When 19th Judicial District Court Judge Tim Kelley presided over a hearing earlier this week involving the state’s Small Rental Property Program, did he violate Louisiana’s so-called “gold standard of ethics” instituted by former Gov. Bobby Jindal or worse, the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Kelley, over the objections of defendant Tony Pelicano, Monday ruled in favor of the state’s motion to dismiss “without prejudice” its foreclosure proceedings on Pelicano’s Metairie rental property. https://www.road2la.org/SRPP/Default.aspx
Dismissing without prejudice means the state may renew its foreclosure efforts at any time. Pelicano attorney Jill Craft wanted the case dismissed “with prejudice,” which would mean the matter would have been over and done.
With Kelley’s ruling, the state continues to hold the potential forfeiture of his property over Pelicano’s head for years—all because Pelicano, himself a contractor, had no say in which contractor rebuilt his rent home after Hurricane Katrina. Pelicano refused to accept the work which was done with what he says were inferior materials that did not meet specifications and which is now rotting and molding.
Even though cases in the 19th JDC are assigned to judges by lot, perhaps it would have been prudent for Kelley to have handed Pelicano’s case off to another of the seven judges who preside over civil cases.
Kelley’s wife is Angele Davis.
Angele Davis was Commissioner of Administration which oversaw the Small Rental Program through the Louisiana Office of Community Development (OCD).
https://app.lla.state.la.us/PublicReports.nsf/BD68D20624D06F8A862574A400526ACC/$FILE/00003E7C.pdf
Davis served as Commissioner of Administration under Bobby Jindal from January 2007 until August 2010. The Division of Administration (DOA) was responsible for the Road Home Program through OCD. Paul Rainwater was Jindal’s first OCD Executive Director until he succeeded Davis as Commissioner of Administration in 2010. http://www.doa.la.gov/comm/PressReleases/CommAnnounce.htm
Even though Davis no longer serves in state government, the fact that the Small Rent Program was administered by her office through OCD, the propriety of Kelley’s presiding over legal disputes involving the program could be brought into question.
http://www.doa.la.gov/OCDDRU/Action%20Plan%20Amendments/Katrina-Rita%20First/APA25_Approved.pdf
Craft argued passionately against the dismissal without prejudice, saying, “I don’t file lawsuits just to come back and say, ‘Just kidding.’ The state shouldn’t be given the opportunity to come back at some later date for another bite.”
Kelley did throw Pelicano a bone of sorts when he ruled against the state and allowed a trial by jury—before agreeing to the dismissal without prejudice. The jury trial ruling was basically meaningless in light of the subsequent dismissal without prejudice, however.
Following Kelley’s ruling and after he had left the courtroom, Pelicano had a brief emotional outburst, yelling to DOA attorney Lesia Batiste that the state could take the property. “I’ve had it!” he shouted. “Just take it!”
It’s not as if Kelley had no way of knowing of his wife’s involvement with the program; her name is all over official documents dealing with all the Road Home programs set up to help the state recover from Hurricanes, Katrina, Rita, Gustav and Ike.
All this is not to say Kelley allowed his position to be used to favor the state because of his wife’s involvement with the programs. He did, after all, rule against the state in other cases that came before him, notably the infamous CNSI debacle. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/louisiana-court-give-contractor-records-about-cancellation/article/2546170/comments
But he also inexplicably ruled in favor of the Jindal administration against the public’s right to know in a major public records lawsuit in 2013 involving applications for the LSU presidency. http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_f69f910d-0f80-5ddd-8d9d-06316e5ffa43.html
In a political atmosphere where perception is everything and in a state with as sordid a reputation for corruption as Louisiana, Kelley should have punted as soon as this case landed on his desk.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct says, in part:
A judge shall not allow family, social, political, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.
Tom, perhaps you know if the Ethics Board hears complaints about judges. The board is the source for reporting campaign contributions which can camouflage bribes, but I’m unsure whether it has any clout where judges are concerned
One may file a complaint with the Supreme Court’s Judicial Administration department, Special Council, 504-310-2550 by calling and having forms emailed. Should the council refuse to investigate the complaint it may then be appealed to the Judicial Commission.
Another instance of a Judge’s ruling that smells is a vote by SS Justice Clark not to hear an appeal on the Helis anti-fracking suit in St. Tammany. The Justice voted not to hear the appeal after receiving about $3000 in campaign contributions from Helis and its Atty. firm. Lee Zurich broke the story a few weeks ago and it can be found online, but has failed to gain much traction.
How cheaply can they be bought?
While I, too, was disappointed with the ruling on the LSU presidency, I have been very pleased with other of Judge Kelley’s rulings and believe him to be fair. I know and have worked directly with Angele Davis and have the utmost respect for her. I’m not an attorney and never played one on TV, so I have no basis from which to assess the propriety of Judge Kelley ruling in this matter, but I am inclined to give him and Angele the benefit of the doubt and I hate to see an attempt to paint either of them with the “sordid reputation for corruption” to which you refer.
I have to concur entailing both Judge Kelley and Ms. Davis, and let’s remember she insisted on repayment of the $58,000 to Jill Boudreaux on that infamous retire-rehire sham.
I do think the State had a “put up or shut up” obligation on Monday of this past week, but I’m sure Judge Kelley had some basis for justifying granting the State’s motion. I’m sure when Pelicano’s civil trial starts in January (where he’s plaintiff), the State wanted to have the settlement proposal of being able to drop its foreclosure suit, and that would not be available if they’d proceeded Monday and lost. From what Tom wrote on Pelicano, somehow I don’t think dropping the foreclosure suit is going to remotely suffice as a settlement, and that’s even more so the case now that he knows a jury will be hearing the State’s case as well as his own.
I’m afraid you both missed the point. I never claimed any ulterior motives on the part of Kelley or Davis. I merely suggested that Kelley might have been wise not to have taken a case involving his wife’s former agency if for no other reason than appearance sake.
Fair enough, but it’s also the case that either side could have sought his recusal (which would have resulted in another 19th JDC judge making the decision), and apparently neither did.
Given how long Davis has been gone, I don’t think there’s even an appearance of conflict (but that’s just my opinion), which may be the same thought pattern Kelley had and may have likely never even considered recusing himself.
Tom, with all due respect, I think you missed my point.
Place yourself in the position of the average person who reads anything, particularly the average person in Louisiana who is already convinced integrity is practically non-existent here and is accustomed to seeing public figures held up to a harsh light on LouisianaVoice.
No direct accusations are necessary.
Whether intentional or not, your comments about Judge Kelley and his wife clearly lead a reader to believe something untoward is up. For example:
“did he violate Louisiana’s so-called “gold standard of ethics” instituted by former Gov. Bobby Jindal or worse, the Code of Judicial Conduct?”
“It’s not as if Kelley had no way of knowing of his wife’s involvement with the program; her name is all over official documents…”
This is just my opinion, of course, and I understand that you disagree. I just wanted to try to clarify my comment.
Textbook ethics sample.