- 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: Janice Clark doing work for the BR mafia
Posted on 8/5/14 at 8:52 am to BugAC
Posted on 8/5/14 at 8:52 am to BugAC
It's sad that instead of the merits of a SG city or a SG school district; we evolve into discussing the character of Bodi White, Rainey, Janice Clark, Delgado, or Woody Jenkins.
I don't think that does anyone any good.
I don't think that does anyone any good.
0
Posted on 8/5/14 at 9:43 am to Sprocket46
quote:I'll use your tactic: I know the annexation is a done deal and YOU DO, TOO.
I did however know exactly how Clark would rule, and you did too.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 9:53 am to BugAC
That is because the negative headlines get more traction and bump up that score.
LA Supreme Court finds no misconduct
LA Supreme Court finds no misconduct
Posted on 8/5/14 at 9:57 am to doubleb
Well, we both know that hyperbole doesn't help a discussion. I wasn't out to show she is a great judge, I just happened to have some time to read the things Sprocket was too lazy to do. If his actual point was different, I'd like to see it, but I was just going off what I assumed he wanted people to study out.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 10:44 am to Barrymanalow
quote:
That is because the negative headlines get more traction and bump up that score. LA Supreme Court finds no misconduct
This was a bullshite charge and while what she did was wrong, it did not rise to the level of judicial misconduct worthy of sanction. She's never been brought up on any of the truly dirty shite she's pulled, nor will she because she's essentially untouchable (black, female judge from minority subdistrict that was the result of a lawsuit she was a party to).
Posted on 8/5/14 at 10:56 am to udtiger
quote:
She's never been brought up on any of the truly dirty shite she's pulled, nor will she because she's essentially untouchable (black, female judge from minority subdistrict that was the result of a lawsuit she was a party to).
Conspiracy theory, thy name is St George supporter.
I bet Coast to coast is the number one radio show in that area
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:04 am to magildachunks
quote:
Conspiracy theory, thy name is St George supporter. I bet Coast to coast is the number one radio show in that area
Has nothing to do with St. George. St. George could never have happened and this would still be the case.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 11:06 am to udtiger
Just go sit in Clark's courtroom for any legal proceeding & then study her decisions. You'll quickly come to realize how she is both incompetent and full of shite. One doesn't consider a whore corrupt per se but in this case, if the shoe fits...
Posted on 8/5/14 at 2:20 pm to LSURussian
quote:
I'll use your tactic: I know the annexation is a done deal and YOU DO, TOO.
Lol its still not a done deal, but I wouldn't argue that it isn't likely. If the mall wants in, they'll be in. The only question is did they screw it up this last time and will they need a do-over.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 2:30 pm to Sprocket46
I was not at the meeting, but my understanding is that the annexations were all one vote on one ordinance.
Now, it would seem to me to be defective on its face because you cannot annex property that was not/is not contiguous with the boundary with the city limits.
The proper procedure should have been:
Vote #1 for property "A" immediately adjacent to city limits.
Passes.
Now city limits are between "A" and the next property "B".
Vote # 2 to annex "B"
Passes.
Move on to "C".
Passes.
Because they did not to it this way, either the entire annexation is invalid, or ONLY "A" was annexed in that vote (I am inclined to think the whole thing is out).
Also, was there not an issue with the ownership of some of the allegedly annexed land?
As a citizen of EBR and the City, Jenkins would have a "real and actual interest" in the Metro Council not acting illegally, potentially exposing the CP (and the public fisc) to legal challenges and the attendant costs.
Now, it would seem to me to be defective on its face because you cannot annex property that was not/is not contiguous with the boundary with the city limits.
The proper procedure should have been:
Vote #1 for property "A" immediately adjacent to city limits.
Passes.
Now city limits are between "A" and the next property "B".
Vote # 2 to annex "B"
Passes.
Move on to "C".
Passes.
Because they did not to it this way, either the entire annexation is invalid, or ONLY "A" was annexed in that vote (I am inclined to think the whole thing is out).
Also, was there not an issue with the ownership of some of the allegedly annexed land?
As a citizen of EBR and the City, Jenkins would have a "real and actual interest" in the Metro Council not acting illegally, potentially exposing the CP (and the public fisc) to legal challenges and the attendant costs.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 2:31 pm to Sprocket46
quote:
Lol its still not a done deal, but I wouldn't argue that it isn't likely. If the mall wants in, they'll be in. The only question is did they screw it up this last time and will they need a do-over.
I believe they screwed up last time, but eventually the Mall is going to be inside the city limits.
I'm just wondering how they are going to "connect" the city of the casino. Maybe via bike path???
Posted on 8/5/14 at 2:37 pm to Zelig
quote:
any citizen of the city or the area proposed to be added thereto may file an appeal therefrom in the District Court in the manner and with the effect provided by law.
Can anyone say why this does not validate Jenkins' standing in this case?
Just a guess, but if he is not "any citizen of the city (the BR city limits)" or "the area proposed to be added thereto (i.e. the Mall of LA)" then he may not file an appeal therefrom in the District Court. Thus, no standing since he lives in neither the BR limits nor the Mall of LA.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:16 pm to TheFranchise
He does live in BR. Lots of drumming about the plan of government, but not about the actual bit that it was tossed out for.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:24 pm to TheFranchise
Woody posted on his FB today that at the end of the hearing, it was finally conceded that was indeed a citizen of BR.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:27 pm to udtiger
quote:
Also, was there not an issue with the ownership of some of the allegedly annexed land?
Yup. Level ventures signed off (for annexation) on property they had previously sold.
I'm no lawyer, but it sure seems like that would be an issue with the current annexation, as passed by the metro council.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:33 pm to Sprocket46
On the other hand, all of the properties were notified and given the requisite amount of time to file the complaint to undo it. And they didn't. I've gathered that most rail companies don't get into local politics.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:34 pm to Sprocket46
Almost forgot, I read those reports and posted on it. Did it not garner a response?
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:36 pm to TheFranchise
quote:
Thus, no standing since he lives in neither the BR limits nor the Mall of LA.
That's what I initially thought, but he actually lives in Baton Rouge. That mansion on N. Foster, sort of in a rough area.
His motivations are the same as they were in Central. To help form a government that he could more easily gain power in. He was deeply involved in politics and his newspaper in Central. Oddly enough, he got run out of there after exposing Rep. Bodi White for crooked land deals.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:47 pm to Barrymanalow
quote:
Almost forgot, I read those reports and posted on it. Did it not garner a response?
Not really. Her campaign finance reports are not corruption evidence, it merely shows influence. Not sure what else needs to be said.
Posted on 8/5/14 at 4:48 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
His motivations are the same as they were in Central. To help form a government that he could more easily gain power in. He was deeply involved in politics and his newspaper in Central. Oddly enough, he got run out of there after exposing Rep. Bodi White for crooked land deals.
We all know his motivations, but what many here have asked is; why can't the courts rule on whether or not what the city did was legal or not.
If it is because you have to be directly affected, fine; but if that's the case then the law is wrong. The city should not be allowed to do illegal acts and get away with it just because a certain person didn't sue.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News