Broussard’s attorney accuses St. Martin Parish Government & President Cedars of engaging in a “crusade” to “harass” him; uses its own sworn testimony to refute validity of zoning ordinance.

Farmer Billy Broussard reiterates to the St. Martin Parish Council at its meeting of Tuesday, September 7, 2021 that the minutes of the Council meeting of August 3, 2021 should not contain any statement that he is “burning.”

In our last feature, we exposed the fact that St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars barely let the ink get dry from him going on a 19-minute masterful performance to convince the St. Martin Parish Council (SMPC) to approve an ordinance to ban the importing of vegetative debris from other parishes into St. Martin Parish before he sued Broussard in 16th JDC.

While we strongly encouraged our subscribers and visitors to watch the video and form their own opinions, we refrained from making very much commentary on it.  At this time, we’re going to use two adjectives and one noun to make our characterization of Cedars on the video just linked:  pompous, arrogant, and prick.  We genuinely feel they’re all appropriate.

We also emphasized that Cedars is smart enough not to set himself personally up for a defamation suit by falsely asserting that farmer Billy Broussard is “burning;” however, as we emphasized, it appears that both The Daily Iberian and several Councilmembers were not as bright as Cedars.

In the preceding hit-piece feature by The Daily Iberian, on no less than four occasions in the same article did its author falsely accuse Broussard of “burning,” to include one blatantly-inaccurate quote of District 6 Councilman Brook Champagne.  The author of the feature, Dwayne Fatherree, touts beneath the article that he likes to “dig things up.”

Perhaps he may have done well to have taken the business card Broussard handed him at the conclusion of the meeting (which he did accept) and do as he (Broussard) invited him (Fatherree) to do and use the card to contact him if he had any questions.  That would have been a fantastic opportunity to ask Broussard to confirm that he’s been “burning” the vegetative debris he hauls in.  Had he made that simple phone call (that’s how we define “digging”), Broussard would have responded, just as he made CRYSTAL clear in the meeting, “No I have not and am not.”  Despite Fatherree’s purported propensity to “dig things up,” he didn’t even “dig” enough to make that simple phone call and inquiry!

It is any wonder that Councilmembers were under the false impression that Broussard had been burning after the piss-poor journalism skills Fatherree put out on full display?  After all, in our most-recent feature linked above, we stated that Council Chairman Chris Tauzin purportedly stated that the whole reason the Council sued Broussard is because he “would not stop burning!”  Let us emphasize that point-blank statement again.  Tauzin said the reason Broussard was sued is because he “would not stop burning!”

Since Tauzin likely read Fatherree’s article with the false and defamatory statements that Broussard has been “burning,” perhaps The Daily Iberian can be used to absolve those Councilmembers from any slander suit which may arise if they end up being sued as part of a libel suit against The Daily Iberian on the part of Broussard.  We want to again emphasize that Cedars was much more crafty to refrain from indicating Broussard has ever been “burning” (he knows he has not) in stressing that only, “two of the three complaints” he received during the week of June 15, 2021 entailed burning.  Cedars is not responsible for Mr. Fatherree’s gross failure to ascertain that Broussard was the one complained-of property which did NOT entail burning.  That obligation falls squarely on Fatherree, and he failed miserably at what should have been a very simple task of responsible journalism.

In this recent feature, we stated that, although it is a very rare occurrence, once in a blue moon Sound Off Louisiana‘s founder, Robert Burns, will choose to address a body he’s filming when he wants to make a point emphatically clear to everyone in the room.  Burns chose to do so at the SMPC meeting of Tuesday, September 7, 2021.  He spoke on the agenda item entailing approving of the minutes, and he admonished the Council that those minutes should most certainly NOT contain any reference to Broussard burning.  Broussard himself briefly addressed the Council immediately after Burns merely to reiterate what Burns had stated to them.  Let’s take a look:

9/7/21 SMPC meeting:  Burns stresses that the 8/3/21 minutes should NOT contain any reference to Broussard burning because, if they do, they are inaccurate and a Motion should be made to either amend the minutes or to defer approval until the next meeting.  Broussard takes a few seconds to reiterate Burns’ commentary to the Council.

Now, as we indicated above, Cedars barely let the ink get dry on the ordinance he persuaded the SMPC to approve before he sued Broussard in 16th JDC and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effectively shutting down Broussard’s operations until a hearing on Tuesday, September 14, 2021 (next Tuesday) can be conducted for the purpose of converting the TRO to a Preliminary Injunction.

As our long-time subscribes are aware, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns spends a TON of time in courtrooms.  In fact, Burns was even present for Cedars’ masterful performance before then-19th JDC Judge Todd Hernandez when he argued for Attorney General Jeff Landry (Cedars was formerly employed in Landry’s office before seeking to become St. Martin Parish’s President) regarding transgender bathrooms in Louisiana (in a direct challenge to Gov. John Bel Edwards).  Cedars’ performance was certainly admirable in that matter!

Having said that, we’ve read a ton of responsive pleadings and memoranda over our many years (both during the timeframe Burns served as a fraud investigator for the Federal government and thereafter), and it just may be that we’ve yet to read one wherein a defense attorney, in this case Broussard’s attorney Michael Adley, filed such as authoritative memorandum as this one which Adley filed yesterday (September 8, 2021) at 8:59 a.m.  We’ll admit that we were on the phone with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court’s Office anxiously awaiting the filing of the document and, once we were told it was up and available for download, we took out our one-day pass with that Clerk’s Office and downloaded the sucker!

It’s one heck of a read!  While we have observed over our long careers of observing courtroom proceedings that anything (and we do mean ANYTHING) can happen in a courtroom, just based on the filings alone for this suit, we certainly don’t envy Cedars or the SMPC’s attorney in having to pose oral arguments and carry out the trial of the matter for which they have sued Broussard.  Let’s highlight just a few of Adley’s arguments, shall we?:

Before Billy Broussard Farm and Land purchased the property it was overgrown and served as a haven for drug users. Drug abusers slept in tents spread out all across the property. The property was both an eyesore and a danger.

Neither Billy Broussard nor Billy Broussard Farm and Land are violating any purported zoning ordinances at 1675 Duchamp Road. Nonetheless, SMPG has been on a crusade to interfere with Billy Broussard’s use of 1675 Duchamp Road. SMPG claims 1675 Duchamp Road is zoned R-2 (Mixed Residential). Zone R-2 permits privately growing mushrooms as it allows private
recreational use, private gardens, and private nurseries. SMPG, however, continues to harass Billy Broussard with allegations that he is conducting impermissible commercial activities on the prope1ty.

Perhaps in recognition that privately growing mushrooms would not violate its purported zoning ordinance, SMPG recently passed Ordinance No. 21-08-1329-OR which appears to be targeting Billy Broussard and Billy Broussard Farm and Land. The ordinance prohibits Billy Broussard Billy Broussard Farm and Land from placing any tree or vegetative debris on his own property, regardless of the use, upon penalty of fine or imprisonment if the tree or vegetative debris did not originate on land owned by Billy Broussard or Billy Broussard Farm and Land. Other residents of St. Martin Parish who would be affected by this ordinance told Billy Broussard they were advised by local officials that the ordinance would not be enforced against them.

Upon inquiry with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court, however, no “Zoning District Identification File” or “Zoning District Map” exists in the Clerk of Courts office. Because zoning ordinances are “in derogation of an owner’s rights, ” courts have insisted on a level of formality in enacting zoning     ordinances……..Accordingly, courts have routinely invalidated/found unenforceable zoning
ordinances when the “zoning map” referenced in the ordinance is not on file, non-existent or unclear.

Here, just as in the foregoing, SMPG defined its zoning districts by reference to a zoning map. For its zoning ordinance to be effective/enforceable, SMPG was required to keep a copy of the official zoning map referred to in the ordinance on file with SMPG Clerk of Court. SMPG has not. Accordingly, its zoning is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

SMPG is well aware of this fatal flaw with their zoning ordinance. SPMG President Chester Cedars admitted he knew as early 2012 that the map and zoning file were not on file with the SMPG Clerk of Court as described in the zoning ordinance.  Moreover, this issue arose again, as recently as April 8, 2019, when SMPG tried and failed to use its invalid zoning ordinance to enjoin the operations of a local businessman. At the trial on the injunction, the SMPG Clerk of Court testified no “zoning map” was on file, but that mere days before the trial an “Official Road and Highways Map” was filed. There was no indication that this “Official Road and Highway Map” was the map referred to in the zoning ordinance.

As if this was not enough to demonstrate the ambiguity of the zoning ordinance, the attorney for SMPG represented to the court at the April 8, 2019 trial that the zoning ordinance only extends five hundred feet from the road in residential areas and that anything beyond five hundred has no zoning restrictions:

The Court:

Where’s the zoning map? Where’s the zones … ? What are the zones? To what extent does the zones extend?

SMPG:

It extends to both sides of the roads – –

The Court:

How far?

SMPG:

The zoning ordinance indicates, Your Honor, that it extends to five hundred feet of the road for industrial and residential. There’s no statement as to how far to the side of the road it extends for the W-1 and W-2 designations.

The Court:

So there’s some areas of the parish that are not zoned at all, according to your statements. If it only extends for five hundred feet from the road into a pasture that’s more than five hundred feet, there’s no zoning.

SMPG:

That would be correct, your Honor.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court ruled the zoning ordinance was void and ineffectual due to the aforementioned errors, stating:

The defendants have raised two exceptions to the zoning. Those are the vested rights and the zoning ordinance being void and ineffectual due to problems with the recordation and the adoption or notice provisions under the zoning ordinance.  The Court finds that both are applicable.

These same deficiencies still exist with the SMPG zoning ordinance. Recent inquiry with the SPMG Clerk of Court’s office confirmed the office still has no “Zoning District Identification File” or “Zoning District Map” on file as required by the zoning ordinance. Accordingly, the SMPG zoning ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and cannot be enforced.

III. Ordinance No. 21-08-1329-OR Violates the Dormant Commerce Clause Under the “dormant Commerce Clause” protectionist legislation is per-se invalid. “The evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends.” A clear example of such legislation is “a law that overtly blocks the flow of interstate commerce at a State’s borders. ”  The prohibition applies to not only a State that tries to horde a resource or benefit, but also to the “attempt[s] by one State to isolate itself from a problem common to many be erecting a barrier against the movement of interstate trade. ”

Here, just like in the aforementioned cases, SMPG has attempted to block the flow of interstate commerce, apparently, to isolate itself from a problem common to many. The ordinance suggests the transportation, dumping, or burning of tree and vegetative debris is a threat to the safety, health and welfare of its citizens. Accordingly, it seeks to prohibit the transportation of any tree or vegetative debris from outside the parish for dumping or burning inside the parish. The ordinance makes an exception for transportation, dumping, and burning of trees or vegetative debris that originated inside the parish. At the August 3, 2021 St. Martin Parish Council meeting, Parish President Chester Cedars confirmed the protectionist motivations when defending the ordinance:

“It’s a crying shame we have to go to Court to keep somebody from burning something in a neighborhood after they transported from probably outside of this parish and from another location, really and truly. So I support this ordinance. I think it’s a good ordinance.”

The ordinance is undoubtedly protectionist in nature. It seeks to discriminate against tree and vegetative debris from outside the parish. Tree and vegetative debris are items of commerce.  Accordingly, the ordinance is invalid, per se. The Commerce Clause does not allow St. Martin Parish to “isolate itself from the national economy. ”

As written, a St. Martin Parish resident who mulches their garden with mulch purchased from Wal-Mart could be imprisoned for up to thirty days. So to could a St. Martin Parish resident who purchases brick pavers from “Mike Baker Brick” in Lafayette Parish in order to install a brick patio. Both would be transporting tree or building material generated outside the parish for deposit onto their property within the parish.  Such a vague and overly broad ordinance cannot be permitted. It will undoubtedly lead to discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement. In fact, upon information and belief, this was the very purpose- to create a vague ordinance that could be used to discriminate against Defendants.  Accordingly, for that reason, the ordinance must be invalidated.  Moreover, this ordinance is clearly arbitrary and not substantially related to public health,
safety, morals or general welfare. The ordinance permits a St. Martin Parish resident to burn tree and vegetative debris generated on their own land. The ordinance also permits a St. Martin Parish resident to transport tree or vegetative debris generated on their own property to other property they own for burning. Per this ordinance, Billy Broussard could burn every single tree on his 35-acre property, and it would not be a nuisance nor would it threaten the safety, morals or general welfare of the public; however, if Billy Broussard merely deposits (not burns) a single cut tree on his property in order to feed his mushrooms and that tree originated outside of his property, it is a nuisance and threat to the safety, morals or general welfare of the public. This is a completely arbitrary and unreasonable restriction. Thus, for that reason, as well, the ordinance must be invalidated.

So, here’s the bottom line as we see it!  SMPG President Chester Cedars conducted a fire and brimstone sermon (a necessary ingredient to any “crusade”), to the SMPC Members and easily bamboozled them (which some St. Martin Parish residents have told us is not hard to do).  Thereafter, like good little penguins, they all followed right after him into diving right into the freezing water by giving him the green light to sue Billy Broussard and thereby block (at least temporarily) his efforts to generate taxes for the SMPG coffers.

The big question is, if Cedars knew as far back as back as 2012 that the Zoning Ordinances were not on file with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court’s Office and would therefore be unenforceable as alleged in Adley’s memorandum, why did he charge head first after Broussard in the manner he did?

We believe the answer is simple and two-fold.  First, he felt Broussard would not be able to procure the services of an attorney because he wouldn’t have the resources to do so.  Further, he felt that, even if Broussard did have those resources, he would likely just hire some derelict attorney whom Cedars and his legal team could simply throttle in the same manner he easily and practically effortlessly throttled the SMPC.

In other words, Cedars simply “rolled the dice” with taxpayers’ money in pursuing what just may end up being one of the biggest, and certainly most visible, fiascos of his legal and political career.

If that turns out to be the case, it appears Cedars basically rolled snake eyes as Broussard has demonstrated that he does have the resources to fight Cedars in court and, further, he was sharp enough to use the same attorney who just emerged victorious over Cedars in a recently-concluded legal battle.

Near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Parish Council Chairman Chris Tauzin recognized all of the SMPG employees having September birthdays.  He recognized Cedars, who was born on September 12 (three days from today), last and congratulated him on “turning 25.”  Cedars’ response?  “I think I’ve aged more in the last week than I have the rest of my life!”  We have no doubt that, having just received Adley’s memo served to him via email mere hours before the meeting, that memo likely contributed to Cedars’ candid assessment of his “aging” in the prior week.

Just as a service for the residents of St. Martin Parish, anyone is welcome to watch the SMPC meeting in its entirety by CLICKING HERE.

One item that may be of interest entails unhappiness with the trash pickup service provided by the Parish contractor.  For those who merely want to watch that segment alone, advance the tape to the 38:34 mark.

We look VERY forward to attending Tuesday’s Preliminary Injunction hearing and reporting on the results immediately thereafter outside the Courthouse.  As we indicated, we learned long ago that anything can happen in a courtroom, but as we think is obvious by this post, we believe this is one court hearing where, just as with the Bible illustration of David v. Goliath, Broussard has come to battle with a very effective slingshot in the person of Michael Adley!

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.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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