**The following statement was written long before it became irrefutably proven that Judge Porteous was committing unethical acts.

==========================================================================
At the conclusion of this essay is my personal note to Judge Thomas Porteous. But certain other things need to be said now. For people who think they have a grasp on my personality, I imagine this posting will discompose their theories. (Then, again the forthcoming picture of myself might prove befuddling.) I really am striving to get better at brevity, so here goes.

Posted October 31st is my opposition to the dismissal of federal Judge McNamara, which contains my arguments why I believe the “certification” that was provided for Judge McNamara should not serve to remove the judge from accountability, because Judge McNamara acted unlawfully without jurisdiction over my state court conversion lawsuit.

Certifying a person’s action is in the scope of employment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§2679(d), enables the person to be defended and represented by the United States of America. For Judge McNamara, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten’s office became the substituted United States Defendant. Among other things, the unjust disadvantage of what occurred for Judge McNamara is that this certification that was supplied for Judge McNamara did not derive from a neutral party, rather Judge McNamara’s legal counsel of record, the U.S. Attorney! Also glaring is the fact that U.S. Attorney’s office did not “certify” and substitute the USA for federal Judges Lance Africk and Douglas Dodd, and file dismissal motions for them too. But only for the prima facie constitutional wrongs of Judge McNamara was 28 U.S.C.§2679 conveniently and with partiality implemented by the insiders. To be clear, Africk and Dodd are represented by Mr. Letten’s office. However, no substitution, nor dismissal pursuit has become filed to detach those 2 judges from answerability like McNamara.

As it pertains to Judge Porteous –who is just as much a federal judge as McNamara, Africk, and Dodd, Mr. Letten’s office is not representing Judge Porteous. Although Judge Porteous needed to file bankruptcy, his private attorney is Kyle Schonekas. Moreover, if for my state court conversion lawsuit federal Judge McNamara was acting in the scope of his employment, it is clear that Judge Porteous was acting just as much in the scope of his employment when Judge Porteous adjudicated the hospital case in his courtroom. The statutory theory that was applied for Judge McNamara ought to apply for the judge who exhibits the greater need, and the greater statutory basis.
By the same token, scope and course of employment is often subjective or biased. THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS IS NOT APPLIED TO ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. Application of 28 U.S.C.§2671 et seq., doesn’t happen for federal employees who commit on the clock violence. And postal drivers normally don’t receive federal tort representation upon being personally sued for injuring people with postal vehicles.

I hasten to add that I have never become acquainted with Judge Porteous except through media stories. I came close to knowing him because after the Caddo federal Judge ordered my racketeering case to be transferred to New Orleans, that RICO case initially was allotted to him.

Also, contrary to the LR3.1 statement, that was filed July 20, 2006 by assistant United States Attorney Stevens E. Moore which misleadingly and incorrectly states that prior to my suing Judge McNamara for prima facie violation of my civil rights, “two previous civil cases were handled by Judge McNamara” but now transferred to Judge Englehardt. (I had never even seen, nor do I think I ever heard of Judge McNamara prior to Paul Rumage and Dale Atkins 7-month scheme to get the conversion case to McNamara after I was displaced due to Katrina.) Statements like Mr. Moore’s are commonplace throughout the court records.

It doesn’t seem to matter that things can clearly be refuted. Attorney Brett Furr’s words my controversy has “gone all the way up to the supreme court,” is not only not an unintelligent and non-information way for a lawyer to communicate, it is misleading because he knows a person’s application to the supreme court of Louisiana for a supervisory writ and the denial thereof, provides no review of the lower court’s action, but simply the writ was declined. The only information statement a person can make when he wants to convey some substantive action was take in appellate is to provide information whether or not an appeal had been filed at which time both parties’ brief were considered by the higher court. For that matter, when I lived in New Orleans, I would go all the way up to the supreme court on Royal Street weekly –researching in the library. (Furr also has an obfuscation about why this current matter has passed through the courts of multiple judges.)

Regarding the cases now before Judge Kurt Englehart, the facts go like this: My pre-Katrina lawsuit for conversion was filed in state court. Unbeknownst to me, while I am yet displaced here in Shreveport, around March 17, 2006, attorney Paul Rumage –aided by Clerk of Court Dale Atkins, groundlessly removed the STATE court conversion lawsuit to FEDERAL Judge McNamara. My April 5, 2006 RICO lawsuit filed in Shreveport, was transferred to New Orleans and allotted to Judge Porteous. Because Judge Porteous is out on leave, the RICO lawsuit became allotted to Judge Stan Duval. Judge Duval even conducted a status conference. When I traveled to New Orleans, on May 2, 2006, I discovered that despite that State Court Clerk of Court Dale Atkins had kept my filing fees and docketed the amended conversion petition I had sent March 27, 2006 via FedEx delivery, the conversion lawsuit was being adjudicated by Judge McNamara in federal court. I believe the proof that Atkins was intentionally fraudulent is evident by her lodging into the record and retaining my filing fees to make it appear my case was still in state court since I live 6 hours away from New Orleans, and I would not have discovered the removal had I not made a surprise visit. Additionally, Atkins personally filed other pleadings, Atkins obtained Judge Gill-Jefferson’s signed orders up until the date of May 1, 2006; and I even received an order to appear on May 26, 2006 for a Show Cause hearing on Gill-Jefferson’s court for the conversion lawsuit all the while McNamara had the case in federal court. The unwarranted removal of the conversion case created the effect of Judge McNamara’s court having the lower case number. But actually the true lower court number is the case that was allotted to Judge Duval, and that case legitimately arrived at the Eastern District Court.
Hence, had Paul Rumage not groundlessly removed the conversion suit to McNamara, the RICCO lawsuit would have remained with Judge Duval. Therefore, there would have been no basis to transfer the Judge Duval case either to Judge Englehart or Judge McNamara. Now, judging from the fact that my opponents, as well as myself have filed numerous motions which remain pending before Judge Englehart, perhaps expectations of Judge Porteous’ return from medical leave, or Judge Englehart’s docket overload made it more expeditious to turn over these controversies to Judge Porteous. Still, with recent news of Judge Porteous’ need for additional leave, that can’t happen.
ON A DIFFERENT NOTE

As it pertains to questions of I intend to post answers, answers are coming. But time constraints and various things get in the way. Also, I have intentionally paused because of certain activity in viewing this site. I like that searches are being made on my site regarding property addresses or something like that. I don’t like searches being made for legal questions or advice.

It is not my intention to dispense legal advise. Although the nature of what I am broadcasting results in dispensing legal information, advice and information are not the same. In order to lend credibility to what I am saying, I provide references. I have never been to law school and I am grateful for knowledge I acquire –not for purposes of tooting my horn, but for prosecuting my claims and in hopes of bringing to light some awful wrongs, and social problems. But some people who search this site appear to be seeking to not want to do their own lawyer research. I get too many questions about removed lawsuits and oppositions. I am amazed that inquiries are not made to the federal removal statutes; and inquiries on my website pertaining to the executory process pales in comparison to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. My site is more for social advocacy. Because I am a proper person litigant, citations and authorities are essential to the argument I wish to make to the court. But it’s my argument and conviction and interpretation; and I could possibly be in error sometimes. Incidently, I believe television court is indicative of the fact that many person do not trust judges and lawyers –unless what is things are carried out in the open. And, I feel certain that if I did not have formidable facts on this website, the pervasive Louisiana quid pro quo corrupt judicial bunch would have by now destroyed me in every way possible.

I don’t have a need to bring down my adversaries. I do have a need, and a motivation to expose and make those extremely uncomfortable who not only habitually abuse their positions of public trust, but are smug –without remorse and continuation in their practices.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SPECIAL NOTE TO JUDGE PORTEOUS: Unlike things that I know and can prove, I know nothing about you, except what I read. The bottom line of what I understand is your cherished wife passed. I am so sorry. I also understand that you have a son who practices law. I imagine things concerning you also affect him; and you suffered Katrina damage to your home. (I lost everything.) It is also my understanding that you still need emotional healing time. (I can relate. I wish I could have stayed away from Poydras Street to emotionally heal from my domestic matters. Instead, I had to keep toling, even though justice for me was not even possible. Judge Africk traumatized me so badly, I went to the bathroom on myself as I was leaving his chambers.) I can imagine that you might be offended by something I have written regarding some of your colleagues or others in the legal arena. I can do nothing other than tell what happened. Nevertheless, I think of you; and have for quite some time as I read about you. I hope you don’t feel kicked when you’re down. If you do, I’ve felt that way, and it gets better. (I grew up in foster homes; was a teenage parent; used to live in a housing project; but while I lived in the project, my favorite book to read was dictionaries. I have come a long way, but I have still have far to go.) Besides, the ONE with everlasting love took your wife to rest. (My spouse abused me, and repeatedly broke my heart, but God strengthens.) I don’t doubt that you have wonderful memories to cherish, as you grow stronger in wisdom and in spirit. Judge Porteous, I hope you were not, or that you will not, be an unscrupulous judge whenever you return. Lastly, I hope I comfort you to know that, irrespective of my personal circumstances, here is my heartfelt outreach to you at this time of difficulty and sorrow. Please be encouraged. I shall continue praying for you.