Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Courts’ Category

McAllister episode opens door to all kinds of political possibilities—but this could happen only in Louisiana

Posted in Congress, Courts, Elections, Judges on April 10, 2014| 16 Comments »

Apparently lost in all the jibber jabber about Vance in his pants McAllister and the mouth-to-mouth resuscitation he and aide Melissa Anne Hixon Peacock recently administered to each other is why on earth Monroe’s Christian Life Church pastor Danny Chance inserted himself into this steamy little affair—without, we might add, having been invited to the party.

Chance, in case you’ve been on vacation in the Ukraine, took it upon himself to reveal to the world (at least that part of the world that really gives a hoot in hell) that it was McAllister’s Monroe District Office manager Leah Gordon who leaked the video of McAllister and Peacock engaged in lascivious lip locking.

Chance apparently violated a ministerial duty of confidentiality when he shared with us a purported statement by Gordon that she was taking the video to State Sen. Mike Walsworth (R-West Monroe) and Jonathan Johnson, former aide to retired Congressman Rodney Alexander and who worked in the campaign of McAllister’s opponent, State Sen. Neil Riser. Both men, by the way, have denied any involvement in receiving or circulating the video.

“I just feel like there is a conspiracy to bring Vance down and destroy him,” the good reverend said. “For someone on his staff to do that is wrong.”

And speaking of wrong, how about a minister violating an apparent confidence by going public with something like a confession, as it were, that an individual (Gordon) planned to forward the video to political operatives? Is that not equally egregious?

Someone recently, perhaps only half joking, suggested that Heath Peacock, erstwhile best friend of Congressman Vance McAllister and husband of McAllister’s paramour/legislative aide, might want to consider running against his former friend this fall for the Fifth District congressional seat.

That would be fun to watch, but we don’t feel it goes quite far enough. We have an idea to extend it to its logical conclusion.

How about if McAllister resigns his congressional seat (there is already pressure from that moral standard bearer, the Republican Party, that he do so), thus opening the door for Peacock’s congressional candidacy? McAllister, naturally would then run for governor next year against…..David Vitter.

Now that would be a match made in hell and could conceivably even launch a new reality show: Duck Dynasty Dilemma.

There would be no debates between the candidates, of course: only the congenial sharing of notes and frat boy exchanges of stories of romantic conquests.

To keep viewers’ interest alive during lulls in the dialogue, lieutenant governor candidate Sen. Elbert Guillory (R/D/R-Opelousas) could promote three-round chicken boxing matches. That would allow bookies to handicap both the governor’s race and sporting events simultaneously.

But the scenario gets better—or worse, depending upon your tastes—and considerably more muddled. To keep up, you may need a pen and paper and perhaps even an abacus and a few highlighters for purposes of color coding. A chart of some type might also help.

Obviously we couldn’t allow Heath Peacock to waltz into Congress unopposed as representative of the good people of Louisiana’s 5th District. He must earn his stripes. For that reason, we have tapped the Hon. Chet Traylor of Monroe as his most worthy opponent.

Remember Chet Traylor?

Way back in 1996, Trayor, then living in Winnsboro, defeated incumbent Ruston’s Joe Bleich to win a 10-year term on the Louisiana Supreme Court. While serving on the state’s high court, he would have occasion in 2000 to write the majority opinion upholding the constitutionality Louisiana’s anti-sodomy laws, thus validating a morals code for everyone to follow.

Traylor, following a divorce from his first wife, married Peggy Marie McDowell Ellington, who was previously married to Noble Ellington, II, of Winnsboro, then a state representative but since retired and subsequently appointed as second in command of the State Insurance Department at a six-figure salary.

The Ellingtons had two sons, Noble Ellington, III, and Ryan Ellington, both of Winnsboro.

The senior Ellington has been quoted as saying that Traylor was “significantly involved” in his divorce.

We may never know the details of the history between Traylor and Peggy Ellington because not long after her marriage to Traylor, she died.

Soon after her death, Traylor, the good Methodist that he is, began yet another relationship—this one with Denise Lively, estranged wife of his stepson, Ryan Ellington.

Now that’s a family man to the core.

And bringing this entire saga full-circle, we have Traylor receiving less than 10 percent of the votes in his 2010 U.S. Senate election campaign against….David Vitter.

All of which goes to prove two points:

  • Politics, especially in Louisiana, does make for strange bedfellows, and
  • If you followed all this, you have far too much time on your hands.

Read Full Post »

Jindal health plan shows he wants to be POTUS in worst way—apparently the same way he has been LA. governor

Posted in ATC, Boards, Civil Service, Contract, Contracts, Courts, DHH, Education, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Higher Education, Jobs on April 3, 2014| 28 Comments »

Here’s the political shocker of the year: Gov. Bobby Jindal says that the Republican Party would be better off selecting a governor as its 2016 presidential nominee.

Wow. Who saw that coming?

Jindal might wish to ask former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney how that scenario worked out for him.

Wonder how Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida feel about that little snub?

Better yet, wonder who he had in mind? Gosh, there are so many: Chris Christie of New Jersey, Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, Ohio’s John Kasich and Rick Perry of Texas whom Jindal was quick to endorse a couple of years ago before Perry’s political machine sputtered and died on some lonely back road. Then there are those former governors Jeb Bush of Florida, Mike Huckabee of neighboring Arkansas, and Sarah what’s-her-name up there in Alaska.

Oh, right. We almost forgot because well…he’s just so forgettable, but there’s also Jindal who recently placed about 12th in a 10-person straw poll at that wild-eyed, frothing-at-the-mouth Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

But he’s running. You betcha (sorry, Palin, we couldn’t resist). He is so intent in his as yet unannounced candidacy that he has already drafted his own plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

Presidential candidates are usually expected to exhibit voter empathy and to be spellbinding orators who are capable of mesmerizing of voters en masse. John Kennedy comes immediately to mind. So do Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I mean, after Clinton took two steps toward that audience member in his debate against President Bush the First in 1992 and said, “I feel your pain,” Bush never had a chance. Clinton looked that voter dead in the eye and spoke one-on-one as Bush was checking his watch.

Jindal has all the empathy of Don Rickles, but without the charisma.

As for oratory skills, to borrow a line from a recent Dilbert comic strip, he should be called the plant killer: when he speaks, every plant in the room dies from sheer boredom.

So much for his strong points: let’s discuss his shortcomings.

Jindal believes—is convinced—he is presidential timber. The truth is he has been a dismal failure at running a state for the past six years and he’s already written off the final two as he ramps up his campaign for POTUS.

Yes, we’ve been beset by hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike and Gustav. Yes, we had the BP spill. All of those provided Jindal valuable face time on national TV and still he trails the pack and when you’re not the lead dog in the race, the view never changes.

Because of those catastrophes, the state has been the recipient of billions of federal dollars for recovery. Nine years later, Jindal cronies still hold multi-million contracts (funded by FEMA) to oversee “recovery” that is painfully slow. The state received hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild schools in New Orleans. Construction on many of those schools has yet to commence. The money is there but there are no schools. (Correction: Largely white Catholic schools have received state funding and those facilities are up and running.)

Jindal tried to restructure the state’s retirement system—and failed. Yes, the retirement systems have huge unfunded liabilities but Jindal’s solution was to pull the rug from under hard-working civil servants (who by and large, do make less than their counterparts in the private sector: you can look it up, in the words of Casey Stengel). As an example, one person whom we know was planning to retire after 30 years. At her present salary, if she never gets another raise over the final eight years she plans to work, her retirement would be $39,000 per year.

Under Jindal’s proposed plan, if she retired after 30 years, her retirement would have been $6,000—a $33,000-a-year hit. And state employees do not receive social security.

Never mind that state employees have what in essence is a contract: he was going to ram it down their throats anyway—until the courts told him he was going to do no such thing.

He has gutted higher education and his support of the repeal of the Stelly Plan immediately after taking office has cost the state a minimum of $300 million a year—$1.8 billion during his first six years in office.

He even vetoed a renewal of a 5-cent per pack cigarette tax because he opposed any new taxes (try following that logic). The legislature, after failing to override his veto, was forced to pass a bill calling for a constitutional amendment to make the tax permanent. Voters easily approved the amendment.

Then there was the matter of the Minimum Foundation Program, the funding formula for public schools. Funds were going to be taken from the MFP to fund school vouchers until the courts said uh-uh, you ain’t doing that either.

Jindal’s puppets, the LSU Board of Stuporvisors, fired the school’s president and two outstanding and widely admired doctors—all because they didn’t jump on board Jindal’s and the board’s LSU hospital privatization plan. Then the stuporvisors voted to turn two LSU medical facilities in Shreveport and Monroe over to a foundation run by a member of the stuporvisors—and the member cast a vote on the decision. No conflict of interest there.

Six months after the transition, the Center for Medicare Medicaid Services (CMS) has yet to approve the transition and if it ultimately does not approve it, there will be gnashing of hands and wringing of teeth in Baton Rouge (That’s right: the administration won’t be able to do that correctly, either) because of the millions of dollars in federal Medicaid funding that the state will not get or will have to repay. Jindal will, of course, label such decision as “wrong-headed,” which is an intellectual term he learned as a Rhodes Scholar.

And from what we hear, his little experiment at privatizing Southeast Louisiana Hospital (SELH) in Mandeville by bringing in Magellan to run the facility isn’t fairing too well, either.

By the way, has anyone seen Jindal at even one of those north Louisiana Protestant churches since his re-election? Didn’t think so.

For some reason, the word repulsive keeps coming to mind as this is being written.

Jindal’s firings and demotions are too many to rehash here but if you want to refresh your memory, go to this link: https://louisianavoice.com/category/teague/

The LSU Board of Stuporvisors, by the way, even attempted to prevent a release of a list of potential candidates for the LSU presidency. One might expect that member Rolf McCollister, a publisher (Baton Rouge Business Report), would stand up for freedom of the press, for freedom of information and for transparency. One would be wrong. He joined the rest of the board to unanimously try to block release. Again, led as usual by legal counsel Jimmy Faircloth who has been paid more than $1 million to defend these dogs (dogs being the name given to terrible, indefensible legal cases), Jindal was shot down in flames by the courts and the Board of Stuporvisors is currently on the hook for some $50,000 in legally mandated penalties for failing to comply with the state’s public records laws.

It would be bad enough if the administration’s legal woes were limited to the cases already mentioned. But there is another that while less costly, is far more embarrassing to Jindal if indeed, he is even capable of embarrassment at this point (which he probably is not because it’s so hard to be humble when you’re right all the time).

In a story we broke more than a year ago, former state Alcohol and Tobacco Control commissioner Murphy Painter refused to knuckle under to Tom Benson and Jindal when Benson’s application for a liquor license for Champions Square was incomplete both times it was submitted. Budweiser even offered an enticement for gaining approval of a large tent and signage it wanted to erect in Champions Square for Saints tailgate parties: a $300,000 “contribution” to the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (Superdome), whose board is heavily stacked with Jindal campaign contributors.

https://louisianavoice.com/2012/09/04/new-lsu-teaguing-by-%CF%80-yush-may-be-imminent-raymond-lamonica-rumored-on-way-out-as-system-general-counsel/

And:

https://louisianavoice.com/2013/02/page/3/

Jindal fired Painter. Because firing him for doing his job might be bad press, more solid grounds were sought and Painter was subsequently arrested for sexual harassment of a female employee and of using a state computer database to look up personal information on people not tied to any criminal investigation (something his successor Troy Hebert ordered done on LouisianaVoice Publisher Tom Aswell).

The female employee recanted but Painter nevertheless was put on trial and once more the Jindalites were embarrassed when Painter was acquitted on all 29 counts. Unanimously.

But wait. When a public official is tried—and acquitted—for offenses allegedly committed during the scope of his duties (the Latin phrase is “in copum official actuum”) then Louisiana law permits that official to be reimbursed for legal expenses.

In this case, Jindal’s attempt to throw a state official under the bus for the benefit of a major campaign donor (Benson and various family members), will wind up costing the state $474,000 for Painter’s legal fees and expenses, plus any outstanding bills for which he has yet to be invoiced.

So, after all is said and done, Jindal still believes he is qualified for the highest office in the land. He is convinced he should be elevated to the most powerful position in the world. If he has his way, it won’t be an inauguration; it’ll be a coronation.

So intoxicated by the very thought of occupying the White House is he that he has presumed to author a 26-page white paper that not only critiques Obamacare but apparently details his plan to replace the Affordable Care Act. Could that qualify as another exorcism on his part?

His epiphany, however, appears to be more akin to the Goldfinch that regurgitates food for its young nestlings than anything really new; it’s just a rehash of old ideas, it turns out.

During his entire administration—and even when he served as Gov. Mike Foster’s Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals—he devoted every waking moment to cutting Medicaid and depriving Louisiana’s poor citizens of health care. Even as head of DHH, according to campaign ads aired on the eve of the 2003 gubernatorial election, he made a decision which proved fatal to a Medicaid patient. That one campaign ad was aired so close to the election date that he was unable to respond and it no doubt contributed to his losing the election to then-Lt. Gov. Kathleen Blanco but he won four years later.

Nevertheless, his sudden interest in national health care prompts the obvious question: where the hell has he been for six years?

Not that we would for a moment believe that his newfound concern for healthcare is for political expedience but he apparently isn’t stopping there as he sets out to save the nation.

“This (health care plan) is the first in a series of policies I will offer through America Next (his newly established web page he expects to catapult him into the White House) over the course of this year,” he said.

We can hardly wait.

 

Read Full Post »

Baton Rouge attorney represents two state boards; suing two others, plus a state agency and apparently there’s no conflict

Posted in Boards, Commissions, Contract, Contracts, Courts, Ethics, House, Senate, Politicians, State Agencies, Taxes, Transparency, Waste on April 2, 2014| 5 Comments »

 

An interesting civil trial is transpiring at the 19th Judicial District Court. Though estimates vary, if the plaintiffs prevail, about one taxpayer in five in the Greater Baton Rouge area may eventually wind up with a surprise check in the mail.

The trial involves a group of taxpayers, now represented as a class, who have sued the Amite River Basin Commission (ARBC) over what they claim are vastly overpaid property taxes covering construction of the Comite River Diversion Canal. The project was originally envisioned after the massive 1983 flood which resulted in significant backwater flooding long after rains had stopped. The concept behind the project involves providing a sort of relief valve (the Canal) to divert water from the Comite River into the Mississippi River. By lowering the water level of the Comite River, water levels would also be lowered in the Amite River basin in flood-prone areas such as Port Vincent and French Settlement.

What is in dispute is the amount of funding for which the ARBC (through local property owners) is responsible. The original estimate of the project’s construction costs was approximately $120 million (the current estimate is $199 million). Of that $120 million, the Army Corps of Engineers (through the Federal government) was to be responsible for 70% of the construction costs, or $84 million. The remaining $36 million cost was originally designated to be $30 million to the State of Louisiana, and $6 million to the ARBC.

A sidebar to the whole affair is how a Baton Rouge lawyer is legally or ethically able to represent ARBC when he also served as the plaintiff attorney in litigation against the state that could ultimately cost the state from $60 million to $70 million.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have indicated that $6 million was the full extent of the construction costs for which the ARBC was responsible. To date, by way of a 3-mill property tax approved by voters in the District in 2000, combined with a renewal (at 2.65 mills) of that tax in 2010, plaintiff attorneys say about $24.5 million has been collected to date. The suit seeks a refund of the alleged $18.5 million overpayment.

