A New Filing in USA v Perdigao

I hope our Georgia based Beef Plant readers take a few minutes to check out the two cases we are following at Slabbed involving Jamie Perdigao. This one has all the ingredients for a spicy bowl of homemade Louisiana seafood gumbo in a large very well connected insurance defense law firm, Edwin Edwards, the man who helped put Edwards behind bars current NOLA USA Jim Letten, plus disgraced former insurance commissioners George Dale and Robert Wooley.

Considering the hour I’m writing this I’m not up to recapping but those interested can start here, check some press coverage here, here, and here. My favorite Nowdy post on the topic is here. You can find all our posts on this case by typing Perdigao in our search box.

Here is the link to the order granting a continuance of hearing date.

12 thoughts on “A New Filing in USA v Perdigao”

  1. I missed the July 23rd blog with the memorandum in support of the motion to reconsider order denying recusal and an evidentiary hearing. I didn’t see it listed on the Perdigao legal page that I am following. I just opened the memo and its looks really interesting. I will get back to you.

    At first glace, I can see we have a joker judge.

  2. We’re trying to stay on top of this one Sally. The story has legs albeit small ones right now. It also has the potential to make Scruggs look like the bush leagues.

    Explain what you mean by Joker?

    sop

  3. Sally, sorry that didn’t get on legal – my bad. Sop is so much faster on the keyboard than I am and we’ve had stuff coming in batches lately and it’s hard to get it posted – much less make two entries.

    Over the weekend I’ll add a note to the legal pages suggesting readers also use the search option so they’ll pick up on posts with documents that may not have made it to legal.

    Interested in your answer to Sop’s question re: the Joker.

  4. Judge Fallon denied defendant’s motion to recuse the U.S. attorneys office, without an evidentiary hearing, and based his findings of fact on a self-serving letter from the Justice Department that does not set forth any findings of facts or conclusions.

    THAT IS A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE

    This case needs to get out of Louisiana’s well all the way to hell hole of corruption and moved to a district in another state that doesn’t give a rat’s azz about Louisiana’s corruption.

  5. Since then Sally, Perdigao filed for reconsideration and then filed to move the hearing back to this new date. So, now he at last is getting a hearing; but what’s to hear if there are no arguments?

    btw, Nothing has happened on his civil case since Adams & Reese lawyered up.

  6. I don’t think I saw the Order with the judge’s findings of fact posted — I think I only saw it paraphrased in the memo in support of reconsideration. Is it posted — is it available?

  7. Sally, I’ve got to be off a while but promise I’ll check soon as I can and put something up to let you know. Did you do the search thing? I really think you and NAAS both commented. It all happened as Fallon was getting both cases. That ring any bell?

  8. The September 10 is a hearing on the reconsideration of the order — and evidentiary as to why to reconsider the order.

    The evidentiary hearing on the recusal would be presumably scheduled if the Judge grants the motion to reconsider his order that denies the recusal, without an evidentiary hearing.

  9. I think that the only thing I haven’t seen was that July 23rd blog and its attachments.

    I probably didn’t pull it up because I searched on the web “Perdigao Adams and Reese.”

    I will search Perdigao on wordpress in the future.

    I guess I was trying to eliminate Perdigao/Brazil.

    Anyway — this could get confusing in the future — if you all can keep the documents posted I would be very grateful. Not only is this case most interesting but the defense memorandums or beautiful legal work. Very nice reading.

  10. I was hoping that the U.S. Attorneys in New Orleans would at least prosecute Nagin for a cover up of the NOAH scandal. If the FBI investigation does not indicate that Nagin was involved in the misappropriation of the NOAH funding, Nagin’s actions or inactions after the April notification of the discrepancies in NOAH’s payments to contractors certainly indicate a cover up on Nagin’s part.

    How is Letten supposed to prosecute Nagin’s cover up if Letten has his own cover up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *