With Braxton, Derbonne as roadkill & taxpayers out significant legal fees, Louisiana State Trooper Association gets First Circuit to green light ability to engage in political activities.

Louisiana State Trooper Association (LSTA) attorney, Floyd Falcon, at the February 8, 2018 meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC), emphasizes that the LSTA has a “Constitutional Right” to engage in political activity and added, “just like the Sheriffs do.”

Well, to say that the LSTA has gone to the proverbial mat to ensure that it is able to engage in political activities (including making political campaign contributions) would be no exaggeration whatsoever.

As long-time visitors to our site know by now, when we need to present a significant amount of material spanning a rather protracted timeline, we like to utilize tables, and that’s what we’re going to do for this feature.

With that, here is a table of the timeline of events transpiring entailing the LSTA’s relentless pursuit of its “Constitutional Right” to engage in political activities:

Date or Timeframe of Significant EventNature of Significant Event
June 10, 2015.Then-Gov. Bobby Jindal appoints Natchitoches business man Calvin Braxton to the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC).
September, 2015.Several retired LSP Troopers make note of a television campaign ad for then-Gubernatorial candidate John Bel Edwards with the notation that the ad was, "Paid for by the Louisiana State Trooper's Association."
Late 2015.Multiple retired LSP Troopers voice concern to the then-LSPC Executive Director, Cathy Derbonne, that they do NOT want their dues being utilized to pay for political activity and campaign ads. Some of those retired Troopers reduce their concerns to writing as formal complaints to the LSPC regarding their concerns.
December 4, 2015.LSP Trooper Jayson Linebaugh pulls over LSPC Member Braxton's daughter for DWI.
Early 2016.Braxton agrees to work with Derbonne on the campaign contributions issues. Derbonne, in turn, tells the retired Troopers that she will contact Jay Dardenne, Gov. Edwards' then-Head of the Division of Administration, for guidance on handling the complaints.
Early to Mid 2016.Derbonne advises that Dardenne told her to turn the entire matter over to the Louisiana State Board of Ethics. Also, at the suggestion of Braxton, Gov. John Bel Edwards' Super PAC Head, T. Taylor Townsend, is hired by the LSPC for a flat fee of $75,000 to research the campaign contribution matters and issue a report of his findings. Townsend would later agree to accept only $50,000 for his work but never issued ANY written report and only stated orally that he did not believe the LSPC had jurisdiction to handle the matter.
Early to Mid 2016.LSTA top brass, in apparent extreme anger over the actions of the retired Troopers, expels four (4) such Members from the organization: 1) Leon "Bucky" Millet, 2) Jesse Scott Perry, 3) Tanny DeVillier (father of the Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives, Phillip DeVillier), and 4) Blaine Mott.
June 2, 2016 (a stunning 181 days after the incident on 12/4/15).Then LSP-Captain (Troop E) Jay Oliphant authors this incident report essentially stating Braxton is an egotistical, arrogant, power-hungry individual willing to throw his weight around to obtain special treatment for his family (namely his daughter). According to court filings, Oliphant subsequently testified under oath that he was approached by the LSTA to author the report, "to facilitate the removal of Calvin Braxton from the LSPC."
June 24, 2016.At the LSTA convention in Lafayette, open outcries are allegedly made for Cathy Derbonne, former Executive Director of the LSPC, to be terminated. LSP Trooper T. J. Doss is alleged to have said, "What we have to do is get me elected to the LSPC to assist with getting her fired."
July 16, 2016.LSTA attorney Floyd Falcon sends Gov. Edwards this letter calling upon Edwards to initiate proceedings to remove Braxton from his LSPC position.
July 19, 2016.Ronnie Jones, Gov. Edwards' former Gaming Control Board Chairman, while on a conference call, allegedly states that, "Gov. Edwards' office has told Derbonne to 'shut the f--- up.'" (About alleged illegal campaign contributions to Edwards' and other campaigns by the LSTA).
November 9, 2016.The Louisiana State Board of Ethics, acting on a filing by Derbonne with that agency, imposes this $5,000 fine on the LSTA for the campaign contributions.
January 7, 2017.With T. J. Doss having been elected by Troopers to the LSPC and subsequently being named Chairman of the LSPC, Sound Off Louisiana initiates coverage of LSPC Meetings, with such coverage continuing through to this day. Derbonne, with Braxton voting "no" on acceptance, tenders her resignation from the LSPC which, in turn, votes to "accept" that hurriedly-slapped-together, on-the-fly resignation letter. Derbonne has asserted that the resignation letter was strong-armed out of her in a closed-door LSPC Executive Session minutes before the letter was drafted.
Early 2017.Jay Oliphant, author of the 6/2/16 incident report referenced above, makes this Facebook post expressing concerns for the safety of himself and his family entailing Braxton.
June 19, 2017.LSTA attorney Floyd Falcon sends Gov. Edwards this follow-up letter asking him whether he (Edwards) is going to proceed with measures to remove Braxton from the LSPC.
July 17, 2017.Fox8 (New Orleans)'s Lee Zurik broadcast this feature wherein Braxton is confronted head-on about Oliphant's incident report referenced above. Zurik's feature is soon followed by this WWL-4 feature. (See our most recent feature for more details.)