At various stages in the trial, plaintiff attorneys have accused ARBC Executive Director Deitmar Rietschier of financial mismanagement and voter deception in order to “keep a project alive that is on life support.”

The attorneys have argued that Rietschier has an ulterior motive for over-collecting on the tax in order to fund his own $93,000+ annual salary along with his executive secretary’s $38,000 salary.  The board’s executive secretary, Toni Guitrau, also happens to be the Mayor of the Livingston Parish Village of French Settlement.

So, basically, the trial boils down to the claim that taxpayers of the district have been tricked into paying around $1.1 million in salaries for Rietschier and Guitrau during a period for which no funding has been appropriated for the project’s continued construction.

Plaintiff attorney Steve Irving argued that it is virtually impossible to accurately estimate the final cost of the project or if, it may even be completed.

Defense attorney Larry Bankston says there never was any intent to cap the ARBC’s contribution to construction costs at $6 million. He argues that the Canal project remains viable and is fully ongoing. He indicated that he has eight more witnesses to call.

Bankston’s roles as both plaintiff and defense attorney in cases involving the state would appear to pose a conflict of interests. Currently, he is:

  • Legal counsel to the State Auctioneer Licensing Board under a $25,000 contract;
  • Defense attorney for ARBC in its ongoing litigation over the overpayment of taxes to that board;
  • Plaintiff attorney in ongoing litigation against the Louisiana Department of Agriculture, and the state’s Rice Promotion Board and Rice Research Board over claims of excessive assessments against the state’s rice farmers.

Employing the doctrine that “the state is the state is the state,” it would appear that Bankston may have a conflict of interests under the code of ethics which governs attorney representation.

But as we discovered years ago, nothing is ever cut and dried in the legal world. And it’s obvious those in charge of attorney ethics or either ignorant of the subject or protective of their peers—or both.

And so it is with this question. We contacted a number of organizations, including the Attorney Disciplinary Board, the Louisiana Civil Justice Center, and the State Bar Ethics Council and each one punted. Eric K. Barefield of the State Bar Association’s Ethics Council did finally respond to our email question about the propriety of working both sides of Litigation Street but his answer did little to shed light on the issue:

“Thank you for your inquiry. The Louisiana State Bar Association’s Ethics Advisory Service is designed to provide eligible Louisiana-licensed lawyers with informal, non-binding advice regarding their own prospective conduct and/or ethical dilemmas under the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct (the “LRPC”).  According to limitations set by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, we are not permitted to evaluate contemplated disciplinary complaints, to serve as the catalyst for potential complaints or even to comment on the conduct of lawyers other than that of the requesting lawyer. 

“As such, regrettably, we are not permitted to help you evaluate whether the lawyer in your scenario has or may be violating the LRPC nor are we permitted to give you legal advice on matters such as those contained in your e-mail. 

“In addition to the foregoing, if you are concerned about protecting and/or asserting your rights and interests in this matter, perhaps you should strongly consider consulting another lawyer as soon as possible with regard to getting an evaluation of your facts and a legal opinion about your rights, interests and options.  Regrettably, no one on the staff at the LSBA is permitted to offer legal assistance and/or legal advice.”

That rendition of the Bureaucratic Shuffle would easily get a “10” rating on Dancing with the Stars.

Bankston, you may remember, is a former staff attorney for the Louisiana Attorney General’s office, was assistant parish attorney for East Baton Rouge Parish and a member of the Baton Rouge City-Parish Commission before his 1987 election to the Louisiana State Senate.

In 1994, while serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bankston met in his law office with Fred Goodson, owner of a Slidell video poker truck stop. The FBI later said Bankston and Goodson discussed a plan to manipulate the legislative process in order to protect the interests of video poker companies in exchange for providing key legislators secret financial interests in video poker truck stops.

Bankston was subsequently indicted and convicted on two racketeering counts, one of which was a scheme whereby Goodson would pay Bankston “rent” of $1,555 per month for “non-use” of Bankston’s beachfront condo in Gulf Shores, Alabama—a bribe, according to prosecutors.

Bankston was sentenced to 41 months in prison in 1997 and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine.

Released on Nov. 6, 2000, Bankston was subsequently disbarred by the Louisiana Supreme Court on Mar. 9, 2002, retroactive to Nov. 19, 1997, but was re-admitted to practice law on Feb. 5, 2004.

So, now he represents two state boards and is suing two others and a state agency.

And there apparently is no one who can—or will—call a foul in this game.

 

Read Full Post »

Notable Quotables (in their own words)

Posted in Boards, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Notable Quotables on March 23, 2014| 3 Comments »

“The record is replete with instances in which Mr. Begue acted as prosecutor throughout the proceedings, and at times, simultaneously acted as prosecutor, panel member and independent counsel—even ruling on his own objection.”

—Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal unanimous decision on Sept. 26, 2012, to reverse the the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry’s 2010 revocation of the license of Shreveport dentist Dr. C. Ryan Haygood.

“Based upon our review of the record, we find that Mr. Begue’s functions of general counsel, independent counsel, prosecutor and fact-finder were so interwoven that they became indistinguishable, which created the appearance of impropriety and deprived the proceedings of the imperative and fundamental appearance of fairness. Therefore, the board’s decision to revoke Dr. Haygood’s license must be reversed.”

—Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, in that same decision.

Read Full Post »

Appeal court slams LSDB tactics in reversing kangaroo court license revocation; board attorney rules on his own objection

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Courts, Ethics on March 23, 2014| 22 Comments »

When we wrote on March 7 that the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (LSBD) functions simultaneously as adjudicator, prosecutor, judge and jury in disciplinary hearings against dental professionals, we were not embellishing or fudging the facts. Quite the contrary; we were being quite literal.

Take the behavior of LSBD legal counsel Brian Begue, for example, in the 2010 hearing on charges brought against former Shreveport dentist C. Ryan Haygood, a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Louisiana Tech University with a degree in molecular biology and the LSU School of Dentistry.

Since 1995, Begue, rather than serve as a staff attorney at a set salary, has received eight separate contracts from the board totaling an eye-popping $2.825 million, including $450,000 for each of the last five three-year contracts.

(And State Sen. Robert Adley, Gov. Bobby Jindal and others are carping about the attorney general hiring a private law firm to pursue that lawsuit against 97 oil and gas companies by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East? But that’s another story.)

Begue’s role in his capacity as board legal counsel, according to a Sept. 26, 2012, ruling by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans, is restricted to that of an advisor “who is independent of complaint counsel and who has not participated in the investigation or prosecution of the case.” (Emphasis added.)

The appeal court, in its ruling, noted that Begue “participated in the hearing before the board’s panel both as prosecutor and adjudicator” during Haygood’s hearing before the board. An adjudicator is one who presides, judges and arbitrates during a formal dispute and as such, may rule on evidentiary objections and other procedural questions if so delegated to do so by the board chairman.

Moreover, the court said, the LSBD “condoned Mr. Begue’s behavior and failed to acknowledge Dr. Haygood’s objection that Mr. Begue was overstepping his role in the proceedings.”

The appeal court went even further to say that the board’s hearing record was “replete with instances in which Mr. Begue acted as prosecutor throughout the proceedings, and at times simultaneously acted as prosecutor, panel member and independent counsel,” and noted that in a separate 1997 case, the Louisiana Supreme Court said that the “commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions violates both the letter of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act and the due process goals it is designed to further.” The idea of the same person serving as judge and prosecutor “is anathema under our notions of due process. Such a scenario is devoid of the appearance of fairness,” The appeal court said.

To fully appreciate the extent of Begue’s—and by its complicity, the board’s—willingness to disregard any semblance of fairness or due process, consider this gem: the court observed that Begue’s brazen behavior went so far as “even ruling on his own objection.” (emphasis added.)

The absurdity of such actions brings to mind the episode of the old Danny Thomas CBS series Make Room for Daddy in which he launched The Andy Griffith Show. In that episode, Thomas, in the role of Danny Williams, is pulled over for speeding by Griffith in the role of Mayberry Sheriff Andy Taylor. At the courthouse, it turns out that Andy is also the judge and when he imposes a fine, Danny demands to speak to the mayor. “All right,” drawls Andy as he picks up the phone and tells the operator to give him the mayor’s office. A second phone on the desk of the sheriff/judge rings and Taylor picks it up and answers, “Mayor’s office, Mayor speaking.”

Any first-year law student would know an attorney cannot rule on his own objection. That is very definition of a kangaroo court. And if he is not acquainted with that basic rule that every high school debater knows, the practice of law is the last occupation he should be pursuing. Perhaps he would be better suited to cleaning Porta-Johns.

And for that, he holds a $450,000 contract with the board.

But it gets better.

Ten years earlier, in hearings on charges against Dr. Randall Schaffer, Begue had openly violated a Louisiana Supreme Court order to cease participating in board proceedings by serving as both prosecutor and board general counsel. Yet, he continued that same practice in Dr. Haygood’s hearings before the board—and in all likelihood, will again in the next case against some unsuspecting dentist.

Haygood ultimately was convicted on eight separate charges, three of which had been dropped before his hearing took place, a quantum stretch its own right on the part of the board. He was fined $5,000 on each of the eight counts ($40,000) and ordered to pay not only his own attorney fees but those of the board and the fees of board investigator Camp Morrison (combined total of $133,000), for a total financial penalty of $173,000. Additionally, the board ordered permanent revocation of Haygood’s dentistry license.

The activities of board-contracted private investigator Morrison are almost as bad—except he has received eight contracts since 1997 totaling “only” $1.735 million, more than a million dollars less than Begue, but still nothing to sneeze at.

What’s more, the board pushed a bill through the Louisiana Legislature two years ago that allows the board to provide legal representation for Morrison—at the board’s (read: taxpayer) cost, a benefit bestowed upon no other state contractor.

Also, Morrison is provided a rent-free office in the LSBD suite on the 26th floor of One Canal Place in New Orleans, a suite for which the board pays a whopping $4,700 per month in rent.

Occasionally, contract workers for state agencies are provided work space in state offices but that is only for those jobs which cannot be performed offsite. But it is unheard of for a state contractor to be provided legal representation. In fact, the reverse is true. Contractors are required to maintain their own errors and omission insurance and to provide their own legal counsel in case of litigation—and those contracts contain hold harmless clauses, or indemnification, for the state.

So, the question obviously is what did Dr. Haygood do to bring the wrath of the LSDB down upon him?

A better question might be what did Morrison and Begue do?

We will attempt to address the two questions in order.

Apparently, Haygood’s biggest sin was opening offices in Shreveport and Bossier City and initiating an aggressive advertising campaign that resulted in attracting former patients of prominent Shreveport dentist Ross Dies who was one of several defendants named in a federal lawsuit filed by Haygood.

Other defendants include Morrison; unlicensed investigators Karen Moorhead and Dana Glorioso hired by Morrison and who Haygood says posed as patients, giving him false symptoms in order to help Morrison build his case against Haywood; former LSDB executive director Barry Ogden; members of LSBD, and several dentists who Haygood says assisted LSDB in its investigation of him.

The fact that board member Dr. H.O. Blackwood also was a Haygood competitor in the Shreveport area didn’t help, Haygood says in his lawsuit.

Haygood says in his lawsuit that Ogden and Begue were “well aware” at the time Ogden appointed Begue as independent counsel that Begue had already “participated in the investigation or prosecution of the case” against Haygood. “In fact, Begue began discussing the investigation with Morrison as early as April 2007, at the outset of the investigation, and he conducted conversations with Ogden, Morrison and other board members regarding the status of the investigation long before he (Begue) was appointed independent counsel.” Haygood said that as long-time counsel for the board, Begue “was aware that his activities prior to the appointment by Ogden disqualified him for service as independent counsel.”

Haygood said that aggressive, unrestrained investigation tactics employed by Morrison and Begue “create an obligation of the board to pay costs that it is typically unable to pay,” costs that are passed on to the dentist under investigation if he is convicted—and few brought before the board escape without some type of monetary penalty.

“Morrison utilizes coercive and threatening tactics when interviewing witnesses,” Haygood said. While conducting his investigation of Haygood, for example, Morrison appeared at the home of Haygood’s hygienist, Julie Snyder, at 8:30 p.m. during her maternity leave, the lawsuit says. “Finding her home alone with her newborn baby, Morrison told Snyder that he knew that she and Haygood were guilty and pressed her to admit wrongdoing, Haygood says, adding that other dentists “have had to have police officers assist in removing Morrison from their offices after he refused to leave.”

It should be noted that when a dentist is brought before the board for a hearing on charges brought against him, the board is represented by Begue and another lawyer designated as the prosecuting attorney. The dentist, on the other hand, is not allowed to have legal representation before the board.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, in its September 2012 ruling, noted that board member Dr. Conrad McVea, Jr. directed Morrison “to send people in” to Haygood’s offices. This was the son of former board member Conrad McVea, Sr. who told Dr. Randall Schaffer, who is Jewish, that he could never maintain the professional standard of care in his practice because he had never accepted Jesus as his personal savior. The obvious question here is: are board memberships passed down from father to son like some type of inheritance or family heirloom?

Moorhead was recommended as one of the two unlicensed investigators to pose as patients by Dr. White Graves, a former board member and Moorhead’s employer, the Fourth Circuit decision says.

“Dr. Haygood argues that he was not afforded due process at the hearing before the board,” the appeal court said. “He also contends that during four days of testimony, Mr. Begue ‘repeatedly interfered and zealously advocated on behalf of the board by cross-examining witnesses, supplying objections to complaint counsel, and questioning the credibility of Dr. Haygood.’

“We have comprehensively reviewed the transcripts of the four-day hearing and we agree with Dr. Haygood’s representation of Mr. Begue’s actions.”

The Fourth Circuit’s decision further said that Begue’s “twofold role as prosecutor and adjudicator violated Dr. Haygood’s right to a hearing that is fair and impartial. The type of commingling found in this case is strictly prohibited by the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act.

“Based upon our review of the record, we find that Mr. Begue’s functions of general counsel, independent counsel, prosecutor and fact-finder were so interwoven that they became indistinguishable, which created the appearance of impropriety and deprived the proceedings of the imperative and fundamental appearance of fairness.

“Therefore, the board’s decision to revoke Dr. Haygood’s license must be reversed,” the ruling said, adding that the board “improperly combined the prosecutorial and judicial functions by allowing its general counsel, Mr. Begue, to serve as the prosecutor, general counsel, panel member and adjudicator for the proceedings. We hold this conduct is violative of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act and Dr. Haygood’s due process right to a neutral adjudicator and a fair hearing.”

“We find the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry’s decision to revoke Dr. C. Ryan Haygood’s dental license is arbitrary and capricious; therefore, we reverse the trial court’s judgment (the state district court had earlier upheld most of the board’s actions) which affirmed the revocation of Dr. Haygood’s license and remand this matter to the board for a new hearing.”

Wait. What? Remanded to the board for a new hearing?

Yep. The Haygood matter went right back to the board to be heard by the same panel.

You don’t need three tries to guess the odds of a different outcome for the rehearing. One might have a better chance in Warren Buffett’s $1 billion prize for picking the winner of every game in the NCAA March Madness bracket.

Haygood, realizing he would never receive a fair hearing, much less a different outcome in repeated appearances before the board, finally packed up his chair and drill and moved to North Carolina where he currently practices his trade. But because he refuses to give the board the satisfaction of backing down, his hearing is still pending.

And that is how kangaroo courts work.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »