Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Courts’ Category

Federal judge nominee Doughty has ties to faith-based substance abuse program to which he refers defendants

Posted in Courts, Ethics, House, Judges, Lawsuits, Senate, Transparency on December 27, 2017| 17 Comments »

When U.S. Sens. John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy went on record before the Senate Judiciary Committee as supporting the nomination of 5th Judicial District Court Judge Terry Doughty to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, they put themselves, by extension, squarely at odds with the doctrine of separation of church and state.

That doctrine, Alabama’s Judge Roy Moore notwithstanding, is a cornerstone of American democracy but one which Doughty, like Moore, has chosen to ignore when dealing with defendants who come before him in his drug court.

While many of the DECISIONS dealing with the separation of church and state handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court border on the ridiculous, there is one that stands out. In the 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court established a three-part test for determining if an action of government violates the First Amendment’s separation of church and state provision:

  • The government action must have a secular purpose.
  • Its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion.
  • There must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

It’s important to note that in his confirmation hearings, Doughty boasted of the work of his drug court and that if confirmed, he would be interested in developing a drug court PROGRAM at the federal level patterned on the one he established in the 5th JDC, which is comprised of the parishes of Franklin, Richland, and West Carroll.

So, what’s so wrong about the district’s drug court?

Only that Doughty mandates that defendants enter into either Alcoholics Anonymous or CELEBRATE RECOVERY, both of which are faith-based recovery programs.

In September 2007, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was unconstitutional to order a parolee to attend AA or affiliated programs because requiring attendance at a religion-based treatment program violated the First Amendment.

In handing down its RULING, the court said what while it “in no way denigrate(s) the fine work of (AA and Narcotics Anonymous), attendance in their programs may not be coerced by the state.”

While LouisianaVoice takes no position as to the merits of AA or Celebrate Recovery, we do recognize that the Bill of Rights calls for the separation of church and state. By that, it simply means the State shall neither establish a specific religion nor prohibit the practice of such. And the only way to ensure that is for the government to take a hands-off approach to the observance of any religious practice, be it Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or any other belief.

Doughty doesn’t seem to get that and it is his close association with Celebrate Recovery that gives us pause.

In his questionnaire he completed for submission to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Doughty falls woefully short of any published writings, reports, or policy statements but does include numerous references to his affiliation with Celebrate Recovery. Those references include:

  • August 11, 2011: Guest Speaker, “Inventory, Lesson 10,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville, Louisiana.
  • January 11, 2012: Guest Speaker, Richland Celebrate Recovery Program, Palmetto Addiction Recovery Center, Rayville, Louisiana.
  • September 9, 2012: Speaker, Richland Celebrate Recovery Program, Delhi United Methodist Church, Delhi, Louisiana. “I discussed how the Richland Celebrate Recovery program works with the church.”
  • January 3, 2013: Presenter, “What to Do When You Get Out,” Celebrate Recovery Inside, Richland Parish Detention Center, Rayville, Louisiana.
  • January 27, 2014: Speaker, “Starting a Celebrate Recovery Program,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Olanchito, Honduras.
  • February 14, 2014: Guest Speaker, Celebrate Recovery Graduation, Richland Parish Detention Center, Rayville.
  • June 10, 2014: Guest Speaker, Celebrate Recovery Graduation, Richland Parish Detention Center, Rayville.
  • August 5, 2014: Presenter, “Starting a Celebrate Recovery Program,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Olanchito, Honduras.
  • September 17, 2015: Speaker, Welcome Address, Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
  • December 3, 2015: Speaker, “Lesson 10—Spiritual Inventory Part I,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
  • June 27, 2016: Presenter, “Maintaining a Celebrate Recovery Program,” Honduras Celebrate Recovery, Olanchito, Honduras.
  • July 28, 2016: Speaker, “Spiritual Inventory Part I,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
  • August 14, 2016, Presenter, Report on Celebrate Recovery Honduras Mission Trip, Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
  • August 28, 2016: Presenter, Report on Celebrate Recovery Honduras Mission, Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville.
  • March 16, 2017: Speaker, “Lesson 10—Spiritual Inventory Part I,” Richland Celebrate Recovery, Rayville, Louisiana. I discussed the benefits of making a spiritual inventory.

So, exactly what is Doughty’s affiliation with Celebrate Recovery? Why Honduras? And who paid for his trips to that country? Why is there nothing in his questionnaire responses to indicate that he ever spoke at an AA event? There are, after all, AA MEETINGS in all three parishes in the 5th JDC.

There was no immediate information available as to who paid for his three trips to Honduras in 2014 and 2016 to speak on behalf of Celebrate Recovery but if Celebrate Recovery paid for his trip and/or his lodging and meals, it could present a potential ETHICS violation for Doughty.

Under General Prohibitions as set out in Louisiana R.S. 42:1111-1121, the Code of Governmental Ethics prohibits the “receipt of a thing of economic value by a public servant for services rendered to or for the following:

  • Persons who have or are seeking to obtain a contractual or other business or financial relationship with the public servant’s agency;
  • Persons who are regulated by the public employee’s agency;
  • Persons who have substantial economic interests which may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the public employee’s official duties.

Celebrate Recovery would obviously have a “substantial economic interest” in the performance of Doughty’s official duties as a judge mandating that defendants in his court enter into programs offered by Celebrate Recovery.

U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham may have been a bit premature in pushing for Doughty’s nomination and Sens. Cassidy and Kennedy might have been wise to vet the judge a little better before testifying on his behalf before the Judiciary Committee. Kennedy was dogged in his questioning of Matthew Spencer Peterson, whose nomination was subsequently withdrawn. Peterson, of course, is not from Louisiana, so Kennedy could afford to pepper Peterson with embarrassing questions without any risks to his political future.

But Kennedy might have served his Louisiana constituents better if he had been a little more thorough in his examination of Doughty’s qualifications.

Read Full Post »

‘Six degrees of Louisiana Politics’ lands Doughty nomination for a federal judgeship, support from political establishment

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Judges, Lawsuits, Politicians, Senate, Transparency on December 21, 2017| 11 Comments »

U.S. Sen. John Neely Kennedy had his 15 minutes late last week with his pointed questioning of federal court nominee Matthew Spencer Peterson. Well, actually, it was only five minutes because that’s how long senators are given to pose their questions to nominees during the confirmation process.

Be that as it may, Kennedy may yet end up with egg on his face over his support of a state court judge for his nomination to seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy and 5th District U.S. Rep. Ralph Abraham may also be a little red-faced before this is finished.

By the time you read this, 5th Judicial District Court Judge Terry Doughty may already be confirmed for a lifetime position on the federal bench. That’s lifetime, as in once done, he’ll be there like he was affixed with Gorilla Glue.

And, to put it as gently as possible, Doughty may be almost is unqualified for such an important post (did I mention it was a lifetime position?) as the esteemed Federal Elections Commission Chairman Peterson, who, it turned out, fell on his face in answering the most basic of legal questions from Kennedy and subsequently was withdrawn for consideration by the Trump administration.

There are a multitude of reasons why Doughty should never have been nominated. Some of those reasons have to do with his legal skills, which are mediocre at best. Other factors involve some of his associates and some of the reason even goes back to a sweetheart deal the Jindal administration cooked up on behalf of a state vendor which in turn benefited the son of a former state legislator who just happened to be a Jindal supporter.

Doughty obtained his bachelor’s degree from Louisiana Tech in Ruston and his J.D. from LSU Law School. He has served as judge of the 5th JDC, which includes the parishes of Franklin, Richland, and West Carroll, since 2009. Prior to that, he practiced at the Rayville firm of Cotton, Bolton, Hoychick & Doughty.

Louisiana’s Western District Court, to which he has been nominated, includes courtrooms in Lafayette, Lake Charles, Alexandria, Monroe and Shreveport.

Abraham lobbied for Doughty but that support may have been rooted in litigation scheduled before Doughty in which a bank where Abraham’s son-in-law serves as a member of the bank’s board is being sued over the alleged breach of a crop loan agreement.

Cassidy and Kennedy AGREED with the nomination. Cassidy called Doughty “eminently qualified” in addressing members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in November. He said Doughty “will serve the United States District Court well. I recommend Judge Doughty to this committee without reservation.”

Kennedy said Doughty is “known in my state as a person with great intellect, good judgment, and fair. I recommend him unconditionally and unequivocally.”

That kind of unrestrained effusion has a way of coming back to bite you in the posterior.

So, let’s take a closer look at that lawsuit and Doughty’s “good judgment.”

In the matter of KT Farms of Waterproof filed suit against Citizens Progressive Bank of Columbia, claiming that the bank breached a crop loan agreement involving about $5 million. Also participating in the loan were Progressive’s parent company, Caldwell Bank & Trust and Commercial Capital Bank of Delhi.

KT Farms attorney Sedric Banks attempted to recuse Doughty as he had successfully done in another case in Richland Parish on the basis of Doughty’s business and personal relationships with a defendant in that case as well as with the defendant’s wife.

Banks also pointed out that Abraham’s son-in-law, Dustin Morris, is a member of the Citizens Progressive board and Abraham, who was pushing Doughty for the judgeship, is a minority shareholder in Commercial Capital Bank’s parent company. Moreover, through his recent marriage, Banks said, Doughty also has a family connection to Morris.

In an added wrinkle, Banks noted that the focus of the KT Farms lawsuit shifted in February when Doughty revealed his relationship with Delhi tax preparer David Stephens and his wife Michelle. David Stephens, it turns out, works for Delhi CPA Larry Pickett who just happens to be chairman of the Commercial Capital Bank board of directors.

The motion to recuse Doughty was heard by Doughty’s fellow 5th JDC Judge Stephens who signed the written reasons for denying Banks’ request. Those written reasons were penned by….Doughty.

Stephens, in his May 24 denial, attempted a little courtroom humor, making references to actor Kevin Bacon and the TV show Star Trek.

“Frankly, counsel’s connection sounds more like that old parlor game, ‘Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,” Stephens said, perhaps pausing for the drummer’s rim shot. “Allegedly, Terry A. Doughty married Jan Toms (allegedly?), who was formerly married to Johnny Morris, now deceased. Johnny Morris had a cousin on his father’s side, namely Todd Morris. Todd had a son named Dustin Morris, a new board member of defendant Citizens Progressive Bank, who married Ashley Abraham, daughter of Ralph and Diane Abraham. Ralph and Diane bought stock on Commercial Capital Bank, a defendant in this lawsuit.

“And there you have it.  Six Degress of Terry Doughty.

“…As First Officer Spock would say, ‘It is totally illogical.’”

Stephens’ rapier wit notwithstanding, the Louisiana Supreme Court in November reversed Stephens—and Doughty’s carefully written reasons for judgment—and REMOVED the case from the 5th JDC and appointed retired judge Anne Lennan Simon of New Iberia ad hoc judge to preside over the KT lawsuit.

Doughty and Stephens naturally retaliated by filing complaints against Banks with the Office of Disciplinary Council, requesting that Banks be suspended from the practice of law. So much for impartial judicial discretion. It says a little about class, too.

The Supreme Court, in making the Simon appointment, admonished both sides, but pointedly said that judges “should act with restraint and decorum in order to avoid creating an appearance of impropriety.”

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal had upheld Stephens, who was elected to that same Second Circuit in October. He defeated 4th JDC Judge Sharon Marchman, who in May 2016, filed a LAWSUIT against her fellow judges over what Marchman termed their alleged covering for a court clerk whose job attendance was brought into question by Marchman.

And when Stephens was inaugurated last month, who do you think administered the oath of office to him? None other than his old pal, Terry Doughty, that’s who. You have to admit, in these small rural parishes, it seems you bump into close associates—and adversaries—every time you turn around.

Oh, hell, you don’t have to travel to the remote parts of the state to encounter old friends who are more than happy to do you a favor—provided it also benefits them in the process. The tentacles of Baton Rouge politics extend throughout the state, touching virtually everyone’s life.

There is, it seems, something to that six degrees of separation theory, after all.

LouisianaVoice will have more about the common thread that creates the six degrees of Louisiana politics and how the same old familiar names keep popping up. And sometimes, when you peek through that keyhole, you can see how these backroom deals work to the distinct advantage of the privileged few.

Read Full Post »

More twists and turns in LSP investigation indicate trooper’s ex-wife may have violated HIPAA regulations despite denials

Posted in Courts, Lawsuits, State Police on December 21, 2017| 11 Comments »

The sorry saga of State Police Lt. Robert Burns and his accessing of data on his ex-wife and a couple of her gentlemen friends has degenerated into a messy tangle of he-said, she-said back-and-forth claims that in turn has generated an unusual volume of comments on the original LouisianaVoice STORY.

The central theme of those comments revolves around claims that Burns’ ex-wife, Carmen Hawkins had illegally accessed medical records at her place of employment, Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Like student records and attorney-client communications, medical records are considered sacrosanct, protected at all costs from scrutiny and/or dissemination by unauthorized personnel. Violation of HIPAA privacy rules are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 under criminal statutes and fines of up to $25,000 per violation under civil codes. Employee disciplinary actions include suspension and/or termination.

Hawkins vehemently denied those claims and even went to far as to include those denials in a lawsuit filed against Burnes and Louisiana State Police (LSP).

Without delving further into the disciplinary action taken against Burns, which has already been discussed thoroughly, and without speculating on the merits of Hawkins’ lawsuit against Burns and his employer, it has been decided to let the LSP investigative report on Burns speak for itself as it regards claims of HIPAA violations on Hawkins’ part.

In that LSP report, Hawkins advised investigators that OLOL “investigated the allegation, which showed there was no evidence of her doing this.”

She repeated her claim of innocence in her LAWSUIT, saying Burns impugned her professional reputation and “included the false allegation that (Hawkins) had accessed confidential, personal health information…” She said those claims “resulted in the termination of (her) employment and have prevented her from obtaining comparable, alternative employment.”

But the LSP investigation did not end with her protestations of innocence:

“Investigators spoke with the Chief Compliance Officer at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, (redacted), who acknowledged they received a complaint and advised that at no time was there any misrepresentation that the person filing the complaint acted in an official capacity. (redacted) said their investigation confirmed, without a doubt, that the team member in question violated their polices, as well as HIPAA privacy regulations.”

The report noted that the OLOL spokesperson did not identify either party—the complainant or the hospital employee—by name but it went on to say that investigators “concluded that if Lt. Burns was the person who filed the complaint, he exercised his right to file a complaint against (redacted) and his actions did not rise to a level that violated any LSP policies.

If Hawkins is innocent of HIPAA infractions as she claims, it is interesting to note that she did not name Our Lady of the Lake as a defendant in her lawsuit.

Read Full Post »

Bogus search warrants, security issues, transportation costs: ingredients of festering Terrebonne Courthouse turf dispute

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Finances, Judges, Politicians, Prison, State Fire Marshal on November 14, 2017| 3 Comments »

If Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Jerry Larpenter feels as if he is being squeezed these days, it is for good reason.

He is.

On the one hand, state district judges of the 32nd Judicial District are requiring that Larpenter perform the duties of his job.

On the other hand, federal investigators reportedly are looking into the manner in which Larpenter performs the duties of his job. Reports are the FBI recently completed two days interviewing one of Larpenter’s deputies. The nature of those interviews was not immediately known.

Meanwhile, two private security guards and a Houma police officer have taken over security at the Terrebonne Parish Courthouse following the high sheriff’s refusal to do so even though state statutes clearly say:

  • “Court criers are to be provided by the sheriff of each parish to each district judge.”
  • “The crier of a court (notice this is not restricted to Orleans) shall attend all sessions thereof, under the direction of the judge shall open and close court at each session, and maintain order and decorum in the court room, and shall perform such other duties as are assigned to him by law, the court, or the sheriff.” (emphasis added)
  • “Each sheriff or deputy shall attend every court that is held in his parish…”
  • “Security in the courthouse is the responsibility of governing authority (Gordon Dove), but an agreement may be made between the parish officers and the building to share the expenses.”
  • “The principal functions of the criminal sheriff are that of being keeper of parish jail and executive officer of the Criminal District Court.”

