Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, et al
(St. Mary Parish Docket No. 103,096)
Plaintiff, Paul Maclean's Attorney: Gregory J. Schwab (during the litigation in Houma, LA. After the hearing on February 21, 2001 the plaintiff moved this litigation pro se.)
Defendant, G. Tim Alexander, III's Attorney: James H. Gibson (during the litigation he was with the law firm of Allen & Gooch in Lafayette, LA.)
Defendant, Coregis Insurance Company, Attorney: Daniel A. Rees (during the litigation he was with the law firm of Rees & Rees in St. Martinville, LA. )
Terrebonne Parish Courthouse (Houma, LA)
This litigation began in Terrebonne Parish, LA. Judge Paul Wimbish was alloted this litigation. Judge Wimbish (deceased) presided in conflict over this litigation as well as another Terrebonne Parish action (soon to be named and linked into this website). Judge Wimbish was connected in business with Andrew McCollam, Jr. (deceased). Andrew McCollam, Jr. was an attorney who was connected to The Blanchard I Litigation and to Canlan Oil Company. Canlan Oil Company was one of the targets of the 1991 Federal Grand Jury Investigation in Jefferson and St. Charles Parishes on environmental matters as well as to an action in Jefferson County in Birmingham, AL [soon to be named and linked into this website).
Note: The author filed a judiciary complaint against Judge Paul Wimbish in 1999 for his conflicts with Andrew McCollam, Jr. and others. That will be later discussed in detail on another page of this website.
St. Mary Parish Courthouse (Franklin, LA)
Although Terrebonne Parish was a proper venue, for multiple reasons, this litigation was removed from Terrebonne Parish and refiled in St. Mary Parish, LA where it was alloted to Judge Anne L. Simon.
AT A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 21, 2001, IN PART THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED CONNECTED TO MATERIAL VERBIAGE IN A HEARING TRANSCRIPT:
Nancy Blanchard Affidavit
Gregory Schwab's Affidavit
After reading the affidavits above, one might first say that the words intentionally removed from the hearing transcript might not have been material. That would be a prematurely wrong assumption.
First, they were material before they were removed
Secondly, they were material because they were removed.
Thirdly, if they were not material they would not have been removed but instead remained in the written transcipt.
How material were they to the author? At the heart of the argument was Newman Trowbridge, Jr. Betty Blanchard's attorney before April 11, 1986. From his self explanation and discovery, it is now known that he and his oil and gas business associates wanted her (his client's [an elderly widow]) minerals. He was politically connected and those connections offered many opportunities to him and his associates.
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, and discover the list of lawyers and law firms that were part of her legal contributors listed, and further understand certain contributor's historical connections to The Blanchard I Litigation and/or this subject litigation, as well as numerous disciplinary complaints that were filed pro se by the author beginning in 1999, one would have an understanding of why the words about certain attorneys wanting to get "on" her docket before the presiding judge retired were indeed material. Contributing to campaigns is legal. The author believes her contributions were legal. Although legal, they do indicate relationships. Relationships strong enough in this case so that when the judge spoke those words in open court she apparently instructed her court reporter to remove them. (An additional important issue is identified in Paragraph No. 14, No. 15 and No. 16 of the Nancy Blanchard affidivat. That is a period of time long before the author was in her court. When and how many times may have this been done before?)
Commencing in 2001, questions needed to be asked by persons with supervisory authority (and answered) about which attorney(s) might be trying to get "on" her docket before she retired. Those were important questions.
Commencing in 2001, questions needed to asked by persons with supervisory authority (and answered) in light of the transcript irregulatories, why this litigation was moved by the defendants to be "expedited" before this judge retired. If recalled correctly, the dismissal of this litigation might have actually been on Judge Anne L. Simon's last day on the court before her retirement. Those were important questions as well.
To the author's knowledge, these questions were not publicly asked by or answered for persons with supervisory authority for the public's good.
Conversely, if the verbiage had not been removed then the court or the defendants' attorneys could have easily and timely proven that by transcribing the recorded tape of the hearing to show that the material words were never spoken by Judge Anne L. Simon. The material words were spoken and therefore that was never done.
Commencing after February 21, 2001, this action proceeded pro se.
Pro se Writ to Louisiana Supreme Court filed by the author dated August 1, 2003
Summarily, 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, if placed before unbiased elected representatives of the general public.
Writ denial dated September 5, 2003
Louisiana Supreme Court decisions for September 5, 2003 (2003 - 57)
Louisiana Supreme Court decisions for September 5, 2003 (2003 - 58)
As one can see, the writ denial decision cannot be found on these two pages that the author reasonably believes are intended to evidence the decisions on September 5, 2003 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. 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 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.
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.
Note: Please visit The Blanchard III Litigation in Jefferson Parish to see another example of court record irregulatories not addressed by the court system in the Blanchard series of litigations. Again, with the ultimate impact of protecting the defendants in The Blanchard I Litigation.
Later in 2001, while this record tampering issue was beginning to be addressed in St. Mary Parish in this subject litigation by the author, Judge Ann L. Simon was actually sitting in for justices at dockett proceedings for the Louisiana Supreme Court! Based on this, as important as it was for the public, it is the author's opinion, it was highly unlikely the writ ever had a chance of being taken seriously by the same court she was asked to sit in for...and the substance of the arguement (complete and accurate public records) was apparently not.
If something meaningful and just had been done in 2003 by the Louisiana Supreme Court, as a result of the writ filed before it by the author, and the court would have subsequently acted in the public's good to correct the matter, it is possible that the lost and/or destroyed court record in The Blanchard III Litigation court record in 2014 in Jefferson Parish, LA may never had occurred. Further court protection for the defendants in The Blanchard I Litigation would have ended.
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 decisions in that litigation. Her decisions were what they were. That litigation is only identified here so to try and evidence the Louisiana Supreme Court's apparent lack of concern and holding of others accountable for the failure to develop and maintain accurate and complete court/trial records.
The State Constitution has given the Louisiana Supreme Court the supervisory jurisdiction to address these types of court matters. There are now new justices that have been elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court since 2003. Maybe something meaningful can now happen to help the public gain faith in a real justice system that is first here to serve the public good.
Finally, a review of Judge Anne L. Simon's legal contributions also show a relationship connection to The Blanchard V Litigation that is currently ongoing and being appealled in St. Mary Parish.
More informaton will follow, please stay tuned!
But, while waiting, one might consider this article.