**PREFACE: The New Orleans Federal Court System and Jim Letten’s Justice Department are INTERTWINED. The New Orleans Federal Court System has a CONSISTENT pattern of ruling against minorities, throwing out their cases, and refusing to allow equal access to justice.

*note: Paragraph 34 mistakenly referred to Ben Laden, but meant to say Saddam Hussein*

(HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE ABOVE PLEADING)

1 Dismissal for failure to prosecute is a harsh penalty. For Appeal Case #07-30426 dismissal is not only harsh, but unfounded. Succinctly, Appellant Barbara Jackson TIMELY availed herself of this Circuit’s provisions for requesting an extension of time in which to file her brief; and therefore prosecuted her appeal.

2 PRIOR TO the due date for an Appellant Brief, a request for an extension of time absolutely controverts an accusation the Appellant failed prosecute his / her appeal. Specifically, by 2 different methods prior to the due date for her brief, Jackson requested an extension of time in which to file her appellant brief.

3 Consistent with this Circuit’s local rules, more than 7 days prior to her due date Jackson telephoned the clerk’s office; and upon directives from the clerk, Jackson filed her motion for time extension. During the telephone conversion regarding additional time, Jackson learned of the missing transcript. Thus, Jackson needed to also prepare a Motion to Supplement the Record. Therefore, for purposes of cost efficiency Jackson took the time to prepare and send via FedEx all her pleadings.

4 Even more critical is the fact that the clerk informed Jackson that, the court prefers that time extension requests be filed as soon as possible, but as long as her request for time extension is received prior to the due date she would be afforded the same consideration as any one else. Jackson’s verbal request for time extension was on or around July 9, 2007. Jackson’s motions were shipped to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals via FedEx on July 12, 2007. The due date for Jackson’s brief was July 16, 2007. Clearly, in so doing, Jackson DID NOT fail to prosecute her appeal case.

5 Moreover, the criterion for determining AN APPELLANT’S PROSECUTION OF HER APPEAL, IS DISTINGUISHED FROM whether or not the court rules in favor of granting an extension; and neither is prosecution of one’s appeal hinged upon how successfully the time extension motion is drafted! Prior to the due date for her brief, Jackson’s request for additional time satisfied prosecution of her appeal case. Upon the filing of the applicable motion and awaiting a decision, what else can the appellant do except wait?

6 Further, contained in her briefing notice from the clerk’s office was info about extensions for briefs. And the local rules enumerate time extensions as Level 1, Level 2, and so on; and stipulations make it clear extensions are granted for good cause. On the other hand, one can surmise that the mere fact that opposing parties’ agreement to extend the time is sufficient for the court to approve a Level 1 without the court’s knowledge of what good cause existed.

7 Moreover, not merely Jackson’s asking for time extension, but the central reason being the illness and hospitalization of Jackson’s mother was CAUSED the need for more time. (In safeguarding Jackson’s mother’s right to privacy, Jackson herewith states that at this Honorable Court’s directive, she will supply reasonable proof concerning her mother.) Also, as discussed further, a different pivotal fact beyond Jackson’s control impeded Jackson.

◆The Illness and Hospitalizations of Jackson’s 80-year old Mother

14 Support for Jackson’s claim about telephoning the clerk’s office, and Jackson’s mother was ill and hospitalized is shown in the fact of Jackson’s July 30, 2007 cover letter to the 5th Circuit Clerk’s Office wherein Jackson wrote: “I appreciate the consideration you have given in light of the hospitalizations of my mother, which prevented me from coming to New Orleans today to deliver these pleadings.” The clarity of that statement was that Jackson was thanking them for help during the illness; now that her mother was better, she was sending the requested corrections. (Jackson’s mother was discharged from, and then rush again via ambulance to the hospital.)

15 Also support for Jackson’s claim that she did telephone the clerk’s office is shown in the fact of Jackson’s July 12, 2007 Motion to Supplement the Record whereby in paragraph 7 Jackson stated that after speaking to someone at the Appeals Court Jackson learned the transcript was not part of the case record.

16 The local appeal rules allowing time extension upon good cause encompasses such an illness and hospitalization. Additionally, the local rules which state that a request should be given within 7 days prior to deadline, also states that a request for extension can be “as soon as it is reasonably possible to foresee the need for the extension.” The fact that Jackson did make her request prior to 7 days via telephone and again via her written motion shows she was in compliance. Only, in her worry and preoccupation, Jackson overlooked being clear about all that was going on. But again, Jackson’s phone call as well as her letter to the clerk did state that Jackson’s mother was very ill and had been in the hospital.

◆Conduct By Opposing Counsels Which Impeded Jackson’s Ability To Submit Her Brief

19 Opposing attorneys Matthew Mullins and Brett Furr wrongfully diverted Jackson from her brief and also forced Jackson to come up with money to defend herself against their April 12, 2007 state court action; as well as forced her to need to prepare a response –and labor to prevent being forced to pay their requested award. NOT UNTIL JULY 5, 2007 DID JACKSON LEARN THE OUTCOME OF THAT LAWSUIT, and up until that time Jackson was absorbed in mitigating the effects. Moreover, the money Jackson would have used to prepare, produce copies of her brief, and send the brief to the court and to all 8 opposing attorneys was used to defend herself.

20 Specifically, the res ipsa loquitur facts show that the April 12, 2007 lawsuit and Ex Parte judgment the attorneys obtained –AND REFUSED TO SEND A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT TO JACKSON, and the res ipsa loquitur facts prove that the lawsuit was fraudulent, yet it cost Jackson the same money to defend which she needed for her Brief. (Jackson’s disqualify motion states that her Exceptions pleading for that April 12, 2007 was filed on June 12, 2007, just days prior to the June 15th Show Cause Hearing. But up obtaining the judgment, Jackson did not know that she was not adjudged to pay the money the attorneys sought. A primary reason why it took Jackson so long to file her Exceptions is because she did not have the fees in which to pay for the filing of her Exceptions. Also, clearly Jackson’s Exceptions have merit, as the monetary award sought in the lawsuit was not assessed against Jackson despite that the deceptive grounds for that lawsuit was purportedly pursuant to Louisiana Civil Procedure article 3753.) In particular, Jackson’s plans to come to New Orleans for the appeal case record was contingent upon when she could leave her mother, but her money for gas, making copies, and other things was spent on the attorneys’ April state court case.

21 Even worse, Jackson’s address POINTLESSLY became public record due to Mr. Mullins and Mr. Furr’s fraudulent lawsuit! The is proven by the fact of Louisiana Civil Procedure article 1201 et seq., which expressly stipulates that all proceedings where no service of Citation is made is void. For such reasons the attorneys’ proceedings against Jackson went nowhere. The EXHIBITS in Jackson’s Motion to Disqualify PROVE that no Citation was served upon Jackson.

22 As repeatedly stated throughout various court pleadings, Jackson is a victim of serious domestic abuse from her estranged husband. Family and friends can attest to fact that of Jackson’s paralyzing worry about her violent husband easily having access to Jackson’s Shreveport address! Further, court records show that even the mistress with whom Jackson’s husband committed adultery –on whom Jackson prevented her husband from throwing acid– also filed domestic abuse charges; and earlier court records show that (unknown to Jackson until after she married him) Jackson’s husband has 2 criminal convictions including one for deliberately running a car into wife number two. Jackson is wife number three. Also, post-Katrina data has confirmed that he continues to be unnecessarily dangerous; and could have benefitted from the domestic abuse program he was ordered to attend but attorney Keith Doley –as that transcript proves– told Judge Herbert Cade to not require the attendance. (For like reasons, New Orleans DOMESTIC VIOLENCE thrives.)

23 Jackson respectfully submits that the trauma which she had temporarily undergone, that was occasioned because of attorneys Mullins and Furr POINTLESSLY making Jackson’s address public and the fraudulent forcing Jackson to spend money needed to complete her brief was the additional existing good cause for needing an extension of time. Jackson was justifiably preoccupied with what could happen to her, but could not / did not during those times think how she could communicate it in a manner that would not further create further possible danger.

