A corruption watchdog in New Orleans has the same effect as hiring a watchdog to supervise alcohol factory employees with drinking problems and permanent tenure.

A watchdog can be an exercise in futility if the watchdog has no authority to do anything about alcohol prone people! A watchdog not well-versed in myriad facets of booze including types which have no smell, has limited effectiveness.

The city and federal New Orleans civil court system is at the root of what will always be wrong with New Orleans, and translates into the same benefit as implementing a watchdog for tenured alcoholic employees. People hope to obtain resolution of their controversies through the judicial system. Yet, for some attorneys and judges, people’s problems become the tools for great gratifications, perks, and lobbying courtrooms.

New Orleans already has the Metropolitan Crime Commission, Office of the U. S. Attorney General, the Public Integrity Bureau, Crimestoppers, FBI, and are other organizations. Thus, it begs the question: How could the City of New Orleans corruption become and remain so out-of-hand that it is a city recognized around the world for corruption, racism, cronyism, elitism, poverty, oppression, social apathy -in a nutshell, a Banana Republic? Can there be a creation of a big enough watchdog? What keeps corruption flourishing? The answers lie in uncovering the methods which fixated jurists ensure New Orleans functions to their gratification.

* * * * * *

The foregoing is an abstract from my November 1, 2006 posting entitled: “Essay: ANATOMY OF IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE and TYRANNY -Why A Novel Watchdog For New Orleans Corruption Might Not Work.” Also on November 1st, I commented about Wendell R. Miller’s deeds, a Louisiana judge who was later removed from the bench on January 26, 2007.

Two remarkable factors surrounding Miller’s overdue removal are colleagues statements submitted on Miller’s behalf to help him keep his job, and Judge Jeannette Knoll’s dissenting opinion. With guarded words and emotions, I must interject that I find both repelling. Aside from the obvious likelihood that certain lawyers and colleagues have benefitted from the fact of Miller’s proven perverted sagacity while in the performance his judicial position; and aside from Justice’s Knoll’s misplaced sympathy for Miller’s loss of job, both factors take lightly the havoc that a HOOLIGAN on the bench can wreak upon society.

Illustration: In conjunction with the Bail Bonds Unlimited / “Operation Wrinkled Robe” corruption probe which resulted in two judges being sent to jail, and various other sheriffs, public officers, Louis and Lori Marcotte being convicted, the stark reality is that inestimable people who came to the courts of the now jailed judges Ronald Bodenheimer and Alan Green did not received justice! Specifically, when a judge is proven guilty of accepting bribes and various underhanded acts, and use of his judicial position to benefit himself and his cronies, it is a foregone conclusion that at least some of the people who have had cases heard by such judges have simply not received justice. More specifically, there is a 100 per cent likelihood that a proven dishonest judge has fleeced at least some of the people who appeared in the dishonest judge’s courtroom. How unfortunate to society it is that –despite public complaints and media reports of conduct of judges like Miller, Green, and Bodenheimer– not until a judge become convicted or until the scandal becomes to embarrassing to the dignity of the judiciary, rather than too injurious to the well-being of the public, does removal from the bench become a consideration. A GOOGLE search will provide facts and information about the longstanding “Wrinkled Robe” investigation with details of Green’s and Bodenheimer’s acts.

Some information about Wendell R Miller’s conduct can be found in:

(1) February 2, 2007 Lafayette Louisiana news article written in The Daily Advertiser by Amanda McElfresh entitled: “District court judge Miller removed after misconduct.”
(2) Louisiana Supreme Court Case Number 2006-O -2361, IN RE: JUDGE WENDELL R. MILLER @ www.lasc.org/opinions/2007/06O2361.pdf.
(3) January 31, 2007 New Orleans Times Picayune staff writer James Gill’s opinion entitled: “Louisiana justice sets her standards low.” (Mr. Gill also mentioned two other chastised judges: Judge John Whitaker of Natchitoches, and Judge Tammy Lee of Monroe City.)

Makings of An Abomination That Maketh Desolate

Louisiana Supreme Justice Jeannette Knoll’s dissenting opinion, included the justice’s comparison of Judge Sharah Harris to Judge Wendell Miller. Justice Knoll stated: “I draw attention to In re Harris, 98-0570 (La.7/8/98), 713 So.2d 1138, 1141, a case I find far more egregious than the present matter. In that case, Judge Harris not only associated publicly with a known felon, she entered into a extramarital affair with a felon who pleaded guilty in her court and was illegally sentenced by her for his criminal act, which allowed the felon to be paroled. Additionally, this relationship became publicized in a lengthy article in the BATON ROUGE ADVOCATE which articulated the fact that Jones had been sentenced by Judge Harris for the felony he committed.”

