Homophobic Mississippi blogger Douglas Handshoe loses again, this time in Mississippi state court: JUDGMENT OF NOVA SCOTIA COURT NOT REPUGNANT, says judge

The owners of Trout Point Lodge, Vaughn Perret and Charles Leary, have announced their trial court victory over Mississippi blogger Douglas K. Handshoe in Hancock County Circuit Court in their effort to enforce a momentous Canadian copyright infringement judgment.

Handshoe had initiated a barrage of litigation and motions to try to prevent this eventuality--including throwing his company Slabbed New Media into Chapter 11 bankruptcy--weaving conspiracy theories and arguing that Canadian law and court decisions were repugnant to Mississippi law. Judge Chris Schmidt found otherwise in an Order issued on January 5, 2017. 

The judge discounted Handshoe's argument that the Nova Scotia Supreme Court had no personal jurisdiction over him and detailed the blogger's numerous appearances and motions in the Canadian action in 2013. Judge Schmidt also embraced comity with Canada, and dismissed Handshoe's arguments that the 2010 SPEECH Act applied to this case. "The judgment of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court is not repugnant to Mississippi Law," stated the Order. 

Handshoe has failed to appreciate the difference between his "free speech" rights--which in Handshoe's universe only he is entitled to--and the protection of intellectual property rights, a mistake that has proved fatal to his unceasing campaign to injure Leary, Perret, and their business Trout Point Lodge. Handshoe was represented by attorney G. Gerald Cruthird. 

More to come . . . 

National Geographic Society, Toronto Star respond to Douglas Handshoe lawsuit, conspiracy theories

Attorneys for the National Geographic Society have just filed a motion to dismiss Mississippi blogger Douglas K. Handshoe's legal claims against the renowned non-profit organization, filed in U.S. district court by Handshoe in mid November, 2015.

Brief of the National Geographic Society

Citing Handshoe's self-created "legal quagmire" National Geographic lays out numerous grounds for dismissal of the claims, which include "civil conspiracy."

A few days ago, Torstar Corporation, publisher of the Toronto Star newspaper, filed its reply to the same lawsuit. This is the second time Handshoe has sued the Star in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. His previous defamation lawsuit against Canada's largest daily was thrown out, but before that occurred Handshoe sued the same company a second time, with new made up claims. Handshoe's lawsuits, which thus far all seem to get thrown out, are clogging an already overburdened Mississippi judicial system, and causing those he sues to waste financial resources and time.

According to its web site, "The National Geographic Society has been inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888. It is one of the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institutions in the world. Its interests include geography, archaeology and natural science, and the promotion of environmental and historical conservation." In addition to local counsel, National Geographic is represented by Lisa R. Bonanno and Ellen S. Kennedy, both from a major Washington, D.C. law firm. 

Handshoe accuses NGS and the Star of conspiring with the owners of a Nova Scotia wilderness lodge, and a Nova Scotia magazine publisher and journalist, to injure him through a coordinated attempt to silence his purported investigation of a long-ago concluded corruption scandal in Louisiana.

Handshoe claims that the conspiracy involved using notices of copyright infringement that contained intentional misrepresentations and damaged Handshoe's shell company Slabbed New Media, LLC, which is currently in bankruptcy court. National Geographic points out numerous alleged deficiencies in Handshoe's legal claims, and even cites a decision of Mississippi federal judge Keith Starrett  issued in mid December, 2015, that determined Handshoe has a "plain misunderstanding of copyright law."  Handshoe purports that he somehow has a right to publish a photograph of Trout Point Lodge owner Charles Leary taken and copyrighted by NGS, while also claiming that NGS's notice to his web host that he was infringing copyright was somehow a misrepresentation that caused injury.

Leary was a delegate to the 2010 Geotourism Summit held by NGS, according to Trout Point's blog. The Lodge was a finalist in the 2009 NGS Geotourism competition on the theme "Power of Place."

Judge Halil Ozerden will hear the current National Geographic case. Torstar has denied all of Handshoe's allegations, and is seeking costs from the Wiggins, Mississippi, accountant. The other defendants have not replied to Handshoe, whose methods of serving process look highly questionable according to court documents.

National Geographic's legal brief, filed January 5, 2016, succinctly summarizes the argument against Handshoe--that is, the facts stated in his own lawsuit contradict his status as a legitimate plaintiff:

The sole ground for including NGS as a defendant in this latest complaint: a notice that NGS sent to the internet service provider hosting the website of non-party Slabbed New Media, LLC (“Slabbed”) on January 7, 2013—almost three years ago—demanding that a photograph clearly displaying NGS’s copyright be removed from Slabbed’s website. 

Based on this slender reed, Plaintiff seeks to manufacture causes of action against NGS for supposed copyright misrepresentation and, even more incredibly, for civil conspiracy. He also asks this Court to take the entirely unnecessary step of resolving the question of whether Slabbed’s use of NGS’s copyrighted image on its website qualified as “fair use.” The threadbare allegations in the Amended Complaint, however, contradict, rather than support, these claims. 

The Amended Complaint is first subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) because, by Plaintiff’s own admission, he does not have standing to bring a claim against NGS, having suffered no injury or been personally accused of violating any copyright. It is also subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as a shotgun pleading that fails to give fair notice to NGS as to what allegations are being made against it individually. Finally, the handful of specific allegations regarding NGS that can be gleaned from the Amended Complaint are patently insufficient to support Plaintiff’s claims for numerous reasons, including the following: 

● The Amended Complaint fails to adequately plead at least three essential elements of a claim under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), requiring the dismissal of Count 5;

● Plaintiff’s attempted civil conspiracy claim under Count 9 fails both because such a claim is preempted by the Federal Copyright Act, and because the Amended Complaint does not plausibly allege the fundamental requirement of an agreement between NGS and its alleged co-conspirators; and

● There is no actual case or controversy to support Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment and, consequently, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count 10. 

Because the Amended Complaint is deficient as a matter of law in both its form and content, NGS’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted.

Notably, Handshoe has until today to file an amendment to yet another lawsuit he filed claiming "misrepresentation" under the Copyright Act, and also has to answer a "show cause" order from the federal court as why his last claim in that other lawsuit should not be dismissed. Handshoe has filed legal papers against dozens of persons and companies in multiple lawsuits over the past three years.

