Sound Off Louisiana

Farmer Billy Broussard reiterates to the St. Martin Parish Council at its meeting of Tuesday, September 7, 2021 that the minutes of the Council meeting of August 3, 2021 should not contain any statement that he is “burning.”

In our last feature, we exposed the fact that St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars barely let the ink get dry from him going on a 19-minute masterful performance to convince the St. Martin Parish Council (SMPC) to approve an ordinance to ban the importing of vegetative debris from other parishes into St. Martin Parish before he sued Broussard in 16th JDC.

While we strongly encouraged our subscribers and visitors to watch the video and form their own opinions, we refrained from making very much commentary on it.  At this time, we’re going to use two adjectives and one noun to make our characterization of Cedars on the video just linked:  pompous, arrogant, and prick.  We genuinely feel they’re all appropriate.

We also emphasized that Cedars is smart enough not to set himself personally up for a defamation suit by falsely asserting that farmer Billy Broussard is “burning;” however, as we emphasized, it appears that both The Daily Iberian and several Councilmembers were not as bright as Cedars.

In the preceding hit-piece feature by The Daily Iberian, on no less than four occasions in the same article did its author falsely accuse Broussard of “burning,” to include one blatantly-inaccurate quote of District 6 Councilman Brook Champagne.  The author of the feature, Dwayne Fatherree, touts beneath the article that he likes to “dig things up.”

Perhaps he may have done well to have taken the business card Broussard handed him at the conclusion of the meeting (which he did accept) and do as he (Broussard) invited him (Fatherree) to do and use the card to contact him if he had any questions.  That would have been a fantastic opportunity to ask Broussard to confirm that he’s been “burning” the vegetative debris he hauls in.  Had he made that simple phone call (that’s how we define “digging”), Broussard would have responded, just as he made CRYSTAL clear in the meeting, “No I have not and am not.”  Despite Fatherree’s purported propensity to “dig things up,” he didn’t even “dig” enough to make that simple phone call and inquiry!

It is any wonder that Councilmembers were under the false impression that Broussard had been burning after the piss-poor journalism skills Fatherree put out on full display?  After all, in our most-recent feature linked above, we stated that Council Chairman Chris Tauzin purportedly stated that the whole reason the Council sued Broussard is because he “would not stop burning!”  Let us emphasize that point-blank statement again.  Tauzin said the reason Broussard was sued is because he “would not stop burning!”

Since Tauzin likely read Fatherree’s article with the false and defamatory statements that Broussard has been “burning,” perhaps The Daily Iberian can be used to absolve those Councilmembers from any slander suit which may arise if they end up being sued as part of a libel suit against The Daily Iberian on the part of Broussard.  We want to again emphasize that Cedars was much more crafty to refrain from indicating Broussard has ever been “burning” (he knows he has not) in stressing that only, “two of the three complaints” he received during the week of June 15, 2021 entailed burning.  Cedars is not responsible for Mr. Fatherree’s gross failure to ascertain that Broussard was the one complained-of property which did NOT entail burning.  That obligation falls squarely on Fatherree, and he failed miserably at what should have been a very simple task of responsible journalism.

In this recent feature, we stated that, although it is a very rare occurrence, once in a blue moon Sound Off Louisiana‘s founder, Robert Burns, will choose to address a body he’s filming when he wants to make a point emphatically clear to everyone in the room.  Burns chose to do so at the SMPC meeting of Tuesday, September 7, 2021.  He spoke on the agenda item entailing approving of the minutes, and he admonished the Council that those minutes should most certainly NOT contain any reference to Broussard burning.  Broussard himself briefly addressed the Council immediately after Burns merely to reiterate what Burns had stated to them.  Let’s take a look:

9/7/21 SMPC meeting:  Burns stresses that the 8/3/21 minutes should NOT contain any reference to Broussard burning because, if they do, they are inaccurate and a Motion should be made to either amend the minutes or to defer approval until the next meeting.  Broussard takes a few seconds to reiterate Burns’ commentary to the Council.

Now, as we indicated above, Cedars barely let the ink get dry on the ordinance he persuaded the SMPC to approve before he sued Broussard in 16th JDC and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) effectively shutting down Broussard’s operations until a hearing on Tuesday, September 14, 2021 (next Tuesday) can be conducted for the purpose of converting the TRO to a Preliminary Injunction.

