- 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: St. George LA denied incorporation by Court of Appeals
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:36 am to Kramer26
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:36 am to Kramer26
This is demoralizing. It really is. We voted for this. We did everything they told us to do and we voted and now it can't happen?
This is absolutely crushing news. I think I'm gonna have some big decisions to make soon and it really wasn't what I was planning for this immediate. My guess: The subverting of what people legally voted for accelerates the schedule of me or my parents' homes getting broken into at an alarming rate.
This is absolutely crushing news. I think I'm gonna have some big decisions to make soon and it really wasn't what I was planning for this immediate. My guess: The subverting of what people legally voted for accelerates the schedule of me or my parents' homes getting broken into at an alarming rate.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 10:38 am
3
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:39 am to Dingeaux
quote:
How can the city of Baton Rouge work to deny them that right?
The C-P government has not blocked SG.
The mayor and an individual councilman did.
I believe the judge may have removed the mayor from the suit, but not the councilman.
So what we have if I am correct is an individual councilman blocking SG with the aid of influential backers.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:39 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
Seems like whatever reason they are denying this appeal should have been something that was required to even have this vote get on the ballot.
Exactly
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:40 am to Giantkiller
quote:
This is absolutely crushing news. I think I'm gonna have some big decisions to make soon and it really wasn't what I was planning for this immediate. My guess: The subverting of what people legally voted for accelerates the schedule of me or my parents' homes getting broken into at an alarming rate.
it's not over yet. State Supreme Court will weigh in on this.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:41 am to doubleb
quote:
So what we have if I am correct is an individual councilman blocking SG with the aid of influential backers.
so why isn't this done with every election?
Why doesn't someone do this with every presidential election? How someone can do this after an election is beyond comprehension to me. This feels like something that happens in some African corrupt country, not America.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:42 am to doubleb
quote:
I believe the judge may have removed the mayor from the suit, but not the councilman.
So what we have if I am correct is an individual councilman blocking SG with the aid of influential backers.
In the end, frick John Engquist and frick Richard Lipsey. They can have this shithole. I voted for something and it was all for naught. Now I'm gonna have to vote with my feet while I can still do that.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:42 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
This feels like something that happens in some African corrupt country
well…..yeah
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:43 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:
so why isn't this done with every election?
Why doesn't someone do this with every presidential election?
You can, unless you're a Republican, then you're just a conspiracy theorist.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:43 am to Damone
quote:
This can't be correct, we were assured that with all of the donations and legwork incorporation was guaranteed!
It was a lawful vote by the public.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:44 am to Cosmo
quote:
What did they do wrong legally?
Based on the decision linked in the OP. Also props to the OP for linking it and not some half assed news article.
( 1) the petition for incorporation is " fatally
defective" because it failed to comply with La. R.S. 33: 1( A)(4), which requires
that a petition for incorporation include a listing of the public services that the
municipal incorporation proposes to render to the area and a plan for the provision
of those services;
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, we sustain in part and overrule in part
Chris Rials and Norman Browning' s exception of no right of action and dismiss
Mayor -President Sharon Weston -Broome from the suit with prejudice. We
overrule Chris Rials and Norman Browning' s exception of no cause of action. We
dismiss Dwight Hudson, et al.' s exception of no cause of action. Additionally, we
affirm the June 13, 2022 judgment of the trial court denying the incorporation,
because the petition failed to comply with the requirements of La. R.S. 33: 1( A)(4)
I hope they have the next petition corrected and ready to file as soon as this mess gets cleaned up.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:46 am to KamaCausey_LSU
Man the attorneys who advised them must be in arse pucker mode right now
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:47 am to Giantkiller
If you didn't see that the Crook Bodi and his attorney gang through this shite together half assed then that's on you Baw
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:48 am to KamaCausey_LSU
La. R.S. 33: 1( A)(4)
I have been thoroughly disappointed in Browning and company and their piss poor handling of this. This is the hold up. With all of the St. George meetings surely they should have had this ready. Why didn't they?
ETA: Oh, and there is no fricking reason it should have taken this long to get this resolved. Willing incompetence from the court to drag their feet in hopes of dissuading interest.
quote:
Petition for incorporation; contents; circulation; required signatures
A. Residents of any unincorporated area with a population in excess of two hundred inhabitants may propose the incorporation of the area as provided in this Subpart. The secretary of state shall provide a form approved by the attorney general to be used for the petition for an incorporation election. Such form shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Section and R.S. 18:3. All incorporation petitions shall be on an approved form or on a form which contains the same information as required on the approved form and any petition not on such form shall be invalid. The incorporation petition shall include the following information:
quote:
(4) A listing of the public services the municipal corporation proposes to render to the area and a plan for the provision of these services.
I have been thoroughly disappointed in Browning and company and their piss poor handling of this. This is the hold up. With all of the St. George meetings surely they should have had this ready. Why didn't they?
ETA: Oh, and there is no fricking reason it should have taken this long to get this resolved. Willing incompetence from the court to drag their feet in hopes of dissuading interest.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 10:51 am
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:49 am to Kramer26
I love seeing the St George fight show how adults in Baton Rouge get all worked up and start fighting. It’s pathetic. Both parties are pathetic.
I’m 100% in favor for voting and doing it the legal way. But the St George “organizers” are terrible. They didn’t get a school district and instead of trying to force BR’s hand and make real CHANGE, they just beat the drum and flip off BR and say “new city!”
The Baton Rouge leaders are terrible. Instead of realizing people want change, they say FU to them and start taking away land and suing them and all that.
If the adults on both sides really cared, they could have worked together first to try to fix problems. But neither side did.
And I know you’re going to say side A would never help side B and yada yada yada. And you’re right. But that’s when the “organizers” should have had the plan to make powerful alliances and groups and get support for change.
I voted yes for St George because of the way Baton Rouge tried to Frick them. But I have no admiration for the “organizers”.
I’m 100% in favor for voting and doing it the legal way. But the St George “organizers” are terrible. They didn’t get a school district and instead of trying to force BR’s hand and make real CHANGE, they just beat the drum and flip off BR and say “new city!”
The Baton Rouge leaders are terrible. Instead of realizing people want change, they say FU to them and start taking away land and suing them and all that.
If the adults on both sides really cared, they could have worked together first to try to fix problems. But neither side did.
And I know you’re going to say side A would never help side B and yada yada yada. And you’re right. But that’s when the “organizers” should have had the plan to make powerful alliances and groups and get support for change.
I voted yes for St George because of the way Baton Rouge tried to Frick them. But I have no admiration for the “organizers”.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:50 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:no lie detected
It’s pathetic. Both parties are pathetic.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:50 am to Kramer26
At this point, petition central or st Gabriel to annex them.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:52 am to TeddyPadillac
quote:its Different
I don't understand how people can vote for something, and someone else in power doesn't like the outcome of the vote so they can sue the results of that vote and actually win, and thus making the entire election pointless.
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:54 am to Kramer26
quote:
Mitchell Theriot, Wayne Ray Chutz, and Steven Miller
Well next time these judicial cucks run for reelection they are not going to get my vote. 2 of the 3 judges were elected in the first district which is the Houma-Thibodaux, Assumption, St. Mary, and West of the Mississippi River area of the 1st circuit.
This post was edited on 7/14/23 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:54 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:
They didn’t get a school district and instead of trying to force BR’s hand and make real CHANGE, they just beat the drum and flip off BR and say “new city!”
I mean, they were explicitly told they have to form a new city to get their school district so they said ok
Posted on 7/14/23 at 10:54 am to Kramer26
The conclusion already posted here is the very short version, but if you want a bit more, jump to the end of page 23 and read from there. The punch line of what fricked them is that the statute was specifically changed in 1984 to require specificity in the plan included in the petition with the expressed purpose of getting rid of glittering generalities to take advantage of voters. Agree or disagree regarding whether the statute sets a reasonable expectation, but the law seems fairly straightforward on that point.
Page 3 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News