms, Rod V. Corrections Specialist, National Institute of Corrections. Telephone Interview, February 9 and June
22, 1994,

Brown, Richard. Director of Program Development, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court. Telephone Interview,
May 24, 1994. _

Burke, Emmet, et al. Jail Population Management: Diagnosing and Predicting Occupancy Levels. March 1973.
Center for Urban Analysis. Jail Overcrowding and Decisionmaking. Office of the County Executive, Santa Clara,
CA. May 1987.

Cooper, Keith W., "Pretrial Bond Supervision: An Empirical Analysis with Policy Implications." Federal Probation,
September 1992.

de la Houssaye, Richard. Director of Business Development, Corrections Corporation of America. Telephone
Interview, January 5 and June 6, 1994.

Geaither, Richard. Corrections Specialist, National Institute of Corrections. Telephone Interview, June 22, 1994.

Geerken, Michael R. Chief Administrative Officer, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff's Office. Telephone Interview,
Sune 3, 1994.

Jait Population Growth in New Orleans: A Projection for the 1980's, A Planning Document. Orleans Parish
_ Criminal Sheriff's Office. November 1983.

Goerdt, John A., and Martin, John A. "The Impact of Drag Courts on Case Processing in Urban Trial Courts." State
Court Journal (1989), 4-12.

lefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—31

DEF02439


5983

‘Administration of Criminal Justice) may also aid in
development of a system of information accessible
to and usable by all interested parties.

‘No one government official or entity has the clear
and undivided responsibility for constructing (or
otherwise securing) and funding the operations of
the facilities needed by elements of the criminal
justice system (such as facilities for detaining
pretrial defendants, courtrooms, and space for
housing sentenced offenders).

This condition is the result of the state legal
structure which gives various parish criminal
justice officials responsibility for operating their
facilities while it obligates the parish governing
authority to provide those facilities. The state law
authorizing the establishment of law enforcement
districts with independent taxing power exacerbates
the tensions and difficulties of the divided
responsibilities.

Compounding the absence of clear and undivided
authority for various elements of the criminal
justice system, there is no single entity with the
authority or the ability to coordinate policy-making,
decision-making, and funding for "system" needs.

‘The resources across the system—resourees of. . 4
personnel, technology, and facilities—are unevenly
distributed and in a number of cases inadequate to

the task.

Numbers of personnel are inadequate in probation
and parole and indigent defense. Technology and
preparedness for use of it are inadequate in the
istrict court and indigent defense. Facilities are
inadequate for safety and security in the courthouse
‘and for detention and other activities (such as
lawyer visitation) in the parish jail. Sanctioning
options are limited at all levels.

‘The district court system (1) lacks a unified
management approach and performance standards
that are consistent from division to division and (2)
has made inadequate use of modem technology,
both in its own management and in reporting to its
overseers and the public.

Although the separate divisions are established in
state law for the purpose of election of judges only,
the judges often function as separate and

independent officials. No local mechanism exists
for requiring district-wide standards and reporting
to the public on performance.

+ There is no clearly-stated community poticy on
‘what classifications of suspects and sentenced
offenders citizens want and are willing to pay to
have held behind bars, nor is there any mechanism
for devising such a policy that would be binding on
all the decision-makers and operators in the system.
Because of the magnitude of increasing costs of
incarceration, safe but lower-cost alternatives to
traditional jails and prisons continue to be sought
statewide and nationally and should be considered
locally.

Voters have been asked twice in the last two years to
approve a sales tax for and they have
voted down these requests—one from the sheriff and one
from the parish counci!—both times. The very nature of
these proposals reflects two of the major problems with
‘the criminal justice system in Jefferson Parish.

The first is the unavailability of reliable information,
‘openly arrived at, on which to base public policy
recommendations and decisions. BGR’s difficulty
securing the timely, voluntary release of data on the jail
population from the responsible officials is a reflection
of the unavailability of such information. The second
problem is the divided auth« and responsibility, in
state law, for providing and operating parish detention
facilities. ‘The fact that the sheriff placed the first
proposal on the ballot and the parish council, the second,
is a reflection of continuing struggles over areas of
responsibility and legal authority.

Need for Information

There are two fundamental sets of information needed
to make decisions about the adequacy of jail facilities
and, thus, the need for more or different ones. The first
is a detailed analysis of the jail population, such as that
described by the National Institute of Corrections and the
National Institute of Justice (Local System Assessment
and Alleviating Jail Overcrowding). The other is an
analysis of case flow throughout the entire criminal
justice system, for the purpose of identifying specific
points at which delays and inefficiencies cause
‘unnecessary increases in the jail population

‘Neither of these fundamental sets of information, as a
complete set, is currently available in Jefferson Parish.

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—21

DEF02429


5843

1993] ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 29

JUDGE FENNING: In state court you have demurrers right
away. There are equivalents elsewhere.

JUDGE MARK: But in the run of these typical cases, and
where I put them on a very short fuse is where they filed on the day or the day
before the sale and the sale has been canceled. In Florida, that means at least
a 30-day delay. So the mortgagee is losing at least a month and the question
is how much time — how much extra time are they going to get by filing a
Chapter 11, if any?

And I don’t think we are setting a tougher standard than the state
court. In these cases they have already lost in state court. Those of us who
give them some time and have some flexibility still recognize there is a
imate purpose and right to file a single asset Chapter 11 case, even if you
have exhausted your remedies in state court, but you better be prepared to do
something meaningful very quickly.

Do STANDARDS OF Goop FAITH IN SINGLE ASSET CASES DIFFER FROM
OrHer Cases UNDER THE CODE?

PROF. GROSS: Let me ask all of you the following: are the
standards for good faith in a single asset real estate Chapter 11 case any
different from the standards for good faith in any other Chapter 11 case or any
other chapter of the Code for that matter? In other words, is this standard that
you have been articulating unique to single asset Chapter 11 cases or is it one
you would apply to the panoply of good faith issues that are raised in all sorts
of other cases and contexts?

JUDGE FENNING: I don’t think it’s unique to single asset
cases. The only difference is that we all have a lot of experience with
repetitive fact patterns in single asset filings that permit us to draw inferences
and see patterns much more readily than, say, in a manufacturing company
case. 1 think the basic standard is the same.

PROF. GROSS: Do the rest of you share Judge Fenning’s

view that it is the same basic good faith standard for the Chapter 11 that
involves mass torts, or the Chapter 13 filed to get rid of claims that would be

HeinOoline ~ 1 Aro, Bankr. Ins. L Rev. 29 1993

DEF02276


6056

BAIL JUMPING 103

TABLE 1
Mean FaILURE-TO-APPEAR RATES BY RELEASE CATEGORY, 1988-96

Own Deposit Cash Surety Emergency
Recognizance Bond Bond Bond Release

‘wn recognizance 26 (20,984) S** od or

Deposit bond 260s} 1

Cash bond 20 (2,482) 3

Surety bond 17 [9,198] 28

Emergency release 45 [584]

‘Nore. —Meanfailure-to-eppear (FTA) rates (ia %) for release categories, rounded tothe nearest integer,
tae slong the main disgonal wih the number of observations in square brackets. OfT diagonal elements
ae the ‘perwecn the mean FTA rate for dhe row category and dhe mean FTA rate fo the coleman
category.

> Statistically significant at the greater than 1% level

statistically significant at greater than the 1 percent level). Put slightly dif-
ferently, compared with surety release, the FTA rate is approximately 18
percent higher under cash bond, 33 percent higher under deposit bond, and
more than 50 percent higher under own recognizance.

Table 1 also presents some information on emergency release. Emergency
releasees are defendants who are released solely because of a court order to
relieve prison overcrowding. Emergency release is not a treatment—the treat
ment is own recognizance—but rather an indication of what happens when
neither judges nor bond dealers play their usual role in selecting defendants
to be released.” One would expect that relative to those released under other
categories, these defendants are likely to be accused of the most serious
crimes, have the highest probability of being found guilty, and have the
fewest community ties. In addition, these defendants have neither monetary
incentive nor the threat of being recaptured by a bounty hunter to induce
‘them to return to court. As a result, a whopping 45 percent of the defendants
who are given emergency release fail to appear for trial. The large differences
between the FTA rates of those released on emergency release and every
other category indicate that substantial and successful selection occurs in the
decision to release. Emergency release is thus of some special interest, al-
though not directly related to the focus of this paper.

‘Although the preliminary data analysis is suggestive, the difference-in-
means analysis could confound effects due to treatment with effects due to
selection on, for example, defendant characteristics such as the alleged crime.

» Even under emergency release, some selection can occur. Judges and jailers, for example,
could order that more inmates be paroled to make room for the most potentially dangerous
accused defendants, inmates could be shipped out of slate, or the court order could be (tem-
porarily) ignored. The costs of selection, however, clearly rise substantially when jail space is
tighlly constrained.

DEFO2614


5867

Council of the Second Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 353(c) and
Rule 10(e) of the Local Rules. The report was based on a
thorough review of the complaints, the evidence submitted by the
complainants and by the Judge, the relevant canons and
authorities, and responses from the Judge written at the
invitation of the Acting Chief Judge.

All five complaints present one or more misconduct claims
concerning the substance of the Judge’s June 19, 2004 remarks at
an American Constitutional Society convention event (*the ACS
remarks"); one complaint further alleges that speaking at that
convention, without regard to the substance of the remarks,
constituted prohibited political activity; and one complaint
further alleges misconduct inferred from certain statements
alleged to have been made by the Judge’s wife at a May 23, 2004
political demonstration at Yale University.

r

The ACS remarks at issue were made after a panel discussion
entitled “The Election: What’s at Stake for American Law and
Policy.” The Judge spoke from the floor as a non-panelist. The
remarks and context are as follows:

Okay, I’m a judge and so I’m not allowed to talk
politics and so I’m not going to talk about some of the
issues which were mentioned or what some have said is
the extraordinary record of incompetence of this
administration at any number of levels, nor am I going
to talk about what is really a difficult issue which is
the education issue, which is an incredibly complicated
one, which I’m glad you talked about. I’m going to
talk about a deeper structural issue that is at stake
in this election, and that has to do with the fact that
in a way that occurred before but is rare in the United
States, that somebody came to power as a result of the
illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had
the right to put somebody in power, That is what the
Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody
in power. Now, he might have won anyway, he might not
have, but what happened was that an illegitimate act by
an institution that had the legitimate right to put
somebody in power. The reason I emphasize that is
because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini
was put in by the King of Italy, that is, the King of
Italy had the right to put Mussolini in though he had
not won an election and make him Prime Minister. That

DEF02313


6071

118 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

gether, the evidence suggests that we have good estimates that surety release
reduces ETA rates, survival times, and fugitive rates.

VII. Concuusions

When the default was for every criminal defendant to be held until trial,
it was easy to support the institution of surety bail. Surety bail increased the
number of releases relative to the default and thereby spared the innocent
some jail time. Surety release also provided good, albeit not perfect, assurance
that the defendant would later appear to stand trial. When the default is that
every defendant is released, or at least when many people believe that “in-
nocent until proven guilty” establishes that release before trial is the ideal,
support for the surety bail system becomes more complex. How should the
probability of failing to appear and all the costs this implies, including higher
crime rates, be traded off against the injustice of imprisoning the innocent
or even the injustice of imprisoning the not-yet-proven guilty? We cannot
provide an answer to this question, but we can provide a necessary input to
this important debate.

Defendants released on surety bond are 28 percent less likely to fail to
appear than similar defendants released on their own recognizance, and if
they do fail to appear, they are 53 percent less likely to remain at large for
extended periods of time. Deposit bonds perform only marginally better than
release on own recognizance. Requiring defendants to pay their bonds in
cash can reduce the FTA rate similar to that for those released on surety
bond. Given that a defendant skips town, however, the probability of recapture
is much higher for those defendants released on surety bond. As a result,
the probability of being a fugitive is 64 percent lower for those released on
surety bond compared with those released on cash bond, These finding in-
dicate that bond dealers and bail enforcement agents (bounty hunters) are
effective at discouraging flight and at recapturing defendants. Bounty hunters,
not public police, appear to be the true long arms of the law.

DEF02629


5902
As to the propriety of Respondent’s hearing cases prosecuted by the United States
Attorney’s Office in light of his prior employment by that office, guidance is provided by

Canon 3(C)(1)(e) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges which requires

disqualification when:

[T]he judge has served in governmental employment and in such capacity
participated as counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the
proceeding or has expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the
particular case in controversy.‘

This is amplified by §3.3.3(b) of the Compendium of Selected Opinions of the Committee
of Codes of Conduct’ That section states:

A judge who formerly served as Assistant or Deputy United States Attorney
should recuse from all cases involving matters with which the judge came
in contact during the judge's tenure, or for which the judge bore some
responsibility, but need not recuse from cases in which the judge did not
participate. Similarly, a judge who participated in investigation of a defense
contractor need not recuse from unrelated cases involving the contractor,
where the subject and issues are completely unrelated.

Accordingly, there is no blanket prohibition which would require Respondent to
disqualify himself from all cases in which the United States Attorney’s Office is involved.

Instead, he must make a determination concerning recusal in each individual case in

“ The language of this Canon mirrors that of 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3) which requires
automatic disqualification if any of the listed situations exist.

$ The Compendium is a summary of selected published and unpublished advisory
opinions issued by the Committee on Codes of Conduct.

5

DEF02348


5976

difficulties of access to defendants are compounded
‘when those defendants are held out of the parish.

Tnadequate time for preparation due to heavy
caseloads is also a problem for the indigent defender
system statewide, as indicated in the 1992 Spangenberg
study of the state system and the 1994 Report of the
Task Force on Indigent Defense. °. . [Tyrials are
delayed, cases retried, convictions improperly plea
bargained, und, in some cases, prisoners released because
of the lack of or the ineffectiveness of indigent defense
counsel” (p.9).

‘The Task Force found that the current system as 2
‘whole is "significantly underfunded” and that the current
funding structure should be revised because itis unfairly
structured, volatile, and uneven across districts, Effects
of inadequate indigent defense financing and manage-
‘ment include inadequate representation of both capital
murder and other defendants, delays in trials, improper
plea bargaining and costly retrials.

In response to recommendations from the Task Force,
the 1994 fiscal legislative session authorized $5 million
to fund a temporary statewide indigent defender board.
The State Supreme Court on July 1, 1994, promulgated
‘an emergency rule establishing the temporary board.
This board is to set guidelines and standards for the
‘unified and effective operation of a comprehensive
indigent defense system for the state. It is to present

1 plan to the legislature before March 1995 for the
continuation of a statewide board and is to provide
advice on sources and levels of funding.

Probation and Parole * -

While not as directly involved in the movement of
cases through the system as the other entitites discussed,
the Office of Probation and Parole (part of the state
Department of Public Safety and Corrections) is notable
for having established measurements of workloads that
are different from a simple count of cases. The
probation and parole agents in Jefferson Parish are sbove
the workload required by Louisiana law and established
by professional association standards, Statewide, agents
are 40 percent above the workload required by state law.

The Courts

The number of criminal cases filed in district court in
Jefferson Parish has fluctuated throughout the past ten
‘years, as shown in Exhibit 4. The proportion of criminal
to civil cases decreased in 1984 and 1985. Criminal
cases as a proportion of total cases filed started to rise
again in 1986 and have increased every year. While the
umber of criminal trials in 1993 was less than in 1983,
the proportion of criminal trials was higher in 1993. See
Exhibit 5.

—
24th Judicial District Court 24th Judicial District Court
Cases Filed 1983-1993 Jury Trials 1983-1993.

°
4983 1985. 1987 1988 1991 1993 © 4983 1985. 1967 1989 1901 1093
{MiCivilCases Filed ©iCriminal Cases Filed) (BACivil Jury Trials EiCriminal Jury Trials |
Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5

14—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

DEF02422


5905

judicial Misconduct and Disability. Nothing has been demonstrated in this complaint
which approaches those types of circumstances. Therefore, consideration of
Complainant’s allegations of delay is not appropriate in a judicial misconduct proceeding.
Accordingly the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii)
and (iii).

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica
Chief Judge

DEF02351


5812

Ine: Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmella A. Porteous, ase No, 01-12363 Section "A"
436-84-1366 434-78-2092 Chapter 13,
. Pilrty Cains, (Unsecured cams ented to pronty under 11 U.S.C. § 507 shal be put nfl as flows.)

Prony — PAYMENT SCHEDULE — TOTAL
CREDITOR PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH avenge

. Separate Cless of Unsecured Clas. (May inchide co-signed debt as proved for by 11 U.S.C. § 1301 inching intrest at contract rte.)

CREDITOR & UNSECURED
CLASSIFICATION CLAM — PAYMENT SCHEDULE — TOTAL
RATE PAYMENT MONTH LENGTH payyents

F. Unsecured Credo, (A other creditors ret scheduled above are deemed uncesired without roy and ehal be pald pre at rom furs
remalrng ake peymart of shove ochuled cama. Oebiorextmates th unsecured cine to ota 8 193/093.93, and proposes to prove at least
{2,280.00 which wl py nl sad credo‘ clone, orn no even, provide a compost pecertage offs than 14.63%. (Funda

Provded/Unsecuted Chins)

G Liteon, (Del rend fea moon, pursuant Bark Rude 400%) rk tl ongoescesny,nonpuchane money
secur irterests and jude ene we proved by 1 U.S.C. § 522(), and the plan eran provides for paymert of such lens as genera
«aims ely. Any crea chim or potion thereof not std in paragraph C above i o be Lette as unsecured and, uniess objected to, such
‘unsecured status, or purposes of his plan, wil be binding upon confirmation, but the Han shall eurvive unless avoid.

H. Lenzes end Contracts, The Debtor hereby assumes the flowing unexpired leases and wnecutory contacts, and rejects al thers.

NAME OF CREDITOR DESCRIPTION

‘Chrysler Credit Corporaiton 12000 Jeep Cherokee

Chrysler Credit Corporatton 12000 Jeep Cherokee
|. Mizoaianeous Provisions,

Debtora assume the vehicle leases with Chrysler Credit.

4, Secured Cains Pal directly by debtors). Tho flowing crestor clas are fuly secured, shal be pad eecty by the deblor, and receive no
payments under paragraph 3 above:

CREDITOR COLLATERAL MARKET VALUE AMOUNT OF CLAIM

NONE
5, Future Income, Debiors) submits al future earings or oer future income to such supervision and cot of the Trustee as is necessary forthe
‘excutin ofthis Plan.

6. Standing Tostee Percentage Fee, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § S86(eK.8), the Atorey Genera, far consutation with the United States Trustee, sets
eroentage oe fol to exceed lan percent of paymenta made to credtors by the Trasive under the es ofthis Pla,

(Chapoe13Pln-Page 223
DEFO1948


5937

The Committee conducted an investigation which included review of the
available print media articles, correspondence received by the Chief Judge and Judge Ware
concerning the misrepresentations, and interviews with Judge Ware, Mr. James Ware of
Birmingham, and District Judge U. W. Clemon of Birmingham. The Committee also
reviewed the transcripts of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on both Judge Ware’s
district court and circuit court nominations, as well as the “Questionnaire for Sensitive
Positions” (OPF Form 86) that he submitted in connection with each application.

TL

‘The most comprehensive information about the facts underlying the subject
matter of the complaint is possessed by Judge Ware. In its review of Judge Ware’s written
statements, its personal questioning of him under oath, and interviews of other affected
individuals, the Committee found no significant inconsistencies or disagreements about the
origins of Judge Ware's admitted misrepresentations, their nature, the manner in which they
came to public light, and what Judge Ware did by way of making amends to the family that
suffered the tragic loss of Virgil Ware in 1963.

Judge James Ware was born in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1946. His immediate
family included an older sister, a younger sister, and a brother, Webster. While he was
growing up, he heard his father discuss the existence of other relatives in the Birmingham area
named Ware. At the time that Virgil Ware was killed in 1963, Judge Ware stated that he was
struck by the similarity of ages between himself and his brother, Webster, and between
Virgil Ware and James Ware. After his mother’s death, Judge Ware learned that his father
had had a second family in the Birmingham area. Judge Ware stated that he came to believe
that he may have been related to the Virgil Ware who was killed in 1963.

3.

DEF02383


5960

Major funding for this project was provided by
The Jefferson Business Council

Michael C. Sport, Chairman
Dr. Russell J. Protti, Executive Director

BGR Board of Directors

Diana M. Lewis, President

Paul M. Haygood, Vice President William L, Marks
Edgar L. Chase Ill, Secretary Rev. Harold R. Mayberry
George H. Porter Ill, M.D., Treasurer James W. McFarland

W. Anderson Baker IT Ralph R. Miller

Reginald Barnes Anne M, Milling

Raphael Cassimere, Jr. P. J. Mills

Linda L. Dennery Robert J. Monroe

Stanley E. Ellington, Jr. Joel G, Myers

Robert M. Foster Gregory M. O’Brien
Louis M. Freeman Roger W. Peck

Ronald J. French, M.D. Michael O, Read

Howard C. Gaines Harrison C. Spencer, M.D.
Wayne J. Lee F. Walker Tucei, Jr.
Kathryn J. Lichtenberg Leonard Vance Wormser

BGR Review Committee

Paul M. Haygood, Chairman

Stanley E. Ellington, Jr. Roger W. Peck

Ronald J. French, M.D. George H. Porter, III, M.D.
Howard C. Gaines D. Brent Wood

Dorothy J. W. Klyce Diana M. Lewis, Ex officio
James C. Brandt Rhonda S. Fontenot
Executive Director Executive Assistant

Mary Anne Barton Scott C. Griffith

Research Associate Research Associate

DEF02406


5788

Value of Property

1" Mortgage Balance
2nd Mortgage Balance
Homestead Exemption

Real Estate Commission (6% on 1* 100k, 4% on bal.):

Sales Price:

Less Real Estate Commission:

Less Closing Costs:

Less 1* Mortgage

Less 2nd Mortgage

Homestead Exemption

‘Trustee’s Commission (25% on 1" $5k; 10% on bal. Up to $50K,
5% on bal. Up to $1M; 3 % over $1M)

Total Equity for Estate

DEF01924


5987

Courts
Parish Courts

Jefferson Parish has two parish courts, First Parish Court
‘on the parish's eastbank and Second Parish Court on the
parish's westbank, both created in the 1960's (RS. 13:2561.1fF
and 2562.1ff), These courts have civil jurisdiction concurrent
‘with that of the district court in cases involving $10,000 or
Jess. They have criminal jurisdiction concurrent with thet of
the district court except for capital crimes or offenses
punishable by imprisonment at hard labor. Since there is a
separate juvenile court in Jefferoon Parish, the parish courts
there have no juvenile jurisdiction.

Each parish court currently has two divisions, that is, t¥o
clected judges who serve terms of six years. Their salaries are
determined and paid by the governing authority of the parish
and supplemented by the state. The sheriff or his deputy
‘serves all writs and processes issued by the parish courts, and
the district attorney prosecutes the criminal cases. The court
reporters’ salaries are determined and paid by the goveming,
authority of the parish but may be supplemented from the
Judicial Expense Fund for the Parish Courts, upon en banc
decision of the judges. Traffic hearing officers were
‘uthorized for these courts in 1981; one is used only in First
Parish Court.

The judges of parish courts may in all cases assess a court
cost of not mare than ten dollars, to be transmitted to the
governing authority ofthe parish and used for an automatic «
case reporting system established in 1984. These judges must
Impose a service charge of seven dollars per fling, to be
forwarded to the parish department of finance for purposes of
acquisition, construction, equipment and maintenance of any
judicial faciiy, and payment of bonded debt. The Parish

neil has control over this fund and may by erdinance, with
concurrence of the judges, reduce the amount of the service
charge.

District Court

‘The Parish of Jefferson composes the Twenty-fourth
Judicial District, which since 1991 has had sixteen judges, or
divisions. District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil
and criminal matters and have appellate jurisdiction as
specifically provided. The legislature establishes the number
of judges, or divisions, for each judicial district. The "separate
and distinct divisions” are "forthe purpose of nomination and
‘lection of judges only” (R.S. 13:582). Each district, except in
Orleans Parish, organizes itself for the handling of both civit
‘and criminal matters. In the Twenty-fourth Judicial District,
16 judges hear both types of cases. A separate Drug Court
and a "Bad Check Cour are both presided over by additional
{judges appointed by the State Supreme Court.

Magistrate Court. All persons arrested in Jefferson
Parish must have a bail hearing within 72 hours of their ares.
‘Since 1991, this intial appearance has been before a magistrate
appointed by the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court. The
‘magistrate conducts hearings in a room atthe jail every
‘weekday moming. Persons arrested for a crime that does not

Jefferson Parish Expenditures 1993

Criminal Justice System
Office/Agency Amount (S)
JPSO, including parish 47,696,894
Correctional Center
District Attormey 5,069,915
Indigent Defender Board 1,033,069
Clerk of Court 9,733,052
24th Judicial District Court 4,850,158
‘4st and 2nd Parish Courts 2,856,671
Probation and Parole 1,380,047
Juvenile Court 2,241,197
Dept. of Juvenile Services, 4,473,562
including Rivarde Detention
Center
Criminal Justice Coordinating 421,553
Council
Municipal Law Enforcement (est) 12,000,000
Parish Miscellaneous Judicial 2,508,436

TOTAL 193,664,554

NOTE: 1993 amended budget figures for all agencies but
the Indigent Defender Board (1993 adopted budget) District
‘Atfomey (1992 audited figures), JPSO, Cletk of Court and
‘Twenty-fourth Judicial Diskict Court (1993 audited figures),
Municipal law enforcement figures from Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council and BGR calculations.

« Table A-t

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—25

DEF02433


5920
9S-F- 372-/0

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
WALTER cumminas SEVENTH CIRCUIT
208 Sour OcannonN StAEET
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60604

FOR MAY 7TH RELEASE TO THE MEDIA
May 7, 1985

Honorable Charles B. McCormick
United States Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of Illinois
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Judge M-Cormic!

As I advised you by letter on May 1, the Judicial Council
of the Seventh Federal Circuit has completed an investigation
of a written misconduct complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(1)
concerning your conduct of ‘the Wisconsin Steel Company Chapter
11 reorganization proceedings in which Taternational Harvester
Co. filed a claim of $146 627,830 against the bankrupt estate.
Subsequently, debtor Wisconsin Steel Company filed a
counterclaim against Harvester alleging fraud in Harvester's
sale of Wisconsin Steel to Envirodyne Industries, Inc. These
proceedings are numbered 80 B 03766 through 80 B'03773 and
Adversary No. 81 A 0442, and still pend in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

On March 29 of this year, I advised you that in the
investigation of the complaint, the following documents were
reviewed: correspondence from District Judge John Grady
concerning this matter; the transcript of the January 22, 1985,
proceedings before you; the transcript of proceedings later
that day before Judge Grady; Harvester's motion to disqualify

ou and for other relief filed on that sane date; your January
25) 1985, reply to that motion; Judge Grady's order and
memorandum opinion of March 6, 1985, disqualifying you from
further participation in the Wisconsin Steel Company case,
ordering its reassignment to another bankruptcy judve, and
ordering you and Wisconsin Steel's counsel to list other orders
similar to those you issued on November 18, 1982, and January
7, 1985, and involved in the complaint.

On March 27, 1985, you advised the district court that your

December 3, 1981, order in the Wisconsin Steel Company case
might have been issued under similar circumstances to the
November 18, 1982, and January 7, 1985, orders. At the same
time, Wisconsin Steel's counsel advised Judge Grady that your
December 3, 1981, order requiring parties other than

DEFO2366
1111



6074

BAIL JUMPING 121

tiple Treatments under the Conditional Independence Assumption.” IZA
Discussion Paper No. 971. Bonn: IZA, December 1999.

Lechner, Michael. “Programme Heterogeneity and Propensity Score Match-
ing: An Application to the Evaluation of Active Labour Market Policies.”
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Paper No. 647.
St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen, Swiss Institute for Intemational Eco-
nomics and Applied Economic Research, 2000.

Lecky, George. “Police Name ‘200 Most Wanted."” Cincinnati Post, Sep-
tember 5, 1997.

Lee, Henry K., and Howe, Kenneth. “Plan to Clear Backlog of Warrants:
Santa Clara County Offering Amnesty to Some.” San Francisco Chronicle,
January 12, 2000.

Leuven, Edwin, and Sianesi, Barbara. “PSMATCH2: Stata Module to Perform
Full Mahalanobis and Propensity Score Matching, Common Support
Graphing, and Covariate Imbalance Testing.” Statistical Software Com-
ponents, No. $432001. Boston: Boston College, Department of Economics,
2003. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001. html.

Myers, Samuel L., Jr. “The Economics of Bail Jumping.” Journal of Legal
‘Studies 10 (1981): 381-96.

National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies. Performance Standards
‘and Goals for Pretrial Release.” 24 ed. Wauwatosa, Wis.: National As-
sociation of Pretrial Service Agencies, September 1998.

Prendergast, Jane. “Warrant Amnesty Offered for 1 Day.” Cincinnati En-
quirer, November 19, 1999.

Reynolds, Morgan. “Privatizing Probation and Parole.” Pages 117-28 in
‘Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science, edited
by Alexander Tabarrok. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Romano, Jay. “Defendants Increasingly Skip Bail.” New York Times, De-
cember 22, 1991.

Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B. “The Central Role of the Pro-
pensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects.” Biometrika 70
(1983): 41-55.

Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B. “Reducing Bias in Observation
Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score.” Journal of the
‘American Statistical Association 79 (1984): 516-24.

Rubin, Donald B. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized
and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66
(1974); 688-701.

Rubin, Donald B. “Assignment to Treatment Group on the Basis of a Co
variate.” Journal of Educational Statistics 2. (1977): 1-26.

‘Thomas, Wayne H., Jr. Bail Reform in America, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1976.

Toborg, Mary A. “Bail Bondsmen and Criminal Courts.” Justice System
Journal 8 (1983): 141-56.

DEF02632


5928

had filed suit against Judge McDonald and the Clerk of Court. The suit was dismissed. The

notes were released to a reporter shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari review.

Thereafter, on March 21, 2000, the Chief Judge filed with the Council an order
appointing this Special Committee, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(4)(A) and Misconduct Rule
4(©), to investigate the charges in the Order Identifying a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct and

to make a report and recommendation to the Judicial Council.

On April 4, 2000, a second complaint of judicial misconduct was filed. The
complainant was the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund ("MALDEF"). The
complaint alleged that "Judge McDonald’s remarks and his tolerance of offensive comments by
staff" constituted conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration’of the
business of the courts. The MALDEF complaint referred to the same news articles referenced in
the original complaint. On April 26, 2000, the Chief Judge entered an order consolidating the
two complaints, pursuant to Misconduct Rule 4(j).

The Committee conducted an investigation, which included review of the
available print media articles, review of a series of notes written by Judge McDonald or his staff,
correspondence from Judge McDonald and his counsel concerning the notes and the allegations
of misconduct, a meeting with Judge McDonald and his counsel, an interview with a
representative of MALDEF, and interviews with and review of written materials from a number
of judges, current and former court personnel, and local attomeys. in all, 18 people were

interviewed in person or by telephone.

During the course of the investigation, the Washington State Bar Association

issued a statement criticizing Judge McDonald for allegedly writing disparaging notes in court,
and Representative John Conyers introduced a Congressional resolution condemning Judge
McDonald for “bringing the appearance of improper racial, ethnic and religious bias upon the

federal judiciary.”

DEF02374


6026

~"Our present perspective on the meaning of our values in the Judeo-

Christian tradition, and the state of humanistic thinking in the world judge
capital punishment as a violation of those values.

~'It is counter-productive; we inflict death on the offender to manifest our
‘opposition to his inflicting death on another.”

It creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender and hisiher
family.”

‘The document was signed by Solomayor and the other two members ofthe
task force Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, SJ, and Jorge Batista

(On Friday aftemoon, a Washington Post.com story cited Fitpatrick as the
“driving force behind the document,” but failed to report that
Sotomayor was required to disclose the document to Congress ~

but didn't

“Itis certainly a significant omission from her Senate questionnaire that is
Clearly called for by the terms of Question 12(b),” Long added

Long said the memorandum provides “an important data point to flesh out
the picture of Sotomayor that is emerging from her other writings, speeches
and judicial opinions—a hard-eft liberal judicial activist, much more akin
Philosophically to Justices Wiliam Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, than to
Justice David Souter.”

“In other words, what she’s saying in this memo is that everybody agrees
‘with this: that the death penalty is racist, that there's no other view, that it
completely violates the Judeo-Christian position-all of these are highly
controversial positions that are certainly contradicted by other evidence,”
Long told CNSNews.com,

‘Sotomayor is President Obama's pick to replace Souter, who is retiring
from the bench.

‘The White House announced Thursday that Sotomayor’s Senate
questionnaire had been retumed “in record time” for a Supreme Court
nominee.

“I don't know ithis is a Tom Daschle-type vetting failure on the part ofthe
White House, or whether it was potentially an intentional omission to try to
rush this confirmation through without such controversial documents seeing
the fight of day.” Long said

nope crsnows commens/eiclel49218

sata010
DEFO2478


5934

After due consideration of the special committee’s report, the
Council adopts the findings and recommendations of the committee majority and
attaches as a part of this order that report and a dissent. For the reasons stated by
the committee majority, the Council reprimands Judge Ware for his conduct,
having concluded that such conduct is prejudicial to the effective administration
of the business of the courts.

This order shall be made public. 28 U.S.C. § 372(c)(6)(B)(vi);
Misconduct Rule 14(f)(1).

Dated this 5% day of August, 1998.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge Michael R. Hogan, Chief District Judge
David R. Thompson, Circuit Judge Edward J. Lodge, Chief District Judge
Thomas G. Nelson, Circuit Judge Judith Keep, District Judge

Barry Silverman, Circuit Judge David A. Ezra, District Judge

Retr Bh, Sy.

Procter Hug, Jr., Chief Judge, Nifth Circuit Courts

DEF02380


5827

1993] ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 13

When the good faith issue is raised in single asset cases, most
frequently by creditors, although sometimes by the courts sua sponte, there is
little consensus among circuits or even districts as to what constitutes good
faith and how it should be applied.

This Round Table discussion is intended to elaborate on these issues
and more particularly, to probe the meaning of good faith in single asset
Chapter 11 cases. To get the discussion underway, let me pose my first
question.

* Pleasant Pointe Apartments, Lid. v. Kentucky Hous. Corp., (Jn re Pleasant Pointe Apartments, Lid
139 B.R. 828 (W.D. Ky. 1992) ((iling of Chapter 11 petition found to be in bad faith for a single asset
debtor facing state foreclosure action). Court cited indicia of bed faith enumerated in Litle Creek Dev. Co.
v, Commonwealth Mortgage Co. (In re Little Creck Development Co.), 779 F.24 1068 (Sth Cir. 1986) and
Carotin Corp. v. Miller, 886 F.2d 693 (4th Cir. 1989). Court determined that debtor filed petition to hold
single asset hostage rather than to reorganize asset; RCO Inv. Co. v. Belair 301-50 S.W. Quadrant
‘Commercial Properties, (/n re Belair 301-50 S.W. Quadrant Commercial Properties), 137 B.R. 191 (D. Md.
1992) (relying on analysis set forth in three separate decisions [Liale Creek, 779 F.2d at 1072, Carolin, 886
F.24 at 701, and In re Grieshop, 63 B.R. 657 (N.D. Ind. 1986)} court reversed Bankruptcy Court’s finding
of good faith. Opinion relied most heavily on the standard set forth in Carolin and concluded that the
debtor's plan was objectively futile and filed with subjective bad faith); In re Landings Assocs., Ltd.
101 Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1992). In holding that a single assct debtor filed Chapter 11

mechanical application of the factoru set forth in Line Creek, 779 F.24 at 1073 indicates that this
case has most of the hallmarks of bad faith... . However, it is equally recognized that not one
single factor set forth in Linle Creek, is determinative of the ismae of the lack of good feith of a
debtor seeking relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. While Little Creek is still well-
recognized as persuasive authority, tis equally true that there is nothing inherently improper for
1a debtor with one single asset, generally an income-producing commercial property, to attempt
to reorganize its affairs under the rehabilitation provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In the last
analysis, the Key considerations are (1) the Debtor's motivation to file the petition; (2) the
‘economic vitality of the Debtor; (3) the Debtor's real need to reorganize and (4) the ability of the
Debtor to achieve reorganization.

14, a6 102,
In re Franklin Mortgage & Inv. Co., a separate analysis was maintained for ordinary, single asset

debtors and those who fit within the “new debtor syndrome.” 143 B.R. 295 (Bankr. D. Dist. Col. 1992).

‘The court noted that the “case has all the earmarkings of the ‘new debtor ayndrome’. ..." fd, at 300. In

framing its analysis the court stated:
Where a *new debtor syndrome” and resultant unfair delay of creditors is present, it makes no
sense to require objective futility. The court must be able to protect its jurisdictional integrity.
In contrast, other single assct cases not involving the "new debtor syndrome" usually present the
question whether the case is futile and hence filed in bad frith. It makes sense to require
objective futility before dismissing those cases. ‘That is not what is at stake in a "new debtor”
case. In the “new debtor” case the critical inquiry is whether the debtor has gained unfair
advantage by employment of the new debtor device.

Hd, at 302.

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev. 13 1993 DEF02260


6028

follow it? Must we make exceptions for people who can't or don't read popular
magazines & wouldn't be expected to know the current popular opinions out in
‘society? Or would it depend upon which “section” of society holds which
opinions thal one would be judged? Slippery slope indeed!

RobK it yearago)
Enough is enough, the Republicans needs to just stop the interviews and send
this lady back tothe stone age she came from. This is gotting ridiculous folks
and itis time to stand up and get this cougar out of the nomination process.

-znooter (yes 998)

drzarkov — the number of biacks in prison are being overtaken by whites. If
trends condinue, by next year, whites will be the predominant incarcerated race
in prisons: (htip:Awww.ojp.usdoj govibjs/pub/pdt/pimd8st pd) There are more
whites than blacks in local jails and have boen since 2000

(http stv ojp.usdo) govibjs/pubpatfimO8st pd) More whites have been on
death row than any other race since 1976:

(http shee. ojp.usdoj govibjs/glanceldrrace. hm)

Underdog 1 year 295)

‘Atleast in the past (B.0. before Obama) criminals would get a tial and
‘humerous appeals before a death sentence was carried out. Obama just had
three extortionist (Somal pirates) “executed” because they thumbed their
noses at his refusal to pay a ransom. Seoms a death sentence Is appropriate
for some.

rear (years 999)
‘As Bill Cosby observes, in 1950 the majory of convicts in US prisons were
white, and minorities were under-represented, while today the majority of
convicts are minofties and overrepresented in comparison to their percent of
the population. Does this mean that the US was less racist in 1950? We have
the Great Society to thank for tearing minority families apart and creating
rmuitiple generations of poor that have had thelr work ethic destroyed by a
‘system of Federal dependence. itis this system that creates a population
‘vulnerable to infration by criminal elements that has creatod a growing
Population of rinorites on death row.

peter39 (1 yoo 92)
‘She should be fred before she gets started with her es. God says in the Bite
that all murderers must be executed. Murderers are kiling millions of innocent
people and the blood of these innocent people willbe quit upon all Democrats.

Jack Kin (tuncte (1 years 91
Pemaps they wouldn't comm crime if they hadn't been created on welfare to
vote demo. We never stop paying for demo mistakes.

reat ybyfes (1 year 290)
So the death penalty, “creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender
and his/her family." So what!!7? Who cares'!?? We should worry about how the
‘murderer foells about the penalty of his actions? BS! Thats as stupid as kiting

Inep/acewccnsnows comnensaruck/49218

avn010
DEF02480


5989

‘The State Bail Bond Reform Act provides the IDB with a
‘wo percent commission on commercial bonds in criminal
ceases. According to the IDB Executive Director, this
ccorumission is expected to yield approximately $80,000 for the
board in 1994. The parish is responsible for payment of
attorneys other than IDB staff who are appointed by the
district court to provide for indigent defense, The parish also
pays for transcripts, expert witness fees, and investigation fees.
In FY 1992-1993 these charges amounted to $140,000.

‘The Jail

‘The Jefferson Parish Correctional Center, located at 100
Dothonde Street in Gretna, is the parish’s primary detention
facility. With a legal capacity of 700, it provides a bed for
‘every 640 residents in the parish, The jail is provided and
‘maintained by the parish and operated and staffed by the
sheriff, The eastbank lockup, in Metairie holds 16 people on
short-term basis. Inmates are transferred from the fastbank
lockup to the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center on a daily
basis for magistrate court.

Probation and Parole

State Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
Division of Probation and Parole

‘Adult probation and parole services at the local level are a
state function under the Department of Public Safety and.
Corrections. Jefferson Parish is one of only two parishes that
comprise its own district; Orleans Parish isthe other.

‘The primary task of the Division of Probation and Parole is
to provide supervision of individuals serving a sentence of
probation or who have been released on parole from a state
prison parole (Art. 893 C.Cr.P.). The division also provides
presentenced and postsentenced investigations. Probation and
parole officers are "peace officers" and as such are authorized
to make arrests. There are 36 probation and parole officers in
Jefferson Parish, with an average caseload of 120 cases each.

In early 1994, the Jefferson Parish caseload was about 10
percent af the total state caseload (4,032 of 40,653). The
fastest-growing part of the local caseload are the 60 "good
timers" who return to Jefferson Parish (their home parish) after
their release from state prisons. (Good time” is a system of
rewarding inmates for good behavior by reducing their
sentences.)

‘At any time during the term of probation the court may
‘issue a warrant for arrest or a summons to appear in court for
violation of conditions of probation. The court has authority
‘to grant bail to a probation violator or to revoke probation
status, Parole violators, on the other hand, cannot be released
from jail. According to Jefferson Parish magistrate court

records, in the first four months of 1994, 18 percent of the
defendants who came before the magistrate judge had violated
the conditions of their probation or parole

Probationrs are charged a fee on a sliding scale of,
between $20 and $100 per month (or visit). Paroles pay a fee
of $43 per month, Twelve percent of these funds is deposited
into the state treasury. The balance makes up the Probation
and Parole Manegement Fund, These fonds are appropriated
by the legislature to the state Department of Public Safety and
Corrections’ Division of Probation and Parole on an annual
basis, according to workload.

Intensive Probation Program

‘An intensive probation program has been developed by the
Jefferson Parish Human Serves Authority [PHSA) in
conjunction with the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Cour and
the state Division of Probation and Parole, it was developed
in response to concerns about drug use among probationer,
the lack of specialized and adequate cre for this population,
andthe time delay between drug use and notification of the
probation officer or the judge. The program began in May of
1994 with a budget of $100,000 and staff of four. It was
modelled after the Miami Drug Court, whichis cited in &
recent American Bar Association book highlighting creative
solutions to problems inthe nation's justice system

‘The intensive probation program is a sentencing option for
any judge in the Twenty-fourth Judicial District, with priority
availability to the Drug Court. A judge's decision to utilize
this program is made in consultation with staff assigned to the
program from the JPHSA (three full-time staff are assigned at
‘this time), a state probation officer (who is responsible forall
the individuals in the program in addition to his “regular”
caseload), and the defense attomey.

‘The program is funded jointly by dhe Jefferson Parish

Human Services Authority and the Jefferson Parish District

‘Attomey's Office, with plans to seek additional grant funding.
Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile Court

Jefferson Parish is one of four parishes in Louisiana wi
special juvenile courts that have exclusive juvenile jurisdiction.
Im other parishes, this jurisdiction lies with the parish and
district couns.

