Smith's response to Hessmer verizon lawsuit presented

The following is an "amicus curiae" brief filed by Hessmer Police Chief Kenneth Smith in response to the Village of Hessmer's lawsuit against Verizon Wireless Services contesting a bill for the Police Department's cell phone service. The action was filed with the 12th Judicial District Court on September 4.

As previously reported, District Judge William Bennett ruled on Sept. 9 that the Village of Hessmer did not owe approximately $3,000 to Verizon for cell phone service to the municipality’s police department because there was no valid contract between the municipality and the company. Bennett agreed with the Village of Hessmer's position that state law requires any contract with the municipality to be approved by the Village Council and signed by the mayor, which was not done with the Verizon service agreement.

The following arguments presented in support of Smith's position were disregarded by the judge in making his ruling on the case. It makes many of the points reported in a Sept. 5 article dealing specifically with Smith's "side of the story" in the dispute between the elected police chief and the elected mayor and aldermen. This document was not made available to Avoyelles Publishing until after the judge's ruling on Sept. 9.

CIVIL SUIT #2019-6901-B
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF AVOYELLES
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VILLAGE OF HESSMER
VS
VERIZON WIRELESS SVC. LLC

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
SUBMITTED BY HESSMER CHIEF OF POLICE, KENNETH SMITH

Prayer for Inclusion into Ruling:
Although not a party, Hessmer Chief of Police hopes that this Honorable Court will incorporate into any future rulings in this matter, in some form or fashion, the following:
1) Chief Kenneth Smith was not sued in this litigation by any party.
2) Chief Kenneth Smith is not adversely affected by any ruling to this matter.
3) Chief Kenneth Smith's position is that, had he been made a party to this action,
he would have asked the Court to review and issue a ruling that mirrors
Attorney General Opinion #17-23. In that case, the AG noted that the Chief
of Police of Oakdale "stated that [he] wished to change phone companies
for the Oakdale PD, and ... asked the [AG's] office whether the Chief of Police
has the authority to do so." Opinion #17-23 provides in pertinent part:
"[O]btaining a new telephone service is within the inherent power of the
police chief to control his office & equipment."
(The Opinion concerns an elected police chief, with a budget promulgated by
the Mayor/Council, and a municipality governed by the Lawrason Act -- all
identical to the facts at bar.)
4) Chief Kenneth Smith's position is that, had he been made a party to this action,
regardless of AG Opinion #17-23, supra., he would have produced evidence
that his personnel acted with full and specific authority from the Mayor's
office to proceed and purchase phone services. Discussed infra.
5) Chief Kenneth Smith's position is that, had he been made a party to this action,
he would have produced evidence that the contract his office entered with
Verizon was at a reduced rate compared to the prior phone service provider.
6) Chief Kenneth Smith's position is that if Verizon does not defend itself, it is
merely due to cost of litigation v. bill amount claimed, and not
due to the position of the Village of Hessmer.

Background Info.:
The above captioned matter involves a telephone services bill by Verizon, and issued to the Village of Hessmer. Chief of Police Kenneth Smith was not made a party to the matter, and thus prays that this Honorable Court will accept into the record, and review this brief submitted by a non-party, as an Amicus Curiae brief. Because Chief Smith is not a party and never subpoenaed or deposed on this matter, he avers that this Honorable Court may not have, but should have, any and all information that may relate to a phone bill stemming from police dept. use. The matters may or may not have been briefed by the parties; Chief Smith has not viewed the official record and is unaware of and has not studied all filings by all parties.
However, it is vital that Chief Smith be heard on the pending issues. At first glance, it may appear to the Court that Chief Smith's motivation is central to Chief Smith, not the litigation at hand. This is not the case. A true threshold/pivotal issue is why did the Village of Hessmer seek a Declaratory Judgment on a Verizon bill, thereafter submit a preliminary strike via a false news article, yet never make Chief Smith a party to the litigation, and never take his deposition? Chief Smith will be as brief as possible:

