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. )
This litigation began in Terrebonne Parish, LA with Judge Paul Wimbish presiding over the matter.
St. Mary Parish Courthouse
This litigation was then refiled in St. Mary Parish, LA with Judge Anne L. Simon presiding over the matter.
AT A HEARING ON FEBRUARY 21, 2001, IN PART THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED:
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 because they were removed.
Secondly, removing them in part made them material.
If they were not material they would not have been removed. They would have remained in the written transcipt.
How material were they to the author? 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 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" the docket before the presiding judge retired are indeed material.
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. If recall correctly, the dismissal of this litigation might have actually been on Judge Anne L. Simon's last day 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, as attested to in the affidavits above, then the court or the defendant's 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.
Pro se Writ to Louisiana Supreme Court filed by the author dated August 1, 2003
Generally, 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 cane 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 is years before this litigation was filed in St. Mary Parish, LA.
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? That is the question this author put before the Louisiana Supreme Court in the writ.
But, the writ was indeed denied with no comments. The highest court simply refused in 2003 to address these serious questions and issues placed before it at that time. Is it possible that this practice extends to other judges in other district courts as well?
Visit The Blanchard III Litigation in Jefferson Parish to see another example of trial record irregulatories not addressed by court system in the Blanchard series of litigation. Again, with the ultimate impact of protecting the defendants in The Blanchard I Litigation and the series of Blanchard litigations that have followed.
Later in 2001 while this record tampering issue was beginning to be addressed in St. Mary Parish in this subject litigation, Judge Ann L. Simon was actually sitting in for justices at dockett proceedings for the Louisiana Supreme Court! Based on this finding, was the writ ever going to be taken seriously by the same court she was asked to sit on?
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.
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 her decisions in that certain St. Charles Parish litigation. Her decisions were what they were. That litigation is only identified here so to try and evidence the apparent lack of accountability for her actions in the St. Mary Parish litigation many years earlier. Certainly, there are many other competent retired judges that may have been assigned to preside of this St. Charles litigation.
Considering all of the above that was happening in a St. Mary Parish court, that first came to light to the author in 2001, and other certains actions that was discovered at later dates, there was never much hope for the author's writ to have been taken seriously by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2003 and/or real judicial reform to occur based on what was filed before it at that time. There any many potential losers when the "just-us" system wants what it wants!
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!