THIS PAGE LAST REVISED ON 10.23.2020
It is possible certain links might not display linked documents.
That happens during revisions. Links are being reinstalled as discovered.
You can check back or contact the author for the document you may be trying to link to.
Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, Attorney, et al
(St. Mary Parish Docket No. 103,096)
Plaintiff, Paul Maclean
Plaintiff's attorney until February 21, 2001: Gregory J. Schwab (Houma, LA)
Plaintiff acted pro se after February 21, 2001 and the events of the hearing that day.
G. Tim Alexander, III was the attorney for Betty Blanchard and the author (her agent) in the Blanchard I Litigation.
This subject litigation first began in Houma, LA, Terrebonne Parish and was presided over by Judge Paul Wimbish. (Disciplinary complaints were filed against Judge Wimbish for his actions in this case and other cases connected to it.)
The action was relocated to St. Mary Parish to a court presided over by
Judge Anne L. Simon
Defendant, G. Tim Alexander, III's Attorney was James H. Gibson (during the litigation he was with the law firm of Allen & Gooch in Lafayette, LA.)
Defendant, Coregis Insurance Company, Attorney was Daniel A. Rees (during the litigation he was with the law firm of Rees & Rees in St. Martinville, LA. (Mr. Rees had earlier been the law firm of Christovich & Kearney in New Orleans. That law firm had previously represented ARCO in the Blanchard I Litigation and would have therefore been involved should the purported settlement agreement for the Blanchard I Litigation be set aside at anytime.)
Terrebonne Parish Courthouse (Houma, LA)
As earlier written, this litigation began in Terrebonne Parish, LA. Judge Paul Wimbish presided over it. It was later discovered that Judge Wimbish (now deceased) presided over this litigation with serious conflicts that existed at the time. In 1999 the author began filing judicial displinary complaints against Judge Wimbish for those conflicts. Of course, being those complaints were filed pro se, the complainant was materially ignored by the disciplinary body.
St. Mary Parish Courthouse (Franklin, LA)
Although Terrebonne Parish was always a proper venue for this litigation, under Judge Wimbish's decision, this litigation was removed from Terrebonne Parish and the author allowed it to be refiled in St. Mary Parish, LA (that is where the original wrongdoings occurred) where it was alloted to Judge Anne L. Simon.
IN HER ST. MARY PARISH COURTROOM, DURING AND AFTER A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 21, 2001, IT BECAME OBVIOUS AND NECESSARY FOR THE AUTHOR TO ACT PRO SE IN THIS LITIGATION. THE FOLLOWING WRONGDOING OCCURRED THAT DAY THAT WAS CONNECTED TO MATERIAL VERBIAGE SPOKEN IN A HEARING AND TO THE TRANSCRIPT THAT FOLLOWED:
Nancy Blanchard Affidavit
Gregory Schwab, Attorney Affidavit
After reading the two affidavits above, one might first say that the words intentionally removed from the hearing transcript by Judge Simon and her court reporter might not have been material. But, that is a wrong assumption.
First: They were material because certain attorneys/firms were adverse to the plaintiff in the Blanchard I Litigation...and had been for years.
Secondly: The words were removed exactly because they were material to this litigation.
Thirdly: If the words had not been material, the words would not have been removed from the transcript of this litigation.
Fourthly: If those material words were not spoken by her and not removed from the transcript as claimed, the court would have simply provided a tape of the hearing (as requested multiple times in the record by the author). If tapes would have been supplied, the material words that were removed from the transcript would have been heard on the tapes.
Fifthly: If those material words were not spoken and removed, Judge Simon's clerk would not have stated what Nancy Blanchard stated she did and Gregory Schwab, Attorney, would not have attested to what he did by their respective affidavits shown above.
Sixthly: Since those material words were spoken and removed and after her clerk knew they had been discovered, and after she spoke to Nancy Blanchard, her clerk refused to sign any more incorrect transcripts for pertinent hearings and filings.
Note: That incorrect and unsigned transcript were repeatedly used and relied upon by the defendants' attorneys to move to an expedited dismissal by Judge Anne L. Simon before she retired! (These actions show the words to be indeed material and why certain attorneys pushed to get on her docket before she retired?)
How material were these words to the author? At the heart of the argument was a powerful, politically-connected attorney, Newman Trowbridge, Jr. By virtue of his own self-described explanation in 1986, he admitted that he and his oil and gas business associates wanted Betty Blanchard's (his client and an elderly widow) minerals. Those minerals had been earlier produced by ARCO (now BP) and environmental contamination remained on her property.
He was very politically connected and (in this author's opinion) those connections offered an opportunity for him to believe he and his associates could obtain those minerals and additionally assure ARCO/BP that it would be able to avoid full environmental remediation of his client's property, without the fear of being held accountable by the courts or the regulatory agencies. To date, he has been correct.
Note: None of his law partners and/or associates in his law firm ever moved to stop his actions against their client - an elderly widow who had relied solely on their legal advice for years! Instead, their actions and/or inactions actually helped to facilitate his (and his business associates) efforts to take her land and minerals as well as facilitate the avoidance to fully environmentally remediate the property - adverse to the public health laws and policies of the State of Louisiana. (The hazardous material being one of those contaminants.)
