Month: November 2023

Ms. Mona Hardin, mother of Ronald Greene, sees her son sometime after his death on May 10, 2019 at the hands of Louisiana State Police troopers and Union Parish Sheriff deputies.

We realize that our last feature entailing the dropping of Louisiana State Police (LSP) Lieutenant John Clary’s Obstruction of Justice charge for allegedly, “withholding a body camera video from investigators” was an in-depth and very much “in the weeds” production.

Let us summarize it in one sentence:  John Belton’s criminal case against Clary was utterly laughable and would have been near-impossible for him to prevail upon.  That’s the one sentence summary, but the more perplexing question is how in the world he actually got an indictment on something so flimsy and lacking even an a modicum of foundation.

At any rate, as we stated in that article, Ms. Mona Hardin appeared on Gerod Stevens’ “reality check” program on Thursday, October 19, 2023.  Sister Belinda Parker-Brown, founder of Louisiana United International and Mr. Stevens have invited Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns on the show about four times in 2023 (and even more in 2022) to provide updates on the Ronald Greene trial.

We want to provide our subscribers and casual site visitors with the opportunity for Hardin to inform everyone just what all has transpired from the outset of the in-custody death on May 10, 2019 through present day.  What all she describes is absolutely incredible and, for those who’d like to hear her explain it all in her own words (and vent plenty of frustration with “everyone who has touched this case,”) here’s your chance:

Episode of Gerod Stevens’ “reality check” program of October 19, 2023 wherein Ms. Mona Hardin, mother of Ronald Greene, informs listeners of all that has transpired entailing her son’s in-custody death at the hands of LSP Troopers and Union Parish Sheriff Deputies on May 10, 2019.

We think anyone would have to admit that the above account of Ms. Mona, including all of the frustrations she conveys in that broadcast, are almost unbelievable, but it all really did happen!

We felt a duty to inform the Greene family of our take on Belton dropping the Obstruction Charge against Clary and that it almost certainly may not be for the reason(s) Belton likely conveyed to the Greene family.  Quite simply, we would never believe he would admit to the family that the trial would be downright laughable as one LSP investigator after another testified to having no trouble viewing Clary’s video and that he made no attempt whatsoever to block them from doing so.

That fact notwithstanding, Clary may be called upon to testify in the upcoming trial of Union Parish Sheriff Deputy Chris Harpin, which is presently scheduled for March 25, 2024.  Harpin’s Motion to Quash the charges against him was denied by State Judge Thomas Rogers on November 22, 2023.  Here’s what Judge Rogers had to say in his ruling:

Count 12 of the indictment alleges that Mr. Harpin applied OC spray after he had been subdued and Count 13 alleges he placed his foot on Mr. Greene sometime thereafter.  These are separate and distinct actions even though they were reportedly within 16 seconds of each other.  Although 16 seconds sounds like a very short span of time, it was sufficient to have given Mr. Harpin time to reflect on the result of applying the OC spray and to make a deliberate decision to apply his foot to Mr. Greene.  This was not an automatic reflective response immediately following the application of the OC spray.

Code of Criminal Procedure Article 61 grants the Office of the District Attorney vast authority over criminal prosecution.  This broad discretionary power allows the office to determine whom, when, and how he shall prosecute.  In the present case evidence was presented to a grand jury who with the guidance of the District Attorney determined that there were 2 distinct offenses of malfeasance.

LSA-R.S. 14:8 defines one form of criminal conduct as an act that produces criminal consequences combined with criminal intent.  Louisiana Courts have consistently held that where a law enforcement officer commits a battery in the course and scope of his duties this would constitute malfeasance in office under LSA R. S. 14:134 A(1) or A(2).  Simply put, he violated a lawfully required duty by performing it in an unlawful manner.  Both Counts 12 and 13 describe batteries separate and distinct from each other.  As pointed out by the State if Mr. Harpin was tried on either Count 12 or 13 alone the disposition as to only one count would not give rise to a claim of double jeopardy as to the other.  The Court agrees with the State.  The fact that two actions occur only sixteen seconds apart is of no consequence.  Accordingly, the Motion to Quash is denied.

