SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA
*****************
No. 2007 – KH -
0131
*****************
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS
MICHAEL E. DI ROSA
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
JUDGEMENT
****************************
A STAY ORDER IS
NECESSARY IN THIS MATTER
RESTRIANING THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA
****************************
Comes now into
Court Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, for the
purpose of objecting to the transferring of jurisdiction of case
number 2007-KH-131 on the Docket of the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana to the Federal Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, for its
consideration dated March 5, 2007 and received by me on the 7th
day of March, 2007 in the late evening.
I do object for the
following reasons .
This is simply a
property dispute . I do claim that I possess allodial ownership of
my vehicle. The State of Louisiana does claim to be the legal holder
of an admiralty lien on the same vehicle and has exercised its
contested right of ownership and has taken the vehicle from me, with
the personal property contained therein, without any process of law
for failing to insure the State's property. I do claim that Article
VII Section 5 of The Louisiana State Constitution entitled “Motor
Vehicle License Tax” is unconstitutional. It is this article
of the Louisiana State Constitution that does create the
unconstitutional lien on which the State does rely. The State's
possession of the Certificate of Origin on this vehicle is proof of
their claim of ownership.
The Louisiana State Constitution is
clear and unambiguous.
Jurisdiction rests
in this honorable court by virtue of Article V section 5(D)(1) of the
Louisiana Constitution
“(D) Appellate Jurisdiction. In addition to other appeals
provided by this constitution, a case shall be appealable to the
supreme court if (1) a law or ordinance has been declared
unconstitutional...”
It is this State
Citizen that has declared Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana
State Constitution as unconstitutional. Since the State Constitution
is silent upon whose declaration is needed. The Declaration of this
State Citizen and Defendant must suffice. Let
me remind you of the admonition of the Legislature which states:
Ҥ4. 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 is
no other Court in the State of Louisiana empowered to hear this
challenge to the Louisiana State Constitution.
The Fifth
Circuit Court of appeal has no jurisdiction in this matter.
US Code Title 28 §
1251 does state.
§ 1251. Original jurisdiction
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction
of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive
jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public
ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of
another State or against aliens.
Michael E. DiRosa
is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and not the Citizen of another
State, nor is he an alien in the State. If I am, at all, an alien it
is as a non resident alien in the territories of the United States.
Hence, the State has no standing in Federal Court.
The realization and
proof that First Parish Court is indeed a Federal Admiralty Court did
not come to me until literally minutes before a friend and duly
licensed slave and/or bond servant of the State of Louisiana, the
Department of Safety and Corrections and any private corporation in
the insurance industry, did arrive to escort this State Citizen to
First Parish Court. ( In my walking distance prison I am not allowed
to travel any further than the distance that I can walk in a day
without being so escorted.) I had suspected that I might be in
Federal court and was trying to ascertain the truth of this belief
since my first arraignment in March of 2004. Since the Supreme Court
of the State of Louisiana had failed to act, the State of Louisiana
is continuing to prosecute this Citizen of the State with full
knowledge that the lien they were enforcing is under constitutional
challenge by arraigning this Citizen on a new set of charges
identical to the charges being challenged.
During what can
only be described, with the driest of gallows humor, laughingly as an
arraignment on charges under docket number F1681551 (the
aforementioned new set of charges) in First Parish Court. I did
repeatedly inquire of the judge: What jurisdiction am I in; Is this a
Federal Court; Is this an admiralty jurisdiction; and other such
questions so I might be informed of the charges against me and the
jurisdiction of the court in which I was forced to appear, at the gun
barrel of the government. The judge did refuse to answer all such
questions and did enter a plea of not guilty in my behalf after
summarily denying my challenge of jurisdiction with no explanation
nor proof offered. I again must state that all recollections of my
arraignment are approximate as I am not allowed to take notes by
utilizing voice recorders. I have been only allowed to use pen and
paper and it is extremely difficult to take notes and defend my
rights simultaneously. Needless to say the taking of notes suffers
and it's importance pales in comparison.
The judge did spend
the time trying to gain creedance for the presumption of knowledge of
law and kept trying to force the jurisdiction of the court upon this
Citizen of the State. Even to the extent of using the old “Do
you understand the English Language?” ploy.
When the State of
Louisiana does seek to prosecute a person claiming to be a Citizen of
the State of Louisiana and claiming that jurisdiction is lacking is
that not a positive averment even if not in the form of a plea in
abatement? Evidently, the judge does not understand the English
language either. It is of no comfort to this State Citizen to know
that good conduct is not a job requirement for Federal judges.
