Let’s Address the Elephant in the Room

Let’s address the elephant in the room. People have seen arrest headlines. Some have seen Facebook posts depicting John Robert Badger as a chicken. Others are questioning what happened without seeing the documents behind the story.

The question is direct: Mr. Badger, what do you say to them?

His answer is to bring the records forward. This campaign newsroom report presents his response and supplied material, rather than claiming an independent interview took place.

The headline is not the whole story

Badger disputes the portrayal of his April 19, 2022 arrest as a simple refusal to leave. He says his objection concerned the address and legal paperwork used to remove his family. His position was not that a landlord could never recover possession. It was that officials needed correctly addressed documents and a proper process.

A home his family intended to purchase

Badger describes the arrangement as rent-to-own. His June 2022 HUD correspondence describes extensive repairs, an investment he placed at more than $50,000, and a disagreement over the home’s future. He wrote that the landlord discussed selling it for a profit while his family wanted to remain.

Before October 2021, he says he contacted the landlord because he feared a possible pandemic-related layoff. That anticipated layoff did not happen. The supplied payroll records document his employment and receipt of wages. His workplace identity is withheld for privacy.

What the landlord put in writing

A September 30, 2021 email displayed under Charles Brown’s name and signed “Christina” directed Badger to upload an eviction notice with his assistance application. It stated: “I put you were behind Sept & Oct at $591.45/mo plus they’ll pay $100/mo in late fees.”

The same message acknowledged that October was “technically not late yet.” It instructed him how to enter expenses, send verification and submit the application. An October 7 follow-up said the landlord could not approve an application absent from the portal. The correspondence shows the landlord actively directing the application, including the representation of alleged arrears. Badger disputes those representations.

The government paid $3,157.25

The November 15 notification states that Charles Brown received $3,157.25 on Badger’s behalf, identifying September 2021 through January 2022. The January 17 Gator Realty statement records the same amount, entered on November 8. Immediately afterward, its ledger shows an $863 credit.

On page two, the statement lists a $50 “Eviction Fee” dated January 11, 2022. January is also a month identified in the assistance notice. What justified that fee? How was assistance allocated? Were all the family’s separate payments credited? The fee entry documents an accounting charge, not a court filing date.

The statement later claims $985.17 due after additional charges. Its current aging category is zero, but its total balance is not. It labels the recurring $80 charge insurance and lists property taxes separately.

Louisiana’s official ERAP summary describes an eviction restriction for at least 60 days after assistance ended, unless eviction was for cause. The signed conditions, assistance end date and eviction grounds matter to applying it.

The later demand and the agreement

An April notice demanded $1,949.46 plus late fees. Badger challenged it and asked the landlord to proceed to court. His April 2 email described March as “the only rent that I’m late on.” His June complaint also described a one-month shortfall. Those statements distinguish a later payment issue from his objections to earlier arrears and assistance-covered charges.

An April 9 email displayed as coming from Charles Brown acknowledged assistance payments and referred to an agreement not to accept payments from Badger, while demanding $1,949.46. It stated: “Regardless of what the rental assistant people tell you, you are going to pay what we want you to pay.” It also stated: “It doesn’t matter if we agreed with them to not accept payments from you.”

The email additionally claimed courts would listen to the landlord even if false documents were supplied. Those statements raise questions about the conditions attached to public funds and the documents used against Badger.

Racial abuse and complaints in 2022

Another supplied email displayed as coming from Charles Brown contains explicit anti-Black slurs, threatens consequences if Badger does not leave and claims the courts would support the landlord. The slurs are not repeated here.

Badger reported the correspondence to HUD. A June 8 response from Equal Opportunity Specialist Kenesha Jackson says she was assigned to his housing complaint and requests details about threats, witnesses and the racial-slur email. His response describes repairs, payments, eviction notices and the disputed address.

An April 18 email documents a complaint sent to a Louisiana Supreme Court email address before the arrest. These communications establish that he raised concerns in 2022, not first during his presidential campaign.

Badger says he also contacted the FBI and the Louisiana Attorney General’s office. He remains dissatisfied with the responses and says the help he sought did not remedy the harm. The documented HUD response shows contact, not a finding resolving his complaint.

He also wrote to the White House

John Robert Badger supplied photographs of a White House letter dated April 26, 2022 and its envelope, which bears an April 28, 2022 postage date. The letter thanks him for sharing his story with President Biden.

It states: “White House staff reviewed your correspondence and forwarded it to the appropriate Federal agency for further action.” The letter documents acknowledgment, review and referral of his correspondence. It does not identify the receiving agency or state that an internal investigation was opened.

The envelope addresses him at “120 Pecan Lake Estate Road,” retaining the address wording printed on that document. Badger has authorized publication of this former address. Readers can examine the letter and envelope themselves.

Open the White House letter and envelope PDF

The address dispute, across four recordings

Badger identifies his former home as 120 Pecan Lake Estates Road and disputes paperwork using 120 Pecan Lake Drive or another address description. His complaint correspondence raises that distinction.

He has supplied four YouTube links. The descriptions identify his account of each encounter. This publication has not independently retrieved and reviewed the recordings. Readers can examine the linked material directly. The first video’s supplied transcript screenshot contains commentary, not a verified verbatim exchange.

Was changing the address enough?

Badger alleges Lester discussed a writ prepared by Allen’s wife and suggested changing the address while saying another hearing was unnecessary. He says the altered paperwork still incorrectly identified the home.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1951 permits limited amendments to final judgments, but not substantive changes. It generally requires notice and a hearing, with exceptions for all-party consent or a certified five-day opportunity to object without opposition.

Not every address error automatically requires a new trial. Which document changed? Was the correction clerical or substantive? Who authorized it, and what notice and opportunity to object were provided?

Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 2 protects against deprivation of property without due process. Badger asks whether that process was followed.

The Shane Smiley complaint sent to Michael Thompson

Badger separately alleges that Ouachita Parish police juror Shane Smiley intervened in connection with Assistant Attorney General Justin Lester. He says a recorded phone conversation captures Smiley discussing his role in the decision to proceed.

The supplied email thread identifies the recipient as Michael Thompson, correcting the name previously given as Michael Thomas. On October 12, 2024, Badger emailed Thompson at mthompson@oppj.org under the subject “Request for Meeting to Address Serious Concerns.” He requested a meeting concerning alleged unlawful land seizure, allegations involving Shane Smiley, and his own treatment in custody.

The complaint alleges that Smiley orchestrated a false arrest and unlawful search, and attributes this statement to him: “I’m the reason you got locked up. You didn’t have to do anything wrong.” Badger offered to share video evidence and documentation. The email records the complaint and the request for review; its allegations are not a finding by Thompson or a court.

On October 24, 2024, Thompson replied: “I am so sorry for the late reply, I am just now seeing this message and do apologize. I will reach out to You soon.” Badger responded that same day: “I do appreciate that thanks.”

Badger states that, as of September 12, 2026, he has received no substantive follow-up addressing the complaint. The distinction is important: the thread contains an acknowledgment and a promise to make contact, but that reply does not address the allegations or report an outcome.

Open the complaint and response PDF

What about the nine chickens?

Badger rejects claims circulating online that he killed nine chickens. His account is that a neighbor’s dog killed chickens and he contacted the sheriff’s office’s non-emergency number for assistance before his arrest.

He disputes descriptions of animals as abandoned, starving or without water, saying they were fed and watered. He requests the call recording, dispatch information, photographs and responding-officer records.

An animal-cruelty allegation, the presence of dead chickens and proof someone deliberately killed them are different propositions. Badger asks that evidence for each be examined rather than merged into a mocking image or unsupported conclusion.

The arrest, bond and later sentence

Badger was arrested April 19, 2022 and bonded out. The 14-day sentence he later served was not an uninterrupted stay immediately following the arrest. He says sentencing occurred approximately four weeks after his father’s death, while he was grieving.

He also says the arrest disrupted his employment and he was offered an opportunity to resign after being told the company could no longer use him.

Badger maintains he never pleaded guilty and requested appointed counsel. A published September 2022 federal report describes records reflecting guilty pleas and convictions involving criminal trespassing, simple cruelty to animals and resisting an officer through false identity. It also expressly records his denial that he pleaded guilty.

He seeks the underlying plea and hearing records and says he possesses court recordings containing remarks he believes were improper. A judgment does not make every later retelling accurate. Disputed proceedings can be challenged through lawful review; this report does not declare an exoneration.

Something to think about: Was this case truly frivolous, or was this another favor?

The newly supplied record is an eight-page reproduction of Magistrate Judge Kayla Dye McClusky’s September 29, 2022 Report and Recommendation in Badger v. Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office, Civil Action 22-3617. It is a recommendation made during preliminary screening, not a trial verdict reached after witnesses testified and evidence was presented to a jury.

The report records allegations of false and retaliatory arrest, denial of diabetic medical care, racial remarks and threats during booking, overly tight handcuffs, and injuries caused by confinement in a police vehicle. It then recommends that the claims be dismissed “as frivolous and for failing to state claims on which relief may be granted.”

But readers should examine why. The report says the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office was not a legal entity capable of being sued. It says Badger did not identify the responsible individual defendant for six claims and that other allegations were too vague or conclusory. Those are pleading and defendant-identification grounds. The report does not describe a trial at which the arrest video, disputed call recording, medical evidence, address documents, or live testimony were weighed.

The report also states that records reflected guilty pleas while expressly acknowledging: “Plaintiff maintains that he never pled guilty.” A later footnote says the magistrate judge confirmed the convictions through a “TELEPHONE CALL TO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT” on September 27, 2022. That raises a direct question: when Badger disputed that he ever entered a guilty plea, why did the recommendation rely on a telephone call to the prosecuting authority, and what underlying plea record was reviewed?

Calling a filing frivolous can sound as though every allegation was proven false. This document shows something more specific: the court recommended dismissal during screening, relying substantially on legal-capacity, pleading-specificity and defendant-identification grounds. Readers can decide whether those grounds justified labeling the case frivolous, whether a self-represented litigant’s claims were rejected before the evidence could be fully tested, and whether the surrounding relationships and interventions deserve closer scrutiny.

So the question is placed plainly before the public: Was this case truly frivolous, or was this another favor?

Read the federal Report and Recommendation PDF

Stay tuned: the arrest video and recorded phone call

The arrest video is the next major recording Badger intends to release. This article will be updated with the link so readers can examine the arrest encounter themselves.

Also forthcoming is a recorded phone call that Badger says captures Constable Ronnie Allen explaining that paperwork handed out during the hearing had already been prepared because the court did not have a printer.

Badger questions whether the outcome was decided before he was heard. Preparing forms before a hearing does not, by itself, establish that the judge prejudged the case. The call, documents and hearing record must be considered together. The arrest footage and phone-call recording are not yet linked here.

Open the supporting documents

These are public copies of records supplied by Badger. Financial identifiers, workplace details, private contact information and signatures are withheld where applicable. The former housing address remains visible with his permission. The notification and Evidence F correspondence reproduce screenshots.

His answer: examine the evidence

Badger says the case and its portrayal harmed his employment opportunities. He opened his own business rather than abandon efforts to work and support his family. He says he has written to the judge and submitted requests concerning additional evidence without obtaining the relief sought.

He requests a complete reconciliation of private and assistance payments, signed participation conditions, eviction and possession documents, animal-related incident evidence and criminal hearing records. He asks those who reported or repeated the story to examine the material and address documented errors or omissions.

John Robert Badger is not asking people to ignore his history. He is asking them to examine it more completely. The landlord’s instructions, assistance payment, later demands, address dispute and complaints are part of that history.

The question is not simply what a headline said. It is what the evidence shows.

Together We Rise. Together We Thrive.

Campaign newsroom report based on documents and accounts supplied by John Robert Badger. Statements attributed to him are distinguished from document contents. Additional recordings and substantive responses will be added as available. The illustration is editorial artwork, not evidence or a reenactment.