Judge Rejects Trump's Bid to Keep Lawyer Docs from Special Counsel
-
The court swatted away a Trump argument in less than 24 hours.
2 hours ago
Writer's Email: wesawthat@gmail.com
Fone WST... +1318.717.9017
Twitter:@wesawthat
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” ~ Gaius Cornelius Tacitus
In 1989, respondent was the district attorney for Ouachita and Morehouse Parishes and was also a partner in the West Monroe law firm of Norris, Johnson & Placke. In June 1989, without prior notification to his partners, respondent withdrew $525,977.81 of the partnership’s funds on deposit at various banking institutions. He used some of the funds to pay off loans to the partnership and kept the remaining funds as his asserted one-third share of the partnership.
In August 1989, the law firm (hereinafter referred to as “J&P”) filed suit against respondent in the Fourth Judicial District Court,Parish of Ouachita, seeking an accounting, restoration of the disbursed funds, and damages. In January 1994, while the litigation was still ongoing, respondent began to borrow eavily from his relatives and a local bank; in exchange, he granted mortgages on virtually all of his known assets, which had previously been unencumbered. Respondent deposited the loan proceeds into his personal checking account. In February 1994, respondent withdrew from the account the sum of $500,000, all in $100 bills, and placed the cash in a bank safety deposit box.
[...]
In January 1995, J&P initiated an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against respondent. On four occasions during that proceeding, respondent testified under oath that he had burned the $500,000 he withdrew from the bank safety deposit box. Specifically, respondent testified that the day after he learned of the state court judgment against him, he went to the bank and removed the currency from the safety deposit box, placed it in his briefcase, and took it home, where he doused the $100 bills with gasoline and burned them in a metal trash barrel in his back yard.
[...]
As to respondent’s mental state at the time of the offense, the committee observed that respondent’s behavior was “bizarre”