Email from Billy Broussard to Robin Sylvester
From:
Billy Broussard <billy@billybroussard.com>
Date: October 4, 2018 at 1:38:54 PM CDT
To: robert@soundoffla.com
Subject: Fwd: Subpoenaing Kelly Fontenot for 10/25/18 court hearing
Sent from my
iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Billy Broussard <billy@billybroussard.com>
Date: October 4, 2018 at 12:23:32 PM CDT
To: "Robin A. Sylvester" <robin@sylvesterfirm.com>
Cc: "Mr. Most Attorney" <williammost@gmail.com>,
billy@billybroussard.com
Subject: Subpoenaing Kelly Fontenot for 10/25/18 court hearing
We
need to subpoena Kelly Fontenot for the court hearing on
10/25/18:
Now,
the preceding documents represent easily-comprehensible damning material that
can be read in a matter of mere seconds! Who provided the above links?
That would be the dreaded blogger, Robert Burns, of Sound Off Louisiana.
You made the statement that, “If he (Burns) is at the hearing, I am leaving.”
Now I realize that was in the context that I wanted him to be a witness to the
fact Police Juror Hal McMillin stated to Burns that he had “no knowledge
whatsoever” that any restraining order had ever been filed. Burns has
indicated to me that such testimony on his part would be clearly inadmissible as
hearsay and that McMillin himself would have to be placed on the witness stand
to make such a statement. That fact notwithstanding, Burns IS going
to be present, and he will be producing a feature outside the courthouse once
the hearing concludes.
The
content of what he produces will be a function of your performance in court.
It would be my desire that he be able to indicate to his viewing audience (as he
embeds the damning email jpegs into his Sound Off post to where they are staring
readers right in the face rather than having to click on links as is the case
above in this email) that my attorney “went to bat for her client (me) and swung
for the fences,” rather than reporting something along the lines that you were
too timid to grill Fontenot (or God forbid, too timid even subpoena her to be
present!) on the obvious problems of her prior testimony which, again, I believe
constituted perjury, and the obvious damning nature of her emails linked above.
I would certainly hope that, should you demonstrate any such timidity entailing
your questioning of Ms. Fontenot, it would not be as the result of an effort to
avoid alienating the “courthouse crew” in Calcasieu Parish because doing so may
inhibit your chances of a successful run for judge yourself.
Now,
I gave Mr. Burns the entire “New Evidence” PDF file earlier today, and he was
gracious to convert the entire document into a searchable format. The link
for the document follows: www.laboards-commissions.com/New_Evidence_BB.pdf.
He also converted a document I gave him some time back to be searchable (it has
Fontenot’s hand-written notation above on page four). The link for that
document follows: www.laboards-commissions.com/GDD8_will_pay.pdf.
I will be more than happy to meet with you in person or discuss by phone
additional items within “New Evidence” just linked with which you can attack Ms.
Fontenot because SHE IS THE KEY this entire matter!! Lastly, I gave Burns
the entirety of the court transcript of March 23, 2015, and he was gracious to
convert the PDF document to be searchable, and here’s the link for that
searchable document: http://www.laboards-commissions.com/GD8_CalcasieuPJ_Broussard_Transcript.pdf.
I am
merely asking you to take the baton and run with it where I left off in the
court hearing when I had Fontenot on the stand. Mr. Stutes could tell I
was about to box her in by having to admit to the emails linked above (just go
to page 87 of the transcript immediately after Fontenot said she “had no
knowledge” of ineligible debris and I responded, “I want to show you something,”
and see how Stutes jumped in an went on a dissertation!!!). Stutes (and
Fontenot) were extremely concerned that I would demonstrate to the court the
very obvious collusion that Fontenot’s emails demonstrate and the fact that she
#1) knew there was ineligible debris, #2) sought out covert manners to conceal
that fact (i.e. “make GPS sites go away”), and #3) either made, or caused
/ knew of others to make / making false representations to me that I would be
reimbursed for the debris they were ordering me to remove, only to covertly
arrange for FEMA to reimburse them for such debris removal and then them divert money
intended to pay me to their own workers who removed debris that was not even on
the FEMA map and outside the Army Corps wetland map! I had the
entire set of documents linked at “New Evidence,” in court with me and was fully
prepared to absolutely grill Fontenot on them, but Stutes, sensing that he and
his client were about to be in one heck of a mess as I continued questioning
Fontenot, protested the fact that it was 61 pages (which it is, simply click on
the file) and that he’d had no chance to review it. THAT is when Judge
Ritchie cut me off indicating that I could ask only one more question. You
have the document in full (and you’re obviously both welcome and encouraged to
provide it to Stutes), to include the damning links provided on bullet points
#1, #2, #3, #5, #6, and # 7 above. Now do your job as my attorney and #1)
get me out from under this restraining order, AND #2) get me
compensated for the work I did years ago which the documents above clearly and
succinctly demonstrate that I SHOULD have been paid on years ago.
Thank you, and I look forward to seeing you in court on
October 25, 2018 and you making Kelly Fontenot sweat under the intensity of
your questioning just as I was all set to do on March 23, 2015.
Billy Broussard
Sent from my
iPhone
