Last summer, DKF noted that Rep. Jim Tucker was facing ethics charges before the Ethics Board regarding GOZone credits that his firm was awarded from the Louisiana Recovery Authority. The Ethics Board decided that since the firm did not use the credits, there was nothing to worry about.
I would also like to note that Chris Whittington, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, noted that "no one truly knows what Mr. Tucker's true intentions were" regarding the GOZone credits. And what do you think Mr. Tucker's response was? He threatened to sue Whittington for "libelous" remarks. Just so you know, Speaker ... libel refers to written statements. I believe you were referring to slander, which refers to an oral, or spoken statement.
But that's nothing compared to what he did in the last legislative session. He abused the power of his office, and helped pass legislation written so narrowly to benefit so few Louisiana citizens, one of whom just happens to be his wife!
Now, I've got nothing against Mrs. Tucker. I'm sure she's a fine lady and a fine mama. My problem is with Mr. Tucker. He's a State Representative in our State Legislature. And he introduced and spoke in favor of House Bill 501, which is now the law in Louisiana. (It's now Act 99 of the 2007 legislative session.)
According to the New Orleans Gambit's Jeremy Alford, then-Rep. Tucker offered and spoke in favor of the bill before a May meeting of the House Civil Law committee. This is how Tucker sold it to lawmakers:
"as a way to help aggrieved hurricane evacuees change venues for child support and custody hearings to parishes where they have taken up residence after the 2005 storms but only if their former spouses live outside Louisiana."
Now, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure already granted judges discretion to change venue, per Code of Civil Procedure 74(2)(E):
Custody proceedings; support; forum non conveniens
A proceeding to obtain the legal custody of a minor or to establish an obligation of support may be brought in the parish where a party is domiciled or in the parish of the last matrimonial domicile.
B. A proceeding for change of custody may be brought in the parish where the person awarded custody is domiciled or in the parish where the custody decree was rendered. If the person awarded custody is no longer domiciled in the state, the proceeding for change of custody may be brought in the parish where the person seeking a change of custody is domiciled or in the parish where the custody decree was rendered.
C. A proceeding for modification of support may be brought in any of the following:
(1) The parish where the person awarded support is domiciled.
(2) The parish where the support award was rendered if it has not been registered and confirmed in another court of this state, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2785 et seq.
(3) The parish where the support award was last registered if registered in multiple courts of this state.
(4) Any of the following, if the person awarded support is no longer domiciled in the state:
(a) The parish where the other person is domiciled.
(b) The parish where the support award was rendered if not confirmed in another court of this state pursuant to Article 2785 et seq.
(c) The parish where the support order was last confirmed pursuant to the provisions of Article 2785 et seq.
D. A proceeding to register a child support, medical support, and income assignment order, or any such order issued by a court of this state for modification, may be brought in the parish where the person awarded support is domiciled.
E. For the convenience of the parties and the witnesses and in the interest of justice, a court, upon contradictory motion or upon its own motion after notice and hearing, may transfer the custody or support proceeding to another court where the proceeding might have been brought.
Now, CCP 74(2)(E) left it up to the judges' discretion, which is fair.
The bill that Tucker pushed through the Legislature took away that discretion in very specific circumstances. To wit:
F. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if after August 26, 2005, and before August 15, 2007, a party has changed his domicile within the state and the other party resided in another state prior to the hurricanes, the custody or support proceeding shall be transferred to the parish of the domicile, upon motion made prior to December 31, 2007.
In other words, this section only applies to folks who moved to another parish as a result of Hurricanes Katrina or Rita AND their ex-spouse already lived in another state prior to the hurricanes. And it takes the discretion away from judges. It makes it mandatory that the forum change, enabling a party to pick the best place for them to bring suit. Now, this sounds all fine and dandy ... until you read to the bottom of Alford's piece.
"On Sept. 18, roughly one month after the new law took effect, Tucker's wife, the former Marisol F. Lannes, filed a motion to change the venue in her ongoing child support battle against her ex-husband, who now lives in Illinois, from Plaquemines Parish to Orleans Parish, citing the very law her new husband helped pass. Tucker married the former Mrs. Lannes (now Marisol Tucker) in July of last year, and she moved from Belle Chasse to Algiers not long thereafter. The move covered a distance of just 6 miles, but that was enough; it brought her across parish lines " fitting neatly into the parameters of the new law."
Now, while Rep. Arnold, a good friend of Speaker Tucker (aren't all of these legislators "good friends?") wrote and filed the bill, Tucker should not have done a damn thing regarding the bill, per the Louisiana Constitution Article 3, ยง 9, which states:
Legislative office is a public trust, and every effort to realize personal gain through official conduct is a violation of that trust. The legislature shall enact a code of ethics prohibiting conflict between public duty and private interests of members of the legislature.
Before y'all think I'm reading way too much into this, note that in the Gambit piece, Alford writes that
David Hufft, a Belle Chasse attorney who represents Marisol Tucker's former husband, David M.D. Lannes ... adds that prior to the September motion to change venues, the former Mrs. Lannes had received an 'unfavorable ruling" in Plaquemines Parish and is therefore simply hoping for a more favorable judge in Orleans Parish. Marisol Tucker has appealed the Plaquemines judge's rulings against her.
So my question is this:
Did Speaker Tucker push this legislation to benefit his wife? It certainly seems that way.
