Sound Off Louisiana

BRPD spokesman L’Jean McKneely, Jr.

In the most recent campaign for Mayor-President of East Baton Rouge Parish, both finalists, Democratic incumbent Sharon Weston Broome and Republican challenger Steve Carter, readily acknowledged that Baton Rouge has a very serious problem entailing crime.  They differed only upon the root cause of that crime problem with Broome blaming Covid-19 and stating other areas are experiencing similar crime problems as a result of the pandemic, while Carter indicated the city suffers from low police officer morale and inadequate pay for the city’s police officers.

During recent contract negotiations between the Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD) union and the Broome administration, the union opted to purchase billboard ads which officials within the Broome administration, most notably BRPD Chief Murphy Paul, viewed with disdain.

Those billboards were the subject of an interview that police officer union representative Siya Creel conducted with blogger (and former renowned WAFB – Channel 9 in Baton Rouge – investigative reporter) Kiran Chawla.  Let’s take just a few short minutes to view the interview between Creel and Chawla:

Kiran Chawla’s July 15, 2020 interview with BRPD union representative Siya Creel regarding billboard ads taken out by the union during contract negotiations with the Broome administration.

It is abundantly apparent, at least judging by this December 5, 2020 lawsuit filed by Creel against the BRPD and Paul individually, that the billboards touched a nerve with Paul.  From the lawsuit:

On August 13, 2020, Mr. Creel, as Vice President of the Union, personally met with the defendant, through Mayor Weston Broome to further the Union negotiations with the defendant. The parties were unable to agree on salient terms, including pay increases for officers, promotions, and disciplinary matters. However, immediately prior to the last meeting between defendant and Mr. Creel, defendant notified Mr. Creel that he was required to attend a meeting with BRPD Internal Affairs to discuss a potential disciplinary matter, the substance of which defendant refused to then inform Mr. Creel. Mr. Creel, who had never been the subject of any Internal Affairs investigation or disciplinary matter was immediately concerned the sudden notification of an IA interview was designed to chill Mr. Creel’s speech in his capacity as Union Vice President and to illegally interfere with the contract negotiations.

Mr. Creel was advised he was being investigated for Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, Unauthorized Statements, and alleged violation of the “Social Media Policy.”

He was being investigated as a result of an interview Mr. Creel gave regarding the Union activities, including the Union’s placement of billboards in the City of Baton Rouge and an interview Mr. Creel, in his capacity as Vice President of the Baton Rouge Union of Police, gave to reporter and media blogger Kiran Chawla for her public information blog posted on YouTube and Facebook regarding the Union’s activities, including the creation and posting of the billboards.

During the IA interview, Mr. Creel correctly refused to answer questions relating to his and the Union’s activities at which time he was specifically threatened by defendant that his refusal to answer those questions regarding his Union participation and the activities of the Union were grounds for disciplinary action, including termination. Following the IA interview, counsel for Mr. Creel sent the attached email to the defendant formally protesting the repeated inquiries into Union activities and, further, that the IA interview interfered with Mr. Creel’s rights under the United States and Louisiana Constitutions as it related to his free speech and association, and likely constituted a violation of Federal and Louisiana labor laws.

On November 12, 2020, Petitioner attended a predisciplinary “hearing.”……..Petitioner specifically advised the defendants he had requested use of his sick and annual leave starting the following Monday, November 16, 2020, to undergo intensive chemotherapy and radiation therapy as all prior attempts at cancer treatment had been proving ineffective.

Defendants then pronounced Petitioner “guilty” of allegedly violating the BRPD “media policy” because Petitioner gave the interview to media regarding union activities and, specifically,
the union placement of the billboards, conduct unbecoming an officer presumably for the same reason, and violating orders also presumably for the same reason.

Petitioner advised defendants, through Internal Affairs Investigator Angelloz that he could not talk right then as he was receiving his chemotherapy and directed them to his counsel. In the interim, Petitioner’s counsel sent a letter to defendant Paul on November 17, 2020, by fax, again requesting accommodation for his disability with cancer, including that defendants leave Petitioner alone so he can receive the life-saving treatment.

During the week of November 17, 2020, the Union bought and began displaying another round of billboards. The latest such billboard questioned the leadership of the BR.PD and Petitioner
contends it is now an additional reason for the escalation of harassment and threats directed toward him designed to silence and/or chill the free speech rights of Petitioner and the union.

On December 1, 2020, Petitioner attempted to return to work from his sick leave, having never received any written notice of administrative leave or further directives. Shortly after his
arrival at work, defendants, through Internal Affairs officer Orscini Beard approached Petitioner, removed from Petitioner all of his BRPD-issued equipment and handed Petitioner a back-dated, clearly altered, whited-out, and nonsensical notice of administrative 1eave purportedly bearing the date of November 17, 2020.

This time when Petitioner asked defendants why he was on administrative leave, defendants told Petitioner it was because he had shown up at work on December 1, 2020. In other
words, defendants were purporting to place Petitioner on administrative leave effective November 17, 2020, for Petitioner’s prospective return to work on December 1, 2020. A copy of the backdated, altered notice is attached hereto and made part hereof.

Petitioner also shows that the Baton Rouge Union of Police President is also facing “charges” by these defendants for the purported reason that he, along with Petitioner and the Union
leadership, did not attend a meeting with defendant Paul to discuss union activities. As with Petitioner, the Union President, having been adjudged “guilty” by defendant Paul, has yet to be told what his “punishment” will be.

Petitioners submits that defendants’ actions set forth herein, specifically including inquiring into and proposing to punish Mr. Creel for Mr. Creel’s Union activities and those of the Union, violate his clearly established rights of Free Speech and Association under the I st Amendment to the United States Constitution, La. Const. Art. 1, Section 7 (Freedom of  Expression) and Section 9 (Right of Assembly and Petition).

As is evidenced by the final page of the linked lawsuit above, service was perfected on December 10, 2020.  Five days later, on December 15, 2020, Paul fired Creel.  Here’s WAFB’s feature entailing Creel’s firing:

12/15/20 airing of WAFB’s feature entailing Creel’s firing.

Reaction to Creel’s firing was quick and swift on a number of fronts.  First, let’s view WAFB’s follow-up feature of 12/16/20:

WAFB’s follow-up feature of 12/16/20 entailing blowback after Creel’s firing by BRPD Chief Murphy Paul.

Meanwhile, Chawla has not been shy on words as clearly depicted on her Facebook posts on the whole incident, to wit:

WOW

I’ve kept my mouth shut for so very long but enough is enough. The officer who interviewed with me on the informational billboards in Baton Rouge was just fired today for that very interview.

You may remember the interview from my YouTube channel in July 2020 where Officer Siya Creel stepped up on behalf of the members of the police union to warn the public about the increase in violent crime in Baton Rouge. He was off-duty when he did that interview but within the city limits of Baton Rouge when he spoke in his capacity as the vice president of the union. BRPD’s own policy says if you’re off-duty but within city limits, you are to carry your gun on you. (They did investigate him for wearing his gun and badge during the interview).

Since then, the department launched an internal affairs investigation into Officer Creel for that interview. Fast forward to today. The dept. fired him over it. His termination paperwork has our interview all over it. In my career, I have interviewed God knows how many union leaders both on and off the clock, in uniform, in plain clothes, with guns on or without a gun. Not once in the history of the Baton Rouge Union of Police has an executive member been disciplined for speaking to the media on behalf of its membership or the public even if it was adversarial to the sitting police chief. In fact, take a look at the pictures. One is the previous union president Bryan Taylor where that interview made air while he’s in uniform with a gun on. How is that any different that Creel interviewing? The difference is the police chief. This chief fired Creel to send a clear message — go against him and this is your fate.

When I did that piece in July, I reached out to the police department and the mayor’s office for a response. I never got a call back from the police department but the mayor’s public information officer sure did send me a very long text message saying I was not media and that the mayor only did interviews with the media. So if the mayor says I’m not media, but her police chief fired an officer for speaking with the media, are you as confused as me? What did Officer Creel just get fired for then? He wasn’t fired for being a bad cop. He was fired for speaking up.

I haven’t aired out any dirty laundry of what all happened but I will say I’ve been told to stop digging or reporting in Baton Rouge per my non-compete on my contract. So I can’t dig and put the facts out there or I’ll be sued, but where are the people whose job is to do exactly that? Stop being scared of this administration and do the public the service of putting the truth out there, the truth of what’s really happening behind the scenes since you won’t let me do it. After all, who are you working for?

