Louisiana Gambling History: From Smashing Slot Machines To ...
Louisiana Gambling - The Current State of Gambling in ...
why is gambling legal in louisiana
why is gambling legal in louisiana - win
Preston Bolden-found murdered near railroad tracks in San Antonio, Texas on May 8, 1953-Closed Case Under the Civil Rights Division Emmett Till Act
21 year old Preston Bolden's body was found near railroad tracks in the vicinity of 419 Nolan near the 600 block of North Walnut Street in San Antonio, Texas on May 8, 1953 around 6:00 a.m. Preston's body was found by [name redacted in the Department of Justice's closing memorandum] who was walking along the railroad tracks that morning and saw Preston's body laying between the tracks with his head pointing west and wearing a shoe only on his right foot. Thinking Preston was asleep at first, [name redacted] tried to wake Preston but then noticed he was dead so [name redacted] used a neighbor's phone to call the police. The memorandum noted that [Name redacted] was not acquainted with Preston. Two officers [both names redacted] arrived at the scene and filed a report. They found Preston without a hat and on his back near the Southern Pacific Railway tracks. Preston's left two-tone brown and white shoe was missing and his shirt was pulled up. The officers noted that Preston had been struck in the front of the head as his face was covered with blood. They found a pair of dice and $2.30 in cash in Preston's pockets which led them to believe robbery was not the motive. Other witnesses in the area reported hearing an argument in the area but an investigation later showed that the participants in the argument were in no way related to the circumstances surrounding Preston's death. Another officer, whose name was redacted, reported that he saw an old model Plymouth with a canvas top near the railroad tracks around 3:30 a.m. Justice of the Peace M.D. Buck Jones ruled that the cause of death was "murder at the hands of some person or persons unknown.” According to the police report, Dr. G.D. Boyd said Preston's neck was broken at the third vertebra and an autopsy found that Bolden’s spine was severed at the base of the skull by a blunt instrument. The autopsy also noted that Preston died at about 2:30 that morning. 1953 San Antonio Investigation: The San Antonio Police Department along with the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office investigated Preston's murder. Several witnesses who were acquainted with Preston told police that Preston, nicknamed Mullins, was in the company of friends the night before and was gambling with them. Their description of the night before are summarized below but contains a number of redactions: Interview No. 1: On the evening of May 7, an acquaintance, whose name was redacted, saw Preston being followed by several men who were asking him for money. The acquaintance believed Preston had won a craps game which is why the men were asking to borrow money. There was an ongoing conversation which the acquaintance joined where one of the men in the group suggested that another group member [name redacted] should ask Preston for money since Preston liked this man more than the others in the group. This group member, following the group's wishes, asked Preston to honor one of the other men's request for money; Preston suggested that the group member lend the 50 cents requested and Preston would repay the group member once he obtained change. The group eventually all stopped at Four Hour Cleaners where Preston pulled out a wad of money and straightened up the bills on the store's counter. Preston then gave his money to the group member so he could get change. The acquaintance then saw Preston get into someone's Dodge and drive north on Chestnut Street which is the last time the acquaintance saw Preston. Interview No. 2: [Name redacted] was with the acquaintance in Account No. 1 when he saw Preston and a group of men on the street. Preston was in the lead followed by two men [both names redacted] who were asking him for money. [Name redacted] heard the men say they had been in a craps game and Preston had "broke the other two." Acquaintance No. 1 left [name redacted] to join the group. [Name redacted] then watched the group walk to the Four Hour Cleaners after which he did not see Preston again. Interview No. 3: [Name redacted] was a woman who knew Preston for approximately a year. On the evening of May 7, she was asleep at home but was woken up by noise outside her home. She saw a group of men shooting dice outside and recognized Preston and five others plus two soldiers in uniform. She told the group to not gamble there or else she would call the police. After the game ended, she spoke to Preston who told her not to call the police because he "had broke the rest of the fellows and he pulled out a big handful of bills." She thought there were at least several hundred dollars in his hand. She then saw him go down the street with others and never saw him again. She learned of Preston's death the following morning. Interview No. 4: [Name redacted] told investigators that Preston came to his shop, Four Hours Cleaners, around 6:15 to 6:30 the night before. 2 men [both names redacted] followed Preston to the doorstep of the cleaners and one of the men grabbed Preston by the wrist and tried to force Preston to go with him, saying “Come on man.” When one of the men tried to stop the other from forcing Preston to go, the other man then said "you have everything you need and you don’t want anybody else to make anything.” The two men then left Preston and Preston came inside the cleaners where he told [name redacted] that the others wanted his money but he "wasn't going to be fooled into letting them have his money." Preston wanted to buy a shirt and pants from [Name redacted]'s business but he did not have enough money partly because he owed his lawyer money. Preston then asked one of the men in his group for a ride so he could get some money that was owed to him. After 15 minutes, Preston returned to the cleaners but looked like he had had a “shot of something” because he was falling asleep. Preston did not buy the pants he originally wanted to purchase but picked up his dry cleaning. Preston stepped outside as the business was closing and [name redacted] alerted one of the men in Preston's group to look after him. Preston was then observed standing in the middle of the sidewalk but sound asleep. [Name redacted] closed his shop for the night and then drove home. He did not see Preston again. Interview No. 5: Another acquaintance of Preston's, whose name was redacted, told investigators that between 4:30-5:00 p.m., he observed Preston and a group of men shoot dice in the kitchen of the E. Commerce Bar and Café for about one and a half hours. One of the men broke even but another lost $14 by the time the game ended. Some time after, [name redacted] saw Preston and others walk towards Chestnut Street so he followed them so he could play dice as well. After 5 minutes, the woman in Interview No. 3, yelled at the men to quit playing or she would call police. [Name redacted] determined he lost $3 as Preston walked away from the game. [Name redacted] then saw Preston standing alone at a taxi stand on E. Commerce Street and did not see him again afterwards. According to the police report, the men interviewed were booked on a vagrancy hold and one was scheduled to take a polygraph test. Due to the number of redactions, it is hard to determine which men were booked or scheduled for the polygraph test. No further information was provided about the results of the polygraph test or any further developments about the investigation. 2009 Federal Investigation: In 2009, the FBI initiated a review of Carrie's death pursuant to the Department of Justice's Cold Case Initiative and the Emmett Till Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007. The initiative sought to investigate violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred no later than December 31, 1969 and resulted in death. As part of its investigation, the FBI looked at contemporary newspaper articles concerning Preston's murder along with records from the Homicide Unit of the San Antonio Police Department. The FBI also contacted the Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office, the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office and the Texas Department of Public Safety but none of the agencies had any records on Preston. The FBI also posted public notices on the internet and other media seeking witnesses as well as relatives but no one has responded. Four newspaper articles from the San Antonio Express provided information not reflected in police reports. Police Lieutenant W.J. Robitsch theorized that Preston had been beaten somewhere else and then transported in a car to the railroad tracks, where his body was dumped on the ground. According to one article, an “old model car” had been parked at approximately the spot where the body was found at about 3:30 a.m., and tire marks were observed near the body. Two of the articles referred to Preston as a part-time narcotics informer for the police. One article says the police arrested an unnamed suspect within an hour after Preston's body was found. The suspect reportedly heard Preston giving information to Lieutenant Robitsch. Another article quotes Police Chief Joe Hester who said that Preston operated an “unusual racket” in that he sold keys to “gullible and amorous servicemen that would supposedly unlock doors behind which eager women were waiting." Chief Hester said the keys were “junk" and theorized that one of Preston's “suckers tracked him down” and murdered him. Police Lieutenant [name redacted] noted in one of the articles that other than the broken neck, there were no other marks on Preston. The FBI located the former Police Lieutenant whose name was redacted but he was unable to recall Preston's murder. The FBI determined that Lieutenant Robitsch died in 1986. It is unclear if the FBI was able to find Chief Hester or interview him. The Department of Justice closed Preston's case as there was insufficient evidence to establish that Preston's death was a racially-motivated homicide. Accordingly, the FBI declined to investigate further. Preston's murder remains unsolved. Links: Department of Justice: Preston Bolden-Notice to Close File Digital Journal: November 19, 2009-FBI Continues to Probe Civil Rights-Era Racial Murders Discussion: I came across the Department of Justice’s cold case initiative (Emmett Till Civil Rights Act) while reading an article discussing journalists’ efforts to install a billboard on an Arkansas highway aimed at solving the 1954 lynching of Isadore Banks. The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice launched a website (linked above) to make information about the department’s investigation of cold cases from the Civil Rights Era more accessible to the public. As a result of the initiative, the Department of Justice has prosecuted and convicted Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Mississippi (the "Mississippi Burning" case); he is the eighth defendant convicted. The Department has also been able to charge and convict perpetrators of the 1963 Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama and secured a life sentence for James Ford Seale for the kidnapping and murder of two teenagers in Franklin County, Mississippi in 1964. Unfortunately, many cases which were submitted to the Department of Justice remain unsolved due to the passage of time resulting in evidentiary and legal barriers. In each case that is not prosecutable, the Department of Justice wrote a closing memorandum explaining the investigative steps taken and the basis for their conclusion. To date, the Department of Justice has uploaded 115 closing memos. I hope to be able to post on all of the closed cases as I share in the belief with the Department of Justice that “these stories should be told [as] there is value in a public reckoning with the history of racial violence and the complicity of government officials.” Other posts from the Department of Justice's Cold Case Initiative: 1. Isadore Banks-unsolved murder in Marion, Arkansas-June 1954 2. Willie Joe Sanford-unsolved murder in Hawkinsville, Georgia-March 1957 3. Ann Thomas-unsolved murder in San Antonio, Texas-April 1969 4. Thad Christian-murdered on August 30, 1965 in Central City, Alabama 5. Silas Caston-killed on March 1, 1964 by a Hinds County Sheriff’s Office Deputy in Jackson, Mississippi 6. Clifford "Clifton" Walker-unsolved murder in Woodville, Mississippi-February 1964 7. Jasper Greenwood- his badly decomposed body was found in Vicksburg, Mississippi in June 1964 8. Mattie Greene- killed in a bomb explosion in Ringgold, Georgia on May 19, 1960 9. Samuel O'Quinn-unsolved murder in Centreville, Mississippi-August 1959 10. Ladislado Ureste-unsolved murder in San Antonio, Texas-April 1953 11. Carrie Brumfield-unsolved murder in Franklinton, Louisiana-September 1967
It's full of curse words to make it more palatable. Google Doc Here President Endorsement: Joe Biden As a nation, we cannot continue to plummet into a fascist regime. The most change happens locally, and so please pay attention to the less sexy details. US Senate Louisiana Endorsement: Adrian Perkins Close your eyes and imagine a world where Mitch McConnell is not our majority leader. Feels good, right? Well, it is gonna be an uphill battle that starts with Adrian Perkins. To win this election over incumbent, Bill Cassidy, would be a multifaceted victory. Cassidy vehemently opposes climate change, medicare for all, abortion access, mail in ballots and continuing unemployment stimulus amidst Covid-19. Perkins has the exact opposite platforms. Perhaps, most importantly, he wants to overturn Citizens United. Holy shit. Now a girl can really dream. And finally, fun fact- if Perkins wins, he would be the first black senator to represent Louisiana since 1887. US House Louisiana District 2 Endorsement: Colby James Oh, what a gerrymandering mess the second congressional district is. The Republicans that drew out this district really wanted to pack all the minorities together essentially guaranteeing there is only one Democratic seat up for grabs in the House of Representatives. Since all this gerrymandering has pretty much ensured the incumbent and Democratic darling Cedric Richmond the election, I feel comfortable indulging the third party voter locked deep in my heart for this election -not a game I’m willing to play with the rest of the ballot. We all know that Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same bird that only serve the interest of the rich. That is why Colby James has caught my eye. James understands that you cannot truly fight corruption in government. He instead has a plan to work around the corruption to actually serve the people. The plan includes implementing new social aid programs, changing the federal tax code, and instituting a racial wealth divide audit. There I go dreaming again. Associate Justice Supreme Court 7th District Endorsement: Sandra Cabrina Jenkins Whoever wins this election will be the only black female to sit at the Supreme Court bench amongst the six white men. While there are three very capable candidates to fill the seat of the esteemed Chief Justice Johnson, Sandra Cabrina Jenkins is my favorite option. Piper Griffin seemed to rely too much on stock answers in the debate and seldom actually had details or formulated a well-rounded plan. Terri Love is a very compelling candidate, especially as she talks about holding transparency in the courtroom. Love understands the importance of community education and engagement. She wants to utilize social media to inform the public about judicial issues. This community outreach plan even involves “School House Rock like videos” to explain the issues in more palatable ways. Although I would love to see more dancing legal bills, it was not enough to stray my attention from Jenkins. Jenkins speaks in depth about the need to collaborate with legislation in order to obtain the real changes we seek in the justice system. This is particularly important for getting more funding allocated to the courts so that the financial burden of fines and fees can be taken off defendants. Furthermore, Jenkins wants to be present during legislature hearings in order to educate the policy makers on the issues within the judiciary branch. This is how we see real progressive reform.Ultimately I believe Jenkins is the best candidate to fill this seat because Griffin and Love talked of compromise with the other conservative judges, while Jenkins promised to always maintain her position and write powerful dissents that could eventually pave out the future we all deserve. I want a Justice with the balls to stand up to six white men. Orleans Parish District Attorney Endorsement: Jason Williams New Orleans has the highest incarceration and false conviction rate in the world. This alarming statistic is the fault of the District Attorney. Fuck crooked Leo Cannizzaro. We deserve better. One of the most important names on this ballot is Jason Williams. Something that reiterates throughout the debates is that he will not try a case that does not deserve to be on the desk of the prosecution. He says, ”just because we can win the case doesn’t mean we should try the case.” This means dropping menial cases that relate to mental health issues, drug addiction, nonviolent offenders, and unjust arrests through practices like stop and frisk.Williams goes on to denounce unjust arrests like incarcerating people for material witness – a practice of Leo’s that has been exclusively used against minorities. Furthermore, he is the only candidate who does not want to ever try juveniles as adults. He is also the only candidate to consistently condemn the death penalty. Arthur Hunter is not prepared. Keva Landrum is a vote for the status quo. Jason Williams is the candidate New Orleans deserves. Judge Civil District Court Division E Endorsement: Omar Mason Omar Mason is the incumbent and the chair of a committee that oversees the Covid procedures in the civil court. He has been endorsed by Forum for Equality, Voters Organized to Educate, Independent Women’s Organization, and Alliance for Good Government. Diane Alexander’s campaign website offers no compelling information that renders her more deserving of the job. Judge Civil District Court Division F Endorsement: Chris Bruno It ain’t often that an election for civil court gets juicy, but here we are. These two candidates found themselves in court over a heated fight regarding an attack ad. In this ad Jennifer Medley accused incumbent Chris Bruno of being a “deadbeat dad". Their day in court divulged into Bruno’s messy divorce, but did not produce enough evidence for Medley to be allowed to air the ad. But here is where things get good. Bruno’s defense was that Medley was carrying out revenge for fuckface Sidney Torres. Torres lost a case in Bruno’s courtroom last year, and has since been endorsing Medley. Torres called the ad “clear as day.” Anyone endorsed by a man who wants to put our entire city up for sale is not someone I want to vote for. Judge Civil District Court Division G Endorsement: Schalyece Harrison A neighbor of mine worked in close proximity with Schalyece Harrison at City Hall and fucking loved her. She describes Harrison as always prepared, respectful and competent. Not things you see often in City Hall. As the Administrative Hearing Officer, Harrison currently oversees safety and permits, short term rental violations, historic districts, and code enforcement. Think of all this as bootcamp. If she can stay prepared, respectful and competent with all this one her plate, Harrison can definitely run a courtroom. Judge Civil District Court Division I Endorsement: Elroy James Man, it is tempting to vote for Lori Jupiter solely because she was a research attorney for Chief Justice Johnson and so you know she has a sharp legal mind, but I would rather vote for a judge that emphasizes compassion. Jupiter has no promise on her campaign page to advocate for the disenfranchised. What she does have is an endorsement from the Sheriff and City Council, and so it is pretty clear that her candidacy is more of the same old status quo. Elroy Judge wants to “restore your faith in justice.” His campaign is centered around compassion and respect which is certainly something our courtrooms need more of. Judge Civil District Court Domestic Section 1 Endorsement: Bernadette D’Souza Bernadette D’Souza is the president of the National Association of Women Judge. She presented on “Integrated Domestic Violence Courts” at the United Nations Convention. For fucksake, she was invited by Pope Francis to speak on “Equal Access to Justice: The Importance of Civil Legal Aid and Delivery of Justice to Eradicate Poverty” at the First Pan American Judges Summit. Her opponent LaKeisha Jefferson might be good, but not that good. Judge Criminal District Court Section A Endorsement: Laurie White Dennis Moore is campaigning on “streamlining” and “modernizing” the courtroom. That was not enough to convince me that he is more qualified than the incumbent, Laurie White. White is a progressive judge who applies reasonable bonds, mental health care, and drug rehabilitation over just incarceration. In fact, she is in the midst of a three year, million dollar grant dedicated to drug treatment. While Moore might like to present himself as a more progressive candidate, there are obvious limitations to his plans. For instance, when asked about how he would uphold transparency of prosecutor case files, Moore said that he would allow the defense access to the prosecution's office. But what public defender has time to go to the prosecution's office? White puts the burden on prosecution to deliver this information. Moreover, White is much more realistic about repealing conviction fees. Moore wants to abolish these fees with no alternative plan on how to maintain the courts. White, while not opposing these fees, knows that the state legislature needs to allocate more money to the courts in order to alleviate this directly from the defendants who are often financially struggling. Essentially Moore is making false promises. Still, perhaps my favorite thing about White is that she has been a constant critic of crooked Leo Cannizzaro. Because, once again, fuck that guy. Judge Criminal District Court Section D Endorsement: Graham Bosworth Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice. “Graham has been an advocate for a fair judiciary throughout his career, as a public defender, and a Pro Tem judge in criminal district court. Graham has the legal training to make a knowledgeable judge. He serves as a Chair of the LA Bar’s criminal Justice Committee, and previously served as the Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Incarceration Reduction. Graham understands how it feels to appear in front of a judge. He vows to treat everyone in his courtroom with respect.” Judge Criminal District Court Section E Endorsement: Derwyn Bunton Rhonda Goode-Douglas declined to partake in the debate, which gave me a full hour to listen to the soothing voice of Derwyn Bunton. The timbre of his voice aside, Bunton is