If one would review Judge Anne L. Simon's political candidate's contribution reports, in which all legal contributions are required to be filed, as per the Louisiana Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, that are available for public viewing, one would discover a list of lawyers and law firms, that were part of those legal contributors. If one would further take the time to understand certain contributor's historical connections to the Blanchard I Litigation and to this subject litigation, one would have an understanding of why the material words about certain attorneys wanting to get "on" her docket before she retired were indeed material and why these words should have remained in the written transcript of that hearing. Judge Anne L. Simon needed to be timely asked, "Who were those attorneys trying to get on your docket before you retired?" With a full and correct transcript, that question could have been asked.
Properly contributing to campaigns is legal. The author believes her contributions were all legally made to her and received by her. Although legal, they do indicate relationships. Relationships strong enough and relevant enough to this litigation so that when the judge spoke those material words in open court, she apparently thought it was wise to instruct her court reporter to remove them from the written transcript record. That is a corruption of the court record. Those relationships extend into the Blanchard V Litigation.
Note: An additional very important issue is identified in Paragraph No. 14, No. 15 and No. 16 of the Nancy Blanchard affidivat. The years mentioned is a period of time long before the author was ever in Judge Anne L. Simon's court. Therefore, when and how many times has she tampered with court records for any reason whatsoever? What words may have been removed and why? That should be a serious question for many others to ask that went before her in the past.
All this was brought pro se to the Louisiana Supreme Court by this author. The writ to correct this situation was denied. That denial with no comments was a serious failure to carry out its supervisory duties. Of course, to fully address this matter, would cause the court to loose credability for many. By not addressing this matter, it also loss credibility to those who understood the facts.
Pro se Writ to Louisiana Supreme Court filed by the author dated August 1, 2003
Note: The author did not object to paying the district court to copy the record to appeal the action. The author did object to paying for an incorrect record. The author believed the court had a higher obligation to deliver a full and correct record from which to argue than the author had an obligation to pay for a known incorrect record. That is in part what the author argued all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Seemed like a very solid position for any citizen to take, if placed before a real justice system. But Louisiana did not have a real justice system. It had a "just-us" system.
Note: In the Blanchard V Litigation the author fully paid for (but failed to receive) a full and correct record at the First Circuit Court of Appeal from which to argue his appeal in that litigation. One can visit those latest happenings by going to that webpage on this website.
Now, back to this litigation.
Writ denial dated September 5, 2003
If one visits the Louisiana Supreme Court website, the writ denial decision cannot be found in the decisions on September 5, 2003 that were rendered by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Please review and see if YOU can find the decision anywhere on the Louisiana Supreme Court site that is intended for public viewing and further scrutiny of its decisions. If you can find it, please advise the author as soon as possible. This narrative will be modified accordingly.
Remember, if the filing is not easily available on the court's website, the press and/or others can never see it to report on or even know about the decision and the substance and/or the materialness of the arguments that were before the highest court in this State.
Please also importantly note: In reading the Nancy Blanchard affidavit, based on what was allegedly stated to her, it is highly conceivable and indeed likely that word modifications to hearing transcripts may have occured for years before this subject litigation's hearing on February 21, 2001. That would be many years before this litigation was filed in St. Mary Parish, LA.
Therefore, based on the Nancy Blanchard affidavit, one must ask oneself "which" words were removed from "which" transcripts in "which" legal actions (civil and/or criminal) and why were they removed by Judge Anne L. Simon?
Is it possible that this practice of record tampering extends to other judges in other district courts as well? Those are the questions this author put before the Louisiana Supreme Court in the writ.
Note: The answer came from Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Approximately ten years later in Jefferson Parish, while trying to intervene in the Blanchard III Litigation, the court lost/destroyed the entire litigation record pertaining to my motion to intervene.
In 2003 the writ was denied with no comments. The highest court simply refused in 2003 to address these serious questions and issues placed before it that occurred in 2001.
Simultaneously in 2001, while this record tampering issue was beginning to be addressed in St. Mary Parish in this litigation by this author, Judge Ann L. Simon was actually sitting in for justices on the dockett proceedings for the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Then in 2014 the Louisiana Supreme Court appointed a new judge in a very important and extremely conflicted litigation in St. Charles Parish. The author has no opinion at all on Judge Simon's decision(s) in that litigation. Her decisions were what they were. This litigation is only identified here so to try and evidence the fact of the Louisiana Supreme Court's apparent lack of concern for the failure to develop and maintain accurate and complete court/trial records and to hold judges accountable for such actions.
Then in 2015 or 2016 Judge Anne L. Simon was appointed a position in a very important and extremely conflicted litigation in the Monroe area of Louisiana! The author has no opinion at all on Judge Simon's decisions on the merits as set forth in her task. Her decisions were what they were. This is only identified here so to try and evidence the fact that the Louisiana Supreme Court (at that time) apparently still had a lack of concern for accurate and complete court/trial records and the judges connected to them.
Finally, to bring all this into real time (by virtue of the Blanchard V Litigation), a review of Judge Anne L. Simon's legal contributions made to her and legally received by her in the past also show a potential relationship connection to the present judge (then attorney) that presided over the Blanchard V Litigation (Judge Lewis Pitman). May that go to in part explain the strange court happenings in his court in 2018 and 2019 for that Blanchard litigation? (Remember: A decision in favor of the author in the Blanchard V Litigation would have likely opened up many actions from the past and that may well have brought us back to Judge Anne L. Simon's actions in this Maclean vs. Alexander litigation. That question may never be fully answered but one thing for sure, complete, full and correct transcript/court records would certainly help the effort.)
More informaton will follow, please stay tuned!