We forgot to mention yesterday we had a copy of the fee letter from Mole to Gardner in the Porteous impeachment case.

We have some friends that have friends…..well you guys know, we have sources in some amazing places.  :-)

Our newer readers should start with Whitmergate’s post yesterday which dealt with Joseph Mole’s testimony in the House impeachment proceedings against Federal Judge Tom Porteous.  Judge Tom liked to tote water for big businesses such as Rowan Drilling and home cooked plaintiffs that sued the clients of his lawyer friends that paid for the vacations, booze, food and gambling.  This of course does not include his mistress though I’m certain she plays into the full narrative heavily.

So without further adieu I’ve embedded the Mole/Gardner fee letter below the fold.

[scribd id=36400955 key=key-1xgj487ev4bd7mg3yzps mode=list]

sop

12 thoughts on “We forgot to mention yesterday we had a copy of the fee letter from Mole to Gardner in the Porteous impeachment case.”

  1. A “severance fee” . . . wtf is a “severance fee”?

    Joe is a mole on the already ugly mug of the legal profession. Maybe a cancerous one, and everyone knows what must be done with cancerous moles.

  2. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeee CALLING MR. CHARLES PLATTSMIER- oh, CALLING MR.CHARLES PLATTSMIER These guys are serious, they have the letter, the testimony and I imagine more than that. Now MR. PLATTSMIER what do you have and what have you investigated concerning these serious allegations of these attorneys in question? Your silence is deafening and proves you yourself should be removed from your position for your prejudical “selective” disciplinary behavior ! OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  3. For crooked politicians, there are judges to judge. For crooked judges and attorneys, there are…….apparently nobody to judge them.

    While I know many people disagree with the Tea Party Movement, there is no question it was born out of frustration with inept, do-nothing, crooked politicians. Maybe we Slabbed lawyers should form a Lawyer’s Tea Party Movement to rid ourselves of vermin like Mole, Porteous, Gardner, Levenson, et al.

  4. Excuse me Sock?! Real men aren’t misogynists however misogynists ARE sissies! And tea parties can be very erotic as the Chinese have shown over thousands of years. So put a sock in it puppet. This old girl loves sweet tea, real men who don’t say things are for girls and sissies using a derogatory tone ( I heard that!) and real sweet men who love tea. You don’t know what you’re missing bubba!

  5. Just to let everybody know, the bet- line here in Washington is on whether Mamoulides will actually show up to testify at the Senate trial. My money is on Not and so is Gate’s. In fact my cousain is making side bets for a case of Rebel Yell that there won’t be any trial, and that Porteous will get his retirement and walk away. He’s convinced Porteous is holding the “big one” to push back hard. Well maybe so, but, I like him know one thing for sure: that all those subpoenaed judges and “Mamou the big pussy” and others haven’t been off the phone since that Alpert article in the TP announced the news !

    After reading Whitmergate’s commentary and talking to him on the phone while sipping on Rebel Yell, I thought it would be appropriate to hammer on the conduct of Dick Chopin one more time, and why not. Chopin, quelle honte putain.

    Slabbed has pounded this miscreant justifiably so, as has ‘Gate and others.

    So here we go again:

    Turner v. Pleasant
    Mr. Conyers, from the House of Representatives
    Committee on the Judiciary
    Impeachment of G. Thomas Porteous
    As it pertains to Dick Chopin et al
    March 4, 2010

    Richard Chopin wrote a letter dated March 28, 2008 to Second Circuit Judge Ralph Winter,

  6. What’s metry got to do with anything? First girls and sissies , now metry? Ah am despairing for your immortal soul. I happen to agree the Tea Party thing is ridiculous but then so are most politically motivated endeavors. Doesn’t correlate for me with sex strength or location. Kinda transcends all that in it’s mean spirited silliness. Boys men and people from all over appear to participate. Many from Metry. Anyway if you have girls of your own ask them if they like being lumped in with sissies as if it was a bad thing to be a girl who likes Tea Parties. And Sock I am a girl who loves football and Tea Parties so where am I on your scale?Have a blessed day.

  7. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOwweeeeeeeeee Anyone for a little green tea this morning? Green tea has a number on medicinal benefits and Sock you don’t need to drink it in a small girly cup. Goggle “green tea” and you will find how good it is for you. I drink two large “Manly” cups daily and I’m 60 years old in human years and I’m still swinging as high on the vines as I did in my teens. Sock just try it, you’ll like it! OOOOOOwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  8. I, too, have heard the rumor that “Porteous will get his retirement”, which is what this is all about, at least in his mind. However, I have not been able to verify the rumor. With all of the indignation I have read on SLABBED with the behavior of Porteous and a large number of lawyers, it is “counter-intuitive” for me to think about Porteous walking away with his retirement, unless there are things at work in this case that mere mortals like me cannot comprehend. I do know that Porteous’ retirement, in contrast to what the U.S. Department of “Injustice” has probably spent on this investigation, is “chump change”. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  9. One last comment before the Impeachment Trial begins.

    deBrief, Placide and a couple of trial lawyer friends deduced a nuance in this letter that frankly alluded me. Their supposition is that item 3 on page 2 is evidence of low ball settlement figure that could serve as a basis to negotiate a settlement. The language relates to the graduated fee proposal being offered to Mr. Gardner should certain events occur, and reads as follows:

    “3. $400,000 for a judgment or OTHER RESULT allowing Lifemark to terminate the contract with no liability for future damages, and with damages for past actions in an amount less than $15 million in principal.”

    The implication is that Lifemark put a value to the case, a settlement amount of at least $15 million dollars. A settlement would take the decision out of the Judge’s purview, and thus make moot the Government’s allegation that any of Porteous’ lawyer friends (Levinson, Amato and Gardner) gave Porteous money to influence the outcome of the case.

    Pelican et al supplied me with a list of what questions and to whom Mr.Turley could ask relating to the infamous LILJEBERG case:

    JOSEPH MOLE: Questions to ask

    1. Did you or any other lawyer representing Lifemark have authority to negotiate a settlement of this case ?

    2. Did you or any other lawyer representing Lifemark direct Don Gardner to convey to any lawyer representing Liljeberg that there was $30 million on the table to negotiate a settlement this case ?

    DON GARDNER: Questions to ask

    1. Did you talk to any one about the possibility of settling this case for $30 million dollars ?

    2. If the answer is yes, then who ?

    3. Assuming you did convey this settlement figure to someone, did you receive a response ?

    4. And what was that response, if any ?

    Let’s assume for the purposes of this comment that this offer was conveyed. That one of the attorneys for Liljeberg said to the messenger, piss off, it’s none of your business. Let’s further suppose that the messenger had told this story to the Justice Department lawyers; who, to this date, have chosen not to ask these same questions of anyone. Why not ? Would it be because these very same lawyer friends’ of Porteous would seem not to be relying on him for the outcome of this litigation, having attempted to enter in negotiations to settle.

    Tomorrow is another day….

Leave a Reply

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