Louisiana State Police (LSP) Lt. John Clary (right), who was recently reinstated with LSP after a baseless indictment against him for Obstruction of Justice was dismissed, escorts Louisiana Tech’s football coach off the field after a home game (Clary was also relieved of that detail based on the false allegation made against him).

In today’s Sound Off Louisiana feature, founder Robert Burns seeks for Louisiana State Police (LSP) and/or the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) to “clear the air” on what all transpired during the months of April and May of 2021 that ultimately led to a bogus indictment of Lt. John Clary for Obstruction of Justice.

That indictment was based on the unquestioned falsity of an allegation that he, “concealed his body-worn camera for almost two years.” The matter entailed the arrest and apprehension of Ronald Greene on May 10, 2019.  Here is video of Burns’ statement before the Commission on Thursday, January 11, 2024:

Burns makes public comment at the LSPC meeting of Thursday, January 11, 2024 regarding the bogus indictment of Lt. John Clary along with inserted video clips of others making statements which validate what Burns indicates to the Commission transpired.

The above video speaks for itself, so the only comment we’ll make is that Burns failed to indicate to the Commission that former lead investigator on the Greene matter, then-Sergeant Albert Paxton, changed his testimony on March 22, 2022 within minutes.

His testimony changed in that he first testified that he first learned of Clary’s body-worn camera on or around October 2, 2020 (see 2:58 mark of above video and Paxton’s video segment shortly thereafter) to April of 2021 (see 5:57 mark of above video).

In the video above, Burns references a hard-copy printout provided to each Commissioner.  Let’s take a moment to present the table at this time:

One thing that troubles us and which has bothered us since we first broke the Ronald Greene matter is an “initial complaint” filed by Paxton.  Notice that, in the April 28, 2022 Villio entry in the table above, she is totally fixated on when Paxton watched the Clary video.

We would be far more interested in knowing when he watched the DeMoss video.  In his testimony, he admits Clary handed that DeMoss video (the one with the damning material of LSP’s initial encounter with Greene) to him on a flash drive in the wee hours of the morning on the very day of the incident, May 10, 2019.

It is therefore quite perplexing to us how Paxton, in this undated “initial complaint” about the Greene matter, placed the following material in that incident report:

Two troopers were involved in a pursuit with a vehicle being driven by Ronald Greene (B/M DOB:  9/28/1969).  The pursuit ended when Greene crashed his vehicle on Crossroads Loop in Union Parish.  Greene was taken into custody after resisting arrest and a struggle with Troopers.  A short time later Greene became unresponsive and was transported to Glenwood Medical Center by Pafford Medical Services.  Greene died while in route Glenwood Medical Center.

Now, again, bear in mind that Paxton, by his own admission, had the flash drive containing the DeMoss video upon ending his interview with Clary that very morning.  So, did he #1) not watch the DeMoss video prior to drafting the above report, OR #2) watch the DeMoss video and draft what is above anyway.  We would certainly assume the correct response is #1, but it begs the question of why that video (which is not lengthy) was not viewed prior to authoring the above “initial complaint?”

In wrapping this feature up, Billy Broussard opted to address the LSPC for a grand total of three (3) minutes wherein Broussard seeks to “clear my own name, and that of my former attorney, which just so happens to be our now-Governor.”  Let’s take a look:

1/11/24:  Broussard expresses his desire that his own name as well as that of his then-attorney (Gov. Jeff Landry) can be cleared through a supplemental report he requests of LSP.

Former LSP Trooper Michael Lynn Satcher II, who allegedly got so upset with his wife because of her not staying long enough at the re-election celebration victory party of Rapides Parish Sheriff Mark Wood that he engaged in extreme physical violence with her upon their arrival back home.

Although we’ve been told everything would have been done on the down low were it not for our December 10, 2023 feature on alleged domestic abuser and former LSP Trooper Michael Lynn Satcher II and his latest arrest for domestic violence, the matter ended up having local coverage on various television stations, and it was covered by KALB (Channel 5 in Alexandria) the next day, December 11, 2023, and was subsequently picked up by MSN.

