As if the administration’s handling of bogus criminal accusations against former Commissioner of the Louisiana Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Murphy Painter wasn’t already embarrassing enough after Painter’s acquittal ended up costing the state $474,000 in reimbursement of his legal fees and expenses, a recent civil court decision has added insult to injury.
Bobby Jindal (R-Iowa/New Hampshire/Florida/Anywhere but Louisiana) thought he could make an example of Painter over the then-ATC commissioner’s refusal to bend the rules for New Orleans Saints owner Tom Benson, whose family and businesses have poured some $40,000 into various Jindal political campaigns.
Painter twice rejected applications by SMG (formerly Spectacor Management Group), the Mercedes-Benz Superdome management firm, for a permit to erect a large tent at Benson’s Champions Square adjacent to Benson Towers across from the Superdome. The tent was to house beer sales by Anheuser-Busch distributor Southern Eagle and approval of the permit was sought by Southern Eagle, SMG, the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (LSED) board and a law firm representing SMG. Altogether, the Benson family, LSED board members, SMG, its law firm and Southern Eagle had combined to pour more than $203,000 into Jindal campaigns between 2003 and 2012.
When Jindal executive counsel Stephen Waguespack insisted that the permit be expedited, Painter asked that he put his concerns in writing but Waguespack refused.
Not only did Jindal fire Painter when his commissioner insisted that the permit application for the Champions Square tent be complete and proper, he even had Painter indicted on criminal charges of stalking a female employee. Present at the firing ceremony were Waguespack, State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, and another member of the governor’s legal staff.
The subsequent criminal prosecution of Painter fell apart and his acquittal carried a stipulation that the state pick up the tab for Painter’s legal fees and affiliated costs.
Now, a civil trial jury has determined unanimously that the female former employee, Kelli Suire, defamed Painter even though the Louisiana Office of Risk Management, most likely at the insistence of Jindal’s Division of Administration, settled Suire’s claims against the state in 2011 without Suire’s ever having been required to sit for a sworn deposition in the apparent hope the settlement would bolster the state’s case against Painter.
Oops.
Painter’s defamation suit against Suire was bifurcated, meaning it was to be tried in two parts. The first part, the part just completed, was to settle the question of actual liability. Had Suire been found not guilty of defamation, the second part to determine actual monetary damages would have been unnecessary.
Unfortunately for Jindal’s chances to avoid further embarrassment over the sloppy manner in which the Painter matter was handled, such was not the case and the damages part will be tried next.
Throughout the entire matter, Painter has made clear that he wanted his day in court.
The liability trial was heard in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana before Judge Shelly Dick and a seven-person jury. Following a three-day trial, the jury took about three hours.
Painter was represented at trial by attorney Al Robert, Jr., and Suire by Jill Craft.
The issues in the case first arose on Aug. 16, 2010, soon after Suire filed a complaint with the Louisiana Office of Inspector General (OID) alleging a myriad of allegations against Painter. The lead OIG investigator at the time, Shane Evans, now employed by the East Baton Rouge Coroner’s Office, testified that he met with Suire and that he personally chose to use the words “stalking” and “harassing” to describe the nature of Suire’s complaints in his application for a search warrant.
Painter also has a civil lawsuit pending against OIG which alleges the agency’s investigation, which began in August of 2010, was improperly conducted.
Robert said the jury’s verdict confirmed the finding of an outside investigator hired by the Louisiana Department of Revenue (DOR) under which ATC operates. The investigator determined that Painter’s actions did not violate DOR anti-harassment policy. Moreover, when questioned by the DOR investigator, Robert said, Suire “admitted that Painter did not make unwelcome sexual advances toward her and that he did not request sexual favors or engage in verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature toward her. Inexplicably, the Office of Inspector General ignored this investigation when it chose to move forward with its investigation of Mr. Painter,” he added.
“This has been a long, four-year ordeal to clear my name of the lies and untruths that Ms. Suire—and those working with her—used to damage my character and reputation,” Painter said.
In her instructions to the jury, Judge Dick said defamation requires proof of a false or defamatory statement made to a third person or persons. “A person who utters a defamatory statement is responsible for all republication that is the natural and probable consequence of the person’s statement,” she said.
Suire, in her defense, did not deny making the statements but said rather that her statements were subject to “privilege,” or inadmissible, Judge Dick said, acknowledging that Suire’s communications did in fact “occasion a conditional or qualified privilege.”
Therefore, in order for Painter to prevail, she said, he “must prove that (the) defendant abused this privilege by acting with actual malice.” Such a finding, the judge said, would require that Suire either knew the matter to be false or acted in reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
Suire currently resides in Florida.
Louisiana Voice 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-filthy-rich-50-meet-the-richest-person-in-each-us-state-2014-10-17
The above link provides a certain degree of context. You won’t have to look hard to find Mr. Benson.
Despite having his name besmirched almost daily in the local media, Mr. Painter seems to be batting 1.000 in court.
And I’m willing to bet he continues to bat 1.000. I was one of the ones who’d read all the articles and television reports about Mr. Painter, and I honestly expected to spend a mere two hours at his trial and that it would quickly become obvious that his character was not good (that’s what can happen when we “trust” the MSM).
I REALLY wish they permitted cameras in our courtroom so folk could see what a farce his criminal trial was. Since they don’t (and once I gradually saw just what a sham the whole trial was), I provided a witness-by-witness listing of the PROSECUTION’s case (which was nothing short of pathetic): http://www.auctioneer-la.org/witnesses.html. It will take about 12 minutes to read, but it’s well worth it!!
Immediately after the trial, I drafted a letter to the editor of The Advocate: http://www.auctioneer-la.org/P_USA_2.pdf. Even though I was told both verbally and in writing (email) that it would be published, in the end, the Advocate hierarchy (apparently Peter Kovacs) overruled the editors who initially read it, and I got the run-around from that point forward: http://www.gohs1981.com/Painter_editorial_runaround.pdf.
When it became apparent to me that The Advocate wasn’t going to publish it, I went into Google’s search engine, and I typed in “Bobby Jindal corruption,” and Tom’s website came up as about the 4th or 5th option. In some ways, I can hardly believe I’ve only known Tom for 10 months!! It’s incredible just how much corruption has been exposed just in those 10 months (epitomized by the Edmonson scandal).
Tom has nothing to fear in publishing what the MSM fears and trembles to print, and we are indeed fortunate to have him and this medium. Being honest, I hate to even think of my daily life without it!! Thanks, Tom!!
Mr. Aswell, your ability to smell a rat has become legendary. Why can’t others in the press and especially our legislators do the same? If they can’t, then at least acknowledge your finely honed ability and either report or act upon your findings.
James Gill, for one in the MSM, recognizes and acknowledges Mr. Aswell’s substantial contributions and, in fact, refers to his site as indispensable:
http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/10591938-123/james-gill-dont-fall-for
I had to choose early retirement with my job at DHH-OPH because my supervisors did not back me when I filed a complaint against my employees who were willingly failing to follow federal rules and regulations.. I will never choose to go against my values, dignity, integrity, and compromise my self-respect. I can sleep well at night.
Carmen, you are not alone in how you were treated. I wonder how many of us have stories similar to yours.
Why do you say you had to retire? Your supervisors wouldn’t back you meaning they did not agree with your complaint and it was dismissed OR they would not follow through and hear the complaint.
The bogus email address provided by the writer of this comment notwithstanding, I will address his/her question:
I don’t recall saying I “had” to retire. The truth is I spent 20 years in a job I hated and admittedly, was not good at. I am not an insurance person, I am a writer. And when I started my blog, the pressure to quit the blog was applied quickly and heavily because there were certain people who did not like what I was writing. I almost 68 and ready to retire anyway and their pressure provided the nudge I needed to walk away.
I ran a news bureau ( Capitol News Service), covering state government for about three dozen newspapers all over the state prior to going to work for the Office of Risk Management but I had no retirement and no medical benefits. With a wife and three children, I needed both, so I sold the bureau and went to work at ORM in 1991.
When I retired in 2011, I re-opened the news bureau which had been abandoned by the person who bought it from me.
My decision to retire was entirely mine.
While there was considerable pressure placed on me because of my news bureau and LouisianaVoice, it was not a matter of my supervisors not backing me or their dismissing any complaint on my part because I never filed a complaint of any description.
I was and remain on friendly terms with most of my former supervisors.
So if you are attempting to get me to trash my former supervisors or to say I was the perfect employee who got a raw deal, you have failed.
If, on the other hand, you want me to admit that I was not a choir boy, professionally speaking, that I was ill-fitted for the job, or that I was unhappy at both my job and the administration, you have succeeded.
Now, am I unique or special in some way? I think not. I just happen to be someone who knows how to do a little digging in the right places, to know which questions to ask, and to put what I find into cohesive words so that others can understand what our elected officials are doing.
And I also am someone state employees apparently trust to provide me with insightful information while remaining confident that their identities will NEVER be revealed—under ANY circumstances.
Unlike this administration, I will not throw these people, who have nowhere else to turn, under the bus. As long as I can draw a breath and pound a keyboard, I will continue to attempt to be a voice for the voiceless, an activist for those with no advocate.
Unlike our governor, his appointees, and some members of the Legislature, I shall never turn my back on the working people of this state.
Thanks again, Tom. What a crew! How much of our tax money has the Jindal maladministration wasted on fruitless litigation? I don’t have the stamina to undertake an investigation, but the amount is not what most of us would call chump change.