Sound Off Louisiana

On May 11, 2022, former Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) Member Calvin  Braxton responds to a question by State Rep. Debbie Villio (R-Kenner) as he testifies before the Special House Committee investigating the LSP in-custody death of Ronald Greene on or around May 9, 2019.

We published this feature on June 16, 2025.  In it, we stated that many LSP Troopers and retirees thought it was a “bad look” for the Louisiana State Trooper’s Association (LSTA) to hold its annual convention at Caesar’s in New Orleans.  Their concerns were that the LSTA should not have chosen a venue which LSP regulates.

When we published the feature, we made brief reference to the LSTA’s long-running litigation wherein it is Defendant in a defamation suit filed by former LSPC Member Calvin Braxton, Sr.  Let’s take a look at what we said just over a month ago:

This year’s convention also transpires against the backdrop of the civil litigation of former Louisiana State Police Commissioner Calvin Braxton, who sued the LSTA for alleged defamation entailing his bizarre exit from the Commission in the middle of 2017.  That litigation has been scheduled for trial in the coming weeks; however, given that Natchitoches Parish Clerk of Court records indicate no activity on the matter, we are going on the premise that a settlement may be in the offing in that matter, thus avoiding the necessity of a trial.

Well, we can now report that our speculation back then was correct, and the Calvin Braxton v. LSTA et. al. matter has been settled out of court for an undisclosed sum (at least as it pertains to the LSTA)!  That settlement interestingly enough comes right on the eve of the LSTA convening for its annual convention at 7:00 p.m. tonight, Thursday, July 17, 2025.

The terms of the settlement are subject to a confidentiality agreement.  Nevertheless, we wonder if LSTA Executive Director James O’Quinn may get quizzed about terms of the settlement during the business segment of the convention, which is scheduled to be conducted between 9 a.m. and noon on Saturday, July 19, 2025.

Regarding the settlement, we do not know if any such letter is included as part of the settlement; however, we do know that, going back seven-plus years, Braxton has always expressed his insistence that any settlement with him be accompanied by a letter of apology from the LSTA regarding the Association’s role in his ouster from the LSPC.

Here is a table outlining significant events in the Braxton v. LSTA et. al. matter during its seven-plus years of life:

The video of Zurik and WWL-TV’s Katie Moore’s features as they pertain to Braxton’s allegations of defamation are presented in the following video:

July 17, 2017 features of Fox 8’s Lee Zurik and WWL’s Katie Moore as they related to what Braxton asserts are defamatory statements made about him initiated by the LSTA and Jay Oliphant.

WWL-TV in New Orleans airs this May 17, 2018 feature on Braxton’s defamation lawsuit against the LSTA and Jay Oliphant.

So, after a staggering approximate 2,618-day life, the LSTA and Calvin Braxton are no longer in litigation.  We should point out that, during that 2,618-day period, staggering legal fees racked up for these depositions.  Once the litigation is over (former LTC Oliphant remains a Defendant and LSP should be paying his legal expenses since he was acting in his capacity during this whole sordid scandal), we intend to make public records request for the legal invoices of this whole matter to tally them up and obtain a final tab attributable to taxpayers, but common sense dictates that the number is going to be through the roof.

Also, the LSTA filed ethics charges against Braxton but, on April 19, 2018, the Louisiana State Board of Ethics opted not to file a single charge against Braxton; furthermore, as we have published before, it was actually the LSTA itself which was on the receiving end of this $5,000 fine for matters which Braxton was concerned about.

We would also like to point out that retired troopers have indicated to us that past LSTA Conventions were set up to where Management (i.e. folk like LSP Colonel and Chief of Staff) would never, ever be permitted to be in attendance at the LSTA’s business meeting because that segment of the convention is intended to be for airing out any potential concerns and grievances entailing Management.

That’s not the way it works anymore, and we were supplied with this email excerpt outlining exactly how LSTA Members are going to be allowed to pose any concerns they may have:

Greetings everyone,

 

In preparation for the upcoming business meeting at this year’s convention, we are polling members of the affiliate for any questions they may have regarding the department.

