District Judges reasoning for maintaining My lifetime ban from library in Louisiana

TRAVIS HEINZE DOCKET NO.: 95145-A
VERSUS 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NATCHITOCHES PARISH NATCHITOCHES PARISH, LOUISIANA
LIBRARY, ET AL.
WRITTEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr. Heinze’s claims have prescribed under former La.Civ.Code art. 3492 as well as newly enacted La.Civ.Code art. 3493.1.
Mr. Heinze asserts the subject alleged offense occurred April 18, 2022, the date of defendant’s ban notice forbidding him from the Natchitoches Parish Library. In accordance with former La.Civ.Code art. 3792, Mr. Heinze had until April 19, 2023, to file his petition. However, Mr. Heinze filed his petition on November 14, 2024, or 1 year, 6 months, and 27 days beyond the one-year prescriptive period of former La.Civ.Code art. 3492. Mr. Heinze is correct in his counter-argument that the one-year prescriptive period was extended to two years by the Louisiana Legislature in 2024 when it repealed Article 3492 and enacted La.Civ.Code art. 3493.1. However, that enacted legislation additionally declared that this newly doubled prescriptive period “shall be given prospective application only and shall apply to delictual actions arising after the effective date of this Act ... This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2024.” Act No. 423, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (La. 2024) (redesignated as La.Civ.Code art. 3793.1.)
Here, Mr. Heinze’s cause of action occurred well-before July 1, 2024, to take advantage of the new 2-year prescriptive period. Therefore, Mr. Heinze’s cause of action remains under the one-year prescriptive period of former La.Civ.Code art. 3492, and, as discussed supra, he filed his petition 1 year, 6 months, and 27 days too late.
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Heinze’s reliance on the Continuing Tort Doctrine is misplaced.
Mr. Heinze alternatively argues the Continuing Tort Doctrine to toll or interrupt any purported prescription of his cause of action. Mr. Heinze is correct that the continuing tort doctrine is an exception to La.Civ.Code art. 3493.1 and former La.Civ.Code art. 3492 that applies when continuous tortious conduct causes continuing damages. Crump v. Sabine River Authority, 98-2326, p. 10 (La. 6/29/99), 737 So.2d 720, 728; Bustamento v. Tucker, 607 So.2d 532, 542 (La. 1992). For the continuing tort doctrine to apply, three requirements must be met-(1) a continuing duty owed to plaintiff, (2) a continuing breach of that duty by defendants, and (3) a continuing injury or damages arising day to day. Crump, supra.
In contrast, when the operating cause of injury is discontinuous and not “arising day to day,” even if the plaintiff continues to experience ill effects or injury from the original, wrongful act, the continuing tort doctrine is inapplicable; and “prescription runs from the date that knowledge of such damage was apparent or should have been apparent to the injured party.” Crump, 98-2326 at p. 7, 737 So.2d at 726; Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 09-2632, 09-2635, p. 21 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 991, 1005; Scott v. Zaheri, 2014-0726, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/3/14), 157 So.3d 779, 787.
Here, the Natchitoches Parish Library’s April 18, 2022 ban is not a continuing injury arising day to day. The library issued one ban notice to Mr. Heinze after he was arrested in the library for the alleged offenses subject to his pending Natchitoches City Court criminal proceedings. That lone ban notice is the “operating cause” in this case; it has not been continuously reissued. Therefore, the Continuing Tort Doctrine affords Mr. Heinze no relief.
Mr. Heinze’s claims under Louisiana Open Meetings Law are likewise prescribed.
Claims under Louisiana Open Meetings Law carry a 60-day peremptive period.
La.R.S. 42:24; La.R.S. 42:28; Greemon v. City of Bossier City, 2010-2828 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So.3d 1263, 1266. Therefore, Mr. Heinze’s suit “must be commenced within sixty days of the action” under La.R.S. 42:24, or “must be instituted within sixty days of the violation” under La.R.S. 42:28.
In the case sub judice, the peremptive period ended sixty days after April 18, 2022, or on Friday, June 17, 2022. His suit was filed on November 14, 2024, or 2 years, 4 months, and 29 days later. Consequently, his claims under the Louisiana Open Meetings Law are forever perempted for peremption, as opposed to prescription, cannot be interrupted or suspended. La.Civ.Code art. 3458, 346; Borel v. Young, 2007-0419 (La. 11/27/07), 989 So.2d 42, on reh'g (July 1, 2008); Lambert v. Toups, 99-72 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/13/99), 745 So.2d 730; Glod v. Baker, 2004-1483 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/23/05), 899 So.2d 642, writ denied, 2005-1574 (La. 1/13/06), 920 So.2d 238.
Therefore, based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, all of Mr. Heinze’s claims against Natchitoches Parish Government have prescribed or perempted and must be dismissed.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers, in the City and Parish of Natchitoches, State of Louisiana, on this, the 22nd day of January, 2025.
HON. DESIREE DUHON DYESS
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE - DIV A

[@imbalancedstatus8824]

I just like your tenacity. Even, a die hard like myself, i would have given up and move on. Never set foot in Louisiana

[@onlytrish1969]

🎯

[@speedfreak8200]

​@@onlytrish1969not even with a roach

[@RustyRobinson-g5n]

Thanks Travis 👍🇺🇸

[@craigbloxham8344]

Yep, essentially the judge wasn't going to patiently sit there and listen to your willfully ignorant droopy the dog act and had enough of you after two minutes. You should propose to your AI lawyer. Post the ceremony, maybe hold it outdoors in a park after hours.

[@paulinekerr1811]

This is absolutely disgusting. Ban you from a library that tax dollars pay for it. They shouldn't have the ability to do that to people. If you had been disruptive loud and aggressive, yes, that would be understandable. But to walk in, walk around, do nothing, and get banned over feeling 🤷🤷🤷🤷

[@Exchange_IDs]

They have cops hang out all day on the third floor. I have never been to a library like this.

[@samuelstoner5651]

For this judge to have put any effort whatsoever into banning you for life from a library suggests she doesn't have enough to do. Instead of bothering you, she should go outside and clean up litter when she's bored. That would at least make her useful.

[@speedfreak8200]

He prolly tried to charge a bunch of batteries in the library or CP

[@MrGundawindy]

See, the AI can't even read the time correctly, reliably. 🤷‍♂

[@KlownWatch]

You probably deleted his comments

[@NvrBst]

The library is saying it considers itself part of the govn't of nach, don't you have a right to an appeal on your bans for public buildings/property (right to due process)? Honor Your Oath gets ban appeals all the time when he's trespassed from city hall. May want to go to city hall and ask the clerk if they have an official public building/property ban appeal request form/process. City hall (clerk or attorney's office) seems like it is probably the first step for ban appeals for public property, especially if you already tried to deal with it via the library board of directors (who are not responding). Typically people wouldn't bring ban appeals to court unless the lower steps fail. It could give you standing if your ban appeal fails with the city (aka fresh standing for civil court if the city rejects or refuses to hear your ban appeal IMHO).

[@Exchange_IDs]

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 1: All records, databases, or systems where Defendant's name or identifying information is recorded in relation to any trespassing charges or bans from the Natchitoches Parish Library, including those maintained by library staff or law enforcement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: None in defendant’s possession. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 2: Any photographs, visual records, or identifying images of Defendant maintained by the library or law enforcement regarding the alleged incidents or bans. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 3: All communications, including emails, letters, and internal memos, between library staff, board members, and law enforcement agencies concerning Defendant, dated from January 1, 2022, to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Further responding, Defendant objects because this request seeks information not in Defendant’s possession and control, or otherwise equally available to all parties, and it seeks information which is confidential, privileged, and is beyond the scope of discovery. Subject to Defendant’s right to supplement this discovery response, the defendant responds as follows: See attached. Defendant further answers that investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement answers and responses to these discovery requests if and when more information becomes known or available, all as provided under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4: (The response to this request is not visible in the provided document.) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 4: All policies and procedures of the Natchitoches Parish Library concerning the banning or restriction of patrons, including the process for notifying individuals and involving law enforcement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information which is confidential, privileged, and is beyond the scope of discovery. Subject to Defendant’s right to supplement this discovery response, the following exhibits may be used at the trial of this matter: See attached. Defendant further answers that investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement answers and responses to these discovery requests if and when more information becomes known or available, all as provided under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 5: Minutes, agendas, and recordings of any library board or staff meetings where Defendant's alleged conduct, trespassing, or ban was discussed or approved. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: See answer to Interrogatory Number 12. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 6: Any complaints, reports, or witness statements alleging misconduct by Defendant on library premises, including the dates, times, and individuals involved. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature. At this time, investigation, discovery, and pretrial preparation have not been completed, and consequently, Defendant cannot now identify every such document. Subject to Defendant's right to supplement this discovery response, the following exhibits may be used at the trial of this matter: See attached. Defendant further answers that investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement answers and responses to these discovery requests if and when more information becomes known or available, all as provided under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 7: Records of other patrons banned or restricted by the library between January 1, 2017, and the present, including the reasons for such actions, redacted for personally identifiable information as necessary. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, and it seeks information which is confidential, privileged, and is beyond the scope of discovery. Further, Defendant specifically objects to this request as it impinges upon the confidentiality and privacy interests of unrelated third parties. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 8: Surveillance footage from the library on January 22, 2022, capturing Defendant's activities and interactions with staff or law enforcement. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: Defendant has no documents responsive to this Request. Further answering, upon information and belief, Travis Heinze possesses multiple videos showing his various activities and interactions with staff or law enforcement. Defendant further answers that investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement answers and responses to these discovery requests if and when more information becomes known or available, all as provided under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. --- REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 9: All documents, records, or communications sent to third parties, including law enforcement, accusing Defendant of viewing obscene material on January 22, 2022. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Further responding, Defendant objects because this request seeks information not in Defendant’s possession and control, or otherwise equally available to all parties, and it seeks information which is confidential, privileged, and is beyond the scope of discovery. Defendant further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature and calls for the production of documents which are not in Defendant’s possession. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NO. 10: Any evidence or documentation supporting the allegations that Defendant viewed obscene material on a library computer, including activity logs, screenshots, or staff observations. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: Objection. Defendant objects to this Request on the grounds that it is premature and calls for the production of documents which are not in Defendant’s possession. At this time, investigation, discovery, and pretrial preparation have not been completed, and consequently, Defendant cannot now identify every such document. Subject to Defendant’s right to supplement this discovery response, defendant responds as follows: Defendant is not in possession of plaintiff's computer and/or plaintiff's pornography. Further, upon information and belief, Plaintiff possessed the sworn testimony of police officers who testify they observed obscene material on his computer in the library. Further answering, see attached. Defendant further answers that investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, Defendant specifically reserves the right to supplement answers and responses to these discovery requests if and when more information becomes known or available, all as provided under the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant reserves the right to supplement all responses herein.

[@Investigation-goose]

What would happen if you dressed up differently and went to the library? In a hypothetical scenario. Would they recognize you? Would they do anything? Would their ban be enforceable?

[@Investigation-goose]

How close can you get to the library? Could you read a book outside of the library on the sidewalk?

[@Investigation-goose]

If you could use a removable folding chair could you sit and read books at the Library? Where is the line? How close can you get to it?

[@allenm6828]

You could try talking to the city mayor or the city council to see if they will lift the ban

[@Brevardcorruptionwatch]

At some point in time you have to stand up for yourself you better do it now... Or 20 plus years down the road you'll still be fighting it like I am today

[@zack6192]

What was the crime at the library that caused you to get a lifetime ban? Did you trespass on public property?

[@MrGundawindy]

Go back and watch the original video. He was just existing in the library and then wanted to exchange ID rather than being forced to provide his ID, against his fourth ammendment protections. He didn't break any laws, he just didn't do what he was told, and is a bit weird.

[@zack6192]

I did the cops show cause for requiring an ID. Normally they don't ask for ID unless you have broken some law first. At least that is the way it's supposed to work. It's the way it works in all the other states. Louisiana is the only state in the nation that is an ID please state on contact without some crime they are investigating.

[@MrGundawindy]

@@zack6192 well, that's the legal issue. It is unconstitutional in all states to demand ID without RAS of a crime. The cops, DA's and judges are all misinterpreting the laws, but it isn't worth retaining constitutional lawyers to take the case to the state or federal Supreme Court to pull the law enforcers into line, so they just do whatever they want. 🤷‍♂️

[@MrGundawindy]

@ I don't think that ever came up until the court case. Almost like it never happened, but they realised they didn't have RAS so had to come up with something.

[@Brevardcorruptionwatch]

Now this doesn't only happen to Travis, imagine if it happens and it did to someone else, and because they're allowed to get away with it they continue to do it. Now increase participants and frequency of events. And now you have me

[@speedfreak8200]

Follow library rules?

[@RichardFitzwell-z7i]

Smh, your channel is getting extremely boring and not even worth wasting the time to see what's happening in your world. Just saying! Good luck with everything and Please do your best to have a joyous and positive rest of the day and a better one tomorrow!

[@justicefor-all3129]

It is probably because he has got jammed up in these small towns, and they are super corrupt. He is likely not wanting to screw himself over by standing up for himself when there are so many officers willing to go to extra mile to fulfill their ego, furthering his legal battles.

[@Brevardcorruptionwatch]

Interesting

[@PrePaidTeam]

Judge Die US? Exactly lol😂

[@jocarmo]

I appreciate what you do, and are doing, but most of your arguments and discussions with the AI bots are emotionally based, this will not help you in any way. At this point, I would suggest reaching out to other auditors publicly, to go to that library since you cannot. The library, nor the law enforcement have fealt any pressure or consequences for what they did, this in my opinion is the only way to make them understand what they did and are doing is wrong.

[@Exchange_IDs]

The AI is enabling me to force lawyers into discussions with me that would never have happened before.