Sound Off Louisiana

Kim Powell, who is scheduled to be sentenced for second-degree murder in front of 19th JDC Judge Fred Crifasi on Friday, February 3, 2023.

At the age of fifteen (15), Kim Powell was convicted of aggravated rape and sentenced to life in prison.  His conviction was on April 28, 1983.  Almost thirty-three (33) years later, on October 15, 2015, Powell was released from prison.  Powell would appear to owe an “assist” (to use a basketball analogy as “March Madness” rapidly approaches) to fellow Louisiana prisoner Henry Montgomery, who was responsible for this critical U. S. Supreme Court ruling, which itself expanded upon a ruling in Miller v. Alabama entailing life sentences for juvenile offenders.  From the previous link:

…..this Court decided that mandatory life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “ ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’ ” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ___, ___. Montgomery sought state collateral relief, arguing that Miller rendered his mandatory life-without-parole sentence illegal. The trial court denied his motion, and his application for a supervisory writ was denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which had previously held that Miller does not have retroactive effect in cases on state collateral review.

A State may remedy a Miller violation by extending parole eligibility to juvenile offenders. This would neither impose an onerous burden on the States nor disturb the finality of state convictions. And it would afford someone like Montgomery, who submits that he has evolved from a troubled, misguided youth to a model member of the prison community, the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition—that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change. Pp. 14–21.

2013–1163 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So. 3d 264, reversed and remanded.

So, as mentioned above, Powell was released from prison on October 15, 2015, and his niece, Kimberly Burbank, indicates that he was a very productive citizen with everything going well in his life.  Nevertheless, upon his release from prison, Powell was required to register as a sex offender and Powell complied with that requirement.

The life Powell was living post-prison-release all changed, however, when, on Saturday, June 13, 2020, the Baton Rouge Fire Department responded to a brush fire just off Spanish Town Road in Baton Rouge.  What they encountered was a 25-year-old young lady, Courtney Lee, who had been shot in the head twice and set on fire.  Four days later, on Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Baton Rouge Police Department arrested Powell and charged him with second-degree murder in connection with Lee’s death.

Powell faced trial before 19th JDC Judge Fred Crifasi in August of 2022 with the trial lasting three (3) days.  In a little over three (3) hours, much to the shock of Powell’s relatives (most notably his niece Kimberly Burbank and her father, Ron Wright), who were expecting a quick acquittal (they allege Powell’s defense attorney told them before trial the State had “no case”), were shocked to hear that Powell was found guilty.

On Friday, January 20, 2023, Burbank and Wright sat down with Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns to express their concerns entailing Powell’s prosecution and problems they noted during trial regarding the “credibility” concerns they have regarding the State’s “expert” witnesses.  Here’s what all Burbank and Wright had to say on those matters:

 
January 20, 2023 video of Kimberly Burbank and her father, Ron Wright, expressing their concerns about the prosecution of Kim Powell, who was convicted of second-degree murder and is scheduled to be sentenced for that murder on Friday, February 3, 2023.  CLICK HERE for the complaint filed with the Baton Rouge Police Department Internal Affairs Department and CLICK HERE for the complaint filed with LSP’s Internal Affairs Department.

We want to wrap this feature up by focusing on a comment made on our last feature.  Here is the comment wherein the writer criticizes both Sound Off Louisiana and Tom Aswell, publisher of Louisiana Voice:

 

Yawn. I’ve never seen people regurgitate the same things over and over and over. Meanwhile, people are getting killed in New Orleans and Baton Rouge by the dozen, yet Tom Aswell and Sound Off are too scared to do real journalism and grill the failures of leadership in those cities.

We would suggest to Mr. Hawk that, upon Sound Off Louisiana’s founding, we stated in no uncertain terms that the blog is intended to provide a means for, “Louisiana citizens, from the ‘small guy’ to the VIP, to Sound Off on Louisiana governmental issues of concern to them.”

That is what we have done, and it is what we will continue to do!

In the case of the feature for which Mr. Hawk complains of “regurgitation,” Dinelle Hardin, with literally only a few hours notice of the matter being on an agenda, booked a flight from Orlando to New Orleans in order to attend an LSPC meeting (in Baton Rouge, thus necessitating the additional expense of obtaining a rental car) and Sound Off on the matter of LSP Troopers’ York and Clary being able to avail themselves of a massive amount of annual leave which would otherwise be forfeited if LSP Col. Davis did as Dinelle and Mona Hardin desire and, “fired them both.”  That’s a classic prospective individual with “concerns about a Louisiana government operation” for whom we like to provide the means to Sound Off.

That’s even more the case given the incredible resolve of both Dinelle Hardin and her mother, Mona, to traverse repeatedly from Florida to Louisiana for various public meetings on the death of Ronald Greene.  So, Mr. Hawk can “yawn” all he wants to!  We’re going to cover such dedication and desire to Sound Off irrespective of whether he or anyone else finds it “regurgitating” and material to “yawn” at or not!

Likewise, Burbank and Wright sought an opportunity to Sound Off regarding what they allege are inadequacies in the investigative acts of the Baton Rouge Police Department and Louisiana State Police, and also for them to further express their concerns about the impacts of those alleged inadequacies regarding the conviction four months ago of their relative, whom they firmly believe is innocent of the murder for which he has now been convicted and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 3, 2023.

If Mr. Hawk wishes to reach out to Sound Off Louisiana and Sound Off on his contentions that there are “failures of leadership” in Baton Rouge and New Orleans, we stand ready, willing, and able to set up our video camera and let him Sound Off just as we did for the folk referenced above (and many others throughout this blog’s history).  In fact, we would love for him to do so because, as we’ve stated, that is precisely why we formed the blog!

We’ll see if we get a response to this open challenge to Mr. Hawk, or whether he may be “too scared” to follow through on our challenge!  We’re fully prepared for whatever choice he may make.

Aswell is welcome to address the allegation that he (Aswell) is “too scared” to report on the matter of “failures of leadership” in New Orleans and Baton Rouge on his own blog if he may be so inclined.

Dinelle Hardin, younger sister of Ronald Greene, who flew in from Orlando, Florida mere hours after learning that the Louisiana State Police Commission would take up the matters of LSP Troopers Kory York and Lt. John Clary (both of whom have been indicted criminally in the LSP in-custody death of Ronald Greene) to express her sentiments regarding their abilities to burn through thousands of hours of accumulated leave as their criminal matters progress in Union Parish.

Today, January 12, 2013 was another meeting of the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC), and it was frustrating to watch one Commissioner, Brian Crawford, just flat-out make an inaccurate statement in what he characterized as an effort on his part to, “be clear to the public.”

The primary matter on today’s agenda was a request by LSP to place two troopers, Kory York and Lt. John Clary, on “suspension without pay.”  We knew what that item would boil down to was the troopers’ ability to deplete any remaining administrative leave, followed by their annual leave, followed by their K-time (compensatory time), and their 1.5 K-time (overtime compensatory time).

As the matter was initially taken under consideration, the amount of such time in York and Clary’s payroll account was outlined, and those balances are outlined in the following table:

So we are talking about an enormous ability to burn through leave, no?  In fact, Clary’s annual leave balance represents two (2) years and four (4) months worth of leave.  That’s a long time to be able to draw a check while Clary’s criminal matter plays out in Union Parish.

What was frustrating about Crawford’s statement?  Well, in his extreme lack of knowledge, he indicated that the State of Louisiana would have to pay the troopers in full for their leave balances in the event of any separation of service (retire, termination, etc.).

Unfortunately, Crawford’s ignorance of the fact that, upon separation of service, the amount of hours for which any state employee can be paid entailing annual leave is capped at 300, caused his efforts to, “be clear to the public” to end up making nothing clear beyond his own profound ignorance of the subject matter about which he was speaking!

As a result, LSPC Attorney Lenore Feeney had to have a brief consultation with Chairman Simien and Vice Chairman Crawford to give them a quick crash course in the maximum number of hours any state employee may be paid as it pertains to accumulated annual leave balances.

Why is Crawford’s false portrayal significant?  Simple.  LSP Col. Lamar Davis could (in theory, we know) terminate both Troopers York and Clary.  If he had, each trooper would receive payment for only 300 hours of that annual leave balance.  In Clary’s case, that would result in a whopping 94 percent of his accumulated annual leave essentially evaporating.  In York’s case, the evaporation would approximate 89 percent.

With that backdrop, let’s take a few minutes to view Dinelle Hardin’s  frustration at the whole situation and also watch Vice Chairman Crawford’s ill-advised effort to, “be clear to the public:”

 1/12/13 LSPC Meeting:  Dinelle Hardin voices her frustration at the employment status of Clary and York, after which Chairman Simien explains what’s transpiring, followed by Vice Chairman Brian Crawford’s ill-advised attempt to, “be clear to the public.”

Now, during an Executive Session of the meeting, WBRZ’s Chief Investigative Reporter, Chris Nakamoto, who produced this usual Nakamoto-stellar feature on today’s meeting, interviewed York’s criminal defense attorney, J. Michael Small.  Let’s take a look:

Nakamoto interviews York’s criminal defense attorney, J. Michael Small (CLICK HERE for Nakamoto’s WBRZ feature).

Nakamoto also interviewed Dinelle Hardin during that Executive Session.  Let’s take a look:

 Nakamoto interviews Dinelle Hardin (CLICK HERE for Nakamoto’s WBRZ feature).

Given the speed with which the Greene matter has progressed so far (yes, that’s sarcasm), we think Louisiana taxpayers can now rest assured that they’ll be providing checks for Clary and York for a rather protracted period, but hey, Crawford insists that we can all take comfort from the fact that these won’t be the taxpayer-funded vacations which have provoked the ire of activist Belinda Parker-Brown.

Okay, Mr. Crawford.  If you say so!

Louisiana Attorney General (and candidate for Governor in 2023) Jeff Landry, who in his capacity as Attorney General representing Louisiana attorneys defending the Ronald Greene litigation, was characterized by Greene family attorney Lee Merritt as viewing him and other attorneys representing Greene as “quite a nuisance.”

Here’s the latest on the Ronald Greene criminal and civil matters as well as the latest filing on the Carl Cavalier matter:

Eboni K. Williams, host of the Grio YouTube channel, published the following video hours ago in which attorney Lee Merritt, upon whose initial civil lawsuit filed on behalf of the Greene family we based our original September 10, 2020 feature breaking the Ronald Greene matter, updated viewers on the latest developments entailing both the Ronald Greene criminal and civil litigation matters.  Let’s take a look:

December 28, 2022 interview of attorney Lee Merritt by Eboni K. Williams.

The only thing we’re going to comment on regarding the video above is that the “Louisiana attorneys” who have “seen us (the Greene lawyers) as quite a nuisance” would be spearheaded by the following highest-level attorney in the State of Louisiana:

Speaking of Attorney General (and candidate for Louisiana Governor in 2023), Jeff Landry, here’s a look at Cavalier’s attorneys’ response to LSP’s Opposition Memorandum to the Reopening of the Cause Filed by Cavalier.

That response was filed into Federal Court today (December 28, 2022).

We’re about to reproduce the highlights, but we want to stress that Cavalier’s attorneys argue strongly what Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns argued (and published) at the outset of this whole episode upon seeing the utter fiasco that it has become.

What they are arguing, which Burns feels is totally consistent with everything Burns was taught in the two Business Law classes at LSU required for sitting for the CPA exam and based upon all of the questions on the CPA exam, which is 25 percent Business Law, which focus on all the elements of a binding contract, there simply was no “meeting of the minds” here.

Being blunt, Burns doesn’t see how ANY judge can remotely infer that there was a meeting of the minds given the chaotic manner in which this settlement agreement was forced upon Cavalier and the fact that he remained consistent that he did not agree to the terms of the settlement:  #1) before the October 6, 2022 settlement conference, #2) during the settlement conference, and #3) after the settlement conference.

With that opinion on our part fully expressed, here’s highlights from the reply by Cavalier’s attorneys:

I. There Was No Meeting Of The Minds Between The Parties.

In Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Cause and Rescind the Proposed Settlement (Rec. Doc. 59), in reciting the “facts” of the case, the Defendants wholly ignored the sworn declaration, in which Mr. Cavalier testified that he and his attorney at the time disagreed on the terms of the settlement.  There is no court record of the settlement, but after the settlement conference, the counsel for the parties exchanged emails attempting to reduce the oral agreement to specific terms.  Mr. Cavalier never agreed to a written agreement. When he was presented with writing of specific terms from the oral agreement, he would not sign the agreement, as he did not agree! His position that he never agreed was confirmed at the Hearing held on October 27, 2022, where Mr. Cavalier explained, “It wasn’t that I just changed my mind.  My position was, was never accurately represented by, by my counsel.”  As pointed out in the Opposition Memorandum, “for a settlement to exist, there must be ‘an offer, acceptance, consideration, essential terms, and a meeting of the minds among the parties.’”  In the case at bar, there was no meeting of the minds of the parties. Further, for there to be an agreement, as referenced in the Opposition Memorandum, the parties must voluntarily agree.  As discussed more fully below, Mr. Cavalier did not “voluntarily agree” to the settlement. The instant matter is just like Alexander, where there was a disagreement between a party and that party’s counsel. Similarly, in the case at bar, there was disagreement between Mr. Cavalier and his counsel. Thus, Mr. Cavalier refused to sign a written agreement because he believed there was no agreement.

It is clear that the Plaintiff, Mr. Cavalier, never accepted the settlement as proposed without a provision by which he would be reemployed by the Louisiana State Police, even though his former counsel wanted there to be an agreement. At best, as in Hensley, there is ambiguity as to whether there was an agreement.

He (Cavalier) did not want to even go to a settlement conference before his hearing with the Police commission. But his attorney at the time would not listen to him. She browbeat him into going to the settlement conference, with the understanding that the money figure was agreed to, contrary to Mr. Cavalier’s view that it was insufficient.  His attorney said that at the settlement conference, they could argue for more money using the non-economic issues as bargaining chips.   But this was never done. Mr. Cavalier was depending upon his attorney at the time to forcefully argue for him, but instead, she was focused on the money. In spite of her client’s plea to raise the reemployment issue, she kept repeating that $200,000.00 was a great settlement. Finally, Mr. Cavalier caved and agreed to an oral version of the settlement, even though he really never agreed either to the dollar figure or the non-economic issues. His counsel threatened to abandon him if he did not agree to the $200,000.00. Mr. Cavalier knew he could not proceed alone and needed her. He was over a barrel.  Either (1) agree to the $200,000.00, (2) agree to go to a settlement conference before a civil service hearing, or (3) at the settlement conference, agree to settle. Mr. Cavalier was under duress to consent, and thus any agreement was invalid.

Based on the audio recordings we’ve already published between Cavalier and Craft, we find it almost impossible to argue against what Cavalier’s attorneys assert above.

Cavalier told us when this whole episode first blew up, “Mr. Burns, they are telling me they’re going to mail me this big package and that I need to sign it.  If they do mail me a big package, I’m just going to take a marks-a-lot, write ‘return to sender’ on it, and send it right on back to them!”  We joked with Cavalier in saying that he could invoke the following 1962 (long before Cavalier was born and even a year before Burns was born) great hit by  “The King” himself:

The “King’s” 1962 Smash Success Hit:  “Return to Sender.”

All we can say is that, if Judge John deGravelles rules against Attorney General Jeff Landry and LSP, then maybe a lesson can be learned about trying to conduct negotiations in a super-secret, high-pressure atmosphere.  We doubt they’ll learn anything because, being blunt, their arrogance is too strong and they’re playing with “house money” (i.e. our taxpayer dollars).

We’re just glad that Landry and his cramdown approach has been rebuffed by Cavalier in a very convincing and well-documented (much to Craft’s chagrin we’re sure) fashion!

If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops).  Supply your email address within the subscribe box.  You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.