Sound Off Louisiana

LSP Lt. Russell Graham, who was the subject of an absolute joke of a hearing conducted on August 8, 2023 under former LSP Col. Lamar Davis.

Site visitors may recall our October 2, 2024 feature on The Lens / NOLA‘s lawsuit against LSP for the withholding of the infamous $1,000/hour contract for Ed O’Callaghan’s legal services.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns provides the resolution of that litigation, which concluded with somebody (almost guaranteed us taxpayers) having to fork over $12,500 for LSP’s improper withholding of a $1,000/hour legal contract entailing Ed O’Callaghan’s legal services (The Lens / NOLA had gotten the records months ago).

Here’s the feature wherein Burns reveals, for the first time, just what made him so angry at LSP for declining his first public records request under the new Jeff Landry / Robert Hodges / Frank Besson regime:

  12/9/24:  Burns outlines the Lens / NOLA LSP litigation settlement.

As Burns makes clear in the above video, some active LSP Troopers contacted Burns early on in the Hodges regime and asked that Sound Off Louisiana publish a feature wherein they wanted Hodges to receive praise for transferring LSP Sgt. Georgiana Lynn Kibodeaux Sonnier to Gaming in Breaux Bridge.

We told them, just as Burns indicates on the above video, he sought to make a public records request to substantiate all transfers.  Burns outlines the runaround that LSP gave him, which led to his anger and frustration at Hodges et. al.

As a result of LSP’s stonewalling of providing a public records request that was actually intended to benefit Hodges (or maybe he doesn’t want praise from any of his underlings), we simply abandoned any intent to publish the feature that troopers requested of us.

Much of the glee of troopers over Kibodeaux’s transfer came as a result of this August 8, 2023 hearing entailing LSP Lt. Russell Graham.  As Burns candidly stated in the video above, the hearing was nothing short of a “joke,” and Burns emphasized that, as a young child (even seven or eight years old), he was raised on a 13-acre property which had a 3-acre figure-8 pond which was 32 feet deep, and he lived in that pond!  As he said on the video, he, “may as well have been a duck.”

Burns also indicated that, he and his cousins engaged in horseplay on Styrofoam boats knocking one another off into the water that was far more serious than anything Graham engaged in regarding that utterly embarrassing episode of former LSP Col. Davis invoking discipline against Graham!  It was nothing short of complete frustration to see all of the time, energy, and wasted resources of LSP’s internal investigation of Graham!  It was unbelievable!

Burns also emphasized on the video that, even at that young age of eight or nine, he would swim from one end of that 3-acre pond to the other where there was nothing separating him but the 32-feet depth of water (at the deepest point of the swim).  If anyone wonders, he was wearing no life preserver, and both Burns and his parents were that confident in his swimming skills (Sidenote:  Burns father’s mother, who lived with the family, on the other hand, was a nervous wreck anytime her beloved grandson proclaimed to her that, “I’m going swimming!”)

Here’s a current aerial map of that very same pond (although it’s now all grown up with trees surrounding it and the water level is much, much lower due to a break in the roadway separating it and Hurricane Creek toward the very back of the property):

So, just like many troopers who contacted us, we too were stunned at Davis’ action, and we indicated to them that we would be more than happy to facilitate a feature indicating that Kibodeaux had in fact been transferred to Gaming in Breaux Bridge but, after we hit the stone wall we did with Hodges et. al., we just basically said, “to hell with it” (and that’s being kind because Burns’ Irish temper is perfectly capable of flaring at times, and it flared to anyone who would listen to him about just how angry he was with Hodges over that the handling of that public records request)!

As Burns indicated in the above video, however, we are now, for the first time, publishing the totality of Kibodeaux’s testimony at the August 8, 2023 hearing even though we uploaded the video over a year ago and just kept in in “drafts.”  Here it is:

 8/9/23:  Full testimony of LSP Sgt. Georgiana Lynn Kibodeaux Sonnier at the LSP appeal hearing of Lt. Russell Graham.

