16th JDC Judge Lewis Pitman

The following short video captures the essence of Broussard v. LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and his son, Benjamin Cole, regarding today’s (April 24, 2023) hearing on Lopez’s Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action:

April 24, 2023 brief overview and interview with Billy Broussard regarding the Peremptory Exception filed by Scott and Benjamin Lopez argued before Judge Lewis Pitman on April 24, 2023.

As we indicated, we’re placing an order for a transcript mainly because, in our opinion, it will offer a very, very sharp contrast to the transcript of February 15, 2023 entailing Broussard v. Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard et. al. in which a similar Peremptory Exception was urged.

Beyond the complimentary words which Judge Pitman had for Broussard, to include him, “posing arguments better than some attorneys who have argued before me,” we find it noteworthy that, on the just-linked transcript, Judge Vincent Borne seemed fixated on awarding attorney fees to Girouard and her co-defendant, Melissa Dubroc, while Judge Pitman never even uttered the first word about any such potential imposition of attorney fees.

As Burns noted on the video above, Pitman (not quite verbatim) looked at defense attorney Eric Haik, and said (again, not quite verbatim, but we’ll soon have the transcript), “I’m sorry about the time and resources, but I have to render decisions within the confines of the law.”  What an absolutely awesome utterance!  Also, to his credit, Haik stated that he fully understood Judge Pitman’s position.

Most of Haik’s arguments centered around LSP Trooper Lopez’s First Amendment Right of Free Speech, making it all the more perplexing that Haik failed to assert LA CCP Article 971.  Had he done so within the 90-day period after service was perfected, he may have prevailed in his quest for attorney fees since a party prevailing in asserting such a Special Motion to Strike, “shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.”

It just may be that Haik doesn’t routinely practice civil defense litigation but rather more commonly represents plaintiffs.  If so, the situation may be akin to asking the offensive coordinator of a football team to be the defensive coordinator for a season after having spent decades running the offense.  That’s just a theory because we have to believe that attorney Amy Groves Lowe would most certainly have filed a Special Motion to Strike.  From Groves Lowe’s professional profile:

Amy has more than 20 years of experience in representing public agencies, public employees and public officials in federal and state courts, in administrative hearings, and before the Louisiana Legislature.

As we’ve previously indicated, Groves Lowe very recently prevailed on an assertion of LA CCP Article 971 in obtaining a $9,700 award of attorney’s fees against former ATC Commissioner Murphy Painter in defense of his former investigator, Shane Evans.

A pie chart of Louisiana State Police (LSP) demographics by gender which was presented to the LSP Commission (LSPC) on Thursday, April 13, 2023, prompting Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr., to assess the chart as, “screaming out.”  Simien, who had pressed LSP’s upper brass for demographics for months, focused on those demographics in emphasizing to LSP’s upper brass that the agency must be, “conscious of what our community looks like,” in making its hiring and promotional decisions.

On October 17, 2022, we published this feature indicating that white male Louisiana State Police (LSP) Troopers were irate at Col. Lamar Davis’ alleged fixation on hiring and promoting women and African Americans over them.  Numerous troopers (and we emphasize “numerous”) contacted us indicating they’d recently decided they’d had enough of Davis and his fixation on that practice and left the agency as a result.

On October 31, 2022, we followed that feature up with this feature wherein LSP Trooper Scott Lopez stated on video that Troopers were, “dropping like flies” notwithstanding the fact they were, “knocking back $150,000 to $160,000 a year working LACE overtime at $80 – $83/hour because that’s how bad it is.”

We’ve since been inundated with even more complaints about how the hiring and promoting trend has, “only gotten much worse” since our features linked above.

That anger is likely to skyrocket after the most recent meeting of the LSPC of Thursday, April 13, 2023.

Leading up to that meeting, LSPC Chairman Eulis Simien, Jr. had been pushing LSP’s upper brass for months to provide him and the Commission with demographics both of LSP and LSP’s WAE (when actually employed) program.  LSP Chief of Staff, Chavez Cammon, provided Simien with the material he’d been requesting at that meeting.

