MOLE’S THEORY OF RATIONALIZATION: An Outcome Determinative Fee – a Whitmergate guest post

Yes, I afraid so craplapalooza...and yes, oy vey is right !

Unlike Enstein’s Theory of Relativity which enriched the sciences of physics and astronomy, Mole’s theory of Rationalization decays the social tenets of ethics and morals.

This is yet another installment in the seemingly ‘neverending story’ of the impeachment proceedings against Tom Porteous, Federal Judge, LAED.  Mr. Joseph Mole became an active participant in this debacle when he enrolled as counsel for Landmark in the infamous Liljeberg case heard by Porteous while he was an sitting judge.

The facts and the legal issues concerning this case are irrelevant to the labyrinth of depravity I intend to critique; that being the presence of the ‘White Elephants’ in the courtroom and how they got there; the cameo appearances of attorneys who were close personal friends of Porteous ; Mr. Lenny Levenson and Mr. Jake Amato at bar for Liljeberg, and Mr. Joseph Mole and Mr. Don Gardner representing Lifemark.  One would only have to read the numerous postings registered on Slabbed for a more detailed synopsis of the circumstances surrounding this fertile ground of judicial corruption and unethical, and possibly illegal conduct by all attorneys associated with this trial.  Truly an unmitigated assault by all concerned directed toward the very core beliefs we were instilled with growing up; the ideals of fairness, honesty and decency.  These very same intrinsic civilized values that we had hoped would sustain our society’s sense of law and order. Instead, an institutional collapse of the legal profession is unfolding before our very eyes, and proof positive is the reading of both Mr. Mole’s testimony at the Congressional Impeachment proceedings and his fee proposal to retain Mr. Gardner.

This personality contest of which lawyer would have more influence with Judge Porteous to shape the outcome of the trial was exacerbated by Mr. Mole’s negotiating to hire Mr. Don C. Gardner in an attempt to’ balance the scales’ of favoritism, not justice. In fact it is Mr. Mole’s letter of February 18, 1997, addressed to Mr. Don C. Gardner c/o Thomas G Wilkinson , 320 Huey P. Long Ave., Gretna, Louisiana, referencing the Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. that gives the best evidence that our legal system is spiraling into the abyss of total chaos; a resigned state of amoral bankruptcy.

What was Mr. Mole thinking ?  I have read Mr. Mole’s testimony too many times and have commented on it often. Mr. Mole was questioned by many individuals and often times the questions are similar, however the redundancy leaves no doubt as to the Mr. Mole’s conduct. I have selected a number of relevant excerpts that best relate to Mr. Mole’s fee proposal; a letter that was sent to Mr. Tom Wilkinson for some reason !

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH MOLE, ATTORNEY, NEW ORLEANS, LA;  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009; Washington, DC.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, TO CONSIDER POSSIBLE IMPEACHMENT OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, JR. (PART I)

PG.140

Mr. MOLE. I have practiced 32 years. For most of that time, I have handled large, complex business lawsuits, commercial litigation of all sorts, antitrust, bankruptcy, leases, contracts.

Mr. DAMELIN. Mr. Mole, did there come a time when you became involved in the case that we will refer to as Lifemark v. Liljeberg?

Mr. MOLE. Yes, in March 1996, the company that owned Lifemark became my client during a search for attorneys in New Orleans to take over an existing lawsuit. And I enrolled, I believe, in early April 1996 as counsel.

Pg. 141

Mr. DAMELIN. Okay, what did you learn in the course of your due diligence?

Mr. MOLE. I learned that—from people who would talk to me, but didn’t want to, you know, sign an affidavit or go on the record—that Mr. Levenson and Mr. Amato were very close to Judge

Porteous, that Mr. Amato had been his law partner, as had Mr. Creely—Amato and Creely was the firm—and Mr. Levenson was very close to Judge Porteous and had—I think had been to a fifth circuit conference or two as Judge Porteous’s guest, that they frequently socialized in—in the way of lunches, hunting trips, and things like that, and that they—I also knew—well, I formed the opinion that there was—there was a high likelihood that the case—it was a bench trial. There was no jury. So it would be entirely a decision by the judge in a case that had been valued as high as $200 million for my client that the case would be handled in the way by the judge that would be favorable to his friends, and that was of deep concern.

Pg. 143

Mr. DAMELIN. Okay, we will get to that. We will get back to that in a minute. But after Judge Porteous denied your motion to recuse, did you retain an attorney named Don Gardner to become part of the Lifemark team?

Mr. MOLE. Yes, I did.

Mr. DAMELIN. What type of practice did Don Gardner have?

Mr. MOLE. Don seemed to do mostly family law, divorces, and personal injury type cases in Jefferson Parish.

Mr. DAMELIN. Okay. Was that in any way relevant and relative, his experience, to the type of case that you were handling?

Mr. MOLE. No, it was not.

Mr. DAMELIN. Why was Gardner then brought in by Lifemark?

Mr. MOLE. After we lost the motion to recuse, my client and I discussed that—and my client insisted that we try to find a lawyer who, like Mr. Amato and Mr. Levenson, was a friend with the judge and knew him very well. They were concerned that they would do everything they can to achieve a level playing field. I resisted doing that. I am not happy with the fact that we did it. But my client insisted, and so we did it.

Mr. DAMELIN. And so was Gardner brought into the case simply because of his relationship with Judge Porteous?

Mr. MOLE. Yes.

Pg. 147

Mr. SCHIFF. So you were brought in more than half a year before the trial date?

Mr. MOLE. Yes, that was a problem. We had to scurry to assimilate an enormous amount of history. We succeeded in being able to take a lot of depositions, some that taken, so we did a lot of work.

Pg. 150

Mr. SCHIFF. Do you feel that—that also is a corruption of the system, where in order to have a level playing field or secure some advantage, that either you or the other party or both have to bring in friends of the judge as counsel on the case?

Mr. MOLE. I do. It was deeply offensive to me as a lawyer that the case depends on something other than the facts and the law.

Mr. SCHIFF. Now, you knew by reputation that Mr. Gardner had a relationship with the judge, was a friend of the judge?

Mr. MOLE. Well, once my client said we needed to get someone else who is a friend of the judge, I began looking around and making phone calls again. And I found Mr. Gardner that way. I interviewed him, and that is basically the selection process.

Mr. SCHIFF. Now, were you aware that Mr. Gardner at some point had also given cash to the judge?

Mr. MOLE. No, I was not.

Pg. 151

Mr. SCHIFF. I just want to make sure I have heard your original answer correctly. So your view is it is improper to have that kind of ex parte contact?

Mr. MOLE. Absolutely.

Pg. 153

Mr. GOODLATTE. Knowing what you know now, which is more than what you knew then, about the relationship between the judge and the attorneys, do you believe that the decision was based solely on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant law? Or do you think it was influenced, at least in part, by his relationship with others?

Mr. MOLE. I think it is the latter. You know, yesterday, I watched in the conference room as Mr. Amato testified. And, you know, I heard all those facts, but hearing Jake say them, it sort of took my breath away.

Pg. 154

Mr. GOODLATTE. When you retained Mr. Gardner, Mr. Gardner was paid a retainer of $100,000——

Mr. MOLE. That is correct.

Mr. GOODLATTE[continuing]. Was that based against any hourly work or simply based upon him showing up in court and doing what you ask him to do during the court of the trial?

Mr. MOLE. That was a retainer that he was going to keep no matter what.

Mr. GOODLATTE. And did he have any contingency arrangement?

Mr. MOLE. Yes, there was—his fee went up, as the result got better for us, to a maximum of $500,000. And part of my thinking on agreeing to that was, I wanted to make him have an interest in the case, because I wanted to be able to trust him to be interested in the outcome when he became involved. And I was hoping that pressure from both sides, of having friends on both sides would cause the judge to step aside. There was also a payment that Don would get if the judge did recuse himself.

Pg.155

Ms. JACKSONLEE. And I understand that, in the course of working on this case, there was a decision to hire Don Gardner. And forgive me if you have answered this, but I just want to try and reinforce the point. How much was Mr. Gardner paid for simply entering into the contract?

Mr. MOLE. One hundred thousand dollars.

Ms. JACKSONLEE. And it was a complicated case. Could you point out to any precise expertise that Mr. Gardner had for this case?

Mr. MOLE. None.

Pg. 156

Ms. JACKSONLEE. And did he assist you, did he examine any witnesses?

Mr. MOLE. He did no work at trial. I talked to Don quite a bit. You know, he gave me some insight into Judge Porteous’s personality and likes and dislikes that might help us with witnesses and how we pitch certain issues, which was helpful.

Ms. JACKSONLEE. But minimal?

Mr. MOLE. Yes.

Ms. JACKSONLEE. A minimum. Do you think that your clients were influenced—or let me just ask this. Did Mr. Gardner have a relationship with Judge Porteous?

Mr. MOLE. Yes.

Ms. JACKSONLEE. Do you think your clients had any understanding of that? And was there some consideration of that fact?

Mr. MOLE. I would say that is the only reason he was hired.

Ms. JACKSONLEE. Would you think that the value of Mr. Gardner’s services—and let me clarify that or qualify that by saying this is not a trying of Mr. Gardner. I am sure that he is a well re-

spected lawyer. But let me try to find out, was the compensation equal to the services rendered?

Mr. MOLE. You know, it was a risk taken by him to get involved, and it was a risk taken by my client to pay him that much money. I don’t think the fee was unearned in that sense. I think it was—it was earned. A difficult situation, and I am not—you know, not happy about it.

Pg. 156

Ms. JACKSONLEE. But it was a decision of the client and not of yours?

Mr. MOLE. I ultimately went along with the client, but if I hadn’t agreed to do it, they would have found another lawyer. I would have lost the case.

Pg. 163

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I mean, without—without the plaintiffs having hired Mr. Amato and Mr. Levenson, would it have been necessary for your client to spend $100,000 retaining Mr. Gardner?

Mr. MOLE. No.

Mr. JOHNSON. Were there—are there any delays during the course of this episode that cost your client money, such as the 3-year delay between the—the time that the evidence was in and the time that there was a decision issued by the judge?

Mr. MOLE. That certainly cost money, but I don’t know what would have happened if it had taken another path.

Pg. 165

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, the judge ordering the return of the hospital to the Liljebergs, what benefit would accrued to Levenson and Amato, to your knowledge, if that ruling had been upheld on appeal?

Mr. MOLE. Their fee arrangement was they received 11 percent of the recovery on the claim for the loss of the hospital. So that would have been between them and the Liljebergs, but if they got the hospital back, the trick would have been to value the hospital—their own experts had valued it at a range between $50 million and $75 million. So if I were them, I would say, ‘‘Mr. Liljeberg, you owe me 11 percent of $75 million.’’ And that is what—that is what I think the fee should have been.

Pg. 167

Mr. GOHMERT. I am just trying to figure out exactly what the standard is there.

Mr. MOLE. Good behavior.

Mr. GOHMERT

Pg. 169

Mr. GOHMERT. I am just trying to figure out exactly what the standard is there.

Mr. MOLE. Good behavior.

Pg. 169-170

Mr. PIERLUISI. Is it customary—said differently, is it customary in New Orleans for trial lawyers to have ex parte contact with Federal judges while a case is pending?

Mr. MOLE. No, that is forbidden.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Is that the line where you—that you don’t cross over?

Mr. MOLE. Absolutely.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Is that the line that most lawyers and trial lawyers in New Orleans avoid crossing?

Mr. MOLE. It is the line you are supposed to avoid crossing in state and Federal court everywhere I have ever practiced.

Mr. PIERLUISI. To your knowledge, is there any ethics rule prohibiting ex parte contact between counsel and a sitting judge or a trial judge?

Mr. MOLE. I know it is forbidden. I don’t know the—the rule. Yes, it is forbidden. I don’t know—you know, it is like the TenCommandments. I don’t know which—which number it crosses, but it is certainly something you shouldn’t do.

Pg. 170

Mr. PIERLUISI. Now, you testified earlier that you were uncomfortable about engaging counsel—I believe Gardner—in your case. And you explained that your client was, you know, insisting upon it. Is that a fair way of summarizing what you said to us before?

Mr. MOLE. Yes.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Now, had you done something similar before in any case, meaning bring in a counsel primarily because of his friendship or acquaintance with the trial judge?

Mr. MOLE. Certainly never in Federal court. When I have practiced in courthouses outside of the New Orleans courts, I will hire local counsel who may be local and know everybody. It is just because I—I don’t know the court’s customs and practices, and I want someone who does.

Mr. PIERLUISI. Is it customary in New Orleans for trial lawyers appearing before the Federal court there to bring in counsel, again, for the primary reason of, you know, having a friend of the judge sitting at counsel’s table?

Mr. MOLE. Absolutely not. I think most judges would be offended if you did that, certainly on our Federal bench.

Pg. 171

Mr. PIERLUISI. To your knowledge, did Judge Porteous have exparte contacts with either Amato or Creely or Levenson without Gardner being present?

Mr. MOLE. I don’t know. Like I said, I have tried to stay out of learning any more than I already know.

Mr. PIERLUISI. If any such contact happened, what do you feel about it? What do you believe?

Mr. MOLE. I think it would be my duty to disclose it to the appropriate ethical bodies.

Pg. 173

Mr. WESTLING. All right. Now, let’s talk a little bit about the lawyers that are in the case when you enter, which I understand was in the early part of 1996, if I have my dates right.

Mr. MOLE. I made my appearance in April.

Pg. 175

Mr. WESTLING. So you go out and you—you look for Mr. Gardner. And by the way, was there a relationship that you had in the past with any one that was involved in judging the case? I think there was a magistrate in this case. Was he a former law partner of yours?

Mr. MOLE. You have got to be speaking about Jay Wilkinson, who was a partner of mine. I don’t know that we ever brought any issues to him as a magistrate, but, yes, he had been a partner.

Mr. WESTLING. But he was the magistrate assigned to the case. Is that correct?

Mr. MOLE. I think you are right, but we never—we never—he handled discovery issues. And by the time I got in, those were all  behind us.

Mr. WESTLING. Basically resolved?

Mr. MOLE. Yes, I don’t think we ever had recourse to Jay in the case. We may have; I just don’t recall that.

Pg. 175

Mr. WESTLING. But I also think there was a point where, in terms of looking for your lawyer that we have talked about, you had a conversation with Jay’s brother?

Mr. MOLE. Tom, yes.

Mr. WESTLING. Okay. And he is involved in politics in Jefferson Parish?

Mr. MOLE. He is the parish attorney for Jefferson Parish, was then.

Mr. WESTLING. Okay. And so was that the way you identified Don Gardner?

Mr. MOLE. Pretty much. Tom recommended him for somebody who knew the judge well.

Mr. WESTLING. And so, despite the fact that you were uncomfortable with this, your client felt that it was best to find someone that had a relationship with the judge?

Mr. MOLE. It is safe to say they felt exposed and naked and they wanted to put on as much protection as possible.

Mr. WESTLING. All right.

Mr. MOLE. And that is why we did it.

Pg. 175

Mr. WESTLING. And so you confected an agreement with Mr. Gardner that you testified about where he was going to get a minimum of $100,000, correct?

Mr. MOLE. He got that, yes.

Mr. WESTLING. All right. And that if various things happened, he could get more money?

Mr. MOLE. That is correct.

Mr. WESTLING. And one of those things would have been, had Judge Porteous recused himself, he would have gotten another $100,000. Is that correct?

Mr. MOLE. And then he would have been out of the case.

Mr. WESTLING. All right. But the net effect was, there was a provision in the agreement that said, if Judge Porteous withdraws, you are entitled to additional money?

Mr. WESTLING. Okay. And I think you have testified that the reason for that was just a concern about keeping Mr. Gardner interested in the case. Is that fair?

Mr. MOLE. Correct. And I was hoping that his presence would also cause the judge to feel like there were too many of his friends in the case and he needed to get out.

Pg. 176

Mr. MOLE. You know, I don’t think he was as definite about that. I don’t know that I asked him that question. I made it plain to him why we were bringing him in, and he said he thought he could help.

Mr. WESTLING. During the course of the trial, you learned that Mr. Gardner was—during the—it may be a better way to put it—during the course of the case, you knew that Mr. Gardner was continuing to have his friendship with Judge Porteous, correct?

Mr. MOLE. Yes.

Mr. WESTLING. You knew he was continuing to entertain Judge Porteous, correct?

Mr. MOLE. I believe they still socialized. That is what I—that is what I knew.

Pg. 179

Mr. SCHIFF. You said something interesting, that in terms of the package from Mr. Gardner, it was $100,000 upfront. There was another $100,000 if the recusal motion was granted. Is that right?

Mr. MOLE. Well, it was well after the recusal was decided. It was——

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, no, but——

Mr. MOLE.—$100,000 if the judge steps—recused himself for any reason thereafter.

Mr. SCHIFF. Okay. I think you said—and I want to make sure I understood this correctly—that if the judge recused himself, then Gardner was out of the case.

Mr. MOLE. Correct.

Mr. SCHIFF. By that, did you mean that, if the judge took himself off the case, that Gardner’s participation in the case after that would not be necessary and he would no longer be part of the legal team on the case?

Mr. MOLE. That is correct.

Mr. SCHIFF. So Gardner was brought in because of his relationship with the judge and, if the judge changed and you got a new judge, there was no need to have Gardner on the case anymore.

Mr. MOLE. I certainly didn’t want him to continue to be involved.

________________________________________________________________

According to the Justice Department lawyers who directed this scripted performance, Mr. Mole was to be portrayed as a victim.  However after reading not only these cited passages, but all of the transcript of this particular Hearing, it is we who are the victims of this charade.

In the end, Mr. Joseph Mole is no different than Mr.’s Levenson, Amato and Gardner.  He willingly participated in the influence peddling game that he professed to abhor.  He tells us he has to hire a Judge’s friend or he’ll lose a client, that is a FEE.  He ends up at Mr. Tom Wilkinson’s office, the brother of his former law partner and Magistrate in the very case he is trying, Mr. Jay Wilkinson.  He is aware of Mr. Gardner’s ‘ex parte’ communications with Judge Porteous, but condemns the same conduct by Mr. Amato as totally unethical.  Mr. Mole is not only a hypocrite, his pretense is unsympathetic.

In Mr. Mole’s letter addressed to Mr. Gardner c/o Mr. Wilkinson we read of a fee schedule that is dichotomized between judgement and settlement.  But it is important to note that this is a Judge trial and almost any resolution would be determined by Judge Porteous.  Mr. Gardner would receive an initial $100,000 retainer fee to ‘face’ up at trial.  The fee accelerates from $200,000 upward to $600,000, with each $100,000 increment dependent on a particular scenario.  Mr. Mole characterizes this fee scaling as an “outcome determinative fee”.  I believe Mr. Mole’s clever wording is an all too obvious euphemism for a conspiracy to attempt to influence the outcome of the litigation, in essence to facilitate a bribe, in other words, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE !

A conspiracy is an inchoate crime that is separate and apart from the actual commission of a crime for which it is intended.  Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal means.  There is no evidence in the record that Judge Porteous  participated in any bribery scheme that would dictate his actions with any of the lawyers in this shameful episode.  However it is the intent conveyed in Mr. Mole’s letter that is most troublesome and telling.

Mr. Mole states that his primary goal in hiring Mr. Gardner is to ‘level the playing field of influence’, sort of a checkmate to be played against the Judge.  The foremost objective to this scheme is to have Judge Porteous withdraw from the case; in that event Gardner, would receive another $100,000.  Hell Mr. Gardner would have been better off if Judge Porteous stayed in the case, and renders a judgment allowing Lifemark to terminate the contract and damages be zero, then he would have received the maximum fee of $600,000 Dollars.

In the end, Judge Porteous ruled in favor of Liljeberg (of course he would) which made Mr. Levenson and Mr. Amato very rich for a very short time, an estimated $8,000,000 Million Dollar fee on paper.  However, the judgement was reversed by the 5th Circuit.  There was no fee arrangement for Mr. Gardner as it related to an appeal, since the sole purpose of Mr. Mole retaining Mr. Gardner was to manipulate Judge Porteous at the trial level for the benefit of his client and at whatever fee it took to do so.

We later learn that Mr. Tom Wilkinson recieved $30,000 of the $100,000 retainer Mr. Gardner received from Mr. Mole.  Maybe this explains the odd reason Mr. Mole addressed this proposal to Mr. Don C. Gardner c/o Mr. Thomas G. Wilkinson at Wilkinson’s office address in Gretna, and not Mr. Gardner’s office address in Harahan.

Mr. PLATTSMIER where are you?

Slabbed commenter Whitmergate is a member of Citizens for Good Government and is a resident of Jefferson Parish.

Slabbed welcomes all points of view on the topics we cover. Our readers can submit guest columns to Sop whose contact information can be found here. While we allow anonymous comments on the blog, guest columnist must submit a verifiable name and contact information in order to be published.

12 thoughts on “MOLE’S THEORY OF RATIONALIZATION: An Outcome Determinative Fee – a Whitmergate guest post”

  1. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeee Oh, CALLING MR. PLATTSMIER- oh, CALLING MR.PLATTSMIER – Oh, CALLING MR.PLATTSMIER do you think you could report for work and help strip the law licenses of a Mr.Mole, Mr. Wilkinson and MR.Gardner seeing that Mr. Amato and Mr. Creely voluntarily gave up their La.law licenses months ago? I’m confused as to why a few attorneys were forced to relinquish their licenses but other attorneys, who equally committed conspiracy and were paid fees to also equally influence a Federal judge, don’t get investigated and have their La. licenses stripped from them? Is this the reality definition of “selective” disciplinary action? Is it who you know and not what you do? OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  2. As a lawyer, my stomach turned so many times as a I read this post. I am embarrased for our State, our judiciary, and the Bar. I entered this profession with noble ideas and aspirations. I still try to adhere to those, but all of these scumbags deserve to be tarred, featherd, convicted and disbarred. Now, I will go shower to rid myself of the sleaze just from reading this article. Great post.

  3. Well, Whitmergate has out-done himself. This post should be “digested”, word for word. So I’ll be brief: For reasons having nothing to do with “G. T. Ortous” and the lawyers in the Liljeberg case, the “Chief Disciplinary Counsel” Charles B. Plattsmier, Jr. belongs in the Federal Penitentiary, and I aim to put him there: Hey! Plattsmier, I ain’t dead yet, but you are (figuratively); you just don’t know it yet. I smell the stench. Now for my former law partner Mr. Mole and those “silent” partners at his law firm who were “counseling” him and his client Lifemark. Rule 3.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that “A lawyer shall not (a) seek to influence a judge…by means prohibited by law; (b) communicate ex parte with such person during the proceeding…” Read Whitmergate’s summary and quotation of Mole’s testimony and ask yourselves whether Rule 3.5 was violated by Mole and the law partners who were telling him what to do and how to deal with “G.T. Ortous”. Then ask another question: Hey, with all of the money paid to Gardner “going around” (Magistrate Wilkinson’s brother got what? $30,000?), who’s to say that “G.T. Ortous” didn’t get some of it? Who’s to say that the Magistrate didn’t get some of it? Don Gardner got an awful lot of money, “for nothing”. What did he declare on his income tax return? Ashton O’Dwyer. P.S. to Chief “Injustice” Kimball: I haven’t forgotten about you. You are going “DOWN”.

  4. There is so much more to the well written story by the great Whitmergate but he is only one human and cannot direct the readers as he does by actually quoting, as evidence, the passages of The Committees on The Judiciary, Impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous. Go and read for yourself the passages of pages 123-143 of the

  5. I have a novel idea that would short circuit this circus. A former state court judge was regularly taking graft from attorneys appearing before him. The State Judicial Commission should take action and refer him to the ODC. If a sitting Federal Judge is disbarred, wouldn’t that then necessitate his removal? I’m just saying seems to be a more efficient way to skin the cat.

  6. You guys are knocking the shit out of this one. I’ve never met whitmergate and I don’t know who bayoudegradable is, but each of you has done a phenomenal job with this material. This shit with Porteous goes much deeper than Congress will ever know (mistress, certain Metairie insurance defense firms, certain Fed judges who once worked for one of these defense firms, a certain dead plaintiff class action lawyer, Porteous’s taunting of the FBI regarding its background check of him during CLE speeches, etc.).

    IMAANGRY might want to post the LSBA ODC’s annual budget, and everyone commenting here can again consider why only Amato and Creely have suffered consequences adverse to their law licenses. The perversion of justice is never acceptable. And this has nothing to do with how a lawyer classifies himself (plaintiff, ins. defense, corporate, criminal defense, prosecutor). Money and the desire to maintain a client or keep a job motivates lawyers to cross lines by blurring them. Then one day, it becomes much easier because the blurry lines are no longer there. Cheating becomes a matter of standard operating procedure, so much so that what you learned about “right and wrong” as a child can be twisted into whatever puts money in your bank account. And then you don’t even give a second thought to lavish spending on a judge before whom one of your big clients has a case pending.

    Sorry for the rant, but I’ve been watching this happen for a long time.

  7. “a certain dead plaintiff class action lawyer”

    You can’t be talking about “Hey, Buddy” himself?

  8. if one was so unfortunate as to be seeking justice in our corrupt courts, it seems joseph mole would be an excellent hire. but that’s not your point. what is?

  9. The ODC takes in revenue of $4,545,070 annually. I would hope that with this much funding the ODC could expedite the proceedings against the cast of characters involved in the Porteous impeachment matter.

    On another note, the arrogance of Bodenheimer and Gardner and their complete lack of any remorse is chilling. However, I guess Gardner will get hoisted on his own petard now that the Great Dane deemed his conduct (in giving Tom Wilkinson $30K for doing absolutely nothing in the Liljeberg case) “very unethical.” Thanks, Dane. See you, Don!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *