Saturday, October 16, 2010

Glover needs to explain

The Glover donations story gets stranger and stranger.
We blogged yesterday about the donations to Cedric Glover’s campaign on October 2nd by three individuals who were living in Section 8 housing.
Now for the second part of the story.
On October 4th, the Glover campaign filed a new disclosure form to supersede the Oct 2nd filing. In this one, the names of the Harveys and Theresa May and one other person had been removed and other names put in – to equal the same amount as the first report.
October 2nd report:
14. Edward A Crawford (Shreveport, LA) – $1,000
15. Francine Harvey (Shreveport, LA) – $2,500
16. CashAmerica (Fort Worth, TX) – $2,500
17. Taro Harvey (Shreveport, LA) – $2,500
18. Theresa Mays (Shreveport, LA) – $2,500
19. Angela Henderson (Shreveport, LA) – $2,500
20. Hertz Center at 600 Vine LLC (Cincinatti, OH) – $2,500
21. Hertz Investment Group LLC (Santa Monica, CA) – $2,500
22. Premier Stone Services of LA LLC (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
23. Premier Hospitality Solutions LLC (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
24. Ramelli Janitorial Service Inc (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
25. Stonewall Real Estate (Shreveport, LA) – $1,000
26. David H Starks (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
October 4th report
14. CashAmerica (Fort Worth, TX) – $2,500
15. Edward A Crawford (Shreveport, LA) – $1,000
16. William R Burk III (Shreveport, LA) – $2,500
17. H PAC (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
18. Premier Hospitality Solutions LLC (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
19. Francis C Heitmeier (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
20. Hertz Center at 600 Vine LLC (Cincinatti, OH) – $2,500
21. Hertz Investment Group LLC (Santa Monica, CA) – $2,500
22. Ramelli Janitorial Service Inc (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
23. Premier Stone Services of LA LLC (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
24. David H Starks (New Orleans, LA) – $2,500
25. Stonewall Real Estate (Shreveport, LA) – $1,000
26. John D. Stewart (Shreveport, LA) – $2,500
Same amount of money, just from different folks.
How does that happen?
Are you filling out the first report and when you see this:
3709 General DeGualle Dr
New Orleans, LA 70114
You misread it and write this:
Taro Harvey, Jr
2929 Peach St #61
Shreveport, La 71107-4838
This gets more and more curious. How do you have these people listed as contributors one day, and two days later they have disappeared from the disclosure?
How in the world did they get on there in the first place?
On another disclosure, the four who were replaced were all listed as paid campaign workers on election day, receiving a total of $500.
This information was brought out by a website that has been set up by the Wooley campaign.  I went to the source, the Louisiana Ethics Board website, to verify all of the information.  It is factual.
Cedric Glover owes an explanation to the people of Shreveport.
We first heard about this from Rex Moncrief who allowed me to use this screenshot:


  1. you think this election is bad. people are fed up. you better hold onto your hat when the elections come around in bossier again. you would not believe the stuff that has been going on in Bossier in the last ten years. pretty bold and amazing.

    Glover won't answer any of these questions. I guess he did not know that everything is public record and people are mad about cronyism and corruption. Of all the bright minds at LSUS and LSU HSC, he pikced these quacks to run the airport and other city functions. what a waste

    to some people is it worth a million bucks in their pocket to screw the tax payer.

  2. I will take the word of the Louisiana Ethics Board (and in Louisiana that too is questionable) over a website of an opponent.
    You're right,and in the words of Ricky Ricardo, "Cedreeek, you got some splainin' to do."
    This looks bad for Da Mayor, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Because in Shreveport a councilman can be federally convicted felon and theyll let you have your seat back on the council (Shyne), a convicted felon and name a road after you when you die (Huckabee), or let you continue serving even after repeatedly breaking the law (Lester).

  3. We need to find out if these 3 Section 8 individuals actually contributed $7500 or not. That is the main issue in my view.

    If it turns out that Cedric was funneling money around, then the fallout will just be worse - or better depending on your viewpoint.

    Of course, it could just all be a typo and mistake....

  4. Rex,

    Question, maybe three, that if you know.
    Suppose Cedric recieveved the funds believing they were kosher, and turns out they were tainted either due to being federal welfare program payments or through illicit gains, is Glover legally obligated to forfiet that money?
    And say, let's suppose, the people on Section 8 Housing went door to door through the hood and collected that money, would they be obligated to list the name of the donors, or since it was collected (like I said I'm supposing here) in small amounts the donors don't have to be listed.
    This is disturbing. It makes me wonder how many times tax dollars I pay to support welfare recipients end up in the coffers of politicians I would never support.

  5. @G.R. - I'm not an attorney (thank God I missed my calling); however, I am doing a little research into just what you asked.

    In my opinion, if the money is tainted from 3-4 people and Glover is clean, then morally and ethically, it should be returned. The question then is "to whom?"

    If the money was collected through the hood, I'm not sure what ethics violations that represents (if any), but I would have less of a problem if Section 8'ers were donating say $10-$50 each. Still not great, but I'd have less of a taxpayer issue.

    If the money is tainted from 3-4 people and Glover (or his staff) routed the money, then that presents a big hornet's nest.

    Now the truth is that the whole Section 8 housing, like most entitlement programs, is heavily abused. And yes, I can cite specific examples.

  6. Nobody is making a "donation", they are buying influence and favor. Politicians are all corrupt. It is amusing to see people get upset when they find corruption on the other side, and ignore the corruption on their own side like an elephant in the room that nobody mentions.

  7. G.R. is right, the Shreveport bunch could be a United States Senator who had sex with a DC prostitute and Burbon Street prostitute while he was in Congress, have a staffer beat his girlfriend while working on women's issues and used tax payer money to get him back and forth to court dates. You're right, we wouldn't want the Shreveport bunch to be like Senator Vitter would we?

  8. I thought everyone knows the warm feeling in the room is all the elephant poop?

  9. seems to me there's two possibilities

    1) these folks are real people in seciton 8 who made donations of their own money.

    2) these folks are real people in section 8, but donated someone else's money, so as to hide the identity of that person.

    imho, if the first possibility is true, big c is blameless. there's no legal, ethical, or moral duty to make sure all your donors are financially able to donate.

    as for the donors, yeah, for sure someone needs to investigate their continued eligibility for subsidized housing.

    if the second possibility is accurate, i have no idea what the result would be.

    on the one hand, it sounds like it ought to be a problem. on the other, in order to hide the true source of donations, politicians routinely create shell corporations and phony organizations. (just ask the us chamber of commerce.) that's all perfectly legal, though pretty sleazy. this situation, of course, is not a corporation, but an individual. whether or not that is a distinction with a difference, i don't know.

    and i doubt i'll find out.

  10. Well Wheeler, you are ignoring the fact that Glover filed new papers to try to cover up the matter. What the Chamber of Commerce is doing is just as immoral, and just as corrupt, but not illegal. There is some obvious illegality going on here with the Glover campaign. They are all corrupt, but the more itelligent ones can keep their corruption hidden and get away with it. The politicians write the laws with loopholes for them to exploit.

  11. i didn't forget; there's nothing illegal about filing new papers with different names on them.

    now, those new names might be taken as evidence that the old names were not real donors. I.e., they acted like shell corporations, as passthroughs for someone else's money. but that just brings us back to my original issue: is it legal to use people to hide the source of money, in the same way politicians of all types use shell corporations and pac's to do the same?

  12. Glover addressed it at the forum last night. Said it was a mistake. It was corrected.
    My question, as I posed it in the blog post, is how do you make a mistake like that?

  13. I think you are missing the point. If we have learned anything wathcing politics this last 24 months its that the people a candidate hangs out with directly influence or are a good indicator of thier ethics, morals and biases.

    Obama hung our with sociailst and he is socializing america.
    Glover hangs out with coke dealers and crime prevention and cops are under funded.

    This is not rocket science, its a bait and switch, the oldest trick in the book!

  14. Looks like the Shreveport Mayor's election has turned into a Mae West quote: "When picking between two evils, I pick the one I haven't tried yet." Congrats, Wooley, you got my vote.

  15. Oh and if you have $5000.00 of anyone's money to just hand out willy nilly and you live in Section 8, I'm gonna come evict you myself. Probably have a Food Stamp Card and Medicaid to go along with it.

  16. CoolerThanYou, I wish removing people from the welfare rolls could be something done on the local level. It would make identifying fraud easier, but that's why the feds are taking over every aspect of governmental controls, if the locals have control then there's less control of the people. However, it wolud be a welcomed policy.
    I can't vote in this election, and glad I can't, because of what's coming to light about Glover concerns me, and Wooley doesnt thrill me either. Besides, there's an election coming to Bossier soon and with all the shennanigansthats been going on over here, that one could produce more fireworks than when Sheveport had Rockets Over the Red.

  17. G.R., you got that right. Next year will be interesting too, with elections for state rep, state senate, sheriff, clerk of court, assessor etc.


Rules of the road:
1. No personal attacks or insults.
2. No accustory statements about wrongdoing or criminal acts against anyone.
3. Say all you want about the pros and cons concerning the candidates and the issues, or the general subject of the blog post, just follow Rule #1 and Rule #2.