Did the judge express concern when the workout wasn't successful that the public would become aware that he was filing for bankruptcy?

The effect of not fully disclosing the full extent of your income, of not disclosing the tax return refund you are going to get, do I understand it correctly that the impact of that is that you actually have more income that you are not…

And if someone has applied for a tax refund prior to the filing, a week before the filing, would that be considered sufficiently liquidated to be reported?

Well, my question is, conservatively, from the period of '95 to 2000, if there were 100,000 that he was paying through cash, check, or credit card for gaming, does that indicate on average about a $20,000-a-year expenditure on gambling…

The court order prohibited the incursion of additional debt during the bankruptcy. For someone who takes out additional debt in the form of markers or other debt, is that a violation of a court order?

Why would those creditors not file claims?

Now, during the period from 1995 to 2000 and 1997 to 2000, during that 3- to 5-year period you were able to total up, looking at cash, checks, and credit cards, gambling debts of around 100,000, right?

Does the bankruptcy petition refer to a liquidated amount?

So if Judge Porteous were aware that the income level was inaccurate in the petition, that gambling debts were not listed, that the tax refund was not included when he answered that everything in the petition was accurate, that would have…

Wouldn't the purpose have been to let people know that maybe creditors of the person filing the petition, that someone is filing a petition and if they need to make a claim, that this is happening?

I want to thank you, Judge Keir, for your time today and your expertise.

Those multiple transactions were at the same casino, and it just reflected the process of the evening of cashing in and cashing out.

This hearing of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment will now come to order.

I hope that we can work together to begin to address some of the unjust and unintended consequences of mandatory minimum sentences.

The bill deals with the threshold question, but it also sets out a menu of options, including military courts-martial.

I believe there's nothing in the Geneva Convention that precludes us from trying an unlawful unprivileged combatant.

The poorly thought-out prison, and the torture that took place there, have called into question American adherence to the rule of law and discouraged our allies from cooperating with us.

Congress must be involved in the formulation of this new system, and changes should not be made solely by Executive Order.

what they chose to do with that choice is largely bring people before military commissions that were so flawed that none of the convictions were upheld.

Since al Qaeda and Taliban detainees first arrived at Guantanamo in 2002, Congress has failed to adopt a framework for the detention and prosecution of unlawful combatants that could pass constitutional muster.

Notwithstanding the changes announced by the Administration, I believe the commissions system has proved so flawed, and its due process so inadequate and discredited, that it should be completely junked.

As much as some people would like to drop these detainees down a hole and forget about them, that is simply not an option legally or morally.

what the Obama administration has said is that in some cases they are going to bring people before military commissions; in other cases they are going to bring people before Federal district courts.

I assume my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support efforts the Administration is making to get some of our allies to agree to take some of these detainees and detain them.

John has spent his life fighting for justice, working passionately as an advocate for civil rights.