SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE
OF LOUISIANA
*****************
No.
*****************
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS
MICHAEL E. DI ROSA
Numbers
F1525159
F1523230
F1678532
On the Docket of
First Parish Court Parish
of Jefferson
State of Louisiana
Lenny Levinson presiding
WRIT OF ERROR AND/OR
APPEAL
A STAY ORDER IS
NECESSARY IN THIS MATTER
****************************
Priority Filing Sheet
Writ application Filing
Sheet
INDEX
Comes now into court
Michael E. DiRosa, a free and natural born Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, appearing in proper person, demanding all of his rights
under the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.
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
Defendant 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.
Jurisdiction rests
in this honorable court in its supervisory role over the First Parish
Court of Jefferson Parish in accordance with Rule X section 1 (1),
Rule X section 1 (4) and Rule X section 1 (5) of the Supreme Court
rules.
JAILHOUSE DEFENSE
This defense must
be considered a “jail house” defense in that this
Defendant has been incarcerated in a prison, without trial or due
process of Law. This prison is of such size that the bounding walls
describe the circumference of a circle whose diameter is the distance
that I can walk in a day, or half that distance if I maintain a
habitat, and does also include the property loss of time in transit.
I have been denied the use of any vehicle by which my right to travel
to pursue my happiness may be enjoyed. My vehicle, of which I am the
undisputed owner, has been stolen, without due process of law to
enforce my confinement. In fact, should evacuation of the City of
New Orleans become necessary, I can not escape my prison without
assistance. There is even a penalty for traveling further than the
bounds of my prison. I must either beg or pay a licensee of the
State and Insurance Industry to accompany me. The Supreme Court Law
Library is outside of the confines of my prison, as are most of my
books, research and papers.
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
This defendant does
rebut the presumption that this Defendant does know and understand
the law. This Defendant has little better than a high school
education and has had no formal training in law and is barely
competent in the use of colloquial English and has had no formal
training in the dialect of the English language known colloquially as
legalese. This Defendant does even rebut the presumption of
knowledge of the law as this State has mandated the high school
curriculum and has not seen fit to include even the basics of law
therein. Hence, the State is culpable in my ignorance of law.
Considering the culpability of the State in my ignorance of law, I do
challenge the presumption that I know and understand the law as no
such instruction is available in the State's own schools. On what
facts can this presumption of law rest?
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
1) The Judge of the
First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson did err in ignoring my
jurisdictional challenge based upon the fact that Article VII Section
5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional, and
forcing the jurisdiction of the court upon me. This is a final
judgment in this matter. Article V section 5(D)(1) of the Louisiana
Constitution, Rule X section 1 (4) and Rule X section 1 (2)
2) The Judge of the
First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson did err in ignoring my
jurisdictional challenge and did thereby deny me the answer to
questions of jurisdiction absolutely essential to my understanding of
the charges against me necessary to enter a plea and essential to my
defense. Rule X section 1 (4) and Rule X section 1(5)
3) The First Parish
Court of Jefferson Parish did deny, by deed only, the challenge of
lack of jurisdiction over this person and did set a trial date and
enter a plea on this Defendant's behalf against and over his
objection, in an improperly set court. This is a final judgment in
this matter. Rule X section 1 (4) and Rule X section 1(5)
4) The Judge of the
First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish did prosecute, try and convict
this Defendant on the charge of contempt of court, in an improperly
set court, knowing full well that evidence of this Defendant's
innocence was in the sole possession, by order of the Judges, of the
court. This is a final judgment in this matter. Rule X section 1 (4)
and Rule X section 1(5)
5) The First Parish
Court of the Parish of Jefferson did, intentionally, withhold
evidence, in their sole possession, by order of the Judges, that
would have exonerated this Defendant of contempt charges despite the
objection of this Defendant, orally and in writing, that evidence
existed, in the sole possession of the court, by order of the judges,
that would have exonerated him. Rule X section 1 (4) and Rule X
section 1(5)
6) The Judge of the
First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson did err when he not
only refuse to acknowledge that a final ruling on jurisdiction had
actually occurred when he entered a plea on my behalf and set the
matter for trial, he did refuse to tell me to which court I could
appeal despite notice orally and in writing that I did demand an
appeal on the final judgment of the court on jurisdiction. Rule X
section 1 (4) and Rule X section 1(5)
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS OF ERRORS
1) The
Judge of the First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson did err in
ignoring my jurisdictional challenge based upon the fact that Article
VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is
unconstitutional, and forcing the jurisdiction of the court upon me.
This is a final judgment in this matter.
There
can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution is unconstitutional. This section of the Constitution
does impose an unconstitutional lien on every vehicle by which I may
exercise my right to travel, and thereby, by design and
implementation does strip this Citizen of my right to travel and
virtually every other right and does reduce him to a slave of the
State and the Insurance industry or a prisoner in a walking distance
prison. Since this article of the Louisiana State Constitution is
obviously unconstitutional there are no legitimate charges against
this Defendant.
The
Judge of the First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson did err
in ignoring my jurisdictional challenge and did thereby deny me
the answer to questions of jurisdiction absolutely essential to my
understanding of the charges against me necessary to enter a plea
and essential to my defense.
AND
3) The
First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish did deny, by deed only, the
challenge of lack of jurisdiction over this person and did set a
trial date and enter a plea on this Defendant's behalf against and
over his objection, in an improperly set court. This is a final
judgment in this matter.
It is my right and duty as a Citizen to challenge the
jurisdiction of the court. It is only though a challenge of
jurisdiction that this Defendant can understand the nature of the
charges against him and the authority upon which those charges are
brought. I am facing an infamous crime with the loss of my life,
liberty and property in eminent peril. I have a right to know
material facts about these charges, the authority of the entities
involved in bringing these charges and the authority of the court
that proposes to try these charges. These facts are crucial to my
entering of a plea and preparing a defense.
The Judge of
the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish did prosecute, try and
convict this Defendant on the charge of contempt of court, in an
improperly set court, knowing full well that evidence of this
Defendant's innocence was in the sole possession, by order of the
Judges, of the court. This is a final judgment in this matter.
AND
The First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson
did, intentionally, withhold evidence, in their sole possession by
order of the Judges, that would have exonerated this Defendant of
contempt charges despite the objection of this Defendant orally
and in writing that evidence existed, in the sole possession of
the court by order of the judges, that would have exonerated him.
Evidence existed in the form of the Court Reporters
recording to prove that I did appear in court on the 16th
day of March, 2004. Despite evidence, in the sole possession of the
Court, that would have exonerated me I was ruled in contempt of court
for not appearing in court on that day.
The Judge of the First Parish Court for the Parish of
Jefferson did err when he not only refuse to acknowledge that a
final ruling on jurisdiction had actually occurred when he entered
a plea on my behalf and set the matter for trial, he did refuse to
tell me to which court I could appeal despite notice orally and in
writing that I did demand an appeal on the final judgment of the
court on jurisdiction.
This Defendant does have a right to appeal the final
decision on jurisdiction. Without this jurisdictional challenge
being settled I will have to endure three long and expensive trails
before an impotent court. This State Citizen is entitled to better
than to be dragged into court on an information based upon the
testimony of a biased agent of the illegal lien holder.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
In April of 2001,
upon attempt to renew my inspection sticker, I decided that I could
not, in good conscience and under penalty of perjury, agree to enter
into and maintain a contract with a private corporation that was
under no obligation to enter into and maintain a contract with me. I
did then reason that the State could not impair the obligation of
contract by constitutional restriction and to be forced into contract
did not only impair that contract to the point of being null it did
also force me into involuntary servitude. If the State did not have
this power, then the Department of Safety and Corrections, its child,
could not be given power by the State that it did not possess.
What force was
used? I was soon to discover first hand. As the fates would have
it, due to a clerical error on my part, my time, converted into
federal reserve notes and sent to my master was postmarked the day
after my insurance was due to expire, and my insurance was canceled
by the master as punishment for my tardiness, and additional time
(money) was required before reinstatement was permitted (a fact I did
not learn for some 20 days.) I was also told that the slave owner
(Insurance Company) did notify the State's militia of my failure to
submit. Since the money I had sent was tied up in transit and the
additional fees were not available I was not able to effect a
reinstatement.
It was at this time
that I was stopped by a Jefferson Parish Policeman because my license
plate had expired. He then found that my insurance card which , by
expiration date, seemed to be valid was indeed invalid. At that time
my daughter and I were cast out on the side of the street, with such
personal property as we could salvage, and the vehicle and its
contents were taken, by force and impounded by the Parish of
Jefferson. I did then demand that an inventory be taken of my
personal property still left in the vehicle. The policeman did begin
to comply but, upon realizing how much personal property there was,
did quit and demand the vehicle removed with only a partial inventory
and did give the tow truck driver the partial inventory allowing the
potential of the tow truck driver removing any item not listed.
It was then and
there that I fully comprehended the full nature of the force used.
As I was standing on the side of the road knowing that shortly my
daughter and I would be stranded, miles from our destination, with
more personal property than could be carried without a cart. I
realized that I was now in walking distance prison.
I did also
comprehend a different thought. If the State can so summarily take
my vehicle literally from under my seat, in full view of my daughter,
and leave us stranded on the side of the road, I must not own that
vehicle.
Luckily my daughter
had a cellular phone and I was able to contact someone who could pick
us up and had sufficient room to carry the personal property I had
salvaged and carry us to a destination of safety. I did then seek to
retrieve the personal property from the impounded vehicle and was
refused all access to the vehicle until it had been released by the
Department of Safety and Corrections. I then proceeded to the Kenner
office of the Department of Safety and Corrections, Reinstatement
office and did pay the fines and penalties required to have my
vehicle released. My registration was also revoked at that time, and
my license plate seized. I did then travel to the impound lot and
did pay the towing and storage fees and my vehicle was returned to
me. I do remind the Court that all of these places were separated by
great distance, are virtually inaccessible by public transportation,
and well beyond the walls of my walking distance prison. This is the
offense that was scheduled to be heard on the 16th day of
March 2004.
While awaiting my
day in court. I was stopped by one of the Department of Safety and
Correction's armed militia known as the State Police and issued a
summons to appear in court to answer the charge of failing to wear a
safety belt. I was scheduled to appear on the 17th day of
March 2004 the day after the March 16th 2004 appearance.
In the interest of
completeness, all promises to appear in court have been obtained by
threat of arrest. In all cases I had asked what would happen if I do
not sign this paper and in all cases I was told that I would be
immediately taken to jail.
It was in March of
2004, while researching my position for my appearance in court, that
I discovered the fraud that had been perpetrated on me. I did appear
in court on the day specified and did deny the jurisdiction of the
court at that instance. I did try to file paper with my position
clearly delineated with the Clerk of Court and was refused. I did
attempt to enter my notice and demand for dismissal for want of
jurisdiction into the record and it was returned by the judge without
comment. I did inform the court, as best I could as the information
was new to me, that I denied the jurisdiction of the court because I
had found the cesspool from which the court's power flowed, and it
was clearly unconstitutional. I did try to inform the court that if
the legislation was unconstitutional so were my license and
registration, hence, there were no contracts to be adjudicated. I
did also try to inform the court that as a Citizen of the State I was
entitled to better than to be dragged into court on only an
information to fight an infamous crime. Hence, this court had no
jurisdiction.
I had discovered
that as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana I had rights under the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights and as a territorial citizen I
had none. I did find that I had a unalienable right to pursue
happiness given me by my Creator, and that incumbent in that right
was my Right to Travel to wherever my happiness may be. It is my
right and my birthright and I am DEMANDING it.
Having discovered
the fraud perpetrated upon me, I did not sit idly by. I have allowed
my drivers license to expire as in under 20 days from the March court
dates it was scheduled to expire. I did have the registration on the
vehicle canceled and did turn in the license plate. I did renounce
my social security number as the fraud that it was and I am in a
search for any other such documents that would impair my claim as a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana and to denounce it as the fraud
that it is. I have never and will never knowingly give up my
unalienable rights. Freedom is also a tenant of my religion.
Having attempted to
inform the judge of my position, and after handing him the paper I
had tried to file and was refused, he did hand the paper back to me
and did say that he was not going to, on his own motion, move this
case into a constitutional court. Since I was challenging the
court's jurisdiction, I could not motion and since I was the
defendant I assumed that he was talking to a district attorney on
whose motion it would have to come. That the district attorney would
have to motion this into the correct court.
The Judge did then
inform me that this was not a constitutional court. I did take that
to mean that he did agree with me. That I was a Constitutional
Citizen entitled to a Constitutional proceeding and hence, this court
had no jurisdiction.
I did leave the
court with the impression that the Judge had ruled that he had no
jurisdiction and that if the State did wish to pursue this matter
further it would have to motion me into a different court. I did
further believe, incorrectly it would seem, that the correct court
would be the 24th Judicial District Court and did ask the
Judge that question to which I received only a shrug and did take
that to mean that, since he had no jurisdiction, he was simply
refusing to discuss the matter. I have since learned that in those
cases where the State is a party the Supreme Court of the United
States shall have original jurisdiction. So says the Constitution of
the United States in Article III, Section 2.
I feel obligated to
state that these fact concerning my appearance in this court in March
of 2004 are remembrances that are almost 2 years old. I do remember
trying to make a audio recording of the proceedings as the quickest
and surest way to make notes on the proceeding while also defending
myself. I was informed that I could not take notes using the same
modern conveniences used by the court reporter. I was to be
restricted to the 19th century technology and could only
use pen and paper to take notes. I guess that I should be thankful
that they did not arbitrarily restrict me to stone age technology and
only allow notes taken on stone tablets with chisels. However I do
believe that the truth of my words will be confirmed by the court
reporter's record, if it still exists. To my knowledge I left that
court room with no future date set for appearance.
In point of fact, I
was quite upset believing that the court had ruled that it had no
jurisdiction. This meant that my only avenue into court was to
demand the Certificate of Origin from the Department of Safety and
Corrections and sue if my demand was refused. It was this avenue
that I have been pursuing in my research.
Imagine my surprise
when I learned that an attachment had been levied against me by a
court that has never, to this day, ever refuted my challenge of
jurisdiction as is their burden. The court, knowing of my status as
State Citizen, should have known that a duly obtained warrant was
required for this citizen. I was arrested, my vehicle and all of its
contents (my private property) was again taken without inventory (see
Internal Affairs of the Jefferson parish police department file
numbers 20040112 (Exhibit B) and 20061209 Exhibit C ), or due process of law. I was taken to the Gretna detention facility where I was
beaten, threatened, tortured, extorted, held incognito, denied
counsel and the opportunity to compose writs for about 14 hours until
I could effect my escape (see Internal Affairs of the Jefferson
parish police department file number 20061209. (Exhibit C).) Two statements have been submitted to Lt. Toni Ulmer at Internal Affairs
on the 27th day of December, 2006 at approximately 1:30
pm. This being my first opportunity to formally complain since
Internal Affairs had been closed from December 23rd through 26th,
2006.
I did appear on the
28th day of December in First Parish Court after being
told by the Clerk of Court that I would have to talk to the Judge
about filing papers in this action. I did stand and challenge the
jurisdiction of the court.
I tried to enter my
Notice and Demand for Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction into the
record and it was refused because it had no order attached (Exhibit
A.) I had intended the Notice and Demand to be a simple statement of
my objection. I could have simply read into the record all four
pages, however I would then have no record that showed clearly that
what I had intended to say was what I actually said, as I am not
allowed to record voice. I did expect that the prosecuting attorney
would have attempted to prove jurisdiction, and contrary to my
argument the judge would have ruled that the court did have
jurisdiction. A final decision that I could appeal. I told the
Judge that I had a pen and a copy for the District Attorney and was
ready to serve the District Attorney as soon as I could write in an
order. I was refused, by the Judge, the opportunity to hand write an
order. I then realized why the Judge would not allow me to hand
write and order and serve the District Attorney. There was no
District Attorney present. The court was improperly set. However,
there being no prosecuting attorney in the room, the judge simply
ignored my challenge of jurisdiction and did, contrary to the
evidence that I told him, orally and in my Notice and Demand for
Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction, was in the sole possession of the
Court Reporter, as I am not allowed to record voice as she is, he, on
his own violation, did prosecute and rule that I was guilty of
contempt for not showing up in court while in full knowledge that
evidence existed that clearly, I believe, though I do not have a
recording and it is a two year old memory, would have exonerated me.
The Judge did then enter a plea of not guilty for the Defendant
against the Defendant's objection. A plea can not be entered until
the jurisdictional question is answered.
