Mendy Girouard’s body-cam video strongly implicates SMPG President Chester Cedars as mastermind behind vilification of Billy Broussard.

Mendy Girouard, appearing at the March 2, 2022 St. Martin Parish Council meeting with her custom-made T-shirt with “Mob Boss” on the right shoulder as she proudly presents a “petition” dated December 9, 2021 to the Council on which an official complaint with the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office was filed on August 15, 2022 alleging violations of Louisiana’s notary laws on the part of Melisa B. Dubroc.

We are about to present arguably our most intriguing feature of the entire Billy Broussard saga entailing his ongoing battles with St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars and Cedars’ “crusade” to “harass” Broussard (attorney Michael Adley’s words, not ours) about his hauling of vegetative materials onto his 32-acre property on Duchamp Road.

We want to once again issue our highest level of praise to St. Martin Parish Sheriff officials Karen Berthelot and Eve Laperouse for their dedication in fulfilling our public records requests; furthermore, we want to also praise St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux for his obvious commitment to having his deputies keep their body-cameras on when engaging in encounters with the public and acting in an official capacity.

In fact, given the absolutely shoddy past history of Louisiana State Police regarding the convenience of deactivating body-cameras at a Trooper’s whim, we’d suggest LSP have Breaux or one of his top lieutenants conduct several seminars to LSP Troopers on the importance of keeping those cameras on.

Subscribers and casual site visitors may recall Billy Broussard having stated near the end of the Trevis Helaire video located on this feature (see the 6:23 mark of this video to be precise) that he looked, “forward to you obtaining these videos” of folk making outlandish (and blatantly false and defamatory) claims about Broussard.

We are now prepared to present one such video of which Broussard referenced, and it entailed this St. Martin Parish Sheriff Incident Report entailing Mendy Girouard against Billy Broussard of May 5, 2022.   One knows it’s bad when the Sheriff Corporal, Mathiew Alexander, has no choice but to classify Broussard as “other/unknown” (rather than “witness, suspect, complainant,” etc.).  That will give our subscribers and casual site visitors a hint of just how bad the video we’re about to present is in terms of the complainant, Girouard.

So, with that fact divulged, let’s take a look at the video associated with that incident report because, in the video, Girouard makes it abundantly clear that St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars has encouraged the neighborhood to file complaints against Broussard essentially if he so much as sneezes on his property so that Cedars can subsequently, “prove in court that his property is a nuisance.”  Here’s the video, folks (and we warn everyone to add double-portion butter to the popcorn as it is viewed):

May 5, 2022:  St. Martin Parish Sheriff Corporal Mathiew Alexander is called out to investigate and process a “trespassing complaint” lodged by Mendy Girouard against Billy Broussard, who owns the property upon which she accuses him of “trespassing.”

Now, lets’ provide just a bit of prospective on Girouard, all of which is derived from near the end of this feature.

Of course, subscribers will recall that Girouard proudly assisted Cedars in stirring up the “mob” in making Facebook posts such as the following:


As Broussard’s former legal counsel, Michael Adley, has pointed out in his pleadings, Girouard was announcing to all the neighbors that Broussard would be seeking “heavy industrial” zoning before Cedars even extended the common courtesy of letting Adley know that’s what Cedars intended to insist upon for Broussard to get approval of his zoning variance.

Of course, that comes as no real surprise considering that both Broussard and Adley have asserted that Cedars has been quietly working behind the scenes from September 14, 2021 (the date he convinced Adley to go along with a postponement of a September Preliminary Injunction court hearing) to sabotage Broussard’s efforts to, “go through the (i.e. Cedars-mandated) process,” which Adley has stated was done merely in a spirit of “compromise” and which is in no way whatsoever required of Broussard.

The video above provides compelling evidence that Cedars has been the mastermind behind forming and stirring up the “mob” to go after Broussard and thereby thwart his efforts to simply continue to do what Broussard had been doing for a full year prior to Cedars focusing his legal rifle at Broussard’s heart.  Girouard merely seeks to proclaim herself as the self-appointed leader of that “mob,” and LSP Trooper Scott Lopez may or may not be willing to cede that title to her.

