Today I received a copy of a “Petition for Mandamus” that was filed on April 12, 2007 by Baton Rouge attorney Brett P. Furr on behalf of his plaintiff, “Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation” (FREDDIE MAC). The petition states it was filed after being denied a cancellation request by the Recorder of Mortgages. The petition names myself and New Orleans Recorder of Mortgages, Desiree M. Charbonnet (now an elected criminal court judge) as defendants. Furr is asking state court Judge Piper Griffin, pursuant to La.CCP.art 3753, to order Recorder Charbonnet to cancel my September 2003 Notice of Lis Pendens. *More about Freddie Mac and ‘flipping’ below.

Article 3753 does allow any interested party to request cancellation, but article 3753 instructs the requesting party to the specific court which rendered the judgment as possibly having reason to grant a cancellation.  In this particular instance, the pertinent court was federal and the year would have been 2004, as my Lis Pendens Notice was filed way back on September 2003.  Also, for MORE THAN A YEAR, and even now litigation between myself and Furr’s clients continues. Thus, Furr could have long ago sought cancellation, including when he filed his obfuscated counterclaim within my RICO lawsuit.

Also, according to the Petition for Mandamus, the basis of authority to seek cancellation occurred my federal appeal of Africk’s ruling was dismissed. (As manifest in the statements contained in my Application For Writ of Review filed in State Court, IT WAS GROSS UNFAIRNESS AND UNFOUNDED FOR THE FEDERAL 5TH CIRCUIT TO DISMISS THAT APPEAL.)
And article 3753 provides for cost assessment on the one hand, but but the article is contradictory. HOWEVER, the thrust of the Petition for Mandamus most likely has little to do with article 3753, and likely everything to do with coverups and averting a malpractice action. AT FIRST GLANCE, it is glaringly suspicious why there has been such lengthy delay in exercising any rights pursuant to article 3753. Furthermore, the purpose of my September 2003 Lis Pendens –prevention of alienating and encumbering property– failed to have any affect on Mr. Furr’s client because on May 19, 2005, they did in fact encumber and alienate the subject property of my Lis Pendens.
My Lis Pendens for case 03-14010 is because in September 2002 debt collector Herschel Adcock used GE Capital Mortgage Service’s identity to fraudulent take my property at 4968 Lurline Street. (Adcock then untimely removed the 03-14010 case to federal court Judge Lance Africk. Adcock concealed the untimeliness by giving to Jackson’s former attorney, John Gaharan and filing in State Court a 1-paragraph removal notice omitting dates of service of process, but filing in Federal Court a 12-paragraph notice of removal. Then after achieving dismissal of deputy sheriff Rondeno from that case, judge Lloyd’s Medley’s injunction denial was used to declare my case res judicata. *See info about Medley’s in the 01/20/07 posting of my Application for Writ of Review)

I have and continue to maintain that within meaning of Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 681, when Adcock filed the September 2002 foreclosure case for Lurline Street, GE Capital Mortgage Services did not have any actual interest to foreclose on 4968 Lurline Street. Additionally, 2 years after filing my Lis Pendens, at a hearing before Judge Walter Kollin, attorney Paul Rumage admitted that Wells Fargo was holder of the note for 4968 Lurline Street.

Likely Adcock’s intentional fraud prevented Adcock from attempting cancellation of the Lis Pendens. Instead, 18 months later, Adcock somehow accomplished a non-public, “simulated” sale of 4968 Lurline Street. Under Louisiana foreclosure statutes, it is required that the public must have the right to bid at seized property auctions, otherwise the sale is private. Not only was Jackson oblivious of the purported sale until after it was allegedly accomplished, bidders other than Adcock’s ally were hindered from bidding on the property due to the recorded lis pendens. For that key reason, PRIOR TO property sales, cancellation of lis pendens is sought to ensure opportunities for public bids.

Had the office of the Recorder of Mortgages accommodated Brett Furr’s unlawful, behind-my-back request and cancelled my Lis Pendens, there would not be Furr’s formal petition to Judge Griffin. Thank Heavens, the Recorder’s Office knows and applies rules and laws! I shall file my formal opposition to Furr’s mandamus petition, but in the meantime, here are some fast facts about what makes Furr’s cancellation and the mandamus request preposterous:

Contrary to ongoing falsehoods, GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., WAS NOT the successful bidder at a May 19, 2005 purported auction of 4968 Lurline Street, due to the fact that GE Capital had ceased to exist on October 25, 2002. In fact, under the “Corporation” section of The Louisiana Secretary Of State website, the State Secretary shows GE Capital “merged” with GE Mortgage Services, LLC. Thus, in the exact regard as people no longer say D H Holmes, but rather Dillard’s Department Store, it is common knowledge that when a corporation merges, it no longer retains its former name. In fact, the SOS website also informs of the name change, showing the obvious that, name of GE Capital Mortgage Services ceased LONG before Freddie Mac pretended to purchase my property in year 2005 from GE Capital! (GE Capital here is being shortened for GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc.)

