Sound Off Louisiana

Dr. Lara Stooksbury enjoys time with her own pets (photo courtesy of The Pelican Institute).

In a feature published on April 7, 2023, we vented frustration at Louisiana Attorney General (and candidate for Governor) Jeff Landry having devised a program to essentially protect individual occupational licensing board and commission members from personal liability entailing any efforts to improperly deny applicants a license to earn a living in Louisiana.

We concluded that post by indicating that, “The matter of the two vets should be taken up formally at the May 23, 2023 meeting, and we certainly plan to be there with our camera….”

Well, we were there and, after taking about 2 1/2 hours in Executive Session to decide on the request by the Pelican Institute of the repeal of a ludicrous rule blocking Dr. Lara Stooksbury and Dr. Courtney Breen from obtaining Louisiana vet licenses, the Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine LBVM took all of 17 seconds to render its decision.  We caution viewers of the following video not to be distracted even slightly because basically, if one blinks, one will miss this vote.  With that admonition in mind, here’s arguably the shortest video we’ve ever published in our blog’s history:

May 23, 2023 LBVM meeting wherein all that was needed was 17 seconds to deny the Pelican Institute’s request for rule repeal which blocked Stooksbury and Breen from obtaining licenses.

On August 8, 2023, The Pelican Institute announced that Breen and Stooksbury had sued the LBVM.  From the preceding press release:

Two highly qualified veterinarians today filed a lawsuit against the Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine, challenging an arbitrary rule that prohibits them from practicing their profession.

Dr. Lara Stooksbury and Courtney Breen, who had active licenses in other states and over 20 years of combined experience as veterinarians, sought licenses to practice in Louisiana but were blocked by the Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine (“the Board”) because of a restrictive practice time requirement concocted and enforced by the Board. They have filed a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in the 19th Judicial District Court of Louisiana against the Board and are represented by the Pelican Institute Center for Justice.

“Despite my love for animals, my extensive experience as a veterinarian, and Louisiana’s desperate need for veterinary care, I found myself blocked from practicing my profession due to a restrictive licensing requirement,” Dr. Stooksbury said. “This legal action is a necessary last resort to advocate for changes that are sorely needed to eradicate discrimination and prevent denial of licensure to many qualified veterinarians.”

The veterinarians brought the lawsuit under a new law that allows individuals to contest regulatory barriers to work. Instead of allowing state government to arbitrarily impose regulatory hurdles that prevent professionals in Louisiana from working, this law shifts the burden from the challenger to the licensing agency to justify its rules.

“This lawsuit is the first litigation filed under our state’s new law that makes it easier to challenge bad regulations,” said James Baehr, Special Counsel for the Pelican Institute Center for Justice, “We are proud to represent Dr. Stooksbury and Breen in their fight for the right to pursue their chosen professions.”

Sarah Harbison, General Counsel of the Center for Justice, added, “The Pelican Center for Justice has previously achieved critical court victories, challenging both federal and state overreach in Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit. Through this effort, we are laying the groundwork for continued success in the courts on behalf of Louisiana citizens.”

“Louisiana’s economy is saddled with unnecessary rules that keep hardworking professionals from earning a living in the state,” said Daniel Erspamer, Chief Executive Officer of the Pelican Institute. “Removing those rules and empowering workers is key to Louisiana’s Comeback Agenda. We applaud these courageous veterinarians for standing up for freedom and opportunity. Through the success of this initiative and others to follow, our goal is to transform Louisiana from one of the worst states for occupational licensing to one of the best within the next few years.”

The case was assigned to 19th JDC Judge Beau Higginbotham.  We commit to track the litigation and keep our subsribers informed of developments entailing it.

Carl Cavalier addresses friends and supporters soon after 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson denied his Writ of Mandamus filed against the Louisiana State Police Commission.

After a 2 1/2-hour court hearing, Carl Cavalier’s Writ of Mandamus seeking to force the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) to conduct a hearing at which he may obtain his job back was denied by 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson.  Here’s what Cavalier and other courtroom supporters had to say immediately after the hearing:

 
August 7, 2023:  Carl Cavalier and his supporters provide their commentary soon after his court hearing wherein his Writ of Mandamus against the LSPC was dined by 19th JDC Judge Don Johnson.

As we committed to in the video above, here is where anyone can listen to Cavalier’s recorded phone calls with his former attorney, Jill Craft.

Meanwhile, there has been a flurry of filings in the Ronald Greene criminal matter, not the least of which is one by Assistant District Attorney Hugo Holland seeking court approval (which he obtained) to provide LSP Trooper Kory York’s defense attorneys, J. Michael Small and T. Taylor Townsend, with the grand jury testimony of Dr. Jennifer Forsythe.  Holland contends that testimony, “contains exculpatory information bearing directly upon the charge against Defendant (York) for Negligent Homicide.”

At this time, let’s provide a table of all of the recent filings in the Greene criminal matter:

We have already published the nature of York’s request for a Kastigar hearing.  From the preceding feature:

We have already provided extensive detail on why York has requested a Kastigar hearing, and anyone is welcome to read York’s attorneys’ contentions here, but the bottom line is that they indicate that York’s Fifth Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination (made applicable to State matters via the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution) have been violated through inclusion of quotes made by York from an Internal Affairs report dated October 20, 2020 which were incorporated into the Stoughton report which, in turn, as evidenced by the Bills of Particulars, were obviously provided to the Grand Jury.

We were unable to ascertain why Union Parish Sheriff Deputy Chris Harpen’s attorney, Eugene Cicardo, filed the transcript entailing his client into the public record; however, since he did, we believe we’ll supply that segment wherein District Attorney John Belton got his shorts all in a wad about Cicardo’s commentary regarding the state’s obligation to specify just what his client did that formed the basis for the indictments.  Here are the exchanges, including Judge Rogers’ admonition to Belton that he was, “on the verge,” with Belton responding, “on the verge of what?”

Mr. Cicardo:

Be a man, stand up.  Our law says be a — be a prosecutor.

Mr. Belton:

Your Honor, may I address the Court?

The Court:

You may.

Mr. Belton:

Just for the record, I don’t like to be attacked and not be resp — and not give a response.  I’m fifty-nine years old.  I’m not only a man of age.

The Court:

Mr. Belton.  I think –

Mr. Belton:

But — no, no, no, I’m — I — if you don’t mind, Your Honor, can I — can I just for the record?  I’m not — I’m not gonna argue, I just want to clear the Not just fif— a man in age, but I’m also a man I believe in terms of I’ve been doing this job for thirty — I’m in my thirty second year, Your And I have never been so insulted in open court.

The Court:

Mr. Belton, that’s not

Mr. Belton:

But Your Honor, I

The Court:

the time or the

Mr. Belton:

But, Your Honor, if you don’t mind, please —

The Court:

I do.

Mr. Belton:

If there’s an allegation on the record, I’d like to clear my name because —

The Court:

I didn’t hear anything, but just that —

Mr. Belton:

He said, Be a man and be a prosecutor. That’s what I am and he said it in a way that was offensive as if we’re not doing our job. That’s the way it came across and I think anybody in this courtroom can conclude the same thing.

The Court:

Mr. Cicardo —

Mr. Belton:

But Mr. Car- — Mr. Cicardo knows what his client is charged with and why. He and I have had private conversations —

The Court:

This is not argument, Mr. -­

Mr. Belton:

But, Your Honor -­

The Court:

Belton.

Mr. Belton:

it is an argument.

The Court:

Mr. Belton, that’s all.

Mr. Belton:

He opened the door, Your Honor.

The Court:

This is all!

Mr. Belton:

Your Honor, I — Your Honor, please don’t -­

The Court:

You’re — you’re on the verge.

Mr. Belton:

On the verge of what, Your Honor?

The Court:

You know what you’re on the verge of.

Mr. Belton:

Right now I’m being — I’m being very professional, Your Honor.

The Court:

And I’ve asked you to stop and you shall.

Mr. Belton:

After I clear my name.

The Court:

There’s no name to clear. He was just making

Mr. Cicardo:

To the extent that what was -­

Mr. Belton:

But, Your Honor — Your Honor -­

Mr. Cicardo:

— but for the record, to the extent that Mr. Belton was offended or — they were not intended to have any offense toward him personally as a man or anything and I wa – — my comments weren’t made as to raise any offense.

Mr. Belton:

And I accept your apology.

Mr. Cicardo:

And as to that I’ll —

Mr. Belton:

And I accept your apology.  Thank you.

The Court:

All right.  Thank you.

Wow!  All we can say is that, if Cicardo’s words were the most insulting words Belton has ever encountered in a courtroom in all of his 32 years of practicing, then we can only state that he must have been treated with kid glove throughout his entire career!

Well, August 22, 2023 promises to be a huge event entailing the criminal case of the Ronald Greene’s defendants, and we commit to attend and report upon what transpires that day.