◆Opposition to Jackson’s Motions, Futility of Contacting Opposing Counsels

26 Regarding requirements of contacting of the 8 opposing counsels in conjunction with asking for time extension, Jackson expressly herewith states that such is an exercise in futility for her for reasons such as these: (1) On more than one occasion, attorneys Herschel Adcock, William Detweiler, and Paul Rumage have denied knowledge of Jackson’s faxes, mailings, and phone calls to them. (2) In a prior litigation, attorneys Adcock and Detweiler gave to Jackson different pleadings than what they filed into the court records. Those variances caused Jackson, (who is Pro Se and not an attorney) to research and respond to matters entirely different from what was before the courts. (3) For reasons such as those, even if Jackson were to speak to these attorneys, she felt certain they’d again deny Jackson contacted them. (4) Jackson has on various occasions received deceptive mailings from the Taylor Porter Law firm such as Certified letters amazingly void of the sender’s address. (5) Also, even when Jackson telephoned in November of 2006 and actually spoke to attorney Rumage and attorney Brett Furr in an attempt for resolution of her lawsuit, she received bitter racist hostility from them. By contrast, that same day, discussions went smoothly between Jackson and defendant Payne Law Firm; and a JOINT MOTION dismissing them from case 06-2435 was signed by both parties. (6) Further, attorney John Parra and attorney Ben Dean, repeatedly filed documents into the Pre-Katrina state court record months after that case which is now 06-1408 had been removed to federal court. By so doing, these attorneys misled Jackson who resides in Shreveport to be oblivious that case had been removed. Also Jackson paid filing fees and sent motions and pleadings for that state court case for nothing! *For such reasons, case 06-3821 asks for “Relief In Equity.” (7) PROOF EVIDENCING THAT MR. ADCOCK FILED A DIFFERENT PLEADING IN COURT FROM WHAT HE SUPPLIED OPPOSING PARTY, is the manifest gross judicial unfairness of Jackson’s federal case 03-3369 which was DECEPTIVELY and UNTIMELY removed from state court docket 03-14010.

27 Explaining the manifest gross unfairness this Honorable Circuit (knowingly or unknowingly) participated in concerning federal case 03-3369 proves why any reasonable person in Jackson’s situation would inform the court that there was opposition to her motion rather than risk being misled and told one thing by counsel via telephone, but counsel tell the court something else. Discussing case 03-3369 also proves that unless this Honorable Circuit is purposefully biased against Pro Se litigants and minorities, IN THE INTEREST OF BASIC FAIRNESS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS GROSS INJUSTICE HAS AGAIN BECOME BEFORE THIS COURT.

28 SPECIFICALLY, case 03-3369 only arrived in federal court because attorney Herschel Adcock untimely removed that case from state court. Mr. Adcock concealed the untimeliness of the removal by filing into the state court records and by giving to Jackson’s former attorney, John Gaharan a one-paragraph notice of removal; but Adcock filed into the federal court records a 12-paragraph notice of removal. Due to the one-paragraph removal, research and response was being conducted in opposition to the misleading one-paragraph removal document provided by Adcock.

29 Had Mr. Adcock provided the same 12-paragraph removal notice, his removal of that case on the 32nd day, evident on its face, would have had had to be remanded. Even though there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Lance Africk repeatedly ruled in that case against Jackson. Also, when attorney Detweiler, admittedly, prepared a motion to dismiss his sheriff deputy client based on no reason whatsoever, in utter lack of compliance with Federal Civil Procedure Rule 7(b)(1), Judge Africk also granted that; and forum-shopped purposes were the manifest reason the case was removed and the untimeliness deliberately concealed.

