Louisiana Voice

It was barely mentioned in passing, but House Speaker Mike Johnson, our very own congressman from Louisiana’s House District 4, played a significant role in that infamous August 26 visit to ARLINGTON NATONAL CEMETERY by Cadet Bone Spurs, aka Mrs. Putin.

That’s the one where Trump staffers roughed up a U.S. Army representative who attempted to enforce a longstanding rule against photography in Section 60 of the cemetery.

Well, it turns out that family members of servicemen buried there had experienced some degree of difficulty in arranging for FAUXTUS to visit the cemetery, according to U.S. Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A spokesperson for McCaul said the families had reached out to McCaul because the cemetery had been giving them “a hard time” about coordinating the ceremony with Spanky McLiarface.

The families claimed that the Army would only allow specific times which did not work into everyone’s schedule.

So naturally, McCaul reached out to the Speaker of the House and Johnson obligingly greased the skids to accommodate everyone, the rules be damned.

But it wasn’t the first time Johnson had stuck his neck out in order to curry favor with Agent Orange.

New York Magazine last March published 27 NOT-FUN FACTS ABOUT SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON. Some of those included the following:

• He masterminded Frump’s election coup;
• He worked for the conservative legal group behind the case that ended Roe v. Wade;
• He wants to ban abortion nationwide and to sentence abortion providers to hard labor;
• In a real stretch, he managed to blame abortion for school shootings, and for Social Security and Medicare cuts;
• He also managed to blame mass shootings on the teaching of evolution;
• He not only subscribes to the creationist theory that the earth is only 6,000 years old, but fought successfully to have the state of Kentucky pony up $18 million to help underwrite construction of the Ark Encounter theme park;
• He fought to ban same-sex marriage in Louisiana, led an anti-gay campus movement, authored several homophobic op-eds, introduced a national version of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill and that Rome fell in part because it was too gay;
• He once provided legal counsel to Exodus International, which offered counseling services to help young people “convert” from gay to straight;
• Citing queer youth and a lack of church attendance, he described America as “depraved and dark,” and once wrote the foreword to a book filled with homophobic insults – like any compassionate Christian;
• He advocated “covenant marriage,” making it more difficult to obtain a divorce;
• He was appointed dean of the Judge Paul Pressler School of Law at Louisiana College in Pineville, saying at the time that it couldn’t fail. It failed. Not a single class was ever held.
• There is no evidence he has a banking account (though, in fairness, his financial affairs could be conducted through a brokerage with home he may have some type of arrangement);
• He blamed post-Katrina looting on America’s turning away from God;
• He supported the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings in defiance of the separation of church and state doctrine;
• He subscribes to Covenant Eyes, a brand of “accountability software” that monitors “inappropriate” computer use, like porn, raising the question of why he feels that is necessary.

Back to that foreword he wrote for Scott McKay’s book, The Revivalist Manifesto, in which Johnson wrote that the book managed “to articulate well what millions of conscientious, freedom-loving Americans are sensing.”

Really?

Let’s take a look at a couple of McKay’s more bizarre articulations:

• Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was part of Jefrey Epstein’s sex trafficking ring;
• That the PIZZAGATE and SETH RICH conspiracies are true at least in part, despite both having been proven to be totally bogus;

“I obviously believe in the product (McKay’s book), or I wouldn’t have written the foreword, so I endorse the work,” Johnson said.

Ooookaaaay…

Meanwhile, H.R. 2955, the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act, has been introduced in the House by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California). The bill calls for an end to the warehousing and the often accompanying sexual, mental and physical ABUSE OF CHILDREN in residential homes, many of which are run by church-affiliated organizations.

What’s unique about the bill is that it has 113 CO-SPONSORS, including representatives from both Democratic (64) and Republican (49) sides of the aisle.

For whatever reason, only two of Louisiana’s six representatives, Republican Julia Letlow and Democrat Troy Carter have seen the necessity of signing on as co-sponsors.

Where are Clay Higgins, Steve Scalise, Garret Graves and, most of all, that paragon of virtue and family values, Mike Johnson?

So, now Jeff Landry wants Mike the Tiger present at LSU home football games.

It’s good to know he’s so concerned about monumental issues such as having a mascot attend a football game.

• Never mind the fact that Louisiana’s violent crime rate is 65 percent higher than the national average.

Jeff Landry is insistent that LSU athletic teams be present on the sidelines or courtside for the playing of the National Anthem before games.

• Never mind that Louisiana’s preventable hospital admissions are 27 percent higher than the national average and that 40 percent of our population is considered obese.

Jeff Landry is so concerned about education that he issued an executive order banning all critical race theory (CRT) from public schools – neglecting for the moment that it isn’t even taught, never was taught, below the college graduate level.

• Never mind the fact that Louisiana ranks 48^th in education or that at one time New Orleans had the biggest slave market in the U.S.

Jeff Landry pushed for – and got – a law making the posting of the Ten Commandments mandatory in all public-school classrooms.

• Never mind the fact that Landry could not see the need to feed hungry school children when he can feed them scripture.

Jeff Landry wanted – and got – elimination of a requirement that certain employment requirements be met before a corporate entity could qualify for generous tax exemptions.

• Never mind the fact that Louisiana factories release more than three times (3,134 pounds) the amount of industrial toxins per square mile compared to the national average (937 pounds).

Jeff Landry insisted on – and got – new legislation that made it practically impossible for a wrongfully convicted individual to petition for a new trial.

• Never mind the fact that there are more than 100 persons wrongfully incarcerated for crimes they did not commit who have been exonerated and that state payments and awards from lawsuits by those falsely imprisoned – some for decades – total in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. And never mind that Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the civilized world.

Jeff Landry, like so many like-minded Republicans, wants to control women’s bodies.

• Never mind the fact that in Louisiana, a 12-year-old who is impregnated by rape by a relative will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

Louisiana ranked No. 21 in healthcare access (but not in healthcare itself), thanks largely to the Medicaid expansion with only 10.3% of the population uninsured compared to the national average of 11.3%.

About one in five Louisianians live in poverty.

The WalletHub study ranked Louisiana 50th among states and the District of Columbia as best places for women, ahead of only Oklahoma.

Last spring Louisiana ranked as the worst state in America for working mothers, with moms coming up shortchanged on everything from pay to childcare.

And last year Louisiana 49th for child well-being.

Utah was ranked as the top state. Texas was No. 29 as Louisiana’s highest-ranking contiguous neighbor, while Mississippi ranked No. 48 and Arkansas No. 47.

The U.S. News report ranked Louisiana 50^th in crime/corrections, 49^th in economy, 47^th in education and fiscal stability, 46^th in healthcare, 49^th in infrastructure and natural environment, and 44^th in opportunity.

But Jeff Landry wants Mike the Tiger present and accounted for at LSU football games.

You may recall, those of you with no short-term memory issues (a trait that I’m coming more and more familiar with in up-close personal experience), that yesterday’s LouisianaVoice post questioned the necessity of and the reasons for the secrecy of CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES in lawsuit settlements.

That essay came on the heels of one the longest posts in the 13-year history of LouisianaVoice that suggested that attorney-legislators might be abusing a thing called LEGISLATIVE CONTINUANCES which give them carte blanche in delaying legal proceedings virtually indefinitely.

A legal challenge to the practice is being taken up by the Louisiana State Supreme Court as I write this.

But back to those confidentiality clauses. In yesterday’s post, I theorized that the sole purpose of their inclusion in settlements of litigation was to shield defendants from revealing – and plaintiffs from learning – the value of any similar claims that might be lurking out there in the real workaday world in which the rest of us exist.

That begs the question: If you are seeking damages from someone or some corporate entity who has harmed you, why would you want to protect them from further liability if they’ve done the same thing to others? Why would you shield them with a confidentiality agreement – and most likely, also allow them to skate with a “no admission of guilt”?

Well, that post was barely up when I got a call from an attorney friend who is a regular reader of this blog. He shed additional light on the issue that, should it become common knowledge, might make any plaintiff a little skittish about agreeing to any conditions of confidentiality.

Before I go any further, I should offer this additional bit of advice: The defendant’s attorney isn’t about to reveal the peril of such a deal and your own attorney, unless he is diligent in keeping abreast of the latest legal developments, won’t even know about it.

Anyway, as President Biden might say, here’s the deal.

Go to this link to conduct your own research in the federal case of AMOS v. COMMISSIONER, No. 13391-01 | Casetext Search + Citator. It’s scary.

In case you’re too busy to read the entire case, here’s the gist:

Eugene Amos was employed as a TV cameraman and was covering an NBA game between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Chicago Bulls. During the course of the game, Bulls player Dennis Rodman fell into a group of photojournalists that included Amos and twisted his ankle. He then kicked the photographers, striking Amos in that most tender and vulnerable of spots on a man’s anatomy, causing intense pain (ya think?), leaving him limping (I bet) and probably (and I’m guessing here) singing soprano for a while.

Long story short, Amos sued and Rodman settled. The settlement was for $200,000 but at the time of the settlement (1997) a confidentiality clause was agreed to by Amos whereby terms of the settlement were to be kept confidential forevermore.

Well, forevermore turned out to be a little shorter time than anticipated by either side. Turns out that settlements in personal injury cases are tax-exempt. Confidentiality agreements, on the other hand, are considered payments for one’s silence and thus taxable, according to the IRS.

Here’s the applicable bureaucratic language that applies:

Petitioner concedes the determinations in the notice of deficiency (notice) issued to petitioner with respect to 1997 to disallow $6,755 of deductions claimed by petitioner in Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, and $7,178 of deductions claimed by petitioner in Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business. There are other determinations in the notice that are computational in that resolution of the issues relating to such determinations flows automatically from our resolution of the issue addressed herein.

Okay, I don’t understand all that gibberish, either but basically, what the IRS said was that it was impossible to determine how much of the $200,000 was for bodily injury and how much was a payment for Amos’s silence. So, typical of IRS thinking, it treated the entire amount as silence-purchasing and taxed Amos accordingly, to the tune of $61,668. And that’s what this case is all about.

But lawyers are waking up to the dangers of confidentiality provisions in legal settlements. Here are a few links from several different attorneys offering words of warning:

Sorrels.pdf (hbtlj.org)

Confidentiality Provisions – Settlement Law Firm – Orlando Attorneys (specialneedsfirm.com)Daily Journal

Avoiding the confidentiality tax bite: the proceeds of your client’s settlement for physical injury are free from income tax, right? Not necessarily, if the settlement contains a confidentiality provision. Enter into such settlements carefully and be aware of potential tax consequences. – Free Online Library (thefreelibrary.com)

Confidentiality: But At What Cost? – Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP (thompsoncoe.com)

Here’s the best one (or at least the best headline):

Amos v. Commissioner: The Ambiguous and Ever-Changing Definition of What Constitutes a Person Physical Injury under Internal Revenue Code Section 104(A)(2) (umt.edu)

Okay, you’ve been told. There’s an old Latin adage that applies here: Praemonitus, praemunitus (translated: Forewarned is forearmed).

Proceed accordingly.

Remember in yesterday’s LOUISIANA VOICE POST, I briefly touched on CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES in lawsuit settlements?

Well, while that passing observation was in reference to an entirely separate legal issue, the matter of confidentiality clauses coincidentally surfaced today in a Bloomberg Tax story by writer Michael Bologna (no baloney).

Bloomberg Tax, like its sister service Bloomberg News, has a paywall and I’m not a subscriber so I’m unable to access the full article but essentially it says that the Louisiana Department of Revenue has “confidentially settled” a major tax lawsuit against ConocoPhillips Co. that could have meant a $700 million windfall to the state in the form of back taxes, penalties and interest due the state.

The Revenue Department refused to say if Conoco paid even one red cent in the settlement.

“Could have.” But apparently, we’ll never know because of that confidentiality clause that shields Louisiana’s taxpayers from ever knowing how much the state will receive in funds to meet a looming fiscal cliff that seems to pop up with increasing frequency these days.

Folks, don’tcha think that we, as taxpaying citizens of Louisiana, deserve to know (a) how much the state receives from these lawsuits and (b) how much the state has to pay in litigation costs assessed against it? I mean, after all, it is our money that’s being tossed around here. There should be some accountability, I would think. But hey, that’s just me.

Well, it isn’t just me. Jan Moller, executive director of the non-partisan fiscal policy think tank Invest in Louisiana, had this to say about the settlement:

“The administration should explain to the public why it walked away from a potential $700 million lawsuit. This is money Louisiana desperately needs. If the state is going to ask ordinary citizens to pay taxes, then certainly the wealthiest corporations should also pay what they owe.”

 Steven Procopio, president of the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, added that the department should explain why it withdrew from the lawsuit. “[C]itizens will be left to speculate why potentially $390 million to $700 million was left on the table,” he said.

But hey, it ain’t our first rodeo with this song and dance.

Last December, the state and Cameron Parish agreed to a confidentiality settlement with BP, Hilcorp and Shell in a coastal damage lawsuit potentially worth up to $7 billion in damages to the state. But again, we don’t know the real value because (ahem) that little bit of information remains protected.

A joint motion filed last Dec. 8, (that was on a Friday, the day of the week most often chosen by politicians to ensure the least news coverage as both reporters and readers gear up for the weekend) by attorneys for all litigants – the three oil companies and the parish and state – created individual agreements between each of the companies and the parish and state that resolved all claims outlined in a 2016 coastal damages lawsuit. It said the protective order is needed to shield actions by both parish plaintiffs and oil company defendants in 41 other pending coastal damage lawsuits.

There you have it. The confidentiality of the agreement was need “to shield” actions in other coastal damage litigation.

It just seems to me that the interests of the state and its 4.6 million taxpaying citizens should have taken precedent over the interests of multi-billion-dollar oil and gas conglomerates. But again, that’s just me.

Again, it’s me thinking that the residents of Southwest Louisiana, where this litigation was concentrated, certainly deserved better.

It’s been four years, after all, since the area was visited on August 27, 2020, by HURRICANE LAURA with torrential winds that fell just shy of making her a Category 5 storm, but still the most severe storm to hit the state in a century and the 10^th worst in the U.S. As if that were not enough, six weeks later, Hurricane Delta, a Category 2 but still an ugly storm cut a near-identical swath through the same area hit earlier by Laura.

Recovery, even after four years, remains agonizingly slow. Damaged roofs remain covered by the infamous blue tarps, now frayed from four years’ exposure to the elements. Other houses were simply abandoned, rotting where what’s left of their skeletal remains stand.

I’m pretty sure the area could’ve used some of that potential $7 billion in damages. But again, that’s just me thinking out loud.

Back in 1868, British Prime Minister William Gladstone said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The famous phrase was repeated in 1963 by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. It rings as true today as it did 156 years, or 61 years, ago.

If you’ve ever had the misfortune to experience a close encounter of the third kind with our judicial system, those five words probably have special significance to you and you’ve likely come away with the feeling that the system is somehow weighted against you.

And you’d be right.

That’s perhaps why the Louisiana Supreme Court will be taking up a challenge to a century-old law that gives legislator-lawyers wide discretion to seek delay after delay of courtroom trials – at the expense of time, money and justice to the parties of lawsuits are criminal cases.

Arguments are scheduled to be heard around mid-morning on Thursday in New Orleans.

One of the endearing features of our court system is that of unending delays, or in the legal parlance, continuances. It’s gotten to the point that setting a date for a trial is almost meaningless because in all likelihood, there’ll be a continuance in your future. Your court date will be postponed, perhaps numerous times, before it ever actually goes to trial – if indeed, it ever does.

In criminal cases, prosecutors faced with a weak case will negotiate a plea bargain for a lesser charge and a shorter prison sentence, or in some cases, a fine or probation. The defendant is pressured into this agreement as opposed to taking the chance of a longer, more severe sentence. But no worry, it’s still called a win, or a conviction, by the district attorney who will use it to bolster his statistics to prove he’s tough on crime when it’s reelection time – or when he decides to move up and run for a judgeship or even attorney general. Tough on crime is always a good card to play.

In civil cases, there is often what’s come to be called a courthouse steps settlement when the parties come together at the last minute for a settlement that contains the inevitable confidentiality clause (meaning we never learn how much the settlement is for, even when it involves public monies). As often as not, the defendant will agree to the settlement while admitting no actual liability – again, a slick way of keeping potential future claimants from getting an idea what their claim may be worth in a similar situation (which is often the same reason for not going to trial).

But back to those seemingly never-ending continuances, the cruelest of a thousand cuts for those like Jeremy Ducote and Carley Magette or in the case of Barron Semaj Bailey, an inmate at Bayou Dorcheat Correctional Center who insists he’s innocent of the murder he’s accused of and who wants, but can’t seem to get, his case tried because of incessant continuances.

Why not? Because Ducote’s attorney is State Rep. Kyle Green (D-Marrero) and Bailey is represented by State Sen. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe) and Louisiana law allows legislator/lawyers to file ex parte motions for legislative continuance and extension for the entirety of regular state legislative sessions, special sessions and for 60 days following adjournment of any session. Moreover, legislative continuances are granted for such things as “an all-day legislative retreat” in advance of an upcoming regular session or for legislative committee meetings. In Bailey’s case, his family has already paid Jackson $40,000, plus additional payments to a private investigator. Bailey says Jackson has filed only one motion in his case that he is aware of and that she works on his behalf mainy through paralegals and the private investigator.

Those reasons for legislative continuances are pretty broad and can take up a lot of the court’s time and cause endless delays for litigants on both sides. The only winners are the legislators who seem to have a problem deciding if they are lawmakers or officers of the court. Whenever there’s a conflict between the two, it’s the litigants who are the losers. It’s no damned wonder our court dockets are so jammed; creating additional judgeships obviously isn’t the answer when an attorney asks for nine separate legislative continuances in a single case as Kyle Green did in the Ducote-Magette matter. A dozen more judges in that courthouse wouldn’t have helped if the lawyer for one side can’t – or won’t – be there.

In one case, there have been so many legislative continuances that a client dumped his legislator attorney out of frustration. When he sought a refund for non-services by the legislator attorney, his demand was refused. In Georgia, the Georgia House Speaker David Ralston filed 57 legislative continuances in 21 different cases over a two-year period.

And then there is the duo of law partners Michael Melerine and Alan Seabaugh of the Shreveport firm of Seabaugh Sepulvado. Melerine is a state representative and Seabaugh is a state senator.

They are being accused abusing the legislative continuance law which two other Shreveport-Bossier City lawyers say encourages “rampant palm greasing,” according to a story in the Shreveport Advocate. Attorneys Joe Gregorio and J. Cole Sartin are challenging the 1912 law that granted peremptory grounds for a continuance for legislators during legislative sessions.

Gregorio and Sartin and clients who challenge the law dodged a bullet this past legislative session when both the House and Senate unanimously passed SENATE BILL 185 (by Seabaugh, no less) that would have required attorneys who challenge the legislative continuance statute to pay the court cost for the legislators doubling as attorneys in a case. But while the bill passed both chambers without a dissenting vote, Gov. Jeff Landry vetoed the bill just as he had vetoed another bill by Seabaugh’s law and legislative partner Melerine that passed the legislature, one which would have REDUCED PAYOUTS in personal injury cases. (That might lead some to believe that Landry has some sort of personal problem with Seabaugh – but that’s just idle speculation, I’m certain.)

