Aaron Brousard does the pro se thing and makes a foole’ of himself

I’ve said a couple of times on these pages that the quality of the lawyering in the Katrina cases handled by Aaron Broussard and his legal sidekicks such as Trout Point Lodge owner Danny Abel was very suspect.  I illustrated it in Eric Paulsen’s case against State Farm where Paulsen was zeroed due to shit house lawyering by Abel. Aaron has lost his mojo since he resigned in disgrace and without the fix his true courtroom capability has come to the fore and my lay opinion is Broussard sucks as a lawyer in general, especially when he acts as his own.

So without further adieu lets check in with the T-P’s Rich Rainey as AB is upset that news of his indictment leaked out and he is demanding an investigation.

Since Slabbed is media if I may be so bold I’ll disclose that I too heard about the indictments in advance, from another member of the media in fact. That said I also knew Briussard’s driver had visited the federal grand jury and a good idea of what the feds were after with their then new late summer subpoenas at Yenni.  I got neither of those tidbits from Team Letten. And for those that wonder about my Youtube embeds a few days before AB was indicted I posted a very unique missive for Slabbed, a post with no name that featured Big Ben striking 12. The only thing I didn’t know then was the exact day it was coming down.

So the bottom line is AB’s demand for an investigation makes him look like a crybaby, kinda like he was when he lied to the nation on Meet the Press after Katrina.  Man o man imagine the hysterics to come when reality crashes in on him.


21 thoughts on “Aaron Brousard does the pro se thing and makes a foole’ of himself”

  1. Aaron …. the investigation is over …. Mr. Letten said his " office does not leak" . Period.

    About time one of you Jefferson Parish Politico Mafioso is on the receiving end of arrogant power …

  2. And I echo "whitmergate", because I don't see any materiality or relevance to the criminal charges even if someone "leaked" news about the impending indictments. The only nuance I am not sure of is if Aaron is claiming "prosecutorial misconduct", which COULD have an effect on the charges against hin (and others) and the defenses. I wouldn't believe for a minute Lettenemgo's assertion that his "office does not leak". I just don't know the legal ramifications if there was a leak from Lettenemgo's office. Ashton O'Dwyer.

  3. Okay I'm going to address 'THE WHY' is that elephant that occasionally sits in my living room here now …

    As it relates to JP Government, Aaron Broussard is the BIGGEST FISH that has come down the pike in Jefferson Parish Politics for the last 35 years plus … yes there are other more recent big fish such as Whitmer and Wilkinson and their pimp Tim Coulon, Butch Ward etc… but Broussard is the BIGGEST …

    So 'THE QUESTION' is …why isn't BROUSSARD being represented by any of the biggest criminal defense lawyer(s) in the New Orleans metropolitan region ???

    'Com'on man …pro se ?…investigation ! … LMAO with the elephant …

  4. ‘Gate, here are some thoughts:

    The issue is whether a ‘leak of the return’ referencing an individual being indicted is covered under provisions of Rule 6(e).

    A return is a presentment of a document. A particularized summary of acts that constitute a crime; an indictment that capsulates the conclusion of the Grand Jury’s business in a particular matter.

    Can there be a breach of the confidentiality of Grand Jury proceedings as governed under Rule 6(e) when there is the possibility and/or probability of a return ‘being leaked’ regardless of when it is leaked or by whom it is leaked it ?

    Mr. Broussard claims the ‘return’ of his being indicted was disclosed a day before it was scheduled to be made public. And how did he know that the return was scheduled for Friday Dec. 2nd. ? No testimony, no reference to documents, or the name of any person who appeared before the Grand Jury was cited. Just the fact that he was indicted for payroll fraud. Indictment was a potential consequence Mr. Broussard had already been apprised of in March, when prosecutors presented drafts of the indictment to him, Mr.Wilkinson and Ms. Parker. It was also made public at that time that they were being sent target letters concerning this payroll fraud investigation.

    What Mr. Broussard is also choosing to ignore is that his, Mr. Wilkinson’s and Ms.Parker’s criminal acts of payroll fraud were already made part of the public record by AMV’s filing of her Whistleblower Claim, and by the subsequent La Legislative Auditor’s report that mirrored the factual assertions made previously by Ms. Vandenweghe.

    Having read and considered the following, I suggest Rule 6(e) does not apply to a return:

    “Rule 6(e) prohibits the disclosure of any information that would reveal "matters occurring before the grand jury."

    “… only information that would reveal the strategy or direction of the investigation, the nature of the evidence produced before the grand jury, the views expressed by members of the grand jury, or anything else that actually occurred before the grand jury…”

    “… Rule 6(e) does not apply to material obtained or created independently of the grand jury as long as the disclosure of such material does not reveal what transpired before or at the direction of the grand jury…”

    “… Rule 6(e) also does not apply to information that has become a matter of public record, for example, by its introduction at trial…”

    The public consensus was that Mr. Broussard was going to be indicted for payroll fraud; not necessarily the day his indictment was going to be made public or by whom.

    I’m afraid that Mr. Broussard is not ready for the pouncing he’s going to receive from the US Attorney’s Office, and he can only blame himself. And if what I’m hearing here in DC has even a fifty per cent chance of being true, when the return on an indictment is made public will be the least of his and his friends’ problems.

  5. Ashton,
    Judge Berrigan's DQ of Fazzio's three attorney's.

    Fazzio Atty's had CONFIDENTIAL meetings with River Burch Atty's, Billy Gibbens and Kyle Schonekas. Senior N. O. Federal Judge Fred Heebe had his former clerk and now N. O. Federal Judge Berrigan rule that Judge Heebe's son can NOT corrupt the Judicial process.
    Does this mean son Freddy was told my DAD, Judge Heebe to try Berrigan on the issue of STATE conditional INDEMNIFICATION TO ALLOW Attorney London and whomever to continue to REPRESENT CFO FOR FREDERICK R. HEEBE, DOMINICK FAZZIO?


  6. Guys, some thoughts or questions:

    What do you make of the "Request" being typed in, and later "letter", and those stricken through with pen (crayon? no. 2 pencil?) and "Motion" handwritten in – in two different places?

    How about no phone number, no fax number and no email? What's up with that?

    That sig… it's getting pretty scrawly there.

    Finally, given the above is this man even capable of having written this himself?

    Also, check out the ads by google – am I crazy to think those things are tied in with searches? Chapter 7, background searches, house raising and level (shoring and elevation). Funny, if so.

  7. Mon cousin deBrief, Broussard’s “motion for formal inquiry ..” reads similar in application as a rule to traverse to me … US Atty. Letten stated unequivocally that his office does not “leak” Grand Jury information … consequently, Broussard has to carry the burden of proof that the disclosure was made by a party subject to Rule 6(e) before any action can be taken by the US Atty’s Office to investigate…

    Now you tell me … what newsperson is going to tell him the name of their unnamed source(s) … someone who could possibly be an Asst US Atty or Grand Jurer or Stenographer who may have ‘leaked’ that the return on the indictment was ‘imminent’… ain’t happening … assuming it ever happened in the first place …

    And now Broussard wants the US Government to hold in contempt any one who violated Rule 6(e) … how does that work coming from a person who has displayed utter contempt for the taxpayers of Jefferson Parish … Hypocrisy… just plain, raw, arrogant hypocrisy …

    The fact is that sometimes Courthouse lunch/drink gossip and reliable rumors pan out to be true …

  8. Not sure on the google ads Fin. They show them to everyone but the moderators (as we are logged in).

    I left a comment on the Parker thread that may shed some light on Broussard's state of mind. I'm certain Danny Abel is helping him out as much as he can but Abel's body of legal work since he left the Costano Group is best described as very erratic. Carl Finley is also lurking about in the background too and is likely the sharpest tack in that bunch right now.

    And of course the legal team was not impressed with AB hiring Jenkins after losing Mike Ellis to medical. That said I bet Jenkins had the sense to advise AB against this motion which likely explains why AB filed it instead of Jenkins.

    If Team Broussard would only get Vaughn Perret and Charlie Leary down here, the Confederacy of Dunces would be complete.


  9. I appreciate the insight of Commentors like "Whitmergate", "Pelicandebrief", "Motherload' and "Not at all Surprised", but there is the temptation to "mix metaphors" in the complex sets of multiple circumstances existing in Federal Court in New Orleans. Although the ENTIRE Court has disqualified (or recused) itself in the Broussard, Parker, Wilkinson criminal cases. Lemelle has not recused himself in the River Birch/Waste Management case (He's either too FUCKING STUPID to realize that this could become an issue or too CROOKED to voluntarily step down from a case in which he is in a position to influence the result in favor of former Chief Judge Heebe's son's company). Nor has Berrigan recused herself in the Fazzio criminal case (she DID disqualify some lawyers recently who were representing Fazzio while being paid by "someone" connected to River Birch). Then we have the possibility of Berrigan's former mentor, and the father of the principal of River Birch, retired Federal Judge Fred Heebe, having spoken to Members of the Court, either directly or through surrogates. How could this be proven? How could this be disproven? And while disqualification of attorneys is one thing, disqualification of a Judge is quite a different thing. And guess what? Who decides whether a Judge should be disqualified? You're right! Give that man a cigar. ANSWER: The very Judge who someone is trying to get disqualified! And the standard on appeal if one disagrees with how the Judge ruled is "an abuse of discretion standard", meaning that the Judge's ruling will be affirmed unless there was an abuse of discretion, which amounts to an insurmountable standard in most cases. I want to impart a quotion which I "like", but which I have NEVER successfully persuaded any Court to apply in my favor when contesting the "impartiality" of an obviously biased Judge: "The recondite niceties of contempt law coupled with the strange milieu of a judge passing on the clarity of his own orders, which had to be substantiated largely by his own legal staff, should meke us particularly sensitive to the demands of justice, and more particularly, to the appearance of justice. The guarantee to the [litigants] of a totally fair and impartial tribunal, and the protection of the integrity and dignity of the judicial process from any hint or appearance of bias is the pallidium of our judicial system." This comes from the Fifth Circuit case of "United States v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc." I aver that it applies equally to cases in which public figures, or those who may have "influenced" public figures, are parties, even if "the Public" are not, except through a prosecutor's office, parties to the litigation. So there is still a lot to play out in the Eastern District in cases involving the Heebes, their former colleagues, Jefferson Parish politicos, and the Federal Judiciary. We've only just begun. Ashton O'Dwyer.