I’ll finish off by saying Officer Creel has been battling cancer for some time now and has been going through chemo. The department knew this and continuously added stress on his plate over that one interview for the past several months before ultimately firing him one week before Christmas. He has a wife and kids to support and still has to continue his chemo treatments. It’s why a GoFundMe has been set up for Officer Creel. https://gf.me/u/zcviqc

Keep digging yourselves into a deeper hole BRPD….there’s really no coming back from what you have done but good try.

“Social media policy is where the violation occurred,” said BRPD Sgt. L’Jean McKneely. “I’m not sure there was a social media policy in place at the time of those other union members when they did the interviews with tv. Now this interview was in a blog which put it in a different perspective and was placed on social media and not up for review through the normal channels that it would’ve possibly gone through.”

Guess the chief chose not to interview. I posted my piece to YouTube, I did, NOT Siya Creel but somehow BRPD is claiming they fired him for a social media violation that his interview was on social media and not tv. Ummmm every tv interview ends up online and eventually posted to social media. Seriously? Union executive members have never needed permission from the chief to speak to media. They’re independent of the department. Then to go further and say it’ll always be enforced? You want me to spell out for you when it’ll actually be enforced and when it won’t? Say the truth: You didn’t like him speaking to the person who called you out repeatedly on your double standards for discipline for officers, you know the same person you said had to apologize to you in order for you to interview with me. Making up the rules and making up policies as you go just because you got hurt is no way to run a police department.

Baton Rouge radio talk-show host and President of the Baton Rouge Press Club, Jim Engster.

Yesterday (November 30, 2020), the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC) hosted a forum for the two finalists seeking to be East Baton Rouge Parish’s Mayor-President for the next four years.  The two finalists are incumbent Sharon Weston-Broome (D) and challenger and former three-term State Representative Steve Carter (R).

We seriously considered passing on yesterday’s forum, but we decided that, since it was transpiring literally just down the street from Sound Off Louisiana’s founder Robert Burns’ home, we decided, “Why not?”

We’re glad we did if for no other reason we believe we can save our subscribers some money from not having to purchase over-the-counter medications to assist in falling asleep on any given sleepless night.  All anyone has to do to cure such insomnia is to play yesterday’s forum on his or her iPhone, and sleep should ensue within 10 minutes or less.  It was literally THAT bad, folks!

We believe that a good portion of that boredom can be attributed to forum moderator Jim Engster, who has served as the President of the BRPC since its prior President, Elizabeth Crisp, whom The Advocate relocated to Washington to be its Washington correspondent and who subsequently became a Washington correspondent for Newsweek, resigned.

BRPC Treasurer Linda Benedict called Engster two minutes before the forum was to begin ensuring he would be there.  Notwithstanding the fact that the email promoting the forum could not have possibly been clearer on when and where the forum was transpiring, Benedict had to reinforce the fact that, “It’s in the same place as the prior forum:  outside under the pavilion.”

What became obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells as the forum progressed was that, notwithstanding Engster’s asking for other reporters and/or members to “please stand up” to pose a question, Engster did his dead-level best to run out the clock to where no such questions could be posed by anyone other than him.

Now, make no mistake, the tactic to attempt to run out the clock was just fine by us as we had zero intention of posing a question.  That fact notwithstanding, we know for certainty that one gentleman, Coleman Brown, was there in the hope to pose one or more questions about his proposal to potentially save taxpayers a ton of money on his I-10 project.  In our opinion, he had every right to expect to be able to pose any such question(s).

Regrettably, Brown would get no such opportunity because, as will be obvious from the video we’re about to present of the forum in its entirety, Engster literally turned the floor over to others for questions with, by his own admission, “a couple of minutes left before closing by the candidates.”

We firmly believe the BRPC and any public member at large choosing to attend (which now is becoming less and less of an occurrence) would have been better served by allowing a question such as Brown would have posed versus Engster’s time-worn, programmed-robotic style of posing such hot-button questions as, “For whom did you vote for Governor last year, and for President this year?”

Perhaps Carter’s most shining moment in the forum was when he looked to Broome and indicated that Engster has a history of posing that question (we told everyone, it’s a time-worn, programmed-robotic style and content when Engster serves as Moderator), and that his response then, as it is now, is, “That’s why we have curtains.”  Broome indicated concurrence by stating, “That’s right!”  Nevertheless, both Carter and Broome accommodated Engster’s question with the literally earth-shattering revelations that Broome voted for Gov. John Bel Edwards and President-Elect Joe Biden, while Cater revealed that he supported Eddie Rispone and, “The only candidate in the race, in my estimation, and I know you (Engster) voted for Biden, and I voted for Trump.”

We think it’s pretty bad when even the candidates have to try to gently let Engster know that many of his questions are simply repetitive, boring, time-worn, and programmed.  In fact, Broome obviously has become so tired of fielding such questions that, on several questions where Carter had to respond first, Broome then politely inquired, “What was the question again, Jim?”  Does that indicate what a lasting impact Engster’s questions have on the candidates’ attention span, or what?  We don’t fault Broome for having to ask for a repeat of the question on occasion because they sometimes have little or no substance whatsoever and, being blunt, we think that was by design.

With that out of the way, here is a video of the forum in its entirety, and we’re going to try and aid our subscribers by indicating the points in the video to go to if there’s a desire to see a specific response to a question because, as we indicated at the outset, the only purpose attempting to listen to the following video in its entirety can serve is a quick and guaranteed fall-asleep remedy at bedtime for anyone suffering from insomnia!

Breakdown of 11/30/20 EBRP Mayoral Forum Segments:

1:01 – Broome opening.

3:14 – Carter opening.

5:43 -Carter’s “softball” question to Broome (VERY poorly delivered as he struggled to merely read) – “How do you still consider yourself the ‘unity candidate’?”

7:35 – Broome’s question to Carter – “What have you done to address those citizens with concerns about disinvestment specifically in North Baton Rouge?

9:39 – Engster 1 – “What is the chief distinction between you and your opponent?”

12:16 – Engster 2 – “What has been your greatest professional setback as a public official and how did you address it?”

15:07 – Engster 3 – “What do you see as the biggest reason for the increase in crime in this community in the last year in particular?” [As if on cue, police sirens began sounding almost immediately after Engster posed the question!!]

18:00 – Engster 4 – “What is the biggest reason for the division that we’re facing now?”

20:45 – Engster 5 – “Who are some of the people you will have in high places in your administration?”

23:32 – Engster 6 – “What is your perception of the performance of Baton Rouge Chief of Police, Murphy Paul?”

26:26 – Engster 7 – “What will you do to address public education in this community?” [Last we checked, it’s the School Board and Superintendent who can influence that!!]

29:42 – Engster 8 – “Are we headed in the right direction on transportation?”

32:47 – Engster 9 – “What will you do to bring people of all backgrounds (race) together?”

35:39 – Engster 10 – “Should we remove all names of Confederate icons from public streets?”

38:03 – Engster 11 – (This is when it became obvious his intent to drain the clock no near zero) – “For whom did you vote for Governor last year and for President this year?”

39:38 – Engster 12 (Engster’s having to “reach” now to try to run that clock out) – NOT verbatim question “Why do you belong to the political party to which you belong?”

42:28 – Engster 13 – “What will you do to stimulate economic growth in our Parish?”

45:30 – Engster 14 (and he indicates this is the last question before final statements) – “What is your opponent’s biggest strength and weakness?”

47:24 (after stating there are “a few minutes left” – Advocate reporter) – not verbatim – “How do you assess drainage now vs. four years ago?”

50:09 – Channel 2’s Chris Nakamoto – “Will you commit to debate on WBRZ between now and the election?” (Carter’s son was diagnosed with COVID causing a WBRZ debate two weeks ago to be cancelled and Nakamoto indicated WBRZ management has stated that the interest on the parts of the candidates to reschedule has been “lukewarm”).

52:14 – LPB’s Beth Courtney (as reiterated by Engster due to loud winds and inability for most attendees to hear) – “Why is it better to live in Baton Rouge rather than New Orleans?”

56:42 – Carter close.

59:07 – Broome close.

Anybody feel like just rushing to the BRPC’s website and completing a membership application?

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 State Police Commission Member Brian Crawford.

When we published this feature entailing former LSP Col. Kevin Reeves’ granting of pay raises to his inner circle of cronies (including himself), we largely passed over emails we’d received from LSP regarding pilots in the Air Support Unit of LSP receiving pay raises.  Here’s all we said entailing those pilot pay raises:

The remainder of the response to our public records request deals with pay adjustments for pilots which we believe we recall being discussed by the LSPC together with a few emails entailing adjusting those salaries.

Once we posted this feature entailing Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s written commitment to pursue felony charges against LSP Air Support Pilot Michael Satcher II regarding the domestic abuse charges he faces in Rapides Parish, we got the attention of some folk with integral knowledge of LSP’s Air Support Unit.  Those individuals, with whom we’ve now engaged in extensive correspondence, expressed “elation” that all of the “corruption” at the LSP Air Support Unit is finally being exposed.

[Sidebar:  Our most-recent feature (prior to this one) revealed the fact that, despite Satcher’s arrest on October 12, 2019, LSP only got around to initiating an administrative investigation the week our feature was published.]

When we made public our request for documents pertaining to LSP Air Support promotion practices, that’s when the proverbial floodgates opened wide!  Let’s take a moment to revisit one very specific item we requested of LSP:

• Any and all documentation pertaining any efforts underway for Steven Lee to hire any civilian pilot onto LSP’s payroll along with any documentation that substantiates the fact that an LSP Pilot must have served as an LSP Trooper for three (3) years prior to being eligible for a pilot’s position within LSP;

As one might imagine, we didn’t just fall out of bed and say, “let’s ask for this just for the heck of it.”  We have now received a plethora of material from individuals who clearly have very integral knowledge and details of the operations of LSP’s Air Support Unit.

Those individuals have also alleged that LSP has been actively seeking to hire a private pilot in apparent direct violation of LSP policy as reflected in our request above.

Our sources indicate that they do not know at this juncture whether the individual has actually been hired or is in the final stages of being hired.  Furthermore, since we’re awaiting responses to our public records request above, we’re going to refrain from referencing the individual’s name even though we have been provided with his name and his prior place of employment until his recent retirement from that entity.

As mentioned above, we said we “believe we recalled” the pilot salary increases being discussed by the LSPC.  We found the act of trying to find that discussion, however, much like searching for a needle in a haystack.  That’s when a retired LSP Trooper (and perhaps most prominent LSP watchdog), Leon “Bucky” Millet, volunteered to help.  Just as an aside, it was Millet whom former LSPC contract attorney T. Taylor Townsend is said to have stated to one LSPC member upon Millet’s first attending an LSPC meeting, “Don’t worry….its been my experience that people like him typically show up at one meeting and then you never see them again.”  Boy, did Townsend ever call that one dead wrong, or what?

Right off the bat, Millet said that he certainly recalled being present when the matter was discussed, which meant it had to be pre-COVID.  That’s because Millet hasn’t attended a meeting since the pandemic broke but is anxious for its conclusion so he can resume attending.  He therefore committed that he would do the research to find the meeting at which the discussion transpired.  True to his word (which we’ve found to always be the case entailing Millet), he called us about an hour later and said, “It was the November 8, 2018 meeting.”  Sound Off’s Burns responded to Milket with, “Thanks.  I’ll take it from there!”

First, from the agenda for that meeting:

3. Request of the Department of Public Safety, Office of State Police, for one (1) unclassified Command Pilot position, in accordance with State Police Commission Rule 4.1(d)2, effective November 8, 2018. (Representative from the agency to be available to answer any question for the Commission.)
4. Request from the Department of Public Safety, Office of State Police, to edit the job specifications for Pilot, Senior Pilot, and Master Pilot to reflect the change in reporting relationships as well as edit the minimum qualification requirements for the
Pilot series, effective November 8, 2018. (Representative from the agency to be available to answer any question for the Commission.)

We draw our subscribers’ attention to the parenthetical disclosures above entailing an LSP Representative being available from the agency to answer LSPC members’ questions.  One individual present was Steven Lee, who, at least on paper (there’s a reason we’re saying that which will likely be fully exposed in a subsequent feature as we’re conducting a very thorough investigative series on the Air Support Unit of LSP), heads the LSP Air Support Unit.  Lee was accompanied by Mark Morrison.  LSPC Commission member Brian Crawford asked a very specific question regarding whether the requested position outlined in agenda item # 3 above would be filled from within or by someone outside of LSP.  Let’s take a look at Crawford posing that question and Morrison’s response, shall we?

Mark Morrison responds to LSPC Member Brian Crawford’s inquiry of whether the requested pilot position will be filled from within LSP ranks or whether someone from outside the agency will fill the position.

In our opinion (and we think any objective person would agree), Morrison’s response can only be interpreted to mean that all pilot positions are filled from within LSP ranks since he indicates that “first and foremost” the criterion for hiring pilots is that the applicant be a trooper.   He also reinforces that policy by stating that, “being a Trooper is the bond that links all of us together.”  Morrison also voluntarily adds that another commonality shared by LSP Air Support pilots is that, “We all started at Troop A.”

With that being the case, it will sure make the response to our public records request item above interesting.  If that response comes back as so many sources have now indicated to us that it will (that active efforts have been initiated and are very far along if not at full fruition to hire a private pilot for a current opening), it will certainly be interesting for someone from the Air Support Unit to explain.  After all, the statement was made to the LSPC on November 8, 2018, and it would beg the question as to why two years later there is an apparent effort to defy what was specifically stated to be LSP Policy to Crawford and the other members upon Crawford asking the question.

We’ll now direct everyone’s attention to item number four taken from that November 8, 2018 agenda.  Let’s take a look at what many of our sources entailing LSP Air Support’s operations have classified as nothing short of a “con job” perpetrated on the LSPC.  Let’s examine that segment of discussions on that matter now, shall we?:

Morrison explains the rationale behind the request of the LSPC entailing item # 4 dealing with lowering the number of flight hours required for pilot promotions.

One of our sources with integral knowledge of LSP Air Support operations stated to us:  “Air support has long history of hiring ‘good ole boys’ not most qualified.  This is a safety concern to everyone especially LSP personnel and the Governor and staff who flies frequently.”

Our sources have indicated that, contrary to what Morrison stated above, the motivation behind passing over pilots with more hours of flight time in order to promote pilots with fewer hours (which Morrison conveniently never even mentioned would be a consequence of the requested LSPC “edit,”) is because the real reason for the edit to lower the hours was to enable the promotion of pilots with close ties to LSP Air Support’s top brass.   Prior to the requested “edit,” the ability to make such promotions was hampered due to the extensive focus on flight hours as the dominant factor for obtaining such promotions.

Our public records request linked above, when combined with a supplemental request which we’ll link shortly, should shed light on the degree to which such promotions were awarded to pilots with fewer flight hours over other candidates posting for the same opening who had more flight hours.  Since the “edit” became effective November 8, 2018, it will be interesting to see if any trend started shortly thereafter.

Also, at the 1:55 mark of the preceding video, Morrison draws attention to the fact that LSP has a “diverse set of aircraft.”  We’re curious to know whether that “diverse set of aircraft” includes fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft.  Accordingly, we made a public records request of LSP seeking evidence that LSP presently has or has ever been in possession of any fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft.  We also asked to see invoices that LSP paid for any of its pilots’ tuition to attend school(s) for courses offering fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft certification.

We’ll report on our findings of whether LSP has possession of (or has ever had possession of) such fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft.  We’ll also reveal whether any pilots had their school tuition paid by LSP to obtain training and certification on aircraft that are actually not a part of that “diverse set of aircraft” (i.e. fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft).  The results should be interesting, at least based on what our sources have indicated to us should be the results of our public records request.

As we conclude this feature, we feel compelled to point out an error we made on the public records request we made public on one of the linked features above.  We apologized to LSP in making an amended and expanded public records request on November 16, 2020.  We’ll draw attention to our error now:

I supplied the name of Donnie Guidroz when the correct name should have been Donnie Guitreau.

We at Sound Off Louisiana are human, and we certainly regret the error, which was pointed out to us by yet another source with integral knowledge of LSP Air Support operations who was most gracious and professional in pointing out our above error to us.

It was also that individual who pointed out our error who prompted us to add an item on the amended and expanded request linked above, and we’ll also focus on that one other item we requested:

 Any documentation evidencing LSP Chief of Staff Doug Cain having a period of separation of service from LSP.

While that final item has no bearing on LSP Air Support Operations, we just decided we’d keep our subscribers informed by letting them know it has been requested.  Again, we’ll report on any findings we obtain in response to that requested item.

This is going to be the first of an as-yet-undermined number of investigative features drilling down deep into the operations of LSP’s Air Support Unit.  We appreciate all of our loyal subscribers taking the time to view and read our features, and we trust that you find them informative.

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.