| STATE OF LOUISIANA |
) |
|
) ss |
| PARISH OF JEFFERSON |
) |
IN THE FIRST PARISH COURT
OF AND FOR THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
| STATE OF LOUISIANA, |
) |
|
) |
| PLAINTIFF, |
) |
|
) DOCKET NO: |
| VS |
) DIV. TRAFFIC |
|
) |
| MICHAEL E. DiROSA, |
) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL |
|
) FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION |
| ACCUSED. |
) |
|
|
Stands before you Michael E. DiRosa, a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana demanding all of his rights under
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I am appearing here under
the gun barrel of the State solely to challenge the jurisdiction of
this court.
This defense must be considered a jail
house defense for I have been falsely imprisoned and the Supreme
Court Law library and my files, books and papers are beyond the
confines of my prison. I have also only had scant few days to
reconstruct my defense from my prison.
The State has stolen my vehicle and
does refuse to release it until I pay the slave owner his fee and do
accept bondage to a second slave owner. Since I have refused, I have
been placed in a prison whose bounding wall is measured as the
diameter of the distance that I can walk in a day or half of that
distance if I maintain a habitat. I have been denied the use of any
vehicle to peruse my happiness, hence, I have been imprisoned in this
walking distance jail.
This false and illegal imprisonment
has indeed put my life in jeopardy for my lifeboat out of this city
has been taken and held. How many people in the Superdome and
Convention Center during the hurricane and flood were there because
they too were in walking distance jail solely because they could not
pay the insurance slave owner his fee.
I am even charged a penalty if I break
the bounds of my prison. I must either beg or pay a state slave to
escort me. Were I to dare and use a registered vehicle, I would be
thrown in a smaller jail and charged heavy fines.
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 and was refused. 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.
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 taken without inventory (see Internal Affairs
of the Jefferson parish police department file numbers 20040112 and
20061209), 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.) The 20061209 number is my best information. 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.
Again, before you stands Michael E.
DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of Louisiana denying the jurisdiction
of the court for the following reasons, among others:
Article VII Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional in
that it has deprived me of my unalienable, Creator given, right to
pursue my happiness by traveling thereto by denying me ownership
of any of the means to travel save walking and pushing my property
in a cart. Where Rights are involved there shall be no rule
making or legislation that will abrogate them.
Article VII Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional in
that it has made me no better than a slave to the State, and the
State, under color of law, did then force me, under threat of
walking distance prison and the denial of ownership and use of a
New Orleans lifeboat known as an evacuation vehicle, to become
slave to a private corporation selling insurance. The State did
then, also under color of law, did unleash swarms of officers to
eat out my substance. One such swarm having landed upon this
Citizen causing this trouble.
Article VII Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution is illegal and unconstitutional in
that it is deceptively titled as a license tax that does not
encumber a property right.
As a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, with the State as a party to this action. Article III,
Section II of the United States Constitution does state that The
Supreme Court of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction.
There are no valid contracts to
adjudicate.
This list is not to be deemed a
complete list of jurisdictional challenges. Due to the shortness of
time allowed to prepare and the confines of my prison, I was not able
to access a law library nor my previous research, books, papers, and
records. This Defendant does reserver the right to supplement these
arguments and add new arguments upon appeal or in any further dealing
with this court.
This Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, unschooled in the law, does hereby demand:
That this court, on it's own
motion, do order the Department of Safety and Corrections to
release my vehicle and other personal property from D.C Towing and
that my vehicle be towed from D.C. Towing to a place of my
choosing at their expense, and pay for for the illegal impounding
of my vehicle that incurred the towing charge and storage fee
already incurred. To continue to hold my property and vehicle
does constitute illegal imprisonment in walking distance prison
and does place my very life in great peril.
That these proceedings be
dismissed, with prejudice, for want of jurisdiction and that the
State's minion be instructed not to issue, to me, any more illegal
summonses nor unduly harass me.
Should this court deny my challenge of
jurisdiction I do demand that this court do prove its jurisdiction in
such a manor that this ignorant State Citizen, unschooled in the law,
may fully understand the source of his jeopardy and his remedies
under the law.
Should this court deny my challenge of
jurisdiction I do also demand to be told which is the proper court of
appeal of this final judgment of jurisdiction and be given a date, of
sufficient amount of time, to perfect my appeal to that court.
Should this court deny my challenge of
jurisdiction I do also demand that, at the Court's own motion, I be
allowed to proceed in Forma Pauperis as I have no means of support
and am currently living solely on the kindness of others. This
averment being sufficient unless contrary proof can refute it. This
has been decided many times by the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana each time the question has been raised by this defendant.
This Defendant also demands that
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police
Summons numbered B 8484588 P scheduled for arraignment on the 23rd
day of January, 2005 be joined in this action as all alleged
violations are based on the same argument.
I do swear that the foregoing is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Michael E. DiRosa
C/O 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New Orleans, Louisiana
XXX-XXX-XXXX
TOP
|
