Is Louisiana State Troopers Association poised to shell out bigtime legal fees and/or settlement money in Braxton v. LSTA et. al.?

 

A photo taken on or around March 9, 2021 of a stack of depositions taken in the defamation civil trial of Braxton v. Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) et. al.  Since then, the litigation documentation and filings have mushroomed extensively.

We first began coverage of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) in January of 2017 after being encouraged to do so because of that agency’s placing of an item on its agenda openly questioning whether the employment of its then-Executive Director, Cathy Derbonne, should be continued.

We didn’t know anybody at all on the LSPC and had very little knowledge of LSP’s operations in general.  Obviously, it’s a vastly different story today!

While the Derbonne agenda item was certainly noteworthy, particularly for the manner in which that matter was handled at the meeting, we were actually more intrigued by one then-LSPC Member in particular:  Calvin Braxton.

Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns didn’t know Braxton from Adam at the time, but that would certainly change dramatically over the ensuing years.

At the meeting after Derbonne’s agenda item was considered, February 9, 2017, Braxton vented about being left out of the loop on LSPC affairs, and he made his sentiments known as only Calvin Braxton can do!  Let’s take a look:

2/9/17:  Then-LSPC Member Calvin Braxton vents to then-LSPC Chairman, T. J. Doss, and his other colleagues about being left out of the loop entailing LSPC matters.

At the tail end of the video above, Braxton stresses that, “I spoke my peace!  I’m not quitting!  I’m not getting off this Board!”

What Braxton was clearly unaware of was the fact that, even as he spoke those words, the LSTA had been actively attempting to have Braxton removed from the LSPC for close to a year.

It wasn’t long before Braxton was indeed off the LSPC, and the circumstances surrounding his unceremonious departure could not have been any more bizarre.

To best illustrate that point, let’s republish two more videos (actually three with the first two being consolidated into one) wherein major television stations reported upon Braxton’s unceremonious exit from the LSPC, the bizarre circumstances surrounding same, and a subsequent lawsuit filed by Braxton a year later against the LSTA.  Those broadcasts gave credit to Sound Off Louisiana video for coverage of an LSPC meeting.  Here are the videos:


July 17, 2017 features of Fox 8’s Lee Zurik and WWL’s Katie Moore as they related to what Braxton asserts are defamatory statements made about him initiated by the LSTA and Jay Oliphant.


WWL-TV in New Orleans airs this May 17, 2018 feature on Braxton’s defamation lawsuit against the LSTA and Jay Oliphant.

After those broadcasts, the mainstream media understandably lost interest in the matter.  We say “understandably” because next comes the long, drawn-out minutia of conducting discovery, and that process is unlikely to generate much interest on the part of the general public.

Nevertheless, we like to periodically provide updates to matters such as Braxton’s just as we did with LSP whistleblower Carl Cavalier until everything is clearly resolved.  In that context, we presented this March 9, 2021 highly-detailed update on Braxton’s matter.

Now, as the litigation progressed, LSP itself was added as a Defendant once Braxton uncovered the fact that then-Lt. Col. Jay Oliphant, who allegedly (we use that word for a reason, which will become more clear momentarily) authored the incident report, sought to have Braxton investigated for murder.

The end result of LSP being added as a Defendant was that, as we have previously reported entailing Billy Broussard providing attorney Eric Haik with “remedial training” on LA CCP Article 971, LSP, acting through attorney Ben Mayeux, obtained this judgment awarding LSP $50,376.25 from Braxton.  Braxton appealed the award to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s decision.  From the Third Circuit’s January 31, 2024 ruling:

…..the judgment of the trial court awarding the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections (Office of LSP), $50,376.25 in attorney fees for its successful La.Code Civ.P. art. 971 Special Motion to Strike is affirmed. The judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Colonel Jay Oliphant on the issue of his March 2, 2018 Incident Report is further affirmed. The costs of this appeal are assessed to Calvin W. Braxton, Sr.

Today, what we’re doing is providing an update on Braxton’s litigation since, if the stars line up (and that’s a big “if”), the matter is scheduled to be tried in June or July.

Let us first direct our visitors’ attention to the 1:15 – 1:30 mark of the final video above and present the dialogue between Braxton’s attorney, Jill Craft, and WWL reporter Katie Moore:

Craft:  “This report is authored and generated six-and-a-half months later, and we understand was generated at the behest of the State Trooper Association.”

Moore:  “Do ya’ll have any proof of that?”

Craft:  “We’ll have to see, now won’t we?”

That’s the whole purpose of discovery in litigation is to find answers to both Moore and Craft’s questions, and there has been an absolute plethora of discovery conducted in the Braxton matter.

In that regard, there really shouldn’t be any “Perry Mason moments” in a trial as both sides become keenly aware of each side’s strengths and weaknesses as a trial nears.  That fact also goes a long way in determining whether an amicable settlement may be reached without the need for a trial even commencing.

Though LSP is seeking a formal hearing for Braxton to be taxed with its litigation expenses as noted above, LSP is essentially out of the litigation.

Further, former Lt. Col. Jay Oliphant, while still technically in, is, for all intents and purposes, out because his attorneys have successfully argued that, since he was clearly acting in his capacity as an LSP Trooper (i.e. law enforcement capacity) when he sought an investigation of Braxton, he is entitled to qualified immunity for his actions.

So, for all intents and purposes, the LSTA is the lone remaining Defendant in the litigation.  Recall our dialogue between Craft and Moore above.  Let’s illustrate the apparently evolving answer to Moore’s question of, “Do ya’ll have any proof of that?” as we present highlights from this October 4, 2024 Opposition Memorandum Braxton filed entailing LSTA’s Motion for Leave to Amend its Answer to Braxton’s original lawsuit:

Defendant now….seeks to add two (2) new affirmative defenses: I) that its 2017 publication was “privileged”, and 2) that it “believed” the statements in the defamatory publication were true.

In this case, the parties took over twenty-four (24) depositions, exchanged several series of written discovery, and have engaged in what is best described as heavy litigation.

In the depositions of Young, Doss, O’Quinn, and Hyatt, each testified the incident report of Oliphant was specifically made an “incident report” in order that the LSTA could then obtain it via a Public Records request and use it against Mr. Braxton. Oliphant acknowledged that he was originally approached by the LSTA for him to “testify” or give an Affidavit against Mr. Braxton in order for LSTA to secure Mr. Braxton’s removal from the State Police Commission. Then LSTA Executive Director, David Young, testified he personally asked Oliphant to prepare a report so he could “carry it forward” (and disseminate the allegations against Mr. Braxton). Young also testified Oliphant did not create the contents of the June 19, 2017, letter or the incorporated and republished July 11, 2016, document. This was, according to Young, something LSTA did on its own and the motivation was to remove Mr. Braxton from the State Police Commission. For his part, LSTA Statewide President and LSP Trooper O’Quinn testified, “we [LSTA] were waiting for the incident report to be entered into the Department records so we could do a public records request.” When questioned in his deposition about the notes made by defendant Oliphant, attached as Deposition Exhibit 14 and about which Oliphant testified extensively, O’Quinn, quoting Oliphant at line 1278 of Oliphant’s own notes, recounted, “[T]he information above [i.e., Oliphant’s report] is supposed to be used in order to facilitate Calvin Braxton’s removal from the LSP Commission.” When asked about the purpose of the June 19, 2017, letter which specifically included and republished the original July 11, 2016, predecessor, O’Quinn testified the purpose of the letter was to remove Mr. Braxton from the LSP Commission. O’Quinn testified the defamatory publication was made because “we [LSTA] can’t remove him on our own.”

Is it just us, or does it appear to others that the answer to WWL reporter Moore’s question of, “Do ya’ll have any proof of that (entailing whether the incident report was produced at the behest of the LSTA)?” would now be a resounding, “Yes, ma’am.  We have that proof!”?

Again, from Braxton’s filing:

The June 19, 2017, letter, with its attachments9was published by LSTA to Governor Edwards and to Taylor Townsend, Lenore Feeney, and to Jay O’Quinn. This is evident from the face of the defamatory publication (which was also attached to Mr. Braxton’s Petition and made part thereof). It is not, as defendant LSTA asserts in its newly minted affirmative defense, a statement made only “to a government official, namely the Governor of Louisiana.” Instead, the defamatory 2017 publication was not to the “proper parties” “only”.