an amazing candidate for judge. He refuses to accept the common mentality of a judge dismissing injustices in the courtroom as not their responsibility. New Orleans is both the incarceration and false conviction capital of the world. Bunton promises to withhold his signature from material witness arrests, fake subpoenas, illegal warrants, and hold prosecutors withholding evidence in contempt of court. These are all necessary measures to balance the scale currently tipped in the favor of prosecution to achieve true justice. Bunton has also promised to give five dollar bonds in nonviolent cases where the law mandates a bond. That’s freedom for the price of a footlong. So why did Goode-Douglas opt to skip this debate? Well there were still questions asked that were clearly meant for her. I guess she has a history of imposing conviction fees to punish those represented by a public defender. Judge Criminal District Court Section G Endorsement: Nandi Campbell Nandi Campbell is a career-long criminal defense lawyer. She understands the racial and financial injustices that are prevalent in the courtroom. While some of her plans for reform might seem overly idealistic, I would much rather see her win this seat than her opponent Lionel Burns. Burns has some very dangerous preconceived notions about equity in the courtroom. Most upsettingly, he is of the opinion that defendants requesting public defenders are “taking advantage of the system.” Burns insists that fifty dollars is too nominal of a fee for this service. By ”service” does he mean constitutional right to legal counsel? Burns goes on to say that defendants always have money for bail, and then go on to request a public defender as if it were a hand-out. So this dude is saying that if someone falls into the predatory system of bail bonds for sake of their freedom, they should have the money for private defense. That’s some bullshit. Finally, Burn’s demeanor in the debate is unprofessional. He takes little jabs at Campbell and shakes his head while she speaks. This is not how I want a judge to behave. Please vote for an idealist over an asshole. Judge Criminal District Court Section K Endorsement: Charles “Gary” Wainwright Yes, Wainwright's mustache might be unnerving, but he is the best candidate for this election. In his thirty years of experience in New Orleans courtrooms, he prides himself in being consistently liberal and tuned in to the intricacies of the system and its racial injustices. His plan to expedite the docket bogged down by Covid is to take all drug cases and “throw ‘em in the garbage.” In the middle of the debate, he holds up a handwritten sign that reads, “NO MORE DRUG WAR.” Meanwhile, the other candidates only provide vague information on plans, stock answers, and very much reflects the status quo of the system. It certainly also helps that Wainwright slams our crooked Leo Cannizzaro, and calls Trump “Criminal in Chief.” He sure is quotable. Judge Criminal District Court Section L Endorsement: Angel Harris Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice. “As a public defender and a civil rights lawyer, Angel has watched those in power disregard people simply because they were given the label ‘criminal.’ As judge, Angel will give every person the opportunity to stand before a judge who is impartial and fair. Angel will work to stop criminalizing poverty through the use of money bail and exorbitant fines and fees. Angel will expand the use of alternatives to incarceration, promoting a system rooted in rehabilitation, not mass incarceration.” Magistrate Section Criminal District Court Endorsement: Steve Singer Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice. “As a public defender and law professor, Steve has dedicated his career to the principle that money should not determine someone’s freedom. As judge, Steve will work to transform the Magistrate court from a system that processes people into incarceration to a court that works to serve our community. Steve will end money bail and incarceration first policies that criminalize poverty.” Judge Juvenile Court Section A Endorsement: Clint Smith Clint Smith is campaigning on putting the child first. He speaks on “engaging the family as a whole, as well as professionals and community-focused organizations, to collaborate across systems and support our youth before, during and after sentencing occurs.” This is a hell of a lot more than any of the other candidates. Kevin Guillory and Geraldine Baloney do not even have campaign pages. When you look-up Marie Williams all you get is a controversy in which the former Judge of this court, Frank Marullo, and her got caught up in a bribe. So if campaign style is any indicator of the work ethic that these candidates will invest in this job, the only suitable candidate is Clint Smith. Judge Juvenile Court Section F Endorsement: Tenee Felix Since there was no debate for this seat, I am following the endorsement by Nola Defenders for Equal Justice.”Tenne Felix is a brilliant, caring, competent professional. She thoroughly researches and litigates her cases and works tirelessly for her clients. Tenne is always prepared and organized for court. She forms strong relationships with the children she represents as well as with their families… she truly understands childhood development needs and obstacles.” Judge Municipal and Traffic Court Section A Endorsement: Meghan Garvey Incumbent Paul Sens does not deserve to even be a judge of a fucking dancing competition. The Inspector General has accused Sens of nepotism and is quoted, "I've never heard of a case where so many relatives of the leader of the organization were working at the organization." Sens shares a close relationship with Sheriff Marlin Gusman whose career goal was to expand the prison system. I have watched his demeanor in court which is aloof, at best. Sens seldom addresses the defendants and never asks for qualifying information from the prosecution or defense. Yet, he still manages to have a huge backlog on his docket. Meghan Garvey deserves the seat at that bench. Garvey wants to implement staggered subpoena times, hold remote courts in less accessible neighborhoods and develop childcare programs for parents attending court. These are three community focused ways in which she can begin to clean the mess of a backlog that Sens has created. Judge Municipal and Traffic Court Endorsement: Charlene Larche-Mason Since there is absolutely no campaign information available about Alexandre Bonin available online, by default my endorsement goes to Charlene Larche-Mason. It is kinda ironic because Larche-Mason is responsible for digitizing the city attorney’s office. She wants to apply similar technological innovations in this courtroom. With the looming threat of Covid, hurricanes, and government cyber-attacks (remember those?), it is imperative to have virtual courts done right. Member of School Board District 7 As a disclaimer, I only researched the school board election for my district. Endorsement: Jamar Wilson Nolan Marshall has had his seat on the board for eight years. Let’s knock out the incumbent with someone willing to do the work to actually create positive changes in schools. Jamar Wilson is that candidate. He openly supports that police officers in schools be replaced with social workers. He also wants to include parental and student voices on the accountability framework. I believe this promise, because his campaign has been significantly more engaging than the other two candidates. Amendment 1: No Right to Abortion Endorsement: No It fucking kills me to see the feminist legacy of the late Justice Ginsburg being thwarted by the nomination of Amy Coney Barret. This bill would essentially be undoing Ginsburg’s lifetime of work as a one-two punch. Denying women access to abortion is denying women equal rights and opportunity. Abortion is healthcare. With the federal threat of overturning Roe v. Wade under Barret, I urge you to protect women in Louisiana and vote no. Amendment 2: Include Oil and Gas in Tax Assessment Endorsement: Yes The idea behind this bill would be to allow tax assessors the ability to quantify the worth of a well, based on the production of oil and not the cost of building a replacement. Essentially, it is a more accurate way to assess property value. This bill has unanimously passed through our state House of Representatives and Senate without public criticism. Is it too optimistic to think this might elicit higher taxes on this billion dollar industry? Oil money, oil, money, oil money. Amendment 3: Use of Budget Stabilization Fund Endorsement: Yes Alright, so this bill would allow the legislature to use up to one third of the state’s “Rainy Day” fund, in the event of a federally declared emergency. It would still require a two-thirds majority vote through the House and the Senate to access this fund. Hurricanes are an obvious financial concern. Should this bill be denied, the State would have to continue to find the money needed for reconstruction somewhere else in the budget. And do you know what always gets cut first? Fucking education, social programs, and healthcare. Just let our politicians take the damn money from the “Rainy Day” fund instead. Amendment 4: Expenditures Limit Growth Endorsement: No Tax and expenditure limits are self-imposed restrictions that state governments create to restrict the amount they can tax or spend. Sounds sexy, right? Long term studies of states with expenditure tax laws in place do not actually have a positive impact on growth because of structural deficits and higher borrowing costs. Furthermore, critics of the bill fear that limiting growth will only hurt education and healthcare. Not so sexy now. Amendment 5: Payment in Lieu of Property Taxes Endorsement: No I am having trouble reading about this bill and finding any merit. What the politicians deem an “incentive” for manufacturers to conduct business in Louisiana really just seems like more corporate handouts. I mean, are we really proposing another way for businesses to get out of paying their fair share of taxes? And the cherry on top of this fucking bill is that it is supported by the Louisiana Sherriff’s Association. Amendment 6: Homestead Exemption Special Assessment Income Limit Endorsement: Yes Do you like old people? Do you want old people to be able to retire and not lose their homes? Cool, you’re a human. Special assessments freeze the property value on a home, so that their taxes cannot go up. This bill would expand this benefit to those making less than $100,000 annually. But old people are not the only ones who qualify. So do veterans, surviving spouses of veterans, and the totally disabled. Give these folks stability and peace of mind by voting yes. Amendment 7: Unclaimed Property Personal Trust Fund Endorsement: No Louisiana very well may owe you money. Every year, millions of dollars that you overpaid in taxes, insurance and bills goes to the State Treasurer’s Unclaimed Property Program. The purpose of this program is to find you and return your money. Perhaps, because of technological innovations, this program worked better than ever in 2019 and now the Treasurer is worried they are going to run out of money. But even with the increase in claims, there was still $12 million bucks left in the program. This bill would lock that $12 million in a trust just in case they run out of money instead of being allocated towards education and healthcare as the system currently allows. PW Authorize Sports Wagering Activities Endorsement: Yes We eat crawfish and wear cotton-blended shirts without fearing the wrath of god. Maybe it is okay to gamble on sports too.
