Month: December 2025

Matthew Rose, member of Americans for Equal Shared Parenting (AESP).

On April 22, 2025, Louisiana State Sen. Royce Duplessis (D-New Orleans) introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 9 which:

Creates the Task Force on Fatherhood Engagement to study how Louisiana can increase the engagement of fathers in the lives of their children, research best practices, and develop recommendations for each state agency to promote the full inclusion of fathers and the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children.

The Resolution passed without a single “no” vote in either the Louisiana House or Senate, and periodic meetings of the newly formed Fatherhood Engagement Task Force have been transpiring since passage.

The Task Force created this survey for fathers to outline their experiences.  Further, anyone is welcome to view the agendas and minutes of the meetings by clicking here.  Finally, reports of the task force are available here.

Right before Christmas, one gentleman who attends the meetings as a member of the community, Matthew Rose of Slidell, reached out to us and asked to appear on camera to outline his perspective on why legislative initiatives are needed to enhance father-child bonding, and he placed a strong focus on his own experiences entailing his efforts to have more bonding with his own son:

Matthew Rose outlines his own experiences with Family Court and his contentions that he and many other fathers in Louisiana are treated unfairly concerning child custody matters in Louisiana.

The efforts of the Fatherhood Engagement Task Force dovetail on the efforts of Mark Ludwig and Americans for Equal Shared Parenting (AESP), of which Rose is a Member.  The group touts legislation in 38 states.  Notably, in Missouri, in 2016, HB-1550, which encouraged maximizing time with both parents but without a “strict presumption” that both parents are equally qualified to provide care, passed.

Nevertheless, when the group tried to advance that initiative in 2019 in Missouri via HB-229 along with a companion Senate bill (SB-14), those initiatives, which sought to establish a “rebuttable presumption” that equal or approximately equal parenting time is in the child’s best interest, which sought to build on prior attempts such as HB-1667 in the 2018 Missouri Legislative Session, failed to pass Missouri’s Legislative process and therefore were not signed into law.

Not being an organization to simply give up, however, AESP again advanced the initiative to the Missouri Legislature in 2023, and this time, the measure passed and became law in Missouri effective August 28, 2023.  That measure was SB-35, which was sponsored by State Sen. Karla May, and it passed the House by a margin of 114-9, and it passed the Senate by a margin of 30-4.  Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed the bill into law on July 6, 2023. Here are important provisions of Missouri’s law:

Missouri courts now presume that equal or approximately equal parenting time for both parents is in the child’s best interest.

The starting point is shifted from previous practices, which often favor one parent with primary custody and the other with visitation, to a default of shared parenting time.

The presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that equal time is not in the child’s best interest to include a) mutual agreement of the parents, b) a court finding of a pattern of domestic violence, or c) other factors showing harm to the child.

Regarding Louisiana’s present matter and the Rose video above, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns had no idea prior to filming that Rose would be discussing family court in St. Tammany Parish.  Once Burns learned of this fact “on the fly” so to speak, Burns immediately thought about a book published by Terry King (with Chris Warner) of the group Concerned Citizens of St. Tammany Parish.

That book is No Limit Big Game Hunting (in St. Tammany Parish).  The book is an absolutely fascinating read entailing incredible insights into matters of St. Tammany Parish corruption; however, for purposes of Rose, Burns allowed him to borrow the book which King graciously gave to Burns when King appeared on Sound Off Louisiana and encouraged him to read the chapters devoted to illustrations of Family Court Corruption in St. Tammany Parish (though King readily admits such practices are not unique to St. Tammany Parish but are prevalent throughout courts in Louisiana).  Although Burns indicated there were three chapters centered on St. Tammany Family Court corruption (again, he was operating on the fly), there are actually two.

Those chapters are chapters 8 and 9.  We want to strongly encourage anyone desiring to learn more about such corruption to purchase the book (but we want it clear that Burns does not receive, nor will he accept, a dime from any such book sales); however, we’d like to present just a brief passage from the book attributable to a young lady known only as “Sunshine” who observed St. Tammany Parish Family Court for a protracted period.  Here’s a relevant excerpt from the book which we paraphrased in the interview with Rose on the video above:

In light of her experiences, Sunshine offered a caring recommendation worth reflecting upon, especially if you want to save your family’s finances from eventual ruin.

“Some of the best advice I can give anyone in St. Tammany Parish contemplating a divorce…DO NOT allow a lawyer to file a motion on your behalf initiating the involvement of the court.

If you do this, you invite the court and its many agents into your life.  You must, at all costs, stay out of family court!  The judges have discretion and can ruin your life — as they can do whatever they want as there is no oversight of their actions on the bench.  This means they are omnipotent.

When you petition the court, you ask them to come into your life.  Do not do this.  Once you do, you no longer have control.  Do not invite the court into your life.  It is wholly regrettable, as they are chiefly there to foster vexatious litigation and to bill excessive and unnecessary legal and service hours.  Consider the less expensive and more pragmatic alternatives.

You can get a no-contest divorce for $750 in St. Tammany Parish.  Once you bring the court and its many minions into the fold you relinquish control and allow them to take over your family’s finances and your future.

So, at all costs, you should talk to your spouse and explain what is at stake, for the sake of economics, and your children, going forward.

A divorce in St. Tammany can cost both parties together, on average, in excess of $500,000 or more, depending on counsel and of course, the judge.”

What a statement, folks, and that statement comes from an authoritative expert having examined the system for a very protracted timeframe.

This feature is our final post for the year 2025, and we hope our dedicated site visitors have found our material presented to be useful and informative.

While we’re done for 2025, trust us, we have some incredible features lined up for early 2026 and, for those curious, “yes,” there will be a heavy focus on Louisiana State Police!

Happy New Year, everyone!

Louisiana State Police (LSP) Col. Robert Hodges.

Our website visitors will recall our July 22, 2024 feature entailing LSP Col. Robert Hodges’ “deal cutting.”  Basically, Hodges felt a need to clear the deck of legacy matters pertaining to his predecessor, Col. Lamar Davis.  More details are available at the preceding link, but we merely stress that one of those “deals” entails LSP Master Trooper Mathew Clair.

The Clair matter has taken on more significance even as numerous sources have contacted us indicating that Hodges is under serious consideration to become the next U. S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The present U. S. Marshal is Biden appointee Enix Smith III.  Smith was appointed by Biden, confirmed by the U. S. Senate, and his four-year term began on July 26, 2022.  U. S. Marshals serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and obviously it is a given that Smith will not be reappointed to another four-year term by President Trump.  Our sources tell us that Hodges and one other gentleman, with whom we are very familiar but are opting not to divulge the name of for purposes of this feature, are considered the lead candidates for the position.

Over the course of the last three or four weeks, we have been provided with an absolute plethora of alleged seriously problematic acts transpiring under Hodges’ watch which may be intentionally being kept out of public view.  It’s our intent to gradually reveal those alleged problematic acts over the next 3-5 weeks.

Today’s feature, however, focuses on Hodges’ “deal cutting” as referenced in the first paragraph above and specifically the Clair “deal.”  Let’s begin by repeating the details of one row of a table incorporated into the “deals” feature as well as video from the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) meeting at which Hodges convinced the LSPC to go along with a “deal” he’d worked out which effectively wiped out totally the discipline handed down to Clair by former LSP Col. Lamar Davis.  Hodges cut that “deal” notwithstanding the nature of Clair’s act entailing alleged excessive force:

3/14/24:  LSPC ratifies Master Trooper Mathew Clair’s settlement agreement proposed by LSP Col. Robert Hodges.

The Clair matter has taken on far more significance since WAFB announced its lawsuit against Hodges for withholding the video.

