28 November 2011
we dont really feel sorry for any of the parties in this rather long and complex lawsuit since it has something to do with the casino business and the jena band of choctaw indians. will the native american indians ever learn to quit trusting the white man?
we mean c'mon they cant even do a simple casino deal which would mean gazillions of dollars for everyone involved (except of course to the poor suckers) without having to file suit and go to court.
anyway, from what we can glean from all this is that the plaintiff's executed some sort of agreement with the crowell and owens law firm which "clearly provides that the defendant will provide legal services for consideration for an interest in a business venture with the plaintiffs."
the plaintiffs thought that the defendant would eventually secure for them a class three casino license but all that they could secure was a class two license (boo freaking hoo).
also the plaintiffs are angry because they claim that the defendant was supposed to litigate something called the tri-millenium suit, which according to the petition they didnt and that resulted in the plaintiff mr. stanley having to engage the gold, weems, bruser, sues & rundell law firm to litigate it at a cost of over a million dollars.
so the plaintiffs want the court to declare the original employment agreement null and void - apparently because it was contrary to rule 1.8(a) of the louisiana attorney rules of professional conduct [.pdf pg. 15 -- 30 september 2011 version] and to be reimbursed the legal fees they had to shell out to gold weems.
the tri-millenium suit might be of some interest to our friends over at slabbed, since it is a 24th judicial district court suit down in jefferson parish, louisiana styled "tri-millenium corporation et al vs jena band of choctaw indians et al" docket no. 517,887, division "a."
so, after awhile, in jumps local attorney jimmy faircloth representing the defendants crowell and owens.
mr. faircloth files an answer, reconventional demand and third party demand.
in his answer mr. faircloth pretty much denies everything, countersues h.k. stanley and sues stanley holdings l.l.c.
so mr. stanley answers all that and maintains that everything that crowell and owens have -- the engagement agreement and certain promissory note(s) are null and void because they were executed in violation of rule 1.18 of the louisiana attorney rules of professional conduct and that they made an "error or mistake in executing the promissory note."
there is an order for a jury trial in place and good luck to all the parties in keeping a jury awake or even interested in all of this hullabaloo.
the suit is in the ninth judicial district, court division "f" alloted to judge george c. metoyer, jr.
harlton k. stanley and machal llc vs crowell and owens
Posted by wst... at 16:20