After all, an “anonymous” comment posted by someone almost assuredly Girouard as the first of a number of comments beneath our feature on Broussard’s second complaint against LSP Trooper Scott Lopez (for Conduct Unbecoming an LSP Trooper at the January 6, 2022 SMPG Planning and Zoning meeting, which was sustained by LSP), would certainly indicate she wished to claim as much of the credit for the systematic campaign against Broussard as possible.  Here’s that comment:

This is so bogus! It’s just a vendetta against a Great Man and state trooper. He has every right to voice his opinion as a concerned citizen for his family and their future. I’m the WITCH that stirred yp (sic) the hornets nest NOT Scott Lopez or the Dubroc’s (sic). But, you FAIL to publicize the crap that Billy Broussard is doing behind the community’s back and now they are woke up (sic) and paying attention. So for now, get all your facts and both sides of the story instead of 1!

We are going to analyze all of the “facts” Girouard got wrong in her 7 1/2 minute encounter with Corporal Alexander on May 5, 2022 above momentarily.  First, however, we want to present Girouard’s presentation of a “petition” to the full SMPG Council at its meeting of March 2, 2022.  Let’s take a look at her 53-second presentation of the “petition:”

March 2, 2022 53-second presentation of a “petition” by Mendy Girouard to the SMPG Council entailing Billy Broussard’s request for a zoning variance.

Broussard has presented the petition to a number of notaries, all of whom have said there are “serious legal issues” with the notarization of that petition.  Among the issues is the notary, Melissa Dubroc, serving as both notary and principal to the document (along with several of her direct family members).  Another major issue is the strikeout on the first page of the document with a handwritten change that drastically changes the wording of the document.  There is no date, time, nor initials indicating who made that change or when it was made.

While we have no idea who may have initiated the strikeout, we do know that Mendy Girouard, as evidenced by the video above, was the last person to have possession of the document prior to tendering it over to the SMPG Council.  For that matter, we are in the dark on who even drafted the “petition.”

As a result of all of the stated legal issues with the notarization of the document, combined with the fact that the document was presented to a governmental body and intended to have a direct impact on that public body’s action, Broussard, on Monday, August 15, 2022, lodged this complaint with the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office.  That office indicates that the matter has been referred on to St. Martin Parish District Attorney Bo Duhe’s Office.  Furthermore, Broussard has filed a claim against the notary, Melissa Dubroc, with her bonding company, Merchants Bonding Company:

The Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office informed Broussard that Dubroc’s bond coverage is $10,000. Broussard asserts that won’t cover all the damage done, but it will at least be a start as he is clearly determined to pursue, as Chester Cedars would say, “Every firm, individual, or entity who in any way was connected with this surreptitious removal of the spoil banks by Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government systematic, well-orchestrated crusade to harass me spearheaded by St. Martin Parish Government President Chester Cedars.”

Broussard has also been screaming from the mountaintops about Melissa Dubroc’s vested interest in collaborating with Cedars to harass him.  Specifically, the Dubrocs sued the former owners of Broussard’s property, Deep South Forest Products.

Broussard has emphasized that what’s critical from this transcript and judgments against Dubroc from that litigation is contained on pages 52-54 of the transcript, which Broussard contends establishes the fact that Dubroc had a valid claim of erosion but that his (Dubroc’s) problem was that he waited too long to bring action (i.e. 10-year prescription period had passed).

Broussard has indicated immense frustration entailing the fact that his work on the property has been (and continued to be until the Temporary Restraining Oder was signed) aimed at solving the very erosion issue upon which Dubroc sued in the first place.  Broussard said, “So I come along and largely fix the very problem for which he sued, and he and his family actively seek to block those very efforts, including allegedly committing one or more possible illegal acts regarding notarization from what other notaries have told me.”

Now, let’s move on to what we promised above, and that is to dissect just what all Girouard stated on that 7-1/2 minute video above with Corporal Alexander that is demonstratively and blatantly false!:

===> 0:15:  “On Tuesday, we went to Court with Mr. Cedars.”

Who is “we?”  The only known resident who accompanied Girouard in Court on May 2, 2022 is LSP Trooper Scott Lopez!

Girouard had with her several binders of material.  We can only assume that she was under the mistaken impression that Court would operate just like a Council meeting and she could take the witness stand and testify if she so desired.

Once the witnesses were itemized and, unlike Lopez, she didn’t hear her name, why she up and skedaddled and wasn’t present for the remaining 6-1/2 hours of that Court hearing (but we were).

===> 0:19:  “Judge de Mahy has signed a permanent injunction for him not to have the dump truck on the property.  Period.”

Even the “period” is a trademark of SMPG President Chester Cedars as he utters it repeatedly in any statement he makes.  More importantly, however, Judge de Mahy had not signed a blessed thing on May 5, 2022!

Furthermore, Broussard’s attorney and SMPG’s attorney argued back and forth for days regarding the wording of the final judgment, and that Preliminary Injunction (not Permanent Injunction) judgment was ultimately signed by Judge de Mahy on May 24, 2022, a full 19 days after Girouard is seen above falsely representing to Corporal Alexander  not only that the judge has signed the document (on May 5, 2022) but also rambling on and on (falsely) about the nature (permanent vs. preliminary, and there is a huge difference!) of the injunction and its wording (its nonexistence notwithstanding).

Not only were we present for de Mahy stating what Broussard could and could not do on the property, but we reported upon it on May 4, 2022, the very day before Girouard obviously got so emboldened by what she believed (apparently in her mind only) happened at the conclusion of that hearing that she’d just state to Corporal Alexander whatever the heck she wanted to tell him irrespective of reality!

We’ll note that in our headline, one sees “preliminary injunction” as we believe in accurate reporting!  Nevertheless, The Daily Iberian just may wish to give Girouard a call for a reporter’s position as it appears she would fit right in very well.

Contrary to what Girouard stated to Corporal Alexander, what Judge de Mahy said that Broussard could not do is to park his truck, “with vegetative materials in it overnight” because she indicated that would constitute “temporary storage.”  All of that was contained in our report of the matter because we believe it’s important to state what a judge states in open court accurately!  Obviously, Girouard feels it’s just fine to make things up on the fly when she wasn’t even in attendance when Judge de Mahy made her ruling.

===> 0:50.  “I was in the courtroom, and the Judge said the dump truck cannot be on the property whatsoever.”

One-hundred-percent false, and we seriously doubt Judge de Mahy appreciates having been misquoted and made to appear that she would issue a blatantly-illegal directive from the bench!  Of course, if de Mahy sees this feature, she’ll likely easily size up the source and write it off as par for the course coming from that source.

===> 1:10:  “I talked to Mr. Cedars that afternoon (Tuesday, May 2, 2022), and he said, ‘anytime anyone sees the dump truck there, we’re supposed to call and make a complaint.'”

Well, there’s no more compelling evidence than that to establish firmly that Cedars is and has been all along the mastermind behind the vilification of Broussard.

We will point out that we attended both the court hearing and the SMPG Council meeting that evening, and it was a tight squeeze to arrive at the Council meeting on time.

 If Girouard had such a conversation with Cedars, there was only a narrow window of opportunity for it to have transpired.  Nevertheless, given the obvious leading and directing of Cedars in orchestrating and carrying out this systematic “crusade” of “harassment” (again Michal Adley’s words, not ours), we have no reason to doubt Girouard regarding the timing of the conversation.  As far as the content, all we can say is Girouard has blatantly misquoted Judge de Mahy, and we’ll leave it to Cedars to testify as to whether she has also misquoted him.

===> 1:48:  “The truck was empty, full, empty again.”

Broussard has emphatically denied that he has “ever” brought a truck containing anything at all from the date Judge de Mahy made her oral ruling forward, and he has flatly stated to us that what Girouard has stated is, “a lie demonstrating that they were doing everything they could to try to get me arrested.”

===> 2:05:  “Mr. Cedars said he’ll get two copies of the injunction….One for his own ‘nuisance file’ and one for you, that way you guys knew (sic) when you do get complaints.”

We don’t care how many copies of Judge de Mahy’s Judgment Cedars provides to the world (even the President of the United States if he’s so inclined), in order for anything to be done, there must be an actual violation, and Girouard is simply dreaming up “violations” in her own mind without having seen the Judgment (because it did not even exist at the time she rambles on) and does not remotely say what she represents to Corporal Alexander that it says once it did come into existence on May 24, 2022.

===> 4:06 [Thank God Girouard had to take two minutes to go retrieve her driver’s license making it impossible for her to have uttered more falsehoods and nonsense during that two-minute segment].

Corporal Alexander professionally and diplomatically informs Girouard that she is off base in wanting to file criminal charges against Broussard for “trespassing” when he owns the property!  Geez!!

The mind-numbing lunacy of some of the crew with which Cedars has aligned himself to harass Broussard is astounding beyond any words we have the vocabulary to describe.

===> 5:15 “Now I do understand that he is supposed to have a warrant out for him……supposed to be signed this morning…for aggravated assault and obstruction of a roadway.”

Okay.  So here we have clear and compelling  evidence of all of the collusion between LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and Girouard entailing their dogmatic joint determination to have Broussard arrested for, in Girouard’s words, “aggravated assault” (which means assault committed with a weapon).