 

These questions may be directed to either Col. Hodges or Monty Montelongo with the State Police Commission.

 

To submit a question, simply reply to this email no later than COB on July 8, so that we can compile and forward all inquiries for review and reconciliation with submissions from across the state.

 

If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may instead place your question in the LSTA box located in the radio room at Troop B.

Troopers, both active and retired, have stated that the above framework is nothing like business has been handled in the past, and one trooper asked us, “Do you see why the only reason I remain a member is because of the discounted rate we obtain for a life insurance policy?”  A second former trooper who recently retired indicating to us then that he was “sick” of the place, stated:  “It (the LSTA) was a great organization when I joined and it stayed out of politics.  It has since become part of the political machine and that is very disappointing.”

So, since everything is so scripted as outlined above, we openly wonder if Col. Hodges, LSTA Executive Director James O’Quinn, and/or Monty Montelongo (who is not just “with” the State Police Commission — he just so happens to Chair that Commission), are going to permit Trooper LSTA Members and/or retirees to pose questions of the Braxton settlement.  Since it’s their money, it would seem they would not want to be kept in the dark about the nature and amount of the recently-agreed-upon settlement.

Now, as site visitors may recall, the LSTA laid down the law with Gov. Landry that Steven L. Guidry, Jr., would not be the LSPC Member representing the First Congressional District.  They had such pull with Landry that they would actually convince him to submit the following letter to Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry flat-out falsely accusing Dillard President Monique Guillory of “failing to nominate:”

Meanwhile, the LSTA convinced Guidry to change his voter registration from St. Tammany Parish to East Baton Rouge Parish, which ended up forcing Guidry to resign as Chairman of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission (with him also having to resign from the Louisiana Motor Vehicle Commission) after we exposed the whole sham, which included this damning email from Ryan Roberts, Gov. Landry’s former Head of Boards and Commissions  to Jason Hannaman acknowledging an obvious discrepancy between Guidry’s mailing address and his address for voter registration purposes.

Well, Ryan Roberts, Landry’s previous Head of Board and Commissions, has now been promoted to third-in-command of the Landry Administration with him now serving as Landry’s Deputy Chief of Staff.

Regarding Guidry’s resignation as Chairman of the Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, anybody curious as to who replaced him?  That would be James C. “Jay” O’Quinn II, who is the mastermind behind this entire Braxton debacle and who appears on prominent display on the Zurick feature linked and provided above.

We received a report today that radio talk show host Moon Griffon has indicated that a statewide poll has been conducted indicating Gov. Landry’s approval rating sits at 32 percent.  The only thing we ponder, with the kind of “leadership” and “integrity” just outlined, is how that approval rating has not yet fallen to the teens or below.  Nevertheless, he appears headed on the same general trajectory of a one Bobby Jindal.  Time will tell, but we are firmly convinced that he is severely-burnt toast!

So, does anyone figure this year’s LSTA convention will have a little added spice given the Braxton settlement being so fresh?

Louisiana Senator (and announced candidate for U. S. Senate) Blake Miguez and his family.

On Monday, July 7, 2025, Dadrius Lanus, who is a Member of the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and the subject of an ethics investigation for an alleged violation of Louisiana’s nepotism law, which he characterizes as a “frivolous attack,” was the guest speaker at the Baton Rouge Press Club (BRPC).

Lanus focused almost all of his opening remarks on lambasting the recently-passed One Big Beautiful Bill championed by President Donald Trump.  Much of his other commentary focused on procuring a Democrat to defeat U. S. Senator Bill Cassidy in his quest for a third six-year term in office next year.

Radio talk show host Jim Engster posed an interesting question of Lanus in asking, “Would you rather run against Cassidy or another Republican?”  Lanus had to seek a repeat of the question.

Once Engster repeated the question with an emphasis on the fact that, with a closed primary, there is “no guarantee” that Cassidy will be the Republican nominee, Lanus responded with a three-minute, 31-second (3:31) ramble that seemed to last forever without really answering the question of who the preferred Republican opponent would be.  Let’s watch his response:

7/7/25:  Dadrius Lanus responds to Engster’s question of whether the Louisiana Democratic Party would rather face incumbent U. S. Senator Bill Cassidy or one of his Republican challengers in an election.

When this blog was formed, founder Robert Burns committed that, under no circumstances, would he accept advertising of any kind.  He further resolved himself that, under no circumstances, would he accept funds to defray the costs of obtaining court records, the cost of public records requests, travel expenses to attend court hearings, etc.

What Burns never committed to doing was to refrain from endorsing candidates and/or providing financial support to a candidate for office.  Burns has done plenty of the former but precious little of the latter.

Once in a blue moon, however, a candidate comes along whom Burns believes in strongly enough to both endorse and provide financial support to and, in the interest of full disclosure, Burns has done both already in the case of the recently-announced candidacy of Blake Miguez, Republican State Senator from New Iberia, for U. S. Senate.

Sen. Miguez is an early follower of Sound Off Louisiana, and he has frequently spoken with founder Robert Burns about features we have published.  When we say that, we don’t mean that he gave superficial glances at these features.  He knew the material covered very well before he initiated communication with Burns.

Miguez was diligent in following the blog in its earliest days when, as Burns briefly mentioned in the video accompanying this feature, Burns very seriously considered shutting the blog down in its early days (as in the first several years) because it was attracting so little attention.

As also mentioned on that video, however, a good friend called Burns as he had all but decided to shut the blog down and said, “I’m asking you not to do that, Robert, because I need to tell you that some very important people follow your blog.”  Burns soon realized, through Miguez contacting Burns both by phone and by text, that Miguez was one such very important individual.

Burns would also be stunned a few months after his friend convinced him not to shut the blog down that current U. S. Senator John Kennedy, in addressing the East Baton Rouge Republican Women, prepared to tell a joke, and he looked directly at Burns and said, “Robert has already heard this one.”

Stunned that Sen. Kennedy would even know Burns’ name, Kennedy said to him moments after the event ended that, “Robert, I follow your blog!”  Furthermore, Kennedy even asked how Burns’ mother was doing as he even recalled her presence with Burns at meetings of the BRPC.

Of course, it may have helped that mom would always say, “I like him,” after Kennedy would greet her as he made the rounds to speak with everyone prior to the meeting.  It may also have helped that Sound Off Louisiana had its debut on June 4, 2015 with then-Treasurer John Kennedy!

The interactions with Miguez and Kennedy mean all the more to us given that we very seriously doubt that, during the entire 10-year history of this blog, that either Burns’ State Representatives or his State Senators (with the notable exception of former State Senator Dan Claitor) have ever had a clue who he is.

Obviously, Burns is not a constituent of Miguez, nor has he ever been.  The same holds true for the most reported upon person of this blog, Billy Broussard.  Even though Miguez is not Broussard’s Senator (nor was he his State Representative), we know with 100 percent certainty that Miguez has done more to try and aid Broussard in reversing the wrong that was imparted onto him so many years ago.  Miguez’s efforts include attending the entirety of this meeting with the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s Office during which Broussard played an audio file of arguably the most intriguing quote that has ever been published on a Sound Off Louisiana feature.

What can Miguez really gain by expending such extensive time and energy with Broussard on the his matter?  We would submit that the only thing that Miguez can derive is the satisfaction of knowing that he played a role in trying to reverse one of the most shocking and devastating financial tragedies that we’ve ever seen bestowed upon anyone that was not caused by a natural disaster.  Instead, that financial devastation resulted from improprieties (and that’s a very kind characterization) of numerous governmental officials both at the State and local level.  Furthermore, we contend strongly that the coverup of those activities continues to this very day!

