Feeds:
Posts
Comments

AG Jeff Landry’s office retreats to tried and true ‘pending litigation’ to dodge accountability in Union jail rape case

November 15, 2017 by tomaswell

LouisianaVoice keeps trying to prod the Attorney General’s office into getting off its backside in the investigation of that RAPE of a 17-year-old girl by a convicted rapist in a Union Parish Detention Center cell in April 2016, but it seems Jeff Landry is far too occupied with some grand scheme that he thinks will ultimately land him in the governor’s office.

In our monthly tabulation, it has now been 19 months and counting since the girl, who was being held in a cell after being picked up on a drug charge, was raped not once, but twice, by an inmate who had already been convicted of aggravated rape in Claiborne Parish and was awaiting sentencing while being held in adjacent Union Parish.

To refresh your memory, because the district attorney is a member of the Union Parish Detention Center Commission which operates the center, DA John Belton recused himself and requested that the AG conduct an investigation of the incident. The victim has since filed a LAWSUIT over the incident and now Landry’s office is attempting to lean on that as a legitimate reason for not providing a status of its so-called criminal investigation.

Back on Oct. 17, we submitted our monthly request as to the status of the assault investigation to both the AG’s Public Information Office and to its Criminal Investigation Section. The next day, Oct. 18, we received following response:

—–Original Message—–
From: AG Landry News [mailto:aglandrynews@ag.louisiana.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:49 PM
To: Tom Aswell <azspeak@cox.net>
Subject: Re: QUESTION

This matter is under investigation.

Thanks!

Ruth

So, we did our obligatory monthly report of inactivity on Landry’s part. But then on Wednesday (Nov. 15), we received the following response from Assistant Attorney General Luke Donovan, Executive Division:

From: Donovan, Luke [mailto:DonovanL@ag.louisiana.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:30 PM
To: azspeak@cox.net
Cc: Dirmann, Shannon <DirmannS@ag.louisiana.gov>
Subject: PRR 17-0159 Tom Aswell, Louisiana Voice

Good afternoon Mr. Aswell,

In response to your public records request pursuant to La. R.S. 44:1 et seq, the information you requested has been processed. You sought records related to the following:​

… any documents or reports pertaining to the status of the attorney general’s investigation of the rape of the 17-year-old girl in the Union Parish jail cell last April. That’s the investigation 3rd JDC District Attorney John Belton asked the attorney general’s office to investigate because of a conflict of interests.

Louisiana’s Public Records Act, specifically La. R.S. 44:3(A)(1), exempts records held by the office of the attorney general which pertain “to pending criminal litigation or any criminal litigation which can be reasonably anticipated, until such litigation has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled….”  

Therefore, the records which you seek are exempt from production at this time.

If our office can be of any further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Luke Donovan

Assistant Attorney General, Executive Division
Office of Attorney General Jeff Landry
Phone: (225) 326-6712  Fax: (225) 326-6098
www.AGJeffLandry.com

Well, that prompted my immediate response:

Your response is pure, unadulterated B.S.

That’s only because your boss is more interested in promoting his campaign for governor than doing anything on this case for the past 19 months. I’m not at all sure what you mean by “criminal litigation,” but I do know what “criminal investigation” and “civil litigation” are. The first is an investigation and, if warranted, an indictment and trial on criminal charges—and I suggest 19 months to investigate an assault in a confined area when the date, the victim and the assailant are all known to prosecutors is more than enough time to conclude an investigation and to indict. Any litigation would be a civil matter and completely unrelated to criminal charges as that would be a separate matter altogether. The information I am seeking is the status of the criminal investigation, i.e. has the alleged perpetrator been formally charged? If so, what was the charge and is there an arraignment/trial date?

To try and hide behind “pending criminal litigation” is a bit disingenuous. But then I would expect nothing better from Jeff Landry.

The only thing I neglected to say (and I wish I had, so I’ll say it here) is this:

Judging from the manner in which he can drag a matter out, perhaps Landry should consider offering his services as defense counsel for Roy Moore.

Posted in Attorney General, Ethics, Exemptions, Governor's Office, Lawsuits, Politicians, Public Records, Transparency | 6 Comments »

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

November 14, 2017 by tomaswell

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

He is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number two spectator sport behind football.

In other words, fun.

 

 

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

The only ones collecting in lawsuits against the state: $3M for defense attorneys; zero for plaintiffs & their attorneys

November 13, 2017 by tomaswell

There’s a cheesy TV commercial that’s been running the past few days warning all of us of the evils of litigation but the State of Louisiana may have already found a way to thwart plaintiffs and their attorneys—but not the defense attorneys who work for the state.

On Oct. 20, LouisianaVoice published a story revealing that the state had more than $100 million in 40 lawsuit settlements and judgments pending but still UNPAID. And that is just the face value. With judicial interest accruing daily, that total now stands at well north of $300 million.

Three days later, on Oct. 23, we ran another story that contained a somewhat disturbing revelation: the state spent $309,000 in legal fees to defend a LAWSUIT against the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC) and its former director, Troy Hebert, a suit that settled for $250,000.

And while the New Orleans defense firm of Frilot, LLC and its attorney, Renee Culotta, contracted to defend the state have already received their $309,000 (attorney fees are paid as they accrue), the plaintiff in the case, former ATC agent Brett Tingle and his attorney, J. Arthur Smith III, may have to wait several years before they see a penny of the settlement amount.

That’s also the case with those 40 judgments on the books right now. Legislative bills have been introduced and passed for payment but the money isn’t there so at the present time all the plaintiffs and their attorneys have is a judgment but in reality, nothing more than a piece of paper—apparently because the financially-strapped state is just too broke to pay anyone but defense attorneys.

LouisianaVoice pulled 17 of those 40 cases and made a public records request of the Louisiana Office of Risk Management (ORM) through the Division of Administration (DOA) for an accounting of legal fees in each of the cases. (The 1983 class action lawsuit over the disastrous flood in Tangipahoa Parish which resulted in a $98 million judgment was not one of those we examined. With interest, that judgment alone comes to about $300 million.)

Those 17 cases resulted in a combined total of $8.8 million. Some are judgments stemming from trial and others are consent judgments, or settlements, reached before trial. The plaintiffs in those cases.

None of the plaintiffs have received any of their judgments. Plaintiff attorneys in such cases usually work on contingency, meaning they do not get paid unless their client wins his case. The cut for plaintiff attorneys is usually in the area of 30 percent, or in these cases, about $2.6 million. Like their clients, the plaintiff attorneys have received nothing for their work.

Defense attorneys involved, however, get paid regardless. For the 17 reviewed cases, they received more than a third of the total amount of judgments—$3,064,800, to be precise. Of that amount, $426,238 was spent on expert witnesses and on surveillance of plaintiffs.

As in the Tingle ATC case, in three of the cases listed below, attorney fees, expert fees and surveillance fees combined to exceed the actual amounts of the judgments by a combined $192,490.

Here are the cases for which we asked DOA to pull the payment records, the parishes where the suits were filed, and the final judgments. The defense attorney, expert witness and surveillance fees are added in parenthesis (legal fees that exceeded judgments in boldface):

  • Michael and Mary Aleshire, Calcasieu Parish: $104,380.82 ($194,361);
  • Kayla Schexnayder and Emily Legarde, Assumption Parish: $1,068,004 ($325,868);
  • Debra Stutes, Calcasieu Parish: $850,000 ($428,130);
  • Peter Mueller, Orleans Parish: $245,000 ($110,270);
  • Steve Brengettsy and Elro McQuarter, West Feliciana: $205,000 (88,514);
  • Jeffrey and Lillie Christopher, Iberville Parish: $175,000 ($78,785);
  • Donald Ragusa and Tina Cristina, East Baton Rouge: $175,000 ($468,166);
  • Stephanie Landry and Tommie Varnado, Orleans Parish: $135,000 ($144,343);
  • Jennie Lynn Badeaux Russ, Lafourche Parish: $1.5 million ($128,561);
  • Adermon and Gloria Rideaux and Brian Brooks, Calcasieu Parish: $1.375 million ($103,980);
  • Theresa Melancon and DHH Medicaid Program, Rapides Parish: $750,000 ($172,262);
  • Rebecca, Kevin and Cheryl Cole and Travelers Insurance, East Baton Rouge: $400,000 $122,772);
  • Samuel and Susan Weaver, Lafourche Parish: $240,000 ($180,917);
  • Henry Clark, Denise Ramsey and Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Lafayette Parish: $326,000 ($55,401);
  • Anya and Abigail Falcon and Landon and Nikki Hanchett, Iberville Parish, $946,732.53 ($265,598);
  • Adam Moore and James Herrington, East Carroll Parish: $150,000 ($132,643);
  • Traci Newsom, Gerald Blow, DHH Medicaid and Ameril-Health Caritas, Tangipahoa Parish: $150,000 $46,231).

Judgments with round figures like the Traci Newsom and Gerald Blow case are most likely consent judgments, meaning there would be no judicial interest. But irregular judgments like the Anya and Abigail Falcon case, Michael and Mary Aleshire, or Kayla Schexnayder and Emily Legarde were likely trial decisions which would mean judicial interest is accruing every day.

In four of the 17 cases, private law firms were contracted to handle the defense with the attorney general’s office defending the remaining 13. But even in cases handled by the attorney general’s staff attorneys, ORM pays the attorney general’s office via interagency payments.

While the argument could be made that without putting on a legal defense, judgments may well have been much higher.

But if judgments are not being paid, why not simply allow a default judgment and save all those legal fees? It’s not like a plaintiff attorney can seize the State Capitol.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

An imaginary letter from governor firing shot across bow of recalcitrant subordinates about ingrained negative behavior

November 12, 2017 by tomaswell

Following is something I dreamed up in my spare time. It’s a fantasy that, unfortunately, I know will never happen. But still, we can dream. This is an imaginary letter from the governor to all cabinet members and department heads that would do so much to burnish his—or any governor’s—image. Like I said, it’ll never happen:

From: Office of the Governor
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 AM
To: All cabinet members, department heads, supervisors
Subject: ADVISORY: Consider yourselves to be on probation—permanently

Some of you may have noticed that I have experienced considerable difficulty obtaining legislative approval of any of my programs.

Even the most novice political observer would agree that this has nothing to do with the merit of my proposals, or the lack thereof. Instead, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate are determined that they will block any meaningful legislation from a Democrat governor, no matter how beneficial it may be for the citizens of Louisiana. The defeat of a member of the opposition party takes precedent over progress every time. That, unfortunately, is the reality of politics.

To see the Republican leadership promoting the Koch brothers and ALEC agendas while the state teeters on the precipice of financial disaster similar to—or worse—than that which has occurred in Kansas is both frightening and depressing. The federal budget and tax proposals now being pushed through Congress bodes no better future for the nation.

Partisan politics aside, what is also a reality is this: I am furious at being constantly embarrassed by those whom I have appointed to positions of responsibility.

With the rash of disasters that have struck the State of Louisiana along with the political divisiveness that has turned the legislature’s serious consideration of the fiscal perils that lay ahead into a mockery, the distractions of near daily reports of mismanagement, malfeasance, outright theft and general abuse of authority and position are something I can live without.

As governor, I have no control over actions of the legislature, other than my veto power, and regrettably, I have no influence over Congress and our congressional delegation.

But I do have control over the behavior of those whom I appoint and I expect nothing less than honest, open, selfless administration of your respective agencies. This expectation extends to your subordinates as well. You will answer to me for their actions as well as your own.

There is one state agency that does its job as it should. Unfortunately, it seems to operate in a vacuum. The Legislative Auditor’s Office does a herculean job of monitoring how state offices, boards, and commissions are run. Unfortunately, the auditor’s reports, even bad ones, are almost always ignored. No more. Henceforth, when a negative audit report on your agency is published by the Legislative Auditor’s office, that report will no longer be filed away to be forgotten.

Beginning today, when there is an audit report, a news report, or a formal complaint about or against your agency or any of your employees, I am directing immediate remedial action on your part and I expect that response to be public.

In the case of an auditor’s report that puts you in a bad light, I expect a complete turnaround within 30 days, no exceptions. You are to provide my office with a detailed written report of how you intend to remedy the situation. You are to be specific in your report, providing full details of how the situation was allowed to come about and how you plan on correcting the deficiencies. Failure to do so will result in your immediate termination.

In the case of news reports that put you and your agency in a bad light, you are to provide immediate access to the news reporter and you will answer all questions. Moreover, you are to provide my office with a full report, in writing, an explanation of what led to the news report, whether the reports are accurate, and if so, how you plan to address the problem. Misleading my office on the accuracy of negative news reports shall result in your immediate termination and the termination of all concerned.

Formal complaints from citizens or employees of your agency will be addressed immediately. In the case of an employee complaint, there shall be no reprisals taken against the employee, subject to your immediate termination.

As explained earlier in this communication, the governor’s office has enough to deal with without the necessity of constantly putting out brush fires. We exist to serve the public, not the other way around. Public service is a privilege, not an opportunity to enrich oneself. If you are on the state payroll to further your career and to profit from illicit activity with contractors, vendors, or through any other means, get out now or I will show you how it feels to be embarrassed publicly.

The public’s trust of its government, at least on the state level, is important to me.

Act as though your job depends on it—because it does.

Posted in Politics | 8 Comments »

Is State Police Commission re-opening its investigation of those State Troopers’ Association campaign contributions?

November 10, 2017 by tomaswell

I was in attendance at one of my grandchildren’s school Veterans’ Day programs on Thursday and unable to attend the first meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) in several months but suffice it to say something major is brewing with this newly-made over body.

And whatever it is doesn’t to appear to bode well for the Louisiana State Troopers’ Association (LSTA).

It was the first meeting of the commission since August which, coincidentally, was also the last meeting for former Chairman State Trooper T.J. Doss and former Vice Chair Monica Manzella. Both have since resigned and Doss, LouisianaVoice is told, has been on extended sick leave.

Doss was succeeded to the chairman’s position by Baton Rouge attorney Eulis Simien, Jr. and Dr. Michael W. Neustrom of Lafayette replaced Manzella as vice chairman.

But most puzzling was the executive session entered into by the commission.

When the motion was made to go into closed session the belated reason given was to discuss pending litigation—even though there is no pending litigation at the present time against the commission.

Upon exiting, however, commission legal counsel Lenore Feeney amended that reason, saying the executive session was for the discussion of “allegations of misconduct,” according to some in attendance.

And upon returned from behind closed doors, commission members were said to be in a much fouler mood than when they went in, an indication there may have been something a little more intense taking place out of sight of attendees.

Simien, normally an amiable sort, immediately launched into a lecture to those there about how business would be conducted differently in the future and that decorum would strictly adhered to.

If there is to be any investigation of “alleged misconduct,” it could be on one or both of two issues: that San Diego trip taken by State Police in October of 2016 and which resulted in disciplinary action against three troopers who have appealed their discipline to the commission.

The commission voted to consolidate the three appeals into one case and also decided to discard the non-report of Natchitoches attorney Taylor Townsend who was paid $75,000 to investigate and report on possible illegal campaign contributions by the LSTA to various politicians.

The campaign contributions were actually made through the LSTA’s executive director David Young’s personal checking account. Young subsequently billed the association for reimbursement in an apparent effort to circumvent state law prohibiting political activity by state classified employees.

Taylor’s contract, for which he was paid $75,000, called for him to investigate the matter and submit a report of his findings to the LSPC. Instead, he simply told the commission that he recommended “no action” be taken on the matter and the board, which had a completely different makeup at that time, accepted his report.

Since then, the entire board membership, as well as its executive director, has changed dramatically, with almost all the members resigning for various reasons.

Townsend has yet to submit a report the board even though he has been asked to do so on several occasions.

Now, apparently, with a new board in place—with the exception of two positions which remain vacant—a change of heart has taken place and the commission is at least acting like it is serious about investigating the contributions.

One thing is for certain, however:

If the commission was unsure of the real reason for Thursday’s executive session, that can only mean its purpose was illegitimate to begin with. There are specific reasons for executive sessions and the law is narrowly written so as to prevent abuse of the state’s open meeting laws.

To give one reason going into executive session only to change the reason upon exiting is subterfuge in its most blatant form and an action that thumbs its nose at the law itself—from an agency whose very purpose is to ensure compliance with the law.

If there is to be an executive session, public bodies in Louisiana are required to give notice in advance, as an agenda item—in other words, in writing—and to give the reason. Anything else is a lie. They can’t make up the rules on the fly. And they certainly can’t go into closed session and decide the reason for the secrecy after the fact.

Any legal counsel who advises a public agency, body, board, or commission should know the state’s open meetings law (R.S. 42:11) and the Executive Session provision (R.S. 42:16) forward and backward. That requirement comes with the job. http://parlouisiana.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Open_Meetings_Law.pdf

We thought they had learned that in one memorable meeting several months ago when Townsend suggested an executive session and when asked the reason, said—with a perfectly straight face—“We don’t have to give one.”

Uh…yes you do. And it’s more than a little disturbing that it took a layman to inform him of the law at that meeting.

Posted in Campaign Contributions, Commissions, Contract, Contracts, Corruption, Ethics, State Agencies, State Police, Transparency | 6 Comments »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »