Forecast: Blue skies and bright sunshine

There are some media outlets that self impose muck blackout periods in advance of elections, some as long as two weeks out. We can tell from this Advocate story on St Tammany DA Candidate Roy Burns claiming two homestead exemptions that if such a news blackout policy exists there, two weeks is not the deadline. I like that.

The Trainor campaign has complained about the Advocate’s coverage of his candidacy for DA, but it looks to me like the gang at the Advocate has been equal opportunity in this particular race. That said James Gill today continues to explore the civil suit-criminally charged St Tammany justice-industrial complex and the ties that bind the players. Worth noting is Brian Trainor’s campaign promise to not do civil work if elected DA, something he should enforce on the entirety of his office should he be elected. Full time criminal justice employees have no business doing outside work as it too easily leads to very bad places.

Finally I am ready to roll out some courthouse muck and maybe even a little something about Mary.

16 thoughts on “Forecast: Blue skies and bright sunshine”

  1. Good to see that the ethically challenged Trainor is feeling the need to expose errors committed by the Strain endorsed ex assessor Core. Not good for Burns but hardly a deal breaker as our Sen Jack Donahue bilked the assessor for at least 20x what Roy did. i am in the anybody but Trainor camp as Trainor had a hand in the prison consent decree issues, multiple prison escapes, bro in law deal on the troubled work release program and most recently billed thousands in legal fees to a major vendor a major ethical lapse.

  2. To clarify, the STP jail was faced with a consent decree but was able to get the DOJ to only issue a MOU. Bottom line, Trainor did a poor job as head of corrections.

  3. JR: Still want to know if Roy Burns is a relative of the man with the Burns last name who attended Reed’s social party in 1994 and the Times-Picayune wrote a social piece declaring that this Burns man was related to Walter Reed ( i.e. meaning , is Roy Burns in any way related directly or indirectly through marriage to this Burns man who the TP declared a relative to Walter Reed ?)

    Which leads one to ask the depressing question: Could Greedy Reedy, who always wants more, more and da’ most ; be riding more than one horse in this election ? i.e. Cher place yo’ bet on No.1 and yo’ gets to cash in even if horse 1A done wins !

      1. rfp: I believe the Times-Picayune social article describing the social party at Walter Reed’s house and his guest list appeared in the November 6th or 9th,1994 edition and the article described a Burns man in attendance who was also described as some kind of relative to Reed.

        Someone in the media just needs to ask candidate Roy Burns if he is in any way related through blood to Walter Reed or to Reed through marriage, especially if it is true that Roy Burns worked as an Asst. DA in Satanic Tammany Parish under Reed.

        Roy Burns says he is an ” independent” so lets just make sure he is.

        1. CORRECTION: Sara Paragones, staff writer at the Advocate, stated Roy Burns worked as an Asst. DA under Marion Farmer, the DA predecessor to Walter Reed, and not under Walter Reed as previously written by me in above comment.

          http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/sttammany/10597209-171/st-tammany-district-attorney-candidate

          Maybe Sara could get Roy to categorically state that he is neither a distant relative by blood or marriage to Walter Reed.

  4. Doug, having four od decades of experience with the birdcage liner at 3800 Howard Avenue, up close and professional, some of those “news blackouts” are measured in years.

  5. I know all of the candidates in this race. Roy and Warren would make fine DA’s. But, having dealt with Brian when he was an ADA, I can say that he always treated me with professionalism and class. That, and his experience, are why I am supporting him.

    The claim that he is “unethical” is laughable and made by someone who either does not know how to read the newspaper or who is unfamiliar with the Rules of Professional Responsibility. The attempt to try to smear Brian with an article about the Sheriff’s law firm and their representation of a disgruntled client is regrettable.

    The suggestion that he did a poor job on representing the Sheriff in his dealings with the DOJ is also misguided. It would have been his job to obtain the best and least oppressive agreement with the DOJ for the benefit of his employer; to suggest otherwise is just stupid.

    If you are going to make negative comments about someone and allude to their “bro in law deals” or other alleged questionable practices, either set forth the details or come out from behind the cloak of anonymity.

    1. In all fairness to Locke, brother Truitt, only a fool would decloak himself and risk the potential for retaliation by a staatsanwalt blessed with near-inpenetrable immunity by the Supreme Jesters and of course having use of the power of the taxpayer purse to engage in a Clausewitzian materialschlachten with Mr. Locke. Obviously the layman loses THAT battle.

      I would agree with you on the DOJ battle, in the sense that one would echo Earl Long who told Perez “what you gonna do now, Lea, now the feds have got themselves the A-bomb?”

    2. You imply that Trainor brokered the deal for the MoU with the DoJ. Do you know this to be true?

      I suspect he would have been too busy with his job running corrections to do any legal work on it.

  6. What is the Rule of Professional Responsibility that says so, Mr. Jr.? You are an obvious supporter of one of Trainor’s opponents and have decided to use this venue as your bully pulpit, which is your right. But if you make allegations, support them with facts, not conclusory statements. I am sure that Mr. Handshoe would agree on that point.

    1. Jack, I do not believe Trainor the lawyer did anything unetical here. I believe Trainor the chief deputy was wrong in working off the clock for a vendor that Trainor oversees. Clear conflict. This arrangement would not pass the smell test in any ethical public entity.

    1. JR and Jack Pruitt:

      From a good government stand point it does not look good for Satanic Tammany to continue a situation where the Sheriff politically backs one of his deputies for DA and then said DA in return backs the Sheriff. Sheriffs and DAs should only have a working relationship and nothing more PERIOD. Those are the facts and said good government conclusions.

      Hopefully one day Satanic/ Slammy Tammany will regain its original good name if Zurick can free himself from Greedy Reeds’, Trainor’s and HUGHes’ aholes and move onto the 22nd JDC judges.

      More Facts: Trainor’s on leave from the Sheriff’s office and Hughes’ racism is causing politicos to ask for his legal head and license on a PLATEsmier , all from one civil case GONE WRONG and reported thereon:

      http://www.fox8live.com/story/26885238/zurik-new-orleans-lawmaker-wants-hughes-barred-from-state-business

      How many other civil cases are there in existence similar to this one that we and the media don’t know about? Sheriff STRAINS credibility when he states there are only about 20 other legal cases per year that Trainor was working on that did not take any time away from his regular 9-5 deputy duty. So Sheriff STRAINS- I guess all the opposing counsels and courts shut down so Trainor won’t be tempted to do any private legal work on his shift, right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *