File this one under the more things change, the more they stay the same……

We have a must read alert from Paul Purpura!

Kenner murder suspect’s bond halved then doubled by different Jefferson Parish judges

Evidently the ghosts of Operation Wrinkled Robe still actively haunt the Gretna Courthouse.

He comes from a “long line of corruptors”: Slabbed truth checks Sal Perricone’s assertions about grand jury target Fred Heebe.

The case: Kern v K-Mart
The Judge: Frederick JR Heebe
Lawyer for Kern: Former Heebe Law Clerk Kyle Shonekas and Claude Lightfoot
Lawyers for K-Mart: King Krebs Jurgans, Milling Benson Woodward and others
Key ruling: Docket #84, Plaintiff’s objection to impeachment video of Kern sustained. K-Mart claims video clearly shows plaintiff vastly overstated the extent of his injuries for an accident involving his 12 year old vehicle.
Trial result: Finds for defendant K-Mart, Plaintiff makes motions for New Trial

HEEBE, District Court Judge

Thus, in accordance with the facts of this case and the legal standards set by Louisiana and federal law, the Court makes the following findings. In considering the facts in a light favorable to K–Mart, the Court finds that reasonable men could differ as to whether K–Mart was negligent. However, in weighing the evidence, the Court finds that the great weight of the evidence supports a finding that K–Mart was negligent.

Accordingly, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the motion of plaintiff, Arthur Kern, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff, Arthur Kern, for new trial be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.

This ruling can not be appealed. Next up Judge Heebe recuses himself giving no reasons.

Before the court in the above-captioned matter are (1) Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Motion for New Trial, which is opposed by Plaintiff, and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Additional Expert Witness, which is opposed by Defendant. The Motions are before the court on briefs, without oral argument.

This matter was originally tried before a jury in Section “B” of this court during the week of January 10, 1991. Following a jury verdict in favor of Defendant, the presiding judge (Chief Judge Heebe) granted Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial, assigning extensive reasons. Judge Heebe then rescued himself from further consideration of the matter, and the case was transferred to this section. Continue reading “He comes from a “long line of corruptors”: Slabbed truth checks Sal Perricone’s assertions about grand jury target Fred Heebe.”

Judge Walker orders ANOTHER settlement conference in Politz v Nationwide

A “settlement conference” is somewhat a mystery to me.  I read about them in scheduling orders and, when  a case makes it to that point, I also read the docket entry:Pages from DktRpt Politz thru 4 23 09

At times I’ve seen a notice on a docket reminding both parties that each is to submit a settlement proposal to the court prior to the meeting.  All of this led me to believe these conferences are very proper, formal meetings and nothing I’ve read has suggested more than one  is scheduled by the court – or rather nothing I’ve read until last week:politzMediatorMeltdown

What you see on the Politz docket for 7/28/09 is a TEXT ONLY ORDER issued by Judge Senter setting the Expedited Briefing Schedule Respectfully Requested by Counsel for Mrs. Politz with the Motion for Review of and Objection to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Mrs. Politz’s motion to designate her own mental health expert.

Counsel for Mrs. Politz also requested a hearing on the Motion; BUT, what you see in the three entries above Judge Senter’s Order is a Notice of Hearing Settlement Conference – and who’s idea was that? Judge Walker’s?  Is this cartoon from Nowdy’s newest favorite, LawComix, a more accurate view of a settlement conference than the formal meeting I had in mind?  Continue reading “Judge Walker orders ANOTHER settlement conference in Politz v Nationwide”