Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Rhetoric over whether or not Louisiana State Law Institute is public body turned up notch in email exchange with attorney

October 2, 2017 by tomaswell

The debate over what is and what is not a public meeting has been ramped up a notch by an email exchange between blogger Robert Burnes and Baton Rouge attorney Todd Gaudin.

It was Gaudin, whose law practice specialty is adoptions, who, when Burns insisted he was entitled to videotape proceedings of last Friday’s meeting of the Louisiana State Law Institute (LSLI) because it was a public meeting, said, “I don’t agree with your interpretation.”

Gaudin was in attendance because LSLI was meeting to act on House Concurrent Resolution 79 of the 2016 legislative session. HCR 79, introduced by State Rep. Rick Edmonds (R-Baton Rouge), directed LSLI to “study and make recommendations to the legislature regarding abuse of incentives in the adoption process.”

In an email exchange between Gaudin and Burns, Gaudin explained his position further:

“I was referring to the issue of whether our group is actually a public body,” he said. I assumed it was not because it is a group of professionals who volunteer and (who) are not appointed to improve our laws by discussing their merits.”

Actually, LSLI was chartered precisely to “improve our laws by discussing their merits,” but I’ll get to that point presently.

After reading his response to Burns, I sent him the following, lifted verbatim from the Louisiana statute (R.S. 42:13):

  • “Public body” means village, town, and city governing authorities; parish governing authorities; school boards and boards of levee and port commissioners; boards of publicly operated utilities; planning, zoning, and airport commissions; and any other state, parish, municipal, or special district boards, commissions, or authorities, and those of any political subdivision thereof, where such body possesses policy making, advisory, or administrative functions, including any committee or subcommittee of any of these bodies enumerated in this paragraph. (emphasis mine.)

Clinging doggedly to his position, he replied an hour later:

“That may be your opinion whoever you are but I disagree. This committee does not meet any of those definitions. So, what is clear to you apparently is not so clear.”

Okay, it’s on now. I’m not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I fired off this email to Gaudin:

“LSLI was created by the Louisiana Legislature to advise the legislature on drafting bills for law reform. The fact that members are volunteers makes not a whit of difference.”

This is from the LSLI home page:

  • The Louisiana State Law Institute, originally authorized by the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, with its domicile at the Law School of that University, was chartered, created and organized as an official law revision commission, law reform agency and legal research agency of the State of Louisiana, by Act 166 of the Legislature of 1938 (Chapter 4 of Title 24 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950).
  • The Institute is sustained by legislative appropriation. (Again, this is from the LSLI home page on the web.)
  • This organization originated in a movement, initiated here at L.S.U. in 1933, to establish an institute dedicated to law revision, law reform and legal research. Due to economic reasons that project was postponed until April, 1938, when the Board of Supervisors authorized its revival, under its present name. The Legislature, later in the year, chartered, created and organized it as ‘an official, advisory law revision commission, law reform agency and legal research agency of the State of Louisiana.’(Ditto.)

(All emphasis in the above paragraphs mine.)

And if that’s not sufficient, here is the first paragraph of the LSLI charter (also on its web page):

LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES OF 1950
TITLE 24
CHAPTER 4. LOUISIANA STATE LAW INSTITUTE

R.S. 24:201. Creation and functions

The Louisiana State Law Institute, organized under authority of the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, domiciled at the Law School of the Louisiana State University, is chartered, created and organized as an official advisory law revision commission, law reform agency and legal research agency of the state of Louisiana.

This definition extends to all reports generated by LSLI, to wit:

R.S. 24:205. Reports; advisory capacity; printing and distribution of reports

The Louisiana State Law Institute, in submitting reports to the legislature shall act solely in an advisory capacity. Its reports, studies, and recommended publications shall be public and available as provided by law. (As before, all emphasis mind.)

“Now I respectfully ask, what about this do you not comprehend? Everything about LSLI—even its very charter—screams public body.”

There has been no response from Gaudin to that last message.

 

Posted in Politics | 13 Comments »

LouisianaVoice fundraiser continues: Your help needed

October 1, 2017 by tomaswell

LouisianaVoice is about to embark on a special project that should be dear to all our hearts: the exposure of illicit, most likely, illegal adoptive services run by unscrupulous operators who profit from lax oversight of the industry by Louisiana regulatory agencies, including the attorney general’s office.

It’s a lucrative business, this process of forcing prospective adoptive parents into bidding wars against each other in efforts to adopt newborn babies.

