One of the first growths of mushrooms on Billy Broussard’s farm in Broussard, Louisiana. Pursuant to court action yesterday converting a Temporary Restraining Order to a Preliminary Injunction, Broussard is now enjoined from engaging in any further activities to promote his long-term goal of having a mushroom farm on his 33-acre tract of land in Broussard, Louisiana.
One thing we’ve never been accused of doing is sugar-coating features we publish, and we have no intent to do so in this feature.
Although Billy Broussard’s attorney, Heather Duhon-Moore, indicated at the conclusion of a court hearing yesterday, May 3, 2022, in which St. Martin Parish Government’s (SMPG) Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was converted to a Preliminary Injunction, that a future court hearing would transpire to block the Injunction from becoming Permanent, the court hearing yesterday can only be described as a complete and total shellacking of Broussard by SMPG President Chester Cedars.
We will provide more details in a subsequent feature, but the cliff notes version of events yesterday is that the existing TRO was converted to a Preliminary Injunction. As a result, Broussard is now indefinitely prohibited from engaging in any of the activities originally itemized in the first and subsequent TROs.
Both sides appeared to hold back firepower to save for a Permanent Injunction hearing. In the case of SMPG, LSP Trooper Scott Lopez, despite being present and sequestered as a witness for SMPG, ultimately was not called. Neither was Evan Mautrin, an employee of Blake Dubroc, even though he too was present and sequestered.
In the case of Broussard, Duhon-Moore, for technical reasons, was blocked from posing arguments on certain matters, the most significant of which was challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance SMPG passed enabling the TRO to be issued in the first place. She indicated to the judge that she would assert those arguments, along with others, at the hearing for a Permanent Injunction when that transpires.
Even though both sides may have withheld firepower for a later date, the victory on the part of SMPG was nothing short of resounding. In fact, Judge Suzanne deMahy went so far at the conclusion of the proceeding to inform Broussard that he was prohibited from permitting a truck loaded with tree debris to remain at his property even merely overnight (if a commercial dump had closed before Broussard could take a load to the dump) even if he did not dump it!
deMahy indicated that keeping the debris in the truck overnight to take it to a commercial dump the next morning would constitute, “temporary storage,” which is something that is, “prohibited by the court-ordered injunction which you are under.”
deMahy further admonished Broussard that, if he has any questions whatsoever entailing what he can and cannot do on his property, he should contact parish officials for guidance. She admonished him that, “otherwise, neighbors are likely to complain, and you may end up in violation of the Injunction.”
The preceding cliff notes version of events is why we have described yesterday’s hearing as an utter and complete shellacking by SMPG over Broussard.
Subscribers and site visitors may recall our football analogy we made way back when Broussard’s former counsel, Michael Adley, opted to postpone the original September 14, 2021 hearing. We indicated that Adley opted to toss a bubble screen to try and score from the one-yard line rather than handing the ball off to a fullback we believed was all-but-certain to bulldoze his way into the end zone.
Well, given yesterday’s courtroom events, not only has Adley’s bubble screen now been intercepted, but SMPG turned that interception into a pick-six!
While some of the fourth quarter remains to be played, the undeniable fact is that Broussard, who still remains on defense because SMPG essentially opted to attempt an onside kick following the pick-six and gained possession of the football, now has little choice but to claw at the ball (even at the expense of missing tackles) because time is rapidly expiring. The bottom line is that any score to try to win the game first necessitates obtaining possession of the football. We’ll certainly see if that can be done when the Permanent Injunction hearing is scheduled (or perhaps by any other filing between now and then).
So, that’s the update on the SMPG litigation on Broussard. As we said, we don’t sugar-coat features, and we believe anyone would agree we certainly did not sugar-coat our summation of yesterday’s proceedings. In due time, we’ll provide more of a play-by-play of what all transpired at yesterday’s hearing which managed to take six (6) hours (although there were various criminal matters that Judge deMahy had to tackle which caused a few interruptions).
When we do so, we’ll be dissecting SMPG attorney Lee Durio’s Pre-Trial Memorandum Response. We will point out at this time, however, that his filing, which transpired only 45 hours before the Court Hearing (filed on 5/1/22 at noon) was replete with more grammatical errors than we believe we have ever encountered in reading a court filing!
We will also point out at this time that, because Chester Cedars essentially served as representative for SMPG, Duhon-Moore’s Motion to Sequester him was unsuccessful. As a result, Cedars essentially served as counsel for SMPG (trust us, Durio was just along for the ride). Cedars managed to assert himself as de facto counsel to such an extent that he frequently chimed in while on the witness stand even though he was not being asked a question nor was he part of the discussions transpiring between the attorneys and the judge.
As we indicated, we’ll provide a play-by-play of yesterday’s hearing in the near future. Nevertheless, we feel compelled to make just one verbatim quote Cedars made directly to Duhon-Moore while he was on the witness stand. It was one of many, many occasions Cedars chose to publicly chastise Duhon-Moore and even try to belittle her. That quote follows:
You are not going to stand there and insult my intelligence by indicating that Mr. Broussard’s property is anything but a full-fledged landfill.
We will also note that Cedars lost his temper on several occasions; nevertheless, in the end, he clearly emerged victorious.
On another front, Cedars was able to celebrate (spike the football again, we guess) for a second time yesterday as he gave the SMPG Council an update on the Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) litigation entailing what SMPG alleges was the improper removal of spoil banks along the Vermillion River. Let’s take a look at his presentation to the SMPG Council last night:
5/3/22: St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars provides update on spoil banks litigation with LCG.
As we’ve emphasized on many occasions, our conservative estimate of attorneys (whom we know of) subscribing to our distribution list is about 20 percent, so let’s provide the following table of Federal Court filings since the matter was removed from 15th JDC in Lafayette to the Federal Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette Division) for their (or anyone else’s) viewing pleasure:
We will emphasize the paragraph that Cedars read to the Council Members yesterday (Document 5 above):
St. Martin Parish Government has been advised by counsel for the Corps that an Administrative Order has been issued by the Corps, notifying and advising LCG that a Corps Permit was required for LCG’s spoil bank destruction activities in St. Martin Parish; defendant herein is seeking to confirm the information from the Assistant United States Attorney, and upon such confirmation, will obtain the Administrative Order (or Orders) and, via a formal filing, will ask the Court to take judicial notice as per Fed. R. Evid. 201 of the Corp’s administrative ruling. In light of the Corps finding, LCG cannot obtain a Declaratory Judgment “that it complied with all lawful regulations, ordinances, rules, procedures and laws with the spoil bank project.” The Corps’ determination shows LCG has failed to state a claim for the Declaratory Judgment it seeks.
So, while the Broussard and LCG legal matters are obviously not fully resolved, St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars scored an unquestionable resounding victory against Billy Broussard yesterday in court. Furthermore, he certainly appears to have justifiable reason to revel in his update to SMPG Council Members yesterday evening on the LCG litigation.
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.
UPDATE (4/28/22 @ 3:10 p.m.). Upon routine weekly review of cases we track, we noted that, on this very day, April 28, 2022, a contradictory hearing was set for May 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. regarding our attempts to have Judge Don Johnson view approximately 175-fully-redacted pages entailing LSP Trooper Scott Lopez. We have accordingly updated the title of this feature and the applicable paragraph below to reflect Judge Johnson setting the matter for contradictory hearing.
Let us begin this feature by updating our subscribers and site visitors on our recent lawsuit against Louisiana State Police (LSP) wherein we assert LSP may have intentionally engaged in excessive redacting regarding documentation we requested on LSP Trooper Scott Lopez. As everyone knows at this point, we’ve asked for 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson to examine the approximate 175-fully-redacted pages in-camera.
LSP retained attorney Dennis J. Phayer of the Metairie law firm of Burglass and Tankersley to defend against our lawsuit. Mr. Phayer filed this answer with the standard denial paragraphs for various reasons. Mr. Phayer did, however, invoke LA R. S. 44:3(C):
C. Whenever the same is necessary, judicial determination pertaining to compliance with this Section or with constitutional law shall be made after a contradictory hearing as provided by law……
On April 28, 2022, Judge Johnson did opt to fill in the blanks on our order page. The matter is set for hearing on Monday, May 23, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., and we’ll update the just-linked order page once we have possession of a copy with that date and time filled in.
