August 3, 2007

William K. Suter, Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Mr Suter,

We seem to be stuck in a bureaucratic loop. I keep submitting an original action under Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution and M. Blalock keeps returning the documents telling me the obvious; this is not a writ of Certiorari. Were this to be a writ at all, which it is not, it would be an extraordinary writ in compliance with Rule 20 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court.

“...that exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court s discretionary powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court.” Rule 20 of the Rules of the United States Supreme Court.

The first time M. Blalock did return the documents, I did resubmit them with an objection to their return and to M. Blalock's adjudgment, in your name, that this was not and could not be an original action required by law. I did, in my objection, demand a judicial ruling on my objection supported by law. M. Blalock did just reattach the original letter dated July 13, 2007 (the very ruling that I had objected to) and return the documents to me. Despite my reasoned arguments, backed by law, that this original action did indeed comply, as much as was possible from this prison, with the substance of the Rules of this Court and demand for judicial review of my objection to his actions, he did not defend his position. His sole course of action was to say, in legal terms, “Does not.”

This action has evoked another Rule of the Supreme Court of the Untied States, Rule 39.3 which states, in part:

“... every document presented by a party proceeding under this Rule shall be prepared as required by Rule 33.2 (unless such preparation is impossible).” Rule 39.3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Where it might be possible to divine which rule M. Blalock believes to be broken, it is beyond my allotment of time and interest. Am I to be denied my right to petition the Court for redress of grievance, my right to travel and be free of this prison and even my right to exist as a human being while I discover, by trial and error, from this prison, what errant jot or tittle has M. Blalock so upset. The hall monitor has visions of grandeur.

I am now returning the documents directly to you, with a second objection to their return. I am, again, demanding a judicial ruling on my continued objections.

Should you summarily adjudge that these documents do so fail to comply with the with the substance of these Rules of this Court that it affects the substantial rights of the parties and, hence, must be returned, I do demand that you state exactly which rule(s) I am in such breach of that my claim to a right to exist must be delayed, and by what authority do you so adjudge.

In the letter Mr. Blalock has sent me, in your name, It does state that I should seek a review of a decision by timely filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. This is the institution of an original action, as required by law, with the State of Louisiana as one of the named defendants. To date the only adjudgments of which I could complain are the summary judgments of M. Blalock, and by extension, you. Is it your position that I should seek, by writ of certiorari, review of the final summary judgment of William K. Suter, Clerk? By what authority or rule do you base your claim?

To which court should I go to seek redress of grievance? Is there some law or rule that supersedes the Constitution of the United States of America? Article III Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America does clearly state, in part:

“In all Cases ...and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

If you know of another court, other than the Supreme Court of the United States, in which I may institute an original action against the State of Louisiana, contrary to the United States Constitution, I do demand that you supply me with the authority or rule by which you base your rulings. Is it your final summary judgment that when the State of Louisiana is a defendant in a suit the Supreme Court of the United States is not the correct Court?

Is it your final summary judgment that my standing or cause of action is insufficient to institute and original action against the State of Louisiana? On what authority and by what law do you judge?

Is it your final summary judgment that my complaint is specious and without merit?

Is it your final summary judgment that my complaint does not comply with the substance of these Rules (Supreme Court Rule 39.3? ) I do claim that my complaint does comply with the substance of the Rules. To which rule did I go so far astray that my right to exist as a human being is to be held subordinate, and who's rights have been damaged?

Is it your final summary judgment that my complaint does stray so far from the substance of the Rules that I must remain in this prison, illegally deprived of my liberty and property and with my life in peril?

Is it your final summary judgment that my objection to your action does stray so far from the rules that to deprive me of a judicial determination of my objection does not affect the substantial rights of the parties? (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 61)

Is it your final summary judgment that I must file suit in federal court to compel William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the Untied States to do his job and submit my valid objections to his summary judgments to the adjudgment of the Supreme Court of the Untied States? Would I have to argue it all of the way to the Supreme Court of the United States? How embarrassing for us all.

Let there be no mistake. This letter is to be construed and was meant to be construed as a demand letter. I do demand that William K. Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States do submit to the Supreme Court of the United States my valid, timely, and continued objections to the return of legally filed documents for a judicial determination.

I demand to know what rule(s), alleged but not stated, whose substance I have so violated that would warrant my death. I did originally mail the complaint and leave to file in forma pauperis on the 9th day of July, 2007. In the time that we have been sending these documents back and forth by mail, a hurricane could have formed and hit New Orleans, again. The levies could have broken, again. Our nuclear reactor could have belched upwind of New Orleans. I can not flee. What rule could I have so egregiously violated and, other than your violation of my rights by your summary judgment of insufficiency against repeated objection, whose rights have been substantially affected that strict compliance with this alleged rule would supersede my right to exist, to flee for my life, to be released from this illegal prison and have my property returned?

I do demand that you submit my repeated objections and supporting documents to the Supreme Court of the United States for a ruling on my objections or prepare to defend your actions, in court if necessary.

Again, let there be no mistake. This letter is to be construed and was meant to be construed as a constructive notice. I am making you, personally, aware that my rights are being violated. If this is just a mistake by a clerk who seems to know less law than I, I am sure the situation will be corrected. However, if these adjudgments and actions of M. Blalock's do indeed have your support and backing, I give you notice. You, personally, are violating my right to petition the government for redress of grievance. Every day that you delay, you are violating my right to be free and aiding in my continued illegal imprisonment, among other damages. Every day that you delay could cause no less than the loss of my life and forfeiture of my right to exist.

Now there can be no doubt as to who is responsible for any further damage. Again I caution you. Rethink your position or prepare to defend it.

This letter has been attached to and made part of my second objection to the return of legally filed documents.

Sincerely,

Michael E. DiRosa

c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy.

New Orleans, Louisiana 70124

XXX – XXX - XXXX