Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 95 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Gov’t officials testify
Registrar of voters, tax assessor take stand in Lipsey hearing
Published Wednesday, November 14, 2007
VIDALIA — The trial to determine the fate of the contested sheriff’s election continued Tuesday, with attorneys for both sides questioning how long it would take to verify that all of Concordia Parish’s registered voters are qualified to vote.
Monterey resident Glenn Lipsey filed the contest after he narrowly lost the election to Sheriff Randy Maxwell on Oct. 20.
Testimony at Tuesday’s proceedings included government officials such as Registrar of Voters Golda Ensminger and Tax Assessor Monelle Moseley.
Moseley’s testimony was regarding homestead exemptions, and Lipsey’s attorneys entered the tax records of several individuals into evidence to try to prove that they claim homestead exemption outside of Concordia Parish.
If an individual claims homestead exemption outside of the parish where they cast their votes, they are not qualified to vote in that parish.
“When you claim homestead exemption, you are claiming that that property is your bona fide home,” Moseley said.
Concordia Communications District 911 Director Obye Joe Simmons also testified that in one instance, when asked to verify an address, she had driven by where the address was supposedly located only to find it did not exist.
For someone to get utilities to their property, they must have a valid 911 address for that address, Simmons said.
When Lipsey’s attorney Brady King asked Simmons about a particular address — 133 Miranda Drive — she said it was not a valid address because Miranda Drive ends at 132.
Maxwell’s attorney Tom Jones offered a possible alternative scenario.
“Yesterday we had a gentleman testify he had set up a mailbox at a separate address because he didn’t want his mail to get mixed up,” Jones said. “Would it be possible for someone to erect a mailbox on a property like that that is not in the proper 911 system?”
It is possible, Simmons said, but the address would not be recognized as a legitimate 911 address.
When Ensminger testified, Lipsey’s attorney Sherri Morris questioned her if it was possible for someone to check the entire voting roster for the parish for unqualified voters before an election.
Ensminger said she would not be able to do so during that time.
During cross-examination, Maxwell’s attorney asked her if it was possible for someone to do the same thing in the three weeks following the election, Ensminger replied it was likely not because it “is the same amount of time.”
And while Ensminger said the registrar’s office would check to see if an address was valid if it appeared to be outside of the range of assigned 911 address numbers on a given area, it is not the practice of the registrar’s office to check if the address falls within the range.
Questioned by Jones how long it might take to verify the addresses and other factors that might disqualify them for all of the voters on Concordia Parish’s rosters, Ensminger said she could not hazard an estimate.
“I have never done it before,” she said.
Tuesday’s proceedings also included more testimony from Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Office employees, in which they admitted to using addresses other than their own to register to vote in the parish.
One of the employees, Sgt. Keith Boothe, of Jonesville, said he moved to Concordia Parish in 1996 and registered to vote there, but never changed his registration after moving.
Another, Gloria Fleming, of Natchez, said she used a relative’s address so she could have a mailing address in the parish because it was a requirement to work for the sheriff’s office.
“I had to register to vote pretty much to maintain my job,” she said.
During testimony Monday, Rivers Correctional Facility Assistant Warden Pat Smith read from an application for employment at the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Office that stated applicants would need to bring their birth certificate, a current driver’s license, social security identification and voter registration card, among other things.
The Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Office policy manual also requires those who hold most positions in the office reside in Concordia Parish.
Boothe said during testimony he was “not sure” about being required to vote in Concordia Parish, but that he had never been instructed to do so.
The case will resume Friday.
Comments
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 2:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If residency was a requirement of employment, the people obtaining and presenting documents they knew were wrong are the ones who should be charged with a crime. "The devil made me do it" is not an excuse. To my knowledge, none of my employers ever investigated the documents I showed when applying for a job. They took my word for the address I turned in. I have heard recently of a guy who wanted to work for the VPD, but lived in the parish. He said if he got the job, he would have to move into the city within thirty days. Also heard someone applying at the school board say they had thirty days to move into the parish, if they got the job. Seems residency is a requirement in several places, so it is the responsibility of the applicant to abide by the rules. You tend to trust people to do what they are supposed to do. I do not think they can hold anyone responsible for fraudently registering to vote except the one registering.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 3:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is one thing to lie about where you live to get the job but you really have to go out of your way to vote. The word stupid comes to mind. Sure hope this goes to another election, but this is Concordia parish and the odds are against that happening.
Posted by Zoom (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 4:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that she should award the election to Glenn. If they find 22 voters that they know voted for Maxwell and were not qualified to vote here then he should have won. That is my opinion!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think one thing for sure we see is that there seems to be some fraud, based around loyalty and SO rules, and without some real creative effort by those elected to ensure this doesn't happen, there will be an election that could swing even though we know fraud is a part of it. Maybe I am wrong on that point, but that appears to be a pretty stable conclusion.
If Lipsey has a claim that he can find 22+ voters that there is significant evidence they voted for Maxwell and they were not qualified, then he should be able to contest on that basis alone. Keyword "significant evidence". Further, he should be able to challenge if he can find statistical evidence upon determining the extent of precinct voting habits versus fraudulent registration evidence. Translation -- a difficult, but not impossible, challenge, but one that would require aggressive registrar assistance.
If the offenders are willing to continue to lie about it and the incumbent either would sit silently by or NOT encourage the scrutiny, then his actions and those of the offenders would win him an election based in part on fraud and make him complicit if he did not act to expose it within his sphere, wouldn't it? Especially true if the registrar does not think they can check the rolls (that's a whole other question). Sounds like a chess game.
But another real question:
Will Maxwell fire or prosecute his employees that violate the residency rules or illegally register to vote in Concordia?
Or will some SO employee come forward that knows the sheriff knows they live elsewhere but would have to be assumed guilty of being illegally registered to vote in Concordia as they are required to do so by the sheriff? Maybe he has a grandfather clause for those that move away?
I haven't chosen sides yet, but just wondering out loud about the intricacies of law. Not my parish!
Posted by justme (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is crazy!!! Notice they changed the wording to "narrowly lost"!! I guess everyone's loosing count on the actual margin now...21, 20, it might even be as low as 17 or 16 by now. Let's keep those numbers going down!!! GO GLEN!!!
Posted by markb (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the people who voted illegally should be punished. I also think that RM had to know and demand his employees to vote. No matter what is printed or posted in favor of RM , everyone including supporters know the truth. The chief law enforcement officer of the parish encouraged his employees to break the law.
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nobody held a gun to these liars heads..... They made the choice, they should suffer punishment of some kind.
Posted by fatherof4 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Even if they did vote, who's to say they didn't vote for Lipsey?
Posted by Mr_T (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"My wife and kids live outside the parish, I just like staying with other people" This is the famous words of almost all the employees that have voted wrong. I am pretty sure Judge Marchmann can see right through all of this.
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Give me a break, fatherof4. Do you seriously think it would be all this ruckus otherwise?
Posted by thetruthhurts (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am certain, from what we have heard so far, that the fraud was for Maxwell voters. I could be wrong, so I guess we will see...
Posted by ChooseOrLose (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the people who are registered illegally should indeed suffer some type of reprocussions. If I do anything illegally and get caught, I get fined. Shouldn't it work the same way in this instance?
I would love to see this go back to the ballots!
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just as the kids found not living in the parish, but attending our good schools, are told to leave, these employees, who violated their employment rules, should be fired. This being after they are charged for fraudently voting!
ChooseOrLose...did you see the web site I put in yesterday for help on helping your roommates see the light. Put in www.answersingenesis.org and from there look for v22/il/creation. It was a facinating article that we can use for all problems to help see both sides. I hope you are the one I intended it for, if not it is still a good article.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somethings are against the law but there is no penalty/punishment for breaking them. I even think vote buying is illegal but there is no jail time or fine at best it would go to another election. It may sound strange but if there is a lawyer out there tell me I am wrong.
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on November 14, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Off topic, check out the new blogs at the bottom of the Democrat homepage!
Posted by coastgirl00 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Tax dollars are funding schools with children who do not live here, as well as people at CPSB who lied about where they live to get a job. We are teaching our future to lie about everything they do. This is wrong. Go to work in Natchez, send your kids to school in Natchez. If you don't like the schools then change them. If you don't like your job then move or find another. I am sure my child's teacher would like fewer children in her classroom and Concordia parish residents would like more available jobs. The law states you have to be a resident to attend achool in Louisiana or a resident to work for the CPSD. This is not day care or Walmart.
Posted by timnoklahoma (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone needs to goto clarionledger.com and look under the editorial heading at the story about Binky---and the "judge" who sentenced him---or the lack of a sentence.
I tried to e-mail some you you but I was cut off after 3 e-mails to people.
Sorry if I did not contact you directly!
Posted by ChooseOrLose (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you frogprincess! I sent you a private message, but in case you don't get it, I'm looking forward to reading the article you mentioned. :-) I've got a sticky note stuck to my computer now just waiting for a good time to go read.
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
>>>timin<<< thanks a lot. Enjoyed the article and even signed up on their site to post. I wrote a good long one about how disgusted we all were about his 'sentence'. Thanks much for clueing me in.
Posted by dottie (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote Buying-----Is this a common practice and is it
illegal? There is something about this that really
"irks" me. I would be highly insulted if asked to
sell my vote. Am I off base with this or are there
others who feel as I do? I would like to know.
Posted by DirtyDan (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're not offbase dottie, it has made me so sick to my stomach to watch it all going on.
I can't believe after all that's been revealed concerning Randy Maxwell.. that they will still allow the man to even run for office if there is another election.
I know during the last election, he bought fruit and channeled it out to the different churches. He took Ferriday's school children to the zoo, and kept it hush hush from the rest of the Parish. (I thought it was a wonderful thing to do.. but what about the rest of the parish? Why keep it so quiet?)
He kept the fact that one of his work release inmates escaped and was on the loose. Then, in the paper, he claims that the prisoner turned himself in and in another article, he claims that the prisoner was apprehended by a Tensas Parish Officer. Outright lying.
That happened before the election, yet was kept from public knowledge as far as the Sheriff's Office was concerned until after the election.
I just can't understand anybody wanting to keep someone like that in office. Did he think about the safety of the citizens of this or neighboring Parishes/Counties? No, he was thinking about the votes he would get and how it would look when one of his fine inmates broke loose and robbed a store in Tensas Parish.
Also, I was informed that this inmate has an unusually large family who are all voters and support Randy Maxwell.
And that is just a taste of what this man is all about. Did you see how he called himself 'One Great Lawman' in the paper? What a joke.
There are more facts coming to light on a daily basis. I'm appalled.
You are definately not offbase.
Posted by DirtyDan (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I need to make a correction to my 4:57 post. Last election the fruit happened along with who knows what. Following the fruit buying, the things happening were this years election.
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
>>GEMCCULL<< the blogs are great. But I'm afraid I'll never get my housework done for sure now. I'LL be reading everyone's comments there too.
Posted by RAVENNEVERMORE (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, vote buying is legal. Most people just love the idea. Wow...
Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My vote is my voice, and I would never sell my voice.
Posted by ntzmom (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jammin, u still here?
Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes maam.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like there may be many job openings in Concordia Parish soon...lying on a job application is reason for immediate dismissal. Lying is still lying even if it's done to keep a job. If you'd lie about where you live in order to get a job, or just to be able to vote, you'd lie about other things too.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
btw, from what I've heard, some of the ones testifying in the trial, lied on the witness stand and that's perjury.
Posted by kpage (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wonder what they'll do to those who voted illegally?
Posted by busted (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was at the trial the last (2) days and it is sad that Randy and his attorney and goning to leave his loyal empoyees hanging out to dry. Some testified, almost in tears that Randy made them do it. Jack McLemore then made one of the employees read from the employee application that you must be a resident of Concordia Parish. There has been too many employees testify to the truth that are certainly in fear of losing their jobs. I feel sure that if all this works out that they will be some of the most highly respected for being honest and telling the truth.
There are some employees that I was highly disappionted in for committing perjury on the stand. How can anyone resort to lying under oath to save their job or upholding Randy Maxwell for the crime he made them commit. Randy said in his own ad that he is the "Great Lawman". How can someone who took the oath "so help me God" force or intimidate his employees to break the law or perjury themselves for him.
It seems very evident that he is going to try and shift the blame to the employees and clear himself instead of taking the blame for what he has done.
Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Frankly by the time all of this is said and done, Maxwell is going to have the Feds crawling out of every orifice he has. Nothing in his dealings are going to be kept secret. And when the Feds are done with him then he's going to have the IRS on him looking through everything he has. I sure would not want to be in his shoes.
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
howabout giving chapter and verse on the perjury. Did the judge charge them with perjury. What did they say and how was it proven it was a lie. Some of us were unable to go, so fill us in.
Posted by supertrucker47 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DIDNT WE GO THROUGH THIS TYPE OF AN ELECTION AND TRIAL IN 2000 WITH BUSH AND GORE.JESUS CHRIST HOW LONG WILL THIS CRAP DRAG OUT BEFORE YOU CAN RUN RANDY MAXWELL OUT OF TOWN AND SWEAR IN LIPSEY?AND ANYWAY IF RANDYS FOUND GUILTY HE WONT GO TO PRISON CAUSE HE WILL BUY HIS WAY OUT OF IT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE HAS IN THE PAST.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Holy cow!!! How ridiculous some of you folks sound! UNLESS IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, IT MUST BE A LIE! If it is all the bad things that you DO want to hear, then it's the GOSPEL! And now, all you "all knowing, self righteous folks" have the man tried and convicted and HELL, he isn't even the one on trial! And now you talk about the feds and IRS on him! Why don't we just all go back to the old days and just do a public stoning without benefit of the doubt. Go on and get on the band wagon and believe gossip and drag out the noose! Then look at yourself and tell yourself how right and honorable you are.
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noneya,
How can you possibly set there and say this is gossip when all the papers and TV stations are there in the courtroom on a daily basis and report word for word what is taking place. I guess when all is said and done and the verdict is rendered you will still say everything involving this case has been a fairytale!! Wake up sweetheart and smell the roses!! Randy Maxwell is finally being exposed, and some are SHOCKED that it is happening, but a person can only get away with dirty deeds so long before been caught!!
Posted by commoncents (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
right right......a jury of your peers can convict you of murder the only one that needs to convict anyone is god. only (people)arent perfect and last i checked if you didnt have a pulse your brain shuts down and you are not alive......even animals walk out into the headlights and get hit....and all theses comments are bias one for one side,and one for the other. shut the battle typing down and let our friends convict somone thats the way the law works right.look at it this way atleast it aint one of our own parish judges on the case then there wouldnt be any contest politics are crooked period. blame it on the small guy he did it. its his fault. he is not in a position of power too have the access to do background checks on each and everyone of his employees so who is really at fault?
Posted by frogprincenessntz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is so frustrating. I asked a question last night and have not gotten an answer and my curiosity is enough to kill a cat! Reading the posts above, it sounds like the votes were "bought" with baskets of fruit and trips to the zoo!!!! Innuendos should not be allowed on here for the safety of people's curiosity!!! If you are going to say it, say it!
Dirty Dan, leave the escapee escapade alone. We have already discovered that NCIC was notified of the escape and that alerts all law officials and about twelve hours later, he was back in custody. I fail to see what my knowing about it then was going to do. I would not have blamed RM, but the very stupid criminal! The very essence of work release is to get the inmates used to being free and responsible for their actions. It is part and parcel of rehabilitation. If they cannot handle that, they need to be incarcerated for good! He was sent back to the big prison by RM, so I doubt if his very large family voted for RM. JMO
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
God, ain't it good to hear at least one person has some sense?!
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
happy feet, my point was, when they told the truth, some of the posters above accused them of perjury!
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
frog, it is no more illegal to give fruit or take children to the zoo than it is to have cookouts before the election. And that is a fact that both parties cooked for the public. But it sounds good to claim votes were "bought" with these deeds to the "nay sayers". the way I see it, a candidate can give a TON of dollars and food away, but my vote is mine when it comes to pushing that little button.
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No Noneya, You misunderstood. I was there. Some did tell the truth and others committed perjury.
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And you are so wrong about the cookouts. Glenn DID NOT have any cookings!
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
However, Noneya, You are correct. Your vote does belong to you. You can vote for the party of your choice. I just hope that if you vote in Concordia Parish you will take time to examine the facts before casting your vote. Not all parties are crooked!
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EXACTLY....not all parties (if ANY)are crooked. Are you saying that Lipsey supporters did not cook?
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
happyfeet, where did all that food come from at his announcement to run for sheriff come from? where did the hot dogs served in Ferriday while he was campaining come from? Just asking.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
one more question, did the judge catch these people perjuring themselves and what happened? or did you all just "feel" like the people were lying?
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
>>OFF SUBJECT<<< all posters go to 'CRIME TALKS' and read my idea for mayor posted at 10 o'clock and see what you think. Thanks
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Noneya, He didn't cook!! Yes there was food at his announcement but he did no cookings at all!! I know for a fact these people were lying!! The best answer I can give you is just wait until the trial is over and you can make your mind up then. But I honestly believe your mind is already made up. But again as you stated earlier, Your vote is YOURS.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
and do you think RM did any cooking?
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
and if you know "for a fact these people were lying" then I would say that the judge or attorneys called them down for it and exposed them for perjury. If not, I don't think you can say they were lying (if so then you must be wiser and smarter than the judge)
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No I am no where near as smart as the judge, but I am smart enough not to discuss this case! If you are so concerned about Mr Maxwell's well being then I suggest you be in court and support him. Then you won't have any of these questions. You can see it all for yourself.
Posted by commoncents (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
who cares who cooked what thats all apart of politics.its the votes that came from natchez and tensas and other areas and the policy manual does state you have to reside in concordia parish ,BUT being the sheriff shouldnt you do a background check on your employees.(meaning) they have the resources to know if someone lives somwhere else.(and by that) that just says as long as you can pass a piss test and be a registered voter in the parish you got the job.(and you dont have a record yeah sure).he hires everyone that works for him and knows what goes on. just like a politician to crawfish when sombody tells the truth.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
commoncents...why do you work for him?
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This stuff just goes on and on and on.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ACCORDING TO LAW...YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU SLEEP THERE OR LIVE THERE ON A DAILY BASIS. It is only an address in which you can receive mail and it be assured you will receive it. You CANNOT claim homestead exemption in any other area and still vote in another. How do you think people that live in 2 or 3 different states vote legally....THEY ONLY CLAIM 1 RESIDENCY, regardless of where they sleep! Why can't you understand that? It really doesn't take a rocket scientist.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you are so right Quaker, I apoligize. But dang I get frustrated with slander!
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Randy Maxwell has done more for Conocordia Parish than anyone else in the last 20 years. Heck, when he became sheriff the department didn't own two cars the same color. A couple of them were an awful pink-burgundy. The deputies donned blue jeans. And the office couldn't get the credit needed to buy a sack of sugar.
Sheriff Maxwell has transformed a joke of an agency into a department respected throughout the region. Perhaps those who have "personal axes" (probably due to their finding themselves or their family members on the other side of the law) to grind with the Sheriff have finally succeeded in srirring up a stink deemed worthy of some media attention. They've certainly slandered Maxwell on their infamous website. I'm convinced Maxwell didn't win by more than he did because his character has been so assasinated.
But there are a lot of us out here who know what is best for Concordia Parish: His name is Randy J. Maxwell, and I'm proud to call him Sheriff.
Posted by james (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH QUAKER FOR PUTTING OUT HERE WHAT HALF OF CONCORDIA PARISH ALREADY KNOWS ! THANK YOU RANDY MAXWELL FOR YOUR TIME & SERVICES I AM PROUD TO CALL YOU A FRIEND !
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right on the money, Quaker. Thank you. I too, am proud to be a LOYAL supporter of Randy Maxwell.
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm considering writing an op-ed piece that will further demonstrate the contributions of Sheriff Randy Maxwell. The only way to dispel fiction is to combat it with pure facts.
Posted by peacerulz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please don't tell me that hotdogs are all it takes to get a vote.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I truly wish you would. And lets pray people will use their brains to make judgements based on facts instead of fiction. People are just seeming to be judging based on heresay and lets face facts, that is the reason so many "Enquirer's" are sold. Gossip sells!
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
peacerulz, no they don't, nor does fruit or trips to the zoo...but try to tell some people otherwise. RM's fruit was illegal vote buying, but GL hotdogs were...oh yeah, the nay sayers never even mentioned that did they? hmmmm
Posted by barbie (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shut up noneya!!! Maxwell could slap you in your face and you wouldn't believe it. You are so blind. Hell, maybe you are Maxwell.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't even begin to tell me to shut up or that I am blind. I'm not a Maxwell but I would certainly be proud to be one. Go crawl back under your rock.