July 21, 2017.Braxton "resigns" from LSPC. [Note: Our public records request of Gov. Edwards' office for a signed resignation letter was fruitless, with his office supplying only a news release that Braxton had "resigned."]. Braxton would later testify, under oath, that he "never" resigned from the LSPC and that, instead, then-State Rep. Katrina Jackson (now Louisiana Senator) drafted a resignation press release without his authorization or signature and supplied it to then-Gov. Edwards for his use as he saw fit.
January 9, 2018.Derbonne files this "constructive discharge lawsuit" against the LSPC. Note: Judge Morvant tossed the suit based on Derbonne as an employee having no whistleblower protection. Derbonne appealed to the First Circuit, which overturned Morvant's ruling and remanded the case back to Morvant. The LSPC then appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which declined to hear the matter.
February 8, 2018.LSTA makes plea before the LSPC for it to give a green light to political contributions, even using representatives of child cancer organizations to plead with commissioners for such contributions to be approved by the LSPC.
May 10, 2018.Braxton sues the LSTA and Jay Oliphant for defamation alleging that the incident report of 6/2/16 above is a fabrication.
May 17, 2018.WWL-TV in New Orleans airs this May 17, 2018 feature on Braxton's defamation lawsuit against the LSTA and Jay Oliphant. NOTE: See our most recent feature to see the WWL TV video.
August 15, 2018.LSTA sues the LSPC stating that the restriction imposed prohibiting it from making political contributions is "unconstitutional." NOTE: Sound Off Louisiana is the ONLY media outlet to even report on this lawsuit's existence.
February 21, 2020.Braxton adds LSP to his LSTA civil lawsuit stating that he has been "falsely accused of murder." LSP, through the legal services of Ben Mayeux, would successfully defend Braxton's adding of LSP as Defendant via LA CCP Article 971 and ultimately even obtain a judgment against Braxton for $50,000+ of LSP legal fees defending the matter. [Note: Braxton appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's granting of LSP's legal fees, after which Braxton appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which declined to accept his Writ application.]
May 15, 2020.LSTA adds Jason Hannaman, Derbonne's successor, as defendant alleging liability for having drafted and having distributed a circular prohibiting political campaign contributions.
February 14, 2021.Judge Johnson issues this ruling drafted by LSTA attorney Floyd Falcon denying LSPC's Exceptions to the LSTA lawsuit on political contributions, thus permitting the litigation to continue.
August 16, 2021Derbonne opts to settle her lawsuit against the LSPC with the final cost to taxpayers, including court costs, legal fees, and Townsend's $50,000 contract, estimated at $273,000.
November 3, 2022.LSTA v. LSPC trial conducted before 19th JDC Judge Donald Johnson, who ultimately ruled in favor of LSPC and against LSTA. One key witness for the LSPC, Jesse Scott Perry, one of the original retired Troopers who filed a complaint, essentially blew up in the LSPC's face as he provided testimony TOTALLY sympathetic to the LSTA and, despite false representations which fellow retired Trooper Leon "Bucky" Millet claims Perry made to him that he would be a highly effective witness for LSPC, Millet could only wonder if Perry had been conning him for a protracted time secretly trying to assist the LSTA, which Perry admitted under oath that he very much wanted to rejoin and indicated they would allow him back with full membership, "dependent upon the outcome of this litigation."
Early 2023.LSTA appeals LSPC's win to the First Circuit Court of Appeals
Approximate January and April 2024.In what some attorneys have called "bizarre," First Circuit has LSPC and LSTA attorneys pose oral arguments not once, but twice, in front of two sets of First Circuit Judges which differed in composition.
Thursday, January 30, 2025.Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals issues this decision reversing Judge Johnson's granting of a Declaratory Judgment to the LSPC and instead granting the Declaratory Judgment sought by the LSTA at the outset of the litigation on August 15, 2018.

We aren’t going to say much about the First Circuit’s decision other than to  note the fact that, as we state in the table, some attorneys have seemed taken aback by the fact that oral arguments were posed before two sets of First Circuit Judges.

Judge Hunter Greene wrote the decision for the majority; however, Judge Walter Lanier, who is the same Judge who was called upon to consider Judge Vincent Borne’s authoritative declarations that he’d impose sanctions against Billy Broussard and who referenced Borne’s wording as “artful,” opted to, “agree in part and dissent in part.”  From Lanier’s supplemental filing accompanying the main ruling:

I further disagree with a blanket declaration that management of the LSTA does not violate the Louisiana Constitution or LSPC rules. I believe management of the LSTA may very likely run afoul of the Louisiana Constitution or the LSPC rules regarding prohibited political activities and could expose the individual board member to sanctions.  See Kenner Police Dept. v. Kenner Mun. Fire & Police Civ. Serv. Bd., 2000-1080 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/23/01), 783 So.2d 392, writ denied, 2001-0487 (La. 4/20/01), 790 So.2d 635.

I believe that as a classified member of the State Police Service, a board member of the LSTA who moves for and votes to make a contribution to a political candidate is in violation of the Louisiana Constitution and LSPC rules. Short of abstaining from the vote, it would appear that any vote in support of or vote in opposition to a candidate receiving funds or endorsements would be a clear violation.

As these cases tend to be very fact sensitive, I believe that any potential violation of the Louisiana Constitution or LSPC rules is better addressed on a case­ by-case basis rather than by making a broad declaration of approval of general behavior.

Judge Tess Stromberg also shared Judge Lanier’s concerns referenced above.  We would also note the full-blown dissent of Judge Mitchell Theriot.  From that dissent:

Per the parties’ stipulations, the LSTA has as its members over 90% of all Louisiana state police troopers and a majority of state police trooper retirees. The majority’s holding allows individuals expressly prohibited by La. Const. Art. 10, § 9 from participating or engaging in political activities to openly undertake such conduct under the guise of a legal entity. In other words, the legal entity has more rights than the individual. This is particularly concerning when the legal entity’s membership is almost entirely comprised of individuals who cannot themselves exercise the rights being exercised by the legal entity. I find that such a holding leads to an absurd result. I fail to reach the conclusion that a legal entity comprised almost entirely of civil servants can have greater constitutional rights than the individual civil servant.

I also agree with Judge Lanier’s finding that”[m]embership in or management of the LSTA does not exempt the individual member from the obligations imposed by the Louisiana Constitution or the LSPC rules.” Each case should stand on its own merits and courts should be hesitant to rule in one broad stroke. However, I would go one step further and affirm the trial court’s ruling in its entirety.

We may be wrong, but it’s our belief that, with the First Circuit’s ruling, the LSTA has gotten what it sought from the outset even with the caveats that several judges provided wording that, in theory at least, may still leave the door open for possible pursuit of an individual violation by a sitting Board Member of the LSTA.

As such, we don’t expect any appeal by the LSTA to obtain an even stronger and unanimous ruling from the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Furthermore, it’s our opinion that the present composition of the LSPC is going to be disinclined to appeal this defeat to the Louisiana Supreme Court as well.

We say that because, in our opinion, the LSPC is now comprised of Members who will be LSTA sympathetic rather than LSTA antagonistic.  These Members are Governor Jeff Landry’s hand-chosen Members, and Landry has made it clear that he, “has the backs of law enforcement, no matter what!”

The one Edwards holdover, Mark “Aubrey” Cole, is himself a former Troop I Director of the Louisiana State Trooper Foundation, so he likely gets to hold onto his seat.  For the record, Robert Burns (the Trooper, not Sound Off Louisiana founder) is President of the Trooper Foundation, and perhaps that may explain his rapid rise to the second-highest rank in LSP of Lt. Colonel after Col. Hodges’ recent promotion of Burns to Chief Administrative Officer.

So, the LSTA is now free to engage in political activity and, unless we’re wrong about the LSPC’s current temperature on the matter, we don’t see that changing via the Louisiana Supreme Court overturning the First Circuit because we expect no appeal to be filed by either litigant.

All we can ponder is the massive amount of money this pursuit, when combined with the “spinoff suits” of Derbonne and Braxton,  has cost taxpayers.  First, there’s the $273,000 for the Derbonne litigation.  Then there’s the litigation costs of the LSTA v. LSPC matter and, once the window for appeal has lapsed, we’ll make public records request to obtain an estimate of the cost of that litigation.

Then there is the expected massive cost to taxpayers of the Braxton litigation since taxpayers had to pay while LSP was Defendant and also because then-LSP LTC Oliphant was originally named in the litigation.  If anyone may think those costs aren’t going to add up to a very significant amount of money, we would suggest taking just a few moments to pull up a few of the depositions taken just through late 2021!

Finally, in speaking with one long-time retired LSP Lieutenant, he openly wonders if the LSTA will disclose to its Membership and the public at large the amount of dues and general public support contributions which are spent on political campaigns each year now that there appears, for all intents and purposes, to essentially be no restrictions on the entity’s ability to engage in such acts.

Our final observation is that we totally concur with LSTA Attorney Floyd Falcon when he says the LSTA should be able to conduct themselves entailing political activity, “just like the Sheriffs do.”  We will add, however, that, just like Judge Theriot, we would go one step further in abolishing the LSPC altogether and going to at-will employment not only for LSP Troopers but for all State employees.  In other words, we would make LSP Trooper employment truly just like employment of Deputies serving under the Sheriffs!

What has become increasingly apparent to us is that the Louisiana Civil Service systems have enabled incompetence to thrive among its employees under its control to include a staggering number of Troopers who drive around drunk and engage in many other reckless acts for which an ordinary citizen would face immediate termination and be out on the streets with no job recourse whatsoever!  Nevertheless, these “special” folk, to quote the word from former Col. Lamar Davis, have all these “rights” that make an absolute mockery of any accountability whatsoever to the public whom they ostensibly serve.

What that would mean is that LSP Col. Robert Hodges (and whoever would succeed him thereafter) would have the sole and exclusive word on discipline to include termination and, short of the ability to prove discrimination based on age, race (and we include Caucasian in that category), sex, or membership to any other “protected class,” his word is final and constitutes the end of the matter.

That would mean that any Governor appointing an LSP Colonel would need to make an effective choice, and he would need to ensure his choice is one who would not “play favorites” (which has been extensively alleged to have transpired for the last four LSP Colonels), and to appoint one who would demonstrate true accountability both to his or her subordinates as well as to the public at large.  It’s our sad duty to report our observation that there is precious little of the latter when it comes to Louisiana State Police. Further,  we can only openly wonder if this First Circuit ruling may serve only to exasperate the frustrations felt by so many members of the public who believe they receive almost no accountability for the significant amount of taxpayer resources they devote to LSP’s operations.

Through recent Executive Orders by President Donald Trump, he seems to have a genuine desire to purge the Federal workforce of folk who either aren’t accountable or are downright inept, of which we’ve noted no shortage of folk at LSP.

Maybe Gov. Landry may be inclined to do like Trump and initiate at-will  employment among State employees and LSP Troopers.  Given the opposition he would undoubtedly face (even if Trump were to say, “It’s the right thing to do, Jeff!”), our prediction is that he would repeat his time-worn slogan to law enforcement that, “I’ve got your back no matter what,” and totally cave to that opposition.  If so, that is likely to mean incompetence and reckless Trooper behavior is likely to continue unabated as it has for years, especially if the tag team of Hodges and Besson find creative ways to sweep it all under the rug without the public ever even finding out about it.

Is Louisiana State Troopers Association poised to shell out bigtime legal fees and/or settlement money in Braxton v. LSTA et. al.?

 

A photo taken on or around March 9, 2021 of a stack of depositions taken in the defamation civil trial of Braxton v. Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) et. al.  Since then, the litigation documentation and filings have mushroomed extensively.

We first began coverage of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) in January of 2017 after being encouraged to do so because of that agency’s placing of an item on its agenda openly questioning whether the employment of its then-Executive Director, Cathy Derbonne, should be continued.

We didn’t know anybody at all on the LSPC and had very little knowledge of LSP’s operations in general.  Obviously, it’s a vastly different story today!

While the Derbonne agenda item was certainly noteworthy, particularly for the manner in which that matter was handled at the meeting, we were actually more intrigued by one then-LSPC Member in particular:  Calvin Braxton.

Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns didn’t know Braxton from Adam at the time, but that would certainly change dramatically over the ensuing years.

At the meeting after Derbonne’s agenda item was considered, February 9, 2017, Braxton vented about being left out of the loop on LSPC affairs, and he made his sentiments known as only Calvin Braxton can do!  Let’s take a look:

2/9/17:  Then-LSPC Member Calvin Braxton vents to then-LSPC Chairman, T. J. Doss, and his other colleagues about being left out of the loop entailing LSPC matters.

At the tail end of the video above, Braxton stresses that, “I spoke my peace!  I’m not quitting!  I’m not getting off this Board!”

What Braxton was clearly unaware of was the fact that, even as he spoke those words, the LSTA had been actively attempting to have Braxton removed from the LSPC for close to a year.

It wasn’t long before Braxton was indeed off the LSPC, and the circumstances surrounding his unceremonious departure could not have been any more bizarre.

To best illustrate that point, let’s republish two more videos (actually three with the first two being consolidated into one) wherein major television stations reported upon Braxton’s unceremonious exit from the LSPC, the bizarre circumstances surrounding same, and a subsequent lawsuit filed by Braxton a year later against the LSTA.  Those broadcasts gave credit to Sound Off Louisiana video for coverage of an LSPC meeting.  Here are the videos:


July 17, 2017 features of Fox 8’s Lee Zurik and WWL’s Katie Moore as they related to what Braxton asserts are defamatory statements made about him initiated by the LSTA and Jay Oliphant.


WWL-TV in New Orleans airs this May 17, 2018 feature on Braxton’s defamation lawsuit against the LSTA and Jay Oliphant.

After those broadcasts, the mainstream media understandably lost interest in the matter.  We say “understandably” because next comes the long, drawn-out minutia of conducting discovery, and that process is unlikely to generate much interest on the part of the general public.

Nevertheless, we like to periodically provide updates to matters such as Braxton’s just as we did with LSP whistleblower Carl Cavalier until everything is clearly resolved.  In that context, we presented this March 9, 2021 highly-detailed update on Braxton’s matter.

Now, as the litigation progressed, LSP itself was added as a Defendant once Braxton uncovered the fact that then-Lt. Col. Jay Oliphant, who allegedly (we use that word for a reason, which will become more clear momentarily) authored the incident report, sought to have Braxton investigated for murder.

The end result of LSP being added as a Defendant was that, as we have previously reported entailing Billy Broussard providing attorney Eric Haik with “remedial training” on LA CCP Article 971, LSP, acting through attorney Ben Mayeux, obtained this judgment awarding LSP $50,376.25 from Braxton.  Braxton appealed the award to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s decision.  From the Third Circuit’s January 31, 2024 ruling:

…..the judgment of the trial court awarding the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections (Office of LSP), $50,376.25 in attorney fees for its successful La.Code Civ.P. art. 971 Special Motion to Strike is affirmed. The judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Colonel Jay Oliphant on the issue of his March 2, 2018 Incident Report is further affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed to Calvin W. Braxton, Sr.

Today, what we’re doing is providing an update on Braxton’s litigation since, if the stars line up (and that’s a big “if”), the matter is scheduled to be tried in June or July.

Let us first direct our visitors’ attention to the 1:15 – 1:30 mark of the final video above and present the dialogue between Braxton’s attorney, Jill Craft, and WWL reporter Katie Moore:

Craft:  “This report is authored and generated six-and-a-half months later, and we understand was generated at the behest of the State Trooper Association.”

Moore:  “Do ya’ll have any proof of that?”

Craft:  “We’ll have to see, now won’t we?”

That’s the whole purpose of discovery in litigation is to find answers to both Moore and Craft’s questions, and there has been an absolute plethora of discovery conducted in the Braxton matter.

In that regard, there really shouldn’t be any “Perry Mason moments” in a trial as both sides become keenly aware of each side’s strengths and weaknesses as a trial nears.  That fact also goes a long way in determining whether an amicable settlement may be reached without the need for a trial even commencing.

Though LSP is seeking a formal hearing for Braxton to be taxed with its litigation expenses as noted above, LSP is essentially out of the litigation.

Further, former Lt. Col. Jay Oliphant, while still technically in, is, for all intents and purposes, out because his attorneys have successfully argued that, since he was clearly acting in his capacity as an LSP Trooper (i.e. law enforcement capacity) when he sought an investigation of Braxton, he is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.

So, for all intents and purposes, the LSTA is the lone remaining Defendant in the litigation.  Recall our dialogue between Craft and Moore above.  Let’s illustrate the apparently evolving answer to Moore’s question of, “Do ya’ll have any proof of that?” as we present highlights from this October 4, 2024 Opposition Memorandum Braxton filed entailing LSTA’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer to Braxton’s original lawsuit:

Defendant now….seeks to add two (2) new affirmative defenses: I) that its 2017 publication was “privileged”, and 2) that it “believed” the statements in the defamatory publication were true.

In this case, the parties took over twenty-four (24) depositions, exchanged several series of written discovery, and have engaged in what is best described as heavy litigation.

In the depositions of Young, Doss, O’Quinn, and Hyatt, each testified the incident report of Oliphant was specifically made an “incident report” in order that the LSTA could then obtain it via a Public Records request and use it against Mr. Braxton. Oliphant acknowledged that he was originally approached by the LSTA for him to “testify” or give an Affidavit against Mr. Braxton in order for LSTA to secure Mr. Braxton’s removal from the State Police Commission. Then LSTA Executive Director, David Young, testified he personally asked Oliphant to prepare a report so he could “carry it forward” (and disseminate the allegations against Mr. Braxton). Young also testified Oliphant did not create the contents of the June 19, 2017, letter or the incorporated and republished July 11, 2016, document. This was, according to Young, something LSTA did on its own and the motivation was to remove Mr. Braxton from the State Police Commission. For his part, LSTA Statewide President and LSP Trooper O’Quinn testified, “we [LSTA] were waiting for the incident report to be entered into the Department records so we could do a public records request.” When questioned in his deposition about the notes made by defendant Oliphant, attached as Deposition Exhibit 14 and about which Oliphant testified extensively, O’Quinn, quoting Oliphant at line 1278 of Oliphant’s own notes, recounted, “[T]he information above [i.e., Oliphant’s report] is supposed to be used in order to facilitate Calvin Braxton’s removal from the LSP Commission.” When asked about the purpose of the June 19, 2017, letter which specifically included and republished the original July 11, 2016, predecessor, O’Quinn testified the purpose of the letter was to remove Mr. Braxton from the LSP Commission. O’Quinn testified the defamatory publication was made because “we [LSTA] can’t remove him on our own.”

Is it just us, or does it appear to others that the answer to WWL reporter Moore’s question of, “Do ya’ll have any proof of that (entailing whether the incident report was produced at the behest of the LSTA)?” would now be a resounding, “Yes, ma’am.  We have that proof!”?

Again, from Braxton’s filing:

The June 19, 2017, letter, with its attachments9was published by LSTA to Governor Edwards and to Taylor Townsend, Lenore Feeney, and to Jay O’Quinn. This is evident from the face of the defamatory publication (which was also attached to Mr. Braxton’s Petition and made part thereof). It is not, as defendant LSTA asserts in its newly minted affirmative defense, a statement made only “to a government official, namely the Governor of Louisiana.” Instead, the defamatory 2017 publication was not to the “proper parties” “only”.

Although scant, defendant LSTA in its “Motion for Leave of Court to File First Supplemental Answer with Incorporated Memorandum”, offers only that “other defendants” have asserted conditional privilege as an affirmative defense clearly implying a “me too” argument. The problem, however, is that the LSTA is not the Louisiana State Police or Mr. Oliphant, who, in accord with Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 2005-1418935 So.2d 669 (La. 7/10/06), were afforded privilege because they were the ones preparing the reports which were (as defined by this Court) part of the duties of their law enforcement jobs. The LSTA is not a law enforcement agency. The LSTA is a union-like, private association.

In the LSTA representatives’ testimony, the impetus for the publication was the removal of Mr. Braxton. This is not a “duty” possessed by the LSTA nor is it a “proper occasion.” (On comparison, the defamatory publication was not even in conjunction with the actual discipline of any officer before the Commission or otherwise deserving of a testamentary privilege accorded witnesses in judicial proceedings.) Likewise, it is undisputed the imprimatur for the LSTA’s communication on June 19, 2017, was the removal of Mr. Braxton – even more than 18 months after the alleged encounter (which is hotly disputed by Mr. Braxton) in December, 2015. Neither Ms. Feeney nor Mr. Townsend possess any role – potential or otherwise – which ever could be envisaged as involved in the removal of Mr. Braxton from the Commission. At best, Ms. Feeney was a lawyer for the Commission who was utterly powerless to do anything vis-a-vis Mr. Braxton. Mr. Townsend was private counsel who had been retained by the then Executive Director of the Commission (who herself was forced out) to create a report on illegalities brought to light by Mr. Braxton. He, like Ms. Feeney, has no possible role or even ability to remove Mr. Braxton, much less, take any action against him. Clearly, neither Ms. Feeney nor Mr. Townsend were “persons having an interest in and a duty to receive such communications.” The subject communications are not privileged as a matter of law and the affirmative defense must be denied.

Defendant LSTA now attempts to assert an affirmative defense of “truth”, but in reality, adds that its mere “belief’ what it said was “true”, is enough. However, “truth” as an “absolute defense” to a defamation claim does not mean someone’s “belief.” Instead, the proper defense of truth arises from the first element of a defamation claim, i.e., a false and defamatory statement concerning another. This is an element of Mr. Braxton’s burden of proof. If Mr. Braxton fails to prove the statements by LSTA in its June 19, 2017, publication were false and defamatory, his claim fails. There is no circumstance under which if defendant LSTA merely “believed” what it said in the defamatory publication was “true” then it escapes liability. This is not a situation wherein LSTA simply sent a copy of a police report to someone. Instead, LSTA inserted its own false words that Mr. Braxton “abused” power, “intimidated” an officer, engaged in “corrupt practices”, “abused his office”. These words are nowhere found in the incident report and are the publications of this defendant.

While “truth” may be a defense to a defamation claim, one’s “belief’ that what he/she said is not. For this reason, the proposed affirmative defense, as written, should be rejected.

LSTA is also trying to assert that it is immune from liability as a result of its contention that Braxton was a “public figure,” and therefore that Braxton must prove actual malice on the part of the LSTA to prevail.

In our opinion, even with Braxton being a public figure, our extensive observations are that the LSTA does in fact have “actual malice” toward anyone, and we do mean anyone, who tries to stand in the way of the organization’s ability to make political contributions to legislators whom they seek to court to curry favor entailing legislation that would benefit the organization’s members.

After all, though the mainstream media has refrained from publishing the first word about it, as we have extensively reported, the LSTA is suing the LSPC (and Executive Director Jason Hannaman) over that very issue.

Speaking of that issue, we’ve been informed that the First Circuit Court of Appeals has entertained oral arguments not once, but twice, entailing LSTA’s appeal of LSPC’s successful defense of that litigation.

It’s also our understanding that the second set of oral arguments was heard before a panel of judges for which the composition differed from the one that the first oral arguments were presented the first time around.

We’ve consulted with several veteran attorneys in Louisiana, and they have all assessed that fact as, “highly suspect” and something they’d never heard of in their legal careers.

Whatever the case, the First Circuit is certainly taking its sweet time to render a decision on the matter as the second set of oral arguments was conducted on or around early April of 2024, yet there has been no ruling on the matter.

Getting back to Braxton, as we stated, current plans are for his case to be litigated in June or July; however, despite the fact that 24 depositions have already been taken, Braxton is seeking to take three more between now and the trial:  former Lt. Col. Kenny Van Buren, former Col. Lamar Davis, and current Lt. Col. Treone Williams-Larvadain.  Those depositions should be quite interesting in our opinion.