‘The jurisdiction of juvenile courts in Louisiana is "very
expansive, more sweeping than the laws of almost every other
state,” according to the Coordinator for the Louisiana
Children’s Code Project, which was completed with adoption
‘of the Children’s Codg in 1991. Courts with juvenile
Jurisdiction have jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System-—27

DEFO2435


6007

years ago, Secretary Cuomo practiced in a law firm with Mr. Blutrich and participated with many investors, including Mr.
Blutrich, in a tax-credit syndication.” In fact, along with Blutrich and Lucille Falcone, Cuomo was one of three general
partners in L&M Associates, a tax-sheltered oll and gas investment. And although the partnership began many years ago
rmber 17, 1986), it was not until January 21, 1997--the day before his Senate confirmation hearing to become
housing secretary--that Cuomo quit doing business with Blutrich and sold his interest in L&M at a loss. A monthly
disbursement check to Cuomo from the venture, a copy of which TAS has obtained, bears Blutrich's signature, and an
‘accompanying letter shows that it was mailed in 1995 to Cuomo's HUD address, with "best personal regards.”

Cuomo did not have to sel his stake in LAM to become secretary; he need only have recused himself from decisions
involving the partnership (which he had done two weeks earlier). That he ultimately did sell seems to suggest he was
troubled by doing business with an accused criminal. Yet Blutrich’s fraud case had been widely reported months earlier,
‘and Cuomo's former business associates had known about it almost immediately. “After...the firm was raided by the
FBI... former employee called me,” says Cuomo's former partner. *I think that call, I'm Sure, went out all over the city,
‘And that's when T became aware that the FBI was investigating Michael in connection with Scores and the Mob.”
Presumably, it was only the prospect of public scrutiny that prompted Cuomo to finaly withdraw his investment.

Better Left Unsaid

‘Less than a month after the ink dried on the second Oceanmark settlement in November 1996, Andrew Cuomo was
‘nominated for HUD secretary. A month later, accompanied by his wife Kerry Kennedy (whom he had married in 1990),
tone of their two daughters, his mother Matilda, sister Maria, and mother-in-law Ethel Kennedy, Cuomo sailed through an
adulatory confirmation hearing notable only for what was not brought up: Oceanmark Federal Savings and Loan.

‘The chairman of the Senate committee charged with confirming Andrew was Alfonse D'Amato, whose hearty dislike For
the Cuomos was well known--and generously reciprocated-~after many years' rivalry in New York politics. D'Amato might
have been expected to turn the hearing into a blood bath, given the ample press coverage Oceanmark had received in the
preceding decade. What's more, Florida's Connie Mack also sat on the committee. AHUD lawyer confirms that a Florida
GOP official sent committee members a package alerting them to the Oceanmark imbroglio. Amazingly, however, the
thrift never came up.

Senate Banking sources say the oversight had more to do with D'Amato protecting his own chairmanship than Andrew
Cuomo's well-being. There was speculation at the time that Cuomo might challenge the New York senator in his 1998
‘campaign, and that he posed a significant threat. (A Mason-Dixon poll conducted at the time showed Cuomo edging out
D'Amato 41-38 percent.) According to these sources, it was understood that if D'Amato could protect his seat by
sequestering Cuomo on HUD's tap floor, so much the better. " Generally a lat of people felt there were understandings
that obviously they were going to try to stay out of each other's way," says a senior committee aide.

‘Another reason that Cuomo’s involvement with Oceanmark wasn’t mentioned at the hearing may be that O’Amato had his
‘own not-s0-kosher connections to the New York Group. During the 1980's D'Amato was embroiled in a nasty HUD scandal
of alleged favoritism, back-scratching, and campaign donor quid pro quos. Goldstein, a heavy D'Amato donor, and seven
members of the New York Group realized a $17-million windfall from a juicy HUD packagepatched tagether by a senior
HUDofficial, Joseph Monticciolo, and pushed through by D'Amato. Upon leaving HUD, Monticciolo became the titular head
of a Goldstein investment group that included these New York Group members. Congressional and Justice probes were
launched. Ultimately Monticciolo rolled and said D'Amato asked him to cover for the senator, but the case could not be
made. These eight investors at one time owned nearly half of the New York Group's shares in Oceanmark, according to
documents from Cuomo’ files.

If D'Amato wasn't going to bring up Oceanmark, neither was Cuomo--even if it meant a material omission on his
‘nomination form. Cuomo will not explain why he did not list the Oceanmark suit among the court cases in which he had
been a defendant. His HUD lawyers wrote TAS that "The FBI, Department of Justice, and U.S. Senate (Republican
Controlled) have ail stated that all nomination forms and procedures were correctly complied with by Mr. Cuomo.” But
there is no public record of any such statements. What's more, according to the Office of Government Ethics, only the
Senate Banking committee would have evaluated Cuomo's questionnaire. Asked why Cuomo did not divulge that he was
Investigated by federal banking regulators, HUD lawyers reply with word games. "Mr. Cuomo was merely 2 witness in
Connection with an FALBB examination of Oceanmark," they claim, and consequently not directly the subject of the
inquiry,

Young Cuomo is considered one of the Democratic Party's fastest-rising stars, He has indicated he'd like to play 2 major
role in Al Gore's New York campaign machine in 2000, and Washington rumor holds that he's a strong contender for the
second spot on a Gore ticket. More recent speculation predicts a possible run for retiring Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan’s seat in 2000. The GOP opponent in that race could turn out to be none other than Alfonse D'Amato. If that's
the case, you can bet the bank on one mud ball that neither candidate will be throwing,

LOAD-DATE: January 13, 1999

Source. News & Gusness > Combed Sources > News, All (English, FullText) «
‘ems: “Banking on Andy Cuomo: HUD Secretary and Rising” (ES! Seaich | Sunaes! Teams for My Seach | Feeback on Your Seach)

gs les conmesearehetrieve?_m=97304691e2848a2/2 762 RSS8ATTuheesve=biRcform=searchFonne,fintss-FULLAdoenun= 14. 8/512010

DEFO2459


5787

—
pe
re eT Pen. —cermeta A Porous cane O10 ecto At
po me
SCHEDULE A - REAL PROPERTY
j =
STM
DESCRIPTIONAND Soesrors Yount oF
eae
gS
i
Family Home. ‘Community Property c $235,110.00 $158,278.13
{Sor Rey ve
fae
um > 219000
wom

DEF01923



6021

| LexisNexis tar eoencr sian sues cort Pern | ams
sn research Tasks eta Document Shepar's® Vales tts unigator Transactional Advisor counsel Stetor ose ss

ae SEI soca

Source News & Busrness > Combined Souces > News, All (English Full Text)
Terms: "Consensus-Bulding Skis Gave Nominee the EdgeTM (Est Search | Sonate Tem foc My Search | Feedback on Your Search)

-# Select fr FOCUSTM or Delvery
CONSENSUS: BUILDING SKILLS GAVE NOMINEE THE EDGE The Miami Herald May 14, 1994 Saturday

Copyright 1994 The Miami Herald
‘All Rights Reserved

The Miami Herald

Fours se Manco
‘The Miami Herald

May 14, 1994 Saturday
FINAL EDITION

SECTION: FRONT; A; Pg. 13
LENGTH: 973 words

HEADLINE: CONSENSUS-BUILDING SKILLS GAVE NOMINEE THE EDGE

BYLINE: AARON EPSTEIN AND ANGIE CANNON Herald Washington Bureau

Bopy:

‘stephen G. Breyer, a federal appeats judge in Boston, was nominated Friday tothe Supreme Court ~- a fob he narrowly

missed one year ago ~- because his first-rate intellect and absence of ideology give him an unusually broad political
‘appeal.

“Lam flattered and I am honored," Breyer told reporters in Boston after Clinton announced the nomination outside the
White House. "! believe very deeply in the Constitution . . . and the lives that it touches among the people.

{In the end, Clinton said, he rejected Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt because “I couldn't bear to fose him from the
Cabinet” and decided against Arkansas federal Judge Richard Arnold because he has cancer and is undergoing radiation
treatments,

‘Another factor in the president's decision may have been that, of the three finalists, Breyer, 55, would be the easiest to
win Senate confirmation, as numerous senators have made clear in recent days.

In fact, confirmation will be “a slam dunk," predicted Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top
Republican, Breyer is "honest, compassionate, a man with a big heart and an excellent legal scholar,” Hatch said, and
other Republican senators agreed.

‘On the liberal side, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., called Breyé
understanding of the law and its impact on the lives of real people.

a brillant legal scholar with a profound

‘Sen, Bob Graham, D-Fla., said he supports Breyer's nomination because the judge has an outstanding record on the
federal bench, adding, "I'anticipate an expedited and relatively noncontroversial confirmation."

Sen. Connie Mack, R-Fla., said Breyer is 2 respected jurist with qualifications suited for a seat on the Supreme Court. "I
will reserve final judgment on (his) nomination until there has been a thorough review of his record,” he said

Clinton reached his decision at 4:15 Friday afternoon and, in an unusual break with the past, decided to announce it two
hours later without his nominee. Traditionally, presidents disclose their Supreme Court choices with their appointees at
their sides, but Clinton had been criticized this week for repeatedly delaying his announcement.

Breyer and his family are to ly to Washington for a Rose Garden ceremony Monday.

researhetrove"ee=Spushme=1&tnp DSel-all&totadocendtaggedDuce=feoggleValuesGntanDossChkedO8pretFBS.. W/3/2010
DEFO2473

PORT Exhibit 1123


5821

2. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORP: The Debior, in lieu of the Trustee, shall act as disbursing
agent for the regular contract installment in the amount of $330.00, for the duration of
the plan.

3. CHRYSLER CREDIT CORP: The Debior, in liew ofthe Trustee, shall act as disbursing
agent for the regular contract installment in the amount of $330.00, for the duration of
te

4. FIDELITY HOMESTEAD: The Debior, in lieu of the Trustee, shall act as disbursing
agent for the regular contract installment in the amount of $1,429.00, for the duration of

the plan.
Payment of the arrearages duc shall be made by the Trustee as follows:

Nang of Crete ‘Arrearages Due ‘Int Rate ‘MihlyPmt.
D. The following creditors claims are not dealt with under the plan:

Name of Cretiter hmm or Schad
"NONE

5. Priority Creditors and Specially Classified Unsecured Claims:

ts ‘Cm or Sch Amount ‘Mihly Pt,
NONE

6. Special conditions affecting creditors arc noted as follows:

CONFIRMATION OF THE DEBTOR'S CHAPTER 13 PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED
AS APPROVAL OF THE FEES CHARGED BY THE DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY.

7. This summary and Analysis of this Plan is based on a review by the Trustee of the schedules,
plan, claims, other pleadings on file, the testimony of the Debtor at the meeting of creditors,
and other supporting documentation requested by the Trustee. In cases where a claim has
‘not been filed by a creditor, the Trustee has relied on the schedules to establish the amount of
aadebt. The actual amounts of each payment, and the months in which payments are to occur
‘may vary, as they are dependent upon the timing of payments to the Trustee by the Debtor,
and the allowed umounts of certain claims which may not yet be conclusively determined.
Based upon the foregoing, assuming all payinents are timely made by the Debtor, the
estimated dividend to unsecured creditors will be 27.51 of fhe amount claimed,

8. After thorough review of the Chapter 13 Statement, claims that have been filed and served
‘on the Trustee, and other matters of record, including the testimony of the Debtor atthe
‘Mecting of Creditors, it is the opinion of the Trustce that the Plan meets the standards for
confirmation contained in 11 U.S.C. Sce. 1325 (a), and should be confirmed.

Dated: 05-29-01

433 Metairie Rd.
Metairie, LA 70005
(504) 831-1313

$co0695

DEF01979


5901
q
‘The complaint must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) since
determination of all the claims presented would ultimately require consideration of the
merits of judicial decisions and procedural rulings. Referring to 28 U.S.C. §
372(c)(3)(A) (ii) (now 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1){A)(ii)), the Judicial Council of the Ninth

Circuit has stated:

There is...a statutory directive for dismissal of complaints of judicial

misconduct which in substance are simply objections to substantive or

procedural error. This principle is supported by compelling policy. To

determine whether a judge's rulings were so legally indefensible as to

mandate intervention would require the same type of legal analysis as is

afforded on appeal.

in re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 685 F.2d 1226, 1227 (Ninth Circuit Judicial
Council 1982). Since resolution of the claims presented in the complaint would require
exactly the same type of legal analysis necessary to determine an appeal concerning those
allegations, the claims cannot be considered in a judicial misconduct proceeding.

It is well established that absent extraordinary circumstances claims of bias or
conflict of interest in regard to an individual case or litigant are not cognizable in a
judicial misconduct proceeding since they may be reviewed through the normal case
related processes. In re: Latimer, 955 F.2d 1036 (Fifth Cir. Judicial Council, 1992); In re:
Charge of Judicial Misconduct, 595 F.2d 517 (Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, 1979). No

extraordinary circumstances are presented in this complaint.

DEF02347


5995

Louisiana Office of Planning and Budgeting. State of Louisiana, State of the State, 1994. Baton Rouge, LA. 1994.
Louisiana Supreme Court. Rule XXXI, Pt. July 1, 1994.

Maggio, Ross. Inspection of the Jefferson Parish Community Correctional Center. May 17, 1991

Mahoney, Barry, "Attacking Problems of Delay in Urban Trial Courts: A Progress Report." State Court Journal, 11
(Summer 1987).

‘Mahoney, Barry and Sipes, Larry. "Zeroing in on Court Delay: The Powerful Tools of Time Standards and
‘Management Information.” Court Management Journal. 1985.

National District Attorneys Association. National Prosecution Standards. 24. ed. Alexandria, VA. 1991.

Neubauer, David W. America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. 34. ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Co., 1985.

Neubauer, David W. Professor of Political Science, University of New Orleans. Interview January 12, 1994.

Reaves, Brian. Stati

ician, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Telephone Interview, February 8 and June 2, 1994.
‘Schwartz, Howard. “Monitoring Delay Reduction Efforts." Court Management Journal. 1985.

Select Council on Revenues and Expenditures in Louisiana’s Future, Issue Papers. "Management of Prison Population
Growth”, "Privatization of Prison Management.” SECURE. Baton Rouge, LA, 1994.

Smith, Walt. Deputy Director, Pretrial Services Resource Center, Telephone Interview, June 2, 1994,
Spangenburg Group. Study of the Indigent Defender Sfstem in Louisiana: A Final Report. March, 1992.

Spoon, Jeff. Vice-President for Project Development, Wackenhut Corporation of America. Telephone Interview, June
7, 1994.

State Court Journal. Special Report; Trends in the State Courts. Winter 1991.

State of Louisiana, Office of Planning and Budgeting. State of Louisiana, State of the State, 1994. Baton Rouge,
LA. 1994,

Stephan, Jim. Statistician, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Telephone Interview, February 9, 1994.

‘Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court Judicial Expense Fund. Financial Statements and Auditors’ Reports. December
31, 1993.

U.S. Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. The Role of General Government Elected Officials in
Criminal Justice. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1993.

ULS. Department of Justice. FBI Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the U.S. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1980-1992.

U. S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants, 1990, by Brian A.
Reaves. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1993.

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—33

DEFO2441


5800

Fem 850

«va

lore: Gabriel. Porteous, Jr Carmella A. Porteous | Sametio, 09-12383 Section "A"
Datior (inew

SCHEDULE G - EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES

Check this bax dior has no executory contracts or uneiited ee

DESCRIPTION OF CONTRACT OR LEASE AND NATURE OF
NAME AND MAILING ADORESS, INCL. UDA ZIP COO (DEBTOWS INTEREST, STATE WHETHER LEASE'3 FOR,

‘OF OTHER PARTIES TOLLEASE OR CONTRACT. [NOMRESIDENTIL REAL PROPERTY. STATE CONTRACT
" NUMBER OF ANY GOVERNMENT CONTRACT.
Chrysler Credit Corporatton 2000 Jeep Cherokee
P.O. Box 7000

Covington, LA 70434

‘Chrysler Credit Corporaiton 12000 Jeep Cherokee
. 0. Box 7000
Covington, LA 70434

DEFO1936


5795

FORW BEE - Cot
os)
nm: Gabriel T, Porteous, Jr. Cormella A. Porteous . Cusetle, 01-412963 Section “A”

‘incon

SCHEDULE E - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED PRIORITY CLAIMS

neem sown
cagpromrs wae a0 L attieg Bla ror | Aucuyt
MALNG ADDRESS ti Stesweeat JE) get, | Om
noes i sm (ff) SER | eS
# ;
stn. sha the Stn res Hal Pty Cen a wo

aero omon
perenne

DEFO1931


5784

{0Mmcial Form 1) (97)

[Voluntary Petition ue of Der
{Ps page mast be completed and led im evry coe) ‘Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr.
Carmella A. Porteous

Prior Bankruptcy Case Filed Within Last 6 Years (If more than one, atach additional sheot)

Toon Cae Neer Dae Fade
Whee Fle NONE

Pending Bankruptcy Cate Filed hy any Spouse, Partoer or Affilate ofthis Debtor (if more than ope, atech additional sheet)

FORM Bi, Page?

Nae of oe Cae Namba DarFiee
NONE
Disa Reb Tadge:
Signatures
‘Signatarea) of Debior) GndividualiFoing) See er Corp)
1 decree pe of perth he inferation povided in hi 1 caer pana of pert he iaferation previa
sate tin nd rec sda he bc rae ei pekon

Fe pctinr piariy consumer dctsandas | nbc oe der
pears ne di fomsoky peone hap 7
SB or 13 cate 11 Ueda Cade ansrece eee salable er | Te dear equa relia accordance wt he chapter We 11, Ud
exch auch ou oer apa ‘Sats Code, edie ata pon

i. United See Cod,

x Not Applicable
‘Siar of AstherizdInvigal

Fed Wat hat al

Tot an bee
Tal ard nad

‘Telephone N ‘Wear ‘attorney

__ tol 9 bar

Due i

r Sigenur of Rom AttorneyPaon Preparer,

x LAT smostuimnnannay ner osg 1%

‘Signature oftAtomey for Debtor y ‘that | prepared this documert for compensation, and that I have provided
Salem scott doar

Chane C Lghtot, sr, LA. 1999 “

Name. fe Bae ‘Printed Name of Bankruptcy Petition Preparer

Chee Lightfoot, J...

Fim Nene Socal Sxuy Noe

3500 N Camenay Bid. Sate 480

From
‘aie

Metairie, LA 7000

(604) 838-8571 (tux) (504) 838-8872 sad Sci Scr mb ol torn pre

Saher cman tame
fq 2

ore hn oe person prepared his dome tach aoa ects
‘conforming tthe appropri cia fo fer ach Pen

X Not Applicable

“Sige of array Felice Prep
oa
a capt wth ie provi
SETLIST Reoaey Noceare meyrent oe
Shamma VUSE STIR USE TDS.

DEF01920


5913

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS.

IN THE UNITED STATES CouRT oF APPEALS = FILED

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT wan 3 0 2007

CHARLES R. FULBRUGE I!
CLERK

Docket Number: 06-05-351-0027

MEMORANDUM

The complainant attorney has submitted a misconduct complaint against the
subject District Judge based on the judge’s actions in three environmental mass tort
lawsuits, The first of these suits was filed in state court, removed to the subject judge’s
court, and assigned to the subject judge. The second was also filed in state court in
1996, removed to another district, and eventually transferred and consolidated with the
first. Complainant served as class counsel in these two cases. The third case was filed
in the subject judge’s court as a diversity class action to implement a settlement

agreement reached in the first two cases.

Complainant was allowed to intervene in the class action to seek fees and costs
arising from his work in the earlier litigation, but the Plaintiffs Steering Committee
(PSC) filed a motion to disqualify (and preclude any award of fees to) him. His motion
to recuse the subject judge from handling the disqualification and fees matters was
referred to another district judge for consideration and denied. His petition for writ of
mandamus seeking a finding that the transfer of the motion to recuse was improper and
also seeking a reversal of the order denying the motion to recuse has been denied by the
Fifth Circuit, Complainant’s mandamus petition makes clear that he waited to file a

motion to recuse until after efforts to resolve the matter of attorneys fees between him

DEFO2359
PORT Exhibit 1111 (h)


6075

122 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

USS. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Felony Defendants
in Large Urban Counties, 1996.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 1999. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pat/falucd6.pdf.

DEF02633


5891
designed to assist the disgruntled litigant who is unhappy with the result of a particular
case.” S. Rep. No. 362, 96” Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N.
4315, 4322.
IL

The complaints must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(i)(ii) and
(iii) as not being cognizable under the statute, being directly related to Respondent’s
judicial decisions and procedural rulings and as legally frivolous or lacking sufficient
evidence to raise an inference of misconduct.

To the extent that Complainant contends that Respondent should have
disqualified himself from his case because of his prior association with the law firm, this
allegation must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) as being directly
related to Respondent’s judicial decisions and procedural rulings. Such case-related
claims are not cognizable in a judicial misconduct proceeding. As noted, the Court of
Appeals previously considered and rejected most of the same allegations presented in the
complaints.

Insofar as Complainant alleges that Respondent in his confirmation process made
statements which were, “knowingly and willfully, fabricated,” about his legal career at the
law firm, these allegations are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
352(b)(1)(A)(i) as not being cognizable under the statute. Because this conduct occurred

during a legislative proceeding before Respondent became a member of the federal

DEF02337


5850

36 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

JUDGE HILLMAN: You afe right into the cram down
classification issues where there is such diversity between judges. In my
district people deliberately file in the Western Division because they like Judge
Queenan, as opposed to the Boston judges, who have different views of
classification.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: That's what circuit courts are for.

JUDGE FENNING: But the circuit courts aren't getting the
cases. Because of the appellate structure in bankruptcy, the appeals are not
getting as far as the circuit courts. District court and bankruptcy appellate
panel decisions are not controlling precedent in most districts and therefore you
don’t have clear controlling precedent telling us what to do.

