Murphy Painter, accompanied by his mother holding his right arm, emerges from Federal Court in Baton Rouge, Louisiana victorious via total acquittal on all charges against him on December 20, 2013.
In this sixth installment of our fascinating series of interviews with Murphy Painter, former Alcohol and Tobacco Control Commissioner under three governors (Mike Foster, Kathleen Blanco, and Bobby Jindal), Painter places a bright spotlight on the actual trial he faced in December of 2013 and illuminates what he alleges (with the strong evidence to back up his allegation) was an absolute farce of a trail based on fabricated “evidence” created by former investigators at the Louisiana Office of Inspector General Stephen Street’s office:
Installment 6 of Sound Off Louisiana’s in-depth interviews with former Louisiana Alcohol and Tobacco Control Commissioner Murphy Painter.
It was the complete farce that Burns witnessed at this Federal trial which largely provided the impetus and motivation for Burns to form the blog Sound Off Louisiana.
We’re certainly very sorry that Mr. Painter had to endure the travesty that was an absolute mockery of our justice system for him to have ever even faced the totally-politically-motivated charges the way he did. Nevertheless, to the extent that Sound Off Louisiana has been able to shed light on the frustrations of so many Louisiana citizens entailing state and local governmental operations and their associated corruption that is beyond almost anyone’s capacity to comprehend, hopefully at least some good may have come about from his incredible ordeal!
We look forward to delivering Episode 7 in the near future.
Previous Segments of Our Interviews with Murphy Painter:
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops). Supply your email address within the subscribe box. You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.
Excerpt from the May, 2021 invoice submitted by the law firm Gold Weems clearly indicating that SMPG and Chester Cedars contemplated filing for injunctive relief against Lafayette Consolidated Government entailing the intent to remove spoil banks along the Vermillion River.
We have stressed several times entailing features that we’ve done on the St. Martin Parish Government that we were encouraged by a few attorneys and some citizens of St. Martin Parish to create this webpage of SMPG legal fees.
The cat is now somewhat out of the bag about who all may have wanted to have ready access to the legal fees and view them anonymously, but we’re now prepared to, at least partially, reveal the motivation behind obtaining these legal invoices and making them so readily available to the public.
At the March 15, 2022 SMPG specially-called Council meeting to deal with what Parish President Chester Cedars asserts is the improper removal of spoil banks along the Vermillion River, Cedars portrayed that he was essentially blindsided by that removal action by the Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG). Given Cedars’ contention, we find it interesting to review the invoices submitted in 2021 by the Alexandria-based law firm of Gold Weems to handle the LCG spoil bank removals. Let’s take a moment to highlight a few of the charges submitted to SMPG and the nature of those charges at this time (all charges through October 31, 2021 are readily assessable by clicking here):
Professional Fees
Rate Hours
05/26/2021 Michael J. OShee. Meet with Chester Cedars and Kasey Courville RE proposed Lafayette Project; prepare meeting notes.
200.00 2.30
05/26/2021 Michael J. OShee
200.00
0.80
Review drainage project materials; work on outline and basis forparish injunction.
05/26/2021 Michael J. OShee
200.00
1.20
Examine injunction caselaw RE prevention of acts in violation of law; examine servitude issues and injunction.
05/26/2021
Steven M. Oxenhandler
200.00
1.00
Met with Chester Cedars, St. Martin Parish President, and Kasey Couville, PW Director, about LCG’s proposal to remove spoil banks in St. Martin Parish and legal avenues to prevent the proposal.
05/27/2021 Michael J. OShee
200.00
1.50
Examine case law, civil code provisions and statutes RE public things, public use RE navigable rivers and banks of navigable water bodies.
05/27/2021 Michael J. OShee
200.00
2.40
Work on opposition to Lafayette project; draft arguments and legal theories.
So, it looks like SMPG gave some serious consideration to seeking injunctive relief against LCG. We can only speculate as to why they ultimately opted not to do so. One theory, however, is that, for the LCG matter, SMPG has retained a big-time law firm with approximately 27 attorneys on staff. Cedars and company knew the law firm they would be up against in challenging any such injunctive relief, and perhaps Gold Weems ultimately gave the guidance that any injunctive relief may be declared illegal, thus exposing SMPG to LCG’s legal fees.
In sharp contrast, in the Billy Broussard litigation [where SMPG did not hesitate to file Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against Broussard], perhaps it was doubted Broussard had even retained legal counsel to deal with Cedars and that, further, the Durio Law Firm didn’t assess the filing of any such TROs as even potentially being illegal. Being blunt, we believe Cedars and/or Durio committed a serious error in failing to recognize the potential illegality of those TROs.
If it turns out those Broussard TROs are deemed by a court to be illegal (and we’ve certainly been advised that is a very likely outcome of SMPG v. Billy Broussard), we assume SMPG taxpayers will just have to “take it on the chin” and end up “eating” both parties’ legal fees in the matter.
At any rate, the mere fact that the injunctive relief was even contemplated seriously by SMPG, at least in our opinion, would seem to call into question the degree to which SMPG President Cedars was truly “blindsided” by LCG’s action!
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops). Supply your email address within the subscribe box. You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.
Chester Cedars, Parish President of St. Martin Parish, who got approval from the St. Martin Parish Council on Tuesday, March 15, 2022 to sue Lafayette Consolidated Government over its act of spoil bank removals along the Vermillion River, instead finds himself on the receiving end of a lawsuit from Lafayette Consolidated Government.
Yesterday (Wednesday, March 23, 2022) LCG filed this petition in 15th JDC in Lafayette. Let’s take a look at a few highlights, shall we?:
Some of the disregarded sediment/dredging material or “spoils” was left on the St. Martin Parish side of the Vermilion Bayou over 100 feet from the bank. The spoil was incorrectly, and unintentionally, left in that location. Over the ensuing years, this caused the formation of a spoil bank that partially impeded the natural flow of water from the Vermilion Bayou into and out of the Cypress Island Swamp.
The unintentional formation of this spoil bank impeded the flow of the Vermilion Bayou into the Cypress Island Swamp. Previously, flood water could easily flow from the Vermilion Bayou into the Cypress Island Swamp, and from the Cypress Island Swamp into the Vermilion Bayou, thereby assisting with flood prevention in both Lafayette and St. Martin Parish.
After the historic 2016 flood, the Corps and the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL) conducted a study on effective flood prevention measures. The study concluded the most important measure to reduce flooding in this region was to increase floodwater storage and watershed retention capacity.
In order to protect its residents, and assist flooding prevention efforts in the entire region, Lafayette Parish set out to implement projects consistent with the findings of the study, including the construction of numerous detention ponds.
Lafayette Parish also turned its attention back to the recommendation from the “Flood Control Reconnaissance Study” conducted by the Corps in 1995, which fell perfectly in line with the more recent conclusions of the Corps/ULL study. If the height of a portion of the unintentionally created spoil bank in St. Martin Parish was reduced, free exchange of the stormwater into and out of the Cypress Island Swamp could be restored and the Cypress Island Swamp could be returned to a natural retention area for floodwaters. This would significantly reduce flooding in Lafayette with no harm to St. Martin Parish. In fact, there would be a direct benefit to St. Martin Parish with a reduction of stormwater volume and with the timing of stormwater recession.
St. Martin Parish was not satisfied. The St. Martin Parish President demanded to see “much more data.”
Although the project had been proposed in 1995 by the Corps and its value was subsequently confirmed by ULL, the St. Martin Parish President believed more time and studies were needed to determine whether it should be implemented. Apparently, a quarter of a century was not enough time.
Residents of Lafayette Parish, however, could not afford to wait another quarter of a century hoping that the St. Martin Parish President would one day be satisfied.
Lafayette Parish complied with all requirements and obtained all the information needed to apply to the Corps for a permit for the spoil bank project. Accordingly, Lafayette Parish applied for a permit.
St. Martin Parish then filed an objection to the permit, apparently, without ever seeing the models upon which the permit application was based and without providing a copy of its objection or even notifying Lafayette Parish. The St. Martin Parish President proudly shared that he actually vetted the objection himself, despite having no formal background in the area.
Lafayette Parish tried to work with the St. Martin Parish President to appease his concerns. The Parishes had multiple meetings, and Lafayette Parish shared its data. The data showed no harm to St. Martin Parish and benefits to the entire region. But the St. Martin Parish President could not be appeased. He demanded more time and more studies.
Lafayette Parish, however, was not obligated to wait for the St. Martin Parish President’s approval. Accordingly, it pressed forward with the spoil bank project. It conducted further analysis and revised the project so that it would achieve similar benefits but would no longer fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps.
The revised proposal did not require a permit from the Corps. It did not disturb any nearby wetlands and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps.
Approximately a year ago, without any warning or notice to Lafayette Parish, and apparently desperate to find a way to prevent this beneficial flood prevention project from proceeding, St. Martin Parish enacted Ordinance Sec.14-71 (No. 21-07-1327-OR). The Ordinance specifically targeted Lafayette Parish. It attempted to prevent Lafayette Parish from removing dirt from its own property without first obtaining the approval of St. Martin Parish. This ordinance was clearly unconstitutional and not enforceable.
In February of 2022, Lafayette Parish finally executed on this spoil bank project, which had been in the works for over twenty-five years, and completed it in less than twenty-four hours.
While this should have been a moment of celebration, as Lafayette Parish had finally completed a project that could provide flood relief to thousands of vulnerable residents and benefit the entire region, it was instead sullied with a roughly thirty-minute screed from the St. Martin Parish President.
The St. Martin Parish President threatened to sue every person, firm, or entity involved in the spoil bank project, including but not limited to LCG officials. The St. Martin President also demanded investigations from Congress and every agency he could think to name.
Lastly, the St. Martin Parish President insisted that Lafayette Parish violated the Corps regulations by not obtaining a permit, ignoring that a permit was not necessary for the revised proposal that was implemented.
Lafayette Parish has seen the pace at which St. Martin Parish and the St. Martin Parish President operate. It does not want to wait a quarter of a century for it to be made clear that Lafayette Parish has no liability as it complied with all lawful regulations, ordinances, rules, procedures and laws with the spoil bank project.
Lafayette Parish firmly contends this spoil bank project did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps and thus Lafayette Parish was not required to obtain a permit. St. Martin Parish, however, is threatening liability claiming such a permit was necessary. Accordingly, Lafayette Parish also seeks a declaration that its spoil bank project did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps and did not require a permit, and as such is required to name the Corps as a party to this action.
All we can reiterate is that, as we stated in the feature linked above, a courtroom won’t be like a sermon (or to quote Adley “screed”) being delivered by Cedars.
We’ll also note some of the striking similarities of the above excerpts from the lawsuit filed late yesterday with the matter entailing Billy Broussard, to wit:
“Crusade to harass Broussard” (direct quote by Adley in Broussard Pre-Trial Memorandum).
Ordinance passed by SMPG Council “unconstitutional and unenforceable.” Also, “targeted” at LCG. (EXACTLY as asserted in the Broussard litigation and, in fact, both ordinances were passed within mere days of one another).
Cedars not negotiating in good faith (which we’ve observed to be a HUGE understatement in the matter entailing Broussard).
We will certainly mark our calendars for any court hearing for this litigation (though we know other media outlets will as well) the same way we’ve marked our calendar for May 3, 2022 for the Broussard litigation.
Love him or hate him, St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars sure does seem to enjoy making some lawyers quite wealthy with all of the litigation that he either initiates (Broussard) or directly causes to be initiated (LCG).
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops). Supply your email address within the subscribe box. You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.
