Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Jerry Larpenter does not tolerate criticism and he will go after those who dare to step over that line.
The raid on the Houma police officer’s home has been well documented (CLICK HERE) as was the ruling (CLICK HERE) by the First Circuit Court of Appeal which said the raid was clearly unconstitutional.
Earlier this year, the officer and his wife filed a lawsuit in federal court against Larpenter and about half of Terrebonne Parish’s political power brokers. (SEE HERE).
But long before the fireworks between Larpenter and former deputy and Houma police officer Wayne Anderson, Larpenter went after his own brother and sister-in-law, proving that, in this case, at least, blood is not thicker than water. That dispute has been non-stop for at least 12 years now.
It was July 27, 1995, when Larpenter called upon his legal counsel, Houma attorney William F. Dodd (if that name seems familiar, it’s probably because his pappy, William J. Dodd, served as state auditor, lieutenant governor, and state superintendent of education and twice ran—and lost—for governor) to fire off a two-page threatening letter to brother Anthony Larpenter and his wife, Barbara.
There are those who are going to accuse LouisianaVoice of dredging up old news but the letter and the subpoenas that followed less than two months later represent a mindset in the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office, a pattern, if you will. Let’s face it, you have to have a pretty thin skin to call down the powers of your office on ordinary citizens whose most grievous offense was criticism of the manner in which you run that office.
The letter is the typical letter of legal intimidation, filled as it was with the usual attorney bluster, demands and threats but in the end, nothing but a loud, bullying, cheap tactic to stymie free speech.
“…I would by this letter advise Mrs. Larpenter that public officials are not second-class citizens, and if she continues to embark upon the path she has previously taken, that being to cast my client, Sheriff Jerry Larpenter, in a totally unfavorable light as a result of her reckless and defamatory remarks, Sheriff Larpenter shall have no choice but to institute legal proceedings to protect his reputation,” Dodd wrote.
“…The next time Mrs. Larpenter makes these unfounded remarks, appropriate action will be taken from the civil standpoint, and a request will be made to the district attorney’s office to review her actions to determine whether or not criminal proceedings should be instituted,” Dodd said.
There is an obscure state statute (R.S. 14:47)under which criminal charges may be brought against an individual for defamation. The maximum penalty under that statute is a fine of $500 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both.
Now I’m not an attorney, but I have to believe that criminal prosecution for defamation, libel or slander under this statute—unless, that is, you are making written or verbal physical threats against the well-being of someone—would be an extremely risky move for any politician. And Dodd’s letter makes no mention of any such threats, so it’s a little puzzling how he thinks he can morph disparaging remarks against an elected official into criminal action.
Once that precedent is set, television campaign ads will cease to exist since distorted attacks and outright lies are all they consist of and no one would ever be allowed to talk about an elected official again. That’s a slippery slope that can only lead to a totalitarian form of government.
Of course, Dodd’s letter also could have been nothing more than legal puffoonery, which is far more likely.
Less than two months later, on September 12, Larpenter, as a precursor to what the Andersons could expect 11 years later, had subpoenas served on his brother and sister-in-law. The subpoena demanded that they “produce the original taped conversation between deputy Gary Sanders and Deputy Jed Boquet on or about January 6, 1995.”
There was no indication as to what the conversation between the two deputies was about but it obviously was of considerable concern to Sheriff Larpenter.
Dodd ended his July letter on a really ugly and sinister note when he wrote, “I would point out that in the event a civil action is filed, and Sheriff Larpenter is successful, this being a community property state, and assuming that Mrs. Larpenter has no separate property agreement, any judgment that might be obtained in favor of Sheriff Larpenter, could be entered against this total community property owned by both of you.”
Translation: Mr. Larpenter, you’re the man of the house; you need to shut your wife up.
Well, Sheriff, those days are long gone. Forever. You’re still living back in the 1940s and ‘50s if you think this still plays. Women have a loud voice today and they do not have to ask permission to speak. Edith Bunker doesn’t exist anymore.
But you and Mr. Dodd would be wise to listen.






