Caroline Fayard...keepin' it classy

I really had every intention of keeping my opinion to myself during this Senate race....I swear.  I have been admittedly absent from the AZ world, even though I have some upcoming stories on the Public Belt I've been working on. Including an interview with Mayor Landrieu regarding his perspective of the issue.

As my readers know, I've written extensively about Caroline Fayard's father, Calvin Fayard, in respect to his role as a plaintiff steering committee attorney with the BP oil spill settlement and as one of the law firms who bullied their way in to the Wisner Trust oil spill settlement.  While Caroline did play a part in both stories, especially the Wisner drama, I figured I would just let the stories speak for themselves if anyone wanted to read about it.

Then Fayard announced she was opposed to the lawsuit the state is filing against oil and gas companies to hold them accountable for the damage they've done to our state's coast.  She said, "It's very easy for politicians and people to say, 'Let's just sue. Litigation's expensive.  It's costly. It's time consuming. And there's no guarantees."

I literally spit coffee on my keyboard the first time I read that.

Still....I had nothing to say.

Now...well...now...her campaign went and did this absurd, tasteless bullshit:

Caroline Fayard chooses to continue running David Duke-themed anti-Foster Campbell ad, loses Alliance for Good Government endorsement

After she accused Campbell's campaign of being focused on attacking her family:



An act of desperation?  Absolutely...and a pathetic one at that.  But the blowback has been swift and merciless leaving even the little, penny-ante sycophants running for cover (i could link that but I won't).

There's only so much sanctimony and hypocrisy a zombie can take, homeys.

Sooooo.....let me remind you of a little Vanity Fair article that was published back in June of 2006 in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

It showcased Carloline's father, Calvin, playing Billy Joe Baddass in the front yard of his multi-million dollar wedding cake house (paid for with litigation that doesn't always work).

The online version of the story doesn't have the photos that were included in the magazine edition but luckily Zombie has a scanner.

Who you gonna shoot, Rambo?

Look at those swingin' dicks with their thousand dollar suits and Remington shotguns just waitin' for a "thug" to try and loot their mansion.

Finger on the trigger...judges on speed dial.

Here's the corresponding paragraph to the picture:

Some of the city’s richest residents stepped into the breach, taking security into their own hands. In New Orleans’s upscale Uptown neighborhood, well-heeled and well-armed property owners, sometimes with security guards to assist them, kept possible looters at bay, carrying firearms openly in their neighborhoods and looking after neighbors’ homes and valuables—even keeping a close watch on friends’ irreplaceable art collections. Attorney Calvin Fayard—one of the region’s major political fund-raisers for the Democratic Party, and the owner of the so-called Wedding Cake House, one of the city’s grand mansions—would remain at home and on guard with a coterie of like-minded friends. Some would use their powerboats to rescue the marooned. Their neighbors would dine on gourmet food from nearby specialty stores. Some would bathe in their stagnant swimming pools. One or two would take the opportunity to fly by helicopter to the office to shred potentially sensitive business documents—to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, should law and order break down altogether.  

It cracks me up that he actually posed for this photo...replete with sunglasses and Armani, Perlis, (whatever) suit.  He must have been really proud of himself.  And something tells me even though Brinkley buried "Some would use their powerboats to rescue the marooned" in the middle of the paragraph as a compassionate caveat, Calvin was most likely not in that number.  

Fayard's campaign is trying desperately to associate Foster Campbell with something racist. Meanwhile, her Pops was flaunting that bullshit in Vanity Fair during the most vulnerable period this city ever experienced.

New Orleans Public Belt Railroad - A Mayoral Reminder

On July 7, 2016, at a District C Budget meeting in Algiers, I asked Mayor Mitch Landrieu about his intentions to sell The New Orleans Public Belt Railroad, an asset of the City of New Orleans since the turn of the 20th century.  His full reply is in the preceding post but I want to draw your attention to this particular sound byte:


New Orleans Public Belt Railroad - Mayor Landrieu quote on who appointed the Commission members from Jason Berry on Vimeo.


Transcript:

“Now Public Belt Railroad is an independent board…I make some of the appointments, the Governor makes some…and they forget who appointed them and say they want to do whatever they want to do.”

The quote seems to be contradictory.  If the NOPB Commission is an "independent" board is it their responsibility to serve the interests of the entity itself or to serve at the leisure of the Mayor as he implied at the end of the statement?

Last week Public Belt Railroad Commissioner and President/CEO of New Orleans Center for the Arts, Kyle Wedberg, abruptly resigned his position on the Public Belt Railroad Commission.  I emailed Wedberg today to seek comment on the reason he left the Commission at such a critical juncture but I have received no reply as of yet.  His handpicked replacement could sway the balance of power in a future decision to sell the NOPB.  

Wedberg's commission position was one of three Mayoral appointments allotted to the Mayor on the nine-person entity.

In the June 23rd NOPB Commission meeting, Wedberg was the one who originally made the motion to remove the option for sale from an evaluation being created by the company hired by the Commission to evaluate the Public Belt's worth, KPMG, after hearing the objections of major business interests that rely on the NOPB including The Port of New Orleans representatives.  The motion was subsequently voted on and passed but the Commission representative for the Mayor, Ryan Berni, informed the Commission that the City would move ahead with the valuation for sale even if they had to pay for it out of City coffers.

Last week the City made good on that promise and contracted KPMG independently of the Commission to complete the valuation for sale of the Public Belt.  The estimated cost to complete it was valued at about $50,000.

According to an off-the-record source, French based New Orleans RTA contractor Veolia Transportation has expressed interest in purchasing NOPB if the option for sale is eventually passed.

A source also suggested that the Mayor may be replacing Wedberg's commission position with long-time Landrieu cofnidante, Emily Sneed Arata.  Arata has worked in some capacity with Mayor Landrieu since his tenure as Lt. Governor, including serving as Deputy Mayor of Communications under his first Mayoral term.  Sneed left her stint with the City in January of 2016 to take a job with Ochsner Health Systems.

I contacted Arata to confirm or deny her appointment but have yet to receive a reply.

I confirmed through NOPB officials that the Mayor can fill Wedberg's vacated position on the Commission at his own discretion if his candidate is approved by City Council.

The appointment could prove to be the deciding factor on whether or not the Public Belt is offered up for sale.

If you are new to AZ, I would suggest you take some time to go back and read my reporting on Mayor Landrieu's efforts to seize full control of the Wisner Trust back in 2013, there are striking similarities in the story of that partially-owned city asset and what's unfolding now with NOPB:

Starting here:

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part I

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part 2

Unfortunately Blogger does not have the greatest ability for searching past posts in a chronological fashion but if you have further interest in the story you can read more simply by typing in "Wisner" in the search field window:

http://www.theamericanzombie.com/search?q=wisner 

Or you can simply ask me in the Comments section.

The Wisner Trust: Horse trading in Louisiana's wild, wild justice system

It was recently brought to my attention that the Wisner heirs had filed a complaint with the U.S district court, Eastern District of Louisiana in respect to the five JV attorneys hired by Mayor Mitch Landrieu to represent The Wisner Trust Advisory Committee in their case against BP for the damages inflicted upon Wisner properties during the 2010 Macondo oil spill.

I received that complaint last week.   Apparently it has already been dismissed by Federal Judge Sarah S. Vance:

Complaint against JV attorneys representing Wisner Trust v. BP

The five law firms I refer to as the "JV (joint venture) attorneys" are: Herman, Herman & Katz; Domengeuax, Wright, Roy & Edwards; Fayard & Honeycutt; Fred Herman and Leger & Shaw.  Three of these firms...Herman, Roy and Fayard....also serve on the Plaintiff Steering Committee for the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center.

