Day: September 5, 2009

Attorneys for Minor co-defendant John Whitfield write Attorney General Holder

We tell this to go beyond our lawyer’s talk of Brady violations and honest services statutes and quidpro quo and to put a human face on the victims of the corruption of the Department of Justice and the Public Integrity Section under the previous administration— to put a human face on this victim of a baseless, legally void political prosecution.

Whitfield Appeal provides timely review of law re: judicial bribery, USA v Minor, a late July SLABBED post, reported Mr. Whitfield’s Appeal to the 5th Circuit.  One man’s convicted felon is another’s father, son followed in early August.

Some roll their eyes at the mention of a politically motivated prosecution of Whitfield, Minor and Teel.  Others are more adamant in their believe politics was not involved. Drew Martin and David McCarty, Mr. Whitfield’s new counsel, took the issue head-on in their recent letter to Attorney General Holder

Mr. Lampton actually said to Mr. Whitfield and his previous counsel before the first
indictment was returned, “[y]ou wouldn’t be a target of this investigation if it wasn’t for your politics.” This statement, combined with the curious removal of Mr. Lampton’s name from the second list of U.S. Attorneys slated for firing by the Bush Justice Department, raise serious questions as to the propriety of Mr. Whitfield’s prosecution from its inception.

I’m uncertain how long Mr. Whitfield was without counsel; however, his current attorneys point out he filed his first Appeal with the Fifth pro se over a year ago. Continue reading “Attorneys for Minor co-defendant John Whitfield write Attorney General Holder”

Pinocchio’s nose – State Farm Protective Orders

There are more SLABBED posts and comments on State Farm Protective Orders that I care to count on a weekend; but, it should go without saying there has been no “good cause” for any to be favorable.

Good cause simply can’t be because I said so unless it’s said by your mother – and Judge Walker is not anyone’s mother.

The Court, being duly advised in the premises, finds that good causes exists for the issuance of a Protective Order, it is therefore…

06 2 letter to Walker

Since the Rules require good cause to be established, there had to be a case that Judge Walker was “duly advised” of the “premise” before he started routinely granting protective orders – or so I naively thought until I read the letter from Hickman Goza Spragins to Judge Walker a second time before closing the Pontius file of exhibits to Stephan Hinkle’s deposition testimony.

State Farm operational guides and training materials have been consistently found to be protected trade secrets by other courts. Hamilton v State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.,Co 204 F.R.D. 420, 423-25 (S.D.lnd. 2001)

At the time the letter was written to Judge Walker, there must have been only two cases with Protective Orders to list: Loehn v State Farm and Cooney v State Farm.  Plaintiffs in both cases were represented by Charles A. Boggs of the Metairie, Louisiana firm of Boggs Loehn Rodrique. Continue reading “Pinocchio’s nose – State Farm Protective Orders”