19 thoughts on “Here are the subpoenas and witness lists in the matter of the Impeachment of Judge G. Thomas pOrteous”

  1. Anyone else wonder how a guy, that by all accounts is a drunken addicted gambler that influenced peddled in order to feed his habits can afford lawyers like Turley and Company. I wonder who is paying the bill?

    sop

  2. I loved Judge Tiemann when he sat on the bench at the 24th JDC.

    Wonder what his connection is besides the fact he and Porteous were at the 24th JDC at the same time?

  3. The subpoenas have electrified the local legal community, especially Mamo per Bruce Alperts reporting and now former Judge Tiemann.

    Dick Chopin’s testimony for the house rendered him useless but I am not so sure I’m happy he didn’t at least get an invite like Mole did.

    There has been lots of speculation about the nature of the testimony of several of those subpoenaed. I’m not going to repeat what I’ve heard beyond saying I have not heard anything about Judge Tiemann. His omission from Alpert’s reporting while confounding does carry a few implications. I am not certain how Tiemann can help Porteous without sullying his own reputation, which on the surface is very good.

    Perhaps someone else can lend more insight.

    sop

  4. My best guess is that Tiemann has been subpoenaed to testify that it was either “customary” or “not at all unusual” for Judges of the 24th J.D.C. to go to lunch with or dine with lawyers who practiced before them, with the tab being picked up by the lawyers. Tiemann is a former Seminarian, who I perceive to be a deeply religious man. His only “fault” on the Bench was a limited intellect, ie. sometimes he was “stupid”, although he tried hard. Unfortunately, this flaw cost litigants as much “justice” than if he’d been “crooked”. And I don’t believe he was crooked, just stupid, sometimes. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  5. Well, well, well… it seems as though The Porteous Impeachment Party will be missing a number of individuals who where as much a part of his disgraceful escapades as those who were subpoenaed:

    RELATING TO HIS NOMINATION:

    John BREAUX… former La. US Senator who championed Porteous’ selection
    Kyle FRANCE…personal friend of Porteous and Breaux who helped facilitate Porteous being chosen

    RELATING TO HIS SITTING AS A FEDERAL JUDGE (apart from the Liljeberg case):

    Richard CHOPIN… Diamond Drilling hunting trips, the TURNER case, lunches, gifts
    T. Patrick BAYNHAM…Rowan Drilling hunting trips, lunches
    Leonard CLINE…gifts including shotgun and cruises
    Chip FORSTALL…gifts, trips and lunches

    THE INFAMOUS LIFEMARK VS LILJEBERG CASE:

    Hans LILJEBERG…manager of their legal team
    Ken FONTE…recruited Levenson and Amato
    Jay WILKINSON…US Magistrate in the Liljeberg case
    Tom WILKINSON…brother of Jay; recruited Gardner for Mole’s client Lifemark

    MARCOTTE’S AND PORTEOUS’ BAILBOND BUDDIES:

    Susan CHEHARDY…Judge, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
    Bruce NETTERVILLE…Chehardy’ s ex-husband and lawyer
    George GIACOBBE…Judge, 1st Parish Court
    Skip HAND… former Judge, 24th JDC
    Roy CACCIO…Judge, 2nd Parish Court
    Pat McCABE…Judge, 24th JDC
    Steven WINDHORSDT…Judge, 24th JDC
    Steve MORTILLARO…former Justice of the Peace, Jefferson Parish
    Howie PETERS…former District Attorney Jefferson Parish

    Not knowing how to finally thank former La.US Senator John Breaux for his “power politics” move of sponsoring the reprobate Porteous in achieving his “dream” to become a Federal Judge (our nightmare !), it dawned on me that this excerpt from Lori Marcotte’s most recent deposition in these impeachment proceedings, Aug. 2, 2010, might suffice:

    (The following portions of transcript relate to Porteous’ lawyer, Mr. Jonathan Turley, questioning Lori Marcotte, Louis Marcotte’s sister and business partner in BBU, about paying for Porteous to entertain Senator Breaux)

    pg 102,

    Q. Did you ever arrange a lunch between Judge Porteous and Senator John Breaux ?

    A. I was involved in that lunch. It was at Ruth’s Chris, and we all went to lunch there and drank for hours, and I don’t know if I was drinking a lot that day or whatever, but I left that luncheon at the end, and the two girls that works for us stayed there, they ended up going to a casino, riding in a limousine with John Breaux and Judge Porteous.

    pgs. 121-122,

    Q. Now, a lot of those questions involve Senator Breaux. When you all are paying for this limo trip or whatever it involved with Senator Breaux, in fact, that’s a great benefit to Judge Porteous, isn’t it ?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Because Senator Breaux, he wasn’t there to hang out with you and Louis. He was there for Judge Porteous, right?

    A..Yes.

    Q. So you helping Judge Porteous entertain Senator Breaux. Isn’t that what was going on ?

    A. Yes.

    pgs. 132-133,

    Q. Do you recall at the Breaux lunch, was there federal legislation pending at the time of the lunch ?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And isn’t it true that Breaux, for that reason, was important to you and your brother, in terms of that legislation ?

    A Yes.

    Q. I’m sorry. I did interrupt you. What was the purpose?

    A. We weren’t going to call John Breaux and say, let’s talk about this legislation. He wasn’t going to come to lunch with us, but—you know throw a limousine and two pretty girls and a casino, then he’s going to come.

    Thank you Lori, I think that about says it all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. Whitmergate, killer comment. The content of Lori’s deposition testimony does not surprise me, even though it seemed a little rehearsed.

    And the Chip Forstall theme song is now being sung by the Mardi Gras Indians: “He’s a man of integrity, and he wants to be your attorney.” He’s a man of integrity, State Farm is a good neighbor, Allstate has good hands, and Buddy Bart is on your side.

    For those who think there is a squirt of piss difference between the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress, I offer you this as proof of their collective end game:

    http://www.breauxlott.com/

  7. OOOOOOOOOooooooooooowweeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Holy Nanas’!!!! How in the world can Professor Dane Ciolino, who I assume unfortunately STILL teaches Legal Ethics at Loyola, have the nerve to show his face as a subpoenaed witness FOR Porteous after he defended Whitmer in the JP scandal? He should be teaching Unethical Behavior/How to Buy Influential Ethics Professors at Loyola instead !!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. George:

    Thanks for bringing Dane back into the mix. I thought I might have been a little hard on him some time back, so I am glad I did not have to take the first shot. Dane seems to love to see his face on TV, but he is never consistent in his “ethics” as underscored by the very examples you give (Porteous and Whitmer). That’s the problem with the oxymoron known as “legal ethics.” Dane’s “legal ethics” don’t seem to be very reflective of the simple concept of “right and wrong.” For Dane Ciolino, “legal ethics” = “lawyer spin.”

  9. I hope it’s not too late, but in listing those individuals who were not on the subpoena lists, I forgot Judge Jodie Grant (yes, another Mamoulides anointement re Jack Grant). I would have thought that her taking cash from Louis Marcotte would have been sufficient to include her. I was wrong and should have recalled that those Judges “trained” by Porteous in the bond business and part of the “A-Team” had been excluded also ( Cassio, McCabe, Windhorst, Giacobbe, Hand, Mortillaro). Bodenheimer, who received a check and not cash, was convicted and has since served his prison sentence; he was subpoenaed by the Government. Not only did she take the cash, Judge Grant photocopies the bills, puts the copies in a file and some time later reports the “donation” on her campaign contributor schedule that it was in fact $100 dollar bills ! (Louis Marcotte depostion, August 3, 2o10, pg. 8 ).

    So does is this act of reporting suppose to absolve her in some way ? Marcotte further explains in the above cited deposition, pg 8- 9, that these cash payments were campaign contributions and there were ‘always’ fund raisers.

    Canon 6, D (1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct strictly prohibits a Judge from receiving money from anyone, cash or check. That being stated, and we have no reason to believe otherwise since the same Judges have admitted taking money from both Louis and Lori Marcotte, what has the Judicial Commission done to sanction such unethical behavoir ? We seem to never hear about any action taken by this clandestine body that appears to function only to cover-up wrong doing by the Louisiana Judiciary.

    Are we to believe that the impeachment of Porteous will cleanse this Judicial cesspool known as the 24th JDC where he was once a mentor and and shinning star ? And by extention we could include the EDLA.

    Quelle honte putain !

  10. WOW! I hate to see the “Comments” to this post relegated to “Older Entries”. Whitmergate’s revelations from the Marcotte deposition, which I don’t believe is available to the General Public, are SHOCKING. I have some of my own accusations to make against the Louisiana Judiciary Commission and those CRIMINALS they protect, including Chief “Injustice” Catherine Kimball, at the proper time. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  11. Not really sure I can agree with the intellectual assessment of Tiemann. He may have been a seminarian, quite on the outside, but he was far from unintelligent to those who knoew the man on a daliy basis. All judges have the political drive, that gutsy bravado that makes one want to be more than the rest. However, Tiemann has led a pretty quiet life. He does what is called for and has come down hard on those who deserved it. I have never met anyone to say that justice was neglected due to his decision making. Just a thought.

Leave a Reply

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