re: Judge orders $240,000 in sanctions against Louisiana AG’s office in Caddo Commission case

quote:

---

I haven't read through them, but I found the minutes

---

Muchas gracias.

From 07/03/2025:

quote:

---

Jon Glover came before the Commission and gave the following comment:

I rise to bring to your attention again, agenda item 8.2 the ratification for the special resolution for Sen. Barney Sanders. Again, it is not the merit of your decision that you made, it is the process that you all negated to get to this determination. I would ask that you all not ratify because you did not follow
your own procedures. Thank you.

---

So we have at the very meeting where the resolution was ratified, mention that the process (of proposal in a public forum) was negated.

From 06/30/2025:

quote:

---

Jon Glover came before the Commission and gave the following comment:

I stand before you as I often do when I have concerns about an item on your agenda—specifically today’s Work Session, item number 11.2 Ratification of Special Resolution for Senator Bernie Sanders. Now, I did some homework before I decided to stand before you all to make sure that what I will allege, I did, and can substantiate you all have a process in place in how you will address agenda items. In doing so, you will all follow that pattern that you all have before you. That was not the case in this instance. And this incident, you went outside of your own process and those that founded it unnecessary when called to task. Now, we’re seeing ratification. Would there have been a ratification had not been called to task?

---

A little later in that same Work Session meeting:

quote:

---

Madame President gave the following statement:
This resolution that is up for discussion, is one that welcomes Senator Sanders. I'm sure that you will hear it being read here shortly, but it's one to welcome a sitting U.S. Senator Sanders to our community, and to recognize his visit and our commitment to respectful dialogue and democratic engagement and discussion. Regarding the investigation, we are working with legal counsel to determine and better understand the scope and basis of the complaints made and what violations are alleged to have occurred. Thank you.

---

And then:

quote:

---

It was moved by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Jones, that the ratification of Special Resolution for Senator Bernie Sanders be moved to Thursday’s Regular Session for consideration.

---

Prior to this, there is no mention of Bernie Sanders going back at least through April's minutes (both regular and work minutes). This, the very first mention I can find, is someone standing up and asking why they had gone "outside of (their) own process" (of proposing in a non-public meeting). He then asks if there would have been a ratification if they had not been called out on what they were doing. The Commission then follows that by adding its ratification to their regular meeting's agenda on 07/03/2025.

In other words, this is proof there were at least some (perhaps all) members who had proposed and agreed upon the resolution outside of procedure and this person called them out on it.

quote:

---

My understanding is that no proposal was ever made.

---

Your understanding is in error as we've seen from the meeting minutes I've posted. Again though... if I'm wrong please provide the meeting minutes where the resolution was proposed in the first place.

quote:

---

Using your analogy, the "fruit" in this situation would be a resolution welcoming a sitting US senator to Caddo Parish.

---

That is correct. Let me be clear, I think Bernie is a socialist nutbag ...BUT... if some Commission wants to pass a resolution officially welcoming him then that's their business as long as they it legally (since they are a legal body performing an action, that action needs to be legal regardless of what it is).

quote:

---

So we have at the very meeting where the resolution was ratified, mention that the process (of proposal in a public forum) was negated.

---

We have no evidence that the resolution was ever proposed before it was presented publicly, which is what I've been suggesting.

quote:

---

In other words, this is proof there were at least some (perhaps all) members who had proposed and agreed upon the resolution outside of procedure and this person called them out on it.

---

This is proof that no legal resolution was made because procedure was not followed.

quote:

---

if I'm wrong please provide the meeting minutes where the resolution was proposed in the first place.

---

It was not proposed. You first alleged that it was proposed in a meeting that violated the Open Meetings Law. I suggested that no proposal was ever made and the resolution was ceremonial, not binding.

ETA: If you make me an offer, I'll consider being your paralegal.

They cant do it.

Its a mental disorder.

quote:

---

Wait...you have a picture of Cubbies? Gross

---

She wasn't that terribly unattractive, in a 40-year-old Mary Landrieu, dyke sort of way.

quote:

---

Their procedures are irrelevant if they are contrary to state law. To create the document there had to first be a proposal for the document (ie: what it would say). That did not happen in a public meeting, thus it was a violation of state law.

