CEASE AND DESIST#2

 

 

Mr. Robert L. Lucien, Sr.

P.O. BOX 51386

New Orleans, Louisiana 70151

 

Mr. William Joseph Hall

233 Idle Acres, Lane

Amite, Louisiana 70422

Certified Receipt No: 7008 1830 0004 1198 7243

 

 

April 28, 2011

 

 

Re: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM OBSTRUCTING ROBA INC.'S RIGHT OF ACCESSS TO HIGHWAY
1047.

 

 

Mr. Hall,

 

Please take note:

 

This letter is to advise you that pursuant to my family's original purchase of property from James B. Courtney, ten years in advance of your purchase and pursuant to the clear and precise language of the law as it relates to ownership of property:

"That certain piece or portion of ground, together with all the buildings and improvements thereon, and all of the rights, ways, privileges, servitudes, appurtenances and advantages thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, situated in section 15, T3S-R6E, St . Helena Parish, Louisiana." (La. C.C. Article 694) ROBA Inc., was
subrogated to all these rights (see the cash sale May 17, 1988 and February 25, 1992 deeds).

 

Mr. Hall, you are hereby placed on notice that you are violating ROBA Inc.'s right
of passage on the existing road, beginning with the purchase and sale in May 1988 and February 1992 and by refusing ROBA Inc.'s legal right to the use of the existing road, you have and continue to expose yourself to money damages for exercising Jim Crow Laws that were enacted in the 1920's and 30's but declared unlawful in 1964-68.

 

ROBA Inc., is due access by law and title since the May 17, 1988 purchase, which was 4 years before the Courtney family sold the lake property to James B. Courtney on February 25, 1992 and all servitude was extinguished and subsequently sold approximately 51 acres to ROBA Inc. (La CC. Article 765) Who owns the road that was included in each property sold? Each buyer that bought property from James B. Courtney acquired the legal right of passage, to use the existing road for
ingress and egress as a matter of law. (La. C.C. Article
689, 652, 694). "Ownership of the same thing by two or more persons is ownership indivision…a co-owner is entitled to the use of the thing held indivision according to its destination, but he cannot prevent another co-owner from making such use of it.." (La C.C. Article 797, 802). Mr. Hall, ROBA Inc., has the same right as everyone (including you) to the use of the existing road that runs from the lake south to north Highway 1047 and public policy dictates access. Give ROBA Inc., the same rights as all purchasers to access their property by law.

 

There is no issue of [right of use]; therefore, there exist no issue of prescription which was tolled by filing suit. (La. C.C. Articles:3462). Right of use and right of passage are not interchangeable (right of use is personal and right of passage is due by law for access). Right of use does not apply to owners of the property.

 

 

 

"Ownership and the possession of a thing are distinct. Ownership exists independently of any exercise of it and may not be lost by nonuse." (La C.C. Article 481 and 3448). The right of passage is due by law for property owners who have no access to a public road. (La. C.C. Articles: 650,689,705). Lack of use is not a viable defense, as right of passage
has no prescription.

 

    Mr. Hall please see enclosed laws, documents, maps and other indicia of what

applies to the facts of our property dispute. You must see and understand that

COURTNEY AND HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS MISREPRESENTED

AND DECEIVED ALL OF US. How could you or any reasonable person

believe that you and your white neighbors are the only ones with rights to a road

that serves
every property sold by the Courtney's (see survey).

 

According to the Attorney General's Opinion, Idle Acres Lane IS NOT LEGALLY A PUBLIC ROAD, "La. R.S. 48:491 requires that, for private roads to become public roads, the governing authority must maintain the road for a period of three years and the private landowner must have constructive notice of that maintenance, a failure to meet one of the requirements necessary to reclassify a road would, in our opinion, represent a barrier to an existing private road becoming a public road."

 

Sincerely Your Neighbor,

 

 

 

Robert L. Lucien, Sr.

 

Cc: Mr. Mitchell Radecker

Mr. Tony Noto & Family

All parties of interest

File

Certified Receipt no: 7008 1830 0004 1198 7243

Date mailed April 28, 2011

Cease and desist #1

Mr. Robert L. Lucien, Sr.

P.O. BOX 51386

New Orleans, Louisiana 70151

 

Mr. William Joseph Hall

233 Idle Acres, Lane

Amite, Louisiana 70422

Certified Receipt No: 7008 1830 0004 1198 7243

 

April 28, 2011

 

In Re: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM OBSTRUCTING ROBA INC. PROPERTY ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 1047

 

Mr. Hall,

 

    Pursuant to my family's original purchase of property from James B. Courtney, ten years in advance of your purchase, and pursuant to the clear and precise language of the law as it relates to ownership of [what is purchased], you are hereby placed on notice that you are violating ROBA
Inc.'s right of passage as

there was never any issue of right of use as none existed. Therefore there existed no defense of prescription based on lack of use.

    Mr. Hall, ROBA has the same legal right of access to their property by operation of law as everyone (including you) to the use of the road that runs from the lake south to north Highway 1047.

Mr. Hall, by refusing ROBA's legal right to the use of the road, you continue to expose yourself to money damages for exercising rights exclusively for yourself that belongs to all who purchased property that the road runs through. This is a violation of the State and Federal Constitution as well as public policy.

Mr. Hall please see enclosed laws, documents, maps and other indicia of what applies to the facts of our property dispute. For your information, Idle Acres Lane is not legally a public road.

 

Sincerely You're Neighbor,

 

 

Robert L. Lucien, Sr.

 

Cc: Mr. Mitchell Radecker

Mr. Tony Noto & Family

All parties of interest

File

 

Certified Receipt No: 7008 1830 0004 1198 7243

Date mailed: April 28, 2011

Fraud on court

DEFENITION OF COURT FRAUD CASES

What is fraud on the court?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final. "What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willow brook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill. App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill. App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).

Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

ROBA V COURTNEY, DEFENCE ATTY INTRUPTED THE COURT PROCEEDENS AND ASK THE COURT NOT TO GRANT ROBA'S MOTTION, AND THE COURT DID NOT. (SEE TRANSCRIPT)