rapides parish results
other parishes
multi parish races
legislative races====
9:33 HILTON WINS!
wagner 45.93 (17,100) hilton 54.07% (20,129)
all 113 precincts in
9:31 wagner 46 hilton 54
111 of 113 precincts
9:23 wagner 47 hilton 53
hooter 64 stewart 36
109 of 113 precincts
9:19 wagner 47 hilton 53
hooter 65 stewart 35
101 of 113 precincts
9:09 wagner 48 hilton 52
hooter 64 stewart 36
78 of 113 precincts
8:59 wagner 50 hilton 50
hooter 66 stewart 34
54 of 113 precincts
8:51 wagner 51 hilton 49
hooter 67 stewart 33
35 of 113 precincts
8:41 wagner 51 hilton 49
hooter 66 stewart 34
17 of 113 precincts
8:35 wagner 50 hilton 50
hooter 66 stewart 34
8 of 113 precincts
8:15 wagner 51% hilton 49%
hooter 66 stewart 34
0 of 113 precincts
8:00 pm cst polls close across louisiana========
sheriff - sheriff chuck wagner the incumbent
we've written before why we will not support former sheriff william earl hilton or any of his cronies for sheriff. it centers on his in perpetuity slave sales tax scam that this treasonous, traitorous rat together with his criminal friends on the rapides parish police jury back in 2002 sprung on the people of this parish. because of what these criminals did the city of alexandria and rapides parish now have (so far) three in perpetuity slave tax scams. people that are not even born yet will have to pay as well as collect these taxes with out ever being given the opportunity to vote on it. it's nothing but stealing. it's contrary to everything this country was founded upon as well as taxation without representation.
clerk of court - non ballot
these two candidates are career tax feeders and if you think they are going to look out for anyones interests other than the courthouse gangs' you need to have your head examined. additionally, candidate linda lin dyess stewart's repeated reaching out to the alexandria, la. shyster, grifting greg aymond for support is evidence to us that she is not an honest, respectable person. further reinforcing this belief is aymond's unethical attempt apparently on behalf of the dyess machine at smearing robin hooter as a racist using what appears to be a staged (or photoshopped) photo involving of all things the confederate flag is just too incredible for words.
police jury district "c" craig smith. again a crap shoot.
constitutional amendment no. 1 yes
the other one was a tax measure for pineville schools that we would have voted no to but it wasnt applicable to our address.
schedler & romero.mp3 here
13.6MB length 34:01
term-limited senators have been taking turns under their personal privilege rule to say their goodbyes to their fellow senators...sniff
today, senator tom schedler and senator craig romero had their say...
screen grabs taken from senate stream
senator craig romero said that the reason he wanted to become a legislator was because when he was a parish president he spent over 50% of his time defending frivolous lawsuits and the straw that broke the camels back came when "a guy convicted of drunk driving sued and collected $850,000 dollars. in 1987, between christmas and new years he flipped his truck in a curve, tried to straighten out a curve, sued the parish claimed there was mud on the road it was in a very remote area of iberia parish. sugar cane fields on both sides, mcilhenny company, coincidentally owned the sugar cane fields property, they didnt farm the cane. the drunk driver even sued the tabasco company. he tried to get in their check book, iberia parish government was found partially at fault, paid 850k thats about as ridiculous as it gets." in trying to find out how this could be, all everyone that he talked to would say was "thats the way it is."
UPDATED: 13 may 2011 with a somewhat less obstructed picture
Louisiana Secretary of State====
Unofficial Election Results Inquiry
Results for Election Date: 10/22/2011
Rapides Parish
Statewide Races
LA Legislature Races
Multi-Parish Races
All Races in a Parish
Back to Election Date Selection Page
Louisiana Secretary of State
Unofficial Election Results Inquiry
Results for Election Date: 10/22/2011
Rapides Parish
Statewide Races
LA Legislature Races
Multi-Parish Races
All Races in a Parish
Back to Election Date Selection Page
====I came across your Bob Dean blog post this AM and was very interested. You do have part of your story on Bob Dean correct re: his nursing homes. Fact is, in the state of Louisiana he OWNS 7 nursing homes. The other fact is HE approached FEMA regarding the use of The Bentley to be used as an evacuation shelter for his nursing home residents from Lake Charles. (as well as the residents from his nursing homes in New Orleans he had already evacuated to Lake Charles before Katrina hit) The fact is FEMA turned him down because of fire safety issues in the hotel.we find our emailer's story convincing and very easy to believe. not entirely because it concerns bob dean but because of our own experience with (non bob dean owned) nursing homes. some years ago our own grandmother was placed in a local nursing home. this was after the family kept her in their homes and cared for her for over five years. however, because of the advance of her alzheimers disease it made her behavior increasingly erratic and bizarre to the point where we couldnt provide proper care. one day when our nephew was around four or had just turned five his grandmother took him to see her mother, his great grandmother. after they returned we asked him how he liked his trip to the nursing home. he wouldnt say anything so we decided to take a different approach and asked him what he saw at the nursing home to which he immediately blurted out "sad people."
The bottom line is he wanted to double dip the system. If the Bentley would have been used as a hurricane shelter he would have received federal money for keeping HIS nursing home residents there and any subsequent damage that would have been done. So he would have not only received money from the State Medicaid/Medicare program while his residents were being taken care of, but he also would have received financial assistance from FEMA because he had a "designated" hurricane shelter.
Whatever your imagination can come up with about him owning nursing homes is true and much worse. How do I know? I work for him. I am a nurse in one of his facilities.
The truth is we never have enough supplies, food or staff to take care of our residents. He doesn't give a damn about the residents or the employees.
Those of us in the facility I work at are only still in it because we are afraid what will happen to our residents if we left. The staff of our facility had to contact the Mayor of our city and FEMA to get us evacuated from Hurricane Rita because we had been waiting all day for "Dean's Buses" to arrive to take our residents and staff to safety in Alexandria.
If we had not contacted our Mayor, only God knows what would have happened. Only because our staff loves and cares about our residents we were able to get outside help. On a daily basis the staff at our facility buy supplies ourselves, out of our own pockets to take care of the residents - soap, lotion, deodorant, diapers, even food. We also purchase office supplies that the nursing staff needs - binders, pens, stethoscopes, blood pressure cuffs, etc. None are paid what the average rate of pay in our area is.
We always are short staffed - and work our collective butts off. Not for Mr. Dean but for our residents. When a right hand man of his was confronted about our low pay at a staff meeting several months ago his reply to the staff was "We can get anyone off the street to come in and do what you do for no pay." I promise if you look and dig into his nursing homes that is where his undoing will be. He is a crook, a liar, a bigot (who at one point instructed his administrative staff to create a nursing staff of whites only), and cares about only manipulating the state and the federal government to be able to get all the money he can. Unfortunately, in Louisiana as far as nursing home owners go - he's pretty much like the rest. Toward the public they seem "caring or even compassionate" but - they all have one thing in common a plantation attitude of using and abusing employees and residents while making the most money they can.
Don't be fooled by his "new facilities" he's building either, that is only his way of having to follow new state legislation that requires nursing home owners to put a certain percentage of profit back into the facilities they own. If they spend millions building beautiful, brand new facilities then they have met the requirement and can back to business as usual of having no supplies or no staff and keep raking
the money in. Dig deep you'll be shocked at what you find.
excerpt:BAKER, LA (WAFB) - An alleged hate crime has some parents in an uproar. Five black Baker teenagers were charged with felonies after a vicious fight broke out at a local park.
"One of them referred to one of the children as a beaner," said Lt. James Broussard with the Baker Police department. He says that statement set off a series of events that lead to a knock-down, drag-out fight. ~ read more [video].
shoe on the other foot: "i'am really hurting you know, i'am really scared because they charged these kids with these crimes that you would have to actually look over your back for." katrina franklin whose two daughters were among the teens arrested
wafb just gives the names and not the exact statutes that the five were cited for violating so we had to search around and try to find them. by the way, babcock law firm has a copy of the louisiana revised statutes that often comes up at the top of searches making it a lot easier to find the actual statute on legis.state.la.us.
anyway, the two 17 year olds are broderick ford and trenisha franklin charged with felony second-degree battery, hate crime, disturbing the peace and contributing to the delinquency of juveniles.
while the three juveniles were also booked on hate crime, disturbing the peace and second degree battery.
according to the human rights campaign: louisiana's hate crime law is at R.S. 14:107.2. it came into being by ACT 1479 passed by the 1997 regular legislative session.
from whatever of this mess we can tell, for hate crime liability to attach its presumed that the violator firstly violated one of these so called underlying offense(s):first or second degree murder; manslaughter; battery; aggravated battery; second degree battery; aggravated assault with a firearm; terrorizing; mingling harmful substances; simple, forcible, or aggravated rape; sexual battery, second degree sexual battery; oral sexual battery; carnal knowledge of a juvenile; indecent behavior with juveniles; molestation of a juvenile; simple, second degree, or aggravated kidnapping; simple or aggravated arson; placing combustible materials; communicating of false information of planned arson; simple or aggravated criminal damage to property; contamination of water supplies; simple or aggravated burglary; criminal trespass; simple, first degree, or armed robbery; purse snatching; extortion; theft; desecration of graves; institutional vandalism; or assault by drive-by shooting. ~ subsection a
it says that if the underlying offense is a misdemeanor you may be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.
if the underlying offense is a felony then the convict may be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than five years, or both. these are in addition to the penalty for the underlying offense. but
a conviction under either the misdemeanor or felony underlying offense calls for the hate crime sentence to run consecutively to the sentence for the underlying offense.
if wafb is correct then in this case the presumptive underlying offense for all five would be second degree battery, R.S. 14:34.1 a felony see R.S. 14:2. disturbing the peace and contributing to the delinquency of juveniles are not hate crimes "underlying offenses."
somehow the underlying offense to which hate crime liability mysteriously attaches is in your selecting your victim because of actual or perceived race, age, gender, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry of that person or the owner or occupant of that property or because of actual or perceived membership or service in, or employment with, an organization: and then as you saw above goes on to list just about every crime in the book. ~ subsection a
this law doesnt make any sense because 14:107.2B and C begins by stating: "if the underlying offense named in subsection a..." but subsection a doesnt distinguish that long list of crimes as being underlying offenses. it begins:"it shall be unlawful for any person to select the victim of the following offenses..." also nowhere in the law is it spelled out when, why or how these offenses become underlying offenses.
this law must be unconstitutionally vague as hell. even the criminal and civil federal rico statute requires showing from another shopping list of "underlying offenses," or predicate offenses to choose from -- how they work together (the enterprise) in order to kick in a rico charge.
we wanted to see how the state supremes reasoned their way through an opinion dealing with hate crimes law. so, we did a simple search of the state supreme court website for R.S.14:107.2 - the hate crime law.
we were much surprised when that search only returned two instances of it being cited. the opinion and the dissent from: state of louisiana v patrick palermo consolidated with his brother frank palermo's case. decided on 31 may 2002.
the two brothers had been convicted under R.S. 14:54, placing combustible materials, also a hate crime underlying offense.
frank palermo had also been convicted of violating the hate crime law. his brother patrick was charged as well but was found not guilty of that, but guilty of violating R.S. 14:54..
one way or another, the supreme court declared R.S. 14:54 to be unconstitutional so the palermo brothers conviction including frank's hate crime conviction and sentence was vacated and set aside. the supremes didnt address the hate crime law -- noting at the bottom of a page that consideration of it wasnt before them.
associate justice bernette j johnson wrote a pretty tersely worded dissent complaining that the court missed its first opportunity to affirm the hate crimes statute. but we wonder what sister girl would say now that all these blacks got charged with these hate crimes?
who knows, maybe with this case justice johnson will get her wish. if the baker police department and the prosecutors office stick to their guns and hopefully the defendants will get help from some brilliant, hardworking criminal defense attorneys this law could possibly get struck down. good.
we're only saying that the hate crime law should be struck down. not that the accused should totally get off should they be found guilty of violating one of the legitimate charges.
a search of the third circuit court of appeal website doesnt return any hate crime references.
ACT 1479 started out as SB 914 by senators cox and johnson and representative murray. it passed the senate without nary a nay vote. in the house it was 61 yeas to 37 nays. randy wiggins voted no and we certainly thank him for that nay. on the other hand, david vitter, rodney alexander, charlie dewitt, israel "bo" curtis and dianne winston are the names of some who voted for hate crimes.
it probably should be noted that in the senate old fake preacher b.g. dyess voted for it twice. on final passage and to concur.
R.S. 1407.2 has been amended twice since 1997. by ACT 301 of the 2001 regular legislative session through HB 604 by representative devillier which repealed aggravated oral sexual battery in order to revise it into oral sexual battery. R.S. 14:41.
then again in the 2004 regular legislative session by ACT 676 senator ullo's SB 659 where the lege changed the name of the offense of aggravated sexual battery to second degree sexual battery. R.S. 14:43.2.
this is just more useless law. as you can see from just the list of hate crimes "underlying offenses" there are already plenty of laws to punish offenses against A HUMAN BEING.====
related posts
====
