Jan, Jim Mann to "retire" by Friday
In the aftermath of the Perricone debacle, Letten told the press, the public and the courts that Perricone acted alone and that no one else in his office was commenting online. Jan Mann, as his top assistant, was already posting but stopped when Perricone was busted, according to a separate lawsuit against her by Heebe
What's interesting to me is that I still haven't seen how team Heebe found out Jan Mann was discovered to be "eweman". I can't find the libel case on Justia. Does anyone know if the case has been posted online?
10 comments:
If these aren't the last heads to roll it's going to be hard to get convictions of team Heebe IMO. It might already be too late.
The third paragraph in Clancy's article seems to suggest Jan Mann might be in some legal trouble of her own.
Here's a link to WDSU's pdf
http://www.wdsu.com/blob/view/-/17240860/data/1/-/14wdc2rz/-/PDF--Mann-Lawsuit.pdf
eweman wrote at least 40 comments, many of which on the same threads as HenryLMencken1951. There was a very distinguishing characteristic of both the user and Mann's court writings-- extra spaces before punctuation.
I'm going to disclose a new username soon that I believe is related to the USA Dept,.
I didn't want to say so earlier, but I thought you knee-jerked on the Mea Culpa relating to Jim Mann. Just because Letten said Jim Mann wasn't commenting didn't make it so.
At the very least, he knew his wife was; and it can be reasonably assumed he collaborated with her even though his fingers may have not touched the keyboard.
WG, that wasn't knee-jerk. I went through get lengths to find a previous report that Jim Mann had been identified as a commenter, Oyster pointed out to me that he could not find anything confirmed that.
I am 99% sure I heard David Hammer say it in this interview:
http://www.wwltv.com/video/mobile/Effect-of-Lettens-resignation-on-current-cases-182375031.html
But this video was cut off and did not contain the full version that aired on TV. I was intently watching Hammer's commentary and I was pretty sure I heard him name Jim Mann as a commenter.
Just for the record....I don't think it's been established even now. We just know that he is resigning. That's one of the reasons I wanted to read the lawsuit.
I have intently watched the developments in the political arena since about the time of the Canal Street Brothel. As many skins as Jim Letten and USA LAED office have put on the wall there has always been a perception of selective prosecution. Without the investigative efforts and exposure at you and Karen and Doug amongst others provided to augment the shortcomings of the traditional news media that "selectivity" could have endured.
With that avenue exposed did certain players subliminally or egotistically poison the well.
Is WWL going to stop referring to this as "The Blogging Scandal" any time soon?
Jonathan Turley also posted the suit here (jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/pdf-mann-lawsuit.pdf), and I'd love to hear his take on this affair. Heebe's suit against Perricone included a petition for discovery with an exhibit containing all comments remaining from the Henry L. Mencken1951 account (he was so obnoxious a number of them had been deleted), as well as a forensic analysis of those comments by James Fitzgerald.
The suit against Mann lacks those two elements, which suggests Fitzgerald was not used for the Mann analysis. I imagine Heebe felt less need of backup for the allegation in the second case, which is interesting. --muspench
Muspench, thanks for commenting here....you are one of the few commenters on Nola.com I actually read.
"The suit against Mann lacks those two elements, which suggests Fitzgerald was not used for the Mann analysis. I imagine Heebe felt less need of backup for the allegation in the second case, which is interesting"
Exactly...exactly. It's very interesting that they didn't bother to back up the claim against Mann with Fitzgerald. As I've said from the beginning, I think Fitzgerald was just the icing on the cake but the cake was baked by other means.
I think you removed your next comment but I don't think the next commenter is the name you named. I have heard it's someone else but I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Thanks again for visiting.
My bad you made that comment in previous post.
Oh! No, not at all, thank you very much for welcoming comments and for the compliment. :) I really need to get out more-- I'm terribly slack in that regard. Agreed that Fitzgerald's presence was window dressing, but I tend to think Sal & Jan were outed either by disgusted colleagues or (even simpler) identified by their comments.
They took no pains to conceal their identities, talking to other commenters with great familiarity at times, and the legal community around here is such a small shop that any number of people could have spotted them. And once gossip starts, it's impossible to quell. :) Billy Gibbens & Magner used to work together as AUSAs, so that's another possible conduit for the information.
Re Kennedy: Yes, the reason I like him as a potential commenter is because he continues to pop up in connection with the known commenters. He was one of the supervisors informed by Magner about Perricone's commenting, Lemann forced Kennedy's recusal in the Fazzio case because of that knowledge, and Kennedy was the third AUSA who signed the nine-page pleading that was cited in Heebe's first suit against Perricone and supposedly helped Fitzgerald track down the author of the Mencken comments.
But maybe he's like the perfect suspect in the murder mystery who seems to be the culprit until he's found dead in the conservatory. :) --muspench
Post a Comment