Category: Uncategorized

Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology attorney Sheri Morris provides 14-second “update” on Institute for Justice v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology at the Board’s meeting of Monday, October 3, 2022.

On June 20, 2019, we published this feature on the Institute for Justice’s (IJ) lawsuit against the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) in which IJ asserts the LSBC’s 500-hour requirement for obtaining a hair braiding permit is not necessary and that, in reality, LSBC is violating Louisiana’s Constitution in requiring the permit.

Yesterday, we dropped in and visited with the fine folks at the LSBC and videotaped its meeting.  We were especially interested in hearing Ms. Sheri Morris, attorney for the LSBC, provide her legal report.  She was last on the agenda, and Morris spoke in a very low (super-low in fact) tone which boarded on mumbling.

She did devote the grand total of 14 seconds to updating the LSBC Members on the hair braiding litigation (though one may argue it was a concerted effort to keep them in the dark).  Because her low tone of voice left plenty to be desired, we did our own closed-captioning of every word she said in order that our viewers can know exactly what she did say in those 14 seconds.  Here’s that 14-second video clip:

LSBC attorney Sheri Morris “updates” the LSBC Members on the status of IJ v. LSBC.

In our experience, when an attorney really doesn’t want to be heard, there’s typically a pretty good reason, and, judging by this Memo Seeking a Status Conference filed by IJ on September 1, 2022, we’d say there was probably pretty good reason why Morris didn’t want to be heard and why she refrained from providing the LSBC Members with any specifics.  From the memo:

Plaintiffs have again and again tried to move toward trial. But the Board refuses to complete its portion of the pretrial order, as required by Local Rule 9.14(1), leaving this case in limbo. This Court’s intervention is necessary to resolve the impasse.

They only seek declaratory and injunctive relief recognizing that (1) the permit requirement violates the state constitutional right to practice one’s occupation free from unreasonable government interference, and (2) the Board violated the separation of powers when it decided to regulate natural hair braiding although nothing in the cosmetology statute requires it to do so.

Plaintiffs have answered the Board’s extensive written discovery requests. They have sat for depositions. At several junctures, they have provided supplemental discovery to address the Board’s requests for additional information.

At every turn, the Board has raised baseless obstacles when it has not ignored Plaintiffs entirely. As a result, this case is no closer to trial today than it was in March.

I. The Board Is Baselessly Delaying Trial.

The gist of the Board’s “outstanding discovery” argument is that the case cannot go to trial until Plaintiffs produce comprehensive personal and business financial records.  But Plaintiffs do not seek economic damages-only prospective declaratory and
injunctive relief-making evidence of economic harm irrelevant.

On August 18, Plaintiffs emailed the Board with another request for their portion of the proposed pretrial order pursuant to Local Rule 9.14(2)(B). See Ex. 9, Pls.’ Email to Defs. (Aug. 18, 2022). A week later, the Board’s attorneys responded for the first time in four months. See Ex. 10, Defs.’ Let. To Pls. (Aug 26, 2022). They again
refused to provide their portion of the proposed pretrial order or provide any comments on Plaintiffs’ draft of the joint fact stipulation. See id. They only renewed their objection that discovery is incomplete, arguing that Plaintiffs’ June 8 production was insufficient and not made in good faith. See id.  The Board’s renewed objection-raised after four months of radio silence-is
as baseless as it is late. Plaintiffs have already produced what they have; and they turned over many irrelevant materials in a show of good faith. The Board is not entitled to additional information. What the Board is seeking now is a detailed financial accounting that will be inadmissible at trial. As the attached communications show, Plaintiffs have bent over backwards to cooperate. This Court’s
intervention is needed for this case to move forward.

So, there you have it folks!  This is the same LSBC which routinely goes to the Louisiana Legislature begging for funds misrepresenting why they need a license fee increase!  They repeatedly say things like the building is in disrepair, new equipment is needed, etc., but they never address the massive amount they’re willing to spend in legal fees (just look at the needless depositions referenced above) maintaining roadblocks to honest, hard-working people trying to make a living just as is done in so many other states entailing hair braiding, including our neighbors to our East (Mississippi – thanks to IJ).

Fortunately, we had a very reliable source with his pulse solidly on the Legislature who told us that we didn’t need to expend “one ounce” of energy devoted to blocking the latest fee increase attempted in this past Legislative Session.

That source told us that there are now too many Legislators who “know what time it is” entailing the LSBC and that there was, “no way in Hell” that a bill entailing a license fee increase would, “ever clear the House this year.”

That source was spot on, and we told him we were thankful because we had (and have) our hands full just trying to tackle a few of the latest rampant problems at Louisiana State Police and that we really didn’t have a ton of time to have to expend working on blocking what is now the fourth attempt at a license fee increase since this blog was formed just so that the LSBC can engage in such foolishness as that outlined above!

We would assume that Judge Wilson Fields, who has granted a Status Conference as requested by IJ which will transpire tomorrow, Wednesday, October 5, 2022, will seek to establish a clear deadline for the Pre-Trial Order.  Once it is filed into the public record, we’ll certainly alert our subscribers and, once a trial date is set, we commit to attend and report upon this longstanding matter finally being resolved.

CLICK HERE for the LSBC meeting of Monday, October 3, 2022 in its entirety.

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.

State Rep. Richard Nelson (R-Mandeville), who was the guest speaker at the Baton Rouge Press Club meeting of Monday, October 3, 2022.

When we published our feature on our taking down of the JBE Fraud website effective September 30, 2022 (it’s now down), toward the end of the article we lamented the fact that we simply aren’t impressed with the prospective field of candidates to replace Edwards in 2023.  We did add, however, that, “there are a few names out there which could change that,” meaning that there are some potential candidates whom we could actively support to be Louisiana’s next Governor.  One of those names is a little-known State Representative from Mandeville by the name of Richard Nelson.

Nelson was the guest speaker at today’s (Monday, October 3, 2022) meeting of the Baton Rouge Press Club, so we were there and wasted little time asking Nelson about a potential 2023 bid for Governor.  Here’s his response::

Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns poses a question of Nelson about a potential 2023 run for Governor.

Some of the other “questions” Nelson had to field not only barely qualified as “questions,” but were, in fact, quite argumentative.  Here are two examples:

Nelson fields a “question” from a BRPC member who seems quite argumentative toward Nelson’s characterization of Texas families having median incomes which are 33% higher than Louisiana’s families and the fact that they live an average of four years longer than Louisiana residents.

Nelson fields a “question” from Remi Delouche, BRPC Member, who takes issue with Nelson’s reference to “Alaska” as a state Louisiana should aspire to emulate and argues, “I just don’t see people moving there left and right.”

Since Nelson is also a member of the Ronald Greene investigative committee in the Louisiana House of Representatives, Burns also asked about his thoughts on some of the Committee’s findings.  Here’s his response:

Nelson responds to Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns’ question about his thoughts of having served (and continuing to serve) on the Ronald Greene investigative committee entailing Louisiana State Police.

CLICK HERE for Nelson’s presentation in its entirety.

The likely consensus of many Louisiana voters at this moment is that Nelson would be a major long shot to become Louisiana’s next Governor.

We’ll only state that everyone said the same thing about Buddy Roemer in 1987 (when he was dead last in every poll before experiencing a near-meteoric rise that prompted even Edwin Washington Edwards to state — when be bowed out on primary night — “Nobody is going to stop this thing,”) and also Mike Foster in 1995, who experienced an identical near-meteoric rise when he made the decision to switch from Democrat to Republican mere months before the election.

All we can say is that, if Richard Nelson does opt to run, that changes everything from our prospective and will make the race for Governor next year MUCH, MUCH more interesting with a candidate we could actively and enthusiastically support, and we simply can’t say the same for the other prospective candidates being mentioned so far in the quest for Louisiana Governor next year.

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.

March 4, 2021:  Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry outlines a blueprint proposal to enable Freeport McMoRan to settle all coastal erosion litigation in Louisiana with other oil producers having the same ability if they are so inclined and required approval by the Louisiana Legislature is obtained.

On March 4, 2021, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry called a press conference to outline his proposed blueprint of a settlement with Freeport McMoRan for legacy coastal erosion.

Landry’s blueprint settlement was strongly backed by the most prominent trial lawyer coordinating lawsuits by municipalities against oil producers for such erosion, John Carmouche.  That fact alone caused many eyebrows to be raised entailing Landry’s motivation and rationale.  Let’s take a look at Landry’s press conference in its entirety (all of 13 minutes):

March 4, 2021 press conference of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in its 13-minute entirety wherein he outlines his proposed blueprint settlement for Freeport McMoRan along with any other oil companies who express a desire to obtain the same type terms.

Landry took a ton of heat entailing the proposal he outlined above, to wit:

Tyler Gray, Louisiana Mid Continent Oil and Gas Association:

It is disappointing that some elected officials have sided with plaintiffs’ attorneys in support of job-killing lawsuits and a flawed settlement scheme that could put our coast further at risk.