Although scant, defendant LSTA in its “Motion for Leave of Court to File First Supplemental Answer with Incorporated Memorandum”, offers only that “other defendants” have asserted conditional privilege as an affirmative defense clearly implying a “me too” argument. The problem, however, is that the LSTA is not the Louisiana State Police or Mr. Oliphant, who, in accord with Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 2005-1418935 So.2d 669 (La. 7/10/06), were afforded privilege because they were the ones preparing the reports which were (as defined by this Court) part of the duties of their law enforcement jobs. The LSTA is not a law enforcement agency. The LSTA is a union-like, private association.

In the LSTA representatives’ testimony, the impetus for the publication was the removal of Mr. Braxton. This is not a “duty” possessed by the LSTA nor is it a “proper occasion.” (On comparison, the defamatory publication was not even in conjunction with the actual discipline of any officer before the Commission or otherwise deserving of a testamentary privilege accorded witnesses in judicial proceedings.) Likewise, it is undisputed the imprimatur for the LSTA’s communication on June 19, 2017, was the removal of Mr. Braxton – even more than 18 months after the alleged encounter (which is hotly disputed by Mr. Braxton) in December, 2015. Neither Ms. Feeney nor Mr. Townsend possess any role – potential or otherwise – which ever could be envisaged as involved in the removal of Mr. Braxton from the Commission. At best, Ms. Feeney was a lawyer for the Commission who was utterly powerless to do anything vis-a-vis Mr. Braxton. Mr. Townsend was private counsel who had been retained by the then Executive Director of the Commission (who herself was forced out) to create a report on illegalities brought to light by Mr. Braxton. He, like Ms. Feeney, has no possible role or even ability to remove Mr. Braxton, much less, take any action against him. Clearly, neither Ms. Feeney nor Mr. Townsend were “persons having an interest in and a duty to receive such communications.” The subject communications are not privileged as a matter of law and the affirmative defense must be denied.

Defendant LSTA now attempts to assert an affirmative defense of “truth”, but in reality, adds that its mere “belief’ what it said was “true”, is enough. However, “truth” as an “absolute defense” to a defamation claim does not mean someone’s “belief.” Instead, the proper defense of truth arises from the first element of a defamation claim, i.e., a false and defamatory statement concerning another. This is an element of Mr. Braxton’s burden of proof. If Mr. Braxton fails to prove the statements by LSTA in its June 19, 2017, publication were false and defamatory, his claim fails. There is no circumstance under which if defendant LSTA merely “believed” what it said in the defamatory publication was “true” then it escapes liability. This is not a situation wherein LSTA simply sent a copy of a police report to someone. Instead, LSTA inserted its own false words that Mr. Braxton “abused” power, “intimidated” an officer, engaged in “corrupt practices”, “abused his office”. These words are nowhere found in the incident report and are the publications of this defendant.

While “truth” may be a defense to a defamation claim, one’s “belief’ that what he/she said is not. For this reason, the proposed affirmative defense, as written, should be rejected.

LSTA is also trying to assert that it is immune from liability as a result of its contention that Braxton was a “public figure,” and therefore that Braxton must prove actual malice on the part of the LSTA to prevail.

In our opinion, even with Braxton being a public figure, our extensive observations are that the LSTA does in fact have “actual malice” toward anyone, and we do mean anyone, who tries to stand in the way of the organization’s ability to make political contributions to legislators whom they seek to court to curry favor entailing legislation that would benefit the organization’s members.

After all, though the mainstream media has refrained from publishing the first word about it, as we have extensively reported, the LSTA is suing the LSPC (and Executive Director Jason Hannaman) over that very issue.

Speaking of that issue, we’ve been informed that the First Circuit Court of Appeals has entertained oral arguments not once, but twice, entailing LSTA’s appeal of LSPC’s successful defense of that litigation.

It’s also our understanding that the second set of oral arguments was heard before a panel of judges for which the composition differed from the one that the first oral arguments were presented the first time around.

We’ve consulted with several veteran attorneys in Louisiana, and they have all assessed that fact as, “highly suspect” and something they’d never heard of in their legal careers.

Whatever the case, the First Circuit is certainly taking its sweet time to render a decision on the matter as the second set of oral arguments was conducted on or around early April of 2024, yet there has been no ruling on the matter.

Getting back to Braxton, as we stated, current plans are for his case to be litigated in June or July; however, despite the fact that 24 depositions have already been taken, Braxton is seeking to take three more between now and the trial:  former Lt. Col. Kenny Van Buren, former Col. Lamar Davis, and current Lt. Col. Treone Williams-Larvadain.  Those depositions should be quite interesting in our opinion.

We’ll have to see how Braxton’s litigation ultimately unfolds but, perhaps expecting the LSTA may be held liable for damages, LSTA Attorney Floyd Falcon made a recent filing that CPA and Tulane Business Professor John R. Page may be called upon by the Defense to provide expert witness testimony on the matter of damages.  Page provides this page on his website indicating that, as of 2018, his fee for services is $275/hour.

Should this matter actually end up going to trial, with a two-week allotment already provided for by the court, the final litigation costs to LSTA could become extremely high (not to mention any potential jury award).

Perhaps the LSTA, in its haste to get Braxton off the LSPC, may not have realized that his wealth would enable him to not be forced to just roll over and take its attack against him.

After all, when we first reported upon Braxton’s lawsuit on May 15, 2018, Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns stated on the video of that feature that, even based on his limited exposure to Braxton in early 2017, “He did not strike me as someone who would just go quietly in the night.”  We would submit that the past seven years have proven Burns’ observation to be spot on!

 

On heels of $156,603 in legal fees fighting hair braiding litigation, Cosmetology Board, after being “advised” that “it’s in our best interest,” does 180, opts into AG program after first opting out citing its $121,000 cost.

Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) Chairman, Jennifer Reed, prepares to explain to her colleagues that “upon legal guidance” it is “in our best interest” to join the Louisiana Attorney General’s Occupational Licensing Review Program (OLRP).  Reed made her commentary at the LSBC meeting of Monday, January 13, 2025.

Today (Thursday, January 16, 2025), we’re beginning a series on the LSBC, on which we have extensively reported in the past.  Our most recent post was on December 8, 2024, and it entailed the LSBC’s celebration of its courtroom victory over hair braiders trying to practice in Louisiana with no “alternative hair permit.”

The permit requires 500 hours of classroom instruction, and only about 36 people in the entire State of Louisiana hold such a permit with all other hair braiders technically practicing illegally.

Mississippi, by contrast, requires a mere annual registration and the completing of a brief questionnaire on sanitation to legally practice hair braiding in that state.

Needless to say, that minimal requirement has resulted in 6,700 registered hair braiders (as of 2022) in Mississippi according to Empower Mississippi.

In contrast to Louisiana, which forces its hair braiders to work out of garages and stay on the down low and thereby be forced to avoid paying taxes on their technically-illegal work, Mississippi hair braiders are free to be out in the open, advertise their services, and proudly pay taxes to the State of Mississippi as citizens who can boast openly about the quality of their work in their chosen profession.

Louisiana, meanwhile, forces its hair braiders to feel like nothing short of criminals and, make no mistake, the LSBC can and will fine them if they’re caught practicing without the permit requiring 500 hours of classroom instruction.  We have videotaped them assessing such fines!

As outlined in our prior feature linked above, Ms. Anisia Parks, who owns Headliners NOLA, and who faithfully attends LSBC meetings and voices any concerns she may have, has stated that Louisiana’s permit requirement, with her emphasis on a “lack of enforcement” thereof, causes many hair braiders to, “work underground or leave for Mississippi or leave for Texas.”

While the LSBC did prevail against the Institute for Justice’s (IJ’s) litigation against it, the cost of victory was not cheap!  Once the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to accept IJ’s Writ Application (meaning the litigation was over) and the period for reconsideration was up, we made public records requests for all legal invoices pertaining to that litigation.

We recently obtained all of those invoices, and the LSBC spent a total (with court costs, which are relatively minor but which can be recovered from IJ since LSBC prevailed) of $156,603.18 fending off IJ’s litigation.

Some folk have contended that IJ may have prevailed had it been willing to fully conform with Louisiana’s Right to Earn a Living Act, which became effective on August 1, 2022, which was just over three (3) years after IJ filed its litigation against the LSBC.

Instead, IJ opted to merely continue on with its litigation founded upon the relatively straightforward contention that the LSBC was violating Louisiana’s Constitution in erecting excessive and onerous regulation which infringes upon Louisiana citizens’ ability to earn a living free of same.

The “game changer” for occupational licensing across the United States is this landmark decision by the U. S. Supreme Court in the North Carolina Board of Dentistry v. the FTC.  From that U. S. Supreme Court decision:

State-action antitrust immunity does not apply to a state board that places restraints on an occupation when a majority of its decision-makers, elected by others in the occupation, are active market participants in the occupation and the state does not actively supervise the board nor has the board acted pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy.

What the above wording means essentially is that Louisiana’s occupational licensing Boards and Commissions cannot act in the renegade, “we’re the only Sheriffs in this town, and you do what we say or else” mentality that has been so prevalent among many of those agencies.

Further, the downside to engaging in such mentality, especially when combined with acts which reflect that mentality (of which we’ve historically noted no shortage of on the part of LSBC Members), may open up individual Board and Commission members to personal liability.

Perhaps as a result of such concerns, the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office formed the Louisiana Occupational Licensing Review Program (OLRP).

Longer-term visitors to our blog may recall our coverage of the program when we dropped in on the fine folks at the Louisiana State Board of Veterinarian Medicine on April 6, 2023, and we filmed Joe Donahue (of the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office) explaining the program in great detail to the Board.  Perhaps knowing they were facing imminent litigation by the Pelican Institute on behalf of two veterinarians, that Board wasted no time enrolling in the program.

We would note that the Pelican Institute’s lead attorney, Sarah Harbison, has been attending LSBC meetings now for about five months.  We’ll provide more insight on her presence in future installments of this series.

For now, bear in mind that the Veterinarian Board considered the AG’s program on April 6, 2023.  The AG’s Office had set a deadline for enrollment of December 31, 2024; however, it also allowed for the LSBC to opt to enroll at its regularly-scheduled meeting of January 6, 2025.  That opportunity was rebuffed in rather dramatic and authoritative fashion, particularly by LSBC Executive Director Steve Young, at that meeting.

Here is the full, unedited video of the LSBC considering the proposal and all of the reasons they provided for not desiring to participate in the program:

January 6, 2025 discussion of the AG’s OLRP and its reasons for resoundingly and unanimously rejecting the AG’s invitation to enroll even after the 12/31/24 deadline.

In the above video, one LSBC member, Michael Anderson of Shreveport, read the AG’s material and noted the fact that declining to be in the program could open the Members up to personal liability.

We can only assume that his concerns resulted in post-meeting discussions.  Those discussions, in turn, prompted the LSBC to send out notice of a “Special Call Meeting” only one week after the above meeting.  That notice went out on Thursday, January 9, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.

The meeting was brief but certainly noteworthy as Chairman Jennifer Reed (of Eunice) indicated that, “based on guidance we’ve obtained and us being told, ‘it’s in the best interest of our Board, both as a Board and individually, to be legally-protected by this program,’ so basically is the reason for that is why we’re here today.”  Let’s again take a look at the full, unedited video of the entire meeting:

January 13, 2025 LSBC meeting in its entirety focusing solely and exclusively upon whether to reverse course and enroll in the AG’s OLRP.

As noted in the above video, the cost of enrollment (for 18 months) is approximately $121,000, which LSBC Executive Director Steve Young indicates will create such a hardship that the Board will need to make installment payments and that, by enrolling, “I will have to let a couple of people go.”

Perhaps it’s noteworthy that the LSBC had no qualms whatsoever expending $156,603.18 fighting hair braiders ability to make a living, with nobody even bringing up the cost of the litigation nor any hardship created by expending those funds, yet all of a sudden there’s deep anxiety over expending an amount $35,000 less than that for enrolling in the AG program.

Is that not incredible?  After all, nobody on the LSBC gave a flying flip when Wadvisha Chavis had to close her hair braiding salon as the LSBC mandated she have a licensed cosmetologist on premises.  Nobody cared about the “hardship” that imposed upon her or the six kids she admitted struggling to raise with her hair braiding operations helping significantly in that regard, but, boy, once a couple of bureaucrats may face possible job losses, it’s a full-blown crisis!

We believe that any individuals who may be let go by Young, and we’re not even sure of his ability to do that given that only he and Assistant Director Tisha Butler are unclassified employees of the Board, can tout to any prospective private-sector employer that one of their biggest career accomplishments was keeping Louisiana hair braiders from earning a living.  We’d like to see the reaction of any private company to whom the bureaucrats may apply upon them making such a touting of the accomplishment as part of the job hiring process!

This feature is the first installment of several which we will produce leading up to the 2025 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature.

Gov. Landry is graded as an “A” on the subject of tax reform, and we’ve certainly uttered his praises in that regard.

On the subject of occupational licensing reform, however, Gov. Landry’s grade is a “D-.”

Quite frankly, it would be an “F” were it not for the fact that, mere weeks before the 2024 Legislative Session, in front of a crowd of approximately 300 folk in attendance at the Pelican Institute’s Solution Summit, he committed to reducing and eliminating occupational licensing barriers that are oppressing lower-income Louisiana residents’ ability to earn a living.

Despite his public statement, when the 2024 Legislative Session actually convened, Landry, along with House Speaker Phillip DeVillier, and House Speaker Pro Tempore Mike Johnson, actively lobbied to kill Rep. Lauren Ventrella’s bill to do just like Texas has done and reduce the number of hours required for a cosmetology license from 1,500 to 1,000.

Just as we praised Landry for his tax reform initiatives, we didn’t hold back in lambasting Landry, Johnson, and others who actively lobbied to kill Ventrella’s bill.

We expect better of Gov. Landry in the 2025 Legislative Session entailing cosmetology-related bills that we can assure everyone will be filed in the days leading up to that April 14, 2025 Session.

It’s on Landry to see if he can raise his Occupational Licensing grade above its present “D-.”  After all, it really sticks out like a sore thumb when contrasted with his “A” grade on tax reform!

 

LSPC Executive Director Hannaman: “Contrary to how I have been portrayed, I have no horse in this race or any nomination.”

Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) Executive Director Jason Hannaman.

With the possible exceptions of our August 10, 2018 appeal hearing for LSP Trooper Joseph Jones and our September 10, 2020 breaking of the Ronald Greene matter, our series of features entailing Gov. Landry’s filling the vacancy for the First Congressional District of the LSPC has elicited the strongest emotions of any matter upon which we’ve ever reported.

We’ve already referenced the revelations made by Dr. Walter Kimbrough entailing University Presidents, “simply being used as cover for these LSPC appointments,” and his emphatic statement that defying any Governor’s choice in making the selection is, “political suicide.”

Well, our feature wherein former LSPC Commissioner Lloyd Grafton referenced Jared Caruso-Riecke as a “disgrace,” and in which Belinda Parker-Brown, who supplied a photo of Riecke and his wife making obscene gestures at a 2024 Mardi Gras Ball, and who stated that Riecke, who had served on the LSPC since mid-2016 (to include a reappointment in December of 2018), “does not reflect the values of Dillard University” generated strong emotions as well.

In the feature, we quoted an LSP retired Lieutenant regarding his contention that LSPC Executive Director Jason Hannaman engaged in “lobbying” for Riecke to be reappointed.  From the feature entailing the retired Lieutenant’s quote:

He had some strong sentiments about LSPC’s Executive Director, Jason Hannaman, regarding the section of Hannaman’s December 5, 2024 letter to Guillory which he characterized as, “nothing short of direct lobbying for Guillory to place Riecke’s name on the list and for Riecke to be reappointed.”

From the wording of Hannaman’s letter, which was placed on prominent display in our last feature, with the following segment deemed particularly objectionable by the retired Lieutenant:

he is interested in continuing his service and bringing his unique business insight to the Commission; and, he is hopeful to be nominated once again so that he may be considered for a new term on the Commission.

The retired Lieutenant took it a step further by indicating that Riecke’s name should not have been even mentioned in the letter but, instead, the responsibility should be upon Riecke to reach out to Guillory and make any desire he may have to be reappointed made known to her.  His logic is that, by having such wording on the letter to Guillory, it defeats the whole purpose of having the independence of the university Presidents make the selections, and we do find it hard to argue against the point he makes.

Well, as we said, emotions have run high for this series.

As we’ve indicated, Dr. Kimbro wasn’t happy with Sound Off Louisiana’s feature wherein Kimbro indicated that even tasking University Presidents with involvement in the process constitutes an, “exercise in futility,” and poses an “undue burden” upon them.

Similarly, LSPC Executive Director, Jason Hannaman, took exception to both the retired LSP Lieutenant’s assessment above together with us giving that assessment more prominence in our most recent feature.

Accordingly, on Friday, January 3, 2025, at 10:32 a.m., Hannaman fired off this email to us, which included a number of past letters sent to University Presidents.

We are going to afford Hannaman the same courtesy that we afforded to Dr. Kimbro who, incidentally, sent an email expressing gratitude to us after we praised him for exposing the “raw naked truth about the sham nature of these appointments.”

Accordingly, we are about to present a video we’ve produced along with the embedding of every single word Hannaman had to say on the matter.

However, we want to stress one thing before presenting the wording of Hannaman’s email (and it’s stated early on in the video).

We had no knowledge of any death in Hannaman’s wife’s family at the time we corresponded with him.  We want that emphasized lest anyone obtain the false impressing that Burns be characterized as, “one of the most cold-hearted people around.”  With that disclaimer out of the way, here’s the video:

 January 5, 2025:  Burns outlines Hannaman’s email and provides his occasional commentary.  [Note:  There is occasional blurring of the video, but it does not last long.]

Now here is the entirety of Hannaman’s email but, as indicated above, the email Hannaman sent which is linked above contains several past letters sent to University Presidents, including Riecke’s 2018 letter for reappointment.:

From: Jason Hannaman <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 10:32 AM
To: Robert Burns <[email protected]>
Subject: Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Burns,

I am reading through the final draft of the eulogy I have prepared for today’s services; however, I would be remiss if I didn’t pause to provide a brief clarification since I am so prominently featured in your most recent post.

In my nomination letters to college and university presidents for an expiring term, I always indicate whether or not the current member is interested in being nominated once again. The letter to each president attempts to succinctly (re)introduce them to the process, answer the reasonable question of who is serving in that capacity now, highlight the requirement that three nominees be submitted to the governor for consideration, and provide a deadline that ensures timely receipt within the parameters outlined in the Louisiana Constitution.

Early in my role as Executive Director, I recall conversations with Dan Sullivan of the Louisiana Civil Service League regarding obtaining nominations. He noted that some college and university presidents simply did not want to be bothered with nominations to the State Civil Service Commission or State Police Commission, but that it was part of their job as outlined in the Louisiana Constitution. He also noted that looking at an alumni database and filtering by zip code was a simple start in finding a qualified nominee to represent the college or university.

Contrary to how I have been portrayed in your article, I have no horse in this race or any nomination. I have only ever attempted to ensure that the nomination process for vacancies and expiring terms, as well as the employee election process, is followed to the letter of the law in each and every instance – which, as you have reported, was not always the case.

Regards,

 

Jason Hannaman, PHR, SHRM-CP

Executive Director

Louisiana State Police Commission

Phone: 225-925-7057

Fax: 225-925-7058

Email: [email protected]

5825 Florida Blvd., Suite 1180

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

www.laspc.com

 

Entailing that segment of the video above referencing Riecke and whether Hannaman should have seen fit to include other revelations about Riecke vs. keeping a University President in the dark regarding same:

==>  Riecke signed a guilty plea (on behalf of his company) regarding dumping raw sewage in various waterways in St. Tammany Parish, which constitutes a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act,

==> Former St Tammany Parish President Kevin Davis clearly outlined all of the problems he had to deal with entailing Riecke’s so-called “unique business insight,”

==>  Anyone is welcome to verify same by viewing the documents and by simply playing the recording associated with Counter-Clock podcast, Season 5, Episode 9.

So, in the end, it’s up to our site visitors to decide whether Hannaman’s characterizations of Riecke constitute “lobbying” or not.

We’ve provided the sentiments of a retired LSP Trooper who is very emphatic in his belief that those characterizations do in fact constitute “lobbying,” and we’ve presented Hannaman’s contention, in full, that his characterizations of Riecke do not constitute “lobbying.”

Our site visitors are the final judges, and we leave that assessment up to them!