reports the New Orleans Times-Picayune. I take it from the story that the articles of impeachment were approved without amendment; I quote them below.
RESOLUTION
Impeaching G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and all of the people of the United States of America, against G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ARTICLE I
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., while a Federal judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge, as follows:
Judge Porteous, while presiding as a United States district judge in Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, denied a motion to recuse himself from the case, despite the fact that he had a corrupt financial relationship with the law firm of Amato & Creely, P.C. which had entered the case to represent Liljeberg. In denying the motion to recuse, and in contravention of clear canons of judicial ethics, Judge Porteous failed to disclose that beginning in or about the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, he engaged in a corrupt scheme with attorneys, Jacob Amato, Jr., and Robert Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Amato’s law partner as a ‘curator’ in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm. During the period of this scheme, the fees received by Amato & Creely amounted to approximately $40,000, and the amounts paid by Amato & Creely to Judge Porteous amounted to approximately $20,000.
Judge Porteous also made intentionally misleading statements at the recusal hearing intended to minimize the extent of his personal relationship with the two attorneys. In so doing, and in failing to disclose to Lifemark and its counsel the true circumstances of his relationship with the Amato & Creely law firm, Judge Porteous deprived the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of critical information for its review of a petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to overrule Judge Porteous’s denial of the recusal motion. His conduct deprived the parties and the public of the right to the honest services of his office.
Judge Porteous also engaged in corrupt conduct after the Lifemark v. Liljeberg bench trial, and while he had the case under advisement, in that he solicited and accepted things of value from both Amato and his law partner Creely, including a payment of thousands of dollars in cash. Thereafter, and without disclosing his corrupt relationship with the attorneys of Amato & Creely PLC or his receipt from them of cash and other things of value, Judge Porteous ruled in favor of their client, Liljeberg.
By virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a Federal judge, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for, and confidence in, the Federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of Federal judge.
Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
ARTICLE II
G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., engaged in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge. That conduct included the following: Beginning in or about the late 1980s while he was a State court judge in the 24th Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, and continuing while he was a Federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Porteous engaged in a corrupt relationship with bail bondsman Louis M. Marcotte, III, and his sister Lori Marcotte. As part of this corrupt relationship, Judge Porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the Marcottes. These official actions by Judge Porteous included, while on the State bench, setting, reducing, and splitting bonds as requested by the Marcottes, and improperly setting aside or expunging felony convictions for two Marcotte employees (in one case after Judge Porteous had been confirmed by the Senate but before being sworn in as a Federal judge). In addition, both while on the State bench and on the Federal bench, Judge Porteous used the power and prestige of his office to assist the Marcottes in forming relationships with State judicial officers and individuals important to the Marcottes’ business. As Judge Porteous well knew and understood, Louis Marcotte also made false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an effort to assist Judge Porteous in being appointed to the Federal bench.
Accordingly, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., has engaged in conduct so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit to hold the office of Federal judge, and should be removed from office.
ARTICLE III
Beginning in or about March 2001 and continuing through about July 2004, while a Federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., engaged in a pattern of conduct inconsistent with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge by knowingly and intentionally making material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury related to his personal bankruptcy filing and by repeatedly violating a court order in his bankruptcy case. Judge Porteous did so by–
(1) using a false name and a post office box address to conceal his identity as the debtor in the case;
(2) concealing assets;
(3) concealing preferential payments to certain creditors;
(4) concealing gambling losses and other gambling debts; and
(5) incurring new debts while the case was pending, in violation of the bankruptcy court’s order.
In doing so, Judge Porteous brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for and confidence in the Federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of Federal judge.
Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
ARTICLE IV
In 1994, in connection with his nomination to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge. These false statements included the following:
(1) On his Supplemental SF-86, Judge Porteous was asked if there was anything in his personal life that could be used by someone to coerce or blackmail him, or if there was anything in his life that could cause an embarrassment to Judge Porteous or the President if publicly known. Judge Porteous answered ‘no’ to this question and signed the form under the warning that a false statement was punishable by law.
(2) During his background check, Judge Porteous falsely told the Federal Bureau of Investigation on two separate occasions that he was not concealing any activity or conduct that could be used to influence, pressure, coerce, or compromise him in any way or that would impact negatively on his character, reputation, judgment, or discretion.
(3) On the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ‘Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees’, Judge Porteous was asked whether any unfavorable information existed that could affect his nomination. Judge Porteous answered that, to the best of his knowledge, he did ‘not know of any unfavorable information that may affect [his] nomination’. Judge Porteous signed that questionnaire by swearing that ‘the information provided in this statement is, to the best of my knowledge, true and accurate’.
However, in truth and in fact, as Judge Porteous then well knew, each of these answers was materially false because Judge Porteous had engaged in a corrupt relationship with the law firm Amato & Creely, whereby Judge Porteous appointed Creely as a ‘curator’ in hundreds of cases and thereafter requested and accepted from Amato & Creely a portion of the curatorship fees which had been paid to the firm and also had engaged in a corrupt relationship with Louis and Lori Marcotte, whereby Judge Porteous solicited and accepted numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home repairs, and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit, while at the same time taking official actions that benefitted the Marcottes. As Judge Porteous well knew and understood, Louis Marcotte also made false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in an effort to assist Judge Porteous in being appointed to the Federal bench. Judge Porteous’s failure to disclose these corrupt relationships deprived the United States Senate and the public of information that would have had a material impact on his confirmation.
Wherefore, Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.
rbj says:
I wonder if Alcee Hastings voted for impeachment. Can’t find the vote at house.gov. rbj(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
How did Alcee Hastings vote, I wonder? Bob from Ohio(Quote)
RoyLitmus says:
Did the House use a new Iphone app called “Ipeached” to implement this resolution? If so, that would be cool! RoyLitmus(Quote)
Fub says:
I realize now that it’s just a typo, but for a moment of caffeine deficiency I wondered whether he was accused of listening to his iPod or talking on his iPhone during court sessions.
[Whoops, fixed, thanks! –EV] Fub(Quote)
TommyPaine says:
Did the Dishonorable Judge lose his coveted federal pension? This is a question I’d love to have answered. TommyPaine(Quote)
EH says:
Is this to say that Porteous’ behavior is the current standard of behavior for federal judges, that they merely have to float above this line? If so, Bybee has nothing to worry about. EH(Quote)
JohnF says:
I asked this question after the Adler post, but I’d like to ask it again here:
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”? JohnF(Quote)
David M. Nieporent says:
Article IV seems sort of makeweight. He’s a criminal — oh yeah, and he lied about whether he was a criminal. David M. Nieporent(Quote)
wfjag says:
Porteous’ seat is somewhat comparable to the Defense Against The Dark Arts position at Hogwarts. Porteous was nominated by Pres. Clinton (Dem.) to the seat vacated by Robert F. Collins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Porteous
Collins had been nominated for the seat by Pres. Carter (Dem.). Collins resigned on August 6, 1993, due to his impending impeachment hearings the next day. He had been in jail for two years on a bribery conviction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Collins
Apparently, the seat is cursed — either to have appointees who cannot resist taking extra renumeration from attorneys who appear before them, or by impeachment of a judge nominated by a Dem. Party President. Not a happy thought assuming that Pres. Obama (Dem.) nominates a successor. wfjag(Quote)
Off Kilter says:
Isn’t there a sliding scale for Louisiana? Off Kilter(Quote)
Nunzio says:
Interesting that the DOJ declined to prosecute because the various statutes of limitations had run.
If the Senate convicts, I don’t think the President should take any input from Louisiana politicians as to who should be nominated.
