cala_logo
title

Home

JOIN US TODAY

THE WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH


FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
AND
DEPOSIT GUARANTY
NATIONAL BANK

"VIOLATED"

Federal, State and Banking Regulations, Committed Fraud, Lied, Misrepresentation of Facts, Falsified Documents, Intimidation, Obstruction of Justice, Gross Fraud and Deception on the court. Betrayal of Public Trust and Client Loyalty to Blacks, Poor Minority Customers and Citizens.   Refuse to correct and report  these unlawful violations and deception to the tribunal as required by Law in violation of a duty to be truthful.

(Click  on  Proof)


"In the United States," Eaton concluded, "every person, no matter how unsavory, is entitled to due process of law and fair trial. The defendant received neither. The validity of the verdict in this case rests upon the testimony of an admitted perjurer who had every reason to fabricate a story which he hoped would be believed. The courts of this country should not tolerate the deprivation of life or liberty under such circumstances...The judgement and sentence cannot stand.

James Kilpatrick


Attorney Joann Gines
Shreveport, LA

November 13, 1996
RE:  VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 (FREE SPEECH)

Dear Ms. Gines:

         This letter is to advise that I have met with Mr. Robert Lucien, Sr. regarding his legal matters relating to Commercial National Bank of Shreveport. I am writing to convey my thoughts.

          First,  I must applaud your tenacity in this matter.  It appears,  however, that you have been subjected to a great deal of stress and/or intimidation in this matter. I send this letter as  a courtesy.

          Secondly, I have reviewed your Petition for Nullity of Judgment, Legal Malpractice and Damages filed on September 3, 1993. It is my understanding that summary judgment was rendered in favor of all defendants. It is my understanding that you appealed the summary judgment decision and order of Judge Crichton dated March 11, 1994  and that judgment was affirmed.

           Thirdly, I understand that you are currently before the Court of Appeals regarding a subsequent grant of summary judgment in this matter. From my understanding, there was a ruling on a motion for summary judgment filed by Emile Turner Jr., et al.   in case number 392,  583 in the First Judicial District Court.  It is my understanding that this matter has not been fully briefed. With respect to this matter, it is my conclusion that you should immediately do the following:

             (a)   File an affidavit with the court requesting additional time to respond to this appeal. You should cite in your affidavit the threats and intimidation you were under as it relates to your representation in this case. You should further relate to the footnote " 1"  in the judge Crichton decision.  The Court of Appeals needs to be fully aware of Judge Crichton's letter to the Board of Attorney's for Disciplinary Review against you;

           (b)  The affidavit should contain the relationship between Judge Crichton and  Mr. Miciotto;

           (c)   The court of Appeals should be completely aware of the underlying facts in the Succession of James Burris and the interrelationship of Miciotto and Judge Crichton. These matters should be placed before the Court of Appeals in an affidavit from with all documents to the Court.

          The essence of this motion should be that you were under threats of intimidation and stress in your representation of Mr. Lucien. I believe that the pending appeal and the Petition for Nullity of Judgment and Legal Malpractice were inter-related.  It appears that the court of Appeals needs to have full knowledge of the environment in which you were operating.

           I believe that the only way to seek any relief in the Court now for Mr. Lucien is that the Court of Appeals have full knowledge as to the cloud that you were under as it related to the Petition for Nullity of the Judgment and the current appeal regarding the ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Emile Turner Jr., et. al. Unless the Court of Appeals firmly understands the underlying facts in this case, there can be no relief.  This should be done, again, in affidavit form with supporting documents.

           I have also indicated to Mr. Lucien, and I will indicate to you, that I will be willing to assist you in this matter. However, it is extremely important that there be a Notice and Motion for Leave Requesting and Enlargement of Time to file appropriate papers before the Court of Appeals with an accompanying affidavit in support of the motion.

           On another note, I believe that when you were speaking out regarding how these children were being treated in the succession matter and the apparent misuse of funds by either Mr. Miciotto and/or his law firm.  The treatment of you by Judge Crichton represented improper conduct on his part. I believe the writing to the Disciplinary Board of Attorneys was, in part, a method of silencing you from speaking out.  This conduct may rise to the level of retaliatory free speech, a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.

           If it is retaliatory free speech, then you have a cause of action for damages against Crichton acting in his individuals and official capacity under color of law. Yes, he does indeed have immunity for his conduct while on the bench.  His writing to the Disciplinary Board is not conduct upon the bench, but represents his use of the power and clout of his office to punish you.  I intend to do some additional research on this matter.

           To the extent that Mr. Miciotto participated in this retaliation, he may be a person susceptible to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983.  Even though he is a private person, there is some case law where a private individuals becomes a person acting under color of state law for 42 U.S.C. 1983 purposes.  I share this with you because it is my belief that the enormous pressure placed upon you was deliberate and malicious. It may provide an additional basis for pursuing a Civil Rights claim and a forum to fully air the conduct of Judge Crichton and Mr. Miciotto.

            Again, I applaud your tenacity in this matter. I think that the Court of Appeals need to have a full and complete record before it. Remember, a summary judgment appellate review is a de novo review. It is imperative that the Court of Appeals have a full understanding as to what happened in the nullity petition and the current summary judgment filings of Emile Turner, Jr. et. al.

             If you have a desire to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me.


Home

CHILDREN STARVED DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS PEOPLE ROBBERY

Citizens Against Legal Abuse
P.O. Box 51386
New Orleans, LA 70151-1386
(504) 821-9580
E-Mail:abuse@ca-la.org
http://www.ca-la.org
Copyrightę 1998, 1999
 Citizens Against  Legal Abuse, Inc.

nav
CLEINT ATTORNEY DESTROYED

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