Archive for the ‘Courts’ Category

After all the negative publicity about former Angola Warden Burl Cain, Thursday’s news release was almost enough to restore your faith in the Louisiana Department of Corrections.

That is, until you peel back the layers and take a deeper look beneath the typical hype that regularly comes out of state agencies in order to put them in the best light.

Like almost everything political, Rule One is follow the money. Rule Two is see Rule One.

The glowing news release trumpeted the news that auditors from the American Correctional Association (ACA) had given “high marks” to three Louisiana correctional facilities.

The release touted the 100 percent grades in mandatory standards attained by Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, David C. Knapps correctional Officer Training Academy, and Raymond Laborde Correctional Center. Knapps also received a 100 percent rating in non-mandatory standards and Angola and Laborde each received 93 percent in non-mandatory standards.

“ACA audits are done every three years. Other Louisiana state prisons not audited during this cycle will be re-audited in future cycles,” the news release concluded.

But what is accreditation from ACA really worth?

And how much did Department of Corrections Secretary Jimmy LeBlanc pay for the favorable ratings?

The likely answers to those questions are, in order: not much and plenty.


LouisianaVoice, almost three years to the day (Oct. 11, 2013) published harsh criticisms of ACA’s methods of accreditation.

In 2010, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) trumpeted the re-accreditation of five of its private prisons by ACA. But what CCA did not reveal was that it had paid ACA more than $22,000 for those five accreditations, that CCA employees serve as ACA auditors, that CCA is a major sponsor of ACA events or worse, and that accredited CCA facilities had experienced major security problems.

The ACA relies heavily on such fees; it reported receiving more than $4.5 million in accreditation fees in 2011 – almost half its total revenue that year. The organization thus has a financial incentive to provide as many accreditations as possible.

Notably, the accreditation process is basically a paper review. The ACA does not provide oversight or ongoing monitoring of correctional facilities, but only verifies whether a facility has policies that comply with the ACA’s self-promulgated standards at the time of accreditation. Following initial accreditation, facilities are re-accredited at three-year intervals.

But how do the courts view ACA accreditation – and comparable accreditation of prison and jail medical services by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) – both in terms of claims alleging violations of accreditation standards and as a defense by prison officials?

The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 543 n.27 (1979) that accreditation does not determine constitutionality. With respect to standards established by organizations such as the American Correctional Association, the Court wrote: “[W]hile the recommendations of these various groups may be instructive in certain cases, they simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.” https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/oct/10/how-courts-view-aca-accreditation/

The standards are established by the ACA with no oversight by government agencies, and the organization basically sells accreditation by charging fees ranging from $8,100 to $19,500, depending on the number of days and auditors involved and the number of facilities being accredited.

Perhaps it is only coincidence that LeBlanc is a member of the ACA’s Commission on Accreditation for Corrections  (go to the second page of this link) or that Burl Cain is still listed as a member of ACA’s Executive Committee.

One of ACA’s past presidents, Richard Stalder, while serving as Louisiana State Corrections Secretary in 1993, canceled spending on psychiatric counseling for troubled teens so that he could give out $2.7 million in raises to his staff, according to New Orleans Times-Picayune reporter Jack Wardlaw.

In 1998, the new Jena Juvenile Center came under fire for widespread problems, including a near-riot, poor teaching and security and physical abuse and in 1999 the juvenile facility in Tallulah was taken under state control after five years of repeated problems with private ownership despite its having received accreditation and a positive report only six months earlier from ACA and Stalder.

By 1995, the ACA accredited all 12 prisons in Louisiana, passing the last two with a 100 scores. That year, more than 125 prisoners sued Stalder for mistreatment within the prisons. Meanwhile, only a month after Angola prison of Louisiana was accredited, it was reported that around $32 million were needed for repairs so the prison could meet safety requirements, according to Baton Rouge Advocate reporter James Minton.

Stalder rejected all the claims, saying that he and his staff deserved “a pat on the back,” but in June of 1995, Federal Judge Frank Polozola criticized Stalder for the way in which he ran the state prison system.

“Louisiana incarcerates a higher proportion of our citizens than almost any other state,” Stalder said in 1995. “Yet we continue to be frustrated by the reality that many violent and dangerous people who should be locked up are not.”

Later that year, a doctor and a nurse reported severe problems with medical treatment at Angola. Prisoners with fractures were splinted, and then not seen for months, leading to bone deformities. Air from a tuberculosis ward was drawn into the main infirmary. A Justice Department report also found the prison’s medical records to be in terrible shape, according to Advocate reporter Fred Kalmbach.

