Sound Off Louisiana

Robin Sylvester, contractor Billy Broussard’s former attorney regarding a potential lawsuit against GOHSEP.

Long-time Sound Off Louisiana subscribers are aware that we have likely published more features entailing contractor Billy Broussard than any other individual.  For the benefit of new subscribers, in a nutshell, Broussard performed cleanup work in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita in Calcasieu Parish.  He asserts that Gravity District 8 of Ward 1 of Calcasieu Parish (GDD8) officials made false representations to FEMA regarding the eligibility of debris in order to obtain funds for work he performed at the direct behest of contractors hired by the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP).  He claims that, upon receiving funds to cover Broussard’s work, GDD8 then redirected those funds intended to pay him to GDD8’s own on-staff workers for work they also performed.  Significantly, Broussard claims the work performed by GDD8 employees were on areas of Indian Bayou which were not even located on the Army Corps’ Wetland Permit pertaining to the project.

Broussard sued GDD8, and he lost both at the trial level and at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the Supreme Court declined to hear his Writ of Appeal from the Third Circuit).  Broussard then went on a massive campaign to obtain public records, and he has asserted that those documents (many of which are incredibly damning to GDD8) were intentionally withheld from his two attorneys who represented him:  Attorney General Jeff Landry (at a time that he was a private citizen between his stint as a U. S. Congressman and becoming AG) and Robin Sylvester.  Since that time, he has been exploring every possible angle for him to recover the $1 million plus that he asserts was swindled from him by GDD8 and contractors hired by GOHSEP.

Part of his efforts to finally be compensated entailed entering into a contract with one of his two attorneys, Robin Sylvester, to represent him in a brand new cause of action (lawsuit) against GOHSEP.  Sylvester drafted a petition against GOHSEP and stated to Broussard that it had to be filed no later than Friday, October 6, 2017, which represented, “one year from the date Danielle Aymond from GOHSEP told Billy that she had an additional disk not produced by (former GOHSEP attorney) Ben Plia [he got the disk a few days later which would be the actual date (for prescription)].”  Sylvester would subsequently explain to Broussard that the prescription period for initiating litigation based on new revelations of fraud is one year.

Broussard met with Sylvester on October 5, 2017 fully expecting the litigation to be filed the next day; however, Sylvester informed him that, “We have plenty of time.”  Her apparent rationale for that statement was the fact that there is a 10-year prescription period entailing contracts, and the conclusion of the work pertaining to Hurricane Rita was in 2009.  Hence, the prescription date would fall sometime in 2019.

For whatever reason, Sylvester declined to file a lawsuit.  Accordingly, as we’ve previously reported, Broussard went for Sylvester’s jugular in sending her a certified letter demanding that she provide her malpractice insurance carrier for purposes of him filing a claim.  He provided a deadline of 12:00 noon on March 7, 2019 for her to provide her malpractice insurance carrier.  When Sylvester declined to do so, Broussard filed a formal complaint with the Louisiana Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) against Sylvester.  Broussard emphasized Sylvester’s recorded statements entailing 14th JDC’s “crooked judges.”  He also emphasized Sylvester’s dressing down of Broussard for his expectation that she would, “go up against Kelly Fontenot (Fraud Analyst at the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury) and Rusty Stutes (attorney for GDD8),” in addition to those “crooked judges.”

On July 1, 2019, Sylvester issued her formal response to Broussard and, after being contacted by ODC officials inquiring of Broussard whether he had any further information he sought to provide, on November 21, 2019, Broussard provided ODC with yet another bombshell audio of Sylvester of late September, 2018.  We at Sound Off Louisiana have been provided with a digital copy of the audio recording between Sylvester and Broussard of late September, 2018, and boy, does it have some devastating rebuttals regarding Sylvester’s response letter to ODC just linked.

Let’s break down a portion of Sylvester’s response and then provide audio which Broussard supplied to ODC as his rebuttal of her response to his claim:

First, let’s consider Sylvester’s bold statement to ODC that Broussard, “did not have a cause of action supporting a claim for damages against GOHSEP.”  From Sylvester’s letter (see bottom of page one):

Broussard Construction did not have a cause of action supporting a claim for damages against
GOHSEP; therefore, while I placed my notes on a rough draft of a petition while researching
potential causes of action against GOHSEP in 2017, I did not prepare or file the Petition.
Further, any new litigation against GOHSEP filed in East Baton Rouge Parish would be
completely separate from the Litigation in Calcasieu Parish.

Now, let’s listen in on a few audio files of a September, 2018 recorded conversation between Broussard and Sylvester regarding this so-called “non cause of action” entailing GOHSEP:

Sylvester essentially says GOHSEP needs to man-up and pay Broussard the approximate $850,000 she claims the agency still owes Broussard.

Sylvester and Broussard extensively discuss GOHSEP’s liability for allegedly-fraudulent representations that GOHSEP’s contracted monitors made to FEMA regarding reimbursement for debris cleanup in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita.  Sylvester begins to outline GOHSEP’s liability at the 1:07 mark of the above audio, and she continues it at the 2:14 mark.

Broussard outlines the degree to which he alleges GDD8 officials colluded with GOHSEP contracted monitors to keep him in the dark regarding whether debris he was directed to remove by those GOHSEP contracted monitors was eligible for FEMA reimbursement or not.

The three audios above likely form the foundation for why Broussard, in fulfilling ODC’s request for a rebuttal of Sylvester’s contention that he had no cause of action against GOHSEP, made the following statement to ODC:

As you can tell, Ms. Sylvester lays out my cause of action against GOHSEP; furthermore, near the end of the audio, she is practically salivating in telling me I can agree to the same 35% contingency contract which I’d already executed with her.  Is it not therefore incredibly ironic that she would indicate to you only four months or so later in her response to my complaint that I had no valid cause of action against GOHSEP and that she was just trying to basically hold down the fort until I could find another attorney?  She is both deceiving you and insulting your own intellect in making that representation to you!

Now, as former blogger C. B. Forgotston used to say, “You can’t make this stuff up!”  Notwithstanding the above three audio clips, the next clip we’re about to present literally blew us away!  Broussard has told us about numerous meetings he has held with various parties and elected officials regarding this matter, and they all emphasized, “We can’t just give you money!  You have to sue GOHSEP and we can thereafter enter into immediate settlement negotiations.”  Now, that should make common sense, no?  Nevertheless, in the following audio clip, everyone can hear Sylvester openly ponder, “Do I need to sue GOHSEP?” (As we said, this stuff simply can’t be made up, and Broussard even explains that he’s been told they MUST sue GOHSEP!!!!):

Sylvester openly ponders whether she should sue GOHSEP!

What’s our one-word observation of Sylvester openly questioning if she has to sue GOHSEP?  DUH!

Now, in the above audio, Sylvester resolutely says it boils down to her having to sue GOHSEP in order for GOHSEP to then drag its own contracted monitors in as a third-party defendant. As she states near the end of the audio above, “We can then bypass the whole s— show in Lake Charles.”

Now, as we’ve already pointed out, Sylvester has assessed 14th JDC as being comprised of “crooked judges.”  She’d essentially admitted that the hearing scheduled to lift the clearly-illegal restraining order under which Broussard had been placed was all but moot.  She flatly said that the only reason she filed the litigation to have the restraining order lifted was to keep the case against GDD8 from being abandoned.  Clearly, any money damage Broussard may recover would have to arise from new litigation filed against GOHSEP in 19th JDC in Baton Rouge.  That fact notwithstanding, Sylvester didn’t refrain from lambasting 14th JDC Judge Ritchie for failing to follow proper procedure regarding a pending Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata motion before the court.  Let’s take just a few seconds to listen to Sylvester lambasting 14th JDC (for the record, however, she is totally spot-on regarding how the pending motion should have been processed by the court):

Sylvester vents her frustration at 14th JDC Judge Ritchie for failing to follow proper court procedure entailing a Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata entailing a hearing for the lifting of a restraining order which remains in place against Broussard to this very day.

Now, one thing Sylvester made clear to Broussard was that, if Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns showed up to cover any court hearing, she stated she had no intention of showing up!  Once Broussard made it clear he had no intention of telling Burns he could not come (which Burns would have ignored such an admonition anyway), Sylvester softened her previously-adamant stand regarding Burns’ courtroom presence.  Let’s take a brief listen, shall we?

Sylvester voices her frustration at the prospect of Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns attending any court hearing entailing Broussard.

We find it interesting that Sylvester would have to say, regarding Burns, that he can, “sit back in the courtroom and be quiet….”  What the hell does Sylvester think Burns is going to do?  Bring his camera in and attempt to videotape the proceeding?  Does she think any court hearing entailing Broussard would be Burns’ first rodeo in a courtroom?  We’re willing to wager that Burns has quite likely spent more collective time in courtrooms observing motions or actual trials than Sylvester has by a country mile!

While we’re on the subject matter of Sylvester’s aversion to Sound Off Louisiana attending a court hearing, let’s take a moment to examine another aspect of Sylvester’s response to Broussard’s complaint:

Broussard sent me an email on
October 4, 2018 threatening negative media attention from a blogger, Mr. Robert Burns, if l did
not follow his instructions regarding the handling of the hearing. A copy of that email is attached
as Exhibit “J”.

Well, subscribers are welcome to view Broussard’s email here.  The pertinent part Sylvester references is apparently this commentary by Broussard:

You made the statement that, “If he (Burns) is at the hearing, I am leaving.”  Now I realize that was in the context that I wanted him to be a witness to the fact Police Juror Hal McMillin stated to Burns that he had “no knowledge whatsoever” that any restraining order had ever been filed.  Burns has indicated to me that such testimony on his part would be clearly inadmissible as hearsay and that McMillin himself would have to be placed on the witness stand to make such a statement.  That fact notwithstanding, Burns IS going to be present, and he will be producing a feature outside the courthouse once the hearing concludes.

The content of what he produces will be a function of your performance in court.  It would be my desire that he be able to indicate to his viewing audience (as he embeds the damning email jpegs into his Sound Off post to where they are staring readers right in the face rather than having to click on links as is the case above in this email) that my attorney “went to bat for her client (me) and swung for the fences,” rather than reporting something along the lines that you were too timid to grill Fontenot (or God forbid, too timid even subpoena her to be present!) on the obvious problems of her prior testimony which, again, I believe constituted perjury, and the obvious damning nature of her emails linked above.  I would certainly hope that, should you demonstrate any such timidity entailing your questioning of Ms. Fontenot, it would not be as the result of an effort to avoid alienating the “courthouse crew” in Calcasieu Parish because doing so may inhibit your chances of a successful run for judge yourself.

We’ll let our subscribers draw their own conclusions of whether Broussard makes any “threat” of negative media attention; however, we will state unequivocally to Sylvester that we report the facts of what transpires in courtrooms!  PERIOD!

What we report on notwithstanding, what has become painfully obvious to us is that, despite the fact that we may serve as advocates for their clients, attorneys facing the prospect of suing state agencies don’t really want us around in the courtroom.  We’ve noted the uneasy feeling readily apparent on Jill Craft’s face as we cover features in which she serves as attorney for plaintiffs suing state agencies, and we have covered an absolute plethora of such cases in which Craft has represented plaintiffs because Craft essentially specializes in suing state agencies!

Why do these attorneys have these uneasy feelings?  Because it only takes a matter of a few minutes to peruse Sound Off’s website to know we’re no fans of Governor John Bel Edwards.  Well, it is the Governor’s Office in which the ability to settle lawsuits is bestowed.  The last thing these attorneys want to do is in any way offend Governor Edwards as it may lessen the chance for a quick settlement upon the filing of the litigation.  If it’s known the client has utilized Burns as an advocate, given Burns’ staunch anti-Edwards leanings and blog posts, well, maybe the State of Louisiana may not be so inclined to settle (i.e. “guilt through association” notwithstanding the fact that the mainstream media often doesn’t even bother reporting the first thing on many of the cases which we cover).

Lending credence to our theory is:  #1) the recent appearance by Craft to defend and endorse Edwards while simultaneously neglecting to mention that she is also representing a client, Cathy Derbonne, whom Craft asserts in pleadings that same Governor she’s defending and, more importantly, making a very public endorsement of, had a representative from his own office (or perhaps Edwards himself) tell Derbonne to, “Shut the f— up,” entailing her whistle blowing actions with the Louisiana State Police Commission; and #2) the following audio wherein Sylvester seems to demonstrate an aversion to following through on suing GOHSEP because she indicates that Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards won’t want the negative publicity entailing his own Chief of Staff, Mark Cooper.  Let’s take a listen, shall we?:

Sylvester states that Gov. Edwards won’t want the negative publicity associated with her filing a suit entailing actions of his Chief of Staff, Mark Cooper, and that she certainly doesn’t have the goal of “making the Governor look bad.”

Gov. Edwards certainly wouldn’t have any reason to have feared any negative publicity entailing Cooper.  Why?  Because of the absolutely unprecedented level of stupidity and clueless nature of his runoff opponent, Eddie Rispone, and the campaign operatives in whom he placed his trust (and $14 million)!  We’re going to have MUCH more to say on that matter in a future post!

Now, if Sylvester felt Broussard had no cause of action, isn’t it absolutely stunning to listen in on her efforts to sign him up to a 35% contingency recovery?  Why don’t we take a listen, shall we?:

Sylvester pushes Broussard to sign a 35% contingency contract for her legal representation, yet she would state to ODC four months later that Broussard, “had no cause of action.”  Let’s see if we do the math correctly!  0.35 x 0 = 0, huh?  Incredibly, despite describing filing the litigation as “a waste of time,” Sylvester nevertheless indicates to Broussard her need for immeidate cash because some of her other clients aren’t paying her!  She conculdes with the incredible query of Broussard for him to be contemplating “your settlement range.”

Now, as the meeting starts to conclude, Sylvester is starting to crawfish even more on her resolve to sue GOHSEP.  In fact, she goes so far as to say she’s not sure GOHSEP can be sued (again reference Forgotston’s slogan of “not being able to make this stuff up”).  Let’s listen in:

Sylvester (if her words can be taken at face value rather than just an attempt to bamboozle Broussard) openly ponders whether she even can sue GOHSEP!

Incredibly, Sylvester later returns to saying, “We have to sue GOHSEP!”  Let’s listen in again:

Sylvester again reverses course and makes the emphatic statement that, “We have to sue GOHSEP!”

Now the meeting gradually gravitated toward Sylvester and Broussard meeting with GOHSEP and Broussard’s lobbyists who have been attempting to resolve the matter without litigation (though recall that numerous individuals who have met with Broussard have stated that he “must” sue GOHSEP).  The lobbyists indicated to Broussard that it would be helpful to obtain an updated affidavit from GOHSEP.  Broussard made that request of Sylvester on behalf of his lobbyists.  Here’s Sylvester’s response:

 
Sylvester pours cold water all over Broussard’s lobbyists asking him to obtain an updated affidavit from GOHSEP.

Now, in the following audio clip, Sylvester admits that, “GOHSEP is not at the table,” and that she “has no idea how to bring them to the table.”  Gee, perhaps a lawsuit?  Let’s listen in:

Sylvester declares GOHSEP to “not be at the (negotiating) table” and further states she has “no idea how to get them to the (negotiating) table.”

While Sylvester seems to literally be all over the map on whether or not she would sue GOHSEP, she seems laser focused on conveying to Broussard just how much time and energy would be required and justifying a need for more money from him, particularly for the supposedly-moot litigation entailing the restraining order.  Let’s listen in:

Sylvester moans to Broussard about how much work would be required to further represent him.

Sylvester breaks the news that (surprise) she needs more money.

Regarding the supposed meeting referenced above, let’s conclude this feature by reproducing a final segment of Broussard’s rebuttal to the ODC:

Ms. Sylvester never gave me (nor anyone else to my knowledge) a reason for why she reneged on convening that meeting; WHY AWOL at critical times (which she’d previously done on the October 2017 date at which she said my cause of action against GOHSEP would prescribe).  It’s my sincere hope that ODC officials will inquire of her why she declined to schedule the meeting she clearly references on the preceding audio link.  Perhaps she conferred with AG Jeff Landry and he poured cold water on the whole idea?  I have no idea, but I hope somehow, someway either ODC or somebody can get to the bottom of why she made no effort whatsoever to follow through!

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.

Calcasieu Parish District Attorney John DeRosier

On November 1, 2019, the Washington Post published a damning article regarding very obvious corruption within the Calcasieu Parish District Attorney’s Office.  Be advised that the preceding linked article is incredibly thorough; however, it’s also quite lengthy.  Accordingly, what we want to do is provide sort of a CliffsNotes edition below and tie the article into the corruption perpetrated in Calcasieu Parish entailing contractor Billy Broussard’s cleanup contract in the aftermath of Hurricane Rita:

===> Upon a court assigning a defendant to a given number of community service hours as part of a DA diversion program, DeRosier concocted a plan to permit such defendants to “buyout” the obligation to perform the community service at a rate of $8/hour (initially $10 but subsequently reduced) which had to be in the form of retailer gift cards (Wal Mart, Target, etc.) which were donated to DeRosier’s office.

===> DeRosier, four years after implementing the program in 2011, set up a nonprofit, the DA Community Assistance Fund (DACAF) to collect and distribute the cards.  For the four years leading up to DACAF’s formation, there was no internal tracking or accounting whatsoever of the gift cards.  None, zero, zilch, nada!

===> Though legal experts with whom the Washington Post consulted characterized the program as “problematic and possibly illegal,” DeRosier nevertheless routinely made a big show of distributing the cards at parades; meanwhile, former DA employees indicate some gift cards managed to end up in campaign contributors’ possession or being used by DA employees themselves (with one employee quoted as calling it a “slush fund”).  “Friendly journalists” also obtained cards, but we can only assume that our recent post on DeRosier (the video contained therein of which the Washington Post article linked) failed to qualify us as “friendly” as no gift card was forthcoming to us after publication.

===> Audits of DeRosier’s office, performed by a firm headed by an individual who once served as DeRosier’s Campaign Treasurer and who gave tens of thousands of dollars to DeRosier’s campaigns, never even reference the gift cards.

At this time, let’s present a few excerpts from the Post article referenced above (any emphasis, particularly reference to Barbara Adam, is our own):

It isn’t clear exactly when DeRosier’s office began to offer an option to buy out community service, but according to Jenny Odom and McKenzie Marceaux Newman, two secretaries who previously worked in the office, it dates back to at least 2011. Odom started working for DeRosier in March 2012 as a secretary for the misdemeanor probation section. Newman started in June 2011 as a student worker, but by 2015 was head secretary for the pretrial diversion office.

The option was available to any defendant admitted to one of two programs: pretrial diversion or supervised misdemeanor probation. Both the pretrial diversion and misdemeanor probation offices are run by Barbara Adam, a longtime employee in the DA’s office dating back to the tenure of DeRosier’s predecessor, Rick Bryant.

According to these former employees, the receipt books were used only to verify which defendants had paid. “There was no accounting or verification of the amount that we took in each day,” said Odom. “That seemed like a big problem to me.”

Perhaps because there was no effort to log and track the cards, Newman and Odom say the office was sloppy in handling them. “One time, one of the receptionists quit, and we had to clean out her desk,” Odom says. “We moved her desk, and there were gift cards everywhere. Piles of them behind her desk. When we moved the copier, there were more gift cards. Just dozens of them that no one had noticed.”

Odom also saw staff using the gift cards for themselves, or for relatives. She says she first saw it before her first Christmas at the office in 2012. “At one point, [Barbara Adam] had her secretary load up a box of toys and put them in a separate room. I found out later that each box was for one of the probation officers to give to their grandchildren. I was like, I thought these were for needy families. Why are all these people in the office getting the toys? And then every year, it just got worse and more out of hand.”

Odom says one year Adam herself gave Odom a gift card and asked her to buy matching hat-and-glove sets, one each for a boy and a girl. “I went and got them and brought back the receipt. And then I watched her put them in a box, address it and send it to her grandkids in Texas.”

Odom says she tried to voice her concerns about what she had seen. “I was complaining. And I was complaining. And I was complaining. I told them, ‘I can’t do this anymore. This is the district attorney’s office. This is not the reason why we have this money. It’s supposed to go to needy families. It’s being abused.’ They wouldn’t listen.”

The final straw for Odom came in October 2015. “I was at my desk and Mr. DeRosier came in and he says, ‘I need $5,000 in cards — in gift cards.’ He wanted them in $1,000 denominations. One of the other secretaries said, ‘Oh, okay, I’ll check and see if we have that much.’ But then he repeated it in this tone that was like, ‘I’m not asking you, I’m telling you.’ And then he walked out of the office. When he left, two secretaries were discussing whether they even had that much on hand — and what they should tell them if they didn’t.”

The whole scene made her uncomfortable. “If he got the $5,000, there would have been no accounting for any of it. Again you have to understand, there was no way of knowing how much money was coming in and going out on these cards. They weren’t logged. No one tallied them up at the end of the day. Did we take in $20,000 and spend $2,000? What happened to the money left over? No one knew.”

That month, Odom and her husband wrote a letter to DeRosier laying out her objections to the gift cards. According to Odom, her husband later spoke on the phone about it with DeRosier.

Now, just as is indicated in our article entailing our efforts in making public records requests entailing invoices pertaining to the restraining order under which Broussard was placed for making his own public records requests and being stonewalled, the Washington Post reporter, Radley Balko, got a similar run around:

When I recently asked for a copy of the audit in a public records request, the public records custodian told me that no such audit exists. When I asked for records from the foundation, the custodian replied that the foundation is not part of the DA’s office, and therefore not subject to public records laws.

Now, again, let’s emphasize the fact that Barbara Adam is a DA employee overseeing the diversion program.  Again, from the Post article:

At some point after establishing the nonprofit, DeRosier made another change to the community service buyout option: Where the office previously accepted gift cards from several stores, going forward, participants could purchase cards only from Stine, a Louisiana chain of home improvement stores. There’s only one Stine in Lake Charles. Barbara Adam’s sister is the store’s general manager. (Adam was also one of the initial board members of the foundation.)

“It didn’t make much sense,” says Newman. “The whole point was supposed to be to buy clothes and toys for needy families. Stine sells lumber and hardware.”

DeRosier says the switch was part of a decision to focus on relief from natural disasters. He also said he has regularly worked with the owners of Stine on various community projects. “I could care less whether [Barbara Adam] has a sister over there or not,” he said. “That is of no significance to me.”

The office also began accepting money orders instead of gift cards. According to Newman, that change made defendants much more likely to pay up than to engage in community service.

“They had to pay enrollment fees and other charges with a money order anyway,” she says. “So if they could afford it, it was just easier for them to just go ahead and buy out their community service while they’re at it instead of going to Walmart or Sam’s Club.”

Jenny Odom resigned in October 2015, in part due to her squeamishness about the gift cards. McKenzie Newman was fired last July. When she asked why, she says she was told that because Louisiana is an at-will employment state, the office didn’t need to provide a reason. At the time she left, she estimates that just her office — pretrial diversion — was taking in about 10 money orders per day. The most common amount of those money orders was $128, or half of the most common community service requirement (32 hours), at $8 per hour. That would mean that at a rough estimate, at least as of last year, the pretrial diversion office alone was taking in about $1,280 each business day in money orders, or more than $300,000 per year.

Marcus Owens, a partner at Loeb & Loeb and the former head of the IRS exempt organizations division; and Dianna Deeley, a consultant for nonprofits with more than 25 years of experience in the nonprofit world, were asked by Balko to examine the audits of DACAF.  Again, from the Post article in quoting Owens:

“I think what it shows is that the accountant who prepared these returns is sort of floundering. She’s not sitting there going through the books and records, adding things up and calculating, because my guess is that there are no records.” He adds, half-jokingly, “Why weren’t they at least consistent in fabricating numbers?”

The next segment of the article touches on a topic we find EXTREMELY revealing (once again, emphasis is our own):

Under Louisiana law, every district attorney’s office must undergo an annual audit organized by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor, a state agency. (This is different from the audits DeRosier says he ordered for his nonprofit.) But despite the fact that the gift-card program has been in place since at least 2011, the annual public audits of DeRosier’s office have never assessed how much revenue the gift cards brought in to the office. The audits have never criticized the office for failing to include the gift cards in its annual financial reports. In fact, none of the public audits mention the gift cards at all.

Since DeRosier was elected, the public audit of his office has always been conducted by Langley, Williams & Co. of Lake Charles. The founding partner of that firm is Lester Langley Jr.

Langley has a long history with DeRosier. He was the treasurer for DeRosier’s first campaign, and over three elections dating back to 2005, Langley, his wife and his businesses have donated at least $29,500 to DeRosier’s campaigns, according to campaign finance disclosures. Over the same period, Langley’s firm was also paid more than $30,000 by DeRosier’s campaign for accounting services.

In an email response to my questions, Langley said he resigned as campaign treasurer once DeRosier was elected. This is true. But he also writes, “After Mr. DeRosier was elected, we resigned as the campaign bookkeepers in January 2006, at the same time I resigned as treasurer.” According to campaign finance records, between 2007 and 2010, DeRosier’s campaign made eight payments to Langley’s firm totaling over $18,000 for services that included “bookkeeping,” “campaign reporting” and “financial disclosure reporting.”

Langley’s son Nicholas is a partner at the accounting firm. He was also on the original board of directors for DeRosier’s nonprofit. Over email, the elder Langley said his son was offered a position on the board but “immediately declined to accept the position due to concerns of independence.”

That would have been in late 2015. But Langley was listed as a member of the board on the foundation’s 2016 tax returns, which were filed in November 2017. In fact, in March 2018, DeRosier’s secretary sent an email under the subject “Foundation Board Meeting.” In the body she wrote, “Just a reminder . . . We need to have a meeting so Nic Langley can be removed from the board.”

DeRosier and Langley both point out that Langley’s firm also conducted the audits for DeRosier’s predecessor, Rick Bryant. “He’s just very active in the community and in politics,” DeRosier says.

But Langley doesn’t appear to have the connections to Bryant that he has with DeRosier. A search of campaign finance records reveals no donations by Langley to Bryant’s campaign, and no expenditures by Bryant’s campaign to Langley’s firm.

I asked DeRosier if given all of this, Langley should be doing the public audit for his office. He replied, “I don’t see a conflict.” Langley also said he sees no conflict.

Now, obviously Balko, who had the noose pretty darn tight around DeRosier’s neck, had an obligation to provide DeRosier with an opportunity to defend his office. Let’s first take a look at quotes some of Balko’s sources had to make about whether judges had knowledge of DeRosier’s actions:

Several people I spoke with, including two former Louisiana prosecutors and two current public defenders, say they’d be shocked if judges had approved of the option to buy out community service, especially for misdemeanor probation.

“Misdemeanor probation is a court-ordered sentence,” one former Calcasieu Parish prosecutor said. “A district attorney cannot unilaterally alter the community service portion of that sentence in exchange for a donation to his slush fund. When the judges hear about this, they’ll be livid.”

Well, we’re not so sure that’s the case (entailing judges being “livid”) given that Broussard’s former attorney, Robin Sylvester, is on record in a recorded phone call as making the assertion that 14th JDC is apparently infested with “crooked judges.”  By the way, in the way of a brief update on Broussard’s extensive ethics complaints with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, we’re told only his complaint against Sylvester continues to work its way through the process.

Thanks to the Post article, we now believe we have a better insight into why!  Recall that neither the Calcasieu Parish Police Jury nor Gravity District 8 of Ward 1 of Calcasieu Parish ever took a vote to place Broussard under restraining order.  Further, when we sought the District’s legal invoices of its counsel, Russell Stutes, Jr., to examine those which pertained to the restraining order (Sam Gabb of the Police Jury admitted he did not invoice for his services), we were told that we would not receive them because they entailed Stutes’ “mental impressions.”

We now believe those “mental impressions” involved a direct order from DeRosier himself for Broussard to be placed under restraining order because he was coming way too close for comfort regarding over $1 million in funds Broussard asserts that he was cheated out of (with absolutely incredible supporting documentation to back up that claim)!

That (i.e. DeRosier issuing the directive that the restraining order be pursued as part of his “defense” of the CPPJ and GDD8) would certainly explain why neither body took a vote as was legally required for either Stutes or Gabb to proceed with the restraining order.  Further, it explains why neither body seemed to even have knowledge of the restraining order’s existence!  Finally, under that scenario, it’s very easy to see why Stutes would, under no circumstances, permit us to examine his legal invoices pertaining to filing the restraining order.

The best part of DeRosier’s “defense,” is when he literally threw Louisiana Inspector General Stephen Street under the bus (and Street’s response to same):

DeRosier also told me that he ran the idea for his nonprofit by Louisiana Inspector General Stephen Street, implying that Street gave approval for the idea. “I visited with the legislative auditor and the bar association, and both referred me to the state inspector general,” DeRosier said. “We went and met with him and explained the whole program to him. That’s about the time I formed the foundation.”

But in an email, Street was emphatic that this was not the case. “OIG has no legal authority to approve or disapprove of the non-profit activities described,” he wrote. ”I have not reviewed, nor am I familiar with the specifics of this foundation or its activities, and therefore did not give any permission, approval or disapproval for its establishment, funding and operations.”

Now, notice DeRosier states that he “visited with the Legislative Auditor.”  If by chance what DeRosier states in that regard is the truth, then we can only assume this apparent blind-eye on the part of Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera is yet another instance, as former GOHSEP Deputy Director Mark DeBossier stated (again on tape) that, “They’ll just close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and we make sure that there’s no fingerprints on it.”

This is a video blog, after all, so at this time, we feel compelled to replicate the video associated with the preceding link because we find it to be one of the most fascinating video segments we’ve ever published:

Contractor Billy Broussard, at a meeting at the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office on February 26, 2019, stuns attendees by playing a recording of former GOHSEP Deputy Director Mark DeBosier bragging of how he can convince the Legislative Auditor’s Office to turn a blind eye when he needs to.

We’re going to conclude this feature by providing our subscribers with a March 13, 2019 letter from Sen. Fred Mills to Gov. Edwards outlining in exacting detail how Broussard managed to be fleeced out of $1,131,717.  We will also add that we have physically examined every single document which Mills references in that letter!  Every single one!

Unfortunately, given all the corruption which swirls unabated in Calcasieu Parish, the best we may be able to do is to forewarn anyone considering doing business with any governmental entity there to run for the hills and just let them all “keep it in the family” as they appear hell-bent on doing, even to the point of flagrantly running a money-laundering gift card operation such as that depicted above!

After all, that is precisely what Broussard contends happened to him in that funds he contends were obtained from FEMA intended to pay him on his cleanup contract were instead diverted to on-staff employees of the Gravity District (i.e. “keeping it all in the family,”) for work they themselves did on areas of the bayou which were not even on the Army Corps’ wetland permit!

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.