Sound Off Louisiana

LSP Major Frank Besson (photo courtesy of WAFB news).

LSP Major Robert Hodges (photo courtesy of WAFB news).

Subscribers and casual visitors to this blog may recall that, after providing Gov. Elect Jeff Landry a week to savor his primary victory, we then openly posed the question of whether Landry would perpetuate a 15-year downward spiral of LSP by appointing Frank Besson (a/k/a Edmonson 2.0) as LSP Colonel.

As we indicated in that feature, doing so would certainly appease the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association, which has backed Besson for a protracted period dating back to Gov. Edwards having to name a replacment for former Col. Kevin Reeves.

We’re going to again present the video associated with that post for review at this time:

10/22/23:  Burns provides an admonition to Governor-Elect Jeff Landry entailing his LSP Colonel appointment similarly to that he provided to then-Governor-Elect John Bel Edwards on December 8, 2015.  [Our apologies for the intermittent blurriness of the video.]

According to this WAFB (Channel 9 in Baton Rouge) feature written two days ago (November 14, 2023) by its News Director, Robb Hays, Landry is close to making an announcement on his choice to head LSP, and the top names are Majors Frank Besson (gee, what a surprise!!) and Robert Hodges.  From the feature:

As Governor-elect Jeff Landry prepares to announce a new leader for Louisiana State Police, the names of two longtime troopers continue to surface as strong possibilities for the job.

They include Major Robert Hodges and Major Frank Besson.

Hodges, a 28-year veteran of Louisiana State Police (LSP), currently oversees Region 2 Patrol. Region 2 encompasses eighteen southern parishes and includes Troop C in Gray, Troop D in Lake Charles, and Troop I in Lafayette. He and Landry have been friends for many years.

Besson, who has been with LSP for 24 years, oversees the agency’s Emergency Services Unit which includes areas like crisis response, air support, and the LSP SWAT team. Besson is a former president of the Louisiana State Trooper’s Association.

The job is a cabinet-level position in the governor’s administration. Landry is expected to announce his choice by the end of this month.

The names of other top contenders could still surface as Landry’s transition team continues interviewing people for the job this week.

Should Landry choose either one of these two gentlemen, we can assure him that it is going to go over like a lead balloon with a vast swath of the active troopers serving at LSP; furthermore, it will reinforce among many recently-departed troopers (many leaving in droves with 3-15 years of tenure, which has reportedly been unprecedented at LSP) that they made the right decision in bailing out of LSP.

With LSP now having been on a 15-year downward spiral which has cast it to lows the general public (and many active and retired troopers) could have never fathomed, the universal sentiments among troopers (and recently-departed troopers) who have reached out to us and commented on the upcoming selection is that neither of these two gentlemen has the leadership traits to right the ship.  Further, because of their own alleged past issues, they will most certainly not have the respect of current troopers serving at LSP.

We could supply many more (especially on Besson), but here are just a few of the communications we’ve received entailing these two gentlemen:

Besson:

1.  Word on the street is Landry is going to choose Besson to head LSP.  He’s the one who, when promoted to Captain at Troop C, his first order of business was promoting his brother Simon.
2. Internally, Louisiana State Police is “shaking” at the idea of Major Frank Besson, who is the front runner, becoming the next Superintendent of LSP.  He would ABSOLUTELY set LSP back to a Mike Edmonson era.
3. Besson has a history of internal complaints due to lack of leadership and bias.
4. I really feel bad for Landry for the mess he’s walking into, but it’s making all of the troopers nervous knowing who is politicking (Besson) to get the top job.
5. Just about everyone at LSP at the rank of Captain or above (Major is the next step up after Captain) has done nothing in their career except kiss ass.

Regarding point # 3 above, there is this feature regarding fired whistleblower Carl Cavalier’s lawsuit against LSP.  From that feature:

On May 5, 2018, Cavalier alleges to have experienced racial discrimination from his chain of command, specifically from Major Frank Besson, Sergeant Simon Besson, Lieutenant Andre Bienvenue and Lieutenant Matt Trahan.

Cavalier alleges that between August 11, 2018, and August 24, 2018, he was contacted by Lieutenant Draper Crain and Lt. Colonel Kendrick Van Buren and advised that he should request a transfer to the Bureau of Investigations. Cavalier met with Major Darrin Naquin regarding possible resolutions to the discrimination on August 24, 2018, then requested his transfer on August, 27, the suit says.

