Category: Uncategorized

Pastor Errol Victor, Sr., who, on July 20, 2022 was convicted for a second time of murdering his 8-year-old stepson in 2008 (the first time was by a 10-2 verdict, and the U. S. Supreme Court vacated his conviction). [Photo courtesy of NOLA.com].

Long-time Sound Off Louisiana suscribers will recall our feature entailing just how much a 12-year-old ice cream bar has cost Louisiana taxpayers.  From that feature:

We’ve had a few subscribers asking to be fully apprised of the Victor matter.  Since we’ve now published several features in which LUI has openly advocated for his immediate release, it probably would be a good idea to provide a table with bullet-like statements of what all has transpired.  Pre-2015 table entries are derived from this feature.

Date or General Timeline	Event or Occurrence
Sometime prior to April 1, 2008	Errol Victor Sr. marries a lady named Tonya. They essentially form a Brady Bunch on steroids family as he has seven (7) boys, Tonya has four (4) boys, and they subsequently have two (2) boys together, for a total of 13 children (all boys).
April 1, 2008	M.L. Lloyd III, 8, is pronounced dead at River Parishes Hospital; Errol and Tonya Victor, his mother and stepfather and stepbrother, Errol Victor, Jr., are arrested later that day.
April 15, 2008	Errol Victor Sr., 42, is indicted by a St. John the Baptist Parish grand jury on a charge of first-degree murder in death of M.L. Lloyd III. The boy’s mother, Tonya Victor, 33, and stepbrother, Errol Victor Jr., 24, were charged with accessory after the fact to first-degree murder.
September, 2009	Errol and Tonya Victor indicted on second-degree murder charges. No charges filed against Errol Victor, Jr.
October, 2009	St. John district attorney’s office recuses itself from the case because an assistant district attorney had represented Errol Victor in business ventures.
February, 2010	Judge Madeline Jasmine voids the September 2009 indictment against the Victors because a St. John sheriff’s deputy on the grand jury wore a shirt that advertised his employment.
April, 2010	Errol and Tonya Victor are re-indicted on second-degree murder charges in the case.
August, 2010	Errol and Tonya Victor refused to enter a plea during an arraignment on second-degree murder charges. Errol Victor, shouting that he wanted to represent himself, was removed from the courtroom.
August, 2010	Errol and Tonya Victor lose their bid to relocate their murder case from St. John Parish district court to federal court. The lawsuit alleged that the state is pursuing the “indictment solely because (the) defendants are African-Americans in St. John Parish” and that African-Americans are more likely to be treated unfairly, prosecuted and incarcerated in St. John than white defendants. U.S. District Judge Lance Africk said he found “no legitimate statutory basis” to remove the case from district court, stating precedent has shown that federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state court proceedings.
October, 2010	Judge Mary Hotard Becnel agrees to allow Errol and Tonya Victor to use their right to self-representation. Over the couple’s objections, Becnel also appointed attorneys from the public defenders office to act as advisers. The Victors said they didn’t want the help because the attorneys didn’t agree with their strategy.
August, 2011	Judge Mary Hotard Becnel issues a bench warrant for the arrest of Errol and Tonya Victor after the couple fails to show up for their second-degree murder trial.
April, 2012	Errol and Tonya Victor are captured and arrested in Georgia after being featured on television show, “America’s Most Wanted.”
July, 2012	Errol and Tonya Victor are extradited to Louisiana, booked in St. John Parish with jumping bail.
August, 2014	Errol Victor found guilty of second-degree murder; Tonya Victor found guilty of manslaughter in the death of 8-year-old M.L. Lloyd III.
September 14, 2014	Tonya (sentenced to 21 years – eligible for parole after serving 11), and Victor (sentenced to life in prison), go on a tirade at sentencing.
November 6, 2018	Louisiana voters overwhelming approve requiring a unanimous jury for a felony conviction. Victor was sentenced to life in prison based on a 10-2 verdict.
April 27, 2020	U. S. Supreme Court vacates Victor’s sentence based on the fact he was sentenced by a 10-2 jury verdict rather than 12-0.
November 24, 2020	Victor makes a pro-se filing seeking to have his $1.5 million bond reduced, to be released based on not having been re-charged for the crime (alleged violation of right to a “quick and speedy” trial). Note: On page 17 of the linked 34-page document, the judge notates the fact that the $1.5 million bond had been vacated by the judge’s own motion and that, upon a subsequent hearing on the matter, bond was denied.
December 23, 2020	LUI holds this “emergency press conference” fearing Victor may succumb to the Corona virus while being housed in the St. Charles Parish jail.
December 29, 2020	Victor is taken on the junket outlined in this feature. LUI founder Belinda Parker-Brown sends this correspondence to the prison warden.

Well, since that January 3, 2021 feature, the cost of the ice cream bar has risen dramatically.

How?  Well, as noted above, the U. S. Supreme Court, on April 27, 2020, vacated Victor’s conviction.  Attorney General Jeff Landry’s office then moved forward with retrying the case.  That retrial commenced on July 11, 2022, and Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns attended the afternoon session of Wednesday, July 13, 2022 and Friday, July 15, 2022.

To Burns’ shock on Wednesday, a jury still had not been seated when he showed up (jury selection was expected to have been completed the previous day).  Ten of the 12 jurors had been seated; however, the court literally ran out of jurors in the pool the prior day.

So what happened?  As the court explained, there is a little-known Louisiana statute that states that, when the court runs out of prospective jurors, the local Sheriff can go out and randomly serve subpoenas upon unsuspecting citizens ordering them to report to court the next day to be considered for potential jury duty!

In fact, once the jury was finally seated, Assistant Attorney General John Russel told the jurors that, “Well, you are either the luckiest or unluckiest jurors I’ve ever argued before.  In fact, I think this may be a history-making event, and it will be something you can tell your grandkids.”  Russel then admitted that even he had no knowledge of the little-known statute that permitted two of the active jurors and all of the alternates to have literally been plucked from off the streets the day before.

It was interesting to watch the final stage of jury selection and the uniqueness of the situation.  Prospective jurors were explaining how they were served (walking out of Wal Mart, was just out in the front yard, etc.), and one prospective juror provided what we believe is the likely explanation for why the Court had to resort to the little-known statute.

As part of that juror’s questioning, he was asked about the Principle of the Presumption of Innocence.  He was told about the prior 10-2 non-unanimous jury verdict and the U. S. Supreme Court vacating Victor’s conviction and informed that, “What that means is that, as Mr. Victor sits before this Court, he is presumed to be innocent.”  The young gentleman, a black man appearing to be in his mid 20s or so, was then asked, “Do you have any issue with that presumption of innocence?”  His response:  “Yeah, I have a problem with that!”  He was then asked to elaborate, and he stated:  “Well, I mean, he did it!”  Obviously he was excused and thanked for his time with emphasis of appreciation from  Judge Dennis Waldron for coming in, “on such short notice.”

The jury was finally seated by the end of the day Wednesday.  Burns skipped Thursday, July 14, 2022 in order to attend the Louisiana State Police Commission meeting.  He returned on Friday, at which time a pediatrician spent about 40 minutes on the witness stand refuting the notion that Victor’s stepson could have died from a snake bite.  After his testimony, one of Victor’s stepson’s took the witness stand and testified in excruciating detail just what all he observed the night of his brother’s death and the next morning.  Being blunt, Burns simply could not remain in the courtroom to hear any other witnesses testify because that testimony alone was very difficult to hear.  Accordingly, Burns left on Friday afternoon, July 15, 2022, and opted to just await the mainstream media reporting on the final verdict (though we should note that almost no mainstream media was present during any of the time Burns was in attendance).

The 12-0 guilty verdict was reached on Wednesday, July 20, 2022.  From the previous feature:

The decision presented the question of retroactivity for previous non-unanimous convictions in Louisiana, including Victor’s 2014 conviction.

The Attorney General’s Office argued that M.L. had been severely beaten by Victor before he was pronounced deceased at River Parishes Hospital on April 1, 2008.

“He’s guilty of second-degree murder no matter how you look at the statute,” Attorney John Russel said Wednesday, adding, “At some point after you whip a kid for hours, you are intentionally inflicting bodily harm.”

“(Victor) is not an incapable man, but he committed a terrible, terrible deed, whether intentionally or accidentally…he whipped M.L. until that little boy died,” Russel said.

Several of the boys, now young men, testified over the course of the trial. Victor’s stepsons said Victor disciplined several of the children on March 31, 2008 after an ice cream was discovered to be missing from the freezer.

According to the prosecution, M.L. was beaten for several hours between March 31 and April 1, 2008, when he succumbed to his injuries. According to testimony, M.L. was lethargic and had white drool coming from his mouth. He was given ice and Pedialyte before being rushed to the hospital, where doctors observed parallel marks on his body and a large, confluent bruise that encompassed most of his back.

The defense argued that there could be several explanations for the marks on M.L.’s body and his lethargic state, including but not limited to a reaction from a snake bite.

Attorney General Jeff Landry issued the following statement Wednesday evening:

“This afternoon, justice was served to Errol Victor by a jury of his peers in St. John. I pray his conviction provides some healing and closure to the victim’s family.

“This jury’s verdict is the culmination of an exceptional prosecution by my Assistant Attorneys General John Russel, Daniel Smart, Ben Wallace, and Grant Willis. I thank them and Lillie Blackmon, Kristen Martin, Andrew Bergeron, and Chris Ribera from my office for their great work to get justice.

“Today further intensifies my commitment to do all we can to make Louisiana a safer place to live, work, worship and raise families.”

Let us also take a look at WWL-TV’s David Hammer providing video coverage of the verdict.  Here it is:

WWL-TV’s David Hammer provides video coverage of the verdict

Louisiana United International (LUI) was very actively involved in defending Victor.  In fact, the organization even provided a webpage on its website devoted to accepting contributions to pay for Victor’s defense.  The organization hired Mandeville-based attorney Claiborne Brown to defend Victor.  It was a tad perplexing, then, to see a WWL-TV newscast wherein Dr. Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal, an Atlanta-based attorney who is an active LUI member, state before the trial that she felt Victor could get a fair trial only if he had, “competent zealous representation, and he does not have that.”  Let’s take a look:

WWL-TV newscast wherein Crenshaw-Logal openly states Victor does not have “competent and zealous representation.”

Interestingly enough, Claiborne Brown declared himself to be “incompetent” as he shirked his duties to defend a rapist a decade ago.  We have inquired about Brown’s actions in that rape trial of 10 years ago, and the reviews are mixed.  Several of the folk we talked to said he was “highly principled” in forcing the judge to abandon the case.  Others sided with Judge William Burris, who had this to say of Brown’s actions:

Judge William Burris, with “righteous indignation,” as he described his feelings on the matter, told the bailiffs to take Brown to the parish jail until he became willing to “perform his duties.”

It would set a “horrible precedent” to call off the trial with no obvious signs that the lawyer was incompetent; Brown had given a fine opening statement and adequately questioned witnesses, Burris noted.

We’re not going to play these games,” Burris said incredulously. “That’s all I see this as — game playing.”

Brown apologized but held his ground. “Is there any reason I shouldn’t hold you in contempt?” Burris asked.

“No, your honor,” Brown replied. He then was led out of the courtroom by the bailiffs.

Our own thought is that, once one signs on as counsel for a case, just like flying an airplane as co-pilot, one has to be fully prepared to try that case (fly the airplane) no matter what the situation may be with co-counsel (co-pilot).  That’s just our opinion, however.  We firmly side with Judge Burris on the matter!

Irrespective of whether Brown may have been competent at either trial, and we’ll point out that Brown seemed extremely competent to us but we make the “irrespective” commentary only because of Crenshaw-Logal’s quote on the video, LUI certainly wasn’t done upon the rendering of Victor’s guilty verdict in 40th JDC.

Mere hours after the verdict, Victor and two LUI officials (Belinda Parker-Brown and Dr. Crenshaw-Logal) fax filed this Temporary Restraining Order in 19th JDC seeking to block imposition of Victor’s sentencing, which was scheduled to transpired on Tuesday, July 26, 2022.  We contacted Division B of 40th JDC and were informed that the sentencing has been rescheduled for Friday, September 9, 2022.

The previous court filing is rather lengthy, but we think we can summarize the arguments in one sentence:  The U. S. Supreme Court’s decision of April 27, 2020 constitutes an acquittal and therefore Victor’s recent trail represented double jeopardy.

At any rate, 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson (who most definitely does NOT hold a warm place in our hearts) is the Judge to whom the matter was assigned.  On Friday, July 29, 2022, Judge Johnson signed the Temporary Restraining Order and set the matter for hearing for conversion to a Preliminary Injunction.  That hearing is set for Thursday, August 11, 2022 at 10 a.m.

We will certainly attend that hearing because the outcome of this latest legal filing may have a profound effect upon other inmates similarly-situated to Victor.  There is one thing we’re thankful for, however, and that is that the arguments should all be legal in nature.  We hope we never have to sit in another courtroom and hear any further testimony of just what all transpired on the evening/morning of eight-year-old M. L. Lloyd III’s death.  It was gut wrenching enough just to listen to it for about 90 minutes on July 15, 2022.

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.

Farmer Billy Broussard discusses four (4) issues he believes are crucial entailing his 33-acre farm on Duchamp Road in Broussard, Louisiana.  In this first installment, he counters St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars’ argument that an ordinance prohibiting the hauling of vegetative materials into St. Martin Parish from outside of the Parish was not targeted specifically at him.

On Friday, July 29, 2022, farmer Billy Broussard called us and stated, “I’ve got a few things I need to get off my chest.”  He’d been telling us various observations he’s been making since the point that he sued the Daily Iberian for libel.

He asked if he could come over and “do a Sound Off feature” to state his observations and concerns, particularly as it regards St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars.  We told him that was exactly why the blog Sound Off Louisiana was formed in the first place, and we invited him to come right on over.  By the time he was done, we realized we’d need to segment all he had to say into four (4) distinct features as he covered a ton of ground.

Today is installment one wherein Broussard directly refutes the claim that Cedars makes that the ordinance prohibiting hauling in vegetative materials into St. Martin Parish was, “not targeted at Mr. Broussard.”  He further called for someone with “vision” to run for SMPG Parish President in 2023 in order to free the Parish from the “dictatorship” it’s presently under with Cedars at the helm.  Let’s take a look:

Broussard cites the case of SMPG v. Trevis Helaire (for which SMPG sent a C & D letter on 6/18/21, three days after Broussard’s 6/15/21 C & D letter and for which SMPG sued Helaire on 7/28/21, five days PRIOR TO enacting the ordinance, yet for Broussard, suit was not filed until 8/19/21, four days AFTER the ordinance became effective).

In the video, we said we’d reproduce the video which is applicable for the Trevis Helaire property, which Cedars references in the above video.  Here it is:

Armond Joseph Road property right next to Poche Bridge in St. Martin Parish.  That’s the property on which Trevis Helaire was sued on 7/28/21, which Broussard stresses was BEFORE the ordinance taking effect on 8/15/21.

We want to make it clear that Parish President Cedars indicated that three of the four properties he discussed entailed burning (meaning the fourth property did not).  He made that very clear at the July 20, 2021 SMPG Council meeting.  Here’s video of him doing so:

July 20, 2021 SMPG Council meeting, during which Parish President Cedars makes it clear that “two of the three” complaints on properties (Armond Joseph Road, Division Road, and Duchamp Road) received during the week of June 15 – June 18, 2021 entailed “burning.”  He then indicated that a fourth property was also identified that also entailed burning.  NOTE:  Cedars SPECIFICALLY identifies the two properties (of the three entailing complaints the week of June 15-18) that were burning!!  He specifically states that the properties burning were Armond Joseph Road and Division Road.  Hence, it would seem incomprehensible that The Daily Iberian would nevertheless print on FOUR occasions in one article that Broussard was engaging in “burning activities” at his Duchamp Road property.

Now, also in the first video above, we said we’d reproduce the interrogation Cedars made of Broussard entailing his hay operations on his farm.  Here’s that material:

Now, since we’ve increased our subscribership substantially since we first began covering Broussard’s 33-acre property, we feel it would be appropriate at this time to replicate a portion of our very first feature on his property since:  #1) back then, Broussard had no idea he’d ALREADY been sued as he gave a video tour of the property and, #2) more people have been pulled into direct involvement entailing the property (whether they wanted to or not).

We think it provides an interesting contrast to the Helaire property above and the Division Road property, which was another of the “nuisance” properties (which nobody would even dispute constituted a nuisance) entailing hauling in of old batteries, tires, etc.  Here’s the replication of that feature so folk who are so inclined can get an up-close examination of Broussard’s farm:

Let’s take a few minutes to permit Broussard to provide a tour of his farm and describe the encounter his driver had with Lopez on the afternoon of Monday, June 14, 2021:

Farmer Billy Broussard provides a guided tour of his farm and describes the encounter one of his drivers allegedly had with LSP on the afternoon of Monday, June 14, 2021 [Note:  The video tour was conducted in late August of 2021, only mere days after he’d been sued via a Temporary Restraining Order by SMPG Parish President Chester Cedars, though Broussard had no knowledge he’d been sued as he gave this video tour of his property.]

….a few relevant pictures and a couple of very brief videos which we believe are beneficial to augment Broussard’s tour video above:

 Three-minute aerial drone video of Broussard’s farm.

28-second video of a small duckling in a small wooden house Broussard constructed and which has been used as a safe harbor by small ducklings until they age sufficiently to fend off predators in the ponds on the property.

Aerial map of Broussard’s 33-acre farm.

Several employees on Broussard’s family farm pose for a photo sitting atop hay which is about to be loaded onto an older 18-wheeler for storage.

Broussard’s farm shortly after being freshly mowed.

Cut tree pile shortly after Broussard pushed a pile similar to that featured on the video above off into one of the canyons on the 33-acre farm in preparation of making the farm conducive for mushroom farming.

An alligator snoops around for prey in one of the ponds on Broussard’s farm.

Quite a contrast to the Helaire property above, no?  In fact, Broussard told us that he was intrigued to see Wick Communication’s recent tribute to Robert Wick (Broussard recently sued The Daily Iberian, which is controlled by Wick Communications) and his focus on the environment.  From the tribute:

Wick lived, flourished and shared his humanity in a number of worlds. Foremost was his commitment and love for family and to nature. Wick’s monumental bronze sculptures, which are featured in exhibits throughout the U.S., are distinctive: living trees and plants placed inside the bronzes to reflect the flora and strength of Earth and their connection with mankind.

In 1984, Wick was part of a group that sought to reduce copper smelter pollution in southeastern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. Groups Against Smelter Pollution (GASP) had a mission of healthy citizenship, preservation of the natural environment and an appreciation of the economic connections between the two countries. There were three smelters in Douglas, Ariz., Cananea, Sonora, and Nacozari, Sonora. Together, the smelters produced the “gray triangle” that blighted the San Pedro Valley and its neighboring communities of Sierra Vista, Bisbee and Douglas. There were many days when the air was stagnant, hazy and residents of those communities couldn’t see the mountains nearby.

Wick planted more than 1,000 seedling trees over a 10-year period on his land in the Mule Mountains near Bisbee.

Broussard indicated to us that, given Robert Wick’s commitment to the environment, he would have thought The Daily Iberian would be supportive of his initiatives to, “go green and repurpose the property” and cultivate conditions most favorable to a prospective mushroom farm and totally eschew any burning activities, which are known to be harmful to the environment.

Broussard found it therefore disheartening that the paper would send out a reporter to, according to Broussard’s litigation, paint a totally false narrative that Broussard engaged in burning activity (activity similar to that of the Helaire above) when the only person even making such a claim at all is the author of the The Daily Iberian article, Dewayne Fatherree.

Finally, Broussard was further disheartened when Fatheree’s editor, Michael Messerly, who’d just arrived in New Iberia from Buffalo, New York at the time of the article’s publication, indicated to Broussard that, “I don’t have time to watch a video,” which Broussard asserted to Messerly would contradict what Fatherree reported in the article.

We can only assume that Wick / Daily Iberian folk will certainly have to invest more than the length of that 38-minute video in dealing with Broussard’s lawsuit now filed against Wick and Fatherree since Messerly didn’t “have time” to watch that video a year ago.

We’ll have installment two of Broussard’s visit with us of last Friday, July 29, 2022, out within a few days or so.

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.

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).

2.  Cedars obtains court-ordered Temporary Restraining Order shutting down Broussard’s farming operations.

3.  Broussard’s attorney asserts in court filings that Cedars is on “crusade” to “harass” Broussard.

4.  Cedars caves and begs for TRO court hearing to be cancelled and offers major concessions to Broussard to do so.

5.  Sound Off Louisiana’s founder explains how SMPG President Chester Cedars is the “epitome and personification of Louisiana’s hostile reputation toward small businesses.”

7.  Farmer Billy Broussard files second complaint against LSP Trooper Lopez concerning claims of “illegal acts” voiced at public meeting; Sen. Boudreaux commits to confer with LSP Col. Davis on complaint.

8.  SMPG’s Cedars’ “compromise process” emits vile stench of corruption, totalitarianism in deploying Blake Dubroc, his sketchy history notwithstanding.

9.  Has St. Martin Parish President Cedars racked up massive legal fees obstructing minor initiatives like Broussard’s only to open up “Pandora’s box” for yet more legal fees?

10.  St. Martin Parish Council lives up to and even exceeds anticipated dog-and-pony show; votes 7-0 on Broussard’s zoning variance without even specifying what motion is being voted upon!

11.  Even as SMPG dumps 14 loads of debris on Broussard’s property leading up to Council meeting, Sheriff’s Deputies arrive and inform him that they told them Broussard is, “Barred from going on your property.”

12.  St. Martin Parish President Cedars goes for jugular on Broussard, takes aim at LCG alleging improper removal of spoil banks from Vermillion River.

13.  SMPG’s Cedars scores resounding court victory as Broussard TRO extended to Preliminary Injunction; also celebrates Army Corps purportedly indicating permit required for LCG’s spoil bank removals.

14.  Did LSP Trooper Scott Lopez fabricate evidence of a “purple truck” dumping and present that fabrication to SMPG’s Planning and Zoning Commission?

15.  Louisiana State Police sustains Broussard’s allegations against Trooper Scott Lopez of failing to activate body-worn camera (6/14/21) and Conduct Unbecoming a State Trooper (1/6/22)

16.  Farmer Broussard sues LSP Trooper Lopez, son Benjamin alleging “actual malice” in “effectuating a baseless and groundless arrest warrant” upon which Broussard was arrested by St. Martin Parish Sheriff Breaux’s Office.

17.  Obviously seeing right through their sham nature, St. Martin Parish DA Bo Duhe’ declines prosecution of Trooper Lopez’s charges, thus prompting Billy Broussard to re-urge his retaliation claim.

18.  As St. Martin Parish Sheriff Breaux releases 18 seconds of video “evidence” from Benjamin Cole Lopez’s phone, questions arise on why Judge deMahy signed an arrest warrant Judge Pitman previously declined to sign.

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.