Anne Marie Vandenweghe speaks out part deux: Public records requests contain disparities.

Stay tuned to Fox 8 for the latest developments on the Tuesday Night Massacre as Val Bracy evidently taped an extensive interview with Ms Vandenweghe,the second part of which aired at 5pm today. While there is no video up yet on the story we do have Val’s print report from which we glean a few more nuggets including a bomb shell regarding discrepancies in responses to public records requests involving the River Birch landfill:

“In August of last year we received requests from a law firm in Baton Rouge for copies of the River Birch contract. The initial response to the individual’s public records response was in August or September. In, I believe November when the grand jury subpoena for the River Birch information came in I received a totally different response from the same people. The signature pages were not the same and what I turned over to the grand jury were four different signature pages,” said Vandenweghe.

I’m not certain if Theriot’s remarks for today’s story were in the can or new but of I had to guess, given his quotes from Friday’s report I bet they are new and Mr Parish President is feeling a bit less secure concerning the “proof” of her playing on the computer. If I may be so bold, I’ll add that I think Mr Theriot is still trying to dig dirt on Ms Vandenweghe so that he can make the firing stick. IMHO Mr Theriot has been a very naughty boy who has been caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

Speaking of public records, I have a document from the Parish regarding River Birch, specifically the tabulation workpapers used by the Wilkinson and friends to give Ward and company the exclusive courtesy of a reader and Scribd. A bit of background:

Tom Wilkinson was the Secretary of the Committee, David Fos (Assistant Parish Attorney) and Alan Gandolfi (Council Research and Budget Director, also a former Assistant Parish Attorney under Wilkinson) composed the evaluation committee with Environmental Director Marnie Winter in a non-voting advisory position.

[scribd id=28054533 key=key-1jo1luerltxf9ru07a0k mode=list]

sop

10 thoughts on “Anne Marie Vandenweghe speaks out part deux: Public records requests contain disparities.”

  1. Sop: Confirmed it was a new interview today by Bracy with Theriot. Gruntz refused to go on camera.

    Also fyi reliable sources say Fox 8 was sued recently by Trout Pointe Lodge. Apparently they see having any connection to Aaron Broussard as a negative. Odd, that, since Danny Able et al ( that would be the Spain connection across from the Alhambra and the Costa Rican location ) seemed so keen on having the creme de la creme of the political elite as ‘investors’ in and around their prestigious property/properties. Odd also that a resort would object to any publicity for their business. Must be nice to be sooooo special and elite that only certain people are ok to be associated with their endeavors.

    Kinda reminds me of the Villio fundraiser where Sheriff Normand told Fox 8 reporter Val Bracy she had ‘no class’ for showing up with a camera rolling. Again I ask: Wouldn’t someone running for office welcome such TV coverage? Ok Ok I get it: only if they had nothing to hide. So when Villio snuck out a back door to avoid Ms. Bracy was that indicative of anything? I dunno. Duh. And when Mr. Normand who resides in prestigious OLD METAIRIE told Ms. Bracy she had ‘no class’ was that a classless statement or his class consciousness slipping out in a barely audible ‘your kind don’t belong here’ comment? Either way not nice.

    So we’re back to why would Trout Point suddenly lash out at Val Bracy and Fox 8? After suing the Times Picurnose and effectively silencing them is this an attempt to do the same to Fox 8? Is Bracy hitting too many nerves? Seems strange to have waited so long to sue IN CANADA over a story that is old news. So maybe they want some more publicity for their joints? Hope they are ready for the depositions and Requests for Admissions coming their way. FYI Trout Point: if I were you I would review Aaron’s interviews and the Fox 8 news accounts before I racked up much more in legal fees suing the wrong parties. Frivolous is frivolous and this is a silly lawsuit IMHO.

    But then I am merely a serf in the service of the kingdom. What do I know? You’d be surprised what you pick up while picking up for the entitled. They tend to forget you are there and speak as if you did not exist. Being an invisible ‘low class’ personage in their employ can be a powerful strong place to be. So Ms. Bracy welcome to our world. We are proud to have you in our corner.

  2. Mr. Louis Gruntz, a la Watergate, says that (at this point in time) he doesn’t remember AMV giving him reports on the particulars of the alleged wrongdoing of 4 of the men who were present at her job action, including himself (7 men in total).

    Does he remember working with AMV ? Does he remember all of the participants who are witness to her formalizing these alleged wrongdoings also included the Feds ? Does he remember that these particulars of alleged violations are on a computer hard drive, copied to himself and numerous other parties who would have in interest in dealing with these matters ?

    Mr. Gruntz do you remember who you are ? Is your statement, “I don’t remember…” your way of laying the ground work of some type of incapacitated defense ?

    Tell me this is not a coverup a la Watergate.

  3. The amnesia epidemic of particular members of the Louisiana State Bar seems to be systemic when being questioned about their ethical conduct under certain circumstances, or for that matter, for all professional business they engage in. The resignation of responsibility or obligation to report such deviant unethical behavior elicited in the testimony by the government lawyers is equally abhorrent.

    Mr. Gruntz’s recent loss of memory is pale in light of the account I have previously commented on concerning Mr. Mole’s testimony at the Judiciary Committee’s hearing considering the impeachment of Tom Porteous. However Mr. Gruntz’s attitude is no different: play the game, deflect, and LIE, using the veiled legalese subterfuge, “I don’t remember”, “I can’t recall at this moment in time” and on and on, et nausea.

    But now I present what I consider an assault on the very core of morality in our society. Testimony so vile, it disrupts our basic sense of decency, both as an individual and as citizen of the United States of America.

    On page 122, Section XII, testimony of Mr. Leonard Cline’s secretary substantiated that: 1) Mr. Cline was a good friend of Judge Porteous, 2) that Mr. Cline gave to Judge Porteous, ” a very, very, very unique shotgun that had silver inscriptions on it, all silver scroll, decorative”. This shotgun she witnessed and Mr. Cline told her he had purchased for Judge Porteous. Ms. Konnerup also testified Mr. Cline was over heard to say he paid for a cruise for Judge Porteous.

    On page 123, Mr. Cline when being questioned by the Task Force about whether he ever gave Judge Porteous a cruise and/or a shotgun, testified:

    Q .Now in or about the 1988 to 1990 time frame do you recall giving Judge Porteous any sort of hunting weapon, be it a shotgun, a rifle, or any other hunting weapon ?
    A. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
    Q. And in or about the same time frame, do you recall paying for a cruise for Judge Porteous ?
    A. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF PAYING FOR A CRUISE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

    “MY BEST QUESS TODAY IS I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION
    OF GIVING JUDGE PORTEOUS A GUN OR A CRUISE. I
    HAVE NO RECOLLECTION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER”

    On page 124, the absurdity of the questioning goes on:

    Q. Is it possible you did ?

    A. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION.

    Q. So you’re saying it is possible, you just don’t recall ?

    A. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF DOING THAT, AND I
    JUST CAN’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DON’T
    KNOW, I MEAN, I DON’T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION.

    Mr. Cline was plaintiff’s attorney, who in the late 1980’s, Judge Porteous awarded his clients very large verdicts. (pg.122)

    MR. PLATZMIER WHERE ARE YOU ? CAN’T YOU READ ? ARE YOU BLIND ? FOR THAT MATTER, LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT JUSTICES, WHERE ARE YOU ? IF MR. CLINE DOESN’T WARRANT DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN THIS PORTEOUS DEBACLE THEN NO ONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES! THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE SHAMELESS DISGRACE AND YA’LL KNOW IT.

    Unfortunately, the account above, as disgusting it is, peels back just another layer of how the “elite lawyers” did business in Judge Porteous’ Court. Just when you needed to believe it couldn’t get any worse. WRONG!

