Now that early voting has begun Division D, 24th JDC is on my mind….

Especially the communication I received yesterday in response to the post I did on the donnybrook Division D judicial race between Hilary Landry and Scott Schlegel via the Telefunken U47 which said:

The victim that is speaking on the commercial for Hilary Landry also made a commercial for Debbie Villio in her 2006 race against Donnie Rowan – same victim, same case, almost the same exact script. Buisson was also Villio’s manager.

This person is speaking of the TeeVee commercial and mailer disseminated by Team Landry featuring Cathy Sheppard Jacob, whom evidently surfaces in every Greg Buisson run judicial campaign to trash one or the two remaining candidates, invariably associated with the District Attorney’s office by local political custom. Ms Jacobs appears to be a paid shill monetizing a messy divorce beginning with the first Debbie Villio campaign for Judge.

That’s well and good, Landry was a distant second in the primary election and taking the low road works or else political candidates wouldn’t do it. That said, while Scott Schlegel plays the part of squeaky clean assistant prosecutor I hear this from a lawyer that whose opinion I trust:

I think Schlegel will be a bad judge for plaintiffs

He may be – there is a Landry Ad running saying how the overwhelming majority of the cases heard in the 24th JDC are civil cases, an area of the law an assistant criminal prosecutor would have little experience. More often than not these criminal type lawyer cats tend to default to some simple minded Heartland Institute talking point and use it as a major part of the heuristics process involved with adjudicating a civil case.  What you end up on the other end is something like Versai Management v Clarendon America Insurance Company et al and that is not justice folks.

Regardless Team Landry is pulling out all the stops as the campaign heads into the final stretch. The food fight should be fun to watch.


48 thoughts on “Now that early voting has begun Division D, 24th JDC is on my mind….”

  1. Doug, after reading your question under another blog as to how ‘a criminal trial can be delayed 5 years’, I recommend citizens voting for the “squeaky clean” 24th JDC candidate, Schlegel.

    Ms.Landry has falsely portrayed herself as a supreme drug prosecutor in front of a live jury. Truth is – she has never tried a criminal drug case before a jury.

    “Squeaky clean” candidates don’t rudely interrupt other candidates at political forums.

    “Squeaky clean” candidates may not be a plaintiff’s judge but they are not going to order baseless Sasoone-type judgments for plaintiffs represented by political friend lawyers either.

    “Squeaky clean” candidates also don’t use “retread” litigants( the popular political ad character Ms. Cathy Jacob)in BS mud slinging political ads.

    This election reminds me of my favorite political ad of all time that reflects the notion that ‘ you get what you see’ and ‘IT DON”T LOOK GOOD LARRY(HILARY) “

    1. Veritas: Thanks for the fact that the TP has endorsed Scott Schlegel. I do believe the TP is now more aware and very careful about endorsing a worthy candidate instead of endorsing ones that are backed by machine politics like it did before the paper crashed.

      One good thing about the JP scandal is there will be no more “champagne” lunches of TP columnists with JP politicos.

  2. Nice post there Lock – Lots of noise, zero substance. But thanks for sparing us the incredibly annoying faux Yat prose. And Veritas, that Schlegel response just might make this more interesting than it otherwise would have been, had he just owned up to screwing up a case..

    Sad thing here is that the politics is overshadowing the fact that Landry is head and shoulders the better candidate. All I hear on here against her is attacks on those that endorsed her, endorsements in general, her husband, her campaign manager, and the “Lockemuptight-type” vague character and ethical smears. No wonder people hate politics.

    1. Question: who started the mudslinging?
      Question: exactly how many civil trials has Landry handled solo?
      Question: what did Schlegle do when he was in private practice?
      Question: are we more concerned with civil lawsuits between individuals or criminal cases and the escalating murder rate in Jefferson Parish?

      1. Answer: Certainly not Landry. If we are defining “mudslinging” as attacking the candidates record, then it began with Sudderth, and once he was no longer carrying the water, Schlegel took over.
        Answer: If by “solo” you mean with no other contributions by anyone else, I’d hope she’d say none.
        Answer: Carried briefcases, churned out memos (probably by changing the caption, some legal research – the same grunt work done by the other poor schlub associates at McGlinchey. I have heard from reliable sources that he never progressed to the point where they’d even let him do a deposition, let alone open his mouth in a hearing.
        Answer: You saved the dumbest question for last. I’m most concerned with having a judge with the experience to know what anyone is talking about in all of the cases over which he/she presides. I have no doubt Schlegel and Landry would do great in the criminal cases – it’s the other 70% of the docket where there is NO comparison between these two.

    2. Themisnola:Hey bro’, yo’ no like me prose den don’t read it dumbass. Ain’t yo’ momma done teach yo’ nuttin’? Yo’ probably den read books by authors you don’t like the way dey write too, no?

      Yo’ say my prose rings hollow. Then just answer dis one question. How many criminal trials did Hilary prosecute in all her 10+ years wit’ da’ DA ?

      1. Hahahaha. Haha. Ha. You must be the life of the party with that ole gag.. Answer – more than the number of civil and domestic cases Schlegel ever handled, combined and multiplied by infinity.

  3. Themisnola, your vile rhetoric is just a dead give away….especially since your first comment ever on is defending Asbestos Plaintiff cases. No one defends something so passionately unless you have a vested interest …just like in the manner you consistently defend Mrs. Landry on slabbed and You really leave me wondering who you are? (sarcasm implied)

    1. Vile rhetoric?? Say what? It’s also pretty sad that you think my response to some dolt accusing Newell Normand of “getting some of that asbestos money” indicates ANYTHING about my identity other than that I’m sane. Better yet, pointing out that Landry is by far the best candidate, against meritless attacks on her character (some might even call it mud slinging) could only come from her husband. Rich, and pathetic.

  4. Oh I am sorry…you are right..your comments aren’t vile and they truly seem like they would come from just a regular ordinary citizen. (again sarcasm implied)

      1. lesson of Proverbs 13:20 “..he shall be known by the company he keeps…”

        I am inclined to believe, Themisnola, that one he keeps philosophic company with the likes of newell normand, hillary landry and cathy jacob; has no facility with truth and honesty.
        I see your comments as Galileo saw thoe of his accuser della colombe:
        “I pay no more heed to words that pass his lips than the gasses that pass his hinderparts.”

    1. Praise da’ Lord fo’ His Blessin’!!

      Da’ political ad hoe’,snake in da’ grass and male hatin’ vitriol spittin’ retread done slid down her muddy hole to done hid till da’ next TV election ad bustin’ ass tryin’ to elect a mechanized powered,female 24th JDC judge.

  5. Looks like all Themisnola does is spend his days on the internet defending the indefensible. I guess for once I’ve got to align myself with lockemuptight. Themisnola can throw all the baby-fits he wants, but this runoff isn’t even going to be close, and some people will have wasted a whole lot of money on a job that pays a fraction of what was spent in an attempt to buy it.

    I don’t know either of these candidates and I don’t work in the DA’s office. That seems to be what Themisnola accuses everyone of who has anything unkind to say about his heroine, which is funny because Landry touts her record in the DA’s office. Remember when she was prancing around in front of that faux-jury? Looked like a Criminal District Court courtroom to me. I wonder what judge permitted that.

    Anyway, this Buisson guy used the exact same game-plan that he used for Villio (police chiefs commercial, tough prosecutor, same domestic violence victim, etc.). It did not work then, and it won’t work now. Whatever this guy was paid was too much for his “cut and paste” campaign.

    But that misquoting of that Schlegel/Jacob e-mail took the cake. Now remember, Mrs. Landry cites her photographic memory as her greatest weakness. Presumably, she read the original e-mail before she quoted it in a flier. So based on her photographic memory, one can only conclude that she was being deceptive when she intentionally omitted the part of Ms. Jacob’s e-mail that said her not being notified about a hearing was through no fault of Schlegel. Busch League, folks.

    So Themisnola, like I said a few weeks ago, I’ll meet you back here after the runoff.

    1. If out of two candidates, neither of which you know, the one with a vastly inferior record of experience (most notably an incredible lack of any prior work in the vast majority if the county’s docket) wins, you will be victorious? You’d win, we’d all lose.