Now, if the Supreme Court had agreed to decide Bryson ot Greystone,
a clear ruling would have simplified this whole issue enormously. If the
parties knew what ball park they were playing in, knew that, yes, these plans
are confirmable under these circumstances, or, no, they are never confirmable
where there is no equity, then it would simplify single asset filings, and
eliminate a lot of them, ‘The parties would work it out before coming to court
because they would know what would happen to them with a reasonable degree
of predictability without filing bankruptcy.

ForuM SHOPPING IN Goo Farr Cases
PROF. GROSS: Do you think there is forum shopping as to
the good faith issues? Are people choosing where to file, to the extent they
can on what a court's reaction will be to their filing?

JUDGE FENNING: Oh, yes. The variance among the judges
is so considerable that to the extent debtors can choose, they are choosing.

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I think they will forum shop for
anything — for attorney's fees, for docket loads.

JUDGE FENNING: Extensions of exclusivity.
JUDGE GREENDYKE: I think that’s true.

JUDGE HILLMAN: Well, the flexibility exists. People look
and see what the odds are. .

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am, Banks. Inst. L. Rev. 36 1993

DEF02283


5988

cary a sentence of hard labor can have terms of release set by
the magistrate. For persons arrested for a crime that car
sentence of hard labor, a district court judge must set bal.

Judges. District court judges are elected for terms of six
years and receive salaries of $75,000 plus a Judicial Expense
Fund supplement, which is variable but in the range of $8,400
annually, the amount set as of January, 1994. Each district
court is required by the state constitution to elect from its
members a chief judge to cary out the administrative functions
prescribed by rule of court. The length of term of the chief
judge is designated by each court in Jefferson Parish, the term
is one year.

Employees, The Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court has
65 employees. The employees include a Judicial Administrator
with a staff of four, whose responsibilities are primarily
‘business management.

The Prosecution
‘The District Attorney

‘The Office of District Attomey (DA), provided for by
Article V Section 25 of the Louisiana State Constitution, is
responsible for every prosecution in the judicial district,
represents the state before the grand jury, and is the legal
advisor to the grand jury (Art, 61, C.CrP).

The DA’s office is actively involved with the JPSO in
targeting and aggressively prosecuting career crcnnals and
habitual offenders ina special program known as "Code 6”
begun two years ago. "Code 6" replaces a career criminal
program developed several years earlier. The DA’s office
“vertically prosecutes" some of these career criminals, meaning
that one assistant district attorney handles the case from start
to finish. The goal ofthe program is to maximize charges and
thereby maximize potential sentences for these repeat
offenders.

The district attomey serves a six-year term and is
authorized to select hissher own assistants (L.RS. 16:1). State
Jaw provides for 36 assistant district attorneys in Jefferson
Parish. The state pays the salaries of the district attorney and
the 36 assistants. The district attorney is authorized to hire
additional assistants, who are paid entirely by the parish
(CRS. 16:53). ‘There are currently 41 assistant district
attorneys in Jefferson Parish

There are 180 employees in the DAYs office. One assistant
is assigned to each division of district court. Seventy-five
employees of the district attomey's office are assigned to
juvenile court,

Approximately 61,500 cases are handled by the DA's
office on a yearly basis. The great majority of these (45,000,

26—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

‘or 74 percent) are traffic cases. The DA’s office accepted
approximately 60 percent (7,500 of 12,500) of the cases it
screened in district court in 1993.

District attomeys throughout the state receive a portion of
their nancial support from fees and fines assessed By the
Judiciary, es well as commissions on amounts they collect in
settlements on behalf of the state (LR.S. 16:4,5). ‘The office
{is also supported by the parish government. In 1992, the DA’s
office received approximately $2.8 million from the parish,
The 1994 adopted budget has earmarked approximately $3.3
rillion for the DA’s office.

The Defense
Indigent Defender Board

Like all judicial districts in the state, the Twenty-fourth
Judicial District hasan Indigent Defender Board (IDB) to
‘coordinate the provision of defense counsel for those who
‘qualify. In Jefferson Parish, the seven-member board is
responsible for maintaining a staff of eligible attorneys to
provide for the district's indigent defense (LLR'S. 15:145).
‘The judges of cack judicial district establish rules and
regulations regarding the appointment of members to the IDB
GRS. 15:144).

In one of three ways a local board can provide for indigent
defense, the Twenty-fourth Judicial District's IDB contracts
with 25 attomeys who provide for the district's defense of the
indigent (LIRS. 15:145 BG)). These annual contracts pay
each defense attorney $25,000.

‘The current average felony caseload for an IDB attorney is
about 100 defendants, approximately half of whom are likely
to be in jail, A representative of the IDB attends the deily
(Monday-Friday) hearings in magistrate court and interviews
all the persons on the magistrate’s list to screen them for
indigence. Defense counsel is not appointed, however, until
the screening division of the district attomcy's office has
accepted charges. If an individual eligible for indigent defense
says atthe time of arraignment he or she will secure his or her
‘own attomey but is still in jail with no attomey of record ten
days later, the IDB sends that person a letter restating the
availability of defense counsel

‘The IDB administers the district indigent defender fund,
which is the primary source of funding for IDB sttorneys.
‘This fund is made up of special court costs established by state
law. ‘These court costs may range from $17.50 to $25.00. In
Jefferson Parish, the district has recently raised the cost to the
‘maximum $25.00 in applicable eases. The indigent defender
fund also consists of payments made by some individuals who
receive IDB counsel but who are determined by the court to be
financially abte to provide partial payment or reimbursement.

DEF02434


5805

Inve: Gabriel T. Porteous, J. Carmella A. Porteous Casa No.
436-54-1386 434.78.3902

DECLARATION CONCERNING DEBTOR'S SCHEDULES
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR

| declare under penalty of perury that have red the foregoing surmary and aches, canesing of 16 shes pus te surmary
page, and that they are true and cored tothe best of my knowledge, information, and bli

owe AG —

Date: HG Sirature

[pint case beth spouses must sgn]

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
ON BEHALF OF CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP

(NOT APPLICABLE)

Ponty fr makin fis tatamart or concealing propary. Fine of up $300,000 rInpiscnment or po yearer both. 18 US.C Bf 152
sna 387"

DEFO1941


5924

May 7, 1985

Honorable Walter J. Cummings
Chief Judge of the Seventh Circuit
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Judge Cummings:

I hereby resign as Chief’ Judge of the Bankruptcy
Court in the Northern District of Illinois but am
retaining my position on that Court.

Sincerely,

United States Bankruptcy
Judge

DEF02370


6020

STEPHEN BREYER When Breyer was a nominee for the Supreme Court in mid-1994, it was disclosed that the then-chiet
judge of the U.S. ist Circult Court of Appeals in Boston had failed to pay Social Security taxes for an 81-year-old US.
Citizen who worked part time in his house for 13 years. Breyer sald he did not know he was supposed to pay taxes for the
woman until after Baird's case, whereupon he paid the overdue taxes. He was confirmed as a justice of the high court.

MICHAEL P.C, CARNS The retired Air Force general withdrew in March 1995 as Clinton's nominee to head the Centrat
Intelligence Agency as he acknowledged failing to make promised payments to a Filipino youth who had worked for the

Carns family as a household helper overseas and whom Carns had legally brought into this country when he was
transferred back.

LINDA CHAVEZ The conservative commentator withdrew in January 2001 as President George W. Bush's nominee to be
labor secretary after it was disclosed that she gave a Guatemalan woman free room and board in her home and $1,500
during a two-year period in the early 1990s even though Chavez knew she was an illegal immigrant.

BERNARD KERIK The former New York police commissioner withdrew in December 2004 as Bush's nominee to be
homeland security secretary. Amid arising list of problems with the nomination, Kerik said he was backing out because
he discovered he had hired an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper and nanny and failed to pay required employment
taxes and make selated flings on the worker's behalf.

LOAD-DATE: January 15, 2009

Source News & Business > Combined Souces > News, All (English, Full Tex!)
ems: "Nominees Sunk by Tax and Nanny Problems for Years” (Et Seoich | Suanest Tums for My Search | Feedback on Your Search)

ew Ful
Date/Time: Tuesday, Augu 31, 2010-703 PM EDT
‘Search | Ressarch Tasks | Get a Documert | Shepars's® | Alerts| Total Litaator | Transactional Advisor | Counsel Solecor
so) Divan Manas sb Such let roars | in CPi

, nes | Tums Condens | conte us
GD LovisNeoxiy So Sabie stn of heed Evie A eights reserve

tps we lexis comeserchtricwe

-poshme=1 Asp DSelnalltoaldoce=dtagsedDocsmdoggleValuexdenimDoesChkeJ“O8pretFDS 8/31/2010
DEFO2472


5791

roms
=
ver Gabe T Pots, Camelia A Porteous corehe, 142963 Section “A”
Sts vena
SCHEDULE B - PERSONAL PROPERTY
{eontruntoe Shea
i CURRENT
Ee] ait
peereTeR Docs
Teor rorenre H ee Hy meer,
}) eee
ao x
mime x
Saguygoenmens on x
‘roentgen |X
wrwupuncunanenna |X
Tame pamtpmpen terinsen | X
orgs
2 conten sews ced => 2505027

Creda amounts tom ary contranion sheets
‘ached: Report al ls on Barer of
‘Schedles

DEF01927


5922

Honorable Charles B. McCormick -3- May 7, 1985

notice to the parties of the person consulted and the
substance of the advice, and affords the parties
reasonable opportunity to respond.

The four instances brought to our attention in which you
directed your law clerk to have Wisconsin Steel's counsel
prepare proposed orders in its favor and which you subsequently
released without change and without prior notice to Harvester's
counsel clearly violate all three of the above Canons. These
violations would not have come to light except that counsel for
Harvester discovered that your order of January 7, 1985, had
been received by counsel for Wisconsin Steel a day before its
receipt by counsel for Harvester. This prompted the law firm
representing Harvester to conduct an investigation which
disclosed that your November 18, 1982, and January 7, 1985,
orders had been prepared by counsel for Wisconsin Steel on
paper bearing their watermark and their type face.

If you had announced your rulings in advance to both
concerned parties and then in the presence of both had directed
counsel for one of them to prepare orders carrying out your
rulings, there would have been no violation of the Canons.
Because no secrecy is involved, it is also blameless for a
judge to ask counsel for both sides to prepare and serve on the
other side proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and
orders. The judge can then select the version, altered or
unaltered, which he prefers. However, counsel for Harvester
and others were never told how you would rule with respect to
Wisconsin Steel's motion to dismiss Harvester's counterclain,
Wisconsin Steel's motion for discovery of documents in
Harvester's possession that were allegedly protected by the
attorney-client privilege, Wisconsin Steel's motion to compel
parties other than Harvester to produce documents, and Chicago,
West Pullman & Southern Railroad Co.'s application for
Wisconsin Steel's payment of demurrage charges. The misconduct
lay in your ex parte having your law clerk request counsel for
Wisconsin steel to pi prepare those four orders and then releasing
them as your own. All four orders were in Wisconsin Steel's
favor and counsel for Harvester never had a chance to object to
them in advance. In fact, there could have been no plausible
ethical objection to the procedure used as to the four orders
except for the foregoing mailing incident revealing
dramatically the covert unethical practices employed. It is no
defense that you retained one of the draft orders four to six
months before entering it on January 7, 1985, without change.

The knowledge that a judge will rule in a particular way is
invaluable information to the lawyer and the client,
particularly when the other lawyers and their clients do not
share in that information.

DEF02368


5965

The Recommendations
BGR makes the following recommendations:

+ All the elements of the Jefferson Parish criminal justice system should actively cooperate with the
Clerk of Court in continued development of an integrated information system that can be used and is
used by all parts of the criminal justice system for planning, budgeting, management, and reporting
purposes.

+ Comprehensive, system-wide improvements should be aggressively pursued, including:

+ pursuit, by the judiciary, of judicial system management improvements, including development and
refinement of a case tracking system, provision of caseload information to judges and other interested

parties, development of baseline data and formulation and adoption of case processing time standards,
and adoption of an effective continuance policy

formulation, under the auspices of the CIC as planning and coordinating entity, of a,community
policy on the use of acceptable eltematives to traditional incarceration

careful consideration, by all parties in the system and under the auspices of the CIC, of altemative
methods for addressing jail overcrowding (including the options from the national perspective review
that have not been implemented, as shown in Exhibit 3 of the body of the report)

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, as the planning and coordinating entity for Jefferson Parish,
should, on an ongoing basis, state clearly the existing responsibilities and authority for the funding and
operations of all the elements of the criminal justice system, so that citizens, as well as officials, can
understand who is responsible for what.

Consolidation and clarification of authority in state law may be desirable but is not within the ability of
Jefferson Parish alone to accomplish.

The entity designated to be responsible for jail planning should clearly put forward its case for a specific
recommendation of how much additional jail space is needed. Such a case would entail:

+ a detailed analysis of the jail population, such as that described by the National Institute of Corrections
and the National Institute of Justice. Partial information on what sorts of inmates are being held and
why is currently available. A descriptive analysis of the jail population (including numbers of persons
according to length of confinement, status of case, seriousness of charge or crime, criminal history) is
not currently available.

+ an analysis of case flow throughout the entire criminal justice system, for the purpose of identifying
specific points at which delays and inefficiencies cause unnecessary increases in jail population. Such
aan analysis would reflect the seriousness and complexity of cases.

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—3
DEFO2411


None

None

None

5810

b. Ifthe debtor is a corporation, ist all oficers and directors ofthe corporation, and each
‘stockholder who directly or indirectly ows, contros, or holds 5 percent or more ofthe voting

securties ofthe corporation,

20. Former partners, officers, directors and shareholders

. Ifthe debtor is partnership, list each member who withdrew trom the partnership within one

year immediately preceding the commencement of this case.

terminated within one year immer

, Ifthe debtors a corporation, list all oficer, or directors whose relationship with the corporation
ly preceding the commencement ofthis case,

21. Withdrawals from a partnership or distributions by a corporation

to an inside

the debtor isa partnership or corporation, tst all withdrawals or distributions credited or given
including compensation in any form, bonuses, loans, stock redemptions, options
exercised and any other perquisite during one year immediately preceding the commencement

of this case.

of financial atfars and eny atta

1H.9-c(
Yaar

Date

Date

re under penalty of pe.

a

Signature
of Debtor

Signature
of Joint
Debtor

ients thereto and that they are true -

Carmella A. Porteous

DEF01946


5947

Magistrate Dunsmore was in Savannah, Georgia, to hear the
government's application for an injunction in United states v
Blackshear. In that case, Tony Blackshear had been charged with
six violations of federal law for trafficking cocaine, and the
government was seeking the forfeiture of assets he had allegedly
acquired with money derived from the criminal activity. on
March 4, 1988, following Blackshear's arraignment, the district
court had entered a temporary restraining order to prevent
Blackshear from disposing of those assets and had directed
Magistrate G. R. Smith to hear the government's application to
convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary
injunction. Magistrate smith noticed a hearing on the
government's application for March 18, but, on March 17,
continued the hearing to March 31, at 10:00 a.m., because
Blackshear's attorney, Chevene B. King, Jr., was unavailable.

Mr. King's father had passed away earlier in the week, and Mr.
King was in the process of arranging the funeral and attending to
his family's needs. On March 29, Magistrate Smith, concluding
that it would be inappropriate for him to handle the government's
application for a preliminary injunction (because he had been in
the United states Attorney's office while the Blackshear case was
being processed for indictment), asked Magistrate Dunsmore, who
was assigned to the Augusta Division of the Southern District of
Georgia, to take the March 31 hearing. Magistrate Dunsmore
agreed to do so, and on March 30 drove to Savannah for that

purpose.

DEF02393


6055

102 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

example, number of prior arrests), sex and age of the defendant,” release
type (surety, cash bond, own recognizance, and so on), rearrest charges for
those rearrested, whether the defendant failed to appear, and whether the
defendant was still at large after I year, among other categories.

In addition to the main release types, there are minor variations. Some
counties, for example, release on an unsecured bond for which the defendant
pays no money to the court but is liable for the bail amount should he fail
to appear. Because the incentive effects are very similar, we include unsecured
bonds in the deposit bond category.” Instead of a pure cash bond, it is
sometimes possible to put up property as collateral. Since property bonds
are rare (588 observations in our data, less than 2 percent of all releases),
we drop them from the analysis.” Finally, some counties may occasionally
use some form of supervised release, In the first year of our data set, su-
pervised release is included in the own-recognizance category. Supervised
release often means something as simple as a weekly telephone check-in, so
including these with own recognizance is reasonable. Supervised release is
not @ standard term, however, and other forms, such as mandatory daily
attendance of a drug treatment program, are likely to be more binding. To
‘maintain comparability across years, we follow the practice established in
the first year of the data set by classifying supervised release with own
recognizance. Because supervised release is more binding than pure own
recognizance, this can only lower FTA rates and other results in the own-
recognizance sample, thus biasing our results away from finding significant
differences among treatments.”*

In Table 1, the mean FTA rates for release categories are along the main
diagonal, with the number of observations in square brackets. The preliminary
analysis suggests that FTA rates are lower under surety bond release than
under most other types of release. Off-diagonal elements are the difference
between the FTA rate for the row category and the FTA rate for the column
category. The FTA rate for those released under surety bond is 17 percent,
Compared with surety release, the FTA rate is 3 percentage points higher
under cash bonds, 4 percentage points higher under deposit bonds, and 9
percentage points higher under own recognizance (all these differences are

°° The State Court Processing Statistics data are more complete and better organized than
the National Pretrial Reporting Program data. The former, for example, include information
fon the race of the defendant that the later do not.

© We drop observations missing data on the bail amount.

© Another reason to drop property bonds is that itis difficult to compare the bail for these
releases to other release types. A defendant, for example, may put up 2 $250,000 house as
Collateral for $25,000 in bail. Although we know the bail amount, we do not know the value
of the collateral property other than that it must, by law in many cases, be higher than the
Value of the bail amount. A cash or surety bond, therefore, is not equivalent to a property bond.
for the same bail amount

TM We find similar results by restricting the data set to the years in which supervised release
is given a distinct category.

DEF02613


5967

Introduction

This Bureau of Governmental Research report is the
third in a three-part series on Jefferson Parish
government undertaken at the request of, and with major
funding by, the Jefferson Business Council.

The first report in the series, issued in July 1993,
presented an overview of the general-purpose
government of the Parish of Jefferson, the Parish Council
and Parish President. The second report in the series,
issued in December 1993, presented a financial and
‘operational overview of the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's
Office.

This third report focuses on the criminal justice
system in Jefferson Parish. The criminal justice system
was defined to include the following agencies:

Jefferson Parish Sheriff and Jefferson Parish
Correctional Center

Jefferson Parish District Attorney

‘Twenty-fourth Judicial District Indigent Defender

Board
Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court “os
‘Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court

First and Second Parish Court
Jefferson Parish Regional Office, Division of
Probation and Parole, Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections

Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court

Jefferson Parish Department of Juvenile Services
and Rivarde Detention Center

+ Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice Coordinating,
Council (CICC)

Despite the importance of the parish governing body
as funder of portions of the criminal justice system and
the importance of the parish president as ultimately
responsibile for the administration of the Department of
Juvenile Services, the Parish Council and President are
not discussed separately in this report.

Additionally, although the expenditures of and
personnel in the law enforcement agencies of the
‘municipalities in the parish are included in the total of
parish criminal justice expenditures and employees, these
law enforcement agencies are likewise not disucssed
separately in this report.

While BGR’s study does include a brief overview of
the system as a whole and the individual agencies which
make up the system, the emphasis of this report is on the
issue of the jail overcrowding in Jefferson Parish. More
specifically, BGR’s scope of review was designed to
‘address two separate but related questions: Is additional
parish jail space needed, or is the apparent jal
overcrowding a result of other parts of the criminal
justice system not working properly?

The rationale for the focus on jail overcrowding was
based on several factors. First, this issue is a major
public policy matter resulting in the citizens of Jefferson
Parish’s being asked to decide, in recent years, on two
proposals for financing and constructing additional jail
space. Secondly, itis quite possible that voters will be
asked to consider another proposal to approve the
financing of additional jail space in an election later this
year or early 1995. Third, the issue of incarceration as a
‘crime-reduction strategy is now being debated nationally,
as well as locally, in numerous public forums.

By choosing this particular emphasis, BGR does not
‘mean to suggest that this is the only important issue
facing the criminal justice system in Jefferson Parish.
As the overview of the system indicates, BGR found
‘numerous examples of other issues that merit closer
attention: the need for closer coordination among,
agencies in the system, the need to provide additional
training for system personnel, the need to increase
spending in areas such as indigent defense and juvenile
preventive services, the lack of a comprehensive criminal
justice information system, and the need for improved
facilities and up-to-date equipment in court and
correctional agencies. These other significant needs are
all highlighted by consideration of the jail crowding.

Sefferson Parish Criminal Justice Sytem —$

DEF02413


6051

98 ‘THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

union membership, previous arrests, and so on."* In addition, bond dealers
have access to all kinds of public and private databases. Bob Burton,” a
bounty hunter of some fame, for example, says that a major asset of any
bounty hunter is a list of friends who work at the telephone, gas, or electric
utility, the post office, or welfare agencies or in law enforcement.”°

Bond dealers, however, recognize that what makes their pursuit of skips
most effective is the time they devote to the task. In contrast, public police
are often strained for resources, and the rearrest of defendants who fail to
show up at trial is usually given low precedence.

The flow of arrest warrants for FTA has overwhelmed many police de-
partments, so today many counties are faced with a massive stock of unserved
arrest warrants. Baltimore alone had 54,000 unserved arrest warrants as of
1999. In recent years, Cincinnati has had over 100,000 outstanding arrest
warrants stemming from failures to appear in court. One Cincinnati defendant
had 33 pending arrest warrants against him.” In response to the overwhelming
number of arrest warrants, most of which will never be served because of
lack of manpower, some counties have tumed to extreme measures such as
offering amnesty periods. Santa Clara County in California, for example, has
a backlog of 45,000 unserved criminal arrest warrants and in response has
advertised a hotline that defendants can use to schedule their own arrests.”