The lawsuit was filed at 8:24 a.m. yesterday (Monday, December 15, 2025), and within a couple of hours thereafter we were at the EBRP Clerk of Court’s Office to obtain our own copy of the lawsuit for publication to our site visitors.

When we produced the feature entailing retired LSP Capt. Heath Guillotte flat-out denouncing Hodges’ “hypocritical leadership,” stating into our camera that Hodges considers Sound Off Louisiana’s Robert Burns, WAFB’s Chris Nakamoto, and Fox8’s Lee Zurik to be on par with “P Diddy” and are “not to be spoken to under any circumstances,” we now know that’s what he meant.

Why?  Because Nakamoto, acting through WAFB Investigative Producer Kevin Foster, got the same type of runaround (arguably even worse) than has Burns in his recent public records requests.  We encourage anyone to simply look at pages 8 – 20 of the lawsuit (the exhibits) to see the incredible depths LSP would stoop to in order to ultimately deny the public records request for the video.  It’s un-freaking-believable!

Let us focus in on a few highlights from the core pleadings of the lawsuit, which is in the form of a Writ of Mandamus, which is a filing to attempt to force a public agency to fulfill its obligation to conform to a duty over which the agency has no discretion (i.e. a “ministerial act”).  From the litigation:

Since early 2025, journalists at WAFB have sought public records concerning alleged excessive force by Louisiana State Police Trooper Matthew (Mathew) Clair against an inmate in Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, an incident that led to discipline and a March 14, 2024 settlement before the Louisiana State Police Commission in the case bearing Docket No. 23-267-S.

On April 10, 2025, WAFB Investigative Producer Kevin Foster submitted Public Records Request No. R014465-041025 through the Louisiana Public Safety Department’s Public Records Center (the “Records Center”). He requested “any and all body camera footage, and written or typed reports tied to incident 23-267-S as part of the State Police Commission’s appeal process for Trooper Matthew Clair,” and requested a fee waiver. See Exhibit “A.”

The Records Center then repeatedly demanded additional “clarification,” including an 8-digit LASP report number and further details about the incident, even after Mr. Foster supplied an internal affairs number, the State Police Commission docket number, and other information. Id.

On May 5, 2025-nearly a month after the original request-the Records Center advised that there were “no responsive records” to Request No. R014465-041025.

The Records Center suggested Mr. Foster submit a new request. See Exhibit “B.”

In response, the Records Center again requested “clarification,” asserted that the request was “too vague,” and demanded further particulars, despite already having the trooper’s name, time period, and discipline as search parameters. Mr. Foster then narrowed and amended the request to seek Trooper Clair’s internal affairs and discipline history (his “disciplinary jacket”) from 2020 forward. The Records Center thereafter estimated that up to forty-five (45) days would be required for review and redaction but produced no records. See Exhibit “B.”

On July 30, 2025, WAFB News Director Robb Hays submitted another public records request, No. R017642-073025.

On or about August 6, 2025, Captain Graham, on behalf of Defendant and the Records Center, denied Mr. Hays’s July 30 request. Graham asserted that any video responsive to the request was part of an internal affairs investigation that ultimately concluded with non-disciplinary action. Further, Graham stated the video sought was associated with a letter of counseling rather
than discipline, and, pursuant to Louisiana State Police Rule 12.9, was not considered a public record. The response did not invoke any specific statutory exemption or any other provision of the Public Records Law and did not address the request for documentation regarding its destruction.

On August 8, 2025, counsel for WAFB sent Captain Graham a detailed letter explaining why the requested video is a public record, why no statutory exemption applies, and why neither LASP Rule 12.9 nor generalized “privacy” assertions justify withholding the video. Counsel requested reconsideration and warned that litigation would be required otherwise.

Petitioner sought these records in order to report on matters of significant public concern, including alleged excessive force by a state trooper and the discipline that followed.

The Petitioner avers that the reporting on this matter is of the utmost public interest in the operation of law enforcement in the state of Louisiana, and the United States. Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court review the unredacted records in camera in accordance with the law and determine whether the Defendant’s blanket claim of exemption is proper.

As stated in La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:31(B)(3), the “burden of proving that a public record is not subject to inspection, copying, or reproduction shall rest with the custodian.” Indeed, “the custodian must defend his action in a contradictory hearing.

The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that the Public Records Law should be “construed liberally in favor of free and unrestricted access to the records, and that access can be denied only when a law, specifically and unequivocally, provides otherwise…. Whenever there is doubt as to whether the public has the right of access to certain records, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the public’s right to see.” Title Research Corp. v. Rausch, 450 So.2d 933, 936 (La. 1984).

Petitioner furthermore avers he should be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs of litigation available pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 44:35(D).

We do have a suggestion as a cost saving measure for LSP.  Just have AI respond to these public records requests with the same automated mode of “act stupid and downright ignorant, pose ridiculous queries for ‘clarification,’ indicate the need to make a brand new request, deny request based on privacy issues.”  There simply is no need for humans to be involved in this process!  AI can handle that function far better, and at least it won’t be as mind-numbingly arrogant and condescending as it is with humans sending this garbage out!

We feel compelled to state that well-placed sources told us that LSP had “sealed” the internal affairs records of Guillotte, but perhaps Hodges didn’t count on Guillotte’s willingness to call him on the carpet about allegedly supplying a false address to even qualify for the Major position, to be willing to conduct a very high-profile on camera interview with us about the internal affairs investigation and, most significantly, to supply video footage of the internal affairs interviews.

Obviously, Guillotte’s willingness to provide such incredible details on Hodges’ managerial style largely negated the need for an internal affairs file.  Nevertheless, for the record, even though we were informed the Guillotte matter was “sealed,” (as if LSP is some sort of Court of Law), we made a request for the entirety of Guillotte’s file and got pure runaround just like WAFB did.

Further, we asked for the written denial of Guillotte’s application to purchase his weapons, and we could produce the utterly idiotic, bone-headed, inexcusable runaround we got for that, but suffice to say we supplied Guillotte’s application with all of his information redacted out, only to then be told by LSP that, “no records responsive to your request exist.”

When we then asked if Hodges’ denial of Guillotte’s application to purchase his weapons was merely verbal, we predictably got no response whatsoever from Hodges and Company over at LSP!

As our site visitors may recall, the last time Hodges was sued for failing to produce an obvious public record, the LENS NOLA pretty much handed Hodges’ head to him on a platter.  Ironically, Capt. Russell Graham is the lead photo on the just linked feature (who is now LSP’s Public Affairs Command Officer), and it is none other than he who is the subject of the Rule to Show Cause to provide arguments as to why the records should not be handed over to WAFB.  Of course, he’ll do so using attorneys, and that just drastically increases the costs to taxpayers, particularly if WAFB prevails (and we certainly hope that they do) and us taxpayers are then held liable for their attorney fees, court costs, and any penalty (up to $100 a day is what the Statute calls for).

The case has been assigned to 19th JDC Judge William Jorden, and we commit to attend the contradictory hearing for the matter and report upon the outcome.

We further commit to report upon a number of other alleged wrongdoings on the parts of LSP Troopers which are somehow failing to make it into public airwaves.  One can only ponder if there’s a concerted effort to keep all the acts on the QT so as not to interfere with Col. Hodges’ ability to obtain that U. S. Marshal’s  position (assuming the numerous reports that he is in the running are accurate).

If it were left up to us, Hodges’ application would be dead on arrival; however, we readily admit that the Trump Administration may view these matters very differently than we at Sound Off Louisiana do.  We guess we’ll know by July 26, 2026 who that next U. S. Marshal is going to be whether it be Hodges or otherwise.

Jordan Whitley, son of Kendra Bazile, who passed away from a single-vehicle crash on January 26, 2024.

As we continue our deep dive into the East Baton Rouge Parish (EBRP) Emergency Medical Services (EMS), let us begin by referencing EBRP Mayor President Sid Edwards’ December 3, 2025 announcement that he has abandoned his controversial proposed merger of the BR Fire Department with EBRP EMS.

In announcing that abandonment, Edwards even referenced a phrase which Sound Off Louisiana’s founder, Robert Burns, uttered in our November 16, 2025 third segment with EBRP Paramedic Association President Janice Willard and Vice President Allison Sharp in stating, “the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.”

Edwards said in his announcement that, “the lawsuit (filed by the Paramedic Association) didn’t bother me one lick.”  He added, “I don’t make decisions based on that.  It don’t (sic) motivate me one way or the other.”

Yeah, right!  It’s our firm belief that someone with sharp legal skills informed Edwards that he was going to get clobbered in court as attorney Robert Aguiluz, himself a former paramedic and attorney for the Association, made it crystal clear that he would be filing a Motion for Summary Judgment in seeking a Declaratory Judgment that Edwards’ plan was, “illegal on its face as it violates the Parish’s Plan of Government.”

Further, though Edwards stated in his announcement that he would not let the merger resurface, Aguiluz countered by stating that Edwards, “has demonstrated that he repeatedly changes his mind more frequently as Mayor President than he changed coaching shorts as a high school coach.”

Given Aguiluz’s quote above and him further contending that the only way Edwards’ pronouncement could be genuinely relied upon would be with a 19th JDC  decision declaring the proposed merger illegal, Aguiluz committed to continue with the lawsuit.  Likewise, we commit to attend any court hearing pertaining to that litigation and provide coverage of the outcome of any such court hearing.

Okay.  On to the next segment of our deep dive into EBRP EMS.  Today, we’re presenting Segment 3 of Kendra Bazile’s continuing efforts to obtain answers regarding the single-car crash which claimed the life of her son on January 26, 2024.

Everyone may recall that Segment One was presented on October 19, 2025, and Segment Two was presented on October 24, 2025.  Here’s video coverage of Segment 3:

Segment 3:  Kendra Bazile, along with family friend “Junior,” engage in the third of a four-part series entailing the single-car crash that claimed the life of her son, Jordan Whitley, on January 26, 2024 and the potential for shortcomings on the parts of first responders who responded to and/or investigated the response since the time of the crash.

In the above video, Bazile references communications which she had with an EBRP Sheriff’s Deputy.  She informed us that those conversations took place on March 20, 2024, which was 54 days after the accident.  She provided us with audio excerpts from her phone call with the Deputy, and here are those audio excerpts:

3/20/24:  Brief (1-minute) excerpt of a recorded phone call between Bazile and the first arriver on the scene of the accident, an EBRP Sheriff Deputy.

3/20/24:  Three-minute excerpt of a recorded phone call between Bazile and the EBRP Sheriff Deputy during which Bazile manages to get the Deputy to admit that he made no effort to assess her son’s condition regarding whether he may be still alive or not.

Bazile also provided contradictory statements made to her by EBRP EMS.  Let’s present documentation she supplied to us to substantiate that fact:

EMS correspondence exemplifying discrepancy between “investigation concluded” vs. three months LATER “investigation ongoing.”

Let’s conclude this segment of the deep dive into the particulars of Whitley’s accident by providing documents Bazile supplied to us entailing questions she posed of the EBRP Sheriff’s Office, along with their responses, and her replies back to those responses:

Question 1:  Why wasn’t the Deputy equipped with body cam?

Question 2:  Why did it take 20 minutes for the Deputy to arrive on scene from his dispatch location?

Question Series 3:  Why does dash cam video begin with deputy out of his patrol unit?  At what point/time was the dash cam turned on? Are there minutes that were removed from the video that was released to me?

We know everyone is going to look very forward to the fourth and final episode of Ms. Bazile’s extensive efforts to uncover answers to just what all transpired on the morning of her son’s unfortunate death.

Let us now provide the updated table of all of our extensive features providing a very deep dive into EBRP EMS operations and the recent controversies thereof: