- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Broome’s legal status to sue as mayor in question. Update Lamont Cole added to suit
Posted on 11/8/19 at 9:47 am to doubleb
Posted on 11/8/19 at 9:47 am to doubleb
quote:
The truth is if one area prospers, we all prosper. Most, not all, of our taxes are parish wide taxes. Look on your property tax bill and you'll see a many of those taxes go to parish wide entities. You sewer and trash fee is a parishwide fee. MovEBR, GL, COA, Mental Health, MARC, etc. are all parishwide taxes. Sure thee are city taxes and regional taxes for fire districts, police and schools. But a large part of our taxes go for the common good. If Downtown booms and property values go up, that helps pay for things we all use. If Rouzan flourishes that helps us all. If Zachary prospers we all benefit. The same thing applies to SG.
Well said!
0
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:01 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:
they’ll be dying to either get back into BR city
They were never IN BR city
quote:
jerrymander
Doesn't know how to spell "gerrymander" much less what it means
Look out everyone, we got us a real genius here
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:07 am to lsu2006
quote:
Ungelsby at least is a proper party.
and as such his arguments against SG will be limited to a resident instead of a governing body. The suit may not totally be thrown out, but it will be more limited in scope than the opposition intended
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:22 am to tommy2tone1999
Just for the lulz, I would love them to bring up some of the past involving him. Such as his son getting kicked out of U High in the 90s for doing about $100K in damage to the school during a break, after which he was throwing money at any private school willing to take him.
Not relevant to the situation but neither is a lot of shite he’ll try to bring up.
Not relevant to the situation but neither is a lot of shite he’ll try to bring up.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:34 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:
but like almost half of the people that live in the now gerrymandered-to-swiss-cheese voting areas, I oppose the retarded idea of st george.
So have you even looked at the city Baton Rouge’s boundaries especially along south and SE boundaries as well as it’s need to keep blacks in majority with BR city limits, or are you just copying and pasting ME talking points?
What is your plan to have a more equal representation over the spending of sales tax dollars taken from StG? Do you think it’s unneeded and charity for those that effectively control it in BR? Do you think they can make better and decisions with that StG surplus than you and your StG neighbors can?
This post was edited on 11/8/19 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:37 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:
they’ll be dying to either get back into BR city
You really must have some kind of learning disability to include this.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:37 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
and as such his arguments against SG will be limited to a resident instead of a governing body. The suit may not totally be thrown out, but it will be more limited in scope than the opposition intended
Can you explain what you mean here? Governmental law is admittedly outside of the scope of what I do. Each plaintiff is seeking the same relief from the court - denial of incorporation. Why would Ungelsby's status as a private citizen, and not a governmental body, limit the scope of anything?
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:49 am to lsu2006
quote:
Can you explain what you mean here? Governmental law is admittedly outside of the scope of what I do. Each plaintiff is seeking the same relief from the court - denial of incorporation. Why would Ungelsby's status as a private citizen, and not a governmental body, limit the scope of anything?
Not an attorney, but wouldn’t Ungelsby have to show he is being harmed, and not BR or the rest of the parish?
Posted on 11/8/19 at 10:58 am to doubleb
quote:
but wouldn’t Ungelsby have to show he is being harmed, and not BR or the rest of the parish?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Any of the plaintiffs would have to show harm in some sense.
The theory I think Broome is resting on to show she has a right of action (i.e., is a proper party to bring the suit) would be that she is the head of the governing body of the parish in her role as mayor. Assuming she isn't dismissed by an exception of no right of action, which could be a big assumption, they would need to show that incorporation with St. George's petition as is would harm the Parish at large. Ungelsby as a property owner and resident of the proposed St. George would have to make a similar showing but more with respect to him and, I suppose, other residents of St. George. Either way, they're all seeking the same relief - denying incorporation. If anything, I think dismissing Cormier and Broome would just simplify the matter. But again, this isn't something I'm terribly well-versed on.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 11:23 am to doubleb
quote:
Why hadn’t the SG election been “certified” when all of the races of the day have been settled and we’ve moved on to another primary in many cases?
There is a 30 day window after the petitioners formally publish the results of the election in the parish register for concerned parties to bring suit. If no suit is brought after 30 days, the governor formally incorporates the municipality, appoints the interim officials, and calls for election of officials to occur on the next municipal election day (which is the spring election period in Louisiana), given that there is enough time left before the scheduled election date for a proper qualifying period. If there are legal challenges, the formal incorporation waits until legal challenges are settled and the district court will either bar the incorporation or order that the incorporation be completed, along with the date that the incorporation will occur.
The incorporation election was only 27 days ago and I have no idea when (if?) the petitioners formally published the election results in the register.
This post was edited on 11/8/19 at 11:36 am
Posted on 11/8/19 at 11:27 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
There is a 30 day window after the petitioners formally publish the results of the election in the parish register for concerned parties to bring suit. If no suit is brought after 30 days, the governor formally incorporates the municipality, appoints the interim officials, and calls for election of officials to occur on the next municipal election day. Otherwise, the formal incorporation waits until legal challenges are settled.
The incorporation election was only 27 days ago and I have no idea when (if?) the petitioners formally published the election results in the register.
thank you.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 11:30 am to lsu2006
quote:
I'm not sure I understand your question. Any of the plaintiffs would have to show harm in some sense.
Here's my take; Broome and Cormier would have to show that BR is being harmed.
Unglesby doesn't live in BR, show he would have to show that living in SG instead of unincorporated SG would harm him.
Right? Wrong?
Now they all want the same relief, but they can't all argue the same thing, right?
Posted on 11/8/19 at 12:00 pm to lsu2006
quote:
Why would Ungelsby's status as a private citizen, and not a governmental body, limit the scope of anything?
well the obvious is that there is one less party in the suit. Then, harm to a governmental entity is a much different circumstance than harm to an individual in this case wouldn't you agree? Every election harms individuals one way or another, but harm to a neighboring governmental entity is more broad in scope, and will carry more in weight court to a judge than will just one individual.
This post was edited on 11/8/19 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 11/8/19 at 4:14 pm to tommy2tone1999
bump to show update
Posted on 11/8/19 at 4:17 pm to doubleb
MOP isn’t exactly showing off her legal chops by having Cole join the case after the fact.
When Woody fricking Jenkins schools you on the law, you done fricked up.
When Woody fricking Jenkins schools you on the law, you done fricked up.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 4:19 pm to doubleb
quote:
Mary Olive Pierson disagrees of course, but the article goes on to state:
Gotta wonder if Pat Screen ever ripped rails off her back.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 7:11 pm to teke184
So MOP admits she has no idea what the hell she's talking about and admits Woody was right all along. Kinda makes you wish he kept his out shut and let the suit get thrown out as it stood
Posted on 11/8/19 at 7:17 pm to teke184
Just wait. Every black member of the Metro Council, with the possible exception of maybe Tara Wicker, will join the lawsuit.
Posted on 11/8/19 at 7:26 pm to doubleb
quote:
For his part, Cole says he decided to join the suit because he is worried about the impact incorporation would have on the rest of the parish.
quote:
“For me, it’s really simple,” he says. “I am very concerned the incorporation of roughly 86,000 people is going to have an adverse financial impact on the rest of us who still live in the city.”
Posted on 11/8/19 at 7:35 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
well the obvious is that there is one less party in the suit. Then, harm to a governmental entity is a much different circumstance than harm to an individual in this case wouldn't you agree? Every election harms individuals one way or another, but harm to a neighboring governmental entity is more broad in scope, and will carry more in weight court to a judge than will just one individual.
How would they show that an incorporated StG would harm them while an unincorporated StG does not?
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News