QUESTION #1 Orleans Parish Civil Sheriff Paul Valteau is a well-respected man. How can you expect the public to believe and accept allegations you have made against him?

ANSWER #1. Aside from facts and evidence in my possession, it is not rocket science that something is amiss about Valteau’s real estate auctions of properties such as those listed throughout this site –especially the property auctions WITH benefit of appraisal. Also, because Valteau’s practice of documenting property as being sold to the “plaintiff” really means the auction bid was placed by the debt collector attorney, Valteau’s highly questionable real estate transactions escape suspicion. [Note: Records for Valteau’s auctions ARE NOT simply records furnished on the 4th floor record room of the Civil District Court (CDC). Valteau maintains paper, as well as electronic files for properties in the Sheriff’s Department, instead of the record room.] Also, court records and transcripts from CDC case #2004-12090 discusses facts of Valteau’s courtroom tantrums, and his indifference to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1292. Moreover, public records and various facts of despicable acts by Valteau’s attorney in order to conceal Orleans Civil Sheriff activities, by the former Constable, William M. Detweiler remain to be produced via litigation. Incidently, someone told me that if my posting on November 1st about Detweiler is true, Detweiler ought to be ashamed. (More on Detweiler’s terrible behavior is forthcoming.) Also, besides the scores of court records pertaining to federal Judge Lance Africk and myself, an Internet search will confirm Africk has been asked to recuse himself from 3 different federal cases involving sheriffs; and in yet another case, Africk tossed that case and refused to give reasons for doing so. Also, to be succinct, like Paul Rumage’s removal, despite that debt collector Herschel Adcock wrote his “Rooker-Feldman” letter to Judge Africk, Adcock forum-shopped state court case 2003-14010 and brought it to Africk. Hence, the bottom line of the answer to question one is that in light of the fact that relevant court records are now approximately 10 feet high, answering this questionin an abbreviated fashion limits what can be said.

QUESTION #2: You clearly have an axe to grind with the New Orleans civil court systems. Do you honestly expect society to get your point, or take sides with you against all the prominent people you have accused? And can you succinctly state why you communicate such contempt for the New Orleans court systems?

ANSWER #2. First of all, any disdain is not confined to my personal problems. Exposure to years of heartache in people judicially exploited and railroaded, victims of one-up-manship is the driving force behind my activism. Secondly, in light of certain political elections, I imaging that certain people will never see the point. I imagine that especially people who are recipients of perks, status, cronyism; and having affinities don’t care who the victims are. Thirdly, as mentioned in my answer above, the court documents that pertain to the topics raised on my website are extensive. Therefore, a casual reader of this website, or someone who seeks to avoid diligent inquiry would apprehend the issues about the same as would someone who perceived himself as knowledgeable about the complexities of bankruptcy laws after being acquainted with TV commercials about chapter 7’s and chapter 13’s. (In fact, pre-Katrina, judging from the countless bankruptcy cases which went unconfirmed, it appears some attorneys were luring people to worthless filings.)
QUESTION # 3: What is it that you are trying to convey about cases being “removed” from state court to federal court?

ANSWER #3. In the first place, federal court is an ‘elite’ institution. It is not an any kind of controversy forum. Subject matters such as white collar crimes, federal bribery, corporations, certain constitutional and civil rights litigations are decided there. Federal court is definitely not the forum to decide the August 24, 2005 lawsuit for conversion; and not even every “federal question” claim becomes decided in federal court. For example, when the Federal Fair Debt Collection lawsuit was filed in state court, the defendant(s) had a 30-day time period for which that case could be removed to federal court, otherwise removal is untimely. Debt collection state court case 2003-14010, was removed 32 days after Detweiler’s client had been served. Adcock removed the case to Judge Africk by giving to my former attorney and filing in state court a one-paragraph notice of removal, but Adcock filed in federal court a 12-paragraph notice of removal concealing the removal to judge Africk was untimely.

When attorneys like Paul Rumage and Herschel Adcock want to obtain rulings from federal judges notoriously prejudice against minorities, not only are their forum-shopping efforts realized, but on its face, the removal was statutorily prohibited and therefore not lawfully before federal court. Yet, unlawful removal of cases are not only easy to accomplish, upon arrival to federal court judges like McNamara and Africk ignore established laws and deny Motions For Remand. The Remand Motion exhibited on this website contains res ipsa loquitur proof that Judge McNamara had no authority over the conversion lawsuit. Furthermore the facts, exhibits, and documents posted on this website –and contained in the court records overwhelmingly proves that Clerk of Court Dale Atkins: (1) not only deliberately selected Judge Medley for the 7 months delay while things were being worked out to bring the case to McNamara, (2) Atkins continued to retain filing fees and file pleading into the record; and (3) Atkins herself filed pleadings that Atkins received signed orders from former Judge Gill-Jefferson despite that the conversion case was no longer in state court, so to avert discovery that Judge McNamara had already begun issuing rulings for that case in federal court. Emphatically, under the circumstances the conversion lawsuit unlawfully arrived in federal court, removal statutes unequivocally dictate automatic remand of that case to state court, but McNamara ignored the law. There is much more to this removal issue, as obvious from the exhibits and pleadings shown on this site, notwithstanding the other pleadings contained in the court record.