*I am seeking a successful litigation firm, practicing in the area of criminal law, trust and civil rights law, to file a damage suit against an oil, gas and land trust and beneficiaries for violation of trust law – theft by deceit,
To the reader – These seemingly endless recent years have been a long and tedious journey. I am hopeful that reasonable people will agree egregious actions against me were malicious and with the intent to cause me duress and to destroy my life. I have provided, as is the right of every citizen with regard to public domain the attached material facts that are now established and recorded forever, in my case.
The material evidence in my case speaks volumes about the injustice a citizen can suffer while experiencing a judicial system gone awry. What my experience has been is that there is nothing wrong with the written laws, but rather with the officers acting within the judicial system, when they abuse their power and authority and do so with unlimited legal resources.
This site is meant as an educational tool, but it can in no way provide every detail of abuse I have suffered at the hands of this judicial system. I allege I was not only denied basic civil rights, but I was threatened as though less than a human life. How can this happen when prestigious government buildings depict statues and ideals such as “Blind Justice”, “In God We Trust”, “Justice for All”, and “Equal Justice Under Law”?
How do we get back our ideals? It is not that we are not making an effort – you have but to only use keywords to see the level of corruption that “We the People” with our voices are complaining about and must change. I have committed to doing my small part to make a difference. *Please, see my “Petition for Change” which details a plan that I believe would act as a strict deterrent for judicial officers.
I am by virtue of the stress forced to endure, now also suffering with critical medical issues attributed in part to the abuses I suffered at the hands of parties who violated the written law defaming, libeling and slandering me, my profession, and my character in the process.
The litigation against me, only now closing, provides that I can finally begin a journey of healing and perhaps emotional recovery. Although I have filed suits, you will note (under drop down) at WDLA case how my cases were dismissed without prejudice, so that I could re-file in the proper jurisdiction.
I am seeking a successful litigation firm to file suit against an oil – gas – land trust and its beneficiaries personally for all damages caused. The attorneys made four separate appeals, for protection from my litigation, under Barton and were finally successful during the last hearing.
However, the beneficiaries and/or I can still pursue litigation against these attorneys, but only once the primary court provided approval.
All of the material evidence I provide in the cases on this web site is in support of the unlawful means that judgments were obtained against me.
Wrongful portions of judgments that personally prospered the trustees attorneys are more fully detailed elsewhere on this site.
“It is well settled in Louisiana an action for defamation can not be brought until those proceedings are terminated. See Waguespack v. Judge, LA App 5Cir. 2004 877 So. 2d 1090 (2004); Nolan v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2, LA App 5Cir. 2001, 790 So.2d 725 (2001); Allex v. Naccari & ABC Insurance Company, LA App 4Cir., 657 So. 2d 511 (1995).”
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit; Paul A. Lemke v Keiser & Auzenne, L.L.C., et al, No. 05-893, held;
Accrual of Right of Action or Defense: Most cases cited limitation of actions “During the time that judicial proceedings are pending, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action for statements made during the proceedings is suspended.”
Libel, Slander, privileged communication and malice therein; “Most cases cited under qualified privilege for statements made during judicial proceedings, a party to litigation is safe from an action for defamation arising out of such statements pending the termination of the underlying litigation; however, any such statements made by them in judicial proceedings must be material and must be made without malice and with probable cause.”
“The question of whether the qualified privilege from defamation liability will apply to an individual’s statements made during litigation hinges on whether the alleged defamatory statements are material to the ongoing litigation so that it is necessary for the suit to be finalized before the cause of action can arise; in other words, as long as the offending comments arise during litigation and out of the same set of operational facts as those set forth in the underlying claim, any defamation action is barred pending resolution of the pending litigation.”
“Appellees filed an exception of prematurity. After a contradictory hearing was held on the issue, the trial judge issued the following reasons for his judgment: 922 So.2d 690 Page 3 922 So.2d 690, 2005-893 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06) (Cite as: 922 So.2d 690) © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Attorney Paul A. Lemke, III filed a lawsuit against the law firm of Keiser & Auzenne[,] LLC and Anna Ferguson[,] *692 seeking damages for allegations in the Succession of Carol Finnegan[,] Suit No. 39,558, Seventh Judicial District Court, Concordia Parish. The pleadings apparently alleged fraudulent conduct on the part of Mr. Lemke. The defendants filed an exception of pre-maturity urging that the initial litigation must be completed prior to filing of a suit on libelous pleadings. Numerous cases support this position when the suit is one against a party to the original litigation. Mr. Lemke attempts to distinguish this situation from a suit involving the attorneys to the original action. The Court failed to see the distinction and finds that the original litigation should be concluded prior to suits being filed against a party or attorney involved in the original suit. The court signed a judgment granting appellees’ exception of pre-maturity and dismissing Lemke’s petition.”
“ First, we determined that Louisiana case law recognizes a qualified privilege that provides parties to pending litigation the protection from being sued for defamatory statements made during judicial proceedings. *693Union Serv. & Maint. Co., Inc. v. Powell, 393 So.2d 94 (La.1980)(Watson, J., concurring); Lees, 363 So.2d 974. It necessarily follows that during this time the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action is suspended. See James, 767 So.2d 962. We also note that this privilege is considered “qualified” because it is not absolute. See Union Serv., 393 So.2d 94 (Watson, J., concurring). This means that a party is safe from an action for defamation pending the termination of the underlying litigation; however, any such “statements made by them in judicial proceeding [s] must be material and must be made without malice and with probable cause.” Lees, 363 So.2d at 979 (citations omitted). Moreover, as was noted by Justice Watson in his concurrence in Union Serv., 393 So.2d 94, the “[p]remature trial of such thorny issues should be avoided. It may develop that trial is never necessary. The truth of defamatory statements is a statutory defense. L.S.A.-R.S. 13:3602.” Id. at 99.  We have further concluded that the question of whether the qualified privilege rule will apply to an individual’s statements made during litigation hinges on whether the alleged defamatory statements are material to the ongoing litigation so that it is necessary for the suit to be finalized before the cause of action can arise. See Ortiz v. Barriffe, 523 So.2d 896 (La. App. 4 Cir.), writ denied,531 So.2d 273 (La.1988); Udell, Inc. v. Ascot Oils, Inc., 177 So.2d 178 (La. App. 2 Cir.1965). In other words, we find that as long as the offending comments arise during litigation and out of the same set of operational facts as those set forth in the underlying claim, **5 any defamation action is barred pending resolution of the pending litigation. See Ortiz, 523 So.2d 896. We reject the contention that the status of an individual as a “party” to the underlying litigation is an absolute necessity in order for this rule to apply.”
“CONCLUSION We find no error in the judgment of the trial court, granting the exception of pre-maturity in favor of Keiser & Auzenne, L.L.C. and Anne Ferguson. 922 So.2d 690 Page 5 922 So.2d 690, 2005-893 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06) (Cite as: 922 So.2d 690) © 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and all costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant, Paul A. Lemke, III. AFFIRMED. La. App. 3 Cir.,2006. Lemke v. Keiser & Auzenne, L.L.C. 922 So.2d 690, 2005-893 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06)”