On July 11, 2022, we published this extensive feature on Broussard’s arrest.  Now, that arrest warrant was not signed until May 9, 2022 at 9:06 p.m.  So, here we have Girouard (falsely) telling Corporal Alexander that the warrant was “signed this morning,” (May 5, 2022) and further that it entails “aggravated assault” committed by Billy Broussard.   The actual warrant was not signed until four days later and was for “obstruction of public passage, a misdemeanor.”

We also published, the very next day, July 12, 2022, that St. Martinville DA Bo Duhe’ immediately dismissed the charges as an obvious sham.

Eight days later, on July 20, 2022, we published this feature containing the crucial 18-seconds of video taken by Benjamin Lopez, LSP Trooper Scott Lopez’s son, upon which the warrant was totally dependent.

That video readily shows the T-total sham nature of any such “assault charges.”

So here’s our question:  Did Judge de Mahy opt to sign the arrest warrant, especially given that Judge Lewis Pittman declined to sign the same arrest warrant application, based on oral statements made to her by St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero?  After all, as stated in Broussard’s litigation against Lopez, “upon information and belief, Romero resides at 1291 Duchamp Road” which would make him a neighbor of Girouard and Lopez.  Broussard made that assertion based on this voter records website.

At any rate, only Romero can explain why he pulled the application from Pittman (the Senior Judge from what we’re told) and thereafter submitted it to de Mahy, but plenty of folk are keenly interested in that development which transpired very late on the evening of May 9, 2022!

===> 5:32:  “He (Broussard) got out in the middle of the street and was threatening to harm somebody….for taking pictures of him <extensive laughter> .”

Oh, really?  We’re anxious to hear Girouard explain both her source and basis for making that bold claim knowing full well Alexander’s body-camera was recording every second of what she said.  We’re also anxious to find what she finds so funny to engage in all the laughter as she utters a blatant lie about Broussard.  Was it that she knew everything she was saying was a fabrication?

We will point out that we made a public records request for any and all documentation in the possession of St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux’s office entailing any investigation of any nature whatsoever into allegations that Broussard had committed “simple assault,” and we were told there were, “no records responsive to your request.”  We’re not going to bother with making another request for “aggravated assault” because we feel there’s no need to even dignify Girouard’s false representation to Corporal Alexander on the video above.

===> 5:50:  “I mean he literally ran my neighbor off the road on his motorcycle last week…..Oh, yeah, it’s getting ugly.”

Again, we’ll be anxious to hear her testify entailing that matter in court as well.

It truly is amazing that Girouard could utter all of those untruths in a mere 5-1/2 minutes (net of the two minutes it took her to go retrieve her driver’s license).

At any rate, we believe Broussard’s attorney is now accumulating a plethora of evidence to present for the Permanent Injunction hearing when it transpires (of course, Girouard is obviously under the mistaken belief that it already has).  Also, if we were inclined to make wagers in this matter and could find someone willing to take the other side, we believe we’d take a little action on Girouard getting a knock on her door to receive a little more paperwork from the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office.  That’s just our take though.

In fact, given the extensive efforts of Broussard’s former attorney, Michael Adley, to demonstrate that Cedars knew the obvious problems he had in pursuing a Temporary Restraining Order against Broussard (sworn testimony of SMPG attorney Allan “Sprinky” Durand of, “no zoning of any kind beyond 500 feet off the road,” zoning maps unenforceable, etc.), we wouldn’t be one bit surprised to see The Daily Iberian name Chester Cedars as a third-party defendant for cramming through his ordinance on August 3, 2021 and then filing a Temporary Restraining Order mere days later.

After all, while The Daily Iberian would seem to have obvious problems in falsely reporting that Broussard was burning, it was Cedars and Cedars alone who knew all the problems (as per Adley’s filing), that he had as outlined above, yet he presented an authoritative case against Broussard in the apparent belief that nobody would uncover those obvious problems.  He certainly felt he had no obligation to point out those problems, and we believe that concealment from everyone, including The Daily Iberian, to falsely report that Broussard was potentially violating zoning ordinances, when Cedars secretly knew that Broussard was doing no such thing just may prompt the newspaper into dragging Cedars into Broussard’s litigation against the newspaper as a third-party defendant.

Again, this feature would not be possible without Sheriff Breaux’s obvious emphasis on keeping body-cameras on irrespective of whether a matter is combative or not, and that fact alone makes him heads-and-shoulders above the lousy excuse for an LSP Colonel who exists at LSP at present!

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.




Dantzler, Haygood offer abject lessons on filing “frivolous” litigation in Federal Court as they both face the prospect of massive legal fees incurred by their defendants.

Dr. Oscar “Omar” Dantzler, candidate for U. S. Congress from the Fifth District of Louisiana, faces the potential prospect of being assessed with significant legal fees incurred by the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for “frivolous” lawsuits he filed in late 2020 and July 2022 in which he accused the Board of racial discrimination entailing a promotion for which a white female ultimately obtained the position.

A little over year ago, we published one of the most exhaustive features we’ve ever published, and it entailed massive legal fees assessed against Shreveport dentist C. Ryan Haygood for a filing he made in the Western District of Federal Count in Shreveport.  Since the preceding feature is so exhaustive, let’s just hit the highpoints for this feature by presenting them in the following table:

Date (Timeframe)Event Transpiring
2000-2005.Graduated from LSU Dentistry School, relocated to North Carolina to work at Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem and then operate a private dental practice in Wake Forest.
December, 2005.Opens dental practice in hometown of Shreveport, Louisiana.
July, 2007.Louisiana State Board of Dentistry (LSBD) launches investigation of Haygood entailing allegations of performing and charging patients for unnecessary dental procedures.
2010.LSBD, based on investigative findings, revokes Haygood's license to practice dentistry in Louisiana.
September, 2012.Citing procedural errors by the LSBD, the Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the revocation of Haygood's dental license.
February 13, 2013.Haygood files Federal lawsuit against several LSBD members, its investigator, and a couple of hygienists.
March 16, 2016.Haygood's Federal lawsuit is dismisssed.
March 14, 2018.Defendants named in Haygood's Federal lawsuit file motion to assess their attorney fees against Haygood.
March 14, 2019.Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees against Haygood is granted.
April 4, 2019.Haygood files this motion asking the Federal Court to reconsider its ruling on assessing defendants' attorney fees against him.
May 17, 2019.Haygood defendants assert to the Federal Court that their attorney fees approximate $115,000.
February 7, 2020.Federal Judge issues this ruling denying Haygood's motion to reconsider assessing defendants' legal fees against him.
February 28, 2020.Haygood appeals decision awarding attorneys fees to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (it was initially denied for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction because the amount of legal fees was not finalized via a judgment, but the filing was later supplemented once that amount was known).
August, 2021Court ultimately awards $270,661.80 in defense attorney fees against Haygood.
January 28, 2022Court reiterates the reasonableness of the attorney fees but stays enforcement pending Haygood's appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal.

So, Haygood managed to get himself in a heck of a mess once the Federal Judge overseeing his case determined that his litigation had no merit whatsoever and that he and his attorney should have known that fact, no?  Let’s focus on some of the wording of just that January 28, 2022 Memorandum Order:

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ three Motions for Reconsideration of and/or to Alter or Amend the Memorandum Rulings and Orders Awarding Attorney Fees to Defendants.  The total amount of attorney fees awarded in August 2021 was $270,661.80.  Defendants Robert K. Hill, D.D.S. and Hill, D.D.S., Inc., Barry Ogden, Camp Morrison, Karen Moorhead, Dana Glorioso, and H.O. Blackwood, D.D.S. oppose the motions and contend the Court’s award of attorney fees was entirely proper.

Additionally, this Court has previously addressed in great detail not only the propriety of the award of attorney fees, but also its lodestar analysis to reach the quantum of attorney fees. The Court specifically considered the interwoven nature of the many claims and proceedings in this case, all of which involved a common core of facts and were based on related legal theories. The motions are DENIED on these four grounds.

Plaintiffs contend an award of attorney fees is premature because the merits of their appeal have not yet been ruled on by the Fifth Circuit.  The Court is more persuaded by this argument and agrees to stay the enforcement of the orders awarding attorney fees in this case until such time as the Fifth Circuit rules in Haygood II.

It’s kind of difficult to imagine Haygood feeling all that comfortable knowing that, at any time, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a ruling on the legal fees, after which, assuming the District Court’s ruling isn’t overturned, the Defendants will no doubt press the Court for enforcement.

Now on to Dantzler and our feature of August 14, 2022 on his matter.

Dantzler called Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns on Monday, August 15, 2022 and said, “I ain’t want all that stuff (the filings by Defendants) in the feature.”  One of the key reasons we’re making this post is to let anyone who wants to contact us to “Sound Off” on a governmental operation know that we’re more than willing to provide anyone with that opportunity.  What we want to ensure, however, is that nobody infers that to mean that we’re the McDonald’s of blog reporting where anyone can just drive up and custom-order a feature to present his side and his side only!  That’s not the way this blog operates!

It took us quite a while to drive that point home to Dantzler, but we believe when our conversation ended 90 minutes later, he’d finally come to that realization, and he also threw in towel on his repeated request that we merely, “take the feature down.”  We emphasized that we have NEVER in the history of this blog taken a feature down and stressed that the ONLY circumstance under which we ever would do so is if a Court orders such a removal.

In fact, not only did we inform him in no uncertain terms that the feature was NOT coming down, but we’ve added the two filings from Friday (August 12, 2022) and Tuesday (August 16, 2022) to the table at located on the preceding feature.

The Friday filing by Dantzler simply isn’t worth dignifying with commentary, so we’re not going to.  Anyone is welcome to click on it and read it if so inclined.

The Tuesday filing by the Tangipahoa Parish School System, however, is a far, far more interesting read, so let’s cover a few of its highlights at this time:

TPSB likewise opposes a dismissal without prejudice… the parties have been actively engaged in defense of the suit for 21 months and are entitled to have the case adjudicated.

Alternatively, if this matter is dismissed without prejudice TPSB asserts its right to obtain payment of all or part of the costs incurred for defense of this matter as allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) in order to achieve an equitable balance among the parties.

The Plaintiff has filed twenty-nine District Court suits, and appealed fifteen without success. Id. Of these twenty-nine District Court suits, twenty-one have been in this Court alone.  The Plaintiff’s previous abuse of the court system has led to the grant of injunctions preventing the Plaintiff from filing any further suits against particular defendants.  Dantzler v. Pope, 2:08-cv-03777 (Louisiana Eastern District Court). Yet again, Plaintiff has filed two new frivolous matters in July of this year against members of this Court, Plaintiff’s terminated counsel, the Department of Justice, and the law firm Cashe, Coudrain, and Bass and its attorneys, among others alleging conspiracy in the adjudication of this matter. There has been nothing illicit in the defense of this matter, nor misconduct, and all actions has been well within the ethical bounds of this Court and the Duty of all attorneys to the Louisiana Bar.

On October 27, 2020 Plaintiff filed the instant suit against fifteen defendants including The Louisiana Commission of Human Rights Office, The U.S.E.E.O.C Office, The N.A.A.C.P, The Tangipahoa School Board, Tangipahoa Parish Superintendent of Schools Melissa Stilley, and Human Resource Director Gavin Vitter based on Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated belief that the Defendants conspired to hire someone other than himself for the position of Field Transportation Coordinator in February of 2019 due to his race and political career. In the twenty-one months since the filing of Plaintiff’s first Petition, he has filed forty-three various motions. In defense of this matter, the TPSB defendants have filed twenty-one various motions and have spent an estimated three hundred seventy hours and thirty minutes (370.50 hours) defending this matter.  (See The Affidavit of Ashley E. Bass attached as Exhibit B). If requested by this Court, TPSB will produce their billing records show the costs of this defense to be inspected in camera, however TPSB cannot produce confidential records at this time due to Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the Protective Order, despite being ordered by this Court to do so. (See Rec. Doc. 82, 83, and 92).

The Protective Order became necessary due to the Plaintiff’s pattern of publishing advertisements in the local Hammond newspaper containing false allegations against TPSB, this underlying case, the attorneys involved in this matter, Governor John Bel Edwards, Attorney General Jeff Landry, and other private individuals. These have been attached as Exhibit C for the Court’s review. (See Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s Newspaper Advertisements). Between February 26, 2022 and today, the plaintiff has taken out seven (7) advertisements of this nature which have run on multiple days and are estimated to have cost $520.00. Defendants have asked Plaintiff, through his prior counsel, to cease the false and harassing publishings to no avail.  Even after the Court ordered Plaintiff to sign the Protective Order, the actions continued. Therefore, it is a justifiable fear that disclosing confidential or sensitive documents to the Plaintiff without the Protective Order would cause great harm to the Defendants and other private individuals.

Although the mere prospect of a second lawsuit is not enough prejudice to a defendant to warrant denial of a motion to dismiss without prejudice, “when a plaintiff fails to seek dismissal until a late stage of trial, after the defendant has exerted significant time and effort, then a court may, in its discretion, refuse to grant a voluntary dismissal.” U.S. ex rel. Doe v. Dow Chem. Co.,
343 F. 3d 325, 330 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Davis v. Huskipower Outdoor Equip. Corp., 936 F. 2d 193, 199 (5th Cir. 1991)). In making this determination the court may consider “[w]hether the suit is still in the pretrial stages; whether the parties have filed numerous pleading and memoranda, have attended conferences, and whether prior court determinations were adverse to the plaintiff; or whether hearings have been held, whether any defendants have been dismissed on summary judgment, and whether the parties have undertaken significant discovery.” Leeway Props. V. Jonesfilm 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139117 *5, 2012 WL 4471848 (E.D. La., 2012). Federal Rule 41(a)(2) provides the guidelines for a voluntary dismissal with a court order.

First, due to the Plaintiff’s tendency to publish false information in the newspaper about this matter and private individuals, Plaintiff has been ordered by this Court to consent to a Protective Order. (Rec. Doc. 82 and 92). Plaintiff has refused to sign said Protective Order.

Second, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash medical records was denied as moot. (Rec. Doc. 88).  Third, TPSB has filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Tax returns which is pending before this Court. (Rec. Doc. 95). Plaintiff has made economic loss claims, a punitive damages
claim, and infliction of emotional distress claims which make both the medical records and the tax returns reasonably relevant. Though Plaintiff has given no explanation in the instant matter as to why he desires a voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice, the law is clear that he cannot use this procedural vehicle simply to avoid a potentially adverse ruling from the pending Motion to Compel Taxes or otherwise. Therefore, and applying the above standard and facts, Plaintiff’s motion to Dismiss Without prejudice should be denied.

The Tangipahoa Parish School System goes on to assert that, in the event that Dantzler’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is granted:

In this case, the defendant TPSB is a public body and public funds have been spent in defense of these claims that should be available for public education. Further, and considering the unsupported and outrageous allegations raised by Plaintiff in this case, the reimbursement of defense costs and attorney fees may have a deterrent effect on the filing of further hostile and frivolous claims. Plaintiff should not be allowed to engage in such conduct and abuse of the judicial system without consequence.

Without waiving its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, if this Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, TPSB asserts its claim for the attorney fees, costs and expenses in defense of this lawsuit as provided for under Rule 41(d), as an equitable balance.

Sure looks to us like Dantzler has dug himself an awfully deep hole here.  All we can say is that he need only look in a mirror to see who’s responsible for that deep hole.  When he first called Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns about doing a feature (at which time Burns had no clue what his issue may be this time), he inquired, “Mr. Burns, you still have your little You Tube deal?”

Obviously, if he followed our blog rather than merely occasionally contacting us when HE wants to be profiled, he’d know our little “You Tube Deal” is still alive and well; furthermore, if he was a follower, he would have known he could reach out to Shreveport Dentist C. Ryan Haygood about coming to Federal Court with “frivolous” claims.

After all, while Haygood’s assertions were certainly beyond the pale (e.g. asserting that a few dentists could monopolize the Shreveport dentistry market and assert a Federal statute requiring three states impacted meant for industries like big oil simply because Shreveport is close to both the Texas and Arkansas borders), at least his assertions didn’t accuse Federal Judges of all kinds of improprieties and illegal acts as Dantzler has now done.

We also find it interesting that attorney Claiborne Brown’s name once again surfaces.  We have no idea why, on April 21, 2021, he chose to enroll in this case to represent the previously-pro-se Dantzler; however, as evidenced by his July 5, 2022 Motion to Withdraw (precipitated by Dantzler impulsively firing him), we feel certain he came to regret the decision.  More evidence of that belief on our part surfaced upon him filing this July 27, 2022 Motion for Expedited Consideration on his July 5, 2022 Motion to Withdraw (which has yet to be acted upon by the Court).

All we can say is that, just as 14th JDC Judge David Ritchie once admonished Billy Broussard to “choose your attorney carefully” in reference to the legal skills of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, we may suggest to Brown that he may wish to “choose your clients carefully.”  After all, we can hardly believe that he desired to be referred to as “incompetent” by his client (Louisiana United International) before the trial even started!  [See 1:10 – 1:16 of just-linked video].  If he did (intend to be declared “incompetent” on camera before a massive viewing audience), then he can explain that one to all of us!  We’re all ears!

So, we’ll wrap this feature up by issuing the warning to anyone considering filing a Federal lawsuit.  Make sure the claim has some validity because the consequences for filing “frivolous” claims can be quite severe.  After all, let’s just say Cash Coudrain attorneys bill at a conservative $250/hour.  Well, our calculator indicates that $250 x 370.5 = $96,625.  Not to shabby, huh?  Of course, it’s just possible Haygood may say, “I’ll take it!” in order to not risk the approximate $271,000 that may end up flying up and popping him at any time!  That’s plenty of routine doctor visits (1,576 based on what Burns’ dentist charged for a routine visit with no X-rays on his visit two weeks ago).

Finally, we’ll update everyone on the ultimate outcomes of both Haygood and Dantzler once those outcomes become known.

