I apologize again for being remiss in posting a new thread. Apparently it is do to my being a "bad businessman" a "racist" a "bigot" and "Adolf Hitler".
I wish to communicate the following to certain segments of this blog:
1) this blog was initially set up for the use of like minded individuals. Those being intelligent, pragmatists who wanted to better their community. It has been taken over by illiterate, ner-do-wells who spread their self hatred and inadequecies upon those who don't wish to hear it and are villified and otherwise disgusted.
2) The number one reason I have chosen to answer these assinine remarks: Lamar is a very insightful individual. He is entitled to his opinions as ufortunately are you. Lamar's physical condition does not belong any where on this blog. Neither does who is sleeping with whom. To those that have been injured by the phycologically stupid bloggers here, I apologize deeply as do the other intelligent individuals that read and post on Cenla Antics.
3) Mr. Gregg Aymond, Do not come onto this blog and attack everyone and not expect to be attacked yourself. Mr. Aymond has taken it upon himself to threaten a lawsuit against me, because someone has apparently accused him of misconduct. Is this not what he is accusing others of? Mr. Aymond, I am a private citizen and not subject to the constraints of an elected official. Challenge me sir, Please. Apparently you have done quite well in your profession and while sitting back in your luxurious office can spend as much of your time as you want enflaming everyone that you deem a threat to you. I do not have the time or money to fight you, but fight I will.
4) Mr. Geoffrey Clegg, I am not a racist, marxist, or a bigot. Nor do I teach this philosophy. Do you understand that statement.
5) I served as the Parish Chairperson for the Bush/Cheney Campaign. I did so because I believe in the political process. I did so because I was tired of seeing my country go to hell while others sat and bitched. Many people have thought that I was a Democrat due to my stance on certian issues. I served on two foundation boards while in New Orleans ... one was environmental the other served in a medical capacity to help the third worlds children. The point is I have served.
6) Mr. Aymond, perhaps I should let you sue me. That way when you suppoena the IP addresses we can all see, who the stupid, vile and repulsive are.
7) THIS BLOG IS HERE TO STAY...if you don't like it, don't read it ... it's not a hard concept to understand.
8) If you don't like the two party system we have and you only want your way ... LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
9) Get back to work and do something worthwhile ... for yourself, your family, your country, your state and YOUR COMMUNITY
373 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 373 of 373To:--->January 30, 2007 8:13:20 PM
You poor dumb shit...LMAO
I never said you were a coward, I said Lamar is a coward.
But maybe that last post was a slip-up.... Lamar!
But just in case you ain't Lamar...What I did say about you is that you're an ass face. You do know what that is don't ya junior?
LMAO....
again, researcher, i'm not lamar. i just happen to think you're the real coward. anyone else find it funny that researcher is so interested and thinks he knows so much about the aymond/pineville case?
Could it possibly be Researcher Dupree or Researcher Faircoth?
really there's only a handful of people who care or know enough about that case to cite statutes and get self righteous about it......
On another note.....reading the posts from several days ago about Rice University got me thinking about the days when LSU and Rice played each other in football every year. Seems like it was always early in the season.
There was this crazy cheer that was often done in the student section. It went like this:
One student (usually a very drunk one) would stand and shout: "What comes out of a Chinaman's ass?"
The crowd would respond in unison: "RICE, RICE, RICE"
To:---> January 30, 2007 8:43:23 PM
Hey assface..You say this???
"thinks he knows so much about the aymond/pineville case?"
Let me tell you this, right to your stinkin, piss ugly face peabrain...
I've forgotten more about Title 44 than you or any other poster here could possibly know.
Want proof??? I throw my challenge right back in your stupid face..
Name one...just one thing I have posted about this Pineville vs Aymond case that is factually incorrect.
Here's your big chance to prove me wrong assface...just one little bitty fact that's wrong...just one!
C'mon tuff guy...we're all waiting to see just how smart you really are. C'mon! Show us how much guts ya have! You wanna talk courage...show us what a big man you are.....Just one little wrong fact.
LMAO...what a moron.
Researcher has forgotten more about Title 44 than he ever knew. It's scarey. This asshole might be around kids or ladies. Well, at least he got his mama's vocabulary.
I know. Researcher keeps praying to some dead chinese communist ruler named L MAO. Think he's a pinko or a chinko or just a STINKO??
Well, it's hard to believe but the Roy administration is dropping the ball on take-home cars. All that talk about the potential financial and liability savings and then, "poof". What a crock of shit. The money he is protecting by scrutinizing the fight promoter is less than the cost of one of the cars. I guess their priority is whatever will get them "beads" in the Town Talk editorial. Don't worry Despino - you are safe for another 4 years.
Tues 4:01 - I am NOT a Lamar ass kisser. I called you out for your poor taste in the manner in which you attacked his dead father, his grandmother and then corrected your knowledge regarding Rice University.
I have not called you an SOB, illegitimate, accused your mother of being a roadwhore, etc.
However, I do believe you have a lot of hatred for the Whites and people like them. If you will re-read my original post, I stated my very clearly my issues with Lamar and his appointment to an unclassified position at the City. I did so without referring to his handicap, his dead father and his grandmother or any other member of his family.
Like you, I do not believe Lamar should be place in high regard yet. He hasn't earned my respect nor has he earned credibility with me. I have caught him in lies and schemes. I have also seen his inexperience at work, especially when it came to presenting his idea for Bringhurst. He thought you could just waltz in present an idea to the City and they would hand over the golf course, without considering the possibility someone else in the community might want to do the same thing. He allowed his entire proposal to become public knowledge. Anyone could have gotten a copy and made a presentation for the golf course and made a better proposal since they knew what was in his.
Lamar has a lot to learn about politics. He is developing a very thick skin which is something he will need.
P.S. I am not saying that your mother isn't a roadwhore either.
I wonder just how many of Alexandria's Granf Pubahs have city vehicles to use???
No one except the mayor and his second in command should be allowed the use of a city vehicle.
Police, fire, and public works excluded
Re: city cars
The administration and council got some get-tough quotes in the press and then just forgot about it just exactly as they have numerous times in the past. The double shame is that Roy promised things would really be different. Transparency is right - we are starting to see right through him.
Cut da cars!
I wonder if the City reports the value of the meals furnished the Councilmen on their tax form be it a W2 or 1099. I don't believe you can feed your employees free unless they are traveling and meet certain standards such as being away from home before a certain time and not returning until a certain time. I think this issue should be reported to the IRS.
It costs almost $1,000.00 a month to feed those deadheads one time a month. Most working people can't afford to spend that a month. Why in the world are we feeding these people?
Wonder what other unknown benefits besides food and cars the employees get.
"There are some days when meetings start at 1 PM and some councilmen haven't gotten lunch. This at least provides them with a chance to get some food between committee meetings and the full council meeting."
And this is the taxpayer's problem? Try this - call one of the local fast food joints, get your order delivered and pay for it yourself like the taxpayers have to do.
Do you think when Marshall grabs lunch when he is on his janitor job at the Patel Hotel he spends $66. It's a perq. and that's OK to have "benefits" but the public may not find this particulary attractive and the strategy of the new transparent, open, and above-board administration is to hide it behind locked doors. The only important question is this: How does it make you feel? These guys are spending $66 per councilman per meeting for snacks - this is not a meal. Think about that.
And when a meeting starts at 1:00 you do what the rest of us do when we have a noon - 1 lunch hour, you eat lunch before you go back to work. It's like the city car thing. It becomes obvious that they really don't care how they spend our money or what we think about it. It makes my ass "blossom".
osama for president
I don't think under ITS guidelines it is ok to have perq's that feed employees working at their work site and are thusly not away from home. IRS rules are such the personal benefit value of a perq must be reported as income on an individual. For instance, the use of a governmental vehicle to stop off at the grocery store on the way home is not legal. Transportation of family members on non-government business is not legal.
These are examples of personal use of a government owned asset and the use of these assets must either be reported as income or reimbursed.
Governmental agencies are finding out that many so called perq's are not legal.
Now explain to me how you can legally purchase $1,000.oo plus or minus worth of food for the council members. Despite their thoughts they are employees not annointed ones.
In order to quasi legalize this action the feed would have to be construed as a "buffet" spread for the citizens for a particular purpose and the council members would have to be invited guests. Even in this case you still are on shacky ground because not every citizen can avail themselves to the feed.
