Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘TV News’ Category

Story of attempted contractor shakedown broken 2 years ago by LouisianaVoice results in $20 million verdict against state

Posted in Corruption, Courts, Crime, Fraud, Governor's Office, Jobs, Judges, Lawsuits, Media, State Agencies, TV News on December 5, 2015| 18 Comments »

Nearly two years ago, LouisianaVoice broke a story about a Mangham contractor’s claims that the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) had bankrupted his company when it denied payments for his work. https://louisianavoice.com/2014/04/09/contractor-claims-in-lawsuit-that-dotd-official-attempted-shake-down-for-cash-equipment-during-monroe-work/

The reasons payment were denied? Because, contractor Jeff Mercer said, he resisted shake-down efforts by a DOTD inspector who demanded cash and equipment from him.

On Friday, after eight years of legal battles, Mercer won a unanimous $20 million judgment from a 12-person jury in 4th Judicial District Court in Monroe.

Work for which Mercer says he was not paid included:

  • Two projects on I-49 in Caddo Parish ($1.6 million);
  • A Morehouse Parish bridge project ($7.1 million);
  • Louisville Avenue in Monroe ($79,463);
  • Well Road in West Monroe ($50,568);
  • Airline Drive in Bossier City ($57,818);
  • Brasher Road in LaSalle Parish ($70,139).

While the Monroe News-Star gave substantial coverage to the court decision, LouisianaVoice was the first media outlet to give Mercer the time of day back in April of 2014 when we first learned of his troubles with DOTD. Monroe television station KTVE did a brief interview with Mercer following our initial story, but that was it—until yesterday’s decision. http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/local/2015/12/04/contractor-wins-20m-suit-against-dotd/76813444/

In our 2014 story, Mercer said that three of his employees filed sworn affidavits with the court in which all four say DOTD inspector Willis Jenkins demanded that Mercer either “put some green” in his hand or that Mercer place a new electric generator “under his carport” the following day.

One employee, John Sanderson, said he was approached by Jenkins who informed him that he “could make things difficult” on Mercer. “He indicated that this burden would not necessarily be on the Louisville Avenue project but on future jobs awarded to Jeff Mercer, LLC,” Sanderson said. “I replied, ‘You didn’t mean to say that,’” whereupon, Sanderson said, Jenkins repeated his threat. “During that conversation, I heard Willis tell Jeff that he ‘wanted green,’” Sanderson said.

Incredibly, Jenkins admitted making the comment but said it was a joke. Despite getting complaints about the shakedown attempt, DOTD never investigated the allegations. (Note to Jenkins: don’t joke like that in airports.)

Another Mercer employee, Bennett Trip, said in a signed statement that he heard Jenkins tell Mercer he “wanted some green.” He said he also heard Jenkins tell another Mercer employee that Jenkins, pointing to a generator in Tripp’s truck, said he “wanted one of those under his carport.”

Following complaints by Mercer, Jenkins was subsequently removed from the Louisville Avenue project by DOTD Engineer Marshall Hill who said it was not the first time he’d heard such claims about Jenkins. But Tripp said the shakedown continued when another state official told Mercer employees, “Y’all had my buddy removed and we’re going to make the rest of the job a living hell.”

Mercer claimed in his lawsuit there was collusion among DOTD officials to “make the jobs as costly and difficult as possible” for him. He told LouisianaVoice in April of 2014 that after receiving verbal instructions on the way in which one project was to be done, it was subsequently approved but later, DOTD officials, including defendant John Eason, advised that the work was not acceptable.

He said that DOTD officials provided false information to federal investigators; that he was forced to perform extra work outside the contract specifications; that a prime contractor, T.J. Lambrecht was told if he continued to do business with Mercer, closer inspections of his jobs would result, and that job specifications were routinely changed which in turn made his work more difficult.

Doughty said DOTD officials in Baton Rouge threatened his client with federal prosecution when he asked for payments for work he’d done. An FBI investigation initiated by DOTD was subsequently dropped.