We’ll have to see how Braxton’s litigation ultimately unfolds but, perhaps expecting the LSTA may be held liable for damages, LSTA Attorney Floyd Falcon made a recent filing that CPA and Tulane Business Professor John R. Page may be called upon by the Defense to provide expert witness testimony on the matter of damages.  Page provides this page on his website indicating that, as of 2018, his fee for services is $275/hour.

Should this matter actually end up going to trial, with a two-week allotment already provided for by the court, the final litigation costs to LSTA could become extremely high (not to mention any potential jury award).

Perhaps the LSTA, in its haste to get Braxton off the LSPC, may not have realized that his wealth would enable him to not be forced to just roll over and take its attack against him.

After all, when we first reported upon Braxton’s lawsuit on May 15, 2018, Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns stated on the video of that feature that, even based on his limited exposure to Braxton in early 2017, “He did not strike me as someone who would just go quietly in the night.”  We would submit that the past seven years have proven Burns’ observation to be spot on!

 

On heels of $156,603 in legal fees fighting hair braiding litigation, Cosmetology Board, after being “advised” that “it’s in our best interest,” does 180, opts into AG program after first opting out citing its $121,000 cost.

Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) Chairman, Jennifer Reed, prepares to explain to her colleagues that “upon legal guidance” it is “in our best interest” to join the Louisiana Attorney General’s Occupational Licensing Review Program (OLRP).  Reed made her commentary at the LSBC meeting of Monday, January 13, 2025.

Today (Thursday, January 16, 2025), we’re beginning a series on the LSBC, on which we have extensively reported in the past.  Our most recent post was on December 8, 2024, and it entailed the LSBC’s celebration of its courtroom victory over hair braiders trying to practice in Louisiana with no “alternative hair permit.”

The permit requires 500 hours of classroom instruction, and only about 36 people in the entire State of Louisiana hold such a permit with all other hair braiders technically practicing illegally.

Mississippi, by contrast, requires a mere annual registration and the completing of a brief questionnaire on sanitation to legally practice hair braiding in that state.

Needless to say, that minimal requirement has resulted in 6,700 registered hair braiders (as of 2022) in Mississippi according to Empower Mississippi.

In contrast to Louisiana, which forces its hair braiders to work out of garages and stay on the down low and thereby be forced to avoid paying taxes on their technically-illegal work, Mississippi hair braiders are free to be out in the open, advertise their services, and proudly pay taxes to the State of Mississippi as citizens who can boast openly about the quality of their work in their chosen profession.

Louisiana, meanwhile, forces its hair braiders to feel like nothing short of criminals and, make no mistake, the LSBC can and will fine them if they’re caught practicing without the permit requiring 500 hours of classroom instruction.  We have videotaped them assessing such fines!

As outlined in our prior feature linked above, Ms. Anisia Parks, who owns Headliners NOLA, and who faithfully attends LSBC meetings and voices any concerns she may have, has stated that Louisiana’s permit requirement, with her emphasis on a “lack of enforcement” thereof, causes many hair braiders to, “work underground or leave for Mississippi or leave for Texas.”

While the LSBC did prevail against the Institute for Justice’s (IJ’s) litigation against it, the cost of victory was not cheap!  Once the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to accept IJ’s Writ Application (meaning the litigation was over) and the period for reconsideration was up, we made public records requests for all legal invoices pertaining to that litigation.

We recently obtained all of those invoices, and the LSBC spent a total (with court costs, which are relatively minor but which can be recovered from IJ since LSBC prevailed) of $156,603.18 fending off IJ’s litigation.

Some folk have contended that IJ may have prevailed had it been willing to fully conform with Louisiana’s Right to Earn a Living Act, which became effective on August 1, 2022, which was just over three (3) years after IJ filed its litigation against the LSBC.

Instead, IJ opted to merely continue on with its litigation founded upon the relatively straightforward contention that the LSBC was violating Louisiana’s Constitution in erecting excessive and onerous regulation which infringes upon Louisiana citizens’ ability to earn a living free of same.

The “game changer” for occupational licensing across the United States is this landmark decision by the U. S. Supreme Court in the North Carolina Board of Dentistry v. the FTC.  From that U. S. Supreme Court decision:

State-action antitrust immunity does not apply to a state board that places restraints on an occupation when a majority of its decision-makers, elected by others in the occupation, are active market participants in the occupation and the state does not actively supervise the board nor has the board acted pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy.

What the above wording means essentially is that Louisiana’s occupational licensing Boards and Commissions cannot act in the renegade, “we’re the only Sheriffs in this town, and you do what we say or else” mentality that has been so prevalent among many of those agencies.

Further, the downside to engaging in such mentality, especially when combined with acts which reflect that mentality (of which we’ve historically noted no shortage of on the part of LSBC Members), may open up individual Board and Commission members to personal liability.

Perhaps as a result of such concerns, the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office formed the Louisiana Occupational Licensing Review Program (OLRP).

Longer-term visitors to our blog may recall our coverage of the program when we dropped in on the fine folks at the Louisiana State Board of Veterinarian Medicine on April 6, 2023, and we filmed Joe Donahue (of the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office) explaining the program in great detail to the Board.  Perhaps knowing they were facing imminent litigation by the Pelican Institute on behalf of two veterinarians, that Board wasted no time enrolling in the program.

We would note that the Pelican Institute’s lead attorney, Sarah Harbison, has been attending LSBC meetings now for about five months.  We’ll provide more insight on her presence in future installments of this series.

For now, bear in mind that the Veterinarian Board considered the AG’s program on April 6, 2023.  The AG’s Office had set a deadline for enrollment of December 31, 2024; however, it also allowed for the LSBC to opt to enroll at its regularly-scheduled meeting of January 6, 2025.  That opportunity was rebuffed in rather dramatic and authoritative fashion, particularly by LSBC Executive Director Steve Young, at that meeting.

Here is the full, unedited video of the LSBC considering the proposal and all of the reasons they provided for not desiring to participate in the program:

January 6, 2025 discussion of the AG’s OLRP and its reasons for resoundingly and unanimously rejecting the AG’s invitation to enroll even after the 12/31/24 deadline.

In the above video, one LSBC member, Michael Anderson of Shreveport, read the AG’s material and noted the fact that declining to be in the program could open the Members up to personal liability.

We can only assume that his concerns resulted in post-meeting discussions.  Those discussions, in turn, prompted the LSBC to send out notice of a “Special Call Meeting” only one week after the above meeting.  That notice went out on Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.

The meeting was brief but certainly noteworthy as Chairman Jennifer Reed (of Eunice) indicated that, “based on guidance we’ve obtained and us being told, ‘it’s in the best interest of our Board, both as a Board and individually, to be legally-protected by this program,’ so basically is the reason for that is why we’re here today.”  Let’s again take a look at the full, unedited video of the entire meeting:

January 13, 2025 LSBC meeting in its entirety focusing solely and exclusively upon whether to reverse course and enroll in the AG’s OLRP.

As noted in the above video, the cost of enrollment (for 18 months) is approximately $121,000, which LSBC Executive Director Steve Young indicates will create such a hardship that the Board will need to make installment payments and that, by enrolling, “I will have to let a couple of people go.”

Perhaps it’s noteworthy that the LSBC had no qualms whatsoever expending $156,603.18 fighting hair braiders ability to make a living, with nobody even bringing up the cost of the litigation nor any hardship created by expending those funds, yet all of a sudden there’s deep anxiety over expending an amount $35,000 less than that for enrolling in the AG program.

Is that not incredible?  After all, nobody on the LSBC gave a flying flip when Wadvisha Chavis had to close her hair braiding salon as the LSBC mandated she have a licensed cosmetologist on premises.  Nobody cared about the “hardship” that imposed upon her or the six kids she admitted struggling to raise with her hair braiding operations helping significantly in that regard, but, boy, once a couple of bureaucrats may face possible job losses, it’s a full-blown crisis!

We believe that any individuals who may be let go by Young, and we’re not even sure of his ability to do that given that only he and Assistant Director Tisha Butler are unclassified employees of the Board, can tout to any prospective private-sector employer that one of their biggest career accomplishments was keeping Louisiana hair braiders from earning a living.  We’d like to see the reaction of any private company to whom the bureaucrats may apply upon them making such a touting of the accomplishment as part of the job hiring process!

This feature is the first installment of several which we will produce leading up to the 2025 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature.

Gov. Landry is graded as an “A” on the subject of tax reform, and we’ve certainly uttered his praises in that regard.

On the subject of occupational licensing reform, however, Gov. Landry’s grade is a “D-.”

Quite frankly, it would be an “F” were it not for the fact that, mere weeks before the 2024 Legislative Session, in front of a crowd of approximately 300 folk in attendance at the Pelican Institute’s Solution Summit, he committed to reducing and eliminating occupational licensing barriers that are oppressing lower-income Louisiana residents’ ability to earn a living.

Despite his public statement, when the 2024 Legislative Session actually convened, Landry, along with House Speaker Phillip DeVillier, and House Speaker Pro Tempore Mike Johnson, actively lobbied to kill Rep. Lauren Ventrella’s bill to do just like Texas has done and reduce the number of hours required for a cosmetology license from 1,500 to 1,000.

Just as we praised Landry for his tax reform initiatives, we didn’t hold back in lambasting Landry, Johnson, and others who actively lobbied to kill Ventrella’s bill.

We expect better of Gov. Landry in the 2025 Legislative Session entailing cosmetology-related bills that we can assure everyone will be filed in the days leading up to that April 14, 2025 Session.

It’s on Landry to see if he can raise his Occupational Licensing grade above its present “D-.”  After all, it really sticks out like a sore thumb when contrasted with his “A” grade on tax reform!