In June of 1995, Judge Frank Polozola was critical of Stalder for his efforts to hold more inmates in the parish and private prisons of Louisiana, suggesting that Stalder was doing so in order to receive more money from the state government, which pays the sheriffs $21 per day per inmate in a private or parish prison, Minton wrote.

Polozola accused Stalder of catering to Louisiana’s sheriffs by refusing to allow state prisoners, who were supposed to be in the private prisons only temporarily, to return to the state prisons.

Just months later, Stalder was in trouble again when he allowed a can relabeling plant to open illegally at the Angola Prison. He was fined $500. Inmate William Kissinger, a legal adviser to other inmates, then sued Stalder for $600,000 after he reported the relabeling plant to authorities and was consequently removed from Angola prison and put on a prison farm.

The prison at Angola, meanwhile, received the same score from the ACA in 1996 as it did when it was first accredited in 1993.

Although the Louisiana state juvenile facilities attracted attention during 1997 for reports of abuse from guards at the facilities, Stalder himself was not in the spotlight until a private investigator found evidence that Stalder had allowed a priest who had been imprisoned for child molestation to receive special treatment at Wade correctional facility while Stalder was a warden there.

Because Jena’s goal was to meet the accreditation standards, The ACA was also criticized and characterized as “not highly respected…they will judge a facility on whether they have policies and procedures in written form,” wrote Times-Picayune reporter Steve Ritea.


We can’t wait ACA’s re-audit of the other state prisons.

Any bets on what those scores will be?

Read Full Post »

“Just because a cat has kittens in the oven doesn’t make them biscuits.”

It’s a quote attributed to Malcolm X, reprised by Kelsey Grammer in an episode of the number one sitcom Frasier, but actually has its origins in New England. It means, “Just because you were born here, it doesn’t make you one of us.”

It could just as easily be updated to apply to State Superintendent of Education John White’s lame explanation of a settlement of a lawsuit by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) against citizens James Finney, a technical college math instructor and Mike Deshotels, a former educator and past executive director of the Louisiana Association of Educators.

White was quoted in the Baton Rouge Advocate as saying the ruling by 19th Judicial District Judge Janice Clark “merely resolved what had been a conflict between two laws” because federal law instructed the department not to release data that could be used to personally identify a child while state law mandated the disclosure of all public records.


Bull feathers.

Department legal counsel Joan Hunt said in a Wednesday email to members of the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) that a declaratory judgment was sought to resolve “tension” between free disclosure of public records and protection of student information according to federal law.


Neither Deshotels nor Finney ever requested information that would identify a single student.


And John White knew that. Period.

Since becoming Superintendent of Education in January 2012, White has made a career of stalling on compliance with public records requests if not denying them outright.

LouisianaVoice was once forced to sue white over public records and won an award of $2800 ($100 per day for each day delayed per request), plus court costs. The only downside of that judgment was that White was not held personally liable, meaning the $2800 and court costs were picked up by Louisiana taxpayers.

But in suing two Louisiana activist citizens (who admittedly had been something of a nuisance to White with their monitoring of the department), White reached a new low in attempting to avoid being held accountable for the manner in which he runs the department.

His lawsuit, in terms of disgraceful acts, ranks right down there with those judges in Monroe who sued the Ouachita Citizen, a newspaper in West Monroe. The newspaper’s sin? It made public records requests of the court.

Do we detect a disturbing trend here? You bet we do. The Louisiana Department of Education, district courts, and other public bodies have virtually unlimited financial resources at their disposal and most, like the Department of Education, have in-house legal counsel like Joan Hunt. They can initiate lengthy—and costly—legal action against any citizen and people like John White and district judges don’t have to pay a penny of the costs of litigation, courtesy of Louisiana taxpayers.

Private citizens do not enjoy that same advantage. It’s not a level playing field. And even if the public body does not sue, it can drag its heels on compliance, forcing the citizen making the request to either give up or enter into expensive legal action with no guarantee the court will uphold the public’s right to know.

At last Monday’s hearing, Judge Clark let it be known that her patience was wearing thin with public officials who attempt to hide behind legal maneuvers in an attempt to avoid compliance with the law.

The LDOE attorney opened by saying the department had “informal guidance” from the federal government that “we do not have to comply with FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.”

Perhaps sensing the mood of the court, the state withdrew its demands for attorney fees from Deshotels and Finney, adding that “only two people are interested in the data.”

Judge Clark said it was an “improper purpose” to deny information to the public as a retaliatory action.

“Counsel should meet and work this out,” she said. “The public (meaning the court) takes a dim view of public officials using public resources to delay compliance with public records laws.”

Deshotels attorneys J. Arthur Smith and Chris Shows met outside chambers for more than two hours with LDOE attorneys but were unable to arrive at an agreement on the release of the requested documents.

When informed of the continued impasse, Judge Clark, visibly angry, said, “I am issuing a subpoena for John White to be in court at 9:30 tomorrow (Wednesday) morning for cross examination.”

When White got word of that, it was something akin to Moses coming down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments. Suddenly minds came together and miraculously, there was accord and LDOE agreed to three stipulations which settled the suit filed in April by White and the department against Deshotels and Finney. http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/article_536e2fac-b5e2-575c-87f6-1a991bf0f455.html?sr_source=lift_amplify

The first stipulation mandates that the suppression of data in the economically disadvantaged and English language learner or English proficiency sub-groups of the Education Department’s multi-stat reports is not in compliance with the Louisiana Public Records Act.

The department agreed not to suppress student enrollment data in responding to requests made under the act in the second stipulation.

The final stipulation says requested data will be made available to the public dating back to 2006.

Deshotels said the declaratory judgment filed against him and Finney was never about clarifying the legal issues relative to certain public records and student privacy as claimed by White.

Instead, he said White’s action was “purely an attempt to discourage citizens from seeking to independently research the claims and conclusions made by White and his staff.” “If citizens are forced to face legal challenges and high legal fees for seeking public records, the Department can continue to manipulate and spin what should be factual information about the operation of our schools.”

Sadly, Judge Clark’s ruling will do little to expedite timely compliance with future public records requests to other state agencies.

Even as this is being written, former commissioner of administration Kristy Nichols has already cost the state more than the original judgment against her in another lawsuit by LouisianaVoice.

LouisianaVoice received a pittance in a lawsuit in which the Division of Administration (DOA) under Nichols had dragged its heels for more than three months on several separate public records requests.

LouisianaVoice calculated DOA owed some $40,000 in penalties for non-compliance but was awarded less than $2,000, plus costs and legal fees, by the court. Even then Nichols appealed the decision. And although the court held Nichols personally liable, meaning she alone was responsible for the penalty, the state is picking up the tab for that appeal, which partially upheld the district court ruling.

Nichols, still not satisfied, and still not paying a cent of the legal costs (though LouisianaVoice is paying its legal costs, applied for writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

As of this date, the state has spent far, far more than the penalty imposed on it in trying to avoid paying the penalty and LouisianaVoice has spent more than it will ever be awarded, provided the Supreme Court even upholds the lower court.

And while the obvious question is: Is throwing good money after bad a wise way to spend state funds? An original penalty of less than $2000 has now cost the state several times that in defense costs and the tab is still running.

And John White’s obfuscating dribble notwithstanding, that’s what Louisiana citizens are faced with in trying to hold its state government accountable.



Read Full Post »

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).


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.


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. 


Read Full Post »

Tony Pelicano won a skirmish but may have lost the war in his years-long battle with the Louisiana Office of Community Development (OCD) over poor workmanship and claims of fraud in connection with the reconstruction of a rent house in Metairie destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

Because inferior materials were used in the work, Pelicano, himself a contractor, refused to accept the work and he filed suit against the contractor and the state filed suit against him to foreclose on the property.

The trial for his suit against Woodrow Wilson Contractors of Baton Rouge is scheduled for trial in January. The state’s foreclosure suit was scheduled for jury trial on Monday but the state threw a curve ball at Pelicano who apparently had not suffered quite enough in the eyes of OCD and the Division of Administration (DOA).

To make matters worse, the state’s attorney, Lesia Batiste, laughed at an emotional Pelicano after court adjourned.

Pelicano, represented by Baton Rouge attorney Jill Craft, entered Monday’s proceedings in 19th Judicial District Court fighting the state’s motion to deny Pelicano a jury trial but less than two hours before jury selection was slated to begin, Batiste filed a motion to dismiss its case without prejudice, meaning the state would be free to renew its foreclosure efforts at any time in the future.

Craft argued vehemently in favor of dismissal with prejudice, meaning the case would be over and done.

In September 2009, Pelicano was personally solicited by the State of Louisiana through OCD to submit an application to become the first test applicant for the Small Rental Program through the agency. https://louisianavoice.com/2016/09/23/state-ocd-figure-partnered-with-firm-that-blocked-repairs-to-road-home-project-shelter-at-home-follows-same-formula/

Specifications called for pressure treated lumber for the house but upon inspecting the work, Pelicano discovered pressure treated lumber was not used, leading almost immediately to termite infestation. Moreover, leaks in the roof resulted in rust of the top of the hot water heater and kitchen stove and the hot water heater was located in the wrong place, resulting in workers having to cut a hole in the door in order to close it. Joints and window sills have separated since the work was done, all of which have left the house uninhabitable despite Batiste’s contention that “I would live in the house.”

An independent engineer was retained by Pelicano to inspect the house. His photos-and-report are included here in order that you, the reader, can determine if you would pay rent to live in the house.

“I don’t file a suit and then come in here on the day of jury selection and say, ‘Hey, just kidding. They don’t get a do-over,” she said.

“The home owner (Pelicano) must approve a contractor’s punch list. All corrections in construction must be made before the contractor can be paid. These people (Pelicano and his wife) have gone through enough,” Craft said. “Dismissing without prejudice means the state may want to sue them again.”

She said the Pelicanos and the state “reached a settlement in 2013 and the state backed out. That cost my clients an extra $10,000 and now the state wants to allow itself another bite.”

Batiste argued that she did not believe a dismissal without prejudice would create any hardship on the Pelicanos.

District Judge Tim Kelley ruled that the Pelicanos were entitled to a jury trial but then upheld the state’s motion for dismissal without prejudice.

After Kelley adjourned court and exited the courtroom, Pelicano shouted to Batiste, “Take the house! Just take it! I’ve had it! I’m Through!”

Batiste, watching Pelicano’s emotional outburst, laughed.

“It’s not funny,” Craft said to Batiste.

LouisianaVoice asked Batiste why the state would not dismiss with prejudice and her answer left no doubt that the state still has the Pelicanos in its crosshairs.

“They’re under foreclosure,” she said. Not were, but are. Left unsaid was the unmistakable intent that the state would be back for more retribution against the Pelicanos at some future date.

“Have you seen that house?” we asked.

“Yes, I’ve been in it. There’s nothing wrong with it. I would live in it.”

No, she would not. Not without raising holy hell over the condition of the structure.

And neither would you. The mold and mildew in the house, fostered by what Pelicano says was the use of substandard materials,  presents a clear health hazard.

And now the state is asking August flood victims to trust its Shelter at Home program, the illegitimate child of its precursor, the Road Home program.

Pelicano came to Baton Rouge Monday hoping for some measure of justice but the state lived down to its customary expectations of disillusionment and disappointment which in turn only nurtures a climate of manipulation and corruption.

He deserves better.

Read Full Post »

Before you accept the state’s Shelter at Home program, you may want to consider the quality of workmanship—or lack thereof—that some 2016 flood victims who have participated are experiencing. http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_3116e8b6-7abb-11e6-91c5-d3139b79d965.html?sr_source=lift_amplify

While you should beware of shoddy work by contractors, you should also consider that all work done will likely need to be re-done and makeshift (inferior) plumbing will have to be replaced at your cost.

If that is not enough to convince you, you may wish to follow an important trial scheduled to begin in the 19th Judicial District courtroom of District Judge Tim Kelly on October 3.

The upcoming trial is over the foreclosure on rental property owned by Metairie resident Tony Pelicano and his company, L&T Development. Pelicano also has legal action pending against defendants the State of Louisiana through the Office of Community Development, The Shaw Group, Inc., Woodrow Wilson Construction Co., both of Baton Rouge, and Western Surety Co. of Sioux Falls, S.D.

Pelicano purchased a rental house on Turnbull Street in Metairie on April 28, 2005, just in time for it to be heavily damaged four months and one day later when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans on Aug. 29.

Pelicano, like victims of the flood almost exactly 11 years later (Aug. 11-14), was solicited by the state to take part in a state-sponsored recovery program.

In the case of Katrina, it was the Office of Community Development (OCD) that oversaw the Post-Katrina Disaster Housing Assistance and Household Transition Program. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_research_041913.html

With the floods of 2016, it is the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) that took over the Shelter at Home Program.


The Shelter at Home Program provides up to $15,000 to make a flood-damaged home habitable while the dwelling is being repaired. But the homeowner has no say in the choosing of a contractor to do the work. Nor does the homeowner receive any of that $15,000; all monies paid out go to the contractor.

Sound familiar? It should. It’s déjà vu all over again.

Despite the fact that Tony Pelicano is himself a contractor, he was told that not only could he not select his contractor for the Rental Assistance Program, but he could not even do the work himself. Nor did he receive funds to pay the contractor; that was paid by the State Office of Community Development directly to the contractor.

In both cases, the homeowner has no say about the quality of work, is unable to withhold payment should the contractor, who was not of his choosing, should do substandard work. http://www.wafb.com/story/33133888/video-raises-questions-about-shelter-at-home-program


And that is precisely why Pelicano is headed for trial the first week in October.

At the outset, a community block grant was awarded in the amount of $75,000 with the additional $14,595 in costs to be paid by Pelicano at closing.

OCD then selected Woodrow Wilson Construction Co. to serve as contractor. When Pelicano requested the ability to select his own contractor, “OCD advised him he was not entitled to have any say nor (sic) input with respect to the employment of Woodrow Wilson for the rehabilitation and reconstruction project,” one of Pelicano’s court filings says.

In September, 2009, Pelicano was personally solicited by the State of Louisiana, through Mark Maier, Program Director of the Small Rental Property Program for OCD and a principal of Maier Consulting, to submit an application to become the first test applicant with the Small Rental Program through the State Office of Community Development, Pelicano says in a sworn affidavit.

“This Program administers federal funds to small rental property owners in order to facilitate the reconstruction of small rental properties in order to return them to commerce, post-Katrina, and provide affordable housing for Katrina victims,” he said. “This is accomplished through a forgivable loan of $75,000.00 and we personally put up the additional sum of $14,595.00 from our own personal funds.

In May 2012, Pelicano said he attended a meeting in Baton Rouge attended by Maier, OCD Supervisor for the Small Rental Program Brad Swayze and Dan Rees, also of OCD. When Pelicano protested that construction change orders were made without his knowledge or consent, he says he was threatened and told he had no rights to his own property. Pelicano claims he was told if he contacted the media, his bank note would be accelerated and that a lawsuit would be filed against him—“threats that OCD fulfilled,” he says.

Those change orders included, among others:

  • Substituting non-pressure treated lumber instead of the pressure treated lumber called for in the building specifications;
  • Sloppy fittings of windows which allowed moisture to invade the structure;
  • Relocating the hot water heater to a location that could pose a threat of fire, and
  • Cutting a hole in the door in order to make the hot water tank fit.

Pelicano subsequently hired a professional engineering and inspection firm, Gurtler Brothers of New Orleans, to evaluate the reconstruction efforts. He presented copies of the firm’s photos-and-report and asked that immediate action be taken to remedy the conditions of the property.

“OCD refused,” he says, “and instead, contacted another construction company, Lago Construction Co. (which is not an engineering nor a qualified inspection firm) to conduct an ‘impartial’ inspection.”

Lago then issued a report passing off defects “as either minor or simply not in need of fixing,” Pelicano says.

Incredibly, Pelicano later learned that Lago was a business partner with Maier Consulting, headed by that same Mark Maier who simultaneously served as Program Director of the Small Rental Property Program for OCD. http://images.bimedia.net/documents/Lago+-+SRPP+Labor+Analysis+10-25-12.pdf

No conflict of interest there, right?

Oh, wait. It gets better.

The head of Lago, Praveen Kailas, whose family poured more than $23,000 into Bobby Jindal’s campaigns in 2003, 2007 and 2011, pleaded guilty in 2013 to federal charges of fraudulent billing in the…(wait for it)….Louisiana Road Home’s Small Rental Property Program. http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/southcentral/2013/08/22/235416.htm

Jindal’s office said it launched an internal investigation but dropped the probe when Mark Maier, the consultant (and, did we mention, coincidentally, Program Director of the Small Rental Property Program for OCD?) wrote a note absolving Lago of any wrongdoing.

He wrote a note, folks, clearing his business partner of wrongdoing but relied on that same business partner to block recovery by a man ripped off by the very program he headed.

Perhaps someone should have written a note for Richard Nixon, or John Wayne Gacy, or Mark David Chapman, or John Hinckley, Jr., or former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, or former Federal Judge Thomas Porteous.

We could go on but you get the idea: He wrote a damned note to clear his partner but that same tainted relationship played a major role in events that today see the state trying to foreclose on Tony Pelicano.

What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

What could possibly go wrong with the Shelter at Home Program?

And did Jindal return any of that $23,000 from the third (at a minimum) convicted felon who contributed big bucks to his campaigns?

Or did he write a note on their behalf?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »