Gene Mills, President of the Louisiana Family Forum, who was the guest speaker at the Baton Rouge Press Club for its meeting on Monday, August 8, 2022.
Our last feature had no video, which is frustrating because Sound Off Louisiana is a video blog.
Hence, we’re making up for it today with a plethora of videos focusing on the presentation of Gene Mills, President of the Louisiana Family Forum, who was the guest speaker at the Baton Rouge Press Club for its meeting of Monday, August 8, 2022. Mills was invited to discuss several issues, but the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade dominated the presentation and the Q & A.
Mills responds to a question by BRPC President (and daily radio talk show host) Jim Engster entailing whether Mills’ ultimate goal is a Federal ban on abortions throughout the nation.
Mills responds to a question by Mark Ballard (lead editor for The Advocate in Baton Rouge) entailing Louisiana legislators whom he (Ballard) asserts have come to him indicating they are “pro life” but would like to have been provided with an opportunity to have exceptions for rape and incest but feared Louisiana Family Forum would target them if they were to do so.
Mills responds to a question by Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns entailing his thoughts on the recent Kansas vote on the abortion issue.
Mills responds to a question by Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns regarding recent legislative initiatives by State Rep. Rick Edmonds (R-Baton Rouge) to improve the adoption industry in Louisiana in light of constituents (most notably Craig Mills — no relation to Gene) having approached Edmonds about being allegedly scammed in the adoption process.
Mills responds to a question by Lanny Keller (editor for The Advocate in Baton Rouge) entailing Gov. Edwards’ vetoes of School Choice Bills and whether Mills sees a brighter future for such bills once Gov. Edwards’ term in office ends in January of 2024.
Mills responds to a question by Linda Benedict (BRPC speaker coordinator) entailing Mills’ thoughts on gun violence. In his response, he takes The Advocate to task for articles 10-15 years ago which Mills asserts were “inflammatory” and “not accurate.”
Mills responds to a question by Ike Jackson (who has run for Louisiana Attorney General on multiple occasions) entailing whether Mills intends to attend an “alt-right” October 24, 2022 function in Lafayette and/or whether he and/or his organization will “place distance” between him (or the Forum) and that group.
Mills responds to a question by Gary Rispone, brother of 2019 candidate for Louisiana Governor Eddie Rispone, and long-time host of a very popular fishing show broadcast throughout Louisiana with Gary posing his “question(s)” as ONLY Gary can do!!!
CLICK HERE for LFF’s 2021 Legislative Scorecard and CLICK HERE for LFF’s 2022 Legislative Scorecard.
CLICK HERE for Mills’ presentation in its entirety.
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.
M. L. Lloyd III, who was pronounced dead on April 1, 2008 upon arrival at the hospital after being subjected to a severe two-day “whipping” for allegedly stealing an ice cream bar the preceding day, March 31, 2008.
Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns showed up at around 9:30 a.m. this morning for an anticipated 10 am “Preliminary Injunction / Request for Video Pre-Trial Scheduling.” He was taken aback when he encountered a packed courtroom with a full slate of jurors in the jury box, approximately eight (8) attorneys at the main attorney tables, and boxes upon boxes upon boxes of evidence taking up all of the first two rows of the right side of the courtroom (plus a printer all set up in the very back set to print out even more materials which may be needed for trial). That’s not to mention a video screen all set up facing the jury and other media to accommodate remote testimony.
It was obvious Burns was walking in on an active civil trial as evidenced by an attorney questioning a witness, and so he wondered if he had inadvertently entered Judge Ron Johnson’s courtroom since he and his twin brother, Don, are located right across the hallway from one another. Burns therefore exited to double-check that he was in fact in the correct courtroom, and we was, so he took a seat where they were more plentiful (i.e. the left side of the courtroom).
Burns was fairly convinced that the hearing had been called off but opted to remain a while just to be safe. Soon, another gentleman entered the courtroom and sat in the row right in front of Burns (his first name is Jeffrey, sorry we failed to get his last name). Burns saw him looking over papers and easily recognized them as being filed by pro se litigants Belinda Parker-Brown, Errol Victor (Sr.), and Dr. Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, so he whispered, “Excuse me, sir. Are you here for the Errol Victor matter?” Jeffrey responded, “Yes, I am.” Burns then inquired, “Do you know if it’s going to transpire?” His response was, “I have no idea.”
Burns then alerted him to the fact that Judge Johnson had noticed Crenshaw-Logal enter the main Zoom video conference, and he asked if her interest was in the ongoing civil matter being tried. It was soon thereafter that Judge Johnson made note of the fact Crenshaw-Logal, who is on vacation in Massachusetts, was entering the Zoom Court remote room for the “10:00 a.m. hearing,” and he instructed for her to be directed to the “Chambers meeting room” where his staff attorney, Jawhay King, would make arrangements. Johnson indicated that the matter, “may need to be reset.” With that, Jeffrey (again, sorry, we didn’t catch his last name) sought the attention of two other AG attorneys, and, as they would say in a petition, upon information and belief, were Jacqueline Wilson and Rachael Dunaway, the two attorneys who drafted AG Jeff Landry’s Preliminary Injunction Opposition Memorandum, for them to have a pow-wow out in the hallway so he could relay what Burns had indicated.
After a few minutes, all three Assistant AG attorneys returned, and the entire courtroom then listened to an approximate 30-40 minute audio deposition of the ongoing civil trial.
If anyone is curious, as the best Burns could surmise, that civil trial entails a lawsuit in which underage drinking transpired wherein one young underage lady had a serious accident at 12:45 a.m. and who, though initially cooperative when being transported by air med to OLOL, later at 3:12 a.m. became, “extremely combative, completely uncooperative, shouting at the LSP Trooper and all of the medical staff.” What we surmise that the lawsuit entails (and we are speculating) is a claim against a drug manufacturer that she became addicted to opioids once she began taking them for her pains related to the accident. We know one thing: the jury looked tired, and Judge Johnson did indicate that they’d been at it for “a week and a half.”
At any rate, at around 10:40 a.m. or so, Judge Johnson ordered a recess for that civil trial in order to take up the 10:00 a.m. hearing. Present (via Zoom) were Crenshaw-Logal, Parker-Brown, Errol Victor, Sr. (in orange jump suit), and New Orleans Attorney Robert Jenkins (who can be seen at the 1:23 mark of this video), who was seated to Victor’s left at the correctional facility. Present (Live) were Louisiana Assistant AGs Wilson, Dunaway, and Jeffrey (again, we apologize for not obtaining his last name).
Parker-Brown sought to have a question answered as to whether a number of “court watchers” whom she’d invited to the hearing would be admitted, and the court reporter, Susan Lee, explained that they would gain entrance once all of the attorneys were seated and the matter was underway.
The Assistant AGs objected to Jenkins making any arguments since he is not enrolled as Counsel. Johnson had to get clarification from Jenkins as to exactly what his role in the matter was. Jenkins explained that he was only in an advisory capacity to Victor. Johnson then indicated that Jenkins would be permitted to confer with Victor but would not be permitted to address the Court.
Judge Johnson sought an opening statement from the plaintiffs and requested that only one plaintiff speak to present the arguments. Crenshaw-Logal, a former Indiana attorney suspended in 2004 and who has never sought reinstatement, took on that role, and she mainly stressed that the Temporary Restraining Order (which Judge Johnson said he denied, but we believe Crenshaw-Logal correctly said was “unclear” what had been done with the Restraining Order with it appearing to us that it was granted) is now “moot,” as is the request for a Preliminary Injunction.
Crenshaw-Logal then stressed the need for, “you know, six to nine months to conduct discovery on this matter.” She emphasized that the case essentially entails, “whether double jeopardy transpired or not.”
The Assistant AGs (led primarily by Wilson, who along with Dunaway, represented Ad Hoc Judge Dennis Waldron) then argued that the Attorney General’s Office filed a plethora of exceptions the evening before [Sidebar: they weren’t on the system when we checked at around 2:00 p.m.] (res judicata, subject matter jurisdiction, peremptory exception of no right of action, absolute immunity) and stressed that Judge Waldron has, “a number of extremely strong defenses,” and further stressed that Waldron has yet to be properly served.
Judge Johnson wrapped things up by indicating that, “from this point forward, the litigation will proceed as an ordinary petition…….” after which he set all of the Attorney General’s Exceptions for hearing on Monday, August 29, 2022 at 10 a.m.
Somebody will have to get awfully busy drafting Opposition Memorandums for all those exceptions since they should be due a minimum of eight (8) days prior to the August 29, 2022 hearing.
One of the key reasons we strongly support cameras in courtrooms (even if just forcing courts to provide mandatory live stream via Zoom with no prohibitions whatsoever on viewers being able to make video recordings of the proceedings) is because we believe the citizens of Louisiana are entitled to see these type of courtroom three-ring-circus proceedings.
We will be there for the August 29, 2022 exception hearing, but common sense dictates that they are going to be granted unless District Judge Don Johnson has no ability whatsoever to properly adjudicate what seems to be an incredibly cut-and-dry matter (see Federal Judge’s ruling from last night’s post which should make it abundantly clear that no double jeopardy transpired in this matter).
We conclude this feature by emphasizing that, going forward, any feature we do on this subject will always have M. L. Lloyd III’s photo as the lead caption because we want to make sure that he isn’t lost in people’s minds with all of these legal filings and legal courtroom circus arguments.
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.
M. L. Lloyd III, who was pronounced dead on April 1, 2008 upon arrival at the hospital after being subjected to a severe two-day “whipping” for allegedly stealing an ice cream bar the preceding day, March 31, 2008.
Well, if any subscriber is into courtroom circuses, there’s a distinct possibility there may be one tomorrow (Thursday, August 11, 2022) in 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson’s courtroom.
As we indicated in our recent exhaustive feature on Pastor Errol Victor, Sr.’s second murder trial, two individuals (Belinda Parker-Brown and Dr. Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal) affiliated with Louisiana United International wasted no time flat in fax filing this petition to 19th JDC that, in a nutshell, seeks to enjoin (block) Ad Hoc Judge Dennis Waldron from imposing sentencing on Errol Victor Sr., who, earlier that day (July 22, 2022) was convicted for a second time of second degree murder in the beating (whipping) death of his eight-year-old stepson, M. L. Lloyd III. The petition also seeks Victor’s immediate release from prison based on an allegation of Double Jeopardy.
As we indicated in the feature, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns felt compelled to leave the courtroom proceedings on Friday, July 15, 2022 after Victor’s first stepson testified in excruciating detail entailing the young boy’s death. It was simply too difficult to hear. Just to provide a small detail of which we mean, the stepson indicated that Victor stopped administering the whipping himself because his (Victor’s), “blood pressure was rising too high.” He then got a blood pressure machine to take his blood pressure, and the stepson said that the, “first number was 200.” The young man then testified that Victor told his eight-year-old stepson, “You see what you have done! You’ve caused my blood pressure to go through the roof!” The stepson then testified that Victor ordered one of his own biological sons to continue with the whipping and told him that, “You’ll do it the hardest, so I want you taking over.” He further testified that, “We all knew that, if we didn’t do what he said, we were going to get it.”
We don’t like even drafting a paragraph such as the one above, but we want to provide the explanation for why Burns just got up and left. It was simply too much to bear!
We’ll again repeat that Crenshaw-Logal stated on a WWL newscast to Investigative Reporter David Hammer, that Victor, “does not have competent, zealous representation” and that would cause him not to have a fair trial. Let’s take a look again:
WWL-TV newscastwherein Crenshaw-Logal openly states Victor does not have “competent and zealous representation.”
The irony of the above statement is that it is LUI who hired Victor’s lawyer, Claiborne Brown, who, ironically, self-admitted to being “incompetent” 10 years ago when defending a rapist when his out-of-state co-counsel failed to show up for trial. Brown bailed after making opening arguments and, “adequately questioned witnesses” according to Judge William Burris, who ordered Brown held in contempt of court for, “failing to perform his duties” and also ordered him placed in jail for his actions.
Tomorrow’s Preliminary Injunction hearing, if it transpires at all, just may rival the circus-like atmosphere of that rape trial 10 years ago. Why?
Well, on Monday, August 8, 2022, Parker-Brown, Logal, and Victor (the three pro se litigants) filed this Motion to Convert the Preliminary Injunction hearing to a “video and pre-trail scheduling conference.” When we obtained the filing, several dedicated Sound Off Louisiana subscribers we contacted literally thought we HAD to be joking! Well, as evidenced by the preceding link, they now know we’re not. From the Motion (which had no Order page):
Preliminary injunction hearing is presently scheduled via an inapplicable procedure and will accordingly come before the Court in a Procedural posture unduly favoring the defendants to the Petitioner’s detriment.
This proceeding seeks to enjoin action under color of law, appearing to be the product of a vindictive criminal prosecution based on a constitutionally prohibited standard, effectuated through illegal means including collusion between one or more prosecutors with private individuals including but not limited to lawyers acting as such and/or their respective client(s) as well as judicial officers acting in their respective official capacity to deliberately thwart proof of Victor’s actual innocence.
It is the Petitioners’ understanding that sentencing was postponed in the matter until September 9, 2022;
No matter their diligence, neither Petitioner can complete discovery, appropriate/essential in and for this case by September 9, 2022, not to mention the impossibility of them doing so by August 11, 2022;
The Petitioners and each of them project needing six (6) to nine (9) months from the date of this motion to complete discovery.
Obviously the jurisdiction of this Court is vested in determining whether a violation of America’s Double Jeopardy Clause ensued upon commencement of trial….. before the 40th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. John the Baptist in the State of Louisiana, Division “B.”
We can only wonder if the “understanding” of Victor’s rescheduled sentencing came from us telephoning 40th JDC and obtaining that information eight days ago (or the fact that Judge Johnson set the matter for hearing, for that matter).
Parker-Brown and Creushaw-Logal Lack Standing to Bring This Action.
Failure of a party to have a “direct and present interest” in the litigation is fatal to their claim.
Here, Parker-Brown and Crenshaw-Logal each fail to have any direct and present interest in the retrial of Mr. Victor, which is the sole basis of the current lawsuit. Parker-Brown alleges that she is a co-founder and CEO of Louisiana United International, Inc. (“LUI”) whose function is to advocate for civil, constitutional and human rights. First Amended Petition, Paragraph 1. Parker-Brown contends that Victor is a member of LUI and that he and other LUI members were convicted of a less than unanimous jury verdict.
Crenshaw-Logal. in turn, is domiciled in Georgia. She alleges that she has a Juris Doctorate and was licensed by the State of Indiana in 1984. However, she was suspended from the bar of Indiana in 2004 and “has yet to seek reinstatement to the Indiana bar of attorneys.”
Crenshaw-Logal also alleges she is LUI’s Assistant Chief of Operations and “leads the organization’s collaboration with national Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.”, which she co founded.
Notably, neither Parker-Brown nor Crenshaw-Logal represent that they are licensed attorneys in the State of Louisiana, nor have they attempted to move for admission in this Court via pro hac vice admission in this matter. In fact, the petition makes clear that all three plaintiffs appear in this matter “separately and pro se.”
While Parker-Brown and Crenshaw-Logal contend they signed off on a complaint submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council, such contention is insufficient to confer standing on either. A review of the petition reveals that the sole focus of this lawsuit is to stop or
thwart the retrial and sentencing of Victor in another Louisiana district court.
As evidenced by AG Landry’s filing, other arguments posed include Judge Waldron having Judicial Immunity and the fact that 19th JDC lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction. There’s also this from Landry’s Memorandum:
Victor Has Raised These Same Claims In Two Prior Federal Cases. Victor has filed two separate federal court suits since his 2014 conviction and sentence were vacated. In both cases, he attacks his retrial on Double Jeopardy Clause grounds; the instant suit is now the third such suit filed by Victor. In the first suit filed in 2021, Victor filed a federal habeas corpus proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana, challenging the pending state trial on the grounds of double jeopardy.
In consideration of this application, Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld rejected Victor’s identical legal argument that he makes in the current litigation – that he could not be retried after his conviction and sentence were vacated by the United States Supreme Court. As Judge Van Meerveld stated succinctly: “To the extent that petitioner is arguing that double jeopardy now bars his retrial, he is clearly wrong. It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction. Any suggestion that this general rule would be inapplicable to convictions vacated due a Ramos violation not only finds no support in the jurisprudence resulting from Ramos, but it is also contrary to Ramos itself. In Ramos, the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged that those prisoners who were being afforded relief as a result of the decision would still face continued
prosecution.”
We plan to still attend tomorrow morning, but only because there’s a great little small downtown restaurant on Third Street. After any “hearing,” if in fact one even transpires, we’re going to go pick up their seafood platter of fried shrimp, fried catfish, and fried oysters, all served with a salad and French fries for $25 (and that includes tax)! We know we’re wasting a trip (except for getting that seafood platter to bring back home), but one just never knows what the “official” proclamation when and if the docketed item (assuming it stays on any docket overnight) from the courtroom may end up being!
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.
