I think it is necessary to put all partisan lobs aside and focus only on two statements that were brought to light in the Salon article about Judge Boyle’s General Electric case ruling.

The article mentions that the lawyer who sued General Electric in that case, Andy Whiteman, was quoted as saying Boyle was fair to his client and Boyle had indicated how he would rule in the case before he bought the GE stock.

I’ve gone back and read that portion of the article several times in an attempt to see if I’m missing a piece of the puzzle here, but I can not comprehend how Mr. Whiteman can believe that having a ruling divulged to him two months prior to the end of a case and fair is synonymous.

When one buys stock in a company, you do it with the hope, but not the guarantee, that it will increase in value. Inside trading occurs when the stock purchaser has information that indicates with near certainty what a stock will do in the future.

Judge Boyle purchased stock in GE before he issued a favorable ruling in a case that would have gained the plaintiff a relatively hefty settlement and potentially opened the door for other people who were similarly damaged. Doesn't this fall within the purview of the SEC? If it doesn't, shouldn't it?

The White House, via Jean Mamo, excuses Judge Boyle's legal transgressions on the grounds that he had committed mistakes on "only a tiny fraction of the thousands of cases on which he has sat." Such an argument could be used to excuse a bank robber on the basis of all the days he wasn't engaged in robbing banks. I am reminded of the lines from Gilbert and Sullivan, "When a felon's not engaged in his employment... His capacity for innocent enjoyment is as great as that of any honest man."

This looks like a future interim appointment by the president, so he can sidestep the confirmation process and get his man in.

Boyle's record may be outrageous. It may even be illegal, unethical and immoral - but it is in complete accord with Republican "principles".

Because, honestly, they're hard pressed to offer us anyone who isn't a criminal.

This reply is to Keith Parisot.

You are confused because you read only what Salon said about Bursell's attorney's letter. You need to read Bursell's attorney's letter, itself.

Bursell's attorney (who is a Democrat) called the 5/1/06 Salon article "misleading and inaccurate." Here's the letter:

------

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.)

------

You can also read the letter here:

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

Or here:

http://www.mooregop.org/nando_5-3-2006_boyle_ruled_fairly_435143.html

Or here:

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/01/boyle/permalink/8261c3d3a61fa22921a8243d8fd90bdb.html

-Dave Burton

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.