The Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ) has chosen to terminate what was supposed to be a two-year contract to house up to 30 adjudicated juveniles in the spanking new facility in Jackson Parish a tad early.

The termination of the state’s contract, which took effect last Saturday (Nov. 30), while not exactly killing the golden goose, nevertheless wounded it rather severely.

And even though Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown entered into contracts with a handful of other parishes throughout the state to house youth from their parishes, he is certain to miss the couple of million dollars he has been billing the state to reserve a number of beds for OJJ – even when those beds are unoccupied, according to THE LENS, a New Orleans non-profit news service.

The Lens said that the Jackson Parish jail has “flouted state-licensing law for juvenile detention facilities” and has been “consistently accused” of abuse and neglect of kids in its care – but LouisianaVoice has learned that may be only a part of the problems currently plaguing the high sheriff of Jackson Parish.

Besides rumors from a couple of sources as to the existence of an ongoing FBI investigation (the FBI itself neither confirms nor denies investigations), there is considerably more bad press – that is, if there was any press to report any miscreant-like behavior.

For openers, he reportedly put a gaggle of campaign supporters on his payroll in the lead-up to his 2023 reelection campaign (it’s illegal, according to state law, to pad a payroll within six months of an election). The word is he put a couple dozen on the payroll during that period under the pretense of opening that new juvenile facility. But then, shortly after the election, the layoffs began, attributed to budgetary constraints.

Then, there are the two private corporations he operates out of the same address in the Jackson Parish town of Quitman.

Six Point Consultants, LLC, and Shultz & Brown Associates, LLC each has the same names on its corporate filings with the Louisiana Secretary of State: Andy Brown, Suzanne Brown, Donovan Shultz and Jessica Shultz. Brown, who is listed as the agent for both corporate entities, is also the Chief of Investigations and is the number-three person in rank in the sheriff’s office, behind Brown and Chief Deputy Brent Barnett. Both corporations give their address of domicile as 855 North Antioch Road in Quitman, which is also given as the residential address of Shultz.

The two officials, Brown and Shultz, also operate a towing service which has reportedly performed some towing services for the sheriff’s department with Brown’s son, Andrew Brown, performing some of the actual driving of the tow truck.

Six Point Consultants, as it turned out, had Covid testing equipment that it kept at a clinic called Mercy Medical in the early days of the pandemic – and the Jackson Parish Hospital, by the way, also had testing equipment for Covid.

As it happens, Sheriff Brown’s attorney Chris Bowman is also a member of the hospital board, And, oh, he is also a member of the board of Mercy Medical.

Coincidentally, the hospital decided to outsource some of its Covid testing to Mercy Medical and when some hospital employees, who were supposed to have received testing at no cost, began receiving bills from Mercy Medical, well, naturally, there were questions.

As a result of the outcry from billed hospital employees, many of the Mercy Medical invoices simply disappeared.

Oh, did we mention that Mercy Medical is located at 244 Bond Street, the same address as the former Jackson Parish Health Unit which Sheriff Brown had acquired for the sheriff’s office, ostensibly to convert to a women’s prison, before transferring ownership of the building to Kimberly Brunson, who runs Mercy Medical.

And then there’s the question of those shipping containers Brown was going to use to house all those juvenile offenders, a proposed move opposed in an ADVOCACY PAPER issued last May by the Louisiana United Methodist Children and Family Services.

But wait. It seems, according to one report, that the containers that Brown has already brought in were purchased from…(wait for it)…Donovan Shultz’s father.

LouisianaVoice has learned of other activities and out-of-state travel in sheriff’s department vehicles for personal business as well as reports of additional insider dealing in the construction of the new jail. There are also reports that a parish inmate was transported by deputies to his girlfriend’s home in Chatham on weekends until deputies had to be called to her house in a domestic dispute.

Just another parish where LouisianaVoice is probably not welcome.

An LSU computer instructor has sued the university for breach of contract after he received a notice of non-reappointment to work on several federally-funded grants last March.

Fernando Alegre had been employed since August 2015 as a research associate where he says he spent 100 percent of his time working on the grants.

He and the university entered into a new agreement on May 22 of this year whereby Alegre agreed to perform specific duties. LSU, however, insisted that he also perform duties outside the scope of his contract, according to his petition filed in 19^th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge.

Among the duties he was asked to perform that were not included in his contract were the installation, restoration and/or maintenance of the school’s Web pages. He claims in his lawsuit that in the past he “occasionally” volunteered to help with some IT work outside his regular working hours (per the grant), but with his new duties, he said he simply did not have the time to devote to those tasks.

Retribution by LSU was quick and severe, he says. He said the university not only breached the employment agreement with him, but at the same time, deemed that Alegre was ineligible for any employment within the LSU (statewide) system.

Even more heavy-handed, Alegre claims, LSU took its actions against him “in and effort to gain a strategic bargaining advantage over him as part of an ongoing dispute between LSU and (Alegre’s) wife, who is also employed by LSU “and whose compensation is linked to or funded by the same grant” referenced earlier.

LSU is essentially seeking to blackball Alegre from employment “without any rational or lawful basis for so doing,” his petition says, and is “seeking to prevent (Alegre) from participating in a broad range of academic and other lawful and legitimate career opportunities and paths within the LSU system in an effort to gain a strategic bargaining advantage.

Alegre’s attorney, J. Arthur Smith, III, accuses LSU of failing and refusing to comply with its contractual commitment in good faith and that the school’s actions “constitute an unfair trade practice” in violation of state law.

Alegre is not seeking any specific monetary damages other than for LSU to pay him “in accordance with his employment agreement” with the university and for the school to pay his attorney fees and court costs.

Of course, this isn’t the first time that LSU has cut an employee loose when it fit the school’s agenda. STEVEN HATFIELD was terminated with no questions asked when he was erroneously linked by the FBI to anthrax mailings. LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert said at the time that the decision to terminate Hatfield “was not reached quickly or easily.” At the same time, he gave no reason for the move. Hatfield eventually settled with the U.S. Justice Department for $2.8 million.

Dr. RANDALL SCHAFFER, who toiled in the LSU School of Dentistry, warned of the faulty design of dental implants developed by the school. LSU rewarded him by having his dental license revoked and his career ruined.

And then there are Drs. ROXANNE TOWNSEND AND FRED CERISE who were deemed expendable by the school when they offended the wonderful Bobby Jindal. But the LSU Board of Supervisors apparently saw no problem in allowing board member Dr. John F. George, Jr., to become president and CEO of Biomedical Research Foundation which was to take over the operation of two LSU hospitals or that Biomedical Research Foundation leased research labs to the LSU system for millions of dollars.

And who could forget the debacle over IVOR van HEERDEN who claimed that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ha not driven pilings deep enough which allowed levees to fail during Hurricane Katrina. He was fired mostly because LSU feared the loss of grant money from the corps. Turns out Van Heerden was 100 percent correct and it ended up costing LSU $435,000 to settle with its former coastal researcher – but only after it spent another $1 million defending his lawsuit.

Of course, none of the cases cited should be taken as indicative of employment policy at LSU.

But it is a pretty good primer for anyone who is interested in what might be anticipated over the next four years or so..

I don’t know about you, but while so many others are upset with the outcomes of elections of president, members of congress and governors, I am deeply concerned at the methods of election and appointment of judges, from family court all the way to federal district judges and members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Think for a moment about the criteria to which we hold judicial candidates just in Louisiana. Whoever makes the strongest, most credible claim of being tough on crime, who makes the loudest promise to hand down the harshest penalties to offenders and who, not incidentally, reaps the most campaign contributions from attorneys generally comes out on top in elections. Of course, the current swing of the political pendulum also dictates that in most cases, the candidate with an “R” behind his name has a decided advantage.

Simply stated, that’s no way to run a railroad. A judge should be chosen from among those with the most integrity and the deepest understanding of the law. Period. A candidate’s political philosophy should never be a consideration when making such a critical decision.

Let’s look at minimum requirements to seek a judgeship in Louisiana:

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT JUDGE, COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, FAMILY COURT JUDGE, JUVENILE COURT JUDGE, PARISH COURT: The candidate shall have been admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana for at least 10 years for supreme court or court of appeals candidates and 8 years for district court, family court, parish court, or court having solely juvenile jurisdiction candidates, prior to the candidate’s election.  The candidate shall have been domiciled in the respective district, circuit, or parish for 1 year preceding the candidate’s election.  Elected or appointed incumbent judges are not eligible to run for any elective office other than their own or another judicial office.  In order to run for another office, they must resign from their office at least 24 hours prior to the date of qualifying for such other office.  A judge appointed to fill a vacancy shall be ineligible as a candidate at the election to fill the vacancy.  Candidate must be younger than the mandatory retirement age of 70, and a judge who reaches age 70 while serving a term of office will be allowed to complete the term (emphasis added).

You’d think the requirements would be a little tougher for consideration for appointment as a federal judge (which, by the way, are lifetime appointments). But you’d be wrong:

According to the U.S. Constitution, there are no specific minimum qualifications required to become a federal judge; the Constitution does not list any formal requirements for this position, meaning there is no set minimum age, years of experience, or even a requirement to be a lawyer.

But wait, there’s more. What about U.S. Supreme Court justices, the absolute highest legal position in U.S. government?

Well, the minimum requirements for that are a bit hazy, as well.

Just as with federal judges, there is no set minimum age, years of experience, or even a requirement to be a lawyer in order to qualify as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I have my own suggestions, suggestions that I readily admit will never be adopted, partly because some of them would require amendments to the Louisiana and U.S. constitutions. But let’s look at some basic suggestions that should not be controversial provided we have candidates who are serious and sincere about the law.

First of all, let’s adopt a rule that all candidates for judge in Louisiana – no matter the level, family court all the way up to state appellate and supreme courts – must participate in an open forum to respond to questions about their actual knowledge of the law and that they must score at least an 85 percent accuracy rate on their answers or drop out of the race.

Some of the questions they might be asked:

• What is the Daubert standard?
• Define a motion in limine.
• Explain how an Alternative Dispute Resolution works.
• What is a Brady motion?
• Define the terms de facto and de novo.
• Same question for en banc and ex parte
• Give us your definition of the terms in forma pauperis, inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
• What’s the difference between an injunction and a temporary restraining order?
• Two more definitions: per curiam and pro per.
• What’s the difference between subpoena and subpoena duces tecum?
• Explain the terms voir dire and writ of certiorari.

These are just a few that popped into my mind. There are other questions, many others and anyone seeking a judgeship should be familiar with the terms. (And before you ask, yes, I do know the answers to almost all of the above questions, but the big difference is I’m not running for a judgeship.)

Piece of cake for an attorney, you say? Don’t be too sure of that.

There are times few and far, far between that I agree with U.S. Sen. John Neely Kennedy on anything since he switched from being an open-minded Democrat to a tunnel-vision, boot-licking disciple of Herr Trump. But on two separate occasions he literally destroyed the chances of two of Trump’s nominees to federal judgeships.

One was the 2017 nomination of MATTHEW SPENCER PETERSON with the most basic questions about his legal experience.

The other was the equally withering questioning of President Biden’s nominee, KATO CREWS, who had served more than four years as a magistrate judge, about the Brady motion.

Any first-year law student should have handled that question with ease but Crews thought it involved “something regarding the Second Amendment.”

Now, about those constitutional amendments:

In all judicial elections (this is for Louisiana because federal judges are appointed, not elected), no campaign contribution may come from any attorney or law firm. Period. All contributions must come from those unaffiliated with the legal profession. (Yeah, I know, this is Louisiana and they’re gonna find some way around the law, but hey, it’s a start).

For all federal judicial and U.S. Supreme Court appointments, candidates must be experienced, licensed attorneys with a minimum of 10 years’ practice. That’s the least we can do.

So far, in the history of this nation, I don’t think any non-lawyer has ever been appointed as a federal judge and I Know that no non-lawyers have ever been appointed to the Supreme Court. But don’t you think it’s past time we closed that loophole – just in case?

LSU law professor Nicholas Bryner recently told his class that if any of his students voted for Donald Trump because they might not like him personally, but favored his policies, then “it’s on you to prove that by the way you conduct yourselves and by the way that you treat other people around you.”

His remarks, made over 1 ½-minutes, appeared to me to be a simple request that those students practice the Golden Rule.

But don’t take my word for it. Here is the complete video of his REMARKS.

But that’s not the way a guy named Jeff Landry saw or heard it. In a message sent out over X, Landry took it upon himself to pick a fight with Bryner by accusing him of defying “the 76 million Americans who voted for (Trump) – to silence and belittle those in his class who voted for our next president.

Landry neglected to mention that more than 75 million voted for someone other than Trump, so despite the lopsided electoral vote total, the popular vote wasn’t exactly a ringing mandate for Herr Trump any more than Landry’s 2023 election was a mandate, considering he was elected by only about 18 percent of the number of registered voters in Louisiana as the 36 percent turnout was the lowest in Louisiana in two decades.

And of course, there is the student to took the video of Bryner delivering his call for common sense and decent behavior on the day following the Nov. 5 election and forwarding the video to Landry.

There’s nothing wrong with that. This day and age, a person would have to be totally oblivious not to realize that anything he says or does is likely to be recorded.

In fact, I would suggest that that is a great idea for all vehicles to be equipped with video/audio cameras for all encounters with police – especially those police who would beat a guy to death and then tell his family that he died in an auto accident.

So, no, I don’t have a problem with the student who recorded Bryner’s ever-so-brief plea for common decency. In fact, I would argue that the video is Bryner’s best defense against any disciplinary action Landry might try to bring down on him through LSU’s spineless President William Tate.

But Landry’s kneejerk reaction? That’s quite another story. It should be obvious by now, what with his demand that athletes be present for the playing/singing of the National Anthem and that LSU parade out its tiger – any tiger actually, it turns out – for sporting events, that Landry possesses some sort of sick thirst for control every facet of life on Louisiana’s college campuses.

