I did appear in First Parish Court on the 28^th day of February for my scheduled trial in case # ______________ and for an arraignment on this present issue. When I reported to the Clerk to have the record pulled for the arraignment I noticed a furor in the Clerk's office and what appeared to be the head clerk that I only know as Ronda handed me a paper and told me to sign it. I was told that this was a plea of not guilty. I did tell her that I could not sign that and she got upset and said that I would have to wait until seven o'clock to see a judge. I did then go to the receptionist's window as instructed to inform her that I was indeed present for my trial. Having done so I did enter the court room to await my turn.

I was duly called to appear before the judge and was told that my trial had been continued until such time as the Louisiana Supreme Court did hear my appeal of the jurisdictional challenge previously denied in the in the case set for trial. I did then inform the judge that I was scheduled for trial on not only this day but on the very next day (the 1^st day of March) and also on the 16^th day of March. If this trial was to be continued until such time as the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled then the other two trials should also be continued while I was there and thus I would not be forced to appear twice more just to be officially told that these trials would be continued until the Louisiana Supreme Court did rule on my jurisdictional challenge. The judge did agree and I was to wait until the records could be pulled.

I was then recalled before the judge and all three trials were continued until such time as the Louisiana did rule on my challenge of jurisdiction and the constitutionality of Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution, the article that did impose the admiralty lien on vehicles for private use.

The arraignment on the present case did begin. The judge did mention that I had refused to sign the document that Rhonda had given me and read this document into the record conveniently not reading the section that did state that I was entering a not guilty plea. He read only the part that stated that they would supply me with an attorney if I could not afford one and glossed over the rest. I did inform the judge that I am in proper person.

I did remember that this honorable Court did instruct me that to defend my rights as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana that I must be the belligerent claimant in person. I did also remember that this Court did instruct me that latitude must be provided to a person unschooled in the law.

I did then begin to read my challenge to the jurisdiction to the court and, since it is four pages long I did ask the judge if he would rather just enter it into the record in written form or if I should read the whole thing. The judge did take my written challenge to the courts jurisdiction and enter it into the record and did call it exhibit 1.

I did inform the judge, again, that I was here solely to challenge the jurisdiction of the court.

At some point the judge did ask me if I understand the English language. It has been my experience in my many years of trying to regain my right to travel that any time a judge does ask that question he is preparing to steal my rights by using legal terms that I do not fully understand. I did tell the judge that I do not understand the English language and that I particularly do not understand the subset of the English Language colloquially known as legalese.

The judge did tell me that he was interpreting my challenge of jurisdiction as a writ of exception and did deny that exception.

There can be no doubt that the judge and the Rhonda, the court's clerk were using every trick they could think of to force the courts jurisdiction upon me. Any contention that I did appear for any purpose other than to challenge the jurisdiction of the court is fallacious and any contention that I did submit to the jurisdiction of the court is a fraud against me and this honorable court.

The judge did know of my previous challenges to the jurisdiction of this court and the challenge to that jurisdiction and challenge to the illegal admiralty lien claimed by the State on my vehicle pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court. He continued all three trials covered under the challenges pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The challenge to the jurisdiction of the First Parish Court pending in the Louisiana Supreme Court may have been challenged in the wrong court. I did believe, until literally minutes before I had to leave to arrive at First Parish Court on time, that I was appearing in a Louisiana State Court. I did notice, when gathering my papers together that the paper work on my bond was a Federal Court Order. I did, upon numerous questions to the judge, try to find out just what court I was in. Was it a federal court? Was it an admiralty proceeding? What jurisdiction am I in? The judge did refuse to answer all of these questions and more. Can it be believed that a sitting judge and doctor of law does not know in which jurisdiction he is acting or whether he is sitting in a Federal or State court?