As our long-time subscribes are aware, Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns spends a TON of time in courtrooms.  In fact, Burns was even present for Cedars’ masterful performance before then-19th JDC Judge Todd Hernandez when he argued for Attorney General Jeff Landry (Cedars was formerly employed in Landry’s office before seeking to become St. Martin Parish’s President) regarding transgender bathrooms in Louisiana (in a direct challenge to Gov. John Bel Edwards).  Cedars’ performance was certainly admirable in that matter!

Having said that, we’ve read a ton of responsive pleadings and memoranda over our many years (both during the timeframe Burns served as a fraud investigator for the Federal government and thereafter), and it just may be that we’ve yet to read one wherein a defense attorney, in this case Broussard’s attorney Michael Adley, filed such as authoritative memorandum as this one which Adley filed yesterday (September 8, 2021) at 8:59 a.m.  We’ll admit that we were on the phone with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court’s Office anxiously awaiting the filing of the document and, once we were told it was up and available for download, we took out our one-day pass with that Clerk’s Office and downloaded the sucker!

It’s one heck of a read!  While we have observed over our long careers of observing courtroom proceedings that anything (and we do mean ANYTHING) can happen in a courtroom, just based on the filings alone for this suit, we certainly don’t envy Cedars or the SMPC’s attorney in having to pose oral arguments and carry out the trial of the matter for which they have sued Broussard.  Let’s highlight just a few of Adley’s arguments, shall we?:

Before Billy Broussard Farm and Land purchased the property it was overgrown and served as a haven for drug users. Drug abusers slept in tents spread out all across the property. The property was both an eyesore and a danger.

Neither Billy Broussard nor Billy Broussard Farm and Land are violating any purported zoning ordinances at 1675 Duchamp Road. Nonetheless, SMPG has been on a crusade to interfere with Billy Broussard’s use of 1675 Duchamp Road. SMPG claims 1675 Duchamp Road is zoned R-2 (Mixed Residential). Zone R-2 permits privately growing mushrooms as it allows private
recreational use, private gardens, and private nurseries. SMPG, however, continues to harass Billy Broussard with allegations that he is conducting impermissible commercial activities on the prope1ty.

Perhaps in recognition that privately growing mushrooms would not violate its purported zoning ordinance, SMPG recently passed Ordinance No. 21-08-1329-OR which appears to be targeting Billy Broussard and Billy Broussard Farm and Land. The ordinance prohibits Billy Broussard Billy Broussard Farm and Land from placing any tree or vegetative debris on his own property, regardless of the use, upon penalty of fine or imprisonment if the tree or vegetative debris did not originate on land owned by Billy Broussard or Billy Broussard Farm and Land. Other residents of St. Martin Parish who would be affected by this ordinance told Billy Broussard they were advised by local officials that the ordinance would not be enforced against them.

Upon inquiry with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court, however, no “Zoning District Identification File” or “Zoning District Map” exists in the Clerk of Courts office. Because zoning ordinances are “in derogation of an owner’s rights, ” courts have insisted on a level of formality in enacting zoning     ordinances……..Accordingly, courts have routinely invalidated/found unenforceable zoning
ordinances when the “zoning map” referenced in the ordinance is not on file, non-existent or unclear.

Here, just as in the foregoing, SMPG defined its zoning districts by reference to a zoning map. For its zoning ordinance to be effective/enforceable, SMPG was required to keep a copy of the official zoning map referred to in the ordinance on file with SMPG Clerk of Court. SMPG has not. Accordingly, its zoning is unconstitutional and unenforceable.

SMPG is well aware of this fatal flaw with their zoning ordinance. SPMG President Chester Cedars admitted he knew as early 2012 that the map and zoning file were not on file with the SMPG Clerk of Court as described in the zoning ordinance.  Moreover, this issue arose again, as recently as April 8, 2019, when SMPG tried and failed to use its invalid zoning ordinance to enjoin the operations of a local businessman. At the trial on the injunction, the SMPG Clerk of Court testified no “zoning map” was on file, but that mere days before the trial an “Official Road and Highways Map” was filed. There was no indication that this “Official Road and Highway Map” was the map referred to in the zoning ordinance.

As if this was not enough to demonstrate the ambiguity of the zoning ordinance, the attorney for SMPG represented to the court at the April 8, 2019 trial that the zoning ordinance only extends five hundred feet from the road in residential areas and that anything beyond five hundred has no zoning restrictions:

The Court:

Where’s the zoning map? Where’s the zones … ? What are the zones? To what extent does the zones extend?

