UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT*
| Michael
E. DiRosa, |
) Case Number |
|
) |
| Plaintiff, |
) |
|
) Original Criminal Defense,Complaints |
| V. |
) and briefs in support. |
|
) |
| State of Louisiana, |
) |
|
) (odd title clarified on Page 3) |
| Defendants. |
) |
|
) |
* To be
construed as a reference to the same Supreme Court created by Article
III Section 1 of the United States Constitution and referenced as the
Supreme Court of the United States by Publius in the Federalist
papers. Name and / or address correction requested.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Comes
now into court Michael E. DiRosa, a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, appearing in proper person, unschooled in the Law,
demanding all of his rights under the Constitution of the United
States and the Bill of Rights. To 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. In point of fact one issue in this action is my status as a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana for it is apparent that my right to
be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, with all of the Federal and
State Rights pertaining thereto, has been illegally stolen. If I
appear to say or do anything that would strip me of my right to be a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana I do now state that it was done in
ignorance and/or error or my intent has been misunderstood. It is my
right to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana that is in dispute.
I come to regain my rights as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana,
not to abandon them.
ODD
TITLE CLARIFIED
This
action is, at its core, the defense of numerous charges of infamous
crimes of trespass alleged by the State of Louisiana, Defendant,
against Michael E. DiRosa, Plaintiff in this matter. Unfortunately,
the State of Louisiana has alleged these charges and there is no
court in the State of Louisiana competent to hear these charges.
Plus, it is obvious that the State of Louisiana will not bring these
charges to the attention of this Court due to their lack of standing,
lack of a valid cause of action and filthy hands. This leaves
Michael E. DiRosa, Plaintiff, no alternative but to bring this matter
to the attention of this Court to clear my good name and regain the
property stolen by the State of Louisiana. A jury trial is demanded
in this issue.
This, by
necessity, must be an original action. To date no court has had
valid jurisdiction over this issue.
I have
called this a complaint because, quite honestly, I do not know what
else to call it. It will read more as I would imagine an indictment
would read for the State of Louisiana is the criminal, though I, the
Plaintiff, do stand accused of the infamous crimes. It must stand
as a Scire Facias action “requiring
the person against whom it is brought to show cause why the party
bringing it should not have advantage of such record, or (in the case
of a scire facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not
be annulled and vacated 2 Archb. Pr. K. B. 86; Pub St. Mass. p. 1295”
Black's law Dictionary Third Edition, page 1586. The State of
Louisiana “has granted anything which by law it can not
grant...; and so, in any case, of the grant of a patent which is
injurious to another, the injured party is permitted to use the name
of the crown in a suit by scire facias for the repeal of the grant. “
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
It must
also stand as a Civil Action for there is a contested issue of
ownership of the property alleged to have been trespassed and
subsequently confiscated by the State of Louisiana. This case is
“One which seeks the establishment, recovery, or redress of
private and civil rights.” Black's
law Dictionary Third Edition, page 331. This case is “one
brought to recover some civil right, or to obtain redress for some
wrong not being a crime or misdemeanor. Wheeling Traction Co. V.
Pennsylvania Co.. (D.C.) 1 F.(2d) 478, 479.” Black's law
Dictionary Third Edition, page 331. Were this any entity but the
State of Louisiana, it would be a crime. It is only currently
presumed to be legal because it has remained unchallenged.
It can
be seen as an admiralty case because, where there is indeed at least
one admiralty lien in question, the lien was never valid from its
inception.
It must
also stand as a Quo Warranto action as the respondents for the State
of Louisiana, the Attorney General and even the Governor of the
States of Louisiana have no right, as a citizen of a state foreign to
the State of Louisiana, to hold the offices they have claimed or
usurped.
Nor can
the principles of the Common Law and equity be divorced from these
proceedings in defense of the infamous charges against me as the
actions of the State of Louisiana do stab at the very heart of our
government. The great and primary use of a court of equity is to
give relief in extraordinary cases, which are exceptions to general
rules.” Publius, The Federalist No. 83
JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction
vests in this Honorable Court on the following grounds, among others
and generally to be known as Article III of the United States
Constitution.
