- 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
St. George Fires Back at Lawsuit
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:16 pm
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:16 pm
WBRZ - Court documents
STG Organizers contend that SWB, LaMont Cole, and ME Cormier have no standing in the lawsuit contesting the election that incorporated STG on Oct. 12, 2019, and also MOP cannot act as the attorney for SWB w/o authorization from the MetCo. Also, the C-P Plan of Government restricting any future incorporations is unconstitutional.
STG Organizers contend that SWB, LaMont Cole, and ME Cormier have no standing in the lawsuit contesting the election that incorporated STG on Oct. 12, 2019, and also MOP cannot act as the attorney for SWB w/o authorization from the MetCo. Also, the C-P Plan of Government restricting any future incorporations is unconstitutional.
9
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:19 pm to tommy2tone1999
Any progress on the Amite Trail?
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:19 pm to tommy2tone1999
We got big dicks and fighting spirits here in St. George.
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:25 pm to tommy2tone1999
quote:
LaMont Cole
Massive piece of shite
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:27 pm to tommy2tone1999
You know they dirtied up the water on purpose. If I’m Morvant, I’m having the standing hearing in the next month.
I’ve read some of it and those anti-St. George people are in for a rude awakening.
I’ve read some of it and those anti-St. George people are in for a rude awakening.
This post was edited on 12/2/19 at 11:47 pm
Posted on 12/2/19 at 11:51 pm to Lickitty Split
Democrats hate the will of the people. How do people continue to vote Democrat. It makes no sense to me.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 12:07 am to tommy2tone1999
Any way it can be a counter suit and sue those NBR assholes for good measure?
Posted on 12/3/19 at 5:52 am to Mahootney
Will just get thrown out by Trudy, you watch..
Posted on 12/3/19 at 5:54 am to tenderfoot tigah
Some of the big financial backers of the anti-St. George movement are some of the biggest Republican movers-and-shakers in the parish.
ETA: I know Christina Peck, one of the attorneys for St. George. I would rather tangle with an insane bobcat than that woman.
ETA: I know Christina Peck, one of the attorneys for St. George. I would rather tangle with an insane bobcat than that woman.
This post was edited on 12/3/19 at 6:06 am
Posted on 12/3/19 at 8:31 am to Amblin
Trudy isn't the presiding judge for this case. Morvant is
Posted on 12/3/19 at 8:44 am to tommy2tone1999
Thxs Tommy
Something for the lawyers here to chew on.
Something for the lawyers here to chew on.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 8:45 am to Amblin
quote:
Will just get thrown out by Trudy, you watch..
William Morvant is the judge in this case.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:07 am to tommy2tone1999
Fighting the standing issue seems like Don Quixote fighting the windmill. RS 33:4 Gives standing to municipal governments, individual members of municipal governments, residents of the area to be incorporated, or landowners in the area to be incorporated. Spending money fighting standing seems like poor strategy, because even if Broome's suit is illegitimate, there are many many opponents with standing under 33:4 who can file subsequent suits.
It seems the better strategy is to fight the suit on facts where St George might be stronger.
It seems the better strategy is to fight the suit on facts where St George might be stronger.
This post was edited on 12/3/19 at 9:08 am
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:15 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
Also, the C-P Plan of Government restricting any future incorporations is unconstitutional.
Interesting. What part of the plan of government does this refer to? I'm assuming the argument is that it conflicts with the state constitution's guidelines for incorporation in some way?
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:15 am to BlackAdam
quote:
e Fires Back at Lawsuit by BlackAdam
Fighting the standing issue seems like Don Quixote fighting the windmill.
I don’t believe they challenged Ungelsby’s standing.
Besides challenging Broome’s. Cole’s and Cormier’s standing they also challenged assertions made in the lawsuit itself.
Furthermore they also asked the court to declare SG a municipality as of 11/23.
There’s a lot to chew on beside standing if the four plaintiffs.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:17 am to Huey Lewis
quote:
Interesting. What part of the plan of government does this refer to? I'm assuming the argument is that it conflicts with the state constitution's guidelines for incorporation in some way?
The court has previously ruled that EBR’s ordinance to limit cities in EBR is contrary to the state constitution.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:18 am to doubleb
quote:
I don’t believe they challenged Ungelsby’s standing.
Well if Unglesby has standing the suit is legitimate. So again why litigate points that aren't in question? They are begging for money on Facebook, yet they are willing to spend that money on points that don't matter?
St. George needs better legal representation.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:18 am to Huey Lewis
quote:
Interesting. What part of the plan of government does this refer to? I'm assuming the argument is that it conflicts with the state constitution's guidelines for incorporation in some way?
Broome wants to amend the PoG to forbid future incorporations within the parish, a direct violation of the state's constitution.
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:20 am to Huey Lewis
quote:
Interesting. What part of the plan of government does this refer to? I'm assuming the argument is that it conflicts with the state constitution's guidelines for incorporation in some way?
Plan of Government limits incorporated cities in EBR to 4. That is probably unconstitutional. I say probably as in "it is unconstitutional but you never know what a lower court will do."
Posted on 12/3/19 at 9:22 am to BlackAdam
quote:
Well if Unglesby has standing the suit is legitimate. So again why litigate points that aren't in question? They are begging for money on Facebook, yet they are willing to spend that money on points that don't matter?
St. George needs better legal representation.
Adam, the OP linked the response to the lawsuit. Did you read it?
Page 1 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News