These JV attorneys also represent The City of New Orleans as well as Orleans Parish Prison in their lawsuits against BP.

Keep in mind that public entities are not allowed to enter the settlement program (DHECC), only private individuals.  Public claims against BP for the oil spill must be filed in open court.

The Great Wisner Train Robbery

For over a year, AZ has documented the shenanigans that occurred with the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee and how Mayor Landrieu, along with his appointee to the Trust, Michael Sherman, manipulated the five-seat committee in order to create a "hostile takeover":

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part I

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part 2

Immediately after two Mayoral cronies, Anthony Lorino for Tulane and Ron Gardner of LSU, were placed on the board by their respective entities; Michael Sherman called a vote to fire the Trust's existing legal counsel in their case against BP and replace them with the aforementioned JV attorneys.  Having the majority three-man vote needed to pass a motion, Sherman, Lorino and Gardner succeeded in their plan to fire the environmental law firm Waltzer and Wiygul in order to bring the JV attorneys on board.

After over a year of documenting this story, I've uncovered so many conflicts of interest with the JV attorneys and falsifications by City attorneys, specifically former Executive Counsel to the Mayor, Michael Sherman......it's difficult to keep up with them all.

In respect to conflict of interest issues, the most notable was in Part 2, when I posted an email chain between Sherman, Steve Herman and BP attorneys, Mark E. Holstein and  Nathan Block.  There, Herman was providing Holstein and Block with privileged information from a Wisner Trust Advisory Committee executive session.  Keep in mind....this is the plaintiff attorney providing the defense's attorney with privileged information from the claimant.  I'm not sure how a conflict of interest gets any more explicit than that and it's right there in black and white.

And the obfuscation and dissembling has continued even after Sherman quietly resigned his position as a city attorney to seek the brights lights of show business as an on-air legal analyst for WDSU (officially making him a public figure).

Indeed, the Mayor's counsel won a major victory in Orleans Civil District Court, per Ad Hoc Orleans Civil District Court (CDC) Judge Melvin Zeno, partially on the premise that The Wisner Trust Advisory Committee should have no oversight on the City's portion of the Wisner proceeds because an oversight body already existed in City Council.  Sherman's successor to the Wisner trustee postion, Erica Beck, sat through the entire hearing listening to her colleague, City Attorney Sharonda Williams, make the City Council oversight argument to Judge Zeno in order to avoid oversight from the Advisory Committee.

One month later Beck stood in front of City Council and told them no one in the Mayor's office envisioned City Council having oversight over the Wisner funds:

American Zombie: What wicked webs we weave...

One of the biggest revelations the blog uncovered was a complaint filed in may of 2013 against BP by the JV attorneys on behalf of the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office (OPSO).  In that complaint, the JV attorneys claimed the Sheriffs Office had suffered economic losses, per taxes, because of the damage to Wisner property:

American Zombie: "Complaints"

1.  In item 31 of the Wisner complaint this grievance for OPSO is listed:  "...including New Orleans, was a foreseeable result of the oil spill. The adverse impacts to these industries resulted in reduced economic activity in New Orleans which is heavily dependent on the seafood, tourism and petrochemical industries. Due to the foreseeable adverse impact on these industries, the Sheriff of Orleans has lost, and continues to lose, ad valorem property tax revenues and other taxes."

The only problem with that is that there is no Wisner property in Orleans Parish.  This claim is fraudulent...pure and simple...and it was filed by the JV attorneys.

If you read the comment section of that post, you will see an exchange I had with an anonymous commenter who claimed the inclusion of Wisner in the Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office complaint was simply a "cut and paste" error.  A simple mistake on behalf of the law firm that filed it.  That would be a potentially multi-million dollar cut and paste error but the commenter assured me this happens all the time.

I'm curious if the legal filing was retracted or amended since last May....if not....it's still fraudulent... and it's still pending in Orleans Parish CDC.

I also noted that a "loss of natural resources" from Wisner land was claimed on behalf of the City and OPSO but was curiously absent from the Wisner claim filed by the JV attorneys:

Item #2  

Why would they fraudulently file a claim for OPSO in respect to Wisner while downplaying losses for the Wisner Trust, itself?  Let me provide a thesis.

Art of the horse trade:  

a clever and often secret agreement made by powerful people who are usually trying to get an advantage over others

Getting back to the Wisner heirs complaint filed with U.S district court, Eastern District of Louisiana  and the items within it I found to be of the greatest significance...the main problem with the JV attorneys representing the City, OPSO and Wisner is the potential for them to "horse trade", as Wisner heir Michael Peneguy refers to it on Page 28, item # 20 of the complaint.  The scenario being that the JV attorneys could be using the Wisner settlement as leverage to increase the amount on other settlements they are representing such as the City's or OPSO's:

After having followed this story for over a year, I believe this is exactly what is happening.  Keep in mind that any money awarded to Winser by BP has very strict guidelines in how it must be spent...but not so with the City.

In filing this complaint with  the U.S district court, Eastern District of Louisiana against the JV attorneys, the heirs hired University of Mississippi law professor, Benjamin Cooper, to offer a legal opinion on the possible conflict of interest issues.  In his affidavit, he offers the opinion that a conflict does indeed exist with bullet points to that effect in items 10 -12 on pages 10 through 13:

Click on the pic to expand or refer to the original document

These bullet points tellingly reflect Mayor Landrieu's MO with the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee since he took office and first placed Michael Sherman as his appointee.  Herman and Herman attorney and the point person for the JV attorneys on Wisner, Soren Giselson, echoes the Mayor's mantra perfectly, "...the ultimate decision-making authority should rest with the Mayor, as Trustee".

Waltzer and Wiygul were originally hired by the Committee after an extensive vetting process to find an environmental law firm that would have the best understanding of the damage incurred to the Wisner property from the BP spill.  Shortly after Sherman was appointed and the Committee was politcally stacked, W&W was then inexplicably removed at Sherman's suggestion and replaced with the JV attorneys.

But even with the crony votes on the Committee (Lorino and Gardner) following orders to approve the hiring of the JV attorneys the move was not congruent with Rule 1.0(e) of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct regarding "Informed Consent" which states:

(e) “Informed consent” denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.   

In items 18 - 20 Cooper details how not only did they JV lawyers fail to obtain the required waiver from the Committee, they admitted that a potential conflict could exist due to their existing joint representation with the City of New Orleans in its case against BP.  However, they failed to explain to the Committee what that potential conflict may be.

Cooper also details how the JV attorneys presented the Committee with a proposed contract in the 11th hour, one day, before the September 25, 2012 meeting in which they were being asked to vote on its approval.  Cooper argues that there was no possible way the entire Committee could have vetted the JV attorneys' contract or sought outside legal advice as to their potential conflicts of interest within that 24-hour time frame.

Nonetheless, in that meeting Michael Sherman, Anthony Lorino, and Ron Gardner provided the 3 votes needed to contract the JV attorneys with the heirs and the Salvation Army casting the two minority dissenting votes.

Basically, the JV attorneys were steam-rolled in as the new counsel to replace Waltzer and Wiygul.  Later on in the complaint...we get a pretty good idea why.

