At this point I’d like to remind everyone of the economic concept of signalling. This concept is interdisciplinary in application and my limited experience is one place it applies is in the practice of law. Assuming a lawyer has the sense not to BS a judge a party to litigation will often self reveal facts.
I mention this because I detected some signalling in the appeal of Magistrate Wilkinson’s order thus the post title. Whether or not the T-P’s lawyers are BSing on the signal sent is the only question left in my mind. The early pre-appeal predictions are that Judge Lemmon would not overrule Magistrate Wilkinson. We shall see.
Jason Berry adds to the Aircheck intrigue in USA v Jackson via his post the $th Estate. The bottom line is there are a large number engaged individuals that believe Fred Heebe had a mole inside the Times Picayune and that is how Team Heebe outed Sal Perricone and company for commenting on pending criminal cases and secret grand jury proceedings.
I’ll have more in another post a bit later. Feel free to add your own links
Full docket text for document 52:
ORDER ON MOTION. In response to The Times-Picayune, L.L.C.’s Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Order, Record Doc. No. 49, my office requested counsel for the parties expeditiously to provide their positions in writing. They have done so by letters I have directed to be filed separately in the record. Assistant United States Attorney Fred P. Harper, Jr., counsel of the government, has no objection. Edward J. Castaing, Jr., on behalf of defendant, has no objection to a short extension of the deadline from February 19 to February 21, 2014, but he objects to the requested extension through February 28, 2014, for the reasons contained in his letter. Having considered these submissions, I accept the supporting reasons proffered by The Times-Picayune, including logistical necessity and provision of the full 14 days from entry of my order for making objections provided in Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the deadline set forth in this court’s order of February 14, 2014, Record Doc. No. 47, is hereby extended to February 28, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. In the interest of maintaining the current schedule for trial and other deadlines in this case, however, The Times-Picayune is encouraged either to file its objections or produce the materials to me for in camera review as soon as possible in advance of this deadline, which I will not extend again. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr on 2/18/14. (tbl)
That the US Attorney commenting scandal was in full bloom and the rumor mill was in overdrive and this little project was featured in several of the rumors. Heck I may have even started one or two of ’em for kicks. That said one I did not originate and my all time favorite rumor was the one favored for an extraordinarily long time in certain Jefferson parish political circles which held that I was in actuality, Anne Marie Vandenweghe’s brother. This in turn can only mean that the ignorance was stunning. Lest I digress.
And now this slightly edited reader email which I thought interesting on a couple of levels:
In the above-cited article, WWL TV reporter David Hammer posed this question: Why does Praveen Kailas seem to get special treatment at every turn?
One possibility is because people who are developers, or are in a family or clique of developers, or are partners of a principal developer in a deal, have direct and indirect relationships with silent partners who are usually powerful people. The silent partners receive interests in the deal for their help in helping the deals succeed. A continuing interest helps the deal continue to succeed. The silent partners are often public officials who the system does not want to expose. People like Praveen Kailas sometimes lead the deal, but often they ride the coattails of principal developers who are closer to the silent partners. To keep control tight, the principal will intimate to all his or her other partners that there is a powerful silent partner in the deal who has a piece of it, but whose name must not be revealed.
It has always been puzzling that reporters who have have indications of the kinds of relationships described above seem to shy away from going the extra mile to learn whether there are silent partners being in and protecting deals. I think Mr. Hammer may have some such indications, yet he posed the question he did without trying to answer it. Apparently, he has not tried to learn all the deals in which Mr. Kailas has an interest and the names of all the other partners in the deals. Are readers supposed to do his work for themselves after he indicates to his readers that “special treatment” may be taking place? Is it really journalism to just pose a question and move on in spite of the fact that trying to answer the question or showing possible explanations from other factual circumstances could be an even bigger story? Continue reading “From the reader mailbag: Hammerman……..”
Some skeptics see the Internet as competition for or somehow detrimental to newspapers. But the AOR study — and all other serious media research — document that the Internet has become a most effective tool for extending newspaper readership. News is one of the primary reasons people use the Internet, and newspapers are by far the largest contributors to factual news content (as opposed to blogs, gossip and opinions) on the Web.
Paint me a skeptic and I have two words that well give the reason why as the following was handed to the Sun Herald on a silver platter and they choose to ignore it.
Hardly confidence inspiring. But it isn’t one blog that constitutes the threat, rather it is the social media in its entirety. After all, with Twitter who needed a journalist to cover the doings with Occupy Wall Street protest well after the fact on paper? Such is a growing trend, unlike the top line at the S/H’s corporate parent McClatchy.
What do the numbers at McClatchy say? They paint a far different picture because on May 10, 2013 McClatchy’s quarterly financials were filed and buried on page 3 of the MD&A is what most companies normally highlight on page 1 of same: