Doomsday for the former Goatherder in Chief?

Former Goatherder in Chief Aaron Broussard
Former Goatherder in Chief Aaron Broussard / Image via the Times Picayune / NOLA Media Group

Judge declines to toss out Katrina flooding lawsuit against Aaron Broussard and Jefferson Parish ~ Paul Purpura

Peytavin noted there were too many questions concerning Broussard’s credibility to make the pretrial judgments. The judge twice noted in his three rulings that Broussard has given only one deposition.

Something tells me Darleen Jacobs’ people will not be the only ones making the trip to the Federal Pen in Butner North Carolina to depose the former Goatherder in Chief. If I may be so bold to suggest a full fleshing out of this evacuation to Mount Hermon Louisiana nonsense because that is exactly what Broussard and his doomsday plan are: complete nonsense.

My own considered opinion is Broussard intentionally flooded the Parish via abandonment of the pumps so he and his cronies could partake in some disaster crony capitalism that resulted from the flooding. At least that is what a preponderance of the evidence tells me. I’m proud Slabbed contributed to the knowledge base that is the Broussard Flood of 2005. Speaking of that knowledge base, these three archival posts from Nowdy are must reads on this topic:

Within 75 days of the last post, Nowdy, along with 4 other Slabbed commenters’ privacy was tortiously violated by Charles Leary and Vaughn Perret of Trout Point Lodge in a Nova Scotia courtroom via a case to which Nowdy nor the others was a named party. That abuse of process perpetrated by Leary and Perret on behalf of Aaron Broussard in the Louisiana Media SLAPP suit is the current subject of civil litigation here in Mississippi.

7 thoughts on “Doomsday for the former Goatherder in Chief?”

  1. Notwithstanding what one might read in the Newspaper (NOT a “knock” against Mr. Purpura), some “issues” may continue to swirl around this case, pre-trial. The first is whether the DENIAL of the Motion(s) for Summary Judgment is appealable. And I say that, since “governmental immunity” was an issue, and an issue of law at that, Broussard, the Parish and the Drainage District MAY appeal (or would it be done by Writ Application?). Does anyone out there in The SLABBED Nation disagree? The second is “the jury trial issue”. The Louisiana Governmental Claims act DOES NOT ALLOW trial by jury against political subdivisions of the State. So why all this “talk” about “jury trial”? Can any of the lawyers involved in this case READ? I invite anyone in The SLABBED Nation to disagree with me. And WHEN – I said WHEN – will the plaintiffs’ lawyers move to recuse Judge Peytavin, whose son (and the son’s lawfirm) has represented the Parish FOR YEARS, and still does, earning HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, if not MILLIONS? Is THIS the Judge that the plaintiffs’ lawyers REALLY want to decide this case should it ever go to trial? I mean ARE YOU ALL CRAZY? Ashton O’Dwyer (Disbared, disgraced and humiliated lawyer by education, who filed the FIRST claims filed as a result of “The Broussard Flood”, but in Federal, not State, Court – presumably my clients were “scooped-up” by the current crop of plaintiffs’ lawyers, some of whom were DIRECTLY INVOLVED in my disbarment). AROD.

    1. Caption for Broussard’s picture ? :

      ” Damit, Calhoun dat bigass bandage bees sew heavy wit’ bullshit it gotts me heed tilted and da’ dump flies circlin’ me blues cheese, moonface like satellites. On da’utter foot da’ big ear might done caught me some alien attorney advice fom’ deep space.”

  2. Dwyer, you full well know the answer to that depends on whether or not the court certified the judgment as final. Certainly the plaintiffs had no incentive to ask for such certification and the fact that the defense shills representing the Jefferson kleptocracy did not do so is puzzling, given the usual tendency of a defense attorney to run the meter especially when the taxpaying suckers foot the bill – unless the defense attorneys are adroit at stretching this matter into the bailiwick of the Supreme Jesters, where it WILL go.

    The leading criteria for granting a writ is if the decision eliminates a defendant from the equation. You would think then this is a matter ripe for writ. The odds are that the consigliere for the Jefferson Kleptos figure they are better off milking this case all the way and not risking cutting into their overall billable hours.

    Got to wonder what the taxpaying sheeple of Jeffersonland think about the matter. They are flooded by their own government which then turns around and flips them off, while using funds extorted from the taxpaying sheeple to finance the “flip.” But then, given those facts, the sheeple must love getting fleeced.

  3. To The SLABBED Nation: One additional “tidbit” which I aver supports my belief that something Machiavellian is, and has been, happening in the Broussard Flood cases: Fairly early in the State Court litigation, I got a “personal” telephone call from Judge Peytavin himself, something that made me EXTREMELY UNCOMFORTABLE because lawyers and Judges are PROHIBITED from having ex parte conversations about pending cases. Peytavin was insistent, however. He said he had called to inform me that he had only recently learned that his female law clerk, who was working on the Broussard Flood cases, was MARRIED to a lawyer who worked in the Jefferson Parish Attorney’s Office. He asked whether that presented me and my clients with any “problem”. I answered “NO”, so long as the law clerk was taken off the case, and a “Chinese Wall” was erected in Chambers between her and the case. Peytavin remained on the case and did not recuse himself over this incident, which is important for two separate reasons: (1) Peytavin obviously KNEW what a “conflict of interests” was; and (2) Peytavin FAILED TO DISCLOSE to me or others the far more significant conflict of interests presented by the fact that his very own son (and the son’s law firm) was representing the Parish in significant litigation, had done so for years, and planned to continue to do so. This (no.2), to me, is REPREHENSIBLE, and grounds for a Misconduct Complaint against Peytavin to the Judiciary Commission, not to mention his immediate recusal in the Broussard Flood cases. Who disagrees with me (besides Judge Peytavin and his son)? Ashton O’Dwyer.

    1. Hey, Ashton, is there any reason why assistant parish attorney Buckley is so desperately protecting deponents in the Broussard case from having to answer tough questions, particularly when the questions are of no concern to his role as an attorney protecting the interests of the Jefferson Parish government?

      You’d think E.Ross Buckley was private counsel for the deponents, and NOT a parish attorney, from reading the depositions!

  4. To “EMPIRE”: I am not privy to ANY of this, have not attended a deposition, and have never read a complete transcript. Two observations: (1) What is Ross Buckley (a distant relative of Wm. F. Buckley) doing making objections on the record when the Parish is represented by the Burglass Tankersley firm? (2) My speculation is that Buckley and the entire Jefferson Parish Attorney’s Office are ALL CO-CONSPIRATORS to obstruct justice in the Broussard Flood litigation, to ensure that “the truth” never sees the light of day, and to ensure that “willful misconduct” cannot be visited on Aaron and others, so that there can be NO RECOVERY by the plaintiffs, all thanks to the Fifth Circuit’s obviously politically-motivated ruling that “simple negligence’ is unavailable to the plaintiffs for their damages. Ashton O’Dwyer.

    1. If this is the result of genetic loading from the Buckley clan, you see at least one reason for sterilization.

Comments are closed.