Information will be added daily.

     The Federal Trade Commission made an investigative mistake and the cover-up sent the limitless power of the federal government and a rogue court into an endless persecution that may seemingly have no end.

     In 1988 the Denver office of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) contacted the persecuted regarding a complaint from an individual that violated his contract with National Business Consultants, Inc. (NBC). NBC immediately responded by sending their attorney to Denver to try to resolve the matter. There was no follow up or further request for information. There was never any discussion as to how any alleged problems could be resolved. Instead, the FTC secretly tried to contact associates of NBC to solicit complaints against them. They found six takers out of over 500 associates.

     On April 19, 1989, the Federal Trade Commission filed an ex parte Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against defendants, National Business Consultants, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, and its president, Robert Namer. The ex parte Complaint demanded injunctive relief and redress to company affiliates as a result of alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as provided in 15 USC 57(b).  They alleged that the associates that joined the company over a 40-year period, as independent contractors, were franchisees.  The entire issue was a regulatory civil determination.  The Government’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and other relief were granted on April 20, 1989. The district court issued a Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue.

     By Order issued April 27, 1989, the Government’s Application for Preliminary Injunction and Other Relief was granted and a preliminary injunction was issued along with an asset freeze and other relief requested by the Government. 

     The FTC got the ex parte order by falsely telling the court that Namer would liquidate all his assets and leave the country if he was properly served and allowed to dispute their allegations. They were aware that Namer was with the company for over 20-years; had four daughters in private school; owned his home and other property, belonged to many civic organizations; and retired from the New Orleans Police Department as a reserve lieutenant. They knew that there was no likelihood that Namer could or would leave the country.

     NBC filed their Answer and other responses on May 22, 1989, denying the Government’s allegations of liability, asserting defenses of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, prescription, lack of constitutionality, and also filed therein a counter-claim for damages.

     Trial on permanent injunction liability commenced on July 5, 1989, and concluded on July 28, 1989. There seemed to be a personality conflict between the presiding judge, Veronica Wicker, and the defendants’ attorney, retired Federal Judge Fred Cassibry. Both have since passed away. The court rendered judgment in favor of the Government and issued the permanent injunction and asset freeze and gave oral reasons.

     Judge Veronica Wicker stated from the bench, "while I have not reviewed all the facts in this case, I am ruling against the defendants." The judgment should have been reversed by the mere fact that the Judge admitted she did not review of the facts in the case. The first clear miscarriage of justice.  By Judgment, Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, rendered March 19, 1990, the district court provided its full reasons for the findings of liability and permanent injunctive relief. The court also denied the NBC’s Motion to Dismiss and assigned reasons. The court did not decide the issue of money damages for the consumer redress part of the Government’s, Complaint and Demand.

    The record shows that a Notice of Appeal of the March 19, 1990, Judgment was filed on April 10, 1990, pro se by defendants, with the Clerk’s notation that the filing fee was "not paid". The record shows that the defendants did submit payment by check, but the government froze the bank account, which caused the check to be returned. The second clear miscarriage of justice.

     On March 21, 1990, the Government filed its Motion for Award of Consumer Redress on the Basis of Record Evidence, with related pleadings seeking a money judgment. The defense objected and demanded a trial on the merits. The defense motion was denied. NBC had almost 500 affidavits in their favor not want any refund, while the government found 6 individuals who the company was pursuing for contract violations. The third clear miscarriage of justice.

     The defendants sought the recusal of Judge Wicker. The judge sent out a "poison pill" type of comments in her recusal notice to her fellow judges.

     After substantially more proceedings, the court rendered its Judgment and Opinion on November 8, 1991, based on the record and pleadings and without an additional trial, ordering and adjudging NBC and Namer jointly liable for consumer redress in the amount of $3,019,377.00, plus pre-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs. The fourth clear miscarriage of justice.

     The amount of the judgment of November 8, 1991, consistent with the Government’s pleadings and evidence, was calculated according to the amount that was paid by each associate, discounting the fact that funds had been contractually returned to some, and the vast majority of the alleged victims submitted affidavits stating they sought no relief and were happy with the company. The court based its judgment amount on evidence provided by the Government and was the exact amount suggested by the Government in its pleadings and exhibits. The court refused to allow any contrary probative evidence to be submitted by NBC to reduce the consumer redress award. The fifth clear miscarriage of justice.

     Realizing that a permanent injunction had previously been issued in another section of court on March 19, 1990, as set forth above, the court followed the November 8, 1991, Judgment with its Permanent Injunction Order, on November 18, 1991, to complete the record.

     NBC and Namer, pro se, filed their Notices of Appeal for these Judgments and Orders of November 8 and November 18, 19, 1991. By entry of February 20, 1992, the Fifth Circuit Clerk stated the appeal was dismissed "for want of prosecution for failure of appellants to pay $105 filing fee and to make financial arrangements with court reporter within the time fixed by the Rules..." The record shows that the defendants did submit payment by check, but again, the government froze the bank account, which caused the check to be returned. After Magistrate hearings and pleadings filed by the parties, by Orders rendered April 28 and 30, 1992, the district court denied defendants’ motions for appeal in forma pauperis. The sixth clear miscarriage of justice.

    The government sized all of NBC and Namer’s assets ($3 million) and has never given any accounting as to the amount of money obtained from the assets sold, nor to whom any payments were made, if any.  There was no further action for five years.

     On June 25, 1997, the Government filed its first Motion and Order to Examine Judgment Debtor, which was ordered for July 23, 1997. The Government reported and it was so ordered "the judgment debtor examination is SATISFIED."

     The Government filed a Second Motion and Order to Examine Judgment Debtor, on July 12, 2002, which was set by the court for July 17, 2002. Robert Namer, pro se, filed his Opposition to the Judgment Debtor Rule. This was followed by the enrollment in the record of counsel for Namer, who filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination. The Government filed its Reply Memorandum, on November 19, 2002, and Namer filed his Supplemental Memorandum, on December 2, 2002.

     Robert Namer gave sworn testimony on August 28, 2002, in the Judgment Debtor Rule. After several continuances, the Rule was concluded on January 8, 2003.  During these proceedings, Namer moved to recuse the district court judge, Peter Beer. He had made private and written comments that Namer was an evil person for making comments that he wished harm to come to the judge’s family in one of his radio broadcasts. Namer wrote the judge a letter advising that no such statements were ever made and that he had tapes of every program for verification. Beer never made any response or attempt to clear the matter, other than adverse rulings against Namer.

     On January 27, 2003, the district court issued its Judgment and Orders via Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to Show Cause. Based on the Judgment Debtor Rule and other proceedings, the court concluded that the said Judgment of November 8, 1991, for consumer redress in the amount of $3,019,377.00, constituted a "debt" owed to the United States and subject to the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. Virtually all of the court rulings were based on collection procedures under the Act.

     In retaliation for seeking his recusal, Beer unilaterally, and without any motion from the Government, ruled that the court had the "plenary authority to add", as responsible and liable judgment debtors, four entities N. Inc., VOA, AFC, FRN (initials placed to avoid pubic embarrassment to innocent victims of the rogue judge),  that allegedly were involved in asset transfers and financial arrangements with Robert Namer, and ordered these entities to show cause on March 11, 2003, "why they should not be named as parties to this matter and cast as judgment debtors under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act and/or Louisiana law." All defendants filed a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal, which was denied. All defendants also filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Rules to Show Cause, on March 31, 2003, which was opposed by the Government.

     Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on February 25, 2003, from the court’s rulings of January 8 and January 27, 2003.

     On April 2, 2003, the court conducted a hearing on the rule to show cause why the additional parties should not be named and included in these proceedings, and on the Motion to Stay. Neither the district court nor the government introduced any evidence or testimony to substantiate the court’s claim of any transfers of assets. A claim that contained no specific incident, date or amount of any alleged asset transfers by any of the added defendants.

     The court rendered its Amended Judgment, on April 8, 2003, ordering that the November 8, 1991, money judgment for consumer redress be amended to include additional entities N. Inc., VOA, AFC, FRN as additional parties and judgment debtors, all liable jointly and severally. There was never any motion by the Government to include these additional parties. They were included solely by the unilateral action of the district court. The court did not seek, review, or examine any financial records offered by all the entities. Similarly, the court apparently disregarded Namer’s letter of April 3, 2003, and referenced affidavits of April 2, 2003, by the four entities filed in the record, which demonstrated that there were no improper or actionable asset transfers or inadequate consideration for services performed by Namer. This was the seventh and most egregious miscarriage of justice so far.  There is no court record of such an action anywhere.

     On June 2, 2003, defendants filed their Notice of Appeal from the Amended Judgment, which was coupled with the previous Notice of Appeal filed February 25, 2003.

     It bears noting that Namer expressed his clear intention to testify in the continuation of the Judgment Debtor Rule and provide additional evidence on the pending motions, particularly the court’s insistence to add the additional parties. More particularly, after declaring his intention at the hearing on March 11, 2003, the court invited him to take the stand and his counsel declared that Namer intended to take the stand. Namer’s counsel then declared that he would not ask Namer any questions, but that he wanted to make statements under oath and introduce financial information. It should be noted that Namer made himself available, and neither the court nor the government sought any information, documentation or testimony from him. The court announced that the record was closed, to which Namer responded, "May I speak?" The court answered in the negative by stating, "The record is closed." The said Amended Judgment of April 8, 2003, adding the additional corporations was then rendered by the court.

     The Government did not employ any collection procedures under Louisiana law, to which the Government would have been entitled. Rule 69, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. More particularly, the Government did not record its Judgment and re-inscribe or revive it prior to the passage of ten years, as provided in Article 3501, Louisiana Civil Code, and Article 2031, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure. These State procedures gave the Government, as a judgment creditor in this state, ten years in which to execute under its money judgment, subject to renewals or revivals prior to the passage of ten years. The government did not record and renew or revive the money judgment of November 8, 1991, prior to November 7, 2001, and has never done so. Accordingly, the only way the Government can execute on its judgment is to utilize the provisions of the Act, if it applies. According to the facts and nature of the Government’s lawsuit and the underlying debt, the Act is not available to the Government.

    During the course of the entire litigation, and particularly during the judgment debtor proceedings, the Government did not move or request to add additional parties as judgment creditors, including the business entities in which Namer was involved. Extraordinarily, however, District Court Judge Peter Beer on his own did so, as set forth in the court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order to Show Cause, January 27, 2003, and the Amended Judgment, April 8, 2003, over strenuous defense objections. The Government made clear to the court that it had not added additional parties, when Government counsel told the court at the hearing on March 11, 2003, that "no additional corporations have been made debtors, so there was no action that the United States, at this point could take with respect to those corporations.

     Under the provisions of the Act, the court claimed to review certain transfers between Namer and the other entities and declared that Mr. Namer made use of these entities in a wrongful manner. Based on this statutorily infirm review, the court added the outside entities as judgment debtors. The record clearly shows that the court never sought, nor had access to any of the financial records of any of the judgment debtors to make any valid review or judgment.

     Defendants then perfected their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After due proceedings, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court decisions and the Petition for Rehearing was denied. They have filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was not accepted.  

     THE ROUGE JUSTICE CONTINUES:

     On December 10, 2004 the FTC filed an Application for Writ of Continuing Garnishment and order naming a company by the initials CTT as garnishee. On February 11, 2005 all the judgment debtors filed request for a hearing and claim of exemption.

     District Judge Peter Beer referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Sally Shushan for recommendation.  On March 29, 2005 the FTC filed its response to the judgment debtors’ request for hearing and claim of exemption.  In their response, they plead that “First, the FTC is not seeking to seize the judgment debtors’ office goods, disposable earnings or tools of trade.”  This led the Magistrate to narrow the hearing to one alleged issue, which was the garnishment of any revenues due VOA by CTT.

     On April 7, 2005 the magistrate granted the request for hearing for Robert Namer and denied the requested for N. Inc., VOA, AFC and FRN because they filed pro se.  The magistrate limited the scope to the one issue, which was the garnishment of any revenues due VOA from CTT

     On May 26, 2005 Magistrate Judge Shushan granted N. Inc., VOA and AFC’s motion to submit their argument on the already submitted pleadings and adoption of Robert Namer’s oral defenses where applicable after the last minute enrollment of licensed counsel for their behalf.

     The Hearing was ultimately set for June 1, 2005 and limited to the CTT issue.  The government, advised the court that they did not seek to seize any assets from any judgment debtors and the only issue before the Court should be any revenues that may be due VOA from CTT. 

     The FTC offered no other testimony or evidence. Namer offered oral testimony, which was not refuted.  The FTC failed to advise the judgment debtors that it already obtained an ex parte (secret) order from Judge Peter Beer signed on May 31, 2005 to seize the judgment debtors’ property and place them in the hands of a receiver.  Thereby making the entire proceedings a deceptive sham.  The sincerity of the magistrate is not in question, as judgment debtors believe she was unaware of the order and was equally duped by the FTC and Beer.  The matter was taken under submission. 

     On June 8, 2005, Magistrate Judge Shushan entered her Report and Recommendations.  She denied the judgment debtors claims of exemption on the single issue, and offered extensive analysis of the relationships of the parties and how Robert Namer was the only party entitled to exemptions if he operated outside a corporate entity, such as a D/B/A.  The Magistrate wrote, “The FTC replies that it is not seizing anything that belongs to Namer, but rather it is seizing what CTT owes VOA.”  The Magistrate further wrote, “The FTC is correct that the only property at issue as result of CTT’s garnishment response is what it owes VOA.  Namer’s contentions concerning himself are not relevant to the hearing required by 28 U.S.C., 3202(d) regarding the garnishment of amounts owed to VOA.”

     Judgment debtors did not appeal the Magistrate’s decision, as they were lead to believe the denial had only to do with any money due VOA by CTT. 

     On June 20, 2005 the FTC served their seizure papers on the judgment debtors, waiting until the 10 days after prescription of the judgment debtors’ appeal rights.  The FTC’s ex parte motion itself was deceptive.  The FTC stated, “Therefore, N. Inc., VOA, and AFC have no incentive to properly and accurately account for the income received by the assets owned or controlled by them.” 

     The facts are that all the judgment debtors within the last two weeks provided the FTC their financial statements for the past five years and an affidavit by a CPA that reviewed the financial conditions.  They voluntarily offered in writing full access to all financial records and the ability to review all the assets.  Judgment debtors thought they were in settlement negotiations.

     All the judgment debtors requested that the magistrate mediate some sort of negotiations to formulate a payment schedule and a way to preserve the assets without liquidation sales that only gain pennies on a dollar.  Judgment debtors have been waiting for a date from the court, which Magistrate Shushan stated would be forthcoming. 

     U.S. marshals (conducting themselves very professionally) came with an appointed Receiver, without any notice or due process seized all the property of Robert Namer, N. Inc., VOA, AFC and FRN.  This was wrongful, fraudulent, illegal and unconstitutional seizure by the FTC.  The rights of all parties were violated by the seizure of assets through fraudulent means and without proper due process.   

     The implications in the FTC pleadings and the Magistrates Recommendations were clear of any possible presumption that the FTC was seeking to seize any assets without filing another garnishment notice implying seizure.  That is the intent of 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(2).  All judgment debtors would have appealed the Magistrate’s order if they were not clearly lead to believe that property seizure was not sought and there was bad faith in the alleged proposed settlement talks. The order for seizure dated May 31, 2005 preceded the actual evidentiary hearing of June 1, 2005.  Judgment should not be rendered prior to a hearing on the merits of any case.  This indicates a predisposition of the case and the lack of application of fundamental fairness. 

     Though the order for seizure did not name Robert Namer, his exempt property was seized by being locked out of his office, which contained all his legal documents for the defense of this case, tools of trade, books of trade, business papers, and personal property.  His vehicles are needed for his trade and are exempt because they had little if any net value.  Namer was and is being deprived of his livelihood.  Other parties that are not judgment debtors were denied access to their property kept in the building seized.  

     The rogue justice becomes clearer and more capricious.  On July 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge orders the return of Namer’s car.  Namer owed more on the car than the present value.  The FTC appeals the decision. In the appeal, the FTC says it does not want the car and stated it would turn it over to Ford Motor Credit Company.  Why? Only to cause a hardship on Namer.  What’s worse is the clear bias of District Judge Beer.  He reversed the e Magistrate’s ruling.  Click here for Namer’s legal position. 

     Namer filed a Rule 60 Motion to Dismiss on August 2, 2005.  You can read it by clicking here.  The law is clear, and so are the FTC’s violations.  The Motion would be granted in any court that impartially ruled on the bases of the Constitution and Justice.

     On July 25, 2006 in Civil Action No. 06-2511 (USDC Rec. Doc. 26 – USCA5 Vol. 1 Pg.151) Judge Peter Beer entered an order to wit: “Effective immediately, insofar as these related civil actions [USDC Eastern District] [06-2511, 06-3191, 05-3776 and 89-1740], the clerk of court is directed to decline to accept for filing, any complaint or pleading of any kind from Robert Namer, pro se, or anyone on his behalf, or anyone on of any of the parties or entities to these complaints or pleadings, whether currently named or not, including but limited to National Business Consultants, Inc. America First Communications, Inc., Voice of America, Inc., …  The clerk is further instructed to return any such attempted filings forthwith and to return unfilled any pleading sought to be filed by mail.”

     On January 3, 2007 an appeal was filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Louisiana under No. 06-30528.  The Appeal was denied and the Court of Appeals stated they wanted the matter to end.  Click Here