Wonder what they are eating that sells for $66.00 per person most especially when they consider it a snack? Just another example of selected City of Alexandria employees feeding at the trough of taxpayer's money.
And I thought Roy was going to stop this.
Gee, Researcher starts to post here and forces everyone to stick to the facts....AND THE NUMBER OF POSTS DECLINES!
What does that tell ya'll about deadheads who squatted on this blog for so long.
I say good riddence to Aymond, Lamar, and all their assinine followers.
No watch me get attacked by them all...C'mon guys, don't disappoint me.
Now why confuse the posters on this blog by expecting fact? Ask direct questions you get no answer your attacked, your father and mother are attacked and if you respond by attackting in the same manner the blog owner apologies to the lad who's name is no longer mentioned.
Aymond stirred the pot with his hatred then meets with the blog owner and everything is wonderful.
It appears certain ones can attack in any manner but let the one being attacked respond in the same manner and he/she is rebuked.
What the Lemmings fail to understand is as "parts is parts" facts is facts. All the name calling, dispariging remarks do not negate facts. When the din of battle settle the facts are still there.
I loved Jack Lemming in "The Odd Couple".
Poor anonymous bloggers have had their anonymous mommys and daddys attacked! Awwwwwwwwwwwww......
"Aymond stirred the pot with his hatred then meets with the blog owner and everything is wonderful."
I dont think he ever stirred the pot. he simply called you for what you people are. Cowards. i dont see you trolls going to lamar's site and spewing your venom. Why? Because it requires an email address and records your IP address. That alone is proof enough. Mr. Aymond and Mr. Carrier meet and decide that if some of this garbage keeps up he will get the IP addresses and out you. Hence, the dramatic slowdown in traffic here.
dlc apparently you must have been a fly on the wall during the Quint/Aymond meeting for I have not seen it posted that Quint agreed to furnish Aymond IP addresses.
It matters not that Aymond "I did reserve the option of obtaining the appropriate court orders to get the posters' of certain messages ISP addresses from Google, which I have been informed is possible." How do you reserve an option.
This is Aymond nonsense spin. Aymond, as anyone can, can file a suit to obtain the information from Goggle. Dlc if you would follow several recent rulings by the Courts you would find a person posting as anonymous has a certain expectation of privacy and by Goggle furnishing the Ip address this expectation is comprimised. I don't think Aymond scares Goggle.
"Gee, Researcher starts to post here and forces everyone to stick to the facts....AND THE NUMBER OF POSTS DECLINES!
What does that tell ya'll about deadheads who squatted on this blog for so long."
how many people know enough about pineville's strategy, the calender of events, applicable legal statutes, and exhibits that are missing from wesawthat's post on the case to write about it on cenla antics?
the truth is that researcher is either a central player in this case or one seriously bored individual.
aymond probably loves it, because researcher is showing pineville's cards to everyone who reads this blog. thanks to researcher, aymond knows exactly what his adversaries are thinking, and thanks to researcher, everyone who reads this blog now knows how vindicative and ugly those people can be.
"Dlc if you would follow several recent rulings by the Courts you would find a person posting as anonymous has a certain expectation of privacy and by Goggle furnishing the Ip address this expectation is comprimised."
Unless one can furnish evidence that they've been defamed.
There are three interesting set of legal issues for bloggers:
Republisher Liability: the site is used to post letters, responses, chat rooms, message boards. For the Republisher site, the Website is a neutral conduit, and cannot be sued. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such sites - including blogs that republish/link from other sources - are protected against libel.
Originator Liability: the Website can't be sued, but you can be sued. If you post on a blog, even though it is a neutral conduit and is protected, the originator is open to liability. The safe harbor is not true for everyone.
Protection against subpoenas: the Website falls under the shield law case, with unpublished material you don't want to testify about. The third case is currently at issue with the lawsuits against the Apple bloggers - and, the issue is whether or not those bloggers are protected as a journalist would be.
I believe the issue is far from settled.
Let's sit down to a couple $66 snacks and discuss.
Wow!
I hope that I'm so popular and important one day that people will waste precious time to talk about my family, salary, and education.
Only then will I know that I have arrived!
A CURIOUS THOUGHT - WHAT COURT IN lOUISIANA WOULD FIND THAT SOMEONE DEFAMED AYMOND?
HAR HAR HAR
In that dlc did not address the fact that the bloig site owner did not agree to furnish Aymond anything and Aymond's comment was related to obtaining information from Goggle the following is offerred:
In an affirmation of First Amendment rights on the
Internet, the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County ruled on
Thursday against a Massachusetts real estate developer's attempt to
obtain the identity of the operator of a critical Web site after a
similar lawsuit had already been dismissed in another state.
The court held that prior to allowing plaintiffs to discover the
identity of online critics, they must first show that their interest
outweighs the speakers' constitutional right to anonymous speech. It
joined a growing national consensus in holding that a plaintiff must
present evidence of wrongdoing before a speaker's First Amendment
right to anonymity can be violated.
Does anyone know what happened with Billy Allen?
ISP addresses could be obtained in pursuit of a defamation suit as the charge against a person for being a thief and liar could directly affect their ability to further their legal profession thereby affecting income hence damage to that person. Freedom of speech is free until you cost someone money - then, of course you will discover how much it really costs.
So Spanky, are you saying that the person that was alledgedly (sp?) defamed must prove that he was financially harmed before he will be allowed the IP addresses?
Is so...that's a damn high hurdle...
How else can a judgement amount be derived? Think about it for a moment.
Billy Allen info on previous thread
IP address would be divulged in the discovery process to find the guilty party.
No financial injury, no damage, no harm, no foul. Hurting someone's feeling won't get it.
So Spanky, are you saying that the person that was alledgedly (sp?) defamed must prove that he was financially harmed before he will be allowed the IP addresses?
Not at all, ever heard of general damages? That is an amount the court can award, even in a defamation suit, for things such as embarassment, humiliation and emotional distress.
Additionally, federal law allows the disclosure of ISP in to comply with a valid subpoena in a state court civil action. Notice does'nt even have to be given if it is a criminal matter, which defamation is also a crime in Louisiana. Of course, truth is an absoulte defense, so if it can be proven what was posted was true, then there has been no defamation.
One means of obtaining a subpoena is to file a lawsuit against John Doe, the unknown e-mail harasser, in state court. Such a lawsuit then can be used as the basis for subpoenaing from third parties necessary information about the John Doe harasser. Because discovery may not be permissible before the appearance or answer of John Doe, however, the John Doe action may need to be accompanied by an emergency motion for leave to take discovery before the appearance or answer of John Doe.
Additionally, an out-of-state Internet or e-mail service provider that is not registered to do business in the forum state may challenge the subpoena and require the issuance of a subpoena by its hometown court. Although such a challenge will add another layer of expense to the process, obtaining a locally issued subpoena is a routine matter accomplished by filing a petition for issuance of subpoena with the hometown court. Some entities, however, are fairly loose about their procedures and will accept service of a faxed subpoena issued by an out-of-state court. Hence, it is prudent to contact the Internet or e-mail service providers’ legal department in advance to confirm its procedures for accepting service of a subpoena.
An alternative to filing a John Doe action is to file a petition for discovery, a type of legal action permissible in many states that provides for discovery before the filing of a lawsuit in order to identify responsible persons and entities.5 By filing a petition for discovery, an employer can compel an Internet service provider to identify the sender of the e-mail at issue, which then can be named in a subsequent lawsuit.
As appeared in The National Law Journal on June 11, 2001 http://www.ebglaw.com/article_483.html
Public figures have much less protection. New York Times vs. Sullivan
See, I told you.
Google only shares personal information with other companies or
individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or
disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy
any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable
governmental request, ....
http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacypolicy.html#information
public figure
n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate).
Well i would think Aymond is a public figure. He has immersed himself in this crusade to destroy Dupree because of the WW3 confrontations. Secondly one would think that Aymond is not wealthy enough to carry a request for disclosure of the identity of an ISP much past the jurisdiction of the Alexandria City Court. Aymond threatens, he intimidates and hopes folks will run scared.
As an example he reserved the right to blah blah blah. What right. Shit Goggle ain't bothered with ghe likes ofAymond. Hell I reserve the right go sue any body that bothers me. How many of you'll did that scare.
Aymond is trying to use taxpayer money to assist him in getting Dupree. City of Pneville decided they ain't going along with the asshole. When Swent is finished if Pineville don't like it they appeal.
