Saturday Catch Up: Perdigao Forfeiture and RICO

As I observed in a previous comment to Sally, it is hard to continue a civil suit from behind bars so the dismissal of Jamie Perdigao’s RICO suit against Adams and Reese was an expected development in this continuing saga.

Related to the civil suit is the criminal case where DoJ filed motion for forfeiture of money Perdigao turned over after his initial arrest. What I found interesting is what was missing from both the motion and the preliminary order granting the DoJ motion.

I continue to have reason to believe we have not heard from Mr Perdigao for the last time. (h/t Mr NAAS for the PACER docs.)

sop

6 thoughts on “Saturday Catch Up: Perdigao Forfeiture and RICO”

  1. Hmmm. Let’s see. You have got essentially a whistleblower (by necessity yes; but a whistleblower nonetheless). You have got a psychiatric report that says said whistleblower is a danger to the public even though the money he stole was from his law firm and did not encompass any threat of violence. Oh yeah, his father was a psychiatrist, which I guess could go both ways: He knew what to say to keep his illness from being picked up on by anyone through undergrad, law school, and his law firm for over a decade. However, I think the contrary is more likely-that being if he really was pathologic, his father probably would have tried to help his son by now. It is awfully convenient that the psychiatrist offered a diagnosis that would 1) discredit anything the patient would ever allege and 2) would qualify to have his license taken away.

    Now, let’s see who here really knows NOLA sex, lies, and healthcare. What is the connection between Adams O’ Reese, a medical person who is anything but sheepish, a beanstalk climbing divorced health law attorney, and a very green New Orleans institution?

    tata

  2. We’re drawing blanks Bill on the sex, lies & speculum but any further hints much appreciated.

    IMHO ppl with cleptomania can function for years in society without being caught. I personally know a former elected official that had that problem for instance.

    That doesn’t mean he is a threat to others or a blithering nonsensical pathologic idiot. In fact those personality traits may well be part of the reason Jamie Perdigao was such a gifted lawyer.

    If Jamie Perdigao showed us anything, it was that he knew where the skeletons were buried. Ask Ronald Sholes he’ll tell you – and what Mr Perdigao sent the MCC and slabbed did not require further commentary on his part as the docs spoke for themselves.

    sop

  3. The “honorable” Robert Sholes hasn’t let this business bother him one bit. The firm is using him in a couple of high profile cases coming to trial in the CDC in 2009. Apparently, his ability to freely roam the halls and offices of the CDC makes him “influential”.

    1. That may be Mr NAAS but his appeals court dreams died when those docs hit the MCC and the internet. And Jamie Perdigao didn’t have to “say” one thing.

      He may have mental problems but the “docs” do not share that affliction.

      sop

  4. I wonder if an attorney can ask questions in the voir dire of the jurors like – did you ever have a traffic ticket fixed in the CDC? Did you ever try to have a traffic ticket fixed in the CDC? Did you vote for Ronald Sholes for traffic court judge? Etc.

  5. What psychological report are you referring to? Perdigao submitted a psychological report in order to support his request for inactive/leave status from the Louisiana Bar. This report was sealed.

    Language in the ethics rules tracks “danger to the public” when an attorney misuses funds.

    There was no medical diagnosis or opinion that Perdigao was a “danger to the public.” That isn’t even within the scope of a medical opinion.

    That is language contained in the ethics rules. The danger is the misuse of funds.

Leave a Reply

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