30 When Jackson appealed case 03-3369 case, requesting pauper status, Federal Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones granted the pauper filing. During the time that Jackson requested the pauper filing, as court records attests, Jackson was undergoing severe domestic conditions and Jackson was unemployed. Months after the pauper status, attorney Michael Enow gave Jackson some contract research to do concerning real estate foreclosures, but Jackson was not Enow’s employee, and the work hours were not yet established. However, attorney Rumage asked this Circuit to rescind the pauper status after Jackson’s sister (as stated in open court testimony) gave Jackson a money order for Jackson’s bankruptcy installment payment, and this Circuit obliged Mr. Rumage. Jackson urged this Circuit to reconsider what had happened, but this Circuit refused. That money order was not as Rumage represented to this Circuit to gain loss of pauper filing. In the meantime, while Jackson was seeking from this Circuit a ruling and a Stay, Katrina happened. Thus, after losing everything in the hurricane, and being unemployed and displaced, in January 2006 this Circuit dismissed Jackson’s appeal of the 03-3369 case which should have never been decided by Judge Africk in federal court in the first place. Even worse, federal Judge Africk ruled against Jackson based upon the ruling by state court Judge Lloyd Medley for an Injunction Hearing. Judge Africk said that the executory process injunction ruling by Judge Medley for which Judge Medley entitled his injunction ruling as a “JUDGMENT” for was EQUIVALENT TO A HEARING ON THE MERITS of an entirely different case! ALL OF THE FOREGOING IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE COURT RECORDS!

31 Moreover, for all of the foregoing reasons, a person would have to be mindless to not be angry about such gross injustice, especially when overwhelming PRIMA FACIE, on its face evidence shows that Mr. Adcock carried out judicial proceedings by use of a defunct corporation’s identity! But even more infuriating is the racist, contumely conduct of refusing –for more than 3 years to simply answer discovery which could long ago have concretely settled the core issue. Instead, Jackson has continued to be subjected to hateful, manifest unfairness and persecution –all of which stem around the arrogance of being questioned by Jackson –which is nothing more than she had a right to do. Now, injuries upon injuries and damages are being relegated and oversimplified to appear as a controversy over foreclosure instead of the actual continual violation of Jackson’s civil and Constitutional rights; and the unlawfulness of frauds and the various resulting injuries.

32 Put plainly, the facts and the evidence overwhelmingly proves that for case #03-3369 and case #06-1408, this federal court system was used as little more than the forum-shop for 2 STATE COURT cases that became both removed deceptively unbeknownst the plaintiffs, and there was no federal subject matter basis for those removals. Further, the facts and evidence overwhelmingly proves that the majority of lawsuits for minorities (pro se litigants, as well as African-American CIVIL lawyers) only arrive at federal court for purposes of forum shopping without federal subject matter. The facts and the evidence proves that despite these salient truths, scores of people receive rulings from judges inflamed by obfuscated representations of ‘majority’ attorneys such as what has happened here. Attesting to indications of an inflamed judiciary is the blatant disregard for plaintiff’s allegations, and the manifest (intentional or unintentional) lack of regard for Constitutional and Civil Rights. Upon hearing the subjugating things, as well as contrary to law decisions that came forth when Jackson appeared before Judge McNamara’s court, any reasonable person would believe that disregard for the Constitutional Rights of minorities is connected to the reason Jackson’s request to include the transcript from Judge McNamara has been denied. Also, it’s not Jackson’s wish to be pro se, as 2 different occasions she had legal counsel.

33 One such occasion was when she was represented by attorney John Gaharan. However, Mr. William Detweiler drafted a motion and put Jackson’s name on it, to dismiss Detweiler’s sheriff deputy client and attorney Gaharan was forced to file that motion on unbeknownst to Jackson. The record shows it came from Detweiler, and Detweiler stated in a pleading that he prepared the dismissal and he knew that Gaharan was Jackson’s employer. Thus in Mr. Detweiler’s bad faith, self-serving purpose to get his deputy dismissed without filing his own Rule 12(b) motion because in so doing Jackson would have discovered what was going on, it was Detweiler’s callous act that caused Jackson to no longer have that job she truly needed! When Jackson asked Gaharan how he could commit malpractice, rather than simply resign from handling her case, Gaharan said he had to stay on the case and Judge Lance Africk forced him to dismiss the deputy. No dismissal should have been ordered because Detweiler’s dismissal motion is absolutely void of requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 7(b)(1). *Please compare the motion to dismiss that was filed by the Payne firm and Jackson to the motion to dismiss based on no reason from Mr. Detweiler. Another occasion was when Judge Alma Chasez insisted that Jackson say who was going to be Jackson’s counsel. After so stating, although that attorney was practicing in state court, no reason was given for not being able to represent Jackson’s federal court case. Also it is clear to Jackson that a judge can force one’s attorney to commit malpractice against his client.