“The
trial by jury in criminal cases, aided by the habeas corpus act,
seems therefore to be alone concerned in the question. And both of
these are provided for, in the most ample manner, in the plan of the
convention.” Publius, The Federalist No. 83
As is
confessed by the State of Louisiana, Citizens of a state foreign to
the State of Louisiana have seized control of the State of Louisiana
and have made it illegal for a Citizen of the State of Louisiana to
hold any State wide elective office. “Whatever practices may
have a tendency to disturb the harmony between the States, are proper
objects of federal superintendence and control. ...it will follow,
that in order to the inviolable maintenance of that equality of
privileges and immunities to which the citizens of the Union will be
favor of the grants of the State to which they belonged.”
Publius, The Federalist No. 80
The
State of Louisiana is a party to this action. “The Supreme
Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only 'in cases
affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those
in which A STATE shall be a party.' “ Publius, The Federalist
No. 81 “In cases in which a State might happen to be a party,
it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior
tribunal.” Publius, The Federalist No. 81
“To
all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution and the
laws of the United States. This corresponds with the two first
classes of causes, which have been enumerated, as proper for the
jurisdiction of the United States. It has been asked, what is meant
by "cases arising under the Constitution," in contradiction
from those "arising under the laws of the United States"?
The difference has been already explained. All the restrictions upon
the authority of the State legislatures furnish examples of it.”
Publius, The Federalist No. 80
“There
is hardly a subject of litigation between individuals, which may not
involve those ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship,
which would render the matter an object of equitable rather than of
legal jurisdiction, as the distinction is known and established in
several of the States. It is the peculiar province, for instance, of
a court of equity to relieve against what are called hard bargains:
these are contracts in which, though there may have been no direct
fraud or deceit, sufficient to invalidate them in a court of law, yet
there may have been some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of
the necessities or misfortunes of one of the parties, which a court
of equity would not tolerate.” Publius, The Federalist No. 80
The
State of Louisiana has stolen “every
device by which persons or things may be transported upon a public
highway or bridge” La R.S. 32:1(92) by the institution of an
illegal admiralty lien. “The judicial Power shall extend ...
To all Cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” Article
III Section 2 United States Constitution
Should it be, as I suspect, that it is currently
impossible to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana by my own
volition, by a bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as
other citizens of that State, I do claim the right under the
definition and intent of Scire Facias . If the State of Louisiana
“has granted anything which by law it can not grant...; and so,
in any case, of the grant of a patent which is injurious to another,
the injured party is permitted to use the name of the crown in a suit
by scire facias for the repeal of the grant. “ Bouvier's Law
Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
Due to the dire circumstance in which I find myself, as
explained in the NOTICE OF ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT AND IMMINENT DANGER
OF DEATH, I must abbreviate my jurisdictional argument and do hereby
incorporate Federalist papers 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 as if included herein. Unfortunately, I can
not physically include these documents in this filing. Due to my
illegal imprisonment I must defy the tyrant and risk what little
freedom I do still possess (enjoy is not appropriate because my
happiness is not here) and travel by use of a self propelled motor
vehicle, commonly known as a bicycle (currently an infamous crime,)
to a copy machine and to the postal authority to prepare and file
these documents. Due to these restrictions, and others, I have a
limited carrying capacity which I fear to exceed.
“The observations of the judicious Blackstone, in
reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: 'To bereave a
man of life, [says he] or by violence to confiscate his estate,
without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act
of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout
the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying
him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less
public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of
arbitrary government.'” Publius, The Federalist No. 84
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 or use any
“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. 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, under the control of
the invading army of citizens of a state foreign to the State of
Louisiana, has mandated the high school curriculum and has
intentionally kept me ignorant of even the basics of law. 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 Citizen of
the State of Louisiana, appearing in proper person and is the owner
of the rights illegally alienated, owner of the property stolen and
defender of his good name against the infamous charges against me.
If this is not standing enough I do claim the right under the
definition and intent of Scire Facias to appear in the name of the
“crown” to repeal the illegal grant and annul the
letters patent for when the illegal grant occurred it did also
illegally deprive the Plaintiff of the right to redress of grievance
in the United State Supreme Court as a Citizen of the States of
Louisiana, among others.
“the injured party is permitted to use the name of the crown in
a suit by scire facias for the repeal of the grant.” Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
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 and virtually all
of the rights, guaranteed by both Federal and State Constitutions, of
its Citizens.
C O M P
L A I N TS
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.
The
State of Louisiana did illegally, by letter patent or other means,
alienate its territory or a portion thereof which did have the
effect of alienating my right to be a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana by making it impossible to become a Citizen of the State
of Louisiana by a bona fide residence therein. If the ability to
become a Citizen of the State of Louisiana is dependent on a bona
fide residence on its eroding land mass, than the State of
Louisiana has no right to, in any way, alienate my rights inherent
in the land. The State of Louisiana has made a grant of my
alienable and unalienable rights with the land. A grant it never
had nor has any right to make since the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution which did tie our
most sacred rights to the land mass. In fact, the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment did nullify any previous land grants for it
did tie our most sacred rights to the land and one can not be
alienated without the other. The rights of a Citizen of a State
are unalienable as now is the land mass required for a bona fide
residence therein. The protection of the right to be a Citizen of
the State, and the rights pertaining thereto, is what the Federal
Government was instituted to protect. The loss of my right to be
a Citizen of the State of Louisiana and condemned to prison until
death, absent charge, trial and redress of grievance, unless I
swear allegiance to a central government, can only be found in the
worst fears of the founders. Even George Washington's men would
not swear allegiance to the Untied States. They were State
Citizens and their rights, as such, were what they were fighting
for. Imagine how the Dred Scott Court must be turning. We are
now all members of that poor unfortunate race of sub humans not
fit for freedom or to be known as free men. For there can be no
doubt that whenever the letter patent, by whatever name called,
did originate, it did steal from the inhabitants of the land, not
only the land, but also their right to be a Citizen of the State
along with their right to redress of grievance as a Citizen of the
State, and the rights of all who may hereinafter dwell. We did
not raise the African American up from nigger, we made niggers of
us all. Can it be pretended that this is what We, the People or
the founders intended. The writ (now an original action)
“constitutes the declaration, to which the defendant MUST
plead; 1 Blackf, 297” Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091[emphasis added]
Scire Facias
"In practice. A
Judicial writ, founded upon some record, and REQUIRING the person
against whom it is brought to show cause why the party bringing it
should not have advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire
facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not be
annulled and vacated 2 Archb. Pr. K. B. 86; Pub St. Mass. p.
1295 Black's
law Dictionary Third Edition, page 1586 [emphasis added]
When the crown is deceived by a false suggestion, or when it has
granted anything which by law it can not grant...; and so, in any
case, of the grant of a patent which is injurious to another, the
injured party is permitted to use the name of the crown in a suit by
scire facias for the repeal of the grant. Bouvier's
Law Dictionary 1914 version updated, page 1091
The State of Louisiana did illegally, by letter
patent or similar means of another name, alienate its Sovereignty
or a portion thereof which did have the effect of alienating my
rights pertaining thereto. This fact is confessed by Article II
§26 entitled 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.
Never have I seen a more flagrant example of
proclaiming with one hand while taking with the other. It must be
remembered, at this juncture, that the government of the State of
Louisiana has, for I do not know how long, been completely overrun
by citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana. From
the Governor to the army of the invading state known as policemen,
to include the legislature and judicial branches of government,
all are citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana.
What Sovereignty, and attached rights, have this invading army
stolen? Again, they do not own the rights attached to the
Sovereignty of the State of Louisiana. It is hereby demanded that
the State of Louisiana show cause why the party bringing it should
not have advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire
facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not be
annulled and vacated.
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This is simply a
property dispute which has caused infamous charges of trespass to be
instituted against me. 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 (exhibits 4, 5, 6 and 7.) 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 as it has been found
that the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana is improperly set.
Citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana are illegally
quartered on the bench. 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 State of Louisiana does confess the
facts. 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.
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 United States Supreme Court 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 United States Supreme Court.
