06/02/2021
To Whom it May Concern:
partial complaints for,
intimidation by Janitor, Mike by , and for Police Department City of Baton Rouge during Moratorium - December 27, 2020
Agent, Mike (Janitor) Instrument of RI&S GM (“Official-capacity suits ... generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.”) 1st for both Criminal, Civil, and Personal Tort (also Fines) and Punitive Judgement for State, Fed, Civil Rights Violations Including Ind. Officer Janitor Rogue Act
Then to
LLC, Franchisee, Franchisor, Owner, Management, Groups, Investor, Holding Co, etc.
1. SMC Hotels Group, John Holmstrom, Delton Smith
2. CEO Geoff Ballotti and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts
RI&S Richmond Inn & Suites Trademark Collection by Wyndham
225-924-6500,
Energy Dr. 70808
THE WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE EX-PARTE WRIT OF POSSESSION THE SAME DAME THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED.
RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection,
RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection provides herein many instances of deliberate lies of the Defendants that all procedures required by state law were used in the forceful taking of RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection’ home
Veals, SMC, Wyndham,
and Trudi.
Veals, SMC, Wyndham,
are accused of being participants in the conspiracy.
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.
18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights
File: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:241%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section241)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696 ; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, §103(a), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75 ; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7018(a), (b)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396 ; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, §60006(a), title ###II, §§320103(a), 320201(a), title ###III, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970 , 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§604(b)(14)(A), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507 , 3511.)
The Conventional Eviction plans will be added as Defendants in this action to recover the damages caused by Veals, SMC, Wyndhams.
Veals, SMC, Wyndham,
were involved in the conspiracy with others.
that RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection, circumvent Anti-Eviction Act, without Summary Dispossession, and through criminal false report to BRPD Officer, not relieving his fault personally and of BRPD, fooling Acting BRPD Officer.
Veals, SMC, Wyndham agent Mike also made false representations to Officer regarding status: no tenants or residents on property that must be protected by the Anti-Eviction Act and/or Summary Dispossess Act, when in fact, Doug Meet, known to RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection, was a tenant on the premises for 10 months.
Richmond Inn & Suites' GM Veals agent, Janitor Mike, SMC, Wyndham also fraudulently certified to Officer his authority under the entities herein,
"[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession." THE WRIT OF POSSESSION [had it been available] WAS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE agent of hotel and the officer HAD NO JURISDICTION without any court process,
Defendants engaged in "knowing concealment, suppression and omission of material facts," and made a false representation of fact and law which BRPD relied upon.
The Defendants fraudulently certified that RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection had super possessory rights.
No motion and notice was provided by RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, agent substituting for writ of possession
"[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession." THE EX-PARTE JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION WAS ALSO ENTERED UNLAWFULLY BECAUSE NO NOTICE TO QUIT WAS PROVIDED PRIOR TO ENTERING THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE FINAL JUDGMENT.
State law requires that prior to the issuance of a judgment for possession, the owner must provide proof of notice to quit, followed by an eviction proceeding before a judge who has jurisdiction over the property and the person.
statutes:
Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment No judgment for possession in cases of this Title shall be ordered unless: The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or The tenancy, if for a term other than at will, from year to year, or from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of one term's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; and It shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court by due proof that the notice herein required has been given.
Note: Unlike residential tenants, who are mostly protected by the Anti-Eviction Act, they generally may be evicted at the end of their lease terms.
However, a Notice to Quit is still required before the eviction action may be filed.
No such notice was ever provided.
The landlord-tenant law also requires the same notice for removal of residential tenants
RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection Officer required notice; contents; service.
No judgment of possession shall be entered for any premises covered of this act, except in the nonpayment of rent, unless the landlord has made written demand and given written notice for delivery of possession of the premises.
Here, no notice to quit and no eviction hearing ever took place.
What the conspirator Veals, SMC, Wyndham did was to, without any notice for such possession, hearing never provided by RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection, as is required by state law
Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment.prohibits the unlawful entry in any real property occupied solely as a residence by the party in possession, unless the entry and detention is made pursuant to legal process et seq.
The Defendants failed to do so and instead circumvented that statutory process not even an ex-parte writ.
Thus, this intentional violation of state law represents a violation of RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection’ procedural due process rights for both the judgment for possession and the writ of possession.
Both contentions are belied by the properly found facts.
The Defendants were required to disclose to the court opinions and decisions that constitute legal authority.
They were also required to not make intentional false statements of material fact.
They also make intentionally false certifications to the court that the Defendants complied with all state law, when they knew that they had not complied with state law.
Here, Defendants intentionally violated
Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment and in summary dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession.").
Louisiana Supreme Court decisions have already settled this law and have ruled that the writs issued in violation of these statutes were void (not voidable, but void ab ignition without any force).
The Defendants have also violated a myriad of other statutes and intentionally interfered with constitutional rights as detailed herein.
The Defendants were able to successfully deceive
CLAIMS RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection’ will include at least 24 counts and a number of state law claims (unjust enrichment, defamation, infliction of emotional distress, fraud, etc.):
A claim for malicious abuse of process and abuse of process;
A claim for conspiracy to prosecute maliciously;
A claim for violation of the right to access to the courts;
A claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure (against the Individual Defendant) actionable under 42 USC §1983;
A claim for illegal violation of the Fourth Amendment inside Plaintiff’s home without possessing exigent circumstances and by fabricating charges;
A claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that no person be deprived of liberty and property without due process of law, actionable here under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
A § 1983 claim for failure to properly train, supervise and control officers (BRPD);
An alleged conspiracy to violate federal civil rights (against the Individual); claims of conspiracy, in violation of law, respectively, to violate federal and state civil rights by filing false and misleading police reports, by filing no certifications with the courts, and by knowingly giving false and misleading statements to law enforcement;
An alleged conspiracy to violate state civil rights (against the Individual Defendant);
A Fourteenth Amendment stand-alone claim under section 1983 for fabrication of evidence;
A claim for retaliation in violation of his First Amendment rights and for false imprisonment (against the Individual Defendant).
A claim for violation of his Due Process rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment due to DEPRIVING HIM adjudication of any charges against him;
A claim for violation of his Procedural Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the lack of any pre-deprivation notices and hearings in violation of state law;
A claim for uncompensated taking of his homestead property in violation of the Fifth Amendment
A CLAIM THAT DEFENDANTS INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION;
A CLAIM FOR VIOLATION UNLAWFUL ENTRY PROHIBITED Defendants and Sheriff and deputies a prohibited self-help after they used a NULL void ab initio writ of possession to enter RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection’ residence, and forcefully evict RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection, RESIDENT, damaging his person;
violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (cfa) UNCONSCIONABLE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES AND DECEPTION and false promises and/or misrepresentations Louisiana’s Consumer Fraud Act prohibits deceptive practices relating to as follows:
[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such .
in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate .
is declared to be an unlawful practice.
claimant must establish: “(1) unlawful conduct by defendant; (2) an ascertainable loss by plaintiff; and (3) a causal relationship between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss.”
Courts should construe liberally in favor of consumers.
Accordingly, it is “the capacity to mislead that is the prime ingredient of all types of consumer fraud under the CFA.”
Plaintiff presented "cognizable" CFA and common law fraud claims that presented an equitable bar to Defendant’s complaint.
Allegations of fraud must be pled with specificity and a litigant's failure to do so should result in dismissal of the complaint.(requiring any complaint alleging fraud set forth the "particulars of the wrong, with dates and items if necessary, .
insofar as practicable" Defendants engaged in "knowing concealment, suppression and omission of material facts," and made false representation of fact and law relied upon.
NULL / void ab initio
No motion and notice was provided to RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection Real Property, LLC.
As a result, Lacking the standing to apply for judgment and apply for a writ of possession
No notice to quit was provided
Even if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was not), no jurisdiction to issue removal same day as entered.
in summary dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession."
VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL ACT ET SEQ
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have not complied with their obligations under these laws as they obtained NULL / fraudulent and/or illegal or void ex-parte possession and NULL / void ex-parte writ of possession and that defendants violated "an amount (including any interest, fee, penalty, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation)," not expressly authorized by agreement or permitted by law.
Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to validate and committed false and misleading representations, harassment and abuse.
(UNJUST ENRICHMENT, DEFAMATION, FALSE LIGHT, NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PAIN AND SUFFERING, LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, CONVERSION, TORTIOUS AND INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE) CASES DEALING WITH THE LIABILITY OF THE SHERIFF AS A TRESPASSER WHEN HE EXECUTES NULL WRITS OR NULL JUDGMENTS According to well-established Louisiana law, no Writ of Possession, VOID AB INITIO, and as result BRPD was trespasser
[I]n Louisiana it has been the established principle, the right of the sheriff to naked power, so that to render title under deed available, every requisite of the law must be shown to have been complied with[.]”
From these authorities, we conclude the requirements in the statute are not merely directory but mandatory, such that the failure to comply with a statutory provision affects subsequent actions.). As defined by the Supreme Court , "a judgment is void if there has been a failure to comply with a requirement which is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court."
A void judgment is one rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction with regard to the party against whom it is rendered or lacking jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, and it may be set aside without the need of showing a meritorious defense.
Moreover, a judgment is void if there is lack of personal jurisdiction or notice absent intervening rights of a third party,
In this case, its acting clerk had no personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.
The Clerk also was in violation of the mandatory state law: provides that in summary dispossess proceedings
"[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession."
Therefore, thesubsequent fraudulently-obtained reasons of lack of jurisdiction or lack of authority by Clerk to enter such orders, as well void for lack of subject matter, no authority to adjudicate
Such requirements are required for jurisdiction for summary dispossession of protected tenancies.
Here, the criminal conspirators (Veals, SMC, Wyndham,the sheriff, etc.) failed to obey several statutes,
never applying for a Judgment of Possession and/or Writ of Possession.
Thus, the judgment void ab initio for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well.
Furthermore,EBR Parish Sheriff failed to obtain a mandatory Warrant of Removal in violation of Louisiana Law for entry into residential dwellings THE EX*****ON OF A VOID WRIT BY THE SHERIFF MADE THE SHERIFF A TRESPASSER ON DECEMBER 27, 2020 AND LIABLE FOR DAMAGES
Upon the second point, authorities were to show a distinction between an erroneous execute and return writ, although erroneous, if jurisdiction.
But when no jurisdiction, NO writ ALL void, and sheriff was a trespasser if he dared obey it; a void authority being the same as none.
Indeed it seems agreed as a general rule, that wherever a sheriff or other authority has a person by virtue of an authority from having jurisdiction over, the officer cannot judge of the validity of the process, and, therefore, cannot take advantage of any in them.
But if HE had no jurisdiction in the matter, then all is void, and an escape upon such void authority is not actionable.
THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER.
SEPTEMBER 1878.
THE LAW OF ESCAPE IN CIVIL ACTIONS.
(Goncluded from the August No., ante, p.
486.)
Thus, if the landlord evicts a tenant without first filing a dispossessory action and obtaining a writ of possession, or without following the dispossessory procedures for handling the tenant's personal property, the landlord “can be held liable for wrongful eviction and trespass.”
Ikomoni, 309 Ga.App. at 84(2); see also Steed, 301 Ga.App. at 805(1)(a) (“[A] landlord who forcibly evicts a tenant without filing a dispossessory action and obtaining a writ of possession is subject to damages in tort for the wrongful eviction.”). Court of Appeals of Georgia.
FENNELLY v.
LYONS.
No.
A15A0506.
If the officer acting under VOID / NO writ, by the direction of appellants, took charge of the cattle, or prohibited appellees from looking after them, and during this time some of them, through his negligence, were lost by straying, being stolen, or dying from want of proper attention, all parties thus acting together would, of course, be liable for the resulting damage.
The point is also made, that inasmuch as attachment was issued was without jurisdiction NO writ and consequently an attempted levy thereof in compliance with the statutes above quoted would not place the property in custodia legis.
Finally, Pursuant to Rule 4:26-4, a party is permitted to sue a defendant under a fictitious name if the defendant’s true name is unknown to the plaintiff.
He is required to state it to be fictitious and add on an appropriate description sufficient for identification.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court's Relief from December 27, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
_______ Dated
CERTIFICATION OF DOUG MEET
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true and correct.
I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
28 U.S.C. §1746.
DATE: 2021
Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________________
RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT DOUG MEET,
) ABUSE OF PROCESS,
) PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATION,
OFFICER, indiv.
) RETALIATION TRUDI VEALS, indiv.
) STATE LAW DAMAGES (DEFAMATION,) NEGLIGENCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PAIN AND SUFFERING)
The statute of limitations and basis of RI & S, SMC Hotels Group, Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, Trademark Collection complaint will include at least 23 counts and a number of state law claims (defamation, infliction of emotional distress, fraud):
A claim for malicious abuse of process and abuse of process;
A claim for conspiracy to prosecute maliciously;
A claim for violation of the right to access to the courts;
A claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure (against the Individual Defendants) actionable under 42 USC §1983;
A Section 1983 litigation claims can be filed against state and local officials such as:
police officers,
sheriff's deputies,
state or county prison guards,
[풀버전] ♬ CLASSY SAVAGE - 아이콘(iKON) To Whom it May Concern: partial complaints for, intimidation by Janitor, Mike by , and...
