Fired Louisiana State Police (LSP) Trooper Carl Cavalier, by far the most public of the whistleblowers entailing LSP’s actions in what Cavalier contends is a massive coverup of wrongdoing by LSP’s upper brass regarding the LSP in-custody death of Ronald Greene on May 10, 2019, has resumed representing himself in seeking for U. S. Judge John deGravelles to reconsider a May 22, 2023 ruling in which deGravelles ordered Cavalier to adhere to LSP’s “oral settlement” calling for him to receive $200,000 and also agree to never again serve as an LSP Trooper. Cavalier has also sued (pro se) the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) seeking a Mandamus to force the LSPC to conduct a hearing for him to potentially regain his employment at LSP. The Judge in that case, 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson, has set a hearing on Cavalier’s Mandamus filing for August 7, 2023 at 10 a.m. Photo courtesy of WBRZ (Channel 2 in Baton Rouge).
Our subscribers and casual site visitors will recall that, at the very end of our feature entailing the criminal trial for the Ronald Greene defendants appearing to be on “life support,” we also mentioned one other thing just as an FYI.
That item entailed Carl Cavalier, who was fired from his position as a Louisiana State Police (LSP) Trooper as a result of his whistleblowing activity, made it known at a May 31, 2023 status conference that he intended to appeal Judge John deGravelles’ May 22, 2023 Order Enforcing LSP’s “oral settlement” reached with Cavalier.
That “oral settlement” called for Cavalier to accept $200,000 (gross, less $80,000 in attorney fees to Craft, attorney fees applicable to his appointed attorneys after Craft resigned, possible taxes — Craft pledged to do all she could to make it a “tax free event,” and court costs) and also simply accept the fact that, per the “oral agreement,” Cavalier could never again serve as an LSP Trooper.
Cavalier just may subscribe to the old adage that, “If you want something done right, you just have to do it yourself!”
We say that because, on June 20, 2023, Cavalier’s then-attorneys (James Carver and Clifton J. Ivey) filed this Motion to Withdraw as Cavalier’s legal counsel. There is an Order on that Motion; however, it is not available to the public. Instead, here’s what is notated to the public:
|  Pro Se (non-inmate) CASE REFERRED Flag Set | |||
| 94 |
| NOTICE of Briefing Schedule – Response to Motion Deadlines (JWD) | ||
| 93 |
| Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney |
We’ll go on the assumption that the Oder was granted. We say that becase Cavalier, who filed his initial lawsuit against LSP in 19th JDC pro se, has returned to making pro se filings in Federal Court. The first such filing was made on the same day as Carver and Ivey filed their Motion to Withdraw, June 20, 2023. Cavalier filed a Motion for Judge deGravelles to reconsider his May 22, 2023 Order. In that pro se filing, Cavalier seemed to take the baton Carver and Ivey used to attack Cavalier’s attorney who enrolled and took over soon after Cavalier filed his pro se lawauit, Jill Craft, and merely pick up where his attorneys left off. Let’s take a look at highlights from Cavalier’s Motion for Reconsideration:
Plaintiff avers that the Order of May 22nd 2023 is contrary to Local Rule 16 ( c ), specifically that Notice of Settlement under Alternative Dispute Resolution, is required to be immediately filed into a Joint Notice of Settlement signed by Counsel (Jill Craft) for Plaintiff into the record.
Plaintiff avers that the Order is also contrary to Rule 16 ( c ) in that those claims unsettled, specifically the reinstatement of his employment, were not outlined in such a document as required by Local Rule.
Plaintiff avers that the considerations taken under review by this Honorable Court failed to include all evidence and considerations of Plaintiffs expression of Duress and Error, specifically that Counsel present with Plaintiff disregarded Plaintiffs desires of how representation was to be handled.
Plaintiff shows that according to State and Federal Rules of Professional Conduct, counsel failed to abide by Plaintiff’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation.
Plaintiff further shows that counsel further violated said Rules of Professional Conduct by not abiding by Plaintiff’s decision whether or not to settle in the foregoing matter.
Plaintiff further shows that Counsel violated said Rules of Professional Conduct by limiting the scope of representation without Plaintiff’s informed consent, specifically with regards to the terms under which Plaintiff was willing to settle.
Plaintiff further shows that Counsel violated said Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to inform Plaintiff of decisions and circumstances which required Plaintiff’s informed consent.
Plaintiff further shows that there are several audio recordings and other documented communications between Counsel and Plaintiff which were not reviewed by this Honorable Court prior to rendering the Order. (Exhibits 3, 4, &5 of the Motion to Reopen the Cause and Rescind Settlement, filed 12.02.2022)
Plaintiff also avers that the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (Report), which was the basis for the Order, is contradictory. Specifically, on page 9, the Report states that the agreement almost “exclusively dealt with the ending of Plaintiff’s employment. Re-employment was never considered.” The following paragraph goes on to admit that re-employment would be barred by the agreement, then doubles back and states that it, in pertinent part, “…does not mean that the agreement failed to address the issue of his future employment.”
Plaintiff informed Counsel throughout the entire representation that he would not agree to termination, resignation, or inability to be employed in the future.
Obviously, LSP was not going to take that filing sitting down, and so LSP filed this Opposition Memorandum to Cavalier’s filing for reconsideration on June 28, 2023. Let’s take a look at some of those highlights:
To the extent Cavalier seeks relief pursuant to Rule 59, the motion should be denied as untimely.
Cavalier next argues the Court failed to consider certain evidence regarding communications with his former counsel, but does not (and cannot) contend this evidence is “newly discovered” as mandated by Rule 60(b)(2)…….Cavalier’s communications with his former counsel (who withdrew October 27, 2022) occurred months prior to the February 24, 2023 Magistrate Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 83), and months prior to this Court’s May 22, 2023 Ruling and Order granting the State Police’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Consequently, these communications cannot qualify as “newly discovered.” Moreover, Cavalier does not argue, much less show, that consideration of this evidence “clearly would have produced a different result if presented before the original judgment.” Accordingly, relief is not available under Rule 60(b)(2).
Rule 60(b)(3) provides post-judgment relief in certain circumstances based on “misconduct by an opposing party.” “A party making a Rule 60(b)(3) motion must establish (1) that the adverse party engaged in fraud or other misconduct, and (2) that this misconduct prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case.” Here, Cavalier appears to seek relief based on alleged misconduct of his former counsel. Cavalier does not argue that the State Police or its counsel engaged in fraud or misconduct or interfered with his case in any way. Accordingly, Cavalier has failed to allege misconduct by the adverse party as required by the Rule. Moreover, Cavalier’s complaint regarding his former counsel is founded on his allegation that prior to the settlement conference he informed counsel he would not agree to any settlement that did not include reinstatement. Even if true, this fact is irrelevant. Cavalier, not his former attorney, personally accepted the settlement terms during the settlement conference – and those terms did not include reinstatement. Relief is unavailable under Rule 60(b)(3).
The recordings Cavalier references in his filing are arguably some of the most fascinating audio files we’ve ever published and, if anyone may not have heard them yet, feel free to do so here.
Now, Cavalier was not content to have all of his eggs in one basket (i.e. Federal Court) so, on June 6, 2023, he filed this Writ of Mandamus against the LSPC seeking to force it to hold a hearing at which he may obtain his job back. As is obvious from the Order page, 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson has set a contradictory hearing date of August 7, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. for that matter. Let’s take a look at a few highlights of Cavalier’s Motion for Writ of Mandamus:
Petitioner asserts in this proceeding that he currently has three (3) administrative matters pending before Defendant regarding his former employment with the Louisiana State Police (“hereinafter “LSP”). These matters bear docket numbers 21-257 -S; 21-256-D; 22-261-T; and are attached to this petition as Exhibit (“A”).
