Month: November 2022

Prominent New Iberia attorney Eric Timothy Haik.

One week ago today, on November 10, 2022, Billy Broussard filed a formal complaint against attorney Lee C. Durio wherein he asserts that Durio acted unethically in giving him permission to “violate the law” after having first filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) for which the basis for court approval of the TRO was that very same “breaking of the law” cited by Durio to avoid Durio having to prove the normally-required “irreparable harm” for court approval.

A mere five (5) days later, on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Broussard didn’t show prominent New Iberia attorney Eric Timothy Haik much love either in characterizing Haik’s seeking of 16th JDC Judge Roger Hamilton to “consider” sanctioning Broussard for “harassment” in filing this defamation lawsuit against Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc as “patently absurd,” “unworthy of the Court even dignifying,” and “beyond the pale.”  Let’s hit a few highlights of Broussard’s petition, shall we?:

Within hours of Parish President Cedars successfully buying time to eliminate the potential for him to be humiliated in Court (similarly to the way Adley had already humiliated him with the same arguments in Champagne Boats litigation), Cedars immediately embarked upon a campaign to cultivate a “mob” to oppose the zoning variance, which Adley placed in writing to Cedars was, “nothing more than an attempt to compromise” with Adley remaining steadfast that, “the zoning variance is in no way  required.”

While Cedars was smart enough to refrain from making public defamatory statements about Petitioner, he was equally shrewd enough to realize that he could strategically deploy certain Parish citizens to feel emboldened by him wherein those citizens would feel a false sense of importance and even bravado.  Cedars was also shrewd enough to realize that these apparently gullible citizens whom he would target to oppose Petitioner’s unnecessary zoning variance would, unlike him, be unlikely to possess the necessary legal intellect to refrain from making defamatory statements about Petitioner.

Thus, Cedars executed a masterful plan to sabotage the whole “process” which he managed to convince Adley to embark upon even as Cedars was simultaneously telling Adley and Petitioner that obtaining the zoning variance would be easy, with Parish Director of Administration, Calder “Pop” Hebert, going so far as to tell Petitioner the very day after the Court Hearing had been called off, “We may get some token opposition, but we’ll be able to handle that.”  Cedars himself came in to speak with Hebert and Petitioner, and he stated, “Mr. Broussard, I’m really glad we were able to get this all worked out.”

On October 7, 2021 (only 21 days after the agreement referenced in Paragraph 5), Defendant Melissa Dubroc’s husband, Blake Dubroc, called in a complaint that Petitioner was hauling in vegetative materials and dumping them on his 33-acre property.

Lee Durio’s office was contacted entailing the complaint….

Rather than informing Dubroc that Cedars had personally authorized the activity Dubroc complained of, in the narrative section of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff Incident Report (# 21-32034), Deputy Nicholas Olander notated the following:

CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE LAW OFFICE OF LEE DURIO AND HIS PARALEGAL INFORMED ME THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN MOTION BUT SHE COULD NOT GO INTO DETAIL AT THIS TIME. SHE FURTHER ADDED THAT DUE TO THIS ONGOING CIVIL ISSUE, DOCUMENT WHAT BLAKE IS REPORTING, IN CASE IT IS NEEDED..

That “something in motion” was an elaborate scheme directly orchestrated by Cedars to deploy citizens lacking Cedars’ legal intellect like Defendant Melissa Dubroc and her husband, Blake Dubroc, to rally up a “mob” to appear before the Parish Planning and Zoning meeting on January 6, 2022 and paint Petitioner out in a horrendously bad light in order that the “process” of obtaining the “request for zoning variance,” which Cedars’ Director of Administration, Calder “Pop” Hebert, had assured would be obtained, “with us handling any token opposition” would in reality be successfully sabotaged by Cedars and denied.

Defendant Melissa Dubroc, who is a notary holding notary license # 058122, notarized this “petition” with her mere hand-written name appearing beneath her signature evidencing notarization, followed by her notary license number.

Melissa Dubroc, apparently concerned that she was notarizing an outright falsehood entailing Petitioner seeking to open a “waste disposal site,” used an ink pin to strike through those words and replace those words with “hauling any debris.”

Defendant Melissa Dubroc made no notation of when she made that strikethrough; furthermore, she failed to cross out the same wording four lines later where she left in the words “waste disposal site.”

Defendant Melissa Dubroc is also in apparent violation of several other Louisiana statutes applicable for notaries to include, but not be limited to, serving as a notary on a document in which she is also a principal (signature of resident # 16) together with direct members of her household and relatives:  Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez (signatory # 27), Blake Dubroc (signatory # 26), Gil Lamperez (son-in-law, signatory # 28).

Defendant Melissa Dubroc is in further apparent violation of another Louisiana notary statute in that she failed to witness a significant number of the signatories on the “petition” as is required to notarize a document and as is the primary function of a notary’s duties in notarizing any document.

One signatory who will be called as a witness at trial communicated to Petitioner in writing that, “Yeah, I signed that.  They changed it after people signed it.  I signed it under the presumption of a dump being opened.”  That signatory informed Petitioner that he would have refrained from signing the “petition” had he known what was actually being sought by Petitioner.  This deception on the parts of Defendants Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc were both intentional and designed to cause a “mob-like setting” at the January 6, 2022 Parish Planning and Zoning meeting, and their devious acts succeeded as the “mob,” led by Defendant Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard, was hostile toward Petitioner and his then-attorney, Michael Adley, throughout the meeting.  This was so much the case that the St. Martin Parish Sheriff Deputy serving as security for the meeting insisted upon escorting Petitioner, Petitioner’s then-Attorney, Michael Adley, and Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns to their vehicles, with that Deputy volunteering, “You don’t know what you’re dealing with in these people!”

The St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office is presently investigating Defendant Melissa Dubroc’s apparent violations of Louisiana notary statutes outlined above.

Girouard and Dubroc opted to employ prominent New Iberia attorney Eric Timothy Haik to represent them just as he is doing in Broussard v. Scott Lopez and Benjamin Cole Lopez.  Haik opted to file this combination Answer and Peremptory Exception of No Cause / No Right of action.  Let’s examine just a few quick assertions made by Haik:

The Petition asserts all kinds of crazy allegations against all kinds of people or entities, none of which are specifically alleged against the named defendants.

Plaintiff has no right/Cause of action against Defendants as Plaintiff failed to plead the prerequisites to state a cause of action for defamation of character. For these reasons and those set out more fully in Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Exceptions of No Right and No Cause of Action, Plaintiffs Petition should be dismissed.

Further, because Plaintiff’s motive in filing his Petition for Damages was to harass Defendants, they urge this Honorable Court to consider sanctioning Plaintiff with attorney’s fees and costs.

Haik’s filing, in turn, prompted Broussard to, on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, file this Opposition Memorandum to Haik’s Peremptory Exception of No Cause / No Right of Action.  Let’s take a look at a few highlights:

NOW UNTO COURT comes Petitioner, Billy Broussard, in proper person, who files this Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ No Right / No Cause of Action Presently scheduled for contradictory hearing on December 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendants assert that Petitioner “asserts all kinds of crazy things against all kinds of people or entities, none of which are specifically alleged against the named Defendants” yet fail to assert a single “crazy” thing in the Peremptory Exception.

Defendant Melissa Dubroc alleges that “not one paragraph” of the Petition . …. alleges any defamatory statements made against Defendant Dubroc,” yet Dubroc conveniently ignores that, not only did she play an active role in the generation and spreading of the Petition submitted to the St. Martin Parish Council on or around March 2, 2022, but that she is in apparent violation of numerous Notary Acts in doing so.

Defendant Dubroc also ignores the fact that she is presently under investigation for those alleged improper Notary Acts by the St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office. As part of this Opposition Memorandum, Petitioner supplies Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-6, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Exhibit is an email sent by St. Martin Parish Assistant District Attorney Michael Caffery on October 25, 2022 (a mere three days before Defendant Dubroc’s Exception Motion was filed with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court), which is reproduced below:

From: Michael Caffery <[email protected]>
Date: October 25, 2022 at 11:36:47 AM CDT
To: Billy Broussard <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Material Requested to Assist With Your Investigation of Potential Illegal Notary
Act(s) by Melissa Dubroc

Thank you for the email Me. Broussard. It definitely has been busy, but I’m determined to get a Motion filed on this before Thanksgiving. I apologize for the delay and feel free to contact me anytime.

Michael Caffery
Sent from my iPhone

For Defendant Dubroc to assert that Petitioner’s Petition should be dismissed with prejudice while she is simultaneously being investigated by the St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office acts for which numerous notaries have attested to Petitioner represent, “obvious and willful disregard for fundamental standards and obligations of all Louisiana notaries,” is patently absurd! Further, Defendant Dubroc’s assertion that this Honorable Court “consider” sanctioning Petitioner is nothing short of beyond the pale.

What is in reality happening is that Defendants Dubroc and Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard are desperately trying to toss this case even when Petitioner has a pending Discovery Request of Defendant Girouard for all Facebook posts of her group, “Vieux Jacquet Neighborhood” which make reference to Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s property on Duchamp Road.

Upon inf0rmation and belief, this Face book group is comprised of close to 100 members. Though the group was founded in October of 2020, it languished with only about 18 members until Defendant Girouard, in concert with LSP Trooper Scott Lopez (a named Defendant in a separate Defamation lawsuit: 91706-H)
began their joint crusade against Petitioner in late 2021, at which time membership expanded exponentially, to even include a sitting St. Martin Parish Councilwoman and Vice Chair, Ms. Carla Jean-Batiste, whom Defendant Girouard introduced to the Facebook Group on or around October 10, 2020, with Jean-Batiste, the spouse of the second-in-command at the St. Mai1in Parish Sheriff’s Office, Harold Jean-Batiste, Jr., remaining a Facebook group member from that day forward to the present day.

Also upon information and belief, Defendant Girouard, on or around December 6, 2021, converted her Facebook group from public to private. Petitioner asserts that this act on Girouard’s part transpired after Petitioner’s then-attorney, Michael Adley, informed St. Martin Parish Government officials that the Facebook exhibits already presented in this Petition are “defamatory.” Quite simply, Defendant Girouard was attempting to facilitate approximately 8-10 repetitive posters to her Facebook Group to be able to defame Petitioner’s character to the other 90+ members who, upon information and belief, have engaged in no posting whatsoever on that Facebook group and, in fact, in many instances, have quietly told Petitioner that they support him.

Defendant Girouard, upon information and belief, has expelled Facebook members to her group who have posted anything remotely positive about Petitioner and has further made it clear to other members upon expelling members engaging in such acts that such positive commentary about Petitioner will not be tolerated. Girouard’s actions in that regard are indeed ironic given that the first “rule” of her Facebook group states:

1. Be kind and courteous. We’re all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let’s treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.

Despite Defendant Girouard’s above “rule,” Petitioner has been made aware of neighborhood members who have been referred to as “snakes” if they so much as appear to support Petitioner. Also, upon information and belief, Petitioner has been referenced
as a “POS” and other derogatory nouns by both Defendants Girouard and Dubroc and other Facebook group members orchestrated by self-proclaimed Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard.

The reality is that the residents supportive of Petitioner and his extensive efforts to improve the property are reluctant to express support publicly for fear of reprisal, particularly on the part of Defendant Dubroc’s household. To cite the rationale of such fear, on May 14, 2022, the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office was called out to the Dubroc residence as a result of “numerous rounds of an AK-47 rifle being fired by people who are clearly inebriated.”

When Sheriff Deputy Darren Countee arrived on the scene, he spent all of about nine minutes merely taking down the serial number of the rifle and stating, “as long as you’re firing in a good direction all is fine.”

Less that six (6) minutes after he left the scene, Countee was immediately returned and had to place Defendant Dubroc’ s daughter under arrest as she had crossed the street and was approaching her neighbor threatening to, “beat the f@@k out of you for calling the police!”

The reality is that the neighbor is not the one who called law enforcement to the Dubroc residence, but the actual caller doesn’t want his or her identity revealed for fear of reprisal, and the same holds true of those reluctant to speak publicly (or even make a supportive post on Defendant Girouard’s Facebook group, which results in immediate expulsion from the group) in support of Petitioner for fear of ramifications from the “mob,” for which Girouard has self-declared herself as “mob boss.”

Petitioner is not required to prove his entire case in his initial Petition, and presumably Defense Counsel is aware of that fact. Petitioner has clearly demonstrated a Cause of Action for Defamation; furthermore, upon receiving the above-referenced Request for Production (i.e. the Facebook posts and comments thereof), Petitioner has little doubt that he will need to file a Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the present Petition to add other Defendants who chose to actively participate in the blatantly-defamatory posts made in Defendant Girouard’s Facebook Group between the dates of October 20, 2021 running through and including the date of this writing.

For the foregoing reasons, this Honorable Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss his Petition and instruct Defendants to supply the Request for Production of Documents to include all Facebook posts made on the Facebook Group, “Vieux Jacquet Neighborhood” which make reference to Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s property on Duchamp Road. Further, this Honorable Court should not even remotely dignify Defendants’ request for this Honorable Court to “consider” sanctioning Petitioner as the request is patently absurd on its face in light of the actions of Defendants entailing their Face book postings and apparent improper Notary Acts outlined in this Opposition Memorandum to Defendants’ Exception of No Cause / No Right of Action.

There’s not much we can add to Broussard’s Opposition Memorandum; however, we will make just a couple of observations.

First, it would seem that, if Haik wishes for the Court to take seriously his request that the Court “consider” sanctioning Broussard, he should have made his request far more formal by filing a Motion to Impose CCP 863(B) sanctions.  The fact that Haik failed to do so telegraphs to us that he doesn’t expect the Court to seriously “consider” imposing sanctions, and he tip-toed around his request likely to avoid angering the Judge by making the filing more formal when he knows such a filing would be dead on arrival.

Second, Broussard was recently informed of a massive number of trucks hauling in numerous loads of dirt onto Joelle Dubroc’s property to fill in a deep hole which had tree limbs and branches filled into it years ago.  Broussard tells us that the property was previously, “a BMP (Best Management and Practice) site.”  He further informs us that, while Parish President Chester Cedars was with the St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office, he (Cedars) personally participated in the shutdown of that BMP site.

Broussard further asserts that he disagrees with Cedars’ shutdown of that site, but the fact remains that it was shut down, and that Joelle Dubroc is now doing the very thing that DEQ has warned Broussard that he cannot do, which is to cover that area up with dirt without a DEQ and/or BMP permit to do so.

Broussard, through his attorney, Heather Duhon-Moore, informed St. Martin Parish Government officials of the activity, and let’s take a look at the correspondence between SMPG officials and his attorney, Ms. Duhon-Moore, in SMPG v. Billy Broussard:

From: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: 1665 Duchamp Rd.
To: Heather Duhon Moore <[email protected]>

 

Heather,

 

In regards to the complaint by Mr. Broussard for the property located at 1665 Duchamp Road, Ronald Solarie, Parish Compliance Officer, personally traveled to the property and did not locate any tree or vegetative material on the property.

 

If Mr. Broussard has any further evidence I would be happy to review them and provide them to SMPG.

From: Heather Duhon Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 10:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1665 Duchamp Rd.

 

Lee,

 

Since Billy is not residing on the property- He has not been able to get a picture of who has been doing the activity recently. In the past it has been Dean Guidry, but Mr. Broussard could not confirm if Dean is doing it this time.

 

On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote:

Heather,

 

Thank you for this information. I have forwarded this to St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars for his review. He did follow back up with me via email and advised he has instructed the proper parish personnel to investigate the matter.

 

To aid in the investigation do you know the name of the tree contractor or have any additional pictures?

 

Now that the Parish has been made aware of the allegations, they will investigate and proceed accordingly.

 

From: Heather Duhon Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Lee Durio <[email protected]>
Subject: 1665 Duchamp Rd.

 

Lee,

 

I am reaching out in connection to property located at 1665 Duchamp Rd. This property is owned by Melissa and Joelle Dubroc. It has come to Mr. Broussard’s attention that Joelle Dubroc is currently hauling dirt and vegetative debris onto her property to cover a large hole that has been partially filled with vegetated debris by a tree contractor. It is also my client’s understanding that the Dubrocs do not have a DEQ and/or State-approved site which, according to statements made by Parish President Chester Cedars, is required.  Mr. Broussard has taken a number of photos of this recent development.

 

Furthermore, this would also be an apparent violation of the same ordinance that the Parish is presently deploying against Mr. Broussard.  Additionally, in sharp contrast to Mr. Broussard’s vegetative materials, which are well beyond 500 feet from the road, Joelle’s vegetative materials are located only about 30 feet from the road.

 

Mr. Broussard and I are both baffled regarding why the same identical activity being conducted by Mr. Broussard and Joelle Dubroc is deemed illegal for one and perfectly legal in another situation.

 

I have attached a few pictures of the “illegal activities” being conducted on Joelle Dubroc. I would like the Parish’s explanation on why two different landowners are being treated differently.

We do find it a tad ironic that Durio’s correspondence only references “not locating” any tree debris.  Well, duh!  Anybody recon that was because, by the time SMPG officials got there, these massive number of loads of dirt, which apparently those 8-10 residents who want Broussard arrested for merely having a truck on his property (and falsely assert that Judge deMahy signed an Order that Broussard was to be arrested for so much as parking a truck on his property) had no issues entailing Dubroc’s activities, the tree debris was all covered up?!  After all, that was the objective, no?

Secondly, and more disturbingly, we’ve obtained evidence that Joelle Dubroc took to Facebook as co-manager of Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard’s Facebook group, and made several posts about the visit from Mr. Solaire, to wit:

It appears Melissa Dubroc’s effort to “keep the post clean” didn’t last long!  For the record, Broussard asserts that Girouard’s contention above is completely false and that he is most certainly NOT the one who dumped the trees in the pond!

Oh, my!!!!!!  The Parish has hauled off and said, “U good nothing to worry about.”  We’ll assume the troll commentary is Dubroc-Lamperez’s alone and not that of an SMPG official!

Uh, oh!  Defendant Dubroc once again couldn’t keep it “clean” (Facebook Rule # 1 of the group notwithstanding).  Further, there goes that “POS” reference Broussard made in his Opposition Memorandum.  We wonder how many times other such nouns and adjectives similar in nature have been used to describe Broussard over the 22 months that the 8-10 core members who are asserted to constantly lambast him may have been used?  Perhaps we’ll find out upon Girouard supplying the material Broussard has requested in his Request for Production outline in P-7 of his Opposition Memorandum.  We have a feeling that will be quite interesting.

Gee, this sure is starting to sound eerily similar to the infamous,  “I’m going to beat the f@@k out of you,” threat Joelle Dubroc made on Deputy Countee’s body camera regarding her neighbor across the street on May 14, 2022, no?

The Court hearing for the Peremptory Exception is scheduled for December 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.  We’ll certainly attend and report upon the outcome soon thereafter.

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.

Ms. Mona Hardin, mother of Ronald Greene, who died at the hands of Louisiana State Police Troopers on May 10, 2019, voices frustration on Monday, November 14, 2022 at a meeting of the Special Committee of the Louisiana House formed to delve into that in-custody death.  Her frustrations centered on statements made prior to her testimony by LSP Col. Lamar Davis and also what she asserts is the false claim by Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards that she and her family were shown the “Clary video” when Hardin has consistently contended that she and her family were shown mere “snippets” of the videos from that night despite her daughter’s pleas for them to see “the whole video.”

When we published this July 5, 2022 feature on the widespread LSP Cadet cheating scandal spanning several consecutive Cadet classes, we committed to our subscribers and casual site visitors to follow up.  Trust us, we have tried to do so very, very diligently.  We spoke with sources familiar with the scandal, and our first guidance was to request texts between LSP Trooper Patrick Thomas and then-Cadet Senette Small.  Here’s what we asked for in that request of July 5, 2022:

Text messages between Trooper Patrick Thomas and Academy Cadet Senette Small which precipitated an Internal Affairs investigation.

Bear in mind that the request was made on July 5, 2022.  On November 7, 2022 (125 DAYS!! after our request), here’s the response we received:

With regard to your request for text messages between Small and Thomas “which precipitated an Internal Affairs investigation,” please be advised that there are copies of limited text messaging between Small and Thomas in the investigative file related to the 2019 Academy cheating investigation. Those text messages were not the subject of any discipline for either employee and as such, the department considers the privacy interest of its employee’s communications outweighs any public interest in those text messages, pursuant to City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Capital City Press, L.L.C., 2007-CA-1088 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/10/08), 4 So.3d 807.

There goes that whole “right to privacy” assertion once again!  So, what our key sources with integral knowledge of the matter told us should be a critical item we should request has been blocked cold by LSP.  Go figure!  We’ve been told the contents of the texts, but we refrain from publishing items of that nature for which we don’t have the documents, and LSP deems the public to have no right to know what’s in those texts, so sorry, folks, we did our best, and we’re not inclined to go through another three-ring circus of a court trial given that we may well draw Judge Don Johnson once again!  Being blunt, there are several other judges we could draw for whom we would be just as uncomfortable as drawing Johnson!

We do want to drive one point home hard!  LSP Col. Lamar Davis has been by far (and we do mean by far) the most restrictive LSP Colonel regarding the release of records than either of his two predecessors who have served in his capacity since this blog was formed.  We firmly believe that propensity on Davis’ part provides the key to what is wrong with LSP and why the agency operates in such a clandestine manner.  Further, it’s our contention that aspect of LSP’s operations has gotten even more clandestine under Davis!  If anyone asks us our “trust level” for Davis on a scale of 1-10, we will quickly respond with “0.”

We therefore find it ironic that Davis would tout both when he was promoted to Colonel, and more recently, yesterday (Monday, November 14, 2022) just how “transparent” he’s making the agency.  Let’s spend just 13 seconds to see what Davis said to the Ronald Greene House Committee yesterday:

11/14/22:  Davis stresses how “transparent” he is making LSP to the public.

Our only commentary is that actions speak louder than words!

We weren’t the only ones unhappy with Col. Davis’ testimony before the Ronald Greene House Committee yesterday.  Let’s take a look at Ms. Mona Hardin, Ronald Greene’s mother, provide her testimony to Davis’ continued employment of Troopers Kory York and John Clary:

11/14/22:  Ms. Mona Hardin, mother of Ronald Greene, provides her testimony on LSP’s continued employment of Troopers Kory York and John Clary as well as other practices she has observed by LSP and Col. Lamar Davis.

Now, Gov. Edwards was supposed to be at this hearing; however, he had what he deemed to be far more important matters to attend to.

If we could take a wager, we would bet this groundbreaking was scheduled immediately after Edwards obtained knowledge of when this hearing would take place (we were told about 16 days ago), and the all-important ground breaking was then scheduled to coincide with the hearing.

Meanwhile, Ms. Hardin was left to continue to wonder with bewilderment when (or even if) anyone at LSP or the Governor himself will ever be held accountable for what happened to her son on May 10, 2019!

The fact that Edwards was not there did not stop Rep. Debbie Villio (R-Kenner) from getting to the bottom of whether or not, as Edwards has claimed, Ms. Hardin and her family were permitted to see the “Clary video” way back in October of 2020.  Let’s take a look:

11/14/22:  Ms. Hardin provides clarity on whether or not she or her family viewed the “Clary video” in October of 2020 as asserted by Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards.

After watching that video, no wonder Edwards skedaddled  to that groundbreaking ceremony!

Now, make no mistake, Col. Davis made it clear that, notwithstanding his soon-to-end tenure as LSP Colonel once a new Governor is sworn into office in January of 2024, he made it emphatically clear that “my vision” for LSP will continue many years after due to the people he’s placing in positions via promotions.  Let’s take a look:

11/14/22:  Davis emphasizes that his actions will have long-term impacts on LSP notwithstanding his short tenure as LSP Colonel.

As our subscribers are aware, it is Davis’ actions which have provoked the ire of white male troopers, who assert that Davis is looking no deeper than skin color or gender provided that an African American or female posts for a promotion and that his promotional decisions are based almost exclusively on that criterion alone.  We at Sound Off Louisiana have been bombarded with telephone calls and emails from ex-troopers who have unloaded upon Davis to us regarding promotions that literally boggle the mind based on what all we are told.  We also want to stress that these troopers have described the actions of the troopers in Troop F who were involved in Ronald Greene’s apprehension as “reprehensible.”

As most folk also know, we have embarked upon a long-term project (hopefully within 90 days or so, but it is a HECK of a massive undertaking) to construct tables for all of Davis’ promotions as well as all of the retirements and/or resignations of troopers since he took over LSP’s operations as Colonel.  At this time, let’s present the current progress we have on the promotional table:

We’re not going to comment on the contents of the above table because we already know many troopers have been awaiting publication even of the above material for a while now.  We appreciate everyone’s patience, and we’re going to gradually build both tables in full, but it is a huge undertaking, especially as we try to report on other matters both with LSP and otherwise.

We will state, however, that we will have an upcoming feature on one of the individuals featured in the table above and the stonewalling we encountered regarding a public records request made of that individual (spoiler alert:  that particular public records request was not made of LSP).

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.

Attorney Lee C. Durio, appearing to make himself at home at the Chamber meeting facility of the St. Martin Parish Government (SMPG), and against whom Billy Broussard filed a formal complaint with the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel alleging three (3) unethical acts which Broussard asserts Durio committed during his pursuit of him on behalf of his client, SMPG.

On Thursday, November 10, 2022, Billy Broussard continued his legal fight with St. Martin Parish Government (SMPG).  This time Broussard filed a formal complaint with the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel against St. Martin Parish Attorney Lee Durio.  In the following video, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns accompanies Broussard to explain the three (3) core elements of Broussard’s complaint:

11/10/22:  Burns accompanies Broussard mere moments after he filed an ODC formal complaint against SMPG Attorney Lee Durio.

Before we look at the core contents of Broussard’s complaint, we need to stress one thing.  Normally, proof of “irreparable harm” is a requirement for obtaining the type of injunctive relief Durio sought in the form of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).  However, Durio asserted that, because Broussard was “breaking the law,” he indicated that the requirement was “being dispensed with.”  That background will provide the full context of Broussard’s first accusation of unethical conduct on the part of Durio.

Now, let’s take a moment to review the three (3) ethics violations Broussard asserts in his complaint:

Mr. Durio filed a Temporary Restraining Order against me on August 19, 2021 which I have enclosed as part of this complaint. Then, when he realized that he was going to go down in flames at a court hearing set for Tuesday, September 14, 2021, made the proposal to Parish President Chester Cedars, who is the representative for his client, the St. Martin Parish Government, that the hearing be continued, that the TRO be permitted to dissolve on its own, and that I simply resume “violating the law.” I contend that, as an officer of the court, it is a clear and unequivocal ethics violation for Mr. Durio to, on the one hand, claim I am “violating the law,” then turn right around and tell me, “We decided it’s okay for you to violate the law, so resume doing it!” I enclose the written agreement that Mr. Durio proposed to memorialize for the ODC him having done so.

As if that was not bad enough, his own client, St. Martin Parish Government, contacted me in mid-February of 2022 and asked if it was okay with me for THEM to haul in debris onto my property, which was the very activity for which Mr. Durio filed the TRO (which had been dissolved by operation of law some 160+ days prior). Rather than doing the ethical act, which would have been to advise his client that it could not engage in the same “illegal act” for which it was pursuing me, Mr. Durio instead posed no opposition whatsoever to his client hauling in the debris. I have extensive cameras installed on the 33-acre property, and I provide as evidence to the ODC color time-stamped, date-stamped photos of his client hauling in such debris. I contend that is the absolute epitome of unethical conduct to be pursing someone on behalf of a lient for alleged “illegal acts” and turn right around and permit his own client to engage in that same “illegal act” on the defendant’s (me) property!

Finally, I contend that Mr. Durio has acted unethically when my resumed activities caused neighbor complaints, and rather than telling those complainants that, “We have given him permission to engage in these acts,” he instead encouraged the filing of complaints with the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office, and I enclose just one of those many complaints.

Broussard is also concerned about the extensive past and present law-enforcement officers who are working together entailing Broussard.  Specifically, Durio is a former police officer, as is SMPG Chief Administrator Calder “Pop” Hebert, as is Louisiana State Police Trooper Scott Lopez, all of whom Broussard has alleged have worked hand in hand, along with SMPG Deputy Baily Romero, at engaging in acts which he asserts are targeted at him to “build a case where none exists.”

Broussard even submitted the following 18-second video clip of Romero attempting to make a call right after a callout to Broussard’s property and, when there is no answer, the phone clearly shows the “Law Office of Lee C. Durio” on prominent display.  Here’s that 18-second video:

March 4, 2022 call by SMPG Deputy Baily Romero which, upon no answer being obtained, the phone clearly shows “Law Office of Lee C. Durio” on prominent display.

Here’s a still photo of what Broussard references:

March 4, 2022 screenshot of Baily Romero’s phone showing him potentially calling the “Law Office of Lee Durio” immediately after he’d completed investigating a complaint filed by the owner of property next to Broussard’s 33-acre farm, Blake Dubroc.

As we indicated in the video, we’ll update our subscribersip and casual site visitors with the ultimate outcome of Broussard’s formal complaint against Durio once it has been fully investigated and any decision made by the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

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.