Attorney Edward O’Callaghan stating that former U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, and his account of O’Callaghan seeking to prosecute Gregory B. Craig to “even things out” for the prior prosecution of two Trump allies is “categorically false.”
By now, virtually anyone who follows this blog knows how high our anger runs at Louisiana State Police (LSP) entailing the stone wall we’ve hit under the new Jeff Landry / Robert Hodges regime entailing our requests for public records. To say we aren’t happy campers is a huge understatement, and it’s why we said months ago in a widely-watched video that, if something didn’t change, “it’s going to be a long and rough four years.”
While we can’t really justify trying to sue LSP every time they arbitrarily deny us access to public records, the same doesn’t hold true for other media outlets, and that’s particularly the case for The Lens NOLA in New Orleans.
Our site visitors may recall our June 1, 2024 feature which focused on the Lens’ litigation against Col. Hodges.
That litigation entailed Hodges’ steadfast refusal to surrender a contract which LSP executed calling for $1,000 an hour to the WilmerHale law firm and, more specifically, former attorney Edward O’Callaghan, another specified attorney with the firm, and other “associates” at the firm.
Ironically, O’Callaghan has now moved on from WilmerHale, and is now with the Cahill, Gordon, and Reindel law firm. We reached out to Gov. Landry’s Office inquiring what impact, if any, O’Callaghan’s departure would have on the contract; however, as has been the case in the past on what few inquiries we’ve made of the Landry administration, we heard nothing back. [Sidebar: On the few occasions we made inquiries of former Gov. John Bel Edwards’ administration, we always received timely responses and, further, on what few public records requests we made, we never got even the slightest opposition from his office.]
So, who is Edward O’Callaghan? Well, let’s begin by taking a stroll down memory lane and see then Attorney General-Elect Liz Murrill explain that, for LSP, he should be viewed as the superstar talent who would right the ship via a “top to bottom” review of the agency:
News conference on or around November 29, 2023 during which then-Attorney General-Elect Liz Murrill announces the retention of Edward O’Callaghan to perform a “top to bottom” review of LSP.
Now, no doubt The Lens / Nola, upon hearing the name “Ed O’Callaghan” became quite curious. Why? Well, because former U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, a Trump appointee whom Trump later fired, in his book Holding the Line, paints a very unflattering picture of O’Callaghan (more on that in a moment) who was little more than a political hack for Trump during O’Callaghan’s tenure under Trump Attorney General William Barr.
Ah, what the heck! Let’s take a few minutes to have Berman explain that to our site visitors at this time (derived from this ABC News Interview with Berman):
September 12, 2022: Segment of ABC News’ interview with Berham as it focuses on former AG staffer Edward O’Callaghan.
We at Sound Off Louisiana indicated on that June 1, 2024 feature that we’d be purchasing Berman’s book, which we immediately did.
Unlike ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, however, we did not read the book “over a weekend,” but instead read the book very slowly and meticulously. We found it to be an utterly fascinating read and, at this time, we’re going to repeat every reference to O’Callaghan contained in the book:
(Preface, 1st page): His (O’Callaghan’s) message to Khuzami was unambiguous: it was time for me, Geoffrey Burman, the U. S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and lifelong Republican, to take one for the home team.
(Preface, 2nd page): Khuzami related that O’Callaghan told him, bluntly, “It’s time for you guys to even things out.”
“You’ve got to be fucking kidding me,” I (Berman) said.
“I wish,” he said, “but no.”
(Page 25-26): “O’Callaghan proceeded to identify specific allegations that he wanted removed, almost all referencing Individual-1 (Trump). It quickly became apparent to Khuzami that, contrary to what O’Callaghan professed, it wasn’t the overall length or detail of the document that concerned him: it was any mention of Individual-1 (Trump).
(Page 30): The directive Barr gave Khuzami, which was amplified that same day by a follow-up call from O’Callaghan, was explicit: not a single investigative step could be taken, not a single document in our possession could be received, until the issue (whether there was a sufficient legal basis for the campaign finance charges to which Trump fixer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty) was resolved.
(Page 51):…reiteration of preface material above as Berman devoted the entirety of Chapter Four of his book to the “even things out” alleged directive from O’Callaghan.
(Page 54): The referral (on Craig) came from Ed O’Callaghan.
(Page 56-57): Also in the meeting, the NSD attorneys returned to Main Justice and no doubt reported to their superiors that charges against Craig were unlikely. It was soon thereafter that O’Callaghan told Khuzami, “It’s time for you guys to even things out.”
(Page 58): The next communication on this from Main Justice came on the last day of the year. An NSD supervisor called Graff to make sure we would not object to their sharing our work product on Craig with the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
In a call to me (Berman) a few days later, O’Callaghan (with Demers also on the line) wanted to know if I had read the draft prosecution memo that our team initially prepared. Was I really familiar with the facts of the case? Would I look back into it and revisit our decision not to prosecute?
