Billy Broussard cites SMPG President Cedars’ suit against Trevis Helaire as evidence hauling ordinance specifically targeted at Broussard; calls on “someone with vision” to lead St. Martin Parish out of its “dictatorship” under Cedars.

Farmer Billy Broussard discusses four (4) issues he believes are crucial entailing his 33-acre farm on Duchamp Road in Broussard, Louisiana.  In this first installment, he counters St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars’ argument that an ordinance prohibiting the hauling of vegetative materials into St. Martin Parish from outside of the Parish was not targeted specifically at him.

On Friday, July 29, 2022, farmer Billy Broussard called us and stated, “I’ve got a few things I need to get off my chest.”  He’d been telling us various observations he’s been making since the point that he sued the Daily Iberian for libel.

He asked if he could come over and “do a Sound Off feature” to state his observations and concerns, particularly as it regards St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars.  We told him that was exactly why the blog Sound Off Louisiana was formed in the first place, and we invited him to come right on over.  By the time he was done, we realized we’d need to segment all he had to say into four (4) distinct features as he covered a ton of ground.

Today is installment one wherein Broussard directly refutes the claim that Cedars makes that the ordinance prohibiting hauling in vegetative materials into St. Martin Parish was, “not targeted at Mr. Broussard.”  He further called for someone with “vision” to run for SMPG Parish President in 2023 in order to free the Parish from the “dictatorship” it’s presently under with Cedars at the helm.  Let’s take a look:

Broussard cites the case of SMPG v. Trevis Helaire (for which SMPG sent a C & D letter on 6/18/21, three days after Broussard’s 6/15/21 C & D letter and for which SMPG sued Helaire on 7/28/21, five days PRIOR TO enacting the ordinance, yet for Broussard, suit was not filed until 8/19/21, four days AFTER the ordinance became effective).

In the video, we said we’d reproduce the video which is applicable for the Trevis Helaire property, which Cedars references in the above video.  Here it is:

Armond Joseph Road property right next to Poche Bridge in St. Martin Parish.  That’s the property on which Trevis Helaire was sued on 7/28/21, which Broussard stresses was BEFORE the ordinance taking effect on 8/15/21.

We want to make it clear that Parish President Cedars indicated that three of the four properties he discussed entailed burning (meaning the fourth property did not).  He made that very clear at the July 20, 2021 SMPG Council meeting.  Here’s video of him doing so:

July 20, 2021 SMPG Council meeting, during which Parish President Cedars makes it clear that “two of the three” complaints on properties (Armond Joseph Road, Division Road, and Duchamp Road) received during the week of June 15 – June 18, 2021 entailed “burning.”  He then indicated that a fourth property was also identified that also entailed burning.  NOTE:  Cedars SPECIFICALLY identifies the two properties (of the three entailing complaints the week of June 15-18) that were burning!!  He specifically states that the properties burning were Armond Joseph Road and Division Road.  Hence, it would seem incomprehensible that The Daily Iberian would nevertheless print on FOUR occasions in one article that Broussard was engaging in “burning activities” at his Duchamp Road property.

Now, also in the first video above, we said we’d reproduce the interrogation Cedars made of Broussard entailing his hay operations on his farm.  Here’s that material:

Now, since we’ve increased our subscribership substantially since we first began covering Broussard’s 33-acre property, we feel it would be appropriate at this time to replicate a portion of our very first feature on his property since:  #1) back then, Broussard had no idea he’d ALREADY been sued as he gave a video tour of the property and, #2) more people have been pulled into direct involvement entailing the property (whether they wanted to or not).

We think it provides an interesting contrast to the Helaire property above and the Division Road property, which was another of the “nuisance” properties (which nobody would even dispute constituted a nuisance) entailing hauling in of old batteries, tires, etc.  Here’s the replication of that feature so folk who are so inclined can get an up-close examination of Broussard’s farm:

Let’s take a few minutes to permit Broussard to provide a tour of his farm and describe the encounter his driver had with Lopez on the afternoon of Monday, June 14, 2021:

Farmer Billy Broussard provides a guided tour of his farm and describes the encounter one of his drivers allegedly had with LSP on the afternoon of Monday, June 14, 2021 [Note:  The video tour was conducted in late August of 2021, only mere days after he’d been sued via a Temporary Restraining Order by SMPG Parish President Chester Cedars, though Broussard had no knowledge he’d been sued as he gave this video tour of his property.]

