Investigators accuse Orange County D.A. of cover-ups, interfering with investigations
LAT
May 27, 2017
Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas
and other officials interfered in multiple investigations and covered
up criminal conduct by police, according to claims filed Friday by two
investigators with the district attorney’s office.
In their filings, Tom Conklin and Abraham Santos cited three high-profile cases that they said officials had suppressed.
One involved a former Cypress Police Department
investigator accused of committing perjury during a capital murder
trial. Another case revolved around the alleged cover-up by Fullerton
police of a former city manager’s drunk driving. Conklin and Santos said
they were removed from the investigation into a third case, involving a
man who they believed was planning a “Sandy Hook”-level mass shooting.
The whistle-blower claims are precursors to a lawsuit...
Showing posts with label perjury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perjury. Show all posts
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Monday, January 12, 2015
Judge to Make Niro Firm Pay Millions in Sanctions Over False Declarations
Judge to Make Niro Firm Pay Millions in Sanctions Over False Declarations
Scott Graham
January 9, 2015
SAN FRANCISCO — An Illinois federal judge has sanctioned Raymond Niro Sr. and his law firm in a wireless patent case, finding that Niro and three of his colleagues knew about a client's false declarations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before filing a lawsuit on his behalf.
U.S. District Judge William Hart on Friday held Niro, Haller & Niro jointly and severally liable for what's likely to be several million dollars in attorney fees assessed against Intellect Wireless and inventor Daniel Henderon. The ruling ends a year of hotly contested wrangling over what Niro did and didn't know, delivering a black eye to one of the country's most prominent patent lawyers.
"The false presentation of Henderson's activity and knowledge justifies making Niro jointly and severally liable with IW for attorney fees and costs," Hart wrote in his order.
Niro did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday evening. Niro, partners Paul Vickrey and David Mahalek and former partner Paul Gibbons have filed declarations saying they knew nothing about an email Henderson sent to his patent prosecutor in 2007 raising loud alarms about false declarations filed with the PTO. Henderson had warned that false declarations filed on his behalf presented a "potentially lethal blow" to his patent portfolio, and asked that his litigation counsel at the Niro firm be consulted about it.
HTC Corp. and its attorneys at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton say it was "inconceivable" that Niro and his colleagues didn't hear about Henderson's concerns long before suing HTC in 2009.
Hart sided with HTC on Friday, concluding from the Niro firm's unwillingness to produce certain documents in discovery that the lawyers knew Henderson had lied about his invention at least by 2009, "if not before."
"Therefore, Niro is liable for all reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred by HTC," Hart wrote.
HTC has asked for $4.7 million, plus additional fees for briefing the fee motion...
Read more: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202714649438/Judge-to-Make-Niro-Firm-Pay-Millions-in-Sanctions-Over-False-Declarations#ixzz3OcTpq0GP
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Documents Show General Motors Kept Silent on Fatal Crashes
By REBECCA R. RUIZ and DANIELLE IVORY
New York Times
JULY 15, 2014
In a truly civil society, corporate executives would do hard prison time for contributing to or covering up death and destruction.
Mike Velemirovich, Nova Scotia
How can GM corporate individuals remain completely unpunished after making such terrible decisions?? It defies logic. They are brazen... The car crash that killed Gene Erickson caught the attention of federal regulators. Why did the Saturn Ion he was traveling in, along a rural Texas road, suddenly swerve into a tree? Why did the air bags fail? General Motors told federal authorities that it could not provide answers.
But only a month earlier, a G.M. engineer had concluded in an internal evaluation that the Ion had most likely lost power, disabling its air bags, according to a subsequent internal investigation commissioned by G.M.
Now, G.M.'s response, as well as its replies to queries in other crashes obtained by The New York Times from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, casts doubt on how forthright the automaker was with regulators over a defective ignition switch that G.M. has linked to at least 13 deaths over the last decade.
They provide details for the first time on the issue at the heart of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department: whether G.M., in its interaction with safety regulators, obscured a deadly defect that would also injure perhaps hundreds of people...
By REBECCA R. RUIZ and DANIELLE IVORY
New York Times
JULY 15, 2014
In a truly civil society, corporate executives would do hard prison time for contributing to or covering up death and destruction.
Mike Velemirovich, Nova Scotia
How can GM corporate individuals remain completely unpunished after making such terrible decisions?? It defies logic. They are brazen... The car crash that killed Gene Erickson caught the attention of federal regulators. Why did the Saturn Ion he was traveling in, along a rural Texas road, suddenly swerve into a tree? Why did the air bags fail? General Motors told federal authorities that it could not provide answers.
But only a month earlier, a G.M. engineer had concluded in an internal evaluation that the Ion had most likely lost power, disabling its air bags, according to a subsequent internal investigation commissioned by G.M.
Now, G.M.'s response, as well as its replies to queries in other crashes obtained by The New York Times from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, casts doubt on how forthright the automaker was with regulators over a defective ignition switch that G.M. has linked to at least 13 deaths over the last decade.
They provide details for the first time on the issue at the heart of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department: whether G.M., in its interaction with safety regulators, obscured a deadly defect that would also injure perhaps hundreds of people...
Monday, April 28, 2014
How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech
How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech
NPR News
April 28, 2014
Monday the Supreme Court hears the case concerning what kind of speech is protected for public employees.
The current conservative Supreme Court majority has a well-earned reputation for protecting the First Amendment right to free speech, whether in the form of campaign spending or protests at military funerals.
But in one area — the first amendment rights of public employees — the conservative majority has been far less protective of the right to speak out. Now the court is revisiting the issue, and the result could have far-reaching consequences for public corruption investigations.
Edward Lane was fired because he testified truthfully that an Alabama state legislator was a no-show employee, being paid by the taxpayers for no work.
He was hired in 2006 to head a program for juvenile offenders, providing counseling and education as an alternative to incarceration. The program was run out of Central Alabama Community College and received substantial federal funds.
After he was hired, Lane conducted an audit and learned that one of the program's best paid employees, a state representative named Suzanne Schmitz, was not showing up for work. After Schmitz refused to change her ways, Lane had what he describes as an "ugly" meeting with the state legislator.
"She began to tell me who she was, and did I know who she was for real," said Lane.
Lane says that people in his office warned him not to tangle with Schmitz because of her influence, but, as he puts it, "To me, it's like being president of the bank. If I know one of my tellers is stealing from the bank, and I allow it to go on, I'm complicit."
And so he fired Schmitz.
About that time, the FBI came calling, Lane says. The bureau was conducting an investigation of public corruption in Alabama and subpoenaed Lane to testify first before the grand jury, and later at Schmitz's two trials. She was subsequently convicted in federal court of fraudulently obtaining $177,000 in public funds.
Lane, however, was not rewarded for his conduct. He was fired just before the community college was to request additional money from the state Legislature for the program he headed.
"I was the only one who was terminated," Lane said. "And to me, it made it look like I had done something wrong. You know, I was the one who was doing what was right."
And so he sued, contending that he was fired in retaliation for his testimony and that such retaliation violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
While the Supreme Court in 1968 extended to public employees protection for statements made as a matter of public concern, the court has since narrowly defined what constitutes a matter of public concern.
In 2006, the court upheld disciplinary actions against a Los Angeles deputy district attorney after he testified in a trial that an affidavit to obtain a critical search warrant was false. By a 5-to-4 vote, the conservative Supreme Court majority ruled that the First Amendment offers no protection for speech that public employees engage in "pursuant to their official duties."
The court said that a public employee's speech is only protected when he speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, not as an employee.
In Edward Lane's case, the federal court of appeals based in Atlanta ruled that Lane was not protected because he was testifying about information he had learned as an employee.
Lane appealed to the Supreme Court. Monday his lawyers will argue that public employees have a duty to testify truthfully when subpoenaed, and that the First Amendment protects public employees from retaliation for performing that duty. If there is no such protection, say Lane's lawyers, employees who know about fraud, waste and abuse in government will be afraid to come forward, and public corruption will thrive.