Just find someone honest, if that’s possible in Louisiana. Nunzio(Quote)
cboldt says:
– Did the Dishonorable Judge lose his coveted federal pension? –
So far, he’s only been charged. He hasn’t been tried or convicted yet. As far as I can tell, his pension is out of reach of the power of Congress.
cboldt(Quote)
ruuffles says:
He can ignore their input, but in the end of the day, he’ll still need the two LA senators to sign the blue slips. They should set up a commission, similar to what was done in CT and VA. ruuffles(Quote)
Joe Kowalski says:
There were actually 4 roll call votes, all were unanimous in favor of approving the articles of impeachment. Each vote had 7–20 non-voting members. See here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/index.asp Joe Kowalski(Quote)
Dave N. says:
In answer to the question that both rbj and Bob from Ohio asked, Alcee Hastings did, in fact, vote in favor of all four articles of impeachment: Votes 102, 103, 104, and 105. Dave N.(Quote)
Soronel Haetir says:
I would be interested in why the non votes differed for the various articles. Did representatives not want to go on the record about some of the articles, did they just need to go to the bathroom urgently?
One article I saw mentioned that only 15 judges have been impeached (not sure if that’s just lower court judges or if it includes Chase). While I do believe we get good judges for the most part I find it hard to believe that there have been so few worthy of removal. Although you do have folks like Kent who are willing to resign before the articles are finalized so that will lower the number actually impeached.
As for whether he gets to keep his pension I seem to recall seeing a recent change in law that conviction on impeachment for offenses related to the office forfeits any pension. I would have to think these articles qualify for that provision. Soronel Haetir(Quote)
Dave N. says:
Out of fairness to both of Louisiana’s Senators (Mary Landrieu and David Vitter), neither was in the Senate at the time President Clinton nominated Judge Porteous. Dave N.(Quote)
rbj says:
Thanks Joe Kowalski & Dave N. An impeached & removed from office federal judge runs for, & gets elected to Congress and then votes to impeach a federal judge.
Still trying to wrap my head around that. rbj(Quote)
Bob from Ohio says:
Thnaks for the vote info as well.
If Hastings was capable of feeling any shame, he’d not be in Congress right now.
I hope Porteous is banned from further office, you would have thought it SOP for punishment but Hastings proved that assumption wrong. Bob from Ohio(Quote)
Syd Henderson says:
Nunzio says:
Interesting that the DOJ declined to prosecute because the various statutes of limitations had run.
If the Senate convicts, I don’t think the President should take any input from Louisiana politicians as to who should be nominated.
Just find someone honest, if that’s possible in Louisiana.
I don’t see any problems asking Senator Landrieu or Governor Jindal for input. Syd Henderson(Quote)
troll_dc2 says:
How many judges appointed by Clinton have come to grief for misconduct? I would like to know the number of them who either were impeached/convicted or resigned to avoid that process. troll_dc2(Quote)
Eluchil says:
I found the wording of Article I odd. It seems to be saying that the problem is his failure to disclose his corrupt relationship at the recussal hearing or on appeal. But, I would have thought, requesting and taking bribes and perverting the course of justice on account of said bribes would be an impeachable offence on its own, without any failure to disclose. Eluchil(Quote)
Syd Henderson says:
Can’t think of any other Clinton appointees coming to grief. Kent was a Bush 41 appointment, and Collins was a Carter appointee, and Walter Nixon was a Johnson appointee. A congressman was calling for Bybee’s impeachment last year but nothing’s come of it. The reason was Bybee being an author of some of the torture memos. If anything actually happens, he’d be the first Bush 43 appointee to come up for impeachment hearings, but it doesn’t look like he will. Syd Henderson(Quote)
Andy Patterson says:
There is also Harry Claiborne (another Carter appointee, to DNV). Andy Patterson(Quote)
hieronymous says:
My goodness this took a long time. Porteous has been under a cloud since at least 2001. There has been talk of impeachment since at least 2007. That it took nearly 10 years for him to be impeached is absurd. Compare this to how quickly the Illinois legislature impeached, tried, and removed Blagojevich. Unlike Kent, I fully expect Porteous to stand trial in the Senate. Should be interesting. Haven’t seen a federal judge tried in the Senate for over twenty years. hieronymous(Quote)
neurodoc says:
Maybe Porteus will be able to successfully emulate Hastings and join him in Congress, that is if he is as lucky as Hastings was in avoiding jail. neurodoc(Quote)
