Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles G. Geyh appeared before the U.S. House of Representative's
Committee on the Judiciary Tuesday as a witness in its hearing on the possible impeachment of U.S. District Judge Thomas G.
Porteous of New Orleans. This is the second time in less than a week the professor has appeared before the House.
In his testimony Tuesday, Geyh delivered his opinion on what he called "ethical concerns of the most extreme sort"
by Judge Porteous. The judge is accused of accepting cash and other gifts from attorneys who appeared before his court. Judge
Porteous also refused to recuse himself from a case where the defendant had a close relationship with the judge's friend.
Geyh testified Judge Porteous' conduct entailed a gross abuse of judicial power that showed a complete disregard for
the core ethical qualities a judge should display.
"Having improperly solicited thousands of dollars from a lawyer while he was representing a party in a case pending
before him, the need for Judge Porteous to disqualify himself was even more plain, rendering his erroneous failure to withdraw
more obviously willful," Geyh said. "It is utterly inconceivable that a reasonable person would not question the
impartiality of a judge who solicited thousands of dollars from a lawyer in a pending matter."
Geyh was one of three national experts called to testify during Tuesday's hearing. He also testified regarding judicial
disqualification before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Dec. 10.
If Judge Porteous is impeached by the House, it would be the first time in more than 20 years a federal judge was impeached.
The U.S. Senate would then hold a trial to determine whether the judge should be removed.














The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.