08 April 2010

pineville city court judge phillip terrell issues fraudulent judgement on behalf of his close personal friend/alleged former law partner greg aymond

"right now" van halen

as many are aware, unethical alexandria, la.shyster, greg aymond a/k/a gregory r. aymond, louisiana bar roll number 17,449 has filed a scam "defamation" lawsuit against a person that he claims, without offering a shred of evidence, posts to wst...

but all mr. aymond's "lawsuit" has done, is to expose even more members of the criminal network and given us important clues on how they operate.

to wit:

on the morning of monday, 28 december 2009, the "defendant" was served "legal papers" by a uniformed pineville, la. city marshal driving a big 'ol pineville, city marshal van.

this service was supposedly pursuant to louisiana code of civil procedure article 1234.
Greg Aymond Phillip Terrell Phony Legal Papers
click here to download eleven page .pdf [5.75 .mb]
after the marshal departed, the "defendant" noticed that the court order was null and void because it was unsigned -- page ten.

so, the very next day, (tuesday, 29 december 2009), he personally appeared at the pineville city court clerk of court office with the above "notice of hearing" in hand.

the clerk of court that was on duty that day he spoke to is named lindsay delrie.

he showed the "notice of hearing" to ms. delrie who confirmed that it was not signed.

additionally, ms. delrie pulled the case file containing the original papers that mr. aymond's attorney, susan ford fiser,
louisiana bar roll number 22,366, ford law firm, 1630 metro drive, alexandria, la. tel. #318.442.8899, filed and the order there was unsigned as well.

ms. delrie searched all through the court house but no signed order could be found. page eleven.

next, the "defendant" showed ms. delrie the "citation and petition" that he was served on 12 november 2009 and asked her to point out to him the judge's signature ordering the "defendant" to answer the questions.

ms. delrie couldnt locate a signed order there either.

this could be important because weeks before the "defendant" was ever served mr. aymond posted some court papers which purport to contain an attached signed court order -- but that order didnt specifically order the "defendant" to do anything. besides, the "defendant" was never served with that order or even a certified copy of it or any other order whatsoever.

and just who is this mysterious katherine geary? what role is she playing in all this? as of this date and time the "defendant" has never been served with a motion and order withdrawing her as the "defendant's" curator.

why was ms. geary appointed as the "defendant's" curator in the first place?

mr. aymond has had the "defendant's" name, address and telephone number on file since june of 2007!

on or about 20 june 2007 mr. aymond telephoned the "defendant" and solicited his name to add to a list of "concerned citizens" in a letter he was sending to the rapides parish district attorney and the state attorney general requesting an investigation into the city of alexandria, la. council "apparent violation of the state's open meeting law."

the "defendant" copied and pasted the form of the request and emailed that with his name, address and telephone number to mr. aymond. wst... posted about it here.

back in 2007 the "defendant" was surprised that mr. aymond never sent him the complete copy of the letter he sent and it wasnt until november 2009 when he filed the below public records request to the rapides parish district attorney that he learned why mr. aymond never sent him a copy.

mr. aymond lied to the "defendant" -- he never used his name in the letter: apparently, is was a ruse to get his name and address.

RPDA Public Records Request November 2009
click here to download five page .pdf [2.19 mb]

just because mr. aymond didnt include the "defendant's" name in the above letter still doesnt change the fact that mr. aymond had the "defendant's" name and address all along -- so why was a phony "curator" appointed? and why hasnt she withdrew?

by the way, the proper spelling of ms. marks' first name is tami and not tammy.

so the "defendant" left the pineville city court clerk's office that december day satisfied that he had fulfilled his obligation to notify the clerk about the null and void order.

next, the "defendant" went out of his way to make himself available for service of process for a signed, legal court order.

but the days stretched into weeks then over a month passed and no order was ever served.

click picture to enlarge
so on thursday 18 february 2010 the "defendant" noticed on the caller id a call from the pineville clerk of court office. he missed the call because he was out.

assuming that the pineville clerk of court was an honest, respectable person and was calling, for instance, to say that since the order was unsigned and couldnt be fixed or cured in time, the "hearing" scheduled for the next day was canceled or postponed or as they say in the biz continued, he immediately returned her call.

link to audio page

the "defendant" was more than a bit surprised and insulted to learn that the pineville clerk of court is not interested in running an honest, respectable office. instead, his deputy is a liar who tried to trick the "defendant" into coming into court -- probably because the appeals court would have simply ruled that since the "defendant" came into court anyway he effectively waived his rights.

the clerk also lied about the judge signing the order. when she knew that he had not.

the louisiana supreme court in in re jerome w. dixon teaches us that it is a felony under the louisiana public records law to alter court records:

In Re: Jerome W. Dixon
click here to download seventeen page .pdf [134 kb] or here from the louisiana supreme court website

so if judge terrell did sign that order after the "defendant" had been served with a certified true copy -- which was unsigned -- then according to the supremes he could be guilty of a violation of La. R.S. 14:132 and possibly R.S. 14:123.

an interesting observation in the in re dixon disciplinary proceeding: three justices dissented and said that mr. dixon deserved even more punishment. one of the dissenters, the one who wrote the dissent to which the other two joined, is catherine "kitty" kimball who is now the chief justice.

the very next day, friday, 19 february 2010, the "defendant" received by certified mail number 7009 1680 0000 2340 4370:
Pineville Clerk Letter 18 February 2010
click here to download three page .pdf [122 kb]

this "notice of hearing" IS NOT a court order nor could it be confused as one. notice that the pineville clerk sent a copy to mr. aymond's attorney, ms. fiser, who must have known, or should have known that this WAS NOT a court order.

noting that ms. fiser specifically requested that her motion and order be served on the "defendant" pursuant to louisiana code of civil procedure article 1234 he once again went out of his way to make himself available to receive same.

but no court order or any order or court papers were ever served on the "defendant" whatsoever until around 3:37 pm cdt wednesday 31 march 2010 when the "defendant" checked the mailbox and found the below "notice of signing" and "judgment."

Notice of Signing
click here to download three page .pdf [1.53 mb]

curiously, the pineville clerk sent this by regular mail rather than by certified mail.

the very next morning, thursday, 01 april 2010 the "defendant" phoned the pineville city clerk of court teddy barbe for some sort of explanation.

incredulously, as you can hear for yourself, before the slams the phone down in the "defendant's" ear, mr. barbe maintains that you dont have to have a court order all you have to do is just know about a hearing.

link to audio page

wait a minute .... if thats true then why did they continue the 19 february 2010 hearing due to the "defendant" not being served a court order? why didnt they just say "well you know about it so show up or not but we're having court?"

by the way, louisiana code of civil procedure article 1603 states in part that "a motion for a continuance shall set forth the grounds upon which it is based..." the "defendant" never received a copy of that motion and order either.

doesnt it make sense that if mr. barbe was an honest, respectable person running an honest clerk of court office that he would have said to the "defendant" words to the effect of "hold on let me investigate this and i'll call you back."

after all we are talking about several potential felony violations of the law here.

like R.S. 14:133 filing and maintaining false public records (because the 26 march 2010 court hearing entire transcript as well as the "notice of signing" and "judgment" must be false public records and dont forget the 18 february 2010 "notice of hearing" letter they tried to pass off as a court order) and the aforementioned laws in the dixon case, there are also issues of 18 usc 1341 (mail fraud) and 18 usc 1346 scheme or artifice to defraud

then actually investigated it and called the "defendant" back and if he was in the right said something like "well, according to the code of civil procedure article blah, blah, blah and this and that court case, you dont need an order all you need is just know about it?"

or if the "defendant" was correct said something like "look i'am sorry let me talk to the judge and see about getting this turned around?" .

instead of slamming the phone down in a constituent's ear?

mr. barbe by his attitude and demeanor might be properly described as a freak. listening to that audio, he reminded us of that fictional character created by tulsa, oklahoma radio station kmod disc jockeys brent douglas and phil stone called "roy d. mercer."

we half expected him at any second to bust out with "how big of an 'ol boy are ya?"

is mr. barbe even qualified to be a clerk of court?

did you know that under La. R.S. 13:1884 a city court judge can appoint his own clerk of court? this is about as one (of many) of the dumbest laws there are.

all this does is allow these judges to appoint members of their crime gangs to that position in order to cover-up all the bogus orders and judgments they are or are not signing and/or serving.
mr. aymond in what he represents to be a blog post dated 20 february 2010 seemingly acknowledged the necessity of opposing party being served with a court order. although from the way its written, apparently, his attorney susan ford fiser lied to him in the part where he claims that it was her that discovered the failure of the clerk of court to serve the order.

alexandria, la. attorney susan ford fiser louisiana bar roll 22,366
needs to pay a little bit better attention to her legal papers

as we've already written surely ms. fiser could have known, must have known, should have known that the 18 february 2010 letter from the pineville clerk of court's office was not a court order.

additionally, ms. fiser could have known, must have known, should have known that nowhere in her case file was any evidence whatsoever that the "defendant" had ever been served with a court order.

still ms. fiser traveled over to the pineville city court house that friday 26 march 2010 and apparently allowed an illegal court proceeding to take place.

it appears that ms. fiser allowed for the creation of a false public record as well -- in the creation of the illegal court hearing transcript. the entire hearing transcript is also a false public record. La. R.S. 14:133.

the louisiana code of civil procedure article 371 states in part:
[an attorney] shall not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence; and shall not knowingly make any misrepresentation, or otherwise impose upon or deceive the court.
ms. fiser could have known or must have known or should have known that when she returned to her office and typed up her ill gotten "judgment" that she was creating a false public record and when she presumably deposited it into the mail to the pineville clerk of court office that act could possibly be interpreted as a violation of 18 usc 1341 and maybe 18 usc 1346.

so is all this evidence that ms. fiser has knowledge of and is helping work the scam -- or is it evidence that ms. fiser is an incompetent attorney?

mr. aymond's friend, judge phillip terrell, of all people, could have known or must have known or should have known that he had never signed a court order as well. didnt he bother to look at the case file before him?

judge terrell, could have known or must have known or should have known that there was no evidence whatsoever that the "defendant" had been served with any court order.

pineville city court judge phillip terrell on 01 february 2010
playing defense attorney for
winnfield, la. taser thug scott nugent
-- cnn video

on 16 july 2007 judge terrell apparently lent the prestige of his judicial office to advance the private interest another. namely, his pal greg aymond. is this possibly a violation of canon 2 b of the code of judicial conduct?

notice how mr. aymond didnt disclose that he and the judge were working at least one case together at the time of the interview either.

link to audio page

garland v garland
click here to download eight page .pdf [66 lb]

some anonymous person sent us this. in this case phillip terrell and greg aymond were working a divorce case together. reading between the lines of the 3rd circuit's ruling it probably wouldnt be too far fetched to describe what they were up to, as attempting to get some shady contract entered as evidence and then enforced.

both the trial judge and the 3rd circuit told them to take a hike.

according to the rapides parish clerk of court records judge terrell and his friend greg aymond didnt file a motion to withdraw until 30 april 2008.

interesting call to the rapides parish clerk of court office about this case: garland v garland #198,771.
link to audio page

on 14 december 2009 and during the pendency of mr. aymond's so called "defamation" suit against the "defendant," he made the above post where he pointed out (possibly to further terrify and intimidate the "defendant"?} another one of his and his friend judge terrell's exploits.

mr. aymond bragged:
"all it took was for judge terrell and myself to threaten court action and publicity on the issue."
in this case mr. aymond is certainly doing his part to garner publicity:

greg aymond posts of 08 april 2010
here to download twenty-three page .pdf [6.85 mb]

these are just a few of the blog posts mr. aymond has posted about the "defendant" and his "lawsuit" just during the course of the suit.

now we ask you, would any honest, respectable, professional attorney who holds himself out to be not only a person of the highest ethics himself but some sort of ethical watch dog constantly post such garbage?

would any decent human being?

especially when mr. aymond could know or must know or should know about the aforementioned louisiana code of civil procedure article 371 which states:
Art. 371. Attorney

An attorney at law is an officer of the court. He shall conduct himself at all times with decorum, and in a manner consistent with the dignity and authority of the court and the role which he himself should play in the administration of justice.

He shall treat the court, its officers, jurors, witnesses, opposing party, and opposing counsel with due respect; shall not interrupt opposing counsel, or otherwise interfere with or impede the orderly dispatch of judicial business by the court; shall not knowingly encourage or produce false evidence; and shall not knowingly make any misrepresentation, or otherwise impose upon or deceive the court.

For a violation of any of the provisions of this article, the attorney at law subjects himself to punishment for contempt of court, and such further disciplinary action as is otherwise provided by law. ~ emphasis added
notice it says "an attorney at law" not the plaintiff's attorney or the defense attorney but all attorneys. whats more La. R.S. 14:40.3 concerning cyberstalking states in part:
B. Cyberstalking is action of any person to accomplish any of the following:

(1) Use in electronic mail or electronic communication of any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to such person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent, or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person.

(2) Electronically mail or electronically communicate to another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of threatening, terrifying, or harassing any person. ~ emphasis added
couldnt it be interpreted that since mr. aymond is suing someone while repeatedly making extremely derogatory blog posts about him and the suit, that he could be terrifying, etc. the "defendant" for the purposes of extorting him into settling the suit for something of value?

considering the above, how could mr. aymond seriously look someone in the face and tell them that he is an ethical person? much less that he has somehow been "defamed."

so for all we know, in their minds, mr. aymond and judge terrell are merely teaming up again -- this time to shut down a blog that has in the past exposed mr. aymond for what he is.

is this another classic louisiana style good 'ol boy network shakedown?

why didnt they just serve the freaking order? thats a very good question. the answer could be because it's the nature of criminals is not to obey the law in the first place. they're gonna do whatever they want to do and the hell with the law.

as far as the pineville city court goes, if you look on the city of pineville, louisiana's official website at the section devoted to the pineville city court, here and here {click here to download nine page .pdf [1.74 mb]) for instance, you cant help but notice that its written in such a way as to encourage people to represent themselves without an attorney.

is the reason for that so that they can just tell you whatever they wish and most people would take them at their word and believe it?

you should wonder if anything coming out of there whether its an order or judgment etc is even legal.
video watch page
in this recent news report federal bureau of investigation, corruption unit assistant special agent-in-charge, howard schwarz says that louisiana is no longer the most corrupt state in the united states. agent schwarz is probably like everyone else and thinks that new orleans is louisiana. while we congratulate the bureau for making headway in stopping some nola corruption, agent schwarz needs to realize that there are other places in louisiana besides new orleans needing their attention.

we have no faith in either the rapides parish district attorney or the state attorney general doing anything. as louisiana attorney, governmental watch cat and blogger c.b. forgotston who is certainly someone who is qualified to know, recently said on the state wide moon griffon radio program:
"district attorneys in the state dont have a good track record of prosecuting politicians for wrong-doing and they just dont do it and so the feds have to do it -- thank goodness we have somebody -- but the district attorneys have jurisdiction over all of this.

the district attorney could have prosecuted the jefferson's for ripping off the state. they dont. thats one of the reasons that this (corruption) is so prolific around the state is the fact that there is no scrutiny by the state and there is no prosecution by the local district attorneys." ~ louisiana political blogger and attorney ~ c.b. forgotston 26 february 2010 on the moon griffon show
so the best we can hope for is someone from the fbi or department of justice happening by here. of course you can help them out by clicking here: https://tips.fbi.gov and sending director mueller the link to this post.
“I am sick and tired of double-talking, double-dealing, back-stabbing, corrupt politicians and lawyers,” ~ eunice, louisiana mayor bob morris, 08 april 2010
related posts
  • pineville la city court sex scandal
  • cnn: pineville, la. city court judge phillip terrell is winnfield taser cop scott nugent's attorney
  • ladb finally files charges against ogden middleton; the court house crowd exposed!

  • ====