Aymond is just the school yard buly using whatever tactics are available to him to destroy others.
but, do you sense MALICE ?
Well, let us say for conversation's sake that the City of Pineville, Lord knows that this would never happen, switched a sewer line with a fresh water line and made some folks sick. You are one of the affected parties and know that folks were possible communicating within the municipal government about you and your neighbors misfortune and how to get around paying your medical bills for the disease you contracted. Would you want to have all communications that would help your case disclosed, including e-mails? Can you possibly understand that your goverment works for you and must be responsive to it's citizens? That is why we have public access laws and why no one in the government can question your motives for an information request. The City of Alexandria had better wise up also.
You are confused. Remember, one's entitlement to the public record emails is not related to any cause of action or discovery process. This is simply receiving copies of public documents and the requester's motive or purpose are nonissues.
true, which means that any discussion of aymond's motives or intent are not actually relevant as to whether or not this request should be granted.
Monday in Division C should be interesting. I guess Aymond knows about the potential conflict.
Researcher said "As to Aymond...he has no honor because he is a proven liar...what else needs to be said?"
Monday, January 29, 2007 3:58:38
This is malice.
Researcher will be in Court Monday trying to sneak inside the railing. Or, for all we know, he may be Dupree.
None of you assholes will ever get it right. Your time would be better spent reading and geting the damn facts straight.
Only one thing matters on Monday. Will Judge Swent conduct the in camera reviews or not? Period.
Now, you want to read more about this bullshit, go to TNJ's website and read their take on all this crap.
What's a TNJ?
TNJ = The Northside Journal
www.northsidejournal.com
researcher said... On Friday, February 02, 2007 8:56:37 AM
"Only one thing matters on Monday. Will Judge Swent conduct the in camera reviews or not? Period."
However, on January 28, Reasearcher said "Before any other question can be considered, including Aymond's bullshit request for an in-camera review, Swent has to decide if Pineville can charge Aymond for separating the e-mails. It's the basis for every other question."
No who is full of shit Reasearcher. Make up your mind. Is Monday's hearing about an in camera inspection or about charging a fee?
In reagrds to defamation I read some interesting stuff this morning courtesy of an about.com email on entrepreneurship. Try looking up Cuppy Coffee and Java Joe's it seems an A list blogger and his brother had to remove some postings that at least appeared to defame Cuppy, which opened up another can or worms - should blog postings ever be removed?
http://entrepreneurs.about.com/b/a/216388.htm?nl=1
sorry meant Java Jo'z.
btw here's a GREAT def on public person >>
Question: Who is a public figure?
Answer: A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures — a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate — someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure — for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence.
Examples of public figures:
A former city attorney and an attorney for a corporation organized to recall members of city counsel
A psychologist who conducted "nude marathon" group therapy
A land developer seeking public approval for housing near a toxic chemical plant
Members of an activist group who spoke with reporters at public events
Corporations are not always public figures. They are judged by the same standards as individuals.
I would believe since Mr. Aymond has actively sought in a public manner to resolve this issue and served as the attorney for the WW3, which is as I understand how this whole matter came about, he would IMHO be considered a public person.
The link to Clearinghouse - http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID717 - gives some other information everyone should read about malice, slander, etc.
T0:---> February 02, 2007 9:56:46 AM
Look dimbulb, try and follow the lawsuit! Pineville VS Aymond is the base suit. In that suit Pineville is basically saying this: Look, we want to comply with the law, but we cannot because Aymond will not post a bond to cover the cost of delivering to him the non-public e-mails as allowed by law. Judge we need you to answer a question. Can we require a bond from Aymond ot not?
In response to the original suit, Aymond filed a flurry of legal crap seeking to muddy the waters and get someone else to pay for the cost of separating the e-mails into public and non-public files
Aymond's responses are designed to create delay in the court system and get the cost monkey off his back.
Besides, neither me or anyone else here can predict what a judge will do whan she gets into court...she may take things in order or not...and she may throw the whole damn thing out. Who the hell knows.
But I stick by my statement assface, if Swent decides first that Pineville cannot charge for the e-mails, she won't need to view them at all now will she dumbass...?
A public figure can still sue for defamtion. He just has to prove malice.
Researcher, if we see you in court, how will we know you? Will you be wearing a powdered wig and speaking in learned tones? Will you dazzle us with your legal knowledge? Will you refer to her honor as "assface" or "pencil dick"? Will you shower Aymond with disrespect and epithets? Oh, please tell us.
Alas, I hope that things remain within the realm of healthy discourse. There is always two sides to a story. Each may have their points and opinions, but neither is one hundred percent correct. Someone always puts a "spin" to it, always in their favor. As I stated to Mr. Aymond "It is not that someone's opinion is always wrong, it is that they think that it is always right".
The unhealthy discussions posted here are a snapshot of what is politcally wrong with our country now. Them against us. What ever happened to the "greater good"
Has anyone seen Diogenes?
To:---> February 02, 2007 11:11:39 AM
Yeah, I'll be there, assface, but the only way you'll know it's me is if you get in my damn way. Then I'll kick your silly ass.
Researcher, has anyone ever asked you if you were raised in the wilderness or in a civilized society. If in a civilized society, you have apparently forgot your training on manners and civility.
First understand this, your cursing and name calling do not impress people. In fact, your rude behavior lessens the impact of your arguments.
Lastly, do you understand that most on here think you are a cowardly bufoon, with your empty, anonymous, continual threats of violence?
It is obvious that you have no conception of how to properly behave in society. Hopefully, you will take this as constructive criticism and learn how to get along with your fellow human beings a little better.
if Swent decides first that Pineville cannot charge for the e-mails, she won't need to view them at all now will she dumbass...?
Yes indeed she will Researcher. Who trusts Pineville with making the decision of what is public and what is not.
Also look again at Pineville's petition. It not only wants a bond but also seeks to limit the size and scope of Aymond's request.
Ok, I am waiting to see which vulgar name you will call me. LOL
looks like the city of pineville has three cases before judge swent monday:
CIVIL RULE DOCKET
212,838 - Steven L. Turner, et al vs. City of Pineville, et al
226,484 - City of Pineville vs. Gregory Aymond
219,932 - Anita Sullivan, et al vs. City of Pineville, et al
To:--->February 02, 2007 11:09:00 AM
Let me say this one more time for those too stupod to look back and read all my posts
I don't give a happy tinker's damn what the hell you think!
I don't give a happy tinker's damn what the hell you think!
Apparently you do. If not, why do you try so hard to influence our opinions?
To:--->February 02, 2007 11:16:00 AM
Look you silly idiot...you don't have a clue what you're talking about..you said:
"Yes indeed she will Researcher. Who trusts Pineville with making the decision of what is public and what is not."
First I assume you meant to put a question mark on the end of this statement, and to answer this assinine question, one would have to engage in an arguement in opinion. I don't do that assface...I deal in fact.
Second, you said this: "Also look again at Pineville's petition. It not only wants a bond but also seeks to limit the size and scope of Aymond's request."
Learn to read you idiot. Page 2 of the petition, paragraph 7, line 5 says, "In addition, Aymond was asked to narrow the scope of the request or the city would be compelled to petition the Court for, at a minimum, the posting of a bond to secure the extraordinary expense to the public fisc of responding to the request as written
Anybody with half a brain and the ability to read on a 3rd grade level would understand that it's an either/or question.
Either narrow the scope so we can separate the records at a reasonable cost, or post a bond to pay for the separation of almost 10,000 e-mails!
Damn you people are really stupid!
"Either narrow the scope so we can separate the records at a reasonable cost, or post a bond to pay for the separation of almost 10,000 e-mails!"
We?
Someone needs to alert Mayor Fields that an underling in his staff and/or legal department (or someone pretending to be) is posting anonymous commentary about pending litigation on this blog. That alone should be grounds for dismissal.
cut researcher some slack. the nurse hasnt been by to chage his diaper and he's alittle chapped.
To:--->February 02, 2007 1:39:00 PM
When I have deal with assinine, stupid, people like you bad the rest of the scum who post on this blog, I get a little cranky!
By the way, where is that prick who threatened me if I show up to watch the hearing on Monday?
I want the tough guy to tell me what he looks like so I can punch his lights out.
"When I have deal with assinine, stupid, people like you bad the rest of the scum who post on this blog, I get a little cranky!"