“But the record, when it comes before the appellate court, must
show affirmatively that the inferior court had authority under the
Constitution to hear and determine the case. And if the plaintiff
claims a right to sue in a Circuit Court of the United States under
that provision of the Constitution which gives jurisdiction in
controversies between citizens of different States, he must
distinctly aver in his pleading that they are citizens of different
States, and he cannot maintain his suit without showing that fact in
the pleadings.
This point was decided in the case of Bingham v. Cabot, in 3 Dall.
382, and ever since adhered to by the court. And in Jackson v.
Ashton, 8 Pet. 148, it was held that the objection to which it was
open could not be waived by the opposite party, because consent of
parties could not give jurisdiction.
It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject. Those already
referred to, and the cases of Capron v. Van Noorden, in 2 Cr. 126,
and Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46, are sufficient to show the rule of
which we have spoken. The case of Capron v. Van Noorden strikingly
illustrates the difference between a common law court and a court of
the United States.” Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393 TANEY, C.J.,
Opinion of the Court
This State Citizen,
in reviewing his court documents, can not find a single instance
where the State has complied with this provision. Is the State's
compliance with the law only presumed? Evidently, leading by example
is not the State's style nor following the law the Federal style.
There can be no
doubt that the State of Louisiana has no standing, in this instance,
in Federal Court and has not, and can not “show affirmatively
that the inferior court had authority under the Constitution to hear
and determine the case. And if the plaintiff claims a right to sue
in a Circuit Court of the United States under that provision of the
Constitution which gives jurisdiction in controversies between
citizens of different States, he must distinctly aver in his pleading
that they are citizens of different States, and he cannot maintain
his suit without showing that fact in the pleadings.” Scott v.
Sanford (Supra) I can find no such statement in the Louisiana
Supreme Court's transfer of jurisdiction. To the best of my
knowledge neither has the State ever shown that I am a member of a
different State or alien nor has even suggested it. In point of
fact, I do not believe that I have ever seen a representative of the
State in any of these proceedings to date. I have only seen the
Federal prosecuting judge. Is the State of Louisiana not bound by
the Law? By what authority of law does the plaintiff not attend
hearings?
It is the
contention of this State Citizen that since the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana has granted my filing for the purpose of
transferring the filing and now can not transfer this case it is, by
law, “stuck with it” (I do not know a more appropriate
legal term.)
It is the opinion
of this State Citizen that the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana should dispense with the normal order of cases and
summarily rule that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” is
indeed unconstitutional absent any specific objection by the State of
Louisiana. This State Citizen has looked under the State and can
find no legs. I do officially move this Honorable Court to do so and
release this State Citizen from the bonds of my prison or, on its own
motion, do order the Department of Safety and Corrections to return
my vehicle and the personal property contained therein, at their
cost, until such time as their claim of ownership can be established
and due process had.
I do further DEMAND
that the State of Louisiana do cease and desist in its attempts to
prosecute this State Citizen in courts in which it has no standing.
I do further DEMAND that, absent a determination by the Louisiana
Supreme Court on my Constitutional challenge, the State continue to
enforce its righteous indignation at the alleged “affront to
the peace and dignity of the same” in the only Court with
original jurisdiction or surrender even the pretense of equal
protection under the law. The State has sullied my good name by
charging me as a person who affronts the peace and dignity of the
State. I am demanding that I be brought before a Court of competent
jurisdiction, in a timely manner, that I may face my accuser and
regain my good name. My hands are clean.
I do remind this
Court and all parties that I an still illegally incarcerated in this
walking distance prison. My vehicle (or my equitable interest in
same) and the personal property contained therein have been taken
from me without due process of law and are being held for ransom with
the ransom amount increasing daily. This challenge to the
unconstitutional lien is, to the best of my knowledge, my only legal
recourse in the State of Louisiana, to recover my vehicle, the
personal property contained therein and my unalienable rights
particularly the right to travel in pursuit of my happiness and own
property of every kind including my vehicle.
If my State induced
ignorance of law has aided this confusion. If any of the forms or
headings used have been incorrect, leading to this confusion or my
articulation of my position has been confusing I do humbly apologize.
I am having great difficulty in untangling the web of jurisdictions
confronting me. When I filed this case in the Louisiana Supreme
Court I did believe that First Parish Court was a State jurisdiction.
I had reason to believe that it was, in fact, a Federal Admiralty
Court, but I could not find proof. My pleading, from the beginning,
clearly show that I was trying to find out in what court and
jurisdiction I stood, among other things. In short, what is this
place and by what authority do you force me here. Every judge in
First Parish Court did refuse to inform me. However, the Judge that
I encountered on my March, 2004 arraignment is the only one that
acted correctly. (His name is written beyond the bounds of my
prison.) When I claimed that I was a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, he did promptly return my paperwork and throw me out of
his court with little discussion. How clear hindsight is. However,
if that is true, than who, and on what grounds, issued a mere
attachment for this State Citizen to be arrested and brought before a
court with no jurisdiction by a plaintiff with no standing?
Lenny Levinson knew
that I was claiming to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Lenny
Levinson knew that I had appeared in March of 2004 for an
arraignment, for I told him both orally and in writing (or tried to.)
I believe that I also told him that the Judge had not set a date for
another appearance. I am sure that it was in written form. I have
maintained that, in my belief, the hearing in March of 2004 had ended
with my case dismissed and a suggestion to find another court to
voice my Constitutional challenge. Yet still, without question or
proof, he did find me guilty of contempt and did adjudge that I was,
indeed, under the jurisdiction of a federal court, and the plaintiff
had standing, and further implying that I was not entitled to an
appeal yet.
Joseph Responti did
preside at my “arraignment” on February 28, 2007 in case
number F1681551 on the docket of First Parish Court. (To appear on
the Docket of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, properly
adjusted for the cross jurisdictional issue, as soon as I am able.)
He knew that I was claiming to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana
and challenging his jurisdiction. Is that not as good as a formal
plea in abatement? Does he understand the English language? He knew
that the State of Louisiana had no standing in his court when the
defendant is also a State Citizen. Yet, he too did adjudge that I
was, indeed, under the jurisdiction of a federal court, and the
plaintiff had standing, and further implying that I should appeal to
a Federal Court (5th Circuit) so I may be duped out of my
rights by conferring jurisdiction.
Where is Rebecca M.
Oliver? I don't believe I would know her if she slapped me again.
To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen Rebecca M. Oliver. In
previous decades, when I was more active in courts, traffic court was
a different place. District Attorneys did appear at arraignments,
paper could be filed in the Clerk's office. Now, as I understand it,
I have a Federal Judge in a Federal Court serving both as Judge and
Plaintiff, representing the State, at the arraignment of an infamous
crime. Was it too much to ask that counsel for the State show up to
protect the State's interests in the alleged “affront to the
peace and dignity of the same?” What would have happened to me
if I did not show up to answer charges? Look at what happened to me
and I had appeared and answered charges way back in March of 2004.
And I am not even being paid for my time. Could she have caught the
error made by the two judges in claiming jurisdiction? Maybe she
could have learned something from the Judge that threw me out of his
court in March of 2004.
This still leaves
the issue of yet another arraignment. Three trails have been
postponed pending ruling of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Yet, the
arraignment on a new set of charges, identical to the charges pending
in the Louisiana Supreme Court, was going forward. All in the same
hour. Again, where is Rebecca M. Oliver? She was served with this
case and a motion for a bill of particulars. How could she not know?
Yet, as a paid representative of the Plaintiff, she saw fit to bring
new charges against this State Citizen in a Court in which she has no
standing. What reason could there be for this? Could it have been
another attempt to force jurisdiction on this State Citizen? Could
it have been that if the trials had gone forward my motion for a bill
of particulars would have to be heard? I had filed a motion for a
bill of particulars in each of the three cases improperly before the
Louisiana Supreme Court. They did maintain my challenge of
jurisdiction however. If forced, I will always defend. The bill of
Particulars did go to the heart of the matter. Where am I and by
what authority do you force me here? A stay of the three pending
trials, a new arraignment and the absence of Rebecca M. Oliver
eliminates the need to answer the embarrassing bill of information
and I can not face my accuser if she is not there. The Court's own
records will prove the truth of my statements.
Now we have no less
than the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, lacking standing,
trying to transfer a record to a court that has no jurisdiction, and
no less than the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
I have been mostly
critical up until now. The Louisiana Supreme Court in their
appropriate discretion, and with only the statements of a pro se
litigant, professedly ignorant of the law with obvious jurisdictional
issues, to go on did correctly attempt to transfer the filings to the
United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit. Surely they should be
able to trust the officers of the lower court that the record would
clear up the discrepancy. Now that I have a better grasp of the
quagmire of jurisdictions I have found myself I can see the cross
jurisdictional nightmare I have spawned, to my great embarrassment.
In my defense, when given access to a law library and my previous
research I can usually mount a better showing.
If the
representative of the Plaintiff had done her duty and answered the
challenge of jurisdiction, I would have known what court I was in and
by what authority I had been dragged there. If either judge, either
as State of Louisiana, Plaintiff or as the Federal judge, had
answered the challenge of jurisdiction I would have known what court
I was in and by what authority I had been forced there at the literal
gun barrel of government.
If I were more
knowledgeable in law, I might say that I was a victim of a conspiracy
to defraud not only this State Citizen, but also the Supreme Court of
the State of Louisiana, and the United States Court of Appeal, Fifth
Circuit. One might even venture into areas of malicious prosecution.
I leave such issues to more competent legal minds. Having the rare
opportunity to have the ear of both jurisdictions, I can rest assured
that honorable Courts will take action if action is warranted.
However, in my
writ of error and/or appeal, I had listed the constitutional
challenge as the first point of jurisdiction. Cross jurisdictional
issues excepted, it must be remembered that the plaintiff in Federal
court was the State of Louisiana, appearing without standing,
enforcing an unconstitutional lien formed under the Louisiana State
Constitution on one of Louisiana's State Citizens. Could it be
argued that the highest court in the State of Louisiana has no
jurisdiction? I think not. The Louisiana Supreme Court is the only
Court in this State with jurisdiction to hear this challenge. Had I
had access to a library I might have done better but, alas, the
Louisiana Supreme Court Law Library is beyond the bounds of my prison
as are my records and previous research so my research capabilities
have been greatly limited.
Considering the
forgoing most of the Writ of Error and/or Appeal is rendered moot
before this Court for lack of jurisdiction. However, the challenge
based upon the blatant unconstitutionality of Article VII Section 5
of the Louisiana State Constitution is properly before this Court of
competent jurisdiction brought by a Citizen with standing.
If, by some legal
principle that I can not even imagine, it is found that the admiralty
lien on my vehicle is valid, I do demand that this honorable Court
restrain the State of Louisiana from any attempt to enforce the lien
in a court in which it has no standing. With this in mind I do,
again, move this honorable Court to dispense with the normal order of
cases and summarily rule that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana
State Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax”
is indeed unconstitutional absent any specific objection by the State
of Louisiana.
If my words sound
harsh I can not apologize. I do so under court order. I am told I
must be the belligerent claimant, in person, by the United States
Supreme Court. I am that person. Least we forget, I am charged with
an infamous crime. It is hoped that this objection to the transfer
of jurisdiction of this case to the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeal and motion for a summary judgment will help clarify my
position.
I have vowed to
weed the garden of my freedoms, so long left untended, so that I may
see its blooms and experience the fragrant air of a Free Person. To
this quest I have pledged my life, fortune, and my sacred honor.
I do hereby swear
that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
_________________________________
Michael E. DiRosa
C/O
318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New
Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
ORDER
I do not
presume to be competent to even suggest an order in so convoluted a
case. My intention should be clear. I do defer to the more able
minds of this Honorable Court.
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I do
hereby certify that I did place into the hands of The United States
Postal Authority a certified letter, return receipt requested to the
people listed herein. Of course, to do this I had to gain the
assistance of an escort, authorized by the State of Louisiana, the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and any corporation in
the Insurance Industry, slave / bond servant to all three, to escort
this walking distance prisoner to a copy machine and then to the Post
Office.
Supreme
Court, State of Louisiana
Clerk of
Court
400 Royal
Street, suite 4200
New
Orleans, LA 70130-8102
Hon,
Edward A. Dufresne, Jr.
Chief
Judge
Court of
Appeal Fifth Circuit
P.O. Box
487
Gretna,
LA 70054
Kathleen
Babineaux Blanco
P.O. Box
94004
Baton
Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Charles
C. Foti, Jr.
P.O. Box
94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Richard
L. Stalder Secretary
Department
of Public Safety and Corrections
P.O. Box
66614
Baton
Rouge, LA 70896-6614
Rebecca
M. Oliver
First
Parish Clerk of Court
924 David
Dr.
Metairie,
LA 70003
Joseph
Responti
First
Parish Clerk of Court
924 David
Dr.
Metairie,
LA 70003
Lenny
Levinson
First
Parish Clerk of Court
924 David
Dr.
Metairie,
LA 70003
TOP
|