Poker, Politics & Parenting with Jerrard Parfait My guest is Jerrard Parfait. He’s a friend of fifteen years who has a strong aptitude for risk-taking. In fact, we spend the first hour of this episode talking about poker, decision-making and emotional intelligence. We also discuss politics & parenting. Parfait, as I call him, lives with his wife, Carolyn, and son, Luke, in South Louisiana. We reminisce on our college days here—playing poker & blackjack at “Grandma Harrah’s” in New Orleans. He believes poker sharpens your skills because of its competitive nature. And much like playing golf, Parfait says, “you must put in a lot of time in order to be good at it.” We also discuss screen time & social media. While I envision a future where social media is stigmatized as a low-class activity, Parfait believes otherwise. He says people are way too consumed with showing their best life on social media to abandon it. This conversation was a blast. If you enjoy poker, parenting & politics, you’ll enjoy this discussion. Other topics discussed:
Poker vs deer hunting
Tourists that are good for poker
“Sizing-up” your opponent
Benefits of having a casino close to home
Emotional intelligence in poker
Short-handed poker (6-handed) vs full table (10-handed)
What compelled you to play poker tonight of all nights?
Have you ever been out to Vegas for the World Series [of Poker]?
Is the old adage “If you can’t spot the sucker, then you’re probably the sucker” true?
What % of the game is taken away when you can’t see players’ facial expressions and mannerisms?
What % of hands do you fold where you have Ace + 6, 7, 8, or 9?
Did your son show a natural inclination for sports?
What did you listen to this morning?
[Question to Brad] How much exposure will you give your kid to screen time & social media?
Do you think it’s best to put the phone down rather than show him [Parfait’s son] or you think it’s better to show him and then put the phone down?
At what point do you talk to your kid as an adult, as opposed to baby talking your child?
Fun questions:
Social media – net positive or net negative for society?
Do you think not wanting something is just as good as having it?
Do you think Jeffrey Toobin should’ve been fired?
If you were stuck on an island and could only eat pizza from one pizza shop for the rest of your life, which would you choose?
Has anyone ever unfriended you because of politics?
If you could organize a dinner party of six guests, and have either everyone you’ve ever hurt or everyone who has ever hurt you, which would you choose?
Who do you think would win a governor’s race between Drew Brees and Ed Orgeron?
What is the best stadium you’ve been to?
If someone dropped $1 million on your lap tomorrow, what would you do with it?
Is this some libertarian joke I am too statist to understand? Accuracy of an article on the French Revolution by Mises Institute.
Hello all, I just recently read an article on the French Revolution by the "well renowned", ''respected'', libertarian Mises Institute, and need some help evaluating if it is at all accurate.
No matter how much the American economy grows during the next decade, the government will have serious trouble funding expanding entitlements, increased education spending, and ongoing wars in the Middle East, while maintaining a global military constabulary and presence everywhere. Something has to give. No matter how one crunches the numbers, a crisis is looming, and Americans are bound to see their standard of living fall and their global empire collapse. It has happened before. Consider that seminal and catastrophic event that inaugurated the era of mass politics, bureaucratic centralism, and the ideological state—the French Revolution. It is a large and complex event worthy of a Gibbon, but it may not have happened at all if the French monarchy had balanced its budget. While the causes of the Revolution are many, the cause of the crisis that brought on the Revolution is not. It was a fiscal and credit crisis that weakened the authority and confidence of the monarchy so much that it thought it had to convene a defunct political assembly before it had safely carried out a successful program of liberal constitutional and free market reform. It would be as if the American federal government called a constitutional convention with an open agenda and hoped that all would go smoothly. The Estates General lasted only a little over a month before the leaders of the Third Estate (the bourgeoisie, artisans, and peasantry) transformed it into a National Assembly and took political power from the monarchy. The Revolution was on. Revisionist historians have challenged the standard interpretation of pre-revolutionary France as a country with a stagnant economy, an oppressed peasantry, a shackled bourgeoisie, and an archaic political structure. In Citizens (1989), Simon Schama describes France under Louis XVI as a rapidly modernizing nation with entrepreneurial nobles, a reform-minded monarchy, nascent industrialization, growing commerce, scientific progress, and energetic intendants (royal administrators in the provinces). Moreover, Montesquieu was in vogue; the English mixed constitution was the cynosure of political reform, and the economic philosophy of physiocracy, with its belief in economic law and advocacy of laissez faire, had discredited the dogmas of state mercantilism. Turgot argued perceptively that another war withEngland would derail his reform program, bankrupt the state, and, even if successful, do little to weaken British power. In 1774, Louis XVI appointed Jacques Turgot, a Physiocrat, to be Controller-General of Finances. Turgot believed that subsidies, regulations, and tariffs were crippling productivity and enterprise in France. End them, he advised the king, and business would thrive and state revenues increase. He proposed an ambitious reform program that included taking down internal custom barriers, lifting price controls on grain, abolishing the guilds and the corvee (forced labor service), and devolving political power to newly created provincial assemblies (two of which he established). Turgot envisioned a federated France, with a chain of elected bodies extending from the village through the provinces to some form of national assembly. Not surprisingly, there was both aristocratic and popular opposition to these reforms, but what really doomed them was Turgot's inveterate opposition to French intervention in the American War of Independence. Many were still stewing over the humiliating and catastrophic defeat suffered by France in the Seven Years' War (1756–1763). The country had lost her North American possessions (Quebec, Louisiana) and all of French India, except two trading stations. The foreign minister (Vergennes) calculated that by helping the Americans gain their independence they could weaken the British Empire, gain revenge, and restore France's previous position as one of the world's two superpowers. Turgot argued perceptively that another war with England would derail his reform program, bankrupt the state, and, even if successful, do little to weaken British power. "The first gunshot will drive the state to bankruptcy," he warned the king. It was to no avail. International power politics and considerations of national prestige took precedence over domestic reform, and the king dismissed him in May 1776. He would be proved right on all three points. The French began covertly supplying war material to the rebellious colonists in 1777, and in 1778 they signed a treaty of alliance with the Americans. Throughout the war, they supplied hard money loans, and underwrote others for the purchase of war supplies in Europe. In 1780, they landed a 5,000-man army in Rhode Island. In 1781, the French navy blockaded Lord Cornwallis's army at Yorktown. Turgot's successor Jacques Necker, a Swiss banker, financed these expenditures almost entirely through loans. Although successful, France's intervention cost 1.3 billion livres and almost doubled her national debt. Schama writes, "No state with imperial pretensions has, in fact, ever subordinated what it takes to be irreducible military interests to the considerations of a balanced budget. And like apologists for military force in twentieth-century America," imperialists "in eighteenth century France pointed to the country's vast demographic and economic reserves and a flourishing economy to sustain the burden." Even more, they claimed that prosperity was "contingent on such military expenditures, both directly in naval bases like Brest and Toulon, and indirectly in the protection it gave to the most rapidly expanding sector of the economy." Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. The new Controller General made no effort to restrain domestic or court spending. The result was a peacetime spending spree and chronic budget deficits. Necker was neither a financial profligate nor an ultra royalist. He was simply financing a war that the government deemed to be in the national interest. During the conflict, he held down royal expenditures at home, eliminated many sinecures, published a national budget in 1781, and proposed the formation of a third provincial assembly. However, when his request to join the royal council (as a Protestant, he was barred) was rejected, he resigned. His immediate successor, Joly de Fleury, restored many of the offices he had eliminated. Upon the return of peace with the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783), the monarchy had another opportunity to institute economic, financial, and political reforms, but it squandered it. Just as with the first Bush administration after the Cold War, there would be no peace dividend. The government was determined to exploit the vacuum created by British defeat to restore French imperial power. Their global strategy was to maintain a standing army of 150,000 men to defend the borders and preserve the balance of power on the Continent while building up a transoceanic navy capable of challenging the British in all the world's oceans. What is more, the new Controller General, Calonne, made no effort to restrain domestic or court spending. The result was a peacetime spending spree, chronic budget deficits, and the addition of 700 million livres to the national debt. By 1788, debt service alone would absorb fifty percent of annual revenue. It was guns and butter, French style. Today we are savoring it, Texas style. In a few years, Calonne was faced with an imminent fiscal catastrophe. The annual deficit in 1786 was projected to be 112 million livres, and the American war loans would begin falling due the next year. Action was imperative. Such was the power of liberal and federalist ideas in France that Calonne summoned the Physiocrat Dupont de Nemours, a former Turgot associate, to advise him. Meanwhile, with their blessing, the foreign minister, Vergennes, signed a free trade agreement with Great Britain (1786). With the help of Nemours, Calonne proposed the following measures to open up the French economy: the deregulation of the domestic grain trade, the dismantling of internal custom barriers, and commuting the corvee into a public works tax. To raise a regular and equitable revenue, he suggested a "territorial subvention," (i.e. a direct tax levied on all landowners, without exception, to be assessed and levied by representative provincial assemblies). Calonne remembered the mistake Turgot had made ten years before. He had relied exclusively on royal authority to enact his program and in so doing had antagonized the nobility who did not like being presented with a fait accompli. To avoid a similar fate, Calonne suggested the summoning of an Assembly of Notables for early 1787 to consider, modify, and sanction the reforms before they were sent to the Parlement of Paris for registration (making them law). The king approved Calonne's whole