….a few relevant pictures and a couple of very brief videos which we believe are beneficial to augment Broussard’s tour video above:

 Three-minute aerial drone video of Broussard’s farm.

28-second video of a small duckling in a small wooden house Broussard constructed and which has been used as a safe harbor by small ducklings until they age sufficiently to fend off predators in the ponds on the property.

Aerial map of Broussard’s 33-acre farm.

Several employees on Broussard’s family farm pose for a photo sitting atop hay which is about to be loaded onto an older 18-wheeler for storage.

Broussard’s farm shortly after being freshly mowed.

Cut tree pile shortly after Broussard pushed a pile similar to that featured on the video above off into one of the canyons on the 33-acre farm in preparation of making the farm conducive for mushroom farming.

An alligator snoops around for prey in one of the ponds on Broussard’s farm.

Quite a contrast to the Helaire property above, no?  In fact, Broussard told us that he was intrigued to see Wick Communication’s recent tribute to Robert Wick (Broussard recently sued The Daily Iberian, which is controlled by Wick Communications) and his focus on the environment.  From the tribute:

Wick lived, flourished and shared his humanity in a number of worlds. Foremost was his commitment and love for family and to nature. Wick’s monumental bronze sculptures, which are featured in exhibits throughout the U.S., are distinctive: living trees and plants placed inside the bronzes to reflect the flora and strength of Earth and their connection with mankind.

In 1984, Wick was part of a group that sought to reduce copper smelter pollution in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. Groups Against Smelter Pollution (GASP) had a mission of healthy citizenship, preservation of the natural environment and an appreciation of the economic connections between the two countries. There were three smelters in Douglas, Ariz., Cananea, Sonora, and Nacozari, Sonora. Together, the smelters produced the “gray triangle” that blighted the San Pedro Valley and its neighboring communities of Sierra Vista, Bisbee and Douglas. There were many days when the air was stagnant, hazy and residents of those communities couldn’t see the mountains nearby.

Wick planted more than 1,000 seedling trees over a 10-year period on his land in the Mule Mountains near Bisbee.

Broussard indicated to us that, given Robert Wick’s commitment to the environment, he would have thought The Daily Iberian would be supportive of his initiatives to, “go green and repurpose the property” and cultivate conditions most favorable to a prospective mushroom farm and totally eschew any burning activities, which are known to be harmful to the environment.

Broussard found it therefore disheartening that the paper would send out a reporter to, according to Broussard’s litigation, paint a totally false narrative that Broussard engaged in burning activity (activity similar to that of the Helaire above) when the only person even making such a claim at all is the author of the The Daily Iberian article, Dewayne Fatherree.

Finally, Broussard was further disheartened when Fatheree’s editor, Michael Messerly, who’d just arrived in New Iberia from Buffalo, New York at the time of the article’s publication, indicated to Broussard that, “I don’t have time to watch a video,” which Broussard asserted to Messerly would contradict what Fatherree reported in the article.

We can only assume that Wick / Daily Iberian folk will certainly have to invest more than the length of that 38-minute video in dealing with Broussard’s lawsuit now filed against Wick and Fatherree since Messerly didn’t “have time” to watch that video a year ago.

We’ll have installment two of Broussard’s visit with us of last Friday, July 29, 2022, out within a few days or so.

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.

Billy Broussard sues Daily Iberian for “nothing short of journalistic malpractice” in asserting he was burning on his property; claims St. Martin Parish President Cedars refuted any such burning claim in sworn testimony on May 2.

Farmer Billy Broussard emphasizes to the St. Martin Parish Council at its meeting of Tuesday, September 7, 2021 that, contrary to an article by Daily Iberian reporter Dwayne Fatherree published on August 4, 2021, he has not engaged in any “burning” on his 33-acre site on Duchamp Road in Broussard, Louisiana.

On August 3, 2021, the St. Martin Parish Council approved an ordinance making it illegal to haul in vegetative debris into St. Martin Parish for disposal within the Parish.

Farmer Billy Broussard showed up to provide his thoughts on the proposed ordinance.  The next day, August 4, 2021, the Daily Iberian, a New Iberia-based publication owned by the family-run media group Wick Communications, which is based in Sierra Vista, Arizona, published this feature regarding the ordinance’s passage.

On July 22, 2022, Broussard filed this lawsuit against Wick Communications and Dwayne Fatheree, author of the feature alleging libel.  Let’s take a look at a few highlights from the litigation:


            Despite the repeated statements in the meeting that Petitioner was “not burning,” Defendant Fatherree placed in the article referenced in Paragraph 4 that Petitioner was in fact burning on four (4) separate occasions.


            The first instance of Defendant’s false and libelous reporting that Petitioner was burning transpired in the fourth paragraph of the article, to wit:


“Broussard had bought a property in November that he was using to dump and burn material from his business.”

Defendant Fatherree also reported inaccurately when Petitioner bought the property.  It was purchased in September (which Defendant Fatherree later stated correctly subsequently in the same article), not November, and had Defendant paid attention to the details articulated by Parish President Chester Cedars, whom Defendant praised for providing such extensive detail, Defendant would not have reported the wrong month of purchase of the property on the one occasion in the article which he did.


            The second instance of Defendant Fatherree falsely reporting that Petitioner was burning transpired in the very next paragraph of the article, Paragraph 5, to wit:

“Later, when parish officials learned that not only was Broussard burning his own leavings but was also accepting dumps of material from other contractors, the parish began working on an ordinance to prevent the practice overall.”


Not only is it false that Petitioner was burning on his property, but it was also false that Petitioner, “was also accepting dumps of material from other contractors,” and Petitioner made that point crystal clear (just as has been subsequently testified to under oath) at the same meeting attended by and reported upon by Defendant Fatherree that the only other individual permitted to place vegetative materials on Petitioner’s property was Judge Anthony Thibodeaux.  Judge Thibodeaux testified under oath on May 2, 2022 that he hauled in vegetative materials to Petitioner’s property but had never paid “a dime” to Petitioner to do so; furthermore, Judge Thibodeaux testified that it created a “hardship” for him when he lost the ability to haul such material to Petitioner’s site and that he hoped his ability to do so was restored before long.  Petitioner clearly stated at the meeting reported upon by Defendant Fatherree that the only person permitted to haul vegetative materials onto Petitioner’s property was “a judge in this Parish.”  Again, had Defendant Fatherree paid even the slightest attention to detail, such false and libelous reporting on his part would not have transpired.



            The obvious bias of Defendant Fatherree’s article, which, upon information and belief, was nothing short of a hit piece done to appease, and upon information and belief, was drafted in coordination with, St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars, was made abundantly apparent a mere two paragraphs later in the article, Paragraph 7, to wit:

Broussard went well over his five-minute time limit in presenting his defense. When he finished, Parish President Chester Cedars launched into a searing, excruciatingly detailed dismembering of Broussard’s arguments, including a timeline, in many cases down to the minute, of the interactions between Broussard and the parish.”



            While Defendant Fatherree went to such lengths to describe Parish President Chester Cedars’ “searing, excruciatingly detailed dismembering of Broussard’s arguments,” he apparently failed to take note that, of the four properties Cedars discussed at the meeting, Cedars stated, “three of which entailed burning.”


            While Cedars’ presentation made it clear two of the other properties being referenced entailed burning, it apparently never dawned upon Defendant Fatherree to inquire of Cedars (or Petitioner, for that matter) if Petitioner’s property was one of the other two which “entailed burning” or whether his property just might be the one Cedars left the audience to conclude was obviously not burning.  Had Defendant Fatherree made such an inquiry of Petitioner, Petitioner would have told Defendant Fatherree that no burning had transpired on Petitioner’s property.  Furthermore, even Parish President Cedars would have indicated to Defendant Fatherree that he had no reason to believe that Petitioner was burning on his property, which is precisely why President Cedars said, “three (of the four) entailed burning.”  Common sense should have dictated to Defendant Fatherree that one of the four must not entail burning, and it was incumbent upon him to find out if that one property was Petitioner’s property (which it was), and he failed to do so.


             Despite Petitioner going to his vehicle and obtaining a business card to hand to Defendant Fatherree, which he did, in order that Defendant Fatherree could contact him, “if you have any questions” prior to publishing an article, Defendant Fatherree failed to even initiate the simple act of contacting Petitioner and seek any clarification on whether he engaged in burning activities, to which Petitioner would have immediately informed Defendant Fatherree that he was not.


             The next instance of Defendant Fatherree falsely publishing that Petitioner had been burning entailed an outright misstatement of what Parish President Cedars said in the meeting.  Defendant’s blatantly false and libelous statement is contained in Paragraph 9 of the article, to wit:

“Cedars said complaints began arriving after Broussard bought the property in September. He began bringing tree trunks and vegetation to the lot, first to dump, then to burn.”


Not only did Parish President Chester Cedars not state that Petitioner was burning at the meeting covered by Defendant Fatherree, but on May 2, 2022, President Cedars correctly stated under oath that he had “never” stated that Petitioner was burning.  Petitioner again states that Defendant Fatherree’s goal, as evidenced by the replication of his paragraph referenced in Paragraph 12 of this Petition, was to paint Petitioner in the worst possible light in his feature, and he simply divested himself of any obligation whatsoever to report the truth about Petitioner’s activities on his family farm.  In short, he was hell bent and determined to portray Petitioner as actively engaging in burning activity irrespective of the fact that portrayal was completely and utterly false; furthermore, Defendant Fatherree should have known that fact had he paid the slightest attention to the detail that he so eloquently admits that President Cedars provided at the meeting.


            The fourth and final false and libelous instance of Defendant Fatherree reporting that Petitioner was burning occurred in Paragraph 16 of Defendant Fatherree’s article when he printed an outright blatant misquote of Petitioner’s Councilman, Brook Champagne, to wit:

“You are violating the zoning ordinance,” Champagne said. “You are hauling and dumping or burning in a residential area. You have been doing it for a year.”


            As clearly reflected in a videotape of the entire discussion of the Ordinance, what Champagne said was that Petitioner could seek a variance, “since you are not going to burn.”  Petitioner asserts that is the absolute epitome of irresponsible, biased, and slanted “journalism” for Defendant Fatherree to blatantly misquote Champagne to reference, “or burning” in the quote above when that is not what Champagne said!  As clearly reflected by the video, Champagne plainly said that Petitioner was “not” going to “burn.”  The repeated falsehoods printed by Defendant Fatherree entailing false claims that Petitioner was burning is nothing short of journalistic malpractice, and it is that malpractice that forms the core basis of this litigation.


            Defendant’s libelous reporting inflicted incalculable harm to Petitioner.


            Friends and associates approached Petitioner having stated that they’d read the article, to which they were drawn by Petitioner’s picture on prominent display.


            Petitioner had to inform each of those individuals as they contacted Petitioner about the article that the claims that Defendant Fatherree made in the article that Petitioner was burning were all blatantly false.


            When Petitioner contacted Defendant Fatherree’s editor, Michael Messerly, in an attempt to get Defendant’s employer to correct the libelous material referenced in this Petitioner, Messerly stated to Petitioner, “It just looks like ‘he said, she said’ to me.”


            In contrast to Messerly’s assertion that it was a case of “he said, she said,” the only individual even claiming that Petitioner was burning is Defendant Fatherree.  Hence, it is actually a case of “he said, he said,” and the only one doing the “saying” is Defendant Fatherree, and his statements made four times in one article are all blatantly false and libelous.



            When Petitioner stressed that a video of the entirety of the discussion of the Ordinance, which had been published by blogger Robert Burns of Sound Off Louisiana, could be readily provided to Messerly that would readily demonstrate that Defendant Fatherree had falsely reported what was stated in the meeting (including Petitioner stressing on several occasions that he, “has not burned on the property,”) Messerly responded, “I don’t have time to watch a video!”


            Beyond the bad image Defendant Fatherree managed to falsely portray regarding Petitioner and the numerous false and libelous claims made that Petitioner was burning entailing impressions made upon the community at large, Defendant Fatherree, through his false and libelous reporting, also managed to sway the President of the Council, Chris Tauzin, into believing Petitioner simply had to be burning notwithstanding the contents of the meeting and on the video of the meeting.


            On September 4, 2021, Petitioner sent a text to Keith Baudin, a former candidate for the Louisiana House of Representatives in the District in which Petitioner resides, about the whole episode.


            Upon seeing the text Petitioner sent to Buadin, Baudin telephoned St. Martin Parish Council Chairman Chris Tauzin and inquired, “What the heck is going on with Billy Broussard?”


            Baudin informed Petitioner that Tauzin responded, “We told Broussard to stop burning.  He did not stop burning, so we sued him.”


            St. Martin Parish Chairman Tauzin’s statement to Baudin on or about September 4, 2021 demonstrates the fact that a Restraining Order was filed against Petitioner based upon the false portrayal that Defendant Fatherree published in The Daily Iberian on Wednesday, August 4, 2021.


Since Broussard alleges that Fatherree’s editor, Michael Messerly, indicated to Broussard that he, “does not have time to watch a video,” we feel that the least we can do is offer him (and the Arizona-based owners of the Daily Iberian) an easy opportunity to view the video now that it may take on added significance with the filing of Broussard’s lawsuit.  Here’s that video:

August 3, 2021 consideration of Ordinance 1329 in its entirety by the St. Martin Parish Council.  It’s worth noting that, beginning at the 30:35 mark of the video, Broussard repeatedly stressed the fact that there has been “no burning” on the property.

Broussard stated to us, “just as my previous attorney (Michael Adley) stated in the pleadings, this Ordinance was specifically targeted at me.  President Cedars admitted I only fell under the ‘umbrella in part,’ and that is because he knew that he had the other properties already by existing nuisance ordinances already on the books.  He had to get this Ordinance passed specifically for the purpose of going after me, and the judge even ruled that my property is not considered a nuisance.”

Broussard further expressed frustration to us that, despite one couple being at the meeting to complain about one of the properties known to have a burning problem, Fatherree devoted no space whatsoever to that couple or the couple’s issues with that property and instead chose to focus the entire article on Broussard and what Broussard asserts are “false claims” that he is burning.  We have already presented the video associated with that couple’s complaint, but here it is again for review purposes:

Armond Joseph Road property right next to Poche Bridge in St. Martin Parish.

Broussard contends, as stated in Paragraph 8 of his petition, that Fatherree went to the St. Martin Parish Council meeting on August 3, 2021, with the goal of publishing a “hit piece,” and he further alleged that his efforts in that regard were intended to “appease” St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars.

We’ll just have to see if the legal system in St. Martin Parish ultimately buys into the arguments posed in his petition or not.  Either way, we’ll keep subscribers and casual visitors informed of developments in this latest iteration of legal claims which have arisen all from that one meeting of the St. Martin Parish Council on August 3, 2021.

Here are all past Sound Off Louisiana features pertaining to Broussard’s 33-acre tract since the controversies surrounding it first surfaced:

1.  LSP Trooper Lopez allegedly demands Broussard’s driver not go down “my road” again (feature contains and extensive video tour of Broussard’s 33-acre farm).

2.  Cedars obtains court-ordered Temporary Restraining Order shutting down Broussard’s farming operations.

3.  Broussard’s attorney asserts in court filings that Cedars is on “crusade” to “harass” Broussard.

4.  Cedars caves and begs for TRO court hearing to be cancelled and offers major concessions to Broussard to do so.

5.  Sound Off Louisiana’s founder explains how SMPG President Chester Cedars is the “epitome and personification of Louisiana’s hostile reputation toward small businesses.”

7.  Farmer Billy Broussard files second complaint against LSP Trooper Lopez concerning claims of “illegal acts” voiced at public meeting; Sen. Boudreaux commits to confer with LSP Col. Davis on complaint.

8.  SMPG’s Cedars’ “compromise process” emits vile stench of corruption, totalitarianism in deploying Blake Dubroc, his sketchy history notwithstanding.

9.  Has St. Martin Parish President Cedars racked up massive legal fees obstructing minor initiatives like Broussard’s only to open up “Pandora’s box” for yet more legal fees?

10.  St. Martin Parish Council lives up to and even exceeds anticipated dog-and-pony show; votes 7-0 on Broussard’s zoning variance without even specifying what motion is being voted upon!

11.  Even as SMPG dumps 14 loads of debris on Broussard’s property leading up to Council meeting, Sheriff’s Deputies arrive and inform him that they told them Broussard is, “Barred from going on your property.”

12.  St. Martin Parish President Cedars goes for jugular on Broussard, takes aim at LCG alleging improper removal of spoil banks from Vermillion River.

13.  SMPG’s Cedars scores resounding court victory as Broussard TRO extended to Preliminary Injunction; also celebrates Army Corps purportedly indicating permit required for LCG’s spoil bank removals.

14.  Did LSP Trooper Scott Lopez fabricate evidence of a “purple truck” dumping and present that fabrication to SMPG’s Planning and Zoning Commission?

15.  Louisiana State Police sustains Broussard’s allegations against Trooper Scott Lopez of failing to activate body-worn camera (6/14/21) and Conduct Unbecoming a State Trooper (1/6/22)

16.  Farmer Broussard sues LSP Trooper Lopez, son Benjamin alleging “actual malice” in “effectuating a baseless and groundless arrest warrant” upon which Broussard was arrested by St. Martin Parish Sheriff Breaux’s Office.

17.  Obviously seeing right through their sham nature, St. Martin Parish DA Bo Duhe’ declines prosecution of Trooper Lopez’s charges, thus prompting Billy Broussard to re-urge his retaliation claim.

18.  As St. Martin Parish Sheriff Breaux releases 18 seconds of video “evidence” from Benjamin Cole Lopez’s phone, questions arise on why Judge deMahy signed an arrest warrant Judge Pitman previously declined to sign.

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.

As St. Martin Parish Sheriff Breaux releases 18 seconds of video “evidence” from Benjamin Cole Lopez’s phone, questions arise on why Judge deMahy signed an arrest warrant Judge Pitman previously declined to sign.

Louisiana State Police Trooper Scott Lopez’s son, Benjamin Cole, smiles at farmer Billy Broussard and gives him a hand signal (purported to be the symbol for “loser”) as he states, “hope you got a good picture.”  Lopez engaged in this act mere minutes after he alleges Broussard committed “simple assault” against him.

We want to once again express sincere appreciation to Ms. Karen Berthelot for her dedication on fulfilling a public records request we’ve had outstanding for quite some time.  That request has been for the all-important videos taken by Benjamin Cole Lopez, son of LSP Trooper Scott Lopez, on April 25, 2022, and upon which the entire “case” against farmer Billy Broussard hinged.

Ms. Berthelot alerted us yesterday, July 19, 2022, that the videos were ready for pickup on a DVD, and we had that DVD in our hands by late yesterday evening.

We will point out that they are the same videos which St. Martin Parish Sheriff Deputy Baily Romero easily had Benjamin Cole Lopez text to him within seconds on April 25, 2022.  That’s the date Lopez sought to pursue Broussard for “simple assault,” and, as per his father, LSP Trooper Scott Lopez’s guidance, “at a minimum, obstruction of public roadway.”

The St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office’s attorney took a rather protracted period to formally approve the release of the two videos:  one of which is 15 seconds in length, and the other of which is three seconds in length.

We can only assume that, with that attorney knowing that St. Martin Parish District Attorney Bo Duhe’ declined to prosecute the charge, there simply was no legal way to block release of the videos since they are clearly public record and no prosecutorial efforts remain.

The DVD we obtained contained the following:  the 15-second video and the 3-second video, both taken by Lopez; the 9-second video taken by Broussard; and (5) still photos, two of which were derived from Lopez, and three which were derived from Broussard’s video.

We integrated the videos from the public records response and the associated still photos into key segments of St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero’s body-cam video from April 25, 2022.  Our goal being to create one seven-minute video outlining LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and his son, Benjamin Cole Lopez’s, allegations together with the video evidence they supplied to back up those allegations.  Here is that seven-minute video:

4/25/22:  Integration video of Lopez’s allegations and videos and still photos to back up those allegations.

We are going to make no commentary on the above video other than to say we had a number of attorneys and retired law enforcement officers who were baffled at how what’s depicted in the video above resulted in any judge signing an arrest warrant application.

As we’ve previously reported, the application was initially presented to Judge Lewis Pitman, whom we’re told is the “Senior Judge” for the District.  When he declined to sign the application, Deputy Romero pulled it from Pitman and then presented the arrest warrant application to Judge Suzanne deMahy, who signed the application within minutes.  It remains an open question as to whether added statements or material was submitted to Judge deMahy to cause her to pursue a very different action than that of Judge Pitman.

Because we believe that the probability of additional litigation over this matter is probable, however, we are going to refrain from making any additional commentary.  Obviously, when and if the day arises where that litigation is reality, we will of course report on the content of any such litigation.

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.