Sound Off Louisiana

Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez’s husband, Gil Lamperez, who previously was the husband of Dubroc’s neighbor living directly across the street, openly confronts SMP Sheriff Deputy Darren Countee with “attitude” (Countee’s word) on May 14, 2022. After inquiring of Countee if there is a, “f—k— problem,” Lamperez then demanded to know why Countee is there.  Countee responded to an anonymous complaint of a “massive” number of rounds being discharged from an AK-47 assault rifle on or near the property.  Ashton Palmisano, Dubroc’s son, is pictured to the right.

We believe that, by now, we’ve presented quite well that St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars has been on nothing short of a full-blown “crusade” to “harass” Billy Broussard over his 33-acre property on Duchamp Road in Broussard, Louisiana.  We’ll again reiterate that the words “crusade” and “harass” are those of Broussard’s former attorney, Michael Adley, and not our own words.

We’re going to make sure everyone obtains a very clear picture of the nature of the derelicts Cedars has chosen to assist him in carrying out his crusade.  To that end, in our last feature, we provided Ms. Mendy Girouard (a/k/a “Mob Boss”) with her 7+ minutes of fame during which she made it crystal clear that SMPG Parish President Chester Cedars is calling the shots in leading and directing “complaints” to be filed against Billy Broussard entailing his 33-acre property on Duchamp Road.

Girouard got her 7+ minutes of fame on May 5, 2022, which was a mere three (3) days after Cedars got this resounding court victory over Broussard in getting a Temporary Restraining Order converted to a Preliminary Injunction.

Nine days after Girouard got her time in the limelight, on May 14, 2022, Cedars confidant Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez and her friends and family got the spotlight when SMP Sheriff Deputy Darren Countee was called out to the residence of Blake Dubroc, Joelle’s father (and who is a “star witness” Cedars has identified to testify against Broussard and who is neighbors with Broussard’s property and in fact used to own Broussard’s property).

The call out of the SMP Sheriff’s Office was anonymous, but that didn’t stop Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez from having some very select words for the one whom she speculated made the call.  The subject of Dubroc-Lamperez’s speculation and receipt of extremely profane language directed at her would be the lady who lives across the street from the Dubrocs, and Joelle is married to her former husband, Gil Lamperez.  It was Lamperez who gave  Countee “attitude” upon Countee’s initial arrival by asking, “is there a f—— problem?”

Anyone is welcome to view the Incident Report by clicking here.   We hate to dignify the report as an “incident report” because it is obvious that SMP Sheriff visits to the Dubrocs are so frequent that SMP Sheriff Deputies obviously take a, “get in, get out, get on with your life” approach in dealing with callouts to the Dubrocs, and that fact is reflected in the “incident report.”

Let’s take a look at the video, but we give the admonition that Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez uses very offensive language in referencing Lamperez’s former wife who was outdoors on her porch during the SMP Sheriff visit.  (NOTE:  It is Sound Off Louisiana’s policy NOT to edit any portion of a law-enforcement body cam or dash cam video upon our initial publication of it, so we’ll guide everyone to advance to the 3:30 mark of the video to see the beginning of the encounter):

May 14, 2022 callout of the SMP Sheriff’s Office to the residence of Blake Dubroc as a result of an anonymous call out for repeated firing of an AK-47 assault rifle on or near the property.  WARNING:  Offensive language by Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez.  NOTE:  Advance to the 3:30 mark to begin the encounter between the Sheriff Deputy and the Dubroc clan. 

We’re gong to say very little about the above video because it speaks for itself in terms of the caliber of individuals with whom Cedars has aligned himself in his relentless pursuit of Broussard.

Finally, the young man dressed wearing the red cap is none other than Evan Mautrin, who is an employee of Blake Dubroc.  SMPG President Chester Cedars also listed him as yet another “star witness” Cedars wanted testifying against Broussard.

Mautrin was subpoenaed by Cedars for the court hearing on May 2, 2022 (as a witness called by SMPG); however, neither he nor LSP Trooper Scott Lopez (also subpoenaed by Cedars) were ever called upon for testimony for that 6-1/2 hour hearing because both sides appeared to save firepower (if SMPG has any legitimate “firepower” rather than pure unadulterated Cedars-manufactured horse manure) for the Permanent Injunction hearing when it transpires at a later date.  Broussard has full control entailing when, and even if, that hearing transpires, and he appears to be in no particular hurry to us.

SMPG Attorney Lee Durio has stated that the Parish has no intention of calling any witnesses at the Permanent Injunction hearing (gee, we wonder why????); however, Durio needs to realize that both sides have the prerogative to call witnesses, and Broussard has made it abundantly clear that all of these previously-labeled “star witnesses” of SMPG will most certainly be called to testify (by him)!

In wrapping up our commentary on the above utterly disgusting video, we’ll point out two quick points.

First, we’ve stated repeatedly that we have refrained from publishing the full SMPG Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of January 6, 2022 because, “an episode of Jerry Springer would be step up from the characters and conduct present at that meeting.”  The above video illustrates our point perfectly!

Second, we’ve praised Sheriff Becket Breaux’s commitment regarding deputies keeping body cameras on from the beginning of an encounter through the end of that encounter with members of the public while acting in official capacities.  With that said, we do feel compelled to point out that retired law enforcement officers with whom we consulted regarding the video above did criticize Deputy Countee’s handling of the matter.

Specifically, they’ve said that his “investigation” of the matter (as reflected by the above “incident report”) was grossly inadequate.  They focus in on the fact that Dubroc should have been required to take him to the exact location where the AK-47 firearm was being discharged.

They further indicated to us that he should have examined the number of spent rounds which may be present (reports were that the four individuals fired off a “massive” number of rounds prior to the arrival of Countee) at the location where the firearm was discharged.  They also indicated that, given the obvious potential for alcohol to have been consumed, Countee should have issued a stern warning that, “firearms and alcohol don’t mix.”

