Broussard takes “Mob Boss” Girouard, Dubroc to court asserting defamation and tells the court that attorney Eric Haik’s “sanctions considerations” should “not even remotely be dignified,” are “patently absurd,” and are “beyond the pale” in light of defendants’ Facebook postings, Dubroc’s notary DA investigation.

Prominent New Iberia attorney Eric Timothy Haik.

One week ago today, on November 10, 2022, Billy Broussard filed a formal complaint against attorney Lee C. Durio wherein he asserts that Durio acted unethically in giving him permission to “violate the law” after having first filed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) for which the basis for court approval of the TRO was that very same “breaking of the law” cited by Durio to avoid Durio having to prove the normally-required “irreparable harm” for court approval.

A mere five (5) days later, on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, Broussard didn’t show prominent New Iberia attorney Eric Timothy Haik much love either in characterizing Haik’s seeking of 16th JDC Judge Roger Hamilton to “consider” sanctioning Broussard for “harassment” in filing this defamation lawsuit against Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc as “patently absurd,” “unworthy of the Court even dignifying,” and “beyond the pale.”  Let’s hit a few highlights of Broussard’s petition, shall we?:

Within hours of Parish President Cedars successfully buying time to eliminate the potential for him to be humiliated in Court (similarly to the way Adley had already humiliated him with the same arguments in Champagne Boats litigation), Cedars immediately embarked upon a campaign to cultivate a “mob” to oppose the zoning variance, which Adley placed in writing to Cedars was, “nothing more than an attempt to compromise” with Adley remaining steadfast that, “the zoning variance is in no way  required.”

While Cedars was smart enough to refrain from making public defamatory statements about Petitioner, he was equally shrewd enough to realize that he could strategically deploy certain Parish citizens to feel emboldened by him wherein those citizens would feel a false sense of importance and even bravado.  Cedars was also shrewd enough to realize that these apparently gullible citizens whom he would target to oppose Petitioner’s unnecessary zoning variance would, unlike him, be unlikely to possess the necessary legal intellect to refrain from making defamatory statements about Petitioner.

Thus, Cedars executed a masterful plan to sabotage the whole “process” which he managed to convince Adley to embark upon even as Cedars was simultaneously telling Adley and Petitioner that obtaining the zoning variance would be easy, with Parish Director of Administration, Calder “Pop” Hebert, going so far as to tell Petitioner the very day after the Court Hearing had been called off, “We may get some token opposition, but we’ll be able to handle that.”  Cedars himself came in to speak with Hebert and Petitioner, and he stated, “Mr. Broussard, I’m really glad we were able to get this all worked out.”

On October 7, 2021 (only 21 days after the agreement referenced in Paragraph 5), Defendant Melissa Dubroc’s husband, Blake Dubroc, called in a complaint that Petitioner was hauling in vegetative materials and dumping them on his 33-acre property.

Lee Durio’s office was contacted entailing the complaint….

Rather than informing Dubroc that Cedars had personally authorized the activity Dubroc complained of, in the narrative section of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff Incident Report (# 21-32034), Deputy Nicholas Olander notated the following:


That “something in motion” was an elaborate scheme directly orchestrated by Cedars to deploy citizens lacking Cedars’ legal intellect like Defendant Melissa Dubroc and her husband, Blake Dubroc, to rally up a “mob” to appear before the Parish Planning and Zoning meeting on January 6, 2022 and paint Petitioner out in a horrendously bad light in order that the “process” of obtaining the “request for zoning variance,” which Cedars’ Director of Administration, Calder “Pop” Hebert, had assured would be obtained, “with us handling any token opposition” would in reality be successfully sabotaged by Cedars and denied.

Defendant Melissa Dubroc, who is a notary holding notary license # 058122, notarized this “petition” with her mere hand-written name appearing beneath her signature evidencing notarization, followed by her notary license number.

Melissa Dubroc, apparently concerned that she was notarizing an outright falsehood entailing Petitioner seeking to open a “waste disposal site,” used an ink pin to strike through those words and replace those words with “hauling any debris.”

Defendant Melissa Dubroc made no notation of when she made that strikethrough; furthermore, she failed to cross out the same wording four lines later where she left in the words “waste disposal site.”

Defendant Melissa Dubroc is also in apparent violation of several other Louisiana statutes applicable for notaries to include, but not be limited to, serving as a notary on a document in which she is also a principal (signature of resident # 16) together with direct members of her household and relatives:  Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez (signatory # 27), Blake Dubroc (signatory # 26), Gil Lamperez (son-in-law, signatory # 28).

Defendant Melissa Dubroc is in further apparent violation of another Louisiana notary statute in that she failed to witness a significant number of the signatories on the “petition” as is required to notarize a document and as is the primary function of a notary’s duties in notarizing any document.

One signatory who will be called as a witness at trial communicated to Petitioner in writing that, “Yeah, I signed that.  They changed it after people signed it.  I signed it under the presumption of a dump being opened.”  That signatory informed Petitioner that he would have refrained from signing the “petition” had he known what was actually being sought by Petitioner.  This deception on the parts of Defendants Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc were both intentional and designed to cause a “mob-like setting” at the January 6, 2022 Parish Planning and Zoning meeting, and their devious acts succeeded as the “mob,” led by Defendant Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard, was hostile toward Petitioner and his then-attorney, Michael Adley, throughout the meeting.  This was so much the case that the St. Martin Parish Sheriff Deputy serving as security for the meeting insisted upon escorting Petitioner, Petitioner’s then-Attorney, Michael Adley, and Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns to their vehicles, with that Deputy volunteering, “You don’t know what you’re dealing with in these people!”

The St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office is presently investigating Defendant Melissa Dubroc’s apparent violations of Louisiana notary statutes outlined above.

Girouard and Dubroc opted to employ prominent New Iberia attorney Eric Timothy Haik to represent them just as he is doing in Broussard v. Scott Lopez and Benjamin Cole Lopez.  Haik opted to file this combination Answer and Peremptory Exception of No Cause / No Right of action.  Let’s examine just a few quick assertions made by Haik:

The Petition asserts all kinds of crazy allegations against all kinds of people or entities, none of which are specifically alleged against the named defendants.

Plaintiff has no right/Cause of action against Defendants as Plaintiff failed to plead the prerequisites to state a cause of action for defamation of character. For these reasons and those set out more fully in Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Exceptions of No Right and No Cause of Action, Plaintiffs Petition should be dismissed.

Further, because Plaintiff’s motive in filing his Petition for Damages was to harass Defendants, they urge this Honorable Court to consider sanctioning Plaintiff with attorney’s fees and costs.

Haik’s filing, in turn, prompted Broussard to, on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, file this Opposition Memorandum to Haik’s Peremptory Exception of No Cause / No Right of Action.  Let’s take a look at a few highlights:

NOW UNTO COURT comes Petitioner, Billy Broussard, in proper person, who files this Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ No Right / No Cause of Action Presently scheduled for contradictory hearing on December 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendants assert that Petitioner “asserts all kinds of crazy things against all kinds of people or entities, none of which are specifically alleged against the named Defendants” yet fail to assert a single “crazy” thing in the Peremptory Exception.

Defendant Melissa Dubroc alleges that “not one paragraph” of the Petition . …. alleges any defamatory statements made against Defendant Dubroc,” yet Dubroc conveniently ignores that, not only did she play an active role in the generation and spreading of the Petition submitted to the St. Martin Parish Council on or around March 2, 2022, but that she is in apparent violation of numerous Notary Acts in doing so.

Defendant Dubroc also ignores the fact that she is presently under investigation for those alleged improper Notary Acts by the St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office. As part of this Opposition Memorandum, Petitioner supplies Plaintiff’s Exhibit P-6, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The Exhibit is an email sent by St. Martin Parish Assistant District Attorney Michael Caffery on October 25, 2022 (a mere three days before Defendant Dubroc’s Exception Motion was filed with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court), which is reproduced below:

From: Michael Caffery <[email protected]>
Date: October 25, 2022 at 11:36:47 AM CDT
To: Billy Broussard <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Material Requested to Assist With Your Investigation of Potential Illegal Notary
Act(s) by Melissa Dubroc

Thank you for the email Me. Broussard. It definitely has been busy, but I’m determined to get a Motion filed on this before Thanksgiving. I apologize for the delay and feel free to contact me anytime.

Michael Caffery
Sent from my iPhone

For Defendant Dubroc to assert that Petitioner’s Petition should be dismissed with prejudice while she is simultaneously being investigated by the St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office acts for which numerous notaries have attested to Petitioner represent, “obvious and willful disregard for fundamental standards and obligations of all Louisiana notaries,” is patently absurd! Further, Defendant Dubroc’s assertion that this Honorable Court “consider” sanctioning Petitioner is nothing short of beyond the pale.

What is in reality happening is that Defendants Dubroc and Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard are desperately trying to toss this case even when Petitioner has a pending Discovery Request of Defendant Girouard for all Facebook posts of her group, “Vieux Jacquet Neighborhood” which make reference to Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s property on Duchamp Road.

Upon inf0rmation and belief, this Face book group is comprised of close to 100 members. Though the group was founded in October of 2020, it languished with only about 18 members until Defendant Girouard, in concert with LSP Trooper Scott Lopez (a named Defendant in a separate Defamation lawsuit: 91706-H)
began their joint crusade against Petitioner in late 2021, at which time membership expanded exponentially, to even include a sitting St. Martin Parish Councilwoman and Vice Chair, Ms. Carla Jean-Batiste, whom Defendant Girouard introduced to the Facebook Group on or around October 10, 2020, with Jean-Batiste, the spouse of the second-in-command at the St. Mai1in Parish Sheriff’s Office, Harold Jean-Batiste, Jr., remaining a Facebook group member from that day forward to the present day.

Also upon information and belief, Defendant Girouard, on or around December 6, 2021, converted her Facebook group from public to private. Petitioner asserts that this act on Girouard’s part transpired after Petitioner’s then-attorney, Michael Adley, informed St. Martin Parish Government officials that the Facebook exhibits already presented in this Petition are “defamatory.” Quite simply, Defendant Girouard was attempting to facilitate approximately 8-10 repetitive posters to her Facebook Group to be able to defame Petitioner’s character to the other 90+ members who, upon information and belief, have engaged in no posting whatsoever on that Facebook group and, in fact, in many instances, have quietly told Petitioner that they support him.

Defendant Girouard, upon information and belief, has expelled Facebook members to her group who have posted anything remotely positive about Petitioner and has further made it clear to other members upon expelling members engaging in such acts that such positive commentary about Petitioner will not be tolerated. Girouard’s actions in that regard are indeed ironic given that the first “rule” of her Facebook group states:

1. Be kind and courteous. We’re all in this together to create a welcoming environment. Let’s treat everyone with respect. Healthy debates are natural, but kindness is required.

Despite Defendant Girouard’s above “rule,” Petitioner has been made aware of neighborhood members who have been referred to as “snakes” if they so much as appear to support Petitioner. Also, upon information and belief, Petitioner has been referenced
as a “POS” and other derogatory nouns by both Defendants Girouard and Dubroc and other Facebook group members orchestrated by self-proclaimed Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard.

The reality is that the residents supportive of Petitioner and his extensive efforts to improve the property are reluctant to express support publicly for fear of reprisal, particularly on the part of Defendant Dubroc’s household. To cite the rationale of such fear, on May 14, 2022, the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office was called out to the Dubroc residence as a result of “numerous rounds of an AK-47 rifle being fired by people who are clearly inebriated.”

When Sheriff Deputy Darren Countee arrived on the scene, he spent all of about nine minutes merely taking down the serial number of the rifle and stating, “as long as you’re firing in a good direction all is fine.”

Less that six (6) minutes after he left the scene, Countee was immediately returned and had to place Defendant Dubroc’ s daughter under arrest as she had crossed the street and was approaching her neighbor threatening to, “beat the f@@k out of you for calling the police!”

The reality is that the neighbor is not the one who called law enforcement to the Dubroc residence, but the actual caller doesn’t want his or her identity revealed for fear of reprisal, and the same holds true of those reluctant to speak publicly (or even make a supportive post on Defendant Girouard’s Facebook group, which results in immediate expulsion from the group) in support of Petitioner for fear of ramifications from the “mob,” for which Girouard has self-declared herself as “mob boss.”

Petitioner is not required to prove his entire case in his initial Petition, and presumably Defense Counsel is aware of that fact. Petitioner has clearly demonstrated a Cause of Action for Defamation; furthermore, upon receiving the above-referenced Request for Production (i.e. the Facebook posts and comments thereof), Petitioner has little doubt that he will need to file a Motion for Leave of Court to Amend the present Petition to add other Defendants who chose to actively participate in the blatantly-defamatory posts made in Defendant Girouard’s Facebook Group between the dates of October 20, 2021 running through and including the date of this writing.

For the foregoing reasons, this Honorable Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss his Petition and instruct Defendants to supply the Request for Production of Documents to include all Facebook posts made on the Facebook Group, “Vieux Jacquet Neighborhood” which make reference to Petitioner and/or Petitioner’s property on Duchamp Road. Further, this Honorable Court should not even remotely dignify Defendants’ request for this Honorable Court to “consider” sanctioning Petitioner as the request is patently absurd on its face in light of the actions of Defendants entailing their Face book postings and apparent improper Notary Acts outlined in this Opposition Memorandum to Defendants’ Exception of No Cause / No Right of Action.

There’s not much we can add to Broussard’s Opposition Memorandum; however, we will make just a couple of observations.

First, it would seem that, if Haik wishes for the Court to take seriously his request that the Court “consider” sanctioning Broussard, he should have made his request far more formal by filing a Motion to Impose CCP 863(B) sanctions.  The fact that Haik failed to do so telegraphs to us that he doesn’t expect the Court to seriously “consider” imposing sanctions, and he tip-toed around his request likely to avoid angering the Judge by making the filing more formal when he knows such a filing would be dead on arrival.

Second, Broussard was recently informed of a massive number of trucks hauling in numerous loads of dirt onto Joelle Dubroc’s property to fill in a deep hole which had tree limbs and branches filled into it years ago.  Broussard tells us that the property was previously, “a BMP (Best Management and Practice) site.”  He further informs us that, while Parish President Chester Cedars was with the St. Martin Parish District Attorney’s Office, he (Cedars) personally participated in the shutdown of that BMP site.

Broussard further asserts that he disagrees with Cedars’ shutdown of that site, but the fact remains that it was shut down, and that Joelle Dubroc is now doing the very thing that DEQ has warned Broussard that he cannot do, which is to cover that area up with dirt without a DEQ and/or BMP permit to do so.

Broussard, through his attorney, Heather Duhon-Moore, informed St. Martin Parish Government officials of the activity, and let’s take a look at the correspondence between SMPG officials and his attorney, Ms. Duhon-Moore, in SMPG v. Billy Broussard:

From: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 4:34 PM
Subject: RE: 1665 Duchamp Rd.
To: Heather Duhon Moore <[email protected]>




In regards to the complaint by Mr. Broussard for the property located at 1665 Duchamp Road, Ronald Solarie, Parish Compliance Officer, personally traveled to the property and did not locate any tree or vegetative material on the property.


If Mr. Broussard has any further evidence I would be happy to review them and provide them to SMPG.

From: Heather Duhon Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 10:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 1665 Duchamp Rd.




Since Billy is not residing on the property- He has not been able to get a picture of who has been doing the activity recently. In the past it has been Dean Guidry, but Mr. Broussard could not confirm if Dean is doing it this time.


On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 3:28 PM <[email protected]> wrote:



Thank you for this information. I have forwarded this to St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars for his review. He did follow back up with me via email and advised he has instructed the proper parish personnel to investigate the matter.


To aid in the investigation do you know the name of the tree contractor or have any additional pictures?


Now that the Parish has been made aware of the allegations, they will investigate and proceed accordingly.


From: Heather Duhon Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2022 2:59 PM
To: Lee Durio <[email protected]>
Subject: 1665 Duchamp Rd.




I am reaching out in connection to property located at 1665 Duchamp Rd. This property is owned by Melissa and Joelle Dubroc. It has come to Mr. Broussard’s attention that Joelle Dubroc is currently hauling dirt and vegetative debris onto her property to cover a large hole that has been partially filled with vegetated debris by a tree contractor. It is also my client’s understanding that the Dubrocs do not have a DEQ and/or State-approved site which, according to statements made by Parish President Chester Cedars, is required.  Mr. Broussard has taken a number of photos of this recent development.


Furthermore, this would also be an apparent violation of the same ordinance that the Parish is presently deploying against Mr. Broussard.  Additionally, in sharp contrast to Mr. Broussard’s vegetative materials, which are well beyond 500 feet from the road, Joelle’s vegetative materials are located only about 30 feet from the road.


Mr. Broussard and I are both baffled regarding why the same identical activity being conducted by Mr. Broussard and Joelle Dubroc is deemed illegal for one and perfectly legal in another situation.


I have attached a few pictures of the “illegal activities” being conducted on Joelle Dubroc. I would like the Parish’s explanation on why two different landowners are being treated differently.

We do find it a tad ironic that Durio’s correspondence only references “not locating” any tree debris.  Well, duh!  Anybody recon that was because, by the time SMPG officials got there, these massive number of loads of dirt, which apparently those 8-10 residents who want Broussard arrested for merely having a truck on his property (and falsely assert that Judge deMahy signed an Order that Broussard was to be arrested for so much as parking a truck on his property) had no issues entailing Dubroc’s activities, the tree debris was all covered up?!  After all, that was the objective, no?

Secondly, and more disturbingly, we’ve obtained evidence that Joelle Dubroc took to Facebook as co-manager of Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard’s Facebook group, and made several posts about the visit from Mr. Solaire, to wit:

It appears Melissa Dubroc’s effort to “keep the post clean” didn’t last long!  For the record, Broussard asserts that Girouard’s contention above is completely false and that he is most certainly NOT the one who dumped the trees in the pond!

Oh, my!!!!!!  The Parish has hauled off and said, “U good nothing to worry about.”  We’ll assume the troll commentary is Dubroc-Lamperez’s alone and not that of an SMPG official!

Uh, oh!  Defendant Dubroc once again couldn’t keep it “clean” (Facebook Rule # 1 of the group notwithstanding).  Further, there goes that “POS” reference Broussard made in his Opposition Memorandum.  We wonder how many times other such nouns and adjectives similar in nature have been used to describe Broussard over the 22 months that the 8-10 core members who are asserted to constantly lambast him may have been used?  Perhaps we’ll find out upon Girouard supplying the material Broussard has requested in his Request for Production outline in P-7 of his Opposition Memorandum.  We have a feeling that will be quite interesting.

Gee, this sure is starting to sound eerily similar to the infamous,  “I’m going to beat the f@@k out of you,” threat Joelle Dubroc made on Deputy Countee’s body camera regarding her neighbor across the street on May 14, 2022, no?

The Court hearing for the Peremptory Exception is scheduled for December 5, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.  We’ll certainly attend and report upon the outcome soon thereafter.

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.

One thought on “Broussard takes “Mob Boss” Girouard, Dubroc to court asserting defamation and tells the court that attorney Eric Haik’s “sanctions considerations” should “not even remotely be dignified,” are “patently absurd,” and are “beyond the pale” in light of defendants’ Facebook postings, Dubroc’s notary DA investigation.”

  1. Well, well, I made the cut in this nonsense 🙄 Lord help us all in this neighborhood 🙏 Talk about a bunch of baloney!

Leave a Reply

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