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 

This is the latest action that goes to evidence what the court can (and will do when necessary) to protect 33+ years' of previous actions of the court to protect a politically-connected member of the court in his wrongdoings against a client and her agent. 

The Blanchard V Litigation

(St. Mary Parish Docket No. 132659)

PAUL MACLEAN                                         











This is a litigation that was filed by the author in July of 2018 in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana.  The October 22, 2018 decision by Judge Lewis Pitman against the filer (this author) was appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge in early 2019. This author unfortunately was forced to  dismiss that appeal and the dismissal was signed on August 7, 2019 by the court

Yet again, another Blanchard litigation appears to have come to an end with the Blanchard facts not fully adjudicated on their merits in any court venue.  Again (in the author's view), the court has again stepped outside its authority in order to influence the outcome of a Blanchard or Blanchard-connected litigation. 

Further down this page, the author will attempt to explain the strange set of events that led to the decision to move to dismiss this appeal.  With these latest events, the Blanchard series of litigations (and its connected litigations) have now yet again experienced courts across South Louisiana materially tamper with public records to keep the truth from being fully revealed and potential responsible parties from being held accountable for their actions.

In 2001, the court changed (and would not correct) material verbiage in a transcript in St. Mary Parish.  One can read all about that on another page of this website titled Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, et al.

In or about 2014, the court lost or destroyed the entire litigation record pertaining to the author in Jefferson Parish. One can read all about that on another page on this website titled The Blanchard III Litigation.

Now, in this litigation, the court denies the author a full and complete record from which to successfully argue an appeal.  In this litigation, it goes even further.  Before the appeal, the very important "written reasons for judgment" were first signed by a judge that had absolutely no administrative connection to the litigation

Then, when the record is transmitted to the Court of Appeal, no written reasons for judgment were sent in the record. 

Then, the Court of Appeal did not timely permit the record to be supplemented with any written reasons so that it can be fully argued.  It was/is this author's belief that the failure to timely grant the filer (and this author) a full and complete record from which to argue the appeal is nothing more than the court continuing to keep its previous actions secret

Enough with the secrets!  For 33 years, the court (its justices, judges, attorneys, court reporters, etc.) have relied on secrecy to accomplish a specific end in regard to the Blanchard litigations.  That specific end first began in 1985/86 when members of the court acted to protect a powerful politically-connected attorney (and his oil and gas business associates) for admitted actions against an elderly widow (who was his client at the time).

This continuing need for "secrecy" has now evolved into actions by the court, to protect the court, from wrongful actions the court took in the past against the author.  The court has/is protecting itself rather than carrying out its constitutional obligations.  The court has become a slave onto itself to protect itself from its own wrongdoings and is no longer free to do the just thing in regard to the Blanchard matters. 

A serious question arises!  If the court can and will do this for the Blanchard matters, how many times has it done this on other matters as well?  It is highly unlikely the Blanchard matters are the only matters impacted by such wrongdoings!

The litigation:

First, this latest Blanchard litigation (Blanchard V) is not a complicated filing.  In fact, it is quite simple. 

The defendants have argued that the issues raised by the plaintiff in the complaint are res judicata.  The defendants cited two previous Blanchard litigations to support their sole exception.  

Of course, the plaintiff/author took  issue with that sole legal position taken by the defendants. The plaintiff argues that these matters have never been fully adjudicated in any court

The plaintiff/author herein declares that if they were/are ever fully adjudicated in a fair court venue, the defendants' legal position over the last 33 years will/would fall like a "house of cards" and the purported 1996 settlement agreement that purportedly settled the original Blanchard I Litigation (that was filed in 1986 and purportedly settled in 1996) will be found to be void ab initio (void from the beginning) and that absolutely null agreement was unlawfully constructed in part to conceal public hazards on Park Plantation and therefore it will be set aside due to being adverse to public law and policy.  That unlawful settlement agreement has materially contribued to the concealment of public hazards in St. Mary Parish.

The two litigations that were cited by the defendants in their res judicata argument are:

The Blanchard II Litigation

Significantly, the author was never a party to that 2001 litigation.  Never joining the litigation or being joined to it by the defendants.  In the author's lay opinion, Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill's July, 2002 Report and Recommendation (that was accepted by Judge Tucker Melancon with no changes) was at its best a very lengthy "academic" endeavor that unnecessarily clouded a simple flaw in the initial filing of the Blanchard II by the plaintiff. 

The flaw:  Park Plantation, LLC (the plaintiff) was not even in existence during any part of the Blanchard I litigation: therefore, it had no standing to bring the 2001 Blanchard II litigation, in the first place.  That is really all that had to be written by Magistrate Judge Hill.  Instead he bloviated on all matters of fact and law of any sort and thereby convoluted what could have been a very simple decision.  Park had no standing to have a cause of action.  Clearly then, this cited litigation, to which the author was not even a party, never was adjudicated on its merits by that litigation.  That litigation fails the test for res judicata

Note:  The defendants attempted to use the outcome of that same 2001 Blanchard II Litigation when they filed the 2005 Blanchard IV litigation in Federal Court to attempt to halt the 2004 filed Blanchard III Litigation in Jefferson Parish.  But presiding Magistrate Judge Mildred Methvin understood that was a wrong thing to do when she wrote her 2007 report and recommendation to dismiss the The Blanchard IV Litigation to recommend dismissing the Blanchard IV Litigation for the reasons in her report.  Judge Tucker Melancon accepted her report and recommendation with no changes and did dismiss the Blanchard IV Litigation.  The United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans also understood that when in 2007 it affirmed that decision to dismiss.  The Blanchard II Litigation was not fully adjudicated on its merits.  This litigation fails the test for res judicata.  

The Blanchard III Litigation

After a favorable decision by Magistrate Judge Mildred Methvin and a favorable decision in Jefferson Parish by Judge Stephen Windhorst for the plaintiff, this door was then opened for the author to intervene in that litigation.

The author, being indispensible to the litigation, had sufficient standing to do so on many levels, appropriately attempted to intervene in The Blanchard III Litigation.  That attempt failed.  It took extreme actions by the court itself to interfere with that attempt.  One can read more about all that by clicking on The Blanchard III Litigation page on the legend on the upper left.

To even further support the position that the issues have never been fully adjudicated in The Blanchard III Litigation, there are and were additional Interrogatories and Production of Documents to Defendants filed in The Blanchard III Litigation on November 15, 2018 by the plaintiff.  If parties are are still filing to interrogate, others must also believe that the Blanchard III has been fully adjudicated. The Blanchard III Litigation has not been fully adjudicated on its merits.  This litigation fails the test for res judicata.

For the defendants to use these two litigations as the basis for a res judicata defense when the plaintiff was not a party in either litigation and/or each was never fully adjudicated as to its merits is nonsensical.

Back to the Blanchard V Litigation. 

A few filings of interest in The Blanchard V Litigation:

October 22, 2018:  Testimony from the Hearing before Judge Lewis Pitman.

October 29, 2018:  Judgment - Please note in the transcript above that there are NO ORAL REASONS ASSIGNED FOR JUDGE LEWIS PITMAN'S JUDGMENT, as the judgment stated existed.

January 30, 2019:  Written Reasons for Judge Pitman's decision from the bench on October 22, 2018A few problems with these written reasons!

First, they were not verbally assigned in open court on October 22, 2018, as the judgment stated they were.

Secondly, due to the plaintiff's attorney filing certain incorrect exhibits to the initial complaint (after October 29, 2018 the complaint was amended with correct exhibits), it is unlikely the reasons apparently used in court to rule from the bench on October 29, 2018 could not have been the reasons written filed as they were on January 30, 2019.  It is the author's contention that Judge Pitman's reasons for the decision in court on October 29, 2018 had to be for other reasons and reasons only known to him.

Thirdly, after waiting for approximately three (3) months for the written reasons to be considered, written and supplied to the plaintiff (and the author), the final product is received not signed by Judge Lewis Pitman!  The written reasons were somehow signed by Judge Curtis Sigur!  Oops!  A little error by someone!  How did that happen?

                                           District Judge Curtis Sigur.  

The good Judge Sigur has had no known direct professional connection to (or oversight of) the Blanchard V Litigation except that he somehow signed the January 30, 2019 written reasons that were allegedly relied on by Judge Pitman to render his decision in open court on October 22, 2018.   Again, how did this happen?

Interestly though, Judge Sigur IS likely unknowingly and personally connected to the environmental impacts of what has been going on for years to the series of Blanchard and Blanchard-related litigations.

