Former Calcasieu Parish District Attorney, the late John DeRosier.
In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, Billy Brossard lays the blame for his $1 million plus loss in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita squarely at the feet of “Mafia Boss,” the late Calcasieu Parish District Attorney John DeRosier. He further acknowledges President Trump’s “top down” approach to root out fraud, and he states emphatically that Gov. Landry will have little choice but to join in the Trump/Vance efforts and “top down” approach:
Billy Broussard on President Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance’s revamped efforts to root out fraud and his statements that Gov. Landry will need to join in their efforts.
Here are links to features Broussard wanted to accompany this feature:
Water, water everywhere article entailing flooding everywhere along the Louisiana and Texas borders in October of 2006. Broussard attributes this flooding to “neglect” and asserts local drainage officials cured some of their “neglect” by simply having him clean out a ton of debris which had been in Indian Bayou for decades only to then report different GPS work sites to FEMA (which Broussard steadfastly maintains were not even on the Army Corps’ map for the Indian Bayou project) and stiff him for over $1 million in the process.
Former Ascension Parish Sheriff Captain C. J. Matthews.
Former Ascension Parish Sheriff Captain C. J. Matthews gave us a call and told us just how “fed up” he is about recent acts of law enforcement officers and members of the judiciary. Here’s video of him sounding off:
Former Ascension Parish Sheriff Captain C. J. Matthews expresses his deep concerns about recent actions by a number of members of law enforcement and the judiciary in Louisiana.
Here are links for news outlet coverage of the incidents Matthews references in the above video (in order):
We believe the final feature above to be of such significance that we are also going to embed it:
Fox 8 (New Orleans) feature on more details surrounding St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Randy Smith’s arrest for the assault of Bobby Couvillion, who has been a critic of Smith in online postings.
“Crimes against children are among the most serious offenses my office prosecutes. Anyone accused of preying on a child in Louisiana will be pursued aggressively by my office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No one is above the law, especially those sworn to uphold it,” Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement following the indictment.
We reached out to Matthews to see if he wanted to be quoted about this indictment, and here is his response:
I wish she (Murrill) would go back and review the Fred Corder incident and interview the former DA Shawn Bush. This would open up a can of worms between Jeff Landry, Jeff Wiley (former Ascension Parish Sheriff and current State Representative), Bobby Webre (current Ascension Parish Sheriff), and LSP’s (Belinda) Murphy and (Chad) Gremillion. Now that’s a cover up right there!
Click here to review our prior investigative series on Corder as told by Matthews.
Like Nakamoto, we’d received numerous texts from LSP retirees with connections within LSP regarding Hodges soon leaving and a replacement being named. We, however, were very reluctant to publish anything, particularly regarding who Hodges’ replacement would be.
Why were we so reluctant to publish anything on Hodges’ potential replacement? Simple. Our sources were about equally divided on whether it would be Besson or LSP Captain Michael Nicolini.
Nicolini, according to our sources, used his Sergeant status to serve in a Lieutenant position when former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal appointed him to Jindal’s security detail. Nicolini has been described to us by multiple sources to be, “very tight with Gov. Jeff Landry’s major campaign contributor and business associate, Shane Guidry, for whom he also worked as personal security.” Nicolini then followed Gov. Landry to the Attorney General’s Office. Thereafter, once Landry was elected Governor, Nicolini returned to LSP, where he now serves as a detailed Captain on Landry’s security detail.
So, our sources were equally split between Nicolini and Besson; however, Nakamoto’s feature has been viewed as a highly likely strategic use of specifically-targeted “leaks” to Nakamoto with the express purpose of placing Gov. Landry in a position of feeling as if he had little choice but to choose Besson because the largest media outlet in the state had indicated that he would be the choice. In our opinion, this belief (which is very strongly held by those with whom we spoke on the matter), is buttressed by the terse reaction of Gov. Landry’s Press Relations Coordinator Kate Kelly. Here’s her reaction taken directly from Nakamoto’s June 3, 2026 feature above:
“I have heard of no changes at LSP. Any change of command comes directly from the governor.”
If this was a strategic maneuver to try and “box” Landry into selecting Besson, we can state that no Governor, not one, would appreciate such a maneuver; furthermore, we’ll add that this particular Governor is going to have a very strong negative reaction to any such maneuver if it indeed did transpire.
Our sources who are still willing to comment on the present matter as it stands now (it seems to have become a major hot potato) have now told us that Gov. Landry has requested that Hodges hang around for the foreseeable future (likely, by our own speculation, until the new year approaches when Hodges may initiate a campaign to replace Smith — assuming Smith doesn’t resign before next year’s election, which would certainly be the honorable thing to do). Those same sources now tell us that Besson is, “out, o-u-t, out!”
So with all that backdrop, believe it or not, we have been asked to provide odds on who Hodges’ replacement will be irrespective of what timeframe such replacement transpires (which we speculate will be very late 2026 to very early 2027).
In deference to the escalating trend of bettors utilizing “prediction markets” (e.g. Kalshi, perhaps to skirt Landry’s outrageous increase in the online sports betting tax – full disclosure: Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns has opened up a prediction market account and has utilized it to make sports bets for that very purpose), we will play along.
The way prediction markets work is that, technically, a bettor purchases a “contract” for a fixed amount to pay $1 if the bettor is correct on his “prediction.”
Obviously, the bettor is free to purchase as many such contracts as may be correspondingly sold by the prediction market maker.
Typically, a “quote” is readily available from the prediction market site assuming the activity level is heavy with predictors making predictions on both sides of the trade, thus ensuring a 2-3 percent profit margin for the prediction market site (far less than the 10 percent or so charged by traditional sports betting services, with Landry confiscating 21.5 percent of that 10 percent).
If a quote is not readily available because trading of contracts [these prediction markets are regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)] is too light, the prediction market may take some time to offer a quote.
Obviously, there would be insufficient interest in who will replace Hodges for it to be worth it for a predictions market to open trading on the matter, but, if we were to be asked to make a quote for purposes of the prediction market, here is what we would provide (as a market maker of sorts):
Michael Nicolini, $0.92; Frank Besson, $0.13; Anybody else, $0.005.
For translation, a $92 “prediction” on Nicolini would return $100 if Nicolini gets the nod. A $13 “prediction” on Besson would return $100 if Besson gets the nod, and a 50 cent “prediction” that someone else besides Besson or Nicolini gets the nod would pay $100. Translation: We believe Nicolini is the very heavy favorite! That’s just our take though, and what do we know?
Irrespective of who and when LSP may have a new Colonel, there’s one thing we can all agree upon, and that is that there is never a dull moment in Louisiana law enforcement or its judiciary, huh?
This feature is the fourth installment of our continuing coverage of both the May 4, 2026 meeting of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) and the next meeting, which took place yesterday, Monday, June 8, 2026.
Our first feature, published on May 11, 2026, focused on Board Member Jean Pitre’s near-panic plea for cosmetology schools to flood the U. S. Department of Education with reasons they contend that the “Gainful Employment” provision, which established earnings accountability for students in order for students to qualify for Federal Pell Grant funding to pay for their cosmetology instruction, should be removed by Trump’s Department of Education.
In the follow up feature published Thursday, June 4, 2026, we focused on President Donald Trump’s steadfast resolve to hold cosmetology schools accountable for generating positive returns to taxpayers and cosmetology students or else forfeit eligibility for Federal funding to pay tuition of the students at for-profit cosmetology schools.
In today’s feature, we demonstrate in a very authoritative fashion that, while President Trump is keenly aware of the truth about loan defaults due to cosmetology students being weighed down with debts to attend these schools (for, according to Pitre, “a part-time 25-hour a week job making $15,000 – $16,000 a year,”) Cosmetology Board Member Jean Pitre, to borrow an iconic line from the famous movie “A Few Good Men,” simply, “can’t handle the truth.”
At the LSBC meeting of Monday, June 8, 2026, Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips first stated that he found the last meeting very interesting, referenced the two articles we’d published about Pitre referenced above, and volunteered that he (Phillips) had sent us this article, published on June 4, 2026 (the same day as our last article on Trump and cosmetology schools), and Phillips was even kind enough to only take 90 seconds total for public comment and said, “I yield the balance of my time (90 seconds) to Mr. Robert Burns.” Let us first reproduce the article published below:
As feds pull back student loans, states should reform cosmetology licensing
The Trump administration is pulling back federal student loans for cosmetology schools — and it’s a great opportunity for states to stop forcing aspiring beauticians to take on debt just to practice their trade.
Under the administration’s proposed “Do No Harm” rule, colleges and trade schools can no longer enroll pupils using federal student loans if their graduates earn less than early-career workers with only a high school diploma. The logic is that postsecondary education should, at a minimum, make people better off than those who never went to college. If graduates can’t clear this basic benchmark, they are unlikely to be able to afford their loan payments.
Unfortunately, most cosmetology schools fail to meet this very basic standard. Four years after completing their programs, cosmetology graduates earn a median salary of just $27,000 — while similarly aged high school graduates earn around $35,000. As a result, cosmetology schools have among the nation’s worst loan-repayment outcomes, with roughly one-third of borrowers more than three months behind on their debts.
