Proof of Case and Violation of Law Summary


Robert L. Lucien Sr. entered into a partnership with one Kent Dupree of Shreveport Louisiana to obtain a loan for manufactured housing  ( see exhibit #1-Partnership Agreement).

The Loan was turned down by every Bank in town including Commercial National Bank; he had option to purchase 42 Acres of raw land, which was to be developed with all negotiations, contracts and sales were handled by Bank Director and Attorneys before the loan closing.

Phase 1 to consist of 58 developed lots with utilities, streets and all improvements, (ex. #2- Commitment letter and Construction Loan Agreement and layout). He eventually hired a Broker who was owned by the Bank, which charged a fee of $11,000 dollars to be paid from the Bank loan, which was administered and paid by the Director. (Exhibit 2A-receipt from Attorney Peatross)

Mr. Dupree's Lawyer was the Director of the Bank and in collusion with the Broker (ex. #3-Letter from Blaylock, Dupree and Bank Vice President, Randy Gardner). They were able to put the loan together and get it approved after the loan officer was notified that Mr. Dupree was the Director's client.

The Bank's Law Firm formed a partnership. Director and the Banks Law Firm set up the conditions.  The Director and the Bank's Lawyers were working for the partnership (ex. #4) invoices from Peatross and Cook, Yancey, King and Galloway who drew up the loan agreements. They determined how the partnership and loanwould interact according to the Banks requirements; this was done and passed in less than 3 days (ex. #5) Dupree's  Deposition, page 33.

The Bank's Attorneys received pay from the partnership and so did the Director (See ex. #4) and they advise throughout the Project which is a violation of Title 18, section 1001-1014-215. 

At the day of the closing the Director closed the Loan for the Bank and represented the partnership at the same time, even going so far as to state his dissatisfaction with the Loan documents, when in fact he helped draw them up (Draft of Commitment Letter to Dupree, Deposition page (s) 27&33-see exhibit #2). The Bank director handled the original purchase of the property from the seller drawing up the first and second Mortgage for the Seller and Partner for the benefit of the Partnership then substantiate some mortgage for the benefit of the bank (ex. #6- Note Cates). This is a violation of State and Federal Laws and Banking Regulations.

The Director was representing the Buyer, Seller and Bank receiving a fee from each. All employees owe a duty of loyalty (called a fiduciary duty) to their employers. This duty of loyalty is breached when an employee secretly accepts money or other valuables intended to affect decisions the employee makes for the employer. The company that pays a bribe can be sued for inducing the employee to commit a breach of fiduciary duty. "All of their actions were in violation of  law" –State, Federal and Banking laws, as well as the Public Trust.

" The Loan documents were never executed by the Bank". (CC Art. 1906-

definition of a Contract- A Contract is an agreement by  two of more parties whereby obligations are created, modified, or extinguished.

The Director falsely notarized saying that the officer was present (ex. #7- Signature page of Loan Agreement). Mr. Peatross also misrepresented and committed fraud by cover-up and denial.

The Bank's petition falsely states paragraph #5 that aforesaid indebtedness of $713,140.00 was guaranteed 8/30/84 when in fact there was no note; There was no loan, on 6/20/86 to Lucien or Audubon Meadow (paragraph 3) of their petition; The Bank Director, Lawyers,  Officials and Dupree all  were the recepitents of any funds received at that time. They also falsely stated no payment was made. Exhibit #8-Petition and Note of 1986.

The 86 note was in effective due to the fact the loan was in default May of 85, 270 days after loan closure on June 30, 1985.

(See Construction Loan Agreement, Exhibit 2)      

There was no consideration for this note and it was not shown to have any connection to construction Contract for Audubon Meadow Partnership.

The 84 loan was $746,000-See Note in Petition which is fraudulent).

All documents were forged and improperly executed as evidence by their untruthfulness, silence and misrepresentation of material facts and fraud to the court (CC. Art.1953-Exhibit 8A).

The Bank's Lawyers perpetrated fraud upon the court by misleading, improper procedures, false pleadings, and stated to the court that the  partnership was only represented by the partner when in fact he spoke to the Attorney hired by the partnership and Dupree (ex. #9- Deposition of Dupree, Johnson letter to Keith Welch, invoices, stating to the court that the partnership was represented by the partner when in fact he let the partner out by bankruptcy and  Article III, of the Partnership Agreement of which they created denied Lucien his rights. The Bank's Lawyer also filed false and conflicting memorandums first stating that Lucien was a Borrower, then stating that Lucien was not a party to the contract when in fact their partnership agreement made both partners a party, Article IV.

representative agreement (ex. #1- Leading the court to believe that Lucien was the guarantor only and not a party to the contract, when in fact he knew full well that the Bank was the one not a party to the contract. His brief, September 16,1988 (Ex. #10).       They took judgement against the unrepresented partnership; in violation of law, Louisiana CCP. Article-2002 (Parg. #2; ex. # 11) they now state, partnership was non-existing.  It did exist for their purpose only. Seizing property without proper service, misled Appeal Court that loan was made in 1986 for construction and failed to correct this misrepresentation of a material fact (ex.#12) opinion Appeal Statement 5, therein.


There was no trial ; judgement was obtained by stipulations and agreement of counsel.  There was no evidence or testimony for Mr. Lucien, they made false statements about partnership and Dupree representing partnership when in fact they communicated with Attorney for partnership (Keith Welch)  (ex. #13- Letter of misrepresentation by Johnson and court transcript (Statement-Judge Stewart). This was without Lucien's consent or knowledge. Judgement was faulty; both counsels allowed judgement, to be improperly amended.  Judgement against partnership was improper according to their brief (ex. #14) illegal due to improper procedure. They stated a partnership has no standing after one of two partners filed bankruptcy see their Agreement.  Article III of partnership says remaining partner is the proper one for service they concur (ex #1).

This trial was a gross miscarriage of justice. Lucien never had his day in court and was not properly defended.  The law is used in one instance about a non-existing partnership to their benefit, but just the opposite when they refer to it against Lucien. It is unlawful for an Attorney to use his representation of one client against him for the benefit of another client in the exact same transaction(Ex. 6-7-Jenkens and Gilchrist Law firm- case of duel representation.

This partnership has been used by the bank and its Lawyers and Director etc.  since it was  formed  by  them to first defraud, deceive Lucien and the bank then  to  cover  up,  mislead  and  deprive guarantor and partnership  of their  legal rights  and their day in court in a gross violation of the public trust and equal protection of the law.

They seize a Bank account without making judgement executors in the parish where account was located in denial of due process.  Lucien's  Attorney Emile Turner Jr. was completely in charge representing and advising him, while all the time revealing privileged information, and allowing this to happen (ex.  #15) Letter from Turner and Babin, informing Cook, Yancey, King and Galloway where Lucien could be found.  Lucien's  Attorney was in constant contact and he kept him completely informed and under the impression that hewas working in my best interest. Lucien asked to be relieved of this judgement by filing bankruptcy.

Lucien was intentionally misquoted the law throughout this whole procedure. He was told that he would be at risk of not being discharged because he had committed fraud, when Mr. Turner knew and was fully aware that it was not true (see ex. #15). Letters from Turner saying Lucien was protected.  His specialty is bankruptcy in fact his partner who represented me at the sham of a trial is a referee in bankruptcy (Attorney William Babin. Attorney Emile Turner Jr. knew from his discovery that the loan was approved strictly on the influence of the Director for a client in order to make a fee and receive a lucrative contract (see ex. #4).

There was no way for Lucien to have known of these atrocity committed by these professional experts in Law, until it was pointed out by another professional Attorney.

Banks Attorney was present at all depositions and never disputed or corrected any of the incriminating, true and factual testimony against them.  Now they plead to the court that these things never happened despite the evidence, and the court erroneously concurred (ex. Judgments and Opinions). Bank never signed any contracts or agreements. All was signed by unauthorized non-banking people and falsely notarized as being so.

(See Loan Agreement, ex. #7)

LA. CC Article 1835-1836 (Exhibit #16) authentic act full proof of agreement unless proven a forgery.  This was proven from the beginning but ignored by Lawyers on both sides during the first deposition. Both Attorneys on each side knew that the Director was inside dealing duel representation (see ex. #6-7), and forged contracts etc. Dupree, (see ex. # 5) Gardner and Mitchell's Deposition (Exhibit # 17).

Banks Attorneys was involved in a case of similar nature at the same time this case was in the courts, same defenses, extension of terms of debt. Debts not legally contracted (ex. #18-see laws-CNB Bank v. Pipe Sales).

Art. 3063- extension of time without consent of surety. The prolongation of the terms granted to the principal debtor without the consent of the surety, operates a discharge of the latter.

Pipe sales of Shreveport # 23619-CA second circuit court of Appeal.

they were well aware of the laws governing these types of guarantees, but continued to  wrongfully  pursue  this  judgement with total disregard  for the legal rights, common  decency, and  a duty  to be truthful to the courts,  defendant, and  plaintiff  they  persist and  continues to obstruct justice by fabricating and withholding evidence.

All evidence was perjured, misleading and conflicting.

In summation this was an outright denial of due process and equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States



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.