Earlier today the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved the first of four articles of impeachment against federal district court Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana, the Times-Picayune reports.
Earlier today the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved the first of four articles of impeachment against federal district court Judge Thomas Porteous of Louisiana, the Times-Picayune reports.
JohnF says:
The newspaper article says the judge is to be tried for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the common impeachment standard for the President, VP and “civil officers.” Art. II, sec. 4. Aren’t judges subject to the lesser standard of “good behavior”? Art. III, sec.1 (“…shall hold their offices during good behaviour…”). Or are judges “civil officers”?
March 11, 2010, 1:54 pmkay sieverding says:
I think this vote to impeach Judge Porteous is great; federal judges have so much impact on the litigants before them that they should be reminded that they are accountable. I had a terrible experience with former federal judge Edward Nottingham who later resigned after the 10th Circuit reported that a “complainant alleged that she had been a prostitute and that Judge Nottingham had been one of her clients. She further alleged that on Feb 29, 2008, Judge Nottingham asked her to lie to federal investigators about the nature of their relationship and not to disclose that she was a prostitute whom he paid in exchange for sex”. (See EWN_final_order.pdf 10th Circuit Court of Appeals). Nottingham didn’t get impeached, he resigned. In my case, the defense counsel billed for calls to and from the court to discuss the status of pending motions. Anyone can see the verified bills for the calls to and from the court to discuss motions in D of CO 02-cv-1950 doc 465. Then I saw an on-line website with reports about judge’s finances where they put in a range for their assets of different types etc. It didn’t look to me like Nottingham had any other significant assets or income besides his judicial pay. I saw at 9 News of Denver they interviewed a prostitute about judge Nottingham, I think the same prostitute, who said he was paying her $250-300 per week starting in Feb 2003. But the 10th said that Nottingham was calling multiple prostitutes from his USCOURTS cell phone so he was probably paying more than one prostitute. Plus AP reported that they interviewed the manager of the Diamond Cabaret and he said that Nottingham was known to the staff there. So it sounds to me like N was living beyond his means. I read that other brothels and strip clubs were charging credit cards like a mail order business, on-line, and that sometimes other people’s cards were charged. So my theory, is that other people were providing credit cards for N’s entertainment. The other brothels apparently were coding the purchases as investment advice.
Another reason why I think Nottingham was probably bribed is that his 3rd ex wife apparently started his whole public exposure when she was going thru his credit card receipts. She found a $3,000 charge to the Diamond Cabaret for one evenings’ entertainment, but she didn’t report finding any other charges. That supports the theory that he was using someone else’s credit card. It’s possible that another person’s credit card was maxed out before Nottingham used his AMEX. In fact, that happened only a few days after Nottingham ordered me thrown in jail without a preceding criminal prosecution or an order finding me in criminal contempt for disrupting a courtroom per Rules of Crim Procedure Rule 42b. That was on a Friday afternoon and the private prosecutors in the indirect contempt hearing (contrary to the S.C. order in
Young v. U.S. Ex Rel. Vuitton Et Fils S. A.) made a big deal at the hearing telling N who was there in the audience and I wondered later if that was because they were telling him that the $$ had arrived. (USDOJ has confirmed in writing that I was not criminally prosecuted and there was no criminal prosecution associated with my imprisonment. This was in response to my 2nd motion for summary judgment in DDC 09-00562.)
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law should be easy to prove from public evidence but bribery can only be proven if someone tells or it is accidently exposed. I wrote to USDOJ Public Integrity on 1/29/10 and asked them to arrest former judge Nottingham for violating my rights under color of law. This is a 40 page single space letter. I posted it on-line so anyone can comment and I would appreciate any suggestions.
March 14, 2010, 11:43 pmhttp://judicial-transparency.blogspot.com/2010/02/please-arrest-former-judge-edward.html