THUS DONE and SIGNED this 21st day of November, 2023 in chambers at Ruston, Louisiana.

Here’s a brief update on the status of the other Greene defendant, Kory York.  On October 5, 2023, Judge Rogers denied York’s Motion to Quash after the Kastigar Hearing.  York’s attorney, J. Michael Small, immediately vowed to appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  York succefully obtained an extension of time to apply for writ application to Friday, November 24, 2023 (last Friday).  In the meantime, Judge Rogers granted a Stay of all Court Proceedings pertaining to York pending that appeal.

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards prepares to address a question from Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns regarding what he would say to people who are disappointed that he never testified before the Louisiana Special House Committee investigating the death of Ronald Greene.  Burns posed the question of Edwards at the meeting of the Baton Rouge Press Club of May 1, 2023.

On October 31, 2023, we all learned that the lone remaining charge against LSP Lt. John Clary of Obstruction of Justice was dismissed.

In order to provide more thorough and in-depth coverage of our take on the matter, we have delayed making our own post on the matter.

First, let us make a couple of quick observations about the nature of the agreement between Clary and the State of Louisiana:

==> Clary did not enter into any plea agreement nor, as has been reported by other media outlets, did he agree to, “testify against others entailing Ronald Greene’s death.”  What Clary did is commit to prosecutors that, if he is served with a subpoena seeking his testimony, he will testify truthfully.  That’s it.

==> Clary did not receive any commitment from Belton for immunity as part of the agreement.

Let us now consider the following quote from Ronald Greene’s mother, Mona Hardin, found in the above-linked article:

Greene’s mother, Mona Hardin, expressed frustration Tuesday over the duration of the case, but not at Belton’s decision to dismiss the counts against Clary given his cooperation.

“You’re glad to see anybody flip, but it absolutely has no meaning until we’re through,” she said.

We don’t see any “flip,” and we’re going to explain why shortly, and it’s our sincere hope that DA John Belton has not indicated to Hardin that there has been a “flip,” but our thought is that he likely has made such a representation to her.  If so, it’s a representation which we believe is very inaccurate.

So, why did Belton suddenly dismiss the Obstruction of Justice charge against Clary?

Very simple!

We have previously reported that Clary’s attorney, Kyle Green, succeeded in getting Clary’s case severed from the other Greene defendants.  Green then pushed for the fastest possible trial date, and State District Judge Thomas Rogers set the matter for trial on February 26, 2024.

It was at that precise moment that we assert that Green had Belton precisely where he wanted him.  Specifically, Belton was boxed into a corner, and he had to face the music about his ability to convince a Petit Jury that Clary had, “failed to provide a video to investigators.”

Though few people likely clicked on it when we provided a link for it on August 7, 2023, Green, seven days previous to that date, on July 31, 2023, filed this Motion for Grand Jury testimony pursuant to Brady v. Maryland.

From that filing ([Clary] is supplied by us):

In the instant case, Defendant [Clary] is accused of one count of Obstruction of Justice by failing to provide a video to investigators.

Belton’s humongous problem?:  He quickly realized that Green was literally going to mop the floor in court against him as the Petit Jury was shown THIS AXON LOG OF CLARY’S BODY-CAM VIDIO.

That log clearly demonstrates that Clary, despite having been falsely accused by newspaper features across the United States of doing so, most certainly did NOT, “conceal his body cam video for almost two years.”

Let’s present the following table clearing out the noise such as buffering in order to clearly illustrate who accessed and/or downloaded Clary’s so-called “concealed” video and when:

We’re about to present four (4) videos (which took an unbelievable amount of time and energy) that we believe make it crystal clear that Belton would have gotten his head handed to him on a platter if he dared proceed forward with trial against LSP Lt. John Clary for Obstruction of Justice regarding, “failing to provide a video to investigators.”

We have tried to be as fair as possible to former LSP Sergeant Albert Paxton, and, in that regard, we made no effort to shield Clary from Paxton’s wrath.  Nevertheless, we placed on-screen texts to help guide viewers to the timeline problems and other problems we detect in Paxton’s statements.

In our observation, Paxton’s problematic statements were easily exceeded by his then-supervisor, Lt. Johnny Scott Brown.  We were able to spotlight contradictory statements by Brown, especially regarding when he indicated he first learned of the Clary body cam video.  In our opinion, Brown gave those contradictory statements (which we guide through text messages displayed on his video) because he relied entirely too heavily on Paxton’s “timeline (log) of events.”

We firmly believe that all of the members of the Ronald Greene Committee, which acknowledged having Paxton’s timeline/log, over relied on that same timeline (log).

We believe that anyone investing the minimal amount of time (at least vs. the incredible amount of time it took us to produce them) to watch these four (4) videos will have an extremely difficult time trying to counter our contention that Belton would have quite literally gotten his head handed to him on a platter at trail on February 26, 2024 had he not (wisely, in our opinion) agreed to dismiss the Obstruction charge against Clary.

Here are the four (4) videos:

Critical excerpts of then-LSP Sergeant Albert Paxton’s testimony on 3/22/22 before the House Special Committee investigating Ronald Greene’s in-custody death on May 10, 2019.

Critical excerpts of LSP Sergeant Scott Davis, who downloaded the Clary body cam video on 5/15/19, only five (5) days after Clary himself uploaded it and downloaded it onto Evidence.com, on 3/22/22 before the House Special Committee investigating Ronald Greene’s in-custody death on May 10, 2019.

Critical excerpts of LSP Lieutenant Johnny Scott Brown on 3/22/22 before the House Special Committee investigating Ronald Greene’s in-custody death on May 10, 2019.  To us, this testimony alone would have made Belton’s task of prosecuting Clary incredibly difficult.

Critical excerpts of then-LSP Lieutenant Col. Kenny Van Buren on 4/28/22 (along with accompanying commentary by others) before the House Special Committee investigating Ronald Greene’s in-custody death on May 10, 2019.  The first 30 seconds of this video completely annihilates ANY chance Belton had for successfully prosecuting LSP Lt. John Clary!

Just listen to all of the people who are readily acknowledged to have not only known about, but actively discussed the John Clary body cam video!  We firmly believe that any law school student having completed even two weeks of the first year of law school could have procured an acquittal for Clary, much less a seasoned attorney like Kyle Green (Clary’s attorney).

Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns pointed out on this June 23, 2023 feature that “something is amiss” regarding the timing of when Clary’s video “surfaced.”  Because Burns has paid laser-focused attention to detail in the Greene matter, he knew the second he read in Kory York’s Kastigar Motion that the Stoughton use-of-force report, which was dated October 20, 2020, relied upon the body camera video of John Clary, that something simply had to be amiss because newspapers across the entire United States reported (we now know totally FLASELY) that Clary had, “Withheld the video for almost two years.”  We are now going to present the 1:45 segment of the video on the preceding June 23, 2023 feature:

June 23, 2023 segment of Sound Off Louisiana feature wherein founder Robert Burns states, “something is amiss” about how Clary can, “conceal a body-cam video for almost two years until April of 2021,” yet that same video is used for a use-of-force report dated October 20, 2020!

In the above video, Burns stresses that, “somebody is not accurate.”  Who?  Louisiana State Police, that’s who!

The Scott Brown video above shows the Committee Members had Paxton’s notes (log).  Briefly, from that log:

April 2021, Clary video discovered. April 12, 2021,

Based on that entry and LSP’s willingness to run to the proverbial house with it, just look at a small sample of news headlines lambasting John Clary published all over the United States:

Huffington Post (New York) Headline.

Mercury News (San Jose, California) Headline.

Whittier Daily News (Monrovia, California) Headline.

Does it really make any sense that Clary would deny the existence of his body cam video and then turn right around less than an hour later and upload the “withheld video?” We firmly believe (as we feel certain a Petit Jury would have concluded), no!  Kyle Green, Clary’s attorney, would’ve had a very long line of witnesses who could have testified about their watching and/or discussing the “withheld video.”

Regarding the 4th video above, we do not believe that Rep. Debbie Villio (R-Kenner) did herself any favors in asking Van Buren if she was, “right or wrong” entailing Paxton not viewing the Clary video.  Why?

Van Buren was smart enough to bring with him for testimony a AXON log showing that Paxton accessed the system in, “July of 2019,” which was at least 51 days after Clary uploaded the video.

Nevertheless, Villio opted to be flippant (and, in our opinion, arrogant and unprofessional) about, “not being born last night.”

We commend Van Buren for brazenly declaring Villio to be “wrong.”  While Van Buren was smart enough to have the Axon log with him, Villio obviously did not bring Paxton’s alleged emails with her which, if she had, she could have read into the record and, very importantly to us, indicated the dates of any such emails.

We’d like to know whether those emails were drafted before or after July of 2019.  If before, that fact would at least lend credence to Paxton’s argument about being denied access to the system.  Nevertheless, even that would fail to negate the fact that he accessed the system after sending the emails voicing frustration.

If Paxton’s emails were dated after July of 2019, then how can we rule out the possibility that he is providing cover for himself after-the-fact for failing to detect and/or download the Clary video?  Quite simply, though we would hope not, we don’t think we can rule out that possibility.

After all, just listen to Paxton indicating that Scott Brown said what “rolls downhill” and that “they” would be blamed for all this.  That sure sounds like a directive to provide cover to us, and that’s why we view the dates of any such emails from Paxton (along with whom he sent such emails to) as critical material that Villio failed to produce during what we deem to have been a very belligerent line of questioning.

The FDIC trained (trains) all its examiners to have a “healthy skepticism” when seeking and/or assessing the material provided by potential targets of an investigation.

Maybe LSP may wish to consider taking out a contract with the FDIC for similar such training.  If LSP does, however, we can’t promise that some of the recent past (present??) wild partying at the FDIC Training Facility in Arlington, Virginia may still be in play (there is never going to be another U. S. Senator with John Kennedy’s unique ability for satire — mixed in with very serious questioning — when questioning officials providing testimony before a Committee which he sits on, huh??!!)

What is deeply troubling to us is that even accepting that Clary’s body cam video “surfaced on April 12, 2021,” (which is a flatly-known falsity), LSP had a full 42 days (42 days!!) to resolve the matter and prevent the AP from running with a blatantly-false headline concerning Clary.

Forty two (42) days!  Brown testifies above that Van Buren and Cammon were in a meeting (see 3:20 mark of video) as they portrayed that this video had “surfaced.”  So, while Paxton’s notes were not accurate on when that video “surfaced,” LSP upper brass certainly did nothing to prevent that AP article from running even though they had 42 days to ensure that nobody uttered that falsity to a major news media outlet.

One historically very-reliable LSP source for us indicated to us that Col. Davis himself promised to, “make the wrong right” regarding what happened to Clary entailing that publication, but the same source indicated Davis never made any such effort to do so.

Let’s emphasize the timing of the “surfacing” of the Clary body cam video and how close that was to the AP first exposing the 30-second segment of the DeMoss video on May 19, 2021, which is 37 days after the “surfacing” of the Clary video and only five days before Clary would be falsely accused of concealing his own body cam video for, “almost two years.”

Though Paxton certainly has to be held accountable for his false statement in his notes about when the Clary video surfaced, we certainly don’t doubt for one second that LSP was more than happy to have Paxton be its patsy.  Why do we say that?  Because, when we were making our public records requests with then-LSP Legal Counsel Faye Morrison (on which she was fighting us tooth and nail), we asked for the accident report entailing Greene.

How did Morrison respond?  After first telling us that nothing was deemed public record at that time (late August – early September of 2020), she then revised her statement about an hour later and said that the following undated report authored by Albert Paxton was the “only” document considered public at that time:

How interesting that the above document, which is frustrating in that it is not dated nor time stamped, but which is clearly wildly inaccurate, would be the only document Morrison would deem to be “public.”  Hence, our willingness to say Paxton may have well served as LSP’s patsy.

We’re not sure how Belton even procured a Grand Jury indictment given that he was fully aware of all of the material that we’ve presented above because it all transpired well before Belton’s convening of the Grand Jury on or around October of 2022.  If, by chance, that indictment arose from false testimony supplied to the Grand Jury, then it’s our firm opinion than any individual providing such false testimony should be charged with perjury.

There is plenty of additional collateral damage pertaining to the falsity regarding the Clary video, but we’re saving that for Installment Two of this series.  We are going to gradually build our case for our firmly-held belief that Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards was in on this cover-up all the way to his eyeballs.

For now, however, we want to make sure the Greene family is aware of our firm belief regarding why Belton dismissed the charge against Clary (i.e. because he was going to get his head handed to him on a platter at trial).

We tuned in to Gerod Stevens’ “reality check” program on October 19, 2023.  On it, Mona Hardin, Ronald Greene’s mother, frequently lambasted Belton along with, “everyone who has touched this case.”  We felt we owed it to her and the family to provide what we believe is better insight on why Belton dismissed the Obstruction charge against Clary.

In conclusion, our sources tell us that Clary has formally submitted his request to return to work at LSP to the current LSP Administration (i.e. LSP Col. Lamar Davis).

We’re told that his request received a very cold reception.

Once Gov. Elect Jeff Landry names Davis’ replacement, it will be up to that individual entailing whether to back Clary’s return; however, it would seem that, with the dismissal of the charge, the following likely may apply:

==> he’s eligible for all leave he burned through since being indicted to be reinstated,

==> he’s entitled to have all of his legal defense costs of defending this matter reimbursed by the State of Louisiana, and

==> perhaps much to the chagrin of many people to include the family of Ronald Greene, he is likely fully eligible to return to active duty with LSP.

We know even as we publish this feature that it won’t be popular with many people, but our goal is to publish the truth and let the chips fall where they may.  Popularity has never been our primary focus since the formation of this blog in June of 2015.

We look forward to delivering Installment Two of this feature in the very near future.

LSP Major Frank Besson (photo courtesy of WAFB news).

LSP Major Robert Hodges (photo courtesy of WAFB news).

Subscribers and casual visitors to this blog may recall that, after providing Gov. Elect Jeff Landry a week to savor his primary victory, we then openly posed the question of whether Landry would perpetuate a 15-year downward spiral of LSP by appointing Frank Besson (a/k/a Edmonson 2.0) as LSP Colonel.

As we indicated in that feature, doing so would certainly appease the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association, which has backed Besson for a protracted period dating back to Gov. Edwards having to name a replacment for former Col. Kevin Reeves.

We’re going to again present the video associated with that post for review at this time:

10/22/23:  Burns provides an admonition to Governor-Elect Jeff Landry entailing his LSP Colonel appointment similarly to that he provided to then-Governor-Elect John Bel Edwards on December 8, 2015.  [Our apologies for the intermittent blurriness of the video.]

According to this WAFB (Channel 9 in Baton Rouge) feature written two days ago (November 14, 2023) by its News Director, Robb Hays, Landry is close to making an announcement on his choice to head LSP, and the top names are Majors Frank Besson (gee, what a surprise!!) and Robert Hodges.  From the feature:

As Governor-elect Jeff Landry prepares to announce a new leader for Louisiana State Police, the names of two longtime troopers continue to surface as strong possibilities for the job.

They include Major Robert Hodges and Major Frank Besson.

Hodges, a 28-year veteran of Louisiana State Police (LSP), currently oversees Region 2 Patrol. Region 2 encompasses eighteen southern parishes and includes Troop C in Gray, Troop D in Lake Charles, and Troop I in Lafayette. He and Landry have been friends for many years.

Besson, who has been with LSP for 24 years, oversees the agency’s Emergency Services Unit which includes areas like crisis response, air support, and the LSP SWAT team. Besson is a former president of the Louisiana State Trooper’s Association.

The job is a cabinet-level position in the governor’s administration. Landry is expected to announce his choice by the end of this month.

The names of other top contenders could still surface as Landry’s transition team continues interviewing people for the job this week.

Should Landry choose either one of these two gentlemen, we can assure him that it is going to go over like a lead balloon with a vast swath of the active troopers serving at LSP; furthermore, it will reinforce among many recently-departed troopers (many leaving in droves with 3-15 years of tenure, which has reportedly been unprecedented at LSP) that they made the right decision in bailing out of LSP.

With LSP now having been on a 15-year downward spiral which has cast it to lows the general public (and many active and retired troopers) could have never fathomed, the universal sentiments among troopers (and recently-departed troopers) who have reached out to us and commented on the upcoming selection is that neither of these two gentlemen has the leadership traits to right the ship.  Further, because of their own alleged past issues, they will most certainly not have the respect of current troopers serving at LSP.

We could supply many more (especially on Besson), but here are just a few of the communications we’ve received entailing these two gentlemen:

Besson:

1.  Word on the street is Landry is going to choose Besson to head LSP.  He’s the one who, when promoted to Captain at Troop C, his first order of business was promoting his brother Simon.
2. Internally, Louisiana State Police is “shaking” at the idea of Major Frank Besson, who is the front runner, becoming the next Superintendent of LSP.  He would ABSOLUTELY set LSP back to a Mike Edmonson era.
3. Besson has a history of internal complaints due to lack of leadership and bias.
4. I really feel bad for Landry for the mess he’s walking into, but it’s making all of the troopers nervous knowing who is politicking (Besson) to get the top job.
5. Just about everyone at LSP at the rank of Captain or above (Major is the next step up after Captain) has done nothing in their career except kiss ass.

Regarding point # 3 above, there is this feature regarding fired whistleblower Carl Cavalier’s lawsuit against LSP.  From that feature:

On May 5, 2018, Cavalier alleges to have experienced racial discrimination from his chain of command, specifically from Major Frank Besson, Sergeant Simon Besson, Lieutenant Andre Bienvenue and Lieutenant Matt Trahan.

Cavalier alleges that between August 11, 2018, and August 24, 2018, he was contacted by Lieutenant Draper Crain and Lt. Colonel Kendrick Van Buren and advised that he should request a transfer to the Bureau of Investigations. Cavalier met with Major Darrin Naquin regarding possible resolutions to the discrimination on August 24, 2018, then requested his transfer on August, 27, the suit says.

We at Sound Off Louisiana have our own past issue with Besson.  In 2014, Burns (who at that time had no blog) assisted two other bloggers in providing video coverage of the Louisiana State Police Retirement Board (LSPRB)’s, of which  Besson has been the long-time Chairman‘s, heel dragging on the infamous “Edmonson Amendment,” which was a covert effort on the part of former LSP Colonel Mike Edmonson to cram an approximate $55,000/year pension benefit boost straight down taxpayers’ throats.

One of those bloggers, the late C. B. Forgotston, identified five (5) Members of the Board who would, according to Forgotston(whose ability to be accurate on LSP matters was uncanny) fight tooth and nail to actively block any effort by the Board to litigate the matter in an effort to undo Edmonson’s sneaky act of squeezing the Amendment into a wholly-unrelated bill during a Conference Committee at the 11th hour for Edmonson to get the massive increase to his pension.  From the preceding feature identifying the five (5) members:

Frank Besson (Chairman)

Kevin Marcel

Charlie Dupuy (Edmonson’s long-time Chief of Staff)

Stephen LaFarge:  

Thurman Miller: 

Then-Louisiana State Treasurer (now U. S. Senator) John Kennedy, who was close friends with the late C. B. Forgotston and who also served on the LSPRB, expressed his frustration at the whole matter, and he specifically dressed down Frank Besson and then-LSPRB Executive Director Irwin Felps about the Edmonson Amendment and Felps/Besson’s direct attempts to curtail public comment on the matter.  Let’s take a look:

September 4, 2014 LSPRB meeting during which then-Treasurer (now U. S. Senator) John Kennedy dresses down Chairman Frank Besson and Executive Director Irwin Felps, Jr. [Besson gets confrontational with Kennedy at the 0:48 mark of the video.  Kennedy professionally characterizes Besson’s proposal (providing for a maximum two-minute period for each retiree and other attendees to speak and ONLY if their names are, “drawn out of a hat”) wherein Besson directly sought to curtail public comment as a “bad proposal.”]  We did then and do now 100 percent agree with Sen. Kennedy!

Immediately after that same meeting, Kennedy was not done voicing his displeasure over the whole matter.  Let’s take a look:

September 4, 2014:  Then-LSPRB Member (and then-State Treasurer) and now U. S. Senator John Kennedy is interviewed by reporters immediately after the LSPRB meeting regarding resolving the “Edmonson Amendment.”

Meanwhile, a month before Kennedy’s statements in the preceding video, Burns, who was working closely with Forgotston and Kennedy (as an aside:  Burns uncovered through FOIA legal invoices of the LSPRB indicating strong consideration was given by the five Board Members to actually sue John Kennedy over him encouraging the LSPRB to be sued over the Edmonson Amendment), sent each of the five (5) members this August 9, 2014 letter inviting each of them to appear on camera and defend their steadfast opposition to litigating the Edmonson matter.

Burns followed up the letter with a subsequent email, and Frank Besson, in particular, was incredulous and demanded that Burns, “remove my name from any emails you send out.”  That action on Besson’s part infuriated Forgotston, who then proceeded to flood Besson with emails and told him that, “if you don’t want to receive these emails, resign from the Board!  You are a public official serving the public, and I have every right to express my sentiments to you!”

The whole matter got resolved when then-State Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge), acting through Baton Rouge attorney Jack Whitehead, filed this lawsuit against the LSPRB seeking to have the entire bill declared unconstitutional.  Judge Janice Clark, who is the 19th JDC judge who drew Claitor’s lawsuit, wasted no time issuing a ruling declaring it “unconstitutional on its face.”

We have also received reports that raise questions about possible actions Besson may have engaged in to assist former Col. Mike Edmonson (or a firm in which he has ownership) in procuring contracts in the aftermath of one or more hurricanes to have stricken South Louisiana.

Hodges:

Because Hodges’ name has not been “in play” for nearly as long as Besson’s, we don’t have as much material on him.  Nevertheless, the material we did obtain from troopers is extremely unflattering.  In fact, some of it is so bad that we aren’t comfortable publishing it without foundation which, at this time, we lack.  Nevertheless, here is something we are comfortable publishing:

Hodges lives in Mandeville, but he lists his residence as being in Lafayette…….LSP policy requires living within 75 miles of a location when applying for a promotion.  If the promoted individual does not do so, he or she has 90 days to move within the area or the promotion must be forfeited.  Hodges has used the address of a friend in Lafayette to get around the requirement.  So, he is knowingly and willingly violating policy but will be in charge of enforcing it if Landry chooses him as the next Colonel.  Guess it will be the “same ole same old” at LSP!

So, it would appear that Landry is content to continue with the “same ole same ole,” at least regarding LSP’s “leadership” and the near-certain debacle that either choice he would make between Besson or Hodges would likely generate.

It looks like we’ll be in for an interesting and challenging time at LSP from everything we can assess of Landry’s decision-making process (i.e. just do whatever the hell the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association tells us to do) regarding LSP (in which case, Besson will undoubtedly be the next LSP Colonel).

Notwithstanding the WAFB article above (which says Landry will make the announcement, “before the end of the month,”) our sources indicate that he will make the announcement on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, just ahead of the extended Thanksgiving Day weekend.  If that turns out to be the case, it may be an intentional act to keep the announcement as low-key as possible.  If so, it’s not going to work because we’ll certainly blast his selection as far and wide as we can and then prepare for extreme scrutiny of whomever his choice turns out to be, especially if it’s either of the two aforementioned gentlemen!