I was ordered to
pay a contempt fine for failure to appear on March 16, 2004 case
number F1523230 and failure to appear for case number F1525159. I
did inform the Judge, in this improperly set court, that I had
appeared on March 16, 2004 and that the court reporter's own records
could verify the truth of my statements and that I had left that
court believing that the case had been dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction and hence an appearance a few days later with the same
arguments would have been yielded the same result. There was no
proof that I had been in contempt of court. It was a contested issue
of fact, with the State controlling and refusing to bring forth, the
very evidence that would have exonerated me. I was also told, by the
Judge, that if I kept defending myself against these injustices that
I would be put in jail for contempt. A threat that I took seriously
having seen the Judge tell a woman that she was going to jail for a
few days for daring to argue that a hurricane, flood, forced
evacuation to another State and closure of the court was sufficient
justification to miss a court date, and send her to the punish bench
to await removal to jail. Again, if I had been allowed to use modern
technology in order to take notes, I would have had a record of the
conversation with which to prove my innocence of the contempt
charges. I was also informed that I would have to appear, yet again,
in this court in thirty days to beg an extension of time to pay if I
did not pay the illegal contempt fines before then.
At one point, I was
sent to the punish bench to sit with the poor woman awaiting jail
while the prosecuting judge dispensed with less contentious slaves.
I took this to mean that the prosecuting judge was making sure that I
understood that I was just a hair's breath from joining her in a
smaller prison. I had also thought that it might be a delaying
tactic to give the prosecuting attorney a chance to make an
appearance, but since on one showed claiming that title, I guess I
was wrong on that thought.
Upon return from
the punish chair, I was severely admonished, by the prosecuting
judge that if I were to break my walking distance prison and drive,
severe consequences would ensue. I believe he said something about
ninety days in jail, but I am not sure and do not have a recording in
my file. There was no doubt in my mind that he was aware that I was
indeed incarcerated in walking distance jail, without trial, or even
jurisdiction and that he was going to be especially hard on me if I
were caught daring to escape.
I did also ask if
all three informations could be combined because the same defense is
to be used on all three. This was also denied and I was ordered to
submit motions for each of the offenses. I did remind the judge that
I was still incarcerated in walking distance prison and bus service
is almost nonexistent in an effort to show that this would be an
extreme hardship, but I was silenced and being still under threat of
incarceration in a smaller prison, I objected as much as I dared. It
is also to be noted that the Summons labeled B 8484588 P is not due
for arraignment until the 23rd day of January, 2007. I
had instructed the Clerk of Court to have that record pulled and
combined as they are all related being sins of omission contesting an
unconstitutional and invalid lien. I did also ask the Clerk of
Court to pull the two Louisiana Uniform Traffic Tickets and
Complaints numbered JP-R 44686 and JP-R 44687 and combine these also
and for the same reason. I was told that these complaints could not
be combined as the paper work had not reached them, this paperwork
being only seven days old. Thank God the government is so slow. In
my current state of incarceration in walking distance jail, my
resources would not allow for five copies in triplicate as I only
have one ream of legal size paper and a dwindling supply of ink.
However, these two
Louisiana Uniform Traffic Tickets and Complaints numbered JP-R 44686
and JP-R 44687 issued on the 21st day of December, 2006
were incident to the seizure of my vehicle and personal property
therein, without inventory, my arrest justified by an attachment that
should never have been issued and the beginning of my confinement in
walking distance prison, after my escape from the Gretna detention
facility. These two complaints are scheduled for arraignment in
February, 2007 the original writing says the 22nd day and
there is now an inked 15 in that position that I believe was written
in by the Clerk of First Parish Court when trying to pull the record.
The inclusion of these two informations are essential in the
Defendant's ability to challenge his illegal imprisonment in walking
distance prison, to regain custody of his property from the
Department of Safety and Corrections and the Parish of Jefferson
without having to institute a separate proceeding, in an appropriate
court, suing the State of Louisiana as lien holder, Department of
Safety and Corrections as administrator of the State's property, the
Jefferson Parish Police Department and its agents for the recovery of
my property and freedom from my walking distance jail. Again all
five informations are charges of sins of omission based on a
challenge of an unconstitutional and invalid lien.
I did ask the Judge
of First Parish Court, while the court was preparing the notice of
trial date, to which court do I appeal? I was told that it was too
early to consider an appeal and did mutter something about “day
court” and did continue to withhold the information against
repeated inquiry. Obviously, if this matter is set for trial, a plea
of not guilty entered against the objection of this Defendant and I
given 20 days to file special pleadings, the challenge of
jurisdiction had indeed been ruled upon. It had been forced upon
this Defendant and decreed by this court. This is a final judgment
that is appealable.
I did call the
Clerk of Court for the First Parish Court and was told by Lory that
the sitting Judge on the 28th day of December, 2006 was
Lenny Levinson as I did not see any placard with the Judge's name on
it.
There can be no
doubt that I can not receive a fair and impartial trial in First
Parish Court. I have been to two arraignments in an improperly set
court. I have, at every instance, challenged the jurisdiction of the
court, a challenge that has, to this day, never been refuted, nor
proof of jurisdiction offered, nor ruling made. I have been ordered,
by the judge, to submit my statement in the form of a motion in
triplicate and for each case, hence six extra copies whose only
difference will be the number of the alleged offense, despite my
protest that this will impose upon this Defendant an unusually harsh
burden. I have been convicted of contempt despite evidence to the
contrary in the Court's exclusive possession. I have been attached,
incarcerated, tortured, beaten, held incognito, denied right to
counsel, paper and pen to write writs and extorted. I have, without
charge, trial or conviction, been incarcerated in this walking
distance prison. I have had my vehicle and my personal property
therein taken, without inventory or due process of law and held, at
my expense, and have been told by Brandy Cunningham of the Department
of Safety and Corrections that they will not release my property
until I have paid homage to the Overseer and insurance industry while
storage charges still accrue. I have been threatened with a more
restrictive jail, and torture chamber, for the heinous crime of
demanding my rights. Could the Judge of First Parish Court know
that the lien is unconstitutional and trying to dissuade me from
challenging it? The very sustenance of the officers of that court
depends on my arguments being declared invalid.
MEMORANDM IN SUPPORT
1) The Judge of the
First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson did err in ignoring my
jurisdictional challenge based upon the fact that Article VII Section
5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is unconstitutional, and
forcing the jurisdiction of the court upon me. This is a final
judgment in this matter.
There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana
State Constitution is unconstitutional. This section of the
Constitution does impose an unconstitutional lien on every vehicle
by which I may exercise my right to travel, and thereby, by design
and implementation does strip this Citizen of my right to travel and
virtually every other right and does reduce him to a slave of the
State and the Insurance industry or a prisoner in a walking distance
prison.
As previously stated, this Citizen of the State of Louisiana has
twice had his vehicle and personal property taken literally from
under his seat and impounded. Since I still believe that I am a
Citizen of the State, with an effective national and state
constitution, I had to believe both documents at their word when they
do state that I will not have my personal property seized,
except through due process of law in accordance with The United
States Constitution Amendment V and The Louisiana State
Constitution Article I Section 2.
“While the exact definition of the term “due
process of law” may be uncertain, it is certain that it
inhibits the taking of one man's property and giving it to another,
contrary to settled usages and modes of procedure, and without notice
or an opportunity to be heard. 230 U.S. 140” Bouvier's Law
Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg. 327
However, I had indeed seen it happen to me. To my mind and limited
knowledge of the law, I could see only two possibilities, either
police powers extend to the seizure of personal property without due
process of law, or I am not the owner of this vehicle. If I believe
that the main cornerstone of our system is the right to property, as
both the State and Federal Constitutions extol in
their preamble, then, obviously I must not
own this vehicle. Someone must have a higher title to this vehicle
than I.
If this is not police power then
someone must have a higher title to this vehicle than I.
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.
As a Citizen barely competent in the English
language, and virtually illiterate in the dialect of the
English language colloquially known as legalese. My first
action is to find a dictionary. What is a license tax? According to
my legal dictionary, a license tax is:
“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
This could not be what is meant by this article and section. This
definition of a License tax is a privilege of exercising certain
callings, professions, or vocations. Could this mean that the State
does consider anyone who operates a motor vehicle is a person engaged
in the calling, profession, or vocation of transporting people and
property for hire? This could not be the meaning any more than the
assertion that anyone that owns a sharp tool is a butcher. Also,
Article 5 section 5 does specifically state
automobiles for private use. Private use does seem to render this
argument erroneous. Plus, this definition
does clearly state that this tax is not a burden on property.
I then turned to simpler concepts. What is a license? Here my
dictionary does state (in part):
“LICENSE(Lat.licere, to permit).
In Governmental Regulation. A license fee is a tax: 41 La. Ann. 665;
which a state may impose upon all citizens within its borders; 16
S.C. 47; but it cannot discriminate between residents and
non-residents of the state; 57 Md. 251; or a city or county; 182 Pa.
680; 5 Coldw. 554; 52 Cal. 606; 107 Ind. 502. Subject to this
restriction, a license tax may be imposed upon particular classes of
business men; 49 Tex. 279; 6 Sawy. 295; 12 Nev. 263; 9 Baxt.
518; 97 Ga. 114; but a fixed and definite license fee must be named,
which all persons engaged in the business specified shall pay. 117
Ind. 221.” Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg.
710
This obviously does not fit the circumstances. I am not engaged in
the calling, profession, or vocation of transporting people and
property for hire, and there is not a fixed and definite fee named.
The tax named in the Constitution' s article is based on the value of
the vehicle in question, and is, by its very nature, subjective. Who
decides what is the value of a piece of property? This could not be
a police power issue.
My dictionary does also state (in part):
“LICENSE(Lat.licere, to permit).
In Real Property Law. A permission. A right, given by some
competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would
be illegal, or a tort or trespass.
A permission to do some act or series of acts on the land of
the licensor, without having any permanent interest in it; it is
founded on personal confidence, and not assignable. It may be given
in writing or by parol; It may be with or without consideration, but
in either case it is usually subject to revocation, though
constituting a protection to the party acting under it until the
revocation takes place. 24 Mich. 282; 89 id. 315; 3 Wyo. 513.
An authority to do a particular act or series of acts on
another's land without possessing any estate therein. 11 Mass. 533;
4 Sandf. Ch. 72; 60 Vt. 702; 1 Washb. R. P. *898.
The written evidence of the grant of such right.”
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg. 709
This does support my contention that I must not own my vehicle if it
can be taken without due process of law, except that I thought that
real property was real estate (land). Evidently this is not the case
since La. R.S. 32:25 does state:
“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
There can be no doubt that I have a right to travel because here they
talk about the owner of real property used by the public for purposes
of vehicular travel can revoke the right to travel. If there were no
right to travel there would be nothing to prohibit.
Again, more support of my contention that I do not own my vehicle.
Well, if I do not own the vehicle, who does? The definition of
license tax does mention a privilege, and I have been told that
driving is a privilege, maybe my understanding of the word privilege
is different from the legal definition. My dictionary does define
privilege (in part) as:
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, from
the definition of a privilege, there must be evidence of a debt.
Article VII Section 5 does indeed mention debts, evidences of
indebtedness, bonds, and does allow for more. Hence, the State must
have an admiralty lien on all automobiles, for private use, and all
motor vehicles. It becomes apparent that the State
Constitution has, in fact, mortgaged every automobile and
motor vehicle in the State and used this property as collateral on a
debt. Then, just what have they mortgaged? Since the Louisiana
Revised Statutes does not specifically define an automobile, I must
use the colloquial definition. My dictionary does define an
automobile as
“AUTOMOTIVE. A usu. Four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed
for passenger transportation and commonly propelled by an
internal-combustion engine using a volatile fuel” Webster's
New Collegiate Dictionary pg. 76
and further defines
automotive as
“SELF-PROPELLED” Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary pg.