Let us not only emphasize the $12,500 of (likely) taxpayer money flushed right down the toilet from LSP’s action entailing The Lens / NOLA‘s public records request, but also the billings from Breazeale Sachse in defending LSP against the piss poor decisions made by Hodges et. al. right out of the gate as they assumed their positions!

As Burns states in the main video for this feature, hopefully that utterly asinine mentality entailing public records requests is going to soften.

If not, somehow, we believe that the fine folks at the First Amendment Law Clinic at Tulane’s  Law School, for whom we express extreme gratitude as we do also to The Lens / NOLA, have plenty more stationery with which to crank out more lawsuits, and we hope they don’t hesitate to file such suits when and if these types of arbitrary denials of public records transpire in the future!

Ms. Anisa Parks, Co-owner and “problem solver” at Headliners NOLA conducts one-on-one interview with Sound Off Louisiana soon after the December 2, 2024 meeting of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC).

With great fanfare, the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, sued the LSBC on or around June 20, 2019.

IJ asserted that the LSBC violated Louisiana’s Constitution by imposing overly-restrictive licensing regulations entailing hair braiding, thus infringing on braiders’ rights to earn a living free of excessive and unnecessary governmental regulation.

The LSBC has, for a long time, required an “alternative hair permit” (i.e. a “braiding permit”), in order to legally braid hair in Louisiana.  Obtaining the permit requires 500 hours of classroom instruction, whereas IJ has insisted that no classroom instruction whatsoever should be required to practice hair braiding in Louisiana.

The matter was litigated before 19th JDC Judge Wilson Fields.  After IJ concluded the presentation of its evidence, the LSBC sought a Directed Verdict.  Judge Fields indicated that IJ had, “failed to meet its burden of proof,” and granted the LSBC’s Motion for Directed Verdict dismissing the case at Plaintiff’s cost.  IJ appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Fields’ decision.    On July 18, 2024, IJ posted the following video indicating how “really dumb” it asserts the LSBC’s regulation of hair braiders is and also announced its intent to file a Writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court over the matter:

7/18/24:  IJ makes clear just how “really dumb” it contends LSBC’s “500 hours of ‘unrelated’ training” is, the fact that the regulation drives practitioners either, “elsewhere or underground,” and the fact that IJ intended to file a Writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court over the whole matter.

IJ did in fact file the Writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court; however, the Court declined the Writ application, and the LSBC celebrated that fact at its most-recent December 2, 2024 meeting.  Let’s take a few seconds to see LSBC attorney Sheri Morris proclaim final victory for the LSBC at that meeting:

 12/2/24:  LSBC Attorney Sheri Morris devotes 23 seconds to her “attorney report” to inform LSBC Members of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision to deny IJ’s writ application.

Now, the last few LSBC meetings have been more than a little interesting because, for the first time, both aspiring hair braiders and longstanding hair braiders have been showing up at meetings and lamenting the LSBC practices just as IJ has been doing since 2019.

For a little review, it was just over three years ago that hair braider Wadvisha Chavis, who despite being so excited about the impending opening of her own hair braiding salon in Lake Charles, lamented the fact that the LSBC saddled her with the added cost of having to have a “manager” on site who possessed a full-blown cosmetology license (which requires 1,500 hours of training) in order for her to legally operate.

Chavis indicated then (just watch the video on the above-linked feature) that the added burden of what the LSBC required imperiled her very ability to have a hair braiding salon and provide for her children.

Well, Chavis appeared again at the December 2, 2024 meeting (three years after being so gleeful of opening her facility) and begged the LSBC for an, “apprenticeship program similar to that of barbers” so that aspiring hair braiders don’t have to endure what she did.  She further indicated that, her glee over opening her braiding salon only three years before notwithstanding, she wound up having to close the salon down.

She also expressed interest in being able to teach in such an apprenticeship program, but she indicated that the LSBC has insisted that she has to, “complete the whole course again,” and she further indicated that such a requirement poses a problem for her because she is trying to raise “six kids” while the Board imposes these burdens upon her.

