9 thoughts on “Judge Ivan Lemelle strikes again”

  1. Lemelle is where he is today SOLELY by virtue of his skin color. His “moral compass” got calibrated at the knee of former Criminal Court Magistrate (later Federal Judge) Robert Collins, who enjoys the distinction of having been convicted of taking bribes as a Federal Judge (the money was found in his office safe). It is my recollection that he resigned before he could be impeached (which is what G.T. Ortous should have done). Anyone who wants to document the fact that Lemelle’s “moral compass” remains askew (the only reason he hasn’t joined Ortous, yet, is because he is the only Negro District Judge on the Eastern District Bench – a clear case of “reverse discrimination”) needs only to read the reported Fifth “Circus” case from February 2008, entitled: “In Re High Sulphur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation” case. Any WHITE MAN who did what this son-of-a-bitch Lemelle did in that case would have been indicted for public bribery already. I also have a disclosure to make: Lemelle struck my answers and defenses in a case in which I had good and valid defenses, and then entered a Default Judgement against me for close to $200,000, which drove me into bankruptcy. Sort of like threatening the Government with dismissing the charges against Mose Jefferson and his “belly warmer” if something doesn’t happen before “high noon”. This Lemelle character is a clear and present danger to the constitution and laws of the United States. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  2. He supposedly did the “balancing test” under the Rules of Evidence but this is an absurd ruling. How does his conviction prejudice her? He should have severed her prosecution. Moron!

  3. It is my usual contention that minorities DO NOT receive justice from federal courts at New Orleans. I need to clarify that what I mean by “minorities” is clearly not skin color –as in Ashton’s color and mine. I mean as in “haves” and “have nots.”

    I felt certain that the Mose Jefferson / Gill-Pratt case was the best place for them because they were of the “haves” classification, and Ivan Lemelle, in my opinion is a ‘house n______’. Whatever, deed Lemelle can perform which gratifies the elites is what can be expected of him; and since he is obviously such a ‘willing worker’, he is granted allowances for certain cronies. Me-thinks that the defendants in this case will fare much better with Lemelle –not because of race, but because of Lemelle’s quid pro quo status. From what I have examined about his edicts, he is as underhanded as Kurt Engelhardt, Lance Africk, A.J. McNamara, and Dougla$$ Dodd.

  4. See, EJ is not the only one with a sheep problem!!! I believe the faith I have that says in the last days good will be looked upon as evil & evil as good. We must be into that a few years now and it is increasing as time passes. Hope you are ready for the final chapter of the final Book!

  5. For anyone who might wish to go further than the “Times-Pick-Your-Nose”, and the Mose Jefferson (and his “belly-warmer’s”) trial, for irrefutable evidence of Lemell’s incompetent buffoonery on the Federal Bench, the “In Re High Sulphur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation” case can be found at: (1) 517 F. 3d 220 (5th Cir. 2008); (2) 2008 WL 287347 (decided February 4, 2008); and (3) Case No. 07-30384 in the Fifth Circuit. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  6. While I disagree with the ruling, it is an evidentiary ruling, which normally would be very difficult to get reversed in the court of appeal. But then again, I predict the 5th Circuit will reverse it in resounding fashion.

  7. Sock, I disagree with the ruling too, but this one is clearly wrong. I have it on inside info (and the TP story of today seems to back it up) that the only reason he ruled it inadmissible was because he did the balancing of the probative value vs. the prejudicial effect of the conviction AND HELD THAT IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE CO-DEFENDANT (Gill-Pratt)! That is a horrible ruling. If she is prejudiced by HIS CONVICTION, the remedy is a severance, which Lemelle had previously denied. Again, not the brightest bulb on the bench.

Leave a Reply

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