We welcome anyone to watch the preceding coverage of the Satcher arrest, and it provides an excellent synopsis (in only 87 seconds, no less); however, it does contain one factual error.  On the feature, it is stated that Satcher, entailing his prior 2019 charges, “resigned prior to his arrest on those charges.”  We can only assume those type of inaccuracies simply happen when everything is rush ’em up, hush ’em up, and on to the next story.

As we made clear on this February 21, 2021 follow-up on Satcher, he did not resign until December 18, 2020 (a full 445 days AFTER his arrest)!

When it comes to election nights, it would appear Satcher likes to really “party down.”  His October 12, 2019 arrest came the very night of the primary results for that election.

In Satcher’s most recent string of alleged domestic violence episodes, though it is not the episode on which he was arrested, according to this Application for Protective Order filed by his current wife, Karen, he decided to take his anger out on her because he was not happy with her desire to leave the October 14, 2023 campaign victory celebration of Rapides Parish Sheriff Mark Wood.

Wood did manage to prevail in his re-election efforts against Independent challenger “Kris” Cloessner 58-42.

When we published our initial feature on Satcher, we made note of the following fact regarding Rapides Parish District Attorney Phillip Terrell:

[Terrell] wasted little time filing a motion to recuse himself from the prosecution by citing a very close friendship with Satcher and stating that they are also “hunting partners.”  Accordingly, the matter became the responsibility of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s Office to prosecute.

At the end of the news feature above, it is readily stated that Sheriff Wood’s Office’s, “Special Victims Office continues to investigate” the latest Satcher arrest.  As a result of that additional investigation, four (4) additional charges were lodged against Satcher, and his bond was increased from $150,000 to $235,000.

Let’s take just a moment to view just a bit of election-night celebration video which Satcher attended and for which Sheriff Wood goes out of his way to indicate he’d, “rented the place” (The Lagniappe Theatre in Alexandria) for an “extra hour,” so perhaps Satcher was upset that he couldn’t get even more intoxicated at no cost as a result of his wife’s desire to head on home. 

10/14/23:  Sheriff Wood recognizes DA Terrell, whom Wood says he looks forward to assisting in two years in his re-election efforts.  Terrell then espouses his strong support for, “the best Sheriff in the State of Louisiana.”

Getting back to  that Application for Protective Order filed by his present wife referenced above, let’s highlight some of its contents at this time:

12/9/23 (day of arrest)

Michael came to Amanda Lane when told not to come and that RPSO would be called.  We were on a phone call and I heard the seat belt sensor dinging which is when I text my parents to call 911 & head over to Amanda Lane because he was on site.  He stated he was going to break in or come thru the door which he then did.  He came into the bedroom where I was hiding.  He asked for my cell phone and asked if I had called the police to which I answered yes.  He told me to call them off and physically grabbed me, my hair, etc.  He wanted me to go with him to Robinson Road as his kids were still at the house & he knew the police would be coming & find them home alone.  I stated numerous times I did not want to go.  He physically got me into the back seat of the car & I hopped out the back passenger side.  He came around the back of the vehicle & stopped me which is how I hit my head on the driveway.  There is video showing all physical video.

We got into the vehicle & headed to Robinson Road.  In route, he mentions or states being in a state of panic.  We pulled behind the pool house & entered the pool house.  I had blood on my face from a bloody nose which we cleaned my face.  I called my dad from his phone while in the pool house in an attempt to stop them & the police from coming as per Michael’s request.  We then walked to the “big house” where the kids were watching TV in the living room.  Michael & I went into the master bedroom & I called Tammy’s phone.  I told them not to come to which they responded it was too late & asked where I was.  I replied I was @ Robinson which had them over with the RPSO agents.  Michael & I walked out the front door & they took him into custody.  Video & audio available from Amanda Lane which should show entering the house & any physical altercations which occurred.

10/14/23 (Night of Election Primary):

After returning home from a political victory party (RPSO Sheriff Mark Wood) @ the Lagniappe Theater, I changed clothes and was taking the dogs outside when Michael began speaking to me about not staying long enough inside the party.  There was violence which included me being drug out the front door of the house by my hair to the front yard, being punched in the face multiple times, thrown around the master bedroom and ended when Michael hit his head and collapsed to the floor.  I ran down the street & called my parents to come pick me up.  Michael was extremely intoxicated.  This event caused us to separate.

An Application for Protective Order from Satcher’s estranged wife, Courtney, whom he married on March 8, 2010 and divorced on July 21, 2018, outlines the same type of alleged conduct by Satcher.  Also, our February 23, 2021 Satcher feature, for which the hits have exploded during this latest arrest interval, outlines in extensive detail similar conduct Satcher allegedly committed against his then-dating partner, Cynthia Chapman (CLICK HERE for that Protective Order).

Now, we’ve already pointed out how Satcher’s (and/or his family’s) ability to flex his (their) political muscle(s) has resulted in this episode literally blowing up in Gov. Elect Jeff Landry’s face as a result of him caving to such political pressure and providing Satcher with this absolute joke of a plea deal in the Chapman matter.

Satcher (and/or his family) is (are) apparently not done attempting to flex their political muscles.  Why do we say that?  Well, Satcher has retained retired 9th JDC Judge Florence Rae Swent to represent him in this latest arrest.  Our sources inform us that Swent is related to Satcher (with the representation to us that she is his “great aunt”).  Such representation appears reasonable to us given that Satcher is 37, and our research shows Swent to be 81.

At any rate, we reached out to Swent seeking comment on whether she is related to Satcher; however, she declined to respond to our inquiry.

What is intriguing about Swent is her past efforts at lobbying on behalf of battered women who are victims of domestic abuse.  From the above link on Swent:

“Battered Women’s Clemency Project”

Judge Swent was reported as lobbying efforts to reduce prison sentences for battered women who were convicted of committing violent crimes against family members as a member of the Battered Women’s Clemency Project.

JUDGE LOBBIES PAROL BOARD FOR BATTERED WOMEN!

LOUISIANA – A volunteer group headed by a judge is trying to help women who face long prison sentences for killing husbands, boyfriends or relatives. The Battered Women’s Clemency Project, headed by District Judge F. Rae Swent, will present evidence of abuse to the State Pardon Board in hopes of reducing sentences for the women.The project will not challenge the women’s convictions but rather will present the Pardon Board with evidence of abuse that was not available or not considered in the women’s trials. Free legal representation will be provided jointly by Legal Services of Central Louisiana in Alexandria and it’s sister organization, Acadiana Legal Services in Lafayette.

At any rate, on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, Swent filed this Motion to Cancel or Reduce Bond to Allow Mental Health Treatment.

What is truly bizarre about Swent’s filing is that it is accompanied by an Order executed (or purported to be executed) by Division B Judge Chris Hazel.

Hazel is a former State Representative, and his wife, Karen, is a long-time Member of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Interior Designers.  It is Karen Hazel, along with fellow IDB Member Marion Johnston who, on February 27, 2014 read Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips the riot act for having the audacity to ask for a breakdown by race of practicing Interior Designers in Louisiana.  It was quite a show, so let’s take a look:

February 27, 2014:  Judge Hazel’s wife, Karen, along with her colleague on the IDB, Marion Johnston, read Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips the riot act for daring to ask for a breakdown by race of practicing Interior Designers in Louisiana [Notation:  Robert Burns’ mother, the late Helen Yvonne Burns, was forced to operate the camera because Burns had been previously ejected from the meeting when, during his public comment, he made mere reference to the Board’s Meeting in November of 2011] .

What’s really, really interesting about that Order page which has Judge Hazel’s signature (or at least what purports to be Judge Hazel’s signature on it) is that Swent sought to have the Hearing for Bond Cancellation (or Reduction) the very day after she filed it.

That’s right!  The Motion (with Accompanying Order) was filed on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, and it purports to have the authentic signature of Judge Hazel wherein Hazel called for a Hearing to be conducted the next day, Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.

We should note, however, that Division G Judge Greg Beard scratched through the entirety of Judge Hazel’s Order (and supplied his initials) calling for a Hearing on Thursday, December 14, 2023, and replaced all of it with his own stamp wherein he called for the Hearing to transpire on January 3, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.  Further, Judge Beard signed the Order the very same day that Hazel signed it (December 13, 2023)!

It’s one of the most bizarre filings we’ve ever seen in all our days of examining court filings, so we feel it’s worthy of prominent display.  Thus, here it is:

We don’t know, folks, but Judge Hazel’s hands don’t seem all that steady to us on his signature.  Maybe he was just a tad nervous about setting a hearing for the very next day, particularly given the nature of what’s being requested.  At any rate, Judge Beard’s handwriting appears to be much more stable to our eyes.

We do feel compelled to point out, however, that Billy Broussard was recently requested to appear in court without being served for the purpose of potentially assessing Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard and Melissa Dubroc’s attorney fees against him.  That Order was signed on a Friday calling for a Hearing the following Monday.

Broussard was telephoned that Monday morning by the judge’s office reminding him that he “had court” that morning.  Broussard, however, is on record on video as saying that he viewed that as an “invitation” to attend the Court Hearing if he was so inclined.  He actually respectfully declined, thus, at that Monday hearing, Judge Vincent Borne said he felt “uncomfortable” proceeding with Broussard not being served, and so he rescheduled that hearing for some eight or so weeks later.  At that hearing, Borne, in a rather soft-spoken manner, made it abundantly clear Broussard would not be assessed with “Mob Boss” Girouard and Dubroc’s attorney fees.

Let us wrap this feature up by saying that it certainly looks like a ton of LSP Troopers like to actively involve themselves directly into political campaigns even though they are strictly prohibited from doing so.

We have very recently received what we deem to be highly credible reports that a Trooper upon whom we have reported extensively chose to inject himself very actively in a recent election for State Senate.  The Trooper’s impact, irrespective of how illegal it was, appears to have been minimal since one of the opponents of the one whom he supported literally cruised to victory in receiving a whopping 62 percent of the vote in a five-candidate field!  In fact, he clobbered the Trooper-supported candidate by a margin of three-to-one!

Lastly, some very dedicated followers of this blog have encouraged us to provide this link for the Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence so that anyone who may be facing circumstances similar to those outlined above can reach out to them for assistance.  We are only too happy to do so.

So, here’s the bottom line on upcoming court dates for Mr. Satcher:

Tomorrow (Wednesday, December 20, 2023):  Hearing for protective orders.

Wednesday, January 3, 2024 (at 9:30 a.m.):  Hearing for Bond Cancelation or Reduction for Mental Health Treatment.

Tuesday, January 16, 2024:  Hearing for Revocation of Probation Regarding 2019 Arrest.

We promise to continue to monitor this case and update our subscribers and casual site visitors as developments continue to unfold.

Outgoing Louisiana State Police (LSP) Col. Lamar Davis, who was recognized and praised at the meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) of Thursday, December 14, 2023, but who has angered many white male LSP troopers with his alleged total fixation on hiring and promoting black and female cadets and troopers irrespective of alleged stronger credentials of their white male counterparts.

As we’ve published features leading up to the transition away from Gov. John Bel Edwards and his choices to head Louisiana State Police (Lamar Davis as Colonel and Chavez Cammon as Chief of Staff) and toward Governor-Elect Jeff Landry and his respective choices (Robert Hodges and Frank Besson), we have explained that they won’t enjoy even a brief “honeymoon” period whatsoever, and we’ve stressed that Landry, in his current role as Louisiana’s Attorney General, should certainly be cognizant of that fact because he is keenly aware of all of the lawsuits filed against LSP.

As far back as October 17, 2022, we provided this initial warning that plenty of white male LSP troopers have been fuming mad at Davis’ now readily-acknowledged fixation on promoting black and female troopers over white male counterparts who have alleged that they have superior qualifications.

White male troopers’ angst and hostility toward Davis only intensified when, on April 20, 2023, members of the LSPC made it crystal clear that they expect significant ramped-up hiring and promotions of black and female troopers.

Let us briefly provide from the two linked features above two videos (there is a third video on the first link above of Sound Off Louisiana’s Robert Burns letting the LSPC members know of the white male trooper fury that was beginning to reach a boiling point):  #1) a brief video clip supplied by those sympathetic to the plight of the white male troopers of Davis readily admitting that he plans to “make change” regarding the racial and gender makeup of LSP, and #2) a video clip of the LSPC members making it clear they expect Davis to honor his commitment in that regard.  Here are the two videos:

LSP Col. Lamar Davis testifies before the Louisiana Senate Committee on LSP Oversight that the agency has been historically comprised of “white males, ” and further states that the agency has, “got to make change.”

April 13, 2023 LSPC meeting during which LSPC Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr., after pressing for months for LSP demographic data, indicates to LSP Col. Davis and Chief of Staff Chavez Cammon that LSP needs, “to be conscious of what our community looks like,” in making future hiring and promotional decisions.

In that second linked feature above of April 20, 2023, we also revealed the fact that one former white LSP trooper, John Stelly, got so frustrated that he filed this March 1, 2023 Federal lawsuit alleging reverse discrimination.  Since the filing of that lawsuit, Stelly has amended the suit twice as a result of LSP filing Motions to Dismiss.  In the second amendment to his suit, Stelly added both former LSP Col. Kevin Reeves and Davis as Defendants in their official capacities.

We have waited until a meaningful ruling in the suit transpired to give an update on the case.  That happened on Monday, December 11, 2023 when Federal Judge Greg Gerard Guidry issued this Order and Reasons for Ruling entailing LSP’s two Motions to Dismiss.  The document is a must-read for any white male trooper considering suing LSP over Davis’ alleged hiring and promoting practices (and we know of several such troopers strongly considering actions similar to Stelly’s).  Let’s take a look at a few highlights from Guidry’s Order and Reasons:

Stelly, a white former Louisiana State Police lieutenant, filed the instant suit against LSP, alleging it had failed to promote him to a captain position because of his race, and thereby constructively discharged him, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. R. Doc. 2.

Stelly reasserted his claims under Title VII against LSP, but, now recognizing his claims against LSP under Section 1981 to be barred by sovereign immunity, see R. Doc. 49, substituted Reeves and Davis as defendants to those claims. Stelly alleges Reeves and Davis denied him promotions to captain because of his race on several occasions.

Stelly also alleges Davis failed to promote him to captain in retaliation for Stelly’s complaint to his supervisor that he was not being promoted because of his race and “humiliated” Stelly and “made [his] work conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign” by failing to promote Stelly to captain.

1.      Failure to Promote

 

As is relevant here, Title VII provides, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race.

As to direct evidence, Stelly points to his allegation that he was told in 2019 “the Department’s position was that a black trooper would be selected” for the open trooper-level position of Public Information Officer and the racial preference was “just the way it is.” Id. at 9. However, as the Fifth Circuit has explained, direct evidence of discrimination constitutes “[a] statement or document which shows ‘on its face that an improper criterion served as a basis—not necessarily the sole basis, but a basis—for the adverse employment action[.]’” Herster v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ., 887 F.3d 177, 185 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Jones v. Robinson Prop. Grp., L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 993 (5th Cir. 2005)). Even presuming this statement constitutes direct evidence of discrimination in LSP’s hiring for the Public Information Officer position, for which Stelly did not apply, it does not indicate in any way that the adverse employment action challenged here—LSP’s failure to promote Shelly on July 9, 2021—was racially motivated. Thus, the Court must consider whether Stelly has adequately stated his claim via circumstantial evidence.

As to LSP’s alleged failure to promote Stelly on July 9, 2021, Stelly alleges Lieutenant Robert Burns, a non-white individual, was promoted to captain in LSP’s Operational Development Division and Lieutenant Salem El Amin, a black individual, was promoted to captain in LSP’s Gaming Enforcement Division, instead of Stelly. R. Doc. 59 at 7–9. Stelly asserts he was “clearly more qualified” than Burns and Amin because he was listed higher on the “eligible list” for promotion based on his examination results and had more years of service in the LSP and as a lieutenant than Burns and Amin. Id. LSP argues these assertions are inadequate to allege that Stelly was more qualified than Burns or Amin because Stelly “fails to allege how he may have had any qualification to command” the Operational Development and Gaming Enforcement divisions specifically, pointing out that “[s]imply holding the highest examination grade and the most in years-in-service does not necessarily qualify someone to command a Gaming department with no actual gaming experience.” R. Doc. 80 at 3. While this may be true, and while LSP may ultimately be able to show that Stelly was not in fact more qualified for those specific positions than Burns and Amin based on other criteria, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage Stelly’s assertions are adequate to plead plausibly that he was more qualified than Burns and Amin for the promotions he applied for but they received. Accordingly, Stelly has set forth allegations that enable the court to reasonably infer his employer discriminated against him in violation of Title VII, see Cicalese, 924 F.3d at 767, and LSP’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied as to this claim.

1.      Constructive Discharge

 

It is uncontested that Stelly retired from his position in the LSP on December 18, 2021. However, Stelly characterizes his retirement as a constructive discharge, arguing he was “humiliated into retiring” by LSP’s failure to promote him to captain. To prove a constructive discharge, a “plaintiff must establish that working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign.” Faruki v. Parsons, 123 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1997).

Despite the jury’s finding that the plaintiff had in fact been discriminatorily passed up for promotions, the court reversed the jury’s verdict on constructive discharge, explaining that, even considering that discrimination, the plaintiff’s “resignation, as a matter of law, was not justified by working conditions that had become so intolerable that no reasonable person could have worked there under those conditions.” Brown v. Kinney Shoe Corp., 237 F.3d 556, 566 (5th Cir. 2001). That is, even considering the Brown plaintiff’s successful showing that he was discriminated against by his employer, the Fifth Circuit held the allegation of even a repeated discriminatory failure to promote alone was inadequate to state a claim for constructive discharge.

Reeves and Davis argue Stelly’s Section 1981 claim against them for failure to promote is time-barred.

Having so determined, the Court holds Stelly’s failure to promote claim [against Reeves and Davis] to be subject to a one-year statute of limitations under Louisiana law. See Mitchell, 265 F. App’x at 376. Accordingly, this claim is time-barred, and must be dismissed.

Stelly offers no facts in support of his allegation that Davis’s July 9, 2021 failure to promote Stelly had anything to do with Stelly’s complaint to his supervisor; he simply alleges it to be true. Stelly’s bare allegation of retaliation thus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

I.       CONCLUSION

 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that LSP’s Motion to Dismiss, R. Doc. 68, is GRANTED IN PART as to Stelly’s claim for constructive discharge, which is hereby DISMISSED, and DENIED IN PART as to Stelly’s claim for failure to promote under Title VII.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Reeves and Davis’s Motion to Dismiss, R. Doc. 82, is GRANTED, and all claims brought by Stelly against those defendants are DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stelly’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, R. Doc. 88, is DENIED. This denial shall be without prejudice to Stelly’s right to reassert a motion for leave to amend his Complaint as to the remaining failure to promote claim against LSP, should he so wish.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11^th day of December, 2023.

 

Our money says Stelly will “so wish” and will take advantage of his opportunity to, “reassert a Motion for Leave to amend his Complaint as to the remaining failure to promote claim against LSP!”

So, for those former LSP troopers who got so frustrated under Davis that they retired, at least based upon Stelly’s suit, asserting “humiliation” by Davis as a basis for a Constructive Discharge claim is clearly not going to be sufficient argument to clear the hurdle and have such a claim survive.

For those who are still at LSP and are contemplating suing LSP over Davis’ alleged actions entailing discriminatory practices regarding promotions,  Stelly’s lawsuit and the above document which provides the Order and the Reasons should, if nothing else, serve as a useful guide in making a decision and, by all means, don’t leave if planning a suit for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph.

Now, there are plenty (and we do mean plenty) more problematic matters entailing LSP personnel decisions and actions that should be revealed in coming weeks and months.

Accordingly, as we stated at the outset of this feature, if Landry, Hodges and/or Besson are hoping for a “honeymoon” period, we can assure them that there isn’t going to be one!  The frustration level at LSP for the rank of Lieutenant and below is running extremely high among many troopers.  Further, being blunt, Landry’s selections to head LSP (along with another top brass selection whom we’re for now keeping below radar) did absolutely nothing to reduce that frustration level.