THIS PAGE LAST REVISED ON 10.05.2020 

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 IV Litigation

Blanchard 1986, et al, vs. Park Plantation LLC, et al

( United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana -

Civil Action Number: 04-1864)

Paul Maclean (author of this website and defendant) added as a third party defendant and acted pro se in this litigation.

For the time-being, only the following information written below will be stated pertaining to this litigation.  Betty Blanchard (a defendant) joined the author/defendant to this litigation.  Apparently, it was decided by Nancy Blanchard, on the behalf of Betty Blanchard, that only through the author/defendant being named in this litigation could it be best defended with the facts that were needed to prevail.  Much more will be added later about all that.

Judge Richard T. Haik presided over this Blanchard IV Litigation in Federal Court.  He had also earlier presided in State Court over the Blanchard I Litigation.  The same parties!  The same contamination!  The author/defendant considered this a conflict. 

In the Blanchard I Litigation, he ruled wrongly for a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the defendants.  After an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge, that decision was reversed and remanded back to St. Mary Parish for trial.  By the time the action got back to St. Mary Parish, Judge Haik had been promoted to the Federal Bench.  That bench postion was the position from which he then presided over this litigation.

Because it was the author/defendant's opinion that Judge Haik was always conflicted in this litigation, the reversal of his earlier wrong decision was filed multiple times before him to prepare the way for a recusal motion that was to be eventually filed.  Before that motion was filed, Judge Haik removed himself from this litigation.  That was the correct thing to do but much too late!

Apparently, he felt no attorney would ever move for his recusal, so he presided on this litigation until he felt sufficient pressure from a pro se party.  All this used valuable time in an elderly widow's life.  (Because she passed in May of 2007, she could not see the outcome of this litigation.)

Judge Tucker Melancon and Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill then presided over this litigation also in a potential conflicted way due to their earlier rulings in the Blanchard II Litigation.  A motion to recuse was being considered agaist Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill to remove him as well.  He voluntarily chose to remove himself from this litigation.  Again, more time was spent.

Fortunately, this litigation finally ended up in front of Magistrate Judge Mildred Methvin and after reading about Blanchard I Litigation settlement exhibits being changed. she dismissed this litigation and prepared a Report and Recommendation that was soon accepted by Judge Tucker Melancon with no changes.

That final decision was appealed by the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.  The lower courts decision was affirmed.  After that, the author began to save funds to go to Washington and argue at the U.S. Supreme Court but the filing parties did not move on that option. 

That affirming decision and the report and recommendation should have opened the door to easily intervene into the Blanchard III Litigation in State Court.  But, as a reader will see, that was not to be the case.  The defendants new very well the argument and the facts the author was going to bring into that litigation and an entire court record was lost/destroyed by the court itself to keep that from happening.

Unfortunately, since Betty Blanchard died on or about May 2, 2007 she did not see this final decision.  She passed away extremely concerned about its outcome.  That meant that the same scoundrels that tried to clandestinely take this elderly widow's minerals from her in 1995 and 1996 (that was first argued in the Blanchard I Litigation and has been not fully argued and/or adjuciated on the merits in any successive Blanchard Litigtion) were successful in taking her final peace from her on this matter as she passed away.   Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  That is in part why the author will post her affidavits throughout these pages.  That is exactly why she wrote them.    

There will be much more to come on this in time.