program in December 1786. Here was the last chance for the monarchy to institute a program of decentralist constitutional and liberal economic reform that would free the economy, solve the fiscal crisis, transmute absolutism into constitutionalism, and avert an impending political cataclysm. Alas, as excellent and necessary as were Calonne's reforms, he was not the right man to see them through. He was deeply unpopular for his lavish court spending and for using his office to cultivate various corrupt stock schemes. The nobility did not trust him, and the people despised him. Recognizing he was a liability, the king dismissed him and appointed Lomenie de Brienne in his stead. Brienne was a high noble, a Notable, and a reformer. The Assembly was supportive of all the reforms, except the taxes. Here they balked. Before they would give their sanction to new taxes, they wanted the king to publish an annual budget and to agree to a permanent commission of auditors. Their concern was obvious. Why should they agree to changes that would increase royal revenue if they had no way of monitoring royal expenses to see if those funds were being prudently spent? Now the king balked. He thought the proposals an infringement on his prerogatives over the finances and the budget. He vetoed them. It was a grievous error, but typical of the vacillating mind of the king and the intellectual fetters of an absolutist political tradition. The Parlement of Paris duly registered the decrees freeing the grain trade, commuting the corvee, and setting up the provincial assemblies, but they would not register the stamp duty or the land tax. They claimed that only the Estates General, the medieval representative assembly of the three estates of the kingdom (clergy, nobility, and commons) that had last met in 1614, could approve the taxes. The nobles were gambling that Louis would never dare call for an assembly of the Estates. It was a clever stratagem for defeating the tax proposals without incurring the popular odium for doing so. The nobility and clergy would not give up their tax exemptions nor grant the monarchy a potentially inexhaustible new source of revenue without a share of political power. An unforeseen consequence was to create a popular expectation for the reconvening of the Estates. This time the nobility erred. If the monarchy had not been so pressed for funds to stave off bankruptcy, they could have declared the registered edicts a victory for reform and waited for another day to deal with taxes. Not having that luxury, Brienne and the king panicked. They decided to resort to the weapons of royal absolutism to force through the tax reforms. They issued lits de justice declaring the new taxes to be law by royal will. Second, they exiled the recalcitrant Parlement to Troyes. The public outcry and institutional resistance to these tyrannical measures was such that the monarchy had to back down. The king recalled the Parlement and withdrew the lits de justice. Brienne now requested that the Parlement register new royal loans to stave off bankruptcy. It did so, but it again called for the re-convening of the Estates General. It also attempted to establish its new position as a de facto parliament. It declared that royal decrees were not law unless duly registered by the parlements and denied the constitutionality of both lits de justice and lettres de cachet (royal arrest warrants). The king and Brienne believed that the future of royal absolutism was at stake, so they responded with force. They surrounded the Parlement with troops. The king stripped it of its powers of remonstrance and registry, and he invested those powers in a new Plenary Court to be appointed by him. The May coup turned both the nobility and the clergy against the Crown, excited civil protest and unrest, and created a political crisis to match the seriousness of the fiscal crisis. Once again, a foolish attempt to preserve inviolate the senescent institutions of absolutism had failed. By August 1788, the monarchy was bankrupt and without credit. It could borrow new funds neither in Paris nor Amsterdam. Brienne had no choice but to resign. The king recalled Necker, who was the one man who had the confidence of investors, was trusted by the nobility, and popular among the masses. The king also summoned the Estates General to meet in May 1789. The people would assemble by order in local assemblies and elect delegates. The electorate would comprise over six million Frenchmen. Schama calls it "the most numerous experiment in political representation attempted anywhere in the world." By tradition, the assemblies could draw up a list of grievances and requests which their representatives would take with them to Versailles. They would carry 25,000 of them. Students are taught that the nobility and clergy were determined to preserve the old order, the ancien regime, with most of their privileges intact, and admit only a modicum of change, while the Third Estate demanded a transformed France in which the watchwords would be liberty, progress, and modernity. The truth is almost precisely the opposite. The majority of the nobility envisioned a France that was rational, liberal, and constitutional. They were willing to surrender their tax exemptions and seigniorial dues. They called for the abolition of lettres de cachet and all forms of censorship; they wanted an Anglo-Saxon style bill of rights with constitutional protection for civil liberties. They recommended financial reforms: a published national budget, the abolition of the sale of government offices, and an end to tax farming. They also urged the abolition of the trade guilds and the suppression of internal custom barriers. While many of these recommendations are found in the cahiers of the Third Estate, they are eclipsed by material concerns—understandable complaints about the high price of bread, the game laws, the gabelle (the salt tax), and the depredations of the tax collectors. There are also numerous criticisms of recent reforms, such as the free trade agreement with England, the lifting of price controls on grain, agricultural enclosures, and the granting of civil rights to Protestants. In short, the voice of the Third Estate was largely one of reaction, and while they wanted fewer taxes they wanted more government. According to Schama, "much of the anger firing revolutionary violence arose from hostility towards that modernization, rather than from impatience with the speed of its progress." If only the French elites had reformed. There would have been no Terror, no Napoleon, no centralizing, statist revolution. The Third Estate had some liberal merchants and innovative industrialists, but it had many more urban artisans and peasants. The latter believed they were getting the shaft and that the nobility and clergy, as well as the wealthy members of their own estate, were to blame. They wanted price controls reimposed on grain, restrictions put on its exportation, the prohibition of foreign manufactures, and the punishment of "speculators" and "hoarders." They found leaders among lawyer intellectuals of their own estate, and some visionary members of the others, who spoke in a charged language of grievance, polarity, and combat. Knowing little and caring less about economic liberty or federal constitutionalism, they spoke of patriots versus traitors, citizens versus aristocrats, virtue versus vice, the nation assailed by its enemies. They offered the masses panaceas for their plight, villains to blame, and promises that the possession of political power would heave in the dikes of privilege and unleash the fountains of wealth. Schama correctly deduces that it was the politicization of the masses that "turned a political crisis into a full-blooded revolution." Once the vast Third Estate was told that they were the nation and that a "true national assembly would, by virtue of its higher moral quality—its common patriotism—provide satisfaction, they were given a direct stake in sweeping institutional change." The abbe Sieyes' pamphlet What is the Third Estate? appeared in January 1789 and would be to the French Revolution what Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776) had been to the American. By the time the Estates General convened in May, the masses and leading intellectuals regarded the continued existence of separate social orders with their own institutional representation not only as an obstacle to reform, but as unpatriotic, even treasonous. When the Estates General metastasized into the National Assembly in June 1789, it was the onset of a radical revolution. Liberty would not fare well on the guillotine. Through 1788 and into 1789 the gods seemed to be conspiring to bring on a popular revolution. A spring drought was followed by a devastating hail storm in July. Crops were ruined. There followed one of the coldest winters in French history. Grain prices skyrocketed. Even in the best of times, an artisan or factor might spend 40 percent of his income on bread. By the end of the year, 80 percent was not unusual. "It was the connection of anger with hunger that made the Revolution possible," observed Schama. It was also envy that drove the Revolution to its violent excesses and destructive reform. Take the Reveillon riots of April 1789. Reveillon was a successful Parisian wall-paper manufacturer. He was not a noble but a self-made man who had begun as an apprentice paper worker but now owned a factory that employed 400 well-paid operatives. He exported his finished products to England (no mean feat). The key to his success was technical innovation, machinery, the concentration of labor, and the integration of industrial processes, but for all these the artisans of his district saw him as a threat to their jobs. When he spoke out in favor of the deregulation of bread distribution at an electoral meeting, an angry crowded marched on his factory, wrecked it, and ransacked his home. From thenceforth, the Paris mob would be the power behind the Revolution. Economic science would not fare well. According to Jean Baptiste Say, "The moment there was any question in the National Assembly of commerce or finances, violent invectives could be heard against the economists." That is what happens when political power is handed over to pseudo-intellectuals, lawyers, and the mob. The exponents of the rationalistic Enlightenment had stood for a constitutional monarchy, a liberal economic and legal order, scientific progress, and a competent administration. According to Schama, "They were heirs to the reforming ethos of Louis XVI's reign, and authentic predictors of the 'new notability' to emerge after the Revolution had run its course. Their language was reasonable and their tempers cool. What they had in mind was a nation vested, through its representatives, with the power to strip away the obstructions to modernity. Such a state . . . would not wage war on the France of the 1780s but consummate its promise." If only the French elites could have agreed on a course of reform along these lines, there would have been no Terror, no Napoleon, no centralizing, statist revolution. And it was the pressing financial crisis, brought on by deficit spending to fund a global empire that in the end frustrated the kind of evolutionary political and economic liberalization that is the true road of civilized progress.
I've done a debunking on the stuff that happened during the French Revolution, but I'm rather clueless on the events leading up to it. From the small amount I've read, a lot of the laissez-faire beliefs of the physiocrats lead to a lot of discontent. The Flour War is just one I can think of. How accurate is this belief? Was France on the eve of the revolution really a rapidly modernizing nation? Was the revolution lead by anger and envy? Am I just being brainwashed by a bunch of anarcho-capitalist nutbags?