In item number 23 on page 18, we discover that the JV attorneys created a contingency fee arrangment within their contract.  Cooper points out that under LRPC 1.5 (a), a lawyer "shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee...".  He later points that there is almost no chance of the Donation not being able to recover a substantial damage amount and that even Soren Giselson has publicly acknowledged as much.  The Donation could have easily paid attorneys on an hourly basis and considering most of the leg work had already been accomplished by Waltzer and Wiygul the addition of a contingency fee is most likely inappropriate in this case.

He also points out that even though the heirs have requested the details of the contingency fee, the JV attorneys have failed to provide them.  Which brings me to a final point, independent of the complaint filed with the U.S district court, Eastern District of Louisiana.

There's only one Marshall in this town

Months ago, the heirs stopped receiving update statuses from the Wisner Field Inspector on the ongoing effects of the BP oil washing in on Wisner property.  Michael Peneguy contacted the Field Inspector by email asking why the update statuses had stopped.  The Field Inspector replied that he was told by JV attorney Soren Giselson to stop sending updates to the Advisory Committee.  After further inquiry by Peneguy to Giselson, City Attorney and current Mayoral appointee to the Advisory Committee, Erica Beck, informed Peneguy that she had instructed Giselson not to reply to him because she didn't want to "jeopardize the Committee's position with respect to its BP claim."

So understand this...Beck is ordering the JV attorneys not to share information with the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee....the counsel's clients.  Apparently the clients don't have the right to see information held by their attorneys in their own lawsuit.

This isn't surprising though if you look at the objectives of the Mayor and the JV attorneys.  The mayor believes the entire Trust is his...or rather the City's.  Actually I can't tell which.  The Lens calls actions like this being a bully (read the comment section)...the TP dutifully polished the turd and called it political hardball....other people call it being a productive asshole.

I call it not only unethical but quite possibly illegal.

The government, court and media roundup?

Both times I visited Wisner Beach, In February and October of 2013, to document the constant barrage of oil washing onshore there was a backlash from the Mayor's office towards the heirs for allowing me on the property.  The first trip I took in February resulted in Michael Sherman creating a "media policy" where the Advisory Committee would have to approve anyone wanting to visit the beach.  But Sherman didn't seem to think he needed Committee approval when he went on camera with John Snell of Fox 8.  Snell and Fox 8 had their cameras on the beach the same day I did.  (The beginning of that Snell story looks vaguely familiar does it not?)

Any rational legal person may look at this evidence and think at the very least there is an obvious malpractice suit waiting in the wings.  But the Mayor, his City attorneys and the JV attorneys may have even lassoed that bucking bronc....remember the City is now claiming that the heirs were never actually heirs to begin with.  Even though Ad Hoc Judge Zeno handed the mayor most everything he wanted in the hearing without much legal explanation, he refrained from ruling on the matter of the heirs' standing.  If the court decides the heirs aren't really heirs...they can't file a malpractice suit can they?

I recently made a post about "The $ Estate".  What I mean by The $ Estate is that I believe there are a a select few people within the city that have enough power and money to control all four estates of our democracy: executive, legislative, judicial and the press.  The three basic branches of government speak for themselves in this matter but the influence these power brokers have over the fourth estate, the press, may be a little harder to see.

If you scrape the surface, it reveals itself.  

I find it curious that the Times-Picayune's "Louisiana Purchased" series focused on politicians and campaign bundling but left Mayor Landrieu out of the fray.  I did point out back in February of 2013, a year ago, that three of the JV attorneys contributed at least 10%, possibly as high as 15% or more, of Mayor Landrieu's campaign contributions for 2012 through campaign bundling.  Herman and Herman alone accounted for approximately $71,000 of $755,882.

I guess it never occurred to the TP to look at the Mayor's campaign contributions.  I wonder why?

Seems like the $ Estate is truly above the justice system, eh?  Well....maybe not.  Stay tuned to AZ this week, cowpokes...this rodeo could get interesting.  

What wicked webs we weave...

Friday, I received the portion of the transcript from the Wisner hearing which details the argument City Attorney Sharonda Williams made to Judge Zeno that the Mayor should be allowed to spend the City's portion of the Wisner funds without approval from the Wisner Trust Donation Advisory Committee.  Here 'tis:

Winser v CNO Court Transcript - Sept. 24, 2013 - City Attorney Sharonda Williams

As I stated before, the City's entire argument was predicated on the premise that the Mayor is not subject to the approval of the Advisory Committee in order to spend the funds because once the money is transferred into the city coffers it becomes a public issue.  That would mean the money is public and the legislative branch, City Council, then becomes the oversight body.

William's own words from the transcript:

"And when you look at the City Code that talks about establishment of the Advisory Committee, one of the portions of the Code is that; '...Direction and functions of the Advisory Committee are subject to the control and direction of the Council, which contemplates the normal checks and balances of any governmental entity, the Council and the executive branch.' That's the checks and balances"

....and...

"What if, just for hypothetical sake, what if the Mayor did decide to give grants to some entity, the Advisory Committee says, yes, we agree with the Mayor, we're going to give you our consent, but then the Council decides that they do not agree with that?  What would the Advisory Committee do then?  They just don't have a place in that process.  It's the traditional government model in a democracy.  It's checks and balanced, executive and legislative branch."

The Advisory Committee is here to give advice and consent that the Mayor may act on related to matters having to do with the Trust.  This is not a matter related to the Trust.  This is a matter related to civic city government."

Zeno goes on to ask her if City Council has the authority to amend the role of the Advisory Committee and Williams responds:

"They can.  They can amend it.  Of course they can.  That is part of their legislative ability."

So now...flash forward to the November 6th City Council meeting concerning the city budget.  Video here:



For some reason the video embed link only has 7 seconds.  You can find the video at the CC website here, scroll down to the November 6th City Council meeting.  The Wisner issues first start at about 28 minutes into the session with Head addressing Cedric Grant.  It picks back up at 57 minutes into the session...although you may want to skip over Jackie Clarkson cackling about how she doesn't think the Wisner funds should go through the Council because they never have before and this Mayor doesn't need to be scrutinized.  Then finally at 1:12, the conversation between Head and Erica Beck takes place.

Councilperson Head questions the Mayor's peeps about why the Wisner budget line item is "$0".  City Attorney and the Mayor's appointee to the Advisory Committee, Erica Beck, responds and tells Head the Council has no control over the Wisner funds.  She sat in the courtroom and listened to the argument made by her colleague, Williams, to Judge Zeno then she stood up in front of City Council and told them they have no dominion over the Wisner funds or how the Mayor spends the money.

The Mayor's office is either misleading the judge, misleading City Council...or it's misleading both.  I'm not going to go so far as to say Beck lied to Head...but she certainly dissembled in respect to the stance they took in court, particularly at 1:17 in the video when Beck claims that no one (in the Mayor's admin.) would envision a process where Council oversees the Wisner budget.  I guess no one but the city attorney arguing that point to the judge.

In fact, when Head asked Beck about a "check and balance system" (1:16 into the video), Beck retorted that she didn't know where Head was getting that language.  I know where that language comes from....from the goddamn case they, themselves, made to Judge Zeno...it's right there in the transcript in black and white.

As if this isn't schizo enough...Beck and the Mayor's office have now come back to the Advisory Committee seeking their approval to award the 2013 grants.  Yes...you read that correctly....after going to court and arguing that the Mayor didn't have to get the Advisory Committee's approval to spend the Wisner money, they are now coming back to the Advisory Committee and asking for approval.

Email from November 21, 2013 to all members of the Edward Wisner Trust Advisory Committee

Why would they do this?  I think for two reasons: 1. The mayor is desperate to spend this money in 2013 with his re-election campaign and a possible run for governor on the near horizon.  2.  They are freaking out because Head is actually threatening to exercise Counsel's right to oversight of the funds.  They would rather let the oversight occur with the Advisory Committee because they think they have that vote locked down....City Council, not so much.

The whole thing would be quite humorous if it wasn't hurting the legitimate entities who need the money.  The Mayor's own hubris and greed to take over the entire Wisner motherlode has lead to his inability to spend any of the money...all this done supposedly under the guise of "transparency".   Now they are forced to spin deceitful webs in a desperate attempt to undo the damage they've done to themselves and the City itself.  

And I know many people are interested in who the City is proposing to give the 2013 grants to....here is that List:

2013 Proposed Wisner Grants for CNO

One thing I just noticed is that in the City Council meeting when Head is questioning Cary Grant about the $600k (approx.) in Wisner line items for Ceasfire and Nola For Life (28 minutes in the video), they state that they included this money in the general budget because it's appropriated to salaries (I think that was the reason, not 100% sure).  However, they are also listing Ceasefire ($100,180) and Nola for Life (under Greater New Orleans Foundation - $250,000) in the proposed 2013 grants.  


  

Public-ishy-ness

I got to watch a short segment today of the City Council meeting where the City's portion of the Wisner Funds was discussed in respect to what responsibility and oversight the Council has over how the funds are spent.  I'll defer to the Lens and Maldanado who was actually there:

Council members seek more accountability in Wisner, NOLA for Life spending

The budget does not, however, include more than $1.5 million in Wisner-funded grants the city usually gives to local charities. As long as the lawsuit is winding through appeals courts, the city doesn’t plan to allocate any Wisner grant money. That could put some of those charities in a bind. 

But even if the money were included, Landrieu’s General Counsel Erica Beck said, the council would have no control of it. 

“The council has traditionally not appropriated any of that grant money,” Beck told the council. “We’ve received no indication from the judge that we need to change.” 

But as blogger Jason Berry recently pointed out, New Orleans Municipal Code appears to give the council control of the fund. In fact, Berry reported, that “check and balance” was central to the city’s argument that the fund should be declared public. 

“If there is in fact council oversight,” asked Head, “and there is a check and balance for this government fund, when do I have that council oversight that is part and parcel to that check and balance?” 

During her remarks on the Wisner Fund, Head also objected to the process for handing out NOLA for Life grant funds, saying it wasn’t transparent, which led to funds going to charities that lacked proper financial documentation.

That is....almost incomprehensible to me....Beck's statements.

She sat in the same courtroom I did and listened to her fellow City Attorney, Sharonda Williams, argue to Judge Zeno that there was no need for the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee to review and provide oversight of how the Mayor spent the City's portion of the money because there was already a check and balance system in place with City Council, who oversees all expenditures of public money by the Mayor.

If they're now arguing that City Council has no oversight or control of the money we need to have another hearing and inform the judge that Sharonda Williams totally misinformed him in the courtroom.

As it stands right now, there is no oversight of how the Mayor spends the money...PUBLIC money.  He could go take out a Wisner Amex and blow millions of dollars on Cheetos, blow jobs, Miller Hi-Life and Angry Bird apps and there would be no legal recourse to stop him....none.

The judge ruled the Trust was PUBLIC.  As of right now, this money is PUBLIC money.  It's not "publicy" money.  It's not kinda-sorta public.  It's not a little bit public....it's fucking PUBLIC.

There shouldn't even be a question of whether or not City Council has control and oversight of how the executive branch spends the money but even if there was a question the City Code clearly states City Council has dominion.  Beck's argument that Council hasn't traditionally appropriated the grant money is moot....when the Mayor decided to attempt to bust the trust and bypass the "traditional appropriation of the money" he negated whatever M.O. was in place.

In fact, City Council now has a fiduciary duty to provide oversight.  If the Mayor did blow the money on Cheetos and blow jobs,  according to the City Code, Council could be held accountable as well.

Yes, I'm being outrageous but not so much in a city that is vaunted for corruption and misappropriation of public funds.  It's not only possible that the Wisner funds will be used as a personal slush fund for the Mayor's pet projects and to pay off political cronies....it's likely.

So Beck is saying that the judge gave them no indication that they need to change yet they must have misled the judge in their legal argument if this is the position they're taking now.  I think City Council needs to get a clarification from Judge Zeno on this matter and find out if he truly intended to turn over millions of public dollars generated annually to the Mayor without any oversight or action for recourse.

Hell, I may run for Mayor and go bankroll all my peeps' private ventures with Wisner funds if that's the case.

I'm waiting for the archived video to be loaded on City Council's website so I can watch the whole thing.  I'm also trying to obtain the transcript from the hearing...I went by Div. D today but the court reporter is on vacation and I wasn't able to get it.  I'll keep you posted.

A dispatch from ghouls of Halloween past

In honor of All Hallow's Eve, I'd like to post a rather horrifying document, an email chain, that occurred exactly one year ago today between two frightful creatures.  It's not the kind of document that will startle you or make you piss your pants....it's the kind that will turn your stomach and make you upchuck.

Thanks to a public records request filed by an AZ reader and commenter, I've been going through a chain of former City Attorney Michael Sherman's emails regarding matters on Wisner.  Sherman served as the appointee for Mayor Landrieu to the Advisory Committee.

From the get-go, Sherman's primary target was former Wisner Trust Advisory Committee Treasurer/Secretary, Cathy Norman.  His intimidation tactics have been well documented here on AZ, even in video.  Numerous folks who attended the Advisory Committee meetings attested that Sherman "terrorized" Norman to the point where she simply couldn't take it any more and was forced to resign.

I've even heard tell of an incident where Norman was called into the Mayor's office under the auspices of a one on one meeting with him (Mayor Landrieu) only to be hot-boxed by a room full of lawyers, some of them PSC/JV attorneys.

A petty act of intimidation by petty men.

How petty are these men?  Well, I'm going to let you decide that after you read this email chain where Sherman gleefully announces to the JV inner circle that Norman finally resigned, broken by their tactics.

Read the thread from bottom to top

Even more than Calvin Fayard's obvious schadenfreude over Norman's departure, the part that made me laugh and barf at the same time was Sherman proclaiming that he "speaks the truth".  What a rare moment for him indeed...I imagine it did feel good for him to speak the truth.

I believe there was a concerted effort on the part of the Mayor to oust the people from the Advisory Committee he didn't like and replace them with his own cronies.  I've also suggested that LSU and Tulane colluded with the Mayor's wishes by removing their appointees in order to replace them with folks who would follow the Mayor's wishes, Ron Gardner and Anthony Lorino.

Once these cronies were appointed, they immediately followed Sherman's lead to fire the Wisner Trust's counsel on the BP lawsuit, Waltzer and Wiygul, and replace them with the JV attorneys you see listed in the email thread above.

It's pretty vulgar stuff.

I don't expect anything to come of this exposure but if nothing else I want the public to know the truth.  I want them to know what kind of people are roaming the halls of City Hall and pulling the strings of City government.

For the people that actually care to know, that want to know, I think it's important to air this nastiness out.

Happy Halloween.

It's time to take Mayor Landrieu on his word regarding the oversight of Wisner Trust Funds

In my post on the Wisner hearing I noted that Sharonda Williams, New Orleans City Attorney, made an argument to Judge Zeno that there was no need for the Wisner Trust Advisory Committee to serve as an oversight body to how the Mayor spends the Wisner funds because there is already a check and balance system in place.  She suggested that oversight body is New Orleans City Council.  

I found it to be a specious claim the moment I heard it but apparently Judge Zeno took her word and granted the Mayor full control of the City's portion of the Wisner funds.

In fact, he apparently took the city attorneys' word on everything,  even going so far as cutting and pasting part of their counter-motion into his own "judgement".  That cut and paste job was just about the only explanation he provided in any of his rulings which gave Mayor Landrieu practically everything he asked for.

I was pretty sure the City Council claim was a smoke screen when I heard it but I wanted to check and see if City Council members were aware that the Mayor's office considered them to have any oversight with the City's portion of the Wisner funds.

I spoke with two City Council members about the issue, Stacy Head and Susan Guidry.

Councilperson-at-Large, Stacy Head, told me she had looked into the matter back in February and had asked the Assistant Fiscal Officer to the Council, David Gavlinksi, to do the same.

Councilperson Head forwarded me an email chain between her, Gavlinski and City Council President, Jackie Clarkson.  I condensed the messages into this document according to date:

City Council Email Thread on regarding the Wisner Trust 2013

This is what the municipal code states in respect to the Council's involvement with the Wisner funds:

DIVISION 4. – EDWARD WISNER DONATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Sec. 2-159. - Function.
Subject to the control and direction of the council, the powers, duties and functions of
the Edward Wisner Donation Advisory Committee shall be the supervision, direction
and administration of all of the lands, funds and avails constituting and comprising the
Wisner donation, or the avails or fruits thereof, and to consult with and advise the mayor in his capacity as trustee upon all matters pertaining to such trust and the mayor when acting upon the advice of the committee, or a majority thereof, shall be deemed to be acting for and in behalf of all the parties at interest. To that end all matters relating to the trust shall in the first instance be referred to and handled by the committee.  (Code 1956, § 19-4) 

Gavlinski goes on to offer an opinion (not legally binding mind you, just an opinion) of City Council's role with the Trust:

Of interest is a section on page six of the attached, which reads:

“… the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, with the approval of the Commission
Council (or its successor body), may act as such Trustee upon the advice and
with the consent of the majority of said Commissioners, and such action, so
authorized, shall be binding on all parties hereto.”

My reading of that is that the Mayor, on behalf of the City, has but one vote
on the committee. That vote is subject to approval of the Council, and must
accompany a majority of the committee member. I’m fairly certain that this is a
level of restraint that has not occurred over the years as any Mayor has seldom
come to any Council for their “approval.”

I think what he's saying is the law states City Council does have legal oversight but it was never actually put into practice.

Soooo...note to City Council:  The Mayor is ultimately subject to the oversight and approval of City Council on all matters regarding Wisner.

In fact, his lawyers just made that exact argument in Zeno's court.  They claimed that they shouldn't have to answer to The Wisner Trust Advisory Committee because they are already legally bound to answer to City Council....Zeno agreed.

The problem is City Council had no idea that they were responsible.  At least the two At-Large members on the Council didn't know, as evidenced in this email chain.  Nor did the third councilperson I spoke with, Susan Guidry.

I'm not criticizing the council members in any way for not knowing this, they are elected officials that came into their jobs following the practices of the council members before them.  The modus operandi and annual budget agenda never included a breakdown of The Wisner grant money.

I believe Gavlinski states as much in his response to the council members after researching the matter:

"It appears as if we have nearly a century of operational inertia whereby the
Council has not appropriated all the funds, even though this practice may
be contrary  powers in the above referenced code. Alas, the Mayor may be
right in one respect, but it seems clear that the fund has operated outside of
complete Council authority in the past.

I believe that historically, there has been more harmony between the chair
of the Committee and the rest of its membership, so this issue may have not
arisen as acutely. " 

Apparently, the issue never came up until now.  Regardless, once again, here's a note to City Council: YOU ARE THE OVERSIGHT BODY.  In fact City Council is now the ONLY oversight body.  The Mayor's counsel just lobbied this admission in a court of law....and the judge agreed.  

I suppose the person we should consult is the Special Counsel to the City Council.  I'm sure that appointee could provide an objective legal opinion on the matter, eh?  Because whoever holds that position would not be privy to the mayor in any way, eh?

As luck would have it, the City just accepted RFQs for that position and four law firms applied.  I'll give you three guesses as to who one of those firms is and the first two don't count.

Funny stuff, huh?  The one critical position with City Council that is supposed to be objective and independent of the executive branch of city government (the Mayor's office) and Herman and Herman are applying for it.  I'm sure there's no conflict of interest there...nah....

...seeing as how they are representing the City and the Wisner Trust in their settlement case against BP...

....seeing as how Herman and Herman members and family members comprised the single largest bloc of campaign contributions to Mayor Landrieu in 2012...

....no....no conflict here.....Where's that Uddo or Zeno opinion when you need it?


   

Will Barbier do the right thing?

In the last post, I brought up the interesting point that in his report on the DHECC, Louis Freeh suggested an unnamed law firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  I questioned the fact that Freeh had no qualms about naming Lionel Sutton, Christine Reitano (Sutton's wife) and the Andry Lerner law firm in his report but for some unknown reason he didn't release the name of the law firm on page 60.

This is a pretty big deal because he's effectively destroyed Sutton and Reitano's reputation by listing them both in the report.  Reitano has denied any wrongdoing and is now suing both Patrick Juneau and BP for defamation.  Why would Freeh name Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner but protect the identity of this firm?

I've been doing a lot of speculating with my legal-eagle readers and friends about why this firm went unnamed.  Here are some of our theories, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

- Freeh is continuing the investigation into the misconduct of the unnamed firm and was not ready to release their name at the time he published the report.

- The claim may be unsubstantiated and found to have been false upon further examination.

- The law firm may, in fact, be a PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) firm that used their position to manipulate the claims process to their advantage and get the increase in payments.  This may simply be such a huge can of worms that Judge Barbier had Freeh back off the firm in order to preserve the integrity of the Claims Office.

- Freeh may not be as autonomous as he pretends and the law firm had enough stroke with him and/or Judge Barbier to keep themselves out of the frying pan.

- Barbier may have given the law firm the opportunity to pay back the overpayments in order to not be exposed and mar the Claims Office.

Here's what I think...I think it's most likely a combination of the last three theories.  The first question is what law firm would have enough stroke within the DHECC to manipulate the claims to get a 114% overpayment.  I think that it almost has to be, without a doubt, a PSC firm.  I also think that it would almost have to be a local, Louisiana-based firm.  That narrows the possibilities down to what?  About 9 of the 12 original firms?  There's Calvin Fayard, Steve Herman, Jim Roy, Motley Rice, Micheal C. Palmintier, Paul M. Sterbcow, Matthew E. Lundy, Duke Williams,  and Phillip Cossich.  You can check out this post I made for a graphic map of the PSC.

I honestly don't know, 100%, who the firm is but I have about a 90% hunch of who it might be.  If I'm right it would also explain why local media outlets, especially the Times-Picayune, are virtually ignoring this story and the past two legal filings by Andry Lerner and Reitano.  In fact, they aren't even reporting on the matter, themselves, they're just reposting AP reports.  Nola.com posted the Reitano AP report, left it up for about two hours and immediately pushed it to archives.  Why is the AP the only entity reporting what may be the biggest story in the city at the moment?  Maybe The Advocate and Nola.com are working on it but I suspect the story is purposely being muted because of who the unnamed firm may be.

NOTE:  The AP story said Reitano's suit was a defamation suit...it's not.  Her suit is actually for breach of contract.  

For the moment, let's assume Freeh's unnamed firm is a PSC firm.

