THIS WHOLE CASE IS FRAUD
(La CC Article 1953)
Citizens Against Legal Abuse, Inc. would like to make you aware of the fraud on the court, miscarriage of justice in the court, and obstruction of justice, that has been taking place for over 15 years denying African American Families their legal property rights.
Have you examined your property deeds and titles? What about your parents or grandparents property deeds and surveys? African Americans across the nation’s property has been stolen by trusted public officials, attorneys, materially false information and evidence predicated on false premises as it related to property rights of the African American Families were brought before the court. As a result, judgments were rendered based on fraudulent property deeds and title opinions.
The defense and plaintiff attorneys continue to commit fraud on the court by successfully arguing a frivolous defense that had no factual or legal basis. ROBA is entitled to the right of passage by law and right of using the servitude cannot be alienated, leased, or encumbered separately from the dominant estate. ROBA and all parties who purchased property along the historical Idle Acres Road, have the right to use the road for common use, ingress and egress.
There was never an issue of right of use, nor issue of servitude, because on February 25, 1992, Courtney purchased the property from his siblings making him the sole owner and all servitude was extinguished and subsequently Courtney sold the property to ROBA.
When ROBA purchased the property, he received all rights and privileges that James Courtney owned. Again, servitude was extinguished and there is no issue of right of use nor issue of servitude because ROBA received all the rights and privileges James Courtney owned which included a right of passage over neighboring property to nearest public road, as a matter of law due all land lock property and is guaranteed by the state laws and the US Constitution in every sale of real property.
The defense and plaintiff attorneys’ misrepresentation of facts committed fraud on the court by arguing a false issue of servitude of personal use, which prescribes and filed legal pleadings, affidavits and petitions supporting this fraudulent defense also does not apply to ROBA because ROBA owned the property and all rights associated with the property as previously mentioned above, furthermore, the law clearly states in La CC article 3448 “prescription of nonuse is a mode of extinction of a real right other than ownership.”
Courtney owned all the property when ROBA purchased the estate in May 1988 and February 1992, as a result, all of James B. Courtney’s rights were subrogated and passed to ROBA : “That certain piece or portion of ground, together with all buildings and improvements thereon and all the rights, ways, privileges, servitudes, appurtenances and advantages thereunto belonging or in anyways appertaining, situated in section 15, T3S-R6E, St. Helena Parish, Louisiana.” (La C.C. Article 694). ROBA is entitled to the use of the road “held indivision according to its destination” and William Joseph Hall nor the other co-owners “cannot prevent another co-owner from making such use of it.” (La C.C. Article 802). The road is continuous and each purchaser owns the road that pass through their property therefore all are co-owners.
For the last 15 years, the pleadings, memorandums and judgments are all a desperate fraudulent attempt to deprive African American Families of their properties.
All attorneys and officers of the court should have known or was aware that the actions, pleadings and petitions, briefs, and all appearances before the court was fraud as no evidence, facts, and laws were properly before the court.
A gate was erected and a barn was built on the historical road, Idle Acres Lane, restricting the only way for ROBA to access their property. William Joseph Hall, under oath, testified “I do not want blacks passing on the road by my home where my daughter sometimes swim in the pool that blacks can see her when they pass by."
James B. Courtney was the only owner of his property therefore predial servitude doesn’t exist. (La C.C. article 646) Therefore no issue of any pleadings pled in court existed. This action from May 1998 is fraud upon the court. At the time of the sale on February 25, 1992 there were no third party rights due anyone.
ROBA never acquired any servitude right of use because none was owned by Courtney or existed. This case stands far the most outrageous and miscarriage of justice in this day and age ever perpetrated on the public costing $500,000 to $1 Million dollars. Why is the court not recognizing judicial notice that this case is fraud and nonexistent by law and has no basis in law. The only right ROBA purchased and was denied in May 1988 and Feb 1992 that was guaranteed and due by law was the rights of passage CC article 694 and 802.
Courtney did not own nor could he sell any servitude of use when the act of sale passed in May 1988 and Feb 1992 which makes all judgments and rulings fraud on the court which creates an absolute nullity with no legal effect.
U.S. Constitution: 14th Amendment
EQUAL PROTECTION AND RACE
Overview
The Fourteenth Amendment "is one of a series of constitutional provisions having a common purpose; namely, securing to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations had been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy. The true spirit and meaning of the amendments . . . cannot be understood without keeping in view the history of the times when they were adopted, and the general objects they plainly sought to accomplish. At the time when they were incorporated into the Constitution, it required little knowledge of human nature to anticipate that those who had long been regarded as an inferior and subject race would, when suddenly raised to the rank of citizenship, be looked upon with jealousy and positive dislike, and that State laws might be enacted or enforced to perpetuate the distinctions that had before existed. . . . [The Fourteenth Amendment] was designed to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States. It not only gave citizenship and the privileges of citizenship to persons of color, but it denied to any State the power to withhold from them the equal protection of the laws, and authorized Congress to enforce its provision by appropriate legislation."1506 Thus, a state law which on its face worked a discrimination against African Americans was void.1507 In addition, "[t]hough the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution."1508
Source: http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/81-equal-protection-and-race.html
TITLE 42; CHAPTER 21 ; SUBCHAPTER I & § 1982
§ 1982. Property rights of citizens
All citizens of the United States shall have the same
right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by
white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell,
hold, and convey real and personal property.
Source:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001982----000-.html
§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html
+Recorded+2-28-1992_001.jpg)
+Recorded+2-28-1992_002.jpg)
+Recorded+2-28-1992_003.jpg)
