THIS PAGE LAST REVISED ON 01.29.2020
It is possible certain links might not display documents.
That happens during revisions. Links are being reinstalled as discovered.
You can check back or contact the author for the link document you may want.
Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, et al
(St. Mary Parish Docket No. 103,096)
Plaintiff, Paul Maclean
Plaintiff's attorney until February 21, 2001: Gregory J. Schwab
Pro se after February 21, 2001
G. Tim Alexander, III was the attorney for Betty Blanchard and the author (her agent) in the Blanchard I litigation in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana.
This subject litigation began in Houma, LA, Terrebonne Parish and was presided over by Judge Paul Wimbish.
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. That law firm had previously represented ARCO in the Blanchard I Litigation.)
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 existing conflicts. In 1999 the author began filing judicial displinary complaints against Judge Wimbish for these conflicts of interest.
St. Mary Parish Courthouse (Franklin, LA)
Although Terrebonne Parish was a proper venue for this litigation, under Judge Wimbish's decision, this litigation was removed from Terrebonne Parish and refiled in St. Mary Parish, LA where it was alloted to Judge Anne L. Simon.
AFTER A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 21, 2001 IN ST. MARY PARISH, IT BECAME NECESSARY TO ACT PRO SE IN THIS LITIGATION. THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED THAT DAY THAT WAS CONNECTED TO MATERIAL VERBIAGE IN A HEARING TRANSCRIPT:
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 might not have been material. That is a wrong assumption.
First: They were material as spoken by her (Judge Anne L. Simon) before they were removed due to the fact that there were certain attorney(s) adverse to the plaintiffs in the Blanchard I Litigation.
Secondly: She had them removed due to that they were material to this litigation.
Thirdly: If they were not material to this litigation they would not have been removed but instead the verbiage would have remained in the written transcipt as spoken in open court on that day, as they should have.
Fourthly: If those material words were not spoken by her and not removed by her as claimed, the court would have provided a tape of the hearing (as requested multiple times by the author) before the litigation was dismissed by her or after to multiple supervisory courts as appeals and writs were filed.
Fifthly: If those material words were not spoken and removed, her clerk would not have stated that to Nancy Blanchard.
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 the pertinent hearing.
Note: Incorrect and unsigned transcripts from the pertinent hearing were repeatedly used and relied upon by the defendants' attorneys to move toward an expedited dismissal by Judge Anne L. Simon before she retired.
How material were these words to the author? At the heart of the argument was an 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 her (his client's [an elderly widow's]) minerals. Those minerals had been earlier produced by ARCO (now BP).
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 avoid full environmental remediation of his client's property, without the fear of being held accountable by the courts or the regulatory agencies.
Note: None of his law partners and/or associates in his law firm moved to stop his actions against their client - and elderly widow who had relied solely on their legal advice for years. Instead, their actions and inaction facilitated his efforts.
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 her legal contributors, and if one would further understand certain contributor's historical connections to the Blanchard I Litigation and 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.
Certainly, 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.
Note: An additional very important issue is identified in Paragraph No. 14, No. 15 and No. 16 of the Nancy Blanchard affidivat. The time 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 have she tampered with court records for any reason whatsoever? That should be a serious question for many others to ask that went before her in the past.
All this was brought pro se all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court by the author. The writ to correct this situation was denied. That denial with no comments was a serious failure to carry out its supervisory duties.
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 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.
Note: In the Blanchard V Litigation the author fully paid for and failed to get a full and correct record at the First Circuit Court of Appeal from which to argue an appeal.
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 it 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 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 as set forth in her task. Her decisions were what they were. This is only identified here so to try and evidence the fact of the Louisiana court's apparent continuing lack of concern for the failure to develop and maintain accurate and complete court/trial records and to hold judges accountable for such actions.
Finally, to bring it into real time, a review of Judge Anne L. Simon's legal contributions made to her and legally received by her in past elections also show a potential relationship connection to the presiding judge in the Blanchard V Litigation (Judge Lewis Pitman). That might go to in part explain the strange court happenings in 2018 and 2019 in that Blanchard litigation. (A decision in favor of the author in the Blanchard V Litigation would have likely opened up many things from the past and that would surely have brought us back to Judge Anne L. Simon's actions in this Maclean vs. Alexander litigation.)
More informaton will follow, please stay tuned!