SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
| Michael E. DiRosa, |
) Case Number |
|
) |
| Plaintiff, |
) |
|
) Complaint and briefs in support |
| V. |
) |
|
) |
| State of Louisiana, |
) |
|
) |
| The Department of Public |
) |
| Safety and Corrections, |
) |
|
) |
| Conspirators 1-999, |
) |
|
) |
| Defendants. |
) |
|
) |
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
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. To date it has been an undisputed fact that Michael E.
DiRosa is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. If anyone should have
any cause to believe that Michael E. DiRosa is not a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, I do demand that they bring forth their
contention so that I may denounce it as the fraud that it is.
JURISDICTION
Original
jurisdiction vests in the Supreme Court of the United States by
virtue of the United States Constitution, Article III Section 2 for
the State of Louisiana is a party to this action.
Jurisdiction
vests in the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of Article
I of the Bill of Rights in that there is no other court in the United
States of America competent to hear this challenge as the Supreme
Court of the State of Louisiana is illegally set. There is not other
court in the United States of America in which I may petition the
Government for a redress of Grievance.
Jurisdiction vests in the Supreme Court of the United
States by virtue of Article 1 section 9 of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that there is no other court in the United States of
America competent to hear this challenge as the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana is illegally set. There is not other court in the
United States of America in which I may petition the Government for a
redress of Grievance.
Jurisdiction vests in the Supreme Court of the United
States by virtue of Article VI of the Bill of Rights in that the
Plaintiff in this case has been charged with numerous infamous
crimes, he has been imprisoned and does remain in prison, condemned
to death, absent charge and trial, and there is no other court in the
United States of America competent to afford me a speedy and public
trial, in which I may clear my good name, regain my property and
regain my right to life.
Jurisdiction vests in the Supreme Court of the United
States by virtue of Article I, Section 4 of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that the Plaintiff in this case has been charged with
numerous infamous crimes, he has been imprisoned and does remain in
prison, condemned to death, absent charge and trial, and there is no
other court in the United States of America competent to afford me a
speedy and public trial, in which I may clear my good name, regain my
property and regain my right to life.
If this is not deemed sufficient jurisdiction I do
reserve the right to enhance my jurisdictional grounds. Due to the
dire emergency in which I find myself, imprisoned and condemned to
death, absent charge and trial, time is of the essence as my
executioner may come as soon as tomorrow.
NOTICE
OF ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT
AND
IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH
I do
hereby notice this court that I am currently illegally imprisoned and
condemned to death, absent charge and trial, awaiting my executioner.
This prison is as real and confining as any made of brick and steel.
I am forbidden by law the right to own and use any
“device by which persons or things may be transported upon a
public highway or bridge.” La R.S. 32:1(92)
Hence, the bounding wall of this prison is at the distance that I can
walk in a day, or half of that distance if a habitat is maintained,
carrying my possessions on my person or in a push cart. This prison
also includes the penalty of time required in transit. This is
slightly better than house arrest and I have termed it “walking
distance prison.” I am only allowed to exceed the bounds of my
prison if I beg or pay a slave / bond servant of the State of
Louisiana to escort me. I am also forbidden, by the gun barrel of
the State of Louisiana, from owning or operating an emergency
evacuation vehicle. When the next nature sent or man made disaster
should befall this area I am to be left here to die for I have been
denied ownership or use of any means of escape. By the grace of God,
I have already bested three executioners, hurricanes Katrina and Rita
and the man made levy debacle and flood. My next executioner may
come as soon as tomorrow. My very life is at stake and I have been
forced to institute this action from my walking distance prison, in
haste. Law libraries and my previous research are beyond the bounds
of my prison.
NOTICE
OF 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 the State of Louisiana has mandated the high
school curriculum and has not seen fit to include even the basics of
law therein. Hence, the State of Louisiana is culpable in my
ignorance of law. Considering the culpability of the State of
Louisiana 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 of Louisiana's own schools. On what facts can this
presumption of law rest?
PARTIES
Plaintiff
Michael E. DiRosa (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is a free and
natural born Citizen of the State of Louisiana, appearing in proper
person.
Plaintiff
is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that:
The
State of Louisiana, Defendant, is a Sovereign State of the States
United. However, the Plaintiff can not be sure of the present
Sovereignty of the State of Louisiana as disturbing evidence has
surfaced that implies that the Sovereignty of the State may have been
stolen along with its republican form of government.
The
Department of Public Safety and Corrections is an alias for the State
of Louisiana which did create this alias as a body corporate with the
power to sue and be sued.
“A. The Department of Public Safety and
Corrections is created and shall be a body corporate with the power
to sue and be sued. The domicile of the department shall be in Baton
Rouge.” La R.S 401A
Defendants
named as Conspirators 1-999 are presently unnamed Party(s) whose
identity(s) are yet to be formally discovered.
C O M P
L A I N T
The
State of Louisiana did, by enactment of Article VII Section 5 of
the Louisiana State Constitution, steal, without compensation nor
due process, by bill of credit, every “device
by which persons or things may be transported upon a public
highway or bridge.” La R.S. 32:1(92) to include bicycles
and ridden animals for the expressed purpose of stealing the
unalienable right to pursue happiness, among others, from this
Citizen of the State of Louisiana and all Citizens of the State.
The State of Louisiana did then hide this lien and claim of
ownership.
The State of Louisiana did create a body corporate
known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections. This
body corporate did then, under the guise of police power, demand
that this Citizen of the State of Louisiana, and all Citizens of
the State of Louisiana surrender their right to be free and did
force them to be bound to service for a term of years to the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections and any corporations
in the insurance industry or be confined, absent charge and trial,
to a prison the bounding walls of which are described by the
distance one could walk in a day and did forbid them from owning
and/or operating any conveyance with which one could flee for
one's life hence sentencing us to prison and execution by natural
or man made disaster.
The Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
alias of the State of Louisiana, did further conspire to hide its
illegal claim of ownership (jus in re) by stating on its document
entitled “Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections Official Notice of Withdrawal of Vehicle Registration
Notice of Violation” (Exhibit 2) and other official
documents that the Plaintiff, Michael E. DiRosa, was the owner of
the vehicle while knowing full well that this was a lie.
Invaders
from a state foreign to the State of Louisiana did steal and
conspire to steal from this Citizen of the State of Louisiana and
all Citizens of the State of Louisiana their guaranteed Republican
form of Government by enacting Article IV Section 2 of the
Louisiana State Constitution which forbids any Citizen of the
State of Louisiana from holding any statewide elective office
leaving us unrepresented and our interests uncared for.
Invaders from a state foreign to the State of
Louisiana did steal and conspire to steal from this Citizen of the
State of Louisiana and all Citizens of the State of Louisiana the
unalienable rights and virtually all rights guaranteed by the
Federal and State Constitutions and reduce them to slavery.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This is simply a
property dispute. I do claim to be the allodial owner of one 1983
Dodge van (VIN #
2B6GB13T0DK363203) . The State of Louisiana does claim
to hold an admiralty lien on the very same vehicle and does illegally
hold the Certificate of Origin on this vehicle. I do claim that the
lien claimed by the State of Louisiana is invalid, contrary to law
and nonexistent. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Who owns the
aforementioned vehicle?
I did purchase this
vehicle in good faith and did what I, at the time, believed to be my
due diligence and did accept, what did appear to be, the
certification, by the State of Louisiana, that this vehicle was free
from lien and encumbrance.
I had specifically
purchased this vehicle for its suitability for use as an emergency
evacuation vehicle as it is of sufficient size to carry me, some
personal possessions and my canine ward and is equally capable of
serving as a temporary habitat. Plus, it is of sufficient height to
traverse water that would strand most cars.
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, by constitutional
restriction, impair the obligation of contract 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, and loss of my
freedom. If the State did not have this power, then the Department
of Public Safety and Corrections, its child, could not be given power
that the State did not possess.
The wording is
different depending upon the document but the general intent can best
be shown by examples from the Vehicle Registration form and the
Application for License or Identification Card form.
“I
have and will maintain, during this registration period, vehicle
liability insurance (security) required by LRS Title 32:861-865.
Failure to maintain as agreed will be a violation of law which may
result in criminal prosecution and/or suspension of registration
privileges.” VEHICLE APPLICATION Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections (Form DPSMV 1799 (R12/04))
“By
my signature affixed below, I certify under penalty of law, that: (1)
all statements on this application are true and correct; (2) I have
obtained Louisiana registration on all vehicles I intend to operate
in the State of Louisiana; (3) I have and will maintain vehicle
liability insurance or security on all owned vehicles, as required by
R.S: 32:861-865; (4) I may be subject to certain criminal and/or
civil penalties for offenses involving a commercial motor vehicle or
a commercial driver's license if I am the operator of such motor
vehicle or the holder of such license; (5) I meet the qualifications
of 49 CFR 391 for interstate operation of a commercial motor vehicle
(if applicable); (6) I am in compliance with the CMV Safety Act of
1986; I do not and will not have in my possession more than one
driver's license; (7) I hereby give my consent, under the provisions
of R.S. 32:661 et. Seq., to take a chemical test to determine the
presence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance in my blood
while operating a motor vehicle, if requested to do so by a law
enforcement officer.” APPLICATION FOR LICENSE OR
IDENTIFICATION CARD LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CORRECTIONS OFFICE OF MOTOR VEHICLES (Form DPSMV 2003 (R 7/03))
As you can imagine,
if you refuse to sign the form they do not give you the documents.
My inspection sticker, license plate and registration was refused
renewal because I refused to sign a contract which, to my mind, only
an idiot would sign. Give me the tickets and we will fight this in
court.
I did, however,
maintain liability insurance on the vehicle until, by a clerical
error on my part, I did mail the renewal payment one day late and my
insurance was canceled. It was at this time that I was stopped by a
policeman for having an expired license plate. When he discovered
that my insurance had been canceled he did evict my daughter and
myself from the vehicle and did cause the vehicle to be towed away
with my personal property still inside. There we were, my daughter
and myself, stranded on the side of the road. It was at this time
that I realized that if my vehicle could be summarily taken from me
without any process of law, I must not own that vehicle. 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. 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
What my research
did turn up is so extraordinary that extraordinary and irrefutable
proof must be offered. My brief in support will supply that proof.
Proof so irrefutable and easily verifiable that the truth of my claim
can be verified in any decent legal library, or even on the Internet.
in under one hour.
The State of
Louisiana did, by bill of credit (prohibited by Article I Section 10
of the United States Constitution,) steal every vehicle for private
use and institute an admiralty lien on these vehicles (Louisiana
State Constitution Article VII Section 5) with the expressed intent
to deprive Citizens of the State of Louisiana of their right to
travel (Louisiana Revised Statute 32:25)
and their right to own any
“device by which persons or things may be transported upon a
public highway or bridge” La R.S. 32:1(92), and
thereby strip this citizen of his unalienable right to pursue
happiness by removing any means by which his right might be enjoyed.
The State of Louisiana did then hide this encumbrance (Louisiana
Constitution Ancillary Article XIX Section
19.)
The State of Louisiana has stolen all vehicles,
including bicycles and ridden animals. Yes, stolen is the correct
word for there was no due process nor compensation paid for the
privilege. Not only have they stolen the vehicles, they have stolen
the unalienable right to pursue happiness by removing any means of
travel save by walking and pushing one's possessions in a cart. In
fact they have even removed the right to own and use an emergency
evacuation vehicle and, hence, the right to flee for one's life.
As if servitude as a bond servant were not heinous
enough, the State of Louisiana, contrary to Article III Section
12(A)(7) of the Louisiana State Constitution, did create a body
corporate with the power to sue and be sued as overseer of the
State's property, the corporation known as the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections. It did invest in this body corporate the
powers of a tyrant to such a degree that it did even endow it with a
police force to enforce its tyranny.
“The Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
through its offices and officers, shall have authority generally for
the security and physical safety of the citizens and property of
Louisiana, the enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to
criminal conduct, automobile and highway safety, motor vehicles and
drivers, and fire protection.“ Louisiana Revised Statutes,
Chapter 9 §401 B.(1)
This tyrant, the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, now having exclusive control of “every device by
which persons or things may be transported upon a public highway or
bridge” La R.S. 32:1(92) did then demand that all persons be
bound to service for a term of years not only to the overseer of the
State's property, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
but also to any corporation in the insurance industry.
Bond servant was not bad enough. Using my right to own
a vehicle and travel in pursuit of my happiness as hostage, virtually
every right, as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, has been
stripped from me. They are trying to force me to be a slave on the
State's plantation.
What force is being used? I have twice had my vehicle
taken, literally from under me, without any due process of law. Once
I was able to pay the ransom and retrieve the vehicle minus the
evidence of servitude, the license plate. Having been marked as a
trouble maker the tyrant's gun toting thugs could easily identify me
as an escaping slave and, again, seize my vehicle. Which they did on
the 21st day of December, 2006. This time, contrary to
their rules, the overseer would not let me pay the ransom on my
vehicle until I could prove that I had bound myself, for a term of
years, into service of the tyrant and his minion (Exhibits 1, 2 and
3) It is believed that the tyrant does hold this vehicle to this
day. Numerous threats of the sale of this vehicle, with the personal
property contained therein, to another surf have been made and the
Plaintiff is unsure of the current status of my vehicle and the
personal property contained therein.
I have been imprisoned, without charge or trial since
the 21st day of December, 2006. My prison is as real as
any made of stone and steel. A prison that I have termed walking
distance prison. It is slightly better than house arrest. I am not
allowed to use any device by which persons or things may be
transported upon a public highway or bridge” La R.S. 32:1(92).
I am only allowed to travel as far as I can walk in a day, or half
that distance if I maintain a habitat, carrying my property either on
my person or in a push cart. It does also include the penalty of
time required in transit. If I wish to exceed the confines of my
prison, I must beg or pay a duly licensed slave and bond servant of
the tyrant to escort me.
I do now fear for my very life. Should another
disaster befall the area I am to be left to die. I am not allow to
own or operate an emergency evacuation vehicle. We are now in
hurricane season and our levies are substandard. The peril is real
and pressing. Plus, there is still the danger of chemical cloud,
terrorist attack, nuclear accident and cloud, or some other
unforeseen event that would require evacuation. I have now lost my
property and freedom to the tyrant, am I now to loose my life for the
heinous crime of demanding my rights.
Numerous
complaints have been issued. Numerous infamous charges have been
filed. Numerous arraignments had. Numerous trials have been set and
stayed until jurisdiction and a valid cause of action can be
established. All have lead to the filing of appeals in the Supreme
Court of the State of Louisiana. Cases numbered 2007-KH-131 and
2007-KH-866 still languish, contrary to their own rules, on the
Docket of the illegally set Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.
All complaints and
infamous charges levied against this Citizen of the State of
Louisiana are apparently crimes of trespass based on the rules of the
owner of the vehicle.
“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
I did appear at
every arraignment in First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State
of Louisiana and did claim all of my rights as a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana, challenge the jurisdiction of the court, the cause of
action of my accuser, the standing of my accuser and did appeal each
final ruling of jurisdiction directly to the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana. In accordance with Louisiana State Constitution,
Article V section 5(D)(1) which states:
“(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...”
Until such time as
it has been determined who is the owner of the vehicle , it can not
be determined if the owner is traveling as a matter of right or if
the owner's rules have been violated. In order to determine
ownership of the vehicle, the validity of the lien must be examined.
In order to determine the validity of the lien, the validity of
Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution which
created the lien must have a ruling. There is only one court in the
State of Louisiana capable of making such a ruling, The Supreme Court
of the State of Louisiana. I did, in accordance with law, appeal
directly from the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of
Louisiana to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana on the final
judgment of jurisdiction, summarily rendered.
In every instance
and at every appearance I did state that I am a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana and entitled to my rights as such. In every instance
and at every appearance I did state and prove that the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections was enforcing an invalid lien. To this
date, none of my claims have been rebutted.
The details of
these cases are largely irrelevant to the issues. Cases numbered
2007-KH-131 and 2007-KH-866 on the Docket of the Supreme Court of the
State of Louisiana do more fully detail my arguments and do prove my
standing, damage, cause of action and that all local remedies have
been exhausted. I do reserve the right to subpoena these records
should a credible defense be mustered.
This brings us to
the last point. There is no one qualified to defend the Constitution
of the State of Louisiana. Having accused and served the secretary
of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections of intentionally
and knowingly enforcing an invalid lien and having served the
Governor of the State of Louisiana and the Attorney General notice of
all actions, I did become curious as to why, over the months, there
had been no response. After all, it is the Attorney General's job.
I did begin to search for an answer. What I found was most
disturbing of all.
By provision of
Article IV $2 of the Louisiana State Constitution a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana is prohibited from qualifying for any statewide
elective office. It seems that only citizens of the United States
who have lived in the territories at least the preceding five years
is eligible for any statewide elective office.
$2.
Qualifications
Section
2. To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a person, by the
date of his qualification as a candidate, shall have attained the age
of twenty-five years, be an elector, and have been a citizen of the
United States and of this state for at least the preceding five
years. In addition, the attorney general shall have been admitted to
the practice of law in the state for at least the five years
preceding his election. During his tenure in office, a statewide
elected official shall hold no other public office except by virtue
of his elected office.
Where it can not be
doubted that the Governor, the Attorney General, and even the Supreme
Court of the State of Louisiana have the power to act. Do they have
the right to act? These citizens of the United States have no
standing in the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Hence,
there has been no answer from any party. They have no standing. The
Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana has not ruled. Nor has it
even ordered, despite numerous pleas, the return of my vehicle and,
thereby, my release from this walking distance prison until such time
as ownership of the vehicle could be established and due process had.
They are not Citizens of the State of Louisiana either.
There is no need
for a defender of the Louisiana State Constitution. The abuse is too
blatant and irrefutable. What defense can there be? The State of
Louisiana did steal ownership of all vehicles for private use and did
put them up as collateral for a debt, by bill of credit, to fund a
tyrant and his private police force. There was no due process.
There was no compensation paid for the privilege. It was an outright
theft. The purpose was to steal from the Citizens of the State of
Louisiana their right to travel. Louisiana Revised Statute 32:25
does plainly confess to this fact.
“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 Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution
is unconstitutional. It does steal all vehicles. Not can it be
denied that Chapter 9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes does create a
feudal lord of travel and tyrant, the body corporate known as
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, the overseer of the
State's plantation, alias of the State of Louisiana. This overseer
of the State's property has demanded that Citizens bind themselves to
service for a term of years to the overseer of the State's property
and further bind themselves to service for a term of years to any
corporation in the insurance industry or be imprisoned in a prison,
without charge nor trial, whose bounding wall is the distance the
Citizen can walk in a day, or half that distance if a habitat is
maintained. Should this walking distance prisoner desire to travel
further than the bounds of the prison, the Citizen must be escorted
by a slave / bond servant of the State of Louisiana, the body
corporate known as the Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
overseer of the State's property and people, and any corporation in
the insurance industry. Evidently only the faces of tyranny change
as will be see as I plagiarize the United States Declaration of
Independence.
The history of the
present Feudal Lord of Travel, the corporation known as the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, overseer of the State's
property, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over
the Citizens. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid
world.
“He has
erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of
Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
“For
depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting
us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses:”
“He has
constrained our fellow Citizens taken captive on the high Seas...”
“In every
stage of these Supressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most
humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury, A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every
act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free
people.”
Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security.”
Sufficient proof for summary
judgment will be offered. The documents cited are unimpeachable. The
Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of
Louisiana, the Louisiana
Constitution Ancillary and the Louisiana Revised
Statutes can be found in any decent law library. To a doctor of Law
the wording is clear and unambiguous. By law there is no need to
search for the spirit of the law as Louisiana Revised Statute 1:4
does tell us.
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
There is no
qualified defender of the Louisiana State Constitution. Can a mere
citizen of the United States even hold office in the State of
Louisiana much less to the exclusion of Louisiana State Citizens?
Can a mere citizen of the United States defend the Louisiana State
Constitution? Could anyone defend the Louisiana State Constitution?
What defense can there be for the blatant theft of my Creator
endowed unalienable rights, my liberty and my property? I do defy
anyone to even postulate a credible defense.
It do remind this
court that I am still incarcerated, without charge nor trial, in this
walking distance prison. My emergency evacuation vehicle and the
personal property contained therein has been stolen and is still
being held for ransom. My life is in imminent danger as hurricane
season is again upon us, our levies are still weak, and I am, at the
gun barrel of government, forbidden to own or operate an emergency
evacuation vehicle. Every day the tyrant is stealing other vehicles,
fines are being levied, jail time is being served, walking distance
prison endured. Time is of the essence.
I do beg this
Honorable court to send a clerk to the law library to verify the
validity of my claims. If any judge on this Honorable Court can even
postulate a possible defense to my claims, I do move this Honorable
Court to set this matter for trial. However, the issue of competence
of the Attorney General, or any State wide elected official, to
defend the Louisiana State Constitution, or even remain in office,
must be addressed by this Honorable Court before there can be a
trial. In the alternative I do move for summary judgment.
I seek no damages,
save the return of my vehicle and the personal property contained
therein, at no cost to me or just compensation made for the loss of
the vehicle and the personal property contained therein if the
aforementioned vehicle has been disposed of. The vehicle is now of
classic vintage, and it is mine.
ISSUES
AND QUESTIONS OF LAW PRESENTED
Article
VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is
unconstitutional.
The
Department of Public Safety and Corrections is illegally
instituted by Chapter 9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes.
All
holders of statewide elective office are illegally seated, and
have no standing.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
POSITION THAT
ARTICLE VII SECTION 5 OF
THE
LOUISIANA STATE
CONSTITUTION IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(Complaint #1)
There
can be no doubt that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” is
unconstitutional for the following reasons.
Article
VII section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled “Motor
Vehicle License Tax” is unconstitutional in that it is not
sufficiently clear to the average Citizen and voter. It is labeled
as a license tax when in actuality it is an admiralty lien and
privilege on vehicles and a tax on the license to use the vehicles,
with permission of the new owner. Vehicles have been stolen from the
Citizens, without compensation nor due process, by a bill of credit.
It has, by design, stripped every Citizen of the State the right to
own property of every kind and the right to travel. It has removed
from the Citizen of the State the right to travel by making it
impossible to own any vehicle by which the right to travel may be
enjoyed (including bicycle and ridden animal.) Since the right to
travel has been stolen, State Citizens can not exercise the right
endowed by the creator to pursuit of happiness.
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. Article VII § 5 Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License
Tax”
Could
this be a license tax as the title “Motor Vehicle License tax”
does proclaim?
“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
“--License fee or tax. The price paid to governmental or
municipal authority for a license to engage in and pursue a
particular calling or occupation. See Home Ins. Co. V. Augusta, 50
Ga. 537; Levi V. Louisville, 97 Ky. 394, 30 S. W. 973, 28
L.R.A.480.” Black's law Dictionary Third Edition Pg. 1112
There
can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 is not a license tax by
definition. There is no calling, profession, occupation, nor
vocation exercised. These vehicles are for private use. Could I be
stringing too many words together? Just what is a license?
LICENSE
“A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring
the right to do some act which without such authorization would be
illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort.” Black's law
Dictionary Third Edition Pg. 1110
This
sounds like my original premise. If they can take my vehicle without
due process of law, I must not own it. I had harmed no one. In fact
on the two times that the policeman did stop me and did steal my
vehicle, the reason given had been that my license plate had been
expired or missing. Could I have been accused of a trespass or a
tort? I know that traveling is a right, and driving is a privilege.
Just what is a privilege?
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 a
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” Well, what rights do
adhere to a privilege? What is a “jus in re”?
“JUS IN RE. In the civil law, A right in a thing. A right
existing in a person with respect to an article or subject of
property, inherent in his relation to it, implying complete ownership
with possession, and available against all the world” Black's
law Dictionary Third Edition Pg. 1044
The
pieces do fit. It does explain my eviction from the vehicle, and its
seizure. If the State of Louisiana does claim an admiralty lien
implying complete ownership with possession, and available against
all the world, such a seizure would appear legal under color of law.
There
can be no doubt that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” does
create, by admiralty lien, “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”, Bouvier's Law Dictionary
(supra)
“...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.”
Louisiana State Constitution Article VII Section 5
“... 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.” Article VII Section 5
So in
this instance, Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution, the license that is being taxed is, if I have this
deciphered correctly, a tax on the permission to use the vehicle
that the State of Louisiana does now claim to own by virtue of an
admiralty lien securing a bill of credit.
Is this
a bill of credit strictly prohibited by the Article 1 Section 10 of
the United States Constitution? Which states: “No State shall
... emit Bills of Credit;...”
“-- Bill of credit. In constitutional law. A Bill or
promissory note issued by the government of a state or nation, upon
its faith and credit, designed to circulate in the community as
money, and redeemable at a future date.” Black's Law
Dictionary, third edition pg 221.
Is there
a Bill or promissory note “for the payment of obligations for
bonds or other evidences of indebtedness” Article VII § 5
(supra). Sure enough.
Is there
a “government of a state or nation, upon its faith and credit”
in Article VII § 5 (supra)? Well it does say “ After
satisfying the requirements of Section 9(B) of this Article”
Article VII § 5 (supra).
(B) Bond Security and Redemption Fund. Subject to contractual
obligations existing on the effective date of this constitution, all
state money deposited in the state treasury shall be credited to a
special fund designated as the Bond Security and Redemption Fund,
except money received as the result of grants or donations or other
forms of assistance when the terms and conditions thereof or of
agreements pertaining thereto require otherwise. In each fiscal year
an amount is allocated from the bond security and redemption fund
sufficient to pay all obligations which are secured by the full
faith and credit of the state and which become due and payable
within the current fiscal year, including principal, interest,
premiums, sinking or reserve fund, and other requirements.
Thereafter, except as otherwise provided by law, money remaining in
the fund shall be credited to the state general fund. Louisiana State
Constitution Article VII Section 9(B) [emphasis added]
Does it
circulate in the community as money, and redeemable at a future date?
Obviously, because it is “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 ....“
Article VII § 5 (supra).
There is
not a criteria described in the definition of emitting a bill of
credit that this article does not fit nor a criteria missing. It is
the definition of a bill of credit which the State is expressly
prohibited from emitting.
Even if
it were conjectured that it is not actually the State of Louisiana
that emitted the bill of credit, could it be argued that an entity
created by the State could be endowed with more power than its
creator? The prohibition of Article 1 Section 10 of the United
States Constitution against emitting a bill of credit is clear, and
considering this current action, its inclusion into the United States
Constitution was intended to prohibit the very abuses of which I and
all State Citizens have been subjected, for it clearly prohibits
States from turning its Citizens from free persons into bond servants
as has been done in this instance.
Nor can
it be denied that the Legislature has sought to hide the evidence of
their deed, the evidence of the admiralty lien. Louisiana
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.
One can
not deny the skill of the fraud perpetrated upon its Citizens by
careful wording. It is no wonder that the Legislature of the State
of Louisiana did see fit to issue the warning: Forget what you think
you are authorizing, that is not what we said. It is not our fault
that you did not go to law school. It is not our fault that even the
basics of law are not taught until the doctoral level. We presume
that you understand law as well as a doctor of law. Is this not the
message of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana when it states
in La R.S. 1:4
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
There
can be no doubt that Article VII section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” does
create an admiralty lien on all private vehicles by bill of credit.
Nor can there be any doubt that the intention of this legal deception
was to deprive the Citizens of this State of their right to travel
and subject them to slavery on the plantation of the State and the
tyranny of its appointed overseer, the body corporate known as the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Louisiana Revised
Statute 32:25 does plainly confess to this fact.
“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
Having proved, beyond doubt, that the State of
Louisiana did steal, complete ownership with possession, available
against all the world, all motor vehicles for the purpose of
“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 It is now time to explore just 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, which, to the best of my
knowledge, no longer exists, and carts I must manually push or pull.
If the State has an admiralty lien and jus en re on all of these
items, I can not own any of them. By the definitions, I can not even
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. There can be no doubt
that I have lost my right to acquire and possess property of every
kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety.
“The first and the leading case on the subject is
that of Corfield v. Coryell, decided by Mr. Justice Washington in the
Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in 1823. [p*76]
"The inquiry," he says,
is what are the privileges and immunities of citizens
of the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these
expressions to those privileges and immunities which are fundamental;
which belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, and
which have at all times been enjoyed by citizens of the several
States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming
free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles
are it would be more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may
all, however, be comprehended under the following general heads:
protection by the government, with the right to acquire and
possess property of every kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and
safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the
government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.
This definition of the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the States is adopted in the main by this court in the
recent case of Ward v. The State of Maryland, while it declines to
undertake an authoritative definition beyond what was necessary to
that decision. The description, when taken to include others not
named, but which are of the same general character, embraces nearly
every civil right for the establishment and protection of which
organized government is instituted. They are, in the language of
Judge Washington, those rights which are fundamental. Throughout his
opinion, they are spoken of as rights belonging to the individual as
a citizen of a State. They are so spoken of in the constitutional
provision which he was construing. And they have always been held
to be the class of rights which the State governments were created to
establish and secure.” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
[emphasis added]
There can be no doubt that Article VII of the Louisiana
State Constitution is blatantly unconstitutional. Here is a partial
list of the federal and State Constitutional provisions that it does
violate. It does effectively remove the class of rights which the
State governments were created to establish and secure.
Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” does
violate the preamble and the following articles of the Federal
Constitution and Bill of Rights:
Preamble to the United States Constitution in that it
denies this Citizen of the State the Blessings of Liberty.
Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution
in that the State of Louisiana did emit a bill of credit.
Article I Section 10 of the United States Constitution
in that it does impair the right to contract in that it does
compel this Citizen of the State into contract, thus
impairing his right not to contract, and refrain from admiralty and
equity jurisdiction. Compulsion to service for a term of years is
also the definition of slavery.
Article IV Section 2 of the United States Constitution
in that it does deny this Citizen of the State Privileges and
Immunities of the several States which include the
enjoyment of life and liberty, the right to possess property of
every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, among
others.
Article I of the Bill of Rights in that it does deprive
this Citizen of his right to travel as a matter of right since every
means by which this person may travel has been
seized by the State, by way of an Admiralty lien, and
hence has denied this Citizen of his right to peacefully
assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievance,
since these rights can only be maintained if
I can travel to such places.
Article I of the Bill of Rights in that it does
compel this Citizen of the State to become
surety for the debt of the State in violation of the
admonition of the Bible in Proverbs 22:26 which states “ Be
not one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for
debts.” Thus denying this Citizen the freedom of religion.
Article IV of the Bill of Rights in that since the
State has claimed a real right in my vehicles it has denied this
Citizen of the State the right to be secure in my person, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Article V of the Bill of Rights in that it does deny
this Citizen of due process of law before being
deprived of my liberty and property.
Article V of the Bill of Rights in that it does take
my property for public use without just compensation, to be used
as surety for debts of the State.
Article VII of the Bill of Rights by compelling this
Citizen of the State into admiralty jurisdiction and
hence deny this Citizen the right to a Common Law trial by
Jury.
Article VII of the Bill of Rights by subjecting this
Citizen of the State to excessive fines.
Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution entitled “Motor Vehicle License Tax” does
violate the preamble and the following articles of the State
Constitution:
The preamble of the State Constitution in that it does
impair and not protect individual rights to life, liberty, and
property and does remove and not secure the blessings of freedom.
Article 1 section1 of the Louisiana State Constitution
in that it does impair and not protect the rights of the
individual.
Article 1 section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution
in that it does deprive this Citizen of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law.
Article 1 section 3 of the Louisiana State Constitution
in that it does institute Slavery and involuntary servitude
which are prohibited.
Article 1 section 4(A) of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that it does deny this Citizen the right to acquire,
own, control, use, enjoy, protect, and dispose of private property.
Article 1 section 4(B) of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that it does take Property without just
compensation paid to the owner or into court for his benefit.
Article 1 section 4(C) of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that it does take Personal effects.
Article 1 section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution
in that it authorize unreasonable searches and seizures.
Article 1 section 8 of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that it does compel this
Citizen of the State to become surety for
the debt of the State in violation of the admonition of the Bible in
Proverbs 22:26 which states “ Be not one of them that strike
hands, or of them that are sureties for debts.” Thus denying
this Citizen the freedom of religion.
Article 1 section 9 of the Louisiana State
Constitution in that it does deprive this Citizen of his right to
travel as a matter of right since every means by which this person
may travel has been seized by the State,
by way of an Admiralty lien, and hence has
denied this Citizen of his right to peacefully assemble, and to
petition the government for redress of grievance,
since these rights can only be maintained if
I can travel to such places.
This is the core of this dispute. Who is the owner of
this “real property used by the public for purposes of
vehicular travel by permission of the owner.” La R.S. 32:25
(Supra) I do claim to be the allodial owner of this vehicle.
Article VII, Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution is
unconstitutional. I am the allodial owner of the vehicle, traveling
as a matter of right. No State has ever had a valid lien on my
vehicle, admiralty or otherwise.
The words of the United States Supreme Court in the
case of Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 do state the limitations of
State and Federal Governments regarding private property and rights.
“The Territory being a part of the United
States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the
authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined
and marked out, and the Federal Government [p*450] can exercise no
power over his person or property beyond what that instrument
confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.
A reference to a few of the provisions of the
Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that
Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment
of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom
of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the
Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for
the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to
keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone
to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding.
These powers, and others in relation to rights of
person which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express
and positive terms, denied to the General Government, and the rights
of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus, the
rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed
on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which
provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which
deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property
merely because he came himself or brought his property into a
particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no
offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of
due process of law.
So, too, it will hardly be contended that Congress
could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a Territory without the
consent of the owner, in time of peace nor in time of war, but in a
manner prescribed by law. Nor could they by law forfeit the property
of a citizen in a Territory who was convicted of treason, for a
longer period than the life of the person convicted, nor take private
property for public use without just compensation.
The powers over person and property of which we speak
are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms
denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition
is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend
to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to
legislate, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial
Government, as well as that covered by States. It is a total absence
of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and
places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights are
[p*451] concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the States,
and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the
General Government might attempt under the plea of implied or
incidental powers. And if Congress itself cannot do this -- if it is
beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Government -- it will be
admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial
Government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local
Government established by its authority to violate the provisions of
the Constitution.” Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393
What defense can there be? The State of Louisiana did
steal “without just compensation paid to the owner or into
court for his benefit” (Article 1 section 4(B) of the
Louisiana State Constitution) every “device by which persons or
things may be transported upon a public highway or bridge.” (La
R.S. 32:1(92)). The State of Louisiana did this for the expressed
purpose of stealing my right to travel. (La R.S. 32:25) “The
wording 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 documents are unimpeachable. The only impediment to
summary judgment is to verify that I have not misquoted nor have I
quoted anything out of context. I again defy anyone to postulate a
credible defense for this heinous section of the Louisiana State
Constitution.
Should it be determined that a credible defense could
be mustered I do move this court to set this matter for trial at the
earlies possible date. My very life is at stake as I am one
hurricane or disaster away from being left to die in the city, for I
am forbidden, by the gun barrel of government, from even fleeing for
my life. However, it must be remembered that in order to set this
matter for trial, it must be determined if a member of that poor
unfortunate race for which the citizenship of the United States was
created has any right to stand in defense of the Constitution of the
State of Louisiana as Citizens of the State of Louisiana are
expressly forbidden from holding any statewide elected office.
BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION THAT
THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
IS ILLEGALLY INSTITUTED (Complaints #2 and 3)
There can be no doubt that the Article VII Section 5 of
the Louisiana State Constitution is blatantly unconstitutional. Nor
can there be any doubt that the body corporate known as the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections itself has been illegally
instituted as the overseer of the State's plantation and slaves /
bond servants.
The
overseer of the State's plantation, the body corporate known as the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, has been given
tyrannical powers by the Legislature and did grant
to a private corporation, association, or individual special or
exclusive right, privilege, or immunity in
violation of Article III Section 12(A)(7) of the Louisiana
Constitution.
“(7) Creating private corporations, or amending,
renewing, extending, or explaining the charters thereof; granting to
any private corporation, association, or individual any special or
exclusive right, privilege, or immunity.” Article III Section
12(A)(7) of the Louisiana Constitution
Chapter 9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes entitled “DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETYAND CORRECTIONS” shows clearly that this
corporation has been created in violation of Article III
Section 12(A)(7) of the Louisiana Constitution.
Chapter 9 section 401(A) does create the body
corporate.
“A. The Department of Public Safety and
Corrections is created and shall be a body corporate with the power
to sue and be sued. The domicile of the department shall be in Baton
Rouge.” La R.S 401A
Section
401 B(1) does give one of the finest examples of
tyranny I have ever seen. When one realizes just how encompassing
the term “the property of Louisiana” really is, with
walking distance prison as the only alternative to submission to
their general authority, tyrant is the only possible definition.
“The Department of Public Safety and Corrections, through its
offices and officers, shall have authority generally for the security
and physical safety of the citizens and property of Louisiana, the
enforcement of laws and regulations pertaining to criminal conduct,
automobile and highway safety, motor vehicles and drivers, and fire
protection.” La
R.S 401 B(1)
“"Driver" means every person who drives
or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.” La R.S.
32:1(16)
“ "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)
Could it be said that one freely contracted with the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections? The alternative is to
be imprisoned, without charge nor trial, in what is little better
than house arrest. You are forbidden, by the gun barrel of the
State, wielded by a corporation and their gun toting thugs, from
owning or “using 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).
You are only allowed to travel as far as you can walk, carrying your
possessions on your person, of pushing them in a cart. Good luck
when you try to evacuate from a disaster. Yet, I have heard it
claimed that no one forced you to get a driver's license. The tyrant
will imprison anyone who does not “voluntarily” submit.
When seen in its proper light it no longer appears legal.
“Voluntarily” surrender your rights and become bound to
service to the State's overseer or loose your rights and be confined
to a walking distance prison. Serve the tyrant or suffer his wrath.
Surely this can not be police power. Police power, by
its very nature, does not require the consent of its victim. Were I
to operate a vehicle down a pedestrian walkway, surely no one could
argue that police power could not stop me. They did not need my
permission, nor did they need me to surrender my right to be a free
person for police power to operate. Nor could anyone argue that as a
receipt or certification that competency has been achieved or fitness
for public use has been assured a license is a police power.
However, when the requirement for license does mandate the surrender
of your rights as a free person and bondage for a term of years,
police power crosses the line into tyranny and police state.
Surely the Legislature of the State of Louisiana knew
that police power could not force you into servitude. This is why
the theft of all vehicles and the hiding of the lien, was necessary.
You could not be forced to “voluntarily” surrender your
rights by police power. Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes were
designed and implemented to work together, hand and mace, for the
sole intent of forcing Citizens of the State to “voluntarily”
surrender their rights using their right to travel and their
happiness as hostage. There can be no doubt as the Legislature has
confessed this fact.
“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
No one can doubt the difficulty in accurately defining
police power. However, “Each law relating to the police power
involves the questions: First, is there a threatened danger?
Second, does the regulation involve a constitutional right? Third,
is the regulation reasonable? 66N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 382. See 144 N.Y.
529; 145 id. 32.” Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated
Pg. 950 Does the surrender of your right to be a free person and
bondage to service of a body corporate, public or private,
association or individual, involve any Constitutional Rights? What
Constitutional Right does it not involve would be a shorter answer.
Is the surrender of your Constitutional Right to be a free person,
the very rights the government was created to protect, a reasonable
regulation? This is not police power, it is police state.
There can be no doubt. Under the guise of police
power, having stolen the vehicles and hidden the lien, the State of
Louisiana is demanding that I surrender my freedoms and become bound
to service for a term of years to the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, who, in tern, does demand that I surrender more of my
rights. The Vehicle Registration form and the Application for
License or Identification Card form cited in the statement of the
case are two excellent examples. It would be the vainest display of
a excess of time to show every right just these two representative
documents have demanded I surrender, well beyond the limits of my
time and resources in this emergency, from my prison. Who could
argue that this is a valid police power?
What can the exclusive agent for the owner do with his
general authority? The Louisiana Revised Statutes does tell us
plainly.
“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
What has the exclusive agent for the State done with
these powers? He has forced us into a choice of imprisonment or
bondage, death or dishonor. For the heinous crime of failure to
submit, I am essentially on death row, absent charge and trail,
awaiting the next nature sent or man made executioner. Surely, if my
executioner comes sooner than the Supreme Court of the United States
can act, it will be said that I “voluntarily” stayed
behind to face the disaster. The State of Louisiana did not forbid
me to evacuate, they just denied me the use of any means to evacuate,
save walking. Just “voluntarily” surrender your rights
and the State will let you flee for your life when it becomes
necessary. He has deprived us, in many cases of a trial by jury. He
has carried us into admiralty court for pretend offenses. He has
unleashed swarms of officers to eat out our substance and destroy the
lives of our people.
In reality, what is the Department of Public Safety and
Corrections? Is it not just an alias for the State of Louisiana, or
more accurately, the Governor of the State of Louisiana? The
governor does appoint the head of the corporation who serves at his
pleasure.
There shall be a secretary of public safety and
corrections who shall be appointed by the governor with consent of
the Senate and who shall serve at the pleasure of the governor at a
salary fixed by the governor, which salary shall not exceed the
amount approved for such position by the legislature while in
session. La. R.S. §403
It is of common knowledge in the State of Louisiana
that when a governor wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet,
what was an infamous crime is a crime no more for the length of the
governor's term. The tyrant does change the rules at whim. Just how
necessary could it have been?
Do to the dire nature of my predicament, in fear for my
very life, as I am still confined to this walking distance prison and
unable to flee for my life should the inevitable hurricane come
quickly, I must abbreviate the complaints against the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections.
At this time, it is only necessary to show, by
irrefutable proof, that an artificial individual known as the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections was given special or
exclusive right, privilege, or immunity in
violation of Article III Section 12(A)(7) of the Louisiana
Constitution. That the Department of Public Safety and correction
was instituted to steal the rights of Citizens of the State of
Louisiana by making it appear that they did “voluntarily”
surrender their rights for privilege. That the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections is not enforcing a valid police power. It is
knowingly enforcing an invalid lien. It is enforcing tyranny.
“Voluntarily” surrender your rights or be confined to
walking distance prison to await your executioner.
The merits of the body corporate being a private
corporation or a public corporation, or whether a body corporate is
indeed an individual with the right to appear in its own behalf to
sue and be sued is not the main focus of this action. It is a
tyrant, with zero tolerance for people that refuse to submit. Submit
or endure walking distance prison until you die. However, such
questions would be appropriate if some credible challenge to the
recovery of my vehicle be mounted. The validity and rights of the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections is inextricably linked to
the theft of my vehicle by the State by bill of credit and admiralty
lien and the confiscation of my vehicle by the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections intentionally enforcing what they know to be
an invalid lien.
My plight is dire. My emergency evacuation vehicle has
been stolen and is, to this day, being held by the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, alias of the State of Louisiana. I
have had to endure this walking distance prison since the 21st
day of December, 2006. During this same time period my emergency
evacuation vehicle has been in storage and must be in need of
maintenance before it could be used for that intended purpose. We
are in hurricane season, our levies are substandard, and I am
forbidden to save myself and flee for my life under threat of further
incarceration of my person and confiscation of my property.
There can be no doubt that Article VII Section 5 of the
Louisiana State Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Louisiana Revised
Statutes creating the Department of Public Safety and Corrections
were created with the intent of stealing the rights and property of
free Citizens of the State of Louisiana and turning them into slaves
or prisoners. Even a mere citizen of the United States could have
argued that this is involuntary servitude expressly forbidden by the
thirteenth amendment of the United States Constitution for the issue
is simply; be bound to service for a term of years to the Department
of Public Safety and Corrections or be confined to walking distance
prison until your executioner arrives. Prison and death or service
can not be claimed to be a voluntary act.
One of my positions could not be more eloquently stated
as it was by the Supreme Court of the United States.
“The proposition is therefore reduced to these
terms: can any exclusive privileges be granted to any of its
citizens, or to a corporation, by the legislature of a State?
The eminent and learned counsel who has twice
argued the negative of this question has displayed a research into
the history of monopolies in England and the European continent only
equalled by the eloquence with which they are denounced.
But it is to be observed that all such references
are to monopolies established by the monarch in derogation of the
rights of his subjects, or arise out of transactions in which the
people were unrepresented, and their interests uncared for.”
Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36
As my next brief in support will clearly and
irrefutably show Citizens of the State of Louisiana are totally
unrepresented, and their interests uncared for. Citizens of the
State of Louisiana are expressly forbidden to qualify for any
statewide elected office. In point of fact, I defy anyone to point
out any official, anywhere in the government of the State of
Louisiana, Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana included, that is
a Citizen of the State of Louisiana.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE LOUISIANA STATE
CONSTITUTION DOES DENY A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FROM
HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE (Complaint # 4 and 5.)
Article
IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution entitled
“Qualifications” does state:
“To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a person, by
the date of his qualification as a candidate, shall have attained the
age of twenty-five years, be an elector, and have been a citizen of
the United States and of this state for at least the preceding five
years. “ Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State
Constitution
So, in
order “to be eligible for any statewide elective office”
one must “have been a citizen of the United States and of this
state for at least the preceding five years.” According to the
Slaughterhouse Cases there is a citizenship of the United States, and
a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other .
“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the
United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from
each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or
circumstances in the individual.” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S.
36
If there
is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State,
which are distinct from each other, then when Article IV Section 2
does mention “a citizen of the United States and of this
state.” to which state is it referring? It is a little
remarkable, if this clause was intended to refer to the State of
Louisiana, that any reference to Louisiana is carefully avoided. One
can not be both a citizen of the United States and a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, which are distinct from each other, hence, no one
would be eligible. It is too clear for argument that the phraseology
was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.
To
follow this logic, it can not be denied that a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana can not hold any statewide elective office. These
offices can only be held by a citizen of another state, a citizen of
the United States, that has resided in the territories for at least
the preceding five years. Does a citizen of another state, and a
mere territorial citizen, have standing to defend the Louisiana
State Constitution in the United States Supreme Court?
Let us
examine the qualifications for judges.
Article V $24. Judges; Qualifications
“ A judge of the supreme court, a court of appeal, district
court, family court, parish court, or court having solely juvenile
jurisdiction shall have been admitted to the practice of law in this
state for at least five years prior to his election, and shall have
been domiciled in the respective district, circuit, or parish for the
two years.” Article V $24 of the Louisiana State Constitution.
Again
the name of the state is avoided as is any requirement that the judge
be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Is it the same “this
state” previously mentioned in Article IV Section 2 of the
Louisiana State Constitution, (supra) the United States. Again, I
defy anyone to point out any judge in the State of Louisiana that is
a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, the Supreme Court of the State
of Louisiana included.
Here are
the requirements for the legislature.
Section 4.(A) Age; Residence; Domicile. An elector who at the time of
qualification as a candidate has attained the age of eighteen years,
resided in the state for the preceding two years, and been actually
domiciled for the preceding year in the legislative district from
which he seeks election is eligible for membership in the
legislature.
Again, Citizenship in the State of Louisiana is not
required, and all reference to the name of the state is conspicuously
absent. Again, I defy anyone to point out any member of the
legislature who is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana.
Considering the importance of the document and
considering that the study of law is essentially the study of the
precision use of language, it is more than mere coincidence that any
reference to the state is a reference in lower case. One can see
from the United States Constitution that when citizenship is
discussed a Citizen of the State in denoted in upper case, as opposed
to a citizen of the United States which is denoted in lowercase. So
also can it be seen that when referring to one of the States United
it is begun in upper case. Surely in so important a document if one
were to find it necessary to abbreviate the name of the State of
Louisiana to just this State, would the precision use of language
require the capitalization. Or is it that United States jurisdiction
is denoted with lowercase as are citizen of the United States and
does denote the clear meaning intended that the “this state”
referenced is the same “this state” referenced in the
qualifications?
There can be no doubt that a Citizens of the State of
Louisiana is unrepresented, and their interests uncared for. They
are, by Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana State Constitution, not
eligible for any statewide elective office. There can be no doubt.
The documents are irrefutable. To a doctor of law, the language is
clear and free of ambiguity.
You would think that being able to prove, using,
almost exclusively, the Constitution of the State of Louisiana, that
citizens of another state had invaded the State of Louisiana and
stolen your government, your rights, your property, and left you to
die in the next disaster for refusing to submit would be the most
shocking thing to find. It was not.
While preparing this document I did find Article II
Section 26 in the Louisiana State Constitution.
Article II $26. State Sovereignty
Section 26. “The people of this state have the
sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and
sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and
enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which
is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the
United States of America in congress assembled.” Article II $26
of the Louisiana State Constitution.
What have these citizens of another state, pretending
to have the authority to represent the State of Louisiana and the
Citizens of the State of Louisiana, expressly delegated to the United
States of America in congress assembled? Unfortunately, the lateness
of the discovery and the lack of access to a law library as all are
beyond the bounds of my prison, I can not pursue this further, at
this time. I do reserve the right to subpoena all records of every
power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which has been
expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress
assembled.
Who is representing a Citizen of the State of Louisiana
in congress assembled? There can be no doubt that it is a citizen of
the United States, a citizen of another state, that is serving in
congress. “To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a
person, by the date of his qualification as a candidate, shall have
attained the age of twenty-five years, be an elector, and have been a
citizen of the United States and of this state for at least the
preceding five years. “ Article IV Section 2 of the Louisiana
State Constitution
Due to the extreme nature of my emergency as I am
essentially on death row, absent charge and trail, awaiting the next
nature sent or man made executioner, I have not the time nor
resources, in my walking distance prison, to delve into the dubious
origins of the fourteenth amendment of the United States
Constitution. Curiously another time when the Citizens of the State
of Louisiana were unrepresented, and their interests uncared for.
Could it be said that that an amendment to the United States
Constitution was clearly worded when the justices of the United
States Supreme Court could not even agree on what it really said.
Which interpretation did the States ratify, if they did ratify? I do
reserve the right to more fully explore this issue should a legal
representative of the State of Louisiana be found and a trial ensue.
Having proved what these invading citizens of another
state have done to my right to pursue my happiness, there is no
telling what other acts of tyranny they have perpetrated upon the
Citizens of the State of Louisiana, unrepresented, and their
interests uncared for. Could they have stolen even my right to be a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana?
There can be no doubt that Article IV Section 4 of the
United States Constitution has been violated.
“Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to
every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence.” Article IV Section 4 of
the United States Constitution
The invaders from another state have not only stolen
the rights and government of the Citizens of the State of Louisiana,
but now under their guise as legal representatives of the State of
Louisiana and the Citizens of the State of Louisiana they now have
the power and might of their state to call should the conquered
subjects object. It would seen that the child is eating the parent.
The question is, is the parent dead or just dying?
“But so far as mere rights of person are
concerned, the provision in question is confined to citizens of a
State who are temporarily in another State without taking up their
residence there. It gives them no political rights in the State as to
voting or holding office, or in any other respect. For a citizen of
one State has no right to participate in the government of another.”
Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393
The proof is irrefutable. The documents are
irrefutable. To a doctor of law the wording is clear and
unambiguous. What defense can there be? Who is qualified to offer a
defense?
C O N C L U S I O N
What doubt can there be? The legislation of the State
of Louisiana furnishes positive and indisputable proof of these
facts. The documents are irrefutable. Only to a doctor of law, and
now this Citizen of the State Louisiana, who has devoted most of his
adult life to the search for his unalienable rights, is the wording
clear and free or ambiguity.
There has been a conspiracy, for by law one citizen
can not change the Louisiana State Constitution, by citizens of
the United States to infiltrate and overthrow the government of
the State of Louisiana.
Every “device by which persons or things may be
transported upon a public highway or bridge” La R.S.
32:1(92) has been stolen for the expressed purpose of stealing the
right to travel, the right to own property of every kind, and the
unalienable rights to pursue happiness and flee for one's life.
A tyrant was created who does serve at the whim of
one of the occupying army of citizens of another state pretending
to be the Governor of the State of Louisiana
This tyrant, known as the Department of Public Safety
and Corrections was instituted to defraud the Citizens of the
State of Louisiana out of their birthright of freedom under the
guise of a valid police power, by forcing them, under pain of
walking distance prison and the inability to flee for one's life,
to surrender their right to be a free Citizen of the State of
Louisiana and become a person bound to service for a term of
years.
That a Citizen of the State of Louisiana is not only
unrepresented and his interests uncared for, but he is confined to
prison to await his executioner, if he does not “voluntarily”
surrender his rights. He is left is the same position as someone
who has just had his horse stolen. That was why a horse thief was
so harshly treated, he put his victims very life in jeopardy of a
cruel death. “...a ridden animal shall be a vehicle...”
La R.S. 32:1(92)
How could this have happened? There can be only one
explanation. The invading army of another state has commandeered our
education system and has withheld knowledge of the law from its
slaves, while presuming, contrary to fact, a knowledge of law, at the
doctoral level, of all of its slaves. Does this presumption of a
knowledge of law, contrary to reality, not only permit the abuse
herein complained of, but does it not also remove the presumption of
innocence by presuming knowledge and intent?
What came first and how long this has been going on is
beyond the time and resources of the Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, imprisoned and awaiting my next executioner. My main
focus, at this time, is to recover my vehicle and the personal
property contained therein, my right own a vehicle and to use it, as
a matter of right, to travel in pursuit of my happiness or to flee
for my life. Thrice have I bested my executioner, by the grace of
God, as I was forced to remain in the City of New Orleans for
hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the government induced flooding
debacle. Had I tried to evacuate in my emergency evacuation vehicle,
which I did still possess at the time, I did risk, were I caught, the
confiscation of my vehicle and my most prized, private and personal
possessions and either the incarceration of myself and canine ward,
or to be marooned, with my canine ward, on the side of some
evacuation route and left to die. My fears were indeed founded, for
the first time that the tyrant did steal my vehicle my daughter and I
were left marooned on the side of the road and the second time the
tyrant did steal my vehicle and does still hold it with the personal
property contained therein, I was incarcerated by the occupying
state's militia.
What doubt can there be? The legislation of the State
of Louisiana furnishes positive and indisputable proof of these
facts. The documents are irrefutable. My plight is dire as my very
life is on the line as I remain in this walking distance prison
awaiting my next executioner. Nor can there be any doubt of the
importance of the issues or of the need and duty of the Supreme Court
of the United States to act.
There can be no doubt that summary judgment is
appropriate in this matter in favor of this Citizen of the State of
Louisiana. However, should a legitimate representative of the State
of Louisiana be found and a trial ensue, I do demand my right to a
trial by a petite jury of my peers, in persona, empowered to try the
law as well as the facts under this courts original jurisdiction in
accordance with Article III Section 2 of the United States
Constitution. I do remind this court that I am currently forbidden,
by the occupying army of another state, from traveling to petition
the government for redress of grievance.
P R A Y E R
It is hereby prayed that this Honorable Court issue
summary judgment on these matters for the legislation of the State of
Louisiana has furnished positive and indisputable proof of these
facts.
Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State
Constitution is unconstitutional and void from its inception.
Michael E. DiRosa is the allodial owner of the
aforementioned real property, used by him for purposes of vehicular
travel, traveling as a matter of right, and has not violated any
rules or additional conditions as may seem best to the owner. Hence,
this vehicle, and the personal property contained therein be
immediately returned to Mr. DiRosa, at no cost to him and that all
infamous charges, brought by mere information, against Mr. DiRosa
regarding this vehicle be immediately dismissed.
Or, in the alternative, that a jury trial ensue under
the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court to
determine who is the rightful owner of this vehicle after it is
decided who has the right to stand for the State of Louisiana.
Should a trial be called I do further pray that the
aforementioned vehicle be released to me, at no cost to me, until
such time as due process has been had, ownership established and
liability for the cost of towing and storage determined so that I may
be released from this walking distance prison and empowered to flee
for my life.
It is further prayed that all citizens of another state
be immediately removed from office and elections ensue to install
Citizens of the State of Louisiana in all elected and appointed
offices before the invading army of another state can steal anything
else. “For a citizen of one State has no right to participate
in the government of another.” Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. 393
It is further prayed that the Department of Public
Safety and Corrections be dissolved and, if necessary, reformed, in
accordance with law, as may seem fitting by Citizens of the State of
Louisiana.
It is further prayed that the presumption of knowledge
of law be abolished until such time as facts support the presumption.
Is it not curious that the arbitrary rules of the feudal lord of
travel were taught in high school, yet the basics of law and the
differences in citizenship were withheld in the occupying army's
schools.
This Citizen of the State of Louisiana is aware of the
difficulties that this prayer may pose. However, it does not matter
how far down the wrong road one has traveled, it is still the wrong
road. “For when a long train of abuses and usurpation,
pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to
throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.” (Declaration of Independence.)
It is further prayed that this court take quick action.
My very life is at stake. I am being held prisoner in this walking
distance prison, absent charge and trial, literally waiting for my
executioner.
It is further prayed that this Honorable Court permit
this Citizen of the State of Louisiana to proceed, should trial be
ordered, in forma pauperis as I am completely without means and have
been forced, by my imprisonment, to be solely dependent on the
kindness of others for my very survival.
It is further prayed that this Honorable Court take
notice of the fact that this Citizen of the State of Louisiana is
unschooled in the law, by design of the occupying army. To make
matters worse, due to my illegal imprisonment all law libraries are
beyond the bounds of my prison, as is my previous research. If I
have made some error in this filing or have missed some prerequisite
I do move this court to notice this Citizen of the State of Louisiana
and allow amendment or enhancement as is necessary. My very life is
at stake and time is of the essence as my executioner my arrive as
early as tomorrow.
It is further prayed that this Honorable Court do order
any additional relief that this Honorable Court deem appropriate in
the name of Justice.
I do certify that the above complaint, briefs in
support, exhibits and all of the forgoing are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
This 9th day of July, 2007
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
TOP
|