In general, however, it certainly appears to us that Countee is more pre-occupied with being “cool” and “fitting in with the crowd” than genuinely writing up and processing the matter.  We sort of doubt that Sheriff Breaux would want to tout this particular body-cam video as one in which he takes much pride or as being representative of his deputies’ handling of matters similar to this one.

Now, we want to make sure everyone gets a firm grasp of just how patently absurd Cedars’ directing the filing of these outlandish “complaints” against Broussard is.  To do that, let’s illustrate yet another SMP Sheriff callout.  This one transpired on March 4, 2022, which was a mere two days after the Cedars-led dog-and-pony full SMPG Council’s “consideration” of Broussard’s variance. 

What we want to draw attention to is just how much Blake Dubroc knows in the following video (specifically, that SMPG has issued another Temporary Restraining Order, and that, “the judge should sign in by Monday.”)  Who could have provided him with such detailed information?  That would have to be none other than SMPG President Chester Cedars!  Let us first provide that Incident Report of March 4, 2022.  We’ll even replicate the narrative of the report at this time:

CONTACT WAS MADE WITH COMPLAINANT BLAKE BROUSSARD (sic) WHO STATED BILLY BROUSSARD, WAS TRESPASSING ON HIS OWN PROPERTY AND DUMPING LOGS. BLAKE STATED THERE IS A CURRENT LAWSUIT FILED BY ST. MARTIN PARISH GOVERNMENT AGAINST BILLY. I SPOKE WITH BOTH PARTIES AND CONCLUDED THAT IT IS AN ACTIVE CIVIL MATTER AND THERE ARE NOT ANY COURT ORDERS, SIGNED BY A JUDGE. BILLY STATED HE IS IN CONTACT WITH SGT. ANDREW RIGBY ABOUT TRESPASSING AND LITTERING COMPLAINTS, AGAINST BLAKE. I INFORMED BOTH PARTIES THERE IS NOTHING ENFORCEABLE AGAINST BILLY UNTIL A (sic) ORDER IS SIGNED BY A JUDGE. NO FURTHER.

Now, the Deputy featured in this video is none other than Baily Romero. He  is the same Deputy who played a key role in Broussard’s arrest by both inappropriately asking very leading questions of Benjamin Lopez, son of LSP Trooper Scott Lopez, and by refusing to accept the fact that 16th JDC Judge Lewis Pitman declined to sign his arrest warrant application (and we believe for good reason) for Broussard.  As a result of Pitman declining to sign the arrest warrant application, Romero pulled that arrest warrant application from Judge Pitman (16th JDC Senior Judge, we’re told) and proceeded to submit that arrest warrant application to Judge deMahy.

It was deMahy who, for whatever reason that only she can provide, signed the arrest warrant application.  That action by deMahy, in turn, led directly to Broussard’s ultimate arrest based upon what appears to us to be collaboration between two law-enforcement officers (Deputy Romero and LSP Trooper Scott Lopez) to effectuate a baseless, groundless, and harassing arrest warrant based on no substance whatsoever.

There’s simply no other way to phrase it, and we feel certain that 16th Judicial District Attorney Bo Duhe’ easily recognized the whole episode as a complete and total sham and therefore quickly dismissed the matter from his office.  No matter how any objective observer looks at that episode, it constitutes (or certainly should constitute) a major source of embarrassment for Judge deMahy!

Okay, with all of that disclosure out of the way, let’s provide that video at this time:

March 4, 2022 callout of SMP Sheriff Deputy Baily Romero in response to a complaint by Blake Dubroc (Joelle Dubroc-Lamperez’s father) that Broussard is about to be served with yet another Temporary Restraining Order, “to where he can’t even go on his own property.”

If anyone needs any further proof that Cedars is orchestrating all of these irresponsible attacks against Broussard, merely reference the 4:10 – 4:17 mark on the above video in which Dubroc states:  “Chester Cedars got a lawsuit against him and they fixing to serve him Monday morning with a restraining order since he don’t listen.  They going to have a restraining order where he can’t even go on his own property…..This is all going to happen Monday morning, but until then, they can give citations and that will lead up to his arrest.”

Notice how Dubroc also knew already that the Preliminary Injunction would be scheduled for “two months from now,” and he was correct!  How would he know ANY of that were it not for being informed of it by SMPG Parish President Chester Cedars?  Heck, at the 6:04 mark of the above video, Dubroc states, “You can check with him (Cedars) and verify everything I’m saying.”

We can only assume that Cedars never bothered with mentioning to Dubroc that Broussard had the full blessing of Chester Cedars to dump from September 14, 2021 through the serving of that second restraining order upon Broussard.

Nah, Cedars wouldn’t want to mention the fact that he had to agree to that stipulation to essentially buy time to keep from getting his head handed to him on a platter by Michael Adley at the originally-scheduled Preliminary Injunction hearing back on September 14, 2021.  Commencing on that day, Cedars began conducting his behind-the-scenes smear campaign on Broussard that we’ve covered and exposed in raw naked form and in great detail over the last two months.  It’s pretty despicable when one considers the sheer manhours of the SMP Sheriff being wasted on a personal vendetta on the part of Cedars!  We think it provides the best insight imaginable of the true character and ethics of SMPG Parish President Chester Cedars!

At any rate, what has been made abundantly clear is that the collective group of Cedars and all of his cohorts were bound and determined to find some sort of way to get Broussard arrested and, on May 9, 2022, by deploying LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and, more particularly, exploiting his son, Benjamin Cole Lopez, they finally accomplished their long-term goal as patently absurd as that arrest was!

Dubroc’s version (i.e. “can’t go on his own property, and we can get him ‘arrested’ if he does,”) seems eerily similar to that uttered by Mendy Girouard, no?  Consequently, it would appear Cedars is grossly misstating to these constituents just what the legal restrictions are on Broussard in order to accomplish his goal of egging them on into filing the false, frivolous, and defamatory (in the case of Girouard, at least) “complaints” so that Cedars can beef up his “nuisance file” in his efforts to prevail at the Permanent Injunction court hearing.

Speaking of that “nuisance file,” we decided that, since Cedars is going to such great lengths to fill up that “nuisance file” with material, we decided to make a public records request to examine Broussard’s “nuisance file.”  On August 30, 2022, Parish Attorney Allan Durand provided us with this letter indicating the Parish “does not have a nuisance file” on Billy Broussard!  Can anyone believe that?  That any SMPG official would actually even say something so patently absurd as that, much less reduce it to writing, is incomprehensible!  Let’s highlight Durand’s exact wording to us from the linked letter at this time:

REQUEST 2: We don’t have a “nuisance file” on Mr. Broussard. The SMPG files on Mr. Broussard are those related to Planning & Zoning matters.

We responded back to Mr. Durand as follows:

I specifically direct your attention to the 11:14 – 11:28 mark of the following August 3, 2021 SMPG Council meeting video wherein St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars not only states emphatically that, “here’s a copy of our file…..our nuisance file,” but he holds the file up for the SMPG Councilmembers to see and for my video camera to clearly detect as well (feel free to watch beyond that 14 seconds if you’d like):  https://youtu.be/cL_ZGkG64s0

I am not responsible for whatever filing system SMPG may have opted to deploy in order to tap-dance around my public records requests.  Your filing system is your filing system, but you’re not going to arbitrarily alter it to state to me you don’t maintain a file which Parish President Chester Cedars clearly openly bragged on maintaining at that August 3, 2021 meeting and further did so with the full knowledge that a video camera was recording his words, his motions, and any and all props (e.g. “nuisance file”) he chose to deploy to drive his points home to the SMPG Councilmembers.

I want to take just a moment to again reiterate reference to a “nuisance file” being maintained on Mr. Broussard’s property.  In this instance, the statement is made by Ms. Mendy Girouard on May 5, 2022.

She flatly purports to be quoting SMPG President Chester Cedars in saying, “He was going to file one copy of the injunction in his nuisance file and one copy with the Sheriff’s Department.  That way you guys knew (sic).”

You may feel free to view Ms. Girouard in all her glory from the 2:10 – 2:16 mark of this video, https://youtu.be/kzu6iVuFe28, making it clear (again allegedly quoting Mr. Cedars) that he is in fact maintaining a “nuisance file.”

We’ve decided to make it really simple for our subscribers and site visitors to see the two above-referenced video clips touting the existence of a “nuisance file” being maintained by Parish President Chester Cedars by combining the two clips into a single video file.  Here is that 32-second video:

32-second video of combined clips of SMPG President Chester Cedars touting his “nuisance file” on Billy Broussard on August 3, 2021 along with Ms. Mendy “Mob Boss” Girouard indicating on May 5, 2022 that Cedars wanted specific documentation added to that file, which, according to a letter from Allan “Sprinky” Durand dated August 30, 2022 doesn’t even exist notwithstanding Cedars himself holding it up in front of the camera on August 3, 2021 as illustrated above!

We have let Mr. Durand know that, in making our public records request for the “nuisance file,” we’re providing SMPG Parish President Chester Cedars with the opportunity to, “show us what you got!”

We made it clear that we want them to provide us with every shred of documentation that they have in their possession by which they believe they can classify Mr. Broussard’s property as a nuisance (which is precisely what they’re asking Judge deMahy to do).  We have made the promise to them that we will scan all of that documentation and provide a direct link in a feature in order for our membership and causal site visitors to see exactly what their full arsenal is comprised of.

We’re essentially trying to be kind to Cedars and the SMPG crew in providing them with an opportunity to back up their claim because, being blunt, so far, as we’ve gone to great lengths to expose, all we’ve seen is a complete and total vindictive “crusade” (Adley’s word) orchestrated by Cedars to “harass” (again, Adley’s word) Broussard.  Again, those are the words of Broussard’s former attorney, Michael Adley.  We’ll only state that, based upon all we’ve documented and presented to our subscribers and casual site visitors (to include this feature), it certainly appears that more true words may have never been uttered than those of Michael Adley when he made that assessment of Cedars and the St. Martin Parish Government!

In conclusion, let us state that we believe LSP Trooper Scott Lopez’s stated concerns at the January 6, 2022 SMPG Planning and Zoning Commission meeting regarding concerns that Mr. Broussard’s property may diminish the value of his own property (driven home hard by his son, Benjamin Cole) are misplaced.  We can only speak for ourselves, but if we Googled “Duchamp Road” and saw the first video depicted on this feature, we’d tell our real estate agent, “Not no, but hell no!  We’re not moving anywhere near a group of derelicts firing off AK-47 rifles on a whim who then give an SMP Sheriff Deputy “attitude” upon his arrival to investigate the matter.  We’re taking a HARD pass on any property on Duchamp Road, but thank you for alerting us to the property’s availability on the market, where we think it will stay for a long time!”

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.

Mendy Girouard, appearing at the March 2, 2022 St. Martin Parish Council meeting with her custom-made T-shirt with “Mob Boss” on the right shoulder as she proudly presents a “petition” dated December 9, 2021 to the Council on which an official complaint with the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office was filed on August 15, 2022 alleging violations of Louisiana’s notary laws on the part of Melisa B. Dubroc.

We are about to present arguably our most intriguing feature of the entire Billy Broussard saga entailing his ongoing battles with St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars and Cedars’ “crusade” to “harass” Broussard (attorney Michael Adley’s words, not ours) about his hauling of vegetative materials onto his 32-acre property on Duchamp Road.

We want to once again issue our highest level of praise to St. Martin Parish Sheriff officials Karen Berthelot and Eve Laperouse for their dedication in fulfilling our public records requests; furthermore, we want to also praise St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux for his obvious commitment to having his deputies keep their body-cameras on when engaging in encounters with the public and acting in an official capacity.

In fact, given the absolutely shoddy past history of Louisiana State Police regarding the convenience of deactivating body-cameras at a Trooper’s whim, we’d suggest LSP have Breaux or one of his top lieutenants conduct several seminars to LSP Troopers on the importance of keeping those cameras on.

Subscribers and casual site visitors may recall Billy Broussard having stated near the end of the Trevis Helaire video located on this feature (see the 6:23 mark of this video to be precise) that he looked, “forward to you obtaining these videos” of folk making outlandish (and blatantly false and defamatory) claims about Broussard.

We are now prepared to present one such video of which Broussard referenced, and it entailed this St. Martin Parish Sheriff Incident Report entailing Mendy Girouard against Billy Broussard of May 5, 2022.   One knows it’s bad when the Sheriff Corporal, Mathiew Alexander, has no choice but to classify Broussard as “other/unknown” (rather than “witness, suspect, complainant,” etc.).  That will give our subscribers and casual site visitors a hint of just how bad the video we’re about to present is in terms of the complainant, Girouard.

So, with that fact divulged, let’s take a look at the video associated with that incident report because, in the video, Girouard makes it abundantly clear that St. Martin Parish President Chester Cedars has encouraged the neighborhood to file complaints against Broussard essentially if he so much as sneezes on his property so that Cedars can subsequently, “prove in court that his property is a nuisance.”  Here’s the video, folks (and we warn everyone to add double-portion butter to the popcorn as it is viewed):

May 5, 2022:  St. Martin Parish Sheriff Corporal Mathiew Alexander is called out to investigate and process a “trespassing complaint” lodged by Mendy Girouard against Billy Broussard, who owns the property upon which she accuses him of “trespassing.”

Now, lets’ provide just a bit of prospective on Girouard, all of which is derived from near the end of this feature.

Of course, subscribers will recall that Girouard proudly assisted Cedars in stirring up the “mob” in making Facebook posts such as the following:

 

As Broussard’s former legal counsel, Michael Adley, has pointed out in his pleadings, Girouard was announcing to all the neighbors that Broussard would be seeking “heavy industrial” zoning before Cedars even extended the common courtesy of letting Adley know that’s what Cedars intended to insist upon for Broussard to get approval of his zoning variance.

Of course, that comes as no real surprise considering that both Broussard and Adley have asserted that Cedars has been quietly working behind the scenes from September 14, 2021 (the date he convinced Adley to go along with a postponement of a September Preliminary Injunction court hearing) to sabotage Broussard’s efforts to, “go through the (i.e. Cedars-mandated) process,” which Adley has stated was done merely in a spirit of “compromise” and which is in no way whatsoever required of Broussard.

The video above provides compelling evidence that Cedars has been the mastermind behind forming and stirring up the “mob” to go after Broussard and thereby thwart his efforts to simply continue to do what Broussard had been doing for a full year prior to Cedars focusing his legal rifle at Broussard’s heart.  Girouard merely seeks to proclaim herself as the self-appointed leader of that “mob,” and LSP Trooper Scott Lopez may or may not be willing to cede that title to her.

After all, an “anonymous” comment posted by someone almost assuredly Girouard as the first of a number of comments beneath our feature on Broussard’s second complaint against LSP Trooper Scott Lopez (for Conduct Unbecoming an LSP Trooper at the January 6, 2022 SMPG Planning and Zoning meeting, which was sustained by LSP), would certainly indicate she wished to claim as much of the credit for the systematic campaign against Broussard as possible.  Here’s that comment:

This is so bogus! It’s just a vendetta against a Great Man and state trooper. He has every right to voice his opinion as a concerned citizen for his family and their future. I’m the WITCH that stirred yp (sic) the hornets nest NOT Scott Lopez or the Dubroc’s (sic). But, you FAIL to publicize the crap that Billy Broussard is doing behind the community’s back and now they are woke up (sic) and paying attention. So for now, get all your facts and both sides of the story instead of 1!

We are going to analyze all of the “facts” Girouard got wrong in her 7 1/2 minute encounter with Corporal Alexander on May 5, 2022 above momentarily.  First, however, we want to present Girouard’s presentation of a “petition” to the full SMPG Council at its meeting of March 2, 2022.  Let’s take a look at her 53-second presentation of the “petition:”

March 2, 2022 53-second presentation of a “petition” by Mendy Girouard to the SMPG Council entailing Billy Broussard’s request for a zoning variance.

Broussard has presented the petition to a number of notaries, all of whom have said there are “serious legal issues” with the notarization of that petition.  Among the issues is the notary, Melissa Dubroc, serving as both notary and principal to the document (along with several of her direct family members).  Another major issue is the strikeout on the first page of the document with a handwritten change that drastically changes the wording of the document.  There is no date, time, nor initials indicating who made that change or when it was made.

While we have no idea who may have initiated the strikeout, we do know that Mendy Girouard, as evidenced by the video above, was the last person to have possession of the document prior to tendering it over to the SMPG Council.  For that matter, we are in the dark on who even drafted the “petition.”

As a result of all of the stated legal issues with the notarization of the document, combined with the fact that the document was presented to a governmental body and intended to have a direct impact on that public body’s action, Broussard, on Monday, August 15, 2022, lodged this complaint with the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office.  That office indicates that the matter has been referred on to St. Martin Parish District Attorney Bo Duhe’s Office.  Furthermore, Broussard has filed a claim against the notary, Melissa Dubroc, with her bonding company, Merchants Bonding Company:

The Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office informed Broussard that Dubroc’s bond coverage is $10,000. Broussard asserts that won’t cover all the damage done, but it will at least be a start as he is clearly determined to pursue, as Chester Cedars would say, “Every firm, individual, or entity who in any way was connected with this surreptitious removal of the spoil banks by Lafayette Parish Consolidated Government systematic, well-orchestrated crusade to harass me spearheaded by St. Martin Parish Government President Chester Cedars.”

