LSPC gets resounding courtroom victory over LSTA’s efforts to make campaign contributions, but LSTA gets March 13 hearing entailing Eulis Simien’s convenient amnesia (perjury?) of his law firm’s political contributions for appeal purposes.

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?

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.

 

 

2 thoughts on “LSPC gets resounding courtroom victory over LSTA’s efforts to make campaign contributions, but LSTA gets March 13 hearing entailing Eulis Simien’s convenient amnesia (perjury?) of his law firm’s political contributions for appeal purposes.”

  1. You just love to blast the Louisiana State Police! How about you find an actual job. I hope when you need help you never call them to help you.

    1. You’re apparently uninformed as to where I obtain my material to “blast Louisiana State Police.” Where’s it coming from? From a ton of troopers fed up with what this agency has become! If you’d been following this blog diligently you’d surely know that and be cognizant of the fact that there are far more troopers supportive of this blog’s efforts to clean the agency up vs. those upset with this blog because it poses obstacles to continuing to perpetuate corruption, nepotism, and racism (in both directions, and I don’t hesitate to call it out in either direction). As far as an “actual job,” I had plenty of them and will stand behind the quality and integrity of my work at any one of them. It’s too bad so many troopers presently on the payroll cannot lay claim to making such a statement about their own job performance and qualifications (e. g. frauds who obtained an LSP uniform and badge solely by cheating their way through the LSP Training Academy). Perhaps it’s just a situation of, “the truth hurts.” Thanks for your willingness to comment, Mr./Ms. “Anonymous.”

Leave a Reply

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