“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?
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
ILLEGAL ALIENATION OF LAND (Complaint 6)
There can be no doubt that my claim that I am a Citizen
of the State of Louisiana and have, by my own volition, became a
citizen of the State Louisiana, of the States United, by a bona fide
residence therein, and thereby my standing in the United States
Supreme Court is at the heart of this issue. If the State of
Louisiana has no territory left in which I may claim a bona fide
residence therein, I do claim a bona fide residence in the name of
the State of Louisiana if that is the only territory left. Who can
contest my claim of Citizenship in the State of Louisiana but the
State of Louisiana, unless it is impossible to be a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana. Yet, the federal admiralty judges of the First
Parish Court did so summarily rule without any showing of proof to
the contrary.
Curiously, the State of Louisiana has never challenged
my claim that I am a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. The Clerk of
the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did try to steal my claim
to Citizenship in the State of Louisiana but not by direct challenge.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana did
intentionally and repeatedly, over and above my timely and continuous
objections, seek to perpetrate a fraud upon the United States Supreme
Court by fabricating a chain of appeal that does not exist and
illegally and selectively conjoining two cases to match the
fabricated chain of appeal. He did that for the obvious end of
defrauding the United States Supreme Court into believing, had I
sought error in the United States Supreme Court, that I had sought
jurisdiction of these court and, hence, I was a citizen of the United
States and not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana as I claim. Not
unlike what had happened to Hans in Hans v. Louisiana 34 U.S. 1
(1890).
Now I find myself arguing a case before the clerk of
the Supreme Court of the United States. He keeps claiming that I am
a citizen of the United States, never substantiated, along with a
specious argument of insufficiency, never specified, and does keep
returning my legally filed documents over and above my timely and
continuous demands for a judicial determination of my objections, at
the risk of my life.
Since I have maintained that I am a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, currently an uncontested fact even by the State
of Louisiana, any contention to the contrary must be a contested
issue of fact to be determined by a judicial ruling or by the
demanded jury. Yet, the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United
States has offered no facts to contest my claim of Citizenship. His
total legal argument seems to be “you are not.”
The Clerk of Court did supply one cite, Hans v.
Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890). What a ridiculous cite. In the first
place, Hans was in the wrong court. A Citizen of the State of
Louisiana would have taken his complaint to the United States Supreme
Court. Only a citizen of the United States would have gone to a
circuit Court.
Hans, like the butchers in the Slaughterhouse cases,
did inadvertently, and possibly on the incompetent representation of
a lawyer as did the butchers, declare himself to be a member of that
poor unfortunate race devoid of rights by appearing in a court of
Congress and not of the Constitution. He was not originally
embarrassed by the eleventh amendment to the constitution, he was
embarrassed by Article III Section 2 of the Constitution and the
construction of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution decreed
by the Supreme Court which only then caused the eleventh amendment to
be embarrassing.
“In giving construction to any of those articles,
it is necessary to keep this main purpose steadily in view, though
the letter and spirit of those articles must apply to all cases
coming within their purview, whether the party concerned be of
African descent or not.” syllabus of the Slaughterhouse Cases
83 U.S. 36.
As long as I am squashing Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1
(1890) I might as well do a complete job to avoid any unnecessary
delays as my life is in imminent danger of forfeit.
Interestingly enough is the change of the test for the
interpretation of the Constitution. In the Slaughterhouse Cases the
test was that it says what it says no matter what you meant. In Hans
v. Louisiana the test is what did they mean when the founders passed
that amendment.
There was great fanfare and eloquent waxing about
Sovereign Immunity and the intent of the founders of this country in
regards to the Eleventh Amendment and in Hans v Louisiana. Yet not a
mention that the founders had never envisioned a second class of
second class citizens, nor the empowering of the dreaded and much
feared central government. Nor had the founders ever envisioned that
citizen of this central government would be living under the
domination of a State with no recourse of grievance save with
permission of the tyrant State. Could the founders have envisioned a
time when the redress of grievance guaranteed every citizen and so
carefully protected could be stripped from most if not all men. This
is no more than a grant of right, to the States, to steal anything of
value, including their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, from
this poor unfortunate race of halfling Citizens with no fear of
redress of grievance, save with the permission of the thieving tyrant
State.
Now let us contrast that with the Slaughterhouse Cases
83 U.S. 36. There was no discussion on the intent of the founders in
regard to the fourteenth amendment and the empowering of the dreaded
and feared central government. There was no discussion on the intent
of the framers and ratifiers of the fourteenth amendment. Had
Congress, the States United, and We, the People, vanished off of the
face of the earth? On an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States that will form a new class of persons and empower the dreaded
central government, in direct opposition to the intent of the
founders. an amendment that was so badly worded that even the
Justices of the Supreme Court could not even agree on what it said,
where was the question of the intent of the framers? Even the
attorney for the butchers did not understand what the amendment said
and did argue the wrong case, a fact admitted by the Court. Yet,
where was justice for the butchers? Was the lawyer representing the
butchers disbarred for demonstrated incompetence, by order of the
Court? How could they, the Justices themselves could not agree on
what it said. Had the butchers vanished from the face of the earth?
Could no one ask them if that was what they meant to do, or did they
have an incompetent lawyer? No the presumption of knowledge of the
law, at the doctoral level, did presume that they meant to loose
their case on a misunderstanding of the law by their incompetent
lawyer. If the presumption of knowledge of law is to be maintained,
why are lawyers allowed to represent people? The presumption of
knowledge of the law, at the doctoral level, surely would preclude
the use or necessity of lawyers representing anyone, save themselves.
In fact, the presumption of knowledge of the law, at the doctoral
level, does neuter the presumption of innocence, the only presumption
of merit, and does evict justice from the practice of law.
Which interpretation had the States ratified? Surely,
the Supreme Court could not ask the State of Louisiana, for their
people were unrepresented and their interest were uncared for.
Surely no one could ask the framers of the Constitutional Amendment
and the ratifiers what they did believe that the amendment meant when
they created and ratified it for then the dubious origins of the
fourteenth amendment might have come to light.
Nor did the Supreme Court seek the intent of the
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to the problem of
immigration. Was it the intent of the founders of this country or
the framers of the fourteenth amendment or its ratifiers to strip the
power of control of immigration from the Federal Government and place
it the control of any fleet footed mother who can time her delivery
to a dash across the border, as is now the case?
Now let us use the same criteria used in the
Slaughterhouse Cases in reference to the eleventh amendment. The
criteria is that it is not what you meant but what was said. In the
Slaughterhouse Cases the criteria is states as:
“The language is, "No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if
this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State
against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen
of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and
used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the
very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that
the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a
purpose.” Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
Now let us apply that test to the Eleventh Amendment by
paraphrase.
The language is “The Judicial Power of the United
States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens
of another States, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a
forfeiture of the guarantee of redress of grievance by Citizens of a
State against their own State, that the words Citizens of that State
should be left out when other Citizens were so carefully delineated.
It is too clear for argument that the phraseology was adopted
understandingly and, with a purpose.
I leave it for the reader to decide which is the goose
and which is the gander.
There can be no doubt that Hans did loose his
unalienable rights by ignorantly walking through the wrong door, as
there can be no doubt that the butchers in the Slaughterhouse cases
did loose their unalienable rights by ignorantly claiming rights
under the fourteenth amendment. How tenuous the term “unalienable
rights” has become since the adoption, despite its cloud, of
the fourteenth amendment. Since the adoption of the fourteenth
amendment, despite its dubious origins, the sword of Damocles was
better supported than are our unalienable rights.
In point of fact, the contention that a Citizen of a
State can originate an original action against his State in the
United States Supreme Court is supported by Hans v. Louisiana which
states:
'It may be accepted as
a point of departure unquestioned,' said Mr. Justice MILLER in
Cunningham v. Railroad Co.,109 U.S. 446, 451, 3 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 292,
'that neither a state nor the United States can be sued as defendant
in any court in this country without their consent, except
in the limited class of cases in which a state may be made a party in
the supreme court of the United States by virtue of the original
jurisdiction conferred on this court by the constitution.'
Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1 (1890) [emphasis added]
Had Hans chosen the correct door of a Citizen of the
State, the door to the United States Supreme Court, he would have
prevailed as the State of Louisiana had surrendered its Sovereign
immunity in this issue by Article I Section 10 of the United States
Constitution which demands that a State honor its contracts with
Citizens of the State.
One last note on Hans v. Louisiana before I dismiss it
completely. It is claimed, in Hans v. Louisiana that:
“To what purpose would it be to authorize suits
against states for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be
enforced? It is evident that it could not be done without waging war
against the contracting state;” Hans v. Louisiana 134 U.S. 1
(1890)
Waging war against the contracting State did not seem
to be a problem when the breach of contract was secession from the
Union. Why should it be any different with Article I Section 10.
Few limitations were placed on the Sovereignty of the States and
honoring their contracts was one. Any other contention is tantamount
to a license to steal from anyone who needs State permission to
complain. But, you must be in the correct court.
As anyone can see from my repeated attempts to file an
original action against the State of Louisiana, by a Citizen of the
State of Louisiana, for theft of my emergency evacuation vehicle and
rights, illegal imprisonment consisting of abandonment in a walking
distance prison, absent charge and trial, until death by natural or
man made disasters, that I have carefully avoided the mistakes of the
butchers and Hans. I did challenge the jurisdiction of the First
Parish Court. I did appeal directly to the Supreme Court of
Louisiana claiming and proving that the State had no cause of action
nor standing, among other grounds, and when the Louisiana Supreme
Court, contrary to the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana and the code of Judicial conduct did and still do refuse to
rule making an appeal of error impossible except under the principle
that to take no action is an action, I did initiate an original
action in what I believed to be the United States Supreme Court as
would a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, by right, which satisfied
the requirements of Hans v. Louisiana. Nor did I claim any right
under the Constitution above the Twelfth Amendment of that document
as would a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, which did comply with
the requirements of the Slaughterhouse Cases. Yet, despite these
precautions, I have so failed to raise a contested issue of fact in
regards to my Citizenship that a mere clerk can summarily rule that I
have no redress of grievance in this Court and, absent permission of
the thief and enslaver, the State of Louisiana, I must submit or die.
There is one explanation for the observable facts. The
State of Louisiana has, by letter patent or other equivalent means by
whatever name, alienated the rights of the Citizens of the State of
Louisiana with the territory of the State of Louisiana.
If we look to the Slaughterhouse Cases we can find the
requirements to become a Citizen of a State, the highest honor a
State or the United States can endow.
“It is that a citizen of the United States can, of
his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a
bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens
of that State. To these may be added the rights secured by the
thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other
clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered.”
Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
If the clerk of Court for the Supreme Court of the
United States has the unshakable belief that I am a citizen of
another state and, thereby, have no standing in the United States
Supreme Court he must know that it is so impossible to become a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana and that a statement of why he so
believes is superfluous due to the impossibility of my claim of State
Citizenship, despite demand, or he knows that I have mistakenly used
the wrong name and he can not or will not tell me directly.
Since my will to become a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana, by my own violation, is obvious and unassailable, there
must be no land on which I may claim a bona fide residence therein.
This can be one reason why the State of Louisiana has
changed its Constitution to forbid Citizens of the State of Louisiana
from holding public office as is confessed in Article IV Section 2 of
the Louisiana State Constitution entitled “Qualifications”
which 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
It must be impossible to be a Citizen of the State of
Louisiana by a bona fide residence therein. If it is impossible to
be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana, then who could complain and
to whom could they complain? The overthrow of the State of Louisiana
is successful. Not only did the citizens of a state foreign to the
State of Louisiana steal the State of Louisiana, the stole the right
to complain and hid the evidence in the presumption of legality
unless exactly correctly challenged. Of course, they do not have to
tell you why your position is incorrect because it is presumed to be
common knowledge, despite specific demands for the knowledge and
rebuttal of the presumption.