This is what I do at LouisianaVoice and it’s not easy. It costs me time from my family, wear and tear on my vehicle, an eight-year-old pickup truck, and it costs me money for gasoline, the cost of public records and, occasionally, the cost of litigation to obtain those public records.

I don’t get paid to do this. I don’t accept advertising (though I’m seeing pop-up ads beginning to appear on my posts without my authority and certainly without my receiving anything for them) and I don’t charge a subscription fee.

So, why do I do this? Quite simply, I love Louisiana but I don’t love what our politicians have allowed her to become: a national (sometimes international) laughingstock that ranks number one in only one statistic: the number of people incarcerated in our prisons. We rank at or near the bottom in health care, wage disparity, poverty, obesity, education, income, pollution, infrastructure, and any number of other areas.

And what have our politicians done to improve the quality of life for our citizens? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Oh, they take care of themselves, raking in campaign contributions which they manipulate to pad their own lifestyle.

The mission of LouisianaVoice is to burrow into these darkened corners of state government and to shine a little light on the mischief wrought by elected officials and their appointees. Call it my own special way to flip off the entrenched political establishment: Payback for what they’ve done to Louisiana’s citizens who deserve better.

To achieve this ambitious goal, I need your financial support. You won’t get a spiritual blessing like those promised by televangelists, but you will get a warm fuzzy feeling every time these ethics-bending, morally corrupt “public servants” are exposed for what for what they are.

Please help me do this lonely job—lonely because there are so few investigative reporters out there today. Look around you and see what the mainstream media has become. Once distinguished daily newspapers have been scooped up by corporations headquartered in the northeast who know little of our culture, politics, or history. Reporting staffs have been gutted and those who remain don’t have the time or energy to probe for the what, why, where, when and how.

Please click on the yellow “DONATE” button to the upper right on this page and contribute by credit card or mail your checks, large or small (they’re all appreciated) to:

LouisianaVoice

P.O. Box 922

Denham Springs, LA. 70727

As always, thanks for your help and keep reading.

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »

Louisiana State Law Institute: a room full of lawyers and no one knows the Louisiana open meetings law (R.S. 42:13-23)

October 1, 2017 by tomaswell

You would think a room full of lawyers wouldn’t have to be told the legal definition of a public meeting as it pertains to cameras. But then again, members of the Louisiana State Law Institute’s Children’s (LSLI) Code Committee aren’t used to media coverage.

So, it might be somewhat understandable that they were a little surprised when blogger Robert Burns showed up with a video camera. But freaked out to the point that members demanded that Burns turn off his camera? Seriously?

It’s a poor reflection on a committee, whose membership includes a judge and a ton of lawyers, to even suggest, let alone demand, that Burns, who publishes the video blog Sound Off Louisiana, shut his camera off during its meeting on Friday. And it’s even more astonishing that one member, an attorney, would tell Burns that his interpretation of the open meeting laws entitled him to record the meeting on video was incorrect.

Judge Ernestine Gray, a judge of Orleans Parish Juvenile Court since 1984, should certainly know better than to chirp, “As an individual, I have a right not to be on there (the video).”

Um…sorry, your honor, but you do not have that right. This was an open meeting of an official state government body and the open meetings statutes clearly contradict your claim. And it’s a sad indictment of our judicial system that you, a sitting judge, should lay claim to such blatantly inaccurate privilege.

The committee was meeting pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 79 of the 2016 legislative session in which State Rep. Rick Edmonds (R-Baton Rouge) requested that LSLI “study and make recommendations to the legislature regarding abuse of incentives in the adoption process.”

The full text of HCR 79 can be seen HERE.

LSLI was to have a report to the legislature “no later than 60 days prior to the 2018 regular session of the legislature.” That would put the committee’s deadline somewhere around Jan. 18, 2018 and more than a year after passage of HCR 79, nothing had been done by the committee, which found itself up against an imposing deadline when it convened last Friday.

In fact, member Isabel Wingerter kept repeating during the meeting that there was no way the committee could have a report completed in time for proposed legislation to be introduced in 2018.

Edmonds, however, told members that while he had gone through the committee out of respect, there would be legislation filed for the upcoming session and that he already had a number of co-sponsors for his anticipated bill.

Abuses in the child adoptive process is a subject that Burns has already done extensive work on and, with his assistance, LouisianaVoice is going to be taking a long look at those who broker adoption deals between birth parents and adoptive parents and how those individuals can sometimes become part of a “bidding process,” playing one set of adoptive parents against another in order to broker a better deal.

It’s a murky area, virtually unknown outside the immediate circle of those families actually involved in the process of adoption and frankly, those involved would like to keep it that way. While LouisianaVoice is coming in a little behind the curve already established by Burns, we feel strongly that the entire process deserves a thorough investigation—from the aforementioned so-called “bidding process,” to the shirking of responsibility for investigating same by various state agencies who consistently punt when the subject of a possible criminal enterprise is brought to their attention.

All that probably explains the sensitivity to video on the part of the committee members but it certainly does not excuse either their attempted evasion of the open meetings law or of their trying to make up new law on the fly.

The meeting started with LSLI staff attorney Jessica Braum can be heard on the video whispering to Burns to turn his camera off. “It’s a public meeting,” Burns responds, “and I’m going to videotape it.

Burns said Braum made her request after being prodded to do so by fellow LSLI member attorney Todd Gaudin.

Moments later, Burns was again confronted, this time by committee member Isabel Wingerter who asked if he was videotaping the meeting to which Burns responded, “Clearly, yes.”

“We are not sure that’s appropriate,” Wingerter said. “What would you do with the film?”

Burns responded with a question of his own: “Is this or is this not a public meeting of a public body?”

“Yes, it is.”

“That’s all I have to explain,” Burns said, “and I’m not going to explain any further.”

It was at this point in the exchange that Judge Gray said she had a right not to be on video. “Not if you’re part of a public body,” Burns said. “Not if you’re attending a public meeting.”

Baton Rouge attorney Todd Gaudin inquired of Wingerter if Burns would be publishing the video. When Wingerter relayed the question to Burns, he again responded, “Is this a public meeting?” When she again affirmed that it was, Burns said, “It has every right to be republished.”

And this was when it really got interesting. Gaudin, whose practice primarily is in the area of adoption services and who served as the attorney for a prospective adoptive couple who ended up losing the child to another couple at the last minute, told Burns, “I don’t agree with your interpretation of the statute.”

That’s quite a statement coming from someone who is supposed to know the law.

Burns, digging his heels in, told the committee, “I have a right to videotape these proceedings and short of law enforcement coming in here and dictating it be turned off and escorting me out, the camera stays on.”

The camera stayed on.

And for Gaudin’s erudition, it can be found in R.S. 42:13. Here is the link: Public policy for open meetings.

And just in case he’s too busy to read the entire statute, here are the relevant parts:

  • “Meeting” means the convening of a quorum of a public body to deliberate or act on a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power. It shall also mean the convening of a quorum of a public body by the public body or by another public official to receive information regarding a matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power.
  • “Public body” means village, town, and city governing authorities; parish governing authorities; school boards and boards of levee and port commissioners; boards of publicly operated utilities; planning, zoning, and airport commissions; and any other state, parish, municipal, or special district boards, commissions, or authorities, and those of any political subdivision thereof, where such body possesses policy making, advisory, or administrative functions, including any committee or subcommittee of any of these bodies enumerated in this paragraph.
  • Every meeting of any public body shall be open to the public unless closed pursuant to R.S. 42:16, 17, or 18. (R.S. 42:16, 17, and 18 give very specific reasons under which a public body may enter into executive session—that that is a moot point since the committee never entered into executive session.)

And there is this statute which addresses the right to video record public meetings:

23. Sonic and video recordings; live broadcast

  • A. All or any part of the proceedings in a public meeting may be video or tape recorded, filmed, or broadcast live.
  • B. A public body shall establish standards for the use of lighting, recording or broadcasting equipment to insure proper decorum in a public meeting.

Again, it’s worth mentioning that the members of the LSLI Children’s Code Committee are law school graduates.

Could it be that Gaudin, Wingerter, Judge Gray, and Braum were all absent on Videotaping Public Meetings day?

Posted in Boards, Corruption, Courts, Ethics, Judges, Legislature, Legislators, Media, Public Records, State Agencies, Transparency | 7 Comments »

‘American Made,’ the fictional story of Barry Seal, is only about 5% ‘based on a true story’ (if that), but mostly hype

September 29, 2017 by tomaswell

Spoiler alert:

It’s 9:30 p.m. Friday and I just returned from watching American Made, the Tom Cruise movie about Baton Rouge drug smuggler Barry Seal.

In brief: more plot holes than a meerkat colony.

If you want to catch the movie for yourself and don’t want to know in advance about the movie’s adherence to or deviation from the facts, stop here because I intend to go into more detail than you normally find in a movie review.

To cut to the chase, if you just want to be entertained, the story line is passable, if implausible. If you want historical facts, stay home and read retired FBI agent Del Hahn’s book Smuggler’s End. Hahn is the one who eventually nailed seal and yours truly edited the manuscript for his book, so I know a little about the story of Barry Seal and Del Hahn knows even more—a lot more.

After watching American Made, I now understand why they start the movie with the graphics “Based on a true story” instead of “True story.” I can state unequivocally that it’s not based on Hahn’s book.

The true parts of this movie are;

  • The main character was indeed named Barry Seal.
  • He was the youngest pilot in TWA history.
  • He did smuggle drugs.
  • He did live in Baton Rouge.
  • He was, in fact, assassinated at the Baton Rouge Salvation Army headquarters.

The rest of the “true” part is pure garbage. Some examples:

  • Seal was fired from TWA, he did not quit as the movie depicts it.
  • Seal and his family never moved to Mena, Arkansas, as they did in the movie.
  • Seal was never prosecuted by the Arkansas attorney general; he was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in Baton Rouge.
  • It was not an Arkansas judge who sentenced Seal to 1,000 hours of community service—in Baton Rouge; it was a Baton Rouge federal judge who sentenced him to spend nights at the Baton Rouge Salvation Army headquarters. Even screenwriters should know an Arkansas state judge would not be able to cross jurisdictional lines to sentence someone to community service in another state.
  • Following his fictional arrest by DEA, Arkansas state police, ATF, and sheriff’s deputies as all four agencies conducted improbable simultaneous raids on his Mena airport (in fact, he was never arrested in Arkansas), the Arkansas attorney general was ordered by “Governor Clinton” to let him go, another absurd only-in-Hollywood scenario of a state governor ordering the FBI to stand down.
  • Seal never “owned” the Mena Airport and the adjoining several thousand acres. He only parked his planes there (I just don’t know how that was concocted by the script writers).
  • Contras were not smuggled into Mena to train at a paramilitary base to return to Nicaragua to fight the Sandinistas. No such paramilitary base ever existed at or around Mena.
  • Seal never had a brother-in-law who stole from him and was subsequently killed in a car bombing. It just didn’t happen—except in the movie. I call that filler material thrown in to lengthen the movie.
  • He was never drafted to photograph the Medellin cartel unloading drugs for the Sandinista by the CIA, the DEA, The National Security Administration, or any other federal agency; he offered himself up to Vice President George H.W. Bush’s South Florida Drug Task Force in a plea bargain to stay out of jail after his indictment for smuggling barbiturates and that plan to photograph the cartel was the end result.
  • That mission was part of the complex Iran-Contra drugs-for-arms deal hatched by Col. Oliver North. The movie barely mentions Iran-Contra and does so as a plot pitched after Seal was killed, which is chronologically skewed.
  • He was not prosecuted in Baton Rouge for his part in the Iran-Contra drugs for arms deal; he was prosecuted in Baton Rouge because he resumed smuggling drugs into Louisiana and was caught.
  • He was married to Debbie Seal, his third wife, at the time of his death, not “Lucy.”

I suppose 5 percent fact and 95 percent fiction can pass as “based on a true story” to suit the purposes of Hollywood screenwriters but I would much prefer at least a 50-50 balance before I would concede that it was, in fact, “based on a true story.”

 

Posted in Politics | 24 Comments »

LouisianaVoice fundraiser continues; help us make you mad

September 29, 2017 by tomaswell

LouisianaVoice is still conducting its fall fundraiser and we need your help to keep these stories coming.

We know you get tired of organizations coming around with their hand out. It’s enough to induce fundraiser fatigue.

And we get just as tired of begging for contributions like some down and out preacher promising a blessing if you just open up your wallet.

We can’t—and won’t—promise a blessing. Chances are, if we are able to continue doing what we’ve done for the past six-plus years, we’ll make you mad at some point. Maybe it’ll be the legislature you get mad at. Or maybe it’ll be some scam artist conning the elderly who we reveal. It could even be the plight of some small town city council member who those in power are trying to shut up by suing him. We don’t know who will be the object of your anger, but if we don’t make you mad, we’re not doing our job.

Help us do our job to make you mad!

Contribute what you feel you can by clicking on the yellow “DONATE” button to the right and contribute by credit card or mail your contribution to:

LouisianaVoice

P.O. Box 922

Denham Springs, LA. 70727

As always, thank you for your support (with apologies to Bartles & Jaymes)

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »