A case study in infantilization? Most call it basic professionalism. A Guest post from Mr Timeline.

If Abel was not Broussard’s partner, he should have taken steps to have his name listed separately in the 5th Circuit’s records so that his name would appear separately on the attached documents. See highlighted parts. Abel is responsible for the confusion. He wanted his cake and to eat it too. When it suited and benefited him, he wanted to appear associated with Broussard. When the fit hit the shan, he wanted to appear disassociated. That’s exactly what lawyers are not supposed to do.

Carr v Abel

9 thoughts on “A case study in infantilization? Most call it basic professionalism. A Guest post from Mr Timeline.”

  1. But it is exactly what Douchebags do….so he is being consistant with his core personality…He is one with the bag at all times…..

    1. I think I’m starting to perhaps see it ever so clearly now Mr.Abel. When you want favoritism before the La. Fifth Circuit panel hearing your appellate case you want to be all warm, snugly and fuzzy with him, using his political “appeal” to your personal benefit.

      Then after your “love-in” when someone makes note of your “appealing” association you coyly flip the switch, allege defamation of your fine character and prestigious Super 8 address for $$$$$ and you kick his butt out in the cold like he has leprosy.

      As the old funny St.Bernard political ad once said,” It doesn’t look good Larry, it just doesn’t look good.”

  2. The retraction forced upon South Coast Today made Danny Abel stand out as petty and mean spirited. Especially when you look at the court record and see these documents.

  3. Kamerden, this is simply the old political pull “appearance” found throughout court filings galore. Only a fool of a judge in some hinterland (hint: Canada) would not recognize the shennanigan for what it is.

  4. As a man on the street, it feels reasonable to me that Abel and Broussard worked together as partners (common use definition) of some kind on this matter. They must have had some agreement to work together and that agreement is probably in writing somewhere.

    Now, there must be a “legal” definition of “partner” on which Abel, etc. are hanging their hyper-technical hat.

    What work did Broussard do in this matter is my question.

  5. Broussard has started his ‘I am not a crook’ show and it is based on ‘you didn’t catch me’ thus ‘I am not guilty’.

    The problem as Judge Head pointed out is there hasn’t been a proper and thorough investigation.

Leave a Reply

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