Mercer eventually was forced to shutter the doors on his construction firm which had employed 20 to 40 people.

DOTD interoffice emails obtained by LouisianaVoice seem to support Mercer’s claim that he was targeted by DOTD personnel and denied payment on the basis that the agency was within its rights to “just say no.”

One email from DOTD official Barry Lacy which was copied to three other DOTD officials and which stemmed from a dispute over what amount had been paid for a job, made a veiled threat to turn Mercer’s request for payment “to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General.”

Still another suggested that payment should be made on a project “but never paid to Mercer.”

“I did everything they told me to do,” Mercer told LouisianaVoice. “But because I refused to allow one DOTD employee to shake me down, they put me out of business. They took reprisals and they ostracized me and broke me but now I’m fighting back.”

Both Mercer and his Rayville attorney David Doughty indicated they had reported the events to the governor’s office but no one in the Jindal administration, which has spent eight years touting its ethics record, offered to intervene or even investigate his allegations.

Not only did the jury hold DOTD liable for damages, but it also held four individual DOTD employees—Willis Jenkins, Michael Murphy, Eason and Barry Lacy—personally liable.

That, of course raises the obvious question of will there now—finally—be a criminal investigation of the four individuals? After all, the jury’s verdict centered on Mercer’s claims of extortion, bribery and plain old shakedowns in the purest sense of old-time Louisiana politics.

Granted, civil and criminal trials are vastly different. In a civil trial, a verdict can be reached on the lower standard of a “preponderance of the evidence” while criminal charges must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In a civil suit, the plaintiff must only prove that there was a greater than 50 percent chance, based on all reasonable evidence, that the defendant committed the action that caused damages. In criminal matters, however, there is a higher standard. The prosecutor must prove that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

But even with required higher standard of proof, the fact that a civil jury was unanimous in its decision should be sufficient to prompt at least a criminal investigation by the Ouachita Parish District Attorney’s office. Because federal funds were involved in the construction projects, and because Mercer was a contractor under the federal Disability Business Enterprise (DBE), a federal grand jury probe should ensue. “Who protects the DBE from the DOTD?” Doughty asked. “The people who are supposed to guard DBE companies are within DOTD itself (and) he didn’t get any help from them.”

Additionally, offenses committed under the funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 carry even stiffer penalties. ARRA funds were used on the I-49 projects.

The civil award puts the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office in an awkward position. The AG’s office defended the state’s interests in Mercer’s lawsuit and now that the jury has cited public corruption in its award, the office now finds itself in the unenviable position of being required to investigate public corruption in a case it had just defended in civil court. http://www.ag.state.la.us/Article.aspx?articleID=6&catID=8

“It’s been a long fight,” Mercer told the News-Star. To LouisianaVoice, he exulted, “We waxed their butts.”

He still has two more suits for more than $10 million in contractual losses pending in Baton Rouge district court.

Doughty told the News-Star that people “are tired of corruption and tired of reading about this type of thing” and that the jury “was sending a message.”

DOTD is expected to appeal the jury verdict to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal and if the state court decision is upheld, most likely the state will apply for writs with the Louisiana Supreme Court. If the decision is upheld in the higher courts, the State Legislature would then have to appropriate the payment.

All that means it could be years before Mercer sees a dime but judicial interest continues to run from the date the lawsuit was filed and the state ultimately could be forced to pay as much as an additional 50 percent.

Read Full Post »

Could knowledge of pending story about hooker’s paternity claim have prompted Vitter to close access to Tech debate?