Let us divert away from the instant litigation for just a bit to understand the magnitude of the impact on others of the contaminants and the secrets that are being kept:

Born on December 8, 1957, Judge Sigur was reared in the Glencoe/Four Corners area of St. Mary Parish.  ARCO was operating at that time in the South Jeanerette Field (on Park Plantation and other locations) just northerly of those communities. 

Those areas were/are potentially being environmentally impacted by the public hazards generated and left on site by those ARCO and then possibly migrating from Park Plantation.  These public hazards are in part what the Blanchard litigations have been all about since 1986.  It is highly likely that Judge Sigur's family and friends in the Glencoe/Four Corners areas are some of the exact persons that have been greatly impacted by ARCO's operations in years past.

It has long been known and is very well documented that this small, mostly minority community has been impacted by a complex mix of  potential environmental issues. There was E.P.A. testimony about that in 2004. 

Click here to see that story. 

Click here to see evidence mercury present on the property in 1995. 

Click here to see evidence of mercury still present in 2003.  The mercury was to have been removed years earlier.  It was not.  It has never been evidenced that all mercury has been removed from Park Plantation and South Jeanerette Field in total.

To anyone that cares at all (and not many appear to care about these communities), a simple review of the Office of Conservation files would evidence volumes of letters, reports and sample data from Park Plantation, LLC and/or Nancy Blanchard and/or her experts (the latest Austin Arabie) complained about the environmental conditions of Park Plantation for many years.  These most recent letters and other communications are written thirty (30) years after the existence of the contamination (concealed public hazards) were first brought to ARCO and Texaco, et al and the State of Louisiana.  ARCO(BP)/Texaco(Chevron) have done their best to try and avoid their full environmental restoration of Park Plantation but they will not be allowed to do that!

Signs located on Hwy 318 just southerly of Four Corners, LA

Mr. Arabie's letters to the Office of Conservation are clear. The numerous other files within the Louisiana Office of Conservation and LDEQ are clear.  Park Plantation has not been fully remediated.  At the same time, just three miles away and southerly, Four Corners was identified as a "DRINKING WATER PROTECTION AREA" in 2017.   

This failure of the State's regulatory agencies to act in a prudent and timely manner on Park Plantation and in the South Jeanerette Field is directly adverse to the expressed intent of the Louisiana State Constitution and why these agencies were actually created in the first place.  To think that State regulators are in control of such remediation matters across the State of Louisiana is alarming and damaging.   

Unfortunately for the public, State regulators actually have filed false affidavits and appeared for the defendants in the Blanchard I litigation

To see that false affidavit, click here. It is known by piles of data that such testimony was absolutely false.  Office of Conservation representative(s) latter testified under oath in the courtroom supporting the defendant's false affidavit. 

This latest set of happenings should be very alarming to Judge Sigur and/or his family and friends on multiple levels:

1.  Why and how did he sign the written reasons and thereby get brought into this convoluted legal procedings that is part of the Blanchard series of litigations.

2.  His birthplace community possibly has been (and may still be) impacted by the environmental contaminates from Blanchard land and/or other lands in the South Jeanerette Field - with no apparent plans to fully remediate the field by anyone.

Now back to the Blanchard V Litigation:

So, no oral reasons assigned in court (as the judgment said there were) and the written reasons supposedly relied on for the judgment are signed by the wrong district judge.  How all that took place will want to remain a "secret" from the author, to be sure.

This is particularly troubling because of the two other acts of court public record tamperings that were experienced in the past Blanchard-related litigations by the author.  You can see those happenings on other pages on this website.

An invitation is hereby being offered by the author to anyone to submit a truthful and/or a reasonable and/or even an in part believable explanation of why the reasons pondered-over for approximately three (3) months by one district judge was ultimately (typed by the secretary of and) signed by a different district judge...a judge that had no judicial connection at all to the matter!  Then, once one comes up with something, consider that such has happened twice before in these matters.

If these matters were not so serious, they would make a great fictional story for the former judge that presided over the litigation titled: Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, et al, Judge Anne Simon. But, this is not fiction.  One can read more about that litigation by clicking on the page link on the legend. 

And so, the court continues to act to keep these years of activities secret. The court itself putting its finger on the scales of justice to impact a litigation's outcome.  All of us (in civil and criminal cases) are impacted when such things happen in the court.  Some people more than others.

Who will be the first one to do what needs to be done to gain transparency into the secret world of the court?  Who will be the first one to pull out the first card that will make this "house of cards" come tumbling down on the numerous wrongdoers that have acted badly over so many years.  When that happens many will likely be held accountable.


There are new events surrounding the Louisiana Supreme Court that indirectly bear upon the Blanchard V Litigation!

Recently, one of the many viewers/commentors who monitors the status of the Blanchard litigations, sent a June 26, 2019 decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court (LSC) concerning an unrelated legal matter that has apparently been going on in North Louisiana for years. An interesting decision.  It is linked a little further below.


As a viewer, if you have taken the time to read some of this website's pages, concerning the Blanchard series of legal actions that have spanned the last 33 years in St. Mary Parish and elsewhere, you will probably understand how this recent decision in North Louisiana is potentially very meaningful in many ways in connection to an underlying issue that has plagued the Blanchard litigations and its collateral actions. Judges can now be held accountable for their actions outside of making judgments.

The issue in the Blanchard series of litigations: Public records have been tampered with by the court more than once. 

Certainly, it is the underlying obligation of the court to provide a true and complete court record of all actions within and during litigations.  As to discussions with others over the years, this particular underlying issue of record tampering and secrecy have also been of concern to many other parties in their actions as well - both civil and criminal.  From child custody matters to stealing land by title changing in parish clerk offices, true and complete public records are required.

In regard to the Blanchard series of litigations, lawyers of the court have from the beginning protected other lawyers of the court from being held accountable for their wrongful actions while being lawyers.  As you can read on other pages of this website, many of those lawyers were/are quite influential and that influence can certainly reach over into others careers. 

All judges and lawyers should know and remember, their Code[s] of Professional Conduct(s) (Judicial and Attorney) are written to limit wrongful activity by each in the judicial system.  Along with that go certain reporting requirements when wrongdoings are known by members of the bar.  Failure to act in certain situations may place members of the bar in disciplinary danger as well possibly make them de facto participants in the wrongdoings of his/her client(s).  All in all...Lawyers, be careful about the secrets you keep about the wrongful actions of other lawyers!

Since 1999 there have been many disciplinary complaints filed by this author against certain judges and lawyers not only in the Blanchard series of litigations but in other litigations connected to it. Of course, all with no discipline.  In judiciary matters the filer/author typically received intimidating language with the goal of "silencing" the filer.

In one particular attorney complaint, after following all required appeals and receiving no serious consideration at all, the decision was made to remove the matter from the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel and bring it directly to the LSC for attention and discipline.  Of course, still no discipline! 

In that complaint, to have disciplined the attorney appropriately would have been to move adverse to a writ denial by the LSC (written about in other pages of this website).  Therefore, to have acted justly in either one action (the complaint or the writ) would have meant that the LSC would have had to act justly in the other action as well.  More secrets!  Complaint and writ...denied and denied! 

Therefore, the simple judgments to wield against a pro se non-attorney?...just deny both with no reasons for each.  (Displinary complaints are not open to the public and the writ decision was withheld from public view.)  Again, all secret!   

The level of "protectionism" used against this author over the years has gone way past what would ever had been expected 33 years ago.  That is only because the author is still alive and is still trying to expose wrongful actions. The author contends that, The fox has been (and still is) watching the hen house - in at least the Blanchard - connected litigations. 

The recent decision in North Louisiana has turned the light directly on a court records issue simular to what has been contested by this author since 2001 and has opened the door for the possiblity of justices/judges being held personally responsible for their personal actions outside of making judgments.  This is good news!

To see the article written about this 2019 LSC decision, click here

For the actual 2019 LSC decision and its opinions, click here.

The decision and opinions that were rendered on June 26, 2019 by the current justices of the LSC go to apparently evidence the present court's current position as to the extreme importance of having true and complete court records

This present LSC apparently seems to rightly take the position that underlying requirement more seriously than previous courts.  So seriously in-fact that it has actually opened the door for individuals to sue judges that might knowingly not act appropriately toward the issue of providing less than a true and complete court record, if that can be adequately proven by the claimant.

The absence of (but the need for) true and complete court records is a position that this author has repeatedly (but unsuccessfully) pled pro se in numerous State court venues from 2001 through 2003. Then later again unsuccessfully pled in 2014 in Jefferson Parish (through an attorney). 

