Louisiana Voice

“For the sake of my kids and grand kids (sic), let’s just do this Civil War thing now before I get to (sic) old to fight. I just can’t believe what these antifa (sic) leftist little punks are doing and getting away with right now. I’m fed up with it.

Where do I sign up..”

—Facebook post by BRANDON BROWNING on June 11, 2020.

Brandon Browning was an unsuccessful candidate for Livingston Parish tax assessor in 2019, losing to incumbent Jeff Taylor by a convincing 57-43 margin.

Browning, the Denham Springs resident, apparently was unaware that antifa is short for anti-fascist and it was the anti-fascists who defeated Hitler and who today stand in opposition to the likes of David Duke.

Browning, the self-described super-patriot, has been strangely quiet about the “punks” who invaded the U.S. Capitol back on Jan. 6, intent on overturning the election that unseated Donald Trump.

Without getting into the merits of Trump v. Biden (the face-off that again had me asking if this was the best choice this country has to offer), an armed incursion is not the manner in which our Constitution meant for us to seek redress for our grievances.

Undaunted by his failure to unseat Taylor, Browning is again seeking public office, this time for sheriff of Livingston Parish.

In an unusually drawn-out (49 minutes) YouTube PRESENTATION, Browning laid out his reasons for trying to dislodge incumbent Jason Ard who the last time he was opposed – in 2015 – dispatched his opponent with a whopping 92 percent of the vote.

It took more than five minutes for him to get to the crux of his motivation for running. In giving his platform, he used the same tired arguments of sexual orientation, immigration, crime and family that all candidates rely on to inspire voters.

Browning, a 12-year veteran of the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office and five more with the Baton Rouge Police Department. He also served as a reserve deputy with Livingston Parish until earlier this year. He currently is employed as a realtor.

While his YouTube announcement was for the most part low-key, Browning, with that 2020 quote promoting a Civil War, nevertheless sounds like an advocate of the so-called constitutional sheriff movement which takes the position that sheriffs do not answer to the judiciary, the legislature, the governor, Congress or even the U.S. President. Instead, they answer only to voters.

The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) is a radical MOVEMENT that espouses complete autonomy, allowing sheriffs to literally pick and choose which laws they want to enforce and which to ignore. No other elected official in America has that option – at least not on paper.

There is much wrong with the country today. We are divided like we’ve never been since the Civil War. Division means weakness but Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress appear to be unwilling to practice the art of compromise where no one gets everything they want but somehow, things still get accomplished. Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, voting rights would never get out of committee today, much less get enacted into law. And make no mistake: both sides share equally in the blame.

Maybe the comic was correct when he observed that con is the opposite of pro; therefore, congress must be the opposite of progress. Except the joke really isn’t very funny these days.

Jason Ard isn’t perfect. I’m sure he’d be the first to tell you so. His hiring of accused sex predator Dennis Perkins will forever be a negative mark on his tenure as sheriff, no matter what positives he achieves. But do we really need a sheriff who openly condones another Civil War? And between whom? Whites v. Blacks? Christians v. Jews? Republicans v. Democrats? Antifa v. the white nationalists? Straights v. gays? Conservatives v. liberals? Who, Mr. Browning, who?

And while the Democrats and Republicans are busy sniping at each other in Washington, and while all the other factions are drawing lines in the dust, the last thing we need is a bunch of sheriffs deciding they can cherry-pick which laws to enforce.

The Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association has enough political clout already, thank you, without the added influence of the CSPOA.

Read Full Post »

Slip and fall lawsuits don’t normally grab the media’s attention because they’re as common as those lawyer ads that give local TV news programs a reason to exist.

(And speaking of lawyer ads, we really have some beauties on the Baton Rouge stations. While the joke at one time was that TV news existed only to keep the lawyer ads from bumping together, that’s no longer a valid observation. Today, it’s not unusual to have three different lawyer ads back-to-back-to-back during local news programs. We have one with a talking dog that’s especially bad and another features a lawyer hiking in the woods – in wing-tip shoes. And the ones with paid shills giving testimonies about how much they got in their lawsuit but they fail to tell us how much of that so-called award went to attorney’s fees, expert costs, court costs, court reporter costs, etc.)

Oh, yes, slip and fall lawsuits. There was one in Hammond where a family was walking in a large chain store and Mama slipped and fell. And wouldn’t you know, Junior just happened to be recording the whole thing on his video camera – just in case Mama fell, I suppose. It took only a nano-second for that lawsuit to get thrown out.

But there’s an unusual slip and fall case pending in federal court in Lafayette that might bear closer scrutiny because of an existing policy of the defendant that makes the chain a target for future similar litigation.

Plaintiff Sharon Blanchard is suing Circle K convenience store after she slipped on standing water inside a story in Youngsville on Sept. 3, 2018, and struck her head and coccyx (tailbone), resulting in “traumatic brain injury, post traumatic headaches, multi-level lumbar disc injuries requiring surgery and psychological/emotional injuries.

Nothing out of the ordinary for such a lawsuit so far.

But then there’s the deposition of Circle K employee Corey Crochet on De. 1, 2020, that could conceivably attract more slip and fall cases like ants to a picnic. Shoot, it could even produce a class-action slip and fall action. Now a class-action slip and fall suit would truly be unique.

So, what did Crochet say in his deposition that would make it so… well, convenient to join in the fun of suing your friendly neighborhood Circle K store?

Besides Blanchard’s claim that Crochet knew of the accumulated water at the store entrance, Crochet’s testimony “detailed Circle K policy of not using mats or rugs at entrance areas and of his own personal experience of concern for the slippery condition of the floor at the store entrance,” the court noted.

Blanchard attempted unsuccessfully to amend Circle K Regional Director of Operations Olajuwan Alexander into her lawsuit as a defendant because, Blanchard says, Alexander was the “policymaker who implemented an oral policy of removing floor mats from stores within his region beginning in 2018.

“The uncontested evidence before this Court [is] that Alexander was tasked by Circle K with implementing a policy regarding the use of floor mats in stores within his region,” U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Hanna ruled. “Alexander determined that the use of floor mats, which often became warped, torn or otherwise unserviceable, created a trip hazard for guests and orally directed stores within his region to cease using mats for this reason. As an alternative, Alexander directed that stores would display ‘wet floor’ warning signs and periodically wet and dry mop floors on rainy days to mitigate slip and fall hazards,” Hanna wrote.

Though Blanchard’s attempt to amend Crochet and Alexander into her litigation as defendants wad denied, Judge Hanna said his denial would have no effect on her claim against Circle K.

Read Full Post »

Much media attention has been focused, and rightly so, on whistleblower Frances Haugen calling out Facebook for placing profits over integrity. But there’s a whistleblower lawsuit pending in Louisiana’s Middle District Federal Court in Baton Rouge that potentially could have a direct impact on the physical safety and lives of tens of thousands of people living in proximity to dozens of petrochemical plants in South Louisiana.

Johnny Taylor’s lawsuit, claiming that his termination by Union Pacific Railroad was in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) because he was fired for engaging in activities protected under that statute, is scheduled to be heard Nov. 1.

Basically, Taylor is claiming that he was fired because he took one rail line out of service and issued a slow order on another section of track because of safety concerns and refused orders to return them to service.

Union Pacific disagreed, contending that Taylor was terminated for disrespectful conduct surrounding those actions and that Taylor had “significant performance issues” and a history of “insubordination and outright refusal to alter his behavior.”

A motion for summary judgment (dismissal) by Union Pacific was denied by U.S. District Court Judge Shelly Dick, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

In her ruling, Judge Dick noted cited a requirement of FRSA which said that a railroad or its representatives “shall not discharge, demote, suspend, reprimand, or in other way discriminate against an employee” for reporting in good faith a hazardous safety or security condition.

Taylor took the Avondale “Tail Track” out of service on March 28, 2017. Approximately 20 derailments had occurred in the Avondale yard during Taylor’s tenure. On Nov. 2, 2017, he took “No. 1 Mainline” track in Avondale out service, based on his impression that it was defective and could result in a derailment. Three derailments occurred at the “Switch 16” track in Avondale in October and November 2017, Taylor says.

Similarly, he took the “Switch 16” track at Avondale out of service on Jan. 10, 2018, because the track was “severely out of alignment” and ran the risk of causing a derailment. He issued a “slow order” on a track on White Castle on Jan. 22, 2018.

She further noted that an employee’s refusal is protected under several provisions which applied in Taylor’s case.

Taylor cited four examples of his claimed protected activity:

• Taking tracks out of service;
• Refusal to put “Switch 16” back into service;
• Issuance of a slow order in White Castle, Louisiana (in an area along the Mississippi River in Iberville Parish where dozens of petrochemical plants are located), and
• Cooperation with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and of reports to Union Pacific’s EEO Department.

Taylor, who was employed by Union Pacific on Se.t. 12, 2007, said in his petition that he was responsible for railroad tracks from Avondale to Livonia.

On March 5,2014, Taylor says a supervisor threatened to fire him if he reported “any additional safety issues regarding tie clusters in the tracks under his management.”

Taylor says Union Pacific “falsely reported” the cause of several derailments to the FRA.

He says that he was cited for his attitude but otherwise received only positive evaluations and quoted from one evaluation in which his supervisor said, “You lead your team in a positive way from what I have seen so far. Make sure that everyone above you knows and understands the good things that you are doing. Don’t be afraid to brag on yourself.”

Taylor said he qualified for a performance bonus for 2017 and received a letter in October 2017 from Superintendent Cliff Bowman commending him on his “diligence, dedication, professionalism, and continued commitment to safety.”

The trial is scheduled for 9 a.m. in the Russell B. Long Federal Building in Baton Rouge.

Taylor is represented by J. Arthur Smith, III, and Robert M. Schmidt of the Smith Law Firm of Baton Rouge.

Read Full Post »

It was difficult to tell if it was just an artful dodge or sheer ineptness on the part of Stephen Russo when he appeared before the Joint Medicaid Oversight Committee to testify about the placement of nursing home patients in a Tangipahoa Parish warehouse but whichever it was, it was a pathetic performance by someone in his area of responsibility.

Russo is executive legal counsel for the Department of Health which regulates nursing homes. What’s more, he was appointed INTERIM SECRETARY of the department during the time between the resignation of Dr. Rebecca Gee and the appointment of her successor, COURTNEY PHILLIPS.

Despite his high level of authority, Russo danced the bureaucratic shuffle under questioning from legislators who, had they done their own research, could have – should have – known of Russo’s background well in advance. Instead, they preferred to appear outraged and infuriated as opposed to the more realistic and accurate ill-informed and grandstanding over the treatment of the 853 patients from seven nursing homes who were evacuated into that warehouse in Independence as Hurricane Ida approached.

If the legislators had done their homework, they would have known that Russo (1) got PERSONALLY INVOLVED in Dr. Gee’s efforts to retain her tenure at LSU  Health Science Center while simultaneously serving as DHH secretary – in apparent violation of the Governmental Code of Ethics (you may remember when we used to have an ethics board that actually meant something).

If the legislators had not been so intent on posturing for the TV cameras, they might have taken the time to learn how Russo had PROTECTED  Attorney Supervisor Weldon Hill by intimidating and humiliating – and demoting – the woman who complained of Hill’s sexual harassment – a complaint that eventually resulted in DHH’s quietly SETTLING with the complainant.

And while that settlement was “only” $45,000, a little deeper drive by legislators might have revealed how much taxpayers actually HAD TO PAY to defend that lawsuit.

Perhaps they might have taken the time to peruse Russo’s DEPOSITION  in that case – just to get a little background going into those hearings so they might anticipate how he would respond under questioning.

What Bob Dean allowed to take place in his nursing homes was deplorable. He’d already had one facility shut down by inspectors and now he has lost his license for the seven involved in the evacuation that resulted in at least 12 deaths. His cavalier attitude about the “acceptable” number of deaths didn’t help his public image – if, indeed, he was ever worried about his public image.

And, true enough, Russo wasn’t the one on trial for the unspeakable tragedy. But his agency is the one charged with nursing home oversight so, the buck must stop there. And he is the executive legal counsel for DHH.

So, why the hell did he refuse to answer some of the questions put to him “on the advice of counsel”

What counsel? He IS the counsel.

And he WAS, for a time, at least, secretary of the entire agency.

If Russo can’t – or won’t – answer questions, who, then, will?

His performance was wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

Legislators need to press on with their inquiry.

And they need to do their homework in advance so they won’t look so addle-brained.

Faux indignation doesn’t play well anymore.

Read Full Post »