Category: Uncategorized

Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) Member Eulis Simien, Jr., who wrote a letter of apology to 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson for providing false testimony at a November 3, 2022 trial of the Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) v. LSPC wherein Simien falsely testified that his law firm had not made any political contributions since he became a member of the LSPC.

Sound Off Louisiana has been the only media outlet to cover the bitter court battle between the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) and the Louisiana State Troopers Association (LSTA) over whether the LSTA can engage in political activities to include making campaign contributions.

This entire battle began seven (7) years ago when several retired members of the LSTA, the most vocal of whom has been retired Lt. Leon “Bucky” Millet, filed an official complaint with the LSPC when they noticed television ads running which were paid for by the LSTA supporting the candidacy of Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards in his 2015 campaign.  The LSTA almost immediately terminated the memberships of the four (4) retired troopers, including Millet and another retired Captain, Jesse Scott Perry, for having filed the complaint.

While the average Louisiana citizen may feel this is small potatoes, the reality is that an enormous amount of collateral damage has transpired over that one incident of a complaint being filed.  The most notable examples of collateral damage entail former LSPC Executive Director Cathy Derbonne and former LSPC Member Calvin Braxton.  Rather than providing the whole history of what all transpired and all of the fallout in this feature, we’ll merely refer everyone to this March 9, 2021 feature which outlines the enormous tolls that action took on the lives of Derbonne and Braxton.

Millet, Braxton, and Derbonne may have all felt vindicated on January 27, 2023 when 19th JDC Judge Donald Johnson signed this Judgment drafted by the LSPC (along with written reasons for judgment) denying the LSTA’s quest for a Declaratory Judgment enabling them to engage in political activities to include making political campaign contributions.  That judgment arose from this November 3, 2022 trial wherein the LSTA and LSPC squared off.

As indicated on the title of that feature, Sound Off Louisiana‘s founder, Robert Burns, who observed the trial, credited LSPC attorney Lenore Feeney with bringing her “A Game” for that trial; however, Burns also predicted that Johnson would ultimately side with the LSTA notwithstanding the fact that Feeney’s courtroom arguments seemed far more persuasive than did the LSTAs.  Clearly, Burns has to eat crow on that prediction, but he’s only too happy to do so.

On the video for coverage of the trial on November 3, 2022, Burns indicated that there were a few surprises at trial.  The first of those surprises was the testimony of Jesse Scott Perry, who was one of the original filers of the complaint.  Perry’s testimony did substantiate that he filed the complaint; however, his testimony also revealed that he’d basically had a complete change of heart, and his sympathy for the LSTA literally was overflowing from the witness stand.  In fact, though he was an LSPC witness, his testimony was nearly entirely sympathetic to the LSTA.

Burns provided an overview of Perry’s testimony from the stand on the video of the feature linked above, and that video included an approximate 3-minute telephone interview segment with Millet wherein Millet voiced his extreme displeasure with Perry for his testimony.  We want to provide everyone with the opportunity to read any segment of that trial for themselves, so we requested and received this full transcript of that November 3, 2022 trial of LSTA v. LSPC.  At this time, let’s highlight some of Perry’s testimony, shall we?:

Q. AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR ME THE ACTIVITIES OF THE L.S.T.A. WHEN YOU WERE A MEMBER?

A. THEY WERE AN ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE TROOPERS, SUPPORTED TROOPERS FAMILIES, SUPPORTED CHARITIES, AND ANY TIME OF NEED THAT A TROOPER HAD SOMETHING CATASTROPHIC HAPPEN THEY WERE ALWAYS THERE. THERE WAS ONE TIME I NEEDED LEGAL ASSISTANCE, THEY PROVIDED ME WITH LEGAL
ASSISTANCE ON A MATTER INVOLVING THE DEPARTMENT. I BELIEVE THEY WERE VERY USEFUL. THEY ALSO ARE VERY HELPFUL — WERE VERY HELPFUL IN CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS ON BENEFITS SUCH AS MAKE-A-WISH AND GRANT-A-WISH FOUNDATIONS.

Q.  AND THAT WAS FOR SICK CHILDREN?

A.  YES, MA’AM, AND NOT ONLY JUST FOR SICK CHILDREN BUT FOR OUTSIDE OF THAT IF A TROOPER’S CHILD, SOMETHING CATASTROPHIC THAT HAPPENED, THEY WERE ALWAYS THERE.

Q.  AND SO WHY DID YOU CEASE BEING A MEMBER?

A.  I WAS REMOVED FROM THE MEMBERSHIP.

Q.  BY WHOM?

A.  I ASSUMED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I WAS NOTIFIED BY U.S. MAIL THAT I WAS NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION.

Q. AND DO YOU KNOW WHY YOU WERE REMOVED?

A. I PRESUME IT WAS BECAUSE I FILED A COMPLAINT IN REGARDS TO POLITICAL ACTIVITY WITH THE STATE POLICE COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE LOUISIANA BOARD OF ETHICS.

Q. AND WHY DID YOU REACH OUT TO HIM?

A. I WAS SEEING (sic) TO BECOME A MEMBER AGAIN.

Q. AND WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO BE A MEMBER AGAIN?

A. ALTHOUGH I DISAGREED WITH THE ASSOCIATION ON THE POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT AS WELL AS THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY CONDUCTED THE CONTRIBUTIONS, I STILL VERY MUCH BELIEVE IN THAT ASSOCIATION AND THAT HELPS TROOPERS, IT HELPS PEOPLE, IT WORKS FOR THE BENEFIT OF TROOPERS. ALTHOUGH I DISAGREED WITH THEIR POSITION ON THIS, I WORK WITH THE STATE POLICE AT MY CURRENT JOB ON A WEEKLY BASIS, SOMETIMES ON A DAILY BASIS, AND FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT I REALLY BELIEVE IN THAT ORGANIZATION ALTHOUGH I DISAGREED WITH THE WAY SOME OF THESE POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TOOK PLACE I FELT THE TIME HAS LAPSED, AND THAT IT WAS TIME TO MOVE ON.

Q. AND SO WHAT DID MR. OXLEY ADVISE YOU?

A. HE ADVISED ME THAT HE WOULD LET THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS KNOW THROUGH THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, WHICH WAS MR. JAY AUCOIN, OF MY INTENTIONS AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER MR. AUCTION (sic) REACHED OUT TO ME WITHIN SEVERAL DAYS AND WE EXCHANGED CONTACT INFORMATION AND THEN COVID HAPPENED AND

Q. SO WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A. SOMETIMES IN 2021, LATE 2021, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, MR. AUCOIN REACHED OUT TO ME TO SEE IF I WAS STILL INTERESTED IN SPEAKING WITH THEM ON BECOMING A MEMBER AGAIN.

Q. AND DID YOU MEET WITH THEM?

A. YES, MA’AM, I MET WITH THEM.

Q. WHO WAS IN THE MEETING?

A. TIRED (sic) LIEUTENANT COLONEL, MARK OXLEY, SECRETARY TREASURER, RODNEY HYATT, MR. AUCOIN AND MR. HACK WILLIS.

Q. AND WAS THERE ANYTHING DECIDED IN THAT MEETING?

A.  NOTHING DECIDED ON ME BECOMING A MEMBER THEN. THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD TAKE ANYTHING THAT I SAID BACK TO THEIR BOARD AND THEY WOULD GET BACK WITH ME.

Q.  DID THEY SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE PENDING LITIGATION?

A.  THEY DID NOT. THEY DID NOT BRING UP ANYTHING AT THAT MEETING REGARDING THE PENDING LITIGATION.

Q.  SO DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS AFTER THAT?

A. SEVERAL WEEKS LATER MR. WILLIS FOLLOWED UP WITH ME JUST SAYING, LOOK, WE DID EVENTUALLY MEET AS A GROUP AND WE ARE GOING TO HONOR YOUR REQUEST ON ALLOWING YOU TO ATTEND CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AT THE TROOP LEVEL, HOWEVER, YOU BEING ACTIVE IN THE MEMBERSHIP AND ATTENDING BUSINESS MEETINGS WOULD BE HELD OFF UNTIL THIS LITIGATION WAS DECIDED UPON.

Q. MEANING THIS LITIGATION, THIS CASE?

A. WHAT’S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, YES, MA’AM.

Well, given the ruling, perhaps Perry may not want to rush to his mailbox to look for his new membership card anytime soon, no?

We reached out to retired Lt. Millet for comment, and he stated, “I really feel sorry for him that his need to be a member of the LSTA apparently outweighed his integrity.”

The other big surprise from the November 3, 2022 trial was LSPC Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr.,’s apparent amnesia regarding his law firm’s political contributions to Gov. Edwards and others.  We’ll reproduce at this time Millet calling for Simien and two other members to resign over the contributions:

1/10/19:  Millet reads into the record his complaint against Simien and two (2) other LSPC Members and their reactions thereafter.

Forgive us for being cynical, but we believe that, when your resignation is called for as above, and you provide an official response to the complaint, and your picture is on prominent display on the front page of a major newspaper entailing the incident, and the matter is covered by a major television outlet in New Orleans, we find it a little difficult to swallow the whole, “I forgot,” routine.

Nevertheless, six days after the trial, on November 9, 2022, Simien executed this affidavit saying that’s exactly what happened (i. e. that he “forgot” about the contributions of his law firm).  We should point out that we received anonymous emails directly accusing Simien of “perjury,” but, technically, if he really did “forget,” it would not be perjury.  Again, please pardon our cynicism about Simien’s convenient amnesia.

At any rate, Simien’s authoritative pronouncement that his firm had not made political contributions prompted the LSTA, on January 13, 2023, to file this Motion to Supplement the Record to include Simien’s testimony as part of the official court records.  The motion contains a letter of apology dated November 9, 2022 from Simien to Judge Johnson (see page three of the filing) for his inaccurate testimony.  Another nugget in the LSTA’s filing follows:

Exhibit 3 attached shows that Chairman Simien is an officer of the law firm, Simien & Simien, LLC. In addition to the contributions made by Chairman Simien’s law firm during the relevant period described above, Exhibit 2 also reflects a contribution made by Tamara Simien, Chairman Simien’s spouse, during the relevant time period. Mrs. Simien reportedly donated
$500.00 to Preston Castille on 9/17/2019.

Simien’s wife’s contribution would seem significant given that former LSPC Member William “Bill” Goldring had to resign over his wife’s $200 campaign contribution.  Although any contribution is supposed to not happen by LSPC members or their spouses, the last time we checked, $500 was considerably larger than $200.

Again, in reaching out to Millet for comment, he stated, “It’s my personal opinion that Chairman Simien has reached the height of hypocrisy.  As Chairman of the LSPC, it was and is his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and Commission Rules and Regulations.  He has apparently violated that oath, and he failed to prevent his wife from engaging in the very same activity that caused a prior member to have to resign.  To quote T. Taylor Townsend entailing Goldring’s resignation, ‘Barring a voluntary resignation, I see no alternative but for the Governor to call a public hearing.'”

That hearing would be for the removal of Chairman Simien from the Commission.  Unlike most other Boards and Commissions, wherein members serve at the pleasure of the Governor, LSPC Members cannot be removed by the Governor except by the Governor calling a special hearing over which he presides and he makes the decision of whether the LSPC member is removed or not.

At any rate, the LSTA’s filing, in turn, prompted the LSPC, only six (6) days later, on January 19, 2023, to file this Motion to have Simien’s testimony entailing his law firm’s political contributions stricken from the record.

Given Judge Johnson’s ruling, Simien’s testimony would seem moot except for purposes of appeal, which the LSTA is guaranteed to pursue.  Accordingly, a court hearing will transpire on March 13, 2023 to resolve the issue of whether Simien’s testimony will be included or excluded from the official trial testimony of November 3, 2022.

See what all anybody can miss by counting only upon the mainstream media to stay informed?

On October 22, 2022, attorney Michael Antoon, representing Troop D Master Trooper Daniel Fontenot, prepared to voice his objection to members of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) for their failure to summarily dismiss LSP Col. Lamar Davis’ discipline of Fontenot for turning ON his body camera.

By now, anyone not living in a cave with no modern communications is aware that Ronald Greene’s mother, Mona Hardin, is an invited guest for President Biden’s State of the Union Address tomorrow (Tuesday, February 7, 2023) evening, and she will be recognized during his address.

Obviously, the spotlight will be placed on Louisiana and the fact that Louisiana State Police (LSP) Troopers acted in a totally irresponsible manner entailing Greene’s death.

What many Louisiana residents and others across the nation may not be aware of, however, is that, even as President Biden places the national spotlight upon Louisiana entailing Greene’s death, LSP Col. Lamar Davis has punished a 20+ year veteran trooper, Daniel Fontenot, for turning ON his body camera!

What we printed above is not a misprint on our part!  So, here we have a disgraced LSP Colonel (Lamar Davis), who shows absolute reckless disregard for public safety in going 92 MPH over a dangerous portion of Louisiana’s Interstate system for which the speed limit is 60 MPH and is notorious for deaths resulting from motorists speeding and, upon him being caught, made matters much, much worse by stating, “Once a trooper has assessed a situation as non-combative, he has the prerogative to turn his body camera off.”

That too is NOT a misprint and, as is obvious by the previous link, it absolutely infuriated us when Davis made that quote!  Any decent Governor should have demanded that Davis make an immediate apology AND, more importantly, retraction for uttering such an absolutely asinine statement!

One former LSP Trooper stated point-blank to us regarding Davis’ quote entailing the body cameras:  “What he was really saying is that, ‘when it’s me, it’s fine to turn your body camera off.'”  The problem in Davis making such an utterly asinine statement is that he has provided a green light for any trooper under his command to blatantly violate LSP’s body-cam policy and merely state, “Col. Davis said that I could!”

We also want to reiterate that we firmly believe that AP reports that Davis went to DA Belton’s Office and lobbied Belton NOT to pursue criminal charges against any LSP Troopers involved in Greene’s death are 100 percent, T-totally accurate!  One person knows for sure, however, and that would be DA Belton.  If Davis engaged in that act (and we believe that he most certainly did), Belton can certainly provide that information to the Feds, no?  It should get interesting to see if Belton does in fact reveal to the Feds any initiative Davis made in that regard because, as we just stated, we firmly believe that he did!  Furthermore, wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony that Belton ignored Davis’ pleas and proceeded forward with criminal charges anyway?

We cannot overemphasize the fact that we have FULL faith and confidence in the Associated Press article contained in the just linked-feature above and its emphatic declaration that Davis did engage in that action of lobbying Belton against filing criminal charges notwithstanding Davis’ public denial of same on camera when Sound Off Louisiana‘s Burns asked Davis point-blank if he had done so, and he indicated, as clearly shown on the video of the above link, that the AP reports are “inaccurate.”

As if all of this isn’t bad enough, we now have the fact that Davis, whom we believe just may be the most incompetent LSP Colonel to ever hold that position, has now disciplined Troop D Master Trooper Daniel Fontenot for turning his body camera ON!!!!  That action by Davis just may constitute one of the most outrageous acts of which we are aware (with the notable exception of former LSP Col. Kevin Reeves’ obvious cover-up actions regarding Ronald Greene’s death, but Davis appears determined to continue Reeves’ initial cover-up actions with as much, if not more, vigor than Reeves did) being done by any LSP Colonel since body cameras came into existence.  From the above-linked documentation:

Please allow this letter to serve as a notice of appeal on behalf of MT Daniel Fontenot as provided for in Commission Rule 13 2. MT Fontenot appeals and complains of the decision of the Department which was made on December 28, 2021 to impose discipline, to-wit:  a twenty-four (24) hour suspension, in the above captioned IA case number.   The subject of the investigation and basis for the decision to discipline MT Fontenot arose from him recoding a conversation that he had with TPR Summer Robertson using his body worn camera (BWC).

MT Fontenot found out that other troopers felt that Tpr. Robertson was ducking crashes, a perception that is corroborated by SIT Anthony Efthemes. Even though MT Fontenot had authority under the LSP Commission Code as a Master Trooper to exercise functional supervision over Tpr. Robertson and to address the issues with her, MT Fontenot took care to ask his supervisor, Sgt. Willis, to intervene.  MT Fontenot recalls that Sgt. Willis communicated that he was not allowed to address the issue with Tpr. Robertson.

The Department incorrectly found that MT Fontenot violated PO 901, Section 4 – Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer. As explained above, Lt. Odom did give an “order” to Sgt. Willis, a supervisor, to not intervene and MT Fontenot was reasonable and correct to interpret it as an order.  Even if he did misinterpret the context, this is not conduct unbecoming. Further,  MT Fontenot was concerned that Tpr. Robertson would have her pride hurt when he counseled her and that she might retaliate by levying false allegations against him. He took prudent steps to document the conversation to protect himself and the department. He correctly determined that policy allowed him to utilize his BWC under these circumstances. She ultimately proved his concerns to be legitimate when she later filed EEOC complaints to retaliate against fellow troopers for holding her accountable for deficient performance on other matters. Regardless, conscientiously evaluating policy and developing a reasonable interpretation that his actions were allowed and appropriate under the circumstances is not conduct unbecoming of an officer but rather the prudent actions of a conscientious officer.

On October 22, 2022, Master Trooper Fontenot, acting through his Lake Charles attorney, Michael Antoon, filed a Motion for the LSPC to summarily dismiss the entire matter.  To us, that would seem nothing more than common sense given the absolute absurdity of this discipline being handed down by what has now become apparent as a full-blown incompetent LSP Colonel in Lamar Davis!  Here is the full video of Antoon making Fontenot’s request of the LSPC on October 22, 2022:

October 22, 2022:  Antoon pleads his case with the LSPC for the matter of LSP v. Daniel Fontenot to be summarily dismissed with a finding in favor of Fontenot without the need for a formal hearing.

One of the reasons this blog is video in nature is because we have extreme difficulty believing people would believe some of the absolute absurdities of some of the LSP matters upon which we report were it not for the fact we supply the proof through public records requests (which are becoming more and more difficult to obtain under this administration), or videos.  The above video is a perfect example of what we mean.  The LSPC meeting was about to move on to the next item on the agenda, but Antoon sought an opportunity to make one final concluding remark about the LSPC’s decision.  Let’s take a look:

October 22, 2022:  Antoon makes formal objection to the ruling by the LSPC entailing Master Trooper Daniel Fontenot.

Now, on October 24, 2022, we made formal public records request for the actual body camera of Fontenot.  One-hundred (100) days later, we received this response from LSP Attorney Gail Holland dated February 1, 2023.  Our request is “denied,” which is understandable given that Fontenot is appealing Col. Davis’ decision.  What’s baffling, however, is that, given that the appeal has been outstanding for well over a year now, why did it take LSP 100 days to issue a simple denial letter?

Now, there is far, far more to this story than what meets the eye!  What do we mean?  Well, as everyone should recall, we published this feature on October 27, 2022 expressing concerns of white male LSP Troopers that Davis is essentially prioritizing race and gender in making promotional decisions to the near-exclusion of white males.  We began a table which we’ve been gradually working on concerning all of the promotions under Davis’ watch, and we’ll produce that table at this time to show its current progress:

Of the promotions listed above (and we still have many more to place in the table as this is a gradual and painstaking process), by FAR, and we do mean BY FAR, the one that garnered the most criticism of Davis was newly-appointed Sergeant Julia Amanda Willis.  We were told of past arrest(s) of Willis and even told what some of those arrests entailed and the fact that LSP top brass knew full well about those prior arrest(s) and promoted her anyway!

Because Sgt. Willis has resided in multiple locations throughout the state, our task to try and substantiate what we were being told was made more difficult.  Nevertheless, we contacted the Grant Parish Clerk of Court (they have no online capability!), and officials there confirmed an arrest but provided few other details aside from the fact the District Attorney permitted her to enroll in the Pre-trial diversion program.  So, we followed the instruction’s on the Grant Parish Sheriff’s Office’s website wherein the webpage says “click here for public records requests.”  That link, in turn, USED to take one to a page which has now been removed and instead (test it for yourself!) takes one back to the Sheriff’s homepage.  They’ve got some real computer gurus working at the Grant Parish Sheriff’s Office, no?

Trust us, the Grant Parish Sheriff’s Office, in sharp contrast to the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office (we’ve repeatedly praised their efforts in bending over backwards to accommodate public records requests), clearly DOES NOT want the public making public records request.  The page for doing so (which now appears to be gone), instructed us that it was mandatory that we had to mail in the request and provided far more specificity to make life difficult.  Nevertheless, we complied with their absurd criteria for making the request.  What did we get back?  We got back this tersely-worded three-page letter from the Metairie law firm of Blue Williams dated October 27, 2022 letting us, in essence, know that they would fight tooth and nail the release of any such records!

So, that’s where we are in terms of LSP and the level of recklessness which is now so pandemic under the “leadership” of Col. Lamar Davis.

Regarding the subject matter of body cameras and law enforcement, the experts with whom we have consulted have stated:  “That body camera should remain active anytime the trooper is interacting with the public to commence upon him (her) exiting the unit until the point at which he (she) has returned to the unit and is leaving the scene.”  Doesn’t that about expressly sum it up?  Too bad we have an LSP Colonel who would give instructions to the contrary and that we’re also stuck with both an LSPC and Governor unwilling to call Davis on the carpet for making such an asinine proclamation and demand a retraction!

Obviously, the public has a healthy distrust of law enforcement, and the body camera is designed both to allay public concerns about police engaging in inappropriate conduct AND to serve to protect the trooper.  Not only is it appropriate for the public to have a healthy distrust of law enforcement, but we believe it is also fully appropriate for a law enforcement official who is also distrustful of his or her work environment to safeguard himself (herself) and LSP (and by virtue thereof, Louisiana taxpayers), and it is truly unfortunate to have an LSP Colonel who is so incompetent that he fails to recognize what, to us at least, ought to be common sense, and further, that we have a useless LSPC comprised of political hacks who equally cannot see the logic why this matter should have been summarily dismissed as being absurd on its face!

Interestingly enough, the next matter on the agenda was the complaint lodged with the LSPC by former prominent attorney Ashton O’Dwyer, which had been heard on June 9, 2022.  Let’s take a look at just how easy it was for the LSPC to summarily dismiss that sucker, shall we?

October 22, 2022:  LSPC has little difficulty summarily dismissing charges lodged by Ashton O’Dwyer which focus on alleged perjury committed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina as LSP investigated allegations made by O’Dwyer that he was brutally beaten by LSP Troopers from Troop F soon after the storm devastated New Orleans residents where O’Dwyer resided at the time (he now resides in Houston).

So, let’s sit back and see just what all President Biden has to say tomorrow night about Louisiana LSP operations, Ronald Greene’s death, and Police Reform in general, which is supposed to the focus of Federal Legislation filed to assist in preventing some of the travesties we’ve seen aired as being so widespread when we turn on our nightly news broadcasts.

We could provide plenty of material for Biden to incorporate into his speech where it concerns LSP, but that would likely cause his speech to extend into the wee hours of the following day!

We also commit to cover Fontenot’s appeal before the LSPC, at which time we expect the body cam footage to be played before the members of the Commission, and we’ll capture that footage with our own camera as part of our follow-up to this feature.

+

Billy Broussard, who, on Monday, January 30, 2023, indicated that a lawsuit against St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux for alleged violations of Broussard’s constitutional rights may be in the offing in the near future.

It has been a while since we reported upon any of the three (3) defamation lawsuits filed by Billy Broussard.

That fact is largely attributable to the fact that 16th JDC Judge Roger Hamilton recused himself from the two cases which were assigned to him in asserting that he had represented Broussard in the past and worked with Louisiana State Police Trooper Scott Lopez during Hamilton’s tenure as Assistant District Attorney in 15th JDC.    Basically, all hearings previously set wherein Hamilton was judge had to be reset to other dates upon the matters being assigned to new judges.

On Thursday, February 2, 2023 the first hearing of all the defamation cases will be argued before Judge Lewis Pitman.  That hearing entails the suit in which Broussard sued LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and his son, Benjamin.  Broussard is pro se, while Lopez and Lopez retained attorney Eric Timothy Haik to represent him.  Attorney Ali LeBlanc, who appears to be “of counsel” with Haik’s firm also later enrolled as co-counsel to go head-to-head with Broussard.

In the suit, Lopez and Lopez filed a Motion to Compel certain financial records from Broussard as well as a full listing of Broussard’s trucks in his possession.

Broussard, in turn, on Monday, January 23, 2023, filed this Memorandum in Opposition to Lopez & Lopez’s Motion to Compel.

 Broussard sat down with us on Monday, January 30, 2023 and talked about the upcoming hearing and, importantly, spoke very candidly about the fact that he has in no way ruled out a lawsuit against St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux (himself a former LSP Trooper).  Broussard is dismayed by what he assesses as Breaux’s alleged violation of Broussard’s constitutional rights.  Broussard alleges Breaux (or underlings in his office for whom Breaux maintains accountability for such actions) engaged in those alleged constitutional rights violations via Breaux’s (underlings’) role(s) in allegedly colluding with Defendant Scott Lopez to effectuate what Broussard asserts is a baseless and groundless arrest of him in May of 2022.

Let’s take a few minutes to present just what all Broussard wanted to get off his chest entailing Breaux and/or his underlings and much more which he incorporated into the above-lined Opposition Memorandum by way of including the totality of Broussard’s discovery responses as an exhibit to the Memorandum:

1/30/23:  Broussard reviews his litigation against LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and is candid in indicating that SMP Sheriff Becket Breaux may soon be hit with a lawsuit from Broussard as well.

Now let’s wrap this feature up with highlights from Broussard’s above Opposition Memorandum:

Despite Plaintiff’s extensive efforts to comply with Defendants’ Discovery Requests, Defendants continued to assert that they are entitled to financial documents which stretch beyond the dates that even the IRS is entitled to audit and for which Plaintiff is required to maintain!

In an abundance of cooperation and attempts to appease Defendants, Plaintiff provided the name of his CPA.  Defendants are presently attempting to serve a subpoena upon Plaintiff’s CPA for the records sought, and Defendants have indicated via email that, with that subpoena and associated deposition of Plaintiff’s CPA scheduled for Monday, February 13, 2023, the matter of Plaintiff’s financial records for purposes of this Motion to Compel should be considered “moot,” and Plaintiff has indicated to Defendants a willingness to do just that.

As a result of that vote, largely influenced by Defendants’ blatantly defamatory statements, and the resulting confirmation by the full St. Martin Parish Council, a likely-illegal Temporary Restraining Order was issued against Plaintiff on or around March 6, 2022.  Absent those votes, which were heavily impacted by the defamatory, false, and malicious statements by Defendant Scott Lopez, that Restraining Order would simply not have been issued and Plaintiff could have continued his activities unabated.

The  Restraining Order and the ensuing Preliminary Injunction, all of which were heavily influenced by Defendants’ blatantly defamatory and malicious statements made about Plaintiff at the January 6, 2022 St. Martin Parish Planning and Zoning meeting, have resulted in Plaintiff having to increase his bids on jobs from the effective date of the likely-illegal Restraining Order through the present date.  Plaintiff submits an itemization of the jobs entailing bids lost as a result of the necessity of having to increase those bids to offset the higher haul off costs associated with the bids, all of which resulted in Plaintiff not obtaining the jobs associated with those bids.

That itemization of jobs lost and the incorporated gross profit margin of those lost jobs (at a rate of 65 percent, which is Plaintiff’s historical average profitability on jobs he obtains) is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit “B.”  The final itemization of damages incurred through October 22, 2022 totals $443,975 in lost jobs, with the profitability thereof totaling $287,163.75.

Upon Plaintiff’s CPA being able to provide Defendants Scott Lopez and Benjamin Lopez with the 2022 profit and loss statement as they seek along with the same statement for 2021, Defendants will be taken aback as they see first-hand the devastating adverse financial impact their blatantly false, defamatory, and malicious statements about Plaintiff had on his livelihood in 2022 vis-à-vis 2021, a year in which Plaintiff suffered no financial impact whatsoever because St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars permitted the 2021 Restraining Order to dissolve in fourteen days.  Cedars further indicated that he merely wanted Plaintiff to go through the “process” of obtaining a Zoning Variance, which Plaintiff’s then-counsel, Michael Adley, emphatically indicated was in no way required because Plaintiff’s offloads of vegetative materials were all transpiring more than 500 feet from the road.  Prior court testimony by St. Martin Parish Government attorney Allan “Sprinky” Durand has indicated that St. Martin Parish Government has zoning only for distances up to 500 feet from the road, and Durand further indicated that, beyond 500 feet from a road, there, “is no zoning.”

At any rate, in an attempt to appease Parish officials, most notably Parish President Chester Cedars, Plaintiff agreed to go through the “process” as a mere courtesy and, as Plaintiff’s then-attorney, Michal Adley, indicated, “an attempt at compromise.”  Further, on the very day after the 2021 Temporary Restraining Order was permitted to dissolve (i.e. on or around September 15, 2021), then-St. Martin Parish Administrator Calder “Pop” Hebert, told Plaintiff and his then-attorney, Michal Adley, that, “We may have some token opposition, but we will be able to handle that.”  Further, St. Martin Parish President, Chester Cedars, in an apparent belief that Plaintiff and he had  essentially concluded the entire matter by Plaintiff merely going through the “process,” visited with Plaintiff and his then-attorney, Michael Adley, on that same date, on or around September 15, 2021, at which time Cedars stated to Plaintiff, “Mr. Broussard, I’m really glad we were able to get this situation worked out.”

Unfortunately, Defendants Scott Lopez and Benjamin Lopez badly tainted that “process” which Plaintiff agreed to embark upon as a courtesy to Parish officials when,  on January 6, 2022, they made their false, malicious, and blatantly defamatory statements about Plaintiff at the St. Martin Parish Planning and Zoning Committee meeting of that same date.

Thus, Plaintiff has instructed his CPA to provide Defendants with the 2022 profit and loss statement at the earliest possible date because Defendants are going to rue the day they ever asked for those statements, and Plaintiff is eager for them to be prepared by his CPA and provided to Defendants to demonstrate unequivocally the drastic impact their actions have inflicted upon Plaintiff.

With the financial statements aspect of the Motion to Compel mutually being considered “moot” by both Plaintiff and Defendants, Plaintiff now moves on to the one remaining item which forms the basis of Defendants’ Motion to Compel before this Honorable Court.

That item calls for an itemization of Plaintiff’s trucks in terms of registration forms to include color.  Defendants claim they need that material in order to rule out the possibility that Plaintiff owns a “purple truck.”  Defendants are unwilling to accept Plaintiff’s attestation to the fact that he owns no “purple truck.”

The importance of the “purple truck” is that Defendant Scott Lopez, among the many other falsehoods he uttered at the St. Martin Planning and Zoning meeting on January 6, 2022, stated that Plaintiff had permitted other tree service companies to haul in vegetative materials and had charged them for doing so.  His statement was blatantly false and, when called upon by St. Martin Parish Government attorney Allan “Sprinky” Durand to back up his statement, Defendant Scott Lopez emphasized, with a camera rolling and capturing his every word, the fact that he had a picture of a “purple truck” which he falsely portrayed that Plaintiff had permitted to offload materials, and further falsely stated that Plaintiff had charged the owner of the truck to offload those vegetive materials.

That is the case because Defendant Scott Lopez has never one time challenged that the truck he (falsely) represented to the Committee was in fact the “purple truck” which he himself provided a photo of to St. Martin Parish Planning and Zoning officials, namely former Chief Administrator Calder “Pop” Hebert via text (along with many other such texts to Hebert which will most certainly be introduced as evidence at trial).  Never!

Sure sounds like Broussard is more than anxious for his CPA to get his financials into Haik’s hands, no?

Okay.  Those are highlights from Broussard’s Opposition Memorandum.  Now let’s proceed to some interesting responses to Haik’s discovery requests for which Broussard answered extensively.  Let’s take a look:

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Please state whether you were using subject property located at 1675 Duchamp Road, Broussard, Louisiana, 70518, for commercial activity of any kind.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

Plaintiff has stated on videotape at meetings of the St. Martin Parish Council that, “there is no commercial activity transpiring on this property.”  Please refer to Sound Off Louisiana feature of September 6, 2021 which Defendant Scott Lopez notified St. Martin Parish Director of Administration Calder “Pop” Hebert of on the very next day, September 7, 2021 via text, with Hebert replying to Defendant Lopez’s text with, “Wasn’t much content for the length of production.”

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

Please state whether an officer with the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Department served you with an arrest warrant as a result of a criminal investigation involving Defendant, BENJAMIN COLE LOPEZ.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

As is evidenced by public records responses from the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office, that office has, “no records responsive” to any investigation for “simple assault” notwithstanding the fact that Defendant Scott Lopez stated numerous times on Deputy Baily Romero ‘s body-cam video of April 25, 2022 that Plaintiff, “damn near assaulted my son.”  Romero specifically stated to Plaintiff that Defendant LSP Trooper Scott Lopez, “wants you arrested for simple assault,” and Romero will be called as a witness at trial to substantiate that fact.  Further, Ms. Mendy Girouard stated on body-cam video of St. Martin Parish Deputy Mathiew Alexander on or around May 4, 2022 that Plaintiff committed, “aggravated assault,” which is a statement she could have made only in speaking with either Defendant Scott Lopez and/or Defendant Benjamin Cole Lopez, either of whom would have engaged in blatant defamatory statements about Plaintiff in making any such claim about Plaintiff.  While Plaintiff was arrested for a misdemeanor for one count of violation of LA R. S. 14:100.1 (Obstruction of Public Passage),  District Attorney Duhe’ almost immediately declined to prosecute that charge; furthermore, retired law enforcement officers and attorneys with whom I have consulted, and whom I anticipate calling as witnesses at trial, have described that arrest as “baseless,” “trumped up,” and as, “a member of one law enforcement agency (the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Baily Romero) doing a ‘favor’ for another member of another law enforcement agency (Louisiana State Police’s Trooper Scott Lopez) and that such an action would have ‘never’ have been engaged in had the complaint Benjamin Cole Lopez’s father, Scott Lopez, not been an LSP Trooper who actively sought Plaintiff’s arrest.”  Further, Plaintiff anticipates calling a retired Louisiana State Police Trooper who will testify to the fact that St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero conducted a flawed interview of Benjamin Cole Lopez on April 25, 2022 when he asked him very leading questions of Benjamin Cole Lopez, and those questions and their responses (most especially, “He could have,”) are all captured on Deputy Baily Romero’s body-cam video, and that video will most certainly be introduced as evidence at trial in this matter.  That retired LSP Trooper will further testify that the proper procedure would have been to take the matter to the DA; however, fearing the DA would decline to sign off on an arrest warrant application, St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero opted to bypass the DA’s Office and instead submit the application directly to the judge assigned to hear this case, Judge Lewis Pittman.  When Judge Pittman declined to approve the arrest warrant application, Deputy Romero then submitted the application to Judge deMahy who, for reasons only she can provide, opted to sign off on the arrest warrant within five (5) minutes of it being placed in front of her a little after 9 p.m. to seemingly indicate a sense of urgency in the need for my arrest.  Public records requests of the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office have demonstrated only approximately three (3) instances in which the DA was bypassed and the arrest warrant directly submitted to the judge over the last several years, and every one of those entailed drug possession and/or possession with intent to distribute.  That is the class of folk the collusion activities of Defendant Scott Lopez and St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero debased Plaintiff into!  In any event, Plaintiff continues to evaluate the possibility of pursuing a lawsuit against the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office for a blatant violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights entailing that arrest made possible only by the acts of collusion on the parts of Defendants Scott Lopez and Benjamin Cole Lopez and, in particular Defendant Scott Lopez’s collusion with St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero to perhaps include individuals higher up on the food chain at the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Please state whether you are involved in any capacity with Robert Burns.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

Mr. Burns is a video blogger and has been for seven years.  Plaintiff discovered him when he Googled “FEMA fraud,” and an interview Burns conducted with Mr. Corey delaHoussaye came up.  Plaintiff watched the video interview (which is about an hour in length) at a time with Mr. delaHoussaye was still facing criminal charges in 21^st JDC.  Plaintiff then contacted Mr. Burns, whom he had never before spoken with in his life, using the contact information readily available on his blog website which invites anyone to contact him if that individual, “has a concern about a Louisiana government operation.”  That is how Plaintiff met Robert Burns, and Plaintiff’s involvement with him is identical to many other individuals with whom he has featured on his blog, all of which is readily assessable at www.SoundOffLA.com and which Defendant Scott Lopez is integrally familiar given the sheer number of texts that he sent to St. Martin Parish Director of Administration Calder “Pop” Hebert together with the commentary of either those two individuals accompanying texts with links for those features.

 

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

Please state whether you are involved in any capacity with the media outlet “Sound Off Louisiana.com”.  If so, please state your capacity.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

As reflected in the response to Interrogatory # 8 above, Plaintiff’s involvement in Sound Off Louisiana is limited to being featured as the subject matter on posts of that blog no differently than many other individuals to include, but not be limited to:  Corey delaHoussaye, Murphy Painter, Chester Cedars, Mendy Girouard, Congressman Garret Graves, U. S. Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana ACLU Legal Director Nora Ahmed, Community Activist Belinda Parker-Brown, Louisiana State Police Commission Member Jared Caruso-Riecke, Louisiana State Police Commission Member Eulis Simien, former Louisiana State Police Commission Executive Director Cathy Derbonne, former newspaper reporter Dwayne Fatherree, dentist C. Ryan Haygood, Mona Hardin (mother of Ronald Greene), numerous Louisiana State Troopers appearing before the Louisiana State Police Commission, attorney Jill Craft, convicted felon attorney Larry S. Bankston, former Cosmetology School Owner Nedla Dural, Cosmetology attorneys Sheri Morris and Celia Cangelosi, Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology Chairman Edwin Neill, Defendant Scott Lopez, State Rep. Richard Nelson, Attorney General Jeff Landry, Joelle Dubroc, Gov. John Bel Edwards, Louisiana Inspector General Stephen Street.  There are many more, but this list will serve as a good start.  Defendants can easily scroll through past posts to see many others at www.SoundOffLA.com.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Please state whether you have assisted Sound Off Louisiana in writing disparaging and defamatory comments about Defendants, SCOTT MICHAEL LOPEZ and/or his son, BENJAMIN COLE LOPEZ.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

Plaintiff denies having made any statement about either of the referenced defendants that is not fully and completely backed up by videos of Scott and Benjamin Lopez, documents executed by Scott and/or Benjamin Lopez, statements made to others (e.g. Blake Dubroc and Mendy Girouard) which are well documented by St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s reports; furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant Scott Lopez entailing his statements made on January 6, 2022 wherein Plaintiff contended Defendant Scott Lopez engaged in “Conduct Unbecoming of a Louisiana State Trooper” was in fact sustained by his employer, Louisiana State Police, and Trooper Lopez declined to pursue an appeal of that disciplinary decision by Louisiana State Police.  If either Defendants are of the belief that Defamatory statements were made, they have the same remedy available to them that Plaintiff is presently pursuing the in the instant matter.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

Please state whether the attached Judgment (Exhibit A) was rendered against you ruling that you were using the subject property in a commercial capacity.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

The judgment is the best evidence of its present contents; moreover, that judgment constitutes a Preliminary Injunction (notwithstanding Mendy Girouard’s false statements captured on videotape that, “the judge signed a Permanent Injunction earlier today”).  Plaintiff is supremely confident in his ability to annul that judgment upon Plaintiff pursuing (on his own timetable) the Permanent Injunction hearing.  Rest assured that, at that Court Hearing, Defendant Scott Lopez will be placed on the witness stand and grilled on all of the false and defamatory statements that he has made about Plaintiff, many of which are captured on videotape (e.g. “purple truck,” “damn near assaulted my son”) along with video refuting that outrageous and defamatory accusation entailing Defendant Benjamin Cole Lopez as evidenced  by his act of driving back by Plaintiff and taunting him with his sarcastic statement (after rolling down his window of), “Hope you got a good picture (of me).”

