DOCKET NUMBER

THE ONE SUPREME COURT IN WHICH THE JUDICIAL POWER OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE VESTED PRESUMABLY CALLED

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT*.

MICHAEL E. DiROSA

AND

MALINDA NICOLE DiROSA

PLAINTIFFS AND/OR WITNESSES IN PROPER PERSON

V.

BOBBY JINDAL

AND

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL

DEFENDANTS AND/OR TRAITORS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

FORMAL ACCUSATION OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE OF LOUISIANA ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACTS

MICHAEL E. DIROSA, PLAINTIFF / WITNESS

C/O 318 LAKESHORE PKWY.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70124

XXX-XXX-XXXX

MALINDA NICOLE DIROSA, PLAINTIFF / WITNESS

C/O 14 ACADEMY LANE

HAUGHTON, LOUISIANA 71037

XXX-XXX-XXXX

BOBBY JINDAL, DEFENDANT / TRAITOR

PO BOX 94004
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-9004

225-342-7015

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL, DEFENDANT / TRAITOR

P.O BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804

225-326-6705

*Name and/or address correction demanded.

Stands before you Michael E. DiRosa and Malinda Nicole DiRosa, Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana, in what can only be described as the Testimony of two Witnesses, to formally charge the Defendants with TREASON again the State of Louisiana and its Sovereign Citizens.

PARTIES

Michael E. DiRosa is a Sovereign Citizen of the State of Louisiana. To date an uncontested fact in cases numbered 2007-KH-131 and 2007-KH-866 properly on the docket of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Louisiana Supreme Court is improperly set with subjects of a foreign state, aliens in the State of Louisiana and are, therefore, incapable of rendering a valid ruling on the validity of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana.

The fact that Michael E. DiRosa is a Sovereign Citizen of the State of Louisiana is also an uncontested fact in cases numbered F1525159, F1523230, F1678532, F1681551 on the docket of the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.

Malinda Nicole DiRosa is a Sovereign Citizen of the State of Louisiana. To date an uncontested fact in cases numbered 157,313 and 157,314 on the Docket of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court State of Louisiana, Parish of Bossier and case numbered KH 07-43205 on the Docket of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana. Malinda Nicole DiRosa did appeal to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana not as a grant of jurisdiction for the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana did not have the power nor right to hear the issue. Malinda Nicole DiRosa did, with irrefutable proof, explain to the Court of Appeal Second Circuit, State of Louisiana that their sole jurisdiction and obligation was to transfer this matter to the only court in this Country that has jurisdiction, the United States Supreme Court. An improperly set Louisiana Supreme Court was not an option.

To date, in all of the above named cases, it has been an undisputed fact that Michael E. DiRosa and Malinda Nicole DiRosa are Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana. In all of the above named cases, the accuser has not only failed to prove that they have a valid cause of action, right of action, standing and that these courts have jurisdiction but have steadfastly refused to do so, despite the requirements of Law.

There can be no doubt that Michael E. DiRosa and Malinda Nicole DiRosa, hereinafter known jointly as Plaintiffs, are Sovereign Citizens. It is self-evident. Man is endowed by his Creator with unalienable Rights.

This is not an American invention. The truth is self-evident. It is a universal truth. The Declaration of Independence was just the first time that a People declared that a Government was to be formed based on this fundamental truth.

In the Declaration of Independence, in essence, a agreement of intent to start a more perfect Union, We, the People, declared that we held these Rights by Divine Right and these Rights were to remain inviolate no matter what more perfect union we created. These Rights were given by the Creator and only the Creator can take them away. These Rights were declared to exist before government and, it was clearly stated, the only reason that we are going to create a government at all is to protect our divine and unalienable Rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government become destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence.

There is no method of government nor vote of majority that can take these Rights away from us. I am a Sovereign Citizen by Divine Right regardless of Country. It is self-evident. I am a Sovereign Citizen of the State of Louisiana by birth. It is self-evident. I owned these divine Rights before government was created and it is beyond the power of government to steal them away from me. If it is a government that is not protecting my unalienable rights then it is not a government created under the authority of the Declaration of Independence and has no right to call itself the government of the United States. It is self-evident.

Another issue must be addressed before Plaintiffs fall into the same hole as Dred Scott. One of the Plaintiffs is a Female of the family of man. It could be said that the laws of the time of the founding of our country show that females were treated differently from men and therefore when the Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, they were only talking about the males of the family of Man. Dred Scott was not a man and neither are females.

Let us dispense with this possibility now. Women were treated differently in the eyes of the law for the same reason that Negroes were. It is the fate of all who are unrepresented and their interests uncared for.

One need only follow the chain of title for the unalienable Rights of man. Man was endowed by his Creator with unalienable Rights. Who is the creator of man? What man has not been created by a Woman. Woman endowed man with his unalienable Rights. To inject a God into this statement as the Founders obviously intended, one would have to say that the Creator endowed women with unalienable rights among which was the gift of creation. Woman then created man and passed on what endowments she could. But, then again, it is self-evident.

There can be no doubt. Women create men and, with little more than a freezer, women could extinguish the males from the family of man for a few generations until a matriarchal society could be built where men are unrepresented and their interests are uncared for. The chain of title is clear. It is self-evident.

"Undoubtedly a person may be a citizen, that is, a member of the community who form the sovereignty, although he exercises no share of the political power and is incapacitated from holding particular offices. Women and minors, who form a part of the political family, cannot vote, and when a property qualification is required to vote or hold a particular office, those who have not the necessary qualification cannot vote or hold the office, yet they are citizens." Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

Yet, here we are, having to assert title to ourselves and our property, not unlike Dred Scott. Plaintiffs have asserted the claim that they are Sovereign Citizens endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights. It is self evident.

No act of government can alienate Creator endowed unalienable rights. It is beyond their charter. Government was created to protect those rights. Even if the 14^th amendment was legally enacted it would be as invalid as the Missouri Compromise. It even contradicts the 13^th amendment, for it did not free the slaves, it just changed their master. Now instead of Dred Scott being subject to Sandford, he will be subject to a committee of Sandfords called the United States as, now, are we all. Slave, subject there is no difference. All are a far cry from Sovereign with clear title to your Rights to include your Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law 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 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 persons 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 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 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.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government become destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves, and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Preamble of The Constitution of the United States.

There is no need to beleaguer the dubious origins of the 14^th Amendment at this juncture. Suffice it to say that a band of conspirators did seize control of Congress and did illegally evict the representatives of Louisiana and nine other States. These conspirators did then seize control of the Military and invade Louisiana and the nine other States. These conspirators did evict the legitimate government of Louisiana and the nine other States and installed puppet governments in these States with the expressed purpose of stealing the unalienable birthright of all Citizens to be born Sovereign and replaced it with a option to reside. The conspirators then forced the passage of the 14^th Amendment with the rubber stamp of their puppet governments, these men of straw, to paint the treasonous crime with the color of law. Now instead of a man being created sovereign with unalienable gifts of his Creator, he is a subject with an option of Citizenship with bona fide residence. Now we are not born free men, we are born subjects with an option for freedom dependent on maintenance of a bona fide residence.

Not only did these conspirators steal the unalienable Rights of the people of the Southern States by direct invasion, but they used these puppet governments to steal the unalienable rights of all of We, the People.

However, should the 14^th amendment be declared a valid law, validly ratified and that the mandate to secure Rights inherently contains the mandate to steal these preexisting Rights and as such was a valid act of a government instituted to secure our rights. Then, the Plaintiffs do notice this Court that we claim Citizenship of the State of Louisiana by right of our own volition and bona fide residence.

Our option to reside is clearly stated and unencumbered by time or restriction. Plaintiffs are Citizens of the State of Louisiana ether by birth as is self-evident or by exercise of the option to reside.

If there is some valid impediment to the volition of the Plaintiffs to reside as Citizens of the State of Louisiana bring forth your claim.

If it is not self-evident to this Court that the Plaintiffs are Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana. If it is not self-evident to this Court that a government instituted to protect unalienable Rights of birth has no power to alienate those rights from birth to the acquisition of a bona fide residence. If it is not self-evident to this Court that the armed invasion of the State of Louisiana and nine other States and the change of our National Constitution at the point of a bayonet was not a legal act. If it is not self-evident to this Court that the guaranteed option to reside that now replaces our birthright can not be encumbered, then these Plaintiffs appear before this Court under the right of the subjects of the United States to redress of grievance and protection of the federal Court from the invasion of citizens and subjects of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana, among others.

" One of these is well described in the case of Crandall v. Nevada. It is said to be the right of the citizen of this great country, protected by implied guarantees of its Constitution, to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government, to transact any business he may have with it, to seek its protection, to share its offices, to engage in administering its functions. He has the right of free access to its seaports, through which operations of foreign commerce are conducted, to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States.

Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Of this there can be no doubt, nor that the right depends upon his character as a citizen of the United States. The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The right to use the navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several States, all rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations, [p*80] are dependent upon citizenship of the United States, and not citizenship of a State. One of these privileges is conferred by the very article under consideration. 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 Plaintiffs must to come to the seat of government to assert a claim and petition for redress of grievances and demand the care and protection of the Federal Court over their life, liberty, and property when within the jurisdiction of a foreign government, it is done by rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

If it must be as subjects of the United States, it is to assert title to our privilege and immunity to reside as Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana. Then, as Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana with full standing in the United States Courts, to challenge the legality of the amendment that alienated our Rights from birth to bona fide residence and to evict the treasonous invaders of a foreign state who rule the State of Louisiana only by right of conquest.

Defendants are citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana and/or aliens in the State of Louisiana, subjects of a foreign government. Not unlike Germans in control of France during the Second World War. These subjects of the foreign government that has invaded Louisiana and subjugated its People have no right to hold their office in the Government of the State of Louisiana. In fact, the holding of these offices by subjects of a foreign government to the exclusion of Citizens of the State of Louisiana is proof of their assent and participation, by overt acts, to overthrow the government of the State and betray the State into the hands of a foreign power.

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction rests in this Honorable United States Court. It is self-evident. The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. It is a historical fact that a band of conspirators seized control of Congress. To appear before a court ordained and established by the very people who conquered you would be as ludicrous as appearing before a German Court complaining about the abuses of the government of occupied France.

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

There can be no doubt that the Plaintiffs have standing. Whether as a men born with unalienable rights or as persons having exercised their right to reside or even as subjects with the privilege and immunity of redress of grievance, standing is self-evident. Standing is also claimed by right of the Declaration of Independence which plainly states:

"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." Declaration of Independence

This, like the unalienable Rights of the Plaintiffs, are Rights preexisting the formation of a more perfect union. They are Rights beyond the power of government to legally alienate, whether by majority vote or open invasion. Rights that the Government was created to secure. The standing of the Plaintiffs, in this matter, is not only a matter of Right, it is their duty.

In fact, for the Plaintiffs not to demand standing before the one supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States is vested would make the Plaintiffs guilty of Misprision of Treason.

"Misprision of treason. The bare knowledge and concealment of an act of treason or treasonable plot, that is, without any assent or participation therein, for if the latter elements be present the party becomes a principal. 4 Bl. Comm. 120; Pen.Code Cal. § 38" Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 1194

"Misprision of treason. is the concealment of treason by being merely passive. Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, R.S. § 5333; 1 East, Pl. ?Cr.139. If any assistance be given to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there are no accessories in treason." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 810

The Plaintiffs have standing before the one supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States is vested. It is their Right, it is their Duty. It is self-evident.

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

There can be no doubt that the supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States is vested is the only court with jurisdiction in this matter.

Article III Section 3 [1] of the United States Constitution states:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Article III Section 3 [1] of the United States Constitution

On the Testimony of two Witness to the same overt Acts, backed by historical fact and the public record, it is hereby charged that the Defendants have committed High Treason against the State of Louisiana and its Sovereign Citizens.

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

"TREASON.

The term enemies, as used in the constitution, applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. To constitute a "levying of war" there must be an assemblage of persons with force and arms to overthrow the government or resist the laws; 4 Sawy, 457

Treason may be committed against a state; 4 Story 614; 11 Johns, 549

Congress can neither extend, nor restrict, nor define the crime. Its power over the subject is limited to prescribing the punishment. Field, j., in 4 Sawy, 465" Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 1188.

"TREASON. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Webster. " Black's Law Dictionary. Pg 1751

"Misprision of treason. The bare knowledge and concealment of an act of treason or treasonable plot, that is, without any assent or participation therein, for if the latter elements be present the party becomes a principal. 4 Bl. Comm. 120; Pen.Code Cal. § 38" Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 1194

"Misprision of treason. is the concealment of treason by being merely passive. Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, R.S. § 5333; 1 East, Pl. ?Cr.139. If any assistance be given to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there are no accessories in treason." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 810

"The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such trial held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; ..." Article III Section 2 [3] of the United States Constitution.

This is not an impeachment trial. It is a trial for Treason against the State of Louisiana. Granted, impeachment is a necessary consequence of the insurmountable proof, however, impeachment is for persons with some claim to the office, however thin.

"Treason it has been said in not a felony but a grade of crime by itself. 29 N.J.L. 453, 464." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 1186

However, trial should not be necessary on Confession in open Court.

The Confessions are already public record.

There can be no doubt that the Plaintiffs have standing by Right and by Duty. There can be no doubt that the one supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested is the only jurisdictionally competent court. Article III of the United States Constitution is plain and unambiguous as is Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution.

There can be no doubt that, besides Article III Section 3, Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution applies almost in total. However, it must be pointed out that the State of Louisiana is not a party in these actions. In fact, the State of Louisiana is an innocent victim ravaged by the armed invasion of treasonous conspirators.

The Sovereign Citizens now find themselves in the same position as Dred Scott. An armed band of conspirators attacked his ancestors and stole their unalienable Rights and changed them from free persons into slaves. Subjects of their master. In the current case it is our countrymen and kin who betray us to this day.

It is time to evict the invaders from the State of Louisiana. Humans are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights. To secure these Rights, this Government was instituted. Whenever any Form of Government become destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

Nor can there be any doubt that the courts that congress may from time to time ordain and establish are involved in the knowledge and concealment of the treasonous invasion of the State of Louisiana and the enslavement of the Citizens of the State of Louisiana. These are the courts that the treasonous conspirators in control of the Congress ordained and established. They are, in fact, the courts of the occupational government of the United States perpetuating the original overthrow of the United States by the armed invasion of Louisiana and the nine other states and the resulting unconstitutional 14^th Amendment to our Constitution forced, at the point of a bayonet, upon a conquered people.

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

The United states shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

"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 offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law." Scott v Sandford 60 U.S. 393

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.

"The high power has been conferred on this court, of passing judgment upon the acts of the state sovereignties, and the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, and of determining whether they are beyond the limits of power marked out for them respectively by the constitution of the United States" Luther v. Borden 7 How, 1,47 (1848)

"And while it is the duty of this court, in the exercise of its judicial power, to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, it is also its duty to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government or the Courts thereof." Harkrader v. Wadley 172 U.S. 148, 163 (1898)

"In this Republic there is a dual system of government, National and state. Each within its own domain is supreme, and one of the chief functions of this court is to preserve the balance between them, protecting each in the powers it possesses and preventing any trespass thereon by the other." 197 U.S. 488, 505 (1905)

There can be no doubt that this one supreme Court has jurisdiction. It is self-evident.

There can be no doubt that the Plaintiffs have a valid duty, cause of action, right of action and standing. It is self-evident.

COMPLAINT AND TESTIMONY

This is a charge of Treason against the Defendants, citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana. Alien invaders of the State of Louisiana. This is not an action of impeachment to impeach duly authorized holders of office in the State of Louisiana, "for a citizen of one State has no right to participate in the government of another. " Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. It is a charge of Treason against the Defendants for aiding in the invasion of Louisiana and the overthrow of the legitimate government of the State of Louisiana, the conquest and enslavement of the Citizens of the State of Louisiana and the assent and participation in the continuation of the betrayal of the State of Louisiana into the hands of a foreign power on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt acts.

TREASON.

"The term enemies, as used in the constitution, applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. To constitute a "levying of war" there must be an assemblage of persons with force and arms to overthrow the government or resist the laws; 4 Sawy, 457 "

"Treason may be committed against a state; 4 Story 614; 11 Johns, 549"

"Congress can neither extend, nor restrict, nor define the crime. Its power over the subject is limited to prescribing the punishment. Field, j., in 4 Sawy, 465" Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 1188.

"TREASON. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Webster. " Black's Law Dictionary. Pg 1751

"Misprision of treason. The bare knowledge and concealment of an act of treason or treasonable plot, that is, without any assent or participation therein, for if the latter elements be present the party becomes a principal. 4 Bl. Comm. 120; Pen.Code Cal. § 38" Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 1194

"Misprision of treason. is the concealment of treason by being merely passive. Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, R.S. § 5333; 1 East, Pl. ?Cr.139. If any assistance be given to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there are no accessories in treason." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 810

There can be no doubt that the Defendants are subjects of a foreign power. The Defendants are not Citizens of the State of Louisiana. The Defendants are citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana. Nor can there be any doubt that they are part of an assemblage of persons with force and arms who have overthrown the government of the State of Louisiana. Nor can there be any doubt that they resist the laws. Nor can their be any doubt that the Defendants have betrayed the State of Louisiana into the hands of a foreign power and enslaved the Citizens of the State of Louisiana. There can be no doubt, it is confessed.

There can be no doubt that this is not misprision of treason. There can be no doubt that there has been active assent and participation which makes the parties principals as there are no accessories in treason. It is public record.

There can be no doubt that citizens of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana have, by direct military invasion, conquered the State of Louisiana, enslaved its People, disbanded its legitimate government, and instituted an occupational government. Using this occupational government, claiming to be the legitimate government of the State of Louisiana only by right of conquest, the foreign invaders did illegally ratify the unlawful 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution and aid in the theft of the unalienable rights and property of all Americans, not just the Sovereign Citizens in Louisiana and the nine other invaded States, but also the Sovereign People of all the United States, Plaintiffs included.

This is historical fact well known to Doctors of Law. It is written of in many legal journals which all echo the accounts given in "The Dubious Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment" Tulane Law Review Vol. 28, 1953. This article is a revision and amplification of the material contained in an address delivered by the author at a meeting of the New Orleans Bar Association on September 29, 1953. and published in Louisiana Bar Association Journal, vol. 1, no 2.

In fact, when speaking of the 14^th Amendment the author said; "the legislative history of the Amendment, and its dubious origin -- one may justifiably say its worse than dubious origin -- is an inseparable part of its malodorous legislative history."

However, the legal arguments contained within "The Dubious Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment are well thought out and on point and are adopted by the Plaintiffs by reference as if completely contained herein.

There can be no doubt that the invasion of Louisiana did steal the Rights of the Citizens of Louisiana exactly as Dred Scott's ancestors lost their Rights, by force of arms.

There can also be no doubt that the 14^th Amendment did steal the unalienable Rights of all Americans and paint the invasion of Louisiana and the nine other States with the color of law.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

...It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, ... by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro can admit of no doubt." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

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.

Before the invasion of Louisiana it was self-evident that all men were endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights from birth. Now, with the 14^th amendment, forced upon us at the point of a bayonet, we are born Negroes with our unalienable Rights as alienable as a residence.

How could this be the intent of the Founders or the will of the People and a valid action of Government? When the Declaration of Independence says; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." How could it be construed to mean that the Government instituted to secure those rights has a just power to alienate those Rights by conquest and the illegal enactment of a Constitutional amendment? Invasion and conquest of a State are strictly forbidden in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution and a Constitutional Amendment, with its malodorous legislative history enacted at the point of a bayonet, can hardly be considered legal.

"The Radical have a majority, by over a two-thirds vote, in the "rump" Congress from which all representation of the ten Southern States is excluded. They accomplish the passage of the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867. This Act had, as one of its major objectives, the attainment of ultimate ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment through compelling and coercing ratification by the ten Southern States which had rejected it.

The Act dealt with these ten Southern States, referred to as "rebel States" in its various provisions. It opened with a recital that "no legal State government" existed in these States. It placed these States under military rule. Louisiana and Texas were grouped together as the Fifth Military District, and placed under the domination of an army officer appointed by the President. All civilian authorities were placed under the dominant authority of the military government.

This Act, as supplemented by subsequent amendments, completely deprived these States of all their powers of government and autonomy, until such time as Congress should approve the form of a reorganized state government. conforming to rigid and extreme specifications set out in the Act, and should have recognized the States as again entitled to representation in Congress.

The most extreme and amazing feature of the Act was the requirement that each excluded State must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, in order to again enjoy the status and rights of a State, including representation in Congress. Section 3 of the Act sets forth this compulsive coercion thus imposed upon the Southern States.

The most apt characterization of this compulsive provision, placing these States under military authority, there to remain until they complied inter alia with this requirement of ratifying the rejected Fourteenth Amendment, is found in a speech by Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, a Northerner and a Conservative Republican. During the floor debate on the bill, he said:

"My friend has said what has been said all around me, what is said every day: the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of a bayonet, and establish military power over them until they do adopt it."

Surely, the authors of our Constitution never contemplated or understood that ratification of a constitutional amendment proposal by a State could lawfully be compelled "at the point of the bayonet," and by subjecting all aspects of civil life in the recalcitrant State to continued military rule, until the State recanted its heresy in rejecting the proposed amendment, and yielded the desired ratification to the duress of continued and compelling force.

President Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act in an able message, stressing its harsh injustices and its many aspects of obvious unconstitutionality, He justifiably denounced is as "a bill of attainder against nine million people at once."

Notwithstanding this able message, the Act was promptly passed over his veto by the required two-thirds majority in each House. Military rule took over in the ten Southern States to initiate the process of conditioning a subjugated people to an ultimate acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment." The Dubious Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tulane Law Review Vol. 28, 1953; Louisiana Bar Association Journal, vol. 1, no 2.

The obviously unconstitutional Reconstruction Act was a bill of attainder on nine million people at once, but its bastard child the fourteenth amendment was a bill of attainder on all Citizens of these United States at once and has produced the extinction or civil rights and capacities for every Citizen of these United States and all citizens born since then, Plaintiffs included.

"If the Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional, the people oppressed by it were entitled to protection by the judiciary against such unconstitutional oppression." The Dubious Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, Tulane Law Review Vol. 28, 1953; Louisiana Bar Association Journal, vol. 1, no 2.

It is a historical fact that the State of Louisiana repeatedly rejected the proposed 14^th amendment until Louisiana was invaded and the occupational government forced the amendment upon us at the point of a bayonet.

By what argument could one suggest that it was the will of the people of the Southern States to be Negroes from birth until the acquisition of a residence?

By what argument could one suggest that it was the will of the people of the Northern States to be Negroes from birth until the acquisition of a residence?

Could it be believed that we fought the Civil War not to free the slaves but to become one? Subjects of a committee of Sandfords known as the United States?

Could it be believed that we fought the Civil War because we envied the Negro and wanted to be one from birth until the acquisition of a bona fide residence?

"That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro can admit of no doubt." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

Just a few years prior to the 14^th Amendment, when speaking of Negroes the supreme Court did say:

"More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [p*417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State." Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

Is it now to be believed that We, the People, did not want our unalienable Rights from birth? Is it now to be believed that we wanted to be Negroes from birth until such time, if ever, that we want to be Sovereign Citizens and can acquire a bona fide residence?

"That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro can admit of no doubt." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

History is clear, We, the People, wanted Negroes to be included in the family of Man, created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. We wanted to raise Negroes up to Men, not lower Men to Negroes.

There can be no doubt, We hold these Truths to be self-evident. That all men of every color are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights. It is self-evident. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government become destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.

Dred Scott's ancestors went from African to subject by an act of conquest. Dred Scott's ancestors went from African to Nigger by an act of conquest. Now, by act of conquest, the Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana and the Sovereign Citizens of all the States United went from Sovereign Citizen by birth to subject with an option to reside. My God, they've made Niggers of us all. How could this be the will of the People?

Men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights. If they have taken our unalienable Rights, then we are no longer men. We are something less than men, we are subjects. Call it what you like subject, slave, serf, peon, citizen of the United States or whatever, the thirteenth article, forbids any kind of slavery, now or hereafter.

"Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican of Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so, if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

The ignorance of the population which has allowed this treason to continue rests wholly on the assumption that the Rights of Citizens of the several States and the privileges and immunities guaranteed citizens of the United States are the same.

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.

It is also remarkable that no State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. It may be true that there are some other entities other than States that may abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States if the plot of the traitors were allowed to stand. However, to alienate the option to reside, the States must have had a hand in abridging the option. Now, not only are we born Negroes, devoid of the unalienable Rights of birth, what little privileges or immunities we do have are alienable by an entity not a State.

Nor can there be any doubt that the occupation of Louisiana and the plundering of its People still continues to this day.

One only has to look at the Louisiana State Constitution created by the occupational government of the foreign invaders. The invaders, subjects of a foreign state, have made it illegal for a Citizen of the State of Louisiana to hold any statewide elective office. You must be a subject of the invading state to rule occupied Louisiana. Citizens of the State of Louisiana are not only completely unrepresented and their interests uncared for, Citizens of the State of Louisiana are expressly barred from the occupational government of the invading state.

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. It was adopted by the invading army to leave the conquered Citizens of the State of Louisiana unrepresented and their interests uncared for and, again, paint the office holders of the invading state with the color of law.

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 been a citizen of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction for at least the preceding five years.

"That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro can admit of no doubt." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

Can it be believed that the Citizens of the State of Louisiana have knowingly and freely adopted a Constitution that left them expressly prohibited from holding public office? Can it be believed that the Citizens of the State of Louisiana have turned their government over to the Negroes, persons previously not even considered Men and subjects of the jurisdiction of a foreign state, to the exclusion of themselves? We all know what happens when a group is unrepresented and their interests uncared for.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

...It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, ... by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro can admit of no doubt." Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36

"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

This is as ludicrous as saying that the French really wanted to be invaded, occupied and ruled by Germany and subject to its jurisdiction during the second world war. See, the Constitution we wrote for them says so.

When the Germans invaded France and overthrew the government, it was an act of War. When a band of Congressmen illegally seize control of Congress and the army, then, under color of law, invade Louisiana and nine other States and use those conquered States to change the National Constitution and radically change our government to enslave the free, it is an act of treason.

The change in our government, by force of arms, was described as so far-reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States, of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the States and of the United States. There can be no doubt that it was an act of treason against the United States by a small group of congressmen and a large number of co-conspirators.

Can it be believed that the Citizens of the State of Louisiana wanted the army of a foreign government to invade the State of Louisiana and disband its government?

Can it be believed that the Citizens of the State of Louisiana wanted to have subjects of the foreign state that conquered them hold all public office in the State of Louisiana? The Constitution the invaders wrote for them says so.

Can it be believed that the Citizens of the State of Louisiana wanted to give up their unalienable Rights and their sovereignty and become subjects of the United States? Can it be believed that it was the will of the conquered people of the State of Louisiana to cast off their Rights as Citizens of the State of Louisiana and establish themselves with the citizenship of the Negroes? The 14^th amendment the invaders wrote and ratified for them says so.

Can it be believed that the Citizens of the State of Louisiana wanted to give up State Sovereignty and the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign State to the people who invaded us? The invaders wrote that for us in Article II Section 26 of the Louisiana Constitution. Pay no attention to the army behind the curtain.

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.

That is the same congress assembled that sent the army in to invade the State of Louisiana. That is the same congress assembled that disbanded the legitimate government of the State of Louisiana and installed its own treasonous cohorts to pretend to be the legitimate government of the State of Louisiana. That is the same congress assembled that have left the Citizens of the State of Louisiana unrepresented and their interests uncared for.

This is not the legitimate Constitution of the State of Louisiana. It is a constitution written by subjects of the foreign state, the invaders that conquered Louisiana. The occupational government of the treasonous invaders of the State of Louisiana has written a manifesto of rules by which it will rule the enslaved Citizens of the State of Louisiana. There can be no doubt. It is confessed. Only citizens and subjects of the invading state may rule the conquered State of Louisiana.

The rulers of the State which invaded you have given you a few choices from among their number for you to choose as governor. He shall have the power to appoint numerous offices and officers to harass your people and eat out your substance. You must have wanted it. It's right here in the constitution that we wrote for you.

The rulers of the State which invaded you have given you a few choices from among their number to act as the chief overseer of the conquered population and prosecute you. You must have wanted it. It's right here in the constitution that we wrote for you.

"ARTICLE IV. EXECUTIVE BRANCH

§1. Composition; Number of Departments; Reorganization

Section 1.(A) Composition. The executive branch shall consist of the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, commissioner of agriculture, commissioner of insurance, superintendent of education, commissioner of elections, and all other executive offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the state.

§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 ... for at least the preceding five years."

Article IV of the Louisiana State Constitution

"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

The rulers of the State that invaded you have given you a few choices from among their number to sit in judgment over you. Unfortunately, good conduct is not a job requirement. You must have wanted it. It's right here in the constitution that we wrote for you.

"To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a person, ... shall ... 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.

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.

You must be a subject of the invading government to write the local rules for the of the State of Louisiana. Here are the requirements for the legislature of the occupational government.

"To be eligible for any statewide elective office, a person, ... shall ... 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.

"Article III. 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." Article III Section 4.(A) of the Louisiana State Constitution

The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

What good is an occupational governor if he doesn't have an army of officers to eat out our substance and his own military, known as the State Police, to suppress these conquered people?

"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

"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

"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)

"It shall also be responsible for the custody of, evaluation of, such rehabilitation programs as the department deems appropriate for, and post-release monitoring of, convicted criminal offenders and adjudicated delinquents." La R.S 401 B(2)

"The Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall be composed of the executive office of the secretary, public safety services, corrections services, and such other offices as shall be created by law. Public safety services shall include the office of management and finance for public safety services, the office of state police, the office of legal affairs, the office of motor vehicles, and the office of state fire marshal, code enforcement and building safety, and shall also include the deputy secretary of public safety services, the assistant secretaries of the offices, and personnel necessary to carry out their functions. Corrections services shall include the office of management and finance for corrections services, the office of adult services, and the office of youth development and shall also include the deputy secretary of corrections services and the assistant secretaries of the offices and personnel necessary to carry out their functions." La R.S 401 C(1)

There shall be a secretary of a body corporate who shall be appointed by the governor with consent of the Senate and who shall serve at the pleasure of the governor. Through its offices and officers, this body corporate shall have authority generally for the security and physical safety of the subjects 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. Services shall include the office of management and finance for public safety services, the office of state police, the office of legal affairs, the office of motor vehicles, and the office of state fire marshal, code enforcement and building safety.

If one of the subjects and property of Louisiana should get out of line, the body corporate shall also be responsible, at the pleasure of the governor, for the custody of, evaluation of, such rehabilitation programs as the department deems appropriate for, and post-release monitoring of, convicted criminal offenders and adjudicated delinquents.

Conquered people have always been treated the same way whether they are called Niggers or citizens of the United States.

"And still further pursuing its legislation, we find that, in the same statute passed in 1774, which prohibited the further importation of slaves into the State, there is also a provision by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged without a written pass such as is therein described was made liable to be seized by anyone, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master -- who was required to pay the charge which had accrued thereby. And a subsequent section of the same law provides that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. And this law was in full operation when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and was not repealed till 1797. So that, up to that time, free negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State."Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

Can it be believed that the conquered people of the State of Louisiana wanted to have the invading army seize all devices by which people and property can be transported on the public roads and bridges, including ridden animals, and be made to pay for the privilege of using them and be carried across seas into admiralty court for pretend offenses. Article VII Section 5 of the constitution the invaders wrote for the People of the State of Louisiana says that's what they want in flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution.

Having stolen title to all vehicles the treasonous invaders of the State of Louisiana can now harass its subjects and eat out their substance under pretense of ownership.

"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 is also a provision by which any negro, Indian, or mulatto servant who was found wandering out of the town or place to which he belonged without a written pass such as is therein described was made liable to be seized by anyone, and taken before the next authority to be examined and delivered up to his master ... he shall pay all charges arising thereby." Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

There can be no doubt that the Defendants have full knowledge of the invasion and enslavement of the Citizens of the States of Louisiana. The Defendants' knowledge and concealment of the act of treason and treasonable plot are public record in cases numbered 2007-KH-131 and 2007-KH-866 on the Docket of the Louisiana Supreme Court quartering their treasonous cohorts and in cases numbered F1525159, F1523230, F1678532, F1681551 on the Docket of the First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana which appears to be a federal admiralty court but, to date, no judge will tell the Plaintiffs in which court and under what jurisdiction they do stand. It is confessed.

There can be no doubt that the Defendants have full knowledge of the invasion and enslavement of the Citizens of the States of Louisiana. The Defendants' knowledge and concealment of the act of treason and treasonable plot are public record in cases numbered 157,313 and 157,314 on the Docket of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court State of Louisiana, Parish of Bossier which also appears to be a federal admiralty court but, again, no judge will say. The Defendants' knowledge and concealment of the act of treason and treasonable plot are public record in case numbered KH 07-43205 on the Docket of the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, State of Louisiana. It is confessed.

There can be no doubt. Defendants and their agents have resisted the laws. The records are clear. Defendants and their agents have acted in violation of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the laws of the state of which they are subjects and even the laws of their own occupational government. It is confessed.

The Defendants have harassed, stolen from and incarcerated the Plaintiffs in violation of all laws of man or God. It is confessed. The record is clear. These traitors to the State of Louisiana still act with full knowledge and intent to continue the invasion and enslavement of the Plaintiffs and all Citizens of the the State of Louisiana with the aid of their treasonous cohorts of the occupational government.

What need is there for summons and trial? It is confessed.

It is confessed in no less a document than the Louisiana State Constitution. Subjects of a state foreign to the State of Louisiana are ruling the State of Louisiana and have left the Citizens of the State of Louisiana unrepresented and their interests uncared for.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of Pretend Legislation:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Government:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever." Declaration of Independence

It is confessed.

There has not been a legitimate government in the State of Louisiana since the invasion of Louisiana in 1867. To this day there is not a single Citizen of the State of Louisiana to be found in the government of the State of Louisiana.

It is confessed in no less a document than the Louisiana State Constitution that these traitors to the State of Louisiana have stolen all vehicles in defiance of the United States Constitution and have been and still are carrying us into admiralty court to be tried for pretend offenses.

It is confessed that these traitors to the State of Louisiana have instituted fraudulent charges against both Plaintiffs, have harassed both Plaintiffs, have stolen the property of both Plaintiffs, and have illegally incarcerated both Plaintiffs in defiance of every law of man or God. It is all public record in the above mentioned cases.

It is confessed.

Of what need is there for a summons and a trial. It is confessed. Openly and notoriously confessed.

Summary judgment is surely appropriate. It is confessed. When the record is brought to open court. It is confessed in open court.

There can be no doubt that a band of treasonous conspirators illegally took over the United States Congress.

There can be no doubt that these treasonous conspirators did invade the State of Louisiana, conquer it and subjugate the Citizens of the State of Louisiana and nine other States.

There can be no doubt that this band of treasonous conspirators did enslave the Citizens of the State of Louisiana as surely as Dred Scott's ancestors were enslaved.

There can be no doubt that the treasonous conspirators did overthrow all of the Citizens of the States United and steal the unalienable rights of all men by an illegal change in the United States Constitution.

There can be no doubt that the treasonous conspirators did disband the lawful government of the State of Louisiana and installed an occupational government controlled exclusively by treasonous cohorts of the conspirators.

There can be no doubt that the Defendants are subjects of the foreign state that invaded Louisiana, subjugated its Sovereign Citizens and stole their right to be born men.

There can be no doubt that the Defendants have betrayed the state into the hands of a foreign power and have resisted the laws of God, the Constitution and even the laws of the occupational government.

It is historical fact and confessed.

Plaintiffs do notice the court that they are unschooled in the law. It is another confession of the plot of the conspirators to conceal the knowledge of their high treason. The subjects of the foreign invaders have withheld knowledge of law from all but their overseers. Ignorance has always been a useful tool in slave control. How sad that the United States of America was overthrown by the ignorance of its people.

"And again, in 1833, Connecticut passed another law which made it penal to set up or establish any school in that State for the instruction of persons of the African race not inhabitants of the State, or to instruct or teach in any such school or [p*415] institution, or board or harbor for that purpose, any such person without the previous consent in writing of the civil authority of the town in which such school or institution might be."Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393

However, it must be noted that there hasn't been a valid law passed in the State of Louisiana since the invasion of 1867. Nor has there been a valid federal law passed since the vile treasonous conspirators seized control of Congress and our government. This leads to the obvious conclusion. What rules are there to follow in instituting an action for treason against the Defendants?

The Plaintiffs have decided to return to the basics.

"No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Article III Section 3 [1] of the United States Constitution

The Plaintiffs have supplied the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Acts of Treason to the one supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested. Plaintiffs have supplied the Court with positive and irrefutable proof that the Defendants are conspirators in the invasion of the State of Louisiana and the conquest and domination of the Citizens of the State of Louisiana. What more is needed?

It is regrettable that the Plaintiffs could not supply the Court with more copies of the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Acts of Treason. The fact that the Plaintiffs are without means is self-evident. The Treasonous conspirators have stolen everything from us. Yet, Plaintiffs loath to call themselves paupers when victims is the more appropriate word. Fortunately, the Constitution is silent on the number of copies of the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Acts of Treason.

The Constitution is also silent on the form and other requirements on a charge of Treason. But, then again, it is self evident. To dismiss a valid charge of Treason for form or other irregularity would be to aid the treasonous conspirators. To fail to take action on a valid charge of Treason, on the Testimony of two Witnesses, would make one guilty of misprision of Treason and to dismiss the action on the weight of some technicality would be Treason itself as there are no accessories to Treason.

"Misprision of treason. is the concealment of treason by being merely passive. Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, R.S. § 5333; 1 East, Pl. ?Cr.139. If any assistance be given to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there are no accessories in treason." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 810

One must question the expenditure of time and expense in preparing and serving these papers. To date, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, William K. Suter, has repeatedly, summarily ruled that the Plaintiffs are Negroes and has blocked the attempts of the Plaintiffs to redress of grievance with his summary judgments. There is no doubt that he is a Traitor adhering to the Enemies of the State of Louisiana and the United States, giving them Aid and Comfort.

One must even question the futility of seeking redress of grievance from the one Court in which the Judicial power of the United States shall be vested whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. The very same Congress that was at the center of the treasonous plot and the same people that are perpetuating the enslavement of their own countrymen, betraying not only their own families but everyone who has ever seen their face.

However, it must be remembered that the harassment of the Plaintiffs by the Defendants continues. The theft of Plaintiff's Rights and property continues. The illegal imprisonment, under sentence of death , of one of the Plaintiffs continues, absent valid charge or trial. (see 2007-KH-131, 2007-KH-866 Louisiana Supreme Court and F1525159, F1523230, F1678532, F1681551 First Parish Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana) Vile and fraudulent infamous charges still cloud the good name of the Plaintiffs. What else can the Plaintiffs do? If the Plaintiffs can not get redress of grievance, they will get evidence.

Every time that the Plaintiffs' attempts at redress of grievance are thwarted, some poor sap is going to have to ask himself if he is going to give evidence and confess that he is a Traitor to his own family, all of his countrymen and everyone who has ever seen his face and sign the paperwork for that treasonous dog, William K. Suter as M. Blalock and Jeffery Atkins have done.

Clerks, secretaries and everyone who comes in contact with this Accusation of TREASON and Demand for Redress of Grievance will have to make a conscious choice to be a traitor to their family and neighbors. They will have to make a conscious choice to go down in history for their part in the cover up. It is just a matter of time before the truth is widely known. Misprision of treason or treason itself?

"Misprision of treason. The bare knowledge and concealment of an act of treason or treasonable plot, that is, without any assent or participation therein, for if the latter elements be present the party becomes a principal. 4 Bl. Comm. 120; Pen.Code Cal. § 38" Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 1194

"Misprision of treason. is the concealment of treason by being merely passive. Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, R.S. § 5333; 1 East, Pl. ?Cr.139. If any assistance be given to the traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there are no accessories in treason." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 810

There can be no doubt that the Plaintiffs have a valid duty, cause of action, right of action and standing in the one supreme Court in which the judicial power of the United States shall be vested. Therefore, the Plaintiffs do hereby DEMAND that the one supreme Court in which the judicial power of the United States shall be vested take action and end the invasion and subjugation of the Sovereign Citizens of the State of Louisiana by this foreign power.

Just as it is the Duty of the Plaintiffs to bring forward these charges, it is the Duty of the one supreme Court in which the judicial power of the United States shall be vested to bring this matter to open court.

"The high power has been conferred on this court, of passing judgment upon the acts of the state sovereignties, and the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, and of determining whether they are beyond the limits of power marked out for them respectively by the constitution of the United States" Luther v. Borden 7 How, 1,47 (1848)

"And while it is the duty of this court, in the exercise of its judicial power, to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, it is also its duty to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government or the Courts thereof." Harkrader v. Wadley 172 U.S. 148, 163 (1898)

"In this Republic there is a dual system of government, National and state. Each within its own domain is supreme, and one of the chief functions of this court is to preserve the balance between them, protecting each in the powers it possesses and preventing any trespass thereon by the other." 197 U.S. 488, 505 (1905)

We, the Plaintiffs, do hereby certify that the above charge of Treason against the State of Louisiana by the Defendants and the irrefutable proof offered is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief this 13^th day of March, 2009.

I, Michael E. DiRosa, next friend, counsel, translator and Co-Plaintiff of Malinda Nicole DiRosa have, with full authority given by Malinda Nicole DiRoas, signed the name of Malinda Nicole DiRosa in her stead. If anyone should doubt the legality of, or the authority of this action one need only ask Malinda Nicole DiRosa.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Plaintiffs and/or Witnesses do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this FORMAL ACCUSATION OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE OF LOUISIANA ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACTS were served on the below named parties by delivering the copies to the United States Postal Authority, correctly addressed, postage prepaid, certified, return receipt requested on this 13^th day of March, 2009.

BOBBY JINDAL

PO BOX 94004
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804-9004

225-342-7015

JAMES D. "BUDDY" CALDWELL

P.O BOX 94005
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804

225-326-6705

This 13^th day of March, 2009

I, Michael E. DiRosa, next friend, counsel, translator and Co-Plaintiff of Malinda Nicole DiRosa have, with full authority given by Malinda Nicole DiRoas, signed the name of Malinda Nicole DiRosa in her stead. If anyone should doubt the legality of, or the authority of this action one need only ask Malinda Nicole DiRosa.