Are We Leaking?
I have posited this question before, but based on what I witnessed at the special Council meeting last night, I am compelled to ask it again. Is someone, either on the Council, in the Adminstration and/or someone closely related to the Administration, secretly communicating with any principal and/or agent of U.S. Flood Control concerning the ongoing BAG negotiations? In other words, is someone on this side sharing inside information with someone on the other side?
I hammer on this question because there are some serious consequences which may flow from such a leak. First, both sides are represented by attorneys. In such a case, the attorney from one side may not communicate with a party on the other side without that side's attorney being present or unless that attorney expressly waives his presence. Violation of this rule by an attorney can lead to sanctions by the Bar Association. Secondly, the leaker, if he is a public official, is likely committing malfeasance, a criminal offense.
Last night, there appeared to exist a serious disconnect between the Council's and U.S. Flood's expectations of what could be accomplished at the meeting. On the table was the Council's offer of $1.2 million. The U.S. Flood team appeared to believe that the Council would offer a higher amount without U.S. Flood countering the Council's offer. It is customary in any negotiation that when one makes an offer, the other side is expected to accept the offer on the table, propose a counteroffer or the negotiation is at an end. Did anyone lead U.S. Flood to believe that a higher settlement offer would be forthcoming from the Council last night without a U.S. Flood counteroffer?
I have personal knowledge and involvement in a dispute with the Randolph Administration that is reminiscent. It concerned my public records requests. The Administration refused to turn over uncensored documents. I filed a public records lawsuit. The Council held an executive session concerning the suit. Before, I was informed the Council's position on the suit by their attorney, George Randolph, the President's husband, attempted to communicate to me through one of my friends that the documents would be provided as demanded in the suit. So, we have a precedent for a leak by George Randolph.
If George Randolph is in fact similarly leaking information in the present matter and if President Randolph has knowledge of the leak, is she committing malfeasance by failing to stop her husband?
Mr. Morvant, please investigate.
Polygraph? Anyone?
I have posited this question before, but based on what I witnessed at the special Council meeting last night, I am compelled to ask it again. Is someone, either on the Council, in the Adminstration and/or someone closely related to the Administration, secretly communicating with any principal and/or agent of U.S. Flood Control concerning the ongoing BAG negotiations? In other words, is someone on this side sharing inside information with someone on the other side?
I hammer on this question because there are some serious consequences which may flow from such a leak. First, both sides are represented by attorneys. In such a case, the attorney from one side may not communicate with a party on the other side without that side's attorney being present or unless that attorney expressly waives his presence. Violation of this rule by an attorney can lead to sanctions by the Bar Association. Secondly, the leaker, if he is a public official, is likely committing malfeasance, a criminal offense.
Last night, there appeared to exist a serious disconnect between the Council's and U.S. Flood's expectations of what could be accomplished at the meeting. On the table was the Council's offer of $1.2 million. The U.S. Flood team appeared to believe that the Council would offer a higher amount without U.S. Flood countering the Council's offer. It is customary in any negotiation that when one makes an offer, the other side is expected to accept the offer on the table, propose a counteroffer or the negotiation is at an end. Did anyone lead U.S. Flood to believe that a higher settlement offer would be forthcoming from the Council last night without a U.S. Flood counteroffer?
I have personal knowledge and involvement in a dispute with the Randolph Administration that is reminiscent. It concerned my public records requests. The Administration refused to turn over uncensored documents. I filed a public records lawsuit. The Council held an executive session concerning the suit. Before, I was informed the Council's position on the suit by their attorney, George Randolph, the President's husband, attempted to communicate to me through one of my friends that the documents would be provided as demanded in the suit. So, we have a precedent for a leak by George Randolph.
If George Randolph is in fact similarly leaking information in the present matter and if President Randolph has knowledge of the leak, is she committing malfeasance by failing to stop her husband?
Mr. Morvant, please investigate.
Polygraph? Anyone?
posted by Carl A. Chauvin at 8:42 PM
4 Comments:
I did not hear of any comments by the administration at the meeting. Did the Parish Prez way in on any discussions?
Strangely, she was MIA for 3/4 of DA BAG discussion and remained silent for the rest.
Was she hiding? Was she patching a LEAK? It's obvious from the body language alone that VICKERS and his THREE WISE MEN were expecting something else from the COUNCIL.
VICKERS has always been two steps ahead of the D A and four steps ahead of the COUNCIL.The EXCEPTION was TUESDAY NIGHT.I agree with the leak theory.
I expected the dapper MR. VICKERS to strut into the MEETING with his usual entourage of AMPLY ENDOWED FEMALES.The GALS might have done more for him than the LAWYERS.
It's time for VICKERS to put his BOOBS, BAGS, and BULLSHIT in front of a JUDGE!
He has been her downfall since day 1 she took office and will be her ouster for re-election.Are we better off than we were 3 years ago???
Post a Comment
<< Home