Just what did he say?

Do not link to this page. It is a temporary page until the formal answer can be crafted. This page may or may not disappear.

Let's start at the top of the page. This notice is from the Supreme Court of the United States. If you have been following along you know that I have some serious concerns that the Supreme Court of the United States may not be the one supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested, but may, in fact, be the highest inferior court that Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

"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." Article III Section 1, The United States Constitution.

One might ask; What difference does it make? If they have taken over the government a traitor by any other name still smells like feet. If I had appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court, as is the prescribed method, I would have claimed that I was a citizen of the United States and they would have ruled against me, as they tried to do once before. We are Citizens of the State of Louisiana. We are not citizens of another state or aliens.

We are Citizens of the State of Louisiana Demanding our rights. We are not slaves begging the master not to lay hands on us again.

Then we have the usual heading. There is one point to make about the heading at this time. It says RE: DiRosa et ux. v. Jindal, et al. I know et al means "and others". But, what the heck is et ux? I looked it up. I am now married to my daughter.

ET UX. An abbrebation for et uxor, - "and wife." Where a grantor's wife joins him in the conveyance. It is sometimes expressed (in abstracts, etc.) to by "A.B. et ux." Black's law dictionary. Third edition pg. 693

What ever gave him the idea that Malinda was my wife and not my daughter, mother, sister, cousin, sister-in-law or even no relation at all? The name of DiRosa can be found in quite diverse places all over the globe. Did he not notice that we live in different parts of Louisiana? He might have known differently if he had even glanced at the cases sited.

Does this sound familiar? Falsifying the record is standard procedure so that "on the face of the record" it appears that we are wrong. The Louisiana Supreme Court did the same thing. (see 866 Object incorrect record)

Could they be claiming, if I am married to my daughter, that this constitutes only the testimony of one person. (That's what marriage is, the joining of two people into one. That's why they claim that there is no marriage penalty on tax forms because only one person made the money of two people.)

I am them informed that the papers failed to comply with the rules of this Court and are herewith returned.

Maybe I am just overly paranoid? (I have a right to be, they ARE cheating.) Why does he say the rules of THIS Court? The Supreme Court of the United States still could be the highest inferior court that Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. He didn't say either way. If it is the highest court Congress ordained and established, then I have broken the rules of the Traitors. If nothing else, I have sent it to the wrong place. He just didn't bother to tell me.

Who can say for sure at this point? Certainly not me. It could be that the one supreme Court in which the Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested has been disbanded or the seats are vacant. It wouldn't be the first time that Congress threatened to modify that Court. (Congress threatened to increase the number of Justices during the takeover of Congress. Could Congress have reduced the number of Justices to zero?) Besides, if you have conquered the people, the last thing you want is to allow them redress of grievance. We can do this to you and there is nothing you can do about it. Isn't that the hallmark of slavery?

He then goes on to tell me that I may seek review of a decision only by filing a timely writ of certiorari. What I sent them was not construed as a writ of certiorari. Then he tells me how to file a writ of Certiorari.

He then tells me that my case must first be reviewed by a United States Court of appeals or by the highest state court in which a decision could be had and references the United States Code, title 28, section 1254 and 1257.

Let's take a closer look at what he said.

Let's look at the rules he sent. He sent me a book of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. (a pdf version can be found on their website.) He also sent a tablet called "GUIDE FOR PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI." (You can probably find it on their website too. We may eventually scan it, but not today.)

Number II. Nature of Supreme Court Review says:

"It is important to note that review in this Court by means of a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. The primary concern of the Supreme Court is not to correct errors in lower court decisions, but to decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. The Court grants and hears arguments in only about 1% of the cases that are filed each Term. The vast majority of petitions are simply denied by the Court without comment or explanation. The denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari signifies only that he Court has chosen not to accept the case for review and does not express the Court's view of the merits of the case."

"Every petitioner for a writ of certiorari is advised to read carefully the Considerations governing Review on Certiorari set forth in Rule 10. Important considerations for accepting a case for review include the existence of a conflict between the decision of which a review is sought and a decision of another appellate court on the same issue. An important function of the Supreme Court is to resolve disagreements among lower courts about specific legal questions. Another consideration is the importance to the public of the issue."

The first line is the most important. "It is important to note that review in this Court by means of a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion." We are not seeking judicial discretion. We are claiming our Rights.

Rights are like pregnancy. There are no half measures. You either have a right or you don't. It is the same with Sovereignty. You are either a King or a subject. You can't be both. You are either a Citizen of a State or a citizen of the United States. You can't be both.

Didn't we go to great lengths to show that we had a Right to be there and that it was their duty to hear this?

But, let's move on.

The next line says: "The primary concern of the Supreme Court is not to correct errors in lower court decisions, but to decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved."

That's funny, in the Dred Scott case I thought the Court said that it was their duty to correct errors in lower court decisions? But, that was before the overthrow of our Nation.

It does say that their primary concern is to decide cases presenting issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. You decide. Let me put it before the jury? Didn't we present issues of importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved? Isn't there a need to resolve disagreements among lower courts about specific legal questions? It has been literally years and I still can't find out who owns the car they took from me. Don't they know? If I am wrong, how easy would it have been for them to just say so? Is the person pretending to be the Governor of the State of Louisiana a Citizen of the State of Louisiana? Gee, you would think that after all the time and trouble I have caused them someone would have just said your wrong and here is the reason why. How hard could that be for doctors of law? Don't they know?

Another consideration is the importance to the public of the issue. There is no need for me to go on. I think I have made the case plainly. If you have read almost anything on this site, you should be able to rant on your own. It is clearly time for We, the People to decide. Is this issue of importance to the public? Where is a jury of Citizens of a State when you need them? Where are our sworn allies when you need them?

I'm trying to keep this short as there is much more to do. An answer is appropriate. What would you do? Our answer has been narrowed to a few choices, which one we pick is still open.

Your case must first be reviewed by a United States court of appeals or by the highest state court in which a decision could be had. 28 USC 1254 and 1257.

Excuse me? All of these issues have been reviewed by the highest state court in which a decision could be had. You can read cases 2007-KH-131 and 2007-KH-866 for yourself. They are listed down the right side of every page under LA SUPREME COURT. There are no new arguments, just countless restatements.

Excuse me again. Didn't I appeal to the lowest United States court of appeals with the power (the jurisdiction) to hear this case. The lowest and the highest United States court of appeals just happen to be the same place. There is no other United States Court that can hear this issue as the rules clearly state.

Here he is, the clerk of court, telling me that I must follow the rules of Congress to institute an action for High Treason. Remember Congress, the traitors that started the revolt in the first place? Is my dictionary wrong?

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.

If we are going to follow the rules of Congress how about this one.

"The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties." Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 61

There is a similar one in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, but it is not at my fingertips at this moment. If you doubt it, go and look for yourself.

Let's look at 28 USC 1254 and 1257.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it look like Congress is telling the Supreme Court just what cases it is allowed to hear, constitution be damned? Articles 1255 and 1256 say that the supreme court could hear cases in Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by writ of certiorari. Since it has been repealed, I guess now they can't. Is this more evidence that this is the highest inferior court that Congress may from time to time ordain and establish?

Dred Scott came in on a Writ of Error. I guess that's not allowed anymore either.

It does seem that congress has stolen your right to redress of grievance unless, of course, it's a case they want to hear. But, then again, they've stolen everything else.

The Supreme Court can only hear cases that can simply be denied by the Court without comment or explanation. How convenient.

"It is important to note that review in this Court by means of a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. ... The vast majority of petitions are simply denied by the Court without comment or explanation. ... The primary concern of the Supreme Court is not to correct errors in lower court decisions" GUIDE FOR PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI, Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States. October 2008

Justice be damned. Subjects be damned too.

Subjects have no redress of grievance. Is there any doubt?

One last point. It seems like M. Blalock is back. Once a Traitor always a Traitor. I wonder if 30 pieces of silver is still the going price of Traitors?

There is so much more to say, but, there is also so much more to do. Whatever answer we choose will handle these issues in much more detail. Check back again soon. We're going as fast as we can. But, when you get down to it, nothing will do any good if no one is watching. They will pull cards out of the sleeve yet again. Is there any doubt that they are cheating?

To date, no one has said I am wrong. The closest I have come to an answer is; we won't hear you. It's the law until we rule otherwise. Hold your breath and wait until pigs fly.

There is only one explanation why no one will say I am wrong. I am absolutely correct. Or, could you believe that doctors of law don't know?