Louisiana Attorney General (and candidate for Governor in 2023) Jeff Landry, who in his capacity as Attorney General representing Louisiana attorneys defending the Ronald Greene litigation, was characterized by Greene family attorney Lee Merritt as viewing him and other attorneys representing Greene as “quite a nuisance.”
Here’s the latest on the Ronald Greene criminal and civil matters as well as the latest filing on the Carl Cavalier matter:
Eboni K. Williams, host of the Grio YouTube channel, published the following video hours ago in which attorney Lee Merritt, upon whose initial civil lawsuit filed on behalf of the Greene family we based our original September 10, 2020 feature breaking the Ronald Greene matter, updated viewers on the latest developments entailing both the Ronald Greene criminal and civil litigation matters. Let’s take a look:
December 28, 2022 interview of attorney Lee Merritt by Eboni K. Williams.
The only thing we’re going to comment on regarding the video above is that the “Louisiana attorneys” who have “seen us (the Greene lawyers) as quite a nuisance” would be spearheaded by the following highest-level attorney in the State of Louisiana:
Speaking of Attorney General (and candidate for Louisiana Governor in 2023), Jeff Landry, here’s a look at Cavalier’s attorneys’ response to LSP’s Opposition Memorandum to the Reopening of the Cause Filed by Cavalier.
That response was filed into Federal Court today (December 28, 2022).
We’re about to reproduce the highlights, but we want to stress that Cavalier’s attorneys argue strongly what Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns argued (and published) at the outset of this whole episode upon seeing the utter fiasco that it has become.
What they are arguing, which Burns feels is totally consistent with everything Burns was taught in the two Business Law classes at LSU required for sitting for the CPA exam and based upon all of the questions on the CPA exam, which is 25 percent Business Law, which focus on all the elements of a binding contract, there simply was no “meeting of the minds” here.
Being blunt, Burns doesn’t see how ANY judge can remotely infer that there was a meeting of the minds given the chaotic manner in which this settlement agreement was forced upon Cavalier and the fact that he remained consistent that he did not agree to the terms of the settlement: #1) before the October 6, 2022 settlement conference, #2) during the settlement conference, and #3) after the settlement conference.
With that opinion on our part fully expressed, here’s highlights from the reply by Cavalier’s attorneys:
I. There Was No Meeting Of The Minds Between The Parties.
In Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Cause and Rescind the Proposed Settlement (Rec. Doc. 59), in reciting the “facts” of the case, the Defendants wholly ignored the sworn declaration, in which Mr. Cavalier testified that he and his attorney at the time disagreed on the terms of the settlement. There is no court record of the settlement, but after the settlement conference, the counsel for the parties exchanged emails attempting to reduce the oral agreement to specific terms. Mr. Cavalier never agreed to a written agreement. When he was presented with writing of specific terms from the oral agreement, he would not sign the agreement, as he did not agree! His position that he never agreed was confirmed at the Hearing held on October 27, 2022, where Mr. Cavalier explained, “It wasn’t that I just changed my mind. My position was, was never accurately represented by, by my counsel.” As pointed out in the Opposition Memorandum, “for a settlement to exist, there must be ‘an offer, acceptance, consideration, essential terms, and a meeting of the minds among the parties.’” In the case at bar, there was no meeting of the minds of the parties. Further, for there to be an agreement, as referenced in the Opposition Memorandum, the parties must voluntarily agree. As discussed more fully below, Mr. Cavalier did not “voluntarily agree” to the settlement. The instant matter is just like Alexander, where there was a disagreement between a party and that party’s counsel. Similarly, in the case at bar, there was disagreement between Mr. Cavalier and his counsel. Thus, Mr. Cavalier refused to sign a written agreement because he believed there was no agreement.
It is clear that the Plaintiff, Mr. Cavalier, never accepted the settlement as proposed without a provision by which he would be reemployed by the Louisiana State Police, even though his former counsel wanted there to be an agreement. At best, as in Hensley, there is ambiguity as to whether there was an agreement.
He (Cavalier) did not want to even go to a settlement conference before his hearing with the Police commission. But his attorney at the time would not listen to him. She browbeat him into going to the settlement conference, with the understanding that the money figure was agreed to, contrary to Mr. Cavalier’s view that it was insufficient. His attorney said that at the settlement conference, they could argue for more money using the non-economic issues as bargaining chips. But this was never done. Mr. Cavalier was depending upon his attorney at the time to forcefully argue for him, but instead, she was focused on the money. In spite of her client’s plea to raise the reemployment issue, she kept repeating that $200,000.00 was a great settlement. Finally, Mr. Cavalier caved and agreed to an oral version of the settlement, even though he really never agreed either to the dollar figure or the non-economic issues. His counsel threatened to abandon him if he did not agree to the $200,000.00. Mr. Cavalier knew he could not proceed alone and needed her. He was over a barrel. Either (1) agree to the $200,000.00, (2) agree to go to a settlement conference before a civil service hearing, or (3) at the settlement conference, agree to settle. Mr. Cavalier was under duress to consent, and thus any agreement was invalid.
Based on the audio recordings we’ve already published between Cavalier and Craft, we find it almost impossible to argue against what Cavalier’s attorneys assert above.
Cavalier told us when this whole episode first blew up, “Mr. Burns, they are telling me they’re going to mail me this big package and that I need to sign it. If they do mail me a big package, I’m just going to take a marks-a-lot, write ‘return to sender’ on it, and send it right on back to them!” We joked with Cavalier in saying that he could invoke the following 1962 (long before Cavalier was born and even a year before Burns was born) great hit by “The King” himself:
The “King’s” 1962 Smash Success Hit: “Return to Sender.”
All we can say is that, if Judge John deGravelles rules against Attorney General Jeff Landry and LSP, then maybe a lesson can be learned about trying to conduct negotiations in a super-secret, high-pressure atmosphere. We doubt they’ll learn anything because, being blunt, their arrogance is too strong and they’re playing with “house money” (i.e. our taxpayer dollars).
We’re just glad that Landry and his cramdown approach has been rebuffed by Cavalier in a very convincing and well-documented (much to Craft’s chagrin we’re sure) fashion!
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.