This Case and Judgment should and must be reviewed not just for the interest or Rights of Defendant / Plaintiff  but for the public policy and trust,  because of the lies, perjury, material misstatements of facts, false documents, conspiracy, violations of Federal and State, Constitutional and Civil Rights of poor minority, black and people of color, using the Court and legal system to cover-up and hide their unlawful banking and other violations under "Color of State Law" in a gross attempt to obstruct justice.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeal has rule that Lucien's Attorneys Emile Turner Jr. and Mr. Wilbur Babin Jr.  were aware of these violations (thus a violation of the Code of Professional Ethics) as well as every Attorney and Official in this case is aware of the Ruling by the Disciplinary Board of the Louisiana State Bar Association No. 96-DB-081, September 19, 1997 andMotion for Recusal. (See attached Exhibit 1 –2)

Judge Scott Crichton because of his personal problem was bias and could not be fair in his Judgment of Lucien. This is clearly a case of "Denial of Due Process" and Equal Protection of the Law", {because of race}. As all parties and Officials were white except the original Judge Stewart who was completely deceived, mislead, and recklessly, deliberately lied to through presentation of forged and falsified documents, misstatement of facts and suppression of the truth.

The Court acts for its own protection and ultimate protection of the public Interest (LA. CC Art. 1953), as all of their Judgments is contrary to Public Policy. These allegations cannot be excused simply, by denying Lucien his day in Court by deceiving and committing fraud on the Court. By pleading Exception of No Cause and No Right of Action, Prescription and Res Judicata.Cited Cases: Rhodes v. Miller No. 34237 Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 7, 1938

[7] EQUITY-The recognized rule that every suitor who seeks equitable relief must himself be free from any unlawful or inequitable conduct with respect to the matter or transaction is known in equity as rule of "clean hands".—

[8] EQUITY-The rule that every suitor who seeks equitable reliefmust himself be free from any unlawful or inequitable conduct is not applied because it is a matter of defense, but because it is against public policy to hear the cause if the unconscionable character of the matter or transaction be established.

U.S.  Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rule that parties perpetrating fraud on the Court

Case No. 96-30420

MAC Sales, Inc., ET AL, -Plaintiffs,

Kenneth P. Choina, Sr., - Plaintiff/Appellant

Versus E.I. Dupont DE Nemours and Company


The circuit court stated that:

This case is extraordinary, in that the sole evidence supporting a multi-million dollar verdict is the clearly fraudulent testimony of an expert witness who supplied Defense Counsel with fraudulent documents that prevented Defendant from fully presenting its case.

Allowing this verdict to stand would cause substantial injustice. The Court will not sit idly by and allow Mr. Trappey to visit this injustice on the Defendant or the Court.

That not only is the Defendant injured in this event, but the entire Judicial System and the Court suffers as a result.


October 12, 1998

RounTree, Cox, Guin & Achee
C/O Mr. Gordon E. RounTree
Attorney At Law
400 Travis Street, Suite 1200
P. O. Box 1807
Shreveport, Louisiana 71166-1807

Dear Mr. RounTree:

         In acknowledgement of your letter dated September 24, 1998  wherein you expressed that I should comply with the law. I would like to take the opportunity to remind you that the causes of this case are unlawful violations, misrepresentation of material facts, suppression of the truth and denial of equal application of the law, because of race and class statues. Incidentally as I appreciate the law, any misrepresentation or violation of law it is incompetent upon the Attorneys to correct or report such violation. Speaking of law I would think the law would require a response to my Motion or Request for production of documents filed and dated August 5, 1998 by this time. (See enclosure).

        Your request for a copy of my exhibits were delayed because of an act of God namely (Hurricane George).

         Please find enclosed the Exhibits you requested on my Motion for Reconsideration. And by way of this letter I respectively and humbly implore upon you and your client CNB, ET. AL and now First American National Bank according to Rule of  Professional Conduct- 3.3  candor toward a tribunal to correct these misstatements of facts and evidence to the Court as an Attorney of 20-30 years of experience you are well aware of these unlawful violations and you are hereby requested to act accordingly:

(B) A lawyer, who receives information clearly establishing that:

(1) His client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon his client to rectify the same, and if his client refuses or is unable to do so, he shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal.  (2) A person other than his client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.

Robert L. Lucien Sr.

P.S. I have received a Rule from the Louisiana Supreme Court that my request for Reconsideration was denied. However, I am not satisfied that justice has  been served and I will continue to seek my rights to be judged on the truth, facts, legal laws and evidence which is every American Citizen's Rights under the Constitution of Louisiana and the United States of America which guarantees equal protection of the law.



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.