Lancaster ex parte Application Rejected By Judge

I'm told that this past Tuesday, September 29, Judge Strobel rejected an attempt by Mr Lancaster to insert an additional brief in the trial record via an ex parte motion. An ex parte motion is "usually reserved for urgent matters where requiring notice would subject one party to irreparable harm." The initial action in the St Mary of the Angels cases resulted from an ex parte motion by Mr Lancaster on behalf of the dissidents and the ACA, as a result of which Judge Jones issued a temporary restraining order granting them control of the parish.

The problem was that Mr Lancaster concocted an "emergency" that rushed the judge into issuing an order that, on reflection, she realized was a judicial error. This error has left the ACA and the dissident group in control of the parish for over three years.

I'm told, though, that even before she left for her term on the appeals court, Judge Strobel instructed Mr Lancaster not to make any more ex parte motions in the case. It appears that Mr Lancaster s strategy was, at least in part, to distract or rush judges into premature decisions. I've been puzzled how, in litigation that's lasted more than three years, any sort of sudden "emergency" can arise. Apparently Judge Strobel has the same question.

I get the impression that Judge Strobel finds Mr Lancaster's strategies annoying.

She will apparently mail her decision on the trial within the next two weeks.