In what has now become nothing short of a potential courtroom circus, LUI seeks to convert Preliminary Injunction hearing on Errol Victor to a “video conference,” while Attorney General Jeff Landry states Parker-Brown, Logal have no standing to have sued in the first place.

M. L. Lloyd III, who was pronounced dead on April 1, 2008 upon arrival at the hospital after being subjected to a severe two-day “whipping” for allegedly stealing an ice cream bar the preceding day, March 31, 2008.

Well, if any subscriber is into courtroom circuses, there’s a distinct possibility there may be one tomorrow (Thursday, August 11, 2022) in 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson’s courtroom.

As we indicated in our recent exhaustive feature on Pastor Errol Victor, Sr.’s second murder trial,  two individuals (Belinda Parker-Brown and Dr. Zena D. Crenshaw-Logal) affiliated with Louisiana United International wasted no time flat in fax filing this petition to 19th JDC that, in a nutshell, seeks to enjoin (block) Ad Hoc Judge Dennis Waldron from imposing sentencing on Errol Victor Sr., who, earlier that day (July 22, 2022) was convicted for a second time of second degree murder in the beating (whipping) death of his eight-year-old stepson, M. L. Lloyd III.  The petition also seeks Victor’s immediate release from prison based on an allegation of Double Jeopardy.

As we indicated in the feature, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns felt compelled to leave the courtroom proceedings on Friday, July 15, 2022 after Victor’s first stepson testified in excruciating detail entailing the young boy’s death.  It was simply too difficult to hear.  Just to provide a small detail of which we mean, the stepson indicated that Victor stopped administering the whipping himself because his (Victor’s), “blood pressure was rising too high.”  He then got a blood pressure machine to take his blood pressure, and the stepson said that the, “first number was 200.”  The young man then testified that Victor told his eight-year-old stepson, “You see what you have done!  You’ve caused my blood pressure to go through the roof!”  The stepson then testified that Victor ordered one of his own biological sons to continue with the whipping and told him that, “You’ll do it the hardest, so I want you taking over.”  He further testified that, “We all knew that, if we didn’t do what he said, we were going to get it.”

We don’t like even drafting a paragraph such as the one above, but we want to provide the explanation for why Burns just got up and left.  It was simply too much to bear!

At any rate, Judge Johnson set a hearing for tomorrow, August 11, 2022 at 10 a.m. for consideration of a Preliminary Injunction to block the sentencing.  Victor, who was originally scheduled to be sentenced on July 26, 2022, is now scheduled to be sentenced on Friday, September 9, 2022.

We’ll again repeat that Crenshaw-Logal stated on a WWL newscast to Investigative Reporter David Hammer, that Victor, “does not have competent, zealous representation” and that would cause him not to have a fair trial.  Let’s take a look again:

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

The irony of the above statement is that it is LUI who hired Victor’s lawyer, Claiborne Brown, who, ironically, self-admitted to being “incompetent” 10 years ago when defending a rapist when his out-of-state co-counsel failed to show up for trial.  Brown bailed after making opening arguments and, “adequately questioned witnesses” according to Judge William Burris, who ordered Brown held in contempt of court for, “failing to perform his duties” and also ordered him placed in jail for his actions.

Tomorrow’s Preliminary Injunction hearing, if it transpires at all, just may rival the circus-like atmosphere of that rape trial 10 years ago.  Why?

Well, on Monday, August 8, 2022, Parker-Brown, Logal, and Victor (the three pro se litigants) filed this Motion to Convert the Preliminary Injunction hearing to a “video and pre-trail scheduling conference.”  When we obtained the filing, several dedicated Sound Off Louisiana subscribers we contacted literally thought we HAD to be joking!  Well, as evidenced by the preceding link, they now know we’re not.  From the Motion (which had no Order page):

Preliminary injunction hearing is presently scheduled via an inapplicable procedure and will accordingly come before the Court in a Procedural posture unduly favoring the defendants to the Petitioner’s  detriment.

This proceeding seeks to enjoin action under color of law, appearing to be the product of a vindictive criminal prosecution based on a constitutionally prohibited standard, effectuated through illegal means including collusion between one or more prosecutors with private individuals including but not limited to lawyers acting as such and/or their respective client(s) as well as judicial officers acting in their respective official capacity to deliberately thwart proof of Victor’s actual innocence.

It is the Petitioners’ understanding that sentencing was postponed in the matter until September 9, 2022;

No matter their diligence, neither Petitioner can complete discovery, appropriate/essential in and for this case by September 9, 2022, not to mention the impossibility of them doing so by August 11, 2022;

The Petitioners and each of them project needing six (6) to nine (9) months from the date of this motion to complete discovery.

Obviously the jurisdiction of this Court is vested in determining whether a violation of America’s Double Jeopardy Clause ensued upon commencement of trial….. before the 40th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. John the Baptist in the State of Louisiana, Division “B.”

We can only wonder if the “understanding” of Victor’s rescheduled sentencing came from us telephoning 40th JDC and obtaining that information eight days ago (or the fact that Judge Johnson set the matter for hearing, for that matter).

At any rate, Attorney General Jeff Landry, representing Ad Hoc Judge Dennis Waldron, filed (also on Monday, August 8, 2022) this Memorandum Opposing the Granting of a Preliminary injunction.  Let’s take a look at a few highlights:

Parker-Brown and Creushaw-Logal Lack Standing to Bring This Action.

Failure of a party to have a “direct and present interest” in the litigation is fatal to their claim.

Here, Parker-Brown and Crenshaw-Logal each fail to have any direct and present interest in the retrial of Mr. Victor, which is the sole basis of the current lawsuit. Parker-Brown alleges that she is a co-founder and CEO of Louisiana United International, Inc. (“LUI”) whose function is to advocate for civil, constitutional and human rights.  First Amended Petition, Paragraph 1.  Parker-Brown contends that Victor is a member of LUI and that he and other LUI members were convicted of a less than unanimous jury verdict.

Crenshaw-Logal. in turn, is domiciled in Georgia.  She alleges that she has a Juris Doctorate and was licensed by the State of Indiana in 1984. However, she was suspended from the bar of Indiana in 2004 and “has yet to seek reinstatement to the Indiana bar of attorneys.”

Crenshaw-Logal also alleges she is LUI’s Assistant Chief of Operations and “leads the organization’s collaboration with national Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.”, which she co founded.

Notably, neither Parker-Brown nor Crenshaw-Logal represent that they are licensed attorneys in the State of Louisiana, nor have they attempted to move for admission in this Court via pro hac vice admission in this matter.  In fact, the petition makes clear that all three plaintiffs appear in this matter “separately and pro se.”

While Parker-Brown and Crenshaw-Logal contend they signed off on a complaint submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council, such contention is insufficient to confer standing on either. A review of the petition reveals that the sole focus of this lawsuit is to stop or
thwart the retrial and sentencing of Victor in another Louisiana district court.

As evidenced by AG Landry’s filing, other arguments posed include Judge Waldron having Judicial Immunity and the fact that 19th JDC lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  There’s also this from Landry’s Memorandum:

Victor Has Raised These Same Claims In Two Prior Federal Cases. Victor has filed two separate federal court suits since his 2014 conviction and sentence were vacated. In both cases, he attacks his retrial on Double Jeopardy Clause grounds; the instant suit is now the third such suit filed by Victor.  In the first suit filed in 2021, Victor filed a federal habeas corpus proceeding in the Eastern District of Louisiana, challenging the pending state trial on the grounds of double jeopardy.

In consideration of this application, Magistrate Judge Van Meerveld rejected Victor’s identical legal argument that he makes in the current litigation – that he could not be retried after his conviction and sentence were vacated by the United States Supreme Court. As Judge Van Meerveld stated succinctly:  “To the extent that petitioner is arguing that double jeopardy now bars his retrial, he is clearly wrong.  It has long been settled that the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction set aside, through direct appeal or collateral attack, because of some error in the proceedings leading to conviction. Any suggestion that this general rule would be inapplicable to convictions vacated due a Ramos violation not only finds no support in the jurisprudence resulting from Ramos, but it is also contrary to Ramos itself.  In Ramos, the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged that those prisoners who were being afforded relief as a result of the decision would still face continued

We plan to still attend tomorrow morning, but only because there’s a great little small downtown restaurant on Third Street.  After any “hearing,” if in fact one even transpires, we’re going to go pick up their seafood platter of fried shrimp, fried catfish, and fried oysters, all served with a salad and French fries for $25 (and that includes tax)!  We know we’re wasting a trip (except for getting that seafood platter to bring back home), but one just never knows what the “official” proclamation when and if the docketed item (assuming it stays on any docket overnight) from the courtroom may end up being!

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.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.