DATE: February 7 2012
FROM: J. Christopher Alexander, Sr. Esq.
RE: Darrell Wayne Glasper, Sr. v. Melvin Lee “Kip” Holden, Sr., Esq.
Docket No.: “606,163” Sec.: “23”
Nineteenth Judicial District Court
Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Recently counsel for Mr. Holden—Mary Olive Pierson—without any public provocation from Darrell Glasper, my client, publicly attacked Mr. Glasper by calling him a liar multiple times and calling the serious allegations in his lawsuit against Mr. Holden “laughable.” Ms. Pierson’s attack on Mr. Glasper’s character was disseminated to a minimum of 500,000 citizens between the BR Advocate’s print and online subscribers. This number does not include the millions of potential readers throughout national and international syndication who were likely exposed to her attack. Thus, many, many people were exposed to a prominent member of the Bar directly attacking Mr. Glasper’s character and integrity because he chose to exercise his right to petition the court against Mr. Holden.
Instead of allowing the Court and a jury to be the ones to determine the merits of Mr. Glasper’s claims, Ms. Pierson has publicly—and recklessly—jeopardized that process by publicly attacking both Mr. Glasper personally and his claims. As said, she has called him a liar multiple times and called the allegations in his lawsuit laughable. In so doing, Ms. Pierson has taken this case outside the parameters of the court room and created an ethical duty on my part to publicly respond and therefore protect the public record. If I failed to address you today in response to my client being publicly called a liar—and correct the false public perception that she may have created about him—then I fail in my duty to my client.
Now to be clear, Ms. Pierson has the freedom as an American to say whatever she wants, about whomever she wants, no matter how false her comments may be. But, as you and I both know, where there is great freedom there is also great responsibility. If Ms. Pierson enjoys the freedom to publicly attack the character of another American in the eyes of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people—and to call him a liar multiple times—to call his allegations laughable—then she has a corresponding public duty to publicly state specifically what Mr. Glasper is lying about, and which of his allegations are laughable.
This is the essence of fairness-the essence of justice. If Ms. Pierson cannot publicly defend her own public statements, then she owes Mr. Glasper a formal public apology and retraction of her comments.
In direct response to Ms. Pierson’s public statements that Mr. Glasper is a liar, and that his allegations are laughable, allow me to address it directly and very clearly: Mr. Glasper lied about nothing in the past regarding his allegations against Mr. Holden; Mr. Glasper is not lying now, and Mr. Glasper will not lie in the future. Everything that he has stated is true.
And so I ask, in defense of my client, and in direct response to Ms. Pierson’s public allegations:
WHAT IS MR. GLASPER LYING ABOUT?
1. Is he lying when he states that Ms. Pierson boldly called for a full and aggressive federal and state investigation of Glasper’s allegations against Mr. Holden contained in this newsletter/flier; that she swore that whoever promulgated the flier was “dumb as a box of rocks,” and that he would be punished to the maximum extent of the law, and then later—and with no credible explanation—Ms. Pierson abruptly called for an end to that investigation? One minute it is an extremely serious investigative matter, and a few days later it is of no moment. Is this a laughable allegation? Ms. Pierson owes the public and the citizens of this community an answer to this question. Why did Ms. Pierson call off this investigation into false allegations against the Mayor that according to him, “almost destroyed my family”? Why is Ms. Pierson content with nobody being held accountable for such a viciously false public attack on Mr. Holden, her client whom she is duty bound to protect and defend? Every media outlet in the state of Louisiana ought to be asking her this question relentlessly until she provides a satisfactory answer to it.
2. Is Mr. Glasper lying when he alleges that Mr. Holden has used or is using my tax dollars and your tax dollars to engage a security detail to escort him and protect him while he has sexual relations with married women? Using my money and your money—our money—not his money—for this purpose? Is this is a lie?
3. Is Mr. Glasper lying when he alleges that he was specifically implicated in the original complaint filed with the Ethics Board over the source of this flier, and yet he was never prosecuted, never brought for hearing, never pursued at all? Never even questioned until it was too late for them to take any action against him? Is Mr. Glasper lying about this?
4. Is Mr. Glasper lying when he says that Mr. Holden ordered his tax payer funded security detail—my money and your money—our money—to flee the scene of a potential crime when he was having relations with a married woman and her husband came home—physically confronted Mr. Holden, and injured Mr Holden, although Mr. Holden apparently had no concerns for the safety of the married woman when he fled the crime scene. Is it a lie that a hard working man came home unexpectedly to find a Baton Rouge Police officer standing guard at his door to prevent him from catching a high ranking official- intruder- Mayor Holden- in his home having sex with his wife? An official who is paid by his tax dollars? An official whose officers who guard him are paid by his hard earned tax dollars- and also your tax dollars and my tax dollars- your money and my money. Is this a lie? Is Mr. Glasper lying when he says that video evidence of Mr. Holden’s injuries exists and that this footage shows chuckling before the legislature as to how Mayor Holden sustained these injuries?
To reiterate, in response to Ms. Pierson’s bold public assertion that Mr. Glasper is lying and that his lawsuit is laughable, I emphasize again that he is lying about nothing, has lied about nothing, and will lie about nothing. His allegations are true. A full and complete federal and state investigation will show conclusively what witnesses are already coming forward and stating: Mayor Holden has abused the power of his office for personal gratification that has nothing to do with public matters or public concern. Further, Mayor Holden’s acts have been covered up to this point.
Ms. Pierson is absolutely right about one thing: Somebody is lying. Somebody is covering up. But it is not Mr. Glasper. I call upon Ms. Pierson to return to her original vocal position by again calling for a full and complete investigation into these allegations once again—as she did before- and allow that investigation to proceed through its natural course.
It is my hope that no judge, administrator, law enforcement agent, or other person has been swayed by Ms. Pierson’s public rhetoric. But I am under an affirmative obligation to protect Mr. Glasper from public attacks on his character. I am duty-bound to ensure that Mr. Glasper’s serious claims are permitted to proceed through full discovery and adjudication—despite any attempt to delay and obstruct that objective. Let me be clear: I am confident that a full and complete investigation into these allegations will not be impeded or delayed by any person, for any reason until the full truth of these allegations is known. Anyone who impedes this process is complicit in wrongdoing and should be held fully accountable by every legitimate means available.
Lastly, and as alluded to earlier, witnesses are coming forward alleging extremely serious acts and omissions against Mr. Holden. My office is referring those witnesses to the appropriate law enforcement agencies for investigation. I am not involved in the criminal investigation and am not at liberty to reveal any names of witnesses at this point. I can verify on good authority that a formal criminal complaint has been filed against Mr. Holden by a decorated law enforcement officer and is being investigated, and that law enforcement is interviewing other witnesses.
“Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of
democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.”