Even with some semblance of a bill of sale would surface, a reasonable mind would expect the bill of sale to at least purport the name of GE Mortgage Services, LLC, and not GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. In light of the manifest non-existence of the GE Capital Mortgage Services with whom my 1993 originally purchased property from AmSouth was in 1999 refinanced, Brett Furr is ridiculous and pointless to have told me there remains GE Capital’s nationwide. However, apparently via ex parte talk with various judges, Furr must have implanted his either stupid or inapt words about GE Capital’s continued existence. (I say ex parte because there was never any such documentation in the records until this contrived Mandamus Petition, to even suggest any existence of defunct GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. More importantly, in light of the SOS’s data –as well as various prima facie facts, how silly must have been such conversations to pull off getting people to believe defunct GE Capital was not defunct.

More illustration: The fact that CT Corporation Systems has multiple “agents for service of process” and multiple address locations is a clear indication that conducting business with one CT Corporation is not the same as conducting business with all. Or, the fact that there is aToyota of Ruston, a Toyota of Jefferson, a Toyota of New Orleans, and so on, gives a reasonable mind some clue type of that the companies with name similarities doesn’t mean they are the same.

Even further illustrating the absurdity about perpetrating GE Capital’s existence would be like saying because there are nationwide McDonald’s fast food restaurants, that if a McDonald’s in Hattisburg, Mississippi becomes defunct, a person should deduce that an existing McDonald franchise in Waco, Texas conducts the affairs of the defunct.

Wherefore, whatever and whomever is behind the ‘identity theft’ use of GE Capital Mortgage Services’ name and is purported to have accomplished buying and selling my property in year 2005, cannot possibly be the same GE Capital Mortgage Services which was once holder of the note for my property, but sold the note to Wells Fargo, and then on October 2002 became defunct due to being merged into GE Mortgage Services, LLC.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the bona fide merger and name change occurred at the exact time that GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc., ceased to exist, IS IT NOT GLARINGLY OBVIOUS THAT DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE PURPORTED year 2005 PURCHASE AND SALE OF 4968 LURLINE STREET SHOULD CONSIST OF THE MERGED NAME of GE Mortgage Services, LLC, rather than a GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. name? AND WOULD IT NOT BE GLARINGLY EVIDENT THOSE PAPERS WERE INTENTIONALLY FIXED WITH GE CAPITAL’S NAME IN ORDER TO CONCEAL ADCOCK’S 2002 FORECLOSURE FRAUD THROUGH USE OF GE CAPITAL’S IDENTITY? Not only does the furnished concocted documentation for Lurline Street not make sense and are deceptive, preponderance of proof to corroborate that stark reality has neither been tested nor allowed in any court of law, but rather, biased court rulings and distorted papers have led to the concealment of White Collar crime.

Not only posted on this website, but to the courts I provided documents –including court transcript testimony from attorney Rumage about Wells Fargo being the holder of the note, thus overwhelmingly proving that –pursuant to La.C.C.P.art 681– AT THE LEAST, for any foreclosure of 4968 Lurline Street, Adcock’s year 2002 plaintiff should have been Wells Fargo. No other entity could have possibly had any right of action.

Yet, to circumvent this reality, deceivers insist that Wells Fargo was the “servicer” for GE Capital and therefore, the foreclosure plaintiff name is insignificant. But to the contrary, because when in February 2002 Wells Fargo’s purchase of the note resulted in Wells Fargo ceasing to “service” that note for GE Capital, it is glaringly obvious that Adcock’s foreclosure of 4968 Lurline Street naming GE Capital as the plaintiff was, has always been null because GE Capital had no right of action! (*Also see my 04/11/07 posting below with research data from the www.msfraud.org website about DECEPTIVE TACTICS OF MORTGAGES SERVICERS!) Another glaring reality which shows Wells Fargo and GE Capital are not the same entity, is that from the September 2002 timeframe of Adcock’s foreclosure, up to the May 2005 purported auction of Lurline Street, attorneys Adcock, Rumage, and Sherrill Davidson have differentiated Wells Fargo and GE Capital. Further, in year 2004 Judge Africk even issued rulings separate each for GE Capital and for Wells Fargo. MOREOVER, manifestly because Wells Fargo possessed ownership of the note, at the very least, in a lawful foreclosure, Wells Fargo would be required to file a motion to “substitute” itself so that foreclosure could be carried out through the party having actual interest in the matter.