Simien made it clear his dissatisfaction with the data, and he issued to Davis and Cammon essentially a directive for LSP, “to be conscious of what our community looks like,” in making future hiring and promotional decisions.  Let’s take a look at that segment of the meeting at this time:

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.

At this time, let us present the material the LSPC members had for their review:

Perhaps nothing demonstrates the discontent of the male white troopers remaining at LSP and those who have recently left in frustration more than this March 1, 2023 Federal Lawsuit alleging reverse discrimination filed by former LSP Trooper John Stelly.  Let’s take a look at highlights from the suit:

Plaintiff John R. Stelly, II (“Plaintiff” or “Lt. Stelly”) is a White resident of the state of Montana. He was employed by the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police (“LSP”).

Plaintiff began his employment with LSP on January 22, 1995. On May 5, 1995, Plaintiff was commissioned to Trooper and assigned to Troop B. On December 27, 2001, after five years of service as a Trooper, Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant in Troop B.

On August 10, 2004, after four years of service as sergeant, Plaintiff was promoted to lieutenant in Troop B. After serving two years as a lieutenant, he was eligible for promotion to captain.

LSP denied Lt. Stelly promotion from lieutenant to captain because of race discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

LSP denied him promotion from lieutenant to captain because of race discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981..

Lt. Stelly remained eligible for promotion until he was constructively discharged in 2021, having been denied promotion to captain thirty-one (31) times during the period 2008-2021. LSP constructively discharged Lt. Stelly when he retired on December 18, 2021, in violation of Section 1981 and Title VII.

On May 5, 2022, Lt. Stelly filed an EEOC Charge of Discrimination asserting violations based on race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. This charge was docketed with the EEOC as Charge No. 461-2022-01474.

The EEOC issued its determination of charge and right to sue letter on December 1, 2022 regarding Lt. Stelly’s claims of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Lt. Stelly’s merit and efficiency were at the very top level for all 17 of his annual evaluations as a Louisiana State Police (LSP) lieutenant. Lt. Stelly’s annual performance evaluations were evaluated by 5 captains and reviewed by 8 majors. Without exception, Lt. Stelly scored at  the  highest level on each of 11 factors in each evaluation, from 2008 until 2021.

Looking particularly at Lt. Stelly’s last four evaluations as a lieutenant, Captain Donovan Archote, Lt. Stelly’s supervisor, wrote:

“You have met and exceeded all work and behavior expectations that had been set for you. Your work ethic, knowledge, dependability, and loyalty are truly appreciated by me and everyone here at the Troop. Thank you for being a leader on our team and taking care of Troop B duties when I am away. When given the opportunity to run a command, I know you will excel and be very successful.”

When Lt. Stelly joined the LSP in 1995, Lt. Stelly had earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics, a Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science, and Master of Science Degree in Mathematics. Also prior to joining the LSP, Lt. Stelly had started earning his PhD in Computer Science. Lt. Stelly has a higher level of formal academic education than the other candidates for the captain positions that Lt. Stelly applied for.

Lt. Stelly observed that he was being denied promotion to captain when he was an eligible candidate for promotion to a captain position in Internal Affairs. That promotion was awarded on September 6, 2017, to Lt. Chavez Cammon, Black, who had the bare minimum of two years of time in grade as a lieutenant. At that time, Lt. Stelly had 13 years of time in grade. At that time Lt. Stelly had 4.5 years more than Lt. Cammon in years of service.

The promotion choices since 09/06/17 by the LSP to captain for positions that Lt. Stelly applied for are:

Panel	Race	Date of promotion	Section	Candidate chosen
1	B	09/06/17	Internal Affairs	Chavez Cammon
2	B	04/25/18	Gaming	Kenneth VanBuren
3	W	07/26/18	Technical Support Services	Christopher Eskew
4	W	08/23/18	Troop N	Dean Behrens

 

5	B	10/03/18	Technology/ Business   Support	Lamar Davis
6	W	10/03/18	Investigative Support   Services	Robert Hodges
7	W	10/03/18	Crime Lab	Kevin Marcel
8	W	02/06/19	Public Affairs	JB Slaton
9	W	06/25/20	Gaming	Pat Bradley
10	B	10/20/20	Troop L	Hiram Mason
11	B	11/24/20	Technical Support Services	Aaron Marcelle
12	W	11/24/20	Technology/ Business   Support	David Stelly
13	W	01/07/21	Police Logistical Services	Nicole Kilgore
14	W	02/10/21	Public Affairs	Nicholas Manale
15	B	05/19/21	Internal Affairs	Treone Lavardain
16	Non-W	07/09/21	Operational Development	Robert Burns
17	B	07/09/21	Gaming	Salem EIAmin
18	W	08/26/21	LCJIS	Jonas Martin

Black candidates comprised an approximate average of 19.4% of each of Lt. Stelly’s 18 promotional panels for captain in this table. The Department chose black candidates for promotion in these panels 38.9% of the time. The statistical analysis of this data is that the number of black candidates promoted from September 2017 through August 2021 deviated above the expected number by more than two standard deviations.

On April 25, 2018, Lt. Kenneth VanBuren, Black, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although he was on the eligible list.

On October 3, 2018, Lt. Lamar Davis, Black, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although Lt. Stelly was first on the eligible list and Lt. Davis was 13^th on the list. Also Lt. Stelly had 3 more years in years of service than Lt. Davis and 5 more years in time in grade.

On October 20, 2020, Lt. Hiram Mason, Black, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although Lt. Stelly was first on the eligible list and Lt. Mason was 6^th on the list. Also Lt. Stelly had a few more months in years of service than Lt. Mason and 13 more years in time in grade.

On November 24, 2020, Lt. Aaron Marcelle, Black, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although Lt. Stelly was first on the eligible list and Lt. Marcelle was 4^th on the list. Also Lt. Stelly had 6 more years in years of service than Lt. Marcelle and 13 more years in time in grade.

On May 19, 2021, Lt. Treone Lavardain, Black, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although Lt. Stelly was first on the eligible list and Lt. Lavardain was 4^th on the list. Also Lt. Stelly had 11 more years in years of service than Lt. Larrvadain and 10 more years in time in grade.

On July 9, 2021, Lt. Robert Burns, non-White, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although Lt. Stelly was first on the eligible list and Lt. Burns was 2nd on the list. Also Lt. Stelly had 7 more years in years of service than Lt. Burns and 10 more years in time in grade.

On July 9, 2021, Lt. Salem El Amin, Black, was promoted to captain and Lt. Stelly was not promoted although Lt. Stelly was first on the eligible list and Lt. El Amin was 8^th and last on the list. Also Lt. Stelly had 9 more years in years of service than Lt. El Amin and 14 more years in time in grade.

In early 2019, Cpt. Archote told Lt. Stelly, before the interviews were conducted for selection of a trooper-level position in Troop B for the position of Public Information Officer, that the Department’s position was that a black trooper would be selected. When Lt. Stelly objected to this racial preference, Cpt. Archote stated that that is just the way it is. This conversation took place in Lt. Stelly’s office just prior to the interviews conducted at Troop B. A black trooper, in fact the only black trooper who applied, was selected.

Days prior to Lt. Stelly’s May 19, 2021, promotional panel for Internal Affairs, Cpt. Archote called LTC Chavez Cammon to speak on Lt. Stelly’s behalf and recommend him for the position. On May 14, 2021, during a closed-door meeting in Cpt. Archote’s office, Cpt. Archote told him of his conversation with LTC Cammon and said that LTC Cammon replied, “Did you see who’s on the list?” upon his recommending me to Cammon. C p t . Archote and Lt. Stelly took LTC Cammon’s response to refer to the fact that Lt. Larvadain, the only black candidate, would be selected for promotion. She was indeed selected.

On July 29 and 30, 2022, Cpt. Archote and Lt. Stelly spoke via phone. As a longtime advocate for Lt. Stelly’s promotion, Archote repeated his position that Lt. Stelly certainly deserved to have been promoted to at least captain. Cpt. Archote mentioned LSP COL Lamar Davis’ had repeated that he intends to increase (racial) diversity at LSP. COL Davis has stated this position in public.² Cpt. Archote told Lt. Stelly that Lt. Stelly’s not having been promoted to captain due in part to its being inconsistent with Davis’ goal.

Lt. Stelly’s race, White, was a motivating factor in his non-selection for promotion to captain for the positions stated in paragraphs 28-32 above.

LSP has proffered no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Lt. Stelly’s non-selection for promotion to captain for the positions stated in paragraphs 28-32 above.

Whatever alleged legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons that may be offered by LSP for Lt. Stelly’s non-selection for promotion to captain for the positions stated in paragraphs 28-32 above, if any, will be a pretext for discrimination based on Lt. Stelly’s race.

LSP made Lt. Stelly’s work conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. Because LSP failed to promote Lt. Stelly to captain for 31 times for a period of 13 years when he was consistently the top scorer on the open competitive exams for each of the 31 positions applied for was humiliating for Lt. Stelly with his peers and with his spouse. This humiliation by LSP was calculated to encourage the employee’s early retirement.

Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

 

1. Order Defendant to make whole Lt. Stelly by providing appropriate backpay and loss of benefits with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment
2. Order Defendant to make whole Lt. Stelly by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at
3. Order Defendant to make whole Lt. Stelly by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above, including but not limited to emotional and mental anguish, pain and suffering, humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

 

1. Award attorney fees and costs in this

 

1. Grant such further legal or equitable relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

In accordance with Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff hereby requests a jury on all issues raised in the instant Complaint which may be tried by jury.

We expect to be following up this article with more details as we near the end of our long-term project of the promotional table we began once troopers alerted us to these trends.  At present, that table is about 50-60% complete.  Let’s provide its present status at this time:

Once we’ve completed the promotional table, we’ll start to work on the resignations table.  By our own admission, it has been (and will continue to be) a monumental task, but it looks like one or more attorneys may find all of our work just may make life easier on their ends.  We say that because, if what we hear is accurate, Stelly’s lawsuit is going to be far from the last one to be filed asserting claims similar to his.  Once they materialize, we will certainly report upon them just as we did for Stelly.

Attorney Eric Haik, whom Billy Broussard, in a filing of Thursday, April 13, 2023, disclosed he’d provided “remedial training” to entailing La CCP Article 971 (Special Motion to Strike) and the ability to recover “reasonable attorney fees” through it.  Broussard also alleged in that same court filing that Haik, attorney Ali LeBlanc, and 16th JDC Judge Vincent Borne showed total disregard for Louisiana Court Regulation Local Rule 9.5 to such an extent that they just, “threw it right out the window” on February 15, 2023.

On Saturday, April 15, 2023, Billy Broussard sat down with us to update everyone on the current status of his two sepearate defamation lawsuits, one of which is against Louisiana State Police (LSP) Trooper Scott Lopez and his son, Benjamin Cole Lopez, and the other of which is against Melissa Dubroc and Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard.

Broussard provided the update a mere two (2) days after filing this April 13, 2023 Opposition Memorandum to Lopez & Lopez’s Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action, which is scheduled to be argued in front of Judge Lewis Pitman on Monday, April 24, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.

Let’s first present a video of Broussard updating everyone on the status of the two suits, after which we’ll put on full display highlights of Broussard’s Exception Memorandum and conclude with a table of key filings and other documents in the “Mob Boss” Litigation.  Here’s Broussard’s discussion with us of Saturday, April 15, 2023:

4/15/23:  Broussard provides an overview of his two defemation lawsuits entailing LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and his son, Benjamin and the second lawsuit entailing Melissa Dubroc and Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard.

Okay.  Now, from Broussard’s 4/13/23 Opposition Memorandum on the Lopez litigation linked above:

Plaintiff begins this Memorandum by quoting a portion of Defendants’ Exception (boldface emphasis is that of Plaintiff):

“ A similar Exception of No Cause of Action was filed by Defendants in that case. The Exception hearing took place on February 15, 2023. Judge Borne granted Defendants’ Exception and allowed Petitioner 15 days to either amend his Petition with valid allegations or voluntarily dismiss the suit. The Court sternly advised Petitioner that if a second No Cause/No Right of Action is filed by Defendants and granted, then the Court will assess all costs and attorney’s fees to Petitioner at that time. It is urged that this Court consider following suit to that of Judge Borne and grant the subject Exception of No Cause of Action with the same or similar consequences.”

Defendants’ plea for this Court to “consider following suit” is made notwithstanding Defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse Trial Judge Borne over his “stern advice” (a phraseology to which Plaintiff takes strong exception as what was uttered in Court by Judge Borne could be construed as nothing short of threats which he reinforced five or six times and added, “Do you understand me?” as if Plaintiff were a criminal facing sentencing during one of the criminal matters on the docket that same day).  Judge Borne, on five or six occasions, as reflected in the official court transcript, stated that he would impose sanctions against Plaintiff if he amended his Petition, the Exception was re-urged, and the Exception was granted a second time.

The Judge overseeing the Recusal Motion, First Circuit Court of Appeal Judge Walter Lanier III, whom the Louisiana Supreme Court appointed to hear the matter upon submission of the Motion by this Court, used the adjective of “artful” to describe Judge Borne’s repeated threats of sanctions made to Plaintiff as referenced above.  Just as Plaintiff requested be added to the Judgment’s wording for that hearing, “artful” has the following synonyms listed in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (among others):  scheming, devious, deceitful, deceptive, dishonest, cheating, underhanded, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous.

Further, Judge Lanier stated that, because any such future imposition of attorney fees constituted a “contingent event,” the Court could not consider such a future contingency as part of the Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse.  There would be little point for Judge Lanier to reference that fact were it not to implicitly communicate that, had Judge Borne imposed any such sanctions on February 15, 2023, he would have granted the Motion to Recuse.

Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, Defense Counsel Haik, despite the knowledge that he should possess given his years of practicing law, appears to need remedial training regarding the conditions for which any such imposition of sanctions would apply.  Let Plaintiff provide a refresher course in that regard:  Sanctions may be applicable generally under one of the following four (4) conditions:

#1) a  contract exists between the parties calling for the prevailing party to recover attorney fees against the losing party (no such contract exists in the instant matter),

#2) a specific statute by which attorney fees may be awarded, and Defense Counsel Haik knows that no such provision is contained in LA CCP Article 934 pertaining to Peremptory Exceptions which would provide for the awarding of any attorney fees,

3) a party has formally moved for attorney fees through asserting LA CCP Article 863, which was not done in the instant matter because any such filing would fail miserably to survive the standard for awarding such attorney fees,

or #4) asserting that Plaintiff violated a Court Order, which is completely inapplicable in the instant matter.

Defense Counsel Haik could have asserted LA CCP Article 971 (Special Motion to Strike) and thereby utilized its statutory provision to formally seek reasonable attorney fees from Plaintiff Under LA CCP Article 971(B).  That subsection states, in pertinent part:  “In any action subject to Paragraph A of this Article, a prevailing party on a special motion to strike shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs.”  Defense attorney Haik failed to file such a Motion; furthermore, the 90-day window from the time of service of the Petition upon Defendants in which he could have filed such a Motion has now passed.

Plaintiff is an avid follower of the blog Sound Off Louisiana, and that blog has covered a number of high-profile cases of alleged Defamation to include Corey delaHoussaye and Murphy Painter.

Judging by the requests of Defense Counsel Haik, the State of Louisiana (Louisiana Office of Inspector General – OIG) must be deploying some truly bone-headed defense attorneys to defend the taxpayers of this state.  Why?  Because, in the Painter matter, no less than 25 Peremptory Exceptions (the majority of which asserted No Causes of Action) were filed, and yet the defense attorneys never sought attorney fees on behalf of the taxpayers of this state on a single one of those peremptory exceptions!  Not one!

That defense firm, Taylor Porter in Baton Rouge, is not exactly a small- time law firm, yet never one time did that firm seek attorney fees through the Exceptions themselves against Painter!  That is the case notwithstanding the fact that numerous Peremptory Exceptions were #1) filed, #2) granted, and #3 thereafter re-urged.  In fact, in a Court hearing on July 25, 2022 in 19^th JDC before Judge Wilson Fields, Defense Attorney for OIG Amy Groves Love complained that Painter had already had “six bites at the apple,” yet on none of those “bites” did Groves-Love or Preston Castille ever seek attorney fees on all of the numerous Exceptions filed in the case!

Perhaps it just may be that those attorneys at Taylor Porter knew that they had no statutory grounds to seek those sanctions and that Painter’s attorney, Al Robert, Jr., would have vehemently objected, and those attorneys at Taylor Porter knew that the firm and the individual attorney, Preston Castille at the time, would have been made to appear as legal incompetents in even making such a “suggestion” of any of the judges who oversaw Painter’s case (Clark reached mandatory retirement age before the suit was dismissed).

The only difference between Painter and Plaintiff is that Plaintiff is pro se, so perhaps Defense Counsel Haik and Judge Borne may have relied upon (and sought to exploit) Plaintiff’s perceived lack of knowledge in even suggesting, much less threatening (on five or six occasions in one Court hearing), the imposition of sanctions in the form of Defendants’ legal fees.

On September 7, 2022, Sound Off Louisiana published the conclusion of the 12-year legal battle between Painter, former ATC Commissioner, and the Louisiana State Office of Inspector General (OIG).  In the feature, which presumably Defense Counsel Haik read and watched since he has admitted to Plaintiff that he has become very familiar with the blog, founder Robert Burns, who religiously attends court hearings, explained the conclusion of the suit.  Burns conveyed that he attended the entirety of Painter’s 2013 criminal trial (he’s actually done an eight-part series of interviews with Painter about that whole ordeal and timeframe).  Burns also conveyed that he’s attended every single hearing of Painter’s civil defamation litigation.

Among the revelations Burns made in the feature entailing the suit being dismissed with prejudice for all Defendants was the fact that the OIG did in fact file a Motion under LA CCP Article 971 on behalf of one Defendant, Shane Evans (former investigator at OIG).  That motion indicated that Evans had a right of free speech which afforded him the right to produce the material he did in his investigatory capacity as an OIG Agent.  The Judge overseeing the hearing for the potential imposition of CCP Article 971 Sanctions, Judge Wilson Fields of the 19^th JDC, granted the Special Motion to Strike.

Though Defendant Evans sought $27,000 in such attorney fees, Judge Fields stated that he felt $27,000 was “not reasonable,” and instead awarded $9,700 in attorney fees.  A copy of that Judgment, which was signed by Judge Fields on August 19^th 2022, is included in this Memorandum as Exhibit MOPE-A.

Since Defense Attorney Haik did not file a Motion for Attorney Fees under LA CCP Article 971, Plaintiff can only surmise that he felt that he could not prevail in such a Motion before this Court (he similarly filed no such Motion before Judge Borne) and therefore seeks for this Court to “follow suit” on making utterances similar to Judge Borne’s utterances on February 15, 2023.

During a break in the hearing of the Motion to Recuse, Defense Counsel Haik stated to Plaintiff in the presence of numerous witnesses:  “Mr. Broussard, you need to understand one thing:  A judge can do whatever he wants.  It doesn’t matter what is stated in a Statute.”

That statement is utterly profound, and Plaintiff contends that it serves as a demonstration on Defense Counsel Haik’s part that he knows he is not on sound footing in even seeking attorney fees, yet he apparently operates under the presumption that if “he” makes such a request of a Judge in 16^th JDC, that Judge has the prerogative to honor that request irrespective of how out-of-bounds it may be with any statutory authority to which the Judge would otherwise be hamstrung.

While Defense Counsel Haik’s statement may in fact be true, Plaintiff suggests that any Judge who cares about his professional reputation to any degree at all would not show such reckless disregard for provisions of Statutes, Codes of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules.  Plaintiff will point out that, entailing Local Rule 9.5, which Judge Borne, Defense Counsel Haik, and Defense Counsel LeBlanc seemed to toss right out the window on February 15, 2023, is also something any professional attorney or Judge with ethics should strive to conform.  Instead, the three named individuals worked in concert in an attempt to force Plaintiff to submit any objections to wording for the judgment associated with the February 15, 2023 hearing a mere four hours after the court hearing!  In fact, Defense Counsel LeBlanc indicated in an email to Plaintiff that, in the absence of any such objections in that four-hour window, “we’ll file it as is later today,” and, when Plaintiff indicated that he wished to avail himself of his five-working-day period to review the Judgment’s wording, Defense Counsel Haik, in demonstrating the ultimate in apparent authoritative rule much as a Sigma Nu Fraternity President may say to a pledge, stated:  “It’s not exactly up for discussion!”

Plaintiff trusts that this Court will appropriately show far more regard for such Statutes, Codes of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules, and not make a mockery of the judicial system upon which so many ordinary citizens rely.  To do otherwise would merely further erode the trust that the public at large has about the integrity of the judicial system in the state of Louisiana!

Wow!  We can’t really add anything to Broussard’s words above except to say we are humbled and flattered that he chose to deploy our September 7, 2022 feature on Murphy Painter and the fact that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) was successful in asserting La CCP Article 971 in obtaining $9,700 in legal fees for its defense of former OIG Investigator Shane Evans.

We will point out, however, that the tenacity of Murphy Painter can never be underestimated, and that fact was demonstrated when, on March 8, 2023, he let it be known that he’d be launching yet another appeal in his 12-year litigation claim.

As Burns mentioned in the video above, he’s actually quite familar with La CCP Article 971 because it was asserted against him twice:

First, in this August 11, 2011 filing by Auctioneer Licensing Board attorney Anna Dow.  Judge Michael Caldwell, in ruling that the mere fact Burns was an auctioneer did not make him a “public figure,” uttered, “I’m not striking this,” proceeded to deny the Special Motion to Strike.  Like Broussard, Burns was pro se.

Second was this August 8, 2011 filing by Assistant AG Rodney Ramsey on behalf of the Auctioneer Licensing Board’s Executive Director, Sandy Edmonds.  Judge Wilson Fields, ruling under much the same logic as Caldwell, likewise denied Edmonds’ Special Motion to Strike.  Again, Burns was pro se.

As Burns stated on the video, he’s kind of stunned that Haik didn’t at least try to assert La CCP Article 971, but the fact is he didn’t.

Let us also provide a link for this March 23, 2023 Advocate article in which 14th JDC Judge G. Michael Canady went before the Louisiana Supreme Court admitting “a series of failures” and seeking leniency with “hat in hand.”  From that feature:

Canaday said Friday that he knew better, but that he granted the motion anyway……

Being blunt, we believe that Borne likewise “knew better” than to make the kind of repeated threats that he made on February 15, 2023, but he “made them anyway.”  If he didn’t know better in terms of the limitations of Peremptory Exceptions in terms of the granting of attorney fees, then that truly is frightening.

All right, time for that table we promised at the outset entailing recent filings and related documents pertaining to the “Mob Boss” litigation.  Here it is:

So, there you have it folks.  There’s the update on the two defamation cases of Billy Broussard.  Just think, it all started on June 14, 2021 when LSP Trooper Scott Lopez allegedly pulled over a driver of Billy Broussard and told him, “You better not go down my road again!”  Who would have ever dreamed that one simple exercise would end up involving the Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court in appointing an ad hoc judge, and that judge would traverse from Thibodaux, Louisiana to hear a Recusal Motion and all this other fallout would transpire?

Let us close with this:  During a break on the Recusal Motion Hearing on March 28, 2023, Haik told Broussard, “You think I know all the judges around here.  Yeah, I know them!  I even know this Judge (Judge Lanier) and, guess what, I even know his wife!”  He then indicated to Broussard what Lanier’s “wife’s” position was.

It obviously was material that could likely easily be looked up on the Internet.  Anyway, once the entire hearing was over and everyone was preparing to depart, Haik asked of Lanier, “That’s your wife who is <whatever the position was>, right?”  Judge Lanier’s response:  “No, that’s my sister!”

So much for impressing Broussard with Haik’s knowledge of all the judges in South Louisiana!

As the late C. B. Forgotston used to say, “You can’t make this stuff up!”

We’ll report on Broussard’s April 24, 2023 hearing before Judge Pitman and also the “high noon” hearing of May 23, 2023 soon after each has transpired!