Former Director of the Office of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Murphy Painter was acquitted of all the dubious charges brought against him by the Jindal administration after Painter refused to bend the rules for granting alcohol permits to a vendor for Tom Benson’s Champions’ Square in New Orleans. (See our original story HERE.)
But now, three years after his hard-fought battle to clear his name, events are only now coming to light that illustrate just how far the Jindal administration was willing to go in violating Painter’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure in order to build what it thought would be a slam dunk criminal case against him.
Instead, the state ended up having to pay Painter’s legal fees of $474,000.
Documents obtained by LouisianaVoice also show that investigators lied—or at least distorted the truth beyond recognition—about Painter and that the state tampered with and/or destroyed crucial evidence, much of it advantageous to Painter’s case.
Benson, after all, was a huge contributor to Jindal campaigns and the state’s agreeing to lease office space from Benson Towers at highly inflated rates apparently was not enough for the owner of the Saints; that liquor permit needed to be approved, rules notwithstanding, and when Painter insisted on playing by the book, he was called before the governor and summarily fired and federal charges of sexual harassment were doggedly pursued by an administration eager to put him away for good.
But he fooled them. He was acquitted, and he filed a civil lawsuit against his accuser, which he won at the trial court level but lost on appeal (See story HERE). He currently has another civil lawsuit pending against the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Now the state is dragging that litigation out in the hopes that with his limited finances and the state’s ability to draw on taxpayer funds indefinitely, he can be waited out until he no longer has the financial resources to seek the justice due him.
Briefs, motions, requests of production of documents, interrogatories, continuances—all designed to extend the fight and to keep the lawyers’ meters running and the court costs mounting—are the tactics of a defendant fearful of an adverse ruling. If that were not the case, it would be to the state’s advantage to try the case ASAP.
And never mind that every brief, every motion, every interrogatory, every request for production, and every continuance means the state’s defense attorneys are getting richer and richer—all at the expense of taxpayers who are the ones paying the state’s legal bills.
But all that aside, LouisianaVoice has come into possession of documents that clearly show the state was in violation of Painter’s constitutional rights and that an investigator for OIG simply colored the truth in the reports of the OIG “investigation” of complaints against him.
That investigator, who now works for the East Baton Rouge Parish coroner’s office, was inexplicably dismissed from Painter’s civil lawsuit against the state by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. Painter has taken writs on that decision to the Louisiana Supreme Court as that civil litigation rocks on in its sixth year of existence. I’ll get back to him momentarily.
The events leading up to Painter’s firing and subsequent federal indictment began innocently enough with a March 29, 2010, letter to Painter from then-Department of Revenue Secretary Cynthia Bridges. She was writing pursuant to a complaint lodged by ATC employee Kelli Suire who would later the catalyst in Painter’s firing. Bridges, however found no violations by Painter regarding the complaint of “unprofessional” behavior toward Suire, but said concerns about his management style would be left “to the proper authority to discuss with you at a later date.”
Then on Aug. 13, 2010, more than four months following Bridges’s letter, Baton Rouge television station WBRZ reported that Painter “resigned” and the OIG’s office simultaneously raided ATC offices, seizing Painter’s state desktop and laptop computers, three thumb drives, notes, affidavits, reports, maps, ATC documents, telephone reports, and a 2010 Dodge Charger assigned to Painter.
There was only one problem with the timing.
Bonnie Jackson, 19th Judicial District Judge, did not sign the search warrant authorizing the raid and search of Painter’s office until Monday, Aug. 16.
That would appear to have made the previous Friday’s raid—pulled off three days before a judge had signed the search warrant—illegal and a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment which says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Emphasis added.)
The second violation, the destruction of evidence was not learned until three years later when Painter’s computer was finally returned and he found that some 4,000 files had been deleted. Much of that, of course, would have been routine state business related to ATC operations but there was other information contained in the files, Painter says, that could have helped exonerate him from the charges that were lodged against him by the Jindal administration. It is not only illegal to destroy evidence, but also to destroy state documents—even if they do not constitute evidence.
The third violation, this one by OIG, involved the apparent misrepresentation of testimony given in interviews by an attorney and his assistant who had experienced difficulty in obtaining a liquor license on the part of his client, a business with multiple out-of-state owners, a situation which made the licensure procedure more involved.
The attorney, Joseph Brantley, and Painter had exchanged emails whereupon Painter invited Brantley to come to the ATC offices so that the problem could be worked out. “Why don’t you come by here around 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 if that works for you tomorrow and we will go over ours versus yours,” Painter said in his email at 12:26 p.m. on Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008. Brantley responded three minutes later, asking, “Is it OK if I bring the lady that has been doing the primary work (on the file)?”