One might ask, what is the point of making distinction if / when a borrower defaults on his or her mortgage payments? The crucial point of all this is that, because Wells Fargo failed to “perfect” its lien, it rendered Wells an “unsecured creditor,” which could allow a debtor in situations like mine “avoidance” rights regarding Wells Fargo’s “unperfected” security lien, through my Bankruptcy case.

The other significance is the fact of apparent malfeasance surrounding replacing and altering a “mortgage certificate” pertaining to 4968 Lurline Street. Succinctly, a mortgage certificate lists debts and liens on property, and affects distribution of proceeds from the sale of property. Especially, due to lack of perfecting its lien, a mortgage creditor fails to have superior ranking as it relates to the proceeds obtained from a property sale. Therefore, the mortgage certificate listing that portrays Barbara Jackson as owing “Luckmore Finance” means that money from the sale of the Lurline property should have been shared with Luckmore. But, someone replaced that mortgage certificate and eliminated Luckmore altogether. For sure, creation of that subsequent mortgage certificate was not lawful! I secured a copy of both certificates as well as other papers which substantiate my RICO lawsuit and why I believe Sheriff Valteau and others are engaged real estate and mortgage fraud. But the swift dismissal of my RICO lawsuit prevents the truth and evidence from surfacing. **But even all of the foregoing does not tell the whole story as to why this controversy continues, and issues affecting litigations could be thwarted if I made public what I have been keeping quiet –which will soon be revealed. (Perhaps then persons who oversimplify this controversy might have an epiphany, but then again, this is Louisiana. . .)

Moving along, here are poignant reasons why Furr’s mandamus petition and pursuit to cancel my Lis Pendens is unfounded and abusive –which may be why the Office of the Recorder of Mortgages did not consent to allowing its office to be used for some possible scam:

FIRST of all, expressly stated in my September 2003 Notice of Lis Pendens are names of the parties. Freddie Mac is not, was not a party to that Lis Pendens. Thus, Freddie Mac really has no true standing to seek cancellation of my Lis Pendens. Also, particularly in light of the fact that the Lis Pendens did not prevent the purported auction of May 19, 2005, a different motive appears to be underlying the Mandamus Petition.

SECONDLY, as indicated, the purpose of my Lis Pendens was so that during the pendency of my causes of action for Deceptive and Unfair Debt Collection Practices the property could not be alienated nor encumbered. At this point, in light of fact that on May 19, 2005, via use of GE Capital, Adcock accomplished purchasing my property at the simulated Sheriff’s auction, and latert a concocted sale was reported to have occurred in July 2005 between non-existent GE Capital and Freddie Mac, now in year 2007, to seek cancellation of the Lis Pendens is about as pointless as if someone would seek to cancel Luckmore’s lien from the mortgage certificate. *Incidently, that Luckmore debt is not mine. I had not even become Barbara “Jackson” when that debt was created! Thus, frauds associated with creating a different mortgage certificate was for naught. Also, I have heard that in Louisiana, not only is this kind of debt attributed to people regardless of whether they are owed, people need a lawyer to obtain mortgage certificate corrections.

Due to the fact that the purported sale took place despite my lis pendens, it is almost moot for Brett Furr and Freddie Mac to seek cancellation after encumbrance and alienation of the Lurline property. Also, my Lis Pendens did not end with rulings from Judge Lance Africk. Instead because case number 04-12090 was the extension of case 03-14010, the Lis Pendens arguably remained effectual up until the final ruling from the Louisiana Supreme Court denying my application for Writ of Review (see that application posted 01/20/07 below), wherein I show the extended cases.

THIRDLY and most SIGNIFICANTLY, because Lis Pendens informs prospective bidders the title was encumbered, the longstanding failure to seek cancellation of the Lis Pendens PRIOR TO the purported May 19, 2005 auction was an deliberate impediment to any public auction bid for the Lurline Street property. Therefore, the sale WAS NOT a public sale, it violates executory process statutes, and it is grounds to annul that so-called sale.