Although national figures are not available, it is clear that the problem of
outstanding arrest warrants is widespread. Texas, for example, is relatively
well off with only 132,000 outstanding felony and serious misdemeanor
warrants, but Florida has 323,000, and Massachusetts, as of 1997, had around
275,000. California has the largest backlog of arrest warrants in the nation.
The California Department of Corrections estimated that as of December
1998, there were more than 2.5 million unserved arrest Warrants.** Many of
these arrest warrants are for minor offenses, but tens of thousands are for

"We thank Bryan Frank of Lexington National Insurance Corporation for discussion and
for sending us a typical application form.

' Bob Burton, Bail Enforcer: The Advanced Bounty Hunter (1990).

* Good bond dealers master the tricks of their rade. One bond dealer pointed out to us, for
example, thatthe first three digits in a social security umber indicate in what state the number
‘Sas issued. This information can suggest that an applicant might be lying if he claims to have
>een bor in another slate (many social security numbers are issued at birth or shorty thereafter),
and it may provide a lead for Where a skipped defendant may have family or friends

® Francis X. Clines, Baltimore Gladly Breaks 10-Year Homicide Streak, N.Y. Times, January
3, 2001, at AIL

® George Lecky, Police Name “200 Most Wanted,” Cincinnati Post, September 5, 1997, at
1A

» See Jane Prendergast, Wasrant Amnesty Offered for 1 Day, Cincinnati Enquirer, November
19, 1999, for description of a similar program in Kenton County, Kentucky. See also Henry
K.'Lee & Kenneth Howe, Plan to Clear Backlog of Warrants: Santa Clara County Offering
‘Amnesty to Some, S.F, Chroa., January 12, 2000, at A1S.

% Howe and Hallissy, supra note 3.

“id

DEF02609


6048

BALL JUMPING 95

1 defendant fails to appear at least once, the probability that a defendant
remains at large for 1 year or more conditional on having failed to appear
(what we call the fugitive rate), and the probability that a defendant who
failed to appear is recaptured as a function of time.

The earlier economic studies of the bail system examine the role of the
bail amount in the decision to fail to appear, generally finding that higher
bail reduces FTA rates.’ These studies did not focus on the central issue of
this paper—the different incentive effects of the various release types.°

Il. History OF PRETRIAL RELEASE AND INCENTIVE EFFECTS
or RELEASE SYSTEMS

‘Although money bail is still the most common form of release, money
bail and especially the commercial surety industry have come under increas
ing and often virulent attack since the 1960s.” Bail began as a progressive
measure to help defendants get out of jail when the default option was that
all defendants would be held until trial. In the twentieth century, however,
the default option was more often thought of as release, and thus money bail
wus reconceived as a factor that kept people in jail. In addition, the greater
burden of money bail on the poor elicited growing concem.* As a result,

+ William M. Landes, The Bail System: An Economie Approach, 2 J. Legal Stud. 79, 10S
(1973); William M. Landes, Lepalty and Reality: Some Evidence on Criminal Procedure, 3
5. Legal Stud. 287 (1974); Stevens H. Clark, Jean L. Freeman, & Gary G. Koch, Bail Risk:
‘A Multivariate Analysis, J. Legal Stud. 341, 385 (1976); Samuel L. Myers, J, The Economics
‘of Bail Jumping, 10 J. Legal Stud. 381, 396 (1981).

tan Ayres & Joel Waldfogel, A Market Test for Discrimination in Bait Setting, 46 Stan.
L. Rev. 987, 1047 (1994), demaonstrates the subtlety of the distinctions made by Yond dealers
jn selling bail bond rates. Although the courts (in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1990) st higher
‘ail amounts for minority defendants than for whites, Ayres and Weldfogel find that bond
dealers acted in precisely the opposite manner. What this patem suggests is tht judges set
higher bail for minority defendants than for white defendants with the same probability of
flight. Bond dealers are then induced by competition to charge minorities relatively lower bail
bond rates

* Floyd Feeney, Foreword, in Bail Reform in America, at ix (Wayne H. Thomas, Jr, ed
1976) for example, writes that “the present system of commercial surety bail should be simply
and totally abolished. - . . Itinot so much that bondsmen are evil—although they sometimes
fare—but rather that they serve no useful purpose.” American Bar Association, Criminal ustice
Standards, ch. 10, Pretrial Release, Standard 10~5.5, Compensated Surcties, 114-15 (1985),
refers to the commercial bond business as “tawdry” and discusses “the central evil of the
Compensated surety system.” When Oregon considered reintroducing commercial bail, Judge
William Snovifer testified, “Bail bondsmen are cancer on the body of criminal justice” (quoted
in Spurgeon Kennedy & D. Alan Hensy, Commercial Surety Bail: Assessing Its Role in the
Pretrial Release and Detention Decision (1997). Supreme Cour Justice Harry Blackraun called
the commercial bail system “offensive” and “odorous.” See Schilb v. Kuebel, 408 U.S. 357
asm).

"In ender to provide appropriate incentives, money bail is typically higher for the rich than
the poor Thus, it is not a priori necessary that money bail should discriminate against the
‘oor although in practice this does occur owing to nonlinearities and fixed costs in the bal
process. Assume that moncy bail is set s0 as to create equal FTA rates across income classes.
{a such a cas, there is no diserisination against the poor in the seting of bail. But if the bal

DEF02606


5879

The Judicial Council concludes that no additional action is
necessary based on the comparison language because the Judge
acknowledged that the comparison was a mistake and has apologized
for the ACS remarks, and because there is no precedent or
authority clearly defining the comparison remarks as misconduct
under the misconduct statutes or the Canons: “{m]any of the
proscriptions in the Code are necessarily cast in general terms,
and it is not suggested that disciplinary action is appropriate
where reasonable judges might be uncertain as to whether or not
the conduct is proscribed.” Canon 1 Commentary at { 3.

3. General Political Bias.

The general allegations of political bias, when considered
separately from the political advocacy allegations, do not state
a claim under Canon 7 or the misconduct statutes. Under Canon 7,
a judge is free to have a preference or bias as between political
candidates, and vote accordingly, as long as he or she does not
publicly advocate for or against a candidate. To the extent that
any of the complaints are based on the belief that a judge must
be politically neutral or hold no strong political beliefs, they
are without merit. To the extent that any of the complaints are
based on the belief that the Judge’s alleged bias renders him
unable to sit as a judge in a case involving the President or any
particular issue, they are (at least) premature as any such claim
would await an actual instance. The general “political bias”
claims are dismissed.

“4. Da twit! v. :

canon 3 requires federal judges to “maintain professional
competence in the law.” Canon 3(A)(1). Although “incompetence”
may not fit comfortably within the definition of “misconduct,” it
is arguably “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the court” or (less arguably) a
‘mental or physical disability” within the meaning of § 351(a).
In any event, even assuming that demonstrated incompetence would
constitute misconduct or a disability, we dismiss this claim as
meritless. As shown by the closely divided vote in the Bush v
Gore decision itself, and the numerous analyses of that decision,
reasonable people disagree over the soundness of the opinions in
that case. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Nothing in the
Judge’s comments about that decision raises an issue of
competence.

14

DEF02325


5921

Honorable Charles B. McCormick -2- May 7, 1985

International Harvester to produce certain documents for
Wisconsin Steel's inspection, and your March 15, 1982, order
denying the Chicago, West Pullman & Southern Railroad Co.'s
application for payment of $75,180 demurrage charges by
wisconsin Steel were prepared by Wisconsin Steel's counsel
pursuant to your request through your law clerk. Your letter
to me of April 11, 1985, confirmed that you entered the four
orders after directing your law clerk to obtain drafts from
Wisconsin Steel's counsel which you released as your:own. The
January 7, 1985, ruling was denominated an "Opinion and Order"
and consisted of 11 pages and contained numerous citations.

The November 18, 1982, decision was labelled "Order" and was of
the same length and also studded with citations. The December
3, 1981, "Order" was only four pages but referred to numerous
federal opinions. Finally, the March 15, 1982, "Order" was
five pages and again referred to prior federal cases and one
from Colorado. At least colloquially all of them might well be
denominated opinions and represent considerable scholarship.

The record reveals that in the above four instances, you
did not reveal to any counsel other than Wisconsin Steel's how
you planned to decide the matters covered by those orders, and
that through your law clerk you directed Wisconsin Steel's
counsel to prepare the drafts which you eventually released
without change under your name. Your letter of April 11
indicates that you have no recollection of other ex parte
communications with counsel for a litigant requesting its
counsel directly, or through your law clerk upon your
direction, to prepare orders in cases being litigated before
you without notifying opposing counsel in advance of your
decisions and requests.

By resolution of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, the Code of Conduct for United States judges is
applicable to bankruptcy. judges and United States magistrates
as well as to the other federal judges. Canon 1 requires a
judge to "uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary" and Canon 2 requires a judge to "avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities."
Particularly applicable to the facts brought to the attention
of the Judicial Council of the Seventh Federal Circuit with
respect to yourself, Canon 3A(4) provides:

A judge should accord to every person who is legally
interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right
to be heard according to law, and, except as
authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex
atte or other communications concerning a pending or
Fpetding proceeding. A judge, however, may obtain
the advice of a disinterested expert on the law
applicable to a proceeding before him if he gives

DEF02367


6072

BAIL JUMPING 119

APPENDIX
TABLE Al
‘OnDERED PROBIT ON STRINGENCY OF RELEASE

Variable Coefficient
[Local conditions
“Time, in days, to scheduled start of trial = 5821 (0038)
Local clearance rte (total arresvtotal crzze) 3987 (1799)
Defendant is charged. wit:
Murder (051044)
Rape (032135)
Robbery (028193)
Assault (039397)
‘Other violent crime (02932)
Burglary (027558)
Theft (029142)
Other propery crime (026828)
Drug trafic (027033)
Otter drug crime =01139 (041254)
Driving-elated crime = 18755" (016514)
Defeadant characteristics:
‘Age 00854 (000653)
Female (yes=1) §73085%* (080055)
‘Active eriinal justice status 191588" (013974)
Previous felonies 24a761%* (013558)
Previous failure to appear 123918¢* (015137)

[Norr.—The model includes county and year effects (not shown). Asymptotic sandard
crore ae in parentheses. There are 58,585 observation.

Statistically significant atthe greater than 10% level

+ Statistically significant atthe greater than 1% level (two-sided test)

BiwLioGRAPHy

American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Standards. Washington, D.C.
American Bar Association, 1985.

Augurzky, Boris, and Schmidt, Christoph M. “The Propensity Score: A
Means to an End.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 271, Bonn: IZA, March
2001.

Ayres, Ian, and Waldfogel, Joel. “A Market Test for Discrimination in Bail
Setting.” Stanford Law Review 46 (1994): 987-1047.

Burton, Bob. Bail Enforcer: The Advanced Bounty Hunter. Boulder, Colo.:
Paladin Press, 1990.

Chamberlin, John A. “Bounty Hunters: Can the Criminal Justice System Live
without Them?” University of Illinois Law Review (1998): 1175-1205.
Clarke, Stevens H.; Freeman, Jean L.; and Koch, Gary G. “Bail Risk: A

Multivariate Analysis.” Journal of Legal Studies 5 (1976): 341-85.

Clines, Francis X. 2001. “Baltimore Gladly Breaks 10-Year Homicide

Streak.” New York Times, January 3, 2001.

DEF02630


5872

participating in the debate or vote on such matters in a manner
in which the public may effectively become aware of the judge’s
abstention”). The ACS web site makes clear that various Supreme
Court justices have attended and spoken at ACS events, and
various panel members at the 2004 ACS convention and other ACS
events stated or suggested that their political beliefs were
opposed to the viewpoint attributed to the ACS by the
complainants.* Legal organizations often invite speakers of
divergent views as a means of fostering robust debate and
attracting an audience. Balance in the roster of speakers or
topics may be relevant to whether an event may be attended under
Canon 4, but such balance is not required:

[t]he education of judges in various academic and
law-related disciplines serves the public interest.
That a lecture or seminar may emphasize a particular
viewpoint or school of thought does not necessarily
preclude a judge from attending. Judges are
continually exposed to competing views and arguments
and are trained to consider and analyze them. Yet,
notwithstanding the general principle that judges may
attend independent seminars ..., there are instances in
which attendance at such seminars would be inconsistent
with the Code of Conduct. It is consequently essential
for judges to assess each invitation on a case-by-case
basis.

Judicial Conference of the United States, Committee on Codes of
Conduct, Advisory Opinion 67, Attendance at Educational Seminars,

42 (1980, last revised Aug. 2004).

The Judge’s presence at the ACS event, by itself, does not
bespeak sympathy or support for the mission of the ACS, or for
any of the speakers or groups represented at the event, because,
among other reasons, the Judge’s educational activities are by no
means limited to groups generally aligned to the left, as a
review of web sites confirms. See United States v. Pitera, 5
F.3d 624, 626-27 (2d Cir. 1993) (judge’s impartiality not

' The political views of many of the speakers listed for
the various events described on the web site are not apparent.
However, in addition to various speakers who are well known for
being politically left-of-center, there are various speakers
described as present or former officials in the current
presidential administration, the Republican National Committee,
and organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute and
the National Right to Life Committee.

7

DEF02318


6000

| tenses ition sion scene omc
Search Researh Tasks ¥ Gea Document © shepar'® Watts ¥ Tota ugar Y transactional Ads T Counsel Selector oe

rocusTM vans “shina vergence to? een ane Crs ens (2-1) IJ poveoet
Source: News & Susiess > Combined Sources > News, All English, Full Text)
Tes. "GSA Head Says He Forgot to Mention Loan” (Est seach | Sunges! Terms or My Search | Egesbackon Yous Seach)

GSA head says he forgot to mention Joan United Press International July 16, 1982, Friday, PM cycle

Copyright 1982 U.P.I.

United Press International
duly 16, 1982, Friday, PM cycle

SECTION: Washington News

LENGTH: 404 words

HEADLINE: GSA head says he forgot to mention loan

BYLINE: By GREGORY GORDON

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

Bopy:
‘The head of the General Services Administration says he inadvertently overlooked a $425,000 federal loan in stating his
finances to a Senate committee before he was confirmed.

GSA Administrator Gerald Carmen told Chairman William Rath of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Thursday
that he based his responses to a committee financial questionnaire last year on standards required in other forms he filed
at the time.

Carmen failed to disclose that his used tire business in Manchester, N.M., received two Small Business Administration
loans totalling $425,000 in 1975. Forms that executive branch officials must file under the Ethics in Government Act do
‘not require disclosure of business loans, even if they are personally guaranteed, unless the loans are delinquent.

But the Senate committee's disclosure form is more specific, demanding information on all direct and indirect loans to the
party seeking appointment to a federal office. Carmen, wha met with Rath and committee staff, said in a letter to the
Delaware Republican that his “falure to provide this information to the committee was an oversight. I regret any
embarrassment that was caused by that.”

{A spokesman for Roth, who sent Carmen a letter last month demanding an explanation, sald the committee would review
the GSA chief’ letter, "but Sen. Roth seems to be satisfied that he provided the material that was left out of the original
disclosure and that it'was an oversight.

“It appears to satisfy the requirements the committee had,” the spokesman said.

It was revealed last month that shortly after taking office as head of the government landlord and procurement agency,
Carmen requested and received two six-month deferrals on the low-interest SBA loans, which were combined in 1976. As
collateral for the loan, Carmen posted the property on which he ran his tire business and other property he owned
personally

Carmen, a key figure in running President Reagan's New Hampshire campaign, sold the business in 1979, but did not
repay the loan,

He continued to hold the money at 6.5 percent interest, while conventional lending rates soared. SBA officials say he still
‘owes $405,000, plus $30,000 in interest accrued during the deferral period.

‘Carmen's letter said he owed $391,593 on the foan, which he and his wife, Anita, guaranteed, Carmen is due to resume
his monthly payments of $2,717 on the loan on July 24.

Source” News & Business > Combined Sauces > News, All (English, Full Text)»
“Terms: SOSA Head Says He Forgot to Menton Loan” (Et Sar | Suns Tums fu My Search | Eedbacton Your Sec)

naps /Avww less convreeareetnevs?_m=cl28b1 Te leSSbdeae7925836deR4 akesve~bltcform=seachForm&_fntst=FULLAdoenum=1&_ 8/31/2010

DEF02452
PORT Exhibit 1116



5974

48. intensive probation Y

47. Sentencing review boards * N

Alternatives to Using Current Parish Jall Space

48. Contracting for beds with other jurisdictions Y
49. Use of temporary housing options N
‘50. Timely transfer of inmates sentenced to State Department of Y

Public Safety and Corrections

Total System Initiatives

'51. Development of an integrated criminal justice information system Nt

52. Establishment of task forces/special committees Y

'53. System-wide planning initiatives Y

‘84. increased utilization of community services and alteratives to N
incarceration

* The Clerk of Court has developed and has on-line in his office, as of May 23, a criminal justice information
sytem. It is expected be fully operational for that office by September. For that system to be truly integrated
will require cooperation of all the independently elected officidis and separate agencies and offices.

setting of bail (30); prompt action on probation possible application in Jefferson Parish. In particular,
revocation (35); the development of some additional BGR recommends the following:

lectronic monitoring (41); halfway houses (43); (1) measures to increase awareness of and to
intensive probation (46); contracting for beds with other increase diversion to community resources in
jurisdictions (48); and the timely transfer of inmates Jefferson Parish in lieu of arrest and detention
sentenced to state custody (50).

(2) alternatives to pretrial detention and local

‘Taken together, the major initiatives implemented incarceration in Jefferson Parish. These incl
have helped to address potentially serious jail over- supervised pretrial release, work-release facil
crowding in Jefferson Parish, although the extensive use da-reporting caters, and greater us of halfvay
of emergency release poses its own problems. Jefferson hhouses, home detention and intensive probation.

Parish officials should be recognized for their
responsiveness in implementing many of these programs. (3) _earlier prosecutorial screening, which, in tur, is
There remain, however, a number of other options that dependent on timely and accurate completion of
hhave not been tried or are not currently used, which may incident reports
have application locally.

(4) improvements in court management, to include

Based on the inventory of alternative strategies, BGR the use of time standards and goals, effective
determined that 21 of the 54 options have not been monitoring of caseflow, more public
implemented in Jefferson Parish as of this time. BGR accountability on court workload and docket
suggests that many of these options have potential for information, and more restrictions on the number
reducing the jail population and should be considered for and length of continuances

‘12—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

DEFO2420


FORM a8
9,

inre Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr.

5792

Carmella A. Porteous

Debtor

, CaseNa. 01-12363 Section "AY

(mown)

SCHEDULE C - PROPERTY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT

Dettor elects he exemption o which debloris ented under

(Check one bx)

O1TUS.C.§5220X1) Exemptions profded in 11 U.S.C. § 522(0,
2 11U8.C.§52202 —Eremetions avaiable under applcabe

‘Note: These exemptions are available only in certain states.

feceral lave, sat or local lew where the debtor's domicla hax
the fling f the pion, or for longer porton ofthe 180-day peciod

been located fo he 160 days rrmediately preceding
‘han in any oer plac, andthe Gabor interest a stent by the etre o int teat othe extant tha nero le
‘exempt fram process under applicable nonbarkrupcy aw.
SPECFYLAN VALUE OF (CURRENT MARKET
VALUE OF PROPERTY,
DDESCRETION OF PROPERTY PROVING EACH enon WITHOUT DEDUCTING.
EWTN EXEMPTIONS.
Family Home La. RS 20:1, Const. Art. 12, §8 725,000.00 235,110.00
[Family Photos, Prints, et Ta RS 13:3881(A)(4¥a) 250.00 250.00
Federal Judicial Pension US. 288376 NO CASH VALUE WO CASH VALUE
I{unvested)
Fidelity Investments IRA La RS 20:33(1) 0,500.27 0,500.27
[Household Goods and Ta RS 13:3881(A) (0) 15,000.00 75,000.00
[Furnishings
[One Rifie La. RS 13:3601(AN4K0) 7200.00 7200.00
[Wearing Apparel La. RS 13:3881(A}4Xa) 3,000.00 3,000.00

DEFO1928


5878

Although the comparison remarks were inflammatory to a
reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, it is not clear that
they constituted judicial misconduct. In the complaint docketed
under 04-8547, the complainants reasonably argue that the
comparisons violated the Canon 1 requirement that judges
maintain, enforce, and personally observe “high standards of
conduct ... so that the integrity and independence of the
judiciary may be maintained.” However, there is no guidance in
the Canons (which are advisory in any event)--and little
elsewhere--on when out-of-court remarks that may be intemperate
or disrespectful transcend the merely distasteful or the
inadvisable and amount to misconduct. The available cases
(mostly applying state canons to state court judges) reflect that
sanctions have been imposed primarily for inappropriate remarks
made in the courtroom, or for inappropriate out-of-court remarks
more offensive than the comparison remarks, or for repeated
instances. The cases involving federal judges who made
questionable remarks outside the courtroom generally were
resolved through corrective actions taken either before or after
the filing of misconduct complaints; however, the available
descriptions of those cases do not indicate whether a finding or
acknowledgment of misconduct was made in conjunction with the
corrective action. See Barr and Willging, supra, 142 U. Pa. L.
Rev. at 66, 76, 98, 102, 176 (discussing federal misconduct
proceedings); American Law Reports Annotation, Disciplinary
Action Against Judge on Ground of Abusive or Intemperate Lanquage

x Conduct Toward Attorneys, Court Personnel x Parties to or
Witnesses in Actions, and the Like, 89 A.L.R.4th 278 (1991, 2004)
(discussing state and federal cases); cf. Talbot D’Alemberte,
Searching for the Limits of Judicial Free Speech, 61 Tul. L. Rev.
611, 612 (1987) (describing newspaper article which had reported
that a Federal Bar Association ethics expert had opined that
federal judge’s public statement that President Reagan was a
racist “probably didn’t violate judicial ethical canons
prohibiting federal judges from engaging in politics").

