This page last revised on 02.14.2021
It is possible certain links might not display linked documents. That happens during revisions of this page. Links are being reinstalled as discovered. In the interim, a visitor can check back or contact the author for the document that 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 (the author of this website)
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. The reason, the court transcript that was generated from the hearing was materially altered. Material words were removed from the transcript that negatively impacted the plaintiff and greatly benefited the defendant(s).
The defendant, G. Tim Alexander, III was the attorney for Ms. Betty Blanchard and the author (her agent) in the Blanchard I Litigation. The litigation against Mr. Alexander was due to his actions during the Blanchard I Litigation, as he acted as the legal representative for Ms. Betty Blanchard and Paul Maclean, individually, and as her Agent in the litigation.
The other defendant was Coregis Insurance Company. It insured Mr. Alexander.
This subject litigation first began in Houma, LA, Terrebonne Parish and was presided over by Judge Paul Wimbish. (Disciplinary complaints were filed by the plaintif against Judge Wimbish for his actions in this case and other cases that were connected to it through parties to various other litigations.)
The action was then 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. Mr. Rees (during this litigation) was with the law firm of Rees & Rees in St. Martinville, LA. Mr. Rees had earlier been with the law firm of Christovich & Kearney in New Orleans. That law firm had previously represented ARCO, a defendant, in the original Blanchard I Litigation. Another attorney from that same law firm (E. Phelps Gay) was actually part of the legal team that produced the 1996 unlawful settlement agreement that purported to end the Blanchard I Litigation. That was the same purported settlement agreement that the author attempted to set aside in the Blanchard V Litigation. You can read about what happened in that last litigation in this website. The way that ridiculous litigation was presided over is what pushed the author to begin this website.)
Terrebonne Parish Courthouse (Houma, LA)
As earlier written, this litigation began in Terrebonne Parish, LA. Judge Paul Wimbish (now deceased) presided over it. It was later discovered that Judge Wimbish presided over this litigation with serious conflicts that existed at the time. As mentioned above, in 1999 the author began to file judicial displinary complaints against Judge Wimbish for those conflicts. During the complaint activities, the author eventually discovered that Judge Wimbish's persoanl attorney's law partner (Philip McMahon of McMahon and McCollam) was the Chairman of the disciplinary body acting on the complaints! Of course, being all the complaints were filed pro se before that commission, the complainant was materially ignored by the disciplinary body.
Note: Philip McMahon was known to be a good man. This all goes to simply show that even a good people that practice law can get caught in bad situations.
The real wrongdoing was the remainder of the commission at the time and the Louisiana Supreme Court for establishing and perpetuating a disciplinary body that did not fully protect the public from unethical judges and/or discipline judges for their proven unethical actions but instead protected them, in certain situations. The obligation, in certain actions, was obviously more about protecting the legal profession than it was to protect the public. (At least, that is how it went in this author's complaints against Judge Paul Wimbish when conficted he was with Andrew and Edmund McCollam [both attorneys in Houma].) No known discipline to anyone.
For the record: All the parties that were conflicted within the complaints that were filed are now deceased. But, the facts remain true to that time. Of course, no one will ever see them because the commission vehemntly declares them secret and they are buried in the complaint files and/or by now likely destroyed. (Although not displayed in this website, the author has retained his personal paper records of those filings.)
All this goes to the issue of the Louisiana Supreme Court selectively disciplining members of the Louisiana Judical System. It goes to evidence that it is a truly was/is a "Just-Us" system!
St. Mary Parish Courthouse (Franklin, LA)
Although Terrebonne Parish was always a proper venue for this litigation, by virtue of Judge Wimbish's decision, this litigation was removed from Terrebonne Parish. The author allowed it to be refiled in St. Mary Parish, LA (that is where the original wrongdoings during the Blanchard I Litigation occurred). Again, there it was alloted to Judge Anne L. Simon.