A decision in the case is expected by summer.
NPR News
April 28, 2014
Monday the Supreme Court hears the case concerning what kind of speech is protected for public employees.
The current conservative Supreme Court majority has a well-earned reputation for protecting the First Amendment right to free speech, whether in the form of campaign spending or protests at military funerals.
But in one area — the first amendment rights of public employees — the conservative majority has been far less protective of the right to speak out. Now the court is revisiting the issue, and the result could have far-reaching consequences for public corruption investigations.
Edward Lane was fired because he testified truthfully that an Alabama state legislator was a no-show employee, being paid by the taxpayers for no work.
He was hired in 2006 to head a program for juvenile offenders, providing counseling and education as an alternative to incarceration. The program was run out of Central Alabama Community College and received substantial federal funds.
After he was hired, Lane conducted an audit and learned that one of the program's best paid employees, a state representative named Suzanne Schmitz, was not showing up for work. After Schmitz refused to change her ways, Lane had what he describes as an "ugly" meeting with the state legislator.
"She began to tell me who she was, and did I know who she was for real," said Lane.
Lane says that people in his office warned him not to tangle with Schmitz because of her influence, but, as he puts it, "To me, it's like being president of the bank. If I know one of my tellers is stealing from the bank, and I allow it to go on, I'm complicit."
And so he fired Schmitz.
About that time, the FBI came calling, Lane says. The bureau was conducting an investigation of public corruption in Alabama and subpoenaed Lane to testify first before the grand jury, and later at Schmitz's two trials. She was subsequently convicted in federal court of fraudulently obtaining $177,000 in public funds.
Lane, however, was not rewarded for his conduct. He was fired just before the community college was to request additional money from the state Legislature for the program he headed.
"I was the only one who was terminated," Lane said. "And to me, it made it look like I had done something wrong. You know, I was the one who was doing what was right."
And so he sued, contending that he was fired in retaliation for his testimony and that such retaliation violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
While the Supreme Court in 1968 extended to public employees protection for statements made as a matter of public concern, the court has since narrowly defined what constitutes a matter of public concern.
In 2006, the court upheld disciplinary actions against a Los Angeles deputy district attorney after he testified in a trial that an affidavit to obtain a critical search warrant was false. By a 5-to-4 vote, the conservative Supreme Court majority ruled that the First Amendment offers no protection for speech that public employees engage in "pursuant to their official duties."
The court said that a public employee's speech is only protected when he speaks as a citizen on a matter of public concern, not as an employee.
In Edward Lane's case, the federal court of appeals based in Atlanta ruled that Lane was not protected because he was testifying about information he had learned as an employee.
Lane appealed to the Supreme Court. Monday his lawyers will argue that public employees have a duty to testify truthfully when subpoenaed, and that the First Amendment protects public employees from retaliation for performing that duty. If there is no such protection, say Lane's lawyers, employees who know about fraud, waste and abuse in government will be afraid to come forward, and public corruption will thrive.
A decision in the case is expected by summer.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Darren Chaker Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
See two posts about Darren Chaker HERE on my San Diego Education Report blog.
I assume that San Diego attorney David Loy is sad about what's happened to his pal Darren Chaker, who supported Loy's position that all mentions of Dan Shinoff and his law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz should be removed from my websites and I should never mention their names again in my life. My position is that schools and other public entities should not conceal events and information that the public needs to make decisions at the voting booth. The public is entitled to the facts about the performance of public officials and public employees.
Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office
December 17, 2013
Southern District of Texas
HOUSTON—Darren David Chaker, 41, of Beverly Hills, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of bankruptcy fraud, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson. Chaker was found guilty April 4, 2013, following a five-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas.
Today, Judge Atlas sentenced Chaker to a term of 15 months in prison, to be immediately followed by a three-year-term of supervised release. He was further ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, Judge Atlas included special conditions that he not stalk or harass anyone and obtain mental health counseling and anger management. In handing down the sentence, Judge Atlas noted that the bankruptcy system depends on the reliability of those who petition for bankruptcy relief and added that the case involved a defendant who could not tell the truth to the court. She rejected Chaker’s request for a sentence of probation, calling this a significant crime and finding that a sentence of custody is critical.