Meanwhile, on the “Billy Broussard front,” subscribers and site visitors will recall that, on March 3, 2022, Broussard served SMPG with this First Set of Interrogatories and this First Set of Requests for Admissions of Fact. Five days later, on March 8, 2022, Broussard served SMPG with this request for production of documents. He did all of that while serving as “interim coach” of his own legal team after his previous counsel, Michael Adley, filed a Motion to Withdraw as a result of Broussard sending an email, which was improperly copied to SMPG attorney Lee Durio, that Broussard wanted Parish President Chester Cedars deposed and that his deposition be videotaped.
Broussard subsequently retained attorney Heather Duhon-Moore, and she also served SMPG with discovery requests.
Notwithstanding the fact that 53 days (as of the day of this feature, April 25, 2022) have passed since Broussard submitted his first discovery requests above, SMPG has yet to dignify them with a response! They also have not responded to Ms. Duhon-Moore’s discovery requests either.
Despite not providing a scintilla of response to either Broussard or Duhon-Moore’s discovery requests, SMPG had the unmitigated gall to then, on April 22, 2022 (three days before this feature and a mere 11 days before the May 3, 2022 hearing) submit its own discovery requests to Broussard.
Now, we’re not sure just how Ms. Duhon-Moore may handle the request, but we’re going to have a little fun playing “attorney for a day.”
Even as we first provided an overview of some of the obvious deficiencies of SMPG Attorney Lee Durio’s second filing for a Temporary Restraining Order on March 3, 2022 (where we pointed out things like playing loose with the date of a Cease and Desist letter and using words like “Stickley” which should have clearly been “strictly”), we noted then that we saw other obvious problems with his filing, but we deferred to the attorneys to examine those aspects of Durio’s filing.
Since we’re now in “crunch time” regarding the hearing date, we’re now prepared to identify a huge deficiency in Durio’s filing for which we remained mute in that previous feature.
Some St. Martinville residents have said that SMPG officials are stating to residents that Broussard came on his hands and knees begging for the original Preliminary Injunction hearing in mid-September of 2021 to be continued while a “compromise process” was worked upon. The simple reality is that it was SMPG President Chester Cedars, and NOT Billy Broussard, who begged for that continuance!
Why? Because he knew full well that, as a result of the phenomenal Pre-Trial Memorandum submitted by then-Broussard counsel, Michael Adley, Cedars’ proverbial goose was cooked! It’s that simple! That’s also why we were frustrated beyond words as to why Adley inexplicably agreed to the “compromise process.”
That fact notwithstanding, Adley certainly performed magnificently for Broussard in essentially tying SMPG’s hands regarding future litigation filings and court arguments as the price he extracted from SMPG as part of that “compromise process.”
So, with the fact now clearly established that it was Cedars, and not Broussard, who begged for the continuance, and Adley agreed to it ONLY after SMPG agreed in writing to the terms specified in this email of September 14, 2021 (and which Durio acknowledged agreement by SMPG on September 16, 2021). Let’s now highlight some critical wording in that agreement from the just-linked email (with our own emphasis in red):
We just concluded our meeting with Calder Hebert. We were asked to complete and submit the attached Petition for Zoning Change.
Prior to completing and executing the Petition for Zoning Change, we would like an agreement of the following:
Completing and filing the Petition for Zoning Change and participation in any public hearings and appeals regarding the same are solely in an attempt at compromise.
Completing and filing the Petition for Zoning Change and participation in any public hearings and appeals regarding the same shall not be considered an admission of guilt, wrongdoing, or an admission of a violation of any purported zoning. Billy Broussard and his legal entities expressly deny that they are in violation of any zoning ordinance and deny that any change in zoning is necessary.
The Petition for Zoning Change, the information contained within, and the information discussed at any public hearing or appeal is not admissible in this litigation or any litigation concerning Billy Broussard or any of his legal entities, provided that it will be admissible only in any appeals of the decision on the Petition for Zoning Change.