As part of the media coverage of the ACS remarks, at least
one article reported on the opinions of several law professors
concerning the ethical implications of those remarks. See Josh
Gerstein, Judge's ‘Mussolini’ i i riti
Say, NEW YORK SUN, June 23, 2004. Professor Volokh of the
University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, the only
professor who distinguished between the reelection and comparison
remarks, was reported as opining that the reelection remarks
violated the Canon 7 prohibition against political advocacy, but
that the “analogy to Hitler and Mussolini was factually
inaccurate and unfair, but not a breach of ethics.” Id. at last

paragraph.

13

DEF02324


5968

Study Process

This report is based on (1) the retiew of financial and
sinual reports of the agencies included in the scope of
review, 2) BGR staff interviews with key Jefferson
Parish agency personnel in law enforcement, courts,
corrections, and community services, and (3) a written
survey instrument distributed to agency el. In
addition, other local, state, and national agencies were
contacted for professional and technical perspectives.

Presentation

‘The first part of this report focuses on defining the
problem: Is the jail actually overcrowded, or is the
criminal justice system overloaded somewhere else? The
next section focuses on numbers of persons held in jail
and on various programs and policies that have been
implemented in Jefferson Parish to deal with the
‘overcrowding problem. Particular attention is paid to
alternatives to incarceration that have been successfully
‘employed in other jurisdictions and that may have
application in Jefferson Parish.

‘The next part of the report looks at options for
securing additional jail space. ‘The final section outlines
BGR’s conclusions and recommendations.

‘The criminal justice agency profiles are included as
Appendix A to this report. Appendix B describes
various non-jail measures for decreasing jail population.
‘The final element of the report is a list of sources
consulted.

A Note on the Special
Legislative Session

A special anti-crime state legislative session held in
Jute 1994 resulted in, among other actions, a number of
acts that will impact jail and prison populations in

a. Act 150 makes second-time offenders of
certain crimes automatically ineligible for "good time," a
system that rewards state convicts for good behavior in
prison by releasing them early. Acts 15 and 39 allow
14- and 15-yearolds to be tried as edults for certain
violent crimes, Act 23 allows prosecutors to use juvenile
convictions to charge persons as repeat offenders when
they become adult offenders. The govemor also signed
legislation allowing state police to set up a compre-
hensive criminal justice information system that will

6—The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

include an automated fingerprint identification system to
be used by state police and parish sheriffs, to be paid for
‘with $10.3 million from riverboat gambling revenues.

Jail Overcrowding
in Jefferson Parish

‘The most visible problem facing the criminal justice
system in Jefferson Parish—at least the one placed
before voters twice in the past two years—is the
adequacy of a jail at a judicially-established capacity of
700, According to the Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice
Coordinating Councit and various elected officials, jail
capacity has driven the system for at least the last three
years. Jail capacity had also driven the system more
than fen years ago (Baiamonte, 1990). The pressure had
been relieved for a short time by the opening of the
Correctional Center Annex in 1989. The next year,
however, the upper limits on jail capacity were being
reached again.

‘There are at least two major perspectives on the
problem. One view is that lack of jail space deprives
law enforcement officials and judges of a needed
mechanism for increasing public safety and social justice.
According to this view, Jefferson Parish has inadequate
space to detain or sentence persons accused and/or found
guilty of violent or potentially violent crimes.
Particularly in the view of lower court judges, Jefferson
Parish has inadequate space to lend the force of a high
order threat to a lower-order intervention or sanction.
For example, a judge cannot threaten with incarceration
the chronic passer of bad checks or the person found
guilty of non-support if there is no space for holding
such non-violent offenders.

‘The other major perspective is that the problem with
the criminal justice system in Jefferson Parish goes
beyond and may not even be a matter of availability of
jail space. In one variation of this perspective, jail space
{is not needed: what is needed are other measures, either
alternatives to incarceration and/or improved case
management, that is, improved processing of persons and
paperwork making their way through "the system.”

Another variation of this perspective is that jail space
is not all that is needed: what is needed is a

DEF02414


5883

he was appointed to the bench but it pertained to matters in a
bankruptcy proceeding when he was a United states Trustee.

The question presented by the complaint is whether the
charge that the Judge committed perjury is an allegation that he
“has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the courts" within
the meaning of section 372(c)(1). The Judicial Council agrees
with the conclusion of the Committee that in the circumstances
alleged by the complaint, the alleged perjury is beyond the scope
of the Act. The testimony alleged to be false does not concern
any aspect of the Judge's judicial duties or any aspect of his
conduct during his tenure as a judge. It concerns solely matters
occurring before he became a judge. As such, it is beyond the
scope of the Act, for the reasons fully explained by then-Chief
Judge Browning in In re Charce of Judicial Misconduct, No. 83-
8037 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 1986). We need not decide in this matter
whether we would go as far as Judge Browning in disclaiming
jurisdiction under the Act. Perjury is an extremely sensitive
problem for the judicial system, but an allegation that a judge
gave perjurious testimony in a matter unrelated to his own
judicial duties and unrelated to activities occurring while he
is a judge falls outside the statute authorizing disciplinary
action.

Accordingly, the complaint is hereby dismissed in its
entirety as outside the scope of the Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 372(c) (6) (B) (vii) and Rule 14(c)(1) of the Local Rules.

So Ordered.

Steven Flanders, Secretary
of the Judicial Council

Dated: October 3, 1991
New York, New York

Cake DEF02329


6004

‘made in the heat of the moment." "I regret any personal hardship this purely business dispute may have caused Mr.
Andrew Cuomo,” read the release, "I have always considered him an outstanding professional and count him as a friend."

‘The 1990 deal looked lke a total victory for the Fensters. The New York investors agreed to put thelr stock in trust for
five years and then give Oceanmark first dibs on buying it back.

What the Fensters didn’t know, however, was that the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) had separately
Investigated the New York Group and entered into a secret supervisory agreement on June 17, 1988. The agreement
Noted that * the FHLBB believes there is an issue as to whether there has been a violation of* control laws, but "is willing
‘to forebear from the initiation of proceedings." The terms were that Cuomo and the other group members had to dispose
of their Oceanmark stock within a year. If any remained in their hands, stated the agreement, the stack "shall be donated
to Oceanmark." By acceding to the agreement's stern language, Cuomo and his fellow investors avoided any fauit-based
action by the FHLBB.1

1 Cuomo and the other signatories may have misled regulators in order to close the deal. According to the agreement,
these stockholders, "consistent with their desire to no longer be involved with Oceanmark, have already entered into an
agreement for the Sale of their stock.” But that’s exactly what the group did not do.

Despite its clear interest in knawing about the agreement, Oceanmark only learned about it by chance in early 1991. For
the next three years, the thrift tried without success to get a copy from the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the new
federal regulator set up after the savings-and- loan debacle. Finally, in 1994, the Fensters took Cuomo and his group to
state court in Florida, charging them with "an illegal conspiracy to commit fraud by failing to abide by the supervisory
agreement.

‘The sult dragged on until 1996, when suddenly an armistice was reached. Oceanmark received a copy of the federal
order, and the New York Group agreed to exchange their stock for a largely worthless class of non-voting shares. The
bank withdrew its sult. But what astounded Lynn Fenster was the speed with which the settlement was approved. "It
‘went through like a rocket,” she says.

‘The Fensters were especially impressed when Cuomo assured them he could clear up a residual problem with the OTS
office in Atlanta, which supervises Florida thrifts. “One of the things that Andrew said,” recalls MS. Fenster, " was, ‘Don't
‘worry about a thing. I know people in Atianta and I can take care af this.”"

‘An Independent Counsel All His Own

‘Why did the settlement come so quickly? To the Fensters it seemed that members of the New York Group, even those no
longer active in the case, had suddenly decided to smooth the path for Andrew's career. Indeed, just three weeks later
‘Cuomo was nominated to replace Henry Cisneros as HUDsecretary. But the Fensters were less inclined to throw rose
petals on his progress. The result was a nasty face-off that led to the Justice inquiry.

[As part of the 1996 settiement, Cuomo asked for another public apology. This time the Fensters refused. Explains their
lawyer Willam Friedlander, "If Oceanmark said publicly that their claim had no merit, then everything we had negotiated
for--which was the right to bring it again, to dismiss it without prejudice--would have gone out the flue."

According to the Fensters, Cuomo took “no” very badly, threatened reprisal, and retaliated by pushing the OTS into an
‘extended examination aimed at closing Oceanmark down. "Within a month after we refused to do what Andrew
demanded,” says Friedlander, “the OTS was back on this bank like white on rice. And they ate us for lunch."

‘When Oceanmark began receiving what its auditors saw as unusual demands concerning recapitalization requirements
from OTS regulators, the Fensters appeated to the agency's ombudsman. In a letter of March 4, 1997, Oceanmark noted
that the acting head of the OTS at the time, Nicholas Retsinas, was simultaneously HUD's assistant secretary for housing
{and the federal housing commissioner, and hence subordinate to Secretary Cuomo. The thrift alleged that Cuomo had
used his authority to punish the Fensters and force a sale of Oceanmark, which, says Friediander, would have incidentally
Produced a payoff on the non-voting stock held by the New York Group.

‘The ombudsman considered the charge against Cuomo a political hot potato and passed It on to the Treasury
Department's inspector general. The FBI launched its own investigation. In late July 1998, even as FBI agents were still
Conducting interviews, the ombudsman revisited the complaint and concluded that OTS personnel might have been
“plain-spoken,” but they “did not actin a retaliatory manner.” He found “no information" showing Cuomo's influence.

In early September 1998, the Fensters filed yet another suit, charging Cuomo, Retsinas, and current OTS Deputy Director
Richard Riccobono with a” conspiracy" to ruin Oceanmark. Cuomo, they said, had used his political power to pressure the
others into harassing Oceanmark. But the real news was buried deep inside the lawsult. The Fensters said they had been
interviewed by the FBI, and that the bureau appeared to be conducting its own investigation of Cuomo and his associates.

In fact, Justice did conduct a preliminary investigation of Cuomo—the kind of inquiry that can lead to the appointment of
{an independent counsel. Reno confirmed this on September 8, 1998, when she announced her determination that “there
‘were no reasonable grounds to believe that further Investigation (by'a court-appointed special prosecutor) was

tps ew lexis comrescarcvetrieve?_m=973n1369[eDBAB2/e276a28SU8aTabesve=blacform-scachForm® fnistFULLiedccman=1é. 9212010
DEFO2456


5982

participating parishes. The sheriff of the parish where
the facility resides is the president of the board of
governors and the administrator of the facility.

‘Muttiparish prisons can be used for individuals
sentenced to "parish time," that is, violators of municipal
ordinances, those convicted of a misdemeanor, or those
convicted of a felony punishable with or without hard
labor. The governing authorities of the parishes within
the multiparish prison area are required to appropriate
annual operating funds in proportion to the assessed
valuation of the property in the parishes.

Privatization

‘The privatization of corrections is an option that has
gained in popularity in counties and states throughout the
country, due primarily to steadily increasing inmate
populations and the lack of public support for tax
i ort construction and operation of
additional facilities. “Privatization” can mean
privatization of ownership or privatization of
‘management and/or operations, and Louisiana law
provides for both in the case of corrections.

In 1989, the state legislature passed the Louisiana
Corrections Private Management Act (L.R.S. 39:1800),
which authorized state and local governments to enter
into contracts for, among other things, the private
construction and operation of correctional facilities. Two
of the state's twelve prisons are currently privately
operated. There are at present there are no privately-
operated jails in Louisiana.

Private ownership and construction of the proposed
new jail for Jefferson Parish, with lease-back and a buy-
cout provision to the parish, was considered in early 1992.
‘At that time, the parish Finance Director indicated the
Parish could not afford such a lease, estimated at $2
million a year for 20 years (Baiamonte letter, p. 3).
Since a quarter-cent sales tax would fund construction
costs in two to three years (depending on whether the tax
‘were levied parishwide or only in unincorporated areas),
the long-term concem with additional jail space is
‘operating costs. As indicated above, an additional S00
inmate beds and accompanying inprovements would be
expected to add 7.5 million in operating costs for the
sheriff and the parish council,

20~The Parish of Jefferson: Government Matters

Conclusions and
Recommendations

Findings

‘The major challenges confronting the criminal justice
system in Jefferson Parish include the following:

+ The parish jail is at its legal capacity and, by
several measures, beyond its functional capacity.
‘The population limit of the Jefferson Parish
Correctional Facility has been raised six times since
the facility opened in 1978 and has for three years
‘operated at 100 percent of its legal capacity.
According to the parish Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council (CIC), the sheriff's office
releases approximately 200 arrested felons per
month due to jail overcrowding.

+ There is no system in place to accumulate
“information about the operations of the criminal
Justice system that is both complete and accessible
to all who need it. The clerk of court has set up
and is beginning to implement a system that is

designed: (1) to be a repository for information

from all parts of the system and (2) to be
accessible to all parts of the system. Not all parts
of the system have computerized their operations,
however, much less linked them to the clerk's
system.

‘The prior clerk of court, whose office is the logical
repository of information about elements of the
system, had withdrawn completely from the parish
computer system formerly used by the other justice
system agencies. The sheriff has one computer
system, the district attorney has another. The
district court has hardly any information-processing
and information-management capability. Some of
the other agencies, particularly with the help of the
CIC, have developed their own capabilites.

‘The present clerk of court is making a major effort
and significant financial investment in developing @
usable, comprehensive system. Efforts currently
underway under the auspices of the Judicial
Council of the State Supreme Court and LCLE (the
Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and

DEF02428


5973

Judiciary
19, Empowerment of judicial administrator N
20. Separation of district court into civil and criminal divisions N
21. Use of ad-hoc judges Y
22. Court rules to expedite case handling N
23. Prompt signing of commitment papers of state-sentenced inmates Y
24. Use of time standards and goals N
25. Adequate information system and effective monitoring of caseflow N
26. Use of pretrial conferences Y
27. Trial date certainty and control of continuances: N
28. Regular plea-negotiation sessions N
29. Use of "settlement day" conferences N
30. Prompt bail-setting Y
31. Bail review Y
‘32. Use of non-financial release Y
Probation and Parole
‘33. Expansion of "special conditions" of release « Y
34, Reduced time for completion of PSI's for jail cases Y
'35. Prompt action on revocation of probation Y
Alternatives to Incarceration (Pre- and Post-trial)
36. Formal pretrial services agency N
37. Supervised pretrial release N
‘38. Treatment options Y
39, Fees, fines and restitution Y
40. Community service/non-monetary restitution N
41. Home detention/electronic monitoring Y
42. Day reporting centers. N
43. Halfway houses Y
44; “Boot camp"/shock incarceration N
48. Residential work-release facities * N

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System—I1

DEF02419


5899

He also claims that Respondent has a close personal friendship with Complainant's
trial counsel, developed when they worked together in a law firm, which precluded
Respondent from fairly considering the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
presented in the § 2255 motion.'

It is also alleged that there was inappropriate delay in deciding the § 2255 motion?
That motion was assigned to Respondent in April, 2003 and decided in March, 2006.
During that time a great deal of litigation occurred. An amended brief was filed by
Complainant as well as motions by the government for leave to file an amended answer
and to expand the record. The government’s motions were contested by Complainant. In
the Memorandum Opinion dismissing the § 2255 motion, not only were at least ten
substantive issues raised by Complainant in his § 2255 motion addressed, but also
motions for reconsideration of the decisions granting the government’s motions were
considered. In addition, a motion for enlargement on bail filed by Complainant was

decided during the time that the § 2255 motion was pending before Respondent.

Respondent was an associate in the law firm from 1985 until 1987. From 1987
unti} 1992 he was an Assistant United States Attorney. He has been a federal judge since
2002.

2 Complainant also appears to suggest that there has been undue delay in deciding
a post-decision motion challenging the dismissal of the § 2255 motion. That post-
decision motion has been pending approximately two months, having been filed in April,
2006.

DEF02345


5846

32 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

grant relief from stay or dismiss them immediately. So our "unlawful
detainerTM consumer cases are on a far shorter leash than single asset real estate
cases,

I don’t mean to imply that I am currently confirming a lot of Chapter
11 plans for single asset real estate cases. They are not living that long in our
jurisdiction at the moment, at least not in my courtroom, because there’s no
equity in any of these properties and they have no way of repaying the debt or
refinancing, given the fact that the bottom has fallen out of our real estate
market.

So single asset cases are mostly history on the first relief from stay
motion. A few survive, but most of them don’t get past relief from stay
because there is no equity and no prospect for successful reorganization.

WHAT Is DIFFERENT ABOUT SINGLE ASSET CASES?

PROF. GROSS: Let me play devil’s advocate for a minute
here, Why is it that these single asset cases where a debtor is seeking to
rework secured debt any different than any other Chapter 11 where a debtor
is trying to basically restructure its secured debt? Why are these particular
cases being "singled" out for singular treatment as abusive?

JUDGE MARK: I don’t think it’s implied that they necessarily
are. I like what Bill said earlier, that it’s a matter of how far forward you
push the analysis of the feasibility of a plan of reorganization. It’s easy to say
why they are different in terms of restructuring debt.

Well, they are not if they can come up with something in the way of
a plan, a feasible plan to restructure the debt. What has caused the courts to
look at these early cases is that many of them are simply filed to delay the
foreclosure sale and there is no prospect of restructuring the debt.

It is somewhat complicated in courts, including mine, where the
possibility of a new value, strip-down plan exists, even where there is no
equity. ‘That is a possible argument, even in a no equity case, that a feasible
plan is possible, however I don’t think we are saying single asset debtors don’t
have an opportunity to restructure. I think we are saying if certain criteria
exists, particularly in the 11th Circuit, you have to come to the table very
quickly with how you are going to do it.

einOnline ~ 1 Aca. Banks, Inst L. Rev. 32 1993

DEF02279


6023

Combed Sources > News, Al (English, Full Text)
‘Shils Gave Nominee the Edge” (Eat Seorch) Suaaes! Teums for My Senrch | Eaedback cn Vour Seavey

View. Fu
DateTime: Tuesday, August 31,2010 7.04 PMEDT

Search | Research Tasks | Geta Document | Shepard's | Ales | Total Lngator | Transactional Advsor| Counsel Selector
ery Delve Maraper Doaat | Geteh Git Peers |i Oa Ee

8 LexisNexis BRST 0 anes tittn of Read Betws tc i hts reserve

taggedDoes= toggle Values &numDocsChkaleO&preFDS . 8/1/2010
DEFO2475



5852

38 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

JUDGE GREENDYKE: I think that sanctions are clearly
warranted upon a finding of bad faith. The most obvious and appropriate
sanction is dismissal of the case. Beyond that, and recognizing that bankruptcy
judges arguably do not have the jurisdiction to impose criminal contempt or
punitive sanctions, compensatory sanctions in the form of costs and attorneys
fees are frequently warranted and granted. The debtor is most often the one
against whom the sanctions should be awarded, however, in appropriate
circumstances and given the right amount of culpability and/or knowledge,
debtor’s counsel can and should be held liable for sanctions.

JUDGE FENNING: A finding of "bad faith” would require,
in my view, compelling evidence of “subjective” bad faith. Merely filing a
Chapter 11 to delay a foreclosure is not bad faith. If the debtor happens to get
a sympathetic judge, a confirmed plan may result, Another judge might grant
immediate relief from stay or dismiss the case. The uncertainty of the legal
standards and the wide variation among judges preclude sanctions in the typical
case under "objective" Rule 9011 standards.

"Subjective" bad faith may, of course, exist in single asset real estate
cases, just as in any other type. The filing of the Chapter 11 case may be part
of an active scheme to defraud creditors. If proven, such factors justify Rule
9011 sanctions. Whether both the debtor and the attorneys should be
sanctioned depends upon the circumstances. :

After seven years on the bench, I have concluded that litigating a "bad
faith" filing claim and imposing sanctions is unproductive. Shortly after I
came on the bench, I did fully litigate such a case, entering an order of
dismissal on grounds of bad faith and imposing sanctions on both party and
counsel because of their outrageous conduct." ‘The amount of sanctions was
based upon the attorney fees generated, the ability of the sanctioned attorney
to pay, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Unfortunately, the
cost of that litigation was high. If faced with a similar case today, I would
probably just lift the stay for cause at the first hearing, sending the parties back
to state court without imposing sanctions or litigating the "bad faith" issue.
The Chapter 11 filing in such cases is usually just a side-show, and should be
simply, and economically resolved.

TM In re Eighty South Lake, 63 B.R. S01 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd, 81 B.R. 580 (Bankr. th Cir.
1987).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst. Rev. 38 1993

DEF02285


5981

As of April 1994, by letter of agroement between the
Jefferson Parish Council and the Orleans Parish Criminal
Sheriff (OPCS), the OPCS is currently holding 100
prisoners who are awaiting trial in the Twenty-fourth
Judicial District Court. This agreement took about a
year to finalize. Correspondence from the Council
‘Chairman to the OPCS indicates that the agreement
‘would terminate upon six months’ written notice by
either party.

Later correspondence from the Council Chairman to
the Jefferson Parish Sheriff indicates that the agreement
and budgetary provisions by the Council extend to the
end of 1994. The Jefferson Parish Council pays $23 per
day to the OPCS under this agreement and has budgeted
$700,000 for 1994, The Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office
transports inmates between the Orleans Parish Prison and
the Twenty-fourth District Court and is reimbursed
‘$50,000 by the Parish Council for this purpose,

For a full year, the cost of “leasing” 100 beds from
the OPCS would be $840,000 per year. Based on the
current budget amount, transportation for a full year

‘would be $60,000. For purposes of planning, this annual
cost of providing for the detention of 100 inmates per
day should be compared with the operating costs of new
prison beds for 500 inmates, estimated at $7.5 million
per year (Baiamonte letter, February 14, 1992, p.3).

See Exhibit 6.

‘Absent any major changes in state or local detention
and corrections policy, there are enough unused beds in
the Orleans Parish facility to continue the current
practice for several years. Of about 7,100 beds, about
5,500 were in use in June 1994, according to the OPCS
Chief Administrative Officer.

Multiparish Prisons

An option authorized by law but not yet in use in
Louisiana is a multiparish prison, created by the
governing authorities of one or more parishes (LLR.S.
15:801ff), These facilities would be governed by a
board of governors, composed of the sheriff and one
parish government member from each of the

Operating Costs of Housing 500 Jefferson Parish Inmates

In existing Jefferson

Parish facility

Cost per inmate per $24 (a)
day

Operating cost per $12,410
inmate por year

Operating cost per $6.2 milion

year for 600 inmates

(a) Baiamonte, April 11, 1994

{In Orleans Parish In new Jefferson

Prison, under current Parish facility
agreement
$23 $41 (0)
$8,985 $14,985 (0)
$42 mion $75 millon (c)

(b) Baiamonte letter, February 14, 1992, and BGR calculations.

(0) Includes operating costs for renovated and expanded kitchen and food service areas; renovated and
‘expanded medical faciities (inctuding a psychiatnc unit); a law library; stall exercise room, additonal
Visiting areas for altomeys and clergy; and expanded admnistrative, storage, and laundry areas. (See

+ GUC and Guilot-Vogt Study of Constitution Alternatives, 1891, pp. 12-14)

Exhibit 6

Jefferson Parish Criminal Justice System-—19

DEF02427


5797

ome -Com,

3

ine: Gabriel T, Porteous, Jr. Carmella A. Porteous :
a

(Cave Ne. 01-12363 Section “A”
(eon)

SCHEDULE F - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS

Sheet)

CGREDITOR'S NAME AND.
WAILING ADDRESS.
INCLUDING 21P CODE

DATE CLAMWAS INCURRED
AND CONSIDERATION FOR CLAM.
FCLAIMIS SUBJECT TO
‘SETOFF, SO STATE

AMOUNT OF
CAM

carne §308051220000662

Citibank USA
P.O, Box 15100
‘Wilmington, DE 19850-5109

Ccitfinancial
P.O. Box 17127
Baltimore, MD 21207

Edward F. Bukaty, il
‘One Galleria Blvd.
Suite 1810

Metairie, LA 70001-2082

‘1087-2000
Credit Card

7711.38

ecourne, _7575000220808428

Dillards
P.O, Box 52079
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2078

11967-2000
credit Card

467382

[Te

Phoenix, AZ 85072

Credit Card

243.16

fcooorve.  6017008350650480

Discover Platinum
P.

. Box 6011
Dover, DE 19903-8011

Credit Card

720,783.26,

Sheet na. {of 3 condnton sat stached to Sched of Cntr Hotng Urea Norgity feaod
came

raneonne

> $43,411.67

DEFO1933


5941

In arly September when Judge Clemon first reached Judge Ware to convey his
concerns that Judge Ware had misrepresented his identity, Judge Clemon referred to a recent
newspaper article. Judge Ware assumed that Judge Clemon was referring to the article in the
Birmingham World about his nomination that contained the wrong picture. When Judge Ware
told Judge Clemon that he must be referring to the article with the “wrong picture,” Judge
Clemon erroneously assumed that Judge Ware was referring to the Birmingham News article
concerning the Birmingham James Ware and was, in effect, denying that he had made any
misrepresentations concerning his own identity. Judge Clemon then contacted Chief Judge
Henderson to express his concerns regarding what he viewed as Judge Ware's apparent denial
of misconduct. When Chief Judge Henderson spoke with Judge Ware, he received exactly the
same response about the "wrong picture” as Judge Clemon had received. Judge Henderson
also mistakenly believed that Judge Ware was denying any misconduct.

Judge Clemon reported the entire matter to Mr. James Ware and his family in
Birmingham. As a result of miscommunications, Judge Clemon and the Birmingham Ware
family mistakenly believed that Judge Ware had been confronted with Judge Clemon’s
knowledge of the misrepresentations and that Judge Ware had refused to admit to any
wrongdoing.

Faced with the apparent denial by Judge Ware, Judge Clemon discussed the
situation in a routine court meeting in Birmingham on October 30. This prompted one of the
district judges to communicate directly with Senator Sessions, a member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. At this point, Judge Ware was confronted directly and for the first time

with the fact that his misrepresentations were now a matter of public knowledge. On

DEFO2387


6013

Friends of the Court

Judge Edelstein did not appear at yesterday's hearing and no lawyer representing him spoke. The judge represented
himself by fling a brief with the appeals court last week,

However, lawyers for two friends of the court - Philip N. Stern, a philanthropist and writer, and the Public Citizen
Litigation Group, a public interest group - argued that Judge Edelstein had the right to continue his actions.

‘They argued that the Tunney Act, which provides for public comment on Federal antitrust suit settlements, should also
apply to antitrust suit dismissals. The Justice Department agreed with I.B.M. that Judge Edelstein should cease his
hnearings but did not agree he should be removed from the case,

Source. News & Business > Combined Sources > News, All English, Ful Text)
“Tare Baste le Upheldin LON Gane ot Sent a
Fat

View
DoterTine: Tuesday, August 31, 2010-658 PM EOT

| Reseach Tai ct |Transachona Aviat
‘Search Research Tasks | Gate Document | Shenarde@ | Alerts | Tote sate eno | Counse! Selector

cgisNeniy, Soutien | Tams 6 Conditions | ContactUs
B® LesisNeniy, Sarees Stid ienawonsssvnan of Read Beever inc. A ights reserves

nopswntens comvressurhetove?_m036ebedh}a3eR62338/4e2fdb032lecesve=blcform-searchFormt ftst=FULLSoenam=1_.. 31/2010
DEFO2465


5880

C. The Yale Protest.

The complaint docketed under 04-8541 cites a report by the
Associated Press that, on May 23, 2004, the Judge's wife attended
a protest against the President and the war in Iraq, that she
said that “she was protesting on behalf of herself and her
husband” (identifying him by title, court and name), and that she
expressed anger about the President’s veracity and conduct of the
war. The complainant argues that, by failing to “publicly
correct (} his wife’s comments that she was protesting on his
behalf,” the Judge “has allowed the impression to fester that he
does take partisan political stands.” As with the ACS remarks
claims, this claim is construed as alleging a violation of Canon
7.

Both the Judge and his wife submitted letters in response.
She had “no recollection of saying that [she] was protesting on
behalf of [her] husband’; “{mJore important, [the Judge] never
authorized any such statement”; and she did not “believe that
[she] would have said such a thing, as [she is] well aware of
[the Judge’s] obligation to avoid publicly opposing or endorsing
candidates for public office, and [she is] vigilant against
attribution of [her] own political views to [her] husband.”
Finally, she stated, as did the Judge in his response, that she
was unaware of the allegation until it appeared in a June 25,
2004 newspaper story, over four weeks after the protest.

The Judge observes that his wife “is well aware of [his]
obligation to avoid publicly opposing or endorsing candidates for
public office, ... [he has] always counseled her that she must
make every effort to avoid conveying the impression that she
might be speaking on [his] behalf when expressing her political
views,” and “[o]ver the years she has been very faithful to that
admonition.” In any event, the Judge emphasizes that he “did not
instruct or authorize her to make any statements on [his]
behalf.” Finally, the Judge states that he would have attempted
to correct the article had he known of it at the time it was
published (though he concedes no obligation to do so), but that
he first became aware of the allegation approximately a month
after the protest, by which time he felt that “it was too late to
make a meaningful correction.”

The dispositive question is whether the Judge authorized his
wife to make the alleged comments. The only direct evidence
bearing on that question indicates that he did not do so.
Moreover, the Judge and his wife acknowledge that the Judge must
avoid publicly endorsing or opposing political candidates, either
directly or through his wife, and affirm their intention to abide

15
DEF02326


‘inm Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr.

5802

Carmella A. Porteous Create. 01-12363 Section "A"

SCHEDULE | - CURRENT INCOME OF INDIVIDUAL DEBTOR(S)

Datars Masa
Cad DEPENDENTS OF DEBTOR AND SPOUSE
Debio’ Age: WANES AGE RELATIONSHIP
‘Spouse's Age: Catherine A. Porteous 0 Daughter
EMPLOYMENT: DEBTOR SPOUSE
Secupation Judge
ame of Employer
Howiong ereloyed
‘esiress of Empat United States of America
500 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Inoome: (Estimate of mverege mentiy income) DEBTOR ‘SPOUSE

Current marty gross wages, sal'y and commissions,

(oro rte rtp meri.) s 153182 $ 0.00
Exiratad monty oerine s___o.gp $0.00
sonora
ss PaYROLL DEDUCTIONS
1 Paya teres and social securty _ 990 3 ____o.90
ts Inurance 3 00 § 0.00.
Uren doen 5099 5 “00
6. Other Spee) s 200 $ 200
‘SUBTOTAL OF PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 3 om $ ____o.0
TOTAL NET MONTHLY TAKE HOME PAY s 153182 5 ____0.00
Regular ircome from operation busines profession oc farm
(otoch deed sates) s ooo 5 ___0.00
Ince frm rel property 3 oo $0.00
rteres! end dividends s 900 § 9.00
‘Aimony,mairtenance a super payments payee tothe deo fr tho
ebtor use or that of dependents sted above 5 ___aa $ 0.00
Socal sear cher goverment asitance
(Greet) s 0.00 s 0.00
Pension or retirement income 5 oop § ___o.ao
ter monty income
(Speci) $ on $ 200

‘TOTAL MONTHLY INCOME

‘TOTAL COMBINED MONTHLY INCOME

Deserbe an
the fig of i

$7,531.52 (Report lac on Summary of Scheduies)
1 neroase of decrease of mere han 10% inary ofthe above categories articipted to accurwetin the year folowing
document: NONE

DEF01938


5831

1993} ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION 17

bankruptey counsel and a (d)(1), (d)(2) motion comes tearing in. Whether they
say it or not, they are arguing for dismissal on bad faith grounds.

WHAT Is A SINGLE ASSET CASE? ~

PROF. GROSS: I just want to make sure that when we talk
about single asset cases that we are all talking about the same thing, For me,
there is a definitional question here as to what is a single asset Chapter 11
case. The proposed legislation, that was part of the Senate bill, had a
definition of single asset Chapter 11 cases, Let me just read you that section
and see if you all agree with that definition. Single asset real estate cases
involve "real property, other than residential real property with fewer than four
residential units, which generates substantially all of the gross income of a
debtor and on which no business is being conducted by a debtor other than the
business of operating the real property and activities incidental thereto."

JUDGE FENNING: I think we are talking about a slightly
bigger universe. The triple-deckers wouldn’t come within the statutory
definition. Vacant land wouldn’t come within the statutory definition, but I
consider those single asset real estate filings because the same issues are
present; that is, is there anything to reorganize and what is the value,

PROF. GROSS: Are we all agreeing though that single asset
‘Chapter 11 cases involve real estate?

JUDGE FENNING: Yes.
JUDGE HILLMAN: Yes.

JUDGE MARK: But interestingly, the bad faith cases, a lot
of the early ones, involved vacant land and it's been an expansion of the
concept or expansion of the doctrine that's been applied more and more now
to income-producing properties. So it is a broader universe than the definition
you just read.

JUDGE FENNING: 1 suspect part of that expansion occurred
because a lot more properties started coming into bankruptcy with a negative

8, 1985, 1024 Cong., 24 Sess. § 211 (1992).

HeinOnline ~ 1 Am. Bankr. Inst, L. Rev. 17 1993

DEF02264


5876

improper activity on others or on the judicial system.” See also
Leonard E. Gross, Judicial S) + Di ine i

nd it, 36 Syracuse L. Rev. 1181, 1256-61 (1986) (discussing
factors to be weighed when state or federal tribunals are
choosing between possible disciplinary sanctions) .

In the present instance, certain factors militate in favor
of imposing some type of sanction: the violation of Canon 7 was
clear and serious; and the remarks were made before a large
public audience, and they were widely reported by the news media.
On the other hand, there are significant mitigating factors: the
Judge conceded that his remarks could reasonably be understood as
Violating Canon 7; he stated that the remarks were not planned
and that he had not intended to veer into remarks that could be
construed as partisan advocacy; he apologized and gave assurances
that there will be no recurrence; Chief Judge Walker’s admonition
and the Judge's apology were released to the public; and there
was wide media coverage of that admonition and apology.

There is little in the way of published case law or other
guidance concerning when censure, reprimand, or other sanction is
warranted. However, in cases where censure, reprimand, or
suspension was ordered, the behavior at issue was, in general,
appreciably more egregious than anything alleged in the current
five complaints. See Report of the National Commission on
Judicial Discipline and Removal, reprinted as appendix to
Illustrative Rules Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct
‘and Disability (Admin. Office of U.S. Courts 2000); Jeffrey N.
Barr and Thomas E. Willging, Decentralized Self-Requlation,
Accountability, and Judicial Independence Under the Federal

ici Co. nk a ili 1980, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev.
25 (1993). Cases involving allegations of improper partisan
activity were “generally” resolved through corrective action.
See Barr and Willging, supra, at 176. It appears that the
corrective action usually took the form of the subject judge
acknowledging the error or improper conduct and/or apologizing.
Id, at 98, 100-01, 151-52.

We conclude that all of the purposes of the judicial
misconduct provisions are fully served by: the Judge’s apology;
Chief Judge Walker's June 24, 2004 Memorandum; the release of
that apology and Memorandum to the public; and the Judicial
Council’s concurrence with the admonition in the Memorandum. See
id. at 106 (*the collective acts of the entire council are likely
to have more credibility with complainants, the judge, and the
public than the individual acts of a chief judge”). These
actions constitute a sufficient sanction and appropriate
corrective action.

iW

DEF02322


6019

| tess ravtocn er sacra |e? he
rseaen Reseach Tasks Geta Documen!TM shepard Valens Tota iat ¥ Transactional Advisor T counsel Selector ose non

sean ve ngoat esi (2) ERE anes

Source News & Gusness > Combned Sauces > News, All (English FullText)
“Terms: "Nominees Sunk by TAK and Nanny Problems for Yeats" (Est Seatch| Suaaes! Terms for My Search | Feedback on Vou Search

#Select for FOCUSTM oF Delvery
‘Nominees sunk by tax and nanny problems for years The Associated Press January 14, 2009 Wednesday

Copyright 2009 Associated Press

‘All Rights Reserved

‘The Associated Press

January 14, 2009 Wednesday

SECTION: WASHINGTON DATELINE
LENGTH: 734 words
HEADLINE: Nominees sunk by tax and nanny problems for years
BYLINE: By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
Bopy:
‘The one excuse President-elect Barack Obama's nominees shouldn't be using if they encounter tax and nanny problems is
that they didn't realize there would be a problem. Since 1993, unpaid taxes and immigration violations, usually related to
household help, have sunk mare than one presidential naminge with the whole world watching, But a few have survived
to take office anyway,
ZOE BAIRD President Bill Clinton's first nominee for attorney general withdrew in 1993 after it was feared that the
'$500,000-a-year corporate lawyer employed an illegal immigrant Peruvian couple to provide nanny services for her son

‘and chauffeur her around and didn’t pay the required Social Security taxes for them. A federal law enacted in the fal of
11986 made it tlegal to hire undocumented workers. Her case gave birth to the term *"Nannygate.

KIMBA WOOD Amazingly, just two Weeks later, Wood, a federal Judge in New York who was expected to be Clinton's
‘Second choice for attorney general, withdrew her name. She admitted her baby sitter of seven years had been in the
country illegally when hired in March 1986 before such hiring was against the law. Wood stressed she had broken no laws
‘and had paid all required employment taxes.

CHARLES RUFF After Baird and Wood, this Washington lawyer and former Justice Department official was removed from
Glinton’s “shortlist” of candidates for deputy attorney general after it was learned he failed to pay Social Security taxes
for a woman who did domestic work for him one day a week over the previous eight years.

RON BROWN Clinton's then-newly confirmed commerce secretary acknowledged in 1993 he had not paid Social Security
taxes for a woman who cleaned hiis house three hours a week over four or five years. He said he hadn't thought he owed
taxes because she worked so few hours, but he scurried to pay the Dack taxes and penalties and remained in office,

FEDERICO PENA Like Brown, Pena had already been confirmed as to his post, transportation secretary in this case, when
‘the Baird case prompted him to acknowledge he failed to pay Social Security taxes for a substitute baby sitter who looked
after his two children while their regular caretaker vacationed in 1991. He promised to pay more than $100 in back taxes.

SHIRLEY S. CHATER Chater, the president of Texas Woman's University was Clinton's nominee to head the Social Security
‘Administration when the White House disclosed on Aug. 3, 1993, that she failed to pay Social Security taxes for a part-
time baby sitter from 1969 to 1975. But she had paid the back taxes before her nomination, and she was confirmed.

BOBBY RAY INMAN The retired Navy admiral withdrew in January 1994 as Clinton's nominee to be defense secretary.

‘Among many reasons, he listed his fallure to pay required Social Security taxes for a former part-time housekeeper until
Just after Clinton nominated him.

hops vw exis comvescrlvetneve”

/pane=1inpF Sell lotakdoes=&taggedDocsedtnggleValuenmimDoesChced>OkpreDS. 8/1/2010
DEF02471

PORT Exhibit 1122


5814

Unitec States Bankrup y Court

Eastern District of Louisiana
In re: Chapter 13

GABRIEL T PORTEOUS JR
CARMELLA A PORTEOUS Case #01-12363

PO BOX 1723
HARVEY LA 70059

TRUSTEE'S OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION.

Now into Court comes S. J. Beaulieu, Jr., Chapter 13 Trustee,
who respectfully recommends that the Court deny confirmation
of this case for the following reason or reasons:

DUE TO EQUITY IN THE PROPERTY, THE PLAN IS NOT IN THE BEST
OF INTEREST TO THE UNSECURED CREDITORS. PLAN DOES NOT SHOW
ALL DISPOSABLE INCOME AND HAS EXCESSIVE EXPENSES FOR FOOD,
CLOTHING, MEDICAL/DENTAL, CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS AND

PAYMENT OF TUITION.

4 cole

Chapter 13 Trustee

Attorney for Debtor:

CLAUDE C LIGHTFOOT JR ‘Roti of Service

STE 450

3500 N CAUSEWAY BLVD | homaby certty thet @ cony

METAIRIE LA 70002 leading. wes phn la ole 0 ego
‘terest heraly, Inciusing: beeton of
‘ebtor, v a vA
predtor—_ Employer,
3 ie $c00716
ohne. slurlrs

DEFO1955

PORT Exhibit 1100 (g)


5949

information to him. The judge relayed this message to Mr. King
and the trial resumed--with counsel's closing arguments to the
jury.

After he made this telephone call, Magistrate Dunsmore
ordered the U. S. Marshals Service in Savannah to go to Brunswick
and bring Mr. King to Savannah when the trial there was over.

The Marshals Service told Magistrate Dunsmore that, if it was to
carry out his order, it would have to take Mr. King into custody
and secure him with handcuffs and chains as mandated by the
applicable U. S. Marshals Service procedures. Magistrate
Dunsmore instructed the Marshals Service to proceed in that
fashion--if that is what their procedures required--but to be
discreet in the manner in which it handled Mr. King. Thereafter,
two deputy Marshals went to Brunswick--to the courtroom where the
trial Mr. King was engaged in was in progress. After the jury
returned its verdict, the deputies took Mr. King into custody,
placed him in handcuffs and chains, and drove him to Savannah--to
Magistrate Dunsmore's courtroom. There, pursuant to Magistrate
Dunsmore's instructions, they removed the handcuffs and chains;
thereafter, Magistrate Dunsmore entered the courtroom, assumed
the bench, and began the hearing on the government's application
for a preliminary injunction in the Blackshear case. At this
point, Mr. King interrupted the magistrate, stating that, in view
of what had transpired, he was in no condition to give his client
the competent professional representation he was due. Magistrate

Dunsmore, responding, announced that the hearing on the

DEF02395


5914

and his former co-counsel were unsuccessful. His for fees and the PSC’s motion for

disqualification remain pending.

Complainant states that the subject judge made a diligent effort to settle the case
and that he has “no problem” with the judge's mediation efforts. “My disagreement

with [the judge} began” later on during settlement negotiations.

Complainant alleges that because the subject judge’s son worked for one of the
plaintiff firms appearing in his court, he should have recused himself. The judge’s son
worked as a law student intern at the offices of both plaintiff and defense counsel, and
complainant does not allege that he worked on any matter related to the litigation
pending before his father. Nothing complainant alleges demonstrates that the judge was
required to recuse himself. This aspect of the complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(iii).

Complainant also alleges that one of the judge's law clerks worked for counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the first of the listed cases at the same time that she was
also clerking for him. The clerk did associate herself with one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers
after her clerkship with the subject judge ended, appeared in the second case when it
was filed in 1999, and was appointed to the PSC in 2001. Complainant cites the clerk’s
curriculum vitae as showing that her federal clerkships lasted from 1997 to 1999.
However, the dates given on the resume are incorrect, as court records reflect that she
clerked in another federal court from 1995-96 and then for the subject judge from 1996-
97. The first of the underlying cases in the litigation complained about was not
removed to the subject judge’s court until November 1999, The clerk’s future employer
was also plaintiff's counsel in another case pending before the subject judge, which was

substantially resolved by his order approving a settlement in June 1997. Nothing in the

DEF02360


5798

FoR Cant
com,
‘mre: Gabrle! T. Porteous, J _Carmolla A. Porteous . eset, 01-12363 Section “AY
Dest @tanowm
SCHEDULE F - CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS
{Censnuation Shee)
MALUNG ADDRESS {AND CONSIDERATION FOR CLAM. AMOUNT OF
INCLUDING ZIP CODE {F CLAIMS SUBJECT TO CLAM
i ¢ ‘SETOFF, SO STATE

pecaontne 4817 125082148953 | 1997-2000 6.04824
First USA Bank Credit Card
P.O. Box 04016

Palatine, tL 60004-4016

cco 4731616375204833 [Te] 1087-2000 6.75742
First USA Bank, NA. Credit card
First USA Bank, NA.