As I said in a previous post, the courts have traditionally looked at post-ratification in a public meeting as mooting it from their purview, but I think that's just taking the lazy way out and here's why:

While "fruit of the poisonous tree" is normally a criminal court philosophy which holds that evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of an illegal government action is inadmissible in court.

If we were to apply the philosophy to this civil matter, then the "poisonous tree" is the initial illegal conduct of the proposal of the resolution being held outside of a public meeting. The "fruit" therefore would be the ratified resolution as it was based off of the illegal proposal.

So instead of the court considering the point moot because the commission did the correct thing after the fact, they should be considering that the whole thing is in error because it started from a legally unavailable source.
...

---

Unless they have something very different in their Charter or Ordinances, a resolution can generally be introduced and adopted in a same meeting.

The reason the subsequent action fixes the issue is because you now have a properly adopted instrument, prior procedural issues are therefore irrelevant concerning the final adopted instrument. The only issue would be the effective date of something like an ordinance would be that it would only be enforceable from the later date.

Finally, the open meetings law iteself gives you sixty days to challenge a violation or its becomes a moot point.

quote:

---

We have no evidence that the resolution was ever proposed before it was presented publicly, which is what I've been suggesting.

---

We do. We have the acknowledgement in the June meeting that the resolution already existed. It could not exist if it had not already been proposed. There are no meetings where it was proposed, thus it was proposed outside of a public meeting, which is verboten.

quote:

---

This is proof that no legal resolution was made because procedure was not followed

---

Correct, it means the resolution itself should not have been able to be advanced to ratification because it had come about outside the rules for public meetings.

quote:

---

It was not proposed.

---

It could not exist if it weren't proposed first. That's like saying a baby exists without someone having had to have been pregnant with it first.

quote:

---

You first alleged that it was proposed in a meeting that violated the Open Meetings Law. I suggested that no proposal was ever made and the resolution was ceremonial, not binding.

---

It doesn't matter if it's ceremonial or not, the proposal was for it to be an official act, thus the proposal is an official act and official acts outside of public meetings are against the law.

quote:

---

ETA: If you make me an offer, I'll consider being your paralegal.

---

I only pay in week-old taquitos and Mad Dog 20/20.

quote:

---

well you still won't admit to why you saved it

---

Liar. There's nothing to "admit" to. You're NOT that special. Still waiting for you to "admit" to what motivated you to post that photo of yourself and a child.

I've told you I've saved photos from all TD members who've posted pictures of themselves.

I even have photos from the early days of TigerDroppings when members got together for TD sponsored LSU tailgate parties. (Sadly, at least 2 of the TDers in those photos have passed away.)

SFP was in rare form at those parties. And maybe you remember the poster "Drunkie"?

I even have a selfie of the elusive & mysterious Lester Earl who wanted to show others how swole he was.

Chicken even showed up in the background of a photo celebrating on the football field following LSU winning a BCS title.

And one of my all-time favorite photos was a selfie by a TD poster's wife with her boobs hanging out after she saw her husband posting "Rally Boobs" pictures in a baseball in-game thread. The Tigers were trailing in a crucial SEC away game so she wanted to help contribute to the Tigers' comeback rally & SEC win! When he posted his wife's photo he acknowledged he was going to be banned, which he was with a quickness, but he said he was willing to take one for the team! Geaux Tigers!!

But I've never re-posted any of those photos. Not even yours, Ms.Flibbertigibbet.

quote:

---

We do. We have the acknowledgement in the June meeting that the resolution already existed.

---

Bernie Sanders was presented with the resolution when he visited Caddo Parish on June 21, 2025. The meeting in June that mentions the resolution occurred on June 30, 2025. There is no public evidence showing when or how the resolution came into existence before it was presented to Senator Sanders on June 21.

quote:

---

I only pay in week-old taquitos and Mad Dog 20/20.

---

That explains a lot about your recent inconsistencies.

quote:

---

Bernie Sanders was presented with the resolution when he visited Caddo Parish on June 21, 2025. The meeting in June that mentions the resolution occurred on June 30, 2025. There is no public evidence showing when or how the resolution came into existence before it was presented to Senator Sanders on June 21.

---

So it was ratified after it was presented? So you're saying an official act happened and then it was ratified?

quote:

---

That explains a lot about your recent inconsistencies.

---