What can I say folks but time flies when you’re having fun!
New Orleans Traffic Court Judge Ronald Sholes to step down ~ John Simerman
Sholes himself was found to have interceded in dozens of cases on behalf of traffic scofflaws in 1999 and 2000, although there was no evidence that he took anything for doing it. Sholes defended the practice, saying traffic law violators often have a hard time gaining access to the prosecutors who have the authority to dismiss their tickets.
Yo Rafael Welcome to Slabbed. Perdigao rats out Sholes ~ Slabbed circa June 2008
And that ended up on the front page of the Sunday Times Picayune where Gordon Russell gave Slabbed its major first cross over hat tip.
Although not exactly good news, its the best there is to offer those concerned about USA Letten’s involvement in USA v Perdigao.
The Court determined that Deputy Chief Fred Harper and U.S. Attorney Jim Letten did not and will not have any direct involvement in the prosecution of the Defendant.
Otherwise, the news from the docket today is Judge Fallon’s Order and Reasons for denying motion for reconsideration of order denying motion for recusal and evidentiary hearing
The parties informed the Court in March of 2008 that plea negotiations had broken down and that a new trial date needed to be selected. The Court held a status conference Continue reading “Fallon issues Order and Reasons in Perdiago case”
As Sally James reminded us yesterday, the Perdigao “hearing” where nothing was going to be said was scheduled for yesterday. (this is criminal case, by the way, and not RICO)
There is nothing on the docket indicating the hearing actually took place. However, there are three related items that we’ve not reported – one filed yesterday.
First, the USA did reply to Perdiago’s motion for an evidentiary hearing – the most recent Slabbed post here for those who need background.
Stated otherwise and rebutting any valid reconsideration claim of overlooked or new law, this Court’s Order & Reasons rests on settled and applied Fifth Circuit caselaw against a pretrial hearing in these circumstances.
There is no basis to attack this consensus of Fifth Circuit law, or its straightforward application made by this Court. Indeed, the Court cites and applies no fewer than five Fifth Circuit decisions confirming that Rule 12 does not obligate a district court to hold an evidentiary hearing unless a defendant first has presented facts which would entitle him to the legal relief requested. Order & Reasons, at 3 (citing caselaw). Perdigao makes no effort to answer this controlling authority, either legally or factually.
As the Court made clear, citing Fifth Circuit direction, “to conduct a detailed evidentiary hearing into the merits of speculative and conclusory claims would be ‘tantamount to a fishing expedition.’” Continue reading “The latest pieces in the puzzle known as USA v Perdigao”