The Petition for Zoning Change asks that we enter the current zoning of the property. We dispute that the property is zoned as R-2; however, it has been represented to us in your petition that the property is zoned R-2. Filling in this blank on the Petition for Zoning Change as R-2 shall not be an admission that the property is zoned R-2 and shall not be admissible in any litigation concerning Billy Broussard or any of his legal entities.
The Petition for Zoning Change asks that we enter the requested zoning change. We dispute that any zoning change is needed for Billy Broussard or his legal entities to conduct their current activities on the property; however, SMPG has alleged Billy Broussard and his legal entities are in violation of the current zoning. Filing in this blank on the Petition for Zoning Change shall not be an admission that the property needs to be rezoned as requested in order for Billy Broussard or any of his legal entities to conduct their current activities on the property and shall not be admissible in any litigation concerning Billy Broussard or any of his legal entities.
Please let me know if you can agree to the above.
Thanks.
Michael Adley
So, if we were “attorney for a day,” we would first seek from the judge a Motion to Strike every single word of Durio’s petition which references the zoning variance request from his SMGP petition as it should never have been in the suit to begin with! Durio was well aware of that fact, yet he chose to place it in SMPG’s March 3, 2022 TRO petition!
Let’s get specific on just what all we’re talking about that we would move for the judge to strike from Durio’s petition:
On or about October 4, 2021, Defendant, BILLY BROUSSARD, then formally requested a zoning change before the St. Martin Parish Zoning Commission.
The request for a zoning change was heard before the St. Martin Parish Zoning Commission on January 6, 2022.
The St. Martin Parish Zoning Commission denied Defendant’s request for zoning change.
On March 2, 2022, the St. Martin Parish Council adopted the recommendation of the St. Martin Parish Zoning Commission thereby formally rejecting the request of the Defendant.
Trust us, Broussard has been keenly aware of that agreement Adley shrewdly negotiated above, and he has made triple-dog sure that Duhon-Moore is keenly aware of it as well!
Who knows? Durio may have at last come to that realization as it appears SMPG may be likely to downplay any zoning violation on the part of Broussard (notwithstanding the emphasis within Durio’s TRO request that Broussard is in violation of zoning and his activities are “Stickley prohibited.”)
Instead, SMPG just may be opting to lean much more heavily on that patently-absurd Ordinance (Adley’s Pre-Trial Memorandum certainly dealt with its shortcomings) which SMPG President Chester Cedars crammed down the Council’s throat for what increasingly looks like a concerted effort to assist an unnamed competitor of Broussard’s by shutting down Broussard’s ability to haul in vegetive materials to his 33-acre site. We’ve said on a previous feature that was the absolute worst look of all entailing Cedar’s 19-minute tirade against Broussard on August 3, 2021.
In fact, let’s spend a grand total of 33 seconds examining Cedars reference to a Broussard competitor and how joyful that competitor was described by Cedars as being as a result of Cedars’ ordinance:
August 3, 2021 SMPG Meeting: SMPG President Chester Cedars states his conversations with a direct Broussard competitor who indicated to Cedars he was “all for this ordinance, by the way.”
Beyond that horrendously-bad look this gives that a Parish President would seek the blessing of a Broussard competitor regarding this ordinance, we draw attention to the fact that Cedars adds the words “to burn” in referencing Broussard’s competitor! Broussard has stressed ad nauseum that he has never had any intention of burning (which is why Adley had no qualms agreeing to that stipulation in the agreement we’re about to reference below)! Broussard, therefore, is in no need of a DEQ Burn Permit for hauling in vegetative materials on his 33-acre site! As Cedars would add to the end of that sentence, “Period!”
What’s really interesting now is that all of SMPG’s star witnesses (with the possible exception of LSP Trooper Scott Lopez, and we’re not even sure anymore of how much of a “star” he may still be) suddenly have “conflicts” which will preclude their testimonies at the May 3, 2022 hearing.
We really don’t feel a need to rehash all the credibility problems inherent with Blake Dubroc, who operates a used-car lot immediately next to Broussard’s property, but it seems he won’t be present for the court hearing due to scheduling a “major” event on the exact date of the hearing! Imagine that!
Likewise, Calder “Pop” Hebert, SMPG’s Director of Administration and a key player entailing text exchanges between Lopez and himself, suddenly has urgent business to attend to in New York! We guess he figures that if he can, “make it there, he’ll make it anywhere,” and so he’s heading on up for “New York, New York!”
Let us not forget while Hebert enjoys New York, however, that it was he who allegedly was simultaneously telling Broussard and his attorney that the zoning variance would be “no problem,” yet he was encouraging LSP Trooper Lopez to continue gathering photographs and texting them to him so that he could continue to “add them to the file.” We’ll point out the fact that those texts and photos continued after the all-important September 14, 2021 date which we’re about to illustrate the significance of at this time.
Apparently, Hebert never saw fit to inform Lopez that another stipulation of the “compromise agreement” reached on September 14, 2021 was that Broussard could resume ALL of his previous hauling operations. Heck, let’s take a look at that stipulation (again, the red is our own emphasis):
SMPG agrees to the below terms assuming that you and your agree that the continuing of the hearing to allow for Mr. Broussard to apply with planning and zoning it also not an admission or admissible should more ligation occur and it is not valid.
Also, no burning of vegetation will take place on the premises pending the application process.
I just gave you a call. I spoke with Billy and we are able to come to an agreement. To confirm our telephone conversation:
The parties will agree to continue the hearing on the preliminary injunction. You will advise the Court the preliminary injunction has been continued.
St. Martin Parish Government will arrange a meeting tomorrow, September 14, 2021, at 1:00 with Calder Hebert (and any other appropriate authority for planning and zoning) for Billy Broussard to seek a zoning variance for the property. This meeting is an effort at compromise. It is not considered an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. It is not an admission that Billy Broussard or any of his legal entities are violating any purported zoning ordinances.
St. Martin Parish Government will allow the temporary restraining order to expire and will not seek to enjoin or interfere with Billy Broussard’s (or any of his legal entities) use of the property while he seeks a variance.
St. Martin Parish Government will dismiss the petition with prejudice if an acceptable variance is granted.
It would seem a real shame that Hebert never saw fit to alert Lopez of the above agreement, no? We have no doubt that Lopez may not be happy with that fact nor the fact that SMPG attorney Allan Durand never once interrupted Lopez during his January 6, 2022 performance to say something like, “Look, dude, we told him he could do all of this, so quit repeatedly saying that what he is doing is ‘illegal.'”
We can only state how we would feel about the apparent deafening silence on the part of Hebert and/or Durand and/or Cedars, but if we were in Lopez’s shoes, we can only say that we would not be very happy about that silence. Nevertheless, perhaps he was so mesmerized to be “working with parish officials” entailing shutting Broussard down that he’ll just let it all slide. After all, he’s indicated in the past that he likes to “politic.”
Irrespective of whether Lopez may be willing to let it all slide by or not, we’ll leave it for him to wonder why everyone has suddenly appeared to abandoned ship and left him as the front man not only at the January 6, 2022 Planning and Zoning meeting but also apparently at the May 3, 2022 court hearing. He just may find himself as lonely on that witness stand as the Maytag repair man!
Now, we’re not going to suggest to Duhon-Moore just what all exhibits she may wish to introduce at the court hearing (which is basically what Durio is seeking in his discovery request of April 22, 2022), but there’s an abundance of easily-referenced (and equally-easily-downloadable) texts, emails, etc., from all of our prior features on Broussard on this matter, so we’ll conclude this feature by merely consolidating all of the links in one place below to serve as an online “buffet table” of such material:
We’ll certainly let our subscribers and site visitors know how the court hearing on May 3, 2022 goes and certainly keep everyone abreast of any further developments on our LSP litigation referenced at the outset of this feature.
Addendum (May 17, 2022): The following two features entail the Preliminary Hearing’s results and a feature subsequent to that one focused on potential evidence fabrication on the part of LSP Trooper Scott Lopez:
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.
Louisiana Inspector General Stephen Street, Jr., who has recently been tasked with investigating the “sanitization” of LSP Lt. Col. Doug Cain’s phone.
In our eighth episode of our fascinating series of interviews with former Louisiana Alcohol and Tobacco Control (ATC) Commissioner, Murphy Painter, he rips to shreds Street’s testimony in Painter’s criminal trial.
Installment 8 of Sound Off Louisiana’s in-depth interviews with former Louisiana ATC Commissioner Murphy Painter.
Let’s focus in on just a small segment of Street’s transcript above to demonstrate just how aloof and detached Street portrayed himself when, as Painter said, it came time for Street to, “put up or shut up!”
[Defense attorney Michael Fawer posing the questions.]
Q. MR. STREET, INSTEAD OF SAYING “WE,” —
A. WHEN I SAY “WE,” I REFER TO MY OFFICE. I DID NOT PERSONALLY —
Q. WHO DID?
A. WAS I AWARE? I WAS AWARE THAT MEMBERS OF MY STAFF, WHICH WOULD START WITH SHANE EVANS, WHO WAS THE CASE AGENT, AND GREG PHARES, BUT I DON’T — THEY WOULD BE THE BETTER SOURCES OF ACTUALLY WHO TALKED TO WHO AND SAID WHAT AT WHAT TIME.
Q. TO SECURE THE BUILDING?
A. TO SECURE MR. PAINTER’S OFFICE IN PARTICULAR WITHIN THE ATC BUILDING.
Q. AND WHEN YOU SAY “SECURE IT,” JUST WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A. WELL, I BELIEVE — MY RECOLLECTION IS — AND THIS WOULD — AGAIN, THE QUESTION SHOULD BE POSED TO THE FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY DID THIS.
Q. NO, I’M ASKING YOU.
Q. MORE PRACTICAL PURPOSES, JUST THE OPPOSITE?
A. I TOLD THEM TO SECURE THE — I DIDN’T TELL THEM NOT TO. I SAID, GO SECURE THE PREMISES.
Q. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU?
A. TO SECURE THE PREMISES MEANS TO SECURE THE PREMISES.
Q. WHEN DID YOU LEARN THAT IT HAD BEEN — WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT RATHER THAN SECURE THE PREMISES AND LEAVING EVERYTHING INTACT, THAT THE COMPUTER WAS REMOVED FROM THOSE PREMISES?
A. I DO NOT RECALL, SIR. I DON’T RECALL IT BEING THAT NIGHT. I DON’T RECALL — THOSE QUESTIONS WOULD BE BETTER —
Q. DO YOU KNOW —
A. — POSED TO MY STAFF.
Q. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE COMPUTER WAS TAKEN TO?
A. NO, SIR, I DO NOT. I DO NOT RECALL PERSONALLY WHERE IT WAS TAKEN TO. I AM ASSUMING THAT IT WAS SECURED WITH THE EVIDENCE IN OUR OFFICE — IN OUR INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN ON — AT THE TIME ON THIRD STREET IN DOWNTOWN BATON ROUGE.
Q. RIGHT.
A. BUT, AGAIN, THAT QUESTION IS BETTER POSED TO THE FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY DID THAT.
Q. OKAY. AND BY THE WAY, DO YOU KNOW WHO TOOK THE COMPUTER?
A. FROM PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, NO, SIR. I’M AWARE THAT SHANE EVANS, MY CASE AGENT, WAS THE ONE WHO SEIZED IT BUT THAT, AGAIN, THAT QUESTION WOULD BE BETTER POSED TO THE FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY EXECUTED THE SEARCH WARRANT.
Q. DID YOU HAVE — DID YOU PLAY ANY ROLE IN
THE PREPARATION OR THE SECURING OF THE SEARCH WARRANT?
A. NO, SIR.
Q. IF YOU’D LOOK AT THAT, IS IT FAIRLY CLEAR IN
PARAGRAPH — YOU CAN READ IT. THAT IT’S — ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY SHANE EVANS, IT’S AT THE — AT MR. PAINTER’S — STILL AT MR. PAINTER’S OFFICE, RIGHT?
A. THE WARRANT IS FOR MR. PAINTER’S OFFICE, YES, SIR.
Q. IS THE DELL COMPUTER LISTED AMONG THE THINGS THEY WISH TO SEIZE?
A. YES, SIR.
Q. THAT’S A LIE.
A. I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
Q. YOU DO? AND WHAT PART OF IT DO YOU DISAGREE WITH?
A. WELL, THAT THAT’S A LIE, NO, SIR.
Q. WELL, LET’S PUT IT THIS WAY. IF SOMEBODY SWORE THAT THE COMPUTER WAS AT THE PREMISES OF THE ATC COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE AND, IN FACT, HE KNEW IT WAS NOT, WOULD YOU DEEM THAT A LIE?
A. I — SIR, I’M NOT GOING TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS A LIE OR A MISTAKE OR ANYTHING ELSE, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I’M GOING TO REMIND YOU THAT I DO NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHERE THE COMPUTER WAS AT THE TIME OTHER THAN BEING INFORMED SO BY MY STAFF.
Q. I ACCEPT THAT.
A. SO I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE POSED TO THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY EXECUTED AND APPLIED FOR THE WARRANT.
Q. YOU TOOK ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT I CHARACTERIZED IT AS A LIE, BUT THAT’S ON THE PREMISE THAT IT WAS NOT THERE ANYMORE?
Q. THE JUDGE, NOT KNOWING THAT THAT’S A
MISREPRESENTATION, GIVES JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO SEIZE THE COMPUTER AT THAT LOCATION, CORRECT?
Q. I HADN’T ASKED YOU, BUT THIS — THE APPLICATION, WHICH WAS, I THINK, EXHIBIT 4 —
A. YES, SIR.
Q. — WAS SWORN TO UNDER OATH BY SHANE EVANS?
A. I BELIEVE THAT’S CORRECT, YES, SIR.
Q. — RETURN ON THE SEARCH WARRANT, CLAIMING THAT THE COMPUTER WAS FOUND AT THE ADDRESS IT WAS NOT LOCATED AT, RIGHT?
A. UH-HUH.
Q. ONCE AGAIN, THAT RETURN PREPARED BY THE SAME MEMBER OF YOUR STAFF, SHANE EVANS?
A. THAT’S CORRECT.
Q. IF ANYONE KNEW — IS IT FAIR TO SAY, MR. STREET, IF ANYONE KNEW WHAT THE TRUTH WAS, IT WAS SHANE EVANS?
A. THAT’S CORRECT, SIR.
Q. YET HE REPRESENTED ON THE APPLICATION AND ON THE RETURN THAT — THAT THE COMPUTER WAS ON THE PREMISES AND THAT IT HAD BEEN FOUND ON THE PREMISES? TWO LIES, RIGHT? WELL, YOU WOULDN’T CALL THEM LIES?
A. I’M NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION. I THINK THAT QUESTION SHOULD BE POSED TO —
Q. I’M POSING IT TO YOU.
A. WELL, I’M NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
[Assistant U. S. Attorney Patricia Jones posing the questions.]
Q. DID MR. PAINTER EVER COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH COUNSEL, TO REQUEST THAT THE RESPONSE BE WITHDRAWN, AMENDED, CORRECTED, SUPPLEMENTED, OR REDACTED IN ANY WAY?
A. NO, MA’AM.
AND TO FURTHER CLARIFY, AT SOME POINT, AND I’M NOT SURE OF THE EXACT DATE, MR. PAINTER WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTED BY THE BREAZEALE SACHSE FIRM, AND HE CONTINUED TO SUBMIT PUBLIC RECORDS’ REQUESTS TO OUR OFFICE, WHICH WE RESPONDED TO. WE ALWAYS SENT SOMETHING IN WRITING TO HIM.
Q. SO HE DID THAT DIRECTLY WITHOUT COUNSEL?
A. DIRECTLY WITHOUT COUNSEL, YES, MA’AM. BUT AT NO POINT WERE WE EVER ASKED TO AMEND THE RESPONSE, OR WAS THERE NEVER ANY SORT OF REQUEST TO WITHDRAW OR AMEND IT AT ANY POINT OF TIME, EVEN TO THIS DAY.
Now, at the 13:20 mark of the above video, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns references directly confronting Stephen Street, Jr., on the whole issue of his independence. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane (January, 2017) and view that little interaction between Street and Burns, shall we?:
Street, clearly uncomfortable with one-on-one questions from reporters, gets downright flippant with Burns regarding his question on the organization chart of other IG offices across the nation.
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.
