Sound Off Louisiana

Photo of St. Martin Parish Government (SMPG) truck hauling in debris to Billy Broussard’s property mere hours before the SMPG Council would meet to deny Broussard a zoning variance (which his attorney has asserted he doesn’t even need) to do the exact same thing.

In our March 6, 2022 feature on the St. Martin Parish Government (SMPG) / Billy Broussard legal battle , we pointed out the fact that Billy Broussard has been issued a restraining order (which every attorney with whom we’ve consulted has declared to be unquestionably illegal) prohibiting him from hauling in vegetative debris onto a 33-acre property he purchased at 1675 Duchamp Road in Broussard, Louisiana.

We pointed out that Broussard had served SMPG with interrogatories and requests for admissions of fact (he has since also served them with a request for production of documents), and we drew attention to Request for Admission Number 27, which dealt with what, at the time, was 12 specific times and dates at which SMPG dumped its own debris on Broussard’s property (two more such dumps took place hours after Broussard submitted the admission requests).

We presented the photos of SMPG engaging in that dumping activity on Broussard’s property which are time-and-date stamped.  Let’s take just a moment to present a short 20-second video clip of SMPG’s actions mere hours before convening a hearing to deny Broussard a variance to do precisely what SMPG was doing:

 
Video of SMPG hauling in debris to Broussard’s property mere hours before the March 2, 2022 SMPG Council meeting to deny Broussard the right to engage in the same activity.

We stated our belief that SMPG will have a tough time in court with its request to enjoin Broussard from engaging in the activity given the obvious unclean hands with which they enter court.  We provided the link for the Doctrine of Unclean Hands in that feature.  As many subscribers may have surmised by now, our subscription list is, by our own conservative estimate, comprised of about 20 percent Louisiana-licensed lawyers.  Let’s just say that quite a few of those lawyers are intrigued at SMPG’s actions (particularly those of its President, Chester Cedars) entailing Broussard.

One lawyer, after reading our feature, called us up in stunned disbelief at what he had read and seen on the photos.  He proceeded to inform us that SMPG is going to be barred from arguing against Broussard under the Principle of Equitable Estoppel.  We find one reference on the preceding link of particular interest to us given that we already raised the issue of SMPG having “unclean hands.”  Here’s what we find interesting:

Anyone who wishes to assert an estoppel case must come to the court with “clean hands.” This means that the person bringing the suit must not do so unethically or as an act of bad faith. This clean hands doctrine is typically stated as “those who seek equity must do equity.”

11.

Exhibit D-1, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is submitted as evidence of the hauling and dumping by Plaintiff referenced in Paragraph 10 onto Defendant’s property at 1675 Duchamp Road. That evidence is comprised of color photos captured by Defendant’s security cameras clearly depicting Plaintiffs trucks loaded with debris either entering or exiting Defendant’s property.

12.

Defendant is of the belief that the Temporary Restraining Order Obtained by Plaintiff is illegal; furthermore, Defendant further believes that the relief sought by Plaintiff is barred by the Doctrine of Unclean Hands made evident by the documented hauling and dumping of its own debris onto Defendant’s property as outlined in Paragraphs 10 and 11 above. Furthermore, Defendant informed Plaintiff of the fact debris was being hauled and dumped onto his property at the St. Martin Parish Council Meeting of Wednesday, March 2, 2022, and Plaintiff, despite having actual knowledge of its own actions which are identical to those for which Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant, nevertheless proceeded the next day, March 3, 2022 to present this Honorable Court with an illegal Temporary Restraining Oder which has now been singed by this Honorable Court.

13.

Prior to withdrawing as Counsel for Defendant, Mr. Adley, in addition to filing the Pre-Trial Memorandum on behalf of Defendant, also drafted an Answer and Reconventional Demand against Plaintiff for the filing of an illegal Temporary Restraining Order and seeking for the Petition for Preliminary Injunction to be denied/dismissed with prejudice, for any Temporary
Restraining Order to be vacated, and that, “Defendants be awarded all damages, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 3608.”

14.

Upon successfully obtaining Counsel to represent Defendant, Defendant will supply the entire file which Mr. Adley supplied to Defendant upon his withdrawal as Counsel for Defendant to his newly-hired Counsel for the purpose of Defendant filing a Cause of Action against Plaintiff for its egregious conduct entailing this litigation.

15.
Due to the extensive work of Mr. Adley referenced in Paragraph 13, Defendant believes that the “learning curve” of new Counsel will be expedited given Mr. Adley’ s work on this case prior to his decision to withdraw as Counsel for Defendant.
16.
While procuring Counsel to replace Mr. Adley has proven more difficult than Defendant would have hoped, he remains optimistic of having retained such Counsel and for that Counsel to have filed a formal Motion to Enroll in this litigation no later than Wednesday, April 5, 2022.

Former Louisiana State Police Trooper Carl Cavalier, who will have his hearing to appeal Col. Davis’ decision to terminate him heard by the Louisiana State Police Commission on Thursday, April 14, 2022.

Unless anyone is a “Johnny-come-lately” to our blog, everyone will recognize the name “Carl Cavalier.”  He was a major source of internal LSP information without whom the public would likely remain largely in the dark on many LSP matters.

Cavalier made history when he not only slammed LSP operations (particularly regarding the in-custody death of Ronald Greene) but did so using a very public forum by speaking on camera with WBRZ (Channel 2 in Baton Rouge)’s investigative reporter Chris Nakamoto.  Also, Sound Off Louisiana was first to report (on June 10, 2021) Cavalier’s controversial authorship of a book entitled, “Nigger with a Badge.”

Louisiana State Police (LSP) ended up terminating Cavalier on a number of alleged improper activities:  leaking internal LSP material, conduct unbecoming – for authoring the book, and making public statements to news media outlets.  Cavalier sued LSP for wrongful termination and a violation of Louisiana’s Whistleblower Statues.  Cavalier initially filed pro se in 19th JDC State Court in Baton Rouge, but LSP transferred the matter to Federal Court in Baton Rouge.  Cavalier then hired renowned Baton Rouge attorney (she’s developed a cottage industry on suing Louisiana governmental agencies) Jill Craft.

LSP has filed a Motion to Dismiss Cavalier’s suit alleging inadequacy of service among other things.  Most recently, Craft filed this Opposition to LSP’s requested dismissal of Cavalier’s case, and LSP responded with  this Reply Memorandum on its Motion to Dismiss Cavalier’s petition.

We said sometime back that the Cavalier appeal hearing would be the “Super Bowl of LSP appeals,” and we certainly believe that to be the case.  We can now report that the Louisiana State Police Commission (LSPC) has scheduled that appeal hearing for Thursday, April 14, 2022.  Let’s take a look at that notice at this time:

Now, we’ve said it before, but we will reiterate it now that we believe that Cavalier’s appeal hearing should be conducted in a forum much larger than the relatively small auditorium existing at the Department of Agriculture and Forestry Building, which is where the LSPC normally conducts its meetings.  We expect that hearing to be flooded with local and state media, and we have little doubt that national media representatives will also be there.  We certainly plan to be there early irrespective of what venue this appeal hearing transpires at because we believe it promises to have plenty of fireworks before the hearing concludes.

Long-time subscribers and site visitors know that we have called for the abolishing of the LSPC for a long time.  We’ve gained plenty of company since we first made the plea years ago, so we’re not even going to try to list all of the folk who have made public comments that the LSPC is a useless, political-hack body which has accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of LSP oversight over its entire duration.  We could cite numerous instances, however, in which the LSPC has made a laughing-stock-joke of having any meaningful degree of integrity or responsible actions when the agency has been provided with every opportunity to be a much more useful and accountable agency.

Examples include the attempted termination of its then-Executive Director, Cathy Derbonne (she ended up being strong-armed into resigning in a closed-door Executive Session), for reporting impermissible campaign contributions and the litigation that ensued on Derbonne’s part and the near $300,000 paid to defend and settle with Derbonne.  Another example is the Chairman and Vice Chairman checking into a swank hotel soon after a meeting and sticking taxpayers with the tab, not only for the cost of the hotel (and it was obvious that this was not the first such encounter as hotel staff laughed and joked with the Vice Chairman while she was at the check-in desk after first patting the Chairman on the rear end) but also the cost to conduct an election to replace the Chairman.

Even all of the above irresponsible acts, however, are not what irks us at Sound Off Louisiana the most!  We’ll tell you what irks us the most.  After we published this November 29, 2020 feature entailing LSP’s Air Support Unit having “conned” the LSPC into lowering flight hours for promotions (which was based on numerous folk with direct knowledge of Air Support’s operations indicating this was a horrendous action by the LSPC), we conducted a series of LSP Air Support Unit investigative features.  We covered everything from the first-ever hiring of a civilian pilot (in direct violation of LSP’s policy to only hire LSP troopers for pilot positions) to an aborted flight entailing Gov. Edwards due to alleged gross deficiencies of training of LSP Air Support pilots and maintenance of LSP’s aircraft.

As we published this April 29, 2021 feature about the civilian pilot’s hiring, we openly called upon the LSPC to answer a ton of questions posed to us by individuals very familiar with LSP’s Air Support operations.  From that feature entailing what we indicated a “responsible” LSPC should do:

Now, we believe that a respectable LSPC would issue a command that Lee and Morrison appear before the Commission and answer the question of why Morrison’s statements above have proven to be demonstratively false.  We also believe that a respectable LSPC would also make the following inquiries of Lee and Morrison:

1.  How many pilots have received fixed-wing, multi-engine certifications paid for by taxpayers?
2. How does LSP justify that expense given that LSP has never owned such aircraft?
3. Does obtaining such certification enable one to obtain a more lucrative private-industry pilot position more readily?
4. How many such pilots have resigned from LSP soon after obtaining the certifications and for what reasons (we know of three and the reasons thereof and would love to see if Morrison/Lee would be truthful to the Commission)?
5. Has any pilot employed by LSP Air Support ever paid out of his own pocket to obtain fixed-wing, multi-engine certification?  If so, who?  Did he take annual leave to obtain the certification?
6. Were other pilots’ tuition for fixed-wing, multi-engine certifications paid for by taxpayers or the pilots themselves?  Were they required to take annual leave for school?
7. Can you account for the discrepancy, if one in fact exists, between responses to items 5 and 6 above?
8. Does LSP plan to (or has it already) obtain(ed)  the transfer of a fixed-wing, multi-engine aircraft constructed in or around the year 1976 from DEQ to LSP, making that aircraft the first such aircraft in LSP’s possession?
9. Will Mr. Stamey provide fixed-wing, multi-engine certification training in house?
10. Was that the primary reason he was hired?
11. Was the pilot position posting custom-tailored to fit Mr. Stamey?
12. Is the LSP Air Support Unit being utilized as a means for pilots to obtain credentials enabling them to depart for greener pastures in the private sector with advanced knowledge that their tenures at LSP Air Support are likely to be short-lived once such positions can be obtained?
13. Why is there such a preference given to Alexandria-area applicants for pilot positions and why have so many historically been chosen from that area?
14. Was a trooper newly-hired in the Air Support Unit told, “We have no idea how you pulled this off, but that’s not the way it works around here.  We determine who is hired, and you certainly weren’t someone we recommended for hire!”?
15. Was the trooper referenced in the previous question denied access to the facility on his first day on the job and obtained such access only by having a guard open the gate for him?
16. Did the trooper referenced in the prior two questions sign in the log book at the facility as “pilot” only to have the word “pilot” stricken out by one or more of his superiors at LSP’s Air Support Unit?
17. Did the trooper referenced in the prior three questions become so frustrated with the work environment at LSP’s Air Support Unit and the hostility he endured at that Unit that he requested a transfer soon after being hired at Air Support and was in fact soon thereafter transferred to LSP’s Gaming Enforcement Division?

We want to point out that the LSPC could have (and still can) accomplish resolving the above questions via a meeting agenda item.  It does not require the high price tag they keep crying to legislators that they need to hire an “investigator;” furthermore, hiring an “investigator” will accomplish nothing when the agency remains in political-hack status as it has been since its formation.

Did any LSPC member even so much as acknowledge the above itemized questions, much less commit to getting to the bottom of them?  No!  So, here we are having pilots indicating the “reckless” operations at LSP Air Support are placing people’s lives at risk and telling us that its “reckless disregard for maintenance” is going to lead to an LSP helicopter crash sooner rather than later, and the LSPC has no interest whatsoever in holding those who conned them accountable and even reverse their “horrendous” action of lowering flight hours (other experienced pilots’ words, not ours)!

So, what happens?  Not even six months after our post, Air Support’s newest certified pilot crashes a helicopter!  We have been told that the NTSB report on that crash should be out soon, and we intend to thoroughly examine that report once its published.  In the meantime, we’ll point out, however, that several pilots have indicated that the probability is “very high” that it will indicate “pilot error,” and they say that is a direct function of poor training by LSP’s Air Support Unit.  In our opinion, the LSPC is guilty of contributory negligence through its arrogance of essentially saying to us that, “You don’t dictate what we’ll place on an agenda.  We do!”

As another example of LSPC arrogance, the agency has spent hours discussing appropriate (i.e. non-offensive) wording of questions on LSP promotional exams and exams for graduating Cadet classes, but they have done zilch to respond to retired LSP Lt. Leon “Bucky” Millet’s extensive documentation presented to them about alleged cheating on exams that appears to have run rampant over the last six or more years!

The LSPC’s rein of T-total lack of oversight entailing LSP operations and its rein of supreme arrogance may be coming to an end soon if State Sen. Cleo Fields (D-Baton Rouge) has his way.  Fields has apparently heard the protests of so many people who have bent his ear to express frustration and outrage at the LSPC and, accordingly, he recently filed SB-239 to abolish the LSPC.

His bill will require a Constitutional Amendment, and Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns recently testified before the Louisiana Senate Oversight Committee on LSP that, “If you get that initiative through the House and Senate (2/3 vote required in each), I’ve got a couple of hundred dollar bills in my back pocket that says the voters of Louisiana will approve the Amendment.”

We will follow Fields’ legislation very carefully and update our subscribes on its status and hearings.  What can be more fair than letting the people decide?  We’ll certainly highlight those legislators inclined to keep the present (in our opinion corrupt and useless) system in place and deny voters the right to express their collective wills in the elections slated for later this year!

So, stay tuned for Cavalier’s appeal hearing on April 14, 2022 and, with a little luck, it will be about the last matter to appear before this sorry excuse for an accountable and respectable body of Louisiana State Government!

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.

Blake Dubroc (first row, second from left) and a few of his family and friends are the only five (5) people in attendance at the January 6, 2022 SMPG Zoning Commission meeting to lift hands opposing any “bailing of hay by farmer Billy Broussard.”

While the St. Martin Parish Government (SMPG) and Billy Broussard largely sleepwalked through the March 2, 2022 Council meeting during which Broussard’s zoning application was denied, the fireworks started almost immediately thereafter.

The next day, Thursday, March 3, 2022, the two sides exchanged the filing and/or serving of legal documents to one another in their ongoing legal battle.  Specifically, and not unexpectedly, the SMPG filed this petition to reset a date for Preliminary/Permanent Injunction.  What may not have been expected is that Broussard would serve SMPG with this First Set of Interrogatories and this First Set of Requests for Admissions of Fact.

Having looked over each document served upon SMPG by Broussard, we found Request for Admission of Fact Number Twenty-Seven (27) to be the most intriguing of all.  Here’s that specific request Broussard makes of SMPG:

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NUMBER TWENTY-SEVEN:

Please admit that, upon permission being sought and granted by Defendant, Plaintiff did haul its own debris to Defendant’s property at 1676 (sic) Duchamp Road, Broussard, Louisiana 70518 on the following dates and at the approximate times of:

1. February 22, 2022 at 11:33 a.m.

2. February 22, 2022 at 12:00 noon.

3. February 23, 2022 at 1:02 p.m.

4. February 24, 2022 at 8:51 a.m.

5. February 24, 2022 at 9:17 a.m.

6. February 24, 2022 at 11:27 a.m.

7. February 24, 2022 at 12:59 p.m.

8. February 24, 2022 at 1:24 p.m.

9. February 24, 2022 at 1:47 p.m.

10. February 24, 2022 at 2:17 p.m.

11. March 2, 2022 at 10:16 a.m.

12. March 2, 2022 at 11:14 a.m.

We believe it will be difficult for SMPG officials to attempt to deny those loads were hauled in by SMPG officials and dumped onto Broussard’s property given that Broussard has time-and-date-stamped video pictures of the activity.  Furthermore, for the record, there were actually two (2) loads subsequent to # 12 listed above, one of which (# 13) took place on Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:47 p.m. and the other (# 14) took place on Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at at 12:27 p.m.  What the heck, let’s go ahead and provide the evidence of those hauls, shall we?

So, here’s what we have:  2 1/2 hours prior to convening a Council meeting to deny Broussard an application to haul in debris, SMPG is engaging in that very activity itself!  Nobody can make this stuff up, folks!

So, what’s the legal impact of SMPG’s flaunting its own ability to haul in debris vs. telling the property owner, Broussard, that he cannot?  Well, the first thing that came to our minds is the Doctrine of Unclean Hands.  Essentially, the Doctrine says that, if one initiates action against another party, the one initiating the action cannot come into court with illegalities of its own.  As we’ll demonstrate shortly, SMPG has indicated Broussard’s “acts are unlawful.”  We’ll be curious to see how SMPG asserts Broussard’s acts are “unlawful,” and maintain with a straight face that their own identical acts are somehow “lawful.”  Importantly, from the link above:

The unclean hands doctrine typically applies only to equitable claims such as requests for injunctive relief or specific performance…….

Well, SMPG has unquestionably made a “request for injunctive relief,” so it sure looks to us like the Doctrine of Unclean Hands ought to be exploited by any attorney representing Broussard!

Now, Broussard certainly (in what appeared to us to be reding from notes likely prepared by an attorney) informed the Council that he’d agreed to let them haul materials to his property (see from the 2:42 – 2:59 mark of the video just linked) at the sleepwalking March 2, 2022 Parish Council meeting, let everyone in the room know that SMPG officials had been hauling in its debris to his property.  Now, we have little doubt this came as a shock to more than a few Council members; however, as we indicated in the March 2, 2022 Council meeting link above, that meeting was a pre-planned dog-and-pony show.

The episode had been carefully rehearsed and scripted prior to the meeting.  Furthermore, since the Council never provided notice of any intent to enter into Executive Session nor appropriately call for a vote to enter into Executive Session, which they could have done given the litigation that exists, it’s a virtual certainly that the Council Members blatantly violated Louisiana’s Open Meetings laws in scripting the dog-and-pony show.

That fact notwithstanding, and notwithstanding the fact that Council Chairman Tauzin managed to botch badly the script when he sought a motion, nobody could say a word when Broussard referenced SMPG hauling in debris to his site because they’d been pre-programmed to sleepwalk through that segment of the meeting and not to say one word!

Now, things didn’t stop with the filing for injunctive relief on Thursday, March 3, 2022.  The next day, Friday, March 4, 2022 at around 5 p.m., Broussard neighbor Blake Dubroc called the SMPG Sheriff’s Office and indicated that Broussard was in violation of a Temporary Restraining Order which Dubroc told the Sheriff’s Office had been signed by a judge the day before.

St. Martin Parish Sheriff deputies showed up on the scene.  After spending a few minutes on the property, Deputy Romero allegedly asked Broussard if he owned the property, to which Broussard responded that he did.  He then allegedly indicated that he didn’t see where the problem lies.  He allegedly stated, “If you own this property, why can’t you haul in debris if you own the property?”  Broussard indicated that the SMPG had filed a restraining order restricting him from doing so.

After first indicating that such an action seemed “silly,” Romero allegedly indicated, “That’s a civil matter.  It’s not a criminal matter.”  Romero then inquired of Broussard whether he’d been served with the restraining order at that point.  Broussard indicated that he had not, to which Romero allegedly stated, “Once you are served, read what it says and adhere to it.”  With that, Romero was on his way.  He did indicate to Broussard, however, that his supervisor, Sgt. Johnson, was working on the matter and attempting to contact SMPG officials.

Broussard permitted a few minutes to go by, then he reached out to speak with Sgt. Johnson.  In that phone call, Johnson states that SMPG officials did in fact tell him that Broussard is totally barred from going to his own property!  Let’s take a listen in on that phone call, shall we?:

March 4, 2022 telephone call between St. Martin Parish Sgt. Johnson and farmer Billy Broussard during which Sgt. Johnson indicates that SMPG officials indicated Broussard is banned from setting foot on his own property.

Now, near the end of that phone call, Broussard references his neighbor, Blake Dubroc, whom Broussard indicates has clear animus toward Broussard.  Broussard indicates Dubroc has been arrested numerous times entailing the St. Martin Parish Sheriff.  Let’s take a moment to refresh everyone’s memory entailing Dubroc’s past escapades, shall we?:

Broussard met the next morning, Saturday, March 5, 2022 with St. Martin Parish Deputy Toups for purposes of obtaining a complaint form to file against Dubroc for him (Dubroc) having allegedly, “dumped trash at the back of my (Broussard’s) property.”

That conversation was also quite interesting, and obviously the St. Martin Parish deputies are very supportive and empathetic to Broussard’s plight.  Let’s listen in on how that conversation went:

March 5, 2022 face-to-face meeting between farmer Billy Broussard and St. Martin Parish Deputy Toups regarding Broussard obtaining the paperwork to file a complaint against Dubroc for the alledged act of, “dumping trash on my property.”

Now, we have previously indicated that the St. Martin Parish Zoning meeting of January 6, 2022 was a step down from a Jerry Springer episode.  The conduct and content of that meeting is inexcusable for any governmental officials to have engaged in, and we have tried to spare residents of St. Martin Parish from being embarrassed by the conduct of some of its officials.

Nevertheless, we feel compelled to present an 11-second episode of the meeting in order to further demonstrate the animus that Dubroc has for Broussard.  During the meeting, Parish Attorney Allan “Sprinky” Durand, who, in our opinion, had absolutely no business WHATSOEVER posing this question to the audience (but it goes to our “Jerry Springer” commentary), asked the entire audience to demonstrate by show of hands, who all was opposed to Broussard “bailing hay” on his property.  First, NO, that is NOT a joke!!  The result:  Only Dubroc and his friends and/or family members raised their hands (and a total of five hands rose).  Here’s the 11-second segment of that kangaroo zoning commission meeting:

Dubroc makes it clear he opposes Broussard bailing hay by being almost alone (except for his family and friends) to raise his hand in opposition to Broussard bailing hay when Parish Attorney Allan “Sprinky” Durand asked for a show of hands.

We have evidence to suggest that Broussard isn’t the only neighbor with whom Dubroc has animus.  As Broussard mentions in the second audio above, they both have some Laotian neighbors.  That’s an Asian nationality from a country located adjacent to Thailand.

The Dubrocs allegedly texted those Laotian neighbors the following two texts, the first of which is a lady screaming (as the Laotian neighbors drive on a servitude which they have legally acquired to get to their property), “That’s when you get a bomb and you just throw it in front the damn car!”  A male voice immediately responds that, “You get a bunch of nails and tacks all over that road.”  Here’s that video allegedly sent as a text message to those Laotian neighbors:

Video file of a threatening action allegedly sent by a relative of Dubroc to one of the Laotian neighbors soon after they legally drove down a servitude to go to property they own.

There was yet another text allegedly sent soon thereafter.  On it, a very young man is heard bragging about having, “chased after them with a hammer.”  Let’s take a look at the video from that text, shall we?:

Another video file sent to the Laotian neighbors wherein one young man brags of having, “chased after them with a hammer in my hand.”

Just our opinion here, but we believe the sending of those texts given their threatening words, needs to be investigated as a hate crime.  We have seen numerous headlines over the last several years about hate crimes committed against Asian residents in the United States and, if substantiated that those texts were in fact sent to the Laotians, and the sending of them doesn’t constitute hate crimes, then such acts certainly should qualify as hate crimes.

As Broussard mentions in the second audio file above, Dubroc allegedly went to the center of the road and gave Broussard, with his oldest daughter riding with him in his vehicle, the “middle finger salute” using both hands earlier this week.

We want to reemphasize that Dubroc, along with LSP Trooper Scott Lopez, on whom we continue to await the fulfillment of a public records request of LSP to examine his entire personnel file, are SMPG’s star witnesses in their litigation against Broussard.  We want to also again emphasize that Lopez specifically recruited Dubroc to assist him in efforts to shut down Broussard’s farming operations!

As we stated at the January 6, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, we were very disappointed not to be able to attend the September 14, 2021 hearing to convert what several attorneys whom we KNOW to be very, very bright have characterized as a “flatly illegal” restraining order to a preliminary injunction.  Even as anticipatorily as we looked forward to that hearing, we are even more looking forward to the upcoming one for the brand new TRO filed on Thursday, March 3, 2022.

In conclusion, everyone will recall the fact that we indicated that we would not hire the Gibson Law firm nor Michael Adley to represent us over a matter as trivial as “two pieces of bubble gum.”  We made that statement due to Adley and his firm agreeing to go along with this whole Jerry Springer extended drama when he certainly should have seen the depths to which Parish President Chester Cedars would stoop by even relying upon someone like Dubroc as his star player in this saga.  The fact that Adley didn’t go ahead and punch the ball over the goal line when he had that chance on September 14, 2021 is, at least in our minds (and we might add in the minds of several highly-knowledgeable attorneys whom we spoke with on the matter), inexcusable.

Likewise, we would certainly not hire St. Martin Parish attorney Lee Durio.  Let’s take just a few moments to dissect some of the elements of his filings linked above:

22.
St. Martin Parish Government sent a Cease-and-Desist Letter to Defendant on or about July 21, 2021, through undersigned counsel.

It’s a good thing he stated “on or about July 21, 2021,” because the letter, which he admits he drafted, is dated JUNE 21, 2021!  That sort of rank sloppiness is absolutely inexcusable!  Of course, one may argue the little “slip” on the month may be an attempt to help protect Lopez since Lopez’s texts to Calder Hebert had this mysterious gap from mid June of 2021 to “July 29, 2021.”  We’ll assume Durio was just sloppy beyond words, but the fact remains that, had his letter been forward-dated to July 21, 2021, the timeframe of June 21, 2021 to July 21, 2021 would miraculously vanish.  That would be very convenient since it seems FAR, FAR more probable than not that Lopez was “working with” Parish officials during that timeframe, and that would cause a problem for Lopez regarding what he placed on his timesheets which we’ve been in possession of for quite some time.

25.
The requirement of proof of irreparable injury, lose, or damage, under Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure Article 3601 is dispended with in this matter because the Petitioner seeks injunctive relief because the acts sought to be enjoined are unlawful. Desselle vs. Acadian Ambulance Service Inc., 83 So. 3d 1253 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2012).

Obviously, “lose” above should be “loss,” but we can only assume that is yet more pure rank sloppiness on Durio’s part.  Further, we’re going to be anxious to hear Durio argue that Broussard’s activities are “unlawful,” yet the same identical activities by SMPG officials depicted through the fourteen (14) pictures above are somehow “not unlawful.”  It’s that little issue about “unclean hands” we referenced previously.

Now for some more pure rank sloppiness on Durio’s part:

26.
The Defendant/s are opening operating a business commercial in nature in an area zoned a Stickley residential pursuant to the St. Martin Parish Code of Ordinances. Any commercial activity is Stickley prohibited.

We assume that Durio meant to insert the phrase “and/or” between “opening operating” above.  Even given that edit, however, he writes “Stickley” (with a freaking capital “S”) for what should obviously be “strictly.”  Further, Dubroc, again being Durio’s star witness, operates a used car lot (at which money without question changes hands whereas Broussard continues to assert that there is no commercial activity taking place on his farm and that certainly no money has changed hands entailing any farming activities in which he is engaging) immediately adjacent to Broussard’s property.

Legal experts tell us that Durio is on “extremely shaky ground” in indicating that the requirement of irreparable harm “is dispensed with,” when they assert it most certainly should not have been dispensed with in this instance and therefore the TRO is “flatly illegal.”

Given that Cedars is such a stickler for detail and pinpoint accuracy, it’s more than a little surprising that he would employ an attorney with this level of pure rank sloppiness!  Then again, it may just be that Durio may need the work.  After all, his Facebook page indicates that, on February 26, 2022, he was “hacked.”  Computer technicians don’t come cheap just like many attorneys don’t.  Well, at least Durio is making some progress.  He managed to get the property address correct this time, which certainly wasn’t the case in his August, 2021 pleadings.  Nevertheless, it’s obvious Durio is far from attentive to detail.  Here’s another recent post on his Facebook page:

This was the day I can back from taking the Louisiana Bar Exam after being gone a week from my lil family!

We assume visitors should know to change “can” to “came.”

Having entered Southern University’s Law School in 2013 and graduating in 2016, Durio now has about five and a half (5 1/2) years of practicing law under his belt.  Give him time!  He’s still a relative rookie in the legal profession, and we have no doubt that, despite the rank sloppiness depicted in his pleadings above and the very questionable legal ground upon which he may be on right now in filing the Restraining Order, he’ll gradually get the hang of things!  He may even likely enhance the security on his computer system to avoid future “hacks.”

We’re aware of other problems with Durio’s pleadings, but we’ll leave that for the professionals as they argue this case in court, and we certainly await producing a feature soon thereafter alerting subscribers to the outcome of that court hearing!

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.