I’ve had the good luck to have the best partner-in-blog ever – and the bad luck to know all too well how Ashton’s rants can be disturbing, at best. Consequently, this is my first post on USA v O’Dwyer despite my long-time support of alternatives to incarceration, particularly for those with an apparent need for health and/or mental health services.
Magistrate Judge Karen Hayes, however, merits recognition and I wanted to tip my hat to her sensible, yet sensitive, handling of the situation. The Minute Entry documenting her decision noted, “Counsel for the Government object to the setting of a bond”. It also noted the Magistrate granted the Government’s “motion for pretrial psychiatric and psychological examination for competency to stand trial” and set other conditions for O’Dwyer’s release to home confinement on an unsecured $100,000 appearance bond:
Stay tuned to Fox 8 for the latest developments on the Tuesday Night Massacre as Val Bracy evidently taped an extensive interview with Ms Vandenweghe,the second part of which aired at 5pm today. While there is no video up yet on the story we do have Val’s print report from which we glean a few more nuggets including a bomb shell regarding discrepancies in responses to public records requests involving the River Birch landfill:
“In August of last year we received requests from a law firm in Baton Rouge for copies of the River Birch contract. The initial response to the individual’s public records response was in August or September. In, I believe November when the grand jury subpoena for the River Birch information came in I received a totally different response from the same people. The signature pages were not the same and what I turned over to the grand jury were four different signature pages,” said Vandenweghe.
I’m not certain if Theriot’s remarks for today’s story were in the can or new but of I had to guess, given his quotes from Friday’s report I bet they are new and Mr Parish President is feeling a bit less secure concerning the “proof” of her playing on the computer. If I may be so bold, I’ll add that I think Mr Theriot is still trying to dig dirt on Ms Vandenweghe so that he can make the firing stick. IMHO Mr Theriot has been a very naughty boy who has been caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar.
Slabbed is the end result an internet community sharing a wealth of information. This post and others in the upcoming series were made possible by the efforts of two people, primarily BayRat4Life and secondarily a reader that we’ll call Alex Trebek who gave us the answer which, in turn, helped us define the question, “Why did the Jefferson Parish Council install Steve Theriot as interim Parish President.” This series of posts deals with the history of River Birch Landfill, as we highlight the various players involved in securing the exclusive arrangement it now enjoys with the Parish. We begin today in the middle of the River Birch timeline back in 1995.
1995 was the pivotal year for River Birch Inc, a company founded in 1968 by Albert “Butch” “Jim” Ward. 1995 would also mark a turning point for the company in its quest to become a permitted landfill as Mr Ward cut a deal that would bring new ownership to the company. So we begin at the end of 1995 and set the stage for 1996 as I quote from the narrative of an opinion which ultimately resulted from a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Michelle Finnegan:
Gotta give the NOPD credit on this one. They fired the perpertrators. But the fix is in all the way up chain. Next stop, a meet and greet at the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as we now go back in time:
Robmi Evangelist, a New Orleans police officer, appealed his termination by the Superintendent of Police, Warren Riley, to the New Orleans Civil Service Commission. The Commission denied his appeal. He then filed an appeal in this court. We reversed that denial and we rendered judgment in Mr. Evangelist’s favor. Upon the timely application of the appointing authority, we granted rehearing in this matter in order to consider video evidence which was inaccessible to us at the time we first decided this appeal. Having now accessed the video evidence, and after allowing the parties additional briefs and oral argument, for the reasons which follow, we reverse the decision of the Commission.