?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous
erniemenard
Some time back I read an entry at Popehat about how pro se litigants can cause bad precedent. What I think is that appellate courts are less likely to give pro se litigants the benefit of the law, simply because the litigant is pro se and ostensibly the trial judge as a matter of course is impartial and has a better grasp of the law. Moreover, are appellate courts really going to allow pro se litigants to make judges look like imbeciles?

My wife and I have run a couple of cases through the appellate system in Louisiana, right to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Throughout the process we were rarely given the benefit of the law. The following case is one of them. Please be aware that the opinion that I've linked to, and that you may read, doesn't mention at all and yet was dispositive of, an issue that the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals divested jurisdiction from the trial court judge - Sid Cates. The issue missing which the Fourth Circuit took jurisdiction of is an appeal taken from an administrative hearing to Orleans Parish Civil District Court.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1621256.html

The opinion affirms the judgment of Sid Cates denying a Writ of Mandamus. We wanted the City of New Orleans, through Pura Bascos, Director Of the Department of Safety and Permits, to demonstrate by what authority the Chief Building Inspector could issue Stop Work Orders. Our issue was that according to the Ordinances of the City of New Orleans only the Director of the Department of Safety and Permits has the authority to issue stop work orders. Furthermore, according to ordinances of the City of New Orleans, the authority is non-delegable. As referred to in the opinion, this issue was argued at municipal court and through the appellate process. The original judge, Desiree Charbonnet, after hearing the testimony and hearing the law actually read into the record by the Chief Building Inspector of the City of New Orleans, decided that he had the authority to issue stop work orders. This despite the law identifying with particularity which city official, the Director of the Department of Safety and Permits, had the non-delegable authority to issue stop work orders.

And yes, the law was fully briefed with references to the record throughout. The briefs were prepared in accordance with the requirements of each court as the appeal reached that level.

SMH

Additionally, the opinion concerns a writ of Mandamus. The court explains what Mandamus is in the opinion. Bear in mind, if you read the opinion that:

1) The City of New Orleans is a corporation.
2) The 4th Circuit decided, around-about 1968, that individual departments of the The City of New Orleans were also corporations.
3) The Director of the Department of Safety and Permits is an officer of each corporation.
4) The New Orleans City Council is the legislative arm of the City of New Orleans.
5) The Director of the Department of Safety and Permits, by allowing the Chief Building Inspector to issue stop work orders, usurped the authority of the
New Orleans City Council.
6) If the Chief Building Inspector took it upon himself to issue stop work orders, he acted as an officer of the corporation as an officer is the only
person allowed to issue stop work orders. The stop work order he issued was facially defective in multiple ways:
A) Personal service is required of stop work orders, the stop work order was taped to the front door. [an issue at trial]
B) Stop work orders are only applicable to work regulated by the Code of the City of New Orleans. [an issue at trial as we were doing nothing regulated
by the Code when we were cited - as a matter of fact, my wife was cleaning the exterior of the house with soap and water and I had been cleaning
some minor debris from under the house.]
So, the stop work order issued by the Chief Building Inspector, John Odom, usurped the authority of the New Orleans City Council.
2 comments or Leave a comment
I'm wondering whether I should write about a legal situation that has occurred over the course of the past two years in which, yet again, the judiciary has failed to apply the law. I'm talking about a situation where a conviction has been upheld, contrary to the statutory law and Louisiana Supreme Court precedent exactly on point, by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I mean no gray area whatsoever. To top it off, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied certiorari.

There is another legal situation in which the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals divested the Orleans Parish Civil District Court of jurisdiction and then attempted to bury the issues. Among the issues is an issue where the City of New Orleans has blight adjudication procedures that proceed contrary to the law. Why would the Fourth Circuit want to bury this? Well, it could be that the some of the adjudicative judges were lawyers that were hired in a manner contrary to the stipulations mandated in the New Orleans City Charter. Some of these lawyers have been judges.