IN HER ST. MARY PARISH COURTROOM, DURING AND AFTER A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 21, 2001, IN MY PRESENCE, IT BECAME OBVIOUS TO THE AUTHOR THAT HE MUST ACT PRO SE IN THIS LITIGATION. THE JUDGE GAVE NO SERIOUS HEARING THAT DAY TO GREGORY SCHWAB, ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF. IT WAS CLEAR TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT THERE WERE OTHER RELATIONSHIPS IN PLAY. THE WRONGDOING THAT OCCURRED THAT DAY WAS LOUDLY SPOKEN BY HER AND THAT SPOKEN WORD WAS REMOVED FROM THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT BY HER. THE MATERIAL VERBIAGE THAT SPOKEN IN THAT HEARING THAT DAY THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT IS AS PER STATED IN THESE AFFIDAVITS:
Nancy Blanchard Affidavit
Gregory Schwab, Attorney Affidavit
Please note: The official transcript dated February 23, 2001 (that was attached to the June 26, 2002 affidavit of Gregory J. Schwab, during this litigation against Mr. Alexander) was signed by Ms. Lisa DeCourt, Official Court Reporter for Judge Simon. After Ms. Nancy Blanchard read the original signed and dated transcript, she spoke to Ms. DeCourt about the material words that were removed. That conversation led to Ms. Blanchard's affidavit dated September 4, 2001. Importantly, to the author's knowledge, Ms. DeCourt signed no additional transcripts of that hearing after speaking with Ms. Blanchard.
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.
Firstly: The words were material because certain attorneys/firms connected to this litigation were also adverse to the plaintiff in the Blanchard I Litigation commencing in 1986.
Secondly: The material words were removed specifically because they were material to this litigation.
Thirdly: If the words were not material to this litigation, the words would not have been removed from the transcript but instead would have been allowed to remain in the transcript.
Fourthly: If those material words were not spoken by her and not removed from the transcript as claimed by the plaintiff, the court would have simply provided a tape of the hearing (as requested multiple times in the litigation record by the pro se plaintiff). Of course, the pro se plaintiff was ignored.
Fifthly: The fact that the tape of the hearing were at all times refused to the plaintiff supports the fact that the material words were on the tape and, if listened to, the material words would have been on the recording.
Sixthly: If those material words were not spoken in open court, Judge Simon's law clerk would not have stated what she did to Ms. Nancy Blanchard and thereafter Ms. Nancy Blanchard would not have truthfully attested to certain facts by the affidavit, as she did.
Seventhly: If those material words were not spoken in open court, Gregory J. Schwab, Attorney, would not have truthfully attested to certain facts by affidavit, as he did.
Eighthly: Since those material words were in fact removed from the court transcript, and after her clerk spoke with Ms. Nancy Blanchard telling her that and more, the clerk refused to sign any more incorrect transcripts.
Note to repeat: More copies of that incorrect and unsigned transcript were repeatedly used and relied upon by the defendants' attorneys to move for depositions and an expedited dismissal of this litigation by Judge Simon before she retired! It is the author's opinion that the rush for her to dismiss supported the fact that the words were indeed material and why the defendant attorneys sought to get on her docket to expedite a dismissal from her before she retired!
How material were those words to the author? Very material! They were at the "heart" of the litigation that surrounded 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's) minerals for their benefit. He/they knew that those minerals were so valuable that they actually tried to clandestinely buy them from her by written letter in 1986 for a pittance of their true value. Those minerals had been earlier produced for many years by ARCO (now BP) as operator and extensive environmental contamination remained on/in her property.
Mr. Trowbridge (now deceased) was a very politically-connected attorney in Louisiana. in this author's opinion, his connections offered a real opportunity for all to believe that he and his associates could clandestinely successfully obtain those minerals as well as additionally assure ARCO/BP and Texaco/Chevron that they would be able to avoid the full environmental remediation of the property. With Mr. Trowbridge's connections, ARCO/BP and Texaco/Chevron need have no fear of being held accountable by the courts and/or the regulatory agencies in Louisiana for the public hazards remaining in the environment of the area (at least in the Four Corners/Glencoe area) due to those operations. At last check (because it had not been fully assessed and remediated), he was correct.
Note: Over all these years, the author is aware of no law partners and/or associates in his law firm and/or any other attorneys or judges that ever seriously moved to stop him or disclose to any disciplinary body the unethical actions of Mr. Trowbridge against his client (an elderly widow) who had relied solely on him and/or his law firm's legal advice for many years! The Attorney Code of Professional Conduct demands othewise.
Instead, their silence actually contributed to facilitate his (and his business associates) unlawful efforts to take her land and minerals from her. Additionally, that intentional and protective silence assisted in facilitating the failure to remove all the public hazards from (and the full environmental remediation of) Park Plantation. Those actions were/are adverse to the public health laws and policies of the State of Louisiana. (The hazardous material of elemental mercury being one of those contaminants.)
Additionally, if one would review Judge 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, as part of those legal contributors. If one would further take the time to connect certain contributor's historical connections to the Blanchard I Litigation and/or to this litigation, one would have an understanding of why the words about attorneys wanting to get "on" her docket before she retired were indeed material to this litigation. If they would have remained in the written transcript of that court hearing, the plaintiff could have held timely depositions relating to that.
Attorneys properly contributing to campaigns is legal. The author believes contributions made to Judge Simon and received by her and reported by virtue of the forms were all legally made. Although legal, the author believes they do indicate the existence of relationships between members of the bar. Relationships strong enough and relevant enough to effect this litigation so that when the judge spoke those material words in open court in 2001, she apparently thought it was wise to instruct her court reporter to remove them from the written transcript record. That was a corruption of the 2001 court record in this litigation. Finally, by those same Finace Disclosure Act filings, the author believes that at least one relationship extended over into the Blanchard V Litigation. To see that litigation's recorded antics, go to that webpage on this website.
By removing material words in 2001, Judge Simon made herself a witness to a judicial administrative act of wrongdoing that she caused. To read what now happens to judges for allegations against them for wrongful administrative acts, go to this ongoing litigation in Monroe, LA area.
Judge Simon needed to be timely asked questions in 2001 such as "Who were those specific attorneys trying to get on your docket before you retired"? It is only logical that attorneys trying to get on a docket would do that for what they thought might be a favorable ruling. With a full and correct transcript that included those material words, many questions could have been timely posed to Judge Simon and Ms. DeCourt during depositions in 2001.
Side 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 represent a period of time long before the author was ever in Judge Simon's court for this litigation. Therefore, when and how many times did Judge Simon and her law clerk tamper with court records for any reason whatsoever? What words may have been removed from other parties' transcripts and why? Those are serious questions that should have been timely asked by others on behalf parties that went before her in the past. That is in part why the author went all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court to get this dealt with.
This was brought pro se to the Louisiana Supreme Court by this author by writ in 2003. That writ was denied with no reasons given. That denial with no comments was a serious failure by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2003 to carry out its supervisory duties owed to the author and the public by the State Constitution. Of course, to have fully addressed this matter at that time, would have caused the court to loose some degree of credability with the public. But by not addressing this matter, it certainly did not gain any credibility.
Pro se Writ to Louisiana Supreme Court filed by the author dated August 1, 2003
Note to the merit of the writ: Never in this litigation did the author ever object to paying the district court to copy the cour record to appeal this 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 record known to be incorrect. That is in part what the author argued all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2003, after being denied by the Court of Appeal - First Circuit in Baton Rouge. Seemed like a very solid position for any citizen to have taken, if placed before a real non-selective justice system. But Louisiana did not have a real justice system. It had a "just-us" system. This matter was handled against the author much as the disciplinary complaints had been that were earlier filed by the author.
