29 thoughts on “Must See/Read: DHECC – An ex parte “partey””

    1. Judges give themselves a fair amount of discretion in how they resolve cases but with the level of national media attention directed at this case it sure does not look good to the public.

      BP has a lot of money. Corporate cash took out Dick Scruggs. IMHO the same dynamics are at work in this case. Like the insurance litigation here after Katrina, too much money is at stake for the fight not to get down and dirty.

    2. A-Holey Hemorrhoidal Drilling Drama Batman,

      And BP is a bunch of bloody liars bout’ the crude they were gushing every freakin’ day into the pristine marshes of Louisiana and Mississippi. No crabs , no oysters, very few big trout , dying dolphins, shrimp with tumors, tar balls, no sand crabs for Al Scrumuzza to boil ….

      So karma is taking its toll on the Brits and sending a message that if you want to drill off our petroleum rich shores then you better get your bloody sh*t together and do it to perfection or else done get ready and relax fo’ a 50 BILLION bloody, angular drilling up the kazoo by the Fed judicial system.

  1. This is much ado about nothing. My disclaimer is that I have nothing to do with the BP litigation. Rule 53 specifically permits what the judge, magistrate and administrator were doing. Does anyone really think that if they were going to violate the rules, they would do it in public? Someone is seeing ghosts where there are only shadows.

      1. Doug:

        You already know I’m not an attorney, and I’m not trying to give legal opinions or advice, and perhaps Prince will give us the benefit of his legal knowledge on this subject, but I don’t think Rule 53 automatically confers a right on a special master allowing them to have ex parte communications with the court or any party.

        Prince: I’m usually up pretty late, so please ask Doug to post the order setting the circumstances, if any, in which Juneau may communicate ex parte with the court or a party?

        Kevin LeMaire

    1. Much to do about nothing? Shadows? Rule 53? Sorry but this reeks but it apparently the norm in both state and federal courts. I personally think most judges feel they can do what they want whether legal or not.

    2. One additional clarification: Ex parte /ˌɛks ˈpɑrtiː/ is a Latin legal term meaning “from (by or for) [the/a] party”. An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., South African, Indian and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.

      1. And so what does any of your history lesson have to do with the propriety of a Rule 53 administrator having lunch with the judge and the magistrate judge?

    3. “Does anyone really think that if they were going to violate the rules, they would do it in public?”

      Absolutely. With Rule 53 acting as their shield, why wouldn’t they discuss ALL business over a lovely meal and some fine wine? All they have to do is deny they had any improper discussions. Who’s going to be able to prove otherwise, particularly when the court doesn’t allow discovery or any meaningful inquiry into these gatherings?

      Anyone who thinks they wouldn’t is gullible and living in another legal world.

      1. Then I look forward to seeing BP’s motion relative to this lunch and the complaint to the 5th Circuit, which handles disciplinary complaints against U.S. District Judges and Magistrate Judges. Why doesn’t one of you go ahead and make it?

        1. Well, I’m not BP. That’s just another misguided assumption on your part.

          Do you know or are you familiar with Special Master Francis McGovern?

          1. Wow, and I’ve been accused of not reading. I certainly did not say, or imply, that you or AZ were BP. It’s not a misguided assumption. I know who you are from your previous comments wherein you identified yourself. Your grudge against one trial lawyer does not dirty them all by implication, although you wish it were otherwise. Your hysterical, unproven conspiracy theories don’t apply here. Like I said, if you think they do, stop whining, and file a complaint.

            1. Call the facts and my work whatever you like. It’s all true. You don’t see anybody filing any complaints or suits against me in this or any other country, do you?

              I have to admit, I don’t know who you are. But, you sound like you’re a friend of the judge; definitely too uptight to be a Juneau supporter.

              You’re the one who threw out the Rule 53 defense. I’m not a lawyer (Thank God), but I haven’t been able to locate an order that complies with Rule 53? Can you get a copy?

              1. Prince: If not a copy of the order, can you at least post the docket number or date of the order? Thanks.

              2. Prince Puppet:

                Are you going to admit there is no Rule 53 order in the BP litigation involving Pat Juneau’s appointment as a special master or claims administrator?

                Are you going to admit there is no court order in the BP litigation specifically setting out the circumstances, if any, in which Juneau may communicate ex parte with the court?

                Do you know of any circumstances that required the judge, magistrate and claims administrator to meet ex parte?

                Will you voluntarily identify yourself here on Slabbed?

              3. What I won’t do is subject myself to the withering cross-examination of a frustrated, hysterical paralegal.

            2. Prince Puppet:

              Your statement that I’m a “frustrated and hysterical paralegal” is offensive, completely wrong and slanderous. My reputation as a paralegal is of the utmost importance to me. The numerous, distinguished, honest and ethical attorneys in Louisiana for which I work also value my reputation as an excellent, honest paralegal.

              In addition, I am deeply concerned that you are a friend of Judge Barbier or Magistrate Shushan and may offer him/her some ex parte, slanderous assessment of me or my employers who do have cases in the EDLA.

              Please identify yourself here on Slabbed, or send me an email ([email protected]) providing your personal identification information.

              You should have just admitted you were wrong about Rule 53 applying to the ex parte meal/meeting.

              Kevin LeMaire

              1. Prince Puppet:

                I’ve made a formal demand to Douglas K. Handshoe, administrator or mediator of Slabbed, to remove your slanderous comment. I’ve also asked him to provide me with your real identity without requiring me to take the legal steps necessary to discover it.

                Doug Handshoe won’t remove your offensive comment because he wants me to put on my big boy pants and fight my own battles. He’s pissed at me for not becoming part of his plan to file a group of lawsuits against another blog in order to help him fight his own battles against the people from Nova Scotia. Because I’m an honest, credible paralegal, I refused to do what Doug Handshoe asked me.

                So, PP, it looks like I have to find your identity the hard way. No problem. It’s what I do for a living. I’m thinking you’re a local trial lawyer who is close to Judge Barbier.

            3. Prince Puppet:

              Just a little FYI – doing some research and found where Doug Handshoe has represented to a court in sworn legal pleadings that I’m a respected paralegal and knowledgeable source on the Louisiana class action legal community.

              So, as the operator/host of Slabbed, he, like many, many others, know what you’ve posted on his blog about me while hiding behind your pseudoname is false. But, your false statements remain published on Slabbed. I’m disappointed in Doug after all the help I’ve given him these many years in battling pseudonamed defamers like you.

              But, none of that changes the fact that you, a practicing attorney, were dead wrong about the “Rule 53” ex parte meeting between your friend and Pat Juneau, and you won’t admit you were wrong.

        2. Sorry! A couple more questions for you, Prince.

          Have you seen a Rule 53 Order appointing Juneau and setting the circumstances, if any, in which he may communicate ex parte with the court or a party?

          Have you seen the actual Orders appointing him as the Claims Administrator of the Transition Process, and the Claims Administrator of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement? Can you point to me the language in those orders setting the circumstances, if any, in which Juneau may communicate ex parte with the court or a party?

  2. The rule was established at the beginning of the settlement. Yes, they are technically allowed to meet but in lieu of the allegations brought against Juneau by BP, this meeting is questionable to say the least. They should have had a court reporter present or allowed a BP lawyer to be present as well. Also, if Juneau paid it takes on a whole different dimension.

    1. Dude, you’re good at what you do for the most part, but you are way off base here. So, they are “technically allowed to meet,” but you want to make it seem like they are doing something criminal by doing so? Please.

  3. Says the guy who just changed his own accusation and claims he doesn’t have a dog in the hunt. Right.

    I’ve been writing this story for nearly two years and you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. You may want to read the Freeh report and the charges brought up against Christine Reitano and Lionel Sutton, both criminal accusations and ethical violations, before you tell me what I don’t comprehend. This judge has continually hidden both the PSC members and Pat Juneau’s transgressions behind his robe from the beginning of this settlement. I recently showed where Juneau clearly committed perjury, the exact charge made against Reitano, and Barbier nor the Freeh group have done a damn thing.

    Reitano, on the other hand, did not commit perjury as Freeh accused her but she can’t prove this in court because Barbier won’t allow further discovery by her lawyers and has buried her own wrongful termination suit against BP. This past two years were a litany of unethical actions by Carl Barbier to hide the transgressions of the PSC and Juneau, this is simply the latest.

    Puppet on, brah….puppet on. I’ll keep “treading in areas I don’t comrehend” and we’ll see what comes out in the end.

Leave a Reply

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