Ironically, LSBC attorney Morris informed the LSBC that the IJ litigation impeded the “previous Board’s” ability to become more accommodating of requests such as Chavis’.  Here’s that video:

 12/2/24:  Chavis indicates all of the hardships that the LSBC imposes upon her and other similarly-situated aspiring hair braiders even as Board attorney Morris blames IJ and the then-pending litigation for causing the previous Board not to feel comfortable moving forward with such initiatives as a result of the “pending litigation.”

This is just our observation.  The present LSBC is now sensing that the historical stand of the LSBC, and we are certainly in a position to be knowledgeable of that stand given that we’ve attended and filmed dozens of meetings, is becoming increasingly unpopular among aspiring hair braiders!  Why?  Because that historical stand is flat-out blocking their abilities to earn livings in their chosen and loved profession.  Ironically, that is precisely what IJ asserted in its litigation and, to us at least, it appears the present LSBC may be willing to use both IJ and the “previous Board” as scapegoats for the LSBC’s historical stiff resistance to any loosening of the regulations of hair braiders whatsoever!

It hasn’t been just Chavis who has shown up at meetings recently to voice sentiments entailing LSBC’s hair braiding regulation.  Ms. Anisa Parks, Co-owner and “problem solver” at Headliners NOLA, has attended numerous LSBC meetings, and she has spoken up at the last couple of meetings.  In fact, at the LSBC meeting of November 4, 2024, Parks reinforced sentiments expressed by hair replacement specialist “Ms. Nancy” who is with Hair Styles Unlimited in Kenner about the LSBC making life difficult unnecessarily and thereby forcing practitioners to, “operate from their garages.”  Let’s take a look at the November, 2024 commentary of both Ms. Nancy and Ms. Parks:

 11/4/24:  Ms. Nancy & Ms. Parks vent frustrations about practitioners feeling compelled to take their operations, “into their garages.”

We also asked Ms. Parks if she would mind a one-on-one interview after the December 2, 2024 meeting, and she graciously accepted our invitation.  Let’s take a look at that video:

12/2/24:  Ms. Anisa Parks, Co-owner and “problem solver” at Headliners NOLA, conducts one-on-one interview with Sound Off Louisiana soon after the 12/2/24 Cosmetology Board meeting.

Ms. Parks reached out to us after our interview and indicated that there were more details she would have liked to have stated on the above video.  We told her that we would be more than happy to incorporate the additional statements she wished to make in this feature, so we’re going to supply that additional commentary from her at this time:

Dear Robert,

I wanted to extend my sincere gratitude for giving me the platform to voice my opinion about “Alternative Hair Design” on Sound Off Louisiana. The opportunity to discuss this important topic means a great deal to me and our business as we move forward, and I appreciate the space you’ve created for open and meaningful dialogue.

The one thing I did not voice in our video is that I favor standardization in Alternative Hair Design. It is essential for ensuring quality and professionalism in our industry. However, I firmly believe that these standards must be paired with experienced educators who truly understand the nuances of the craft. Without educators who have hands-on expertise and a deep connection to the communities they serve, any efforts at standardization risk falling short of their full potential.

Thank you again for facilitating this important conversation. Your support in amplifying voices within our community is valuable, and I look forward to continuing to engage with you on issues that impact this industry.

 

Best regards,

 

Headliners NOLA Salon

“Help us build our future – one loc at a time.”

We want to again extend our appreciation to Ms. Parks for her incredibly insightful input into all aspects of alternative hair design (i.e. braiding and locs).

We are going to have far more to report on developments at the LSBC but, rather than make this particular feature too lengthy, we’re deferring that material for later dates.  Nevertheless, it’s material we know you won’t want to miss!

Public Affairs Research (PAR) Council President Steven Procopio appears before the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC) on Monday, December 2, 2024 to provide insight on the four (4) Proposed Constitutional Amendments on the ballot this Saturday, December 7, 2024.

Public Affairs Research Council (PAR) President Steven Procopio was the guest speaker at the meeting of the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC) of Monday, November 2, 2024, and he provided an overview of the four (4) Constitutional Amendments voters face this Saturday, December 7, 2024.  For those interested, PAR has also published this educational guide regarding the Proposed Amendments.

Let us now provide Procopio’s presentation on each amendment (though 2 & 3 are presented in tandem) and also state our intended vote on each measure and provide our rationale of why:

 12/2/24:  Procopio provides overview of Proposed Constitutional Amendment One:

“Do you support an amendment to allow the supreme court to sanction a judge upon an investigation by the judiciary commission, and provide that the recommended sanction shall be instituted by the judiciary commission or by a majority of the supreme court, and to provide for the appointment of five members of the judiciary commission?”

Our Commentary and Vote:

We predict that the Amendment is going to pass because voters are unlikely to read beyond the words, “sanction a judge,” and, given all of the extreme discontent felt by many Louisiana citizens entailing the conduct and perceived shadiness of Louisiana State District Judges, the immediate reaction after seeing those three words will be, “Hell, yes!”

Though we placed the portion about adding five members to the Commission in bold, it will not be that way on the ballot.  Nevertheless, that is at the very heart of the Proposed Amendment.

Procopio states, at the 3:48 mark on the above video, that the goal is to provide more transparency regarding the judiciary in Louisiana.  We believe this is a mere tweaking of a horrendously-bad system, and we further believe that there is only one way to have the potential to truly solve the problem of judicial corruption in Louisiana!  What is that “way?”  We believe it is to do just like at least two-thirds of other states have done and permit cameras in courtrooms!

In fact, here is a map of which states (as of 2010) permit cameras in courtrooms and which ones do not:

Beyond cameras in Louisiana State District Courts, we also firmly believe cameras need to be permitted in United States Federal Courtrooms, and so does the law firm Ballard Spahr, which submitted this suggestion to H. Thomas Byron III, Secretary Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

We would note the presence of the word “Trump” 59 times in the preceding “suggestion” because of how emphatic President-Elect Trump has been that he wants cameras in Federal Courtrooms when his own trials would have commenced (obviously those trials will now be going by the wayside).  Very importantly, from the Ballard Spahr feature linked above:

President-elect Trump, who repeatedly said he wanted cameras at his criminal trials, will simply work with Congress to pass a law that makes cameras in federal courts mandatory and that limits judicial discretion to ban them. Lobbying efforts to make this happen are already taking shape, and when Trump or Congress decide to do something, they act a lot quicker than the Judicial Conference.

All we can say is, “Thank God for President-Elect Donald J. Trump!!!!!!!”

He knows how to solve problems and we very, very strongly share his sentiments that cameras belong in courtrooms!  P-E-R-I-O-D!!!

Now, we don’t fault Sen. Jay Morris for trying this, “poke around the edges solution,” but we firmly believe that the real solution is to do as Trump is already setting the wheels in motion to do and get cameras in courtrooms!!

Therefore, we very strongly encourage Gov. Landry to simply follow the lead of President-Elect Trump and have a legislator (be it Sen. Morris or anyone else) to sponsor a bill to get cameras in Louisiana courtrooms as quickly as possible!

So, with that, we intend to vote “No,” on Proposed Constitutional Amendment Number One because we believe it not only is a mere tweak of a badly-broken system, but also because we share Trump’s sentiments of what the real solution needs to be!  We have stated our sentiments repeatedly in that regard during the nine-year history of this blog, but now perhaps with Trump being so emphatic about cameras in Federal Courtrooms, Gov. Landry will follow his lead and get cameras in Louisiana State District Courts!

Anyone want to know the ultimate irony?  As stated in the above-linked feature:

On Nov. 6, a day most Americans were preoccupied by election news, a committee of the Judicial Conference of the U.S. rejected a proposal to permit cameras in our country’s federal courtrooms.

As we stated, we expect this Proposed Amendment to pass, so we hope nobody gets any “false sense of security” on the whole issue and that Gov. Landry will call upon a legislator to sponsor a bill to provide what we believe will a much more meaningful solution:  getting cameras in courtrooms in Louisiana!

Hopefully, we’ve adequately provided our rationale of why we’re voting “no” on Proposed Constitutional Amendment One, so let’s move on to the second and third Proposed Amendments which were covered by Procopio in tandem, and we’ll note that Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns was the only one present who raised a question on that tandem of amendments:

12/2/24:  Procopio provides overview of Proposed Constitutional Amendments Two and Three:

TWO:  “Do you support an amendment to require that the legislature wait for at least forty-eight hours prior to concurring in a conference committee report or amendments to a bill appropriating money?”

THREE:  “Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to extend a regular session in increments of two days up to a maximum of six days if necessary to pass a bill appropriating money?”

Our Commentary and Vote:

Burns poses his question beginning at the 5:34 mark wherein he asks where things stand if two passes and three fails.  Procopio states, at the 6:29 mark, “or it could mean they manage their business and they start passing budgets with at least 48 hours to go.”  With that, we intend to vote “yes” on TWO and “no” on THREE.  While these two may have been intended to be part of a “tandem,” we believe TWO represents a means to prevent the disastrous (and we believe, inexcusable) way the 2023 Legislative Session concluded, we do not like the idea of providing legislators with a “pressure relief valve” given how much time they have to get their business done!

Procopio does indicate that, if TWO passes and THREE fails, more Special Sessions could arise if the clock literally runs out without a budget being passed.  Quite frankly, we believe that is a desirable outcome because it is going to put a huge spotlight on legislators and what can only be described as their ineptitude if they permit such a scenario to transpire.  As Procopio indicates, any such Special Session would require beginning the budget process from scratch in such a session, but we view that as a much better alternative to having pork barrel spending crammed down the citizens’ throats as was done in 2023.  In short, we want the legislators under as much pressure as possible to act responsibly, and we believe THREE provides an unneeded “pressure relief valve.”

Now on to the final Proposed Constitutional Amendment (4), which Procopio said is the most complex amendment he and PAR have had to try to sort through in all his years at PAR.  Here’s his presentation on four and the one question posed, which was by BRPC Secretary-Treasurer John Hightower:

 12/02/24:  Procopio provides overview of Proposed Constitutional Amendments Four.

FOUR:  “Do you support an amendment to eliminate mandatory tax sales for nonpayment of property taxes and require the legislature to provide for such procedures by law; to limit the amount of penalty and interest on delinquent property taxes; and to provide for the postponement of property tax payments under certain circumstances?”

Our Commentary and Vote:

Much of the discussion on this Amendment seems to focus on abandoned property; however, during Burns’ 10-year tenure as a real estate broker who focused on auctioning of property, he observed that to be the exception rather than the rule with regard to tax sales.  The far more frequent occurrence seemed to be people routinely just not paying the property taxes timely and allowing tax deed sales to transpire knowing they would just redeem it before the three-year period of redemption was up.

To that end, we were more than a little perplexed with the video above because all of the situations presented simply weren’t what Burns typically encountered.  Procopio did state the matter is “complex,” and, because Burns has now been out of the real estate field for 11 years, we’re willing to defer to the content of the video above.

Having said that, we did find one segment of the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee testimony to be more in line with our thoughts even for today’s environment.  Here’s that segment of the Committee hearing:

4/8/24:  A witness with the last name “Wilson” testifies his firm belief that Louisiana, “technically is a lien state.”

All we can say is that Burns has always had the same identical understanding that “Mr. Wilson” does, and we agree with him about bidders quite likely losing interest in the process for the reason he indicated.  Thus, for us, we’ll be voting, “no” on Proposed Amendment # 4.

So, the final recap:  #1) No;     #2) Yes;    #3) No;   #4) No.

So, of all the proposals, we have the strongest feelings about #1, and we hope we’ve provided what we believe the solution to the readily-apparent problem should be, and that solution just happens to line up with that of President-Elect Trump on the national level regarding Federal courts.