      1. Neither way is it a victory or loss for me, and you know very well there are no counties in Louisiana. Neither candidate has the experience in civil matters, which is why the Louisiana Constitution should be amended to require stricter standards for trial judges. You seem to want to engage in a battle of whose civil experience is more meager. If neither has been lead counsel in a single civil jury trial (conducting voir dire, giving an opening statement, examining and cross-examining witnesses and giving a closing argument) then they are both under-qualified in my book.

        So then, as a voter, I look to jury trial experience, and there I don’t even think it’s a close call. Nor is it a close call on integrity at this point. Personally, I just like seeing that some elections can’t be bought, and that the power-brokers in JP can’t bully the electorate like they used to.

        1. Too bad, Prince, that given the facts, neither candidate has integrity, and judging from the reactions of Boobus Jeffersoncanus, power brokers don’t have to bully the Boobus, the Boobus are quite content to slip the noose around their own necks and hit the trapdoor lever without prompting.

          1. Empire Parish: Come on man,in dis’ turd world, oxymoronic area all da’ Boobus jeffersoncanus can done do tis’ support and vote for the bestest of da’ worsetest candidates.

          2. Lock, I’ve been around a long time, and another problem for the Boobus is whenever the conflicted maggots at the Tipsy endorse anyone. I’ve been privy to info over the years showing they wallow in the very trough they criticize in public. An endorsement from the Tipsy is the same as from the elected kleptocrats.

    2. Prince Charming: Dang Prince we be in bed together as strange bed fellows on dis’ 24th JDC election issue. I tink this be da’ second time we be beddin’ together on an issue.

      Yo’ just keep yo’self way over on da’ otter edge of da’ bed and yo’ hands above da’ sheet an we bees Ok.

  6. No, Themisnola, because of Mrs. Landry’s lack of integrity, if she loses, we all win. Above experience, integrity is a must no matter what experience she touts as a part-time DA.

  7. I find it amusing that the supporters of either side blithely dismiss the fact that the power-brokers are effectively supporting both sides in this race. However you take the king’s gold, you are obligated to do the king’s bidding. The delusional assertion going about that a candidate is NOT getting support from a slimeball kleptocrat merely because slimeball is publicly for one candidate while slimeball’s staff works for the other candidate is absolute farce and simply disregard that is the way the power brokers HAVE traditionally practiced covering their bets with candidates.

    I’ve seen too much machine politics to give anyone a pass on this matter. If you are to claim purity, you can’t associate with the slimeball directly or through his agents, simple as that.

    1. Then you’ve read me wrong because I’m not giving anyone a pass. I’ve been around this for a while myself. Maybe you missed the part where I alluded to the fact that neither candidate was really qualified.

      And I agree with you. When Schlegel wins, it will be like when Ray Steib won. Suddenly, the outsider becomes and insider, and the legions from the loser’s CFC whip out their check books to attend fundraisers to defray/extinguish the new judge’s campaign debt. Then of course, when he runs as an incumbent or for the 5th Circuit, all of those power-brokers will throw their weight behind him, and he will accept the contributions and endorsements willingly.

      My point was that all of the power and money has ostensibly backed one candidate, and that candidate’s campaign is a retread that is falling apart at the seems.

      1. Haven’t missed any point you made, cuz, I cast my statements in the general. And my point is that NEITHER one can claim to be the “outsider” as both ARE insiders. Reminds me of the classic days in St.Bernard and Plaquemines Parish where you had multiple “wagers” as Clausewirtz would write.

          1. It’s a common slang for “tool” – used quite appropriately I might add. I give kudos to Empire for stating the obvious fact that this certainly not a race between an insider vs an outsider.

  8. Prince, I agree but not completely. it is a “given” of public perception that all politicians are corrupt, and no honest person would enter politics. resulting disconnect then is that we the public attempt to staff our government through political process. and whether we vote for the better or vote for the less bad, what we get is corruption. It is necessary though for their own integrity, that the public seperately and individually vote their best choice and not their worst. Often, I agree; both candidates came out of the same outhouse…but even so; all turds are not the same.

    1. Kidd; I love your short but great insightful phrase “… all turds are not the same”.

      And I can see Empoire’s input that even the least smelliness turd can polish itself on the outside to a high luster (what the public is shown) but the inside starts to decay with time from “fund raisers”.

      But if the voters don’t turn back the political machines everything goes to sh*t much faster and you get things like the “Change Order Theater” on Airline and the JP Corruption Scandal.

      If the public starts to defeat every machine backed candidate then there will be less candidates trying to get machine backing and they will have to stand on their own TRUTHFUL character and past performances.

      1. I just LOVE the widespread practice of characterizing the opposing view as “rage” or “vile” or some such drivel. Not much else left to use when you can’t address the merits of the debate. You no doubt are a very successful defense lawyer or, more probably, another Gretna car wreck clown.

        1. Funny, you started with the name-calling. I would suspect that an objective observer would think that I have addressed the merits of the debate, beyond name calling (tool, clown, too cool). And by the way, I am neither of what you guessed I am in terms of what I do for a living.

          But passablanca is dead-on in the comment below. The tenor of all of your posts/comments displays a poor temperament. In the end none of it will matter anyway.

  9. “another Gretna car wreck clown” ?
    That sounds very snobbish. But I suppose not everyone can live in Old Metairie and practice in a “fancy” law firm.
    Thank goodness for the “clowns” wherever they are—they help to keep the big defense firms in the big dough and their lawyers in the big houses in Old Metairie.
    @Themis: if your attitude and defense of Mrs. Landry is indicative of how she will be as a judge ( self-admittedly she says in her latest mailing that she is Pro-Business) then maybe she is not the candidate with the best judicial demeanor.

    1. Thank you Passablanca. I thought I was being too sensitive when I listed some questions above and Themisnola basically called me dumb. If I cannot get a civil answer when I ask a question before Mrs. Landry is elected I can only imagine what it will be like if she does win.
      And I still don’t understand about the lady who was in both the Villio and now the Landry ads. How was that about Schlegel? I tried to read as much as I could ( dumb me ) and it seems to me that Schlegel inherited that fiasco when he took over the Division cases. Doesn’t look like he had any choice about the outcome…and it looks like the lady knew it since she basically said in her email to him that it was through no fault of his.
      So Themis please don’t call me dumb or a clown or a tool or whatever else your vocabulary holds in derogatory commentary. Just answer my questions if you can …

      1. Slowly re-read my comment, and you’ll see that I did not call you “dumb.” I called you’re last question dumb, and stand that characterization. I nonetheless answered it in such a way as to highlight its “dumbness.”

    2. Oh yes, I am ate up with snobbery. I would make a horrible judge for 90% of the lawyers around here, whose arguments often sound a lot like the comments on here – evasive, unsupported, irrelevant, and downright false. The other 10% would LOVE me. But why associate my comments with Landry’s temperment, but not the garbage-spewing Schlegelites with his temperment.

      If you’re honest (a mighty big if I know), you’ll note that she is the only one being personally attacked in this race.

  10. Has Hilary Landry ever tied a jury trial, criminal or civil, as lead counsel? Please just answer, and give the case citation, if in the affirmative. Don’t attack!

    1. Has Schlegel ever tried, or even handled, a civil case? Has he ever tried, or even handled, a domestic case? Please just answer, and give the case citation, if in the affirmative. Don’t attack!

      1. Ah, the old tried and true method of avoiding a question one is loathe to answer by answering the question with a question.

        If what I read is correct, Schlegel “handled” some civil cases early in is career. Now, he may not have “managed” them as Mrs.Landry did, but I’m not even sure what that means. I suspect he has not tried or “handled” domestic cases, and probably not tried a civil case.

        Maybe you missed the comments wherein I stated that both are underqualified. And unlike you, I have no obvious agenda here or vested interest in who wins. But at least criminal jury trial experience can be beneficial in presiding over civil jury trials.

        And as the comments from others here establish, I have not been the attack-dog here.

  11. I heard that she just sent out a flyer today taking a shot at Schlegel for trying a child molestation case that hung twice. Nice – taking advantage of a kid who’s been molested and using it to promote her judicial campaign.

  12. Oh my goodness…yep she did that AND Schlegel in his mailout today shows that she intentionally left off five words from the lady’s email to Schlegel which five words showed that the lady knew Schlegel was not responsible for the dismissal. Oh my. She really is showing some huge ethical issues if she indeed is the one orchestrating these mailouts. WHO is handling her campaign?

  13. Just whose idea was it to use this Jacob e-mail yet one more time; and to have it edited from the original to omit

Leave a Reply

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