Sound Off Louisiana

Newest member of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC), Michael DuBos, who was appointed by Gov. Jeff Landry on August 2, 2024.

Long-time followers of this blog may have noted that we have not provided coverage of any meetings of the LSPC for quite some time.  The reason for that is simple:  there have been none.  The meetings for June, July, and August have all been cancelled.

A key reason for that is two former Commissioners, both of whom have been personally sued alleging an Open Meetings Violation, Oliver Jenkins and Tony Pierite, were never formally confirmed by the Louisiana Senate and their terms therefore expired as of the last day of this past Legislative Session (June 3, 2024).

Former Gov. John Bel Edwards appointed Jenkins and Pierite to the LSPC; however, Gov. Landry opted not to seek their confirmations before the Louisiana Senate, instead choosing to appoint his own Members to the Commission.

One such appointment is a very familar face to those who closely follow this blog:  Monroe Attorney Michael DuBos.

It was DuBos who was successful in obtaining the acquittal of Jacob Brown in Federal Court in Monroe last August.  Additionally, it was DuBos who, in March of 2021, successfully obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against LSP and, more specifically, then-Col. Lamar Davis which stopped the administrative investigations of three of his former trooper clients (Dakota DeMoss, Randal Dickerson, and George Harper) dead in its tracks.    LSP did subsequently succeed in getting the TRO dissolved.

DuBos also isn’t hesitant to call LSP on the carpet when he believes the agency is, “not following the law.”  From the just-linked feature:

Three hours before the hearing in Judge Johnson’s courtroom, DuBos lit into LSP attorney Faye Morrison, accusing her of, “not correctly stating the law.”  He interrupted her statements to the LSPC, which prompted Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr. to tell him not to interrupt and to, “show a little politeness here!”  Let’s take a look, shall we?:

3/11/21:  DuBos, after describing himself as, “a little old country lawyer in Monroe,” indicates that LSP has to follow the law just like anyone else and later states that LSP’s then-Legal Counsel Faye Morrison is, “not correctly stating the law.”

DuBos felt strongly enough that then-Col. Lamar Davis was abusing his authority regarding conducting investigations on his then-clients that he sought for the LSPC to conduct an investigation into Davis’ actions.  Here is the LSPC’s vote on his request:

 3/11/21 vote on DuBos’ call for an investigation into then-Col. Lamar Davis.

Gov. Landry’s other appointment to the LSPC is John E. Atkins, whom anyone is welcome to read about at the preceding link.

It will be interesting to see just what all is discussed both by Members of the Commission and public members at the September 2024 meeting, which will be the first such meeting since May.

Former Stanford Victims Coalition Director and Founder Angela Shaw Alexander.

——————————————————-

Editor’s Note:  The original version of this feature included reference to an encounter with Ms. Alexander outside of 19th JDC in the aftermath of the jury verdict. 

However, Ms. Alexander reached out to us and stated that was not her, nor was she in Baton Rouge for the trial.  She also stated that she disbanded the Stanford Victims Coalition years ago and wanted to stress that she is not a party to the OFI litigation.

The article has been edited accordingly, and we regret the error.

—————————————————

In our previous feature, we took Stanford victims’ attorney Phil Preis to task for blaming the jury for the outcome of the litigation in Lillie et. al. v. Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI).

Today, we want to profile Ms. Angela Shaw Alexander and her strong opinions that protection for the Stanford victims from the Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) should have been afforded up to the $500,000 limit.

As we have previously reported, Alexander was quoted in this Advocate article.  Her quote follows:

“We will all forever be bound by this horrific crime no one else will ever comprehend. I can’t thank you enough for your support through the years,” Angela Shaw Alexander wrote in a group email shared with her fellow victims Friday night. “We’ve certainly experienced our share of injustices and judgement from the public. I have – and always will – carry your experiences with me. They’ve changed me in ways I can’t explain and without a doubt changed the trajectory of my life in several ways.”

Here is the video on Ms. Alexander to include a letter to SIPC and Congressional testimony buttressing her beliefs that SIPC coverage should have been afforded to the victims:

 August 23, 2024:  Burns elaborates on former Stanford Victims Coalition’s Founder and Director, Angela Shaw Alexander, and her contentions that SIPC coverage should have been provided to the Stanford Victims.

As Burns indicated early on in the video, a table would be provided with key dates of the Stanford Ponzi scheme and fallout thereafter.  Here is that table:

As Burns indicated, here’s the link on the SIPC’s website for what’s covered and what is not.  From that feature:

SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage firms are protected when assets are missing from customer accounts.

SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins.

SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect against losses due to a broker’s bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments.

In concluding this feature, just as was the case throughout most of the trial, Stanford victims attorney Preis and Phelps Dunbar defense attorney Dennis Blunt could agree on little, and such remains the case with regard to the final judgment reflecting the trial’s outcome.  Accordingly, here is Preis’ proposed judgment and here is Blunt’s proposed judgment.

Mr. Preis indicates in the Local Rule 9.5 disclosure that, “Counsel for OFI opposed Class Members’ Proposed Judgment because OFI does not think that the duty language from the Jury Verdict Form indicating OFI owed a duty to class members to be included in the final judgment.”

Nevertheless, we note the following differences in the final order on the judgment itemizations of orders from each respective document:

Preis:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims of PLAINTIFFS in this lawsuit are hereby dismissed, with prejudice.

Blunt:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims of PLAINTIFFS seeking to hold OFI liable for reckless conduct are hereby dismissed, with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, in light of the July 22, 2021 voluntary dismissal of claims and the foregoing dismissal of claims in accordance with the Jury Verdict, this judgment shall be the FINAL JUDGMENT in this matter, as all claims
presented in this case have been adjudicated.

We will certainly await which judgment Judge Johnson signs and, if applicable, any changes he may make to the proposed judgment that he does sign.

We will also monitor court filings to see if Preis lives up to his indication that he would file a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict or, in the Alternative, a New Trial.

In short, we will continue to diligently stay on top of this entire case until it is officially over.