I fail to understand what makes Landry such an authority on academia, given that he’s nothing more than a two-bit hack who suffers from the little-man syndrome that demands that he be given attention on a regular basis lest he feel neglected and unimportant.

I do know that for him to use his office as a bully pulpit (with the emphasis on BULLY) to intimidate or threaten anyone he perceives to be critical of him or to disagree with him as he did with BOB MANN, is not only petulant and petty, but dangerous.

Mann, to his credit, was quick to POINT OUT the weaknesses in Landry’s blatant hypocrisy in claiming on one hand to support free speech even as he attacks Bryner’s plea for common decency.

It’s too bad that Louisiana’s demagogue-in-chief just doesn’t get it.

Maybe instead of posting the Ten Commandments in school classrooms, he should post the Golden Rule in his own office.

It’s always amazing to watch gymnasts and contortionists.

The control that gymnasts have over their bodies in the vault and floor exercises is absolutely jaw-dropping.

But equally mystifying is how some people can contort their principles and morals to accommodate the most outrageous positions and philosophies.

That is, of course, assuming they have any principles and morals to begin with.

Such questions certainly must now hang like the sword of Damocles over the heads of U.S. Sen. John Neely Kennedy and U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

Kennedy, of course, completely bastardized any shred of dignity that remained in his soul back in 2016 when he proclaimed that he’d “RATHER DRINK WEEDKILLER” than betray one Donald Trump on who’s coattails he was running (for the third time after losing the first two) for the Senate.

At least he’s held to that dogma, especially with his latest appearance on Fox News where he completely buried his head in Trump’s flabby, pasty-white derriere by declaring, “We’re going to get President Trump’s nominees confirmed…I don’t take that as being a problem.”

Really? Well, then, Mr. Foghorn Leghorn, please tell us just what it would take for you to perceive something as being a problem.

Let me repeat that. One-time liberal Democrat now a John Birchite Republican U.S. Sen. John Neely Kennedy, a graduate of Vanderbilt University and a Rhodes Scholar actually said, “We’re going to get President Trump’s nominees confirmed…I don’t take that as being a problem.”

Let that soak in, folks.

• Kennedy apparently is just fine with having the likes of Matt Gaetz, who resigned just before a House Ethics Committee report on his alleged pedophilic activities was to be released (more on that in a bit), for nomination to the nation’s highest legal office, U.S. Attorney General, who will preside of the U.S. Department of Justice.
• Kennedy is okay with a secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth who has sexual assault charges hanging over his head as well.
• He’s hunky-dory with a health secretary (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) who is a complete, worm-brained nut case and a conspiracy theorist nonpareil.
• Somehow, he must be satisfied with Tulsi Gabbard, said to be a national security risk, as, of all things, director of national intelligence.
• And he apparently has no problem with puppy-killing Kristi Noem, aka “Airhead,” as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Of course, once vetted, each of these nominees could be proven to be squeaky clean. It’s not at all likely, but it’s at least remotely possible.

But to give the blanket approval at this stage as Kennedy has obviously done amounts to nothing but a display of Kennedy’s continued unquestioning fealty to his lord and master – while managing to completely ignore any pretense of independence or any attempt to invoke the checks and balances system under which our government was established in the first place.

Now let us turn our attention to that other Louisiana demagogue – Mike Johnson.

As recently as Wednesday, Johnson told reporters that as speaker he could not be involved in deciding whether or not to release that ethics report on Gaetz.

But then, just as he did when the House was on the verge of approving a bipartisan border bill a couple of months ago, he talked to Donald Trump.

And things suddenly changed.

Wow, did they change.

Just as that border bill suddenly evaporated, so now is Johnson saying that he plans to urge House Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest NOT TO PROVIDE the Gaetz report to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Instead of a porn-monitoring app on his cell phone, perhaps Johnson should consider a Trump guidance-app in order to avoid future embarrassing leadership U-turns.

“The rules of the House have always been that a former member (remember, Gaetz resigned just before the report was due out) is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee,” Johnson said just two days later, on Friday.

He offered that attitude adjustment immediately after meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago. What a coincidence!

Releasing the report, Johnson said, would set a “terrible precedent” and “open up a Pandora’s box.”

Not so, said a spokesman for Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The spokesperson said there was “longstanding precedent” in both the House and Senate for releasing ethics investigations after a subject member’s resignation.

So, there you have it folks. The continued practice of the usual high standards of Louisiana politicians when it comes to supporting proposals that conflict with everything sane and logical.

It’s enough to make the most optimistic among us cynical.

But it’s just another day in the life of the political contortionist.