Landry’s hand-picked successor at Attorney General, Liz Murrill interestingly had filed an amicus brief in support of her political ally Seabaugh but Landry still vetoed the bill when it landed on his desk. I don’t know if there was some sort of message there, but…

Of course, the fact that Seabaugh’s firm represents a couple dozen INSURANCE COMPANIES, restaurants and financial institutions was of no consideration in his pushing either of the aforementioned bills. I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to ask Seabaugh if he was elected to represent the citizenry of Caddo Parish or insurance companies and banks – or does he represent legal clients? Just sayin’.

You see, in the case that Gregorio and Sartin found particularly interesting involved a lawsuit against Hanover Insurance over a 2018 vehicle collision. That’s 2018, folks, six years. That’s longer than the lifespan of your typical household gerbil and yet Hanover’s attorneys (…ahem, Seabaugh and Melerine) are still very much alive and delaying a resolution of the case. Or at least they were. Seabaugh has since attempted to withdraw as counsel for Hanover, prompting more charges of delay, delay, delay.

That case is over an auto accident that occurred on June 2, 2018 involving then-minor Steven Harter, Jr., who has since matured into a full-fledged adult but said accident still carries potential exposure to his father, Steven Harter, Sr. The ensuing lawsuit has been delayed so many times that additional judicial interest on any award has been allowed to grow as well as potential bodily injury claims. Still, the case limps along no closer to a resolution than ever.

To give you some idea of how legislative continuances and extensions can drag out a case, this is one, Ducote v. Magette, is about a dispute over an engagement ring and some personal debts following a breakup.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DUCOTE V MAGETTE:

(At all times in this case, Attorney Kyle M. Green, Jr. represented Jeremy Ducote and Attorney Jennifer G. Prescott represented Carley Katherine Magette.)

June 25, 2019 – Jeremy Ducote files a Petition for Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive Relief; and Temporary Restraining Order.

November 4, 2019 – A telephone status conference was held. Several dates for the trial were discussed and passed over since Attorney Green had recently (October 2019) been elected to the Louisiana House of Representatives and would be “in session” for those dates. The case was set for a bench trial on June 23, 2020, with consent of both counsel and after acknowledgement by Attorney Green that he would be ready for trial on that date despite his work in the Legislature.

March 9, 2020 – 2020 Regular Session commences.

March 20, 2020 – Attorney Prescott sets a 10.1 conference with Attorney Green for March 27 for deficient discovery.

March 23, 2020 – Attorney Green files the first Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance and Extensionseeking a continuance of the trial date and all deadlines.

March 27, 2020 – Attorneys conduct the 10.1 conference.

March 30, 2020 – Attorney Prescott files a Memorandum in Opposition to Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance, citing Attorney Green’s waiver of the legislative privilege and the pretrial deadlines that had already passed prior to the filing of the continuance

La. R.S. 13:4163(E)(1)(a) states that “the motion for legislative continuance or extension shall be timely if filed no later than five calendar days prior to the hearing or proceeding to be continued.” .

April 2, 2020 – Presiding Judge denies the motion for Legislative continuance.

April 8, 2020 – Attorney Kyle Green files a second Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance with Incorporated Memorandum in Support. This Order was signed on April 9, 2020, continuing the trial and retroactively continuing all pretrial deadlines.

June 1, 2020 – 2020 Regular Session adjourns and First Extraordinary Legislative Session commences.

June 30, 2020 – 2020 First Extraordinary Legislative Session adjourns.

July 2, 2020 – Carley Magette files a Motion for Status Conference, which is set for a Zoom conference on August 6, 2020 and a Motion to Compel, which is set for a hearing on August 21, 2020.

July 29, 2020 – Attorney Green files a third Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance of the Motion to Compel Hearing stating that August 21, 2020 was 52 days—rather than 60 days—after the adjournment of the First Extraordinary Session.

3 La. R.S. 13:4163(E)(2)(a) provides that a new date must be set sixty dates after the adjournment sine die of the session:

Within seventy-two hours of the filing of a motion for a legislative continuance or extension, the court or agency shall grant the continuance or extension ex parte as follows:

• If the grounds for the motion are pursuant to Subparagraph (C)(1)(a) or (b) of this Section, the continuance or extension shall be granted for a period of not less than sixty days from the date of adjournment sine die of the session of the legislature or of the constitutional convention. Presiding Judge continues the Status Conference and Motion to Compel to September 2, 2020.

September 2, 2020 – Hearing on Motion to Compel, Jeremy Ducote is ordered to fully respond to discovery within 30 days – by October 2, 2020; pretrial Motions set for November 20, 2020; and trial is set for December 22, 2020. A brief status conference is held in chambers.

September 10, 2020 – Presiding Judge signs a Case Management Order pursuant to the September 2, 2020 hearing and status conference.

September 24, 2020 – Attorney Green files a fourth Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance based on the 2020 Second Extraordinary Session. Presiding Judge signs the order with a note continuing the Pretrial Motions and Trial dates and setting a status conference for January 22, 2021

Judge Steven Tureau was elected in the 2020 election and subsequently reset the January 22, 2021 status conference to January 29, 2021. .

September 28, 2020 – 2020 Second Extraordinary Session commences.

October 23, 2020 – 2020 Second Extraordinary Legislative Session adjourns.

October 26, 2020 – Attorneys conducted a 10.1 conference requested by Attorney Green.

January 20, 2021 – Carley Magette files a Motion for Contempt for failure to provide discovery as previously ordered. Hearing set for March 12, 2021.

March 2, 2021 – Jeremy Ducote files a fifth Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance requesting a continuance of the March 12, 2021 Motion for Contempt hearing citing “an all-day legislative retreat in advance of the upcoming 2021 Regular Legislative Session.”

March 3, 2021 – A Zoom status conference is held to discuss the request for continuance and the legislative retreat. The Court found that the retreat was permissive and not mandatory, therefore not subject to the requirements of La. R.S. 13:4163. However, the Court suggested that the matter be submitted on the briefs to allow Attorney Green to attend the retreat. Additionally, the parties picked a trial date of September 3, 2021.

March 25, 2021 – Judge Steven Tureau signs a Bench Trial Order setting the matter for trial on September 3, 2021 with other deadlines and cutoff dates.

April 12, 2021 – 2021 Regular Session commences.

April 26, 2021 – Judge Steven Tureau issues Reasons for Judgment and Judgment on the Motion for Contempt, ordering Jeremy Ducote to fully respond to the discovery by August 13, 2021, and setting a status conference for September 2, 2021.

June 10, 2021 – 2021 Regular Session adjourns.

July 12, 2021 – Jeremy Ducote files a sixth Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance due to the July 20-21, 2021 Veto Session. The Order was signed on July 19, 2021.

July 20, 2021 – 2021 Veto Session commences.

July 21, 2021 – 2021 Veto Session adjourns.

August 2, 2021 – Jeremy Ducote files a seventh Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance. This Order was denied on August 4, 2021 with the Court noting that it “previously signed an identical order.” The Court further reset all motions to October 6, 2021, pursuant to an August 4, 2021 Zoom conference.

August 9, 2021 – Carley Magette files a Motion to Reset the matters previously set for September 2, 2021 to October 6, 2021.

September 15, 2021 – Jeremy Ducote files Motion seeking to compel discovery responses, have facts deemed admitted, and for a new trial on the Motion to Compel. Motion is set for hearing on October 6, 2021.

October 29, 2021 – Hearing on Ducote’s Motion. Judge Steven Tureau takes the matter under advisement.

November 3, 2021 – Judge Tureau issues Judgment with written reasons on Ducote’s Motion.

November 22, 2021 – Jeremy Ducote files Request for Written Reasons for Judgment and Notice of Intent to Apply for Supervisory Writ and Motion for Return Date.

December 5, 2021 – Judge Tureau issues an Order responding to Request for Written Reasons on November 3, 2021 Judgment.

December 10, 2021 – Carley Magette files a Motion to Reset to have the discovery matters heard and set the case for trial, again. Judge Tureau sets this for hearing on February 3, 2022.

