Former Ascension Parish Sheriff Captain C. J. Matthews.

Former Ascension Parish Sheriff Captain C. J. Matthews gave us a call and told us just how “fed up” he is about recent acts of law enforcement officers and members of the judiciary.  Here’s video of him sounding off:

Former Ascension Parish Sheriff Captain C. J. Matthews expresses his deep concerns about recent actions by a number of members of law enforcement and the judiciary in Louisiana.

Here are links for news outlet coverage of the incidents Matthews references in the above video (in order):

— Brent Amy, Gonzales City Police Officer, getting into a physical confrontation with an Ascension Parish Sheriff Deputy.

— 23rd JDC (Gonzales) Judge Steven Tureau getting into a major scuffle after being escorted out of a Gonzales bar.

— EBRP Sheriff Deputy Faith Placide terminated after stabbing her boyfriend after returning from three-month medical leave.

— Cottonport Fire Chief Chris Lemoine, who violated a burn ban and let his own fire engulf a slaughterhouse, referencing the Chief of Police as a “b” and a “h” as she effectuated his arrest.

(Note:  This WAFB feature on the same matter features some dialogue entailing Lemoine as well as pictures of the scene).

— Colfax Mayor-Elect Timika Hamilton-Price being arrested for DWI.

— Added details on the arrest of St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Randy Smith, arrested for assaulting and doing great bodily harm to a blogger (Bobby Couvillion) to include asking a bail bondsman to drive him away from the scene in a Sheriff vehicle (Smith was allegedly drunk).

We believe the final feature above to be of such significance that we are also going to embed it:

Fox 8 (New Orleans) feature on more details surrounding St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Randy Smith’s arrest for the assault of Bobby Couvillion, who has been a critic of Smith in online postings.

After the videotaping of the above segment with Matthews, this feature aired regarding former EBRP Sheriff Deputy Nicholas LoCicero being indicted on allegations that he raped a child.  From the WBRZ feature:

“Crimes against children are among the most serious offenses my office prosecutes. Anyone accused of preying on a child in Louisiana will be pursued aggressively by my office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No one is above the law, especially those sworn to uphold it,” Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement following the indictment.

We reached out to Matthews to see if he wanted to be quoted about this indictment, and here is his response:

I wish she (Murrill) would go back and review the Fred Corder incident and interview the former DA Shawn Bush.  This would open up a can of worms between Jeff Landry, Jeff Wiley (former Ascension Parish Sheriff and current State Representative), Bobby Webre (current Ascension Parish Sheriff), and LSP’s (Belinda) Murphy and (Chad) Gremillion.  Now that’s a cover up right there!

Click here to review our prior investigative series on Corder as told by Matthews.

What adds intrigue to the whole Randy Smith saga is the fact that WAFB (Channel 9 in Baton Rouge) aired this May 13, 2026 feature indicating that LSP Col. Robert Hodges would be “stepping down” in August.  Importantly, in that feature, WAFB’s Chris Nakamoto indicated that Hodges would, “either pursue running for St. Tammany Parish Sheriff or pursue being the next U. S. Marshal from New Orleans.”  Nakamoto followed up his report with this May 14, 2026 feature seeking (largely unsuccessfully) for comment from Hodges on his alleged impending departure from LSP.

Our site visitors may recall us first revealing on December 15, 2025 that Hodges was a contender for that U. S. Marshal position; however, we also published this February 7, 2026 feature revealing that Hodges himself told his underlings that he was, “no longer a candidate for that U. S. Marshal position.”

At any rate, on June 3, 2026, Nakamoto aired this feature all but indicating that LSP Chief of Staff Frank Besson would be the next LSP Colonel.

Like Nakamoto, we’d received numerous texts from LSP retirees with connections within LSP regarding Hodges soon leaving and a replacement being named.  We, however, were very reluctant to publish anything, particularly regarding who Hodges’ replacement would be.

Why were we so reluctant to publish anything on Hodges’ potential replacement?  Simple.  Our sources were about equally divided on whether it would be Besson or LSP Captain Michael Nicolini.

Nicolini, according to our sources, used his Sergeant status to serve in a Lieutenant position when former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal appointed him to Jindal’s security detail.  Nicolini has been described to us by multiple sources to be, “very tight with Gov. Jeff Landry’s major campaign contributor and business associate, Shane Guidry, for whom he also worked as personal security.” Nicolini then followed Gov. Landry to the Attorney General’s Office.  Thereafter, once Landry was elected Governor, Nicolini returned to LSP, where he now serves as a detailed Captain on Landry’s security detail.

So, our sources were equally split between Nicolini and Besson; however, Nakamoto’s feature has been viewed as a highly likely strategic use of specifically-targeted “leaks” to Nakamoto with the express purpose of placing Gov. Landry in a position of feeling as if he had little choice but to choose Besson because the largest media outlet in the state had indicated that he would be the choice.  In our opinion, this belief (which is very strongly held by those with whom we spoke on the matter), is buttressed by the terse reaction of Gov. Landry’s Press Relations Coordinator Kate Kelly.  Here’s her reaction taken directly from Nakamoto’s June 3, 2026 feature above:

“I have heard of no changes at LSP. Any change of command comes directly from the governor.”

If this was a strategic maneuver to try and “box” Landry into selecting Besson, we can state that no Governor, not one, would appreciate such a maneuver; furthermore, we’ll add that this particular Governor is going to have a very strong negative reaction to any such maneuver if it indeed did transpire.

Our sources who are still willing to comment on the present matter as it stands now (it seems to have become a major hot potato) have now told us that Gov. Landry has requested that Hodges hang around for the foreseeable future (likely, by our own speculation, until the new year approaches when Hodges may initiate a campaign to replace Smith — assuming Smith doesn’t resign before next year’s election, which would certainly be the honorable thing to do).  Those same sources now tell us that Besson is, “out, o-u-t, out!”

So with all that backdrop, believe it or not, we have been asked to provide odds on who Hodges’ replacement will be irrespective of what timeframe such replacement transpires (which we speculate will be very late 2026 to very early 2027).

In deference to the escalating trend of bettors utilizing “prediction markets” (e.g. Kalshi, perhaps to skirt Landry’s outrageous increase in the online sports betting tax – full disclosure:  Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns has opened up a prediction market account and has utilized it to make sports bets for that very purpose), we will play along.

The way prediction markets work is that, technically, a bettor purchases a “contract” for a fixed amount to pay $1 if the bettor is correct on his “prediction.”

Obviously, the bettor is free to purchase as many such contracts as may be correspondingly sold by the prediction market maker.

Typically, a “quote” is readily available from the prediction market site assuming the activity level is heavy with predictors making predictions on both sides of the trade, thus ensuring a 2-3 percent profit margin for the prediction market site (far less than the 10 percent or so charged by traditional sports betting services, with Landry confiscating 21.5 percent of that 10 percent).

If a quote is not readily available because trading of contracts [these prediction markets are regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)] is too light, the prediction market may take some time to offer a quote.

Obviously, there would be insufficient interest in who will replace Hodges for it to be worth it for a predictions market to open trading on the matter, but, if we were to be asked to make a quote for purposes of the prediction market, here is what we would provide (as a market maker of sorts):

Michael Nicolini, $0.92; Frank Besson, $0.13; Anybody else, $0.005.

For translation, a $92 “prediction” on Nicolini would return $100 if Nicolini gets the nod.  A $13 “prediction” on Besson would return $100 if Besson gets the nod, and a 50 cent “prediction” that someone else besides Besson or Nicolini gets the nod would pay $100.  Translation:  We believe Nicolini is the very heavy favorite!  That’s just our take though, and what do we know?

Irrespective of who and when LSP may have a new Colonel, there’s one thing we can all agree upon, and that is that there is never a dull moment in Louisiana law enforcement or its judiciary, huh?

President Donald J. Trump (photo courtesy of Shutterstock.com).

This feature is the fourth installment of our continuing coverage of both the May 4, 2026 meeting of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) and the next meeting, which took place yesterday, Monday, June 8, 2026.

Our first feature, published on May 11, 2026, focused on Board Member Jean Pitre’s near-panic plea for cosmetology schools to flood the U. S. Department of Education with reasons they contend that the “Gainful Employment” provision, which established earnings accountability for students in order for students to qualify for Federal Pell Grant funding to pay for their cosmetology instruction, should be removed by Trump’s Department of Education.

In the follow up feature published Thursday, June 4, 2026, we focused on President Donald Trump’s steadfast resolve to hold cosmetology schools accountable for generating positive returns to taxpayers and cosmetology students or else forfeit eligibility for Federal funding to pay tuition of the students at for-profit cosmetology schools.

In today’s feature, we demonstrate in a very authoritative fashion that, while President Trump is keenly aware of the truth about loan defaults due to cosmetology students being weighed down with debts to attend these schools (for, according to Pitre, “a part-time 25-hour a week job making $15,000 – $16,000 a year,”) Cosmetology Board Member Jean Pitre, to borrow an iconic line from the famous movie “A Few Good Men,” simply, “can’t handle the truth.”

At the LSBC meeting of Monday, June 8, 2026, Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips first stated that he found the last meeting very interesting, referenced the two articles we’d published about Pitre referenced above, and volunteered that he (Phillips) had sent us this article, published on June 4, 2026 (the same day as our last article on Trump and cosmetology schools), and Phillips was even kind enough to only take 90 seconds total for public comment and said, “I yield the balance of my time (90 seconds) to Mr. Robert Burns.”   Let us first reproduce the article published below:

As feds pull back student loans, states should reform cosmetology licensing

By Edward Timmons, Preston Cooper

Published June 4, 2026 6:00am ET

The Trump administration is pulling back federal student loans for cosmetology schools — and it’s a great opportunity for states to stop forcing aspiring beauticians to take on debt just to practice their trade.

Under the administration’s proposed “Do No Harm” rule, colleges and trade schools can no longer enroll pupils using federal student loans if their graduates earn less than early-career workers with only a high school diploma. The logic is that postsecondary education should, at a minimum, make people better off than those who never went to college. If graduates can’t clear this basic benchmark, they are unlikely to be able to afford their loan payments.

Unfortunately, most cosmetology schools fail to meet this very basic standard. Four years after completing their programs, cosmetology graduates earn a median salary of just $27,000 — while similarly aged high school graduates earn around $35,000. As a result, cosmetology schools have among the nation’s worst loan-repayment outcomes, with roughly one-third of borrowers more than three months behind on their debts.

The Trump administration is right to pull the plug: more than 90% of cosmetology schools are expected to fail the “Do No Harm” rule and lose access to federal loans. That will protect hundreds of thousands of students from unaffordable debt. Meanwhile, taxpayers will no longer have to eat the cost when those borrowers inevitably fail to repay.

But the Do No Harm rule should be only the beginning of a broader conversation about how to change the way barbers, hairstylists, and manicurists prepare for their careers. Every state licenses these professions; some, including Nebraska and West Virginia, require them to undergo over 1,800 hours of training before earning the right to work. The federal government has effectively subsidized these excessive training requirements through unconditional student loan subsidies — but now that funding stream is winding down.

States should take the opportunity to cut the number of required training hours to become a licensed cosmetologist. Research has shown that recent reductions in mandated required training hours have reduced tuition and increased enrollment. Some evidence even suggests that the ensuing enrollment increases improve cosmetology schools’ profits.

Utah is one example of a state taking significant steps to reform cosmetology licensing requirements. With the enactment of SB 330 last year, most cosmetology education requirements were cut from 1,600 to 1,250 hours. Barbers can now obtain a license to work in Utah with just 130 hours of education. Aspiring workers may also substitute apprentice hours for beauty school hours.

But states could go even further and end cosmetologist licensure entirely. Cosmetologist licensing is not ubiquitous worldwide. More than 119 million people in the UK and Spain live without cosmetologist licensing. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, also do not require cosmetology licensing. Instead, regulation often occurs at the shop level. Beauty salons may need to register their business and be subject to random inspections. This way, the public is offered protection without overly cumbersome regulation that limits entry to the profession, which research has shown fails to prevent accidents and bad actors.

Cosmetology schools could still exist in a world without licensure. But rather than relying on state training mandates, they would need to demonstrate their educational value to attract voluntary paying customers. Beauty schools, which effectively teach students to become better at their craft — and achieve higher wages — could thrive. But those that exist mainly as a box for aspiring beauticians to check on the road to licensure would need to reform.

Heavy licensing requirements for cosmetologists were supposed to protect the public. Instead, licensing has sentenced barbers and hairstylists to unaffordable student debt. By reducing or even eliminating cosmetology licensing, states can address the student debt crisis and expand opportunity in one blow.

President Donald J. Trump (photo courtesy of Shutterstock.com).

This feature is the third installment of our continuing coverage of the May 4, 2026 meeting of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC).

Our first feature, published on May 11, 2026, focused on Board Member Jean Pitre’s near-panic plea for cosmetology schools to flood the U. S. Department of Education with reasons they contend that a “Gainful Employment” provision should be removed from an addition to President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill passed in 2025.  That provision establishes earnings accountability for students in order for students to qualify for Federal Pell Grant funding to pay for their cosmetology instruction.

Today’s feature focuses on comments received by the U. S. Department of Education and where the matter stands at present.  First, however, we want to provide a short video clip of Pitre’s admission of how small the number of hours that a cosmetology school graduate works is and the average earnings of those graduates.  Here’s Pitre’s commentary in a 32-second video segment of his entire presentation:

5/11/26:  Pitre reveals that Louisiana cosmetologists make “$15,000 – $16,000” and adds that the average cosmetologist works “part time at 25 hours a week.”

Pitre clearly articulated the numbers!  Is it any wonder so many organizations concerned with gainful employment and holding cosmetology schools accountable with such abysmal earnings given that the student has to attend school for 1,500 hours at a cost of $14,000 – $20,000 plus to obtain the ability to make such enormous earnings?

Regarding comments that the U. S. Department of Education received on the provision as it pertains to cosmetology instruction, our sources indicated that, “concerns were expressed about the fact that tipped income component of cosmetology services would not be included in the reported numbers.”  Our sources also inform us that, “the Education Department performed an analysis of the claim” and concluded that, “tipped income incorporation wouldn’t meaningfully change many fail rates for cosmetology schools.”

The final rule is expected in the coming weeks or months in the early summer of 2026.  The rule is likely to take effect beginning July 1, 2026, or 27 days from the publication of this feature.  Data reporting, warnings to students, and potential loss of eligibility would be phased in based on earnings data.

The U. S. Department of Education’s analysis in the proposed rule projects high failure rates for many cosmetology programs under the earnings test and, as Pitre pointed out in his full version video (available at the May 11, 2026 feature link above), upwards of 90 percent of cosmetology schools will be at risk of closing as a result of taxpayers, who are footing the bill for these sky-high tuition fees to yield, by Pitre’s own admission, a “25-hour-a week part-time job making $15,000 – $16,000 a year.”

What’s the ultimate irony of the cosmetology schools shedding all these tears now?  Well, ironically, as evidenced by this letter drafted by Veteran’s Educational Access dated May 20, 2026 to U. S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, it was the cosmetology schools which made all of this possible by suing the U. S. Department of Education in the first place (and losing in Federal Court)!  From the letter:

We, the 19 undersigned organizations working on behalf of students, consumers, veterans, service members, faculty and staff, civil rights, and college access urge the U.S. Department of Education to enact regulations that strengthen accountability in higher education and protect both students and taxpayers from low-quality programs.

We support the Department’s efforts to implement a consistent, commonsense accountability framework that ensures students and taxpayers receive positive returns from their investments in higher education.

We strongly support the Department’s application of the earnings metric for non-degree programs through its existing gainful employment statutory authority and urge the Department to maintain it in the final rule.

This estimate echoes a 2023 study that found most certificate-granting institutions left more than half of their students earning less than their peers with only a high school diploma. Low earnings and poor employment outcomes are of particular concern at for-profit, predominantly certificate granting colleges. The same study found that nearly three in four certificate-granting for-profit institutions leave the majority of their students earning less than the typical high school graduate, even ten years after enrollment.

As it noted in the proposed rule, the Department possesses clear legal authority to apply earnings metrics to non-degree programs in these regulations using the gainful employment authority. As the Department recognized in the proposed rule, a federal district court in American Assoc. of Cosmetology Sch. v. Dep’t of Educ.,² affirmed that the Higher Education Act provides the Department authority to issue earnings metrics pursuant to gainful employment statutory language. Critically, the judge in that case held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo does not preclude the Department from issuing rules consistent with the plain meaning of “gainful employment.”³ In determining the plain meaning of that term, the judge agreed with the
Trump Administration that “gainful employment” means training that is profitable for students—programs that “actually train and prepare postsecondary students for jobs that they would be less likely to obtain without that training and preparation.”⁴

So, we guess the moral of that episode is to be careful charging headstrong into Federal Court because in engaging in such an action, when the Plaintiff loses, unintended consequences can arise such has clearly transpired in this matter!

Again, from the letter, let’s take a look at the 19 organizations which drafted the above letter:

AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Community Service Society of New York
Debt Collective
EdTrust
Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)
NAACP
National Association for College Admission Counseling
New America Higher Education Policy Program
Partnership for College Completion
Project on Predatory Student Lending
Protect Borrowers
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
The Institute for College Access and Success
United States Student Association
University of California Student Association (UCSA)
UnidosUS
Veterans Education Success
Young Invincibles

We find the above list to be very intriguing, and we draw particular attention to the NAACP and the Project on Predatory Student Lending.  Organizations like this would not have drafted a letter of this nature if they had not seen the evidence from members about the havoc wreaked upon unsuspecting students who entered these for-profit schools dreaming to derive a genuinely rewarding career in cosmetology only to find out that the only ones to profit from their enrollment was the schools themselves!

We strongly salute President Trump for his steadfast stand that Federal taxpayer funds will be provided to these schools if and only if they demonstrate they provide a positive return on investment to taxpayers and the students they purport to benefit (but we contend are only interested in benefitting themselves with little or no regard for whether the student is ever able to repay the Federal loan).

Now that President Trump has clearly demonstrated his firm grasp on the need for these schools to demonstrate positive returns for students, it’s time for Gov. Landry to take a hint too.  We contend that when Gov. Jeff Landry and House Rep. Mike Johnson actively opposed reducing cosmetology hours from 1,500 to 1,000, Landry clearly demonstrated that he was as out-of-touch with President Trump as he was with the legacy lawsuits entailing the oil industry in Louisiana (which he’s now conveniently seeking settlements as fast as possible now that Trump prevailed at the U. S. Supreme Court level on that issue).

Prior to Landry’s efforts, we previewed the bill to reduce the hours from 1,500 to 1,000 on May 7, 2024.  Interestingly enough, let’s reproduce the lead photo of that article since the first young lady (appearing far left) has now become a very interesting player in this whole matter:

May 6, 2024 Cosmetology Board meeting at which Erin Marcaeaux (far left), then with Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology, would voice her strong opposition to doing as Texas has done and reducing the hours for obtaining a cosmetology license from 1,500 to 1,000.

Incredibly, which school has screamed the loudest and even provided the stats of “up to 92 percent of for-profit schools” closing if the earnings accountability (a/k/a Gainful Employment provision) remains?  Well, that would be none other than Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology.  Who knows?  Perhaps Marceaux saw the potential future for schools like Paul Mitchell and decided to pursue a safer and more stable position of being a governmental bureaucrat pulling in $75,000 a year to “regulate” the industry!