After attorney Whitehead fails in Class Action suit for Albany flooding homeowners, SB-370 to add powers to Contractor Board voluntarily deferred but with Whitehead firing nuclear missile in asserting Federal Judge sanctioned D. R. Horton’s President & CEO for “withholding evidence.”

March 25, 2026:  Attorney Jack Whitehead (right), testifies on SB-370 before the Senate Commerce Committee to add powers to the Louisiana State Board of Contractors in seeking relief for his clients in a class action lawsuit against D. R. Horton for flooding.  Senator Gregory Miller, the bill’s sponsor, looks on as lead plaintiff in the suit, Lindsey Lee, reviews her notes for testimony.

On August 2, 2021, attorney Jack Whitehead filed this Federal Class Action lawsuit against everybody having anything to do with Acadian Trace Subdivision in Albany in Livingston Parish.

The lawsuit speaks for itself, so we’re not going to highlight any section of it, and the only thing we’re stating is that it alleges repetitive flooding occurs in the homes of the plaintiffs he represents in the suit and that Whitehead asserted Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Claims.

On February 11, 2025 U. S. Judge Shelly Dick denied Whitehead’s Motion to Amend the complaint citing the following (Note: CLICK HERE for the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations to Judge Dick.):

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Amended and Restated Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Lindsey Lee, Wayne Ballard Jr., Jennifer Ballard, Ronald Roberts, III, Kathryn Roberts, Zachary Russell, Lacey Russell, Luis Hinostroza, Tim Addison, II, Stacy Addison, Jonathan McMorris, and Gilbert Bankston, III is DENIED because Plaintiffs lack prudential standing to bring their purported Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act claim, which is futile.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED since Plaintiffs have been denied leave to amend their RICO claim and no other basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction has been established, such that only state law claims remain, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses this case without prejudice, suspending prescription for thirty days pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) so that Plaintiffs can re-file suit in state court, should they choose to do so.

Whitehead opted not to re-file in State Court; however, on March 5, 2025, he did file this Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Dick.

Two defendants filed Motions in Opposition to Whitehead’s Motion for Reconsideration:  Production Builder Services on March 26, 2025 and D. R. Horton on the same day.

No other filing exists on the PACER system between March 26, 2025 and October 14, 2025, with that filing on October 14, 2025 being an Order by Judge Dick on Whitehead’s Motion for Reconsideration; however, that filing is not available to the public.

Nevertheless, we know that Dick denied the Motion based upon this November 11, 2025 Notice of Appeal filed by Whitehead to the Fifth Circuit.

Whitehead sought only to appeal Judge Dick’s ruling that the Motion to Reconsider was “futile.”  On April 2, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Dismissed Plaintiff’s Appeal in stating the following:

Under 5th Cir. R.42.3, the appeal is dismissed as of April 2, 2026, for want of prosecution. The Appellants failed to timely file the Appellants’ brief and record excerpts.

With the court avenue obviously deader than dead, that left Whitehead and his Plaintiffs with little left to pursue other than what we believe to be an utterly desperate attempt for Legislative relief.

They did so via SB-370 by Sen. Gregory Miller (R-NORCO) and Senate Parliamentarian.

In short, the bill sought to authorize the Board to, “review all substandard construction practices within the state and hold hearings for the purpose of suspending and revoking any license for substandard construction practices.”

During his testimony on the bill, Whitehead launched the equivalent of a nuclear missile at D. R. Horton’s President and CEO.  Here is that nuclear missile, accusing him of having been sanctioned by a Federal Judge for “withholding evidence” in a case:

3/25/26:  Whitehead alleges that D. R. Horton’s President and CEO was sanctioned by a Federal Judge for “withholding evidence.”

——-

Editor’s Note:  Two hours after publication of this feature, we were contacted by a dedicated Sound Off Louisiana follower and asked to produce and upload a second instance of Whitehead harping on the Federal Judge allegedly sanctioning D. R. Horton’s President & CEO, but this time his wording changed to “destruction of evidence.”  Here’s that video:

3/25/26:  Second instance of Whitehead referencing a Federal Judge sanctioning D. R. Horton’s President and CEO, only this time his wording changed from “withholding evidence” to “destroying evidence.”

——-

All we can say is that our comprehensive searches of federal court records, dockets, news reports, and legal databases reveal no published orders or rulings imposing such sanctions on D.R. Horton, Inc., its executives, or officials for withholding evidence, discovery violations, or related spoliation in federal proceedings.

D.R. Horton has faced various federal lawsuits (e.g., involving employment, consumer claims, or construction issues), but these do not include documented federal judicial sanctions against company personnel for evidence withholding.

Discovery disputes and motions for sanctions (including spoliation claims) occasionally arise in litigation involving the company, as is common in complex civil cases. However, we failed to find any Federal court findings or orders confirming sanctions imposed on officials for intentional withholding.

We did, however, locate a 2017 incident which occurred in state court (Baldwin County Circuit Court, Alabama). In a civil breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by D.R. Horton against Breland Homes in 2014, Circuit Judge C. Joseph Norton found that Donald R. Horton (the company’s founder and then-head) personally destroyed “irreplaceable” evidence by discarding it in the trash in his office. The judge sanctioned D.R. Horton as a result. This was a state-court matter, not federal.

We also feel compelled to divulge that, in the media report of that 2017 incident, the links for both the Order and the Original Complaint are now dead as doorknobs.

Other noteworthy facts about the presentation, testimony, and heartburn Senators had about the bill include, but are not limited to, the following as evidenced by this video of the entirety of the bill’s presentation on 3/25/25:

  • Senator Abraham expressing concern about the “retroactive” applicability of the bill as amended at Whitehead’s request (via Miller obviously). We share Abraham’s concerns about “retroactive” application on any bill of any nature.  Clearly, however, for Whitehead and his Plaintiffs, without “retroactivity,” the bill would have no teeth to pursue their very obvious goal of seeking to have D. R. Horton’s license suspended or revoked after a Contractor Board hearing on their flooding matter.
  • Senator Morris’ concerns that the bill appears to possibly be, “an effort to assist litigation.” Since Whitehead’s litigation was technically still alive, Morris’ thought pattern was spot on; however, eight (8) days after the hearing, no such litigation would exist effective April 2, 2026 because any appeal of the Fifth Circuit ruling would clearly be futile given the wording contained in the Fifth Circuit’s ruling (i.e. it is about as cut and dry as a ruling can get).  We strongly suspect Whitehead knew with certainty that’s the way the Fifth Circuit would rule, but there was very little lost trying we assume.
  • Senator (and Commerce Chairman) Mizell’s concerns that the four (4) red cards in opposition, which included the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI), opted not to speak. We can understand that because nobody would want to appear non-sympathetic to Lee and the other Plaintiffs.  Nevertheless, we can understand their opposition fully because making such a broad alteration to the Contractor Board’s powers, especially when its Executive Director, Brad Hassert, in supplying information only, flatly stated that the Board either already has the powers sought or the effort constituted an attempt to get the Contractor Board to arbitrate matters over which it has no authority to arbitrate, would seem to be massive overkill for what clearly boils down to a single unfortunate matter regarding a single subdivision in Albany which had already been fully litigated in Federal Court with Defendant D. R. Horton Homes (and all other Defendants) prevailing in the matter.

So, that would appear to be the end of the road in the matter of the Acadian Trace subdivision homeowners and their flooding issues regarding redress, but one can’t deny that it was a very long journey which involved some unusual efforts including a nuclear missile being launched at D. R. Horton’s President and CEO.

 

 

 

Ms. India describes public defender pressure in Judge Burris’ courtroom culminating in Parker-Brown’s permanent ban (overturned by First Circuit 129 days later).

22nd JDC Judge (and candidate for Louisiana Supreme Court) William “Billy” Burris responds to a question by Sound Off Louisiana‘s Robert Burns at the meeting of the Baton Rouge Press Club of Monday, April 20, 2026 regarding his holding of community activist Belinda Parker Brown in “constructive contempt” of his court.  In responding to the question, Burris conveniently omitted (totally) the fact that, on September 7, 2023, he “permanently banned” Parker-Brown from ever appearing in his courtroom again “for life.”  His action, however, was quickly overturned by the First Circuit Court of Appeal on January 11, 2024 (only 129 days later!), which ruled that he had no authority to impose such a “broad restriction” on Parker-Brown.  Perhaps such outlandish abuse of judicial authority has contributed heavily to what his opponent, Blair Downing Edwards, has cited as an astounding 42 percent rate of overturn by the First Circuit.

When we concluded our most recent feature entailing Louisiana Supreme Court candidate Judge William “Billy” Burris banning community activist Belinda Parker-Brown from his courtroom for life, we were excited to report the following:

Interestingly enough, the initial defendant in the whole matter….. who ultimately had her charges dropped by the prosecution, has also indicated a desire to, along with Parker-Brown, appear on Sound Off Louisiana to state first-hand what all she asserts happened during her prosecution.  We look very forward to having that opportunity very soon!

Well, that “very soon” is the very next day as Ms. India was very anxious to tell her side of the story on this matter, and here it is:

4/21/26:  Ms. India shares her side of the story regarding the Belinda Parker-Brown – Judge William “Billy” Burris saga.

This is a video blog, and we believe the above video speaks for itself, so with its publication, we consider this feature a wrap!

 

After Engster attempts to belittle Burns, he permits LSC candidates to respond to highly-censored question of “permanent ban” ordered by one candidate regarding Parker-Brown.

Despite forum moderator Jim Engster having seen Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns on numerous occasions at Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC) meetings over the last 11 years, on Monday, April 20, 2026 he  nevertheless sought to belittle Burns by inquiring, “Could you tell us what Sound Off Louisiana is?”  Well, for one thing, we’re the “video blog” which first broke the Ronald Greene matter on September 10, 2020.

In September 2023, following a contempt proceeding in the 22nd Judicial District Court (JDC) for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, Judge William “Billy” Burris found community activist Belinda Parker-Brown in   constructive contempt of court as reported upon by Sound Off Louisiana (and only by us).

The finding stemmed from Parker-Brown’s interactions during a recess in the misdemeanor case State v. India Armani Ratliff (a member of her organization, Louisiana United International). Parker-Brown was accused of interfering with the public defender’s representation of the defendant by providing unauthorized legal advice or assistance without a license, in violation of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 23:4 and 23:6.

On September 7, 2023 (as noted on the prior-linked feature), after a hearing, Judge Burris imposed a $1,000 fine (plus costs) and permanently banned Parker-Brown from his courtroom (Division E) and all misdemeanor proceedings in the 22nd JDC, unless she was subpoenaed as a witness, appeared as a party, or obtained specific written authorization from the presiding judge.

In the immediate aftermath, Parker-Brown initiated litigation to challenge the contempt finding, fine, and ban on constitutional grounds (primarily First Amendment protections for speech and petition rights, as well as related Sixth Amendment issues concerning the defendant’s right to counsel). The key filings and proceedings follow:

  • Federal removal attempt (September 2023): On the day of the contempt hearing (or shortly before), Parker-Brown and Ratliff filed a Joint Notice of Removal to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (case referenced as 2:23-cv-05119). They asserted violations of federal rights by the state court.  Parker-Brown also filed a “suggestion of Contempt of Removal,” seeking to have Judge Burris appear before the federal court to show cause why he should not face sanctions.  As we have previously reported, U.S. District Judge Lance M. Africk summarily remanded the matter back to the 22nd JDC on or about September 18, 2023.The federal court ruled that the removal was untimely (exceeding the 30-day limit under 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(1)), procedurally deficient (lacking required copies of pleadings and orders), and lacked any statutory basis (e.g., no showing that Parker-Brown was acting under federal officers per 28 U.S.C. § 1442).The motion against Judge Burris was dismissed as moot.

 

  • State appellate review: Parker-Brown also filed an application for supervisory writs to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit (Docket No. 2023 KW 0989).  On January 11, 2024, the court upheld the contempt finding (determining that the evidence was sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt) but vacated the $1,000 fine as exceeding the statutory maximum of $500 under La. Code Crim. P. art. 25(B) and remanded for resentencing.  It also reversed the permanent ban, holding that the trial court erred by imposing such a broad restriction under its contempt authority.  A subsequent application for rehearing was largely denied (with partial grant on clerical matters). Parker-Brown then sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court (Docket No. 2024 KK 00539), which denied the writ application on September 17, 2024.

 

  • U.S. Supreme Court petition: Parker-Brown filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 24-667, In re Belinda Parker Brown v. State of Louisiana), with supporting appendices filed in December 2024.  The petition raised First Amendment challenges, arguing that the contempt citation and associated restrictions unconstitutionally punished out-of-court speech and advocacy during a recess (at the defendant’s invitation and without obstructing proceedings), failing the “clear and present danger” standard for overriding free-speech protections.  The petition was ultimately denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Monday, April 20, 2026, Judge Burris was a participant in the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC)’s forum featuring the two candidates for the vacancy in the Louisiana Supreme Court which arose as a result of the elevation of Associate Justice William J. Crain to the Federal judiciary.  Burris’ opponent, Judge Blair Downing Edwards (wife of former long-time Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Daniel Edwards, former Gov. John Bel Edwards’ brother), presently serves on the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both candidates are Republicans and, since they are the only two candidates who qualified for the race, the winner of the May 16, 2026 election will be the newest Louisiana Supreme Court Justice.

At the forum, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns attempted to pose a  question about the above matter, only to be almost immediately shut down by forum moderator Jim Engster.  Nevertheless, in the limited highly censored (and, in our minds, inappropriate) action by Engster, each candidate did respond to the question, and here are those responses in full and, in total nonconformity with the “Jim Engster censoring modus operandi,” without one single second edited out of either candidates’ response:

After Engster severely curtails Burns’ question regarding the detailed post above (but with him obviously willing to kill valuable time asking Burns to elaborate on what “Sound Off Louisiana is,”) each candidate responds to the highly censored question.

It’s sort of comical to an extent that Engster publicly professed to be unfamiliar with Sound Off Louisiana (trust us, he most certainly is), yet Burris readily knew that Burns had previously done a feature on his court hearing entailing Parker Brown.  How ironic, huh?

Now, in fairness to Engster, he did close the forum with a compliment to Burns, and  Burns responded in kind.  Here’s that short segment:

Engster closes with a smile toward Burns and saying, “He’s a good man,” to which Burns responded:  “He (Engster) is too.”

Had we not felt we’d more than worn out our welcome with Engster, we would have loved to have posed this question:  “How do each of you feel about cameras being permitted in the courtroom?”  Who knows, perhaps Engster may have permitted Burns to squeeze in that entire 13 words.

Look, we all have shortcomings (and that most certainly includes Burns), and we’re going to write off today’s episode with Engster as merely an instance in which he exposed one of his shortcomings.  We are, however, making it clear that he’s not going to intimidate Burns one iota if that’s his gameplan!

Through modern technology, Belinda Parker-Brown has viewed Burris’ statements above and sought a Zoom meeting for her to counter his statements.  We have completed that Zoom meeting with her, and here is its contents:

Parker-Brown (along with a brief appearance by her husband, Carl) respond to Burris’ statement above regarding her being “permanently banned” from his courtroom.

Interestingly enough, the initial defendant in the whole matter, India Armani Ratliff, who ultimately had her charges dropped by the prosecution, has also indicated a desire to, along with Parker-Brown, appear on Sound Off Louisiana to state first-hand what all she asserts happened during her prosecution.  We look very forward to having that opportunity very soon!

In the meantime, let us just say that we attended the forum with the expectation that, since the race is between two incumbent members of the Judicial Branch of Louisiana Government, we expected a pretty low-key non-attack forum.

We were in for the shock of our lives because as evidenced by this video of the entire forum, these two candidates really went for the jugulars of one other!

We’re wrap it up with these words:  May the best candidate win!