SUPPLEMENT To Motion To Consolidate, Time Extension, Stay Appeal, etc.

COMES NOW, Appellant / Plaintiff Barbara Ann Jackson, Pro Se, who respectfully submits this Supplement to her motion for time extension to file her appellant brief, stay appeal, and consolidate cases and fee. For authority in support of this motion, Jackson respectfully submits the following:

1 Introduction

This addendum is submitted to better explain, as well as to ask this Honorable Fifth Circuit to reconsider the purpose of Appellant Jackson’s request that this Honorable Circuit consolidate all three of Jackson’s cases which became allotted AT THE SAME TIME to district court Judge Kurt Englehardt. Further, respectfully, Jackson seeks to suggest to this Honorable Court why it should have appellate jurisdiction over Jackson’s 06-3821 case, in the same manner as this Circuit already has jurisdiction over Jackson’s consolidated appeal cases 06-1408 and 06-2435.

2 As a pivotal matter, case 06-3821 was not, nor is not a federal lawsuit. This third case was filed in State Court on July 7, 2006 under docket case number 2006-5843. To this date, Jackson’s July 7, 2006 case which became removed and assigned federal case #06-3821 it is not yet a federal subject matter lawsuit, as neither is federal case #06-1408 which also removed from state court where it was filed for CONVERSION on August 24, 2005 under state docket number 2005-11458! (The IRREFUTABLE FACTS about federal case #06-1408 not being federal case because it LACKS FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER and LACKS DIVERSITY are contained in: the (1) court transcript; and in Jackson’s (2) Motion to Remand; as well as in the prima facie LACK OF (3) proof of service on defendants as required when cases are removed from state court.)

3 On April 20, 2007, Jackson filed a Notice of Appeal stating that she was appealing: “ALL JUDGMENTS, RULINGS, AND ORDERS there were issued and rendered on March 21, 2007 and on March 22, 2007 by federal Judge Kurt Englehardt in the above-referenced cases.” Jackson listed cases number 06-1408, 06-2435, and 06-3821. Although in a subsequent notice, the Circuit clerk’s office assigned Jackson an appeal case number for only 2 cases; Jackson was not certain why the other case was excluded until she received the judgment from this Circuit dismissing her appeal for the 3rd case, 06-3821.

4 As described below, with all sincerity, Jackson seeks indulgence of this Circuit to review what took place surrounding case 06-3821 to determine if that case should be joined to this appeal TO PREVENT piecemeal litigation, undue costs, and blatant injustices. Jackson is a pro se litigant because, like most minorities, she cannot afford to pay an attorney. Moreover, her situation of being displaced due to Hurricane Katrina creates even further hardships. It is with these factors in view, Jackson herewith sets forth prima facie facts which may not have been discovered nor considered by this Honorable Fifth Circuit Appeals Court.

The Fifth Circuit Judgment Dismissal Appeal for Case #06-3821

5 Jackson had no notion that a Fifth Circuit judgment of July 12, 2007 was en route to Jackson on the day of Jackson was sending her motions via FedEx. Else, she would have made these averments in her original request to consolidate her cases. Although it appears obvious that this Honorable Court’s dismissal of Jackson’s appeal for case 06-3821 is the end of the matter, Jackson respectfully suggests that the truth reveals a different picture than what this Honorable Fifth Circuit might have been aware; and perhaps such facts leads to a different outcome that would –or as mentioned, at the least, enhance federal JUDICIAL ECONOMY especially because the #06-3821 case should not even be in federal court at all. Moreover, because it is neither fair to the federal system, nor to Jackson when gross misrepresentations to the court results in Prima Facie Injustice, this Circuit ought to have an opportunity to distance itself from any appearance of the improprieties surrounding case 06-3821.

6 Jackson expected to explain the issues of case 06-3821 in her Appeal Brief. However, with all respect to this Court, Jackson believes now is as appropriate as ever to inform this Circuit that based on statements contained in the Judgment rendered by this Circuit in its July 12, 2007 dismissal of Jackson’s appeal of that case, this Circuit received misinformation about that case to such a degree that it is extremely likely that this Circuit would not have allowed case 06-3821 to infringe upon federal judicial economy due to lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. This Circuit’s Perception Of The Cause of Action for Case #06-3821

7 According to this Circuit’s July 12, 2007 Judgment, this Circuit believes that Jackson filed a Federal Torts lawsuit, but Jackson did not. Rather, on July 7, 2006, Jackson filed in State Court lawsuit 2006-5843 which became removed to Federal Court and renamed case 06-3821 on July 20, 2007. Please see Jackson’s opposition to the United State’s substitution in place of Judge McNamara.

The Reason Case 06-3821 Was Filed Under Docket Number 2006-5843 In State Court

8 Among other things, Jackson filed the lawsuit because of Judicial Corruption and frauds that had been, (and are still) causing Jackson damages financially as well as other losses to which Jackson was entitled to damages pursuant to various Louisiana laws such as La. C.C. art. 2315; La.R.S.51:1401 et seq., and La. Civ. Code .art. 1953 et seq.

9 Further, because attorney Paul Rumage had unlawfully removed from state court the August 24, 2005 case under STATE LAW for Conversion under docket number 2005-11458 which is now federal case 06-1408, Jackson was never able to effect service of her original and amended petition for the Conversion August 24, 2005 case upon Dale Atkins and Neisha Lange. Not only did Jackson desire that the August 2005 state court case be remanded, Jackson desired not to be presided over by a judge who was injurious to her and who was deliberately unfair. Moreover, that judge, had absolutely no federal subject matter jurisdiction to even hear the August 24, 2005 case. Therefore, Jackson filed the July 7, 2006 to present her claims she for which could not receive justice from the judge presiding over case 06-1408, and he appeared to be conspiring in full lack of judicial authority.

10 The July 7, 2006 case names Atkins, Lange, Judge A.J. McNamara, and Paul Rumage as defendants. The case was removed to federal court on July 20, 2006. All parties to the July 7th case are Louisiana residents, therefore no diversity confers federal jurisdiction. Three of the defendants have been properly served with Citation and Process in full accordance with either state court laws or federal laws. Only Judge McNamara has never been served the July 7, 2006 lawsuit; and there is no waiver of service filed into the records on his behalf. Therefore, judgment rendered for or against Judge McNamara is null. Put more factually, on August 1, 2006, Judge McNamara was served, pursuant to La.C.C.P. art 1201, with a State Court Citation & Petition under State Court docket number 2006-5843. However, it is well established law that once a case has been removed to federal court, all proceedings in state court are null, and service of process under state law is of no effect after removal. (Because of danger that Jackson was certain she was in concerning Judge McNamara; and because of the well-reported improprieties in Attorney Gonzales’s Justice Department –as well as Jackson’s being displaced, Jackson believed it in her best interest to not contest what was being done.)

Parallel of Case 06-1408 and Case 06-3821

11 Under normal circumstances, case 06-3821 would be filed in a plaintiff’s amended petition. However, as an African-American pro se litigant, Jackson’s federal experiences with Judge Alma Chasez, as well as the length of time it takes to receive an answer whether or not leave to amend will granted in federal court has taught Jackson the benefit of filing a new petition to avoid statute of limitation from running out. In fact, without any just reason Jackson’s attempt to amend case 06-3821 met with opposition as the federal district clerk mailed Jackson’s amendment back to Jackson refusing to file it.

12 IF JACKSON DID NOT KNOW that the clerk was wrong, Jackson’s amendment would not have been filed and Jackson would have had even more problems obtaining the Summons Jackson requested for Paul Rumage in the 06-3821 case. Even attorney John Parra joined the band wagon to prevent Jackson’s amendment by filing his absurd opposition. As not nice as the foregoing sounds, the facts speak for themselves. Jackson’s res ipsa loquitur claims about attorney Paul Rumage’s, as well as attorney Parra’s client, Clerk of Court Dale N. Atkins’ JUDICIAL FRAUDS IN CASE 06-1408 is the reason why it was critical to prevent Jackson’s amended petition for case 06-3821; and also apparently the reason why the 06-1408 case was forum-shopped and brought to federal Judge McNamara.

13 The 06-3821 case also describes and provides the actual exhibits of Dale Atkins’ pleadings / documents that continued to be recorded in the STATE COURT record for the August 24, 2005 state case under docket 2005-11458 while at the same time that case was being done away with in Judge McNamara’s court. Put plainly, the state court case was filed 3 days prior to Katrina, and removed unbeknownst to Jackson by Rumage on March 17, 2006. UP TO THE May 1, 2006 date that Jackson made a surprise trip to New Orleans, Dale Atkins was docketing pleadings and matters into the state court record. Therefore, when Jackson telephoned to enquire about the August 2005 case, the state court docket clerks read to Jackson what was showing up on the computer system. Even further, on April 2006, despite the case had been removed since March 17, 2006, former Judge Gill-Jefferson, who abruptly left her bench, mailed Jackson a postcard notifying Jackson to attend a May 26, 2006 Rule To Show Cause Hearing. All of these actually exhibits are contained in the case record, as well as posted on Jackson’s website.

14 Inasmuch as the 06-3821 case is more accurately an appendix of case 06-1408, AND inasmuch as case 06-1408 has already been dismissed and is under appeal in this court, THE FACTS AND PROOF show that IF APPEAL CASE 06-3821 is not ripe for appellate jurisdiction, NEITHER IS case 06-1408!

15 Specifically, district court case #06-1408 was consolidated by Judge Kurt Englehardt with case #06-2435. However, Judge Englehardt’s RENDERED JUDGMENT encompasses the claims that Jackson has made against Paul Rumage, Dale Atkins, and Neisha Lange in BOTH cases 06-1408 and 06-3821. However, according to this Circuit’s recognition of the cases, claims against Atkins, Rumage, and Lange remain non-adjudicated. But because for some questionable reason, even though all 3 cases are in his court Judge Englehardt consolidated only 2 cases despite all three cases involve the same people committing continuing torts and continuing judicial frauds which generate a new cause of action against them. By consolidating those 2 cases, Judge Englehardt has virtually done away with Jackson’s claims against Atkins and Lange. Jackson had raised those claims in Jackson’s amended petition which Jackson filed in state via FedEx on March 26, 2006 in oblivion the case was removed and which Atkins kept Jackson’s $258.00 in state court filing fees for the amended petition and service. For such reasons, Jackson has asked for at least Relief In Equity, but Judge Englehardt’s edict has confused and precluded Jackson’s rights.

16 Moreover, the bottom line for case 06-1408 is that if it can indeed be established that Judge Englehardt’s ruling encompassed claims against Atkins and Lange raised in the 06-1408 lawsuit, for which service has never been made upon either Atkins or Lange due to Rumage’s removal of the case, no jurisdiction exists over them for those claims.

17 Adding further to this convoluted set of circumstances is the fact that NO SERVICE has been made upon defendant FREDDIE MAC in any of these 3 cases! The facts, the lack of service prior to Mr. Rumage’s removal is the reason why Jackson requested remand of the August 24, 2005State Law tort case for Conversion.

18 Unfortunately, there is more to this obfuscated situation because the attorneys forum-shopped to achieve unjust goals, which created these entanglements. The other aspect of Judge Englehardt’s manifest prejudicial involvement is that case 06-2435 was adjudicated by Judge Stan Duval. In fact, there is good reason to argue that Judge Duval should have decided these cases.

19 Precisely, unequivocally, Mr. Rumage should not have removed the August 24, 2005 case from state court. Further, because federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Jackson’s Motion To Remand should have been granted. In light of the fact that the August 2005 case wrongfully arrived in federal court, when case 06-2435 was transferred from Shreveport Western District Federal Court to Judge Stan Duval, it should have remained, and it did remain with Judge Duval until Jackson’s adversaries were unsuccessful in getting Judge Duval to agree to their verbal request to ban Jackson’s www.lawgrace.org website. (The 06-1408 case had been with Judg McNamara since March, the 06-2435 case was sent to Judge McNamara in late June or early July.)

The Benefit of Deciding Case 06-3821 Along With Cases 06-1408 and 06-2435

20 In view of the confusion and apparent conclusion of these cases in district court, an Appellant Brief addressing these cases and their issues would better serve judicial economy. Also, this Honorable Circuit would better be able to correlate the relevant and pertinent facts. Further, despite that this Circuit has made a judgment about case 06-3821, with the information provided here, hopefully this Court can ascertain that there is no further need for case 06-3821 to remain before Judge Englehardt; and certain issues in this controversy can be reduced and dealt with.

21 Confusing also because APPEAL FOR case 06-1408 CANNOT BE final judgment for appeal purposes regarding Lange and Atkins cannot be due to fact that LANGE AND ATKINS WERE NEVER MADE PARTIES!!! TO 1408. Thus, if Lange not party because no service made in case 1408, or even if service made after removal IS NOT THE SAME THING regarding McNamara!!! In other words, if appeal is not final for case 06-3821 because other parties remain, isn’t true that appeal is not final for case 1408 because Lang remain. And if McNamara is concluded in case 06-3821 without being served, and Lange and Atkins concluded in case 1408 without being served, how can federal jurisdiction over case 1408 with 3 defendants instead of 5, 

22 WHEREFORE, appellant Barbara Ann Jackson respectfully requests that this Honorable Fifth Circuit grant Appellant’s requests to consolidate all three cases and allow one appellant brief to be filed; and that she be allowed to consolidate the appeal fee that she has already paid.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________

Barbara Ann Jackson