Larpenter tried to pull rank on the judges by refusing a request by Judge Randal BETHANCOURT to provide more security details assigned to the courthouse. Larpenter demanded more pay for doing so and the judges said no dice. That standoff more or less backed the judges into a corner by forcing them to retain private security and municipal police officers.

Following the dispute over additional security vs. additional pay, Larpenter took photographs of inmates being transported to court and being held in holding cells until being called for their hearings and arraignments.

Armed with the photographs, Larpenter called the State Fire Marshal down on the court, apparently for the overcrowded conditions in the cells.

A little background is in order here. The State Fire Marshal, like the State Superintendent of Police is a position filled by appointment of the governor but no governor in his right mind would do so independently, i.e. without the blessings of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association. Make no mistake, the sheriffs’ association dictates to every governor who shall fill the positions of Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, State Fire Marshal and State Superintendent of Police. Ergo, Larpenter felt sufficiently confident to call in the big boys on the judges—big boys that his association props up.

Down and dirty politics at the local level? Damned right and normally that would be a lethal weapon given the formidable alliance of the sheriffs’ association, Secretary of Public Safety, State Superintendent of Police and State Fire Marshal. In case no one has been paying attention, those are the preeminent law enforcement agencies of the state. You generally don’t cross swords with that kind of power.

Larpenter then goes to the local press with his brainstorm for a great cost-cutting measure: video arraignments.

But that was only a temporary setback as the judges came back with their own “gotcha.”

First, they issue an order banning all video arraignments, thereby forcing Larpenter to bear the costs of transporting more than 150 prisoners for hearings two weeks ago.

Then, Judge David Arceneaux signed an order in which he struck through language requiring the warden of Dixon Correctional Institute in East Feliciana Parish, 120 north of Houma, to transport a prisoner from the facility to Houma and back. Judge Arceneaux then wrote in longhand, “Terrebonne Parish Sheriff to transport from Dixon Correctional Institute,” adding that Larpenter was to deposit $1500 for the cost of transporting the prisoner.

Needless to say, all this has set off a minor war in the 32nd JDC. Larpenter sputtered and fumed but Bethancourt replied it was all Larpenter’s fault, supposedly for balking at providing more security for the courthouse.

Regardless whose fault it is for the situation to have deteriorated so badly, it has morphed into a very interesting little turf war that isn’t like to end soon—or well. And it promises to be a fight worthy of the sordid reputation of Louisiana politics.

The number two spectator sport behind football.

In other words, fun.

 

 

Read Full Post »

First Circuit Court of Appeal to hear arguments in state’s appeal of district court’s rejection of workers’ comp rules

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Governor's Office, Judges, Lawsuits, Privatization on November 6, 2017| 5 Comments »

A three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge has scheduled arguments for Tuesday in the state’s appeal of a DECISION by a 19th Judicial District Court judge last March that knocked down much of the Jindal administration’s arbitrary rule changes in the approval of medical treatment for state employees injured on the job.

The decision was another in a long line of “reform” movements by Jindal—and pushed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—that were subsequently found to be unconstitutional or simply fell apart. Some of those included public education funding, group medical coverage for state employees, public-private partnerships in the operation of state hospitals, prison privatizations and tax proposals.

In his March 30 seven-page REASONS for JUDGMENT that followed a Feb. 7 bench trial, District Judge Don Johnson noted that:

Because the legislature did not authorize OWC to create a new rule creating a “tacit denial” when the provider simply ignores a request for treatment, “the Office of Workers Compensation exceeded its legislative authority as (it) lacks the authority to create and implement procedural regulations that authorize the ‘tacit denial of requested medical treatment which is statutorily obligated to the injured worker by the employer pursuant to (state statute).”

Johnson also found that OWC promulgated rules requiring injured workers to meet a higher burden than the state statute for any variance in an injured worker’s treatment schedule are “vague and the regulations are arbitrary, denying injured workers’ medical treatment that Louisiana employers are statutorily obligated to provide…”

Johnson also found that the “scheme” for determining whether an injured worker can receive medical treatment outside the Louisiana medical treatment guidelines (MTG) “is unduly burdensome.”

Special Assistant to the Director Carey Holliday testified that he was hired to help “bring the judges into conformity,” according to the answer to the state’s appeal filed by attorney J. Arthur Smith III on behalf of several plaintiffs. Holiday did that by implementing judicial performance evaluations. While he acknowledged he could not tell judges how to rule, he could “put them together and let them talk” and that “there will be some conformity…to come out of that,” Smith said in his answer.

The most damning revelation to come out of last February’s trial was testimony of improper Ex Parte communication between insurance carriers and defense attorneys about the merits of injury claims pending before OWC judges. Those communications were usually in the form of emails.

For example, one such email from a workers’ compensation defense attorney to former OWC Director Wes Hataway, Holliday, and the OWC chief judge contained complaints that one judge had ruled against an employer. The email went on to say of the judge, “He should be fired immediately,” and implied that the judge’s skills were less than those of a first-year law student. “He will do as he pleases no matter what,” the email said. “If this isn’t grounds to fire a judge, I don’t know what is.” The defense attorney ended his email by saying, “I think it’s time for the W.C. judges to become accountable for their actions.”

Judge Johnson took a dim view of this disregard for judicial independence by the 2011 decision to remove of the decision-making authority of the OWC judges and place it in the hands of the OWC Medical Director, Dr. Christopher Rich.

Johnson ruled that OWC “has violated the separation of powers doctrine by compromising judicial independence” by giving unpreceded powers to Dr. Rich, who was awarded a $500,000 contract to serve as medical director.

Rich, if nothing else, is consistent. Previously involved in ethical problems with another state contract, LouisianaVoice wrote about an apparent conflict of interest. In March 2011, the State Ethics Board ruled that he was prohibited, in his capacity as Medical director of OWC from participating in any matter involving Central Louisiana Surgical Hospital, a facility in which he owned an interest and which provided medical treatment to injured workers.

As OWC Medical Director, he could deny coverage to a state employee and then refer the employee to Central Louisiana Surgical Hospital for private treatment.

And did he ever deny coverage to state employees once ensconced as medical director. He even testified in February that he ignored the clinical judgment of treating physicians, even specialists, giving no weight to the recommendations of treating physicians. Moreover, according to his own testimony, he never examined an injured worker even though he made the final decision on what, if any, medical treatment the employee would receive. He even overruled a neurosurgeon’s recommendation that an employee undergo a cervical fusion because he, Rich, did not deem it necessary.

Attorney Janice Valois Barber testified in February that Rich had denied 100 percent of her clients’ requests for medical treatment variances. Dr. John Logan also testified by deposition that 100 percent of his variances likewise had been denied by Dr. Rich. Dr. Logan said that many of his patients simply gave up, knowing they would never get approval for the medical treatment they needed.

Dr. Pierce Nunley testified that he performs spinal surgery on almost a daily basis. He said he has attempted to contact Dr. Rich regarding Rich’s repeated refusals of request for treatments that vary from the MTG but was never able to get through to Rich nor did Rich return his calls.

So now, the state is continuing to pour good money after bad by appealing the decision of the lower court in an effort to uphold what was—and is—a very bad policy in dealing with people’s lives.

To us, it doesn’t seem quite right that one man, who never even once examined a patient would deny 100 percent of all requests for variances in the normal medical treatment guidelines. Surely there were a couple of valid claims in all of that.

But by consistently rejecting each and every claim, Dr. Rich was enforcing the Bobby Jindal code of justice and fair play.

It might be fine for Jindal to sell his books to his foundation in order to divert money from his non-profit into his pockets but no injured worker had a right to receive treatment for his injuries.

It might be fine for a legislator to lease luxury automobiles, pay ethics fines or even income taxes from campaign funds or for legislators to place relatives in state employment, but we just can’t have judges giving these deadbeat state employees a decent break.

And why not? The money-sucking appeals aren’t costing elected officials and bureaucrats anything. The tab is being picked by those clueless taxpayers. And besides, the state has plenty money.

The three-judge panel hearing the case includes appeal court judges John Michael Guidry, John T. Pettigrew and William J. Crain.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »