As predicted, the 24th JDC Division D race heads into the sewer (Updated)

I tell you folks there is nothing quite like a down and dirty campaign for public office, Louisiana style.

I searched Youtube for the latest Hilary Landry commercial featuring an older woman that was in an abusive relationship that was not happy with the job Scott Schlegel did protecting her from her former hubby but could not find it.  Let’s see if it pops up online later.

Update: Scott Schlegel has responded to the ad via his Facebook page:

Politics. As expected, the false, negative campaign has ramped up. The mailer that is hitting mailboxes today is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. And the liberties that were taken are shameful for any candidate, especially a judicial candidate. Please take a look at the actual email and the mailer to see what is missing before the word “Had.” There will be more to come on this issue. Integrity is the most important quality in a judge.


14 thoughts on “As predicted, the 24th JDC Division D race heads into the sewer (Updated)”

  1. B. A Judge or Judicial Candidate Shall:

    (1) maintain the dignity appropriate to judicial office and act in a manner consistent with the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary;

  2. Hey, if you run on your record (or more accurately, your own made-up version), be on notice that your record just might be examined.

      1. That victim Cathy Jacob made an attack commercial for Debbie Villio in the Villio/Rowan race – she said the same stuff and referenced the same case. ???

  3. If hilary landry is following in the same dishonest footsteps of the last pos “go to girl” backed by ALL the JP political mobsters, then like villio – she gotta go!

  4. It says “by no fault of your own”, but did Jacobs know whether or not the fault was his at that time? Importantly, she also says “I was not even notified that you had been assigned the case”, which seems to be a pretty basic aspect of legal representation (notifying clients, victims, key witnesses) when you assume representation of a matter, especially if a hearing or trial is looming.

    So the Schlegal rebuttal looks good at a glance, but by reading the full text it’s still pretty clear that he dropped the ball, whether Jacobs even realized it at the time or not.

    1. Right, and it depends on what the definition of “is” is. You can lawyer-spin this all you want, but the omission of her acknowledgement sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl.

      1. Huh?
        “Lawyer-spin”? Seems pretty clear and easy to comprehend to me.

        I don’t know the extent of an ADA’s duty to a victim/witness (compared to a traditional attorney-client relationship) but if there was a hearing and the woman hadn’t even been advised who was handling the case, much less the fact of the approaching court date, how is that NOT a failure to some degree?

        And again, the “omission” looks flashy and “gotcha!”, but it’s very common that clients/witnesses/etc., don’t understand who is supposed to do what or who failed to do what in the legal system.

        So her writing “by no fault of your own” was based on her own subjective and (likely) very limited understanding of whose fault it was or may have been.

        The woman hadn’t even been told who was handling the case, how is she expected to have known whose fault something is?

Leave a Reply

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