Sound Off Louisiana

Robert Allen Stanford, Federal prison inmate and mastermind behind a Ponzi scheme which allegedly cost Southeast Louisiana investors several billion dollars as part of an overall estimated loss of $7 billion to all investors in the scheme.  On July 23, 2024, sixteen (16) years after the scheme collapsed, the class action lawsuit of his victims against the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) commenced.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns provides an overview of the August 1, 2024 proceedings of Lillie et. al. vs. Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) with an intense focus on one question posed by plaintiffs’ attorney Phil Preis:

 Highlights of August 1, 2024 proceedings of Lillie et. al. vs. OFI with particular focus on Preis’ “wolves” question and how OFI may better handle the matter going forward.

Now, as Burns indicated on the video, he believes that the April 3, 2004 letter from OFI to all State-chartered banks in Louisiana directing them not to invest in Stanford International Bank (SIB) CDs is potentially the most impactful evidence exhibit presented to the jury.  Accordingly, he took the time to make a replica of the memorandum, and that replica follows:

We feel compelled to point out that other past and present bank examiners feel that Burns is placing too much emphasis on that one memorandum sent out by the OFI. [Addendum:  Now that these present and former examiners have watched the video and heard Preis’ question, they’re changing their tunes.]

Only time will tell if that’s the case, but we are comfortable in stating that the OFI has not authoritatively shot down the false perception that the OFI was treating one set of potential investors (individuals owning self-directed IRAs) very differently (i.e. “throwing them to the wolves”) than another set of potential investors (State-chartered banks).

Burns makes it very clear in the above video how he would combat even the potential that the false perception exists among jurors.

Burns’ combat relies heavily upon the concept of “financial leverage.”

To best illustrate that point, consider the following table wherein the purchase of a “junk bond” is contrasted by the impact of a falling price upon a self-directed IRA vs. a commercial bank (regulators would never permit the purchase of a “junk bond” by a bank, but let’s go on the premise for illustrative purposes that they would):

We genuinely believe OFI needs to make the distinction between why an identical investment is perfectly acceptable for a self-directed IRA but totally unacceptable for a bank.  Otherwise, the jury may enter jury deliberations under the false perception Burns references above.  At a minimum, it’s better to be safe than sorry on this type of a matter.

Links for attorney arguing their clients case (so far):

Plaintiffs:  Phil Preis and his daughter, Caroline Graham.

Defendant:  Dennis Blunt, Nena Eddy, and Michael Victorian.

Former Louisiana State Police (LSP) Col. Lamar Davis, who was essentially exonerated of engaging in discriminatory promotional practices in Stelly v. LSP upon Federal Judge Greg Guidry’s granting of LSP’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Wednesday, July 31, 2024.  Stelly was assessed all of LSP’s court costs.

Our last update on former LSP Lt. John Stelly came in this July 24, 2024 feature, which combined reporting upon the “fruitless” results of the mandated settlement conference conducted on Monday, July 22, 2024 and a synopsis of the first two days of the Stanford victims’ trial against the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI).

Earlier today (Friday, August 2, 2024) at 2:09 p.m., the following comment was received on that feature, and we’re choosing to embed it in this feature so it isn’t overlooked:

 

I had an interesting conversation with an old colleague today I ran into at lunch. Stelly probably should have taken anything LSP was offering him. Word on the street is his lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice by the Federal judge, with Stelly paying LSP for its court costs. Ouch.

Well, as is so often the case, “word on the street” is accurate as Federal Judge Greg Guidry signed this judgment on Wednesday, July 31, 2024 dismissing Stelly’s case with prejudice and assessing all of LSP’s court costs against Stelly.

Judge Guidry also supplied this  Order and Reasons for his Judgment.  From that document:

But “[e]mployment discrimination laws are ‘not intended to be a vehicle for judicial second-guessing of business decisions, nor . . . to transform the courts into personnel managers.”

Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA Inc., 413 F.3d 471, 478 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Bienkowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1503, 1507–08 (5th Cir. 1988) (abrogation on other grounds recognized by Owens v. Circassia Pharms., Inc., 33 F.4th 814 (5th Cir. 2022)). The Court’s role in considering a Title VII failure to promote claim like Stelly’s is not to undertake a line-by-line review of each applicant’s resume or make its own determinations as to what factors render a candidate the most qualified for any particular position. LSP has proffered a valid nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting Stelly—it considered Burns and El-Amin better qualified for the captain positions in the ODD and GED, respectively, primarily because of their years of experience in those particular divisions and specialized experience gained thereby. See R. Doc. 118-2 at 7–11. It points out, for example, the previous captain of the GED had “rated El-Amin as exceptional for his performance in that department” and that Burns had “distinguished himself” while working in the ODD for over seven years prior to his promotion to its captain, demonstrating the skills and experience required for this “public-facing position that work[s] directly with the Superintendent, with other agencies, with the legislature, and with various industry personnel.” Beyond that, like Stelly, LSP lists several other factors it considered qualified Burns and El-Amin for the captain positions at issue, such as having obtained an advance degree, having served in the military, and possessing strong interpersonal and communication skills and leadership qualities. Id. at 9–10. Stelly’s subjective belief that the fairly similar attributes he has listed rendered him better qualified than Burns and El-Amin for these particular positions is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether LSP’s assertion that it promoted Burns and El-Amin because it considered them to be better qualified than Stelly is pretextual.

At trial it would be Stelly’s burden to “produce substantial evidence indicating that the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for discrimination.” Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 578 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000)). Beyond quibbling about their relative resumes, Stelly has produced no evidence indicating that LSP promoted Burns and El-Amin, not because it valued their significant prior experience in ODD and GED over Stelly’s credentials, but because Stelly was white. Because Stelly cannot prove this essential element of his claim, the entry of summary judgment in favor of LSP and the dismissal of this case is appropriate.1

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that LSP’s Motion for Summary Judgment, R. Doc. 118, is GRANTED. Judgment shall be entered in LSP’s favor on Stelly’s remaining claim, and this action dismissed in its entirety, by separate order of the Court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 31st day of July, 2024.

So, that’s a wrap for Stelly v. LSP.

Yesterday was an interesting day in 19th JDC State Judge Don Johnson’s courtroom for the Stanford victims’ trial, and we intend to have the fifth (5th) installment for that series out toward the latter part of this upcoming weekend.

Robert Allen Stanford, Federal prison inmate and mastermind behind a Ponzi scheme which allegedly cost Southeast Louisiana investors several billion dollars as part of an overall estimated loss of $7 billion to all investors in the scheme.  On July 23, 2024, sixteen (16) years after the scheme collapsed, the class action lawsuit of his victims against the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions (OFI) commenced.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns provides an overview of the July 31, 2024 proceedings of Lillie et. al. vs. Louisiana Office of Financial Insertions (OFI):

 Highlights of July 31, 2024 proceedings of Lillie et. al. vs. OFI.  Note:  We sincerely apologize for our repeated mispronunciation of the name of Ms. Nena Eddy, whom Burns repeatedly referenced as “Ms. Needy.”  It’s an inexcusable error and, again, we sincerely apologize for it.

Links for attorney arguing their clients case (so far):

Plaintiffs:  Phil Preis and his daughter, Caroline Graham.

Defendant:  Dennis Blunt, Nena Eddy, and Michael Victorian.