A review of Commission agendas beginning July 2021, reveals that Defendant has consistently and repeatedly refused to set Petitioner’s administrative appeals for hearing.
Petitioner alleges that almost twenty-four (24) months have elapsed since the filing of his first administrative appeal and Defendant has made no effort to set the matters for hearing or reach settlement.
On May 11, 2023, in open meeting a Commission member incorrectly stated that all of Petitioner’s pending matters being dismissed through a federal lawsuit. This is untrue and incorrect. Petitioner is the moving party in a federal lawsuit1 bearing docket number 3.21-cv-00656-JWD-RLB currently pending in the U.S. District Court: Middle District of Louisiana. The settlement or dismissal of the federal lawsuit has no bearing on the administrative matters pending before the C0mmiss (sic).
Petitioner avers that Defendant’s refusal to docket and timely hearing his pending administrative matters is a violation of Commission Rule 13.4.
Petitioner avers that the deliberate and intentional delays by the Commission have had detrimental effects on his income and quality of life. The law provides no relief by ordinary means to obtain the administrative hearings other than by the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directed to the Commission to perform their ministerial duties as required by law, to comply with the judgment of this Honorable court and to have Petitioner’s matters be heard and properly decided.
Petitioner is therefore entitled to and requests that this Honorable Court issue a Writ of Mandamus, directed to the Louisiana State Police Commission immediately schedule all three (3) of Petitioner’s pending administrative matters for hearing in accordance with the law.
Regarding the May 11, 2023 LSPC meeting Cavalier references above, the LSPC member he is referencing is Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr. Simien made the statements that Cavalier has characterized as, “untrue and incorrect,” in indicating to Dinelle Hardin, Ronald Greene’s sister, why the Commission had no authority to grant Cavalier his job back. Let’s take a look:
May 11, 2023 LSPC meeting during which Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr., attempts to explain why fired LSP Trooper Carl Cavalier cannot have a hearing before the Commission to obtain his job back and, in the process, states the past continuances of his hearings were to, “benefit Cavalier.” That’s an interesting contention given that it was LSP who repeatedly dishonored subpoenas (as reflected by prior videos incorporated into the above video).
As we stated in the screen caption at the very end of the above video, perhaps Cavalier can subpoena Simien for the August 7, 2023 Mandamus hearing and, upon placing him on the witness stand, ask him to explain exactly how LSP officials dishonoring subpoenas somehow, “benefitted Cavalier.” That’s the biggest problem entailing video cameras. They capture quite well anyone placing his or her foot in his or her mouth as Simien has demonstrated a strong propensity to do over the last six and a half years that we’ve been videotaping the meetings!
For that matter, we believe that, should Cavalier opt to subpoena a few other folk (e.g. LSP Chief of Staff Chavez Cammon, newly-appointed LSP Lt. Col. Treone Larvadain — niece of Rep. Larvadain –, Col. Lamar Davis, recently-retired LSP Lt. Col. Kenny VanBuren), Cavalier just may be able to have his “Super Bowl appeal hearing” at a different venue (i.e. 19th JDC). After all, there will be a State District Judge overseeing the proceeding. There will be a Court Reporter taking down what everyone says after they’ve been sworn in attesting that they will tell the truth, and transcripts will be available soon thereafter. The only downside (vs. the LSPC venue): no cameras (which we believe STRONGLY should be changed in Louisiana).
Anyway, even though we can’t take our camera in the courtroom for the August 7, 2023 Mandamus Hearing (as we were similarly hamstrung back in Farmerville entailing the June 23, 2023 Evidentiary Hearing), Sound Off Louisiana’s founder, Robert Burns, commits to bring his notepad and take extensive notes (and order a transcript thereafter if he deems the hearing to be noteworthy enough).
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply click on ANY post (this one is relatively short and requires less scrolling) and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or look at the upper right-hand column (desktops). Simply 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. Note: In order to view videos associated with the post, you MUST still click on the headline lettering as Word Press does not facilitate embedded videos in its email distribution.