In 2012, the Chief Judge of the same federal court found Handshoe prone to "conspiracy theories" regarding Trout Point Lodge, a 12-room Nova Scotia hotel and its purported connection to an international money laundering scheme with former Louisiana politician Aaron Broussard, conspiracy theories that now have extended to major Canadian newspapers, journalists, and National Geographic:

Handshoe has not published any specific allegations about what role he believes Leary and Perret played in Broussard’s crimes. It is possible this is because Handshoe does not have any information indicating Plaintiffs were involved in Broussard’s criminal activity. Handshoe, has, however, made numerous more generalized allegations about connections between Leary, Perret, Abel, and Broussard. Some of these statements seem to be based in fact; others appears to be conspiracy theories that may or may not be substantiated.

What in 2012 "may or may not be substantiated" appears in 2016 as either the stark lunatic ravings of a true conspiracy theorist,  or an attempt to use lawsuits to harass his enemies, or both.  The New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper retraced any and all implications that Trout Point Lodge was somehow involved with Broussard in two retractions published in 2010 and 2011. Handshoe has written on his blog that the retractions from the Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper owned by Advance Publications were coerced, and part of a massive international coverup.

Stay tuned for news on the Show Cause Order issued to Handshoe . . . .

Second law journal article finds fault in SPEECH Act: Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe

An article in the Journal of International & Comparative Law of the Chicago-Kent College of Law has supported the conclusons of another recent law journal article to find that the SPEECH Act, as aaplied by both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit in Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe, is overly broad and in sorry need of reform:

the instant case . . . . exposes a potential over inclusivity of the SPEECH Act because of its universal applicability in defamation cases and lack of distinction between illegitimate and legitimate fora. Without the proper ability to distingush between the two types of fora, the SPEECH Act penalizes those plaintiffs filing claims in good faith in appropriate fora.

 The article goes on to speak of a "fundamental failing" of the SPEECH Act, and to state that the Act "should be amended."

Trout Point Lodge was an appelate case of first impression for the 2010 SPEECH Act, which resulted in two American citizens resident in Canada being denied their right to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. An inveterage homophobic blogger, Douglas Handshoe, had targetted Charles Leary and Vaughan Perret for online harassment after his then-web host dropped Handshoe's account for republsihing without permission a copyrighted article that erroneously mentioned Leary & Perret's Nova Scotia business as being involved in a Louisiana corruption scandal.

Major law review article says Trout Point Lodge federal appeal case "a paradigm model of the flaws of the SPEECH Act"

In a 57-page article entitled "If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say, Say It Anyway. Libel Tourism and the SPEECH Act" author Nicole Manzo conducts a detailed, critical review of the federal legislation the SPEECH Act, and concludes it is overly broad and lacking in necessary guidance for the courts. She refers to Trout Point Lodge, Charles Leary, and Vaughn Perret's loss in the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal as "monumental," but in the wrong way.

Considering the frequency of libel tourism, one might have assumed that the first case to apply the SPEECH Act would have been a testament to the benefits of, and the need for, the Act. However, Trout Point Lodge was not an exemplar of libel tourism or illegitimate forum shopping. The forum selected in Trout Point Lodge was not chosen to “chill” free speech. Rather, the forum was selected because it was both plaintiffs’ domicile and the jurisdiction where the defamatory statements were aimed. In addition, and most importantly, the forum was the location where the plaintiffs suffered harm to their reputations. Trout Point Lodge was monumental, but not for First Amendment protection or the deterrence of libel tourism. The case was monumental for exemplifying the broad reach of the Act and lack of guidance that Congress supplied the courts. In essence, Trout Point Lodge is a paradigm model of the flaws of the SPEECH Act.

The article recommends altering the legislation due to the failure of its just application in the Trout Point Lodge case.  Referring to the $425,000 Canadian defamation judgment against homophobic blogger Douglas Handshoe, the author states: "if there was one judgment that was capable of United States enforcement under the SPEECH Act, it was this judgment. Nevertheless, the judgment in Trout Point Lodge did not even come close to enforcement." Though the article focuses on the published 5th circuit decision, her conclusions apply equally to Judge Louis Guirola's trial court decision. She determines, too, that the Act provides too little protection for foreign defamation plaintiffs, which in the Trout Point case included two American citizens.

A major point of the article is that international comity will be irreperably harmed by the Act in its current version, and that this is already occurring in the Nova Scotia courts. "The over-inclusive nature of the SPEECH Act risks offending international comity. Such a risk could possibly result in non-enforcement of United States judgments in foreign courts or some other form of legal retaliation."

In contradistinction to Douglas Handshoe's incessant refrain that the Trout Point plaintiffs are "libel tourists" and forum shoppers, Manzo also points out that the Trout Point plaintiffs were perfectly correct in filing the lawsuit against Handshoe in the place they did, Nova Scotia.

Finally, the article points up serious potential for unequal application of the law, which in this case affected the rights of two U.S. citizens, Perret & Leary: "foreign, private defamation defendants being afforded more constitutional protection than domestic private defamation defendants." Manzo points out that many U.S. jurisidctions, incluing New York State, retain defamation as tort of strict liability on occasions of purely private libel. This makes the common law of defamation in the U.S. first cousins with such law in Canada and the U.K. Things aren't quite as simple on the SPEECH Act front, as Mr. Doug Handshoe would have everyone believe.

Beclowning judges & fraudulent misrepresentations: Doug Handshoe's favorite topic. A commentary on "intrinsic" versus "extrinsic" in cases of fraud on the court

Consistency and candor with the court can make or break any case, but American judges who encounter "a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme" to influence the court through machinations done outside the court's process is seen as among the most reprehensible conduct, which strikes at the very heart of the institution of justice.  A misrepresentation made within a proceeding, such as perjury, is called "intrinsic" while the latter kind of scheme is known as "extrinsic."

In June of 2013, homophobic blogger Douglas Handshoe was the Respondent in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Trout Point Lodge, Vaughn Perret, and Charles Leary in Nova Scotia Supeme Court. According to the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Handshoe was since 2011 on a "campaign" to harass, damage, and embarass, Trout Point, Leary & Perret online. This included publishing their copyrighted photographs without permission.

Unlike the previous lawsuit launched against Handshoe by the Trout Point plaintiffs, in this 2013 case Handshoe appeared and defended in Nova Scotia. He was, he stated on his blog, going to show the Nova Scotia judges how they had previously been "beclowned" by Leary & Perret, whom the Slabbed blog had targetted with a plethora of homophobic epithets including "queer fag scum."

In his "Reply to Applicants' Motion to Strike & Summary Disposal," signed by him and filed with the Nova Scotia Court on June 24, Handshoe made the following statement:

Remember that statement regarding an alleged link betwen Handshoe "and the Attorneys for Concrete Busters." That is that "any allegation of a connection is both fanciful and concocted from whole cloth." It is important because in April, 2013, Judge Louis Guirola filed in the court record a letter from Louisiana attorney Daniel Abel stating his belief that Handshoe and his attorney Bobby Truitt had confected a scheme to place false criminal allegations in an amended lawsuit by two waste disposal companies against Frederick Heebe and the River Birch Landfill. In particular, that lawsuit named Trout Point Lodge and another of Abel, Leary, and Perret's businesses, Cerro Coyote, S.A., as "shell companies" involved in a criminal RICO conspiracy with former politican Aaron Broussard. At that point, a waste disposal contract given to River Birch by Broussard's administrtion was under federal criminal investigation. The investigation of River Birch later collapsed.

When the Court filed that letter into the record in April, 2013, Handshoe and attorney Truitt remained silent: no response.

Trout Point, Perret, & Leary then succesfully moved the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal to expand the record of evidence on appeal to include Abel's letter and a letter from "Attorneys for Concrete Busters," specifically Smith & Fawer, LLC. The public record indicates the motion was opposed by Doug Handshoe and Bobby Truitt, but then when it came time to actually respond to the Plaintiffs' motion, Truitt filed nothing in response. Again, silence. A failure to disclose? Fearful of having to make positive assertions that were lies?

Smith & Fawer, for their part, ultimately retracted their accusations, dismissed the allegations in court, and said that they gleaned what was said about Trout Point Lodge and Cerro Coyote from "slabbed.com." The true URL for Slabbed is slabbed.org. There was no mention of actual contact with Handshoe in the Smith & Fawer letter, signed by attorney Stephen Gele.

Daniel Abel wrote his letter to Judge Guirola because in his decision denying Trout Point, Perret, & Leary's enforcement of their 2012 $427,000 Canadian judgment against Handshoe, Judge Guirola referred to the allegations made in that waste disposal lawsuit despite the fact that it was never introduced into evidence. In legal parlance, he took "judicial notice" of not just the existence of the lawsuit, but also of the allegations contained therein. Judge Guirola also stated in the decision that he had looked at the Slabbed blog in October, 2012, that is, after the two sides had finished their submissions to the court. The record shows that in September, Trout Point, Leary, and Perret also filed an "emergency motion" asking the court to tell Handshoe to not publish about the plaintiffs while the court was deliberating. Judge Guirola took no action, other than to look at Slabbed.

His decision to deny Trout Point's effort to enforce its judgment, available on PACER, stated that in:

So, if Doug Handshoe and Bobby Truitt had nothing to do with placing those criminal allegations about Trout Point, Perret, and Leary in the lawsuit drafted by Smith & Fawer, then the judge's judicial notice might be unusual, but not devestating. Other than attorney Abel's suspicions, articulated in his letter to Judge Guirola, there was no other evidence that Handshoe and/or Truitt had contact with Smith & Fawer. In fact, as seen above, Handshoe denied any such contact in no uncertain terms, and in a court of law.

Then, last October, after winning their copyright infringement action against Handshoe in Nova Scotia, Trout Point, Perret, & Leary were trying to once again enforce a Canadian judgment in Mississippi.

Handshoe improperly removed the enforcement action to Judge Guirola's district court. It was remanded last November.

While that remand decision was pending, Handshoe filed a motion trying to convince Judge Guirola in Mississippi to enjoin Judge Piper Griffin in New Orleans from continuing with Mr. Abel's defamation lawsuit against Handshoe, Truitt, and Anne-Marie Vandenweghe in New Orleans Civil District Court. That was a crazy move, which Judge Guirola never entertained.

Nevertheless, Handshoe filed his own sworn affidavit along with his motion.You can see it on PACER.

Here is part of what he swore to in that affidavit filed with the federal district court:

Guess "both fanciful and concocted from whole cloth" was a bit of an eaggeration, no? Looks like an outright lie to the court. In addition, Handshoe & Truitt's silence before Judge Guirola and the 5th Circuit looks more and more like intentional non-disclosure. 

Beside the sudden admission in October, 2014, to what he had flatly denied to a court in June, 2013--that is to direct contact with "Attorneys for Concrete Busters"--Doug Handshoe made other statements of interest.

First, to anyone looking at the amended lawsuit by Concrete Busters, filed by Smith & Fawer, it was not "Steve Gele" that "drafted signed and filed" the complaint, it was Randall Smith. Knowing which attorney actually drafted the lawsuit would show some insider knowledge by Handshoe of how it was drafted before it was filed. How does Handshoe know he likes to be called "Steve" anyway?

Second, Handshoe says he "read the lawsuit online" but also that Mr. Gele "leaked" it to him. Which is it? He saw it online, or it was leaked to him? Maybe Mr. Handshoe needs to prepare his affidavits more carefully, checking for factual consistency? In addition, looking at the metadata of the PDF file published by Handshoe alongside other PDF's created by Smith & Fawer shows that the PDF file published by Slabbed most likely came directly from Smith & Fawer. So did the PDF of the lawsuit published on nola.com. Third, Handshoe published the lawsuit online before the Times-Picayune did, not after. So, who gave the Times-Picayune the lawsuit? Handshoe?

Were Mr. Abel's statements to Judge Guirola that there had been "fraud upon the court"--that is "a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme" to influence the court -- in the Trout Point Lodge v. Handshoe case correct? There are certainly lots of questions to ask Mr. Handshoe and Mr. Truitt, now that both will face discovery in New Orleans Civil District Court.

Handshoe practically admitted this was what was happening on October 5, 2012, when Handshoe published a lengthy post on the Concrete Busters allegations entitled “Civil District Court lawsuit filed by Concrete Busters against River Birch terms Trout Point Lodge Ltd. of Nova Scotia a 'shell company'.” He published: “I have an outstanding  matter in United States Federal District Court in Gulfport before Judge Louis Guirola that my lawyer, Bobby Truitt has me barred from commenting upon. But that does not mean that we can’t let Concrete Busters tell part of that story . . ."

Academic question: does this behavior rise to the level of criminality?

Civil rights attorney Daniel Abel prevails in Louisiana Supreme Court against "fabled Slabbed legal team," day after legal clown Doug Handshoe sues Loyola University and its legal clinic

Friday the 13th wasn't a very good day for "super lawyer" Jack Etherton Truitt and his client Douglas Handshoe. 

On February 13, the seven Justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court unanimously denied the appeal by "Bobby" Truitt of a New Orleans trial court decision that Trout Point Lodge co-owner Daniel Abel's lawsuit against Truitt, homophobic blogger Handshoe, and former Jefferson Parish Assistant Attorney Anne-Marie Vandenweghe was purportedly an anti-SLAPP suit. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation." This decisively puts to rest any contention by the three defendants that Abel is suing in defamation over a matter of public interest or that he is a public figure. There is no public interest at issue in Abel's lawsuit, the trial court, the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court have decided.

Truitt, who once ignorantly denied in a Twitter exchange with this blog that the prevailing party in a Louisiana CCP Article 971 (anti-SLAPP) motion is owed attorney's fees by the losing party, will now indeed owe Mr. Abel his fees, which could be substantial. Truitt has for some reason removed that tweet--where he also questioned where Randall Cajun went to law school--from publication.

Mr. Truitt attended law school at Loyola University in New Orleans, as did Mr. Abel.

Loyola University sued by Handshoe
The day before the Supreme Court handed down its decision, February 12, Handshoe had filed a motion to amend his Mississippi federal court lawsuit against Abel for alleged misrepresentation under the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). The amendment asks to include as new defendants Loyola University of New Orleans, the Loyola legal clinic Associate Director Ramona Fernandez, legal student Janey Lamar, and process server Chris Yount. Handshoe alleges counts of "abuse of process" and "malicious prosecution." He goes to the extent of ironically stating that he is being "harassed" and "defamed" through legal process by the University's legal clinic and the others. He also accuses the new defendants and Abel of "cynically using a minor child that was a non-party to the litigation" to do so. There was "misuse of the legal process, incuding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and Louisiana's defamation laws to silence reporting on a matter of public interest," Handshoe wrote in his brief for Judge Keith Starrett. 

Fernandez and the non-profit legal clinic are representing the minor child in an appeal of a trial court decision that Yount's defamation lawsuit against Handshoe and Jack Truitt was indeed an anti-SLAPP suit. Lamar is simply a law student who works at the clinic, which was appointed by court order to represent the child's interests in legal matters, including the divorce.

Unfortunately for Handshoe, the Chief Judge of New Orleans Civil District Court, the Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court have now said public interest is lacking with regards to Abel and Trout Point Lodge, undercutting Handshoe's conclusory allegations in Mississippi federal court. Handshoe has repeatedly referred to Abel and his associates as "SLAPP Happy Nut Jobs," an allegation now definitvely reputiated by three Louisiana courts. Handshoe will pay the consequences, but will he cease his blogging of falsehoods?

Notably, Handshoe is also now suing Yount and Abel for "abuse of process" and "malicious prosecution" in two courts at the same time, which appears far more than legally dubious. All of his legal adversaries, according to Handshoe's various legal filings, are part of a grand international conspiracy to silence his blogging, which a U.S. federal district court described in 2012 as a "campaign" to harass, damage, and embarass his targets. 

In addition, Handshoe's primary allegation that attorney Abel is guilty of "misrepresentation" under the DMCA looks like pure folly. Abel was the legal representative of the father of a minor child when a DMCA notice was served on Handshoe's web host. By law, the father was guardian of all intellectual property generated by the child, and therefore had legal standing to serve the DMCA notice regarding Handshoe's publication of the child's drawing on his web site "Slabbed." Handshoe's Mississippi brief also suggests, Abel had been ordered by the court in Louisiana to see that the drawing was removed from publication on Handshoe's web site. Handshoe claims that order was immaterial.

According to legal commentators, Abel, as the father's attorney, was fully within his rights to act as the father's agent in serving the notice; in fact, attorneys commonly draft and serve DMCA notices. In addition, over 5 months ago, Abel challenged the very jurisdiction of the Mississippi federal court over him. The judge in that case, however, has not issued any rulings since early September, 2014. 

As previously mentioned, in addition to being sued for defamation by Abel in New Orleans, Handshoe and attorney Truitt are also being sued for defamation in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana by Chris Yount, a process server and private investigator who has worked for Abel. According to Handshoe's web site and court documents, Yount served Handshoe with legal process on several occasions over the past few years. This included in two Nova Scotia Supreme Court cases where plaintiffs including Trout Point Lodge have won $817,000 in damages against Handshoe for defamation and copyright infringement. To many observers, Handshoe's publishing about Yount's child and now his lawsuit against Yount looks like payback, including using the legal system ironically in just the kind of abuse of legal process that Handshoe is now alleging against Loyola University and the others. 

There is currently an appeal pending in that case to the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, which will consider anti-SLAPP issues in Mr. Yount's case, where Ramona Fernandez represents the minor child, nearly identical to those Mr. Abel so succesfully litigated in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. The Supreme Court denial of Mr. Truitt's appeal could have serious positive implications for the pending Yount appeal. 

Abel's motion to compel Handshoe to answer discovery in Abel's lawsuit against him, Truitt, and Vandenweghe, will be heard next month; a hearing on attorney's fees can't be far behind.  Legal observers say Handshoe has little chance of winning, and will for the first time in all his various legal battles be subject to discocvery alongside Truitt and Vandenweghe. 

Notably, self-styled as the Gulf South's premier legal affairs blogger, Handshoe tried to have the enforcement of the Nova Scotia copyright infringement judgment against him in state court removed to the same federal court where he is suing Abel, but was miserably unsuccesful. Handshoe had argued for protection against the $180,000 judgment under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act, but failed last November when Chief Judge Louis Guirola determined that enforcing the copyright order had nothing to do with defamation.

Attorney Abel served his copyright notice on Handshoe's then-web host Dream Host because Handshoe was publishing on Slabbed a sexually explicit drawing authored by the minor child. (Handshoe admits to twice making such publications in his amended suit). Dream Host apparently had enough and dropped Handshoe, who now uses HostGator. According to the allegations in Yount's suit against Handshoe and Truitt (which appear in an appeal brief filed by Fernandez), they used Slabbed not only to publish the drawing after the court file was sealed by a judge in a Louisiana divorce proceeding, they also both published text on Slabbed to create the false and defamatory innuendo that Yount was sexually molesting his child. If true, that would be defamatory per se under Louisiana law. Courts in both the United States and Canada have repeatedly found that Handshoe publishes homophobic material on Slabbed.

In his amended legal complaint, Handshoe writes that the drawing shows "a minor child being sodomized by a line of robots." The divorce court apparetly did not agree with Handshoe's conclusions, as Mr. Yount has custody of his child, and the child has serious legal representation in the form of Ms. Fernandez and Loyola University. 

More news on the "no holds barred" Handshoe/Truitt legal circus coming soon . . .

Douglas Handshoe, CPA looses fight to block $180,000 copyright infringement judgment under the SPEECH Act

Justice may finally be coming, her sword drawn, for inveterate blogger Douglas Handshoe, a homophobic Mississippi accountant who seems to have too much time on his hands.

homophobic blogger Douglas K. Handshoe

On November 24, 2014, a judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted the motion of Trout Point Lodge and its owners to send a court action seeking enforcement of their $180,000 Canadian copyright infringement judgment against Handshoe back to state court. The significance of this ruling is that Handshoe had attempted to remove the litigation to federal court under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act in June.  Trout Point, Perret, and Leary have won a total of $817,000 in Canadian judgments against Handshoe, and this will be the first to move towards actual enforcement. Another $210,000 in defamation awards awaits eventual enforcement by the Trout Point plaintiffs, who have demonstrated a calm persistence in pursuing Handshoe in his home state.

Handshoe has also been sued for defamation by at least two persons in Louisiana, including a case where his attempt to have the defamation action against him dismissed as a "strategic lawsuit against public participation" or SLAPP suit was flatly rejected, not once but twice, by Chief Judge Piper Griffin of New Orleans Civil District Court. Handshoe has publicly cried  about all the lawsuits against him being SLAPP suits, and his opponents being "SLAPP happy nut jobs." The courts apparently do not agree.  

Handshoe's loss in Mississippi comes more  than 2 1/2 years after Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Suzanne Hood awarded record damages for defamation against Handshoe in February, 2012. Since then numerous other courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit have called Handshoe's homophobic rhetoric "reprehensible" and "grotesque."

Concluding the second Canadian lawsuit against the Mississippian, in which Handshoe appeared and defended, on Valentine's Day, 2014, Nova Scotia Justice Kevin Coady issued a written decision finding Handshoe had violated the Trout Point plaintiffs' copyrights in four images by publishing them without permission on his blog Slabbed juxtaposed with homophobic, false, and defamatory words. The pictures were of the Plaintiffs. He award maximum statutory damages of $20,000 for each instance of infringement and also awarded a significant $100,000 in exemplary damages.  Both cases have attracted significant media attention in Canada, and test the waters of cross-border legal relations in the Internet age.

Trout Point quickly moved to enforce that judgment in Mississippi state court; Handshoe removed it to federal court 6 months ago claiming it was a federal question under the SPEECH Act. The case ended up in Chief Judge Louis Guirola's court. The blogging CPA also filed numerous motions seeking that the federal court require a bond from Trout Point, and also asking the Mississippi court to stop the third-party New Orleans lawsuit against him through an anti-suit injunction. Such an injunction would violate basic constitutional principles going back to the Founding Father's Anti-injunction Act. Handshoe frequently yammers on his blog about how Leary, Perret, and others seek to violate his constitutional rights, but apparently has a serious problem recognizing the rights of others. Judge Guirola ignored such filings by Handshoe.

In what the Chief Judge did take up, Handshoe petitioned the court to find that because the Nova Scotia Supreme Court's 2014 decision also included findings of, and damages for defamation, the copyright infringement damage award was also somehow susceptible to the SPEECH Act's provisions. He also at points argued that the decision was somehow res judicata, obviously not knowing the first thing about this legal principle despite claiming his web site to be "the premiere legal affairs blog in the Gulf South."  Handshoe also again hurled numerous baseless allegations of felonious criminal activity against the Nova Scotia gay couple in his federal court submissions, which he has been doing online since 2010. Handshoe does not know Leary and Perret. Comments he published on his blog have referred to them as "queer fag scum" among numerous other epithets.

In his removal notice, Handshoe tried to argue the Plaintiffs were doing something untoward by enrolling the copyright judgment; the federal court did not agree.

Chief Judge Guirola wrote: "Plaintiffs argue that they are not seeking to enforce a foreign judgment for defamation but for copyright infringement. The Court agrees. Based on the clear and explicit language of the Canadian court Order incorporated by reference into the state court petition, the underlying judgment is for copyright infringement."

However, the federal judge did not stop there. Knowing the full background of Handshoe's previous SPEECH Act case, he conducted a further analysis, asking: "whether this foreign judgment for copyright infringement falls within the purview of the SPEECH Act. If so, then removal was proper. If not, the case must be remanded."

Handshoe failed to convince the judge on any point.

Copyright infringement is not included in the language of the SPEECH Act,
which specifically includes defamation, libel, and slander in its definition of
defamation. Furthermore, the Court finds that the judgment sought to be enforced
– which concerns the publication of photographs that Plaintiffs claimed to be
copyright-protected – is not a judgment for a “similar claim alleging that forms of
speech are false, have caused damage to reputation or emotional distress, have
presented any persons in a false light, or have resulted in criticism, dishonor, or
condemnation of any person.” 28 U.S.C. § 4101. Indeed, unlike the judgment at
issue in the claim previously before the Fifth Circuit and this Court, the judgment
at issue here does not involve allegations of false or damaging forms of speech at all.
See generally Trout Point Lodge, 729 F.3d 481. Instead, the judgment concerns
purported property rights in photographic images. See, e.g., Axcess Broad. Servs.,
Inc. v. Donnini Films, No. 3:04-cv-2639, 2006 WL 1115430, at 3 n.1 (N.D. Tex. Aug 26, 2006) (“A copyright is a property right . . . .”).

The judge also took up and flatly rejected Handshoe's yammering about"bifurcation," and his innuendo that the Nova Scotia court justice somehow illegally colluded with Trout Point.  

Defendant claims that the Canadian court bifurcated the Canadian case into
multiple component judgments in an effort to circumvent the SPEECH Act. Defendant’s mere argument is insufficient to meet his burden to show that removal was proper. See Simons v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 193 F.3d 848, 850 n.7 (5th Cir.
1999) (“‘Removal . . . cannot be based simply upon conclusory . . . allegations.’”)
(citation omitted). Nonetheless, Plaintiffs are not seeking to enforce any defamation component judgment, but only the copyright infringement component judgment. There is no indication that the judgment sought to be enforced encompasses any monetary damages awarded for defamation, and, thus, no basis for removal under the SPEECH Act. 

Defendant’s statement that the final opinion of the Canadian court and Plaintiffs’ filings in that court “indicate[] a vastly differing fact pattern where defamation is the primary tort alleged[,]” (Def’s. Mem. 2, ECF No. 13), does not persuade the Court that removal is proper, either. This Court was not provided a copy of the final opinion of the Canadian court, only the judgment. And, while the filings attached to Defendant’s Memorandum do include defamation allegations, again, the actual judgment sought to be enforced is not for defamation. 

Thus Mr. Handshoe will be heading back to state court, where the Canadian judgment for copyright infringement is very likely to be enforced considering the close relationship between the U.S. and Canada, as well as their common respect for copyright protections. This precedent-setting decision will help delimit future inquiries into the breadth of the SPEECH Act's protections. It also eliminates a large swath of legal arguments Handshoe might have hoped to make to avoid justice. 

Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal decides against Handshoe to expand the record: Another defeat for the fabled Slabbed legal team

Perusing the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system turned up that on May 31, 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, now considering a case of first impression under the federal SPEECH Act in enforcing a $427,000 Canadian defamation judgment against Douglas Handshoe, has granted the Plaintiffs' motion to expand the record on appeal, a remarkable move.

 

The significance of this Order lies in the fact that the new materials now allowed into the evidentiary record on appeal include a total retraction of false allegations appearing in the Concrete Busters lawsuit against River Birch Landfill (now dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice) that Trout Point Lodge was a shell company used in criminal racketeering. Those allegations were dismissed voluntarily, and the Smith & Fawer law firm representing Concrete Busters plaintiffs identified Douglas Handshoe's Slabbed blog as their sole source. The lower court referenced that Concrete Busters lawsuit in its decision, but the dismissal came well after it made its SPEECH Act decision in favor of Handshoe.

Also now in the record is a document filed in the district court by Chief Judge Louis Guirola that makes allegations of possible fraud against Handshoe and his lawyer Bobby Truitt. The lawyer for Trout Point Lodge, Vaughn Perret, and Charles Leary told the 5th Circuit that he can't vouch for or deny those allegations made by attorney Daniel Abel, but the May 31 Order makes it clear that the Court of Appeal will now take up evidence that could be very damaging to Handshoe's case.  

That information about IP addresses is relevant because it would mean that Handshoe knew the district court was looking at Slabbed while deliberating on his $427,000 fate. If intentional acts were done to influence the court, including inserting allegations into the Concrete Busters suit, there could be consequences well beyond loosing the appeal in the Fifth Circuit. If the case is returned to Judge Guirola, it's an open question as to what he would do about the fraud allegation.

Finally, as the Order states, Jack "Bobby" Truitt, Handshoe's lawyer, never filed a response to the motion, even though the Court of Appeal set a deadline for doing so. That's one famed legal team, for sure. Bon sang!

It makes one wonder if Mr. Doug has any legal team left after his disastrous showing in Judge Susie Morgan's courtroom, his loss on attorney's fees & an appeal bond, and now this decision . . . 

BREAKING NEWS on the "famed" Slabbed legal team: Blogger Handshoe's Baldwin Haspel legal team loses on motions to sanction the attorney who is suing Handshoe for defamation, more

On May 9, 2013, Doug Handshoe, CPA, was openly gleeful that federal judge Susie Morgan had issued an Order telling attorney Daniel Abel to show cause why he had issued a subpoena to Jefferson Parish regarding former Assistant Parish Attorney Anne-Marie Vandenweghe's blogging activities. Handshoe even put up a countdown clock on Slabbed, leading to the minute the hearing was scheduled to begin.

Abel was suing Handshoe and Vandenweghe for defamation in federal court. "We’re going for his license to practice in federal courts as Danny Abel has a history, habit and pattern of disobeying the Louisiana and Federal Courts," stated Handshoe. Handshoe was defended in the lawsuit by New Orleans' own Baldwin Haspel, a firm that may now be wondering what they've gotten themselves into with Handshoe, an adjudicated defamer and inveterate blogger, who will even openly and notoriously break federal court rules to continue blogging and tweeting.

A conspiracy theorist, Handshoe has for years accused Abel and his two business associates of involvement in federal crimes related to the criminal investigation, indictment, and guilty plea of former Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard. All three men are gay. Broussard, in fact, was never indicted or sentenced for any crimes relating to Abel, his partners, or their businesses, including Trout Point Lodge in Nova Scotia. Abel is self-represented. Handshoe has repeatedly accused the trio of being members of organized crime, racketeering, and money laundering, among many other unfounded allegations. No one except Handshoe and Vandenweghe have made such claims, and various publications on Slabbed are fervently anti-gay and homophobic.

Judge Morgan had for months not acted on Abel's motion to remand the case to Louisiana state court after Vandenweghe revealed in her first court filing that she now resided in Harahan, Louisiana not Pass Christian, Mississippi. In the mean time, both Vandenweghe and Handshoe tried their best to have the case against them dismissed, revealing their legal strategies in extensive court filings. Last week, Judge Morgan suddenly indefinitely cancelled oral argument scheduled for Handshoe's attorneys, and denied his attempt at getting sanctions against sole practitioner Abel. That was defeat number one for well-reputed firm Baldwin Haspel, followed by a reprimand from the judge after she found out that Handshoe was tweeting and emailing from inside the courtroom during oral argument, which is against the law. He was seated at counsel's table next to his Baldwin Haspel attorneys while breaking the law. Morgan actually reconvened the hearing to advise Handshoe and his attorneys about Handshoe's rule-breaking conduct, apparently after her staff discovered the online publications.

Judge Morgan had allowed Abel to voluntarily dismiss the federal lawsuit (which had been necessitated by Vandenweghe and Handshoe both living in Mississippi) without prejudice, which meant he is free to file against them anew in Louisiana state court. Abel in fact has told the federal court he plans to sue in state court soon. 

Balwin Haspel associates Scott Sternberg and Brodie Glenn then tried to get attorney's fees from Abel by court order, even going to the extent of questioning the judge's prior ruling regarding §1927 sanctions and her decision that Abel could dismiss voluntarily without prejudice. Sternberg is an avid defender of blogger rights and access to public records, however defamation--like publicly accusing people of major crimes and corruption without any proof--is not free speech under Louisiana or United States law. The Baldwin Haspel attorneys claim that Handshoe's allegations were simply opinion or hyperbole, however anyone vaguely familiar with Slabbed would find such a suggestion laughable. Handshoe also claims to be a journalist, and points to coverage of his blog by the Times-Piacyune web site nola.com as proof.

Morgan's decision is legally significant because it means that a special motion to strike under Louisiana's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) rules does not amount to a motion for summary judgment, at least under federal court rules. To win on such an anti-SLAPP motion, Handshoe would have had to show how Abel's private business was somehow a matter of public interest, and it cannot be so just because Handshoe said it was on Slabbed. 

It is notably ironic that both Handshoe as represented by Baldwin Haspel attorney Sternberg and a self-represented Vandenweghe were opposing Abel's attempts to get at Jefferson Parish public records, as both are prior users of public records laws and Vandenweghe was the Assistant Parish Attorney in charge of public record requests while the Broussard criminal investigation was underway by both journalists and prosecutors. Sternberg has represented two student newspaper editors in cases involving Louisiana public records laws, at Tulane and Louisiana State University.

Judge Morgan today denied Handhshoe and Vandenwege's motions for attorney's fees, blow number three for the New Orleans law firm. It's an open question as to whether Handshoe has paid the firm a cent, as the Baldwin Haspel attorneys seemed desperate to get a fee award, filing multiple briefs to Judge Morgan. The firms advertises on Slabbed's front page.

This setback echoes Handshoe's defeat in Mississippi federal court in February, where Judge Guirola denied he and his attorney Bobby Truitt's attempt to get attorney's fees in another court case where Charles Leary and Vaughn Perret were seeking to enforce a $425,000 Canadian defamation judgment against Handshoe. The federal judge unequivocally denied the motion, and said there was no suggestion that Leary & Perret's appeal to the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeal was frivolous.  That appeal is pending.

Final page of Judge Morgan's Order stating that Handshoe's legal argument was "inapposite"

In today's opinion, Judge Morgan noted that Handshoe filed a special motion to strike Abel's lawsuit only after Baldwin Haspel opposed the motion to move the lawsuit to state court, and refused to countenance their complaints that Abel had acted in some vexatious manner. Abel had simply amended his lawsuit once to add new allegedly defamatory statements Vandenweghe and Handshoe had allegedly published on Slabbed. He also filed a brief in Morgan's court making a strong argument unmasking Vandenweghe's multiple blogging personalities, a technique known as "sock puppetry." Interim Jefferson Parish President Steve Theriot had publicly accused Vandenweghe of blogging while a Parish employee and on Parish time. Theriot and Jefferson Parish then sued in defamation trying to get information on anonymous online identities publishing on nola.com and Slabbed. Abel has submitted Public Record Requests to Jefferson Parish relating to Vandenweghe's online activities and that prior lawsuit, which was later withdrawn. Abel stated in court filings that Jefferson Parish had indicated to him that it has documents and records responsive to his inquiries about Vandenweghe.

Abel's analysis of writings on Slabbed is similar to what was done to unmask federal prosecutors Salvadore Perricone and Jan Maselli-Mann as anonymous bloggers, a scandal still reverberating through the New Orleans U.S. Attorney's Office. The unmasking was done by Frederick Heebe, co-owner of the River Birch Landfill, and his legal team. Vandenweghe attended law school with Maselli-Mann and her former boss U.S. Attorney Jim Letten, who resigned amidst the uproar. More recently, attorneys for Waste Remediation of Plaquemines and Concrete Busters of Louisiana retracted and then dismissed allegations they had picked up from Slabbed that implicated Abel, Leary, and Perret's companies in a criminal racketeering conspiracy with Aaron Broussard and Frederick Heebe. The law firm Smith & Fawer laid blame for such false allegations squarely on Handshoe's shoulders.

The U.S. Attorney's Office called off all criminal investigation involving the River Birch Landfill contract in an unprecedented move after Perricone, Maselli-Mann, and Letten's resignations citing "evidentiary concerns." Smith & Fawer has now just dismissed with prejudice the entirety of their lawsuit on behalf of the two competing waste companies, citing the Letten's U.S. Attorney's Office as having "mislead" them with regards to its investigation. 

Today, Judge Morgan termed Baldwin Haspel's legal argument in Abel's case as "inapposite," meaning out of place or inappropriate.

Notably, Handshoe has been completely silent about his losses in Judge Morgan's courtroom, despite his glee in publishing prognostications about Abel's fate earlier in the month. 

Coming soon, more on Handshoe's questionable assertions made to courts in both the United States and Nova Scotia, where he is again being sued in Nova Scotia Supreme Court for copyright violations. 

Attorneys for Concrete Busters amend lawsuit, dismiss allegations against Trout Point Lodge, others

Yesterday, the Smith & Fawer law firm amended its complaint on behalf of Concrete Busters of Louisiana and Waste Remediation of Plaquemines against Frederick Heebe, River Birch Landfill, and others, according to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system of the federal courts. This follows a bizarre move a couple of weeks ago when the law firm sent out a letter retracting allegations of involvement in criminal racketeering they had made against Trout Point Lodge and Cerro Coyote, stating that their information had come from Doug Handshoe's blog Slabbed, and was actually not true. Trout Point and Cerro Coyote--which operate small hotels and vacation properties--are owned by longtime business partners Daniel Abel, Charles Leary, and Vaughn Perret, who during the 1990s owned Chicory Farm and the Chicory Farm Cafe in Louisiana.

 

This can't be good news for homophobic blogger Handshoe, who is being sued by attorney Abel for defamation, including over allegations of involvement in organized crime first made by Handshoe and then repeated in the Concrete Busters lawsuit. Handshoe was also found liable for $427,000 in defamation damages and costs by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in February of 2012. Enforcement of that judgment in favor of Trout Point, Leary, and Perret is currently before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans.

Trout Point and its chef/proprietors lost a summary judgment proceeding against Handshoe in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi last December. The about-face by Smith & Fawer and its clients is significant because in that decision, the federal court took judicial notice of the Concrete Busters lawsuit's allegations. The court also stated that former Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard was a defendant in that Concrete Busters complaint, which was in fact not true, and that Mr. Abel was Broussard's law partner, which Abel has also sworn in an affidavit was never the case. No court filings in that case made such an allegation, which has only appeared on Slabbed itself.

Strangely, a look at PACER revealed the clerk for the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana--where the Concrete Busters complaint is filed--erroneously listed Aaron Broussard, Trout Point Lodge, and Cerro Coyote as defendants in that lawsuit. The error was later corrected, but only after the Mississippi court had made its decision in favor of Handshoe, citing the fact that Broussard was a defendant in a lawsuit also involving Trout Point and Cerro Coyote.

This action against Handshoe was the first disputed case in which a U.S. court applied the federal Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act. Handshoe and blogger Anne-Marie Vandenweghe continued to blog about Abel, Perret, Leary, Trout Point, and Cerro Coyote while the court was making its decision, ramping up publishing about them, seemingly in an attempt to convince the court of the truth of their criminal accusations (which if false would be per se defamatory and actionable in Mississippi). The court's decision states that the court monitored Slabbed, taking note of the large number of posts referring to Trout Point, Perret, and Leary in 2012 alone. The fact that the court relied on the now-retracted Concrete Busters allegations as well as other questionable facts could be significant to the appeal. This is because the court was operating under Mississippi law's requirement that a plaintiff prove falsity in a defamation case, something at times very difficult to do. Abel, Leary, and Perret have always insisted they had nothing to do with the criminal activity alleged over and over by Handshoe. Both the Times-Picayune and Fox 8 WVUE have long ago retracted any erroneous identification of Trout Point Lodge belonging to Aaron Broussard. 

Handshoe says that the retractions were coerced from media as part of a conspiracy and coverup. The Concrete Busters lawsuit, in turn, said Trout Point and Cerro Coyote were "shell companies" used by Broussard and Heebe in a criminal conspiracy, and that Leary and Perret were working to silence a valid investigation through their suits against Handshoe and others, including WVUE. Those accusations have now been officially dismissed in addition to the earlier Smith & Fawer retraction.

In another remarkable twist, Abel wrote a letter to the same Mississippi federal court, attaching as an exhibit the letter from Smith & Fawer. The Mississippi federal judge chose to file Abel's letter and exhibit into the public record available on PACER. The Abel letter refers the court's attention to possible fraud by Team Handshoe. Abel's claim is based on the fact that Handshoe likely knew the Mississippi court was perusing Slabbed while deliberating. Handshoe has not denied the allegations.

 

 

Indeed, not everything went Handshoe's way. The federal court flatly denied Handshoe's motion for attorney's fees and an appeal bond, stating that there was no suggestion the appeal of its own decision by Trout Point Lodge, Leary, and Perret to the 5th Circuit was frivolous. This was despite the fact that the SPEECH Act allowed for Handshoe to recover reasonable attorney's fees. Handshoe attorney Bobby Truitt (who also represents Anne-Marie Vandenweghe) was asking for an extraordinary $60,000 in fees on the summary judgment motions. In its initial decision the federal court also agreed that Handshoe was on a "campaign to damage" Leary, Perret, and their business. 

Abel's lawsuit alleges that Handshoe and former Assistant Parish Attorney Vandenweghe conducted their multi-year campaign of defamation in an effort to sway public opinion in the New Orleans/Jefferson metro area at the same time as the federal criminal probe of Broussard, Heebe, and others was underway. This would have benefitted Vandenweghe's own whistleblower lawsuit as well as the criminal prosecutions. He says that Vandenweghe used multiple online personalities, engaging in sock puppetry on Slabbed and elsewhere. Abel has also pointed to an instance where former Assistant U.S. Attorney Salvadore Perricone (posting anonymously) cast doubt on the Times-Picayune's retraction regarding Trout Point Lodge. Perricone had also speculated that Vandenweghe was indeed Slabbed's alter-ego in the context of an article about Vandenweghe's lawsuit against Jefferson Parish, which remarkably just settled out of court this past week before there had been any deposition of Vandenweghe. Abel also claims someone from the New Orleans U.S. Attorney's Office called Trout Point Lodge and then hung up the phone just as Leary & Perret were first seeking to enforce their $427,000 judgment against Handshoe in the Mississippi court about a year ago.

Abel is currently fighting separate motions to dismiss his lawsuit made by Handshoe and Vandenweghe. Vandenweghe went to law school with both former U.S. Attorney James Letten and his top prosecutor former Assistant U.S. Attorney Jan Maselli-Mann. Both left the Department of Justice after a blogging scandal involving Heebe unmasking Perricone and Maselli-Mann as anonymous online commenters. Perricone had resigend his post a few months earlier. Abel's brief responding to Vandenweghe's motion unmasks some of her multiple online personae using literary and grammatical analysis, similar to the technique used by Heebe to shed light on Perricone and Maselli-Mann's online activities. Abel says he has an M.A. in English literature.

The suggestion is that Vandenweghe's used her position as Assistant Parish Attorney in charge of Public Record Requests, as well as her contacts, to resolve personal vendettas and gain a lawsuit victory, seriously injuring Abel and his partners as innocent bystanders in the proces.

As previously reported, Smith & Fawer client Waste Remediation of Plaquemines is owned by Hank Lauricella, who was a Louisiana state senator at the same time Vandenweghe was on Jefferson Parish Council. Both represented Harahan, the home of both Vandenweghe and Perricone. Smith & Fawer's predecessor law firm also represented Handshoe's business partner Fred H. Goodson in his criminal trial, in which he was convicted for racketeering, fraud, bribery, and money laundering involving truck stop gambling. Lauricella did not seek re-election after his name came up in the same federal criminal probe of video poker in Louisiana, termed "Operation Hardcrust." Handshoe was corporate secretary for Goodson's company Slidell Motel, Inc., a segment of the O'Aces Casino operation ordered forfeit as part of the criminal conspiracy by the federal court after Goodson's conviction. Checks from Slidell Motel were used to make contributions to Louisiana government officials, according to FBI wiretaps.