Posted in Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Politicians, TV News, Vitter on October 18, 2015| 19 Comments »

By now, anyone with anything more than a passing interest in Saturday’s gubernatorial primary election is aware of the latest bombshell about U.S. Sen. David Vitter and his cavorting with prostitutes: that Vitter allegedly fathered a child with New Orleans hooker Wendy Ellis. http://www.theamericanzombie.com/2015/10/david-vitter-interview-with-wendy-ellis.html

The story was published on Saturday (Oct. 17) by Jason Brad Berry of the American Zombie investigative blog and political junkies immediately began burning up the email lines just as the 2015 primary election for governor enters its final stretch. http://crooksandliars.com/2015/10/former-mistress-alleges-david-vitter-asked

It not our intent to discredit Berry (he was, after all, the first to reveal widespread corruption involving former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and some of his pals, all of whom were convicted of corruption). But Clancy DuBos, publisher of Gambit Magazine in New Orleans wisely spiked that publication’s initial story about Berry’s toxic (to Vitter) interview with Ellis after receiving court documents that shot gaping holes in parts of Berry’s blog post. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/blogofneworleans/archives/2015/10/18/vitter-update-inconsistencies-come-to-light

Nor should anyone interpret this as a defense of Vitter.

Far from it.

The timing of the story is terribly suspect, given the election was only a week away when Berry posted it. But even if Ellis’s claims ultimately fail the smell test, Vitter really deserves no sympathy in this sordid affair after the manner he has allowed his Super PAC, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future, to fill our living rooms with television attack ads containing half-truths and outright lies about his two Republican opponents, Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle and Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne.

And Vitter cannot divorce himself from those ads simply because a Super PAC accepted responsibility for the content of the ads. That does not absolve him. Louisiana’s senior senator did, after all, contribute a quarter-million dollars of his own money to the Super Pac, so he is married to the ads whether he likes it or not.

The entire gubernatorial campaign has been reduced to the lowest form of political discourse consisting of nothing but smear campaigns. While Vitter’s Super PAC was chewing up Angelle and Dardenne with B.S. claims and unabashed lies, the National Republican Governors’ Association was doing the same to the lone Democrat in the race, State Rep. John Bel Edwards. (It’s interesting to note that the GOP Governors’ Association first said it was staying out of the primary election but after witnessing a steady climb in the polls by Edwards, the association once headed by Bobby Jindal apparently panicked and decided to go on the attack now.)

And make no mistake, those ads are just as vile. And their relevance to burning issues that face this state make about as much sense as an acquaintance from north Louisiana who despite having for years claimed to be sophisticated enough that he would “vote for the best candidate, no matter the party,” told me this weekend that, “I just can’t vote for someone with a ‘D’ behind their name.” What utter nonsense, what unmitigated bias, and yes, what ignorance. What happened to that “best candidate” business, pal?

But we digress.

Where are the proposals for addressing the myriad of state problems? I haven’t heard them because they’re being drowned out by ads that are hell bent on dragging opponents through the mud and muck which only means when the dust finally settles, we’re likely to be faced with the same old problems with no one offering hard answers.

And folks, that begins with the candidates for governor and quickly flows downhill into both chambers of the Louisiana Legislature. With more than half the incumbents being returned to office to cut deals and to pass laws favorable to campaign contributors, we’re quite likely to see the same trend in corporate tax giveaways continue unabated.

Indeed, the entire dialog this election cycle has been reduced to quickie TV ads that spew shameless misrepresentations of the facts. And it will only be ramped up a few notches for the general election.

Has Vitter overlooked the fact that he, along with the others, is in reality, interviewing for a job? When you are seeking a job, you put your best foot forward; you don’t walk into the interview trashing those competing for the same job. That’s a fast way out the door. You give your prospective employer your curriculum vitae and you come prepared to discuss your experience, your accomplishments and your career plans should you be hired. And you better not waste his or her time with disparaging gossip about the other applicants.

Ellis previously (in 2007) passed a polygraph test which indicated that she did indeed have a sexual relationship with Vitter for at least four months although she now says the relationship lasted for nearly three years, from 1998 to sometime in 2000 when she informed him she was pregnant.

She says Vitter first denied paternity and then suggested she get an abortion. She didn’t. Instead, she put the baby up for adoption raising the immediate questions of just who was the pro-life advocate in this scenario?

The emerging saga prompted a reader of one online blog to suggest that many of the so-called “family values” types like Vitter, Newt Gingrich, Dennis Hastert, and Josh Duggar “have more skeletons in their closets than Jeffrey Dahmer.”

