State of Louisiana v. Malinda Nicole DiRosa EXHIBIT 2

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION DOES DENY A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE

Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled "Qualifications" does state:

"To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a person, by the date of his qualification as a candidate, shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, be an elector, and have been a citizen of the United States and of this state for at least the preceding five years. " Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution

So, in order "to be eligible for any statewide elective office" one must "have been a citizen of the United States and of this state for at least the preceding five years." According to the Slaughterhouse Cases there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other .

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

If there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, then when Article IV Section 2 does mention "a citizen of the United States and of this state." to which state is it referring? It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended to refer to the State of Louisiana, that any reference to Louisiana is carefully avoided. One can not be both a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, which are distinct from each other, hence, no one would be eligible. It is too clear for argument that the phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.

To follow this logic, it can not be denied that a Citizen of the State of Louisiana can not hold any statewide elective office. These offices can only be held by a citizen of another state, a citizen of the United States, that has resided in the territories for at least the preceding five years. Does a citizen of another state, and a mere territorial citizen, have standing to defend the Louisiana State Constitution in the United States Supreme Court?

Let us examine the qualifications for judges.

Article V $24. Judges; Qualifications

" A judge of the supreme court, a court of appeal, district court, family court, parish court, or court having solely juvenile jurisdiction shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this state for at least five years prior to his election, and shall have been domiciled in the respective district, circuit, or parish for the two years." Article V $24 of the Louisiana State Constitution.

Again the name of the state is avoided as is any requirement that the judge be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Is it the same "this state" previously mentioned in Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution, (supra) the United States. Again, I defy anyone to point out any judge in the State of Louisiana that is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana included.

Here are the requirements for the legislature.

Section 4.(A) Age; Residence; Domicile. An elector who at the time of qualification as a candidate has attained the age of eighteen years, resided in the state for the preceding two years, and been actually domiciled for the preceding year in the legislative district from which he seeks election is eligible for membership in the legislature.

Again, Citizenship in the State of Louisiana is not required, and all reference to the name of the state is conspicuously absent. Again, I defy anyone to point out any member of the legislature who is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana.

Considering the importance of the document and considering that the study of law is essentially the study of the precision use of language, it is more than mere coincidence that any reference to the state is a reference in lower case. One can see from the United States Constitution that when citizenship is discussed a Citizen of the State in denoted in upper case, as opposed to a citizen of the United States which is denoted in lowercase. So also can it be seen that when referring to one of the States United it is begun in upper case. Surely in so important a document if one were to find it necessary to abbreviate the name of the State of Louisiana to just this State, would the precision use of language require the capitalization. Or is it that United States jurisdiction is denoted with lowercase as are citizen of the United States and does denote the clear meaning intended that the "this state" referenced is the same "this state" referenced in the qualifications?

There can be no doubt that a Citizens of the State of Louisiana is unrepresented, and their interests uncared for. They are, by Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution, not eligible for any statewide elective office. There can be no doubt. The documents are irrefutable. To a doctor of law, the language is clear and free of ambiguity.

You would think that being able to prove, using, almost exclusively, the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, that citizens of another state had invaded the State of Louisiana and stolen your government, your rights, your property, and left you to die in the next disaster for refusing to submit would be the most shocking thing to find. It was not.

While preparing this document I did find Article II Section 26 in the Louisiana State Constitution.

Article II $26. State Sovereignty

Section 26. "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled." Article II $26 of the Louisiana State Constitution.

What have these citizens of another state, pretending to have the authority to represent the State of Louisiana and the Citizens of the State of Louisiana, expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled? I do reserve the right to subpoena all records of every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which has been expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

Who is representing a Citizen of the State of Louisiana in congress assembled? There can be no doubt that it is a citizen of the United States, a citizen of another state, that is serving in congress. "To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a person, by the date of his qualification as a candidate, shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, be an elector, and have been a citizen of the United States and of this state for at least the preceding five years. " Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution

Having proved what these invading citizens of another state have done to my right to pursue my happiness, there is no telling what other acts of tyranny they have perpetrated upon the Citizens of the State of Louisiana, unrepresented, and their interests uncared for. Could they have stolen even my right to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana?

There can be no doubt that Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution has been violated.

"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution

The invaders from another state have not only stolen the rights and government of the Citizens of the State of Louisiana, but now under their guise as legal representatives of the State of Louisiana and the Citizens of the State of Louisiana they now have the power and might of their state to call should the conquered subjects object. It would seen that the child is eating the parent. The question is, is the parent dead or just dying?

"But so far as mere rights of person are concerned, the provision in question is confined to citizens of a State who are temporarily in another State without taking up their residence there. It gives them no political rights in the State as to voting or holding office, or in any other respect. For a citizen of one State has no right to participate in the government of another." Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393

The proof is irrefutable. The documents are irrefutable. To a doctor of law the wording is clear and unambiguous. What defense can there be? Who is qualified to offer a defense?