OIG investigator Shane Evans, who now works for the East Baton Rouge Parish coroner’s office as its chief investigator, then laid the groundwork for the sexual harassment charges to be brought against Murphy when he wrote in a report of his interview with Brantley on Oct. 13, 2010:
“Mr. Brantley advised that Toby Edwards was a former assistant (paralegal) of his, that she is an attractive woman, and that after the meeting in late 2008, Mr. Painter granted the permit immediately.”
In his report of his interview with Edwards, also on Oct. 13, 2010, Evans wrote:
“During the meeting with Mr. Painter, he told Ms. Edwards that he had run her driver’s license and looked at her photograph. He said that was the only reason that he had granted them the meeting. (That is blatantly false: Copies of the Dec. 14, 2008, email exchange between Painter and Brantley obtained by LouisianaVoice clearly show that Painter invited Brantley to a meeting before he ever knew of Edwards’s existence.) She took his statement as the only reason he decided to meet with them is because he thought she was attractive. Ms. Edwards said his statement and demeanor made her very uncomfortable. She said she was very glad Mr. Brantley was present.
“She also said that she found it unusual that the permit had been repeatedly turned down but once she met with Mr. Painter face-to-face, her client immediately received the permit.”
Another report by OIG, the result of a second interview with Edwards on Nov. 5, 2012, described both Brantley and Edwards as “uncomfortable” during the meeting with Painter.
A second interview of Brantley on Nov. 7, 2012 produced yet a fourth OIG report that said, in part, that Edwards wore a “professional,” semi-low-cut shirt. “Mr. Brantley noticed that Mr. Painter noticed and glanced at Ms. Edwards’s chest during the meeting.
“…According to Mr. Brantley, Mr. Painter ‘clearly looked at’ Ms. Edwards’s chest,” the report says. Mr. Brantley even told Ms. Edwards that Mr. Painter was attracted to women, maybe more ‘than the average guy.’ Although Ms. Edwards would have attended the meeting anyway, Mr. Brantley took her to the meeting ‘for effect.’ He thinks that the meeting was more successful than it would have been otherwise if Ms. Edwards had not attended.
Pretty damning stuff, right?
Well, it would be except for affidavits signed and sworn to by Brantley and Edwards (now Pierce), which provide quite a contrasting version of events.
Brantley, after reviewing the OIG reports, flatly denied ever telling Evans or any other OIG investigator that Edwards took part in the meeting with Painter because Painter was fond of females.
“I brought her because she had more knowledge about the file than did I and she was more capable of answering any questions that may have arisen.”
Edwards pointedly noted that the meeting took place in a room “with all glass windows and doors.” She said she also learned at the meeting that Painter was a long-time acquaintance of her father, a former deputy sheriff in East Feliciana Parish and joked to her that he didn’t know her dad “had a daughter that was so pretty.” She said he then excused himself for a few minutes and later returned with a license for Brantley’s client.
Here are both of those affidavits:
So, with a little tweaking of the facts, a man’s career was ruined, his occupation stripped from him and his finances gutted—all because he insisted that a major campaign contributor submit the proper forms before obtaining a liquor license for his Sunday parties outside the New Orleans Superdome.
This is Louisiana at its worst, folks, and it’s a clear example of how the political establishment can crush you if you don’t have the right contacts and sufficient financial resources to match those of the state’s taxpayers.
I think probably most long-time Louisiana Voice readers know I attended the full Painter trial. What they may not know is that, as a result of that TOTAL FARCE of a trial, I met Tom. After first considering not even attending because of press reports such as Tom has provided above on the part of WBRZ, I think most people just assumed this man was guilty as sin and was little less than Satan himself (that was my mindset, and I admit to it), I decided I would commit to two hours just to confirm it was that bad.
I won’t write a dissertation, but I want to provide a link at the end that explains not only what a farce Painter’s trial was but even more so a farce the prosecution of Corey delaHoussaye. Nevertheless, I want to compose just a few bullet point highlights from the trial:
1. Inspector General Stephen Street states on the witness stand: “I have no knowledge of this case, you’ll have to speak with my investigator (Shane Evans, who had already departed for the Coroner’s Office).” Can anybody believe he would make such a statement about what was his office’s most high-profile case?
2. Evans (upon being questioned by defense attorney Mike Fawer regarding what investigatory techniques he used to substantiate Brant Thompson, whom the State Fire Marshall’s Office folk are now demonstrating is a real piece of work, having said, “Painter is manic depressive, out of control, and selectively enforcing alcohol statutes): “I didn’t perform any investigative procedures. I just wrote down what he said!” Wow!! What an admission on the witness stand!!
3. Federal Judge James Brady (commenting on Painter’s being prosecuted for mailing sympathy cards to two colleagues whose mother had recently passed away — Painter used the database to get their home mailing addresses): “That rises to the level of a Federal offense?”
4. Painter Co-counsel Al Robert, Jr. (upon it being revealed in open court just how sloppy the search warrant techniques used by the IG’s Office was—substantiated by this new proof that a judge had not even signed the search warrant): “Your honor, this is not the FBI. This is the OIG. These people do not know what they’re doing.”
5. Mike Fawer, Painter’s other attorney and an INCREDIBLE defense attorney, who ripped the assistant prosecutors to shreds!! (during closing arguments): “Notice they don’t have Joseph Brantley in here as a witness. Mr. Painter ran a search on him. Why isn’t he before you as a witness, jurors? I can tell you why: It’s because Brantley doesn’t fit into this absurd long-legged female fetish they want to try and convince you my client was obsessed with. Can you believe THAT is what they are trying to get you to swallow?”
6. Fawer: “Ladies and gentlemen, when I gave opening arguments to you, I said, ‘Don’t check your common sense out at the door.’ If these prosecutors sought for my client to enter a stipulation agreement to be sanctioned, we could happily agree to that. That is NOT what they are asking of you! They want you to send my client to Federal prison for acts like mailing sympathy cards! I remind you now, please don’t check your common sense out at the door when you enter deliberations.”
They didn’t!!
I could cite a few more points, but I think you see just what a fiasco it was. When the trial was over, I said to myself that SOMEBODY had to be out there who would report on this rampant Jindal corruption. Hence, I did a Google search for “Bobby Jindal corruption,” came upon several of Tom’s articles (imagine that!!), and that’s how we came into contact with one another.
Stephen Street’s office was exposed for being incompetent, inept, a loose-cannon operation, acting in a totally reckless manner, and being total cowards when it came to Jindal, and far more.
The only thing I will disagree with Tom on regarding the article is I don’t think any of the prosecutors ever viewed it as a slam-dunk case. I think they knew full well just how weak the case was but gambled that Painter would not have the resources to fight it and would have no choice but to agree to a plea. I think they were fearful before, during, and after the trial (as the jury deliberated) that this was going to be an unmitigated disaster for them, and that is EXACTLY what it was.
As a result of the Painter and delaHoussaye debacles on Street’s part, I confronted Sen. Cassidy head-on about rumblings I WAS (emphasize on WAS) hearing that he was pushing hard for Street to be the next U. S. Attorney from the Middle District of Louisiana:
http://www.soundoffla.com/?p=1032
I am happy to report that I received a call from Washington, DC about 15 days ago and spoke with an individual who wanted to discuss Street and wanted to know if I objected to being recorded, to which I told her I had no objection at all and anything I had to say about Stephen Street I would say to his face and to anybody who will listen, and I referred her to the link above.
While I don’t know this for an absolute fact, it now appears that Street’s prospects for being the next U. S. Attorney General have greatly diminished. He NEVER should have been given any serious consideration in the first place!!
I am so happy you have exposed this misuse of power.
Maybe these people have been drinking way too much and their brains cells are burnt.
How much worse can this get? Why is it. people who have deep pockets always believe that the little guy has to do as they say or else? This is down right shameful. I have lost all respect for the “deep pocket man” forever. I don’t care how much he is worth. As far as I am concerned, as a true Cajun would say– it ain’t much!
Thanks for the articles Mr.Tom, just another good one added to your long, long list.
I believe Louisiana deserves better than this!!
He couldn’t get out of Dodge fast enough. You gotta love it.
Stephen Street is a little worm and a political hack that cares more about currying favor with the governor than doing his damn job. Men like him are the reason Louisiana is now on life support and dying.
Great story Tom. Murphy was a victim of a planned and relentless attack involving things beyond anyone’s imagination. He is the face and voice for the numerous state employees this happens to on a regular basis.
Thank heavens for the Louisiana Voice! There are still people of integrity and great concern. At 82 I try to stay informed and vote intelligently but it is so hard to decipher the REAL facts and truth, even back in the day when I “knew some actual office holders.” Re your mention that Sen. Cassidy was pushing Street for U.S. Attorney General——WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT CASSIDY???