76
So an
automobile is a self-propelled vehicle designed for passenger
transportation. Then, 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, and carts I must manually
push or pull. If the State has a mortgage on all of these items, I
can not wholly own any of them. The best I can do is 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, or a push cart.
But, wait, if there is an admiralty lien on
movable property, there should be some record of such a lien,
as there is in immovable property (land and buildings)?
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.
So, the State, under the guise of a simple use
tax, has indeed mortgaged every device by which I may exercise my
right to travel, as a matter of right, and has claimed an admiralty
lien on every such device and, in construction and effect, removed my
right to travel as a matter of right. This lien has also been hidden
by Louisiana Constitution Ancillary Article
XIX Section 19. This does clarify the meaning of Louisiana Revised
Statute
32:25 which does state:
“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
Obviously, the owner that is
referred to in this statute is the State. This does explain
how the State could require a license to drive their vehicle, how
they could, summarily, rip the vehicle out
from under me leaving me stranded on the side of the road, could
demand that I be compelled into contract with an insurance company,
could demand onerous fees for the recovery of the vehicle without due
process of law and does hold the Certificate of Origin on my vehicle.
There can be no doubt that the State does claim
an admiralty lien on my vehicle. If this sounds hard to believe,
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
The wording is clear and unambiguous to a
Doctor of Law, maybe. Is it clear and unambiguous to the voters,
intentionally left ignorant of the law by State mandated and
regulated schools?
Having exposed the lien it is now time to look
at by what right does the State claim such a lien.
Let us first dispense with the Police Power
argument. Could it be argued that a police power would give the
State the right to compel a person into contract with the State and
private corporations with the penalty for refusal being walking
distance prison, and forfeiture of your right to own and use an
emergency evacuation vehicle? How many people in the City of New
Orleans remained for the hurricane and flood because they could not
afford to both own an emergency evacuation vehicle and pay the State
slave masters? Could it be argued that a police power could decree
that if you are too poor to pay for and maintain from the State and
the Insurance industry written permission you will not be allowed to
evacuate without being accompanied by a person who has written
permission? Could it be argued that a police power could decree that
if you are too poor to pay for and maintain from the State and the
Insurance industry written permission you will not be allowed to
travel any further than you can walk without being accompanied by a
person who has written permission? Could it be argued that a police
power can abrogate an unalienable right to pursue happiness by travel
into a privilege to be granted or removed at whim? Could it be
argued as a police power that the taxpayer funded police force shall
be used, as agent to a private corporation, to stop people at will
and demand proof that they have paid the master and have written
permission to move about. These are not police powers these are the
powers of a tyrant.
Surely this can not be justified under eminent
domain. When was my day in court to determine the value of my
property? Am I to believe that public works and a overseer were
compensation? I am, as a matter of fact, now precluded from using
roads and bridges. Where was compensation? Eminent domain can not
be used to strip me of my right to travel.
This Defendant can not find any legal
justification for this lien on my vehicle.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5
of the Louisiana Constitution is unconstitutional, is mislabeled,
does create an admiralty lien, does hide the lien by the Louisiana
Constitution Ancillary Article 19 Section 19 and does, and was
intended to, deprive this Citizen of his right to travel as admitted
in Louisiana Revised Statute 32:25. Nor can there be any doubt of
the almost complete loss of my rights.
deprives me
of my right to travel
deprives me
of my right to wholly own property that may be used for travel.
deprives me
of my time, my most precious possession, in that any conduct of my
private affairs even a trip to purchase food is a major
undertaking as walking and pushing a cart are my only means of
travel without assistance.
deprives me
of my ability to wholly own and use an evacuation vehicle to save
my life.
deprives me
of my equitable interest in my property and use of same.
deprives me
of my very freedom in that I must, by license and force, become
slave to the overseer (Department of Safety and Corrections)
surrendering most of my constitutionally guaranteed rights to
obtain privilege as my right to travel has been stolen.
deprives me
of my very freedom in that the overseer of the State's property
(the Department of Safety and Corrections) does require that I
contract, by force, with a private corporation in the insurance
industry, to protect the State's illegal claim on my property or
be imprisoned in this walking distance prison.
In point of fact,
the loss of my right to wholly own a vehicle with which I may travel
as a matter of right does impact every facet of life. It does only
allow two choices. Either become a prisoner in a walking distance
prison or submit to slavery and surrender almost all rights to the
State and the Insurance Industry, obviously in collusion. This
Defendant can not think of a right it does not touch adversely. Even
my very life is put in jeopardy for I am not permitted to own and use
an emergency evacuation vehicle.
Any contention that this article is anything but a
fraud on the people of this state is a violation of any pretext of
upholding the Constitution of the United States or the rights of the
people of this State.
2)The
Judge of the First Parish Court of the Parish of Jefferson did err
in ignoring my jurisdictional challenge and did thereby deny me
the answer to questions of jurisdiction absolutely essential to my
understanding of the charges against me necessary to enter a plea
and essential to my defense.
3) The First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish did deny, by deed only,
the challenge of lack of jurisdiction over this person and did set
a trial date and enter a plea on this Defendant's behalf against
and over his objection, in an improperly set court. This is a
final judgment in this matter.
It is my right and duty as a Citizen to challenge the
jurisdiction of the court. It is only though a challenge of
jurisdiction that this Defendant can understand the nature of the
charges against him and the authority upon which those charges are
brought. I am facing an infamous crime with the loss of my life,
liberty and property in eminent peril. I have a right to know
material facts about these charges, the authority of the entities
involved in bringing these charges and the authority of the court
that proposes to try these charges. These facts are crucial to my
entering of a plea and preparing a defense. To this date the
jurisdictional challenge has gone uncontested.
Who is this entity known as the State of Louisiana
unrepresented in court? This entity that in its own name and not in
the name of its people does prosecute me. This entity that appears
to emit bills of credit by authority of Article VII Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution. This entity that drags me in front of
First Parish Court when, by the Constitution of the United States
Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme
Court of the United States shall have original jurisdiction. Who is
this entity that accepts something other than gold and silver coin as
tender in payment of debt? Surely it can not be the Sovereign State
of Louisiana of the States United. I did and do demand to know who
is this entity calling itself the State of Louisiana. Is it the
Sovereign State of the States United or is it some artificial entity
bound to service for a term of years? If bound to service by treaty,
cession, or compact, how is it so bound and how am I bound?
Into what court have I
been dragged on the sole word and authority of an agent of the
custodian of the State's property the Department of Safety and
Corrections. It appears to have some of the trappings of a
constitutional court, but does operate more like a simple
administrative procedure. Plus, I have been told by the sitting
judge on my March 16th, 2004 appearance that
this was not a constitutional court. From the flags it would seem to
be a Federal Admiralty Court. Is there some compact, treaty, or
agreement that would apply to force me into this unknown
jurisdiction?
Who is
this opposing counsel that I must now serve with a copy of this
document? I have not seen or heard from one in any of the two
appearances I have made before a judge in First Parish Court to
answer or contest my challenge of jurisdiction.
By what
right was an attachment issued, my person incarcerated, beaten,
tortured, held incognito and extorted. my rights denied, my property
seized and yet more demands to appear in court and my further
imprisonment in walking distance prison?
If the
State has some contention that I am not a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana entitled to his rights guaranteed by the United States
Constitution and the Bill of Rights, let them bring it forward so
that I may challenge it as the fraud it is.
Let the
State state the reason, if not the obviously unconstitutional lien
imposed by Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution,
why the Department of Safety and Corrections, as custodian of the
State's property, does hold the Certificate of Origin on this
vehicle.
If the
State has some contention, other than the obviously unconstitutional
lien imposed by Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution, that I no longer have my Right to Travel let them drag
it out for surely it too has no legs.
These
are all legitimate and necessary questions of Jurisdiction that are
crucial to the entering of a plea and the preparation of a defense
and are properly handled in a jurisdictional challenge. I have been
denied this information. To this day my challenge of jurisdiction
goes unanswered. Meanwhile, I have had a plea entered over my
objection, a date set for trial and a severe admonishment, by the
Judge, of the severe consequences that will befall me if I break out
of this walking distance prison and dare to “drive” the
master's vehicles. There can be no doubt that my challenge of
jurisdiction has been summarily denied as a final judgment of the
court. Jurisdiction comes before arraignment, motions and trial in
all but the dictionary.
4) The Judge of the First Parish Court of Jefferson Parish did prosecute, try and convict
this Defendant on the charge of contempt of court, in an improperly
set court, knowing full well that evidence of this Defendant's
innocence was in the sole possession, by order of the Judges, of the
court. This is a final judgment in this matter.
5) The First Parish
Court of the Parish of Jefferson did, intentionally, withhold
evidence, in their sole possession by order of the Judges, that would
have exonerated this Defendant of contempt charges despite the
objection of this Defendant orally and in writing that evidence
existed, in the sole possession of the court by order of the judges,
that would have exonerated him.
This
Defendant, to the best of his knowledge and recollection, did object,
at each appearance in court, to not being allowed, by order of the
judges, to take notes in the most efficient manner possible. To make
an audio recording of the proceedings. On my appearance on the 28th
day of December, 2006 I was held in contempt for not appearing in
court on the 16th day of March, 2004. I did notice the
Judge orally, and in the rejected demand for dismissal for want of
jurisdiction, that I had appeared before a judge on the 16th
day of March,2004 and had left believing that the judge had agreed
that there was no jurisdiction, and had left with no future date set
for a reappearance. I did inform the Judge, both orally and in
writing that proof of my appearance was contained in the court
reporters recordings for that date. Since I am not allowed to make
such a recording the evidence of my innocence is in the sole
possession of the court reporter. Despite this information I was
fined and thirty days given to pay the fine. This is a final
judgment in this matter.
6) The
Judge of the First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson did
err when he not only refuse to acknowledge that a final ruling on
jurisdiction had actually occurred when he entered a plea on my
behalf and set the matter for trial, he did refuse to tell me to
which court I could appeal despite notice orally and in writing
that I did demand an appeal on the final judgment of the court on
jurisdiction.
There
can be little doubt that the Judge of the First Parish Court is
trying to force jurisdiction upon this Defendant. My timely and
continuous challenges to the jurisdiction of the court have, to this
day, remained unanswered. It is my right to challenge the
jurisdiction of the court and to appeal an adverse ruling on
jurisdiction. I am being forced to defend myself in a long and
lengthy trial before an impotent court. This
State Citizen is entitled to better than to be dragged into court on
an information based upon the sole testimony of a biased agent of the
illegal lien holder.
WRIT OF
MANDAMUS
Comes
now Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, to move
this honorable court to issue an order to the Department of Safety
and Corrections and the Parish of Jefferson to return to Michael E.
DiRosa the vehicle and personal property illegally seized from him.
On the
21st day of December, 2006 Michael E. DiRosa was stopped
in the parking lot of Toys R Us toy store for not displaying a
license plate. Pursuant to an interrogation by the officer with no
counsel present it was determined by the officer that there was an
attachment issued by First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson
and this Defendant was arrested. It was also determined that the
vehicle had no insurance, and the vehicle was ordered, by the
officer, to be confiscated. The vehicle was towed by DC Towing to
their place of business.
This
vehicle with my personal property therein was taken, without due
process of law.
“While the exact definition of the term “due
process of law” may be uncertain, it is certain that it
inhibits the taking of one man's property and giving it to another,
contrary to settled usages and modes of procedure, and without notice
or an opportunity to be heard. 230 U.S. 140” Bouvier's Law
Dictionary 1914 version updated Pg. 327
I have
been told by Brandy Cunningham of the Department of Safety and
Corrections that they will not release my property nor my vehicle
until I have entered into a contract (driver's license) with the
Department of Safety and corrections, registered the vehicle with the
Department of Safety and Corrections and entered into a contract with
any corporation in the insurance industry. Meanwhile towing and
storage charges accrue. I have also been told by the owner of DC
Towing that there is a procedure for completing the theft of my
vehicle and property to recover the towing and storage charges.
Even the
JPSO Vehicle Storage, Wrecker Request and Inventory Record does
state:
“If you do not provide proof within three days that your
vehicle was properly insured at the time it was impounded the Office
of Motor Vehicles shall destroy or cause to be destroyed, your
license plate and revoke the registration until you have satisfied
the provisions of the compulsory insurance law by showing proof of
current liability insurance and paying all applicable fees owed the
Office of Motor Vehicles.”
My
vehicle has already had the license plate destroyed and the
registration revoked. By their own record, I should have had to pay
all applicable fees owed the Office of Motor Vehicles. Now I have
been told that this is false. I have to reinstate the license plate
and registration plus obtain permission to operate a State owned
vehicle and pay any corporation in the insurance industry or my
property will be stolen. Even if I had no intention of ever
traveling in that vehicle again. I still have to pay any corporation
in the insurance industry, for a service that I will not use. Plus,
I must sign a statement declaring that I promise under penalty of
perjury that I will maintain a contract with a corporation that does
not have any obligation to maintain a contract with me.
Should
another disaster befall the City of New Orleans I will be one of the
poor unfortunates that will be left to die because I refused to
submit to slavery. I am not allowed by the State to use my property
to escape. In fact, the State has stolen my vehicle to ensure that I
am left to die in the disaster. What concoction of law is it that
demands that a person must be forced into slavery or forfeit the
ownership and use of an emergency evacuation vehicle.
There
can be no doubt. Before my property will be returned I must
completely change my status, by force, from a free person to a person
bound to service for a term of years. Could there be any better
definition of slavery? Does the Department of Safety and Corrections
claim a lien on my personal property contained in the vehicle? What
has happened to my equitable interest in the vehicle? Where is my
due process of Law?
This
Defendant does move this court to order the Department of Safety and
Correction and the Parish of Jefferson release this vehicle and the
personal property therein. If the Department of Safety and
Corrections wants to seize this vehicle they must follow due process
of law. There can be no justification for the confiscation and theft
of the personal property therein contained.
To the
best of my knowledge this vehicle and the personal property therein
is in eminent danger of being completely stolen from me to pay the
towing and storage charges.
ORDER
It is
hereby ordered that the Department of Safety and Corrections and the
Parish of Jefferson do release the vehicle and personal contents
therein belonging to Michael E. DiRosa and that the vehicle and
contents to be transported to a place of Mr. DiRosa's choosing not to
exceed 25 miles from DC Towing. This vehicle and its contents are to
be returned to Mr. DiRosa at no cost for towing or storage.
This
___________ day of _______________, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGE
MOTION
FOR A STAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN
FIRST
PARISH COURT.
Comes
now the Defendant Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, to move this honorable court to stay the proceeding on the
docket of the First Parish Court for the Parish of Jefferson bearing
docket numbers F1525159, F1523230 and F1678532 until such time as
this honorable court rules on the challenge of the
unconstitutionality of Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution and the jurisdiction of the First Parish Court over a
Citizen of the State. This unconstitutional article of the Louisiana
State Constitution is the source from which all charges against this
Defendant stem, plus, as a constitutional Citizen of the State of
Louisiana I am demanding constitutional proceedings.
ORDER
It is
hereby ordered that all proceedings on the docket of the First Parish
Court for the Parish of Jefferson bearing docket numbers F1525159,
F1523230 and F1678532 be stayed until such time as this honorable
court rules on the merits of this appeal.
This
_____________ day of ___________________, 2007
______________________________________
JUDGE
Motion
to proceed In Forma Pauperis
Comes
now this Defendant Michael E. Dirosa, a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, to move this honorable court to allow this Defendant to
proceed In Forma Pauperis. This Defendant does swear and affirm that
he is totally without means and is currently living solely on the
kindness of others. This simple declaration being sufficient under
Louisiana State Law to justify such an allowance. This issue has
been brought before this court on numerous occasions by this
Defendant and has been so ruled by this court. (sites not available
as my records are beyond the bounds of my walking distance prison)
This
Defendant does move this court to order a copy of all transcripts of
all proceedings and minute entries be supplied this Defendant at no
cost to him.
ORDER
It is
hereby ordered that Michael E. DiRosa be permitted to proceed In
Forma Pauperis and that all transcript and minute entries be supplied
to Mr. DiRosa at no cost.
This
_____________ day of ____________________, 2007
_________________________________________
JUDGE
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I,
Michael E. DiRosa, do hereby certify that I have delivered a true and
correct copy of the foregoing document on this ________, day of
______________, 2007 by exercising the penalty provision of my
walking distance prison. I did hire a person licensed by the
Department of Safety and Corrections, as custodian of State property,
to carry persons for hire and did pay him to take me to the Supreme
Court to file this writ. I did then hire a person licensed by the
Department of Safety and Corrections, as custodian of State property,
to carry persons for hire and did pay him to bring me to the First
Parish Court where I delivered to the Clerk of that Court one copy of
this document for the Judge and a separate copy for the unknown
Prosecuting Attorney. I did then hire a person licensed by the
Department of Safety and Corrections, as custodian of State property,
to carry persons for hire and did
pay him
to return me to my original location.
_________________________________
Michael E. DiRosa
C/O
318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New
Orleans, Louisiana 70124
504 – XXX –XXXX
TOP
|