SMPG:

It extends to both sides of the roads – –

The Court:

How far?

SMPG:

The zoning ordinance indicates, Your Honor, that it extends to five hundred feet of the road for industrial and residential. There’s no statement as to how far to the side of the road it extends for the W-1 and W-2 designations.

The Court:

So there’s some areas of the parish that are not zoned at all, according to your statements. If it only extends for five hundred feet from the road into a pasture that’s more than five hundred feet, there’s no zoning.

SMPG:

That would be correct, your Honor.

At the conclusion of the trial, the court ruled the zoning ordinance was void and ineffectual due to the aforementioned errors, stating:

The defendants have raised two exceptions to the zoning. Those are the vested rights and the zoning ordinance being void and ineffectual due to problems with the recordation and the adoption or notice provisions under the zoning ordinance.  The Court finds that both are applicable.

These same deficiencies still exist with the SMPG zoning ordinance. Recent inquiry with the SPMG Clerk of Court’s office confirmed the office still has no “Zoning District Identification File” or “Zoning District Map” on file as required by the zoning ordinance. Accordingly, the SMPG zoning ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous and cannot be enforced.

III. Ordinance No. 21-08-1329-OR Violates the Dormant Commerce Clause Under the “dormant Commerce Clause” protectionist legislation is per-se invalid. “The evil of protectionism can reside in legislative means as well as legislative ends.” A clear example of such legislation is “a law that overtly blocks the flow of interstate commerce at a State’s borders. ”  The prohibition applies to not only a State that tries to horde a resource or benefit, but also to the “attempt[s] by one State to isolate itself from a problem common to many be erecting a barrier against the movement of interstate trade. ”

Here, just like in the aforementioned cases, SMPG has attempted to block the flow of interstate commerce, apparently, to isolate itself from a problem common to many. The ordinance suggests the transportation, dumping, or burning of tree and vegetative debris is a threat to the safety, health and welfare of its citizens. Accordingly, it seeks to prohibit the transportation of any tree or vegetative debris from outside the parish for dumping or burning inside the parish. The ordinance makes an exception for transportation, dumping, and burning of trees or vegetative debris that originated inside the parish. At the August 3, 2021 St. Martin Parish Council meeting, Parish President Chester Cedars confirmed the protectionist motivations when defending the ordinance:

“It’s a crying shame we have to go to Court to keep somebody from burning something in a neighborhood after they transported from probably outside of this parish and from another location, really and truly. So I support this ordinance. I think it’s a good ordinance.”

The ordinance is undoubtedly protectionist in nature. It seeks to discriminate against tree and vegetative debris from outside the parish. Tree and vegetative debris are items of commerce.  Accordingly, the ordinance is invalid, per se. The Commerce Clause does not allow St. Martin Parish to “isolate itself from the national economy. ”

As written, a St. Martin Parish resident who mulches their garden with mulch purchased from Wal-Mart could be imprisoned for up to thirty days. So to could a St. Martin Parish resident who purchases brick pavers from “Mike Baker Brick” in Lafayette Parish in order to install a brick patio. Both would be transporting tree or building material generated outside the parish for deposit onto their property within the parish.  Such a vague and overly broad ordinance cannot be permitted. It will undoubtedly lead to discriminatory or arbitrary enforcement. In fact, upon information and belief, this was the very purpose- to create a vague ordinance that could be used to discriminate against Defendants.  Accordingly, for that reason, the ordinance must be invalidated.  Moreover, this ordinance is clearly arbitrary and not substantially related to public health,
safety, morals or general welfare. The ordinance permits a St. Martin Parish resident to burn tree and vegetative debris generated on their own land. The ordinance also permits a St. Martin Parish resident to transport tree or vegetative debris generated on their own property to other property they own for burning. Per this ordinance, Billy Broussard could burn every single tree on his 35-acre property, and it would not be a nuisance nor would it threaten the safety, morals or general welfare of the public; however, if Billy Broussard merely deposits (not burns) a single cut tree on his property in order to feed his mushrooms and that tree originated outside of his property, it is a nuisance and threat to the safety, morals or general welfare of the public. This is a completely arbitrary and unreasonable restriction. Thus, for that reason, as well, the ordinance must be invalidated.

So, here’s the bottom line as we see it!  SMPG President Chester Cedars conducted a fire and brimstone sermon (a necessary ingredient to any “crusade”), to the SMPC Members and easily bamboozled them (which some St. Martin Parish residents have told us is not hard to do).  Thereafter, like good little penguins, they all followed right after him into diving right into the freezing water by giving him the green light to sue Billy Broussard and thereby block (at least temporarily) his efforts to generate taxes for the SMPG coffers.

The big question is, if Cedars knew as far back as back as 2012 that the Zoning Ordinances were not on file with the St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court’s Office and would therefore be unenforceable as alleged in Adley’s memorandum, why did he charge head first after Broussard in the manner he did?

We believe the answer is simple and two-fold.  First, he felt Broussard would not be able to procure the services of an attorney because he wouldn’t have the resources to do so.  Further, he felt that, even if Broussard did have those resources, he would likely just hire some derelict attorney whom Cedars and his legal team could simply throttle in the same manner he easily and practically effortlessly throttled the SMPC.

In other words, Cedars simply “rolled the dice” with taxpayers’ money in pursuing what just may end up being one of the biggest, and certainly most visible, fiascos of his legal and political career.

If that turns out to be the case, it appears Cedars basically rolled snake eyes as Broussard has demonstrated that he does have the resources to fight Cedars in court and, further, he was sharp enough to use the same attorney who just emerged victorious over Cedars in a recently-concluded legal battle.

Near the end of Tuesday’s meeting, Parish Council Chairman Chris Tauzin recognized all of the SMPG employees having September birthdays.  He recognized Cedars, who was born on September 12 (three days from today), last and congratulated him on “turning 25.”  Cedars’ response?  “I think I’ve aged more in the last week than I have the rest of my life!”  We have no doubt that, having just received Adley’s memo served to him via email mere hours before the meeting, that memo likely contributed to Cedars’ candid assessment of his “aging” in the prior week.

Just as a service for the residents of St. Martin Parish, anyone is welcome to watch the SMPC meeting in its entirety by CLICKING HERE.

One item that may be of interest entails unhappiness with the trash pickup service provided by the Parish contractor.  For those who merely want to watch that segment alone, advance the tape to the 38:34 mark.

We look VERY forward to attending Tuesday’s Preliminary Injunction hearing and reporting on the results immediately thereafter outside the Courthouse.  As we indicated, we learned long ago that anything can happen in a courtroom, but as we think is obvious by this post, we believe this is one court hearing where, just as with the Bible illustration of David v. Goliath, Broussard has come to battle with a very effective slingshot in the person of Michael Adley!

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.

St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars as he posed arguments to the St. Martin Parish Council on Tuesday, August 3, 2021 regarding why it should adopt his proposed ordinance to ban the hauling of vegetative debris to sites within St. Martin Parish.

Fasten your seatbelts, folks!  We’re going to provide a ton of videos and documentation in this feature that speak for themselves.  We planned to spread this material out over more features, but Hurricane Ida foiled our plans; furthermore, we’re up against an important September 14, 2021 timeframe.  Everything will be presented chronologically:

Monday, June 14, 2021:  LSP Trooper Scott Lopez allegedly pursues farmer Billy Broussard’s driver, and angrily states to him, “You better not drive down MY road again if you know what’s good for you!”

Tuesday, June 15, 2021:  Lopez, who advised Broussard the day before that he was “working with Parish officials,” reportedly met with “several of them” to discuss Broussard.

Monday, June 21, 2021:  Six days after the meeting referenced on June 15, 2021, Attorney Lee C. Durio, representing St. Martin Parish, sends Broussard this certified Cease and Desist (C & D) letter demanding Broussard cease all farming operations on Duchamp Road immediately.  From the letter:

St. Martin Parish Government has learned by not only self-admission, but after an investigation that you are using the property for a commercial mushroom farm and as a dump site for discarded cut down logs and tree limbs from your tree service business.

Mushroom farming and the dumping of discarded logs and tree limbs do not fall with in any permitted uses for property zoned as (R-2) Mixed Residential pursuant to the St. Martin Parish Code of Ordinances. This actively is considered agricultural and commercial in nature.

Please consider this correspondence an immediate CEASE and DESIST of any farming, agricultural, dumpsite, and commercial activity on the property located on Duchamp Road, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana.

