Trio Xenakis – peaux, from Xenakis révolution. Le bâtisseur du son, (documentary/biography, 2022, 56', in French w/ French, Italian, English, Spanish, and Polish sub, and German dubbed), Directed by Stéphane Ghez, Arte / Cinétévé, 2022. Trio Xenakis: Adélaïde Ferrière, Emmanuel Jacquet, Rodolphe Théry, and Jean-Baptiste Bonnard, Othman Louati, Emmanuel Curt

Earlier this year, writer and Highsnobiety contributor Eugene Rabkin dissected what it’s really like to work in the fashion industry, the good and the bad. In the brutally honest essay Read This Before You Decide To Work in Fashion, he writes about the industry keeping its grip on its hierarchy as tightly as an aristocracy that knows its hegemony is temporary.

“Fashion has always been the great illusion maker. It ostensibly champions democratization while trading on exclusivity. It nods enthusiastically to demands for inclusivity with token gestures,” he writes. “Fashion gatekeepers keep the gates tightly shut, promulgating the you-can’t-sit-with-us mindset. It does its best to maintain the status quo.”

As Rabkin notes, however, a growing contingent of those entering the industry are realizing that they “cannot depend on the existing power structures of glossy magazines, fashion councils, and conglomerates, and have formed their own networks, at times with great success.”

Yet how much does the fashion establishment really care about changing the structures that have kept the power in the hands of the same people for so long? How much will it fall when those who are denied a seat at the table create a table of their own? Are most traditional luxury brands already playing catch-up with their younger counterparts? And, most importantly — what needs to change in terms of who is let into the room, and for whom it’s time to go? We dive into these layered topics in the discussion below:

THE PANEL

Louis Pisano, Writer and Critic | @louispisano

"I didn’t get into fashion media intentionally. It was around 2010, with the start of Twitter. I had just moved to Europe and I wanted to work in fashion. I was going to Milan all the time and seeing all these people, and I just started tweeting everything I was observing into the void of god knows who. As time went on, it turned into this space where people really wanted to be unfiltered and behind the scenes. People at different online magazines started to offer me to write pieces about what it was like to be behind the scenes; I just sort of fell into it."

Brenda Weischer, Founder of Disruptive Berlin | @brendahashtag

"I was in PR for a little bit. I worked for PR Consulting in New York and then decided instead of kissing the editors’ asses, how about I start writing? I applied to Central Saint Martin’s [in London] to do my Masters in journalism; [then] I realized you can't really make much money, so I wanted to stay freelance. I am now the founder of vintage archive Disruptive Berlin. I was never on Twitter; I was more of a Tumblr person. That switched over to Instagram at some point. I sell vintage clothing, so I'm a bit removed, but all of my friends work in fashion, so it was an everyday topic — what goes on behind the scenes. I'm frustrated that not many people are opinionated in the public eye, but are in their private life."

Hanan Besovic, Commentator | @ideservecouture

"I grew up in Croatia and studied management, small business, and hospitality. When I moved to the United States, I started working in a hotel. [Then] the pandemic hit, and I turned to Instagram and fashion. I started posting stuff on my personal account, [with followers like] my aunt who doesn't know what Givenchy is. So I'm like, 'Okay, this is a completely wrong demographic. I need to create something new.' That’s when I started @ideservecouture. I used memes as my main medium, just because I can reach more people with them. Plus, to be honest, I want to make people laugh, and I want to piss off a couple of people, also."

THE CHAT

Christopher Morency: Welcome all. To start, I want to hear how you see the fashion industry being reported on today, and what role fashion critique plays. Now that brands have decided to open their doors with livestreams, the audience can make up their minds on a collection immediately. do we still need traditional fashion commentating by big magazines and editors?

Brenda Weischer: I think, besides us, not everyone is as opinionated. People want to be told what to say. They want someone else's opinions to look up to and shape their own opinion. Even with TikTok, for example, the first thing I do is go to the comment section, to know what everyone else is thinking. So there's definitely a need for some kind of review. But I agree with you, Chris, I don't really read anything anymore, besides what my friends write. Then on TikTok, there are these 19-year-old fashion students who are doing these reviews, and I keep thinking, “What the fuck are you talking about?” But [on the flipside], you have these [traditional media] reviews where even I, with the same press release and professional knowledge, don’t know what they’re talking about; you’re made to feel stupid. Like, I don’t know this poem you’re referencing. And there’s not much in between — until the last six months. So I think the need for reviews is there, but what’s in mainstream media doesn’t feel authentic at all, especially when you know they’re talking about an advertiser.

