Author: Robert Burns

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:

District Three (3) Cosmetology Board Member Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlan.

As we reported in this August 27, 2025 feature entailing an alleged “pandemic” of gifts (a/k/a “bribes”) being solicited by Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) inspectors, there was an initial euphoria among Vietnamese manicurists upon seeing that Gov. Jeff Landry prevailed in his quest for Governor in 2023 without there even being a need for a runoff.

The celebratory mood only magnified once Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlan was appointed to the LSBC to represent District 3.  That District parallels the Congressional District 3, presently represented by U. S. Congressman Clay Higgins.  As noted on the “bribes” link above, it was a Broussard, Louisiana nail salon (Nail Tech) for which the $200 in mysterious cash surfaced in an envelope along with a notation of “thank you.”

The LSBC responded with this April 4, 2025 certified letter indicating that payment of “cash gifts” is “highly unethical.”

Several well-informed sources with very integral knowledge of the LSBC’s operations have described the Acadiana area (Landry’s home base) as a “field ripe for the picking” regarding the obtaining of such payments.  In fact, we’ve been told that inspectors’ supervisors have become very upset with the sheer level of such “gifts” because, when combined with the salaries of the inspectors, the resulting total compensation exceeds that of the supervisors!  While we’ve made no independent verification of that fact, as we just stated, those sentiments have been expressed by historically reliable sources we’ve maintained within the Louisiana cosmetology industry for a rather protracted period.

On September 9, 2025 we reported upon several Vietnamese manicurists having filed for a Declaratory Order to be issued by the LSBC.  The essence of that Declaratory Order seeks for the LSBC to acknowledge that manicurists accused of wrongdoing by the LSBC have the Constitutional Right to a trial by jury rather than the LSBC serving as “judge, jury, and executioner.”  In that feature, we also revealed just how frustrated the manicurist plaintiffs have become that the LSBC has dragged its heels on issuing any such Declaratory Order.

The LSBC successfully stalled the process for over a year by seeking an opinion from Louisiana AG Liz Murill’s Office regarding whether the LSBC has authority to make any ruling on any such “Constitutional Right,” or whether only a “court of competent jurisdiction” can make such a ruling.  In our eyes, and we expressed this many times, seeking an AG Opinion was not an appropriate act because Murrill would have a very obvious conflict in issuing any such opinion given that it’s her job to defend the LSBC in any litigation that may arise over the matter.

If AG Murrill issued an opinion that the Board possesses such jurisdiction to issue a Declaratory Order, she’d become “boxed in” regarding any litigation over the whole matter.  Even if she issued an opinion that the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue such an Order, she would still be boxed in on her opinion in any such litigation involving the subject matter (though that scenario would likely not be nearly as awkward for Murrill).

It was therefore our opinion that, notwithstanding the repeated indications by LSBC attorney Sheri Morris that an opinion would be “forthcoming soon,” and further that she had requested “expedited consideration” of the matter, Murrill was never (repeat never) going to issue such an Opinion.  Furthermore, we firmly believe that Morris and the LSBC Members knew that full well when they requested the AG Opinion.  We therefore concluded the following at the bottom of the above-linked feature:

So, with allegations of rampant solicitations of bribes by LSBC inspectors along with a well documented decade long period of alleged harassment by the LSBC to include a Federal Judge stating the LSBC engaged in Constitutional Rights violations (false imprisonment and illegal searches), Cao and the Pelican Institute can either:  #1) continue to wait on the AG opinion which was supposed to be issued months ago, or #2) proceed on with litigation in 19^th JDC without any Declaratory Order by the LSBC or an opinion by the AG regarding whether the Board has the authority to issue such an Order.

Seventy-six (76) days later, On Monday, November 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs opted for Option # 2 above and filed this lawsuit (Writ of Mandamus) against Quinlan, her six colleagues, and the Board itself.  Thus, with all of the euphoria over Landry’s election and, most especially, the subsequent appointment of Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlan to represent District 3 on the LSBC, those high hopes and expectations have now been reduced down to the act of filing suit against the very appointees Landry placed on the LSBC inclusive of Quinlan, to try and obtain the relief they were so optimistic of receiving under a Landry administration.

Anyone is welcome to read the 454-page lawsuit (with Exhibits), however, let’s sum it up succinctly:  The law says the Board shall hear within 60 days after receipt and thereafter rule within 30 days, and we seek a Court Order via Mandamus for them to do so.

So, notwithstanding all of the euphoria over Governor Landry’s election night victory and the belief that relief from what Vietnamese nail salon practitioners have characterized as a highly oppressive regulatory Board in the LSBC, with that euphoria only expanded upon the appointment of Board Member Lauren Delahoussaye Quinlin, that euphoria has ratcheted down to an all-time low in having little choice but to file suit against the very LSBC appointees Gov. Landry appointed to the LSBC.

We should also point out that, while the litigation sues the LSBC members only in their capacities as Board Members (thus insulating them from personal liability), this suit and, in our humble opinion, more lawsuits which are going to follow (more on that shortly) only serve as a spotlight as to why the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office advised the LSBC to enroll in its program offering personal liability protection.

The LSBC Members actually had to convene a special meeting on Monday, January 13, 2025 for the sole purpose of enrolling in that program after former LSBC Executive Director Steve Young strongly advised against such enrollment only a week before in citing the approximate $120,000 annual cost.

The present litigation comes at a time of turmoil and upheaval within the LSBC.  Notice in the preceding paragraph our use of the words “former LSBC Executive Director Steve Young.”  We use those words because, contrary to what we perceived as no intention whatsoever to retire only a few short months ago, Young sought to be recognized at the October LSBC meeting to announce his retirement; however, due to impending quorum issues for that meeting, LSBC Chairman Jennifer Reed asked him to defer until the November 3, 2025 meeting.

At that meeting on Monday, November 3, 2025, Young did make his retirement announcement official in a very brief 30-second address to the LSBC Members:

11/3/25:  Young bids a brief farewell to the LSBC Members as he announces his retirement effective Friday, November 28, 2025.

The LSBC went ahead and selected Young’s replacement at that meeting; however, the manner in which that replacement took place has raised more than a few eyebrows among long-time followers of the LSBC.  Remember, we just stated that Young wanted to announce his retirement back in October.  That would infer that the LSBC had ample time to contemplate his replacement and formally place the selection of his replacement on an agenda for public input.

Nevertheless, in what some observers have said was a “sneaky” move, the Board Members sought to add an item to the agenda (meaning it was not posted on the agenda), and that item entailed Board Chairman Jennifer Reed making the recommendation that Erin Grace Marceaux, longtime manager at Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology and consistent LSBC meetings attendee, replace Steve Young.  Here’s how that went down:

After amending the agenda (which really should have been done at the outset of the meeting), LSBC Chairman Jennifer Reed proposes having Erin Grace Marceaux be Steve Young’s successor as Executive Director of the LSBC.

So, we have the LSBC, fresh off obtaining a 40 percent license fee increase amounting to around $400,000 a year already having to expend funds to defend yet another lawsuit because the AG program does not cover defense costs of litigation such as that filed by the Vietnamese manicurists.  As we’ve previously pointed out, the LSBC has spent $157,000 in legal fees fighting hair braiders who wish to practice without the LSBC’s burdensome barriers to entry designed to enrich cosmetology schools.

We already know precisely where newly appointed LSBC Executive Director Erin Marceaux stands entailing the deregulation of the hair braiding industry.  In fact, on June 3, 2025, she distributed out this email rallying forces to show up and oppose last year’s hair braiding deregulation bill.  From Marceaux’s email rallying cry:

Good evening,

Just an industry heads up to anyone who cares about deregulation in our industry and state- tomorrow all 3 bills pertaining to braiding and deregulation of “minor trimming” or using styling tools, etc. will be heard tomorrow. This will happen at 9:30am at the Senate Commerce Commitee. See attached agenda. If you want to show any interest in the deregulation that is proposed I am imploring you to show up tomorrow by 9am to the capital in Baton Rouge.

My apologies for the late notice, but as you know these things end up sneaking up. Feel free to connect with me privately via email if you’d like.

Thank you,
Erin Grace

Marceaux then showed up the next day to testify against the bill.  Let’s take a brief look at Rep. Moore touting the bill followed by Marceaux pouring cold water on it:

6/4/25:  After brief statements by Rep. Moore supporting her bill, HB-509, to deregulate the practice of hair braiding, Marceaux testifies against passage of the bill.

We believe that we can state with 100 percent certainty that another braiding deregulation bill will be filed in the 2026 Legislative Session and, beyond that, we believe a strong possibility exists that one or more hair braiders who no longer desire to perform their services underground may initiate litigation to obtain the ability to do so without the need for spending 500+ hours at a school such as Marceaux’s former employer.

Regarding any such future bill, Marceaux must now limit her role at the Legislature to a mere “provider of information;” however, it has been our observation that the LSBC, for the past 10 years, has had great difficulty even attempting to conceal the fact that it has been adamantinely opposed to any such deregulation of the hair braiding industry in Louisiana.

On a more optimistic note (because we see an exceedingly high probability of further litigation entailing hair braiders and the LSBC), newly appointed LSBC Member Jean Pitre emphasized his push for the LSBC to undergo a performance audit by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office early in 2026:

11/3/25:  Pitre espouses the virtues of having the LSBC undergo a performance audit early in 2026.

Though we did not capture it on camera, we feel compelled to point out that, as Pitre was touting the positives of undergoing the performance audit, then-Executive Director Steve Young was shaking his head horizontally in disagreement with his commentary.

It would certainly be our hope and expectation that the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office will strongly recommend that the LSBC outsource its licensing function.

We have already pointed out the fact that IT experts with whom we have consulted have indicated that sticking with the inhouse system is tantamount to flushing $700,000 in programming costs straight down a “rabbit hole.”  Marceaux herself has espoused upon the deficiencies of the existing inhouse licensing system, and in her new role, we think we can be safe in stating that licensees are going to expect solutions to those shortcomings and not excuses, which has been all that her predecessor and his team have seemed to offer about the abysmal system that is in place now.

We have already provided actual contracts with outside vendors for other licensing boards such as the State Board of CPAs of Louisiana.  Burns timed his renewal of his CPA-inactive certificate this year, and using his cell phone for the renewal, the process was again seamless and took just over four minutes, much of which was spent responding to questions such as if his address had changed, had he pled guilty or no contest to a felony, had he been the subject of any disciplinary action by a state licensing board, etc.

So, in conclusion on this latest lawsuit, we don’t think it’s a very good look that Vietnamese manicurists have wound up having to resort to suing the very appointees Gov. Landry made to the LSBC, but we think more bad looks are likely forthcoming entailing this particular occupational licensing board when it comes to future litigation.

CLICK HERE for the November 3, 2025 LSBC meeting in its entirety, including a segment from the 17:04 – 52:00 wherein Cosmetologist Tammie Fontayne really gave the LSBC members a piece of her mind regarding being charged attorney fees for what she alleges was “no work” by any attorney, instead arguing that she (Fontayne) had to do all of the work herself.

Finally, we would remind anyone who may wish to attend the LSBC meeting for tomorrow (Monday, December 1, 2025) that Member Rene Bosworth has succeeded in having the Board meet at a new venue, so let us place the address of the meeting venue below as a reminder in the hope that nobody shows up at the LSBC headquarters for the meeting (and, for the record, we salute Bosworth’s efforts because the LSBC Boardroom has been a horrendously bad venue for conducting the meetings):

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA  70808