Louisiana State Police (LSP) Lt. Col. and Chief of Staff, Chavez Cammon, directly addresses Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns regarding LSP recruitment problems as he seeks to allay concerns of the public as outlined by Burns earlier in the meeting. Cammon did so at the March 9, 2023 meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC).
On Thursday, March 9, 2023, the LSPC met to discuss an agenda item advanced by LSPC Member Jared Riecke. His measure called for the LSPC to begin exploring an LSP pay raise for troopers to help alleviate LSP’s well-documented recruitment problems. A formal proposal is expected to be advanced as part of the budgetary process during the 2023 Louisiana Legislative Session which begins next month.
Seeing the item on the agenda prompted Sound Off Louisiana‘s founder, Robert Burns, to make public comment on it. In doing so entailing purposes of this feature, Burns is also deploying modern technology to incorporate quotes of former LSP Troopers Carl Cavalier and Albert Paxton to assist. Those quotes buttress Burns’ contention that the root cause of LSP’s core recruiting problems go far beyond money. Burns is also utilizing recent video footage of current LSP Trooper Scott Lopez to demonstrate that the recruitment problems are not likely to be solved merely by, as Burns stated to the LSPC, “throwing more money at the problem.”
Both Riecke and LSP Lt. Col. Chavez Cammon engaged in very respectful recognition of Burns’ statements as they both explained why they believe that a pay raise should be a high priority. They also sought to ensure the public that LSP will be held accountable for any funds taxpayers choose to entrust to LSP Troopers in the form of a pay raise.
We welcome everyone to view the entirety of the discussion of Riecke’s agenda item in the video below (which incorporates the video quotes of Cavalier, Paxton, and Lopez which Burns references above):
March 9, 2023 LSPC meeting wherein Member Jared Riecke’s LSP trooper pay raise initiative is discussed.
May 14, 2022 meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) at which fired whistleblower Carl Cavalier’s then-attorney, Jill Craft, lambasts high-ranking LSP officials for refusing to honor her subpoenas and thereby continue the delays of Cavalier having his hearing before the LSPC to attempt to obtain his job as an LSP Trooper back.
The reason for our bleak outlook is that we’ve followed plenty of Federal cases in which a Magistrate Judge makes recommendations to the Judge overseeing the case, and it has been our experience that the recommendations are merely adopted by the judge as a matter of routine practice.
What makes Cavalier’s case unique, however, is that, in his case, the Magistrate Judge, Bourgeois, was an active participant in an October 6, 2022 “settlement” conference. At that conference, at best, Bourgeois fell well short of what should have been done in terms of adequately memorializing any alleged settlement. At worst, he failed miserably to serve as a neutral party in the “settlement” and instead, by injecting his opinion that the $200,000 was a “fantastic settlement offer,” actually engaged in misconduct in joining LSP’s efforts to all-but force this settlement upon Cavalier.
There is little doubt of Bourgeois making that utterance about the “fantastic settlement offer” as both Cavalier and his then-attorney, Jill Craft, stated as much in an October 13, 2022 recorded phone call. Lets take just 33 short seconds to substantiate that fact:
33-second segment of recorded phone call on October 13, 2022 between Cavalier and his then-attorney, Jill Craft, in which Craft openly asks Cavalier, “What part of the judge saying, ‘this is a fantastic settlement’ did you not hear?”
As is obvious, Craft remained consistent, just as she’d done on two prior phone calls (9/2/22 and 9/27/22), that Cavalier simply couldn’t see the forest for the trees, and she appears to be operating under the assumption that she must superimpose her superior knowledge of these type cases to tell him basically that he would be an idiot to not accept the $200,000. While she may even be right, in the end, it is the client, not the attorney, who makes the call. The evidence is overwhelming (thanks to Cavalier’s astute recording of those phone calls) that Craft refused to let her client be the boss entailing the decision being made in this matter.
When Cavalier’s attorneys filed this Opposition to Bourgeois’ Report on Tuesday, March 7, 2023, we’re going to admit upfront: we were impressed. With what were we impressed? It’s normal for an attorney to be critical of a Federal Judge’s conclusions of law, but in this instance, Cavalier’s attorneys were willing to accuse Bourgeois of inappropriate conduct to include “forcefully” telling Cavalier to accept the agreement “or get nothing” and also joining Craft and serving as her tag-team partner to “browbeat” Cavalier into accepting the agreement. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights, shall we?:
To Mr. Cavalier’s shock, when Magistrate Bourgeois was on the call with Mr. Cavalier and his attorney, Magistrate Bourgeois forcefully told Mr. Cavalier to accept a settlement that had been proposed by Defendants. Ms. Craft and Magistrate Judge Bourgeois browbeat Mr. Cavalier into settling. They both kept saying that $200,000.00 was a great settlement, and the details would be worked out later. Though Mr. Cavalier did not want to settle, under duress from both his counsel and Magistrate Judge Bourgeois, he orally agreed to what he thought was an “agreement to agree.”
It is important to note that there is NO contemporaneous Record of the terms of the purported settlement. The Court failed to read the oral settlement into the record. The oral settlement was not reduced to writing at the settlement conference. Typically, if a settlement is reached during a mediation, all parties at least sign a short document memorializing the essence, if not the key terms, of the settlement; no such document was signed at the end of the mediation.
The terms of the settlement were NEVER made a part of the Judicial Record. Post mediation, the Attorneys for both sides collaborated on the details of the putative settlement, but Mr. Cavalier never agreed to the written document. Further, at no time did Mr. Cavalier authorize his attorney to settle on his behalf. No writing or recording from Mr. Cavalier authorized his attorneys to settle the underlying matter on his behalf.
In the case at bar the underlying action for wrongful termination was filed in Louisiana State Court by a Louisiana State employee, Carl Cavalier, against Louisiana entities, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, the State Police and the Superintendent of the State Police. Mr. Cavalier alleged that he was terminated because he revealed abuse of certain employees of the Louisiana State Police against a Louisiana citizen. It would seem appropriate
for Louisiana law to be followed in this case. Several cases cited in the Recommendations (R. Doc. 83) involve Maritime Law or other federal law, and such cases were filed in Federal Court. The instant matter is clearly distinguished from these cases. The EEOC case5 involves an agency settlement, not a lawsuit settlement, and thus is not applicable to the case at bar.
One key fact is that the putative agreement was oral, not reduced to writing at the end of the settlement conference, and not put into the Record. Clearly, under Louisiana Law, the settlement is not enforceable.
Under Louisiana law,
“A compromise shall be made in writing or recited in open court, in which case the recitation shall be susceptible of being transcribed from the record of the proceedings.”
In general, when a person is given the “opportunity to agree to a contract or be deprived of economic security, the Court has found this to be Duress. Mr. Cavalier was told that if he didn’t take the settlement on the table, he would get nothing. Mr. Cavalier’s “personal circumstance” was that he was not sophisticated in legal matters or how settlements worked. He did the right thing and exposed a coverup, and was rewarded by being fired. His counsel at the time had assured him that he had a great case. She was confident and wanted to take it to trial. But then money showed up, and suddenly she said he had better take the money because he had no chance if he did not. He was confused and intimidated by the whole process. Not being experienced in such matters, his circumstance made his fear more than reasonable. His own lawyer, who was to be on his side and on whom he had relied, abandoned him in the negotiations, and said she was not going to push for more money or for his reinstatement as a State Trooper. She in essence forced him to agree to a proposal. To compound his fears of not agreeing, his neutral arbiter forcefully told Mr. Cavalier to take the money, or get nothing. Mr. Cavalier again was confused and intimidated. Is it surprising that Mr. Cavalier, with no time to consider the offer, said OK? Mr. Cavalier did agree to settle orally, but the settlement was never read into the record, and as soon as he saw the writing, purported to reflect the agreement, Mr. Cavalier refused to sign.
In the instant matter, the purported settlement was not made in writing; the purported settlement was not recited in open court; and the purported settlement could not possibly have been “transcribed from the record” as there was no record of the proceedings!
It is clear that Mr. Cavalier had only verbally agreed to a settlement because he believed that there would be more negotiations, and when he saw the written terms of the putative settlement, Mr. Cavalier refused to sign the writing, prepared by and agreed to by his Counsel and Counsel for the Defendants. Mr. Cavalier had insisted that his reemployment be included in any settlement, and it was not. Clearly there was no meeting of the minds, and thus no agreement.
There is no valid compromise. Regardless, whether under state law or federal law, a contract must reflect the “meeting of the minds” of the parties or the consent of all parties to the contract. Further, whether viewed under Louisiana or federal law, the standard of review for enforcing or challenging a settlement is the same—whether there was abuse of discretion and clear error. A purported agreement is invalid if it was agreed to in ERROR or made under FRAUDULENT circumstances or made under DURESS. In the instant matter, any settlement apparently reached would be invalid because of Error and Duress.
Thus, there is no settlement agreement as Mr. Cavalier only verbally agreed in error, believing that more negotiations were to follow, and even what he agreed to was done under duress.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Cavalier asks that the Recommendations from Magistrate Bourgeois be rejected, and that Mr. Cavalier’s Motion to Rescind the Settlement be granted, or in the alterative, a Hearing on this matter be held. Further, Mr. Cavalier asks that the Motion to Intervene be denied, and that all Motions by the Intervenor be denied.
We’re certainly heartened by the wording above about there being no “meeting of the minds” because, as we’ve previously emphasized on several occasions in covering this matter, from what Burns was taught in Business Law classes at LSU and, judging by the questions along those lines on the CPA exam, we’ve felt it was clear there was no “meeting of the minds” in this case. Obviously, Cavalier’s attorneys, one of whom is a PhD, strongly concur!
We’ll just have to see whether Judge deGravelles concurs with Cavalier’s attorneys or whether he concurs with his Magistrate Judge but, given the highly-unusual circumstances of this case, perhaps this will be a rare instance in which the Federal Judge overseeing the case, deGravelles, deviates from the Report of his Magistrate Judge, Bourgeois.
At any rate, whenever a hearing time and date is set, we plan to attend or, in the event no hearing is set by Judge deGravelles to hear oral arguments and testimony, we’ll certainly alert our subscribers to whatever decision Judge deGravalles makes.
No matter what the ruling, however, we commend and admire Cavalier’s attorneys for having the courage to call a Federal Judge on the carpet, and we believe that act shows they’re willing to go to the wall in advocating for their clients (Cavalier in this case).
May 14, 2022 meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC), at which fired LSP Trooper Carl Cavalier’s former attorney, Jill Craft, vents frustration that high-ranking officials of LSP dishonored her subpoenas to appear before the LSPC as she fought on Cavalier’s behalf for him to be reinstated with LSP. The camera to the left (which Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns references in the first audio clip of this feature) was a CNN camera as part of a crew CNN sent to cover Cavalier’s LSPC hearing.
Consequently, those new subscribers may not be familiar with our extensive reporting on fired Louisiana State Police (LSP) Trooper Carl Cavalier, who went very public with his knowledge and concerns regarding the LSP in-custody death of Ronald Greene, on which we first exposed that LSP cover-up on September 10, 2020.
Three (3) minute segment of 1/24/23 Carl Nelson radio broadcast wherein Burns provides quick overview of where fired LSP Trooper Carl Cavalier’s efforts to obtain his job back stood at that time.
Anyone is welcome to listen to those audio files Burns references in the audio clip above of Cavalier recording his then-attorney, Jill Craft, by clicking here. Also, regarding LSP officials simply not honoring subpoenas issued by Craft for their appearance before the May 14, 2022 LSPC meeting, anyone is welcome to watch Craft voice her frustration at that development by clicking here.
Nelson soon followed up on Burns’ summation above by asking Cavalier himself if he could add more and if he was optimistic of being able to win his case and get his job back. Let’s take just two (2) more minutes to listen in on what Cavalier had to say:
Two (2) minute segment of 1/24/23 Carl Nelson radio broadcast during which Cavalier follows up on Burns’ summation and responds to Nelson’s inquiry of whether he is “optimistic” about his legal case going forward.
When we first saw the filing by Bourgeois and downloaded it, the first thing we did was to go to any reference Bourgeois made entailing there being a “meeting of the minds” in this matter because that’s an essential element of a binding contract, and we have contented from the outset that it was simply not present in this instance.
Obviously, however, our opinion is of no consequence, whereas Bourgeois’ opinion is of major consequence.
With that in mind, let’s highlight the rationale by which Bourgeois contends there was a “meeting of the minds” and thus recommended the enforcement of the oral agreement to Judge John deGravelles, who is the actual judge overseeing Cavalier’s case:
Federal law governing settlement agreements applies the general common law principles of contracts. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 786 F.3d 344, 354 (5th Cir. 2015). To form a settlement agreement, there must be an offer, an acceptance, consideration, the inclusion of all material or essential terms, and a meeting of the minds among the parties. See id. at 355-60. An offer and acceptance “is judged by the parties’ overt acts and words, not by the subjective or secret intent of the [parties].” Id. at 355. For there to have been a meeting of the minds, the parties must have “knowingly and voluntarily” entered into the agreement. Bowers v. Abundant Home Health, L.L.C., 803 F. App’x 765, 767 (5th Cir. 2020). So long as these requirements have been met, “[federal law does not require settlement agreements to be reduced to writing.” EEOC v. Philip Servs. Corp., 635 F.3d 164, 167 (5th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff agreed to a compromise following the judicial settlement conference. The parties made mutual concessions to resolve the litigation and affirmed their agreement before the Court. (See R. Doc. 40). Although Plaintiff now states that he was under duress, he concedes that he “did agree to the Settlement, even though he did not actually agree to the terms.” (R. Doc. 52-2 at 5; see also R. Doc. 70 at 4 (“Mr. Cavalier caved and agreed to an oral version of the settlement even though he never really agreed either to the dollar figure or the non-economic issues.”)). As purported evidence that Plaintiff never actually agreed to the compromise, Plaintiff cites to
earlier communications with his attorney in which he stated that he would not agree to the proposed terms. (See R. Doc. 52-3). However, Plaintiff’s prior statements do not negate that he expressly agreed to the terms during the settlement conference. Plaintiff’s “reluctance… does not diminish the fact” that he agreed to the terms of the compromise. Preston Law Firm, L.L.C., 622 F.3d at 391; see also Klebanoff, 978 So. 2d at 604 (“[R]eservations about the commitment … [do] not alter the showing of consent and mutual concessions.”).
The parties are bound by their compromise despite Plaintiff’s contention that they only entered into an unenforceable, oral agreement.
Here’s the conclusion section of Bourgeois’ Report and Recommendation:
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (R. Doc. 56) and ORDERS the parties to comply with the terms of their settlement agreement.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Intervenor’s Motion to Deem Privilege Waived (R. Doc. 77) and Intervenor’s Consent Motion for Leave to Review Exhibits In Camera (R. Doc. 78) be DENIED AS MOOT.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 24, 2023.
As is made obvious at the bottom of the first page of the Report and Recommendations, Bourgeois made it crystal clear that, under no circumstances, will there be an extension of the time to file written objections to the Report and Recommendations beyond the 14-day period once served.
Obviously, neither Craft nor LSP have any need to object. Cavalier’s attorneys may file an objection as part of their legal obligation to Cavalier, but it would seem a foregone conclusion that Judge deGravelles is going to adopt Bourgeois’ Report and Recommendation and issue an Order to that effect. In fact, given the strong wording of Bourgeois’ report, we highly doubt that a hearing will even transpire on the matter.