December 15, 2021 – Jeremy Ducote files Application for Supervisory Writ with the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal on the denial of the Motion.

December 29, 2021 – Carley Magette files Opposition to Application for Supervisory Writ with 1st Circuit and Jeremy Ducote files Reply Memo.

January 13, 2022 – Jeremy Ducote files eighth Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance for the First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2022.

January 18, 2022 – Judge Tureau signs Order on Legislative Continuance and continues the February 3, 2022 hearing to August 9, 2022.

February 2, 2022 – First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2022 convenes.

February 3, 2022 – 1st Circuit Notice of Judgment denying Writs. Ducote v. Magette, 21-1582 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/3/22), 2022 WL 325354.

February 18, 2022 – First Extraordinary Legislative Session of 2022 adjourns.

March 14, 2022 – 2022 Regular Session convenes.

March 30, 2022 – 2022 Veto Session convenes & adjourns.

June 6, 2022 – 2022 Regular Session adjourns.

June 15, 2022 – 2022 Second Extraordinary Session convenes (Congressional Map).

June 18, 2022 – 2022 Second Extraordinary Session adjourns.

June 24, 2022 – Jeremy Ducote files Application for Supervisory Writ with the Supreme Court of Louisiana with Request for Stay and Oral Argument.

June 29, 2022 – LASC denies Application for Supervisory Writ as untimely with one concurrence. Ducote v. Magette, 22-0996 (La. 6/29/22), 341 So.3d 535.

June 30, 2022 – Jeremy Ducote files Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance with 1st Circuit seeking a retroactive extension of the deadline to apply for rehearing of denial of Supervisory Writ.

August 9, 2022 – Parties have a lengthy status conference with Judge Steven Tureau regarding procedural history of the case and the case is set for a half-day bench trial on November 10, 2022 beginning at 9:00a.m. Attorneys are ordered to submit briefs outlining the discovery issues and procedural history of the case.

September 5, 2022 – Judge Tureau issues written reasons regarding discovery and pretrial deadlines ahead of the November 10, 2022 bench trial.

October 13, 2022 – Attorney Green, sitting as co-chair of the Joint Special Study Committee on Legislative Session, sets the next hearing of the committee for November 10, 2022 at 1:30p.m.

October 27, 2022 – Notice of the Joint Committee Meeting issued by the Clerk of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

November 4, 2022 (Friday) – Attorney Green files ninth Ex Parte Motion for Legislative Continuance based upon the committee meeting.

November 7, 2022 (Monday) – Attorney Prescott files an opposition to the ninth continuance request with expedited hearing requested. Judge Steven Tureau denies the motion the same day.

November 9, 2022 – Attorney Green files Application for Supervisory Writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court after hours. Attorney Prescott files an Opposition to Application for Supervisory Writ.

November 10, 2022 – Louisiana Supreme Court grants the continuance of the trial, which opinion contains three dissents and one concurrence. Ducote v. Magette, 22-1649 (La. 11/10/22), 349 So.3d 984. Trial is reset for November 15, 2022.

November 15, 2022 – Attorney Prescott files first and only Motion for Continuance based on the birth of her third child on November 14, 2022.

Trial is continued to November 30, 2022.

November 30, 2022 – Trial commences. Due to time constraints, recessed to restart on January 6, 2023.

January 6, 2023 – Trial concludes and Judgment is rendered.

At no point during any of these proceedings did Attorney Green reach out to counsel for Magette or the Court in an attempt to amicably resolve any scheduling issues between the case pending before the Court and his legislative duties. Instead, Attorney Green filed NINE continuances, costing the Clerk of Court for the Parish of Ascension, and ultimately other litigants in the Court. Attorney Green flaunted his position with the legislature and intentionally disturbed the November 10, 2022 scheduled bench trial. Several of the motions sought to retroactively extend and/or continue deadlines that had already passed, including the time to respond to discovery, the time to file a Motion for New Trial, and the time to file an Application for Supervisory Writ with both the Appellate and Supreme Courts.