lsu722 says:
Judge Porteous was one of my trial advocacy instructors. He was actually quite engaging and funny. His financial issues were widely know even then...2002. Also, he only has one ear. lsu722(Quote)
hieronymous says:
Soronel,
The impeachment of a federal judge is indeed an exceedingly rare event. Take note that there was a 50 year gap between 1936 and 1986 in which no judges were impeached. Here’s the complete list: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/autoframe?openform&top=/history/home.nsf/page/judgessitecontent&nav=/history/home.nsf/page/judges_nav&page=/history/home.nsf/page/topics_ji_bdy hieronymous(Quote)
Crunchy Frog says:
Perhaps it is because those activities were from before he was elevated to the Federal bench? Crunchy Frog(Quote)
anonymous says:
I don’t suppose it matters inasmuch as a Senate vote that Porteous should be removed would be unreviewable, but was it necessary that he have been charged with “high crimes and misdemeanors?” I know that’s the standard for impeachment/removal of the President, Vice-President, and other civil (executive) officers of the United States within the meaning of Article II, but for an Article III judge, wouldn’t it be sufficient for the House to charge and the Senate to find, that Porteous has not exhibited the “good behaviour” that is a condition for holding an Article III judgeship? anonymous(Quote)
anonymous says:
Hadn’t noticed that JohnF (@ 7) had asked the same question I did re “high crimes and misdemeanors” vs. absence of “good behaviour.”
Unless I’m really having a bad day, I don’t think anyone has answered, at least yet, though . . . . anonymous(Quote)
DjDiverDan says:
I guess that, since Alcee Hastings was elected to Congress after his impeachment, a United States Representative is not an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” I can see that there is no honor or trust in most Representatives, but history would certainly indicate that it’s an office that can be quite profitable for its holders. DjDiverDan(Quote)
Blue says:
I don’t blame Hastings, although he is revolting. I blame the ignorant citizens he represents for his mockery of service as a US Rep. Blue(Quote)
pensioner says:
re the pension questions: Porteous hasn’t served long enough to qualify for a federal pension (you don’t get a partial vesting as a federal judge– it’s a cliff. If you resign the day before you’d vest, you get nothing.)
This is the entire reason that Porteous has, shamelessly, fought the impeachment: he’s been hoping to run out the clock until he can just retire. But he won’t reach the magic formula (age + years of service = 75) until December 2011, and it looks like Congress isn’t going to let him run out the clock till then.
Also, he tried to take a “disability” retirement, but that was denied.
Assumedly, an impeached judge who’d already earned a pension would get to keep the pension. However, a judge with a pension in his pocket would probably just retire and save everyone the trouble of disgracing him. One like Porteous who hasn’t earned it yet will get nothing. pensioner(Quote)
ShelbyC says:
Is my math off? According to wiki he’s about 64 and he’s been a judge for about 15 years, no? ShelbyC(Quote)
cboldt says:
– I guess that, since Alcee Hastings was elected to Congress after his impeachment, a United States Representative is not an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” –
LOL. But the clause in the constitution describes the MAXIMUM penalty on conviction, not “the” penalty. The most that Congress can impose via conviction on impeachment is removal from office and disqualification. Without looking, I’m quite sure that the penalty imposed on Hastings was removal from office, without disqualification to hold future office. cboldt(Quote)
Steve2 says:
Except it specifies “shall not extend further than”, not “shall be”. As I read it, that means the House can ask for, and the Senate can impose, any punishment they can think of so long as it’s equal to or less than removal from current office intersection disqualification from future offices, not that Removal & Disqualification is the Constitutionally-stipulated punishment.
Is picking District Court nominees from the state the District’s in a requirement of the Judiciary Act or some other statute, or is it just a matter of tradition and that it would make the Lousianans angry if some random Iowan moved down to Louisiana to become the judge there? Steve2(Quote)
pensioner says:
ShelbyC,
You’re right, I should’ve cited rather than gone from memory. Per official source, “Beginning at age 65, a judge may retire at his or her current salary or take senior status after performing 15 years of active service as an Article III judge (65+15 = 80).” The part about retirement being a cliff, however, is correct.