  10. FRILOT law firm filed in their client Waste Mgt.'s $50million civil Rico for a RESTRAINING ORDER to STOP Jefferson Parish from negotiating any garbage contract. Section B, Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle ruled that filing "premature" and to file again seven days prior to any new contract is signed. THAT RULING seems to say Judge Lemelle would GRANT a restraining order.
    Discovery has NOT YET begun in that civil RICO. Why can't Waste MGT thru FRILOT law firm step in and pay FAZZIO's attorney's fees is HIS criminal matter for Fazzio's "good faith" discovery answered nailing RB and Frederick R. Heebe, Jim WARD, Aaron Broussard, Wilkinson, Whitmer and Jennifer Sneed Heebe with OTHERS?

  11. "Why can’t Waste MGT thru FRILOT law firm step in and pay FAZZIO’s attorney’s fees is HIS criminal matter for Fazzio’s “good faith” discovery answered nailing RB and Frederick R. Heebe, Jim WARD, Aaron Broussard, Wilkinson, Whitmer and Jennifer Sneed Heebe with OTHERS?"

    Because that would be a conflict of interest across the board and Frilot wouldn't want to conflict themselves out. Its better for Frilot & their co-counsel to include Fazzio in the RICO action wait for him to be sentenced to between 2 and 500 years in jail (depending on which defensive road he takes) and roll him out in his Orange Jump suit in the depositions and before a Jury. That's what you call maximum value and whatever you allege the jurors will buy it whether Fazzio helps you or whether he is adverse to you because they will always believe in the plaintiff because of that Orange Jump suit and hopefully chains too for extra impact.

    As for Aaron Broussard that wouldn't be his first time "Jumping over the Cockoo's Next" as he may have had several vacations for "stress relief" over the years.

  12. To MOTHERLOAD: Given Joe Mole's "shennigans" in the Liljeberg case, such an arrangement, which would have to be kept "secret", wouldn't surprise me. But practically speaking, it probably would be construed as "witness tampering" or bribery. It ain't gonna happen. Those who have the best chance of persuading Fazzio to "sing" are the (SPIT!) Feds (SPIT!). Ashton O'Dwyer.

  13. AB's former defense attorney, Mike Ellis, is associated with Chehardy, Murray, Recile etc. out of the Galleria in Metairie. Why didn't Chehardy encourage Julian Murray, a noted criminal defense attorney, to fill in for Mike? Hmmm

    I got a feeling Chehardy might be one of AB's so-called friends who is already bailing out on AB probably ' to spend more time with his family'- COME ON MAN, lets be more original and TRUTHFUL.

  14. My best guess re AB's erratic behavior and filing is he will be trying to pull off an insanity defense. Crazy? Like a fox.

  15. Well considering he was electrocuted in trying to get a child's kite off electrical lines I do believe his brain was a little fried even before Entergy refried it again.

    Like refried beans AB probably has fart brain ideas from time to time.

    Ideas like declaring Karen Parker a paralegal, denying he was not an officer in a multitude of corporations, denying he Ok'd evacuating the pump operator and refusing to agree that the east bank would not have flooded if the pump operators had not been evacuated; with all such farts made under sworn oath in the most disingenuous deposition since Clinton defined the word "is"..

    Based on the above lies alone he should have been stripped of his law license yet he is still practicing out of motel suites and filing hand scripted motions in Federal Court.

    Hang on AB I hear Santa's sending you some Beano for X-Mas.

  16. Texas Magistrate Judge Stacy granted a mental evaluation for indicted Karen Parker and ruled Texas now seated in N. O. Judge Head will deal with Broussard's motion about any leak's of his indictment. Judge Ivan Lemelle sits with Judge Fred Heebe on LAED court, while Lemelle has a $50 million civil RICO with son FREDDY as a main defendant who is also under a FEDERAL criminal investigation with Freddy's CFO NOW under a criminal indictment and Fazzio's three attorney's are NOW DQ'd cause FREDDY wanted to pay his CFO Fazzio's attorney fees in a criminal matter separate from Freddy and RB contract and Fazzio is also Copeland former CFO and Mark Titus stated in the SECOND TRANSCRIPT of his FBI wired conversation June 3, 2011 that Titus alway's "wanted to know what was really going on in the Copeland business's" from then CFO and now Titus has pled guilty for acts with Fazzio and Mouton pled guilty for acts with FREDDY and ALL ACTS have been to ADVANCE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISES' for over thirty years, SOOOOO,

Comments are closed.