Louisiana Voice

Rep. Danny McCormick is a damned fool.

That’s the only way to describe a man who uses his six-year-old granddaughter as justification for allowing anyone 18 and older to carry handguns without permits – or training.

McCormick has filed House Bill 131 – for the fourth consecutive year – which would allow adults over the age of 18 to not only carry concealed handguns without permits, but to do so without the currently required training.

McCormick, a Repugnantcans from Oil City, absurdly and thoughtlessly cited the proficiency of his six-year-old granddaughter, who he said used an AR-15 rifle to kill her first deer last year, as the pseudo-sound reasoning behind his bill.

He asked the not-so-rhetorical question, “Why don’t we trust law-abiding citizens with their Second Amendment rights?” in supporting his bill.

Well, first of all, Mr. McCormick, if you give blanket approval such as you advocate, what possible assurance do you have that everyone who takes advantage of this new-found freedom will be a “law-abiding citizen,” as you so eloquently put it?

The Nashville shooter at the Covenant School was “law-abiding,” until yesterday, when she wasn’t anymore.

Secondly, you seem hellbent on defending citizens’ Second Amendment rights while your fellow Rethugnicans, from Rhonda Santis all the way down to frothing-at-the-mouth parish council members embark on a concerted effort to weaken First Amendment rights – or abolish them altogether.

At least some modicum of consistency is called for here, Mr. Second Amendment Rights Legislator. The mob that once called itself the Party of Lincoln is determined to gut women’s rights, voting rights, education curricula, LGBTQ rights, civil liberties, and First Amendment guarantees of free assembly (see Atlanta), free press (see Rhonda Santis in Florida and numerous parish councils in Louisiana).

In fact, the Repugnantcan Party has not seen a single right that we take for granted, which are promised us in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, that it not in favor of striking down – including an actual proposal by a Florida legislator to abolish the Democratic Party.

Except, of course, the precious Second Amendment. CAN’T TOUCH THIS is the mantra of the Repugnantcan Party when its faithful aren’t pausing to offer thoughts and prayers for the victims of yet another mass shooting.

But when all is said and done, I haven’t heard of a single drag queen show fatality. I can’t say the same for guns.

The best thing I can say for McCormick’s bill is, in the words of so many Repugnantcans when the subject of gun control is raised, now is not the time for the discussion. But when you think about it, and if you’re truly honest with yourself, you have to ask the single burning question:

When is the time?

This is the Christmas card of U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles and family. He’s the congressman who represents the school where the children were slaughtered in Nashville on Monday. Like George Santos, he sported a creatively embellished CV until nosy news reporters started doing background checks. Only then did he update his online bio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Ogles

I’m sure he will have thoughts and prayers.

John Georges may be about to strike again and that would be good news for the people of northwest Louisiana who still like the feel of a real newspaper in their hands.

You see, The Shreveport Times, for whom I wrote in my formative and naïve early journalism career, once boasted a daily circulation of somewhere north of 100,000 and a Sunday circulation of something like 150,000.

What’s more, The Times, under the leadership of Executive Editor Raymond McDaniel, boasted an investigative team – it was called the Enterprise Team – headed by Marsha Shuler that was second to none in Louisiana – including the Baton Rouge Advocate and State-Times or the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

There was also the Shreveport Journal, the afternoon competition to The Times that, at its peak had a daily circulation of 40,000 (it did not publish on Sundays). Its circulation shrunk to about 16,000 before finally doing what all afternoon papers were doing – calling it quits in March 1991.

Meanwhile, The Times was sold to Gannett, which publishes USA Today (along with the Monroe Morning World and News-Star), for a whopping $54.4 million and the budget cuts began almost immediately. Newsrooms across the board at Gannett publications, The Times included, were sacrificed on the altar of bottom lines. In the five-year period from 2012 to 2016 saw The Times circulation shrink even further each year, from 36,000 daily and 47,500 Sundays to 25,300 daily and a paltry 31,700 Sundays.

As newsrooms were shrunken, so were the circulation figures. At The Times, for the five-year period from 2012-2016, circulation dropped from 35,962 for daily and 47,490 for Sunday in 2012 to 25,324 daily and 31,702 Sunday. Its news content became a joke with only a lone general assignment reporter, one entertainment, and a single sports reporter.

For those of us who grew up in the business, it’s sad to see an industry you love taken down this way, leaving readers dependent on internet news that’s unreliable at best and pure garbage at worse.

Sportswriter Nico Van Thyn, a native of Shreveport and former writer for both the Journal and The Times (retired from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram), wrote about the DEARTH OF NEWSPAPER REPORTING way back in 2017. Little has changed since his critique of the abysmal decline in good reporting six years ago, except if anything, it’s gotten worse. The Times today more resembles a high school publication than the professional newspaper of its prime when owned by the Ewing family.

And so it was, according to LSU-Shreveport associate professor Jeff Sadow (with whom I seldom agree on any political subject) WROTE RECENTLY for The Hayride blog that Advocate publisher John Georges, who has already invaded other Louisiana markets in head-to-head competition with existing papers (New Orleans, Lafayette, Lake Charles), has come sniffing around Shreveport with an eye to encroaching on that market as well.

That would be a decided advantage for the news vacuum that exists in the Caddo-Bossier area. A Baton Rouge Advocate retiree related the story of visiting a friend in Shreveport where she learned of a pending tax election scheduled for the following Saturday. Curious, she called The Times and asked a reporter to explain what the tax would be for. The reporter, incredulously, didn’t even know about the election.

The call was terminated but a few minutes later, the reporter called back to ask if she could interview the Baton Rouge resident about the election in Shreveport.

The downside to a Shreveport Advocate, of course, would be the concentration of so much influence in the hands of one individual. Georges’ publications already shy away from hard reporting on the relationship between LSU and gambling interests.

Of course, Georges’ ties to organized gambling have been KNOWN for several years and DOCUMENTED again as recently as last December.

That should be a red flag for journalism purists, but on balance, the advantage of a new kid on the news reporting block outweighs the disadvantages.

Regular (and in some cases, even occasional) readers of this blog know that I’m not a fan of Louisiana’s junior senator, one John Neely Kennedy.

Kennedy has come off as some sort of hybrid offspring of Forrest Gump and Foghorn Leghorn more times than not in his attempts to establish himself as the Senate’s philosopher-in-residence.

But on Wednesday, he upstaged an obviously unqualified KATO CREWS, a Biden nominee for U.S. District Judge of Colorado.

And while Crews was exposed as one who is clearly not qualified for the position, his very nomination speaks more to Biden’s failure to vet his nominee than it does to Crews’s incompetence.

The exchange was a clear indictment of the Biden administration’s lack of proper background checks in sending someone so incompetent, so uninformed, and so ill-prepared to a Senate confirmation hearing. It also served as an understated example of Kennedy’s superior knowledge in this particular instance.

The Louisiana senator asked a simple, straightforward question of Crews: How would he analyze a Brady motion?

Crews, incredibly and incredulously, responded that he had not “had the occasion to address a Brady motion during his more than four years as a magistrate judge.

What!?

Not satisfied with that non-answer, Kennedy pressed forward, asking Crews if he even knew “what a Brady motion is.”

Crews (shamefully) admitted that the concept of the landmark case was “not coming to mind” since he had never before addressed the issue.

Kennedy then asked if Crews remembered the U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland and what the case held.

Rather than admit that he did not, Crews instead tried to bluff his way through the question when he said, “I believe that the Brady case involved something regarding the Second Amendment. I have not had an occasion to address that,” he added as if that lame excuse would compensate for his not knowing what any first-year law student should know by rote.

A Brady motion is the legal concept which holds that the prosecution must hand over any potentially favorable (exculpatory) evidence to the defense. Hell, that concept was the very centerpiece of My Cousin Vinny, a classic Joe Pesci movie.

Several Louisiana defendants have been convicted – and subsequently exonerated – as the result of prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense and any nominee for a federal judgeship – or in Louisiana, a candidate for any state judgeship, all of which are elective – should know a Brady motion backwards and forward.

Crews should do the right thing and withdraw his name from consideration. If not, Biden should do it for him.

And while Kennedy on the whole has been an embarrassment for the state, in this particular case, he performed a valuable service and it would be negligent not to say so. Biden, on the other hand, should rightfully feel ashamed at his administration’s lack of follow-through.

So, John Belton wants to be the Louisiana attorney general.

The 3^rd Judicial District chief prosecutor, should he continue his quest for the state’s highest elective legal office, will no doubt roll out a campaign heavy with the usual promises of being tough on crime, a platform of putting criminals behind bars via a heavy emphasis on victims’ rights.

But Belton, the district attorney for the two parishes of Lincoln and Union, apparently feels unable to handle the gift that any politician seeking higher office would welcome: the prosecution of the state troopers involved in the 2019 beating death of Ronald Greene.

Belton has reached out to hired gun Hugo Holland, whom he describes as “one of, if not the, best prosecutors in the state of Louisiana,” to aid him in what would normally be the case of a lifetime for a local DA harboring hopes of a higher pedigree. He justified hiring the circuit rider prosecutor, saying, “I have a very small office compared to the larger jurisdictions. It would have been very difficult for my prosecutorial staff to handle this case with their normal daily docket.”

But a closer examination of Holland’s track record might seem in order. In Caddo Parish, he obtained eight death sentences – two-thirds of the 12 death penalties handed down in the entire state during that same period, according to the DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER. Many of those sentences, however, have been overturned and none have been actually carried out. Caddo ranks among the top 2 percent of US counties responsible for 56 percent of people on death row.

Holland, meanwhile, is being investigated by the Disciplinary Board of the state’s bar association for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence (evidence favorable to a defendant) in a case in which the accused was tried for the murder of a prison guard. That defendant’s death sentence was overturned in 2014.

Now Holland will participate in the prosecution of four state troopers and a Union Parish sheriff’s deputy who were indicted in December for their roles in the beating death of Greene, 49, who led officers on a chase from Ouachita Parish into Union Parish before wrecking his vehicle. When caught, he began apologizing and offered no resistance, even as the unarmed Greene was dragged by his leg shackles and beaten and tased until he went limp before dying.

G. Ben Cohen, an attorney with the Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans, said of Holland, “I don’t think there is a prosecutor in Louisiana who would look at Hugo to see whether (his multiple billings are) a crime. But, at the very least, the legislative auditor needs to look at Hugo Holland’s setup for fraud, waste and abuse of public funds.”

New Orleans attorney Nicholas Trenticosta specifically cited the case of COREY WILLIAMS during an interview with LouisianaVoice. In that case, prosecutors, including Holland, withheld evidence they were required to provide the defense pursuant to the 1963 US Supreme Court decision in BRADY v. MARYLAND. That exculpatory evidence would have strengthened the case in Williams’ favor.

Cohen said Holland has “a perverse incentive to push for the death penalty, where he gets paid a premium hourly rate to pursue capital punishment. At the same time, he is getting paid $900 a day to lobby the Legislature to reduce the funding for poor people facing the death penalty.”

He also earns $50,000 a year to operate the Webster Parish division of the 26^th Judicial District Attorney’s Office. There, he screens every felony case and shows up in court twice a week while regularly prosecuting cases in at least a dozen other parishes, according to a 2017 story by then-Baton Rouge Advocate reporter Jim Mustian, who now writes for Associated Press.

From 2012 through 2016, Holland was paid $697,000 by those 12 parishes and the State of Louisiana, according to a printout of earnings for those five years. That same printout shows that his annual earnings grew steadily during that period, from $45,000 in 2012 to $217,000 in 2016.

He also was issued oaths of office from 11 judicial districts that included 14 parishes.

In another feature story on Holland, he told a reporter that he was paid about $250,000 a year but that all the money was not for him. He claimed he had assistants in the various parishes who worked for him whom he paid from those fees.

I made a public records request for the federal forms 1099 on June 15, 2017, at 4:52 p.m. to learn how much he paid those assistants. The request was made pursuant to the state public records statute (R.S. 44.1, et seq.) but Holland replied that same day at 9:25 p.m., “Sorry. Not public records. No.”

I replied in kind at 10:00 p.m. with the following message:

“PUBLIC RECORDS LAW REVISED 07/2016 Page 1 of 26 Public Records Law R.S. H44:1 — HTU44:41

“The documents must have been used, in use, or prepared, possessed, or retained for use in the following:

• Conduct, transaction, or performance of any:  Business, Transaction, Work, Duty, or Function
• Conducted, transacted, or performed: By or under the authority of the constitution or laws of the state, By or under the authority of any: Ordinance, regulation, mandate, or order of any public body

“Records regarding public funds are public records; therefore, right to inspection of non-public foundations exists — provided that inspection is limited to records regarding the public funds. State ex rel. Guste v. Nicholls College Foundation, 592 So.2d 419 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991).

“Here is the link provided by the Legislative Auditor (from which the above passages were taken):

http://app.lla.state.la.us/llala.nsf/7C469838E7BC1C5186257AC2004F6279/$FILE/Public%20Records%20Law%20FAQ.pdf

“If they were paid with public funds, then they are public records. You were paid with public funds, part of which claim you used to pay public prosecutors for additional public work. That makes them official expenditures for services performed on behalf of Louisiana taxpayers. They are public records.”

On June 17, at 6:53 a.m., Holland wrote me again to say:

“You write the following in your original email:

Since these were public funds paid to you in the first place, the disposition of those funds for such similar purposes would, by law, be subject to the Louisiana public records statutes, thus entitling me to be able to ascertain how much and to whom these funds were paid.

“If you show me a case that says this, I will provide the information.  However, when a road contractor receives a payment from the State, it is no one’s business what he does with the money so long as he fulfills the contract and reports the income, and that is my position in relation to others who I paid to assist with my contract duties as an ADA.

“I am quite sure that you intend to write a “hit piece” about me and I am not going to assist you in doing so without legal authority (like caselaw) requiring me to do so.”

My patience wearing thin, I again emailed Holland copies of a document written by Baton Rouge attorney John Murrill in which he said, in part, “Private entities bidding on contracts with public agencies pursuant to which they will be compensated with public funds must understand that if they are awarded the contract, they will almost certainly be subject to the Louisiana Public Records Law.”

To his report he attached a May 3, 2017, LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT DECISION in the case of the New Orleans Bulldog Society v. the Louisiana society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which held that the SPCA, through its contract with the City of New Orleans, was “functioning as an instrumentality of a municipal corporation, and is therefore subject to the Louisiana Public Records Law, La. R.S. 44:1 et seq.”

I never heard from Holland again.

Of course, that wasn’t the end of the Hugo Holland story.

You see, he was fired from the Caddo Parish District Attorney’s office because in 2011, he and Assistant DA Lea Hall, Jr. conspired to order eight M-16 automatic weapons from the Department of Defense’s Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) under the pretext of needing the weapons because the Caddo DA’s office accompanied sheriff’s deputies on raids, a claim that the sheriff’s office would deny unequivocally.

Louisiana Inspector General Stephen Street investigated the matter and confirmed that Lea and Holland had received the weapons under false pretenses but Street’s office subsequently punted on any action against the pair, who were subsequently forced to resign by DA Chales Scott.

So, now Holland is being asked to come to the 3^rd JDC to help the local guys in doing the job they should be doing themselves.

The odd thing is when the local DA needs assistance, the Louisiana Constitution allows him to call upon the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office to participate.

And the AG doesn’t charge whereas the 3^rd JDC is going to be on the hook for what will like be a bill running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That’s something for the good folks in Lincoln and Union parishes to chew on for a while.

And it isn’t really a “hit piece” when it’s the truth. A prosecutor should understand that.