These days with Republicans, the anomaly is when they're not openly whoring for the robber barons who greased their path. I mean, isn't "quid pro quo" the official Republican motto? And why would you think this crooked lawyer who got foisted into multiple judicial benches would behave ethically in the first place? If Hello Kitty Frist had any part in putting this guy up, you pretty much know he's someone the Right People can rely on when they need that fix to be in.

The only ones who are losers are those of us outside the gates to St. Reagan's shining gated community on the hill.

After reading about so many people associated with the Bush family, including all the members of the immediate family, and the people of all agencies of our goverment who have been installed by G. W. Bush, from his own aide all the way to members of the Supreme Court, nearly all of whom have proved to be ethically challenged, political flunkies, or downright dishonest involved in criminal activities, we've got to wonder:

DOES GEORGE BUSH KNOW ANYBODY WHO IS EVEN MINIMALLY HONEST ?

There is little indication that the Bushies have any but arrogant takers and crooks among their associates, political or otherwise. Our government appears to be peopled by a neocon Bush Mafia.

You don't say. Wow. Hey let me check to see if water is still wet.

Would somebody please tell Bush and Co what ethics are. This is urgent!

Big deal...

Judicial ethics aside, this looks like insider trading to me. In the middle of the case he bought GE stock, then ruled for GE? Did he, perhaps, sell right afterwards, taking in a tidy profit?

My republican friends are even starting to notice. Man, just wake me up when it's all over.

...for running an important investigative report as your leader instead of the latest white upper-middle-class agonizing from Waldman or one of her cohorts.

I thought it important to say, because I notice that all the jerks who are so quick to criticize are never there to say something positive when you get it right.

To Salon for securing the withdrawal of Judge Payne in Oklahoma. It's funny that Salon is able to do what others (i.e., the Democrats) are unable or unwilling to do. Keep up the excellent work! It's only a shame that your investigation appears to have been to late to make a difference in the case of Judge Boyle.

This is exactly the kind of thing that Republicans want to be able to do with impunity. Alito has done the same thing - illegally and immorally profiting from his own rulings. In fact, Republicans don't seem to understand why the law that applies to the rest of us should also apply to them.

As a class of political animal, Republicans are too corrupt to be allowed to participate in the future of America.

This was a letter to the editor of the Raleigh News and Observer, May 3, 2006:

http://www.newsobserver.com/580/v-print/story/435143.html

Judge Boyle ruled fairly in GE case

The May 1 news story "Claims put Boyle's new bench seat at risk," and the article at Salon.com on which it was based, referred to the case of Bursell v. General Electric. The article said that two months after U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle purchased GE stock, he issued a ruling unfavorable to Kenneth Bursell. I represented Bursell in that litigation. The Salon.com article was misleading and inaccurate. Boyle's rulings were favorable to Bursell.

On Oct. 22, 2002, Boyle denied GE's request to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of Bursell's worker's compensation claim. The ruling cited the considerable harm if he were not allowed to pursue his claim (for disability benefits) until after his pending worker's compensation claim is resolved. On Jan. 31, 2003, Boyle agreed with Bursell that he was entitled to have his claims for benefits reviewed by the court under the de novo standard, the most favorable standard of review available in such cases. Then, after conducting a bench trial in April 2003, Boyle ruled that Bursell was entitled to short-term disability benefits, denied his claim for a disability pension and dismissed without prejudice the long-term benefits claim. Finally, Boyle ruled on Aug. 25, 2004, that plaintiff was entitled to recover his attorney's fees from GE.

The Salon.com article suggested that the outcome of the case was unfavorable to Bursell. To the contrary, Boyle's favorable decision on the short-term benefits claim convinced GE's claims administrator, MetLife, to approve long-term benefits for the maximum benefit period allowed under the plan. The claim for attorney's fees and costs was settled. I do not take issue with Boyle's ruling on the disability pension, the one claim that was denied outright.

According to the article, Boyle purchased GE stock two months before he issued his ruling in 2004. In fact he announced his expected ruling at the conclusion of the bench trial in 2003, before he purchased the GE stock. In any event, I do not believe that his ownership of less than $15,000 of GE stock creates even the appearance of a conflict of interest. In 2004 GE had $134 billion in revenue. The idea that a ruling over one employee's disability benefits could somehow benefit Boyle financially is ludicrous. I would not have asked him to step aside had I known of his minimal stake in this corporate behemoth.

I also disagree with groups which contend that Boyle is hostile to claims brought by disabled persons. I have represented a number of disability claimants in cases before Boyle, and am familiar with his rulings in other cases. His treatment of the parties has been entirely fair and evenhanded.

Andy Whiteman

Hartzell & Whiteman, LLP

Raleigh

(The length limit on letters was waived to permit a fuller response.)

------

Dave Burton, Cary, NC

dave374 at burtonsys dot com but please no spam

Mr. Whiteman, I am not preoccupied with partisan posturing in this matter. And, your opinion that your client was treated fairly, in addition to all the facts you threw in front of this subject, is irrelevant.

Judge Boyle is not under scrutiny because his actions are above reproach and befitting of a trial court judge. You bear witness to Judge Boyle blatantly violating the very laws he is empowered to enforce. You have made it clear in no uncertain terms exactly where you, Judge Boyle and those who support him stand on this issue.

Thank you.