Our member companies will continue to fight these meritless coastal lawsuits and oppose the implementation of this untenable settlement scheme.

Marc Ehrhardt, Grow Louisiana Coalition:

 Only politicians and lawyers have seen this supposed settlement. It has been done in secret. Whenever a politician or lawyer says ‘Trust me. It’s good for you,’ it doesn’t seem to work out too well for the people. How is this secret settlement scheme any different?

Not one square inch of the coast has been created as a result of these lawsuits in the entire time that these trial lawyers have been wheeling and dealing behind the scenes and out of the public eye.

Louisiana State Senator Sharon Hewitt (R-Slidell):

This settlement scheme is nothing more than a backroom deal that threatens the future of oil and gas jobs in Louisiana……..This secret settlement begins a dangerous path that leads to false promises, bankruptcies, and job losses. I’m certain it’s as dead this year in the legislature as it was last. I will work with my colleagues in the legislature to expose this shakedown, save those jobs, and fight for real solutions that restore our coast.

There was plenty of other criticism of Landry’s blueprint proposal, but we believe everyone likely gets the drift.

In order to become effective, legislation had to pass within three years.  As Senator Hewitt notes above, that legislation has been dead on arrival.

With that being the case and the matter seemingly dead, our interest was peaked when, all of a sudden, the St. Martin Parish Council called a special meeting on Tuesday, September 20, 2022 to discuss whether to accept or reject any potential Freeport McMoRan settlement money.  We found both the timing (given that Landry may soon announce for Governor) and the seeming need to rush (i.e. a “special meeting”) to be interesting, so Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns, accompanied by his camera, attended that special meeting.  Here’s the discussion that ensued in its entirety (at 15 minutes — including shutting Billy Broussard down from making public comment — it’s not much longer than Landry’s news conference above):

September 20, 2022 Special Meeting of the St. Martin Parish Council to discuss whether to accept or reject any settlement proceeds from the Jeff Landry blueprint for settlement with Freeport McMoRan.  Parish President Chester Cedars explained the specifics of any settlement and what St. Martin Parish’s role would be if requirements are met and the Council opted to accept Landry’s blueprint settlement.

So, isn’t it a “fair game” question to ask why the sudden need to call a special meeting for this?  After all, by our math, the total proceeds to St. Martin Parish from the settlement, according to Cedars’ numbers, would be the whopping total of $40,000 (0.0004 x $100 million).

No, it would seem that the brief video above represented a direct slap in the face to Attorney General Jeff Landry.  After all, Cedars indicates, “We’re big boys and girls, and we don’t need somebody else (Landry) making the decision to sue or not sue, to settle or not settle, and that we believe that state legislation which gives another person, firm, or entity, or officeholder authorization to sue on our behalf is unconstitutional because we are sovereign under Article 6 of the State Constitution.”

Sounds like a pretty direct wind up and full-fledged and very hard slap right in the face of Jeff Landry, no?

The logical question is why, especially given that we’re told many St. Martin Parish Councilmen are strong, strong backers of Landry.

Well, let’s note how Cedars interjects his opinion that Landry’s proposal is “unconstitutional.”

Could it possibly be that Landry has hinted (or maybe more than hinted) that he intends to rule that Cedars and the Council’s Ordinance requiring that Lafayette Consolidated Government obtain their approval for removing the spoil banks on the Vermillion River is also unconstitutional?

Heck, for that matter, Landry, who is expected to end up having to make a ruling  on the Ordinance passed enabling the suit against Billy Broussard in terms of constitutionality, just may deem that Ordinance unconstitutional as well.  We certainly know several attorneys, to include Michael Adley, who feel very strongly that it is most definitely unconstitutional.

We believe THAT (the Lafayette Consolidated Government ruling, were Landry to side with LCG and, to a lesser extent, any Broussard ruling favoring him) may be enough to convince these Councilmen, their alleged alliance to Landry notwithstanding, to turn on Landry.  That may explain Tuesday’s action being to give an early indication of such a turn in sentiment toward Landry.  That would certainly explain the hastily-called special meeting which appears to us at least to have been called for the sole purpose of giving Attorney General Jeff Landry a big smack down in a very public manner!

If anyone else has a better line of speculation on why the urgency to reject a lousy $40,000 and to do so in the the haste and hostile tone Cedars espouses in the video above, feel free to express it in the comments section to this feature.  We’d love to know just what motivated an action which seemingly can only be described as a vicious direct slap in the face of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry!

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.