1.) Committed fraud and perjury upon the Court;  Attorney William Peatross/Director of Commercial National Bank  committed perjury,deception and fraud on the Court and banking regulators by saying he was not involved inaiding the borrower/client in obtaining the loan between Audubon Meadow Partnership, Dupree and the Bank.

2.)  Illegal Hand Note (See Lots Payment Schedule)
–Court mislead thinking money was lend in 1986.

3.) Commitment Letter (never accepted)- says
loan -would be made according to satisfactory compliance with the Terms of its requirements especially page 3, paragraph 12. "Commitment could only be amended in writing";.  The Partnership was a requirement of the Bank. (See Attorney Mc Michael statement).

4.) All Judgments won against the black female attorney
while she was in a mental institution. (See attached letters).

5.) No conflict of Interest or Truth and Lending Disclosure as required by law.

6.) Cook, Yancey, King and Galloway lied
to the Court stated that working for Mr. Dupree was not a conflict to sue their own client.
(See Ledger and Invoice Sheets).

7.) Collateral Mortgage unauthorized signature; No Truth andLending as called for  (See paragraph 3).

8.) Serious conflict between Attorney Turner's facts and (Commercial National Bank's facts)
See Brief and judgments, Turner's Motion for Summary Judgment.

9.) Court of Appeal states Turner and Babin knew of all of these violations which triggered Prescription, no. 26-793-CA; Docket 392-583, April 5, 1995 the Bar Association and District Court Judge Scott Crichton refuse to hold him and his firm accountable in violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights.

10.) Why is the law not applicable to Afro-American Citizens such as "Lucien"?



1.)A Contract, the consent to which was obtained by fraud,
is null and void. Placid Oil Co., V. Taylor, App. 3 Cir. 1977, 345 So. 2d 254, writ denied 347 So. 2d 261.

2.) Fraud in Contract negatives concept of free consent
and court will free any victim of obligation incurred by fraudulent means. Plan Investments of Shreveport, Inc., V. Heflin, App. 2 Cir. 1973, 286 So. 2d 511. Fraud, when eatablished, vitiates theContract ab initio, Yaeger Milling Co., V. Lawler, Sup. 1887, 39 La. Ann. 572, So.398.

3.) Authentic Act constitutes full proof of the agreement,
contained in it against the contracting parties. Smith V. Remodeling Services, Inc., App. 5 Cir. 1994, 94- 589(La. App. 5 Cir. 12/14/94), 648 So. 2d995.

4.) Former Art. 2236 of the 1870 Civil Code(See, now, this article) assumed  validity of agreement signed by parties as set forth in authentic act and did not purport to provide that any agreement was valid in absence of essentials required for valid contract. Brunfield V. Paul, App. 4 Cir. 1962, 145 So.2d 46.  "Important"

5.) Guarantor for Illegal Loan "The Louisiana jurisprudence is uniformly in accord with this ruling. A long line of cases cite the Court's per curiam in Davis V. Holbrook, 1 Ann. 176, where it is tersely said: a party will not be heard who ask the Court to release him from the consequences of having violated the law"

6.) The general rule applying in such cases is stated in 13 CC. J. 424:
If an agreement binds the parties or either of them to do, or if the consideration is to do, something opposed to the public policy of the Senate or nation, it is illegal and absolutely void however, solemnly made. "It appears that all Courts are agreed that where a statue is enacted to protect the public fraud or imposition or morals, a Contract in violation thereof is ordinarily void".

7.) Absolute Nullity established in interest of individuals are
susceptible of ratification, either expressly or impliedly, and may be prescribed against, while such nullities in derogation of public order and good morals are never susceptible of ratification and can nevr be prescribed against. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans V. Schwob, Sup. 1943, 203 La.

8.) Action to annul judgment, which is absolutely null because it is
based on null Contract, does not prescribe. Bass V Laporte, App. 1 Cir. 1996, 950867 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/4/96), 672 So.2d 1121, rehearing denied.

9.) Relative Nullity Action
of Nullity brought representative claiming the Contract of representation was null was not prescribed, because if Contract were Absloutely Null, then it was imprescriptible and if relatively null, it was subject to five-year prescriptive period for action of annulment for judgment of fraud. Dunn V Land and Marine Properties, Inc., App. 3 Cir. 1992, 609 So. 2d 284, Writ denied 614 So. 2d 1252.

10.) Stock Purchaser's reconventional demand
seeking rescission of stock sale because of fraud and resulting damages was action to rescind conventional obligation, not delictual action, and was thus subject to ten years prescriptive period under CC. Art. 2221 (pepealed; see, now, this article); purchaser's claim for damages was inextricable from his demand for recission. Dugas v Cason, App. 3 Cir. 1988, 524 So. 2d 1248. (Lucien's case not delictual).



Citizens Against Legal Abuse
P.O. Box 51386
New Orleans, LA 70151-1386
(504) 821-9580
Copyright© 1998, 1999
 Citizens Against  Legal Abuse, Inc.


The contents of this site, signatures, and copies of cases are on file. Please
contact us for proof.