Dear Ms. Gines: This letter
is to advise that I have met with Mr. Robert Lucien, Sr. regarding his legal matters relating to Commercial National Bank of Shreveport. I am writing to convey my thoughts.
First, I must applaud your tenacity in this matter. It appears, however, that you have been subjected to a great deal of stress and/or intimidation in this matter. I send this letter as a courtesy.
Secondly, I have reviewed your Petition for Nullity of Judgment, Legal Malpractice and Damages filed on September 3, 1993. It is my understanding that summary judgment was
rendered in favor of all defendants. It is my understanding that you appealed the summary judgment decision and order of Judge Crichton dated March 11, 1994 and that judgment was affirmed.
Thirdly, I understand that you are currently before the Court of Appeals regarding a subsequent grant of summary judgment in this matter. From my understanding, there was
a ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by Emile Turner Jr., et al. in case number 392, 583 in the First Judicial District Court. It is my understanding that this matter has not been fully
briefed. With respect to this matter, it is my conclusion that you should immediately do the following:
(a) File an affidavit with the court
requesting additional time to respond to this appeal. You should cite in your affidavit the threats and intimidation you were under as it relates to your representation in this case. You should further relate to the footnote "
1" in the judge Crichton decision. The Court of Appeals needs to be fully aware of Judge Crichton's letter to the Board of Attorney's for Disciplinary Review against you;
(b) The affidavit should contain the relationship between Judge Crichton and Mr. Miciotto;
(c) The court of Appeals should be completely aware of the underlying facts in the Succession of James Burris
and the interrelationship of Miciotto and Judge Crichton. These matters should be placed before the Court of Appeals in an affidavit from with all documents to the Court.
The essence of this motion should be that you were under threats of intimidation and stress in your representation of Mr. Lucien. I believe that the pending appeal and the Petition for Nullity of Judgment and Legal Malpractice were
inter-related. It appears that the court of Appeals needs to have full knowledge of the environment in which you were operating.
I believe that the only way to
seek any relief in the Court now for Mr. Lucien is that the Court of Appeals have full knowledge as to the cloud that you were under as it related to the Petition for Nullity of the Judgment and the current appeal regarding the
ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Emile Turner Jr., et. al. Unless the Court of Appeals firmly understands the underlying facts in this case, there can be no relief. This should be done, again, in
affidavit form with supporting documents.
I have also indicated to Mr. Lucien, and I will indicate to you, that I will be willing to assist you in this matter. However,
it is extremely important that there be a Notice and Motion for Leave Requesting and Enlargement of Time to file appropriate papers before the Court of Appeals with an accompanying affidavit in support of the motion.
On another note, I believe that when you were speaking out regarding how these children were being treated in the succession matter and the apparent misuse of funds by
either Mr. Miciotto and/or his law firm. The treatment of you by Judge Crichton represented improper conduct on his part. I believe the writing to the Disciplinary Board of Attorneys was, in part, a method of silencing you
from speaking out. This conduct may rise to the level of retaliatory free speech, a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.
If it is retaliatory free speech, then you
have a cause of action for damages against Crichton acting in his individuals and official capacity under color of law. Yes, he does indeed have immunity for his conduct while on the bench. His writing to the Disciplinary
Board is not conduct upon the bench, but represents his use of the power and clout of his office to punish you. I intend to do some additional research on this matter.
To the extent that Mr. Miciotto participated in this retaliation, he may be a person susceptible to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Even though he is a private
person, there is some case law where a private individuals becomes a person acting under color of state law for 42 U.S.C. 1983 purposes. I share this with you because it is my belief that the enormous pressure placed upon you
was deliberate and malicious. It may provide an additional basis for pursuing a Civil Rights claim and a forum to fully air the conduct of Judge Crichton and Mr. Miciotto.
Again, I applaud your tenacity in this matter. I think that the Court of Appeals need to have a full and complete record before it. Remember, a summary judgment
appellate review is a de novo review. It is imperative that the Court of Appeals have a full understanding as to what happened in the nullity petition and the current summary judgment filings of Emile Turner, Jr. et. al.
If you have a desire to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me.