In light of Miller’s years of scandalous conduct, it seems only because of public exposure about what was going on, the high court was prompted to take action because of concern about the ‘judicial office being brought into disrepute’ by Miller’s action. The years of tolerating Wendell R. Miller is a sad commentary on the high court’s reticent effort to remedy the public of judges who are as harmful to society as a DUI driver. To say that judge A is not as bad as judge B, is as absurd as a MADD member saying that because multiple DUI offender Tom ran into a building, but drunk driver Jerry ran into a school bus, Tom ought not be subject to loss of his driver’s license. Harm is because, under color of authority, as well as a cloak of 11th amendment immunity, dishonest or inept judges can devastate countless lives before something becomes done about it.

More specifically, in the same regard that reasonable people seek to get substance abuse people off the street rather than allow social harms to be compiled, regard for public well-being should likewise be of utmost concern. Put plainly, it is highly plausible that a judge who would utilize his chambers for sexual engagement and his judicial position to benefit his personal interests, would also trade favors to and for at least some of the people who appeared in his courtroom. Surely, Miller’s misbehavior was not limited to the affair; and plausibly some his failure to comply with judicial travel expenditure policies can be traced to financing his appalling conduct. BUT THE POIGNANT ISSUE IS THE INCALCULABLE HARM DONE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE FORCED TO SEEK JUSTICE THROUGH A JUDGE WITH APPARENT LIMITED ETHICS.

Not only is it troubling when an overseeing court refrains from assuaging the public of harms such judges cause, even worse is when a member of the high court seeks to distinguish one sort of long term judicial misconduct from a different sort of judicial misconduct –in the same regard as one might ill-advisedly distinguish one long term DUI offender’s activities from another long term DUI offender’s. That is what Justice Jeannette Knoll’s dissenting opinion seemed to do. And, for that particular situation, it is a frightening revelation into her rationale.

What I hope and pray overseeing courts will pay more attention to, is the fact that judicial positions ARE NOT elitist distinctions, and neither are judges above reproach. Judicial positions not merely jobs which Miller’s or any other ongoing disgraceful conduct should be overlooked. Rather (unfortunately), because too often people’s fates are held in their hands, judicial authority is a reverent position and title. I hope and pray that rather than take umbrage at being questioned, distrusted or challenged, there would be more recognition for plausible reasons some people prefer television court, or street violence, and distrust police and politicians. I hope more thought is given to how dismal a picture it is to have knowledge of multiple instances of judicial unfairness, quid pro quo, bullying from the bench, and so on. Hence, rather than compare consequences judge A received, compared to judge B, more regard and appreciation ought to be for the fact that society’s well-founded overall distrust for court systems is because errant judges are tolerated a long time before they are removed. And often, even judges’ shameful conduct such as those pointed out by Justice Knoll, are allowed to remain on the bench.

Located in New Orleans, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s sound judgment in these post-Katrina days is more vital than ever. In January 2006 when I wrote the essay (posting date 6/30/06) entitled: “Casualties From New Orleans’ Ineptness and Corruption Are Coming To A City Near You:. . .,” I had no clue that the New Orleans court system would be continuously supplying me with the incontrovertible proof of what I stated in that essay! IN FACT, the 4th Circuit (see ODOR OF CORRUPTION posted below), as well as many pleadings and documents throughout this website overwhelmingly corroborate what I wrote over a year ago.

A NEW INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR NEW ORLEANS

Since an Inspector (a new corruption watchdog) at some point must acquire information from the very same people the inspector is inspecting, is it likely that guilty culprits would hand over incriminating information about the operations of their public office? And is it not more likely that a culprit would provide information to give the appearance that things are aboveboard? Also, successful FBI investigations involve surprise approach on suspects and seizure of documents. Furthermore, even a watchdog with subpoena can accomplish much if he lacks knowledge about what information is material to exposing corrupt activity.

Even an Inspector with impeccable, extensive credentials and 30 years of law practice does not automatically translate into an effective watchdog if that Inspector’s expertise is maritime law, yet the Inspector has scant familiarity with RICO laws, or TILA laws, or LUTPA laws, or Constitutional law.
Considering the already-established New Orleans enforcements in place to attack crime and corruption (Metropolitan Crime Commission, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Crimestoppers, FBI, etc.), can a newly implemented watchdog thwart corrupt public officials from continuing to conceal, evade and distort wrongdoing while at the same time make it appear that all is well? Were there not ample pre-Katrina examples of concealing, evading, and distorting from the New Orleans School Board?

Two Movies

I do not get to watch much television, neither am I a movie buff. After I was evacuated and stranded from New Orleans, someone gave me a DVD called: “The Firm,” starring Tom Cruise. It was well over a year before I viewed it. Less than a month ago, I saw the movie called: “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. For me, the introduction for both movies alerted me that I had to first adjust my sentimentalities. This is so because I so identify with what both movies portray. Despite that almost everyone personally knows of court injustice, or knows someone who has such an experience, society’s laissez faire mindset about the court system seems like being indifferent to sinking sand. And, too often people bruised by injustice stew into their wounds, while missing opportunities to call attention to this problem in need of fixing.

I do not get to watch much television, neither am I a movie buff. After I was evacuated and stranded from New Orleans, someone gave me a DVD called: “The Firm,” starring Tom Cruise. It was well over a year before I viewed it. Less than a month ago, I saw the movie called: “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. For me, the introduction for both movies alerted me that I had to first adjust my sentimentalities. This is so because I so identify with what both movies portray. Despite that almost everyone personally knows of court injustice, or knows someone who has such an experience, society’s laissez faire mindset about the court system seems like being indifferent to sinking sand. And, too often people bruised by injustice stew into their wounds, while missing opportunities to call attention to this problem in need of fixing.Of course anyone who has seen those movies would proffer, correctly, that those movies portray attorneys’ underhandedness and not judges. Such a proffer is beside the point. Judicial corruption (in New Orleans or in any other city) –proven by convictions and jail sentences, and various Louisiana judges being kicked off the bench– integrally involves lawyers. Specifically, a judge’s rulings / orders result from some lawyer (or proper person litigant) raising some issue through the court system. Moreover, the objective here is not to divert to loopholes and get off the point. Also, as it pertains to the Louisiana judges and attorneys which are discussed throughout this website, the significance of referring to the movies is to point out a vivid source of ethical lawyering within abject legal circumstances.

The Bottom Line

If I were only focused on my plight I would not have paid attention to disenchanted attorneys and to people all around me who were having difficulties receiving equitable remedies from court. Aside from the reality that judicial ineptness or corruption or cronyism hampers the purpose for the judicial system, the additional reality is that an incalculable amount of people have been wronged by what was supposed to be just and fair. Some of these have not been denied justice, but made dispirited people with indelible scars. Too many of them became displaced and will probably never return to New Orleans. But that does not mean no voice should be raised on their behalf. I raise my voice. . .

It is not hard to imagine that the longstanding facts and media coverage of the way Wendell R. Miller handled judicial matters in his court prior to his being kicked off the bench, can certainly nurture dismantled households, civil disobedience, apathy, cheating and defrauding one’s neighbor, and various criminal elements –especially in Jennings, Louisiana, the place where Miller used to hold court (and other things). And it is not hard to imagine there were employees at that courthouse who, in order to keep their jobs, were forced to look the other way; and / or violate personal ethics because of Miller’s malfeasance.

In sum, as long as malevolent public officials can be certain that the judicial system –sometimes out of sheer error– will facilitate, patronize, cover up the public officials; and penalize people who bring accusations, the judicial system will continue to alternate between being causes and effects of public corruption. There is a problem when attention to preservation of judicial fellowship overrides the purpose and function of a court of law.

Judicial cronyism, malfeasance, ineptness, misplaced 11th Amendment Immunity (but not even 11th amendment relieved the State of Louisiana from paying $50,000.00 to the Viators because of Wendell Miller’s judicial misconduct while they still allowed Miller to remain on the bench), combined with social maladies and rampant racketeering, is a prototype of the “abomination that maketh desolate,” or a prototype of the Titanic.

(**The Motion To Remand is also posted on this website, which consists of the facts & exhibits relevant to these allegations. Also, see below, in the Amended RICO Complaint. paragraph #70 is a transcript excerpt’s from Paul Rumage’s March 31, 2005 falsified court testimony before Judge Kollin.)