Wasn’t me

 

Here is an article from the Plaquemines Gazette in regards to Keith Hinkley’s case I will be attaching all supporting court documents in regards to this case and others so that people can see with their own eyes how wasteful these lawsuits were for the taxpayers of Plaquemines Parish and why they are referred to as Political Vendetta Suits

Litigation heats up in PPG lawsuit

By Jason Browne
reporter@plaqueminesgazette.com

After months of little activity in the lawsuits filed last October by the Plaquemines Parish Government alleging wrongdoing by several former elected officials and employees, one defendant has had enough and is asking the courts to intervene because no factual evidence has ever been brought forth by the parish. Last week, defendant W. Keith Hinkley and companies owned by him and his family members filed a motion requesting
dismissal of the lawsuits and sanctions against the PPG. In the parish’s 2016 lawsuit, filed by attorney Robert Barnett and verified by then-interim parish president Ed Theriot as “true to the best of his knowledge”, the PPG alleged that Hinkley and his companies did work for the PPG on various projects while he was a council member, which, if the work had occurred, constitutes ethical and parish charter violations. Hinkley served as a two-term council member from Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2014.
A motion filed by Hinkley in early November 2016 requested the PPG provide evidence backing up its claims. Specifically, Hinkley requested a copy of all checks and
supporting documents for payments made to Hinkley and the Hinkley companies while he was a council member. The motion also requested any evidence that any of the Hinkley defendants was a subcontractor to another defendant in the case, Cuzan Services.

          “The whole thing is false,” said Hinkley. “They want to
connect me to (the owner of) Cuzan. 

 

The motion asks the court to grant Hinkley summary judgment, which would end litigation because there is no evidence to support the claim.

The motion asks the court to grant Hinkley summary judgment, which would end litigation because there is no evidence to support the claim. Hinkley also asserts that the PPG filed the lawsuit not for  the purpose of recovering money, but for the purpose of
harassing, embarrassing, and humiliating Hinkley and his  family, and for those reasons, he is asking for the court to order the PPG to pay for fees in defending the lawsuit
Hinkley’s attorney, Jay Lobrano, said they will “make a determination at a later date whether to pursue anything more” as far as damages. Regardless of whether they seek further compensation, Lobrano said the suit against Hinkley has already produced “an incredibly chilling effect on the willingness of people to run for office” in the parish.

Parish president Amos Cormier III said that because the case predates his administration, he’s allowing the parish legal team to decide whether or not to pursue its claims against Hinkley.
“That action was filed before I took office. The legal team is handling it, so I really don’t have the knowledge to respond,” said Cormier. “But I will note that action was filed with a majority vote of the (parish) council.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s