The evidence at trial showed that Chaker filed bankruptcy under Chapter 13, in which a debtor is required to propose a plan of reorganization to pay the debtor’s creditors over time. The debtor is required to pay at least as much as the creditors would receive if the debtor’s assets were liquidated on the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The process is designed to achieve an orderly transfer of a debtor’s assets to creditors from available assets truthfully and accurately disclosed and to provide a “fresh start” to honest debtors by allowing them to obtain a discharge or release of debt incurred prior to filing bankruptcy.
According to the evidence, Chaker filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on March 6, 2007. Specifically, on or about March 26, 2007, during a bankruptcy hearing before the Honorable Jeffrey Bohm, while under oath, Chaker falsely and fraudulently represented to the court that the property was never leased out prior to January 2007, when he had in fact previously contracted with a realtor who secured at least two rental contracts with Chaker personally. Chaker failed to disclose income and the existence of past and present residential leases of a residential property facing foreclosure in Houston to his creditor, Saxon Mortgage in the hearing and to the court.
In order for the bankruptcy system to work for all parties, it is imperative for the debtor to be truthful and forthright in all aspects of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system is based on an honor system—the debtor agrees to provide all the necessary information requested by the trustee and to assist the trustee in collecting all assets of debtors and comply with the court’s orders to obtain the relief desired under the chapter the case was filed.
Chaker will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.
This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the United States Trustee’s Office and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Carolyn Ferko and Sharad Khandelwal.
Man Sentenced to Federal Prison for Bankruptcy Fraud
U.S. Attorney’s Office
December 17, 2013
Southern District of Texas
HOUSTON—Darren David Chaker, 41, of Beverly Hills, California, and Las Vegas, Nevada, has been ordered to federal prison following his conviction of bankruptcy fraud, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Magidson. Chaker was found guilty April 4, 2013, following a five-day bench trial before U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas.
Today, Judge Atlas sentenced Chaker to a term of 15 months in prison, to be immediately followed by a three-year-term of supervised release. He was further ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. As part of the sentencing, Judge Atlas included special conditions that he not stalk or harass anyone and obtain mental health counseling and anger management. In handing down the sentence, Judge Atlas noted that the bankruptcy system depends on the reliability of those who petition for bankruptcy relief and added that the case involved a defendant who could not tell the truth to the court. She rejected Chaker’s request for a sentence of probation, calling this a significant crime and finding that a sentence of custody is critical.
The evidence at trial showed that Chaker filed bankruptcy under Chapter 13, in which a debtor is required to propose a plan of reorganization to pay the debtor’s creditors over time. The debtor is required to pay at least as much as the creditors would receive if the debtor’s assets were liquidated on the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The process is designed to achieve an orderly transfer of a debtor’s assets to creditors from available assets truthfully and accurately disclosed and to provide a “fresh start” to honest debtors by allowing them to obtain a discharge or release of debt incurred prior to filing bankruptcy.
According to the evidence, Chaker filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 on March 6, 2007. Specifically, on or about March 26, 2007, during a bankruptcy hearing before the Honorable Jeffrey Bohm, while under oath, Chaker falsely and fraudulently represented to the court that the property was never leased out prior to January 2007, when he had in fact previously contracted with a realtor who secured at least two rental contracts with Chaker personally. Chaker failed to disclose income and the existence of past and present residential leases of a residential property facing foreclosure in Houston to his creditor, Saxon Mortgage in the hearing and to the court.
In order for the bankruptcy system to work for all parties, it is imperative for the debtor to be truthful and forthright in all aspects of the bankruptcy process. The bankruptcy system is based on an honor system—the debtor agrees to provide all the necessary information requested by the trustee and to assist the trustee in collecting all assets of debtors and comply with the court’s orders to obtain the relief desired under the chapter the case was filed.
Chaker will remain in custody pending transfer to a U.S. Bureau of Prisons facility to be determined in the near future.
This case was investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the United States Trustee’s Office and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Carolyn Ferko and Sharad Khandelwal.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Veteran prosecutors’ rookie mistake, no-nonsense judge lead to Clemens mistrial
Veteran prosecutors’ rookie mistake, no-nonsense judge lead to Clemens mistrial
By Del Quentin Wilber
July 16, 2011
The demise of the perjury trial of Roger Clemens was sown in one of the most routine moments of any prosecution: the playing of a video for jurors.
It actually was the fifth cued up that day, showing Clemens’s testimony before a House committee. While tedious, the clips were an essential part of the Justice Department’s case that the baseball legend had lied to Congress in 2008, when he told lawmakers that he had never taken performance-enhancing drugs.
Within moments of the tape’s rolling, the trial was over, and the prosecutors sat slumped and dejected in their chairs.
A judge had declared a mistrial, ruling that the tape included evidence he had barred from the jury.
The dramatic decision left legal observers wondering how such a high-profile prosecution could end so abruptly, on just the second day of testimony. A review of transcripts and interviews with people knowledgeable about what happened reveals that federal prosecutors did not intentionally introduce barred evidence to the jury. Despite years of experience, two well-respected prosecutors had made a basic mistake and not carefully reviewed the videos they planned to show jurors.
Their error was intensified because it occurred in front of a by-the-book judge who noticed it before defense lawyers could even raise an objection.
“Because of the prosecutors’ excellent reputations, you have to believe it’s a mistake, just a mistake,” said Tom Zeno, a former colleague of the two government lawyers. “What compounds the error here,” he added, “is that the judge runs a very tight ship and had high expectations of the prosecutors.”
The judge in the case is Reggie B. Walton, who will be weighing legal arguments in coming weeks to determine whether to grant prosecutors a retrial. Last week, the judge gave no hint about how he might rule.
First appointed to the D.C. Superior Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, Walton was tapped for the federal bench in 2001 by President George W. Bush. Since then, he has earned a reputation for being able to manage complex and high-profile trials.
In 2007, he oversaw the trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. He sentenced Libby to 2 ½ years in prison — a sentence later commuted by Bush.
A former fullback on his college football team, he also isn’t afraid to take action. In 2005, he broke up an assault in Chevy Chase Circle by tackling the assailant...
By Del Quentin Wilber
July 16, 2011
The demise of the perjury trial of Roger Clemens was sown in one of the most routine moments of any prosecution: the playing of a video for jurors.
It actually was the fifth cued up that day, showing Clemens’s testimony before a House committee. While tedious, the clips were an essential part of the Justice Department’s case that the baseball legend had lied to Congress in 2008, when he told lawmakers that he had never taken performance-enhancing drugs.
Within moments of the tape’s rolling, the trial was over, and the prosecutors sat slumped and dejected in their chairs.
A judge had declared a mistrial, ruling that the tape included evidence he had barred from the jury.
The dramatic decision left legal observers wondering how such a high-profile prosecution could end so abruptly, on just the second day of testimony. A review of transcripts and interviews with people knowledgeable about what happened reveals that federal prosecutors did not intentionally introduce barred evidence to the jury. Despite years of experience, two well-respected prosecutors had made a basic mistake and not carefully reviewed the videos they planned to show jurors.
Their error was intensified because it occurred in front of a by-the-book judge who noticed it before defense lawyers could even raise an objection.
“Because of the prosecutors’ excellent reputations, you have to believe it’s a mistake, just a mistake,” said Tom Zeno, a former colleague of the two government lawyers. “What compounds the error here,” he added, “is that the judge runs a very tight ship and had high expectations of the prosecutors.”
The judge in the case is Reggie B. Walton, who will be weighing legal arguments in coming weeks to determine whether to grant prosecutors a retrial. Last week, the judge gave no hint about how he might rule.
First appointed to the D.C. Superior Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, Walton was tapped for the federal bench in 2001 by President George W. Bush. Since then, he has earned a reputation for being able to manage complex and high-profile trials.
In 2007, he oversaw the trial of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was convicted of lying about his role in the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity. He sentenced Libby to 2 ½ years in prison — a sentence later commuted by Bush.
A former fullback on his college football team, he also isn’t afraid to take action. In 2005, he broke up an assault in Chevy Chase Circle by tackling the assailant...
Monday, September 13, 2010
Impeachment trial of federal judge gets underway in U.S. Senate
Impeachment trial of federal judge gets underway in U.S. Senate
By the CNN Wire Staff
September 13, 2010
Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate on Monday begins the impeachment trial of federal judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. -- the first such trial since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1999.
The Senate Impeachment Trial Committee will submit its summary to the full Senate, which is expected to vote later this year. The judge is accused of corruption and accepting kickbacks, as well as lying about his past to the Senate and FBI regarding his nomination to the federal bench.
In March, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to impeach Porteous, making him the nation's 15th federal judge ever impeached.
Porteous is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Last year, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held evidentiary hearings that led to unanimous approval of the four articles of impeachment, citing evidence that Porteous "intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings," a House release said.
"Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years," U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, said in March.
"Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Regrettably, no one can have that expectation in Judge Porteous' courtroom."
In a statement at the time, Porteous' lawyer Richard W. Westling said the Justice Department had decided not to prosecute because it did not have credible evidence.
"Unfortunately, the House has decided to disregard the Justice Department's decision and to move forward with impeachment," he said. "As a result, we will now turn to the Senate to seek a full and fair hearing of all of the evidence."
Porteous was appointed to the federal bench in 1994.
In 2007, after an FBI and federal grand jury investigation, the Justice Department alleged "pervasive misconduct" by Porteous and mentioned evidence "that Judge Porteous may have violated federal and state criminal laws, controlling canons of judicial conduct, rules of professional responsibility, and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all federal judges."
The complaint said the department had opted not to seek criminal charges for reasons including statute-of-limitations issues.
But Westling said the statute of limitations was not applicable.
The impeachment task force held hearings late last year that focused on allegations of misconduct by Porteous, including:
-- Involvement in a corrupt kickback scheme;
-- Failure to recuse himself from a case he was involved in;
-- Allegations that Porteous made false and misleading statements, including concealing debts and gambling losses;
-- Allegations that Porteous asked for and accepted "numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit" while taking official actions on behalf of his benefactors; and
-- Allegations that Porteous lied about his past to the Senate and to the FBI about his nomination to the federal bench "in order to conceal corrupt relationships," Schiff prepared statement said.
Porteous was invited to testify, but he declined to do so, Schiff said.
"His long-standing pattern of corrupt activity, so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity, demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court judge," he said.
Porteous, 63, has not worked as a judge since he was suspended with pay in the fall of 2008, Westling said.
The last impeachment of a federal judge occurred last year, when Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas resigned after being impeached on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding and making false and misleading statements, according to the website of the Federal Judicial Center.
The Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.
Before then, Judge Walter L. Nixon of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was impeached in 1989 on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury. The Senate convicted him and removed him from office that year...
By the CNN Wire Staff
September 13, 2010
Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Senate on Monday begins the impeachment trial of federal judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. -- the first such trial since the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton in 1999.
The Senate Impeachment Trial Committee will submit its summary to the full Senate, which is expected to vote later this year. The judge is accused of corruption and accepting kickbacks, as well as lying about his past to the Senate and FBI regarding his nomination to the federal bench.
In March, the House of Representatives voted unanimously to impeach Porteous, making him the nation's 15th federal judge ever impeached.
Porteous is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Last year, the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held evidentiary hearings that led to unanimous approval of the four articles of impeachment, citing evidence that Porteous "intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings," a House release said.
"Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years," U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment, said in March.
"Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Regrettably, no one can have that expectation in Judge Porteous' courtroom."
In a statement at the time, Porteous' lawyer Richard W. Westling said the Justice Department had decided not to prosecute because it did not have credible evidence.
"Unfortunately, the House has decided to disregard the Justice Department's decision and to move forward with impeachment," he said. "As a result, we will now turn to the Senate to seek a full and fair hearing of all of the evidence."
