- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
re: St. George Opposition Committing to Lawsuits
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:23 pm to PoBoy1
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:23 pm to PoBoy1
quote:
The matter is "randomly alloted" to Judge Fields
He'd have to recuse.
His brother is the Senator-elect for the seat that includes a large part of what is now St. George.
2
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:24 pm to LSUengr
Typical. Don’t like the law, can’t win or change it, so just sue.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:28 pm to LSUengr
Two interesting paragraphs from the linked article;
Now Cormier wants these residents in Baton Rouge. Why now? Why not a couple of years ago? Does she live in one of these neighborhoods? Didn’t someone say she lived by Episcopal HS?
Now if these folks want in BR there are ways to do that and I wish them luck, but this woman seems crazy to me.
quote:
In the wake of Saturday’s vote to incorporate St. George, several neighborhoods located inside the boundaries of the new city have taken the first steps toward seeking annexation into the city of Baton Rouge. As of mid-morning, volunteers with One Baton Rouge, which has opposed the St. George incorporation effort, had prepared annexation petitions for six neighborhoods that voted against the measure in Saturday’s election, according to M.E. Cormier, lead organizer of One Baton Rouge.
Now Cormier wants these residents in Baton Rouge. Why now? Why not a couple of years ago? Does she live in one of these neighborhoods? Didn’t someone say she lived by Episcopal HS?
Now if these folks want in BR there are ways to do that and I wish them luck, but this woman seems crazy to me.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:28 pm to LSUengr
quote:I'm probably one of the biggest opponents on this board regarding the St. George incorporation but the quote I posted above royally pisses me off.
Legal challenges are expected to focus, among other things, on the fact that the entire parish was not allowed to vote on the incorporation issue.
I absolutely despise when the loser of ANY election, including Hillary's followers since 2016 and Al Gore's followers in 2000, try to change the election rules ex post facto. That stinks to high heaven.
Like I said in another thread, there are a bunch of lawyers salivating over the number of billable hours they are going to amass......
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:29 pm to udtiger
quote:
He'd have to recuse.
His brother is the Senator-elect for the seat that includes a large part of what is now St. George.
udtiger, do you actually believe this?Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:30 pm to Alleman
It would argue it's a peremptory basis for recusal.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:31 pm to arseinclarse
So, the people that were NOT EVER part of the City of Baton Rouge should not be able to decided if THEY want to form THEIR own city or not w/o the permission of the city THEY were never part of.
The current laws say THEY can, and THEY did.
Now we are going to cry that the margin of victory was just not enough for those evil people. Not gonna win that one. Recount, maybe but crying that it was just no far enough over 50% for our liking is a joke.
Or maybe Johnny is a little worried that the property values on his current and proposed developments in the BR are going to go down....
Lawyers: uuuhhh your honor, we had an election and you see they only won by 2,554 votes and we, uuuuhhh, don't think that is enough. So like could you just nullify the democratic process and strike the laws that protect these situations cause our rich clients are mad and they really, really don't like this thing.
Judge: You serious, Clark?
Lawyers: Uuuuh, weellll, its not fair for the City of Baton Rouge.
Judge: But these people were not in the City of Baton Rouge and followed state laws to incorporate their own city.
Lawyers: uuummm, but yeah, we still don't like it and well you should stop it because its racist bc they kept these other people out of the vote.
Judge: But those people didn't want to be in the new city therefore they could not vote on it.
Lawyers: But they should have been able to vote on it because they are by it.
Judge: That's not how this works, that is not how any of this works.
The current laws say THEY can, and THEY did.
Now we are going to cry that the margin of victory was just not enough for those evil people. Not gonna win that one. Recount, maybe but crying that it was just no far enough over 50% for our liking is a joke.
Or maybe Johnny is a little worried that the property values on his current and proposed developments in the BR are going to go down....
Lawyers: uuuhhh your honor, we had an election and you see they only won by 2,554 votes and we, uuuuhhh, don't think that is enough. So like could you just nullify the democratic process and strike the laws that protect these situations cause our rich clients are mad and they really, really don't like this thing.
Judge: You serious, Clark?
Lawyers: Uuuuh, weellll, its not fair for the City of Baton Rouge.
Judge: But these people were not in the City of Baton Rouge and followed state laws to incorporate their own city.
Lawyers: uuummm, but yeah, we still don't like it and well you should stop it because its racist bc they kept these other people out of the vote.
Judge: But those people didn't want to be in the new city therefore they could not vote on it.
Lawyers: But they should have been able to vote on it because they are by it.
Judge: That's not how this works, that is not how any of this works.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:32 pm to doubleb
Problem for her is the only way they can do this is:
1) St.G formally incorporates
2) Neighborhood petitions to unincorporate (revert back to unincorporated area)
3) Petition to join BR
1) St.G formally incorporates
2) Neighborhood petitions to unincorporate (revert back to unincorporated area)
3) Petition to join BR
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:34 pm to LSURussian
One up vote
I vote the “wrong” side quite often, but have always accepted an election result.
The country is losing more and more when leaders refuse to follow our laws and accept our election results.
I vote the “wrong” side quite often, but have always accepted an election result.
The country is losing more and more when leaders refuse to follow our laws and accept our election results.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:34 pm to udtiger
quote:
It would argue it's a peremptory basis for recusal.
I'm sure it would be argued but Fields would refuse to recuse and make some pretrial judgement against St. George which would take time and money to appeal only to have the case returned back to the 19th JDC several months later.
This tactic was used in the first petition drive.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:36 pm to udtiger
quote:
Problem for her is the only way they can do this is:
1) St.G formally incorporates
2) Neighborhood petitions to unincorporate (revert back to unincorporated area)
3) Petition to join BR
If they elect to do this it’s fine by me. It’s their right to do so.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:37 pm to LSUengr
quote:
“Two thousand people should not be able to decide the fate of everyone in Baton Rouge,” Engquist says.
In that case, I'm sure Mr. Engquist will joining me in my lawsuit to bring down the EBR Council on Aging tax, since that only passed by 2,135 votes.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:40 pm to Brummy
quote:
In that case, I'm sure Mr. Engquist will joining me in my lawsuit to bring down the EBR Council on Aging tax, since that only passed by 2,135 votes
Can we get our money back now?
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:40 pm to LSUengr
And guess who gets to pay for these fricking lawyers?
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:41 pm to doubleb
Technically it was 32,288 people that decided.
17,421 said "yes"
14,867 said "no"
54%
I feel like that is what democracy is right?
These people are exhausting. I'm surprised they went straight for the lawsuit phase of their "we lost" plan. Normally they start with "we demand a recount". Then they go to "the recount person is a crook, one of our people should recount". Then they move on to baseless accusations and lawsuits.
17,421 said "yes"
14,867 said "no"
54%
I feel like that is what democracy is right?
These people are exhausting. I'm surprised they went straight for the lawsuit phase of their "we lost" plan. Normally they start with "we demand a recount". Then they go to "the recount person is a crook, one of our people should recount". Then they move on to baseless accusations and lawsuits.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:42 pm to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
And guess who gets to pay for these fricking lawyers?
I hope Enquist keeps his word and pays. I don’t want my tax dollars suing SG.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:43 pm to LSUengr
So much for respecting the vote like they said they would on Saturday night.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:46 pm to The Rodfather
quote:
Technically it was 32,288 people that decided.
17,421 said "yes"
14,867 said "no"
54%
I feel like that is what democracy is right?
These people are exhausting. I'm surprised they went straight for the lawsuit phase of their "we lost" plan. Normally they start with "we demand a recount". Then they go to "the recount person is a crook, one of our people should recount". Then they move on to baseless accusations and lawsuits.
Actually all eligible voters decided.
41% decided it wasn’t important, or they couldn’t make up their minds, or they didn’t understand the issues involved so they elected to have their neighbors decide. But they all were part of the process and allowed to vote.
I know when BREC or EBRSS rolls out a tax renewal and only 20% if the eligible voters go to the polls it still counts as an election.
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:46 pm to LSUengr
I find myself agreeing with LSURussian which joking aside he is right.
The election is over with and one side won.
Presidential election done by electoral college it is over with also.
People that said they would move never did.
This election was done by number of votes and is over with.
I bet both sides want to move on except for a few people.
If the same people really cared about this parish we would not be in this situation.
The bayous would be cleaned to help with flooding, more roads would be fixed, even the Gardere area would not flood with the South Waste Treatment Plant backs up, and CAO would have real programs to truly help seniors that need programs.
The election is over with and one side won.
Presidential election done by electoral college it is over with also.
People that said they would move never did.
This election was done by number of votes and is over with.
I bet both sides want to move on except for a few people.
If the same people really cared about this parish we would not be in this situation.
The bayous would be cleaned to help with flooding, more roads would be fixed, even the Gardere area would not flood with the South Waste Treatment Plant backs up, and CAO would have real programs to truly help seniors that need programs.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 4:56 pm
Posted on 10/15/19 at 4:47 pm to LSUengr
Enquist may be successful in his business but he sounds like an idiot here. A mere 2,000 people were not given the opportunity to decide the future of the new St. George. Tens of thousands of registered voters were given the opportunity. Of those, only a percentage decided they cared enough to vote one way or another. Of those that voted, the pro-incorporation side won.
I was fairly ambivalent about St George but decided that we needed to try something new so I voted in favor. Now these fools are pissing me off trying to undo a legal vote. I happen to live in one of the neighborhoods where they are trying to round up support for a petition to be incorporated into Baton Rouge. I don’t understand how that is possible at this point. I understand that the election results have not been certified but it seems to me that any area that is on the newly approved cut today St George is no longer eligible to seek incorporation into another incorporated area. At least not without first unincorporating from St George.
It really pisses me off that we are still fighting this battle after the voters voted. Move forward. The fighting only delays any progress for everyone, St George and Baton Rouge alone.
I was fairly ambivalent about St George but decided that we needed to try something new so I voted in favor. Now these fools are pissing me off trying to undo a legal vote. I happen to live in one of the neighborhoods where they are trying to round up support for a petition to be incorporated into Baton Rouge. I don’t understand how that is possible at this point. I understand that the election results have not been certified but it seems to me that any area that is on the newly approved cut today St George is no longer eligible to seek incorporation into another incorporated area. At least not without first unincorporating from St George.
It really pisses me off that we are still fighting this battle after the voters voted. Move forward. The fighting only delays any progress for everyone, St George and Baton Rouge alone.
This post was edited on 10/15/19 at 4:48 pm
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News