Steve2,
there is no requirement of residency for a federal judge, but yes, it would be just about impossible politically to appoint an out-of-stater.
An interesting near-analogy to that, involving Louisiana, was Eastern District Judge J. Skelly Wright, of the court where Porteous now sits– his enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education drove Louisiana pols wild. They burned him in effigy, and lampooned him on the floor of the legislature with a blackface life-size doll, calling him judge “J. Smelly Wrong.”
President Kennedy appointed him to the court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit, getting him out of town and to a much more prestigious gig. (Though, as an aside, there’s probably a lot to dislike about being on the D.C. Circuit compared to the others despite the “prestige”- i.e., your bulky administrative appeals from the FERC and the like, must be soul-crushing drudgery.) pensioner(Quote)
Brett Bellmore says:
I’d have to think that the constitutional language would make that change in the law rather dubious; The Constitution sets the maximum penalty for impeachment, you couldn’t impose a greater penalty without holding a separate trial via the justice system. At least, I think that argument would stand a pretty good chance of prevailing in court. Brett Bellmore(Quote)
cboldt says:
Re: Senate judgement in the impeachment trial of Hastings:
Congressional Record — October 20, 1989
cboldt(Quote)
S says:
I did not know that judges were tried by a committee of the Senate but that’s what the article says. S(Quote)
Soronel Haetir says:
That procedure was how Walter Nixon tried to fight his impeachment trial. He wasn’t successful. I tend to agree with the majority opinion that impeachment is left so strictly to Congress that even if they were to resort to flipping coins to decide someone’s fate that there’s nothing a court can do to reinstate the official or tell Congress to try again.
I am, however, glad that both the House and Senate treat impeachment as a serious proceeding. Soronel Haetir(Quote)
Positive Liberty » Federal District Court Judge Impeached says:
troll_dc2 says:
hieronymous, thanks for the list of impeachments. Is there also a list of judges who resigned to avoid impeachment? I can think of a few: Kerner and Fogel. Did Aguilar do the same? troll_dc2(Quote)
Syd Henderson says:
With reapect to Alcee Hastings, I refer you to Article 1: SECTION 5. “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”
Even if the Senate convicted Hastings, that doesn’t affect his ability to serve in the House, because the Senate has no say in the membership of the House. If the House doesn’t want him, they can expel him, but the Senate can’t judge his qualifications.
There is a side-effect dating from the 18th century: A Senator cannot be impeached, because that would give the House a power over Senate membership. (Established with William Blount in 1797.) The Senate could, and did, expel Blount, but the impeachment process had no power over him, because neither house can determine the membership of the other. Syd Henderson(Quote)
cboldt says:
– Even if the Senate convicted Hastings, that doesn’t affect his ability to serve in the House, because the Senate has no say in the membership of the House. –
This is false. The reason Hastings retained the right to hold office is because the judgment in impeachment (which is provided for in the constitution) did not extend to or include disqualification to hold office. The judgment against Hastings was “removed from office,” and no more.
By your logic, either chamber could seat a 16 year old (unqualified as a matter of the constitution), because it is the judge of qualifications. The reality is that a person who has a judgment of “disqualified” in their permanent record, is just as much not qualified as is a person who does not meet the age requirement. cboldt(Quote)
DjDiverDan says:
Does anybody know just why the Judgment of Impeachment against Alcee Hastings did NOT include disqualification from further office? Was it just an oversight? Surely the House of Representatives cannot be terribly proud of the fact that a disgraced and impeached Federal Judge, found guilty by the Senate of official corruption, has found a home in the House. DjDiverDan(Quote)
PaulB says:
troll_dc2,
In the case of Aguilar, I don’t believe it ever went to impeachment hearings. He was convicted in District Court, the conviction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit, and then when the Supreme Court said it would review the case, Aguilar resigned in exchange for the Justice Department agreeing to drop the case. PaulB(Quote)
hoshie says:
Former Judge (now Congressman) Hastings voted yes on all four Articles of Impeachment. Here are links: Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, & Aricle 4.
hoshie(Quote)