Landcadia Holdings II (LCA) is Worth Your Investment, and Here’s Why… $LCA
Landcadia Holdings II (LCA) is Worth Your Investment, and Here’s Why… Tilman J Fertitta, owner of Golden Nugget casinos and CEO of LCA, holds a net worth of $4.9 Billion according to Forbes. He entered a purchase agreement on June 28th, 2020 in an effort to merge both of these companies, here is the 8k sec filing. The merge is set to happen sometime in the 3Q changing ticker from LCA to GNOC, as stated in this article. Although there is no current price target on LCA, it had an enterprise valuation of $385.94 M on 09/30/2019, fairly close to its competitor DraftKings (DKNG) with a valuation of $392.86 M on 09/30/2019. However, it should be noted that these valuations were published before the actual merger of DraftKings and Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. We could have a similar scenario with LCA once the merger happens, potentially surpassing DraftKings' share price, since Golden Nugget has continued producing revenue throughout this pandemic. Golden Nugget is leading the New Jersey online casino market and was responsible for 33.8% of the state’s $85.9m gross gaming revenue in May alone, according to igaming. We could see an increase in revenue for GNOC given that the following states have active bills looking to legalize sports betting: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia. If California were to do so, it could generate them an approximate 700 million every year in tax revenue, according to the Los Angeles Times. Texas could potentially be open to online gambling as well, as Fertitta has joined Governor Abbott’s advisory council to safely reopen the state. Fertitta is not only looking out for himself, but his investors as well.
Welcome to Lost in the Sauce, keeping you caught up on political and legal news that often gets buried in distractions and theater… or a global health crisis. Figuring out how to divide the COVID-19 content from the “regular” news has been difficult because the pandemic is influencing all aspects of life. Some of the stories below involve the virus, but I chose to include them when it fits into one of the pre-established categories (like congress or immigration). The coronavirus-central post will be made again this Thursday-Friday; the sign up form now has an option to choose to receive an email when the coronavirus-focused roundup is posted. House-keeping:
How to support: If you enjoy my work, please consider becoming a patron. I do this to keep track and will never hide behind a paywall, but these projects take a lot of time and effort to create. Even a couple of dollars a month helps. Since someone asked a few weeks ago (thank you!), here's a PayPal option and Venmo.
How to get notifications:If you’d like to be added to my newsletter, use this SIGNUP FORM and you’ll get these recaps in your inbox!
Let’s dig in!
MAIN COURSE
Congress passes stimulus
Last week started out with a Republican-crafted stimulus bill that was twice-blocked by Senate Democrats, who objected to the lax conditions of aid to corporations, too little funding for hospitals, and a $500 billion “slush fund” for big companies to be doled out by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin with no oversight. Conservative-Democrat Joe Manchin (WV) even criticized the GOP bill:
“It fails our first responders, nurses, private physicians and all healthcare professionals. ... It fails our workers. It fails our small businesses… Instead, it is focused on providing billions of dollars to Wall Street and misses the mark on helping the West Virginians that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”
Through negotiations, Democrats shifted the bill in a more-worker friendly direction. The version that passed includes the following Democrat-added provisions: expanded unemployment benefits, $100 billion for hospitals, $150 billion for state and local governments, direct payments to Americans without a phase-in (ensuring low-income workers get the full amount), a ban on Trump and his children from receiving aid, and oversight on the “slush fund” (see next section for more info). Senate Democrats also managed to remove a provision that would have excluded nonprofits that receive Medicaid funding from the small-business grants.
Further reading: After Senate Democrats blocked the Republican-crafted bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the House Democrats in releasing their own version, a best-case scenario of their dream coronavirus stimulus bill. It is interesting to contrast what the Democrats prioritized to what the Republicans focused on: “How the House Democrats' stimulus plan compares to the Senate's”
Echoing sentiments expressed during debate on the previous coronavirus bill (the second, for those keeping track), Republican senators derided the $600 a week increase in unemployment payments as “incentivizing” workers to quit their jobs. Sens. Ben Sasse (Neb.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) delayed passage of the bill in order to force a vote on an amendment removing the extra unemployment funding. "This bill pays you more not to work than if you were working," Graham said. Fortunately for American workers, the amendment failed and the improved bill passed the Senate and the House.
Note: In 2009 only three Republicans helped Obama pass his stimulus bill in his first month in office.
The giveaways in the bill
While Senate Democrats were able to add worker-friendly provisions, the bill still required bipartisan support to pass the chamber and some corporate giveaways remained in the final version.
NYT: “Senate Republicans inserted an easy-to-overlook provision on page 203 of the 880-page bill that would permit wealthy investors to use losses generated by real estate to minimize their taxes on profits from things like investments in the stock market. The estimated cost of the change over 10 years is $170 billion.”
NYT: “...if a company owns multiple hotels, even if the overall hotel or restaurant chain has more than 500 employees — the limit to qualify for treatment as a small business — it will still be able to take advantage of the small-business benefits offered in the rescue package. ...The provision could benefit the Trump Organization, which operates a relatively small chain, with six hotels in the United States in cities including New York, Washington and Chicago.”
“A provision for the FDA to approve ‘innovative’ sunscreens—which would benefit L’Oreal, which has operations in Kentucky—appeared in the bill, which was steered in the Senate by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.”
“The $25 billion allocated in loans and loan guarantees for the airlines will also benefit eligible businesses "approved to perform inspection, repair, replace, or overhaul services, and ticket agents.” The last two words — ‘ticket agents’ — mean that travel agents who book flights will also be able to apply for a piece of the $25 billion.”
“The credit reporting industry got a win by defeating a total ban on negative credit reports during the crisis. Instead, a watered down version made it into the final bill: Consumers wouldn't get a negative credit report if they have an agreement with a lender to delay payments or make partial payments.”
Trump’s signing statement
While signing the latest coronavirus relief bill, the president also issued a signing statement undercutting the congressional oversight provision creating an inspector general to track how the administration distributes the $500 billion “slush fund” money. The newly-created inspector general is legally required to audit loans and investments made through the fund and report to Congress his/her findings, including any refusal by the executive office to cooperate. In his signing statement, Trump wrote that his understanding of constitutional powers allows him to gag the special IG:
"I do not understand, and my Administration will not treat, this provision as permitting the [inspector general] to issue reports to the Congress without the presidential supervision required" by Article II of the Constitution.
The signing statement further suggests that Trump does not have to comply with a provision requiring that agencies consult with Congress before it spends or reallocates certain funds: "These provisions are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement with respect to the execution of the laws," the statement reads. While some have said that Congress fell short in this instance, one Democratic Senate aide told Politico that Congress built in multiple layers of oversight, including “a review of other inspectors general and a congressional review committee charged with overseeing Treasury and the Federal Reserve's efforts to implement the law.” Legal experts have pointed out that a signing statement is “without legal effect.” But that ignores the fact that oversight is not equal to enforcement. The problem, in my opinion, isn’t that Congress won’t be notified of any abuses of power by Trump. The problem is that congressional Republicans and the judiciary have largely failed to hold him accountable and enforce our laws even after learning of his abuses.
Concerns about the IG
Another potential weakness in the oversight structure is the inspector general position itself. The special inspector general for pandemic recovery, known by the acronym S.I.G.P.R., is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. As we’ve seen from Trump’s previous nominees, particularly judicial, many unqualified individuals have been confirmed. The Democrats will not have the power to stop the president and Mitch McConnell from jamming through a loyalist to fill the SIGPR role.
Former inspector general at the Justice Department Michael Bromwich: “The signing statement threatens to undermine the authority and independence of this new IG. The Senate should extract a commitment from the nominee that Congress will be promptly notified of any Presidential/Administration interference or obstruction.”
You may recall that Trump has already proven that he’s willing to interfere with the legally-mandated work of an inspector general. When the Ukraine whistleblower filed a complaint last year, the IG of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, investigated and determined the complaint to be “urgent” and “credible.” Atkinson wrote a report and gave it to Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to hand over to Congress. However, the White House and DOJ interfered and instructed Maguire not to transmit the report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Chairman Adam Schiff had to subpoena Maguire to turn over the report and testify before his committee. Further, there are already five IG vacancies in agencies that have a critical role in responding to the pandemic. The Treasury itself has not had a permanent, Senate-confirmed IG for over eight months now, and Trump hasn’t nominated a replacement. The Treasury Dept. has taken a lead role in the coronavirus response, with Secretary Mnuchin handling most of the negotiating with Congress on Trump’s behalf. The fact that the lead agency doesn’t have IG oversight should be troublesome in itself; replicating the situation with a special IG doesn’t seem to be a promising solution.
The other four coronavirus-related agencies without a permanent IG: Department of Health and Human Services’ IG has been vacant for nine months, Department of Defense’s IG has been vacant for four years, Department of Education’s IG has been vacant for one year, and Office of Personnel Management’s IG has been vacant for four years. Overall, there are twelve IG vacancies in the 37) presidentially-appointed offices.
UPDATE: The nation's inspectors general have appointed Glenn Fine, the Pentagon's acting IG, to lead the committee of IGs overseeing the coronavirus relief effort.
This is one of several oversight mechanisms built into the new law. They include: A committee of IGs (now led by Fine), a new special IG (to be nominated by Trump), a congressional review panel (to be appointed by House/Senate leaders)
Direct payments
Included in the stimulus bill is a $1200 one-time direct payment for all Americans who made less than $75,000 in 2019 (less than $150,000 if couples filed jointly). More details can be found here. I have read that the Treasury will use 2018 information for those who have not filed yet this year, but I am not 100% sure that’ll happen. Mnuchin has said that Americans can expect to receive the money within three weeks, but many experts expect that timetable to be pushed into late April. Additionally, that only applies to Americans who included direct deposit information on their 2019 tax returns. Those who did not include their bank’s information will have to be sent a physical check in the mail… which could take anywhere from two to four months. Other options are being discussed, including partnering the Treasury Dept. with MasterCard and Visa to deliver prepaid debit cards. Venmo and Paypal are reportedly lobbying the government to be considered as a disbursement option. Future payments? House Speaker Pelosi is already planning another wave of direct payments to Americans, saying that the $1,200 is not enough to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic: “I don’t think we’ve seen the end of direct payments.” Republicans, meanwhile, are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach, using the next couple of weeks to measure the impact of the $2 trillion bill passed last week.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: “What concerns me is when I listen to Nancy Pelosi talk about a fourth package now, it’s because she did not get out of things that she really wanted...I’m not sure you need a fourth package...Let’s let this work ... We have now given the resources to make and solve this problem. We don’t need to be crafting another bill right now.” For the fourth legislative package, Democrats have said they would like to see increased food stamp benefits; increased coverage for coronavirus testing, visits to the doctor and treatment; more money for state and local governments, including Washington, D.C.; expanded family and medical leave; pension fixes; and stronger workplace protections.
Trump’s signature Normally, a civil servant signs federal checks, like the direct payments Americans are set to receive. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump has told people that he wants his signature to appear on the stimulus checks.
THE SIDES
War on the poor continues
Amid the coronavirus crisis, Trump has defended his continued support of a Republican-led lawsuit to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which would result in 20 million Americans losing health insurance if successful. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case this fall. Contrasting with his position that the ACA is illegal, Trump is considering reopening enrollment on HealthCare.gov, allowing millions of uninsured individuals to get coverage before potentially incurring charges and fees related to COVID-19. Joe Biden called on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the charge against the ACA, and President Trump to drop the lawsuit:
“At a time of national emergency, which is laying bare the existing vulnerabilities in our public health infrastructure, it is unconscionable that you are continuing to pursue a lawsuit designed to strip millions of Americans of their health insurance and protections under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums due to pre-existing conditions.”
The Trump administration is also pushing forward with its plan to kick 700,000 people off federal food stamp assistance, known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The USDA announced two weeks ago that the department will appeal Judge Beryl Howell’s recent decision that the USDA’s work mandate rule is “arbitrary and capricious." Additionally: The Social Security Administration has no plans to slow down a rule change set for June that will limit disability benefits, the Department of Health and Human Services still intends to reduce automatic enrollment in health coverage, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will continue the process to enact a rule that would make it harder for renters to sue landlords for racial discrimination.
Lawmakers’ stock transactions
The Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are beginning to investigate stock transactions made ahead of the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. CNN reports that the inquiry has already reached out to Senator Richard Burr for information. “Under insider trading laws, prosecutors would need to prove the lawmakers traded based on material non-public information they received in violation of a duty to keep it confidential,” a task that won’t be easy. Sen. Burr is facing another consequence of his trades: Alan Jacobson, a shareholder in Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, sued Burr for allegedly using private information to instruct a mass liquidation of his assets. Among the shares he sold were an up to $150,000 stake in Wyndham, whose stock suffered a market-value cut of more than two-thirds since mid-February.
Environmental rollbacks
Using the pandemic as cover, the Trump administration has begun to more aggressively roll back regulations meant to protect the environment. These are examples of what Naomi Klein dubbed “the shock doctrine”: the phenomenon wherein polluters and their government allies push through unpopular policy changes under the smokescreen of a public emergency. On Thursday, the EPA announced (non-paywalled) an expansive relaxation of environmental laws and fines, exempting companies from consequences for pollution. Under the new rules, there are basically no rules. Companies are asked to “act responsibly” but are not required to report when their facilities discharge pollution into the air or water. Just five days before abandoning any pollution oversight, the oil industry’s largest trade group implored the administration for assistance, stating that social distancing measures caused a steep drop in demand for gasoline.
Monday morning update: In an interview with Fox News this morning, Trump said he was going to call Putin after the interview to discuss the Saudi-Russia oil fight. A consequence of this "battle" has been plummeting prices in the U.S. making it difficult for domestic companies (like shale extraction) to turn a profit. It's striking that the day after Dr. Fauci told Americans we can expect 100,000 to 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 (if we keep social distancing measures in place), Trump's first action is to talk to Fox News and his second action is to intervene in an international tiff on behalf of the oil and gas industry.
Gina McCarthy, who led the E.P.A. under the Obama administration, called the rollback “an open license to pollute.” Cynthia Giles, who headed the EPA enforcement division during the Obama administration, said “it is so far beyond any reasonable response I am just stunned.” The EPA is also moving forward with a widely-opposed rule to limit the types of scientific studies used when crafting new regulations or revising current ones. Hidden behind claims of increased transparency, the rule would require disclosure of all raw data used in scientific studies. This would disqualify many fields of research that rely on personal health information from individuals that must be kept confidential. For example, studies that show air pollution causes premature deaths or a certain pesticide is linked to birth defects would be rejected under the proposed rule change. Officials and scientists are calling upon the EPA to extend the time for comment on the regulatory changes, arguing that the public is unable to express their opinion while dealing with the pandemic.
“These rollbacks need and deserve the input of our public health community, but right now, they are rightfully focused on responding to the coronavirus,” said Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Other controversial decisions being made:
A former EPA official who worked on controversial policies returned as Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s chief of staff. Mandy Gunasekara helped write regulations to ease pollution controls for coal-fired power plants and vehicle emissions in her previous role as chief of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. In a recent interview, Gunasekara, who played a role in the decision to exit the Paris Climate Accord, pushed back on the more dire predictions of climate change, saying, “I don't think it is catastrophic.”
NYT: The plastic bag industry, battered by a wave of bans nationwide, is using the coronavirus crisis to try to block laws prohibiting single-use plastic. “We simply don’t want millions of Americans bringing germ-filled reusable bags into retail establishments putting the public and workers at risk,” an industry campaign that goes by the name Bag the Ban warned on Tuesday. (Also see The Guardian)
Kentucky, South Dakota, and West Virginia passed laws putting new criminal penalties on protests against fossil fuel infrastructure in just the past two weeks.
The Hill: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Friday that it will extend the amount of time that winter gasoline can be sold this year as producers have been facing lower demand due to the coronavirus. It will allow companies to sell the winter-grade gasoline through May 20, whereas companies would have previously been required to stop selling it by May 1 to protect air quality. “In responding to an international health crisis, the last thing the EPA should do is take steps that will worsen air quality and undermine the public’s health,” biofuels expert David DeGennaro said.
NYT: At the Interior Department, employees at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been under strict orders to complete the rule eliminating some protections for migratory birds within 30 days, according to two people with direct knowledge of the orders. The 45-day comment period on that rule ended on March 19.
WaPo: The Interior Department has received over 230 nominations for oil and gas leases covering more than 150,000 acres across southern Utah, a push that would bring drilling as close as a half-mile from some of the nation’s most famous protected sites, including Arches and Canyonlands National Parks… if all the fossil fuels buried in those sites was extracted and burned, it would translate into between 1 billion and 5.95 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide being released into the air. That upward measure is equal to half the annual carbon output of China
Court updates
Press freedom case Southern District of New York District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that a literary advocacy group’s lawsuit against Trump for allegedly violating the First Amendment can move forward. The group, PEN America, is pursuing claims that Trump “has used government power to retaliate against media coverage and reporters he dislikes.” Schofield determined that PEN’s allegation that Trump made threats to chill free speech was valid, providing as an example the White House’s revocation of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press press corps credentials:
”The threats are lent credence by the fact that Defendant has acted on them before, by revoking Mr. Acosta’s credentials and barring reporters from particular press conferences. The Press Secretary indeed e-mailed the entire press corps to inform them of new rules of conduct and to warn of further consequences, citing the incident involving Mr. Acosta… These facts plausibly allege that a motivation for defendant’s actions is controlling and punishing speech he dislikes.”
Twitter case The president suffered another First Amendment defeat last week when the full 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review a previous ruling that prevents Trump from blocking users on the Twitter account he uses to communicate with the public. Judge Barrington D. Parker, a Nixon-appointee, wrote: “Excluding people from an otherwise public forum such as this by blocking those who express views critical of a public official is, we concluded, unconstitutional.” Trump-appointees Michael Parker and Richard Sullivan authored a dissent, arguing the free speech “does not include a right to post on other people’s personal social media accounts, even if those other people happen to be public officials.” Park warned that the ruling will allow the social media pages of public officials to be “overrun with harassment, trolling, and hate speech, which officials will be powerless to filter.” Florida’s felon voting U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ripped into Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration for failing to come up with a process to determine which felons are genuinely unable to pay court-ordered fees and fines, which are otherwise required to be paid before having their voting rights restored. “If the state is not going to fix it, I will,” Hinkle warned. He had given the state five months to come up with an administrative process for felons to prove they’re unable to pay financial obligations, but Florida officials did not do so. The case is set to be heard on April 28 (notwithstanding any coronavirus-related delays).
ICE, Jails, and COVID-19
ICE One of the most overlooked populations with an increased risk of death from coronavirus are those in detention facilities, which keep people in close quarters with little sanitation or protective measures (including for staff). Last week, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ordered the federal government to “make continuous efforts” to release migrant children from detention centers across the country. Numerous advocacy groups asked for the release after reports that four children being held in New York had tested positive for the virus:
“The threat of irreparable injury to their health and safety is palpable,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers said in their petition… both of the agencies operating migrant children detention facilities must by April 6 provide an accounting of their efforts to release those in custody… “Her order will undoubtedly speed up releases,” said Peter Schey, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the court case.
On Tuesday, 13 immigrants held at ICE facilities in California filed a lawsuit demanding to be released because their health conditions make them particularly vulnerable to dying if infected by the coronavirus. An ACLU statement says the detainees are “confined in crowded and unsanitary conditions where social distancing is not possible.” The 13 individuals are all over the age of 50 and/or suffering from serious underlying medical issues like high blood pressure.
“From all the evidence we have seen, ICE is failing to fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect the health and safety of individuals in its custody. ICE should exercise its existing discretion to release people with serious medical conditions from detention for humanitarian reasons,” said William Freeman, senior counsel at the ACLU of Northern California.
Meanwhile, ICE is under fire for continuing to shuttle detainees across the country, with one even being forced to take nine different flights bouncing from Louisiana to Texas to New Jersey less than two weeks ago. That man is Dr. Sirous Asgari, a materials science and engineering professor from Iran, who was acquitted last year on federal charges of stealing trade secrets. The government lost its case against him, yet ICE has had him in indefinite detention since November.
Asgari, 59, told the Guardian that his Ice holding facility in Alexandria, Louisiana, had no basic cleaning practices in place and continued to bring in new detainees from across the country with no strategy to minimize the threat of Covid-19...Detainees have no hand sanitizer, and the facility is not regularly cleaning bathrooms or sleeping areas…Detainees lack access to masks… Detainees struggle to stay clean, and the facility has an awful stench.
Jails State jails are making a better effort to release detained individuals, as both New York and New Jersey ordered a thousand people in each state be let out of jail. The order applied only to low-level offenders sentenced to less than a year in jail and those held on technical probation violations. In Los Angeles County, officials released over 1,700 people from its jails. A judge in Alabama took similar steps last week, ordering roughly 500 people jailed for minor offenses to be released to lessen crowding in facilities. Unlike in New York and New Jersey, however, local officials reacted in an uproar, led in part by the state executive committee for the Alabama Republican Party and Assistant District Attorney C.J. Robinson. Using angry Facebook messages as the barometer of the community’s feelings, Robinson worked “frantically” to block inmates from being released.
Reuters: As of Saturday, at least 132 inmates and 104 staff at jails across New York City had tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus… Since March 22, jails have reported 226 inmates and 131 staff with confirmed cases of COVID-19, according to a Reuters survey of cities and counties that run America’s 20 largest jails. The numbers are almost certainly an undercount given the fast spread of the virus.
Tribe opposed by Trump loses land
On Wednesday, The Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs announced the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s reservation would be "disestablished" and its land trust status removed. Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell called the move "cruel" and "unnecessary,” particularly coming in the midst of a pandemic crisis. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who last year introduced legislation to protect the tribe's reservation as trust land in Massachusetts, said the order “is one of the most cruel and nonsensical acts I have seen since coming to Congress.” The administration’s decision is especially suspicious as just last year Trump attacked the tribe’s plan to build a casino on its land, tweeting that allowing the construction would be “unfair” and treat Native Americans unequally. As a former casino owner, Trump has spent decades attacking Native American casinos as unfair competition. At a 1993 congressional hearing Trump said that tribal owners “don’t look like Indians to me” and claimed: “I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up the reservations” to gambling. More than his past history, however, Trump has current interests at play in the Mashpee Wampanoag’s planned casino: it would have competed for business with nearby Rhode Island casinos owned by Twin River Worldwide Holdings, whose president, George Papanier, was a finance executive at the Trump Plaza casino hotel in Atlantic City.
In the Mashpee case, Twin River, the operator of the two Rhode Island casinos, has hired Matthew Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and a vocal Trump supporter, to lobby for it on the land issue. Schlapp’s wife, Mercedes, is director of strategic communications at the White House.
Legal Gambling Age In Louisiana Even though Louisiana is known as "Sportsman's Paradise", it is also incredibly friendly to gamblers with one key exception: they must be of age. The legal gambling age in the state is 21, and the importance of waiting until one is of age to participate in legal gambling cannot be stressed enough. It was almost 60 years ago when Louisiana State Police Superintendent Francis Grevemberg started making surprise raids on gambling establishments in the 50's and seized and smashed slot machines, rendering them to the point of which they were completely useless. Grevemberg and his associates made 1,000 raids and destroyed 8,229 slot machines during 1952-1956 when Gov. Robert… Gambling in Louisiana is defined as “the intentional conducting, or directly assisting in the conducting, as a business of any game, context, lottery, or contrivance whereby a person risks the loss of anything of value in order to realize a profit.” LEGAL GAMBLING IN LOUISIANA. Age restrictions: To participate in the state lottery or horse track betting you must be 18 years old. To gamble ... As one of the few states with laws on internet betting, legal online gambling for Louisiana residents is hard to come by. The state legislature has imposed fairly strict limitations on those who would participate in online betting. This includes sports betting, horse racing betting, casino games, and bingo cards. If you live in the state, you have come to the right place to learn about the legalities of online gambling in Louisiana. Those who are aiming to enjoy this form of gambling will ... when several of the individual provinces altered the language of their gaming When Did Gambling Become Legal In Louisiana regulations to allow for regulated online real money offerings. The change in law however only really extended the current licenses (all owned by the provinces) to online real money play. This has resulted in several government lotteries opening safe, regulated online casinos and poker rooms. Players can have a much higher sense of security knowing their deposits are ... Legal Casino Gambling and Governor Edwin Edwards. In 1991 gambling was legalized in Louisiana casinos, three years after the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. The IGRA legalized casinos and gaming on native lands. This ushered in the push in the Louisiana legislature to address legal casinos in the state. Strict and broad anti-gambling laws make Louisiana an unwelcoming environment for most forms of online betting. In fact, Louisiana is one of just a few jurisdictions in which online gambling is specifically prohibited. The relevant law is so broad in its language that it makes almost no distinction between full-fledged online gambling or any other form of gaming that involves money. Legal Gambling in Louisiana. Age restrictions: To participate in the state lottery or horse track betting you must be 18 years old. To gamble in a casino or on a video poker machine, you must be 21. Casinos and Racetracks: Riverboat casinos are legal in Louisiana. "Riverboat" refers to anything floating in the water, which results in many riverboats consisting of large structures on anchored dbarges near the shore. A land-based casino is licensed by the state in the City of New Orleans and ... Legal gambling in Louisiana is so much more than people think it is. It’s not just the lottery, chugging along, it’s not just horse racing, but it is, in fact, so much larger than that. In Louisiana, you can play online poker legally, you can bet on sports legally, and you can play online slot machines legally as well. Social Gambling and Charitable Gambling: Social gambling (for recreational purposes and not for business purposes) such as pool games, personal bets or betting on sports is legal in Louisiana as long as nobody takes a “cut” or fee from managing the transaction (other than awards to the rightful winner). Certain gambling activities such as raffles, bingo and keno which are directly associated with charitable fund-raising for non-profit organizations is legal.
Sports gambling to become legal in Louisiana - YouTube
Online Gambling came under the spotlight at the recently held National Gambling Conference. This as revenue generated by the legal gambling industry is increasingly being eroded by online and ... Illegal gambling tied to Rancho Santa Fe mansions - Duration: 1:55. ABC 10 News 1,158 views. 1:55. Live Casino - Dealer almost dying - Duration: 2:34. Sodapoppin 1,534,383 views. 2:34 . TABLE ... Bragg Gaming CEO Dominic Mansour on the potential impact of a Department of Justice opinion that all internet gambling is now illegal and the growth of sport... I expose the reasons why these businesses are legal, and the effect they have on our society. Royden Ogletree speaks to a casino executive about sports gambling coming to his casino in Lake Charles. 👋🏻 SAY HEY🐦 Follow us on Twitter: @bizcasualpod🖥. Visit our site: www.businesscasual.fm-----What is Business Casual?Business Casual (www.business... We go through history to find out what was happening at the time Alabama decided to make gambling illegal and what's stopped it from being legalized since then. GET ME OFF THIS ROCK! Trailer.Here to combat:The Coronavirus pandemic (COVID19), famine, corporate cronyism, unfettered capitalism, broken criminal justice s... Necrophilia is legal in LouisianaSUBSCRIBE: http://bit.ly/SubHof LIVE SHOWS: http://bit.ly/SeeHofWATCH NEXT: http://bit.ly/WatchHofDid you know necroman... "Why is it legal to go high-rolling in blackjack in Vegas, yet technically illegal to play bingo in a church basement?" FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/Tee...
