Farmer Billy Broussard emphasizes to the St. Martin Parish Council at its meeting of Tuesday, September 7, 2021 that, contrary to an article by Daily Iberian reporter Dwayne Fatherree published on August 4, 2021, he has not engaged in any “burning” on his 33-acre site on Duchamp Road in Broussard, Louisiana.
On August 3, 2021, the St. Martin Parish Council approved an ordinance making it illegal to haul in vegetative debris into St. Martin Parish for disposal within the Parish.
Farmer Billy Broussard showed up to provide his thoughts on the proposed ordinance. The next day, August 4, 2021, the Daily Iberian, a New Iberia-based publication owned by the family-run media group Wick Communications, which is based in Sierra Vista, Arizona, published this feature regarding the ordinance’s passage.
On July 22, 2022, Broussard filed this lawsuit against Wick Communications and Dwayne Fatheree, author of the feature alleging libel. Let’s take a look at a few highlights from the litigation:
5.
Despite the repeated statements in the meeting that Petitioner was “not burning,” Defendant Fatherree placed in the article referenced in Paragraph 4 that Petitioner was in fact burning on four (4) separate occasions.
6.
The first instance of Defendant’s false and libelous reporting that Petitioner was burning transpired in the fourth paragraph of the article, to wit:
“Broussard had bought a property in November that he was using to dump and burn material from his business.”
Defendant Fatherree also reported inaccurately when Petitioner bought the property. It was purchased in September (which Defendant Fatherree later stated correctly subsequently in the same article), not November, and had Defendant paid attention to the details articulated by Parish President Chester Cedars, whom Defendant praised for providing such extensive detail, Defendant would not have reported the wrong month of purchase of the property on the one occasion in the article which he did.
7.
The second instance of Defendant Fatherree falsely reporting that Petitioner was burning transpired in the very next paragraph of the article, Paragraph 5, to wit:
“Later, when parish officials learned that not only was Broussard burning his own leavings but was also accepting dumps of material from other contractors, the parish began working on an ordinance to prevent the practice overall.”
Not only is it false that Petitioner was burning on his property, but it was also false that Petitioner, “was also accepting dumps of material from other contractors,” and Petitioner made that point crystal clear (just as has been subsequently testified to under oath) at the same meeting attended by and reported upon by Defendant Fatherree that the only other individual permitted to place vegetative materials on Petitioner’s property was Judge Anthony Thibodeaux. Judge Thibodeaux testified under oath on May 2, 2022 that he hauled in vegetative materials to Petitioner’s property but had never paid “a dime” to Petitioner to do so; furthermore, Judge Thibodeaux testified that it created a “hardship” for him when he lost the ability to haul such material to Petitioner’s site and that he hoped his ability to do so was restored before long. Petitioner clearly stated at the meeting reported upon by Defendant Fatherree that the only person permitted to haul vegetative materials onto Petitioner’s property was “a judge in this Parish.” Again, had Defendant Fatherree paid even the slightest attention to detail, such false and libelous reporting on his part would not have transpired.
8.
The obvious bias of Defendant Fatherree’s article, which, upon information and belief, was nothing short of a hit piece done to appease, and upon information and belief, was drafted in coordination with, St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars, was made abundantly apparent a mere two paragraphs later in the article, Paragraph 7, to wit:
“Broussard went well over his five-minute time limit in presenting his defense. When he finished, Parish President Chester Cedars launched into a searing, excruciatingly detailed dismembering of Broussard’s arguments, including a timeline, in many cases down to the minute, of the interactions between Broussard and the parish.”
9.
While Defendant Fatherree went to such lengths to describe Parish President Chester Cedars’ “searing, excruciatingly detailed dismembering of Broussard’s arguments,” he apparently failed to take note that, of the four properties Cedars discussed at the meeting, Cedars stated, “three of which entailed burning.”
10.
While Cedars’ presentation made it clear two of the other properties being referenced entailed burning, it apparently never dawned upon Defendant Fatherree to inquire of Cedars (or Petitioner, for that matter) if Petitioner’s property was one of the other two which “entailed burning” or whether his property just might be the one Cedars left the audience to conclude was obviously not burning. Had Defendant Fatherree made such an inquiry of Petitioner, Petitioner would have told Defendant Fatherree that no burning had transpired on Petitioner’s property. Furthermore, even Parish President Cedars would have indicated to Defendant Fatherree that he had no reason to believe that Petitioner was burning on his property, which is precisely why President Cedars said, “three (of the four) entailed burning.” Common sense should have dictated to Defendant Fatherree that one of the four must not entail burning, and it was incumbent upon him to find out if that one property was Petitioner’s property (which it was), and he failed to do so.
11.
Despite Petitioner going to his vehicle and obtaining a business card to hand to Defendant Fatherree, which he did, in order that Defendant Fatherree could contact him, “if you have any questions” prior to publishing an article, Defendant Fatherree failed to even initiate the simple act of contacting Petitioner and seek any clarification on whether he engaged in burning activities, to which Petitioner would have immediately informed Defendant Fatherree that he was not.
12.
The next instance of Defendant Fatherree falsely publishing that Petitioner had been burning entailed an outright misstatement of what Parish President Cedars said in the meeting. Defendant’s blatantly false and libelous statement is contained in Paragraph 9 of the article, to wit:
“Cedars said complaints began arriving after Broussard bought the property in September. He began bringing tree trunks and vegetation to the lot, first to dump, then to burn.”
13.
Not only did Parish President Chester Cedars not state that Petitioner was burning at the meeting covered by Defendant Fatherree, but on May 2, 2022, President Cedars correctly stated under oath that he had “never” stated that Petitioner was burning. Petitioner again states that Defendant Fatherree’s goal, as evidenced by the replication of his paragraph referenced in Paragraph 12 of this Petition, was to paint Petitioner in the worst possible light in his feature, and he simply divested himself of any obligation whatsoever to report the truth about Petitioner’s activities on his family farm. In short, he was hell bent and determined to portray Petitioner as actively engaging in burning activity irrespective of the fact that portrayal was completely and utterly false; furthermore, Defendant Fatherree should have known that fact had he paid the slightest attention to the detail that he so eloquently admits that President Cedars provided at the meeting.
14.
The fourth and final false and libelous instance of Defendant Fatherree reporting that Petitioner was burning occurred in Paragraph 16 of Defendant Fatherree’s article when he printed an outright blatant misquote of Petitioner’s Councilman, Brook Champagne, to wit:
“You are violating the zoning ordinance,” Champagne said. “You are hauling and dumping or burning in a residential area. You have been doing it for a year.”
15.
As clearly reflected in a videotape of the entire discussion of the Ordinance, what Champagne said was that Petitioner could seek a variance, “since you are not going to burn.” Petitioner asserts that is the absolute epitome of irresponsible, biased, and slanted “journalism” for Defendant Fatherree to blatantly misquote Champagne to reference, “or burning” in the quote above when that is not what Champagne said! As clearly reflected by the video, Champagne plainly said that Petitioner was “not” going to “burn.” The repeated falsehoods printed by Defendant Fatherree entailing false claims that Petitioner was burning is nothing short of journalistic malpractice, and it is that malpractice that forms the core basis of this litigation.
16.
Defendant’s libelous reporting inflicted incalculable harm to Petitioner.
17.
Friends and associates approached Petitioner having stated that they’d read the article, to which they were drawn by Petitioner’s picture on prominent display.
18.
Petitioner had to inform each of those individuals as they contacted Petitioner about the article that the claims that Defendant Fatherree made in the article that Petitioner was burning were all blatantly false.
19.
When Petitioner contacted Defendant Fatherree’s editor, Michael Messerly, in an attempt to get Defendant’s employer to correct the libelous material referenced in this Petitioner, Messerly stated to Petitioner, “It just looks like ‘he said, she said’ to me.”
20.
In contrast to Messerly’s assertion that it was a case of “he said, she said,” the only individual even claiming that Petitioner was burning is Defendant Fatherree. Hence, it is actually a case of “he said, he said,” and the only one doing the “saying” is Defendant Fatherree, and his statements made four times in one article are all blatantly false and libelous.
21.
When Petitioner stressed that a video of the entirety of the discussion of the Ordinance, which had been published by blogger Robert Burns of Sound Off Louisiana, could be readily provided to Messerly that would readily demonstrate that Defendant Fatherree had falsely reported what was stated in the meeting (including Petitioner stressing on several occasions that he, “has not burned on the property,”) Messerly responded, “I don’t have time to watch a video!”
22.
Beyond the bad image Defendant Fatherree managed to falsely portray regarding Petitioner and the numerous false and libelous claims made that Petitioner was burning entailing impressions made upon the community at large, Defendant Fatherree, through his false and libelous reporting, also managed to sway the President of the Council, Chris Tauzin, into believing Petitioner simply had to be burning notwithstanding the contents of the meeting and on the video of the meeting.
23.
On September 4, 2021, Petitioner sent a text to Keith Baudin, a former candidate for the Louisiana House of Representatives in the District in which Petitioner resides, about the whole episode.
24.
Upon seeing the text Petitioner sent to Buadin, Baudin telephoned St. Martin Parish Council Chairman Chris Tauzin and inquired, “What the heck is going on with Billy Broussard?”
25.
Baudin informed Petitioner that Tauzin responded, “We told Broussard to stop burning. He did not stop burning, so we sued him.”
26.
St. Martin Parish Chairman Tauzin’s statement to Baudin on or about September 4, 2021 demonstrates the fact that a Restraining Order was filed against Petitioner based upon the false portrayal that Defendant Fatherree published in The Daily Iberian on Wednesday, August 4, 2021.
Since Broussard alleges that Fatherree’s editor, Michael Messerly, indicated to Broussard that he, “does not have time to watch a video,” we feel that the least we can do is offer him (and the Arizona-based owners of the Daily Iberian) an easy opportunity to view the video now that it may take on added significance with the filing of Broussard’s lawsuit. Here’s that video:
August 3, 2021 consideration of Ordinance 1329 in its entirety by the St. Martin Parish Council. It’s worth noting that, beginning at the 30:35 mark of the video, Broussard repeatedly stressed the fact that there has been “no burning” on the property.
Broussard stated to us, “just as my previous attorney (Michael Adley) stated in the pleadings, this Ordinance was specifically targeted at me. President Cedars admitted I only fell under the ‘umbrella in part,’ and that is because he knew that he had the other properties already by existing nuisance ordinances already on the books. He had to get this Ordinance passed specifically for the purpose of going after me, and the judge even ruled that my property is not considered a nuisance.”
Broussard further expressed frustration to us that, despite one couple being at the meeting to complain about one of the properties known to have a burning problem, Fatherree devoted no space whatsoever to that couple or the couple’s issues with that property and instead chose to focus the entire article on Broussard and what Broussard asserts are “false claims” that he is burning. We have already presented the video associated with that couple’s complaint, but here it is again for review purposes:
Armond Joseph Road property right next to Poche Bridge in St. Martin Parish.
Broussard contends, as stated in Paragraph 8 of his petition, that Fatherree went to the St. Martin Parish Council meeting on August 3, 2021, with the goal of publishing a “hit piece,” and he further alleged that his efforts in that regard were intended to “appease” St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars.
We’ll just have to see if the legal system in St. Martin Parish ultimately buys into the arguments posed in his petition or not. Either way, we’ll keep subscribers and casual visitors informed of developments in this latest iteration of legal claims which have arisen all from that one meeting of the St. Martin Parish Council on August 3, 2021.
Here are all past Sound Off Louisiana features pertaining to Broussard’s 33-acre tract since the controversies surrounding it first surfaced:
1. LSP Trooper Lopez allegedly demands Broussard’s driver not go down “my road” again (feature contains and extensive video tour of Broussard’s 33-acre farm).
3. Broussard’s attorney asserts in court filings that Cedars is on “crusade” to “harass” Broussard.
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.