We will point out one fact of which Broussard was not aware when he drafted the above responses, particularly as it concerns his response to Interrogatory # 10.

As we revealed on June 1, 2022, LSP’s newly-installed Captain of Internal Affairs,  Saleem El-Amin, sustained Broussard’s contention that Lopez engaged in “Conducting Unbecoming an LSP Trooper” on January 6, 2022.  However, subsequent public records requests made of LSP have resulted in the following feedback from Capt. Nick Manale regarding the ultimate disposition of that matter regarding Lopez:

From: Nick Manale <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 10:51 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Is There a Pending Appeal of Any Discipline for LSP Trooper Scott Lopez Regarding 5/25/22 Citing for Engaging in Conduct Unbecoming?

 

Good morning,

I apologize for the delayed response, but I was out of the office yesterday at an event in Kenner and any information regarding disciplinary records must be confirmed with our internal affairs staff.  I do not have possession of these records and we must coordinate with the appropriate section to obtain the responsive information.  As you can imagine, this is also a shortened holiday week and many staff are out of the office.

 

I was able to confirm that Trooper Lopez received a Letter of Counseling for the incident on January 6; however, letters of counseling are not considered “public” and would not have been released with his disciplinary file. There is no other pending discipline at this time.

 

Thank you and we hope you have a Happy New Year.

So, what we have is LSP Col. Lamar Davis installing a newly-appointed Captain of Internal Affairs who renders the above ruling on Lopez, only to be overturned by Davis himself!  We think that buttresses the claims that fired LSP Trooper Carl Cavalier made on the Carl Nelson radio broadcast of Tuesday, January 22, 2023 when Cavalier indicated that, while he had initial high hopes that Davis’ appointment would represent a turnaround at LSP (so did we), he soon came to the realization that Davis and his newly-appointed command staff were, “doing the same old song and dance to continue the cover-up from the previous administration.”

Quite frankly, we could not have stated it better than Cavalier did himself, and Sound Off Louisiana‘s Burns let Manale know his take on the Lopez situation, which follows:

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 11:48 AM
To: ‘Nick Manale’ <[email protected]>
Cc: ‘Tom Aswell’ <[email protected]>; ‘Bucky Millet’ <[email protected]>; ‘Billy Broussard’ <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Is There a Pending Appeal of Any Discipline for LSP Trooper Scott Lopez Regarding 5/25/22 Citing for Engaging in Conduct Unbecoming?

 

Capt.  Manale:

 

Thank you for the response.  So, the bottom line is that Captain Comeaux originally handled the matter via Letter of Counseling, Captain Saleem El-Amin deemed Lopez’s conduct on January 6, 2022 to warrant a sustaining of the allegation of Lopez engaging in conduct becoming (www.laboards-commissions.com/Lopez_Sustain_CU.pdf) which is deemed merely worthy of yet another “Letter of Counseling” (sort of like the Captain at Troop F deeming appropriate for a Trooper in the Ronald Greene matter being cited only for “playing the radio too loud” when he was in pursuit?) for Scott Lopez?  I assume these letters of counseling are deemed cheaper by the dozen for Lopez.

 

On top of that, recently-resigning LSP Troopers have told me that what Captains are doing is writing up a trooper engaging in misconduct, placing it in a fie maintained at the troop, then, if the trooper goes six months without an infraction, the write-up is destroyed.  So the public really has no way whatsoever to hone in on just what a reckless operation LSP is, no?

 

So, Lopez gets a mere Letter of Counseling for his 11 minute plus tirade in front of an entire Parish Council Committee, but since the complainant is a private citizen, LSP deemed no disciplinary measure applicable when an LSP trooper conducts himself in this manner.

 

Meanwhile, when a Trooper sends out a tweet of, “What country in Africa are you from?” when the complainant is a black female Louisiana State Police Trooper who just so happens to be the niece of a sitting State Representative, well, that warrants a full-blown 24-hour suspension for which Col. Davis is willing to appear before the LSPC and be adamant that 24-hour suspension was warranted (not to mention Chairman Simien, also happening to be black, conducting himself on numerous occasions at that meeting in a most inappropriate and inexcusable manner toward the trooper sending out the tweet).

 

I think I have the picture of what all is going on at LSP down pretty well, and it helps explain why so many troopers who have left in the last 18 months have vented to me over the phone about Col. Davis’ actions.  I think any fog that may have remained on my mirror has been cleared, and I thank you for doing that via this email.

 

Again, thank you for supplying this response.  It will enable me to provide a much more informative article early next year.

 

You have a Happy New Year too!

 

 

Robert Edwin Burns, founder and author

SOUND OFF LOUISIANA

So, there’s the update on Broussard v. Lopez.  We wish we could attend tomorrow’s court hearing and report upon it soon thereafter, but Burns will be in Houston, and he’ll only be able to be informed remotely how it turned out.  Nevertheless, we’ll soon report on this court hearing and several others in coming days entailing Billy Broussard and that infamous January 6, 2022 meeting of the St. Martin Parish Planning and Zoning Commission.