As any decent evangelist would say, we need to say one more thing as we close:  Blake Miguez is a fiscal conservative!  While social conservatives in the Louisiana Legislature are a dime a dozen, true fiscal conservatives (emphasis on the word “true”) are few and far between.

Miguez’s stand is firm:  He will not support a fee increase unless it is authoritatively demonstrated that it is warranted.  He followed our recent features on the Cosmetology Board diligently and, like us, he was intrigued at the assertions that it would cost over $1 million in building repair costs at the Cosmetology Board’s building.

To the Members of the Senate Commerce Committee’s credit, none of them asserted “privilege,” and we were notified on Friday afternoon that our requested records were ready.

We will have much to say about the numbers contained on page two (2) of this document.  Due to the length of this feature, however, for now, we’re just going to put those numbers front and center and remind everyone reading this feature that it was stated before that Committee that the costs to repair the building exceeded $1 million.  Here are those numbers:

We aren’t making any comment at this time other than to say the numbers speak for themselves and they are what they are, but let us once again reiterate that statements were made that building repair costs were stated to, “exceed $1 million.”  By our math, the total for such repair costs is $199,500.

So, it’s small intangibles like Miguez’s dedicated following of our blog, even for matters such as the recent fee increase for the Cosmetology Board, which we’re pleased to report he voted “NO” on, together with his steadfast proven history of being a true fiscal conservative that cause us to have such loyalty to Sen. Miguez.  We are therefore making it clear and unequivocal our strong and emphatic endorsement of him in his quest to replace Bill Cassidy in the U. S. Senate.

For those who may want to learn a little more about Sen. Miguez, here’s his introductory video from his campaign website:

Introductory video of State Sen. Blake Miguez in his quest for U. S. Senate to replace incumbent Bill Cassidy.

CLICK HERE for Louisiana Democratic Party Director Lanus’ presentation in its near entirety (we were running about two minutes late, and what he said in that two minutes was that the Trump One Big Beautiful Bill was not a matter of, “right vs. left,” but rather a matter of, “right vs. wrong.”  Everything else he said is captured on the just-linked video.

Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC)’s Executive Director, Steve Young, visibly flustered after a heated exchange with Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns mere minutes after Burns reminded him of his Louisiana Senate Commerce Committee testimony that, “most people (licensees) still pay by check,” a statement he made to Sen. Stewart Cathey (R-Monroe) during his May 21, 2025 testimony.

Okay, folks!  This is going to be a feature for the books, and that’s especially the case for anyone having even the remotest interest in the cosmetology field in Louisiana.

By now, everyone will recall our May 14, 2025 feature entailing the LSBC seeking a $1 million a year fee increase, yet not being able to answer even the most basic of financial questions posed by the Senate Commerce Committee.  Once the Committee told them they were ill-prepared to make such a request, they were instructed to return at the meeting one week later.  At that time, someone (we have yet to ascertain who because the LSBC emphatically denies that it was them) allegedly supplied the Committee with documentation substantiating a reported $1 million in building repair costs and some $700,000+ in computer upgrade costs.

Although Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips appeared before the House Commerce Committee on April 22, 2025 seeking documentation for the breakdown of those verbally-asserted costs (at that time, the LSBC had zilch in the way of any such documentation), as of the date of this publication, July 8, 2025, seventy-seven (77) days after he requested the documentation, he remains without the first sheet of paper to substantiate any written evidence of the need for such a massive amount of money.

The fact that no such documentation is available is not for Phillips’ failure to try and obtain it.  In fact, at the Senate Commerce Committee meeting of May 21, 2025, Chairman Beth Mizell advised Phillips to merely make a public records request for it.  Rev. Phillips (through Sound Off’s Burns) did so to the LSBC, which responded indicating that it had “no role” in providing the Commerce Committee with any of that documentation.

Accordingly, Phillips (again through Burns) made this public records request of the Louisiana Senate on June 4, 2025.  The request is self-evident regarding its content, and, late yesterday, July 7, 2025, after we sought an update on the status of the request, as evidenced by the email string between Louisiana Senate Secretary Yolanda Dixon and Burns just linked, we received the following update:

From: Dixon, Yolanda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 4:56 PM
To: ‘Robert Burns’ <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Public Records Request

Mr. Burns:

Your request is in process.  We are reviewing the produced records for privilege.  When the review process is finished, we will send an invoice to you.

Sincerely,

Yolanda Dixon

Secretary of the Senate

225-342-6184

[email protected]

It’s our hope to obtain the documentation in short order without any claim of “privilege,” especially given that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Beth Mizell specifically guided Phillips to make the public records request, and she did so during a live portion of the Committee’s deliberations.  Furthermore, according to Phillips, Sen. Ed Price (D-Gonzales) assured Phillips that he would be provided with the documentation.

Now, let’s dissect the LSBC meeting of July 7, 2025 with a fine-tooth comb:

First, the meeting lasted an hour and 19 minutes (1:19:00).  Of that timeframe, 41 minutes were devoted to relative chaos that has erupted over the fact that the LSBC needs to communicate to some 41,000 + licensees that the $10 fee increase (along with other changes in fees that accompanied the bill’s passage) takes effect on August 1, 2025, which is only 24 days from the date of this feature.  At the conclusion of this feature, we are going to present a link for a video of the meeting in its entirety and specify exactly the beginning and ending points so that any licensee of whatever nature may see the discussion and know what the situation is.  Those licensees, however, should receive a postcard in the mail specifying the particulars of the matter but, because of the volume of material to be covered, that post card is likely to be bullet points with a statement to go to the Board’s website for further details.

Having summarized the matter in the preceding paragraph, let us state that the 41-minute discussion was extensive due to public comment made by both Burns and Phillips, with one aspect of Burns’ commentary really striking a nerve with LSBC Executive Director Steve Young.  Let us present a 23-minute highlight video of that 41-minute segment of the meeting:

7/7/25:  Highlights of the segment of the meeting dealing with the communication of the fee increase and the means of disseminating out the particulars of the matter to all of the licensees of this state.

We want to strongly emphasize the following fact:  the video begins with Ms. Erica Williams-Parks, co-owner of Headliners NOLA (Anisa Parks is the other co-owner, and we’ve previously featured her on December 8, 2024) posing a relatively simple question about the capability of the LSBC’s website regarding online payments.

After the meeting, both Erica and Anisa informed us that yesterday, at the meeting, they learned of the ability to renew cosmetology licenses and pay for those renewals online for the first time!

We want to emphasize the fact that Anisia Parks never misses a meeting, and yet she knew nothing about being able to renew online and pay for that renewal online!  We want that to sink in for a few seconds!  They both indicated that the first thing they were going to communicate to their practitioners upon their return to New Orleans is the fact that the licenses can be renewed and paid for online!

Once we heard that revelation, we started calling a few other cosmetology contacts with whom we regularly correspond.  One such licensed cosmetologist assisted us in fairly reporting upon the situation on being able to renew such licenses and pay for the renewal online:  “The ability to do so is a relatively new capability; furthermore, it has historically been largely buried on the website and has not been an easy process.  In terms of communicating the ability for licensees to be able to conduct such a renewal online and pay for it online, the Board has done a horrendously bad job of communicating that fact out to the licensees.”

The good news is that, and we don’t know the exact date that the LSBC’s website was changed, but now anyone who visits the LSBC’s website cannot miss the big “pay online” right in the center of the homepage!  Certainly, that is a very favorable development for the LSBC!

Having said that, for whatever reason, as evidenced by the exchange from the 11:33 mark through the 13:20 mark of the above video, LSBC Executive Director Steve Young voices his extreme displeasure after Burns asked for an explanation of why the utilization rate of online payments is so low and referenced Young making the statement during his Senate Commerce Committee testimony that, “most people pay by check,” (those words on his part are found at the 11:49 – 11:57 segment of the video).

Only Young can explain why he got so testy about the mere fact that he indicated that historically most licensees have, “paid by check,” but the simple fact of the matter is that he did say it!

We still find it astounding that both Ms. Erica Williams-Parks and Ms. Anisia Parks had no idea, despite their steadfast and loyal attendance at LSBC meetings, that they could renew their cosmetology licenses and make payments for same online.

We did get asked as to what may be the possible reason for Young’s hostility behind the mere statement of his own words, and the only conjecture we could offer (and that’s all it is) is that perhaps he secretly doesn’t want licensees to renew online because of the credit card processing fee and/or any fees associated with Paystar, a local (Baton Rouge) firm offering the service.

Again, that’s pure conjecture on our part, but one thing is for sure:  Young seems sensitive to any widespread dissemination of the fact that licensees can renew their licenses and pay for such renewals online.

Lastly, we reiterated that we’d produced a feature wherein we referenced that we’d contacted two IT experts, each of whom we can attest are absolute experts in the field, and we indicated that we published  a link that they supplied to outside providers of licensing services.  Let us repeat that part of the feature at this time:

We consulted with two (2) IT experts, both of whom informed us that the LSBC should absolutely outsource that function to one of many license-management vendor products.  One of the two said, “This is not the business that the Cosmetology Board should be in.  It’s hard for me to fathom why nobody has apparently even explored outsourcing the management of their license responsibilities!”

Well, we have a separate YouTube account which we maintain with no subscribers (on purpose).  Prior to publishing this feature, we had them view the above video, and we’re going to refrain from publishing the full extent of an assessment of Kiwan Wade’s statements on the video above about the $700,000 in “programming costs.”

The response we got back by one IT expert was pretty blunt regarding Wade’s comments, with the expert saying, “Those companies do the conversions for them!  This is what happens when you put people who know nothing about technology in charge of technology.”

Okay.  On to the second video segment, which we’re happy to report we found very pleasing to us, and we want to compliment the LSBC Members for their kindness and receptivity to the suggestion that both Phillips and Burns made that, going forward, the LSBC place on every agenda the approval of its then-current financial statements (i.e. a “daily flash” sheet as they’re referenced in banking terms though it really is just an unadjusted printout of the ledger balances both of the income statement and the balance sheet) as of a particular date.

This is pretty standard practice at any Board or Commission which Burns has observed, but that has not been the case in the years he’s followed the LSBC.  We do not believe the Members could have possibly been more receptive (to which we were very pleased), so let’s present that video:

7/7/25:  The LSBC Members are very receptive to implementing an approval of financial statements on agendas going forward.  Entailing the two “fluff pieces” Burns referenced as being published in The Advocate, here is the link for Neill Corporation and here is the feature for the expansion of a salon to offer “luxurious spa treatments.”

Next, we have the July consent agreements together with an update on the Declaratory Judgment matter:

7/7/25:  Consent agreements and the “Declaratory Judgment” matter (with that “Declaratory Judgment” segment being from the 4:14 mark forward).

Thus far, we have refrained from reporting the first word on the “Declaratory Judgment” matter, but our patience has run out and, since this is sort of a “kitchen sink” feature, we are going to report on the matter now and also offer our own take on what we think the present situation is entailing it.

As a prelude, let us say that the nature of the matter reverts all the way back (over a decade ago) to this blog’s initial formation when we published this feature on former U. S. Congressman Joseph Cao’s claims of “lawlessness” on the part of the LSBC.  In fact, it was an email we first obtained way back then (literally days after the blog was formed) by a young Vietnamese manicurist that first got us involved in the LSBC.  Further, it was at our first meeting that we attended of the LSBC that we coincidentally got introduced to Nelda Dural, a young lady for whom we have the highest level of respect.  The LSBC spent in excess of $50,000 shutting down Dural’s New Iberia Cosmetology School, and the hearing to do so lasted some 2-1/2 days.

With that very brief background out of the way, the whole current “Declaratory Judgment” matter entails this September 19, 2024 press release by the Pelican Institute.  From the press release:

The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental American liberty enshrined in the Seventh Amendment. This safeguard ensures that the government cannot deprive citizens of their property or livelihood without due process. However, in Louisiana, the LSBC imposes steep fines and revokes licenses without offering fair recourse to a jury trial. This puts licensed professionals, such as manicurists and nail salon owners, at risk of financial jeopardy.

The LSBC oversees the licensing and regulation of cosmetologists, conducting frequent inspections and issuing fines for violations. These fines start at $25 per infraction and can escalate to $300 per day for ongoing violations. During the July 2023 to June 2024 period, every single LSBC enforcement action resulted in a monetary fine, none of which were tied to customer complaints or public health threats. This practice creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing the Board to impose fines aggressively to self-fund, rather than ensuring justice.

Amy Cao and her fellow cosmetologists are challenging this unjust system with legal representation from the Pelican Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and the Cao Law Firm. The administrative petition seeks to guarantee the right to a trial by jury when the state imposes financial penalties, ensuring that no individual is at the mercy of a state regulatory board without the protection of a jury of their peers.

Joseph Cao, Attorney at Cao Law Firm, stated, “As a proud member of the Vietnamese American community, I stand firm in challenging the unjust practices that threaten our livelihoods. This fight is deeply personal—not just for me, but for every hardworking individual in our community striving for the American Dream. We are determined to ensure that justice prevails and that the rights of our people are protected against excessive and unfair regulations.”

So where does everything stand?  Well, LSBC Board Attorney Morris opted to seek an Attorney General’s Opinion asking if the Board does in fact have jurisdiction entailing this matter.  At the January, 2025 LSBC Meeting, Morris indicated  (trust us, we have it on film) that she expected the Opinion to be released by the February 2025 meeting, and she even indicated that she felt like the reason it wasn’t available for the January meeting was due to a couple of days of weather-related State Office closures in January.

Well, it’s now nearing mid-July, and there is still no Opinion issued.

We want to emphasize that this is our own theory on that matter without the benefit of consulting anyone whatsoever, so it is 100 percent our own theory.  What is that theory?  That Attorney General Liz Murrill has no intention of issuing any Opinion and, instead, is holding out for a lawsuit to be filed, thus enabling her to declare the need for an Opinion to be “moot” given that the matter would be litigated.

Why do we believe this?  It’s not so much a knock against Murrill because, being blunt, that’s probably her best available strategy because, by seeking the Opinion, Morris has, in our opinion, placed Murrill between a rock and a hard place where there is no favorable outcome for the Attorney General’s Office.

Murrill has two options under the scenario that she is inclined to issue an opinion (which we believe that she is completely disinclined at this juncture):

#1) She can issue an Opinion siding with Morris and stating that the LSBC has no such jurisdiction.  The result?  A lawsuit challenging the issuance of such an Opinion for which Murrill would have to defend and may very well lose.  Such a courtroom loss would be more than a little embarrassing for her office, not to mention that she would make no friends at the LSBC if she couldn’t successfully defend her own position as espoused in any such Opinion.

#2) She can issue an Opinion in favor of the Pelican Institute stating that the LSBC does possess such jurisdiction under Louisiana’s Right to Earn a Living Act.  The result?  An immediate reiteration of a call for the Judgment from the LSBC which, if the effort fails (and why wouldn’t it because granting the Motion would effectively render the LSBC a toothless tiger in its own eyes and be of its own doing), would trigger a lawsuit against the LSBC which Murrill would then have to defend against as that’s a core function of the Attorney General’s Office.

So, it’s our opinion that Murrill will just continue running the pre-shot-clock equivalent in college basketball of the “four corners offense,” made famous by the late-legendary North Carolina Coach, Dean Smith.  To those unfamiliar with those days, an underdog team (or a team with a modest lead as Dean’s teams often built up) would try and simply hold the ball for an entire half (no shot clock) in the case of the underdog or kill an ungodly amount of time if a modest lead had been built up and attempt to do the same in the second half (underdog team), resulting in scores of something like 5-3 for an entire game (or tons of fouling in the case of defending a team with a large lead).   The strategy often worked well (in Dean’s case, to near perfection) provided the team has outstanding ball handlers (particularly at point guard) and high-percentage free-throw shooters (in those days, there was no “double bonus” free throws and non-shooting fouls were all one-and-one, meaning if the first shot is missed, there is no second shot).  Nevertheless, the whole offensive scheme drove fans nuts, thus resulting in the introduction of a shot clock (which started at 45 seconds but has been reduced to 30 seconds).

So, using the analogy above, Murrill is Dean Smith, and the Pelican Institute is stuck because there is no shot clock in this analogy.  Who would have the power to force Murrill to issue an Opinion?  Nobody, that’s who!

Let us just say one other thing:  It’s also our opinion (again, just from reading pleadings in the hair braiding litigation initiated by the Institute for Justice) that they (the Institute) failed in the litigation because of a steadfast refusal to comply with the requirements of the Right to Earn a Living Act.  Specifically, Judge Wilson Fields instructed them to present the matter to the LSBC, but they felt that would be fruitless because it was a foregone conclusion that the LSBC would reject the effort.  Thus, they forged full-steam ahead with the core argument advanced at the lawsuit’s inception that the LSBC had violated their clients’ Louisiana Constitutional Rights to earn a living.

What we are going to predict is that, if there isn’t a change in the mindset of the LSBC (and perhaps the new members may be so inclined, but we’ve previously expressed our firm conviction of who is REALLY calling the shots, with that being Edwin Neill III and Aveda operating by and through lobbyist Ryan Haynie, not to fight hair braiding initiatives, that the Pelican Institute will obtain new hair braiding clients, that one or more lawsuits will be filed, and that, this time, every step of the Louisiana Right to Earn a Living Act will be strictly adhered to.  The result will be yet more massive legal fees for the LSBC, so that may very well consume a significant portion of the new $10 fee increase, which is one of the key reasons we opposed the fee increase and will continue to do so unless and until we see a far less restrictive stand by the LSBC regarding infringing upon the rights of Louisiana citizens to earn a living free from overly burdensome regulation, which we view the LSBC as engaging in presently just as it has done for a very protracted period.

Is it any wonder that the Attorney General’s Office guided the LSBC Members that it would be in, “your best interest” to enroll in the AG program to shield themselves from personal liability?  Also, recall Executive Director Young actively opposed the Members doing so.  Perhaps his thought pattern was that it was their personal liability and not his, so the program didn’t justify the cost to him since he had no risk.  Furthermore, former Board Member Michael Anderson, being astute enough to read the AG packet of material at the initial January, 2025 meeting, observed the AG’s Office warning of potential personal liability if the Members declined to enroll in the program.  An impromptu meeting was scheduled a week later in January, and the Board reversed course, bucked Executive Director Steve Young’s strong opposition to joining the program, and Michael Anderson decided soon thereafter that it was time to say, “See, ‘ya, guys.  I’m ‘outta here!”

Okay.  The next video entails former Monroe TV Reporter Kenya Ross openly advocating for a day of paid leave (through an automated computer app, “My Excuse”) to maintain Afro Touch hair.  Here’s that video:

7/7/25:  Ross presents her case for a paid day off to maintain Afro Touch Hair.

Here is the final individual video, and it entails a denial of a “hybrid learning” request (on an individual basis) for “emergencies” sought by Stellar Beauty Studios and Institute:

7/7/25:  Presentation and denial of Stellar Beauty Studios and Institute’s letter calling for hybrid learning in the case of individual emergencies.

CLICK HERE for the meeting in its entirety and, as promised above, the segment on disseminating out the communication to licensees on the fee increase and other fee changes goes from the 35:00 mark to the 1:16:00 mark.

In conclusion, Young approached Burns after the meeting and asked, “Is this the way it’s going to be between you and me going forward?”  Burns’ response:  “That’s up to you, sir.”