Posted by noneya (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ohhh, you Lipsey fans must really be beginning to get a taste of it! TOO funny! I really like that!
Posted by firered (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow this is really getting out of hand! Everyone has an opinion and shouldn't be jumped on because of it! Seems some people need to take a deep breath and a chill pill. Embrace the fact that not everyone thinks the same way as you! How boring would that be?
Posted by peacerulz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you're so right firered!!!!!
Posted by james (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YOU ARE SO RIGHT (FIRERED) NOW IF WE COULD GET EVERY ONE TO PUT THERE REAL NAMES IT WOULD STOP A LOT OF THIS HEARSAY FROM BOTHSIDES ! YES JAMES IS MY REAL NAME!
Posted by firered (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what makes you think that names would stop hearsay? It won't believe me and i'm not talking about what's being tossed around about lipsey/maxwell. I'm talking about in everyday life. A lot of wrongful information is passed on day to day about a lot of people. It is called gossip. Its never gonna stop. The way I see it is if someone is talking about me it gives someone else a rest! Maybe these two candidates feel the same way. Maybe they don't care what is said about them because they know their supporters will support them no matter what! (and I'm just an outsider looking in so my opinion on this matter truly doesn't matter, I don't vote in concordia parish!)
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I tell ya what!! Since the four of you are so hell bent and determined that "THE GREAT LAWMAN" has done no
wrong, THEN join us LIPSEY SUPPORTERS in court tomorrow for as Paul Harvey would say " THE REST OF THE STORY" ~~
Posted by peacerulz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
where did anyone see me say anything that would imply that i was hell-bent on proving anything about Maxwell? Not me. I just agreed with firered and i am entitled to do that.
Posted by firered (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Happyfeet could you please clarify to whom you are speaking?
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If an individual claims homestead exemption outside of the parish where they cast their votes, they are not qualified to vote in that parish.
“When you claim homestead exemption, you are claiming that that property is your bona fide home,” Moseley said.
Read the above article!!! Jesus It don't take a Rocket Scientist to figure this out!!!
Posted by rusure (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you people who are supporting Randy Maxwell implying or just outright stating that he should be exempt from obeying , complying and enforcing the law in his own department? if you are not, then you need to be aware that you sure sound like it.
I guess you have not been in the court room and heard the testimonies, under oath of his own employees stating what they were told to do about voting.
Might want to wait for the outcome before you let people know you support maxwell.
I just don't think these people would testify to these things unless they were true. After all, their jobs and who knows what else are on the line.
Now folks, you might buy this BS of randy's, but let's just wait and see if the judge does!! I just bet she is smarter than you!
Posted by rusure (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know a lot of James'............your point.
My name is John.
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And my name is Sue!! How DO YOU DO!!!
Posted by rusure (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by peacerulz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please don't tell me that hotdogs are all it takes to get a vote.
Well now, peacerulz, apparently so, because maxwell had 3 cookings the day of the election and about 3 more that were publicized as fundraisers/vote finders for his campaigns............................Glenn had none , that is 0.
so, you tell me.....................is it?
Posted by james (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HAPPYFEET I BET YOUR PASTOR IS REALLY GLAD YOU ARE IN HIS CHURCH? I NEVER SAID THE MAN HAS DONE NO WRONG I SAID HE HAS DONE A LOT OF GOOD! HAS GLEN NEVER DONE WRONG AND I MEAN HOW WOULD GLEN ANSWER THIS ?FOR HE IS A BETTER MAN THAN SOME OF HIS SUPPORTERS! I DO NOT KNOW A MAN OR WOMAN THAT HAS DONE NO WRONG! BUT YOU GO AHEAD AND HIDE BEHIND YOUR ALIAS (HAPPYFEET) AND SPOUT OFF ABOUT THINGS YOU HAVE NOT SEEN WITH YOUR OWN EYES ! WHAT I SAID ABOUT RANDY M. I HAVE SEEN WITH MY OWN EYES AND I KNOW IT TO BE TRUE! I WAS BORN & RAISED IN MONTEREY AN I KNOW GLEN L. TO BE A GOOD & FAIR MAN AN IF I NEEDED HIM COULD CALL ON HIM!
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 5:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh My pastor is so proud of me that I even fill in for him in the pulpit!!
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said earlier, without the personal attacks often fired by those opposed to Mr. Maxwell, Randy Maxwell has done more for Concordia parish than anyone else in the last twenty years.
Without R.J. Maxwell at the top, our deputies would be driving junk cars with inconsistent markings and color, the office would be broke, 200 people would not have their jobs, and the Sheriff's Department would still be a joke.
I'm amazed that some are so willing to see us go back to the "good ole' days." I, for one, am not. I'm for keeping Randy in the Sheriff's office as long as he is willing to serve the people of Concordia parish.
Posted by rocketman (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi gang! I also know Randy Maxwell personally and that being said, I think he is a very good person to be in the office of sheriff. He has the know-how as well as the ability to get things done that many others would be incapable of. I too am puzzled why so many have forgotten how things really used to be. And reading some of these post, it seems most of these people may be just disgruntled employees, family menmbers or others that may have aspirations of holding higher jobs should Maxwell bwe put out. I feel I have been fair on my judgement of him since I have the privledge of knowing him personally as well as in a business environment. Good luck to you Mr. Maxwell and hang in there supporters. Let your voice be heard (after all...THEY think theirs can!)
Posted by supertrucker47 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
THIS IS SO FUNNY.YOU GUYS SLAMMED BINKY VINES FOR BREAKING THE LAW.BUT YOU SURPORT MAXWELL AND HES COMMITTED FEDERAL CRIMES AND BROKEN LAWS UNDER OUR CONSTATUTION.HES AS CORUPT LIKE ALL THE OTHERS.HES A BIG FAT OVER PAID SHERIFF THATS BEEN IN OFFICE TO LONG AND NOW COMMITTED CRIMES AND HE NEEDS TO STEP DOWN AS SHERIFF AND LIPSEY TAKE CHARGE AND MAYBE LOCK MAXWELL UP IN HIS OWN JAIL.
Posted by jammin1 (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unlike some I do remember how things used to be in this parish. Randy was a good sheriff far a long time, but even he fell under the pull of power. Everyone take a deep breath and just watch what unfolds out of this mess. I feel sorry for his family,as they are being drug through this mess along with him. Stop all the fighting, it is in the court's hand's now. Tomorrow court starts back up, just watch and learn.
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 6:51 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by peacerulz (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
they removed it. lol
Posted by Mr_T (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow this is crazy! Do you people even hear what you are saying. If you dont belive what the papers are saying, word for word, come to the court room it is open to the public. Some of these people are just lieing through their teeth, they make their selves sound stupid. But most of you are there because you are the ones there lieing. It is so easy to tell they are lieing, you can tell they have been coached they are telling the same stupid lie. They belive that RM is not going to let them get in trouble, but just wait and see they are going to get in trouble no matter what RM and his lawyers tell them. They do not care about them and that is pitiful. RM is going to let the people that try make him look good as hard as that is, get in trouble, and that is a terrible thing. I would bet almost anything that the few people that are taking up for RM are right in the middle of this whole mess!
Posted by Mr_T (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 8:56 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Happyfeet (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Way to go Mr.T!!! But I tried to tell these folks to come see for themselves too.!!! It just a lost cause! They are still convinced that RM is still THAT GREAT LAWMAN!!
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not "in the middle" of this mess. I don't work for Randy Maxwell, but I do know what he has done for Concordia parish: made what was a joke of an agency repectable, created jobs, helped dozens of people, and provided a suffering economy with a boost. My wife and I may not call Concordia our home if this is what we have to look forward to.
Posted by Mr_T (anonymous) on November 15, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well Quaker if you think RM is a great man just imagine what somebody with exellent morals and ethics could do.
Posted by Crazynms (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
(((((noneya is correct about the residency))) BUTTT how many people can live in a 1-2 bedroom house??? that is the question.
Posted by Quaker (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Go Randy, go!
Posted by commoncents (anonymous) on November 16, 2007 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(noneya)i used too work for the parish while he was sheriff not for him.... sheriffs office payroll employee but technicaly i worked for him since you said it
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)