The Blanchard III Litigation
(Jefferson Parish Docket No. 606555)
The author attempted to intervene in this ongoing litigation but was unsuccessful. Although the author was a party plaintiff in the Blanchard I litigation and was stated in the Blanchard II Litigation to be aligned with Betty Blanchard's interests (but was never made a party to the Blanchard II Litigation) and was later joined in the Blanchard IV in Federal Court by Betty Blanchard herself, he was not allowed to intervene in this litigation. Based on previous litigations, something that would have been very appropriate. The Blanchard III Litigation was never adjucated as to the merits and the author was never a party.
The procedural reasons for the decision that denied the author the right to intervene in The Blanchard III Litigation apparently in part fell from a lost and/or destroyed court record that was caused by the court itself and then the record needed to be reconstructed in part by the author's own attorney. Subsequent to that record recreation, certain delayed U.S. Mail that was purportedly sent by the Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court in a timely manner played an equal role in the denial to intervention. More on that below in two affidavits.
An discovery took place on February 4, 2014 when author along with his attorney, R. David Brown, after a hearing at the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, met with two Jefferson Parish Deputy Clerks of Court about the arguments and claims that were brought forth at the hearing. There were some very unusual positions taken that day in court that could only be answered by the Clerk of Court.
Two (2) affidavits resulted from that meeting with the Deputy Clerks of Court. There were apparently some very unusual happenings that took place in Judge Stephen J. Windhorst (Division "J") court that contributed to the author not being able to intervene in the subject litigation and bring forth the true facts that surrounded the Blanchard I Litigation.
The first affidavit is as follows:
Affidavit of Paul Maclean dated February 21, 2014. At that meeting, it was asked whether an affidavit could come forth from the Clerk of Court as well stating these unusual facts.
That affidavit is as follows:
Affidavit of Deputy Clerk of Court dated February 21, 2014.
After Judge Windhorst left District Court and joined the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, the judge that replaced him, Judge Stephen Grefer, also denied the author the right to intervene in the ongoing Blanchard I litigation. Therefore, the author never became a party to the Blanchard III Litigation.
Interestingly, Judge Stephen Grefer (the son of retired Judge Joseph Grefer) denied the author the right of judicial standing in the Blanchard III Litigation and therefore a judicial remedy to a long ovedue matter, although the judge's family enjoyed a judicial right as a plaintiff on simular type environmental issues in Jefferson Parish. For a brief discussion of that, click here. Based on the wrongful actions within Division "J" during Judge Windhorst's stay, that was attested to in the affidavits, that impeded the author's ability to intervene even with the longstanding history of being aligned with Betty Blanchard, it would have been a fair and just decision to allow the author the right to intervene.
As the reader will see later as the Blanchard I Litigation and the Paul Maclean vs G. Tim Alexander, III Litigation pages are developed with facts and affidavits, this is a second example of substantive court transcripts and/ or records being changed and/or lost in this series of Blanchard litigations. In the Paul Maclean vs G. Tim Alexander, III Litigation (the facts were brought pro se by the author) all the way to the Louisiana Supreme Court with no action being taken to care for the public records. (Note: G. Tim Alexander, III was the attorney for Betty Blanchard and Paul Maclean in the Blanchard I Litigation commencing in March of 1993).
Prior to The Blanchard V Litigation, twice the Louisiana Supreme Court has failed to take action on correcting corrupted court transcripts and/or records in the Blanchard series of litigations. For the Louisiana Supreme Court to now move to deal with what is going on in the Blanchard V, would mean it will also have to deal with what it didn't deal with in the two previous Blanchard litigations that was brought before it in the past. It remains to be seen what the current justices will do when confronted with the facts.
Until proven otherwise, it remains the author's opinion, all the above are examples of the selective "just-us" system alive and well in Louisiana.