    I’m glancing through the March 2010 NEW ORLEANS Magazine and what do I see: A legal advertisement depicting Richard A. Chopin, the written test expounding his rather grandiose resume.

    OK, real world !

    On page 126, Mr. Chopin, apparently being the self-serving narcissist he describes himself to be, wrote a letter to Second Circuit Judge Ralph Winter, dated March 28, 2008, supportive of Judge Porteous, in which Mr. Chopin described Judge Porteous as an “outstanding judge” and among “one of the finest judges before whom I HAVE EVER appeared” Mr. Chopin goes on to witness that he had never “heard, seen or experienced any impropriety in Judge Porteous’ conduct” and further characterized the impeachment proceedings as a witchhunt.

    Well Mr. Chopin here’s some news from someone who has known Porteous for some 37 years +, and is among others who have known him for the same or a longer period of time: YOU DON’T KNOW PORTEOUS AT ALL ! This man should never, ever have been a prosecutor, a State judge and GOD forbid, a Federal Judge. It was his weaknesses that you preyed on to benefit your lawyer business, so cut the crap.

    Throughout Mr. Chopin’s “testimony” we learn that he has facilitated, by way of his client, Diamond Offshore, during a period between 2000-2007, six hunting trips which Judge Porteous was a beneficiary of. (pgs. 126-129).

    In footnote 590, page 127: Mr. Chopin DID NOT DENY THAT HE WAS THE IMPETUS TO DIAMOND’S INVITING JUDGE PORTEOUS, BUT TESTIFIED HE “DID NOT REMEMBER” DOING THAT. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    All of these hunting trips are taking place while Mr. Chopin is representing Diamond in cases that are being heard by Judge Porteous. We subsequently learn that Mr. Chopin, along with another lawyer Mr. T. Patrick Baynham, lunched and hunted with Judge Porteous all the while having cases before him. (pgs. 129, 130, 131)

    Perhaps the most egregious proceeding I have ever become aware of, was the conduct by Judge Porteous in refusing to consider a motion for a new trial in the Turner vs. Pleasant case.(pgs. 132, 133, 134, 135)

    A reading of those pages will shake your very sense of what justice
    is, and how does one achieve the moral equivalent in a court of law.

    The skinny is that Porteous found for the Defendant, represented by Mr. Chopin and whose expert witness was a Dr. Senac, both of whom were personal friends and hunting buddies with the Judge. The plaintiff’s attorney, after becoming aware of the “fix”, diligently files for a new trial. Not one to be offended if others question his lack of ethical bearing or the Judge’s, Mr. Chopin attacks the plaintiff attorney in his opposition motion, stating:

    “In an act of desperation never previously witnessed
    by the undersigned, the plaintiffs have vituperatively
    attacked the Court and its integrity. Not only are
    the plaintiffs’ claims flagrantly in violation of all
    rules, they are reprehensible. Moreover, the plaintiffs
    do not even attempt to offer any support for their
    new allegation”

    WRITTEN BY THE LEGAL PIMP YOU ARE MR. CHOPIN !

    To further insult the plaintiffs, we have the ludicrous decision of the 5th Circuit to uphold this travesty of justice.

    Our moral social fabric is not only torn but is ripped to shreds by the conduct of these miscreants.

    AGAIN I ASK, WHERE ARE YOU MR. PLATZMIER ? MR. CHOPIN AND HIS ILK HAVE GOT TO ANSWER FOR THIS DESPICABLE CONDUCT.

  4. THE REFERENCED DOCUMENT IN THE POST ABOVE: ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE TOM PORTEOUS INTRODUCED ON FLOOR MARCH 4TH 2010.

  5. A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns. — Don Corleone in Mario Puzo’s The Godfather

  6. Whitmergate:

    If you know all of this, you certainly know of Porteous’ ties to the Hailey McNamara law firm, specfically to Kathy Weidorn.

Comments are closed.