Vitter, for his part, of course, is keeping mum. But then, that’s been his approach the entire duration of this repugnant campaign: stay far away from the media and voters, and for God’s sake, don’t get drawn into any open debates in which questions are not provided in advance. If you’ve been paying attention, he is letting The Fund for Louisiana’s Future do all his talking for him. (Well, there is that one pitifully wretched ad in which he props wife Wendy in front of the camera to tell Louisiana’s voters what a wonderful husband and father he is.

But when he does appear, it is always—without exception—in a controlled venue in which no one has a chance to ask any embarrassing questions.

All of which brings me to my final bit of speculation:

Is it just possible that the reason last Thursday’s debate among the four candidates at Louisiana Tech University in Ruston was closed off not only to students and the general public, but to the media as well—and the reason Vitter was the only one of the four to skip out on a post-debate meeting with media types who were relegated to an adjoining room during the debate—was that he knew Berry was developing this story for imminent release and he simply could ill-afford to have that stink bomb tossed into the middle of the debate—on statewide TV? http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/10/vitter_debate_problems.html

After all, Berry said on his blog that he had contact with David Vitter’s legal counsel and repeatedly requested a telephone interview with him to address the story but his lawyer stated he was too busy to talk with me.”

Really? Seriously, Dave? As determined as you are to evade addressing the burning question of whether or not you broke the law by soliciting prostitutes, this is a bit more serious.

Too busy to discuss a pending story that you may have fathered a child by a prostitute? By telephone, yet?

Sorry, Dave, but true or not, you don’t get to busy to discuss matters of this magnitude.

Unless you have a reason for not talking.

But, Dave, Berry says he has “much more information” that he will be sharing soon.

You may wish to reconsider and give him a call.

Read Full Post »

LouisianaVoice submits FOIA request for communications from Vitter on parameters of Thursday night’s TV debate

Posted in Corruption, Elections, Ethics, Governor's Office, Media, PACs, Politicians, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency, TV News, Vitter on October 16, 2015| 23 Comments »

Complaints and protests had no effect on the decision by Louisiana Tech David Vitter to restrict access to Thursday night’s gubernatorial debate on the Ruston campus, so LouisianaVoice has submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request under Louisiana’s Public Records Law (R.S. 44:1 et seq.) for any documentation revealing Vitter’s thumbprints on the unprecedented decision to bar access to the debate to students, the public and the media.

It is as obvious as that great big elephant in the room that Vitter is Bobby Jindal reincarnated as far as his unwillingness to take unscripted questions or questions not approved in advance. His propensity for appearing only in tightly controlled venues is doing little to blot out the ugly memory of eight years of Jindal’s avoidance of unpleasant questions.

All politicians, of course, would prefer to appear at events that evidence overwhelming support and if a politician is willing to take the risk, he will encounter hostile crowds or, at least an enterprising journalist who isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions. Vitter, however, has taken his aversion to such risks to a level at which even Jindal would be envious.

His reasons are quite obvious. He refuses to entertain, let along answer, the BIG question: “Senator, did you break the law?”

Ask Edwin Edwards that and he would likely say, “Sure, but you’re going to have find out for yourself which one it was.”

Ask Paul Newman in his lead role in The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean that, and he would simply tear that page out of the law book and say, “That’s a bad law. I just repealed it.”

Ask Jindal that and he’d probably hire Jimmy Faircloth to file suit against the law.

But you just can’t ask Vitter that. Plain and simple, he’s not going to put himself in that position, which presents a conundrum of sorts or, as the late Johnny Carson might say, “A sticky wicket.” The problem I have with that is this man is asking us to place our trust in him and to elect him Governor when he is not willing to accept questions about his moral character.

Moral character. An interesting term and one might justifiably ask what that has to do with his ability to govern. After all, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ, JFK, FDR, Bill Clinton, Warren Harding, and 14 other presidents are rumored to have carried on affairs in the White House—some with male partners.

For the answer, I will only point to the fact that Vitter ran as a family values candidate and in 1998 Vitter opined that Clinton “should resign…and move beyond this (Monica Lewinski) mess.” http://cenlamar.com/2010/08/21/can-we-be-honest-about-david-vitter/

But now, after being linked to prostitutes in Washington and New Orleans, doesn’t have so much to say on the subject of infidelity. As a candidate for Louisiana’s chief executive officer, he has instituted his very on “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

And he’s making damn sure no one gets to ask that. Hence, the controlled venues, including barring the media and the public from a “public debate” in a public facility on the campus of Louisiana Tech University Thursday night.

Which must beg the question in the minds of any citizen of Louisiana who can get past the latest exploits of those wild and crazy Kardashians: what else might he refuse to share with the electorate of this state? Will he, like Jindal, shut off the governor’s office from all outside inquiries, including those about legitimate state business? Will he invoke the “deliberative process” as did Jindal for eight long years?

He was uncomfortable enough at Thursday night’s debate when the question of his attack ads against fellow Republicans Jay Dardenne and Scott Angelle arose. Of course, he denied his hand in the attacks, saying that he didn’t buy the ads; that The Fund for Louisiana’s Future did.

Well, The Fund for Louisiana’s Future just happens to be his very own Super PAC and while federal law dictates that candidates not involved themselves in the decision-making process of plotting strategy and ad buys with Super PACs, never doubt for a nano-second that it was his hand stirring the pot. After all, Vitter gave a quarter-million dollars of his own money to The Fund for Louisiana’s Future.

So, in a sufficient state of outrage over Vitter’s exclusion of the very public he is asking to elect him, I, Tom Aswell, on behalf of LouisianaVoice has submitted the following public records request of Louisiana Tech President Les Guice:

Pursuant to the Public Records Act of Louisiana (R.S. 44:1 et seq.), I respectfully request the following information:

Please allow me to review all communications, including text messages, twitter messages, emails and any other written correspondence between any representative of Louisiana Tech University (including any member of the university’s administration and/or the university public information office from U.S. Sen. David Vitter and/or any member of his Senate and/or campaign staff or representative/spokesperson for David Vitter, including aides, public relations firms, advertising agencies, Fund for Louisiana’s Future, or anyone else serving in a capacity to promote his gubernatorial campaign. Such request is limited to any and all discussions of the gubernatorial debate of Thursday, October 15, 2015 at Louisiana Tech University, including, but not limited to any and all parameters, restrictions, and/or criteria of said debate, including any advance questions submitted or to be submitted to such spokespersons and/or David Vitter, any demands, suggestions and/or stipulations as to who may or may not be allowed to attend said debate and any reasons and/or justification given to support such demands, suggestions and/or stipulations.

Just so there are no misunderstandings about what information I am entitled to, below are some major requirements of the Louisiana Public Records Act (R.S. 44:1, et seq.) and remedies that are available to us for non-compliance with the law:

LOUISIANA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, L.R.S. 44:1 ET SEQ

WHAT ARE PUBLIC RECORDS UNDER THE ACT?

To be “public,” the record must have been used, prepared, possessed, or retained for use in connection with a function performed under authority of the Louisiana Constitution, a state law, or an ordinance, regulation, mandate, or order of a public body. This definition covers virtually every kind of record kept by a state or local governmental body. La. R.S. 44:1(A)(1). In Louisiana, a “public record” includes books, records, writings, letters, memos, microfilm, and photographs, including copies and other reproductions.

WHO CAN REQUEST PUBLIC RECORDS?

In Louisiana, any person at least 18 years of age may inspect, copy, reproduce or obtain a copy of any public record. La. R.S. 44:32. The purpose for the document request is immaterial, and an agency or record custodian may not inquire as to the reason, except to justify a fee waiver.

HOW TO MAKE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

A request to review or copy a public record is made to the custodian of the records. The custodian is the public official or head of any public body having custody or control of the public record, or a representative authorized to respond to requests to inspect public records.

You may also make an oral request in person to inspect a public record. At that time, the public record must be immediately presented to you, unless the record is not immediately available or is being actively used at the time. If the public record is not immediately available, the custodian must promptly notify you in writing of the reason why the record is not immediately available and fix a day and hour within three days (excluding Saturday, Sunday, and legal holidays) when the records will be made available.

Enforcing The Public Records Law

A custodian who determines a record is not public, must provide written reasons, including the legal basis, within three working days. If a requester is denied a public record by a custodian or if five business days have passed since the initial request and the custodian has not responded, the requester may file a civil suit to enforce his right to access. The custodian bears the burden of proving that the record is not subject to disclosure because of either privacy rights or a specific exemption. The law requires the courts to act expeditiously in such suits and to render a decision “as soon as practicable.” If the requester prevails in the suit, the court will award reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs. If the requester partially prevails, the court may, at its discretion, award reasonable attorney’s fees or an appropriate portion thereof. (The custodian and the public body may each be held liable for the payment of the requester’s attorney’s fees and other costs of litigation; however, the custodian cannot be held personally liable for these fees and costs if he acted on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.) The court may also award the requester civil penalties of up to $100 for each day the custodian arbitrarily failed to give a written explanation of the reasons for denying the request. In addition, if the court finds that the custodian arbitrarily or capriciously withheld a public record, it may award actual damages proven by the requester to have resulted from the custodian’s action. (The custodian may be held personally liable for the actual damages unless his denial of the request was based on advice from a lawyer representing the public body.)

In addition to civil remedies, the law also provides criminal penalties. Anyone with custody or control of a public record who violates the law or hinders the inspection of a public record will be fined $100 to $1,000, or imprisoned for one to six months upon first conviction. For a subsequent conviction, the penalty is a fine of $250 to $2,000 or imprisonment from two to six months, or both.

We amended this request about five minutes after we sent it after we received additional suggestions from a reader. The amended requests reads thus:

Any and all documents related to the Louisiana gubernatorial debate held on the Louisiana Tech campus on October 15, 2015.

Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters related to the debate rules, venue choice, reasons for not allowing an audience and press to be able to watch the event.

Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters from or to David Vitter, his office, his staff, including Luke Bolar, and others to any employee or volunteer at LA Tech since April 15, 2015. Requesting specifically any and all e-mails, documents, audio files, digital files, and printed matters from or to President Les Guice with the words “debate,” Vitter, “Edwards,” “Angelle,” “Dardenne,” “Senator,” “Governor,” or “Sen.”

Requesting a written rationale for not allowing students, staff, faculty, or the community to view the debate in person on campus.

Requesting a written rationale for the decision to allow certain radio and television stations to broadcast the event. and not allowing others.

Requesting a list of names, titles, and e-mail addresses for all persons involved in any way with planning, promoting, facilitating or decision-making related to the debate.

(Disclaimer: Not that it matters, but I am a 1970 graduate of Louisiana Tech.)

Read Full Post »

Rape arrest in Caddo conflicts with Bienville Parish grand jury’s no true bill in New Bethany case nine months earlier

Posted in Courts, Crime, Elections, Ethics, TV News on October 10, 2015| 11 Comments »

When the Greeks and Romans created their respective gods of justice, they apparently did not have Louisiana’s Second Judicial District in mind.

The Lady of Justice, holding a sword and the scales of justice, is a familiar sight in Western culture. Her statue adorns many courthouses and halls of justice across the U.S. and miniature versions stand proudly on the desks of countless attorneys. In some depictions, she is blindfolded but most often, she is not.

Lady Justice Statue- 7.75 Inch

The origin of the statue is said to be Themis, a Greek goddess of divine justice. In illustrations of her, she carries the scales of justice in one hand and a sword in the other, with her eyes covered. The Romans consolidated her and her daughter Dike to form Justitia.

So just how did the Second Judicial District, which comprises the parishes of Jackson, Bienville and Claiborne, come to be overlooked in the administering of so-called blind justice, aka fair and impartial justice?

Two words.

Mack Ford.

Or more accurately, three words: Rev. Mack Ford.

Back in January, a Bienville Parish grand jury declined to indict Ford, then 82, who was accused of raping girls who were residents of his infamous New Bethany Home in Arcadia in the 1970s, ‘80s and into the ‘90s. Ford died suddenly just over a month later, on February 11. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/02/mack_w_ford_founder_of_new_bet.html

And while it may seem unfair to pick on him at this point, his death is not the issue here.

Three former residents of New Bethany traveled to Arcadia from three different states in December of 2014 to testify about their experiences with Ford. Other witnesses testified in October of that year.

But in a terse, one-paragraph written statement, then-District Attorney Jonathan Stewart said the grand jury was given “research and information regarding the statute of limitations with regard to each alleged act and, after deliberation, returned a no true bill.” STEWART GRAND JURY LETTER A no true bill means the grand jury decided not to indict. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/01/grand_jury_declines_to_indict.html

So, if we are to understand Stewart’s statement and his interpretation of the law (and apparently, his instructions to the grand jury—though we will never know that for sure since grand jury proceedings are secret), the reason there was no indictment was because the statute of limitations had expired.

But wait!

Just last week, on Thursday (October 8), Shreveport television station KSLA ran a story about a 74-year-old Grant Parish man who was arrested for his alleged involvement in the rape of a young girl….in the 1970s. http://www.ksla.com/story/30219460/74-year-old-charged-in-1970s-rape-of-young-girl?fb_action_ids=10154259652069128&fb_action_types=og.comments&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B913686945391152%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.comments%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

Roy Leon Robertson was booked into the Caddo Correctional Center on Monday, October 5 and charged with aggravated rape, according to the TV report.

He is accused of raping a girl under the age of 13 in the ‘70s, but the rape was not reported to Caddo authorities until 2014 when he came under investigation for similar offenses in Winn Parish.

The parallels in the Robertson and Ford cases are unmistakable. Both were accused of raping juveniles in the ‘70s even though in each case, the offenses were not formally reported until 2014, and the reported offenses occurred in the same general area of the state.

Yet, while one such report resulted in an immediate arrest, the other was dismissed because of what the local D.A said was an expired statute of limitation.

But let’s hear what a Caddo official had to say about that:

“There is no prescription for aggravated rape,” according to investigator Jared Marshall. A victim may come forward at any time. “Normally it’s called the statue (sic) of limitations, but in Louisiana it’s called a prescription,” the TV station quoted Marshall as saying.

Detectives said the victim decided to come forward upon learning that Robertson may still be harming young children.

“It doesn’t shock me at all that a report like this was made years later,” said psychologist Bruce McCormick. “Sometimes people are just not psychologically ready to make a report at the time, particularly the younger people,” he said.

Marshall said victims should not be concerned if it’s too late to prosecute. “The process of coming forward is for the protection of potential future victims,” he said.

Never too late to prosecute?

Oops. Apparently Jonathan Stewart didn’t get the memo.

“If he (Ford) had been indicted for just one thing, it would have been justice for so many people,” Kansas police dispatcher Simone Jones, one of Ford’s accusers, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune in January. She said Ford raped her in the early 1980s. “Why does this man continue to walk free?” she said following the grand jury’s decision.

The grand jury was convened a year after Jones and other former residents traveled to Arcadia in support of Jennifer Halter, a cancer victim who said she wanted to fulfill a dying wish to report Ford who she said began molesting her shortly after she arrived at the school in 1988, abuse she said continued until she left in 1990.

Jones said she was 14 when Ford forced her to perform oral sex on him.

“They let us down again,” Halter told The Times-Picayune. “I can’t understand why it’s okay for these people to do what they do and walk away like nothing was done wrong.” She said she experienced frequent sexual contact by Ford during choir trips to area churches which he chaperoned. She said she reported those incidents to police in 2013.

“This has gone on for years,” Tara Cummings told The Times-Picayune. A resident of New Bethany in 1982 and ’83, she said if the statute of limitations was an issue, Stewart should never have convened a grand jury to in the first place. “The particulars for the statutes of limitations for these crimes was always accessible to the DA’s office,” she was quoted as saying. “They (prosecutors) are the party who needs to understand and be clear about what is and what is not possible under the statutes.”

Perhaps Stewart should contact the District Attorney’s office in Caddo Parish—except he is no longer in office.

STEWART WITHDRAWAL

In April of 2014, Stewart fired Assistant District Attorney Danny Newell after Newell announced he would run against his boss. Stewart subsequently withdrew from his re-election bid and Newell was elected district attorney. https://lincolnparishnewsonline.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/da-stewart-fires-assistant-in-claiborne-newell-likely-opponent-in-14/

Read Full Post »

Just a rant about local TV news ripoff of another’s research disguised as ‘investigative’ reporting on public funds misuse

Posted in TV News on August 15, 2013| 13 Comments »

There’s an adage that is held as a basic truth among veteran reporters: If you have not been sued or at least threatened with a lawsuit, you haven’t done your job. Such is the nature of the profession.

And when someone does threaten to sue a reporter, that writer can usually be certain he has struck a sensitive nerve.

Retiring Congressman Rodney Alexander’s protests notwithstanding, there are quite a few bloggers who do a pretty decent job of reporting. Some, in fact, even have proven award-winning experience with the mainstream new media as “legitimate” reporters—as recognized by Alexander’s narrow definition.

Thus, it was more than a little irritating to watch Baton Rouge television station WBRZ boast of its “investigation” of non-governmental organization (NGO) state grants on Wednesday (Aug. 14), trumpeting the fact that two of the NGOs are closely tied to State Sen. Yvonne Dorsey Colomb.

The absurdity of the TV station’s “investigative” story lies not in any inaccuracies contained in the story but in the fact that C.B. Forgotston jumped on that story more than a week ago, laying out the details of those connections and how a spokesman for Dorsey had threatened to sue him for libel or some such offense. http://forgotston.com/page/2/; http://forgotston.com/page/4/; http://forgotston.com/page/5/

Forgotston is an attorney from nearby Hammond and formerly worked for the Louisiana Legislature, so when he writes something about state government, it’s a pretty sure bet the man is writing as the voice of authority and deep background knowledge. Said another way: He knows what he’s talking about.

So, Forgotston breaks the story, gets threatened with a lawsuit, calls out the would-be litigant and then, when the dust settles, WBRZ goes public with its “investigative” piece.

But did WBRZ, in its blockbuster “investigative” report give even a nod of acknowledgement to Forgotston for laying the story in the TV reporter’s lap?

Hell, no.

Instead, the reporter and the station took full credit for the “investigation.” Tacky, if not downright unethical.

But then one must consider that it is, after all, television news which seems to thrive on the latest drive-by shooting (complete with the victim’s family holding the deceased’s photo up for the TV cameras). Local TV news, it seems, exists for the sole purpose of keeping the cheesy car dealer and cheesier lawyer commercials from bumping together. And speaking of cheesier lawyer commercials, it always occurs to me that when a lawyer has to go begging for clients on local television newscasts, he must be desperate for clients.

That last remark will probably get me sued by a cheesy lawyer desperate for clients.

Sorry to go off like that, but it really irritates me to see someone who poses as a professional reporter capitalize on another’s research. When someone such as Bob Mann, Elliott Stonecipher, the Crazy Crawfish, or C.B. Forgotston scores with a good investigative piece, I’ve been known to do a follow up but have always given credit to those who broke the story.

Do your story. The facts needed to be told, we don’t deny that. The more publicity the misuse of public funds receives, the better for all concerned. But don’t pass someone else’s work off as your own. At least acknowledge the efforts of those who laid the groundwork for you.

Even in the world of blogging, it’s called professional courtesy. This link, provided by Bob Mann, takes a while to load, so be patient.

http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/everyday-ethics/talk-about-ethics/20374/great-journalists-credit-others/

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts