April 19, 2007
Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
400 Royal St.
New Orleans, La 70130
Dear Person,
I have filed three objections, a brief
in support and a demand entitled
OBJECTION TO THE TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH
CIRCUIT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Mailed March 12, 2007.
OBJECTION TO THE RULING ENTITLED “APPLICATION FOR WRITS NO.
'07-KH-154 COURT OF APPEAL, FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA.”
AND MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Mailed March 15, 2007.
OBJECTION TO THE RETURN OF LEGALLY FILED DOCUMENTS AND ADJUDGMENTS
BY THE CENTRAL STAFF OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Mailed March
26, 2007.
ORIGINAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF
LOUISIANA ARTICLE VII SECTION 5 OF THE LOUISIANA STATE CONSTITUTION
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL MICHAEL E. DI ROSA RELATOR AND APPELLANT AND
NOTICE OF FAILURE OF THE COURT. Mailed April 2, 2007.
DEMAND FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS Mailed April 2,
2007
Upon a rereading of the rules I have
found that I may not have sent you the correct number of copies of
the objections and demand ( items 1, 2, 3 and 5 ). I did believe
that I was giving the correct number of copies under Rule X Section 2
as a pro se in criminal matters. I have just become aware of Rule V
Section 2 which indicates that I should have sent you Eight copies
filed with the original. I am, therefore, sending eight copies of
items 1, 2, 3 and 5 to total an original and nine copies. I have
been told, by your office, that the failure of these documents to
show up on the record was just a normal delay of a busy staff. I do
not want my oversight to aid in that delay as my life, liberty and
property are on the line.
Thank you for your time
Michael E. DiRosa
C/O 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New Orleans, La 70124
XXX-XXX-XXXX
TOP
|