Note: In the Blanchard V Litigation the author fully paid for what he believed would be a complete trial record. But, when that record was lodged in Baton Rouge it was not complete. The First Circuit Court of Appeal received an incomplete record from St. Mary Parish from which the author could not fully argue his appeal. One can visit those latest happenings by going to that webpage on this website titled The Blanchard V Litigation.
Now, back to this litigation.
Writ denial dated September 5, 2003. If you think you could have found that decision on that day, think again. It was not there.
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 court that day. 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 available on the court's website, the press and/or others can never see it to read and report on or act on or even know about. The decision and/or the substance of the action and/or the materialness of the arguments, that were before the highest court in this State, would never be known.
That is particularly important due to what Ms. DeCourt said to Ms. Nancy Blanchard, as attested to in the affidavit above. That conversation would lead any rational person to believe that it is highly possible certain visitors to Judge Simon's court may have thought they were having a short bout with amnesia when reading the written transcripts from her court. Upon reading a transcript, something like this might have been noted: "Wait! ______ is missing"? or " Where is what I [they] said about ______"! Again, depending on the certain facts surroundings each court proceeding, those words might have been as material as mine were for this author.
So, if reporters would have read the filings of the writ, reporters might have asked serious questions that impactd such transcripts statewide. Dare not open that can of worms! Certainly not, with the writ only being filed by a pro se non-attorney! Especially the same guy that filed all those disciplinary complaints years before. He is just a fanatic! Too radical! Too many Plebians might find out about the Louisiana "Just-Us" system run by Patricians! Just bury it! He will go away or die!
Therefore, based on the Ms. 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 Simon? Think some people in jails across the State of Louisiana might like that question answered as well?
Is it possible that this practice of record tampering extends to other judges in other district courts? Those are the concerns this author put before the Louisiana Supreme Court in the writ. Those are the questions and answers it avoided. Again, go to the Monroe area and see the litigation there dealing with court records.
Tp show you evenmore how the Louisiana "just-us" system works against the plebeians (one cannot make this stuff up), simultaneously in 2001, while the record keeping issue was beginning to be addressed in St. Mary Parish in this litigation, by this author, the same judge, Judge Simon, was actually replacing justices in proceedings for the Louisiana Supreme Court. No wonder the author's writ at the court went nowhere!
Well, the bad fruit from the 2003 Louisiana Supreme Court decision against this author hit again this time from Jefferson Parish, Louisiana approximately ten years later. There, while the author was trying to intervene in the Blanchard III Litigation, the judge lost/destroyed the entire litigation record pertaining to author's motion to intervene. Of course, this was disastrous to the author/intervenor. You can read more detail about that by going to that webpage on this website.
Still even more insulting to the general public, in 2014 the Louisiana Supreme Court appointed a new judge (Judge Simon) in a very important and extremely conflicted litigation in St. Charles Parish. The author has no connection to that litigation and 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 that the Louisiana Supreme Court apparently has a total lack of concern over judges' failures to develop and maintain accurate and complete court/trial records and/or to hold judges accountable for such actions. The court actually pull certain judges out of retirement to handle certain litigations, as they are needed.
Then again, in 2015 or 2016 Judge Simon was appointed to the bench in a very important and extremely conflicted litigation in the Monroe area of Louisiana! Again, the author has no opinion at all on Judge Simon's decisions in that litigation as set forth in her task. Her decisions were what they were. This again is only identified here so to try and evidence the fact that the Louisiana Supreme Court (at that time) apparently still had a total 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 Simon's legal contributions made to her and legally received by her in the past appears to show a potential relationship connection to the judge (then attorney) that presided over the Blanchard V Litigation (Judge Lewis Pitman). Oh my gosh. Here we go again!
May that relationship go to in part explain the strange court happenings in his court in 2018 and 2019 for that the fifth-named 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 likely have brought us back to Judge Simon's actions in this Maclean vs. Alexander litigation. The author certainly would have tried to bring it there and I guess the court knew it and acted accordingly.
More informaton will follow, please stay tuned!