The lawsuit is in reponse to a flyer that Thompson sent out a few days ago saying that Lowrie was ‘suspended for lying’. In short, Lowrie faced disciplinary action for ‘padding’ his time sheet with two hours for continuing education training. At the time, hours were ‘rounded up’, not only by Lowrie, but by all employees. Lowrie was the only one called to task.
The petition goes on to say that Lowrie
- "did in fact comply with the said rules of the Bossier City Fire Department Training Department. The said rules of the Bossier City Fire Department Training Department at the time of operation (2002) did, in fact, violate the Louisiana Bureau of EMS Education Policy. These rules did not comply with state or national standards in that they allowed for (1) rounding of the number of hours spent in training, and (2) duplication of video hours spent in training. Both of the policies resulted in EMT’S being credited with more training time than they may have actually acquired. These policies resulted in Plaintiff, Michael D Lowrie’s being inaccurately credited with two (2) hours of training."
Here is the portion of the flyer that the lawsuit is referring to.
- "In 2003, Plaintiff, Michael D. Lowrie, went to Defendant, Jeff R. Thompson, an attorney and neighbor, for a second opinion as to what his rights and remedies may have been. In so doing, he established client/attorney confidentiality or privilege. This confidentiality/privilege was violated by Defendant, Jeff R. Thompson when he mailed out his said campaign flyer, wherein he wrongfully and maliciously accused the Plaintiff, Michael D. Lowrie, of lying."
Thompson really messed up here. You can't give a client advice then mail it out to thousands without some kind of trouble.
ReplyDeleteWell I know both Thompson and Lowrie and I respect them and their character and really like them both. My comment is that; there is something really bazaar going on with the city and this one person uses his unbelievable power to dictate and Rule,and no one is safe in the BCFD or BCPD,because if he does not want you to be there? you will not be there!! A known fact by everyone except the good innocent people of our city. scary but true!
ReplyDeleteUnbelievable! Well, maybe it's not, considering Louisiana politics. Anything for an edge. Thompson, you gonna sell your momma too? You've already sold your soul.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahahahahaha!
Anon 7:46,
ReplyDeleteWho and what are you talking about?
Duke you have been badmouthing Jeff for being an attorney yet supposedly goes to him for advice! What is that about?
ReplyDeleteI was told it was fact that Duke was suspended. Is that true or not? The suspension did not matter to me because everyone makes mistakes.
Duke you just lost my vote because of the dirty politics and frivolous lawsuits. I have been supporting you, and expected more of you. This disappoints me.
How stupid can you be, Thom?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand it all yet but I was disgusted when I got that thing in the mail.
ReplyDelete@7:46,
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about?
You're being disingenuous and trying to misdirect the conversation. Read the blog post again, or get someone to read it to you. Perhaps you can understand what it is saying.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:51
ReplyDeleteTry again. You hardly sound sincere. If you are a Thompson supporter, come out and defend this based on the issues rather than playing games.
ano 7:49 you know the answer to both! if you do not? you are the only one that comments on My Bossier that doesn't?
ReplyDeleteI know Lowrie and Thompson both as well. This entire race has disappointed me. Both men are better than that. I did not like the mailout from either one of their campaigns, and thought both were in poor taste. I'm disappointed in both of them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@anon 8:00,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:59
ReplyDeleteInitially I would agree with you. However, both mailers would be issue oriented. However, at this point the Lowrie mailer addresses that Thompson is a lawyer and has tried to paint himself as a businessman. Their argument is that lawyers are bad for Louisiana. The fact that Thompson has avoided putting any statement about his law practice and the fact that he is a lawyer is true. But, it appears that the Thompson mailer attacked the service of a decorated firefighter and it not only may not be true, but may have violated ethics in legal practice.
All races should run some "attack" ads against the other candidate, otherwise the voters would never get any of the other side. Yet, any attack should be legit. In this case, I don't see how the Lowrie attack isn't legit.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
ReplyDeleteWELCOME TO TUESDAY NIGHT RAW! FOR THE THOUSANDS IN ATTENDENCE AND THE MILLIONS ACROSS THE NET, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,
LET'S GET READY TO RUMMMMMBBBBLLLLEEEE! WHOOOOOOOO!!!!
with special guest referee, Bossier City's own, James "laying the smack down" Hall...
In defense of Lowrie's suit.
ReplyDelete1. Duke attacks lawyers for frivolous lawsuits - How is this frivolous? What are the damages that Duke is asking for? If Thompson violated a clear ethical principle and defamed him, then that is legit. I haven't seen anyone defend Thompson's alleged violations.
2. If it was practice of BCFD to round up and all officers did it as posted by Jim, then why was Duke the only one punished? Clearly there is more to the story than what Thompson put in his mailer.
3. Read again. Thompson is NOT Duke's lawyer, but a lawyer he sought a second opinion from 8 years ago. Still, as a Thompson supporter, why aren't those who are posting these attacks defending Thompson's alleged actions?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWill you post the Civil Service Board minutes of Duke's hearing where the suspension was upheld so we can look at it for ourselves? It is public record.
I would expect this behavior out of McConnell, but not Lowrie or Thompson!
ReplyDeleteIrony? No, Duke's argument is that the state doesn't need a lawyer in Baton Rouge. Specifically, what do lawyers know about the economy and running a law office is different than running most other businesses? Additionally, if this lawsuit proves true, then Duke's point is magnified in this case.
ReplyDeleteReally? McConnell's comments on other blogs have seemed to be fairly respectful. But, this post is about Duke and Jeff. To me, questions about lawyers running legislatures are legitimate. I also find it fair that if a person feels that they have been defamed and their trust violated then they have grounds to take action.
ReplyDeleteI thinks it's time to file a public information request for the minutes of Duke's hearing to see the truth for ourselves. Matter of fact, think I will do that tomorrow if the media does not beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious the Powerbrokers of Bossier City are attempting to influence the race. I worked with Duke during this episode and can emphatically state that Duke was singled out. Wow! Nothing is beneath these people when it comes to staying in power. I am not endorsing anyone, but Mr. Thompson delivered a low blow. Shame on you Mr. Thompson!
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that a record of the civil service hearing is unavailable for that period of time due to the records being flooded. I will get verification of that.
ReplyDeleteWhat a mess! Can't we all just get along? All we are saying, is give peace a chance!
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteThe Civil Service Board in Baton Rouge which governs local boards will have a copy of the file.
Melinda B. Livingston (225) 925-4400.
http://www.ose.louisiana.gov/contact.htm
Anon 8:11 and 8:25 p.m. I asked Jeff to send me copies of the documents from which he obtained the information used to produce his mailer,and I made the request public yesterday. Still haven't heard from back from him.
ReplyDeletehttp://nwlatpa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/an-open-request-to-jeff-thompson-candidate-for-state-representati
If the records were destroyed in the flood, does that mean that Thompson obtained them straight from Duke as his counsel?
ReplyDeleteIrony:
ReplyDeleteDuke hates trial lawyers, but hires one to file a defamation lawsuit. The chamber would call this a friviolous lawsuit.
Duke says he is against lawusit abuse especially cases against cities, but he filed a lawsuit against a city to get paid for hours under a more liberal law.
Can somone explain Duke's position of tort lawsuits? Defamation is a tort claim.
8:41 - can you offer any documentation for what you say Duke believes, i.e. he 'hates trial lawyers'?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand about Duke's stance - he doesn;t hate lawyers. He simply opposes lawyers like JT who abuse the system for Jackpot Justice. Read the suit- Duke isn't pursuing anything monetary... simply taking his only legal option to show the truth.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRules of the road:
ReplyDelete1. 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.
Lowrie and Thompson are Christians, but I believe their judgement is clouded. I would ask that both of them take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about their values and beliefs. "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
ReplyDeleteI would ask both men not to let outside influences change their character, beliefs, or values. Please remember why both of you are running for office. You are running for the betterment of our community and to better serve the people.
This is so stupid. Everyone opposes frivolous lawsuits. No one hits "jackpot justice." These are buzz words by chamber-types like JT and DL that do nothing but excite the public.
ReplyDeleteCome on Richie Jackson. I'm writing you in this one!!!!
Jim, what Lowrie has in his "petition" speaks to Lowrie's VIEW of the facts---it is NOT a "statement of facts" necessarily.
ReplyDeleteThis "rounding of numbers" sounds like some double speak to me. Since Lowrie is a so-called decorated fireman, I would assume he would understand the policies and procedures regarding how to account for hours in training. I would go out on a limb here and suggest there is nothing in the handbook that allows fireman to "round up" training hours.
I dont know whether or not Thompson breached attorney-client privilige. I DO KNOW duke admits padding his training hours. Maybe this is a pattern and practice of the whole department, but DUKE LOWRIE is running for office where we need someone we can trust, not someone who takes short-cuts when its in HIS best interest.
Duke would have been smart to keep his mouth shut. now his behavior, compliments of the media attention it will get, will bring to light and bring to question not only his credibility, but his honesty...which by the way was what Thompson called into question.
If being an attorney makes one a trial lawyer does being a union member make one a crazed anti-capitalist nut like we saw demonstrating in Wisconsin earlier this year?
ReplyDeleteIf so I will take my chance with the lawyer who writes laws only they can interpret in the legislature over a former public service employee, carrying a union endorsement, who has all but admitted to padding a time card and taking more from the taxpayers than they deserve.
7:46,
ReplyDeleteYour referring to Jimmy hall. And your absolutely right.
Jim, I have a question. You clearly support Duke Lowrie. I noticed you removed some posts, then allowed some to stand. It should be noted the ones removed put Lowrie in an unfavorable light.
ReplyDeleteYou are posting information about what Lowrie did according to HIS lawsuit, and perhaps from speaking directly to Lowrie. So the question is, have YOU personally seen any documents at all the back up the Lowrie claims of being the victim here??? Or are you taking him on his word? Because if that is the case you need to be clear about that, if in fact you are in the business of being unbiased and factual in your commentary. Otherwise, you are no better than someone slinging mud in no basis in facts, you are just being more polite about it. think before you answer please, with something that backs up your statements.
That Union endorsement is the firefighters right? So, if your house was on fire would you stop them at your driveway and ask for their union cards first? How dare you attack those who risk their lives every day because you don't know the difference between the Wisconsin situation and our fire and police departments.
ReplyDelete"It should be noted the ones removed put Lowrie in an unfavorable light."
ReplyDeleteThat is true, because Lowrie supporters aren't on here trashing Jeff Thompson. The only trashing has been against Duke, and that is not acceptable.
You will notice that I have also left up comments that are unfavorable to Duke, but they are not breaking rule #1 - no personal attacks or insults. Should anyone have the bad judgment to attack Jeff Thompson in the same manner, I will remove their comments.
Thompson calling lowrie's honesty intovqueztion? That's funny. I will remind everyone again of the fliers placed on people's door saying " sorry I missed you".
ReplyDeleteOne more time:
ReplyDeleteRules 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.
9:16 - From the blog post:
ReplyDeleteI will get into a more detailed account of the events laid out in the case in the next day or so, and will provide a link to copies of backup documents filed as exhibits in the case.
Please don't patronize me with that lame "if your house was burning down" argument. If my house is on fire it's their job to put it out. Thats what they signed up for.
ReplyDeleteI admire anyone who sacrifices their life and a career for public service. I married one as a matter of fact. But as long as MY tax dollars are going to support a union I will vote against that endorsement every time.
Jim, I look forward to more details. I hate to sound ignorant but don't know enough to make a statement.
ReplyDeleteKartman,
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the best statements that has been posted! Most of us don't have enough facts to make a judgement. Both are good men and I hate to see this happening.
Kartman, I will have more tomorrow at some point and copies of some documents that were filed as exhibits. I will say that it appears to be a lot more than Duke trying to 'pad' his time and get an additional two hours from the city. Duke tried to get some changes made to get their training up to state and federal standards, and it appears to me that he was punished for that.
ReplyDeleteAgain, with all due respect, firefighter unions have nothing to do with Wisconsin. In fact, the actions in Wisconsin didn't include first defenders. Unions in Wisc have the right to strike and collectively bargain. I don't beleive those in Louisiana have that capability. The only thing they have in common is just "union". Before you generalize against those who protect us, I recommend a more informed post. In fact, here is an important question - with the exception of the bad policy that started this case (rounding) what WRONG has the firefighters union done in the state of louisiana?
ReplyDeleteI see the bad moon arising.
ReplyDeleteI see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin'.
I see bad times today.
[Chorus:]
Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.
I hear hurricanes ablowing.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin.
[Chorus]
All right!
Hope you got your things together.
Hope you are quite prepared to die.
Looks like we're in for nasty weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.
I understand that if a city worker says something that the leaders do not agree with, they might be punished. I heard that threats were made against some who spoke at council meetings when lay offs were in play. I don't doubt it. I worked with Lo while in the air force and really liked him but totally lost respect for him when he failed to support cops and firemen. It would not suprise me if Duke was punished for trying to change the status quo.
ReplyDeleteANON at October 11, 2011 8:45 PM
ReplyDeleteJackpot Justice--please give me an example of any lawyer in this district that gets jackpot justice?
Jeff is a past president of the CHAMBER OF COMMERCE in Bossier. THey would not let a trial lawyer be president of the chamber.
I was supporting Jeff but if he is willing to represent someone like Duke Lowrie I may need to reconsider.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the comment thread has learned nothing from the knee-jerk responses of the Gerald Needham case.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteKTBS just had Duke announce that he wanted no money from the suit, just a retraction in mailer form. Someone suing but not for money!?!
ReplyDeleteWow. Now Jeff Thompson's attack dogs are going after Duke's counsel? A new low.
ReplyDeleteNo Jim, you removed a post outlining the case that Duke LOST after refusing to pay an employee of his mortgage company. My comments were totally factual and based off the court proceedings. You took it down because I questioned your inability or unwillingness to present the facts of the case in a transparent manner.
ReplyDeleteYou are sounding like Duke. Duke claims he did not "lie" like Thompson claimed on his mailer while on the fire department. The definition of a Lie is "an intentional false statement". Of course you use the term "rounding up numbers" to describe Duke's conduct. But as we know Duke was suspended due to his acts of rounding up these numbers. Duke likes to pick and choose what rules he wants to follow, particularly if he feels it inconveniences him ie-the case where he refused to pay an employee wages despite being clearly spelled out by the law.
If I am correct, your comment also included a statement 'another thing Duke lied about'. I would call that a personal attack or insult.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the employee sued and got paid. The Lowries ended up paying 20 times what they would have had to pay in the beginning. If there was a pattern of this sort of thing, then it would be worth noting. One individual case is not, although I did allow it on the blog, I researched the suit and added my comment.
ReplyDeleteEnd of story. You are trying to scrape the bottom of the bucket to get something against Duke.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDuke Lowrie if you're reading this we are all in trouble if you are elected.
ReplyDelete@ 10:45 you should see the posts that have been taken down. If you dare challenge Dule's position on anything and dare to site facts your comments get yanked while 100% of the "pro Duke" comments stay.
ReplyDeleteThis might be the fastest to 100 comments. Would have been there 20 minutes ago but some comments disappear.
ReplyDeleteHey 10:45,
ReplyDeleteHow did Duke start negative first? By CALLING JEFF THOMPSON A TRIAL LAWYER???
boohoo
Wow, clearly talking points have already been passed out among the faithful. I look foward to seeing what happens in the next week or so.
ReplyDeleteAs for what comments stay and go, I don't really see any of the Lowrie folks attacking personally. I did see a comment attacking Lowrie's lawyer, but that seems less than relevent in this case, wouldn't you agree? Additionally, I don't think Jim has been getting rid of all Thompson supporters' comments as there appear to be plenty anti-Lowrie statements.
Still, I've seen a few questions left unanswered in the counter-attacks by those that appear to support Thompson.
1. Lowrie never questions the suspension, but apparently must have some evidence challenging Thompson's snippet of the facts. You don't take someone to court unless you have something to back that up. So, why isn't anyone answering that?
2. I haven't seen a single Thompson supporter defend the potential violation of client-attorney confidentiality charge. Again, Lowrie filed a lawsuit here. So, since everyone is playing at hypotheticals, what is the take on that?
3. One question that hasn't been brought up - In every race there is mud slinging and distortion of the facts and no law suits are filed. Presumably because there is always a bit of truth in that mud. What does it mean that one was filed in this situation?
Again, this is going to be an interesting next week.
I hate to do it, but I have turned on comment moderation. When trolls for one campaign get on the blog and try to do nothing but attack the character of another candidate, it will not be tolerated. This is the case whether I support that candidate or oppose him.
ReplyDeleteIt is a shame to do this to my regular commenters, a number of whom disagree with me regularly and never have a comment removed. Maybe in a day or so I will open it back up.
Jim you are a sad man. You deleted a string of factual comments from various posters in attempt to protect duke---its really hard for me to swallow you are being like this after having so much respect for you for a long time.
ReplyDeleteJim 7:55 For your expert information, I know exactly what the subject of the Post is!!!
ReplyDeleteplain and simple, had Lowrie been one of you know who boys we would not be having this conversation or comments because there would not have been any suspension or any other actions taken. This is as frank and honest as it gets. hope I didn't disrepect your right to call me an idiot!
Jim, you removed my comment and I am not a troll. I am a tax paying citizen of Bossier City. All my comment contained was the facts...plain and simple. Now I KNOW you are partial to the Duke campaign. Thanks for making it obvious.
ReplyDeleteNo, I deleted a bunch of comments that violated both #1 and #2.
ReplyDeleteMy regular readers know that I seldom delete a comment. I print many comments from people who disagree with me.
That being said, I don't have to defend my actions, I just want my regular readers to understand my reasons. I don't care what the trolls think.
If this information is public record, then no breach of attorney/client privilege has occurred. This is indeed a frivolous lawsuit. When I think of all the political campaigns over the years which distorted facts...not just as in this flyer...there would be zillions of lawsuits. You gotta have a thick skin to run for office. If not, you better get out of the kitchen.
ReplyDelete11:24 - If you want to comment on the blog post, you are welcome to - if you can do it without a personal attack or insult.
ReplyDeletejim, were you involved in the decision to file the lawsuit?
ReplyDeleteI started reading and commenting on this blog when the city marshal's race was taking place. I find it funny as the election draws down, the " good ole boy" candidate's supporters go on a vicious attack. Lynn Austin, Julian Whittington, and now jeff thompson. All three have been lazy campaigners. They sat back and just expected their money to buy them the election. But their opponents start to gain a little momentum and the vicious attacks begin. I guess they have to attack because their candidate is so flawed. But they got to keep that power. Lord help us if an outsider were to get elected. Go Duke and expose these people for who they really are.
ReplyDeleteJim, you sure have turned Holy worrying about personal attacks and keeping to the facts. I remember during the Bossier City Marshal's race this blog was full of personal attacks and blatant lies about Lynn Austin.
ReplyDelete11:52 PM - No, I don't have anything to do with anyone's campaign. In fact, I have only met Duke Lowrie one time, and that for just a minute at a 'meet and greet' he was holding.
ReplyDelete"Jim, you sure have turned Holy worrying about personal attacks and keeping to the facts. I remember during the Bossier City Marshal's race this blog was full of personal attacks and blatant lies about Lynn Austin."
ReplyDeleteAnd that was the first time I ever used comment moderation - because of the attacks on Lynn Austin. Had to moderate comments for the last week of that election.
Ok seriously, this whole issue is about 2 hours of training being credited inaccurately? TWO hours? This is hardly scandalous. I am not even in the district to vote in this race but it seems like Thompson is grasping at straws if this is his idea of "padding a timesheet". I would be embarrassed if I were Thompson for even sending this piece of campaign trash out. TWO hours? Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteMy question is "Did Duke ask Thompson an opinion informaly as a neighbor or was there a formal engagement as an attorney?" That will determine the breach or lack thereof.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ssm_MLoj74
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure that client-attorney privilege is established when the client provides the information to the attorney in a private setting and the attorney dispenses legal information in return.
ReplyDeleteCompensation, an agreement to represent and other things do not matter.
If the attorney dispenses legal advice, rather than refusing... the privilege is established.
"If the attorney dispenses legal advice, rather than refusing... the privilege is established." Either go back to law school, or quit your profession, that statement couldn't be any further from the truth.
ReplyDeleteAre you a lawyer or judge, Ed?
ReplyDeleteNeither, but I can read and comprehend.
ReplyDeleteJust got latest mailer from Duke. He's got this one in the gutter. Bad advice from Dukes handlers, Kay and Remedes
ReplyDeleteYeah, looks like Wooley round 2
ReplyDeleteau contrere. i think the public loves lawsuits being filed, negative campaigning on a daily basis, and a candidate who, after retiring from the fire dept. amidst yet another lawusit, still can't explain what busniness he's been in since fire fighting. This is easy!!! Keep campaigning Duke.
ReplyDeleteDukes latest mailer calling Jeff a trial lawyer is such a stretch. Jeff was president of the chamber of commerce. Jeff is hardly a trial lawyer.
ReplyDeleteI really wish Duke would not have run such a nasty campaign. Duke and Jane are really scrapping the bottom during this campaign.
Who's gonna go to Baton Rouge & buck the system to create some change around here? If you're happy with the results in this area from our previous legislature I think you're for the good ole boy in the race. If you want someone to work relentlessly to protect us and not run from the heat, send the fireman.
ReplyDeleteOn Duke's website he touts his affiliation with Billy Montgomey and Jane Smith. I realize he is just "name dropping" in an attempt to get votes but anyone who is trying to sell themselves as a "true conservative" would be running from those two not trying to curry favor with their supporters.
ReplyDelete