“The Almighty says this must be a fashionable fight. It’s drawn the finest people.” Well maybe they’re not all ‘fine’ as Slabbed updates its SPEECH Act case against the Goatherders at Trout Point Lodge

They need to go into whatever Mississippi county court Slabbed is domiciled in. By doing so, they also opent themselves up to a reconventional demand for filing a frivolous lawsuit and any other sanction a state court may deem appropriate.

How in the world are these bufoons going to find local counsel? Are they going to represent themselves pro se?

Folks there has been a lot of water under the bridge since I filed for Declaratory relief under the SPEECH Act against the specious libel judgment the managers of Trout Point Lodge obtained against me in the SLAPP happy libel tourism haven of Nova Scotia. To catch everyone up when I filed my suit against Leary and Perret I sent them Rule 4d waivers, which they subsequently returned to me unexecuted. Early this month and despite the existing lawsuit, they filed to enforce their judgment in Hancock County Circuit Court using Henry Laird of Jones Walker’s Gulfport office to file the motion.

Today Mr Gerald Cruthird filed motions in United States District Court to remove the Circuit Court action to the United States District Court in what is a prelude to it being consolidated into the original case. Gerald has been my accounting firm’s counsel for almost 20 years as well as my personal attorney and I’m happy to announce his addition to the Mississippi contingent of the Slabbed legal team along with Tom Vaughn, who I introduced earlier today.

Alas Slabbed covers both Mississippi and Louisiana so what we needed was a guy who knows the lay of the land in Jefferson Parish that also has some defamation experience. That guy is Bobby Truitt, the man who slayed Judge Green of Wrinkled Robe infamy when Green put in the fix against Truitt in a 24th JDC case back in the day. Bobby is highly respected by his peers and I think he is just the guy for the job of not only getting that specious Nova Scotia court judgment taken care of but also seeing to it that all of Charles Leary and Vaughn Perret’s misdeeds are fully exposed and publicly aired. I’ll add it is possible that other lawyers will enroll in this case as I’ve had several offers of free legal help but for now the team is set and the fray is fully engaged.

With that said now is a great time to talk a bit more about that Fox 8 settlement with Trout Point Lodge, Leary and Perret which we broke here, here (where Slabbed examined the Trout Point Lodge blog material on the subject) and here. I’ll add that at that point in time the parties to the litigation in Nova Scotia were acting coy as to the deal they cut, but calling it wasn’t much of a leap based on Fox 8’s correction and the removal of Leary’s screed on their litigation from the Trout Point Lodge blog.  I mention this because last Friday the settlement was officially announced by Trout Point Lodge on their blog in a post that has since been removed. Certain my eyes were not playing tricks on me I went to the google cache and sure enough thar she blows: Trout Point Lodge settles legal dispute with Louisiana Media Company/WVUE Fox 8.

So the question is why would the Goatherders pull their post where they trumpeted their settlement, celebrated the fact that “no criminal charges relating to Broussard’s former Nova Scotia property holdings will be brought”, took a pot shot at Timothy Gillespie and me as well as rubbing the Times Picayune’s nose in the retraction of their excellent reporting on Aaron Broussard’s connections to the East Kempt Nova Scotia area.  Simple folks they read Paul Rioux’s March 22, 2012 story on the Broussard payroll fraud trial and read way more into what Assistant US Attorney Brian Klebba said in the teleconference with Judge Head than they should have, especially considering Perret is a self proclaimed “Park Avenue” lawyer.  In the process they also revealed themselves yet again.  Let’s quote exactly what Leary and Perret had to say about Broussard in their now deleted post that I linked above:

Coincidentally, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans also yesterday filed Minutes of a March 15, 2012, conference with federal judge Hayden Head in which Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Klebba informed the court that “no other superseding indictment or other additional charges or defendants will be added.” This means that no criminal charges relating to Broussard’s former Nova Scotia property holdings will be brought.

I am a busy guy and evidently the Goatherders are lost on the local doings if I do not post about it on Slabbed but I was aware of the confusion from comments left here on Slabbed last week and when I got a chance I did belatedly explain what was happening with the Broussard investigation allegations dealing with kick backs from certain Parish venders including those with connections to the Trout Point Development.  To reinforce my reporting the Times Picayune was also on the latest developments like white on rice including this editorial in yesterday’s paper that is well worth repeating:

But it’s important that, just as investigators are going after Mr. Broussard, they also look at whether the firm’s owner or anyone else at the company broke the law.

After all, much of the corruption in public contracting would starve without firms willing to pay bribes or to participate in pay-to-play.

Stephanie Grace also checked in yesterday with a good column about the newest Broussard era turds to float to the surface thanks to Tim Whitmer and certainly the world must be closing in on Broussard and those that participated in his various criminal schemes. And with the participants to the illegal activity in Karen Parker and Tim Whitmer openly squealing things will only get worse from here.  Remember folks, Parker’s involvement with Broussard’s business interest at the Trout Point development literally date to day 1 and Whitmer knows all the dirty deals from Broussard’s ascension to the office of the Parish President in 2004.  You can bet your bottom dollar the small snippets that Team Letten has aired to this point are the tip of the iceberg of information that is currently being investigated.  I do not pretend to know where everything will end up when the grand jury finishes it’s work on the latest  allegations but it is also clear there are some very nervous individuals out there that hope their name isn’t called.

Finally it is time that I again ask that those that value the type of independent journalism we bring to the table to please support Slabbed.  I was humbled by the amount of financial support Slabbed New Media received in early February and that money brought home a treasure trove of documents from the Fox 8 case, paid initial court costs as well as funding some investigative work we had done in Canada. While Slabbed is on the economy legal plan, the removal today cost another $350 in filing fees so even the economy plan cost money. Yes, I have the resources to fight this battle but this is a community blog so I hope the community supports this endeavor, in the process helping protect everyone’s first amendment rights to comment on current events free from harassment by those with a stake in the outcome of those events.  I’ll add it is Leary and Perret’s stated intention to litigate Slabbed into bankruptcy, something they’ll never be able to come close to doing if Slabbed has community financial support. Make no mistake folks, this legal fight will determine whether Slabbed exists go forward so if you value what we bring to the table please show it.

For those that have given to the cause so generously you have my sincere thanks and appreciation. It is my hope what you see on these pages is good enough to merit your continued support. ~ sop

12 thoughts on ““The Almighty says this must be a fashionable fight. It’s drawn the finest people.” Well maybe they’re not all ‘fine’ as Slabbed updates its SPEECH Act case against the Goatherders at Trout Point Lodge”

  1. Since I have been following this story for some time now, am I to assume that you, Mr. Doug Handshoe, are being represented by counsel in this somewhat bizarre upside down proceeding ? Your post suggests that you are, and that


        The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, which serves Congress.

        8/10/2010–Public Law. (This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on July 19, 2010. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

        Securing the Protection of Our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage Act or SPEECH Act –

        Section 3 –
        Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that: (1) the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution and by the constitution and law of the state in which the domestic court is located; or (2) even if the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication did not provide as much protection for freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment to the Constitution and law of the state, the party opposing recognition or enforcement of that foreign judgment would have been found liable for defamation by a domestic court applying the First Amendment to the Constitution and the constitution and law of the state in which the domestic court is located. Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by the foreign court comported with the due process requirements imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution. Requires the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment to bear the burden of making the showing that the foreign court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with such due process requirements. Prohibits a domestic court from recognizing or enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider of an interactive computer service unless the domestic court determines that the judgment would be consistent with provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 affording protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, if the information that is the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States. Requires the party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment to bear the burden of establishing that the judgment is consistent with such provisions. Provides that an appearance by a party in a foreign court rendering a foreign judgment to which this Act applies shall not deprive such party of the right to oppose the recognition or enforcement of the judgment under this Act, or represent a waiver of any jurisdictional claims. Allows removal by any defendant to the U.S. district court for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending, without regard to the amount in controversy, of any action brought in a state domestic court to enforce a foreign judgment for defamation in which: (1) any plaintiff is a citizen of a state different from any defendant; (2) any plaintiff is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a state; or (3) any plaintiff is a citizen of a state and any defendant is a foreign state or citizen or subject of a foreign state. Provides that any U.S. person, against whom a foreign judgment is entered on the basis of the content of any writing, utterance, or other speech by that person that has been published, may bring an action in a U.S. district court for a declaration that the foreign judgment is repugnant to the Constitution of laws of the United States. Allows the award of reasonable attorney fees under certain conditions if the party opposing recognition or enforcement of the judgment prevails. Expresses the sense of the Congress that, for the purpose of pleading a cause of action for a declaratory judgment, a foreign judgment for defamation or any similar offense shall constitute a case of actual controversy under the federal judicial code.

        Jurisdictional Requirements

        The SPEECH Act states in

  2. Is the case Truitt won in 24th JDC against the alleged Green fix postable. As well as any other defamation cases he’s won.

    And isn’t he currently representing AMV versus Theriot, Jefferson Parish,et al in Federal Court.

    The Almighty also said he was sent to make the seemingly ‘wise look foolish and the foolish proven wise’. Sounds like you are taking His high road to prove the seemingly wise look a bit foolish. A.M.D.G

  3. Sharp eye Lockem. I had the pleasure of meeting Bobby as a result of our insurance blogging. The irony of lawyers that also do insurance defense working for Slabbed is rich considering our early body of work.

    That said we’ve exposed lots of dirty dealing on the plaintiff’s side too as the concept of legal ethics cuts across the entire bar, not just corporate lawyers. As such we’ve earned the respect of both sides of the bar around these parts and it shows in the composition of the Slabbed legal team.

    I’m not going to disclose strategy as I’m not a lawyer and the ones I have would not like it if I did but the possibilities in the litigation are many. A few things that come to mind are things like Aaron Broussard explaining his relationship with Trout Point in the interview he gave Val Bracy in January 2010. Karen Parker certainly knows something about Broussard’s canadian holdings according to US Attorney Jim Letten. David Loeb claims to own something involving Leary and Perret called La Ferme D’Acadie and that does not count the late Roy D’Aquila.

    I do not know how the lawyers will handle all that and the rest of this multi month saga but since the can of worms has been opened it stands to reason some of this is bound to enter into the equation.

    For those that missed it the first complaint filed by the Goatherders against me in Nova Scotia.



  4. Gee, in review there was only 86 counts or allegations against Slabbed (Broussard in the 30’s has some catching up to do) but the most comical, yet defamatory nonetheless, has to be the statement that should resound nicely off the old interior walls of the U.S.District Court of Mississippi:

    “87. Leary and Perret feared imminent contact and harm from obviously mentally unstable individuals from the deep south of the United States.”

  5. That paragraph 87 demonstrates how when you are over confident and play with guns how easily you can almost or sometimes shoot yourself in the foot.

    And the following video played is a parody analogy on such principal and does not express any desire of this commenter or Slabbed to shoot anyone in the foot or otherwise.*


    * Having to file such disclaimers above before a parody video is shown takes all the entertainment out but it does protect oneself from possible subsequent ridiculous legal allegations.

Comments are closed.