After OIG scores resounding court victory over former ATC Commissioner Painter to include $9,700 of Shane Evans’ attorney fees, Painter files Motion for New Trial asserting volume of pleadings “obscured the forest for the trees.”

Louisiana Inspector General Stephen Street, who scored a resounding victory in the 19th JDC Courtroom of Judge Wilson Fields on August 8, 2022 in the matter of Murphy Painter v. Office of Inspector General et. al. to include a $9,700 assessment of attorney fees for Street’s former investigator, Shane Evans.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns updates everyone on the latest civil court hearing entailing Murphy Painter v. Louisiana Office of Inspector General et. al.:

Burns recaps July 25, August 1, and August 8, 2022 civil court hearings (arguments on July 25, false alarm judgment on August 1, and judgment rendered August 8) entailing Murphy Painter v. Louisiana Office of Inspector General Stephen Street et. al.


Support Documents for the video above:

1.  Judgment in favor of OIG Defendants (including $9,700 in Shane Evans’ attorney fees per CCP 971).  Here is the link for LA CCP 971 enabling the $9,700 award for Shane Evans’ attorney fees ($27,000 was sought, but Judge Fields ruled $9,700 constituted “reasonable” attorney fees pertaining to Evans).

2.  Judgment in favor of ATC Defendants.

3.  Judgment in favor of Brant Thompson.

4.  Painter’s Motion for a New Trial filed on Friday, September 2, 2022.

Finally, CLICK HERE for the 8th Sound Off episode with Mr. Painter (with links at the bottom for the previous seven).

Here are a few highlights from the above Motion for New Trial:

When the facts are viewed in a the light favorable to Mr. Painter, and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, his petition states a valid cause of action that should have precluded the grant of the various exceptions of no cause of action.  Similarly, as also detailed herein, Mr. Painter submits that the grant of the exception of
res judicata and other evidentiary motions were contrary to law. As a result, Mr. Painter submits that there are good grounds to grant a new trial and he urges this Court to do (sic) grant him a new trial on the motions underlying the August 2022 rulings.

Ms. Suire, admitted to the investigator that she had not been sexually harassed by Mr. Painter. Within days of receiving Ms. Suire’s complaint, the OIG brought Ms. Suire’ s already-discredited claims to the Governor’s Office and Mr. Painter’s employment was terminated on Friday, August 13, 2010.

The search warrant, which contained false statements attributed to Ms. Suire, was picked up by local media and resulted in intense media scrutiny and speculation that effectively destroyed the reputation and career that Mr. Painter had built over the prior decades. The OIG’ s misconduct, however, did· not stop there. It released a public report that further disseminated Ms. Suire’ s false accusations after it had learned of the report prepared by the outside investigator hired by the Department of Revenue. After Mr. Painter filed this suit, the OIG doubled down when it brought the erroneous fruits of its investigation to the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana, resulting in Mr. Painter being charged with crimes by the Department of Justice.

OIG investigator Shane Evans who testified at trial that he chose to use the terms “sexual harassment” and “stalking” in his search warrant application even though Ms. Suire did not make such claims.

The sheer volume of pleadings before this Court on July 25, 2022 no doubt obscured the forest for the trees.

More specifically, this Court’s ruling and associated judgments, have resulted in the dismissal of the entirety of Mr. Painter’s claims against all defendants……such results are clearly contrary both to the law· and the evidence.

As it relates to the standard of review, Mr. Painter’s petition, as amended, puts forth a multitude of facts that state viable causes of action for (a) defamation; (b) malicious prosecution; (c) abuse of right; (d) abuse of process; and (e) negligence against the OIG and Stephen B. Street, Jr., in his official capacity as the State’ Inspector General.

Mr. Painter has put forth detailed and substantial allegations establishing that his former employees conspired to have him removed as the Commissioner of ATC and, once successful, that they attempted to do so again with a subsequent Commissioner.

Likewise, given Mr. Street’s steadfast determination to continue pushing the discredited lies of Ms. Suire – even after he was provided substantial evidence documenting them as such, Mr. Painter also states a viable Section 1983 claim against Mr. Street.

Given the substantial volume of pleadings and atypical issues put before this· Court, Mr. Painter moves this Court to set this Motion for New Trial for hearing and to, thereafter, grant him a new trial regarding this Court’s recent rulings.

Once a hearing date is set for oral arguments for and against Mr. Painter being granted a new trial, we will certainly attend and alert our subscribers and casual site visitors as to the outcome.

If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops).  Supply your email address within the subscribe box.  You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.

3 thoughts on “After OIG scores resounding court victory over former ATC Commissioner Painter to include $9,700 of Shane Evans’ attorney fees, Painter files Motion for New Trial asserting volume of pleadings “obscured the forest for the trees.””

  1. i heard that there were witnesses back at the original litigation that were not called in concerning ms. suire… she told her close friends that what she told was not true and was scared not to go thru with the lies… there anything to this? if this is true then why was the friends??? not called in as i only suspect that they too were scared to admit the truth that was told to them….but….my next question is: why were they scared? in 2010, this state had not gone nazi democrat yet, had it???? or had it?????

  2. Painter is glutton for punishment. He is a prophet in his own mind. He’s learning quickly (he’s involved in other defamation lawsuits currently) that you can’t just say things without repercussions. He’ll lose his suit down in Gonzales as well.

  3. the democrats all over this country and especially in washington are saying what they want and doing what they want and then saying what they want again and it is lies and lies and more lies and nothing is being done about it because if a real american and/or a republican sues them and they go to court and have a democrat judge…….YOU LOSE NO MATTER IF YOU HAVE A DUMP TRUCK FULL OF EVIDENCE……. fields is a democrat and painter is a republican…..enough said.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.