I held my ground. I said yes, of course I had read the memo and that I had been present in the numerous meetings about Craig. I went back through the process that led to our decision and then assured them that we were not reversing it.
(Page 59): When I talked to her about Craig, I restated what I had told O’Callaghan and Demers: he was innocent of any FARA violation, and the potential false statement charges were trivial, at best, and not worth pursuing.
But my words had no impact. The train had left the station.
Interestingly enough, Berham also makes reference to the infamous “deliberative process” exemption which Gov. Landry attempted to implement to decimate all access to public records in Louisiana! Nobody really thought that Landry or anyone on his legal brain trust team could have thought of that on their own, huh? Let’s take a look at Berman’s commentary on that “deliberative process.”:
Our attorneys were told by this trio that the emails in question did not fall under the required preliminary discovery because they were subject to what’s called “the deliberative process privilege” —-which means, essentially, that they were part of the in-office narrative of how an agency reached a decision. We understood this exception and had asserted it at times, most commonly in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.
Even after this about-face, Ross and his DOJ lawyers still refused to hand over the emails. They kept insisting that any emails prior to December 2017, which was when the DOJ made its formal request for the citizenship question to be added (to the census), were protected by the deliberative process privilege.
Everyone may recall that former Gov. Bobby Jindal famously implemented the deliberative process into Louisiana statute, and his successor, John Bel Edwards, did away with it. As just illustrated, Landry tried to have it rise like a Phoenix to quite literally obliterate Louisiana’s Public Records Laws. What Landry underestimated is that conservatives are, by far, more distrusting of government and its operations than most liberals ever dreamed of being!
Landry, upon his frustration with one news reporter who quizzed him on that matter, got so angry at the reporter that he resorted to using an analogy of anyone patronizing one of Louisiana’s fine restaurants and the fact that nobody asks to go watch the chef prepare the meal. Patrons simply trust that the meal will be prepared to near-perfection. For Landry to even remotely suggest that we should place any politician on the same level of trust as a Louisiana chef is patently nuts! The chef warrants far, far more trust than a politician!
Further, if Jeff Landry thinks conservative voters “trust” any politician, including (and in our opinion, most especially) him, he is living in a dream world and is downright delusional. We got tons (and we do mean tons) of correspondence from highly-conservate folk whom we’ve known for a very long time who were infuriated by Landry’s actions to curtail access to public records!
All Landry did was expose the fact that Sen. Heather Cloud was willing to serve as his blocking fullback in sponsoring that bone-headed legislation and, as we’ve reported upon previously, he repaid her blind loyalty by vetoing HB-423 which would have likely cut Cloud’s insurance premiums for her trucking company!
Interestingly enough, Col. Hodges, acting through his own top-notch legal brain trust at LSP, tried to assert deliberative process (among other transparency-blocking efforts) to deny The Lens NOLA that infamous $1,000/hour O’Callaghan contract. Never mind that, as we just pointed out, the deliberative process exception to public records production is nowhere to be found in Louisiana Statutes anymore (which necessitated Landry calling upon Cloud to attempt to get it back in after LSP made fools of themselves in the Hodges filings).
The Lens / NOLA, however, was having none of it, and the publication, sued LSP Col. Hodges via Writ of Mandamus seeking to force him to hand the document over. On May 24, 2024, LSP Responded with the typical peremptory moves to try and toss the suit. On May 31, 2024, The Lens NOLA filed its opposition to LSP’s peremptory moves to toss the suit.
In a long and bewildering process which we’re choosing not to go into, LSP failed in its efforts, and The Lens /NOLA got its hands on the document.
That left only the matter of attorney fees which may be taxed against Hodges and/or LSP for withholding the document in the first place. It’s unclear whether Hodges may be held personally liable for his failure to surrender the document as Landry succeeded in passing legislation to remove this personal liability from any Custodian of Records (another strike against Landry in our book). What we don’t know is whether that legislation can be applied retroactively to the subject matter of this case. Even if it cannot, however, our recollection is that the previous statute calling for personal liability to the designated Custodian of Records was capped at $100/day.
At any rate, LSP filed a Motion for a New Trial and then, on July 23, 2024, LSP filed this Motion Re-urging its Motion for a New Trial. On September 23, 2024, The Lens/NOLA filed this Opposition to LSP’s request for a New Trial.
The Contradictory Hearing for LSP’s Motion was set for Monday, September 30, 2024, and we attended, and it was quite a show!
Former First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Michael McDonald had to hear the matter because the original trial Judge, Eboni Johnson Rose, was booted from the Bench by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. While the Louisiana Supreme Court outlined several acts which, in our opinion, justified Johnson Rose’s removal from the bench, it probably didn’t help her cause at all when she stated with court recording equipment going and the matter therefore being on the record that, EBRP DA Hillar Moore just wants to, “stick every ni@@er in jail!”
Judge McDonald stated on the record that he had, “no idea what I’m supposed to do with this.” That comment elicited considerable laughter from the packed courtroom audience. McDonald emphasized, however, that he was not inclined to overrule a sitting judge who had the benefit of overseeing the entire matter. McDonald also indicated that he’d prefer for no judgment on Monday’s proceedings be entered into the record because he indicated that he wanted to preserve LSP’s appeal opportunities and did not want the clock to begin running given that the matter was continued until December 9, 2024.
Nevertheless, both sides agreed a filing would be entered for Monday’s proceedings wherein LSP’s appeal rights are not affected. McDonald also emphasized that he very well may not be the judge to hear the matter on December 9, 2024. In the meantime, both sides were encouraged to work together to reach a settlement on “reasonable attorney fees.”
If anyone looks at the exhibits supplied by both sides on the filings above, what is readily apparent (at least to us) is that everyone is treating the contract like a hot potato, and that is particularly true of Attorney General Liz Murrill, who is on record as indicating she was unaware of the specifics of even the interim contract which was negotiated while both she and Landry served in the AG’s Office. Perhaps old Jeff snuck that one in on her!
At any rate, we think we may know why everybody now wants distance between themselves and that contract (with the notable exceptions of Hodges and Landry). From one of The Lens / NOLA‘s emails to AG Liz Murrill’s Office:
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:55PM Nick Chrastil <nchrastiJ@,thelensnola.org> wrote:
Hi Lester,
I had a few questions for the AG’s office regarding the contract with WilmerHale for work regarding the state police. The contract rate of $750/hour appears to violate state law that prohibits agencies from paying more than $500/hour for legal services. (La. R.S. 42: 262
.(D)_) It is also well above the AG’s fee schedule that maxes out at $225 an hour.Dane Ciolino, who teaches legal ethics at Loyola said he doesn’t believe the contract abides by state law: “I don’t see any authority for it in the Louisiana law. It does seem to exceed the hourly rates. typically charged and authorized by statute. And I’m not aware of any exception that would let them charge those kinds of rates in excess of $500 an hour.”
– Does the AG’s office have any explanation for how this rate was approved, and why it doesn’t violate state law?
– I’m also wondering if the AG’s office is able to provide any more detailed information about what exactly WilmerHale attorneys have been tasked with.
Get back to me as soon as possible. Happy to jump on the phone to discuss. My deadline is 5pm. Thanks!
Let’s now provide an insight on what LSP views as “reasonable” attorney fees (as in $1,000/hour) for O’Callaghan vs. unreasonable attorney fees (as in $400/hour) for the lead Lens attorney (with one with less seniority at $250/hour). From attorney Malia Cerrato’s email of June 3, 2024 to LSP entailing that matter:
Because of the extensive briefing required for each of the exemptions claimed and the peremptory exceptions, we spent over 102 hours on this matter. I incurred the majority of those hours (67 hours) at a rate of $250/hour. Katie as the director and supervisor billed at $400/hr.*
Our total for the hours worked is $30,205.50.
We also were forced to travel to Baton Rouge two times incurring travel expenses of $1,052.72.Finally, our court costs for the extensive filings are $1,019.59 in court fees.
Therefore, we are seeking reimbursement for $32,277.81.
*Note– we believe Katie is worth at least the same as Edward O’Callahan and the associates at
WilmerHale and thus she should be billing at $1000/per hour. But in an attempt at compromise,
we are willing to settle for a lesser hourly award.
We are aware of another attorney whom we’re choosing not to name but for whom LSP played hardball (before ultimately caving) in trying to assert that he should be paid, “no more than the public defender is paid.”
Obviously, some attorneys simply need to learn the lay of the land, and that lay of the land is that the sky’s the limit (legality be damned) if you’re “in tight” with Governor Landry and/or AG Liz Murrill but, if not, be prepared to accept mere table scraps and be thankful you got even that!
So, has the Landry administration gone “all in” for a Trump victory with the potential for Ed O’Callaghan to be named the next Attorney General for the United States? If so, would that scenario ultimately culminate into the gradual and complete meltdown of the ongoing two-and-a-half year DOJ Pattern and Practices Investigation of LSP?
We have our own thoughts on that matter, but we’ll also pose the question of whether Landry’s act of pursuing this potentially-illegal contract with O’Callaghan may be viewed unfavorably by the next U. S. Attorney General should Trump fail to prevail?
If so, and if any possible prosecution of Landry (e.g. influence peddling or whatever other crime may be deemed applicable) may ensue, we’ll hope the foundation for any such prosecution will exceed that of a mere desire to “even things out!”