Please note that I have continually addressed issues that have been reported to me with some of the PSC firms, particularly those who were also placed on the Wisner settlement with BP for the City of New Orleans.  If you haven't seen the issues I have brought up, here are some links you should read now:

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part 2

American Zombie: Thieves in The Temple

American Zombie: A little help

American Zombie: "Complaints"

American Zombie: Item # 2

American Zombie: Sounds of the Jungle

Aside from the clear collusion between Steve Herman and BP lawyers regarding the Wisner property I laid out in email chains in the first link, Wisner Part 2, I have been researching two overarching claims of wrongdoing by some of the PSC firms:

1.  Some of the PSC law firms used their clout to push their own private claims ahead of other claims being processed in the DHECC.

2.  At least one of the PSC law firms sold the "formula" to the claims process before the DHECC office even opened in order to give an advantage to law firms who wanted to get their claims processed first.

On item number two, I have been very close to getting a source to go on the record about being approached to purchase this "formula" but ultimately they decided not to.  I'm still working on that item though, so don't give up on me just yet.  I have no doubt this allegation is true.

The thing is, if any of these claims are proven against a PSC firm, including the 114% overpayment alleged by Freeh, this could lead to catastrophic legal implications.

The reason this is such a big deal, and the reason I've been pounding the drum about it for so long, is that these PSC lawyers were appointed to represent the claimants in the DHECC and the people of the Gulf who were affected by the BP spill...people who are still suffering from the BP spill.  Many of these people have filed claims and still not been paid.  Some have been waiting a year or more.

As we all know, BP is trying to shut the DHECC down and kill the settlement completely.  If that were to happen, all the folks with claims left queued in the Claims Office are most likely shit outta luck.  If a PSC firm got their clients paid first, and overpaid, they are directly responsible for dissing the claimants who may not get paid.  I'm not even sure what happens at that point.  Could the remaining claimants file a class action malpractice suit against one or more of the PSC firms?  Not sure if that's legally possible but it seems as if it should be.

I suspect there is a massive suppression campaign taking place right now to try and squash this genie back in the bottle.  I hope that doesn't happen.  Not only would that not be fair to the people actually named in the Freeh report, Reitano, Sutton and Andry Lerner, it wouldn't be fair to the hard working people of the Gulf Coast who were devastated by BP's greed and incompetence.

The one person who must know the answers to these questions is Federal Judge Carl Barbier.  Let's hope he does the right thing.  We've seen too many rich, wealthy, fat cats get away with crimes in this city in the past couple years...crimes that have a direct impact on our society.  I hope that pattern doesn't continue here.  

The Wisner Trust - September 24, 2013 Hearing

The hearing on Tuesday went about like I expected it to, although I was left more confused on some matters than I was before I went in.  I think I've got a pretty good idea how this may play out and I'll play armchair court forecaster and give you my predictions as well as giving you the salient moments of the hearing.

Right out of the gate, let me boil down the three main points this hearing was meant to address:

1.  Perpetuity and standing - Is the Wisner Trust perpetual and are the heirs really heirs as challenged by the Mayor.

2.  Public or Private - Is the Trust a public or private entity.

3.  Breach of fiduciary duty - Has the Mayor breached his fiduciary duties as the Trustee of the Edward Wisner Donation Advisory Committee and should he be subsequently removed as the Trustee.

I'm going to take these points on individually even though they were addressed at different stages throughout the hearing.

Perpetual Motion

The most important point is obviously the perpetuity issue.  The Mayor is arguing that the trust should dissolve in 2014 and even went so far as to say that the heirs weren't really heirs at all.  Landrieu is essentially arguing that the "heirs" listed as beneficiaries in the Compromise Agreement ended with the death of Ed Wisner's daughters.

The heirs lawyers, led by Daniel Lund of the Montgomery Barnett law firm, refute the dissolution claim based not only on the wording of the original donation but also on a law passed by the Louisiana legislature in 1920 which declared all Louisiana charitable trusts as perpetual unless an express reserve is made to dissolve the said trust.  The law was also made retroactive so it covered charitable trusts already in existence.

Hey, you know what?  While we're on this subject, let me lay out a brief timeline of the history of the Trust for future reference:

1914 - Edward Wisner makes the donation.

1915 - Edward Wisner dies and also leaves a significant portion of his wealth to his wife, Mary Jane and two daughters, Elizabeth and Rowena.

A young and old portrait of Mary Jane Wisner - Tulane University Special Collections

1920 - The Louisiana legislature passes Act 167 outlining the parameters for charitable trusts.  Section 1 of the Act states the following:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, that wherever one or more persons, individuals or corporations has donated, subscribed, contributed or paid into a fixed or certain sum or amount of money or property, and dedicated it to some charitable, benevolent or eleemosynary user or purpose, whether such dedication appears in an act of charter, articles of incorporation, declaration of trust or otherwise, and have not expressly reserved in such dedication the right to dissolve, abolish or destroy the trust or dedication thus made, the said trust and dedication of funds or property for such purpose, as declared, shall remain and continue forever so long as there is a competent person or institution to administer, direct, carry out, or execute the trust, dedication, etc. 

The Wisner Trust did not, "...expressly reserve in such dedication the right to dissolve, abolish or destroy...", itself, as Lund argued in the hearing.

1915 through 1920's -  Trusted friend of Edward Wisner, co-executor of the Wisner estate and legal counsel to the widowed Mary Jane Wisner, Wear F. Milling, flips his loyalty to the Wisner family after Ed's death and begins a series of underhanded scams along with a businessman from Chicago, Charles T. Knapp, to rob the Wisner ladies of their estate and inheritance.  The assets obtained through this land and estate theft are eventually dumped into a company called the Louisiana Land and Exploration Company.  The wealth accrued by this company from the Wisner assets becomes enormous after the discovery of oil and gas in Southern Louisiana and will go on to shape the political landscape of the city and the state in profound ways.  This information isn't directly related to the evolution of the Trust itself but it is a critical part of the story in understanding the plight and motivation of Mary Jane Wisner in the wake of her husband's death.

1928 - By this time, Mary, Rowena and Elizabeth have been almost completely fleeced by Milling and company.  New, more honest, legal counsel approaches Mary Jane and makes the case that she never approved the creation of the Trust and could therefore nullify it and reclaim the Trust's assets.  The Wisner ladies file suit in Orleans Civil District Court.

1929 - An Agreement of Compromise and Satisfaction is reached by all parties in the Trust dividing beneficiaries in division with the following percentages in ownership:

City of New Orleans - 34.8 %

Tulane University - 12%

Charity Hospital - 12%

The Salvation Army 1.2%

Heirs - 40%

1930 - There is a judgement executed by the Orleans Civil District Court incorporating the Compromise Agreement.

The City argument is primarily based on an item in paragraph two of the Compromise Agreement which states, "...to the extent in the aggregate for the three of Forty Per Cent (40%) of the rights, interests, revenues and profits heretofore derived from the said estate and of the proceeds of the trust estate when and if sold..."  According to the City, this creates a "right of segregation" with the Trust.  In other words the City maintains that the heirs and apparently the other beneficiaries are only entitled to the income of the underlying assets of the Trust and not the assets themselves.

But they seem to be ignoring paragraph four in the Agreement which changes the right of segregation to an "ownership in division", "...hereby release, abandon and forego the right of segregation conferred upon them by the terms of said act of donation, and agree that said donated property shall be held in division and administered by the Trustee during the trust period as a whole...".  That demand should legally make all the beneficiaries owners of the actual property and underlying assets, not just the income.

Aside from the battle over the interpretation of the Compromise Agreement's text, the City put forth other arguments regarding common practices in the state.

In closing comments, the City's lead attorney on Wisner litigation, Adam Swensek, also made the argument that because the Trust contains a private beneficiary, it's a mixed trust and the state has never ruled that mixed trusts could be held in perpetuity.  Sighting some cases to support that claim, he also focused on the comments of Wisner heir and appointee to the Advisory Committee, Michael Peneguy, who testified that the heirs had been actively trying to negotiate an extension of the Trust with the City and other beneficiaries since Peneguy took his position on the Advisory Committee in 1984.

Apparently the argument was that since the heirs had been unable to successfully negotiate a compromise to extend the Trust...it must not be perpetual.  There have been five mayors since 1984, Dutch Morial, Sidney Barthelemy, Marc Morial, Ray Nagin, and now Mitch Landrieu so I suppose they were suggesting that because none of these men were willing to extend the Trust while in office, that negates the validity of perpetuity.  I'm not sure how political opinion on the part of these past mayors has anything to do with the letter of the law but that appeared to be the City's argument, nonetheless.

Prediction:  The judge will rule the Trust is perpetual and the heirs have standing.  I don't see how it could go any other way, even though I'm not a lawyer and have no "#standing" to make that assessment.  There simply didn't seem to be any real legal basis to justify the City's argument.

Noteworthy:  A lawyer for LSU stood up after both parties made their closing arguments and very poignantly restated the organization's opinion that they believe the Trust to be perpetual.  He was careful to note that the issue of perpetuity is the only item being addressed that the school is taking an opinion on and urged Judge Zeno to make an expeditious decision on the matter.

Private or Public?

On the second item, the Trust's status as a private or public entity, the argument really boiled down to how the Trust has operated historically.  The City argues that because the Trust has never paid a land tax in Lafourche, St. John and Jefferson Parishes, that it must be considered a public entity.  The heirs argue that the Trust has filed a tax return every year since its inception and is viewed by the IRS as a private entity, not public.

The City also referred to two Louisiana Attorney General opinions from 1949 and 1980 in which they referred to the Trust as a public entity.  Both opinions were in respect to paying property tax because the LaFourche Parish assessor wanted to add the Wisner property to the parish's tax rolls.  While it provides some background on the matter, the court is in no way bound by an Attorney General's opinion.

It's also important to note that although the Trust doesn't pay land taxes the heirs do pay taxes on the income they receive from the Trust.

The argument is also interesting because Tulane University, one of the beneficiaries, is a private entity that doesn't pay property taxes here in Orleans Parish.  If the City is truly concerned about Orleans and neighboring Parishes missing out on property taxes from a private entity it seems like they should be taking Tulane to court as well.

While the private/public issue was the least debated item of the day, it has some pretty large implications for the future of the Trust.

Prediction: This is a tough one...but I think it will be ruled as a public entity and will therefore be subject to public records requests, open meeting laws, etc.  That's just a hunch....I'm not a lawyer.

I'm actually OK with that decision because this Trust affects so many aspects of the City.

Trust buster or champion of transparency?

So that brings us to item three and what I thought was by far the most serious and debated item in the hearing, whether or not Mayor Landrieu has breached his fiduciary duty as Trustee of the Advisory Committee.

As Andrew Vanacore pointed out in his story in the Advocate, witness and former Secretary-Treasurer for the Advisory Committee, Cathy Norman, testified under the questioning of Lund that the Mayor immediately began to create a hostile environment with the Advisory Committee upon taking office.  I don't need to dredge all that back up in this post, but I have plenty of examples of that just go back through the blog and you'll witness a taste of the horror in 720p.

All and all, Norman's testimony was rather uneventful on both sides but during her testimony it was noted that the City completely changed their methods of accounting from the previous administration and that they stopped running the applications for the City's Wisner grants through the Advisory Committee.  In fact, for a period of time the City stopped providing the Advisory Committee with accounting reports, altogether.

Swensek kept making a point to note that none of the other beneficiaries were required to consult with the Advisory Committee on how they spent their share of the Trust's income.  He even asked Michael Peneguy, on the stand, how much of their proceeds from the Trust he and the other heirs spent on charity.  That has absolutely no bearing on the case but hay was made of it.

Later on during the closing statements, Judge Zeno asked Lund why he thought the Trust specified that the City was the only beneficiary who must consult with the Advisory Committee before deciding how their share of the Wisner funds should be spent.  Lund noted that he could only speculate, but, "The obvious answer is politics!"  He went on to muse that the authors of the Compromise Agreement may have been concerned that the money would be misappropriated by the City if there was not some body of oversight to make sure the funds were being used for their intended purpose.

Lund also pointed out that regardless of the motivation of the authors, the Agreement of Compromise clearly states that "...the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, with the approval of the Commission Council (or its successor body), may act as such Trustee up on the advice and the with the consent of the majority of said Commissioners (the Advisory Committee members)...".   The City, on the other hand, has focused on the "may" part of that sentence to maintain that the Mayor is not legally bound to seek the Advisory Committee's approval.

But here's the problem, the Mayor acted on that assumption without it being officially clarified.  He even went so far as to set up a completely independent committee to assess applicants for the City's Wisner grants.  During the testimony of Erica Beck, Executive Counsel to the Mayor and current appointee on behalf of the Mayor to the Advisory Committee, it was revealed that the Mayor's newly created committee was originally composed entirely of employees of the Mayor's Office.  Later NORD Director, Vic Richard, was added to the Mayor's Wisner Committee who is not an employee of the Mayor's Office but he, too, was appointed to his job by the Mayor, himself.

Lund also asked Beck about donations from the City's Wisner fund that may have been made to the Mayor's NOLA FOR LIFE program.  Beck confirmed that 500k had been allocated to the program from Wisner but the money had not yet been disbursed.  Lund pointed out that in this situation, you have an oversight committee created by the Mayor designed to supersede the existing Advisory Committee, stacked with people who are not only loyalists to the Mayor but owe him their jobs, that voted to give 500k to an entity that the Mayor himself created when he took office.

That's kind of like Snow White creating a committee to decide who the fairest maiden in the land is and appointing the seven dwarves.  I have no idea where that metaphor came from.  I've been on the wagon for a while so forgive me, I have some crazy things running through my head.

The ethical argument here is whether or not the Mayor bypassed the legal check and balance system that had been established by the Compromise Agreement in order to spend the money the way he wanted.

The conversation became much more interesting to me when City Attorney, Sharonda Williams, argued in closing statements that the Mayor already had a check and balance system in place which was the existing branches of City government, the Mayor's Office vis-a-vis City Council.  She pointed out that the New Orleans City Code gives City Council oversight and control over the City's portion of the Wisner funds.

This is true....it's absolutely true although I don't have that portion of the City Code readily available to post.  I have read it and may have even posted it previously....I will get back to you with that.

When she said this, I nearly bust out laughing and I'm sure Judge Zeno would not have hesitated to throw me out of the courtroom or worse had I lost composure...luckily I didn't.  I have good reason to believe that City Council members have repeatedly asked the Mayor's Office for accounting statements and information regarding the City's actions with the money from the Trust and have received nothing....nada....just like the requests from the Advisory Committee.

In fact, Judge Zeno even asked Williams if City Council had made any inquiries to the Mayor's office regarding the Trust.  Sharonda furtively deflected the line of questioning saying she wasn't sure and that she would have to check on it.  I find it hard to believe one of the two city attorneys appointed to the Wisner litigation doesn't know if City Council is making inquiries into the operations and accounting of the City's portion of the Wisner funds.  That's a hard pill to swallow.

Prediction: I think Judge Zeno will rule in favor of the City on this matter and allow Mitch to keep the puppet board he's created to oversee the grant process and how the money is spent.  If he were to rule in favor of the heirs and have the Mayor removed as Trustee, it would open the door for all kinds of political nastiness and possibly even criminal nastiness.  I don't see that happening, even though I think it should.

Subverting the process of democracy should have consequences, methinks.

I'm going to stop here but I have a number of other observations I want to share later.

Ashe'

         

Comment Bump 2, September 23, 2013

Here, Kevin condensed much of the conversation that's been occurring across multiple posts.

 Kevin said...

Part 1 of 2:

Sometime in 1911, A. J. Churchill purchased a large tract of land on the west bank of Jefferson Parish and named part of it Churchill Farms. Through a company known as Eddick Reclamation Company, Inc., Churchill began “reclaiming” marsh land located on pieces/parts of a 3,000+/- acre tract of land.

During the 1920s and 1930s, Churchill Farms was marketed as “Desirable Farm Lands Ready for Planting” and “across the Mississippi River from the finest residential section of New Orleans,……, and they are situated at the western approach to the projected Public Highway and railroad bridge already in the course of construction.” The Huey P. Long Bridge was completed in 1935.

Back in 1927, there was also a planned residential development called Richland Park being promoted by the owners and operators of Churchill Farms. A limited number of parcels of land were sold.

In 1938 or 1939, the name of Eddick Reclamation was changed to Churchill Farms, Inc.

Eventually, the USACE would find the reclamation project a failure.

In the early 1960s, Churchill Farms and Churchill Farms, Inc. came under the scrutiny of the FBI because an individual named Carlos Marcello was an owner/shareholder in both.

According to 1960s FBI records, Churchill Farms has being marketed, politicked and touted as: the site for the new Saints “domed stadium;” the route for a new highway; residential developments; and, an industrial development with the land to be sold for $18 million.

There are numerous fascinating FBI records that have been made public through the Mary Ferrell Foundation at www.maryferrell.org.

A couple of the more interesting and relevant to this AZ comment bump discuss then-councilman Eddie Sapir present with Joseph “Little Joe” Marcello (current owner of Churchill Farms) and others at the Backstage 500 Club, and later at the Ivanhoe Club.

Can somebody tell me if Michael Sherman’s former law partner, Eddie Sapir, was a councilman in 1968?

Fast-forward to late-2004.


July 14, 2004, by Jefferson Parish Council Resolution No. 101511, JP authorized the JEDCO to enter into Cooperative Endeavor Agreement with Churchill Farms regarding the development of a 500-acre technology and business park at Churchill Farms.

December 6, 2004, the JEDCO and Churchill Farms, Inc. enter into a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement
July 19, 2005, per the CEA, 40 acres of land were donated by Churchill to JEDCO for Churchill Technology Park and headquarters. Also on this date, by resolutions, Churchill and JEDCO entered into an Amended and Restated Cooperative Endeavor Agreement to expedite the development of the 500acres.

According to Tulane, Michael G. Sherman came “back” to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina to help rebuild the City through his work with a big DC law firm.

Sometime later in 2005, Michael Sherman left the employ of the big DC firm and becomes a vice president of The Coastal Companies, and with Churchill Farms, tries to set up a residential community of some kind on a large portion of Churchill Farms’ land. Eventually, this project fails.

May and June 2007, Michael Sherman acted as Joseph Marcello's representative and attorney during the USACE inspection of a piece of Churchill Farms property to be used as a dirt pit. Michael Sherman gave "The Coastal Companies" as his business name.

November 15, 2007, Joseph Marcello, citing big, new developments on the horizon for Churchill Farms, and holding the Amended and Restated Cooperative Endeavor Agreement, gets the JEDCO to purchase an additional 50 acres for $1 million cash, with no guarantee of title. Acting as a witness to the cash sale was local commercial realtor Don Randon.

Don Randon would later tell the JEDCO that Michael Sherman is one of his important Churchill team members.

Now, 78 years after the Huey P. Long Bridge was completed, Churchill Farms, Don Randon, Michael Sherman and others are using the expansion of the Huey P. Long as the new reason to buy and develop the Churchill Farms land that hasn’t seemed to catch anybody’s fancy in over 100 years. This time it’s “Fairfield.” According to public records, Michael Sherman and his “Sherman Strategies, LLC” are involved with the West Bank Strategic Plan along with Marrerro Land, Churchill Farms, Don Randon, Joseph Marcello, Marsh Investment, etc.

Don’t be surprised by the fact that the Wisner Donation owns land not far from this Fairfield community.

It’s also no surprise that fill material is needed for several low-lying spots on some of the Fairfield land being promoted. In fact, the Churchill Technology & Business Park offices are built off the ground on what I would call “concrete piers.” 

In a 6/9/13 NOLA news article discussing the new “Fairfield” community and growth on the west bank, the JEDCO claimed it saved $1 million in costs by using material excavated from several Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control (SELA) projects to fill in low-lying spots in the area of the Churchill Technology & Business Park (CTBP).

In 2012, during a SELA canal widening project along the Oil Company Canal and Justice Canal, extensive asbestos contamination was discovered in the soils and sediments being excavated. Here’s the kicker though: the asbestos contamination was not discovered by the USACE contractors at the location where the excavation was taking place – it was discovered by a JEDCO employee after hundreds of dump trucks carrying more than 6,000 cubic yards of excavated and contaminated soil had traveled the local streets and roads out to the CTBP where the tainted soil was dumped to fill in a low-lying spot at the front of the property. As of February 2013, JP had excavated and hauled away over 6,000 cubic yards of asbestos contaminated fill material from CTBP, while still more asbestos contaminated soil had been pushed into a large pile at the CTPB site.

Again, according to JP officials and records, the fill material was not tested by the JP before it was placed at the CTBP property. The asbestos was discovered only by happenstance by a JEDCO employee AFTER more than 6,000 cubic yards was dumped and spread on the low-lying area. JP officials and records also say that asbestos is commonly found on private property in the area along these canals as a result of past practices at the old Johns-Manville asbestos factory in that community. This begs the question: “Was any of the other SELA fill material from other projects also contaminated with asbestos or anything else?”

A side note. While the JEDCO “saved” $1 million by using fill material from the SELA projects, it has cost the JP taxpayers over $1.3 million to go back and excavate most, not all, of the asbestos-contaminated fill soil at JEDCO and dispose of it properly. This was accomplished by using an asbestos abatement contractor who had an existing contract with a $30k balance left on it. The maximum limit of the contract (originally $200k) was increased twice by resolution of the council – first to $500k; then to $1.3 million. 

And, it’s still not completed. On 8/28/2013, the JP Council passed a resolution to accept sealed bids for the removal and disposal of the asbestos soil still remaining at the CTBP property. According to the Minutes of the 8/28/2013 council meeting (Item #10), the resolution was adopted and passed. 

That’s all I can share for now.

I made a map of the Churchill Farms property in relation to Wisner property.  It doesn't show the entire Fairfield development area, I am still not clear on that.  I will update the map when I find out but basically anything inside the levee in that area is slated for development in some capacity.

This map is from a JEDCO media packet which outlines the Fairfield footprint.  Also I'm being told the Churchill Farms footprint is much larger than what I have on the map above but the Wisner footprint is correct.  I'll try to update that soon.