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!