Popehat Covering Iberia Newspaper Censorship Case

A popular libertarian-leaning website that posts about free speech, liberty, criminal justice, the legal system, and related issues – Popehat – has picked up the cause of the Daily Iberian and a judge’s ruling that directed the newspaper to delete a reader comment.

Last week, Popehat’s Ken White addressed the original story – Louisiana Judge Issues Ludicrously Lawless Takedown Order To Newspaper.

This week, White wrote this: Prior Restraint of Daily Iberian More Outrageous Than We Feared.

Wrote White, “Both the procedure and substance of this order were rotten to the core. The order is shockingly unlawful. It warrants an inquiry by Louisiana’s judiciary commission. The Daily Iberian should continue its efforts to overturn the order, and both David Groner and Judge Curtis Sigur should suffer the public consequences of their conduct.”

Also, links to the court documents were furnished on the Popehat website. See here:

Temporary Restraining Order

Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order

Hearing Friday in Ouachita Court Coverup Case

A hearing is set for Friday, September 4, 9:30 AM, Ouachita Parish Courthouse, Courtroom Eight (fourth floor), in the lawsuit Palowski v Campbell.

This is the suit filed in late July that was amended to include several judges of the Fourth Judicial (Morehouse, Ouachita Parishes) District Court.

The plaintiffs in the suite have alleged that the judges engaged in a coverup of wrongdoing by court clerk Allyson Campbell.

Ad hoc Judge Jerome J. Barbera III, a retired judge from the 17th Judicial (Lafourche Parish) District will preside.

Lincoln Parish News Online will cover the hearing.

New Iberia Newspaper Caves to Illegal Order from Judge

The Daily Iberian earlier this week deleted an anonymous comment after 16th Judicial (Franklin, New Iberia, St. Martinville Parishes) District Division G Judge Curtis Segur signed a temporary restraining order that directed the newspaper to censor it.

The action came as a result of a lawsuit filed by New Iberia attorney David Groner against the Iberian, complaining that the comment damaged his reputation.

The comment concerned Groner’s 2008 suspension by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which was deferred until completion of a probationary period. See here the document:

IN RE: DAVID W. GRONER – ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Likely Groner’s efforts to silence the newspaper have backfired, as the story has been carried in other newspapers and on TV.

KATC-TV3 – Lafayette
The (Baton Rouge) Advocate
Popehat.com

It is settled law that courts cannot prohibit publication of comments or news, except in cases of national security. Judges can sometimes issue “gag orders” to protect a defendants right to a fair trial.

The legal precedent against “prior restraint” of speech was established in 1931 by the U. S. Supreme Court in Near v Minnesota, where a Minnesota mayor and police chief didn’t like what a local newspaper wrote about them.

Most famously, this prohibition against censorship was upheld in New York Times v United States – The Pentagon Papers case – where the Nixon administration tried to prevent publication of the documents.

The newspaper’s publisher said that they would appeal the judge’s decision. Representing the Iberian is Baton Rouge attorney Scott Sternberg. LPNO readers will recognize that name from the case where Ouachita judges sued The Ouachita Citizen.

More on Last Week’s Monroe Court Coverup Hearing

Here is The Ouachita Citizen’s Zach Parker news story on last week’s hearing in Fourth Judicial (Morehouse, Ouachita Parishes) District Court in Monroe.

Judge dodges recusal, quashes subpoenas in Palowsky case (subscription required)

Judge Sharp Says Judge Marchman “Misremembered”

Fourth Judicial (Morehouse, Ouachita Parishes) Division G Judge Carl Sharp said that fellow 4th JD Judge Sharon Marchman (Divsion B) “misremembered” when she said he had told her that an order to quash her subpoena to appear in court didn’t apply to her.

The controversy erupted late this morning in the Monroe courtroom at the end of an hour-long hearing that was scheduled to determine whether Sharp should be recused in the case Palowsky v Cork, over which he is presiding.

In 2003, Sharp was suspended for sixty days by the Louisiana Supreme Court for failing to decide cases in a timely manner.

The plaintiff attorneys, Joseph Ward of Covington, and Sedrick Banks of Monroe had subpoenaed several judges from the court, along with two area lawyers, intending to put them on the stand under oath. The intent was to elicit testimony as to what court clerk Allyson Campbell did or didn’t do, what the witnesses knew, and when they knew it.

Marchman said that she was “discharging her duty” to appear per the subpoena, and stood ready to testify, if she were called. She added that she and Sharp had a conversation yesterday where Sharp said she wasn’t covered by the order.

Sharp replied, “Read the order.”

Earlier in the hearing, Ward and Judge Sharp argued whether or not he (Sharp) should step down from the case, which was the reason for today’s hearing.

Ward said that since Sharp was intimately involved in the investigation and alleged coverup of wrongdoing by Campbell, he should be nowhere near any of the related cases.

Sharp, who did most of the talking, tried to intimidate Ward, and threatened him with sanctions or a contempt citation for having the impertinence to subpoena a judge as a witness.

Said Sharp, “You’re ginning up you’re own recusal evidence.”

Ward didn’t back down and said that if Sharp wanted to find him in contempt, that he would just have to serve the seven days in jail.

Sharp ruled that he was holding any decision on his recusal in abeyance, until another related lawsuit, Palowsky v Campbell was decided.

Ward said that he would immediately be appealing Sharp’s order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Notable in the court today were several local attorneys, a Louisiana State Police investigator, and an investigator with the Louisiana Inspector General’s Office.

Witnesses Subpoenaed for Tomorrow’s Hearing @ Ouachita Court

Several witnesses have been subpoenaed to appear for a hearing scheduled in Fourth Judicial (Morehouse, Ouachita Parishes) District Court in Monroe tomorrow morning.

According to a Johnny Gunter news story in the Ouachita Citizen, several judges and two local attorneys have been subpoenaed.

The hearing is on the underlying case in the controversy, Palowski v Cork.

Lincoln Parish News Online (LPNO) will cover tomorrow’s hearing, set for 9:30 AM at the Ouachita Parish Court House.

Hearing Thursday on Ouachita Court Coverup Case

A hearing on a motion to recuse the Judges of the Fourth Judicial (Morehouse, Ouachita Parishes) District Court from presiding in the civil case Palowski v Cork is set for 9:30 AM, Thursday, August 20, in Courtroom Seven of the Ouachita Parish Courthouse, according to the Civil Docket published on the court’s website.

The hearing is assigned to Division G Judge Carl V. Sharp.

Palowski has asked that all the judges in the district be barred from hearing the case, and has filed a lawsuit against the judges, accusing them of a coverup of misdeeds by Court Clerk Allyson Campbell.

Palowski has also sued Campbell, claiming that she interfered with his case by destroying and concealing documents.

Last March, The Ouachita Citizen filed a criminal complaint against the court, saying that public documents were being illegally withheld.

The court’s judges retaliated, and sued the newspaper. An Ad Hoc Judge ruled against the newspaper.

Last week, The Citizen’s Johnny Gunter wrote that Sharp had not yet recused himself, but that all the other judges had done so.

See here Gunter’s news story (subscription required).

In 2003, Sharp was suspended for sixty days by the Louisiana Supreme Court for failing to decide cases in a timely manner.

See here the opinion.

Amended Suit Accuses 4th JD Judges of Felony Misprision

An amended lawsuit filed last Friday by Monroe businessman Stanley Palowski accuses several judges in the Fourth Judicial (Morehouse, Ouachita Parishes) District of misprision of a felony by covering up misdeeds by court clerk Allyson Campbell.

Wrote attorneys Sedric Banks and Joseph Ward:

Thus, Palowsky submits that not only were Defendant Judges complicit in Defendant Campbell’s felonious destruction of documents, but they also schemed and conspired with her to cover up same from the tax-paying public and from litigants and their counsel. Defendant Judges’ affirmative acts to cover up Campbell’s felonious conduct amounts to misprision of a felony.

Palowsky also claims the judges are in violation of several sections of the Louisiana Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Ouachita Citizen’s Johnny Gunter had this story in today’s edition of that newspaper:

Palowsky sues district court judges, too (subscription required)

See here the amended complaint.

The pleading ends with this cryptic sentence:

At this time, Plaintiff seeks no relief under any federal law.

You will never, ever read about any of this in The Mayo Mouthpiece.

Lincoln Parish Courts Closed to the Public

A Lincoln Parish Court Room was apparently closed to the public today in direct violation of the Louisiana Constitution, a correspondent for Lincoln Parish News Online (LPNO) said today.

A hearing on the matter of State vs Cameron Mays was scheduled this morning, but our correspondent was not allowed in the courtroom. Only people who were witnesses or were on the docket were allowed in, the correspondent said.

Article 1, Sec. 22 – Access to courts

All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him in his person, property, reputation, or other rights.

It is unclear what did or did not happen in the Mays matter.

Lincoln Parish Sheriff Mike Stone, whose deputies are in charge of courtroom security, could not be reached for comment before post time.

Lincoln Parish News Online will be filing a formal complaint against the judge with the Louisiana Judiciary Commission in connection with the matter.

3rd JD Public Defender Chief Solicited

District Defender Selection, District 3 (Lincoln, Union Parishes)

The Louisiana Public Defender Board (LPDB) seeks to contract with a District Defender to provide for the delivery and management of public defender services in the 3rd Judicial District, comprising Lincoln and Union Parishes. La. R.S. 15:161(A).

La. R.S. 15:162 provides the procedure by which vacant District Defender positions are filled. A local Selection Committee reviews all interested applicants and makes recommendations to LPDB. The Selection Committee is comprised of three members: The State Public Defender selects the Committee’s Chairperson; the Chief Judge of the Judicial District and the President of the State Bar Association each select one of the two remaining members.

Within sixty (60) days of being formed, the Selection Committee submits a list of at least three District Defender nominees, ranked by preference, to LPDB. The Selection Committee will undertake any advertisement, determine that minimal statutory qualifications are met, conduct any necessary interviews, and explore the candidate’s background in the areas of management, training, substantive and procedural criminal law, data management and ability to work with LPDB, which regulates public defense in Louisiana. The final Committee recommendations will be interviewed by the State Public Defender and staff prior to a recommendation by the State Public Defender to the LPDB members. The LPDB members will make the final selection of the incoming District Defender and determine the appropriate salary. All District Defenders in Louisiana enter into an individual ‘Contract for Public Defender Services’ with the LPDB and are considered local employees of the district pursuant to La. R.S. 15:147(E). Salary is commensurate with experience. Statutory qualifications are as follows:

• Be a person of good character, honesty and integrity.
• Be a citizen of the United States.
• Following appointment, be a domiciliary of Louisiana who is registered to vote.
• Be an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana with at least 5 years of experience as a criminal defense attorney.
• Following appointment, be a domiciliary of the judicial district or a contiguous judicial district and be registered to vote in that judicial district or contiguous district.
• Provide and/or maintain a district office, or appropriate office space, in each judicial district for meeting with clients and rendering public defender services.

The LPDB mission statement is:
In pursuit of equal justice, the Louisiana Public Defender Board advocates for clients, supports practitioners and protects the public by continually improving the services guaranteed by the constitutional right to counsel. Through its commitment to performance standards, ethical excellence, data-driven practices and client-centered advocacy, the Louisiana Public Defender Board oversees the delivery of high quality legal services affecting adults, children and families, and supports community well-being across Louisiana.

Resumes/curriculum vitae, a writing sample and references should be mailed to — or emailed to – Mr. Ivan Daigs, 309 S. Bonner Street, Ruston, LA 71270-4409. Application deadline is the end of the business day on July 3, 2015.

District Defender Duties include:
• Manage and supervise public defender services provided within his judicial district.
• Prepare an operating budget for the district and submit it to the budget officer annually.
• Work in conjunction with the budget officer in developing a uniform method of accounting for all expenditures of the district, including but not limited to the salaries, contracts, acquisition of equipment, and supplies.
• Submit to the budget officer a monthly report of all revenues received and expenditures, including but not limited to salaries, contracts, acquisition of equipment, and supplies for the district.
• Work in conjunction with the compliance officers to ensure that public defender assignments within the judicial district comply with the standards and guidelines adopted pursuant to rule by the board and the Rules of Professional Conduct.
• Supervise the work of the district personnel.
• Employ district personnel, subject to review by the state public defender or the regional director, where applicable, for compliance with qualifications and standards and guidelines established by statute and by rules adopted by the board.
• Contract for services in accordance with the standards and guidelines adopted by rule by the board, and as authorized by the regional director, where applicable.
• Keep a record of all public defender services and expenses in the district and submit the records to the regional director, where applicable, or state public defender as requested.
• Implement the standards and guidelines and procedures established by the board, state public defender, and regional director, where applicable, for the district.
• Maintain a client workload for the district office as determined by the regional director, where applicable, the state public defender, and the board.
• Employ or terminate district personnel, manage and supervise all district level work, including establishment of district personnel salaries, subject to review by the board for compliance with salary guidelines established by the board through the adoption of rules.
• Perform all other duties assigned by the regional director, where applicable, state public
defender, or board.
• Work in conjunction with the legislative auditor in developing uniform audit reports as
required by R.S. 24:515.1.
• Other duties as assigned by the State Public Defender or LPDB Board of Directors.