You may be wondering why any of this could be important to anyone. Well, it could be important to at least one criminal defense attorney whose house was torn down after Hurricane Katrina because the house had mold in it. What if the judge that ordered the demolition did not have the legal authority to order the demolition? Would this make a difference? Frankly, in Louisiana, probably not.
3 comments or Leave a comment
   Well, I've begun my website dedicated to Jarret Cohen. Please bear in mind that I'm just excercising my First Amendment rights in the marketplace of ideas. The website is under construction so it's not much to look at yet. The website will be a journal type that will allow comments. I may have to moderate the comments if I get comments similar to: 'I came in Jarret Cohen's mouth, guys in my high school used to do it all the time.'

   Of course you realize that I'm not stating as a fact that I came in Jaret's mouth - what I'm saying is that I will not allow comments like this. Unless of course someone is willing to post a comment non-anonymously, because that person would be stating as a fact that that he came in Jarret Cohen's mouth.

www.Jarret-Cohen-in-the-closet.com
Leave a comment
   The request I made of Jarret would only require that he have internet access. Jarret told me, via e-mail, that he's out of the United States at this time in a country where he has limited internet access so he won't be able to grant my request until such time as he returns to the United States.

   In a follow-up e-mail Jarret tells me that he's slightly researched me online and determined that I come from a decent [Caucasian], hard working [not on welfare] family and to just be patient. Moreover, he told me he expects my vile and malicious post [the first one in this series] to be taken down. His tone had changed, very slightly, after the first post. Nonetheless, that self-righteousness remained plainly apparent in that response. Maybe I made a mistake, initially. Perhaps he mistook the politeness and humbleness of my initial request as an indication of weakness, or something. Gee dipshit, could you have ever made a bigger mistake?

   Anyhow, the thought occurred to me - where is Jarret? Given what I suspect about his repressed homosexuality, maybe he is on a sex tour. Could he have gone to Thailand, Disneyland for perverts?. Or perhaps Jarret is exploring the gay nightlife in Cambodia? Or maybe, since he states he doesn't have internet access but obviously can access the internet, he's cornholed up in some Pennsylvania love nest for a few days?

   Jarret, inquiring minds want to know.
Leave a comment
   Perhaps you would care to know what started this series of posts about Jarret Cohen. This began with an e-mail that I'd addressed to him requesting a very simple favor. Jarret Cohen came back with a snarky response. Jarret Cohen's snarky response is what began this. Had he responded civilly this wouldn't have gone as far as it has already. Now I am going to want a smidgeon of obsequiousness, heck, I deserve that as much as Jarret implied that he is owed the same. Har-har.
  If the person that responded had not represented themselves to be Jarret Cohen I might have suspected that his father had responded. His father, Leighton Cohen, is a lawyer, many of whom are regarded as self righteous snarky pricks. However, as a lawyer, Leighton Cohen may not be deceitful- that's a major character flaw - so he did not present himself as his son and my character analysis of Jarret Cohen will be that much more difficult.
  Based on our final e-mail exchange last night I suspect that Jarret Cohen spent some part of the day researching his legal options. If he did, he came up empty. Tough, Jarret, isn't it? Given his personality I'd guess that if what I suspect occurred did indeed occur I'll be getting a letter in the mail within three days that attempts to put the fear in me. If such a letter does arrive, I'll wipe my ass with it, photograph it, and mail it back to the lawyer that sent it. [Actually, I'd better research the law about sending shit via the U.S. Mail first.]
   Good night all.
2 comments or Leave a comment
I've decided to write about Jarret Cohen in a series of short posts.

There exists another possibility for Jarret's Cohen's tolerance of, and perhaps participation in, rants and tirades against homosexuals. Jarret may be similar to one of those repressed, or in the closet, homosexuals portrayed in various dramas that lash out at persons that they perceive to be homosexual. And from what I recall - it isn't worth dong the research for a definitive answer - the abuser as often as not gets it wrong.

Do you really want to buy insurance from this man? Jarret Cohen: 484-221-3365

Tags: , , ,

1 comment or Leave a comment
  I have a lengthy post to write about Jarret Cohen.  Jarret Cohen is the owner of autoadmit.com and sells insurance in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Jarret Cohen is the son of Leighton Cohen, an attorney located in Allentown, Pennsylvania. You can see that the fruit didn't fall far from the tree spatially. What I need to explore is whether the fruit fell far from the tree in the character aspect. The question must be asked: is Jarret Cohen the product of Leighton Cohen's loins?

  Whether a writer should mention or refer to family members of a person that is the topic of a character investigation is problematic. There are privacy issues. Oh well, these issues are irrelevant to me, I'm not the government and I do not have to respect anybody's privacy, Furthermore, Jarret Cohen's website mentions both my father and mother, and the reference to my mother concerns her failure to have an abortion after being impregnated on a park bench by a homeless man. I'll get to Jarret's mother, believe it.

  As you are aware, Jarret Cohen is the owner of autoadmit.com, a website that hosts a type of chat room wherein contributors are free to articulate any viewpoint. The viewpoints of many of the contributors on Jarret Cohen's website  are racist and homoassoholic [a term coined by someone other than myself.] Well, the website is Jarret's 'house,' his living room, in which these racist and homoassoholic viewpoints are spewed. Jarret allows this, so, did the fruit fall far from the tree in the character aspect? You ought to be aware that Jarret is the owner of his father's law firm website and he, the father, describes Jarret as a fine son in his biography. C'mon Pops, that vile piece of feces is a fine son? Are you on the pipe?

   [As an aside, I attempted to contact Jarret at one of the telephone numbers I found for him on the internet. I got a busy signal, so I kept trying back, once every five minutes or so for an hour. Well, it turns out that the number was his private cell phone number and it really peeves Jarret when people attempt to contact him at that number. Unfortunately, my home telephone doesn't save the numbers I dialed, but, the number is one of these: 484-221-3365; or, 610-432-1664.]  

  Let's have a look at Jarret's father, Leighton Cohen.[www.lcohenlaw.com] He presents a guileless, almost imbecilic smile. First and foremost, I do not believe that Leighton Cohen is a homosexual, and even if he was, it doesn't matter. However, Leighton Cohen slightly resembles Jon Voight of that movie, The Midnight Cowboy. In that movie, Jon Voight played a bisexual male prostitute. It may be, in his high school years, that Leighton Cohen, in an attempt to have a shadow of a reflection of somebody's stardom, affected the sartorial style of Jon Voight. I recall that back in those days some of my fellow students would affect the dress of then current 'stars.' So, in his ignorance of what Jon Voights character actually represented, Leighton may have affected this dress. And back in those less tolerant days this could have led to young Leighton being labeled a homosexual, which he would have [as a matter of necessity] vehemently denied. This could have had a long lasting effect on Leighton that Jarret could have picked up on as he grew and matured, accounting for his tolerance of those posters that spout homoassoholic dialogue. That's just one of many possibilities.
Leave a comment
Years passing by and still no answers, just my own speculations.  You must be aware that all I have are speculations as at no time during that time from August of 2000 to October of 2002  was I accused of anything, by anybody. 

Those freshman registers that the law school puts together sure are handy.  You know what I very recently found - a woman in the freshman register of the class at Loyola that I started with that looks something like Victoria Monier/McDaniel/Sonnier with the last name of McDaniel.  The discovery leads me to more -  what if?...

What if after Kristy Boxberger found the chronicle that didn't fall out my booksack she shared this chronicle with others? What if it one of those others, either directly or indirectly, was Victoria Monier? What if Victoria Monier took the chronicle, modified it, and embellished it with some acts of mine that 'worried her,' or 'worried her and others' and then added a disciplinary hearing as icing on the cake? What if then she then shared this with her sister who coincidentally was beginning Loyola School of Law the following year? I

This scenario would answer some questions. As - if this woman really is her younger sister - it would likely take her a few days to spread the message.  It answers why there was such a difference between what Camile Buras communicated to me during orientation and the time lag of a few days before the young Loyola Law student sluts began walking behind my back making all sorts of nasty comments. 

I remember meeting this woman who might be her sister, during orientation.  Along with many other students, I was standing in line outside the library for some now forgotten reason.  This woman was standing directly behind me and we passed some pleasantries. That's the only time I actually ever spoke with her.  But in hindsight, and only now does this strike me as being odd, her boyfriend addressed me, on the first and maybe only occasion he ever addressed me and more than a month after school had started, by my first name. [His comment was something like: Ernie, that looks like an Opey shirt you're wearing.]

Did I make that great of an impression on this woman, who I now know had the last name McDaniel, outside the library that she not only remembered my name but shared it with her boyfriend - a man whom I had never met and whose name I didn't know?

Reiterating, if Victoria Monier/McDaniel/Sonnier did get my chronicle and not only modified it and added a disciplinary hearing this would explain what happened when I was expelled from Loyola School of Law, New Orleans. You may recall I have chronicled that I was offered a choice between a disciplinary hearing or see a doctor and get on medication. I chose the disciplinary hearing as I knew that not only had I done nothing to warrant one, I didn't need medication*.

Soon after this meeting in which I was expelled I returned to see Dr. Flynn, by appointment.  FrankIy,  I was looking for information - I didn't know what these people thought.  He asked me: 'Ernie, what's the difference between here and LSU?'  My answer is irrelevant. My answer had nothing to do with either disciplinary hearings or doctors. It didn't occur to me that he may have had some idea that I'd had a disciplinary hearing at LSU as I'd done nothing at LSU at any time that would have warranted a disciplinary hearing. [Getting upset, angry, at a nasty slut isn't grounds for a disciplinary hearing. Unless, I suppose, the nasty lying slut relates other than what the anger was actually about.] As far as psychiatric help, well, nobody at LSU ever recommended that. I sought help out - my life had suddenly crumbled and I had no idea why.  This had a very bad effect on me.  It took me months to rebound and accept that friends and family are going to believe what they want and never tell you directly what it is that they think.

*[Frankly, I'm the same person I was when I was 20, and I'm 53 now.  The difference between my life prior to law school school and now is that prior to law school I had people that I considered friends that I'd routinely visit and now I don't. Another difference is that prior to law school I spoke with one of my younger brothers a couple of times a week for an hour or more and now I don't.  During that semester at LSU I told him what was going on - he told me that I was imagining it.  After that he no longer took my telephone calls and would no longer speak to me.  Although we occasionally speak on the telephone - at least once last year - this relationship has never returned to what it had been; none of them have and ever will. ]

Dear nasty slut: Was that your sister at Loyola? If it was I've got some bad news - I'm going to find out. If it was her I've got a year to file a civil action based on my speculation. I understand that it wouldn't go anywhere, she's a lawyer now, and protected.
1 comment or Leave a comment

The following link is to a disciplinary proceeding instrument concerning Micheal Aguillard.  If you read my original blog, Judicial Malfeasance, you'll remember that a person with the same name as this man was in the company of Victoria Monier on the first day of orientation at LSU in the fall of the year 2000. You'll also remember that this pair skipped up to me. I now think that at that time this pair had already 'hooked up,'  made happy feet, the two backed beast, whatever.

You'll also recall my chronicling the approach of the woman in the library with a man wearing a frown closely behind her.  I've since publicly identified her as Eve Blanchard. Anyhow, the point of her approach was more than mocking Victoria Monier's/McDaniel's approach and make-up, she was also mocking the fact that Victoria Monier already had a boyfriend and went after another in the presence of her current -at that time - boyfriend, Miguel Aguillard. [You may be wondering why I am referring to Micheal as Miguel, go ahead, wonder.]

You'll also recall that I chronicled that Ms. Monier asked me what I thought about sex with children and my response was "I don't."  Now I have an idea where she may have gotten the idea that men she met might be interested in this topic. For the longest time I had figured that she had been molested by an older male family person, such as her father perhaps, which might have explained her interest in older men.

Then again, I also figured that she may have been a prostitute since she did talk about sex and money in the same breaths.

The reason for my post today, upon discovery of the Miguel Aguillard disciplinary proceeding, is the answer that came crashing down on my head about the origins of many comments made to me from behind my back in the years following my first semester at LSU. These comments included references to sex with children, pillow talk, and so forth. None of this ever made any sense to me until now. Perhaps because the only pillow talk I have ever had in my entire life has been with my wife and I never recall any of the talk having to do with sex. Bills, goals, the future, the extended family perhaps, the minutae of everyday life, and that's about it.

Judge Morvant, have you ever seen the movie 'The Butterfly Effect?' Pull your head out your ass for a minute and realize that had you not acted to protect this defendant, Victoria/Monier/McDaniel/Sonnier the children that Micheal Aguillard molested might not have been molested at all. It is possible that through the process I could have identified to whom this nasty slut had communicated whatever she did communicate and then that deviance may have been tracked back to Micheal Aguillard at that time. [I'm keeping it short, anybody interested will have to fill in the blanks.]

http://www.ladb.org/NXT/gateway.dll/DB/2007-02-16_06-db-026.htm?f=templates$fn=document-frame.htm$3.0$q=$x=$nc=6097
Leave a comment
Jackie C. Hill.

Warning:  I generally don't use Type 3, high level profanities in my posts.  Today I do.

I was in the midst of doing a bit of quick research for a reply to a post of Scott Greenfield's over at Simple Justice and I was looking through the membership list of awanola.com.  My response concerned a sub-theme that appeared in consecutive posts on his blawg, and that sub theme was the use of 'common sense' in the law. First off, there's no place for common sense in the law. There's a place for the reasonable prudent person of common intelligence, and that's about it for unquantifiable concepts used in judicial decisions. 

Actually, I didn't read the second post with the 'common sense' referral until today, the 19th. I'd read the first reference to common sense in his "You want change?' post,yesterday the 18th, immediately after which I surfed the criminal legal news on the net. During the surfing I quickly came across two recent references wherein prosecutors or state attorney's had used the phrase as part of an affirmation of the rightness of a decision. 

The first was some dumb female DA in Washington State or Oregon that said it's only common sense that a teacher cannot legally have sexual intercourse with a student of the age of majority. Well, no, it's not 'common sense.' Should I dedicate some paragraphs to explaining why it's not common sense? Nope, the hell with it, if you're too stupid to figure it out for yourself then stick with the funny papers.  It may be the law, but if the defense attorney is to be believed it is not the law at all but the State Supreme Court took it in the rectum for political reasons.

The second was a case out of the midwest where the attorney stated that it was only 'common sense' that a sex offender released at the end of his/her sentence could not comply with a law that required the exconvict to furnish an address prior to the convict's release if that convict had no place to go. No, it's not 'common sense,' it's the simplest logic.


Then, today I read his post about the lazy bastards sitting on the bench of SCOTUS who hear and rule on about half the cases they did twenty years ago and spout vague opinions solely for the sake of consensus. What really set me off today was the knowledge that the Supreme Court allows lower courts greater latitude in dismissing cases based solely on the presiding judges' 'experience and common sense.'  What the hell happened to - and I'm paraphrasing? the concept - unless something alleged could not possibly have happened or the alleged tortfeasor could not possibly be the cause of the injury the plaintiff's cause of action has a right to proceed.

So, SCOTUS is allowing this incredible wide open avenue for abuse?  Have you read that no-good twat Federal District Court Judge Sarah Vances dismissal of my action?  Did one of her clerk's pen it?  Did Sarah no-good fucking-twat-Vance read it and think something like it's only common sense' that none of this could have happened?

Now I get to the name that adorns this post, a person with the same name as a dumb cunt I met at LSU Law school.  This woman, approximately my age, was at that time also somewhat overweight and at that time had reddish hair- apparently dyed.  I only give the description to assure you, dumb cunt, that I remember you.  Around about the time that the feces hit the fan this woman approached me.  During our brief conversation she told me that she had been a social worker.  At that moment I attached no particular siginificance to this.

However, sometime later, after the feces had hit  the fan, and this woman had made what I thought were comments relevant to what was happening around me, I determined that as she had been a social worker she might be able to assist me in determining what was going on.  I wrote and sent an e-mail to her.  Honestly, I don't remember the specific content but the mail should be saved somewhere, if not in my old computer then in a server at AOL, the access provider I'd used at the time.

Well, in  response to my e-mail, she had her husband call me and warn me not to contact his wife again. Of course I didn't.

Dear dumb cunt Jackie Hill - if you didn't want to be involved at all then you should have never spoken to me. You and your husband earned a few paragraphs in my book. And if you don't like it I that's just tough shit.

Bradley Luminias: "Dude, it's like high school."
Leave a comment