State of Louisiana v. Malinda Nicole DiRosa EXHIBIT 1

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION THAT ARTICLE VII SECTION 5 OF THE LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

There can be no doubt that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" is unconstitutional for the following reasons.

Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" is unconstitutional in that it is not sufficiently clear to the average Citizen and voter. It is labeled as a license tax when in actuality it is an admiralty lien and privilege on vehicles and a tax on the license to use the vehicles, with permission of the new owner. Vehicles have been stolen from the Citizens, without compensation nor due process, by a bill of credit. It has, by design, stripped every Citizen of the State the right to own property of every kind and the right to travel. It has removed from the Citizen of the State the right to travel by making it impossible to own any vehicle by which the right to travel may be enjoyed (including bicycle and ridden animal.) Since the right to travel has been stolen, State Citizens can not exercise the right endowed by the creator to pursuit of happiness.

Article VII § 5 Section 5 does state:

§5. Motor Vehicle License Tax

Section 5. The legislature shall impose an annual license tax of not more than one dollar per each one thousand dollars of actual value on automobiles for private use based on the actual value of the vehicle, as provided by law. However, the annual license tax shall not be less than ten dollars per automobile for private use. On other motor vehicles, the legislature shall impose an annual license tax based upon carrying capacity, horsepower, value, weight, or any of these. After satisfying the requirements of Section 9(B) of this Article, and after satisfying pledges respecting that portion of the revenues attributable to the tax rates in effect at the time of such pledges for the payment of obligations for bonds or other evidences of indebtedness and upon the creation of a Transportation Trust Fund within this constitution, the revenues from the license tax on automobiles for private use shall be deposited therein. In the event no such trust fund is established in this constitution, the revenues shall be used exclusively and solely as provided by law for the construction, maintenance, and safety of the federal and state system of roads and bridges, for the parish and municipal road systems, for the operations of the office of state police, Department of Public Safety and Corrections or its successor, and for the payment of any obligation for bonds issued or indebtedness incurred in connection with any of the foregoing, which bonds may be issued as revenue bonds under Article VII, Section 6(C) of this constitution, subject to existing pledges only as to that portion of the tax collections attributable to the rates in effect at the time of such pledges for the payment of any obligations for bonds or other evidences of indebtedness outstanding on the effective date of this Section. No parish or municipality may impose a license fee on motor vehicles.

Amended by Acts 1989, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 28, §1, approved Oct. 7, 1989, eff. Nov. 7, 1989. Article VII § 5 Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax"

Could this be a license tax as the title "Motor Vehicle License tax" does proclaim?

"License Tax. A "license tax is one imposed on the privilege of exercising certain callings, professions, or vocations, that when collected go into the State treasury, and when applied to municipal taxation, is termed license fees. 97 Ky, 401, 30 S.W. 974.

A "license tax" within the meaning of the constitution is not a burden on property, but on that which results from its enjoyment, or the conduct of the business or calling. 97 Ky, 395, 30 S.W. 974. " Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg. 711

"--License fee or tax. The price paid to governmental or municipal authority for a license to engage in and pursue a particular calling or occupation. See Home Ins. Co. V. Augusta, 50 Ga. 537; Levi V. Louisville, 97 Ky. 394, 30 S. W. 973, 28 L.R.A.480." Black's law Dictionary Third Edition Pg. 1112

There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 is not a license tax by definition. There is no calling, profession, occupation, nor vocation exercised. These vehicles are for private use. Could I be stringing too many words together? Just what is a license?

LICENSE

"A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort." Black's law Dictionary Third Edition Pg. 1110

This sounds like my original premise. If they can take my vehicle without due process of law, I must not own it. I had harmed no one. In fact on the two times that the policeman did stop me and did steal my vehicle, the reason given had been that my license plate had been expired or missing. Could I have been accused of a trespass or a tort? I know that traveling is a right, and driving is a privilege. Just what is a privilege?

Privilege.

IN Civil Law. A right which the nature of a debt gives to a creditor, and which entitles him to be preferred before other creditors. Dalloz. Dict. Privilege; Domat, Lois Civ. Liv. 2, t. 1, s. 4, n.1; 43 La. Ann. 1078, 1194.

Privilege is "a real right in a thing (jus in re) springing from the nature of a debt which has been contracted with reference to that thing, and securing the debt by a preference on the proceeds of the thing when it is sold under legal process." Howe, Stud, Civ. L. 86.

" A mortgage under the civil law is to all intents and purposes what it is in equity in the English law or the law of Connecticut, a security for a debt given by the agreement of the debtor. But a debtor cannot, by his mere agreement, proprio vigore, confer a privilege.

" If he contracts a debt, which by its nature has a privilege under the law, then the privilege exists, as a method of securing the debt. It inheres in the thing with reference to which the debt has been contracted, follows it into the hands of third persons (in the absence of some law of recordation providing to the contrary), and as a rule would prime a mortgage of the same property." Howe, Stud. Civ. L. 87.

" The one is legal : the other conventional. This former is sometimes called by the civilians a privileged hypothecation; the latter a mere hypothecation." Howe, Stud. Civ. L. 88.

" The civil law privilege became, by the adoption of the admiralty courts, the admiralty lien : Howe, Stud. Civ. L. 89: 19 How. 82, 90: 148 U.S. 1." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg. 981

So a Privilege is "a real right in a thing (jus in re) springing from the nature of a debt which has been contracted with reference to that thing" Well, what rights do adhere to a privilege? What is a "jus in re"?

"JUS IN RE. In the civil law, A right in a thing. A right existing in a person with respect to an article or subject of property, inherent in his relation to it, implying complete ownership with possession, and available against all the world" Black's law Dictionary Third Edition Pg. 1044

The pieces do fit. It does explain my eviction from the vehicle, and its seizure. If the State of Louisiana does claim an admiralty lien implying complete ownership with possession, and available against all the world, such a seizure would appear legal under color of law.

There can be no doubt that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" does create, by admiralty lien, "a real right in a thing (jus in re) springing from the nature of a debt which has been contracted with reference to that thing", Bouvier's Law Dictionary (supra)

"...After satisfying the requirements of Section 9(B) of this Article, and after satisfying pledges respecting that portion of the revenues attributable to the tax rates in effect at the time of such pledges for the payment of obligations for bonds or other evidences of indebtedness and upon the creation of a Transportation Trust Fund within this constitution, the revenues from the license tax on automobiles for private use shall be deposited therein." Louisiana State Constitution Article VII Section 5

"... and for the payment of any obligation for bonds issued or indebtedness incurred in connection with any of the foregoing, which bonds may be issued as revenue bonds under Article VII, Section 6(C) of this constitution, subject to existing pledges only as to that portion of the tax collections attributable to the rates in effect at the time of such pledges for the payment of any obligations for bonds or other evidences of indebtedness outstanding on the effective date of this Section." Article VII Section 5

So in this instance, Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution, the license that is being taxed is, if I have this deciphered correctly, a tax on the permission to use the vehicle that the State of Louisiana does now claim to own by virtue of an admiralty lien securing a bill of credit.

Is this a bill of credit strictly prohibited by the Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution? Which states: "No State shall ... emit Bills of Credit;..."

"-- Bill of credit. In constitutional law. A Bill or promissory note issued by the government of a state or nation, upon its faith and credit, designed to circulate in the community as money, and redeemable at a future date." Black's Law Dictionary, third edition pg 221.

Is there a Bill or promissory note "for the payment of obligations for bonds or other evidences of indebtedness" Article VII § 5 (supra). Sure enough.

Is there a "government of a state or nation, upon its faith and credit" in Article VII § 5 (supra)? Well it does say " After satisfying the requirements of Section 9(B) of this Article" Article VII § 5 (supra).

(B) Bond Security and Redemption Fund. Subject to contractual obligations existing on the effective date of this constitution, all state money deposited in the state treasury shall be credited to a special fund designated as the Bond Security and Redemption Fund, except money received as the result of grants or donations or other forms of assistance when the terms and conditions thereof or of agreements pertaining thereto require otherwise. In each fiscal year an amount is allocated from the bond security and redemption fund sufficient to pay all obligations which are secured by the full faith and credit of the state and which become due and payable within the current fiscal year, including principal, interest, premiums, sinking or reserve fund, and other requirements. Thereafter, except as otherwise provided by law, money remaining in the fund shall be credited to the state general fund. Louisiana State Constitution Article VII Section 9(B) [emphasis added]

Does it circulate in the community as money, and redeemable at a future date? Obviously, because it is "for the payment of any obligation for bonds issued or indebtedness incurred in connection with any of the foregoing, which bonds may be issued as revenue bonds under Article VII, Section 6(C) of this constitution, subject to existing pledges only as to that portion of the tax collections attributable to the rates in effect at the time of such pledges for the payment of any obligations for bonds or other evidences of indebtedness ...." Article VII § 5 (supra).

There is not a criteria described in the definition of emitting a bill of credit that this article does not fit nor a criteria missing. It is the definition of a bill of credit which the State is expressly prohibited from emitting.

Even if it were conjectured that it is not actually the State of Louisiana that emitted the bill of credit, could it be argued that an entity created by the State could be endowed with more power than its creator? The prohibition of Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution against emitting a bill of credit is clear, and considering this current action, its inclusion into the United States Constitution was intended to prohibit the very abuses of which I and all State Citizens have been subjected, for it clearly prohibits States from turning its Citizens from free persons into bond servants as has been done in this instance.

Nor can it be denied that the Legislature has sought to hide the evidence of their deed, the evidence of the admiralty lien. Louisiana Constitution Ancillary Article 19 Section 19 does state (in part):

"Privileges on movable property shall exist without registration of same, except in such cases as may be prescribed by law." Louisiana Constitution Ancillary Article XIX Section 19.

One can not deny the skill of the fraud perpetrated upon its Citizens by careful wording. It is no wonder that the Legislature of the State of Louisiana did see fit to issue the warning: Forget what you think you are authorizing, that is not what we said. It is not our fault that you did not go to law school. It is not our fault that even the basics of law are not taught until the doctoral level. We presume that you understand law as well as a doctor of law. Is this not the message of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana when it states in La R.S. 1:4

"§4.  Unambiguous wording not to be disregarded

When the wording of a Section is clear and free of ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." La R.S. 1:4

There can be no doubt that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" does create an admiralty lien on all private vehicles by bill of credit. Nor can there be any doubt that the intention of this legal deception was to deprive the Citizens of this State of their right to travel and subject them to slavery on the plantation of the State and the tyranny of its appointed overseer, the body corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Louisiana Revised Statute 32:25 does plainly confess to this fact.

"Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the owner of real property used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel by permission of the owner, and not as a matter of right, from prohibiting such use, or from requiring other or different or additional conditions than those specified in this Chapter, or otherwise regulating such use as may seem best to such owner." La R.S. 32:25

Having proved, beyond doubt, that the State of Louisiana did steal, complete ownership with possession, available against all the world, all motor vehicles for the purpose of "prohibiting such use, or from requiring other or different or additional conditions than those specified in this Chapter, or otherwise regulating such use as may seem best to such owner."La R.S. 32:25 It is now time to explore just what is a "motor vehicle".

The Louisiana Revised statutes does define a motor vehicle as

" "Motor vehicle" means every vehicle which is self-propelled, and every vehicle which is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated upon rails, but excluding a motorized bicycle." La R.S. 32:1(40)

The Louisiana Revised Statutes does define a vehicle as

" "Vehicle" means every device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. A bicycle or a ridden animal shall be a vehicle, and a trailer or semitrailer shall be a separate vehicle." La R.S. 32:1(92)

The Louisiana Revised Statutes does define a motorized bicycle as

" "Motorized bicycle" means a pedal bicycle which may be propelled by human power or helper motor, or by both, with a motor rated no more than one and one-half brake horsepower, a cylinder capacity not exceeding fifty cubic centimeters, an automatic transmission, and which produces a maximum design speed of no more than twenty-five miles per hour on a flat surface." La R.S. 32:1(41)

So, by a reading of the definitions, the State has mortgaged, secured by an admiralty lien, every device by which persons or things may be transported, with the exception of a very specifically defined Motorized bicycle, which, to the best of my knowledge, no longer exists, and carts I must manually push or pull. If the State has an admiralty lien and jus en re on all of these items, I can not own any of them. By the definitions, I can not even own an equitable interest in any device by which persons or things may be transported, with the exception of a specifically defined Motorized bicycle, if such a device exists. There can be no doubt that I have lost my right to acquire and possess property of every kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.

"The first and the leading case on the subject is that of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. [p*76]

"The inquiry," he says,

is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may all, however, be comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.

This definition of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States is adopted in the main by this court in the recent case of Ward v. The State of Maryland, while it declines to undertake an authoritative definition beyond what was necessary to that decision. The description, when taken to include others not named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted. They are, in the language of Judge Washington, those rights which are fundamental. Throughout his opinion, they are spoken of as rights belonging to the individual as a citizen of a State. They are so spoken of in the constitutional provision which he was construing. And they have always been held to be the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36. [emphasis added]

There can be no doubt that Article VII of the Louisiana State Constitution is blatantly unconstitutional. Here is a partial list of the federal and State Constitutional provisions that it does violate. It does effectively remove the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure.

Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" does violate the preamble and the following articles of the Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights:

1. Preamble to the United States Constitution in that it denies this Citizen of the State the Blessings of Liberty.

2. Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution in that the State of Louisiana did emit a bill of credit.

3. Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution in that it does impair the right to contract in that it does compel this Citizen of the State into contract, thus impairing his right not to contract, and refrain from admiralty and equity jurisdiction. Compulsion to service for a term of years is also the definition of slavery.

4. Article IV Section 2 of the United States Constitution in that it does deny this Citizen of the State Privileges and Immunities of the several States which include the enjoyment of life and liberty, the right to possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, among others.

5. Article I of the Bill of Rights in that it does deprive this Citizen of his right to travel as a matter of right since every means by which this person may travel has been seized by the State, by way of an Admiralty lien, and hence has denied this Citizen of his right to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance, since these rights can only be maintained if I can travel to such places.

6. Article I of the Bill of Rights in that it does compel this Citizen of the State to become surety for the debt of the State in violation of the admonition of the Bible in Proverbs 22:26 which states " Be not one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Thus denying this Citizen the freedom of religion.

7. Article IV of the Bill of Rights in that since the State has claimed a real right in my vehicles it has denied this Citizen of the State the right to be secure in my person, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

8. Article V of the Bill of Rights in that it does deny this Citizen of due process of law before being deprived of my liberty and property.

9. Article V of the Bill of Rights in that it does take my property for public use without just compensation, to be used as surety for debts of the State.

10. Article VII of the Bill of Rights by compelling this Citizen of the State into admiralty jurisdiction and hence deny this Citizen the right to a Common Law trial by Jury.

11. Article VII of the Bill of Rights by subjecting this Citizen of the State to excessive fines.

Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" does violate the preamble and the following articles of the State Constitution:

1. The preamble of the State Constitution in that it does impair and not protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property and does remove and not secure the blessings of freedom.

2. Article 1 section1 of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does impair and not protect the rights of the individual.

3. Article 1 section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does deprive this Citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

4. Article 1 section 3 of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does institute Slavery and involuntary servitude which are prohibited.

5. Article 1 section 4(A) of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does deny this Citizen the right to acquire, own, control, use, enjoy, protect, and dispose of private property.

6. Article 1 section 4(B) of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does take Property without just compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit.

7. Article 1 section 4(C) of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does take Personal effects.

8. Article 1 section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it authorize unreasonable searches and seizures.

9. Article 1 section 8 of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does compel this Citizen of the State to become surety for the debt of the State in violation of the admonition of the Bible in Proverbs 22:26 which states " Be not one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts." Thus denying this Citizen the freedom of religion.

10. Article 1 section 9 of the Louisiana State Constitution in that it does deprive this Citizen of his right to travel as a matter of right since every means by which this person may travel has been seized by the State, by way of an Admiralty lien, and hence has denied this Citizen of his right to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance, since these rights can only be maintained if I can travel to such places.

This is the core of this dispute. Who is the owner of this "real property used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel by permission of the owner." La R.S. 32:25 (Supra) I do claim to be the allodial owner of this vehicle. Article VII, Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional. I am the allodial owner of the vehicle, traveling as a matter of right. No State has ever had a valid lien on my vehicle, admiralty or otherwise.

The words of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 do state the limitations of State and Federal Governments regarding private property and rights.

"The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government [p*450] can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.

These powers, and others in relation to rights of person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government, and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus, the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.

So, too, it will hardly be contended that Congress could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a Territory without the consent of the owner, in time of peace nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law. Nor could they by law forfeit the property of a citizen in a Territory who was convicted of treason, for a longer period than the life of the person convicted, nor take private property for public use without just compensation.

The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial Government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are [p*451] concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt under the plea of implied or incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this -- if it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government -- it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial Government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local Government established by its authority to violate the provisions of the Constitution." Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

What defense can there be? The State of Louisiana did steal "without just compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit" (Article 1 section 4(B) of the Louisiana State Constitution) every "device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge." (La R.S. 32:1(92)). The State of Louisiana did this for the expressed purpose of stealing my right to travel. (La R.S. 32:25) "The wording is clear and free of ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." (La R.S. 1:4) The documents are unimpeachable. The only impediment to summary judgment is to verify that I have not misquoted nor have I quoted anything out of context. I again defy anyone to postulate a credible defense for this heinous section of the Louisiana State Constitution.