Hanan Besovic: Brenda, you’re completely right about the two extremes of reviews. What I’m missing is the critical part. What I’ve learned since doing this is that fashion is very much oriented. It’s okay to praise, but it’s never okay to criticize. And that’s just wrong. When I criticize, I never try to be mean about it. It’s just my opinion. If you're going to get offended by an opinion, that’s 100 percent on you. For example, the other day there was one designer who's been following me for a while; I reviewed his show and I was super positive, but I said he needed to edit, as it looked too busy. The next thing I knew, he unfollowed me. I think the honest criticism [today] is on social media. The praise is on Vogue Runway, because at the end of the day, that’s what [the brands] are paying for. I also think this certain generation of fashion journalists take themselves too seriously.

People want to be told what to say. They want someone else’s opinions to look up to and shape their own opinion.

Weischer: It’s so highbrow now. There’s no fun in anything.

Besovic: Exactly. That’s why I like what’s happening on Instagram with people that do the same kind of thing we do. Let’s just have fun. I know it sounds infantile, but at the end of the day, it’s just clothes.

Louis Pisano: People are going to either buy it or not. They’re not going to not buy it because we made a meme about it or because we said we didn’t like this or that piece.

Morency: Does fashion critique even matter today, regardless of whether it’s written by editors or reviewers on Instagram and TikTok?

Besovic: It depends on who you ask. I think the stupidest thing a designer can do is surround themselves with “yes” people. And that's why, at the core of fashion, you can’t say you don’t like something or something isn’t good. That just doesn’t fly very well. As long as you’re making money, who cares? Have fun with it. You should be happy that people are talking about you. I secretly feel that [Dior’s] Maria Grazia Chiuri loves it when we talk shit about her.

Weischer: Louis, you were very humble to say it doesn't really make a difference to their pay check, but I think it does, at least for my audience. If I really were to continuously talk about someone, it does make a difference, because a lot of people want to be told what's cool and what isn't. There are opinions of taste-makers that at some point do trickle either up or down.

It’s okay to praise, but it’s never okay to criticize. And that’s just wrong. When I criticize, I never try to be mean about it. It’s just my opinion.

Morency: So, what’s changed? Why is this clash between old and new critiquing happening?

Besovic: When you criticize stuff, there is so much more to take into consideration. Before it was just clothes; now, we're critiquing the full company and the decisions that they make. I always say that if you make smart decisions, you’re not going to get criticized. It’s your fault if you fuck up. For example, when it came to Chanel and the Michel Gaubert thing happened with “Wuhan girls,” the brand said they accepted his apology — it’s not your apology to accept.

Morency: I’ve written a bit about brand universes, and how these days it’s about everything from the soundtrack to who is at an event or show to what’s happening outside. Not just the clothing. Brands are still getting used to being critiqued about these other things, outside of fashion. Do you think they want to genuinely listen and evolve when it comes to these things?

Besovic: I really do think as “the chosen,” they cannot shape the narrative that they want, because there's so many other people talking about it all the time. But the scandals change things.

Weischer: Yeah. It's either if their money is at risk, or if there’s public pressure. I don't think there's anything else. Change from within — I don't think that's possible, at this point. I mean, maybe I'm too negative, but I really think these kinds of scandals have a huge effect.

Pisano: I agree. Public perception turns into money.

There’s an extent to how much critique and how much of a voice you’re allowed to have within the industry, especially for new voices.

Morency: So, who can still shift the public perception of brands? Is it still the legacy titles, critics, and editors? Or is it the digitally native generation of commentators and writers, who are a lot more honest and open towards each other’s presence? Or is it even the general public?

Pisano: It’s whoever can make the biggest mess for a brand.

Weischer: I agree – whoever creates the biggest mess. And not in a vicious way, just whoever has a platform and is willing to speak out. But then there are a lot of people with a platform who still have to make money from brands. I find it sad when you speak out about something and the people in your DMs agree, yet they’re still posting [positive] images of them being at the show. That’s frustrating.

Pisano: I can attend a show and just be there and not really post an opinion or anything if the brand wants to invite me. [Now] if you want to pay me for something, we're going to discuss how I'm going to be my authentic self and still partner with you. But I'm not going to publicly praise a brand and then privately [talk negatively about it].

Morency: When it comes to brands opening their door more, to not just invite editors and buyers, do you see more openness in the industry? Or does it keep its nepotistic and gatekeeping reputation?

Pisano: I think it’s a marketing toy. I'm just looking at it as a whole; allowing you to have a voice and work with you only goes so far. There's an extent to how much critique and how much of a voice you're allowed to have within the industry, especially for new voices. I'm the only one out of all of you that Valentino doesn't work with, for example, as I’ve criticized a lot of decisions that Valentino has made, before it was cool and trendy to be diverse. I think the way you do it [Hanan] is genius, because it’s funny and not too vicious. But I can only go so far with humor until I’m genuinely pissed off. And when it loses that sort of funny viral entertainment value for the brand, it’s a no. And that gets you blacklisted. Brands don't like [when] they can't really control you.

I’m aware that we’re slowly closing the doors on ourselves when we criticize somebody, and I think that we’re fine with that, because all of us here want the best for fashion and its future.

Besovic: I 100 percent get what you’re saying, Louis. I hope that my message still gets across with humor, and that people start to talk about [issues]. I’m aware that we’re slowly closing the doors on ourselves when we criticize somebody, and I think that we’re fine with that, because all of us here want the best for fashion and its future.

Morency: In my opinion, the fashion industry still loves the traditional system of building up certain people by allowing the chosen ones into this traditional sequence of gatekeeping steps. The lucky few go to a prestigious fashion school, you get big internships, you get scouted, you enter these incubator programs after which you get the same press coverage, the same stores buy your clothes, and you are the new fashion darling until the next one comes around. What challenges do you see with that system?

Besovic: I will never praise and acknowledge someone who came up through nepotism. I will never praise these people the same way that I am praising, let’s say, a Thebe Magugu, who I think is amazing because he gives me a story, trauma, and beauty, which he puts into the clothes. Your work should speak for itself.

I’m more excited that the voices are changing. I’m excited to see other people’s opinions and not always having the same people in the room.

Morency: But what’s going to shift the industry’s mindset to start thinking this way?

Pisano: Maybe it sounds too pessimistic, but I don’t think that it’s going to change, because we live in such a celebrity-driven culture where fashion has become pay-to-play. Regardless if we think someone like Lila Moss is an adequate model, she still has the last name that will draw in that star power, regardless of whether she executes the walking part of the assignment — she executes the celebrity part of the assignment.

Weischer: Yes, and a magazine no longer sells without a celebrity on the cover. And, to touch back on the university thing — whenever I tell an editor where I study, within a second I get the nod of approval, which is insane, as I don’t know anyone there anymore and was at [Central Saint Martins] for like a year. I remember when people from LVMH came to visit the design studios and would be like, “Okay, we want you for this brand, you for that brand.” Same with magazines. You didn’t even have to apply anywhere.

Morency: To round things off, what brands do it well and do things differently? Who do you get excited about?

Pisano: Telfar, 100 percent. I’m so disappointed that the Telfar x Gap collection didn’t pan out. Then also LaQuan Smith; I’m waiting for him to have that big house moment, because he deserves it.

Besovic: Thebe [Magugu] steals my heart. I’m always excited about Peter Do, because it’s interesting and new. And Schiaparelli.

Weischer: I’m more excited that the voices are changing. I’m excited to see other people’s opinions and not always having the same people in the room. I’m generally excited for anything that’s changing.

François Bernouard sits next to the radio producer and composer Ernst Schoen. Here is something Bernouard did on the radio: a dialogue between him and Jean Le Louët on the group LES AMIS de 1914 and Théâtre Impossible, broadcast on Wednesday 1st of August 1934 for P.T.T.

On the transcript LES AMIS de 1914 are listed as a vast new diagram as:  Paul Fort. André Salmon. André Lebey. André Varnod. Mr. Richard. Jacques Dyssord. Sometimes Bernouard. Deville. C. Fegdal. G. Duhamel. Valensi. Ernest Gaubert. Antoine Orliac, X. de Magallon. P. Corpus, JL Vaudoyer. Luc Durtain. Pierre de Guingand. AF Hérold. Th. Briant, Ch. Du Bos. F. Carco. Dr. Mardrus J. Royère. P. Bertin. A. Germain. Dr. EF Julia. René Lalou. Louis Suë. A. Lhote. D. Halévy. Mrs. and Dr. Béliard. Gabriel Boissy. J. Villon. A. Bonnard. Ed. Jaloux. André David. René Fauchois. H. Strentz. Jehan Bouvelet. René Bertrand. Asselin. Max Jacob. Jean Giraudoux. Dr. Vinchon. Emile. Fabre. Master Dernis. Arnould Galopin. Léandre Vaillat. Ch. Chassé. Mr. Rouff. Jean de Pierrefeu. Dorgelès. Pol-Neveux. Paul Leon. Mr. Bedel. Tristan Bernard. R. Groos. Van Melle. F. Lot. Maurice Ravel. E. Marsan. P. Brulat. J. Daragnès. Etienne Rey. Faure-Biguet. E. Champion. Mr. Chadourne. Florian-Parnnentier. Carlo Rim. F. Fosca. F. Crommelynck. Fernand Divoire. Krettly. Michel de Gramont. Louis Mandin. Paul Chack. Mario Meunier. Dear. Megglé. J. and J. Tharaud. Alphonse Séché. Valmy-Baysse. Louis Gillet. R. Chambe. Léon Vérane. Carlègle. Gerarl Bauër. Lemercier. Robert Bonfils. L. de Gonzague-Frick. Pierre; The guard. Fagus. Guy Lavaud. Othon Friesz. E. Montfort. R. Gillouin. Tzanck. André Arnyvelde. Gonon. Ed. Dujardin. Valéry Larbaud. A. Rivaud. Jean Prévost. R. Kerdyk. Fernand Fleuret. G. Fréjaville. H. Falck. J. Mortane. Lugné-Poë. R. Le Masle. Mr. Chevrier. Lantern. G. Kahn. G. de Lautrec. LP Fargue. Legrand-Chabrier. JE Blanche. F. Gregh. Paul Poiret. Martial Piéchaud. Gino Severini. J. Cocteau. A. Fontainas. Lucien Fabre. G. Le Rouge. Henri Duvernois. André Maurois. GL Garnier. Ramey. André Billy. Roger Dévigne. Guy Mazeline. J. Barois. Henri Massis. Léon Bailby. E. Bourcier. Georges Denis. Denis d'Inès. Jean Hervé. CR Martin. Ph. Besnard. of Chauveron. Latapia. Rosny elder. Curnonski. P. Descaves. Levesque. J. Joyce. Marcel Jouhandeau. Albert Bayet. V Brechignac. Jean Marchand. F. Casadesus. R. Fellowes. Rachilde. Mr. Laurencin. Colette. J. Sully. M. Harkavy, Y. Gall. Hermine David. Suzanne Valadon. Eve Francis. Colonna-Romano. A. and S. Bernouard. L. Noblet. Yvette Guilbert. Suzanne Desprès. Alice Dufrène. Marcelle Brou. Aldona. Chériane .: G. Rabette. Berthe Bovy. Jane Bathori. Jeanne Landre. Annie Ducaux. Gisèle Casadesus. Vera Korene. Titayna. Dussane. R. Berendt. Garcia. Jean Hervé. CR Martin. Ph. Besnard. of Chauveron. Latapia. Rosny elder. Curnonski. P. Descaves. Levesque. J. Joyce. Marcel Jouhandeau. Albert Bayet. V Brechignac. Jean Marchand. F. Casadesus. R. Fellowes. Rachilde. Mr. Laurencin. Colette. J. Sully. M. Harkavy, Y. Gall. Hermine David. Suzanne Valadon. Eve Francis. Colonna-Romano. A. and S. Bernouard. L. Noblet. Yvette Guilbert. Suzanne Desprès. Alice Dufrène. Marcelle Brou. Aldona. Chériane .: G. Rabette. Berthe Bovy. Jane Bathori. Jeanne Landre. Annie Ducaux. Gisèle Casadesus. Vera Korene. Titayna. Dussane. R. Berendt. Garcia. Jean Hervé. CR Martin. Ph. Besnard. of Chauveron. Latapia. Rosny elder. Curnonski. P. Descaves. Levesque. J. Joyce. Marcel Jouhandeau. Albert Bayet. V Brechignac. Jean Marchand. F. Casadesus. R. Fellowes. Rachilde. Mr. Laurencin. Colette. J. Sully. M. Harkavy, Y. Gall. Hermine David. Suzanne Valadon. Eve Francis. Colonna-Romano. A. and S. Bernouard. L. Noblet. Yvette Guilbert. Suzanne Desprès. Alice Dufrène. Marcelle Brou. Aldona. Chériane .: G. Rabette. Berthe Bovy. Jane Bathori. Jeanne Landre. Annie Ducaux. Gisèle Casadesus. Vera Korene. Titayna. Dussane. R. Berendt. Garcia. Hermine David. Suzanne Valadon. Eve Francis. Colonna-Romano. A. and S. Bernouard. L. Noblet. Yvette Guilbert. Suzanne Desprès. Alice Dufrène. Marcelle Brou. Aldona. Chériane .: G. Rabette. Berthe Bovy. Jane Bathori. Jeanne Landre. Annie Ducaux. Gisèle Casadesus. Vera Korene. Titayna. Dussane. R. Berendt. Garcia. Hermine David. Suzanne Valadon. Eve Francis. Colonna-Romano. A. and S. Bernouard. L. Noblet. Yvette Guilbert. Suzanne Desprès. Alice Dufrène. Marcelle Brou. Aldona. Chériane .: G. Rabette. Berthe Bovy. Jane Bathori. Jeanne Landre. Annie Ducaux. Gisèle Casadesus. Vera Korene. Titayna. Dussane. R. Berendt. Garcia. The address is given: 224 Boulevard Raspail

In the dialogue François Bernouard says that the LES AMIS de 1914 were born of out of necessity, for writers but also architects, painters, sculptors, musicians to defend lyricism in the aftermath of war: “The war and its multiple consequences had separated us. Each one like you, worked isolated, we knew each other only by our writings and certain old comrades had not seen each other for twenty years. Here are some reasons for the continued success of our evenings”

The first meeting took place on 17 February 1933. “The invitation was issued on behalf of Paul Fort, Prince des Poëtes, André Salmon, Jacques Dyssord, André Warnod, André Lebey, and me. It was a wonderful evening, despite the freezing cold; more than 600 artists and art lovers came, the elite of Paris”. On night Paul Fort declared: “Retrouvons-nous chaque vendredi et soyons les inséparables de 1914, nos cadets seront reçus comme nos enfants”

For those who survived the war, LES AMIS de 1914 was to be a place to meet to discuss art with the peaceful spirit (l'esprit pacifique) of the days which preceded the catastrophe of 1914

But they were too sensitive to those no longer present: “Our friendship should remember the dead, either before, during or after the war, and try to redress a little the injustice of fate towards those who will remain in the eternal time of the young. I cannot cite them all. These were the memories of Guillaume Apollinaire, Henri Bouvelet, Emile Despax, the Englishman Rupert Brooke, Fagus, Jehan Rictus, Charles Derennes, Joachim Gasquet, Paul Drouot, Alfred Jarry, Jean Jareas, Jean Moreas, Paul Napoleon Roinard, René Dalize, Raymond Radiguet, Jean Le Roy, Stuart Merrill, Charles de Fontenay, Jean de la Ville de Mirmont, Sanche de Gramont, Robert d'Humières, Amédée Prouvost, John-Antoine Nau, Odilon-Jean Périer, Auguste Angellier, Adrien Bertrand, André Dupont, Albert Samain, Gabriel-Tristan Franconi, Ricciotto Canudo who, born Italian, chooses the French language to express himself, all writers of first quality. The present is often unfair to them, but posterity will do them justice”

Questions of generation also come up; alongside the slippage of the category of ‘friendship’ into something militaristic (just as from German “comrade” can slip from Genossen to Kamerad and Freund/in can denote both a platonic and a non-platonic relationship)

Taxi Sex Leads To Proposed Suspension

A Louisiana Hearing Committee proposes a six-month suspension for an attorney's conviction

the Committee finds Respondent violated the following Rule of Professional Conduct: Rule 8.4(b), which provides that it is a violation for an attorney to commit a criminal act, especially one that reflects badly on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects. The Respondent's criminal convictions for simply battery and criminal mischief involving an incident with a New Orleans cab driver wherein Respondent and the cab driver had a sexual encounter is a clear violation or Rule 8.4(b). The Respondent appealed her criminal conviction to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal; however, her conviction was affirmed. See State v. Gaubert, 2015-0774 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/9/15); 179 SoJd 986, reh'g denied (Jan. 4. 2016); writ denied, 2016-0122 (La. 1/23/17).

Facts

This disciplinary matter arises solely in regard to Respondent's criminal convictions for simple battery and criminal mischief. These convictions stem from an incident involving Respondent and a New Orleans cab driver, Hervey Farrell. On April 6, 2012, Respondent was a passenger in Mr. Farrell's taxicab. The two had a sexual encounter in the taxicab. Mr. Farrell used his cellphone to take a bawdy video of Respondent. Following the encounter, Mr. Farrell reported to police that he was sexually assaulted in his cab by Respondent. Respondent was subsequently charged in the Orleans Municipal Court with simple battery. On April 5, 2013, Mr. Farrell filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent in Orleans Parish Civil District Court, alleging that he suffered tort damages arising from the taxicab incident.

While the civil litigation and the simple battery charge were pending, Respondent went to the Third District Station of the New Orleans Police Department to report that she was a victim of the crimes of extortion and video voyeurism by the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Farrell. Respondent's report to police essentially asserted that Mr. Farrell emailed Respondent a copy of the video of the April incident, indicating that if he received $1 ,000.00, the video and charges he filed against the video would "go away."

While investigating Respondent's complaint against Mr. Farrell, the State charged Respondent, on October I, 2013, with one count of false swearing for the purposes of denying a constitutional right, a violation of La.R.S. 14:126.2. The State later amended the bill of information to charge Respondent with one count of false swearing for the purposes of violating public health or safety, a violation of La.R.S. 14:126.1.

The attorney did not respond to the bar charges.

The Times-Picayune reported on the criminal charges.

Authorities say a woman who in August accused a taxi driver of shooting lewd video footage of her in an extortion scheme made up the story, and charges against the cabbie have been dropped.

Jennifer Gaubert, 32, a New Orleans lawyer and self-proclaimed "public figure" who at one point hosted her own radio show, has been charged by the Orleans Parish district attorney's office with filing false statements concerning denial of constitutional rights, stemming from her complaint to police that she was filmed without her permission while in a cab in April 2012.

Prosecutors refused to bring charges against Metairie resident Hervey Farrell, who had been jailed on Aug. 29 on charges of voyeurism and extortion based on Gaubert's complaint to police.

"We didn't feel there was a basis for the charges," said Christopher Bowman, a spokesman for the district attorney's office.

In an August interview with NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune, Gaubert said she was intoxicated when she was in the cab. She said she had openly discussed her local notoriety with the cabdriver, which she said made her a target. A New Orleans native, Gaubert is known for her WGSO radio show "Law Out Loud", which she has since stopped hosting.

Gaubert said in the interview she had flirted with Farrell, 38, and kissed him, but told police she never gave him permission to film.She told police that Farrell shot video of underneath her skirt, exposing her underwear and genitals to the camera.

Farrell was the first person to contact authorities, filing a report in municipal court saying Gaubert battered him when she was a passenger in his cab. Nothing ever came of that charge.

After that, Gaubert went to police, saying Farrell sent a message threatening to release the video unless she gave him $1,000. Bowman wouldn't comment on Gaubert's charge, citing the pending case.

She has not been arrested. Arraignment is set for next week.

The conviction was noted by The Advocate.

In a case with more twists than a bag of pretzels, both Farrell and Gaubert took the witness stand, presenting starkly contrasting accounts of the April 6, 2012, cab ride to Lakeview from Galatoire’s restaurant on Bourbon Street, where Gaubert left soused after a three-hour lunch.

Farrell, 39, flatly denied trying to extort money from Gaubert under threat of releasing the video. That was the allegation that Gaubert originally brought to police in 2013, landing the cabbie in jail for nearly 30 hours before District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro’s office found holes in her story.

Since his call to 911 shortly after the cab ride — saying “She whipped out my penis and was trying to give me oral sex and I said no” — Farrell has maintained he was a victim of Gaubert’s drunken aggression after she’d hopped into the front seat during the ride.

He quickly filed a civil claim against Gaubert, whose radio show on WGSO, “Law Out Loud,” ended right after the cab ride.

At issue in the criminal case was whether Gaubert lied when, a year later, she went to police to report that Farrell had demanded money while sending the video to Gaubert’s lawyer by email.

No email documenting the alleged extortion attempt has turned up. On the witness stand Friday, Gaubert said the email claim was a minor miscommunication with police. She insisted, however, that the video had been sent, one way or another, to her attorney and friend, Brigid Collins, and that the message was clear: Pay or else.

She also said the sexual encounter was completely consensual. She said she had asked Farrell, who was holding his phone, if he was videoing her and he denied it.

In tearful testimony, she said she went to police to ensure that the video would be confiscated.

“That’s all I wanted — that the tape can’t be distributed. It was the fear of it being released that had the original effect on me,” Gaubert testified. She said she moved to Thibodaux and gave up her law practice, petrified.

“The release of it has been the best thing that’s happened to me,” she added. “What feared me the most is out there, and whether people don’t want to like me, they can. What can they hold over my head now?”

Cannizzaro’s office refused the extortion and voyeurism counts against Farrell, instead charging Gaubert with making a false statement.

Collins testified Friday that she never received an explicit “pay or play” threat from Farrell or his lawyer, though she said she did receive the video and a money demand as part of Farrell’s bid to settle the civil suit. The first solicitation was for $60,000, Collins said. “No one ever said to me the charges would go away if she paid money,” Collins testified. “I don’t recall the order, but a money demand was made, and the video was provided.”

Gaubert told police the extortion demand was for $1,000, according to a report.

Hunter reviewed the video in silence during the daylong trial, in which Gaubert’s attorneys claimed Farrell was the liar. They accused the cabbie, then a Yellow Cab driver, of taping the end of an amorous session to cover his tracks after an off-duty Jefferson Parish sheriff’s deputy came rapping on the window.

They pointed to various taxi regulations and criminal statutes that frown on cabbies having sex with fares, especially drunken ones.

“If you look at it as a whole, the wrong person is sitting at this table. It shouldn’t be Jennifer Gaubert; it should be him,” one of her attorneys, Cameron Mary, told the judge.

“It’s an outrageous (civil) demand to begin with — $60,000 to be kissed by an attractive woman. You couple that with an embarrassing video, you have exactly what’s been reported: an extortion,” Mary said.

Assistant District Attorneys Sarah Dawkins and Elizabeth Killian called those comments evidence that Gaubert hasn’t taken responsibility for her false report to police. Throughout the trial, they argued that details of the sexual encounter in the taxicab were irrelevant to the case.

 Gaubert’s attorneys, meanwhile, called up Lt. Gasper Migliore Jr., a Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office lieutenant who lives in the neighborhood and who testified that he walked into the alley on Vicksburg Street after seeing a Yellow Cab parked there.

“I observed a female in the driver’s seat on top of the driver, and in observing her actions, I could see she’s bucking her hips back and forth. Immediately I took my police ID out and said, ‘What the hell are you doing? This is a residential neighborhood,’ ” Migliore said.

“My view is that it was a consensual act between two consenting adults in public view. The driver didn’t even attempt to push her off. When I walked up, she got off on her own.”

Gaubert’s attorneys found Migliore only after she was convicted of simple battery last year in Municipal Court.

On the stand Friday, Farrell denied any recollection of seeing the off-duty deputy during the encounter.

Hunter allowed Gaubert to remain free on $25,000 bail while setting a Feb. 13 sentencing date. She faces up to six months in prison on the criminal mischief count.

Mary called it a disappointing “compromise verdict.” Whatever the extortion amount, or whether it came by email or “snail mail,” he argued, Farrell’s intent was clear.

Just how the two guilty verdicts against Gaubert might affect Farrell’s civil claims is uncertain. Blake Arcuri, a civil attorney for Farrell, said he was pleased with Hunter’s verdict.

Cannizzaro called the verdict “a good decision.”

“I think it supports what we have said the entire time: This woman did in fact go to the police station and make a false claim against someone. And as a result, this man was in fact arrested for a period of time and lost his job for a period of time,” Cannizzaro said. “We cannot encourage what Ms. Gaubert did.”

The DA acknowledged that police should have investigated Gaubert’s claims more thoroughly — demanding to see the purported email, for instance — before securing an arrest warrant for Farrell. “That would have saved a whole lot of inconvenience at the very least to the cab driver, and a whole lot of anguish and suffering,” Cannizzaro said.

Friday’s trial likely will not end the legal wrangling. Last year, Farrell filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, claiming he was the victim of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and kidnapping. The lawsuit names Mayor Mitch Landrieu, former NOPD Superintendent Ronal Serpas and three police officers as defendants, along with Gaubert.

(Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2018/07/a-louisiana-hearing-committee-the-committee-finds-respondent-violated-the-following-rule-of-professional-conduct-rule-84b.html

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2018/07/a-louisiana-hearing-committee-the-committee-finds-respondent-violated-the-following-rule-of-professional-conduct-rule-84b.html