There can be no doubt that the fourteenth amendment to
our Constitution has tied the right to be a Citizen of the State to
the land of the State and a bona fide residence thereon. To alienate
one is to alienate the other. To the abused people on the land, not
only did they loose their land, their Citizenship in the State, their
redress of grievance, save with permission of the thief, but they
also instantly became one of that poor unfortunate race so subhuman
that slavery was all that they were good for, unless, of course, if
their master gave them permission to complain.
If, of course, a grant of land was issued before the
adoption of the fourteenth amendment, it must also be nullified for
the inhabitants would not loose land they did not own, but they would
still loose their Citizenship in the State, their redress of
grievance, save with permission of the thief and they instantly
became one of that poor unfortunate race so subhuman that slavery was
all that they were good for, unless, of course, if their master gave
them permission to complain. Again, how tenuous has the words
“unalienable rights” become.
One more swipe at presumptions of Law. Correct me if I
am wrong. It is a presumption of Law that legislation is presumed to
be legal unless challenged, no matter how flawed it is on its face.
Is this why the clerk of the Supreme Court of Louisiana chose to
falsify the record rather than directly challenge my claim to be a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana? Is this why the clerk of the
Supreme Court of the United States does refuse, despite repeated
demands, to state on what grounds he does claim that I am not a
Citizen of the State of Louisiana. If they had told me that I could
not be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana because there is no land
on which to claim a bona fide residence, I would have challenged it
directly and sooner. My continuation as a slave demands that I not
know the correct question to ask. If the legislation is sufficiently
hidden and the population kept sufficiently ignorant of the
principles of Law, theft, slavery and the overthrow and enslavement
of one State by another state are to be tolerated and nurtured until
someone deduces the correct question and challenges it correctly.
After all, I am presumed to know and understand the Law, at the
doctoral level, and evidently, this presumption will stand despite
rebuttal by an open declaration of ignorance of Law. Is it no wonder
that Law and Justice have so far diverged. Obviously, in this
country as it currently stands, what you don't know is fatal and
justice is just the title for judge of the plantation.
There
can be no doubt that an alienation of the land has occurred. There
can be no doubt that, with the adoption of the fourteenth amendment
of the Constitution, the right to be a Citizen of a State has been
trampled into the dirt of the State. There can be no doubt that to
alienate the land of a State is to alienate unalienable rights.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
If it is
not an alienation of land and a subsequent alienation of rights that
has occurred, than the only other explanation possible is that the
Supreme Court of the United States is not the same Supreme Court of
the United States referenced by Publius in the Federalist papers.
Could Congress have created a Supreme Court and given it a
deceptively similar name to the one spoken of by Publius? This
document does address that issue on its face.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE
ILLEGAL ALIENATION OF SOVEREIGNTY
(Complaint 7)
I have, in this document and in the complaint filed but
thwarted, so far, by the adjudgments of the clerk of the Supreme
Court of the United States who did summarily adjudge my complaint to
be insufficient and my standing nonexistent without reason or
comment, proved that the State of Louisiana has stolen every vehicle,
including bicycle and ridden animal, by which persons and property
can be transported on roads or bridges. I have proved conclusively,
by confessions of the State of Louisiana, that the State of Louisiana
has instituted slavery. I have also proved conclusively, by
confessions of the State of Louisiana, that the State of Louisiana
has stolen virtually every right for which the Federal Government was
instituted to protect, including my right to redress of grievance.
I have also proved conclusively, by confession of the State of
Louisiana, that there is not one Citizen of the State of Louisiana in
any office of the State of Louisiana. I have also proved
conclusively that the State of Louisiana did illegally alienate my
rights by an illegal alienation of the land. Is it any wonder that I
seek to find what other rights the invading army of a state foreign
to the State of Louisiana have stolen. It is only through knowledge
of these thefts and usurpations that I may correctly challenge them.
Currently, the presumption of Law is that you can steal anything you
want as long as you can keep anyone from finding out how you stole
it. They can know and prove that you stole it, they can even show
and prove that you still possess it after you have stolen it, but,
until someone finds out how your stole it and challenges it exactly
correctly, it is legal. Surely, no sworn associate will tell.
Harsh words? I could not even get the judges of the
First Parish Court to tell me in what jurisdiction I stood, despite
repeated and pointed questions, as they summarily adjudged that I did
understand the charges against me, that they had jurisdiction,
despite my challenge, that the State had a valid cause of action,
despite my challenge, and that this matter should be set for trial,
over my objection. Nor could I get the clerk of the Supreme Court of
the United States to tell me on what facts did he base his summary
judgment that I am not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana as he
repeatedly summarily adjudged my standing to be flawed despite
knowledge that my life was, and is, in imminent peril and over my
repeated objections and demands for a judicial determination. To
date, the clerk's total and brilliant legal rebuttal to my claim of
Citizenship in the State of Louisiana and the standing pertaining
thereto is “are not”.
Article II Section 26 in the Louisiana State
Constitution does confess that the Sovereignty of the State of
Louisiana has been stolen, with my rights pertaining thereto.
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.
I do, therefore, demand that the State of Louisiana
show cause why the party bringing it should not have advantage of
such record, or (in the case of a scire facias to repeal letters
patent) why the record should not be annulled and vacated. “Where
rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule
making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
CONCLUSION
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 United States
Supreme Court 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.
As the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36 does tell us
there is only one criteria to transform oneself, by his own volition,
into a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. It is by a bona fide
residence therein.
“It is that a citizen of the United States can, of
his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a
bona fide residence therein, with the same rights as other citizens
of that State. To these may be added the rights secured by the
thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other
clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered.”
Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.
For the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States
to continuously, despite repeated, continuous and timely objections
and demands for a judicial determination of my standing, summarily
rule that I am a citizen of the United States and have no redress of
grievance nor standing in the Supreme Court of the United States it
must be impossible to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana or
Congress has created a inferior court and given it a deceptively
similar name to the one Publius references when he speaks of the
highest court in the land.
Since there is only one criteria remaining, bona fide
residence therein, it must be impossible to maintain a bona fide
residence because the State of Louisiana no longer owns the land.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution did inextricably bind our most sacred rights to the
land. For the State of Louisiana to alienate the land, it must also
alienate my unalienable rights. The State of Louisiana does not own
my unalienable rights inextricably conjoined with the land. Any such
alienation of the land can not be valid whether executed before or
after the adoption, despite its cloud, of the fourteenth amendment of
the United States Constitution. For, with the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment, despite its dubious origins, anyone residing on
alienated land, in perpetuity, would be alienated from their
unalienable rights, in perpetuity.
As a side note, if I sell my bona fide residence to
move to a new residence, do I become one of those, of that poor
unfortunate race, not fit for freedom during the move? Would I be
eligible for affirmative action programs during the move? How
tenuous the term unalienable has become.
There can be no doubt that an illegal alienation of the
land, with the rights inherent in the land, has occurred, by whatever
name used be it letter patent, treaty, compact, etc.
There can be no doubt that Sovereignty of the State of
Louisiana, with the rights inherent therein, has been illegally
alienated by citizens of a State foreign to the State of Louisiana
after invasion.
I do initiate this action “requiring the person
against whom it is brought to show cause why the party bringing it
should not have advantage of such record, or (in the case of a scire
facias to repeal letters patent) why the record should not be
annulled and vacated” Black's law Dictionary Third Edition,
page 1586.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are
involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
RELIEF SOUGHT
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 11th day of October, 2007
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
Michael E. DiRosa, do hereby certify that true and correct copies of
this Motion for leave to file in forma pauperis along with this
Original Criminal Defense, Complaints and briefs in support of the
complaint and all documents submitted to the United States Supreme
Court have been entrusted to the United States Postal Authority,
properly addressed and postage paid for certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the office of the Governor of the State of
Louisiana and the office of the Attorney General of the State of
Louisiana. All named partied have been served by mail at the
addresses listed below.
Office of
the Governor of the State of Louisiana
P.O. Box
94004
Baton
Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Office of
the Attorney General
P.O. Box
94005
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
This
11th day of October, 2007
Michael E. DiRosa
c/o 318 Lakeshore Pkwy
New Orleans, Louisiana 70124
XXX – XXX - XXXX
TOP
|