This present LSC can now at least "claim" to be trying to be more credible and acting more in accordance with the State Constitution by this latest decision.  Previously, to the detriment of the author of this website, the court through its various judges in District Courts and Courts of Appeal and even to the justices of the LSC (during the relevant time periods stated), rendered judgments that did not simularly require true and complete court records

There are at least four underlying questions that can be posed for consideration: 

1.  What laws have changed since 2003 that bear upon this different standard of producing and maintaining true and complete court records?

2.  Why did the 2003 (and later) court(s) not have the same need of (and therefore move to) produce true and complete court records (in at least the author's litigations), just as the court now deems is lawfully required as of June 26, 2019 in that litigation? 

3.  Prior to June 26, 2019, how many other litigations (and in which litigations [civil and criminal]) did the court use the lower standard for providing true and complete court records

4.  Who out there is still being penalized due to using these lower standards?

Answers/comments to those questions are welcomed. 

In the author's litigations, the author has never denied paying for a true and complete court record.  Since 2001, it has always been the author's position that the court's obligation to deliver a true and complete court record is greater than is the appellant's obligation to pay for a incorrect court record that is not true and complete

The author's position was sufficiently and repeatedly pled with affidavits of evidence, in multiple court venues, in front of numerous intelligent men and women of the bar.  If anyone with authority would have cared at all about the underlying requirement to preserve a true and complete court record, it could have been rapidly dealt with.  But, no one did.  Remember, the Codes of Professional Conduct require ethical conduct! 

The author has waited and prayed since 2001 for a decision of the type that has just been rendered by the current LSC in connection with the litigation in North Louisiana.  Justices go and come.  The personality of courts change.  Apparently, this current LSC is acting a bit more lawfully.  (At least in that North Louisiana litigation.)

To view the author's/appellant's pro se writ filing to the LSC in 2003, in regard to the need for true and complete records as well as the LSC's hidden decision, please go to the legend and click on the page titled, Paul Maclean vs G. Tim Alexander, III, et al. 

Want to see some "hide and seek" or should I say "dodge and weave" moves by the LSC to withhold such an unjust decision against the author from public/reporter view and comment in 2003?  Look for that decision in the LSC press releases for that day in 2003.  See if you can find IT on September 5, 2003!  If you do, please advise.  If not, know you are looking for something that was secretly hidden from the public! 

Note:  Over time, it will be interesting to investige and study how many of the current justices of the LSC were in their positions during the Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, et al and the Blanchard III litigations when the LSC failed to protect and provide true and complete court records

Whether those litigations would have ultimately succeeded or failed on their own merits is not the first issue to be concerned about.  The first issue is that the plaintiff/ intervenor deserved to have true and complete court records from which to argue those merits at the time, whatever the merits were.  Due process denied!

To borrow some descriptive verbiage from the recent 2019 decision in North Louisiana, it appears that the 2003 court system did not have the same level of concern over whether court records were “spoliated, concealed, removed, destroyed, shredded, withheld, and/or improperly ‘handled’.)  Based on the 2019 decision, It appears to the author, more than ever, that since 2003 he has been unlawfully subjected to a selective "just-us" system.

Should the 2003 court receive immunity for its failure to preserve true and complete court records? Of course not! 

Should the 2014/2015 judges/justices that learned through filings in the Blanchard III Litigation that the entire court record was "removed, destroyed, withheld and/or improperly 'handled' " be granted immunity?  Of course not!

In affidavits, the deputy clerks said it just disappeared) and the author and his attorney (listened to the deputy clerks say it just disappeared).

Back to Blanchard:

After considering all of the above and in light of all the above, it is highly likely that certain surfaces and groundwater and/or subsurface water remains not fully environmentally restored in part because of this selective "just-us" system that has greatly benefitted the responsible parties and not the general public.  If one looks at the recent ongoings in St. Mary Parish in this litigation, it would appear to any reasonable person that "protectionism" appears to be alive and well in St. Mary Parish.  Remember, the Codes of Professional Conduct require ethical conduct!   


