SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
| Michael E. DiRosa, |
) Case Number |
|
) |
| Plaintiff, |
) Second |
|
) Objection to the return of Legally |
| V. |
) filed documents. |
|
) |
| State of Louisiana, |
) |
|
) |
| The Department of Public |
) |
| Safety and Corrections, |
) |
|
) |
| Conspirators 1-999, |
) |
|
) |
| Defendants. |
) |
|
) |
Comes
now into court Michael E. DiRosa, a free and natural born Citizen of
the State of Louisiana, appearing in proper person, unschooled in the
law, demanding all of his rights under the Constitution of the United
States and the Bill of Rights, to object, for a second time, to the
return of Legally filed documents and the adjudgments of the Clerk of
the United States Supreme Court. A judicial ruling is demanded on
this objection.
On the
9th day of July, 2007
I did mail to the Supreme Court of the United States a complaint
against the State of Louisiana, among others, with proper service to
all parties.
On the 13th day of July, 2007 M. Blalock,
acting for and in the name of William K. Suter, Clerk, did return
these documents to me stating that the documents did not comply with
the Rules of this Court and were herewith returned.
On the 23rd day of July, 2007 I did again
submit the complaint and supporting documents to the Supreme Court of
the United States with an objection to the return of legally filed
documents and did demand a judicial ruling on my objection.
On
the 31st day of July, 2007 I did, again, receive my
legally filed complaint and objection to their first return. When
these documents were sent from the Clerk's office I can not determine
as there is no postmark that I can find and the cover letter was only
a copy of the July 13th letter.
Now, on the 3rd day of August, after almost
an extra month of imprisonment, I am, yet again, returning my
original complaint with the supporting documents. Attached to the
original complaint and motion for leave to file is attached the first
objection to the return of legally filed documents. To these
documents I do intend to attach this second objection to the return
of legally filed documents. I have stapled the documents separately,
then I have stapled the documents together. With all of this
shipping and handling I do fear that parts will be lost if extra care
is not taken.
I do again object to the first return of my legally
filed complaint and supporting documents. My “Objection to the
return of Legally filed documents” still stands unheard and is
incorporated into this second objection to the return of legally
filed documents.
A true and correct copy of said “Objection to the
return of Legally filed documents” is attached as Exhibit ORLFD
and incorporated by reference, as if set forth fully herein.
I do now object to the second return of Legally filed
documents. An elaboration on my first and continued objection
(Exhibit ORLFD) is supplied in the form of a demand and constructive notice letter sent, certified mail, return receipt requested, with
the original complaint, supporting documents and the first and second
objection to his adjudgments, directly to William K. Suter, Clerk of
the Supreme Court of the Untied States demanding that he preform his
duty and submit my timely and continued objections for judicial
determination of the validity of my objections.
A true and correct copy of said demand and constructive
notice is attached as Exhibit CDCN and incorporated by reference, as
if set forth fully herein.
A true and correct copy of the original complaint and
supporting documents is attached as Exhibit OCSD and incorporated by
reference, as if set forth fully herein while maintaining their
character as the original complaint and supporting documents. This
is necessary in that I am concerned that I will exceed my caring
capacity if I make extra copies and the cost of such redundant
duplication is beyond my means.
I do reserve the right to amend my original complaint,
should a credible defense be mustered and this matter set for jury
trial, to include both objections to the return of legally filed
documents as exhibits. There seems to be a real possibility that
William K. Suter may be one of the unnamed conspirators.
Only time will tell if I make this objection to the
ears of a Court made deaf by the illegal adjudgments of the Clerk of
the United States Supreme Court.
I
do remind this Court, after I cure the apparent hearing problem, that
I have been confined to this walking distance prison, absent charge
and trial, since the 21st day of December, 2006. I am
forbidden, by law, from owning or operating any “device by
which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or
bridge.” La R.S. 32:1(92) including bicycle and ridden
animal. I am forbidden, by law, from owning or operating any device
with which I may flee for my life. No less than my
right to exist as a human being is in real and imminent peril.
I do hereby certify that the above and all attached is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief this 3rd
day of August.
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX – XXXX
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I, Michael E. DiRosa to hereby certify that I have,
again, due to the apparent incompetence or malicious act of the clerk
of court, had to risk what little freedom I do still possess (enjoy
is not an appropriate word for my happiness is not here) and have had
to openly and notoriously defy the Tyrant and operate a self
propelled motor vehicle, commonly known as a bicycle (currently an
infamous crime,) and did endure the four hour journey to the copy
machine and to the United States Postal Authority, carrying the
documents on my back. (Were I to accomplish this task on foot, as is
currently required by law, I do estimate that the time required would
be close to ten or twelve hours.) I did then entrust to the United
States Postal Authority a package properly addressed to William K.
Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the Untied States, postage
prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested. This package did
contain the original and ten copies of; the original complaint and
supporting documents; both objections to the return of legally filed
documents. Covering this packet with the original demand and
constructive notice (Exhibit ODCN.)
I did entrust to the United States Postal Authority a
true and correct copy of the second objection and demand letter (
Exhibit CDCN) only to the offices of all other parties. I did mail
this notice properly addressed, certified mail, return receipt
requested. All other documents have been previously sent, certified
mail, return receipt requested with all return receipts having been
received, to the appropriate Louisiana State Offices currently
quartering citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana.
All documents to all parties have been sent to the
addresses listed below.
William K. Suter, Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543-0001
Office
of the Governor of the State of Louisiana
P.O. Box
94004
Baton
Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Office
of the Attorney General
P.O. Box
94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Office
of the Secretary
Department
of Public Safety and Corrections
P.O. Box
66614
Baton
Rouge, LA 70896-6614
Certified
as true and correct this 3rd day of August, 2007
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
TOP
|