We at Sound Off Louisiana have our own past issue with Besson.  In 2014, Burns (who at that time had no blog) assisted two other bloggers in providing video coverage of the Louisiana State Police Retirement Board (LSPRB)’s, of which  Besson has been the long-time Chairman‘s, heel dragging on the infamous “Edmonson Amendment,” which was a covert effort on the part of former LSP Colonel Mike Edmonson to cram an approximate $55,000/year pension benefit boost straight down taxpayers’ throats.

One of those bloggers, the late C. B. Forgotston, identified five (5) Members of the Board who would, according to Forgotston(whose ability to be accurate on LSP matters was uncanny) fight tooth and nail to actively block any effort by the Board to litigate the matter in an effort to undo Edmonson’s sneaky act of squeezing the Amendment into a wholly-unrelated bill during a Conference Committee at the 11th hour for Edmonson to get the massive increase to his pension.  From the preceding feature identifying the five (5) members:

Frank Besson (Chairman)

Kevin Marcel

Charlie Dupuy (Edmonson’s long-time Chief of Staff)

Stephen LaFarge:  

Thurman Miller: 

Then-Louisiana State Treasurer (now U. S. Senator) John Kennedy, who was close friends with the late C. B. Forgotston and who also served on the LSPRB, expressed his frustration at the whole matter, and he specifically dressed down Frank Besson and then-LSPRB Executive Director Irwin Felps about the Edmonson Amendment and Felps/Besson’s direct attempts to curtail public comment on the matter.  Let’s take a look:

September 4, 2014 LSPRB meeting during which then-Treasurer (now U. S. Senator) John Kennedy dresses down Chairman Frank Besson and Executive Director Irwin Felps, Jr. [Besson gets confrontational with Kennedy at the 0:48 mark of the video.  Kennedy professionally characterizes Besson’s proposal (providing for a maximum two-minute period for each retiree and other attendees to speak and ONLY if their names are, “drawn out of a hat”) wherein Besson directly sought to curtail public comment as a “bad proposal.”]  We did then and do now 100 percent agree with Sen. Kennedy!

Immediately after that same meeting, Kennedy was not done voicing his displeasure over the whole matter.  Let’s take a look:

September 4, 2014:  Then-LSPRB Member (and then-State Treasurer) and now U. S. Senator John Kennedy is interviewed by reporters immediately after the LSPRB meeting regarding resolving the “Edmonson Amendment.”

Meanwhile, a month before Kennedy’s statements in the preceding video, Burns, who was working closely with Forgotston and Kennedy (as an aside:  Burns uncovered through FOIA legal invoices of the LSPRB indicating strong consideration was given by the five Board Members to actually sue John Kennedy over him encouraging the LSPRB to be sued over the Edmonson Amendment), sent each of the five (5) members this August 9, 2014 letter inviting each of them to appear on camera and defend their steadfast opposition to litigating the Edmonson matter.

Burns followed up the letter with a subsequent email, and Frank Besson, in particular, was incredulous and demanded that Burns, “remove my name from any emails you send out.”  That action on Besson’s part infuriated Forgotston, who then proceeded to flood Besson with emails and told him that, “if you don’t want to receive these emails, resign from the Board!  You are a public official serving the public, and I have every right to express my sentiments to you!”

The whole matter got resolved when then-State Sen. Dan Claitor (R-Baton Rouge), acting through Baton Rouge attorney Jack Whitehead, filed this lawsuit against the LSPRB seeking to have the entire bill declared unconstitutional.  Judge Janice Clark, who is the 19th JDC judge who drew Claitor’s lawsuit, wasted no time issuing a ruling declaring it “unconstitutional on its face.”

We have also received reports that raise questions about possible actions Besson may have engaged in to assist former Col. Mike Edmonson (or a firm in which he has ownership) in procuring contracts in the aftermath of one or more hurricanes to have stricken South Louisiana.

Hodges:

Because Hodges’ name has not been “in play” for nearly as long as Besson’s, we don’t have as much material on him.  Nevertheless, the material we did obtain from troopers is extremely unflattering.  In fact, some of it is so bad that we aren’t comfortable publishing it without foundation which, at this time, we lack.  Nevertheless, here is something we are comfortable publishing:

Hodges lives in Mandeville, but he lists his residence as being in Lafayette…….LSP policy requires living within 75 miles of a location when applying for a promotion.  If the promoted individual does not do so, he or she has 90 days to move within the area or the promotion must be forfeited.  Hodges has used the address of a friend in Lafayette to get around the requirement.  So, he is knowingly and willingly violating policy but will be in charge of enforcing it if Landry chooses him as the next Colonel.  Guess it will be the “same ole same old” at LSP!

