The poor litigants in this case have Judge LaDart feeding the Beaver and evidently caught Judge Windhorst on a hangover on the recusal motion. The prevailing legal theory is Judge Windhorst will do less damage on the Louisiana 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In any event the below tells the tale.
Rut roh! (And TheRiot is toast)
Definitions and Instructions
a. Neither the word “or” nor the word “and” should be interpreted so as to eliminate any part of any response to any of these Requests.
b. “You” means Defendants, the Parish of Jefferson and Steve J. Theriot, and any of their agents or employees acting within the scope of their agency or employment.
c. “Documents” means anything within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Please identify all at-will Parish employees terminated by the Parish after John Young became Parish President; identify all such employees who refused to submit a resignation letter as a condition of employment.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Please explain, in detail, why the Plaintiff’s employment with the Parish of Jefferson was terminated. Was Plaintiff’s refusal to submit a letter of resignation the sole reason for her termination? If not, please identify any other reasons.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Does the Parish currently require employees to submit letter of resignation as a condition of continued employment? If not, advise why this policy was changed and when.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Do the defendants acknowledge that the Plaintiff was cooperating with Federal authorities in corruption investigations? If so, please identify all persons with knowledge of Plaintiff’s cooperation, the dates that they became aware, and any adverse action, response, emails, memoranda or correspondence generated in response to Plaintiff’s cooperation. Continue reading “Lets discover something about Vandenweghe v Jefferson Parish and TheRiot”
Supporters of Good Government:
Some of the issues which were brought up in speeches by Citizens for Good Government at the October 24th Jefferson Parish Council meeting were covered in an article on the Times-Picayune’s nola.com website by reporter Manuel Torres.
CFGG Chairman Margaret Baird talked about recommended changes in the way that routine engineering contracts, which cost less than $300,000, are awarded by the Jefferson Parish Council. She suggested that the council give serious consideration to the recommendations for reforming this process specified in the Bureau of Governmental Research’s recently-released report, “Reforming Jefferson Parish’s Unusual Approach to Service Contracting.” Margaret pointed out that the BGR recommendations have been ignored by the council.
Vice-Chairman Margie Seemann spoke about the newly-implemented Solicitation Affidavits, which require contractors to list the names of all elected officials who have solicited a campaign contribution from them by telephone or by personal contact during the previous two years and to list the approximate date of such solicitation.
Margie commended the councilmen for passing this ordinance, but she pointed out that the failure of the ordinance to require the Solicitation Affidavit to list the names of elected officials FOR WHOM solicitations for campaign contributions were made for them by others, such as their staff, a relative, or a campaign worker, was problematic. She suggested the passage of a new ordinance which would require the Solicitation Affidavit filed by the contractors to not only list the names of elected officials who solicited contributions from them, but to also list the names of elected officials for whom solicitations were made for them by others. Unfortunately, all of the councilmen who responded to the Times-Picayune reporter were opposed to our suggestion. Continue reading “Citizens for Good Government issues statement on yesterday’s Jefferson Parish Council meeting”