For the people whose lives have been devastated because of federal judges’ (or any judge’s) lack of regard for established laws, talk of pay raises for federal judges is a revolting concept. I am such a person. I have never been to law school; and I was repeatedly judicially raped by a federal judicial system. Yet, if judicial abuse was not such a social scourge, I would overcome and move on with my life. This www.lawgrace.org website, containing court documents, pleadings, and transcript excerpts, shows PRIMA FACIE evidence of judicial collusion and deliberate civil rights violations / unconstitutional acts against myself, as well as other people.

In the federal court system of which I am about to elucidate, the (majority of) judges don’t require lawyers to deal fairly with non-lawyer litigants; and rather than apply statutes, these judges create their own rules and formulas (like the judge I have identified below) for obvious purposes of ensuring specific outcomes of cases. Thus, not only do disadvantaged litigants have scant chances of receiving justice in the first place, such litigants have to study law very hard TO PREVENT not only attorneys, but also to PREVENT CORRUPT or INEPT judges from PULLING FAST ONES on litigants.

Furthermore, in New Orleans, it seems that knowledge of the law IS NOT required in order to become appointed as a judge, nor to remain one. The following is just one of many Case In Point examples I could give! In federal case #06-1408, federal Judge A.J. McNamara repeatedly granted motions, orders and rulings to FREDDIE MAC lawyers who raked in litigation fees despite that the named defendant in that lawsuit for Conversion, Freddie Mac, was never served, prior to removal of that case from state court, nor served even after the case was being brought to federal court. The “Motion to Remand” posted on this site shows the #06-1408 case was improperly removed based on false grounds of federal question subject matter.

. In federal federal Judge A.J. McNamara repeatedly granted motions, orders and rulings to FREDDIE MAC lawyers who raked in litigation fees despite that the named defendant in that lawsuit for Conversion, Freddie Mac, was never served, . The “Motion to Remand” posted on this site shows the #06-1408 case was improperly removed based on false grounds of federal question subject matter.The court transcript portion (posted on this site) shows Judge McNamara ridiculously saying that the filing of an “Answer” becomes the CURE for any improper removal, (regardless that Freddie Mac was not yet a party to the Conversion lawsuit, and regardless Judge McNamara was without Federal Subject Matter authority over that State Tort lawsuit for Conversion, as all the other parties were Louisiana residents). Specifically, what Judge McNamara called an ‘answer’ was the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss filed by some lawyers who held themselves out as lawyers for Freddie Mac. However, due to the fact that Freddie Mac had not yet became a party to the Conversion lawsuit, there was no need for those lawyers to begin earning money and billing Freddie Mac for legal representation in that lawsuit.*Repeated instances of these kinds of legal costs for Freddie Mac and Wells Fargo is why I made statements like this: Any representation about $$$ billion dollar losses due to people defaulting on mortgages should be weighed against the fact that mortgage giants needlessly pays law firms outrageous legal fees to outmaneuver -and even persecute people who file court proceedings in opposition to fraudulent foreclosures and repossessions. 

Also, manifest is the fact that the case was removed by a lawyer whose client was not diverse, nor federal subject matter, nor was that lawyer’s client Freddie Mac. Put plainly, after that first lawyer forum-shopped and unlawfully removed the Conversion case to federal court, more lawyers who said they represented Freddie Mac joined in the case and proceeded to begin making money off the Conversion lawsuit via their Rule 12 motion and by filing various pleadings.

Put plainly, after that first lawyer forum-shopped and unlawfully removed the Conversion case to federal court, more lawyers who said they represented Freddie Mac off the Conversion lawsuit via their Rule 12 motion and by filing various pleadings. The significant fact about Freddie Mac’s year 2005 CONVERSION of 4968 Lurline Street is that since the date of February 2002, THE NOTE FOR 4968 Lurline has been owned by Wells Fargo! However, Wells Fargo DID NOT perfect its security interest by filing a “UCC-1 financing statement” as required in Louisiana. Therefore, inter alia, Wells Fargo was an “unsecured creditor” and subject to bankruptcy “avoidance” –of which JUDICIAL COLLUSION with federal bankruptcy court Judge Douglas Dodd deprived the co-owners of all their rights, and Judge Dodd threatened them with loss of freedom if they further protested the fraudulent foreclosure (they bought a copy of that transcript); as well as the fact that failure to “perfect” the lien placed Wells Fargo’s ranking concerning the Lurline Street property lower than any other creditors who might have been entitled to receive money from auction proceeds of that property. **The August 10, 2006 posting on this site under paragraph #71 contains the excerpt from the March 31, 2005 court transcript wherein attorney Paul Rumage admitted to State Court Ad Hoc Judge Walter Kollin that Wells Fargo owned the note for 4968 Lurline Street! Therefore, Freddie Mac had no lawful right to take any judicial actions regarding that property; and debt collector attorneys who carried out those multiple frauds, via use of GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. [which had become defunct due to becoming merged in October 2002 (with GE Mortgage Services as stated in an Affidavit) -NOT MERGED with Wells Fargo] while billing bundles of legal fees (as well as for other real estate properties throughout Louisiana), are guilty of White Collar real estate racketeering of which, in this State, is abetted and congratulated apparently because the victims are predominantly African-Americans! *Wells Fargo formerly was the “servicer” for the Lurline property; and then purchased the Lurline Street loan in February 2002 from GE Capital Mortgage Services prior to that October 2002 merger with the current “successor in interest.” To reiterate, jurisprudence clearly states that the grounds for removing a lawsuit to federal court forms justification at the time of removal / when removal is occurring. NOT AFTER REMOVAL HAS HAPPENED can an erroneous removal become cured IF FEDERAL SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION DID NOT EXIST, and REMAND TO STATE COURT is the proper result, but Judge McNamara confiscated that case regardless; and the Justice Department prevented Judge McNamara from being accountable for that blatant unconstitutional wrong! Again, even if Judge McNamara’s theory had any teeth, there is not, nor will there ever be any jurisprudence which bestows jurisdiction upon any court over a defendant which has not been served with a [Conversion] lawsuit! (In federal court, if a defendant wishes to waive service a waiver should be filed into the case record.) Moreover, due to repeatedly failed attempts to serve Freddie Mac, Freddie Mac also never became a party to case #06-2435, but that did not stop those lawyers from litigating and billing more even legal hours for filing pleadings and again obtaining rulings from federal Judge Kurt Englehardt on behalf of (non-party) Freddie Mac in that RICO lawsuit.

*Considering the hits and searches to my website seeking information how to serve Freddie Mac, it is apparent that other people are trying to sue Freddie Mac (probably because of abusive debt collectors); and it is obvious that Freddie Mac’s ability to elude the public (except when Freddie Mac furnished that duplicitous YOU TUBE piece on foreclosure fraud, of which it should know much about the subject) gave them problems too! NOTE: On the posting just below this one entitled: Comment on the foreclosure of Judge Badeaux’s home, please see the Santucci affidavit which manifests that Freddie Mac, along with others, did in fact commit the TORT OF CONVERSION for property located at 4968 Lurline Street. Manifestation is evident by the fact that Freddie Mac pretends to have purchased the Lurline Street property in year 2005 from a mortgage company which became defunct in year 2002. The affiant stating it is the “successor in interest” to that defunct mortgage company made the affidavit in year 2004 –prior to Freddie Mac’s impossible purchase. Yet, Freddie Mac has the audacity to have a YOU TUBE publicity about avoiding foreclosure fraud!! Because railroading like this by judges, overall perceptions about judicial collusion and unlikelihood of receiving justice steers some people to televised courtrooms. Also, overall perception about federal and state court crooked dealings is primarily why lawbreaking has become such a customary American way! But, then there are also hallmark examples such as former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ characterizations of Wrongs things as Right things; and his teachings certainly pay off in Louisiana! Further, it is common knowledge that many judges receive junkets and all sorts of perks –unfortunately, some from conflict of interests entities appearing in some of their courtrooms. For such reasons, there are those of us who have misgivings about judicial raises. But even more RELEVANT TO this country’s current national issue, the Mortgage Mess / Foreclosure Crisis situation is an ECONOMIC matter affecting every American in some way or another.