34 A myriad of reasons similar to these have occurred during Jackson’s litigations (all of which are verifiable), and are causes why she like any reasonable person has misgivings about the fairness of the court. In light of the clear issues she has presented for a fair decision, while Jackson does not desire to offend the court, but instead merely desires and is entitled to an impartial tribunal. Even Ben Laden received an extensive trial and an opportunity to try the evidence rather than bald assertions or matters presented ex parte to the court, but not contained in the records. Jackson dislikes being in this court system to the same degree that certain persons in this court system have exhibited disdain for her. Unfortunately, Jackson does not feel like marching, nor does she want to duke it out in the streets like so many people who are convinced it is a waste of time to seek justice in a courtroom unless it is televised, or the attorney is well-connected to politics.

Request For Written Reasons If The Denies Reconsideration of Appellant’s Motions

36 If this Honorable Court refuses to reconsider its denial of Jackson’s Motions and refuses to reconsider its orders dated August 31, 2007, Appellant respectfully requests that she be given Reason why her motions were denied, as well as a reason for the Court’s August 31, 2007 orders. Without knowing the reasons appellant is at a lost as to whether there is some further clarity she can provide for the Court to consider.

37 Moreover, particularly a transcript from an Open Court Hearing is critical to the appeal of a case, the transcript from federal Judge A.J. McNamara’s court which Jackson has filed her Motion To Supplement The Record –a motion such as IS NOT an uncommon request. In light of the value of a court transcript and in light of civil procedures which expect the transcript to be presented with appeal cases– Appellant Jackson requests written reasons for denying the transcript.

APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY ASKS PERMISSION TO PRESENT THESE QUESTIONS TO THIS FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT

39 Considering The Fact That Pro Se, non-lawyer Appellant Barbara Jackson’s #07-30426 Appeal Case Was Dismissed (Erroneously) For Failure To Prosecute, Was It Prejudicial and / or Erroneous For This Circuit To Issue Rulings on Appellant’s Motion To Disqualify Counsel and Motion to Supplement the Record?

40 Was It Error For This Honorable Circuit To Issue Rulings For Jackson’s Motions, Since Dismissal of Jackson’s Appeal Case Prior To The Filing Of Any Briefs Gives the Effect Of Jackson’s Motions Being Moot Unless Her Appeal Becomes Reinstated?

41 Is This Honorable New Orleans Federal Circuit’s Manifest Apparent Refusal To Weigh The Merit Of Any Allegation Whatsoever Presented By Appellant Barbara Jackson, Confirmation That This Court Is Prejudiced Against Jackson?

42 In View Of The Fact That This Case Includes Claims Against Federal Judicial Colleagues, Is The New Orleans Federal Courts’ Consistent Pattern Of Refusing To Even Consider Any Of Jackson’s Argument Confirmation That It Is Impossible For Jackson To Receive Fairness?

43 If This Circuit Cannot Be Unbiased Toward Minorities, And Refuses To Reckon With The Merits Of Allegations By Both Parties, Will This Circuit Recuse Itself And Grant A Change Of Venue?

44 In Light Of The Reality That Jackson Has Made Serious Allegations And She Provided Evidence Of Real Estate Racketeering, And In Light Of The Reality That Debt Collection Abuse Involving Louisiana Real Estate –Indicative By Lawsuits Filed By Litigants Other Than Jackson– Is A Problem As Pervasive As New Orleans Violence, And In Light Of The NATIONWIDE FORECLOSURE CRISIS, Would A Reasonable Person Have Cause To Believe Judicial Bias Is The Reason Such Lawsuits Rarely Become Tried In This Venue?