The Trump administration is right to pull the plug: more than 90% of cosmetology schools are expected to fail the “Do No Harm” rule and lose access to federal loans. That will protect hundreds of thousands of students from unaffordable debt. Meanwhile, taxpayers will no longer have to eat the cost when those borrowers inevitably fail to repay.
But the Do No Harm rule should be only the beginning of a broader conversation about how to change the way barbers, hairstylists, and manicurists prepare for their careers. Every state licenses these professions; some, including Nebraska and West Virginia, require them to undergo over 1,800 hours of training before earning the right to work. The federal government has effectively subsidized these excessive training requirements through unconditional student loan subsidies — but now that funding stream is winding down.
States should take the opportunity to cut the number of required training hours to become a licensed cosmetologist. Research has shown that recent reductions in mandated required training hours have reduced tuition and increased enrollment. Some evidence even suggests that the ensuing enrollment increases improve cosmetology schools’ profits.
Utah is one example of a state taking significant steps to reform cosmetology licensing requirements. With the enactment of SB 330 last year, most cosmetology education requirements were cut from 1,600 to 1,250 hours. Barbers can now obtain a license to work in Utah with just 130 hours of education. Aspiring workers may also substitute apprentice hours for beauty school hours.
But states could go even further and end cosmetologist licensure entirely. Cosmetologist licensing is not ubiquitous worldwide. More than 119 million people in the UK and Spain live without cosmetologist licensing. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, also do not require cosmetology licensing. Instead, regulation often occurs at the shop level. Beauty salons may need to register their business and be subject to random inspections. This way, the public is offered protection without overly cumbersome regulation that limits entry to the profession, which research has shown fails to prevent accidents and bad actors.
Cosmetology schools could still exist in a world without licensure. But rather than relying on state training mandates, they would need to demonstrate their educational value to attract voluntary paying customers. Beauty schools, which effectively teach students to become better at their craft — and achieve higher wages — could thrive. But those that exist mainly as a box for aspiring beauticians to check on the road to licensure would need to reform.
Heavy licensing requirements for cosmetologists were supposed to protect the public. Instead, licensing has sentenced barbers and hairstylists to unaffordable student debt. By reducing or even eliminating cosmetology licensing, states can address the student debt crisis and expand opportunity in one blow.
That’s a very intriguing read, no?
Okay. Now on to Pitre not being able to handle the truth!
He demonstrated that by, even after Phillips, as referenced above, was kind enough to yield 90 seconds of his time to Burns, nevertheless cutting Burns off from public comment prior to the allotted three (3) minutes for public comment. Burns sought to read the first few paragraphs of the above article into the record and express his concerns about body camera use being suspended with no explanation (as of the date of the meeting) by the LSBC.
What Pitre and others on the Board may not realize is that, with these comments recorded on video, it’s very easy to both see and demonstrate any attempt to cut anyone short on time to speak.
It took nine (9) seconds for Burns to walk from his spot behind the camera to begin his public comment and, as evidenced by the upcoming video, even adding that nine (9) seconds to the length of Burns speaking (which would itself be inappropriate to have begun the clock before Burns or anyone else was positioned to speak), Pitre unquestionably cut Burns short on time!
Furthermore, Pitre’s inappropriate action was readily demonstrated by Member Rene Bosworth, who is allegedly the official timekeeper of the meetings, having her cell phone alarm go off signaling that Burns’ time was then up.
All anyone has to do is count the seconds between Pitre’s very rude cutoff of Burns and Bosworth’s alarm going off to see exactly the amount of time Pitre cut Burns short because he obviously, “can’t handle the truth!” Here’s the video:
June 8, 2026: Burns attempts to make public comment but is rudely cut short on his time by Member Jean Pitre!
Now, a couple of quick points in closing:
#1) Rev. Phillips also made brief public comment about hair braiding in both Louisiana and Mississippi, and we’re going to cover both his commentary on hair braiding, as well as his continued concern about the removal of the finger curls from the practical examination, in an upcoming feature.
#2) In Burns’ comments above, he expresses that “silence is not golden” regarding no explanation of the suspension of body camera usage by inspectors of the LSBC. We are pleased to report that we received a fulfillment of a public records request today (Tuesday, June 9, 2026), so we now have the answer about what prompted the suspension of the use of the body cameras as well as significant correspondence about the body cameras and the material we requested about the expenditures being made for the body cameras which are no longer in use. We look very (and we do mean very) forward to publishing a feature entailing nothing but the body cameras and the controversies surrounding them in very short order!
Finally, we hope Pitre and the other Members of the LSBC develop a better ability to “handle the truth,” because it would not appear President Trump has any intention whatsoever to back away from what he and his officials at his Department of Education know to be the truth!
