New Orleans Law Firm Denies Allegations Of Corruption; Everyone Shocked
Posted June 4th, 2008 in Activism, All, Books, Commentary, Entertainment, Inside New Orleans, Legal, News You Cannot Use and Politics
Fact or Fiction?
Welcome to Round Two of our very own local clash of the titan greedmongering hosebags, also known as Adams and Reese, L.L.P., and the illustrious political leaders of New Orleans. If you missed Round One, it was a doozy, so be sure to check it out.
Yes, here in the Crescent City, we like our lawyers corrupt and our leaders corrupt-er. Hell with it, we like ‘em corrupt-est. But we save the best of the worst for times like these, when the haves host a good old fashioned showdown with the the have-even-mores. In fact these “haves” have so much they just can’t stop themselves, they have to take your house, your health insurance, and a few hundred million dollars in “refinancing” or whatever they call it, just to show they can.
But the haves (Adams and Reese, L.L.P.) made a minor miscalculation this time; they kicked Mr. James G. Perdigao out of their good ole’ boys club, and Mr. James G. Perdigao is having none of it. Hence his lawsuit accusing the firm of - try to keep up with us now - bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, obstruction of criminal investigations, tampering with a witness/victim/informant, retaliation against a witness/victim/informant, extortion, and of course, plain old racketeering. Unfortunately for the haves, Mr. Perdigao is no stranger to being a witness for the government, as his suit explains:
Plaintiff [Perdigao] had…developed various relationships with the U.S. Attorney’s office based on his previous testimony on behalf of the government in an earlier, unrelated video poker case. At the request of the U.S. Attorney’s office, plaintiff had provided general background information regarding the licensing and regulation of riverboat gaming in connection with their investigation. Plaintiff also agreed to provide testimony to the grand jury and if an indictment was returned, at trial if requested by the government. Plaintiff advised [firm partner Robert] Vosbein that he had agreed to assist the government through the provision of information and testimony regarding the regulation of riverboat gaming activities. Vosbein became furious at the plaintiff, advising him that he worked for Vosbein, not the federal government and that he and the firm would decide if, when, and how plaintiff could testify.
You see, Vosbein is a part owner of the Treasure Chest Casino, along with Robert Guidry - one of the firm’s most prominent clients. Vosbein’s (and the firm’s) financial interests are not served by aiding the prosecution of the gaming industry’s misdeeds. Unfortunately for Vosbein, when the house of cards that is Adams and Reese, L.L.P., began to fall, the firm decided to kick Perdigao out of their club. Therein lies what is likely to be their greatest miscalculation of all; because Perdigao, who realized he was about to become public enemy #1, knew who to go to for advice. And surprise, surprise, Perdigao offered to turn state’s evidence and filed his own suit against the still-haves. And here we are.
Now Adams and Reese, L.L.P., has decided to return fire via a surprisingly brief blurb released to the local media.
Statement by Adams and Reese Managing Partner Charles P. Adams, Jr. Regarding Perdigao Lawsuit
(New Orleans, LA) – The lawsuit filed Tuesday represents the latest episode in Perdigao’s continuing fantasy of blaming the government and our firm for his wrongdoing and lashing out at those who are holding him accountable for his actions. Adams and Reese denies Perdigao’s allegations of wrongdoing. We look forward to his upcoming criminal trial and we will continue to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney and the FBI to ensure that justice is done.
That’s it. They’re staying as cool as the other side of the pillow. They say the guy’s a criminal, the only snake in a nest full of lambs, end of story. Mind you, they say this not as part of any legal proceeding. The firm has yet to file an answer for the suit one imagines they must have seen coming from light years away (er, wasn’t that suit filed on Wednesday, boys?). But then if you were them, wouldn’t you rather try this case in the media than in the courtroom? Yet interestingly, this article about the case from the New Orleans Times-Picayune was removed from the site’s main page in a mere matter of hours. Curious…
