ATTENTION:

We are always looking for Louisiana-connected, multi-parish events and items of interest to add to the information available to the Louisianawim.  Events that are multi-parish are most important.  To Add or Correct an Event, email macleanland@bellsouth.net 

THIS PAGE LAST REVISED ON 01.30.2020

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.

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 and was later joined in the Blanchard IV in Federal Court by Betty Blanchard herself, he was not allowed to intervene in this litigation. 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 and were connected to a lost and/or destroyed court record that was caused by the court itself.  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. Again, the U.S. Mail is used as part of the problem of delivery to the author just as in the denial in the Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III litigation.

More on that below in two affidavits.  

A 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.

Judge Stephen Grefer (the son of retired Judge Joseph Grefer) denied the author the right of standing and intervention into the Blanchard III Litigation and therefore a judicial remedy to a long ovedue matter, although the judge's family enjoyed the judicial right as a plaintiff on simular type environmental issues in Jefferson Parish.  To see that, click here.  Based on the wrongful actions within Division "J" during Judge Windhorst's stay, that was attested to in the affidavits, it would have been a fair and just decision to allow the author the right to intervene.

As the reader will read in other locations, this is the second example of substantive court transcripts and/ or records being changed and/or lost in this series of Blanchard litigations.  This is STRIKE TWO in the page titled Louisiana - The Darkness of "Just-Us".

If you think all this is a stretch on how bad things can get with no accountability, consider the actions of Jerrold Peterson in 2008:

Article No. 1

Article No. 2