In a December, 2015 WARRANTY EASEMENT DEED IN PERPETUITY Nancy Blanchard stated that she has "no actual knowledge of a release or threatened release of Hazardous Materials, on, beneath, near or from the Easement Area".  She stated that while apparently receiving at least $750,000.00.  She stated that after complaining for years through her attorneys and experts that there was public hazards on Park Plantation. Public hazards that likely extends off site onto surrounding lands and possibly southerly into the Four Corners and Glencoe areas of St. Mary Parish. 

Among that public hazard "mix" has been elemental mercury.  Mercury from manometers is not a non-hazardous oilfield waste (NOW).  It is a "hazardous material" with great penalties for unpermitted storage on a tract of land.  As was read above, mercury has been stored and identified on Park Plantation.  The common good demands that the public be protected.  Remember, the Codes of Professional Conduct require ethical conduct and the reporting of certain violations!


When it comes to “spoliated, concealed, removed, destroyed, shredded, withheld, and/or improperly ‘handled’ " public records, of equal concern are the numerous criminal cases that may have been impacted by such court records that are less than true and complete.  Were certain words ever inserted or removed to obtain a certain outcome?  A serious question:  Are individuals sitting in jail or prison today after being tried with such records.  Again, the common good demands that the be public be protected.

There will be much more written about all this as the author studies the various opinions of the recent decision in North Louisiana and receives more comments from readers of this website.  The author welcomes other investigators to assist in this effort.

To Return to the Blanchard V Litigation

As briefly stated above, in this litigation the St. Mary District Court (through its Clerk) recently copied and transmitted the litigation record to the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge for the author's appeal.  The district court refused and failed to include the written reasons, first wrongly signed by Judge Sigur (above) and, later signed by Judge Pitman, the presiding judge. That was an unjust decision and act.

The First Circuit Court of Appeal then, after being motioned to do so, refused and failed to make the district court supplement the record with those two key documents. That was an unjust decision and act.

Those two instruments were/are material and absolutely required to gain even the chance of a successful appeal.  For, without the alledged reasons for the district court's decision on October 22, 2018, how could one even know what to argue in the appeal?  No where else in the court record did the actual and specific reasons used by Judge Pitman, to make his decision from the bench in the hearing on October 22, 2018, show up the specificity in the court record. 

Therefore, the St. Mary Parish District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeal worked hand-in-hand to deny the filer a true and complete record from which to argue the appeal.  

This appeared to the author to be nothing but just another "just-us" setup planned for the filer to simply spend more money and live more unnecessary stress while working on an appeal with no possible way to prevail.  It is hard enough for little people to successfully argue against parties such as BP/ARCO and Chevron/Texaco, but to compete against the court as well...impossible!  

To reiterate, this is the third time that this has been done to this party in the series of Blanchard litigations: 

For No. 1, see the site page titled, Paul Maclean vs. G. Tim Alexander, III, et al. 

For No. 2, see the site page titled, The Blanchard III Litigation.

Therefore, this time, once the court took the unjust position it did, the filer was compelled to file a motion on July 26, 2019 to dismiss the appeal of the Blanchard V Litigation.

The dismissal was signed by the First Circuit Court of Appeal on August 7, 2019.

The Blanchard V Litigation may now be over in the standard manner (but not yet adjudicated).  There are still many other legal ways and venues to address these injustices perpetuated by the court system for 33 years against an elderly widow and her agent.  Much more on that will be written later on this page and other places in the time to come.

It is adequate to say, for now, that a reading of the Blanchard series of litigations will show, that when the court has the will and the motive to do so, it also has the means and the mechanism to effect the outcome of a litgation to its own benefit.  This then is as it began 33 years ago in The Blanchard I Litigation...a "just-us" system of law.  This can only be accomplished when there is judicial secrecy.  Remember, the Codes of Professional Conduct require ethical conduct and the reporting of certain violations!

As you will be able to read below, that secret "just us" system and actions done in secret may soon be coming more revealed to the public. 

It has been for sometime this author's sincere opinion, that the Louisiana Supreme Court has failed to consistently carry out the Louisiana Constitutional as mandated by "Article I. Declaration of Rights".  These are rights owed to the people of Louisiana and are in part more clearly stated as: 

Origin and Purpose of Government

Section 1. All government, of right, originates with the people, is founded on their will alone, and is instituted to protect the rights of the individual and for the good of the whole. Its only legitimate ends are to secure justice for all, preserve peace, protect the rights, and promote the happiness and general welfare of the people. The rights enumerated in this Article are inalienable by the state and shall be preserved inviolate by the state.

In the EWTN series In Defense of God's Likeness, Fr. Robert J. Spizer, S.J., Ph.D. states the following: "Every human being, because they have intrinsic dignity, deserves minimum justice, and therefore, possesses inalienable rights (life, liberty, property), which is a universal obligation."  These rights have been expressly denied Mrs. Blanchard and the author for over 33+ years.


A recent article published on August 11, 2019 touches on the tip of the unacceptable secret "just-us" problem.  To see it, click here

Another recent article published on August 14, 2019 goes to the "heart" of the issue of secrecy.  To see the August 14th article, click here

If you have had the interest and the time to read through these Blanchard litigations in this website, you should know by now that the author/publisher of this site will have much to say about judicial secrecy.  As bad as secrecy is, what is likely to be found out over time is that the "secrecy" issue is typically not as bad as the acts that are trying to be covered up by the "secret".

This recent lawsuit by a third party, along with the recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision concerning the right to sue judges (see above) is beginning to develop into an interesting scenario from which the "just-us" system in Louisiana may begin to be exposed to the public in a way never before imagined. 

The author does not know the parties in these other litigations.  It is assumed they all have their own personal agendas.  Regardless, they are being written about in a public venue for many to read.

Many thanks goes to Andrea Gallo for staying focused on this topic of judicial secrecy and to The Advocate for allowing her to do so.  It is a serious issue that the citizens of Louisiana live under each day with no understanding of how bad it really is.  Secrecy to the public is a form of "bondage" perpetuated by a few upon the public.

Please email Andrea Gallo and John Simerman and others like them and The Advocate to keep writing on this issue.  Articles such as she has written can be the way this veil of secrecy will be ripped apart for the public to see this "just-us" system in action.  Maybe other journalist will also join her.

To read the latest article, click here.  The public seems to now be demanding more more of the full truth.  Of course, each current player demanding more transparency has its own agenda but all that moves to get others interested in this underlying issue of secrecy and protectionism.

As well, please email Zach Parker and others like him at The Ouachita Citizen and support them and that organization to continue to report about the ongoing litigation(s) whereby judges can now be personally sued for their wrongful actions - when proven.  (The current LSC is to commended on that decision.)  This is a mode of correction that is long overdue in becoming a reality.  It is the author's view that personal accountability is the best way to end these unlawful secrets.  It is not lawful to withhold material information to obtain an unjust advantage over another.

In the Blanchard V Litigation alone, within the last year, this author has had to deal with:

  • A written judgment that stated there were reasons assigned for the judgment rendered from the bench - but none were.
  • Written Reasons for Judgment (that took months to obtain) and they were then signed by the wrong judge.
  • Then, no written reasons at all included in the appeal record.
  • A Court of Appeal that would not rightly move for the written reasons to be included in the record in order to timely prepare an appeal.
  • Then having to pay court costs while suffering these "just-us" circus antics.

Other actions:

For at least the reasons explained on this and other pages of this website, as you would expect, the author has lost all confidence in the Louisiana Judicial System to equally protect certain persons that go before it.  In the Blanchard matters, the LSC has not acted appropriately in regard to exercising its supervisoral duties that are well within its jurisdictional authority to handle.  The constitution gave it to the judiciary to do.  its failure allows bad and secret things to happen in Louisiana, when required. 

The author has potential actions in Jefferson Davis and Calcasieu Parish (some against attorneys) that need to be acted on but due to the experiential knowlege of the "just-us" system, that has been permitted to live here with selective impunity, these actions cannot be filed with any real belief that there will be fair hearing(s) in those venues. 

It seems judiciary relationships have become more important that the clients and the citizens.  So many attorneys have stated, "they can't do what must be done".  To be sure, "whatever can't be done...has been done - by some".  It simply remains a "judicial secret"  Expect discipline in such matters?  That is a waste of time for clients in most cases.  More on all that later and in other places.

We do pray for all the good and sincere members of the bar that must work within such a "just-us" system but are compelled, under the fear of discipline, to be silent and keep "secrets".  If you are one, remember, you are not the first to live under such ruthless oppression.  Keep the faith!  There is hope.  If the public can begin to understand the depth of the secrets that are being withheld from them, there will be change.  Click here.

St. Thomas More