Researcher, Mayor Fields needs to send you back to high school so you can sit in on a couple of English and rhetoric classes.
"By the way, where is that prick who threatened me if I show up to watch the hearing on Monday?
I want the tough guy to tell me what he looks like so I can punch his lights out."
I'm hard to miss. 6'5", 250lbs, black male with brown eyes and brown hair.
6' 5" black male, wow Researcher, it might be yo daddy-
Quint: "The number one reason I have chosen to answer these assinine remarks...."
anonymous defender of the researcher: "I say good riddence to Aymond, Lamar, and all their assinine followers."
the researcher: "First I assume you meant to put a question mark on the end of this statement, and to answer this assinine question..."
the researcher again: "When I have deal with assinine , stupid, people like you bad the rest of the scum who post on this blog, I get a little cranky!"
Quint, learn how to spell asinine and then all of your various screen names wouldn't be so easy to guess.
It's not quint. You are being ass-0-nyne..
It's not quint. You are being ass-0-nyne..
Whatever you sayyyyyyyyyyy.............
You may be adults on here, but you surely act like children.
children do not talk like this, bitch!
children do not talk like this, bitch!
How polite and intillegent a response. But then again, its Saturday and elementary shools are out.
That kind of talk is the best way to get a lit bag of poo on your porch! Bitch!
That kind of talk is the best way to get a lit bag of poo on your porch! Bitch!
Brilliant and well thought out argument there. I am sure that all are as equally impressed as me, with your logical reasoning skills. Your talents are wasted on this blog. You should be a professional speech write or even a philosopher.
just released----Cowboy town will be sold to local developer who intends on having midget wrestling matches, naked fat women arm wrestling, butthole size competitions, and hairy ass shaving seminars. All bloggers on this site should look forward to the events, as you are sure to win some gold medals.
Actually, I was the speach writer for Charles F. Smith during his presidency. I deserve all the actual credit for his statesmanship, oratory, and pronounciation. I appreciate your noticing.
bitch
"How polite and intillegent a response. But then again, its Saturday and elementary shools are out."
It would appear that the judgmental ultrasophisticate casting aspersions on this site is having a little trouble with the more complex and unusual words like "school". There has been some subtle suggestion that perhaps she is a
bitch
but now it appears that she is also a
phoney
beooootch
Ok she had a typo. But you lack intelligence and inability to argue your points. You inability to express yourself is the cause of your only being able to respond to someone by calling them bitch.
Stick to spraying graffiti and writing on bathroom walls, and leave this blog to those with in depth views to discuss.
Hey, its not my fault she's a
bitch......
To:--->February 02, 2007 3:06:00 PM
...and this is supposed to intimate me??? Impress me??? Just what the hell is your damn point?
If you're really 6'5", 250lbs, black male with brown eyes and brown hair, that's your damn problem. Get in my way and it's my damn problem.
I handle my problems.
I will not be able to attend the circus on Monday, but will someone PLEASE post the real identity of researcher so we can all have a good laugh when this is over?
I, on the other hand, will be there on Monday and I assure you that a blowhard like researcher will not show up and expose himself to reality and justice. He should get down on his knees* and thank god that there is such a thing as "anonymous".
*which would be different than the reason his mama was frequently on her knees
"researcher said...
To:--->February 02, 2007 3:06:00 PM
...and this is supposed to intimate me??? Impress me??? Just what the hell is your damn point?"
in·ti·mate
Pronunciation:
\ˈin-tə-ˌmāt\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
-mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology:
Late Latin intimatus, past participle of intimare to put in, announce, from Latin intimus innermost, superl. of Old Latin *interus inward — more at interior
Date:
1522
1 : to make known especially publicly or formally : announce 2 : to communicate delicately and indirectly : hint
I wonder if researcher is an iraqi agent because he sure don't speak english and his ignorance of law, fact, and the courts is exhausting. It might be somebody super smart and super smooth like Faircloth disguising himself as a moron.
Alas, once again I visit this blog and find it has been invaded by black hearted gnomes who have no interest in reasoned discourse. To those of you who have a fixation with “Researcher,” pause for a moment before you respond. I know his posts cause a “knee jerk” reaction in some, that is exactly what they are designed to do.
In my opinion, Researcher is brilliant. He has succeeded in decoying this entire blog from focus on the facts of Aymond and his spat with Pineville, to focus on “Researcher” himself.
Like Lemmings to the sea, the crowd has followed. My guess is that “Researcher” is the brainchild of that side of this contest who holds the weaker hand. Decide for yourselves who that may be, but have enough common sense to see “Researcher” for what he is…a distraction
Survey says…”Researcher” is un-important, but has succeeded in up-staging the discussion of freedom to access public records and the abuse of public records law to pursue a vendetta. Perhaps we should re-focus on the issue and ignore the sideshow.
The Feathers and Bones have spoken.
anyone wanna bet that the hotel bentley actually opens?
I will feel good when the leaded windows are restored to the bottem floors. That was promised and nothing like that has happened so far.
General meaning of rating by stars
The five categories can be described (loosely) as follows:
* (one star) — low budget hotel; inexpensive; may not have maid service or room service.
** (two stars) — budget hotel; slightly more expensive; usually has maid service daily.
*** (three stars) — middle class hotel; moderately priced; has daily maid service, room service, and may have dry-cleaning, Internet access, and a swimming pool.
**** (four stars) — first class hotel; expensive (by middle-class standards); has all of the previously mentioned services; has many "luxury" services (for example: massages or a health spa).
***** (five stars) — luxury hotel; most expensive hotels/resorts in the world; numerous extras to enhance the quality of the client's stay (for example: some have private golf courses and even a small private airport).
What's up with all of these "apologies?" Is this a "hate blog" or not? I thought that was the original intent, here...
If a guy can't spread hate here, where can he go?
Try going back to the KKK meeting.
And once again Sooth has cut through the clutter with wise words.
I don't like researcher, but I'm on to his game. Judging from his use of legal terms and a basic understanding of the law..Researcher is Aymond.
Boos: New security measures have restricted access to the break room at City Hall in Alexandria. That means no more free lunches for non-city employees (unless they can figure out how to sneak in on the arm of an employee). Only "authorized personnel" will be unable to feast at the catered buffet that the taxpayers provide for every City Council meeting. We applaud the decision to shorten the line, but it didn't go far enough. No more "free" lunches, OK? Bring a sandwich or a power bar from home.
I understand his anguish. Town Talk reporter Billy Gunn was usually pretty close to the front of the grazing line in the council chambers. His Tuesday eating habits will have to change now. "Only 'Authorized' personnel will be unable to feast. . ." Is there something wrong with that sentence??
Anybody have the results of the court showdown this morning?
Is Swent going to look at the e-mails or not.
Not according to Billy Gunn's update on the TT website:
<< In a hearing today, 9th Judicial District Court Judge Rae Swent made it clear she didn’t have the time nor the inclination to sift through about 10,000 of Chief of Staff Rich Dupree’s e-mails, which lawyer Greg Aymond is requesting of the judge in a court “in-camera” inspection.
“I’m certainly not prepared to sit for weeks and determine what you want,” Swent said, conceding the case is “very complicated.”
...
Swent this morning said she would issue a trial date within 10 days, but Aymond requested she wait on a state 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal ruling on a writ he was to file.
“I would be happy for the court of appeals to tell me what to do,” Swent said. >>
who all was there?
Sounds like Aymond's going to have to pay if he wants to play
The judge more or less affirmed Pineville's position. If she doesn't have the time or inclination..., then she doesn't expect that city officials should have to do the same for free.
I applaud Aymond and like minded Americans past and present who have the balls to at least attempt to preserve rights we are promised in our laws and to fight the good fight against those whose self interests conflict with those rights and who try at all costs to stomp down those very rights.
I support those rights, too, but we need to draw the line at unreasonable expectations. I mean, c'mon, 10,000 emails - and growing daily?? Who in their right mind would want to sift through that (certainly not the judge). Taxpayers should not have to fund a fishing expedition (especially one that on the surface appears to be vindictive).
If the City of Pineville does not want to sort the e-mails, then let Mr. Aymond load them on a memory stick and be done with it. Have him sign a release statement that prevents him from releasing personell or medical information that he encounters and be done with it. After all, Mr. Aymond is trained and sanctioned to handle sensitive information and by the very nature of his continuing licensure as an attorney, proven able to maintain confidentiality. Unless, of course, they have something to hide and themselves willing to violate public information laws.
Having a process that that allows an attorney to be disbarred is proof enough that all attorneys cannot be trusted with sensitive information -- especially someone that appears to be vindictive!
Researcher is Aymond.
What a ridiculous statement LOL. Clearly Researcher is on Pineville's side, from what I read.
I heard that Judge Swent said today that Dupree is himself the best to decide which of his emails are public and not. Isn't this sort of like letting the convicts in prison guard themselves?
The e-mails are just the tip of the iceburg. Take a look at the list of things Aymond has requested of Dupree, and already received Also, why did Aymond ask for just Dupree's records.
This is a fishing trip that Aymond is asking the public to pay for. Nothing more.
I think Researcher is on his own side, where ever that is. I also think Sooth has a point...Researcher is not important.
Sounds like Swent humiliated Aymond. She can kick your ass if she thinks you need it. Sorry Greg.
speaking of Researcher where is the grand gum smacker? I expected a full report from him on how right he was about the outcome of today's proceedings along with a report on who's ass he whipped this morning.
It appears that since we're headed to trial or the appellate court poor researcher can't be found. I for one am happy to rid - at least for now - of that blow hard.
Yes, Aymond is taking on for team, standing up for our rights to seek public records, but I will have to admit I don't want to seem my rights trampled by someone with a personal grudge against a public official. I would have much preferred to test the waters with someone making a request in order to show the corruption - if it does exist - regarding the mishandling of WW3 or some other issue - rather than making this all about Dupree "lying" about Aymond or whatever his claim is these days.
We were fooled by Aymond who just represented himself as an interested citizen, however, in Aymond's letter to the President and the world about the troubles in Water Dist #3, Aymond finally reveals that he is FBI: he states
"There is good reason for it being at the top of our list of
criminal priorities, and the reason is this: like you, we in the FBI believe that public corruption is among the most serious of criminal
violations."
Wonder if he wears a dress like J. Edgar???
I was just wondering, what if Greg's request was pursuant to a case that he was pursuing for a client (and maybe that client was you) on a matter that Dupree had a hand in and the information would be in his e-mails. Would everyone be so adamant that Pineville should not produce potential evidence? Yes, even your private documents can be subpeonaed if there is a need, but these are public documents. What if it is a wrong assumption that the evidence sought is not for Greg's personal consumption but for a client? What if it was your attorney? I can see this is not over by a long shot and everyone should be concerned about a public body refusing to comply with public disclosure laws. What happens when you lose a loved one due to faulty highway maintenence and you have a valid suit against a public body - but cannot have access to the information that you request? This case could easily set a precedent, although not likely.
The quote you attibute to Greg was actually from a speech given by Lou Reigel. Reread and watch the punctuation.
in order to show the corruption - if it does exist - regarding the mishandling of WW3 or some other issue - rather than making this all about Dupree "lying" about Aymond or whatever his claim is these days.
Rumor is that Aymond is looking into rumors of Dupree testing the waters for Mayor Fields possible run for the Senate, form Pineville e-mails, and Dupree contracting with those contracting with Pineville, ala the Ethics ruling against Chuck Fowler. Six waterboard members fired Aymond, could it be he is only concerned with Dupree because he has something on him?
Spanky - I have given you credit in the past on issues that you were correct on, but you are all wet on the Aymond email issue...
1) If Aymond were representing anyone that had "the goods" on Dupree...then he could/should be more specific to subject and date of incriminating emails and force their hand on producing them. If Dupree choose to resist and delete such evidence, his ass would be grass and Aymond could mow him over..if Aymond had a clue what he was fishing for.
2) You must get past your "public body refusing to comply" issue. If after reading all that has been printed and posted on the Dupree/Aymond lovefest and you still think it's just about releasing "public documents"...then you are blind to seeing Aymond's vindictive nature against Dupree in particular, and those that oppose him in general.
3) Aymond's credibility could be greatly enhanced if it were not for his own website, where in over 200-postings the last two years (mostly his own), he attacks Dupree, Fields, the DA, the AG(and now the President of the US) are blasted in ways that make a resident at Central Hospital seem fit to release.
I support the public's right to know...but I also support the protection of those public figures who are sitting ducks for people smart enough to use that law against them unfairly.
For any interested, I will respond and explain my true motivations and goals of the request of Rich Dupree e-mails.
First, as to my credibility, my actions, or assistance, has led to the Police Jury's removal of Otha Hailey, Wes Hebron and Rich Dupree from the Board of Water District Number 3. The investigations I had instigated in state agencies also led to the resignation of Glynda Lynscum (sp.). Also they have led to the Ethics Board rulings consent opinions against Ray Adams and Wes Hebron, and well as formal charges being filed against Roy Hebron, with his hearing set for February 8th in Baton Rouge.
I have made public records requests for records relating to Rich Dupree and the City of Pineville, on behalf of several clients, whom I am prohibited from disclosing, by the Code of Professional Conduct, unless those clients authorize it. The clients came to me from hearing of my past actions against the City of Pineville, which include my being a former attorney for the Fraternal Order of Police, and representing several policemen and firemen before the Pineville Civil Service Board. I was, for almost a decade, also the attorney for Pineville City Court, a separate and distinct governmental entity, in disputes with the City of Pineville over janitorial services and mold abatement in the courthouse, among other issues.
The time frame of the requests for Dupree's e-mails was decided upon by the various time frames my clients desired to see. My initial request to Pineville asked that it notify if the requested e-mails could be downloaded to portable computer media, before it quoted a price for hard copies. Instead of responding as to any objection, citing the specific statute allowing an exemption from public records within 3 days of the request, Pineville instead simply requested that I narrow the scope of that request. It was approximately over a month later until Pineville first brought up the issue of paying a fee, not for copies, but for it to segregate public versus non-public e-mails. Not until today in open court, did Pineville admit that the e-mails could be easily downloaded to removable computer media. Judge Swent did agree that Pineville's lawyer, Jimmy Faircloth, did not need to review those e-mails, and that Mr. Dupree himself and Pineville's public records custodian were best suited to segregate the public and non-public e-mails. I feel that leaving such segregation up to Mr. Dupree himself, guts the intent of the public records statutes, and would allow Dupree to decide himself which e-mails he did not wish to make public.
Additionally, Judge Swent's order for today's hearing ordered Pineville to produce it computer expert and its record custodian at that hearing. We were also listed on the court's docket as a testimony matter. When I attempted to call the first witness, Judge Swent then refused to allow any testimony. Judge Swent then asked why I thought the court should review those e-mails, and I argued because there is a specific statute in the Public Records law that calls for that. Additionally, I argued that such was no different than when the court is required to review thousands of pages of evidence, such as depositions, insurance polices, contracts, expert reports, and building specs, in other civil cases. Such is a judge's job.
All sides agreed due to technological advances, higher courts need to issue some guidance as to it's application to the Public Records law. In the past jurisprudence and Attorney General Opinions have stated that the motive of the one making a public records request is irrelevant, and the requester cannot even be asked why the records are being sought. It has also been stated that the Public Records law has no limits on the size, number or frequency of such requests, and that the right to view public records is a fundamental constitutional right in Louisiana.
Should a higher court now issue some guidelines, as to the size of a request, we will then have clarified the law and will adjust the requests accordingly. Stating a specific subject matter would be unproductive, as the same oppositions Pineville urges herein would be encountered no matter the limit to size or subject matter. Without any court review, all a public body would have to do is to turn over only the documents it wants the public to see.
I am sure many will again call me a liar, without proof, but the above are the true facts. I am somewhat surprised that many do not support this constitutional right, and do not understand that this right does not lawfully rest upon the motive of a requester. This is similar to the motive of someone who exercises unpopular speech is nevertheless protected by the Constitution with his motive being irrelevant to that right. Your rights to Due process, which has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as fundamental fairness, was also trampled today, when one is prohibited from putting on testimony and evidence in a legal proceeding. The issue here is not what some of you think of me, but the protection of constitutionally protected rights that apply to all.
Sorry for this long winded post, but I felt an explanation was due.
I am sure many will again call me a liar, without proof, but the above are the true facts.
You are a liar Aymond and the above is NOT a recount of true fact.
I was in the courtroom yesterday and witnessed the whole hearing. Judge Swent did the right thing and cut right through your crap. She, and everyone else there knew what you were trying to do and refused to allow you to make a mockery of public records law.
I DO have proof Aymond that you're a liar Aymond. This time it's not what some poster claims, it's my own two eyes and ears.
I DO have proof Aymond that you're a liar Aymond. This time it's not what some poster claims, it's my own two eyes and ears.
Apparently your eyes and ears saw and heard something different than Towntalk reporter Billy Gunn's.
Aymond, bottom line is this:
Dupree: Unskilled, not highly educated,no experience for work in government, no college degree, only work experience selling ads and doing high school sports broadcasts.
(Aymond's words, not mine)
2 Victories in court
Aymond: Trained attorney
0 Victories in court
SMACKDOWN!
5:04:00 AM: I have no idea what Gunn says, but he has reported inaccurately before.
I DO know what I heard and saw in court. I stand by my statement that Aymond's version of what happened in Swent's courtroom is incorrect.
Also, another recent poster continued to browbeat all of us with challenges to stick to the facts. here's a cut from Aymond's post:"but the above are the true facts."
Sound familiar to anyone?
List the specifics of where I lied. I should have the transcript by Thursday so we should be able to prove if you are right.
Point out what in my post, that you heard in court, was a lie!!!
And to Dupree beating me, you are intelligent enough to know he did have lawyers representing him on both times? Also, this was simply a motion not a final judgment, so your conclusions are somewhat premature.
This is really a no win situation for Pineville, as if the higher courts tell me to narrow the scope of my records request, I will do so and send Pineville numerous smaller requests.
That last post was mine, sorry.
Dangle the bait and Aymond will snap every time...you're so much fun Greg.
Excuse me. I gotta go sharpen a stick to poke you with.
Howl Greg Howl!!!!
Anonymous,
#1 He evidently represents clients in the matter.
2# Purpose of a request may not be questioned, so your judgement of a motive is premature as no action has occurred to demonstrate, only speculate.
#3 is an opinion statement.
I usually watch out for clouds.
“…my actions, or assistance, has led to the Police Jury's removal of Otha Hailey, Wes Hebron and Rich Dupree from the Board of Water District Number 3.”
Wrong, the three persons you name were removed from the Board of WW#3 at the request of Butch Lindsay, Police Juror from Ward 10
“…have made public records requests for records relating to Rich Dupree and the City of Pineville, on behalf of several clients, whom I am prohibited from disclosing, by the Code of Professional Conduct, unless those clients authorize it.”
Wrong. If such clients existed, you could have simply filed suit and recovered the e-mails as part of discovery. You cannot file suit on behalf of clients that do not exist. While it is true that you claim your “clients” wish to remain anonymous, a more likely explanation is your desire for public attention.
"The time frame of the requests for Dupree's e-mails was decided upon by the various time frames my clients desired to see."
Wrong. You would have us believe that your “client” wishes to see e-mails from Dupree dating back to before he was Chief of Staff? Please…
"Instead of responding as to any objection, citing the specific statute allowing an exemption from public records within 3 days of the request, Pineville instead simply requested that I narrow the scope of that request."
This statement is grossly misleading. Pineville did respond to your request within the three days allowed by law, they did cite reasons for denial of your request, and they informed you that they would be more than willing to comply if you could give them specific time frames instead of requesting ALL e-mails for 5 YEARS. You took more than a month to respond to their reply, and then you insisted on ALL emails public and private. It was ONLY THEN that Pineville requested you post a bond Mr. Aymond. Do not try and parse words and mislead us.
"It was approximately over a month later until Pineville first brought up the issue of paying a fee, not for copies, but for it to segregate public versus non-public e-mails."
Another misleading statement, see the response above.
"Stating a specific subject matter would be unproductive, as the same oppositions Pineville urges herein would be encountered no matter the limit to size or subject matter."
Not true. The only objection Pineville has ever had to your request was the VAST SIZE AND THAT YOU WANTED BOTH PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
They specifically told you in numerous letters that they were eager to comply but needed specifics from you as to how to proceed. Your request was so broad that fulfilling it would cause an undue burden on the taxpayer and they requested you post bond to cover the cost.
"Your rights to Due process, which has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as fundamental fairness, was also trampled today, when one is prohibited from putting on testimony and evidence in a legal proceeding."
Not true. In many cases a judge decides what testimony is relevant to the case before the court and limits that testimony to that which has a bearing on the case. Apparently Judge Swent found that your witnesses and their testimony has no bearing on this case. No one had their “fundamental fairness” trampled in Swent’s courtroom yesterday. I was there, I saw and I heard.
Anonymous,
Have you ever pondered the degree that you can twist the truth until it is a lie? I would suppose you have as you seem to be rather experienced in doing so. I would also observe that you your current twists have reached the yield point of truth breakage, but nice try.
As to the outcome of yesterday's hearing, it is my understanding that Judge Swent's solution was for Mr Faircloth have Mr. Dupree sort out what he felt was not public and privilaged and that she would review that balance in camera.
Spanky…with all due respect:
#1 He evidently represents clients in the matter.
And what evidence can you cite to prove your conclusion? Aymond’s word? We all know that is suspect.
2# Purpose of a request may not be questioned, so your judgement of a motive is premature as no action has occurred to demonstrate, only speculate.
And what are we to make of the fact that Aymond has targeted Dupree alone with his requests? And that Aymond sued Dupree for defamation and lost? And that since the first day he created his web site, Aymond has attacked Dupree relentlessly. And that Aymond blames Dupree for his firing from WW#3? And that Aymond has publically said that he will “get Dupree at all costs?”
Is this not enough action on Aymond’s part to move us past speculation? Are we still premature in assessing motivation?
#3 is an opinion statement.
I agree, and as such…not relevant.
Spanky, I too am concerned with the denial of access to public records issue, however, if we step back and look at the whole landscape, it begins to appear that Aymond is using the public records law to harass Dupree. This in not the purpose of this law, and if we are not very careful, we will see people like Aymond actually WEAKEN the law by his abuse.
If what you say is your observations Spanky, then let me add that my ability at "spin" is surpassed only by you and Aymond's ability at the same task.
I bow to your expertise.
As to the results of yesterday's court showdown, it is my understanding that Judge Swent agreed to a continuance of trial on the merits of Pineville's PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDCEMENT to allow Aymond to prepare and file a writ to the appelate courts, seeking to overturn Swents ruling NOT to conduct an in-camera review of the emails.
Personal insults again from the peanut gallery! Dear Anonymous ... when I post I do so as either myself or Cenla Antics ... I have not posted anonymously for many, many months ... and when I have it was to redirect the path that certain bloggers were kidnapping the rest of us.
Quint Carriere
Cenla Antics
If someone knows who Curt Davidson is let us know ... because it isn't me either ... :)
IF it isn't politcal take it elsewhere ...
Quint Carriere
Cenla Antics
A long winded accusation of my lying in court was posted, and I
responmd to those specific allegations as follows:
1). Accusation: Wrong, the three persons you name were removed from
the Board of WW#3 at the request of Butch Lindsay, Police Juror from
Ward 10
Response: Correst, simply because I am not a voting member of the
Police Jury. Rich Dupree has admitted under oath, and in complaints to
the Ethics Board, however, that Butch Lindzay removed them because
they refused to hire me back.
2). Accusation: Wrong. If such clients existed, you could have simply
filed suit and recovered the e-mails as part of discovery.
Response: Perhaps your lack of legal knowledge is why you do not
understand this point. I made the request on behalf of client's,
therefore, as I made the request, I am the only propery party which
can brong a public recordfs suit. Additionally, I did not file the
suit, Pineville did. You can also easily look online and see the the
attorney Code of Professional Conduct makes the names of my clients
attorney client privelige.
3). Accusation: Wrong. You would have us believe that your “client”
wishes to see e-mails from Dupree dating back to before he was Chief
of Staff? Please…
Response: Wrong again. One of my clients was interested in seeing
Dupree's e-mails about him from when Dupree first came on with the
City. Another had matters which Dupree dealt with in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, I have been given information as to possible unethical
conduct Dupree has been involved in since he was employed by the City,
and continuing through the present. If I find no supporting evidence,
that will be the end of it. If I do find supporting evidence, that
matter will be reported to the appropriate agencies. The documents
previously supplied by Pineville, are very promising.
4). Accusation: Pineville did respond to your request within the three
days allowed by law...
Response: The Attorney General has opined thatthe custodian of a
public record must
respond to a person making a request, in writing, within three
days from the time of such request with a determination as to
whether or not he or she believes the relevant record to be
subject to the Public Records Law.
OPINION NUMBER 93-482. LSA-.S. 44:32(D) provides: "In any case in
which a record is requested and a question is raised
by the custodian of the record as to whether it is a public record,
such
custodian shall within three days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays,
and
legal public holidays, of the receipt of the request, in writing for
such
record, notify in writing the person making such request of his
determination and the reasons therefor. Such written notification
shall
contain a reference to the basis under law which the custodian has
determined exempts a record, or any part thereof, from inspection,
copying, or reproduction."
On October 9th, 2006 Pineville's response to my request, Exhibit
"D" of it's lawsuit, was:" We ask that you narrow the scope of your
request.... As requested, your request encompases information that is
not subject to disclosure, including but not limited to information
subject to attorney-client privelege and medical related information.
Once you have presented a clearly defined scope, we will contact you
regarding production of the same." Attorney General Opinion Number
01-0244, however, stated: "Relative to your question if these requests
can be considered harassment, we find opinions of this office that
indicate to the contrary. In Atty. Gen. Op. 95-137 this office
stated, "Even if the public records request appears to be unreasonably
burdensome, the records must still be provided." This is consistent
with the earlier observation in Atty. Gen. Op. 93-482 wherein it was
specifically stated, "The Public Records Law contains no limitation on
the number or size of the requests which may be made by a person."
In its answers to interrogatories, on January 22, 2007, Pineville
states, in answers numbers 17 & 18, that it cannot state the specific
stautes which provide non-disclosure for the e-mails as it has not
even viewed then yet. Thus Pineville's clearly did not "contain a
reference to the basis under law which the custodian has
determined exempts a record, or any part thereof, from inspection,
copying, or reproduction", as required by law.
5). Accusation: It was approximately over a month later until
Pineville first brought up the issue of paying a fee, not for copies,
but for it to segregate public versus non-public e-mails."
Another misleading statement, see the response above.
Response: Faircloth's letter of November 9, 2007, attached as Exhibit
F to its petition, is the first time a payment or bond was mentioned.
This is exaclty one month after its' first reponse to the request.
6). Accusation: The only objection Pineville has ever had to your
request was the VAST SIZE AND THAT YOU WANTED BOTH PUBLIC AND
NON-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
Response: It is true that has been Pineville's concern. However, it is
not a legal concern. See Attorney General opinions above, which state
the the law does not limit the size of a request.
7). Accusation: Not true. In many cases a judge decides what testimony
is relevant to the case before the court and limits that testimony to
that which has a bearing on the case. Apparently Judge Swent found
that your witnesses and their testimony has no bearing on this case.
Response: This erroneous statement can also be attributed to your lack
of civil procedure. A judge can only rule on the admissibility of
evidence, once it has been offered and only when objected to. How
could she rule on relevancy without hearing the testimony?
Additionally, the order setting the hearing required Pineville to
bring its' records custodian and computer expert "in order to
determine an efficient means by which to carry out such an
inspection." Furthermore, this matter was placed on the docket as a
testimony matter. If no testimony was to be allowed, why did Judge
Swent sign that order and why was it placed on the docket, without any
objection from Faircloth, as a testimony matter?
Anonymous,
#1 is a slanderous statement and not necessarilly based in fact.
#2 stands as a statement of fact based on the law.
#3 I accept your acknowledgement.
All bow to Spanky. Thank you
Aymond,
Your statement about your client(s) confuses me. Different clients had different purposes in asking for different time frames for the emails?
Yet you are the one person to file A PUBLIC records request?
Why didn't they ask individually for these records? They would have gotten them faster, with much less fanfare.
I don't buy the fact that they want to remain anon, because if their records request produces something actionable; won't you have to file suit against Dupree in the name of your client. And once the lawsuit is filed what does it matter if their name was on the records request or not.
Starting to smell like a certain well-known market in Seattle up in here.
The Town Talk took a very strong pro-Aymond stance in their editorial today. I assume that Pineville will discover that hiding and protecting Dupree is an expensive proposition: politically and financially.
Substitute Aymond with Public. For all of the ridicule that folks want to heap on Greg, they might want to look at the fact that the fight is for them also. Maybe it is past time to send the message to government that they are subject to the people, not the other way around.
Maybe someone should file a public records request to see Faircloth's bills to Pineville for all of this. I bet they have spent more to cover up Dupree's e-mails than it would have cost them to sort them out. Must be something very interesting in those e-mails.
Aymond's motives don't matter to the law but they should matter to us. Revenge is never a noble motive, particularly when you don't care who you hurt. Spanky, it's OK that Aymond is your hero but I wouldn't try to evangelize that message. The fact that some public benefit may evolve from Aymond's grudge match is simply unintended "collateral damage".
Oh so what you mean if you hate your neighbor because his dog barks too loud, you should not report to the police that he also sells crack out of his house? Or you shouldn't report a bank robber, because he once had an affair with oyur wife, and that would merely be revenge? I don't see the question as being the motives, but rather was the law broken.
Two things here: first, there is no substantive allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Dupree. This is a case of Aymond exercising his legal right to fuck with Dupree just to see what happens.
Second: On issues of morality and ethics, motive does matter.
and I'm sorry to hear about your wife.
Greg is not necessarily my hero and it seems to me that you have made a judgement on his motives which would means that you must be privy to information to come to that conclusion or you are making a general statement without corroboration to sway opinion. The latter is most probable.
motives matter said...
"Two things here: first, there is no substantive allegation of wrongdoing on the part of Dupree. This is a case of Aymond exercising his legal right to fuck with Dupree just to see what happens."
Spanky, which question are you addressing: Aymond's motive or whether motives matter. I have no idea what Aymond's motives are but I think the above suggestion is the only rational explaination for Aymond's actions that I have seen on this blog. If you know the real story or have an alternative explaination based some something other that speculation, please share it.
ifsudcjSpanky, you think that Aymond's actions are motivated by a desire to promote the public good rather than a next step in a personal vendetta because:________________________________________
I'll tell you my motives are. Because many have knowledge of my past with Dupree, several have come to me with allegations of possible legal and ethical violations against Dupree. Some believe that they are also mentioned in Dupree's e-mails, and requested that I obtain them. I will not make any unprovable allegations against Mr. Dupree, unless there is actual proof of them. The checks and cell phone records, already provided, do provide potential substantiation of some of those allegations. The e-mails are simply another investigative avenue which needs to logically be reviewed.
Do I have hard feelings against Dupree? Yes. But almost all criminal charges or civil lawsuits result from one or more parties disliking the other. The right to those e-mails is based upon law, not upon reasons for wanting them or motive. I am sure that anyone who has had police, the IRS, an insurance company or an employer investigate them have also questioned the motives behind that investigation. Regardless, lawful forms of investigation are both normal and a lawful right. Any time you have a car wreck, there is an investigation by police, insurance adjusters and lawyers. The people that you should be appalled by are those they make baseless allegations without supporting evidence.
I also fail to understand people who decry the investigation of public servants, once allegations have been made to someone. If investigations were not allowed, how would public figures' violation of law or ethics ever be exposed? Or is it possible that some of you support investigations and searches of pubic records on some, just not those that are your friends?
Regardless of reason or motive, if this leads to the exposure of political wrongdoing, all citizens will be better served.
I don' understand why Aymond can't comprehend the judiciiary of Rapides Prish is not falling for his bs. Secondly I can't help but wonder why Aymond continues to plead his cse on this blog site. By his own admision the posters on this blg site are cretins.
Aymond holds Dupree personal resposnible for having the sugar tit taken away given to someone else and wants to destroy Dupree.
Aymond your past posts of not signing as anonymous, always signing your nameand then posting as anonymous yesterday, with great ease, indicates your a liar. Spin that.
I defer to Greg's own words. Anytime one focuses on only one possibility, it is entirely possible to leave out more obvious possibilities, hence the need to keep an open mind.
Well, clearly I am pleading my case in court. That, not this blog, is what matters. Secondly, I said many on the blog are idiots, not all. So consider my posts for those that are not idiots. The rest of you can scroll on past. My posting here is simply to explain questions raised by open minded intelligent people. I also read this blog, especially during the current lawsuit, as it is an excellent source of seeing what the Pineville side will do, before it appears in court. You see, I have gotten several days heads up on what will appear in Pineville's pleadings later. It is clear that some of the posts on here have been made by the parties involved or by others that they have provided inside information. And for that, my thanks.
Oh, by the way, I am on here this much today because I am resting up to draft the writ application.
Greg, is there any particular point of view or opinion that lets you know the poster is intelligent?
curious?? said...
Greg, is there any particular point of view or opinion that lets you know the poster is intelligent?
No Curious, intelligence is not based upon a point of view or even a differing opinion. However, anyone who states easily discovered lies, those that accept rumor or inuendo as fact, and those who attack personalities, family members or physical conditions rather than argue or debate their points are not exhibiting intelligence. See Webster's online dictionary "b. : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought. Remember that I am a lawyer, and over the past 20 years of practice I am able to see that an opposing point of view does not determine intelligence. But responding to a post by calling a previous poster a "bitch" is an example of a lack of intelligence.
If anyone should know what constitutes 'lack of intelligence" it sure would be old Aymond.
Aymond yo post on here because you lvoe attention and this is the only way you get attention. You have a captive audience. You rehash the same old bs spoutuing your twisted viewpoint of things. Swent made it clear she did not have the time of day for yoo so you slither back hereand rant and rave.
Aymond trust me on this one, you seriously need counseling. You expect us to believe your witch hunt is designed to ferret out the crooks in governmen. BS. It uis strictly revenge. One can only onlude that you have decided Dupree was the ringleader leading to your downfall.
You expect us to believe your witch hunt is designed to ferret out the crooks in governmen. BS.
No, I do not expect you to believe anything. I will continue to respond to questions asked of me or posts about me placed on this blog. Stop discussing me, and you will see far less of me. Also, Pineville sued me, not the other way around. Pineville went to the newspaper first, I simply responded. So explain exactly how that shows that I am seeking attention? And while you are answering that, also answer that if you think I am motivated solely by revenge, what have I done to the other 5 that voted to fire me? Glenda Lincecum, as one example, I have sought nothing from nor filed any compliants upon, although she also voted against me. Although you apparently fail to believe my explaination of why I am seeking Mr. Dupree's e-mails, do you have any proof, other than your opinion, that can support your position?
You ask yourself questions on here as anonymous in order to get your 15 minutes of fame as Grey Amond. Do you think any rational person gives a tinker's dayum about you. Who's fault is it that you had to write the President and all the other politico's - letters you should expect no serious response to.
Again I say you are in bad need of mental help Aymond.
Aymond think about this - what successful lawyer with a decent client base has hours and hours to spend on the numerous blogs you post on With every minute of a lawer's time designed to be billable you have wasted many tens of thousands of dollars entertaining us. One can only presume you have no clients and, if you are truly sincere in ferreting out the evil doers, you don't have the stipend required to purchase a $30,000.00 payment bond. The more you post and the longer you pursue this the more I realize how vidictive, irrational and emotionally unstable you are.
I would lump you and Delores in the same category - unemployeable.
Those needing the assistance of a lawyer desire a compatent lawyer not a raving lunatic.
When Aymond's position is determined to be legally correct, will you have the grace to admit it and apologize?
You ask yourself questions on here as anonymous in order to get your 15 minutes of fame as Grey Amond.
First ther name is correctly spelled as :"Greg Aymond", not "Grey Amond". Now I have said thatthat I am not posting anonymous questions to myself and then answering them. You disagree. Can you prove that you are correct, or is it just unsubstantiated attacks upon me? As to my allegedly being unemployed, you can find the truth out easily by checking out the trial dockets for the 9th and 12th JDC, which would have shown my being on those dockets in the past couple of weeks for a property dispute trial, 2 divorces, a breach of contract case, and I had to draft and file an Appellate Brief last week. Additionally I had the Pineville hearing and a Rebuttal brief in that case. So you see, you really should have some facts to back up your false and unprovern allegations.
And what exactly does what you think about me have to do with the facts and law which were being discussed?
With every minute of a lawer's time designed to be billable you have wasted many tens of thousands of dollars entertaining us.
Apparently you also have little knowledge of how lawyers bill. I do not work for insurance companies or large corporations, therefore, like many lawyers in general practice, i bill a flat rate fee. Also, had you some knowldge of a law office, you would realize that I am often caught with some dead time in between clients, and often use it to go online and look around. You do not see the work I take home, and do there. Once again, your arguments and attempts to attack me are unsupportable.
By the way do you have a job, what's your name, and how much do you make?
"Those needing the assistance of a lawyer desire a compatent lawyer not a raving lunatic."
Uh............isn't it spelled "competent???"
I just love when stupid people show their stupidity......
I just love when stupid people show their stupidity......
Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:47:00 AM
Isn't it spelled "stewpid titty"?
is this all this blog is about now? the greg aymond/pineville thing?
is this all this blog is about now? the greg aymond/pineville thing?
No. And instead of complaining, why don't you post something interesting.
"First ther name is correctly spelled as...."
Greg before you throw rocks about spelling what does this sentence mean?
Oh yes the blog is solely about Grey Aymnd and Pineville. That is all he will allow it to be about.
This is not my blog. So feel free to change he topic of discussion to something other than me. I would welcome another topic. I can assure you that those anonymous posts which include my name were not posted by me. I don't mind at all if you want to call someone else a liar and crapy at their profession for a time LOL. Matter of fact, let us know your true names and we can talk about a lot of others for a change.
Board of Ethics delays hearing on Hebron case, but agrees Dupree legal fees are covered.
By Mike Hasten
mhasten@gannett.com
(225) 342-7333
BATON ROUGE — The state Board of Ethics today delayed action on hearing whether Ball Mayor Roy Hebron improperly obtained water service to his house, but it approved paying legal fees in a case that spun off from that occurrence.
The board has rescheduled the Hebron hearing for its March 8 meeting.
Ethics Board members ruled that Rapides Parish Waterworks District 3 must pay the legal expenses of Rich Dupree, a district member, who was sued by the district’s former attorney, Gregory Aymond. State law says legal fees can be reimbursed if a public official is acquitted of charges he did something wrong while acting in his official duty.
In his 2004 lawsuit, Aymond said Dupree used “malicious and slanderous statements” to sway other board members to fire him as the district’s attorney after 16 years on the job.
Court documents show Aymond said Dupree got him fired because, in a “requested investigation of a district line run to Ball Mayor Roy Hebron’s home, across private property, with no state approval, without servitudes and at no cost to the mayor,” Aymond “carried out the ‘letter’ of the board’s instructions.” But he “should have known that the Board’s ‘intent’ was to have it ‘settled and over with’ quietly.”
Aymond’s lawsuit sought payments of $3,000 per month to cover his lost salary.
Aymond lost the case in the Pineville City Court, twice in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal and the state Supreme Court refused to hear it.
In his letter asking the Board of Ethics if Dupree could be reimbursed, Waterworks District 3 attorney Gregory Jones cites an October 2006 ruling in which the board said the district should reimburse board members Tommy Hollingsworth and Thurman Kelly for their legal expenses. They also were sued by Aymond.
The Pineville law firm Lemoine and Wampler submitted a detailed invoice totaling $3,891.25 for its services.
Tommy Hollingsworth and Thurman Kelly for their legal expenses. They also were sued by Aymond.
Well so much for changing the subject. It is NOT true that I have ever sued Hollingsworth or Kelly. It can easily be checked out in the Clerk of Court's office.
Can't deny the rest of it though can you Mr. Aymond. Try as you will...it's hard to believe that you are "serving a client" and not trying to serve a vendetta in your "investigation" of Dupree's emails. If there is any substance to your opining about suspicions of Dupree, let soemone fair and unbiased...and who conducts investigations for a living, conduct the investigation...and remove any question about your motives.
If there is any substance to your opining about suspicions of Dupree, let someone fair and unbiased...and who conducts investigations for a living, conduct the investigation...and remove any question about your motives.
I agree with you. That is what I want, and where witnesses and evidence may be submitted. And another thing, why do many complain when I respond to what is posted about me but not at the one's who post first? Clearly many are biased and have no desire to read the facts.
I will also post an article on my website of how the Waterworks insurance company hired the Provosty Law Firm to defended Dupree in that case, so what was the need for Lemoine's bill? Ron Fiorenza, of the Provosty Firm did most of the work in that case, and so what did Henry do to earn his fee?
I thought you all wanted to move on to another topic which didn't concern me?
Post a Comment