Also, because the “successful” and sole auction bidder was not the holder of the 4968 Lurline Street note, under Louisiana law, the purported sale of 4968 Lurline is deemed a 3rd-party purchase. Thus, the “purchaser” was required to pay costs in full within 30 days, but such did not occur. I have evidence to show that Sheriff Valteau sent billing invoices to Herschel Adcock –not to GE Capital, and well beyond the 30-day period requisite for a valid sale.

Moreover, in light of the irrefutable fact that on March 31, 2005 when Wells Fargo’s other attorney, Paul Rumage, told the court that Wells Fargo was owner of the note, it is self-evident that at the least, there should have been a motion to substitute plaintiff GE Capital to reflect Wells Fargo for accomplishing a lawful foreclosure. However, there can be no such motion to substitute a plaintiff when the initial plaintiff lacked standing and the lawsuit was commenced in violation of La.CCP. art.681. Precisely, a lawsuit cannot even proceed when the lawsuit becomes commenced by an entity which lacks real and actual interest.

Furthermore, not only did Mr. Rumage’s court testimony confirm that GE Capital had no right of action to foreclose on 4968 Lurline Street, various court pleadings filed by Mr. Adcock also confirm that Wells Fargo held the security interest for the Lurline Street property. Also, documentation from Wells Fargo says that on February 2002, Wells Fargo became OWNER of the promissory note for 4968 Lurline Street. To reiterate, Wells Fargo CEASED TO BE GE Capital’s “SERVICER”! Therefore, overwhelming proof and documents manifests the deception carried by Adcock. But even if that’s not enough, the fact of this April 2007 mandamus pleading filed by attorney Brett Furr and Freddie Mac illustrate that things are amiss. Helen Keller would know that because 2 encumbrances - alienations of the Lurline property have already happened, Freddie Mac has no fundamental standing to seek cancellation of my Lis Pendens for which Freddie Mac was not a party to the case upon which the Lis Pendens was filed.

Moreover, the April 2007 Petition for Mandamus is frivolous due to the fact that cancellation of my Notice of Lis Pendens to prevent alienation and encumbrance should have been sought prior to the purported May 18, 2005 auction through Adcock obtained ownership of my property and passed it on to Freddie Mac! To seek cancellation at this juncture only serves to demonstrate yet another prima facie fact, to be revealed in a SAFE, open to the public trial, that specific persons are undeniably engaged in utilizing judicial proceedings to accomplish fraudulent activities.

FURTHER, IN THE SAME REGARD AS THE VERY RECENT HOLDING BY THE FEDERAL 5TH CIRCUIT which ruled that THE $1.2 million LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED in 1999 BY New Orleans WHITE FIREFIGHTERS was not required to comply with Louisiana’s one-year Statute of Limitations because the firemen’s timeframe to file their lawsuit derived after testimony from former superintendent William McCrossen, I am likewise asserting that the statute of limitation for which I am allowed to bring my April 5, 2006 RICO lawsuit naming CT Corporation System for its association-in-fact pretext of being registered agent for defunct GE Capital, DID NOT CONCLUDE when Judge Africk rendered judgment in September 2004, but the timeframe to sue CT Corporation did not begin until after the 2005 testimony of PAUL RUMAGE which became finalized with Judge Kollin’s April 21, 2005 ruling.

Moreover, success of Furr’s mandamus request will aid concealing facts surrounding CT Corporation, as well as conceal the nullity of Adcock’s foreclosure via GE Capital’s identity. For all such reasons, Freddie Mac has sincere basis for seeking cancellation of my September 2003 Notice of Lis Pendens. I will bring counterclaims against Furr and Freddie Mac for damages from their deceptive acts and practices.

**A search on the Internet for Freddie Mac using terms such as fine, the SE, illegal campaign contributions, and so, will provide a plethora of information about Freddie Mac’s dealings. Also, on this site is my July 2, 2006 posting of an article I obtained permission to reprint; click here for “Freddie Mac, fraud & illegal “Mortgage Flipping”

**A search on the Internet for Freddie Mac using terms such as fine, the SE, illegal campaign contributions, and so, will provide a plethora of information about Freddie Mac’s dealings. Also, on this site is my July 2, 2006 posting of an article I obtained permission to reprint; click here for “Freddie Mac, fraud & illegal “Mortgage Flipping”In a nutshell, the pursuit to cancel my Lis Pendens glaringly elucidates the fact that because the simulated sale of 4968 Lurline Street was not open to the public, the purported sale of 4968 Lurline Street WAS NOT LAWFUL WITHIN MEANING OF Louisiana’s executory process! Put plainly, when the public is precluded from bidding on foreclosed property, yet in a delusory manner the (alleged) mortgage creditor, (for Lurline Street was actually Herschel Adcock) becomes said to be the successful bidder on the foreclosed property, the sale is a private sale -regardless of being advertised in the newspaper- and therefore not a lawful foreclosure auction.
Further, the Freddie Mac / Furr Petition for Mandamus is stark evidence of Freddie Mac and Furr’s plot to deceive and use the court system for their scam, as well as intentionally cause deprivation of substantive Due Process rights. Had the Recorder’s Office not hampered their ongoing Louisiana mortgage fraud scheme, Freddie Mac’s and its agents would have achieved another “flipped” property.

Also, even more egregious and galling of Brett Furr is that he included a demand for the judge to order me to pay legal costs associated with the filing of his ill-timed Mandamus Petition. On a different occasion, allegedly on behalf of Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, Mr. Furr’s obfuscating counterclaim he filed in my RICO lawsuit missed a chance to avoid malpractice, even if he faces no consequences from his clients. (Below, on this website, see my 11/1/06 posting of the essay “ANATOMY OF IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE and TYRANNY -Why A Novel Watchdog For New Orleans Corruption Might Not Work,” which discusses attorney Brett Furr’s arrogance and ignorance. In addition to describing Furr’s actions, I wrote Furr should be sued by his client for malpractice. Also, that essay includes the fact that I telephoned him and other defendants in an attempt to resolve the RICO litigation!! Only the Payne Law Firm defendant was receptive, and we jointly filed to dismiss Payne from the RICO case.) The fact that even prior to Adcock’s May 19, 2005 simulated purchase of Lurline Street 18 months had lapsed, which shows a ball or two was dropped long ago. Moreover, the laggard waiting to seek Lis Pendens cancellation after all this time is indicative that the Lis Pendens caused no impairment to Furr’s client. However, dawdling on that cancellation operated in preventing public bids on the Lurline Street property. (As mentioned, not even I knew of the purported sale until after it allegedly occurred.)
I think this Mandamus Petition is also some attempt at damage control for not having attempted to [illegally] obtain title clearance of my property long ago. But there is an even more concrete reason why Furr should be sued for malpractice. I cannot tell that reason now in light of this stage of my litigation, but it is big! In fact, while the defendants might have thought Judge Englehardt’s rulings would put an end to this battle, as will soon be shown, that big mistake will keep this controversy alive for quite some time, and unless cover ups are good, criminal indictments should ensue.

On a different occasion, allegedly on behalf of Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, Mr. Furr’s obfuscating counterclaim he filed in my RICO lawsuit missed a chance to avoid malpractice, even if he faces no consequences from his clients. (Below, on this website, see my 11/1/06 posting of the essay “ANATOMY OF IGNORANCE, ARROGANCE and TYRANNY -Why A Novel Watchdog For New Orleans Corruption Might Not Work,” which discusses attorney Brett Furr’s arrogance and ignorance. In addition to describing Furr’s actions, I wrote Furr should be sued by his client for malpractice. Also, that essay includes the fact that I telephoned him and other defendants in an attempt to resolve the RICO litigation!! Only the Payne Law Firm defendant was receptive, and we jointly filed to dismiss Payne from the RICO case.) The fact that 18 months had lapsed, which shows a ball or two was dropped long ago. Moreover, the laggard waiting to seek Lis Pendens cancellation after all this time is indicative that the Lis Pendens caused no impairment to Furr’s client. However, dawdling on that cancellation operated in preventing public bids on the Lurline Street property. (As mentioned, not even I knew of the purported sale until after it allegedly occurred.)I think this Mandamus Petition is also some attempt at damage control for not having attempted to [illegally] obtain title clearance of my property long ago. I cannot tell that reason now in light of this stage of my litigation, but it is big! In fact, while the defendants might have thought Judge Englehardt’s rulings would put an end to this battle, as will soon be shown, that big mistake will keep this controversy alive for quite some time, and unless cover ups are good, criminal indictments should ensue.There was a time when the filing of a lawsuit entailed adversaries discussing the issues to achieve a speedy resolution. Back in those days, a lawyer’s chief concern was to limit his client’s litigation costs. It is my opinion and the opinion of many people who visit this website, that I have proven and raised some issues of which my opponents would have benefitted from considering. Instead, it seems more and more clear that this controversy was milked by certain attorneys for all moneys to be gotten, as well as for ego mania purposes of one-up-manship over me for having courage and tenacity. As such, I have no doubt that the axiom is true: wrong motives do lead to wrong results, and the truth will out –just ask former ENRON’s Kenneth Lay.