Unfortunately, an amicus curiae 'appearance' by Chief Smith is necessary, as he is elected by the residents of Hessmer. At every turn, it can be predicted that slanted newspaper articles are written and distributed, meant to injure or harm Chief Smith. For example, in the Marksville Weekly News ed. of 8/29/19, a false, slanted article with a slanted picture was placed on the front page, unfairly slanderous and injurious to Chief Smith. The said article (attached) is titled: "Verizon agrees with Hessmer mayor, council". The title clearly suggests that 'Verizon does not agree with Chief Smith ....'. This implication is false. Verizon merely agrees that a police dept. employee contracted the services of Verizon. That is not the issue; the issue is whether this police dept. has the legal capacity to enter a valid contract with a phone service provider. (See AG Opinion #17-23, supra.)
The newspaper article states that Chief Smith 'claimed the Village had spent over $19,000. in legal fees to contest the Verizon bill.' ??? Chief Smith summarized that the Village's budget showed legal expenses of nearly $20,000. -- Chief Smith never stated/implied that that expenditure was solely due to a Verizon/phone issue.
The newspaper article further implies that Chief Smith did not 'respond' to the Council approving new radars in Dec., 2018. There is no way to describe this other than -- complete fabrication! Chief Smith specifically told the Mayor that he, Smith, was himself working on getting radars. The Mayor/Council admitted that it asked for Chief Smith to get quotes for radars in May, 2019, and then proceeding to get quotes & purchase 'on its own'. However, the article implies/states that Chief Smith did not respond to this inquiry. Again -- complete fabrication! The Mayor/Council were told by May, 2019, by Chief Smith that he, Smith, was attempting to procure radars. (Note that this notification by Chief Smith is unwittingly half-admitted in the slanted newspaper article cited infra.!) Note that the Mayor/Councils' statement does not provide a discernible timeline of when the Council "went ahead & obtained quotes on its own, purchasing the radar & mount for $2412."
In sum, the recent newspaper article is an example of politics at its worst. It has continued, each time with an article penned and Chief Smith never contacted in advance of publication (e.g., Marksville Weekly News article, "Hessmer Council still says it does not owe bill", May 23, 2019 -- Chief Smith never having chance to respond to allegations prior to print; an article which stated that Chief "Smith did not come to the council about the cell phone service at all". ??? Is there a 'Chinese Wall' between the Mayor's office and the Council? Because Chief Smith did in fact go to the Mayor's office appr. 10+ times requesting help/remedy with the phone service prior to the contract with Verizon; and in fact the Mayor's office emphatically told Chief Smith for the police dept. to handle it itself/himself.
Unfortunately, as usual, Chief Smith never had a chance to respond until after the article was published). (See Prayer -point #4 supra.)
Conclusion:
It is easily predicted that, regardless of how this Honorable Court rules, the Mayor will pen another article somehow slanting an anti-Chief Smith slogan. However, this Amicus Curiae brief is not submitted to demand ethical and reliable newspaper print. To that end, admittedly & unfortunately, the Court has little control. A newspaper that recently penned an article about how unhealthy social media and internet squabbles have become, itself has already set the standard low by penning half-truths and not contacting relevant parties to articles printed. This paper has set the bar low by slashing people with anonymity for perhaps 40+ years, under the guise of "Alphonse".
Thus, Chief Smith feels compelled to submit this Amicus Curiae brief so that this Court will have more relevant information about the genesis of the Verizon bill, and the true issue at hand. For one party to simply assert that "Verizon agrees with Mayor ..." that a police official contracted with Verizon, not the Mayor/Council, is shallow, and avoids true issues that the Court should be able to ponder. The Court may be concerned why Chief Smith was not made a party. (Verizon apparently will not spend the money on an appr. $2000. lawsuit to file an exception of Failure to Name an Indespensible Party.) The Court may be concerned about Chief Smith's version of events relevant to these proceedings. These are the reasons for the submission of this brief, and Chief Smith prays that the Court will consider it.
Thus, Chief Smith prays that his Prayer for Inclusion as dileanated supra., be incorporated into any ruling/Opinion by this Honorable Court.
Respectfully submitted:
______________
Mark Jeansonne #20883
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
2472 Main / PO Box 301
Hessmer LA 71341
318-563-9000
jeansonnelaw@yahoo.com
C E R T I F I C A T E
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above & foregoing has this day been forwarded to all counsel of record by: 1)B. Scott, Esq., box @ Clerk's office; 2)Verizon/T. Gray by scan email.
Hessmer, LA, this ___ day of _______, 2019.
______________
Mark Jeansonne