P.O. Box B864
‘Wilmington, DE 19800-8664

comin 4484196304 [Te | 1997-2000 2,960.28
J. Pennny Credit Card
P.O, Box 27570

‘Albuquerque, NM 67125

pecourva. 6329055073205608 [Te J 2000-2001 3,212.80
MBNA America Credit Card
P.O, Box 18137
‘Wilmington, DE 18886-5137
[eccoucime.5328041616001200 [_Te | 1907-2000 30,931.02
MBNA America Credit Card
P.O. Box 1019
‘Wiimington, DE 19886-5010
‘Sheet no. Zt earination chant ataohed to ted Credle Hoklng Unencired Noorahy ey "$49,907.76
Clie oem not
(me year et i)

DEFO1934


5842

28 ABI LAW REVIEW [Vol. 1:1

to a Timbers* decision. How are we going to get there? What are the
evidentiary matters that are involved in reaching a Timbers decision?

JUDGE GREENDYKE: | think it’s probably more akin to a
jurisdictional question. Once the issue is raised, it’s going to be the debtor's
burden to prove its entitlement to remain in court. If a creditor shows or if I
find in the context of just a review of the documents that there is some
question as to whether or not the jurisdiction is being abused because of lack
of good faith, it’s the debtor’s burden and obligation to prove and continue to
prove it’s entitled to be here. And that's how I support my sua sponte motion
to make the debtor do something like what you all suggested such as speeding
up the discovery and disclosure process and confirmation process.

JUDGE FENNING: Under section 362, it’s the debtor’s
burden to establish feasibility of the plan and, to the extent that incorporates
a good faith standard, the burden is with the debtor. To put that at issue on
a motion for relief from stay at the beginning of the case, the creditor has to
come forward with sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the
debtor can’t meet the confirmation standard. That forces the debtor to make
its showing earlier in the case than it might otherwise, but whenever raised,
good faith is fundamentally the debtor’s burden.

often put single asset cases on a very short leash, though not as short
as Judge Mark does, for a plan and disclosure statement. If it appears clear
that capital infusion is necessary, I require a showing that the capital will be
available. Sometimes I require that money be posted before the confirmation
order under Bankruptcy Rule 3020.

PROF. GROSS: Does it strike any of you as the least bit odd
that we screen bankruptcy filings on what we could call an abusive process
standard that is higher than the standard that is applied outside of bankruptcy
for ordinary civil litigation?

JUDGE GREENDYKE: Well, if you became aware of a Rule
11 violation, we probably are obligated to go ahead and do something about
it. 1 don’t think there’s a fair analogy outside of bankruptcy court, unless you
have a multiple filer, pro se litigant, or something like that. 1 just don’t think
there are very many analogies in plain old civil litigation.

» United States Sav. Assoc. of Texas v. Timbers, 484 U.S. 365 (1988).

HeinOnline — 1 Am. Banks, Inst. L. Rev. 28 1993

DEF02275


5998

The Parish of Jefferson:
Government Matters

Part [1
Jefferson Parish
Criminal Justice System

oa BGR Nonprofi Os

< Bureau of Governmental Research U. s. Postage
M851 Grier Se, Site 108 + Now Oza, LA O12 noe COD og
Sate

DEF02444


5911

future complaints. See Rule 19(c), Fifth Circuit Rules Governing Complaints of
Judicial Misconduct or Disability.

An order dismissing the complaint is entered simultaneously herewith.

Csabip ececin, Bey

Carolyn Dineen King
Chief Judge

June 5; 2004

DEF02357


5895

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

J.C. Nos. 04-35 & 05-16

INRE: COMPLAINTS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
OR DISABILITY

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 351

ORDER,

(Filed: August 2, 2005)

Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
On the basis of the foregoing opinion entered on this date, it is ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that the written complaints brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 are hereby
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(i)Gi) and (iii).
This order constitutes a final order under Rule 4(B), Rules of the Judicial Council

of the Third Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability.

The Complainant is notified in accordance with Rule 5, Rules of the Judicial
Council of the Third Circuit Governing Complai judicial Misconduct anc
Disability, of his right to appeal this decision by the following procedure:

(A) Petition. [A] petition for review may be addressed to the Judicial
Council of the Third Circuit.

(B) Time. A petition for review must be received in the office of the clerk

of the court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the clerk’s letter
transmitting the chief judge’s order.

DEF02341


6041

GRAPHIC: Picture, President Carter applauds as Joseph A. Califano Jr. kisses his wife after being swom in as Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare. By Frank Johnston - The Washington Post

Source: Nowe & Business > Combined Sours > News, Al (English, FullText)
Terma: Seine Approval 76-1 Voe: Bui Conf x Aorty Genera tome Gna Nay Fee Cash on Oto Hale”
Sung! Tens fr My Search | Egedaxk on You Search)

DeterTime. Tuesday, August 31, 2010. 7:10 PM EDT

‘Seauh| Research Tasks | Get a Dacunant | Shepard | Ales | Total | Tansactinal Adve | Counsel Selector
Daler aoa ess | Sich Git reeenes | San Ou Hea

Y LexisNexis $tauttaxttients | Teme 8 Condtions | Contac Us
Lex SPR arte ats eaves

tp: ens convreseachetseve?_m=9:90]Tea2e4991bRc38eSel 40dleeb3Acsve=blkecformesearhFonnkintsr-FULLAdocmum= 18. 8751/2010
DEF02493


6062

BAIL JUMPING 109

Unlike Table 1, both the top and bottom halves of Table 2 are filled in;
this is because the estimate of the treatment on the treated is conceptually
different from the estimate of the treatment on the untreated (differently
treated). For example, the effect of the surety treatment relative to own
recognizance for those who were released on surety bond is not necessarily
‘the exact opposite of the effect of own recognizance relative to surety bond
on those who were released on their own recognizance. As it happens, how-
ever, our estimates of these effects are similar. The estimate of the effect of
own recognizance relative to surety on those who Were released on their own
recognizance, for example, is 6.5 percentage points, similar in size but op-
posite in sign to the —7.3 surety effect relative to own recognizance of those
who were released on surety bond. The similarities across diagonals suggest
that either (or both) treatment selection or treatment effect does not interact
strongly with defendant characteristics. One possible exception is that the
deposit bond treatment relative to cash is estimated at 4.1 percentage points,
while the cash bond treatment relative to deposit is estimated at —1.5 per-
centage points.

D. Estimated Treatment Effects: The Fugitive

‘A surprisingly large number of felony defendants who fail to appear remain
at large after 1 year, approximately 30 percent. Alternatively stated, some
7 percent of all released felony defendants skip town and are not brought
ack to justice within } year. Those who remain at large more than 1 year
are called fugitives.

The surety treatment differs most from other treatments when a defendant
purposively skips town, because this is when bounty hunters enter the pic
ture.” If the surety treatment works, therefore, we should see it most clearly
in the apprehension of fugitives. Given that a defendant fails to appear, we
ask what the probability is that the defendant is not brought to justice within
1 year and how this varies with release type. It is important to note that once
a defendant has decided to abscond, there is no reason why anything other
than the different effectiveness of public police and bail enforcement agents
should have a systematic effect on the probability of being recaptured.

Table 3 provides strong evidence that bounty hunters are highly effective
at recapturing defendants who attempt to fice justice—considerably more so
than the public police. The main diagonal of Table 3 contains the mean
fugitive rate conditional on FTA along with the number of observations in

65, which is within } standard deviation of the ~7.3 matching estimate. We do a more
detailed comparison of linear regression and matching results fusther below.

We use the term “bounty huntes” or “bail enforcement agent” to refer to private pursuers
of felony defendants. Bond dealers typically pursue their own skips. Literal bounty bunters
are typically not called in unless the skip is thought to have crossed state or intemational lines
Services like Wanted Alert (bttp:/Awww. wantedalert.com) regularly post ads in USA Today that
list fugitives and their bounties.

DEF02620


5897
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
* No. 04-3289

United States
v.
Jaimes-Lopez

(ED. Pa. No. 04-cr-00164)

ORDER

The following order is issued in accordance with procedures established by the
court for cases raising issues based on United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). If
appellant wishes to raise an issue based on United States y. Booker, appellant must do so
by filing within 14 days of the date of this order a letter that succinctly states the factual
and legal basis of the challenge. The letter must not exceed 750 words. Cf. Fed. R. App.
P. 28(j). If appellant wishes to challenge only the sentence, the letter must state that only
the sentence, and not the conviction, is being challenged. This statement will be
construed as waiving any issues related to the conviction. Appellant must file with the
clerk an original and three copies of the letter, with certificate of service.

Any response by the government must be made within 14 days of service and
must be similarly limited. An original and three copies, with certificate of service, of the
response must be filed. Further briefing on the Booker issue will be permitted only at the
court's direction.

For the Court,

/s/ Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk

Date: March 1, 2005

DMMice: Stephen J. Britt, Esq.
Richard J. Zack, Esq.

DEF02343


6060

BAIL JUMPING 107

Figure 1B gives the box-and-whiskers plot for the pairwise (conditional)
probabilities for the own versus surety comparison, The “Pr. Own” and “Pr.
Surety” arrows indicate that we can find comparable observations, statistical
doppelgangers, for individuals released under either treatment. Many of the
defendants released on surety bond, for example, were as likely to have been
released on their own recognizance (third box from the left) as those who
actually were released on their own recognizance (first box from the left).
Similarly, many of the defendants who were released on their own recog-
nizance were as likely to have been released on surety bond (second box
from the left) as those who actually were released on surety bond (fourth
box from the left). Note that it is important that the boxes overlap across
treatments, not that they overlap within treatments—that is, the fact that in
Figure 14 the propensity to be in the deposit bond treatment is everywhere
lower than the propensity to be in the own-recognizance treatment simply
reflects the fact that the deposit bond treatment is a low-probability event.
More important is that the deposit bond treatment is a low-probability event
regardless of actual treatment—we can thus find comparable observations
across the treatments. Alternatively stated, the overlap in the boxes across
treatments indicates that random factors play a large role in treatment se~
lection, thus aiding our effort to find true comparable observations.”

‘Although we can find comparable observations across the release treat-
ments, we cannot find good comparable observations for those who were
not released. Indeed, the Figure 14 box-and-whiskers plot of the propensity
not to be released among those who in fact were not released does not overlap
at all with the propensity not to be released for those who were released.
Defendants who are not released differ greatly from released defendants.**
(This is consistent with the very high FTA rates that we found for emergency
releasees in Table I.) The fact that the model is capable of finding large
selection effects if they exist, as they apparently do for those not released,
bolsters the finding that selection on observable characteristics is not overly
strong among the release treatments.

to the 75th percentile plus 1.5 x IQR and the smallest observation greater than or equal to
‘the 25th percentile minus 1.5 x IQR. Points outside the box and whiskers are called extreme
values or outside points and for clarity are not plotted in this graph. In this plot, the width of
the box is proportional to the square root of the number of observations in that category

*" Another interesting aspect of the box-and-whiskers plot is that it suggests that almost
everyone can be released on their own recognizance, even those who might in another time
and place be released only with high bail. Thirty percent of released defendants accused of
‘murder, for example, were released on their own recognizance.

“It is possible to find defendants who were released who might not have been released—
thus, the data are consistent with the adage that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than
jail one innocent man.

DEF02618


6029

your parents and pleading for mercy because your an orphan! People think this
|s a "wise latina” Racist, with the intellect of an 8th grader.

Post New Comment

‘You must be logged into leave comments! Cilck hers to fog in.

Intute ensnews comMnewslrbck/49218

wa12010
DEFo2481


5785

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN THE MATTER OF CASE NUMBER 3
Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. 01-12363
Carmella A. Porteous Section “A”
DEBTORS CHAPTER 13
CHAPTER 13 SCHEDULES AND PLAN

Respectfully submitted,

CLAUDE C. LIGHTFOOT, JR., P.C.

Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr. (17989)

3500 N. Causeway Blvd.

Suite 450

Metairie, LA 70002

PH: (504) 838-8571

Attomey for Debtors

DEFO1921

PORT Exhibit 1100 (d)


5874

appears to be based on the independent, although questionable,
principle that judges should not hold strong political beliefs.

1. iv t_the Presi not _be e .

Canon 7 states that judges “should refrain from political
activity,” and, specifically, that judges “should not ...
publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Canon
7(A) (2). The Judge stated in his August 12, 2004 letter to
Acting Chief Judge Jacobs that his remarks were reasonably
understood as opposing a candidate in violation of Canon 7(A) (2).
He also apologized for making the remarks, stated that he had not
intended to make a partisan statement, and asserted that he has
‘every intention of seeing to it that such an episode does not
happen again."

Under 28 U.S.C. § 354(a) and (b), when a Judicial Council
finds that an Article III judge has engaged in judicial
misconduct, the actions it may take include:

ordering that, on a temporary basis, no further cases be
assigned to the judge;

Censuring or reprimanding the judge by means of private
communication;

Censuring or reprimanding the judge by means of public
announcement ;

Certifying disability of the judge pursuant to § 372(b);
Requesting that the judge voluntarily retire;

Referring the complaint, together with the record of any
associated proceedings and recommendations for appropriate
action, to the Judicial Conference of the United States; or

If the Judicial Council determines that the judge engaged in
conduct which might constitute grounds for impeachment or
which, in the interest of justice, is not amenable to
resolution by the Judicial Council, certify that
determination to the Judicial Conference of the United
States.

See 28 U.S.C. § 354(a)~-(b); Local Rules 14(a)-(g) and 15. Under

Local Rule 14, the Judicial Council also may dismiss claims that
do not state a misconduct claim under the applicable statutes,

DEF02320


5819

Ine: Gabriel T. Porteous, Jr. Carmella A. Porteous CasaNo. 01-12383 Section “AY
438.64.1388 434.78.3002 Chapter 43

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF PLAN PAYMENTS TO BE MADE BY TRUSTEE

‘A, Total debt provided under the Plan and administrative expenses

1. Atlomey Fees
2 Mortgage Arrears
3, Secured Ciaims.
4. Pronty Cla
‘5. Separate Ctass of Unsecured Claims
6 Allother unsecured caime
payments to shove Creditors 34,657.14
Taser oer arezes
“Total Debtor payment to the Pian
57,600.00
* Total payments rust equal total of payments set frth in paragraph 2 on page 1 of his Plan.
8B, Reconciliation with Chapter 7
1. Interest of unsecured credtors if Chapter 7 fled
ettor 283,180.27
158,278.13
5,898.59
48,338.28
2. Percent of unsecured, nonpriorty claims ped under Plan 25t
‘3. Percent of unsecured, nonprionty cis paid Chapter 7 fled (est) 28.00
‘Atterey for Debtor(s):
Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr.
LA 17980

Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr.
3800 N. Causeway Blvd.
Sulte 450

Metairie, LA 70002 ‘Carmella A. Porteous, Joint Debtor

oe /

Foc 72,

om N/E om: 8 29-Of
Giadde C. Ligi Jr /

‘Chapa $3 Pan -Page 3083

DEF01960


5939

In 1994, when Judge Ware was on the district court bench, a reporter related to
the organizer of the 1973 forum asked for an interview with Judge Ware. During the course
of the interview, she asked Judge Ware to repeat the Virgil Ware story that had first been
heard back in 1973. Judge Ware stated to the Special Investigative Committee that he told the
story in the first person, misrepresenting himself as the James Ware on the bicycle in 1963
in that interview in order to be consistent with earlier speeches that he had given.

In 1996, Judge Ware ttended a conference of federal judges and practitioners
in the Napa Valley. He was called upon to appear as a last minute replacement on a panel
discussing the Civil Rights movement of the '50s and "60s. As part of that presentation,
Judge Ware gave a dramatic first person description of the murder of Virgil Ware as seen
through the eyes of his brother, James Ware. ‘The event is vividly remembered by those in
attendance and left no doubt with the audience that Judge Ware was describing himself as the
James Ware on the bicycle. After that time, Judge Ware was asked to repeat the story, and
he did so. Judge Ware stated to the Committee that he used the story to convey his strong
feelings about the struggle of the Civil Rights Movement and that he was aware at all times
that he was misrepresenting his relationship to the events in Birmingham.

Judge Ware was nominated by President Clinton to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals in 1997. In filling out the “Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions,” known as OPM
Form 86, which must be completed by all presidential nominees, Exec. Order No. 10450,
Judge Ware was asked to list all relatives. He listed “Virgil Lamar Ware" as his only half
brother. Judge Ware stated to the Committee that he listed Virgil because he had been advised
by a member of the White House staff to be over inclusive in filling out the questionnaire.
Judge Ware stated that he was now aware that he listed Virgil Ware in an effort to be

-5-

DEF02385


5906

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

J.C. No. 06-24

IN RE: COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
OR DISABILITY

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 351

ORDER

(Filed: July 5, 2006)
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge.

On the basis of the foregoing opinion entered on this date, it is ORDERED AND
ADJUDGED that the written complaint brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351 is hereby
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii).

This order constitutes a final order under Rule 4(B), Rules of the Judicial Council

of the Third Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and Disability.

The Complainant is notified in accordance with Rule 5, Rules of the Judicial

Council of the Third Circuit Governing Complaints of Judicial Misconduct and

Disability, of his right to appeal this decision by the following procedure:

(A) Petition, [A] petition for review may be addressed to the Judicial
Council of the Third Circuit.

(B) Time. A petition for review must be received in the office of the clerk

of the court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the clerk’s letter
transmitting the chief judge’s order.

DEF02352


6063

110 THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS

TABLE 3

“TREATMENT Ertect OF ROW VERSUS CoLUMN RELEASE CATEGORY ON THE FuarTive RATE
USING MATCHED SAMPLES, CONDITIONAL ON FAILURE TO APPEAR, 1988-96

Own Deposit Cash Surety
Recognizance Bond Bond Bond

‘Own recognizance 32 (5,440) =" 26-4929) 94" G1)

Deposit bond =2 (26) 33 _{766] -62 I) 120% @7)

Cash bond 119% G0) 38 (44) 506) 186" G3)
Sarety bond <1 20) -155°¢ (29) - 25.642) 24 [1,537]

‘Nore.—Mean fugitive rate (in %), defined a flues to appear that last Jonger than 2 yer, for release
‘ctegorics forthe fell seraple are slong the tasia diagonal, with tse umber of observations in that category
Conditiooal on a Bilare to appeas in square brackets. O-diagonol elements are the difference betwees the
faces fugitive rate forthe row eategory and the mean fugitive rate forthe column category estimated using
Trutching. Standard errs are in parentheses. Matching caliper = 001,

‘Statistically significant at the greater than 1% level (Wo sided),

each category. The estimated treatment effects for the row versus column
variables are shown in the off-diagonals with standard errors in parentheses.
The probability of remaining at large for more than a year conditional on
an inifial FTA is much lower for those released on surety bond. The surety
treatment results in a fugitive rate that is lower by 17, 15.5, and 25.6 per-
centage points compared with the own-recognizance, deposit bond, and cash
bond treatments, respectively. In percentage terms, the fugitive rates under
surety release are 53, 47, and 64 percent lower than the fugitive rates under
own recognizance, deposit bond, and cash bond, respectively. Similarly, the
own recognizance, deposit, and cash bond treatments result in fugitive rates
that are 29, 47, and 47 percent higher than under the surety treatment.

There are also some interesting nonsurety effects in Table 3, Note that the
fugitive rate conditional on an FTA is higher for cash bond than for release
‘on own recognizance. Earlier (see Table 2) we had found that the FTA rate
was lower for cash bond than for release on own recognizance. This suggests
that defendants on cash bond are less likely to fail to appear than those
released on their own recognizance, but if they do fail to appear, they are
less likely to be recaptured. The result is pleasingly intuitive. A defendant
released on his own recognizance has little to lose from failing to appear
and thus may fail to appear for trivial reasons. But a defendant released on
cash bond has much to lose if he fails to appear, and thus those who do fail
to appear do so with the goal of not being recaptured.

The propensity score method can be very informative about the entire
distribution of treatment effects. In Figure 2, we graph smoothed (running-
mean) FTA and fugitive rates against surety p-scores for the own-
recognizance and surety treatments (conditional on being in either the surety
or own-recognizance treatment). (We omit graphs for the other treatment
comparisons for brevity.) The two downward-sloping, thinner curves graph
smoothed FTA rates against the p-scores for those defendants released on

DEF02621


5881

by that rule.

As to whether the Judge should have corrected the Associated
Press story once he became aware of it, we conclude that he had
no ethical duty to do so. He became aware of the story
approximately a month after it was published, and it would have
been reasonable at that point to decide against reviving the
story by correspondence to the editor.

The claim is dismissed for lack of evidence of misconduct.

IV. Conclusio

For the foregoing reasons, the Judicial Council finds that
the Judge’s remarks concerning the President’s reelection
violated Canon 7, concurs in Chief Judge Walker's July 24, 2004
admonition, concludes that the dissemination of Chief Judge
Walker’s admonition--together with the Judge’s apology--and the
Judicial Council’s concurrence with the admonition, constitute
both a sufficient sanction and corrective action, and dismisses
the five complaints in all other respects.

So ordered.

Milton, Secretary
fudicial Council

Dated: April 8, 2005
New York, New York

DEF02327


5822

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This isto certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Summary ans
Analysis of Chapter 13 Plan has been served on the Debtor(s) and the Debtor(s)’ attomeyy
by mailing a copy of same to the addresses listed below via first class mail, on this_@
day of 2001.

Debtoffé) Attorney:

Claude C. Lightfoot, Jr.
3500 N. Causeway Blvd.
Suite 450

Metairie, LA 70002
(504) 838-8571

433 Metairie Rd.
Metairie, LA 70005
(504) 831-1313

SCO0696

DEFO1980