Broussard has also been screaming from the mountaintops about Melissa Dubroc’s vested interest in collaborating with Cedars to harass him.  Specifically, the Dubrocs sued the former owners of Broussard’s property, Deep South Forest Products.

Broussard has emphasized that what’s critical from this transcript and judgments against Dubroc from that litigation is contained on pages 52-54 of the transcript, which Broussard contends establishes the fact that Dubroc had a valid claim of erosion but that his (Dubroc’s) problem was that he waited too long to bring action (i.e. 10-year prescription period had passed).

Broussard has indicated immense frustration entailing the fact that his work on the property has been (and continued to be until the Temporary Restraining Oder was signed) aimed at solving the very erosion issue upon which Dubroc sued in the first place.  Broussard said, “So I come along and largely fix the very problem for which he sued, and he and his family actively seek to block those very efforts, including allegedly committing one or more possible illegal acts regarding notarization from what other notaries have told me.”

Now, let’s move on to what we promised above, and that is to dissect just what all Girouard stated on that 7-1/2 minute video above with Corporal Alexander that is demonstratively and blatantly false!:

===> 0:15:  “On Tuesday, we went to Court with Mr. Cedars.”

Who is “we?”  The only known resident who accompanied Girouard in Court on May 2, 2022 is LSP Trooper Scott Lopez!

Girouard had with her several binders of material.  We can only assume that she was under the mistaken impression that Court would operate just like a Council meeting and she could take the witness stand and testify if she so desired.

Once the witnesses were itemized and, unlike Lopez, she didn’t hear her name, why she up and skedaddled and wasn’t present for the remaining 6-1/2 hours of that Court hearing (but we were).

===> 0:19:  “Judge de Mahy has signed a permanent injunction for him not to have the dump truck on the property.  Period.”

Even the “period” is a trademark of SMPG President Chester Cedars as he utters it repeatedly in any statement he makes.  More importantly, however, Judge de Mahy had not signed a blessed thing on May 5, 2022!

Furthermore, Broussard’s attorney and SMPG’s attorney argued back and forth for days regarding the wording of the final judgment, and that Preliminary Injunction (not Permanent Injunction) judgment was ultimately signed by Judge de Mahy on May 24, 2022, a full 19 days after Girouard is seen above falsely representing to Corporal Alexander  not only that the judge has signed the document (on May 5, 2022) but also rambling on and on (falsely) about the nature (permanent vs. preliminary, and there is a huge difference!) of the injunction and its wording (its nonexistence notwithstanding).

Not only were we present for de Mahy stating what Broussard could and could not do on the property, but we reported upon it on May 4, 2022, the very day before Girouard obviously got so emboldened by what she believed (apparently in her mind only) happened at the conclusion of that hearing that she’d just state to Corporal Alexander whatever the heck she wanted to tell him irrespective of reality!

We’ll note that in our headline, one sees “preliminary injunction” as we believe in accurate reporting!  Nevertheless, The Daily Iberian just may wish to give Girouard a call for a reporter’s position as it appears she would fit right in very well.

Contrary to what Girouard stated to Corporal Alexander, what Judge de Mahy said that Broussard could not do is to park his truck, “with vegetative materials in it overnight” because she indicated that would constitute “temporary storage.”  All of that was contained in our report of the matter because we believe it’s important to state what a judge states in open court accurately!  Obviously, Girouard feels it’s just fine to make things up on the fly when she wasn’t even in attendance when Judge de Mahy made her ruling.

===> 0:50.  “I was in the courtroom, and the Judge said the dump truck cannot be on the property whatsoever.”

One-hundred-percent false, and we seriously doubt Judge de Mahy appreciates having been misquoted and made to appear that she would issue a blatantly-illegal directive from the bench!  Of course, if de Mahy sees this feature, she’ll likely easily size up the source and write it off as par for the course coming from that source.

===> 1:10:  “I talked to Mr. Cedars that afternoon (Tuesday, May 2, 2022), and he said, ‘anytime anyone sees the dump truck there, we’re supposed to call and make a complaint.'”

Well, there’s no more compelling evidence than that to establish firmly that Cedars is and has been all along the mastermind behind the vilification of Broussard.

We will point out that we attended both the court hearing and the SMPG Council meeting that evening, and it was a tight squeeze to arrive at the Council meeting on time.

 If Girouard had such a conversation with Cedars, there was only a narrow window of opportunity for it to have transpired.  Nevertheless, given the obvious leading and directing of Cedars in orchestrating and carrying out this systematic “crusade” of “harassment” (again Michal Adley’s words, not ours), we have no reason to doubt Girouard regarding the timing of the conversation.  As far as the content, all we can say is Girouard has blatantly misquoted Judge de Mahy, and we’ll leave it to Cedars to testify as to whether she has also misquoted him.

===> 1:48:  “The truck was empty, full, empty again.”

Broussard has emphatically denied that he has “ever” brought a truck containing anything at all from the date Judge de Mahy made her oral ruling forward, and he has flatly stated to us that what Girouard has stated is, “a lie demonstrating that they were doing everything they could to try to get me arrested.”

===> 2:05:  “Mr. Cedars said he’ll get two copies of the injunction….One for his own ‘nuisance file’ and one for you, that way you guys knew (sic) when you do get complaints.”

We don’t care how many copies of Judge de Mahy’s Judgment Cedars provides to the world (even the President of the United States if he’s so inclined), in order for anything to be done, there must be an actual violation, and Girouard is simply dreaming up “violations” in her own mind without having seen the Judgment (because it did not even exist at the time she rambles on) and does not remotely say what she represents to Corporal Alexander that it says once it did come into existence on May 24, 2022.

===> 4:06 [Thank God Girouard had to take two minutes to go retrieve her driver’s license making it impossible for her to have uttered more falsehoods and nonsense during that two-minute segment].

Corporal Alexander professionally and diplomatically informs Girouard that she is off base in wanting to file criminal charges against Broussard for “trespassing” when he owns the property!  Geez!!

The mind-numbing lunacy of some of the crew with which Cedars has aligned himself to harass Broussard is astounding beyond any words we have the vocabulary to describe.

===> 5:15 “Now I do understand that he is supposed to have a warrant out for him……supposed to be signed this morning…for aggravated assault and obstruction of a roadway.”

Okay.  So here we have clear and compelling  evidence of all of the collusion between LSP Trooper Scott Lopez and Girouard entailing their dogmatic joint determination to have Broussard arrested for, in Girouard’s words, “aggravated assault” (which means assault committed with a weapon).

On July 11, 2022, we published this extensive feature on Broussard’s arrest.  Now, that arrest warrant was not signed until May 9, 2022 at 9:06 p.m.  So, here we have Girouard (falsely) telling Corporal Alexander that the warrant was “signed this morning,” (May 5, 2022) and further that it entails “aggravated assault” committed by Billy Broussard.   The actual warrant was not signed until four days later and was for “obstruction of public passage, a misdemeanor.”

We also published, the very next day, July 12, 2022, that St. Martinville DA Bo Duhe’ immediately dismissed the charges as an obvious sham.

Eight days later, on July 20, 2022, we published this feature containing the crucial 18-seconds of video taken by Benjamin Lopez, LSP Trooper Scott Lopez’s son, upon which the warrant was totally dependent.

That video readily shows the T-total sham nature of any such “assault charges.”

So here’s our question:  Did Judge de Mahy opt to sign the arrest warrant, especially given that Judge Lewis Pittman declined to sign the same arrest warrant application, based on oral statements made to her by St. Martin Parish Deputy Baily Romero?  After all, as stated in Broussard’s litigation against Lopez, “upon information and belief, Romero resides at 1291 Duchamp Road” which would make him a neighbor of Girouard and Lopez.  Broussard made that assertion based on this voter records website.

At any rate, only Romero can explain why he pulled the application from Pittman (the Senior Judge from what we’re told) and thereafter submitted it to de Mahy, but plenty of folk are keenly interested in that development which transpired very late on the evening of May 9, 2022!

===> 5:32:  “He (Broussard) got out in the middle of the street and was threatening to harm somebody….for taking pictures of him <extensive laughter> .”

Oh, really?  We’re anxious to hear Girouard explain both her source and basis for making that bold claim knowing full well Alexander’s body-camera was recording every second of what she said.  We’re also anxious to find what she finds so funny to engage in all the laughter as she utters a blatant lie about Broussard.  Was it that she knew everything she was saying was a fabrication?

We will point out that we made a public records request for any and all documentation in the possession of St. Martin Parish Sheriff Becket Breaux’s office entailing any investigation of any nature whatsoever into allegations that Broussard had committed “simple assault,” and we were told there were, “no records responsive to your request.”  We’re not going to bother with making another request for “aggravated assault” because we feel there’s no need to even dignify Girouard’s false representation to Corporal Alexander on the video above.

===> 5:50:  “I mean he literally ran my neighbor off the road on his motorcycle last week…..Oh, yeah, it’s getting ugly.”

Again, we’ll be anxious to hear her testify entailing that matter in court as well.

It truly is amazing that Girouard could utter all of those untruths in a mere 5-1/2 minutes (net of the two minutes it took her to go retrieve her driver’s license).

At any rate, we believe Broussard’s attorney is now accumulating a plethora of evidence to present for the Permanent Injunction hearing when it transpires (of course, Girouard is obviously under the mistaken belief that it already has).  Also, if we were inclined to make wagers in this matter and could find someone willing to take the other side, we believe we’d take a little action on Girouard getting a knock on her door to receive a little more paperwork from the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s Office.  That’s just our take though.

In fact, given the extensive efforts of Broussard’s former attorney, Michael Adley, to demonstrate that Cedars knew the obvious problems he had in pursuing a Temporary Restraining Order against Broussard (sworn testimony of SMPG attorney Allan “Sprinky” Durand of, “no zoning of any kind beyond 500 feet off the road,” zoning maps unenforceable, etc.), we wouldn’t be one bit surprised to see The Daily Iberian name Chester Cedars as a third-party defendant for cramming through his ordinance on August 3, 2021 and then filing a Temporary Restraining Order mere days later.

After all, while The Daily Iberian would seem to have obvious problems in falsely reporting that Broussard was burning, it was Cedars and Cedars alone who knew all the problems (as per Adley’s filing), that he had as outlined above, yet he presented an authoritative case against Broussard in the apparent belief that nobody would uncover those obvious problems.  He certainly felt he had no obligation to point out those problems, and we believe that concealment from everyone, including The Daily Iberian, to falsely report that Broussard was potentially violating zoning ordinances, when Cedars secretly knew that Broussard was doing no such thing just may prompt the newspaper into dragging Cedars into Broussard’s litigation against the newspaper as a third-party defendant.

Again, this feature would not be possible without Sheriff Breaux’s obvious emphasis on keeping body-cameras on irrespective of whether a matter is combative or not, and that fact alone makes him heads-and-shoulders above the lousy excuse for an LSP Colonel who exists at LSP at present!

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.

Dr. Oscar “Omar” Dantzler, candidate for U. S. Congress from the Fifth District of Louisiana, faces the potential prospect of being assessed with significant legal fees incurred by the Tangipahoa Parish School Board for “frivolous” lawsuits he filed in late 2020 and July 2022 in which he accused the Board of racial discrimination entailing a promotion for which a white female ultimately obtained the position.

A little over year ago, we published one of the most exhaustive features we’ve ever published, and it entailed massive legal fees assessed against Shreveport dentist C. Ryan Haygood for a filing he made in the Western District of Federal Count in Shreveport.  Since the preceding feature is so exhaustive, let’s just hit the highpoints for this feature by presenting them in the following table:

So, Haygood managed to get himself in a heck of a mess once the Federal Judge overseeing his case determined that his litigation had no merit whatsoever and that he and his attorney should have known that fact, no?  Let’s focus on some of the wording of just that January 28, 2022 Memorandum Order:

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ three Motions for Reconsideration of and/or to Alter or Amend the Memorandum Rulings and Orders Awarding Attorney Fees to Defendants.  The total amount of attorney fees awarded in August 2021 was $270,661.80.  Defendants Robert K. Hill, D.D.S. and Hill, D.D.S., Inc., Barry Ogden, Camp Morrison, Karen Moorhead, Dana Glorioso, and H.O. Blackwood, D.D.S. oppose the motions and contend the Court’s award of attorney fees was entirely proper.

Additionally, this Court has previously addressed in great detail not only the propriety of the award of attorney fees, but also its lodestar analysis to reach the quantum of attorney fees. The Court specifically considered the interwoven nature of the many claims and proceedings in this case, all of which involved a common core of facts and were based on related legal theories. The motions are DENIED on these four grounds.

Plaintiffs contend an award of attorney fees is premature because the merits of their appeal have not yet been ruled on by the Fifth Circuit.  The Court is more persuaded by this argument and agrees to stay the enforcement of the orders awarding attorney fees in this case until such time as the Fifth Circuit rules in Haygood II.

It’s kind of difficult to imagine Haygood feeling all that comfortable knowing that, at any time, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a ruling on the legal fees, after which, assuming the District Court’s ruling isn’t overturned, the Defendants will no doubt press the Court for enforcement.

Now on to Dantzler and our feature of August 14, 2022 on his matter.

Dantzler called Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns on Monday, August 15, 2022 and said, “I ain’t want all that stuff (the filings by Defendants) in the feature.”  One of the key reasons we’re making this post is to let anyone who wants to contact us to “Sound Off” on a governmental operation know that we’re more than willing to provide anyone with that opportunity.  What we want to ensure, however, is that nobody infers that to mean that we’re the McDonald’s of blog reporting where anyone can just drive up and custom-order a feature to present his side and his side only!  That’s not the way this blog operates!

It took us quite a while to drive that point home to Dantzler, but we believe when our conversation ended 90 minutes later, he’d finally come to that realization, and he also threw in towel on his repeated request that we merely, “take the feature down.”  We emphasized that we have NEVER in the history of this blog taken a feature down and stressed that the ONLY circumstance under which we ever would do so is if a Court orders such a removal.

In fact, not only did we inform him in no uncertain terms that the feature was NOT coming down, but we’ve added the two filings from Friday (August 12, 2022) and Tuesday (August 16, 2022) to the table at located on the preceding feature.

The Friday filing by Dantzler simply isn’t worth dignifying with commentary, so we’re not going to.  Anyone is welcome to click on it and read it if so inclined.

The Tuesday filing by the Tangipahoa Parish School System, however, is a far, far more interesting read, so let’s cover a few of its highlights at this time:

TPSB likewise opposes a dismissal without prejudice…..as the parties have been actively engaged in defense of the suit for 21 months and are entitled to have the case adjudicated.

Alternatively, if this matter is dismissed without prejudice TPSB asserts its right to obtain payment of all or part of the costs incurred for defense of this matter as allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) in order to achieve an equitable balance among the parties.

The Plaintiff has filed twenty-nine District Court suits, and appealed fifteen without success. Id. Of these twenty-nine District Court suits, twenty-one have been in this Court alone.  The Plaintiff’s previous abuse of the court system has led to the grant of injunctions preventing the Plaintiff from filing any further suits against particular defendants.  Dantzler v. Pope, 2:08-cv-03777 (Louisiana Eastern District Court). Yet again, Plaintiff has filed two new frivolous matters in July of this year against members of this Court, Plaintiff’s terminated counsel, the Department of Justice, and the law firm Cashe, Coudrain, and Bass and its attorneys, among others alleging conspiracy in the adjudication of this matter. There has been nothing illicit in the defense of this matter, nor misconduct, and all actions has been well within the ethical bounds of this Court and the Duty of all attorneys to the Louisiana Bar.

On October 27, 2020 Plaintiff filed the instant suit against fifteen defendants including The Louisiana Commission of Human Rights Office, The U.S.E.E.O.C Office, The N.A.A.C.P, The Tangipahoa School Board, Tangipahoa Parish Superintendent of Schools Melissa Stilley, and Human Resource Director Gavin Vitter based on Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated belief that the Defendants conspired to hire someone other than himself for the position of Field Transportation Coordinator in February of 2019 due to his race and political career. In the twenty-one months since the filing of Plaintiff’s first Petition, he has filed forty-three various motions. In defense of this matter, the TPSB defendants have filed twenty-one various motions and have spent an estimated three hundred seventy hours and thirty minutes (370.50 hours) defending this matter.  (See The Affidavit of Ashley E. Bass attached as Exhibit B). If requested by this Court, TPSB will produce their billing records show the costs of this defense to be inspected in camera, however TPSB cannot produce confidential records at this time due to Plaintiff’s refusal to sign the Protective Order, despite being ordered by this Court to do so. (See Rec. Doc. 82, 83, and 92).

The Protective Order became necessary due to the Plaintiff’s pattern of publishing advertisements in the local Hammond newspaper containing false allegations against TPSB, this underlying case, the attorneys involved in this matter, Governor John Bel Edwards, Attorney General Jeff Landry, and other private individuals. These have been attached as Exhibit C for the Court’s review. (See Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s Newspaper Advertisements). Between February 26, 2022 and today, the plaintiff has taken out seven (7) advertisements of this nature which have run on multiple days and are estimated to have cost $520.00. Defendants have asked Plaintiff, through his prior counsel, to cease the false and harassing publishings to no avail.  Even after the Court ordered Plaintiff to sign the Protective Order, the actions continued. Therefore, it is a justifiable fear that disclosing confidential or sensitive documents to the Plaintiff without the Protective Order would cause great harm to the Defendants and other private individuals.

Although the mere prospect of a second lawsuit is not enough prejudice to a defendant to warrant denial of a motion to dismiss without prejudice, “when a plaintiff fails to seek dismissal until a late stage of trial, after the defendant has exerted significant time and effort, then a court may, in its discretion, refuse to grant a voluntary dismissal.” U.S. ex rel. Doe v. Dow Chem. Co.,
343 F. 3d 325, 330 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Davis v. Huskipower Outdoor Equip. Corp., 936 F. 2d 193, 199 (5th Cir. 1991)). In making this determination the court may consider “[w]hether the suit is still in the pretrial stages; whether the parties have filed numerous pleading and memoranda, have attended conferences, and whether prior court determinations were adverse to the plaintiff; or whether hearings have been held, whether any defendants have been dismissed on summary judgment, and whether the parties have undertaken significant discovery.” Leeway Props. V. Jonesfilm 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139117 *5, 2012 WL 4471848 (E.D. La., 2012). Federal Rule 41(a)(2) provides the guidelines for a voluntary dismissal with a court order.

First, due to the Plaintiff’s tendency to publish false information in the newspaper about this matter and private individuals, Plaintiff has been ordered by this Court to consent to a Protective Order. (Rec. Doc. 82 and 92). Plaintiff has refused to sign said Protective Order.

Second, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash medical records was denied as moot. (Rec. Doc. 88).  Third, TPSB has filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Tax returns which is pending before this Court. (Rec. Doc. 95). Plaintiff has made economic loss claims, a punitive damages
claim, and infliction of emotional distress claims which make both the medical records and the tax returns reasonably relevant. Though Plaintiff has given no explanation in the instant matter as to why he desires a voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice, the law is clear that he cannot use this procedural vehicle simply to avoid a potentially adverse ruling from the pending Motion to Compel Taxes or otherwise. Therefore, and applying the above standard and facts, Plaintiff’s motion to Dismiss Without prejudice should be denied.

The Tangipahoa Parish School System goes on to assert that, in the event that Dantzler’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is granted:

In this case, the defendant TPSB is a public body and public funds have been spent in defense of these claims that should be available for public education. Further, and considering the unsupported and outrageous allegations raised by Plaintiff in this case, the reimbursement of defense costs and attorney fees may have a deterrent effect on the filing of further hostile and frivolous claims. Plaintiff should not be allowed to engage in such conduct and abuse of the judicial system without consequence.

Without waiving its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, if this Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice, TPSB asserts its claim for the attorney fees, costs and expenses in defense of this lawsuit as provided for under Rule 41(d), as an equitable balance.

Sure looks to us like Dantzler has dug himself an awfully deep hole here.  All we can say is that he need only look in a mirror to see who’s responsible for that deep hole.  When he first called Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns about doing a feature (at which time Burns had no clue what his issue may be this time), he inquired, “Mr. Burns, you still have your little You Tube deal?”

Obviously, if he followed our blog rather than merely occasionally contacting us when HE wants to be profiled, he’d know our little “You Tube Deal” is still alive and well; furthermore, if he was a follower, he would have known he could reach out to Shreveport Dentist C. Ryan Haygood about coming to Federal Court with “frivolous” claims.

After all, while Haygood’s assertions were certainly beyond the pale (e.g. asserting that a few dentists could monopolize the Shreveport dentistry market and assert a Federal statute requiring three states impacted meant for industries like big oil simply because Shreveport is close to both the Texas and Arkansas borders), at least his assertions didn’t accuse Federal Judges of all kinds of improprieties and illegal acts as Dantzler has now done.

We also find it interesting that attorney Claiborne Brown’s name once again surfaces.  We have no idea why, on April 21, 2021, he chose to enroll in this case to represent the previously-pro-se Dantzler; however, as evidenced by his July 5, 2022 Motion to Withdraw (precipitated by Dantzler impulsively firing him), we feel certain he came to regret the decision.  More evidence of that belief on our part surfaced upon him filing this July 27, 2022 Motion for Expedited Consideration on his July 5, 2022 Motion to Withdraw (which has yet to be acted upon by the Court).

All we can say is that, just as 14th JDC Judge David Ritchie once admonished Billy Broussard to “choose your attorney carefully” in reference to the legal skills of Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, we may suggest to Brown that he may wish to “choose your clients carefully.”  After all, we can hardly believe that he desired to be referred to as “incompetent” by his client (Louisiana United International) before the trial even started!  [See 1:10 – 1:16 of just-linked video].  If he did (intend to be declared “incompetent” on camera before a massive viewing audience), then he can explain that one to all of us!  We’re all ears!

So, we’ll wrap this feature up by issuing the warning to anyone considering filing a Federal lawsuit.  Make sure the claim has some validity because the consequences for filing “frivolous” claims can be quite severe.  After all, let’s just say Cash Coudrain attorneys bill at a conservative $250/hour.  Well, our calculator indicates that $250 x 370.5 = $96,625.  Not to shabby, huh?  Of course, it’s just possible Haygood may say, “I’ll take it!” in order to not risk the approximate $271,000 that may end up flying up and popping him at any time!  That’s plenty of routine doctor visits (1,576 based on what Burns’ dentist charged for a routine visit with no X-rays on his visit two weeks ago).

Finally, we’ll update everyone on the ultimate outcomes of both Haygood and Dantzler once those outcomes become known.

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.