Porteous was appointed to the federal bench in 1994.
In 2007, after an FBI and federal grand jury investigation, the Justice Department alleged "pervasive misconduct" by Porteous and mentioned evidence "that Judge Porteous may have violated federal and state criminal laws, controlling canons of judicial conduct, rules of professional responsibility, and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all federal judges."
The complaint said the department had opted not to seek criminal charges for reasons including statute-of-limitations issues.
But Westling said the statute of limitations was not applicable.
The impeachment task force held hearings late last year that focused on allegations of misconduct by Porteous, including:
-- Involvement in a corrupt kickback scheme;
-- Failure to recuse himself from a case he was involved in;
-- Allegations that Porteous made false and misleading statements, including concealing debts and gambling losses;
-- Allegations that Porteous asked for and accepted "numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit" while taking official actions on behalf of his benefactors; and
-- Allegations that Porteous lied about his past to the Senate and to the FBI about his nomination to the federal bench "in order to conceal corrupt relationships," Schiff prepared statement said.
Porteous was invited to testify, but he declined to do so, Schiff said.
"His long-standing pattern of corrupt activity, so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity, demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court judge," he said.
Porteous, 63, has not worked as a judge since he was suspended with pay in the fall of 2008, Westling said.
The last impeachment of a federal judge occurred last year, when Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas resigned after being impeached on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding and making false and misleading statements, according to the website of the Federal Judicial Center.
The Senate, sitting as a court of impeachment, dismissed the articles.
Before then, Judge Walter L. Nixon of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi was impeached in 1989 on charges of perjury before a federal grand jury. The Senate convicted him and removed him from office that year...
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Are Heller Ehrman lawyers exceptional? These antics are typical for Stutz law firm and Parham & Rajcic
I came across this article from October 2007 on Blogonaut. I was looking up Heller Ehrman because they were involved in an education case.
What surprises me about this article is that everyone acts surprised. This is exactly how Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz has behaved during litigation in which I was involved.
Is hiding evidence truly unusual, or is everyone just pretending to be shocked?
From Blogonaut:
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2007/10/federal-court-brings-written-charges-of.html
Federal Court Brings Written Charges of “Exceptional Misconduct” Against 14 Lawyers in California Qualcomm Suit, Heller Litigators Among Those Cited
A federal district court has ordered 14 California lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for their “exceptional misconduct” on behalf of Qualcomm in a lawsuit that the San Diego wireless company lost. All of the lawyers subject to the order were from the Cupertino law firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder or the Heller Ehrman law firm's offices in Menlo Park and San Diego, the San Diego Tribune is reporting.
Five additional lawyers have been drawn into the proceedings since the order was issued, so the fate of 19 attorneys rests on the outcome of an October 12, 2007, 9:30 a.m. hearing before U.S. Magistrate Barbara Major, the newspaper reports.
“I do not recall any case in which so many individual attorneys have been ordered to come before a judge in this kind of situation,” said Kenneth J. Withers, director of judicial education at The Sedona Conference, a nonprofit law and policy institute told the news service.
“Something obviously went very, very wrong here,” said George Socha, a Minnesota legal consultant who agreed with Withers that the case is highly unusual”, the Tribune reported.
The sanctions proceeding arose from a case Qualcomm filed in 2005 against rival Broadcom, which alleged the Irvine chip-maker was infringing on two patents held by Qualcomm for video compression technology. The jury took just 6 hours to reject Qualcomm’s claims, and also made advisory findings that Qualcomm improperly withheld key information that could have weakened its patents from a standards-making body and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
To make matters worse, the existence of 21 e-mails requested by the defense in pretrial discovery did not come to light until the last day of testimony in the trial. Not good.
But it gets worse, because the 21 e-mails were inconsistent with facts that Qualcomm's lawyers presented in the case. This would possibly allow inferences that not only were the e-mails intentionally withheld, but that the case presented was less than honest. Indeed, San Diego federal Judge Rudi Brewster later described the alleged misconduct as “an organized program of litigation misconduct and concealment”, the Tribune reports.
Brewster, who presided over the patent trial, detailed the misconduct in an Aug. 6 ruling that waived Qualcomm's patents and ordered the San Diego wireless giant to pay Broadcom's attorney fees, currently estimated at $8.5 million.
Among other things, Brewster found that the Qualcomm engineers had “blatantly” lied while under oath. The judge also found that Qualcomm and its attorneys knowingly failed to produce more than 200,000 pages of e-mails, memoranda and other electronic evidence that directly contradicted the legal arguments made by Qualcomm before, during and after the trial.
Brewster referred the findings presented in his 54-page ruling to Major, who issued an order in August for the Qualcomm lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for “exceptional misconduct.”
In statements filed last week, the lawyers maintained that they acted in good faith and never sought to conceal evidence from Broadcom or mislead anyone in the case...
[From The San Diego Union Tribune and The Wall Street Journal]
What surprises me about this article is that everyone acts surprised. This is exactly how Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz has behaved during litigation in which I was involved.
Is hiding evidence truly unusual, or is everyone just pretending to be shocked?
From Blogonaut:
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2007/10/federal-court-brings-written-charges-of.html
Federal Court Brings Written Charges of “Exceptional Misconduct” Against 14 Lawyers in California Qualcomm Suit, Heller Litigators Among Those Cited
A federal district court has ordered 14 California lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for their “exceptional misconduct” on behalf of Qualcomm in a lawsuit that the San Diego wireless company lost. All of the lawyers subject to the order were from the Cupertino law firm of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder or the Heller Ehrman law firm's offices in Menlo Park and San Diego, the San Diego Tribune is reporting.
Five additional lawyers have been drawn into the proceedings since the order was issued, so the fate of 19 attorneys rests on the outcome of an October 12, 2007, 9:30 a.m. hearing before U.S. Magistrate Barbara Major, the newspaper reports.
“I do not recall any case in which so many individual attorneys have been ordered to come before a judge in this kind of situation,” said Kenneth J. Withers, director of judicial education at The Sedona Conference, a nonprofit law and policy institute told the news service.
“Something obviously went very, very wrong here,” said George Socha, a Minnesota legal consultant who agreed with Withers that the case is highly unusual”, the Tribune reported.
The sanctions proceeding arose from a case Qualcomm filed in 2005 against rival Broadcom, which alleged the Irvine chip-maker was infringing on two patents held by Qualcomm for video compression technology. The jury took just 6 hours to reject Qualcomm’s claims, and also made advisory findings that Qualcomm improperly withheld key information that could have weakened its patents from a standards-making body and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
To make matters worse, the existence of 21 e-mails requested by the defense in pretrial discovery did not come to light until the last day of testimony in the trial. Not good.
But it gets worse, because the 21 e-mails were inconsistent with facts that Qualcomm's lawyers presented in the case. This would possibly allow inferences that not only were the e-mails intentionally withheld, but that the case presented was less than honest. Indeed, San Diego federal Judge Rudi Brewster later described the alleged misconduct as “an organized program of litigation misconduct and concealment”, the Tribune reports.
Brewster, who presided over the patent trial, detailed the misconduct in an Aug. 6 ruling that waived Qualcomm's patents and ordered the San Diego wireless giant to pay Broadcom's attorney fees, currently estimated at $8.5 million.
Among other things, Brewster found that the Qualcomm engineers had “blatantly” lied while under oath. The judge also found that Qualcomm and its attorneys knowingly failed to produce more than 200,000 pages of e-mails, memoranda and other electronic evidence that directly contradicted the legal arguments made by Qualcomm before, during and after the trial.
Brewster referred the findings presented in his 54-page ruling to Major, who issued an order in August for the Qualcomm lawyers to explain why they should not be sanctioned for “exceptional misconduct.”
In statements filed last week, the lawyers maintained that they acted in good faith and never sought to conceal evidence from Broadcom or mislead anyone in the case...
[From The San Diego Union Tribune and The Wall Street Journal]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)