Should this activity continue St. Marlin Parish Government 1s prepared to institute litigation to enjoin you from continuing this activity.

Thursday, July 8, 2021:  Durio sends the following text to Broussard:

As we indicated on the feature linked on June 14, 2021 above, Louisiana State Police (LSP) denies being in possession of any surveillance material regarding any property on Duchamp Road.  Hence, such “surveillance” must have been conducted by St. Martin Parish personnel (with the most likely employee conducting any such “surveillance” being Ronald Solarie) or others hired by the Council (or perhaps as favors to the Council and/or President Chester Cedars?).

Tuesday, July 20, 2021:  Parish President Chester Cedars introduces an ordinance to ban vegetation, “cut from another parish being brought into St. Martin Parish.”  Cedars states that, “two of the three complaints reported to us (during the week of June 14) entailed burning.”  Cedars went on to state that the complained-upon properties are located on Duchamp Road (a clear reference to Broussard’s property), Division Road, and Armond Joseph Road, which is located next to Poche Bridge.

Cedars then went on to say that, on the Armond Joseph Road property, there has been extensive burning, “right next to a pretty well-developed subdivision.”  Cedars was silent on which of the other two properties (Duchamp Road or Division Road) entailed burning, but it is important to note that, by identifying one of the properties entailing burning (Armond Joseph Road) he implicitly admits that burning has been occurring ONLY on one of the two remaining properties (Division Road and Duchamp Road) which are the subject of complaints.  Hang on to that thought, folks, as it is going to be a very, very important revelation by Cedars which is captured on video at the preceding link (to be precise, at the 1:00 mark of the video).

Now, several Councilmembers indicated to Broussard that he would be permitted to speak at that July 20, 2021 Council meeting; however, those members were obviously unfamiliar with Louisiana’s Open Meetings Laws.  Those laws provide that the public must be afforded an opportunity to speak on any item on the agenda prior to a vote on any agenda item.  Since the July 20, 2021 meeting was the mere introduction of Cedars’ ordinance and no vote was necessary, there was no public comment on the introduced ordinance.  The Councilmembers apologized to Broussard shortly after that July 20, 2021 meeting.

One consequence of the inaccurate information conveyed to Broussard by the Councilmembers is that it tipped Cedars off that a video-based media outlet (Sound Off Louisiana) would be present for the eventual deliberation of the agenda item.

August 3, 2021: The Council takes Cedars’ ordinance (and, make no mistake, it is HIS ordinance notwithstanding that he utilized a Councilmember, Carla Jean-Batiste of District 2, to sponsor it) under consideration.  Let’s provide some video segments for your viewing pleasure, shall we?:

Broussard makes public comment on the proposed ordinance at the 8/3/21 meeting.  A few noteworthy observations:
1.  0:40 mark, Broussard clearly establishes that nobody is there to voice complaints about his property.  That fact is borne out by the fact that, on March 12, 2021, Broussard texted Calder “Pop” Hebert, St. Martin Parish’s Director of Administration, and inquired if he “has had any complaints about me or my farm on Duchamp Road lately?”  Hebert responded, “No one has contacted me.” See the text messages provided below.
One husband and wife indicated on the video above that they are there out of concern about the activity at the Poche Bridge property (the one Cedars identified as having burning transpiring).
2.  1:52 mark, Broussard emphasizes that one of the properties identified (and reported by State Rep. Huval – the Division Road property) entails “tires, batteries, etc.,” and Broussard states that he can understand concerns about that type of hazardous waste being dumped.
3.  5:04 mark, Broussard is practically prophetic in stating just how bad the “timing” of this ordinance is given that it is, “right in the middle of hurricane season.”
4.  6:45 mark, Broussard states that he would be “proud” for any Councilmember to tour his property.  It was his invitation that prompted us to provide this video tour of the property.

Now, here are those text messages between Broussard and Hebert:

Next on deck, we have the central player in this whole matter:  St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars.  Now remember, Cedars learned on July 20, 2021 that a video camera would be present for the presentation of the ordinance.  With that fact in mind, we want to strongly, strongly encourage everyone to watch this absolutely masterful performance on Cedars’ part (along with a little six-second clip of him being introduced to give his presentation):

After first obtaining a very special six-second introduction, at the August 3, 2021 St. Martin Parish Council meeting, Parish President Chester Cedars spends over 19 minutes conveying to the St. Martin Parish Council members arguing his rationale for why the Council needs to pass his proposed ordinance.

The video above speaks for itself, so we’ll make very little commentary on it.  We will point out, however, that Cedars makes the following quote at the 16:35 mark of the video:  “It’s a crying shame when we’ve got to go to court to keep somebody from burning something in a neighborhood!”  As we have indicated, Cedars was very careful to divulge on July 20, 2021 that, “two of the three” properties he cited entailed burning, yet given that only Broussard showed up to voice opposition to the ordinance, one could easily infer (Cedars was VERY careful not to say it but left it for inference) that Broussard is burning.  If he’s nothing else, Cedars is very crafty!

Let’s take a brief moment to provide video of the couple who justifiably complained about the Poche Bridge property on Armond Joseph Road, shall we?

Obvious and clearly objectionable burning transpiring on Armond Joseph Road right next to Poche Bridge in St. Martin Parish.

While we have made very little commentary on Cedars’ presentation, we’ll note that Broussard was not happy that Cedars portrayed that Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain called him the day before the meeting, on August 2, 2021, to talk about “your ordinance” (Cedars had to correct himself and back up and say, “or rather the Council’s Ordinance”).

Broussard was upset because he contends Cedars wanted to portray that “his” ordinance is so important that even the Louisiana Agriculture Commissioner took the time to call him about it the day before.

Broussard contends that Strain had no clue about the proposed ordinance (nor did St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux) until Broussard called Rene Simon, Commissioner Strain’s Director, to inform him about the ordinance and that Strain then called Cedars only shortly after Broussard spoke with Simon and provided him (Simon) with a copy of the original ordinance.

Several people have asked us to break out Cedars’ statements about his phone call from Commissioner Strain, so we did so, and anyone is welcome to view just that 53-second clip of Cedars’ performance regarding Strain by clicking here.

Broussard and several Councilmembers discuss Cedars’ ordinance on August 3, 2021, after which a formal vote is taken.

Now, we’re ready to unpack a few things entailing the above video.

First, at the 0:13 mark, Broussard reveals that the other person who was on the site and for whom Broussard gave permission to place vegetative debris and mulch on the property, “is a judge in this parish.”   That  judge is Judge Anthony Thibodeaux, who, according to Broussard, originally grinded stumps but has since expanded his operations to include tree services, and Broussard has permitted him to utilize his property for placing the debris thereof.

Broussard has told us that he (Judge Thibodeaux) met with Cedars to clear up any confusion about exactly who the “other person” was who placed vegetative material on Broussard’s property.  As indicated on the video,  Broussard emphasizes that, “no money was exchanged.  There is no business being done on this property.”

At the 1:43 mark of the above video, Broussard makes it absolutely crystal-clear that there is NO BURNING transpiring on his 33-acre tract!  Crystal clear!

At the 2:20 mark, Broussard states:  “A picture is worth a thousand words.  I invited some of you all to come look at my property……”  If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video tour of the property just may be worth 10,000 words, no?

At the 3:49 mark, Councilmember Brook Champagne, who represents District 6 and is Broussard’s own Councilman, makes the VERY emphatic statement to Broussard that, “you are violating the zoning ordinance, and there’s no doubt about it!”

At the 4:09 mark, Champagne, even gesturing with both hands to illustrate quotation marks, acknowledges that Broussard, “is not going to burn.”  For reasons which will soon become very obvious, we want it to be absolutely crystal clear that anybody attending that meeting with even seven functioning brain cells could not possibly walk away with any impression that Broussard is burning!  It should only take seven functioning brain cells, folks!

Alright!  Time for the formal vote.  Here is that vote:

Now, we placed the paragraph about Broussard NOT burning above in bold and emphasized how anybody with just a mere seven functioning brain cells could not possibly walk away from that meeting with any impression that Broussard is “burning.”  We’ll now present just why we stressed that so strongly!

August 4, 2021:  The Daily Iberian publishes this feature REPEATEDLY making the claim that Broussard is “burning.”  Here are a few excerpts from the article, of which we have saved a PDF copy:

Broussard had bought a property in November that he was using to dump and burn material from his business.

Later, when parish officials learned that not only was Broussard burning his own leavings but was also accepting dumps of material from other contractors, the parish began working on an ordinance to prevent the practice overall.

He began bringing tree trunks and vegetation to the lot, first to dump, then to burn.

Broussard tried to continue, but District 6 Councilman Brook Champagne interceded.  “You are violating the zoning ordinance,” Champagne said. “You are hauling and dumping or burning in a residential area. You have been doing it for a year.”

Now, Dwayne Fatherree, the author of the above-linked article, could try to blame Cedars for his totally inaccurate reporting reflected in paragraph three above; however, as we’ve stated, Cedars, being a crafty lawyer, was smart enough to never reference that Broussard was burning (because he knows full-well that he is NOT).

Instead, Cedars very craftily chose to let the audience members or Councilmembers who may have sufficient intellect simply deduce on their own if they could so manage that Broussard is the one not burning when he said, “two of the three incidents entailed burning.”  Apparently Fatherree either isn’t bright enough to deduce what Cedars was crafty enough to avoid directly divulging, or he was crafty enough to know that’s the case but was so hell bent on writing a hit-piece feature that he wrote the above material in his article anyway!  After all, let’s take a look at what Fatherree had to say about Cedars’ performance, which could easily be interpreted as being in-the-tank for Cedars:

When he (Broussard) finished, Parish President Chester Cedars launched into a searing, excruciatingly detailed dismembering of Broussard’s arguments, including a timeline, in many cases down to the minute, of the interactions between Broussard and the parish.

Whatever the case on Cedars’ crafty wording to perhaps (trying to give the benefit of the doubt) play Fatherree for a fool, there can be NO EXCUSE for Fatherree’s quote of Champagne!

All anyone has to do is listen to the video file at the segment we referenced above.  Champagne never said, “dumping or burning,” but instead said “dumping.”  The audio is crystal clear, and we played it over and over to make sure Champagne didn’t say burning, and he flatly did not!  Furthermore, as we’ve indicated, Champagne, subsequent to the false quote Fatherree places in his article, actually subsequently went out of his way to indicate that Broussard is “not burning,” a quote which Fatherree aparently developed amnesia on as he drafted his article.

Perhaps it’s this kind of shoddy journalism that has the mainstream media becoming less and less relevant in today’s society!  In fact, we’re going to borrow a few words from Cedars’ video above that we believe are appropriate at this time:  “It’s a crying shame when a video blogger has to cover a meeting to expose the shoddy journalism provided by a paid mainstream journalist who attended the same meeting and printed repeated falsehoods about the meeting’s contents!”

August 19, 2021:  Cedars pursues this Temporary Restraining Order signed by District Judge Michael Pitman shutting down Broussard’s farming operations dead in their tracks pending a court hearing for a Preliminary Injunction scheduled for Tuesday, September 14, 2021.

August 31, 2021:  Cedars files this Pre-Trial Memorandum and Witness and Exhibit List for the Preliminary Injunction hearing on Tuesday, September 14, 2021.  Here’s the witness list from the preceding filing:

We’ll note the fact that one of the key witnesses, Scott Lopez, is merely identified as an ordinary citizen.  There’s no mention of the fact that he is an LSP Trooper who, according to one of Broussard’s drivers, chased after him.  Broussard’s driver indicated to us that he did so with lights flashing and in official capacity.  Broussard’s driver also indicated that, the short distance between Lopez’s house and Broussard’s farm notwithstanding, Lopez sped out of his driveway with lights flashing and confronted him in the driveway of Broussard’s farm.

Accordingly, we’ve made a public records request both for any bodycam and/or dashcam video of the encounter since Lopez was clearly ON the clock as reflected by his timesheet for that day.  We’d previously asked for any surveillance videos or photos in LSP’s possession entailing Duchamp Road and were informed by LSP that no such surveillance material is in the agency’s possession.

We have also requested audio copies of any incoming or outgoing phone calls to Troop I’s Headquarters between the timeframe of 2 p.m. – 5 p.m. on Monday, June 14, 2021.  LSP sources have informed us that LSP has a policy requiring the recording of any such phone calls and for the retention of those phone calls for a period of five years.  We made our request on August 8, 2021.  LSP responded that we should expect the records within sixty (60) days, which would be on Thursday, October 7, 2021.  We believe those recorded phone calls will be quite revealing, especially since Broussard states that Troop I, prior to ending the phone call he initiated to them immediately after the incident, concurred with Broussard’s assessment that, “Trooper Lopez may have just been having a bad day.”  Broussard also reports that Lopez himself called Broussard soon thereafter and sounded quite conciliatory.

Conciliatory tone of Lopez notwithstanding, we have received highly-credible reports that Lopez also went door-to-door asking for neighbors to support his efforts to work with “parish officials” to shut Broussard’s operations down.  One neighbor in particular, Blake Dubroc (see above witness list), even called Broussard and, according to Broussard, asked, “What did you do to piss Scott off?”  Broussard proceeded to ask Dubroc if Lopez was in uniform when he knocked on Dubroc’s door, but Dubroc reportedly responded, “I can’t remember.”

If Lopez was in uniform as he went door-to-door, the average person is likely to feel pressured to participate in such a request given that it’s being made by an LSP Trooper.  We also made a very expansive request for Lopez’s timesheets for the period of March 1, 2021 through July 28, 2021.  Here are those timesheets.  Once we obtain the timeframes that Lopez went knocking door-to-door, we certainly intend to establish whether he was on LSP’s clock when he engaged in such efforts.

We would hope that an LSP Trooper would not be so bold, brazen, or cocky as to engage in such activity either in uniform or while on the clock, but as we’ve reported on many LSP activities in the past, this is most certainly not a shy group of folk!

Even if Lopez was not in uniform, St. Martin Parish is a very small parish, and as is obvious, Dubroc clearly knew him by first name, and he most certainly knew his occupation as an LSP Trooper.

Let’s take just a moment to share a few text messages between Broussard and Dubroc, shall we?

For anyone driving out to take a look at Broussard’s farming operations, we’d like to invite you to take some time to visit Blake’s Auto Sales  located right across the street from Broussard’s farm.  We believe you can quite likely get a very good deal on a used car.   In fact, according to the company’s Facebook page, “We Buy,Sell and Trade…We have competitive prices and we are ready to pass the savings on to you.”

Broussard indicated that, what frustrates him the most is the fact that, when he initially purchased the property in September of 2020 (another minor inaccuracy in Fatherree’s article as he inaccurately reported that Broussard purchased the property in “November”), Dubroc had concerns, and St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux‘s office was called out, and one of his Lieutenants was very successful in resolving everything peacefully and to everyone’s satisfaction.  Broussard and Dubroc reportedly became pretty good friends and neighbors after that date.

Broussard indicated that he never heard another word of prospective discontent from Dubroc until his name appeared on the potential witness list for the upcoming court hearing.

August 31, 2021: Cedars sends Broussard’s attorney, Michael Adley, correspondence seeking for Broussard to respond to the following questions that Cedars posed regarding Broussard’s hay operations:

Numerous individuals to whom Broussard has disseminated the above inquiry by Cedars are in absolute disbelief at the questions posed by Cedars!  Absolute disbelief!

September 4, 2021:  Broussard sends the above text to a prominent individual in the St. Martin Parish area who, upon seeing the text, immediately called St. Martin Parish President Chris Tauzin.  The individual asked, “What the heck is going on with Billy Broussard?”  We’ve been told that Tauzin responded, “We told Broussard to stop burning.  He did not stop burning, so we sued him!”

We’ll let Tauzin’s alleged statement speak for itself, but we’ll simply reiterate what we said about merely needing seven functioning brain cells to ascertain from attending that meeting to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that Broussard is NOT burning.  Perhaps Tauzin could try to use as an excuse, “Well, that’s what I read in the newspaper!”  Nevertheless, what is disturbing about Tauzin’s alleged statement is that, given the date he made the statement (September 4, 2021), he had the added benefit of being able to take a video tour of the property from the comfort of his home or office, yet he STILL allegedly made the quote he made on the afternoon of Saturday, September 4, 2021.

Now, we’ll wrap this feature up with one concluding observation.  On the Cedars video above, he (Cedars) states that he believes the ordinance that he presented to the Council is “clear.”

We firmly believe something else is “clear,” and that is that any small business owner considering locating in St. Martin Parish needs to stay put!  Given the handling of Broussard’s matter as depicted above, it could not be more “clear” to us that St. Martin Parish is a Parish that is totally hostile to small business operators and/or farmers!

How appropriate that we publish such a feature on Labor Day and, by the way, Happy Labor Day, folks, and we promise to attend the September 14, 2021 Injunctive Hearing and report back with the results thereof.

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.