So, it would appear that Landry is content to continue with the “same ole same ole,” at least regarding LSP’s “leadership” and the near-certain debacle that either choice he would make between Besson or Hodges would likely generate.

It looks like we’ll be in for an interesting and challenging time at LSP from everything we can assess of Landry’s decision-making process (i.e. just do whatever the hell the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association tells us to do) regarding LSP (in which case, Besson will undoubtedly be the next LSP Colonel).

Notwithstanding the WAFB article above (which says Landry will make the announcement, “before the end of the month,”) our sources indicate that he will make the announcement on Wednesday, November 22, 2023, just ahead of the extended Thanksgiving Day weekend.  If that turns out to be the case, it may be an intentional act to keep the announcement as low-key as possible.  If so, it’s not going to work because we’ll certainly blast his selection as far and wide as we can and then prepare for extreme scrutiny of whomever his choice turns out to be, especially if it’s either of the two aforementioned gentlemen!

Dr. Shiva Akula who, after a trial lasting five (5) days, was convicted of all 23 counts he faced for Medicare fraud in USA v. Shiva Akula.

On Monday at approximately 3:10 p.m., the jury in the case of USA v. Dr. Shiva Akula, in which he was charged with 23 counts of Medicare fraud, retired for deliberations.

Approximately one hour and fifty minutes (1:50) later, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all 23 counts (See the Jury Verdict Form).

Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns attended the Bond Hearing    which transpired at 10:00 a.m. this morning (Tuesday, November 7, 2023).  Dr Akula is being permitted to remain at home but must wear an ankle monitor and a GPS tracking device.

In an absolute abundance of caution (actually too much caution by our own admission, but it’s our decision) of ensuring that ALL of the terms of Judge Africk’s conditions for Dr. Akula’s bond and lead-up to sentencing are adhered to, we will publish nothing further on this case until after sentencing, which is scheduled for February 21, 2024 at 2 p.m.  We will be there to attend that sentencing hearing and will obviously report upon it.

For the benefit of those who missed prior features, here they are:

Day 1:  Did USA v. Dr. Shiva Akula implode from the opening gate with first witness nurse Shauna Hull testifying she’d “never seen” Exhibit D-32?

Day 2:  Prosecution scores big on paper in USA v. Dr. Shiva Akula day 2; Will extreme minutia, unsolicited reference to “little brown man” negate the whole effort with the jury?

Day 3:  Prosecution calls three witnesses with highly questionable integrity and/or credibility in third day of USA v. Dr. Shiva Akula.

Day 4:  Dr. Akula takes stand in criminal trial and does well on direct but struggles on cross once USA gets Medicare document of claims appeals denial into the record.

There was testimony on day five in the form of one physician testifying on behalf of Dr. Akula as well as one rebuttal witness called by the prosecution (Sue May), and we may likely provide details of those testimonies and closing arguments after the February 21, 2024 sentencing at 2:00 p.m.

In the meantime, we are now going to resume our intense focus on Louisiana State Police (LSP) because we have an absolute avalanche of material which has piled up.  For those who follow this blog largely to stay abreast of LSP, we appreciate your patience because Burns very much desired to attend and report upon the Akula matter.

CLICK HERE for the day 1 minute entry by the court. 

CLICK HERE for the day 2 minute entry by the court. 

CLICK HERE for the day 3 minute entry by the court. 

CLICK HERE for the day 4 minute entry by the court. 

CLICK HERE for the day 5 minute entry and jury instructions. 

Dr. Shiva Akula, whose Federal trial entailing 23 counts of alleged Medicare fraud commenced in the Federal Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans on Monday, October 30, 2023.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns and community activist Belinda Parker-Brown provide an overview of the fourth (4th) day of the criminal trial of Dr. Shiva Akula, who faces 23 counts of alleged Medicare fraud and is on trial in the Eastern District of Louisiana:

November 2, 2023:  Burns and Parker-Brown provide overview of Day 4 of USA v. Shiva Akula.

Now, beginning at the 6:58 mark of the above video, Burns states that Akula had seen so much presented at the trial (we’re talking spreadsheet iteration after spreadsheet iteration and them being sorted six different ways from Sunday) that he felt like it’s very difficult to decipher what any provider can and cannot do.

Burns echoed his sentiments and, as we’ve stated in passing on another feature, Burns is an inactive CPA (thus loves spreadsheets) and did graduate LSU with a 4.000 GPA, and there is no way in hell that he could have been able to figure out what all these codes and spreadsheet sorting actually translate to.  With that being the case, the jury is seriously expected to try and make heads or tails of all these codes and spreadsheet iterations?

In short, all of this health care governmental billing and subsequent analysis is so mind-blowingly complex that one would practically need a PhD in this subject matter (or else pay a massive salary to have someone on staff who knows how to decipher all these complexities) just to try and operate.  It is absolutely unreal!

Nevertheless, Burns has previously reported (see Day 2 of the trial) how the prosecution presented doctor visits ad nauseam for which it alleges cannot be billed because of the fact that the patient is on hospice and that only a per diem rate is applicable.

Burns even went out of his way to confirm with three (3) other individuals attending the trial that those statements were made repeatedly in presenting the approximate 47 doctor visits on screen to which the jury was shown in excruciating detail about what date, which doctor (William Blalock), a reading of the patient’s general health status (with him being questioned as “stable” or “crisis”).  Those three individuals confirmed that the prosecution was very emphatic that doctor visits could not be billed as separate charges and that they are factored into the per diem rate approved by Medicare for providing hospice care.

As Burns said on the video, his mother was on hospice from late May of 2019 through the day of her passing to go and be with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, on July 9, 2021.

Burns knew for a fact that his mom, who was on hospice that entire time (and who resided in Ollie Steele Nursing Home across the street from Burns from June 6, 2019 through approximately June 30, 2021, at which time she had to be transported to Clarity Hospice for in-patient care as the end became imminent), certainly received Medicare statements which included Medicare-approved charges for, “routine nursing home visit.”

Burns keeps as few paper records as possible, preferring to scan such documents digitally and store them to the cloud.  Well, there are certainly others, but here is a “routine doctor visit” to mom’s nursing home on November 4, 2020, which was approved and paid by Medicare, and here is another such statement containing an identical charge on March 24, 2021, which also was approved and paid by Medicare.

Now, maybe there’s some extenuating circumstance that somehow made Burns’ mom’s visits somehow differentiated from the patients Dr. Blalock was seeing but, even if so, it just further demonstrates that seemingly nobody can know just what the heck the rules are here!

Dr. Akula was point-blank asked on the witness stand if he had specific intent to defraud Medicare and inflate his own income, and he said, “Never.”

We’re going to be honest.  We believe him!

He may have experienced periods of chaos from going from paper records to electronic records and, though he didn’t have a clue it was going on, he had a number of employees who simply harbored deep personal resentment toward him for what they perceived as too low pay (which the prosecution kept grilling him on during cross) and basically violated his trust in various ways.

Those facts, however, certainly do not prove in any way that Dr. Akula set out to commit fraud and, with the prosecution’s case now over, we are prepared to go on record as stating that we do not believe that he did so.

Despite its best efforts (and they did present a very excruciatingly-detailed case along with a considerable amount of innuendo), we believe the prosecution has failed to directly tie Akula to any purposeful intent to defraud the government.  We would vote to acquit on all counts, and we predict that the jury will do the same after an estimated 4-5 hours of deliberation.

As indicated on the video above, the defense will call one expert witness on Monday, after which closing arguments will ensue.

Thereafter, Judge Africk will provide the jury with its instructions, and then the case will be submitted to the jury.

Despite our prediction of acquittal on all counts, we are nevertheless not hesitant to say that we believe that would have been the case even without Akula taking the stand.

Further, seeing Akula struggle mightily  on the claims appeal denial documentation (looking over the document for an extensive period and being evasive on a response to the question of, “Is this not a denial with the explanation of ‘the services performed were not medically necessary?'”), we believe is an abject lesson demonstrating exactly why so many defense attorneys urge their clients not to take the witness stand!

For the lawyers who read this, Akula’s lawyer, David DeVillers, did Move for a Rule 29 Judgment of Acquittal in stating, “No reasonable juror could conclude that Dr. Akula committed fraud in this matter.”

Obviously, the prosecution argued that issuing such a judgment would not be appropriate, and Judge Africk immediately denied the Motion but indicated that DeVillers could re-urge it later in this trial if he was so inclined.

We will provide an overview of Monday’s hearing soon thereafter, and as indicated on the video, it is very likely to be the last overview unless the jury extends deliberations into Tuesday.

CLICK HERE for the day 4 minute entry by the court.