IN LOUISIANA THE STATE
OWNS YOUR CAR. IT'S THE SAME IN YOUR STATE TOO.
There is undeniable proof that the United States of America has been overthrown and your rights have been stolen.
This is not a conspiracy
theory, THIS IS A CONSPIRACY PROOF. (Unless you don't want to believe
the United States Supreme Court, your State's Constitution and the
Tulane Law Review.) The lawyers even confess in the Tulane Law
Review.
To see the full
explanation (in plain English) of the overthrow of the United States
see The U.S. Supreme Court told me. It will lead you through
the Legal proof of the overthrow of the U.S.A.
The full legal versions
are also located on the site along with my trip through the courts.
You can watch the treasonous conspirators sweep the truth under the
carpet.
THE PROOF IS UNDENIABLE.
You know that something
is wrong with the United States. Let me show you what went wrong and
how it happened, with as much proof as you can stomach.
You know that there are
three branches of the Federal Government, the Legislative branch, the
Executive branch and the Judicial branch. You were taught that in
school. But, did you know that there are two different kinds of
Citizenship? Curiously, they neglected to tell you that in school.
There is a citizen of a
State and a citizen of the United States which are clear and distinct
from each other. You can't be both. A Citizen of a State possesses
all of the right you believe you have. A citizen of the United
States is a freed slave and has virtually no rights. Unfortunately,
a citizen of the United States is what you are.
This is why nothing in
this country seems to make any sense. This is what happened to your
rights. As a citizen of the United States you have virtually no
rights. I don't ask you to believe me. In fact, I don't want you to
believe me. I want you to read my explanation and the proof I offer,
then I want you to go and see for yourself. My proof is easily
verified in the United States Constitution, your State's Constitution
and the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. Surely you will
believe them.
Let me show you that:
In Louisiana the State
owns your car. It's the same in your State too.
Here's the proof.
Every time a judge or law
enforcement officer looked at you and said "Driving is a privilege"
what they were telling you was that the State has a lien on your car
and we are allowing you to use it. Find that hard to believe? Read
on.
It turns out that the
State of Louisiana has put every vehicle up as collateral for a debt.
This gave them an admiralty lien on the vehicle and ownership of the
vehicle. This is why they do demand that you have a license to drive
their vehicle, that you register as the current user of their
vehicle, that you insure their vehicle and allows them to stop you
and check if you are using their vehicle properly and have permission
to use their vehicle. It also allow them to issue you tickets for not
using their vehicle properly. It also allows them to take their
vehicle from you.
You had a RIGHT to
travel. To get in your vehicle and travel any where you wish. It
stems from your unalienable RIGHT to pursue your happiness. Obviously
to pursue you happiness you need a vehicle. What good is a right if
you have no means to exercise it? Didn't know this? That's why you
are not taught law in school. It is also how they could steal it from
you.
Of course they hid it
from you. They gave it a misleading title. They buried it in legalese
so that you wouldn't understand it. They hid the lien. They even hid
the hiding of the lien by hiding it in the constitution ancillary.
Then they laughed at your ignorance by telling you that anyone who
thinks that they are traveling as a matter of right isn't. They even
gave their administrative procedure the look of a court of law. Did
you think that you had rights in traffic court? People might get
upset if they knew what the lawyers had done to them.
The original page had an
excerpt from the challenge filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana under docket number 2007-KH-131. Since them there is also
a case numbered 2007-KH-866 on the docket of the Supreme Court of
the State of Louisiana and multiple appeals to the United States
Supreme Court.
Here is the latest legal
proof that Article VII Section 5 of the Louisiana State Constitution
entitled "Motor Vehicle License Tax" is unconstitutional.
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.
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
"§4.
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.
If you thought that that
was interesting, you should see the legal proof of my other
positions. The latest versions can be found collected in the
original action to the United States Supreme Court.
However, I recommend that you let me lead you through
the proof that the United States of America has been overthrown. It
starts with The U.S. Supreme Court told me
TOP
|
