St. Tammany District Attorney Collin Sims’ campaign responds to State Police Commission’s letter by declaring no violation and boomerangs it right back citing apparent involvement of Commissioner Riecke in Vincent Wynne’s campaign appearing to violate LSPC Rule and Louisiana Constitution.

Billboards of District Attorney Collin Sims’ campaign.

========================================

Editor’s Note:

On the video below, the “smart people” Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns references have no involvement whatsoever in the campaign of Collin Sims, nor do they reside in St. Tammany Parish.  Further, Burns has engaged in no interaction whatsoever with the Sims campaign.

=========================================

On February 1, 2014, we published this feature covering the fact that the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) sent the Collin Sims campaign a letter indicating that it needed to “cease and desist” from utilizing LSP troopers’ photos on billboards (see feature photo for this post).  The LSPC indicated essentially that the billboards constituted a tacit endorsement of Sims by the troopers.

Literally within an hour of publishing the feature, we received feedback from what Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns states publicly came from people, “who are more intelligent than me.”  Those individuals follow the blog religiously, and they indicated that there, “is no expectation of privacy,” on the part of the LSP troopers and, further, that since it was not the troopers who initiated the placement of the billboards nor paid for them, there was no campaign violation whatsoever.

Accordingly, Burns decided to address the LSPC at its February 8, 2024 meeting to inform the LSPC of that feedback he’d gotten.  Here’s his presentation before the LSPC:

 2/8/24:  Burns provides the LSPC with the assessment of a few followers of his blog whom Burns says, “I have enough humility to say are more intelligent than me,” regarding the LSPC’s January 20, 2024 letter to the Sims campaign.

Interestingly enough, approximately six (6) hours after Burns made his commentary above, the Sims campaign sent this email of February 8, 2024 clearly indicating that there was no violation of any rule and strongly chastising both the LSPC and one of its members, Jared Riecke, for an apparent violation of both the Louisiana Constitution and LSPC Rules in sending out the letter to the Sims campaign.  Let’s take a look at some highlights from that email at this time:

The image in question is of Collin Sims, executing his duties as Chief of the Criminal Division for the 22nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office, at a public press conference in Covington, Louisiana on October 13, 2023, with the family of Captain Vincent Liberto, a Mandeville police officer murdered in the line of duty.

In addition to family members of Captain Liberto, individuals in attendance included prosecutors and law enforcement officers from various agencies involved with the case. The video feed of the press conference was broadcast live on television and the internet and numerous still images were published in multiple online and print media sources.

The usage of the picture is not in violation of any law or rule for Mr. Sims or those pictured alongside him. The image on the billboard does not indicate or insinuate any endorsement from any individual in the photograph. It is a public picture of Collin Sims doing his job in a public space.

What should be concerning to the commission, those who govern it, and the general public, is the apparent involvement herein by Louisiana State Police Commission member Jared Caruso-Riecke and any direct or indirect involvement he may have with the upcoming election for the 22nd Judicial District Attorney’s Office. Direct or indirect involvement by Mr. Rieke in support of candidate Vincent Wynne, or any other candidate, appears to be in violation of the Louisiana Constitution (Article 10, Section 47) and Louisiana State Police Commission Rules (LSPC Rule 14.2).

The purpose of any appointment to the Louisiana State Police Commission is to be in service to the citizens of Louisiana. It is disappointing to see this commission potentially used in a political manner in contrast to its mission, state law, and its own rules.

Based on the above scathing smack down of the LSPC, we don’t look for any Cease and Desist anytime soon, and we want to thank one dedicated Sound Off Louisiana follower who alerted us to the fact that there is no campaign violation of any sort (together with the rationale for why) within an hour of us publishing our feature.

Our only question at this point is whether or not the LSPC bothered with contacting its own attorney, Lenore Feeney, and if so, if she gave a green light to sending out this letter.  We think it speaks volumes if the LSPC members did not consult her and speaks even more volumes if they did and that January 20, 2024 letter went out anyway!

Will Kelly Anderson obtain a “boatload of money” via qui tam lawsuit as U. S. pushes for $42 million restitution & 30-year prison sentence at Dr. Akula’s April 10 sentencing?

Dr. Shiva Akula, who has been incarcerated since approximately January 9, 2024 and who was convicted on 23 counts of Medicare fraud totaling approximately $115,000 on November 6, 2023, awaits sentencing on April 10, 2024 at 2:00 p.m., at which time the New Orleans U. S. Attorney’s Office seeks the maximum 30-year prison sentence as well as a restitution order totaling $42 million.

———————————————————-

Addendum (March 10, 2024):

On Thursday, March 7, 2024, Dr. Akula did file this Response to the U. S. Government’s Motion to Appoint a Receiver.  

Also, on March 6, 2024, Judge Africk issued this Order indicating that the Government’s loss calculation would not be considered until the final presentencing report is received rather than the draft submitted. 

———————————————————–

On November 7, 2023, we published this feature recapping the trial of Dr. Shiva Akula, a New Orleans Indian physician whom the U. S. Government charged with 23 counts of Medicare fraud totaling approximately $115,000.

We also stressed in our feature of Day two (2) of the trial that  key prosecution witness Kelly Anderson stood to obtain a “boatload of money” from her qui tam lawsuit.  That phrase “boatload of money” is not ours but rather the phrase uttered by Akula’s defense attorney, David DeVillers, to the jury during opening arguments.  DeVillers, in an apparent attempt to impugn the integrity of Anderson, uttered the phrase on at least four or five occasions during opening arguments.  From that feature, let us again provide a quick primer on the nature of a qui tam lawsuit:

As Burns stated he’d do in the video, here’s the link for guidance on the nature of the qui tam lawsuit filed by future prosecution witness Kelly Anderson.  From that Cornell University explanation:

In a qui tam action, a relator brings an action against a person or company on the government’s behalf. The government, not the relator, is considered the plaintiff. If the government succeeds, the relator bringing the suit receives a share of the award. This is also called a popular action.

For example, the federal False Claims Act authorizes qui tam actions against parties who have defrauded the federal government. If successful, a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may receive up to 30% of the government’s award.

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns provides a comprehensive update on the Akula matter and explains why the distinct possibility does exist that Anderson may well receive that “boatload of money” as the U. S. Government pushes hard for $42 million in restitution during Akula’s sentencing on April 10, 2024:

 Burns provides comprehensive update of USA v. Dr. Shiva Akula, who is scheduled to be sentenced on April 10, 2024, at which time the US Attorney will be seeking the maximum 30-year prison sentence and a $42 million restitution order.

Let us supply the support documents we reference in the preceding video:

1.  Judge Africk’s 1/31/24 denial of Akula’s Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.

2.  U. S. Attorney’s 1/28/24 Motion to Appoint Receiver.

3.  Judge Africk’s Order for Akula to Respond to the Motion to Appoint a Receiver No Later than Friday, March 8, 2024.

4.  Lis Pendens (Filed Monday, March 4, 2024):  St. Charles Avenue Condo in New Orleans;  Covington Hospice Facility; Clearview Hospice Facility in Metairie.

5.  U. S. Attorney’s March 5, 2014 Memorandum for Loss Calculation and Restitution Amounts.

Toward the middle of page five (5) of the Memorandum for Loss Calculations, it should be noted that a significant amount of Akula’s billings, according to the U. S. Attorney’s Office, entailed patients who were, “not hospice eligible.”

We can’t help but be reminded of our past February 13, 2019 feature in which Billy Broussard went to excruciating lengths to authoritatively demonstrate his contention that Gravity District 8 of Ward 1 of Calcasieu Parish sought to defraud FEMA/GOHSEP by having ineligible debris reported to FEMA/GOHSEP as eligible.  All of this dealt with the “Indian Bayou project,” which entailed cleanup in the aftermath of the 2006 flood.

He did so via his October 4, 2018 email for which we supplied a link (two paragraphs above the audio file on the above-linked feature).  The email provides a link for a May 20, 2009 email from internal auditor Kelly Fontenot to FEMA/GOHSEP-contracted folk indicating a need to get those GPS locations to go away.

It must be nice when you’re the government and you can somehow make “GPS locations go away” such that potential FEMA/GOHSEP fraud goes undetected.  We bet Dr. Akula sure wishes he had a way to get, “those Medicare billing codes to go away.”

It appears he may spend the remainder of his life in Federal prison (along with complete liquidation of all of his assets) as a result of his having no such ability!

Union Parish Sheriff Deputy Chris Harpin’s trial date continued from March 25 to October 28 awaiting LSP Trooper York’s fate in Louisiana Supreme Court and his own trial set for September 24.

Attorney J. Michael Small, who is representing Louisiana State Police (LSP) Trooper Kory York in the case of Ronald Greene, is appealing to the Louisiana Supreme Court the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of his Motion to Quash the charges against York.

As we concluded our most-recent feature on LSP Lt. John Clary and the dismissed bogus indictment against him for “concealing his body-worn camera for almost two years,” we had this to say entailing the status of LSP Trooper Kory York:

Also, entailing York, on January 31, 2024 the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeals Denied his Appeal of Judge Rogers’ Denial of his Motion to Quash.  Interestingly enough, it took the Second Circuit 2-1/2 months to issue the Denial and provide zilch in the way of explaining why the Writ was Denied.  We’ll see if that ends up being the final word on the matter; however, as we see it as a 100 percent certainty that York’s attorney, J. Michael Small, appeals that “blank denial” of the Second Circuit on to the Louisiana State Supreme Court.

Union Parish Sheriff Deputy Chris Harpin, who is the lone remaining defendant other than York in the Greene matter, was supposed to have his trial commence on March 25, 2024; however, his attorney, Eugene P. Circado, Jr., along with Assistant District Attorney Hugo Holland, on Wednesday, February 28, 2024, filed this Joint Motion to Continue the Trial Until October 28, 2024.  Here’s the rationale provided for the continuance:

This matter is scheduled for trial on March 25, 2024. The parties wish to continue the trial date as (a) the State desires to try codefendant Cory York prior to Chris Harpin, (b) Cory York’s case is not currently in a posture for trial due to writ applications pending with the Louisiana Supreme Court which could be dispositive of his case, and (c) defense counsel for Harpin has relied upon the State’s representations relative to trying the York case first in delaying the expense of preparing for trial.

Undersigned defense counsel does hereby specifically waive the presence of his client for purposes of this motion, consents to the signing of the accompanying order in open court or in chambers, and moves that this matter be set for pretrial hearings at 10 a.m. on October 25 2024, and jury trial on October 28, 2024.

We will point out that we have seen only one subpoena issued pertaining to the Harpin trial, and it is this subpoena by Harpin seeking the testimony of FBI Special Agent Glenn “Jeff” Methvin.  Our best assessment of that subpoena harkens us back to December of 2021 when a Federal Grand Jury was empaneled entailing any possible indictments against anyone on the scene on May 10, 2019, the day of Greene’s in-custody death.

We received what we deem to be reliable reports way back then that the Federal Grand Jury struggled mightily with ascertaining whether pepper spray was used in Greene’s arrest.  That is the charge pending against Harpin, and our best assessment of Methvin’s role as a defense witness will be to cast doubt on whether pepper spray was in fact used.

As everyone may recall, former LSP Sergeant Albert Paxton, at the 4:46 – 4:50 mark of this March 22, 2022 testimony of Paxton before the House Greene Committee, stated:  “I think, based on the evidence, that they’re putting OC spray in his face.”

This is why we’ve emphasized that Paxton is likely to be a star witness for the prosecution; however, we’ve also emphasized that we, “wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of John Belton (Hugo Holland) when it comes time for cross-examination.”

We are not going to extensively rehash why we believe that Paxton’s credibility is going to be problematic for the prosecution, but we believe it’s a horrendously-bad look that Paxton changed his testimony within mere minutes on the just-linked video regarding when he first learned of the Clary body-cam video.  His testimony changed from learning of the video on or around October 2, 2020 (corroborated by LSP’s then Use-of-Force Expert, Scott Davis, who we’d anticipate being another prosecution witness), to April 9, 2021.

A Supplemental Report was then drafted by Paxton and electronically signed by him on May 6, 2021 at 2:39 p.m.  That same Supplemental Report was then subsequently signed by Paxton’s then-supervisor, Johnny Scott Brown, a mere three minutes later at 2:42 p.m.

That report points the finger of blame entailing the Clary video (which, in reality had never been concealed by Clary at all) directly at Clary.

The report wound up in the hands of the media, and voila, the whole Clary disaster took full flight 18 days later, on May 24, 2021.  It is something that LSP should absolutely and without question hold its collective head in utter shame over, and that is why we’ve openly called for a full-blown LSP investigation into just what happened in the months of April and May of 2021 regarding the Greene matter.

At this point, our best guess is that the “investigation” will transpire in open court as we firmly expect a number of very probing questions will be posed by all three defense attorneys (T. Taylor Townsend, another prominent lawyer representing York, is often overshadowed by Small, but we suspect there will be some legal muscle flexed by him during York’s trial as well).

Now, regarding our quote above regarding York and his pending appeal before the Louisiana Supreme Court, we can only surmise that a response is expected back from the Court in time for a September 23, 2024 York trial commencement.

We didn’t hesitate to speculate on how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals would rule on York’s Quash Motion (that it would be granted), so we’re not going to become timid at this stage of the game.

It’s our opinion that the Louisiana Supreme Court is going to grant the Motion to Quash.

Why?  Because whatever the Supreme Court rules is going to set case law on the matter and, if the Writ is denied, we believe it’s going to have a very chilling effect on law enforcement officers who are called into Internal Affairs for interviews!

After all, when an officer is told, “nothing you say in this interview can be used against you in a criminal prosecution,” and then actual audio of the interview itself as well as the report derived in part from the interview are then turned right over to the prosecution, to us, at least, that is a big-time problem!

The prosecution calls it a “mistake” and admits that it never should have happened.  The problem, at least in our eyes, in taking a no-harm-no-foul approach is that law enforcement officers across Louisiana will likely take heed of what happened in this matter, and they are much more likely to clam up completely without an attorney present if there is even the most infinitesimal chance that a criminal charge may arise from their words uttered during the interview.

In other words, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling on this matter is going to extend far beyond Kory York in the Ronald Greene criminal case, and we believe the prospective adverse impact on future law enforcement officers’ willingness to cooperate in such internal affairs investigations is simply too great to deny the Motion to Quash.

That’s our thoughts for what they may be worth.

At any rate, irrespective of whether we’re right on the Supreme Court’s ruling on York’s Motion to Quash, it appears things are very likely to get very interesting in the Ronald Greene matter once football season arrives this year!