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.


Dr. Oscar Dantzler draws curtain on 30+ year school bus driver career, but goes out in his own style by qualifying for U. S. Congressman, filing yet another lawsuit beyond the 25+ he’s previously filed.

Dr. Oscar “Omar” Dantzler, Jr., who has qualified for Louisiana’s Fifth Congressional District for U. S. Congress and who has a years-long legal battle with the Tangipahoa Parish School System where he retired last month and immediately filed yet another in the 25+ lawsuits he’s filed for various matters in the past.

Many of our long-time Sound Off Louisiana subscribers will recall our September 17, 2019 feature entailing frustrations which Dr. Oscar “Omar” Dantzler, Jr., expressed against Gov. John Bel Edwards as he challenged Edwards’ re-election efforts.

Dr. Dantzler recently qualified for to run for United State Congress from Louisiana’s Fifth Congressional District.  Here’s a list of all qualified candidates from the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Candidate Inquiry Page:

Oscar “Omar” Dantzler, Male Black Democrat; P. O. Box 1786, Hammond, LA  70404; (985) 510-1422; [email protected].

Allen Guillory, Male Black Republican; P. O. Box 288, Lawtell, LA  70570; (337) 278-0873; [email protected].

Walter Earl Huff, Male White Democrat; 229 Lakeside Dr., Monroe, LA  71201; (318) 267-1115; [email protected].

Julia Letlow, Female White Republican; P. O. Box 539, Rayville, LA  71269; (318) 538-1034; [email protected].

Dr. Dantzler contacted us and asked if he could conduct a Sound Off Louisiana feature to vent his continued frustrations with the Tangipahoa Parish School System, where he recently retired after a 30+ year career as a school bus driver for the system.  His presentation lasted 59 minutes, but we’ve condensed it to highlights on a 12-minute video, and that video follows:

August 1, 2022:  Dr. Dantzler vents his frustration with the Tangipahoa Parish School System.

As we indicated in the video, let’s go ahead and present a table outlining the filings which have been entered into the record at the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana pertaining to Dr. Dantzler’s most-recent Federal lawsuit of July 18, 2022:

Date of Federal Court FilingFederal Court Filing
July 18, 2022Dantzler v. U. S. Department of Justice et. al.
July 18, 2022Summons Issued
July 22, 2022Order for Transfer to Division M 1.
July 26, 2022Recusal Order of U. S. Magistrate Judge Janis Van Meerveld
July 28, 2022Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Alternatively Failure to State a Claim

Since Dantzler’s latest Federal lawsuit was transferred to his prior 2020 Federal lawsuit, perhaps a few of the recent and original filings may be in order.  Here’s a table of those filings:

Date of Federal FilingFederal Filing
November 2, 2020Original petition filed on 11/2/20.
April 21, 2021Claiborne Brown enrolls as counsel to represent previously-pro-se plaintiff Dantzler.
July 5, 2022Claiborne Brown files Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.
July 27, 2022Brown seeks expedited consideration on Motion to Withdraw as Dantzler's counsel.
July 29, 2022Claiborne Brown files Memorandum in Opposition to Dantzler's Request for Electronic File Surrender.
August 3, 2022Tangipahoa Parish School System files Motion indicating no opposition to Expedited Consideration on Claiborne Brown's Withdrawal Motion.
August 5, 2022Dantzler seeks Judge Ashe's recusal.
August 5, 2022Dantzler seeks cancellation of Defendants' hearing for Motion to Compel.
August 8, 2022Judge Ashe disqualifies himself from Dantzler's case.
August 8, 2022Dantzler files Voluntary Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice.
August 11, 2022Order establishing August 17, 2022 as the date by which Defendants should file opposition to Dantzler's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss With Prejudice.
August 12, 2022Dantzler Moves for Recusal of Judge Africk
August 16, 2022Tangipahoa Parish School System Opposes Dantzler's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice

Finally, Dr. Dantzler requested that we include a couple of videos of his presentations before the Hammond City Council of September 8, 2020.  Since this is a video blog and he was gracious enough to supply us with the videos, let’s present them at this time:

Dr. Dantzler makes the first of two presentations before the Hammond City Council at its September 8, 2020 meeting.

Dr. Dantzler makes the second of two presentations before the Hammond City Council at its September 8, 2020 meeting.

Dr. Dantzler is speaking on this August, 2020 incident at the Hammond Police Department, which specifically entailed this leaked video.

Love him or hate him, Dr. Dantzler always promises to make his sentiments known in a way only he can do!

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.